Stand With Israel: Statement by PM Netanyahu


29 Nov 2012
None of the vital interests of peace appear in the resolution that will be put forward before the General Assembly today and that is why Israel cannot accept it.
PM Netanyahu at the Begin Heritage Center
PM Netanyahu at the Begin Heritage Center (Photo: GPO)

(Communicated by the Prime Minister’s Media Adviser)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this morning (Thursday, 29 November 2012), at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem, made the following statement:


“Israel is prepared to live in peace with a Palestinian state, but for peace to endure, Israel’s security must be protected. The Palestinians must recognize the Jewish state and they must be prepared to end the conflict with Israel once and for all.

None of these vital interests, these vital interests of peace, none of them appear in the resolution that will be put forward before the General Assembly today and that is why Israel cannot accept it. The only way to achieve peace is through agreements that are reached by the parties directly; through valid negotiations between themselves, and not through UN resolutions that completely ignore Israel’s vital security and national interests And because this resolution is so one-sided, it doesn’t advance peace, it pushes it backwards.

As for the rights of the Jewish people in this land, I have a simple message for those people gathered in the General Assembly today: No decision by the UN can break the 4000-year-old bond between the people of Israel and the land of Israel.”


Iran allegedly planning nuclear weapon stronger than bomb used on Hiroshima

Leaked diagram obtained by the Associated Press shows Islamic Republic ran computer simulation for a weapon three times more forceful than the World War II bomb.

By  | Nov.27, 2012 | 6:59 PM
Iran nuclear diagram

The undated diagram that was given to the AP by officials of a country critical of Iran’s atomic program allegedly calculating the explosive force of a nuclear weapon. Photo by AP

Iranian Revolutionary Guards personnel watch the launch of a Zelzal missile during maneuvers by the city of Qom, Iran. June 28, 2011. Photo by AP

A diagram obtained by The Associated Press shows that Iranian scientists have run computer simulations for a nuclear weapon that would produce more than triple the explosive force of the World War II bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.

The diagram was leaked by officials of a country critical of Iran’s atomic program to bolster their arguments that Iran’s nuclear program must be halted before it produces a weapon. They provided the diagram only on condition that they and their country were not named.

The International Atomic Energy Agency – the Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog – reported last year that it had obtained diagrams indicating that Iran was calculating the “nuclear explosive yield” of potential weapons. A senior diplomat who is considered neutral on the issue confirmed that the graph obtained by the AP was indeed one of those cited by the IAEA in that report. He spoke only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue.

The IAEA report mentioning the diagrams last year did not give details of what they showed. But the diagram seen by the AP shows a bell curve – with variables of time in micro-seconds, and power and energy both in kilotons – the traditional measurement of the energy output, and hence the destructive power of nuclear weapons. The curve peaks at just above 50 kilotons at around 2 microseconds, reflecting the full force of the weapon being modeled.

The bomb that the United States dropped on Hiroshima in Japan during World War II, in comparison, had a force of about 15 kilotons. Modern nuclear weapons have yields hundreds of times higher than that.

The diagram has a caption in Farsi: “Changes in output and in energy released as a function of time through power pulse.” The number “5” is part of the title, suggesting it is part of a series.

David Albright, whose Institute for Science and International Security is used by the U.S.¬ government as a go-to source on Iran’s nuclear program, said the diagram looks genuine but seems to be designed more “to understand the process” than as part of a blueprint for an actual weapon in the making.

“The yield is too big,” Albright said, noting that North Korea’s first tests of a nuclear weapon were only a few kilotons. Because the graph appears to be only one in a series, others might show lower yields, closer to what a test explosion might produce, he said.

The senior diplomat said the diagram was part of a series of Iranian computer-generated models provided to the IAEA by the intelligences services of member nations for use in its investigations of suspicions that Iran is trying to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran denies any interest in such a weapon and has accused the United States and Israel of fabricating evidence that suggests it is trying to build a bomb.

Asked about the project, Iran’s chief IAEA delegate, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said he had not heard of it. IAEA spokeswoman Gill Tudor said the agency had no comment.
Iran has refused to halt uranium enrichment, despite offers of reactor fuel from abroad, saying it is producing nuclear fuel for civilian uses. It has refused for years to cooperate with the UN nuclear agency’s efforts to investigate its program.

Iran’s critics fear it could use the enriched uranium for military purposes. Such concerns grew this month when the IAEA said Iran is poised to double its output of higher-enriched uranium at its fortified underground facility – a development that could put Tehran within months of being able to make the core of a nuclear warhead.

In reporting on the existence of the diagrams last year, the IAEA said it had obtained them from two member nations that it did not identify. Other diplomats have said that Israel and the United States – the countries most concerned about Iran’s nuclear program – have supplied the bulk of intelligence being used by the IAEA in its investigation.

“The application of such studies to anything other than a nuclear explosive is unclear to the agency,” the IAEA said at the time.

The models were allegedly created in 2008 and 2009 – well after 2003, the year that the United States said Tehran had suspended such work in any meaningful way. That date has been questioned by Britain, France, Germany and Israel, and the IAEA now believes that – while Iran shut down some of its work back then – other tests and experiments continue today.

With both the IAEA probe and international attempts to engage Iran stalled, there are fears that Israel may opt to strike at Tehran’s nuclear program. The Jewish state insists it will not tolerate an Iran armed with nuclear arms.

An intelligence summary provided with the drawing linked it to other alleged nuclear weapons work – significant because it would indicate that Iran is working not on isolated experiments, but rather on a single program aimed at mastering all aspects of nuclear arms development.

The IAEA suspects that Iran has conducted live tests of conventional explosives that could be used to detonate a nuclear weapon at Parchin, a sprawling military base southeast of Tehran. The intelligence summary provided to the AP said data gained from those tests fed the model plotted in the diagram. Iran has repeatedly turned down IAEA requests to visit the site, which the agency fears is undergoing a major cleanup meant to eliminate any traces of such experiments.

The intelligence summary named nuclear scientists Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, Majid Shahriari and Fereidoun Abbasi as key players in developing the computer diagrams, adding that Shahriari and Abbasi were also involved in the Parchin testing.

Iran has for years rebuffed IAEA attempts to question Fakhrizadeh for his suspected involvement in secret programs. Shahriari was assassinated in 2010 by what Iran says were Israeli agents. Abbasi, now the head of Iran’s nuclear agency, was wounded in a separate assassination attempt the same day that Shahriari was killed.

The senior diplomat, who is familiar with the Iran probe, said the agency has not yet determined any connection between Parchin and the computer models. But Olli Heinonen, who headed the IAEA’s Iran investigation until 2010, said using the results of the alleged Parchin tests woul
d “make sense as part of the design and testing of a (computer) model.”


Merrill Lynch: Israel is in Good Shape

013,merril lynch israel growth forecast 2013 said Merrill Lynch Wealth Management chief investment officer for Europe, Middle East and Africa Bill O’Neill at a press conference in Tel Aviv today. The Israeli economy is in very good shape in global comparison and will grow by 3% in 2013, said Merrill Lynch Wealth Management chief investment officer for Europe, Middle East and Africa Bill O’Neill at a press conference in Tel Aviv today. He said that the recent geopolitical events would not have long-term consequences.

O’Neill doubts that the Bank of Israel will cut the interest rate anytime soon, given the upcoming elections and sensitive political situation.

He added that Israel’s inflation was balanced, and that the shekel was extraordinarily balanced and stable against the dollar. He also said that most activity in Israel would focus on the consumer sector and that home prices would be stable in the near term.

O’Neill concluded by recommending investment in Israeli stocks over bonds.

Globally, O’Neill says in a new report that the economic and market outlook for 2013 is brighter than in 2012. He sees increased evidence of the Federal Reserve’s progress in rekindling the US economy and even a gradual eurozone recovery in prospect during the second half. In addition, in China GDP growth is forecast to improve slightly.

Growth should begin taking over from policy as the key focus for investors next year,” says O’Neill. “This leads us to favor equities over bonds in 2013. The notable valuation gap between the two asset classes, now at its most favorable level for stocks in over 25 years, adds to our conviction here.”

Iran transporting deadly weapons to the Arab terrorists in Gaza

Iranian Warships to Return to Sudan

Follow Virtual Jerusalem on  and 

Date Posted: 2012-11-27 08:12:58

Iranian warships will return to Sudan on Friday, the armed forces said on Monday, according to an AFP report.

The announcement comes one month after a similar port call followed Khartoum’s accusation that Israel bombed a military factory.
Sudan’s links to Iran have come under scrutiny after Khartoum accused Israel of the October 23 strike against the Yarmouk compound, which led to speculation that Iranian weapons were stored or manufactured at the factory in Khartoum.

Khartoum has denied Iranian involvement in weapons manufacturing and has accused Israel of “spreading fabricated information”.
“Two Iranian warships would also visit Port Sudan harbor on November 30 and would stay at the harbor for three days within the military maritime cooperation,” Sawarmi Khaled Saad, Sudan’s army spokesman, was quoted by the official SUNA news agency as having said.

A Pakistani naval vessel would also stop at the Red Sea port, for two days beginning on Thursday, Saad said.
During their visit the three ships would get “fuel and other logistic materials”, he added.

A pair of Iranian warships spent about two days in Port Sudan late last month in a visit which Saad said supported “strong political, security and diplomatic relations between the two states”.

Israel refused all comment on Sudan’s allegations about the Khartoum factory blast.

A top Israeli defense official, Amos Gilad, said Sudan “serves as a route for the transfer, via Egyptian territory, of Iranian weapons to Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists.”

A retired Israeli defense official recently told Reuters that Israel has been monitoring arms trafficking through Sudan in an attempt to “stem the flow of arms (to Sinai and Gaza) without triggering major confrontations.”

Foreign intelligence sources told the news agency that Israel had also carried out an unmanned drone raid on a convoy south of Khartoum. The sources claimed the strike destroyed 200 tons of munitions, including rockets, that were intended for Gaza.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has called Israel “enemy number one” because of the attack on the factory.

US-led NATO intervention begins in Syria war. Patriots in Turkey 1

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report November 27, 2012, 9:47 AM (GMT+02:00)

Tags:  Syrian rebels   radar & surveillance   Israel   Jordan   Saudi Arabia   NATO   US   Patriots   Turkey 
Patriot anti-missile batteries for Turkey
Patriot anti-missile batteries for Turkey

Tuesday, Nov. 27, the Middle East military spotlight swung around from Gaza to the Syrian war with steps for the start of US and NATO intervention in that conflict. Without spelling this out, a game changer began unfolding when a joint Turkish-NATO team began making a site survey  for the deployment of Patriot Air and Missile Defense Systems, manned by American military teams. The team, said the statement from Ankara, will assess where to station the missiles and how many would be needed. It reiterated that the system is “for defensive purposes” and not for a “no-fly zone or offensive operations,” but just for use “against an air or missile threat from Syria.”
However, the Patriots in combination with already installed elements of the missile shield, will command an area beyond the Turkish-Syrian border – all of northern Syria up to and including the embattled towns of Aleppo and Homs, DEBKAfile’s military sources report.
Their presence will impede the operations of Assad’s most effective and lethal means of war against the rebels in that region – air force bombardment.
The positioning of US anti-missile missiles in Turkey coincides with the rebels’ success in destroying the Assad regime’s key air and radar stations in southern Syria and along the Jordanian border. The two thrusts add up to a coordinated military effort in northern and southern Syria to seize control of the skies in both regions from Assad’s control and push his forces back into central Syria.
A part of the US-Turkish plan affects Israel. Monday, DEBKAfile reported exclusively that in a resounding blow to Bashar Assad’s ability to fight external enemies, Syrian rebels had destroyed the Assad regime’s most important electronic warning radar station facing Israel – M-1 – Monday, Nov. 26.

This Russian-built station monitored Israeli warplanes’ takeoff and landing activities at air bases in the Negev and Hatzerim in the south and tracked them up to the Syrian border. The facility was designed to guide Syrian missiles targeting any point on the Israeli map, in sync with air defense facilities south of Damascus and on the Golan Heights. The radar’s range also covered naval movements in Mediterranean waters off the shores of Israel and Lebanon.
Western military sources told DEBKAfile that the destruction of this vital facility has blinded the two eyes which Syrian air, air defense and missile forces had trained on Israel. It has therefore crippled, though not completely dismantled, Bashar Assad’s ability to got to war against Israel, Jordan or Saudi Arabia.
M-1 radar also swept all parts of Jordan and northern Saudi Arabia where the important Tabuk air base is situated. Deployed there in addition to the Saudi Air Force are French fighter-bombers ready to go to war against Syria.
M-1 also relayed current data on Israeli military movements to Hizballah and would have been a vital source of intelligence in a potential Lebanese Shiites offensive against the Jewish state.
The Syrian ruler and his spokesmen have frequently threatened since the eruption of the popular insurrection that if Assad had his back to the wall, the entire Middle East would go up in flames, especially Israel.

In the last two days, the Syrian rebels have made additional gains: They were able to capture areas abutting on the Jordanian border, excepting only the Ramtha border crossing. They also seized the Marj al-Sultan military air field southeast of Damascus and adjoining Syrian Army 4th Brigade bases.
Most of the men of the 82nd Infantry Brigade guarding M-1 were killed in the fighting, fled or were taken prisoner.
Our military sources notes that after M-1, the Assad regime still retains two key radar stations: M-2 in Shanshar south of Homs, which covers central and northern Syria; and M-3 near Latakia which keeps an eye on the northern region up to the Turkish border and the eastern Mediterranean up to Cyprus.
All three radar stations were linked to the Syrian general staff, air force, air defense, missile and navy operations rooms and fed them the essential real-time intelligence data needed for decision-making at the highest level. However, the loss of M-1 seriously hampers the Syria army’s capacity to take on Israel or Jordan.

Gro Harlem Brundtland og Arbeiderpartiet har ansvaret for å ha ødelagt Norge gjennom som multikulturelle ektremisme

 Gro Harlem Brundtland la grunnlaget for det nye flerkulturelle samfunnet allerede i 1979

Skrevet 2012/11/20

Gro Harlem Brundtland har alltid hatt lite til overs for et etnisk homogent Norge.

Norske politikere har i de siste ti årene gjentatt i det uendelige at Norge er og vil forbli etflerkulturelt samfunn. At det flerkulturelle samfunnet er kommet for å bli enten man liker det eller ikke og at årsaken er enorme migrasjonsbølger som ingen kunne forutse. Det norske folk har gjennom en bred mediedekning fått innprentet at ingen kan forandre den retningen vårt land har tatt, og vil ta i framtiden. Når det gjelder den demografiske sammensetningen av Norge så er vi mer eller mindre totalt uten styring. kan derimot vise til at det forelå konkrete planer om å forme Norge til det samfunnet vi har i dag helt tilbake til 70 tallet. Kanskje ikke ting har skjedd så plutselig og uventet som vi har blitt fortalt likevel?

Inn kommer Stortingsmelding nr. 74 av 1979, skrevet av selveste Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland.

Stortingsmeldingen går i korte trekk ut på å omgjøre Norge fra et etnisk homogent samfunn til et flerkulturelt og fler-etnisk samfunn. Det gis en detaljert plan for hvordan dette kan gjennomføres så smertefritt som overhodet mulig og kanskje mest skremmende; det gir en detaljert plan for hvordan barna skal læres opp gjennom omfattende «holdningskampanjer» i skoler, frivillige organisasjoner, idrettslag og fritidsklubber til å akseptere den totale omdannelsen av nasjonen Norge. Som Gro Harlem Brundtland selv skriver i Stortingsmeldingen: De voksne generasjoner er alt for fordomsfulle, framtiden ligger i barna og måten vi kan forme dem.

Norge innførte en såkalt innvandringsstopp i 1975. Det hevdes i media og blant politikere at ingen kunne forutse den enorme migrasjonsbølgen som har rammet Europa og Norge. Likevel skriver Gro Harlem Brundtland i 1979 at Norge kommer til å bli et flerkulturelt samfunn.

Stortingsmelding nr. 74 av Gro Harlem Brundtland er forløperen til mye av det tankegodset makteliten og den venstrevridde kultureliten har i dag. Stortingsmeldingen har lagt grunnen for det Norge som skulle utvikle seg fra 1979 og fram til i dag.

Vi skal nå se litt nærmere på hva som faktisk står i Stortingsmelding nr. 74.

Gro Harlem Brundtland slår fast at misnøyen mot de innvandrerne som hadde kommet til Norge fram til 1979 skyldtes: «til dels uvitenhet, feilinformasjon og misforståelser.» Videre legger hun grunnen for all framtidig statlig engasjement når det kommer til innføringen av det flerkulturelle samfunnet:

«Det er helt klart at de sentrale myndigheter har et ansvar her – for å motvirke og forebygge diskriminering og rasisme i befolkningen. Et av virkemidlene er klar, entydig og saklig informasjon og holdningsskapende virksomhet.» Sagt på en annen måte så skal det norske folk oppdras av staten til å ha korrekte holdninger.

Hun legger også psykiske lidelser til grunn for de som er imot omdannelsen av nasjonen Norge: «Ofte bygger diskriminerende holdninger på uklare følelser og angst for ukjente og fremmede ting, samt behovet for å ha syndebukker i nedgangstider da det er kamp om knappe ressurser f.eks. innen boligsektoren. Derfor er det viktig å finne metoder for å trenge gjennom psykiske og følelsesmessige barrierer for å nå fram med saklig informasjon og kunnskap.» Videre beskriver hun det å ta et oppgjør med innvandringsmotstandere i den politiske debatten som: «(..) i forbindelse med fordømmelsen av en persons vrangforestillinger(..)» Innvandringsmotstandere har med andre ord vrangforestillinger.

Hun slår også fast at hun ønsker at det skal settes i gang konkrete tiltak for å få nordmenn til å akseptere det nye flerkulturelle Norge. «Derfor er det viktig å få i gang konkrete tiltak i folks eget lokale miljø – enten det er blokka, oppgangen, småhusbebyggelsen, beboerforeningen mv.»

Media må også med i dette fellesprosjektet for den totale omdannelsen av Norge: «De sentrale myndigheter og de politisk ansvarlige må til enhver tid påvirke massemedia som fjernsyn og radio til å drive opplysning og holdningsskapende virksomhet. Dette kan gjøres på mange måter, men det er ikke sannsynlig at oppslag og programmer om hvor mange problemer innvandrerne har osv. er det gunstigste utgangspunktet for forståelse.» Et fritt media som rapporterer uavhengig er altså ikke det Gro Harlem Brundtland ser for seg når det gjelder å lykkes i omdannelsesprosessen til et flerkulturelt samfunn.

Også barna skal med når det Nye Norge skal skapes: «Skolemyndighetene har påtatt seg et ansvar for at opplysnings- og holdningsdannende virke begynner med barn og ungdom.»

Gro Harlem Brundtland konkluderer med at: «Det holdningsskapende arbeidet vil få stadig økt betydning, særlig i forbindelse med at annen generasjons innvandrere begynner å gjøre seg gjeldende. En bred og allmenn opinion mot diskriminerende holdninger og rasisme blir svært viktig. I denne prosessen og bevisstgjøringen er informasjonsspredning et nøkkelord.»

For som hun skriver i Stortingsmeldingen: «Toleranse ser ikke ut til å være medfødt. Det er nødvendig med betydelig innsats av økonomiske og andre ressurser for å ta igjen og styre den utviklingen mot et flerkulturelt/pluralistisk samfunn som vi er inne i.»

Utviklingen skal styres mot et flerkulturelt samfunn slår Gro Harlem Brundtland fast i 1979. Det hersker heller ingen tvil om at det har hun fått til. Norge har vært styrt mot et flerkulturelt samfunn og vi har blitt omdannet til et flerkulturelt samfunn. Alt har vært politisk villet og styrt.

Derfor bør det heller ikke lenger være noen tvil om hvem man kan rette en stor «takk» til når det gjelder å ha skapt det samfunnet vi har i dag.

Gro Harlem Brundtland gikk forøvrig til en eksklusiv jobb i FN som generaldirektør for verdens helseorganisasjon etter at hun hadde overlatt stafettpinnen i Arbeiderpartiet til Jens Stoltenberg.

Share this:

Mads Gilbert: Propagandist for terrorister og palestinske krigsforbrytere

Mads Gibert er tilbake i Gaza. Vi anbefaler pressen å finne ut hvem som betaler reise, lønn og opphold for han der. Og følge alle inntrekter inn til Mads Gilbert i Norge og i utlandet. Slik kan vi få fastslått hvem han jobber for, og linker mellom Gilbert og islamistiske terroristorganisasjoner.
Norsk presse bør holde seg for god til å slippe Gilber til.
Vi anbefaler denne gangen CNN og Christiane Amanpour om man ønsker å følge med fra Midtøsten i disse dager.
Vi anbefaler PST å overvåke Mads Gilbert for å skaffe rede på hans kontakter og aktiviteter.


Er det bare arabere på Gaza som har barn?

Ved å høre om alle barna i og på Gaza som blir skadelidende ved Israels angrep etter stadig nye provokasjoner så blir jeg intet mindre enn oppgitt over hva Norske media klarer å lire av seg.

Når jeg hører på NRK nyheter og leser Aftenposten som jeg abonnerer på så ser det ut som om Hamas og Jihad gruppene på Gaza har englevinger og er uskyldsrene og hvite.

Det er bare de som har barn for i Israel virker det som de formerer seg ved kloning, og over Israel svever det svarte djevler med store vinger og ljåen over skuldrene.

Han har ikke det han på bildet her, men han ser likevel ikke så veldig hyggelig ut.  Nå er ikke jeg så sikker på at de finnes de som kalles djevler. I det minste ikke i det helvete man tenker seg på kristent vis og i undergrunnen.

Jeg tror at de fleste djevler faktisk er mennesker med noen fullstendig forvridde oppfatninger av fakta og menneskelighet. De finnes her midt i blant oss og utfører sin djevelskap hver eneste dag. Dermed blir det og mye enklere å skjønne hvorfor og hvordan noen kan handle mot andre som de gjør, 

For det første så la meg fortelle at det er barn i Israel, men det er et samfunn som tar langt bedre vare på sine barn, enn det vi finner i muslimske stater. Her trener de på rakettangrep.

Når vi så ser på hvordan man tenker innen Hamas eller de forskjellige grupper av Jihad da kom man fram til følgende informasjoner etter å ha lett litt på nettet:

Er det vanskelig å oppfatte forskjellen? Det ser unektelig slik ut når vi hører på Norsk Dagsnytt for eksempel, men her er ennå et utdrag:

De skal utrydde jødene … Det er sannelig god barnelærdom å ta med seg.

Jeg fikk også med en dokumentar for en tid siden der kvinner presset sine menn til å lage flere barn for de ville gi soldater til saken og holde konflikten i live. Det viser litt om hvordan de ser på sine barn, eller noen av dem gjør det. Dermed blir dette oppslaget fra NRK litt mindre faktabetont:

Til nå har islamister på Gaza sendt over 500 raketter inn i Israel og noen av dem rekker fram til Tel Aviv og Jerusalem. OM de ødelegger moskeer og pulveriserer Jerusalem betyr ikke noe for Islamister for det er ikke Allahs verdier som blir ødelagt. Det er årsaken til at de ikke bryr seg om hellige steder. Ikke engang sine egne. Dermed sprengte de verdensarven, Buddafigurene i Afghanistan i luften.

Vi ønsker ikke opptøyer sies det i Oslo Puls, men er ikke det en grov løgn? På dagsrevyen skrek de ; Bomb Tel Aviv , Bomb Tel Aviv

Det er vel en sannhet med visse modifikasjoner. På bildet under fra Dagsrevyen ser vi hvordan det utartet og det er nettopp der ekstremismen fikk vise seg fram. De er ikke ekstremister sier AP, Rødt og venstresiden.  De er fanatikere av første klasse sier jeg!;

Ingen kan kalle dette ønsker som er forenlig med normal oppførsel. Først skyter de raketter, hele 500 stykker inn over Israel i løpet av en uke og så blir de forbannet fordi Israel slår tilbake. Man må være Islamist eller venstreekstrem for å kunne mene at det er korrekt.

Hvorfor stiller de ikke heller opp foran  AP Bastionen og ber om at de slutter å gi penger til Hamas? At AP går i rette med alle Jihad grupper på Gaza og på Vestbredden? Hvorfor støtter de ikke Israel i kampen for endelig fred?

Det blir ikke fred så lenge Hamas har raketter de kan sende inn over Israelsk territorium. Dagsrevyen fra i går var like skeiv som i dag ; Klippet ligger her. Det som er snodig er at NRK og media later til å følge i flokk her og.

Ulempen er at islamistene i sin fanatisme går til stadig nye angrep på en, for dem fiende, som er overlegen i styrke og utstyr. De gjør det for å få sympati og det får de selv om det er misforstått. Islamistsene i Gaza er ikke små barn som ikke er ansvarlig for sine handlinger. De må ta konsekvensene av de valg de tar. Deres barn fremstilles som mer verd enn andres barn, men er de det?

Har ikke alle barn den samme retten til å vokse opp ? Til å bli til noe? Uten at fanatiske ekstremister til stadighet spiller “poker” med deres sikkerhet.

Vi må kort og godt slutte å støtte opp om terrorister, slik at det kan bli endelig fred i regionen. Israel har forsvart seg med ryggen mot veggen siden 1948 og nå er det stadig nye islamske nasjoner som kommer med støtte til Hamas og Gaza. Det kan bare føre til et resultat. Det er tusenvis av døde og et Gaza som blir liggende i ruiner.

Islamistene har seg selv å takke om det skulle blir resultatet og store deler av den arabiske verden sammen med Norge og venstre ekstreme i Europa vil måtte ta sin del av ansvaret.


Henry A. Kissinger: Iran must be President Obama’s immediate priority

By Henry A. Kissinger, Saturday, November 17, 1:57 AM

Henry A. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977.

In the aftermath of an exhausting reelection campaign, the most urgent decision facing the president is how to stop Iran from pursuing a military nuclear program. Presidents of both parties have long declared that “no option is off the table” in securing this goal. In the third presidential debate, the candidates agreed that this was a matter of the American national interest, even as they described the objective alternately as preventing an Iranian “nuclear weapon” or “breakout capacity” (President Obama), or a “nuclear-capable Iran” (Mitt Romney). As Iran continues to elaborate its enrichment capacity and move it underground, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced a spring deadline for counteraction. In this fraught environment, what operational meaning should be given to America’s declared objectives?

The United States and Iran are apparently conducting bilateral negotiations through official or semiofficial emissaries — a departure from the previous procedure of multilateral talks. Negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program do not have an encouraging record. For more than a decade, Iran has stalled, first with the “EU-3” (France, Germany and Britain) and then with the “P5+1” (the members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany). It has alternated hints of flexibility with periods of intransigence, all while expanding, concealing and dispersing its nuclear facilities. If no limit is placed on this process, Iran’s tech­no­logical progress will dominate events. But at what stage, and in what manner, should Iran be deprived of a military nuclear capability? This has been the essence of the argument over “red lines.”

Three stages are involved in the evolution of a military nuclear capability: a delivery system, a capacity to enrich uranium and the production of nuclear warheads. Iran has been augmenting the range and number of its missile systems since at least 2006. Its enrichment capacity — long underreported to the International Atomic Energy Agency — has been expanded to thousands of centrifuges (the instruments that enrich uranium to bomb-grade material). The level exceeds any reasonable definition of peaceful uses authorized by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The inevitable culmination is a nuclear weapon.

To draw the line at proscribing an Iranian nuclear weapon — as some argue — would prove unmanageable. Once the requisite amount of fissile material has been produced, constructing and equipping a warhead is a relatively short and technologically straightforward process, almost certainly impossible to detect in a timely fashion.

If so ineffectual a red line were to emerge from a decade of diplomacy by the permanent members of the Security Council, the result would be an essentially uncontrollable military nuclear proliferation throughout a region roiled by revolution and sectarian blood-feuds. Iran would thereby achieve the status of North Korea, with a military nuclear program at the very edge of going operational. Each nation that has a nuclear option would compete to minimize the time to its own full military nuclear capability. Meanwhile, countries within the reach of Iran’s military but lacking a nuclear option would be driven to reorient their political alignment toward Tehran. The reformist tendencies in the Arab Spring — already under severe pressure — would be submerged by this process. The president’s vision of progress toward a global reduction of nuclear weapons would suffer a blow, perhaps a fatal one.

Some have argued that even in the worst-case scenario, a nuclear Iran could be deterred. Yet this ignores the immensely costly, complex and tension-ridden realities of Cold War-era deterrence, the apocalyptic strain in the Iranian theocracy and the near-certainty that several regional powers will go nuclear if Iran does. Once nuclear balances are forged in conditions where tensions are no longer purely bilateral, as in the Cold War, and in still-developing countries whose technology to prevent accidents is rudimentary, the likelihood of some nuclear exchange will mount dramatically.

This is why the United States has insisted on limits on Iranian enrichment — that is, curtailing access to a weapon’s precursor elements. Abandoning the original demand to ban all enrichment, the P5+1 has explored what levels of production of fissile material are compatible with the peaceful uses authorized by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The higher the level of enrichment, the shorter the time needed to bring about militarily applicable results. Conventional wisdom holds that the highest practically enforceable limit is 5 percent enrichment, and then only if all fissile material beyond an agreed amount is safeguarded outside Iran.

The time available for a diplomatic outcome shrinks in direct proportion as the Iranian enrichment capacity grows and a military nuclear capacity approaches. The diplomatic process must therefore be brought to a point of decision. The P5+1 or the United States unilaterally must put forward a precise program to curtail Iranian enrichment with specific time limits.

This does not imply a red line authorizing any country to go to war. However respectfully the views of friends are considered, the ultimate decision over peace or war must remain in the hands of the president. Why negotiate with a country of such demonstrated hostility and evasiveness? Precisely because the situation is so fraught. Diplomacy may reach an acceptable agreed outcome. Or its failure will mobilize the American people and the world. It will clarify either the causes of an escalating crisis, up to the level of military pressure, or ultimate acquiescence in an Iranian nuclear program. Either outcome will require a willingness to see it through to its ultimate implications. We cannot afford another strategic disaster.

To the extent that Iran shows willingness to conduct itself as a nation-state, rather than a revolutionary religious cause, and accepts enforceable verification, elements of Iranian security concerns should be taken seriously, including gradual easing of sanctions as strict limits on enrichment are implemented and enforced. But time will be urgent. Tehran must be made to understand that the alternative to an agreement is not simply a further period of negotiation and that using negotiations to gain time will have grave consequences. A creative diplomacy, allied to a determined strategy, may still be able to prevent a crisis provided the United States plays a decisive role in defining permissible outcomes.