by Global Zionism

Watching the news it is really amazing that they went into Iraq & Afghan, losing many troops in the process, in Iraqis case to 'prevent' Saddam acquiring nukes, yet they just literally given a far more dangerous regime the means to acquire nukes, by giving them time and resources. It's now been stated that our dumb leaders still aren't sure if they aren't being bluffed. Lol bit late now! They really are the most useless embarrassments to world politics! How can we compare them to the leaders of old : We can't, so let's look at this so-called 'Deal'

So this is the deal : 

1) Iran will stop enriching uranium beyond 5%, and "neutralise" its stockpile of uranium enriched beyond this point, and we are supposed to believe it will?

2) Iran will give greater access to inspectors including daily access at the Natanz and Fordo nuclear sites. Again, how do we know they'll be shown "Everything?' 

3) There will be no further development of the Arak plant which it is believed could produce plutonium. But so what? Has it entered anyone's pea brains that the Iranians would hardly carry on using a plant that was 'suspect' 

In return for this ill thought out so-called concessions there will be no new nuclear-related sanctions for six months if Iran sticks by the accord, so they just got six months to carry on the bluff : That's going to be hard. 

Also Iran will also receive sanctions relief worth about $7bn (£4.3bn) on sectors including precious metals.

Yes people the Iran regime is going to be rewarded for being a barbaric evil regime with $7 Billion. We wonder how that will sit with the US tax payer as the American economy sinks?

by Daniel Pipes

The Geneva Agreement with Iran: A Foreign Policy Disaster

"For the first time in nearly a decade we have halted parts of Iran's nuclear program" announced a jubilantBarack Obama after the news of the just-signed Geneva six-month interim agreement with Iran.

But the American goal for the accord was that the Iranians not "advance their program" of building a uranium nuclear bomb (and perhaps a plutonium bomb too); the apparent deal exactly permits such advancement, plus sanctions relief to Tehran worth about US$9 billion.

This wretched deal offers one occasion when comparison with Neville Chamberlain in Munich in 1938 is valid. An overeager Western government, blind to the evil cunning of the regime it so much wants to work with, appeases it with concessions that will come back to haunt it. Geneva and Nov. 24 will be remembered along with Munich and Sep. 29.

The Geneva negotiators on Nov. 23. Note the Iranian foreign minister (the man without a tie) ceremonially placed at the center.

Barack Obama has made many foreign policy errors in the past five years, but this is the first to rank as a disaster. Along with the health care law, it is one of his worst-ever steps. John Kerry is a too-eager puppy looking for a deal at any price.

With the U.S. government forfeiting its leadership role, the Israelis, Saudis, and perhaps others are left to cope with a bad situation made worse. War has now become a much more likely prospect. Shame on us Americans for re-electing Barack Obama. (November 23, 2013) - source

------

Op-Ed: Mideast Nuclear Holocaust

What would an Iranian-Israeli nuclear exchange be like?

After constant exposure to critically important news, it begins to lose all meaning and sense of urgency.  Hearing the same warnings over and over again—especially when the status quo seems static—can cause a certain desensitization, a resigned apathy that ignores the warnings in the wishful hope that they won’t materialize.  This hope becomes more optimistic (and passive) with each passing day that the warnings do not materialize.  That's what Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu tried to counter in his speech at the United Nations on October 2.

One of the most evident examples of this phenomenon is the threat of a nuclear Iran.  For years, the international community has been hearing about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons; for years, the world has been hearing Iran make bold, genocidal threats—most notoriously, that it will wipe the state of Israel off the map. But so far, Iran reportedly still has no nukes, and no large attack has been launchedon Israel.  Thus, many have become desensitized to the situation—including those charged with ensuring that a nuclear Iran never becomes a reality.

But that reality has never been closer, as we are warned in Noah Beck’s recent novel, The Last Israelis. It is our current proximity to apocalyptic war that makes Beck’s doomsday warning about a nuclear Iran so compelling. If the worst comes to pass, this chilling attempt to rouse the West from its torpor could turn out to be that final, horribly prophetic alert that went unheeded.

Much of the public is conditioned by the mainstream media and government to focus on the short-term—U.S. presidents tend to concentrate only on matters pressing during their tenure—and rarely ever on longer-term issues or threats. Thus, a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East seems unrealistic.  Add to this the fact that virtually all nations with nukes have never used them, and one can see why a certain apathy prevails when it comes to the idea of a nuclear Iran.

But Iran is different.  Its Shiites leaders believe that at the end of times, a 9th-century prophet, the 12th Imam, will reappear to kill all the infidels and raise the flag of Islam in all four corners of the world. Reza Kahlili, a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, reported last year on the apocalyptic statements from Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who dictates Iran’s nuclear policy. Khamenei’s statements, which were carried by Iranian state media, proclaimed that “The issue of Imam Mahdi is of utmost importance, and his reappearance has been clearly stated in our holy religion of Islam.

We must study and remind ourselves of the end of times and Imam Mahdi’s era... We must prepare the environment for the coming so that the great leader will come.” Kahlili also translated Iranian news reports from last June suggesting that Iran’s newly elected president, Hassan Rouhani (the so-called “moderate”), shares Khamenei’s views. The reports quote Rouhani thanking the Islamic messiah for his June 15th electoral victory.

Indeed, the Islamic theocracy ruling Iran believes that apocalyptic scenarios are necessary before Islam’s savior, the Mahdi, or “Hidden Imam,” returns (including a prophecy that Muslims must slay all Jews before he returns); believes that death in the jihad results in instant paradise for the “martyr”; believes the oft recited Islamist sentiment that “Muslims love death as Westerners love life”—a sentiment that has manifested itself in reality all too often by young Muslim men and women sacrificing their lives to become suicide bombs that kill Americans, Israelis, and many others.

In short, Iran has a worldview that is markedly different than the one that guides Western decision-making.  Unlike nuclear-armed Western secular democracies, a nuclear Islamic supremacist regime in Iran is much more prone to use the devastating weapons.  Thus, the situation is serious, is urgent, and, as the United Nations refuses to act decisively, could trigger a holocaust that sees millions of innocent people—Israelis and Iranians alike—wiped out overnight.

What would such a nightmare scenario be like?

As a powerful, well-researched novel, The Last Israelis provides a gripping answer, and helps to neutralize the desensitization and/or apathy to a nuclear Iran by depicting an all too real scenario of what a nuclear Iran could ultimately mean for the region and the world.

The narrative follows the lives of an Israeli submarine crew.  After news that Iran has achieved nuclear status vis-à-vis an impotent or indifferent West, they are yanked from loved ones during an interrupted and all too brief shore leave, and sent on a mission possibly to retaliate with submarine-launched nuclear ballistic missiles, if a nuclear strike islaunched against Israel.  Halfway through their mission, the submariners lose contact with base command and the ambiguity surrounding those circumstances—and what they could imply—creates palpable tension and conflict among the crewmembers.

What follows among the crew is a very philosophical—though all too human—debate over what they should do, as it is now up to them to decide the fate of millions:

If the final communication from headquarters states that Israel was “attacked on all fronts,” and that naval command was hit and “in crisis management mode,” what did that mean for the rest of the country that had been “attacked on all fronts?”  What did it mean for [the submariners’] loved ones?...And what did it mean to decide to do something that would kill millions of human beings in just a few hours?  Each submariner struggled with these weighty questions, trying to decide for himself what was the most appropriate course of action under the circumstances.

The nuanced debates are particularly interesting because Beck’s crew is as heterogeneous and complex as the Israeli society that they defend, including a Vietnamese-Israeli, an Arab-Israeli Druze, an Ethiopian-Israeli, and a Christian Israeli.  Based on their individual backgrounds, upbringings, and most importantly, experiences, this motley crew offers dramatically different perspectives—from the hawkish to the dovish—that reflect the diverse views that one finds in a debate-driven democracy like Israel.

Besides issuing an urgent warning, The Last Israelis is so grounded in history and current events—including real people, places, and events—that it provides an entertaining way to become educated about the Middle East in general, and the conflict between Israel and Iran in particular.

And in one crucial respect, this book is no fiction: a nuclear armed Iran is very bad news, not just for Israel, as many think, but for the whole region and stability of the world.  Therefore, the world is obligated to act now to ensure that the horrific scenario recounted in The Last Israelis never comes to pass.

Raymond Ibrahim is author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians

The Danger In Our Midst

Is it because there are verses in the Qu'ran that can be, and have been, used to justify violence against non-Muslims? If this is the situation, then it is time for us to lift our heads out of the sand, and understand that the enemy is within.

The past week has been bloodier than usual in the Muslim world. Three major attacks in different parts of the world -- Iraq, Pakistan and Kenya -- have one thing in common: they were pre-meditated terror attacks on civilians executed in a wanton manner as part of an armed jihad.

On the attack in Kenya at Nairobi's Westgate Mall, Kenya's President Uhunu Kenyatta made a clear statement: "We shall hunt down the perpetrators wherever they run to. We shall get to them and we shall punish them for this heinous crime. We have overcome terrorist attacks before. We will defeat them again. They want to cause fear and despondency in our country, but we will not be cowed." Then, referring to Somalia's al-Shabab terrorists who claimed responsibility for the assault, he added, "Terrorism is a philosophy of cowards."

For those of us sitting in North America in the wake of such carnage, Kenyatta's words resonate well: he addressed the problem head-on. We look for support to the leader of the free world, the U.S., because the OIC [Organization of Islamic Cooperation] has let us down by giving priority to their own agenda on Islamophobia in the West and remaining silent when Muslims indulge in wanton terrorism -- in fact, they object to use of the word "terrorist" attached to Muslims. It seems, however, that the free world has a soft stance on terrorism. The only bold statement made a while ago was, "we have destroyed Al-Qaeda." Then why is the U.S. continuing to arm it in Syria?

We have become somewhat immune to the games being played while innocent lives are lost. One of the games is the instant knee-jerk reaction of the apologists and conspiracy theorists. How much more bloodshed and carnage do we have to see and endure before we wake up to the reality that something dangerous has taken root in the heart of the Muslims who kill in the name of faith?

There were two other suicide bombings this week. One in Baghdad and the other in Pakistan where a church was bombed.

What is surprising and baffling is that even today we cannot come to terms with the evidence that we have a serious problem within our ranks.

In Pakistan, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), considered to be one of the world's largest intelligence agencies, has not contained the violence unleashed upon Pakistan's minorities. According to some recent reports, there is a special squad, financed by petrodollars and sanctioned by the authorities, created exactly for the purpose of killing minorities -- and this is seemingly why nobody to date has been brought to justice. Recently there have also been massive jailbreaks, freeing hundreds of terrorists.

Further, it is rumoured that many shipments of U.S. arms, on their way from Karachi harbor to Afghanistan, have gone missing. Ironically, both the escaped terrorists and the arms surfaced in Syria.

So now, my co-religionists, there are some pressing questions we must ask because our faith as practiced today doesn't embrace humanity, modernity, music, arts or literature. What we have to see is whether the reformists, academics and scholars can pull this faith into the 21^st century to co-exist with others, or will the militant swords cut the hands that hold the pen?

Furthermore, why is it that, when there is even a single death in the "conflict in the Middle East," Pakistanis will beat their chests, run out on the street, and rally with slogans against the USA and Israel -- but do not come out into the streets when their own countrymen massacre entire families of Christians and destroy churches?

And why is it that there is no voice from the pulpit, and the Sunni majority does not even bat an eyelash about the death squads against Shias and the persecution of Ahmedis?

Is it because "Cyber Mullahs," "Hadeeth Hurlers" and "Qu'ran Thumpers" are invoking their interpretation of the Qu'ran, and insisting that armed jihad is valid and needed today while we say it is time to make it obsolete?

Is it because there are verses in the Qu'ran that can be, and have been, used to justify violence against non-Muslims?

If this is the situation, then it is time for us to lift our heads out of the sand, and understand that the enemy is within.

Platitudes about Islam being a faith of peace are not credible anymore. Islam is only as good as the way its followers practice it; and if they have created killing fields in the name of Islam, then Islam will be recognized by the silence of those who did not speak out when their faith was being massacred to massacre humanity.

by Raheel Raza

1,000 Jurists to EU: Settlements are Legal

Mammoth petition delivered to Catherine Ashton states: ’1967 lines’ don’t exist.

A mammoth jurists’ petition delivered to European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton states that the EU is wrong in holding that Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal, and that the term “1967 lines” does not exist in international law.

The letter is signed by over 1,000 jurists worldwide.

Among the signatories are former justice minister Prof. Yaakov Ne’eman; former UN Ambassaor Dr. Meir Rosen; Britain’s Baroness Prof. Ruth Deech, Prof. Eliav Shochetman and Prof. Talia Einhorn. They include legal scholars from the U.S., Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Switzerland, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Greece, India, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Malta, Holland, Norway, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Taiwan, South Africa, Sweden and, of course, Israel.

The man behind the initiative is Dr. Alan Baker, Israel’s former ambassador to Canada and legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry, who currently heads the International Action Division of the Legal Forum for Israel.

Baker was also a member of the three-person committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Edmond Levy, known as the Levy Committee, which pronounced that Judea and Samaria were not occupied territory.

Dr. Baker explained to Arutz Sheva that there is “no such thing” as the 1967 lines. “There never was such a thing. The matter of the borders is on the agenda of the negotiations, The EU cannot dictate a subject that is on the agenda of the negotiations. The pre-1967 lines are (1949) armistice lines. These are not recognized lines or security lines. In the Oslo process, it was agreed between us and the Palestinians that the matter of borders will be negotiated. The term ’1967 lines’ does not appear anywhere in our agreement with the Palestinians, therefore it is a legal and factual aberration to determine that these are our lines.”

“The second thing is the determination that the settlements are illegal according to international law. It is true that most of the world thinks so, but that does not make it true legally. Legally, the clause in the Geneva Convention that they use to say that settlements are illegal, was not intended to refer to cases like our settlements, but to prevent the forced transfer of populations by the Nazis. This is not relevant to the Israeli settlements.”

source