Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu unequivocal in his criticism of the Iran nuclear deal

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[Steely Dan]

Back to the topic, I'm kind of surprised that more is not being made of the U.S. snub of Netanyahu's U.N. speech.

I guess it's understandable. Kerry couldn't applaud to being told the Iran deal is a mistake ... so better that lower level people were there NOT to applaud.

Obama Ordered Kerry and Samantha Power to Snub Netanyahu at UN

Lower-level U.S. officials attended the speech but did not join others who applauded when the Prime Minister warned that the deal with Iran will bring war.

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/obama-ordered-kerry-and-samantha-powers-to-snub-netanyahu-at-un/2015/10/02/

What Cristina Kirchner had to say at the UN is even more interesting. She alleges that back in 2010 representatives of the U.S government approached Argentina to ask if they were prepared to supply Iran with nuclear fuel.

http://www.hngn.com/articles/135332/20150930/argentine-president-obama-administration-tried-convince-give-iran-nuclear-fuel.htm

The allegations are troubling in that they come after the Obama administration and five other world powers recently signed a nuclear deal with Iran that aims to limit Tehran's ability to develop nuclear weapons. At the core of the agreement are restrictions on the amount of nuclear fuel that Iran can keep for the next 15 years – restrictions that would force Iran to reduce its stockpile of uranium by 98 percent, according to The New York Times. It's not clear why the U.S. would be attempting to secretly enable Iran to enrich nuclear fuel just five years ago.

Little wonder the Obama administration boycotted the Netanyahu speech, they had thrown the towel in on enrichment 5 years ago. Netanyahu's silence was not IMHO directed at the UN, which is just a theatre of the insane, it was I suspect for the archives when future historians examine the causes of the forthcoming war. War there will be, of that I'm certain. Those responsible by inaction sat there in silence, those complicit didn't even attend.

[Soutpeel]

What particular point in history gives people rights to a bit of land in perpetuity? That's the point. As far as I'm concerned, this particular bit of land was gifted to them and they should learn to get on with their neighbours. Ancient lands? I think Native American Indians have a stronger claim.

When we have a thread about American Indian issues, we can discuss those THERE.
THIS thread relates to the speech by the PM of ISRAEL, and issues around the history of the JEWISH PEOPLE.
Bibi did touch on that ancient history in his speech, as well he should, as if he doesn't, who will?
The history of the JEWISH PEOPLE is a VERY SPECIFIC thing.
The history of the land of Israel and it's place in the MIDDLE EAST is also a very specific thing.
For those interested, I suggest the BBC show: The Story of the Jews.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_the_Jews_(TV_series)


Please keep on the TOPIC.
Also not every thread about Jews or Israel needs to be about Israel demonizers suggesting the nation state of Israel never should have existed, and that Jews have no rights to exist there now in the land of Israel. We already all know quite well about the toxic hatred of so many towards Jews and/or Israel, so often thinly veiled as so called anti-Zionism.
We all know quite well how the Palestinian Arabs who if they ever do achieve an ACTUAL state will be a horribly racist state as they intend to allow no Jewish citizens, while Israeli citizens include 20 percent Arabs.
MORE PRODUCTIVE to focus on the specific items in this speech of the PM of the successful nation state ISRAEL that does exist, is well established, and has no intentions of giving it up to racist enemies and demonizers.
[/quote

[Morch]

""Israel will not allow Iran to break in, to sneak in or to walk in to the nuclear weapons club," he declared in an allusion to his country's vow to strike at Iran militarily as a last resort."

So says the member of the club who sneaked in, and sits in the corner not signing any treaties...holding themselves above the law.

Biggest threat in the world is not nuclear armed Muslims (look at Pakistan), it is nuclear armed Zionists with their Samson plan.

As far as I am aware, Israel did not openly threat another country with a nuclear strike.

The talk related to a possible Israeli strike vs. Iran's nuclear facilities usually refers to conventional weapons.

The one brief instance (1973) which did include this element was executed in a manner which suggests it was more of a diplomatic means to pressure the superpowers. Could be compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis or the India-Pakistan nuclear standoff (2001-2002) to name a couple of examples. (without the public aspect).

Above which "law"? An international treaty is not quite the same as "law", and as mentioned, Israel is not a signatory to all relevant treaties. There were certainly country-specific laws broken on Israel's quest to achieve nuclear capability, but guessing that's not quite what was the remark was about.

And the hyperbole "biggest threat in the world" - Yeah....people all over the globe living in fear of being annihilated by Israel. Just for reference - Israel got military nuclear capability for many years now. Most countries in the Middle East didn't get their knickers in a twist the way they did over Iran. Might be they assess threats differently.

[Morch]

Every word he said is truth.

But look at the audience faces. They don't want to hear. They don't want to see.

Seastallion above is not alone in his vile statement. There is a whole Europe not seeing the flood.

There is USA not seeing the danger clear and present.

I feel sorry for Netanyahu trying so hard to reach people who do not want to be reached.

He must stop crying in the wilderness.

Time for words is over. Israel has no alternative. It must strike and it will.

But if it does it with one eye on UN it will lose.

I am afraid Netanyahu has no stomach for a step like this.

Netanyahu is a politician. Truth is often an antonym when it comes to these, and more so with regards to this one. That does not necessarily mean that everything he says is a lie, of course. Following his public statements record may gives an insight into his creative use of "truth".

"Time for words is over. Israel has no alternative. It must strike and it will."

The usual bold keyboard warrior fare.

Obviously, Netanyahu does not think that "the time for words is over", in fact, it seems he does little more than talk about the Iranian threat for....how many years it been now? Previously, Israeli leaders subscribed to Tuco's creed ("When you have to shoot, shoot ; don't talk", for the GB&U-challenged), while Netanyahu is more of the barking dog variety.

Similarly, there are alternatives - like monitoring the situation and seeing how things pan out (which is pretty much the gist of Netanyahu's big talk), continuing the ongoing covert ops aimed at crippling Iranian advances or attempting to coalesce potential regional allies into a united front. Just to mention a few.

Under current conditions (USA and Russian regional presence), it is doubtful Israel can carry a successful surprise attack on Iran. Conditions were somewhat more favorable a while back, and yet.,,no attack materialized.

Posters often neglect that like many other speakers, part of Netanyahu's speech addressed his supporters and home crowd.

[shariq607]

Every word he said is truth.

But look at the audience faces. They don't want to hear. They don't want to see.

Seastallion above is not alone in his vile statement. There is a whole Europe not seeing the flood.

There is USA not seeing the danger clear and present.

I feel sorry for Netanyahu trying so hard to reach people who do not want to be reached.

He must stop crying in the wilderness.

Time for words is over. Israel has no alternative. It must strike and it will.

But if it does it with one eye on UN it will lose.

I am afraid Netanyahu has no stomach for a step like this.

Was this truth too or does it pass your definition of truth?

Edited October 5, 2015 by shariq607

[Morch]

Netanyahu is an outrageous liar, a truly evil man who will do anything to start a war with Iran.

A liar he may be, outrageous even, "Truly evil", though, is an exaggeration - the sort of thing Netanyahu himself does when he invokes the Holocaust on every occasion.

Netanyahu been yapping about the Iranian threat for years, but last time I checked there was no war started with Iran. How does that sit with "will do anything" is, apparently, immaterial.

Should one assume that the constant, and overt, statements by Iranian leaders toward Israel do not constitute war-mongering and are indicative of a benign disposition?

[Morch]

Quote from ABCer "Time for words is over. Israel has no alternative. It must strike and it will.

But if it does it with one eye on UN it will lose.

I am afraid Netanyahu has no stomach for a step like this."

What a war-mongering, zionist and hawkish statement to make.

It is people like "Wyle E Coyote" Netanyahu and yourself who are the clear and present danger.

BDS.

War mongering and hawkish, certainly.

Zionist? Some parties opposing Netanyahu on the Israeli parliament are Zionist and reject his overly militaristic approach to the Iranian threat. The same goes for various former heads of the IDF and other Israeli security organizations (which are not suspected of being anti-Zionist). There were even voices within his own party and cabinet against such moves.

I personally doubt that ABCer is much danger to anyone, let alone clear, or present.

As for Netanyahu - again, how is he a *clear and present danger* when his rhetoric been pretty much the same for years without actually acting on it?

In the same vein, while ongoing statements by Iranian leadership regarding Israel would probably not be termed "Zionist", do they merit consideration as being "war mongering", "hawkish" and do they constitute a "clear and present danger"?

Seems an errant D found its way to the last line in the post above.

[Morch]

"“I’m prepared to immediately, immediately resume direct peace negotiations with the Palestinian authority, without any pre-conditions whatsoever. Unfortunately, president Abbas said yesterday that he’s not prepared to do this. Well I hope he changes his mind”."

Netanyahu is staggeringly hypocritical. He has never and will never negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians. He is only interested in further expansion and encroachment of Israeli interests in the region. This may be his duty as he sees it, but please let us all stop pretending that an Israel led by him has any interest in solving the Palestinian problem other than by the One-State Solution.

This is a mostly accurate view of Netanyau's stance, apart from "Israel led by him has any interest in solving the Palestinian problem other than by the One-State Solution."

Not quite. Netanyahu, and what could be termed the non-extreme right wing of Israeli politics (yes, there are those calling Netanyahu a leftie...) may fantasize about a one-state magic solution, but are unwilling to face the implications, nor overtly crossing certain lines.

Annexing the West Bank (let's leave the Gaza Strip out of it right now, no one got a clue how to deal with it) will entail either making the Palestinian citizens with equal rights (and thereby writing off Israel as the state of the Jewish people), or two totalitarian variations (forced mass deportations, full-blown apartheid) which, despite the usual claims, are not something which Netanyahu and his party subscribe to. The latter could be attributed to political realism or squeamishness if there are doubts concerning their moral compass - it makes little difference.

Rather, their political stance exhibits a certain duality which resembles a state of denial - going on about negotiations with Palestinians when there's no clear notion of how any solution could be worked out in accordance with their ideology, and at the same time stating commitment to their ideology without acknowledgment that fulfilling its goals presents diplomatic and moral difficulties.

This often leaves them without much by way of answers as to which they support - the one-state or the two-state solutions, as both represent major deviations from their ideology. It also explains Netanyahu's conflicting statements on this issue, even without factoring in the crowd he's speaks to.

The best ideological compromise offered is neither here nor there - namely, keeping the PA as a series of isolated areas, and without full statehood and powers. How or why a continuation of the present situation is supposed to work out is anyone's guess.

Disregarding right wing forces outside the parliament, there is currently one coalition party which presented a plan involving annexation of the so-called C Area in the West Bank, conferring Israeli citizenship on relevant Palestinian populace. To be clear, C area comprises the lion's share of the West Bank, while supporting a relatively sparse Palestinian population (100000-200000). The plan was not generally very well received among the Israeli public, Yet another right wing party, currently in the opposition, at one point upheld population and territorial exchanges. This too was generally rejected, and is less prominent on party's platform in recent times.

That said, there is relatively little by way of acknowledging that similar issues plague Palestinian society and political system. While Abbas may represent a relatively moderate stance, his position is by no means generally accepted or upheld. Again, despite the often touted assertions that the Palestinians are all out for compromises and are reconciled to their dreams not being fully realized (cue the same old worn quotes). The main issue here being that while some of on the Palestinian leadership being fully aware of the actual reality these compromises spell, there is relatively little by way of public discussion when it comes to what a future agreement will be like from the ordinary Palestinian's point of view. Rather, there's a known amount of spreading unrealistic notions along the lines of total victory.

[Morch]

"“I’m prepared to immediately, immediately resume direct peace negotiations with the Palestinian authority, without any pre-conditions whatsoever. Unfortunately, president Abbas said yesterday that he’s not prepared to do this. Well I hope he changes his mind”."

Netanyahu is staggeringly hypocritical. He has never and will never negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians. He is only interested in further expansion and encroachment of Israeli interests in the region. This may be his duty as he sees it, but please let us all stop pretending that an Israel led by him has any interest in solving the Palestinian problem other than by the One-State Solution.

With "without any pre-conditions whatsoever", he means Palestine can not come to the table with any demands to cease settlements and that the basis of talks is 1967 borders. He is saying he'll talk, but not if they make those two very reasonable and necessary demands...ie, no talks.

It is empty rhetoric. Does he really think ANY member of the UN audience does not know this? He's playing to the great unwashed press only, Fox News et al.

I imagine it would mainly involve not putting up the Right of Return or the division of Jerusalem as preconditions, rather than the interpretation presented.

Netanyahu's "we will build anyway" bit usually cones after negotiation commence, not prior to. The full sequence following the script: photo-op -> negotiations -> violent extremist provocation (from whichever side) -> reaction to provocation -> "we will build anyway" -> Abbas walks away and negotiations collapse.

Either way, Netanyahu's statement is obviously not aimed at any immediate intention or inclination to compromise, but rather score some PR points. Even if some negotiations are commenced it is more about playing for time, making the other side look bad (or at least, appearing righteous to the home crowd), while maintaining the illusion that a peace process is ongoing.

On the other hand, it is worthwhile to point out that both sides are caught up in their own rhetoric to a degree that resolution of certain issues seems almost impossible, if presented from the outset. Not so much that gaps could not be bridged, but that there is no real willingness to concede "defeat" on major issues, some of it stems from ideology and some from each side's domestic political considerations.

UNGA speeches are not for the benefit of those in attendance. Their main aim is to get media exposure,and public attention. Regardless of how one evaluates Netanyahu's speech, he's pretty good at getting these two, even if a lot of it is negative. Sans Netanyahu's dramatic performances, most speeches are pretty similar - a lot of hot air, little by way of content.

[Morch]

well then maybe he should just go in on his own (no assistance from USA) and deal with the problem by bombing the targets he wants to bomb (which will likely have little affect on the program). Then he can deal with the whole Muslims world rising up against Israel.

Let's see how that works out for him.

"The whole Muslim world rising up against Israel" as a result of an attack against Iran? Seriously?

Would this be because Iran's Muslim neighbors are all thrilled with Iran's nuclear and regional ambitions? Or perhaps because all practice the same brand of Islam?

Israel had military nuclear capability for many years now, and apart from the expected diplomatic battles, Muslim countries in the region were not overly stressed about it. Iran possibly going nuclear, gets a whole lot different reaction from the same parties - go figure, eh?

[ggold]

deleted.

Edited October 6, 2015 by ggold

[Morch]

Netanyahu is a ?urd, and I don't mean a member of those people who are courageously fighting Daesh in Iraq & Syria.

How long have Palestinians been negotiating with Israel? Probably since late 1960's. The Israeli position seems to be agree with everything we want

or the negotiation won't work. I suspect that if the PA accepted that, Israel would be back for additional benefits.

I feel sorry for all ordinary people, on both sides, caught in this mess. It creates extremists on both sides.

The Palestinians been negotiating with Israel since the late 1960's? Probably? How about taking another guess?

Just to be clear, in this alternate history - right after the 1967 war, the Palestinians set down to serious and continues talks with Israel, and nothing came out of it ever since?

The current agreements are based on the Oslo Accords, which places the "since" on the early 1990's. The negotiaions ever since were not exactly continous nor always fruitful, with both sides carrying their share of responsibility for that. Preconditions are presented, one way or another, by either side, with a largely similar effect of making a common ground harder to find, while at the same time locking sides into their positions.

While this does not make Netanyahu's current overture anymore genuine or sincere, it is not quite the case that the Palestinians always negotiated in good faith on their part. The backing down at the last minute with extra demands being done by leaders of both sides over the years. Nothing new there, almost a tradition by now. If anything, it was an Arafat trademark (multiple accounts of his conduct during negotiations, and if memory serves, at least one amusing video clip in which Mubarak loses his temper following such an episode).

[OMGImInPattaya]

Yes, only the Zionist State is allowed to have nuclear weapons in the middle east AND not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. A country like Iran, that has signed the treaty, is not allowed to have them...makes perfect sense.

[Morch]

Without wishing to upset Benny, I don't think anyone cares.

Obama isn't listening, and Putin is happy selling weapons to Iran.

http://www.ibtimes.com/russian-s-300-missile-sale-iran-will-go-ahead-despite-us-nuclear-deal-2020762

Not only does no one care, it gets old with the home crowd.

Not that there is great enthusiasm with the prospects of the Iran deal, but as is seems like a lost cause and public attention span being what it is, other issues and matters previously neglected come to the forefront of the agenda. Naturally, after years of posing as a tough guy who'll take care of the country's security interest, Netanyahu and his supporter base sound rather defensive when trying to explain away the actual results of his policy. The rift with the current USA administration does not play much in his favor as well.

Basically he is reduced to variations of "You'll see I was right, one day", while his supporters alternate between upholding that had he kept quiet all these years even the current Iran deal would not have been possible, and the ultimate rebuttal that under "leftie" leadership things would have been worse.

Netanyahu's rejection of USA proposal for discussions on further means to ensure Israel's security (yeah, yeah....USA should cut down aid to Israel. Alright) is, at least according to certain professional and realistic opinions, nothing short of irresponsible and outrageous.

[Morch]

I hate to rain on the Israel hater's bonfire, but the Mullahs are shortly going to bet removed, and I suspect it will be Saudi Arabia and the GCC doing most of the heavy lifting. Israel knows about this and is in cahoots.

http://www.thomaswictor.com/israel-confirms-death-to-the-mullahs/

Ladies and Gentlemen, Israel is working closely with our Arab peace partners to address our common security challenges from Iran and also the security challenges from ISIS and from others. We are also working with other states in the Middle East as well as countries in Africa, in Asia and beyond. Many in our region know that both Iran and ISIS are our common enemies. And when your enemies fight each other, don’t strengthen either one—weaken both.

For those paying attention the Iran 'deal' has accelerated seismic changes happening in the Middle East. The Iranian leaders stated Israel won't exist in 25 years time. I suspect the Iranian Mullocracy won't last 10% of that time.

Oh, another loon blogger posts something. Must be true. About the same credibility as them Debka links, apart from this guy seemingly not having much by way of first hand experience with the Middle East.

Heavy lifting? Saudi Arabia and the GCC hardly lift a finger fighting ISIS, are involved in what could very possibly turn (again) into a quagmire in Yemen, and none speaks about direct action vs. Iran. Erdogan's Turkey is nowhere near doing an about face and holding hands with Israel (its so-called participation in the coalition efforts is apparently more of a front to hit the Curds). Japan's elite forces in Djibouti....to quote Monty Python's Graham Chapman - "Right! Stop that! It's SILLY. Very SILLY indeed! Started off as a nice little idea....".

Even if there are such understandings, and even if they are that comprehensive and reliable, I seriously doubt they would be accessible to said blogger, or that involved parties would be thrilled to be outed from the UNGA podium.

Iran is on the rise, whether people like it or not. Those fearing what's ahead will be better served by coming to terms with this process and finding realistic ways of dealing with the perceived threats. Indulging in fantasies is counter-productive and futile. Syria, Iraq and Libya are already write offs, with Yemen hard on their heels. I'd say that Saudi Arabia, the GCC states and Jordan are, potentially, in a more precarious state than Iran.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Morch

[Morch]

I hate to rain on the Israel hater's bonfire, but the Mullahs are shortly going to bet removed, and I suspect it will be Saudi Arabia and the GCC doing most of the heavy lifting. Israel knows about this and is in cahoots.

http://www.thomaswictor.com/israel-confirms-death-to-the-mullahs/

Ladies and Gentlemen, Israel is working closely with our Arab peace partners to address our common security challenges from Iran and also the security challenges from ISIS and from others. We are also working with other states in the Middle East as well as countries in Africa, in Asia and beyond. Many in our region know that both Iran and ISIS are our common enemies. And when your enemies fight each other, don’t strengthen either one—weaken both.

For those paying attention the Iran 'deal' has accelerated seismic changes happening in the Middle East. The Iranian leaders stated Israel won't exist in 25 years time. I suspect the Iranian Mullocracy won't last 10% of that time.

The Iran deal is a diversion - a red herring.

What really scares the Zionists is the prospect of Iran playing a more prominent economic, military, and diplomatic role in the region.

That is already starting to happen, and there is nothing that Israel can do about it.

Zionist attitudes are constantly refracted through a prism of captivating nonsense about "existential threats" and "judeophobia".

Those tactics aren't working as well as they used to.

An ascendant Iran scares the living daylights when it comes to its Sunni neighbors, in ways which Israel's military might and often claimed expansionism never had.

The above attitude seems to ignore the fact that not everything in the Middle East is directly related to Israel.

[Morch]

Why does Bibi keep bitching about this treaty, I mean really, Israel is a nuclear power and has been for a long time... If he thinks Israel is in danger from Iran, then he should do something about it and NOT expect the USA to wipe his tears, pat him on the back and send in the troops... Enough innocent lives have been lost in the region due to Israel's fear of their neighbors... It is my experience in live that you get as good as you give... If Israel had been a good neighbor to muslims, they would not be in this predicament... But of course, this was not their agenda when the state of Israel was created in the first place...

The relative share of innocent lives lost in the region, and that had direct connection to Israel is negligible compared with the overall death toll from non-related regional conflicts (unless one is an ardent believer in conspiracy theories).

Most neighboring countries were not particularly friendly toward Israel from the outset, or even today. Hardly a one way street there.

[Morch]

So how do you think Abbas will respond to Netanyahu's offer of new talks without preconditions?

That was actually somewhat of a surprise and beyond the theatrics of the BIG SILENCE the biggest actual news in the speech.

I know many people won't believe the offer is sincere and perhaps it wasn't, but it was made in the most public of ways, so it seems to me it's out there as a thing now that DEMANDS a response.

If the past is anything to go by, there could be a meeting within a few weeks, provided things do not get completely out of hand in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Not holding my breath something will come out of it even if does take place.

Basically, its the same old, nothing more nothing less.

Netanyahu will not initiate any process with the intention of following through with a compromise. Under certain hypothetical conditions, he might be press ganged into making significant concessions, especially if for some obscure reason he would to the point of view that it will cement his place of glory in Israel's history. But considering his coalition partners, ideology and aversion from making tough decisions - it is an unlikely outcome.

Also, bear in mind the timing. This statement was made after the speech by Abbas. which all but rejected the notion of going back to old style negotiations. Not much risk of Abbas immediately accepting, then, and putting Netanyahu on the spot. I doubt he would have put it the same way if he was the first of the two to carry his speech.

Besides, with both leaders unwilling to go against the grain of their respective public opinions, and unable to muster the needed support even if they did - talk is cheap. Each knows that the other cannot deliver, so no worries.

[Morch]

 

So how do you think Abbas will respond to Netanyahu's offer of new talks without preconditions?

That was actually somewhat of a surprise and beyond the theatrics of the BIG SILENCE the biggest actual news in the speech.

I know many people won't believe the offer is sincere and perhaps it wasn't, but it was made in the most public of ways, so it seems to me it's out there as a thing now that DEMANDS a response.

 

Abbas and the rest of the world know, based on previous attempts, that as soon as peace talks resume, Netanyahu will announce the approval of 1,000 new homes to be built on Palestinian owned land, or a Bedouin village will get demolished, or a teenager will get shot dead at a checkpoint etc. You know that Jing Thing

Omitted that protocol demands Netanyahu's announcement to be preceded by a terrorist attack (or alternatively, rocket launches).

There are always extremists doing their best to create mayhem which would lead to negotiations breaking down, and both sides are pretty adept at this (goes for either violent provocations or breaking off negotiations). Given the already volatile state of things, every incident could be blown (no pun intended) out of proportion and be used as an excuse for "proper reaction" or stopping the talks. Not a one sided affair as portrayed in the post above.

[Morch]

'“The response from nearly everyone (sic) (every one) of the governments represented here has been… absolutely nothing. Other silence. Deafening silence”.' Makes a change. That has tended to be the reaction from governments to Israel's numerous attacks on Palestine, whether justified or, as has often been the case, not.

That's an interesting variation, as the usual argument cites the numerous times Israel is criticized by the UN and its various agencies as "proof" of its uniquely malevolent and nefarious nature.

Israel takes constant flak over anything it does or does not do with regard to the Palestinians, usually well above its real share of global evil doing.

Don't let the facts confuse you, though.

[Steely Dan]

I hate to rain on the Israel hater's bonfire, but the Mullahs are shortly going to bet removed, and I suspect it will be Saudi Arabia and the GCC doing most of the heavy lifting. Israel knows about this and is in cahoots.

http://www.thomaswictor.com/israel-confirms-death-to-the-mullahs/

Ladies and Gentlemen, Israel is working closely with our Arab peace partners to address our common security challenges from Iran and also the security challenges from ISIS and from others. We are also working with other states in the Middle East as well as countries in Africa, in Asia and beyond. Many in our region know that both Iran and ISIS are our common enemies. And when your enemies fight each other, don’t strengthen either one—weaken both.

For those paying attention the Iran 'deal' has accelerated seismic changes happening in the Middle East. The Iranian leaders stated Israel won't exist in 25 years time. I suspect the Iranian Mullocracy won't last 10% of that time.

Oh, another loon blogger posts something. Must be true. About the same credibility as them Debka links, apart from this guy seemingly not having much by way of first hand experience with the Middle East.

Heavy lifting? Saudi Arabia and the GCC hardly lift a finger fighting ISIS, are involved in what could very possibly turn (again) into a quagmire in Yemen, and none speaks about direct action vs. Iran. Erdogan's Turkey is nowhere near doing an about face and holding hands with Israel (its so-called participation in the coalition efforts is apparently more of a front to hit the Curds). Japan's elite forces in Djibouti....to quote Monty Python's Graham Chapman - "Right! Stop that! It's SILLY. Very SILLY indeed! Started off as a nice little idea....".

Even if there are such understandings, and even if they are that comprehensive and reliable, I seriously doubt they would be accessible to said blogger, or that involved parties would be thrilled to be outed from the UNGA podium.

Iran is on the rise, whether people like it or not. Those fearing what's ahead will be better served by coming to terms with this process and finding realistic ways of dealing with the perceived threats. Indulging in fantasies is counter-productive and futile. Syria, Iraq and Libya are already write offs, with Yemen hard on their heels. I'd say that Saudi Arabia, the GCC states and Jordan are, potentially, in a more precarious state than Iran.

I have no wish to discuss the relative merits of sources with you, especially as the MSM seems to be so useless, not to mention pedaling agendas these days.

One thing we do agree on, the seriousness of the predicament Israel's Sunni neighbors are in. The oil states are awash with money they have been buying arms with so there is a potential for them to act if they so choose. Let's see how things pan out in Yemen before judging the Saudi capacity to protect their own back yard shall we.

As an aside I put it to you directly that I don't believe the Iranian Mullahs to be rational players, if anyone in a position to combat Iran agrees with my assessment we are entering incredibly dangerous times. We shall see.

[Morch]

As Abbas once said The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Arafat had that great opportunity with Barak and at the last moment walked away. I think Johnathan Miller summed it up well when he described the Middle East as the biggest open air lunatic asylum in the world.

I have no idea if Abbas ever said that - the original quote, however, goes back to George Bernard Shaw, and was revived again within the current context by Abba Eban, Israel's minister of foreign affairs.

Arafat had no real opportunity with Barak, as the latter did not have the public support for his offer anyway. The same goes for the later Olmert - Abbas negotiations. As far as the Palestinians go the real opportunities were missed much earlier - for example, in 1947 and 1967. Back then they could have easily had much more than what is tentatively discussed nowadays.

Arafat might, and I stress might, have had enough prestige and clout to pull through a comprehensive peace agreement - if he had the inclination or will to do so. But apart from his character flows, there just wasn't all that much public support among the Palestinian for an all out peace deal along the lines presented in that offer.

It would do well to be reminded that this quote could easily be turned about and used to question which opportunities Israel missed, and which opportunities it might be missing today.

[Morch]

Does anyone care what Benny says?

No, thought not

I care. He's defending Israel, the ancient homeland of the Jewish people. Is he a perfect politician? No.

I ask people to refer to the part of the speech where he shows the absurd obsession of the U.N. with demonizing Israel compared to SYRIA. The numbers, 20 to 1, tell us a lot.

The UN can help advance peace by supporting direct, unconditional negotiations between the parties. The UN won't help peace, certainly won't help advance peace by trying to impose solutions or by encouraging Palestinian rejectionism, And the UN, distinguished delegates, should do one more thing. The UN should finally rid itself of the obsessive bashing of Israel.

Here’s just one absurd example of this obsession: In four years of horrific violence in Syria, more than a quarter of a million people have lost their live. That’s more than ten times, more than ten times, the number of Israelis and Palestinians combined who have lost their lives in a century of conflict between us. Yet last year, this Assembly adopted 20 resolutions against Israel and just one resolution about the savage slaughter in Syria. Talk about injustice. Talk about disproportionality. Twenty. Count them. One against Syria.

Well, frankly I am not surprised. To borrow a line from Yogi Berra, the late, great baseball player and part time philosopher: When it comes to the annual bashing of Israel at the UN, it’s déjà vu all over again. Enough!

Thirty one years after I stood here for the first time, I'm still asking: When will the UN finally check its anti-Israel fanaticism at the door? When will the UN finally stop slandering Israel as a threat to peace and actually start helping Israel advance peace? And the same question should be posed to Palestinian leaders. When will you start working with Israel to advance peace and reconciliation and stop libeling Israel, stop inciting hatred and violence?

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.678524

You've lost perspective.

The Syria issue has been around for only 5 years and IS being dealt with. The Israeli occupation has been going on for 50 years and ISN'T being dealt with.

How is it being dealt with?

The number of UN resolutions regarding the state of things in Syria is indicative of quite the opposite.

Or are the rather limited aerial bombings considered dealing with things?

Is the criteria for UN attention supposed to be based on how long a situation goes on or rather on how severe things actually are?

There's a rather low threshold for what's considered news when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not so much when it comes to other places.

The lost perspective, in this case, may safely be attributed to the UN.

[Morch]

I care. He's defending Israel, the ancient homeland of the Jewish people. Is he a perfect politician? No.

I ask people to refer to the part of the speech where he shows the absurd obsession of the U.N. with demonizing Israel compared to SYRIA. The numbers, 20 to 1, tell us a lot.

The UN can help advance peace by supporting direct, unconditional negotiations between the parties. The UN won't help peace, certainly won't help advance peace by trying to impose solutions or by encouraging Palestinian rejectionism, And the UN, distinguished delegates, should do one more thing. The UN should finally rid itself of the obsessive bashing of Israel.

Heres just one absurd example of this obsession: In four years of horrific violence in Syria, more than a quarter of a million people have lost their live. Thats more than ten times, more than ten times, the number of Israelis and Palestinians combined who have lost their lives in a century of conflict between us. Yet last year, this Assembly adopted 20 resolutions against Israel and just one resolution about the savage slaughter in Syria. Talk about injustice. Talk about disproportionality. Twenty. Count them. One against Syria.

Well, frankly I am not surprised. To borrow a line from Yogi Berra, the late, great baseball player and part time philosopher: When it comes to the annual bashing of Israel at the UN, its déjà vu all over again. Enough!

Thirty one years after I stood here for the first time, I'm still asking: When will the UN finally check its anti-Israel fanaticism at the door? When will the UN finally stop slandering Israel as a threat to peace and actually start helping Israel advance peace? And the same question should be posed to Palestinian leaders. When will you start working with Israel to advance peace and reconciliation and stop libeling Israel, stop inciting hatred and violence?

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.678524

The ancient homeland of the Jewish people??

What about the ancient homeland of the Apache or the Comanchee?

Don't get me wrong, since we gave them Palestine, they've made a decent job of sorting the place out

But enough is enough. Be nice to your neighbours and try an get along

?

Correction: A portion of Palestine that they willingly agreed to and accepted, the rest of Palestine was for the Palestinian Arabs.

But they reneged and have been trying to grab more and more at the loss to Palestinians ever since.

I missed the part where the Palestinian rejected the UN resolution along with the neighbors of newly formed Israel. Could the conduct exhibited by the Palestinians at that time, and contrasted by their actions now be described as "to whinge and gripe at the UN while ignoring the UN when it suits is disingenuous, dishonest, dishonourable and aggressive."? (quote from another post on this topic). Does "reneged" apply to not accepting the a UN resolution, actively trying to undo it and when failing to do so, asking for it be reinstated?

The area not held by Israel post-1949 was larger than what the Palestinian are after nowadays. What, exactly, stopped them back then from declaring statehood on said territory while trying to negotiate further? Did Israel bar them from creating a state? Or was it more to do with Egypt and Jordan? Glossing over things would not change past mistakes.

[Morch]

Back to the topic, I'm kind of surprised that more is not being made of the U.S. snub of Netanyahu's U.N. speech.

I guess it's understandable. Kerry couldn't applaud to being told the Iran deal is a mistake

First of all, why would Secretary Kerry applaud Netanyahu's shrill, fear mongering diatribe? Kerry was a key player in getting the P5+1 deal completed, and he's the odds on favorite to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Secondly, not much is being made of this alleged "snub" because the veil has been lifted from the eyes of the American public. They have wised up to the fact that Janus-faced Israel is only concerned about having America fight in and pay for the wars Israel wants. Your surprise is likely duplicated by many in Israel when they come to the realization that the tail doesn't always wag the dog anymore.

But not too surprising that clueless assumptions will be aired,

Considering that damaging relationship with the USA is one of the more popular issues Netanyahu is criticized on domestically, the relevant comment in the post above is just another figment of a biased imagination. Like other bits of the post....

Would that Nobel Peace Prize be on par with Obama's? Could be a new trend, giving the prize before any real consequences indicate whether a peace initiative was successful.

[Morch]

What Cristina Kirchner had to say at the UN is even more interesting. She alleges that back in 2010 representatives of the U.S government approached Argentina to ask if they were prepared to supply Iran with nuclear fuel.

http://www.hngn.com/articles/135332/20150930/argentine-president-obama-administration-tried-convince-give-iran-nuclear-fuel.htm

The allegations are troubling in that they come after the Obama administration and five other world powers recently signed a nuclear deal with Iran that aims to limit Tehran's ability to develop nuclear weapons. At the core of the agreement are restrictions on the amount of nuclear fuel that Iran can keep for the next 15 years – restrictions that would force Iran to reduce its stockpile of uranium by 98 percent, according to The New York Times. It's not clear why the U.S. would be attempting to secretly enable Iran to enrich nuclear fuel just five years ago.

Little wonder the Obama administration boycotted the Netanyahu speech, they had thrown the towel in on enrichment 5 years ago. Netanyahu's silence was not IMHO directed at the UN, which is just a theatre of the insane, it was I suspect for the archives when future historians examine the causes of the forthcoming war. War there will be, of that I'm certain. Those responsible by inaction sat there in silence, those complicit didn't even attend.

Some updates available:

Following the publication of this article, Samore provided a statement to TheBlaze outlining a past proposed nuclear deal that involved nations manufacturing “fresh fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor in exchange for Iran shipping most of its stockpile of low enriched uranium to Russia.” Read his statement in full below:

“Story is true that I went to Buenos Aires in August 2009 to ask Foreign Minister Timmerman if Argentina would be willing to manufacture fresh fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor in exchange for Iran shipping most of its stockpile of low enriched uranium to Russia.

As I recall, Minister Timmerman told me that Argentina could not participate in the project because of Iran’s refusal to cooperate in the AMIA investigation. I said that I understood the political sensitivities and accepted that Argentina could not be part of the project.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/30/president-of-argentina-launches-bombshell-iran-claim-against-obama-admin-official-on-the-floor-of-u-n-general-assembly/

[Morch]

I hate to rain on the Israel hater's bonfire, but the Mullahs are shortly going to bet removed, and I suspect it will be Saudi Arabia and the GCC doing most of the heavy lifting. Israel knows about this and is in cahoots.

http://www.thomaswictor.com/israel-confirms-death-to-the-mullahs/

Ladies and Gentlemen, Israel is working closely with our Arab peace partners to address our common security challenges from Iran and also the security challenges from ISIS and from others. We are also working with other states in the Middle East as well as countries in Africa, in Asia and beyond. Many in our region know that both Iran and ISIS are our common enemies. And when your enemies fight each other, don’t strengthen either one—weaken both.

For those paying attention the Iran 'deal' has accelerated seismic changes happening in the Middle East. The Iranian leaders stated Israel won't exist in 25 years time. I suspect the Iranian Mullocracy won't last 10% of that time.

Oh, another loon blogger posts something. Must be true. About the same credibility as them Debka links, apart from this guy seemingly not having much by way of first hand experience with the Middle East.

Heavy lifting? Saudi Arabia and the GCC hardly lift a finger fighting ISIS, are involved in what could very possibly turn (again) into a quagmire in Yemen, and none speaks about direct action vs. Iran. Erdogan's Turkey is nowhere near doing an about face and holding hands with Israel (its so-called participation in the coalition efforts is apparently more of a front to hit the Curds). Japan's elite forces in Djibouti....to quote Monty Python's Graham Chapman - "Right! Stop that! It's SILLY. Very SILLY indeed! Started off as a nice little idea....".

Even if there are such understandings, and even if they are that comprehensive and reliable, I seriously doubt they would be accessible to said blogger, or that involved parties would be thrilled to be outed from the UNGA podium.

Iran is on the rise, whether people like it or not. Those fearing what's ahead will be better served by coming to terms with this process and finding realistic ways of dealing with the perceived threats. Indulging in fantasies is counter-productive and futile. Syria, Iraq and Libya are already write offs, with Yemen hard on their heels. I'd say that Saudi Arabia, the GCC states and Jordan are, potentially, in a more precarious state than Iran.

I have no wish to discuss the relative merits of sources with you, especially as the MSM seems to be so useless, not to mention pedaling agendas these days.

One thing we do agree on, the seriousness of the predicament Israel's Sunni neighbors are in. The oil states are awash with money they have been buying arms with so there is a potential for them to act if they so choose. Let's see how things pan out in Yemen before judging the Saudi capacity to protect their own back yard shall we.

As an aside I put it to you directly that I don't believe the Iranian Mullahs to be rational players, if anyone in a position to combat Iran agrees with my assessment we are entering incredibly dangerous times. We shall see.

Of course you don't wish to, can't blame you. But as you had to include at sweeping statement at whatever you define as MSM - I'll retort that the linked story (such as it is) is even less than useless and that an agenda pedaled is what makes most similar blog sites tick.

Saudi Arabia and the GCC got money and got the gadgets. That does not a great fighting force make. They haven't been pulling their share against ISIS, and the Iranian armed forces, much more experienced and battle ready will chew and spit them with ease.

Yemen is no criteria for anything compared to ISIS and certainly not compared to Iran.

The view that Iran's leadership is irrational got nothing to support it. They may have a different set of values, agendas and world view, of course. That's not to say that they are not rational. So far they have played the framework of Western and regional "rationality" with great success.

But anyway, if one believes the contents of the story linked, there's nothing to worry about. The Djibouti Samurais will take care of things.