Uri Avnery, at his best, says that Shimon Peres trivialized the Holocaust by saying Iran is the equivalent of Nazi Germany and that the Netanyahu government doesn't believe that Iran is an existential threat.
President Barack Obama is now saying to Israel: Put an end to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is a precondition for the
elimination of the threat to Israel. When the Palestinians, and the
entire Arab world, make peace with Israel – Iran will not be able to
exploit the conflict for the furthering of its interests….
The refusal of Netanyahu-Lieberman-Barak to accept this demand shows
the insincerity of their arguments about Iran. If they really believed
that Iran posed an existential menace, they would hurry to dismantle
the settlements, demolish the outposts and make peace. That would,
after all, be a small price to pay for the elimination of an
existential danger. Their refusal proves that the entire existential
story is a bluff.
RE: 'existential threat' from Iran is Netanyahu's bluff to hold on to territory MY COMMENT: Might this be the work of Roy Cohn clone, Arthur J. Finklestein? REFERNCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Finkelstein
RE: 'existential threat' from Iran is Netanyahu's bluff to hold on to territory A RELATED ARTICLE – "IRAN: BIBI’S ‘WEDGE’ ISSUE", by Richard Silverstein, 04/01/09 …Netanyahu is not a born again ideologue like Avigdor Lieberman. He’s a smooth operator who lip-synchs to the Top-40 right-wing tune of the moment. Personally, I think this interview is posing for his constituency both in Israel and the U.S. But just in case I’m wrong, here are some of the more disturbing passages from the interview: …The Iranian nuclear challenge represents a “hinge of history” and [he] added that “Western civilization” will have failed if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons. …Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.” Not to be outdone, Bibi drags his new vice-prime minister and minister for strategic affairs (read, Iran), Boogie Yaalon into the mix. The latter has some equally hot-headed and unconvincing remarks: One of his chief security advisers, Moshe Ya’alon, told me that a nuclear Iran could mean the end of American influence in the Middle East. “This is an existential threat for Israel, but it will be a blow for American interests, especially on the energy front. Who will dominate the oil in the region—Washington or Tehran?” ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009...
RE: "Uri Avnery, at his best, says that Shimon Peres trivialized the Holocaust…" MY COMMENT: Uri Avnery is a superb writer, and a hell of a good man! Were it not for people like him, I would be a raving misanthropist (assuming that I'm not).
This may or may not be "Avnery at his best," but even if it is, that isn't saying much. As usual, he is derivative, safe, and banal.
I must be missing something. If only Israel were willing to give up land, settlements, whatever, then everything would end happily ever after. The fact that they are unwilling to do so indicates their lack of good faith. The part that I don't understand is why Israel should have any faith that making more concessions will bring peace. When the Israelis negotiated the Oslo agreements with Arafat, he promised to forswear violence forever and then launch terror attacks that cost the lives of more than 1000 Israeli civilians. When Israel withdrew from Lebanon after the 2006 truce, the UN promised to keep Hezbollah from rearming south of the Litani river. They are now more heavily armed than ever before and Israel's protests fall on deaf ears. When the Israelis forcibly removed thousands of settlers and withdrew from Gaza, the gesture was interpreted immediately by Hamas as an act of weakness and defeat. Hamas dramatically increased its bombardment of civilian populations in the south of Israel. Where is the world outcry? Why should the Israelis assume that withdrawal from anywhere else would have a different result? The Israelis actually have to live with and defend themselves against neighbors that rejoice and pass out candy when an ax murderer massacres a Jewish child. Can you blame them for not wanting to jump at the latest pie-in-the-sky "peace plan" which will only leave them more vulnerable?
Is Israel being asked by the West to give up land it had stolen before 1967? No. The Palestinians are being asked by the West to give up ever returning to that land. But that's good enough for Israel. It has kept grabbing land since 1967, and is doing so now as I type in total defiance of the West, including USA official policy. Biting the hand that feeds it. Arafat was asked to give up everything stolen from his people. With no assurance his people would obtain anything but the pleasantry of living on what amounted to native American reservations, and without any future prospect of becoming full yet independent Israeli citizens, as the native Americans have become. Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was the least it could do after what it had done in Lebanon. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, ditto. It replaced full occupation–with correspondent human rights duties–to give the arabs in Gaza an open air prison. The current ratio of kills and maiming shows the Israeli intent. Keep grabbing land, divert attention by pointing to Iran, and slowly cut off all means of survival of the arabs in the OT. What IQ 100 American would not see this, if only they were given the data? Of course, that's the whole point of Phil's blog Witty et al seek to obscure.