RUTHFULLY YOURS

What a moment for the Obama administration to leak word that it is considering releasing Jonathan Pollard. He is being held at a federal prison in North Carolina on a life sentence. Almost 30 years ago, he’d pled to a single count of passing defense information to, in Israel, a friendly nation. The Iran accord is coming up for a vote in the Congress. Israel is warning about appeasement. Could there be a connection? The Wall Street Journal quotes administration sources as suggesting there is.

This wouldn’t be the first time President Obama has played politics with Pollard. As recently as last spring the administration proffered the possibility of springing Pollard as part of what the Reuters called “an emerging deal to salvage Middle East peace talks.” Better the spy should sit in prison, we said at the time. If Pollard doesn’t deserve to be let out, we wrote, no release should be countenanced. If he does, no deal should be asked — leastwise one that demands Israel give up its legitimate claims.

News reports on Thursday indicated that Iran is already seeing an inflow of trade funds and investment from Europe and other Western countries in the wake of the nuclear agreement signed between Iran and the P5+1 powers on July 14.

Since Iran and the world powers agreed on the deal, European leaders and representatives of major industries have been rushing to explore business opportunities in the country.

Iranian state-controlled Press TV reported that Iran and the European Union have opened a conference on trade and investment in Vienna, with Iran pledging to spend more than $180 billion on oil and gas projects.

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif underlined that
Tehran’s ballistic missile production and use is no violation of the nuclear
agreement between the country and the world powers.

“Using the ballistic missiles doesn’t violate the Joint Comprehensive Plan
of Action (JCPOA) and it is a violation of a paragraph in the annex of the
(UN Security Council) Resolution (2231) which is non-binding,” Zarif said in
response to questions by legislators in an open session of the parliament in
Tehran on Tuesday.

“This paragraph (of the an

Who says that history does not repeat itself?

As I listened to Barak Obama extol the virtues of the agreement with Iran and heard the chorus of hallelujahs bursting forth from the international choir, I could not help recalling the words of Neville Chamberlain and the cheers of those who believed in 1938 that peace in our time had been achieved.

To refresh your memory here are the memorable words uttered by the British PM: “the agreement made in Munich is in my view only a prelude in which all of Europe may find peace…”

Here is the reaction of Ban Ki Moon in 2015: “I warmly welcome this historic agreement. I believe that this agreement will lead to greater mutual understanding and co-operation on the many serious security challenges in the Middle East. As such it could serve as a vital contribution to peace & stability in the region and beyond.”

John Kerry has egregiously crossed all red lines and made a colossal mistake when it comes to American-Israeli relations. And, in so doing the Secretary of State once again displayed his natural instinct for baiting the only democracy in the Middle East.

Kerry’s ill-advised words spoken at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York condemn the man and his administration’s vicious policies.

According to Kerry, if Congress votes against the Iran agreement, “our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated, and more blamed.”

Daring to blame Israel if Congress nixes the heinous nuclear deal he worked out with the Jew-hating ayatollahs is sheer madness, articulated by what appears to be a mad man.

When one thinks about it, Kerry could have been writing another chapter for the hateful anti-Semitic Classic, The Protocols of The Elders of Zion.

McCain Rips TEA Party, Fox News, Calls Hillary a ‘Rock Star’

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), isn’t making many friends among the conservative wing of the Republican Party these days. In an interview published Tuesday at the New Republic, he slammed the TEA Party, called Fox News “schizophrenic” on certain issues and called Hillary Clinton a “rock star.” He also said that in a presidential match-up between Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul, he would have a tough time deciding who to support. “I think she did a fine job,” he said of Clinton’s performance as Secretary of State despite the scandal surrounding the Benghazi terror attack.
And his true colors are raised to the top of the mast. Between a Progressive Leftist and a Libertarian McCain would go for the Progressive Leftist, the Marxists? He believes Hillary Clinton did a good job as Secretary of State as the Middle East is awash in blood, Russia is invading neighbors and arming our enemies and China is in the midst of an unprecedented military build-up? McCain, as we have long contended is a Progressive, not a Republican. With these statements he proves it beyond doubt. He also calls into question whether or not he has literally lost his mind.

“Ten years after withdrawing from Gaza, the territory we left behind has become a safe haven for terrorists”​Speech as delivered by Israel’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Ron Prosor, on the Situation in the Middle East:

“Mr. President,

First, I would like to congratulate New Zealand for its able stewardship of the Security Council this month. I thank Foreign Minister McCully, for being here today to preside over this session.

I also want to thank, the UN Special Coordinator and Special Representative of the Secretary General, Mr. Nikolay Mladenov, for his briefing today and his ongoing efforts to help ease the situation in this volatile region.

Ten years ago, this month, Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip- and, I would like to remind you, that we also dismantled four settlements in the West Bank in order to show that there is a political horizon. We removed thousands of Israeli families from their homes, uprooted entire communities, and withdrew every unit of the Israeli Defense Forces. Not a single Israeli civilian or soldier remained in Gaza.

We in Israel have always been told- including in this prestigious chamber- the obstacles to peace are the settlements, and the Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria. If only Israel would pull back, if only Israel would leave the Palestinians to run their own affairs- there would be peace. If Israel would only listen to the international community, the border between Israel and the Palestinians would be like the border between the Netherlands and Belgium.

“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.

In short, to block the Iran deal, 67 Senators need to vote against it. 59 Senators are already committed to doing just that. 14 are undecided. And Sen. Schumer is one of them.

New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D-Brooklyn) said, “We have listened to Senator Schumer for years and how he takes every opportunity to explain the origin of his name Schumer and what it means for him to be a proud “Shomer”––which in Hebrew means protector. Now is the time to live up to your claim and put your words into action.”

The real question is why, when it comes to the most extreme, anti-Western nation-destroyer of them all — a country committed to the annihilation of a UN member state — Her Majesty’s government would not only permit it to have any nuclear project, but would trust the word of a regime with stated genocidal intent when it says that it is not pursuing genocidal weaponry?

Two very interesting things happened in Britain over the last two weeks. What makes them more interesting is that they are wholly contradictory.

Abroad, Britain’s foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, put his nation’s name to the P5+1 agreement with Iran, lifting sanctions against the Islamic Republic, unfreezing its assets, lifting arms controls on the regime and much, much more, all in exchange for having potential oversight — with permission requested weeks in advance of any inspection — of the country’s nuclear sites. Britain’s signature on this deal appears to have been an accepted and acceptable outcome with no significant opposition from any senior political figure of either main political party, and very little objection in the national press.

A few days later, Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, gave his best speech to date on the threat of Islamic extremism at home and abroad. In that speech, the Prime Minister defined the challenge that Islamic extremism poses to Britain’s way of life and cohesion as a society. He outlined the problem better than perhaps any other Western leader to date:

“What we are fighting, in Islamist extremism, is an ideology. It is an extreme doctrine. And like any extreme doctrine, it is subversive. At its furthest end, it seeks to destroy nation-states to invent its own barbaric realm. And it often backs violence to achieve this aim… mostly violence against fellow Muslims — who don’t subscribe to its sick worldview. But you don’t have to support violence to subscribe to certain intolerant ideas which create a climate in which extremists can flourish. Ideas which are hostile to basic liberal values such as democracy, freedom and sexual equality. Ideas which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation.”

A cousin of mine has finished his freshman year in college; like most freshmen, he now knows absolutely everything. He took it upon himself, this week, to announce (to my brother, who is a very patient man) that Iran’s Islamist dictators were “a predictable consequence of American imperialism,” which manifested itself through “the CIA’s international pro-fascist crimes.”

That’s nonsense, of course, but it’s widely believed nonsense — and not just among college kids who’ve read the first chapter of a Noam Chomsky book. There are serious men who are under the impression that the CIA led a coup to replace an upstanding, democratic reformer named Mohammed Mossadegh with a fascist Shah named Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and that Pahlavi’s crimes were so atrocious that Iran was driven into the arms of the mullahs. None of that is true. And with Congress getting ready to vote on the Iran deal, everyone could use a little historical perspective.