Bibi Says 9/11 Attack Has Been Good for Israel

by Philip Weiss on April 16, 2008 · 21 comments

Haaretz reports that Bibi Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan University:

"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma’ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."

It is true that many Americans came to think that we are in the same war Israel is in after 9/11. Podhoretz’s World War IV. I believed as much myself for a little while. But this belief, to be sustained over many years, requires stupidity, bad leadership, propaganda, racism, parochialism, or all of the above. Americans are stirring from their nightmare…
 

Related posts:

  1. populist attack video from Mississippi targets…. Israel
  2. Krauthammer Never Talks About Israel
  3. Israel Lobby’s Ability to Get Obama’s Backing of Iran Attack Ends Nov. 4
  4. Why the U.S. will not attack Iran–Mohammad of Vancouver
  5. ‘One Must Be a Jew to Tell the Goyim How To Talk About Israel’–WSJ Editor

{ 21 comments }

1 Richard Witty April 16, 2008 at 4:44 pm

He would say something like that.

2 David April 16, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Phil's busy as a little bee today, and yet, as always, utterly fucking clueless. He missed the biggest story on Obama and Jews . . .

Obama attacks Jimmy Carter
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3532797,00.html

So now that Barack has told Palestinians to eat shit and die, should we still vote for him?

3 bondo April 16, 2008 at 5:37 pm

"Bibi Says 9/11 Attack Has Been Good for Israel"

so he did say and so it has been. that was the intent of 9/11. i am one of many who believe that 9/11 and many other "terror" occurrences were state(s) actions. the american 9/11 was an israeli and american(the neocons) operation. i think the one individual out of the loop was bush. why bother telling a puppet more than the puppet needs to know.

4 LeaNder April 16, 2008 at 6:00 pm

>Phil's busy as a little bee today, and yet, as always, utterly fucking clueless. He missed the biggest story on Obama and Jews . . .<

You missed his Baltimore link. I warmly recommend you read at least the first 20 comments too:

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obama_claims_jewish_kinship.html

5 the Sword of Gideon April 16, 2008 at 6:01 pm

David, what are you talking about. Hamas just endorsed Obama. He's their man.

6 bndo April 16, 2008 at 6:10 pm

"Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama on Wednesday disagreed with former President Jimmy Carter's overtures toward Hamas, saying he would not talk to the Islamist group until it recognized Israel and renounced terrorism."

1st, let no one talk or give welfare to the state of jewry until it renounces terrorism and recognizes palestinians and its atrocities to the palestinians.

7 Anonymous April 16, 2008 at 7:44 pm

While some jews whine about the hardships of being considered a self-hating jew the iron hammer of jewry falls on the heads of true americans:

"Campaign Against Me by the SPLC"

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Blog.htm

8 Gene April 16, 2008 at 8:12 pm

David: "So now that Barack has told Palestinians to eat shit and die, should we still vote for him?"

He said the same thing of working class Pensylvanians a little while back. And if Hillary could be convinced to tell the truth for once in her life she'd admit that's her opinion too. The hard cheese for Democrats is that to win in Pennsylvania you have to say things that embarrass you in San Francisco.

9 Gene April 16, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Regarding Netanyahu's comment that 9/11 was good for Israel, Winston Churchill expressed a similar sentiment right after Pearl Harbor. He said he finally had a good night's sleep the first time since the war started because he knew with America fighting alongside England victory was assured.

10 Todd April 16, 2008 at 9:42 pm

I think it was Abba Eban who stated that it was the duty of Israel to court the major power(s) of the time- at the time it was France and Britain. I guess that courting goes beyond sucking money to wishing for self-serving disaster.

Just out of curiosity, is the friendship and lobbying of Israel any more or less damaging than that of the traditional British alliance that led us into two disasterous wars?

11 samuel burke April 16, 2008 at 9:47 pm

the zionist jews is whats bad for america…the nation within a nation.

remember the uss liberty
my prayer is that the rest of america wakes up and soon.

12 anonymous April 16, 2008 at 10:11 pm

Maybe he's anxious he's not getting enough credit where credit is due…

clever, having the buildings fall

13 the Sword of Gideon April 16, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Somehow Todd it doesn't surprise me that you thought WW2 was something we should have stayed out of. Do you have a framed picture of the fuhrer on your wall.

14 Todd April 16, 2008 at 11:00 pm

Do you think that Claire Chennault was in China prior to the official entry of the U.S. into the war because he wanted stop Hitler's persecution of European slavs, Jews and other unfashionable groups?

15 the Sword of Gideon April 16, 2008 at 11:06 pm

No I think he was there on a covert mission to bolster the Chinese air force against the Japanese. What's your point? The same way we did some convoying before Pearl Harbor and PBY patrolling. I know that you think that the Krauts and Japs were the good guys but some people don't see it that way.

16 Montag April 16, 2008 at 11:14 pm

You gotta love Netanyahu, he has never learned that words mean things, or that he's his own worst enemy.

17 Todd April 16, 2008 at 11:29 pm

Damn, SOG, you're just too smart for me. Go have a corndog and celebrate your victory.

18 Rowan Berkeley April 17, 2008 at 5:31 am

when bill pearlman uses phrases like "krauts and japs," he is putting words into the mouths of his opponents, racist words, so that he can brand them as racists. I think he has assessed that, in this particular forum, no one will notice.

19 Jim Haygood April 17, 2008 at 9:06 am

.

The "krauts and japs" have been pacified, but aggressor Israel keeps on murdering — yesterday, they killed a journalisat and five more kids.

————

Reuters released video taken by [Fadel] Shana in the seconds before his death. The footage shows a [Israeli] tank on a distant hilltop opening fire. A tank shell is seen flying toward the camera followed by a large explosion before the screen went black.

Pictures taken by colleagues after the attack showed his jeep on fire and Shana's body lying next to it on the road along with several other bodies. Shana's jeep was marked "Press" and witnesses said the cameraman was wearing an identifying flak jacket.

Shana was killed near the Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza. He had been in the area to film the aftermath of a deadly Israeli airstrike that killed 12 Palestinians, including five children ages 12 to 15, according to medical officials.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080417/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

————

Too bad WE have to pay for this, with Israel's sticky fingers rooting around in our pockets.

And as Osama bin Ladin explained in his statement, the 9/11 attack was payback for years of U.S. support for Israel's murderous policies.

But is all this sacrifice sufficient for the grabby Jewish state? No-o-o-o-o-o! Now they want us to attack Iran on their behalf.

Too much still ain't enough. And it never will be.

20 samuel burke April 17, 2008 at 9:18 am

bibi and the lick-udnicks.

http://www.atlargely.com/

21 lester April 17, 2008 at 10:36 am

I've heard a similar argument made that "slavery was good for blacks" because it brought them to the united states.

there's a logic to that, but it's not technically correct.

coming to america was good for blacks, there is a variety of ways they could have come: aboard luxury boatliners, as regular immigrants, even as low paid workers. being subject to the caligula like whims of their masters and in many cases, such as on the disease ridden slave ships, having to forfeit their lives for something they didn't sign up for was not "good".

and many, including lincoln himself, wanted to send them home afterwords, so there was no guarentee they would have been able to stay in america. that it ended up more or less working out was luck and unplanned.

So, america being more engaged in the fight against terrorism was "good", if you are of the opinion that it should be their problem. but innocent people falling out of 100 story buildings and so forth is not good.

it seems like a point mainly of tact, but as we see with this campaign for example little distinctions can become big ones. you wouldn't see a funeral parlor in the vicinitiy of virginia tech saying "the massacre there was fantastic for us" in front of press cameras. there are things you think but don't say. you don't want to give an event like 9/11 positive connotations

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post: ‘Right of Return’ Is Brought Up In Presidential Race. Hurray

Next post: Why I Talk About Dual Loyalty