, ,

Right, Left and Center Condemn the Iran Deal

With more and more voices from the right, left and center decrying the deal with Iran, it is not surprising that a majority of American’s in recent CNN poll are against the deal. The more you read the agreement, and study the issues, the more you cannot help but realize that this deal promises to make the world less. Which is exactly the opposite of what the deal should do – make the world a safer place now and for our children.

Who are some of the brilliant voices against the deal? Let’s start with LEON WIESELTIER in the ATLANTIC skewers the Iran Deal:

If I could believe that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action marked the end of Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon—that it is, in the president’s unambiguous declaration, “the most definitive path by which Iran will not get a nuclear weapon” because “every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off”—I would support it. I do not support it because it is none of those things. It is only a deferral and a delay….This agreement was designed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. If it does not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons … then it does not solve the problem that it was designed to solve. And if it does not solve the problem that it was designed to solve, then it is itself not an alternative, is it? The status is still quo … For as long as Iran does not agree to retire its infrastructure so that the manufacture of a nuclear weapon becomes not improbable but impossible, the United States will not have transformed the reality that worries it.

You must read the whole article to appreciate everything that he says, and just how eloquently he says it.

There is the former Soviet political prisoner, NATAN SHARANSKY in the WASHINGTON POST:

Today, an American president has once again sought to achieve stability by removing sanctions against a brutal dictatorship without demanding that the latter change its behavior. And once again, a group of outspoken Jews — no longer a small group of dissidents in Moscow but leaders of the state of Israel, from the governing coalition and the opposition alike — are sounding an alarm. Of course, we are reluctant to criticize our ally and to so vigorously oppose an agreement that purports to promote peace. But we know that we are again at a historic crossroads, and that the United States

can either appease a criminal regime — one that supports global terror, relentlessly threatens to eliminate Israel and executes more political prisoners than any other per capita — or stand firm in demanding change in its behavior.

And how about the left wing ARI SHAVIT who wrote against the deal HAARETZ:

After many hours of reading I had to stop. The thriller had become a horror story. Not only was the content inconceivable, the tone was, too. The fact is that in each chapter Iran’s dignity is preserved, but the U.S. and Europe’s isn’t. The fact is that the Iranian Islamic Consultative Assembly, or Majlis, has a much higher status in the agreement than the American Congress. The fact is that Iran is unrepentant, does not promise a change of course and takes an almost supercilious attitude toward the other parties. As though it had been a campaign between Iran and the West, and Iran won and is now dictating the surrender terms to the West.

, ,

Making a Kosher Deal With Iran

As the June 30th agreement deadline approaches, it has me wondering how the P5+1 will guarantee Iran doesn’t obtain nuclear weapons. While my work as a rabbi doesn’t include agreements and safeguards on nuclear nonproliferation — though I did study that in university back in the day — one of my areas of expertise as a rabbi is certifying the production of kosher food.

Having practical and theoretical experience in negotiating and monitoring production agreements, I know how challenging oversight can be. In the case of assuring the production of kosher food we have excellent guidelines established by the Talmud. These guidelines include the essential elements of any deal to produce kosher food, the means of inspection and how to manage problems as they arise.

Which got me thinking.

If we were to apply the stringencies of Kosher certification to an upcoming nuclear deal with Iran, what would that include? In other words, if Iran were seeking kosher certification that it wasn’t building nuclear weapons, what would that deal look like?

According to Jewish law, factories or establishments that want certification of providing kosher food must agree to two major areas of verification. The first is on-site inspections of facilities by representatives of the agency, which includes unhindered and unannounced visits. Additionally, some facilities or establishments, owing to the nature of what they produce, require full-time kosher supervision and the use of kosher seals. The second is the kosher certification contract. This contract is based on the legal concept that a professional does not compromise their professionalism because they have an interest in maintaining their reputation and credibility. In this way factories and restaurants are able to enter into agreements with kosher certification organizations to provide kosher food.

Accordingly, a kosher deal with Iran meant to ensure that it doesn’t produce nuclear weapons would have to include unhindered and unannounced on-site inspections. Since nuclear weapons verification is a serious and complicated matter, a kosher supervision agency would likely require full-time supervision. Therefore, the use of seals, remotely operated cameras and detection equipment, would be needed at every possible site. The Vienna based IAEA, responsible for monitoring and inspecting nuclear sites worldwide, must have the ability to not only inspect in person whenever they want, but install technology to allow constant verification.

While this might seem overly intrusive, if we are to apply the needs of kosher food verification to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, we need to use the strongest means of verification and inspection possible. Getting inspectors to a site without alerting the Iranians would be hard. So the IAEA need to be there all the time, just like a kosher supervisor needs to be on-hand at places that handle the most complicated kosher products.

The second part is the written contract, a detailed agreement between the parties. At minimum a kosher certification contract includes all the agreed upon ingredients, manufacturing procedures, and significant monetary penalties to the company should any of the terms of the agreement be broken.

Let us put to the side for the moment that fact that Iran has shown an ongoing unwillingness to act professionally to preserve their reputation and lack credibility because of nondisclosure of nuclear sites and other broken agreements.

What would a contract with Iran need to include? It’s likely more complicated than a kosher recipe for bread.

According to experts in non-proliferation, a deal would need to include:

1. Dismantling Iran’s nuclear weapons infrastructure, including enrichment or reprocessing capacities.
2. Material Accountability. This includes tracking and testing all inward and outward transfers and the flow of materials in any approved nuclear facility.
3. Lengthy and phased relief from sanctions applied by the international community.

4. Tough, “snap-back” sanctions should the agreement be violated.

5. A long deal. This deal has to do with the safety of the world, and it must include safeguards in terms of decades, not years.

Thankfully congress now has the power to review any final agreement reached between the P5+1 and Iran and they need to ensure any deal with Iran uses even more rigorous standards than we need for kosher bread or a restaurant. If a company messes up with the bread recipe, they can always recall the products from the markets. If an unscrupulous restaurant owner sneaks in non-kosher meat, the kosher certification can be immediately revoked and the public warned.

However, If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, there is no recall of the product. The most volatile region of the world will be caught-up in a nuclear arms race. The safety and security of Israel and the world will be in jeopardy.

, , ,

President Carter, on The Daily Show, Links Parisian Massacres With Israeli Arab Conflict

President Jimmy Carter has done amazing work with building shelters for homeless people, and curing diseases in third-world countries. He is a humanitarian, and has helped millions.

Yet, his Carter’s assertion on the Daily Show (see video below) that the Israeli-Arab conflict played “a role” in the massacre of newspaper writers in Paris loudly calls attention to the fact that Carter is completely off-balanced on Islam, terrorism, and the Arab-Israel conflict. Charlie Hebdo was revenge for Mohammed cartoons and much more. But not the Arab Israeli conflict.

The Jewish supermarket massacre, however, was revenge on Jews and certainly connected to the Arab-Israel conflict. But Carter never distinguished between the two. (The Yemen based terrorists who took responsibility for Charlie Hebdo don’t even take responsibility for the massacre of the Jews.)

There has been no doubt since Carter published his book against Israel, Peace not Apartheid, that his legacy will be forever linked with his anti-Israel stance. He not only blames Israel for the conflict, he even blames Israel for things that Israel is not even doing: like apartheid and occupying Gaza.

I will never forget that when President Carter spoke at UC Irvine in May 2007, during my tenure as there as campus Rabbi, he told an arena full of students about Jewish control of congress which prevents peace in the middle east.

In this video below President Carter also reiterates the Israel should withdraw from East Jerusalem – which is saying to the Jews, “hey you don’t really want that Western Wall anyway.”

All President Carter’s work fighting disease in the third world has not rid him of the disease of antisemitism.

(Stewart’s line that these murderers in Paris use religions as a pretext is also simply wrong, but he is a TV show host, and not a world leader.)


What Happened at LA Rally in Support of Israel?

Yesterday’s large rally in support of Israel at the Federal Building has been tainted by the violence that erupted while rally was ending. I recited prayers and psalms at the start of the rally, and the crowd was peaceful, positive, and non-confrontational with the counter protestors who I estimate numbered no more than 50-75.

Conflicting accounts on several news stations about how many arrested, who arrested, how many people at rally. CBS claims 2000+, LA Jewish Journal 1200, and LA Times at 500.

Since the accounts are so different I am now hesitant to say what exactly happened. An off-duty sheriff’s officer said four men with Palestinian flags attacked Jews with sticks. LA Times is reporting that Palestinians supporters were retrieving a flag taken and vandalized by pro-Israel supporters when the fight broke out.

The most remarkable part of the story is that a gunshot was fired by an officer with Federal Protective Services. The Federal Protective Service (FPS) is a federal law enforcement agency that provides integrated security and law enforcement services to federally owned and leased buildings, facilities, properties and other assets. Some say he shot in the air, but nothing is clear.

We will have to wait until we know more about what happened. What is certain is that people were arrested, although even that number is debated by news sources. Most reports are that four men were detained on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon.

(Photo Jewish Journal)