How many of you think this deal is about Iran getting a bomb and using it? Isn't that the "official" publicly stated concern? I don't think they are worried about Iran using a nuke which would be suicide.
I am worried that this is about something Obama mentioned in his speech which is the role of the US Dollar in the world's reserve currency. He mentioned, and I believe most people in finance would agree, that should the US Dollar's role as the world's currency be reduced it could cost millions of US Jobs and send our economy into a tailspin. That is what worries me about this deal. I am concerned that behind the scenes what is really going on is an attempt to reduce if not eliminate the dollar's role in the word reserve currency and the people who run our country are worried enough that they see war with Iran as necessary to keep that from happening. Obviously if Iran has a nuke, that would make invading them a lot more dangerous. That worries me.
I started another thread with this question - are we at a Kill Or Be Killed tipping point - but this is specifically why I am worried about it.
Thoughts?
According to my financial analyst, the US dollar is not in danger of not being the world's reserve currency, and it would not be that great of an impact if it wasn't - there are pros and cons to being the world's currency. China is maybe closest to being able to do it, but you need to be a consumer economy, which they are not yet. Every time they start to try to be true market based, the government pulls back. You also need to have a very deep pool of that currency to become the world's currency. The US dollar is currently 60% of all the world's currency. The US doesn't depend on a lot of exports - it's only 7% of our GDP - we are very much an established consumer economy. The US stock exchange has bee around since the late 1800's - China's started in the 1990's - they are not established enough to become the world's reserve currency. The US dollar is very strong right now, which actually hurts our exports - but since that is only 7% of our GDP, it doesn't matter that much.
According to my analyst, China may be talking up that they should be the reserve currency, but nobody wants that or believes it will happen in our lifetime........
[Edited on 8/20/2015 by Sang]
Of course you can always watch one of Ron Paul’s videos.
Rand Paul’s daddy ain’t right in the head.
the iran deal calls for them to get rid of 98% of their enriched uranium. they now have 20k centrifuges, after the deal they will only have 6k of them, those are the oldest ones,which are useless in creating a bomb. they have two large reactors which will be constantly monitored, one of them in a mountain, so an airstrike will probably not wipe it out.
if the agreement is not approved, we get NO concessions from iran. the sanctions we have in place now will be useless,the other countries will lift theirs. so either the deal gets done, or we get nothing. I think diplomacy is a smart way to go [the iran deal] if they don't want to cooperate, a harder line can still be taken later on.
Pretty sure that Israel will find a way, if provoked, to change the song to "There was a Mountain"
Define "provoked"
Provoked: my definition would be "made to feel that you are about to be attacked due to the words and actions of others"
What's yours?
the iran deal calls for them to get rid of 98% of their enriched uranium. they now have 20k centrifuges, after the deal they will only have 6k of them, those are the oldest ones,which are useless in creating a bomb. they have two large reactors which will be constantly monitored, one of them in a mountain, so an airstrike will probably not wipe it out.
if the agreement is not approved, we get NO concessions from iran. the sanctions we have in place now will be useless,the other countries will lift theirs. so either the deal gets done, or we get nothing. I think diplomacy is a smart way to go [the iran deal] if they don't want to cooperate, a harder line can still be taken later on.
Pretty sure that Israel will find a way, if provoked, to change the song to "There was a Mountain"
Define "provoked"
Provoked: my definition would be "made to feel that you are about to be attacked due to the words and actions of others"
What's yours?
It was more of a rhetorical question. What would provoke Israel to attack Iran? And the passage of this has no bearing on the answer...Israel could be provoked into attacking Iran whether this deal passes or not.
[Edited on 8/20/2015 by gondicar]
According to my financial analyst, the US dollar is not in danger of not being the world's reserve currency, and it would not be that great of an impact if it wasn't - there are pros and cons to being the world's currency. China is maybe closest to being able to do it, but you need to be a consumer economy, which they are not yet. Every time they start to try to be true market based, the government pulls back. You also need to have a very deep pool of that currency to become the world's currency. The US dollar is currently 60% of all the world's currency. The US doesn't depend on a lot of exports - it's only 7% of our GDP - we are very much an established consumer economy. The US stock exchange has bee around since the late 1800's - China's started in the 1990's - they are not established enough to become the world's reserve currency. The US dollar is very strong right now, which actually hurts our exports - but since that is only 7% of our GDP, it doesn't matter that much.
According to my analyst, China may be talking up that they should be the reserve currency, but nobody wants that or believes it will happen in our lifetime........
China will not become a reserve currency until China allows their currency to trade freely on the market. China has refused to allow that and they continue to undervalue their currency to gain an advantage by making their goods cheaper on the world market. Simply put, they can't have it both ways and it seems that they value control over the value of their currency more than any advantage a strong renminbi might provide.
The secret deal between Iran and the IAEA is leaking like Hillary’s email. Obama and Kerry claim they don’t have access to the secret deal. Well somebody is leaking the details.
What the secret nuclear inspection accord between Iran and the UN says _ and what others say
Published August 20, 2015 - Associated Press
International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA at the International Center, in Vienna, Austria. Iran has agreed to cooperate with the U.N. in answering longstanding allegations about possible past work to develop nuclear weapons at its Parchin plant, but only with the Iranians conducting the inspections themselves. A draft of the Parchin document, as seen by The Associated Press, essentially cedes the Parchin inspection to Iran, allowing it to collect its own environmental samples on the site and carry out other work usually done by IAEA experts.
The IAEA will be able to review the Iranians’ work after the fact. (AP ) (The Associated Press)
VIENNA – Iran has agreed to cooperate with the U.N. in answering longstanding allegations about possible past work to develop nuclear weapons at its Parchin plant — but only with the Iranians conducting the inspections themselves. That is raising other questions.
One big point to note: This accord is separate from the landmark nuclear agreement, signed by Iran, the U.S. and other world powers last month, that would restrict Iran's present and future nuclear activities in exchange for relief from economic sanctions.
But opponents of the broader deal are seizing an opportunity to say the entire exercise is flawed, that it foolishly relies on trust of the Iranian government. Disputing that, the Obama administration and other supporters of the wider agreement say it is focused on the future, with ample inspections, while the side accord between Iran and the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency is focused on the past.
A draft of the Parchin document, as seen by The Associated Press, essentially cedes the Parchin inspection to Iran, allowing it to collect its own environmental samples on the site and carry out other work usually done by IAEA experts. The IAEA will be able to review the Iranians' work after the fact.
A look at the main parts of the document and the questions it poses:
___
WHAT IS UNUSUAL ABOUT THE AGREEMENT ON PARCHIN?
Any IAEA inspection of a country suspected of nuclear irregularities is usually carried out by agency experts. They may take swipes of equipment, sample the air or take soil samples in attempts to look for signs of clandestine work on atomic arms or other potentially dangerous unreported activity.
The document on Parchin, however, will let the Iranians themselves look for signs of the very activity they deny — past work on nuclear weapons. It says "Iran will provide" the agency with environmental samples. It restricts the number of samples at the suspect site to seven and to an unspecified number "outside of the Parchin complex" at a site that still needs to be decided.
The U.N. agency will take possession of the samples for testing, as usual. Iran will also provide photos and video of locations to be inspected. But the document suggests that areas of sensitive military activity remain out of bounds. The draft says the IAEA will "ensure the technical authenticity of the activities" carried out by the Iranians — but it does not say how.
In contrast, the main nuclear deal with Iran gives IAEA experts greatly expanded authority compared to what the agency has now to monitor Iranian nuclear activities as it works to ensure that Tehran is hewing to its commitments. Those include reducing the scope and output of programs that Iran says it needs to generate energy but which can also be turned to making the fissile core of atomic weapons.
___
WHY IS THE PARCHIN AGREEMENT IMPORTANT?
Any indication that the IAEA is diverging from established inspection rules could weaken the agency, the world's nuclear watchdog with more than 140 members, and feed suspicions that it is ready to overly compromise in hopes of winding up a probe that has essentially been stalemated for more than a decade.
Politically, the arrangement has been grist for American opponents of the broader separate agreement to limit Iran's future nuclear programs, signed by the Obama administration, Iran and other world powers.
Critics have complained that the wider deal is built on trust of the Iranians, while the administration has insisted it depends on reliable inspections.
The separate agreement on past nuclear activities does not affect the broader deal signed in July. And it doesn't appear yet that the revelation will change any votes in Congress for or against a resolution of disapproval, which President Barack Obama is expected to veto if it passes.
___
HOW DID THIS SIDE AGREEMENT HAPPEN?
It could be a matter of priorities.
The Obama administration's main focus in the broader Iran deal — signed by the U.S., Iran, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — is crimping Iran's present nuclear activities so they cannot be used in the future toward making a bomb. Faced with more than a decade of Iranian resistance to IAEA attempts to probe the allegations of past weapons work, there may be a willingness to settle for an agency report that is less than definitive — and methods that deviate from usual practices.
The IAEA also appears to have recognized that Iran will continue to insist the allegations are lies, based on false U.S., Israeli and other intelligence. After a decade of stalemate it wants to close the books on the issue and allow the U.N. Security Council to do so as well.
The alternative might well have been no inspection of any kind.
___
WHAT DOES THE IAEA SAY?
Director General Yukiya Amano says, "The arrangements are technically sound and consistent with our long-established practices. They do not compromise our ... standards in any way." He says agreements with Iran on clearing up the nuclear arms allegations "are confidential and I have a legal obligation not to make them public - the same obligation I have for hundreds of such arrangements made with other IAEA member states."
___
WHAT DO OTHERS SAY?
Ned Price, spokesman for the National Security Council at the White House: "We are confident in the agency's technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran's former program, issues that in some cases date back more than a decade. Just as importantly, the IAEA is comfortable with the arrangements, which are unique to the agency's investigation of Iran's historical activities."
Olli Heinonen, in charge of the Iran investigation as IAEA deputy director general from 2005 through 2010, says he can think of no similar arrangement — a country essentially allowed to carry out much of the probe of suspicions against it.
___
HOW CRUCIAL IS PARCHIN TO THE OVERALL DEAL?
U.S. intelligence officials do not consider the Parchin inspections a critical part of the broader deal, according to one official, commenting only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to be quoted. The U.S. believes most weapons work occurred there in 2003, the official says, and the site has been thoroughly cleaned up since then.
___
AP Intelligence Writer Ken Dilanian contributed to this report.
According to my financial analyst, the US dollar is not in danger of not being the world's reserve currency, and it would not be that great of an impact if it wasn't - there are pros and cons to being the world's currency. China is maybe closest to being able to do it, but you need to be a consumer economy, which they are not yet. Every time they start to try to be true market based, the government pulls back. You also need to have a very deep pool of that currency to become the world's currency. The US dollar is currently 60% of all the world's currency. The US doesn't depend on a lot of exports - it's only 7% of our GDP - we are very much an established consumer economy. The US stock exchange has bee around since the late 1800's - China's started in the 1990's - they are not established enough to become the world's reserve currency. The US dollar is very strong right now, which actually hurts our exports - but since that is only 7% of our GDP, it doesn't matter that much.
According to my analyst, China may be talking up that they should be the reserve currency, but nobody wants that or believes it will happen in our lifetime........
China will not become a reserve currency until China allows their currency to trade freely on the market. China has refused to allow that and they continue to undervalue their currency to gain an advantage by making their goods cheaper on the world market. Simply put, they can't have it both ways and it seems that they value control over the value of their currency more than any advantage a strong renminbi might provide.
What you guys say here certainly makes me feel better but I still find it hard to believe that were the US Dollar start to loose it's place in the word's currency reserves there would be "not a great impact." My rudimentary understanding of it is that all those dollars would still be floating around out there with no demand for them. That could seriously weaken the value of the dollar making which would affect, for starters, all international currency transactions US business do. That is not an insignificant percentage of the US economy.
Also, I have heard talk about in some way securitizing a basket of currencies or maybe just straight up relying more heavily on drawing rights as a replacement for the dollar as for currency reserves. I think this sounds much more likely and plausible than any single replacement currency such as the renminbi.
What worries me as a tipping point is the theory that since 1973, oil was always purchased from oil producing countries in US Dollars. Were countries to start accepting payment for oil in currencies other than the US Dollar their would be a huge negative impact on the demand for the dollar to a degree that would not only create adverse effects for the US economy but decrease demand for the dollar as a reserve currency as well.
It seems like a decent theory to me in that Iraq began accepting Euros as payment for oil in 1999 and within four years there were US military bases planted on every major oil field in the country and are still there today. Around 2011, Libya was going to stop accepting US Dollars for oil and instead accept and African currency called Dinars. As soon as they got serious about this, the US destroyed Libya, killed Quadafi and Libyan oil is now sold in US Dollars only.
Iran, Russia and Venezuela have all explored not using US Dollars as payment for oil. These countries by coincidence just happen to be enemy #1 right now.
This article (which is one of many of read on this theory) explains some of the other ways in which the Federal Reserve's interest rate policies, huge oil companies and the world's economies are all tied to oil being traded in US Dollars:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/petrodollar-us-saudi-policy_b_6245914.html
This seem like a much more plausible motivation to invade Iran and be concerned with them getting a nuclear weapon than "they are evil!" or "They develop a nuke and use it right away!" If you look at Iraq, Libya and Syria there is even empirical evidence that this could be the case.
So, the question is: if this IS the case, is war the only answer?
No.
Obama’s line of it is “this deal or war” is his standard rhetoric to demonize anyone who disagrees with his policies.
This right thing to do, which has been articulated by many who are most interested in keeping the U.S. and the World safe, would be a better deal.
Iran held all the cards in the negotiations and was working from a position of strength and Obama and Kerry were coming from weak spot.
Iran, like the rest of the world, knows that when Obama draws a red line and that line is crossed Obama wimps out and flies off to a fund raising event.
This fact is proven by Iran getting everything they wanted and a deal that gives Iran a clear path to nuclear weapons and the missile systems to deliver them.
The U.S. dollar, the most powerful currency in the world, is becoming more fragile with every tick of the clock.
Our economic strength, conviction of our citizens, vigor of our Constitution and patriotism and military prowess was once the best hope in the world.
Of late those things have waned and Iran, Russian, China know it.
“If you look at Iraq, Libya and Syria there is even empirical evidence that this could be the case”
- Easy to say when you don’t say what that “empirical evidence” is exactly.
“If you look at Iraq, Libya and Syria there is even empirical evidence that this could be the case”
- Easy to say when you don’t say what that “empirical evidence” is exactly.
Um, the theory in question and empirical evidence would be this part:
"What worries me as a tipping point is the theory that since 1973, oil was always purchased from oil producing countries in US Dollars. Were countries to start accepting payment for oil in currencies other than the US Dollar their would be a huge negative impact on the demand for the dollar to a degree that would not only create adverse effects for the US economy but decrease demand for the dollar as a reserve currency as well.
It seems like a decent theory to me in that Iraq began accepting Euros as payment for oil in 1999 and within four years there were US military bases planted on every major oil field in the country and are still there today. Around 2011, Libya was going to stop accepting US Dollars for oil and instead accept and African currency called Dinars. As soon as they got serious about this, the US destroyed Libya, killed Quadafi and Libyan oil is now sold in US Dollars only.
Iran, Russia and Venezuela have all explored not using US Dollars as payment for oil. These countries by coincidence just happen to be enemy #1 right now."
If the Petrol Dollar theory is correct, what sort of deal would motivate Iran to give up pursuing a nuclear deterrent and continue to use a dollar denominated oil trade system?
The U.S. dollar, the most powerful currency in the world, is becoming more fragile with every tick of the clock.
The dollar is stronger than it has ever been, and expected to get stronger as all other currencies are going through their own forms of quantitative easing - euro, Japan, China, etc......
The U.S. dollar, the most powerful currency in the world, is becoming more fragile with every tick of the clock.
The dollar is stronger than it has ever been, and expected to get stronger as all other currencies are going through their own forms of quantitative easing - euro, Japan, China, etc......
Fact.
The U.S. dollar, the most powerful currency in the world, is becoming more fragile with every tick of the clock.
The dollar is stronger than it has ever been, and expected to get stronger as all other currencies are going through their own forms of quantitative easing - euro, Japan, China, etc......
________________________________________________________________________
Is your Kool-Aid spiked?
“If you look at Iraq, Libya and Syria there is even empirical evidence that this could be the case”
- Easy to say when you don’t say what that “empirical evidence” is exactly.Um, the theory in question and empirical evidence would be this part:
"What worries me as a tipping point is the theory that since 1973, oil was always purchased from oil producing countries in US Dollars. Were countries to start accepting payment for oil in currencies other than the US Dollar their would be a huge negative impact on the demand for the dollar to a degree that would not only create adverse effects for the US economy but decrease demand for the dollar as a reserve currency as well.
It seems like a decent theory to me in that Iraq began accepting Euros as payment for oil in 1999 and within four years there were US military bases planted on every major oil field in the country and are still there today. Around 2011, Libya was going to stop accepting US Dollars for oil and instead accept and African currency called Dinars. As soon as they got serious about this, the US destroyed Libya, killed Quadafi and Libyan oil is now sold in US Dollars only.
Iran, Russia and Venezuela have all explored not using US Dollars as payment for oil. These countries by coincidence just happen to be enemy #1 right now."
If the Petrol Dollar theory is correct, what sort of deal would motivate Iran to give up pursuing a nuclear deterrent and continue to use a dollar denominated oil trade system?
______________________________________________________________________
Theory, while interesting to some, is exactly that, theory.
There is no evidence that any country will dump the dollar for an alternative currency.
“It seems like a decent theory to me”
- The rest of that paragraph is word salad and crap. The US Military bases in the Iraqi oil fields are there to protect the oil and try and keep it away from ISIS and alike. The US did not destroy Libya. That was Obama and Hillary’s attempt to install the Muslim Brotherhood which blew up in their faces.
“Iran, Russia and Venezuela have all explored not using US Dollars as payment for oil. These countries by coincidence just happen to be enemy #1 right now."
- Exploring… means nothing
- The “coincidence” is a forced argument to support a theory.
“If the Petrol Dollar theory is correct”
- If…
None of this matters if/when Iran gets the bomb.
Sang, Gondicar, 2112...anyone ...have any intelligent thoughts they'd like to add on the petroldlar theory as the reason for the crossroads we find ourselves at in the Middleeast?
Is Iran a do or die situation because of our currency situation? If not why? And if so, what is the way out?
Sang, Gondicar, 2112...anyone ...have any intelligent thoughts they'd like to add on the petroldlar theory as the reason for the crossroads we find ourselves at in the Middleeast?
Is Iran a do or die situation because of our currency situation? If not why? And if so, what is the way out?
___________________________________________________________________________
Axeman,
Understanding global economies and currencies in the context of geo-political concepts is difficult. I know of few that both know it well and can articulate it to others.
Former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz headed a symposium in 1992 of this very subject that I attended. His keynote address lasted over two hours and the scope of what he was saying complex to say the least. His almost drone-like speaking voice did not help.
After the event I pursued more understanding and did attain a better grasp but I certainly would not want to have to put forth a theory much less craft an actionable plan.
There is an economic aspect to the Middle East uproar and it directly affects Islamic Extremist Terrorism. For an explanation I’d have to ask Mr. Shultz.
Sang, Gondicar, 2112...anyone ...have any intelligent thoughts they'd like to add on the petroldlar theory as the reason for the crossroads we find ourselves at in the Middleeast?
Is Iran a do or die situation because of our currency situation? If not why? And if so, what is the way out?
___________________________________________________________________________
Axeman,
Understanding global economies and currencies in the context of geo-political concepts is difficult. I know of few that both know it well and can articulate it to others.Former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz headed a symposium in 1992 of this very subject that I attended. His keynote address lasted over two hours and the scope of what he was saying complex to say the least. His almost drone-like speaking voice did not help.
After the event I pursued more understanding and did attain a better grasp but I certainly would not want to have to put forth a theory much less craft an actionable plan.
There is an economic aspect to the Middle East uproar and it directly affects Islamic Extremist Terrorism. For an explanation I’d have to ask Mr. Shultz.
Despite being a dry topic by not the best speaker, I'll bet that was pretty fascinating at times.
I will look for some videos and articles by Schultz on the topic.
Thanks Muleman!
Maybe we can get Sang's financial guy to logon and 'splain it 😉
[Edited on 8/21/2015 by Muleman1994]
Sang, Gondicar, 2112...anyone ...have any intelligent thoughts they'd like to add on the petroldlar theory as the reason for the crossroads we find ourselves at in the Middleeast?
Is Iran a do or die situation because of our currency situation? If not why? And if so, what is the way out?
___________________________________________________________________________
Axeman,
Understanding global economies and currencies in the context of geo-political concepts is difficult. I know of few that both know it well and can articulate it to others.Former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz headed a symposium in 1992 of this very subject that I attended. His keynote address lasted over two hours and the scope of what he was saying complex to say the least. His almost drone-like speaking voice did not help.
After the event I pursued more understanding and did attain a better grasp but I certainly would not want to have to put forth a theory much less craft an actionable plan.
There is an economic aspect to the Middle East uproar and it directly affects Islamic Extremist Terrorism. For an explanation I’d have to ask Mr. Shultz.
Despite being a dry topic by not the best speaker, I'll bet that was pretty fascinating at times.
I will look for some videos and articles by Schultz on the topic.
Thanks Muleman!
________________________________________________________________________
The event was at the National Press Club in the fall of 1992
The place was dripping in dignitaries and the Forbes 500 types. You could see the faces of some folks were just lost but so many more just wanting more.
The upside was he left the attendees wanting more.
As the sign at Faber College says: Knowledge is Good.
Sang, Gondicar, 2112...anyone ...have any intelligent thoughts they'd like to add on the petroldlar theory as the reason for the crossroads we find ourselves at in the Middleeast?
Is Iran a do or die situation because of our currency situation? If not why? And if so, what is the way out?
___________________________________________________________________________
Axeman,
Understanding global economies and currencies in the context of geo-political concepts is difficult. I know of few that both know it well and can articulate it to others.Former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz headed a symposium in 1992 of this very subject that I attended. His keynote address lasted over two hours and the scope of what he was saying complex to say the least. His almost drone-like speaking voice did not help.
After the event I pursued more understanding and did attain a better grasp but I certainly would not want to have to put forth a theory much less craft an actionable plan.
There is an economic aspect to the Middle East uproar and it directly affects Islamic Extremist Terrorism. For an explanation I’d have to ask Mr. Shultz.
Despite being a dry topic by not the best speaker, I'll bet that was pretty fascinating at times.
I will look for some videos and articles by Schultz on the topic.
Thanks Muleman!
________________________________________________________________________
The event was at the National Press Club in the fall of 1992
The place was dripping in dignitaries and the Forbes 500 types. You could see the faces of some folks were just lost but so many more just wanting more.
And there you were, working as a bus boy.
Axeman, related lyrics:
High Wire – The Rolling Stones
We sell 'em missiles, we sell 'em tanks
We give 'em credit, you can call the bank
It's just a business, you can pay us in crude
You love these toys, just go play out your feuds
Got no pride, don't know whose boots to lick
We act so greedy, makes me sick sick sick
So get up, stand up, out of my way
I want to talk to the boss right away
Get up, stand up, whose gonna pay
I want to talk to the man right away
We walk the highwire
Sending the men up to the front line
Hoping they don't catch the hell fire
With hot guns and cold, cold nights
We walk the highwire
Sending the men up to the front line
And tell 'em to hotbed the sunshine
With hot guns and cold, cold nights
Our lives are threatened, our jobs at risk
Sometimes dictators need a slap on the wrist
Another Munich we just can't afford
We're gonna send in the eighty-second airborne
Get up, stand up, who's gonna pay
I want to talk to the boss right away
Get up, stand up, outta my way
I want to talk to the man right away
We walk the highwire
Putting the world out on a deadline
And hoping they don't catch the shellfire
With hot guns and cold, cold nights
We walk the highwire
Putting the world out on a deadline
Catching the bite on prime time
With hot guns and cold, cold nights
Get up! Stand up!
Dealer! Stealer!
We walk the highwire
We send all our men into the front lines
We're hoping that we backed the right side
With hot guns and cold, cold nights
We walk the highwire
We send all the men up to the front lines
And hoping they don't catch the hellfire
With hot guns and cold cold, cold, cold,
Cold nights
We walk the highwire
We walk the highwire
With hot guns and cold, cold, cold nights
With hot guns and cold, cold nights
The opinion piece in the WAPO relies heavily on “J Street”.
J Street is a liberal activist organization. One of their major donors and influences is George Soros.
J Street is a Pro Israel and Pro Peace organization funded by many Jews like George Soros and others.
What is your point?
J Street is a marginal Obama water carrier that is so hostile to Israel it has been excluded from the President's of major American Jewish Organizations. It is not a pro Israel organization nor is it pro peace. It's just on the other side.
The opinion piece in the WAPO relies heavily on “J Street”.
J Street is a liberal activist organization. One of their major donors and influences is George Soros.
J Street is a Pro Israel and Pro Peace organization funded by many Jews like George Soros and others.
What is your point?
J Street is a marginal Obama water carrier that is so hostile to Israel it has been excluded from the President's of major American Jewish Organizations. It is not a pro Israel organization nor is it pro peace. It's just on the other side.
The other side to you is anything non-Obama and non-rightwing. In respect to J Street there is a large group of Israelis who share your perspective. In the US though the majority of American Jews are Democrats and so are well represented by J Street’s positions.
The Jerusalem Post has remained impartial.
J Street vs. AIPAC: Main US pro-Israel lobbies disagree on ...
www.jpost.com/.../US-Jewish-liberal-group-J-Street-h...The Jerusalem Post
Jul 14, 2015 - The Jerusalem Post - Israel News ..... The liberal Jewish lobby J Street on Tuesday praised the agreement struck between the major world ...
The opinion piece in the WAPO relies heavily on “J Street”.
J Street is a liberal activist organization. One of their major donors and influences is George Soros.
J Street is a Pro Israel and Pro Peace organization funded by many Jews like George Soros and others.
What is your point?
J Street is a marginal Obama water carrier that is so hostile to Israel it has been excluded from the President's of major American Jewish Organizations. It is not a pro Israel organization nor is it pro peace. It's just on the other side.
_______________________________________________________________________
"J Street is a marginal Obama water carrier that is so hostile to Israel it has been excluded from the President's of major American Jewish Organizations. It is not a pro Israel organization nor is it pro peace. It's just on the other side"
Exactly right.
The opinion piece in the WAPO relies heavily on “J Street”.
J Street is a liberal activist organization. One of their major donors and influences is George Soros.
J Street is a Pro Israel and Pro Peace organization funded by many Jews like George Soros and others.
What is your point?
J Street is a marginal Obama water carrier that is so hostile to Israel it has been excluded from the President's of major American Jewish Organizations. It is not a pro Israel organization nor is it pro peace. It's just on the other side.
_______________________________________________________________________
"J Street is a marginal Obama water carrier that is so hostile to Israel it has been excluded from the President's of major American Jewish Organizations. It is not a pro Israel organization nor is it pro peace. It's just on the other side"
Exactly right.
Considering only one or two people on this site believes anything you post this is one h_ll of an endorsement.
The opinion piece in the WAPO relies heavily on “J Street”.
J Street is a liberal activist organization. One of their major donors and influences is George Soros.
J Street is a Pro Israel and Pro Peace organization funded by many Jews like George Soros and others.
What is your point?
J Street is a marginal Obama water carrier that is so hostile to Israel it has been excluded from the President's of major American Jewish Organizations. It is not a pro Israel organization nor is it pro peace. It's just on the other side.
_______________________________________________________________________
"J Street is a marginal Obama water carrier that is so hostile to Israel it has been excluded from the President's of major American Jewish Organizations. It is not a pro Israel organization nor is it pro peace. It's just on the other side"
Exactly right.
Considering only one or two people on this site believes anything you post this is one h_ll of an endorsement.
______________________________________________________________________
You assume I give a sh*t what you think.
Trust me son, I don.t
The opinion piece in the WAPO relies heavily on “J Street”.
J Street is a liberal activist organization. One of their major donors and influences is George Soros.
J Street is a Pro Israel and Pro Peace organization funded by many Jews like George Soros and others.
What is your point?
J Street is a marginal Obama water carrier that is so hostile to Israel it has been excluded from the President's of major American Jewish Organizations. It is not a pro Israel organization nor is it pro peace. It's just on the other side.
The other side to you is anything non-Obama and non-rightwing. In respect to J Street there is a large group of Israelis who share your perspective. In the US though the majority of American Jews are Democrats and so are well represented by J Street’s positions.
The Jerusalem Post has remained impartial.
J Street vs. AIPAC: Main US pro-Israel lobbies disagree on ...
www.jpost.com/.../US-Jewish-liberal-group-J-Street-h...The Jerusalem Post
Jul 14, 2015 - The Jerusalem Post - Israel News ..... The liberal Jewish lobby J Street on Tuesday praised the agreement struck between the major world ...
I see you are in with the American Jewish Community. You can believe me or not but J Street is a minor organization that is anti-Israel not Zionist and very few American Jews, even Democrats, even Obama supporters, agree with.
I see you are in with the American Jewish Community. You can believe me or not but J Street is a minor organization that is anti-Israel not Zionist and very few American Jews, even Democrats, even Obama supporters, agree with.
I am part of an extended Jewish family and so do have some personal insight. I don’t want to make this about identity though.
I’ve cited a number of Jewish sources of support for the deal with links in this thread. From published sources the Jewish community is divided over this deal for a number of reasons. There is support on both sides and is not as lopsided as you claim. These people would be on the same side as J Street.
Twenty-six former senior leaders of major American Jewish groups have signed a letter supporting the recently signed agreement over Irans’ nuclear program.
The letter appeared as a full-page advertisement in Thursday’s New York Times. The letter says that the signers “devoted decades to building and enhancing Israel’s security and strengthening the US-Israel alliance,” and that the agreement “cuts off Iran’s ability to pursue a nuclear weapon.”
The signatories include three former chairs of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, one former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, former leaders of the Conservative and Reform movements, and former heads of the American Jewish Committee and Jewish Community Relations Council.
Top HeadlinesThe list also includes 9 former heads of local Jewish Federations, some of which have released statements opposing the deal. Former Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin also signed the letter, as did former Congressmen Mel Levine (D-Calif.) and Robert Wexler (D-Fla.).
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/26-former-American-Jewish-leaders-back-Iran-deal-412740
I see you are in with the American Jewish Community. You can believe me or not but J Street is a minor organization that is anti-Israel not Zionist and very few American Jews, even Democrats, even Obama supporters, agree with.
I am part of an extended Jewish family and so do have some personal insight. I don’t want to make this about identity though.
I’ve cited a number of Jewish sources of support for the deal with links in this thread. From published sources the Jewish community is divided over this deal for a number of reasons. There is support on both sides and is not as lopsided as you claim. These people would be on the same side as J Street.
Twenty-six former senior leaders of major American Jewish groups have signed a letter supporting the recently signed agreement over Irans’ nuclear program.
The letter appeared as a full-page advertisement in Thursday’s New York Times. The letter says that the signers “devoted decades to building and enhancing Israel’s security and strengthening the US-Israel alliance,” and that the agreement “cuts off Iran’s ability to pursue a nuclear weapon.”
The signatories include three former chairs of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, one former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, former leaders of the Conservative and Reform movements, and former heads of the American Jewish Committee and Jewish Community Relations Council.
Top HeadlinesThe list also includes 9 former heads of local Jewish Federations, some of which have released statements opposing the deal. Former Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin also signed the letter, as did former Congressmen Mel Levine (D-Calif.) and Robert Wexler (D-Fla.).
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/26-former-American-Jewish-leaders-back-Iran-deal-412740
_______________________________________________________________________
"Twenty-six former senior leaders of major American Jewish groups" who are now left-wing lobbyists who bow to Obama?
