Israel Slams Obama-Led Nuke Talks With Iran As A “Historical Mistake”…
We always knew Obama was going to throw Israel under the bus.
Jerusalem (AFP) – Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon said on Saturday that a landmark deal on Iran’s nuclear programme under discussion with world powers is a “historical mistake”.
“An agreement now, in the current conditions, is a historical mistake that will allow the bellicose regime in Tehran to pursue its dangerous nuclear programme and its ambition to spread terror and to undermine regimes in the Middle East and the entire world,” Yaalon said.
He urged world powers holding talks with Iran in Geneva on Saturday to be “intransigent” with the Islamic republic, in comments echoed by Justice Minister Tzipi Livni.
“There is no need to hurry to sign an agreement that will not reach its objectives, when a much more favourable agreement could be signed given the pressure Iran is under,” Livni said in a statement.
The proposed agreement — seen as a first step ahead of further talks on a final deal — would see Iran freeze parts of its nuclear programme for as long as six months in exchange for some relief from the sanctions battering its economy.
Oct 6th - Re print
Op-Ed: Israel Turns 65: Playing the Arab Name Game
Monday, April 15, 2013
Any group can divide itself into several sub-groups and demand a nation for each one. The Jews have only one state.
Gerald A. Honigman
The author is an educator who has done extensive doctoral studies in Mid-East Affairs and has conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth. He gives lectures and participates in debates around the U.S. Read his new book to be found at http://q4j-middle-east.com.►More from this writer
Move over, Monopoly. Scadoodle, Scrabble…
Have you played the "Arab Name Game"? You know--the one much of the rest of the world, including recent American Presidents, insists that Israel partake in?
Much of the world--including recent American presidents--insists that there must be a two-statesolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Forget the fact that that's not what the Arabs themselves really have in mind, but whatever…
Please pay close attention to what follows because, in reality, in discussing an alleged “two state solution,” President Obama and others playright into the hands of the Arabs’ deliberate name game deception.
You see, there have always been two legitimate parties to this conflict–Arabs and Jews.
Yet, even the most allegedly “moderate” of Arabs insist on getting not just one share of the originalApril 25, 1920 Mandate of Palestine pie, but two. Recall that the originalMandate included the modern Arab state of Jordan--before it was separated in 1922.
"Palestine" was the name the Roman Emperor, Hadrian, bestowed on the land of Judaea to rub salt into the wound after the Jews’ second costly revolt for their freedom and independence. It was named for the Jews’ historic enemies, the non-Semitic /non-Arab Philistines, the "Sea People" who arrived from the islands near Crete. You can see a Judea Capta coin issued after the first revolt and what ancient Rome called the land prior to the Bar Kochba rebellion on the web. Writings of contemporary Roman historians such as Tacitus, Pliny, Dio Cassius, and Josephus are filled with such accounts.
Even in the most “moderate” Arabs’ count, they demand one portion for “Arabs” and another for “Palestinians.” They insist that, in this geographical addition problem, 1 + 1 = 3, not 2.
If Jews indulged in this same deception, they could call themselves by other names and then demand dozens of states too. As could Kurds and others as well… “Hey, we’re not really Kurds–we’re Irbilians, Mosulians, Kirkukians, Sulimanyians, Mehabadians, Qamishlians, Diyarbakirians, and so forth.”
Get the picture?
No, formerly stateless Jews and currently truly stateless peoples, like Kurds and Imazighen ("Berbers"), are not the same as deliberately renamed, allegedly stateless “Palestinians.” The latter are part of the greater Arab family which now has nearly two dozen states to call its own. Furthermore, the latter have largely been carved out by the conquest of mostly non-Arab peoples’ lands--lands in which other native peoples’ very languages and cultures have often been outlawed in the forced Arabization process.
Here's an oft-cited quote from PLO executive committee member Zuheir Mohsen, on March 31, 1977, in the Dutch newspaper Trouw:
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese... Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism..."
Now, are there different Arab groups within that greater Arab family?
Sure, just like there are many different sub-groups within the Jewish or Kurdish or Amazigh families of nations.
But the possession of multiple sub-groups does not give arabs the right to deny any and all other peoples their own share of justice in the region. Yet, that has always been the Arab name game plan–and what the American President promoted in such speeches as the one he gave on the eve of Passover in Jerusalem.
1 + 1 = 2… not 3.
Arab nationalism is entitled to one share of the Palestine pie–not two. Arabs must decide among themselves how they want to share rule over their one part of “Palestine.”
Whether this translates into a merger of parts of Judea and Samaria with Jordan (the most sensible, yet unlikely, solution), or whether a tiny, second Arab state is created in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria after Israel gets the absolutely essential compromise in the territories promised by the final draft of UNSC Resolution 242, the choice must not leave the sole state of the Jews as vulnerable as in the days prior to the 1967 war when Israel was a mere 9-15-mile wide rump state of a nation.
As the over three millennia-old nation of the Jews approaches its modern re-birthday, it must resolve to do a much better job at getting this message out to the rest of the world.
Kerry: Israel's Security 'Top Priority'
by Arutz Sheva Staff
US Secretary of State John Kerry insisted Thursday that Israel's security was a top priority in talks with Iran on its controversial nuclear program after an initial deal was signed.
"I can't emphasize enough that Israel's security in this negotiation is at the top of our agenda," Kerry told reporters after a meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem.
"And the United States will do everything in our power to make certain that Iran's nuclear program of weaponization possibilities is terminated."
Kerry's remarks were aimed at calming tensions with Israel over the interim deal reached in Geneva on November 24, which saw Iran agree to roll back parts of its nuclear program in return for limited relief from Western sanctions, and comes as polls indicate growing distrust of the Obama administration's foreign policy by Israelis. The deal was roundly condemned by Netanyahu, who called it a "historic mistake".
"We agreed on what the goal of the final status agreement (with Iran) ought to be, and in the days ahead we will consult very closely and continuously with our Israeli friends in order to bring about a comprehensive agreement that can withstand everybody's test," Kerry said.
Israel had repeatedly warned against entering an agreement with Iran, urging world powers to keep up the pressure of sanctions and threatening to carry out unilateral military action against Tehran if necessary.
Kerry landed in Israel late on Wednesday for a trip aimed at giving momentum to peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA), which have made little apparent headway since they began under his patronage in late July.
In late November, senior Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) official Nabil Shaath revealed that the PA is only staying in the peace talks to release all 104 terrorist prisoners promised as a "gesture."
US officials have said the focus during this visit by Kerry would be on Israel's security arrangements under any deal with the PA. However, they refused to confirm media reports citing unnamed State Department officials which claim that Kerry was to present Netanyahu with a proposal aimed at encouraging Israel to drop demands for a continued IDF presence in the strategically-important Jordan Valley.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will reportedly receive the proposal through John R. Allen, the former American commander in Afghanistan and a retired Marine general who serves as an adviser to Kerry on Middle Eastern affairs.
Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon meanwhile urged the PM to remain firm on insisting Israel retain control of the Jordan Valley under any agreement.
"Even if the Americans are our friends we will tell them: Sorry, we are not going to do everything you want, we are not going to give up (security) principles which are essential for us, even if it means the negotiations won't move forward and there won't be a nice ceremony at the White House," he said in an interview with army radio.
No Agreement With Iran...For Now Talks in Geneva between Iran and six world powers have ended with no agreement, but the sides will meet again later this month.
By Elad Benari First Publish: 11/10/2013,
Update: 11/10/2013, 4:03 AM
Foreign ministers during nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva
Talks in Geneva between representatives of Iran and the so-called P5+1 ended on Saturday night with no agreement.
It was reported earlier that the sides had convened for another late night meeting in an attempt to reach an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program. That meeting, however, ended with no results.
"From the start, France wanted an agreement to the important question of Iran's nuclear program,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius was quoted by Russia Today (RT) as having told reporters after the meeting.
“The Geneva meeting allowed us to advance, but we were not able to conclude because there are still some questions to be addressed," he added.
Earlier on Saturday, Fabius warned his colleagues not to be fooled by Iran’s proposals saying that while “the initial text [of the proposal] madeprogress,” there were still a couple of unsatisfying points.
Those comments, which are similar to concerns Israel has expressed over the agreement, caused Iranian officials to slam Fabius, claiming his views "express the positions of the Zionist regime.”
The latest round of talks began on Thursday with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov unexpectedly arriving to join the high-profile negotiations on Friday and Saturday respectively.
Although the talks brought no immediate results, the diplomats are ready to get back to the negotiating table within a few weeks, Reuters reports.
The talks are set to resume in Geneva on November 20.
Speaking to reporters after Saturday night's meeting, Kerry said that world powers had come closer to a deal and that "with good work" the goal could be reached.
"We came to Geneva to narrow the differences and I can tell you without any exaggeration we not only narrowed the differences and clarified those that remain, but we made significant progress in working through the approaches to this question of how one reins in a program and guarantees its peaceful nature," Kerry said.
Zarif said he was not disappointed with the outcome, and that the talks were "something we can build on."
He added that all parties were "on the same wavelength" and "there was the impetus to reach an agreement."
On Friday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warned Kerry that he was offering Iran "the deal of the century".
"This is a very bad deal. Israel utterly rejects it," Netanyahu said, vowing that Israel would not be bound by any agreement.
The U.S. responded to Netanyahu's concern by saying the criticism was premature, as no deal has yet been reached.