Trending Topics:

Wexler on the warpath: Opening volleys of major push for Iran war by liberal Zionists and hawks?

on 69 Comments

Robert Wexler, former Florida congressman and a key Obama ally on Israel/Palestine issues, was one of the speakers at a Churches for Middle East Peace dinner last night. Wexler is a liberal Zionist, who (correctly) sees Israel’s long term interest in a two state solution, and has taken a lot of flack for defending Obama from attack by the Zionist right. But last night he was terrifying.

wexler netanyahu1
wexler and netanyahu (Photo: S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace)

He began by saying he didn’t want to spend much time talking about the troubled peace process, about which there was little new to say, but Iran. What followed was a “Oh how it pains me to conclude this” analysis about how the US (not Israel) must launch a military attack on Iran, due to the progress Teheran has made in its nuclear program. Only then, Wexler said, in a line eerily evocative of the the neocons’ “road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad” line of 2002, will Israel feel secure enough to make peace with the Palestinians. Obama faces the choice of going down in history as the president who was on watch while Iran acquired nuclear weapons, or being the one who stopped it. An Iranian bomb would unleash all kinds of unknowable dangers in the Middle East, but the consequences of the US attack on Iran are knowable. Much as it pained him to say this (channeling the classic Israel “shoot and cry” trope) American military action is the most rational course. He closed by calling explicitly for “regime change” in Teheran.

None of this went over very well with our group. One former ambassador asked a pointed question about whether the Grand Bargain was possible, and when Wexler said it had been tried, the questioner pointed to the Obama administration’s dismissive reaction to the Turkey/Brazil initiative on Iran’s nuclear program. I asked, “While I agreed that the consequences of a nuclear Iran are unknowable, could he please tell us the consequences of a US attack, since he claimed they are knowable.” He didn’t answer, pontificating for three minutes on “what if they got the bomb” and then saying American military planning could game out the consequences of a US attack. One sentence.

A couple of thoughts. First Wexler made not even passing mention of a possible Israeli strike– he seems to know that Israel by itself doesn’t have the capacity to end Iran’s nuclear program or do very much more than damage Iran and stir up hatreds that will last generations. So this has to be an American operation. Secondly, he is a major liberal Democratic foreign policy figure, and Obama seems to rely upon him. It’s the first time I’ve seen a representative of this group call explicitly for American attack on Iran.

At my table, the feeling was that we were witnessing the opening volleys of a major new push for war, by liberal Zionists and liberal hawks. By supporting Obama on two states (not that it has made the slightest difference) Wexler has positioned himself as a necessary ally of the administration, so if he defected because of Obama’s reluctance to launch a war, it might be seen as politically damaging. I would like to think that Wexler has no influence in the Obama White House, but I don’t believe that. And he wants another American war on a Muslim country, consequences be dammed. His position is exactly the same as Richard Perle’s.

Scott McConnell

Scott McConnell is a founding editor of the American Conservative. The former editorial page editor of The New York Post, he has written for Fortune, The New Criterion, National Review, Commentary and many other publications.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

69 Responses

  1. Kathleen on November 10, 2011, 10:57 am

    I just don’t believe it is possible to be a “liberal zionist”. The essence of zionism is a “sovereign Jewish National Homeland” this is at its very essence ethno centric…exclusive. How is this in any way “liberal”

    Wexler has always been on the warpath about this issue. Reconfirming his racist bias

    • MRW on November 10, 2011, 11:51 am

      I agree, Kathleen. Wexler has NEVER, not ever, been anything other than a rabid scarifying Zionist. I cheered when he left Congress. He is a true son of the Pam Gellar approach to life.

      • seafoid on November 10, 2011, 12:33 pm

        Liberal Zionist is an oxymoron. Warmongering Zionist is a pleonasm.

      • Charon on November 10, 2011, 3:40 pm

        Liberal Zionist is an oxymoron. Warmongering Zionist is a pleonasm


        Witty wouldn’t agree but he also gets offended when someone writes that Zionism is racism. If you identify as a Zionist, you cannot be liberal, leftist, progressive, etc. That ideology is not compatible with those labels. Zionists do not want peace. A ‘Liberal Zionist’ is somebody who pretends to want peace. Deep down inside they want an indefinite status quo.

      • seafoid on November 10, 2011, 4:35 pm

        Zionism is f***ed

      • Am_America on November 10, 2011, 4:47 pm

        a lot of people though the same thing about Islam after 9/11

      • Taxi on November 10, 2011, 5:13 pm


      • seafoid on November 10, 2011, 5:47 pm

        Am_America November 10, 2011 at 4:47 pm

        “a lot of people though the same thing about Islam after 9/11”

        WTF ? 1 billion people ?What was supposed to replace Islam in Delhi ? In Kuala Lumpur?
        Star Academy?

        I know you want to say something with impact but you have to work on it, habibi.

      • aiman on November 11, 2011, 5:59 am

        Am_America: The difference is that Islam is theology like Judaism. Zionism, like other reactionary anti-ethical discourses, cannot be redeemed. One cannot compare theology to ideology.

        Qutbism/Maududism which are reactionary anti-ethical discourses by Muslim figures following the tragedy of colonialism, on the other hand, can be compared to Zionism.

      • dahoit on November 11, 2011, 12:28 pm

        When people call Feingold or Sanders potential candidates for POTUS,I laugh,because when it comes to the overriding issue of modern times,the state of Israel and its influence on our nation and the world,these clowns speak the same as Wexler.Pathetic .

  2. iamuglow on November 10, 2011, 11:08 am

    One difference btwn Iraq and Iran is that Iran is inextricably linked to the Israel.

    The Iraq war was written off in the US as a war for oil or revenge by Bush for Saddam trying to kill his Daddy….That can’t be done with Iran. The US will try to muddle it and say they are a threat to KSA or the Gulf states, but everyone knows who this war would be fought for…

    • ritzl on November 10, 2011, 1:55 pm

      Exactly. Iran would be nothing other than, and generally and correctly viewed as, a war for Israel. The Israelis have shot themselves in the foot with their continuous and widely broadcast (and readily identifiable as originating in Israel) warmongering on this.

      Everyone would see this as war for Israel, as they are getting angrier and angrier while filling up their car at $10++/gal. (assuming they could actually “fill” up). Whether that spectre limits the US politically in actually attacking and causing massive economic dislocation and misery is an open question. The advocates and decision-makers for attacking (war with) Iran could (probably?) simply have their heads shoved so far up their “it’s worked before without much blowback” asses that they can’t or don’t think in terms of limitations or consequences.

      “Tickling the dragon’s tail” like Wexler is doing here is another sign that we’re nearing a tipping point on Israel policy (the Aloni article in Salon being another recent one, per Crowther). I hope real pain/suffering/devastation can be averted, but this intentional and enforced ignorance of real-world consequences for the rest of us is as dangerous in the extreme as it is seemingly self-fulfilling. It will either be strenuously curtailed by cooler heads (a political smackdown for Israel), or it will not with the irreversible changes in popular and political regard for Israel as our BFF and “ally.” Either way it changes.

      The thing (wild card) that scares me the most about all this though is that it is actually true that it’s easy to start a war, but once they start shooting at us, nearly impossible, politically, to get out. Is there enough fool’s inertia in US politics to do that? Hope not, but then hope is all it is.

      • iamuglow on November 10, 2011, 3:30 pm

        I could see why they would have the hubris.

        Who would have imagined that Americans could be completely ignorant of the cost of US policy towards Israel after 9/11? One of one of the main motivations was US support of Israel yet despite endless coverage and articles about 9/11 that was brushed under the rug somehow…amazing.

        And surely when listing off the reasons for going to war with Iraq the fact that its biggest pushers where famous supporters of Israel that would have come up as a possible motivator for the war every now and then…But no…its taken a long while for most Americans to acknowledge the obvious.

        As Phil relates there are cracks in the wall everywhere and all this talk of Iran, let alone, god forbid, war with Iran is going to call more and more people to talk about and question US support for Israel as they see it for what it is.

  3. Potsherd2 on November 10, 2011, 11:10 am

    How many Iranians is Wexler willing to kill just to make Netanyahu feel secure? Doesn’t he know that Netanyahu will NEVER feel secure and never make peace? * Ever.

    Does Wexler guarantee that if the US bombs Iran, Israel will make peace? What penalty is he willing to pay if it doesnt’? Will he resign from office? (Did anyone ask that question?)

    * Does Wexler realize that this is an admission that Israel is the party refusing to make peace, apparently because it feels “insecure?”

    • dahoit on November 10, 2011, 11:20 am

      How many weapons and bombs and tanks and planes do the Zionists need to feel secure?And how many dead Iranians do they need to fulfill their insecurity?I’ve never seen such little people in charge of world affairs representing alleged civilized nations in world history.

  4. Dan Crowther on November 10, 2011, 11:12 am

    We shall see, I suppose. I really just don’t see how an American invasion of Iran could happen. I really think this is just political manuevering.

    • seafoid on November 10, 2011, 6:01 pm

      He always reminds of pancetta but anyway

      U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday that military action against Iran’s contentious nuclear program could have unintended consequences, and ought to be a ‘last resort’. Panetta said he agreed with earlier assessments that a strike would only set Iran’s nuclear program back by three years at most, adding that military action could fail to deter Iran and also have repercussions for other countries in the region and for U.S. forces based in the area

      Here is the aftermath of the pointless death for the Israel lobby of just one US soldier.
      Very, very sad. They never get over it.

      Lyle Cambridge was killed in Iraq in 2005. One of 7 soldiers from his area in Navajo country killed in Iraq. He left behind 2 sons.

    • Jeffrey Blankfort on November 11, 2011, 3:15 am

      There wouldn’t be an invasion, just bombing and more bombing, but it is still extremely unlikely that the US will initiate it, no matter how much the friggin’ Zios push it as they have, without let-up, since the first US troops landed in Iraq.

      I think the Zios know that but want to make sure that the US will have no choice, domestically, but to come to Israel’s aid following an initial Israeli attack and the predictable Iran response.

      Unlike Saddam in 1981, Iran cannot afford, in term of maintaining its own image, to allow Israel to launch an attack without retaliating.

      In 1991, on the eve of the first US Gulf war, a friend dropped by very late one night and told me that he had taken a sail off an old Chinese junk that he owned and wanted to make it into a banner and put it on the side of a large truck that he also owned and park it on the freeway overpass leading south out of San Francisco where it would be visible to thousands of cars.

      He asked me what would be an appropriate slogan and I immediately replied, “No War for Israel!” and so it was done with beautiful lettering in red, white, and blue by a 60s poster artist friend, and it quickly became a big hit with people bonking their horns down below, clearly in agreement, although one tremendous shout of “F–k you!,” did reach us through the din of traffic. And it was entirely legal as we explained to the cops who soon paid us a visit.

      When it became dark, my friend removed one of the truck’s headlights and directed it at the banner which made it stand out even more than before which is when a highway patrolman came by and said we needed to shut it off because we were creating a potentially dangerous traffic hazard.

      So we took the truck into the nearby Mission District where a youth march against the war was about to begin and our truck with its “No War for Israel” banner ended up leading the way.

      I’ve put that banner on my own pickup a number of times since and parked on the same freeway overpass as well as take it to some anti-war demonstrations and it appears it’s time to do it again. But you don’t need the sail from a Chinese junk to make your own banner, a big sheet would do it and I think the time to do so is now. No war for Israel!

      • DBG on November 11, 2011, 5:00 pm

        So let me get this straight, Iraq invades Kuwait and threatens Saudi Arabia, and that was also a war for Israel?

        Oh yeah, and Jeffrey, your story is total hogwash.

      • Shingo on November 11, 2011, 6:18 pm

        You didn’t get it straight DBG. You never do.

        Iraq was given the green light to invade Kuwait by James Baker. Iraq did not threaten Saudi Arabia. Cheney showed he Saudi’s doctored satellite photos of tank battalions amassed on the Saudi border to trick them into believing it and paying for Desert Storm

      • Jeffrey Blankfort on November 11, 2011, 10:32 pm

        Eric Alterman, in “Sound and Fury: The Washington Punditocracy and the Collapse of American Politics,” (Harper Collins, 1992) documents the drumbeat of the Zionist media stable to push that war which was not supported by the public and about which the Congress was divided.

        In the Washington Jewish Week, in July, 1991, Larry Cohler described how, while AIPAC publicly took no position, members of its board of directors privately lobbied key members of Congress to support it. The paper reported that Jewish organizations were very concerned that it would appear to be “a war for Israel.” As a consequence, they were anxious to have senators with no significant Jewish constituency support it while liberal Jewish senators were opposing it. I’m not making that up. I have the news clipping and I believe I have quoted from it on MW in the past.

        What the Zionists were hoping for was that Bush Sr. would go all the way to Baghdad and take out Saddam. When he didn’t they turned on him. So it goes. They were impatient and almost couldn’t wait for the son, pushing Clinton to do it. He only launched some missiles, one of which killed Iraq’s leading movie actress..

  5. Kathleen on November 10, 2011, 11:13 am

    Listening to the Diane Rehm show. I swear NPR’s new strategy is to endlessly cover people who have written books about the holocaust, anti- semitism, etc etc . Diane has not done a show on illegal settlement expansion, anything about the I/P issue in a long long time.

    But here she is covering a book about anti-semitism
    “The Prague Cemetary” Guy Raz , Scott Simon Terri Gross have focused disproportinately on books dealing with the Holocaust, or some other piece of Jewish history far more than any other ethnic or religious groups history. And now here is Diane Rehm joining what I think seems like an effort to focus on these issues while ignoring the I/P conflict

  6. James on November 10, 2011, 11:21 am

    “Churches for Middle East Peace dinner ”

    you sure it wasn’t called “zionists for middle east war dinner?”

    meanwhile the political idiots in power here in canada have imposed sanctions on iran.. they know a free meal from the banks when they see one…

    • W.Jones on November 10, 2011, 12:10 pm

      Scott Mcconnell,

      I am confused- it is Churches for Middle East Peace, and yet one of its keynote speakers devotes his speech to advocating what he sees as the _need_ to invade a huge country in the Middle East.

      Weren’t the sponsors aware of his talk? Or do they feel that because he is an Obama ally and supposed friend of a Two State Solution, that he is an important person to have give a speech?

      I just think they should’ve lined up speeches for Peace.

      I am confused- it’s a major organization for mainstream churches and is dedicated to peace…

      • justicewillprevail on November 10, 2011, 12:58 pm

        You don’t get it. For all these people and organisations, in Orwell’s words, War Is Peace.

      • W.Jones on November 10, 2011, 1:09 pm

        Alot of mainstream left wing Americans were against the Iraq invasion. CMEP naturally wants the occupation to end. And I think at this point most Americans don’t want to invade Iran. And we saw that there were comments disagreeing with the desires for invasion at the CMEP convention.

        So I am confused why CMEP, a pro peace organization would be doing this. I know there are institutions with good names about peace or something and it is just a cover for invasions, but I didn’t think CMEP was in this category. My impression was that it was significantly different from CUFI…

      • James on November 10, 2011, 4:25 pm

        no, i think folks on the outside of these whacked out fundamentalist religion types do get it… down is up and up is down..d if you aren’t a christian zio fanatic then you must be a terrorist from hell…

        even when reality is staring them in the face in plain daylight –
        “Churches for Middle East Peace dinner ”

        my ass… they and they leader at the nuclear weapon switch – dr strangenetanyahu are devoid of religion or anything that stands for religion… fanaticism is a better word for it..

        “churches for middle east murder and destruction dinner’… come on in zio freaks and religio fundamentalists..

      • W.Jones on November 11, 2011, 12:42 am


        The Nation reports:
        “The Christian community is split into competing lobbies as well, with hawks led by Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and doves by Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP). CUFI makes more noise and gets more press attention. But CMEP is an impressive coalition of twenty-two national church groups, including some of the largest denominations and the nation’s largest umbrella organization of Protestants, the National Council of Churches.”

      • on November 11, 2011, 6:45 pm

        no, CMEP is NOT a bunch of whacked out fundamentalists.

        They are a mainstream, but kowed, coalition of religious groups, including United Methodist, United Church of Christ, etc.
        They try to play nice; they try to do ‘dialog,’ ‘find common ground,’ ‘agree to disagree,’ ‘acknowledge Jewish suffering.’ etc.

        which zios laugh at and perceive as weakness and use to push the group around and marginalize them, rendering CMEP impotent.

  7. seafoid on November 10, 2011, 11:40 am

    How many more brown people have to die for Zionism ?

    They built their state in the wrong place. The Iraqi and Egyptian ambassadors told this to their American State Dept counterparts in 1944.
    No mound of bodies, no matter how big, can change this fact.

  8. pabelmont on November 10, 2011, 11:43 am

    Stopping Iran will make Israel feel safe enough to make peace? Huh? What were the dreadful fears (over 44 years) that prevented Israel from making peace (and, significantly, required or motivated it to spend all that money on settlements and highways), especially since 1988, when PLO recognized Israel in its pre-1967 borders?

    Unless Wexler (and his tribe) can justify a realistic “fear” for all those years, they must be pinned down as blowing smoke on this one, in promising peace as a consequence of a USA attack on Iran.

  9. radii on November 10, 2011, 12:36 pm

    if the zionist traitors manage to push the U.S. into war with Iran – even if it is passive support for an israeli attack then they deserve to be rounded up as seditious criminals – clearly agents for a foreign government … but in this day and age the Koch/corporate funded Tea Party can openly espouse racist and hate-filled ideology and nary police baton cracks a skull, but Occupy Wall Street peaceful protests on the Berkeley campus and everywhere else have been maced, beaten, shot with rubber bullets and worse … zionists are deeply enmeshed in our banking and political power structure and isn’t it interesting who gets beat and who doesn’t?

  10. upsidedownism on November 10, 2011, 12:37 pm

    you can be a liberal zionist any more than you can be a liberal fascist.
    Wexler and his friends are guilty of appeasement. Germany’s and Italy’s sympathizers in the 1930s made the same argument, give the fascists the land to which their entitled, let them build huge armed forces and demilitarize their enemies, and then it will fear secure and become less bellicose and make peace.
    Israel’s nuclear superiority gives its leaders the confidence that they can continue the ethnic cleansing of Palestine with impunity. They don’t want to worry about Iran’s or anyone elses reaction each time a new ‘settlement’ extension is announced

  11. seafoid on November 10, 2011, 12:47 pm

    Good guardian editorial

    An attack on Iran would of course be madness. It really is time to drop the pretence that Iran can be deflected from its nuclear path. It really is time for Iran to drop the pretence that it is not on that path. It really is time for the United States to recognise that there is no military solution. And it really is time for both America and Israel to put aside the idea that they can stop history with high explosives, cyber-attacks, sanctions and assassinations. To all intents and purposes Iran already has a nuclear weapons capacity, with the only question being when it will deploy – or be ready to deploy, which is an important distinction – weapons in usable numbers.

    It is possible, perhaps probable, that Israel will find the end of its nuclear monopoly hard to accept psychologically but less than disastrous in real terms

    • Am_America on November 10, 2011, 4:17 pm

      so Iran is developing a bomb? can you ppl make up your mind on this

      • annie on November 10, 2011, 4:18 pm


      • seafoid on November 10, 2011, 4:37 pm

        Probably. Israel can’t do anything about it.
        The nuclear advantage is coming to an end.

        Such a pity Israel built YESHA on the back of it.
        And imagine if Israel had been run in accordance with international law all this time. It could actually still have a future.

      • DBG on November 10, 2011, 5:09 pm

        if the future of a country is dictated by their adherence to international law, the whole Arab world is fucked also.

      • Taxi on November 10, 2011, 5:16 pm

        Not as fucked as euro Apartheid israelis. Especially territorially speaking.

      • seafoid on November 10, 2011, 5:40 pm

        No, DBG. The Arab world will always be there. There will always be shisha in Beirut, habibi. Old guys will still be dreaming of Nancy Ajram long after the Star of David is taken down from all the flagpoles.

        Israel is just a landing strip on the wrong side of the Med. The only country in the world which discusses regularly whether or not it has a future. The only country in the world whose existence depends on the US President.

      • Inanna on November 10, 2011, 9:37 pm

        In case you haven’t been paying attention, Arab people are busy trying to de-fuck their regimes.

      • dahoit on November 11, 2011, 12:13 pm

        Yada,Yada:You do know there is not one Arab democracy in the ME and every one of those nations has an American puppet or warlord or Emir in charge.And don’t spew about Egypt,Lybia,or even Tunisia,as all those nations are inflicted by our new puppets.

      • Chaos4700 on November 11, 2011, 6:36 pm

        Funny how “de-fucking” looks an awful lot like decolonizing. We’re all waiting until that wave hits the shores of Tel Aviv.

      • on November 11, 2011, 6:57 pm

        Stephen Kinzer has made a number of trips to Iran, and written several books on Iran. He says Iran has the most advanced system of government in the region, more ‘democratic’ than Israel in that Iran is not holding a few million persons in open air prisons, deprived of fundamental rights.

      • Taxi on November 10, 2011, 4:44 pm

        Only idiots don’t get that Iran had already snuck-won membership into the nuke club the day operation Shock and Awe was launched. A-ba-bye un-nuke Iraq AND helllllllowwww nukeeee Iran! That’s about how its worked out for the zionist planners of the illegal and immoral Iraq invasion. My-my-my what genius strategists the zionists turned out to be – all that champagne they drank while watching live CNN footage of Baghdad “lit up like a christmas tree”eh!

        Really the mullah’s would like to be thanking israel for this golden opportunity they unwittingly provided, but israel’s schedule’s been, well, a little hectic for some time now: what with all that settlement building and ethnic cleansing going on – no one in Apartheid israel”s got time to ‘socialize’.

        So much anti-socializing to do, so little time eh.

      • seafoid on November 10, 2011, 5:41 pm

        Such a pity the war in Iraq has come to this, Taxi. Who would have thought that Iraq would be lost and Israel defanged by 2011?

      • Taxi on November 10, 2011, 11:05 pm

        “defanged” ain’t enough seafoid. The mother effers have killed so many Arab christians and Arab moslems and they were hoping to kill Iranians en mass too. The despicable zionists were hoping to put ALL the blame on us Americans after we paid in blood and toil – tsk tsk tsk what ‘best friends’ they turned out to be.

        The punishment/karma for this malicious zionist mass-murder won’t be just a ‘defanging’. What gruesome soap-opera they’re forcing us to watch!

        The iraqis still have a bad bone to pick with the zionists. You can’t just destroy Baghdad, the very seat of civilization (where even ancient judaism thrived and prospered), and simply get away with it. Once Iran outs it’s nukes, we’ll be seeing an unbreakable military alliance between Iraq and Iran.

        Watch out you cowards who spilled the blood of innocents in the shadow of night! The ghosts of the dead and the spirits of the living will haunt till reparations are fully paid.

        This is the way of the world. You keep making war and war will unmake you.

      • on November 11, 2011, 7:17 pm

        Robert “Surge” Kagan, spouse of Victoria “You Lost” Nuland, on NPR a few days ago:

        . . .the least bad option may in fact, at the end of the day, be some kind of military action undertaken, I would say preferably by the United States, not by Israel.

        carve those words on a rock and jam it down Kagan’s throat when he claims, in 2015, that “Israel had nothing to do with the attack on Iran and ongoing disaster in Iran; that’s the fault of poor military planning by the Americans.”

        Kagan undoubtedly joins most Israelis in thinking that bombing Osirik was a swell idea. In fact, it pushed Saddam to undertake that which he had not done prior to bombing — accelerate development of nuclear weapons.

        And how many people have seen THIS UN statement, United Nations Security Council Resolution 487, chastising Israel for its rogue attack on Osirik in June 1981:

        Fully aware of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date,

        Noting furthermore that Israel has not adhered to the non-proliferation Treaty,

        Deeply concerned about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States,

        Considering that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”,

        1. Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct;

        2. Calls upon Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof;

        3. Further considers that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty;

        4. Fully recognises the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation;

        5. Calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards;

        6. Considers that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel; [Israel paid those reparations, right? Right??]

        7. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council regularly informed of the implementation of this resolution.

  12. HarryLaw on November 10, 2011, 12:56 pm

    Just who does Wexler and Condi “mushroom cloud” Rice think are going to take over in the event of Regime change in Iran, don’t they Know the Iranian opposition irreligious or pious alike all support the country’s nuclear energy drive, very few perhaps a few scholars fail to support it, it is seen as Nationalist imperitive and viewed as a source of pride. Or do these fools think the Iranian electorate should be changed. Are they acting stupid, or aren’t they acting.

  13. tommy on November 10, 2011, 1:00 pm

    An unexpected consequence of starting WW III, with an attack on the benign Iran, will be the end of the Fourth Reich the US, EU, and the financiers are attempting to create.

  14. on November 10, 2011, 1:11 pm

    What about Israel’s nuclear program??
    Is is under international control??
    Who is currently the biggest threat to the worldy peace?
    Who started the most wars after WWII?
    Who created and micro-manages the biggest, open air prison in Gaza that exists depsite many international protests??
    What a blantant hypocrisy , bordering on a side of a treason.

  15. on November 10, 2011, 1:40 pm
  16. Taxi on November 10, 2011, 1:57 pm

    Ape gets coiffed for peace dinner. Very civilized. Arrives at dinner in a Limo driven by a hairless minion. Ah yes very civilized.

    Belly now full, Ape stands where everyone can see he’s charmingly civilized. Then his eyes droop and he weeps for peace aaaah how cutely civilized. Five seconds later Ape starts banging puffed chest and bearing teeth for war. Oh how tortured how tormented how very civilized. Not like them un-coiffed muslims who go straight into vitriol the moment the microphone is in their hand. Ape makes a point of saying just that and his audience mostly nods, neighbor whispers approval to neighbor. Marvelously civilized. Now Ape can see he’s the maestro of this shmaltzy sycophantorium and the thrill of power makes Ape weep again, holding his hand out, for a handout. Almost everyone at the peace table gives him (someone else’) money. Ape weeps harder and s’more and the patrons think he’s hurting too much that they too weep with Ape and give him even more (of someone else’) money. Now everyone in the hall is weeping. Many in sympathy with Ape. A few weep hardest at the sheer stupidity of their fellow man. For sure, the fly on the wall is weeping with the few too. Moi aussi I weep – oh I weep storms of tears of laughter at how passionately the stupid love the crass.

    And don’t you know it was always forever thus!

    Somebody attending shoulda heckled the furry-toed Wexler midway: ‘Aaaah shut up and sit down will ya! The menu says cake for desert not bitter lemons!’

  17. seanmcbride on November 10, 2011, 2:13 pm

    The Israel lobby has succeeded in ruining both the Republican and Democratic Parties. It will probably be blamed for taking down the United States of America.

  18. seanmcbride on November 10, 2011, 2:22 pm

    Let’s be clear on this, regarding Robert Wexler’s support for the two-state solution: the “Mideast peace process” and “the two-state solution” have been a sham from the very beginning, a calculated device used by the Israeli government and the Israel lobby to stall and delay indefinitely while relentlessly creating new facts (settlements) on the ground. The Israeli government has never had the slightest intention of permitting the formation of a Palestinian state or abandoning the occupied territories. Clearly it fully intends to expand those territories and to rid itself of Palestinians within Greater Israel by whatever means are necessary.

    Really, it’s time for the American government to wake up and stop being played for fools.

  19. yourstruly on November 10, 2011, 5:09 pm

    “robert wexler on the warpath?

    if the president doesn’t make war on iran, he’ll lose a liberal on everything except palestine democrat?

    except there’s a way he can lose all such liberals & still win

    how, by embracing the occupy the world movement?

    + turning government policy around on the palestine/israel issue

    then at next november’s election?

    he’ll win in a landslide

  20. DICKERSON3870 on November 10, 2011, 5:48 pm

    RE: “Only then [after the U.S. bombs Iran], Wexler said, …will Israel feel secure enough to make peace with the Palestinians.” ~ Scott McConnell

    MY COMMENT: Can Wexler prove conclusively that Israel will not then obsess about Pakistan? Or Syria? Or Egypt? Or Saudi Arabia? [And so on, virtually ad infinitum.]

    • yourstruly on November 10, 2011, 9:06 pm

      feel secure by nuking iran?

      but after the arab/islamic world reacts to the settler entity israel’s latest deadly transgression against one of its neighbors?

      the entity’s pm tells the american president “hey, mr president,”looks like we’re in trouble.”

      the u.s. president’s response*?”

      what do you mean we, settler-man?

      * if, that is, the president had publicly warned the pm not to bomb iran. otherwise get ready for blowback, america

    • DICKERSON3870 on November 13, 2011, 1:18 am

      P.S. RE: “Can Wexler prove conclusively that Israel will not then obsess about Pakistan? Or Syria? Or Egypt? Or Saudi Arabia? [And so on, virtually ad infinitum.]” – me, above

      ALSO SEE: Israel’s Defense Chief OK’s Hundreds of Israeli Deaths, By Ira Chernus,, 11/11/11

      (excerpt)…An essential motive of Zionism from its beginning was a fierce desire to end the centuries of Jewish weakness, to show the world that Jews would no longer be pushed around, that they’d fight back and prove themselves tougher than their enemies. There was more to Zionism than that. But the “pride through strength” piece came to dominate the whole project. Hence the massive Israeli military machine with its nuclear arsenal.
      But you can’t prove that you’re stronger than your enemies unless you’ve also got enemies — or at least believe you’ve got enemies — to fight against. So there has to be a myth of Israel’s insecurity, fueled by an image of vicious anti-semites lurking somewhere out there, for Zionism to work. Since the 1979 Iranian revolution, Iran has gradually risen to the top of Israel oh-so-necessary enemies list. Iranophobia is rampant in Israel, as one Israeli scholar writes, because “Israel needs an existential threat.”
      Anyone who has grown up in Israel, or in the U.S. Jewish community (as I did), and paid attention knows all this…



      (excerpt)”…Israelis have never been particularly kind to each other. It’s one of the reasons I left actually. In my late twenties I started to grow weary of the unkind, harsh and unforgiving atmosphere around me. It was a tough place to live in not because of our ‘enemies’ but because of how people treated one another. You would believe that we were all enemies rather than people who have some kind of a shared heritage. The only thing that could unite people and temporarily brought out more kindness and a sense of cooperation was a feeling of being
      under collective threat, and in particular a ‘good wholesome war’…
      ” ~ Avigail Abarbanel

      SOURCE –

  21. on November 10, 2011, 9:19 pm

    “Tyrants are creeping from everywhere,
    Daggers in their hands are stained with blood,
    Moaning behind them, and the smell of corpses.
    It stinks here with Mammon and bloodthirsty lust
    to own the world without impunity.”

  22. Richard Witty on November 10, 2011, 10:56 pm

    What Israel can learn from Iran

    By Gideon Levy

    “Iran will apparently have an atom bomb, and that is very bad news. It is a country that sows evil. There is no need to add words about its dreadful threats or its dark regime”…

    Gideon Levy goes on to point to difficult realities about Israel, but still opens with acknowledgment that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon and that it is not a good in the world.

    Maybe he is wrong, duped too.

    I hope you won’t go so far as to call him a war-mongerer now for observing.

    • Shingo on November 10, 2011, 11:15 pm

      Maybe he is wrong, duped too.

      What a pathological liar you are Witty.

      Why did you see fir to truncate the quote? Is it because Levy is quite clearly being sarcastic and you were hoping no one would read the link? Here’s what he actual says:

      “Iran will apparently have an atom bomb, and that is very bad news. It is a country that sows evil. There is no need to add words about its dreadful threats or its dark regime – the Israeli media does so more than enough.

      The next sentence reads:

      “At the same time, other questions are not being raised – questions about the double standards of the West and of Israel.

      They shut their eyes to certain nuclear countries, some of them dangerous, while making a tremendous fuss about how Iran is arming itself.

      • Richard Witty on November 10, 2011, 11:55 pm

        He doesn’t conclude “Iran is innocent” in his math.

        He doesn’t require that X be evil and Y good.

        You did read this sentence Shingo?

        “Gideon Levy goes on to point to difficult realities about Israel, but still opens with acknowledgment that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon and that it is not a good in the world.”

      • Shingo on November 11, 2011, 2:27 am

        He doesn’t conclude “Iran is innocent” in his math.

        He hasn’t done any math you idiot. Levy has obviously taken the report at face value.

        “Gideon Levy goes on to point to difficult realities about Israel, but still opens with acknowledgment that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon and that it is not a good in the world.”

        Yes, and Levy is wrong. There is no evidence Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon and the IAEA report provides no new evidence to that effect.

        Where did you learn to be such a sleazy liar Witty? Why did you feel compelled to misquote Levy to begin with?

      • James on November 11, 2011, 12:10 am

        i would have to agree with your view here shingo… wittys selected quote says more about him then the article…

    • James on November 11, 2011, 12:08 am

      here are a few quotes from the same article by g levy

      “Israel, which has not signed the treaty, is in the same company as North Korea, Pakistan and India – that is, very dubious company.”

      “There is a great deal of hypocrisy in Israel’s attitude toward the world. All of a sudden, the international community is a factor not only to be taken into account but even to turn to for help. All of a sudden, there is an international organization whose word we trust and whom we want to enlist. The UN is “Um-Shmum” [a derisive term coined by the first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion] and UNESCO is anti-Semitic, and only the International Atomic Energy Agency’s word can be trusted.”

      “In recent years the world has said definitive things about Israel’s steps, in the name of a sweeping and very solid majority. Israel did not take heed. After all, it is not important what the world says; it is important what Israel does. But now, suddenly, the world is important to Israel.

      Like Israel, Iran will apparently not heed the words of the world. But does Israel want in any way to resemble Iran?”

      we know what happened to iraq who supposedly had nuclear weapons… can iran be blamed for wanting to have them given what happens to countries that don’t? i do find it hypocritical that some countries think it is okay for them to have them, in spite of their unwillingness to even acknowledge having them…

      as for iran threatening israel and the usa, i must have missed these threats, so can someone please give me the details of the threats? is this more of the wiped off the face of the planet mistranslation stuff?

  23. piotr on November 11, 2011, 2:40 am

    “the US (not Israel) must launch a military attack on Iran, due to the progress Teheran has made in its nuclear program. Only then, Wexler said, in a line eerily evocative of the the neocons’ “road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad” line of 2002, will Israel feel secure enough to make peace with the Palestinians.”

    Perfectly true statement! To doubters, short course in logic. “A only if B” statement has so-called truth table:
    A true, B true –> statement correct
    A false, B false –> statement correct
    A true, B false –> statement incorrect
    A false, B true –>statement correct
    Thus Wexler errs only if sometimes in the future it comes to pass that USA did not attack Iran and yet Israel feels secure enough to … make peace with Palestinians. While I would phrase it like Wexler, I believe he is right.

    As we are floating through the sea of hypotheticals in our Yellow Submarine, ponder the possibility that Lo! USA attacked Iran and Israel feels secure enough. What would Israel do with the unaccustomed surfeit of security? I wonder if one can post a poll with “top 10 things Israel should do if we feel secure enough”, say, on JP website.

    Other people consider different hypotheticals. What would be the price of oil in the aftermath of the attack? Some claim 200, other, 290. Other claim that central banks of USA and Eurozone would panic, flood the world with newly created money, and we will get hyperinflation — consequently, oil can reach 4 digits and more. Or we will switch to barter trade.

  24. Justice Please on November 11, 2011, 5:26 am

    Hey Wexler, here is your parachute and your rifle. You want to defend paranoid Israel from one hypothetical Iranian bomb? Do it, but don’t drag the rest of us into it.

Leave a Reply