Oh my: British PM Theresa May in 'unprecedented' attack on US over Kerry speech
In what's being called an 'unprecedented' attack, British Prime Minister Theresa May on Thursday issued a blistering rebuke of US Secretary of State John Kerry's ranting attack on Israel on Wednesday.
A spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May said it was inappropriate of Mr Kerry, America's top diplomat, to attack the make-up of the democratically-elected Israeli government – a key ally of both the US and Britain.
Downing Street also rebuked Mr Kerry for focusing on the single issue of Israeli settlements and not the whole conflict.
Intervening in the increasingly hostile international dispute today, a spokesman for the British Prime Minister said: 'We do not... believe that the way to negotiate peace is by focusing on only one issue, in this case the construction of settlements, when clearly the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is so deeply complex.
'And we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically-elected government of an ally.'
'The Government believes that negotiations will only succeed when they are conducted between the two parties, supported by the international community.'
It echoes Mr Netanyahu's riposte yesterday when he accused the US Secretary of State of being skewed against Israel' and talking 'obsessively' about settlements.
Mind you, Britain was one of the 14 countries that voted in favor of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 last Friday, so why are they now attacking Kerry?
Apparently because they think he went too far.
And Britain is not the only country who went after Kerry today. So did Australia's Julie Bishop.
In a statement released on Thursday, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop
said Australia was not currently a member of the Security Council and
was not eligible to vote on the resolution.
However, she said, "in voting at the UN, the Coalition government has
consistently not supported one-sided resolutions targeting Israel".
She
urged both sides to refrain from steps that damage the prospect for
peace and to "resume direct negotiations for a two-state solution as
soon as possible".
Meanwhile, in the US, it's not just President Elect Donald Trump who has been tweeting up a storm in support of Israel. So have many Representatives and Senators from Kerry's own party (and of course from the Republican party).
“While he may not have intended it, I fear Secretary Kerry, in his speech and action at the U.N., has emboldened extremists on both sides,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, the incoming Senate Democratic leader.
A
bipartisan chorus of lawmakers, upset with President Obama’s decision
last week to allow the passage of a United Nations resolution condemning Israel’s construction of settlements in disputed territory, made clear that they were looking past the departing administration.
Senator
Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Foreign
Relations Committee, said he shared Mr. Kerry’s concerns “with the lack
of forward progress on a two-state solution.” But Mr. Cardin also said
he was unhappy that Mr. Obama had not vetoed the United Nations
resolution, instead abstaining from the vote. He pledged to “explore
congressional action that can mitigate the negative implications” of it.
The most ardent supporters of Israel in Congress seemed just as liberated as Mr. Kerry was to let loose.
“Secretary
Kerry’s speech today was at best a pointless tirade in the waning days
of an outgoing administration,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of
Arizona. “At worst, it was another dangerous outburst that will further
Israel’s diplomatic isolation and embolden its enemies.”
Representative
Eliot L. Engel of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, called Mr. Kerry’s speech “gratuitous” and “wrong.”
“There doesn’t seem any purpose to this other than to embarrass Israel,”
Mr. Engel said. “It just pained me to watch it.”
Democratic
members of Congress who are closer to Mr. Kerry, a former senator, and
the Obama administration were more measured. Many had been angered by
Mr. Netanyahu’s decision last year to accept an invitation from the
Republican-led House to deliver a speech in the Capitol, where he
confronted the president over the Iran nuclear accord.
Yet
even these Democrats — eyeing the arrival of a Republican
administration-in-waiting that has vowed strong support for Israel —
left little doubt that they were parting ways with Mr. Obama on the
substance of the United Nations resolution.
Senator
Bill Nelson of Florida, who is facing re-election in 2018, said he knew
why Mr. Kerry was frustrated over the settlements, which he called an
“impediment toward a negotiated two-state solution.” But he was quick to
note that he was among the 88 senators who signed a letter months ago
opposing the sort of United Nations resolution on Israel that the
Security Council approved last week.
Hopefully the reactions in Congress will keep the Obama administration from saddling Israel with their 'peace plan.' Perhaps this picture says it best.
On Tuesday, September 1, a mass rally will be held outside Senator Gillibrand's office at 3rd Avenue and 49th Street in Manhattan to urge Senator Gillibrand to vote against a nuclear Iran.
Those of you in the New York area will be hearing this radio ad a lot over the next couple of weeks.
Let's go to the videotape.
I wonder whether a million New Yorkers could convince her to vote against Obama.
Timing of Schumer announcement shocked White House, Senate colleagues now not sure an Obama veto would be sustained
In case you missed it earlier this week, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) has serious doubts that the Senate has the votes to override an inevitable veto of a resolution disapproving President Hussein Obama's nuclear sellout to Iran. McConnell is the Senate Majority Leader and as such should be the guy leading the fight to override that veto. Forgive me for saying this but if the Senate fails to override the veto, McConnell should be removed as Senate Majority Leader.
It seems that the Senate Democrats and the White House are in a panic over Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) announcing his opposition to the sellout. It's not that they didn't expect it - they did. It's the timing that got to them. And the announcement that Schumer will vote to override the Presidential veto. And the hints that Schumer will - despite his calling it a vote of conscience - work to convince his Senate colleagues to vote against Obama.
But the White House and some of Schumer’s Democratic colleagues strongly
urged him not to announce his opposition until late August or early
September. Republican leaders have set a vote in mid-September on a
resolution to disapprove of the deal. Should that resolution pass, Obama
has vowed to veto it. In a move that also surprised his colleagues,
Schumer said that he would vote to override Obama’s veto as well. As
another Senate staff member told me, “It is protocol, if you’re a member
of the leadership who is going to oppose your President on a major
issue like this, that you not do so in a way that is going to undercut
the President and give the President’s opponents fodder to use against
him.” Matt House, a spokesman for Schumer, responded in an e-mail,
“Senator Schumer was pressed both on the right and the left on the
timing of his decision, but said from the very beginning that after
careful deliberation, when he made up his mind, he would announce his
decision publicly and explain the reasoning. He finished deliberating on
that Wednesday afternoon, wrote his statement that evening, and
published it soon after.”
...
After Gillibrand’s announcement, pro-deal forces were ebullient. The tide was strong. Some enjoyed imagining a panic at AIPAC.
According to several Senate aides, they believed they were close to
having enough votes to block Republicans on the resolution of
disapproval itself, so that it would never reach the President and he
wouldn’t have to exercise his veto. But hours later Schumer posted his
decision online, in the form of a sixteen-hundred-word essay. “What
Schumer has done now, unfortunately, is that he has made what was within
realistic reach super-difficult,” the first Senate aide said. “By
coming out so early, before recess, it’s been really detrimental to the
cause of the President and other Senate Democrats who want to be in
favor of this deal, because now he’s given a lot of time for senators on
the fence to be hit with political attacks like, ‘Why aren’t you where
Schumer is? He’s leading; why are you so weak?’ ” The aide continued,
“If he wanted to be helpful, as future leader of the caucus, he could
have waited. He personally would have had to withstand pressure back
home, in exchange for helping out his colleagues. Instead, he said, I’m
going to take the pressure off myself and put the pressure on my
colleagues.”
On Saturday, that dynamic played out in a full-page ad in the Times—the
first, but surely not the last. Featuring side-by-side images of
Schumer and Senator Cory Booker, the ad demanded, “Senator Cory Booker:
Will you join Senator Schumer and reject the catastrophic Iran deal?” It
implored Booker to do so “before Iranian nukes kill millions of
Americans.” Among those who funded the ad was the World Values Network,
whose executive director, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, is a longtime close
friend of Booker but, evidently, not loath to exert intense public
pressure. Booker is viewed as undecided.
As of
today, twenty Democratic senators have come out in favor of the deal; a
total of thirty-four are needed to sustain the President’s veto. “It’s
still very much an open question whether we can sustain a veto,” a third
Senate aide said. “It will depend on how hard the deal is whipped
against within the caucus.” Schumer, by nature an aggressive whip, known
for his “full Chuck Schumer” style, is working against Durbin, who
chose not to try to contest Reid’s endorsement of Schumer for leader.
Schumer’s statements on the subject of his whipping, or not, have been
ambiguous. A relentless phone canvasser, he has acknowledged he is
making calls to members. “I will certainly share my view and try to
persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one,” he said, in
what might constitute a definition of whipping, but he added that, in
the Senate, members make up their own minds—“especially in matters of
conscience and great consequence, like this.”
And in case you missed it, no great surprise here but on Tuesday Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), the co-sponsor of all the sanctions legislation, came out against the sellout.
After being branded a traitor by the White House, why isn't Schumer coming out fighting?
All sarcasm aside, this could be a great moment in Chuck Schumer's history. The real question is, why isn't he pushing to make it one.
Branded a traitor by the Hussein Obama White House (along with other Jewish legislators who have come out against the Iran sellout), Schumer has remained curiously silent since announcing his principled opposition to the Iran nuclear sellout. He wasn't on any Sunday news shows (hard to believe he wasn't invited), and there have been no reports of him trying to influence other Senators to oppose the deal. Why? This is from the second link, by Seth Lipsky in Haaretz.
So why, in the light of all the burning bridges, hasn’t Schumer launched a full campaign to block this deal? Why hasn’t he hit the talk shows and done what the Senate leadership is supposed to do to, well, lead the Senate? That would normally mean twisting arms, bargaining, and trying to get wayward or undecided senators to vote their way. Or even attempting to change the minds of those who have come out on the other side.
The way this is being retailed in New York is that the Senator is prepared to talk to anybody who asks. He himself has characterized it as a vote of “conscience” (unlike the other votes he casts), a situation in which one can’t twist arms in the normal political way. There are those I’ve heard from who find that line unconvincing, to say the least. After all, if it were a matter of conscience and even a life-and-death situation for America and Israel, wouldn’t one feel impelled to spare nothing?
...
Experience suggests, at least to me, that the big danger is a last-minute dodge, like the waiver Congress gave the president to avoid moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv. Schumer was in the thick of that default. Could there be a waiver or some maneuver now to defuse the constitutional crisis between the Senate and the president over Iran? Maybe there’s a good reason for Mr. Schumer’s silence — he’s on vacation, he’s under the weather, he’s plotting. But if he’s really committed on this, the logic would be to re-engage. This just isn’t a time to stand on ceremony.
Or perhaps, Schumer still wants to lead his party in the Senate and has silently cut a deal with the White House that he will not lead opposition to this sellout, and in return the White House will call off its minions when the time comes for the vote on a Minority Leader?
Of course, that vote won't be taken until Obama's last two weeks in office, so Schumer has no way to enforce a deal like that....
And about those other Jewish Democrats who stand accused of treason by the White House, this is from the first link - Adam Kredo at the Washington Free Beacon.
These allegations of dual loyalty to Israel, which many have
identified as anti-Semitic, began almost immediately with the White
House, which accused its critics of worrying more about Israel’s
interests than the United States’.
The use of this rhetoric by the Obama administration and its allies
is attracting concern among Jewish leaders, who worry the White House
will pin the potential failure of the Iran deal on the American Jewish
community.
In a July 21 interview, Obama said that shady “lobbyists” and people with “money” were working to kill the deal.
...
The rhetoric also has extended to what many view as implicit threats against Israel.
Obama reportedly told a group of Jewish leaders last week that rejection of the Iran deal will result in rockets falling on Tel Aviv.
Secretary of State John Kerry also said that Israel will be blamed if Congress rejects the deal.
Organizations close to the White House quickly latched onto this
rhetoric and have taken aim at Democratic Jewish lawmakers who have come
out against the deal.
NIAC, which has been accused of lobbying on behalf of Tehran and the
regime, explicitly accused Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) of being more
loyal to Israel than America.
Reza Marashi, a NIAC flack, took to Twitter to accuse Schumer of “putting Israel’s interests ahead of America’s interests.”
In addition to Schumer, Democratic Jewish Reps. Brad Sherman (Calif.)
and Eliot Engel (N.Y.) also have come out against the deal.
J Street, an anti-Israel group that has described itself as the Obama
administration’s “blocking back,” also questioned the motives of those
Jewish lawmakers opposing the accord.
“Opposing the #IranDeal
against recs of top scientists, Israeli & US security experts, 100+
ex-diplomats can’t plausibly be a policy decision,” J Street official
Dylan Williams pontificated on Twitter over the weekend.
The Daily Kospublished a cartoon over the weekend that accused Schumer of being a “traitor” who is more loyal to Israel than the U.S.
On Sunday, the White House aligned dark money group CREDO Action, the political arm of CREDO Mobile, teamed with the Democrats.com to accuse Schumer of being a traitorous “warmonger” who is betraying his country.
In mid-July, when the deal was first announced, White House ally MoveOn blasted an email to its members headlined “47 traitors.”
In the note, MoveOn wrote: “We have just 60 days to stop the
so-called ‘47 traitors’ and hawkish Democrats from killing this deal.”
Jewish leaders said the rhetoric from the Obama administration and its allies has crossed a line into anti-Semitic territory.
And if the vote looks like it's going to be close, it's only going to get worse....
Chicago style: The Left's really ugly attack on Chuck Schumer
President Hussein Obama and his minions continue to play Chicago-style take no prisoners against opponents - especially Democratic opponents - to his sellout to a nuclear Iran.
Obama set up the disloyalty argument, and it’s no surprise that it’s
being used against Democrats who don’t support the deal, particularly
Jewish Democrats like Schumer.
The dual loyalty charge is almost exclusively made against Jewish
supporters of Israel. You rarely hear it used against American
Christians who support Israel.
As The Tablet magazine
reports, given the various dog whistles put out by the Obama
administration, it’s no wonder these type of accusations are
resurfacing.
Schumer long has been a target of that charge by the anti-Israel boycott movement and anti-Zionist progressive websites.
Now it is on overdrive.
My friend Professor Jacobson has many more examples here.
'Post-partisan President'? You've got to be kidding.
When Chuck Schumer came out against the Iran sellout on Thursday night, I considered the possibility that he had coordinated with New York's Junior Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, and with the Obama White House, so that Gillibrand would come out in favor so that the White House would have one New York vote, and Schumer could protect his Senate seat by coming out against. I should have known better.
The Obama White House - and the entire Left wing of the Democratic party (the so-called 'progressives') have gone to war against Chuck Schumer. The tweets embedded above are the least of it. For example, the Left-leaning Jewish Tablet Magazine has all but called out the Obama administration for being anti-Semitic(more at Memeorandum).
What we increasingly can’t stomach—and feel obliged to speak out
about right now—is the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and
retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a
political deal, or to smear those who oppose it. Accusing Senator
Schumer of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple.
Accusing Senators and Congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal
are shared by a majority of the U.S. electorate of being agents of a foreign power, or of selling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests
of the United States, is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and
prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights
Era South.
This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening
new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too
much of it lately—some coming, ominously, from our own White House and
its representatives. Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about “money” and
“lobbying” and “foreign interests” who seek to drag America into war is a
direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card.
It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white
power rally, not from the President of the United States—and it’s gotten
so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the
administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it.
Schumer's announcement has also brought Stephen Walt's anti-Semitism out of the woodwork.
Schumer has also said that he will vote to override an Obama veto of a resolution of disapproval of the deal. That means that Schumer's fallout with the 'progressives' may be permanent.
Credo Action is not alone. Dylan Williams, the political director of J Street, a Jewish group campaigning for the Iran deal, tweeted last night, "Seeing lots of Democratic heavy-hitters noting that, unlike the #IranDeal, there are alternatives to Chuck Schumer."
Steve
Rabinowitz, a Democratic communications consultant who works with
Jewish organizations, told me Friday that Schumer was in a "lose-lose
situation." At the same time, Rabinowitz speculated that Schumer could
turn it into a win-win and retain progressive support to be Democratic
leader in the Senate if he voted against the deal initially but didn't
press his colleagues to do so, and then voted against overriding an
Obama veto of the resolution of disapproval.
"Now we just have to
see if he really whips his colleagues, I hope not, and if there is a
veto override vote, what he does," Rabinowitz told me. "If he doesn't
whip his colleagues, and he votes with the president after a veto, then
he will have a way to have it almost both ways. I am disappointed, but I
get it. I get all these members and Jews going the other way, it bums
me out, but I get it."
Based on what his staff told me Friday,
however, that's not the plan: Schumer will stand against the deal no
matter what. The question now for New York's senior senator is whether
progressive Democrats who support the Iran nuclear agreement will go the
other way on Schumer's candidacy to lead his party in the Senate after
Harry Reid retires.
Schumer may have blown his chance to be party leader in the Senate (even that is doubtful, because the vote will be one of his Senate colleagues and I haven't heard any of them attacking him). But his apparently principled stand will likely mean he will keep his Senate seat.
Ultimately,
in my view, whether one supports or opposes the resolution of
disapproval depends on how one thinks Iran will behave under this
agreement.
If one thinks
Iran will moderate, that contact with the West and a decrease in
economic and political isolation will soften Iran’s hardline positions,
one should approve the agreement. After all, a moderate Iran is less
likely to exploit holes in the inspection and sanctions regime, is less
likely to seek to become a threshold nuclear power after ten years, and
is more likely to use its newfound resources for domestic growth, not
international adventurism.
But
if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated
but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while
still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase
belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should
conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.
Admittedly,
no one can tell with certainty which way Iran will go. It is true that
Iran has a large number of people who want their government to decrease
its isolation from the world and focus on economic advancement at home.
But it is also true that this desire has been evident in Iran for
thirty-five years, yet the Iranian leaders have held a tight and
undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal,
theocratic dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this
dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?
To
me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead,
use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.
Therefore,
I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a
viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It
is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it
will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while
ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep
U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on
other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more,
difficult as it may be.
For all of these reasons, I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one.
Schumer came out against the deal, but the only way he could have made it less noticeable and less effective was to wait until mid-September to do so. I guess he wilted under the pressure to take a position.
The real question now is whether he will be active in trying to persuade others to vote against the deal. It doesn't sound like it.
While we have come to different conclusions, I give tremendous credit to
President Obama for his work on this issue. The President, Secretary
Kerry and their team have spent painstaking months and years pushing
Iran to come to an agreement. Iran would not have come to the table
without the President’s persistent efforts to convince the Europeans,
the Russians, and the Chinese to join in the sanctions. In addition, it
was the President’s far-sighted focus that led our nation to accelerate
development of the Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP), the best military
deterrent and antidote to a nuclear Iran. So
whichever side one comes down on in this agreement, all fair-minded
Americans should acknowledge the President’s strong achievements in
combatting and containing Iran.
Obama opposed the sanctions every step of the way. And as to the MOP's, they were developed under Bush and not under Obama, although they were finally delivered to Israel under Obama. But hey - why let facts get in the way of throwing a little support to an embattled President from one's own party?
Yes, Schumer will vote against the deal to preserve his Senate seat, but I doubt he will lead the opposition to the bill. I also have to wonder whether he acted in concert with New York's junior Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, or whether he double crossed her by leaving her as the one to face the wrath of New York's heavily pro-Israel voters.
A New York Democratic Senator announced a short while ago that she will vote in favor of President Hussein Obama's Iran sellout. And while that Senator is Kirsten Gillibrand - and not the supposedly key Chuck Schumer (who will apparently not announce how he will vote until it doesn't matter anymore) - her vote may indicate which way the wind is blowing for New York's senior Senator (Hat Tip: Red Tulips).
Gillibrand discussed her support on the post-what-thou-wilt online forum Medium,
writing that while imperfect, “if we reject this deal, we do not have a
viable alternative for preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.”
...
Here’s Gillibrand’s full post:
Why I’m Supporting an Imperfect Iran Deal
Beginning in 2010, I helped champion in Congress an aggressive and
punitive series of sanctions against Iran because we faced an Iranian
nuclear program that was spinning unchecked and out of control. The
Iranian regime with a nuclear weapon posed – then and now – an
existential threat to the State of Israel, and dangerously threatens our
own national security interests.
Bottom line: Iran possessing a nuclear weapon would be a
game-changing event that cannot and will not be allowed. That was true
then – and it remains true today.
Cannot and will not be allowed? Really? What happens in year 10? In year 15? And that's a best case scenario in which Iran abides by the deal until that point.
The question before us now is whether this deal is the best way to
reach our goal, or whether the best way forward is continued
Congressional sanctions, even as other nations around the world begin to
lift their own. To date, the sanctions the U.S. led the global
community to impose worked: they crippled Iran’s economy and compelled
its leaders to face us at the negotiating table.
Other nations would not be lifting their own if the United States were not lifting their own. Please note that the United States led the global community over the objections of President Hussein Obama.
By including China, Russia, and our European partners, this crushing
economic pressure, combined with diplomacy, has produced an
unprecedented combination of ways to prevent Iran from obtaining a
nuclear weapon. Just as important, inspectors will have unprecedented
access to Iran’s facilities, so that we can better understand Iran’s
capabilities, stop a program currently designed to produce a nuclear
weapon, and be better prepared to detect any covert activity. This deal
does not take any military options off the table for the next president
if Iran fails to live up to its end of the agreement. In fact, we will
have better intelligence as a result of this deal should military action
become unavoidable. But rejecting it and leaving only U.S. sanctions in
place without the essential support of the international community will
move us closer to military confrontation. Sanctions worked when the
world community came together, choking off the Iranian economy. In a
meeting earlier this week when I questioned the ambassadors of our P5+1
allies, it also became clear that if we reject this deal, going back to
the negotiation table is not an option.
'Unprecedented access'? With 24 days' notice? Not good enough. As to 'only' leaving US sanctions in place, I would suggest that not being able to access the US financial markets would be a pretty strong incentive for other countries to go along with continuing sanctions.
I have decided to support this deal after closely reading the
agreement, participating in multiple classified briefings, questioning
Energy Secretary Moniz and other officials, consulting independent arms
control experts, and talking with many constituents who both support and
oppose this deal. Here is why I believe this imperfect deal is worthy
of Congressional approval:
First, Iran made essential concessions in the deal. After the
failure of the 2004 Paris Agreement, Iran was defiant; it refused to
negotiate seriously, it was uncooperative with international weapons
inspectors, and it vowed never to cave to pressure and dismantle its
nuclear production, which increased dramatically during the Bush years.
Actually their nuclear production increased by a heck of a lot more during the Obama years than during the Bush years. Can't pin this one on W.
Now, Iran has signed on to a sufficiently verifiable and enforceable
deal that cuts off all paths to a bomb and has its entire nuclear
supply chain closely monitored for years to come. A deal like this,
widely supported by independent nuclear arms control experts, was
unimaginable just a few years ago.
Verifiable? Hello? Have you been hearing what the experts are saying about this?
Second, this deal will provide international nuclear inspectors with
access that they otherwise would not have had – and never will have if
we reject this agreement. We will begin robust worldwide monitoring of
Iran’s nuclear supply chain – uranium production, plants that convert
uranium into a centrifuge-ready gas, centrifuges, uranium stockpiles,
and spent nuclear fuel that contains plutonium – and inspectors will
retain the right to request access to suspicious sites forever.
On 24 days' notice? Not really much access, is it?
Third, while I’m skeptical that Iran won’t try to deceive us and our
partners in this agreement, we’ll be in a better position to catch
those attempts due to the monitoring and verification mechanisms that
this deal secures. If Iran pursues a nuclear weapon, international
inspectors and intelligence operations will know faster than ever
before. We will then be able to snap back all of the American and United
Nations sanctions, even unilaterally, and all options – including
military action – will be on the table.
Iran will still be disruptive in the Middle East and fund terrorist
activities. This regime will continue to deny Israel’s right to exist,
the Quds Force will still be listed as a terrorist organization, and
Iran will continue to exacerbate tensions with our allies in the region.
But Iran would be exponentially more dangerous to Israel and the entire
region with a nuclear weapon.
Yes. Then why are you letting them have one?
Israel’s security and America’s national security interests are
fundamentally aligned. Congress must continue its unwavering commitment
to ensuring that Israel retains a qualitative military edge in the
region – an effort I will continue to steadfastly support. I have not
only consistently voted for Israel’s full foreign assistance package,
but have also added funds for innovative and effective defense projects,
such as Iron Dome. I will fight in Congress for a new Israel defense
aid package, because we must continue to fund the new technologies of
tomorrow that will keep families safe from conventional missile and
terrorist attacks.
There are legitimate and serious concerns about this deal. For
example, I would have liked to see a period shorter than 24 days to
resolve disputes over access for inspectors. The U.N. embargoes on the
sales of arms and ballistic weapons to Iran should have remained in
place permanently, instead of lapsing after five and eight years.
Hostages remain in Iranian custody. We will have to work hard to fight
Iran’s malign efforts to wreak havoc in the region. While all of these
issues are important, no issue matters more than ensuring that the
Iranian regime does not have a nuclear weapon at its disposal.
If we reject this deal, we do not have a viable alternative for
preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Without a deal, and
without inspectors on the ground, we will be left in the dark as Iran
resumes its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, with only months to go before
it could enrich enough fissile material for a bomb. Without a deal, our
options will be limited to insufficient unilateral sanctions, an
invasion with yet another massive and costly land war in the Middle
East, or a bombing campaign that offers nothing more than short-term
gain under the best-case scenario.
Our goal has been, and remains, to prevent Iran from developing a
nuclear weapon. We have far more ability to achieve that outcome if we
approve this deal?.
No, we don't. If this deal is approved, we will have signed off - if not now then later - on Iran becoming a nuclear-armed state. I wonder if Gillibrand will still be in the Senate then. What will she say?
The New York Post reports that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) had a tantrum on Monday during a meeting with Jewish leaders who were pressuring him on Iran (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
“This is such an important decision that I will not let pressure,
politics or party influence [me],” Schumer said, holding fast to his
weeks-long insistence that he’s still in the decision-making stage.
Schumer has come under mounting pressure from opponents of the Iran
agreement — including many of his Jewish allies — to vote against it
next month in Congress.
One source said the normally thick-skinned senator — who is also
feeling the heat from Democrats to back the deal — “exploded” during a
meeting last week with about 60 Jewish leaders.
Schumer “lost it,” said the source.
Sounds like his lines are being written by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Chuckie ought to have a talk with David Weprin before deciding to back Obama. You can't become Senate Minority Leader if you're not a Senator anymore.
Could Chuck Schumer have been for the Iran deal before he was against it? That's what a Politico report suggests.
Chuck Schumer is getting an earful from opponents of the Iran nuclear deal.
More
than 10,000 phone calls have flooded his office line the past two
weeks, organized by a group looking to kill the deal. Another group has
dropped seven figures on TV in New York City to pressure Schumer and
other lawmakers to vote against the plan. The powerful American Israel
Public Affairs Committee has put its muscle behind an effort to lobby
the New Yorker against it.
And Dov Hikind, a state assemblyman from Brooklyn, was
arrested for disorderly conduct while protesting the deal outside
Schumer’s office.
People who have spoken with the senior New York
senator believe the pressure campaign is having an effect: They say
there is a growing sense inside and outside the Capitol that Schumer
will vote against the deal when the Senate considers it in September.
The bigger question many have now is this: How hard will he push against
it?
And Schumer isn't the only Senator who is wilting under pressure from deal opponents.
Sen. Chris Coons, who was personally lobbied by President Barack Obama
and national security adviser Susan Rice to back the deal during a trip
to Africa in July, said the view of the accord was about evenly split in
his home state of Delaware in the first few days after the
announcement. But the Democrat now says telephone calls against the deal
outnumber those in favor by 10-to-1 in his state, an avalanche of
opposition he has no choice but to listen to.
...
The New York and New Jersey delegations have been the top focus of
groups trying to kill the agreement, and there’s evidence they are
making headway. In New Jersey, Sen. Robert Menendez sounds like a “no”
vote, while Sen. Cory Booker is undecided. In New York City, the group
Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran spent $1.6 million on broadcast
television and $119,500 on cable between July 16-July 30 advertising on
the issue, according to a media tracking source. Secure America Now, a
hawkish group trying to kill the deal, has organized the call-in
campaign to Schumer.
What a concept: Senators (and Representatives) who listen to their constituents! If only we had that in Israel!
Then why does Israel's Hebrew 'Palestinian' daily continue to editorialize against the pressure that is turning the tide? 10-1 is a lot more than 'more than half but less than two thirds.' Maybe because Haaretz doesn't listen to Israelis because they don't stand for elections?
In the meantime, it sounds like Schumer will not try to persuade anyone else how to vote. In fact, he may not even be able to.
If Schumer wanted to persuade members to side with him, “Chuck would
have let his intentions known a long time ago, and everybody would have
known,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). Winning over members now,
Manchin added, “would be much more difficult.”
The Iran vote
could reverberate for Democratic senators facing tough reelection races
in the coming years, especially if they back the accord and it fails to
rein in Iran. Only one of them, Colorado’s Michael Bennet, is up in
2016; several others will be on the ballot in 2018.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a moderate who faces voters in three years, said she’s still carefully weighing the agreement.
“Schumer is not going to move anybody on this,” she said.
“I think he’s conflicted,” McCaskill added. “Many of us are. It’s hard.”
Sen.
Jon Tester (D-Mont.), another moderate up for reelection in 2018, said
Schumer would have “none, zero, nada” sway over his vote.
“Don’t tell Chuck that,” Tester joked.
So far, just one member of the Senate Democratic leadership team has
voiced his position on the matter — Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.),
who supports the plan. That’s far different than the House, where
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced her backing almost
immediately after the deal was announced. In the Senate, the other
members of the leadership team, including Reid, Schumer and Sen. Patty
Murray (D-Wash.), are playing coy.
Will it really come down to what the American people want? Wouldn't that be something!
That’s the implication of a little-noticed YouTube video on which he
was last month captured talking with a delegation of Orthodox Jews in
Washington.
The video has been given little coverage, even as Schumer emerges as a
pivotal figure in the debate in the Senate. The meeting was with a
delegation of one of the most distinguished Jewish groups, the Orthodox
Union. It was apparently filmed on a cellphone by a member of the
audience and was uploaded onto YouTube in June.
Schumer was aware of that possibility, because he started out by saying he’d “wanted to talk a lot of tachlis about Iran” — meaning, roughly, get down to business. But, he said, “I’m not going to do this because you’re recording it.”
Then he proceeded to talk tachlis anyhow, characterizing the question
as “which is better — no agreement or an agreement that is not close to
the ideal.” It would, though, be inaccurate to suggest that Schumer
simply endorsed what the administration is doing.
Schumer was nuanced and thoughtful. He gets that an Iranian bomb
would be an existential threat to Israel. But he mocked those who
advocate a military strike against Iran’s bomb-making facilities,
calling it “the next-worst solution.”
...
Then, toward the end of his remarks, he asked that the door be closed.
“This is the tachlis part,” the senator said. He spoke of how the
failure to reach an agreement would leave sanctions in place but only if
everyone else stays in. “It so bothers me to have the Jewish fate in
European hands,” Schumer said.
“We’ve been through this before, we Jewish people,” Schumer said. He
then spoke of what a difficult decision he was facing. Noting that he’d
been an elected official for 41 years, he said he would not let
political pressure interfere.
Yet maybe Schumer will remember Mordechai’s injunction to Esther: “If
you remain silent at this time, relief and rescue will arise for the
Jews from elsewhere, and you and your father’s household will perish.”
Huckabee: 'Obama taking Israelis and marching them to the door of the ovens'
Yes, Mike Huckabee said that. In an interview with Breitbart Radio on Saturday, Huckabee said that President Hussein Obama's Iran sellout is marching the Jews to the gas chambers (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Governor Huckabee didn’t pull any punches when
talking about Obama’s Iran nuclear deal: “This president’s foreign
policy is the most feckless in American history. It is so naive that he
would trust the Iranians. By doing so, he will take the Israelis and
march them to the door of the oven. This is the most idiotic thing, this
Iran deal. It should be rejected by both Democrats and Republicans in
Congress and by the American people. I read the whole deal. We gave away
the whole store. It’s got to be stopped.”
Former Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Ct), the Senate's first Orthodox Jew, says that fellow Jewish Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is the key to blocking the Iran nuclear sellout (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Lieberman, the Senate’s first Orthodox Jew, blasted the agreement
with Iran on “The Cats Roundtable” with host John Catsimatidis on New
York’s AM 970.
He said the deal could be effectively blocked with the help of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
“I
think it opens the way for a lot of other Democrats to oppose it as
well,” Lieberman said of his longtime colleague, who is also Jewish.
“Chuck is the key.”
Schumer, who is likely to
become the Senate’s next top Democrat, faces a major dilemma over the
nuclear deal. He is both a key ally to both Israel and the White House,
facing pressure from both sides on the deal.
Lieberman
blasted White House negotiators for a deal that he said would allow
Iran to ignore U.S. demands and instead support its own regional allies,
which he described as “terrorist.”
“How can you
make a deal with somebody who says they want to kill you?” Lieberman
asked, reiterating the stance of Israeli leaders and its supporters who
oppose the deal. “Pretty impossible in my opinion.”
Chuck Schumer can be the Democratic leader in the Senate, but he has to think about how he will get there if he's no longer the Senator from New York. He will not get a warm reception on Rosh HaShanna in synagogue if he backs Obama and sells out the Jewish people.
[N]othing Obama has done to damage Israel’s standing in Congress could
compare to getting Chuck Schumer — the supposed shomer (guardian, in
Hebrew) of Israel — to ensure the survival of a nuclear deal that
rearranges America’s Mideast alliances by elevating Tehran at the
expense of the Israelis, the Saudis, the Jordanians and the Egyptians,
among others.
And that’s why crowds in Times Square Wednesday night chanted “Where is Chuck Schumer?”
As Schumer continues to avoid answering questions about his stance on
the nuke deal, his constituents are wondering how far he’s willing to
go to become the Democrats’ next Senate leader.
Would Schumer the shomer throw America’s allies under the bus and
allow Obama to drive a wedge between Washington and Jerusalem? If
Schumer won’t answer that question directly, his handling of the Iran
deal will.
New York police ordered to keep anti-Iran rally from getting 'too big'?
Could the Stop Iran rally in Times Square last Wednesday have been much bigger? Yes, says Merrill W, whom I have known for more than 40 years.
Hi, Carl,
I was at the rally last night, standing at 7th and 42nd, and I can tell
you that it would have been substantially bigger if the police had let
it. The sound system faced to the south down 7th Avenue, and those north
of the speakers were unable to hear. The police insisted on keeping 7th
Avenue between 41st and 42nd open to traffic through the use of metal
barriers, and as a result the sidewalks became too crowded to walk on.
When the street lights changed to permit pedestrians to cross 7th, they
were pulled along by police tape and a police officer yelling at them
through an electronic megaphone to hurry across the street. I also saw
many people between 42nd and 43rd streets on Broadway before the rally
who seemed to be looking for it, and three (!) separate people asked me
if I knew where it is (I have a beard and wear a kippah so they assumed I
might know).
I assume -- without knowing this to be a fact -- that the police were
under orders to suppress crowd size so no dramatic aerial photos could
be taken to show the enormity of the crowd and thereby put more pressure
on Schumer. He was the focus of many of the speeches, at least the
parts that I was able to hear, and of many of the signs held by the
crowd. As one speaker said, Schumer will go down in Jewish history due
to this vote. The question is whether he will be Queen Esther, placed in
this position for just such an occasion as this, or Haman, doing the
bidding of the Persian (Iranian) leadership against the Jewish people,
and the whole world.
You don't think uber-Leftist New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio would order the police to keep a lid on the rally, do you? Just sayin'....
Meanwhile, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sent a message on Instagram to the pro-Israel crowd (Hat Tip: Jack W).
As 10,000 demonstrators thronged the Stop Iran Now rally in Times
Square chanting “Where’s Chuck? Kill this deal!” — and top Obama
officials pitched the agreement to lawmakers in DC — Schumer posted an
inane comment and a photo of bagels on Instagram.
“Really missing New York bagels in Washington this week; they’re
simply the best. #bagels #iloveny,” wrote the leading candidate to
replace Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.
Jeffrey S. Wiesenfeld, who organized the rally against what he calls
Obama’s “terms of surrender” to Iran, told me, “Good to know our senator
takes some days more seriously than others.”
As CBS2’s Jessica Schneider reported, some 10 thousand are rallying in solidarity with signs and voices raised against the nuclear deal.
Protest organizers proclaim: “Washington is prepared to give Iran
virtually all that it needs to get to the bomb. To release $150 billion
to Iran will result in the expansion of worldwide terror.”
...
The Stop Iran Rally Coalition — which claims to be a bi-partisan
group — is also calling out Sen. Charles Schumer, saying he “has the
votes as presumptive leader to override this deal….If this deal is not
stopped, New York voters will know whom to blame.”
Sen. Schumer said in a statement Wednesday that he wasn’t ready to make a decision on the deal yet.
“I’ve read the agreement and I’m seeking answers to the many
questions I have. Before I make a decision, I’m going to speak at length
with experts on both sides,” the lawmaker said.
For once, Schumer must choose. But the question is not only what
choice will he make but also whether his attempts to keep his feet
firmly planted in both the pro-Israel camp and that of the
administration can possibly succeed.
Though the administration is seeking with the assistance of left-wing
groups to promote the notion that the Iran deal is good for Israel that
flimsy argument is deceiving no one. The pact grants Western approval
for Iran’s status as a nuclear threshold state enriches it via the
collapse of sanctions and provides few safeguards (a 24-day warning
period for inspections makes promises about monitoring cheating a joke)
against its eventual acquisition of a nuclear weapon once the deal
expires. The deal will not only enable Iran to give more support for
Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists but will assist Tehran’s goal of regional
hegemony.
It is one thing for those whose support for Israel has always been
secondary to their left-wing ideology or pro-Obama partisanship (such as
the J Street lobby or the National Jewish Democratic Council) to
endorse this brazen act of appeasement. For Schumer, a man who has
staked his career on being the shomer (Hebrew for guardian) of Israel’s
security in Congress, it would be a stunning betrayal that he would
never live down.
I'd rather see Schumer make the right decision than squirm. But either way, he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. Being pro-Israel and a Democrat is not easy these days.
It may be that the administration will give Schumer a pass for voting
against the deal provided that he ensures that other Democrats give the
president the votes he needs. But Schumer must also know that his
succession as minority leader may be threatened by a vote against Obama.
The Senate may be the world’s most exclusive club, but it is entirely
possible that his vote will be reason enough for some liberal colleague
to challenge him. Any senator that does so will be counting on the
active support of the party’s increasingly ascendant left wing that
regards Schumer as an ally of Wall Street.
On the other hand, the cost of doing Obama’s bidding could be even
higher for Schumer. New York has become a virtual one-party state and
Schumer faced only token opposition from Republicans while gaining
re-election in 2004 and 2010. But if he were to vote for the Iran deal,
it would virtually guarantee that his 2016 re-election race would become
very interesting if not competitive. While there is no obvious
formidable challenger on the horizon, Schumer knows that the GOP
wouldn’t have much difficulty finding one and that such a person would
have no trouble raising all the money needed for a race that would
become a referendum of Schumer’s possible betrayal of Israel on the Iran
nuclear threat.
...
But the real problem for Schumer and other Democrats goes beyond the
danger of alienating pro-Israel donors. Only those so blinded by their
support for Obama fail to see that the Iran deal vote is one of those
rare Congressional decisions that present a clear moral choice. If
Schumer sticks with Obama, that may secure his future as the Democrats’
Senate leader. But if will come at the cost of his reputation as a
defender of Israel and make his seat a lot less safe than it might
otherwise be.
And if he isn't reelected in 2016, he never will be the party leader in the Senate.
Senate demands to see Parchin and PMD ('possible military dimensions') deals - UPDATED
The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - Bob Corker (R-Tn) and Ben Cardin (D-Md) - have demanded from Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz - who was deeply involved in the P5+1 negotiations - that the White House demanding to see the secret agreements whose existence was disclosed on Tuesday by the IAEA to Congressman Bob Pompeo (R-Ks) and Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark) (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
The Cotton-Pompeo trip is already affecting the debate over the
Iran deal on Capitol Hill. According to The Hill, Senate Foreign
Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker and ranking member Ben Cardin
met with Department of Energy secretary Ernest Moniz yesterday to demand
copies of the side agreements discovered by Cotton and Pompeo. The two
senators also sent a joint letter to President Obama asking for copies
of these documents.
Fred Fleitz (at that first link) also explains the significance of what's being hidden.
Former Department of Energy official William Tobey explained in a
July 15 Wall Street Journal op-ed why it is crucial that Iran resolve
the PMD issue. According to Tobey, “for inspections to be meaningful,
Iran would have to completely and correctly declare all its relevant
nuclear activities and procurement, past and present.”
According to the Cotton/Pompeo press release, there will be a secret,
opaque procedure to verify Iran’s compliance with these side agreements.
The press release says:
According to the IAEA, the Iran agreement negotiators, including the
Obama administration, agreed that the IAEA and Iran would forge
separate arrangements to govern the inspection of the Parchin military
complex — one of the most secretive military facilities in Iran — and
how Iran would satisfy the IAEA’s outstanding questions regarding past
weaponization work. Both arrangements will not be vetted by any
organization other than Iran and the IAEA, and will not be released even
to the nations that negotiated the JCPOA [Iran nuclear agreement].
This
means that the secret arrangements have not been released for public
scrutiny and have not been submitted to Congress as part of its
legislatively mandated review of the Iran deal.
This means that two crucial measures of Iranian compliance with the
nuclear agreement will not be disclosed to Congress despite the
requirements of the Corker-Cardin bill (the Iran Nuclear Agreement
Review Act), which requires the Obama administration to provide the U.S.
Congress with all documents associated with the agreement, including
all “annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements [emphasis added],
implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical, or other
understandings and any related agreements, whether entered into or
implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented
in the future.”
It also means that Congress will have no way of knowing whether Iran
complied with either side agreement.
...
This is especially troublesome for the PMD issue. I wrote in
National Review on June 15 and June 17 that the Obama administration was
trying to find a way to let Iran off the hook for past nuclear
weapons-related work. It seems to have found a way to do this with a
secret procedure shielded from the American public and the U.S.
Congress.
Still waiting for the Democrats to stand up to Obama on this. Ben Cardin? Chuck Schumer? The only one I'm betting on is Bob Menendez - he has nothing to lose.
On Morning Joe on Wednesday morning, State Department Spokesman John Kirby refused to answer questions regarding the existence of side deals that were not shown to Congress.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has decided to stick out his finger to see which way the wind is blowing before making up his mind how to vote on President Hussein Obama's sellout to Iran.
“This is one of the most serious decisions any member of the House or
Senate is going to have to make,” Schumer told reporters at his weekly
press conference in New York. “I’m going to go over this agreement with a
fine-toothed comb, looking at it extremely carefully.”
Schumer said he was “one of the people who led the
charge to say Congress should get the right to examine this agreement
before it goes into effect” and that he’ll consult with many experts
before deciding. “To not do that now wouldn’t make much sense,” he said.
But which agreement will he examine? It seems there are now three of them - the US version, the Iranian version and the UN version.
Iran neither accepts nor rejects UN resolution on the nuke issue. "Talks needed to remove ambiguities,and on implementation," statement says
In the meantime, Andrew McCarthy argues that Congress should ignore the Corker bill and insist on treating this agreement (whichever one it is) as a treaty.
It is time to end the Kabuki theater.
The Corker Bill and its
ballyhooed 60-day review process that undermines the Constitution is a
sideshow. If you scrutinize President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, you
find that the president ignores the existence of the Corker process. So
should Congress.
Obama’s Iran deal also ignores the existence of Congress itself – at
least, of the United States Congress. As I’ve previously detailed
(piggy-backing on characteristically perceptive analysis by AEI’s Fred
Kagan), the deal does expressly defer to the Iranian Congress, conceding
that key Iranian duties are merely provisional until the jihadist
regime’s parliament, the Majlis, has an opportunity to review them as
required by Iran’s sharia constitution. The United States Constitution,
however, is a nullity in the eyes and actions of this imperial White
House.
Enough is enough – way beyond enough.
The Congress, particularly the Senate, has not only a clear
justification but a constitutional duty to scrap the legally defective
and, now, factually nigh-irrelevant Corker review process, codified as
the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. I am proud of having been
an adamant opponent of the Corker Bill since it was first proposed, but
that is neither here nor there at this point. Even supporters of the
Corker Bill must now see that the legislation anticipated and is
designed to address an international agreement that is fundamentally
different from the one the Obama administration has struck with
America’s enemies.
In the meantime, Schumer claims his vote isn't automatic either.
Schumer dismissed claims that he won’t go against the president in order
to keep his hope of becoming the next Senate Democratic leader. “When I
think the president is wrong, I go against him,” he said, pointing to
his recent opposition to the trade bill (TPA). “There are times when
I’ve broken with the president before, when I really think that I have a
different point of view, and the right thing is not what he is doing.”
If the Iranian nuclear deal is such a great deal, why does President Obama have to threaten Congress with a veto if they oppose it? If it were such a great deal, wouldn't Congress just pass it?
Oh wait... remember Obamacare... remember all the tricks they used to get it passed - like passing the Senate version in the House when they no longer had the votes in the Senate after @ScottBrown was elected? This is the foreign policy counterpart. Maybe they expect Congress not to read the agreement this time too....
The newly announced deal between Iran and six world powers is “akin
to declaring war on Israel and the Sunni Arabs,” and will be a huge
problem for Hillary Clinton, according to GOP presidential candidate and
Senator Lindsey Graham, who promised to not uphold the deal if he is
elected next year.
“My initial impression is that this deal is far
worse than I ever dreamed it could be and will be a nightmare for the
region, our national security and eventually the world at large,” Graham
told me in an interview early Tuesday morning, just after Iran, China,
France, Russia, Britain, the U.S. and Germany confirmed they had reached
terms for a historic deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange
for sanctions relief.
...
“If the initial reports regarding the details of this deal hold true,
there’s no way as president of the United States I would honor this
deal,” Graham said. “It’s incredibly dangerous for our national
security, and it’s akin to declaring war on Sunni Arabs and Israel by
the P5+1 because it ensures their primary antagonist Iran will become a
nuclear power and allows them to rearm conventionally.”
...
In addition to the lifting of the embargo, Graham said lawmakers in
both parties will be put off by the fact that the restrictions on
Iranian enrichment expire over time. "There is no chance that this deal
will be approved by Congress," he said, predicting rejection by "an
overwhelming super majority in both the House and the Senate."
Graham
also predicted that the deal would lead to an arms race in the Middle
East and expanded hostilities between Shiite and Sunni Arabs all over
the region. “If I had property in the Middle East, I would think about
selling it after this deal.”
Lindsey Graham is considered one of the more moderate Republican Senators. It will be interesting to see what President Obama does to keep Democrats in line during the 4th quarter of his Presidency. Will Chuck Schumer finally break with him?
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
