Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Iranians Believe They Have Won And So Do We! Obama Loses Another One!


General Jafari. (Fars News)
General Jafari. (Fars News)

Still describing the US as “the enemy,” a leading Iranian general says that to date, Washington has conceded to all of Tehran’s demands in the negotiations.
Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), warned on Saturday that all sanctions against Iran must be removed in a single step. Otherwise, he said, the nuclear talks between Tehran and the world powers could end up in failure.
He further stated that until now, the US has conceded to all the Iranian demands.
Addressing a gathering of IRGC commanders on Saturday, Jafari said that the “nuclear technology is a symbol of the Iranian nation’s power, honor and capability.”
The US, he added, was “seeking to break the nation’s resistance against Washington’s hegemonic policies through the nuclear talks by forcing Iran to withdraw from its positions under the pressure of the sanctions,” Iran’sFars News reports.
Despite this pressure, Iran was successful in achieving what it wanted in the negotiations, the general said. “No binding agreement has been made yet; only some solutions have been found, and the enemy [the US and the other powers] seems to have admitted the Islamic Republic’s principles and red lines in the area of technical issues.”

Demands Immediate Removal of Sanctions

Jafari, one of the most influential people in Tehran, reiterated Iran’s demand that all economic sanctions on Iran be removed immediately after the signing of the final deal and not in phases, as the US had claimed. “There are still ambiguities about the way the sanctions should be lifted, which need to become transparent; we should know that this very issue about the sanctions removal can lead to failure in (obtaining a final) agreement,” the IRGC commander warned.
In similar remarks on Tuesday, Jafari underscored that termination of all sanctions and possession of the full nuclear fuel cycle are Iran’s red line in any nuclear agreement.
“The significance of the talks … lies in the fact that these sanctions should all be removed in a single phase in lieu of the concessions that Iran provides,” he declared.
On Thursday Iranian President Hassan stated that there would be no deal “unless all sanctions were lifted on the same day… We want a win-win deal for all parties involved in the nuclear talks.”

Sticking to Path of ‘Revolution’

Jafari emphasized that irrespective of the results of the nuclear talks, Iran will maintain its “Islamic and revolutionary values, principles and stances” and will never be “coaxed or intimidated into giving up its present course of action and policy.”
“The main goal of the enemy is changing the attitude of the establishment, as it wrongly believes that it can do so through the nuclear negotiations and economic sanctions,” the IRGC top commander said, reiterating that past experience throughout the last 36 years shows that the US attempt is “destined to failure.”
Iran’s nuclear technology, he said, serves as “resistance for protecting rights and standing up to the enemy’s bullying.”
He voiced appreciation for the Iranian diplomats and negotiators for their efforts, “resistance and emphasis on the red lines,” adding that after theframework agreement between Tehran and the P5+1 in Lausanne was made, the US admitted the irrelevance of the military option and continued sanctions against Iran.
“The US, which was seeking to change Iran’s political behavior, was forced to change its political behavior towards our people, and contrary to its previous policy, it was forced to forget all its over-the-table options and replace them with the diplomatic path to settle the nuclear issue,” Jafari said.
“The Iranian nation’s resistance made the US fail in imposing its political will on the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he stated.
Nevertheless, Jafari said that a difficult path remained ahead of diplomatic efforts given that the US cannot be trusted.
By: Max Gelber
Staff Writer, United with Israel

Obama Is Violently Anti-American And His Positions Are Now Crystal Clear!

Decoding the Obama Doctrine

James Jeffrey, Barack Obama’s former ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to Iraq, has this to say about the administration’s current record in the Middle East: “We’re in a goddamn free fall.”
Count the mistakes: Helping overthrow Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, leading to anarchy and civil war. Pressuring Husni Mubarak of Egypt to resign, then backing the Muslim Brotherhood, leading now-president Sisi to turn toward Moscow. Alienating Washington’s most stalwart ally in the region, the Government of Israel. Dismissing ISIS as “junior varsity” just before it seized major cities. Hailing Yemen as a counterterrorism success just before its government was overthrown. Alarming the Saudi authorities to the point that they put together a military alliance against Iran. Coddling Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey, encouraging his dictatorial tendencies. Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan prematurely, dooming the vast American investment in those two countries.
And, most of all: Making deeply flawed deals with the nuclear-ambitious mullahs of Iran.
Is this a random series of errors by an incompetent leadership or does some grand, if misconceived, idea stand behind the pattern? To an extent, it’s ineptitude, as when Mr. Obama bowed to the Saudi king, threatened Syria’s government over chemical weapons before changing his mind, and now sends the U.S. military to aid Tehran in Iraq and fight it in Yemen.
But there also is a grand idea and it calls for explanation. As a man of the left, Mr. Obama sees the United States historically having exerted a malign influence on the outside world. Greedy corporations, an overly-powerful military-industrial complex, a yahoo nationalism, engrained racism, and cultural imperialism combined to render America, on balance, a force for evil.
Being a student of community organizer Saul Alinsky, Mr. Obama did not overtly proclaim this view but passed himself off as a patriot, though he (and his charming wife) did offer occasional hints of their radical views about “fundamentally transforming the United States.” On ascending to the presidency, Mr. Obama moved slowly, uneager to spread alarm and wanting to be reelected. By now, however, after six full years and only his legacy to worry about, the full-blown Obama is emerging.
The Obama Doctrine is simple and universal: Warm relations with adversaries and cool them with friends.
Several assumptions underlie this approach: The U.S. government morally must compensate for its prior errors. Smiling at hostile states will inspire them to reciprocate. Using force creates more problems than it solves. Historic U.S. allies, partners, and helpers are morally inferior accessories. In the Middle East, this means reaching out to revisionists (Erdoğan, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Republic of Iran) and pushing away cooperative governments (Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia).
Of these actors, two stand out: Iran and Israel. Establishing good relations with Tehran appears to be Obama’s great preoccupation. As Michael Doran of the Hudson Institute has shown, Mr. Obama during his entire presidency has worked toward rendering Iran what he calls “a very successful regional power … abiding by international norms and international rules.” Contrarily, his pre-presidential friendships with truculent anti-Zionists such as Ali Abunimah, Rashid Khalidi, and Edward Said point to the depth of his hostility toward the Jewish state.
The Obama Doctrine demystifies what is otherwise inscrutable. For example, it explains why the White House blithely ignored the Iranian supreme leader’s outrageous “Death to America” yelp in March, dismissing it as mere domestic pandering, even as Mr. Obama glommed onto the Israeli prime minister’s near simultaneous electoral campaign comment rejecting a two-state solution with the Palestinians during his term of office (“we take him at his word”).
The doctrine also offers guidelines to predict possible developments during Mr. Obama’s remaining tenure, such as: Wretched P5+1 deals with Iran compelling Israel’s government to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. Gentle policies toward Damascus clearing the way for the Assad regime to re-extend its power. Ankara choosing to provoke a crisis in the eastern Mediterranean over Cypriot gas and oil reserves.
The great question ahead is how, in their wisdom, the American people will judge the Obama Doctrine when they next vote for president in 19 months. Will they repudiate his policy of shuffling and contrition, as they comparably did in 1980 when they elected Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter? Or will they choose four more years of it, thereby turning the Obama Doctrine into the new norm and Americans into European-style remorseful masochists?
Their verdict in 2016 has potentially world-historical implications.
Reprinted with author’s permission from The Washington Times

Read more at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/35614/decoding-the-obama-doctrine-opinion/#4lZotHLxqJIkmBCT.99

The De-Legitimizing Of Israel Begins With University "Conferences"

Iran has violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty time after time, often undetected; it also continues to violate Article 2, clause 4, of the United Nations Charter: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..."
During the British Mandate, the entire area was known as Palestine. The official listing for "Place of Birth" on all passports at the time -- for everyone, including Jews -- was Palestine.
One can only hope that what clearly seems such a fatally dangerous deal -- that threatens the existence of not only Israel, the Middle East and Europe, but, with Iran's intercontinental ballistic missile program, also the United States -- will not be allowed to happen.
The notion of Israel's "right to exist" has been in the news twice in recent days.
First, the University of Southampton, in Britain, announced that due to "safety fears," it was cancelling a conference, scheduled for later this month, to question Israel's right to exist.
Were the "security concerns" related to the fact that the conference would promote the rising infestation of Jew-hatred in Britain? A recent U.K. parliamentary report shows that hate crimes against British Jews have doubled in the past decade, and has called upon the British government to take urgent action.
The second time was when Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, addressing the Obama Administration's nuclear "framework" with Iran, said that in any deal, Iran should recognize Israel's right to exist.
Despite being a member of the United Nations along with Israel, Iran nevertheless does not recognize Israel's right to exist.
Iran has not only been a long-time sponsor of terrorist groups that for years have targeted and killed Israeli civilians (as well as American servicemen in Africa and Lebanon); it has also repeatedly threatened Israel with genocide. The latest announcement came in late March, when Mohammad Reza Naqdi, commander of the Basij militia of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, said that "erasing Israel off the map" was "non-negotiable."
As Netanyahu has continually stated, a nuclear Iran is a threat to Israel's existence and America's existence.
Under such circumstances, that a British university was even thinking of holding such a conference is perplexing, at best.
The Jewish people have historical ties to the land of Israel that reach back nearly 4,000 years, a longstanding nationalist movement, a government in the post-colonial era and recognition by the United Nations -- a similar path to existence as most other countries. Does anyone question, say, Zimbabwe's right to exist?
Responses to statements that might have been raised, if this conference had gone ahead, include:
False Claim #1: Jews were out of Israel for almost 2,000 years.
The Romans crushed a Jewish revolt in 70 AD, and dispersed Jews throughout the Roman Empire. However, a continuous Jewish presence in the region never ceased. Key events recorded in history include: Jews governing Jerusalem when the Persian Sasanian Empire took over in 614; Jewish scribes working on the final text of the Hebrew Bible in the region between the 7th and 11th centuries; Jews enduring the Crusades; and Napoleon's plans to invite Jews to form a state in 1799.

In 1799, as Napoleon Bonaparte's army was besieging the city of Acre, Napoleon issued a letter, offering the Palestine as a homeland to the Jews, referring to them as "Rightful heirs of Palestine." Above, a painting depicting the siege of Acre.

False Claim #2: Israel came about only because of the Zionist movement in the late 19th century.
The 19th century fostered the rise of nationalist movements throughout much of Europe. They led to the creation of modern Greece, Italy, and Germany, and also rose throughout the 20th century, often to end European colonization. In 1914, there were only 62 countries in the world; today there are 196, most of which were formed through nationalist movements, including, recently, Serbia, Croatia and Moldova, among others.
False Claim #3: Jews used violence to gain control of Israel.
Although some Jewish resistance groups occasionally used violence against Britain in an effort to gain independence, many other people, in a press for independence, have taken up arms, too. These include American colonials, Latin American independence movements, and the Algerians, Irish, and Bangladeshis, as well as countless others in the 20th century.
False Claim #4: The Palestinians controlled the land for centuries.
When the Ottoman Empire lost control of Palestine after World War I, there were no people known as "Palestinians" -- only Muslims, Christians, Jews and assorted others living in the area. During the British Mandate, which followed World War I, the entire area was known as Palestine. The official listing for "Place of Birth" on all passports at the time -- for everyone, including Jews -- was Palestine. The word was coined by the Roman Emperor Hadrian in 132 AD, as part of an effort to obliterate the Jewish presence in the province. He changed the telling name of Judaea, and the land around it, to "Syria Palaestina", and renamed Jerusalem as "Aelia Capitolina."
The modern concept of Palestinian nationhood came into fruition only after Israel's War of Independence in 1948, when five Arab armies attacked Israel literally the day of its birth, hoping to kill it in its crib. Many Arabs left; and many Arabs urged their fellow Arabs to leave, assuring them that in a few weeks, after the Jews were routed, they would be able to return. The problem was that the Arabs were the ones who were routed; the Jews won. When the Arabs who had fled wanted to come back, the Israelis said they were not welcome -- they had chosen the hostile side. Instead of settling these Arabs in the countries to which they had fled, as the Jews had settled their countrymen fleeing Arab lands, the Arabs preferred to leave them as stateless people -- now known as Palestinians. They were then promised, and still are promised, that they will return one day to the homes that they (or, by now, their great-great-grandparents) had voluntarily abandoned to be out of the way of the shooting.
The Arabs who stayed are still where they were, still in their homes, and are full citizens of Israel. They make up 20% of Israel's population and have equal rights with Israel's Jewish citizens. They enjoy full representation in Israel's parliament, the Knesset, and hold senior positions in all professions.
False Claim #5: The UN Resolution legitimizing the State of Israel did not actually pass.
UN Resolution 181, known as the Partition Plan, was a recommendation that in November of 1947 called for the creation in Palestine of an Arab State and Jewish State. It was rejected by the Arabs, who threatened to use force to prevent it -- and did.
Israel declared Independence on May 14, 1948, as the British Mandate on Palestine was set to expire. On May 11, 1949, UN Resolution 273, which admitted Israel to the United Nations, was adopted by the required two-thirds majority.
Currently 83% of the UN member states recognize Israel. Countries that refuse to recognize Israel include some Muslim nations, Cuba and North Korea.
False Claim #6: Israel came about only due to sympathies surrounding the Holocaust.
In 1917, well before the Holocaust, the British put forth the Balfour Declaration, which favored a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. Confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922, it put the process to statehood in motion. In 1936, in the midst of Arab violence, the British Peel Commission called for a plan to create a Jewish State, but the plan was not enacted. Had Israel been formed at that point, many more Jews could have fled there to avoidthe Holocaust.
False Claim #7: The Palestinians have a right to part of the territory based on the original UN plan.
Palestinians have been offered part of the territory for a Palestinian state again and again. The Palestinians, however, rejected a state of their own offered by the Peel Commission in 1937, and they rejected a state of their own in the UN Resolution 181 Partition Plan, because they would not accept a Jewish state. They came back from the Khartoum Conference in 1967 with three "Nos": no peace, no recognition, no negotiations; and they twice rejected offers for a Palestinian state from Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and later from Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, both of whom offered 97% of everything the Palestinians demanded. The Palestinians did not even submit a counter-offer.
One can only conclude that the Palestinians do not actually want state; what they want is to displace the Israeli state. They themselves have confirmed this suspicion at least twice -- first in the PLO "Phased Plan" of 1974, never rescinded, which calls for eliminating Israel in stages. The second time was in the Charter of Hamas -- now half of a "Palestinian Unity Government" with Fatah. The Hamas Charter calls not just for the destruction of Israel but also for a genocide of all the Jews everywhere. This Charter, too, has never been rescinded.
Israel has granted self-governance to the Palestinians; however, considering the non-stop Arab and Muslim attacks on Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu and others have said that full autonomy cannot be given to the Palestinians until their terrorist groups are completely demilitarized.

* * *

The "existence" of Israel -- the only country in the region with human rights, freedom of expression, and equal justice under law -- is not, and should not, even be in question. The more appropriate question is if organizations that ask questions such as that should exist.
Iran has violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty time after time, often undetected; it also continues to violate Article 2, clause 4, of the United Nations Charter: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
In March 2015, apparently not content with wiping just "Israel off the map," Iran, in the person of its Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, also called for "Death to America."
One can only hope that what clearly seems such a fatally dangerous deal as the Obama Administration's nuclear "framework" with Iran -- that threatens not only the existence of Israel, the Middle East and Europe, but, with Iran's intercontinental ballistic missile program, also the United States -- will not be allowed to happen.
George Phillips served as an aide to Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, working on human rights issues.

Obama Likes Dictators And Despots Especially If They Are Leftists. Think He Admires Them?

Jeb Bush: Obama Meets with Castro, Snubs Netanyahu?

“Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.” (Proverbs 28:26)
A historic meeting between US President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro on Saturday has left many wondering where Obama’s true allegiances lie.
The meeting, which took place during the seventh Summit of the Americas in Panama, is the first time since 1958 that a US and Cuban leader have held a significant meeting. At the time, Dwight D. Eisenhower was president of the US and Fulgencio Batista was in charge of Cuba.
During Obama and Castro’s meeting, the two leaders pledged to form a peaceful relationship that has eluded the two nations for decades.
“What we have both concluded is that we can disagree with a spirit of respect and civility,” Obama stated. “And over time, it is possible for us to turn the page and develop a new relationship between our two countries.”
Former Florida governor and expected Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush slammed the president for holding talks with the Cuban leader while snubbing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his recent trip to Washington in March.
“Obama meets with Castro but refused to meet w/Netanyahu,” Bush tweeted on Sunday. “Why legitimize a cruel dictator of a repressive regime?”
Netanyahu, who issued a historic address to a joint session of the US Congress on the dangers of a nuclear Iran, was refused an invitation by the White House to meet with Obama.
Over the last year, Obama has been accused repeatedly of abandoning Israel and adopting policies that threaten the security and existence of the Jewish state.
The president, who viewed the prime minister’s address as an attempt to undermine his leadership and a nuclear deal with Iran, has left some believing that he is on a crusade to destroy Netanyahu.
“He spat in our face publicly…Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price,” a senior Obama official told the Daily Caller in January.
Following Netanyahu’s reelection, the Obama administration has taken steps to review its relationship with Israel and support of the Jewish state in international organizations, such as the UN.
When asked in March whether the US would “continue to oppose Palestinian efforts to gain statehood at the United Nations,” Obama answered that “we’re evaluating what’s taking place.” Should Obama pull support of Israel at the UN, it would reverse decades of US foreign policy.
Obama and Netanyahu have publicly clashed over the direction of a nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran. At a press conference following the meeting with Castro, Obama stated, “The prime minister of Israel is deeply opposed to [the nuclear deal]. He’s made that very clear.”
Despite Obama declaring his repeated calls on Netanyahu for a viable alternative that would make it “less likely for Iran to get a nuclear weapon – I’ve yet to obtain a good answer on that.”

Read more at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/35874/jeb-bush-obama-gladly-meets-with-castro-but-snubs-netanyahu-jerusalem/#Q4GH6whbvErkpkwM.99