Countries are taking extraordinary measures to slow the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these measures limit individual freedom and may also violate rights guaranteed by national constitutions. Italy’s complete lockdown, enforced by criminal penalties, probably violates its constitution. Norwegian lawmakers have proposed an emergency law that temporarily gives the government unprecedented power to override the constitution and national laws to thwart the virus. Meanwhile, without consulting the Israeli Parliament, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu enacted emergency regulations allowing for stunning surveillance power to combat the virus. Never one to waste a good crisis, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán will likely be able to rule by decree for the foreseeable future.

The United States now faces this same dilemma: To what extent should the Constitution be violated to fight the coronavirus? Lockdowns, especially ones that apply to people who haven’t tested positive for the virus, are constitutionally questionable. The threat by the leaders of Newark, New Jersey, to prosecute residents who spread false information about the virus—if carried out—could violate the First Amendment. Some people in California have challenged the city of San Jose’s authority to force a gun shop to close, citing their right to arm themselves. Perhaps most alarming, the U.S. Department of Justice “has quietly asked Congress for the ability to ask chief judges to detain people indefinitely without trial during emergencies.”

To assess how Americans weigh the trade-off between preserving civil liberties and halting the spread of the coronavirus, we conducted a survey last week, just as state and local governments were beginning to implement their most restrictive policies yet. The survey reveals a remarkable willingness to tolerate civil-rights violations in order to confront the pandemic, regardless of party affiliation.

We presented a nationally representative sample of 3,000 U.S. residents with eight possible policy responses to the outbreak, all of which may be unconstitutional, including forced quarantine in a government facility, criminal penalties for spreading misinformation, bans against certain people entering the country, and conscription of health-care workers. We also asked our sample to imagine that public-health officials had reviewed the policies and estimated that each would likely save some number of lives, hypothetical figures that we provided.

A majority of respondents supported all eight of these policies, most by considerable margins. The proposals with the lowest support were seizing businesses and banning all citizens and noncitizens outside the country from entering, but these policies still had 58 and 63 percent support, respectively. The proposals with the highest levels of support were banning non-citizens from entering the country (85 percent) and conscripting health-care professionals to work despite risks to their own health (78 percent). Both policies burden a defined minority of the population, so it’s not surprising that large majorities support them. But criminalizing speech based on its content, an idea antithetical to modern American constitutionalism, was also very popular: About 70 percent of respondents supported restricting people’s ability to say things that may qualify as misinformation. Likewise, 77 percent of respondents support suspending all religious services and gatherings, thereby restricting religious freedom. And even when we explicitly told half of our sample that the policies may violate the Constitution, the majority supported all eight of them—even the speech restrictions.

Perhaps the most striking feature of our results is the broad bipartisan endorsement of these liberty-restricting policies. Like other surveys, ours reflected a huge gap between Democrats and Republicans in approval of President Donald Trump’s handling of the pandemic: 34 percent of Democrats expressed approval, while 88 percent of Republicans did. One might have reasonably concluded that different policy preferences were driving these responses: that Democrats want aggressive government intervention, which they feel the president has failed to deliver, while Republicans—encouraged by Trump’s early dismissal of the outbreak—prefer a wait-and-see or laissez-faire approach.

The post Red and Blue America Agree That Now Is the Time to Violate the Constitution first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

How did all this goodness fall upon us? What did we do to deserve it? Like a holiday present, the gifts from America landed upon us one after the other – first the American decision to quit UNESCO, and right after that, the Iran speech.

Israel responded as always with an outburst of joy. Not only Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to whom the right wing chalked up the successes. Avi Gabbay, chairman of the Zionist Union, quickly did a Yair Lapid-worthy act, and published a statement of support for America’s UNESCO decision; the party’s Tzipi Livni joined in, and together they proved that these days there’s no opposition in Israel.

Even they ignored the fact that it’s been a long time since such a dangerous honey trap has been set for Israel. It has been a long time since it was so embarrassing — to be under Donald Trump’s patronage and enjoy his favors in the only country in the world in which he is held in esteem.

Also embarrassing is the thought that the United States is about to quit an important international agency only because of Israel – a step that Israel would not have taken for any of its allies, neither Britain, nor Germany nor Japan nor South Korea, if they had found themselves in a similar situation. And it’s no less embarrassing that under Israel’s influence, the agreement with Iran, the most important international American achievement in recent years, could collapse. What a source of pride: Netanyahu and Trump together against the whole world.

UNESCO has indeed been very critical of Israel, like all international agencies. But in most cases its criticisms were relevant and proper. East Jerusalem is indeed occupied territory, as is Hebron, no matter how loud Israel screams. Freedom of worship in Jerusalem has indeed been trampled on by Israel. Try to put yourselves in the place of a Gazan (or a young Hebronite), who wants to go to the Al Aqsa Mosque.

In one instance, UNESCO failed seriously, when it ignored the Jewish connection to the Western Wall. It should have been reprimanded for that. But over the years it has recognized six sites in Israel as World Heritage Sites, recognition that brought honor and maybe tourists as well. There’s even a public square in Haifa named after UNESCO.

Israel was expelled once from UNESCO because of excavations on the Temple Mount, and then reinstated, only following pressure from the United States. It wasn’t good for Israel to be isolated and expelled. Now, following the United States, Israel could find itself isolated by its own doing.

There’s no great friendship towards Israel in this move, which was obviously led by the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, another noisy grotesque from the Trump school, who is choking Israel with her blind and boorish sympathy, and harming the country. And what will come of it? The United States will leave UNESCO and Israel will follow. Trump’s United States and Netanyahu’s Israel in a bromance. And coming soon: Maybe a joint exit from the United Nations. It, too, has been critical of Israel.

The embarrassing decision to leave UNESCO was made at the same time the agency elected its new director general, Audrey Azoulay. France’s former culture minister, she is the daughter of Andre Azoulay, adviser to the king of Morocco, a most impressive and noble statesman, a Moroccan Jew who fought all his life for a just peace in the Middle East, a true friend of Israel. He is ten times more concerned about Israel’s fate than Trump and Haley together. We may presume that the new UNESCO director-general has absorbed her father’s values. Now she will head the agency without the United States and Israel, who are isolating themselves to bits.

If Trump’s UNESCO gift is more symbolic in nature, his decision to bring down the agreement with Iran could turn out to be a real danger. Trump decided to push Iran toward a nuclear bomb and Israel cheered him on.

The whole world supports the agreement, except for America and Israel, even though most of their defense experts also support it. The result, once again: America and Israel against the whole world. In this club, it’s best not to be a member. To these gifts, it’s best to say no, thank you. And as for such friends: Thanks, but we’ve already got enough enemies.

Source: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.817190

The post Opinion America and Israel Against the World first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is right: Iran is the greatest threat to Israel. Today this threat seems distant, but it would only take a few errant Israeli bombs hitting an Iranian target in Syria, or a massive terror attack by Hezbollah, to undermine the calm and create a dynamic that could lead to war. And that war, with the main task reserved for Hezbollah’s missile arsenal, would differ from all past wars. Less than two years ago, Military Intelligence chief Herzl Halevi warned in an interview of “hundreds of tons of explosives reaching the center of the country.”

Try to imagine central Tel Aviv, for example the Yoo Towers, hit by dozens of tons of explosives. Or several dozen precise missiles carrying half-ton warheads hitting the Hadera power station, putting it out of commission and denying Israel a significant percentage of its electricity production.

And these are only a few examples. Even if the military landed a harsh blow on Hezbollah in a spectacular ground maneuver, the home front, which the military is supposed to protect, would pay a high price. Israel would be very different after such a war.

And the fact that the prime minister correctly diagnoses the threat doesn’t necessarily mean he’s addressing it optimally. At this point, he and the defense establishment deserve credit for the cautious effort that has been made to reduce the Hezbollah threat without breaking all the rules of the game. The investment in missile defense systems will prove itself if a war breaks out.

But the MI chief is well aware of all these things, and still he speaks of hundreds of tons of explosives that would hit the home front, so we have to ask whether we should also be investing more in reducing the chances of war. In other words, is it possible to talk to Iran, and on what basis?

On the face of it, the answer is no. For almost 40 years, Iran has been our greatest enemy, one that considers Israel the Little Satan (the Great Satan is the United States). We’re used to threats of extermination by Iran’s leaders, just as until 1967 we were used to threats by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser to destroy Israel. The arming and training of Hezbollah, terror attacks against Israeli targets abroad, Iran’s belligerent policy and its nuclear potential are different expressions of the fact that these aren’t empty threats. And still, Iranian hostility toward Israel isn’t absolute, and here may lie the key to change and hope.

Since the Arab Peace Initiative (which began as the Saudi Peace Initiative) was proposed in 2002, Iran hasn’t expressed opposition to it. Moreover, the initiative was adopted by the foreign ministers at a summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in 2003, in Tehran of all places.

At the heart of the initiative, we should recall, is recognition of Israel by all the Arab and Muslim countries, a normalization of relations in exchange for establishing a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, and an agreed-on solution (including by Israel) of the refugee problem. In 2008, the Iranian approach was confirmed by then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said he would honor whatever was acceptable to the Palestinian people.

To this day, the Arab Peace Initiative hasn’t received the public discussion it deserves. This is the most important development in the conflict since the Six-Day War, which gave Israel the territories whose return today would enable an end to the conflict. Most of Israel’s former defense chiefs, who are members of Commanders for Israel’s Security and the Council for Peace and Security, consider it a suitable basis for starting negotiations, and many politicians, including former right-wingers, believe we should respond to the proposal.

Thus far the emphasis has been that responding to the initiative would move Israel’s relations with the Sunni countries in a positive direction and reduce the chances of a new conflict with the Palestinians. But just when Iran’s power is rising, we should also consider a response to the initiative an effective way to deal with the threat from Iran and its creation, Hezbollah.

That doesn’t mean doing so would make the regime in Tehran pro-Zionist, but it would to a great extent take the wind out of Iran’s ideological sails regarding its all-out war against Israel. It would lower the hostility between the two countries and reduce the chances of war, with all its risks. Such a response could also create a basis for talks between the two countries, first in secret channels and then perhaps overtly. And if Iran opposed the peace initiative, its isolation in the Arab and Muslim world would grow.

If Netanyahu wants to be remembered as Mr. Security, he should also invest in reducing the chances of war, not just lowering the price. Otherwise he might be remembered in an entirely different way.

Uri Bar-Joseph is a professor at the School of Political Science at the University of Haifa’s Division of International Relations.

Source: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.816411

The post Opinion The Iranian Threat and the Arab Peace Initiative first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

US President Donald Trump has described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the bigger anathema of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. 

Both leaders of Israel and Palestine are problematic; however, Netanyahu is the bigger problem, Trump said in a meeting last month with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, according to seven Western and Israeli sources, who were either present at or briefed on the meeting, Israeli Haaretz newspaper wrote on Friday.

On September 19, Trump had held a 15-minute meeting with Guterres on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York. According to six Western diplomats and one former senior Israeli official, all of whom asked to remain anonymous, at least half of the meeting dealt with the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Trump, who had met with Netanyahu in New York the previous day, told Guterres his impressions of that meeting and his own views on the peace process.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is very old and needs a legacy to leave behind. Netanyahu, in contrast, understands that he’ll never have a president more understanding of Israel’s security needs, Trump told Guterres, adding that Netanyahu would be the harder one to persuade.

PressTV-‘Netanyahu to pressure Trump on Iran policy’

Netanyahu is likely to succeed in convincing Trump for forming a united front against Iran, Scottish writer John Wight says.

On September 18, Trump met in New York with Netanyahu. There he surprised Netanyahu when, at a joint press event before the meeting, he focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the days before the meeting, Netanyahu and his staff had repeatedly stressed that the meeting would focus on the Iranian nuclear issue.

Netanyahu told Israeli reporters in a post-meeting briefing that despite the prominence Trump gave the Israeli-Palestinian issue in front of the cameras, at the meeting itself it wasn’t a major topic of discussion.

Netanyahu was likely convincing Trump to get tough with Iran and create problems over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

PressTV-‘Trump pursuing Israel first policy, not US first’

US President Donald Trump is in pursuit of an Israel first policy, not America First.

A few days after he returned from New York, Netanyahu briefed the Israeli regime’s security cabinet and the ministers about his meeting with Trump.

“I presented our positions to the president,” Netanyahu told the ministers about his meeting with Trump.

---

Source: http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/10/07/537836/US-Trump-Israel-Netanyahu-Palestine-Abbas-JCPOA

[Disclaimer]

The post Netanyahu ‘bigger problem’ in Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Trump first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

A Kurdish man holds an Israeli and Kurdish flag during a rally to show their support for the upcoming September 25th independence referendum in Erbil, Iraq September 16, 2017. (Photo: REUTERS/AZAD LASHKARIG)

Palestinians and Israelis watched last week’s referendum of Iraq’s Kurds with special interest. Israeli officials and many ordinary Palestinians were delighted – for very different reasons – to see an overwhelming vote to split away from Iraq.

The post How Kurdish independence underpins Israel’s plan to reshape the Middle East first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has justified a bill that would increase the scope of personal appointments ministers could make in their ministries by disparaging European economies that were run by career bureaucrats.

“Look at what’s left in Europe, their miserable economies,” Netanyahu said, implying that Israel was at risk of moving in the same direction unless the bill at issue was passed, at Sunday’s cabinet meeting during a debate on the bill.

“Who runs the government ministries? The clerks,” Netanyahu said. “The guidelines [regarding the work in government ministries] have to go through the elected officials. We have to let the government manifest its policies.” He called the bill under debate “the very least” that needs to be done, adding, “When they think that this is politicization, they don’t know what they’re talking about.

”The proposal would allow ministry directors-general, whom the ministers choose, to appoint a deputy director-general, who would not have to be vetted, to help carry out the minister’s agenda. The move would allow the personal appointments of deputy directors-general in any ministry with more than 150 employees, and would actually add a position to six ministries where no such position exists.

In the end a vote on the bill was postponed, but Netanyahu and other ministers are determined to get more control over the running of their ministries and another debate will be held in two weeks. Opponents of the bill say it is aimed at making more senior positions available for politicians’ cronies.
read more: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.815161

The bill’s sponsor, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked (Habayit Hayehudi), told Netanyahu, “You are prime minister since 2009, but until now you’ve done nothing on the matter; we were the first.” She added, “The ministerial team worked for the past 10 months to see how we could simplify procedures and increase the ministers’ influence.

”She was annoyed by the vote’s postponement. “There are ministers who talk and there are ministers who act,” she said. “Today the cabinet missed the opportunity to begin the change that will restore governance to the elected officials.

”Tourism Minister Yariv Levin, who together with Shaked headed a committee that reviewed the issue, said: “The opposition by some of the government minister’s to the decision today prevented a historic change in the process of appointing the senior officials in government service. As a result, an opportunity was missed, that might not return, to significantly strengthen the ability of ministers to assure the worthy appointment of people who are committed to their policies.

“Levin added, “The proposal’s opponents are personally responsible for the continuation of the current lack of governability, the inability to realize the ministers’ policies and the serious and ongoing harm to the government’s work.”

Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit supports the reform. His deputy, Dina Zilber, presented their view to the cabinet. “These proposals demonstrate balance and will pass judicial review, even if they don’t go down one’s throat smoothly.”

The cabinet also debated a change in the structure of the search committees that identify candidates for various senior ministry positions. Minister Yuval Steinitz, who was critical of the proposal to make personal appointments of deputy directors-general, supported this change. “The proposal is an enormous improvement over what we have now,” he said.

Zilber agreed that the “changes in the search committees will ease bureaucratization.”

Source: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.815161

The post Netanyahu Blasts ‘Failing European Economies’ During Cabinet Meeting first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The world is changing. Three decades ago, it would have been inconceivable to find posters calling out the opportunities to be discovered from trade between the Middle East and China.

It was the West that called – with its freedoms and sophistication, its imperial past a double-edged sword that attracted and repelled in almost equal measure. Europe and the United States have an ambiguous relationship across much of the Arab world, forged over the course of more than a hundred years. Self-interested and duplicitous on the one hand (with a catalogue of failed interventions, poor policy decisions and unfortunate choices of political partners), but also open, tolerant, well-structured and worthy of admiration on the other.

Today, in 2017, there is a new show in town. Across the Arab world, the future seems to lie in the East – and above all with China.

Chinese economic growth over the last three decades has been nothing short of spectacular. According to the World Bank, more than 800m people were lifted from below the poverty line since 1990 in China, while at the same time, GDP has risen from $360bn to nearly $12tn as per capita income rose by 49 times.

Earlier this year, King Salman of Saudi Arabia pointedly undertook a tour not of the US and Europe but of Asia, ending up in Beijing

In 2013, President Xi announced a new project to flex these economic muscles and also use them to prepare for China’s long-term future. This initiative, now known as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), seeks to engage in a massive investments across infrastructure including energy, transportation and communications not only across Asia, but in Africa and Europe as well.

	Chinese Premier Li Keqiang meets with Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (2nd-R) at Great Hall of the People on March 17, 2017 in Beijing, China [Getty]

China’s appetite has not gone unnoticed in the Gulf States and in Saudi Arabia, as the adverts and posters at airports and along the highways show. It has not gone unnoticed at the very highest levels. Earlier this year, King Salman of Saudi Arabia pointedly undertook a tour not of the US and Europe but of Asia, ending up in Beijing to demonstrate the importance of economic ties between Saudi and China.

These connections lie partly in current levels of trade – valued at around $42 billion last year, a sum that is significant but hardly overwhelming. But there is more to it than that. Saudi Arabia and China, noted the king during his visit to Beijing, share a strategic vision of the world, one where both “promote global and regional peace, security and prosperity”.

There are fledgling joint ventures between the two countries too, such as the investments by the Saudi Arabian Industries Corporation (Sabic) in a polycarbonate complex in Tianjin or a substantial stake in the Fujian refinery and petrochemical plant by Aramco – or a series of licenses granted to Chinese companies in Saudi earlier this year that take the number of Chinese businesses investing in the country to nearly one hundred and fifty.

There is a natural mirror, in other words, between Saudi Vision 2030 and the Belt and Road Initiative that is China’s signature economic and foreign policy

This mutual co-operation is being driven, on one level at least, by changes in the way that Saudi and China see the world around them, and also how they see the challenges they both face in coming decades.

There is a natural mirror, in other words, between Saudi Vision 2030 on the one hand, with its ambitious reform programme, its attempt to streamline the state and to diversify from over-dependence on oil, and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) that is China’s signature economic and foreign policy. Likewise, the BRI is designed to plan for the future, planning ahead to ensure energy security that is essential to the country’s continued growth, and also to make a sweeping series of strategic investments that have long-term goals.

The overlap and the prospect of working together was neatly captured by the Saudi energy minister, Khalid al-Falih in May 2017. “The potential offered by this unique initiative”, he said, “is immense and promising”.

The problem is that Saudi Arabia is not the only partner that China is keen to engage. While oil imports from Saudi Arabia have long been a significant part of Beijing’s energy imports, so too are those from Qatar – currently locked in a diplomatic dispute with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States.

China has played an even wider field, hosting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just a week after King Salman’s visit

China has been careful to build ties with Iran too, playing a major role in the building of Tehran’s metro system in the 1990s. Indeed, China has played an even wider field, hosting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just a week after King Salman’s visit – itself not long before the visit of President Abbas of Palestine.

Through this process, China has tried to stay out of the thorny regional politics of the Middle East, with President Xi affirming his hope that “Palestine and Israel can achieve peace as soon as possible and live and work in peace”. The message is clear: The Chinese are in town to do business – not to take sides.

There is logic to this approach, although whether it is sustainable in the long run is more questionable.

China does not have the baggage of the deep, complicated and in many ways unhappy relationship that the US, the UK and other parts of Europe have with the Middle East and Gulf. Starting with a blank page and emphasising the prospects of mutual gains, the benefits of working together and the profits of collaboration is an enviable position.

Navigating the rivalries not only between countries in the region, but between competing factions within them is no easy task

And yet, if only life were so simple as letting money do the talking. Navigating the rivalries not only between countries in the region, but between competing factions within them is no easy task. Keeping everyone happy is even less easy at a time of change and transition.

President Xi is smart and right to stress that Chinese connections with the Islamic world and with the Gulf region go back more than a thousand years – much more. He is right too, to note that relations were commercial, and never military or imperial.

But that might change in years to come. The difference is that the intensification of trade and investment leads to tricky choices. Whether those can be put off forever is one of the key questions of the coming decade.

Peter Frankopan is Professor of Global History at Oxford University. His international bestseller, The Silk Roads: A New History of the World is published by Bloomsbury.

Follow him on Twitter: @peterfrankopan

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.

---

Source: https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2017/9/27/how-long-can-china-avoid-middle-east-politics

[Disclaimer]

The post How long can China stay out of Middle East politics? first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Is Germany Still a Haven for Israelis? After Election, Some Wonder first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

‘We must speak the truth about Iran, who vows to destroy my country every day’

NEW YORK – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the United Nations General Assembly that “Iran vows to destroy my country every day,” hours after praising U.S. President Donald Trump’s speech as the most courageous speech he has heard in his 30-plus years at the UN.

Netanyahu said the world must fix or nix the Iran nuclear deal, saying that “I know there are those who still defend the Iran nuclear deal.” He said that “this is exactly what they said about the deal with North Korea.”

“We must stop Iran’s development of ballistic missiles and stop its actions in the region,” Netanyahu said. “I have a simple message for the Iranian dictator Ayatollah Khamenei – the light of Israel will never be extinguished.” Netanyahu added that “those who threaten us with annihilation put themselves in peril.”

Netanyahu said that “as long as Iran seeks the destruction of Israel, it will not have a worse enemy than Israel,” but said “I have a message to the Iranian people – we are your friends,” repeating himself in Farsi.

Netanyahu said that he appreciated Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi’s support of peace, adding that “Israel is committed to peace with all Arab states, including the Palestinians.”

Netanyahu opened his speech by saying that “we are in the midst of a revolution in Israel’s standing in the world,” adding that “you may not know this, but your government’s do.”

Netanyahu said that “in recent years, Israel gave intelligence that prevented terror attacks around the world and saved many lives.”

“After 70 years, the world embraces Israel and Israel embraces the world,” he said. “Slowly buy surely, there are signs of positive change – even in the UN.”

Netanyahu highlighted his trips to six continents, save Antarctica, but joked that “unlike UN bodies, penguins in Antarctica recognize some things are black and white.”

In his remarks, Trump slammed Iran for “masking a corrupt government behind the false guise of democracy,” adding that it has turned “a wealthy country into a rogue state.” He said “we cannot let a murderous regime continue these destabilizing activities while building dangerous missiles.”

Trump called the Iran nuclear deal “an embarrassment to the United States and I don’t think you’ve heard the last of it, believe me,” to the Israeli delegation’s applause. Trump continued saying that Iran’s behavior is in contrast to that of many of its neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia,  who vowed to fight terror.

Trump criticized Iran for calling for “death to America” and for “the destruction of Israel,” saying that “it is time to expose and hold responsible those countries who support and finance terror groups,” Trump continued, calling out “radical Islamic terrorism.” Trump noted that “our country has achieved more against ISIS in the last eight months than it has in many many years combined” and that “I have totally changed the rules of engagement in our fight against the Taliban and other terrorist groups.”

Barak Ravid – Haaretz Correspondent

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.813314

The post Netanyahu at UN: Iran Must Know That Those Who Threaten Us With Annihilation Put Themselves in Peril first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The US president and the Israeli prime minister sit side by side and express their hopes for a fruitful collaboration at UN meeting.

US President Donald Trump expressed his faith in the success of future peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians on Monday as he met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ahead of the United Nations General Assembly’s 72nd session.

When asked by the press about the state of the peace process, Trump said that “There’s a good chance that it will happen. I think with the capability of Bibi [nickname for Netanyahu] and frankly the other side, I think we have the chance. Israel would like to see it, Palestinians would like to see it. I can tell you that the Trump administration would like to see it.”

Netanyahu echoed Trump’s faith in the process, greeting the American president by saying: Mr. president, it’s great to see you. Under your leadership, the alliance between Israel and US has never been stronger. Never been deeper.”

The Israeli premier went on to suggest that the cooperation between the Jewish state and its great ally was deep “In ways people see and don’t see.”

Netanyahu expressed his hope that the US will eventually help ” to roll back Iran’s growing aggression in the region, especially in Syria.”

He also said that he would like to use the opportunity to “discuss how we can seize the opportunity for peace between Israel and the Palestinians and between Israel and the Arab world.”

Netanyahu concluded by saying he looked forward to the pair’s separate appearances in front of the UN General Assembly, saying that “Under President Trump, America’s position towards Israel at the UN has been unequivocal, it’s been strong, it’s got both clarity and conviction .I want to thank you from the people of Israel and Israel’s many friends around the world.”

He then finished with a greeting for the new Jewish year ahead. “As you well know, it is the Jewish new year this week. I want to wish you and Jewish people all over the world a happy and healthy new year. Shana Tova.”

Source: http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/WATCH-Trump-Netanyahu-express-hope-for-peace-in-New-York-meeting-505451

The post Trump, Netanyahu express hope for peace ahead of New York meeting first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.