Did Netanyahu shift his position a bit? or did the New York Times read too much into this?

GretWire.FoxNewsInsider.com ^ | 03/05/2015 | Greta Van Susteren

[E. Pluribus Unum]

“….While [Prime Minister Netanyahu] condemned President Obama’s proposed nuclear deal with Iran as dangerously lenient, one word was missing from his expansive speech: Zero. It is a word he likes, one he has used before to describe his bottom line when it comes to an acceptable Iranian nuclear program — zero capability whatsoever.

[sonofagun]

I believe he did say peaceful nuclear capability was acceptable under the proper restrictions and inspections.

Personally, I expect and would approve of, an attack from Israel on those nuclear facilities very soon.

[cuban leaf]

Yep. For Iraq it was “Operation Opera”.

For Iran it should be “Operation Grateful Dead Concert”.

[C210N]

one word was missing from his expansive speech: Zero

Bibi mentioned 0bmama dozens of times.

[TruthInThoughtWordAndDeed]

Israel (with or without Netanyahu) will destroy its immediate neighbors’ abilities to make war on Israel. Israel will also destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities. These events have been prophesied for thousands of years. Here are two relevant articles:

https://unsealedprophecy.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/psalm-83-war-september-2015/

https://unsealedprophecy.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/israel-will-destroy-irans-bushehr-nuclear-reactor-the-jeremiah-49-prophecy/

[ctdonath2]

Bibi realizes that such a stance (”zero”) isn’t viable. There WILL be a “civilian nuclear energy” requirement, or there won’t be an agreement short of war. He unequivocally laid out the absolute boundaries wherein a viable solution exists, recognizing that even his mortal enemies have demands Israel can live with. Of late I’ve been using the term “bracketing” a lot, and it applies here: any “deal” outside the brackets Bibi specified will be unacceptable to someone and lead to war (probably soon, 10 years max). He made his demands, gave his concessions (to wit: giving up “zero nuclear capability of any kind”), and made perfectly clear the boundaries all involved could live with; anyone making demands outside that boundary is demanding war.

Good observation; I’d kinda noticed it, but this thread made its importance very clear.

[epow]

Everyone with an operable brain cell knows that Iran will continue it's efforts to get nuclear weapons one way or another unless it's stopped by a superior armed force. Israel's armed forces are numerically inferior to Iran's, but according to everything I have read about it, they are vastly superior in quality. Given that situation, I can't believe that Netanyahu will allow Iran to develop nuclear capability without intervening with military force unless the western powers, i.e., the US & UK, can somehow persuade or force Iran's fanatical government to cease it's development of a nuke.

However, given Obummer's very obvious hostility to Israel and his sympathy for the Muslim world's quest for global domination, I don't think he will raise a pinky finger to deter Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. As for my viewpoint, the safety and preservation of Israel as the only free, democratic, western-oriented nation in that crucially important part of the world takes precedence over all other considerations, including the nuclear destruction of the entire Iranian nation if it comes to that. As a bible-believing fundamentalist Christian, I believe that Israel will eventually recognize Jesus Christ as it's divine King who will return to earth and rule the entire world with Jerusalem as His capitol. The prospect of that future situation doesn't allow for a demonic Muslim government in any part of the universe, and who in a right mind wouldn't hope and pray for that final outcome?