PMW: Fighting Israel and Martyrdom-death promoted by Abbas' Fatah
In a recent post on Facebook, Abbas' Fatah movement reiterated its admiration and support for those who become "Martyrs," presenting this as a good deed for the future of Palestinians. In a greeting, Fatah wrote: "Good morning, Martyrs of Palestine, who are watering our roots with their blood, so that they will grow into a fruitful tree." The greeting further addressed the Palestinian "resolute mothers," who sacrifice their children for their people when they "give away what they hold most dear":Alan Dershowitz: The White House must respond to Netanyahu’s important new proposal
"Good morning to the people of Palestine, the people of defiance;
Good morning, land of the free men;
Good morning, Martyrs (Shahids) of Palestine, who are watering our roots with their blood, so that they will grow into a fruitful tree, strong of trunk;
Good morning, wounds of the innocent;
Good morning, children of Palestine, who carry their innocence in one hand and the stone in the other;
Good morning, resolute mothers of Palestine, who give away what they hold most dear (i.e., their children)."
[Facebook, "Fatah - The Main Page", Feb. 22, 2015]
A few weeks earlier, Fatah and its youth movement issued statements honoring "Martyrs," praising them for "watering the land of Palestine with their pure blood." Fatah declared that "Martyrdom-death for Palestine is a destiny."
The Administration must now answer one fundamental question: why would you allow the Iranian regime to develop nuclear weapons in ten years, if at that time they were still exporting terrorism, bullying their Arab neighbors and threatening to exterminate Israel? Why not, at the very least, condition any “sunset” provision on a change in the actions of this criminal regime? The answer may be that we can’t get them to agree to this condition. If that is the case then this is indeed a bad deal that is worse than no deal. It would be far better to increase economic sanctions and other pressures, rather than to end them in exchange for a mere postponement of Iran obtaining a nuclear arsenal.The American People Don’t Like the Terms of the Iran Deal
There may be better answers, but the ball is now in Obama’s court to provide them, rather than to avoid answering Netanyahu’s reasonable questions by irrelevant answers about “protocol” and personal attacks on the messenger. Israel deserves better. The world deserves better. The American people deserve better. And Congress deserves better.
An unconditional sunset provision is an invitation to an Iran that continues to export terrorism, bully neighbors and threaten Israel—but with a nuclear arsenal to terrorize the entire world. This would be “a game changer”, to quote President Obama’s words from several years ago, when he promised that he would never allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Suddenly, “never” has become “soon.” Congress should insist that any provision allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons after ten years must at the very least be conditioned on a significant change of behavior by the world’s most dangerous regime.
In a Monday interview with Reuters, President Obama said, “If, in fact, Iran is willing to agree to double-digit years of keeping their program where it is right now and, in fact, rolling back elements of it that currently exist … if we’ve got that, and we’ve got a way of verifying that, there’s no other steps we can take that would give us such assurance that they don’t have a nuclear weapon.”
Voters overwhelmingly reject that deal: 84 percent—including 80 percent of Democrats—think it’s a bad idea to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons 10 years from now in return for agreeing it won’t obtain nukes before then.
The poll of 1,001 registered voters must be taken seriously because its results show real consistency over time.
For example, “Some 55 percent think it would be ‘a disaster’ if Iran were to obtain the capability to use nuclear weapons, while 40 percent sees it as ‘a problem that can be managed.’ Those sentiments are unchanged from 2010.” It shows a sharp partisan divide, which clearly reflects the reality of the present moment. But here is the most remarkable finding, to my mind:
Overall, two-thirds of voters (65 percent) favor the U.S. using military action, if necessary, to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Just 28 percent are opposed.
To varying degrees, majorities of Republicans (81 percent), Democrats (54 percent) and independents (53 percent) agree on using force to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
The World Bows to Iranian Regional Hegemony
The problem with Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu's address to Congress March 3 was not the risk of offending Washington, but rather Washington's receding relevance. President Barack Obama is not the only leader who wants to acknowledge what is already a fact in the ground, namely that "Iran has become the preeminent strategic player in West Asia to the increasing disadvantage of the US and its regional allies," as a former Indian ambassador to Oman wrote this week.Amid the criticism, Netanyahu also signaled readiness for compromise
For differing reasons, the powers of the world have elected to legitimize Iran's dominant position, hoping to delay but not deter its eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons. Except for Israel and the Sunni Arab states, the world has no desire to confront Iran. Short of an American military strike, which is unthinkable for this administration, there may be little that Washington can do to influence the course of events. Its influence has fallen catastrophically in consequence of a chain of policy blunders.
The best that Prime Minister Netanyahu can hope for is that the US Congress will in some way disrupt the Administration's efforts to strike a deal with Iran by provoking the Iranians. That is what the White House fears, and that explains its rage over Netanyahu's appearance.
US President Barack Obama said “there was nothing new” in the speech. True, that Netanyahu would vehemently oppose the currently discussed deal was as clear as his Iran-North Korea comparison. It is noteworthy, nevertheless, that Netanyahu did not repeat his much-stated position that Iran must not retain any uranium enrichment, a maximalist demand US National Security Advisor Susan Rice Monday called “neither realistic nor achievable.”After Speech, Netanyahu Holds Bipartisan Meeting With Senate Leaders
Rather, Netanyahu seemed somewhat pragmatic when he hinted that Israel was willing to consider even an imperfect deal, as long as it’s not as imperfect as the one currently on the table.
Netanyahu’s speech was masterly, less because of the abundant rhetorical shtick (such as the awkward line saying the Iran deal would be “a farewell to arms control”) but because he delivered a concise point-by-point argumentation of why the prospective agreement is so bad for Israel and world peace.
Despite the friendly and ostensibly moderate face that the Iranian government puts on for the world, Netanyahu said, at its core, it is still the same murderous, freedom-hating regime that wants to wipe Israel and America off the map.
After addressing Congress on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with a bipartisan group of US Senate leaders.Day after PM’s speech, Senate Democratic leader urges delay on Iran sanctions
At the start of the meeting, Netanyahu said, “I do want to thank the leadership of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, both sides of the aisle, for inviting me here, giving me an opportunity to state Israel’s concern about an issue that could be the most important issue of our times. I believe it is.”
The prime minister added, “I was very moved by the attention and the responses to the speech from both sides of the aisle, and it’s very clear to me and it was clear in that hall to anyone who was there that the support for Israel is strongly bipartisan, that there is a very broad support of the American people and its representative for the Jewish state and I’m very, very grateful for that. Thank you, thank you.”
Netanyahu was invited to the meeting by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada). Other attendees included Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), John Thune (R-S.D.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).
The leader of the minority Democrats in the US Senate said Wednesday that Congress should hold off on Iran sanctions legislation until negotiations on a nuclear deal play out.Dennis Ross: Obama needs to answer Netanyahu
Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada said action now by Congress could complicate efforts to reach an agreement constraining Tehran’s nuclear program.
His comments in an Associated Press interview suggest trouble for Republican efforts to quickly pass legislation allowing congressional oversight on any Iran nuclear agreement.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took procedural steps Tuesday to bring the bill to the floor.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a strong case to the Congress about why he thinks the potential agreement with Iran on its nuclear program is a "very bad deal."JPost: The US and Qatar
Leaving aside his fears that lifting sanctions will provide Iran more resources to pursue trouble-making in the Middle East, the prime minister worries that a deal that permits Iran to be a threshold nuclear state will not prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons but actually pave the way for it to do so.
Netanyahu believes the break-out time for producing weapons-grade uranium will inevitably be too short— indeed, less than the year President Obama speaks about — and that inspections of the Iranian program will necessarily be too limited and, in any case, promise no action in the face of violations.
Show me who your friends are, goes the timeless adage, and I’ll show you who you are. Indeed, judging US President Barack Obama by the company he prefers to keep is very enlightening.Netanyahu's Message: Israel Will Not Be Czechoslovakia
Obama refused to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week and all the president’s men and women outdid each other in heaping scorn on the unwanted guest from Jerusalem. But just a few days earlier the red carpet was rolled out enthusiastically for Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani.
Not enough praise could be heaped on the emir as he visited the White House for the first time since taking over from his father in 2013.
The difference could not be more striking. Netanyahu, who spares no effort to combat terrorism, was persona non grata. Yet Tamim, whose country financially underpins some of the region’s worst bad-guys, was greeted with the pomp and circumstance typically reserved for the closest ideological soul mates.
There was no shadow of a hint of displeasure with Qatar’s chumminess with the most extreme of jihadists, nor with its appalling human rights record.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a special joint session of Congress on Tuesday was so successful that many of his critics conceded that he had defied their expectations. Some, however, took issue with the fact that he invoked the memory of the Holocaust toward the end of his address, with Chris Hayes mocking: “It is always Munich, 1939 [sic].” If there is one thing Netanyahu’s speech achieved instantly, it was to ensure that Israel will not be Czechoslovakia.Israeli Ambassador: Netanyahu Couldn't Wait Until After Election
It is true that Israeli leaders have been obsessed with Munich–as have American leaders. The memory of the failed effort to appease Hitler hung over the West in general, and the White House in particular, as successive administrations faced off against the Soviet Union. For Israel, however, Munich has special resonance, because like Czechoslovakia, Israel is a small democracy surrounded by hostile nations–and like Czechoslovakia, it is often excluded from diplomacy that shapes its fate.
In his masterful biography of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Conrad Black recalls the scene when the poor Czechoslovakian delegates were brought into the room to be informed of their nation’s fate. “No Czech answer was requested. They were handed a fait accompli. The Czechs wept, and Hubert Masarik said, prophetically and justly: ‘They don’t know what they are doing to us or to themselves.’…These poor, good men were the final players in a macabre and shameful Gothic tragedy.”
As the West has struggled to face the threat of radical Islam–Sunni and Shia–Israel has been determined to avoid Czechoslovakia’s fate. In October 2001, when President George W. Bush called for a Palestinian state just weeks after 9/11, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon warned: “Don’t repeat the terrible mistakes of 1938, when the enlightened democracies in Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a comfortable, temporary solution…[Israel] will not be Czechoslovakia.”
One day after Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer pushed back against claims that Netanyahu could have waited until after the Israeli elections take place in two weeks.Amb. Ron Dermer Recaps Netanyahu's Speech in Congress
In an appearance on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” Dermer cautioned Mitchell, the host, telling her “a deal may be signed” at any time now and that they can’t “kick this can down the road” anymore.
“The problem is a deal may be signed now. So, we can’t sort of kick this can down the road. I do regret there was a perception of partisanship. That was never our intention.”
“I do regret there was a perception that we were showing disrespect to the president or to the office of the presidency. No disrespect was intended,” Dermer told MSNBC’s Mitchell. “I think what you saw yesterday was the prime minister make a real case of what his concerns are with this deal and I hope his concerns would be addressed in any final deal.”
Dan Senor: Obama Admin Elevated Netanyahu’s Convincing Speech
Dan Senor, an expert on the Middle East, said he believes the White House only “elevated” the stage for Netanyahu to speak on.Lawfare Project’s Goldstein: Netanyahu Did What Obama Won't with Iran Warning
“I’ve been doing a number of these Israeli leader speeches,” Senor said. “The Congress—no one has paid attention. This one, the world was watching. There’s one person to thank. His name is President Obama.”
Senor called Netanyahu’s speech a substantial move that may make President Obama’s negotiations with Iran tougher.
“What the Prime Minister tried to do is just lay out why this is a bad deal,” Senor said. “You, Mr. President, have said that no deal is better than a bad deal. Then, I think in a very surgical and calm way, he laid out why it was a bad deal.”.
The Lawfare Project’s Brooke Goldstein responded to a question about whether the Netanyahu speech served as destructive to the U.S.-Israel partnership.Hillary Maintains Silence on Netanyahu Speech After Years of Anti-Israel Comments
“When I hear the [Obama] administration describe an ally, coming to speak to Congress, at the invitation of Congress, coming to speak to the American people about a real genuine concern, about genocide, described as ‘destructive’ to our relationship… We have to think long and hard. Who have we become,” she asked. “And when they described boycotting the speech as done in loyalty to Obama, what does that say? It’s respectful to Obama now to turn your back on a national security issue? What does that say about what they think about the President?”
Goldstein continued, “What Bibi did is raise a very important point, which is that the Islamic Republic of Iran is theologically motivated. We have a President of the United States who has never given a detailed speech to the American public, or to Congress, about the strategic threat that Iran poses.”
“What’s ironic is that Bibi came and gave more of an outline of the Iranian threat than the President ever has,” she concluded.
As recounted in a lengthy story in Sunday’s Washington Post, the suddenly silent Hillary Clinton has a long and recent record of loudly expressing her disdain, if not outright contempt, for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That record includes her infamous 45-minute berating of Netanyahu in a 2010 conference call, during which she accused the Israeli leader of “humiliating the United States of America” by not preventing the Jerusalem municipality’s release of a public tender seeking bids on a housing project during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden.Again at the Guardian, the suggestion that Jews or Israel control Western foreign policy
While Hillary remains conspicuously silent on the Netanyahu visit, her public record of support for the Obama Administration’s Iran policies is both strong and unequivocal. Even Alon Pinkus, a former mid-level Israeli diplomat turned Labor Party activist and Netanyahu critic, was forced to admit that Mrs. Clinton’s regard for Israel’s Prime Minister was not much different than Obama’s. “Her relationship with him,” he told the Post, “is very bad, just not as toxic as Obama’s.”
While she might try to airbrush her role as key instigator of the latest round of nuclear talks so many fear will clear the path to Iran’s eventually becoming a full-fledged nuclear power, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly taken credit for having been the one to have initiated secret talks between the US and Iran in 2012.
On Feb. 26th, 2015, Guardian editor Simon Tisdall wrote the following in an op-ed titled ‘Is Obama out to foment war with Iran.“BBC reporter under fire for saying Netanyahu ‘played Holocaust card’
There is bad blood between Netanyahu and Obama, two very different characters. One is a former special forces commando, the other an urbane intellectual. Maybe the Israeli leader figures he could be dealing with a like-minded Republican president such as Jeb Bush, if he can hold out until January 2017. Netanyahu knows that, however abrasive his exchanges with the Obama administration, the politically influential Jewish-American community will never allow any US government to cast Israel adrift.
Tisdall’s argument is clear. He’s suggesting that powerful American Jews in effect control US foreign policy regarding Israel.
Of course, even beyond the antisemitic pedigree of such an argument, Tisdall is grossly misunderstanding American political support for Israel. As polls have clearly demonstrated over the course of several decades, Israel remains extremely popular in America within all segments of the population. The country’s foreign policy merely reflects this clear pro-Israel consensus.
It’s a sad commentary on the influence of radical left thinking in the UK that such bigoted explanations for America’s largely pro-Israel foreign policy represent something akin to conventional thinking among so many elite opinion leaders in the country.
Jeremy Bowen, who covered the Israeli leader’s controversial address on Iran in Washington, tweeted that the leader had mentioned Elie Wiesel, a survivor of Nazi concentration camps, then added that Netanyahu had once again played “the Holocaust card.”Commentary on BBC ME editor’s ‘Holocaust card’ Tweet widens
The tweet was immediately slammed by Jewish groups and social media users across the board.
“Mr Bowen’s idea is that when an Israeli leader mentions the Holocaust he is being tricksy, manipulative, acting in bad faith, ‘playing a card’ to get narrow advantage in contemporary politics, not really expressing a genuine thought about the Holocaust itself or a genuine fear about a second, nuclear, Holocaust,” Alan Johnson wrote on the Jewish Chronicle website.
“To sneer and attack… [Netanyahu], to dismiss his words as ‘playing the Holocaust card’; well, it was a bloody disgrace,” Johnson concluded.
Via the Guardian we learn that Jeremy Bowen has responded to criticism of his Tweet – without addressing the actual issue.BBC audiences get Israeli PM’s Congress speech through the Bowen filter – part one
We also learn that the BBC has officially elected to address the issue by means of wilful miscomprehension.
“A BBC spokesperson said: “Jeremy was using Twitter and journalism shorthand whilst live-tweeting PM Netanyahu’s speech. The context of his comment is that a major part of PM Netanyahu’s critique of the proposed Iran deal was based on the spectre of another holocaust. Jeremy’s tweet was designed to reflect that context. He absolutely refutes any suggestion of antisemitism.””
The phrase “plays the holocaust card” is not “Twitter and journalism shorthand” for ‘mentions the Holocaust’. The BBC’s official response is an insult to its funding public’s intelligence.
Regular readers would of course have had few expectations of receiving a wholly impartial report on the Israeli prime minister’s speech to the US Congress on March 3rd from the BBC’s Middle East editor but even they might have been surprised by the tone and content of some of the comments made by Jeremy Bowen as he live-tweeted the speech to his 121 thousand followers – especially in light of the fact that BBC editorial guidelines – including those on accuracy and impartiality – also apply to its staff’s Twitter accounts.Iranian Official: Netanyahu is Like a Wanton Woman
So what did the man who only the day before had alluded to himself as a “serious student of the Middle East” mean by that (small H) “holocaust card” jibe? The accepted definition of the idiom ‘play the card’ is to exploit a specific issue for political advantage. In other words, Bowen is accusing Netanyahu of cynically making use of the memory of six million murdered Jews for his own political gain and his use of the words “once again” indicates that Bowen is of the opinion that this is a regular practice on the part of the Israeli prime minister.
Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Iranian Shura Council or parliament, has accused Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of lying in his recent address to the United States Congress in Washington DC.Rouhani Calls Israel 'Greatest Danger' in the Middle East
According to Larijani, Netanyahu intends to take over the Middle East - a "fact" he conveniently left out of the address.
As to Iran, it is not striving to become an empire, Larijani claimed, noting that the Islamic Revolution that came out of Tehran is opposed to such a move. This despite the comments of General Qassem Soleimani, a commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, who in February hailed Tehran's widening influence from "Bahrain to Iraq, and Syria to Yemen and North Africa."
Larijani said Iran is opposed to Israel's "occupation" and that is what has caused an Islamic awakening in the region.
According to the speaker, Netanyahu's speech reflects Israel's "helplessness and anxiety" in light of its weakening state over the past three decades. Israel's real concern, he argues, is Iran's power in the region.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Wednesday claimed Israel creates the "greatest danger" in the region, after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu the day before in Congress detailed how Iranian aggression is wreaking havoc in the Middle East, and warned against a nuclear deal.Michael Lumish: The Daily Kos Reaction to THE SPEECH (Part Deux)
In his speech on Capitol Hill, Netanyahu said Tuesday the nuclear agreement US President Barack Obama wants with Tehran "is so bad...it paves Iran's path to the bomb" and "would spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet."
Speaking to his cabinet on Wednesday, Rouhani said Israel "claims to speak of peace and warns of future threats while it is the creator of the greatest danger for the region," as quoted by ISNA news agency, reports AFP.
My, my. Benjamin Netanyahu seems to have irked some people, just a tad.Major Jewish Group Slams ‘Despicable’ New York Times Claim That Netanyahu Speech Asks Democrats to Choose Between Obama and Israel
I find it interesting that while no country has ever sent "flesh and blood to fight by its side," as Bob Dylan memorably put it in "Neighborhood Bully," there are many millions of people who seem to think that Israel is responsible for dragging other countries, such as the United States, into war.
All Netanyahu wants - and he was exceedingly clear on this - is that Iran reform itself before it be allowed into the nuclear club. That's it. That's all. Sanctions should not be lifted unless, or until, Iran ceases aggressions against its neighbors, ceases supporting terrorism abroad and ceases calling for the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel.
Is that honestly too much to ask? And this makes Netanyahu a "warmonger"? I don't think so. They are not addressing anything that he actually said. All they are doing is spewing hatred toward Israel, toward Netanyahu, and thus, inevitably, toward Jews, in general... which eventually contributes to the kinds of joyous little moments that we've been seeing recently in Europe to cries of "Alahu Akbar" and the rat-tat-tat of automatic gunfire.
Major Jewish human rights group the Simon Wiesenthal Center expressed disgust at The New York Times on Wednesday for claiming that the debate over Iran’s nuclear program boils down to a question of loyalty to either President Obama or Israel.Zarif: The Netanyahu regime ‘should be annihilated’
“It’s despicable. On every level it’s an insidious editorial comment and beyond that, it’s also 1,000 percent wrong,” Associate Dean Rabbi Abraham Cooper told The Algemeiner a day after Netanyahu addressed Congress on the Iranian nuclear threat. “It’s not just Israel that is in the cross-hairs of a nuclearized Iran.”
“For anymore – before, during or after this speech – to reduce this to some personal grudge match between [the] Israeli Prime Minister and President Obama is just doing everybody a disservice and is not dealing with the facts,” he added. “It is just a political mindset that wants to narrow the field of discussion.”
The New York Times article alleged that for Democrats, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech on Tuesday “sought to impress upon them the likelihood that they will eventually need to make an awkward, painful choice between the president of their country and their loyalty to the Jewish state.”
Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif acknowledged that his country seeks the annihilation of the “Netanyahu regime” but denied that it seeks to wipe out Israel.Iran FM: Nuclear deal 'very close,' details left to work out
In an NBC interview on Wednesday, Zarif finessed a series of questions raised by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his speech to Congress Tuesday, including over Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei’s tweet last year urging the annihilation of Israel, and about his own laying of a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh, the arch-Hezbollah terrorist responsible for the killings of hundreds of Americans.
Zarif said Netanyahu had been fanning “hysteria” since 1992 with the claim that Iran was two years from the bomb. “Once this fear mongering is out, then we can have a deal,” he said. Zarif also denied stalling the IAEA’s efforts to probe alleged nuclear weapons work. He spent much of the extensive interview castigating Israel for a series of alleged vicious crimes, while insisting on Iran’s tolerant and peaceful nature.
Iran's foreign minister said in a U.S. television interview on Wednesday he believed "we are very close" to a nuclear deal with the six major world powers, but cautioned there were details that needed to be worked out.Rouhani Says Iran Will Never Accept Deal Which Deprives Country of Nuclear Power
"We are prepared to work round the clock in order to reach an agreement," Mohammad Javad Zarif told NBC News in an interview excerpt released by the network.
"We believe that we are very close, very close, and we could be very far," he said.
"There are details that need to be worked out. We are very close if the political decision can be made to get to yes, as President [Barack] Obama said."
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, said Wednesday that Iran’s nuclear negotiators would never accept a deal with world powers that would curtail the Iranian nation’s “rights” to nuclear power, Al-Manar News – the media outlet of Iranian proxy Hezbollah – report on Wednesday.US says Iran far off from a working nuke, others differ
Rouhani, touted as a moderate, made these remarks in a speech to a session of his cabinet, according to the report.
Al-Manar claimed that the president said Iran was willing to demonstrate more transparency on its nuclear program, which Iran has long maintained is being built for exclusively peaceful purposes. However, Rouhani added that if the negotiators are seeking to deprive Iran of its “inalienable right” to pursue nuclear technology, the Islamic Republic would reject such an agreement.
US Secretary of State John Kerry says up to six years. Others say two or three. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spoken of a year or less. The answer is important because time is a critical asset in formulating a global response to an Iranian nuclear threat.US Officials: ‘Some Progress’ Made in Iran Nuclear Talks
The US administration has dismissed Netanyahu’s speech Tuesday to Congress urging legislators to oppose the agreement being negotiated in the Swiss resort town of Montreux. It says the Israeli leader offered no alternatives and the emerging pact is the best way to give the world enough time to react, should Tehran try to build a bomb.
Still, the debate over time is understandable. Views differ on whether Iran wants to make nuclear weapons, and if so, how far into the game it is.
Tehran has much of the enabling technology but says it is not interested in such arms. The US and its allies say it has not decided to make them but could do so. And the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency says it has evidence pointing to past work on such weaponry by Iran — but cannot say for sure how far it has advanced.
Such variables reflect the difficulties in gauging how much time the world would have to react, if Tehran did opt to manufacture an atomic weapon.
US officials say that “some progress” has been made in world powers’ Switzerland-based negotiations with Iran over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.Kerry makes way to Saudi Arabia in bid to calm Iran jitters
“We have made some progress but have a lot of challenges yet ahead,” a senior US State Department official said, Reuters reported.
“The bottom line here is that [there is] no deal to announce to anybody today, but very intense, hard work, some progress, but tough challenges yet to be resolved,” the official said.
The two sides are working towards forging a deal before the March 24 deadline for a “political framework agreement.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s on Tuesday told Congress that the current negotiations are paving the way for “Iran’s path to the bomb,” adding that restrictions on Iran should be maintained until the country’s “aggression” ends. But US President Barack Obama said that Netanyahu’s speech offered no “viable alternatives” to the current negotiations.
A day after wrapping up the latest round of Iran nuclear negotiations in Switzerland, and rebuffing concerns from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Kerry was in Saudi Arabia for talks with senior officials from the Sunni-ruled Gulf states and the new Saudi monarch, King Salman.Kerry Reportedly to Offer Nuclear Umbrella to Gulf States
Kerry met in the Saudi capital of Riyadh with the foreign ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, all of which are unnerved by Shiite Iran’s suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons and its increasing assertiveness throughout the region.
US officials said Kerry will reassure them that a deal with Tehran will not allow Iran to get the bomb and won’t mean American complacency on broader security matters. Iran is actively supporting forces fighting in Syria and Iraq and is linked to Shiite rebels who recently toppled the US and Arab-backed government in Yemen.
Western sources have reportedly revealed that US Secretary of State John Kerry is offering Gulf States an American nuclear umbrella to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat, as Kerry is finalizing a controversial deal with Iran ahead of a March 31 deadline for talks.Iran supreme leader said to be in critical condition
The sources spoke to the London-based Arabic language Al-Hayat newspaper, as cited by Yedioth Aharonoth, and said that Kerry while in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, this week intends to present a plan to senior sources in the country.
Through the framework of the plan, the US would provide a sort of nuclear umbrella to the Gulf States as a counterbalance to the Iranian nuclear deal.
The Israel Hayom daily on Thursday reported that the supreme leader was rushed to the hospital and has undergone surgery, citing “Arab media reports.”Khaled Abu Toameh: Abbas: Palestinians won't accept Jewish state
He is said to be in serious condition. The reports could not be immediately confirmed.
French paper Le Figaro cited Western intelligence over the weekend that the 76-year-old was suffering from stage four prostate cancer that spread to other parts of his body, with doctors assessing he has, at most, two years to live.
Khamenei has been rumored to be ill for years. In September of last year, he underwent prostate surgery, with his official Twitter account maintaining that it was successful.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas reiterated on Wednesday his refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state but said the Palestinians are prepared to return to the negotiating table.PA president voices support for Joint Arab List in Israeli elections
“We won’t accept a Jewish state and the Islamization of the struggle in the Middle East,” Abbas said in a speech before the PLO Central Council in Ramallah. “We are moderate Muslims. We are also against the Jewish state because of the many things it would mean in the future. We are against a temporary [Palestinian] state.”
The 124-member council convened to discuss the future of relations between the Palestinians and Israel in light of the stalemate in the peace process and the Israeli government’s recent decision to withhold tax revenues that it collects on behalf of the PA.
Abbas called on the council to reconsider the functions of the PA, saying there is a need for a “sovereign authority.”
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday sent well wishes for the coming Israeli elections to the Joint Arab List, saying, "God is with you, good luck." Abbas spoke during a meeting of the Fatah central committee in Ramallah.Buried with a rifle on his chest: Thousands line the streets of Gaza for funeral of Hamas' co-founder
The two-day meeting of top Fatah officials was convened to decide whether the Palestinians should continue security coordination with Israel and deliberate on other matters related to the economic ties between the PA and Israel.
Abbas said international bodies, including the U.S. and the European Union, are putting heavy pressure on the Palestinians not to halt security coordination with Israel and to give up on their plan to press charges against Israel at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
Thousands took to the streets of Gaza this week to mourn the death of the co-founder of Hamas, who was buried with an assault rifle across his chest.Jerusalem Marathon To Be Rerouted Through Al-Aqsa Mosque (satire)
Hammad Al-Hasanat co-founded the terrorist group on December 14, 1987, with its spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmad Yassin.
He was 80 years old when he died on Monday from health complications.
Pictures of his funeral in the Nuseirat refugee camp show armed Islamic militants carrying Al-Hasanat on stretcher through the streets.
Hamas' Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said in a statement that Hassanat 'was a brilliant leader of the Islamic movement, and one of the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Hamas movement in Palestine'.
Following a recent court ruling in which police must allow Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount, the organizers of the annual Jerusalem Marathon have jumped on this opportunity and rerouted this year’s event to pass through the Old City’s most famous sites including The Wailing Wall, The Church Of The Holy Sepulchre, and Al-Aqsa Mosque.
When asked if there may be concerns of cultural sensitivities with the March 13th event’s new route, the organizers stated, “The Jewish and Christian community leaders didn’t seem to mind 30,000+ participants representing 60 countries running through their holiest sites, so we figured the Muslim community would be on board with it as well. We didn’t bother asking.”
“We will remain as respectful as possible to the holiness of these places. Participants will be asked to remove their shoes in the mosque, wear a kippah at the Wailing Wall and runners will be doused with holy water at the church.”
The Jerusalem Municipality has approved the new routing and says this is a great way to increase tourism and for participants from all over the world to see the great historic sites of Jerusalem. They expect to see no issues with it whatsoever.