These two leaders are to meet March 5
Benjamin Netanyahu is coming to meet Barack Obama on Monday March 5, during the AIPAC conference. And it is a good question which leader feels he has more power in the encounter. It's an election year. Netanyahu will feel emboldened by all the Jewish "voters" he meets at AIPAC the day before.
"Netanyahu will ask Obama to threaten Iran strike," Barak Ravid reports in Haaretz.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to publicly harden his line against Iran during a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington on March 5, according to a senior Israeli official.
Israel wants Obama to make further-reaching declarations than the vague assertion that "all options are on the table," the official said. In particular, Netanyahu wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain "red lines," said the official; Israel feels this will increase pressure on Iran by making clear that there exists a real U.S. threat.
Jerry Haber says this thinking is nuts, and that he'd rather live with a bomb than have anyone pursue such aggression:
Iran is an enemy of the State of Israel, but it is not an existential threat to Israel, nor has it threatened Israel with nuclear destruction. But even it had, that would not be a legal or moral justification for an act of aggression against Iran – unless the possibility of an Iranian attack was imminent, and other non-violent diplomatic options had run their course. By diplomatic options, I do not mean sanctions, I mean negotiations, including multilateral negotiations that include Israel and Iranian pledges not to build nuclear weapons or to eliminate current stockpiles.
....[Iran] is doing what many other countries have done in the past – develop[ing] nuclear energy, and even a nuclear weapon capability. Why should there be one law for North Korea and Pakistan, and another for Iran? Why should Israel reserve the right to prevent any Arab country from going nuclear, or from joining a nuclear-free zone?
The Jews I know seem to be divided between those who support sanctions and those who support military action. Maybe I hang out with the wrong crowd. I support neither. The drums of war have started again, and the madness should be stopped now. If either Israel (or its proxy, the US) attacks Iran, it will be difficult for any moral person to defend the right of such a rogue state to exist.
wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain “red lines,”
the whole focus of the aipac conference this year will be the new red line: A proposed Senate resolution. from the forward:
“centerpiece” is to shift the red line. no doubt all the senate members will jump on board to please their….
Tell me Annie do you want Iranians to achieve Nuclear weapons ?
Do you think it’s a good idea ?
Do you genuinely believe that they are not trying to create such weapons ?
I am serious here it’s interesting what goes in your mind on this issue.
Well, I can’t speak for annie, but I’ll take a crack at it.
1) I want no state to have nuclear weapons. And if one state has them, that state has no basis, in my opinion, of saying that some other state cannot have them. And if them possessing the weapon prevents a general war between Iran, Israel and the US (or some combination thereof), and if the weapon was not used, then it is a very strong argument in favor of them having it.
2) Good for whom?
For the Iranians? If they believe it is necessary to enjoy the benefits which have accrued to, for example, North Korea, as opposed to suffering the fate of, for example, Iraq, then yes, it would be an absolute unequivocal good.
For the Israelis? No. But it wouldn’t be the end of the world. It would merely limit their actions. If that forced them to deal with their problems diplomatically, rathar than as mad dogs, as has been their habit, then it could actually be good for them.
For the US? Yes. If the US were faced with not getting its way in the world, this bankrupt collosus might be forced to revamp how it approaches the rest of the world, learn proper humility, and stop acting like it is destined to rule over all.
3) I believe they would like the world not to know. They are, essentially, taking a page out of the Israeli playbook of not saying either way. I think they want the capabilities. They don’t need the actual weapons, themselves, if they have the capabilities.
Ok fair enough.
/And if them possessing the weapon prevents a general war between Iran, Israel and the US (or some combination thereof), and if the weapon was not used, then it is a very strong argument in favor of them having it./
That’s a lot of ifs when we are talking about weapons of mass destruction.
What if it does and the war get’s nuclear what then?
/ Good for whom?
For the Iranians? If they believe it is necessary to enjoy the benefits which have accrued to, for example, North Korea, as opposed to suffering the fate of, for example, Iraq, then yes, it would be an absolute unequivocal good./
You should probably have said the Iranian regime.
Are you sure it’s a good thing North Korea has those weapons?
You have noticed that they routinely use them to blackmail the surrounding
countries and the US while keeping their people living in a real Orwellian society.
How about you forget Israel and US for a second and think about Iran.
Knowing what you probably know about the regime, it’s rhetoric ,
it’s regional aspirations, it’s treatment of women, sexual minorities it’s stand on the human rights issues and so own.
Is it a good idea to let such a regime acquire nukes?
“That’s a lot of ifs when we are talking about weapons of mass destruction.
What if it does and the war get’s nuclear what then?”
Then that war is fought, as per your assumed premise. But it’s a stupid premise. You might as well ask “If a race of space alien comes down and attacks Iran, what then???” It’s a stupid premise because what state is stupid enough to attack a nuclear armed state with nuclear weapons?? That’s kind of the point of having them.
“You should probably have said the Iranian regime.”
I’m sure there are many dead Iraqis who might take issue with that point, had they not been shocked and awed into an early grave.
“Are you sure it’s a good thing North Korea has those weapons?”
As opposed to what? Being
invadedliberated by the US?“You have noticed that they routinely use them to blackmail the surrounding
countries and the US while keeping their people living in a real Orwellian society.”
Yes, they are bad actors. That’s not really the point. If their goal is to not be invaded, then having the weapon is good for them. Would the plight of the ordinary North Korean be different if they did not have the weapon? Would it give them any more power? If not, then the fact that they won’t be invaded by the US and killed in that war would be a plus for them, regardless of how horrific their government is. (and in all of these discussions, you must consider not only the North Koreans, but the hundreds of thousands of South Koreans who would be killed in the first few minutes of any war on North Korea by the US. Seoul would be turned into a burning husk by the convential weapons trained on it. But, oh!!! The North Koreans blackmail the US into giving them grain. Well, what’s a few hundred thousand lives compared to ill-gotten grain!??!?)
“How about you forget Israel and US for a second and think about Iran.”
We already covered this.
“Knowing what you probably know about the regime, it’s rhetoric ,
it’s regional aspirations, it’s treatment of women, sexual minorities it’s stand on the human rights issues and so own.”
Okay.
“Is it a good idea to let such a regime acquire nukes?”
Again, good idea for whom? Only an unthinking moron would throw out “good thing” out there as if there is some platonic or objective measurement of “good” that we can all whip out and measure things against. It doesn’t work that way.
Is it good for the Iranian government? Yes, absolutely. It will keep its two biggest existential threats at bay and prevent it from being wantonly attacked or invaded.
Is it good for the Iranian people? In part, yes. If the acquisition of the weapons keep them and their people from being slaughtered in an attack by the USIsraeli forces. Could it impede the long term internal dynamic seeking to reform or replace the government of their state? Yes. But the absence of the weapon could also have that same effect. A massive assault by the USIsraeli forces could bind the populace to the regime, as has happened in countless other nations in history.
@ Woody Tanaka
Q: for example, North Korea,
R: North Korea does not have nuclear bombs. North Korea detonated a huge amount of explosives in an underground whatever it was. The first registered detonation was so low, nobody in their right mind believed it to be ‘atomic.’ Add to this the huge above-ground explosion of one or more trains in NK, and I guess everyone gets the picture.
link to news.bbc.co.uk
link to en.wikipedia.org
It won’t. Nukes are useless and impractical.
But this question reveals your real concern. If a war goes nukes, you want to be sure that only Israel has them so that Israel is spared, even if the other states are not.
Have they been attacked or invaded?
What regional aspirations Oleg? They have not invaded or attacked anyone in 270 years. What are they waitign for?
As for their treatment of women, sexual minorities, as we to believe that bombign the country will improve the plight of those groups?
Speaking of rhetoric, Netentyahu recently proclaimed “Death to all Arabs”. Doesn’t that put him in the same league as Iran’s leaders? Is it therefore a good idea to let such a regime is allowed to have nukes?
>> You have noticed that [North Korea] routinely use[s the fact that it possesses nuclear weapons] to blackmail the surrounding countries and the US while keeping their people living in a real Orwellian society.
Israel has nukes, too, but it prefers routinely to use the Holocaust to blackmail the surrounding countries and the US while keeping their people living in a real Orwellian society.
Seems to work quite nicely. :-)
speaking of blackmail have you read the new sullivan thread ?
To Annie.
I seriously think that you guys way overestimate the influence of
Israel/AIPAC on US policy.
Personally i hope you are right in your paranoia.
But i seriously doubt it.
The United States has only it’s own interests in mind
nobody else’s.Always has always will.
Actually, Eljay, Israel routinely uses it’s nukes for blackmail.
During the 1973′s Yom Kippur War Israel was almost overwhelmed by Arab forces. Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert, ordering 13 atomic bombs be prepared for missiles and aircraft. Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Simha Dinitz threatened “very serious conclusions” if there was not an immediate airlift of supplies.[9] This forced U.S. President Richard Nixon to make emergency airlifts of state of the art military supplies to Israel.[10][11]
Seymour Hersh documents in detail in his book The Samson Option, which describes Israel’s strategy of massive nuclear retaliation against “enemy” nations should its existence as a Jewish state be jeopardized through military attack. Israeli leaders created the term in the mid-1960s, inspired by the Biblical figure Samson, who destroyed a Philistine temple, killing himself and thousands of Philistine enemies. [1][2]
The nuclear blackmail was used by Israel to prevent the SOciets intervening militarily on behalf of Arab nations.[13] Obviously an Israeli nuclear attack on Russia by the United States’ great ally Israel would result in Russia sending thousands of nuclear weapons towards the U.S. and the U.S. responding in kind.
Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, said “If left to its own Israel will have no choice but to fall back on a riskier defense which will endanger itself and the world at large… To enable Israel to abstain from dependence on nuclear arms calls for $2 to 3 billion per year in U.S. aid.”[17]
Ariel Sharon said things like “We are much more important than (Americans) think. We can take the middle east with us whenever we go” [19] and “Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches.”[20]
Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres has admitted that nuclear weapons are used by Israel for “compellent purposes” – i.e., forcing others to accept Israeli political demands.[28] In 1998 Peres was quoted as saying, “We have built a nuclear option, not in order to have a Hiroshima, but to have an Oslo,” referring to imposing a settlement on the Palestinians.[29]
Israeli Israel Shahak wrote in 1997: “Israel clearly prepares itself to seek overtly a hegemony over the entire Middle East…without hesitating to use for the purpose all means available, including nuclear ones.”[33] Zeev Schiff opined in 1998 that “Off-the-cuff Israeli nuclear threats have become a problem.”[34] In 2003 David Hirst noted that “The threatening of wild, irrational violence, in response to political pressure, has been an Israeli impulse from the very earliest days” and called Israel a candidate for “the role of ‘nuclear-crazy’ state.”[35]
And as Martin Van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said: “Most European capitals are targets for our air force….We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.” [38]
So as you can see Eljay, Israel has used it’s nukes gratuitously for blackmail.
Netanyahu wants very much to get rid of Obama. One way to do that is to continually threaten war with Iran. The oil markets go nuts. Gasoline in the US goes to five or six dollars a gallon (it’s already over $4.50 a gallon here in LA due to war anxiety). The voter blame Obama and a war-mad Republican wins the presidency.
Santorum has already said he would happily bomb Iran. If he wins, his first act as president will be to coordinate with Israel a joint attack on any supposed Iranian nuclear sites (and anything else as well).
If we go to war with Iran, this current recession will last another generation, a prospect which apparently doesn’t even make the Republican presidential hopefuls blink (nor congress either).
I don’t know what it is about our congress and politicians. Apparently they have decided that since there’s nothing they can do about our miserable economy they might as well go bomb someone instead.
Question for Shingo:
….Speaking of rhetoric, Netentyahu recently proclaimed “Death to all Arabs”….
Did he, really? Is this an authentic quotation?
If yes, can you give a reference for this, please.
I’d appreciate, thanks.
>> So as you can see Eljay, Israel has used it’s nukes gratuitously for blackmail.
I appreciate the info., but my point wasn’t that Israel hasn’t used or never uses its nukes for blackmail, it was that it prefers to use the Holocaust for blackmail.
I’m willing to bet that the # of times Israel has used the Holocaust for blackmail far outstrips the # of times it has used its nuclear capability for that purpose.
For the record Netanyahu did not say ‘Death to All Arabs’ – that message was posted by somebody else on his Facebook site.
And got how many “likes?”
Santorum has had the backing of major zionists since before he was married. For about 6 years Santorum’s now-wife lived with an abortion doctor who was part of the zionist network in Pittsburgh PA.
what zionists are doing is brilliant in a sick way. As Chris Hedges says in some of his speeches, Obama was/is a Brand.
The Obama Brand appealed to the Black vote, and weren’t we all pleased as punch with ourselves that We, the exceptional American people, elected a Black brand.
The same advertising gimmick may not work twice; gotta roll out a new Brand to target a different market — Catholics & evangelicals all rolled into one. Santorum has been shaped and nurtured for years; now its time to roll out the product.
Political leaders are not statesmen they’re products, and voting has become commodified.
But then, Medical care is a commodity, no longer a healing art.
Clash of civilizations.
@ OlegR,
If my grams would’ve had four wheels and an engine…, she would’ve been a car…
OlegR, do you think Iran is a theocratic state?
If Iran is a theocratic state, the theocrat is Supreme Leader Khamenei.
Stephen M. Walt: Using religion to restrain Iran’s nuclear program:
lysias, he reasserted that last week.
link to moonofalabama.org
They have an interesting internal power struggle going on right now
but the last say is still in the hand of Ayatollah Khamenei.
Their constitution states :
Article 1 (Form of Government)
states that the form of Government in Iran is that of an Islamic Republic. It explains this form is due to the referendum passed by 98% of the eligible voters of Iran and gives credit to Imam Khomeini for the victorious revolution.
Article 2 defined an Islamic Republic as a system based on the belief:
There is only one God.
Understanding God’s divine nature is fundamental in setting laws
Human beings return to God after death.
God is just.
Leadership shall continue the revolution of Islam.
I think that pretty much answers the question.
Fatwas can be changed Annie
There is a binding rule that saves the fatwā pronouncements from creating judicial havoc, whether within a Muslim country or at the level of the Islamic world in general: it is unanimously agreed that a fatwā is only binding on its author. This was underlined by Sheikh Abdul Mohsen Al-Obeikan, vice-minister of Justice of Saudi Arabia, in an interview with the Arabic daily Asharq Al-Awsat, as recently as on July 9, 2006, in a discussion of the legal value of a fatwā by the Islamic Fiqh Academy (IFA) on the subject of misyar marriage, which had been rendered by IFA on April 12, 2006.[4] He said, “Even the decisions of the official Ifta authority [the official Saudi fatwā institute] is binding on no one, whether for the people or the state.”
Still, sometimes, even leading religious authorities and theologians misleadingly present their fatwā as obligatory,[5] or try to adopt some “in-between” position.
Thus, the Sheikh of al-Azhar in Cairo, Muhammad Sayid Tantawy, who is the leading religious authority in the Sunni Muslim establishment in Egypt, alongside the Grand Mufti of Egypt, said the following about fatwās issued by himself or the entire Dar al-Ifta:
“Fatwā issued by Al-Azhar are not binding, but they are not just whistling in the wind either; individuals are free to accept them, but Islam recognizes that extenuating circumstances may prevent it. For example, it is the right of Muslims in France who object to the law banning the veil to bring it up to the legislative and judicial authorities. If the judiciary decides in favor of the government because the country is secular, they would be considered to be Muslim individuals acting under compelling circumstances.” Otherwise, in his view, they would be expected to adhere to the fatwā.[6]
“Fatwas can be changed Annie”
So, in other words, per OlegR, you just can’t trust a Muslim.
thank you lysias; you made my point.
If your objection to Iran is that it is run as a theocracy, then you must take cognizance of the fact that the ‘theocratic’ leader has issued a religious injunction against the development of nuclear weapons.
you can’t have it both ways.
zio’s: It’s a Theocracy!
rational person: yea, and they said nukes go against god
zio’s: they don’t mean it, they’re lying!!
Which one is it?
In politics you can’t trust anyone Woody or did you thought otherwise?
And the US could turn around tomorriow and declare Israel a a threat to it’s existence and decide to nuke it. The King’s Tporah could become law in Israel. Anything is possible, the reality is that Iran’s superme leader stated that nukes are imcompatible with Islam, so it’s more than a tempoarty fatwa.
Are ther e any other non sequitirs you’d like to add?
Shiah Islam is much more hierarchical than Sunni. A fatwa by a leading Ayatollah who also happens to be the Supreme Leader of Iran has a lot more force for a Shiah Iranian than a fatwa from Al Azhar would have for a Sunni Arab.
We shell have to wait and see shingo.
I certainly won’t be disappointed if you were right about it.
Indeed, Iran and USrael truly are engaged in a clash of civilizations — Iran is the civilized one and has a civilization stretching back 4000 years. US = a 400 year history that started with ethnic cleansing and has had peaks and valleys but has descended into Dante’s Inferno since about 1898. Israel — almost a century of barbarity.
“In politics you can’t trust anyone Woody or did you thought otherwise?”
But your objection was not based on considerations of politics, it was based on considerations of religioun. You saying that Khamenei can’t be trusted because he is a politician makes you banal. You saying that Khamenei can’t be trusted because “[f]atwas can be changed” makes you a bigot.
Good point Woody, and his belief that Iran cannot be trusted with nukes was not based on his opinion of Tehran’s politics, but their religious extremism.
Back in 2006 the Iranian regime issued a fatwa that applauded the use of nuclear weapons. Today their fatwa stands against. This sounds very much like political expediency and probably can’t be trusted. The fatwa against the wearing of neck ties is the one we really have to worry about.
“Back in 2006 the Iranian regime issued a fatwa that applauded the use of nuclear weapons.”
My recollection was that one cleric who follows Mesbah Yazdi said it. How does that become “the Iranian regime”?
“Today their fatwa stands against. This sounds very much like political expediency and probably can’t be trusted.”
Or it is factually untrue.
Would it be OK if we only tolerated Zionists for whom insanely racist lies just gushed forth every time they speak about other people?
False. The only person with the authority to speak on behalf if the Ieanian regime is the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Quoting some obscure cleric with no authority is like citing Avigdor Lieberman (before he became FM) as a spokesman for Israel.
So unless you can produce any such statement from him supporting the use of nukes, you are lying.
OlegR
Judging after your name, you are an immigrant from Russia to Israel.
I ask you the following:
Does Russia have nuclear weapons?
Does Israel have such weapons?
They both have and never used them, so why do you think Iran would attack Israel if or when they have it?
With the belligerence of Israel in the ME it is important for Iran to have a good deterrent and what is better than a A-bomb?
No country is stupid to attack another with such a weapon, so it is a peace maker. Or do you think Israel can have it, but no other nation in the area?
/They both have and never used them, so why do you think Iran would attack Israel if or when they have it?/
I doubt it that they will but the implications on the region will be tremendous
a new MAD doctrine will have to be established.
A nuclear arms race will begin when neighboring stated such as Turkey
and South Arabia which are the main contenders with Iran over influence
in the region will launch their own programs.
/With the belligerence of Israel in the ME it is important for Iran to have a good deterrent and what is better than a A-bomb?/
Israel has no interest in Iran. You are forgetting that the 2 states had a very
good relationship before the Islamic revolution.
Iran’s main business is with his neighbors.If it had not chosen
to make himself in Israels enemy i doubt we would have cared about it’s
nuclear program.Just like we don’t really care about Pakistan’s.
“I doubt it that they will but the implications on the region will be tremendous
a new MAD doctrine will have to be established.
A nuclear arms race will begin when neighboring stated such as Turkey
and South Arabia which are the main contenders with Iran over influence
in the region will launch their own programs.”
a fatuous claim.
1. US is already selling conventional weapons by the boatload to Saudi Arabia. Israel and the US have already created several lifetimes worth chaos and misery in the Middle East with only conventional weapons. The notion that “Iran with a nuclear weapon” will set up a domino effect is just as bogus as the ‘domino theory’ that propelled US to invade Viet Nam to “keep the whole region from falling into communist hands.”
2. If the US and international community are so concerned about stopping the mere hint of nuclear proliferation in the region, why did the Bush administration approve, and the Obama administration ratify, a nuclear energy program for United Arab Emirates, which had previously done business with A Q Khan? US corporation Westinghouse is participating in a project to build a nuclear plant 100 mile across the Persian Gulf from Iran, which a South Korean company is building. The project was most likely a gift from US to S Korea in exchange for SK voting the right way on certain issues. It is also, obviously, an economic boon to S Korea and US Westinghouse. UAE has oil, but it wishes to save its oil resources to generate revenue, and needs massive amounts of energy to fuel its over-the-top luxurious life style — indoor ski slopes anyone?
The Arab states are not afraid of Iran. As this report indicates, they are confused by the United States stance that is attempting to put a wedge between the Arabs and Iran.
re your second point, that Israel does not care about Iran. I find that very hard to believe. When Israel and Iran were ‘friends,’ if Ronen Bergman is to be believed, Israel used Iran the way a pimp uses a prostitute — in exchange for fancy clothes (weapons from Israel for Iran and SAVAK, trained by Mossad), Israel had access to Iran’s deepest secrets (intelligence — Israelis crave information) and access to Iran’s treasury to generate streams of revenue to Israel.
Generating revenue for Israel was what Iran stood for then, and that is what Iran means to Israel now — the Sampson option is not a moment in time, it is a world view: If Israel cannot control a nation, it destroys it.
A nuclear arms race will begin when neighboring stated such as Turkey and South Arabia which are the main contenders with Iran over influence
in the region will launch their own programs.
Israle already started the arms race. The problem with Irael is that they hate for anyone else to be able to compete in it.
Israel tends to have very good relationships with US sponsored tyrants and dictators.
Which it contionues to maintain as enermies, in spite of he Arab Peace Initiative, which offers peace and mutual recognition.
they do not have a nuclear weapons program oleg. do i think iran should able to have nuclear power plants like lots of other countries? of course. do i think the US or israel should act as global bullies determining who can and cannot reach nuclear capability? no, of course not.
i do not like anyone having nuclear weapons. besides, serious people know Israel’s true fear re Iran is… balance of power. listen to the video of Danielle Pletka Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute . (not exactly a liberal think tank!)
get it? their worry is not iran using it. a better question to ask me is if i would like a shift in power in the ME away from US/IS hegemony. and to this i would say, definitely. as it is now israel deciding to carry out massacres as a means of deterrent while sustaining an apartheid state and ethnically cleansing the land is a dangerous and unsustainable situation, it’s much more threatening to the state of israel and people in the region that any threat posed by iran. plus, it’s not something we have to speculate about, it’s real and it’s been witnessed by everyone. so it’s a proven danger as opposed to any hypothesis.
the people who should decide the future of the middle east is the people from the middle east. there is no reason why the US or israel should be the deciding powers over the lives of everyone in the region. israel is an expansionist regional bully. i would advocate israel get rid of their nukes prior to demanding iran not be allowed to develop one of their own but that is here nor there becasue there’s simply no indication they are planning on building a weapons program. none. it’s merely speculation used to ramp up the fear and turn conversation to the inflammatory.
but considering israel does have nukes i think it is logical to assume a counterbalance to ensure the safety of those in the region would be iran also having them. it might silence this kind of thought and speech. israel and their radical supporters are the ones who need a leash, not iran. iran has not invaded any country is centuries. i do not fear them unless we invaded them, then i would fear them for they are not going to roll over. they would surely fight back just as we would if someone invaded us. it’s those preemption freaks i fear the most and iran, unlike US/israel, has no history of preemption.
There is no hard evidence to back up Israels claims that Iran is pursuing or has a nuclear weapons program. No hard evidence.
Iran has the right to enrich uranium up to 20% for peaceful purposes as signatories of the NPT.
Israel should be pressured to sign the NPT. Their stockpiles of un inspected nuclear, biological and chemical weapons have been a threat to peace in the middle east for decades.
[PDF]
Israeli Nuclear Capabilities and Threatwww.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC50/…/English/gc50-17_en.pdfSimilar
So basically your argument goes like this.
Israel and the US are worst then the Ayatollahs regime
therefore i will side with them and if turns out that they are building
nukes than it’s their business , after all i live far far away.
Ok.
Oleg — its real simple brother. If Iran had nuclear weapons and even spoke once of using them, the country would be toast – inside a minute. Enough with the “existential threat” nonsense.
If they fired conventional weapons at Israel – the israelis would prob retaliate with a nuclear weapon of some kind. So seriously, enough.
And if we are talking about number of lives taken – yes, israel and the us are worse than the ayatollahs, same with wars of aggression and general militarism. In fact, its not even close.
semper fidelis,
Dan
No Oleg, there are more options than that. The fact that I may not approve of the Iranian government does not mean I am willing to go to war or to support Israel if it decides to attack Iran.
Nice ad hominem. How about readin what Annie said, or does sticking to the truth make your job of creating a counter argument too difficult?
BTW. Did you find that evidence that Iran is producing nukes yet?
Hi Dan ,
/If Iran had nuclear weapons and even spoke once of using them, the country would be toast – inside a minute. Enough with the “existential threat” nonsense/.
The moment they get nukes that can be effectively deployed the regime becomes more or less immune the risks of an attack on them begins to outweigh the benefits .North Korea is a good example.
Like i stated before that is the main concern.
/If they fired conventional weapons at Israel – the israelis would prob retaliate with a nuclear weapon of some kind. So seriously, enough/
If there is a reliable MAD doctrine.
Even with that in place the world almost ended a few times during the Cold War.
I get it that people around here really don’t like the US and Israel.
But how from that they make the logical leap and claim that
Iran are the good guys in this story.
That it’s all lies and they don’t develop nukes.
That even if they do then it’s a good thing that this politically explosive region the middle east get’s to have it’s own Cold War style Nuclear confrontation.
How can this be a good thing?
Good to see the Marines.
Oleg.
Did i ever said that i think that US needs to go to war or
that Israel needs to attack Iran?
No i didn’t.
Why ?
Because i don’t think we need to reach that phase.
you heard the experts oleg, even the US and israel do not fear an attack from iran, they fear Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. it’s israel’s doctrine of invincibility that becomes threatened.
So basically your argument goes like this.
it’s really a compliment to me you are so incapable of making a rational argument to counter mine you resort to making up some words and pretend they represent something i said.
so basically ..touche!
I do so enjoy these little exchanges.
Anyway annie i got your point i of view
it’s seems awkward and irrational to me but that’s life.
my argument has much more evidence behind it — Israel was envisioned as violent, established on mendacious claims, established in violence, and appears to know only violence as a way of Being in the World. Israel has demonstrated time and again that its only protocol is violence.
Iran has been subjected to acts that have been described (by Gilbert Doctorow of Columbia Univ) as “existential threats,” that is, acts of war. Thus, Iran COULD legitimately engage in violent defense against acts of war on its people and sovereignty. Iran has not done so. Ayatollah Khamenei explains here WHY Iran has not done so.
In other words, were it not for the wisdom and character of Iran’s leadership and the long-suffering forbearance of the Iranian people, the region would be embroiled in war TODAY.
And yes, I would side with Iran any day. It pains me that my own country, the US, is behaving so badly.
There’s no evidence at all. Had there been any, Panetta would not have had the confidence to stare that the Iranians are not building nukes.
Like I said, you are on the same page as the Netenyahu government in this regard. You regard the possobility of Iran being immune to attack frm Israel as “the main concern”, becasue you want Israel to have hat option – while Israel coninues to enjoy immnity.
It just goes to prove that there is no such thing as a liberla Zionist.
False.
Not their behavior or their policies no. Most people don’t like empires, racism apartheid and colonialism.
It’s not about Iran being the good guys. If you are remotely concerned with facts and truth, then you would conclude Iran is not producing nukes and that the Israel’s push to attack Ian is based on lies and a false premise.
Do you support such wars Oleg?
It IS all lies. That’s why all 16 US intelligence agencies and the Mossad agree there are no nukes being produced by Iran.
Again, there was never a Cold War style Nuclear confrontation. Teh Cold War was notable becasue of the absecene of Nuclear confrontation.
How can that be worse than a war?
You said that Iranian immunity was the main problem, so clearly you suport an attack on Iran or at the very least, Israel having the option – that makes you somewhat of a scycopath.
Nor did you answer the qustion as to whether you think Israle having nukes is a good thing
No my argument is this based on facts. It is Israel who daily threatens Iran. It is Israel who continues to refuse to sign the Non proliferation treaty. Iran signed the NPT and there is absolutely no hard evidence to back up Israeli and the Israeli lobbies claim that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran has the right to enrich uranium up to 20% for peaceful purposes. Israel is the aggressor here…and they are trying their best to drag the US into another unnecessary military confrontation. That is my argument.
Oleg, Israel has 200 or more nuclear weapons and had not signed the NNPT. In addition, Israeli leaders have openly talked about the “Samson Option”. So the question I ask is “Should Israel have nuclear weapons?”
/“Should Israel have nuclear weapons?”/
No the question you should be asking is : Do i want to see
Cold War style Nuclear confrontation in the Middle East?
No the question you should be asking is
if only you could argue both sides! so much easier by telling others what to say.
No, I’m pretty sure we should be asking, “Can the rogue nuclear-armed power who’s used cluster bombs indiscriminately in Lebanon and Gaza, and who previously proliferated nuclear arms to apartheid South Africa, be trusted to not use nukes against populations who don’t have nuclear defenses?”
No it’s not the question he should be asking, it’s the question you prefer to answer. it’s no surprise that you haven’t the honesty to answer it.
The reason you want the question reframed is blatantly obvious. There was no nuclear confrontation during the Cold War, the reason being that both aides had nukes – and like the Likudniks in power, you can’t bear to see the Israelis hands tied.
The only time nukes were ever used was when the US was a nuclear hegemon and you simply want Israel to remain the sole nuclear power in the region.
You have quite a sick and sadistic mind.
Tell me Oleg, do you want to continue beating your wife? I have no evidence that you do, btu I just thought I’d ask.
Both the US and Israeli intelligence community agree Iran is not producing nukes. So what evidence do you have that they don’t which makes you so much more sure that they are?
I am serious here it’s interesting what goes in your mind on this issue. Because whatever it is, it is certainly not facts or evience.
Annie so glad you keep bringing people’s attention to this. Was thinking about how Israel refers to Palestinian land that they are stealing as Area’s A B C…as you pointed out the other day. So sterile. Trying to sterilize the fact that they are stealing internationally recognized Palestinian land
“At the request of some Democratic senators, a sentence was added to mention diplomatic efforts as a means of reaching the goal. Still, several key Democrats from the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees have yet to sign on.”
Yes remember when Senators like Hillary Clinton signed the Iraq war resolution then later tried to squirm out by saying the resolution said “all other means exhausted” When according to former IAEa weapons inspector Scott Ritter (inspector in Iraq during the Clinton administration) said that Clinton knew there were no WMD’s in Iraq. Keep in mind that IAEA weapons inspectors were pulled out of Iraq just a bit before the invasion. Not allowed to finish the inspections.
—————————————————-
Obama likely to resist pressure to further toughen Iran stance
The Israelis, along with GOP presidential hopefuls and senators and some hawkish Democrats, want Obama to keep Iran from potentially building a nuclear weapon.
At the LA Times
By Paul Richter and Christi Parsons, Los Angeles Times
February 28, 2012, 6:06 p.m.
Reporting from Washington— The White House indicated Tuesday that President Obama would resist pressure for a tougher Iran policy coming from Israel and some U.S. lawmakers who argue that Tehran should not be allowed to acquire even the capability to eventually develop a nuclear weapon.
The push to toughen the administration’s policy comes ahead of a visit to Washington by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As part of the war of nerves that the U.S. and Israel are conducting with Iran — and to some extent with each other — Netanyahu’s government has broadly hinted at using airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear sites should it determine that Tehran had developed the scientific knowledge and industrial means to build a nuclear bomb.
That is a lower threshold than the Obama administration’s so-called red line of preventing Iran from building a nuclear device. Senior Pentagon and intelligence officials have told Congress that it would take Iran several years to build a deliverable bomb, and that they don’t believe Iran’s leaders have decided to do so.
Call you Reps. We need to take the “likely” out of that equation. Call your Senators. No no no to this
Call your Reps no no no to Senate Resolution 380
Official Summary
2/16/2012–Introduced.Affirms that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and warns that time is limited to prevent that from happening. Urges increasing economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran to secure an agreement that includes:
(1) suspension of all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities,
(2) complete cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding Iran's nuclear activities, and
(3) a permanent agreement that verifiably assures that Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful. Supports:
(1) the universal rights and democratic aspirations of the Iranian people, and
(2) U.S. policy to prevent the Iranian government from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. Rejects any U.S. policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran. Urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and oppose any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.
IRAN HAS THE RIGHT TO ENRICH URANIUM UP TO 20% AS A SIGNATORY TO THE NPT. THEY WILL NOT GIVE UP THIS RIGHT TO ENRICH FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES.
THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO. INSANE DEMANDS
“centerpiece” is to shift the red line. no doubt all the senate members will jump on board to please their….”
say it aloud: ………. P A Y M A S T E R S
Anyone think this announcement that we got North Korea to stand down their nuclear weapons without going to war might have something to do with countering AIPAC and Netanyahu and their push for war? I do.
link to guardian.co.uk
The situation is growing ripe for a false-flag attack by Israel.
If there’s war, let us not be naive.
The Haaretz article provides evidence that Netanyahu has brain damage to the “Irony Centers” deep in his frontal cerebral cortex, since Netanyahu is reportedly quite upset about “U.S. interference in internal Israeli affairs.”
Right, cannot have a threat of a threat. Next year — may we all live to see it — Israel will be demanding a new shift in the “red line” so as to avoid the threat of a threat of a threat. Alice in Wonderland.
It is all part of a noxious practice, of the USA and Israel — the two lights unto the world, mind — each in its own sphere, to rework the laws of war so that an aggressive attack will be legitimized (under the law as so revised) if there is a hint of a breath of a threat (whereas a defensive war is supposed to be allowed only if there is an attack or maybe a threat of an attack.) Arming of itself cannot be a threat of an attack, because all the world is armed, more or less. Israel itself, rumor has it, is armed. And with WMD no less. A threat to all the world and a justification of endless war? I think not. Nor has Iran threatened or attacked Israel.
Jerry Haber has it right.
Offering the use of US bases for Israel to use in an attack on Iran certainly sounds like a proxy.
“U.S. intelligence and special operations officials have tried to keep a dialogue going with Israel despite the high-level impasse, offering options such as
allowing Israel to use U.S. bases in the region to launch such a strike,
as a way to make sure the Israelis give the Americans a heads-up, according to the U.S. official and a former U.S. official with knowledge of the communications.”
link to seattletimes.nwsource.com
Iran had better hurry up and develop a nuclear deterrent capability before nuclear-armed rogue nations like the U.S. and Israel cross their respective red lines and carry out their existential threats against it.
barry mcaffrey is giving talks to NBC execs saying Israel might “pre-emptively” use a nuclear weapon….. even if thats bullshit, the israeli’s certainly don’t mind people thinking that….what will the moral case for israel be if that happens?
@Dan Crowther,
Q: what will the moral case for israel be if that happens?
R: Given what has happened down there over the past 6 decades I’d say there no such thing left as ‘morals’ or the likes.
Agreed. I for one will refuse to hear any arguments about israel’s “right” to exist if they attack iran.
several participants on the Race for Iran blog are highly knowledgeable of the technicalities of the NPT agreement, its additional protocols, and who has power and authority to enforce it. Israel does NOT have authority to enforce any aspect of the NPT against ANY sovereign state, whether that state is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty or not. Nor does the US Congress have authority to enforce any provisions of the nonproliferation treaty.
It is very distressing that Netanyahu’s relationship with US lawmakers reaches back to ~1978, shortly after Bibi’s brother Yoni was killed in Entebbe, causing massive trauma to then-26 year old Bibi. Bibi ascribed his brother’s death to “terrorists,” and set up a conference in his brother’s name, dedicated to combating terrorism. George Shultz and G H W Bush participated in the conference. Bibi wrote a book about combatting terrorism which
a. is a piece of crap;
b. is the the blueprint for the rationale and so-called strategy behind the WOT and even identifies the same countries that Wesley Clarke said the Pentagon was planning to take out in the next five years, after Iraq; and
c. created in Bibi’s mind the notion that he is an “expert” on terrorism.
Iran’s revolution in 1979 was not precisely related to the “terrorism” that was the subject of Bibi’s ire — or that caused Yoni’s death in Entebbe, but Bibi conflated the two concepts in his mind, and he and Ephraim Sneh have been gunning for Iran ever since.
In a conference at Chatham House in London in Jan 2012, Danny Ayalon recited the same tired critique of the Iranian revolution in 1979 that Bibi laid out decades earlier. (as young parents we used to say that insanity runs in families — you get it from your kids. Israelis get it from their leaders.) We Americans have got to get past the belief imposed upon us by Israelis and AIPAC that they are the smartest people in the room — they are not; they may be the craziest, but there are scores of American policy analysts who are kept frozen behind Dershowitzian chill walls, afraid to speak for fear of losing their jobs, but who have far more wisdom and an American-centered perspective to the task.
Yoni died in the raid on Entebbe. He was the only IDF member killed, and he was shot at because he refused to heed the caution of a fellow IDF soldier not to challenge the Ugandan soldiers who had observed them — Yoni was told, twice, that the Ugandan’s were just shouting what they always shout and to ignore them; Yoni thought he knew better and opened fire. They returned fire, Yoni took a bullet, Ephraim Sneh, the IDF medical team leader, was unable to stop the bleeding, Yoni died. The entire mission was imperiled by Yoni’s brashness, but he has nevertheless become a mythic figure in the eyes of Bibi, and especially of Bibi’s father, the mad man Ben Zion Netanyahu, and all of Israel. The raid on Entebbe is memorialized on all its anniversaries. Only the then-19 year old Israeli Jew who was killed by IDF friendly fire is left out of the memorializations, much to his parents’ pain and anguish.
This is a bit of the psychological dynamic that plays in Bibi’s head when he thinks about Iran. His dead brother. His father, a whacked-out zionist,** super-mythologizing his lost son, and Bibi never able to achieve the same status as his dead brother in his father’s eyes. According to Amy Jill Levine, this theme of father vs older son vs younger son permeates the old testament stories. THAT is the world that zionists inhabit — Herzl concluded Der Judenstaat with the battle cry, “The Maccabees will live again.” (Phyllis Bennis said in an interview that when she started to learn about zionism, and read Herzl, she concluded he was a nut case and moved on. Herzl, like Bibi, was deeply traumatized by the death (from disease) of his sister, an event that shattered Herzl’s family and their hitherto idyllic life.)
It’s helpful to have some insight — even if it is armchair pscyhology — into What Makes Bibi Tick, so that we can unwind his clock. Recall that Elik El hanan’a said in this conference with Helena Cobban that “psychopaths look just like everybody else.” Some psychopaths also have the unfortunate ability to draw all around them into their personal madness. El hanan’a's case is the the counterpoint to the madness with which Herzl and Bibi & Ben Zion responded to the death of a family member.
** Ben Zion Netanyahu the Lithuanian super zionist — several factoids:
1. He moved to Israel in 1920, became part of the zionist publishing apparatus there.
2. In the early 1930s he moved to US where he was a leader in zionist circles while he worked on his dissertation.
Let me make it crystal clear: Ben Zion Miliekovsky aka Nitai Netanyahu never served in an army, was never driven from his home or faced “annihilation.”
Which brings us to factoid 3:
and in another writing, Arabranel explains how waging war is a pressure relief valve for Israelis (talk about clash of civilizations; Abarbanel describes a culture that relieves its self-induced angst by killing scores of other people’s children):
I would say, No, we in the “rest of the world” do not “refuse to see that Israel’s problems are a result of deep-seated Jewish trauma,” we — or I, have read enough of Jewish and zionist history to be keenly aware that 95% of it is manufactured and distorted, and exceptionalized. Jews are not the only people on the planet to have suffered trauma. Most of us get over it.
No more passes for Israelis and Jews and “deep-seated Jewish trauma.” Criminal insanity is criminal insanity, and people who perform criminally insane acts get their weapons taken from them and get locked up, they don’t get money thrown at them and told that it’s alright to kill some more people.
If Obama is sane, he will confront the damaged Netanyahu and tell him: NO.
Not ONE MORE PENNEY to Israel until Israel creates a genuine democracy in Palestine, a democratic state for all who dwell there; makes reparations to those Israel has harmed; submits its nuclear facilities to full and intrusive inspection by IAEA.
Barack Hussein Obama is the president of the greatest nation on earth and commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world. He has the power and the right. Does he have the courage to actually earn that Nobel prize?
The saddest part of this latest story is not Israel’s demands (which everyone was expecting) or the fact that the US may well cave to them, but the reason for caving. What would Obama get out of agreeing to this?
A frigging photo-op with a smiling Netanyahu. That’s it. As the story explains:
Obama is negotiating SOLELY for an opportunity to have pictures of himself and Bibi smiling together proclaiming “unity” in order to bolster his pro-Israel cred. That’s it, and it’s pathetic.
I suppose as an American I deserve this on some level. For years the US has used (and still uses) photo-ops between the US president and the president of a minor country as a reward when that leader follows American policy. Bibi is doing the exact same thing to Obama that the US routinely does to other leaders.
It’s just pathetic to see in action…
on Washington streetcorners they have cardboard cutouts of famous people — the pres, Michelle, etc. For 5 bucks you can have your picture taken with the pres.
Tell Bibi to take a hike to the nearest street corner cutout and save US taxpayers a bundle.
With the new Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Dempsey coming out on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS program 10 or so days ago and saying “the Iranian regime is a rational actor” And that they have not determined that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. That an attack on Iran “would be destabilizing”
Then Dr. Zbig on GPS this Sunday really laying it out for Obama saying he needs to draw the line with Netanyahu. Let Netanyahu know that the US will not back them up if they attack and Zbig goes further saying that Obama should let them know that they cannot use US controlled airspace to conduct an attack. Really heating up
Now this
The latest assessment by 16 American spy agencies revealed that there is no hard evidence for Iran trying to build a nuclear bomb, The New York Times reported on Friday. However, the EU and the US have imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran over its nuclear energy program.
link to presstv.com
U.S. does not believe Iran is trying to build nuclear bomb
The latest U.S. intelligence report indicates Iran is pursuing research that could enable it to build a nuclear weapon, but that it has not sought to do so.
Revolutionary Guard personnel watch the launch of a Zelzal missile in June… (Raouf Mohseni / Mehr News Agency)February 23, 2012|By Ken Dilanian, Los Angeles TimesReporting from Washington — As U.S. and Israeli officials talk publicly about the prospect of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program, one fact is often overlooked: U.S. intelligence agencies don’t believe Iran is actively trying to build an atomic bomb.
A highly classified U.S. intelligence assessment circulated to policymakers early last year largely affirms that view, originally made in 2007. Both reports, known as national intelligence estimates, conclude that Tehran halted efforts to develop and build a nuclear warhead in 2003
“barry mcaffrey is giving talks to NBC execs saying Israel might “pre-emptively” use a nuclear weapon”
If mccaffrey is actually saying the words — “Israeli nuclear weapon” — then that’s a good thing. Because those three words are always missing in the discussion about Israel and Iranian nuclear buildup. Israel wants to keep it that way. Let’s see if those three words actually are uttered on the NBC Nightly News or the talking heads on MSNBC in the days ahead. I doubt it, though, when you consider who owns NBC.
Good point. Think of it, Israel would be the second nation to use nuclear weapons against another country with the full support of the US, the only country to have used them against another.
that is actually a very, very good point seethelight……
Dr. Zbig, Former President Jimmy Carter and Norman Finklestein have all strongly suggested that this is a possibility.
Well, if somebody has the guts to play the master, when his power depends exclusively on the other guy, he either knows something or he’s completely crazy.
So yes, I guess there is a big possibility the USA will act as Israels dumb, but powerful, homeboy once again.
Obama should let Netanyahu believe he is successfully bullying America right up until the two men do their joint appearance before the press, then Obama should say, “The United States will not be dictated to by Israel. It is U.S. national security concerns that will determine whether any attack upon Iran is warranted. Further, for a nation like Israel – which has committed the greatest act of espionage against America, sold our defense secrets to potential enemies, committed false-flag attacks against us, and proudly declares that they ‘control America’ is really appalling given the countless billions of dollars we give them every year. I’m making it clear now with this public statement that Israel will abide by U.S. directives and security outlook or they risk a permanent cutoff of all funds from the U.S. and possible insertion of U.S. troops into Israel to impose a peace. That will be all.” Not only would Obama still get around 70% of the Jewish vote in the 2012 election, it might spike up to 85% after such a bold stance.
“In particular, Netanyahu wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain “red lines,” said the official; Israel feels this will increase pressure on Iran by making clear that there exists a real U.S. threat.”
It’s so appalling that all the major Jewish organisations back this.
Bibi should be in a secure psychiatric wing.
“If either Israel (or its proxy, the US) attacks Iran, it will be difficult for any moral person to defend the right of such a rogue state to exist.”
Jerry is right, but the other side plays dirty. They have lots of experience in this: They will stage a false-flag attack like with the Lavon Affair, or use an accident like the Maine to frame Iran. The big TV stations and papers will report it dutifully, and with Iran seen as the attacker, those “moral persons” will choose the easy path, believe the propaganda and go on with their lives.
Except if we, the little people, make enough noise about a possible false-flag.
It depends on who’s commanding what.
“US Air Force prepared if diplomacy with Iran fails.” – General Norton Allan Schwartz
Former Mossad chief Dagan said an attack against Iran would be “insane”. I think this should be the starting point for any discussion over the Iran war option.
Israel and her people are delusional. This is the culmination of continuous war over the past 70 years and the incessant war propaganda that is pounded into their people. Given this mass hysteria, I happen to believe that Israelis are completely rational today saying the Iran would be an existential threat to Israel should Iran achieve a nuclear ‘capability’. Remember, the Israeli people really believe that a nuclear capable Iran would erase them off of the map. Therefore, it would only be rational for all Israelis with foreign passports to get out of harm’s way as quickly as possible.
The government could be looking at a reverse exodus of 2 or more million Israelis the day everyone realizes that Iran is nuclear capable. Israeli propagandists, having so traumatized their people and spreading mass paranoia, have created a real dilemma for themselves and for us. The existential threat is now real. That should be the reality we should be confronting. Managing the deluded paranoid sometimes requires taking their fears seriously.
To blame Israel for it’s siege mentality is failing to acknowledge the causal agents. If there was less criticism and more understanding of how most Israelis feel after the Holocaust and the numerous existential wars with its Arab neighbors and battles with the Palestinians that have taken place, there would less stoking of Israelis’ paranoia and a better overall climate for a lasting peace agreement.
Paranoia about the Holocaust didn’t motivate you to raze hundreds of Palestinian settlements. Paranoia doesn’t motivate you to cull non-Jewish populations and acquire lebensraum to build settlements in Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese territory. Paranoia didn’t put Israel in a position where most of the water it consumes comes from outside the Green Line.
As disgusting as even suggesting that the Holocaust gives you the right to kill Arabs and take their homes for your own, that’s not even the truth. Zionism, Israel, is motivated by greed, not fear.
What was done to your grandfathers and grandmothers doesn’t give you the right to do the same crimes to Palestinian grandfathers and grandmothers.
>> If there was less criticism and more understanding of how most Israelis feel after the Holocaust and the numerous existential wars with its Arab neighbors and battles with the Palestinians that have taken place, there would less stoking of Israelis’ paranoia and a better overall climate for a lasting peace agreement.
A better overall climate for a lasting peace agreement could also be created if Israel were:
- to immediately and completely halt its ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder; and
- to agree to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually beneficial peace.
But Israel refuses to do either of these things. Invoking the Holocaust does not justify Israeli immorality and injustices – it’s just a shameless form of blackmail. (Shingo, are you reading this? ;-) )
It is understandable that Jews would want a homeland. But the confiscation of Palestinian land legally and illegally started happening long before the Holocaust. Israel became a state in 47 or was it 48 based on the 67 border. They have never stopped confiscating more Palestinian land after they became a state. The holocaust is no excuse for killing, stealing, knocking over Palestinian homes and creating an apartheid state.
Others have answered your concern better than I can. I mentioned the psychological damage that the holocaust caused the Jewish people. Today they live in perpetual fear. That fear is exploited by the land thieves that continue to steal more Palestinian land. Anyone who tries to oppose that land theft are equated with the Nazis. The Israel people and many American Jews continue to be infected with that paranoia. Those of us who try to support Palestinian rights are branded as antisemites. Live in fear Mayhem, that is all you have to offer. Please do not expect the rest of us to live in your fearful fantasy. It is time for Israel to move on.
The following is presented all rather ‘matter-of-factly’
According to a recent report in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz:
The Netanyahu-Obama meeting … will be definitive. If the US president wants to prevent a disaster, he must give Netanyahu iron-clad guarantees that the United States will stop Iran in any way necessary and at any price, after the 2012 elections. If Obama doesn’t do this, he will obligate Netanyahu to act before the 2012 elections. [3] link to link to atimes.com
Re: teta mother me – comment February 29, 2012 at 12:13 pm
teta mm,
I want to specifically thank for the referenced article by Avigail Abarnabel, Psyhologist/-therapist writing on
Israel’s Trauma Psychology and the Attack on Gaza
link to avigailabarbanel.me.uk
A really great article of the “MUST-READ”-calibre.