The Iran deal was signed in Oslo

The Obama administration views the Iran deal as unstoppable. In the very definition of disregard for the American democratic values - this administration dismisses the facts that the absolute majority of the American public (as shown in extensive polls by both Gallup and PEW), and even the majority of American lawmakers oppose the deal. By painting the reasonable and sound opposition to what is acknowledged across the aisle as a bad deal, as egotistical, narrow minded, opposition-for-the-sake-of-opposition kind of colors, the president is the one who actually turns the issue into a partisan one, not the other way around, effectively destroying any serious discourse on the matter, and dismissing out of hand the national unity, one would think is necessary to put forward a deal of this kind.

The more than unsettling details of the proposed deal have been discussed thoroughly by this point:

The 15 years breakout time to nuclear weapon capability, the growing nuclear stockpile, the 24 days notice before inspections, the self inspections carried out by the Iranians themselves - the glaring holes of that deal and the constant American withdrawal from "red lines" are astonishing.

Another point that strikes me as highly curious is that the rhetoric used by the supporters of the deal to propagate it - is in fact the same rhetoric used by the opponents of the deal turned upside down. For example, the insult of intelligence celebrity filled propaganda video uses the same arguments the opposition uses: a nuclear Iran, an arms race in the Middle East and ultimately an Iranian bomb - except they manage to use all of those to support the clearly flawed deal. If the deal is as good as Obama is convinced, shouldn't the Democratic propagandists have actual sound arguments of their own other than ripping off and flipping over the counter arguments?

On September 08 it became clear Obama can filibuster the deal, denying such a crucial and influential decision the basic democratic decency of a vote. On September 09 the Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, tweeted from his account:

The incitement on behalf of the Iranian leaders and public never stopped, not even during negotiations, and just against Israel (that's a given), but also against the "Great Satan" - The United States of America.

That renders the frequent critical comparison of the Iran Deal to the historic mistake of the Munich Agreement with Nazi Germany as completely unsatisfying. Nazi Germany didn't openly threaten the world with genocide back in 1938.

The only conclusion one can reach from all of the above is that the Obama administration didn't come to the table to negotiate, but rather to sign a deal.

Any deal.

What does it mean from the Israeli perspective? Is this a "new and unexpected turn for our unbreakable bond"?

I'd have to argue it's not.

From the purely Israeli perspective this Iran deal is a direct continuation of the U.S. policy in the Middle East for the past 20-25 years. The question "why?" can serve basis for an altogether different article, but is of little significance for the topic at hand. The fact remains that the embrace of the destructive two-states paradigm by both Israelis and Americans on the lawns of Oslo in 1993, stands at the foundation of this dramatic shift of alliances in the Middle East. Past ally - Israel - is now pressured to give up essential territories. Past enemies - the Muslim world - is now being sought after, pleased, appeased and favored.

No matter how pro-Israeli one can be, as long as they're operating within the two-state paradigm, a perspective, that's inescapably based on the false leftist narrative of Israel's culpability in the conflict (that I've discussed to an extent here and here), the only outcome possible is one of tearing Israel up and strengthening its enemies. A shift of alliances and priorities. Noting that, and assuming a natural escalation process since Oslo, we see the demand by a U.S. president to withdraw to indefensible borders, establish a Palestinian State (that wasn't even the original goal of Oslo), the open siding with Palestinians, the blaming of Israel in the failure of the peace process etc. On the larger Middle Eastern arena we witness the abandonment of former U.S. allied Arab leaders duirng the so called "Arab Spring" and finally the bonding with Iran against the warnings of other Middle Eastern allies.

All of those are a direct continuation of the Oslo mindset.

To emphasize the similarity: the PLO unabashedly broke each and every clause of the Oslo accords and still bore no responsibility, no negation of the failed, proven wrong two-states paradigm. In the same fashion the Iranians stalled the deadline numerous times, twisted all the American red lines, went out with everything and gave nothing back, with evidence already for breaking their parts of the deal.

Find ten differences.

Dismissing the possibility Barack Obama and his entire administration are bumbling idiots out of hand, we must conclude that the USA are changing their Middle East strategy in the deepest of senses, attracting yesterday's enemies through sacrifice of yesterday's friends. A Hillary Clinton email released at the end of July as part of her "private" emails scandal provided further proof for these conclusions, I've reached as early as February. The email revealed a Clinton adviser urging Hillary to present Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an "obstacle to peace", and make his politics "uneasy". Although reaching several news outlets, this piece of utterly scandalous information didn't hit shockwaves around the world. There was no media frenzy, no diplomatic outrage.

Nothing.

Realizing how much BS is in the allegation that "Bibi is ruining the Israeli-US relations" and not the other way around, is realizing just how correct Netanyahu was to go against Obama on the Iranian deal, as publicly as he did, Congress speech and all. Not that he ever stood a chance, not with a president so adamant on signing the deal, but he secured a number of serious advantages:

1. He won the battle of public opinion both in Congress and among the American people.

2. He strengthened and put gravitas to the anti-deal arguments.

3. Since Israel wasn't a party to the Iran talks (much to the gloat of Israel's haters), the Iran deal has no legal binding on Israel under international law. Israel remains legally free to pursue its safety in alternative ways.

4. After Netanyahu went the whole nine yards with the diplomatic option, giving it every possible chance, sticking to it still, no one can accuse him of "warmongering".

Israeli politicians should start noting the shift in American policy and stop panicking over it.

One battle might've been lost, but the war is far from decided.

Israel supporters in the U.S., stop voting Democrat.

Start using your brains!

Tweet

The triumph of Israeli democracy and the people unhappy with it

It all started with an elections slogan. "Just not Bibi". Catchy, effective, primitive at first, but hiding within it a much deeper meaning. Deeper, perhaps, than what its authors planned to reveal. Later in the campaign, The Labor Party (who switched their name for the upgraded, attractive "Zionist Camp" after joining forces with Tzipi Livni), the main rivals of the Netanyahu led Likud, came up with the somewhat Voldemort-ish "it's either Us or HIM" ("him" - being Netanyahu). But the slogan that stuck most in the collective memory, that was most often quoted and that symbolized the very purpose and essence of these elections for many in the wide public was "just not Bibi".

Anyone but Bibi. Labor's characterless  Herzog? Cynical, party-jumping Livni? Veteran TV star and rising political star Lapid? Far left Gal-On? PA's Abbas? Hamas' Mashal? Bin Laden? Doesn't matter. "Just not Bibi". This phrase, in fact, wasn't meant to criticize, since it offered no alternative and, for that matter, no serious argument, but rather delegitimize altogether, practically demonize Netanyahu.

This was also the first time V15, the authors of the "just not Bibi" slogan, entered the Israeli public eye. V15 (V - for victory) officially states it's a "non-partisan movement", set to "replace the Israeli government".

Now, since when do non-partisan movements deal with replacing governments?

Comitted to being "apolitical", as they are, they never stated it was The Labor and Isaac "Boozhi" Herzog, they're supporting, just "replacing the government", but since the Herzog-Livni union was the only one large enough to pretend to replace Likud, and was even leading in the polls for a while, the tiptoeing became insulting. Veteran Israeli TV host, Yaron London, who cannot be "suspected" of rightist views,  grilled a spokesperson for the organization, for her insistence "it's not a left-wing government they're working for" and that "any vote for Kachlon (former Likud minister, now heading a centrist, economy-oriented party) and further left is fine with them".

"Just not Bibi", remember?

I wrote here a month ago about V15's alleged absolutely scandalous connections to the Obama administration. Since then the evidence of the criminal Obama intervention attempt in the Israeli elections keeps mounting. Republican strategist John McLaughlin mentioned in an interview, "Obama was playing in the elections to defeat PM Netanyahu", stating U.S. taxpayer dollars were "moved" through non-profits. Judge Jeanine Pirro of Fox News, named a specific sum: 350,000$. That's notwithstanding millions of dollars more raised by various "liberal" American groups, suggesting all of V15 is merely a ploy, a U.S.-E.U. co-production. Meanwhile the senate is looking into these accusations.

President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, 2010.

Photo credit: Reuters.

That money was well spent. A massive door-to-door campaign, launched in the Tel-Aviv area (à la the Obama campaign and done by the same people), was followed with the best, most expensive, largest scale video clips ever produced for an Israeli campaign. Mimicking movies and TV shows, echoing the Chilean "NO!" campaign. Slamming, slandering, demonizing, vilifying and blaming Netanyahu for each and every problem of each and every citizen personally. Top U.S. dollars well spent.

The media joined in this circus. Forgetting any and all ethical codes, and neglecting their most basic duties of delivering the news, the absolute majority of the press (besides the pro-Netanyahu "Israel HaYom" newspaper and a number of honest individuals) jumped on board with the Anti-Bibi campaign in one of the most shameful chapters in Israeli media's history. The attempt to blame Netanyahu with a "fear mongering campaign" in the last three days before the elections is audacity of unbelievable magnitude. Whatever the press was blaming Netanyahu with in three days, it itself and the left have brazenly done for three months.

Another failed attempt was trying to abuse Netanyahu's "Arabs coming in droves" statement, made on elections day, as a racist slur. This is an insult to intelligence. His criticism was towards V15, organizing buses for the Arab citizens to try and affect the elections' results - a cross interference with the democratic process, not towards the Arabs expressing their civilian rights.

President Obama quickly rode on the, perhaps poorly constructed, address, in his Huffington Post interview. Among a number of highly poignant and incredibly revealing messages on his positions on Israel, he mentioned Netanyahu's "rhetoric" contradicted Israel's principles of democracy and equality, suggesting thus, Israel under Netanyahu might no longer be democratic and equal.

And we all know how America treats the "undemocratic" and "unequal". President Obama then went on to claim statements like that "give ammunition to folks who don't believe in a Jewish state."

The President has successfully found an excuse and a rationalization for Anti-Semitism.

What a sharp change in the views of our "greatest ally".

Furthermore, in the aforementioned interview McLaughlin cited an American effort to unite the different Arab Knesset factions into one party and "teach them about voter turnout". Not only was Netanyahu warning against a perfectly factual occurence, the entire situation might have been a trap by the Obama administration. Don't address the nation to shake it out of apathy and risk losing. Address the nation and we'll present you as a racist to the world. Netanyahu, rather bravely, chose the second option. Later he appologized to the Israeli Arabs for any possible misunderstanding.

And then election day came and all the grand schemes went down the drain. Israeli democracy triumphed. Israelis sent a number of decisive messages to whom it may concern.

A decisive message to the "honest, unbiased, objective" media: No to mindless, stupefying propaganda. We were not born yesterday.

A decisive message to all foreign agents, V15 or others, who wish to meddle in our democracy, in the will of our people, in the fate of our country for their own, alien agenda: We will not become the next Egypt, nor the next Ukraine.

The message was heard loud and clear, but in most probability wasn't learned. Last month I wrote that these players are unlikely to admit defeat and simply walk away. These kind of players never back down. They usually double down. Just like they did during the so called "Arab Spring". Just like they did in Ukraine. And, indeed, no intention of backing down is now displayed by the V15 organization. Its official Facebook and website proudly state "we're not stopping here". Elections day was never the endgame. Nobody's giving up the loads of cash they invested. Nobody's giving up the fat paychecks.

Excerpts from V15's official Facebook page.

Highlighted on the right: "...until victory isn't achieved, our mission isn't achieved. We're here to stay...", "We're not going anywhere.", "Soon we'll update on how we continue, and we hope you'll all choose to keep on walking with us." 

Highlighted on the left: "We're not stopping here. Join us for the rest of the way." 

When a slogan like "just not Bibi" is your basis, it really speaks volumes of things to come and things that already took place. If Netanyahu is a "deligitimized pariah to be replaced by all means", then all of his supporters are deligitimized pariahs to be replaced by all means as well, and, surprise, surprise, his supporters are the absolute majority of the nation. The absolute majority that voted either Likud, or other right wing, or even centrist parties, with the clear desire of continuing to see Netanyahu as PM are to be declared idol worshippers, Neanderthals, battered wives... oh, wait... they already have been...

The elections are over and neither the media nor the intelligentsia (full participants in the Anti-Bibi campaign and sore losers) seem to slow down their fury. Neither seem to calm down and return to normal.

What will happen next?

Well, the infrastructure is already laid down: thousands of young activists are already there. Their hatred towards everything and anything related to Netanyahu has been ignited. They're ready to put in double effort for free, on pure enthusiasm. They're a hierarchical organization that's already been set and prepared. The media will jump on board readily. The intelligentsia is already prepared, ready to fight. All the basic requirements for a coup d'etat are there, waiting for a sign. For a call to action. Leftists are and will be pitted even more against rightists . Ashkenazi are and will be pitted even more against Sephardi. Secular against religious. Tel-Aviv against Jerusalem.

Print screens out of a famous Israeli singer Achinoam Nini's (known worldwide as Noa)

official Facebook page.

When will it go off?

They'll wait for the coalition to form. Then a month or two more for an excuse. Any excuse.

The Haredi parties are given major seats? Evil Bibi's selling out "the people" for a government! (The idea the Haredi themselves are part of the Israeli people is unlikely to frequent the "liberal" mind.)

There's no Health Minister? Evil Bibi's neglecting national priorities for his seat! (The notion a deputy minister is appointed from Haredi "Yahadut HaTora" party, because the latter refuse to take ministerial seats due to an historic dispute with the leadership, and the difference between Minister and Deputy in such a case is purely semantic, would actually require some prior knowledge from your average leftist.)

Ministry of Education is given to a right wing, nationalist party? Evil Bibi wishes to brainwash our kids! (Never mind the absolute majority of Israelis voted right, and by so they identify themselves with the right's ideals, and would welcome a patriotic change in their kids' curriculum after the office mutated in the hands of Labor and Yesh Atid parties.)

The prices of housing didn't miraculously drop in two months? Evil Bibi breaks his promises to the people! He only cares about himself! He's corrupt! Detached! Undemocratic! A dictator! (No comments needed.)

It doesn't matter. Anything would do. We've seen a number of large scale social protests in Israel in recent years. When there was no new protest the media was quick to build one out of thin air. Taking out a few isolated incidents, they were all peaceful. Taking people out on the streets is easy. The techniques are well known and practiced to perfection. This time every effort will be made to spur violence. Massive violent clashes with the police are the main ingredient of any revolt. Any scenario from that point on is bloody and disturbing.

This will be the purpose. This we must prevent.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt

hand out bread to the Maidan rioteers, Dec 11, 2013. Rabin Square next? Photo credit: Reuters.

This is the time to stress out that the absolute majority of our friends from the left, our Anti-Bibi enthusiasts and even our V15 members are good, decent people, genuinely seeking the betterment of life for all Israelis. This is why I implore all: don't allow yourself to be dragged to the discourse of hate. Don't fall for cheap provocations and propaganda. Ignore the next "spontaneous, apolitical, social" protest on Rabin Sqare. It's so "spontaneous", I've predicted it since February.

Left wing, V15 supported rally on Rabin Square, March 07. The harbinger?

Photo taken from V15's official Facebook page.

The Israeli Perspective will keep following the unfolding of these events.

You, keep using your brains.

Tweet

For whom the bell tolls

Perhaps you've noticed that ever since the announcement of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's planned speech in Congress (next month) hit the news (last month), the media won't stop vomit. Much ado has been made over Bibi's typical "Israeli chutzpah", who allows himself to fly "just like that", receiving a "mere, expendable" invitation from the Speaker of The House of Representatives. What with procedure? What with regulations? What the hell?!

And what with the facts?

On January, 29th, world's most democratic-liberal-progressive-enlightened newspaper, "The New York Times", released an article, dealing with Netanyahu's tireless attempts to persuade Democratic leaders not to boycott his speech. So far, so good. Thing is, on January 30th, in the best traditions of the democratic-liberal-progressive-enlightened newspapers around the world, "The New York Times" issued a paragraph long "correction", clarifying Netanyahu has accepted the invitation only *after* The White House was notified. Meaning both Boehner and Netanyahu acted in perfect accordance to protocol.

The New York Times article and the correction.

What an honest way to make journalism, isn't it?

In fact, The Speaker of The House has every right to invite whomever he wants. That's absolutely within the norm and within his jurisdiction. And while waiting for the President's explicit approval would, probably, be the way the book goes, the *norm* is that it's never really practiced. It wasn't practiced back when Netanyahu visited in 2011. It wasn't practiced now, when Boehner invited The Pope. The Speaker of The House *doesn't* have to wait for White House "okays". So why the sudden, extraordinary, care for every single aspect of decorum with this specific visit?  

Netanyahu addresses Congress in 2011. 

Do you really think the invitation procedure was different back then?

Photo credit: AP.

What does it mean?

It means the over-hyped, over the top, boiling hot "ego-crazed Netanyahu willing to harm Israeli-U.S. relations for election campaign's sake" line of coverage is based on a big, fat lie. It also means, the American administration invented a "spat" out of thin air and with absolutely artificial means. It means Netanyahu is not the one "undermining Obama and the Democrats". He's not the one to blame for "the biggest crisis in Israeli-US relations history". It means the exact opposite. It means the Obama administration is the one undermining, inciting and looking for excuses systematically and consistently to harm the relations with us.

Now, just for argument's sake, let's take the side of the cynics. Let's assume, a nuclear Iran poses absolutely no danger at all. Not to the world and not to Israel. Let's assume all Netanyahu cares about is, in fact, his chair, his elections and absolutely nothing else. A politician in the middle of campaign receives an invitation to speak in Congress. Why on Earth should he turn it down? And who would?

As a leader of the free world, as the president of the most democratic-liberal-progressive-enlightened country, as a Nobel Peace Prize winner (!), as the first black president (for crying out loud!), why would you be so nervous and petty about the Israeli PM's planned speech? So, he'll present an opinion different to yours! So what?!

"Because you can't appear to be siding with a candidate in upcoming elections"? That excuse is just an insult to intelligence. Not only because you constantly interfere with each and every issue of each and every country, but because you hosted British PM David Cameron, who's up for reelection himself. Sure, his is due in May, not in March. "Huge" difference. Still, if "purity of elections" is your main argument, while you hosted a foreign politician in the middle of his campaign less than a month ago, excuse the many eyebrows, that rise in light of your reasoning.

President Obama and PM Cameron in the Oval Office, Jan. 16, 2015.

The topic at hand, by the way, was the same - Iran.

Photo credit: Getty Images.

We, in Israel, are about to witness one of the dirtiest campaigns ever, and it's all going to be against The Likud. More accurately against Netanyahu. All of the left's different factions has been united under the hollow, superficial slogan "just not Bibi". It gets worse as the elections get closer. New allegations rise of the illegal connections of that campaign to the V15 group, and from there to the OneVoice International movement. Likud claims Labour breaks the law, because OneVoice is linked to the U.S. *State Department*. Not just to some billionaire private citizen sponsor. The State Department.

It's still early to tell anything for sure. We do know for a fact, The State Department has funded OneVoice on a couple of occasions just two years ago. We do know for a fact, a main backer of V15 is also a major donor to Labour leader, Isaac "Boozhi" Herzog, despite denials on both sides. These accusations will be checked in courts. However, if indeed, there's any truth to them at all, then the situation is more than grave - it's scandalous and shocking. It would mean the U.S. *government* is actively interfering with Israeli democracy (despite the "purity of elections" excuse), and is massively funding the defeat of the acting Prime Minister. It would prove, yet again, Obama is the one set to undermine Netanyahu - not the other way around.

Were you apalled by Netanyahu's "public support" of Romney?

Then what would you say about a multi-million-dollar-elections-campaign-funding kind of support?

And if that has any truth to it, add it to Obama's capricious scenes over Netanyahu's planned visit and connect the dots. *When* Netanyahu wins again, do you really think the American government, would just back off? Admit its failure and go: "Oh, well, we tried! Until next time!"? Think "Arab Spring". Think Ukraine.

"This can't happen to Israel", you think? "We're plenty democratic-liberal-progressive-enlightened ourselves", you believe? There's an "unbreakable bond" between us, isn't there?

"And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; 

 It tolls for thee."

I, for one, would not like to see Rabin Sqare next in line after Tahrir and Maidan.

I would like to see you using your brains.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt
visit the Maidan rioteers in Kiev, Ukraine. Dec. 10, 2013. Photo credit: AP. 

P.S.

Israelis, I really don't care who you're going to vote for.

This is not what this article is about.

Tweet