Husband of ‘NYT’ Jerusalem correspondent calls for attack on Iran

on 30 Comments

When does the Caesar’s wife standard kick in? When do warlike statements from Israeli Hirsh Goodman, who is married to Isabel Kershner, a New York Times Jerusalem correspondent, become too much for the Times to bear? When do those pronouncements affect the paper’s reputation for straightforward reporting? 

Not behaving like Caesar’s wife– Goodman last month called for Israel to wage an international “war” for its public image. Now he’s calling for war against Iran.

Notice the sloppy thinking– that Iran is threatening America with nukes, threatening a world war.

Daniel Nolan reports for the Spectator, a Hamilton, Canada, newspaper on a speech by Goodman on Thursday night at a local synagogue, sponsored by the United Jewish Appeal:

A prominent Israeli writer is advocating his nation attack Iran’s nuclear development facilities now because the risk is too great after that country builds nuclear weapons.

Hirsh Goodman doesn’t believe sanctions being pushed by Western nations will stop Iran and said something has to be done this year before Iran moves its nuclear work underground.

He said a nuclear Iran, along with a nuclear Pakistan, would plunge the world into “a new cold war, if not a hot one.”

“The minute Iran is nuclear, it’s a whole different game,” Goodman said Thursday night at the Beth Jacob Synagogue in west Hamilton.

“Not because they are going to blow up Israel. They’ve got missiles that can reach the east cost of America, but what happens if the ayatollah (Iran’s supreme leader) wakes up one morning and destroys the Saudi fields and the Kuwaiti oilfields and the West is left with no energy.”

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

30 Responses

  1. Annie Robbins
    February 11, 2012, 5:57 pm

    there’s no end to these neocons, no end.

  2. seafoid
    February 11, 2012, 6:16 pm

    ““The minute Iran is nuclear, it’s a whole different game,” Goodman said Thursday night at the Beth Jacob Synagogue in west Hamilton.”

    That’ll be the end of Israel’s wars in Lebanon. Organisations all over the world are adjusting to the realisation that what they did from the end of world war 2 to 2008 is no longer feasible and Israel is no different. Get with the program, schmucks.

  3. justicewillprevail
    February 11, 2012, 6:30 pm

    Absurd, stupid, hysterical, lying, irresponsible, muck-raking garbage. These people are lunatics who worship war and destruction and nurture ideological hatreds based on racist thinking.

    • seafoid
      February 11, 2012, 7:00 pm

      I think Iran is a war too far for Israel. They overestimate the support they have internationally. And technology had no effect on the war against the Taliban.

  4. Annie Robbins
    February 11, 2012, 6:33 pm

    how’s your winter holiday going phil? did you miss us and decide to resurface or do you have a ghost writer covering for you?

    never mind!

  5. Daniel Rich
    February 11, 2012, 6:56 pm

    Does anyone still read this rag?

  6. riyadh
    February 11, 2012, 8:24 pm

    “Not because they are going to blow up Israel. They’ve got missiles that can reach the east cost of America, but what happens if the ayatollah (Iran’s supreme leader) wakes up one morning and destroys the Saudi fields and the Kuwaiti oilfields and the West is left with no energy.”

    Actually Iran’s longest range operational missile is the Sejil-2, which only has a maximum range of 1200 miles. Unless Pangaea is about to reform, that is not capable of reaching America

    • Taxi
      February 12, 2012, 6:27 am

      Iran considers an israeli attack on it to be a usa/israel/saudi arabian attack. In an initial retaliatory response, Iran will bomb saudi arabia’s water reservoirs, effecting only saudi arabia, and not bomb saudi oilfields, whose destruction would devastate the world.

      But should the ‘west’ and the Arab GCC countries launch direct attacks on Iran thereafter, then all targets, including saudi oilfields, will become legitimate targets.

      An old-timer journalist, a specialist on Iran and Iraq, told me the above – his sources are from the inner circle of the Iranian military camp.

    • ritzl
      February 12, 2012, 5:12 pm

      Exactly. Plus there are land- and sea-based Aegis, boost phase intercept (the kind of missile defense that actually works) installations all along Iran’s western borders.

      These lies-put-forward-as-facts are too easy to refute, but are repeated ad nauseum. And accepted equally ad nauseum as “facts.”

      Kinda like the “Hezbollah has SCUD-Ds!!” of a few years ago. Complete BS.

  7. anonymouscomments
    February 11, 2012, 8:42 pm

    i am split on what the real centers of power, in israel (and the zionists abroad) really want out of this iran BS. many idiots really want a war, but they are raging fanatics and i think outside the real centers of power. of course, connected/powerful people also are foaming at the mouth and putting on the appearance that they want war, but given the expected fallout from such a war, it might be posturing.

    iran is contained, and not for lack of trying, it seems there is NO evidence for a covert weapons program. the 2007 and 2011 NIEs seem to confirm this, including recent top brass statements, including panetta and israeli officials. it seems plausible iran wants “breakout” capacity, but even such an ability to kick out the IAEA and run for a nuke is useless…. if iran ever took this path is it near 100% the US and israel would decimate them. hence, iran would never really “run for the nuke” anyways, which would take months if not more than a year. further, they clearly have sincere needs for a domestic nuclear power program and a nuclear research program, so it might be EXACTLY as it is stated to be…. a domestic nuclear program, monitored, and meant for civilian purposes (except maybe for the “breakout capacity” angle as well, but as stated, this angle is largely useless to iran, as you cannot imagine them ever taking it; israel would likely use nukes in the face of such as iranian move, well before iran could produce a nuke).

    so then it seems there are two main options, for the “saner” people at the helms of power.

    1) NO war is really in the offing. this is all political theater, and simply distracts from israeli crimes and israeli intransigence, all while uniting the israelis with fear, diverting them from increasing economic troubles, and consolidating the power of the israeli right wing. they just seek to contain and weaken iran, and promote internal power divisions.

    2) a US and/or israeli war is in the offing (if israel strikes, missiles would hit tel aviv, US assets would likely be hit, and the US would join w/in 48 hours due to US domestic “pressures”/AIPAC/NYTimes/etc.). but this war would have nothing to do with a supposed nuclear program in iran, as CLEAR paths are open to avoid an iranian nuke in the future, and it seems iran is not even interested in pursuing nukes as it would be national suicide.

    there would have to be some other reasons for the drive towards an insane (manufactured) war on iran. from the right wing israeli perspective it could include the following-

    a) the destruction of a regional power that could pose an increasingly viable conventional “threat” to israel, if left alone. iran would not pose an “existential threat”, as israel has nukes and would not be at risk from any iranian attack…. but simply an iran left to grow in stature would increase support for militant groups, and further frustrate israel in its expansionist endeavors. [this is likely similar to the reason why some zionists pushed for the destruction of iraq; i do not mean to finger zionists alone on iraq or iran, as the MIC, oil, and regional dominance BS geo-strategy also loom large- i think there are a lot of strange bedfellows in war, but each may play a key, indispensable role in the racket]

    b) pure right wing politics, whereby bibi and the hawks seek to consolidate power from sparking off conflicte. it would suck for israelis, but they do not care, as it cements their sick power over the populace. little insane, but hell, we know bibi.

    c) a regional conflagration could erupt, and perhaps the really right wing nutters seek this as a cover for a new phase of israeli expansionism/crimes. this could include ethnic cleansing, or perhaps a de facto unilateral annexation of much of the west bank. in real craziness, some nutters could even take out the al aqsa mosque. this is the dark mini WWIII scenario and though it seems improbable, i do not think this is impossible.
    however, the draw backs of option #2, an actual war, is that it may have little upside, and could prove utterly *disastrous* for israel on many fronts. directly from the war, israel would take some casualties, missiles would hit tel aviv, and it is unclear how much south lebanon and gaza would react. outside of taking casualties, the medium term global reaction seems *horrible*. israel will strain already strained relations with the west, and arab regimes may become openly hostile to israel. the relationship with the US may even be put in jeopardy, and would at least sour a great deal.

    basically it seems israel has very little to gain from a war on iran, even a US led war on iran, and yet could loose almost EVERYTHING. they could end as an undeniable rouge nation, with diminished support from the US (or retain continued US support, but the US would be in steep decline, and loose much of its value).

    maybe i am just rationalizing it cause it scares me soo much, but it seems unlikely israel would ever want an actual war.

    • Annie Robbins
      February 11, 2012, 9:10 pm

      they want to distract us so they can keep expanding. i’m not kidding, that’s the agenda. it’s greed. from the first meeting in the WH w/obama netanyahu used iran to stave off calls for reconciliation. look what happened when we invaded iraq, settlement construction went on overdrive.

      • anonymouscomments
        February 11, 2012, 11:47 pm

        Agreed that distraction is a main driving force from the Zionist side. But do u think they want it as a political theater distraction… or do they want the hot war distraction in the end (plus perhaps serious crimes committed in I/P during any regional escalation and war)?

        The war seems very unpredictable, and though they are good at capitalizing on disaster, perhaps especially war situations, Iran seems like a new level of risk, especially to Israel’s standing with the US (and even US Jewry).

      • Annie Robbins
        February 12, 2012, 11:23 am

        anony, have you read this:

        check out the very last paragraph of the 1992 article:

        “These experts add that Iran has so far to go and so little money to spend that its reinforced military force might be unable to do more than to deter aggression by its neighbors. They also blame the Israeli Government for fanning the recent alarm by portraying Iran as the most dangerous threat to both the region’s and Israel’s security.

        this has been going on for a long long time. the most powerful weapon (tool) israel wields, against both us and it’s own population, is the weapon of fear. look what happened when we invaded iraq, what did they do?

        In the case of the West Bank, the plan claims to create “territorial contiguity” in the region around Jenin, from which Israel will evacuate four settlements. This area will continue to be surrounded by Israeli-controlled checkpoints. Israel’s territorial objective for the remainder of the West Bank, in contrast, is defined as “transportation contiguity,” that is, connecting separate Palestinian enclaves by bridges, tunnels, and crossing points, all of which will continue to be controlled by Israeli forces.

        The western security barrier now under construction will follow the route approved by the government. An eastern barrier has never been approved. According to Sharon, there will “not [be] a fence being built there today, unless we need to. Here and there we will block access points to the Jordan Valley.”

        In the security realm, Israel intends to continue exercising exclusive control over Gaza’s “security envelope”–land and sea borders and preventing the construction or operation of sea ports and air ports–according to existing “arrangements” that are more restrictive than Oslo-era “agreements.” It also claims the right to initiate preemptive military operations and to limit Palestinian arms to those specified in existing (Oslo) agreements. Sharon is well aware that the contradiction implied by continuing Israeli control over Gaza’s frontiers puts his strategic objective at risk.

        Israel is currently considering a wide range of options regarding the disposition of settlement assets. These include the repatriation or destruction of moveable assets and the destruction of all buildings and infrastructure or their transfer, intact, in return for compensation, to Palestinians or a third party.

        The Bush Letter

        The April 14 letter from President Bush to Sharon signifies the extent to which U.S. policy has moved away from its earlier championship of negotiations and the road map as guides to Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy to a framework based on an Israeli-led approach excluding Palestinian, Arab, and international interlocutors from the decision-making core.

        The Bush letter also marks a conceptual change in the U.S. approach. It outlines Washington’s preferences on the relationship between borders and Israeli settlements that are not materially different from the compromises discussed in the Camp David-Taba talks. But unlike these “previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution,” Bush’s recent commitments were declared not in the context of final status negotiations between the parties, but in support of a unilateral, interim Israeli plan that may not materialize.

        oh, it materialized all right. israel tightened the noose (notice the plan to blockade gaza was already there in this 2004 report) and started implementing a plan to expand settlements and break up the west bank.

        israel pushed and pushed for that war and while it was going on they went into high gear. so now it’s iran, and it was iran in ’92. israel is expanding and the same settler fundies types (like Moshe Feiglin and his supporters) they do not recognize any kind of limitation to ‘eretz israel’ that stops at the jordan river, not at all. and what about lebanon? this growth has to be stopped and will not stop until we stop it. while we fight wars on israel’s behalf, they expand.

      • traintosiberia
        February 12, 2012, 12:41 pm

        Did not Bibi say something of similar nature during the anti-communist Chinese demonstration in 1990? He siad that Israel should have used the wolrd’s preoccupatiwith China to gobble up more palestinian and Lebanese territory.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 13, 2012, 12:48 am

        yes, i recall he did train

    • ritzl
      February 12, 2012, 5:43 pm

      Great comment. I knew I should have read further before posting similar, though condensed, version downthread. This posturing for war seems to have an agenda other than war.

      Perhaps it’s as Annie says, simply to fire up Israelis and mask continued Israeli assimilation. Perhaps to roll this admin given that it is so easily rolled. Perhaps all of the above, and/or something else.

  8. Duscany
    February 11, 2012, 11:19 pm

    “Not because they are going to blow up Israel. They’ve got missiles that can reach the east cost of America, but what happens if the ayatollah (Iran’s supreme leader) wakes up one morning and destroys the Saudi fields and the Kuwaiti oilfields and the West is left with no energy.”

    Has anyone told Obama about this? It sounds to me like a great argument for building the Keystone pipeline.

    • pabelmont
      February 12, 2012, 7:24 pm

      Sure! and should be ready (if it hadn’t already sprung a leak) in, what, 5, 10 years? Of course, iran’s bomb cannot be ready any sooner.

      But what wonderful sciFi, anyway! Imagine Iran blowing up all of Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities! How about, “let’s (USA) attack China because China might attack Saudi Arabia. And it’s already got nukes. Or India. or Pakistan. Aren’t they all crazy and thus all dangerous, and isn;’t out program to attack people just because we deem them crazy and dangerous — without regard to likelihoods?

      Hey! what happens if Iran wakes up and formally sells all its oil ONLY for non-dollars and the other oil-producers (or enough of them) follow suit? What if, instead of “blowing up Saudi Arabia, Iran blows up the dollar? (Or if S.A. does?)

  9. American
    February 11, 2012, 11:53 pm

    My list of Israel firsters is getting longer and longer. I am running out of legal pads.
    AIPAC says it has 100,000 members.
    Just how many Israel firsters are there?
    Shuld we count the christo whackos?

  10. Blake
    February 12, 2012, 8:16 am

    Will it get me banned if I say Israel should be dismantled? I am sick to death of hearing about these agent provocateurs who not only provoke and sh*tstir they are stealing ever more land and water resources from what is left of Palestine.

    • Charon
      February 12, 2012, 1:45 pm

      Israel is doing a great job of ‘dismantling’ themselves. The largest threat faced by Israel is not only the occupation, revisionist Zionists leaders, and the religious right, but the demographic reality within Israel proper. They can spin numbers all they want, but immigration has stabilized. More people are leaving than coming. Some are getting US citizenship out of fear (allegedly). And finally, there is that old (possibly true) urban legend about Arab Israelis having a higher birth rate than Jewish Israelis. It gets debunked and un-debunked all the time, don’t know what to believe. But about 1/4 of their population is not Jewish. Some may say “So what, 3/4 is a significant majority?” In the unlikely event that the occupation lasted a couple more decades, that would probably change.

      Israel would have to make some radical changes to prevent this. Attempt to create conditions to force diaspora Jews to emigrate from their home countries (not bloody likely). Another Nakba (not unlikely) or worse. Sterilization (which they have been accused of for Beta Israel IDF female soldiers via birth control, and also Egypt claimed hair products distributed by Mossad sterilized men). More likely they would re-draw their borders around majority-Arab populations. The dumb thing about this is they would ‘lose’ more Jews than live in the WB settlements. But I still think they have considered doing this, even if it creates Gaza-like isolated enclaves.

      Otherwise, the inevitable is demographically Israel cannot survive. Especially with the occupation where they are already a demographic minority East of the Jordan River. That’s without Palestinian refugees. They could also strip Arabs of citizenship. In fact, they have been doing that to a small degree. The Zionist cronies in Congress would praise any one of these solutions I’m sure, but internationally none of them would fly and if they even tried it would just cement their fate. Anyway you look at it, the dream of a Zionist and Jewish state is Palestine has no future. If they made their peace and weren’t so hostile to the neighbors, things would be different. It isn’t even too late to make their peace, they are just too stubborn to apologize or compromise.

      No need to worry about Iran or anything else. Zionism is dying and Israel demographically is finished. It’s just a matter of time.

  11. traintosiberia
    February 12, 2012, 10:26 am

    Why the heck do they go to Synagogue to hear this when they can do same sitting at home in front TV or drinking green tea at local resturant with a few other folks in front of permanently on FOX networks

  12. munro
    February 12, 2012, 11:30 am

    Anonymous Message To The State of Israel
    Text posted under video.

  13. pabelmont
    February 12, 2012, 12:33 pm

    Assuming that calling for war is (or may be) a form of insanity, does NYT offer medical coverage to its reporters’ families which offers mental health coverage?

    Assuming that maintaining reportorial distance and impartiality — as I assume NYT at least formally requires of its reporters — is a requirement of Kershner’s job, does remaining married to a person who calls for propaganda contrary to reportable facts and who calls for war contrary to (USA’s) national interests constitute a wilful and knowing breach of job requirements or, as an alternative, constitute evidence of sufficient mental illness to trigger the NYT’s medical insurance’s mental health coverage?

  14. jaime1007
    February 12, 2012, 12:43 pm

    Amazing. No one word about PALESTINE ! Yes WWW III, Nuclear warheads, Cold War, this anachronistic Hitler, no, that other one etc…

    All those are nothing but cop-outs, no to mention the facts on the ground.

    Were we in the brink of destruction with communist Russia? It is that difficult to see how the narrative has been co-opted?

  15. Kathleen
    February 12, 2012, 1:03 pm

    “Notice the sloppy thinking– that Iran is threatening America with nukes, threatening a world war.”

    This is what is happening now the neo cons, Gingrich, Elliot Abrams repeating that Iran wants to attack the US. The other day on Washington Journal they referred to a poll taken asking Americans how many of them would support an attack on Iran. 48/49%. This is after the public has been hit by endless and unsubstantiated claims being repeated about Iran. If they take it up a notch and start repeating that Iran wants to attack the US they might just be able to tip the lets go get them scales over the 50% mark. The stage is being set

    • anonymouscomments
      February 12, 2012, 3:57 pm

      They can def get over 50% easy.  The only outstanding question is if the majority of elites in Israel and the US actually want this war.  It seems pretty insane, so I have my doubts.  But of course, Iran is a fairly closed system, and we have instigated enough by supporting terrorist acts in Iran…  So considering we have already risked provoking an Iranian response which would inevitably have led to war… War also seems fairly likely as the goal.

      The world, but especially the “West”, is run by insane people.

    • pabelmont
      February 12, 2012, 7:34 pm

      They don’t really need 50%.
      Who listens to the people, the 99%, anyway?
      I’d love to know what BIG-PHARMA, BIG-AGRI, and BIG-OIL say to the pols they control about new wars, national debt, etc. Do they see corporate taxes coming? Taxes for millionaires?

      Is there ANY oligarch in the USA’s panoply that opposes war (e.g., because it is costly or dangerous)? SOMETHING’s been holding Obama back from starting the war; is it just a matter of timing, or is there REAL opposition somewhere within the system?

  16. ritzl
    February 12, 2012, 5:28 pm

    There’s something weird going on with all this “Attack Iran!” stuff. And by weird I mean some cloaked, not-being-discerned and/or discussed motive for the clamor.

    It’s been pointed out, correctly, imho, that it’s nonsensical/stupid/insane to proclaim an intention like this if you’re actually going to do it. So what’s the real reason for all this public push for war? Competing trial balloons, in order to gauge [US] public support? Is Israel that sensitive and/or does it perceive itself to be that much on the bubble publicly and privately (a good thing) for doing this? Media muscle flexing (and to what end)? Trying to goad Iran into some stupid action?

    There’s something not right (less obvious) about all this jawboning. I don’t know what it is, but something’s going on in the background. Something political.

  17. anonymouscomments
    February 13, 2012, 12:58 am

    What does 2012 hold? Ask AIPAC, cause they will “ask” congress. Better yet, ask bibi, cause bibi will “ask” AIPAC to “ask” for what he wants…..

    BTW we should start a thread for people going to occupy AIPAC, and perhaps round the wagons at some point during the festivities. I should be there.

Leave a Reply