Caroline Glick
"So I see where this is going. Benjamin Netanyahu won't cancel his speech so Obama is giving up our nuclear secrets. How many more days til January 21, 2017?
I hope we have shut down or massively curtailed our intelligence sharing operations because it is fairly clear that Obama will leak everything.
And don't worry. Things wouldn't be any different if Bibi cancelled. This has nothing to do with him. This is a manufactured crisis.
I actually wish this was personal. It would mean we could do something about it. But there is nothing personal going on here as far as Israel is concerned. And that means we are in a very dismal position.
The only body that can curb Obama is the US Congress. That is why Bibi must give his speech."
US declassifies only the Israel portion of 1987 report on allies' nuclear weapons capabilities
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2015/02/us-declassifies-only-israel-portion-of.html
"So I see where this is going. Benjamin Netanyahu won't cancel his speech so Obama is giving up our nuclear secrets. How many more days til January 21, 2017?
I hope we have shut down or massively curtailed our intelligence sharing operations because it is fairly clear that Obama will leak everything.
And don't worry. Things wouldn't be any different if Bibi cancelled. This has nothing to do with him. This is a manufactured crisis.
I actually wish this was personal. It would mean we could do something about it. But there is nothing personal going on here as far as Israel is concerned. And that means we are in a very dismal position.
The only body that can curb Obama is the US Congress. That is why Bibi must give his speech."
US declassifies only the Israel portion of 1987 report on allies' nuclear weapons capabilities
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2015/02/us-declassifies-only-israel-portion-of.html
Nations with nuclear weapons.
United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea.
Nations hosting nuclear weapons.
Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey.
Nations in nuclear alliances.
Albania, Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain.
Nation to ever use nuclear weapons. United States.
Nation to ever threaten to use nuclear weapons. North Korea.
Nation that is crazy enough to use nuclear weapons if they had them, thus insuring mutual destruction, Iran.
United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea.
Nations hosting nuclear weapons.
Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey.
Nations in nuclear alliances.
Albania, Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain.
Nation to ever use nuclear weapons. United States.
Nation to ever threaten to use nuclear weapons. North Korea.
Nation that is crazy enough to use nuclear weapons if they had them, thus insuring mutual destruction, Iran.
Iranian terror.
Hezbollah’s second in command said over the weekend that the Lebanese Shi’ite movement is in the midst of a military offensive in southern Syria against Sunni Islamist forces that “will yield tremendous results.”
At the behest of Tehran, the Iranian-backed guerilla force is fighting in Syria to assist the regime of President Bashar Assad, who is fighting to remain in power after three years of civil war.
“This operation will yield tremendous results,” Naim Qassem told local media. Qassem holds the title of deputy secretary general, making him the most senior official of Hezbollah after Hassan Nasrallah.
While Qassem did not specify the exact manner in which his organization is aiding the Assad military, he did note that “the press in Israel is devoting a good deal of attention to [what is taking place in southern Syria] because the rebels and the Al-Nusra Front are supposed to fight Hezbollah in that area.”
Meanwhile, some 2,000 families have been uprooted from their homes in areas where the Syrian military and Hezbollah forces have made gains. The pro-Assad-Hezbollah alliance has succeeded in making inroads in swaths of southern Syria – not far from the boundary with the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights - that had until recently been taken over by Sunni rebels.
Iranian news agencies also reported over the weekend that two of its nationals were killed this week in fighting in southern Syria. The casualties have been identified as Ali Sultan Maradi and Abbas Abdel-Lahi, two soldiers with the Revolutionary Guards. They were reportedly killed in gunbattles near the village of Nasaj, not far from the northwest Syrian town of Dara’a. Their bodies remain in the hands of anti-Assad rebels.
Hezbollah’s second in command said over the weekend that the Lebanese Shi’ite movement is in the midst of a military offensive in southern Syria against Sunni Islamist forces that “will yield tremendous results.”
At the behest of Tehran, the Iranian-backed guerilla force is fighting in Syria to assist the regime of President Bashar Assad, who is fighting to remain in power after three years of civil war.
“This operation will yield tremendous results,” Naim Qassem told local media. Qassem holds the title of deputy secretary general, making him the most senior official of Hezbollah after Hassan Nasrallah.
While Qassem did not specify the exact manner in which his organization is aiding the Assad military, he did note that “the press in Israel is devoting a good deal of attention to [what is taking place in southern Syria] because the rebels and the Al-Nusra Front are supposed to fight Hezbollah in that area.”
Meanwhile, some 2,000 families have been uprooted from their homes in areas where the Syrian military and Hezbollah forces have made gains. The pro-Assad-Hezbollah alliance has succeeded in making inroads in swaths of southern Syria – not far from the boundary with the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights - that had until recently been taken over by Sunni rebels.
Iranian news agencies also reported over the weekend that two of its nationals were killed this week in fighting in southern Syria. The casualties have been identified as Ali Sultan Maradi and Abbas Abdel-Lahi, two soldiers with the Revolutionary Guards. They were reportedly killed in gunbattles near the village of Nasaj, not far from the northwest Syrian town of Dara’a. Their bodies remain in the hands of anti-Assad rebels.
[h=1]Netanyahu has sabotaged the fight to keep Iran from going nuclear[/h] [h=2]U.S. legislation that hitherto had bipartisan support instantly collapsed; now it’s not clear a majority can be forged to pass sanctions.[/h] By Chuck Freilich 04:22 16.02.15
0
The clumsy move by Israel’s ambassador in Washington and the U.S. speaker of the House, who was also motivated by narrow political interests, has perhaps done the worst damage ever to Israel’s “special relationship” with the United States. This isn’t another passing incident with a whiff of that charming Israeli chutzpah, it’s a deep crisis that will take a decade to remedy. It has already irreversibly damaged the effort to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
The harsh American reaction reflects growing anger toward a country that is dependent on the United States for its security and prosperity yet continues to spit in America’s face. This time it has really crossed the line.
Since Israel’s founding, American Jewish leaders and every Israeli government have made a supreme effort to ensure that Israel is viewed as a bipartisan matter, above political discord. This bipartisan support was a foundation of the special relationship. The announcement by Vice President Joe Biden and Democratic lawmakers that they will be skipping Netanyahu’s speech is disturbing. The thought of the vice president’s seat, directly behind the speaker’s podium facing the cameras, remaining empty should be nauseating officials in Jerusalem.
The planned speech, essentially an attempt to mobilize Congress against the administration, puts Israel right between the two — a highly irresponsible act doomed to failure. Since the failed effort to halt the sale of AWACs planes to Saudi Arabia in 1981, no Israeli government has sought to marshal Congress for a head-on confrontation with the administration.
The damage might have been tolerable if Netanyahu’s address to Congress could achieve its declared aim – to prevent the administration from signing a “bad” deal with Iran that could place Israel in mortal danger. But this is clearly not the case, and it’s also clear the real motive for the visit is the prime minister’s attempt to use Congress for his own political needs just ahead of an election.
The move has already backfired. Ten Democratic lawmakers have withdrawn their support for new legislation and announced they will support the president’s position of waiting until the late-March target date for a nuclear deal before legislating any new sanctions. Legislation that hitherto had bipartisan support instantly collapsed; now it’s not clear a majority can be forged to pass sanctions. If such legislation does pass, it will be by a narrow Republican vote on an issue that Israel worked for two decades to keep bipartisan.
Moreover, in the current atmosphere, it will even be hard to muster bipartisan support for sanctions if the talks fail. With his own hands, Netanyahu, who made blocking Iran’s nuclear aspirations the cornerstone of his foreign policy, has destroyed the linchpin of American support for this cause.
Israel-U.S. relations rest on very strong foundations and will not fall apart for now. The administration will continue to support Israel on a range of issues, albeit with a distinct lack of enthusiasm.
But Netanyahu, who purports to be the big expert on everything American, subordinated Israel’s most crucial strategic interests to election considerations, and the repercussions will endure for some time. Whenever the administration has room to weigh various options, it will remember the prime minister’s moves. When we need the president in the next round against Hezbollah or Hamas, in further dealings with Iran, in negotiations with the Palestinians, at the International Criminal Court or at the UN Security Council, will he be in any hurry to help?
It obviously won’t be easy for Netanyahu to admit his grave mistake and acknowledge the serious damage done. The only thing more dangerous for Israel than Iranian nukes is undermined relations with America. It is vital, therefore, that he find some pretext to postpone the visit. If he cites scheduling issues or pins the blame on some bureaucrat like a certain ambassador, that would do just fine.
Chuck Freilich, a former deputy head of Israel’s National Security Council, is completing a book on Israel’s defense doctrine.
| |
The clumsy move by Israel’s ambassador in Washington and the U.S. speaker of the House, who was also motivated by narrow political interests, has perhaps done the worst damage ever to Israel’s “special relationship” with the United States. This isn’t another passing incident with a whiff of that charming Israeli chutzpah, it’s a deep crisis that will take a decade to remedy. It has already irreversibly damaged the effort to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
The harsh American reaction reflects growing anger toward a country that is dependent on the United States for its security and prosperity yet continues to spit in America’s face. This time it has really crossed the line.
Since Israel’s founding, American Jewish leaders and every Israeli government have made a supreme effort to ensure that Israel is viewed as a bipartisan matter, above political discord. This bipartisan support was a foundation of the special relationship. The announcement by Vice President Joe Biden and Democratic lawmakers that they will be skipping Netanyahu’s speech is disturbing. The thought of the vice president’s seat, directly behind the speaker’s podium facing the cameras, remaining empty should be nauseating officials in Jerusalem.
The planned speech, essentially an attempt to mobilize Congress against the administration, puts Israel right between the two — a highly irresponsible act doomed to failure. Since the failed effort to halt the sale of AWACs planes to Saudi Arabia in 1981, no Israeli government has sought to marshal Congress for a head-on confrontation with the administration.
The damage might have been tolerable if Netanyahu’s address to Congress could achieve its declared aim – to prevent the administration from signing a “bad” deal with Iran that could place Israel in mortal danger. But this is clearly not the case, and it’s also clear the real motive for the visit is the prime minister’s attempt to use Congress for his own political needs just ahead of an election.
The move has already backfired. Ten Democratic lawmakers have withdrawn their support for new legislation and announced they will support the president’s position of waiting until the late-March target date for a nuclear deal before legislating any new sanctions. Legislation that hitherto had bipartisan support instantly collapsed; now it’s not clear a majority can be forged to pass sanctions. If such legislation does pass, it will be by a narrow Republican vote on an issue that Israel worked for two decades to keep bipartisan.
Moreover, in the current atmosphere, it will even be hard to muster bipartisan support for sanctions if the talks fail. With his own hands, Netanyahu, who made blocking Iran’s nuclear aspirations the cornerstone of his foreign policy, has destroyed the linchpin of American support for this cause.
Israel-U.S. relations rest on very strong foundations and will not fall apart for now. The administration will continue to support Israel on a range of issues, albeit with a distinct lack of enthusiasm.
But Netanyahu, who purports to be the big expert on everything American, subordinated Israel’s most crucial strategic interests to election considerations, and the repercussions will endure for some time. Whenever the administration has room to weigh various options, it will remember the prime minister’s moves. When we need the president in the next round against Hezbollah or Hamas, in further dealings with Iran, in negotiations with the Palestinians, at the International Criminal Court or at the UN Security Council, will he be in any hurry to help?
It obviously won’t be easy for Netanyahu to admit his grave mistake and acknowledge the serious damage done. The only thing more dangerous for Israel than Iranian nukes is undermined relations with America. It is vital, therefore, that he find some pretext to postpone the visit. If he cites scheduling issues or pins the blame on some bureaucrat like a certain ambassador, that would do just fine.
Chuck Freilich, a former deputy head of Israel’s National Security Council, is completing a book on Israel’s defense doctrine.
Just a few months back the above author stated - "For a deal to work, however, one has to have a partner. The simple fact is that Iran has rejected all efforts to reach a negotiated solution to date, beginning with Clinton and renewed with greater emphasis by Obama, and has used the passing time to further develop its nuclear capabilities."
In 2008 he thought it might be wise for AMERICA to attack Iran when he said - “Instead of unwarranted, self-deterring risk aversion let us not forget who wields the incalculably greater ‘stick’: Iran certainly will not.”
==================================
The Insiders: Two big reasons Netanyahu should not cancel his U.S. visit
By Ed Rogers February 9
The media have speculated recently that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will reverse his decision to accept House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to address a joint meeting of Congress at the beginning of March. Perhaps this is just wishful thinking on the part of the White House and the Democrats, or perhaps there is some truth to it. But it would be a tragedy if Netanyahu doesn’t come to America, and there are two big reasons why he should not cancel.
First, the prime minister should not cancel his trip just because the White House and the Democrats are whining about it. They are not upset because there wasn’t the usual coordination on this invitation between the White House and Congress; they are upset because Netanyahu intimidates the Democrats and exposes the weakness of their commitment to stopping Iran from having nuclear weapons.
Netanyahu’s presence will put in vivid relief the lip service the Democrats give to the U.S.-Israel alliance and Washington’s ambivalent support for Israel under President Obama. The fact is, the Democrats have been artful at maintaining a sizable majority among Jewish voters at home despite being much less supportive of the state of Israel than Republicans have been for at least the past 20 years. Netanyahu’s planned visit helps expose that disconnect.
Obama has refused to meet with Netanyahu, Vice President Joe Biden will conveniently be traveling overseas, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) went so far as to say that Democrats may not attend the joint meeting because “it’s not a high-priority item for them.” Really? That doesn’t sound like a mere excuse; Pelosi wanted to deliver an insult — and she succeeded.
As I always say, in politics, it’s best to start from an honest place. America’s relationship with Israel is nothing new, but we are at a point now where that relationship needs to be politically recalibrated. The Democrats need to either renew their support for Israel or admit their diminished commitment.
The second reason Netanyahu needs to address Congress is that Obama is not making the case that America must be prepared to do whatever it takes to stop Iran from making a nuclear weapon. In fact, Obama appears to be doing the opposite. He is allowing Iran to skate by, leaving much of its nuclear infrastructure in place and accepting at face value the Iranians’ promise that they are absolutely not lying about their nuclear intentions this time.
Alarm bells are ringing and bipartisan experts are cautioning against the trajectory the Obama administration is taking with its negotiations. Obama seems to be focused on making a unilateral agreement that would allow him to say in one of the future books he plans on writing about himself that Iran didn’t have a single nuclear weapon under his watch. That seems to be driving the train here, but that isn’t going to keep us safe in the long run.
Netanyahu needs to come to the United States, and the more high-profile the visit, the better. He needs to talk about what is at stake with regard to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And, oh by the way, it is not just America’s regional allies — starting with our best ally, Israel — who are threatened by Iran’s nuclear weapons. Iran also threatens the United States. We have to be prepared for Iran to attack us here at home. That is the threat we face.
Democrats should rethink their position and opposition to Netanyahu’s visit. Their unanimity in supporting Obama and reinforcing his disdain for Netanyahu and his ambivalence about Israel generally is not good policy for America, and it’s not good politics for Democrats.
In 2008 he thought it might be wise for AMERICA to attack Iran when he said - “Instead of unwarranted, self-deterring risk aversion let us not forget who wields the incalculably greater ‘stick’: Iran certainly will not.”
==================================
The Insiders: Two big reasons Netanyahu should not cancel his U.S. visit
By Ed Rogers February 9
The media have speculated recently that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will reverse his decision to accept House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to address a joint meeting of Congress at the beginning of March. Perhaps this is just wishful thinking on the part of the White House and the Democrats, or perhaps there is some truth to it. But it would be a tragedy if Netanyahu doesn’t come to America, and there are two big reasons why he should not cancel.
First, the prime minister should not cancel his trip just because the White House and the Democrats are whining about it. They are not upset because there wasn’t the usual coordination on this invitation between the White House and Congress; they are upset because Netanyahu intimidates the Democrats and exposes the weakness of their commitment to stopping Iran from having nuclear weapons.
Netanyahu’s presence will put in vivid relief the lip service the Democrats give to the U.S.-Israel alliance and Washington’s ambivalent support for Israel under President Obama. The fact is, the Democrats have been artful at maintaining a sizable majority among Jewish voters at home despite being much less supportive of the state of Israel than Republicans have been for at least the past 20 years. Netanyahu’s planned visit helps expose that disconnect.
Obama has refused to meet with Netanyahu, Vice President Joe Biden will conveniently be traveling overseas, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) went so far as to say that Democrats may not attend the joint meeting because “it’s not a high-priority item for them.” Really? That doesn’t sound like a mere excuse; Pelosi wanted to deliver an insult — and she succeeded.
As I always say, in politics, it’s best to start from an honest place. America’s relationship with Israel is nothing new, but we are at a point now where that relationship needs to be politically recalibrated. The Democrats need to either renew their support for Israel or admit their diminished commitment.
The second reason Netanyahu needs to address Congress is that Obama is not making the case that America must be prepared to do whatever it takes to stop Iran from making a nuclear weapon. In fact, Obama appears to be doing the opposite. He is allowing Iran to skate by, leaving much of its nuclear infrastructure in place and accepting at face value the Iranians’ promise that they are absolutely not lying about their nuclear intentions this time.
Alarm bells are ringing and bipartisan experts are cautioning against the trajectory the Obama administration is taking with its negotiations. Obama seems to be focused on making a unilateral agreement that would allow him to say in one of the future books he plans on writing about himself that Iran didn’t have a single nuclear weapon under his watch. That seems to be driving the train here, but that isn’t going to keep us safe in the long run.
Netanyahu needs to come to the United States, and the more high-profile the visit, the better. He needs to talk about what is at stake with regard to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And, oh by the way, it is not just America’s regional allies — starting with our best ally, Israel — who are threatened by Iran’s nuclear weapons. Iran also threatens the United States. We have to be prepared for Iran to attack us here at home. That is the threat we face.
Democrats should rethink their position and opposition to Netanyahu’s visit. Their unanimity in supporting Obama and reinforcing his disdain for Netanyahu and his ambivalence about Israel generally is not good policy for America, and it’s not good politics for Democrats.
[h=1]Defense Minister Ya’alon: Iran has 'apocalyptic messianic ambition'[/h]
Iran, whose regime has “apocalyptic messianic ambition,” would become a nuclear threshold state under the terms of an agreement now under negotiation between Tehran and the six world powers, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said on Monday morning in Tel Aviv.
“This agreement will allow Iran to be a nuclear threshold state,” he said.
The choice before the world powers is “no deal or a bad deal,” Ya’alon said at a conference by the Institute for National Security Studies.
The six world powers, the US, China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and Germany erred by allowing the negotiations to focus on how many centrifuges Iran could retain rather then insisting that the centrifuges must be removed.
“Instead of holding to a rigid and clear position of zero centrifuges, the discussions became about how many they would have,” Ya’alon said.
Although Iran has made some concessions, they are not enough to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten the region, he said.
From Israel’s perspective, he said, “no deal is better then a bad deal” because it allows the world powers the freedom to impose more sanctions against it.
Crippling sanctions forced Iran to the negotiating table, but now, “this pressure is gone,” Ya’alon said.
Renewed crippling sanctions, Ya’alon said, would force Iran to choose between hating its nuclear program or survival.
In Tehran on Monday, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that a deal with Iran on its controversial nuclear program would help it escape from sanctions and allow more efforts to be spent on economic development.
The negotiations between Iran and the P5 +1 countries face an initial deadline for a basic framework agreement at the end of March, and a June 30 deadline for a final settlement.
US and Iranian officials suggest those deadlines are unlikely to change. US President Barack Obama said last week extending the March deadline would not be useful if Iran did not agree to a framework assuring world powers it is not pursuing nuclear arms capability through its enrichment of uranium.
"Talks on the Iran’s nuclear issue face a historic opportunity, and striking a comprehensive deal on schedule is the trend of the times and the desire of the people," Wang told his Iranian counterpart, according to a Chinese Foreign Ministry statement issued on Monday.
"Reaching comprehensive agreement is beneficial to Iran upholding its own legal rights, including the right to the peaceful use of nuclear power, and for the people of Iran to throw off the difficulties of sanctions as early as possible and focus on energetically developing the economy," Wang said.
While Iran denies having any nuclear weapons ambitions, it is subject to wide-ranging Western and United Nations sanctions. Meeting later with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Wang said he appreciated Rouhani's pledge not to develop nuclear weapons and urged Iran to push the talks process forward.
“The Iran nuclear talks have reached a crucial stage," Wang was quoted as telling Rouhani.
The broad goal of the negotiations is to restrain Iran’s nuclear capacity to remove any concerns it could be put to developing bombs in return for the lifting of sanctions that have ravaged the Iranian economy.
China and Iran have close economic, trade and energy ties.
China's crude oil imports from Iran jumped by nearly 30 percent last year to their highest average level since 2011, as Iran’s largest oil client boosted shipments after an interim deal eased sanctions on Tehran.
Wang said there was still plenty of room for energy cooperation, adding that he also saw "enormous space for cooperation" on industrial projects.
"China is willing to encourage even more Chinese companies to invest in Iran and build factories via the joint development of industrial parks in accordance with Iran's development needs and China's ability," he said.
Iran, whose regime has “apocalyptic messianic ambition,” would become a nuclear threshold state under the terms of an agreement now under negotiation between Tehran and the six world powers, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said on Monday morning in Tel Aviv.
“This agreement will allow Iran to be a nuclear threshold state,” he said.
The choice before the world powers is “no deal or a bad deal,” Ya’alon said at a conference by the Institute for National Security Studies.
The six world powers, the US, China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and Germany erred by allowing the negotiations to focus on how many centrifuges Iran could retain rather then insisting that the centrifuges must be removed.
“Instead of holding to a rigid and clear position of zero centrifuges, the discussions became about how many they would have,” Ya’alon said.
Although Iran has made some concessions, they are not enough to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten the region, he said.
From Israel’s perspective, he said, “no deal is better then a bad deal” because it allows the world powers the freedom to impose more sanctions against it.
Crippling sanctions forced Iran to the negotiating table, but now, “this pressure is gone,” Ya’alon said.
Renewed crippling sanctions, Ya’alon said, would force Iran to choose between hating its nuclear program or survival.
In Tehran on Monday, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that a deal with Iran on its controversial nuclear program would help it escape from sanctions and allow more efforts to be spent on economic development.
The negotiations between Iran and the P5 +1 countries face an initial deadline for a basic framework agreement at the end of March, and a June 30 deadline for a final settlement.
US and Iranian officials suggest those deadlines are unlikely to change. US President Barack Obama said last week extending the March deadline would not be useful if Iran did not agree to a framework assuring world powers it is not pursuing nuclear arms capability through its enrichment of uranium.
"Talks on the Iran’s nuclear issue face a historic opportunity, and striking a comprehensive deal on schedule is the trend of the times and the desire of the people," Wang told his Iranian counterpart, according to a Chinese Foreign Ministry statement issued on Monday.
"Reaching comprehensive agreement is beneficial to Iran upholding its own legal rights, including the right to the peaceful use of nuclear power, and for the people of Iran to throw off the difficulties of sanctions as early as possible and focus on energetically developing the economy," Wang said.
While Iran denies having any nuclear weapons ambitions, it is subject to wide-ranging Western and United Nations sanctions. Meeting later with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Wang said he appreciated Rouhani's pledge not to develop nuclear weapons and urged Iran to push the talks process forward.
“The Iran nuclear talks have reached a crucial stage," Wang was quoted as telling Rouhani.
The broad goal of the negotiations is to restrain Iran’s nuclear capacity to remove any concerns it could be put to developing bombs in return for the lifting of sanctions that have ravaged the Iranian economy.
China and Iran have close economic, trade and energy ties.
China's crude oil imports from Iran jumped by nearly 30 percent last year to their highest average level since 2011, as Iran’s largest oil client boosted shipments after an interim deal eased sanctions on Tehran.
Wang said there was still plenty of room for energy cooperation, adding that he also saw "enormous space for cooperation" on industrial projects.
"China is willing to encourage even more Chinese companies to invest in Iran and build factories via the joint development of industrial parks in accordance with Iran's development needs and China's ability," he said.
[h=1]The Israeli prime minister does not speak for me[/h] February 15
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is mistaken when he claims to be “a representative of the entire Jewish people,” as reported in the Feb. 12 World article “Netanyahu’s U.S. speech divides Israelis.” I am Jewish, but Mr. Netanyahu does not represent me. Part of my strong support of Israel is based on my capacity to differentiate between policies that I believe strengthen Israel and those I strongly disagree with, just as my identity as an American patriot entitles me to strongly disagree with my government when I interpret its actions as not living up to our nation’s promise.
Mr. Netanyahu and his Likud Party have done considerable harm to Israel, to its international standing and even to the reputation of the Jewish people in general. Furthermore, his unseemly attempt to come pleading to Congress while willfully dismissing President Obama plays into the hands of people who proclaim that Israel holds undue influence over the affairs of the U.S. government.
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his strategists should carefully reconsider the wisdom of their latest anti-Obama ploy, which might have negative consequences. Jewish members of Congress should not attend. The Israeli electorate might want to consider carefully the violation of the trust in our bilateral relations, which their prime minister is perpetrating, and they should feel highly uncomfortable with the notion of reelecting a man who would predictably continue to provoke discord between their country’s government and ours, and among American Jews as well.
Jeffrey S. Hacker, Bethesda
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is mistaken when he claims to be “a representative of the entire Jewish people,” as reported in the Feb. 12 World article “Netanyahu’s U.S. speech divides Israelis.” I am Jewish, but Mr. Netanyahu does not represent me. Part of my strong support of Israel is based on my capacity to differentiate between policies that I believe strengthen Israel and those I strongly disagree with, just as my identity as an American patriot entitles me to strongly disagree with my government when I interpret its actions as not living up to our nation’s promise.
Mr. Netanyahu and his Likud Party have done considerable harm to Israel, to its international standing and even to the reputation of the Jewish people in general. Furthermore, his unseemly attempt to come pleading to Congress while willfully dismissing President Obama plays into the hands of people who proclaim that Israel holds undue influence over the affairs of the U.S. government.
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his strategists should carefully reconsider the wisdom of their latest anti-Obama ploy, which might have negative consequences. Jewish members of Congress should not attend. The Israeli electorate might want to consider carefully the violation of the trust in our bilateral relations, which their prime minister is perpetrating, and they should feel highly uncomfortable with the notion of reelecting a man who would predictably continue to provoke discord between their country’s government and ours, and among American Jews as well.
Jeffrey S. Hacker, Bethesda
^^^So what? Rather than post another clucking hen that agrees with you you should take a crack at refuting 'Iran has 'apocalyptic messianic ambition'.
I'll make another prediction for you Guesser. After the idiot goes our next president, R or D, will mend relations with the Israeli PM, regardless of whether or not it is Bibi. They need us. And we need them. Meanwhile Iran marches toward the bomb while you pretend this is about politics. Tick Tock Tick Tock..... God Obama Sucks!
I'll make another prediction for you Guesser. After the idiot goes our next president, R or D, will mend relations with the Israeli PM, regardless of whether or not it is Bibi. They need us. And we need them. Meanwhile Iran marches toward the bomb while you pretend this is about politics. Tick Tock Tick Tock..... God Obama Sucks!
^^^^^Nothing to refute. That's Why the P5 +1 is trying to negotiate a deal that will keep Nukes out of Iran, and the world(Including Israel) safer. Instead of trying to sabotage those talks, strictly for his own political gain, Bibi should Shut The Hell Up. God, does he suck. And, he's dangerous for the future of Israel.
Another article coming next.
Another article coming next.
[h=1]Is Obama an enemy of Netanyahu's Israel? Are you?[/h] [h=2]Netanyahu makes a campaign promise he can keep: The next four years will be worse than the last. And they've already started.[/h] By Bradley Burston 17:35 16.02.15
0
Ten weeks into the 2015 election trail, Benjamin Netanyahu has been careful to steer clear of making promises. But on Monday he made one campaign promise he can reasonably keep:
"In my estimation, the four years [to come] are going to be more difficult than the last four."
There it is, folks. Straight from the top: I've given you four years in which we have fought two wars, the more recent the most devastating in years; our economy is moving toward recession; the health care system is in the process of collapse; the educational system has been crippled and hijacked by politics and neglect; the government has stood steadfast against negotiating with anyone, for any reason; and we have initiated an unprecedented string of laws aimed directly at eroding democracy in Israel.
Netanyahu's obvious conclusion, regarding the next four years: I'm your man.
Taking advantage of a ceremony in which the prime minister installed the new chief of the IDF General Staff, Netanyahu laid out his foreboding vision of what we can expect, and, by extension, just whom Israeli voters should choose on March 17:
"We're going to need every tool [and] person, because in the Middle East which surrounds us, there is no mercy for weak people. Only the strong survive."
And there's the rest of it, folks. Aside from Muslims, who all want all the Jews dead, there are only two kinds of people:
1. The virile, unapologetic, clear-eyed people who want me to remain prime minister until 2019, and, for that matter, until 2023.
2. Losers.
Of late, Netanyahu's campaign has focused on the concept that no matter how they feel about this country, the weak, the lily-livered, the testosterone-challenged losers – that is, those at the center and left of the political spectrum - are Israel's enemies.
And that includes Barack Obama.
This week, boiling down the election to a common denominator low enough to take even his detractors by surprise, Netanyahu took to his Facebook page to post and endorse a Likud campaign video showing a naïve and presumably humanist generic center/leftist help ISIS shock troops in their bid to conquer Jerusalem.
"It's us or them, Dayish [ISIS]-style," Netanyahu wrote on his page. "This time, we're choosing: The Likud led by Netanyahu, or a weak and surrenderist leftist government with Tzipi [Livni] and [Isaac] Bougie [Herzog]."
The theory is that Netanyahu, needing perhaps two or three additional Knesset seats to win re-election, has decided that he has nothing further to gain from centrists, and can only sway votes from the right and the extreme right.
That may also explain why the back-stretch campaign rhetoric touching on Obama has taken a sharp turn for the acrid: "U.S. President Barack Obama is mainstreaming anti-Semitism in America," wrote former Netanyahu advisor Caroline Glick over the weekend.
According to Glick, a nominee for a prominent Likud Knesset slot, which eventually went to another candidate, "The perception that Obama either does not oppose or embraces Islamic extremism is strengthened when coupled with his appalling attempts to ignore the fact of Islamic Jew-hatred and its genocidal nature and his moves to demonize Netanyahu for daring to oppose his policy toward Iran."
"Perhaps Obama is acting out of anti-Semitism," she concluded, or "perhaps he acts out of sympathy for Islamic fascism."
As the campaign enters its final month, Netanyahu has been working overtime to expand his enemies list. A primary populism-friendly soft target has long been Ashkenazi academics with leftist politics, and last week was no exception.
Netanyahu took aim at Israel's most prestigious prize, a local amalgam of the Nobel, the Oscars, and a knighthood, an award long and justly criticized for a lack of Mizrahi, women, and Arab recipients.
The prime minister fired judges from the panel charged with selecting the Israel Prize laureate for Literature, noting on his Facebook page that "over the years, more and more elements with extremist positions have been chosen for the panel, including anti-Zionist elements – for example, the likes of those who support refusal to serve in the IDF – and fewer authentic representatives of other broad sections of the people."
Netanyahu failed to mention that last year, the head of the panel of judges for the Israel Prize in Jewish Religious Literature was Professor Eliav Shochetman, whose legal opinions have been widely quoted as supporting IDF soldiers to refuse orders to evacuate settlements.
In what appeared to be an artfully choreographed sequence, Netanyahu acceded to the advice of his attorney general to rescind the firings. The result was a near-perfect Teflon play, in which Netanyahu received full yahoo credit for bashing leftists, while having to take no responsibility for, nor deal with negative consequences of, his actions.
Four more years, even worse this time around? They've already started.
| |
Ten weeks into the 2015 election trail, Benjamin Netanyahu has been careful to steer clear of making promises. But on Monday he made one campaign promise he can reasonably keep:
"In my estimation, the four years [to come] are going to be more difficult than the last four."
There it is, folks. Straight from the top: I've given you four years in which we have fought two wars, the more recent the most devastating in years; our economy is moving toward recession; the health care system is in the process of collapse; the educational system has been crippled and hijacked by politics and neglect; the government has stood steadfast against negotiating with anyone, for any reason; and we have initiated an unprecedented string of laws aimed directly at eroding democracy in Israel.
Netanyahu's obvious conclusion, regarding the next four years: I'm your man.
Taking advantage of a ceremony in which the prime minister installed the new chief of the IDF General Staff, Netanyahu laid out his foreboding vision of what we can expect, and, by extension, just whom Israeli voters should choose on March 17:
"We're going to need every tool [and] person, because in the Middle East which surrounds us, there is no mercy for weak people. Only the strong survive."
And there's the rest of it, folks. Aside from Muslims, who all want all the Jews dead, there are only two kinds of people:
1. The virile, unapologetic, clear-eyed people who want me to remain prime minister until 2019, and, for that matter, until 2023.
2. Losers.
Of late, Netanyahu's campaign has focused on the concept that no matter how they feel about this country, the weak, the lily-livered, the testosterone-challenged losers – that is, those at the center and left of the political spectrum - are Israel's enemies.
And that includes Barack Obama.
This week, boiling down the election to a common denominator low enough to take even his detractors by surprise, Netanyahu took to his Facebook page to post and endorse a Likud campaign video showing a naïve and presumably humanist generic center/leftist help ISIS shock troops in their bid to conquer Jerusalem.
"It's us or them, Dayish [ISIS]-style," Netanyahu wrote on his page. "This time, we're choosing: The Likud led by Netanyahu, or a weak and surrenderist leftist government with Tzipi [Livni] and [Isaac] Bougie [Herzog]."
The theory is that Netanyahu, needing perhaps two or three additional Knesset seats to win re-election, has decided that he has nothing further to gain from centrists, and can only sway votes from the right and the extreme right.
That may also explain why the back-stretch campaign rhetoric touching on Obama has taken a sharp turn for the acrid: "U.S. President Barack Obama is mainstreaming anti-Semitism in America," wrote former Netanyahu advisor Caroline Glick over the weekend.
According to Glick, a nominee for a prominent Likud Knesset slot, which eventually went to another candidate, "The perception that Obama either does not oppose or embraces Islamic extremism is strengthened when coupled with his appalling attempts to ignore the fact of Islamic Jew-hatred and its genocidal nature and his moves to demonize Netanyahu for daring to oppose his policy toward Iran."
"Perhaps Obama is acting out of anti-Semitism," she concluded, or "perhaps he acts out of sympathy for Islamic fascism."
As the campaign enters its final month, Netanyahu has been working overtime to expand his enemies list. A primary populism-friendly soft target has long been Ashkenazi academics with leftist politics, and last week was no exception.
Netanyahu took aim at Israel's most prestigious prize, a local amalgam of the Nobel, the Oscars, and a knighthood, an award long and justly criticized for a lack of Mizrahi, women, and Arab recipients.
The prime minister fired judges from the panel charged with selecting the Israel Prize laureate for Literature, noting on his Facebook page that "over the years, more and more elements with extremist positions have been chosen for the panel, including anti-Zionist elements – for example, the likes of those who support refusal to serve in the IDF – and fewer authentic representatives of other broad sections of the people."
Netanyahu failed to mention that last year, the head of the panel of judges for the Israel Prize in Jewish Religious Literature was Professor Eliav Shochetman, whose legal opinions have been widely quoted as supporting IDF soldiers to refuse orders to evacuate settlements.
In what appeared to be an artfully choreographed sequence, Netanyahu acceded to the advice of his attorney general to rescind the firings. The result was a near-perfect Teflon play, in which Netanyahu received full yahoo credit for bashing leftists, while having to take no responsibility for, nor deal with negative consequences of, his actions.
Four more years, even worse this time around? They've already started.
Who do you think your articles will sway? Meanwhile my words fall on deaf ears while you continue to post nonsense. You hate the PM of Israel worse than the average Pali does. That's sick! You act as if he cares about himself more than the survival of the Jewish Nation. You must be confusing him with the narcissist Obama. All you post are assumptions that are completely divorced from reality. Never about Iran with you either. P5+1. What a Fucking bunch of joke, SCUMBAG countries like Russia, China and France. Along with Obama - those are the people you trust to safeguard Israel's and our own future from the insane apocalyptic mullahs. Yet it's me who needs to pull my head out of my ass.
My articles will sway the same number as your articles. Other people ARE allowed to have differing opinions than you. Other people ARE allowed to think differently about what's best for Israel than you.
I actually don't hate Bibi. Just throwing some of your own ridiculous anti Obama rhetoric right back at you and replacing the name. I do think he is bad for Israel however, and do think he is a very Political being who does, in fact, do things for his Political survival and/or gain, over what's best for His Country. He's certainly not the 1st or the last, unfortunately.
ALL of those Countries, led by US, Germany, and France, are negotiating for what's best for the World, selfishly for themselves, and what's best for us and them, will ultimately be best for Israel.
My God Guesser, when it comes to finding anti-Israel pieces of Shit......
All I need to know about Bradley Burston:
http://pamelageller.com/2012/08/a-special-place-in-hell.html/
All I need to know about Bradley Burston:
http://pamelageller.com/2012/08/a-special-place-in-hell.html/
Yeah, sounds real Anti- Israel:
Bradley Burston is a Haaretz columnist and Senior Editor of Haaretz.com which publishes his blog, "A Special Place in Hell."
During the first Palestinian uprising, Burston served as Gaza correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, and was the paper's military correspondent in the 1991 Gulf War.
In the mid-1990s he covered Israeli-Arab peace talks for Reuters. In 2006, he received the Eliav-Sartawi Award for Mideast Journalism, presented at the United Nations.
A native of Los Angeles, Burston moved to Israel after graduation from Berkeley. He was part of a group which established Kibbutz Gezer, between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
Burston served in the IDF as a combat medic, later studying medicine in Be'er Sheva for two years before turning to journalism. He is married and has two daughters.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People who live in Israel ARE allowed to have different opinions about what's best for Israel than you, or former Bibi aide Caroline Glick. You talk about intolerance to Casper, and I applaud you for it. But you show the same intolerance towards anyone who has a differing opinion on what's the best way to insure Israel's survival and future.
Why The Democrats Are Drifting Away From Israel
According to the poll, 66 percent of Republicans picked Israel while only 39 percent of Democrats did the same. Conservative Republicans were more likely to support Israel than moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats more pro-Israel than liberal ones.
Christians (55 percent) are now more likely than Jews (40 percent) to believe that God gave Israel to the Jewish people. Only Orthodox Jews are more likely to believe this than white evangelicals.
White evangelicals are more likely than Jews to think the U.S. isn’t supportive enough of Israel, and less likely to think the current level of American support for the Jewish state is “just right.”
Democrats booed references to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital at the party’s 2012 convention. In this case, it was actually Obama’s forces who pushed to have the pro-Israel language restored to the Democratic platform over delegates’ objections.
“Basically, support for Israel gets stronger as you move right, and weaker as you move left,” Bill McGurn observed in the New York Post.
Where liberals once saw Israel as a homeland for Jewish victims of discrimination and genocide, today’s liberals see the Palestinians as the victims and Israelis as the oppressors.
Liberalism can more readily accept the nationalism of the former over the latter.
Israel is too Western for the multicultural left and Zionism fits uneasily alongside the priorities of contemporary multiculturalism. The Jewish state has launched military offenses that Republicans were more likely to support than Democrats. Liberals are more secular than in the past, and less impressed by Judeo-Christian Holy Land claims.
American supporters of Israel, on the other hand, have become more conservative and less secular, entangling this foreign policy question in the domestic culture wars. Israel itself has had center-right and right-of-center governments more frequently than the United States over the past 20 years.
Netanyahu is close to the American right. It’s no accident House Speaker John Boehner invited him.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/15/why-the-democrats-are-drifting-away-from-israel/
According to the poll, 66 percent of Republicans picked Israel while only 39 percent of Democrats did the same. Conservative Republicans were more likely to support Israel than moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats more pro-Israel than liberal ones.
Christians (55 percent) are now more likely than Jews (40 percent) to believe that God gave Israel to the Jewish people. Only Orthodox Jews are more likely to believe this than white evangelicals.
White evangelicals are more likely than Jews to think the U.S. isn’t supportive enough of Israel, and less likely to think the current level of American support for the Jewish state is “just right.”
Democrats booed references to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital at the party’s 2012 convention. In this case, it was actually Obama’s forces who pushed to have the pro-Israel language restored to the Democratic platform over delegates’ objections.
“Basically, support for Israel gets stronger as you move right, and weaker as you move left,” Bill McGurn observed in the New York Post.
Where liberals once saw Israel as a homeland for Jewish victims of discrimination and genocide, today’s liberals see the Palestinians as the victims and Israelis as the oppressors.
Liberalism can more readily accept the nationalism of the former over the latter.
Israel is too Western for the multicultural left and Zionism fits uneasily alongside the priorities of contemporary multiculturalism. The Jewish state has launched military offenses that Republicans were more likely to support than Democrats. Liberals are more secular than in the past, and less impressed by Judeo-Christian Holy Land claims.
American supporters of Israel, on the other hand, have become more conservative and less secular, entangling this foreign policy question in the domestic culture wars. Israel itself has had center-right and right-of-center governments more frequently than the United States over the past 20 years.
Netanyahu is close to the American right. It’s no accident House Speaker John Boehner invited him.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/15/why-the-democrats-are-drifting-away-from-israel/
