ARABS WANT ISRAEL FORCED TO GET RID OF THEIR WMD PROTECTIONS

ISAIAH 17:1,11-14
1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
11  In the day shalt thou make thy plant to grow, and in the morning shalt thou make thy seed to flourish: but the harvest shall be a heap in the day of grief and of desperate sorrow.
12  Woe to the multitude of many people, which make a noise like the noise of the seas; and to the rushing of nations,(USELESS U.N) that make a rushing like the rushing of mighty waters!
13  The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters: but God shall rebuke them, and they shall flee far off, and shall be chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind, and like a rolling thing before the whirlwind.
14  And behold at evening tide trouble; and before the morning he is not.(ASSAD) This is the portion of them that spoil us,(ISRAEL) and the lot of them that rob us.

AMOS 1:5
5  I will break also the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitant from the plain of Aven, and him that holdeth the sceptre from the house of Eden:(IRAQ) and the people of Syria shall go into captivity unto Kir,(JORDAN) saith the LORD.

JEREMEIAH 49:23-27
23  Concerning Damascus.(SYRIA) Hamath is confounded, and Arpad: for they have heard evil tidings: they are fainthearted; there is sorrow on the sea;(WAR SHIPS WITH NUKES COMING ON SYRIA) it cannot be quiet.
24  Damascus is waxed feeble, and turneth herself to flee, and fear hath seized on her: anguish and sorrows have taken her, as a woman in travail.
25  How is the city of praise not left, the city of my joy!
26  Therefore her young men shall fall in her streets, and all the men of war shall be cut off in that day, saith the LORD of hosts.
27  And I will kindle a fire (NUKES OR BOMBS) in the wall of Damascus, and it shall consume the palaces of Benhadad.(ASSADS PALACES POSSIBLY IN DAMASCUS)

Arab states push UN to condemn Israeli nuclear policy

Move comes amid mounting pressure on the Jewish state to relinquish its alleged weapons of mass destruction

By Times of Israel staff September 20, 2013, 12:38 pm 9-The Times of Israel

The Arab League will press forward with an initiative that would see Israel singled out for criticism over its alleged nuclear arsenal at a meeting of the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog this week.The bid, which the US tried to stymie this week, reflects mounting frustration in the Arab world over the deferment of an international conference on the banning of atomic arms in the region, Reuters reported Friday.If the resolution is passed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Israel will be called upon to sign on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and submit to IAEA scrutiny of its nuclear facilities.Diplomats were expecting the vote to be close, Reuters said.Ambassador Ramzy Ezzeldin Ramzy, who heads the Arab League group at the IAEA, was quoted as saying that the vote would show the world that “Israel is not playing a constructive role.”The Arab initiative is part of mounting international pressure on Israel to relinquish — or at least admit to possessing — weapons of mass destruction. The heightened interest in the Jewish state’s alleged nuclear, chemical and biological weapons comes amid indications from Iran that it’s ready to show flexibility in nuclear talks, and in the wake of a Russian-brokered deal that would see Syrian President Bashar Assad’s chemical weapons shipped off and eventually destroyed.On Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Assad’s decision to amass chemical weapons was “in response to Israel’s nuclear capabilities” and that “Israel has technological superiority and doesn’t need nuclear weapons.”According to a report in the September/October issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Israel possesses a stockpile of 80 nuclear warheads, all of which were produced by 2004, when Israel froze all production.Israel’s nuclear program has long been shrouded in secrecy, with the country maintaining a policy of ambiguity while refusing to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.Previous estimates have put the number of warheads in Israel’s possession at up to 400. According to foreign reports, Israel’s military has the capacity to deliver a nuclear payload via a variety of methods, including ballistic missiles, aircraft, and submarine-launched cruise missiles.

New York Times op-ed: Wipe Israel off the map

September 19, 2013, 5:48 pm 15-The Times of Israel

Gilead Ini 

Thomas R. Dew was a president of the College of William & Mary. He was also an eloquent defender of immorality. “Look to the slaveholding population of the country,” he wrote in 1832 while a professor at the university, “and you every where find them characterized by noble and elevated sentiments, by humane and virtuous feelings.”Clearly, even a professorship and some rhetorical skill don’t guarantee ideas that merit thoughtful debate. There is, after all, an entire website dedicated to “Scholars for 9/11 Truth,” and yet The New York Times has not once published an op-ed by the Texas A&M professor emeritus who expresses doubt that Boeing 767s were flown into the Twin Towers, or by the University of Colorado mathematics professor who similarly sees a conspiracy in the events of September 11. Their ideas are simply beyond the pale.Nor has The New York Times offered space in its coveted opinion pages for debate about whether the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which is entangled in border disputes and burdened by extremism, should be annulled, folded back into India from which it was carved. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine the newspaper promoting arguments in favor of the elimination of any recognized, democratic country. Such ideas, too, are beyond the pale. Except, of course, when it comes to Israel.Not for the first time, The Times has published what amounts to a call for the destruction of the Jewish state. The latest piece, which appears on the cover of the Sept. 15 Sunday Review section and is written by University of Pennsylvania professor Ian Lustick, argues the current state of Israel should be replaced by a unitary country that includes its neighbors in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.The column is not all that different than an op-ed the newspaper published a few years ago by Muammar Qaddafi. And while that New York Times contributor is now remembered as a ranting madman who butchered his own people, and although Lustick is most definitely neither of those, the only real difference between their pieces is that Qaddafi’s op-ed calling for an end to Israel is less long-winded than Lustick’s 2431-word piece, is more coherent, and at least sounds more moderate.

But never mind the tone and the drone of Lustick’s piece. And never mind the weakness of both the dictator and the professor’s arguments. The more important issue is that The New York Times seems intent on putting the very idea of Israel’s continued existence, the idea of real and functional Jewish national self-determination, up for debate. In effect, the newspaper has repeatedly raised the question of whether we should rewind history and return the Jewish people to the dark era in which being a Jew meant everywhere being an ethnic minority, subject to the decisions of often-hostile majorities. And it’s not only Jews who stand to suffer. Hussein Ibish and Saliba Sarsar, both affiliated with the American Task Force on Palestine, say Lustick’s views are “harmful” in that they encourage “an open-ended struggle in pursuit of impossible goals” and “reflect dangerous phantasms and fanaticism.”In short, Lustick wants to discourage peace negotiations that most  Jewish and Arab Israelis support, and instead have the world sit back, watch the bloodshed he says is inevitable, and hope for the disappearance of the Jewish state. This should be beyond the pale.

The central problem isn’t that Lustick’s argumentation is weak (though it certainly is). It is that his argument is immoral. It is time that editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal use the discretion that his office practices every day in sorting through hundreds of op-ed submissions, and desist from promoting this unjust idea.

That being said, let’s have a closer look at Lustick’s arguments.His bottom line is that the idea of separate Jewish and Palestinian states is an “illusion.” Lustick seems to understand that the Jewish majority in Israel will not volunteer to become a minority, especially in a region where xenophobic Arab leaders have long encouraged anti-Jewish attitudes, warfare and terrorism. And he surely knows that most of the world recognizes Israel. (The German chancellor said this just a few days ago: “For those who share my view that the Jews as a people have a right to self-determination, Zionism as a national movement of the Jewish people is the embodiment of this very right which its opponents want to deny.”)This is why the professor, notwithstanding his own argument that a two-state solution should be opposed because it is not “plausible,” devotes so much of his op-ed to arguing that sometimes in international affairs “the impossible suddenly becomes probable.” He tells readers that “history offers many such lessons,” citing the division of warring Britain and Ireland into two states, and the separation of the ethnically distinct France and Algeria into two sovereign countries, and the breakup of multi-ethnic Yugoslavia, and the end of the Soviet project that had tried and ultimately failed to encapsulate several diverse republics into one state.Maybe Lustick doesn’t realize how thoroughly the history lesson destroys his case for joining two distinct, adversarial nations into one state. So he continues.Readers, he argues, should consider what they “see vividly” across the Middle East. What they see, we know, is horrific bloodshed in Syria, where the unified state has fractured and where Sunnis, Alawites and Christians live in fear of each other. They see a Lebanon, a country in which an internationally designated terrorist group holds veto power, and which barely manages to withstand the centrifugal forces that have separated Shiite, Sunni and Christian Lebanese into violent enemies. They see car bombs exploding seemingly every day in Iraq, where the two main branches of Islam fail to coexist.

And he continues to make his case: “Strong Islamist trends make a fundamentalist Palestine more likely than a small state under a secular government,” he writes. But the Jews of Israel should intertwine their fates with, and put their futures in the hands of, these very fundamentalists? We’ve seen in Egypt and elsewhere what fundamentalist Islamism envisions for non-Muslims. Just one day after The New York Times gave Lustick his platform, the newspaper reported that an Islamist-dominated village in Egypt has “witnessed the most horrific sectarian violence in Egypt” since power changed hands a few months ago. A 1,650-year-old monastery, the villages churches dozens of Christian homes have “been burned or ransacked.” A Christian resident was recently murdered and dragged through the streets.And still, Lustick’s piece concludes by urging those with a stake in negotiations, the Israelis and the Palestinians, to “see and then adapt to the world as it is.” Yes, he’s referring to the same world in which Arab Sudan was separated from non‑Arab South Sudan to spare the sides continued bloodshed.To be fair, the author is right about one thing. There are observers who question the likelihood of a negotiated two-state solution. But if he agrees with them (he does), and if he wants dazzling geopolitical change (he does), what would make more sense: Watching while “blood” and “conflict” and “magic,” which Lustick envisions as a prerequisite to his one-state Utopia, does or does not fuse Israel and the Palestinian Authority into a single peaceful country, or joining the Gaza Strip and Egypt, two regions that overlap ethnically, religiously and culturally and which once coexisted with little dissent under the same rule? He doesn’t consider this option. This isn’t to recommend a Gaza-Egypt union, but merely to point out that even if one accepts Lustick’s gloomy diagnosis, his prescription does not necessarily follow.

And things aren’t actually all that gloomy. Realist professor Efraim Inbar recently made the case that the country looks to have a bright future:

Despite not everything being perfect in the Holy Land, long term prospects seem bright. Israel is a vibrant democracy that prospers and maintains strong social cohesion. Its international status has improved while support in the United States, its main ally and still the foremost international power, has remained very high. Moreover, the Jewish state is widely recognized as an entrenched reality, even by its Arab and Muslim rivals. It has built a mighty military machine that can parry all regional threats, and the IDF remains the most capable military in the region with the motivation, equipment, and training to overmatch the conventional capabilities of any regional challenger. Israel has managed to contain terrorist activities and has built an effective shield against missiles.

Inbar concluded that “While peace is desirable, it is not a necessary condition for survival.”

Lustick’s dire prognosis also depends on misinformation. Israel’s version of two states, he insists, envisions “huge Jewish settlements, crisscrossed by Jewish-only access roads.” But this is utter nonsense. The West Bank is not currently crisscrossed by Jewish-only roads, and no credible Israeli proponent of a two-state solution calls for creating such roads, either in Israel or in a future Palestinian state.  Lustick has seemingly dug up the old canard that describes roads on which Israeli Jews, Muslims and Christians can freely travel, but to which Palestinians have restricted access, as being Jewish only. Major media organizations that have made that mistake have subsequently published corrections.But again, the key problem isn’t Lustick’s ridiculous argumentation or his dangerous vision, both of which he is entitled to, and both of which he has shared before. The real issue is with The New York Times decision-making. As Shmuel Rosner correctly pointed out, is the foolish idea that the disenfranchisement of the Jewish people is up for debate is “based solely on the fact that a widely read and respectable publication has decided to print it.” It is an extremist concept that the newspaper is trying to push into the mainstream.Times opinion editors will surely protest that they publish diverse views, and that they don’t necessarily agree with what is published. To some extent this is true. But this boilerplate defense does not justify the publication of anything and everything. No op-eds have made the case that the slaying of children at Sandy Hook Elementary School was actually a “false-flag” conspiracy. None have promoted female genital mutilation. None have revived the outrageous debate about the right to freedom for blacks in America. And none should revive the old debate about the right of the Jewish people to determine their own destiny in their ancestral homeland.In other words — at least when it comes to issues that don’t involve the world’s one, small Jewish-majority country — free speech is not conflated with desirable speech. Arguments in The New York Times normally fall within the bounds of good taste and basic decency, and this guideline must be applied to the conversation about Israel, too.

Rouhani’s Jewish MP escort to UN has blasted ‘inhuman’ Israel

Siamak Moreh Sedgh, set to accompany the Iranian president to New York, repeatedly distanced himself from the Jewish state

By Elhanan Miller September 20, 2013, 10:59 am 8-The Times of Israel

The Jewish parliament member set to accompany Iranian President Hasan Rouhani to a UN summit in New York next week is a critic of Israel who has dubbed its treatment of Palestinians “inhuman.”Siamak Moreh Sedgh, a medical doctor and the sole Jewish member of Iran’s 290-strong Majlis (parliament), told Reuters in May 2008 that Iran’s Jewish community would not mark Israel’s 60th anniversary.“We are in complete disagreement with the behavior of Israel,” Moreh Sedgh told the news agency, adding that in Gaza Israel displayed “anti-human behavior… they kill innocent people.”Prior to his selection as the Jewish representative to parliament in March 2008, Moreh Sedgh headed the country’s Jewish community, estimated at 9,000 according to a 2012 census. Five seats in parliament are reserved for Iran’s recognized religious minorities — one for a Jew, two for Christians and two for Zoroastrians.In an interview with Russia Today in 2010, Moreh Sedgh denied that anti-Semitism existed in Iran, claiming it was a uniquely European phenomenon. He highlighted the affiliation of the country’s Jews to Iranian culture, noting that he had served 12 months at the front during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.“Jews are safe in Iran. That’s true. Nobody needs guards. There has never been a single instance of anti-Semitism in Iranian society. This phenomenon belongs to the European, Christian world. There is no anti-Semitic sentiment in Iran. We have no attacks on synagogues or cemeteries as happens in Paris. Just so you know, there are 15 synagogues in Tehran,” he said.Raz Zimmt, an Iran expert at Tel Aviv University’s Alliance Center for Iranian Studies, said this would not be the first time representatives of Iran’s religious minorities accompany the president to the UN gathering. In 2009, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad brought along the five minority parliamentarians with him to the summit.“This is supposed to express [Iran's] so-called tolerance toward religious minorities,” Zimmt told The Times of Israel.In the 1990s, Moreh Sedgh’s predecessor Morris Moatamed accompanied then-parliament speaker Mehdi Karroubi to New York.   

Iranian president offers to broker peace in Syria

In Washington Post op-ed, Rouhani says America’s post-9/11 foreign policy has failed and should give way to ‘constructive interaction’

By Elie Leshem September 20, 2013, 10:11 am 2-The TTimes of Israel

Iranian President Hasan Rouhani said that his country wished to be involved in negotiating an end to “heartbreaking violence” in the civil war between the Syrian rebels and President Bashar Assad.“We must create an atmosphere where peoples of the region can decide their own fates,” Rouhani wrote in an op-ed carried by The Washington Post Thursday. “As part of this, I announce my government’s readiness to help facilitate dialogue between the Syrian government and the opposition.”The opinion piece, essentially a plea for more regional cooperation interspersed with subtle jabs at the US for the supposed failure of its foreign policy, echoed some of the points recently made by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who also appealed directly to the American people in a widely circulated op-ed.Rouhani’s proposal to enter the diplomatic fray vis-à-vis Syria comes amid increasing calls for dialogue toward curbing violence that has killed over 100,000 over two-and-a-half years of war. On Thursday, Syria’s deputy prime minister announced that the fighting had reached a stalemate and said Assad would call for dialogue at an upcoming conference.“Neither the armed opposition nor the regime is capable of defeating the other side,” Qadri Jamil told the Guardian. “This zero balance of forces will not change for a while.”In his opinion piece, Rouhani reiterated that Iran “strongly condemns” the chemical attacks that spurred a Russia-brokered deal to remove and eventually destroy Assad’s chemical weapons. The uproar in the wake of a devastating August 21 chemical attack outside Damascus gave rise to that deal, as well as pervasive calls for dialogue between the Assad regime and the opposition.That kind of dialogue, Rouhani hinted, stood in stark contrast to Washington’s tendency to wield force to influence regional conflicts. US foreign policy in the wake of the September 11 attacks, according to the Iranian president, had largely failed to attain its objectives.“Sadly, unilateralism often continues to overshadow constructive approaches,” he wrote. “Security is pursued at the expense of the insecurity of others, with disastrous consequences. More than a decade and two wars after 9/11, al-Qaeda and other militant extremists continue to wreak havoc… In Iraq, 10 years after the American-led invasion, dozens still lose their lives to violence every day. Afghanistan endures similar, endemic bloodshed.“The unilateral approach, which glorifies brute force and breeds violence, is clearly incapable of solving issues we all face, such as terrorism and extremism. I say ‘all’ because nobody is immune to extremist-fueled violence, even though it might rage thousands of miles away. Americans woke up to this reality 12 years ago.”Addressing his country’s ongoing nuclear standoff with the West, Rouhani urged the US and its allies to engage in “constructive interaction” and focus not “on how to prevent things from getting worse [but] about how to make things better.”Rouhani, who is considered by many to be more moderate than his combative predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is reported to have assented to a scaled-back nuclear program in exchange for reduced sanctions against his country. There have also been rumors of a possible meeting between him and Obama on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, a possibility that the White House has not ruled out.Rouhani’s tone toward Israel has been less conciliatory.In an interview with the NBC aired Thursday, he accused Israel of doing “injustice to the people of the Middle East and… [bringing] instability to the region with its war-mongering policies.”Asked about criticism from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Iran’s policies and plans, Rouhani said he didn’t understand how an “occupier” nation could be in a position to lecture another country.Rouhani said Israel “shouldn’t allow itself to give speeches about a democratically and freely elected government.”He sidestepped a question about whether the Holocaust was real. And he said that his authority is genuine and lasting, even though Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is known to control all matters of state, including nuclear.Asked by network correspondent Ann Curry about statements that Ahmadinejad had made questioning the Holocaust, Rouhani said only, “I’m not a historian. I’m a politician. What is important for us is that the countries of the region and the people grow closer to each other and that they are able to prevent aggression and injustice.”

“What we wish for in this region is rule by the will of the people,” he said. “We believe in the ballot box. We do not seek war with any country. We seek peace and friendship among the nations of the region.”In the wide-ranging question-and-answer session of which the first part was aired Wednesday night, Rouhani said that Iran has “never pursued or sought a nuclear bomb and we are not going to do so.”

OTHER RECENT SYRIA NEWS
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/syria-un-says-chemical-weapons-were-used.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/on-sukkot-turning-oy-into-joy.html

FOX NEWS INTERVIEWS ASSAD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmMmGZQaVsc