August 14-16, 2015 SnyderTalk—A Battle Royal is Brewing: the Forces of Good vs. the Forces of Evil

1--Intro Covering Israel and ME

“For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My Name will be great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My Name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My Name will be great among the Gentiles,” says Yahweh Sabaoth. (Malachi 1: 11)


2--SnyderTalk Editorial 5 New Temple MT


A Battle Royal is Brewing: the Forces of Good vs. the Forces of Evil

In an article for the Washington Post titled “A new fight over oil shows why it’s so hard to keep Iraq from splintering”, Loveday Morris said,

Iraq’s Kurdish region has begun to sell oil independently of the central government, a move that is exacerbating divisions in the country as it struggles to turn back Islamic State militants.

The Kurdish region last month stopped transferring oil to the state as it had promised to do under a landmark deal in 2014. Kurdish officials argued that payments from Baghdad had not been sufficient. Instead, the region exported more than 600,000 barrels a day itself, Kurdish and Iraqi officials said, a step that Baghdad considers illegal.

The dispute threatens to widen differences in a country already effectively split into three parts: the Kurdish north, areas in southern and central Iraq controlled by the Shiite-led government, and territory in the north and west seized by the Islamic State.

To understand what’s happening, it helps to consider today’s events in historical context.  After the Second Gulf War and the removal of Saddam Hussein, many experts said that Iraq should be divided into 3 regions—one Sunni, one Shia, and one Kurd. They reasoned that differences between the groups were too great and that they wouldn’t/couldn’t unify.  Their logic was analogous to the rationale for dividing the British Indian Empire into India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh following British withdrawal from the Indian subcontinent.

That logic makes a lot of sense.  In 2006, Peter W. Galbraith laid out “the case for dividing Iraq”:

Iraq is broken.

Iraq’s national-unity government is not united and does not govern. Iraqi security forces, the centerpiece of the U.S.’s efforts for stability, are ineffective or, even worse, combatants in the country’s escalating civil war. President George W. Bush says the U.S.’s goal is a unified and democratic Iraq, but we have no way to get there. As Americans search for answers, there is one obvious alternative: split Iraq into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shi’ite states.

The case for the partition of Iraq is straightforward: It has already happened. The Kurds, a non-Arab people who live in the country’s north, enjoy the independence they long dreamed about. The Iraqi flag does not fly in Kurdistan, which has a democratically elected government and its own army. In southern Iraq, Shi’ite religious parties have carved out theocratic fiefdoms, using militias that now number in the tens of thousands to enforce an Iranian-style Islamic rule. To the west, Iraq’s Sunni provinces have become chaotic no-go zones, with Islamic insurgents controlling Anbar province while Baathists and Islamic radicals operate barely below the surface in Salahaddin and Nineveh. And Baghdad, the heart of Iraq, is now partitioned between the Shi’ite east and the Sunni west. The Mahdi Army, the most radical of the Shi’ite militias, controls almost all the Shi’ite neighborhoods, and al-Qaeda has a large role in Sunni areas. Once a melting pot, Baghdad has become the front line of Iraq’s Sunni-Shi’ite war, which is claiming at least 100 lives every day.

To keep order, maintain control, and hold Iraq together, Saddam Hussein used brute force.  He killed anyone who got in his way.  With Saddam’s ouster, the only internal barrier to the dissolution of Iraq was gone and the forces for division in Iraq started to rise up.  That fight is raging today, but today’s fight is complicated by Iran’s efforts to achieve regional hegemony and ISIS’ desire to create a Caliphate governed according to the Islamist version of Sharia law.

In the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Joe Biden was the U.S. champion for dividing Iraq, but Barack Obama won the race.  He preferred withdrawal from Iraq instead.  Rather than finishing the job that the U.S. started under George W. Bush, Obama simply declared victory and removed U.S. forces from Iraq leaving behind a vacuum that evolved into a hornet’s nest of competing forces that were seeking control.

Obama initiated his plan shortly after taking office.  It started in Cairo, Egypt in 2009 with his apology tour.  Obama’s gambit unleashed radical Islamist forces in the Middle East and North Africa that are still vying for control.  Those forces show no signs of letting up.  In fact, the fight has intensified, and it’s spreading.  It has reached every continent on the globe already.  No country in the world is safe, including the U.S. although it’s not obvious to Obama’s supporters—not yet anyway.

The struggle in Iraq today involves Shia Muslims, Sunni Muslims, and Kurds.  Each group has proponents and opponents inside and outside Iraq.  ISIS, Turkey, and Iran are good examples.  All of them have a stake in the battle, and they are heavily involved in the fighting in many ways.  ISIS has boots on the ground.  Turkey is the superhighway that ISIS fighters use to enter Iraq.  Iran provides men and material.  All three outside elements are involved in Syria, as well, and they are trying to exert influence throughout the region.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, candidates are being asked to explain what the U.S. should do now in Iraq and the larger Middle East.  While we can debate the wisdom of the Second Gulf War, we can’t deny the reality that exists today or the importance of the region to the U.S.

The U.S. has a role to play in the Middle East whether we like it or not.  Obama’s hands-off approach hasn’t worked.  In fact, it has made matters infinitely worse, and now we have Iran on the verge of becoming a nuclear power.  That fact has sent shock waves throughout the region.

Israel is not the only country that is threatened by Iran.  Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Arab countries are feeling the heat, and they are preparing for a major war in the Middle East.  Saudi Arabia has declared its intention to go nuclear and Egypt is moving in that direction as well.

The map of the greater Middle East today was drawn following World War I after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.  The map was drawn by the British and French using arbitrary lines.  See “Why border lines drawn with a ruler in WWI still rock the Middle East”.

So, what we have today is the continuation of a process that started about 100 years ago.  Those arbitrary country borders are drivers behind today’s struggles.  Add to that the resurgence of Islamism, Iranian efforts to rule the region, and Turkey’s attempts to reconstitute the Ottoman Empire, and we have a real powder keg on our hands.  Obama’s unilateral withdrawal makes things worse.

Israel’s contemporary borders are arbitrary, too:

Israel’s borders […] have changed from time to time with developments in Israel’s military and diplomatic situation. According to Green Line interpretations, it borders Lebanon in the north, the Golan Heights and Syria in the northeast, the West Bank and Jordan in the east, the Gaza Strip and Egypt in the southwest. The border with Egypt is the international border demarcated in 1906 between Britain and the Ottoman Empire. The borders with Lebanon, Syria and Jordan are based on those drawn up by the United Kingdom and France in anticipation of the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War and the carve up of the Ottoman Empire between them. They are referred to as the 1923 Paulet-Newcombe Agreement borders, being those of Mandate Palestine, which were settled in 1923. Israel’s borders with Egypt and Jordan have now been formally recognized and confirmed as part of the peace treaties with those countries, and with Lebanon as part of the1949 Armistice Agreements. The borders with Syria and the Palestinian territories are still in dispute.

Israel’s borders are especially problematic because Israel has a land grant from Yahweh.  For obvious reasons, Islamists don’t recognize Yahweh’s borders, and they are openly calling for Israel’s destruction.  Secular politicians in the West don’t recognize Yahweh’s borders, either.  They prefer another man-made/negotiated settlement as if they have the right to draw a new set of lines that don’t correspond with anything that Yahweh said.  To me, that’s stupid, because Yahweh is the ultimate Sovereign.

While ISIS, Turkey, and Iran don’t agree on everything, all of them have targeted Israel in one way or another.  Iran and ISIS are the most vitriolic, but Turkey under Erdogan as prime minister and now as president has become Israel’s virtual enemy.  Were it not for Ataturk’s legacy in Turkey, I suspect that Turkey would be just as hostile toward Israel as Iran and ISIS are.

I’ve simplified and left out many important groups and countries: Hamas, Fatah, Russia, and China, for example.  All of them are actively involved in the region, and Israel is less secure now than it has been since 1948.

Evil forces are at work around the world and in the U.S.  I think they have a firm grip on Obama and his White House.  Steve Apfel talks about it in his article titled “A dybbuk in the nuclear deal”:

In Jewish folklore a dead malcontent may return to possess the living. The troubled soul is known as a “dybbuk”, and it runs amok making mischief. In books and on stage and screen the fiend is invoked to aggravate family wrangles to the point of madness. Yet for all its wicked antics the dybbuk wants nothing more sinister than to settle a score. It may upturn some lives in the ghetto, but not the balance of world power. And no dybbuk, until now, toyed with the President of America.

Love or hate the nuclear deal, no one disputes that Obama’s ‘any deal is better than no deal,’ has upturned the balance of power. Iran, hitherto America’s number one foe, shall henceforth be, in the world’s number one hotspot, America’s number one ally. A detente, in other words, is brewing between the world’s powerhouse and the world’s sour pickle jar.

This is the bottom line: a battle royal is brewing.  Using Bible terminology, it’s the forces of good vs. the forces of evil, and it’s playing out right in front of us.  Despite appearances, it’s not about oil, ethnic and religious territorial disputes, or Iranian hegemony.  It’s about Yahweh and His sovereignty.  In the end, He will triumph.

Get ready for some rough sledding ahead.

In an email to me after she read this editorial, a SnyderTalk reader suggested this addition:

“Be strong in the Lord [Yahweh] and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.  For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.  Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all to stand.”  (Ephesians 6: 10-13)

She is right.  Yahweh is an will continue to be our only hope.  Have faith in Him.






13--Perspectives 2


Matthew Duss and Todd Gitlin: The White House’s Iran Sell and the Jews: A Debate—Part 1— In their August 7 editorial, “Crossing a Line to Sell a Deal,” Tablet’s editors accuse the White House and its allies of smearing American Jews in efforts to promote the recently inked nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran. The Editors cite a number of articles from The New York Times and theThe Washington Post that supposedly reveal “the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a political deal, or to smear those who oppose it.” They charge the Obama White House with orchestrating a smear campaign that labels opponents of the deal as “agents of a foreign power” or accuses them of “selling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests of the United States.” The first of those links—“agents of a foreign power”—is to a New York Times editorial on the “vicious battle against Mr. Obama, involving not just the Republicans but Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.” It notes that “[t]he unseemly spectacle of lawmakers siding with a foreign leader against their own commander in chief has widened an already dangerous breach between two old allies.” But it is Netanyahu himself, with the cooperation of the Republican leadership, who has staked out his leadership of the opposition to the Iran deal in the United States. The unprecedented nature of this dynamic has been widely remarked upon, including by Israeli politicians. Even in the days of the China Lobby, a powerful group that for years secured American support for recognizing the government headed by Chiang Kai-shek, located on the island of Taiwan, as the sole Chinese government, to the exclusion of the People’s Republic of China that ruled the country from Beijing, Chiang Kai-shek did not fly to Washington to mobilize Americans.

Lee Smith: The White House’s Iran Sell and the Jews: A Debate—Part 2— Tablet contributor Matthew Duss and my fellow Tablet columnist Todd Gitlin think that the editors of this publication were off-base in calling out the Obama Administration for its tactics in selling the Iran deal. I believe Duss and Gitlin are wrong—and I think the reason they can’t see the bigotry at the heart of the White House’s campaign is worth investigating in some depth. Let’s start with the suggestion that the “same people” responsible for the Iraq war are now opposing the Iran deal, which President Obama evoked in his speech at American University last week. The “same people” line has become one of the President’s constant refrains. Yet the reality is that the people behind the Iraq war—“the folks responsible for that decision,” as Obama calls them in The New Yorker this week—were the then-president of the United States, George W. Bush, and his national security cabinet, which included Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice. These figures may not like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, but they’re hardly leading the opposition to it. So who exactly is Obama referring to? Of course, anyone familiar with political discourse in America these days—on both the loony progressive left and the white power right—knows exactly what President Obama means: He is referencing the idea that a cabal of hardened “Likudniks,” journalists with Jewish-sounding names, and “monied interests” led America to war in Iraq in order to somehow advance the interests of the State of Israel. It should go without saying that this suggestion bears no relation whatsoever to any historical account of how the decision to go to war in Iraq was made, or how the American government works.

Algemeiner Staff: Major Jewish Groups Slam White House, Allies for Use of Antisemitic Language— Major Jewish groups condemned the use of offensive, and possibly antisemitic language used by the White House, its allies and even the President in the heated ongoing debate over the nuclear deal with Iran. The issue was first highlighted in an editorial by Jewish-interest magazine Tablet in which staff editors railed against deal supporters over their “use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a political deal, or to smear those who oppose it.” The authors warned, “Murmuring about ‘money’ and ‘lobbying’ and ‘foreign interests’ who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card,” an age-old antisemitic canard that Jews are more loyal to Israel than their own countries of citizenship.

SnyderTalk Comment: Derogatory comments coming from the White House is nothing new.  That’s what they do to marginalize their opponents.  Typically, they resort to accusing their opponents of racism.  Will it happen this time?  We’ll have to wait and see.

Soeren Kern—Europeans Rush to Profit from Iran Deal:

  • Middle East expert Ilan Berman points out that for Iran, trading with Europe is actually the perfect self-defense, a virtual guarantee that it will not face military attack if it cheats on its obligations under the nuclear deal.
  • Sanctions will also be lifted on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s $95 billion business empire, as well as on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which operates a vast network of companies and industries. No wonder European media outlets are referring to Iran as the “new El Dorado,” the “chance of a century,” and the “last untapped market.”
  • “Conducting business with the Iranian regime means to finance the nuclear program, the annihilation threats against Israel, Holocaust denial, the export of Islamist terror and the oppression of the Iranian population.” — Stop the Bomb, Austria.
  • “Everyone is looking at Iran with greed.” — Senior French official.

Alan Dershowitz: Netanyahu Emulates Churchill in Trying to Influence US Policy to Protect His People— Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is acting properly in lobbying against the Iran deal. And President Obama is acting improperly in accusing him of interfering in American foreign policy and suggesting that no other foreign leader has ever tried to do so: “I do not recall a similar example.” President Obama is as wrong about American history as he is about policy. Many foreign leaders have tried to influence U.S. foreign policy when their national interests are involved. Lafayette tried to get the United States involved in the French Revolution, as the early colonists sought support from France in their own revolution. Winston Churchill appeared in front of Congress and lobbied heavily to have America change its isolationist policy during the run up to the Second World War. Nor can President Obama claim ignorance about recent events, when he himself sent David Cameron, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, to lobby Congress in favor of the Iran deal. Recently, Shinzo Abe, the prime minister of Japan, lobbied us with regard to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Ben Cohen: Worldwide Anti-Semitism Gets a Boost From the Iran Deal— In Europe, Jewish communities are still licking the wounds from a miserable 12 months that saw deadly jihadist violence erupt against them in Paris, Brussels, and Copenhagen. On the old continent, there has also been an unprecedented rise in hate crimes targeting Jews, along with a growing acceptance of anti-Semitic discourse masquerading as fevered, impassioned criticism of alleged Israeli crimes. These events are entirely consistent with Europe’s trajectory since the turn of the 21st Century. One can now confidently predict that any upsurge of conflict in Lebanon, Gaza, or the West Bank that involves Israel’s military will be mirrored on the streets of Europe’s cities, with Jews subjected to verbal and physical abuse and even terrorist outrages. Indeed, data collected by the Community Security Trust (CST), the official body dealing with Jewish security in the U.K., suggests that even at comparatively quieter times for Israel, Jews are more at risk now than at any other period since World War II. During the first six months of this year, the CST recorded 473 anti-Semitic incidents, a 53-percent increase from the same period during 2014.

Benyamin Korn: Why Some American Jews Are Lobbying for the Iran Deal— Isn’t it remarkable how much of the fight over the Iran deal is a battle between different factions in the Jewish world? First off, one would think it would be an argument primarily over whether the agreement endangers America, not Israel. After all – as Prime Minister Netanyahu reminded us in his webcast this week – Iran still regards America as “the Great Satan.” Israel is just “the little Satan.” Sure, Iranian protesters add an occasional “Death to Israel” to their chants, but it is “Death to America” that is heard loudest and longest. Yet on Capitol Hill, the question that seems to be occupying everyone’s mind is: how will Jewish Congressmembers vote? And on the op-ed pages and the radio talk shows, we hear mostly about AIPAC vs. J Street, and pundits speculate as to whether other Jewish organizations will support or oppose the Iran deal.

Benyamin Korn: Ten Years Later, Gaza Withdrawal Was a Clear Mistake— The tenth anniversary of Israel’s retreat from Gaza has occasioned a number of interesting commentaries. Perhaps the most innovative comes from Shmuel Rosner, of Haaretz and the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, who views the withdrawal as a kind of triumph for Zionism, surprisingly enough. We should “rejoice” over the fact that Israel “chose” on its own to leave Gaza, Rosner contends. “We took our fate in our own hands…The Jews were not evicted…We were not driven out.” He is alluding to the classic Zionist concept of Jews taking their fate into their own hands by creating a Jewish state, instead of always having their fate determined by the various other countries in which they lived. Rosner’s argument is certainly an innovative way of trying to see some good in a withdrawal that most Israelis now think was bad. But Rosner is absolutely mistaken.

Lahav Harkov: Muslims Harass U.S. Congressmen Visiting Temple Mount—A group of Muslim men harassed and stalked a delegation of U.S. congressmen visiting the Temple Mount Tuesday. Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-Pa.) recounted, “We walked up there and were almost immediately approached by several men who started shouting. We were tracked the entire time we were there and found these individuals surprisingly intolerant and belligerent.” Men wearing shirts with Waqf insignia repeatedly interrupted the guide and tried to grab his diagrams and maps. Soon after, 15-20 men began to harass the group, interrupting the tour guide, shouting and pointing, and police had to break up the commotion. E.J. Kimball, Director of U.S. Operations for the Israel Allies Foundation, said the congressional delegation “wasn’t doing anything controversial, no one was even wearing a yarmulke. [The Muslims] did a good job of making everyone feel very uncomfortable just for being up there as a non-Muslim.” On their way out, the delegation saw a group of Jewish visitors confronted by a Muslim group crowding around them and shouting “Allahu Akbar.” The Islamic Movement in Israel pays thousands of shekels every month to “protectors of the holy places” who harass non-Muslim visitors.

SnyderTalk Comment: This is what it looks like when Jews dare to visit the Temple Mount—“A Muslim Welcome for Jewish Visitors on the Temple Mount”.

This practice has to end.  That won’t happen until Israel intervenes aggressively.

Recently, Israel has taken a tougher position on Islamist violence on the Temple Mount, but much more needs to be done.

Shlomo Cesana: Preferring Iran over Israel? Has the World Gone Mad?—Opposition Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid leveled harsh criticism at Europe over the weekend, saying that the EU’s policy of preferring Iran over Israel was “scandalous.” In opinion pieces in Corriere della Sera and Die Welt, Lapid asked, “You rush to sign contracts with the Iranians but you threaten to boycott Israel?” Lapid called the nuclear agreement “a terrible deal” that “sends the Middle East the message that the West is weak; that everyone who is lying cunningly enough will be rewarded.” Rather than demanding that Iran cease sponsoring international terrorism, the European nations lecture Israel about violence and human rights. “Under normal circumstances, countries like Germany and Italy would boycott Iran. Instead, the international community threatens to boycott Israel, while lifting the sanctions imposed on Iran. Has the world gone mad?”

Ari Harow: Does the Iran Agreement Serve Israel’s Interests?—President Obama maintains that the Iran nuclear accord serves Israel’s national security interests. Yet Israel is united in opposition to the deal – the government, the opposition, and everything in between. To believe that what Israel really needs is the polar opposite of a unified voice that spans the spectrum of Israeli political leadership, is arrogance in the extreme. The deal hands a short-term windfall to the terrorist armies which prowl our borders and in the long term hands the nuclear keys to a regime which advocates our genocide. How could Israel’s response be anything other than vociferous disapproval?

Lt. Col. (ret.) Michael Segall: Iran’s Supreme Leader Challenges U.S. Policy in the Middle East—Since the signing of the nuclear deal, the Iranian leadership has been affirming that the antagonistic relationship between Iran and the U.S. will not change. Supreme Leader Khamenei keeps declaring that Iranian and U.S. interests are completely opposed to each other. Iran, which continues to view the U.S. as an enemy and as the Great Satan, will keep fighting it even after the deal, and will keep helping its friends in the Middle East (Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas, etc.). On July 11, 2015, Khamenei said, “The fight against arrogance [the U.S.], the fight against the imperialist system, cannot be suspended; [this struggle] is part of our mission, part of our fundamental duty, one of the pillars of the Islamic Revolution….If the fight against arrogance is not waged, it means we are not acting according to the tenets of the Koran. The fight against arrogance cannot be brought to an end…and the United States is the most perfect example of the definition of arrogance.” Khamenei has posted on his homepage a defiant infographic that describes and maps the huge disparities (“180 degrees”) between Iranian and U.S. policy in the Middle East. A translation of the Khamenei infographic is presented here.

Jeffrey Goldberg—Why Iran’s Anti-Semitism Matters:

  • Iranian leaders, and in particular the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, do not specialize in nuance. They are people theologically committed to the destruction of Israel. Quotes such as this one from Khamenei help lead me to this conclusion: “This barbaric, wolflike, and infanticidal regime of Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated.”
  • If you’re paying attention, you will see that bringing about the end of the sovereign Jewish state in the Middle East is a paramount political and theological mission of the Iranian regime. If, in the post-Holocaust world, a group of people express a desire to hurt Jews, it is, for safety’s sake, best to believe them.
  • Secretary of State John Kerry’s understanding of the regime’s anti-Semitism is somewhat different from mine. He told me Iran is dangerous to Israel “at this moment” but that the true intentions of Iran’s leaders when it comes to Israel are unknowable and irrelevant. I was troubled by what I took to be his unwillingness, or inability, to grapple squarely with Iran’s eliminationist desires.
  • Last week I asked President Obama: Does the Iranian leadership seek the elimination of Israel? The president said: “I take what the supreme leader says seriously. I think his ideology is steeped with anti-Semitism, and if he could, without catastrophic costs, inflict great harm on Israel, I’m confident that he would. But as I said, I think, the last time we spoke, it is possible for leaders or regimes to be cruel, bigoted, twisted in their worldviews and still make rational calculations with respect to their limits and their self-preservation.”
  • I’m glad that Obama understands that the supreme leader seeks to do great harm to Israel. He told me last week: “The anxieties of the American Jewish community are entirely understandable. Those are amplified when there appears to be across-the-board opposition inside of Israel, not just within Likud, but among other parties. And some of that is emotional – in a legitimate way. You don’t like dealing with somebody who denies horrible things happening to your people or threatens future horrible things to your people. Some of it is based on legitimate concerns about what an economically stronger Iran could do to further enhance their support of Hizbullah.”
  • The risks here are huge: The administration, and supporters of the deal, are mortgaging the future to a regime labeled by Kerry’s State Department as the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and a regime that seeks the physical elimination of a fellow member-state of the UN and a close ally of the U.S. as well. Given that there is so much risk and uncertainty in what the U.S. is doing, it would be useful for the administration to make absolutely clear that it understands the nature of the regime with which it is dealing.

Danny Schiff: Waking Up to a Nuclear Iran?—The Islamic republic of Pakistan has approximately 120 nuclear weapons capable of reaching most of the Middle East, including Israel. Why are we resolutely opposed to the idea of Iran attaining even one future bomb, while hardly even discussing Pakistan’s existing arsenal? The most important answer is that the Iranian regime has genocidal intent, which it has restated on countless occasions in graphic, menacing tones. We should be just as worried about who controls the nuclear weapons as we are about the weapons themselves. Nuclear weapons in the hands of radical ideologues who openly incite genocide represent an intolerable nightmare.

Douglas Murray: Will Britain Pass the Choudary Test?—The long-term consequences of allowing Choudary to be free constitute a terrible mistake: the main impact of Choudary on the wider public has been colossally to exacerbate suspicions of Muslims as a whole. Broadcasters have for years introduced him as a “sheikh” or a “cleric,” without often casting doubt on his qualifications to such titles, or noting the comparative paucity of his following. It is perfectly possible that Anjem Choudary will slip between the UK’s terrorism laws once again. Or perhaps now it is he that has slipped up, and the most visible chink in the UK’s counter-extremism policy has finally resolved itself.

SnyderTalk Comment: I’m hopeful that Britain will pass the “Choudary test”, but candidly, I’ll have to see it to believe it.

Choudary is a menace to society and a traitor to his country.  Not dealing with him sends a loud message to his followers.

Burak Bekdil: How Elections Messed Up Turkey’s Plans— Turkey, over the past two months or so, has been run by an interim government. The Turkish voters’ decision to deprive the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) of its parliamentary majority for the first time since 2002 has not only altered the center of power in Turkish politics, it has also has forced the AKP into a compromised foreign policy. The AKP’s leadership, in theory, is in coalition negotiations with the main opposition. A historic deal is not altogether impossible, but unlikely. In his unconstitutional campaign before the June 7 parliamentary elections, the AKP’s unofficial boss, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, asked for “400 deputies” who would amend the constitution to introduce an executive presidential system for him. He did not specify for which party he wanted 400 seats in parliament, but everyone knew he explicitly supported the AKP, which he had founded in 2001. (According to the Turkish constitution, the head of government is the prime minister, not the president. The president has symbolic duties in addition to his powers to appoint high-ranking officials. He must remain non-partisan.) Instead, Turks gave the AKP 258 seats — not enough even to form a single-party government, let alone to amend the constitution. Knowing that he has nothing to lose, Erdogan wants repeat elections in autumn.

SnyderTalk Comment: The similarities between Adolf Hitler and Recep Tayyip Erdogan are remarkable.

Jonathan Tobin: Why is the Administration Attacking Schumer?— On the face of it, it makes no sense. Senator Chuck Schumer’s decision to vote against the Iran nuclear deal is a blow to the administration’s effort to smear all opponents of the plan as partisan Republicans who care only about venting spleen at President Obama. While it did shake up what the New York Times described as the “firewall” the White House is trying to build a veto-proof majority in the Senate to disapprove the deal, it by no means altered the math that indicates that such a margin seems likely to be out of reach for its opponents. But that didn’t satisfy President Obama and his left-wing supporters.

SnyderTalk Comment: I may be a cynic, but I believe Schumer’s position on the Iran deal is governed by his belief that the Senate cannot produce a veto proof majority opposing it.  That’s the way the political game is played.






9--Jerusalem Post


Iranian military official: ‘We laugh’ when US threatens to attack

Zarif says Iran’s main challenge is ‘confronting extremist Zionist regime’

Israel to European governments: Stop funding illegal Palestinian building

Israel addresses Jordanian concerns centered on new airport near border

Expired passport brings ISIS hopeful back to Israel and to jail

Labor Party hopeful in Britain defended 9/11 anti-Israel conspiracy theorist

An ugly fight on Iran

Iranian Kurdish Party says killed 12 Revolutionary Guards in attack

The quest for the red heifer: An ancient commandment meets modern technology

Group of heavyweight Hollywood Jews expresses public support for Iran deal

Arab worker hospitalized after being assaulted by 6 Jewish youths in Jerusalem

Simon Wiesenthal Center criticizes ‘gutter level’ of debate on Iran deal






10--Arutz Sheva


Rep. McCarthy: Congress Will Block Iran Deal

How Dare We Disagree with the American President?

Police Suspect Ring Stole Land from Arabs

Haaretz Oped Calls to Attack Right-Wing Activist

‘Sabena’ to Relive Historic IDF Rescue of Plane 

Arab-Israeli Student Charged for Joining ISIS

Israeli-Arab Indicted for Trying to Join ISIS

Laser Beams to Intercept Mortar Shells?

Erdogan’s Party Says New Elections ‘Only Option’

7 Kurds Killed as Clashes Escalate with Turkey

Rebels Close in on Assad’s Latakia Bastion

Turkish PM, Opposition Meet for Coalition Talks








Opposing Iran deal ‘is not meddling in US affairs,’ Israeli official insists

Briefing congressmen on Iran deal concerns, PM provides no ‘Aha!’ moment

US Jewish group slams ‘dual loyalty smears’ on Iran deal

Official fears US ‘national interest’ being hurt by partisan Iran row

Israel foiled 17 suicide attacks so far this year, Shin Bet says

Israel would lift Gaza blockade for truce — report

SnyderTalk Comment: Bad idea.

US Jewish journalist tells of relative freedom on rare trip to Iran

Abbas to resign within two months, report says

SnyderTalk Comment: I don’t believe it.  I’ll bet he’s just threatening to resign because he knows that Hamas would come in and take over.  That will cause Israel and the U.S. to react and funnel more money his way.

Hamas Has Dug Several Tunnels into Israel in New Iran-Funded War Drive

Knifing victim says Arab onlookers didn’t help him

‘Palestinian witnesses alerted IDF to terror attack’






12a--Other News 2


‘Tel Aviv on Seine’ celebration sparks controversy in Paris

More Than 30 Homes, Cars in San Antonio Jewish Community Daubed With Antisemitic Graffiti

Israeli hurt in stabbing attack on highway to Jerusalem

SnyderTalk Comment: Route 443 is an alternate route from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  The main route is Highway 1.  I’ve traveled the 443 route a couple of times on my own, but I don’t like it because it runs through the West Bank.  My friends in Israel frequently take the 443 route especially at night because it’s less traveled and more direct.  I’ve asked them if they are concerned about terrorist attacks, and they have told me that they are not.  I hope they reconsider.

Vatican to Israel: Charge rightist who condoned burning churches

SnyderTalk to Vatican: Deal with your homosexual, pedophile priests.

Hillary Clinton is Done. Get Ready for Elizabeth Warren.

SnyderTalk Comment: I think that’s a good assessment.

Iraq’s Anbar governor sacking all aides under Abadi reform plan

Islamic State truck bomb hits Baghdad food market, killing 67 people

Croatia: captors of hostage reportedly slain in Egypt demanded ransom before handing him to IS [for execution]

The Cyber Gap: The Internet Is the Middle East’s Next Battleground, But Are We Prepared?






12b--TRIC for use


Israel: Iran deal is not just an ‘American affair’

Switzerland first to lift Iran sanctions after nuclear deal

‘Even supporters of the deal know Iran will break it’

US officials claim they will know if Iran cheats on deal

New York Lawsuit for Victims of Terror Goes After Kerry, Lew and Unfrozen Iranian Assets

Schumer: If U.S. Quits Deal, U.S. Sanctions Still Will Hurt Iran

Schumer: Can’t Trust European Nations to Make Iran Inspections

New York Jews Strongly Oppose Iran Nuclear Pact, Poll Shows

SnyderTalk Comment: I think that explains why Chuck Schumer is opposing the Iran deal.  In other words, I think Schumer’s position is purely political.

Kerry: No Automatic Return of Sanctions If Iran Breaks Arms Embargo

Russia, Saudis Fail in Talks to Agree on Fate of Syria’s Assad

Iran outraged by warming ties between Hamas and Saudi Arabia 

Kerry’s latest scare tactic: Claiming rejecting Iran deal could erode dollar

Syria’s future as a Sunni-flavoured Iran

PM Medvedev extends Russian food embargo

Turkey faces autumn election after coalition talks fail






Email Distribution List:

I have created an email distribution list that I use to notify people when I post a new SnyderTalk.  If you would like to be on that list, send your email address to, and put “add me to your distribution list” in the subject line.  If you know others who are interested in SnyderTalk content, tell them to send me their email address, and I’ll put them on the list.


4--Scripture of the Day Yahweh

Exodus 18

24 So Moses listened to his father-in-law and did all that he had said. 25 Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens. 26 They judged the people at all times; the difficult dispute they would bring to Moses, but every minor dispute they themselves would judge. 27 Then Moses bade his father-in-law farewell, and he went his way into his own land.

SnyderTalk Comment: Read His Name is Yahweh.


5--HNIY Print form 2

His Name is Yahweh explains why the Name of God, Yahweh, is so important.  It’s available in eBook format and in paperback.  It’s also available for free in PDF format.

  • God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This [Yahweh] is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.” (Exodus 3: 15)
  • “Therefore behold, I am going to make them know—this time I will make them know My power and My might; and they shall know that My name is Yahweh.” (Jeremiah 16: 21)
  • “Behold, the days are coming,” declares Yahweh, “when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; and He will reign as king and act wisely and do justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely; and this is His name by which He will be called, ‘Yahweh our righteousness.’” (Jeremiah 23: 5-6)
  • Yeshua said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” (John 8: 58)


6--His Name is Yahweh Audio Presentation 5


The Palestinian Charter Still Calls for Israel’s Destruction

Click here to download the entire audio presentation for free and with no strings attached.  Share it as often as you want.



14--Blessings from Revelation 2

Blessings in the Book of Revelation is a book that you need to read, especially now.  There are blessings throughout the Scriptures but Revelation is the only book in the Bible actually containing a specific blessing for reading it. It’s repeated twice, once at the beginning and again at the end. This is the reason that I believe Revelation should be the first step toward studying biblical prophecy. Though not easy to do, Revelation can be broken down and understood by anyone, not just the academic elite. So, Revelation’s blessings are for everyone.  Click here to order the eBook.  Click here to order the paperback.


Other Books by Neil Snyder

  • Stand! is a suspense novel that exposes the lies, corruption, and greed underlying the theory that man-made CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming. Professor Wes Carlyle and Karen Sterling, his research collaborator, carefully scan the audience for their would-be attacker—a member of the enviro-gestapo who has been following them for days.  Wes spots his man in the back of the room leaning against the wall.  Suddenly, another man in the audience steps forward and moves toward Karen at a menacing pace.  With a vicious stroke, he swings a billy club at her head.  Click here to order the eBook.  Click here to order the paperback.
  • What Will You Do with the Rest of Your Life? deals with a question that every Christian has to consider: what should I do with my life? Click here to order the eBook.  Click here to order the paperback.
  • Falsely Accused is a true story about a young woman who was accused of committing a double homicide. It’s about a travesty of justice, and it reveals Yahweh intervening in the life of a believer to rescue her from danger in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds.  Everyone will enjoy the book, but young people in particular need to read it because the mistakes made that led to the problem could have been avoided.  They were the kinds of mistakes that young people are prone to make.  As they say, forewarned is forearmed.  Click here to order the eBook.  Click here to order the paperback.

15--Concentric Circles 5

See “His Name is Yahweh”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *