Thursday, April 2, 2015

Candidly speaking: Uniting to resist Obama's unprecedented hostility

April 2, 2015 Thursday 13 Nisan 5775 15:36 IST print gohome
The Jerusalem Post - Israel News
 
Print Edition
Photo by: REUTERS
Candidly speaking: Uniting to resist Obama's unprecedented hostility
By ISI LEIBLER04/01/2015
It is ironic that as we prepare to celebrate Passover, the festival of freedom, we are facing vicious efforts by the vindictive leader of the United States.
 
It is ironic that as we prepare to celebrate Passover, the festival of freedom, we are facing vicious efforts by the vindictive leader of the United States, our greatest ally, who is abandoning us – the only democratic state in a region suffused with barbarism.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is obliged to respond diplomatically to the outrageous provocations directed against him by President Barack Obama. But we Israeli citizens must rise above political correctness and come to terms with an unpleasant reality.

The president of the United States, the leader of the free world and of Western civilization, is not merely venting his personal frustration against Netanyahu or having tantrums over the decision of Israelis to reelect him. Obama himself stresses that he is motivated by ideological reasons that can be traced back to the Cairo speech he delivered after his first election.

See the latest opinion pieces on our Opinion & Blogs Facebook page
 

He has escalated his hostility to Israel while simultaneously endearing himself and even groveling to Iran.

Indeed, addressing the anti-Israeli J Street Conference, Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough, even employed Palestinian clichés insisting that “an occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end” without any reference to the fact that two Israeli prime ministers had been spurned by Yasser Arafat and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas when they had offered them 95 percent of the former Jordanian- occupied territories.

The personal attacks accusing Netanyahu as a racist and a liar are also being cynically used by Obama as a pretext to pursue two objectives. Firstly, the president is seeking to neutralize Israel as he finalizes the nuclear deal with the Iranian mullahs. It is noteworthy that former CIA director David Petraeus has now publicly virtually echoed Netanyahu’s critical remarks about US policy.

Secondly, Obama is seeking to further his long-term objective of forcing Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and create a Palestinian state – which remains committed to destroy Israel. Should the US implement its threat to refrain from exercising its veto at the UN, Israel will confront a severe diplomatic crisis and may ultimately face sanctions. France has already announced that it will soon submit a resolution along these lines to the Security Council.

At such a time, we must stand united to resist the pressures from Obama and the Europeans to make further unilateral concessions, which would represent a longterm existential threat.

This will require Israeli politicians to change their approach and prioritize the national interest ahead of their own ambitions or egocentricities.

It starts with President Reuven Rivlin, who, while initially endearing himself to the nation as a man of the people, seems to have lost perspective. His role is as a facilitator and an apolitical symbol of the state, not to instruct Netanyahu on the composition of the government he should create.

And it is unbecoming for him to tell the incoming prime minister to repair relations with the US administration – as though Netanyahu was responsible for the tension. Rivlin also provides fuel for our adversaries when he continues criticizing his prime minister over a single inappropriately worded sentence relating to the Arab bloc expressed during the heat of an election, which Netanyahu subsequently clarified and apologized for – all the more so when the Americans challenge his sincerity and actually call him a liar.

Moreover, much as we admire our president’s liberal tendencies, he surely seemed to have lost his bearings when he sent a letter of support to J Street, an American Jewish group condemned by his government that is now calling on Obama to punish Israel, encouraging the boycott of settlement products and providing a platform for BDS supporters.

Rivlin must behave apolitically and eschew controversial political statements that undermine the government’s standing on the international level.

Netanyahu is now pursuing the daunting task of forming a coalition in which all the smaller parties are engaging in the traditional horse trading, primarily seeking to promote themselves without reference to the national interest. For example, most Israelis will be angered that a convicted felon will probably be appointed to a senior ministry, but there is nothing they can do about it.

It is difficult to comprehend Bayit Yehudi’s Naftali Bennett, who is demanding the Foreign Ministry or Defense Ministry. His annexationist policies are hardly suited to the position of Israel’s foreign minister, and Moshe Ya’alon has proved his mettle as defense minister and should not be replaced. Bennett should immediately have accepted the education portfolio, which should be the most important ministry for his party enabling them to promote Jewish values – and for which his voters cast their ballots.

But most disconcerting is that Netanyahu may reappoint Avigdor Liberman as foreign minister. Liberman is no fool, but he is arguably Israel’s worst foreign minister, and decimated the ministry. As foreign minister, in the midst of the Gaza conflict he publicly castigated his government’s conduct instead of defending Israel in the global arena. He is shunned by many world leaders and his coarse and primitive remarks about “beheading” Palestinian extremists portrayed Israel in the worst light.

Over the next year, Israel must marshal the very best people to promote our case and refute the lies, not only from our traditional enemies but alas, also from the Obama administration. A foreign minister is the public face of a nation whose principal role is to present his country’s policies in the most positive light. It would be unconscionable for Netanyahu to reinstate Liberman to this position.

The reality, painful though it is to many Israelis from both sides of the political spectrum, is it would now be in the national interest to form a broad unity government.

There is absolutely no possibility of meaningful negotiations with the PA while it is cozying up to Hamas and intensifying the level of incitement to unprecedented levels. Even if the duplicitous Abbas were to change his tune, he could not make a single compromise without enraging his own constituents.

Besides, with the Americans shamelessly employing Palestinian rhetoric to defame Israel, pressuring it to accept indefensible borders and threatening to give the green light to the United Nations to condemn and ultimately sanction Israel, the Palestinians have no incentive to engage in meaningful negotiations.

Under such circumstances, the policy differences between Likud and Zionist Union are not significant. In terms of Iran, the Zionist Union, no less than Likud, is bitterly opposed to Obama’s capitulation to the Iranian mullahs.

A unity government would deny the smaller parties the opportunity of extorting to promote their own sectarian interests. It would provide the opportunity for the two dominant parties to implement electoral reforms to our current dysfunctional political system.

Above all, a demonstration of unity would immensely enhance our global standing. It would encourage Jews throughout the world, in particular in the United States, to rally behind the Jewish state. It would overcome, or at least stem, the hostility of the left-wing Democratic elements in Congress and strengthen bipartisanship, making it extremely difficult for Obama to continue his current reckless campaign to force us to our knees.

There would be intense opposition to such a union from the more radical elements in both parties, but the majority of Israelis would welcome such a government, which would dramatically weaken the anti-Israeli hysteria generated by the Obama administration.

Unfortunately, the likelihood of a national unity government is extremely slim.

That being the case, we should at least expect the opposition to act responsibly.

Had Isaac Herzog been elected, Obama would certainly have been happy to see the political demise of Netanyahu, but would still have pursued the same objectives. Herzog is a Zionist and we can hope that he will now rise above petty politics, stand up against the post-Zionist elements in his party, and pledge his support to Netanyahu when Obama makes unreasonable demands or pursues a vendetta rather than seeking a solution. Likewise, he should be unequivocal in his support of Netanyahu’s efforts to block a catastrophic deal with Iran that may have existential implications for Israel. Herzog would gain enormous respect and support from the nation and gain new followers were he to act in this manner.

When contemplating the barbarians at our gates and the betrayal of Israel by much of the Western world, we should take comfort when we recite the verse in the Haggadah during the Passover Seder that in every generation enemies will emerge seeking to destroy the Jewish people, but with the help of the Almighty we have and will continue to overcome them.

The author’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.

com.

He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com.

CANDIDLY SPEAKING • By ISI LEIBLER
printgohome
print

All Options including Military Action Open on Iran, Says Israel

All Options including Military Action Open on Iran, Says Israel

إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربية
W460
Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said Thursday that all options including military action were on the table in the face of the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Speaking to public radio as crunch talks on Iran's nuclear program continued in Switzerland, Steinitz said Israel would seek to counter any threat through diplomacy and intelligence but "if we have no choice we have no choice... the military option is on the table."
Asked about possible US objections to Israeli military action, Steinitz pointed to Israel's unilateral attack against the Osirak nuclear reactor in Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 1981.
"This operation was not carried out in agreement with the United States," he said.
Steinitz, a close ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said the Israeli leader had left no doubt as to the country's response to nuclear-armed Iran.
"The prime minister has said clearly that Israel will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power," Steinitz said.
COMMENTS 0

Khamenei to Zarif: Don’t sign! Obama to Kerry: Make them sign! Gridlock

Khamenei to Zarif: Don’t sign! Obama to Kerry: Make them sign! Gridlock
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis April 2, 2015, 9:59 AM (IDT)
John Kerry takes a break from the Lausanne talks
John Kerry takes a break from the Lausanne talks
It is hard to make out exactly what the seven exhausted foreign ministers of the world powers and Iran were actually talking about in Lausanne this week – especially in the last two days, when the negotiations overran their March 31 deadline for a framework nuclear accord.
The highly-colored reports from the Swiss hotel up until Thursday, April 2, bespoke a mighty battle between the American negotiators led by Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, and the Iranian group, headed by Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, over four key points still at issue between them: the pace of sanctions relief, research and development projects, international inspections - including snap visits to any nuclear facilities they demanded, and, finally, the quantity of low-enriched uranium Iran may retain after the bulk of its stockpile is shipped overseas.
The drama was heightened by the sight of the American delegation marching into a tent set up in the hotel yard “to defeat eavesdropping” for a video conference with President Barack Obama in the White House. Kerry wanted to know whether to carry on the never-ending negotiations, which were looking more and more farcical as the hours ticked by without closure, or quit. This would be tantamount to the failure of the entire structure of nuclear diplomacy.
Obama directed the delegation to carry on talking with the Iranians and disregard the missed deadline as though nothing had changed.
The Secretary of State earlier appeared in an upper hotel window gazing out in the distance. Was he seeing a solution of the impasse visible to no one else?
The French Foreign Minister, Lauren Fabius, fed up with the game playing out between the Americans and the Iranians, left more than once for home. He returned Thursday saying: “We are a few meters from the finishing line, but it’s always the last meters that are the most difficult. We will try and cross them. It’s not done yet.”
Zarif told reporters: “Our friends need to decide whether they want to be with Iran based on respect or whether they want to continue based on pressure. They have tested the other one; it is high time to test this one.”
Those words carried two messages: One that the Iranians were serious when they reiterated in the past weeks that a framework accord for ending the current phase of negotiations was unacceptable, and insisted on the talks carrying straight through to a comprehensive deal by June 30.
The Iranian foreign minister’s second message was a negation of “pressure” – i.e., sanctions, in obedience to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s directive to the delegation to reject the incremental easing of international sanctions and press Tehran’s demand for immediate relief.
That directive was laid down by the ayatollah on February 18, when he determined that “an agreement would be arrived at not in two stages but in one stage to be completed by the end of June 2015 and the agreement would include the removal of all sanctions on Iran.”
The writing was on the wall for all the parties to see. The current deadline crisis could have been avoided by understanding that there was no way the Iranian delegation would ever disobey the supreme leader’s dictates.
Tehran is not averse to negotiating ad infinitum - so long as the talks go their way. 
So the real gridlock centered on finding a procedure that fitted the US delegation’s instructions to get some sort of a deal signed, and the Iranian group’s directive to sign nothing that could be seen as an accord. So who will give ground first?
Copyright 2000-2015 DEBKAf

"Peace & Safety" Iran Nuke Deal

Published on Apr 2, 2015

6 Super Power Nation agree to the "The Iran Nuke Deal" http://www.paulbegleyprophecy.com

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *