ISRAEL - IRAN: Benjamin Netanyahu Speech to US Congress 2015

Benjamin Netanyahu Speech to Congress 2015 [FULL] | Today on 3/3/15 | New York Times  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRf1cdw4IAY Blogger Rough Summary  [opening portion abridged]: Senate suck up to Netanyahu big time Lots of applause. Truman to Obama support airing. Appreciates Obama. Applause. Applause.  Applause. Applause.  Applause. Applause.  Applause. Applause.  Applause. Applause.  Applause. Applause.  Staged? Senate waaaaay more receptive & supportive of Netanyahu than were the crowd at AIPAC. US Senators representing corporations, military manufacture, various lobby groups, probably clapping for war. Purim Haman Esther - right to defend against enemies / plot foiled / our ppl were saved Today, another attempt by Persian potentate to destroy Israel. Ayatollah Tweet - During Israeli 'Operation Protective Edge' in Gaza.  [  My warped idea of:  Persia vs Israel through the ages - Image source: tumblr  ] Mentions Hezbollah. 1979 Iran hijacked by zealots. New constitution. Ideological mission of jihad. Founder Khomeini extorted followers to export. [ Iran is the new #BlamePutin -  ie #BlameIran ] Every drama in Middle East is sponsored by: Iran, according to Netanyahu Global terror network, he claims Do not believe  'Iran's aggression' left unchecked / gobbling up the nations. Iran's march of conquest, subjugation & terror. Probably should have made that clearer: I, personally, find this unbelievable (rather than instruction not to believe). Congress applauds like crazy b/c Netanyahu is painting Iran as responsible for evil around the world. Dumb. Ideology of Iran 'regime' deeply rooted in Islam / always enemy to America / Iran & Isis competing for crown of militant Islam Both want to impose: first region & then entire world. Just can't agree between themselves who will take that crown. Mentions Islam medieval creed (?) or similar. Do not share [values] Intercontinental ballistic missiles & bombs scaremongering. To defeat ISIS but let Iran get nuclear weapons is to win battle but lose war. We can't let that happen. Congress applause. Iran still refuses to come clean about military & nuclear program. Iran caught TWICE operating secret nuke facilities. Uh-oh. Facilities, that inspectors didn't even know existed. Right now, Iran could be hiding nuke facilities we don't know about. As IAEA inspection authority said 2013: If no undeclared nuke facilities in Iran, it will be first time in 20 yrs it doesn't Iran has proven time and again, that it cannot be trusted. That is why the first major concession = source of major concern. Major concession: leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure & relies on inspectors to prevent a break-out. Major concession: creates a danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal. Major concession creates a second, even greater, danger: that Iran could get to bomb by keeping the deal. Danger in concession: virtually all of Iran restrictions would automatically expire in about a decade. Decade may seem a long time in political life, but it is the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. We all have responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran's nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted. When Iran's nuclear capabilities are unrestricted, Iran would have capacity to build a huge nuclear capacity: many nuke bombs Iran supreme leader says Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges - 10x what Iran has today - enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal in a matter of weeks, once it decides. John Kerry confirmed last week, Iran could legitimately possess massive centrifuge capacity when deal (restriction) expires. Foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal nukes .. Iran intercontinental ballistic missiles program is not part of the deal. Iran refuses to even put on negotiation table. Iran intercontinental ballistic missiles prog = Iran has means to deliver nuke arsenal to far reaching corners world, incl US Deal has 2 major concessions: 1)     Leaving Iran w vast nuclear prog 2)     Lifting restrictions on prog, in about a decade = BAD Deal does not block Iran path to nuclear bomb; it paves Iran path to bomb. So why would anyone make this deal? Deal: >b/c hope Iran will change for better in coming years? >or believe alternative to this deal is worse? NETANYAHU disagrees. Netanyahu does not believe Iran radical regime will change for better after this deal. Regime in power for 36 yrs Voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year Deal would only whet Iran appetite Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed & its economy is stronger? If Iran gobbling up 4 countries now, while under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions lifted? VIDEO – NETANYAHU Speech to Congress -  [10:33]  Four countries ‘gobbled up’ reference: 1)     Lebanon 2)     Syria 3)     Iraq 4)     Yemen *Gaza *Golan Heights Iran aim: 2nd choke point oil supply. If sanctions lifted: Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism? Why should Iran's radical regime change for better, when can enjoy best of both worlds: >aggression abroad >prosperity at home Iran's neighbours know Iran will become even more aggressive / more terrorism when its economy is unshackled & path to bomb. Many of these neighbours say they will respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. Deal will change ME for worse. Deal supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation, would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of planet. Deal would not be a farewell to arms; it would be a farewell to arms control & ME would be criss-crossed by nuke tripwires. ME is a region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars. Deal would turn it into nuclear tinderbox. Deal with Iran deferring prob. down the road only creating sit'n where a much more dangerous Iran will have to be faced. A Middle East littered with nuclear bombs = potential nuclear nightmare. Solution: Insist that restrictions will not be lifted as long as Iran continues its aggression in region & the world. Before lifting restrictions, world should demand Iran do 3 things: 1. Stop aggression against neighbours in ME. ... 2. Stop supporting terrorism around the world. 3. Stop threatening to annihilate Israel, one & only Jewish state. If world powers won't insist Iran change behaviour before deal is signed, at least insist Iran change before deal *expires*. If Iran changes behaviour, restrictions would be lifted If Iran does not change behaviour, restrictions should not be lifted. If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country. [cue: standing applause] Deal argument: >no alternative to deal >Iran nuclear knowhow cannot be erased >prog so advanced & best is delay inevitable NETANYAHU: Nuclear knowhow without nuclear INFRASTRUCTURE = no nuclear weapons can be made. Iran's nuclear prog can be rolled back well beyond current proposal: >insisting on better deal >keeping up pressure Keeping up pressure [would be effective b/c]: very vulnerable regime, esp. given recent collapse in price of oil. If Iran threatens to walk from table (this often happens in Persian bazaar), call their bluff. They'll be back b/c need deal. By maintaining pressure on Iran (& those who do business w Iran), you have the power to make them need [deal] even more. We've been told for over year that no deal is better than a bad deal. This is a bad deal. Very bad deal. Better off without. NOW we are being told only alternative to this bad deal is war. That's just not true. Alternative to deal: = much better deal. A better deal that does not leave Iran w a vast nuclear infrastructure in such a short break-out time. Better deal = keeping restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in place until Iran's aggression ends. Better deal = won't give Iran easy path to bomb. No country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat. However difficult, second option would prevent nuclear-armed Iran, nuke armed ME & horrific consequences of both. Capping off, better deal option: = security of Israel = security of Middle East = peace of world, that we all desire "My friends, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark & murderous regimes never is." NETANYAHU With us today is holocaust survivor & Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel [Seated w Sarah Netanyahu] [Applause] [ Elie Wiesel ] NETANYAHU: Elie, your life & work inspired us to give meaning to the words: never again. NETANYAHU: Wish could promise, Elie, that lessons of history been learned. Urge leaders of world not to repeat mistakes of past. Mistakes: >sacrifice future for the present >ignoring aggression in hopes of gaining illusory peace Netanyahu - days when Jewish ppl remain passive in face of genocidal enemies: those days are over. NETANYAHU: We are no longer scattered among the nations powerless to defend ourselves. We've restored our sovereignty & ancient home NETANYAHU: Soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. NETANYAHU: For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish ppl, can defend ourselves. [Applause somewhat less enthusiastic on the 'we can defend ourselves' section of Netanyahu speech (it seems to me)] NETANYAHU: As PM of Israel can promise you one more thing: even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand. [Enthusiastic Senate applause to: I know that America stands with Israel ... etc] NETANYAHU: You stand with Israel b/c you know that the story of Israel is not only story of the Jewish ppl but of the human spirit that refuses again & again to succumb to history's horrors. NETANYAHU: Facing me, overlooking this august chamber, is image of Moses. Moses led our ppl from slavery to gates of promised land. NETANYAHU: Before the ppl of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave message that has steeled our resolve for 1,000s yrs NETANYAHU: I leave you with [Moses] message today: Be strong & resolute; neither fear no dread them. NETANYAHU: May Israel & America always stand together, strong & resolute ... may god bless state of Israel & may god bless USA. Lots of applause. NETANYAHU waving. Thanking. Prolonged applause. Walking chamber. Handshaking. Applause continues. Cuts out. NOTE: Netanyahu says Iran gobbling countries, incl. Iraq. BUT Iran is FIGHTING vs ISIS in Iraq Tikrit — Iraq Shiite & Iraq Sunni alliance, mission overseen by Iran military official - http://on.rt.com/q4wvx5   COMMENT The Ayatollah tweet referred to in the speech would be in relation to the then Israel bombing of Gaza (Operation Protective Edge 2014), concerning children that were killed by the Israeli military.  The reference to al Aqsa Mosque (third holiest mosque in Islam) would be in reference to whatever dispute had then been central between the Israelis and Muslims regarding the mosque. It appears the mosque is at the centre of a 'Judaise' dispute (and other disputes) that have arisen out of the reclamation of the ancient Jewish homeland, after the passage of over 2,000 years of occupation and heritage attaching to yet another Levant people (Palestinians), who were under the rule of various empires (including Ottomans and the British), so it is a very unusual set of problems that give rise to ongoing animosities in Israel, Palestine and the region beyond. Initially, I was sceptical.  But as the speech progressed, I was just about convinced of terrorism, the collapse of civilisation, medieval atrocities and a nuclear Armageddon coming our way.  Now I'm not that sure, although the medieval atrocities bogeyman is still scary. The ace up Netanyahu's sleeve would have to be the secret nuclear development facilities, as that just doesn't sound right.  So who can argue with that? What's interesting is that Pakistan (another Islamic state), which seems far more scary and chaotic than Iran, has nuclear arms.   Yet this development wasn't prevented by the Anglo-American side. Israel is lobbying for continued sanctions and restrictions on Iran because Israel ostensibly sees Iran as an existential threat.  However, from what I've read, the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran is also a threat to Israel's hegemony in the region, so this is worth bearing in mind. While there is much emphasis on common values, this is just persuasive window dressing.  Shared strategic interests play a far greater role in the Middle East than do extraneous cosmetic considerations, such as human rights issues.  We know that because Saudi Arabia isn't all that different to Iran in respect of human rights issues, yet Saudi Arabia isn't singled out as a threat to the world. On the other hand, while Saudi Arabia is said to be funding militants in the region and funding Islamisation beyond the region, the Saudis aren't seeking to develop a nuclear capacity.  Or are they? It would appear that Saudi Arabia is also gearing up to produce nuclear energy: Saudi Arabia plans to construct 16 nuclear power reactors over the next 20 years at a cost of more than $80 billion, with the first reactor on line in 2022. Nobody's complaining about Saudi Arabia's plans, so what's the issue with Iran? The secret development sites came to mind, but then it occurred to me that maybe Iran was forced to engage in secret development because of the sanctions imposed on Iran.  So Iran's secrecy may not be as suspicious as it seems. Between the nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors around the globe, you'd think that everybody would be looking at winding back to zero nuclear arms and zero nuclear energy rather than developing more of the same. Is Netanyahu's war-like speech just bluff to put pressure on the Iran negotiations?  Is it a performance to justify imposition of sanctions on Iran?  Or is it a declaration of Israeli and US intentions?

American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) - Netanyahu 2015 Morning Talk

Watched Netanyahu speech at AIPAC, a first for me (on the assumption that PMs regularly give talks at AIPAC). Wondered why the Congress speech:  is it election spin, is it pleading to prevent Iran nuke arms or is it something else, I wondered. Well, it has just occurred to me that this visit is probably about getting US commitment to strike Iran (or back an Israel strike).  So it is about lobbying for a US-Israel war commitment. If I hadn't checked other peoples comments, the penny wouldn't have dropped. But someone mentioned that Israel won't strike without US support & that must have got me thinking. The only problem with that theory is that Samantha power virtually declared war on Iran. The wording made it very plain, even though she did not outright say it. Netanyahu stressing Israeli strengths and go-it-alone independence in his talk. I thought it was fine, but there were people canning his talk online (you get that) and, more worrying, I think that there was a bit too long of a pause when he was done and not enough enthusiastic support in the applause. Too tired to transfer over my notes.  Might do that tomorrow if I'm still keen.

Politico: "Israeli officials fail to quell Democratic revolt"

Israeli officials fail to quell Democratic revolt By Edward-Isaac Dovere 2/4/15 7:28 PM EST Updated 2/4/15 8:19 PM EST Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer and Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein rushed to meetings on Capitol Hill on Wednesday trying to calm a furor created by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned speech to Congress next month and quell a Democratic revolt that has dozens threatening a boycott. It didn’t work. If anything, Democrats finished the day more frustrated. According to a source in the room, one Jewish Democratic member of Congress even accused Dermer of being insincere when he claimed not to have anticipated the partisan uproar he’d ignite when he skirted protocol and went around the White House and scheduled the speech only with House Speaker John Boehner. White House press secretary Josh Earnest, meanwhile, dangled the possibility that the White House would have Vice President Joe Biden skip the speech in what the West Wing acknowledges would be a serious snub. The U.S. and Israeli alliance is rooted in deep defense, security, economic and investment ties, and all sides insisted the U.S. commitment to defend Israel is unaffected by the unseemly dispute of the last two weeks. And with Netanyahu on course to be reelected in March, he and President Barack Obama will need to find a way to talk again. But the ongoing dispute over the speech seemed likely to make that more difficult than ever. Biden has to date missed only one speech by a foreign leader at a joint session of Congress, Earnest said. The vice president really likes his ceremonial duties, he added, but might be busy on March 3, when Netanyahu is scheduled to deliver his warning to Congress about U.S. negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. The Obama administration considers the talks an important diplomatic opening that could lead to the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Netanyahu believes Iran has no intention of holding to any deal and U.S. diplomats are being naive. The speech, which would also come just two weeks before Israeli elections, was widely interpreted as an attempt to rally opposition in Congress, which is considering legislation to try to block a deal. “The muddled manner in which this invitation to speak to Congress has been handled is striking,” said Edward Djerejian, a former ambassador to Israel and the founding director of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. “This is an unnecessary irritant in the basic U.S.-Israeli relationship and it couldn’t come at a more delicate time, where the Middle East region is in such turbulence and there’s so many challenges.” Dermer and Edelstein running around the Hill on Wednesday is “symptomatic of what’s happened as a result of the speaker’s invitation and the prime minister’s acceptance of this speech,” said Martin Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel under Bill Clinton. If Dermer really wants to fix the problems created by the speech, goes the consensus among Democrats in Washington, he’ll need to do more than apologize: he and Netanyahu have to cancel or reschedule the speech. Otherwise, Wednesday won’t be the lowest point of the relationship. “It’s going to get worse: because Democrats, whether it’s Jewish Democratic congressmen, or Jewish voters for the Democratic Party — which is the majority of American Jewish voters … nobody wants to be part of that position,” Indyk said. Democrats who are supporters of Israel don’t want to have to choose between supporting Israel and supporting their president.” Earnest ducked answering whether Obama would ask Biden to attend the speech; an Oval Office meeting with the president has already been ruled out. Earnest acknowledged that a Biden snub might hurt Netanyahu in the Israeli elections March 17. [Josh Earnest, White House Press Secretary.] “We’ll see,” Earnest said. “As we consider the vice president’s attendance, that’s one of the factors that will weigh on that decision.”  Seven Jewish Democratic members of Congress who met Wednesday in Rep. Steve Israel’s (D-N.Y.) office — Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Ted Deutch of Florida, Jerry Nadler and Nita Lowey of New York, Sander Levin of Michigan and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois — lit into Dermer. The invitation, they said, was making them choose between Netanyahu and Obama, making support for Israel into a partisan issue that they never wanted it to be, and forcing them to consider a boycott of the speech. One member, according to someone in the room, went so far as to tell Dermer it was hard to believe him when he said he didn’t realize the partisan mess he was making by going around Obama to get Boehner to make the invitation. They suggested Netanyahu consider speaking to members of Congress privately, and not from the podium of the House. “There were a wide range of views that were discussed, but one thing we all agreed on emphatically is that Israel should never be used as a political football,” Israel told POLITICO. [No idea who this may be. ] As that was happening, a new diplomatic rift was opening. The Israelis sent Edelstein, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party, to meet with Boehner. Boehner’s office remembered to invite Pelosi’s rival, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), but left House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) out.  [Is this some kind of faux pas or an outright snub?] A spokesman for the Israeli embassy didn’t return a request for comment. Hoyer and House Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Eliot Engel, who’d also been invited, both pulled out when they realized Pelosi was being left out.  “Had we been told that Rep. Pelosi wanted to attend, she certainly would have been welcome,” explained Boehner spokesman Michael Steel afterward. By then the Israeli embassy was scrambling. Pelosi got her own meeting with Edelstein added to the schedule for Wednesday afternoon. She brought along Hoyer and Engel, as well as Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) and Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). Pelosi’s office told POLITICO Tuesday that she’ll go to Netanyahu’s speech if it happens. But Wednesday, she used the Edelstein meeting to tear into the Israelis directly. Pelosi “expressed her concern that casting a political apple of discord into the relationship is not the best way forward given the formidable challenges our two countries are facing together,” said Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill. Dermer, meanwhile, scheduled another rushed meeting with Engel for Thursday. Nothing that happened Wednesday seems to have calmed the revolt that has dozens of Democrats considering skipping Netanyahu’s speech. Earnest said that the White House can see why they might. “Individual members of Congress will have to make their own decision, some of which I assume will be driven by their schedule and some of which will be driven by their own views about what has transpired over the last several weeks as it relates to this speech,” Earnest said. Asked whether the president believes the America-Israel relationship would be harmed by Democrats skipping the speech, Earnest ducked again. “The president believes that individual members of Congress will have to decide for themselves,” he said. Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan contributed to this report. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/israeli-officials-fail-to-quell-democratic-revolt-114923.html COMMENT This stuff sounds pretty exciting, but it's really not that big a deal (I think).  Hard to see any of it affecting US-Israel relations. LINKS Josh Earnest - White House Press Secretary - here. Democratic Rice University Assumed office:  June 2014 UPDATE Haartz article: Israeli foreign ministry receiving consul general reports of criticisms regarding planned Netanyahu speech. Criticism is mainly levelled at Benjamin Netanyahu,  Israel ambassador Ron Dermer and US speaker John Boehner. Main supporters of the Netanyahu speech are right winger types: Republican Jewish Coalition Zionist Organization of America and Christian evangelists. Netanyahu is determined to press on. More on ...  Consuls in U.S. warn: Israel's friends fear Netanyahu's speech to Congress will harm ties http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.640896

Psycho-bibi or Bibi-sitter?

Beyond Bottle-gate: The top 11 scandals that have touched Benjamin and Sara Netanyahu By Haaretz | Feb. 2, 2015 11) Bibi-gate: Netanyahu's first major scandal of his political career emerged in 1993, when he admitted on television to having an extramarital affair with Ruth Bar, a media adviser he had hired to help him in 1992's Likud party primary. Netanyahu asserted that an anonymous person had called Sara and threatened that a secret videotape portraying Netanyahu in compromising sexual positions with another woman would be released if he did not withdraw his candidacy for the Likud leadership. The affair blew over, and Netanyahu won the election. It was not Netanyahu's first extramarital affair. He had started an affair during his first marriage to Miriam Weizman with Fleur Cates, a British woman he met while in the United States, who became his second wife.  http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.640386 COMMENT Wow, I had no idea Netanyahu was onto marriage No. 3, so I thought I'd check it out. And then I found this: Netanyahu’s women and the making of Psychobibi http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/netanyahus-women/ Psycho-bibi, LOL.  That's quite a contrast with the trusted babysitter advert running in Israel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0CzqrB7aQgs I'm a sucker, cos he does sound rather vulnerable in the 'Psyco-bibi' article. Anyway, that was a bit of fun.

Netanyahu - More Than Electoral Campaign Bluster

ISRAEL Israel's ability to influence inter'l community, in general, + USA, in particular, is damaged by Netanyahu's election moves  Netanyahu has set 3 'fires': > US Congress diplomatic “terror attack” > Golan Heights > settlements tender / expansion From article:   As Netanyahu rampages, Israel's interests are but collateral damage The prime minister has become a ticking cluster bomb, discharging its lethal load at timed intervals and destroying the remains of Israel’s standing in the world. http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.640046  .................................................................................... COMMENT Thought this was worth sharing. Seems like Netanyahu and Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman are on the same rampaging page: Sounds like #Israel Foreign Minister Lieberman wants 3rd war in #Lebanon http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4621448,00.html … Took Lieberman's remarks seriously and considered that maybe Israel is aiming to fire up a conflict with Lebanon, but now I'm thinking maybe it's all in line with Netanyahu's election campaign moves. Anyway, I thought this was an interesting way to look at what's going on right now, although I'm not entirely convinced this is all merely voter influencing behaviour. Since Netanyahu took office in 2009: Can I Take a Tax-Deduction on My Donation to Israeli Settlements in Palestine?American charities funnel millions of dollars to support the building of illegal settlements in the occupied territories. It's time for this to end. By Eric Goldstein January 29, 2015"... from the beginning of 2009 until the beginning of 2014, the settlement population grew 23 percent — more than double the rate of the overall Israeli population, which expanded 9.6 percent." "In late December, another 380 new housing units in East Jerusalem settlements were approved." "This growth is partly being funded by millions of dollars from tax-exempt American charities, which help expand and support settlements." https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/29/illegal-tax-deduction-charity-israel-settlements-palestine-irs/  Judging by the settlements article, Netanyahu's policies are consistent and have a tangible, progressive impact on what is going on in the Middle East.

Northern Israel, Syria, Sharon & History

JNS.ORG ARTICLE   Netanyahu: Iran behind Hezbollah attack on northern Israel Posted on January 29, 2015 by JNS.org. (JNS.org) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday that Iran, the state sponsor of Hezbollah, “is the one behind yesterday’s attack” on northern Israel that killed two Israeli soldiers and wounded seven others. Speaking at a memorial service that marked the one-year anniversary of former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon’s death, Netanyahu said, “This radical power Ariel Sharon spoke about was, and still is, Iran. Today Iran is the one arming, organizing, funding, and sending its terrorist satellites to our borders, both north and south.” Dr. Ely Karmon, a senior research scholar at Israel’s International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, said that Hezbollah’s attack on Wednesday is part of “an attempt to change the strategic rules of the game.” According to Karmon, Iran and Hezbollah have been working for months to take advantage of instability in Syria in order to create a forward military position against Israel in Syria’s Quneitra region, close to the triple Syria-Lebanon-Israel border. “This is actually an Iranian project,” Karmon told JNS.org. “They have around 1,500 people on the ground in Syria, most of which are counseling or training Syrian militias, and they have Hezbollah providing military support.” http://www.jns.org/news-briefs/2015/1/29/netanyahu-iran-behind-hezbollah-attack-on-northern-israel COMMENT PM Netanyahu's blaming Iran "the state sponsor of Hezbollah", which is to be expected seeing his election campaign centres around exploiting the issue of Iran and national security. Meanwhile, Syrian government is blaming Israel for being on-side with those sponsoring opposition terrorism within Syria (Dec 2014): Syria: Terrorism Sponsors in Cahoots with Israel December 08, 2014 - 17:23 TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem took a swipe at Israel for aiding and abetting terrorism, stressing that Syria will emerge victorious in the face of terrorists that have invaded his country. “The countries sponsoring terrorism are in the same front with Israel. Syria will continue resisting and has no option but to overcome terrorism,” the Syrian foreign minister said in a joint press conference with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif in Tehran on Monday. His remarks came after Sunday’s reports of Israeli airstrikes on Syria, near the capital Damascus. Israeli planes bombed the area near Damascus international airport and the town of Dimas, the Syrian army said in a statement. Elsewhere in his comments, Muallem said he has visited Iran to expressed gratitude to the Islamic Republic for its continued support for the Syrian nation. Syria has been gripped by deadly violence since March 2011 with ISIL Takfiri terrorists currently controlling parts of it mostly in the east. The US and its regional allies have been supporting the militants operating inside Syria for more than three years. An estimated 200,000 people have been killed in over three years of fighting in the war-ridden country, according to the United Nations. http://www.tasnimnews.com/English/Home/Single/582368 Iran is obviously a supporter of the Syrian government. Looks like Israel's been an aggressor in Syria proper, bombing near the Damascus international airport. The Ariel Sharon info that caught my eye was: Sharon's stroke occurred a few months before he had been expected to win a new election and was widely interpreted as planning on "clearing Israel out of most of the West Bank", in a series of unilateral withdrawals. [Wikipedia] The first thing I thought was, wow, what a coincidence.  Now I'm probably seeing sinister causes in everything.  It probably was a coincidence. Heaps of information on Sharon.  The most startling find was this information regarding the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon: Complaint Against Ariel Sharon for his involvement in the massacres at Sabra and Shatila For the next 40 hours inside the "surrounded and sealed" camps, the Phalangist militia raped, killed and injured a large number of unarmed civilians, mostly children, women and old people. These actions were accompanied or followed by systematic roundups, backed or reinforced by the Israeli army, resulting in dozens of disappearances.  Until the morning of Saturday 18 September 1982, the Israeli army, which knew perfectly well what was going on in the camps, and whose leaders were in permanent contact with the militia leaders who perpetrated the massacre, did not intervene. Instead, they prevented civilians from escaping the camps and organised for the camps to be lit up throughout the night by flares sent into the sky from helicopters and mortars.  The count of victims varies between 700 (the official Israeli figure) and 3,500 (notably in the inquiry launched by the Israeli journalist Kapeliouk). The exact figure will never be determined because in addition to the approximately 1,000 people who were buried in communal graves by the ICRC or in the cemeteries of Beirut by members of their families, a large number of corpses were buried under bulldozed buildings by the militia themselves. Also, particularly on 17 and 18 September, hundreds of people were carried away alive in trucks towards unknown destinations, never to return.   [EXTRACT ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE - cabu.org] Israeli subsequent findings: After 400,000 Peace Now protesters rallied in Tel Aviv to demand an official government inquiry into the massacres, the official Israeli government investigation into the massacre at Sabra and Shatila, the Kahan Commission (1982), was conducted. The inquiry found that the Israeli Defense Forces were indirectly responsible for the massacre since IDF troops held the area.  The commission determined that the killings carried out by a Phalangist unit acting on its own, but its entry was known to Israel and approved by Sharon. Prime Minister Begin was also found responsible for not exercising greater involvement and awareness in the matter of introducing the Phalangists into the camps. The commission also concluded that Sharon bore personal responsibility "for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge [and] not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed". It said Sharon's negligence in protecting the civilian population of Beirut, which had come under Israeli control, amounted to a dereliction of duty of the minister. [Wikipedia] Only partially read that Complaint Against Ariel Sharon. Freaked out by this information.

USA - Pro-Israel Lobbyists

Benjamin Netanyahu Stuns Israel Backers by Embracing Republicans on Iran Bipartisan Unity in Danger as Premier Sides With GOP Congress By Nathan Guttman Published January 28, 2015, issue of February 06, 2015. Washington — Within one week, the fundamentals of the mainstream pro-Israel community have been shaken like never before. Its centerpiece legislative effort — the drive to impose new sanctions on Iran — has been frozen in place and, more importantly, the notion that support for Israel is a bipartisan issue in American politics has suffered a serious blow. The source of the setbacks suffered by the organized Jewish community could be tracked down to one event: House Speaker John Boehner’s January 21 invitation to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak on Iran in front of a joint meeting of Congress — and Netanyahu’s acceptance of the invitation, by prearrangement — without consulting Boehner’s Democratic counterparts and without telling President Obama about his outreach to a head of state to visit. From that moment, events spiraled downward quickly, leaving the community with more questions than answers and with blame being assigned in all directions. When Rep. John Yarmuth, a Jewish Democrat from Kentucky, was asked about the latest entanglement, he pointed to the large American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby group, and to big donors as responsible for pushing Congress far to the right on issues relating to Israel. “Unfortunately,” Yarmuth told liberal radio host Stephanie Miller, “some of the demands made of [Congress] members by AIPAC and by some Jewish supporters are that we defer to Israel more than we defer to the United States.” Turning Israel into a partisan issue has long been the greatest fear of pro-Israel advocates who argue that in the long run, the Jewish state needs support from both parties in order to remain America’s closest ally. Events surrounding the GOP’s invitation to Netanyahu have raised concerns in the Jewish community that siding with Israel, and specifically adopting its view regarding the threat posed by a nuclear armed Iran, have now become a political football. “It is too important an issue to politicize it,” said Abraham Foxman national director of the Anti Defamation League, who argued against Netanyahu’s visit to Washington. For Democrats, such as Yarmuth, it was clear who was at fault for this politicization: the Republicans and those in the pro-Israel establishment who support their views. “Israel needs bipartisan support and I am worried that when you take an individual issue and try to drive a wedge, it weakens the long term foundations of this relationship,” said Greg Rosenbaum, chair of the National Jewish Democratic Council, who is also a top-level AIPAC member. A strong relationship between the United States and Israel has long been a cornerstone of the American Jewish community. Fears that it is now crumbling are overstated, argued Rabbi Steve Gutow, president and CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. “This does not rise to the ‘end of the relationship’ discussion that seems to be going on,” he said. “This is more of a ‘take a breath’ moment.” Gutow stressed that while there are clearly differences between the U.S. and Israel on how to deal with Iran, they are only tactical; the strategic goal of stopping Iran from becoming nuclear is shared by both nations. Events on Capitol Hill surrounding the Iran sanctions legislation demonstrated how polarized the debate had become. The bill, sponsored by Republican Mark Kirk of Illinois and Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey, faced many hurdles on its way to a vote in the Senate Banking Committee. First and foremost, there was the president’s vigorous threat to veto the legislation because of the destructive effect he argued it would have on the ongoing diplomatic negotiations with Iran. Supporters of the bill had hoped that with the help of Democratic senators, ten of whom had indicated their willingness to co-sponsor, they’d be able to reach a super majority of 67 needed to override a presidential veto. Netanyahu’s planned speech in Congress was expected to help crystallize this support. Three Jewish Democrats: New York’s Chuck Schumer, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Ben Cardin of Maryland were among the key backers of the bill. The Senate’s seven other Jewish lawmakers did not join the drive, with California’s Dianne Feinstein actively working to defeat it. But as the controversy over Netanyahu’s invitation to Congress took over Washington’s political agenda, Democratic support for the new sanctions legislation melted away. In a January 27 [letter] ](http://images.politico.com/global/2015/01/27/iranletter1.pdf) to Obama, all the original Democratic supporters of the bill promised they would not support the legislation on the Senate floor before March 24, the current deadline for reaching a diplomatic agreement with Iran. They said further that they would vote for new sanctions only if negotiations failed to reach an agreement. [Which is putting pressure to reach agreement, on the threat of sanctions.] The bottom line delivered by Senate Democrats was that new Iran sanctions — AIPAC’s central piece of legislation and a top goal for Republican supporters of Israel — has been put on freeze by Democrats, with all Jewish senators on board. [Hardly a freeze.] “Democrats are wary of the partisan agenda behind this push for sanctions on Iran,” said Dylan Williams, vice president of government affairs at the dovish lobby J Street, a group that opposes new sanctions on Iran. “This worry they had was confirmed by Speaker Boehner and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s gambit.” AIPAC did not respond to inquiries relating on this issue from the Forward. But the recast debate thrust the entire organized Jewish community into an uneasy position. Most major Jewish groups chose to avoid speaking out publicly on the controversy. An official with one of the big national organizations said that the recent events had caught the community by surprise and that “there is no good way to respond.” The official explained that Jewish groups have nothing to benefit from taking sides in a political dispute between Republicans and the White House, or, for that matter, between the president of the United States and the Israeli prime minister. At least one Jewish senator has expressed, in an off record conversation, his wish to try and broker some sort of an arrangement that would defuse tensions, though he noted that it is not clear if there are partners on the other side of the isle for a compromise. Short of finding such a middle road, Jewish communal activists now face two immediate questions: How to keep up the pressure on Iran now that the option of new sanctions is on hold? And how should they treat Netanyahu once he arrives in Washington? The first is a practical problem. New sanctions are still the main vehicle for the pro-Israel lobby to increase pressure on Iran and AIPAC will continue pushing for their approval. But this drive has become all the more difficult now that the sanctions legislation has turned into one of the most contentious partisan issues, making it harder to get Democrats on board. As for rolling out the welcome mat for Netanyahu – all Jewish officials reached by the Forward said they could not envision a situation in which Jewish groups would shun the Israeli leader. Staff members from congressional offices of Jewish lawmakers also stressed there is no intention to boycott Netanyahu’s speech. But this doesn’t mean partisanship will be off the table once Netanyahu arrives at Capitol Hill. The Emergency Committee on Israel, a heavily Republican organization known for its critical views of President Obama, has already announced it will be hosting a reception for the Israeli prime minister after he addresses Congress. The event, ECI said in a statement is meant to “make clear, in case there’s any doubt, that whatever the president does or says, Americans value our friendship with our ally Israel.” http://forward.com/articles/213645/benjamin-netanyahu-stuns-israel-backers-by-embraci/? COMMENT If you want to get things done in terms of political lobbying, it's best to have both sides on-side, rather than to turn issues into bipartisan partisan political issues, is what I got out of that. A lot of pro-Israel lobby groups appear to be involved. It's not to pro-Israel lobbyists advantage to get caught up in a Republicans vs the White House or USA versus Israel issues. Furthermore, Israel cannot afford to alienate either party.  For continued support, must straddle both sides of the House. But at the end of the day, it looks like it's important for pro-Israeli lobbyists to continue to show their support for Israel, so Israel's visiting PM will be hosted by a heavily republican 'Emergency Committee on Israel' after his Congress address.