There were several terrorist attacks against Israeli Jews in early October 2015. The US State Department gave very tepid comments about the murders, especially compared to how the US reacted to the arson attacks that claimed the lives of three Palestinian Arabs in July 2015. When one considers that the attack against the Arabs was arson against a house (which could have been empty) compared to deliberate murders shooting at a moving car and stabbing individuals, the response from the US State Department was even more appalling.
State Department Spokesperson John Kirby
July 31 Attack on Arabs
October 1 Attack on Jews
October 3 Attack on Jews
Words in Statement
122
68
77
Condemnation
“condemns in strongest possible terms”
“strongly condemns”
“strongly condemns”
Terrorist attack
“vicious terrorist attack” AND “terrorism”
“terrorist attack”
Not called terrorism
Condolences
“profound condolences”
“condolences”
No condolences
Prayer for Injured
“prayers for a full recovery”
None
None
Families mentioned
“Dawabsheh family”
None
None
Location of Incident
“Palestinian village of Douma”
“West Bank.” Not Israeli; not Samaria
“Old City of Jerusalem today”. Not Israeli
Call for Justice
“murderers”
“the perpetrators”
“all perpetrators of violence” A general term
As seen in the chart above, the trend line of not even expressing condolences or calling the attack terrorism is very worrying.
Supporters of Israel have long complained about the bias of the United Nations against Israel. It would appear that those supporters must now worry about the support of its strongest ally.
“The United States strongly condemns all acts of violence, including the tragic stabbing in the Old City of Jerusalem today that left two victims dead and two injured. We call for all perpetrators of violence to be swiftly brought to justice. We are very concerned about mounting tensions in the West Bank and Jerusalem, including the Haram al Sharif/Temple Mount, and call on all sides to take affirmative steps to restore calm and avoid escalating the situation.”
“The United States strongly condemns the terrorist attack that took place late Thursday evening in the West Bank. The shooting resulted in the death of an Israeli couple who were driving with their young children. We extend our condolences to the victims’ family. We urge all sides to maintain calm, avoid escalating tensions in the wake of this tragedy, and work together to bring the perpetrators to justice.”
“The United States condemns in thestrongest possible terms last night’s vicious terrorist attack in the Palestinian village of Douma. The arson attack on a family’s home in the dead of the night resulted in the death of an 18 month-old baby and the injury of three other family members. We convey our profound condolences to the Dawabsheh family and extend our prayers for a full recovery to those injured.
We welcome Prime Minister Netanyahu’s order to Israel’s security forces to use all means at their disposal to apprehend the murderers for what he called an act of terrorism and bring them to justice. We urge all sides to maintain calm and avoid escalating tensions in the wake of this tragic incident.”
Immigration has become a significant topic in the United States and Europe due to comments made by US presidential hopefuls about illegal immigrants and the flight of people from the Middle East due to turmoil in that region. Here is a review of some statistics from past decades and the recent unusual dramatic increase in immigrants while the general population has slowed down.
United States 1880-1930s
The population of the United States grew dramatically over a 50 year-period from 1880 to about 1924 (a period of mass migration, “MM”), at which time the US passed the Immigration Act capping the number of people from any country. From 1880 until 1930, the population of the country grew from 50 million to over 123 million. In each decade over that time, the population grew between 15% and 26%.
Immigrants accounted for a large percentage of the growth. Over that MM time period, foreign born-residents accounted for anywhere from 12% to 15% of the US population. Almost all of these immigrants came from Europe (over 83% in each decade) and a smaller portion from Latin America (from 1 to 6%) and Asia (1 to 2%). While the 1880s had immigrants principally from Germany, United Kingdom, Scandinavia and Ireland, the following decades had immigrants principally from Italy, Russia and the Austria-Hungarian Empire.
Security: The 1880s and the 1900-1909 decade witnessed particularly large number of immigrants. In those decades, immigrants accounted for 20% of the growth in the country’s population (with natural growth accounting for 80%). However, with the outbreak of World War I and enactment of the Immigration Act, the number of immigrants was curtailed, with only 3% and 2% of the population growth stemming from immigrants in the 1910s and 1920s, respectively. Interestingly, while the war raged in Europe, the percentage of immigrants from Europe declined over this period by 4% while the percentage from Latin America grew by 4%.
One would imagine that the number of people trying to emigrate from Europe to the US would have increased during WWI, and the percentage of immigrants would have spiked above the historic 87% European figure. Instead, there was a drop-off. Were Americans concerned about the safety and security of the US? Was it fearful of importing a conflict to its shores? The severe drop-off in immigration and coinciding change of place of origin suggest that may be a factor. Another was the economy.
Economy: The decades of the 1910s and 1920s saw relatively weak average GDP per capita growth rates compared to prior decades: 1.28% and 1.27% for 1910s and 1920s, respectively. These anemic figures compared to prior decades of 1.65%, 2.04% and 2.13% in the 1880s, 1890s and 1900s, respectively. The subsequent stock market crash of 1929 and depression of the 1930s severely hurt the economy. This was probably the principle factor in the US population only growing at 7% compared to prior decades of 15% to 26% growth. Fewer jobs and a weaker economy led to fewer births and a stricter immigration policy set in place in 1924.
Decade
Total Population Growth
Immigrants % of Growth
% Foreign-Born Americans
1880s
26%
20%
15%
1890s
21
8
14
1900s
21
20
15
1910s
15
3
13
1920s
16
2
12
1930s
7%
United States 1960 – 2010
The 50 years from 1960 to 2010 saw an inversion of some of the immigration and population trends from the 1880-1930 period.
With the exception of the 1950s, every decade had a population growth that was less than from the MM period (10%-14% growth versus 15-26% in MM). Foreign-born people in the US became a rarity from the 1950s through the 1970s when they accounted for only 5-6% of the population (compared to 12-15% during the MM period).
The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 removed the former quota system that capped immigration from each country. As such the 1970s and 1980s started to see a dramatic change in the make-up of the US population. While very few immigrants came to the US in the 1960s, the 1970s and 1980s had 17% and 26% of the total population growth come from immigrants, respectively. The 1965 Act also resulted in a dramatic change in the ethnic origins of new immigrants: they were no longer coming from Europe, but from Latin America and Asia.
Source of US Immigrants (from US Census Bureau)
Decade
Europe
Asia
Latin America
1950s
75%
5%
9%
1960s
62
9
19
1970s
39
19
33
1980s
23
26
44
Economy: The economy in the 1960s and 1980s were the best in US history. The average per capita GDP grew 2.88% and 2.26% each year, on average, during the 1960s and 1980s, respectively. As such, the growth in the immigrant population and the changing origin of those people did not generate considerable debate or concern from Americans or politicians.
That situation changed dramatically in the 2000-2009 decade.
Security and Economy: The US population growth in the 2000-2009 decade was the slowest in American history, growing by only 6% (even lower than the 1930s). That decade witnessed the attacks of September 11, 2001, stock market internet bubble collapse of 2000, and a large scale economic meltdown and financial crisis in 2008.
Decade
Total Population Growth
Immigrants % of Growth
% Foreign-Born Americans
1950s
19%
5%
1960s
13
5
1970s
11
17%
6
1980s
10
26
8
1990s
13
37
11
2000s
6
41
13
Yet, against this backdrop, the foreign-born population in the United States in 2010 grew to 13% – the same percentage as existed during the peaceful growth mode of the mass migration. This percentage is over twice the level that existed in the country just 30 years earlier, in 1980. Astonishingly, almost half of the growth in the US is now from immigrants – a rate not realized since the founding of the country hundreds of years ago.
Consider further, that most of the new immigrants are coming from Latin America that principally speaks a single language (Spanish) in comparison to immigration from Europe or Asia that brought a diverse number of languages. Such an enormous influx of a single language could create a bilingual country.
Conclusion
In the 50 years of the mass migration 1880-1930, the country took steps to curtail immigration as the economy slowed and from World War I. Today, the US has an aggressive immigration policy during a weak economy and has significant security concerns.
It is natural for a country that focuses on its quality-of-life and feels insecure about its safety and economy to see the population have fewer children and urge for curtailing immigration.
While the US economy improved from the 2008 financial meltdown to 2015, consumer sentiment remained weak, as many Americans remained unemployed and under-employed. In addition to the weak economy, Americans watched the collapse of the Middle East through videos of the horror on their smartphones. The fear of terror coming back to the US is real.
One could argue that America had the “benefit” of slowing GDP growth in the 1910s and 1920s which pushed the country to accept many fewer immigrants. By the time the depression of the 1930s hit, there was already a 1924 immigration law in place and the reality of a slowdown in accepting new “foreigners” for a couple of decades. However, in the US today, the number of foreigners are growing at an accelerated rate for the last few decades, just as the country experienced incredible turmoil.
When a person sees the plight of refugees in the Middle East, the human and moral reaction is to extend a hand. Indeed, President Obama decided to increase the quota of Syrian immigrants from that region to 10,000 in 2016. On top of humanitarian concerns, the Democratic president scored big with Hispanics (71% to 27% in the 2012 presidential election). These facts make Obama look very in favor of accelerating immigration.
However, it is unfair to paint all people who argue for a limit on refugees and immigrants at this time as xenophobic and racist. There is a natural ebb-and-flow to immigration, which often follows the status of the economy and perceived safety concerns. Considering the current double-impact of the economy and security, and the dramatic increase in immigration over the past three decades, a review of immigration policy would appear warranted.
“Double standards” is defined as “a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another.” Double Standards are typically viewed as unjust, and some countries (like the government of Israel) complain when they are held to more rigorous standards of behavior than its neighbors by political bodies like the United Nations. Curiously, in 2015, some US Democratic candidates for president have introduced a new concept of “Half Standards,” in which they actively and happily pursue policies for other countries which are much less rigorous than they expect for Americans.
Democrats on Gun Control for Americans
After the killing of two journalists on air in August 2015, Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Bernie Sanders stated that he would introduce “constructive gun control legislation which most significantly gets guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.” Similarly, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commented that she is in favor of “reform that keeps weapons out of the hands that should not have them.”
Such calls for gun control is not without controversy, as most Americans view the right to bear arms as a fundamental right laid out in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights that “shall not be infringed.” How can the government decide that there are parties that “should not have them [guns]?” Will the government take steps to block certain individuals from this right the way that it blocks felons from voting?
Who “should not have them“? Clinton called out “domestic abusers, the violently unstable” as targets who would lose the right to bear arms. Will the US courts create a system of defining such individuals?
What exactly will these “bad” people be prevented from owning? In their call for new gun legislation, how far will the ownership limitations go? Will a domestic abuser be restricted from purchasing a new gun or will they also need to forfeit guns they currently own? What about ammunition? If a person has factories that make guns and ammo, would they be forced to sell it? If they ran a mine that sourced all of the raw materials to make guns or ammunition, would they be forced to shut it down? In short, would a “violently unstable” person be allowed to own and run an entire gun manufacturing infrastructure and warehouse even if they promised to give up having a gun in their home?
Contrast these Democrats’ positions about barring certain Americans from owning guns, with their positions on Iran’s nuclear aspirations.
Democrats Supporting the Iranian JCPOA
Clinton gave a strong defense of the nuclear agreement with Iran on September 9, 2015, even while she noted the many short-comings of the JCPOA.
Hillary Clinton at the Brookings Institute discussing her support of the JCPOA September 9, 2015
Iran is a “violently unstable” player: The US State Department has long considered the Islamic Republic of Iran to be a supporter of terrorism, one of only three countries with such designation. The Iranian government has been hostile to America since 1979 and continues to call for the “Death of America”.
…and will remain a “violently unstable” player:Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry made clear in several interviews, that “this deal is not contingent on Iran changing its behavior”. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued that a change in the behavior of the Iranian regime should be an integral part of a timetable of sanctions relief to the Iranians, the Obama administration made clear that such notion would not be part of any Plan Of Action.
Iran “should not have them (WMDs)”: US President Barack Obama repeatedly stated that the Iranian regime should never be armed with weapons of mass destruction. He has tried to convince Americans that the JCPOA will keep Iran from actually being in possession of such nuclear weapons, and Clinton and Sanders agree that the JCPOA would accomplish such task.
…but will maintain the entire food chain of processing WMDs: While Iran would technically not have a nuclear bomb IF it adheres to everything in the JCPOA, it will continue to have everything required to manufacture and deliver such weapons:
Uranium mines left untouched
It maintains a stockpile of uranium
Thousands of centrifuges (6,104 by the White House count) for enrichment left intact
Heavy-water nuclear plant Arak is “redesigned” but not dismantled
Enrichment facilities of Natanz and Fordow will both remain operational
Obtain new short- and long-range ballistic missiles (available in 5 to 8 years)
Iranian Nuclear Infrastructure (from BBC website)
Would Clinton and Sanders enable “violently unstable” Americans that have a constitutional right to bear arms, keep an entire weapons making assembly line? Why do they promote a “half standard” for a “violently unstable” country to maintain a vast nuclear weapons infrastructure?
Scene: A conference room with dozens of politicians, including the senior members of the P5+1 team and Iran, negotiating terms to the comprehensive nuclear agreement. The hour is late and people are agitated and sleepy. Each country team is mostly talking amongst themselves.
(photo: Getty Images)
Sensing the moment is right to bring up a new deal point, US Secretary of State John Kerry attempts to catch everyone’s attention.
US Secretary John Kerry (in a loud clear voice): “We have gone through the various points of this agreement and concluded that we cannot approve it without additional security precautions. As such, we insist on automatic ‘snapback sanctions’ if there is a material breach of the terms of the agreement.”
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi: “What are ‘snack-pack sanctions’?”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: “’’Snack-pack inspections’. It is another excuse for the Americans to snoop around.”
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif: “I won’t agree to it. That is outrageous. Why must you Americans continue to compromise on our dignity?!”
Germany’s Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle: “Mohammad, please. It is not that big a condition. Use the American request to push forward some of your own ideas.”
Zarif: “Why are Iranian snacks anyone’s concern? You have pushed too far!”
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius: “The Americans are big snackers, they cannot help themselves! Eating all of that fast food and potato chips!”
Aide to Kerry blurts out: “Potato chips are just cold French fries!”
Westerwelle (laughing while patting his stomach): “The Americans don’t just snack- they snack BIG. They turn warehouses into giant snack stores. That’s why they have snacks in packs. Can you imagine!”
Kerry: “People! I said ‘snapback sanctions’ not ‘snack-pack inspections’. We need some teeth in this agreement.”
Fabius: “You Americans are real gluttons, sinking you teeth into everything. Why do you have to always focus on consuming so much garbage?”
Zarif: “I cannot agree!”
Lavrov (in a loud, condescending voice): “Hey, Mr. Ketchup, let’s say we agree with snack-pack inspections. But you would have to agree to import some of our snacks too. For example, some Beluga caviar. It would be a nice improvement for your abused tongues.”
Zarif: “We get to export our caviar to the Americans again? This would be excellent!”
Lavrov (in a hushed voice to Zarif): “You and I will discuss later where the caviar will actually come from.”
British Foreign Secretary William Hague: “Does that satisfy your appetite, John?”
Yi: “Be careful Mohammad. Your country is about to be flooded with McDonalds!”
Zarif: “I’ll tell you, I will take up to 20 McDonalds, but America must agree to take our pistachios as well.”
Lavrov (out loud, but absent-mindedly): “But Russia doesn’t export pistachios.”
Hague: “Well, maybe Iran could also start to import our ‘Smarties’ now.”
Kerry: “People! This is not about exporting chocolate to Iran!”
Lavrov: “Hey Mr. Heinz! Did you marry a Hershey too? Keep quiet and we’ll handle the details of your new request.”
The conference room breaks down into lots of side conversations. After a minute, Kerry pushes away from the table disgusted, and leaves the room with some aides.
Scene: Outside the conference room, Secretary Kerry walks the halls with two assistants with a phone clutched in his hand.
Kerry (agitated): “Yes, Mr. President…. Yes, I brought it up…. How did it go?.. Well, let me sum it up this way. The other members of the P5+1 team are now renaming the streets in front of the American embassies in their cities ‘Hershey Highway’.”
The long saga of global bodies negotiating over Iran’s nuclear program ended a significant phase on July 14, 2015, when the parties concluded a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in Vienna, Austria. The negotiation has now entered the “approval” phase by various bodies including the US Congress. The initial reviews and comments of the JCPOA have been heated and ugly.
The Disappointment
On August 7, 2015, David Brooks of the New York Times wrote an op-ed piece entitled “3 U.S. Defeats: Vietnam, Iraq and Now Iran”. Brooks enumerated the various points that make many Americans angry about the terms of the JCPOA, specifically, the failure to realize the stated goals set out by the Obama administration:
Prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power
Dismantle the nuclear infrastructure
Remove their ability to enrich uranium
Close the Fordow Heavy water reactor enrichment facility
Force Iran to disclose all past nuclear activities
Anywhere, anytime inspections
No sanctions relief until all of the above have been accomplished
Brooks concluded that none of Obama’s stated objectives were realized. He referred to the agreement as a “partial surrender” to Iran that came about because of the poor tactics of team Obama.
However, that is not the question before Congress. If Congress were to vote on whether the JCPOA produced a disappointing result, the vote would be nearly unanimous (with the exception of a few Obama puppets). But Congress is not being asked to opine if this was the best deal that could have been achieved, but whether the deal is good enough.
The President
On August 10, 2015, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke out against the president’s tactics in aggressively trying to sell the JCPOA. In “White House Should Leave Politics Out of Iran Deal,” Bloomberg admonished Obama for name-calling opponents of the deal war-mongers and for threatening payback against any politician who dared to vote against the deal. For his part, Bloomberg concluded that the JCPOA was extremely marginal at best, and that Obama’s forceful defense of the deal was “grossly overstating” his case.
The “especially disappointing” behavior by the White House was politics at its worst, particularly when so much is on the line, according to Bloomberg. Politicians should not vote on this significant agreement based on politics or party loyalty; they must vote based on the deal’s merits.
The Deal
On August 7, 2015, New York Senator Charles Schumer detailed his rationale for not supporting the JCPOA. He analyzed the deal based on three criteria:
Preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons over the next ten years
The position of Iran’s nuclear capabilities at the sunset of the deal
The cost of the agreement in terms of giving Iran sanctions relief
In terms of the negotiating team’s primary mission of preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, Schumer stated that there “are serious weaknesses in the agreement,” including the lack of anytime-anywhere inspections and that the US would need approval of a majority of China, Russia and the Europeans to enforce inspections. Overall, he thought the deal’s terms were not compelling.
On the second point, Schumer was even more negative and stated “we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.”
Regarding the non-nuclear components of the deal, Schumer was extremely clear in opposing the enablement of a state-sponsor of terrorism to obtain billions in funds and access to ballistic missiles: “When it comes to the non-nuclear aspects of the deal, I think there is a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one.”
Senator Schumer analyzed and articulated his assessment of the deal. He avoided voting based on the deal’s disappointment, and based on his president’s rhetoric.
NY Senator Charles Schumer (photo: Getty images)
Vote Ramifications
President Obama has stated that the only alternative to this deal is war. Secretary of State John Kerry stated that there is no “better deal” out there nor is there an opportunity to renegotiate this one.
Yet, those claims are far from clear. Based on behavior of both Obama and Kerry, it would be easy to conclude that these are just their opinions dressed as facts as they attempt to forcefully push through the JCPOA.
There is no clear answer as to the impact of the US voting down the JCPOA. While procedurally, it is understood that Obama outmaneuvered Congress in only needing one-third instead of a two-thirds vote to secure his deal, what happens if Congress does manage to have the votes? Obama claims that Iran gets the best of all worlds and gets sanctions relief from the rest of the world while it moves forward with a nuclear program. That is hard to imagine. That inherently implies that the rest of the world doesn’t care if Iran has nuclear weapons and it is only the USA that is applying the pressure. If Obama really believes that, then a negative US vote is an opportunity to renegotiate.
Conclusions
Disappointment: The JCPOA is clearly a disappointing result, especially considering the many years that tough sanctions were imposed on Iran as well as the severely depressed recent price of oil applied intense pressure on the regime that will be hard to ever replicate. Together with significant American troops next door in Afghanistan, the P5+1 had tremendous leverage to force complete capitulation by Iran.
The President: Obama is overselling his weak deal as a “strong deal” (in his words) and is bullying his fellow Democrats into submission. If the deal is as strong as he claims, it should be able to stand on its own merits.
The Deal: The deal by itself seems borderline at best. Perhaps it is better than nothing- but only if it costs nothing. The significant sanctions relief and various deal terms make the marginal deal appear unacceptable.
Ramifications: Congress must vote on the deal based on its merits and not based on the disappointing terms nor Obama’s threats. But it must also better understand the ramifications of rejecting the deal. Kerry’s losing face is not a reason to alter one’s vote on something so important.
Congress and the American people must understand the actual ramifications of turning down the JCPOA without the aggressive salesmanship of the White House.
US President Obama gave a speech about the broad support the Iranian deal enjoys: “because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support. The United Nations Security Council has unanimously supported it. The majority of arms control and nonproliferation experts support it. Over 100 former ambassadors who served under Republican and Democratic presidents support it.”
There are others that strongly support the deal too that Obama failed to highlight:
Syria’s president Basher al-Assad, the man who has waged a war with this own people that has killed over 220,000 people thus far told the Iranian leader: “In the name of the Syrian people, I congratulate you and the people of Iran on this historic achievement.”
Hezbollah, the terrorist group in Lebanon was impressed that Iran now had “global recognition as a member of the nuclear club.”
David Duke, the former member of Congress and head of the KKK was happy that the Iranian deal would likely keep Israel from attacking Iran
Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei meets Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Tehran 25 January 2001.(photo: Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images)
As part of this agreement, Iran will get funds in the range between Obama’s estimate of $56 billion to as much as $150 billion. Not surprisingly. this makes the various terrorist entities that are financed by Iran quite happy including (parenthetical is the year when placed on the US State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations):
These Iranian-backed terrorist groups are responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians and continue to destabilize the Middle East and beyond..
In Obama’s attempt to sell the Iranian deal, he cited many allies that endorsed the deal while specifically avoiding mention of America’s enemies that also support it. How does one account for the fact that both US allies and foes celebrate the deal? Is the deal actually beneficial to all of the parties, or do some countries simply not understand the deal’s details?
The Western world gets to curtail Iran’s nuclear program and avoids a war in the near-term
Iran gets to avoid a war, keep its nuclear infrastructure intact, global legitimacy, does not have to change its behavior regarding backing terrorism, and gets tens of billions of dollars in cash
Iran’s allies get access to funds and arms from Iran in the near and medium-term, and potentially a nuclear-armed Iranian-sponsor in the not-too-distant future
Obama deliberately does not discuss the many enemies of the United States that support the P5+1 deal and their long list of reasons for doing so. Instead, he makes comments that it is only the Iranian hardliners (and Republicans and Israel) who oppose the agreement. By doing so, he attempts to conceal the enormous benefits granted to Iran (and its proxies) in the agreement. It is pure marketing and a bright white lie over his old red lines.
A bright White Lie over a Red Line (Do Not Enter)
The party Obama highlighted as not being happy with the deal is Israel. A few reasons:
Iran will be allowed to continue to call for Israel’s annihilation
Iran will have billions of dollars that will not be constrained in any manner from funding terrorist groups that target Israel
Iran will get access to a range of ballistic missiles in as little of five years
Within 10-15 years, Iran will be a threshold nuclear state
The structure of the deal provides Iran opportunity to break the terms and develop nuclear weapons within ten years
In other words, there is a little something (or a lot) for everyone in the deal, with the exception of Israel.
President Obama has not only begun to lobby aggressively to win support for the P5+1 deal on the Iranian nuclear program, he has begun to lay the foundation of blame for a potential war squarely on Israel.
US President Barack Obama delivers a speech on the nuclear deal with Iran, at American University’s School of International Service, in Washington DC, USA, 05 August 2015. (photo: EPA/PETE MAROVICH / POOL ORG XMIT: MHR02)
Diplomacy or War?
US President Barack Obama: “Let’s not mince words: The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy and some sort of war — maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon… How can we in good conscience justify war before we’ve tested a diplomatic agreement that achieves our objectives?” August 5, 2015
What does the world want?
US President Barack Obama: “this deal is not just the best choice among alternatives, this is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated, and because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support.” August 5, 2015
If war happened, who is to blame?
US Secretary of State John Kerry: “I fear that what could happen is if Congress were to overturn it, our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated and more blamed, and we would lose Europe and China and Russia with respect to whatever military action we might have to take because we will have turned our backs on a very legitimate program that allows us to put their program to the test over these next years.” July 24, 2015
Is there anyone in the United States – including the Obama administration – that believes this is a great deal? Does anyone deny that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain largely intact with this signing? Honest people can arrive at different conclusions about whether to endorse or reject this agreement. So why state that a negative outcome of the vote would be the fault of Israel, “money” and “lobbyists“?
Obama has framed his opponents in a familiar anti-Semitic canard that Jews are responsible for wars around the world. Here is a section of Article 22 from the anti-Semitic terrorist group Hamas in its foundation Hamas Charter:
“The enemies have been scheming for a long time, and they have consolidated their schemes, in order to achieve what they have achieved. They took advantage of key elements in unfolding events, and accumulated a huge and influential material wealth which they put to the service of implementing their dream. This wealth [permitted them to] take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe in order to fulfill their interests and pick the fruits. They stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions and behind most of the revolutions we hear about here and there. They also used the money to establish clandestine organizations which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests. Such organizations are: the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, B’nai B’rith and the like. All of them are destructive spying organizations. They also used the money to take over control of the Imperialist states and made them colonize many countries in order to exploit the wealth of those countries and spread their corruption therein. As regards local and world wars, it has come to pass and no one objects, that they stood behind World War I, so as to wipe out the Islamic Caliphate. They collected material gains and took control of many sources of wealth. They obtained the Balfour Declaration and established the League of Nations in order to rule the world by means of that organization. They also stood behind World War II, where they collected immense benefits from trading with war materials and prepared for the establishment of their state. They inspired the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council to replace the League of Nations, in order to rule the world by their intermediary. There was no war that broke out anywhere without their fingerprints on it”
Obama and Kerry have dismissed anyone who disagrees with the agreement they helped craft. They have announced that members of Congress must fall into one of two camps: agree with Obama OR be a pawn in the Israeli scheme of lobbyists.
Now, if the US goes to war, any casualties and ramifications would be the fault of Israel and its lobbyists. Not Iran. Not the poorly negotiated deal. But Israel.
There is a long history of anti-Semites blaming Israel for wars in the world. It is shocking to see the administration of the Unites States – which purports to be a strong ally of Israel – use a blood libel to lay blame for another Middle East war on Israel.
Listening to US Secretary of State John Kerry try to explain and defend the P5+1 Iranian nuclear deal to various audiences is a spectacle to behold, regardless of one’s position on the best course of action. One of the people who might want to watch the sessions and learn something from John Kerry is John Kerry.
John Kerry speaking at the Council of Foreign Relations
July 2015
Secretary Kerry argued at the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) that Congress must support the deal or it would undermine his ability to negotiate any treaty with any government in the future. At 29:55 of the CFR talk, Kerry said: “Other people in the world are going to sit there and say ‘hey, let’s negotiate with the United States, they have 535 Secretaries of State. I mean, please! I would be embarrassed to try to go out… I mean, what am I going to say to people after this as Secretary of State? ‘Come negotiate with us?’ ‘Can you deliver?’ Please!“
Kerry made the point that when two parties sit down to negotiate, it is critical for the sides to know that the negotiating parties are both authorized to negotiate and have the ability to fulfill their sides of the deal. If no such authority or ability exists, the discussions are an irrelevant waste of time.
Despite Kerry being quite clear about his logic, he has nevertheless insisted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sit down and negotiate with Acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas, even though it is clearly understood that Abbas can deliver nothing.
No Mandate: Abbas’s four-year term as president ran out in 2009. No presidential elections have been held since then.
No Authority: Abbas’s Fatah party lost legislative elections in 2006, winning only 33% of the parliament. No legislative elections have been held since then.
No Support: Abbas lags in every Palestinian poll held since 2006.
No Control: Abbas has no control of Gaza since his Fatah party was kicked out in 2007.
No Track Record: Abbas has shown zero credibility in being able to strike compromises to govern his own people, let alone deliver compromises with Israel.
Despite the glaringly obvious impotence of Abbas, the Obama administration continued to pressure Israel to negotiate with this straw man.
The Obama administration publicly acknowledged that the Palestinian Authority has absolutely no ability to deliver peace a few years ago. During the Gaza war on Israel in 2012, then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to broker a cease-fire. She made a dozen calls to various world leaders to halt the war- but not ONCE called the Abbas and the Palestinian Authority.
Compounding the inherent flaws in Abbas and the Palestinian Authority is Abbas’s insistence on bringing terms of any deal with Israel to a referendum. Abbas stated that he cannot decide on the “Right of Return” for all Palestinians, but that each of the 5 million Palestinian Arab “refugees” must make a decision for themselves. Hey Kerry- 535 “second-guessers” looks pretty good compared to 5 million! In terms of the rest of the components of a final agreement, Abbas stated that he “would go to a referendum everywhere because the agreement represents Palestinians everywhere.” That’s impressive – he seeks the approval of 11 million “Palestinian” Arabs from all around the world!
Kerry’s comments regarding Iran are both on- and off-the-mark. Iran and all of the parties in the negotiations know that the United States is a democracy and the political process must run its course. Once the American people’s representatives in Congress make a decision, the government will deliver on its commitments.
However, Abbas – a complete straw man if ever there was one – with no authority or control whatsoever, openly states that millions of individuals will ultimately not only decide the fate of an Israeli-PA deal overall, but even on certain components on an individual basis.
Kerry fully appreciates that before negotiators start a process that they want to know the answer to the fundamental question: “Can you deliver“? However, he doesn’t care when he forces Israel to do exactly that with Abbas and the Palestinian Authority.
The full text of the Iranian nuclear deal completed in Vienna on July 14, 2015 was a weighty 159 pages. The many members of the negotiating teams clearly used their time very productively as they worked through months of discussions and debates, even working past several deadlines on complicated scientific matters of nuclear fission.
The great citizens of the United States can thank the members of Secretary of State John Kerry’s team who negotiated endlessly on behalf of every American. His negotiating skills were clearly evident as he secured important points to benefit the country in these tense talks. In particular, Americans may not have caught a key clause buried inside the deal points. I offer one here (see page 67 of the agreement):
“Section 5.1.3 License the importation into the United States of Iranian-origin carpets and foodstuffs, including pistachios and caviar.”
This was an important concession that Kerry’s team was able to secure. Americans have grown tired of California pistachios and miss their Beluga Caviar from the Caspian Sea. While the Iranian team was busy focused on centrifuges, missiles and fissile material, Kerry scored a big hit for US bellies.
Over the coming weeks, Obama will surely point out this key item in emphasizing that this is a “good deal” for the United States. The American people have suffered long enough from the sanction regime that has denied them these delectable treats from Iran.
The left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz published an article in May 2015 questioning Israel’s nervousness over a possible deal regarding Iranian nuclear weapons. It pointed out that another Muslim country, Pakistan, already possessed nuclear weapons and Israel did not object. However, the paper noted that “though Pakistan is the first Muslim state with a nuclear weapons program, it does not call for Israel’s destruction or sponsor terror attacks against Israel. A nuclear Iran, by contrast, would receive cover to step up its hegemonic ambitions in the region and intensify its support for terrorism against the Jewish state.” A significant difference.
The parameters of the final Iran deal made many people question whether Iran would be able to advance a nuclear weapons program immediately, as the verification program ultimately was very far from the “anywhere, anytime” stated goal that would have better ensured Iranian compliance. The plan left wide open the possibility that Iran could “break-out” with nuclear weapons in a decade.
Putting aside the question of if-and-when Iran obtains nuclear weapons for a moment, the following deal points are clear:
The embargo on conventional weapons will be lifted no later than five years from now, and the embargo on ballistic missiles will expire in 8 years.
Unlike the core issue of Iran potentially having nuclear weapons, these dangerous deal points are not in question.
Ramifications – More Money and Weapons
The US State Department considers Iran a state-sponsor of terrorism. Specifically, it stated: “Iran has historically provided weapons, training, and funding to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, including the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), although Hamas’s ties to Tehran have been strained due to the Syrian civil war. Since the end of the 2006 Israeli-Hizballah conflict, Iran has also assisted in rearming Hizballah, in direct violation of UNSCR 1701. Iran has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in support of Hizballah in Lebanon and has trained thousands of its fighters at camps in Iran. These trained fighters often use these skills in support of the Assad regime in Syria.”
With the execution of this Iranian deal, $150 billion will flow to Iran, some of which, the Obama administration noted, will most likely go towards terrorism. The deal will also provide a fresh flow of missiles to Iran and likely to Iranian friends on the borders of Israel.
Hamas leader Haniyeh and Iranian spiritual head Khamenei
Ramifications – Tighter Border Controls
While Israel’s main fear is a nuclear-armed Iran, the flow of money and missiles to Hamas and other terrorists on Israeli borders are also significant concerns. The likely Israeli actions to counter these threats will be:
Tighter Gaza blockade
Permanent security positions along the Jordan Valley
Fewer permits with longer delays in allowing Palestinian Arabs to travel to Israel and between territories
The significantly enhanced threats on Israel’s borders – even before factoring in a nuclear Iran – will force Israel to take additional security measures which will harm daily life for ordinary Israelis and Palestinian Arabs.
World Preemptive Action – Stop Israeli Defenses
The global powers voted to approve the Iranian deal and lift the sanctions against Iran, knowing of Israel’s security concerns. The world has now begun to take additional steps to prevent Israel from protecting itself:
The International Criminal Court, the ICC, voted to reopen the 2010 Mavi Marmara flotilla case. The case was closed in 2014 and was not going to have further investigation as the mission of the ICC was to deal with vast crimes against humanity, not small botched operations.
As Israel prepares to protect its citizens from the immediate threats from the Iranian nuclear deal that the United Nations approved, the world prepares to challenge those very defenses that Israel needs to implement, such as the land and sea border controls..
What is the Goal of all the Negotiations?
These actions beg questions that contradicts the narrative used in the west:
was the real goal of the Iranian nuclear deal to protect Iran from a nuclear Israel? The deal includes language that the P5+1 group will “protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage [against the Iranian nuclear program].” Seriously?
Has Obama deliberately handed over authority and control of the region to Iran, as he has no desire to put US troops back into the Middle East?
Is the world now taking steps to protect Palestinian Arabs from their perception of a Mr. Right Wing Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel?
The Obama narrative is that the world is safer with the Iranian deal. In actuality, is the world safer, or is Iran safer?
President Obama faces an American public that is more wary of Iran and sympathetic to Israel than much of the world, so he is spinning the deal in verbiage that is more accepting to Americans. Thus far, Americans are buying the pitch, even while they strongly question whether it will work.
Who’s goals are these anyway?
The Arab and Muslim world celebrated the advancement of its goals to destroy the west and Israel. They did not attempt to hide their mission.
The left-wing American parties, papers and groups like J-Street have endorsed the Iranian deal, and are pushing Israel to further dismantle its defenses. They are either lying to themselves or the American people about their goals. Perhaps both.
As Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in the Atlantic, “The Iran deal represents one of those rare issues that has unified Israelis of most political parties… [including] the left, center, and right.” In the United States, it has only unified the left-wing with the Iranian dream.
This was an important concession that Kerry’s team was able to secure. Americans have grown tired of California pistachios and miss their Beluga Caviar from the Caspian Sea. While the Iranian team was busy focused on centrifuges, missiles and fissile material, Kerry scored a big hit for US bellies.
First One Through 