By Vic Rosenthal

It’s interesting to look at the parallels between the latest Western diplomatic debacle and an earlier one.

Both were examples of self-inflicted catastrophes, unnecessary projects in which the stronger Western power initiated a process to give its weakened opponent new funds, protection and international legitimacy, instead of finishing it off. Both were initiated in secret, prosecuted despite protests from important decision-makers, and ultimately presented as faits accomplis.

In the case of Israel’s Oslo accords, the Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, wasn’t informed until talks with the PLO were well under way. The Obama Administration’s Iranian nuclear negotiations were initially secret, and the final agreement was made over the objections of a largely impotent Congress.
Read more…

By Victor Sharpe, Family Security Matters

One year before World War Two broke out, Members of the British Parliament, save for a tiny few, were cheering Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who had returned from Germany triumphantly proclaiming, “Peace in our Time,” while holding a forlorn and fluttering piece of paper with Adolf Hitler’s name on it.

One man rose in that once august chamber. Turning to face the Prime Minister, who still believed in the spurious terms of the Munich Agreement, he thundered these words:

“You were given the choice between war and dishonor, you chose dishonor and will have war.” That man was Winston S. Churchill.

The Second World War broke out on September 3rd, 1939 and Hitler’s signature on that fluttering piece of paper was proven to be as worthless as all such words uttered by tyrants and despots ever are. Untold millions thus perished needlessly in that most terrible war.
Read more…

T. Belman. This is a very serious question. The simple answer is that it serves the purposes of the US to hold the refugees over Israel’s head forcing Israel to accept their dictat. It may be that not only has the US agreed with the Arabs to force Israel back to the ’67 lines, it has also agreed to keep the “refugees” stateless as demanded by the Arab countries. How else can its support of UNRWA be explained?

By David Bedein, INN

The chance to change the “refugees” lives for the better has been missed.

As the eyes of the world focus on the dysfunctional US-Iranian accord, yet another dysfunctional accord with the US government has escaped public scrutiny: The new accord, reached between the US government and UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, was recently posted on the web site of the US State Department.

The US, the largest funder of UNRWA, (Reaching $400 million this year, one third of the UNRWA budget), could have predicated further funding of UNRWA on a humanitarian commitment to resettle UNRWA’s client population: 5.4 milliondescendants of Arab refugees from the 1948 war, few of whom were even born by 1948   – into decent permanent living conditions.

Yet the US-UNRWA accord mentions nothing of the kind.
Read more…

JPOST

Reacting to clashes between police and Palestinian rioters on the Temple Mount Sunday morning, Avigdor Liberman was quick to criticize Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that it is his “responsibility to instruct the police and security forces to see an end to the Arab rioting on the Temple Mount.”

“Jews arriving at the [Western Wall] to mark Tisha B’av should be allowed to do so in a fitting way,”

Chaos gripped the Temple Mount Sunday morning after masked Palestinians hurled stones and shot fireworks at police officers who received information that a potential riot had been planned throughout the night.
Read more…

T. Belman. Francisco Gil-White, a scholar of note on antisemitism and publisher of Historical Investigative Research wrote a series on The Problem of Jewish Self-Defense. It is divided into the following topics. 1) The crises of 1933, 2) The Failure of Diaspora Jewish Leaders in WWII, 3) Diaspora Jewish Leaders today, 4) Israeli Jewish Leaders today, 5) Israeli Leaders in WWII. I urge you to read all parts to fully understand how Jewish leadership has consistently sold out the Jews.

The establishment will not stand up to Obama.

By Daniel Greenfield, FPM

After the Iran deal, American Jews turned to the “Establishment” of liberal Jewish organizations to whom they had written out so many checks over the years expecting them to do something about it.

And the organizations did what they do best. They expressed concern.
Read more…

By Joan Swirsky

“Schumer is not a Shomer” were the words emblazoned on dozens of placards that were held by some of the 12,000 people who flooded Times Square last week to protest the “Death to America/Death to Israel” deal that Barack Obama and his cronies made on July 14th with––to this day, to this hour––a palpably belligerent, anti-Western, anti-Semitic Iran.

Schumer, will you guard Israel or not?
The placards––and the demonstration in front of the senator’s New York City office the next day––were to implore him to stop evading the subject with mealy-mouthed language (“I’ll go through the agreement with a fine-tooth comb”) and to reject the deal outright, vote against it in Congress, and convince at least 13 of his colleagues on the left to vote against the horrific deal. Congress is now reviewing the deal and will vote on September 17, in less than 50 days.
Read more…

By lying and withholding information about the agreement, he gives aid and comfort to America’s enemy.

By Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review

By lying and withholding information about the agreement, he gives aid and comfort to America’s enemy.

The president “must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate.”

One can imagine hearing such counsel from a contemporary United States senator on the receiving end of President Obama’s “full disclosure” of the nuclear deal with Iran. But the admonition actually came from James Iredell, a champion of the Constitution’s ratification, who was later appointed to the Supreme Court by President George Washington.

Iredell was addressing the obligations the new Constitution imposed on the president in the arena of international affairs. Notwithstanding the chief executive’s broad powers to “regulate all intercourse with foreign powers,” it would be the president’s “duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives.” Indeed, among the most egregious offenses a president could commit would be fraudulently inducing senators “to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them.”
Read more…

T. Belman. Is it just a coincidence that this new attack on ISIS is happening just a week or so after the Iran Deal was agreed to. Could this be intended to support Iran’s proxies (Hezbollah and Iran and the Shiite militias in Iraq) that are also fighting ISIS?

Simultaneously, US defense chief meets with Kurds in Iraq to build strategy against Isis and Turkey bombs the Kurds in Iraq. Something wrong there.

DEBKA

The Middle East woke up Friday, July 24, to two new full-fledged wars launched by Jordan and Turkey for cutting down the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as is forces advanced on their borders. The United States and Israel are involved in both campaigns. Jordanian armored, commando and air forces are already operating deep inside Iraq, while Friday morning, Turkey conducted its first cross-border air strike against ISIS targets in Syria. Clashes between Turkish troops and Islamic fighters erupted at several points along the border. Both governments also conducted mass arrests of suspected Islamists.

The Jordanian police picked up ISIS adherents, while 5,000 Turkish police detained 250 Islamist and outlawed Kurdish PKK suspects in Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir and Saniurta. Jordan Friday shut down its only border crossing with Iraq.

Read more…

NYT

ANKARA, Turkey — Turkish jets struck camps belonging to Kurdish militants in northern Iraq, authorities said Saturday, the first strikes since a peace deal was announced in 2013, and again bombed Islamic State positions in Syria.

The strikes in Iraq targeted the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, whose affiliates have been effective in battling the Islamic State group. The strikes further complicate the U.S.-led war against the extremists, which has relied on Kurdish ground forces making gains in Iraq and Syria.

A spokesman in Iraq for the PKK, which has been fighting Turkey for autonomy since 1984 and is considered a terrorist organization by Ankara and its allies, said the strikes likely spelled the end of the peace process.

Read more…

KERRY: ISRAEL WILL BE ‘BLAMED’ IF CONGRESS REJECTS IRAN DEAL

KERRY: UNILATERAL ACTION BY ISRAEL AGAINST IRAN WOULD BE ‘ENORMOUS MISTAKE,’ COULD GIVE REGIME ‘REASON’ FOR PURSUING NUCLEAR WEAPONS

BY: Destiny Albritton, NEW BEACON 

APT, a prominent interfaith organization is calling for the ejection of the anti-Israel group J Street from the Jewish community due to its support for a recently inked nuclear accord with Iran that experts warn endangers the Jewish state.

Just a week after the announcement of a nuclear deal between world powers and Iran, Americans for Peace and Tolerance (APT) called out J Street for its connection to a range of shadowy organizations that are funding a major pro-Iran push.

“It is time for J Street to go.” APT leaders Charles Jacobs and Elliott Hamilton wrote in an op-ed published Friday.
Read more…

FPM. We know that Barack Obama has said that one of the sweetest sounds is the Muslim call to evening prayer.  We know that he has repeatedly said that Islam is a religion of peace and — side-swiping Danish cartoonists who must now fear for their lives — told the UN that the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

We know that Obama has been a proponent of the idea that “Islamophobia” is a heinous offense, comparable to racial and gender hatred.  We know that the President has allowed several individuals with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood to get jobs in his administration and that he, virtually alone among the leaders of the Western world, did not go to Paris to protest the slaughter at the offices of Charlie Hebdo and at a Jewish kosher restaurant.

What we know about Barack Obama’s attitude toward Muslims and the Muslim world, in other words, is bad enough.  But what we don’t know about him is even worse and this is the subject of Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield’s new Freedom Center pamphlet “Barack Obama’s Unholy Alliance: A Romance with Islamism.”

Greenfield’s pamphlet is a work of deep scholarship and legitimate outrage.  It exhaustively explores Barack Obama’s relationship with Islam — his cerebral relationship as well as his policy initiatives in the Muslim world.  Moreover, Greenfield tracks how Obama’s soft spot for Islam has disastrously affected America’s ability to defend itself from an enemy — radical Islam — that seeks to destroy us.  So read “Barack Obama’s Unholy Alliance” and prepare to be afraid, very afraid. 

Daniel Greenfield’s new pamphlet reveals how Obama’s soft spot for Islam has disastrously undermined America’s security.

By Daniel Greenfield, SULTAN KNISH

Last year Iran was selling gasoline for less than 50 cents a gallon. This year a desperate regime hiked prices up to over a dollar. Meanwhile, Iranians pay about a tenth of what Americans do for electricity.

Unlike Japan, Iran does not need nuclear power. It is already sitting on a mountain of gas and oil.

Iran blew between $100 billion to $500 billion on its nuclear program. The Bushehr reactor alone cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $11 billion making it one of the most expensive in the world.

This wasn’t done to cut power bills. Iran didn’t take its economy to the edge for a peaceful nuclear program. It built the Fordow fortified underground nuclear reactor that even Obama admitted was not part of a peaceful nuclear program, it built the underground Natanz enrichment facility whose construction at one point consumed all the cement in the country, because the nuclear program mattered more than anything else as a fulfillment of the Islamic Revolution’s purpose.
Read more…

Khamenei needs to hate America. This article explains why in its surprising information about the people of Iran.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar, INN

Iran’s Supreme Leader has been behaving rather strangely since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed in Vienna on July 14: two days after he signed the agreement, his Id el Fitr speech was business as usual – that is, filled with the same old hatred and hostility towards the West.

The following list of the main catchphrases in Khamenei’s speech is accompanied by my explanations of their real meaning:

• “America is the enemy.” – i.e. If you think for a minute, my fellow Iranians, that America has become our friend as a result of the agreement, don’t get carried away. America was our enemy, has remained our enemy and will always be our enemy. The agreement has not affected that unchanging situation.

Read more…

Why Donald Trump Isn’t Going Away

BY Matthew Continetti, FREE BEACON

Two decades ago, in the spring of 1996, Newsweek magazine described a group of voters it called the “radical middle.” Formerly known as the Silent Majority, then the Reagan Democrats, these voters had supported Ross Perot in 1992, and were hoping the Texas billionaire would run again. Voters in the radical middle, Newsweek wrote, “see the traditional political system itself as the country’s chief problem.”

The radical middle is attracted to populists, outsiders, businessmen such as Perot and Lee Iacocca who have never held office, and to anyone, according to Newsweek, who is the “tribune of anti-insider discontent.” Newt Gingrich rallied the radical middle in 1994—year of the Angry White Male—but his Republican Revolution sputtered to a halt after the government shut down over Medicare in 1995. Once more the radical middle had become estranged from the GOP. “If Perot gets in the race,” a Dole aide told Newsweek, “it will guarantee Clinton’s reelection.”
Read more…

She can save the Iran deal or she can sink it. Her choice may determine the fate of two administrations—Obama’s, and her own.

By Lee Smith TABLET

Two of the top candidates for the Republican nomination for president are fighting over the Iran deal. Governor of Wisconsin Scott Walker says he’d tear up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Day 1 of a Walker Administration. That’s a rash novice speaking, says Jeb Bush. The former governor of Florida hates the deal, too, but says he’d have to appoint his national security cabinet and confer with allies first.

The truth is that wherever the Republican candidates profess to stand, none of them has the slightest practical influence over the Iran deal. The one and only presidential candidate who does is Hillary Clinton, who can crash the deal a year and a half before the 2016 election. Sure, she already came out with a statement tentatively praising the deal, but with a vote in Congress due in the fall, she still has time to shape the results. If Clinton comes out against the deal, she will start a chain reaction in her own party, with Democrats on the Hill abandoning President Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative like a sinking ship and joining Republicans in an overwhelming No.
Read more…

The most disingenuous & infuriating contentions made by supporters of the ignominious Iran “deal” is that its opponents offered no better alternative

By Martin Sherman, JPOST

Our goal is to get Iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program and abide by the UN resolutions that have been in place…the deal we’ll accept is: They end their nuclear program. It’s very straightforward.
– Barack Hussein Obama, October 2012, presidential election debate

I don’t think that any of us thought we were just imposing these sanctions for the sake of imposing them. We did it because we knew that it would hopefully help Iran dismantle its nuclear program. That was the whole point of the [sanctions] regime.
– John Kerry, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, December 2013

As details emerge on the deal concluded with Iran last week in Vienna, the full extent of its calamitous significance is coming to light. Indeed, it appears that when, shortly after the announcement of the agreement, Benjamin Netanyahu described it as a “stunning, historic mistake,” he was grossly understating the case. Read more…