T.Belman. I think it is a big mistake to suggest that maybe Israel can live with a deal if it is a good deal and if the EU and the US will really enforce it. To my mind that shows weakness and undermines our determination.. All he has to do is stress that Israel won’t be bound by it.
Prime Minister says Israel not opposed to Vienna nuclear talks with Iran, but laments current ‘dynamic’ of negotiations.
Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said Israel is open to reaching a new nuclear deal with Tehran, while lamenting that the current ‘dynamic’ of talks in Vienna between Western powers and Iran is unlikely to achieve a ‘good agreement’.
Speaking with Efi Triger on Galei Tzahal Tuesday morning, Bennett said Israel is not opposed to talks with Iran or to the signing of a new nuclear agreement with the rogue nation, but emphasized that the terms of such an agreement must be ‘firm’.
“We don’t insist on saying ‘no’,” Bennett said. “Certainly, there can be a good agreement. Most definitely. We know the parameters.”
“But is that expected to happen now, under the current dynamic? No, because there needs to be a much firmer position.”
The Israeli premier lamented that “Iran is negotiating with a very weak hand. But unfortunately the world is acting like Iran is at a strong point.”
Bennett’s comments echoed a statement by Foreign Minister Yair Lapid Monday, as nuclear talks resumed in Vienna.
“Israel does not oppose any agreement. A good agreement is a good thing. We do oppose an agreement that does not promise real oversight of the Iranian nuclear program and Iran’s money and terrorist network.”
Prime Minister Bennett confirmed an earlier Galei Tzahal report which claimed that Bennett told ministers recently that he had not committed to the Biden administration to adhere to a “zero surprises” policy regarding operations against Iran.
“Israel maintains its right to act,” Bennett was quoted as telling government ministers.
On Monday, the European Union diplomat in charge of nuclear talks with Iran warned of “difficult” work ahead as the talks resumed in Vienna, AFP reported.
The envoy, Enrique Mora, said all sides were showing “a clear will to work toward the successful end of this negotiation”.
“It’s a very good sign… We will be working very seriously in the days and weeks ahead… It’s going to be very difficult,” Mora told reporters after the eighth round of talks hosted in Vienna began.
@ BEAR-
I’m very surprised that you have such a low opinion of the competence of the Israpundit members, to understand the simple meaning of Sharon’s MANY TIMES repeated, 2nd Elementary School Grade level, quote.
And it wasn’t even original, having been used since at least the -3nd century.
You don’t, normally…….
There is no good deal. Bennett should employ Taqiyyah on behalf of Israel the way Muslims do for Islam.
Words were spoken but nothing was said.
Real question is anyone other than Israel going to act against Iran? If Israel does act since Iran’s nuke technologies are spread far and wide can Israel do permanent damage to Iran’s nuke facilities from the air alone?
Will Israel take out the Hezbollah military capabilities first or after an attack on Iran’s missile systems and nuclear facilities?
Dissecting or sparring about what words Bennett should or should not have used is sort of like masturbation it might feel good but no one will get pregnant. Might not be the best analogy but the destruction of Iran’s nuke facilities and capabilities is what is important plus the destruction of the Hezis military capabilities.
He meant once you get in the Prime Minister’s role you have the perspective of a person who has actual responsibility and must act accordingly. Implied was if you are not in the Prime Minister’s role it is easy to be super critical because you have no responsibility for the consequences to Israel of your words.
That must be a joke!
That is how N Korea got nukes.
LUDICROUS.
Peloni, we are in full agreement.
Lapid set parameters recently. Does not matter however, because Iran will not agree to anything that constitutes anything what Israeli politicial leaders would agree constitutes a good deal. Lapid has part of a good deal is a mechanism where Iran could permanently not create a nuclear weapon plus stop supporting terrorism.
So the Israeli government leaders have set parameters plus reserved the right to act militarily unilateral. Sounds solid to me.
@Bear
I said as much in my own statement. His not setting up any input into what he expected for the “good deal” did not advantage this nor inform those doing the negotiations. It’s not about bashing Bennett, you are very sensitive with him. Please presume it was simply Bibi, Lapid, Horowitz or some other non-Bennett cast member who made this statement. It’s about projecting an intolerance to a nuclear Iran by those conducting the deal – who want to acquiesce to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Accepting this wait and see and then object routine does not advantaging Israel – but perhaps you think otherwise? I would like to understand how. If Israel maintains its right to attack, which it has, how would remaining vague about the acceptable terms be a benefit at all. Who is he trying to convince or satisfy with his jargon of a non-specific ‘deal’, and deal for what? The lack of defined red-lines make his statement quite superficial to be interpreted quite broadly against his interest. Again, this is a reasonable question for anyone making such a unhelpful statement, even if it happens to be Bennett.
Do not agree with you or your logic. We disagree I am shocked!
““Israel maintains its right to act,” Bennett was quoted as telling government ministers.” He also said this today on Army Radio. So it is clear to all but Bennett basher’s that he and Israel maintain the right to act militarily against Iran.
@Bear
Not so smart. In your vision, who is this definition for and when will it be revealed to them??
Israel has always stated they have the right to act as they see fit, and not demanding a denuclearized Iran does not change anyting to advantage Israel. In fact, Bennett’s statement of his willingness to accept a deal while not stipulating any terms which would be required in his version of a good deal leaves the related parties negotiating the deal to interpret his input and requires Israel to cry foul after the deal is struck.
All of this belies the reality that the deal is for a nuclear Iran. How complicated is this. He stated
when in fact, he should have insisted in saying HELL NO.
I am lost as to any benefit in withholding his stipulations clearly beyond to satisfy his American partners. As I see it, your optimism here looks like lipstic on a pig, and a distinct, if vague, concession to the US and their intent to move forward with their never wavering desire for a nuclear Iran.
The distinction is not one of semantics, but quite substantive.
That is correct Bennett did not define it but in public today stated that Israel reserves the right to act independently. So Bennett has left for Israel to define on its own what a good deal is and act as it sees fit. Seems like he is having his cake and eating it also. Quite smart!!
I don’t buy it. That’s a fantasy deal.. Bennet did not say what a good deal was.
My point was that he should have satisfied himself with just reaffirming our right to act if we so choose.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-689948
What a good deal should consist of:
1. Iran agreeing to anywhere and anytime inspections in all of Iran (plus 24 hour monitoring of all nuclear facilities).
2. Iran disposing to a verifiable third party all uranium
3. Iran destroying all heavy water facilities plus high speed enrichment capabilities
4. Iran agreeing roll back its missile program
5. Iran agreeing to stop supporting all external terrorist organizations (Hezis, Houtis, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, plus others
Does anyone believe that Iran will agree to even one of the points above? So Bennett made Israel sound reasonable to the USA. He can not stop the negotiations so what he did perhaps furthered Israel’s position.
So if Israel attacks the Iranian nuclear facilities it now has some cover because it stated it allowed for a good Iran deal.