Comments on: On the neocons’ Munich comparisons

By: LaNder

LaNder — Fri, 15 May 2009 16:21:56 +0000

The guilt-ridden Germans gave Israel those sub-marines. The German, goes an old adage, are either at your neck, or at your feet. First they gas Jews, now they ignore slow erasure of the Palestinians. Then and now, they have a million excuses for what they do and do not do, but the pattern is clear.

By: Richard01

Richard01 — Fri, 15 May 2009 05:56:16 +0000

I agree that constant and continual appeasement of Israel after its invasions of every single one of its neighbours (except Cyprus) is very dangerous indeed. Why does Isael need to have nuclear-armed submarines? To conduct exactly the sort of blackmail that Rowan Berkeley proposes. The inventors of the 'Samson Option' were and are,the Israeilis.

By: jacobwolf

jacobwolf — Fri, 15 May 2009 05:49:29 +0000

Don't worry. Your medication is on the way.

By: jacobwolf

jacobwolf — Fri, 15 May 2009 05:48:24 +0000

Truth is not an option for hatemongers. Anything to justify their hatred for Israel is fine with them.

By: RowanBerkeley

RowanBerkeley — Fri, 15 May 2009 04:59:03 +0000

And eventually the whole world will have to go on a war footing and defeat Israel's armies in the field — if Israel doesn't nuke their capitals pre-emptively, as it has threatened more than once to do.

By: syvanen

syvanen — Thu, 14 May 2009 23:59:01 +0000

No. We are not playing "what if" history. We are pointing out that Munich 1938 was the consequences of Vesailles, 1919. The 'appeasement' analogy being applied to the ME today is simply pure propaganda for the zionist cause. There was nothing that Britain, France and the US could do in 1933 or in 1938 to reverse what happened in Versaille. The only resolution to this problem is what eventually occurred. The whole world went on a war footing and defeated German armies in the field. In 1938 they did not have those armies that could defeat Germany. Germany was simly too powerful. The comparison to Iran today is ludicrous in the extreme. Germany had the world's most powerful army in 1938, Iran's power is miniscule by comparison.

By: Shafiq

Shafiq — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:34:28 +0000

"the only argument is regarding the west bank which was never a state" That's what Hitler said about Czechoslovakia Israel is also trying to annexe the Golan Heights (it's still occupied territory)

By: thedhimmi

thedhimmi — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:31:52 +0000

With all the great chunks Israel is biting out of other countries and it's incredible thirst for land, it is only a half of 1 Percent of the region. How do you figure it?

By: yonahred

yonahred — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:31:03 +0000

if we are going back in time and trying to avoid ww2, the versailles treaty is a good place to start. but once hitler gains power the only way to avoid hitler's strength when war eventually broke out was for france to react militarily to hitler's occupation of the rhineland in 36. once hitler rearms it is generally agreed that the chances of defeating him before giving him the sudetenland, were much better than afterwards. but it sounds to me like somebody here is advocating just letting hitler take poland without declaring war. maybe you also advocate britain making peace with hitler after the fall of dunkirk?

By: Citizen

Citizen — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:24:16 +0000

Gee, doesn't history show the Palestinian arabs have lost quite a big chunk? Or do we need to close our eyes and only fondle form rather than look at content? Doesn't that approach bring us back to historical appeasement problems?