WarSclerotic

Soldier stabbed to death in his sleep by Palestinian on bus | The Times of Israel.

Eden Atias, 19, suffers fatal wounds to the neck in attack at Afula; passengers capture 16-year-old killer, who was in Israel illegally

By Yifa Yaakov and Adiv Sterman November 13, 2013, 8:53 am Updated: November 13, 2013, 11:06 am

Eden Atias, 19, who was stabbed to death on a bus in Afula, Wednesday, November 13, 2013 (photo credit: Facebook)

An Israeli soldier died after he was stabbed multiple times in the neck Wednesday morning by a Palestinian youth on a bus at the central bus station in Afula.

The soldier, 19-year-old Eden Atias of Nazareth Illit, was evacuated to the city’s Haemek Hospital. Doctors operated on him in an attempt to stabilize his condition but he succumbed to his injuries a few hours later.

Eyewitnesses said Atias was sleeping in his seat on the bus when he was attacked.

Passengers on the bus, which was en route from Nazareth Illit to Tel Aviv and had stopped at the Afula station, captured the stabber and turned him over to security guards, who in turn delivered him to police.

“The bus stopped for a break and the few passengers had stepped out,” Yaffa Mara, who works in a candy store nearby, told Haaretz. “Only the terrorist and two soldiers stayed on board. Suddenly I saw one of the soldiers run out and she yelled that the other soldier had been stabbed. The terrorist tried to flee out the back door but border policemen caught and arrested him. The soldier was covered in blood. It was a terrible sight.”

Atias enlisted only two weeks ago and was still in basic training. He was traveling to his base on Wednesday morning after a sick leave. He was survived by his parents and two brothers, aged 24 and 18. His mother, Ilia, was quoted by Walla as saying that he had insisted on volunteering for a combat unit.

A bloodstained bus seat where soldier Eden Atias, 19, was stabbed to death by a young Palestinian man on a bus at the central bus station in Afula (photo credit: Avishag Shaar Yashuv/Flash90)

The suspect is a 16-year-old Palestinian resident of Jenin who did not have a permit to work or reside in Israel, according to police.

Police’s Northern District Commander Roni Atti said “police had no specific alerts regarding the attack, though general warnings exist at all times. The terrorist boarded the bus and it is unclear whether he originally intended to commit the stabbing or if he was on his way to work. He eventually stabbed the soldier sitting beside him.”

“We heard shouting in the bus, and screaming,” Tomer, a worker at a nearby kiosk who witnessed the attack, told Yedioth Ahronoth. “Soldiers then jumped [the attacker], I saw them take him off the bus and then security guards waited with him. He looked like a child.”

Defense officials and analysts have warned in recent weeks that the West Bank may be heading for another violent uprising, citing a rise in the number of rock-throwing and Molotov cocktail attacks.

On Monday, former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin said the Palestinians were ripe for a third intifada. However, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said that recent attacks were isolated incidents, insisting that “there is no sign of a popular uprising or so-called third intifada.”

Soldiers at the Afula central bus station in 2009 (photo credit: Rishwanth Jayapaul/Flash90)

Afula, located some 10 kilometers (6 miles) inside the Green Line in the Jezreel Valley, has been hit by multiple terror attacks over the years. In a 2001 shooting in the city’s central bus station, where Wednesday’s stabbing occurred, three people were killed and 18 were wounded.

Last month, a Palestinian man pulled a knife on a public bus outside Jerusalem and threatened passengers before fleeing the scene.

Israel Hayom | The silver lining of Obama’s weak America.

Israel Hayom | MEMRI: Obama uses nonexistent fatwa as basis for Iran talks.

Israel Hayom | No takebacks.

Dr. Ephraim Kam

Israel Hayom | Vive la France!.

Sarah N. Stern

In physics, there is the well-known aphorism that “nature abhors a vacuum.” A vacuum has emerged in American global leadership under the Obama administration.

This has been demonstrated time and time again. One flagrant case was the pusillanimous actions towards stopping the wanton killing machine in Bashar Assad’s Syria. After making impassioned speeches about the moral clarity of intervention, taking polls, realizing it is unpopular, offering to bring it to a vote before Congress, realizing there would not be the votes, U.S. President Barack Obama finally relegated that responsibility of ensuring the chemical weapons are destroyed to Russia and Iran (which is tantamount to having your child babysat by two known pedophiles).

Also among the most glaring of cases of the Obama administration’s wholesale abandonment of the United States’ role as moral leader and credible world force include the hasty American retreat from Afghanistan and Iraq without ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place (in Iraq, over 700 people were killed in October alone); the cancellation of the missile defense treaty that the George W. Bush administration had made with Poland and the Czech Republic; the waffling over support of the Egyptian military which have been putting down the Muslim Brotherhood; and the total abdication of the iron-clad assurances that were made under President George W. Bush in an exchange of letters with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on April 1, 2004, that Israel had the right to retain certain settlements outside the 1949 armistice lines (or pre-1967 borders).

Beyond the void of moral, credible leadership, there appears to be an almost haphazard quality to the Obama administration’s foreign policy. Is its goal to defeat those who are at war with America and Western civilization, or is it to engender good will among them?

Based on the polls throughout the Middle East, we are failing miserably at both objectives. Everywhere one can point to in the region, whether Egypt or Saudi Arabia, our polling numbers are plummeting.

In my lifetime, I have never experienced such a high degree of disapproval, frustration or sheer mockery over American foreign policy. (A Western European diplomat quipped to me that “it is almost as though Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is running our foreign policy establishment.”)

But nowhere can the disappointment be more profound than in Israel.

In 1994, early in the Oslo years, I was speaking with a senior Israeli journalist. The Palestinian incitement to terror and violence had already begun. I wondered aloud why, since the only obligation on the Palestinians was to stop this, and Israel will be sacrificing tangible currency in return for promises that had already been proven empty, Israel was continuing on with the Oslo process. It had, after all, been sold to the Israelis and the Americans with a guarantee of reversibility (“if it doesn’t work, we can always reclaim it”).

“I just had a high-level briefing with military intelligence headquarters,” the journalist said, “and compared with a new threat emerging out of the east, from Iran, the Palestinians pose no threat.” “Uncle Sam,” he continued, “wants us to do this deal with the Palestinians, so their incitement, their lies and their terror don’t matter. … We will need Uncle Sam’s help when it comes to a nuclear bomb, coming out of Iran.”

In the last two decades, because of this reason, Israel has refused to blow the whistle on the wholesale violations of the Palestinians of the Oslo Accords and every subsequent agreement. By holding their tongues and making itself into a doormat for the Palestinians to walk over (and terrorize), Israel has looked like the guilty party, elevating the Palestinian Authority to higher levels in the international court of opinion.

While doing this, Iran has advanced to the point of no return in its nuclear program. And now, when we are approaching the zero hour, where is the United States?

Last week, Olli Heinonen, director of the International Atomic Energy Administration for 27 years, said at a Washington press conference that Iran has already passed the point of no return and that according to a recent Institute for Science and International Security report, Iran can achieve breakout in one month, and given a few hookups, can be at nuclear breakout within two weeks.

Heinonen reported that if Iran continues to install IR-2 centrifuges, at the present rate, the breakout time could be reduced to two weeks. IR-2 centrifuges produce an average of four to five times faster output of highly enriched uranium. Iran had announced last January that it would install 3,000 1R-2 centrifuges into the facility of Natanz. Dr. Heinonen added that Iran has “passed the point of no return.”

Yet, because of Iranian President Hasan Rouhani’s charm offensive at the United Nations earlier this fall, and a propensity for the Obama administration to confuse rhetoric with reality, the United States was all but ready to accept what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called “a very bad deal” with Iran.

This deal would have allowed an easing up of international sanctions on Iran in return for the Islamic republic’s continuous enrichment of uranium to 3.5 percent, when they already have enough stockpiled enriched uranium at the 20% level for at least one nuclear bomb.

Why, one wonders, does Iran need so much highly enriched uranium for “peaceful purposes”?

Moreover, why are so many seemingly intelligent people willing to suspend their critical intellects and show the Iranians such trust?

The very day before Rouhani left Tehran for his charm offensive at the United Nations, he was giving a speech at a military parade in which a fleet of Shahab-3 missiles that can easily reach Tel Aviv was carried by a convoy of trucks. A sign in Farsi on the first truck read, “Israel shall cease to exist.”

Moreover, when running for president, Rouhani boasted in an interview on Iranian National Television of how he had used his skills as a nuclear negotiator as a smokescreen behind which to hide the introduction of yellowcake, of the heavy water plutonium reactor in Arak, of going from 150 centrifuges to 1,750 centrifuges.

The Soviets had a great word for what Rouhani is doing: “doublespeak” — using words as a form of warfare to mask one’s true meaning.

It was U.S. President Ronald Reagan who had said about the Soviets, “Trust but verify.”

The P5+1 talks brought us perilously close to accepting a very bad deal. There was one nation, however, that refused, France. French Ambassador Laurent Fabius told French journalists, “We will not be part of a fool’s deal.”

Nature abhors a vacuum and France has swept in to fill the vacuum in moral leadership. Viva la France!

Sarah N. Stern is the founder and president of the Endowment for Middle East Truth, a Washington-based pro-American and pro-Israel think tank and policy shop.

Israel Hayom | According to Grey Lady, the wicked will prosper.

Dror Eydar

And then U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry ran in a frenzy all the way to Geneva. Peace is fast approaching, and we must seize it with both hands. The Iranians realized the U.S. had taken the bait; it was Munich 1938 all over again. The only thing missing was the umbrella in Kerry’s hand.

Through their use of flattery, Iranian hagglers managed to make a declining West dance to their own tune. The sight of Kerry scrambling to Geneva was their cue to toughen their stance.

So what did Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu do? He sounded the alarm, covering every possible angle as he made his case. He reiterated his refrain that Iran was not just a threat on Israel, but a threat to the entire West.

Having realized that the March of Folly was still advancing, Netanyahu let all hell break loose. He emerged from the shadows and lifted the veil of secrecy. By doing so he forced his way into the talks, irking the White House.

The New York Times — the paper of the non-Jewish Jews that has never missed an opportunity to turn its back on the Jewish people and their fate — also weighed in on the matter. Its editorial from Monday added another dimension to the already frantic state the American Left has found itself in. The paper does not worry about the Iranian nuclear program; it is alarmed by the “opponents of the deal,” with Netanyahu being the main antagonist.

Negotiations require time and patience, the editors said. No way! Are they serious? So, would they be so kind as to share this insight with Kerry, who could not keep the West’s cards close to his chest in the earliest stages of the talks?

“It would be nice if Iran could be persuaded to completely dismantle its nuclear program … but that is unlikely to ever happen,” the paper said. Really? It would be nice? You can just hear the thunderous sound of defeatism being spread throughout the West. Tehran, Syria and North Korea, listen up: The New York Times thinks your conduct may continue over the long haul. Or as the prophet Jeremiah said, “Wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper?” (Jeremiah 12:1)

Last December, the National Intelligence Council in the U.S. predicted that the conflicts in the Middle East over the coming decades would “risk inclusion of nuclear deterrent.” Indeed, the U.S. has become resigned to a nuclear Iran, just like the Western Left has surrendered to Islamo-facism and the totalitarian movements of the past.

Now, who bears the brunt of the Times’ attack? Why, Netanyahu, who said the emerging agreement was Iran’s “deal of the century,” even before the details were made public. The way the paper sees it, Netanyahu’s conduct was designed “to generate more hysterical opposition.” The New York Times has essentially become part of a psychological warfare apparatus. The defeatist paper is not concerned over the disastrous deal; it is alarmed by hysteric hyperbole. The word “hysteria” is often used to trigger a Pavlovian reaction among Israeli opinionators and various journalists in the hope that they would besmirch Netanyahu and criticize his insistence that Iran fully dismantles its nuclear program.

“What is the alternative?” the paper asks? Well, an alternative does exist! Only in a world of glut and corruption do you become submissive in the face of evil and search for a compromise. Here is an alternative: ratcheting up the sanctions, making them even more crippling, more active support of the Iranian opposition and a credible military threat against the ayatollah regime.

Russian navy: First port visit to Egypt (among others) in 21 years | Liberty Unyielding.

Putin reviewing warships in Sevastopol. His navy heads for points south. (VOA image)

Suddenly, even Vladimir Putin looks more attractive.  He looks, at least, like he actually intends to fight radical Islamism – in some of its varieties anyway.  In theory, he has some pull with Iran.  He can exert a certain level of “check” on the Syria crisis.  His relatively well armed nation sits on the other side of Erdogan’s wild-card Turkey, which keeps bouncing from China to Iran to NATO and back again.  He’s not “Europe” – not really – but “Europe” acknowledges that he has to be given a place at the table.

Maybe he doesn’t look attractive, exactly; maybe the word is interesting.  Whatever it is, it’s showing up in real forms now, in regional nations’ decisions in the Eastern Mediterranean.  Last week came the flurry of reports that Putin would visit Egypt in November and announce a major arms sale, which will inevitably serve as something of a counter-smack to the U.S. decision to halt arms deliveries to Egypt a few weeks ago.

The newer news is from Monday, 11 November, when Russia’s Slava-class missile cruiser Varyag pulled into Alexandria for the Russian navy’s first port visit in Egypt since 1992.  Pundits of varying quality have rushed to speculate that Moscow will soon have the use of Egyptian ports as bases in the region.  I doubt that; Egypt is too anxious to retain her stature and independence of action – properly so – and doesn’t “need” to accord Russia such privileges to keep useful ties going between the two of them.

In the current, comparative disarray of some Arab governments in the region, Egypt’s actually looks solid and moderate, and has the overt support of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, as well as the tacit support of Israel – all of which are well armed, well connected regional powers with common interests in a status quo.  The situation over which Al-Sisi presides is different from that of the Nasser regime in the 1950s and 1960s, when it was so eager for the great-power patronage of the erstwhile Soviet Union.

Russia, for her part, is unlikely to press this issue.  Between Syria, Greece, Cyprus, Montenegro, and Malta, the Russian navy has a lot of options now for making temporary landfalls for logistics.  Moscow wouldn’t necessarily even save money by concluding more literal “basing” agreements in the Mediterranean.

But I’m sure we can expect to see the Russian navy welcomed in Egyptian ports.  This makes a noteworthy, and regrettable, contrast with the U.S. Navy, which has been scarce in Egyptian ports in recent years – in spite of our two nations’ close relationship – largely because of the threat of terrorism.

Egypt, meanwhile, isn’t the only nation to roll out the welcome mat for the Russian navy in the past year.  In May, the Russian amphibious ship Azov arrived in Haifa for the first port visit ever by a Russian navy ship to Israel.  Russia and Israel have of course found some common ground in their opposition to radical Islamism, and the Netanyahu government has had a robust program of diplomatic outreach to Russia since it took over in the spring of 2009.  After Putin visited Jerusalem in June 2012 to pray for the rebuilding of the Temple, a naval port visit could hardly have been far behind.

Smoke rising over Russian warship sets Malta abuzz in early Nov. (Photo: Mariah Bugeja. Malta Independent)

Russian warships also visited Lebanon in March 2013, an exceedingly rare occurrence.  According to Russia’s defense ministry, the visit involved a frigate and two amphibious ships, and signified no intention on Moscow’s part to establish any permanent basing arrangement.

Cyprus hosted multiple visits by Russian warships in 2013, fueling the usual speculation that Moscow is negotiating for basing rights on the island.  (See here for more on Russia’s strategic approach to Cyprus.)  It has become routine in the last few years for Russian navy ships to visit ports in Greece and Malta.  Russian officials announced earlier this year that the navy’s newly constituted (or, in effect, reconstituted) Mediterranean squadron would use a port in Montenegro as well, referring to the port of Tivat (which for many years during the Cold War was a Yugoslav navy base, used as a Mediterranean base by the Soviet navy).  A September 2013 press release on the upcoming activities of amphibious landing ship Yamal indicated the ship would visit Greece and Montenegro this fall.

Other things do change, of course.  In 2008, the Russian naval task force on the way to Latin America to visit Cuba and Venezuela stopped in Libya to tag Moscow’s good buddy Muammar al-Qadhafi, but there was certainly none of that going on in conjunction with this year’s Russian circuit to Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.  Russia continues a longstanding patron-client relationship with Algeria, selling and refurbishing military equipment for the Algerian forces, but isn’t visiting Algerian ports these days.  The Algerian navy did, on the other hand, conduct its first-ever port visit in the United States in July of 2012.

Ex-Lyubov Orlova leaving Newfoundland in Jan. (CBC photo)

Speaking of the United States, our aircraft carrier, USS Nimitz (CVN-68), left the Mediterranean on Friday, heading through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea and toward a return to her home port in the state of Washington.  USS Harry S Truman (CVN-75) is in Southwest Asia (CENTCOM).  The USS Kearsarge (LHD-3) Amphibious Ready Group and 26 Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) returned to the East coast last week.  The USS Boxer (LHD-4) ARG and 13 MEU out of San Diego relieved Kearsarge ARG/26 MEU in the Middle East in October.

In other maritime matters, for those following the saga of “ghost ship” ex-Lyubov Orlova, the one-time Russian cruise liner hauled off for scrap in late January and missing in the North Atlantic since February 2013, LU regrets to report that there is no new news in recent weeks.  This hasn’t stopped the Irish media from speculating wildly about what could happen if Lyubov Orlova comes surging out of the fog off the Emerald Isle’s west coast.  There is, of course, a website dedicated to the hunt for Lyubov Orlova, if any of our indefatigable readers do gain new information on her whereabouts.  We’re not aware of a bounty being offered, however.

Israel World’s Only Hope! | US Opinion and Editorial | Editorial – Right Side News.

( The view from America’s “Christian Right.” – JW )

We are seeing the final details fall into place as the scenario above becomes reality.

Just as we warned of the dangers of Obamacare we have warned about the dangers of Iran getting its hands on a nuclear weapon.

Iran has promised time and time again that it intends to bomb Israel out of existence with nuclear weapons and then turn those weapons on the US.  There is absolutely no reason to doubt their sincerity.  THIS scribe is absolutely convinced that the mad mullahs of Iran will do exactly that as soon as the idiots now negotiating with them are finished getting “rolled” and made complete fools of as the Persians laugh uproariously behind their hands at the amateurish machinations of Obama, Kerry, et al.

It is now clear as crystal to anyone not self-blinded that the US President is not a leader.  He is most certainly not a military man, nor a very good strategist.  He is weak, thin-skinned, narcissistic, and arrogant with a greatly inflated idea of his own importance.    He tends to wallow in unwarranted importance out of his own overbearing pride.  Like Nero of ancient Rome, he is dangerous to his country.  Unlike Nero, however, he is also dangerous to the entire world.

As the Commander-in-Chief of the only military on the globe with the unquestioned ability to stop Iranian nuclear aspirations and save the world from the coming global nuclear conflagration, he refuses to step up to save the world.  There is no excuse for such inaction.  None whatsoever.  It hasn’t been that long ago that such inaction in the face of such danger was referred to as “cowardice.”

So now, the mantle falls upon the shoulders of little Israel.  The cloak of authority has now shifted from the US to Israel.  It is to tiny Israel the world must look for salvation from the barbarism of the Muslim hordes threatening to overrun the world and set up a worldwide caliphate, or global theocratic government.

But first there must be a worldwide cataclysm to pave the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam who, it is believed, will lead the Mohammedans to worldwide domination.

Israel’s military is prepared to undertake the mission to impart as much damage as possible to Iran’s nuclear facilities as they possibly can.  They have been in constant training for years now and are “leaning forward.”  Israeli military assets have been moved about what is expected to be the Middle Eastern theatre of war in the coming fight and are on station prepared to strike at a moment’s notice.  That moment is drawing nigh… swiftly.

A large portion of the remainder of the world community will publicly decry the attack, expressing strong disapproval of Israel’s actions, when they come, but secretly urge Israel on to the highest degree of victory possible for their limited forces.

And yes, that is pathetic, but that, unfortunately, has been the history of the European states when time comes to put up, or shut up.  There are exceptions, of course, such as Great Britain, France, and Germany, and a handful of other nations, which have managed to hold on to their manhood.

Many in the Israeli air forces understand that theirs will be a suicide mission.  Yet they are prepared to go the distance, put their lives in the balance to save, not just Israel, but the entire world. And yes, they DO understand that even if they succeed they will still be reviled throughout much of Europe with an anti-Semitic passion not much less than that of the Nazis in the 1930’s and 1940’s.

As an American, it shames me that that the President of my country is such a wimp.  As a Christian American I remember the edict handed down by God concerning the treatment of Israel:  “I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you.”

Obama has set America up to be the recipient of God’s curse on our nation.  The warning is plain and extremely clear:  “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”  Galatians 6:7

Obama has sown the whirlwind in America’s name, and the whirlwind we shall reap. Indeed, the fields are white for the harvest, and the day draws near.

Once again, Israel has become the center of attention as she has been since the earliest days of human settlement.

For five years, Binyamin Netanyahu has repeatedly warned the world that Israel was ready for military action to preempt a nuclear-armed Iran.  SOURCE

As a final note — do not be lulled into believing Israel will be all alone in the fight when it comes.  This scribe is convinced that Providence has not only removed the mantle of authority from America’s shoulders and placed it upon Israel’s shoulders. He has also removed His protection from America and added it to the centuries old protection afforded his “chosen” people.

The world, including Iran and the Obama administration, should understand that Israel reserves the right to retaliate — and they have the capability of retaliating — if attacked — even if they are the recipients of a devastating nuclear attack from Iran.  The Persians should understand that if they issue a nuclear death warrant against Israel, they will have signed their own nuclear death warrant, as well.  There can be no question that Israel will retaliate and the country of Iran will no longer exist as a viable nation state.

We suggest you read an article I wrote sometime back (September 2012) in which I referenced Israel’s “Samson Option.”   It will raise the hair on the back of your neck.  You’ll find it at:  http://insightonfreedom.blogspot.com/2012/09/never-again-j-d-longstreet.html

For the first time in America’s history we will be engaged in a global war completely alone, without a reliance on God, for having spurned God, He will not be there.

J.D.Longstreet is a conservative Southern American (A native sandlapper and an adopted Tar Heel) with a deep passion for the history, heritage, and culture of the southern states of America. At the same time he is a deeply loyal American believing strongly in “America First”. He is a thirty-year veteran of the broadcasting business, as an “in the field” and “on-air” news reporter (contributing to radio, TV, and newspapers) and a conservative broadcast commentator.

Longstreet is a veteran of the US Army and US Army Reserve. He is a member of the American Legion and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A lifelong Christian, Longstreet subscribes to “old Lutheranism” to express and exercise his faith.

Israelis don’t scare easily, Mr. Kerry – Opinion Israel News | Haaretz.

Abbas is in no position to commit to ending the conflict.

By Moshe Arens | Nov. 12, 2013 | 9:05 AM |

Before leaving Israel for Geneva, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry tried his best to scare the hell out of us. In a television interview with an Israeli and a Palestinian reporter he warned that unless Israel reaches an agreement with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas it will be isolated in the international community, and, what’s more, will face another intifada. There you have it – sign on the dotted line, or else. More bad news for Israel came from Geneva, after his arrival there.

Actually, as Kerry knows only too well, the “international community” is not what it was 30 years ago, nor is it what it is made out to be by those trying to frighten Israel into giving in to Abbas’ demands. Europe is not what it used to be, and the European Union is struggling to stay afloat. The anti-Israel voices emanating from the Brussels bureaucracy of the EU do not necessarily reflect the policies pursued by the leaders of the European nations, while the eastern European nations who are members of the EU continue to pursue a policy of friendship and cooperation with Israel.

But more significantly, Europe is rapidly being overtaken in importance by China, India and Russia, none of which give any indication of wanting to isolate Israel if the negotiations with Abbas are not successful. Quite the contrary. Each, pursuing its own interests, seeks to enhance cooperation with Israel, especially in the areas of science and technology.

And of course, as Kerry knows only too well, the United States, still and for years to come the most important country in the world, continues to pursue a traditional policy of friendship and alliance with Israel.

That the U.S. Congress would participate in a campaign to isolate Israel is unimaginable. When Canada and Australia, both ideologically allies of Israel, are added to this evolving picture, it is clear that the threats of Israeli isolation are far-fetched and possibly even in the realm of wishful thinking.

Surprisingly, Kerry was lent a helping hand by none other than Ya’akov Amidror, Israel’s outgoing national security adviser. In a arewell address to the cabinet last week, he too harped on the theme that unless Israel reached an agreement with Abbas it would find itself isolated. Israel must take very seriously the threat of an economic boycott, he said. Whereas Kerry surely knows better, Amidror, who knows the map of the Middle East well from his previous military career and should by now be well acquainted with the global map, certainly should have known better.

As for the specter of renewed Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians – another intifada – in the event the negotiations with Abbas do not succeed, that is quite another matter. We have been through two intifadas, and we have succeeded in putting them both down. We have shown that terror can be defeated. It is a lesson that has been absorbed by those Palestinians who engaged in and supported terror activities – including Abbas himself, who in the past supported Palestinian terrorism.

This terrorism essentially ceased long before the negotiations began. Anyone who thinks these negotiations can advance in the shadow of the threat of renewed terrorism if Abbas’ demands are not met is grossly mistaken.

Everyone concerned, including Kerry, must remember that Abbas represents barely half of the Palestinians and is in no position to commit himself, on behalf of the Palestinians, to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In that sense the negotiations are no more than make-believe. To attempt to scare Israel into agreeing to Abbas’ demands at this point is certainly not conducive to the continuation of these talks. They are in any case unlikely to lead to any positive conclusion, and it is best to let them take their course.

Most important of all, somebody forgot to tell Kerry that Israelis don’t scare easily.

French MP invokes Munich 1938 in warning against Iran deal | The Times of Israel.

Meyer Habib, a close friend of Netanyahu, confirms he lobbied to scuttle Geneva accord, intends to tell French parliament Wednesday it must be thwarted

By Raphael Ahren November 12, 2013, 8:31 pm

Meyer Habib (photo credit: screen capture Meyer Habib/YouTube)

A French lawmaker and close friend of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said during a visit to Israel Tuesday that he was very worried about the upcoming round of nuclear negotiations with Iran, comparing them to an infamous conference that cleared the way for Adolf Hitler’s takeover of Eastern Europe.

The parliamentarian, Meyer Habib, confirmed that he contacted French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius last week to warn him that Israel would launch a military strike if necessary to forestall an Iranian nuclear weapon. He said he made the call at his own initiative, rather than speaking on Netanyahu’s behalf.

“I call on all Europeans and want to remind them of the agreement between [prewar French prime minister Édouard] Daladier and [prewar British prime minister Neville] Chamberlain,” Habib said Tuesday, referring to the 1938 Munich agreement, which has become a symbol for international appeasement. “They received the war and they received the shame. Next week there is still an opportunity not to give up,” he added, referring to the next round of nuclear talks with Iran, set to begin in Geneva on November 20.

Habib, who represents French citizens living in Israel and seven other Mediterranean countries in the National Assembly in Paris, was speaking during a Knesset session dealing with Israeli-European issues. The session was headed by Labor MK Hillel Bar.

Speaking to The Times of Israel, Habib said he had known Netanyahu for more than 20 years and was “very close” to him. However, he emphasized, he did not speak in the Israeli leader’s name when he lobbied Fabius. Rather, as an elected French official responsible for the security of about 200,000 expatriates living in Israel, he felt genuinely concerned about the likelihood of a deal between six world powers and Iran that would allow Tehran to advance toward a nuclear weapons capability, he said.

Habib, who is a member of the French assembly’s Foreign Affairs Committee, said he spoke to Netanyahu on Monday but refused to reveal the content of the conversation.

“I speak to the prime minister often and I know his positions. He will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. I want Europe to understand that it’s in its interest to prevent a war,” he said. “I told [Fabius on Thursday] that I know Israel will not accept a nuclear Iran [because] it would mean the destruction of the State of Israel. And if they [the P5+1 nations] want to prevent a war, they shouldn’t sign the agreement.” Fabius “understood that,” he added.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius on his way to a meeting, during the third day of closed-door nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva Switzerland, Saturday, Nov. 9, 2013. (Photo credit: AP/Jean-Christophe Bott,Pool)

The French foreign minister was widely reported to have scuppered the emerging deal late Saturday, leading to the halting of the negotiations with Iran, and an agreement to reconvene on November 20.

Iran heavily criticized the French for ostensibly blocking the deal, with Iran’s state TV branding France “Israel’s representatives” at the talks.

Netanyahu has slammed the prospective deal at least once a day since last Friday as “bad” and “dangerous,” criticized the US for endorsing it, and argued that it will give Iran relief from sanctions without the necessity to dismantle any elements of its nuclear program. US Secretary of State John Kerry, by contrast, has sniped back at Netanyahu for what he claims is misplaced criticism, saying that the deal will work as an interim arrangement to freeze the Iranian program while offering only very limited sanctions relief. Kerry has also said it was Iran that rejected the deal in Geneva on Saturday.

Habib, who will accompany French President Francois Hollande next week on a visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories, said Tuesday he was “terribly afraid” of that the possible interim deal would endanger Israel’s security.

On Wednesday, Habib, 52, said he wants to raise the issue in parliament in Paris. He plans to thank the French government for its steadfast position in Geneva over the weekend but warn it of relenting next week during the next round of talks with Iran.

“I’m very afraid of the United States, of the pressure [they exert to] arrive at an agreement at any cost,” he told The Times of Israel. “It’s okay to have an agreement; it just needs [to include] that the Iranians are not allowed to enrich [uranium] to more than 3.5 percent [enrichment], and to stop the centrifuges.”

Iran could be allowed to keep enriching uranium to a low level of 3.5% if an invasive inspections regime is put in place, Habib said.

In recent public statements, Netanyahu has been insisting that Iran not be allowed to retain any enrichment capability.

Netanyahu and Habib, who was elected to the National Assembly in June, have a history of helping each other out. “I have known Meyer Habib for many years and he is a good friend to me and to Israel,” Netanyahu said in French in a video of endorsement posted to YouTube in May. Standing next to Habib, Netanyahu continued in Hebrew: “He fights a lot for Israel, for public opinion, and cares intensely about the Land of Israel and Jerusalem, and he has helped me over the years deepen Israeli-French relations.”

Times of Israel staff contributed to this report.