Netanyahu did give a plan of action

By ALAN VERBITZKY

The White house claimed that in his address to congress Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered no alternative to the deal being negotiated with Iran.

A WH official said that "Simply demanding that Iran completely capitulate is not a plan, nor would any country support us in that position. The prime minister offered no concrete action plan".

Obama’s former advisor David Axelrod sarcastically tweeted “Eager for Bibi to make the turn and share his plan for preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. What’s plan B?” And Obama himself said “I saw nothing new”.

The thing is, Netanyahu did give an alternative, he did give a plan.

First he said that The issue of Iran’s missiles should be considered in the negotiations.(“if Iran's Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table.”)

Then he quite literally said that sanctions should only be lifted when Iran meets three demands: stop its aggression against its neighbours in the Middle East, stop supporting terrorism around the world, and finally stop threatening to annihilate Israel.(“Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbours in the Middle East. Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.”)

Then he proceeded by saying that the P5+1 should demand Iran to show with concrete actions that they have ceased to pursue nuclear weapons before the deal expires

(“If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.”) (“If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn't change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.”)

He further proved his rationale of maintaining sanctions by saying that “by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.”

So as it turns out, Netanyahu did gave a deal, a much better and much more reassuring deal than the one being negotiated right now.

But wasn’t just a couple of days ago that the White House warned Netanyahu not to disclose unknown information?

Had Netanyahu done that, the headlines would read, “Obama accuses traitor Netanyahu of leaking previously undisclosed information”.

As Naftali Bennett put it, “if the deal is so good, why are they hiding it?”

Despite of Netanyahu’s compliance with the WH request, he still was attacked on the basis of not giving anything new, instead of for leaking information.

Obama was going to attack Netanyahu regardless.
And despite all of this, Netanyahu did manage to give an action plan.

I highly doubt the reason the WH claimed they didn’t see any such plan is because of their lack of ability analyzing and reading between words.

After all, they also said that PM contradicted himself by arguing that the Iranian government is both "powerful and unchanging" and "weak and vulnerable".

To make such a claim you have to be able to read in between lines, much better than the required ability to see Netanyahu’s plan.

I cannot understand how the WH, was able to catch on that ‘contradiction’, but didn’t catch Netanyahu’s proposal.

The White House wasn’t really looking for Netanyahu’s proposal; they were looking for material to dismiss the Prime Minister.

If the white house really wants to hear Israel’s voice and Israel’s proposal, why not have them in the negotiating table?