What the Palestinians And Arabs Think of Kerry's New Ideas

From Gatestone Institute

The Palestinian Authority does not like U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's latest ideas for peace between the Palestinians and Israelis.

The Palestinians especially do not like Kerry's proposal that Israel maintain a military presence in the Jordan Valley if and when a Palestinian state is established next to Israel.

Kerry, however, does not seem to be impressed with the Palestinians' rejection of his ideas. He appears convinced that immense pressure on the Palestinians will eventually force them to succumb.

Palestinian Authority officials complained this week that Kerry is obviously not taking them seriously. "Although the Palestinian Authority leadership has turned down his ideas, Kerry continues to exert heavy pressure on us because he thinks he can impose his will on us," remarked a senior Palestinian official in Ramallah. "Of course, Kerry is living in an illusion if he thinks we would change our position."

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who briefed Arab foreign ministers in Cairo on December 21, repeated his opposition to Kerry's ideas. Before that, Abbas sent a letter to President Barack Obama expressing reservations about Kerry's proposals.

Abbas has even won the backing of the Arab League for his stance. So it is not only the Palestinians who are now saying no to Kerry, but the Arab countries too. "The U.S. proposals achieved Israeli expansionist demands, and guaranteed [Israel's] continued control of [the Jordan Valley] on the security pretext," said a statement released by the Arab League.

Arab League Secretary-General Nabil al-Araby said that not one Israeli soldier could stay in the West Bank.

The Arab League's position is a severe blow to Kerry's ongoing efforts to persuade the Palestinian Authority to accept his ideas. Having won the backing of the Arab countries, Abbas now feels more confident to say no to Kerry and his proposals.

When Kerry next returns to the region, Abbas will once again tell him that he doesn't accept his ideas, particularly in the wake of the Arab League's having also rejected them.

Abbas, however, seems to have a problem not only with the idea of maintaining an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley.

A Palestinian official, who also said that Abbas had won backing from the Arab countries for his stance, revealed that Abbas continues to stick to his positions on a variety of issues pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- positions that openly contadict most of the Israeli and American demands.

The official summed up Abbas's position as follows:

• No to a demilitarized Palestinian state;
• No to recognizing Israel as a Jewish state;
• No to a solution that does not include all of east Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state;
• No to another interim agreement with Israel and, of course,
• No to the presence of any Israeli soldiers in the Jordan Valley.

The only two things that Abbas and the Arab League are prepared to accept is a timetable for an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines that does not exceed three years, and an exchange of land "equal in size and value" with Israel in cases where Israel retains any land beyond the pre-1967 lines.

Until recently, the Palestinian rejection of Kerry's ideas was expressed in a rather polite manner.

In the past few days, however, senior Palestinian Authority officials have begun launching a scathing attack on Kerry, with some accusing him of "endorsing" Israel's position on most issues related to the conflict with Israel.

PLO Secretary-General Yasser Abed Rabbo said that Kerry's proposals on security will lead to the "total failure" of the peace talks with Israel. Kerry's ideas, he added, have provoked a "real crisis." Abed Rabbo said that Kerry "only wants to win over the Israelis and [allow] settlement expansion at our expense."

In an interview with Voice of Palestine radio, Abed Rabbo continued his unprecedented criticism of both Kerry and his proposals. "Washington does not have the right to determine where our borders would be," he declared. "We won't allow Israel to slice off any parts of our land. If the Americans want, they can give Israel parts of California and Washington. This land belongs to the Palestinians."

The Arab League's rejection of Kerry's ideas not only complicates his efforts to achieve a deal between Palestinians and Israelis, but also ties Abbas's hands. It is hard to see how Abbas would be able to retract his position now that the Arab League has also rejected Kerry's ideas.

Kerry will now have to launch a new diplomatic campaign to convince the Arab League to change its position. And for the Arab countries to do that really would take a miracle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 I give Obama until next April before he becomes so angry with Israel that he orders an attack.  It has been revealed that he promised the Fakistinians everything from the river to the sea in 2007.  It also has been known that the Obamas have a deep hatred of Israel and the Jewish people.  If it wasn't for Jewish money, he would have made that known earlier.

It is also known in Israel that Obama had been stringing Netanyahu along.  He never had a notion of attacking Iran.  In fact he is dropping Israel as an ally and picking up Iran.  So much for his promises.

There will come a time when Israel will attack Iran.  Obama will help condemn Israel, then lead the attack on that nation.  The only question left is what will he do to the 6 million+ Jews living in the United States?

Obama To Israel: F@%k You!

Tonight President Barack Hussein Obama and the leaders of Europe have told the Mullahs of Iran:  Kill the Jews.  The P5+1 leaders have caved in to all of Iran's demands and will lift the sanctions.  (Although they claim that they will reinstate them again.)

Representatives of Iran and Western powers reached an interim deal on Iran’s controversial nuclear program early Sunday morning, after a weekend of intensive talks in Geneva.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said, “Yes, we have a deal,” as he walked past reporters crowding the hotel lobby where marathon negotiations had taken place over the past five days. Asked if there was a deal, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said “Yes” and gave a thumbs up sign.

Diplomats refused to spell out details of the talks, but a senior Obama administration official said that the West had not conceded an Iranian right to produce nuclear fuel through uranium enrichment, a key sticking point in previous negotiations.

The official said the deal included an agreement that Iran would halt progress on its nuclear program, including a plutonium reactor at the Arak facility. The deal also calls on Iran to neutralize its 20-percent-enriched uranium stockpiles. Tehran has also agreed to intrusive inspections under the terms of the deal.

According to a Western diplomat quoted by Reuters, the deal would grant Iran access to $4.2 billion in foreign exchange.

In a statement Sunday morning, US President Barack Obama said the deal opened up a “real opportunity to achieve a peaceful settlement.”

“It won’t be easy,” he said, “and huge challenge remain ahead, but through strong and principled diplomacy, the United States will do our part” to deny Iran nuclear weapons. Obama acknowledged that the deal may be hard to stomach for some of Washington’s allies in the Middle East, saying, Israel and the Gulf countries, “have good reasons to be skeptical.”

The West has been seeking a six-month agreement to partially freeze Iran’s nuclear program while offering Iran incentives through limited sanctions relief. If the interim deal holds, the parties would negotiate final-stage deals to ensure Iran does not build nuclear weapons.

The agreement built on the momentum of the historic dialogue opened during September’s annual UN gathering, which included a 15-minute phone conversation between Obama and Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, after three decades of US-Iranian estrangement.

“The Iranian people’s vote for moderation and constructive engagement, plus tireless efforts by negotiating teams are to open new horizons,” Rouhani said in a statement Sunday morning.

“Agreement in Geneva: first step makes world safer. More work now,” US Secretary of State John Kerry said in a comment tweeted by the State Department Sunday morning. The statement was retweeted by Rouhani’s account.

Kerry and his counterparts from Russia, Britain, France, China and Germany headed for Geneva Friday after diplomats said Zarif and EU representative Catherine Ashton had made significant progress.

A previous round of talks between Iran and the six world powers ended November 10 with no deal, even after Kerry, Lavrov, the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany and a Chinese deputy foreign minister flew in and attempted to bridge differences.

The United States and its negotiating partners had signaled they were ready to ease some sanctions in return for a first-step deal that starts to put limits on Iran’s nuclear program.

They wanted Iran to stop enriching to a level higher than its main stockpile and only a technical step away from weapons-grade uranium as part of such a deal. They also sought to limit overall enrichment, as well as a formulation that would reduce the proliferation danger from the Arak reactor, which, if completed, would produce enough plutonium for up to two weapons.

But they insist that the most severe penalties — on Tehran’s oil exports and banking sector — will remain until the two sides reach a comprehensive agreement to minimize Iran’s nuclear arms-making capacity.

No details on relief offered have been made public. And the US administration has not commented on reports from congressional officials that Obama’s team estimates Iran could get $6-10 billion in benefits over six months for rolling back its nuclear program.

Several US senators — both Democrat and Republican — have voiced displeasure with the parameters of the potential agreement, arguing that the US and its partners are offering too much for something short of a full freeze on uranium enrichment.

SOURCE

My sources tell me that Iran got everything they wanted.  The right to enrich uranium, their nuclear program intact, the relaxation of sanctions.  Israel on the other hand have been shafted up the ass.  Iran doesn't have a peaceful nuclear program.  They have made that clear over the last decade.

On September 30, 1938 then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain disembarked a plane from Germany, waved a piece of paper and stated clearly:

We have achieved peace in our time.

Click here if the video fails to load.

A year later Europe erupted in war.  For Chamberlain also believed that this was the first step and he could negotiate a lasting peace.

History is repeating itself in spades.

We haven't become safer by this treaty, but it is only a matter of time before a Regional War will break out.  A war that will become a World War.

Has Iran Gone Nuclear Already?

Although the report comes originally from Maariv, an Israeli paper notorious for being far left and their reports have been far from the truth, I submit this to you, my truth seeker, so you can make an honest assessment.

Some Israeli government analysts believe Iran already has at least one nuclear bomb, an Israeli journalist wrote in an article published Friday.

Shalom Yerushalmi, writing in the national daily Maariv, said that “government security sources up to date on development in Iran,” told him recently that Tehran has crossed all points of no return and already has its first nuclear weapon, and maybe more.

The report marks the first time a government official has been quoted saying Iran already has a nuclear weapon. No sources in the piece were named.

The information, if true, would mark a major shift in international relations and would be a game changer in terms of a regional power balance.

“It’s too late for Israel [to prevent an Iranian bomb]. Iran has crossed all the borders and all the constraints, and it has a first nuclear bomb in its possession, and maybe more than that,” Yerushalmi writes, basing himself on what he says is the assessment he heard this week from state security sources. ”We are facing a historic change in the strategic balance of forces in the region.”

He then quotes a source who he says is deeply familiar with what he calls the relentless war against the Iranians. “This is no longer about how to prevent a bomb,” the source is quoted saying, “but about how to prevent its being launched, and what to do if and when.”

Yerushalmi, still basing himself on the anonymous security sources’ assessment, goes on to compare the current behavior of Iran’s Supreme leader Ali Khamenei, and new President Hasan Rouhani, in their interactions with the West, to a soccer coach at the end of a hard-fought match which he knows he has now won. The Iranian leadership is behaving with the air of “those who have achieved their target, and therefore can today afford to be more generous and to offer new (self-serving) messages.” The Iranian leadership can afford to be friendlier, he writes, “because victory has been secured.”

Maariv led its Friday paper with a photograph of a smiling Rouhani, alongside the headline, “What’s hiding behind the smile,” and a sub-headline quoting the security sources saying Iran now has “at least one bomb.” It then adds that most in the security establishment, however, still believe that this “nightmare scenario has not yet been realized.”

While most Western countries believe Iran’s nuclear program is intended for military purposes, officials in Israel, the US and elsewhere say Tehran has yet to “break out” toward a bomb, a process that could take over a year.

Iran, which on Thursday agreed to renewed talks with world powers on curbing its nuclear program, says its program is for peaceful purposes.

On Friday, Iranian and UN officials met to discuss whether to resume inspections meant to determine whether Tehran worked on atomic arms, in a test of pledges by Iran’s new president to reduce nuclear tensions.

Iranian envoy Reza Najafi said in Vienna that it would be unrealistic to expect that “in just one day of meeting we can solve our problems.”

Herman Nackaerts of the International Atomic Energy Agency said only that he hoped the meeting could “intensify the dialogue.”

The UN agency wants access to a site it suspects was used to test conventional explosive triggers meant to set off a nuclear blast.

A report released last month by the IAEA said that while Iran was testing new centrifuges, which could help it eventually create a nuclear weapon, its uranium stockpile was still below the amount needed for a bomb.

“It is unlikely, at this point, that Iran could dash toward further enrichment to weapons-grade without the IAEA detecting Tehran’s activities,” Reuters quoted the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based advocacy and research group.

Israel sees an Iranian nuclear weapon as an existential threat, and Jerusalem has campaigned vigorously around the world for heavy sanctions to be placed on Iran, with a threat of military action should those fail to stop the nuclear program.

Next week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to deliver a speech at the United Nations during which he is expected to press for maintaining pressure on Iran despite a recent easing of tensions between Tehran and the West. In comments Tuesday, Netanyahu urged the world not to be “fooled” by Iran’s newly moderate rhetoric, which he said was a “smokescreen” to obscure its continued drive toward nuclear weapons.

“Israel would welcome a genuine diplomatic solution that truly dismantles Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said. “But we will not be fooled by half-measures that merely provide a smokescreen for Iran’s continual pursuit of nuclear weapons. And the world should not be fooled either.”

SOURCE

If true this would explain why Iranian President Hasan Rouhani is talking about the UN stopping the sanctions.  After all they have already gotten nuclear weapons and sanctions did not stop them.  But President Barack Hussein Obama's appeasement not only is helping Iran, he is pleased with the progress they achieved.  Along with forcing Israel into the Auschwitz Borders, Obama is well underway to appease his Muslim masters and destroy the West in the process.  For after all  Obama has been in communications with Iran, capitulating to their demands, and accepting the fact that Iran not only has a nuclear weapon, but will attack Israel with the weapon while the world stands by as they finish the job Hitler started.

Working Towards The Fuehrer

A timely and topical rant from my friend Patriot USA at Patriot's Corner.  A look back with a warning to the future.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Adolf Hitler was a lazy bastard. He slept late, often until two o'clock in the afternoon. After he got out of his pit, he'd have a read of the papers then go for a stroll. In the evening, he often watched movies selected for him by Goebbels. ⁽¹⁾

The world was at war, and somehow, the "Vienna vagabond" ⁽²⁾ was at the center of the storm. An average of twenty seven thousand people died each day between September 1939 and August 1945. At least sixty million lives were lost overall. The lives of the survivors were forever touched by the events of World War II. The war went beyond anything previously experienced by humanity and the only way people could describe what happened was to say that "all hell broke loose". ⁽³⁾

That's an appropriate turn of phrase, because the Satanic nature of Hitler's regime is unmistakable. Hitler, a failed artist with no formal training, created a symbol for the Nazis to follow during his rise to power. That symbol was the Hakenkreuz, the hooked cross. We know it as a black swastika on a white disc, with a red background. ⁽⁴⁾

At the first Nazi party rally held in Nuremberg, Hitler used the Blutfahne to bless the Nazi flags carried by his followers. This flag was stained with the blood of Nazis who had been killed during the failed putsch of November 1923. ⁽⁵⁾

The Fuehrer demanded absolute loyalty from his followers. German soldiers had to swear an oath of allegiance to Hitler personally. ⁽⁶⁾ One Nazi party member said, "There are things one cannot explain, cannot describe. I never stopped thinking of him. Sometimes, he meets us in our dreams." ⁽⁷⁾

An oath sworn to a man, believed by his followers to be their Savior, made under a hooked cross and consecrated with the blood of other Nazis. Historians have struggled to explain how such a regime managed to establish the camps.

Adolf Hitler may have spent most of his time lazing around at his home in the mountains, and he may not have issued an explicit order to establish a system of death camps, but an explanation of how the camps came to be an integral part of the Third Reich is certainly possible.

Hitler had stated that he intended to do away with democracy in Germany, and that's exactly what he did once he attained power. The Nazi regime has been described as chaotic, ⁽⁸⁾ but in fact the Nazis operated the Third Reich in accordance with basic evolutionary principles. Hitler was a follower of Darwin, and believed that his subordinates should compete amongst themselves, and the most devout and able Nazis would rise to positions of power. ⁽⁹⁾

In the absence of clearly defined orders being formally issued to his subordinates, the words of the Fuehrer served to establish the goals of the Nazi regime. Hitler had declared the Jewish race to be his enemy throughout his political career, so it was natural for avowed Nazis to pursue anti-Semitic policies. The British historian Ian Kershaw explains how this worked, citing a speech by Werner Willikens, who was employed in the German Ministry of Food: "Everyone who has the opportunity to observe it knows that the Fuehrer can hardly dictate from above everything he intends to realize sooner or later. On the contrary, up till now everyone with a post in the new Germany has worked best when he has, so to speak, worked towards the Fuehrer." ⁽¹⁰⁾

Nazis worked towards the Fuehrer by perpetrating crimes they thought Hitler would approve of. There was no legal or moral reason to restrict their behaviour in any way. Their enemies had from day one been treated with the utmost brutality. On the Night of The Long Knives, the Nazis had even turned against their own and murdered the leader of the SA, Ernst Roehm. ⁽¹¹⁾

The most ruthless anti-Semitic measures were taken. In accordance with the principles of Darwinism, the ongoing expression of the Nazis' hatred of the Jewish people could not evolve differently, by going back in time and choosing a path which had not been taken. The Nazis' anti-Semitic policies could only become more radical until eventually, a "final solution" was reached.

In the Third Reich, all roads led to the death camps.

Many people living in first world countries today have no personal experience of war, and they have no context in which to place the Nazis and their crimes against humanity. This limited view of reality is sometimes referred to as a "normalcy bias". It may be difficult for some people to think clearly about the Holocaust. But the question must be asked: Could it happen again?

If such a regime arose today, its disciples would not march under the swastika. That symbol is now associated with the Nazis, and the political operators of the 21st century would never permit such an overt display.

In the landmark television series The World At War, one woman who lived in Germany in the 1930s said that Adolf Hitler appeared to many people to be pursuing order and stability. By the time his real agenda became known, it was too late for anyone to oppose him. Christabel Bielenberg, who was married to a German at the time, said: "I think that everything that came to us when we were living in Germany came very gradually. That was part, perhaps, of the way Hitler managed these things. It came on us rather, drip by drip, rather like an anesthetic, one could almost say, and it was only when a specific thing that he did hit you personally that you actually realized what was going on." ⁽¹²⁾

We know that it is possible for a man who has done nothing, achieved nothing, and whose character and beliefs are a mystery, to manoeuvre themselves into a position of considerable political power. In an age where information is accessible to anyone, anywhere in the world, at the touch of an iPad, no one has any idea who the current American President really is.

Winston Churchill, 4th Queen's Own Hussars

One of the first things Obama did as President was remove a bust of Sir Winston Churchill from the Oval Office. Churchill was the man who, more than any other, recognized the danger posed by the Nazis and stood resolutely against them. ⁽¹³⁾

After insulting the Brits, Obama did the same to the Israelis. Benjamin Netanyahu served in the IDF and fought on the front lines in the Yom Kippur war of 1973. When Netanyahu arrived at the White House for a scheduled meeting, Obama handed him a list of demands based on the false "land for peace" premise, and told him to consider that while he went off to have dinner with his wife. Obama said he'd "be around" if Netanyahu decided he was willing to bend over on behalf of the state of Israel and take it up the ass. As one of the reporters who covered the incident noted, all that Obama managed to do here was reveal himself to be ideological and vindictive. ^(14,15)

These two incidents are telling enough, but a further incident involving a head of state gives Obama's game away completely. When he met a real, live Muslim king, his upbringing came to the fore and the President of the United States of America bowed down before him.

Barack Hussein Obama

As President, Obama has changed the status of Israel in the Middle East by letting her enemies know that instead of standing by Israel, his administration is backing away. As President of America, Obama has given hope to Israel's enemies. ⁽¹⁶⁾

If that's what Obama meant by "hope" and "change" on the campaign trail in 2008, one shudders to think what is meant by his new slogan: "Forward!" ⁽¹⁷⁾

An American President doesn't need to drop a nuke on Tel Aviv for Israel's citizens to start dying. All he needs to do is let it be known that he sympathizes with the Islamic world, and that America no longer stands with Israel. There are plenty of organizations in the Middle East willing to murder Israelis. They're not satisfied killing a busload of people at a time either. They've been doing that for years, and it hasn't worked. The Star of David still flies over Israel.

The Nazis also tried to operate at that level, using "gas vans". ⁽¹⁸⁾ It didn't work for them either; as we know, the Nazis went on to develop their "final solution" to the Judenfrage.

Hitler may have committed suicide in April 1945, but there are still a lot of people today trying to act in ways that would have pleased him.

Whether it's politicians trying to do to Israel what Neville Chamberlain and his pals did to Czechoslovakia in 1938, a corrupt Western media failing to report the thousands of rockets fired from Gaza into the town of Sderot, or the educated, so-called "moderate" Muslims living in the West who harbor the same "ancient hatred" of Israel in their hearts as the so-called "extremists" who act upon it, there is no shortage of people who, almost seven decades after the collapse of the Third Reich, are still working towards the Fuehrer.

References

1. Kershaw, I. Hitler, The Germans, And The Final Solution, Kindle loc. 435
2. Shirer, W. The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich, Kindle loc. 2301
3. Hastings, M. All Hell Let Loose: The World At War 1939-1945, p.xv
4. Shirer, W. The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich, Kindle loc. 1140
5. History Channel, The Third Reich, DVD no.1, 12-13 mins
6. Rees, L. The Nazis: A Warning From History, p. 50
7. History Channel. The Third Reich, DVD no. 1, 12-13 mins
8. Rees, L. The Nazis: A Warning From History, p. 45
9. Rees, L. The Nazis: A Warning From History, p. 34
10. Kershaw, I. Hitler, The Germans, And The Final Solution, Kindle loc. 596
11. Shirer, W. The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich, Kindle loc. 5355
12. ITV. The World At War: A New Germany, 40-41 mins
13.  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/177508/obama-throws-churchill-out-oval-office/nile-gardiner#
14.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/7521220/Obama-snubbed-Netanyahu-for-dinner-with-Michelle-and-the-girls-Israelis-claim.html#
15. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/03/obama_and_netanyahu_pointless.html
16. Horowitz, D. and Laskin, J. Obama And The War Against The Jews, Kindle loc. 330
17.  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/forward-for-communism-is-obamas-new-forward-slogan-really-a-coincidence/
18.  http://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/viewer/wlc/film.php?RefId=DFG0667E
19. www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm, quoted by Horowitz & Laskin, Kindle loc. 322
20. Gilbert, M. The Second World War: A Complete History, p. 681

A Time for Choosing

This is an excerpt of the 30 minute speech supporting the Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater. Reagan speaks of big government, high taxation, and the "war on poverty." He addresses foreign policy issues including the risk of appeasement, "peace through strength," and the Vietnam War. The speech establishes Reagan as an important figure in the conservative wing of the Republican party.

To a significant degree, Ronald Reagan's election to the presidency stems from this speech, given on national television on behalf of, and sponsored by, Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign. The speech remains amazingly fresh as a statement of modern American conservative philosophy four decades after it was delivered.

Ronald Reagan - A Time for Choosing (October 27, 1964)



Words to remember yesterday, today and especially on November 6, 2012 when you enter the voting booth.

Obama's Love Letter To Iran

No wonder the Obama regime is coming down hard on Israel and Netanyahu.  It seems that Barack Hussein Obama in an effort to justify his Nobel Peace Prize, has written his letter of appeasement to the Government of Iran.

The New York Times, citing U.S. government officials, wrote on January 12 that the Obama administration had sent a message to Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei warning that closing the Strait of Hormuz is a “red line” that would provoke a response by the United States.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ramin Mehmanparast said on January 15 that U.S. officials had sent a message on the Strait of Hormuz to the Islamic Republic through three officials, noting, “Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, delivered a letter to Mohammad Khazaii, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s ambassador (to the UN). The Swiss ambassador to Tehran (Livia Leu Agosti) also conveyed the message, and Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi president, conveyed the message to officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran as well.”

Obama has called for negotiations

MP Ali Motahhari said on Wednesday, “In the letter, it has been stated that ‘closing the Strait of Hormuz is our red line’ and they have requested direct negotiations.”

“In the letter, Obama has announced readiness for negotiation and the resolution of mutual disagreements,” he added.

He went on to say that Obama uttered threats in the first part of the letter and talked about friendship and negotiation in the second part.

Obama says U.S. will not take hostile action against Iran

MP Hojjatoleslam Hossein Ebrahimi said on Wednesday, “Obama’s letter has several parts. Part of it is about this, (namely) that using international waterways is the right of all countries and all should benefit from them. And in this letter, he has described it as the United States’ red line.”

“In the letter, Obama has mentioned cooperation and negotiation based on the interests of the two countries,” Ebrahimi, who is the deputy chairman of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, told the Nasimonline news website.

“He has stated in the letter that they will not take any hostile action against the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he added.

Ebrahimi also said, “This is not the first time that Obama has sent a message and letter to the Islamic Republic of Iran. He has repeatedly spoken in a soft tone about the Islamic Republic of Iran, but, in practice, he has not acted accordingly.”

“Obama’s letter indicates that the United States has become afraid of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s might and has realized the point that an arrogant spirit is of no use, and therefore, he has softened his tone when speaking about the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he stated.

He added, “The important issue is that without the Islamic Republic of Iran’s permission, no country can benefit from the Persian Gulf.”

Iran responsible for maintaining security of Persian Gulf

Expediency Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaii also commented on the letter on Wednesday, saying, “Mr. Obama has written a cunning letter and intended to claim that the U.S. is responsible for maintaining the security of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran itself is responsible for maintaining the security of this region.”

“We maintain the security of the region with the help of regional countries,” he said, adding, “There is no need for the presence of extra-regional forces to maintain the security of this region, and we believe that the presence of the United States and Britain mostly creates insecurity.”

If they “feel compassion” for regional countries and want to help them enhance security in the region, “I advise them to leave the region,” Rezaii stated.

Source

In this letter Obama calls for negotiations, never to attack Iran and remove all sanctions, finally gives the Persian Gulf to the Iranians.

We will not be told by the regime that the letter is a fraud.  But don't count on it.  This is just another part of Obama's foreign policy.  A policy that destroys our allies and awards our enemies.

Obama's Foreign Policy

It's A Simple Answer After All

Hat tip to Holger Awakens

Ronald Wilson Reagan spoke many times on the dangers of Appeasement and giving into the demands of foreign dictators for the promise of peace.

And although in the following video President Reagan is speaking about the former Soviet Union, his words still ring true for this day and the dictators of today.

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Alexander Hamilton

Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender.

It's A Simple Answer After All




View at YouTube

Take heed America, there is an Appeaser in the White House.