David Horovitz: Netanyahu’s devastating, irrevocable indictment of Obama
For all the cynicism and the political filtering over Netanyahu’s motivations, furthermore, the prime minister is convinced, in his heart of hearts, that Iran is determined to advance its benighted ideology across the region and beyond. The prime minister is convinced, in his heart of hearts, that the deal taking shape will immunize the ayatollahs from any prospect of revolution from within or effective challenge from without. The deal “doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb,” he warned. “It paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”
And the cardinal fact is that the prime minister is convinced, in his heart of hearts, that the Islamist regime in Tehran is bent on the destruction of Israel. Ayatollah Khamenei “tweets that Israel must be annihilated,” Netanyahu wailed, repeating: “He tweets! You know, in Iran, there isn’t exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.”
Although a first response to his speech from an unnamed White House official said that Netanyahu had offered “no concrete alternative” to the deal taking shape, and that his speech was “all rhetoric and no action,” and despite Obama’s subsequent elaborate defense of the US approach, the prime minister did offer an alternative. He urged the P5+1 to recalibrate, to reconsider, and then to push for a better deal. And “if Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff,” he advised, the wise, wary Middle Easterner lecturing Obama and the other Western naifs. “They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.”
JPost Editorial: Netanyahu’s speech
No country more than Israel has a stake in seeing a peaceful resolution of the conflict with Iran, because Israel would suffer if the situation deteriorates into a military conflagration.If US fails, PM signals Sunni Arab states, we’ll hold the line against Iran
Since sanctions were what brought the Iranians to the bargaining table in the first place, Netanyahu proposed not lifting sanctions until the Iranians stop their aggression.
Indeed, premature lifting of sanctions would actually encourage Iranian aggression. And sanctions can be particularly effective now, as oil prices have fallen to their lowest level in decades.
Only once the Iranians have stopped supporting terrorism around the world from Buenos Aires and Burgas to Baghdad and Beirut; only once they stop threatening the annihilation of Israel; only once they stop demonstrations of aggression against the US like last week’s staged attack on a replica US aircraft carrier can the P5+1 be expected to reduce sanctions.
“If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country,” intoned Netanyahu, “it should begin acting like a normal country,” adding that the alternative to a bad deal with Iran does not have to be war, it can be an even better deal.
Still, while Netanyahu made it clear that Israelis overwhelmingly prefer a negotiated deal through diplomacy and still hold out hope for a peaceful solution, the renewal of Jewish sovereignty after nearly two millennia of longing means that Israel no longer has to rely on others to defend it.
Pointing to Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Eli Wiesel, who was sitting next to Sara Netanyahu, the prime minister noted that the man’s life and work gave new meaning to the words “never again.”
“And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned.... But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.”
It was to another audience, to the Sunni Arab peoples and governments who watch in despair the unchecked ascent of Shiite Iran, that Netanyahu dedicated the most persuasive and actionable part of his speech. Israel will hold the line even if America fails us on Iran, he told the Arabs.Why Obama hates Netanyahu, and vice versa
As Arab leaders know well, Israel is not the only regional power battling ferociously against the impending nuclear deal – it is merely the only one that can take its case publicly to the heart of the world’s most powerful capital, even in brazen defiance of the wishes of the American president.
The location of Netanyahu’s speech was as important as its content in delivering this message to the Arab world. Israel would defy Iran not only with its advanced warplanes and intelligence agencies, but with its most famous strategic asset – the ability to deliver its case before a joint meeting of the United States Congress.
And therein lies a special irony. America is the problem, Netanyahu is telling his prospective Middle Eastern allies, but in the very forum he chose to deliver the message he acknowledged that America, still the preeminent world power and Israel’s most significant ally, remains part of the solution. Even as he presented the first glimpse into Israel’s vision of a post-American regional order, Netanyahu offered an unintended testament to America’s enduring significance.
The White House’s favorite argument for the deal – that the choice before Western powers was to strike a deal or go to war – demonstrates for Netanyahu the incompetence he saw in the White House’s strategy. The argument amounted to a declaration to the Iranians that the US needed a deal more than they did.
Even the complaint about his decision to deliver Tuesday’s speech to Congress wins little sympathy from the Israeli leader. After all, Obama was the first to travel to the other’s capital and rebuke him to his own people. When Obama finally came to Israel as president, in March of 2013, he pointedly turned down an invitation to address Israel’s parliament – the comparison to his eager address to the parliament in Istanbul four years earlier was not lost on Israeli pundits – and instead gave a public speech to an audience of young Israelis at Jerusalem’s International Convention Center.
It was a speech “to the people of Israel,” not its leadership, the White House said – much like the Cairo speech was addressed not to governments but to Muslims. “I can promise you this,” Obama told Israelis of their prime minister, “political leaders will never take risks if the people do not push them to take some risks.”
Netanyahu has written off the Obama White House as a failure; blinkered by its pompous self-assurance, it cannot be trusted to competently manage the security of the world. Obama has written off Netanyahu as an obstacle, a hypocritical partisan whose narrow vision of politics stand in the way of meaningful progress on any issue in which he is involved.
For both men, the gap runs deeper than the Democrat-Republican divide, deeper than the Palestinian issue, deeper even than the battle over Iran. Obama sought to introduce a new consciousness into global affairs, a consciousness that defined his political identity. Netanyahu defiantly champions the old ways of doing business — on which, he believes, his nation’s safety depends.
Elliott Abrams: Bad arguments about a bad deal with Iran
We also hear, and have been hearing for months, that unless you accept the proposed deal you are choosing war. If you're the prime minister of Israel and criticize the deal, you're no longer an ally; you're treated with vicious invective. If you object, you're told you don't really seek a better deal; you are seeking a collapse of the talks.Netanyahu, Not Obama, Speaks for Us
To quote Susan Rice,"we cannot let a totally unachievable ideal stand in the way of a good deal." But how does one define what is totally unachievable? Congress is not permitted by the administration to play any role. The administration seeks to limit public debate by scolding and warning the Israelis against revealing supposedly secret information -- not secret from Russia, or China, or Iran, but from the American people.
Suddenly our choice is not a bad deal or no deal, it's this deal or a conflict with Iran. The administration treats disagreement on this as nearly a form of sedition. Yet those who disagree include not only the government of Israel: Many members of Congress in both parties fear the terms of this agreement that is apparently near conclusion. From the bitter experience of North Korea the administration has apparently learned little -- and that was a bad deal that was surely worse than no deal at all.
Disagreement is predictable and a healthy debate is essential. But the explanation that we must now choose between any deal this administration can get and war with Iran is an unworthy argument that should be met with derision.
While under fierce attack from President Obama, the Israeli prime minister defends Western values and speaks the truth about Iran.Israeli Politicians Across Spectrum Express Concern About Emerging Iran Nuke Deal
The leader of the free world will be addressing Congress on Tuesday. The American president is doing everything possible to undermine him.
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu leads a nation surrounded by enemies, a nation so small that it narrows at one point to just 9.3 miles. Yet, in a world where the Oval Office is manned by someone openly apologetic for most American exercises of power; and where Western Europe’s economy is enervated, its people largely faithless, and its leadership feckless; and where Freedom House has found “an overall drop in [global] freedom for the ninth consecutive year,” the safeguarding of our civilization might rely more on leaders who possess uncommon moral courage than on those who possess the most nukes or biggest armies.
Right now, nobody on the world stage speaks for civilization the way Netanyahu does. While Barack Obama babbles about the supposedly “legitimate grievances” of those who turn to jihad, Netanyahu talks like this (from his speech to the United Nations on September 27, 2012):
The clash between modernity and medievalism need not be a clash between progress and tradition. The traditions of the Jewish people go back thousands of years. They are the source of our collective values and the foundation of our national strength.
At the same time, the Jewish people have always looked towards the future. Throughout history, we have been at the forefront of efforts to expand liberty, promote equality, and advance human rights. We champion these principles not despite of our traditions but because of them.
Amos Yadlin, former head of IDF Military Intelligence and the Labor Party’s candidate for Defense Minister, criticized the Obama administration’s goal of leaving Iran with a break-out time of one year, stating that the break-out time “must be measured in a number of years” and that Israel “will view a deal that leaves Iran up to a year from a nuclear bomb as a bad deal.” (In contrast, during his interview with Reuters yesterday, President Barack Obama said that “as long as we’ve got that one-year breakout capacity, that ensures us that we can take military action to stop them if they were stop it [sic].”) Additionally, Yadlin has warned that the U.S. government’s mentality that an agreement is preferable to the alternatives is “liable to justify signing an extremely bad agreement.” Yadlin has previously cautioned the West not to be fooled by the Iranians, who have a cunning strategy of agreeing to only limited, reversible compromises.What Next, After Netanyahu Speech? The Corker Bill
Regarding preliminary reports about a potential deal with Iran, Yair Lapid, leader of the centrist party Yesh Atid, has stated in an interview, “We think this is not harsh enough, or strong enough towards the Iranians.” Former Labor Prime Minister Ehud Barak has expressed disappointment that the Obama administration has “changed its objective from no nuclear military Iran to no nuclear military Iran during the term of its administration.” Leading Haaretz columnist and author Ari Shavit observed that “Obama’s desire to appease Tehran… could destroy his own vision of nuclear disarmament.”
Moreover, a number of these present and former officials and analysts have expressed concern about American rapprochement with Iran. In an article published on Tuesday, Yadlin insisted that a shift away from the traditional alliances with Israel and moderate Arab states, and towards Iran, would be “a big mistake. Iran is a source of instability, terror, regime change, and Islamic revolution all over the Middle East.” Furthermore, Barak, who supports a robust campaign against ISIS, has also asserted that “allowing Assad and the ayatollahs in Iran…to be the real winners- that doesn’t make sense.”
Following his stirring address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will return home, having made his point about the dangers of the Iran deal currently on the table. The question is: what next for Congress?Fact Check: President Obama Oversells Iran Nuke Deal in Interview
President Barack Obama has vowed to veto any new sanctions–and may have sown enough division in his party to prevent an override. Yet there is another bill in the works that, after Tuesday, Obama may find he cannot refuse.
That bill is S. 615, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, introduced by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) and sporting a bipartisan group of cosponsors. The bill would require that any deal with Iran be approved by Congress. The Constitution provides that foreign treaties be approved by a two-thirds vote in the Senate, but President Obama has insisted that he can sign a nuclear agreement with Iran through his executive authority–which is legally dubious and strategically unsound.
Last week, Obama said he would veto the Corker bill. And the pro-Iran lobby opposes it (while AIPAC supports it). The left-wing Democrats who boycotted Netanyahu’s speech–as well as those who remained, grudgingly, within the chamber–might find a basis for opposing new sanctions on the argument that they could torpedo the negotiations. But they would struggle to find a justification for giving Obama unilateral power over foreign agreements, against the Constitution itself.
President Barack Obama made a number of inaccurate claims about the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran in an interview with Reuters yesterday.Netanyahu responds to Obama: We did indeed present practical alternative to Iran deal
In the course of the interview the President charged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was wrong in his assessment of Iran’s behavior since the P5+1 agreed to the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) with Iran in November 2013.
Netanyahu made all sorts of claims. This was going to be a terrible deal. … Iran would not abide by the agreement. None of that has come true.
Iran in fact did not abide by the JPOA.
In general the JPOA required Iran to account for its past nuclear research:
A Joint Commission of E3/EU+3 and Iran will be established to monitor the implementation of the near-term measures and address issues that may arise, with the IAEA responsible for verification of nuclear-related measures. The Joint Commission will work with the IAEA to facilitate resolution of past and present issues of concern.
Yesterday a report from the IAEA stated that because Iran had not met its commitments to reporting on its past nuclear work, “the Agency is not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.” Among the aspects of Iran’s past work that it has not accounted for, Iran has refused IAEA inspectors access to the Parchin military base where Iran is believed to have experimented with exploding bridge wires (EBW). One of the applications of EBW is to detonate a nuclear device.
Apparently pushing back against those saying that there was no tactical alternative in his speech, Netanyahu said that he did indeed present a practical alternative that would extend Iran's break out time by adding new restrictions.Washington Post: PM's Iran Arguments 'Deserve a Response'
He also said that he presented a case for not lifting sanctions until the Iranians stop its hostile actions against neighboring countries and stop threatening to annihilate Israel.
Netanyahu said that the responses he heard from both Republicans and Democrats were encouraging and that his impression was that they both understand why this is a bad deal.
On Tuesday, US President Barack Obama on Tuesday told reporters "as far as I can tell, there was nothing new" in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to Congress panning US-led nuclear talks with Iran.
"The prime minister didn't offer any viable alternatives," Obama said, urging Congress to wait to evaluate a nuclear deal with Iran until an agreement is finalized. Obama said that he would only agree to a deal that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
In its editorial view of Binyamin Netanyahu's speech on Iran, the Washington Post said that even if, as in President Barack H. Obama's words, there was nothing “new” about what the Israeli Prime Minister said, it would still behoove the administration to pay attention to what he said. “Mr. Netanyahu’s arguments deserve a serious response from the Obama administration — one it has yet to provide,” the Post said.Analysts: Iran Sanctions Did Enormous Harm to Country
Instead of doing so, “the White House has sought to dismiss the Israeli leader as a politician seeking reelection; has said that he was wrong in his support for the Iraq war and in his opposition to an interim agreement with Iran; and has claimed that he offers no alternative to President Obama’s policy.” In other words, the paper said, Obama has been doing everything but address the concerns Netanyahu brought up, which were well-known to him even before the speech.
Obama, the editorial said, “appears to be betting that detente can better control Iran’s nuclear ambitions and, perhaps, produce better behavior over time,” a sharp contrast to U.S. policy since 1979. Those who do not embrace his policies, aides say, are advocating for war – but the Post is convinced that Netanyahu's approach provides a third way.
“Netanyahu,” the editorial said, “strongly disputed that point. 'Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime,' he said. Is that wrong? For that matter, is it acceptable to free Iran from sanctions within a decade and allow it unlimited nuclear capacity? Rather than continuing its political attacks on Mr. Netanyahu, the administration ought to explain why the deal it is contemplating is justified — or reconsider it.”
In his speech before Congress Tuesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said that the sanctions against Iran, spearheaded by the US, had had a very debilitating effect on Iran – and continuing those sanctions was the only way to ensure that Tehran did not develop a nuclear weapon.Meet the Proxies: How Iran Spreads Its Empire
In an analysis Wednesday, Israeli business newspaper Globes listed some of the economic damage done to Iran by the sanctions – and according to the report, that damage has been substantial. In 2013, the first full year of sanctions, Iran's GDP fell for the first time since 1995, at a negative 5% rate. In 2014, the economy grew slightly, by up to 1.5%, as sanctions were partially eased and Iran was allowed to export some oil. Analysts said that the Iranian economy was as much as 20% smaller than it should be.
Since 2012, Iran's unemployment level has been hovering around 20%. As foreign companies began closing down their operations in the country as sanctions were imposed, millions of Iranians lost their job. In 2009, at the height of the worldwide recession, unemployment in Iran was 10%.
In Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere, Tehran has perfected the art of gradually conquering a country without replacing its flag.Hidden Reactor, Silent Reaction
The Middle East is witnessing the birth of a new Persian empire, under the aegis of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact, when Iranian officials gloat over their control of four Arab capitals, they are being uncharacteristically modest. Tehran’s hegemony has spread far beyond Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus, and Sana’a. But this latest incarnation of Imperial Iran is unique in that it is virtually invisible. Iranian flags do not fly above the centers of government in these capitals, and the foot soldiers of the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps – Quds Force (IRGC-QF) do not march in their streets. Tehran has contracted this clandestine conquest out to an ever-expanding list of loyal proxies. They mutate and fracture into new entities, adopt new names, and operate in different roles and locations; but this constellation of proxies orbits around Iran, effectively masking the Islamic Republic’s increasing control over the Middle East.
Tehran coordinates and provides a wide array of support and aid to its proxies, mainly through the IRGC-QF and its commander, Qassem Suleimani. It seems important, then, to recall that the U.S. Treasury Department has designated the IRGC-QF and its commander as for activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and support for terrorism, accusing the Quds Force in 2007 of providing material support to the Taliban and other terrorist groups. The Justice Department cited the group as “conduct[ing] sensitive covert operations abroad, including terrorist attacks, assassinations and kidnappings, and is believed to sponsor attacks against Coalition Forces in Iraq.”
As the world negotiates with Iran about their nuclear program, it is worth remembering lessons from Syria’s nuclear plant in 2007.Riyadh Seeks Nuclear Cooperation with South Korea
In September 2007, something significant happened in the Middle East. While the details were very murky as the news reports were cryptic, it was clear that a major event came-and-went. Over the following months and years, more information emerged about Syria’s nascent nuclear program and Israel’s attack that destroyed it.
Syria began to investigate the feasibility of a nuclear program in the 1990s and by the mid-2000s it was building a nuclear facility with the help of North Korea. The facility was being constructed roughly 100 miles from the Iraqi border. During its construction, hundreds of thousands of American troops were busy a few miles from the construction site during the Iraq War. Many reconnaissance missions repeatedly flew over the Syrian site, but US intelligence failed to detect that Syria had embarked on plans to build a weapon of mass destruction. For years.
The New York Times stated that “the Americans were somewhat blindsided…. By their own account, they…only identified the plant at Al Kibar, named for the nearest town, after they received photos of the interior of the plant last spring from Israel… But even this victory [of destroying the plant], some experts note, raises questions about the [CIA]’s focus. The reactor was built within 100 miles of the Iraqi border yet never identified even though the administration was searching for any form of such arms programs in Iraq…. Graham Allison, a Harvard professor and author of “Nuclear Terrorism,” who was in Washington on Thursday to testify about Iran’s nuclear program [said] ‘if you can build a reactor in Syria without being detected for eight years, how hard can it be to sell a little plutonium to Osama bin Laden?’”
Leaders of South Korea and Saudi Arabia agreed on Tuesday to look into building more than two small and medium-sized nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia, wrote the Korea Herald. The projects may be worth as much as $2 billion.Will Egypt Go for its Own Nuclear Weapon?
During summit talks, President Park Geun-hye and King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud discussed ways “to upgrade bilateral relations by strengthening cooperation in energy, creative economy, investment, medical services and information technology.”
Park arrived in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, after a three-day visit to Kuwait. Her four-nation Middle East trip will also include UAE and Qatar.
After the summit, the two leaders observed the signing of a memorandum of understanding aimed at developing South Korea’s SMART reactors and jointly entering the global market.
The SMART reactor, which generates electric power and also desalinates sea water, was designed by the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute with Middle Eastern countries in mind.
Egypt has seen two major upheavals in the last four years - the Arab Spring overthrew Hosni Mubarak in 2011, then saw its Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated president toppled in a coup d’état by General, now President, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.IRGC Navy Commander Ali Fadavi Presents New "Strategic" Weapon, Says: We Have Deterred America
President Sisi last week concluded a preliminary agreement with Russia to build a new nuclear reactor for the country. Simultaneously, Egypt’s courts issued injunctions declaring Hamas a terrorist organization. Both developments may have a great impact on Israel’s security.
Zack Gold of the Institute for National Security Studies, currently in Egypt, told Arutz Sheva he does not see this as reason to think Egypt is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability to keep up with Iran, particularly in the context of what some experts, and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, worry will provoke a nuclear arms race in the region.
In several Iranian TV interviews, IRGC Navy Commander Ali Fadavi talked about the new "strategic" weapon tested in the recent maneuvers and said: "The [Americans] know better than ever before that they must not even think about initiating any confrontation against the Islamic Revolution. That's what deterrence is all about." He refused to say whether the "strategic" weapon was launched from a submarine. The interviews aired on IRINN, the Iranian news channel on February 25, 2015 and on Al-Alam TV on March 2.
Netanyahu’s Masterpiece
The speech started out appropriately high-minded and gracious. It laid out Mr. Netanyahu’s case with logic and care, offering a crisp and indisputable indictment of the Iranian regime and, especially, the fundamental flaws in the deal President Obama wants to strike with Iran. The conclusion of the speech–where the Israeli prime minister said “I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over”–was stirring and evocative. So was Mr. Netanyahu’s obvious love and affection for America. (Unlike President Obama, Prime Minister Netanyahu, when he describes America, isn’t inclined to criticize her.) And the speech itself included some terrific and memorable lines:Bibi's Speech to Congress in Two Minutes
- At a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.
- So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.
- That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.
- This deal won’t be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control.
- If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn’t change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.
- Now we’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s just not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.
- For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves. This is why as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand. But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel. I know that you stand with Israel.
Nancy Pelosi Was Not a Happy Camper During Netanyahu’s Speech
It became apparent soon after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began his speech to a joint session of Congress Tuesday that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) was not pleased by the proceedings.Netanyahu Speech Wins over Media Critics
Political reporters and other observers began tweeting about her angry gestures and frustration with Netanyahu as he laid out why the Obama administration’s potential nuclear deal with Iran would be a disaster for Israel and the Middle East.
In a statement, Pelosi dramatically said she was “near tears” about the speech for insulting U.S. intelligence.
How successful was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to a special joint session of Congress on Tuesday? Judging from the changed reactions of his media critics, almost all of whom praised the speech, it was a complete triumph.Netanyahu Speech Stirs Anti-Israel Hate on Twitter
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who had attended the speech despite calling Netanyahu “arrogant” and criticizing the event severely beforehand, told CNN’s Dana Bash afterwards: “I think it was a very powerful speech.”
CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, who had bashed the speech in advance as a political stunt, said: “The chances [of an Iran deal] just went to 60/40 against. This was a very good speech, from the Prime Minister’s perspective.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to Congress about the dangers Israel will face if Iran is allowed to build nuclear weapons this morning. The majority of tweets on social media were positive, but many took the opportunity to call Netanyahu a “terrorist” and condemn the existence of Israel.Michael Lumish: The Daily Kos Reaction to THE SPEECH (Updated)
The account belongs to Juan Cole, who describes himself as a public intellectual on global affairs and human rights. His tweets during the speech were virulently anti-Israel, as displayed below.
Daily Kos is merely one progressive venue among others, but it is more or less representative of the Left in the United States, so how they responded to Netanyahu tells us something about how the Left feels about Israel and, inevitably, about the Jewish people.Twitter Users Rip David Axelrod for ‘Existential Threat’ Jibe at Netanyahu
First, I want to point out that not everyone was entirely negative, only about 98 percent, or thereabouts.
In any case, for every Nospinicus we get ten of these:
"bloodthirsty neocon liar" is in the very first comment under Blade's "diary" by dallasdoc, despite the fact that there was nothing the least bit "bloodthirsty" about the speech. Nothing that he said, from what I can tell, was a lie. And, what's a "neocon" again? I haven't heard much of that kind of talk since Wolfowitz left the White House.TomP says, "He wants war. He would prefer Americans die (71+ / 0-)to protect his dreams of Greater Israel."With 71 uprates, no less. What "greater Israel" has to do with the speech is simply beyond comprehension. By the way, when they use terms like "greater Israel" they are trying to suggest that Israel is far too large and that what Israeli fascists want is to expand the Israeli empire into some sort-of behemoth. It's pure stupidity on its face.JoanMar, in classic anti-Semitic style, insists that the United States is nothing but a colony of Israel.
Twitter users reacted harshly to a slew of petty and snide remarks from former President Obama Senior Adviser David Axelrod, who criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress on Tuesday about the Iranian nuclear threat.CNN Analyst Says Bibi Mentioning Holocaust is Political
“Iran is a grave issue,” Axelrod tweeted. “But make no mistake: Bibi’s speech is more about an ‘existential threat’ to his own electoral prospects in 2 weeks.”
Axelrod further tweeted: “Speech broke no new ground nor offered realistic path short of war. But apocalyptic language & GOP cheerleading tailor-made for his base.”
Responding to Axelrod’s assertion that the speech was an electioneering effort aimed at Israeli voters ahead of the country’s general election, some Twitter users were livid.
Netanyahu, who spoke mainly on the threat that a nuclear Iran poses to Israel, compared standing up to Iran to standing up to the Nazis.Daily Show's Jon Stewart skewers everyone involved in 'Speech-gate'
"My friend, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel.(APPLAUSE)
Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, 'never again.'"
That section of the speech had Borger, a veteran journalist, claiming Netanyahu's words were crafted to appeal to Republicans.
"When he sort of raised the specter of the Holocaust and “Never Again” and Elie Wiesel … that was just great. Ari Fleischer could have done this great political speech," Borger said.
Fleischer, a former aide to Preisdent George W. Bush, was also on the panel and blasted Borger. "That’s not political, that’s called survival. That’s called learning the lesson...." Fleischer said before being interrupted.
In a play on words referencing Succot and Hanukah, Stewart called the spectacle a tribute to the "Jewish holiday of suck-on-it" and the "festival of slights." Stewart's mockery was evenly distributed, with President Barack Obama, CNN, Congress, Speaker of the House John Boehner and even Vice President Joe Biden all ridiculed for being part of the biggest media circus of the year.Dr. Mordechai Kedar: The Ayatollahs Mean What They Say
Showing clips of Obama's benign, even aloof, response to Netanyahu's plans to address Congress, Stewart joked, "That's how powerful Israel is! The Prime Minister slaps our president in the face and his reaction is 'It's okay, I'll buy him gloves so when he hits me it won't hurt him so much,'" Stewart said in disbelief.
And of course, A Daily Show segment wouldn’t be complete without depicting shouting talking heads shouting over each other – in this case a J Street spokesperson and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach duking it out on CNN.
"It was the State of the Union Address the Republicans wanted, delivered by a leader they wished they had," Stewart said, providing probably the one – and only – assessment of the speech that Republicans would agree with.
With Netanyahu's speech to Congress as a backdrop, Israel has demanded allowing the negotiations with Iran to reach the implementation stage, in order to prevent deterioration of the relationship between Iran and the West. It also hopes to prevent a military show of force or sanctions that will push the Iranian regime to the wall, causing it to engage in radical and uncontrollable behavior – on the line of "may I die with the Philistines" (the biblical judge Samson's words as he brought the Philistine temple down on himself as well as on his enemies).Iran denounces Netanyahu’s ‘lie-spreading’ Congress speech
A long term examination of years of Iranian publicized information, starting with the Ayatollah's 1979 takeover of the country, shows that the Iranian leaders are motivated by several factors.
But no matter what the situation or context, one motivating factor moves to the fore, while the others continue to have background influence. This article will survey the Ayatollahs' motivation for acquiring the weapons that will deter anyone who tries to face them in the future, starting with the main one.
Regional Hegemony
Iran's rulers see their country as a regional power, and they will do anything to strengthen this position. They feel that they are the key actor in the international arena, because of their military power, the size of their nation, its territory, daring and willingness to suffer for the fulfillment of its aspirations. They feel that a country like theirs does not have to be satisfied with being "just another country", and that it ought to be the primary force in the region by right.
Iran denounced as “lie-spreading” a speech Tuesday in which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the US Congress that a nuclear deal being negotiated with Tehran would threaten the world.Iran Foreign Ministry: Netanyahu an ‘Iranophobic’ Child-Killer
In a statement, foreign ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham rejected as “very repetitious and boring Netanyahu’s continuous lie-spreading about the goals and intentions behind Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.”
Earlier Tuesday, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweeted that “US officials are obliged to show consideration for Israel & cover up its crimes.”
Khamenei, who will need to approve together with the Iranian parliament any deal achieved with the P5+1 member states, added that “Zionists corporations’ money & power have troubled them [US officials].”
The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Marzieh Afkham, responded with fury in reaction to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Tuesday speech to a joint session of the United States Congress.PreOccupied Territory: Man In Suit Addresses Other Men In Suits (satire)
In his speech, the Israeli leader warned that a “bad deal” was in the works with the Ayatollah’s regime in Iran, one which will likely result in Tehran being given a clear path to reach its goal of developing nuclear weapons.
Iran’s state-run PressTv reported that “Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham called the speech a deceitful show and part of the hardliners’ political propaganda in Tel Aviv.”
“There is no doubt that the international opinion does not consider any value or standing for a child-killing regime,” the Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said about Israel.
Afkham said, “This speech was a sign of the weakness and extreme isolation of radical groups.”
A middle-aged man in business attire apparently just gave a speech to a gathering of other men in similar clothes, sources in the Capitol building are reporting.
The man, in his sixties, read from a stack of papers containing the words he pronounced to the assembled audience, which occasionally acknowledged the content of the address with applause. Some women were evidently also in attendance, but the vast majority of the audience, which numbered in the hundreds, consisted of men with grave expressions that broke only when offering said applause, which they did from a standing position. When the applause ended, the men sat down again. This occurred approximately two dozen times during the course of the speech.
Television cameras filmed the address, which took place in a facility where that reportedly happens with some frequency. Observers noted that the cameras focused primarily on the man making the speech, but every now and then turned to capture footage of attendees. The subject of the address was apparently of some importance to the speaker, as he repeatedly made dramatic gestures and intonations in keeping with a passionate delivery. The audience must also have felt strongly about the subject, observers say, as their own reactions indicated intense interest and agreement with the man’s message.
It remains unclear what impact the man in the suit’s speech will have, but in its immediate aftermath, hundreds of other men and women in suits were engaged in discussions of the speech, some of which were also captured by television cameras. Experts believe more people in suits will continue to talk about the first man in the suit in the weeks to come, unless something more compelling grabs the media’s attention, such as a piece of attire with ambiguous hues.