Netanyahu’s Statements and Policies

5618435092089408259noOriginally published by the Jerusalem Post

Although commentators overlooked it, the Obama administration did it again. They blindsided Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on the eve of his trip to Washington.

The last time it happened was in May 2011 when US President Barack Obama set out his policy toward Israel and the Palestinians as Netanyahu was in flight, en route to Washington to meet with him.

In that speech Obama announced his support for an essentially full Israeli withdrawal to the entirely indefensible 1949 armistice lines in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. Obama adopted this position despite the fact that Netanyahu and the Israeli public rejected it and viewed it as a threat to Israel’s survival.

This time the Obama administration didn’t blindside Israel on the eve of Netanyahu’s visit with another hostile pronouncement in relation to the Palestinians. This time they did so in relation to Iran.

In an address on Saturday night before the National Iranian-American Council, Phillip Gordon, the White House’s coordinator for the Middle East, said that if US-Iranian talks on Iran’s nuclear weapons program lead to an agreement, they can pave the way for the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. In his words, “A nuclear agreement could begin a multi-generational process that could lead to a new relationship between our countries.”

Gordon’s statement was a blunt departure from the White House’s previous position that the only gain Iran would make by obeying binding UN Security Council resolutions that prohibit the Islamic theocracy from enriching uranium would be the abrogation of economic sanctions that were adopted to force Iran to end its illicit nuclear activities.

In accordance with US law, diplomatic relations with Iran are contingent on Iran’s cessation of support for terrorist organizations and other unlawful activities.

In his remarks to NIAC – a group that the vast majority of Iranian-Americans view as the unofficial lobby of the Iranian regime – Gordon said that due to the importance of the nuclear issue, to make progress in nuclear talks, the US is willing to ignore Iran’s support for terrorism and other crimes.

In his words, “The nuclear issue is too important to subordinate to a complete transformation of Iran internally.”

FACED WITH this boldfaced US declaration that it will not only do nothing to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, but is also endorsing continued Iranian sponsorship of Hezbollah, Netanyahu opted to avoid yet another direct confrontation with the White House. Rather than directly call the administration out for its role in enabling Iran to become a nuclear state, Netanyahu sufficed with his usual rhetoric. He gently chided Obama for his pro-Iranian policy during his public remarks at the White House. And in all of his public statements, Netanyahu underlined how and why Iran and its nuclear weapons program are a greater threat to the free world than Islamic State.

There are probably two reasons for Netanyahu’s reticence. First, a confrontation would be futile.

Even before Gordon’s speech, it was obvious to Netanyahu that Obama’s goal is not to prevent Iran from getting nuclear bombs. The goal of Obama’s Iran policy is to reinstate US-Iranian relations.

Obama sees himself as a reincarnation of Richard Nixon. He will be for US-Iranian relations what Nixon was for US relations with Communist China.

Obama doesn’t mind if Iran has a bomb in the basement so long as he can drink tea with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in the drawing room.

Given Obama’s absolute commitment to his goal, there was no point in having a confrontation with him. Netanyahu’s rejection of Obama’s position, made through his repeated warnings, was directed toward other ears. Netanyahu’s statements and warning were directed toward the American media, the American public and the American political class. His goal is to develop and strengthen support for an Israeli policy that would run counter to Obama’s policy of embracing Iran even at the cost of enabling Iran to become a nuclear power.

The only problem with Netanyahu’s rhetoric is that it isn’t credible. At this point, it is hard to believe Netanyahu has a policy to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

During his five-and-a-half years in office, Netanyahu has taken only sporadic action against Iran.

The cumulative impact of those actions has been limited, in part due to the Obama administration’s policy of leaking Israeli operations to the media.

Moreover, in light of the episodic nature of these actions, it is hard to view them as integrated components of an overall strategy whose aim is to destroy or significantly degrade Iran’s nuclear installations. In other words, it doesn’t appear that Israel has a policy of any kind for dealing with Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

All we have is Netanyahu’s Churchillian rhetoric, which in itself will do nothing to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

As the media analysts were quick to point out, whereas Netanyahu sought to focus his discussions with Obama on Iran, Obama was keen to focus his discussions with Netanyahu on the Palestinians.

Netanyahu’s unwillingness to focus specifically on the Palestinian issue was notable mainly because in his limited remarks on the issue, he signaled that he has a new strategic vision and policy for contending with the Palestinian conflict with Israel.

The first aspect of Netanyahu’s apparently emerging policy came out on Monday during his speech at the UN General Assembly. There Netanyahu criticized PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas more honestly and assertively than he ever has before.

Slamming Abbas for his libelous charge that Israel enacted a genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, Netanyahu said that the deranged moral universe in which Israel can be accused of genocide is “the same moral universe where a man [Abbas] who wrote a dissertation of lies about the Holocaust, and who insists on a Palestine free of Jews, judenrein, can stand at the podium and shamelessly accuse Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing.”

Netanyahu then further distanced himself from the PLO-centric framework for building peaceful relations between Israel and its neighbors. He noted that the rise of Sunni jihadist forces and the Iranian nuclear threat have brought major Sunni Arab states to the conclusion that their best bet is to work with Israel to meet and surmount the growing dangers. This new regional landscape in turn can provide a means of resolving the Palestinian conflict with Israel in a manner that will not endanger Israel.

Netanyahu’s suggestion, repeated at the White House Wednesday, that neighboring Arab states may develop new means of resolving the Palestinian issue, rings true in light of the diplomatic support Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates gave Israel in its war against Hamas this summer. And even though the Egyptian government later denied the reports, talk persists that Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi did in fact offer the Palestinians sovereignty over a large swathe of Sinai adjacent to Gaza as a means of establishing a viable Palestinian state without sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

The assessment that a policy is slowly being developed along these lines was reinforced on Tuesday by Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon.

Repeating Netanyahu’s reference to a regional alliance structure that can be used to resolve the Palestinian conflict with Israel, Ya’alon said that it is irrational to even consider an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria in the aftermath of the war in Gaza.

The emerging policy apparently involves the application of Israeli sovereignty over all or parts of Judea and Samaria, along the lines I set out in my book The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, in combination with an Egyptian offer of Sinai territory to the Palestinians in conjunction with the demilitarization of Gaza.

From the administration’s behavior following Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu on Wednesday, we learned that the administration is adamantly opposed to any revision of the current PLO-centric framework, which is predicated on Israeli concessions to an intransigent PLO.

Shortly after Netanyahu left the White House, the administration bitterly attacked and threatened Israel, because the Jewish state refuses to obey the administration and deny Jews the right to buy and own property in eastern, southern and northern Jerusalem. The administration was enraged because in line with Israel’s refusal to adopt anti-Semitic housing policies, the Jerusalem Planning Board approved the construction of housing for Jews and Arabs in the city.

Also on Wednesday, Channel 10 reported that Secretary of State John Kerry is seeking to scuttle the developing Israeli alliance with Egypt and other anti-jihadist Sunni states by bringing Qatar, Hamas’s principal Sunni state-sponsor, into the mix. Kerry is reportedly trying to organize a regional peace conference that would coerce Israel into accepting the so-called Saudi Peace Initiative from 2002. That initiative would require Israel to surrender to all the PLO’s territorial demands and accept millions of foreign, hostile Arabs into its shrunken, indefensible territory.

In light of Obama’s absolute commitment to the anti-Israel, PLO-centric policy model for dealing with the Palestinian rejection of Israel, for the next two years there will be no change in US policy on the issue.

Under these circumstances, Netanyahu’s task is to lay the foundation in Washington for support for an Israeli policy that abandons the PLO as a partner and moves beyond the failed two-state model. Here, Netanyahu’s statements at the UN and the White House indicate that this is the path he has embarked upon.

Unfortunately, while Netanyahu may prefer to lay the groundwork for a new policy indirectly and cautiously, Abbas’s bid to convince the US to support the passage of a Security Council resolution that would require Israel to withdraw from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem a week after the 2016 presidential elections will likely force Netanyahu present an alternative to the PLO-centric two-state plan sooner rather than later.

After the 2016 elections, Obama will be unconstrained by concerns for Democratic candidates.

Most of the Security Council resolutions against Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria were passed after the 1980 presidential elections when the then lame duck Jimmy Carter felt free to attack Israel at will.

To avoid a repetition of that experience in late 2016, Netanyahu will have to offer an alternative to the failed two-state plan ahead of the 2016 presidential nominating conventions.

Netanyahu’s statements in the US this week present us with a mixed picture of his leadership.

Netanyahu appears more resolute on the Palestinian threat than he has in the past. This is a good thing. But on the most pressing threat Israel faces today, his strong words rang hollow. The only way to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power is for Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. Until Israel adopts a policy for doing so, words will not suffice.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • jmm64

    Excellent article. Bibi must strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, for Obama’s policy of preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons will shortly turn into a policy of containment.

  • Vinegar Hill

    The US is taking a pragmatic approach to Iran something that Glick cannot see or dislikes, resulting in a rejection of a nonbeligerent approach. There is a certain arrogance from Glick insinuating that the US administration needs to get a nod of approval before the announcement is made. There were briefings before the press conference and no doubt it was broached but once again Glick ignores this possibility with her silence.
    Regarding peace with the Palestinians it is obvious to all and sundry that Netanyahu does not want to give an inch and stubbornly refuses to offer a suitable proposition to the Palestinians. He also avoids the issue because of the slaughter that was carried out in the name of Israel in Gaza last month. Hence his silence.
    Regarding construction in east Jerusalem the US administraion is justified in their outrage agains Israel. East Jerusalem does not belong to to Israel and is considered occupied territory, therefore Israeli activities are illegal.
    Finally, the irresponsibility of Glick for advocating a strike against Iranian instilations needs to be condemned. Such a strike would be illegal and demonstrates the writers disregard for international law. No wonder the region is in a precarious situation.

    • wildjew

      Israel needs a prime minister like Naftali Bennett (not necessarily Bennett but a man like him) that will plainly tell the Americans there will be no Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, Gaza, etc.

      • Vinegar Hill

        The world would be a sorry place if that were to happen!

        • wildjew

          Why? It would be a more honest place. You say, “it is obvious to all and sundry that Netanyahu does not want to give an inch” of land to the Palestinians. If that is the case and I hope you are right, why not say so? Then we can move on and act accordingly. Then the United States can plan its next move. I don’t like dishonest? Do you?

          • Vinegar Hill

            Netanyahu is playing the political game. He is leading a fragile coalition and so he pursues a tough line with the Palestinians to satisfy the hardliners in this coalition. He also tries to please those members who want to accommodate some parts of the Palestinian requests, so he hedges his bets. The end result is a middle ground which leads nowhere and just frustrates the Palestinians and the US which has tried to play the role of the “honest broker”. If Netanyahu were a smart politican, strong and capable of finding a solution acceptable to both parties then the world would be safer for all concerned. The man , however, is incapable of doing this as he is obsessed with power and will go to any extreme to hold on to it. I don’t like his “dishonesty” and I presume you don’t either.

          • JB Ziggy Zoggy

            Obama is an honest broker and Netanyahu is a powermad megalomaniac? Only a lunatic or bald faced liar could expect anybody but a muslim to believe that bit of abject stupidity.

        • James_IIa

          Caroline Glick explores the possibility in her book. Perhaps her website contains an abbreviated version, which you might find informative.

        • SoCalMike

          You’re dead wrong 180 degrees in the opposite direction of the truth.
          The world is becoming much less safe and more unstable because the direction and vision of policy you advocate is currently playing out.
          Timidity and appeasement do not a stable world nor a sound foreign policy make in the face of dictators and tyrants.

        • JB Ziggy Zoggy

          The world is a sorry place now because that hasn’t happened and Israel is infested with muslims. You’re wasting your time trolling for a nuclear ayatollah and fictional Palestinians. Your taqiya is weak.

    • SH

      Vinegar Hill: Implicit in your comments is that non democratic tyrannical regimes that are the Iranian theocracy and the PLO-Hamas kleptocracy are trustworthy partners for peace; just like western democracies such as the US and Israel. We know the Iranian regime and PLO-Hamas regimes exist strictly due to coercion and threat of violence against any dissenters. They both have a big ideological problem with the existence of Israel – of Jews not being subservient; of Jews wielding power. Coexistence, and respect for others is not their thing. Oil rich Iran needs nuclear weapons for one reason only: to threaten and dominate it’s Sunni neighbors – and Israel. Had the PLO-Hamas been interested is peace, it would have been achieved long ago with thousands of lives saved. Caroline Glick sees them very clearly for who they are and what destruction they hope to achieve.
      Also, please remember that (East)Jerusalem has been part of no country other than the kingdom of Israel; that Jews have lived there longer than have Arabs and that Israel has, at the least, a claim equal to, if not infinitely greater than, the Arabs.

      • Vinegar Hill

        I think that at this stage a pragmatic approach is the right one for the US given the current situation in the area. I doubt if Israel, the US or Iran can be considered as “trustworthy partners” they are, in this field, birds of a feather.
        In both Israel and Iran the religious factor plays an important role in guiding foreign policy. “Coexisence and respect” is void on both sides of the fence.

        The Israelis made it plain that they would not recognise any government that included the majority Palestinian party unless Hamas recognised Israel and “renounced violence”. Hamas responded that it would recognise Israel only if Israel withdrew to its 1967 borders and would be willing from that position to negotiate a broader solution with the Israeli government and the UN, the US, Russia and the EU. This was de facto recognition of Israel’s right to exist.
        Israel refused the “offer”.

        Regarding Iran and nuclear weapons so far no concrete evidence has emerged to demonstrate that Iran is set firmly on that path. Iran has to import the vast majority of refined oil that it uses domestically despite being oil rich. The reason this situation came about is due to the embargo on goods to the country imposed by the US and its allies! Nuclear power wouñld greatly alievate this problem and cut back the dependency on oil usage domestically.

        You need to tell the judges of the ICJ that they are wrong about the status of East Jerusalem. I think I know what they may say to you! Why have you no respect for the judical system?
        Why go on about “Jews have lived there longer thna have Arabs”? You would be laughted out of any court house if you you used that as an argument.

        • JB Ziggy Zoggy

          There is nothing pragmatic about concessions to muslims, and the future of Israel won’t be decided in a court room.

          • Vinegar Hill

            Why not decide the future of Israel in a court room? Nothing could be fairer.

        • Hank Rearden

          Are you actually saying it is your position that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon?

          • Vinegar Hill

            Yes of course and why should I claim otherwise? Why do you claim that it is, when you fail to offer supportative evidence to back your accusation? Your accusation is pure conjecture. A dangerous comment to make about a country which will only worsen an already fragile situation.

          • Hank Rearden

            You Lefties think you have found something profound if, in the course of an argument, the exact words of the point at issue are not included in the relevant documents. I.e., you refuse to form a conclusion based on induction. You must be a used car salesman’s dream. You believe everything you are told. Maybe opening used car lots for Lefties is the next big thing.

            Take the case of Sarah’s “death panels.” You Leftes think that because the literal words “death” and “panel” do not appear in the text of the ACA that Sarah is a ditz. She is drawing the obvious conclusion from the rationing built into the plan. If there is rationing, then that means at the margin, some patients are going to be denied health care and that denial is going to be made by a bureaucratic panel.

            So also with Iran. You think that because the maximum Ayatollah has not said in public that Iran is developing The Bomb that it is impossible for anybody to conclude that they are. You only need 3% enrichment for a reactor. Iran has admitted it has gone to 20% and God only knows how far it has really gone. They have thousands of centrifuges – which they do not deny – to enrich uranium. They refuse to let their program be inspected. The IAEA, not exactly a right-wing organization, says that Iran is enriching uranium.

            As a wise man once said, you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

    • SoCalMike

      All of Jerusalem belongs to Israel.
      Get over it.
      The Jews have demonstrated a willingness to share and swap land for peace but receive only war in return.

      • Vinegar Hill

        All of jerusalem does not belong to Israel. The judges of the ICJ have clearly stated that east Jerusalem is occupied territory. Israeli activities in that area are illegal. Furthermore, prior to there dictumit has always been an international area designated to independent control. Israel and its forces are illegal occupants.

        • Hank Rearden

          Israel conquered east Jerusalem in the Six Day War. Jordan most unwisely joined that unwise war. And lost. Now it doesn’t even claim its old territory. To whom does it belong if not to Israel?

          • Vinegar Hill

            I will repeat the judges of the ICJ have stated that the West Bank does not belong to Israel.. Why do you deny the dictum of the judges?
            Also, UN SC Res. 242 clearly states that Israel has to vacate the land. Nothing could be clearer than these two points.

          • Hank Rearden

            Judges are just willful politicians in black robes unless they are constrained by a body of law and by a polity. I haven’t studied the ICJ, but I suspect it is “just” sort of an international arbitration panel with a glorified name – i.e., it is there to settle a dispute if both sides to the dispute agree to submit it to them. I very strongly suspect that Israel has never agreed to their jurisdiction in this matter. So whatever the ICJ has said, I see it as irrelevant.

            As I am sure you know 242 only requires Israel to vacate “land” not “the land.” And even with that, what country that has won a war has been subjected to the UN as to what they can do with that victory? Can you name one other? It is absurd to subject the Jews to all these rules imposed on and observed by no other country on the planet.

            Where is the UN on ISIS? Where is the UN on Christians in the Middle East? I think there are something like 4 million refugees in Syria; where is the UN on that? Where is the UN on the slaughter in Sudan? Where is the UN on the civil war in the Congo that has been going on for, what, 25 years? Where is the UN on North Korea that is starving its people?

            That Palis have made a choice. They could, still can, live with Israel and go into the future seeking a better life, or they can dedicate themselves to eliminating Israel in the name of their religion. We have to have some respect for their choices and not treat them as children. They are choosing to try to eliminate Israel. Israel is going to resist that as it should.

          • g..man

            The bible says it does

          • bklyn farmer

            Though the Oslo Process is moribund, it established three administrative divisions (Areas A, B and C) that may actually be useful in making Israel’s case for sovereignty. In particular, Area C comprises approximately 60% of Judea and Samaria and has a Jewish population exceeding 350,000, compared to an Arab population calculated only in the tens of thousands. It is under Israeli control and buttresses the greater Jerusalem neighborhoods that contain 250,000 or more Jewish residents.
            Based on demographics and legal precedent, a growing number of Israelis favor some form of annexation or extension of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. Indeed, incorporating lands that were part of ancient Israel would coincide with the vision articulated by San Remo and the Mandate.

            As duly noted in the Levy Report – Jewish habitation in Judea and Samaria does not constitute “occupation” under any definition. Rather, it is consistent with the law recognized by San Remo and the Mandate and adopted by the United Nations through Article 80 of the UN Charter.

        • bklyn farmer

          Judea and Samaria were never lawfully part of any sovereign Arab or Muslim nation at any time after the Roman conquest, but rather constituted unincorporated territories that were illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948.

          When Israel wrested control of these lands from Jordan, she in fact liberated them from foreign occupation; and in doing so she was enforcing national rights that had been recognized by San Remo and the Mandate.

          Although U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 is often invoked to demand that Israel withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, it actually says nothing of the kind.

          Resolution 242 recognizes that Israel was attacked by Jordan, Egypt and Syria in 1967, and calls on the parties to that conflict to negotiate a “just and lasting peace” based on “secure and recognized borders.” This language implicitly recognizes that Israel’s capture of Judea and Samaria, and also Golan, Gaza and Sinai, was legal under international law. If it were not, Resolution 242 would simply have demanded that Israel return all lands captured from her attackers. There would be nothing to negotiate and no need to deviate from the 1949 armistice boundaries known as the “Green Line.” Significantly, however, Resolution 242 does not characterize the Green Line as permanent.

          Nowhere does Resolution 242 require Israel to withdraw from “all” of “the” territories captured from Jordan, Egypt and Syria. Moreover, the importance of the grammar and syntax used by the drafters cannot be overstated.

          As explained by the late Eugene Rostow, the U.S. Undersecretary of State who participated in drafting Resolution 242, the exclusion of the adjective “all” and the definite article “the” was intentional and indicative of the essential meaning.

          Resolution 242 … calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until ‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’ is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces ‘from territories’ it occupied during the Six-Day War – not from ‘the’ territories nor from ‘all’ the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. . . .

          Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines [‘Green Line’], but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries …

          (“The Future of Palestine,” Rostow, Eugene V., Institute for National Strategic Studies, November 1993.)

          Furthermore, the black letter of Resolution 242 applies to incorporated states. It does not mention the Palestinians because they did not constitute a sovereign state involved in the conflict.

          Whereas Resolution 242 does mention “refugees,” the term as used refers equally to Jews and Arabs who lost their homes during the war in 1948. It does not apply to a displaced Palestinian people whose national existence is more political than historical.

          In light of the foregoing, Israel’s acquisition of Judea and Samaria was lawful and appropriate. Despite the UN’s attempts to delegitimize Israeli actions by promulgating ridiculous resolutions ex post facto, her claim to Judea and Samaria is supported by established legal principles.

    • Hank Rearden

      But what does “a pragmatic approach” amount to? Doing nothing. And letting people clearly not in touch with reality get The Bomb. Bad moon rising.

  • wildjew

    I fully expect to wake up to the news Iran has tested its first nuclear device as this article makes clear we will. One day in the future it is possible Iranian / Islamic nuclear devices will be planted in American and European cities waiting for orders from Tehran or some other regime. With Hezbollah cells in South America it is conceivable there will be nuclear armed ICBMs aimed at American cities in Tehran and other places. Americans will rue the day they elected and then re-elected this dangerous Muslim born president who has deep sympathies for the world of Islam.

  • itaintmojo

    Bibi’s speech last week should be appreciated by all decent people. The only thing that bothered me about it were the compliments about Obama he included. Perhaps Bibi is wise for holding his tongue about Obama’s apparent dislike, and bullying of Israel and Bibi. But for me, brown nosing Obama makes Bibi look dishonest. Obama is a danger to Israel, America, and the world. So many have been raped and perished as a result of Obama’s decisions. Not to mention the settlement freeze, and apology to Erdoğan that Obama forced Bibi to agree to. Bibi may be telling it like it is regarding Abbass, and Iran. But he is no better, if not worse than the MSM about exposing the truth about the mean inept POTUS currently in charge.

  • Sara

    Israel has no choice but to act on Iran and it will, since a nuclear Iran means a definite end to Israel.

  • Delores Moyer

    It may be too late to turn around all the evil/harm that our “great President” has bestowed upon this great nation. Everything he does is in opposition of what this country has stood for and, by his words/deeds/decrees, is definitely either a Muslim or a Muslim sympathizer and the quicker some of those people who are in power and write all these newsworthy articles we get, the sooner we can come to grips with the real problem and get Obama out of office (2 more years could completely destroy us). Why doesn’t someone say just what I said????? I know they could and are they just cowards and playing the game just to stay in office and save their skin/wealth they get by being appeasers???? Yes, Iran will get the “bomb” and try it on us if some horrible disease (like Ebola) that Obama likes to continually send to America via travel and the porous borders (probably on purpose) to take us down and we stand around with our hands in our pockets and let it happen. I happened to see the “Guidestones in Georgia this summer and no one knows who really had them built in the 90′s (like Stonehenge) but say that we should seek to have a world population of only 500 million (chilling as most of the world population would be gone since we have probably over 7 billion right now).& some say it was built by those who want a One World Order. Know it sounds crazy, but need to think about it with all these things happening.

  • James_IIa

    This is a mixed article, criticizing Bibi for weakness on the one hand, while floating the hope that he is being quite clever on the other. For once I have the suspicion that he may be calculating a few moves ahead of Ms. Glick.

  • SoCalMike

    Iran will test its first nuclear device on Washington or New York.
    They can launch one from the surface of a container ship run by jihadis in search of virgins in paradise so they can just destroy the ship after they launch.
    This way Obama won’t be sure who to go after. The source of the launch will be a “mystery.”
    The US will be paralyzed and people will call for Obama to resign.
    Of course he won’t. He’s so precious and deeply in love with himself and the sound of his own voice he will simply take his wrath out on Israel and use whatever power he and time in office he still has to inflict as much damage as he can on the US and the West.
    Many say he’s a failure but not by his own standards of judgement.
    Diminishing the US economically and militarily are his 2 primary goals.
    So far he has succeeded in a very big way and he still has 2 more years to inflict as much damage on the West and the US as he can.

    • Vinegar Hill

      I suggest you send this script to a director in hollywood and you are bound to be a success. Your comment so vivid, so real, astounding!! What insight you have!!

      • JB Ziggy Zoggy

        Movie theater patronage is down precisely because Hollywood refuses to make a realistic movie about Barack Hussein Obama and his muslim allies.

        • billobillo54

          Hollywood revised Clancy’s “The Sum of All Fears” by scrubbing Clancy’s realistic and completely current and believable terrorists who were MUSLIMS and recreated them as Neo-Nazis. The inconsistency and liberal Islamophilism is evident.

      • Hank Rearden

        Agree with JB Z Z…Hollywood wouldn’t make the film.

  • Vinegar Hill

    You claim that “The Victors write the rules” but i am afraid that is where you are wrong. One of the poins of the points of the IJC to stop rogue countries claiming land illegally. Whether you like it or not, international law exists, and what it dictates, is the law. It clearly states that the occupation of the West Bank is illegal.

  • Paul Kidd

    God is in Charge of EVERYTHING that happens in the Land of His Chosen People. Israel MUST have pure faith, that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will always Protect the Apple of His Eye. Everything playing out now on the world stage is happening just as God Planned it. SOON, the Entire Jewish Nation of Israel will understand everything. I pray for Your Country and all your People Daily.

  • mimeQQ

    Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu, Please tell American Jews
    they are not obligated to vote for the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party has
    been taken over by communists and marxist and do not align themselves to
    Israel. Almost 70% of American Jews voted for Obama along with over 50% of
    Catholics (Vatican take note, you are next). This vote alone put Obama in
    office. It was well know and publicized who and what Obama was before his
    election. Please educate them that their vote DOES count.

  • bklyn farmer

    Brigitte Gabriel keynote speaker at United Nations – תרגום לעברית