Netanyahu's big win shocks Liberal Media and Pollsters

Embarrassed at failing to predict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s election victory, Israeli pollsters said on Wednesday they were blindsided by reticent rightist voters and may have unwittingly prodded waverers to back the incumbent.

Netanyahu’s Likud won 30 of parliament’s 120 seats in Tuesday’s ballot, against 24 for the center-left Zionist Union - upsetting opinion surveys that as recently as Friday gave the challenger a four-seat lead.

Exit polls also proved unreliable. Israel’s top three television stations, airing first returns as voting booths closed, found the parties close or tied. Had that been borne out, either could have potentially headed the next government.

Instead, during overnight counting, Likud’s tally went from 27 seats to 30 and the Zionist Union’s from 27 to 24.

Grilled on the discrepancy, Channel 2 TV’s veteran pollster Mina Tzemach said many Likud voters declined to take part in replicating their vote in the dummy ballot boxes set up by survey-taking companies outside voting stations.

Even though exit polls are anonymous, she suggested such reticence might have cultural roots for Israelis originally from countries with different political regimes in which they worry about sharing their private voting choices.

“In certain voting stations, voting stations in places where there are a lot of new immigrants, pro-Likud ballot boxes, the percent of those who voted (in the exit polls) was especially low,” Tzemach told Israel’s Army Radio.

Fellow survey-taker Camil Fuchs agreed, saying final counts from voting stations he had monitored showed that a significant number of Likud supporters had not participated in exit polls.

If they did participate, they may also not have been honest about the way they voted and as exit polls close earlier than the real polls, a last-minute surge in Likud votes, in response to a call from Netanyahu, may have been missed, he said.

“Some people don’t say (in exit polls) what they really voted, and the exit polls close about two hours before the voting booths,” Fuchs told Israel Radio.

Israeli election forecasts have been wrong before - in 1981, when the Likud narrowly won; in 1992 about the return to left-wing Labor party rule; and in 1996, when Netanyahu toppled Labor incumbent Shimon Peres for his first term in office.

Recent reliance on Internet-based studies has thrown another spanner in the works, according to Avi Degani, an Israeli pollster who says he conducted telephone surveys exclusively. Since last month, he has been the only one consistently predicting a victory for Netanyahu.

Degani said Web-based “panels,” made up of tens of thousands of pre-selected respondents, rarely reflect Israeli society accurately as they favor the tech-savvy, educated and urbane.

“The Internet does not represent the State of Israel or the people of Israel. (It is) biased strongly toward Tel Aviv,” Degani told reporters in a conference call arranged by the Israel Project advocacy group, referring to Israel’s second largest city and financial capital.

“People who are in the periphery ... and have a stronger tendency to vote Likud are, I think, very poorly represented.”

In separate remarks to Reuters, Degani said Israeli pollsters were always bedevilled by some 30 percent of citizens whose votes are unknowable - either because they waver until the last minute or end up backing fringe parties that do not muster enough support to enter parliament and are nixed from the tally.

“We are talking about 20 parliament seats that could go either way. It is almost impossible to tackle statistically.”

Still, Degani said he anticipated Netanyahu’s win by finding that at least half of wavering voters would choose Likud, adding that some of those respondents viewed themselves as rallying against Zionist Union’s strong showing in opinion polls.

“It is a highly emotional matter in Israel, and the Likud had the added advantage of being the last party, with the possible exception of (liberal) Meretz, of having a defined ideology. The rest are just about personalities,” Degani said.

Gedoili Yisroel Voting .... Satmar Anti-voting Campaign Collapses ... "Falshe SHIT'eh"

Satmar Animals cursing Rav Shteinman, Viznitzer Rebbe, Gerrer Rebbe and the Belzer Rebbe, because they all voted!

Here see Gedoilim Voting, ignoring the Roumanian savages!

Rav Shteinman on way to vote

Rav Kanievsky Voting

Rav Dov Landau Rosh Yeshiva Slobodka

Rav Yitzchok Scheiner Rosh yeshiva Kaminetz

Rav Nissim Karlitz Rosh Kollel Chazon Ish

Rav Azriel Auerbach 

Netanyahu Stays ......

Officials close to President Reuven Rivlin told Channel 1 late Tuesday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will form the next coalition if Kulanu head Moshe Kahlon offers his endorsement of the incumbent.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared victory after a tight national election appeared to give him the upper hand in forming the country's next coalition government.

 In a statement released on Twitter, Netanyahu says that "against all odds" his Likud party and the nationalist camp secured a "great victory." Initial exit polls showed Netanyahu's Likud Party deadlocked with the center-left Zionist Union (Labor). But the results indicated that Netanyahu will have an easier time cobbling together a majority coalition 

Meisels Seminary: Joint Bais Din allows Meisels to keep molesting students ... No problem!

Meisels 

Of course they don't say it out right, just read the psak, and you will conclude as I did that the headline is correct, and not misleading ......

But I have to give credit where credit is due .... the Bais Din did acknowledge that abuse took place, but they decided to  protect the enablers!

If you need further clarification and pshat in the psak ....

read the great commentary from FRUMFOLLIES, he has a great take on this outrageous conclusion!

Psak translation from Frumfollies:

The eve before Wednesday, 5 Adar, 5775 (March 10, 2015)

The Expanded Beis Din With These Rabbis

• Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz
• Rabbi Shmuel Feurst
• Rabbi Yisroel Zev Hacohen Cohen- These three [above] are from Chicago, USA henceforth [referred to as] the Chicago Beis Din [aka CBD]
• Rabbi Menachem Mendel Hacohen Shafran
• Rabbi Chaim Zev ben R. Avrohom Aharon Halevi Malinowitz
• Rabbi Tzvi Gartner- These three [above] are from Eretz Yisroel [Israel] henceforth [referred to as] the Eretz Yisroel Beis Din [aka IBD]
• Rabbi Eliyahu Brudney from Brooklyn, New York

We sat as an expanded beis din (rabbinical court) to judge the issue of the seminaries: Pninim, Chedvas Beis Yaakov, Binas Beis Yaakov, and Keser Chaya – henceforth referred to as “the seminaries”. This psak din (ruling) is the continuation of the partial psak din that was rendered on Monday, 9 Kislev 5775 (December 1, 2014), and these [two rulings] should be understood as a unit.

In this part of the psak din, we address the question of the responsibility of the administrators in what occurred:

• Did they know anything at the time of the events or should they have known?
• Included in this is the issue of the general atmosphere in the seminaries; was there an atmosphere of frivolity that invited abuse? Did they contribute knowingly or unknowingly to the creation of such an atmosphere? Or/and did they fail in creating a proper atmosphere?
• Similarly, when incidents became known regarding the previous year, did the administrators act properly in the relevant spheres?

Our deliberations led to the following Psak Din (Ruling)

A. Keser Chaya Seminary [Mrs. Shulamis Soloff]: No complaint of unacceptable or prohibited action against the offender/abuser [Elimelech Meisels] was received with regard to this seminary. While there were complaints of inappropriate, improper, and abnormal behavior (the type described in the Reasons of the psak din of Rav M.M. HaKohen Shafran, from here on to be referred to as briefly as “Reasons”), the administrators dealt with those incidents immediately, with efficiency and expertise. We decisively say: there was not and is not any reason in the world to raise questions regarding this wonderful; seminary or its administration. This decision should repair any mistaken impression that could confuse others created in the past.

B. Pninim Seminary [Rabbi Boruch Dovid Simon]: Adjudicating this case is superfluous. This is because the administrator at the time of these acts was the offender/abuser himself [Elimelech Meisels]. The current administration was promoted from among the staff as a result of the offender/abuser’s resigning/firing.

As such, one cannot complain about the current administration because of the acts of the previous administration – run by the offender/abuser – and they bear no responsibility, even administratively, for his [Meisel’s] actions.

It should also be noted what was written in note 7 of the partial psak din: “The beis dinwas deeply impressed from the staff of the seminaries, their dedication and concern, their outlook and fear of God, and their being fit to educate bnos yisroel (Jewish daughters) in Torah and fear of heaven and to establish faithful homes in Israel.” These words that were said generally are certainly applicable to the [current] administration of Pninim Seminary.

C. Chedvas Beis Yaakov Seminary [Rabbi Meir Kahane]: Here, we also received no complaints about unacceptable or forbidden behavior by the offender/abuser, only inappropriate, and abnormal behavior, (the type of behavior described in the “Reasons” document.) But, unlike the situation in Keser Chaya, a complaint and claim was placed against them as if the administrator’s response was too conciliatory and inadequate, and perhaps even worse (for details, see the “Reasons” document.)

Also, an email was shown to us that was sent from the administrator about the incident. The email was sent to a group of former students, after the incident blew up and became publicized. It was claimed that this email was at worst an attempt to hide or obscure things (cover-up in English), and at best, insensitive to the situation of the victims.

And so, after careful examination and after pitting the administrator against the witness who testified about the abnormal behavior of the attacker and the inappropriate response of the administrator, we reached the following decision: We heard the explanation of the administrator. Although it would appear that his response cannot be characterized as wise or insightful, but from there to placing a stain and suspicion on a dedicated administrator whose reputation precedes him—who could suggest such a thing?! We will leave it at that.

Regarding the email: the administrator explained his pure intentions – giving strength and encouragement, in what was meant to be a closed forum, to former students who were bewildered and confused about the magnitude of the incident and the public reaction to it. According to him, the initiative for this came from students who asked him for words of encouragement on the topic.

Again, one can debate the judgment of the administrator and his timing. Similarly, he should have known there are no secrets; things said—and certainly written—in a closed forum with many participants are susceptible to being leaked. But in the end, there was no attempt here to hide or obfuscate the facts or be insensitive to the victims.

As such, and taking into account the fact that the administrator expressed before us his true regret for the words that he penned, which might not have been proper, and taking into account his great suffering and the publicizing of him in a bad light recently, we establish that he has already had his just deserts, and there is no further reason to doubt or question—God forbid!—his good name and fitness for educating the young women to Torah and knowledge.

D. Binas Beis Yaakov Seminary [Mrs. Hindy Ullman]: here the issue is more complex, and we will go in order.

1. Did the administration know in real time what was going on under their auspices: The beis din is convinced that until the day the story became known towards the end of last year, the seminary’s administration knew nothing about the offender/abuser’s actions. All the “proofs” submitted before the beis din suggesting they knew this or the other detail, can only be considered speculative and imagination. They do not conform with the reality on the ground, or with the personality of the administration.

2. The administration’s response when the incident became known: The chain of events is detailed extensively in the “Reasons” document. It is clear that once it became known, the administration acted quickly, with determination, and with great efficiency to investigate what occurred. This led to the removal of the offender/abuser from the physical environment (by immediately sending him abroad) and from continuing in the field of education – for these actions the administration is worthy of great praise. {see footnote 1}

3. Regarding the behavior of the administration toward the parents of the victim, and to witness “5”: see the “Reasons” document, and the matter is clear.

4. Regarding the question of the general atmosphere in this seminary, if it was an atmosphere of frivolity, inviting such incidents: the answer is a decisive no. See “Reasons” for more on this at length.

5. Regarding the question of whether the administration should have known sooner what was going on under their auspices: here we are perplexed, and we will go into more detail in order to explain.

As stated in the partial psak din and in the “Reasons,” the offender/abuser himself is not a part of these proceedings. Further, many of those who were meant to know what was going on in the seminary at the time have refused to testify before the beis din. Despite that, the picture that has emerged thus far (based mainly on the written admission of the offender/abuser and supported by a number of testimonies) is as such:

We are talking about incidents that occurred during the schools years of 5770-5774 [Fall ’09- Summer ‘14]. Incidents before that period are not known. The incidents happened in the first years of Pninim, and from 5772 (the year Binas Beis Yaakov opened) and on, specifically in Binas. {see footnote 2} We are talking about a handful of incidents each year. {See footnote 3}

After going through the material before us, it is difficult to shake the feeling that there were red flags and troubling signs, and the administration should have known and sensed what was going on under its own nose. {See Footnote 4} Indeed, it is difficult to establish that with certainty, and even if you say it is true, how can we know and decide if it was at the level of negligence or near negligence, or less than that – but to leave it at nothing is impossible.

On the other hand, one must take into account the great suffering by the administration in recent months with the publication putting them in a bad light, along with their praiseworthy response once the matter became known, as described in section 2.

Therefore it seems that we must make do with the continuation of the arrangements that were agreed upon by the administration in Kislev of this year. According to [these arrangements], some of the positions and responsibility will be transferred temporarily to another party. As well, supervision and guidance by Mrs. Birnbaum will be increased. These arrangements will be in effect until the start of the school year of 5777 [Fall 2016].

E. In part 2, paragraph 1 of the partial psak din it is written: first, and foremost, the beis din Eretz Yisroel dealt with the removal of the offender/abuser and his family from all administrative positions in the seminaries, and brought about their being removed from the amuta [Israeli not-for-profit corporation], and the transferring of responsibility to other people. The situation today is that the amuta and all the institutions under its umbrella are being transferred to the faithful hands of a group of Haredi activists who arebnei torah, who will be completely subservient to the instructions of the expanded beis din, and above them the great rabbis and teachers, the elders of the roshei yeshivos of the USA.

Practically, the issues have been drawn out and have yet to come to a resolution. The beis din is convinced that the situation will be resolved in the best way possible, and is giving it more time, until July 1, 2015. The beis din will continue to follow developments and if necessary will sit again on this issue.

F.  As a side note on the matter: it is no secret that over the entire period of the case thebattei din (Eretz Yisroel and Chicago) acted separately. If we did act jointly, this is as a result of the efforts of three people who wish to remain anonymous, from Chicago, who have worked tirelessly for the success of the unification, and under the authority of Rabbi Avrohom Chaim Levin, Rosh Yeshiva of Telshe Yeshiva-Chicago and member of the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah of Agudah [Council of Torah Sages of Agudath Israel of America], they should be blessed from heaven with all good. And to the Rosh Yeshiva it is said: “Days onto the days of the king may you add, etc.”[Psalms/Tehillim 61:7], and together we should merit to greet the righteous redeemer, speedily in our day, amen. (Footnote 5)

We came to sign on the eve before Wednesday, 20 Adar, 5775 (March 10, 2015) {See footnote 5}

• Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz
• Rabbi Menachem Mendel Hacohen Shafran- (I published my view as part of the minority opinion, and here I join my voice to that of the majority with regards to the practical outcome.)
• Rabbi Shmuel Feurst
• Rabbi Chaim Zev ben R. Avrohom Aharon Halevi Malinowitz (My opinion, in the full sense of the word, is like that of R. Shafran, and my view is also like that of the minority, but here I sign to join with the majority as it regards halacha and the practical outcome.)
• Rabbi Yisroel Zev Hacohen Cohen
• Rabbi Tzvi Gartner
• Rabbi Eliyahu Brudney

Footnotes:

1. It should be stressed a document was presented to the beis din seemingly proving that at least one member of the beis din knew about the actions of the administration while it was happening.
2. [redacted to protect identity of victims and to comply with court order barring publicizing their identities by name or other unique information]
3. And so the rumors of tens of victims each year have no basis or foundation in reality
4. Though, in reality, she didn’t know
5. The minority view, of Rabbis Schwartz, Feurst and Cohen – on one side, and Rabbis Shafran and Malinowitz and the other side, as well as the explanations of the majority, will be publicized separately.

Satmar in Monroe Violates the Prohibition of "Hisgeirus Be'Umos" Antagonizing the Gentiles!

The Romanian Satmar Chassidim  accuse the State of Israel of antagonizing the gentiles (Hisgarois Be'Umois)!

So read the following letter, and see who the culprit is!

An open letter to the leaders of Kiryas Joel:

Thank you for sharing your recent postcards with the citizens of the Town and Village of Monroe. They are very professionally done, and they paint a pleasantly positive image of your community.

But having said that, I now find that I must be brutally honest. It boggles my mind how deceptive your advertising is, and how arrogant you seem to be regarding your status in the world-at-large; as if you are the only ones that matter, and the rest of us are irrelevant.

Let's face it, the community of Kiryas Joel is a massive financial leech on Monroe, on Orange County, and on New York State. You trade votes for favors with corrupt politicians as a means of furthering your cultural goals.

And you do all this with no regard for your neighbors, or for the degradation of the quality of life of the people around you that your behavior results in. This disgusts me.

You do not want to make nice with your neighbors; your actions (which speaking louder than words and propaganda) make that crystal clear. Any such characterization of that by your public relations efforts is a bald-faced lie.

Your ad in this newspaper portrays your pattern of growth as "smart." Let me tell you something: "smart" is the last thing it is.

Here's what "smart growth" starts with:

• It starts with not having more children than your family can support with its own income, and is not predicated on social services as a primary support mechanism.

• It starts with not overtaxing the local water and sewage systems, which ultimately pollute the environment and create shortages in needed resources.

• It starts with development that is inclusive of the people who live around you rather than exclusive.

It makes me sick to my stomach each time you are publicly criticized and your response to it is "Anti-Semitism" or "Racism."

That is so tired.
Your neighbors are neither anti-Semitic or racist. The Monroe community outside of your village is comprised of many Jews, Christians, Irish, Italians, Polish, Mexicans, Chinese, and Caribbean-born peoples. They are black, white, yellow, and all ranges of skin color, and they are all celebrated by the Town and the Village of Monroe.

What you call anti-Semitism is actually anti-you-using-our-money-to-fund-your-culture. What you are doing is amoral, and clearly against God's wishes. Read your Commandments and take them to heart.

You have created an enemy of your neighbors in Monroe, Woodbury and beyond, mainly because we don't wish to pay for your "smart growth" out of our own pockets and taxes. Please know that you will be fought and fought and fought until you change your tune and begin financially supporting your culture on your own.

The days of you being supported by Monroe, Orange County and New York State are done.

Sincerely,
Todd Jennings
Monroe

Rav Shteinman: Mitzvah to Vote "Gimmel"

"Oiy Ya'Yoi" Yated ordered to run ads for "All Lady Party" in Israel.... UPDATED MAR 16

Lol! 
The Zionist court in Israel ruled that Chareidie Newspapers must run at least one ad for the "All Lady Religious Party" .... even though "gedoilim" are vehemently opposed to them!
These "gedolim" would have opposed Devorah the Shofetes.. too. 
They are of course holier than the Tanach!

Ruth Kolian

Read and laugh your head off!

A Lod District Court ordered ultra-Orthodox newspapers Yated Ne'eman and Yom Le'yom on Friday to run campaign ads for the Haredi women's party B'Zechutan, after the party claimed the papers were discriminating against it by refusing to print its ads.

The decision could also result in official Shas and United Torah Judaism journals - which serve as the mouthpiece of the most prominent Haredi rabbis - also having to run campaign ads for a party that challenges them and accuses them of exclusion of women.

B'Zechutan leader Ruth Kolian petitioned the court with the help of the Center for the Advancement of the Status of Women and the Center for Women's Justice. Her lawyers, attorneys Karen Horowitz and Shai Zilberberg, explained that the printed Haredi press is the only media channel accessible to the party's potential voters.

Yated Ne'ema (File photo)

Judge Jacob Spasser issued an interim order which requires the two newspapers to run at least one of the party's campaign ads until Election Day, noting that in this case the principle of equality surpasses the property rights of the newspapers' owners.

"This is an ad which is public in nature, and mostly targets women in the Haredi sector," the judge wrote in his ruling. "There's considerable public importance in running it, an importance that might be higher in light of the prohibition on discrimination and the principle of equality in elections."

The court rejected the papers' claim that papers that already cover different parties whose views are clearly not in line with their own views, might offend their readers by running an ad for the Haredi women's party.

Prof. Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, the head of the Rackman Center for the Advancement of the Status of Women at Bar-Ilan University's Law Faculty, said following the ruling that "this is a historic legal precedent which determines that in certain circumstances, considerations of equality for women and election equality, as well as preventing discrimination against women and their preventing their exclusion, surpass property rights of commercial bodies like newspapers.

"This is the height of women's exclusion. Haredi women are not only prevented in practice from realizing the basic human right of running and being elected for Knesset, they are also denied the equal opportunity to inform their potential voters that they are running independently."

B'Zechutan leader Ruth Kolian said: "By having the Haredi newspapers refuse to allow us to reach our voters, we're excluded twice. First, we're not allowed to reach our audience of voters, and secondly, instead of using the time we have left until the elections to campaign, we have to turn to different courts in order to realize our right to be elected."
Kolian also said she hoped her party continues creating precedents in the elections as well.

UPDATED!!!!

Three days after an Israeli district court ordered chareidi newspapers to run election ads featuring women, the Supreme Court today overturned that decision, arguing that the judgment was hastily made and would have to be reexamined in depth without time constraints.

The chareidi women’s party Bezchutan petitioned to have their advertisements shown in chareidi print publications Yated Ne’eman and Yom Le’yom. A ruling Friday at the Lod District Court rejected claims that printing the images would insult the sensibilities of readers, and ordered their publication before Israelis head to the polls on March 17.

The newspapers, however, appealed that decision at the Supreme Court and the presiding judge ordered the commercials be postponed until the case can be properly mulled “without [the] time constraints” of Tuesday’s impending vote.

“The sequence of events led to a situation where the merits of the legal issue weren’t discussed in depth,” Supreme Court Justice Neal Hendel said.

“The necessary balance between conflicting interests and the principles at stake was not found [in the initial judgment,]” Hendel said.

He noted that a ruling had not been made in either of the parties’ favor, and called on both sides to hold a hearing within an acceptable time frame.

Rav Shmuel Auerbach Continues His Campaign of Machlokas against other Gedoilim

Let's face it .....Rav Shmuel Auerbach is a fanatic .. and it's his way or the highway. 
He doesn't care if he opposes "Daas Torah" of Rav Kanievsky and Rab Shteinman, .... he has his own "Daas Torah!"

So please never ever tell me that this is "Daas Torah" or that is "Daas Torah"

Daas Torah, my friends is to vote Likud! Yup...you heard it here first!
Voting for Likud is Daas Torah, don't waste your vote for the frum hypocrites!

Shas and other frum parties are following the position of  "gedoilim," and the "gedoilim" have indicated that they would sit with Tzippy Livni in a coalition, if she should G-d forbid get the upper hand..
They ignore the position of  Tzippy Livni that has repeatedly said; that she is ready to have the Arab parties join her coalition... 
and they ignore that she has said numerous times that she is prepared to give back parts of Eretz Yisroel to the Arabs, the land that G-d gave to us.

But the Gedoilim don't seem to care as long as Tzippy doesn't give back Ponovitz, Brisk, Mir .. etc..

That's the shita of today's "Gedoilim"!

So here is the latest low-down!

**Rav Auerbach has said that you get an Aveirah if you vote Gimmel....

**Rav Kanievsky and Rav Shteinman said that you get an Aveirah if you don't vote Gimmel!

**Satmar says it's an Aveirah if you vote for anyone!

** You are all going to hell, whatever you do according to the "gedoilim" 

Meanwhile, the "Chachomim" in Bnei Brak invited the fanatic R' Auerbach  to the massive Degel Hatorah kinnos which drew a staggering crowd of 100,000, according to some estimates, 
with Gedolei Hador  Rav Aaron Yehuda Leib Shteinman, Rav Chaim Kanievsky and Rav Nissim Karelitz, in attendance, but they didn't succeed to change the "godel's" stubborn mind.

Gedolim, have instructed the tzibur to vote Gimmel, Yahadut Hatorah, in next week’s elections for 20th Knesset.

Rav Auerbach  believes Degel is abandoning the correct path and while the door to cooperation has not been closed and locked, with days remaining to the elections it is difficult to know what he will do. 
He wants Rav Kanievsky and Rav Shteinman to come crawling to him and beg him to endorse Gimmel. 

At present it appears that a boycott of the elections is the likely scenario. HaPeles, R' Auerbach's mouthpiece  newspaper quotes Rav Auerbach saying that if one supports those (R' Kanievsky and R' Shteinman)who are implementing these unacceptable changes, he has a hand in one performing an aveira. -

So there you have it in a nutshell!

But they all agree that you can't have an Iphone....
Moshiach where are you?

Obama getting world powers to lift sanctions on Iran

Major world powers have begun talks about a United Nations Security Council resolution to lift U.N. sanctions on Iran if a nuclear agreement is struck with Tehran, a step that could make it harder for the U.S. Congress to undo a deal, Western officials said.

The talks between Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — the five permanent members of the Security Council — plus Germany and Iran, are taking place ahead of difficult negotiations that resume next week over constricting Iran's nuclear ability.

Some eight U.N. resolutions - four of them imposing sanctions - ban Iran from uranium enrichment and other sensitive atomic work and bar it from buying and selling atomic technology and anything linked to ballistic missiles. There is also a U.N. arms embargo.

Iran sees their removal as crucial as U.N. measures are a legal basis for more stringent U.S. and European Union measures to be enforced. The U.S. and EU often cite violations of the U.N. ban on enrichment and other sensitive nuclear work as justification for imposing additional penalties on Iran.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress on Wednesday that an Iran nuclear deal would not be legally binding, meaning future U.S. presidents could decide not to implement it. That point was emphasized in an open letter by 47 Republican senators sent on Monday to Iran's leaders asserting any deal could be discarded once President Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017.

But a Security Council resolution on a nuclear deal with Iran could be legally binding, say Western diplomatic officials. That could complicate and possibly undercut future attempts by Republicans in Washington to unravel an agreement.

Iran and the six powers are aiming to complete the framework of a nuclear deal by the end of March, and achieve a full agreement by June 30, to curb Iran's most sensitive nuclear activities for at least 10 years in exchange for a gradual end to all sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

So far, those talks have focused on separate U.S. and European Union sanctions on Iran's energy and financial sectors, which Tehran desperately wants removed. The sanctions question is a sticking point in the talks that resume next week in Lausanne, Switzerland, between Iran and the six powers.

But Western officials involved in the negotiations said they are also discussing elements to include in a draft resolution for the 15-nation Security Council to begin easing U.N. nuclear-related sanctions that have been in place since December 2006.

"If there's a nuclear deal, and that's still a big 'if', we'll want to move quickly on the U.N. sanctions issue," an official said, requesting anonymity.

The negotiations are taking place at senior foreign ministry level at the six powers and Iran, and not at the United Nations in New York.

U.S. OFFICIAL CONFIRMS DISCUSSIONS

A senior U.S. administration official confirmed that the discussions were underway.

The official said that the Security Council had mandated the negotiations over the U.N. sanctions and therefore has to be involved. The core role in negotiations with Iran that was being played by the five permanent members meant that any understanding over U.N. sanctions would likely get endorsed by the full council, the official added.

Iran rejects Western allegations it is seeking a nuclear weapons capability.

Officials said a U.N. resolution could help protect any nuclear deal against attempts by Republicans in U.S. Congress to sabotage it. Since violation of U.N. demands that Iran halt enrichment provide a legal basis for sanctioning Tehran, a new resolution could make new sanction moves difficult.

"There is an interesting question about whether, if the Security Council endorses the deal, that stops Congress undermining the deal," a Western diplomat said.

Other Western officials said Republicans might be deterred from undermining any deal if the Security Council unanimously endorses it and demonstrates that the world is united in favor of a diplomatic solution to the 12-year nuclear standoff.

Concerns that Republican-controlled Congress might try to derail a nuclear agreement have been fueled by the letter to Iran's leaders and a Republican invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress in a March 3 speech that railed against a nuclear deal with Iran.

The officials emphasized that ending all sanctions would be contingent on compliance with the terms of any deal. They added that the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog, will play a key role in verifying Iran's compliance with any agreement.

Among questions facing negotiators as they seek to prepare a resolution for the Security Council is the timing and speed of lifting U.N. nuclear sanctions, including whether to present it in March if a political framework agreement is signed next week or to delay until a final deal is reached by the end-June target.

(Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed, Lesley Wroughton and Patricia Zengerle in Washington, Parisa Hafezi in Ankara and John Irish in Paris; Editing by Jason Szep andMartin Howell)