Start A Petition

Iran Deal Fallout: Top Ten Ways Netanyahu Will Try to Sabotage Peace

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: iran, middle-east, israel, usa, GoodNews )

- 1640 days ago -
The whole world, except for Netanyahu and his assets in the US Congress, is cheering for peace. How will Netanyahu try to sabotage the deal and get his long-desired war with Iran?

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Abdessalam D (145)
Monday November 25, 2013, 4:18 am
In the wake of the historic P5+1 deal recognizing Iran’s right to enrich uranium, Netanyahu is howling that it was a “historic mistake” – and threatening that Israel will not be bound by the agreement. The whole world, except for Netanyahu and his assets in the US Congress, is cheering for peace. How will Netanyahu try to sabotage the deal and get his long-desired war with Iran?
Here is Netanyahu’s list of his top ten ways to sabotage peace, leaked to Veterans Today by a reliable source.
10. Marshal a rejectionist front consisting of Netanyahu and leading Warner Brothers cartoon characters, including Wile E. Coyote, Elmer Fudd, Ralph Wolf, Porky Pig, Tasmanian Devil, and Yosemite Sam.
9. Get a bunch of crazy settler rabbis drunk on Mogen-David kosher 20-20 wine and send them to smash wine bottles on the walls of the al-Aqsa mosque.
8. Order Mossad assets such as Andrew Adler of the Atlanta Jewish Times to publish more op-eds calling for the assassination of President Obama under the headline “This Time We Mean It!”
7. Order Mossad assets to send Obama to Dallas and lead the President’s motorcade into a “kill zone” of triangulated sniper fire. (Written across this proposal in Netanyahu’s handwriting: “Worked once, won’t work again.”)
6. Send thugs on motorbikes to assassinate P5+1 diplomats.
5. Use Stuxnet virus to wreck laptops of P5+1 diplomats.
4. Blow up New York skyscrapers, blame it on Muslims, and declare “War on Terror.” (Written across this proposal in Netanyahu’s handwriting: “Worked once, won’t work again.”)
3. Announce that earth is under invasion by aliens, and claim that Iran is on the side of the aliens.
2. Ask Bandar Bush to send al-Qaeda to invade Iran, offer to provide air cover.
1. Confess utter and complete impotence, take out frustrations on hapless Palestinians.
Note: On the copy of this document leaked to Veterans Today, the first nine proposals have been crossed out, while the final one is circled.

Abdessalam D (145)
Monday November 25, 2013, 5:00 am
Is this some sort of " HUMOR"?

Giana Peranio-paz (398)
Monday November 25, 2013, 5:16 am
It's very cynical and exaggerated of course. Like I wrote you, I don't respect him much or trust him, but in this case, I hope that he isn't right and that Obama is just very naive. We don't know all the facts, probably none of them actually, and I myself don't know who or what to believe anymore. The article is very offensive and I don't appreciate the so called "humor". I hope the peace agreement lasts and that Netanyahu's fears turn out to be unfounded.

Abdessalam D (145)
Monday November 25, 2013, 5:18 am
Thanks Giana. Green star

Terrie Williams (798)
Monday November 25, 2013, 9:09 am
WTH?! This looks like it's supposed to be 'tongue-in-cheek' humor. I don't find it humorous in the least. Like Giana says, we DO NOT know all the facts, nor will we. I hope the proposal works and both sides keep their word. The last thing we need is another war with another middle-eastern country over BS caused by none other than Mr. NetanYooHoo. He gets on my last peaceful nerve...because he doesn't want peace -- with anyone.

Ironic that he so fears Iran getting/producing nukes when he and his country already have over 200+ nukes themselves....pot calling kettle.

I hope and pray that Iran keeps their word and does what is called for in the treaty and I hope that we keep our word as well....and not let anyone on any sides -- US/Iran/Israel -- screw it up.

Kit B (276)
Monday November 25, 2013, 9:21 am

It's a joke, a bad one but a gag The one about sending Obama to Dallas is particularly tasteless, though I find no humor in any of this sick idea of humor.

Angelika R (143)
Monday November 25, 2013, 1:26 pm
might have laughed, were this not so damn serious... thx Abdessalam

"his country already have over 200+ nukes themselves"-some time ago i read somewhere (wish I could remember) an Israeli general stating that their nuke capacity is now over 400!
Bibi is either paranoid or plain evil-perhaps both, not sure. This usually claimed"fear" and "for national security" to me-and not me alone- appears as a deeply rooted psychological problem, in some part understandable, paired with what I already commented earlier, e.g. on Kit's post/s. Yes, his war with Iran IS long-desired. And so is PEACE by the world community,- minus those who profit from it.

Angelika R (143)
Monday November 25, 2013, 8:51 pm
I found this analysis of the agreement reached quite informative and hopefully helpful for not only Giana but also others:
The Geneva agreement and more, Hard Questions, Tough Answers with Yossi Alpher: November 25, 2013
(sorry for the lenght)
This week, Alpher discusses whether the Geneva agreement between the P5 + 1 and Iran is a "bad deal" and a "historic mistake" as Netanyahu argues, what about it should realistically worry Israel, what we have learned over the weekend regarding Israel's relationship with the Obama administration, whether Netanyahu's strategy regarding Iran and the international community has failed, what all this may say about the election in recent days of Yitzhak "Boozhi" Herzog to head the Labor party, and whether Netanyahu's invitation to Palestinian President Abbas to speak to Israel's parliament his inviting himself to a reciprocal appearance in the Palestinian parliament is a serious initiative.

Q. Is the Geneva agreement between the P5 + 1 and Iran a "bad deal" and a "historic mistake" as Netanyahu argues?

A. No. It's the "least bad deal" we could anticipate and, under current circumstances, it's better than no deal at all. It freezes Iran's nuclear program and even sets it back slightly for the six-month duration. It imposes far stricter monitoring of Iran's nuclear program than in the past. And the price it pays Tehran in terms of relaxed sanctions is minor, ensuring that Iran will continue to "hurt" until further notice. True, the agreement, using ambiguous language, appears ultimately to legitimize Iran's right to enrich nuclear fuel despite United Nations prohibitions--but few observers deluded themselves that Iran's nuclear clock could be turned back 100 percent. Thus this agreement is important, but modest in all its dimensions: duration, sanctions relief and limitations on Iran's nuclear program.

Q. Then why the furor?

A. I would argue that the reaction generated in the Middle East by this agreement--from Israel to Saudi Arabia--turns on much heavier issues than the agreement per se: Iran's future regional and global status; the international attitude toward its subversive and threatening posture in the Middle East; relations between Israel and the Obama administration; and Netanyahu's record of success and failure at the strategic level.

Q. Let's start with the question: what really should worry Israel?

A. Iran was already a nuclear threshold state before this agreement was signed early Sunday morning in Geneva. While the agreement more or less freezes Iran's nuclear capabilities, one Israeli concern must be to ensure that the comprehensive pact to be negotiated in the coming six months moves Iran farther away from threshold status. If, in contrast, Iran's newly-formulated interim status is merely formalized by a long-term agreement, this would be bad news.

Secondly, the Geneva agreement says nothing about Iran's aggressive stance toward the region. Iran is becoming entrenched on Israel's northern borders, in Syria and Lebanon. It is far and away Iraq's most influential--if not hegemonic--neighbor. It strikes a subversive pose regarding the Shiite minorities (in Bahrain's case, majority) in the Gulf emirates and Saudi Arabia. On the eve of the latest Geneva round, Supreme Leader Khamenei called the Israeli "regime" and leadership "rabid dogs", thereby echoing years of threats to destroy Israel.

Nothing is said about any of this in the Geneva agreement. The Khamenei statement was met by the 5 + 1 with, at best, mild reprimands and a refusal to let it get in the way. Essentially the international community, led by the United States, is intent on dealing with Iran's (nuclear) capabilities, not its intentions toward Israel and the region.

A charitable explanation of this pose would argue that the Iran experts of the 5 + 1 believe that a nuclear deal and sanctions relief will empower the moderates in the Tehran political structure and defang Iran's own hawks, thereby ultimately ending threats against Israel. Undoubtedly, moderate Iranians are feeding this impression: at a Pugwash nuclear arms control meeting in Istanbul a few weeks ago, some of the Iranian participants reassured Israelis in attendance that Iranian rapprochement with the United States would of necessity bring about a major relaxation of Iranian-Israeli tensions as well.

Israel's fears regarding Iran's intentions are real and sound. Those intentions must be addressed in the coming six months of negotiations. Israelis just commemorated the Yom Kippur War of October 1973, in which Israel was caught by surprise at least partially because its intelligence establishment was focused on Egypt's perceived capabilities and ignored its declared intentions.

Israel also has legitimate concerns lest the very limited sanctions relief embodied in the Geneva agreement turn into a slippery slope of renewed international commercial ties with Iran. And Jerusalem is justified in fearing, based on international precedents in North Korea and elsewhere, that the new, tighter inspection regime will not prevent Iranian cheating. It is up to the P5 + 1 to ensure that ongoing sanctions and tougher monitoring are administered seriously.

At the broadest level, are we looking at the beginning of a new set of relationships that brings Iran back into the international community and crowns it a primary regional player and a new-old friend of America? If so, what does this mean for the rest of us in the Middle East? How would such a dynamic interact with the Obama administration's drive to radically lower America's military profile in the region? It's much too early to answer these questions, but they are definitely on the minds of leaders in Jerusalem, Cairo, Amman and Riyadh.

Q. What have we learned over the weekend regarding Israel's relationship with the Obama administration?

A. President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry succeeded in marshalling the world's most powerful nations to enter an agreement with Iran that the government of Israel vehemently condemned. Obama and Kerry are even risking the opposition of Congress, egged on by Israel and AIPAC. But they appear to have the support of the American public, which has lately been dissatisfied with the administration over the healthcare fiasco. Assuming the Geneva agreement is seen to succeed and congressional opposition proves ineffective, the entire dynamic could affect the way Kerry approaches the thus-far low-key Israeli-Palestinian final status negotiations.

This suggests that the administration might now not shy away from a confrontation with Israel over the Palestinian issue. On the other hand, Netanyahu is likely to cite his concern that Geneva is bad for Israeli security as a rationale for rejecting any sort of risk-taking regarding security with the Palestinians, even if an empowered Kerry insists.

Q. Has Netanyahu's strategy regarding Iran and the international community failed?

A. Netanyahu succeeded in pushing the international community to tighten sanctions against Iran to an unprecedented degree. Up to that point, his strategy succeeded. But now he confronts the almost inevitable outcome of a successful sanctions regime: Iran has elected a more moderate president and the Iranians are prepared to deal. To a degree, even Netanyahu's angry performance two weeks ago, which helped shelve a more lenient Geneva deal, can be justified insofar as the eventual agreement is better from Israel's standpoint.

But now that the deal is done, Netanyahu would be well advised to cease the angry histrionics and play a more constructive role. He should seek close coordination with the US in the coming phase in the interest not of preventing a comprehensive agreement but rather, and declaratively, of getting the best agreement possible. Certainly Obama's phone conversation with Netanyahu on Sunday seemed to reflect American willingness to move on.

The destructive side of the Israeli prime minister's tactical approach was already evident in September when he angrily rejected Jewish New Year's greetings from Iranian FM Zarif and instructed Israel's UN delegation, alone, to walk out on President Rowhani's inaugural address. Even if it emerges that the Iranian smile campaign is indeed a cover for Tehran's aggressive designs on the region, that sort of response is hardly the way to expose it.

Finally, thus far Netanyahu has used his extensive influence, direct and indirect, in the US Congress to pressure the administration. He should now think twice before actively encouraging congressional opposition to the Geneva agreement, lest he generate a genuine, and in many ways unprecedented crisis in Israel's relations with a US administration.

Q. Can you factor into this analysis the election in recent days of Yitzhak "Boozhi" Herzog to head the Labor party?

A. Herzog replaces Shelly Yacimovich, who led Labor's mediocre election bid last January on a platform that emphasized socio-economic issues and ignored the Israeli-Palestinian issue. She was on record offering to support any new agreement Netanyahu reaches with the Palestinians, but only from outside the government; she refused to present Labor as a candidate to join Netanyahu's coalition.

Herzog, in contrast, prioritizes the peace process, and apparently would join the coalition if it was in danger of collapse because of right-wing opposition to an agreement with the Palestinians. This ostensibly presents Netanyahu with a more solid moderate option, whether on the Palestinian issue or on Iran--but only if he chooses to move toward moderation and encounters threats from the far right to abandon the coalition.

Q. Finally, Netanyahu exploited the occasion of French President Hollande's appearance in the Knesset last week to invite Palestinian President Abbas to speak to Israel's parliament. He also invited himself to a reciprocal appearance in the Palestinian parliament. Is this a serious initiative?

A. Abbas apparently thinks it is, and has let it be known that he is weighing the option carefully. One positive consideration (that Netanyahu apparently ignored) is that only heads of state can be invited to address the Knesset. By speaking there, Abbas would in effect be recognized by Israel as head of the very Palestinian state that Netanyahu refuses to acknowledge. On the other hand, it is almost certain that dozens of right wing members of Knesset would use the occasion to jeer Abbas and turn the event into an embarrassment for all.

Abbas could either emerge a hero, or with egg on his face. Yet if he turns down the invitation, Netanyahu could and probably will argue that he is insincere about peace.

Last Friday, Abbas told the Voice of Russia that he would address the Knesset "only in order to say what I want to say and not what [Netanyahu] wants to hear". This sounds like a copout, since Netanyahu is not known to have dictated what Abbas could or could not say to the Knesset.

As for Netanyahu traveling to Ramallah to speak at the Palestinian parliament, the latter is virtually defunct, with its reelection date long past. If it does convene to hear him, Netanyahu will find himself addressing not only Fateh but also Hamas MPs--unless they are in Israel's jails. And what about the security issues involved if Netanyahu, of all people, travels to the Palestinian parliament in Ramallah?

In short, this looks like a spur-of-the-moment Netanyahu gesture that he did not think through. Stay tuned for Abbas' decision--and what Netanyahu will do about it.


Sheila D (194)
Monday November 25, 2013, 10:26 pm
Personally, I think Israel has been the bully boy for long enough. Now it gets to feel what it's like to be on the other end...Sadly, it will be the people, the women and children, who suffer, just as it has been with the Palestinians for years.
As far as Iran goes, this seems to be the lesser of all the evils. Only time will tell of Iran's intentions.

Robert O (12)
Tuesday November 26, 2013, 12:42 am
Thanks Abdessalam.

jay way (11)
Tuesday November 26, 2013, 1:12 am
Thankyou for this one, and YES , this is like british humor -

Abdessalam D (145)
Tuesday November 26, 2013, 3:30 am
Let us have a look at Israeli newspapers about this subject namely Iran - 5+1 agreement :
Nov. 25,2013
The Israeli commentators and analysts complained, lauded, warned, and calmed Israeli readers today about the agreement signed between Iran and the six powers. They also slammed Israeli Prime Minister Binaymin Netanyahu, who was perceived as a failure. Interestingly, there were more than a few who supported the deal, including Israeli politicians.

On the con side, Netanyahu said the deal endangers Israel and that Israel will defend itself. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Israel needs to find new allies [!] and Finance Minister Yair Lapid and Economy Minister Naftali Bennett echoed the Prime Minister's claims, as did Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon.

However, Israeli President Shimon Peres said "time will tell" and Meretz chairwoman MK Zahava Gal-On said it slows down the fast track to a nuclear bomb. And former army intel chief Amos Yadlin said that the Iran deal was better than the alternative of no deal and that Israel must push for a final deal that keeps Iran years from a possible bomb. Ynet interviewed the former head of the Iran division in the Prime Minister's Office, who said the deal includes considerable achievements. Yoel Guzansky also said Israel made all of its demands public, knowing that not all of them would be approved. "Part of Israel's policy was to ask for the maximum with the hope and aspiration that at least half would be accepted," he said.

US President Barack Obama called Netanyahu and said he wants Israel and the US to begin consultations over a final nuclear agreement. Canada has vowed to keep its Iran sanctions after the deal. Israel Hayom has a poll showing that Israelis don't believe Iran will not make a nuclear weapon. And in Iran, Iranians hailed their Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif as a hero.

Abdessalam D (145)
Tuesday November 26, 2013, 3:46 am
1 - Give Iran deal a chance (Haaretz Editorial) Netanyahu has managed to convince the world that the Iranian threat is real; he must now embrace the results of these efforts.
Zig-zag agreements (Ronen Bergman, Yedioth) "Israel has cause for concern. First, because its main demand, the complete dismantling of Fordow, the fortified underground site near Qom, was not met. Second, because the agreement, in contrast to Israel's demand, is for only six months, and therefore, Iran will be able to resume nuclear development in another six months without being considered in violation of it. Third, and most importantly, the section of the agreement regarding sanctions is very vague. It is not clear which sanctions will be lifted and how...If it becomes clear that Iran is violating the agreement or if it refuses to sign a permanent agreement, the ability to threaten it again will be severely impaired."
2 - How the Iran crisis became a test of American Jewish 'loyalty' (Amiel Ungar, Haaretz+) What Jonathan Pollard's interminable incarceration and the Iran deal have in common is a warning to American Jews not to voice their support for Israel too loudly.
3 - Netanyahu needs to clarify whether 11 billion shekels were wasted (Shalom Yerushalmi, Maariv/NRG Hebrew) "Israel is not committed to an agreement," Netanyahu said Sunday and he now needs to give us answers what now. What does he intend to do now? Will he attack Iran without the powers? Will he attack Iran despite the US opposition? Will we find new allies instead of the US, as our Foreign Minister says? And did billions of shekels go down the drain on training for nothing for an attack that won't take place? Will we start to pay the price for the uphill battles we had held against our closest ally and will Obama send us now to look for our friends in Moldova? Let's pray not.
4 - Geneva deal seals Netanyahu’s legacy: An ineffectual leader (Amir Oren, Haaretz+) The prime minister wanted to 'save Israel.' He winds up alienated from the international community - and from his own base.
5 - Nitzan's destructive disengagement days (Nadav Shragai, Israel Hayom) The extent that his personal convictions influenced his decision-making during his tenure as deputy attorney-general continues to stir controversy.
6 - A good deal: Geneva pact distances Iran from nuclear bomb (Barak Ravid, Haaretz+) Despite Netanyahu's harsh criticism, Geneva deal places serious restrictions on Iran and provides the West with valuable information on its nuclear program.
7 - The Prime Minister's Dilemma: Escalation or accepting the agreement (Eli Bardenstein, Maariv/NRG Hebrew) Netanyahu insisted not to be involved in the agreement. After the signing, Israeli diplomats hope that Netanyahu will look forward and stop being opposed to it.
8 - To my friends on the right: Don't delegitimize me (Alex Sinclair, Haaretz+) Jews on the left are ready for a broad dialogue on Israel, but the right often isn't - and still prefers to reject them as self-hating Jews who want to destroy Israel.
9 - A tale of two deals (David M. Weinberg, Israel Hayom) American credibility on Iran is shot through so badly that almost nothing American leaders can say will allay Israeli -- or Arab -- fears.
10 - Obama and Kerry's betrayal of 'never again' (Seth Lipsky, Haaretz+) What President Obama means when he says he has Israel's back is that he will partner with Israel's enemies behind its back, giving succor to a regime that operates against both Israel and the U.S.
11 - Pros and cons of Geneva deal (Ron Ben-Yishai, Ynet) Greatest danger is that interim agreement will become permanent, leaving Iran as 'threshold country.'
12 - U.S., Israel spats blur simple truth: Neither wants Iran to have nukes (Robert Einhorn, Haaretz+) It's time to stop exchanging rhetorical barrages and knuckle down to the real work of making the final Iran pact watertight.
13 - The agreement with Iran: the chance of attacking rose (Amir Rappaport Dr. Rafael Ofek, Maariv/NRG Hebrew) Rapprochement between Tehran and West does not allow an (Israeli) attack in the near future, but the government will have to decide what it wants to do when a political opportunity for an attack arises.
14 - Winners and losers of nuclear deal (Roi Simyoni, Ynet) Deal reached in Geneva between Iran, western powers left certain sides satisfied, others less. As Iran, US are triumphant, Israel, Saudi Arabia come up short. How does deal affect Israel's Mideast neighbors? Political balance sheet.
15 - Battle for new sanctions could harm Israel more than Iran, now that deal is done (Chemi Shalev, Haaretz+) Israel finds itself isolated in the world arena, with only Saudi sheikhs and U.S. lawmakers at its side; perhaps it’s time to consider other diplomatic options besides perpetual petulance.
16 - The logic of the Obama administration is in question (Dr. Emily Landau, Maariv/NRG Hebrew) "The interim agreement is neither a disaster nor a cause for celebration...There is no basis for believing that Iran will necessarily act in good faith and will not try to bypass the restrictions...After years of deception and lies vis-ŕ-vis the international community, Iran has lost all basis for trust and, therefore, oversight must be comprehensive and the inspectors' visits frequent...As long as Iran has not carried out an about-face regarding its military intentions, it is still playing a tactical game in the framework of which it is trying to achieve maximum sanctions relief in exchange for minimum concessions."
17 - A 'bad deal' for Israel is a hollow victory for Iran (Anshel Pfeffer, Haaretz+) Iranian diplomats claim victory after reaching a nuclear deal with the West, even though most of their red lines were breached.
The agreement with Iran: modest, but better than the present situation (Nadav Eyal, Maariv/NRG Hebrew) Contrary to public opinion in the world, the agreement with Iran is not a historic breakthrough for peace. The agreement with Iran is exactly what it is: an initial interim arrangement.

Abdessalam D (145)
Tuesday November 26, 2013, 4:59 am
Review of the Hebrew media: Tuesday November 26, 2013‏. Iran-related News:

Western powers are telling Israel to stop complaining about the Iran nuclear deal and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu moderates his tone, while Hezbollah hails the agreement, the Arab media gives it mixed reviews, and Israeli officials travel to Washington to discuss the final agreement. Meanwhile, an Israeli poll finds that only 10% divides those who think its good and those who think its bad for Israel.

Fearing that he will worsen the crisis with the US over the Iran nuclear agreement, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu lowered his aggressive tone yesterday in his criticism of the deal between the world powers and Iran, wrote Yedioth. But US President Barack Obama blasted critics saying, "Tough talk and bluster may be the easy thing to do politically, but it is not the right thing for our security." And Britain's Foreign Secretary Alexander Hague warned Israel against any action that would undermine the deal. "We would discourage anybody in the world, including Israel, from taking any steps that would undermine this agreement and we will make that very clear to all concerned," Hague told parliament. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Israel would not launch an attack in the near future because "no one would understand" such a move "at this stage." Hezbollah said the deal was a "defeat for the enemies" of the region. The Arab media reactions reflect their regional divisions. But the consensus, writes Haaretz's+ Jacky Khoury, is that the Syrian regime was the big winner, because it is believed there is no longer any chance of military action against President Bashar Assad and his regime. Meanwhile, an Israeli team will leave for Washington to discuss the final Iran deal, Netanyahu told Likud members.

A text message poll by Yedioth asked whether the deal signed with Iran was good for Israel.
45% - Yes
55% - No

Abdessalam D (145)
Tuesday November 26, 2013, 5:29 am
Download, print, and take to your Thanksgiving and/or Chanukah table:

In 1838, Congress voted to displace 12,000 Cherokee from their native land.
Israel’s “Prawer Plan” currently being debated in the Israeli Knesset will do the same to 40,000 of its own
Bedouin citizens.

Angelika R (143)
Tuesday November 26, 2013, 9:31 am
THX Abdessalam for all quite interesting additional info here! A good reflection of overall reactions!
As for the Prawer Plan, have signed quite a number of petitions for this before- looks like to no avail..if the right wing harliners can win...

Angelika R (143)
Tuesday November 26, 2013, 9:38 am
"...Contrary to public opinion in the world, the agreement with Iran is not a historic breakthrough for peace..."I
I believe that public opinion however, focus more on the breaking of silence between these two administrations for decades and rightfully public opinion IS calling this a HISTORIC BREAKTHROUGH FOR DIALOGUE as a way to possibly and hopefully creating lasting peace!

Angelika R (143)
Tuesday November 26, 2013, 9:47 am
Personally, I would love to see a tainted relationship between US- Israel that would lead to a DECREASE of financial and asset aid which has only benefited Israel's military and of course the US military industrial complex-NOT the citizens! Israel is certainly no poor country and can well sustain itself IF it abandons the armament mania!

fly bird (26)
Tuesday November 26, 2013, 10:19 am
Netanyahu sent his minister to Washington Monday - America has to focus on it's own issues and not allow Netanyahu/AIPAC to keep undermining and interfering in U.S. policy and trying to dominate the agenda.
Thanks Abdesallam for the post and comments.

fly bird (26)
Tuesday November 26, 2013, 4:45 pm
Is schmuck Schumer a U.S. senator or an Israeli gun runner?
(Updated) "Senator Chuck Schumer promises more Iran sanctions, vows to 'defeat' Arab world and Palestinians." Nov 25, 2013

Abdessalam D (145)
Wednesday November 27, 2013, 4:32 am
That is no surprise for me. Such congressmen have been backed by IPAC. They are being paid by Zionism and getting free tickets and full board + drinks accommodation in Israel .

Abdessalam D (145)
Wednesday November 27, 2013, 4:33 am
Sorry for the spelling error . I meant AIPAC.

Abdessalam D (145)
Wednesday November 27, 2013, 4:35 am
And by the way, Israel is ready to fight till the last American soldier and last American dollar.

Angelika R (143)
Wednesday November 27, 2013, 6:34 am
Jess-I guess it's fair to assume that EVERY Jewish Congressman/woman regardless of party, is in fact bribed/bought by AIPAC and/or perhaps even also by Adelson...who knows

Angelika R (143)
Wednesday November 27, 2013, 9:55 am
For anyone who does not get their email and has not already signed petition:

 related PETITION

fly bird (26)
Wednesday November 27, 2013, 11:18 am
Angelika thanks for the petition links to Stop the Prawer Plan and to IRS to stop the Jewish National Fund from receiving charitable tax exemption for discrimination and investigate the charity status of the Jewish National Fund, Inc.


fly bird (26)
Wednesday November 27, 2013, 11:23 am

This is essential time to increase activity and momentum in opposing the Israel Prawer Plan. The Prawer Plan will not pass!
Day of rage 30.11# Stop Prawer Plan.

fly bird (26)
Wednesday November 27, 2013, 1:23 pm
Tell Canada's ambassador to Israel - Evicting 40,000 Bedouin citizens is wrong."

"George Costanza: Don't support the JNF. Do the opposite."

Angelika R (143)
Wednesday November 27, 2013, 1:26 pm
Thank you!
Thank you Angelika for signing the letter petition. !!

Jelica R (144)
Wednesday November 27, 2013, 4:17 pm

Tell Canada’s ambassador to Israel – Evicting 40,000 Bedouin citizens is wrong

fly bird (26)
Wednesday November 27, 2013, 5:07 pm
signed. thanks Jelica

Abdessalam D (145)
Thursday November 28, 2013, 9:31 am
Thanks Jess and Jelica for the link. Signed and shared on FB

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday November 28, 2013, 12:07 pm
Here's one thing we do know:
At least some people trust Obama and his cheerleaders even less now:


Angelika R (143)
Friday November 29, 2013, 9:16 am
Recommended VIDEO to watch !:  
Chanukah Message from Jewish Voice for Peace

Rebecca F (34)
Friday November 29, 2013, 11:39 am
Signed the two petitions I saw in the comments, thanks.

fly bird (26)
Friday November 29, 2013, 3:59 pm
"International 'Day of Rage' against the Prawer Plan planned for tomorrow." (Nov 30, 2013)

Angelika R (143)
Saturday November 30, 2013, 2:08 pm
I've read both of the above mentioned documents STephen left the links for several tim es by now. I am not sure if they can or should even be compared, one being an overview for press release and fact sheet, tho other alledgedly containing the actual wording of the agreement they reached and signed. Looks like from THAT YES;"AT LEAST SOME PEOPLE" will loose trust in US admin if they are fed this by their media,-or perhaps lose trust they may have had in their own leadership.

David C (25)
Tuesday December 31, 2013, 12:09 am

LeaveUranium in the ground !
Leave Iran in peace !!
get rid of bibi & similar in $ane warmongers !!! dismantle allillegal settler-colonialist occupation-projects instead of escalating them ! ...

" We interrupt the israeli-arab war for this special anouncement! The President, after conferring with israeli Prime Minister Gola Meir, has agreed to send more arms to Israel - - based on the return of N.Y. city and L.A. to the U.S. " -- Fritz the Cat (1972)

Angelika R (143)
Tuesday December 31, 2013, 7:36 am
WHAT a comment David ^^- HAPPY NEW YEAR !

Abo r (107)
Saturday January 4, 2014, 1:24 pm
free worldwide from all massive destructive weapons.
No for nuclear weapons in all countries .
no for wars and killing
Bibi get rid of your nuclear and other massive destructive weapons too.

fly bird (26)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 12:13 am
"One thing I know for sure: this incessant trashing of Kerry by Israeli ministers, and their demand that Palestinians halt all "incitement" - but that Israel be free to keep building settlements in their face - is not winning Israel friends in Europe or America."

-- New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, February 4, 2014

Angelika R (143)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 8:14 am
AMEN Mr Friedman! We can all second that, can't we! Kudos to him for speaking the truth in the NYT! Thx jess!

Angelika R (143)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 8:16 am
Let's just hope this will NOT come true for the IRAN issue, which this post was actually about..
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.