The tension surrounding next week’s Obama/Netanyahu meeting continues to rise. Today, Ha’aretz is reporting that Obama couldn’t even wait until next week to tell Israel not to attack Iran. The Israeli press seems to be on the edge of its seat in the build up to the meeting, and is expecting the worst. Each day Israeli newspapers are full of prognosticators and politicians reading Obama White House tea leaves, making dire predictions and giving urgent advice for the Prime Minister. And what can lend more urgency to the situation than comparisons to the holocaust?
Writing in the Jerusalem Post, Isi Leibler uses a strategy that we witnessed in the recent AIPAC conference:
Obama’s new policies of “engaging” with rogue states
and striving to modify the behavior of tyrants by persuasion have
ominous parallels with the appeasement policies of Europe in the 1930s.
It is probably not coincidental that the Czech Republic is the European
country most supportive of Israel.
But Leibler doesn’t stop there. In a sign of real desperation, he attempts to shame the American Jewish community into supporting the Netanyahu/Lieberman government’s expansionism and militarism by blaming us for not doing enough to prevent the holocaust:
These are challenging times for American
Jewry. Its support is vital to resist those deluding themselves that
problems with the Islamic world can be overcome by sacrificing Israel
and transforming us into a new Czechoslovakia. American Jewish leaders
failed to speak up in defense of their brethren during the dark days of
World War II because they were intimidated by a popular American
president. We have every reason to believe that the vast majority of
strong and confident American Jews of our time will not be intimidated
or remain silent if the Jewish state is endangered.
Leibler understands the American Jews will be a very important constituency as Obama shapes his foreign policy, and he is also aware the consensus towards Israel among American Jews is crumbling. He lashes out at JStreet and other “organizations masquerading as Zionists” as weakening support for Israel and calls for them to be “exposed and isolated from
the Jewish mainstream before they undermine Israel’s position.” Wow.
Leibler isn’t alone in deploying these kinds of scare tactics, and in the end it’s going to be up to the Obama administration whether this meeting with Netanyahu takes place in the context of 2009, where US and Israeli interests may be diverging, or in the context of 1939, where Israeli fears are paramount.
Writing in Ha’aretz, Aluf Benn recently had a good opinion piece entitled “The Holocaust is not a cliche.” It dealt with the dangers of framing today in the context of World War II. In that article he made the simple point “Netanyahu’s rhetoric is bringing Israel closer to not being able to refrain from going to war against Iran.” It will be up to the Obama administration, and the American Jewish community, to resist the pressure to view the world through this lens. There are signs that both may be willing to do so. Now’s the time.
(Thanks to Ali Gharib of IPS for passing along the Leibler article.)
I still don't share your feelings about Obama. I regard him as a Pentagon stooge. There are plenty of people at the Pentagon who think that the US should be the unipolar military hegemon of the world; they just don't like Israel and its US-Jewish cheerleaders elbowing them in the ribs all the time about it. James Petras, who interestingly tends to get ignored by anti-zionists, underlines this in a piece posted yesterday on Global Research, from which I excerpted the global (as opposed to Latin-American) elements here: http://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/as-i-keep-...
Uri Avnery said the same thing as Aluf Benn yesterday at Antiwar.com: Trivializing the Holocaust by Uri Avnery, May 11, 2009 http://original.antiwar.com/avnery/2009/05/10/tri...
The similarities to the world situation prior to WWII are provocative of dis-ease. The Transfer Agreement is pertinent to me because I see us once again faced with a choice: cooperation for economic interests which results in a continuation of the current 'might is right' strategy and world war, without concern for the consequences to individuals, or cooperation to end such strategies, with the intention of providing for individuals as a consequence. Drones versus Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
The analogy with Germany in 1938 is totally nuts. At that time Germany had the most powerfull land army in Europe. As we now know they defeated British, French and Russian armies in 1939-1940. There was absolutely nothing the US could do at that time to deter Germany. Their army was just too strong. There was also no way that the American people would be willing to engage them in war. If the US had tried we would have lost big time. Germany was a major power. Iran may have the ability to resist foreign invasion, but they simply have little ability to project power beyond their borders. This appeasement argument is historically bogus. There was nothing we could have done in 1938 to change things. The analogy today has not basis in any kind of historical analysis. It is no more than political propaganda to push the US into a war that is not in our interests.
It's obvious that your blog isn't for the people like me, who happen to be Israeli Jews and don't hate themselves and their country. Still, so that is clear and you wouldn't say you didn't know – while the majority opinion in Israel favors in principle the two-state solution (and will accept some form of American pressure on Netanyahu to commit himself to this idea), the same (or even bigger) majority is utterly convinced that Iran is building a bomb and will use it against us. According to the last poll, even if Obama will publicly and expressly forbid Israel from attacking Iran, the clear majority of Israeli Jews will still support such an effort. Netanyahu won the recent elections in large part because he was viewed as more capable and decisive candidate to withstand Iranian threat. Reconcile yourself to this fact – if Obama's efforts to engage Iran will not bear fruit to the end of this year, someone's planes will fly and bombs will fall. The only question is, what markings will be on their wings.
Looks like it's time to cut off all aid to Israel. Why enable a mental case, allow it to walk the world's streets with nukes?
Poor Arik. I feel your hysteria. You guys decided to introduce nuclear weapons into your war against the Moslems. Then you settled 80% of your population into the greater Tel Aviv metropolitan region which happens to fall into about 5 blast radii of fusion bombs. After that crazy decision, you now insist on dragging the US into a war to prevent one of your enemies from developing the same weapon you introduced into this conflict. Sorry Arik, but we will not go along with your insane notions of national security. You made your bed, now sleep in it.
I hate it when they go on about appeasement. The analogy doesn't make sense. Obama is in no way saying 'You can invade Country A if you promise to not invade Country B'
Pres. Obama has increased an already massive military gift package to Israel, paid for by hard-working Americans. If Israelis think this makes us Munich-style appeasers then they are the very definition of ingrates.
"Reconcile yourself to this fact – … someone's planes will fly and bombs will fall." Arik, Iran does not have a bomb and doesn't want one, you are haunted by your own phantom, projecting Israel's belligerence onto the object of its belligerence. By framing your planes and bombs prediction as a fact you imply that Israel is the "someone" (or perhaps you know of Iran's secret plans, hmmm?) who will fly the planes and drop the bombs, that the Israeli nation as a whole is somehow being herded by an invisible force down this tunnel to misery, that nothing can stop what has already been initiated by Bibi and his heroes. This inability to conceive of other outcomes is a worrying development. In fact it sounds like you might be losing your marbles, conjuring up a monster and then lashing out at what you irrationally associate with said monster. This exact same sensation of inevitability, has been been described to me by people who have survived a suicidal episode. They lose hope in their lives. But those who survive such episodes prove that hope does exist, don't you think? Whatever, in your present state, you should excuse yourself from debate about how to settle the animosities, your fatalistic inflexibility has made your views anachronistic. Why do people think like this? I think it is because it gives them a sense of control, but it is a false sense, comparable to someone who thinks they are in control of a runaway train because even though the brakes have failed, the gas pedal still works! Best wishes, and let me leave you with this (repeated, apologizes to regular readers) old Irish blessing. "May the blessing of light be upon you, light without and light within. May the blessed sunshine shine upon you and warm your heart until it glows like a great peat fire, so that the stranger may come and warm himself at it, as well as the friend."
Reconcile yourself to this fact – if Obama's efforts to engage Iran will not bear fruit to the end of this year, … It appears that Pres. Obama has already accepted that Iran is going to be a nuclear power. I think his 'red-line' is nuclear weapons development. There has never been, in spite of vociferous lying by colonial-Zionists in the media, any evidence that Iran has been engaged in nuclear weapons research or development. See Gordon Prather for the truth. As long as Iran doesn't develop nuclear weapons, we will not attack them. It is not even remotely in America's interest to add a third war to our plate against a nation that is merely carrying out activities which they are permitted under the IAEA protocols that they have signed and which are still being enforced. Diplomacy is the only way, short of genocide, to convince Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. Attacking them will merely delay their civil program by several years and guarantee that they start a military program. Diplomacy is in America's interest, and will be a permanently ongoing process, and certainly won't be abandoned in a year for war because of some petulant arbitrary deadline demanded by Israelis. … someone's planes will fly and bombs will fall. They won't be ours, and Israeli planes would have to cross American-controlled and patrolled Iraqi airspace. We are not fools; we know very well that if we stand by and let Israel fly through the airspace for which we are responsible to attack Iran, then we will have a third war on our hands. The US military has made it very clear that a third war is not wanted. The only Americans who want it are Israel-first colonial Zionists and neocons, people everyone knows never consider American interests. An Israeli assumption that we won't shoot down Israeli warplanes on their way to embroil us in a third useless war is the height of folly. This isn't a scrabble over money, over the amount of some handout, and allowing such an attack wouldn't cause a USS Liberty scale of casualties. Thousands of Americans would die and a global economic depression with consequent poverty-induced extremism would be certain. It is serious business and a critical interest of the United States. I think it staggeringly unlikely that we wouldn't shoot down Israelis. Pres. Obama wouldn't want to because the repercussions in American politics would be more than unsettling, but if you push us too far you'll dissolve the 'special relationship' far faster than those of opposed to ethnic cleansing and colonization could ever hope to do. It would force Israel-firsters and colonial Zionists in Congress to openly and publicly choose between America and Israel, and those who don't choose America would be completely exposed before the electorate.
I think it staggeringly unlikely that we wouldn't shoot down Israelis. Colin, that feels somehow very unlikely. But yes, considering the economic crisis we already have, it surely would be the utter horror scenario. But what really puzzles me is that Israel so clearly and visibly pushes on for WWIII/IV scenario. Arik, maybe the invulnerable Israel needs to face it's Archilles heel? What does it mean that the majority of Israelis support another war against Iran, other than that there are strong propaganda forces behind it. Do you know the details of their interests?
Phil, you (and Ali Gharib) are out of touch. Here, in Israel, the main concern is with the economy and with Netanyhu's handling (or mishandling) of the budget negotiations in which he completely caved two days ago in which the head of the budget division resigned and the Chief of Staff verbally lambasted Netanyahu right in front of the Cabinet! The Washnington visit and Obama are not even on the front pages of the daily (Hebrew) newspapers or the TV and radio news programs, and I think it's a bit hyperbolic to assert that "The Israeli press seems to be on the edge of its seat in the build up to the meeting", except, perhaps, for the political writers such as Aluf Benn. As for Obama, let's see if he's any less of a talker than is Bibi. I got a kick out of how he spoke with the same gravity that he used when talking to the American public about the economic crises as he did when advising the population of the United States to "wash your hands" in response to Swine Flu outbreak. What a joke! The leader of the free world is a friggin public service announcement!
First of all you should get your historical facts straight. Germany defeated the Polish and French armies in 1939. The British army was not defeated and, in 1940, Hitler failed in his bid to invade England. Hitler did not attack the Soviet Union until June of 1941. Appeasement refers to the 1938 Munich Agreement between Chamberlain and Hitler in which Chamberlain effectively gave Germany the Sudetenland in exchange for a promise of peace, following which Hitler reneged on the agreement and invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. The US had nothing to do with it. The historical parallel here is that, in 1933 when the Nazis took power in Germany, the population was about 65,000,000 and Germany was essentially disarmed. That was the time that Germany should have been stopped. The population of Iran today is about 70,000,000, but today it is not really important whether or not a state has a large army if it has nuclear weapons.
There has never been, in spite of vociferous lying by colonial-Zionists in the media, any evidence that Iran has been engaged in nuclear weapons research or development. No Colin. There has never been, in spite of vociferous lying by reactionary Islamists and their fellow treverlers, any evidence that Iran hasn't engaged in nuclear weapons research or development. And this is despite repeated requests by the IAEA for information. That is why the IAEA has repeatedly referred the case back to the UNSC who have, in turn, issued sanctions against Iran.
There was no reason to stop Hitler in 1933. He SHOULD have been stopped when he put troops in the Rhineland, which was an forbidden under the Treaty of Versailles. The analogy makes no sense because Obama's not offering Iran (or any other 'Rogue' state) another state's land in exchange for peace and because Iran isn't preparing for war.
For Iran to build nuclear weapons, it needs to refine the Uranium to a much higher level than it has already. It would also need to expel ALL the Russian technicians currently helping Iran in its civilian nuclear programme.
The analogy makes no sense because Obama's not offering Iran (or any other 'Rogue' state) another state's land in exchange for peace and because Iran isn't preparing for war. I can agree with the first part. I have problems with the second because that's what the IAEA and the Security Council have been asking Iran to verify. Also, notice that I said "parallel" not "analogy".
Shafiq, my understanding is that, once Iran has mastererd the enrichment process (which I believe they already have, it is a small matter to enrich to weapons grade. Regarding the Russian technicians, they are only at one site: the reactor that Iran purchased from Russia which could be used for plutonium production. Iran has numerous sites around the country, including the centrifuges in Nantanz, which are used for enrichment of uranium.
I know it sounds disconcerting to the ears, but think about the choice to be made if an Israel strike force starts over Iraqi airspace, for which we are legally responsible. It is either shoot them down or start a war that will be disastrous for the United States and the world. It would destabilize, almost certainly not to the point of toppling, many 'friendly' authoritarian Muslim governments. The long-term damage would be non-trivial. The world would most certainly careen into a deep global depression which would foster anti-American extremism in many of our trading partners. Plus, Iran can fight back. They haven't been crippled by devastating sanctions like Iraq was. They have a formidable military which, while it is unlikely to 'defeat' us, could cut off the flow of oil through the Straight of Hormuz. We have troops in Afghanistan that depend almost entirely on supplies shipped through Pakistan. How much would they be destabilized? Our troops in Iraq are spread out and trained for counter-insurgency. Of course they could regroup, but the hard-edge of conventional warfare training like large-scale maneuvers that takes months to optimize would be absent, unlike our preparation for the invasion of Iraq. Plus, the simple reality is that we simply do not have the force structure to defeat Iran. I am certain we could dominant their airspace and bomb at will, but is that going to make them surrender when the world economy is reeling? It would come down to political 'chicken', and Iran has the capability to make very many of our allies bitterly rue a decision to support us. Most foreign leadership aren't fools; they know the Iranian government is rational and conservative in its foreign policy. The Germans, Saudis, French, Indians, etc would rather Iran not have nuclear weapons, but it isn't remotely in their interest to merely delay Iran at the cost of devastating economic damage to their own countries. We would stand alone, except for the culprit who would primarily to blame for the conflagration, Israel. I think its possible that the Israelis would call our bluff and make the attempt. Pres. Obama would then have to choose between a bad option, shooting Israel aircraft down, or a horrendous option which would usher in an age of suffering like we haven't experienced since the Second World War. He's a smart man and I have no doubt he knows the consequences of decision he might have to make. I don't believe he would choose Israel over America when the stakes are that high. The American people would support the latter decision if he explained why he would have had to do it. That kind of sacrifice for Israel might be made for love, but not from fear, and the Lobby is feared, not loved.
Sorry Arik, but we will not go along with your insane notions of national security. You made your bed, now sleep in it. That's right, bubele!
. What a joke! The leader of the free world is a friggin public service announcement! Than don't take his money, you miserable little beggar and thief. Go your own goddam way and leave Americans alone. This is the bed you big tough Zionists wanted, now live in it, and enjoy it as best you can.
"American Jewish leaders failed to speak up in defense of their brethren during the dark days of World War II because they were intimidated by a popular American president." I do not think this is fair at all. Roosevelt hated Hitler and was eager to go to war against Germany, and the Jewish community certainly was on board with the idea. Liebler seems to overestimate the political power of American Jewish leaders in the late thirties, and furthermore it's not at all clear what he thinks American Jewish leaders should have done differently.
Obama is engaging with rogue states and attempting to appease Netanyahu. Israel's leadership, like Nazi Germany's, cannot be appeased, which is why the US should end all military and financial aid to Israel immediately, and begin prosecuting American combatant/settlers in the occupied territories.
Be prepared for retaliation.
Reconcile yourself to this fact… Israel will become Gaza.
The "appeasement" meme is deliberate sleight-of-hand. No one is supposed to notice that it is Israel who demands appeasement.
Weiss must be on to something here. Cards and letters are pouring in from all sectors. Very lively blog. Some might even say "Hate speech!"
You quibble. At least you are honest enough in this instance to admit your initial BS in part. Did the USA aggregate intelligence report say Iran was not building military nukes? You want to change that assessment, hence I'm sure you were happy when Chas Freeman was ousted by AIPAC despite his credentials. Is Iran demanding a piece of another state, or a whole other state? Shouldn't a rational Iran be afraid of Israel, considering as you say that it's not important today how large an army a state has, but whether or not it has military nukes? Especially when Iran remembers the Shah, and what happened to Iraq? Seems to me Iran is the one that should be using the historical european appeasement model–the Palestinians are the ones given up by the mighty powers to appease the only nuclear state in the Middle East, and one backed by the only superpower–Israel.
My, my, my Mooser. We seem to have struck a nerver here. Chill out.
I love how the meme meme has spread through the community of reactionary Islamists and their former leftwing supporters.
And they got their latest gigantic dole while average Americans are in dire straits. What's the next lower level beyond "ingrates"? Arrogant ingrates?
Pres. Obama would then have to choose between a bad option, shooting Israel aircraft down, or a horrendous option which would usher in an age of suffering like we haven't experienced since the Second World War. He's a smart man and I have no doubt he knows the consequences of decision he might have to make. I still consider it a very unlikely scenario. Why? I think the IDF ultimately wont move without an OK from the US. It would be a limited strike scenario. The core of the discussion as I remember it over the last few years was mainly if Israel has the equipment for the task. It has been questioned occasionally. Over at Pat Lang's "web camp" the different scenarioes were discussed a while back. And this info led to an alert. Sounds like a plan … (Iran/Israel) The only hope is that the Iranians vote a reform candidate, vote for deescalation. Which is not really helped by Israel's constant war-drumming. But that may well be what it is all about. Force creates counterforce, even verbal one. This is an interesting link to an April 2006 paper: "Osirak Redux? Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities" by Whitney Raas and Austin Long. Obviously I am an absolute nitwit on military matters, but I am assuming there is much behind the scene maneuvering going on for quite some time now. Concerning Germany, I wonder if you are aware that the export restrictions and heightened controls towards Iran are up for quite some time now. The exports are on a downward spiral already. This is not unimportant for a country that lives quite a bit on its export surplus. Here is an Honesty in Reporting article carefully watching the development. You have to scroll down for the English original version. After a while it feels like meeting big brother watching all these activities. And never forget Angela Merkel, had she been chancellor then already, would have supported Bush's Iraq war. Let's wait and see and pray it won't happen. But honestly I doubt that anyone in the Western hemisphere, and surely not the US would ever shoot down Israeli aircraft.
Yeah, we will wash our hands of you like you were pig flue unless you start showing some gratitude and live up to your responsibilities as the recipient of Uncle Sam's "special relationship" bennies. For once, think of somebody besides yourself, Oh Israel.
Bingo! As usual, the hasbara crowd has turned reality on its head.
This same point was made today by Citizen on a different thread. Think about it folks.
JES49 my specialist mentor on military and intelligence matters once mentioned that the Israelis have no direct and own information on Iran. They only get the infos via other intelligence agencies. But what do you think this means in the larger context. There is absolutely no doubt that the risk for Israel is higher, but the heavy war-drumming from Israel and hawkish pro-Israel forces seem to suggest something else to me: a) utter distrust on the side of Israel of it's US and Western partners. b) different interests? You can add whatever comes to your mind. It somehow reminds me of the Office of Special Plan the same larger mental scenario a) distrust in the American intelligence services b) politicizing and cherrypicking up to the point of forging evidence to make the case.
Ooops, what is this? who complained about me? Your comment must be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly.
Pray Iran shoots Israeli aircraft, that is in Iranian airspace, down. Better yet, the US should provide Iran with the arms to do it, and with intelligence about the Israeli aircraft if Israel should launch an attack. There is no reason the US cannot defend Iran as vigorously and as generously as it defends Israel.
Here's the informed reality of an effective Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear capacities: "When all the analyses are done, there is only one military capable of the sustained widespread air operations required to eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons research program – the United States. Again, a diplomatic nightmare, but certainly a military possibility." http://francona.blogspot.com/2006/03/iran-israels... You think Obama will do this?
Unless Saudi Arabia or the USA allow Israeli refueling and use of their respective jurisdiction air space or ground refueling, Israeli does not have the capacity to seriously dent Iran nuke capabilities. Without refueling, Israeli (US made and given free) jets (none stealth) must give up lethal weight for greater range, thus defeating the strike purpose. Israel (AIPAC) needs to convince our whore government the USA should strike Iran. At present, Israel (AIPAC) rebranding is not up to the task in the aftermath of Lebanon & GAza & the US banking fiasco.
Well Citizen (or Thor, or Joachim, or JES50), in that case Iran has absolutely nothing to worry about. So, why all the handwringing and whining here?
So, let me see Lea, what you are saying is that, because those who headed up the "Office of Special Plans" were Jews (pricipally Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith) and pro-Israel, that Israel was behind this venture to get the US involved in a war with Iraq? But what about those who created the OSP: Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney? Personally, I don't buy the scenario whereby the "cunning Jews" pulled one over on these "dumb goyim", but that's what you seem to be saying. Let me be clear about something here. Sure the direct risks, both from Iraq and Iran, are greater for Israel than for the US. But they were or are infinetly greater for those countries in the immediate vicinity of Iraq and Iran – particlarly in the Persian Gulf. And so while the interests of Israel (direct threats to civilian populations and, possibly survival) are differenct that those of the US (primarily economic through Iraq or Iranian control of vast oil reserves) they did and do converge. Let's hope that neither of us have to experience this first hand.
Your understanding is completely in error. It is no "small matter" to go from 5% to 95%, nor can it be done with IAEA inspectors swarming all over your sites — should you even want to do it, and there is no evidence, except that stupid bogus laptop which has been kicking around for three years or so, that they do.
Thank you, Rowen. I see. And, if I may ask, on what information do you base this assertion?
Thanks.
It's based on the commonly accepted view, which you can very for yourself if you use your search engine.
Well Rowan, I went ahead and searched the Internet (even though, as of this writing, your suggestion has not been posted here). After five minutes or so, I was able to discover the following:
(Continued) According to the Guardian (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/25/cont... Iran was able to achieve 3.5% enrichment with only 164 centrifuges. However, "what worrie[d] the US is that, should the Iranians add more centrifuges, they may have the potential to enrich this fuel-grade uranium to weapons-grade uranium, which requires 80-90% uranium 235." Now according to the little monkey, "Iran …achieved a landmark, with 3,000 centrifuges fully working in its controversial uranium enrichment program" back in November 2007. (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/25/cont... Six months later, Iran announced that it was installing an additional 6,000 centrifuges with five times the capacity of the original 3,000 machines – bringing the total to 9,000. (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/25/cont... These had been installed by early this year, and Iran announced plans to bring their total cascade up to 50,000 centrifuges within five years. (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/25/cont...
And now, Rowan, I think it is time for you to admit that you are a big windbag and the reincarnation of Lord Haw Haw.
I still consider it a very unlikely scenario. I agree that is an unlikely scenario. My objective was to try to describe the choices and consequences if it did happen. I have no doubt multiple American intelligences groups are monitoring IDF movements. We would likely have some warning before they could get a strike force off the ground and in formation, with commensurate time for last minute diplomacy of the "We really, really mean it, back off" kind. I just think it would be careless on our part to assume that Israeli politicians, steeped in their lore of Arab=Nazi victimization, think and would respond like we do. Also, I think the dominance of the Lobby for so very many years has born a culture of self-righteous arrogance. Assessments of Israeli decision-making in my opinion should strive to be seen through their eyes and minds, not ours. Recent press reports indicate that they have been firmly told "no", but if they went ahead anyway it would be the ultimate call of a bluff. My point, probably not well-expressed, was that if they did call Pres. Obama's bluff, he would have only two choices and, as much as I can (and do) see him backing down to the Lobby in most circumstances, I can't see him siding with Israel if they diss him again when damage to America and the world would be so stark. Hopefully they have made the same assessment.
There has never been, in spite of vociferous lying by reactionary Islamists and their fellow treverlers, any evidence that Iran hasn't engaged in nuclear weapons research or development. Oh, that's rich, LOL, the old 'prove a negative' trick. How about …
There has never been, in spite of vociferous lying by reactionary colonial Zionists and their fellow travelers, any evidence that JES49 hasn't engaged in nuclear weapons research or development in his mother's basement.
Read the rest of what I wrote Colin: "And this is despite repeated requests by the IAEA for information. That is why the IAEA has repeatedly referred the case back to the UNSC who have, in turn, issued sanctions against Iran." The IAEA has typically, and repeatedly over the years come up against a brick wall when asking the Iranian authorities for information about their nuclear enrichment program, and has simply passed this on to the Security Council with the caveat that "we don't see any evidience of weapons production, because they won't give us answers".
So, let me see Lea, what you are saying is that, because those who headed up the "Office of Special Plans" were Jews (pricipally Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith) and pro-Israel, that Israel was behind this venture to get the US involved in a war with Iraq? But what about those who created the OSP: Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney? Personally, I don't buy the scenario whereby the "cunning Jews" pulled one over on these "dumb goyim", but that's what you seem to be saying. Lock, unfortunately sometimes the debate get's too intense for me. But a basic answer to the above. I consider both "the" cunning and the superiorly smart "Jew" a myth. And no, that doesn't mean, I don't enjoy reading and often read smart Jews. ;) Neither do I think the "stovepiping" (Seymour Hersh) intelligence scenario necessarily relies on the Jewish-string-puller-theory. Quite the opposite. But the above people you mention were especially good prepared to offer a solution at the time, because they had much more experience through earlier studies and in connection with Israel had studied terrorism surely more than others had. The basic idea, that I think convinced everybody was: we need try out the money sources for terrorism. It sounds convincing. I find it convincing on the surface myself. Combine this with the fact that they wanted to get rid of Saddam for quite some time already, and 911 provided the casus belli. Now all that was needed was to connect Saddam with it. And that surely was agreed on much beyond the "neocon" circles. (Didn't Cheney sign the PNAC papers, was connected to the larger thought factory at the time AEI that supported WWIII/IV.) The problem we have Saddam was only the start in this scenario. Syria and Iran were soon to follow. That's why we are left with Iran now. It had been the much stronger enemy from the start but was relegated to a second or third place since Saddam was rightly considered much weaker.
What puzzles me is that Israel keeps pushing it so openly for the next war now. After the whole world witnessed the above scenario. Basically this supports the Israel-Interest-theory behind the WWIII/IV, and they don't seem to bother about this. Strange.
As a Czech/Czechoslovak guy, I must say that the analogy makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, I do hope that people have learned something and Israel may be relatively stronger than Czechoslovakia used to be against Germany – both because of its own technologies and army, and because of its international links. In 1938 and 1939, our Czechoslovak military system was powerful enough to protect us for weeks, to wait for allies, the vehicles were among the world's most advanced ones, the fortification system was superb – but the country obviously wasn't powerful enough to beat Germany. That's where the treaties with France – and less directly Britain – showed their importance. Unfortunately, our allies sucked, being controlled by low-quality pro-appeasement politicians until the very war. These were times when even a highly democratic country such as ours had to turn our hopes to a totalitarian communist country that shared some DNA and higher courage to resist Nazism, and the help by the Soviets was one of the crucial events that simplified the birth of communist in Czechoslovakia after the war. All these things were bad. Israel will hopefully do better.
what was it the jews called the nazi collaborators? what a state to be in for the chosen frozen.