Category Archives: Iran Israel

Obama Stands with Palestinian Violence

Posted on by

Words Have Consequences: Palestinian Authority Incitement to Violence

WITNESSES: Mr. Elliott Abrams

Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies

Council on Foreign Relations

Jonathan Schanzer, Ph.D.

Vice President for Research

Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Mr. David Makovsky

Ziegler Distinguished Fellow

Director

Project on the Middle East Peace Process

Irwin Levy Family Program on the U.S.-Israel Strategic Relationship

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

 

October 22 is going to be a busy day on Capitol Hill. First Hillary testifies again before the Gowdy Benghazi Committee, but in other room, there will be testimony on the Palestinian Authority inciting the violence in Jerusalem and the West Bank.

The Obama Intifada

Column: How coddling Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas led to terrorism in Israel

FreeBeacon: More than 30 dead in Israel as Palestinians armed with knives attack innocents. What’s responsible? A campaign of incitement, which slanderously accuses Jews of intruding on the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and murdering Arab children in cold blood.

And who is legitimizing this campaign? None other than Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, whom President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have long held up as a peacemaker. “I think nobody would dispute that whatever disagreements you may have with him, he has proven himself to be somebody who has committed to nonviolence and diplomatic efforts to resolve this issue,” Obama told writer Jeffrey Goldberg in 2014.

That’s a strange view of commitment. This is the same Abbas, remember, who rejected then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s absurdly generous 2008 peace offer. The same Abbas who resisted negotiations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the 10-month settlement freeze in 2010, which Obama demanded explicitly on the grounds that it would give Abbas the cover he needed to begin talks. Abbas finally relented to Saudi pressure, and attended a few meetings with Netanyahu that September. But under no definition of what the word “negotiation” actually means were these meetings for real: The freeze was about to expire, the get togethers were perfunctory, and nothing of significance was discussed. The farce ended soon after.

It is a lie to say that Mahmoud Abbas is committed to a diplomatic resolution. Just as it was a lie when, the other day at Harvard, Secretary Kerry attributed the bloodshed to “a frustration that is growing” because of the “massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years.” As Elliott Abrams points out, there has been an increase in the population of the settlements, but not in their size. As if the settlements have any connection to what’s happening in the first place: The terror gripping Israel is the result of a Palestinian leadership so adrift and corrupt, so aggrieved and conspiratorial, that it encourages the radicalization of its youth and promotes an atmosphere of hatred and murder. More here.

***

Yeah, Obama was financially funding the enemy of Israel too!

Congress Looks to Cut U.S. Aid to Palestinians Amid Terror Campaign

Resolution would cut $5 billion in aid as a result of violence

FreeBeacon: Momentum is building on Capitol Hill for a new congressional resolution that would cut more than $5 billion in U.S. aid to the Palestinians as a result of an increase in violence that has claimed the lives of at least eight Israelis and wounded many more, according to a copy of the measure viewed by the Free Beacon.

The bill comes amid criticism from lawmakers about the Obama administration’s response to the terrorism and efforts to blame Israel for the violence.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Tex.), among others, has demanded that Secretary of State John Kerry resign his post in light of accusations by the administration that Israel has fostered the violence as a result of its policies to combat Palestinian terrorism.

Rep. Martha McSally (R., Ariz.), a retired Air Force colonel, is now seeking to hold the Palestinian Authority directly responsible for the terrorist acts by cutting off U.S. taxpayer aid to the governing body, officials of which have called for more violence against Jewish people in recent days.

The resolution, a copy of which was obtained by the Free Beacon, calls on the Obama administration to more strongly condemn the Palestinian violence and seeks to condition continued U.S. aid on the Palestinian government’s acceptance of a Jewish state.

The measure “demands, as a condition of continued United States aid … that the President re-certify that the Palestinian Authority (PA) government, including all ministers, has publicly accepted” Israel’s right to exist.

McSally’s measure would “freeze all United States funding to the Palestinian Authority until their leaders openly increase efforts to end their incitement of violence.”

The resolution also expresses concern about the Obama administration’s continued use of executive authority to continue paying the Palestinians despite the government’s support for terrorism against Israel.

It expresses concern “about the use of national security waivers to continue supplying aid to the Palestinian Authority,” according to the text.

The measure also suggests that no U.S. aid should be given to a joint government that includes Hamas, the terrorist organization that rules over the Gaza Strip.

The Obama administration has come under fire from the pro-Israel community in recent days due to its statements blaming Israel for the violence.

Kerry, for instance, inaccurately stated that so-called Israeli “settlement” growth, the construction of Jewish homes in Jewish neighborhoods of Israel, is to blame for Palestinian violence.

“There’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years,” Kerry said. “Now you have this violence because there’s a frustration that is growing, and a frustration among Israelis who don’t see any movement.”

John Kirby, a spokesman for the State Department, similarly accused Israelis of committing “terrorism.”

“Individuals on both sides of this divide are—have proven capable of, and in our view, are guilty of acts of terrorism,” Kirby told reporters earlier this week following questions about the spike in violence.

Kirby also noted that the administration has seen “credible reports of excessive use of force” by the Israelis against Palestinian “civilians,” several of whom have attempted to murder Jews in recent days.

“We routinely raise our concerns about that” with the Israeli government, Kirby said.

Cruz has demanded that Kerry resign over these comments.

“Once again Secretary Kerry and his staff have proven themselves utterly unfit for the positions they hold,” Cruz said late Thursday. “Mr. Kirby should immediately retract his offensive assertion that Israel is ‘guilty of acts of terror’ or resign, and Secretary Kerry should immediately disavow these remarks or resign.”

U.S. Defense-Less During Iran Missile Testing

Posted on by

Navy won’t have aircraft carrier in Persian Gulf as Iran deal takes effect

TheHill: The Navy does not have an aircraft carrier in the Middle East region as the Iran deal takes effect and just days after Tehran conducted a controversial ballistic missile test, raising concerns.

The USS Theodore Roosevelt pulled out of the Middle East region on Tuesday, and the next carrier, the USS Harry Truman, won’t arrive to the Persian Gulf area until winter, leaving a months-long gap without a carrier. The Navy’s moves were planned well in advance, but Iran’s recent missile test, which the Obama administration said violated international sanctions, is sparking worries about Tehran’s actions without a visible symbol of American deterrence in the region. The missile test came just one day after the Roosevelt pulled out of the Persian Gulf. It leaves the Gulf area without a continuous U.S. aircraft carrier presence for the first time since 2008.

The test also comes just before the Iran nuclear deal’s “adoption day” on Sunday — when it is Iran’s turn to take actions to implement its side of the deal.

On adoption day, sanctions waivers will be issued but won’t be effective until the deal is implemented in the spring.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power said on Friday that the test violated United Nations Security Council resolutions to curb Iran’s ballistic missile activities, and the U.S. would file a report with the UNSC on the matter.

“The Security Council prohibition on Iran’s ballistic missile activities, as well as the arms embargo, remain in place and we will continue to press the Security Council for an appropriate response to Iran’s disregard for its international obligations,” she said.

Administration officials have insisted the launch does not violate the terms of the nuclear deal, which places limits on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for relief from crippling economic sanctions.

And the administration has sought to assure allies in the region that it would keep a close watch on Iran after the deal was signed and counter its support for terrorism throughout the region.

President Obama just last week cited having an aircraft carrier as a projection of strength in the Middle East, in response to a question about whether U.S. adversaries and allies perceive the U.S. as retreating from the region.

“We have enormous presence in the Middle East. We have bases and we have aircraft carriers, and our pilots are flying through those skies,” Obama said during his interview on CBS “60 Minutes” last Sunday.

While officials say there are plenty of other assets in the region, some argue that an aircraft carrier is critical and its absence is being noticed.

“The most important thing you need a carrier for is for what you don’t know is going to happen next,” Peter Daly, a retired Navy vice admiral and CEO of the U.S. Naval Institute told NBC News.

“The biggest value to those carriers is that they are huge, and you have the capability to go from one stop to another, and we don’t need a permission slip from another nation when we want to fly planes,” he said.

Earlier this year, the Navy’s top officer said he was concerned about the lack of an aircraft carrier’s presence in the Middle East at a time the U.S. is conducting an airstrike campaign in Iraq and Syria.

“Without that carrier, there will be a detriment to our capability there,” the Navy’s Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson told the Senate Armed Services Committee during his July 30 confirmation hearing.

From 2010 through 2013, the U.S. maintained two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, known as a “2.0 carrier presence,” although it sometimes temporarily dipped below that level.

The heightened presence was to support U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and also to deter Iran from bad behavior in the region and keep the Strait of Hormuz open.

However, the U.S. stepped away from that in 2013, after steep budget cuts hit the Pentagon, forcing the Defense Department to curtail deployments, defer maintenance, and delay major purchases.

A U.S. official told The Hill in August that the Navy could have an even more reduced presence in the Persian Gulf in coming years, due to budget cuts, but also a prioritization of the Asia-Pacific.

“All I can say is that in the short-term, we need a continuous presence. The demand is out there, the [combatant commander] is asking for it, and the [Pacific Command] commander is asking for it. They’re asking for it. There’s just not enough peanut butter to spread around,” the official said.

“So what are you going to do? You’re going to give what you can. You’re going to prioritize based on what the president wants us to do, what the [Defense] secretary wants us to do and allocate those forces to meet those needs,” the official said.

“Iran last Sunday successfully test-fired the country’s new precision-guided long-range ballistic missile that can be controlled until the moment of impact. Emad carries a conventional warhead.”

Let’s be clear about this: does anyone really think that a long-range ballistic missile carrying a warhead of a few hundred kilograms with an accuracy of half a kilometer is being built for the purposes of carrying conventional explosives? Aim it at a target – an airport, a port, a chemical plant, Israel’s IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv – you name it – and what are the odds that a conventional explosion is actually going to damage the target? ]

Top Security Official Dismisses US Ballyhoos over Iran’s Missile Test as Irrelevant Sun Oct 18, 2015 3:9

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940726000483

TEHRAN (FNA)- Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Shamkhani rejected the US officials’ hues and cries over Tehran’s recent missile test as pointless, stressing that no threat can ever stop the country’s military progress.

“We have never accepted (UN Security Council) Resolution 1929 and I should say that Iran’s missile test was not a violation of Resolution 2231 either,”

Shamkhani told reporters on the sidelines of the preliminary meeting of the Munich Security Conference in Tehran on Saturday.

“Such remarks are a propaganda hype and Iran doesn’t stop (enhancement of) its defensive and deterrent capability under any threat,” he added.

Shamkhani also underscored that Iran’s missile tests shouldn’t affect the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreed by Iran and the world powers on July 14.

In relevant remarks on Saturday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif underscored that Tehran has not violated the UN Security Council resolution 2231 by testing missiles, reiterating that Tehran would never accept to let the nuclear agreement leave an impact on its defensive measures.

“No reference has been made to the missile issue in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and I seriously believe that our missile tests are no way related to Resolution 2231,” Zarif said in a joint press conference with his German counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeier in Tehran.

“Resolution 2231 speaks of missiles which have been designed for nuclear capabilities while none of our missiles have been designed for nuclear capabilities and our missile program is aimed at defending our territorial integrity,” he added.

Noting that all involved parties, including the Americans, have admitted that Iran’s missile tests haven’t violated the nuclear agreement between Tehran and the world powers, Zarif said, “The Islamic Republic of Iran has proved and shows again that the nuclear weapons didn’t and don’t have any place in its defensive doctrine and our missiles have not been designed for carrying nuclear warheads since we didn’t and don’t have any plan to have nuclear warheads.”

Some western media outlets have cast doubt about Iran’s recent missile test, saying that it could have violated the nuclear agreement between Tehran and the world powers.

Iran last Sunday successfully test-fired the country’s new precision-guided long-range ballistic missile that can be controlled until the moment of impact. Emad carries a conventional warhead.

“This missile (Emad) which has been fully designed and made by Iranian Defense Ministry’s scientists and experts is the country’ first long-range missile with navigation and strike controlling capability; it is capable of hitting and destroying the targets with high-precision,” Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan told reporters after the successful test of Emad missile.

The Iranian Defense Minister reiterated that the manufacture and successful testing of Emad missile is a technological and operational jump in a strategic field, and said, “We don’t ask for anyone’s permission for boosting our defense and missile power; we resolutely continue our defense programs, specially in the missile field, and Emad missile is a conspicuous example.”

General Dehqan felicitated Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, Iranian Armed Forces and the Iranian nation on the successful testing, and appreciated the scientists and experts of the Aerospace Industries Organization of the Defense Ministry.

The Iranian Defense Minister reiterated that the mass production and delivery of Emad missile to the country’s Armed Forces will considerably increase their power and tactical capabilities.

The Iranian Armed Forces have recently test-fired different types of newly-developed missiles and torpedoes and tested a large number of home-made weapons, tools and equipment, including submarines, military ships, artillery, choppers, aircrafts, UAVs and air defense and electronic systems, during massive military drills.

Defense analysts and military observers say that Iran’s wargames and its advancements in weapons production have proved as a deterrent factor.

The Iranian officials have always underscored that the country’s defense program cannot be affected by the nuclear deal clinched between Iran and the world powers on July 14.

Finally Arrest Warrants Issued on Hezbollah

Posted on by

Argentine court seeks arrest of Hezbollah man for ’92 bombing Hussein Suleiman wanted by country’s Supreme Court for attack on Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires that killed 22

TimesofIsrael: Argentina’s Supreme Court of Justice issued an international arrest warrant against Hussein Mohamad Ibrahim Suleiman, a Hezbollah member who is being investigated for his involvement in the 1992 attack against the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires.
The attack, which came two years before the bombing of Jewish organization AMIA in Buenos Aires, killed 22 people and injured more than 200. The court on Thursday also reiterated the warrant to arrest Jose Salman El Reda Reda, also as a suspect in the deadly attack.

Suleiman was arrested in Jordan in 2001 and confessed that in 1991 he traveled to Sao Paulo, Brazil, later transporting to Buenos Aires the explosives used in the deadly blast.
The ruling from Argentina’s highest court said, “Since 2005, this Court has been investigating Hussein Mohamad Ibrahim Suleiman as an operative agent of the Hezbollah terrorist organization and a member of the Islamic Jihad.”
The ruling added that: “Recently, in September, 2015, the Israel Embassy in Buenos Aires, through the Foreign Affairs Ministry, confirmed the information and thus the international arrest warrant was issued on the named.”
On Friday, Israeli officials welcomed the ruling and confirmed its role in the investigation.
A statement issued by the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires said: “Israel sees with satisfaction all the advances in the search for truth and justice in the cause against our embassy in Buenos Aires.”

Perspective, two years later:

19 Years Since AMIA Argentina Bombing and Hezbollah Terror Threat Growing

From the Israeli Defense Force: On this date in 1994, the Lebanese terrorist organization attacked a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, killing 85 and wounding hundreds. Today, Hezbollah has an extensive terror network around the globe, making it one of the largest and most violent terrorist organizations in the world.

Nineteen years ago today – at 9:53 a.m. on July 18, 1994 – a shock wave ripped through the city of Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina. A Hezbollah terrorist had detonated a car bomb with more than 400 kg of explosives outside the building of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA, a Jewish community center and headquarters of the Jewish community of Argentina). The vast amount of explosives caused the building to collapse, killing 85 people and wounding more than 300.

This was one of Hezbollah’s bloodiest acts of terror. The attack was perpetrated in the heart of Buenos Aires and caused damage to surrounding buildings, including a school. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, had been quoted in the Al-Watan al-Arabi newspaper a month before the attack, saying: “One thousand suicide commandos are ready to strike Israel across the entire globe.”

Khader Tleis, a member of the Lebanese parliament on behalf of Hezbollah, said that Israel knew that the terrorist organization could “do a lot even outside Lebanon,” and threatened that Israel would be hit “in and outside of Lebanon.” These public expressions reflect the clear objectives of the terrorist organization: to eradicate Israel and to impose radical Islamist Shiite theology.

The Iran-Hezbollah Connection

“Diplomats at the Iranian embassy in Buenos Aires who collaborated with the planners of the attack knew that the explosion would injure and kill many Argentines. Iranians knew, Hezbollah terrorists knew, those who assisted in the attack knew – knew and planned,” former Israeli Minister of Public Security Avi Dichter later stated. “Diplomats, neighbors and passersby who just went out there at the wrong time were executed.”

At a press conference on October 25, 2006, Argentine prosecutors Dr. Alberto Nisman and Marcelo Martínez Burgos revealed the primary findings of the Argentine investigation into the attack. Among their main points: The investigation unequivocally determined that the decision to bomb the AMIA building had been made by the leadership of the Iranian regime and carried out by Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy for implementing its policies.

In light of the report, the Argentine prosecution asked Judge Rodolfo Canicoba Corral to issue international arrest warrants for seven high-ranking members of the Iranian regime and one senior Hezbollah terrorist operative, all involved in the terrorist attack. One of the seven was Ahmad Vahidi, who currently serves as the Iranian minister of defense and was commander of the Iranian regime’s Quds Force at the time of the 1994 attack.

Iran’s Mullahs Say Thank You to Obama

Posted on by

MEMRI October 15, 2015 Special Dispatch No.6187 Senior Iranian Negotiators Salehi, Kamalvandi: On October 19 President Obama Will Announce Lifting Of American Sanctions http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8799.htm    

According to senior Iranian negotiators, Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran and an architect of the nuclear agreement (JCPOA), and Beherouz Kamalvandi, the spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, on October 19, 2015 President Obama will announce that sanctions will be lifted and not merely suspended, contrary to the July 14,

2015 text of the agreement to which Iran is obligated.[1]  

If this report proves accurate, it means that President Obama surrendered to the threats and demands of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to amend the nuclear agreement (JCPOA) on this critical point, because lifting sanctions instead of suspending them will not allow their automatic reimposition (“snapback”). In this way, President Obama’s promise that the agreement incorporates the security mechanism of restoring the sanctions in the event of an Iranian violation, has been broken. 

It should be emphasized that Salehi’s statement has not been verified at this stage by any Western or American source.  

Khamenei issued his demands and threat on September 3, 2015 in a public address before Iran’s Assembly of Experts[2] and the Iranian Majlis incorporated them in the text that it approved on October 13, 2015.[3]  

Following Khamenei’s address in early September 2015, contacts between Iran and the US and the P5 +1 powers took place September 28, 2015, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly but their results were not published[4] and subsequently Khamenei issued a guideline on October 7, 2015 banning contacts with the US.[5]  

Endnotes:  

[1] Fars (Iran), October 15, 2015; ILNA (Iran), October 15, 2015.  

[2] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6151, Khamenei Declares That He Will Not Honor The Agreement If Sanctions Are Merely Suspended And Not Lifted, September 4, 2015.  

[3] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 1192, The Iranian Majlis Has Not Approved The JCPOA But Iran’s Amended Version Of It, October 13, 2015.  

[4] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6162, Expected September 28 NY Meeting

Between P5+1 Foreign Ministers And Iran Could Signify Reopening Of Nuclear

Negotiations To Address Khamenei’s September 3 Threat That If Sanctions Are

Not Lifted, But Merely Suspended, There Will Be No Agreement, September 21,

2015.

 

 

[5] Twitter.com/khamenei_ir, October 7, 2015.

 

Quote of the Day:

President Obama and his foreign-policy admirers—a dwindling lot—hoped that the nuclear deal would make Iran more open to cooperation in the Middle East and with the U.S. Mark this down as another case in which the world is disappointing the American President.

–Wall Street Journal editorial headlined “The Mullahs Say Thanks”

The Iran deal seemed to be predicated on the notion that if we made all sorts of concessions to Iran it would become a different kind of regime. It would play nicer with President Obama’s imaginary friend “the international community.”

It hasn’t gotten off to a good start. For starters, Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, held captive for more than a year, was just convicted of espionage. Reporters keep referring to the Iranian “justice” system, as if there had been a fair trial open to the public. Sure.

The verdict was announced on Monday.  As the Wall Street Journal notes:

The timing of the conviction won’t escape students of history. Friday was the 444th day of his captivity. That was the number of days U.S. diplomats in Iran spent as hostages following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Mr. Rezaian’s conviction three days later is the mullah equivalent of mailing a dead fish to an adversary.

Mr. Rezaian’s brother has said that he thinks our government should let the Iranians know that “there will be consequences.” Strongly worded letter to follow. But even if our government responded (and it won’t), the mullahs aren’t listening.You see, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei just banned further diplomatic negotiations with Washington.

In other news from our Iranian friends, the regime tested on Sunday a guided ballistic missile that code-named Emad (“Pillar”), which the Journal notes is in violation of the nuclear deal. This is also in violation of a recent U.N. Security Council resolution banning any Iranian tests of guided missiles for eight years. It will be difficult for Secretary of State John Kerry’s crack team to glean further information directly, however, because of that Iranian ban on talking to Washington.

If Iran were not a regime bent on nuclear power and destruction and if this were not so dangerous for the world, particularly our mistreated ally (?) Israel, you’d almost have to cheer the mullahs for their gutsiness. But the regime is a totalitarian monstrosity and Israel is in danger of annihilation, which makes it all very unfunny. The Wall Street Journal comments:

The more likely outcome is that the Obama Administration will find a way to explain that the missile test doesn’t violate the nuclear accord that Mr. Obama considers a crowning achievement. Meanwhile, Iran’s government will bank up to $150 billion that it can deploy to back its militia proxies in the Middle East. Add the new Iran-Russia offensive in Syria, and Tehran would appear to have taken the nuclear deal as a signal that it can now do whatever it wants without consequence.

The American recessional continues apace with word that the U.S. is pulling our Patriot missile defense systems from Turkey. This is a nice bookend to one of President Obama’s earliest foreign affairs initiatives, scrapping the missile-defense system for Poland, which would actually be rather nice to have just now as Vladimir Putin is raging through the neighborhood.

Don’t worry, though. President Obama is heading for a climate change conference. Hat tip for this post.

Meanwhile, the IAEA completed it’s first report on an inspection site:

VIENNA (AFP) – 

The UN atomic watchdog said Thursday it has completed on schedule gathering information in its probe into Iran’s alleged past efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said that, in line with a plan agreed with Iran in July, its chief Yukiya Amano will now provide a “final assessment” on the investigation by December 15.

The IAEA keeps close tabs on Iran’s declared nuclear facilities to ensure that no atomic material is diverted by Iran to any covert weapons programme, an aim denied strenuously by Tehran.

Under a landmark July deal between Iran and six major powers, Iran will dramatically scale down its nuclear activities in order to render any effort to make an atomic bomb virtually impossible.

But the IAEA also wants to probe claims that at least until 2003, Iran conducted research into making nuclear weapons, including with explosives tests at the Parchin military base, something it also denies.

On July 14 — the same day as the wider deal with major powers — Iran and the IAEA agreed a separate “road map” agreement aimed at completing an investigation into these activities by December 15.

The plan included Iran providing the IAEA with information by August 15, which happened on schedule although the IAEA said that there remained “ambiguities” to be resolved.

Thursday’s announcement by the IAEA also helps clear the way for preparations to begin for the implementation of the wider deal between Iran and major powers.

The accord, hailed as a massive diplomatic achievement after over decade of rising tensions, won final approval in Iran on Wednesday as a top panel of jurists and clerics gave it the green light.

Members of the US Congress failed in September to torpedo the deal, with President Barack Obama securing enough support in the Senate to protect the agreement.

In return for downscaling its programme, painful UN and Western sanctions on Iran are due to be lifted. Iranian officials have said this should happen by the end of 2015 or January at the latest.

 

Who the Hell is Rick Gladstone?

Posted on by

Does anyone….anyone really take some of the editorials printed by the New York Times seriously? Do the editors there even go through a committee approval process? Is J Street, the lobby group, a constant funder of the NYT’s or could it be CAIR (Council for American Islamic Relations) or could the NYT’s be in collusion with NIAC (National Iranian American Council) or could Rick Gladstone and his ‘g0-to’ experts be on additional payrolls?

Hey Rick, here is a documentary for you sir:

Maybe Gladstone is the roommate of Rashid Khalidi.

Well, read on and then you may have additional questions. Here is lies yet another example of revisionist history.

‘The New York Times’ Goes Truther on the Temple Mount

The newspaper settles the ‘explosive historical question that cuts to the essence of competing claims to what may be the world’s most contested piece of real estate’

By Liel Leibovitz

Was the White House ever in Washington, D.C.? Can we ever really know for sure? Not unless we dig under the existing structure and find indisputable archaeological evidence of the original structure, which British general Robert Ross is said—by some sources—to have torched in August, 1814.

If you find everything about the previous paragraph patently ridiculous, you are clearly not a reporter or an editor for The New York Times. This morning, the paper of record published a piece about Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, questioning whether or not it was the site of, you know, the Jewish Temple. “Historical Certainty,” the article’s headline reads, “Proves Elusive at Jerusalem’s Holiest Place.” Capping the piece is a quote from Jane Cahill, who the paper notes is not only an archaeologist but also a practicing lawyer and therefore, presumably, an expert on incontrovertible evidence. Did the ancient Jewish temple stand where the Dome of the Rock now stands? “The answer might be ‘yes,’ if the standard of proof is merely a preponderance of the evidence,” Cahill is quoted as saying, “but ‘no’ if the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.”

It’s hard to begin to dissect the Times’ potent blend of ignorance and malice. There’s reporter Rick Gladstone’s repulsive bad faith in continually moving back and forth in his text between the narrow question he seems to have asked Cahill and other scholars: did the Temples stand precisely on the exact spot on the Temple Mount where Aksa was built, or might they have stood, say 50 feet over? This, in addition to the idea, which Gladstone weaves in and out of the piece, that there is even the slightest credibility to the idea that “Jewish Temples” were, you know, the products of some kind of religious fever-dream that Zionists then appropriated for their own aggressive purposes.

To be fair, Gladstone’s ignorance is all-embracing. If you know anything about religious history—not Jewish, mind you, but Muslim—you know that the Dome of the Rock was built in its current spot by the Umayyad Caliphate in 692 C.E. precisely because it was sacred space and because it was the former spot of the Jewish temple, just like the Kaaba in Mecca became a shrine because of the belief (stated explicitly in chapter 2, verse 127 of the Koran) that it was built by Abraham.

But hey, never mind any of that. Never mind the physical existence of the Western Wall, which the Times mentions in passing in the fourth-to-last paragraph, even though the existence of an enormous external supporting wall directly below the site where the temple is said to have stood should sort of answer the question. Never mind plentiful Roman historical accounts of the structure built by Herod that was widely regarded as one of the wonders of the ancient world. And never mind the fact that among scholars who actually study this stuff, there is no controversy whatsoever about the existence of Jewish Temples on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, anymore than any controversy that exists between Judaism and Islam on this point, or the fact that there is no contradiction between Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Roman or pagan sources. Don’t bother the Times with any of these facts: Just as long as it is possible to make any Jewish claim on Judaism’s holiest site seem like yet another irrational piece of fiction invented by feverish religious Jews, Zionists, and other troublemakers who are very unlike the good and logical and educated and clean Jews who read and write for the Times.

And so, because the paper of record won’t put it clearly, permit me the pleasure: Denying that a Jewish temple stood on the Temple Mount is not a form of historical argument. It is akin to denying that the earth is not flat. Or denying that global warming is real. Or that the evidence of human evolution is widely accepted by scholars. As far as history goes, it’s the equivalent of blowing up statues of the Buddha, or blowing up churches, or denying that the Holocaust ever happened. It’s an form of denialism, which seeks to obliterate evidence and basic standards of evidence in the service of some higher truth, which is rarely anything that the future is ever thankful for. It’s ugly. Paying lip-service to standards of historical proof while wildly mis-characterizing the views of scholars in the service of historical denialism turns the Times‘ basic ignorance here into something much uglier.