Rush transcript from Fox News of Chris Wallace interviewing Benjamin Netanyahu ad nauseum this morning. Note the demagoguing of the Colorado killings: “Israelis… have been through so much of this.” Note the subtle undermining of Obama– it’s results on the ground not his words that we watch re Iran. Note the refusal to respect any negotiations on Iran. And note the absolute certainty that Iran and Hezbollah were behind the Bulgarian terrorist attack.
You will see that Netanyahu two or three times calls Chris Wallace Mike, and only at the end does Wallace explain, that was my father.
WALLACE: With civil war raging in Syria and Israel charging Iran was behind the terror bombing that killed five tourists, we are joined now live from Jerusalem by the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr. Prime Minister, welcome back to FOX NEWS SUNDAY.
NETANYAHU: Good to be with you, Chris.
WALLACE: Let’s start with the civil war in Syria. How much control does President Assad have over his country at this moment?
NETANYAHU: Well, before I answer that, let me just offer my condolences on behalf of all the people of Israel to the bereaved families from this massacre in Denver and to the United — entire American people. I think if any people on Earth that empathize with the Americans at this time, it’s the Israelis because we’ve been through so much of this and you’ve always stood by us in our grief and we stand with you. Now, you ask about, does Assad have control. Look, I think the regime will go. I think it’s a question — I don’t know if its days or weeks or months, but I don’t think it’s sustainable and I think it will go, and less concerned with what replaces it. But I am more concerned with the seam line (ph) of what could happen to those stocks of chemical weapons and those deadly rockets and missiles when there is no government in Syria. That’s my principal concern.
WALLACE: Well, let me follow up on that because your defense minister, Ehud Barak, said the other day that Israel is prepared to seize control of those weapons if there is chaos in Syria. How will you decide whether it is time for Israel to intervene, cross the border into Syria and seize those weapons?
NETANYAHU: We hope we don’t have to and I didn’t necessarily — we didn’t necessarily consider seizing those weapons. There are other possibilities. But I think this is a real problem. Can you imagine Hezbollah, the people who are conducting with Iran all these terror attacks around the world — can you imagine that they would have chemical weapons? It’s is like al Qaeda having chemical weapons. It’s something that is not acceptable to us and not acceptable to the United States and to any peaceable country in the world. So, I think that this is — something will have to act, to stop if the need arises. And the need might arise if there is a regime collapse, but not a regime change. That is you go into chaos and all of these sundry sites are left basically unguarded. Hezbollah can come and pick it or some other terrorist organizations or groups can come and pick at it. And that is something that is a great concern to me, as I’m sure it is to the United States.
WALLACE: Would you prefer that the United States and other Western powers act to secure these weapons? Do you feel that Israel is going to have to protect itself?
NETANYAHU: I think this is a common concern. We have to see if there is a common action to address that concern. But in any case, we certainly don’t want to be exposed to chemical weapons falling in the hands of Hezbollah or other terror groups, because that’s something we can’t be indifferent to. It’s a great threat. We’ll have to consider our action. But do I preclude, do I seek action? No. Do I preclude it? No.
WALLACE: Let’s turn, Mr. Prime Minister, to the terrible terror bombing in Bulgaria that killed five Israeli tourists this week. Have you been able to identify the bomber and have you been established clear links between that bomber and Hezbollah and Iran?
NETANYAHU: The answer is yes to all those questions. That is certainly to Hezbollah yes. We do know who it is. I mean, the whole world can see who it is. We do know that it’s Hezbollah. We would have known that, you have known, or been able to surmise that. But you know from Cyprus a week ago, Hezbollah operative was caught preparing exactly the same attack, exactly the same time. You know, going to an airplane to attack, collecting information for an impending attack on Israeli tourist who get off of the plane and are about to board a bus. So, exactly the same modus operandi and was exposed in Cyprus. Fortunately there, the terrorist was caught and he admitted he worked in behalf of Hezbollah, Iran’s long terror arm as you know. Now, that you could have surmised intelligently from the proximity of these two events and the identical nature of the planned attack and the executed attack. Here, I’m not surmising. I am giving you something that I know as the prime minister of Israel, because I know, based on absolutely rock solid intelligence, this is Hezbollah and this is something that Iran knows about very, very well.
WALLACE: Do you know — you say we all know who the bomber was. Yes, we have seen a picture of the bomber, but do you know specifically his identity?
NETANYAHU: Well, that’s being pieced together right now. But we know with absolutely certainty, absolutely certainty and not a thread of doubt that this was a Hezbollah operation. (CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: If I may ask — if I may ask, sir, there is a question on the part of the Obama administration, can you give us any of that evidence, hard evidence?
NETANYAHU: We certainly give it to the appropriate agencies, friendly agencies in the world.
WALLACE: You have called this an Iranian terror attack and said that Israel will respond with force. Will the retaliation be linked to Israel’s possible action to stop Iran’s nuclear program? Or are those two separate matters, retaliation for the response, the terror attack, and any action that you might take to stop Iran’s nuclear program?
NETANYAHU: You just asked me several questions, so let me put them in context and I’ll each one as best as I can. The first is the context of the unfolding terror attacks that have taken place over the last two years, led by Iran, sometimes using — very often using Hezbollah, its terror proxy from Lebanon which it arms and funds and equips and so on. And instructs by the way. So, what they have done over the last two years and increasingly in the last year, and in increasingly in the last few months, is to either carry out attacks — most of which have been foiled — or lay the ground, the foundations for future attacks in five continents and about 24 countries that we count, and the numbers might be bigger and that’s a worldwide terror campaign, directed at us and often including others. For example, there was an Iranian attack, planned attack on the Saudi ambassador to the United States. They have taken away several senators with them. They don’t particularly care. It’s very brazen. How could Iran be doing this and getting away with murder literally? It’s because nobody names and shames them. So, the reason I’m on this program, Mike, is to name and shame, because Iran is using terror the way anybody uses terror. You use it in stealth. You hide behind somebody else, in order not to be given responsibility for the heinous acts. And the same is done with Hezbollah. Well, we now have five Iranians in custody, we have two Iranians — two Hezbollah operatives, I believe, in custody. Some of them were found with explosives across the myriad of countries. It’s them. We know it. And it’s time for all countries to point the finger at the country behind these attacks and the group that helps them and that’s Iran, with Iran’s proxy Hezbollah. That’s the first thing you have to do. Expose those who stand behind the terror. The second is the question that you asked is exact a price for terror, because terrorism continues as long as terrorism pays. So, you have to make sure terrorism it doesn’t pay. Exposing it is the first step to make it not pay. And the last thing you asked about their nuclear program. I think — I think these acts, these attacks on a busload of tourists, including a pregnant mother, tells you what kind of people we are dealing with. Now, imagine these people who are capable of doing anything, imagine them possessing nuclear weapons. People who gun down innocent people, will send suicide bombers who could block the straits of Iran, who threaten to annihilate Israel, who murdered diplomats, who have taken over your embassy, you want these people to have atomic bombs? I think — I think this is a reminder, this wave of terror attacks, that the world’s most dangerous regime must not be allowed to have the world’s most dangerous weapons.
WALLACE: But the question is this — you’ve got the West, the United States and our allies working with this regime to try to make a deal to stop the nuclear program. If they stop the nuclear program, would you be satisfied with a deal that leaves this regime, that this leaves the mullahs in power? Is that good enough?
NETANYAHU: Yes, if you stop the program. But so far, all these talks and this round of talks in the last few months follows the previous round of talks that hasn’t stopped the regime one bit, not an inch. I mean, since the previous rounds of talks. They have enriched material for five nuclear bombs, five nuclear bombs, that is 70 percent of the enriched material that they need, which is low grade uranium enriched. They are continuing to enrich with one bomb. They’re getting very close to the 20 percent. That’s the higher enrichment necessary to get 90 percent of the way to the first bomb. So, they are basically thumbing their nose at the international community, the leading powers that are called P5-plus-1. And they are basically saying, we can talk, we can delay and we can deceive and while we continue to race towards atomic weapons. So, that’s effectively what’s happening.
WALLACE: Presidential candidate Mitt Romney travels to Israel next week. You have known each other since 1976 when you both work for the Boston consulting group. He says you two almost speak in short hand because you have such a close relationship. He has promised to do exactly the opposite of President Obama when it comes to security in the Middle East. Do you understand what that means?
NETANYAHU: Well, you are not going to draw me into your politics because I have enough of mine. We can exchange notes about my politics as you want to off camera, but I’m not going to get drawn into that. I will say this, President Obama said Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, that he said that containment is not an option, and that Israel must have the capacity to defend itself, by itself against any threat. Well, these are obviously principles that I agree with and I think that the — it’s in our common interest to make sure that Iran doesn’t get nuclear weapons. But the jury is out on all of us, because the real thing — the real question is not stated policy but actual results on the ground.
WALLACE: Briefly, what do you think of Mitt Romney? And what do you think of his trip to Israel?
NETANYAHU: I think that you’re far too wise a journalist to think that I’m going to get into your field of American politics. But I will say that I will receive Mitt Romney with the same openness that I received another presidential candidate, then-Senator Barack Obama, when he came almost four years ago, almost the same time in the campaign, to Israel. We — Israel has — enjoys bipartisan support, both Democrats and Republicans, and we extend bipartisan hospitality to both Democrats and Republicans.
WALLACE: Well, you are a skilled interviewee on television. So, I’m going to tell you, you have two minutes for this final answer. Israel has always lived in a tough neighborhood. There’s no question about that. But at least it was stable. And you knew who Assad was and his father and Mubarak. When you look at the changing landscape in the Middle East now, is the so-called Arab Spring good or bad for Israel?
NETANYAHU: Well, the question is what kind of season is this? Because in fact, what is happening is there have been a tide of — mostly, not always — there are some exceptions, for example in Libya, it’s a welcome change, welcome exception. But in general, there’s been this cascade of Islamic regimes that conduct the first election but you’re not sure about the next election and what’s in between, because democracy — real democracy is something that is not particularly known here and not particularly well-observed. If we had that, we would have nothing to fear because I think that that would be very good for peace. It would reflect the needs of all the people. I can’t tell you where the Middle East is going. Probably, the years of stability, the decades of stability that we had with Egypt, you can’t guarantee that they’ll continue. I appreciate the fact that the United States demands, or expects, as we do, that the peace treaty will be maintained. Syria — I know that Iran and Hezbollah, who were supporting Syria, including in the act of killing, really don’t want to see a regime change, and who knows what will happen when that happens. But I can tell you this, Mike. The Middle East is unstable because it doesn’t have the political philosophy of the liberal democracy that would underpin the Arab Spring. So we may be in for a rougher ride, and we’ll have to rough it out and be very strong, very resolute and very, very steady. And I think we’ll be all that.
WALLACE: Mr. Prime Minister, I want to thank you so much for talking with us. You probably don’t realize you mistakenly call would me Mike a couple of times in this interview. I want to say he did many interviews with you over the years, so…
NETANYAHU: Did I say that?
WALLACE: So have I. But let me just say, these days, it warms my heart. So… (LAUGHTER) … thank you very much. Always good to speak with you, sir.
NETANYAHU: It’s the passing of generations and something that I’ve experienced, too, so forgive me. I hope I haven’t offended you.
WALLACE: Oh, no, not at all. And as I said to you, I’m so sorry about the loss of your father as well. Prime Minister, thank you. Please come back.
NETANYAHU: Thank you.
Wallace didn’t ask Netanyahu what evidence he had for asserting that it was Hezbollah/Iran behind the attack in Bulgaria.
“Wallace didn’t ask Netanyahu what evidence he had for asserting that it was Hezbollah/Iran behind the attack in Bulgaria.”
Since I assiduously don’t watch Fox News, I don’t like to denigrate it unduly — but isn’t that pretty lousy journalism? I mean, if someone makes a claim, isn’t it pretty basic to ask them on grounds they make the claim?
If Chris Wallace were a real journalist, if he would have pressed Netanyahu hard on the evidence Netanyahu claims to have.
BEGIN QUOTE
WALLACE: Do you know — you say we all know who the bomber was. Yes, we have seen a picture of the bomber, but do you know specifically his identity?
NETANYAHU: Well, that’s being pieced together right now.
END QUOTE
Being pieced together right now? Netanyahu just admitted that he doesn’t know the identity of the bomber. Without knowing the identity of the bomber, and, more importantly, his background and connections, how can one know for a certainty who was behind the attack?
This is why one should pay little attention to the mainstream media (not just Fox News) in trying to figure out what is really going on the world. All the meaningful discussion and analysis is going on in the alternative media on the Internet.
This was the same situation during the entire era of the Iraq War — the mainstream media consistently managed to get nearly everything dead wrong.
I am fully prepared to believe that Hezbollah was behind this attack when the proof is produced — but not before then.
“This is why one should pay little attention to the mainstream media (not just Fox News) in trying to figure out what is really going on the world. All the meaningful discussion and analysis is going on in the alternative media on the Internet.”
What is the alternate media? The best source of info on the “Iraq war” was the Iraqi media, the Iraqi Security Forces, Iraqi leaders, some of the anti Iraqi government militia leaders, and GIs who were close to Iraqis (not the US state department or US Congress or US administration civilians or even DoD people in Washington). Most of the rest of the global media didn’t have a clue. Including the sectarian Al Jazeera (only starting in 2006 did Al Jazeera coverage start to approach reality). Amy Goodman’s coverage seemed to be from an alternate universe. Not that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX were all that great. Or the BBC for that matter.
Many of the “alternate” media I think you are talking about in Europe and America knew next to nothing about Iraq and Iraqis. They rarely interviewed Iraqi Security Force members, Iraqi Government leaders or the leaders of large Iraqi political parties; much less had any clue what Iraqis were telling them when Iraqis answered their questions.
A few alternative news sources that consistently present much higher quality information and analysis than the utterly corrupted mainstream media:
1. Alternet
2. Antiwar.com
3. Common Dreams
4. Consortiumnews
5. Counterpunch
6. Dissident Voice
7. Firedoglake
8. Glenn Greenwald
9. Information Clearing House
10. Informed Comment
11. Mondoweiss
12. Opednews
13. Salon.com
14. Think Progress
15. Truthout
Regarding the Iraq War: Antiwar.com got nearly everything right. All the mainstream media (most notably the New York Times and Washington Post) got nearly everything wrong.
Thank God for the Internet. Bright people now route around the mainstream media with the greatest of ease to find out what is really going on the world.
Without wealthy neoconservative and pro-Likud employers and patrons, characters like Fred Hiatt (who has played a leading role in driving the Washington Post into the ditch for the sake of Israel), would be chewed to pieces intellectually if they were forced to fend for themselves on the Internet.
Most though not all the web sites you listed were garbage. Few of them regularly read the Iraqi press, or watched one of Iraq’s many 24 hour newschannels. Few of them regularly interviewed soldiers from the Iraqi Army or actually knew the leaders of Iraq’s major political parties (the ones that got a lot of votes in Iraqi elections.) Too few of them bothered to try to understand the subtleties of the Arab words and expressions of Iraqis they were talking to.
We both know that Iraqi Arabic can be a little R rated. Let’s just say choice phrases were used by Iraqis to describe most though not all your news sites.
“Antiwar.com” There were some useful articles posted on this website. Articles that had actual information and subtle understanding of local Iraqi political trends and governance etc. But most of the articles were garbage. Many (though not all) of them seemed to have been written by sectarian racist schmucks.
Politics are one thing. Being a bloviating inane schmuck is another. Many people write flashes of brilliance with conclusions that you agree with . . . even when most of their article is absolute garbage which betrays no understanding of Iraqis.
Didn’t you just love the way some of your websites would accuse this political faction or leader of being “sectarian” as if they had a clue what they were writing about. With no hint of nuance. In reality the vast majority of people on earth are at least slightly sectarian and racist . . . in a very subtle politically correct way. But many Antiwar.com acted like they were so superior to the subhuman “Ae-RAB” “EYE-RAKIS.” All those subtle insults and jabs at the 650,000 Iraqi Security Forces as if no one was paying enough attention to notice.
The largest criticism Iraqis made against the US (there were many) was that Americans were backing the hated “Iraqi resistance”, that were mass murdering Iraqi civilians, Iraqi political parties, GoI and ISF. That was the heart of the criticism Sayyed Muqtada al Sadr made against the US. That the US was backing the Iraqi resistance, Baa3thists and Al Qaeda in an attempted genocide against the Iraqi people. And many really believed him.
Did Antiwar.com explain this? Some of their articles did. But most of their articles were from an alternate universe. Did Antiwar.com ever ask the Iraqi resistance to stop murdering Iraqi civilians and ISF? Did Antiwar.com publish any articles about the bereaved families of the 18 thousand Iraqi Security Force members who died trying to protect their country from the “resistance”?
In many Iraqi opinion polls over 80% of Iraqis demanded that the US train the ISF (many believed that the US was trying to block the training of the ISF). Including many (though by no means most) viscerally anti American Iraqis. Did Antiwar.com explain this?
Did Antiwar.com send embedded advisors to the Iraqi Army and try to understand their subtleties and concerns? Did they try to understand the nuances of their criticism of the US, UN, Arab League, England and international community?
How much coverage was given at the granular city by city, province by province level? How much discussion about what was happening to a specific hospital or power plant?
The Iraqi press was far superior to the press sources you mention. You could have always asked your Iraqi or Arab friends to translate them for you, or more recently used Google translator.
Anan,
Most of those alternative publications opposed the Iraq War on sound rational and analytical grounds and shot down all the lies that neoconservatives told about the war. If we had listened to these alternative sources, rather than the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and Fox News, Americans would have been spared dumping several trillion dollars down the drain in a losing war.
Which publications do you read on a regular basis to understand what is going on in the world?
seanmcbride,
The best source of information is often your own contact network, specialty blogs and specialty conferences. For example, lets say you were interested in Ninevah province Iraq. Talk to Iraqis and ask them to put you in touch with other Iraqis who live in Ninevah. Talk to the PRTs and USAID folks in Ninevah and ask them to connect you to Iraqis. Talk to the 2nd Iraqi Army Division and 3rd Iraqi Army Division or the Mosul Operations Command. Ask for their feedback. Talk to government officials in Ninevah if you have access to translators. [Iraqis aren't usually great with e-mail.] Talk to reporters (Iraqi and international) who have spent time in Ninevah. There are lots of them. Talk to reporters who embedded with the 2nd and 3rd Iraqi Army Division (there were lots of them). Talk to bloggers to specialize in Ninevah. You get the picture.
You can so something similar with Salahadin province. Naturally what you hear in Salahadin province will be extremely different than what you hear in Ninevah province.
Since you went through all this effort . . . you might consider writing your thoughts and asking your friends to publish your article at the NYT, WP, CNN and FOX blogs . . . even if anonymously. They like publishing free stuff on their blogs. :-) Including from people who are not Americans.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I believe information is in the details. And that it is more useful to study a few things deep than many things shallow.
anan,
Again: which news and information sources do you rely on to understand American and global politics in general (not just Iraq)? Your top ten favorite publications and blogs? Please be specific.
I required very little information ten years ago to predict confidently that a war against Iraq would turn into a foreign policy disaster for American interests — that was a no-brainer. Dozens of high-level foreign policy experts agreed with me, but their views were largely censored by the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.
Seanmcbride, I guess you are not interested in Iraqis. Sigh. Few non Iraqis seem to be. Sadly. Such an amazing more than 8 thousand year old civilization. Maybe you should consider seeing the old Babylonian remains in Babil province (pronounces BAA-Bil) as a tourist.
Anyway . . . “which news and information sources do you rely on to understand American and global politics in general (not just Iraq)? Your top ten favorite publications and blogs? Please be specific.”
Sorry to break it to you but US internal politics is pretty boring. Although I enjoy sometimes listening to some politicians give nonpartisan speeches on subjects they know well.
I am more interested in news in subjects that interest me from news sources who are deep subject matter experts. Some of them are:
-basketball
-financial markets
-energy (coal, NG, oil exploration, clean tech)
-semiconductors
-wireless
-tech in general
-global economics
-global financial crisis
When I want to learn about India, I read the Indian press and ask Indians. When I want to learn about Afghanistan, I read the Afghan press and ask Afghans. Ditto with South Korea, Japan, Turkey and other countries.
I sometimes read the Economist. I use to read the Straight Times in Singapore and Korean news sources a lot.
Why do people need ” news and information sources . . . to understand American and global politics in general”?
My observation about you is that you seem slightly provincial. You might consider reading a more globalized perspective. But remember that the large majority of it won’t be about America. America only has 18% of global GDP, and a smaller share of global wealth. Both these ratios are falling.
Regarding Israelis, my biggest source of info are the Israeli tech and international business sectors. Looking for more good sources on Palestine though.
anan,
You wrote:
“Seanmcbride, I guess you are not interested in Iraqis.”
Actually, I am more interested in Americans than Iraqis, especially during an era in which I am witnessing the collapse of the American middle class. I can easily think of a dozen policy issues that are more important for Americans than Iraq, Iran or Israel.
I use Prismatic to read the news — highly recommended:
link to getprismatic.com
Thanks to Prismatic, I have my news sources at my fingertips. Just a few:
1. Andrew Sullivan
2. Antiwar.com
3. BBC
4. CNET News
5. Common Dreams
6. Daily Beast
7. Danger Room
8. Discover Magazine
9. Economist
10. Engadget
11. Foreign Policy
12. Gizmodo
13. Glenn Greenwald
14. Globes
15. Haaretz
16. Hacker News
17. IEEE Spectrum
18. Informed Comment
19. Jerusalem Post
20. Journal of Digital Humanities
21. Kurzweil Accelerating Intelligence
22. Lifehacker
23. Mondoweiss
24. National Geographic
25. Nature
26. New Scientist
27. New York Times
28. Salon.com
29. Scientific American
30. Search Engine Watch
31. Singularity Hub
32. Slashdot
33. Stephen Walt
34. Tablet Magazine
35. Technology Review
36. Teleread
37. Wired
By the way, my second favorite news reader after Prismatic is my6sense — which is an Israeli product.
anan — what precisely is your stake in Mideast politics? Where are you coming from? What are your interests and cultural biases?
More on the incredible power and value of Prismatic as a news reader:
Mondoweiss readers who are voracious consumers of news about Middle East politics should try subscribing to the following interests/topics:
1. Anti-Semitism link to getprismatic.com
2. Arabs link to getprismatic.com
3. Israel link to getprismatic.com
4. Jews and Judaism link to getprismatic.com and Judaism
5. Middle East link to getprismatic.com East
6. Palestinians link to getprismatic.com
7. Torah link to getprismatic.com
The best stuff gets pushed to the top through the miracle of artificial intelligence.
Try it. It rocks. This is the future of news.
You want a crisis in Jewish identity, already, I’ll give you a crisis! I could float around for forty day and nights waiting for that thread to load. 730 comments and they’re still at it.
Oh well, there’s something I can be proud of in a mispent life. I’ve never sunk to debating “the Jewish identity” with a bunch of Gentiles. As far as I’m concerned, they can like it or lump it and leave me alone. I guess it’s different for Zionists, they have to suck up to them.
@ Mooser:
I’ve never sunk to debating “the Jewish identity” with a bunch of Gentiles.
Wow, that sounds pretty anti-Gentilistic.
“Wow, that sounds pretty anti-Gentilistic.”
Speaking of “antis” German Lefty, we have a name for outsiders who judge Jews.
And a woman too, come to think of it.
Lefty, do you read things, or do you use some kind of cerebral auto-complete? Didn’t I just say, a few comments ago, that anti-Gentilism was inevitable in Jewishness? Did I claim that I posessed not a shred of it? Okay, it was on a different thread (The Crisis in Jewish Identity, I think) but what difference does that make?
@ Mooser:
Speaking of “antis” German Lefty, we have a name for outsiders who judge Jews. And a woman too, come to think of it.
That would be?
Didn’t I just say, a few comments ago, that anti-Gentilism was inevitable in Jewishness?
Do you really expect me to read ALL your comments that you make on this site? Besides, why can’t people have an identity without automatically hating or thinking badly of people that have other identities?
Did I claim that I posessed not a shred of it?
No. What’s your point?
“why can’t people have an identity without automatically hating or thinking badly of people that have other identities?” Bingo.
Mooser, why do you not want to discuss Judaism with non Jews? Judaism is a great and good religion. You should be proud of being Jewish.
“Mooser, why do you not want to discuss Judaism with non Jews? Judaism is a great and good religion. You should be proud of being Jewish.”
Anan, I hereby proclaim you the King of non sequiturs!! Where you go, sense flees in naked, screaming fear.
Now listen carefully doofus, and stretch your mind out as far as it will go: Maybe I’m too proud to discuss it with non-Jews! I don’t need their frickin approval, and I have no intention of spouting apologetics to them. And they can take their religion and shove it where the sun don’t shine, except through stain-glass windows. And that goes for Muslims, too, in case you are interested. Keep it to yourself, thank you. And you can take that respect and shove it. I have somehow managed, without respecting any religion, to respect people enough not want to kill anybody, or sow hate among my fellow men. That’s a hell of a lot more than many Christians, Moslems or Jews can say.
But thank you for your kind words. The old Yiddish proverb tells us “God may speak to us through an idiot”.
And it’s not that I don’t recognise the great achievements of the Jews. What other religion (in this day and age) has stolen a country for itself? And I have no doubt that future generations will honor us with the honorific: “The Jews, Destroyers of the Palestinians” and we will glory in the appellation eternally!
“I have somehow managed … to respect people enough not want to kill anybody, or sow hate among my fellow men.”
I’m sure that’s not allowed.
Where you go, sense flees in naked, screaming fear.
;)
“You should be proud of being Jewish.”
He isn’t ashamed of it, but why should he be proud of it?
MOOSER- “I’ve never sunk to debating “the Jewish identity” with a bunch of Gentiles.”
Me neither.
“Me neither.”
Yeah, I could see myself, spouting Jewish apologetics while they snicker. If there is one thing I’ve learned since this whole “born again” thing started (I include both Christians and Jews in this, because they both do it) it’s that anybody who wants to discuss religion is up to no good. It’s your religion? Good, keep it away from me.
I judge people by their actions in relations to people (or animals) who are weaker than them or over whom they have power.
>> I judge people by their actions in relations to people (or animals) who are weaker than them or over whom they have power.
This is something worthy of respect.
This is an example of the kind of meaningful analysis that one is unable to find in the mainstream media:
BEGIN ARTICLE
AUTHOR Garth Porter
TITLE Why the Buenos Aires bombing is a False Indicator on Burgas
PUBLICATION Lobelog
DATE July 22, 2012
URL link to lobelog.com
BEGIN QUOTE
Immediately after the terror bombing of a busload of Israeli youth in Burgas, Bulgaria, both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a “senior U.S. official” expressed certainty about Iran’s responsibility. Since then, the White House has backed away from that position, after Bulgarian investigators warned against that assumption before the investigation is complete.
Similary, it is generally assumed that Iran and Hezbollah were responsible for the terrorist bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires on July 18, 1994, because US and Israeli officials, journalists and commentators have repeated that conclusion so often. It was the first reference made by those who were most eager to blame the Burgas bombing on Iran, such as Matthew Levitt and Jeffrey Goldberg.
But that terrorist bombing 18 years ago was not what it has come to appear by the constant drip of unsubstantiated journalistic and political references to it. The identification of that bombing as an Iranian operation should be regarded as a cautionary tale about the consequences of politics determining the results of a terrorist investigation.
The case made by the Argentine prosecutors that Iran and Hezbollah committed that 1994 terrorist bombing has long been cited as evidence that Iran is the world’s premier terrorist state.
But the Argentine case was fraudulent in its origins and produced a trail of false evidence in service of a frame-up. There is every reason to believe that the entire Argentine investigation was essentially a cover-up that protected the real perpetrators.
That is what I learned from my ten-month investigation in 2006-07 of the case, the results of which were published in early 2008.
END QUOTE
END ARTICLE
Be sure to read the rest of the article.
seanmcbride, please don’t quote Gareth Porter. He has lied many times on many subjects. Too many to go into right now.
Many Hezbollah partisans insist that Hezbollah didn’t organize the 1994 terrorist attack in Argentine. They insist that it was either Takfiri (maybe close to Gulf extremists and the deep state) or local neo-nazis.
The local nazi possbilitity seems to me to be extremely unlikely. However, is it possible that the Takfiri organized the 1994 attacks? I have looked into it a little. But most of the circumstantial evidence still points to Hezbollah.
Anan,
Does Gareth Porter make any factual misstatements in his article?
For instance:
BEGIN QUOTE
William Brencick, who was then chief of the political section at the US Embassy in Buenos Aires and the primary Embassy contact for the investigation of the AMIA bombing, told me in an interview in June 2007 that the US conviction about Iranian culpability was based on what he called a “wall of assumptions” — a wall that obstructed an objective analysis of the case. The first assumption was that it was a suicide bombing, and that such an operation pointed to Hezbollah, and therefore Iran.
But the evidence produced to support that assumption was highly suspect. Of 200 initial eyewitnesses to the bombing, only one claimed to have seen the white Renault van that was supposed to have been the suicide car. And the testimony of that lone witness was contradicted by her sister, who said that she had seen only a black and yellow taxicab.
That is only the first of many indications that the official version of how the bombing went down was a tissue of lies.
END QUOTE
True or false?
I think “anan” should be declarednon sequitur-in-Chief, in perpetuity!
“seanmcbride, please don’t quote Gareth Porter. He has lied many times on many subjects. Too many to go into right now.”
Funniest, wittiest comment ever on Mondoweiss! Incredible! If I was that funny, I’d get paid for my jokes!
But say, “Anan” if there are so many subjects Gareth Porter has lied about, it should be easy to pick one or two examples which destroy Porter’s credibility, right? And really, we’ve got all the time in the world to listen to you “anan”! So please, regale us with the facts about Gareth Porter’s two biggest lies. As you know, only one confirmed lie is needed to throw a person’s credibility into doubt.
Thank God your credibility is still pristine, “anan”.
Mooser, this is exhausting. Let us just say that I closely tracked the order of battle of the Iraqi MoD, MoI and all branches of the ISF down to the battalion and even sometimes the company level. Gareth Porter repeatedly intentionally lied about the ISF. He greatly under stated their capacity and quality. He greatly exaggerated their sectarian challenges.
If Gareth Porter had spewed his bile in 2006 and 2007 in front of actual Iraqi Army soldiers, he would have been missing some teeth afterwards.
The Iraqi Security Forces won a large victory in 2007 and 2008 (really starting in late 2006), causing violence to drop by something like 96% from 2006 levels.
The ISF were not perfect. Heavens no. But they were much better and different than the freak horror show Gareth Porter portrayed them to be.
Gareth Porter also wrote a completely inaccurate article about the Afghan Army. I actually got e-mails from people asking for comment on Porter’s article. Again, Porter had lied.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
seanmcbride, sorry, it is hard to read Porter.
It is really hard to at this date, 18 years later to put together what really happened in 1994. The Argentines ran things there own way. Are you arguing that the Argentinians manipulated the evidence to blame Hezbollah? Perhaps because blaming the attack on neo nazis would have damaged Argentina’s international reputation and damaged the economy? This occurred to me too. But I haven’t found evidence that suggests that neo nazis did this.
There very likely was significant international involvement. The question is from whom. The only groups capable of doing this in 1994 were Al Qaeda linked groups backed by the Gulf and Pakistani establishments (Takfiri) or Hezbollah/Khamenei.
Keep in mind that many Argentines are deeply racist and anti Jewish. I have no doubt that plenty of “Argentine officials” were very eager to tell Porter anything he wanted to hear as long as it hurt Jews and Israelis.
Let’s see what new revelations we will get this coming week about anti american actions by Israel or any of it’s leaders. I refuse to believe that the U.S intel community will take this blatant aipac push to get america to sacrifice its men and women in the military on the altar of zionism.
but alas maybe u.s intel is helpless against zionism.
Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski says,
“when people talk about taking Iran by force, they really mean the United States, are you seriously advocating that we rush into another war having had ten years of it in Afghanistan, with Iraq still unstable, Syria blowing up, with our economy’s strength, I mean who is seriously advocating this? and is such a person a friend of the United States?
Answer: Benjamin Netanyahu is advocating this and no they are not a friend of the United States.
Zbigniew is absolutely right. The US should not attack Iran right now. Iran isn’t the largest threat.
Iraq, however, is increasingly successful and stable.
If sectarian Sunni Arabs from places such as KSA, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Jordan, Egypt . . . and Israel want to hit Iran . . . . then let them. Why should America hit Iran?
Iran is a long term potential ally for the US. The US has no problem with Iranians, only Iran’s nasty cruel dictator Khamenei. The same Khamenei who is hated by Iranians far more than Khamenei is hated by Americans. When the Greens come to power, a US Iranian alliance should be the next step. Part of a larger Turkish, Iraqi, Iranian, Afghan, Indian, Russian NATO alliance. An alliance aimed at the Takfiris who threaten us all. Hopefully Palestine and Israel will both join this alliance too.
Sadly too many Israelis and Palestinians seem more interested in fighting a thousand year war against each other than serving their children.
“Sadly too many Israelis and Palestinians seem more interested in fighting a thousand year war against each other than serving their children.”
So you are saying the “war” between the Palestinians and Israelis started in 1012? Gosh, I didn’t know Israel was even there in 1012. So the Palestinians have been at “war” with the Israelis since then. I guess they started it, since the Israelis weren’t there at the time.
My goodness the man is a non-stop propaganda bubble-gum machine – and brainless middletonian American folks will actually believe him. Tomorrow they will remember with bleak grimness only three words – well, actually, three names: Iran, Syria, Hizbollah. Now that’s simple-scary (oh my country, why have you foresaken yourself so?!).
Yet I found the interview very funny too. Cuz I ain’t never heard so many big-butted ziocon cliches in such a short mini-skirted span of time – real classic Hollywoodesque warmongering seduction with pout and wiggle and wink.
Who writes his frigging scripts?! Or I should say: cuts & pastes:
“… the world’s most dangerous regime must not be allowed to have the world’s most dangerous weapons.”
Erm, I seem to remember him, that natanyahu, saying EXACTLY the same about Saddam Hussein back in the day. I think Dubya (remember him?) said so word for word too.
But my favorite part of the interview is of course the end bit. I felt natanyahu’s embarrassed and sincere apology and I just had to laugh at the absurdity of a man who earnestly apologizes for misnaming a dim dude in a suit, but is utterly incapable of showing a smidgen of mercy to millions of men, women, children, livestock and trees as he crushes them all under a brutal occupation.
Taxi, please be nice. Bibi is very good at public speaking. When he talks it is hard not to like him. But after he goes, then you wonder why Bibi isn’t nicer to the Palestinians. I mean, if Bibi were running in Palestinian elections, he would probably win. [As a free market pro high tech pro business, competent, non nonsense, suave leader].
Why doesn’t Bibi love and respect the Palestinians as much has he loves Israelis? I don’t understand.
When he talks it is hard not to like him.
True. I find him pretty hot and he has a sexy voice.
“then you wonder why Bibi isn’t nicer to the Palestinians.”
“Nicer”? I see, the problem is the lack of niceness?
Phil, how long do you plan to let this joke continue?
“The worlds most dangerous regime” . You run it Nutjobyahu
so how many people do we think actually watched this…or even cared
probably only michelle bachman and the rest of the worthless US congress
standing and saluting when ever nutty says some non-sense
Could point jimmy. Most people everywhere in the world find political news very boring.
Fox News: Bibi’s Team Came to Us Asking for the Interview
BEGIN ARTICLE
TITLE Fox News: Bibi’s Team Came to Us Asking for the Interview
AUTHOR Yossi Gestetner
PUBLICATION Gestetner Updates
DATE July 22, 2012
URL link to gestetnerupdates.com
BEGIN BODY
On Fox News Panel Plus, following the interview with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, the host Chris Wallace said: “We had a special and I think very interesting interview. They really came to us; they wanted to play… Clearly what they wanted to talk about is the terrible terror bombing of that Israeli tour bus in Bulgaria. And Netanyahu very assertively said ‘we know who these people are. We know what we have to do about it.’”
Nothing scandalous here; but clearly if you saw the interview you would note that Bibi was indeed trying to push a message.
END BODY
END ARTICLE
yossi Gestetner?
He’s the fellow who worked for some candidate’s offices for all of five minutes before they had to get rid of him, isn’t he? Oh, and he provided pr support for some accused pedophile rabbis recently. I suppose hes’s crowing about the great and wonderful bibi.
Why did it take me all day?
Brilliant headline.
I’m not one to normally rant about the utter inhumanity of politicians. But this one struck a chord with me.
Wallace asks Netanyahu about the violence in Syria, and Netanyahu turns around and talks about the violence in Colorado. Not that the lives lost in Colorado don’t matter, but the way he obfuscates on Syria really makes it sound as if the Syrian lives don’t matter.
glenn
link to salon.com
Bulgarian report: Burgas Suicide Bomber Spoke Russian – Report:
Does make a Hezbollah connection seem distinctly less likely. A Mossad connection, on the other hand. . .
“Does make a Hezbollah connection seem distinctly less likely.” Don’t agree. Many Hezbollah operatives speak Russian. [Knowing how to speak Russian is a good think IMHO.]
“A Mossad connection, on the other hand. . .” I don’t agree. I can’t see the Israeli government murdering its own citizens or international Jews.
Do you have any evidence for this assertion? It seems unlikely to me that many members of a militant Shiite organization in Lebanon would learn enough Russian to appear fluent to a speaker of Bulgarian, also a Slavic language. Russian is quite a difficult language, and is probably even more difficult for a native speaker of Arabic, which is not Indo-European.
“would learn enough Russian to appear fluent to a speaker of Bulgarian, also a Slavic language.” Here you have a point. Appearing fluent would be challenging.
lysias, many people learned Russian during the cold war. Including in non aligned countries and countries that used Russian weapons platforms.
Hezbollah has a very effective international organization. Up there with the Mossad, KGB (FSB), DGSE, ISI, and other reputed agencies. This said, Israelis in my opinion exaggerate the Hezbollah threat. Not that Israelis are lying. They genuinely disagree.
To the contrary, mu friend, Russian is pretty easy. Just ask Bulgarians.
What is harder is to speak Russian like a Russian. I wonder if the taxi driver had any observations about the accent.
Concerning Hezbollah operatives, I imagine that after Arabic, French and Persian, and perhaps English, and perhaps Spanish, Russian would be the first language to pick up.
Of course Russian is easy for Bulgarians. Bulgarian is a Slavic language. I imagine it’s as easy for a Bulgarian to learn Russian as it is for, say, an Italian to learn French.
But I don’t imagine there are many Bulgarians in Hezbollah.
BEGIN ARTICLE
TITLE British document: Israel initiated Entebbe hijack”
PUBLICATION Ynet News
DATE June 1, 2007
SUMMARY Official government file quotes unnamed source as claiming Shin Bet cooperated with Air France flight’s hijackers, PFLP group, in instigating crisis in bid to weaken PLO
URL link to ynetnews.com
BEGIN BODY
The state of Israel was behind the hijacking of an Air France plane to Entebbe in 1976, and cooperated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine in staging the affair, a UK government file compiled at the time of the occurrences and published by the BBC Friday revealed.
According to the file released by the National Archives, an unnamed contact told a British diplomat in Paris that the Shin Bet and the PFLP collaborated to seize the plane, which was hijacked in Athens and flown to Entebbe in Uganda, where 98, most of hem Israelis, were held hostage.
The crisis was brought to an end after Israeli commandos stormed the airport. Three Israeli hostages and one Israeli commander, Yonatan Netanyahu, were killed during the raid.
In the document, written on 30 June 1976 when the crisis was still unresolved, DH Colvin of the Paris Embassy wrote that according to his source, “the hijack was the work of the PFLP, with help from the Israeli Secret Service, the Shin Bet.
“The operation was designed to torpedo the PLO’s standing in France and to prevent what they see as a growing rapprochement between the PLO and the Americans.”
He added: “My contact said the PFLP had attracted all sorts of wild elements, some of whom had been planted by the Israelis.”
END BODY
END ARTICLE
Israel seems to be fond of “fancy” operations involving clever deception, agents provocateurs, false flag ops and the like. A large collection of books and articles on this subject have collected over the years ever since Operation Susannah (the Lavon Affair) back in the early 1950s, in which Israel bombed American and Western targets in Egypt and tried to pin the blame on Muslims:
link to en.wikipedia.org
But I am steering clear of any false flag theories regarding Burgas until more facts accumulate. The fact that the bomber had a white complexion, blue eyes and spoke Russian, that he was part of a sophisticated team with bogus American documentation, that an American was reportedly part of the team, and that Israel was instantly all over the event to further its urgent Iran War agenda, in which it has been frustrated so far, doesn’t prove anything yet.
More facts, please. Let’s see the proof that Iran and Hezbollah were behind the deed.
Some thoughts about Mossad
Many people often claim that Mossad is the best intelligence service in the world — and it may well be. Certainly I have the highest respect for strong Jewish minds.
But first-rate intelligence services try to keep as low a profile as possible in order to be effective. Mossad, through quite a few bungled operations, has acquired a high negative profile on the world stage.
Google “Mossad,” and you will find reams of material in which many people from many nations suspect Mossad of being involved with an amazing array of criminal deeds: the JFK assassination, the RFK assassination, the death of JFK Jr., the death of James Forrestal, the death of Robert Maxwell, 9/11, Entebbe, etc. — the list goes on and on.
One rarely hears these kind of suspicions expressed about the intelligence services of other nations: Sweden, France, Spain, Germany, Britain, Turkey, Norway, etc. They know how to keep a low profile.
So why has Mossad become mired down in such a torrent of bad publicity? That is not the mark of a successful intelligence service. The bottom line for all intel work: improve the strategic position and reputation of the nation you serve. Don’t contribute to its demonization in world public opinion.
Regarding false flag ops: once you are caught in one, you are screwed. Many people assume that that is just the tip of the iceberg. They are perpetually on guard for repeat performances.
The CIA has been a similarly unsuccessful intel organization.
“Certainly I have the highest respect for strong Jewish minds.”
Anotherwords, with 100 as average intelligence, if a “Jewish mind” makes it to 80, he’s doing pretty good? Or do you think a “Jewish mind” should be given a handicap, say 20 points, to even him up with the not-as-”strong” minds of non-Jews?
At any rate, when you are ready to tell me how the “Jewish mind” strong or weak, differs from human minds, I’m all ears.
BTW, I would also like to know how the “Jewish mind” differs from the African mind, or the Asian mind. Stronger or weaker?
Strong Jewish minds? The kind of mind that has enabled Jews to excel in the arts and sciences, academe, chess, strategic planning, analytical thinking, high finance, mathematics, risky business ventures, etc.
We could play the game of political correctness in which mentioning these issues is “racist,” but I’ve never been politically correct and am bored to tears by those kinds of games.
I am sure that the highest levels of Mossad are populated by some very good minds indeed, and they have access to some of the best minds at the most elite universities in the United States and Europe (apart from Israel).
But despite all of this, Mossad has managed to develop a conspicuous negative profile in the world media of the type that intelligence services take great pains to avoid. Effective intelligence services would prefer that you forget they exist. Mossad is all over the front pages (figuratively speaking) on a regular basis — usually concerning one botched operation or another. What’s up with that?
Assassinations of Iranian scientists? Stuxnet? The Dubai assassination? Stolen passports? Why is the world discussing these operations? Why does one see so many pro-Israel activists (especially in comment sections of the Israeli press) bragging and gloating about them?
Why are Benjamin Netanyahu and Shimon Peres, with regard to Burgas, making intelligence claims on the basis of intelligence that they don’t seem to possess?
Chinese intelligence services could probably give Mossad a good run for its money. Just as smart, more resources, and generally invisible (quiet as a mouse). One doesn’t hear of many operational screw-ups by the Chinese. Lord knows what they’re up to. They stay out of the news and out of public consciousness. Very few Americans and Europeans even know the names of their intelligence services.
On Monday, Shimon Peres basically admitted that Israel was behind the assassinations of Iranian scientists, although he went on to deny that this represented terrorism. Peres: Iran in ‘Open War’ With Israel:
If Israel does it, it isn’t terrorism.