Matt 24 watch, 229e: "Historic" "Deal" with Iran struck in Geneva . . . "Peace for our time" (NOT -- Iranian President Rouhani celebrates "right" to enrich Uranium . . . putting Iran 2 weeks away from enough Highly Enriched Uranium to make bombs at any time)

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to relive, or at least to echo, its worst chapters.

So, it is appropriate to begin this post with how on September 30, 1938, on his return from the Munich deal that stabbed Czechoslovakia in the back, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain announced a deal that gave "peace for our time." (In reality, war was now all but certain, and would break out just eleven months later as Hitler went after his next victim, Poland.)

Here he is at the moment of infamy where he had just stepped off the plane from Germany, and was triumphantly waving the meaningless piece of paper:

Peace for our time -- NOT, Sept 30, 1938. (HT: Wiki)

 The BBC news piece for this date that forever lives in shameful infamy, in part reads:

1938: 'Peace for our time' - Chamberlain

The British Prime Minister has been hailed as bringing "peace to Europe" after signing a non-aggression pact with Germany. 

PM Neville Chamberlain arrived back in the UK today, holding an agreement signed by Adolf Hitler which stated the German leader's desire never to go to war with Britain again. 

The two men met at the Munich conference between Britain, Germany, Italy and France yesterday, convened to decide the future of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland. 

Mr Chamberlain declared the accord with the Germans signalled "peace for our time", after he had read it to a jubilant crowd gathered at Heston airport in west London. 

The German leader stated in the agreement: "We are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe." 

But many MPs are bound to criticise it as part of the Prime Minister's "appeasement" of German aggression in Europe. 

And Mr Chamberlain's personal pact will be little comfort to the Czechoslovakian Government which has been forced to hand over the region of Sudetenland to Germany [--> which just happened to contain the key defense line against Germany, and the loss of which shortly led to German occupation of all of Czechoslovakia], despite not being present at the conference . . .  

Fast forward to 2013, with Iran at the nuke threshold after years of a persistent declarations of genocidal intent towards Israel, and pursuit of the means of genocide via ballistic missiles and the nukes to put on them, costing well north of US$ 100 billions. 

The Washington Post, overnight, tells us:

Iran, world powers reach historic nuclear deal

By Anne Gearan and Joby Warrick

GENEVA — Iran and six major powers agreed early Sunday on a historic deal that freezes key parts of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for temporary relief on some economic sanctions.

The agreement, sealed at a 3 a.m. signing ceremony in Geneva’s Palace of Nations, requires Iran to halt or scale back parts of its nuclear infrastructure, the first such pause in more than a decade.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif hailed the deal, which was reached after four days of hard bargaining, including an eleventh-hour intervention by Secretary of State John F. Kerry and foreign ministers from Europe, Russia and China.

“It is important that we all of us see the opportunity to end an unnecessary crisis and open new horizons based on respect, based on the rights of the Iranian people and removing any doubts about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program,” Zarif told reporters in English. “This is a process of attempting to restore confidence.”  . . . .

The Associated Press reported that hours after the accord was reached, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said the deal recognizes Tehran’s “rights” to maintain an atomic program. . . . . His reference to “nuclear rights” in a nationally broadcast speech touches on the country’s demand to keep its uranium enrichment program . . . .

In an address from the White House after the deal was announced, President Obama praised the negotiators’ work. “Today, that diplomacy opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure — a future in which we can verify that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and that it cannot build a nuclear weapon,” he said. “While today’s announcement is just a first step, it achieves a great deal. For the first time in nearly a decade, we have halted the progress of the Iranian nuclear program, and key parts of the program will be rolled back.”

Times of Israel adds, quoting Rouhani:

“No matter what interpretations are given, Iran’s right to enrichment has been recognized,” said Rouhani, who later posed with family members of nuclear scientists whose slayings in recent years Iran has blamed on Israel and allies.

He said that in a final deal, Iran’s nuclear enrichment will be able to proceed “similar to the past.”

In his speech, Rouhani repeated Iran’s claim that it would “never” seek atomic weapons, calling the accusation a “historical joke,” and praised the Iranian team that carried out the negotiations . . . [Also cf. Geller here.]

 Given that there is a track record of discovering hidden, undisclosed  facilities, and given the track record of evasions, lies and  steady progress to the end game of genocide, pardon my skepticism. 

The pivotal point on the "deal" is that Iran is able to enrich and feels its 'rights" to do so have been secured. That is a major surrender, and it is a strong sign that the US Administration's intent is to surrender to the idea of Iran as a nuclear power -- a new nuclear weapons armed power. One based on a ruthless terrorism-sponsoring and empire building dictatorship (what else do you think Iranian domination of Syria and Lebanon is?), with openly declared genocidal intent towards Jews and especially Israel.

The further implication of this "deal" is that the Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty is dead. All across the Middle East and beyond, a belt of unstable states will draw the appropriate conclusion, that their only hope for security lies in building their own nuclear weapons and the means to acquire such.

The likely consequences of that are obvious: a massively bloody nightmare.

War -- already delayed by a year because of US pressure on the now openly betrayed Israel -- is probably only months away. 

I have no reason to doubt that Israel will strike -- regardless of diplomatic and public relations consequences -- in defense of its people's right to exist rather than be incinerated in a new holocaust of Iranian nuclear weapons, or living in the meanwhile under the shadow of terrorism backed up by the threat of nuclear annihilation. Terrorism that is likely to include so-called dirty bombs that use ordinary explosives to scatter radioactive materials.

 We have decided to echo the sad history of 1938, and -- absent a miracle -- will pay the consequences. In blood. END

Matt 24 watch, 229d: You can't make this up dept. -- a top Obama administration official says Israel's position on the Iran nuke talks would "essentially lead to war" . . .

AS7 News, Israel reports:

U.S. Official: Israel's Position on Iran Could Lead to War

Top White House official warns that Israel’s proposal that Iran totally dismantle its nuclear capacity would likely lead to war.

By Elad Benari

First Publish: 11/22/2013, 1:15 AM

. . . . the unnamed official made the comments in a conference call on Wednesday with think tanks and advocacy groups sympathetic to the Obama administration’s Iran strategy. 

A think tank participant on the call said that Israel’s posture, demanding a total halt to enrichment and the dismantling of all of Iran’s centrifuges, was a path to war.

Agreeing that such reasoning was “sound,” the White House official said that given a choice between “total capitulation” and advancing toward a nuclear weapon, Iran would choose the weapon.

That posture would “close the door on diplomacy” and would “essentially lead to war,” the official said, according to JTA, which obtained a recording of the call on condition that it not name the participants or fully quote them.

The official sounded frustration with Israel’s pushback against the U.S. proposal for a “first step” deal that would exchange some sanctions relief for some rollback of Iran’s nuclear program, saying it would provide Israel with a six-month window to influence the shape of a final deal . . .

 This needs to be answered in steps of thought, starting with the backdrop of the 1950's Atoms for Peace initiative and culminating in the international Non-Proliferation Treaty from the 1970's on:

A simple view of the Atom (Cf. here)

1 --> In 1939, nuclear fission was discovered, by which when heavy atomic nuclei split, they release large amounts of energy 10 - 100 million times as much as in typical chemical reactions.  This is in accord with Einstein's famous 1905 result that mass and energy are inter-convertible. As the binding energy per nucleon (protons or neutrons) shows:

2 --> So, very soon a nuclear bomb development race was underway in World War II, won by the Americans and British. Stalin's spies put him on the fast track and by the late 1940's the world was divided by a nuke-armed cold war, with several other countries seeking nuclear weapons. The fate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not very far from our minds in those days:

Devastation at Hiroshima (Cf. here, warning, graphic and horrific)

3 --> By the 1950's, fusion weapons had also been made, which have unlimited potential: just like in the sun, light elements release energy when their nuclei fuse. (With fission weapons, beyond a certain size they start to disintegrate before full fission. And, by putting a jacket of fissionable materials on a fusion bomb, you get a huge additional fission yield.)

4 --> The world was on track to a very dangerous and unstable state, especially as the simplest weapon, the gun-type nuke, is so simple and reliable that the Americans didn't bother to test it before use at Hiroshima: set up a [modified] 4" howitzer barrel to fire a chunk of highly enriched uranium into a waiting chunk at the end of the barrel, making a super-critical mass. Boom, a city-buster, just fuse to go off at 2,000 ft above ground for maximum effect. For instance:

A gun-type fission bomb, essentially as used at Hiroshima (HT: Wiki)

5 --> But also, across the 1950's, the first nuclear power reactors had been developed. These used the energy from moderated, controlled fission to generate heat that could be used to make steam and turn turbines and shafts tied to electricity generators. It was at first thought that it could make electricity too cheap to meter, houses would just be hooked up and charged a flat rate (just like for cable TV). For instance:

A boiling water reactor. Steam is led out to turn a turbine that drives an electricity generator

6 --> So, the idea was to restrain proliferation of weapons, while promoting peaceful research, medical uses and electricity generation. Thus atoms for peace (and development). 

7 --> By 1968 when the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was first signed under UN auspices (and when it entered into force in 1970), there were five known nuke powers with bombs [USA, Russia, Britain, France and Red China], and dozens of states that could easily enough go nuclear. As Wiki aptly points out, the treaty aimed to counter this by balanced emphasis on:

1. non-proliferation,
2. disarmament, and
3. the right to peacefully use nuclear technology

 8 --> As the treaty says, in regards to non-nuclear weapons states:

Article II

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Article III

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agencys safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this article shall be applied to all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.

2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this article . . .

 9 --> Iran is such a signatory, Israel -- which partnered with France in the development of nuclear capacity in the 1950's [to the point where the first French nuke bomb tests were probably French-Israeli tests] -- is not. Iran (since 1979)  is also a dictatorship with a track record of genocidal declarations and global sponsorship of terrorism. Israel is a robust democracy unlikely to use nuke weapons save as a deterrent to several states with hostile intent towards it. (It is a safe assumption that Israel has such weapons, especially since 1973, a subtle context behind the cessation of attempts to wipe it out by direct invasion.)

10 --> Also, for at least a decade, Iran (which had at least one research reactor at Tehran University in the 1970's) has led the international organisations and powers acting on behalf of the NPT on a merry dance of deception, concealment, hidden installations and credible attempts to acquire weapons grade materials, other weapons components and the ballistic missiles to deliver them. It has patently spent well in excess of of US$ 100 billions in that pursuit, funded of course by oil exports. (Hence, the major target of sanctions.)

11 --> In short, Iran is patently in persistent material breach and the Israeli complaints that it is moving ever closer to the nuke weapons threshold in a context of dangerous instability and declared genocidal intent are obviously on target. Why else would Iran have built a reported 19,000 centrifuges for Uranium enrichment? Why else would it be working on ballistic missiles of 1,000 - 2,000 miles range? Why else all the subterfuges, lies and concealment? Why else the repeatedly declared genocidal intent?

12 --> Under these circumstances, the White House official's remarks boil down to irresponsibly blaming the designated intended victim for crying out in warning. In a context where genocidal intent multiplied by moving to the means of carrying such out are indisputably causus belli.

13 --> Instead, what has clearly happened is that especially over the past year or so, sanctions have begun to bite, and Iran -- with a duly hand picked new presidential face card -- has gone on a charm offensive to buy time to finish the job.

14 --> The US Administration must know all of this, and much more, so there is no excuse  whatsoever for a top official to speak as cited above.

15 --> If anything, sanctions should be tightened until Iran agrees to return to the NPT's letter and spirit, declaring its facilities, programs etc and allowing inspection controls. There is no shortage of reactor grade materials or refining capacity, so legitimate research, medical uses and energy production can easily be accommodated in a non-threatening way. 

16 --> In short, on simple common sense, the ONLY reason for what we have seen instead is intent to get the nukes that are the means of genocide.

17 --> In such a context of an unaccountable and unstable dictatorship, we can only get progress to genuine peace if the Mullahs realise that the world's leading powers, especially the USA, are serious and Iran faces either crippling sanctions or beyond a tripwire threshold, targetted bombing that will reduce its hundreds of billions worth of investments in nuke-powered genocide to rubble in short order.

18 --> It is clear that the Mullahs are gambling that the global powers will back down, and Israel cannot really do the job.

19 --> So far, the Obama administration has sent a clear we surrender message, and now we see a blame the intended victim message.

20 --> Israel is obviously pretty much on its own and faces a choice of (a) limited war now by striking the facilities in the teeth of global opinions and implied threats of retaliatory sanctions, or if it waits too long (b) war with a nuke armed, genocidal and frankly fanatical enemy not amenable to normal deterrence. But, I think Israel is in fact capable of knocking back the Iranian nuke programme for a very long time, and it will err on the side of a rather than b especially now that it is clear that it is unlikely that the Obama administration will stand up to Iran. On Israel's potential capability:

. . . I would see (I) a sub-launched Persian Gulf cruise missile strike.

I would also reckon with (II) the possibility of surface ships carrying containers that launch weapons from out in the Indian Ocean in much larger numbers than might be recognised, once an initial wave of sub launched missiles knocks out Iran's air defence capability. With proper intelligence driven, GPS "in the right window" precision targetting, a lot of precise damage can be done to Iran's nuke programme. 

Before (III), a follow-up wave of low-flying supersonic aircraft wearing blue stars of David arrive to clean up the job, and maybe from unexpected directions, too. (Remember at Entebbe, in 1976, the actual final stage of the rescue came out of Kenya. Frankly, it would not astonish me under the emerging threat of an Iranian nuke attack, to hear -- after the fact of course -- that Israeli aircraft operated from bases in even Saudi Arabia or Iraq or other countries not even on our radar screens now; so worried must the Arab governments be. [Cf. here on what such a strike could credibly do.])

 Such a blow would not eliminate the Iranian capability to get back on its programme, but it would buy precious time for good sense to prevail. But, will good sense prevail in the ever polarised Middle East?

{U/D Nov 23:} Let's add a known sites/targets list:

{U/D 2, Nov 23} Let me add some more, from Gemany's Der Spiegel:

Der Spiegel envisions Popeye variant cruise missiles being launched from the Persian Gulf or the Mediterranean,
where there are believed to be variants of the Popeye missile with a range of 1,500 km. I believe a third possible site
is the Arabian Sea, and as a cruise missile runs on a small jet engine (it is effectively a small pilotless drone aircraft with
a warhead and a guidance system), range is mainly set by the fuel tank. 1600 km, 1,000 miles is very feasible.

Der Spiegel comments, in a context of envisioning nuclear warheads mounted on the missiles:

Insiders say that the Israeli defense technology company Rafael built the [cruise] missiles for the nuclear weapons option. Apparently it involves a further development of cruise missiles of the Popeye Turbo SLCM type, which are supposed to have a range of around 1,500 kilometers (940 miles) and which could reach Iran with a warhead weighing up to 200 kilograms (440 pounds) . . . . The question of how developed the Israeli cruise missiles are is a matter of debate. Their development is a complex project, and the missiles' only public manifestation was a single test that the Israelis conducted off the coast of Sri Lanka.

The submarines are the military response to the threat in a region "where there is no mercy for the weak," Defense Minister Ehud Barak says. They are an insurance policy against the Israelis' fundamental fear that "the Arabs could slaughter us tomorrow," as David Ben-Gurion, the founder of the State of Israel, once said. "We shall never again be led as lambs to the slaughter," was the lesson Ben-Gurion and others drew from Auschwitz . . . . 

Is Berlin recklessly promoting an arms race in the Middle East? Or should Germany, as its historic obligation stemming from the crimes of the Nazis, assume a responsibility that has become "part of Germany's reason of state," as Chancellor Merkel said in a speech to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, in March 2008? "It means that for me, as a German chancellor, Israel's security is never negotiable," Merkel told the lawmakers . . . . The German government has always pursued an unwritten rule on its Israel policy, which has already lasted half a century and survived all changes of administrations, and that former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder summarized in 2002 when he said: "I want to be very clear: Israel receives what it needs to maintain its security."

And, HT Wiki, the Popeye:

i-HLS shows what seems to be a cruise version in flight:

 The same Israeli site observes:

The Israeli cruise missile ‘Popeye Turbo’ designed as a Submarine-Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM) is a stretched and advanced model of the “Popeye” Israeli air missile designed for bomber planes. According to a report by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) in 2002 an experiment was conducted in which an early model of the missile was launched from a Dolphin submarine in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Sri Lanka. The test was viewed at the time by members of the U.S. Navy’s intelligence. According to the report the missile was capable of reaching a range of 1,500 km and could carry a nuclear powered plutonium based warhead, weighing 200 Kg.

 The Turbo SLCM cruise-missile uses a jet engine powered by liquid fuel. The missile’s length is 6.25 meters and its diameter is about 52 cm. According to what was reported by the FAS about the Sri Lanka test – the missile hit the target 1500 km from the launch pad. It is estimated that the cruise missile is the main weapon for Israel’s ‘second strike’ ability, launched from submarines.

Wiki notes on the Popeye family of missiles:

• Popeye (also known as Have Nap) - this is the standard solid-rocket–powered stand off missile, 4.82 m (15 ft 10 in) long and weighing 1,360 kg (3,000 lb) with a 340 kg (750 lb) blast fragmentation or 360 kg (800 lb) I-800 penetrating warhead, inertial and imaging infrared or TV guidance.^[3]

• Popeye II or Popeye Lite (also known as Have Lite) - this is a reduced size (shortened to 424 cm/167 in) and weight version (weight is now 1125 kg/2500 lb) of the Popeye to give light aircraft such as the F-16I Sufa a precision standoff strike capability.^[4]

• Popeye Turbo ALCM - The air-launched Popeye Turbo which uses a jet engine and liquid fuel is approx 6.25 m (20.5 ft) long, it is reported to have a range of more than 320 km (200 mi).^[5]

• Popeye Turbo SLCM - A suspected stretched version of the Popeye Turbo developed primarily for use as a submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM) was widely reported in a US Navy observed 2002 test in the Indian Ocean to have hit a target at 1500 km, it can allegedly carry a 200 kg nuclear warhead. It is suspected that the stretched Popeye Turbo is the primary strategic second strike nuclear deterrent weapon which can be fired from the 650mm secondary torpedo tubes of the Israeli Dolphin class submarines.^[1] It is believed that the SLCM version of the Popeye was developed by Israel after the US Clinton administration refused an Israeli request in 2000 to purchase Tomahawk long range SLCM's because of international MTCR proliferation rules.^[6] While the standard Popeye is 533mm the Dolphin class submarines have four 650mm torpedo tubes in addition to the six standard 533mm tubes allowing for the possibility that a SLCM Popeye derivative may be a larger diameter.^[7]

• Have Rain - A 2004 report indicated that Rafael was developing a new anti-ship version known as the “Have Rain.” The new missile is believed to have a launch weight of 900 kg, for deployment aboard P-3 Orion aircraft.^[8]

• Spice - Spice (guidance kit) In 2000, Rafael promoted a "Smart Precise Impact Cost Effective" (SPICE) add-on "smart bomb" guidance kit for Mk 84 bombs, this system was based on the Popeye seekers.^[3]

I add:

a: The stretched 1500+ mile range cruise version of such a missile could easily be adapted to launch from a container ship or a similar vessel, which could host a very large number of the missiles. 

b: Given the ~ 1 metre precision possible with GPS technology, Israel's known satellite reconnaissance capacity and the effectiveness of Mossad, Israel is in a position to target and cripple vulnerable points of nuclear facilities using conventional warheads, WITHOUT having to overfly the countries between Israel and Iran.  

c: And even if Israel does use an air strike, the standoff, precision attack capability described for some variants is significant.

d: If bunker-busting is necessary, we should note that the first precision bunker-busters were improvised at the beginning of the 1991 Persian Gulf campaign by filling howitzer barrels with explosives and putting on a guidance and fuze pack. 

e: Israel's claim that it could hit the Iranian nuke programme hard and set it back for a long time is credible.

21 --> Were I in the Mullah's shoes, I would not bet against Israel on this. But, after spending an insane amount of money that could instead have done a lot of good, I frankly doubt that they are going to back down, save when they are staring down the abyss and scrambling to get back on safer ground. By which time, it's odds on it will be too late.
___________________

That's not a pretty choice, but obviously it is what we have come to, with the Obama administration pulling out the rug from under Israel's feet.

Absent a miracle, the issue now is, when we will have war, and whether it will be before Iran sprints across the finish line to nukes and the missiles to carry them. Which goal is probably not very far off, judging by Iran's willingness to negotiate for six month windows.

Instead of such horrific alternatives, let us pray for a miracle of deliverance, even as the Jews of the Persian Empire once did under Mordecai and Queen Esther when Haman threatened genocide. END

Matt 24 watch, 229c: Courtesy MEMRI, Mahdi Tayeb, head of the Iranian Ammar think-tank inadvertently exposes the mirror psychology Mahdist apocalyptic projections that influence Supreme Leader Khameni, the other Mullahs and other decision-makers

Thanks to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), we can get a glimpse into the regrettably apocalyptic, mirror psychology projective mindset that evidently unduly influences Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameni and the other Mullahs, through translated videotaped remarks of "Mahdi Tayeb, head of the Iranian Ammar think-tank advising Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, which [were] posted on the Internet on February 1, 2013":

Now, a few contextual remarks are in order, given our duty to properly discern and respond to the signs of our times. (In this case, it is my unpleasant duty to publicise an inadvertent expose of the sort of thinking that is influencing Iran's leadership. Where as responsible, praying, voting and speaking citizens, we need to be aware of key global trends.)

Also, the things exposed in the transcript below, international and regional leaders know, or should know. 

So should those who make editorial decisions regarding what we see, hear or read in our media. 

This issue takes on particularly important colour given the recent fiasco where I think it was an Iranian man obtained a diplomatic St Kitts passport for $ 1 million, and went to Canada wishing to see the Prime Minister of that sister Commonwealth nation. A scandal broke, one that does not reflect well on our region. (And, other Caribbean territories hoping to attract investors by holding out the prospect of economic citizenship on condition of big enough investments or payments, should take due note.)

Back to the analysis . . . 

 Clipping the transcript of the video, HT Jihad Watch:

Mahdi Tayeb: If you pay attention to the Star of David on the Israeli flag, you may understand what the Jews want. It embodies all the desires of the Jews. The one thing that the Jews want is to take over the entire world . . . . The first stage is Jerusalem. They want to liberate Jerusalem and settle in Palestine. The second stage is the liberation of the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. [--> This is based on a common propagandistic misinterpretation of the Israeli flag, cf. comment below, also cf; here on IslamIST end of days black flag armies and here on wider geostrategic- spiritual issues at stake because of IslamISM] The third stage of their operation is to take over the entire world.

The Star of David symbolizes this. It has six points, each of which is an arrow. This star must rise in Jerusalem. When it appears, the two blue lines above the star will assume their positions. They respect the Nile and the Euphrates. They will assume their positions, and then the six arrows of the star will move in different directions around the globe, until they meet again.

[...]

They have divided the people of the world into three classes: first-class people, second-class people, and third-class people. The Jews, or the Israelite race, are the first-class people. God created the world for them. He awarded the world to them. He told them to take over the world.

[...]

The second-class people are people who do not belong to the Israelite race – they are not the descendants of Jacob – but who accept the Jews to be first-class people. They do not belong to the Israelite race, but they accept that the Jews rule the world. These are second-class people. They have the right to live, but they must serve the Israelites.

[...]

Who are the third-class people? They are the ones who do not belong to the Israelite race, and do not accept Jewish supremacy.

[...]

What do they deserve? They deserve [to be buried] one meter under ground.

[...]

Therefore, all the Muslims must be killed because they do not accept Jewish supremacy. They must all be killed. Let me tell you something... In this world, who is in need of an atomic bomb? Who would benefit from an atomic bomb? The only ones who need an atomic bomb in order to become global are the Jews. We Muslims number 1.4 billion people. No Muslim accepts Jewish supremacy.

In order to become global the Jews must kill Muslims en masse. In other words, they have to kill 1.4 billion people. If they wanted to kill them with conventional means, like rockets and conventional warheads... A conventional warhead weighs a maximum of one ton and can kill up to 500 people. In order to kill 1.4 billion people, you would need 10 million such bombs. There is not enough room to store all these bombs.

So they need means of mass killing, which can kill 500,000 people in one go. They need the means to kill 400,000 people in one go. Only the atomic bomb can achieve this.

That's a lot of fairly extreme inferences from a simple object, a national flag, to the point where questions of blame the intended victim blood libel must be raised. A few corrective remarks are in order:

1 -->  The remarks trace to an all too common propagandistic twisting of the meaning of the Israeli flag,

Jamaica's Flag of August 6, 1962, directly
based on the Scottish and UK flags, with
a cross of St Andrew in the colour that
represents the light of the sun.Thus
Jamaica's flag subtly reflects the
African [black], Scottish-Celtic, British
and Christian heritage of that famously
"Green Isle of the Indies" (HT: JIS)

apparently one favoured by the late Yassar Arafat. The Israeli flag is indeed based on the traditional Star of David/Seal of Solomon, which probably does not date to David but is at least medieval and on some views represents the top of a pomegranate. (The pomegranate fruit is a symbol of the Torah with the 613 precepts for living derived from it by the rabbis being represented by the hundreds of pulp-enclosed seeds within the fruit. So, it symbolises Judaism and/or the wisdom and much admired greatness of Solomon. Where, of course, from crescent moons and stars to t- and X- Crosses, religious symbols are a commonplace on national flags reflective of historic heritage.)

2 --> The two stripes and white background are evidently derived from the prayer-shawl, which again is ancient. Regardless of how one may wish to interpret the various OT prophetic texts of end of days situations where by the direct intervention of God the Assyrian and the Egyptian are envisioned as God's people too, the historic settled land of Israel (which is in the land of Canaan) is the region of the territories the -- largely secular and socialist -- Zionist movement sought to settle. JVL notes:

Flag of Israel. (Cf discussion here)

Zionist tradition credits the design of the Zionist flag to David Wolffsohn. Legend even tells precisely when Wolffsohn had his brainstorm, namely, that during a meeting in Basel Herzl raised the question of the Zionist flag. When his proposal of a white banner with seven gold stars failed to marshal a consensus, Wolffsohn stood up and said: "Why do we have to search? Here is our national flag." Upon which he displayed his prayer shawl and showed everyone the national flag: a white field with blue stripes along the margin. 

“At the behest of our leader Herzl, I came to Basle to make preparations for the Zionist Congress. Among many other problems that occupied me then was one which contained something of the essence of the Jewish problem. What flag would we hang in the Congress Hall? Then an idea struck me. We have a flag — and it is blue and white. The talith (prayer ahawl) with which we wrap ouselves when we pray: that is our symbol. Let us take this Talith from its bag and unroll it before the eyes of Israel and the eyes of all nations. So I ordered a blue and white flag with the Shield of David painted upon it. That is how the national flag, that flew over Congress Hall, came into being.” — David Wolffsohn

3 -->  Common decency alone -- much less sound historiographical principles -- would tell us that where there is an innocent and credibly authentic interpretation of a symbol, it should prevail. The burden of proof  beyond reasonable doubt that we should hold otherwise therefore being upon those who would project a loaded, accusatory and toxic interpretation. One that in this case is patently utterly unlikely to be met.

4 --> Where also, Jews living in what we call Iraq and in Syria for 2,500 years saw and see themselves as exiles and descendants of exiles hoping to go home, not conquering settlers, and those of Egypt see themselves as in a traditional and often hospitable land of Jewish refuge for the same 2,500 years.  

5 --> Note Wikipedia on the Israeli Flag:

The blue stripes are intended to symbolize the stripes on a tallit, the traditional Jewish prayer shawl. The portrayal of a Star of David on the flag of the State of Israel is a widely-acknowledged symbol of Judaism.

The Israelites used a blue coloured dye called tekhelet; this dye may have been made from the marine snail Murex trunculus.^[4] This dye was very important in both Jewish and non-Jewish cultures of this time, and was used by royalty and the upper class in dyeing their clothing, sheets, curtains, etc. (The dye from a related snail can be processed to form Tyrian purple called argaman.)

In the Bible, the Israelites are commanded to have one of the threads of their tassels (tzitzit) dyed with tekhelet; "so that they may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them (Num 15:39)." Tekhelet corresponds to the colour of the divine revelation (Midrash Numbers Rabbah xv.). Sometime near the end of the Talmudic era (500-600 CE) the industry that produced this dye collapsed. It became more rare; over time, the Jewish community lost the tradition of which species of shellfish produced this dye. Since Jews were then unable to fulfil this commandment, they have since left their tzitzit (tallit strings) white. However, in remembrance of the commandment to use the tekhelet dye, it became common for Jews to have blue or purple stripes woven into the cloth of their tallit.

6 --> However, by projecting a very different meaning unto the flag, in hostile propagandised minds, it becomes a symbol of projected genocidal intent ascribed to Jews and especially those who have successfully sought the  restoration of their historic homeland. For which, the ideals can be deduced from the Israeli Declaration of Independence, 1948, which reads in key parts:

ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books. 

After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom. 

Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. Pioneers, ma'pilim [(Hebrew) - immigrants coming to Eretz-Israel in defiance of restrictive legislation] and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country's inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood. 

In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country. 

This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home . . . . 

WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel". 

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. 

THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.

WE APPEAL to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the comity of nations. 

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. 

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East. 

WE APPEAL to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream - the redemption of Israel. 

PLACING OUR TRUST IN THE "ROCK OF ISRAEL", WE AFFIX OUR SIGNATURES TO THIS PROCLAMATION AT THIS SESSION OF THE PROVISIONAL COUNCIL OF STATE, ON THE SOIL OF THE HOMELAND, IN THE CITY OF TEL-AVIV, ON THIS SABBATH EVE, THE 5TH DAY OF IYAR, 5708 (14TH MAY,1948). 

7 --> Again, where there is an innocent interpretation, common decency and sound historiography should prevail.


8 --> The Wikipedia article goes on to note:

It has been alleged by some groups that the blue stripes on the Israeli flag actually represent the rivers Nile and Euphrates as the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael, the land promised to the Jews by God.^[12] Those making this allegation insist that the flag "secretly" represents the desire of Jews to conquer all of the land between the Nile and Euphrates rivers, which would involve conquering and ruling over much of Egypt, all of Jordan, and some of Syria and Iraq. Yasser Arafat, Iran and Hamas also made the allegation,^[13] and repeatedly tied this notion to the stripes on the Israeli flag.^[14][3]

Both Zionist and anti-Zionist authors have debunked the claim that the stripes on the flag represent territorial ambitions. Daniel Pipes notes "In fact, the blue lines derive from the design on the traditional Jewish prayer shawl",^[15] and Danny Rubinstein points out that "...Arafat... added, in interviews that he gave in the past, that the two blue stripes on the Israeli flag represent the Nile and the Euphrates... No Israeli, even those who demonstrate understanding for Palestinian distress, will accept the... nonsense about the blue stripes on the flag, which was designed according to the colours of the traditional tallit (prayer shawl)..."^[3] Persistent critic of Israel and Zionism Israel Shahak is equally explicit. In his The Zionist Plan for the Middle East he states

A good example is the very persistent belief in the non-existent writing on the wall of the Knesset of the Biblical verse about the Nile and the Euphrates. Another example is the persistent, and completely false declarations, which were made by some of the most important Arab leaders, that the two blue stripes of the Israeli flag symbolize the Nile and the Euphrates, while in fact they are taken from the stripes of the Jewish praying shawl (Talit).

Saqr Abu Fakhr, an Arab writer, has also spoken out against this idea. He writes that the "Nile to Euphrates" claim regarding the flag is one of seven popular misconceptions and/or myths about Jews which, despite being unfounded and having abundant evidence refuting them, continue to circulate in the Arab world.^[16]

Nevertheless, the Hamas covenant states "After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates," and as recently as January 29, 2006, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar issued a demand for Israel to change its flag, citing the "Nile to Euphrates" argument.

9 --> In such a situation, the projection of genocidal intent multiplied by bad history (Einstein, a physicist, pacifist and secular Jew discovered the energy equivalence of rest-mass through reflections on relativity of the laws of physics and the constancy of the speed of light in non-accelerated frames of reference; he did not design or develop the atom bomb), is obviously unworthy, propagandistic, shrilly hateful and unjustified.

10 --> However, in a context of repeated public threats of genocide against Israel by Iran, it is historically and psychologically unsurprising to find projections of blame and demonisation to the intended victim of aggression. 

11 --> It is, however, quite saddening to see such irresponsible rhetoric coming from the mouth of a leader of a think-tank that advises leaders of a state seeking to develop the technical means that enable creation of a nuclear arsenal and the means of delivery of such weapons at ranges of 1 - 2,000 miles, just the range to reach Israel.
_____________ 

It is only reasonable to call for the leadership of Iran to denounce, correct and repudiate such destructive propaganda and to change their path before it is horrifically too late. And, failing that, world leaders who act as though such an irresponsible and patently dangerously unstable regime is within the norms of civilised conduct, would be for cause be deemed irresponsible for failing to take the threats and actions of Iran seriously, enforcing sanctions and such other steps as are credibly necessary to block access to the means of genocide.  END

Matt 24 watch, 229b: Former US UN Ambassador John Bolton on the emerging Geneva nuke deal with Iran

Former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton weighs in:, speaking on the round two negotiations that are starting up after the French and/or Iranians stopped the last round. If it was the French, it was because they saw the deal as dangerously favourable to Iran's nuke bomb agenda. If Iran, it is because it is trying to manufacture a "right" to enrich Uranium despite the longstanding Non Proliferation Treaty conditions under which it got access to nuclear technologies under the Shah. (The same Shah Rezi Pahlevi the Mullahs overthrew.)

Bolton comments:

Secretary of State John Kerry has spared no effort to avoid another Geneva debacle, almost certainly making more concessions to Iran to secure agreement. The failed deal was certainly wretched from America’s perspective, involving countless problems and deficiencies. This week’s deal will be worse.

It is no answer that Obama is seeking merely an “interim” understanding with Iran. “Interim” concessions have a way of getting locked-in, as seemingly ad hoc trade-offs freeze into permanence. Indeed, Obama’s “step-by-step” approach itself tells Tehran’s mullahs how desperately Obama wants a deal, and how willingly he ignores the reality that Iran’s nuclear program has never been peaceful.

But there is a larger point here, beyond whatever specific terms emerge this week in Geneva. The West’s efforts to negotiate with Iran are doomed to failure because the parties’ objectives are utterly incompatible. A decade of abortive negotiations alone demonstrates this basic truth, which Iran’s ongoing diplomatic “charm offensive” cannot obscure.

 What is going on? Bolton's analysis:

Obama sees negotiations as deflecting the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons. Iran sees them, by contrast, as helping ensure success for that very weapons program. There is simply no compromise between these objectives. There are no “bridging proposals” that can overcome irreconcilable differences.

Tehran’s primary negotiation objective is to eliminate the threat of military strikes against its nuclear program. Despite Obama’s rhetoric that “all options are on the table,” no one believes he will use force. And who knows what private assurances Obama or Kerry have already given the ayatollahs (a fruitful area for Congressional inquiry)? That leaves Israel, which the Obama administration is pressuring unmercifully, not just on Iran but also on the Palestinians.

I doubt that any US administration c 2013 can be naive about Iran and its long-term drive to nuke weapons. My own view is, they feel they can live with a nuclear Iran, especially in a context where Mr Obama plainly fundamentally agrees with the idea that the West, especially the US is the chief global problem to be kept in check.

U/D 1: Looks like I am not alone in that assessment, cf. PowerLine's Scott Johnson, here, on a conference call with Dr Emily Landau, an expert on nuke weapons breakouts:

Dr. Landau asks why parties other than France aren’t raising these technical issues. 

[To wit: The original clause on Arak – that would have prevented Iran from commissioning the facility for six months, but would have allowed for continued construction work – is Iran’s tactic in a nutshell. To make “concessions” that are not concessions at all, because Iran was not on track to commission the facility in the next six months, but certainly wanted to be able to continue construction work so that it would be ready to do so later in 2014. And in return, to get sanctions lifted.]

They are straightforward issues with respect to which she finds the apparent concessions to be puzzling. I asked Dr. Lanadau: Isn’t the simplest explanation that the United States is okay with Iran’s development of nuclear weapons? 

She laughed uncomfortably and responded that she took Obama at his word while acknowledging the circumstantial basis of the question. As we have all learned in recent days if not earlier, taking Obama and his “declared policy” (to borrow Dr. Landau’s term) at face value is a big mistake.

U/D 2: Michael Oren, former Israeli Ambassador to the UN and a distinguished historian, writing in an opinion piece in the LA Times, after describing the dismissive ridicule Israeli PM Netanyahu is facing as an alleged spoiler undercutting supposed Iranian moderates, observes:

Netanyahu is acting out of a deep sense of duty to defend Israel against an existential threat. Such dangers are rare in most countries' experience but are traumatically common in Israel's, and they render the price of ridicule irrelevant.

Moreover, when formulating policies vital to Israel's survival, the prime minister consults with Israel's renowned intelligence community, a robust national security council and highly specialized units of the Israel Defense Forces. Netanyahu may at times appear to stand alone on Iran, but he is backed by a world-class body of experts.

In 2011, these same analysts predicted that the Arab Spring, which was widely hailed as the dawn of Middle Eastern democracy, would be hijacked by Islamic radicals. They foresaw years of brutal civil strife. Netanyahu publicly expressed these conclusions and was denounced as a naysayer by many of the same columnists who are now lambasting him on Iran.

Yet it is precisely on Iran that Israeli specialists have proved most prescient. They were the first, more than 20 years ago, to reveal Iran's clandestine nuclear activities. They continued to scrutinize the program, emphasizing its military goals, even after 2003, when weaponization was purportedly halted.

Throughout several attempts at diplomacy, these experts have disclosed the ways that Iran systematically obstructed United Nations observers, lied to world leaders and hid nuclear facilities, such as the one at Fordow, which can have no peaceful purpose. Israeli intelligence has accurately tracked Iran's support for terrorist organizations, its role in the massacre of thousands of Syrians and its responsibility for attacks against civilians in dozens of cities around the world.

And the march of folly goes on, and on.

The onward path is predictable.

Beyond a certain point, Israel will strike, regardless of global opinion and International sanctions likely to come of such. For, given the repeated declaration of intent to wipe Israel off the map, the matter is survival, not only of Israel but the Jewish people.

At this point, frankly, I feel like a passenger in a car that has begun to skid and slide out of control into the path of fast moving heavy traffic.

We need a miracle. END

Matt 24 watch, 230: Iron Age altar found at Shiloh, Israel -- is this the Altar of Eli and Samuel?

Archaeology can be described as an old codger with a spade (and, sometimes a teaspoon and toothbrush) digging through old rubbish, but with an instructed eye. In and around Israel, that work keeps turning up biblical era remnants and other bits and pieces that corroborate or flesh out what the text tells us. And sometimes, too, the archaeologists are put onto the track because of what gets turned up at construction sites or turned up by farmers, etc.

In this case, thanks to JNS.org and algemeiner.com, we see how:

a stone altar dated to the Iron Age—the period of Israelite kings—was accidentally exposed

The Tel Shiloh dig, where an Iron Age altar was found

during a dig conducted by an archaeological staff officer of the Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria.

The altar was found amid the stones of a wall dated to the Byzantine period. Apparently, the Byzantines removed the altar from its original location in Tel Shiloh and used it to build a structure at the foot of the tel. The discovery is the first tangible evidence that Shiloh was a cultic center prior to and during the First Temple period. Previously, the only evidence for that theory were descriptions in the Bible about the Tabernacle at the time of Joshua and later in the time of Eli the high priest and the prophet Samuel.

 This of course simply adds more details to a long term pattern. END