MK Eldad tells INN: "Netanyahu is Weak, He Fell into a Trap"

MK Knesset Aryeh Eldad (National Union) has no illusions about the upcoming talks between Israel and the Palestinians. He spoke frankly about these talks with Israel National News in an exclusive interview Sunday.

INN: What is your opinion of the upcoming talks?

MK Eldad: I think that Netanyahu put himself into a trap when he insisted on direct talks with the Palestinians. These are talks about everything, as was defined by the people invited to participate in them. These are talks about Jerusalem, about the demand to return refugees, about borders--everything. Even if Netanyahu was the strongest man on earth, which he is not, he is trapped. He is bound by some of his predecessors' commitments on previous talks.

They [the PA] will not start with him from the beginning, but rather with the Camp David agreement, with the Clinton plan, with what Olmert offered Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas]in their direct talks. He is far beyond everything that the people who voted for him wanted him to be. So he is starting these direct talks in a very bad position, and I am sure that not only is he wrong in his claim that there will be no preconditions, but rather also the opposite; Obama and Clinton are making all efforts to have the talks begin with a de facto freeze on building in Judea and Samaria.

INN: Will the talks succeed in making the building freezes continue?:

MK Eldad: I think that Netanyahu will face and accept the demand to continue the building freeze. He will continue with no building in Jerusalem, which he has done from the first moment he was elected as Prime Minister. He did not build a single house in Jerusalem since elected, he did not hire a single contractor to build in Jerusalem, and he is doing nothing in Judea and Samaria either.

INN: Why are you so sure that Netanyahu won't stand strong?

MK Eldad: There are early signs for the collapse of Netanyahu. He has agreed to give land for the very acceptance of the Palestinians to sit with him. The ticket price he paid for direct talks was his agreement to build the road to a new Palestinian city called Roabi, near Ramallah. Netanyahu already promised that if they [the PA] would come to direct negotiations, then at the beginning of the talks, he will pass a decision in the Cabinet about changing the status of the land on which the Arabs want to build the road to this city. This he promised to the Americans and Palestinians. And it is amazing that he thinks he can give up the Land of Israel without the decision of the Knesset, not to mention any large-scale national referendum. To imagine that he will give land just for the agreement to talk to him.

These are early signs that Netanyahu is very, very weak and that he can't take a stand on points that he defines as major points for Israel. Once he said "no" to a Palestinian state, now he says "yes" to a Palestinian state. Once he said Jews can always build, now he says Jews cannot build. Once he said Israel will hold onto the Jordan valley, now he says he will accept an international body there. This is a total collapse.

All this will happen unless the Arabs will save us from our own Prime Minister, by breaking off from the talks, by not accepting the offer to go back to '67 borders, and to give them a capital in Jerusalem.
INN: Isn't Netanyahu better than the alternatives, Kadima and Labor?

MK Eldad: If you want to discover the differences between Likud, Kadima, and Labor, you need an electron microscope. There are no differences, it's all in the rhetoric. Once Netanyahu is at the discussion table, his rhetoric won't help him and he's going to give up everything.

INN: What can the Israeli public do to stop these things from happening?

MK Eldad: The public in Israel can demand from their representatives in the Likud, Shas, Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home), and Yisrael Beteinu (Israel Our Home), to remain faithful to their election promises. They were not elected to build a Palestinian state; they were alected to prevent one from rising. The ministers will not rebel against Netanyahu unless the public demands it. This is the duty of the public of Israel.

We have a Knesset Lobby for the Land of Israel comprising 41 Members of Knesset, and we can draw a very red line to Netanyahu and explain to him that he won't be able to pass any decision without losing his government. But if we want to trust every one of the 41 MKs, we need public pressure on them that they will remain faithful to the Land of Israel lobby. Public pressure is needed on Netanyahu and all the MKs and Ministers, who in their term will have to prevent a Palestinian state from becoming a reality.

INN: Many Jews, especially American Jews believed that Netanayu was different, stronger than other Israeli leaders. What happened to him?

MK Eldad: Nothing happened to Netanyahu; he was always very weak. He could speak very nicely but he could perform nothing. On political issues with the Palestinians, he is one of the weakest Prime Ministers we ever had.


Ehud Olmert talked to the Palestinians very nicely but gave them nothing in the end. Netanyanu has talked tough but is offering them a lot. Netanyahu was always good on theory, but always fails on the practical test. Land for Talks - that is what he is going to do. People still trust his image and not his real performance. They are going to be deeply disappointed.

Netanyahu was elected to prevent the creation of the Palestinian state, to produce something utterly different. But right away, he collapsed under pressure from Obama and declared his support for a Palestinian state. This is a complete collapse.
(IsraelNationalNews.com)

Gulf States Pushing for Attack on Iran

First it was the United Arab Emirates ambassador in Washington, now it’s a Saudi Arabian editorial, and John Bolton says the entire Persian Gulf feels the same: an attack on Iran is the only option - if it's not too late.

An editorial in an official Saudi Arabian newspaper indicates that a military attack against Iran might be the only way of stopping it from obtaining nuclear weapons. “Tehran is moving its conflict with the international community into high gear,” the Al Madina daily wrote this week, “and [in this case] some may consider the military option to be the best solution.”

Delaying recourse to this option, the paper continues, “may lead to a point where it is impossible to implement it - if Tehran manages to produce a nuclear bomb of its own.”

Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton goes a bit further, saying it is the only way of stopping it – but adds that it might already be too late.

Just last month, the United Arab Emirates ambassador to Washington said at a conference, "A military attack on Iran by whomever would be a disaster, but Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a bigger disaster."

Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba was unusually candid in his remarks, saying, "I think it's a cost-benefit analysis. I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion… there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what… Am I willing to live with that, versus living with a nuclear Iran? My answer is still the same: 'We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.' I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."

Former Ambassador Bolton feels that many states in the Persian Gulf region feel the same. He told Army Radio today (Thursday), however, that it might very well be too late to attack Iran because of the radioactivity that will emanate from the bombed reactor, harming the civilian population.

"Diplomacy and sanctions against Iran have failed," Bolton told Army Radio's Nitzan Fisher on the Ma Bo'er program, "and don't think the West took seriously enough Iran's efforts over the course of decades to get nuclear power. Frankly, I think the most likely outcome now is that indeed Iran does get nuclear weapons. I think the only possibility of stopping this is the use of military force - an extremely unattractive option, but it's even more unattractive to consider a world in which Iran has nuclear weapons."

He explained, though, that it might be too late: "With Russia beginning to supply fuel in Bushehr [two days from now], it makes the reactor essentially immune to attack, except in the most dire circumstances - because to attack it would mean, almost inevitably, the release of radioactivity into the atmosphere and possibly into the waters of the Persian Gulf."

"I don't think there's a ghost of a chance that the Obama Administration will use force against Iran's nuclear weapons program," Bolton said. "If anyone will do it, it's going to have to be Israel - and I don't know what Israel is going to do... I am very worried that Obama's fallback position is to accept an Iran with nuclear weapons. I think that can have potentially catastrophic consequences in the Middle East and beyond - but I think that's where the Obama Administration is."

Iran's Defense Minister Ahmed Wahidi said this week that Israel's existence will be endangered if it attacks the Bushehr reactor. He said such an attack would be an "international crime."


(IsraelNationalNews.com)

UPDATE: John Bolton Says Three Days Left to Attack Iran

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, told Israel Radio today that there are only three days left for Israel to attack Iran if it wants to stop the Islamic Republic from manufacturing nuclear weapons.

On Friday, Russia announced that on August 21st, it will start loading nuclear fuel into the Bushehr reactor. Bushehr is Iran's first atomic power station. Bolton said that once the reactor, also built by Russia, becomes operational on Friday, it will be too late to attack, because the attacking it would result in fallout of radioactive material as far as the Persian Gulf and hurt Iranian civilians.

Bolton also expressed pessimism that the U.S. administration would lead an attack against Iran, saying, "I would be very surprised if there are any circumstances in which the Obama administration would use force against Iran's nuclear program."

Earlier in the week, Bolton said, "If Israel wants to do something against the reactor in Bushehr, it must do so in the following eight days." Today he revised his estimate to even less time. He said that in the absence of an Israeli attack, Iran would complete its goal of the establishment of a functioning nuclear reactor.

Bolton was skeptical of the possibility that Israel would attack Iran in the coming days. "I do not think so, I fear that Israel has lost this opportunity," he said.

Already during his tenure in the Bush administration, Bolton stood out due to his approach advocating an attack on the regime in Tehran. He reiterated the danger for Israel and the world, and called on his government to deal with it firmly. Bolton has repeatedly stated that everything must be done to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, including a military attack.

(IsraelNationalNews.com)

Iran Denies Bushehr Activation Will Enable Atomic Weapon Ability

Iran is denying a doomsday message to the world by former U.S. diplomat John Bolton, warning that activation of a nuclear reactor in the Islamic Republic will end the chance to prevent Tehran from developing an atomic weapon.

Iranian officials denied Wednesday that the Bushehr nuclear power plant will produce enriched uranium, or an atomic weapon, after it is activated Friday. Still, to protect its nuclear investment, Iran has vowed to close the Straits of Hormuz if necessary.

On Friday, August 21, Russia is scheduled to begin loading nuclear fuel rods into the reactor, also built by Moscow.

Iranian MP Hossein Sobhaninia has claimed the fueling of the plant “cannot be linked to Iran's nuclear enrichment program; Iran is well aware of its responsibilities.” His colleague, Iranian MP Mohammad Karim Shahrzad added a warning, however, according to a report broadcast by the country's English-language Press TV news network: “The time frame for enrichment activity is a domestic matter,” he said. “It is an issue in which the United States is not entitled to interfere."

By Friday, Bolton, a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, has warned it will be too late to attack, because such a move would cause radioactive fallout that could reach as far as the Persian Gulf.

Earlier this week, Bolton said in an interview that he believes Israel may have already “lost the opportunity” to prevent Iran from establishing a functional nuclear reactor.

Iranian Army Brigadier-General Ali Shadermani meanwhile has vowed to close the Straits of Hormuz if it appears that the United States might attack the country. “The country's armed forces... are in the highest state of alert,” he told the Mehr news agency on Wednesday.

Shadermani also threatened to attack American troops stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq. “With the slightest move against Iran, we will paralyze those troops stationed in those bases and won't allow them to make any move,” he warned.

The third element in the plan would be aimed at the Jewish State, he said: The Iranian army would, “disturb peace and tranquility in Israel, which is known as the closest ally of the United States," reported Hamsayeh.net. Shadermani added pointedly, "The U.S. and Israel well know that we can do it.”

Israel and other Western nations believe that Iran is intent on building a nuclear weapon of mass destruction. Spent nuclear fuel rods contain material that can be used to build a nuclear bomb – and even if other nuclear plants in the country are shut down, Bushehr could conceivably be used to continue such a project in future.

At present, Russia's agreement with Iran stipulates that the Islamic Republic will return its spent fuel rods abroad to Moscow. However, there is no guarantee that Tehran will keep its word.

According to Bolton, once nuclear fuel rods are placed inside the core of the Bushehr reactor, any attack on the facility could harm Iranian civilians as well as others across an extremely wide area – hence the former diplomat's warning that time is nearly up.
(IsraelNationalNews.com)

F.D.A. Approves 5-Day Emergency Contraceptive

WASHINGTON — Federal drug regulators on Friday approved a new form of emergency contraceptive pill that prevents pregnancies if taken as many as five days after unprotected intercourse.

The pill, called ella, will be available by prescription only. Developed in government laboratories, it is more effective than Plan B, the morning-after pill now available over the counter to women 17 and older.

That pill gradually loses efficacy and can be taken at most three days after sex. Ella, by contrast, works just as well on the fifth day as the first after sex.

Women who have unprotected intercourse have about 1 chance in 20 of becoming pregnant. Those who take Plan B within three days cut that risk to about 1 in 40, while those who take ella would cut that risk to about 1 in 50, regulators say. Studies show that ella is less effective in obese women.

The decision was greeted with enthusiasm by abortion rights groups and denounced by anti-abortion activists. But in recent years both sides have treated the emergency contraceptive pills as a side issue in the wider debate over abortion.

Studies have found that many women fail to realize they are at risk for an unplanned pregnancy after unprotected sex. So they tend not to use the emergency contraceptives even when they receive them free.

“Emergency contraception has no effect on pregnancy rates or abortion rates,” said Dr. James Trussell, director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton, who has consulted without charge for ella’s maker. “Women just don’t use them enough to make an impact.”

Still, the decision by the Food and Drug Administration to approve ella, less than two months after a federal advisory committee voted unanimously to recommend approval, marks a decided shift for the agency.

Under President George W. Bush, White House political advisers overruled united F.D.A. scientists, delaying the decision to make Plan B available over the counter and barring such distribution to women under 18.

Some advocates said Friday that the agency’s relatively rapid adoption of its scientists’ advice meant that its traditional separation from political considerations had returned.

“It’s really important the F.D.A. made a decision that’s based on the scientific evidence and not on the political controversy,” said Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women and Families.

But Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, which opposes abortion, said that political considerations were still at work inside the agency.

“The fact that the F.D.A. waited until late on a Friday night in August to release this when they hoped nobody was paying attention underscores that this is a political decision,” she said.

Ms. Wright warned that men might slip ella to unsuspecting women, and she said testing so far was not adequate to establish whether it was safe.

In studies, the most common side effects associated with ella’s use were mild to moderate headache, nausea, abdominal pain, painful menstrual cramps, fatigue and dizziness.

Ella’s approval may also intensify a long-simmering controversy about whether pharmacists and doctors can refuse to prescribe or fill prescriptions for birth control measures they find personally objectionable.

Much of the debate over the drug springs from an argument over how it works, which despite considerable research remains something of a mystery. It blocks the effects of progesterone, a female hormone that spurs ovulation. It is, however, a chemical relative to RU-486, the abortion pill, and there is some evidence that ella makes the womb less hospitable to a fertilized egg by reducing the lining of the uterus.

To the scientists on the advisory committee, whether the pill works by preventing ovulation or implantation was mostly immaterial to the decision about whether it is safe and effective. But to religious groups, the distinction is crucial, since they consider that preventing implantation of a fertilized egg is akin to abortion.

Animal studies showed that ella had little effect on established pregnancies, suggesting it acts differently from RU-486.

Ella, which was approved in Europe last fall, is manufactured by HRA Pharma, a small French drug maker. In the United States it will be distributed by Watson Pharmaceuticals, a company based in California and New Jersey, which plans to introduce it by the end of the year.

The pill was originally developed by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, part of the National Institutes of Health and now named after Eunice Kennedy Shriver. It decided in 2002 to finance a crucial study to assess the drug’s efficacy as an emergency contraceptive.

Studies have shown that more than one million women who do not want to get pregnant are estimated to have unprotected sex every night in the United States, and that more than 25,000 become pregnant every year after being sexually assaulted. Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended.

Obama Strongly Backs Islam Center Near 9/11 Site

WASHINGTON — President Obama delivered a strong defense on Friday night of a proposed Muslim community center and mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, using a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan to proclaim that “as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.”

After weeks of avoiding the high-profile battle over the center — his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said last week that the president did not want to “get involved in local decision-making” — Mr. Obama stepped squarely into the thorny debate.

“I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground,” the president said in remarks prepared for the annual White House iftar, the sunset meal breaking the day’s fast.

But, he continued: “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.”

In hosting the iftar, Mr. Obama was following a White House tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson, who held a sunset dinner for the first Muslim ambassador to the United States. President George W. Bush hosted iftars annually.

Aides to Mr. Obama say privately that he has always felt strongly about the proposed community center and mosque, but the White House did not want to weigh in until local authorities made a decision on the proposal, planned for two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center.

Last week, New York City removed the final construction hurdle for the project, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg spoke forcefully in favor of it.

The community center proposal has led to a national uproar over Islam, 9/11 and freedom of religion during a hotly contested midterm election season.

In New York, Rick A. Lazio, a Republican candidate for governor and a former member of the House of Representatives, issued a statement responding to Mr. Obama’s remarks, saying that the president was still “not listening to New Yorkers.”

“With over 100 mosques in New York City, this is not an issue of religion, but one of safety and security,” he said.

Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and the Republican vice-presidential candidate in 2008, has called the project “an unnecessary provocation” and urged “peace-seeking Muslims” to reject it.

The Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish organization, has also opposed the center.

In his remarks, Mr. Obama distinguished between the terrorists who plotted the 9/11 attacks and Islam. “Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam — it is a gross distortion of Islam,” the president said, adding, “In fact, Al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion, and that list includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.”

Noting that “Muslim Americans serve with honor in our military,” Mr. Obama said that at next week’s iftar at the Pentagon, “tribute will be paid to three soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq and now rest among the heroes of Arlington National Cemetery.”

Mr. Obama ran for office promising to improve relations with the Muslim world, by taking steps like closing the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and more generally reaching out. In a speech in Cairo last year, he vowed “a new beginning.”

But Ali Abunimah, an Arab-American journalist and author, said the president has since left many Muslims disappointed.

“There has been no follow-through; Guantánamo is still open and so forth, so all you have left for him to show is in the symbolic field,” Mr. Abunimah said, adding that it was imperative for Mr. Obama to “stand up to Islamophobia.”

Once Mr. Bloomberg spoke out, the president’s course seemed clear, said Steven Clemons of the New America Foundation, a public policy institution here.

“Bloomberg’s speech was, I think, the pivotal one, and set the standard for leadership on this issue,” Mr. Clemons said.

Mr. Bloomberg, in a statement, said: “This proposed mosque and community center in Lower Manhattan is as important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime, and I applaud President Obama’s clarion defense of the freedom of religion tonight.”

Sharif el-Gamal, the developer on the project, said, “We are deeply moved and tremendously grateful for our president’s words.”

A building on the site of the proposed center is already used for prayers, and some worshipers there on Friday night discussed the president’s remarks.

Mohamed Haroun, an intern at a mechanical engineering firm, said, “What he should have said was: ‘This is a community decision. Constitutionally, they have the right to do it, but it’s a community decision and we should see what the local community wants to do.’ ”

Anne Barnard and M. Amedeo Tumolillo contributed reporting from New York.

Muslims Seek to Censor Gospel of Christ

Contact: Pat McEwen, Operation Save America, 321-431-3962

BRIDGEPORT, Conn., Aug. 12 /Christian Newswire/ — In an unprecedented move, Muslim leaders in Connecticut are staging a press conference in Hartford this afternoon, to plead with legislators to censor the Gospel of Christ from the public forum around mosques.

That’s right! They are using their own potential for violence to silence the Gospel of Christ. Gentle Christian saints will be conducting a press conference on the public sidewalk in front of the Bridgeport Islamic Center, aka Mafjid An-Noor Mosque in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.

Islam is not a religion, nor a cult, but a total and complete 100 % system of life. It has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. In all of the 27 countries ruled by Islam, the church is the state! No other religion will be tolerated.

“Islam presents a monstrous worldview, birthed in the pit of hell, which brings untold misery and murder upon precious people created in the image of God. Religion is its cover (its beard) by which it gains entrance into nations where the ‘freedom of religion’ is sacrosanct. It then takes this freedom afforded to it, and begins its insidious takeover.” Rev. Flip Benham of Operation Save America.

“Like a python, slowly moving upon its prey with almost imperceptible and hypnotic movement, it begins to coil around its victim until it squeezes every last breath of air out of him. When dead, the victim is swallowed whole.”

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet the Quran states in Sura 4:89, “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam) take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”

The key difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam believes that we are to lay the lives of others down to promote the cause of Allah. Christianity, on the other hand, believes that we are to lay down our own lives that others might live. There is a huge difference between a Christian martyr (laying his own life down) and a martyr for Islam (laying the lives of others down). One requires courage. The other is the supreme act of cowardice.

Press Conference:

Bridgeport Islamic Society
1300 Fairfield Ave

Friday, August 13, 2010 - 11:15am EDT

Contact:
Marilyn Carroll 203-444-8047 Bridgeport
Dr. Pat McEwen 321-431-3962 for interviews w/ Rev. Benham