Is U.S. reconciled to a nuclear Iran? part 2

More evidence the Obama Administration isn't going to do much about Iran.

Asked by NBC's David Gregory if the effort to keep North Korea from going nuclear had failed, Mrs. Clinton answered, "No, I don't think so, because their program is still at the beginning stages." In other words, two nuclear tests and a stockpile of seven or eight nuclear weapons are no longer enough to join the club.

The Washington Times Tuesday, July 28, 2009
EDITORIAL: Defining the threat away

The traditional threshold for a country to join the nuclear-weapons club is straightforward. Any state that tests a nuclear weapon gets in. However, on Sunday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed more exclusive membership requirements.

Asked by NBC's David Gregory if the effort to keep North Korea from going nuclear had failed, Mrs. Clinton answered, "No, I don't think so, because their program is still at the beginning stages." In other words, two nuclear tests and a stockpile of seven or eight nuclear weapons are no longer enough to join the club. Tough luck Pyongyang, you've been blackballed.

This would simply be an exercise in semantics if it weren't for the probability that Iran will soon test its own nuclear weapon. This administration, like its predecessor, has said that an Iranian nuclear-weapons capability would be unacceptable. But if Iran conducts a nuclear test sometime in the coming months, that apparently will not indicate the failure of diplomacy any more than the North Korean tests have. Faced with defeat, the State Department will define it away.

The Obama administration's willingness to accept the inevitability of a nuclear Iran could not be clearer. Mrs. Clinton said that if Iran is "pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we're not going to let that happen." Yes, the United States will do "everything [it] can to prevent [Iran] from ever getting a nuclear weapon," she said. But failing that?

The secretary of state said that even a nuclear-armed Iran would be thwarted. Its pursuit of regional hegemony is "futile," she argued, because the "security umbrella" the United States would extend over the region would negate the advantages Iran seeks from atomic weaponry. Iran "won't be any stronger or safer because they won't be able to intimidate or dominate as they apparently believe they can, once they have a nuclear weapon," she said last week.

Tehran seems perfectly content with the futility of its pursuit. Iran has made substantial progress on uranium enrichment necessary for constructing a nuclear weapon, and most estimates agree that it will be able to construct and test a weapon within the year. Meanwhile, countries such as Israel that cannot protect their territory and people with semantic shields are preparing to take action. Israel's apparent state of readiness to exercise the military option against Iran -- and America's clear lack of readiness -- underscores the credibility gap in the U.S. position that all options are on the table. Israel is communicating a credible threat of force to Tehran, a necessary element in coercive diplomacy that the U.S. posture explicitly lacks.

The American "umbrella strategy" is purely defensive and thus more likely to encourage Iran's leaders than dissuade them. The Obama administration states firmly that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be unacceptable but at the same time indicates it will accept that. Nuclear Iran is not faced with massive retaliation but passive accommodation. That's not much of a deterrent.
------
hat tip to israelmatzav.blogspot.com

DMARC rejects WBC message of hatred toward Jews

In a letter in today's Des Moines Register, The Des Moines Area Religious Council publicly rejects the message of hate directed toward the Jewish community by the Westboro Baptist Church.

The JCRC of the Jewish Federation of Greater Des Moines is grateful to DMARC for issuing its statement. To DMARC, thank you.

-- Mark Finkelstein, JCRC Director, Jewish Federation of Greater Des Moines

July 24, 2009 Letter to the Editor, Des Moines Register

Help neighbors, reject message of hate

It has come to our attention that a group from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., plans to further its hate-filled agenda today by picketing the Iowa Jewish Historical Society in Waukee.

We are an interfaith organization through which local people from 10 different religions have discovered indescribable joy in coming together for more than 50 years to learn about each other and to assist our neighbors.

Out of a shared commitment to doing good, we partner with many other organizations, both faith-based and secular, to provide food, child-care subsidies, housing and energy assistance and mentoring to whomever needs our help.
The vile, anti-Semitic message that Westboro Baptist plans to bring to our community has been heralded by the advance distribution of a press release setting out in some detail their disturbing, hate-filled agenda.

We reject this congregation's message. In addition, we pledge to use this afternoon to do something decent and caring beyond the good we already do every day - and we invite everyone in Des Moines to join us.

In particular, we encourage you to reach out the open hand of friendship to our Jewish neighbors who have so unfairly and so often been the target of this kind of abuse.

- The Rev. Sarai Schnucker Rice, executive director,
and The Rev. Dr. John Holcombe, president, administrative cabinet,
Des Moines Area Religious Council, Des Moines

'Fatah has never recognized Israel'
Jul. 22, 2009 Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST

Fatah has never recognized Israel's right to exist and it has no intention of ever doing so, a veteran senior leader of the Western-backed faction said on Wednesday.

Rafik Natsheh, member of the Fatah Central Committee who also serves as chairman of the faction's disciplinary "court," is the second senior official in recent months to make similar statements regarding Israel.

Natsheh is also a former minister in the Palestinian Authority government who briefly served as Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council.

Earlier this year, Muhammad Dahlan, another top Fatah figure, said that Fatah had never recognized Israel's right to exist despite the fact that it is the largest faction in the PLO, which signed the Oslo Accords with Israel.

Natsheh's remarks came days before Fatah's general assembly that is slated to take place in Bethlehem on August 4.

The assembly, the first in two decades, is expected to bring some 1,500 Fatah delegates together to discuss ways of reforming the faction and holding internal elections.

One of the topics on the conference's agenda is whether Fatah should formally abandon the armed struggle and recognize Israel's right to exist.

"Fatah does not recognize Israel's right to exist," Natsheh said, "nor have we ever asked others to do so." His comments, which appeared in an interview with Al-Quds Al-Arabi, came in response to reports according to which Fatah had asked Hamas to recognize Israel as a precondition for the establishment of a Palestinian unity government.

"All these reports about recognizing Israel are false," Natsheh, who is closely associated with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, said. "It's all media nonsense. We don't ask other factions to recognize Israel because we in Fatah have never recognized Israel."

Asked about calls for dropping the reference to armed struggle from Fatah's charter, Natsheh said: "Let all the collaborators [with Israel] and those who are deluding themselves hear that this will never happen. We'll meet at the conference [in Bethlehem]."

Natsheh stressed that neither Fatah nor the Palestinians would ever relinquish the armed struggle against Israel "no matter how long the occupation continues." He said that Fatah, at the upcoming conference, would reiterate its adherence to the option of pursuing "all forms" of an armed struggle against Israel.

Another senior Fatah representative, Azzam al-Ahmed, confirmed that his faction would renew its pledge to pursue the armed struggle against Israel during the conference.

"The Fatah conference won't obliterate the "resistance option," he said."Fatah has been the target of a conspiracy to liquidate it ever since the signing of the Oslo Accords and the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority. The elimination of Fatah means the end of the revolutionary era which began in 1965 [when Fatah was founded]." He said that, more than four decades later, Fatah's main strategy and goals remain unchanged.

The decision to convene the conference in Bethlehem has triggered a crisis in Fatah. Many Fatah living in Arab countries have protested Abbas's decision, saying it was inconceivable that the parley be held under "Israeli occupation." They are still demanding that the conference be held in an Arab country to avoid a situation where Israel would try to prevent some delegates from arriving in Bethlehem.

Meanwhile, there is growing concern in Fatah that Hamas would not permit hundreds of Fatah activists from leaving the Gaza Strip to attend the conference. Senior Fatah officials said that the conference would be called off if Hamas stopped the Fatah members from leaving the Gaza Strip.

The officials said that Fatah leaders have been talking to Syria and Egypt about the possibility that Hamas might prevent their men from traveling to the West Bank. "We made it clear to the Egyptians and Syrians that the conference would not be convened without the Fatah members from the Gaza Strip," a Fatah official in Ramallah told The Jerusalem Post.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277865155&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Is U.S. reconciled to a nuclear Iran?

Israel slams Clinton statement on nuclear Iran
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent, and The Associated Press 7/22/09


A key minister in the Israeli government criticized U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement on Tuesday that Washington would provide "a defense umbrella" for its allies in the Middle East in the event that Iran develops nuclear weapons.

Dan Meridor, Israel's minister for secret services, told Army Radio that [Clinton's] comments imply a willingness to reconcile with the eventuality of a nuclear-armed Iran.

"I heard, unenthusiastically, the Americans' statement that they will defend their allies in the event that Iran arms itself with an atomic bomb, as if they have already reconciled with this possibility, and this is a mistake," Meridor told Army Radio. "Now, we don't need to deal with the assumption that Iran will attain nuclear weapons but to prevent this."

Follow the Maccabiah games on video!

Take a moment and see the vitality of the young Jewish athletes from all over the world participating in the Maccabiah games in Israel! Wow!

Hamas not dedicated enough for Hizb ut-Tahrir

Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is holding its convention now in Chicago,
considers Hamas insufficiently dedicated to liquidating Israel.

Hiz ut-Tahrir expects that under a renewed Caliphate, Islam will return to the path taken under Omar's Khilafah" that established and consolidated the authority and rule of Islam over Palestine and ruled that the yahood will not reside in this blessed land." Yahood = a derisive term for Jew. //Mark Finkelstein


Hizb ut-Tahrir Media Office Official Website
Source: www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info June 26, 2009

The Hamas Regime is imitating the Fatah Regime at every step!

This is Palestine; its solution does not lie in extending a hand of cooperation towards America and negotiating a two-state solution with the Jewish State. ... Hence the recognition of the 2-nations within Palestine will not give the Jewish entity any legitimacy under Islam, since Fatah and Hamas do not represent either Islam or Muslims, but they are merely a part of the Islamic convoy deviated from the correct path.

Interfaith Alliance of Iowa: Proposed school policy on religion "ambiguous, unbalanced."

The Interfaith Alliance of Iowa's Exec. Dir., Connie Ryan Terrell, penned an excellent op ed about a North-west Iowa school district's desire to formulate a new policy on religion in the public schools. Connie finds the proposed policy "ambiguous and unbalanced." She concludes: "In policy and practice, schools must exercise extreme caution to protect the religious [freedom] of all..." //Mark Finkelstein


Guest column: Clarify, balance religious-liberties policy
CONNIE RYAN TERRELL is executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa. Contact: connie @interfaithalliance iowa.org • July 18, 2009 Des Moines Register

The Spencer school district is discussing a new public policy on religious liberty. It is admirable for the school board to tackle the contentious issue and attempt to craft a policy that defines the role of religion in a public-education setting and clarifies the meaning of religious freedom and expression.

The problem with the proposed policy is that it is ambiguous and unbalanced. The school board needs to return to the drawing board.

The policy states, "School will permit the graduating class to choose whether to have an invocation and or benediction to be given by student volunteer in non-proselytizing and nonsectarian manner." Why is it OK to put religious freedom up for a vote? Is it OK for the majority to win just because there are more? It is not the business of public schools to promote religion, even if everyone present unanimously believes.

If we allow public prayer at a graduation, a ceremony intended for all students, whose religion is honored? Evangelical or mainline Christians? Orthodox or Reform Jews? Unitarian Universalists, Sikhs, Muslims or Hindus? Whose religious freedom is irrelevant at a public-school event?

Several items in the policy are ambiguous, including "Distribution of Religious materials on School Grounds." Who can distribute materials? Does this include outside organizations? Are materials from any religion welcome? Can a teacher distribute religious brochures to students?

Perhaps of gravest concern is the policy section "Religion in the Curriculum." It's not because the school board wants religion to be included in curriculum, but because of the unbalanced description. Although the policy states, "Approach must be academic, not devotional," there is no balance in the electives or curriculum to be offered including "The Bible in History and Literature" and "Critic of Darwinism, a Scientific Approach." In the Darwin class, the only suggested text is "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe, a pro-creationism book not accepted by the science community. Does the school board show its hand by the examples cited and those excluded?

If the school board wants to provide "Religion in the Curriculum" in a balanced fashion, then cover the myriad of religious beliefs in "Religion and History," including the history of those who question or reject religion. If the desire is to provide a class on "Evolution vs. Creationism," do so as a political science or debate class and include examples of resources from across the spectrum of opinion.

One point in the policy where we can find common ground is "For many years public education has often gone too far in excluding religious influences for fear of offense. The purpose of this policy is to restore balance to the issues." Religion is an important element of society and history. Teaching about religion is important for students to receive a well-rounded education. However, the statement should also acknowledge that prior to the trend to exclude religion altogether, public schools allowed religion to have too much influence. Finding real balance is critical.

Public schools may teach about religion in a world-religions class, but they cannot teach a Bible study class. Schools may include songs with religious text at a concert, but the program should be diverse and cover an array of religious and secular music. In policy and in practice, schools must exercise extreme caution to protect the religious rights of all people regardless of religious belief, including those who choose no religion. In all areas, the personal beliefs and private expression of all students and staff are protected, with or without a policy.

Two great equalizers commonly valued in this country include our dedication to religious freedom and our commitment to provide a quality, public education for all children. Respecting the greatness of both and how they can complement one another is critical in this conversation.

When the religious freedom of each person is protected, it makes for a healthy democracy and a successful public-education system.