Gary Rosenblatt in the Jewish Week on the latest blackmail to the United States from the only democracy in the Middle East:
For now, it appears certain Israel’s next government will have the same prime minister as today, but one more likely to push for settlement expansion than peace talks with the Palestinians, and a continued rocky relationship with the White House.
What could change all of that is if President Obama indicates a willingness to take on Iran militarily in return for Israeli concessions to the Palestinians.
Thanks to Scott McConnell for headline.
>> What could change all of that is if President Obama indicates a willingness to take on Iran militarily in return for Israeli concessions to the Palestinians.
Zio-supremacist “reasonableness”: If you agree to help us attack a sanction-weakened, sovereign and non-aggressor nation, we will agree to act – in some undefined measure – less immorally and unjustly toward the people we have terrorized and ethnically cleansed; who we continue to oppress and kill; whose lands we continue to steal and colonize; and whose lives and livelihoods we continue to destroy.
Rosenblatt’s final sentence is typical of the cowering liberal, whistling zionist battle-melodies from his tiny little perch.
Is he saying things may be reversed if the US president shows he has a willingness to take on Iran’s military? Were concessions made by the Israeli state after operation Iraqi Freedom? I don’t think so. Who is Rosenblatt trying to fool? His idea is a no-win situation for the United States. This is the character of a soft-pedalling zionist hawk.
The more extreme, the Israeli parties become, the more extreme the american Zionists will become, as Chuck Schumer and friends must realize that they will have to accept many of Naftali Bennett’s kooky ideas. And that will start the conversation in the US of why we need a clean-break from the ally that demands way too much for it’s neo-colonial enterprise, which the world clearly sees as ever-hungry criminal occupation.
How long will it take for the US political class and media to realize that Israel needs protection from itself, not the imprisoned Palestinian neighbors? Six decades and going strong. What a record for the sole Jewish state of the world.
A few days ago Keith pointed out to me that the sanctions are morally an act of war, which is true enough. Still, current common parlance means, when it mentions ‘war with Iran’, bombs from the sky and boots on the ground. I still feel sure that Obama will not agree to this, at least for the immediate future. His intention must surely be to hail the Iranian election result as a triumph of his sanctions policy, at least if the new Pres uses rhetoric slightly different from Ahmedinejad’s. After the triumph has been claimed there will be a period of temporising and prevaricating. Where else could current policies be leading?
they don’t even skip a beat. after obama’s last inauguration netanyahu came over and said the same thing. obama said settlements, net said iran. it’s like a broken record with this constant push push push to attack iran. i’m sick of it.
as for the finale of Rosenblatt’s article (the blockquote), he’s fooling himself and his readers. if he doesn’t know netanyahu’s government would collapse if he seriously considered a settlement freeze or pushing for 2 states. rosenblatt’s not paying attention. as was pointed out recently by Akiva Eldar https://mondoweiss.mystagingwebsite.com/2013/01/save-israel-eldar.html
these people, bennett, they don’t yammer on about iran, they’re blatantly out about being after the ‘land of israel’. iran won’t stop that. rosenblatt’s fooling himself, completely uninformed, or a propagandist. you decide. but this is total BS
I think Obama has made clear Iran will need to suspend enriching uranium to 20 percent, and that this issue is not something Netanyahu is obliged to raise. Russia and China also want Iran to stop stockpiling 20 percent uranium.
Financial Times reports today that there is a bit of noise in Israel today, regarding Obama’s comment that Israel does not know what is in its on best interests.