Posts Tagged ‘J Street’

Iran, J Street, and Obama

by Delectable ( 147 Comments › )
Filed under Ahmadinejad, Barack Obama, Iran, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Progressives, Tranzis at December 28th, 2009 - 3:00 pm

Firstly, I want to again write about Love and Licenses, playing at 45 Bleecker Street Theatre, New York, NY on January 6 at 8 pm! I know I am a hound, but I really believe in this production, and I would like to see it a success! Contact me at florenced2000 at gmail dot com for discounted tickets and to let me know if you are coming. We can have a Netizen party after the production!

Now onto the reason I am writing this post. I have been disturbed, for quite some time, about Trita Parsi. I have covered him and his connection to J Street, the Iranian regime, and Obama, numerous times. Just check out post one and two, for starters.

Trita Parsi is linked to both J Street and Obama. As I have previously shown, he spoke at J Street’s “Annual Gala.” In addition, NIAC, the organization Parsi is the president of (and which is considered a lobbying arm of the Iranian regime – which I documented in the two above articles), has a board member, John Limbert, who now is the “chief negotiator” with Iran, in Obama’s State Department. I also just found this well-researched article, in the Washington Times, which gives a background on the NIAC, and the extent to which it is a lobbying group of the Iranian regime. It is a must-read about the power-politics behind Trita Parsi and NIAC’s backroom diplomacy. It seems they actually modeled themselves after the very AIPAC they condemn!

Now that I have refreshed your recollection of what Parsi and NIAC is about, I have a new whopper for you, courtesy of Planet Iran, and which I previously missed somehow.

Parsi

Please read the whole article. Here is an excerpt.

Mr. Parsi, head of NIAC, stated that the policy of engagement was meant to further cooperation between the U.S. and Iran and further human rights as well as resolve the nuclear issue. Mr. Parsi specifically addressed the nuclear issue and claimed that there is a bright line between nuclear use of energy for civilian use and the issue of nuclear weapons. In addition, he asserted that the policy of the Obama administration to engage with Iran, even though it has failed for the past 8 weeks, needs more time.

When a student in the class pressured Mr. Parsi to explain this approach, she stated the following: “When it comes to the nuclear issue, there is not a bright line between nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear use. These two issues are parallel as the fissile waste gained from peaceful nuclear sites can be used to make a dirty bomb. Additionally, the steps to enrich uranium from which it is able to be used for civilian use to that which can be used for weapons is very small. So given that the civilian use of nuclear weapons grants a de facto eventual use of military capabilities, we (as in the United States and the International community) don’t have the luxury of time. In addition, Iran has been behaving in a North Korea style of agreeing to certain conditions and then later retreating, threatening to remove themselves from the NPT while buying the time needed to go ahead and eventually create a nuclear weapon anyway. So, the policy of engagement with the regime is a futile one given Iran’s present actions and past dealings. Essentially, the U.S. and the World doesn’t have the luxury of time when dealing with Iran and is risking delegitimizing the freedom movement in Iran by engaging with Ahmadeinjad, whom the people of Iran count as illegitimate. The Green Movement for democracy has spoken out against Ahmadenijad and by the United States engaging with the Iranian regime, it is legitimizing the government in power in complete disregard of the will of the Iranian people while gaining nothing in regards to the nuclear issue. The Iranian people themselves called out to Obama in the November 4thdemonstrations when they said “Obama ya ba mah ya ba una” <Obama either you’re with us or against us>. It is a failing policy that will gain nothing for the U.S. in terms of the nuclear issue and will only end up hurting the Iranian people and Green Movement.”

Then here is the juicy part:

At this point, the student noted that there will be a panel in which Mr. Akbar Atri [Delectable note: Atri is a true Iranian freedom fighter] himself will be speaking on a panel at Georgetown on Sunday and if Mr. Parsi would like to defend his position, which is in complete opposition to that of those who lead the Green Movement, that Mr. Parsi was more than welcome to come put his position forward. Mr. Parsi said he would be unable to attend and had no further comment on the issue.

In other words, Parsi essentially conceded that he is wrong!

The Iranian regime lobbyist cannot even defend what he is paid to defend!

This is all very important background, in light of Speranza’s coverage of the Iranian protests ongoing. It appears Iran is exploding again, and journalist Heather Robinson reports that Iran could go nuclear within a few weeks. Read this yourself.

Iraqi parliamentarian Mithal al-Alusi is warning that Iran is much closer to attaining nuclear capability than most sources, including the International Atomic Energy Agency and the US State Department, believe. In fact, he predicts the Iranians could have a nuclear capability – and may announce that they have it – as soon as next month.

“We are receiving information which says Iran is so close to producing an atom bomb,” Alusi said in an interview earlier this month, the latest in a series of interviews conducted since September. “All the international community, they don’t realize how close [the Iranians] are to the goal… The Iranians will surprise us one day [soon] and say, ‘We have it.’”

Conclusion: time is of the essence, and “sanctions,” which Obama (and J Street) have tried to block until recently, will thus have no effect. They will be too little, too late.

Obama just today issued a “statement” that “strongly condemned” the brutality ongoing in Iran. But this is far too little and far too late.

It certainly appears that the Trita Parsis and J Streets of the world have won, even as they cannot support their arguments in public. They have succeeded at inculcating themselves inside the Obama administration (including the “Antisemitism Czar” who is a J Street stoogie), and pushing back any serious talk of sanctions until it is too late. And now, the Iranian people are dying in the streets and no longer believe the USA supports them.

Assuming Heather Robinson’s source is right, Iran will be nuclear in a few months, as the USA dithers.

It is very dispiriting to live in these troubling times, but alas, I have not given up all hope. I still believe that a long-term change in culture is possible, and our only hope. And that is why I am so actively promoting Love and Licenses.

Responding to a J Streeter

by Delectable ( 115 Comments › )
Filed under IDF, Israel, Palestinians, Progressives at December 23rd, 2009 - 5:00 am

Greetings, netizens!

As I wrote before, I hope you see Love and Licenses on January 6th in NYC. However, I am writing this to discuss something else entirely.

I had a long back-and-forth communique with a progressive J Streeter, and I figured that you would appreciate my arguments, so that you may use my words in the future, should you come across similar such arguments.

It is important to note that there is a large swath of people who fit this category: they believe Israel has a right to exist, but they also believe Israel is a “colonizer” in Judea/Samaria (the “West Bank,” - we cannot cede language), and must go back to 1949 borders. This essay is meant to serve as a handy reference guide when you are faced with such people!

—————–

ARGUMENT ONE: Israel is in violation of UN resolutions by being in Judea/Samaria ILLEGALLY. In order to stop violating “international law,” Israel needs to leave Judea/Samaria.
Here is the bottom line. The UN is made up of the countries that make up the UN, and that consists of a majority of despotic regimes that are antisemitic in nature. See: UN Watch, Eye on the UN.

You claimed that one of the “proofs” that Israel is “illegally occupying” the “settlements” are the numerous UN resolutions against the State of Israel.

I have the simplest answer in response. So what? Do you think I am unaware of the numerous resolutions against Israel, none of which are binding, but all of which simply prove the UN is a made up of antisemitic countries that punish the good guys?

The General Assembly resolutions are little more than suggestions, and are non-binding on an international level. The only binding “international law,” to the extent it even exists, are Security Council Resolutions. And Israel is not in violation of even a single Security Council resolution. The only resolution anyone points to is UN resolution 242, which was drafted by Eugene Rostow, undersecretary of State under Lyndon B. Johnson. And this resolution only calls for Israel to withdraw from “land for peace.” However – it does not call for Israel to withdraw from all land, and it only calls for Israel to withdraw from land in exchange for peace, not jihad.

(more…)

The Goings on in Gilo, Jerusalem

by Delectable ( 228 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Barack Obama, Israel, Progressives, Tranzis at November 18th, 2009 - 1:33 pm

As many of you have probably already heard, the Obama administration has decided to make international waves about the decision of the Jerusalem municipality in Israel to approve an additional 900 housing units in Gilo, which is within Jerusalem city limits. Somehow, a municipal decision to approve housing units in the capitol of its country becomes an international incident. Only in Israel!

Gilo

This is typical. I am going to not lay all the blame on Obama here, and it must be noted that Condi Rice had made similar such statements in the past. As is typical, J Street supported Obama, and is against the additional housing in Gilo. (shocka!)

The common theme is that somehow it is “anti-human rights” for Jews to build homes, kindergartens, and nurseries in their capitol city of Jerusalem, which is, lest we forget, the holiest city for Jews, and the city that every observant Jew prays to on a daily basis. (Can you imagine the USA telling Saudi Arabia that it cannot build more housing units for Muslims in Mecca? Enough said!)

But here is the little wrinkle to the story that the mainstream media usually leaves out: Arabs can buy land in Jewish areas. Not only can they buy land – they actually do buy land in Jewish neighborhoods.

Here are just two examples of Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem where Arabs feel free to buy and sell land as they see fit – Pisgat Ze’ev and French Hill. In fact, Arabs buy and sell land anywhere they want in Israel, including Tel Aviv!

Here is an article by reputed scholar Alex Safian about the ability of Arabs to buy and sell land in all parts of Israel, written in 1997. The restrictions to land purchase only have decreased, to the extent they existed in 1997, due to the liberal Supreme Court of Israel! Right now there are reports of Gulf Arabs buying of land in Israel located in the Galilee. This flies in the face of the supposedly ‘racist’ and ‘discriminatory’ land policies in Israel. Actually, the real racists are from Peace Now. They actually sued to prevent Jews from buying land in Jaffa, Israel, which is indisputably part of the 1967 borders of Israel. Arabs – they can buy land wherever they want (with the understanding that most land is state-owned, but I use the term “buy” and “long-term lease” interchangeably, as far as this goes). But according to Peace Now (a misnomer of a term if I ever heard it – they are anti-peace, as I previously discussed), Jews cannot buy land in Jaffa, because it is an Arab neighborhood, which must be ‘respected.’ (yet Jewish neighborhoods disrespected, of course – this is a one-way street!) Thankfully, Peace Now lost their case before the Israeli Supreme Court. Interesting, I came across this article, which clearly peddled the lame line that if Jews move into an Arab neighborhood of Jaffa, then it will “incite” violence. So Jews should not have the right to live there. This clearly follows the “noble savage” line of thinking – that somehow Arabs who live in Jaffa are not human beings, but rather are beasts, who are incapable of anything but violence, so you should not provoke the noble beasts! As I said – Peace Now, J Street and their ilk – they really are racist!

Meanwhile, we deal with the reality that if Arabs sell land to Jews, they could be slaughtered. I am not just making this up. There have been cases of Arabs being killed for selling land to Jews. And so this also colors land claims – of course Arabs will deny they sold land to Jews, because to do anything us puts their very lives in jeopardy! Also – in Jordan – and throughout the Mideast – it is against state law for a Jew to own land in the country. (yet no “human rights organizations” seem to have problems with this, of course!) Here is a CAMERA primer on the law concerning land purchase and use. It is a must-read to understand the basic law in the region!

What is the lesson to be learned about this all? I would say that it is racist for Obama (and previously, Condi Rice) to make an “international incident” over 900 homes in Gilo. As I have extensively shown, Arabs have the right to buy and sell land throughout all of Israel. It is clearly racist to tell Jews – and only Jews – that they must be ghettoized, and cannot enjoy such similar rights.

As I have outlined, Peace Now is tied in very closely (joined at the hip, if you will) to the progressive movement. They (and J Street, also, as I have outlined, a progressive organization) are thus supporting racism.

It is because I reject racism and support equality and human rights that I support Israel and reject the progressive view of the world that ghettoizes the Jew, and turns Arabs “noble savages.” I expect more for humanity and the world!

Project for The Blogmocracy: defined terms dictionary!

by Delectable ( 223 Comments › )
Filed under Liberal Fascism, Political Correctness, Progressives, Tranzis at November 12th, 2009 - 3:00 pm

As I have stated before, it is my sincere belief that one of the biggest threats we face from progressivism today is a language desecration. At the forefront of the war on language is “J Street,” which has decided to call itself a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” organization.

This thread should hopefully become part of a series on Blogmocracy, to catalogue the many places where the progressives have desecrated the English language. The goal will be to identify the specific language desecrations, in order to correct these problems, and correctly define mis-defined words in the English language. In time, hopefully this can be copied in other languages.

The first in this series will start off with the word PEACE.

Shalom

Dictionary.com defines “peace” as: the normal, non warring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world. Source. This definition meshes well with the biblical concept of “Shalom,” which wiki defines quite well right here:

Shalom, in the liturgy and in the transcendent message of the Christian scriptures, means more than a state of mind, of being or of affairs. Derived from the Hebrew root shalam – meaning to be safe or complete, and by implication, to be friendly or to reciprocate. Shalom, as term and message, seems to encapsulate a reality and hope of wholeness for the individual, within societal relations, and for the whole world. To say joy and peace, meaning a state of affairs where there is no dispute or war, does not begin to describe the sense of the term. Completeness seems to be at the center of shalom as we will see in the meaning of the term itself, in some derivatives from its root, shalam, in some examples of its uses in Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and in some homophone terms from other Semitic languages.

This is all well and good, but how do the progressives define this all-important word? Let’s see the way they use this term…

United for Peace and Justice

Code Pink (a “peace” group)

Peace Now

J Street (“pro-Israel, pro-peace“)

U.S. Institute for Peace

Jewish Voice for Peace

Christian Peacemaker Teams

United Nations Peacekeepers

What do all of those organizations have in common? They all have a part in the ongoing war on language, raging across the world.

They all apparently define peace as “surrender.” As such, they are actually not pro-peace, but they are pro-war for the other side. They are looking to redefine “peace” as a term which is synonymous with pacifism, which, as I showed very clearly, is NOT the actual definition of peace.

And so, that is why I like to end my statements with the following…

I am pro-peace, pro-human rights, pro-humanity, pro-American, pro-Israel, and pro-Judeo-Christian values. This is why I believe it is imperative to stand up for our basic values, and never back down against progressivism. We must never cede the language!

Recall the old Roman maxim: “If you want peace, prepare for war.” – Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus

Sometimes war is necessary in order for peace to be possible. This is something that Gandhi never understood. He is the same man who told the British to “give up” to the Nazis, as a “true sign” of nonviolence, and told the Jews to “dare Germans to shoot them,” rather than move to “Palestine.”

In this screwed up ideology, fighting genocide is equivalent to committing genocide. Their version of “peace,” as I already documented in other posts, involve laying down and committing suicide.

I am sorry, but that is not “peace,” it is genocide. The next time some so-called “peace” group claims to be pro-peace, we should never let them get away with false claims. We must ask them what they mean by “peace,” and how they define “peace.” And then we should ask how they hope to bring about “peace” through absolute surrender to mass murderers/human butchers.

Next to follow in the series: justice, human rights, racism, imperialism, colonialism, apartheid, progressivism, liberalism, West Bank, genocide, zionism, patriotism, social justice, and due process. This is just for starters!

Obama hires Iranian regime lobbyist for key State Department position

by Delectable ( 173 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Iran, Islamists, Jihad, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Progressives, Tranzis at November 10th, 2009 - 2:45 pm

This is simply unbelievable!

Dennis Ross used to have this position, until he left to go to the National Security Council. In any case, John Limbert will be the head Iran official in the U.S. State Department.

Mr. Limbert

And who is Mr. Limbert? Laura Rozen at Politico has some insights:

A former ambassador to Mauritania who speaks fluent Farsi, Limbert retired from a 33-year career with the Foreign Service in 2006 with the rank of Minister-Counselor. He is the recipient of the Department’s highest award, the Distinguished Service Award, as well as an Award for Valor for his more than a year as a hostage in Iran, months of it spent in solitary confinement. He has been teaching at the U.S. Naval Academy since 2006, and also served as president of the American Foreign Service Assocation (2003-2005). This year, he published a book through the US Institute of Peace, Negotiating with Tehran: Wrestling with the Ghosts of History — a subject that will come in handy in his new role in the Obama administration. (Here’s the Cliff Notes version.)

He spoke Wednesday at an event at the National Iranian American Council, of which he is on the advisory board, on the thirtieth anniversary of the hostage crisis, and was said to have had an unpublicized ceremony marking his new appointment at State on Thursday.

“He’s a wonderful choice, one of the most decent people I know and someone who has the best interests of the United States and Iran in mind,” said the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Karim Sadjadpour.

Let me break more of this down for you all, because it might be a bit hard to fully understand…

What we know thus far is this:

  1. Mr. Limbert spoke at and is on the board of the National Iranian American Council.
  2. Mr. Limbert was published by and affiliated with the US Institute of Peace.
  3. Mr. Limbert is being praised by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Karim Sadjadpour.
  4. Mr. Sadjadpour apparently believes that Mr. Limbert has the best interests “of the United States and Iran in mind.”

So let’s parse through this information, shall we?

First of all, our old friends, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC)! You may remember them from my posts about J Street, that progressive “pro-Israel, pro-peace” organization (which in reality is an anti-peace and anti-Israel organization). I wrote about Trita Parsi speaking at J Street, and how interesting it was that an Iranian lobbyist was speaking at J Street. Mr. Parsi is in fact in charge of NIAC. Here is a refresher link to re-introduce who Trita Parsi is, and how he is an official lobbyist for the Iranian regime. Yes – just so you did not get whiplash, NIAC and J Street are in fact connected!

So, just so we are fully understanding, that means that Mr. Limbert is on the Board of Directors of an organization, NIAC, that is an official lobbyist for the Iranian regime.

Now let’s go to the second link – the U.S. Institute of Peace. This sounds like a fabulous organization! Who doesn’t like peace? Yet check out this Daniel Pipes link, about how the U.S. Institute of Peace has been linked with Kamran Bohkari, a member of the Al-Muhajiroun (yes, a jihadist), that celebrated the “Magnificent 19″ hijackers. This same “institute” also funds pro-Hamas propaganda. (see IPT story here) This “institute” also was heavily involved in the Iraq Study Group, which called for selling Israel down the river in exchange for “PEACE, peace in our time!”

Mr. Limbert is involved with this “peace institute,” which he publishes his books through.

And now let’s examine the other source mentioned in Laura Rozen’s column, namely, Karim Sadjadpour, who praises Mr. Limbert. Who is Mr. Sadjadpour? Well, I dug up this little gem of a column in Haaretz, where he claims that Khamenei does not mean ill harm to Israel, and that an Israeli attack on Iran would only increase, not decrease, the threat from Iran. He also wrote a column decrying the Congressional vote declaring the Revolutionary Guard “terrorists,” and has repeatedly called for “engagement” with the bloodthirsty Iranian regime.

It thus should be no surprise that Mr. Sadjadpour also believes that Mr. Limbert has the best interests of the USA and Iran in mind. Hmm…very interesting. And how exactly could someone have both the best interests of the USA and Iran in mind? How exactly are American interests aligned with the bloodthirsty thugocracy of Iran?

So then we go full circle and ask…who is Mr. Limbert himself, beyond his associations?

Answer: he is someone who calls for ‘engagement’ with Tehran, even in light of their brutal suppression of democracy, and even calls for the U.S. to negotiate “without preconditions.”

He even called the U.S. the “puppet master” of Iran under the Shah, is married to an Iranian woman (who likely influences his views), and even advocates talks without dealing with the nuclear issue head-on, and with no time tables. Source. He proudly said as much at the NIAC (Iranian lobby in DC) conference, where he also said he was “agnostic” on whether Iran is seeking nukes. (!!!)

This is who Obama sees fit to give the head job at the State Department, in charge of “negotiations” with Tehran. Someone who, as the evidence shows so clearly, is associated with the Iranian regime lobby in Washington D.C., and someone whose friends apparently believe he will be pushing Iranian regime interests.

In case anyone has any doubts, it is quite clear where Obama stands with regards to Iran and so-called “engagement,” now that he has appointed Limbert, a man linked to the Iranian lobby, to such a sensitive position. It is all the more intriguing to see the J Street connection popping up yet again.