PROPHECY UPDATE: Israeli Elections, Russia Escalates Military Preparations

End Of Days News

Israeli Election: Possible Scenarios. Russia Escalates Military Preparations. Daily Bell: NAU At Work?

Scott at PROPHECY UPDATE

*Israeli's Election Too Close To Call But Here Are Some Possible Scenarios* *If you think coalition negotiations after the UK general election in May are going to be complicated or that Congress agreeing on a budget is messy, you should check out the Israeli elections.* *Israelis voting on Tuesday to elect representatives to the 120-seat Knesset. These will be the 20th elections Israel has held since 1949. The country has a history of unstable coalitions, none more so than the alliance put together in January 2013 which lasted less than two years.* *Although the momentum is... more »

‘Obama is coming to tell Netanyahu not to strike Iran’

End Of Days News

 

Barack Obama will be making his first presidential visit to Israel next month primarily in order to tell Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in person to hold off on any military intervention in Iran, it was reported Sunday.

 

Quoting unnamed Israeli sources, Israel’s Army Radio said the president would indeed seek to host some kind of summit meeting between Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and possibly Jordan’s King Abdullah, to try to re-energize the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

 

But the key reason for the visit and its timing, the report said, is that Netanyahu cited spring 2013 in his speech to the UN General Assembly last fall as a notable deadline relating to thwarting Iran’s nuclear drive, and the president wants to tell the prime minister face-to-face that the time is not yet ripe for military action. “Obama fears that the prime minister will decide to strike in Iran now, at a time when he is backed by a new government and can set up a new security cabinet in which two reported [ministerial] opponents of military intervention — Dan Meridor and Benny Begin — will no longer be present,” the Army Radio report said. Meridor and Begin both lost their Knesset seats in the January 22 elections.

 

Obama will reiterate US determination to ensure that Iran does not attain nuclear weapons, and will remind Netanyahu that the US has military “capacities” that Israel does not possess, the report added.

 

New Secretary of State John Kerry said last week that the diplomatic option remained open, but that all other options were also on the table.

 

“Obama decided to come himself and deliver to Netanyahu the direct message, ‘Don’t strike at Iran. Let me oversee the contacts with Iran as I see fit. If necessary I’ll take action against them. We have capacities that you do not have’,” the radio report said.

 

Netanyahu told Sunday’s cabinet meeting that the upcoming visit was an important reassertion of the strong US-Israel alliance. He said he and the president, when discussing the trip in a phone call two weeks ago, agreed that it would focus on “Iran’s attempt to attain nuclear weapons, the instability in Syria and its implications for regional security, and efforts to advance the diplomatic process between Israel and the Palestinians.”

 

Uzi Arad, Netanyahu’s former national security adviser, told Army Radio that the notion that the Obama visit would be focused primarily on Iran made sense since that was the most urgent regional challenge — “a race against time” — followed by the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria, with the Palestinian issue “the least urgent.” Arad said he did not know whether Obama was coming to say precisely what the unnamed sources were asserting, however.

 

The radio report said Obama could have discussed Iran and all other issues with Netanyahu in Washington, DC, in early March, when the prime minister is likely to attend the annual policy conference of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC. But the president preferred not to be dealing with Netanyahu amid the AIPAC gathering, the report indicated, where the White House fears that Netanyahu will deliver “an aggressive speech on Iran.”

 

In interviews last week, US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro said the Obama visit was a sign of unshakable US-Israel relations and an opportunity for “consultations” on key regional issues, notably including Iran’s nuclear drive, the collapse of the Assad regime, and Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts.

 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-is-coming-to-tell-netanyahu-not-to-strike-iran/

End Of Days News

 

President Barack Obama is to visit Israel, the Palestinian territories and Jordan in the next few weeks, at the heart of a wider tour of the Middle East.

 

Israeli television broke news of the trip on Tuesday night, and said the White House had confirmed it would take place next month or in April, and that the details were agreed by Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a January 28 phone call.

 

“The start of the president’s second term and the formation of a new Israeli government offer the opportunity to reaffirm the deep and enduring bonds between the United States and Israel and to discuss the way forward on a broad range of issues of mutual concern, including Iran and Syria,” White House Spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Tuesday. “Additional details about the trip — including the dates of travel — will be released at a later time.”

 

The prime Minister’s Office also confirmed the report on the meeting, but offered no further details.

 

Advance security teams are already in Israel and the West Bank preparing for the visit, the Channel 10 news report claimed. The trip would be Obama’s first to Israel as US president; he visited in 2008 as a candidate.

 

Emanuel Rosen, the station’s experienced diplomatic reporter, said the visit indicated that Obama believes Netanyahu is ready to try to make substantive progress in negotiations with the Palestinians.

 

 Indeed, the report said, it was likely that areas of agreement on key issues had already been reached between the American and Israeli leaderships, since Obama had indicated in the past that he would come to Israel only when he truly believed it would enable a breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinian relations.

 

The US, the report said, was pressing for a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks “without preconditions.” That has been Netanyahu’s demand, while the Palestinians have demanded a West Bank settlement freeze.

 

The report said Obama had been considering a visit for later in the year, perhaps to coincide with an annual conference hosted by President Shimon Peres. The news that he was heading here as early as next month, the report said, underlined the sense of potential progress in the diplomatic arena.

 

The report said Obama would be making “a working visit” and would not be accompanied by members of his family. His Middle East trip would also include visits to Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

 

The upcoming visit by the newly appointed Secratary of State John Kerry will also prepare the ground for Obama’s arrival.

 

The news came on the day that Israel swore in its 120-member new Knesset, following elections two weeks ago which left Netanyahu poised to forge a new governing coalition.

 

In recent days, Netanyahu has spoken often of a desire to resume peace talks with the Palestinians, and directly called on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to join him at the negotiating table. On Tuesday, in a speech to the new Knesset members, he vowed to steward a “prudent” diplomatic process, speaking of seeking agreements but also of maintaining Israel’s capacity to effectively protect itself against security threats.

 

Netanyahu and Obama have maintained a correct but sometimes obviously strained relationship over the years.

 

Last month, for instance, days after Obama was quoted as castigating Netanyahu for ostensibly turning Israel into a pariah nation and threatening its long-term survival, Netanyahu hit back by declaring that if he were to capitulate to demands for a retreat to the pre-1967 lines, “we’d get Hamas 400 meters from my house.”

 

According to Bloomberg columnist Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama had lately begun repeating the mantra that Israel under Netanyahu “doesn’t know what its own best interests are.”

 

The key focus of Obama’s reported criticism was Netanyahu’s settlement construction policies, which recently included plans for thousands of homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in response to the Palestinian Authority’s successful gambit to gain nonmember observer state status from the UN in November.

 

“With each new settlement announcement, in Obama’s view, Netanyahu is moving his country down a path toward near-total isolation,” Goldberg wrote. “And if Israel, a small state in an inhospitable region, becomes more of a pariah — one that alienates even the affections of the U.S., its last steadfast friend — it won’t survive. Iran poses a short-term threat to Israel’s survival; Israel’s own behavior poses a long-term one.”

 

Goldberg added that, as regards Netanyahu’s handling of the Palestinians, “the president seems to view the prime minister as a political coward, an essentially unchallenged leader who nevertheless is unwilling to lead or spend political capital to advance the cause of compromise.”

 

Goldberg said Kerry wants to try to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, but Obama “is thought to be considerably more wary. He views the government of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas as weak, but he has become convinced that Netanyahu is so captive to the settler lobby, and so uninterested in making anything more than the slightest conciliatory gesture toward Palestinian moderates, that an investment of presidential interest in the peace process wouldn’t be a wise use of his time.”

 

A presidential visit would suggest, however, that Obama has reconsidered.

 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-to-visit-israel-within-weeks/

Likud loses ground over Netanyahu’s fuzzy security messages

 

 

Likud’s chief asset, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, may also be said to be its chief liability. While unchallenged as preferred prime minister in every opinion poll 17 days before Israel’s general election, his party – the joint Likud-Yisrael Beitenu ticket – is on a downward slide (34) from its first 47-seat rating.

Netanyahu’s secretiveness and ambiguity on security and peace, issues which in the last reckoning determine the outcome of Israeli elections and fate of its politicians, are leaving his party unarmed against savage opposition tactics and dividing his own camp.
While keeping his undoubted achievements in these fields under his hat, his mistakes and shortcomings are hard to miss.
Five months ago, Netanyahu was perceived as suddenly backing off plans to attack Iran’s nuclear program, after declaring for years that a nuclear-armed Iran was the most dangerous threat facing Israel. What happened was that on Sept. 5, he abruptly closed a meeting of the security-diplomatic cabinet on Iran without explanation, except for throwing in their faces that no forum competent to make policy on Iran was safe from press leaks.
For most of the country, Netanyahu lost points by failing to go through with this long-held resolve. His cartoon presentation of Israel’s “red lines” at the UN General Assembly on Sept. 27 did not change that perception. He spoke of postponing until “late spring or early summer” an action vital to Israel’s security - apparently in deference to Washington and out of consideration for Barack Obama’s campaign for reelection.
Then, after months of silence, on Thursday Jan. 3, the prime minister stood up before a gathering of Israel’s envoys in world capitals to inform them, “Iran is still our No. 1 threat. I have set out our red line and Iran has not yet crossed it. Our commitment was and is to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.”
Those words had the same ring as sentiments heard from the US president. Common to both is their distance from the facts.
In recent months, Iran has developed a strategy for sidestepping “red lines” on quantities of 20-percent enriched uranium by periodically announcing the suspension of the process or the diversion of stocks to “medical research.”
This strategy passed unchallenged although it should have been for four reasons:

1. The amounts of fissile material claimed by Tehran are unverifiable by Israeli or Western intelligence - or even the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.
2. The interminable wrangling between Iran and the world powers over amounts of medium-grade enriched uranium deemed sufficient for a bomb is no longer relevant because Tehran's consent to “negotiations” with world powers has bought Iran time to acquire the knowhow for assembling nuclear weapons and making them operational. A few kilos of enriched uranium lacking here or there are easily obtainable, either by domestic production or foreign acquisitions. Netanyahu’s graphic red lines, effective at the time, have been overtaken by events.
3. And his five-month silence has persuaded Iran’s rulers that they no longer need fear an Israeli military strike on their nuclear sites.
4. Iran has used those months free of international harassment and Israeli thunder for giant steps toward developing plutonium-based weapons. Netanyahu’s boast that he placed the Iranian nuclear menace at the forefront of the world's platform has had its downside: As the preamble to lay the ground for a proactive military policy, it was effective; however the gap between rhetoric and inaction has harmed Israel’s credibility and damaged its strategic deterrence.

The same credibility gap is marked on the question of Syria’s chemical weapons and Hizballah. Prime Minister Netanyahu, his ministers and diplomats, have repeatedly pledged Israel would take steps to prevent unconventional weapons reaching terrorist hands, including the Lebanese Shiite Hizballah, whose leader Hassan Nasrallah often declares his rockets can reach every corner of Israel - “from Kiryat Shemone to Eilat!”
A year ago, in January 2012, a number of Western and Arab sources confirmed that Syrian ruler Bashar Assad had transferred a portion of his chemical weapons arsenal to Hizballah strongholds in the Lebanese Beqaa Valley and Hizballah units had trained in their use.
Last month, the Defense Ministry’s political coordinator, Amos Gilad, firmly asserted that Syria’s chemical weapons were “under control.” But this did not amount to a denial that those unconventional weapons had come under the joint logistical control of Iran, Syria and Hizballah.
It is possible that Netanyahu has opted in some to degree to follow Obama’s lead on security matters with regard to Iran, Syria and Hizballah and Hamas. Even then, he needs to do a better job of offering consistency to the Israeli voter. Instead, he offers silence or, at best, hazy, general messages that perplex the voter and keeps his own party in turmoil.
On the one hand, he incurred popular resentment for keeping 50,000 army reservists hanging around for nothing in the November anti-terror Gaza operation. But on the other, his government and party are not cashing in on the credit for the weeks of total calm on the Gaza front since Nov. 21 – the first time Hamas has honored a ceasefire in a decade.
Neither is he coming clean on the three additional advantages gained by working with Obama and his collaborators, Egypt, Turkey and Qatar, to negotiate that ceasefire. They could give his party's election campaign a badly needed shot in the arm.
One is the improvement in relations with Turkey’s Erdogan government after years of acrimony. It came out of Israel’s consent to support the US president's venture to combine those three nations - plus the Palestinian Hamas - into a new pro-American Sunni Muslim axis. Netanyahu agreed to modify Israel's attitude on Hamas in a gamble for the prizes of rapprochement with Ankara and the stabilization of ties with Muslim Brotherhood-ruled Egypt.

Reading this map, the Palestinian Authority, under its Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, is stirring up unrest on the West Bank as a reminder to Washington and Jerusalem of his existence.

Although when he met the ambassadors in Jerusalem, Netanyahu spoke of the danger of Hamas seizing control of the West Bank like the Gaza Strip in 2007, this was contradicted by his decision to step back from vanquishing Hamas in the November operation. And last week, he opened the Gaza crossing points to supplies of building materials for the first time in six years as well as cash.

The prime minister has a long way to go to bring his right-of-center party around to a policy that embraces Hamas – even though it would help stave off opposition accusations that Israel is diplomatically isolated. Although he has invested considerable effort in thawing the iced-over peace process with the Palestinians, he is constrained from placing this squarely on the party platform because it would not gain a consensus.
All the opinion polls, show that, contrary to left-of-center opposition rhetoric, a majority of Israelis don't trust the Palestinians, including Mahmoud Abbas, as partners for negotiations or for peaceful coexistence. Neither do most Israelis subscribe to the international condemnation of Netanyahu’s policy of strengthening Jerusalem and the settlement blocs on the West Bank and the Jordan Valley.
The Israeli voter tends to judge every step taken by the government in terms of his and his family's personal and financial security.
By keeping the voter in the dark, he is hurting the electoral prospects of hiss Likud-Israel Beitenu as a party. And by aligning too closely with Obama on Iran and the Middle East, he is causing the more extreme factions of his party to cross the lines to the religious nationalist Habayit Hayehudi and its new leader, Naftali Bennett. There, they find a clearly-articulated platform calling for independent Israeli stances on the core issues of security, peace with the Palestinians, borders and Jewish settlements.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, the left-of-center opposition parties accuse Netanyahu and Lieberman of extreme right-wing pro-war policies that threaten the country with disaster. Their campaign is turning increasingly savage and personalized rather than issue-oriented. Even though the Likud-Yisrael Beitenu alliance is declining in the Polls (down ten seats to 34 in the 120-member Knesset since November), its rivals are battering their heads against the solid support Binyamin Netanyahu enjoys (43+ percent) as favorite for prime minister.
The contrast between the declining popularity of Netanyahu’s party and his leadership rating is striking.
The Likud bloc is followed by Shelly Yacimovitch’s Labor (16 seats), Bennett’s Habayit Hayehudi (14), ultra-religious Shas and the new Yesh Atid (Future) – 11 each; Hatenua founded by former foreign minister Tzipi Livni come next with 10 seats.
Friday night, Jan. 4, Livni publicly exhorted Labor and Future leaders to join forces for building a front to prevent Netanyahu from forming the next government after the Jan. 22 election. Pundits estimate that if Hatnua, Labor and Future leaders do manage to forge a common platform, they can count on around 40 Knesset seats compared with the right-of-center bloc’s 51. However, the multiplicity of Israeli parties means that no single grouping has ever achieved a parliamentary majority without coalition partners. This situation makes for extreme mobility between the various blocs when the time comes to build a government.

 

http://debka.com/article/22660/Likud-loses-ground-over-Netanyahu’s-fuzzy-security-messages