Is Obama planning his revenge on Netanyahu?

Now, now....would anyone believe that Barack Hussein Obama and Valerie Jarrett would ever stoop so low as to exact some revenge on Israeli leader Bibi Netanyahu?  Of course the answer is an emphatic yet.  I just hope the revenge is so obvious that we can use it to put these two mongrels in a jail cell.

The story comes from The Jerusalem Post.

Is Obama planning his revenge on Netanyahu?

"During his final year in the White House, US President Barack Obama is preparing a metaphorical roadside IED for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It cannot be that the tainted relations between the two leaders will not end with Obama exacting some sweet revenge." Variations of the above statement have been uttered for a while now by senior American and Israeli officials since Netanyahu's speech to the US Congress last year during his campaign against Obama and his nuclear agreement with Iran.

This week, the New York Times brought the fraught Obama-Netanyahu relationship back into the headlines when the paper expounded on the US president's possible future revenge against the Israeli leader that will be served up cold in the form of a UN Security Council resolution on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Several officials have said that Obama has grown so frustrated with trying to revive Middle East peace talks that he may lay down his own outline for an Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution, in the form of a resolution in the United Nations Security Council, the Times reported.


“There will be a great temptation to do something in the final year. “For a president who came out faster and more aggressively on the Middle East than any of his predecessors, there is a gnawing sense of incompletion and perhaps even failure,” Aaron David Miller, a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, told the Times last month.

Israel's former envoy to the UN Ron Prosor says that in recent days there are meetings in the White House on how to end
Obama's second term and discussions are taking place on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well.

"I believe that a US proposal for a UN Security Council Resolution is just one idea that was floated. The idea of an independent draft US resolution seems unlikely to me because the Americans are not interested in leading the negotiating process," Prosor said.

"It seems like a more concrete concern that the US will not use its veto in the Security Council to stop French or other countries' proposals on the conflict," he said.

Prosor added that in his opinion to bring the sides to the negotiating table by force is a mistake and is unlikely because "it will not bring peace."

"But Obama will have to do something. It may be that he will be satisfied with delivering a speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but in any event he will not leave office without making reference to the diplomatic process. That will not happen," Prosor said.

This is not the first time during Obama's tenure that the issue of the US not using its veto power at the security council has been raised.

Last year, US Senator John McCain pushed back against US threats to reassess its relationship to the Mideast diplomatic process.

McCain warned that if Obama would support a UN Security Council resolution calling for a Palestinian state, something he said would contravene the basic Mideast policies of the last 10 presidents – Congress would “have to examine our funding for the United Nations.”

McCain’s statement came a day after an interview Obama gave to the Huffington Post in which he continued to slam Netanyahu for saying on the eve of his election victory that a Palestinian state would not emerge under his tenure.

One of the options available, Obama administration officials have made clear since Netanyhau's election win, is not vetoing a UN Security Council resolution that would call – and perhaps try to impose – a two-state solution.

Asked by the Huffington Post if there was any reason to believe Netanyahu is serious about a Palestinian state, Obama said, “We take him at his word when he said that it wouldn’t happen during his prime ministership, and so that’s why we’ve got to evaluate what other options are available to make sure that we don’t see a chaotic situation in the region.”

So how likely is it that the US will bring forward a proposal to the UN Security Council? It depends who you ask.

Alon Pinkas, Israel's former consul-general to New York, argues that a US move at the council is only one option of many that it can exercise.

"The feeling in Israel that the Obama revenge is imminent stems from the Israeli illusion that we interest Obama and occupy him. We are an ally of the United States but not the principle interest in its foreign policy and we should not get confused in this regard," Pinkas said.

According to Pinkas, there are three options open to Obama on how to act on the matter.

"The first option is that before Obama's departure in January he will deliver a general policy speech on the Middle East and and will reveal everything that we don't know about US Secretary of State John Kerry's peace efforts in 2014. We will hear about the [unpublicized] understandings reached between the Israelis and the Palestinians during those US brokered talks and in the second half of the speech Obama will set out his vision for the Middle East."

"The second option open to Obama is the one desired by Netanyahu because the prime minister likes the appearance that he is battling against the entire world. Under this option the US, in an unprecedented move, will not use its veto against a French resolution at the Security Council on the conflict. This option of non-exercise of the US veto can only be used between November and January 2017 so as not to hurt the campaign of the Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton."

"The third option is that the Americans will tender their own resolution at the Security Council, as described in the New York
Times report, but in my opinion Obama will not go this way because he knows that it supports Netanyahu's narrative that everyone is against us, that only he can stand firm against the entire world."

Retired ambassador and former deputy director general of the Foreign Ministry Gideon Meir argued that the arrival of judgment day, when the US turns to the UN Security Council on the Middle East conflict, is just a matter of time.

"I predicted that this would happen. There is a pattern of behavior for the US administration. The Obama-Netanyahu relationship is not straightforward. Obama will not harm Israeli security by way of the US economic security package. But Obama wants to leave a legacy of peace. Where can he do this? Only at the UN. He will go to the UN because there, in his world view, he will not be harming Israel but rather will be helping it. This view is shared by the majority of liberal American Jews," Meir said.

Meir said he doesn't think that a move by the US at the Security Council should be interpreted as being against Israel.

"Just because the Israeli government believes that the US would be acting against Israel does not make it anti-Israel. It can bring our government to a new way of looking at the situation. It is legitimate not to agree with Netanyahu and act accordingly. Not everyone is against us. The West Bank settlements are a trigger and the world does not like Netanyahu's policies. I see great difficulty in trying to prevent the US from acting at the United Nations. "

Next week, Vice President Joe Biden will be the keynote speaker at the left-wing Israel lobby group J Street's conference. The group is hoping that Biden will deliver a headline in line with the news reports of Obama's intention to bring a Security Council resolution.

"We support, encourage, and urge the US president to set out out parameters or some kind of framework that will ensure the continuation of diplomacy and the two-state solution and the American commitment to this idea. The reports of such a US intention are encouraging but it is dependent on the contents of a resolution if it is brought before the Security Council." Yael Patir, the Israel Director for J Street said.

"It is fairly certain that Netanyahu will oppose such a resolution. During his eight years in office Obama blocked all Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel, which was unprecedented even compared to the Bush and Clinton administrations, so I don't think Obama can be accused of being anti-Israel," Patir said.

"On the backdrop of the diplomatic deadlock here, we think that any endorsement of the two-state solution serves Israel and we hope that Biden does this in his speech at our conference," she added.

Until Obama decides how to act, Israel is focusing on frustrating Palestinian diplomatic efforts at the UN. The Palestinians are planning to bring their own resolution to the UN Security Council declaring that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem are illegal and that calls on the sides to return to the negotiating table with a time frame of one year to reach
a final status agreement. The UN vote is set for April 22, Passover-eve, and Palestinian media reports that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is set to be present in New York for the vote.

The Palestinian draft resolution declares that "all of the settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem are illegal and are serious obstacles to achieving peace on the basis of the two-state solution."

"The Security Council condemns the continuation of building in the settlements and any other act meant to change the demographic balance or the character of the land," the draft resolution reads.

The last time that the Security Council voted on a settlements-related resolution was in February 2011. At that time the Palestinians had the support of 14 out of 15 Security Council members, including Britain, France and Germany. The US opposed the Palestinian move and tried to stop the Palestinians from bringing the resolution. When the efforts to convince the Palestinians failed, Obama used the American veto power.

Kerry Playing With Fire In Middle East ~~~ By J. D. Longstreet

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

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.

A Lion Of Judah Has Passed!

Ariel "Arik" Sharon (1928-2014)

It is with a heavy heart that I announce the death of former Prime Minister Ariel "Arik" Sharon.

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.

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.

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.”

“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!

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.

From Debka

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 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 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?

Obama To Iran: Keep Components, Just Promise Not To Weaponise Them.

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

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:

1. Complete halt of uranium enrichment;
2. Removal of enriched materials from Iran;
3. Closure of the Fordo enrichment plant;
4. Termination of plutonium production at Arak.

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.

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.

Israel elections: Benjamin Netanyahu wins narrow victory

Okay, so I scheduled this post the night before you will be reading it, dear reader, so hopefully nothing horrible went wrong with the Israeli elections but it appears that Bibi Netanyahu will remain in power in Israel and that is a good thing.  Right now, with what Netanyahu has had to battle on all fronts with Iran, Obama, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority and a world that never ceases to want to screw the country of Israel, it's best that this man carries out the policies that have been outlined and laid down.

The story comes from The Telegraph.

Israel elections: Benjamin Netanyahu wins narrow victory

The Israeli prime minister claimed the people had given him a mandate to form a "broad-based government" despite indications that voters had delivered a major blow to him, with his Likud Beiteinu bloc on course to win just 31 seats. Although still the largest party in the new Knesset, the projected result represents the loss of 11 seats and is fewer than opinion polls had predicted.

As polling stations closed, exit polls showed that Right-wing parties projected to win 61 or 62 seats in the country's 120-member parliament. The centre-Left bloc was forecast to win between 58 and 59 seats.

In the night's major surprise, the Centrist Yesh Atid party emerged as the second biggest party, with 19 seats – well ahead of Naftali Bennett's pro-settler Jewish Home party, which was expected to win 12 seats, fewer than opinions had predicted. Labour was on course to finish third with 17 seats.

There was speculation that Yesh Atid, led by a former journalist, Yair Lapid, could enter a coalition with Mr Netanyahu, thus moderating the influence of the Right. Mr Netanyahu said he had spoken with Mr Lapid, reportedly telling him that the two could do "great things" for Israel.

It appeared that many wavering voters had swung behind Yesh Atid amid expectations of a strong showing for the Jewish Home party, which was strongly backed by settlers.



The prime minister, who had earlier warned supporters that the Likud government was "in danger", declared on his Facebook page that results represented "a wonderful chance for many changes".

"It is clear that the citizens of Israel have decided that they want me to continue in my position as prime minister, and for me to form as broad a coalition as possible," he wrote. "Starting tonight, I will commence efforts to form the broadest coalition possible." Earlier, the prime minister urged voters to back Likud Beiteinu after casting his vote in Jerusalem's Rahavia neighbourhood, before visiting the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest site.

"Likud-Beiteinu represents all the people. The stronger Likud-Beiteinu is, the easier it will be to lead Israel successfully," he said.

His comments were aimed at reversing the surge in support for the Jewish Home party, which advocates annexing large sections of West Bank land that the Palestinians want for a future state.

A larger proportion of hard Right seats in the Knesset could force Mr Netanyahu to retreat from his previous commitment to accepting Palestinian statehood – dismaying Israel's western allies, which have pressed for a two-state solution.

The Foreign Secretary, William Hague, reflected that concern yesterday when he told urged the United States to kick-start renewed peace talks.

"The changing of facts on the ground, principally settlement construction on occupied land, means a two-state solution is slipping away," he told the House of Commons. "I hope whatever Israeli government emerges will recognise that we are approaching the last chance to bring about such a solution." Last night's results will be followed by several weeks of horse-trading, as parties manoeuvre for cabinet portfolios in a new coalition.

Despite his heavy losses, Yesh Atid success combined with the Jewish Home's weaker than expected results could make it easier for Mr Netanyahu to form a balanced coalition that does not leave him hostage to the hard Right.

"The Israeli Right is more hardline than it was, to the point where Netanyahu is now one of the most moderate people on the Israeli Right," said David Horovitz, editor of the Times of Israel Website. "I don't think he would want to be the most dovish person in a Right-of-Centre, ultra-orthodox coalition."

Ayalet Shaked, the Jewish Home's fourth-ranked candidate, hailed its showing as "a great result" but said aggressive Likud campaigning had cost it "one or two seats". Asked about the possibility of joining the government, she said: "I don't know. It's too early to talk about coalitions."

Is Netanyahu's Re-election In Jeopardy?

Good lord, I hope Israel doesn't make one of the biggest mistakes of its history in the upcoming elections.  If Israel turns to a more liberal leader, it could be disastrous. Pray for Bibi.

The story comes from The Telegraph.

Benjamin Netanyahu losing support ahead of election


He is said to have demanded an end to bickering within his Likud party and a bigger role for grassroots workers after successive surveys and a series of embarrassing publicity flops following his decision to merge with Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party.

His intervention comes after the latest poll – published by Haaretz newspaper – showed the Likud Beitenu bloc poised to win just 34 seats in the Knesset in the January 22 poll, down from a current total of 42.

Mr Netanyahu and Mr Lieberman, who recently resigned as foreign minister to fight corruption charges, forged a formal electoral pact in October in the belief that it would enable them to win as many as 45 seats, as forecast by the prime minister's US election adviser, Arthur Finkelstein, a noted Republican strategist.

But current projections could leave Mr Netanyahu dependent on smaller parties on the hard-Right to form a new coalition.

Coalitions are inevitable under Israel's proportional representation system.



Opinion surveys show a surge in support for the pro-settler Jewish Home party, led by Mr Netanyahu's former chief-of-staff, Naftali Bennett, the son of American immigrants who made his fortune by selling a computer-software company he founded.

The latest figures would see Jewish Home jump from three to 14 seats, which would give it a potentially decisive role in the 120-seat Knesset. Polls show right-wing parties likely to win 67 seats, compared with 53 for centrist and centre-left groupings.

The Jewish Home's rising poll numbers has harried Likud strategists into a series of missteps that have inadvertently bolstered Mr Bennett's popularity. An unofficial pro-Likud website prompted a flood of complaints this week after posting a photo of him pictured behind barbed wire with an accompanying caption reading, "The Jewish Ghetto."

That followed an unsuccessful attempt by Mr Netanyahu to lambast Mr Bennett, who has served in an elite army unit, for implying that he would refuse to carry out commands to evict West Bank settlers from their homes.

Mr Netanyahu, who has campaigned on a theme that he is the strong Prime Minister Israel needs, was confronted with evidence of his own waning popularity last Sunday when staff had to close partition doors at a hustings speech in Nazareth to disguise the low attendance.

Staff promptly cancelled a keynote event in the town of Holon for fear of another low turnout and were ordered to focus instead on a youth rally scheduled for this Sunday, Maariv newspaper reported.

One campaign worker described the prime minister as shouting at staff in scenes that created "panic".

"The entire election staff is working to bring participants to the youth conference," the worker told Maariv. "Ever since Netanyahu shouted at us, there has been complete panic among the staff."

Mr Netanyahu's electoral troubles have been compounded by a rising mood of revolt among Israeli diplomats, dismayed at having to explain a recent rush of settlement announcements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Because You Leak!

The Israelis want to scream at President Barack Hussein Obama and the members of his regime administration.  President Obama has demanded that the Israelis give him a 12-hour advanced notice of when they will attack Iran.  The Israelis know that if they did that President Obama would go public with the knowledge and inform the world.  So the Israelis have decided (And rightly so.) not to inform the United States of any advanced knowledge of an attack on Iran.

Israeli officials say they won't warn the U.S. if they decide to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, one U.S. intelligence official familiar with the discussions told the Associated Press. The pronouncement, delivered in a series of private, top-level conversations, sets a tense tone ahead of meetings in the coming days at the White House and Capitol Hill.

Israeli officials said that if they eventually decide a strike is necessary, they would keep the Americans in the dark to decrease the likelihood that the U.S. would be held responsible for failing to stop Israel's potential attack. The U.S. has been working with the Israelis for months to persuade them that an attack would be only a temporary setback to Iran's nuclear program.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak delivered the message to a series of top-level U.S. visitors to the country, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the White House national security adviser and the director of national intelligence, and top U.S. lawmakers, all trying to close the trust gap between Israel and the U.S. over how to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Netanyahu delivered the same message to all the Americans who have traveled to Israel for talks, the U.S. official said.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive strategic negotiations.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment, and the Pentagon and Office of Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, as did the Israeli Embassy.

Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the International Atomic Energy Agency has raised alarms that its uranium enrichment program might be a precursor to building nuclear weapons. The US has said it does not know whether the government has decided to weaponize its nuclear material and put it on a missile or other delivery device.

The secret warning is likely to worry US officials and begin the high level meetings with Israel and the US far apart on how to handle Iran.

But the apparent decision to keep the U.S. in the dark also stems from Israel's frustration with the White House. After a visit by National Security Adviser Tom Donilon in particular, they became convinced the Americans would neither take military action, nor go along with unilateral action by Israel against Iran. The Israelis concluded they would have to conduct a strike unilaterally -- a point they are likely to hammer home in a series of meetings over the next two weeks in Washington, the official said.

Barak will meet with top administration and congressional officials during his visit. Netanyahu arrives in Washington for meetings with President Barack Obama next week.

The behind-the-scenes warning belies the publicly united front the two sides have attempted to craft with the shuttle diplomacy to each other's capitals.

"It's unprecedented outreach to Israel to make sure we are working together to develop the plan to deter Iran from developing a nuclear weapon," and to keep them from exporting terrorism, said Maryland Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

He traveled there with the intelligence committee chairman, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., to meet Israel's prime minister and defense minister, along with other officials.

"We talked about the fact that sanctions are working and they are going to get a lot more aggressive," Ruppersberger added.

They also discussed talked about presenting a unified front to Iran, to counter the media reports that the two countries are at odds over how and when to attack Iran.

"We have to learn from North Korea. All those (peace) talks and stalling and they developed a nuclear weapon," he said. "We are going to send a message, enough is enough, the stalling is over. ... All options are on the table."

"I got the sense that Israel is incredibly serious about a strike on their nuclear weapons program," Rogers told CNN on Monday. "It's their calculus that the administration ... is not serious about a real military consequence to Iran moving forward.

"They believe they're going to have to make a decision on their own, given the current posture of the United States," he added.

U.S. intelligence and special operations officials have tried to keep a dialogue going with Israel, despite the high-level impasse, sharing with them options such as allowing Israel to use U.S. bases in the region from which to launch such a strike, as a way to make sure the Israelis give the Americans a heads-up, according to the U.S. official, and a former U.S. official with knowledge of the communications

Cooperation has improved on sharing of intelligence in the region, according to one current and one former U.S. official. Israel is providing key information on Syria for instance, now that the U.S. has closed its embassy and pulled out both its diplomats and intelligence officials stationed there, the U.S. official said.

Source

Every move President Obama has made in the Middle East has been the wrong one.  He misjudged the Arab Spring, his Muslim Outreach, his Iraq and Afghan Policies.  In fact to the Muslim world he is seen as a weak leader.

The Israelis cannot afford to rely on such a weak leader for their safety.  In fact the Israelis have already learned that Obama will leak any secret they have.  An nuclear Iran is too dangerous for the Middle East, too dangerous for Israel's survival.  They will attack.  And if Obama is lucky he might get a 12 second warning, but he will not be able to prevent an Israeli strike without using US air power against the IAF.  And that would be throwing not Israel under the bus, but his re-election under the bus.

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle