Bad news for the Jews

PinkFridge

Wed, Jul 15 2015, 10:14 am

ValleyMom wrote:

I feel so pathetic I have NO clue what is going on dealing with kids and their daily "crisis" in the summer... Can someone clarify the entire situation with several bullet points.

I am such an uninformed misfit...

I just saw an article from Allen Dershowitz, on Matzav.com, that details reservations with the plan.
And if you have access to the New York Times, Thomas Friedman interviewed President Obama, it's this morning's. I haven't read it but Bill Bennett referenced it and said it's a good read.

Basically, leaving aside the emotion - and I appreciate where our Israeli members are coming from* - Obama feels that deterring Iran from getting the bomb for the next ten years is good for America and the world. Now this sounds nice, but the plan doesn't seem to have to teeth, is scaring the kafiyas off most of the Arab world and likely going to generate an arms race. Iran already signed onto a nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Continuing sanctions seemed reasonable. But there is a feeling that throwing money at people will help. By releasing so much money that's been frozen back into the Iranian economy democracy will break out and they'll join the league of nations again.

This, BTW, isn't right wing frothing; I heard in on NPR last night. I can't get it in the house so I only heard as much as I was in the car for. The hour was introduced with: The deal will allow Iran to come in out of the cold isolation and rejoin the world community. But what are the details? Will it work?
When I got back in the car, someone - and I assume NPR wasn't introducing some RW hack - was explaining why so many had reservations about the plan, and his concerns.

I hope someone will post a link for you with the bullet points you want. Meanwhile, yeah, daven.

* And yes, Barbara, Israel's grateful for the Iron Dome, but would even more greatly appreciate sanctions with teeth and consistency instead of backpedaling. Such as saying that there will definitely be hashgacha temidis, vs. the plan's yotzei v'nichnas, with advanced notificiation.

Sanguine

Wed, Jul 15 2015, 10:18 am

princessleah wrote:

This post sounds like some of my patients. I work in a Schizophrenia clinic.

Honestly, why would this deal cause Iran to nuke Israel now? They have been working on their weapons for years, and Israel has not pre-emptively attacked them. If this deal works, it would slow down their development of nuclear weapons, not speed it up!

They may not even have to Nuke. They're being given so much money that will go to support terrorism. Israel really won't be able to defend itself against terrorists. See, the problem is that these Islamic terrorists don't care a bit about their own lives. They blow themselves up and kill babies and they're martyrs. (then they get their 70 virgins). So now they have all the money to fund all the terrorists. And on top of it all the whole world is patting them on their backs for having nuclear arms and taking all that money for doing it. So fundamental Islamists are great people. Open up the borders to Gaza (such a shame digging all those terror tunnels). Let Hamas walk right in. Iran says they're good-guys. And then of course, create a Palestinian state in half of Israel. It's OK. Let's just ignore that all these people just want to destroy Israel and all the Jews. They're all yelling "Death to the Jews". Do you need it louder? Director

"Death to the Jews". Why does Iran want Nuclear arms?? Not to spread Peace, Justice and the American way. They kill their own people with no trouble. I don't want to be in a war that's funded by Iran. which side will America be on? They're the ones giving Iran the funds Scratching Head

There can be good Arabs (many of the Israeli ones are), but these Islamic countries do not think like civilized people do.

I'm very worried that there are Jews that think this is a good deal

Sanguine

Wed, Jul 15 2015, 10:48 am

PinkFridge wrote:

And they're not exactly yelling, "Long live America," either.

Nope - They burn Israeli and American flags together. But our problems are 1 - We're just a stone throw away from them. 2 - The anti-semites of the world aren't looking to destroy America. They're looking to destroy Israel, the Jewish homeland.

Even other Jews are willing to take a chance with Israel. They live in democratic countries and can't imagine that these people can't be talked with nicely. Look at all the pressure we get from other countries to "play nice". The UN can't believe that we bombed innocent missile launchers that were shooting missiles daily at us and our children last summer. The Middle East mentality is very different than the American one. Israel is a Democracy but all these Islamic countries are not. America is still thinking like Westerners when dealing with the Middle East.

I don't know why Hashem didn't make Canada our neighbors.

Sometimes I feel like we're the biggest idiots here in Israel. We're totally humane dealing with a bunch of savages. If you give them a finger, they're sure to bite off the entire hand.

DrMom

Wed, Jul 15 2015, 11:00 am

gp2.0 wrote:

Because crazy governments rise out of poor countries, not flourishing ones.

I'm not saying it's an awesome idea. Frankly it sounds terrifying. Several countries have nuclear weapons, including Israel, the U.S., the UK, Russia, China and North Korea. Many more countries rely on nuclear power, and more will do so in the coming decades. It is a clean energy source that is necessary for growing economies.

Let's consider that the U.S. and other countries have had sanctions on Iran for the past 30 years and it hasn't made a difference.

I have yet to see any of the naysayers come up with a realistic plan that tries to dig Iran out of the terrorism hole instead of just piling dirt on the hole and pretending it doesn't exist.

Trying to pigeonhole this extremely complex issue into one big "Obama is bad" balloon is ridiculous. Are you aware that Russia and China wanted to lift all the sanctions immediately and instead there were lengthy negotiations where all these fail safes and clauses were added?

Furthermore does anyone really think that Iran hasn't been secretly stocking up their nuclear arsenal this entire time? What this agreement does is force them to be accountable and use at least the majority of the money to build nuclear power plants instead. The sanctions will also be put right back if there's any sign of funny business.

I think Obama did an awesome job of actually trying to fix this problem instead of sticking his head in the sand.

This deal does not do that at all. There will be no inspection of military sites, and a 24-day advance warning before inspection of so-called non-military sites. You can hide a lot in 24 days.

And sanctions won't be put back right away, esp since now that the US has dropped the ball, other countries are lifting their sanctions and will not be so quick to reinstate them. If only the US re-sanctions, the impact will be minimal.

Obama did an awesome job -- of endangering the lives of millions of Jews and other denizens of the planet.

Furthermore, the deal does not at all curb Iran's hegemony in the area w.r.t any conventional weapons. They are the leading sponsor of terrorism on the planet. They sponsor Hezbollah. Even if they never make a single nuke, they are being rewarded with billions and they get to behave exactly as they do now -- threatening every Jew on the planet.

Last edited by DrMom on Wed, Jul 15 2015, 11:05 am; edited 1 time in total

Barbara

Wed, Jul 15 2015, 11:04 am

Sanguine wrote:

We're not fools. We're on a forum that we know the people on. I'll take it out if you want, but the point is that we're not racists. Many Jews voted for Obama the first time. He actually represented minorities and not white supremism (not a word - not sure what the word is). He seemed like a good idea to the Jews. We have something in common with blacks. We're all minorities. Sounded good until 2 weeks later he proudly got up and announced - I am a Muslim!! Sorry, but he's defending the heritage that he's so proud of.

No, I want you to leave it up, so everyone knows that you're a racist.

You can dislike Obama's policies without being a racist. You can't call him a "black" (which we all know means "n1gger") without being a racist. You can dislike the Iran deal. You can't call Obama a "Muslim" without painting yourself as a fool, as he is, and has always clearly been, Christian.

See the difference?

princessleah

Wed, Jul 15 2015, 11:11 am

Barbara wrote:

I would just like to point out, if you are actually trying to convince people who have an opposing viewpoint, the second you start talking about secret Muslims and conspiracy theories everyone will stop giving your arguments any credence whatsoever. So if you want to have an intelligent and reasoned debate about this, don't undermine yourself by ensuring everyone you're trying to convince automatically tune out.

Barbara

Wed, Jul 15 2015, 11:13 am

DrMom wrote:

This deal does not do that at all. There will be no inspection of military sites, and a 24-day advance warning before inspection of so-called non-military sites. You can hide a lot in 24 days.

This is incorrect.

From ABC:

Quote:

"Inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location. Put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary," the president said.

But how true is that statement? The world powers negotiating the Iran deal very much wanted the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to have unfettered inspections, and the conditions for access to sites are a key part of the agreement lawmakers will be examining as they decide whether to support the deal. In May, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told military commanders that he would not allow any inspections of the country's military sites. The issue was one of the more difficult points of contention during the talks and was resolved only near the end.

The IAEA has long sought to inspect sites like the Parchin military base where Iran is suspected to be engaging in nuclear weapons development, but Iran has denied them access.

Senior administration officials told CBS News State Department Correspondent Margaret Brennan that the concept of truly unfettered inspections anytime, anywhere is only possible if there is a military occupation of a country. They believe the U.S. got the best possible deal just short of that.

So what does the deal actually say on the subject?

The agreement allows for a "long-term IAEA presence in Iran" to monitor materials and nuclear development that wouldn't be used in weapons. Inspectors will have continuous monitoring capabilities at known nuclear facilities like Fordow fuel enrichment plant and the Natanz enrichment facility. For other areas in the country, including military sites where there is suspected nuclear activity, IAEA inspectors will have to request access.

If inspectors have concerns that Iran is developing its nuclear capabilities at any of the non-official nuclear sites, they are allowed to request access "for the sole reason to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with" the agreement. They must also inform Iran of the basis for their concerns.

Iran, in response, can propose alternatives to inspection that might satisfy the IAEA's concerns, the deal says. But if they can't come to an agreement to satisfy the inspectors within 14 days of the original request for access, the issue goes to a joint commission that consists of representatives from the P5+1 powers (the U.S., China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and Germany), Iran, and the European High Representative for Foreign Affairs. They have another seven days to reach an agreement that must be supported at least five of the eight members. If they decide inspectors should get access, Iran has three days to provide it.

That means a total of 24 days could elapse between the time inspectors first request access to a suspicious site and the time they are allowed entry. The deal does not explicitly state what would happen if the Joint Committee deadlocks, four to four.

"It's not anytime anywhere. It doesn't allow [inspectors] to go to a site and say, 'hey I think something must be going on there, give me 24 hours and I'm in,'" Sharon Squassoni, the director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Proliferation Prevention Program, told CBS News.

Squassoni said Iran does have a lot of room to "wiggle out of things" if they don't want to give inspectors access. They could also take advantage of the 24-day delay to pave or paint over evidence of building the components needed to produce a nuclear weapon.

But she called it a compromise, and not a bad one for the U.S., since Iran wanted an outright ban on inspectors at military facilities

This is one part of the deal that I don't particularly like, FTR. But if we're going to discuss it, let's get it right.

zohar

Wed, Jul 15 2015, 12:56 pm

Barbara wrote:

I agree it is not acceptable to call him racial names, but to call him a "Muslim" is a cloudy subject. He definitely has positive feelings towards the religion. Personally, I think he is neither Muslim or Christian. I don't think he believes in a higher authority, but it is politically expedient to be religious in the U.S. This is only my speculation and opinion.
However, calling him an anti Semite is fully legitimate. It is a conclusion based on his comments, actions and associations. If it sounds like a pig, looks like a pig and smells like pig, I am going to call it as it is.

fmt4

Wed, Jul 15 2015, 1:01 pm

zohar wrote:

Huh? If someone has positive feelings toward a religion (whatever that means) then you can claim that they may be a part of that religion? What nonsense.
Also, please enlighten us as to all of Obama's anti- Semitic ( not anti- Israel) comments, actions and associations. I'm really curious.

fmt4

Wed, Jul 15 2015, 1:11 pm

Sanguine wrote:

Eight years ago everyone thought he was just a ~~black~~ African American (PC). But he's a Muslim! He's said it again and again and people are selectively deaf.

This is what I think... You know how the best spies are people who've been planted in their position for years and years till everyone trusts them... Well Obama has been an Islamic plant for many many years. He made it to President of the US (did they ever fully prove that he was born in America?). He slowly tried to ruin America with things like "Obama-care", but now as he reaches his last few months in office He's giving his world-power reins over to Iran.

Wow, you know all this top secret information and you haven't told anyone? You have to send letters to all the newspapers and call the CIA, FBI and the NSA! Maybe you can still save the world from the evil Muslim super- spy!

Rolling Eyes

ally

Wed, Jul 15 2015, 1:31 pm

Barbara wrote:

Yeah. That damned anti-Semite who paid for Iron Dome.

Stop accepting all of that money from that damned anti-Semite. And good luck when the Palestinians lob some rockets your way.

This is such a simplistic point of view. Funding the Iron Dome limits the number of Israelis killed by rocket attacks which enables the West to demand that Israel show "restraint" and limit the escalation of wars in the region (well, the ones we are involved in anyways). It is not out of the goodness of the American hearts but rather, at this point in time, minimizing Israeli casualties coincides with their best interests and vision for the Middle East.

We are happy to accept the funding but are not so naive as to think it comes with no strings attached or ulterior motives.

zohar

Wed, Jul 15 2015, 1:31 pm

fmt4 wrote:

Associations: among others, Rashid Khalidi a anti Semitic Palestinian professer in Colombia university. A former PLO operative. Palestinian terror apologist. Obama calls him a friend. Spoke at his farewell dinner and mada a comment that their discussions were a "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases."

Comments and actions: whenever he equates Palestinian terrorists and Israelis. When he blames Israel for the problems in the Middle East. The way he has conducted his foreign policy vis a vis Israel. Signing this farce of a deal jeopardizing millions of Jews. ( I believe that anti Zionism is the PC term for anti semitism. And I am not a Zionist. I don't have a positive view of the modern day medina. But I do recognize who is the victim and who is just defending their lives vs. the aggressors and genocidal terrorists)

I may post more examples later, but my lunch break is over.