Netanyahu Clarifies New Position Towards PA

Netanyahu explains with great clarity Israel's new position regarding the PA, building in Jerusalem and the West Bank. It has been obvious that something had changed in recent days/weeks and now we have an explanation.

Netanyahu: 'PA reneged on central Oslo tenet"

Palestinian pursuit of unilateral statehood goes against the 1993 Oslo Accords with Israel, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Monday during closed-door discussions in his office.

“By boycotting negotiations and by going instead to the United Nations, they [the Palestinians] have reneged on a central tenet of Oslo,” Netanyahu said.

He spoke in advance of a report that a UN Security Council sub-committee is expected to deliver Friday regarding a request by the Palestinians to be recognized as a fully fledged UN member.

Although the US is expected to veto the membership request, the Palestinians have continued to pursue membership. In addition, they have submitted similar requests to a number of UN related bodies and international organizations.

Last week, UNESCO recognized Palestine as its 195th member.

The Palestinians have refused, at the same time, to negotiate a final status solution with Israel.

Netanyahu said that within the framework of the Oslo Accords, Israel pulled out of large sections of the West Bank.

It paid a territorial price, because according to Oslo, the Palestinians had made a commitment to solve all outstanding issues and disputes through direct negotiations.

In other words, what Mr Netanyahu is saying here is that Israel has complied with the Oslo Peace Accords, signed in 1993 - to the point of pulling out of Gaza, large sections of the West Bank and has prohibited building in parts of Jerusalem. Meanwhile, the PA has continued to ignore the provisions of the Oslo Accords, and the crowning blow was bypassing negotiations in this most recent bid for UN membership as an independent state.

Mr Netanyahu is now saying 'enough is enough'.

Israel, last week, took a number of punitive measures against the PA for its pursuit of unilateral statehood.

It temporarily suspended the transfer of tax funds to the PA, and it authorized the construction of 2,000 new homes in Jewish neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem and West Bank settlements.

An Israeli official warned Monday that Israel could take further steps against the PA.

In some circles this is called playing "hard ball". If the PA is going to ignore the Oslo Accords, why should Israel continue to be obedient to Oslo, to their detriment?

“If they renege on agreements they have to know that there is a price to be paid for the route they have chosen,” the official said.

“Only if they understand that there are consequences for such behavior is it likely that they would resume negotiations.”

The Inner Cabinet, a forum of eight ministers is likely to meet this week to weigh additional steps against the PA.

It looks like the gloves have come off and Israel will accept the PA's stance of ignoring the Oslo Accords.

As they say, this is getting real.

Meanwhile, we have this unbelievable act of unprofessionalism by the French President and the U.S. President

Report: Sarkozy calls Netanyahu "liar"

Microphones accidently left on after G20 meeting pick up private conversation between US, French presidents. Sarkozy admits he 'can't stand' Israeli premier. Obama: You're fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day!

According to a Monday report in the French website "Arret sur Images," after facing reporters for a G20 press conference on Thursday, the two presidents retired to a private room, to further discuss the matters of the day.

The conversation apparently began with President Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington's strong objection to the move.

The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: "I cannot stand him. He is a liar." According to the report, Obama replied: "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!"

The remark was naturally meant to be said in confidence, but the two leaders' microphones were accidently left on, making the would-be private comment embarrassingly public.

"By the time the (media) services at the Elysée realize it, it was on for at least three minutes," one journalist told the website. Still, he said that reporters "did not have a chance to take advantage of this fluke."

The surprising lack of coverage may be explained by a report alleging that reporters present at the event were requested to sign an agreement to keep mum on the subject of the embarrassing comments.

A member of the media confirmed Monday that "there were discussions between journalists and they agreed not to publish the comments due to the sensitivity of the issue."

And this is how we treat our ally?

Carolyn Glick gives us some much needed perspective:

Our World: Waiting out Obama

Over the past week, there has been an avalanche of news reports in the Israeli and Western media about the possibility of an imminent Israeli or American strike on Iran’s nuclear installations. These reports were triggered by a report on Iran’s nuclear program set to be published by the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency later this week.

According to the media, the IAEA’s report will deal a devastating blow to Iran’s persistent claims that its illegal nuclear program is “peaceful.”

As for the option of an Israeli strike on Iran, assuming a tactical nuclear strike is not under consideration, Israel probably lacks the ability to completely destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own. Unlike the US, Israel would have to limit any operation in Iran to destroying the most dangerous Iranian nuclear facilities while leaving others untouched.

THE LIMITED nature of an Israeli strike could enable Iran to rebuild its nuclear capabilities. If so, Israel would likely need to launch another strike later on.

Unlike the US, Israel would have no international coalition to fight with. Jerusalem would face the unpalatable prospect of being condemned for its action by UN and other international bodies, including by states that would quietly support it.

Most importantly, given the likelihood that Iran’s proxies would launch a new round of aggression against Israel in response to a strike on its nuclear installations, Israel would be beset by a multi-front war at a time when much of its Air Force and perhaps other strategic assets are out of the country.

Right off the pages of biblical prophecy. Now we get to the US 'foot dragging' on the issue of Iran:

Speaking to reporters in Washington a senior US military official said that the US continues to view the prospect of an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear installations as just as problematic as a nuclear armed Iran.

Well, unless you are Israel and firmly in the crosshairs of a dictator who openly calls for Israel's destruction on a weekly basis.

More painful truths below:

THE OBAMA administration’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge the obvious fact that a nuclear armed Iran constitutes a far greater danger to US interests than an Israeli military strike to deny Iran nuclear capabilities is in line with the administration’s consistent refusal to treat Israel as an ally.

Its unserious handling of Iran is of a piece with its gentle policies towards Hamas and Hezbollah, its refusal to call Fatah on its bad faith, its blindness to the threat emanating from Islamist movements in Turkey and North Africa, and its consistent pressure on Israel to appease its enemies.

The administration’s apparent antipathy for Israel has played a significant role in causing it to underestimate the threat that all these forces pose not only to Israel but to the US and to international security in general.

Under Obama, the US betrayed its most important Arab ally when it called for then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak to resign in response to the anti-regime demonstrations in Cairo.

America is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. It supports the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated, Turkish organized Syrian opposition to Assad’s regime. It upholds Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Islamist, anti-Semitic and anti-Western regime as the US’s greatest regional ally.

Perhaps the saddest truth of all:

At least until the US presidential elections next year, Israel’s best bet may be to simply step up its covert efforts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program.

The goal of these efforts should be to slow down Iran’s nuclear progress sufficiently to prevent it from developing a nuclear arsenal or moving its nuclear project to hardened locations until after the US presidential elections.

In the meantime, Israel should continue to develop its independent capacity to attack Iran. It should also take military action to weaken Iran’s terror proxies in order to limit their capacity to wage war against Israel in the aftermath of an eventual, post-presidential election Israeli or US strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.