By Mort Klein & Liz Berney

Virtually every treaty and agreement contains language that clearly binds the parties to definitive, explicitly agreed-to terms. However, the Iran deal — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — is different. In the JCPOA, supposed obligations are merely called “voluntary measures.”

It is frightening that, in addition to failing to dismantle Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons; failing to end Iran’s worldwide support for terrorist attacks on Americans, Jews and others; and giving Iran sanctions relief and economic windfalls now estimated to reach $700 billion, which will drastically intensify Iran’s worldwide terror operations, the JCPOA appears to be written in such a way as to avoid imposing any real, binding, enforceable obligations on the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Read more…

By Marty Peretz, ALGEMEINER

Two of the most powerful members of the Democratic Party, former and current senators from New York, now hold the fate of the putative deal with Iran in their hands. Because they alone can overturn it, this means that presumptive presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and presumptive Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer carry a heavy burden that will deeply affect their personal reputations and, most probably, the trustworthiness of the Democrats in foreign policy for at least a generation.

Their former senatorial colleagues Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John Kerry already own their decision, though their logic still remains unclear to both the most diligent and the most casual observer. The president asserts that his piece of paper will prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, presuming both the honesty of a regime that has displayed mendacity and hostility for 35 years as well as the existence of a wide-ranging verification capability that his own agreement has fatally compromised. And then, of course, there is the sunset provision that enables Iran to acquire nuclear weapons anyway. As they congratulate themselves on the hard work that produced this bizarre document—Bloomberg News related that “[a]ll present were in a kind of awe”—have these former Solons stopped to wonder why Iran negotiated in the first place when their leaders still insist on claiming they don’t want nuclear weapons? The entire process is built on lies. If the Iranians didn’t want nukes, then why would they want a time limit?
Read more…

As Pollard’s case is about to be handed over to historians, let them consider the points of the one appellate judge who ruled in the convicted spy’s favor.

By Seth Lipsky, HAARETZ

News that Jonathan Pollard will be released in November after serving 30 years in prison for spying for Israel comes amid denials by the Obama administration that his release is related to its campaign to win support for its agreement with Iran. Let’s hope so. If the idea were to win support for the Iranian appeasement, it would have been better for Pollard to stay in prison.

Not that he deserved the life sentence. With all the disputed elements of the Pollard story, he should never have been given a life sentence in the first place. It’s not that his crime wasn’t serious. He violated the Espionage Act, compromising our sources and methods. But the record of the case suggests he received his life sentence because the government broke its plea agreement.

This became clear in the course of Pollard’s campaign for a new sentencing hearing. It was launched after he drew life for a single count of passing classified information to a friendly nation, even, I’d argue, the most friendly nation to the United States. His plea was no small favor for the government, which could conceivably have had to abort a proper trial in order to preserve the secrets that it maintained – no doubt rightly so –  were so important.
Read more…

By Wayne AllYn Root, PERSONAL LIBERTY

Some people are getting very nervous: Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Jon Corzine, to name just a few. And I know why.

I wrote a book titled “The Murder of the Middle Class” about the unholy conspiracy between big government, big business and big media. They all benefit by the billions of dollars from this partnership, and it’s in all of their interests to protect one another. It’s one for all and all for one.

It’s a heck of a filthy relationship that makes everyone filthy rich — everyone except the American people. We get ripped off. We’re the patsies.
Read more…

Wendy Sherman, Under Secretary for Political Affairs
Written Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Washington, DC
May 15, 2013

Iran’s nuclear activity – in violation of its international obligations and in defiance of the international community – is one of the greatest global concerns we face. A nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to the region, to the world, and to the future of the global nuclear proliferation regime. It would risk an arms race in a region already rife with violence and conflict. A nuclear weapon would embolden a regime that already spreads instability through its proxies and threatens chokepoints in the global economy. It would put the world’s most dangerous weapons into the hands of leaders who speak openly about wiping one of our closest allies, the state of Israel, off the map. In confronting this challenge, our policy has been clear: we are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Our preference is to resolve this through diplomacy. However, as President Obama has stated unequivocally, we will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, and there should be no doubt that the United States will use all elements of American power to achieve that objective.
Read more…

Iran should already be regarded as having missiles capable of making an EMP attack against the U.S., or against any nation on Earth. America must wake up.

Ambassador R. James Woolsey and Dr. Peter V. Pry, INN

Iran should already be regarded as having missiles capable of making an EMP attack against the U.S., or against any nation on Earth. America must wake up.

SEE ALSO: It’s Time to Evict J Street From the Jewish Communal Tent

By Abraham Miller, JEWISH PRESS

New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief and often unrelenting critic of Israel, Jodi Rudoren tweeted the obvious about Israelis reaction to the Obama administration’s deal with Iran, “You know, 2 Jews, 3 opinions. Here you have 8 million Jews and nearly one opinion.”

Israelis understood that their security, if not their existence, was being offered up on a platter of narcissism to promote President Barack Obama’s legacy and Secretary of State John Kerry’s quest for a Nobel Prize that will be as meaningful as the one given to the murderous thug Yasser Arafat.

Israeli Jews are indeed of one pessimistic mind with regard to Obama’s capitulation to Iran. Israeli Jews remember that in the period between the wars, among their European brethren, the pessimists fled to America while the optimists got a free train ride to Auschwitz. Misplaced optimism has its price.
Read more…

There is an enormous difference between a deal that merely delays Iran’s development of a nuclear arsenal for a period of years and a deal that prevents Iran from ever developing a nuclear arsenal.

By Alan Dershowitz, JPOST July 15/15

Does the proposed deal with Iran actually prevent the mullahs from ever developing a nuclear weapon? Or does it merely delay them for a period of years? That is the key question that has not yet been clearly answered.

In his statement on the deal, US President Barack Obama seemed to suggest that Iran will never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. He said that this “long-term deal with Iran… will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” He then repeated this assurance: “Because of this deal, the international community will be able to verify that the Islamic Republic of Iran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon.”
Read more…

By Frank Gaffney Jr and Fred Foleitz, CFP

The Iran nuclear talks have missed the June 30 deadline imposed by US President Barack Obama for a final agreement, but the US negotiators are hoping a deal can be struck by July 7. This is an important date because under the Corker-Cardin bill (the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015), if an agreement is sent to Congress by July 9, the House and Senate will have only 30 days to review it. If submitted after July 9, however, legislators will have 60 days.

We believe the Obama administration has made unacceptable concessions to Iran in the nuclear talks and, as a result, that any agreement produced by these talks will be a very bad deal.

But what would a “good” deal with Iran look like? To answer this question, the Center for Security Policy, in conjunction with many experts, came up with the following nine red lines, which we have nicknamed “The National Security Nine,” for an acceptable nuclear agreement with Iran. These red lines are:
Read more…

Jewish Home lawmakers threaten to dismantle government over police takeover of Beit El project; PM says he’ll fight demolition order

BY ELIE LESHEM, TOI

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought to quell a budding coalition crisis Tuesday morning, as members of the pro-settler Jewish Home party threatened to hobble, or even topple, his government over its move to clear out illegally built structures in the West Bank.

“We’re acting to bolster the settlements, and we’re doing so in accordance with the law,” Netanyahu said in a statement hours after hundreds of Israel Police special forces stormed the buildings in the Dreinoff neighborhood of the settlement of Beit El, north of Jerusalem.

Settler demonstrators had barricaded themselves in an attempt to prevent the implementation of a High Court of Justice decision ordering the demolition of the structures, and some 50 were detained after scuffles with police.
Read more…

Obama is hoping that the nuclear pact will lead to equilibrium in the Middle East. All the evidence points the other way.

By NIALL FERGUSON, WSJ

In making the case for his nuclear-arms-control deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, President Obama has confronted Congress with a stark choice. “There really are only two alternatives here,” he declared at last week’s press conference. “Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it’s resolved through force, through war.”

This binary argument is so central to his administration’s case that the president provided a second formulation: Without the deal, he said, “we risk even more war in the Middle East, and other countries in the region would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs, threatening a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world.”
Read more…

By Omer Dostri, ISRAEL HAYOM

The riots on the Temple Mount on Sunday — during which dozens of extremist Muslims with masked faces barricaded themselves inside the Al-Aqsa mosque, threw rocks, timbers and firecrackers, and even prepared Molotov cocktails — are just the latest in a violent, prolonged and ongoing series of incidents with which the police have to deal on a nearly daily basis.

The situation in the Temple Mount compound today reflects a loss of control and absence of Israeli sovereignty. Hamas flags are waved proudly, undisturbed; provocations, attacks, and disruptions are aimed at Jews, who have returned to exile and been replaced by “landlords” who desire riots, not peace.
Read more…

You are all familiar with Haneen Zoabi the firebrand anti-Zionist MK who was present on the Mavi Marmara.

You are perhaps familiar with her relative, Muhammad Zoabi, 16, who has distinguished himself as a pro-Zionist Arab. He stated in a unique interview that he is a Zionist and loves the state of Israel.

“I really believe that I’m a lucky Arab and a lucky human being and a lucky Middle Eastern[er] that I was born in this little tiny piece of land!”, he stated.

Well, meet his mother.
http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/the-arab-muslim-zionist-who-stunned-the-judges-of-israels-master-chef/

Omri Ceren, TIP

The WSJ gained access to some of the documents on the Iran deal that the administration filed with Congress to meet its obligations under the Corker legislation. Two of the documents – both of which are secret and one of which is fully classified (!) – are about the verification process. They reveal that the Obama administration has completely collapsed on the long-standing demand that Iran come clean on the possible military dimensions (PMDs) of its atomic program:

On Iran’s alleged past weapons work, the Obama administration said it concluded: “An Iranian admission of its past nuclear weapons program is unlikely and is not necessary for purposes of verifying commitments going forward…. U.S. confidence on this front is based in large part on what we believe we already know about Iran’s past activities… The United States has shared with the IAEA the relevant information, and crafted specific measures that will enable inspectors to establish confidence that previously reported Iranian [weaponization] activities are not ongoing.”

Read more…

By Ted Belman

The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, just published an article by Rabbi John Rosove titled Many Israeli Experts Believe the Iran Deal is a Supportable Deal Despite its Flaws. He is self-described as a progressive Reform Zionist and national co-Chair of the Rabbinic Cabinet of J Street. Remember that J Street just announced a multimillion campaign to endorse the Iran Deal. This article is surely part of that campaign.

In reviewing the quotes from these experts which he lists to make his case, it is clear that they appear to be making the assumption that the deal will be honored by Iran. But how can anyone assume that?

Every country passes laws and sets up an entity with the authority and power to enforce them. But that is not enough.  There must also be the will to enforce them. In many countries, either due to incompetence, prejudice or corruption, the laws are not always applied equally to all its citizens or applied at all.
Read more…

By Natan Sharansky, WaPo

These days, like many Israelis and American Jews, I find myself in a precarious and painful situation. Those of us who believe that the nuclear agreement just signed between world powers and Iran is dangerously misguided are now compelled to criticize Israel’s best friend and ally, the government of the United States. In standing up for what we think is right, for both our people and the world, we find ourselves at odds with the power best able to protect us and promote stability. And instead of joining the hopeful chorus of those who believe peace is on the horizon, we must risk giving the impression that we somehow prefer war.

As difficult as this situation is, however, it is not unprecedented. Jews have been here before, 40 years ago, at a historic juncture no less frightening or fateful than today’s.
Read more…

by Cinnamon Stillwell, The Algemeiner

The testimonials of more than 100 students from almost 50 colleges and universities in twenty states tell of “being intimidated, harassed or bullied as a Jewish and/or a pro-Israel student,” according to Student Voices (SV). A project of the AMCHA Initiative, which combats campus anti-Semitism, the data at SV spans the past year-and-a-half, and typically originates with student op-eds and articles from sympathetic media.

Although the majority of cited incidents involve Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the Muslim Student Association (MSA), student government groups, and the BDS movement, several of the examples involve professors of Middle East studies, many of whom are themselves BDS activists and supporters.
Read more…

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…