Stolen From Faultline USA
In a few days or a few weeks, the Obama Administration will present Israel and the so-called Palestinians with something referred to as a "framework agreement."
The diplomats, (diplomats = People paid to lie for their country) explain that it is called a framework because the eventual peace agreement would be built upon this agreement. In other words, it is the framework for the eventual peace agreement between Israel and the so-called Palestinians.
Uh-huh.
This "agreement" is bad for Israel and bad for the US. Here's why:
Far from bringing peace to Israel and the so-called Palestinians, it could just as likely bring renewed fighting between the two and more trouble for the US.
In its arrogance, the Obama Administration wants this agreement signed before the end of the year (2014). The ridiculousness of this is laughable. Once again, the US has amateurs at work defusing a bomb.
Already, Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon, has declared that “it is not going to happen.” SOURCE
Let's take a look at the outlandish terms of the framework agreement.
"Kerry’s agreement mentions a Palestinian state with borders based on the 1949 Armistice lines and with land swaps between Israel and the PA. 75 to 80 percent of the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria would remain in their homes even after a permanent agreement." SOURCE
There is said to be a reference to the PA’s "incitement" against Israel and a reference to compensation for Jewish refugees who came from Arab countries. Each side would recognize the other as a nation state. and the two sides would announce the end of the conflict.
From israelnationalnews.com we learn this: "US Secretary of State John Kerry is about to present a plan for peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) that will call for a phased Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria based on the 1949 lines, with "unprecedented" security arrangements in the strategic Jordan Valley, writes Thomas Friedman in the New York Times – one of the journalists considered most close to the Obama administration.
The Israeli withdrawal will not include certain settlement blocs, but Israel will compensate the Arab side for this with Israeli territory. The deal will call for “Palestine” to have a capital in Arab East Jerusalem and to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. It will not include any right of return for Palestinian refugees into pre-1967 Israel, Friedman says." SOURCE
So, Kerry and Obama want to divide the city of Jerusalem ... AGAIN. It is reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu adamantly rejects the division of the city of Jerusalem.
Oh, and Kerry's plan calls for Israeli troops to patrol the Jordan Valley for some years into the future. As you would expect the so-called Palestinians adamantly reject that.
Netanyahu is walking on egg shells in even considering this "agreement." It could easily tear apart his coalition. Already, tension within the Israeli political community has been ratcheting upward for at least a week upon this writing.
On the other hand, if Netanyahu says no to the plan, then European nations could invoke a boycott on Israeli goods to "punish" Israel for not agreeing to the Obama/Kerry plan. Yes. This IS the same Europe where anti-Semitism runs rampant -- even today.
There is an excellent article entitled: "White House Is Weeks Away From Imposing Middle East Peace Framework – What You Need To Know" at Prophecy News Watch that explains the "agreement" in much more detail. We urge you to read it. You'll find it here.
Now, it is important that the world understand this ... neither side wants peace now. Somehow, Kerry seems to have missed this tiny detail. Come on, folks. If either side truly wanted peace they could, and would, work it out between themselves without the meddling of the US. They've done it three times in the past: Peace treaty with Egypt, another with Jordan, and a mutual recognition deal between Israel and the PLO. See what I mean?
The so-called Palestinian government is so divided as to be almost useless. There is Hamas ruling in Gaza, and Mahmoud Abbas, in charge of the government on the West Bank -- or what government there is there! As a "non-member observer state," in the UN General Assembly, the so-called Palestinians are reported to be ready to take Israel to the International Criminal Court any day now. Does this sound like a group ready to talk peace? Hardly.
This is a war that has been raging since Abraham and his two sons walked the hills, valleys and seashores of what we call the Holy Land today. It is not about to be settled by April 30th, or even by the end of the year 2014. In fact, we have every reason to believe that it will intensify touching off even more conflicts within, and without, the region leading, eventually, to World War III.
So, at the risk of bruising Mr. Kerry's pride and denting his arrogance, we can comfortable say that the "Framework Agreement" isn't worth the paper it is written upon. But -- don't be surprised if in a few weeks we have another Neville Chamberlain moment with Kerry waving a piece of paper over his head shouting: "Peace in or time!" We never seem to learn, do we?
Saint Paul said: "The way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Romans 3:17–18) That was about 2,000 years ago. Not much has changed.
Quote of the day!
Je Suis Charlie!
KEEP YOUR POWDER DRY!!!!
KEEP YOUR POWDER DRY!!!!
Showing posts with label Bibi Netanyahu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bibi Netanyahu. Show all posts
Friday, February 7, 2014
Saturday, January 11, 2014
A Lion Of Judah Has Passed!
![]() | ||
| Ariel "Arik" Sharon (1928-2014) |
He was born on 26 February 1928 in Kfar Malal. At age 10, Sharon entered the Zionist youth movement Hassadeh.
As a young teenager, he first began to take part in the armed night-patrols of his moshav. In 1942 at the age of 14, Sharon joined the Gadna, a paramilitary youth battalion, and later the Haganah, the underground paramilitary force and the Jewish military precursor to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
Sharon's unit of the Haganah became engaged in serious and continuous combat from the autumn of 1947, with the onset of the Battle for Jerusalem. Without the manpower to hold the roads, his unit took to making offensive hit-and-run raids on Arab forces in the vicinity of Kfar Malal. In units of thirty men, they would hit constantly at Arab villages, bridges and bases, as well as ambush the traffic between Arab villages and bases.
From the Jewish Virtual Library:
In 1953, he founded and led the “101” special commando unit which carried out retaliatory operations against Palestinian fedayeen. Sharon was appointed commander of a Paratroop Corps in 1956 and fought in the Sinai Campaign. In 1957, he attended the Camberley Staff College in Great Britain.President George W. Bush said that Sharon was “a man of courage and peace,” and that “on behalf of all Americans, we send our best wishes and hopes to the prime minister and his family.”
Between 1958 and 1962, Sharon served as Infantry Brigade Commander and then Infantry School Commander, and then attended Law School at Tel Aviv University. He was appointed Head of the Northern Command Staff in 1964 and Head of the Army Training Department in 1966. He participated in the 1967 Six Day War as commander of an armored division. In 1969 he was appointed Head of the Southern Command Staff.
Sharon resigned from the army in June 1972, but was recalled to active military service in the 1973 Yom Kippur War to command an armored division. He led the crossing of the Suez Canal which helped secure an Israeli victory in the war and eventual peace with Egypt.
Ariel Sharon was elected to the Knesset in December 1973, but resigned a year later, serving as Security Adviser to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (1975). He was elected to the Knesset in 1977 on the Shlomzion ticket. Following the elections, he joined the Herut party and was appointed Minister of Agriculture in Menachem Begin's first government (1977-81). One of his priorities was to pursue agricultural cooperation with Egypt.
In 1981, Ariel Sharon was appointed Defense Minister, serving in this post during the Lebanon War, which brought about the destruction of the PLO terrorist infrastructure in Lebanon. In the realm of international relations, he was instrumental in renewing diplomatic relations with the African nations which had broken off ties with Israel during the Yom Kippur War. In November 1981, he brought about the first strategic cooperation agreement with the U.S. and widened defense ties between Israel and many nations. He also helped bring thousands of Jews from Ethiopia through Sudan.
In 1983, Sharon resigned as Defense Minister after a government commission found him indirectly responsible for the September 1982 massacre of Palestinians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps by Lebanese Phalangists.
Sharon remained in the government as a minister without portfolio and then served as Minister of Industry and Trade from 1984-90. In this capacity, he concluded the Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. in 1985.
In 1998, Ariel Sharon was appointed Foreign Minister and headed the permanent status negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.
While serving as Foreign Minister, Sharon met with U.S., European, Palestinian and Arab leaders to advance the peace process. He worked mostly to create and advance projects such as the Flagship Water Project funded by the international community to find a long-term solution to the region's water crisis and a basis to peaceful relations between Israel, Jordan, the Palestinians and other Middle Eastern countries.
Following the election of Ehud Barak as Prime Minister in May 1999, Ariel Sharon was called upon to become interim Likud party leader following the resignation of Benjamin Netanyahu. In September 1999, he was elected Chairman of the Likud. He also served as a member of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the Knesset.
On September 28, 2000, Sharon made a visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the holiest place in Judaism to emphasize Israel's claim to sovereignty over the Temple Mount. Palestinians maintained that Sharon came with “thousands of Israeli soldiers” and defiled a Muslim holy place, when in fact, Israel's Internal Security Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami permitted Sharon to visit the Temple Mount only after calling Palestinian security chief Jabril Rajoub and receiving his assurance that if Sharon did not enter the mosques, no problems would arise. Sharon did not attempt to enter any mosques and his 34 minute visit was conducted during normal hours when the area is open to tourists. Palestinian youths — eventually numbering around 1,500 — shouted slogans in an attempt to inflame the situation. Some 1,500 Israeli police were present at the scene to forestall violence.
Following Sharon's Temple Mount visit, the Palestinians, under the direction of Yasser Arafat, launched an unprecendented wave of violence and terror against Israelis, dubbed the “al-Aksa Intifada” by the Palestinians for its association with the al-Aksa Mosque located on the Temple Mount. Palestinian leaders claim that Sharon's visit sparked the violence, but on November 7, 2000, an investigatory committee led by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell was established to determine the causes of the violence and to make recommendations for calming the situation. The Mitchell Report issued in April 30, 2001, concluded “the Sharon visit did not cuase the “al-Aksa intifada.”
In a special election held February 6, 2001, Ariel Sharon was elected Prime Minister. He presented his government to the Knesset on March 7, 2001. After calling early elections to the 16th Knesset, which were held on January 28, 2003, Ariel Sharon was charged by the president with the task of forming a government and presented his new government to the Knesset on February 27, 2003.
After several years of bloodshed, terror, and stalled peace talks with the Palestinians, Sharon devised a bold plan that would ensure a higher degree of security for Israelis, and improve the lives of Palestinians. While Palestinian terrorism against Israelis was at its peak, and going virtually unchecked by Arafat and other Palestinian leaders, Sharon decided that Israel should act unilaterally to improve its security situation and reduce bloodshed. This plan, known as the disengagement plan, called for the complete withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers in the Gaza Strip, as well as the dismantlement of all settlements in the area, including four settlements in northen Samaria. Between August 16 and August 30, 2005, Israel safely evacuated more than 8,500 Israeli settlers and, on September 11, 2005, Israeli soldiers left Gaza, ending Israel's 38-year presence in the area.
The implementation of the disengagement plan was viewed as a success by most of the Israeli public, although it sparked bitter protests from ministers of Sharon's Likud Party, causing a party schism. Facing bitter infighting in Likud, Sharon formally resigned from the party to form a new centrist party, “Kadima,” or “Forward” on November 21, 2005.
Following the Likud Party spilt, Sharon outlined the goals of his new party. One, he said, is to closely follow the United States-backed road map plan for peace with the Palestinians. Sharon declared that there will be no more unilateral withdrawals from the West Bank, and insisted that Palestinian terrorist groups be disarmed and dismantled. The Kadima party platform calls for “maximum security and assuring that Israel be a Jewish national home and that another state that shall arise be demilitarized, with terrorists disarmed.”
In mid-December, 2005, Sharon spent two days in a hospital after suffering a minor stroke, which doctors said caused no irreparable brain damage. However, on January 4, 2006, Sharon was rushed to the hospital following another, more serious stroke. Sharon suffered a massive brain hemorrhage, which caused extensive cerebral bleeding.
Prime Minsterial duties were turned over to Ehud Olmert, who held a cabinet meeting on January 5, 2006, to signal the transfer of power. Olmert was subsequently elected Prime Minister until elections on March 28, 2006.
“Arik was a brave soldier and a daring leader who loved his nation and his nation loved him. He was one of Israel’s great protectors and most important architects, who knew no fear and certainly never feared vision, He knew how to take difficult decisions and implement them. We all loved him and he will be greatly missed,” Simon Perez.
“The State of Israel bows its head over the passing of former prime minister Ariel Sharon. His memory will forever be held in the heart of the nation. Sharon played a central role in the struggle for Israel’s security throughout its existence. He was, first and foremost, a courageous fighter and a distinguished general, one of the greatest commanders the IDF has ever known. When he left the military, he continued to act on behalf of the people of Israel, both in the capacity of the many roles he filled in Israel’s successive governments and as the country’s eleventh prime minister,” continued the prime minister. “He will forever be remembered.” Benjamin Netanyahu.
"One of the state of Israel’s greatest soldiers and warriors before and since it was founded. He was directly in the line of fire throughout his entire life” – first on the frontlines of battle, then on the political frontlines.
“Arik’s life story is fascinating, extraordinary and unique, imbued with courage, human kindness, vision, and leadership,”- Ehud Olmert
Ariel Sharon's family was by his side when he passed. He nursed remarked that he was fighting for life until the end.
Except for the disastrous pull out from Gaza, Ariel Sharon was an exceptional leader of the nation of Israel. If he hadn't had the stroke that felled him, I do believe that Israel would have taken a different direction in policy.
Today a Lion of Judah has gone. His like will not return for a long time!
Saturday, December 28, 2013
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.
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?
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Worthless Concessions
With Obamacare falling apart, and new scandals arising every other week (soon to be weekly), and his foreign policy going South faster than a Cheetah on crack, President Barack Hussein Obama needs a "victory" somewhere with anyone fast. In this case it will be a atrocious agreement with the Mullah's of Iran.
The last time John Kerry tried to sign a bad agreement with Iran the French stopped the agreement. But with many companies already gearing up to supply Iran, the French will not do the same again. After the the P5+1 nations will not be living under an Iranian nuclear bomb. Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc... are! But to Barack Hussein Obama and his pro-Iranian advisor Valerie Jarrett, the only thing that is important is that Obama looks good right then.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are talking about a mutual security pact. Israel is worried and Saudi Arabia is scared. Just one thing, is Israel worried enough to try and stop Iran?
From DebkaThe military has reminded Obama that their readiness has been destroyed by his policies towards the military and that they cannot mount an attack on Iran to stop them. Thus the need for an "agreement".
The Iranian negotiators face the delegations of six world powers in Geneva Thursday, Nov. 21, with strict orders not to give ground on the two major sticking points holding up a first-step deal on their nuclear program: The heavy water reactor under construction at Arak for producing plutonium and Iran’s “right” to uranium enrichment. If Iran gains those two points, whatever concessions its negotiators may come up with are worthless, because they will leave Tehran in possession of two optional nuclear weaponizing tracks instead of one - plutonium as well as enriched uranium.
debkafile’s sources report that Tehran is fighting tooth and nail for Six-Power acknowledgement of its “right to enrich uranium” – ostensibly to come away from Geneva with a “historic feat” to show the Iranian people that the economic hardship they suffered under economic sanctions was worth the candle.
But concession of this “right” has a more sinister purpose: It would give Iran’s nuclear aspirations the enormous boost of an international license to keep its uranium enrich facilities, including the underground plant in Fordo and the centrifuge production line, fully intact and ready to go at any time.
The infrastructure already standing, say US intelligence sources, is capable of topping up enriched uranium stockpiles already in hand to the amount needed for five nuclear bombs in less than a month – 26 days is the number often cited. The second option of plutonium would also be available when the Arak reactor is finished.
US, Russian and British sources are presenting the gap in the resumed Geneva talks Thursday as minor and bridgeable.
debkafile’s sources say they are just playing for time to chip away at a draft accord that by its nature would be a compromise solution which gives ground to Tehran.
And what compromise can be expected when Washington failed to challenge Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s avowal on Day One of the Geneva talks that Iran will not step back “one iota” from its nuclear rights, and his grotesquely barbaric rant against Israel as “the roguish, filthy, rabid dog of the region,” whose regime is “doomed to extinction?”
This degraded language, not heard since the Nazi German era, informed the Obama administration in the harshest terms that for the sake of a deal, Iran will not give an inch under pressure, whether from economic sanctions or from Israel and parts of the American Jewish leadership.
Khamenei also blasted US government as unworthy of trust.
If President Barack Obama was serious in his often repeated commitment to Israel’s security, he ought to have protested in some way against Khamenei’s unspeakable rhetoric, possibly even delaying the proceedings before they started their second day in Geneva. But the Iranian leader apparently got away with it, judging from the Obama administration’s mild response – a senior US official said it was “uncomfortable,” but did not condemn it as unacceptable like the French President Francois Hollande, and the British Foreign Secretary William Hague declined any comment at all, fearing to rock the boat in Geneva.
Their evasions told Tehran that Washington and London are so hooked on closing a deal at this time that they can be trusted to find some way around the Arak and enrichment hurdles to reach their goal.
The French team alone stood out in Geneva against Iran’s continuing construction of the Arak reactor, arguing that possession of this facility would nullify any other concessions Tehran might offer.
The last time John Kerry tried to sign a bad agreement with Iran the French stopped the agreement. But with many companies already gearing up to supply Iran, the French will not do the same again. After the the P5+1 nations will not be living under an Iranian nuclear bomb. Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc... are! But to Barack Hussein Obama and his pro-Iranian advisor Valerie Jarrett, the only thing that is important is that Obama looks good right then.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are talking about a mutual security pact. Israel is worried and Saudi Arabia is scared. Just one thing, is Israel worried enough to try and stop Iran?
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Release Prisioners And Demand The Moon!
That is the cry from Abu Mazen Mahmoud Abbas now that Israel has released 26 more murderers in order to get the Fakistinians to come to the negotiating table. In fact, they aren't negotiating, they are just demanding more and more. Barack Hussein Obama and John Kerry is demanding that Israel give them everything they demand.
From Debka:
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu lamented Monday, Oct. 28 that the release Tuesday night of 26 jailed Palestinians serving life sentences for murdering Israelis, the cause of widespread popular ire, was “one of the hardest decisions” he has ever made. But he faces much harder decisions from the list of tough demands, debkafile's sources report were presented Israel by the Palestinians in ongoing US-sponsored negotiations, The prime minister has not made them known to the Israeli public. The new Palestinian terms are so harsh as to surely defy even US Secretary of State John Kerry’s skills in bridging differences.
The prime minister also kept mum about his offer to the Palestinians of financial compensation for land remaining under Israeli control – the first time any Israeli leader has put a price tag on disputed territory.
The 16 Palestinian demands, which debkafile reveals exclusively for the first time below, make the release of convicted Palestinian murderers a dangerous exercise in futility, because each demand is enough to drive the negotiations into impasse, just as Mahmoud Abbas did two years ago.
After seeing the Palestinian list, Netanyahu should have put the release of prisoners on hold until Abbas comes around to a rational perception of the negotiations as a give-and-take process for the object of reaching an agreement – not an opportunity for outrageous extortion.
Israel’s senior negotiator Justice Minister Tzipi Livni tried arguing that the Palestinians were just making an opening bid and they expected it to be driven down in the bargaining process. However, negotiations have been going on for three months and the process is into the fourth month of the nine-month period assigned up to deadline.
Mahmoud Abbas, rather than seeking common ground, has used the time to raise his price for a deal to an exorbitant level, while keeping his hand firmly on the terrorist spigot.
It is a matter of record that a large proportion of jailed terrorists have reverted to violence after they walked in the past through the exits of Israeli jails.
First published list of Palestinian demands:My advice to Bibi Netanyahu is to immediately cease all negotiations with this idiot, tell Obama to shove off and annex every inch of Judea and Samaria. An ultimatum to the Fakistinians giving them 1 hour to get their sorry asses off of Jewish land before they are wiped off the face of the Earth would also be in order. Anything less is capitulation and will lead to the genocide of every Jewish person living in Israel. A concept that Barack Hussein Obama is not only working towards, but eagerly planning.
The United States and Israel must acknowledge that the Palestinian state is
“under occupation.” (This is the Palestinian response to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s demand to recognize Israel as the Jews’ national state.)
Israeli must repeal legislation extending Israeli law to East Jerusalem
The Palestinians will have full sovereignty over their air space. (This will bar Israeli air force flights over Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip).
The Palestinians will have exclusive control of all border crossings to neighboring nations. i.e. Israel and Jordan.
Israel’s withdrawal to the pre-1967 boundaries is not enough. Its pull-back must go all the way to the 1949 armistice lines, additionally annexing to the Palestinian state broad strips of Israeli land that were demilitarized at that time. Among the areas which the Palestinians want to lay hands on are the Ayalon Valley, the Latrun enclave and the Armon Hantatiz district of Jerusalem between the Old City and West Jerusalem; the Huleh Lake Valley; the Golan slopes running down to the Sea of Galilee; and the Nitzana belt north of the Gaza Strip – plus one third of Dead Sea water and shore.
( The Palestinians hope to grab substantial Israeli territory beyond the pre-1967 borders by invoking the long moribund 1949 accords.)
Electromagnetic space (radio frequencies, satellite and other communications) will be under sole Palestinian control
The Palestinians are ready to relinquish 1.9 percent of West Bank territory.
All parts of East Jerusalem including the shrines sacred to Muslims, Christians and Jews will come under sole Palestinian authority against a pledge of freedom of worship.
Israel and its armed forces will draw back from the Palestinian state over a three-year period. Six months after the draw down is complete, the Palestinians will be willing to sign final peace treaties with the State of Israel
The US and Israel must accept the settlement of the Palestinian refugee problem as “a just and agreed solution.”
Every Palestinian refugee (as per the Palestinian Authority’s definition of up to the fourth generation) will be free to choose between three options: settlement in Israel or the Palestinian state or staying at their present locations.
Whichever option is chosen, the refugees will be entitled to appropriate restitution.
Only when the refugee issue is finally resolved will the Palestinians agree to declare their dispute with Israel at an end
An international mechanism will be tasked with administering the disposition of the Palestinian refugees and their resettlement. It will be composed of Palestinian, Israeli, American, European, Canadian, Australian, Japanese and Arab League representatives
The Palestinian state will be authorized to sign treaties including military pacts without the intervention of a third party, such as Israel.
All parts of the Palestinian state will be clear of Israeli civilian and military presence.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
The Jews Are Home - And We Are Not Leaving It!
Yesterday Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was the last speaker to address the United Nations General Assembly. His speech was brilliant. He put President Barack Hussein Obama in his place while reminding the world that the Iranians were nothing more than wolves in sheep's clothing.
Here is the transcript of that speech: (Oh and this time there are no visual aids.)
PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU:
Thank you, Mr. President.
I feel deeply honored and privileged to stand here before you today representing the citizens of the state of Israel. We are an ancient people. We date back nearly 4,000 years to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We have journeyed through time. We've overcome the greatest of adversities.
And we re-established our sovereign state in our ancestral homeland, the land of Israel.
Now, the Jewish people's odyssey through time has taught us two things: Never give up hope, always remain vigilant. Hope charts the future. Vigilance protects it.
Today our hope for the future is challenged by a nuclear-armed Iran that seeks our destruction. But I want you to know, that wasn't always the case. Some 2,500 years ago the great Persian king Cyrus ended the Babylonian exile of the Jewish people. He issued a famous edict in which he proclaimed the right of the Jews to return to the land of Israel and rebuild the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. That's a Persian decree. And thus began an historic friendship between the Jews and the Persians that lasted until modern times.
But in 1979 a radical regime in Tehran tried to stamp out that friendship. As it was busy crushing the Iranian people's hope for democracy, it always led wild chants of "death of the Jews."
Now, since that time, presidents of Iran have come and gone. Some presidents were considered moderates, other hard-liners. But they've all served that same unforgiving creed, that same unforgiving regime, that creed that is espoused and enforced by the real power in Iran, the dictator known as the supreme leader, first Ayatollah Khomeini and now Ayatollah Khamenei.
President Rouhani, like the presidents who came before him, is a loyal servant of the regime. He was one of only six candidates the regime permitted to run for office. See, nearly 700 other candidates were rejected.
So what made him acceptable? Well, Rouhani headed Iran's Supreme National Security Council from 1989 through 2003. During that time Iran's henchmen gunned down opposition leaders in a Berlin restaurant. They murdered 85 people at the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. They killed 19 American soldiers by blowing up the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.
Are we to believe that Rouhani, the national security adviser of Iran at the time, knew nothing about these attacks?
Of course he did, just as 30 years ago Iran's security chiefs knew about the bombings in Beirut that killed 241 American Marines and 58 French paratroopers.
Rouhani was also Iran's chief nuclear negotiator between 2003 and 2005. He masterminded the -- the strategy which enabled Iran to advance its nuclear weapons program behind a smoke screen of diplomatic engagement and very soothing rhetoric.
Now I know: Rouhani doesn't sound like Ahmadinejad. But when it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons program, the only difference between them is this: Ahmadinejad was a wolf in wolf's clothing. Rouhani is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a wolf who thinks he can pull the eyes -- the wool over the eyes of the international community.
Well, like everyone else, I wish we could believe Rouhani's words, but we must focus on Iran's actions. And it's the brazen contrast, this extraordinary contradiction, between Rouhani's words and Iran's actions that is so startling. Rouhani stood at this very podium last week and praised Iranian democracy -- Iranian democracies. But the regime that he represents executes political dissidents by the hundreds and jails them by the thousands.
Rouhani spoke of, quote, "the human tragedy in Syria." Yet, Iran directly participates in Assad's murder and massacre of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Syria. And that regime is propping up a Syrian regime that just used chemical weapons against its own people.
Rouhani condemned the, quote, "violent scourge of terrorism." Yet, in the last three years alone, Iran has ordered, planned or perpetrated terrorist attacks in 25 cities in five continents.
Rouhani denounces, quote, "attempts to change the regional balance through proxies." Yet, Iran is actively destabilizing Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain and many other Middle Eastern countries.
Rouhani promises, quote, "constructive engagement with other countries." Yet, two years ago, Iranian agents tried to assassinate Saudi Arabia's ambassador in Washington, D.C. And just three weeks ago, an Iranian agent was arrested trying to collect information for possible attacks against the American embassy in Tel Aviv. Some constructive engagement.
I wish I could be moved by Rouhani's invitation to join his wave -- a world against violence and extremism. Yet, the only waves Iran has generated in the last 30 years are waves of violence and terrorism that it has unleashed in the region and across the world.
Ladies and gentlemen, I wish I could believe Rouhani, but I don't because facts are stubborn things, and the facts are that Iran's savage record flatly contradicts Rouhani's soothing rhetoric.
Last Friday Rouhani assured us that in pursuit of its nuclear program, Iran -- this is a quote -- Iran has never chosen deceit and secrecy, never chosen deceit and secrecy. Well, in 2002 Iran was caught red-handed secretly building an underground centrifuge facility in Natanz. And then in 2009 Iran was again caught red-handed secretly building a huge underground nuclear facility for uranium enrichment in a mountain near Qom.
Rouhani tells us not to worry. He assures us that all of this is not intended for nuclear weapons. Any of you believe that? If you believe that, here's a few questions you might want to ask. Why would a country that claims to only want peaceful nuclear energy, why would such a country build hidden underground enrichment facilities?
Why would a country with vast natural energy reserves invest billions in developing nuclear energy? Why would a country intent on merely civilian nuclear programs continue to defy multiple Security Council resolutions and incur the tremendous cost of crippling sanctions on its economy?
And why would a country with a peaceful nuclear program develop intercontinental ballistic missiles, whose sole purpose is to deliver nuclear warheads? You don't build ICBMs to carry TNT thousands of miles away; you build them for one purpose, to carry nuclear warheads. And Iran is building now ICBMs that the United States says could reach this city in three or four years.
Why would they do all this? The answer is simple. Iran is not building a peaceful nuclear program; Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Last year alone, Iran enriched three tons of uranium to 3 1/2 percent, doubled it stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium and added thousands of new centrifuges, including advanced centrifuges. It also continued work on the heavy water reactor in Iraq; that's in order to have another route to the bomb, a plutonium path. And since Rouhani's election -- and I stress this -- this vast and feverish effort has continued unabated.
Ladies and gentlemen, underground nuclear facilities, heavy water reactors, advanced centrifuges, ICMBs. See, it's not that it's hard to find evidence that Iran has a nuclear program, a nuclear weapons program; it's hard to find evidence that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program.
Last year when I spoke here at the U.N. I drew a red line. Now, Iran has been very careful not to cross that line but Iran is positioning itself to race across that line in the future at a time of its choosing. Iran wants to be in a position to rush forward to build nuclear bombs before the international community can detect it and much less prevent it.
Yet Iran faces one big problem, and that problem can be summed up in one word: sanctions. I have argued for many years, including on this podium, that the only way to peacefully prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is to combine tough sanctions with a credible military threat. And that policy today is bearing fruit. Thanks to the efforts of many countries, many represented here, and under the leadership of the United States, tough sanctions have taken a big bite off the Iranian economy.
Oil revenues have fallen. The currency has plummeted. Banks are hard-pressed to transfer money. So as a result, the regime is under intense pressure from the Iranian people to get the sanctions relieved or removed.
That's why Rouhani got elected in the first place. That's why he launched his charm offensive. He definitely wants to get the sanctions lifted; I guarantee you that. But he doesn't want to give up Iranians' nuclear -- Iran's nuclear weapons program in return.
Now here's a strategy to achieve this. First, smile a lot. Smiling never hurts. Second, pay lip service to peace, democracy and tolerance. Third, offer meaningless concessions in exchange for lifting sanctions. And fourth, and the most important, ensure that Iran retains sufficient nuclear material and sufficient nuclear infrastructure to race to the bomb at a time it chooses to do so.
You know why Rouhani thinks he can get away with this? I mean, this is a ruse. It's a ploy. Why does Rouhani think he -- thinks he can get away with it? Because -- because he's gotten away with it before, because his strategy of talking a lot and doing little has worked for him in the past.
He even brags about this. Here's what he said in his 2011 book about his time as Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, and I quote: "While we were talking to the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in Isfahan."
Now, for those of you who don't know, the Isfahan facility is an indispensable part of Iran's nuclear weapons program. That's where uranium ore called yellowcake is converted into an enrichable form. Rouhani boasted, and I quote, "By creating a calm environment -- a calm environment -- we were able to complete the work in Isfahan." He fooled the world once. Now he thinks he can fool it again.
You see, Rouhani thinks he can have his yellowcake and eat it too. And he has another reason to believe that he can get away with this. And that reason is called North Korea. Like Iran, North Korea also said its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes. Like Iran, North Korea also offered meaningless concessions and empty promises in return for sanctions relief.
In 2005 North Korea agreed to a deal that was celebrated the world over by many well-meaning people. Here's what the New York Times editorial had to say about it, quote: "For years now, foreign policy insiders have pointed to North Korea as the ultimate nightmare, a closed, hostile and paranoid dictatorship with an aggressive nuclear weapons program. Very few could envision a successful outcome, and yet North Korea agreed in principle this week to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, return to the NPT, abide by the treaty's safeguards and admit international inspectors."
And finally, "diplomacy, it seems, does work after all. Ladies and gentlemen, a year later, North Korea exploded its first nuclear weapons device."
Yet, as dangerous as a nuclear-armed North Korea is, it pales in comparison to the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran. A nuclear-armed Iran would have a choke hold on the world's main energy supplies. It would trigger nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East, turning the most unstable part of the planet into a nuclear tinderbox. And for the first time in history, it would make the specter of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger. A nuclear-armed Iran in the Middle East wouldn't be another North Korea. It would be another 50 North Koreas.
Now, I know that some in the international community think I'm exaggerating this threat. Sure, they know that Iran's regime leads these chants, "death to America, death to Israel," that it pledges to wipe Israel off the map. But they think that this wild rhetoric is just bluster for domestic consumption. Have these people learned nothing from history? The last century has taught us that when a radical regime with global ambitions gets awesome power, sooner or later its appetite for aggression knows no bounds.
That's the central lesson of the 20th century. And we cannot forget it. The world may have forgotten this lesson. The Jewish people have not.
Iran's fanaticism is not bluster. It's real. The fanatic regime must never be allowed to arm itself with nuclear weapons. I know that the world is weary of war. We in Israel, we know all too well the cost of war. But history has taught us that to prevent war tomorrow, we must be firm today.
And this raises the question, can diplomacy stop this threat? Well, the only diplomatic solution that would work is one that fully dismantles Iran's nuclear weapons program and prevents it from having one in the future.
President Obama rightly said that Iran's conciliatory words must be matched by transparent, verifiable and meaningful action. And to be meaningful, a diplomatic solution would require Iran to do four things. First, cease all uranium enrichment. This is called for by several Security Council resolutions. Second, remove from Iran's territory the stockpiles of enriched uranium. Third, dismantle the infrastructure for nuclear breakout capability, including the underground facility at Qom and the advanced centrifuges in Natanz.
And, four, stop all work at the heavy water reactor in Iraq aimed at the production of plutonium. These steps would put an end to Iran's nuclear weapons program and eliminate its breakout capability.
There are those who would readily agreed to leave Iran with a residual capability to enrich uranium. I advise them to pay close attention to what Rouhani said in his speech to Iran's supreme cultural revolution -- Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council. This was published in 2005. I quote. This is what he said:
"A county that could enrich uranium to about 3.5 percent will also have the capability to enrich it to about 90 percent. Having fuel cycle capability virtually means that a country that possesses this capability is able to produce nuclear weapons." Precisely. This is why Iran's nuclear weapons program must be fully and verifiably dismantled. And this is why the pressure on Iran must continue.
So here is what the international community must do: First, keep up the sanctions. If Iran advances its nuclear weapons program during negotiations, strengthen the sanctions.
Second, don't agree to a partial deal. A partial deal would lift international sanctions that have taken years to put in place in exchange for cosmetic concessions that will take only weeks for Iran to reverse.
Third, lift the sanctions only when Iran fully dismantles its nuclear weapons program. My friends, the international community has Iran on the ropes. If you want to knock out Iran's nuclear weapons program peacefully, don't let up the pressure. Keep it up.
We all want to give diplomacy with Iran a chance to succeed, but when it comes to Iran, the greater the pressure, the greater the chance. Three decades ago, President Ronald Reagan famously advised, "trust but verify." When it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons program, here's my advice: Distrust, dismantle and verify.
Ladies and gentlemen, Israel will never acquiesce to nuclear arms in the hands of a rogue regime that repeatedly promises to wipe us off the map. Against such a threat, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself.
I want there to be no confusion on this point. Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone. Yet, in standing alone, Israel will know that we will be defending many, many others.
The dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran and the emergence of other threats in our region have led many of our Arab neighbors to recognize, finally recognize, that Israel is not their enemy. And this affords us the opportunity to overcome the historic animosities and build new relationships, new friendships, new hopes.
Israel welcomes engagement with the wider Arab world. We hope that our common interests and common challenges will help us forge a more peaceful future. And Israel's -- continues to seek an historic compromise with our Palestinian neighbors, one that ends our conflict once and for all. We want peace based on security and mutual recognition, in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state of Israel. I remain committed to achieving an historic reconciliation and building a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Now, I have no illusions about how difficult this will be to achieve. Twenty years ago, the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians began. Six Israeli prime ministers, myself included, have not succeeded at achieving peace with the Palestinians. My predecessors were prepared to make painful concessions. So am I. But so far the Palestinian leaders haven't been prepared to offer the painful concessions they must make in order to end the conflict.
For peace to be achieved, the Palestinians must finally recognize the Jewish state, and Israel's security needs must be met.
I am prepared to make an historic compromise for genuine and enduring peace, but I will never compromise on the security of my people and of my country, the one and only Jewish state.
Ladies and gentlemen, one cold day in the late 19th century, my grandfather Nathan and his younger brother Judah were standing in a railway station in the heart of Europe. They were seen by a group of anti-Semitic hoodlums who ran towards them waving clubs, screaming "Death to the Jews."
My grandfather shouted to his younger brother to flee and save himself, and he then stood alone against the raging mob to slow it down. They beat him senseless, they left him for dead, and before he passed out, covered in his own blood, he said to himself "What a disgrace, what a disgrace. The descendants of the Maccabees lie in the mud powerless to defend themselves."
He promised himself then that if he lived, he would take his family to the Jewish homeland and help build a future for the Jewish people. I stand here today as Israel's prime minister because my grandfather kept that promise.
And so many other Israelis have a similar story, a parent or a grandparent who fled every conceivable oppression and came to Israel to start a new life in our ancient homeland. Together we've transformed a bludgeoned Jewish people, left for dead, into a vibrant, thriving nation, a defending itself with the courage of modern Maccabees, developing limitless possibilities for the future.
In our time the Biblical prophecies are being realized. As the prophet Amos said, they shall rebuild ruined cities and inhabit them. They shall plant vineyards and drink their wine. They shall till gardens and eat their fruit. And I will plant them upon their soil never to be uprooted again.
Ladies and gentlemen, the people of Israel have come home never to be uprooted again.
Here is the transcript of that speech: (Oh and this time there are no visual aids.)
PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU:
Thank you, Mr. President.
I feel deeply honored and privileged to stand here before you today representing the citizens of the state of Israel. We are an ancient people. We date back nearly 4,000 years to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We have journeyed through time. We've overcome the greatest of adversities.
And we re-established our sovereign state in our ancestral homeland, the land of Israel.
Now, the Jewish people's odyssey through time has taught us two things: Never give up hope, always remain vigilant. Hope charts the future. Vigilance protects it.
Today our hope for the future is challenged by a nuclear-armed Iran that seeks our destruction. But I want you to know, that wasn't always the case. Some 2,500 years ago the great Persian king Cyrus ended the Babylonian exile of the Jewish people. He issued a famous edict in which he proclaimed the right of the Jews to return to the land of Israel and rebuild the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. That's a Persian decree. And thus began an historic friendship between the Jews and the Persians that lasted until modern times.
But in 1979 a radical regime in Tehran tried to stamp out that friendship. As it was busy crushing the Iranian people's hope for democracy, it always led wild chants of "death of the Jews."
Now, since that time, presidents of Iran have come and gone. Some presidents were considered moderates, other hard-liners. But they've all served that same unforgiving creed, that same unforgiving regime, that creed that is espoused and enforced by the real power in Iran, the dictator known as the supreme leader, first Ayatollah Khomeini and now Ayatollah Khamenei.
President Rouhani, like the presidents who came before him, is a loyal servant of the regime. He was one of only six candidates the regime permitted to run for office. See, nearly 700 other candidates were rejected.
So what made him acceptable? Well, Rouhani headed Iran's Supreme National Security Council from 1989 through 2003. During that time Iran's henchmen gunned down opposition leaders in a Berlin restaurant. They murdered 85 people at the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. They killed 19 American soldiers by blowing up the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.
Are we to believe that Rouhani, the national security adviser of Iran at the time, knew nothing about these attacks?
Of course he did, just as 30 years ago Iran's security chiefs knew about the bombings in Beirut that killed 241 American Marines and 58 French paratroopers.
Rouhani was also Iran's chief nuclear negotiator between 2003 and 2005. He masterminded the -- the strategy which enabled Iran to advance its nuclear weapons program behind a smoke screen of diplomatic engagement and very soothing rhetoric.
Now I know: Rouhani doesn't sound like Ahmadinejad. But when it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons program, the only difference between them is this: Ahmadinejad was a wolf in wolf's clothing. Rouhani is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a wolf who thinks he can pull the eyes -- the wool over the eyes of the international community.
Well, like everyone else, I wish we could believe Rouhani's words, but we must focus on Iran's actions. And it's the brazen contrast, this extraordinary contradiction, between Rouhani's words and Iran's actions that is so startling. Rouhani stood at this very podium last week and praised Iranian democracy -- Iranian democracies. But the regime that he represents executes political dissidents by the hundreds and jails them by the thousands.
Rouhani spoke of, quote, "the human tragedy in Syria." Yet, Iran directly participates in Assad's murder and massacre of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Syria. And that regime is propping up a Syrian regime that just used chemical weapons against its own people.
Rouhani condemned the, quote, "violent scourge of terrorism." Yet, in the last three years alone, Iran has ordered, planned or perpetrated terrorist attacks in 25 cities in five continents.
Rouhani denounces, quote, "attempts to change the regional balance through proxies." Yet, Iran is actively destabilizing Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain and many other Middle Eastern countries.
Rouhani promises, quote, "constructive engagement with other countries." Yet, two years ago, Iranian agents tried to assassinate Saudi Arabia's ambassador in Washington, D.C. And just three weeks ago, an Iranian agent was arrested trying to collect information for possible attacks against the American embassy in Tel Aviv. Some constructive engagement.
I wish I could be moved by Rouhani's invitation to join his wave -- a world against violence and extremism. Yet, the only waves Iran has generated in the last 30 years are waves of violence and terrorism that it has unleashed in the region and across the world.
Ladies and gentlemen, I wish I could believe Rouhani, but I don't because facts are stubborn things, and the facts are that Iran's savage record flatly contradicts Rouhani's soothing rhetoric.
Last Friday Rouhani assured us that in pursuit of its nuclear program, Iran -- this is a quote -- Iran has never chosen deceit and secrecy, never chosen deceit and secrecy. Well, in 2002 Iran was caught red-handed secretly building an underground centrifuge facility in Natanz. And then in 2009 Iran was again caught red-handed secretly building a huge underground nuclear facility for uranium enrichment in a mountain near Qom.
Rouhani tells us not to worry. He assures us that all of this is not intended for nuclear weapons. Any of you believe that? If you believe that, here's a few questions you might want to ask. Why would a country that claims to only want peaceful nuclear energy, why would such a country build hidden underground enrichment facilities?
Why would a country with vast natural energy reserves invest billions in developing nuclear energy? Why would a country intent on merely civilian nuclear programs continue to defy multiple Security Council resolutions and incur the tremendous cost of crippling sanctions on its economy?
And why would a country with a peaceful nuclear program develop intercontinental ballistic missiles, whose sole purpose is to deliver nuclear warheads? You don't build ICBMs to carry TNT thousands of miles away; you build them for one purpose, to carry nuclear warheads. And Iran is building now ICBMs that the United States says could reach this city in three or four years.
Why would they do all this? The answer is simple. Iran is not building a peaceful nuclear program; Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Last year alone, Iran enriched three tons of uranium to 3 1/2 percent, doubled it stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium and added thousands of new centrifuges, including advanced centrifuges. It also continued work on the heavy water reactor in Iraq; that's in order to have another route to the bomb, a plutonium path. And since Rouhani's election -- and I stress this -- this vast and feverish effort has continued unabated.
Ladies and gentlemen, underground nuclear facilities, heavy water reactors, advanced centrifuges, ICMBs. See, it's not that it's hard to find evidence that Iran has a nuclear program, a nuclear weapons program; it's hard to find evidence that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program.
Last year when I spoke here at the U.N. I drew a red line. Now, Iran has been very careful not to cross that line but Iran is positioning itself to race across that line in the future at a time of its choosing. Iran wants to be in a position to rush forward to build nuclear bombs before the international community can detect it and much less prevent it.
Yet Iran faces one big problem, and that problem can be summed up in one word: sanctions. I have argued for many years, including on this podium, that the only way to peacefully prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is to combine tough sanctions with a credible military threat. And that policy today is bearing fruit. Thanks to the efforts of many countries, many represented here, and under the leadership of the United States, tough sanctions have taken a big bite off the Iranian economy.
Oil revenues have fallen. The currency has plummeted. Banks are hard-pressed to transfer money. So as a result, the regime is under intense pressure from the Iranian people to get the sanctions relieved or removed.
That's why Rouhani got elected in the first place. That's why he launched his charm offensive. He definitely wants to get the sanctions lifted; I guarantee you that. But he doesn't want to give up Iranians' nuclear -- Iran's nuclear weapons program in return.
Now here's a strategy to achieve this. First, smile a lot. Smiling never hurts. Second, pay lip service to peace, democracy and tolerance. Third, offer meaningless concessions in exchange for lifting sanctions. And fourth, and the most important, ensure that Iran retains sufficient nuclear material and sufficient nuclear infrastructure to race to the bomb at a time it chooses to do so.
You know why Rouhani thinks he can get away with this? I mean, this is a ruse. It's a ploy. Why does Rouhani think he -- thinks he can get away with it? Because -- because he's gotten away with it before, because his strategy of talking a lot and doing little has worked for him in the past.
He even brags about this. Here's what he said in his 2011 book about his time as Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, and I quote: "While we were talking to the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in Isfahan."
Now, for those of you who don't know, the Isfahan facility is an indispensable part of Iran's nuclear weapons program. That's where uranium ore called yellowcake is converted into an enrichable form. Rouhani boasted, and I quote, "By creating a calm environment -- a calm environment -- we were able to complete the work in Isfahan." He fooled the world once. Now he thinks he can fool it again.
You see, Rouhani thinks he can have his yellowcake and eat it too. And he has another reason to believe that he can get away with this. And that reason is called North Korea. Like Iran, North Korea also said its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes. Like Iran, North Korea also offered meaningless concessions and empty promises in return for sanctions relief.
In 2005 North Korea agreed to a deal that was celebrated the world over by many well-meaning people. Here's what the New York Times editorial had to say about it, quote: "For years now, foreign policy insiders have pointed to North Korea as the ultimate nightmare, a closed, hostile and paranoid dictatorship with an aggressive nuclear weapons program. Very few could envision a successful outcome, and yet North Korea agreed in principle this week to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, return to the NPT, abide by the treaty's safeguards and admit international inspectors."
And finally, "diplomacy, it seems, does work after all. Ladies and gentlemen, a year later, North Korea exploded its first nuclear weapons device."
Yet, as dangerous as a nuclear-armed North Korea is, it pales in comparison to the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran. A nuclear-armed Iran would have a choke hold on the world's main energy supplies. It would trigger nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East, turning the most unstable part of the planet into a nuclear tinderbox. And for the first time in history, it would make the specter of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger. A nuclear-armed Iran in the Middle East wouldn't be another North Korea. It would be another 50 North Koreas.
Now, I know that some in the international community think I'm exaggerating this threat. Sure, they know that Iran's regime leads these chants, "death to America, death to Israel," that it pledges to wipe Israel off the map. But they think that this wild rhetoric is just bluster for domestic consumption. Have these people learned nothing from history? The last century has taught us that when a radical regime with global ambitions gets awesome power, sooner or later its appetite for aggression knows no bounds.
That's the central lesson of the 20th century. And we cannot forget it. The world may have forgotten this lesson. The Jewish people have not.
Iran's fanaticism is not bluster. It's real. The fanatic regime must never be allowed to arm itself with nuclear weapons. I know that the world is weary of war. We in Israel, we know all too well the cost of war. But history has taught us that to prevent war tomorrow, we must be firm today.
And this raises the question, can diplomacy stop this threat? Well, the only diplomatic solution that would work is one that fully dismantles Iran's nuclear weapons program and prevents it from having one in the future.
President Obama rightly said that Iran's conciliatory words must be matched by transparent, verifiable and meaningful action. And to be meaningful, a diplomatic solution would require Iran to do four things. First, cease all uranium enrichment. This is called for by several Security Council resolutions. Second, remove from Iran's territory the stockpiles of enriched uranium. Third, dismantle the infrastructure for nuclear breakout capability, including the underground facility at Qom and the advanced centrifuges in Natanz.
And, four, stop all work at the heavy water reactor in Iraq aimed at the production of plutonium. These steps would put an end to Iran's nuclear weapons program and eliminate its breakout capability.
There are those who would readily agreed to leave Iran with a residual capability to enrich uranium. I advise them to pay close attention to what Rouhani said in his speech to Iran's supreme cultural revolution -- Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council. This was published in 2005. I quote. This is what he said:
"A county that could enrich uranium to about 3.5 percent will also have the capability to enrich it to about 90 percent. Having fuel cycle capability virtually means that a country that possesses this capability is able to produce nuclear weapons." Precisely. This is why Iran's nuclear weapons program must be fully and verifiably dismantled. And this is why the pressure on Iran must continue.
So here is what the international community must do: First, keep up the sanctions. If Iran advances its nuclear weapons program during negotiations, strengthen the sanctions.
Second, don't agree to a partial deal. A partial deal would lift international sanctions that have taken years to put in place in exchange for cosmetic concessions that will take only weeks for Iran to reverse.
Third, lift the sanctions only when Iran fully dismantles its nuclear weapons program. My friends, the international community has Iran on the ropes. If you want to knock out Iran's nuclear weapons program peacefully, don't let up the pressure. Keep it up.
We all want to give diplomacy with Iran a chance to succeed, but when it comes to Iran, the greater the pressure, the greater the chance. Three decades ago, President Ronald Reagan famously advised, "trust but verify." When it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons program, here's my advice: Distrust, dismantle and verify.
Ladies and gentlemen, Israel will never acquiesce to nuclear arms in the hands of a rogue regime that repeatedly promises to wipe us off the map. Against such a threat, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself.
I want there to be no confusion on this point. Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone. Yet, in standing alone, Israel will know that we will be defending many, many others.
The dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran and the emergence of other threats in our region have led many of our Arab neighbors to recognize, finally recognize, that Israel is not their enemy. And this affords us the opportunity to overcome the historic animosities and build new relationships, new friendships, new hopes.
Israel welcomes engagement with the wider Arab world. We hope that our common interests and common challenges will help us forge a more peaceful future. And Israel's -- continues to seek an historic compromise with our Palestinian neighbors, one that ends our conflict once and for all. We want peace based on security and mutual recognition, in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state of Israel. I remain committed to achieving an historic reconciliation and building a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Now, I have no illusions about how difficult this will be to achieve. Twenty years ago, the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians began. Six Israeli prime ministers, myself included, have not succeeded at achieving peace with the Palestinians. My predecessors were prepared to make painful concessions. So am I. But so far the Palestinian leaders haven't been prepared to offer the painful concessions they must make in order to end the conflict.
For peace to be achieved, the Palestinians must finally recognize the Jewish state, and Israel's security needs must be met.
I am prepared to make an historic compromise for genuine and enduring peace, but I will never compromise on the security of my people and of my country, the one and only Jewish state.
Ladies and gentlemen, one cold day in the late 19th century, my grandfather Nathan and his younger brother Judah were standing in a railway station in the heart of Europe. They were seen by a group of anti-Semitic hoodlums who ran towards them waving clubs, screaming "Death to the Jews."
My grandfather shouted to his younger brother to flee and save himself, and he then stood alone against the raging mob to slow it down. They beat him senseless, they left him for dead, and before he passed out, covered in his own blood, he said to himself "What a disgrace, what a disgrace. The descendants of the Maccabees lie in the mud powerless to defend themselves."
He promised himself then that if he lived, he would take his family to the Jewish homeland and help build a future for the Jewish people. I stand here today as Israel's prime minister because my grandfather kept that promise.
And so many other Israelis have a similar story, a parent or a grandparent who fled every conceivable oppression and came to Israel to start a new life in our ancient homeland. Together we've transformed a bludgeoned Jewish people, left for dead, into a vibrant, thriving nation, a defending itself with the courage of modern Maccabees, developing limitless possibilities for the future.
In our time the Biblical prophecies are being realized. As the prophet Amos said, they shall rebuild ruined cities and inhabit them. They shall plant vineyards and drink their wine. They shall till gardens and eat their fruit. And I will plant them upon their soil never to be uprooted again.
Ladies and gentlemen, the people of Israel have come home never to be uprooted again.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Obama To Iran: Keep Components, Just Promise Not To Weaponise Them.
The Obama Regime's policy of Appeasement is coming along nicely with the latest pronouncements to the Iranians.
From Debka The moderate mien of Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani has had its intended effect – even before nuclear dialogue began. President Barack Obama had only one demand of Tehran: “Iran would have to demonstrate its own seriousness by agreement not to weaponise nuclear power,” he said Wednesday, Sept. 18. He thus took at his word Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who declared the day before: “We are against nuclear weapons. And when we say no one should have nuclear weapons, we definitely do not pursue it ourselves either.” The symmetry between the words from Washington and Tehran was perfect in content and timing – and not by chance. debkafile’s Washington and Iranian sources disclose that it was choreographed in advance. Obama and Khamenei have been exchanging secret messages through Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said of Oman, who visited Tehran in the last week of August and conferred with both Khameini and Rouhani. In the last message, carried to Tehran by Oman’s Defense Minister Sayyid Badr bin Saud Al Busaidiat, the US president said that Rouhani’s conciliatory gestures towards Washington needed to be backed up by an explicit pledge not to weaponise Iran’s nuclear program. That pledge must come from the supreme leader in person and delivered publicly to Iran’s most hawkish audience, Revolutionary Guards chiefs. And indeed, Khamenei acted out his part Tuesday under TV cameras. Full details of the exchanges going back and both between Washington and Tehran will appear in the coming DEBKA Weekly 603 out Friday, Sept. 20. They will confirm that the US president has come to terms with a nuclear-capable Iran and will be satisfied with Ayatollah Khamenei’s word that Tehran will not take the last step to actually assemble a bomb. Our sources note that in his direct secret dialogue with Tehran, Obama is pursuing the same tactics he used for the Syrian chemical issue with Russian President Vladmir Putin: Moving fast forward on the secret track while pretending that the process is still at an early stage and then a sudden leap to target – a particular form of diplomacy consisting of verbal calisthenics. This pretense was played out at the G20, when the two presidents acted as though they were irreconcilably divided on the Syrian question, while secretly tying up the ends of the chemical accord. Obama’s willingness to accept Khamenei’s oft-repeated assurance that his country’s nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes – while letting its military program advance to the brink – leaves Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu lagging far behind and his Iranian policy with nowhere to go. At the Israeli cabinet meeting Tuesday, the prime minister said his White House talks with President Obama on Sept. 30 would focus on Iran and his four demands:Who but an idiot would actually believe that Iran would not weaponize any nuclear components that they have in their possession? Once again Obama is trying to throw Israel under the bus. But will Netanyahu let him do this to Israel? Members of the Obama Regime have quietly told Netanyahu that if Israel attacks Iran the US will NOT block any sanctions and/or boycotts done to Israel by the UN Security Council. Blackmail is the Obama way. Israel will soon be standing alone in the world without a friend. The perfect solution for his Muslim Brotherhood Masters. Isolate Israel, destroy Israel then finish the job started in 1933. Problem solved and World Peace reigns. I for one do not believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu would believe anything Obama or Kerry is saying to him. I do believe he is buying time, but will it be time enough to prevent a nuclear bomb being exploded over Tel Aviv? I pray it is.
Notwithstanding the briefing offered by Secretary of State John Kerry when he visited Jerusalem on Sunday, Sept. 15, it looks as though Obama is keeping the Israeli prime minister in the dark on his moves towards Iran.
- Complete halt of uranium enrichment;
- Removal of enriched materials from Iran;
- Closure of the Fordo enrichment plant;
- Termination of plutonium production at Arak.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
US Hits Syria. Syria Hits Israel. Obama Stops Israel From Hitting Back.
The world is watching very carefully what the US response (if any) to the recent Chemical Weapons attack Bashar al-Assad committed upon his people. Will Obama actually put his money where his mouth is? Will it be big enough? And what will Assad's reaction be? We keep hearing the answer to that question from the Syrians.
There is little logic in the Netanyahu government’s public assurances that the Syrian ruler Bashar Assad would not risk a major showdown with Israel for fear of an IDF response powerful enough to overthrow his regime. This argument fails to take into account the calculus in Washington: President Barack Obama would not countenance, at least in the initial stage, an Israeli military strike on a scale greater than the limited operation he is contemplating for his own armed forces in the wake of the Syrian government’s chemical weapons attack on Damascus last Wednesday, Aug. 21. Israel would therefore not be allowed to endanger Assad’s rule.Normally this would be just hot air coming out of Syria, but the fact that Israeli are stocking up on Gas Masks and protective gear. They are nervous. And rightly so. It is also a fact that President Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a friend of Israel, in fact before he became President he was in favor of the total destruction of Israel. His actions since he became President have made him the most anti-Israel President since Dhimmi Carter. I would not put it past him to threaten to attack Israel if they tried to defend themselves.
Assad’s Russian advisers are no doubt briefing him on this Israel-Syrian equation.
According to debkafile’s military sources, Israeli strategists prefer to believe that Syria will choose Jordan for a conventional missile strike in reprisal for a US attack - rather than go for Israel.
This assumption was refuted by the words of Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem Tuesday, Aug. 27, at a press conference he held in response to US allegations of his government’s responsibility for using chemical weapons in East Damascus.
Accusing the US Secretary of State John Kelly of telling lies and fabricating evidence against his government, Moallem insisted it had not used chemical weapons or delayed permission for the UN team to launch its investigation under guaranteed security in government-controlled sites. That team only arrived Saturday, Aug. 23, and was not ready for its mission before Monday, Moallem insisted.
He went on to question US objectives in seeking to attack Syria, and answered his own question by saying: “Anything that happens in this area is in Israel’s interest. Such aggression will first of all benefit Israel, secondly, the military efforts of Al Nusra, al Qaeda’s armed group in Syria. “So the Americans would be serving Israel first and Al Qaeda second.”
As for Jordan, Moallem stressed Syria’s friendly and neighborly ties with the Hashemite kingdom. “We have no thought of acting against Jordan,” he said, and advised Amman not to let itself be persuaded to give up its friendship with Damascus.
debkafile’s military sources add: Washington may avoid the need to punish Syria for a potential attack on Jordan by harnessing the Saudi Air Force. In response to a joint US-Amman invitation, Saudi warplanes could cross through Hashemite airspace and blast targets in Syria. They would use intelligence input and coordination support from US air commands.
The Saudi air base at Tabuk near the Jordanian border was reported Tuesday to have placed its F-15 squadrons on the ready. A French squadron of Rafale bombers is also based at Tabuk.
The situation could take a different turn if Syria targeted the US forces deployed in Jordan.
For all these reasons, Israel is more likely than Jordan to be first in line for Syrian payback for a US attack. IDF commanders are well aware of this danger and are gearing up for the challenge. Part of their planning may be to stage the first Israel-Syrian military confrontation in Jordan and over its skies and not just in Israel.
That Israel is under explicit threat was made amply clear in statements coming Tuesday from Syria, Hezbollah, Iran and implicitly, Russia. When Moallem said Tuesday that Syria would defend itself in the case of a US strike “using all available means,” he felt safe in including Syrian allies in this category.
Those allies are evidently resolved not to stand by idly if Syria is attacked.
The nature of their promised assistance to Bashar Assad was no doubt conveyed to Barack Obama’s intermediaries, UN Deputy Secretary Jeffrey Feltman and Oman’s Sultan Qaboos, Monday, when they met Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani Monday, to promote the US president’s bid for an understanding on Syria –– as reported exclusively by debkafile.
So the US president must by now know how many players will jump in and where, in consequence of an American attack on Syria. This means that Washington may find it impossible to keep the operation within the predetermined confines desired by the US president. Jerusalem as well as Washington realizes how widely the fallout may spread, but Israeli leaders are keeping this prospect under their hats to avoid public panic.
SOURCE
Obama loves the trappings of the Presidency, but not the work. I doubt that he will attack Syria with enough force to make it very clear to Assad that he cannot act in such a manner to his own people. In reality Obama will do a little action and claim victory. Assad (and Iran) will laugh seeing that if they use such weapons, the world will only slap them on the wrist. And Israel will be the one who suffers.
Friday, August 2, 2013
We Were Here Before You....And We Will Be Here After You
I've been wondering if Prime Minister Netanyahu actually had a set of balls recently. He caved into the demand to release murders to the PA, he acts as if Israel will return to the Auschwitz borders, he acts as a defeatist. Until this happened in the Knesset.
Arabs were not in Israel before the Jewish people, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu asserted early Thursday morning before the Knesset vote on the referendum bill.I wonder what game Bibi Netanyahu is playing? First he sounds and acts like a defeatist. Now he sounds like the old Bibi. The man who would not compromise. The man with the set of balls the size of watermelons.
Click here if the video doesn't load.
The bill passed in its first reading with 66 MKs in favor and 45 opposed. The legislation reinforces existing law by upgrading it to a Basic Law, which means it would have constitutional status in the eyes of the Supreme Court. The current law requires a referendum on any concession of sovereign territory, in a peace treaty or as a unilateral move. Sovereign territory does not include Judea and Samaria, but it includes all of Jerusalem and any land swaps.
During the debate, MK Mordechai Yogev (Bayit Yehudi) said “the Land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel,” and MK Jamal Zahalka (Balad) responded: “We [Arabs] were here before you and we’ll be here after you.”
In an unusual move, Netanyahu asked to take the podium and said to Zahalka: “The first part isn’t true, and the second won’t be.”
Many MKs stood up and applauded, which is against the Knesset’s rules.
Soon after, Netanyahu posted the exchange on Facebook and Twitter, and Economy and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett wrote on Facebook that he’s proud of Netanyahu.
“We were here first, because it says so in the Torah,” UTJ MK Moshe Gafni pointed out, and Finance Minister Yair Lapid – who rarely agrees with Gafni on anything – shouted out “that’s right.”
Bennett passionately defended the referendum bill, which his party insisted be advanced by this week before the Knesset went on recess, and argued with opposition MKs who spoke out against it.
“You in Shas want to teach me about loving the Land of Israel? [MK] Arye Deri is scolding me? The Land of Israel was divided on your backs!” Bennett said incredulously, referring to the Oslo Accords.
The Bayit Yehudi leader added that he doesn’t understand why the Left is so concerned about a referendum if they think the nation wants two states for two nations.
Interior Minister Gideon Sa’ar spoke out in favor of the bill and accused Labor of hypocrisy, saying the party always supported referendums in the past.
“When a decision is made and we are on opposite sides, no one wants the final call to be made by deserters that are seduced by benefits,” Sa’ar added, referring to the way the Oslo Accords were approved by the Knesset.
Coalition chairman Yariv Levin (Likud Beytenu) said that the reason the existing Referendum Law needs to become a Basic Law is because of the Supreme Court’s “unprecedented invasion of the Knesset’s authority.”
“As one of the people who proposed this bill, I hope we will never have to use it,” he added.
Deputy Minister for Liaison with the Knesset Ofir Akunis, who cosponsored the original referendum bill in the previous Knesset, said “a public issue that divides our society more than any other should be determined by the whole population.
They will go to the polls and decide whether to accept an agreement the government reached.”
“Oslo II was passed because of a Mitsubishi [given to a new deputy minister]. The disengagement was authorized by the government only after two ministers who disagreed with then-prime minister Ariel Sharon were fired,” Akunis said. “We can’t have more tricks like this. The referendum bill will prevent them.”
MK Merav Michaeli (Labor) said that “the Bayit Yehudi doesn’t want to let us reach a peace agreement and are looking for any way to torpedo it.”
According to MK Muhammad Barakei (Hadash), the coalition is trying to create a “semi-fascist dictatorship.”
Expressing opposition to the bill from a different standpoint, MK Nissim Ze’ev (Shas) said “A referendum will legitimize removing Jews from their homes.”
Shas MK Avraham Michaeli said that a referendum is a “trick” and Bayit Yehudi’s voters will not forgive the party.
“This is one of the saddest days in the history of Israeli democracy,” MK Yisrael Hasson (Kadima) told ministers. “I don’t trust you, and I don’t have any expectations from you.”
The Member of the Knesset have stood up for their ancestors and their future today. Let us hope it isn't an empty gesture.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Jews Use Sorcery Against Iran!
Stolen From Elder of Ziyon
I love it when posts write themselves:
Iran's earthquakes? All we have to do is point our magic wands at the general direction of Iran and say "Persae terraemotus!"
Do you think that it was Stuxnet that slowed down Iran's nuclear weapons program? No, it was the famous Kabbalistic spell "Exploratio centrifugus!"
And when I need material like this for the blog, I simply use the famous curse "Missa stultitiae!"
As far as the charge that we can influence God's decisions, well, we have a secret Talmudic method for that too.
*********************************************************************
Not only does the Mossad use sorcery, but it is a well-known fact that the IAF is equipped with the most advanced broom of our age:
I guess the Iranians will now claim that Bibi Netanyahu is really Lord Voldemort.
And we are suppose to be scared of these bozos?
I love it when posts write themselves:
An Iranian regime official and a website close to the regime have recently accused the Jews of engaging in sorcery and of employing it against Iran.Now you can understand how Jews managed to train squirrels to infiltrate and spy on Iran - we use our powers of sorcery to speak to the squirrels! Sort of like Parseltongue, but with a completely different accent.
Mehdi Taeb, Official Close to Khamenei: 'So Far, [The Jews] Have Not Used The Full [Scope Of] Their Sorcery Against Us'
Speaking on April 20, 2013 to students at a religious seminary in Ahwaz, Mehdi Taeb noted: "The Jews are currently subjecting us to an unprecedented trial. As you read in the Koran, [King] Solomon ruled the world… and God ordered a group of sorcerers to come out against him. The Jews have the greatest powers of sorcery, and they make use of this tool.
"All the measures that have been brought against us originate with the Zionists. The U.S. is a tool in their hands. So far, they have not used the full [scope of] their sorcery against us. Sorcery was the final means to which they resorted during the Ahmadinejad era, but they were defeated. This ability of the Jews was eliminated by Iran. Five years ago they tried to oust Ahmadinejad [by this means]."
Rasanews.ir, Website Associated With Qom Seminaries: The Jews Believe They Can Use Sorcery To Control God's Decisions
The article on Rasanews.com, published March 7, 2013, stated: "The Jews have always tended to resort to divination, [a practice] that has its roots in astronomy, astrology and sorcery, [which they picked up] when they consorted with various peoples in the course of history. They cherished this [knowledge] like a treasure, generation after generation. In most cases, they base their predictions on the holy book [the Old Testament], especially on the book of Daniel, and they create an ideological climate in which the appreciation of sorcery and the yearning for it increase.
"The [Jewish] people think that ruling over man, nature, and divine traditions can be achieved only by means of sorcery. They believe that it is possible to conquer nature and control the world, and even to control God's decisions, by using sorcery methods…
"Sorcery is known to be a practice of which the divine books [i.e., the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran and] and the monotheistic religions disapprove. But Jewish mysticism regards it as a [legitimate] means to uncover the secrets of the holy book [the Old Testament]."
Iran's earthquakes? All we have to do is point our magic wands at the general direction of Iran and say "Persae terraemotus!"
Do you think that it was Stuxnet that slowed down Iran's nuclear weapons program? No, it was the famous Kabbalistic spell "Exploratio centrifugus!"
And when I need material like this for the blog, I simply use the famous curse "Missa stultitiae!"
As far as the charge that we can influence God's decisions, well, we have a secret Talmudic method for that too.
*********************************************************************
Not only does the Mossad use sorcery, but it is a well-known fact that the IAF is equipped with the most advanced broom of our age:
I guess the Iranians will now claim that Bibi Netanyahu is really Lord Voldemort.
And we are suppose to be scared of these bozos?
Labels:
Bibi Netanyahu,
Humor,
Iran,
Islam,
Israel,
Lord Voldemort,
Mossad,
Sorcery,
Squirrels,
Stupidity
Friday, January 18, 2013
Israeli Elections For Dummies
Hat tip to Yid With Lid
By Barry Rubin
The Israeli election set for January 22 and the coverage thereof is very strange in several respects. It is a contest in which his opponents seek to beat centrist Prime Minister Benjamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu, of the Likud party, in a remarkably inept manner and in which international understanding of the issues is at the low level we’ve become used to seeing.
Here's a simple way to understand the situation: the far right parties and the moderate left parties are each likely to get roughly the same number of seats that they received in the 1999 election. The difference is that in 1999, the right divided its vote among three parties; today the right has largely united into one. The moderate left in 1999 gave their votes mainly to one party, and now are dividing it among four. The basic political geography has not shifted very much.
One can only note, however, that when Egypt elects the Muslim Brotherhood and one-quarter of the population vote for an openly genocidal party we are told this is an exercise in democracy whereas if ten percent or so in Israel vote for the far right and a centrist prime minister is reelected we are told by the same people that this is proof that Israel is becoming undemocratic and turning to the right.
Here's a simple way to understand the situation. The far right -parties and the moderate left -parties are each likely to get roughly the same number of seats that they received in the 1999 election. The difference is that in 1999 the rightist parties divided their vote among three parties and today have largely united into one. The moderate left in 1999 gave their votes mainly to one party and now are dividing it among four.
In addition, viewing the actual electioneering by the moderate left makes one appreciate just how fraudulent political consultants are. They claim that they are going to help the candidate win but have no idea of how to do so. And in Israel they borrow childishly from the latest fads in American politics without regard to the differences. Here are the themes pushed by the moderate left opposition:
What’s astonishing is the obtuseness of the opposition, especially Labor. Netanyahu is going to win but the way to get the largest vote, becoming the official opposition and possibly his coalition partner, is to run on an energetic program of domestic improvements. The obvious opposition approach should be that it is the time to improve schools, the infrastructure, and reduce housing and food prices.
People are waiting to be told that their living standards can be improved without threatening their security. A winning theme would be to say Netanyahu has neglected these domestic issues. True, the economy has done very well but the price of relatively high employment, rapid growth, and low inflation has been high prices.
For breakfast just now I paid $3 for a croissant and $3 for a coffee in a country where income levels average half those in the United States. Young people can’t afford an apartment in a country where rentals are relatively rare and there is not a strong mortgage system or tax deductions for paying one.
That’s why there were social protests in 2011. While going into big debt and increasing subsidies—the trap into which most Western economies have fallen—would be a mistake there are certainly good shifts to be made. Instead, voters are being treated like idiots who will be won over by some silly slogan convincing them that either the prime minister is evil or will get them incinerated. That won’t win an election.
The splits in the opposition have become ridiculous. Four different parties are competing with no real differences among them and without a single charismatic leader. Mofaz may be a highly competent general but has shown himself a bad politician. Livni has failed repeatedly in office. Yair Lapid is following his father’s political path in bashing the Haredim (those inaccurately known generally as “ultra-Orthodox,” while Labor Party leader Shelly Yachimovich, widely predicted to come in second, is a radio personality with little political experience. Three of them—except for Mofaz—just met to discuss unity and broke up in acrimony.
Livni has already announced she won’t go into coalition with Netanyahu while Lapid demands that there won’t be any religious parties involved. In other words, both of them plus the hapless Mofaz, have boxed themselves into a corner.
This brings us into the popular international theme about the alleged meaning of the election: Israel is moving to the right and rejecting a two-state solution. A lot of this is motivated by the agenda of making Israel look as if it is against peace, despite the fact that it is the Palestinian side that makes such a solution impossible.
Yet Netanyahu’s impending victory has nothing to do with any shift on that issue. Rather, it is due to the fact that the prime minister has done a reasonably good job, the economy is okay, terrorism is low, he’s kept out of trouble, and has shown he can be trusted to preserve security. Moreover, there is no very attractive figure, unity, or single impressive party on the other side. Given this situation, Netanyahu’s victory--meaning his party will come in first and he will form the next government--is a no-brainer.
There are four pieces of evidence supposed to indicate that the next government will be further to the right or more “hardline,” three of which are clearly bogus. First, several supposedly moderate candidates in the Likud primary were defeated. In fact, this group—one of whom, Benny Begin, is an honorable man but hard right—consists of nice guys who were terrible campaigners. Nothing is less surprising than that they lost.
Second, the hardline faction of Likud, led by Moshe Feiglin, a dangerous extremist, is supposedly stronger. In fact, though, Netanyahu held it at bay and it would have no influence in the next government as it has not had in this one.
Third, Netanyahu made a distasteful alliance with the party of the demagogic Avigdor Lieberman. While Lieberman is corrupt and a poseur, his right-wing militancy was for show and he never actually did anything materially. At any rate, with Lieberman under indictment for corruption, the political careers of his faction’s parliamentarians now depend on keeping Netanyahu happy. Moreover, they represent more of a Soviet immigrant pressure group than right-wing militants.
This leaves the real fear regarding the rising star of Naftali Bennett, head of the genuinely far right Habayit Hayehudi party. But the problem with the thesis, popular among Western journalists, that there will be a right-wing Netanyahu-Bennett coalition is that Netanyahu loathes Bennett and knows he would be a constant headache. Bennett’s party would attack every pragmatic step Netanyahu took—including those needed to get along with an Obama-led America--and ache for opportunities to threaten to walk out of the coalition or actually do so.
If such a coalition does happen it will be because Netanyahu could find no way out. It is more likely that he will do everything possible to avoid this outcome and work with some combination of other parties, including if possible Labor. Of course, such an outcome isn’t certain but is more likely than an all-rightist coalition.
The results will depend on the political math following the January 22 voting, with the key issue being how Netanyahu could assemble a parliamentary majority of 61 out of 120. Most likely would be an outcome in which the policies of the next government will be the same as the one ruling Israel for the last four years.
Right now, as Israelis realize, we live in an era when Israeli policy is necessarily more reactive and defensive. There is no diplomatic option for peace and Israel has no influence over the Islamist direction of Egypt, Syria, the Gaza Strip, and Lebanon.
The big question, of course, is whether Netanyahu would ever attack Iran’s nuclear installations. I think the answer to that question is “no” for many reasons, only one of them being that this would lead to a confrontation with the Obama Administration.
After decades of hearing American writers and alleged experts misunderstand Israeli politics and thinking I can say that nothing has changed in this regard.
By Barry Rubin
The Israeli election set for January 22 and the coverage thereof is very strange in several respects. It is a contest in which his opponents seek to beat centrist Prime Minister Benjamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu, of the Likud party, in a remarkably inept manner and in which international understanding of the issues is at the low level we’ve become used to seeing.
Here's a simple way to understand the situation: the far right parties and the moderate left parties are each likely to get roughly the same number of seats that they received in the 1999 election. The difference is that in 1999, the right divided its vote among three parties; today the right has largely united into one. The moderate left in 1999 gave their votes mainly to one party, and now are dividing it among four. The basic political geography has not shifted very much.
One can only note, however, that when Egypt elects the Muslim Brotherhood and one-quarter of the population vote for an openly genocidal party we are told this is an exercise in democracy whereas if ten percent or so in Israel vote for the far right and a centrist prime minister is reelected we are told by the same people that this is proof that Israel is becoming undemocratic and turning to the right.
Here's a simple way to understand the situation. The far right -parties and the moderate left -parties are each likely to get roughly the same number of seats that they received in the 1999 election. The difference is that in 1999 the rightist parties divided their vote among three parties and today have largely united into one. The moderate left in 1999 gave their votes mainly to one party and now are dividing it among four.
In addition, viewing the actual electioneering by the moderate left makes one appreciate just how fraudulent political consultants are. They claim that they are going to help the candidate win but have no idea of how to do so. And in Israel they borrow childishly from the latest fads in American politics without regard to the differences. Here are the themes pushed by the moderate left opposition:
- Bibi is for the rich. This slogan is unlikely to work in a country where lower income generally corresponds with more conservative voting. The idea is obviously stolen from Barack Obama’s campaign. But Obama was going for large African-American, Hispanic, and student blocs plus some middle class sectors that could be stirred up over hatred of the rich. This has no relevance for Israel.
- Bibi will get you killed. This theme is accompanied by a picture of a mushroom cloud. But is the idea that he will get you nuked by attacking Iran or by not attacking Iran? It isn’t clear. And since Netanyahu has the best claim to preserve the country’s security that approach is likely to be counterproductive.
- Bibi doesn’t want your vote. This is the newest poster to appear though it isn’t clear who’s promoting it. That makes no sense at all.
- The choice of photographs. Former Prime Minister Tsipi Livni, the candidate of her own party—and one of the quartet seeking moderate/moderate left voters—has a photograph on her poster that looks as if it were selected by her worst enemy. In it she appears ugly, angry, and confused.
- Livni’s ad has several shots of Obama and one of her standing with new Secretary of State John Kerry. They seem to argue that Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas really wants peace but Netanyahu blocked it. Perhaps this ad was designed by left-liberal American Jewish political consultants. It won’t go over well in Israel.
What’s astonishing is the obtuseness of the opposition, especially Labor. Netanyahu is going to win but the way to get the largest vote, becoming the official opposition and possibly his coalition partner, is to run on an energetic program of domestic improvements. The obvious opposition approach should be that it is the time to improve schools, the infrastructure, and reduce housing and food prices.
People are waiting to be told that their living standards can be improved without threatening their security. A winning theme would be to say Netanyahu has neglected these domestic issues. True, the economy has done very well but the price of relatively high employment, rapid growth, and low inflation has been high prices.
For breakfast just now I paid $3 for a croissant and $3 for a coffee in a country where income levels average half those in the United States. Young people can’t afford an apartment in a country where rentals are relatively rare and there is not a strong mortgage system or tax deductions for paying one.
That’s why there were social protests in 2011. While going into big debt and increasing subsidies—the trap into which most Western economies have fallen—would be a mistake there are certainly good shifts to be made. Instead, voters are being treated like idiots who will be won over by some silly slogan convincing them that either the prime minister is evil or will get them incinerated. That won’t win an election.
The splits in the opposition have become ridiculous. Four different parties are competing with no real differences among them and without a single charismatic leader. Mofaz may be a highly competent general but has shown himself a bad politician. Livni has failed repeatedly in office. Yair Lapid is following his father’s political path in bashing the Haredim (those inaccurately known generally as “ultra-Orthodox,” while Labor Party leader Shelly Yachimovich, widely predicted to come in second, is a radio personality with little political experience. Three of them—except for Mofaz—just met to discuss unity and broke up in acrimony.
Livni has already announced she won’t go into coalition with Netanyahu while Lapid demands that there won’t be any religious parties involved. In other words, both of them plus the hapless Mofaz, have boxed themselves into a corner.
This brings us into the popular international theme about the alleged meaning of the election: Israel is moving to the right and rejecting a two-state solution. A lot of this is motivated by the agenda of making Israel look as if it is against peace, despite the fact that it is the Palestinian side that makes such a solution impossible.
Yet Netanyahu’s impending victory has nothing to do with any shift on that issue. Rather, it is due to the fact that the prime minister has done a reasonably good job, the economy is okay, terrorism is low, he’s kept out of trouble, and has shown he can be trusted to preserve security. Moreover, there is no very attractive figure, unity, or single impressive party on the other side. Given this situation, Netanyahu’s victory--meaning his party will come in first and he will form the next government--is a no-brainer.
There are four pieces of evidence supposed to indicate that the next government will be further to the right or more “hardline,” three of which are clearly bogus. First, several supposedly moderate candidates in the Likud primary were defeated. In fact, this group—one of whom, Benny Begin, is an honorable man but hard right—consists of nice guys who were terrible campaigners. Nothing is less surprising than that they lost.
Second, the hardline faction of Likud, led by Moshe Feiglin, a dangerous extremist, is supposedly stronger. In fact, though, Netanyahu held it at bay and it would have no influence in the next government as it has not had in this one.
Third, Netanyahu made a distasteful alliance with the party of the demagogic Avigdor Lieberman. While Lieberman is corrupt and a poseur, his right-wing militancy was for show and he never actually did anything materially. At any rate, with Lieberman under indictment for corruption, the political careers of his faction’s parliamentarians now depend on keeping Netanyahu happy. Moreover, they represent more of a Soviet immigrant pressure group than right-wing militants.
This leaves the real fear regarding the rising star of Naftali Bennett, head of the genuinely far right Habayit Hayehudi party. But the problem with the thesis, popular among Western journalists, that there will be a right-wing Netanyahu-Bennett coalition is that Netanyahu loathes Bennett and knows he would be a constant headache. Bennett’s party would attack every pragmatic step Netanyahu took—including those needed to get along with an Obama-led America--and ache for opportunities to threaten to walk out of the coalition or actually do so.
If such a coalition does happen it will be because Netanyahu could find no way out. It is more likely that he will do everything possible to avoid this outcome and work with some combination of other parties, including if possible Labor. Of course, such an outcome isn’t certain but is more likely than an all-rightist coalition.
The results will depend on the political math following the January 22 voting, with the key issue being how Netanyahu could assemble a parliamentary majority of 61 out of 120. Most likely would be an outcome in which the policies of the next government will be the same as the one ruling Israel for the last four years.
Right now, as Israelis realize, we live in an era when Israeli policy is necessarily more reactive and defensive. There is no diplomatic option for peace and Israel has no influence over the Islamist direction of Egypt, Syria, the Gaza Strip, and Lebanon.
The big question, of course, is whether Netanyahu would ever attack Iran’s nuclear installations. I think the answer to that question is “no” for many reasons, only one of them being that this would lead to a confrontation with the Obama Administration.
After decades of hearing American writers and alleged experts misunderstand Israeli politics and thinking I can say that nothing has changed in this regard.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Kept In The Dark To Let Iran Go Nuclear.
Once again Barack Hussein Obama is trying to throw Israel under the bus. This time he is keeping Israel out of the loop and trying to have direct talks with Iran in order to stop Iran's nuclear program.
Israel will attack Iran if she thinks Iran is getting close to achieving their goal of a nuclear weapon. They will attack whether Obama approves or not. Netanyahu will do what is necessary to protect the land and people of Israel. It is his duty as Prime Minister to do that.
Obama will awaken one morning to either Iran testing a nuke or Israel attacking Iran. I pray it is the latter and not the former.
U.S. President Barack Obama plans to soon propose to Iran that it negotiate directly with the Americans about its nuclear program, Channel 10 News reported on Tuesday.Secret talks with Iran to be held for 4 to 5 months. Just enough time for Iran to build a bomb. Enough time to give Iran the time they need to complete their project. This will not stop Iran from a nuclear weapon, but insures that Iran achieves their goal. A goal Obama has had as his goal from Day 1. Obama's true goal is the destruction of Israel. It is a thorn in his side and Obama has been a Palestinian support since the 1980's.
The report, which cited a senior American official, said that Obama's move was made without any coordination or consultation with Israel.
According to the report, the Americans probably will allow a period of four to five months for negotiations with Tehran. If the talks fail, they may then resort to the military option. As well, Obama is planning to set preconditions for contacts with the Islamic Republic, including that it halt its uranium enrichment and agree to allow external monitoring of its nuclear facilities.
This is not the first time that Israel and the United States do not see eye to eye on the issue of Iran arming itself with nuclear weapons, but this is the first time that action was taken at such a high level of importance without informing Israel, noted Channel 10.
According to Channel 10, the White House believes that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is personally responsible for the leaks to the media of the IAEA report on the Iranian nuclear program, as was reported by the British Guardian on Monday.
The Guardian report indicated that Israel is suspected of carrying out a series of leaks implicating Iran in nuclear weapons experiments, in an attempt to raise international pressure on Tehran and halt its nuclear program.
The report said that Western diplomats believe the leaks may have backfired, compromising a UN-sanctioned investigation into Iran's past nuclear activities and current aspirations.
The latest leak, published by the Associated Press (AP), purported to be an Iranian diagram showing the physics of a nuclear blast, but scientists quickly pointed out an elementary mistake that cast doubt on its significance and authenticity.
The IAEA has accused Iranian authorities of undermining its effort to probe suspected nuclear weapons research at the Parchin facility by carrying out possible clean-up operations.
The head of the UN agency, Yukiya Amano, said last week that despite the clean-up, inspections at the military complex near Tehran would be "very useful".
In October, weeks before the presidential election in the U.S., it was reported that the United States and Iran had agreed, for the first time, to hold one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.
One senior administration official said that the Iranians have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.
The White House, however, quickly denied the report.
Source
Israel will attack Iran if she thinks Iran is getting close to achieving their goal of a nuclear weapon. They will attack whether Obama approves or not. Netanyahu will do what is necessary to protect the land and people of Israel. It is his duty as Prime Minister to do that.
Obama will awaken one morning to either Iran testing a nuke or Israel attacking Iran. I pray it is the latter and not the former.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)










