Israel has no right to exist as a state.  It's a position based on well-established Islamic principles. One such principle is that a land that falls under Muslim rule, even briefly, can never again be ceded to non-Muslims. What matters in Islam is ownership of a land's government, even if the majority of inhabitants are non-Muslims.

                Dozens of maps circulating in the Muslim world show the extent of Muslim territories lost that include large parts of Russia and Europe, almost a third of China, the whole of India and parts of the Philippines and Thailand.  But Israel is a special case for three reasons.

                First, Israel is a loyal ally of the United States (the Great Satan); second, Israel has waged war on Muslims on a number of occasions, thus becoming "a hostile infidel;" and third, Israel occupies Jerusalem - "Islam's third Holy City."

                Wow!  That's just a sampling of what can be found in a newly published, 416-page book authored by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called "Palestine."  A credit on the back cover of the book credits Khamenei as the "Flagbearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem."  All this, according to Middle East columnist Amir Taheri who recently reviewed it.

                Khamenei is the Supreme Leader of Iran and a Muslim cleric 

                We can't review the book ourselves because it is only available in Iran and translated copies are not yet available.  Taheri, who was born in Iran, was sent a copy by a friend who still lives in that country.

                But the views expressed in the book are nothing new.  The news media has been reporting it for years.

                So, we shouldn't wonder why the people of Israel are concerned about the possibility of an agreement between Iran and the United States, as well as other countries, which could add to the global arsenal of nuclear weapons.  This Middle-East quandary conjures up memories of the Cuban missile crises of 1962 and the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union over Soviet ballistic missiles on the island just 90 miles south of Florida.  Some historians claim that it was the closest we've come to an incident escalating into a full-scale nuclear war.

                United States government representatives are now reviewing and pondering the fate of the agreement that has proponents opining that, among other things, it will prolong any attempt by Iran to produce nuclear weapons.

                Opponents fear that removing sanctions that, among other things, block the transfer of weapons, components and technology to Iran's prohibited nuclear and missile programs.

                Iranian officials claim they want to use nuclear power to support a civilian energy program.

                As Congress continues to vet the agreement, media reports the good and bad of the proposal, sometimes in unfair and biased ways.  The Legislature will soon offer their view and if they oppose it, President Obama will have the authority to veto their vote.  There are probably not enough votes in the Senate to override a veto.

                There should be no party lines or personal legacy concerns while the vetting process goes on for this globally important decision.

                The decision makers must decide if they would prefer a bad agreement instead of no agreement, and how that decision will affect our relationship with Israel.