'I will veto' new legislation against Iran, Obama tells Congress

"Let me be clear," Obama said: "If this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it."

What a disgrace for America.  An electorate ignorant about foreign affairs in general and devoid of any understanding about the Middle East in particular elects a President who is through appeasement of Iran pushing the world towards catastrophe.   This is a pivotal moment in US and world history. Will Congress have enough sane politicians to override the President’s veto and prove that the Founding Fathers had indeed created a political system in which such disasters just cannot happen? 

Alexis de Tocqueville

Bravo, CAMERA!

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America

Can anyone imagine that the New York Times or any of the major US papers could ever publish the Kerry Quiz?  Of course not.  Well, that is why the majority of Americans are ignorant about the Middle East. 

Algemeiner  New York Times Slammed for Bias on Billboard in Front of Times Square HQ (INTERVIEW) 

Dry Bones: Blurting out the Truth

Bravo, Bogie!

The Daily Telegraph reports that “Israeli defence minister has reportedly attacked John Kerry, heading up the US-led peace process, for being 'obsessive messianic', saying he should 'take his Nobel prize and leave us alone'”

 

Well, about time someone in the Israeli government states the obvious. And the obvious is that we have an ignorant and incompetent or even malevolent US administration whose ignorance/malevolence, it is almost irrelevant which, has created a trail of disasters in the Middle East with its support of the Muslim Brotherhood and appeasement of Iran. The Egyptians managed to reverse the US administration’s serial bungling, but Iran’s acquisition of the bomb due to US administration’s stupidity and obsession with the “peace process”   would be catastrophic.  Of course, Israel will never permit that.      

 

But it is almost surreal that the very survival of Israel is so influenced by people who have no knowledge of what they are doing, supported by so many sycophants and questioned by so few. The American people have finally begun to catch up with the disasters Obama has created on the domestic front, but they have no idea how their electoral choice has placed the entire world under threat from an Iranian nuclear bomb.

 

Given the gravity and imminence of the threat we are under, it is surprising that it took so long for someone in Israel to state that The Emperor has no clothes. Finally a  perfectly sane reaction to an insane and dangerous policy.   

John Kerry, Secretary of Unreality

By BRET STEPHENS 

Jan. 6, 2014 7:01 p.m. ET

An American secretary of state was once awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for outlawing war. In describing how 62 countries came to sign (and 85 U.S. senators to ratify) the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Scottish historian D.W. Brogan observed: "The United States, which had abolished the evils of drink by the Eighteenth Amendment, invited the world to abolish war by taking the pledge. The world, not quite daring to believe or doubt, obeyed."

John Kerry hasn't yet captured Frank B. Kellogg's crown. But he's trying.

Mr. Kerry announced last week that he'd like to see Iran participate "from the sidelines" in the talks, scheduled to begin in Geneva later this month, to end the Syrian civil war. He's working overtime on a "framework" agreement for Israeli-Palestinian peace. And then there's the nuclear deal to finalize with Iran.

Geneva II, as the Syrian talks are known in diplospeak, is based on a June 2012 international communiqué calling on the Syrian government and the opposition to come together and form a "transitional" government. When the communiqué was issued, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insisted that its terms barred Bashar Assad from remaining in power, while Sergei Lavrov, her Russian counterpart, insisted the contrary.

Otherwise, solid agreement.

Eighteen months, multiple chemical attacks, a spiraling regional crisis, tens of thousands dead and two million refugees later, we come to Geneva II.

Enlarge Image

Frank Kellogg outlawed war in 1928. Kerry wants Mideast peace in 2014. Associated Press/Zuma Press

In theory, the meeting will bring together all the relevant parties to negotiate a political solution to the war. In reality, Assad is barrel-bombing civilians, the opposition is at war with itself, and the Syrian National Council, the main (and moderate) opposition group, has insisted that it will not take part in a sham process.

So what is Geneva II supposed to achieve? It won't end the war in Syria. Iran has already announced that Mr. Kerry's "from the sidelines" suggestion is incompatible with its sovereign dignity. If members of the Syrian opposition show up while others refuse, it will further fracture the side the U.S. is supposed to be on. If the U.S. agrees to give Iran a seat at the table (as Mr. Kerry will be tempted to do), the move will further strengthen Assad's hand.

Otherwise, the prospects are excellent.

The secretary of state has also been busy with Israeli-Palestinian peace. On Sunday, on his 10th peacemaking trip in a year, he spent hours discussing the subject with Saudi Arabia's 89-year-old King Abdullah, who offered his "enthusiastic support." When you've alienated the Saudis by capitulating on Iran and Syria, there's at least a logic in trying to appease them with a renewed push for Palestinian statehood.

But here too it's hard to avoid the unreality of Mr. Kerry's undertakings. The Palestinian Authority has had two masters since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007. Who, then, speaks for the Palestinians? Mahmoud Abbas, 78, nominally the Palestinian president, no longer bothers with elections. There hasn't been a prime minister of Palestine since June. Israel demands that Palestinians recognize it as a Jewish state. Mr. Abbas explicitly rejects it as one. Mr. Kerry is also exploring the possibility of interim agreements. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat insisted on Saturday that "there's no place to talk about interim agreements."

And there was this: The Israeli cabinet was presented Sunday with a long report on Palestinian incitement since the resumption of peace negotiations. "Official Palestinian media outlets relay that Israel has no right to exist, and that the Jewish people have no claim to the Holy Land," reported the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. "In addition, other messages prevalent in Palestinian media include that Israel's disappearance is inevitable and expected to happen soon, as Jews are sub-human creatures that must be dealt with accordingly."

Otherwise, the karma is excellent.

And then there are the nuclear talks with Iran. In case you missed the fine print, the interim deal that supposedly brought Iran's enrichment to a halt has yet to be implemented. On Monday, Reuters reported that Iran expected to start honoring the deal by the end of the month. Maybe. From the beginning of the Iranian nuclear drama in 2002, Tehran's M.O. has been to stall for all the time it can get. Expect the six-month deadline that Mr. Kerry promised in November to drag into a year.

Meanwhile, the head of Iran's nuclear program recently said Iran had "two types of second-generation centrifuges," capable of enriching uranium at much faster rates, but that it is keeping them offline—for now. Think of them as Chekhov's gun.

Otherwise, the diplomacy is proceeding as planned.

For all this, Mr. Kerry could succeed in his efforts, just as Frank Kellogg did: When the diplomacy of great powers becomes unstuck from reality, sometimes it's easier for the smaller powers to go along with the fiction now and take advantage of the facts later. But the world won't live in illusions forever. Too bad the same probably can't be said for John Kerry.

I suggest John Kerry and the whole Middle East section of the State Department take the Kerry quiz:  A mini 5 + 1 question quiz for Secretary Kerry

A mini 5 + 1 question quiz for Secretary Kerry

US Secretary of State John Kerry is visiting Israel for the 10^th  time. I often wonder how much he understands  what is transpiring in the Middle East. So I came up (on the fly) with this mini quiz consisting of five questions which are quite essential to the understanding of the motivating force in the region.  How many answers would he know? How many would you?

Question 1

Article 7 of the Hamas Charter reads: “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”

Where is the quote in Article 7 of the Hamas Charter taken from?

Question 2

Koranic verse 9:5, the verse of the sword, reads: “Pickthall - Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

How many other verses does verse 9:5 abrogate? 

Question 3

What is the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah?

Question 4

How does a hudna differ from a tahdiah?

Question 5

What do Twelver Shi’a belonging to the Hujetieh group believe in?

Bonus Question

These two flags below belong to which countries?

Answers:

Answer to question 1

Article 7 of the Hamas Charter is taken from Hadith Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52,  Number 177  and quotes the Prophet Muhammad:

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

Answer to question 2

Verse 9:5 abrogates 124 other verses

From  Peace or Jihad? Abrogation in Islam

The Qur'an is unique among sacred scriptures in accepting a doctrine of abrogation in which later pronouncements of the Prophet declare null and void his earlier pronouncements.[9] Four verses in the Qu'ran acknowledge or justify abrogation:

• When we cancel a message, or throw it into oblivion, we replace it with one better or one similar. Do you not know that God has power over all things?[10]
• When we replace a message with another, and God knows best what he reveals, they say: You have made it up. Yet, most of them do not know.[11]
• God abrogates or confirms whatsoever he will, for he has with him the Book of the Books.[12]
• If we pleased, we could take away what we have revealed to you. Then you will not find anyone to plead for it with us.[13]

Rather than explain away inconsistencies in passages regulating the Muslim community, many jurists acknowledge the differences but accept that latter verses trump earlier verses.[14] Most scholars divide the Qur'an into verses revealed by Muhammad in Mecca when his community of followers was weak and more inclined to compromise, and those revealed in Medina, where Muhammad's strength grew.

Classical scholars argued that anyone who studied the Qur'an without having mastered the doctrine of abrogation would be "deficient."[15] Those who do not accept abrogation fall outside the mainstream and, perhaps, even the religion itself. The Ahmadiyah sect, for example, today concentrated in Pakistan, consistently rejects abrogation because it undercuts the notion that the Qur'an is free from errors.[16] Many Muslims consider Ahmadis, who also see their founder as a prophet, to be apostates.

 This "verse of the sword" abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.[58]

Answer to question 3

From  Iranians: Geneva is 'Treaty of Hudaybiyyah'

Although it is doubtful that any of Kerry's advisers is even remotely familiar with this key episode in the accounts about Muhammad and the early Muslims, the Center for Security Policy explained the story in its 2010 book, "Shariah: The Threat to America." The context is about situations in which Muslim forces might lawfully enter into a treaty or truce with the enemy. With troubling ramifications for current day negotiations, those situations demonstrate the centrality and importance of deceit in any agreement between Muslims and infidels. As it is recounted, in the year 628 CE, Muhammad (whose forces already controlled Medina) agreed to a 10-year truce with the pagan Quraysh tribe of Mecca, primarily because he realized that his forces were not strong enough to take the city at the time. Islamic doctrine in fact forbids Muslims from entering into a jihad or battle without the reasonable certainty of being able to prevail. In such cases, as with Muhammad, Muslims are permitted to enter into a temporary ceasefire or hudna, with the proviso that no such truce may exceed 10 years (because that's the length of the agreement Muhammad signed). And so, Muhammad agreed to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. But just two years later, in 630 CE, now with some 10,000 fighters under his command, Muhammad broke the treaty and marched into Mecca.  

Answer to question 4

A hudna cannot last more than 10 years, tahdiah usually lasts up to one year.

From The impact of Nakba, hudna and tahdiah on Israel

Since a peace plan is out of the question, Hamas resorts instead to the Hudaybiyya precedent set by the Prophet himself, when, constrained by his weakness at the gates of Mecca, Muhammad consented to a 10-year hudna. Unlike Western ceasefires, which hinge on consent from both parties, hudna is unilateral and the party implementing it can reverse it anytime they like.

Yet an open-ended hudna might, Allah forbid, imply a recognition of Israel, as indeed may have been the case during the 19 years of truce/cease fire in 1948-67. To combat this, our creative terrorists then  introduced the term of tahdiah which doesn’t assume any permanence and usually lasts up to one year. Only if Israel withdraws from all of Palestine and agrees to the full right of return, would Hamas consider instituting a longer hudna (which Islamic Sharia still limits to ten years at most).

Answer to question 5

From   Who is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

The egomaniac President Ahmadinejad is a member of Hujjatiyyah. He sees himself as the personal vassal of the Mahdi-Messiah or Hidden Imam, with whom he has fantasized tête-à-têtes frequently.

·         He literally believes in the imminent emergence of the Mahdi - the Shiites' promised one who is expected to appear to set aright a decadent and wretched world. 

·         He views himself as the vassal of Mahdi, working for him and being accountable to him.

·         His main task is to prepare the world so to hasten the Mahdi's coming. If this preparation requires much destruction and bloodshed, so be it. 

·         As a former mayor of Tehran, he developed elaborate detailed plans preparing the city for the arrival of the Mahdi. 

·         He allocated generous sums for extensive road improvement to a mosque at Jamkaaraan near the city of Qum where it is believed the promised Mahdi is hiding in a well since the age of nine, over 1100 years ago. 

·         He reportedly visits the well frequently and drops his written supplications into the well for the hidden Mahdi to act upon them. 

·         He has said in private that it was he who asked the Mahdi to inflict the massive stroke on Ariel Sharon. 

·         He sees the Jews as the sworn enemies of Islam. The hostility dates back to the time of Muhammad's own treatment of the Jews in Medina. At first, expediently, Muhammad called the Jews "people of the book," and accorded them a measure of tolerance until he gained enough power to unleash his devastating wrath on them. 

·         He says that the Holocaust is a myth. He is, in this respect, in good company with a number of other revisionist fanatics. 

·         He wants Israel to be wiped out of the map or transferred to Europe. 

·         In his speech at the UN general assembly, he implored the Mahdi to come and save the world. He claimed that during his speech of some twenty odd minutes, a powerful light enveloped him and all participants were held transfixed, unable to move their eyes. 

·         He believes that the earth is Allah's and all people must either become believers of his brand of Islam or must perish as infidels najis (unclean) who by their very presence defile Allah's earth. 

·         He believes that this earthly life is passing and worthless in comparison to the afterlife awaiting a devoted and faithful believer. Hence, he holds to the old belief that if a faithful kills an infidel, he goes to Allah's paradise; and, if the faithful gets killed in the process of serving the faith, again he goes to Allah's paradise. Hence, it is a win-win proposition for the faithful.

Bernard Lewis makes a similar point about Hujetieh in the video here.

There is one other point, which I think I will mention if you would allow me, and that is what I would call the apocalyptic aspect.  In Islam, as in Judaism ,  as in Christianity, there is a scenario for the End of Time. When the final battle takes place between the forces of good and the forces of evil, of which for Christians, Jews and Muslims alike means between us and them, the us being differently defined and them being more or less the same. In the Muslim view, no, let me correct that, in the view of a certain section within the Iranian leadership, it is not by any means unanimous, that time is NOW. For a group called the Hujtieh whose main leader is Ahmadinejad, the apocalyptic time has come. The Mahdi, the Muslim Messiah is already here. The final battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil has already begun. 

That is extremely important for another, not immediately related reason. That is the question of Iran’s nuclear weapon. The Soviet Union had nuclear weapons right through the Cold War, but neither side used them because both sides were aware that if either one did  the other would do the same and this would lead to mutual destruction - MAD as it was known at the time. Mutual assured destruction was the main deterrent preventing the use of nuclear weapons by the Soviets For most of the Iranian leadership MAD would work as a deterrent, but for Ahmadinejad and his group with their apocalyptic mindset mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent, it's an inducement and they believe that the End of Time has come, the final battles are already beginning  and the sooner the better, so that the good can  go and enjoy the delights of paradise and the divine brothel in the sky and the wicked, that means all of us here, will go to eternal damnation.

Answer to the Bonus question

Well, John Kerry should be familiar with these two countries. After all, they served as the basis for the new country he invented -- Kyrzakhstan

John Kerry invents country of Kyrzakhstan

Kazakhstan

               

Kyrgyzstan

       

Dry Bones: New Year's Resolution