Is the "P6" Now Ready for Prime Time in Geneva?
Posted: 11/17/2013 9:47 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amb-marc-ginsberg/is-the-p6-now-ready-for-p_b_4293740.html
November 10 will not go down as a stellar day for U.S.
diplomacy. The premature faux hoopla over the scuttled first-stage
nuclear agreement with Iran yielded little more than a legacy of miscues
and a dozen eggs on Uncle Sam's face. Inadequate consultation with its
allies, and overly eager to bring home the bacon, the U.S. received a
failing grade for not doing its homework before showing up for its
crucial Iran test. Rule 1 in foreign policy: never have your secretary
of state hightail to a negotiation unless the diplomatic soufflé is
ready to come out of the oven so he/she can take credit for the
diplomatic delicacy.
"Geneva 1" was poorly stage-managed by senior American diplomats.
Just as well. Had the U.S. had its way it would have resulted in an
indefensible interim agreement wotj Iran. Secretary Kerry neglected to
abide by his own edict that he would rather not have a deal at all than
enter into a bad deal. The French, merci, held Mr. Kerry to his
admonition.
What, then, was objectionable in the "Geneva 1" framework that doomed
this so-called interim "bad deal?" After all, Iran apparently was
prepared to accept the following conditions:
A six month freeze on its uranium enrichment and a pledge not to
enrich its existing uranium stockpile beyond 3.5% which is all that is
needed to fuel civilian nuclear reactors.
Iran's stockpile of its 20% enriched uranium would be placed under
an unspecified monitoring regime pending its reconversion into harmless
oxide.
Iran promised not to load its partially-built plutonium reactor at Arak with heavy water fuel and advanced centrifuges.
In return, the P6 agreed to grant Iran partial sanctions relief
including the unfreezing of foreign exchange reserves, and lifting some
sanctions on Iran's oil exports.
Was this such a "bad deal?" Depends who you ask?
Israel considers any partial lifting of sanctions an irreversible
mistake and a victory for the mullahs without any requirement for Iran
to verifiably end once and for all its illegal nuclear enrichment
program.
More importantly, France -- the "canary in the coal mine" earned
for having endured the most extensive and painful negotiation with Iran
during the failed 2003-2004 talks on its nuclear program -- objected to
"Geneva 1" since it:
1. Accorded Iran de facto right to enrich more unverifiable uranium and plutonium.
2. Did not compel Iran to ship any of its stockpile of 20% enriched
uranium -- one easy percentage step away from bomb-making capacity and
absolutely illegal under its NPT obligations -- to another country for
neutralization.
3. Permitted Iran to continue its construction of the super-secret,
and largely IAEA inaccessible, Arak heavy water plutonium reactor.
4. Ignored Iran's refusal to sign on to the NPT "Additional
Protocols" which would open Iran's nuclear program to intrusive IAEA
inspections.
Had France's reasonable objections been incorporated into a P6
proposal, would Iran have signed on? No one knows for sure. But the
fact that there was no deal when the French tabled their proposals is a
bad omen for a "good" Geneva 2" accord because Iran seemed prepared to
sign on to the "pre-French" draft agreement, but not a deal that
incorporated France's recommendations.
John Kerry had better have his ducks better lined up this time to prevent a fatal car wreck.
Notwithstanding objections of America's Middle East allies, I believe
it is better to have a "good" interim deal than no deal at all with
Iran. But for a "Geneva 2" accord to represent a reasonable deal on its
merits it will need to include the following additional terms:
1. Iran will need to sign onto the "Additional Protocol" to the
Non-Proliferation Treaty which permits the IAEA to undertake "short
notice" inspections and imposes additional reporting requirements. For
example, IAEA inspectors have been barred by Iran from inspecting the
Arak reactor site since August, 2011.
2. All of Iran's uranium that it has enriched to 20% must be
immediately neutralized under international supervision OUTSIDE of Iran.
3. Construction on the Arak plutonium reactor must immediately cease
and mothballed under IAEA verification before any fuel is load into it
since IAEA experts predict that if it became operational it could
produce up to 10KG of weapons-grade plutonium every year - enough for 2
bombs.
But Iran will likely object to these essential amendments to "Geneva
1." Why? Because it continues to peddle the same old snake oil that
its nuclear program is purely peaceful in nature.
If it were as peaceful as Tehran claims Iran would not need any
enriched uranium beyond 3.5%, it would agree to the "Additional
Protocol," and it would not be barring IAEA inspectors unfettered access
to the Arak plutonium enrichment plant.
So how is the P6 squaring this circle so that "Geneva 2" could, perhaps yield a "good" interim agreement?
On Iran's demand that it have the "right" to enrich uranium (not so
under the NPT), the P6 is going to fudge it by camouflaging a
non-existent right into diplomatic mumbo-jumbo that Tehran can take
home.
On the NPT "Additional Protocol" the P6 may extract a "pledge" from
Iran to sign on to it if and when a permanent agreement is negotiated.
On Arak, the P6 may extract from Iran a partially verifiable commitment to "freeze" all construction work for six months pending negotiation of a comprehensive agreement.
On Arak, the P6 may extract from Iran a partially verifiable commitment to "freeze" all construction work for six months pending negotiation of a comprehensive agreement.
On converting Iran's stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, the P6 may
cook up a bi-monthly trade whereby specific percentages of this highly
enriched uranium are placed under IAEA control in some neutral country
in exchange for more sanctions reductions as each package of enriched
uranium is exported.
Is that enough to pass the "good deal" smell test? The devil will be
in the details. But let there be no mistake about it. If "Geneva 2"
fails to improve upon "Geneva 1" by addressing France's objections, then
we really are on a fool's errand.
This week, while diplomats scrambled, Iran agreed to grant the IAEA
more regular inspection rights to significant parts of Iran's nuclear
infrastructure. BUT Iran refused to grant the IAEA access to a large
military site known as Parchin where Iran is suspected by the IAEA of
high explosive testing (pre-cursor to a nuclear test), and regular
access to the Arak reactor. And given Arak's importance to any "Geneva
2" agreement, what does this portend?
In a few days we shall learn whether the P6 countries returned to
Geneva more united than 10 days ago by requiring Iran to accept more
IAEA verification, neutralization of its stockpile of 3.5% uranium and
unfettered access to Arak, Parchin, Fodor and other secret nuclear sites
that Iran has barred the IAEA from completely inspecting.
The U.S. has committed to turning a new page with Iran and it has
offered Iran what it desperately needs: relief from sanctions in
exchange for reversing a nuclear weapons program that Iran asserts is a
figment of our imagination despite incontrovertible evidence to the
contrary. If Iran balks at a "good" Geneva 2 deal, well, then don't
blame Congress, Israel, France or the Persian Gulf states. Rather,
blame the Supreme Leader for unfairly wanting his yellow cake and eating
it, too.
If Iran balks and walks from a "good" agreement the U.S. worked hard
into extra innings to construct it's time to face the cold and cruel
reality that Iran's nuclear program is anything but peaceful.
World News
Stay the Dogs of War on Iran
In
the new bargaining round with Tehran this week, there’s a chance of
something monumental. Don’t let hawks, without a decent argument, stop
it.
No honest person can know whether the nuclear negotiations
with Iran will produce a sound agreement, least of all the know-it-alls
who are fighting to prevent it. Maybe, the West will have to further
strengthen economic sanctions. Perhaps, Iran will make threatening moves
that justify a Western military strike. But the arguments against a
full and serious drive to try staying the dogs of war are sheer,
dangerous nonsense. The upside is a short-term deal that would lead to the Mideast equivalent of ending the Cold War with the Soviet Union. The deal could reduce, even sharply, the biggest threat to regional peace, an Iranian nuclear bomb, and open paths to taming dangerous conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. And under the proposed deal, reportedly the only price to be paid for this would be giving Tehran a few billion dollars of its own money. No sanctions would be lifted that could not be quickly reimposed. Almost all of the U.S. sanctions regime would be totally unaffected. Those are the facts that opponents of a deal simply either ignore or lie about.
The downside, failure, is that Iran, Israel, and the United States resume their march toward a terrible war in the Mideast and to the prospect of worldwide terrorist attacks. What a great alternative. And don’t think for a moment that toughening the sanctions would cause the collapse of the Ayatollahs’ regime in Iran. The U.S. has economically squeezed the guts out of North Korea and Cuba, for example. And the last anyone looked, those regimes are still around, thumbing their noses at Washington. Would the naysayers like to go to war against these countries? Ask any of America’s friends and allies if they would join such a venture. Not a chance. Even Israeli military and intelligence officials think such a course makes little sense.
What, then, do the naysayers believe they can practically accomplish by increasing the sanctions and the military threats against Iran? Sure, they’ll insist that the regime in Tehran will either cave to Western pressures or even fall. But those naysayers have neither history nor current reality on their side. Iran is nowhere near the economic hardships of Cuba, North Korea, or the tottering Soviet Union of the 1990’s. Iran is nowhere near surrender. The naysayers can’t be that self-delusional. Most likely, they simply want to please right-wing Israelis, Saudi autocrats, and make President Obama look weak. Why do you think France (yes, France) has gotten so tough in the nuclear talks? Is there any chance whatsoever of Paris actually standing up to the consequences of a war with Iran? Not on your life. More plausibly, Paris is simply interested in pleasing those very same Saudi autocrats who have now become sanctified by buying shiploads of French arms. Ah, money does inspire toughness.
Of course, the pact under discussion with Tehran won’t solve every nuclear problem to our satisfaction. But what negotiation can the naysayers cite, in modern times, that has ever been an outright capitulation? Is there any chance Tehran will abandon its “right” to enrich uranium? Not a chance. And everyone knows that; everyone. While I don’t like the clerical dictators in Tehran one bit, I can understand how they might feel threatened by Israel and the West. (And yes, I think they brought this on themselves, but here we all are.)
The Obama administration has brought much of the political grief about these negotiations upon itself, as usual. They pretty much destroyed their foreign policy credibility with their Syria policy blunders. With Iran, they have failed to plainly and simply explain how the pact they’re pursuing will benefit the West. It’s not enough, not nearly enough, to assert that the U.S. would rather have “no agreement than a bad agreement.” What’s good or bad? Explain it, for heaven’s sake. While the temporary agreement under discussion now is far from perfect, it reportedly does do two critical things: first, by attempting to freeze most of Iran’s nuclear activities, it would lengthen the time for Tehran to “break out” with a nuclear weapon; second, it would increase the time for the U.S. and its allies to react to trouble. And the U.S. gives up only trifling sanctions in return. What on earth is wrong with that?President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry deserve lots of praise—and support—for plowing on with the talks in Geneva in the face of the baloney typhoon.
Most of Iran’s nuclear weapons related programs would be on hold. And of equal importance, international inspectors—already on the scene and reporting—would have wide and better access to programs the U.S. needs to know about. And during the proposed six month freeze on Iran’s nuclear weapons-related programs, the West can seriously explore a more comprehensive and permanent agreement. Again, what on earth is wrong with that?
President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry deserve lots of praise—and support—for plowing on with the talks in Geneva in the face of the baloney typhoon. And the media, as usual, hasn’t helped. They rarely explain how very little the U.S. and its partners would be giving away in return for the chance to revolutionize the diplomatic alignment in the Mideast. It should be clear to all, save the ideologically and politically impaired, that President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif are as close as the West is going to come to genuine negotiating partners. It should be equally apparent that they’re on a short leash as well—and that they need something of value to appease their hawks.
Courage Messrs Obama, Kerry, Rouhani, and Zarif. Make this agreement and defy the hawks’ fight to kill it, and its possibilities.
Follow Amb. Marc Ginsberg on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/@ambmcg
Report: Mossad working with Saudis on contingency plans for potential attack on Iran
11/17/2013 03:57
An Israel Air Force jet Photo: REUTERS
The Mossad is working with Saudi officials on contingency plans for a
potential attack on Iran in the event that Tehran's nuclear program is
not sufficiently curbed in the deal that may be concluded between Iran and world powers in Geneva this week, The Sunday Times reported.
Both Jerusalem and Riyadh have expressed displeasure
at the deal being formulated between Iran and the P5+1 group of world
powers that they see as doing little to stop Tehran's progress toward a
nuclear weapon.
According to the Times, Riyadh has already given its consent for Israel to use Saudi airspace for a potential attack on Iran.
The
paper quoted a diplomatic source as saying the Saudis were willing to
assist an Israeli attack by cooperating on the use of drones, rescue
helicopters and tanker planes.
“Once the Geneva agreement is
signed, the military option will be back on the table. The Saudis are
furious and are willing to give Israel all the help it needs,” the Times quoted the source as saying.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said in an interview with French daily Le Figaro on
Saturday that there is a “meeting of the minds” between Israel and the
“leading states in the Arab world” on the Iran issue – “one of the few
cases in memory, if not the first case in modern times.
“We all
think that Iran should not be allowed to have the capacities to make
nuclear weapons,” he said. “We all think that a tougher stance should be
taken by the international community. We all believe that if Iran were
to have nuclear weapons, this could lead to a nuclear arms race in the
Middle East, making the Middle East a nuclear tinderbox.”
Saying
that an Iran with nuclear arms would be the most dangerous development
for the world since the mid-20th century, and stressing that the “stakes
are amazing,” Netanyahu urged the world’s leaders to pay attention
“when Israel and the Arabs see eye-to-eye.”
“We live here,” he
said. “We know something about this region. We know a great deal about
Iran and its plans. It’s worthwhile to pay attention to what we say.”
Netanyahu made the comments as French President Francois Hollande was set to arrive in Israel for talks on Iran on Sunday.
French objections are widely viewed as having held up an agreement
with Iran last Saturday night in Geneva. The nuclear talks are set to
resume in Geneva on Wednesday, and US officials have suggested that a
deal may likely be signed.
Diplomatic officials said one reason
for France’s tough position on Iran – the toughest position among the
P5+1 states that also include the US, Russia, China, Britain and Germany
– has something to do with its close ties to Saudi Arabia and the
United Arab Emirates, which are as adamantly opposed to Iran getting
nuclear weapons as is Israel.
Herb Keinon contributed to this report.
Netanyahu Kecam Sikap Barat Ringankan Sanksi Iran
nationalturk.com
http://www.republika.co.id/berita/internasional/global/13/11/18/mwfy63-netanyahu-kecam-sikap-barat-ringankan-sanksi-iran
REPUBLIKA.CO.ID, WASHINGTON --
Perdana Menteri Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ahad (17/11) menyampaikan penentangannya terhadap sebagian kesepakatan dengan Iran mengenai program nuklir kontroversialnya. Netanyahu menyatakannya beberapa hari sebelum negara besar melanjutkan pembicaraan dengan Teheran.
"Saya kira masalah dengan sebagian kesepakatan ialah kalian mengurangi sanksi," kata Netanyahu dalam satu wawancara televisi di program CNN, State of the Union, yang ditayangkan pada Ahad.
Netanyahu dengan tegas telah menentang gagasan diredakannya sanksi sebagai imbalan bagi pembatasan kegiatan nuklir Iran. Peredaan sanksi ini sebagaimana diajukan oleh apa yang disebut kelompok P5+1 --Amerika Serikat, Inggris, Prancis, Cina, Rusia ditambah Jerman.
"Dalam kasus ini, kalian mengurangi sanksi, mengendurkan banyak tekanan dan Iran praktis tak memberi apa-apa," kata Perdana Menteri Israel itu sebagaimana dilaporkan Xinhua yang dipantau Antara di Jakarta, Senin pagi.
Ia mengumandankan perasaan banyak orang di Capitol Hill, tempat sebagian senator bergabung dengan rekan mereka di Majelis Rendah dalam meneriakkan sanksi lebih keras atas Iran guna meningkatkan tekanan.
Perdana Menteri Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ahad (17/11) menyampaikan penentangannya terhadap sebagian kesepakatan dengan Iran mengenai program nuklir kontroversialnya. Netanyahu menyatakannya beberapa hari sebelum negara besar melanjutkan pembicaraan dengan Teheran.
"Saya kira masalah dengan sebagian kesepakatan ialah kalian mengurangi sanksi," kata Netanyahu dalam satu wawancara televisi di program CNN, State of the Union, yang ditayangkan pada Ahad.
Netanyahu dengan tegas telah menentang gagasan diredakannya sanksi sebagai imbalan bagi pembatasan kegiatan nuklir Iran. Peredaan sanksi ini sebagaimana diajukan oleh apa yang disebut kelompok P5+1 --Amerika Serikat, Inggris, Prancis, Cina, Rusia ditambah Jerman.
"Dalam kasus ini, kalian mengurangi sanksi, mengendurkan banyak tekanan dan Iran praktis tak memberi apa-apa," kata Perdana Menteri Israel itu sebagaimana dilaporkan Xinhua yang dipantau Antara di Jakarta, Senin pagi.
Ia mengumandankan perasaan banyak orang di Capitol Hill, tempat sebagian senator bergabung dengan rekan mereka di Majelis Rendah dalam meneriakkan sanksi lebih keras atas Iran guna meningkatkan tekanan.
| Redaktur : Didi Purwadi |
| Sumber : Antara/Xinhua-OANA |
US official says Iran interim nuclear deal 'quite possible' next week
11/16/2013 12:34
http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/US-official-says-Iran-interim-nuclear-deal-quite-possible-next-week-331924
US Secretary of State John Kerry on Capitol Hill Photo: REUTERS
Major powers and Iran are getting closer to an initial agreement to
curb Iran's nuclear program, a senior US official said on Friday, adding
it is "quite possible" a deal could be reached when negotiators meet
Nov. 20-22 in Geneva.
But the official and Iranian Deputy Foreign
Minister Abbas Araqchi both said they expected next week's talks to be
"tough", and Araqchi said that there would be no deal unless the Iranian
people's "rights" were guaranteed.
"For
the first time in nearly a decade we are getting close to a first-step
... that would stop the Iranian nuclear program from advancing and roll
it back in key areas," the official told reporters on condition of
anonymity.
"I don't know if we will reach an agreement. I think it
is quite possible that we can, but there are still tough issues to
negotiate," the official said.
The official said EU foreign policy
chief Catherine Ashton and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif were to
meet on Nov. 20 in Geneva. They will be joined later the same day by a
wider group known as the P5+1 comprising Britain, China, France,
Germany, Russia and the United States. The talks are likely to last
through Nov. 22, the official said.
Araqchi, a senior member of
Iran's negotiation team, was quoted as saying by Mehr News Agency, "The
expectation is that we will have tough talks, and unless the rights of
the Iranian people are guaranteed, an agreement will not be reached."
The
talks will seek to finalize an interim deal to allow time to negotiate a
comprehensive, permanent agreement that would end a 10-year deadlock
and provide assurances to the six powers that Iran's atomic program will
not produce bombs.
Iran has denied that it wants to develop
atomic weapons capability and insists its nuclear ambitions are limited
to the peaceful generation of electricity and other civilian uses.
Negotiations last week in Geneva ended without an agreement, although the sides appeared to be close to a deal.
US
President Barack Obama has urged skeptical US lawmakers not to impose
new sanctions on Iran while talks continue and called for a pause in US
sanctions to see if diplomacy can work.
In addition to lobbying
lawmakers, the White House this week also contacted progressive groups
supportive of diplomacy with Iran to make sure they stay aligned with
the Obama administration's approach, a source close to the matter said.
Senior
administration officials told supporters that they are guardedly
optimistic about reaching an interim deal with Iran in Geneva and that
the P5+1, including the French, are ready to present a unified position
there, the source said.
The senior US official who met with
reporters on Friday said that published estimates of direct sanctions
relief being offered under a preliminary deal - which have ranged from
$15 billion to $50 billion - were "wildly exaggerated.”
"It is way
south of all of that and quite frankly it will be dwarfed by the
restrictions that are still in place," the official said, saying to
impose more sanctions threatened the negotiations not only with Iran but
also among the six powers.
"The P5+1 believes these are serious
negotiations. They have a chance to be successful," the official said.
"For us to slap on sanctions in the middle of it, they see as bad
faith."
A senior administration official said that Iran has about
$100 billion in reserves, the vast majority of which is held in overseas
bank accounts, which it has limited or no access to.
US-imposed
sanctions have hit Iran's economy hard. US officials estimate that it
contracted by more than 5 percent last year and its currency has lost
about 60 percent of its value against the US dollar since 2011.
Global
oil prices slipped lower on Friday on the reports that Western powers
may reach a deal but then rose slightly as markets weighed Libyan supply
outages.
Commenting on a UN inspection report released on Nov. 14
that said Iran had stopped expanding its uranium enrichment capacity,
the official said the development was "a good thing" but did not resolve
fundamental questions and concerns.
"We appreciate the step but
the reason for our negotiation is to get at certainty that Iran can't
have a nuclear weapon and we are a long way from that," the official
said.
Western diplomats said one of the sticking points during
talks was Iran's argument that it retains the "right" to enrich uranium.
The United States argues Iran does not intrinsically have that right
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The official dismissed
suggestions that the issue could be a deal breaker. "I think there is a
way to navigate that," the official said. "We each understand where
each other is and what is possible, and what is not."
From Around the WebWarren Buffett’s Secret to Wealth — the Bible? (Moneynews)
Minister: Israel doesn't recognize Iran's right to enrich uranium
11/16/2013 14:48
http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Minister-Israel-doesnt-recognize-Irans-right-to-enrich-uranium-331930
IDF chief Gantz, PM Netanyahu, and Homeland Def. Min. Erdan Photo: REUTERS
The fallout from last week's public spat between Israel and the
United States over strategy toward Iran was the main topic of
conversation among Israel's political elite on Saturday, with government
representatives and opposition lawmakers offering different views of
what it all means.
Homeland Defense Minister Gilad Erdan told Israel Radio that Jerusalem doesn’t recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium.
In
an interview with Israel Rado, Erdan (Likud) said that the Israeli
government was well-versed in the details of the interim agreement that
is being mulled by the P5+1 powers and Iran, a deal that Israel views as
“very bad” for the security of the Western world.
“Iran is a
serial violator of UN Security Council resolutions, and it cannot be
trusted,” Erdan said. “It mustn’t be allowed to keep a nuclear
weapons-making capability on its soil.”
Once an interim agreement
is signed, it is liable to turn into a permanent agreement that would
entail the removal of economic sanctions against Iran, Erdan told Israel
Radio.
Israel must closely monitor the situation and make a
decision as to how to act in order to prevent Iran from becoming an
existential threat that would touch off a nuclear arms race in the
region, according to Erdan. From Israel’s standpoint, all options
remained on the table, the minister said.
Meretz MK Zehava Gal-On
on Saturday accused Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of trying to
sabotage American diplomatic efforts to roll back the Iranian nuclear
program.
“The prime minister isn’t opposed, as he wrote on his
Facebook page, to ‘a bad agreement with Iran’,” Gal-On said. “He’s
against any agreement that will be reached with Iran in the direct
negotiations between Iran and the US.”
“It is in Israel’s interest
to support the American goal of preventing Iran from attaining nuclear
weapons through diplomatic means that will include supervision and
strict enforcement [of measures] that will prevent it from attaining
nuclear weapons,” she said. “It cannot be done by means of
warmongering.”
Science, Technology, and Space Minister Yaakov
Peri insisted that the Israeli government was in favor of a diplomatic
solution to end the dispute with Iran, though he warned of the
consequences of allowing the row with Washington to deteriorate further.
“We
have differences [with the US], but it’s not a serious crisis,” Peri
told a town hall meeting in Tel Aviv. “Nonetheless, one cannot discount
the possibility that we’ll reach that point.”
“The sanctions
imposed on Iran were what pressured its leadership to come to the
negotiating table with the West,” Peri, a former head of the Israel
Security Service (Shin Bet), said. “The prime minister says, I don’t
support him on this count, that we need to stop Iran from getting a
nuclear weapon, and that sanctions should be kept in place until that
goal is achieved.”
“Still, we have no bigger friend than the US,
and we must be careful not to exacerbate the crisis because it will have
consequences on other issues that are fateful to the country’s future.”
Peri
said that he would “probably vote in favor” of a military strike
against Iran if it came before the cabinet for a vote and it became
apparent that all other possibilities had been exhausted.
Meanwhile,
Labor Party chairwoman and opposition chief Shelly Yacimovich
criticized Netanyahu on Saturday over the lack of progress in peace
talks with the Palestinians.
“In the last two weeks, we have
watched with great disappointment at the manner in which the talks have
been handled,” Yacimovich said. “It’s a slap in the face to the
Americans. It’s complete insanity [for this to happen] at the same time
that [the government] is igniting the diplomatic front as it relates to
the Iranian issue.”
The Labor chief said that the party would not
join the Netanyahu government, but it would support the coalition if
tangible progress was made in the peace process.
“Crawling to the
Netanyahu government now would put an immediate end to any chance of the
talks succeeding,” she said during an appearance at a town hall meeting
in Holon. “Netanyahu would have the benefit of a nice, big fig leaf,
and he won’t have to do anything else. This would be a huge mistake,
similar to the one made by Labor under the leadership of [Ehud] Barak.”
