The United Nations, Obama and Israel

Posted on March 19, 2015March 19, 2015 by Denise Simon

Out of lack of leadership and a strategy in dealing with the historical divide between the White House and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Barack Obama took a petulant posture this week and wants to defer to the United Nations when dealing with the Arabs and Palestinians in Israel. Truth be know, the Arabs and Palestinians in Israel can and do live a grand existence in Israel at the cost of Israelis.

Prime Minister Netanyahu declared before the Tuesday election in which he prevailed there will be no two state solution in Israel. Peace talks have taken place for decades to no avail when Israel has made countless concessions to only have thousands rockets fired at them and then in Jerusalem, conflicts are a daily events. Kudos to Netanyahu but why would Obama run to the United Nations? Israel began to receive recognition with the Sykes Picot Agreement. Jews were able to return to the land ratified by the United Nations between 1945-1948. Today, there is nothing ‘united about the UN and worse it has a history of scandals.

The United Nations has a Security Council, it has an International Court of Justice, it has a division titled International Peace and Security, it has a Counter-terrorism wing, it has a Human Rights Council and most of all it has a nefarious department called UNRWA. That is especially key as it is the United Nations Relief and Work for Palestinian Refugees. Simply put, the Palestinians get their own section of protection at the UN, when in fact the Palestinians are classically at the core on hostilities and unrest in Israel.

You are challenged to do your own research of the scandals at the United Nations, yet what may be easier….watch the documentary UNme.

Further: In 2004, former ambassador to the UN Dore Gold published a book called Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos. The book criticized what it called the organization’s moral relativism in the face of (and occasional support of)[1] genocide and terrorism that occurred between the moral clarity of its founding period and the present day. While the UN during its founding period was limited to those nations that declared war on at least one of the Axis powers of World War II, and thus were capable of taking a stand against evil, the modern United Nations has, according to Gold, become diluted to the point where only 75 of the 184 member states during the time of the book’s publication “were free democracies, according to Freedom House.”He further claimed that this had the effect of tipping the scales of the UN so that the organization as a whole was more amenable to the requirements of dictatorships.
Charles de Gaulle of France criticized the UN, famously calling it le machin (“the thingamabob”), and was not convinced that a global security alliance would help in maintaining world peace, preferring that the UN direct defense treaties between countries.

So, it is even reasonable that Barack Obama should turn over the secure destiny of Israel to the United Nations? Should corrupt global United Nations representatives be the ‘go-to’ people when it comes to Israel’s future or that of say Rwanda, Sudan or Haiti?

From Tel Aviv to Turtle Bay

The White House hoped a new Israeli prime minister would resume peace talks with the Palestinians. With Netanyahu holding on, the administration is weighing a turn to the U.N. to help force a deal.

After years of blocking U.N. efforts to pressure Israelis and Palestinians into accepting a lasting two-state solution, the United States is edging closer toward supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution that would call for the resumption of political talks to conclude a final peace settlement, according to Western diplomats.

The move follows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decisive re-election Tuesday after the incumbent publicly abandoned his commitment to negotiate a Palestinian state — the basis of more than 20 years of U.S. diplomatic efforts — and promised to continue the construction of settlements on occupied territory. The development also reflects deepening pessimism over the prospect of U.S.-brokered negotiations delivering peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Shortly before this week’s election, the United States informed its diplomatic partners that it would hold off any moves in the U.N. Security Council designed to put Israel on the spot at the United Nations in the event that Netanyahu’s challenger, Isaac Herzog, won the election. But U.S. officials signaled a willingness to consider a U.N. resolution in the event that Netanyahu was re-elected and formed a coalition government opposed to peace talks. The United States has not yet circulated a draft, but diplomats say Washington has set some red lines and is unwilling to agree to set a fixed deadline for political talks to conclude.

“The more the new government veers to the right the more likely you will see something in New York,” said a Western diplomat.

Netanyahu’s government will likely be made up of right-wing and Orthodox parties adamantly opposed to making concessions to Palestinians. According to a statement from Netanyahu’s office, the Israeli leader has already consulted with party leaders he plans to add to his coalition, including Naftali Bennett of the pro-settlement Jewish Home party, Avigdor Lieberman of the far-right nationalist Yisrael Beitenu party, and leaders of the ultra-Orthodox Shas and United Torah Judaism parties.

On Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki did not rule out the possibility of the United States supporting a U.N. resolution on Israel-Palestine.

“We’re currently evaluating our approach. We’re not going to prejudge what we would do if there was a U.N. action,” she told reporters.

For decades, Democratic and Republican administrations have resisted a role for the U.N. Security Council in dealing with the Middle East crisis. They have argued consistently that an enduring peace can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties. Israeli leaders have also strongly opposed giving the world body a greater role in bringing about a deal.

However, the prospect of direct negotiations appeared to evaporate with Netanyahu’s pre-election declaration that he would never allow the creation of a Palestinian state. The comment completely reversed the Israeli leader’s previous support for an independent Palestine as part of a permanent peace deal between the two sides.

The deliberations over the future of the U.S. diplomatic efforts are playing out just weeks before the Palestinians are scheduled to join the International Criminal Court, a move that is certain to heighten diplomatic tensions between Israel and the Palestinians. On Wednesday, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s top diplomat in the United States told Foreign Policy the Palestinians would move forward with plans to use the ICC to try to hold Israel accountable for alleged war crimes during last summer’s war in Gaza. (Israel says it worked hard to avoid civilian casualties, of which there were many, and blames Hamas militants for taking shelter in populated areas.)

“The fact that we have a government in Israel publicly opposing a two-state solution just reinforces our position that this conflict must be handled by the international community,” Maen Rashid Areikat said.

Ilan Goldenberg, a former member of the Obama administration’s Mideast peace team, told FP that Washington might be inclined to support a Security Council resolution backing a two-state solution as an alternative to the Palestinian effort to hold Israel accountable at the ICC.

“If it was done, it could protect Israel from a worse outcome,” he said.

Under this scenario, the United States would seek guarantees from the international community to hold off on ICC activity in exchange for a Security Council resolution outlining international standards for a final peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians.

“The Israelis will probably resist and say this is a bad idea, but they could also be convinced that this is better than the alternative,” said Goldenberg.

The window for this type of U.N. initiative is small. U.S. officials are unlikely to act during the contentious Iran negotiations, which are set to end in late June, Goldenberg said. But the administration will not want to wait until the 2016 presidential race kicks into high gear, as any Democratic nominee would likely advise the White House against upsetting the party’s influential pro-Israel supporters.

“Don’t expect anything to move until the summer,” said Goldenberg.

European and Arab governments, including France and the Palestinians, will likely want to move more quickly at the United Nations.

The Palestinians had been pressing the U.N. Security Council for months last year to adopt a resolution demanding that Israel end its occupation of Palestinian lands within three years. But the United States vetoed the Palestinian initiative. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power called it “unbalanced” because it failed to take into consideration Israel’s security concerns.

But France, which is seeking a broader diplomatic role in the Middle East, had also been pushing for a separate resolution, which calls for the resumption of political talks between Israelis and Palestinians in order to conclude a comprehensive peace settlement. In December, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned Paris and other European governments that the United States would block the resolution if it were put to a vote before the Israeli election.

But one European diplomat said that there was “a broad understanding” at the time “that this was something that could be revisited post-election.” So far, U.S. talks with European allies have taken place in Washington and other capitals. There have been no substantive talks in New York among Security Council members.

France, however, recently renewed its appeal to the United States to consider taking up the issue before the council, according to diplomats familiar with the matter.

The United States, according to the diplomats, gave no firm commitment. But the administration indicated that it was willing to consider action in the council once a coalition government is put into place.

“I think they probably just want to see how it pans out,” said one U.N.-based diplomat. “But certainly the message we got back in December was that they might be able to show more flexibility after the election.”

Security Council diplomats say there remain significant differences between the U.S. approach and that of France. “There are discrepancies between the U.S. and European positions but I think they will bridge them soon,” said an Arab diplomat. “The key elements are the same: a framework for a peaceful solution that leads to the establishment of a Palestinian state … plus guarantees for Israel’s long-term security.” The United States is unlikely to hit Israel or the Palestinians with punitive measures if they fail to comply.

During a recent meeting of U.S. and European officials in Washington, a senior State Department official said the United States was considering a draft resolution at the Security Council but that no decision had been made.

Of course, two other options lie before the Obama administration with regard to the Israel-Palestine issue: continuing to reflexively back Israel at the United Nations, and simply enduring the widespread criticism of the international community, or raising the pressure on Jerusalem by abstaining from a U.N. resolution condemning Israeli settlements.

In 2011, the United States vetoed a resolution demanding that Israel’s settlement activity cease immediately — even though it was in line with U.S. policy. The measure was sponsored by nearly two-thirds of the U.N.’s membership and received a 14-1 vote on the Security Council.

“If there was a settlement resolution, would the U.S. abstain? I could see that as a possibility,” said Goldenberg.

In the wake of Israel’s election, U.N. and Israeli officials exchanged sharp words after U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq called on the new Israeli government to halt “illegal settlement-building in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

In response to the statement, Ron Prosor, Israel’s ambassador to the U.N., snapped back: “If the U.N. is so concerned about the future of the Palestinian people, it should be asking … why Hamas uses the Palestinian people as human shields.”

Hey Barack Obama, Meet Border Patrol Agent Cabrera

Posted on March 18, 2015March 18, 2015 by Denise Simon

They have been lined up since Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stating that the Southern border is secure. Americans know better than what they are told, they know better than what they read but when it comes to hearing sworn testimony, it is time for the President of the United States to either listen or be challenged.

Published on March 18 2015

Testimony of Chris Cabrera, on behalf of the National Border Patrol Council, in front of United States Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee March 17, 2015

“Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Carper, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) and the 16,500 Border Patrol Agents that it represents.

My name is Chris Cabrera and I joined the Border Patrol in 2003, after serving 4 years in the U.S. Army as a paratrooper. I have spent my entire Border Patrol career in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas.

Before I discuss some potential solutions that could be employed to increase border security I want to address whether or not the border is secure. If you ask this question of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or senior management at Customs and Border Protection (CBP), they will tell you the border is secure. They may even point to statistics and metrics showing that the Border Patrol is 75% effective in apprehending illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.

I want to be crystal clear – the border is not secure. That is not just my opinion or the position of the NBPC. Ask any line Agent in the field and he or she will tell you that at best we apprehend 35-40% of the illegal immigrants attempting to cross. This number is even lower for drug smugglers who are much more adept at eluding capture.

How can this enormous gap exist between what the DHS tells you here in Washington and what our Agents know to be the truth in the field? Frankly, it is how you manipulate the statistics and let me give you one example. A key metric in determining our effectiveness is what is known as the “got aways”. If we know from footprints or video surveillance that 20 individuals crossed the border and we ultimately catch 10 of them, then we know that 10 “got away.”

When I first joined the Border Patrol if I saw 20 foot prints in the sand there was no argument – we were looking for 20 people. Today if I see 20 or more footprints in the sand a supervisor must come to my location and “verify” the number of footprints. I guess that after 13 years in the field I must have lost the ability to count.

Agents who repeatedly report groups larger than 20 face retribution. Management will either take them out of the field and assign them to processing detainees at the station or assign them to a fixed position in low volume areas as punishment. Needless to say Agents got the message and now stay below this 20 person threshold no matter the actual size of the group.

In January 2011 Border Patrol Chief Fisher came to our station. To his credit, he took questions from the assembled Agents. I expressed my concern to him about what I perceived to be CBP being more interested in border security statistics than border security, especially as it pertains to “got aways”. Chief Fisher’s response was “if a tree falls in the middle of the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?”

To be candid, I do not know whether the tree makes a sound. But I do know that if I see 20 footprints in the sand and we catch 5 illegal immigrants that there are 15 “got aways” whether or not our official statistics reflect that.

I raise this issue with you because before we can start to address our problems, we have to acknowledge the extent of them. In a moment I am going to ask you to provide Agents with more resources. I know that times are tough right now and everyone is asking for more resources. I know that it is a harder sell for me when the head of my agency is telling you that we are 75 percent effective and the border is secure.

To give you a sense of what we are dealing with, not six months after Chief Fisher made that comment to me I was involved in a fire fight with drug cartel members. We were attempting to intercept a drug shipment and we took sustained automatic gunfire from the Mexican side of the Rio Grande River. In less than 5 minutes, my partner and I fired over 600 rounds defending ourselves. When cartel members are brazenly firing automatic weapons at Federal law enforcement agents, the border is not secure ladies and gentlemen. This was in 2011 and since that time things in the Rio Grande Sector have only deteriorated.

What are some actions that this Committee can take to improve border security? Let me give you several suggestions:

Increased manpower- Currently there are 21,370 Border Patrol Agents in this country. We do not have to double the size of the Border Patrol to gain operational control of the border. But we are, in my opinion, approximately 5,000 Agents short of where we should be. NBPC would advocate that 1,500 be sent to the northern border, which is woefully understaffed, and the remaining 3,500 positions allocated to interior enforcement.
Supervising staffing levels- The Border Patrol is an extremely top heavy organization with far too many layers of management. The average large police department has one supervisor for every 10 officers. The Border Patrol has one supervisor for every 4 Agents. The Committee should mandate a 10:1 ratio and achieve it through attrition in the supervisory ranks. This could easily return another 1,500 Agents to the field.
Interior Enforcement- Every night we effectively play goal line defense because all of our resources and assets are concentrated right at the border instead of having a defense in depth. You may be surprised to learn that even in a border state like Arizona we have no Agents in Phoenix. This, despite the fact that Phoenix is one of the most important illegal immigrant and narcotics transit points in the country.
Better training- During the Bush Administration the Border Patrol’s academy training was reduced from approximately 20 weeks to as little as 54 days if you spoke Spanish. This is simply not enough time to properly train an Agent and weed out those who are not up to the challenge. The Committee should require that the Academy revert back to 20 weeks.

Again, I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify and if you have any questions I would be happy to answer them to the best of my ability.”

Iran, a Terror State But Latin America Also?

Posted on March 17, 2015March 17, 2015 by Denise Simon

Iran has a long history of killing Americans and has several proxy armies including Hezbollah, Qods and the Madhi Army. No one seems to ask deeper questions but personally I have been quite concerned over the Iranian influence in Central and South America, our own hemisphere. For years I have been watching this closely. Why?

Bombshell report alleges Argentina, Iran, and Venezuela were once all bound together by sex, drugs, and nuclear secrets

Three former Venezuelan government officials who defected from Hugo Chavez’s regime spoke to the Brazilian magazine Veja about an alleged alliance between Argentina, Venezuela, and Iran, which included a deal in which Argentina would get Interpol to remove from its database the names of Iranians suspected of bombing a Jewish center in Buenos Aires in 1994.

Alberto Nisman, an Argentine prosecutor, had been investigating the deadly bombing before he was found dead in his apartment in January with a gunshot wound to the head. He was about to testify to Argentina’s legislature that the administration of Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner had helped cover up Iran’s hand in the bombing.

Nisman alleged that the Fernandez regime engaged in the cover-up to secure an oil-for-grain deal with Iran (Argentina is energy poor), but Veja’s sources take it a step further. They say the late Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez helped broker a deal between Argentina and Iran that secured cash for Argentina (including funds for Fernandez’s 2007 presidential run) and nuclear intelligence for Iran on top of derailing the AMIA probe.

“Not only is [the Veja report] credible, but it underscores the allegations prosecutor Nisman put forth about Iran’s longstanding desire to have Argentina restart nuclear cooperation with Iran,” Toby Dershowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies told Business Insider.

Nisman believed the bombing of the Jewish center, called AMIA, may have been about more than Iran’s attitude toward Israel and the Jewish people. He believed it was a punishment directed at Argentina. Back in the 1980s, Iranian nuclear scientists receieved training at Argentine nuclear plants.

Iranian nuclear scientist Ali Akbar Salehi was mentioned in Nisman’s report as being among the back-channel negotiators who reportedly wanted to clear the names of Iranians from an Interpol database. He spent six months learning about nuclear technology in the 1980s. In 1987, Argentine scientists went to Iran to help upgrade a Tehran research reactor.

“The DOJ and other USG agencies should be concerned about who killed a prosecutor with whom it had an important relationship and whether it was aimed at silencing him and his work implicating Iran,” Dershowitz said. “Nisman’s work was akin to a canary in a coal mine, and his suspicious death is a matter I hope the next attorney general and others will pursue impartially even if it comes at an inconvenient time as the P5+1 negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran.”

kerry zarif REUTERS/Rick Wilking US Secretary of State John Kerry, left, with Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif before a meeting in Geneva in January.

To Dershowitz, Nisman’s report was about more than just AMIA. It was about how Iran operates in Latin America — how it recruits, how it uses resources, how it activates sleeper cells.

According to a member of the military who said he was in the room during negotiations between Venezuela and Iran, here’s how a conversation between Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then Iran’s president, on January 13, 2007, went down (via Veja):

Ahmadinejad — It’s a matter of life or death. I need you to help me broker a deal with Argentina to help my country’s nuclear program. We need Argentina to share its nuclear technology. Without their collaboration it would be impossible to advance our nuclear program.

Chávez — Very quickly, I will do that Comrade.

Ahmadinejad — Don’t worry about what it costs. Iran will have all the money necessary to convince Argentines … I need you to convince Argentina to continue to insisting that Interpol take Iranian officials off their list.

Chávez — I will personally take charge of this.

ReutersMahmoud Ahmadinejad, left, then Iran’s president, with his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez at Miraflores Palace in Caracas in 2012.

The kind of nuclear technology Iran was looking for, specifically, was a heavy-water nuclear reactor. It’s expensive, complicated, and old-fashioned technology, but it allows plutonium to be obtained from natural uranium. That means the uranium doesn’t have to be enriched, which makes the whole operation more discreet.

To sweeten the deal for Argentina, Venezuela allegedly bought $1.8 billion worth of Argentine bonds 2007 and $6 billion worth in 2008. Remember that Argentina has been a pariah of international markets since it defaulted in 2002. The Kirchners (Cristina and her husband, late-president Nestor) each thanked Venezuela for these purchases publicly.

Also in January 2007, Ahmadinejad and Chavez allegedly hatched the plan for “aeroterror,” as Chavistas came to call it. It was a flight from Caracas to Damascus to Tehran that was made twice a month. It flew from Caracas carrying cocaine to be distributed to Hezbollah in Damascus and sold. The plane then went to Tehran carrying Venezuelan passports and other documents that helped Iranian terrorists travel around the world undetected.

tehran iran skyline Tehran, Iran.

Where this story makes a turn for the bizarre is that the woman who was allegedly handling the Argentine side of negotiations was former defense minister Nilda Garre, who is now Argentina’s ambassador to the Organization of American States.

Veja’s sources say she had a sexual relationship with Chavez.

“It was something along the lines of ’50 Shades of Grey,'” the former Venezuelan official said, adding that when the two were together, all of Miraflores (Venezuela’s presidential palace) could hear it.

“I cannot say that the Argentine government gave nuclear secrets, but I know it received much by legal means (debt securities) and illegal (bags of money) in exchange for some valuable asset to the Iranians.”

Another former Chavista said: “In Argentina, the holder of secrets is the former ambassador Garre.”

On Wednesday the House Foreign Affairs Committee is having a meeting — this should probably come up.

Cristina fernandez nilda garre ReutersKirchner with defense minister Nilda Garre, right, during a meeting with Chavez at the Casa Rosada Presidential Palace in Buenos Aires in 2009.

Don’t Count on John Kerry to Rescue Americans

Posted on March 17, 2015March 17, 2015 by Denise Simon

There are millions of Americans that work in various positions across the globe. Each day many of them are in peril and there are some Americans being held in Iran. The go-to agency to deal with the release of Americans is the State Department. In dealing for several months with Iran over their nuclear program, has John Kerry demanded one of the issues to be resolved is for Americans to be released? Sadly, no one is saying. This also begs the question, will the American government come to the aid of Americans in jeopardy in a foreign country? Recent history tell us no when it came to the U.S Marine in a Mexican prison.

Marine Veteran Requests Deportation From Iran

By RICK GLADSTONE

Increasingly desperate to return to the United States, a Marine veteran of Iranian descent who has been incarcerated in Iran for three and a half years has renounced his Iranian citizenship, requested deportation and accused Iran of using American prisoners as “bargaining chips,” his family said Monday.

“Once deported, he promises never to return,” the family of the Marine veteran, Amir Hekmati, a dual citizen of the United States and Iran, said in a statement.

The statement also detailed what it described as a litany of previously undisclosed torture and other abuses — including feet whippings, Taser hits to the kidneys, sleep deprivation and extended solitary confinement — suffered by Mr. Hekmati in the Iranian penal system since he was arrested in August 2011.

There was no immediate comment from the judicial authorities in Iran or from Mr. Hekmati’s Iranian lawyer, Mahmoud Alizadeh Tabatabaei, about Mr. Hekmati’s renunciation of citizenship or new assertions of mistreatment. Mr. Tabatabaei has said before that he would try different approaches to secure his client’s freedom.

The family released a copy of a letter it said Mr. Hekmati had written, addressed to the Iranian interests section of the Pakistan Embassy in Washington, where he acquired his Iranian passport so he could visit relatives in 2011.

Mr. Hekmati stated in the letter that it had “become very clear to me that those responsible view Iranian-Americans not as citizens or even human beings, but as bargaining chips and tools for propaganda.”

For that reason, the letter stated, “I formally renounce my Iranian citizenship and passport.”

Mr. Hekmati, 31, who was born in Flagstaff, Ariz., grew up in Flint, Mich., and served with the Marines in Iraq, is one of at least three American citizens of Iranian descent known to be imprisoned in Iran.

The Iranian authorities do not recognize dual citizenship. They regard all three as Iranian citizens, regardless of birthplace, and have treated them accordingly, denying them the consular access that is afforded to foreign inmates.

Their cases have acquired added significance as Iran and the United States have intensified efforts to reach an agreement on Iran’s disputed nuclear program. The deal, if completed, could potentially lead to a broader thaw in the longstanding estrangement between the two countries.

It was not clear from the family’s statement why Mr. Hekmati believed that renouncing his Iranian citizenship might be a means of leaving the country. Iranian human rights advocates said they had not seen this strategy used before.

“It’s creative,” said Hadi Ghaemi, the executive director of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, a group based in New York. “I’m not sure that it will work.”

Mr. Hekmati was convicted of espionage after what the family has described as a forced confession. He was sentenced to death, but the verdict was reversed and he was convicted of the lesser charge of aiding a hostile country, meaning the United States, and sentenced to 10 years.

He and his family have repeatedly asserted that he is innocent and have implored the Iranian authorities to release him, if for no other reason than so he could return to Flint and see his father, Ali, who has terminal brain cancer.

Obama administration officials say they have raised his case — and those of the other prisoners — numerous times on the sidelines of the nuclear talks.

The new accusations that Mr. Hekmati has been tortured in prison were based on what the family’s statement described as accounts from “his family in Michigan, his extended family in Iran and from Amir himself.”

They said he had been held in solitary confinement for the first 17 months, often in stress positions for extended periods, and had not been allowed to speak with his family by phone for 20 months. “Cold, foul-smelling water was repeatedly poured into his cell to prevent him from sleeping,” the statement said.

He was also forcibly given drugs including lithium, Tasered in the kidneys during interrogations, whipped on the feet with cables and subjected to “mental torture through threats, insults and humiliations,” the statement said.

It repeated a complaint Mr. Hekmati made last December about the conditions of his imprisonment, asserting that he had been housed with hardened criminals and drug dealers and that “he experiences recurring lung infections, his cellmates have lice, and he is surviving on a diet of only rice and lentils.”

The release of the statement coincided with a new report by the United Nations human rights investigator for Iran, Ahmed Shaheed, asserting that political repression and use of the death penalty in Iran are rising.

The other Americans incarcerated in Iran are Jason Rezaian, 39, of Marin, Calif., The Washington Post’s Tehran correspondent, who has been held on unspecified charges since July; and Saeed Abedini, 34, of Boise, Idaho, a pastor sentenced in 2013 to eight years in prison on charges of disturbing national security through a private network of churches.

A fourth American, Robert A. Levinson, disappeared while visiting Iran in 2007. Iranian officials say they have no information on his whereabouts. Last Tuesday, on the eighth anniversary of Mr. Levinson’s disappearance, the United States quintupled, to $5 million, its reward for information that could lead to his safe return.

Anyone Notice the Genocide of Christians?

Posted on March 16, 2015March 16, 2015 by Denise Simon

ISIS’ dark agenda: Terror group’s tweets show more destruction of sacred Christian sites

Chilling new images released Monday show ISIS thugs advancing the Islamist army’s dark agenda of eradicating Christianity from Iraq by smashing crosses, toppling statues and destroying sacred relics that have been in place for thousands of years.

The latest batch of photos, culled from the Internet by watchdog Middle East Media Research Institute, show ISIS members in the heart of Iraq’s once-thriving Assyrian Christian community of Nineveh, destroying symbols the Islamist terror group considers polytheistic and idolatrous. The images show the men removing crosses from atop churches and replacing them with the black ISIS banner, destroying crosses at other locations such as atop doorways and gravestones, and destroying icons and statues inside and outside churches. The sickening images are just the latest evidence of ISIS’ ongoing effort to cleanse its so-called caliphate of its Christian heritage.

“They don’t care what it’s called; they are just following their ideology and that means getting rid of churches and minorities,” said MEMRI Executive Director Steven Stalinsky. “It is the Islamic State, and there’s no room for anyone else.

“This has been going on for some time, a systematic campaign to rid the region” of any vestiges of Christianity.

Although the United Nations has condemned the acts, Islamic State, as ISIS is also known, has enthusiastically circulated photos of its fighters destroying the sacred symbols and relics.

“We cannot remain silent,” Irina Bokova, head of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, said Friday. “The deliberate destruction of cultural heritage constitutes a war crime. I call on all political and religious leaders in the region to stand up and remind everyone that there is absolutely no political or religious justification for the destruction of humanity’s cultural heritage.”

Bokova spoke after ISIS reportedly used heavy equipment to demolish the site of the ancient Assyrian capital of Nimrud, 18 miles south of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city. Statues, tablets and other relics have been taken from churches and destroyed or possibly sold on the black market. While the humanitarian crisis facing Iraq’s Christian community is of paramount concern, religious leaders also lament the loss of the religion’s most ancient artifacts.

In Iraq, Chaldean Catholic Patriarch Louis Sako last week called on the central government and the international community “to act as soon as possible for the protection of innocent civilians and to offer them the necessary assistance in lodging, food and medication.”

ISIS “is burning everything: human beings, stones and civilization,” he said in a March 9 statement.

Sako said thousands of families have been displaced by the fighting, and he called for an emergency meeting of Iraq’s Council of Ministers and the National Assembly deputies “to discuss this situation that threatens to deteriorate from bad to worse.”

“This is obviously a human catastrophe that cannot suffer any silence,” he said.

Nimrud, built more than 3,000 years ago, was the capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire after 883 B.C. The Neo-Assyrian Empire, whose rulers spoke a language distantly related to Arabic and Hebrew, ruled Mesopotamia, the ancient name for Iraq and parts of Syria, until approximately 600 B.C. For centuries, the region along the Tigris River retained monuments, frescos, temples and a ziggurat, the stepped pyramid characteristic of Mesopotamian civilizations.

But earlier this month, ISIS released video showing men smashing statues with sledgehammers in the Nineveh Museum, in Nineveh, the capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire after 705 B.C.

In recent weeks, ISIS has also set off bombs around Mosul Central Library, destroying as many as 10,000 priceless and irreplaceable books and manuscripts.

Many relics have been taken to museums in Baghdad or around the world for safekeeping, but artifacts in churches, including murals and statues, have been left where they stood for millennia, until the rise one year ago of the black-clad terrorist army. Last summer, ISIS fighters used explosives to blow up the tomb of a key figure in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The holy site in Mosul was believed to be the burial place of the prophet Jonah, who was swallowed by a whale in the Islamic and Judeo-Christian traditions.

The mob beat them and broke their legs so they would not be able to flee. “They picked them up by their arms and legs and held them over the brick furnace until their clothes caught fire. And then they threw them inside the furnace.” — Javed Maseeh, family spokesman, to NBC News.

The attack was not an isolated one. Rather it seems to be part of systematic killings, community by community.

Imagine you are a person of Christian faith living as a citizen in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan: every moment your life is at risk. Imagine a Pakistani Muslim shouting that you have burned a page of holy Quran when you have not; or accusing you of having desecrated the Prophet Mohammed: you have hardly any chance of saving yourself. There would be no question of providing evidence or proof against you. You would be killed either by the mob or by the country’s legal system.

If you were one of the 3% minority Christians of Pakistan, you would fear for your life every moment among the majority Muslims; any one of them could shout and point at you as the Nazi collaborators did during the Second World War against the Jews. You inevitably would be beaten to death by your fellow countrymen.

This month in Pakistan, a Christian couple and their unborn child were burned to death, because of a false accusation of burning pages of a Quran.

Christians riot in Pakistan after attacks targeting churches kill 14
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Members of the Christian community rampaged through the streets of Lahore on Sunday after suicide bombers attacked two churches during morning services, killing at least 14 people and wounding more than 70.

The Pakistani Taliban took credit for the attacks, reviving concerns that the Islamist militant group will increasingly target religious minorities in a bid to further divide Pakistanis and distract them from ongoing military operations against extremists.

From Tel Aviv to Turtle Bay

Marine Veteran Requests Deportation From Iran

Related Image