Trending Topics:

Report: Israel to give US only 12-hour warning before attacking Iran because Netanyahu doesn’t trust Obama

on 134 Comments

From the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv (in Hebrew, translated by MW contributor Shmuel):

Israel: We Won’t Give Advance Notice of Attack on Iran
Sunday Times reports that Israel told Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff it would give only twelve hours’ warning, for fear that Obama would try to prevent [an attack].

Maariv NRG, 22/1/12

Israel informed Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, during his visit over the weekend, that it would not request US authorisation for an attack on Iran, and that it would give only twelve hours warning before launching such an attack, according to this morning’s Sunday Times.

According to the report, Netanyahu does not trust Obama and believes the President might do everything [in his power] to prevent an attack if informed in advance, for fear of rising oil prices in an election year.

Recently, Obama called Netanyahu asking for clarifications regarding [a possible] attack [against Iran]. According to the Sunday Times report, the conversation was strained, and the Prime Minister explained his position, insisting that he would refuse to share details with the White House, should such an attack be launched. According to the report, the differences between the two sides increased further in the wake of Dempsey’s meeting with Defence Minister Ehud Barak at the weekend.

Times reporter Uzi Mahnaimi adds that outwardly, Israel and the United States are trying to downplay the crisis, but the two countries would appear to be on a collision course.

For example, Dempsey claimed that Israel and the United States had agreed to postpone the scheduled joint military exercise and that the postponement would serve [the interests of] both sides. The fact is however, a defence source told the Sunday Times, that this is false. “We were shocked”, said the source. “The exercise had been planned for two years.”

I couldn’t find the Sunday Times article on their website in front of the paywall, but please post it below in the comments if you have it.

Adam Horowitz

Adam Horowitz is Executive Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

134 Responses

    • annie on January 22, 2012, 2:58 pm

      thanks mark, helpful. they left out the ‘it’s a lie’ part

      President Shimon Peres told Dempsey, “I am sure that in this fight [against Iran] we will emerge victorious. It is a fight that does not belong exclusively to the United States or Israel, but a global struggle to create a safe world for all peoples.”

      Dempsey, on his first official visit to Israel, was wined and dined by Defense Minister Ehud Barak and IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gants, who went so far as to arrange an IDF orchestra rendition of song made famous by Frank Sinatra, one of Dempsey’s favorite singers.

      Dempsey tried to play down the postponement of what was billed as the largest-ever joint military drill between the Israeli and American armies, involving thousands of U.S. Army soldiers.

      Published reasons for the delay have ranged from budgetary constraints, logistical problems to a signal from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that he distrusts President Obama’s commitment to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

      Dempsey maintained that the delay, which was announced by Israel, will give both countries more time to prepare and “achieve a better outcome.”

      The top American general left Israel on Friday, before the Sabbath began.

      there’s also this:

      It is left to speculation whether the rumors are based on facts or are leaked by officials to mask the possibility of secret military coordination.

      or leaked by officials to embarrass or pressure the US.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort on January 23, 2012, 1:09 am

        That the leak was published in the London Times, a Murdoch owned publication, may be part of an effort by the Netanyahu government to undermine the Obama administration’s campaign to portray the Israel-US relationship as being tighter than ever.

        Think about it. Twelve hours would give the US plenty of time to do something to stop that attack if it so wished, a fact that would not be lost on the international community.

  1. chet on January 22, 2012, 1:48 pm

    Again and again, Panetta’s Face The Nation statement has to be repeated.

    • seafoid on January 22, 2012, 2:45 pm

      Is it this?

      The Defense Secretary also addressed questions about what the U.S. would do if Israel took out Iran’s nuclear capability on their own.

      “Our preference is that the intelligence community, including Israel, ought to work together on this issue,” he said. “We have common cause here. We’re not interested in them developing a nuclear weapon. We are not interested in them proliferating violence throughout that region. We are not interested in them trying to assist in terrorism. We are not interested in them trying to destabilize governments in that region or any place else. We have common cause here. And the better approach is for us to work together.”

      When pressed about the U.S. response to an operation by Israel, Panetta said the U.S. would protect its forces in the region.

      “If the Israelis made that decision, we would have to be prepared to protect our forces in that situation. And that’s what we’d be concerned about.”

      • chet on January 22, 2012, 6:36 pm
      • quercus on January 23, 2012, 5:17 am

        Hell, as far as I’m concerned they don’t need to give us any notice. Want to attack Iran, go right ahead, baby, you’re on your own.

        The Israeli leadership are really quite comical. All this 12-hour talk is what the Japanese call “saving face”. I suspect General Dempsey went there to tell these clowns that they are on their own with an attack on Iran and this is their comical spin on it.

      • lobewyper on January 23, 2012, 7:10 am

        Seafoid’s quote from Panetta:

        “If the Israelis made that decision, we would have to be prepared to protect our forces in that situation. And that’s what we’d be concerned about.”

        This statement by Panetta to me is clearly pointing out that an Israeli attack upon Iran would place US forces at risk. Since this would not be in our interests (to say the least), it unmistakably underlines the contention of Mearsheimer, Walt and many others that US and Israeli interests are not identical.
        It is fair to assume that the American people would be very unhappy with Israel were this to happen, and support for Israel would take a huge hit.
        There does not seem to be much discussion of whether an attack on Iranian nuclear sites could release damaging radiation, a possibility HarryLaw notes below. Such could affect our friends in the region as well as perhaps our own troops.
        My continued take: talk of an Israeli attack is simply that–talk. Talk designed to encourage the US to get tougher on Iran short of military action.

  2. Kathleen on January 22, 2012, 1:55 pm

    Israel daily undermines US National Security. Every minute of every day.

    Phil, Adam Mondo team. Today there was a special called “Save Jerusalem Campaign” hosted and promoted by Dr. Mike Evans. The most twisted and long commerical ( one half hour I watched) for Israel’s illegal and immoral expansion that I have ever heard or seen. I called the number that they ask people to call to donate to complain about the lies and the stations willingness to air such lies. 1-800-297-3727

    One positive today on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS the only lie that about Iran and US foreign policy was when David “axis of evil” Frum did tried to promote that US foreign policy in regard to Iran has nothing to do with Israel’s national security.

    • on January 22, 2012, 6:40 pm

      Evans is an oldtimer at this game.

      Jewish parents who converted to Christianity; he followed suit, styles himself an evangelical Christian. Also a part of David Project and consults to Netanyahu regularly.

      Evans claims to have given numerous seminars to US Congressmen on bible prophecies, he’s big on the gog-magog stuff.

      this book of his was particularly disgusting — opening pages = “Americans should love Isaac and hate Ishmael.”

      We have to suspend venting our displeasure on MW etc and start writing books to tell another side of the story. To allow books like Evans’ to go unanswered is like your team failing to show up for a football game. We have got to take the field and tell a DIFFERENT story — play OFFENSE, rather than defend against the bilge that Evans & his ilk produce by the truckload.

  3. Mikesailor on January 22, 2012, 2:25 pm

    Interesting. Obama should declare that any warplanes flying in or near the Persian Gulf or Iraq, without prior clearance from the US, will be considered hostile to US forces and shot down. That would put an end to this silly posturing of whether or not there is prior notice. For if Israel attacks, the US will be in the cross hairs and considered an accomplice no matter what. I wonder if Obama has the guts? For such an action, clearly in the best interests of the US, will enrage the Israel-firsters.

    • kalithea on January 22, 2012, 11:14 pm

      “I wonder if Obama has the guts?”

      HELL NO!

      Hasn’t he yet removed all doubt in you?

  4. pabelmont on January 22, 2012, 2:36 pm

    If [1] an Israeli attack on Iran would likely raise oil prices significantly
    and [2] Americans generally would state in advance that they do not wish to raise oil prices significantly THEN [3] Obama DOES represent USA on this point and [4] Israeli and USA interests SIGNIFICANTLY DIVERGE.

    Play that on your harmonica, AIPAC, Bibi, Chucky (“Shomer”) Schumer, Newt, Barack, Hilary, et al.

    Of course, Barack could be wrong. Maybe the attack would NOT be likely to raise oil prices * * * or maybe Americans would cheer anyway (we DO love aggressive warfare, after all).

    • seafoid on January 22, 2012, 5:15 pm

      Every 10 dollar increase in the oil price cuts GDP growth by 0.3%.
      The US can’t afford another one of Israel’s wars of choice. A double dip recession would be the very least to expect.

      • Egbert on January 23, 2012, 2:34 pm

        This year’s Herzilya conference has an invitation only (war?) gaming session on the theme – what happens if oil goes to $250 a barrel. The game session is 31 jan. I wonder if Israel has long options on oil?

    • MLE on January 22, 2012, 11:39 pm

      I think the Saudis are trying to promise that they would make up for any shortfalls that would come from the absence of Iranian oil on the market, but I’m not entirely sure they can actually do it.

      • Theo on January 23, 2012, 10:31 am

        The saudis and iranians are not exactly friends, however the saudis are partners with Israel.
        So what will Iran do if it is attacked? Those saudi oil fields are just a couple hundred miles from Iran, so they will just send a few dozen missiles to destroy them, so stopping the saudis to increase production.
        That will be noticed by the world immediately and Israel will have a great pressure to answer, either stop immediately or recon with military attack against them. Welcome to WWIII.

        The only solution: once Obama is notified of an imminent israeli attack, he must order our armed forces to prevent it by all means. That means cruise and other missiles hitting military airfields, missile sites and other military installations in Israel, right behind them our planes.
        There are only two choices, destroying israeli military power or WWIII.

  5. seafoid on January 22, 2012, 2:48 pm

    It would be insane for Israel to attack Iran. The region’s history is full of empires that fell because of stupid wars. Israel is just another regional empire. They all thought they were unique.

  6. seafoid on January 22, 2012, 3:01 pm

    On 70th anniversary of Wannsee Conference, PM Benjamin Netanyahu says that the will to destroy the Jewish people has not changed.
    By Barak RavidTags: Benjamin NetanyahuNazisHolocaust

    “The Israeli government has the “right, duty and capability” to prevent the elimination of the Jewish people and the Jewish state, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday’s weekly cabinet meeting.
    During the meeting, the cabinet marked the 70th anniversary of the Wannsee Conference on the Nazi “Final Solution” for the Jewish people.
    Netanyahu said that the Jewish people’s ability to defend itself was the main difference between 2012 and 1942.
    “There is no lack of bitter enemies today,” Netanyahu said. “The will to destroy the Jewish people has not changed. What has changed is our ability to defend ourselves and our determination to do so”

    This tragic history will be used to bring the hell of war to Iran.

    Why does the Holocaust live on in Israeli cabinet meetings? Has it outlived its purpose? Or is it a key plank of a no longer valid ideology? Does the constant refrain of the Shoah help Jews today ? And why do 70% of Shoah survivors in Israel live below the poverty line?

    • Winnica on January 22, 2012, 3:44 pm

      “70% of Shoah survivors in Israel live below the poverty line”.


      • Shingo on January 22, 2012, 3:51 pm

        Yeah, I’m disgusted too Winnica.

      • jonah on January 22, 2012, 5:26 pm

        Yeah, I’m disgusted too Winnica.

        FYI, it’s 25% not 70%. But it’s still too much. That’s the consequence of being a small beleaguered nation: it is forced to mantain massive spending for the defence and the security of its citizens (10-15% of the overall budget and biggest ratio of defense spending to GDP) and has too little left for the social issues.

        But if you really care about the well-being of the Shoah survivors (beyond the ostentatious sterile contempt), please, you can help here concretely:

      • kalithea on January 22, 2012, 11:19 pm

        You got a link for the well-being of Nakba survivors living below the poverty line to go with that?

      • seafoid on January 23, 2012, 1:24 am

        “it is forced to mantain massive spending for the defence and the security of its citizens (10-15% of the overall budget and biggest ratio of defense spending to GDP) and has too little left for the social issues. ”

        that is political economy. Nobody asked Israel to occupy the rest of palestine.
        There is enough money in Israel to give those who survived the Nazi death machine dignity in their last years. Israel chooses to spend the money on YESHA instead.

      • peeesss on January 23, 2012, 3:00 am

        I think one should go to Finklestein’s book, “The Holocoast Industry”. {Shoah] , Reparations have been used to enrich the govt. of Israel and many lawyers . A very paltry amount have gone to any survivors. And we are talking about hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars.

      • Theo on January 23, 2012, 10:46 am is forced to maintain massive spending for defence…

        Defense against whom? Stone throwing palestinian children outraged over their supression, WB arabs who are driven out of their homes?
        Peaceful demonstrators?
        Besides, those expenses are covered by the compliments of the US taxpayers.

      • Theo on January 23, 2012, 10:47 am

        We are talking about many, many billions!!!

      • seafoid on January 22, 2012, 4:54 pm

        The story is desperately said. Israel was paid billions in reparationsby Germany and there is no money now to pay for healthcare for those who survived the death camps.

        Israel asked Germany to pay more a few years ago and the Germans showed them the payment records and and asked what they did with the money.

      • richb on January 22, 2012, 5:07 pm

        Note I was the one who was critical of Christians Friends of Israel.

        Yet, when I was in Jerusalem they noted how desperate the situation was for the victims of the Shoah and they also noted how anti-proselytizing laws kept them from being as generous as they would like. In essence the laws forbid large material contributions because the recipients might be grateful and convert. Of course, a solution to all this is to not have the Shoah victims in need of our charity. Instead the Israeli government would rather use them as pawns for their propaganda. Disgusting…

      • pabelmont on January 22, 2012, 5:08 pm

        Why are 70% of Shoah survivors in Israel living below the poverty line? Presumably, because they are poor people. And what does any right-wing government care about? Corporate profits, especially (in USA and Israel) M-I-C profits. Not safety nets. Not old folks. Look at the right-wing in the USA seeking to cut Medicare, etc. When the money came in from Germany, did it go to Jewish victims of German oppression? Nope, to Israel.

      • MRW on January 22, 2012, 5:18 pm

        Then , there’s this Swiss settlement , which hasn’t been fully distributed. from wikipedia:

        On November 22, 2000, Judge Edward R. Korman announced settlement of this case with his approval of a plan featuring the payment of $1.25 billion into funds controlled by the plaintiff organizations. He appointed Judah Gribetz Special Master to administer the plan, which is sometimes called the Gribetz Plan after its chief author.[12]

        By October 2009, some $490 million had been paid out to individual claimants, and acceptance of new claims had been discontinued for some time. This amount includes not only amounts deposited into Swiss banks by purported victims, but compensation for labor purportedly performed in displaced-persons camps, the value of purported looted assets, compensation for persons purported to have sought admission to Switzerland as refugees and to have been denied admission, both Jewish and non-Jewish, plus interest calculated on the claimed losses from the time of loss to the time of payment.

      • Bruce Wolman on January 23, 2012, 12:42 am


        Did you not see the response from Edwin Black to your comments?

        I repeat below. You owe the site an explanation.

        Had a 45-minute phone conversation with Edwin Black this morning.

        He vociferously denies your claim that he was in hiding for two years due to a JDL contract on him. No hiding, no JDL contract. During the time you mention, Black was syndicated in Israel. Hardly a place you would be writing for if you were hiding from the JDL. Black states he has always remained a public person since publication of The Transfer Agreement.

        Moreover, he denies your claim that there are substantial differences between the 1984 version of The Transfer Agreement and other editions. In fact, it can’t be true since all the pages of later editions except those so marked are photographic reproductions of the 1984 edition. Even the typos are the same.

        Mr. Black insists you reveal your name, and the name of the person at whose house you claim he was hiding for those two years.

        If in fact, Mr. Black is telling the truth, and I have no reason to doubt him, you either owe this site and Mr. Black an apology or you need to back up your claims. If you can’t substantiate them, then you should not have made them public in the first place.

        Needless to say, Mr. Black does not agree with Blankfort’s analyses and conclusions. He is at the moment recovering from major surgery, but he is willing to give Mondoweiss an extensive interview when he is 100%. However, he is very annoyed at the site for letting you spread such nonsense about him.

        On a personal note, I am quite pissed about the wasted time you caused me for taking you seriously. I actually went to some efforts to find a 1984 version of the book.

      • MRW on January 23, 2012, 6:32 am

        Bruce, BS, then he was lying then. Because he was hiding out at Marilu Henner’s brother’s apartment who was a photographer for the Chicago Herald Tribune. Black also worked for the Chicago Herald Tribune. I spoke to him then. He said the JDL had a contract out on him. I don’t give a damn what he is telling you now. He said it to me then. Period.

        Didn’t Black became a big Settler supporter in the years hence?

      • annie on January 23, 2012, 11:03 am

        bruce, where were you able to find a macmillan edition?

      • Bruce Wolman on January 23, 2012, 4:14 pm


        I bought the latest edition online.

        It was Edwin Black that said the plates used for the different editions were the same. The forwards for the different editions are on his web site.

      • annie on January 23, 2012, 4:52 pm

        It was Edwin Black that said the plates used for the different editions were the same.

        and nothing was redacted? that is not what i read although i can’t find the reference online. is it common for publisher to relinquish their plates to the authors so that the authors can go to another publisher?

      • Bruce Wolman on January 23, 2012, 5:25 pm


        First, there is no Chicago Herald Tribune.

        Second, re-reading your original comment it is difficult to determine whether you claimed that the JDL had a contract on Mr. Black for two years, or that he was hiding out at your friend’s brother for two years. From the above comment, I assume your friend is Marilu Henner.

        I just spoke with Mr. Black again. He never worked for the Chicago Tribune or any other Chicago newspaper. As mentioned, on his website he did at various times write some freelance articles for various Chicago papers.

        Mr. Black claims he never hid out at anyone’s house for any memorable period of time, has no recollection of working with anyone named Henner, nor knows of any contract ever put out on his life.

        What is the name of Marilu Henner’s brother, who you claim Black hid out with? How can he be contacted? Your friend, Marilu Henner, has superior autobiographical memory, so I’m sure she can confirm your story if it is true.

        Mr. Black insists you reveal who you are and provide evidence for your charges made at Mondoweiss. I might remind you that nobody else involved beside yourself is writing under anonymity.

        The rest of us deserve to know who is not telling the truth here.

      • Bruce Wolman on January 23, 2012, 5:50 pm


        I have no idea how common it is. But if an original publisher did not want to print further editions, it would not be unheard of. I have seen publishing contracts where publishing rights return to the author if the publisher refuses to print further editions. Obviously, the original publisher signed off on the change. The facts about the plates are what Mr. Black told me. I have no reason to doubt him.

        Where is the analysis showing the body of the text is different between editions? I cannot find such a reference on Google.

      • Danaa on January 24, 2012, 2:38 am

        Bruce, I have no idea why you are pursuing this line of inquisition. Are you the appointed grand inquisitor for all things Black? who cares about what Black insists or doesn’t? MRW made a claim – you challenged him on another thread, and now you are here on this thread – still throwing down the gauntlet. We all took note of the matter of dispute here, and now it’s time to move on to something else. Since you don’t post here often you may not realize that people often make all sorts of claims, just as others make counterclaims. And then we’ll all take note of the dispute and then it’s over.

        In any case, this is way OT. A short reminder – this thread is about israel blackmailing and threatening the US to allow it to commit mass murder of countless humans – on a 12 hour notice. That is what israel is planning to do and that is what the Jewish people in the US have been drafted to defend: mass murder. And they do defend it – and whatever your position is on Iran, I don’t see you joining the side of the angels who are trying to prevent an atrocity. One that could be worse than the atrocity visited upon Iraq, another venture in which jewish people (not all, but many) were up to their neck in. Why not pursue them instead?

        Besides, just because a holocaust happened doesn’t mean that descendents related to the vicitims by some mere tenuous ethnicity are entitled to commit their own versions of crimes, be they the horrors visited upon innocent palestinians, or taking the US into criminal venture and causing countless casualties among our soldiers, or bringing blowbacks like 9/11 upon Americans who had nothing to do with the occupation. I don’t believe you are a Holocaust survivor yourself, or a direct descent of some who were, and frankly neither is Black, though I commend his efforts to shed light on a nasty piece of history.

        But I am a descendent of survivors. Bona fide ones. And I am telling you to cut it out. Whatever your agenda is, I don’t like it, and just as you have your suspicions, perhaps so do I. But suspicions don’t matter in the larger scheme of things. Not nearly as much as the death of innocents, of whatever ethnicity they happen to be.

        Point is, you have no special rights on this comment board, to my knowledge. Here there are no special privileges and no exceptionalism. We are all anonymous here, even the ones who post under their actual names, because we grant it to them, gratis. I disagree strenuously with much of Donald’s paranoic visions of anti-semites in every nook and cranny, and I do wonder why he, a non Jewish poster by admission, cares about enforcing the lines all that much. But we all wonder all the time about many things, just as we may wonder about other posters, but I wouldn’t dream of chasing Donald or Slater or anyone else all over the map just because I take exception to something they might have said. Slater found out that exceptionalism (or was it simple pompousness – something not at all uniquely Jewish) and didn’t like being taken to task for a half baked concept he dubbed “Just war”(or as astute anonymous commenter Shingo called it – “Just a war”).

        If you want to do good in this world, stop chasing posters, who have every right to stay anonymous, and take on the real meanies in this world who are now beating the drums to rain bombs on people.

        But, speaking of claims, where can I find that first edition of the Black book? since now I am a bit curious as to why it is so unavailable. See? now you made me wonder too….

      • annie on January 24, 2012, 8:36 am

        where is an original copy of the book? they all seem to have dematerialized.

      • patm on January 24, 2012, 9:09 am

        where is an original copy of the book? they all seem to have dematerialized.

        annie, there may be an original copy in the Toronto Reference Library. I will go and see if it is what you are seeking if you will tell me what I should look for.

        I haven’t followed the discussion on “The Transfer Agreement.”

      • LeaNder on January 24, 2012, 9:19 am

        Annie, I didn’t follow this carefully, but. I checked for you our local library our interlibrary loan catalog/database They are usually very correct about new, updated or changed versions. It lists several editions all edition have the same page-numbers and there is no indication that these reprints are new or changed versions.

        Edwin Black seems quite a busy writer (and no Norman Finkelstein, in this context) would he really go back for revisions or as in Norman’s case updated versions?

      • LeaNder on January 24, 2012, 10:05 am

        Ok, I may be wrong. He may have changed minor things.

        Introduction 2o09 edition.

        This book was my first fiery volume and ignited the drive for my subsequent works. But I suggest to my readers, delve into my subsequent work first and only then approach my initial molten project, The Transfer Agreement. Why? Because twenty-five years later, few have been able to reliably answer the final question originally posited at the end of the 1984 edition: “Was it madness or was it genius?” It took me twenty-five years to discover the answer.

        What exactly are you expecting is there in the old edition that isn’t in the new one? Books don’t go away. Why don’t you try library editions and compare. The 1984 edition is still available here too.

      • Bruce Wolman on January 24, 2012, 10:16 am


        There is a copy of the 1984 edition in the Library of Congress. There are 1984 editions for sale on Amazon. Exactly what are the significant changes that someone is suppose to take note of?

      • annie on January 24, 2012, 10:31 am

        There are 1984 editions for sale on Amazon.

        got link?

      • annie on January 24, 2012, 10:34 am

        leanDer nope. the original does note have a forward by foxman. your last link says:

        The controversial and award-winning bestseller about a pact between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine is updated with a powerful new author Introduction and an Afterword by Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham H. Foxman.

        they are being deceptive about the macmillian reference. if you click the links in that section they show you the books, all published in 99. the original cover doesn’t look like that and has a forward by lenni brenner.

      • patm on January 24, 2012, 11:08 am

        Here is all I could find on the web of Foxman’s Afterword to The Transfer Agreement. There are omissions as evidenced by the “….”.

        “Decades later, it is easy to employ judgmental hindsight. Those who do so were not there but seem to think that books, records, and movies can adequately recreate the context. We are talking about the thirties—a very bad time for European Jews. But no one back then could imagine how bad things would actually become…. In light of the bitter reality of the Holocaust and the world’s unwillingness to stop it, the decision to transfer Jews and their possessions to Palestine was a wise one.” I also agree with the author’s assessment that the whole world had agreements with the Nazi regime, and the Zionists were pursuing their’s to rescue people and assets. In this case, it was not for pure profit or political expediency but to help save a people and help create a state, their safe haven in Israel. Yet like the author, Mr. Black, I too am haunted by his final thought when he writes: “Was it madness? Or was it genius?””

      • Bruce Wolman on January 24, 2012, 11:19 am


        I presented Mr. Black’s response to MRW’s ad hominem claims on the previous thread, but MRW did not respond. I believe Mr. Black deserves a response, so I repeated the comment on this thread where MRW participated. There is no other way to contact MRW. Certainly, an individual has the right to contest false claims about his person. It is in the law. From Mr. Black’s perspective this is not over.

        I read The Transfer Agreement solely due to it being referenced here so often on this site. Claims about the book and the author should be subject to discussion, or does only your interpretations have standing on MW? False accusations should be settled, whether from MRW or Mr. Black.

        “And I am telling you to cut it out.” On what authority are you making this threat? As far as I am aware, nobody has assigned Danaa responsibility for censoring or determining which comments may appear on MW. You have no standing here in that respect nor do you grant anything on this site, including anonymity.

        If you are curious about something, why don’t you do some work instead of just popping off? You should be able to find a copy of the 1984 edition. (See my note to Annie.)

        Finally, don’t flatter yourself by believing regularly writing comments on MW is doing anything about stopping another war in the Middle East.

      • LeaNder on January 24, 2012, 11:21 am

        Here is another 1984 edition.The Transfer Agreement

        Titel: The Transfer Agreement The Dramatic Story Of…
        Verlag: MacMillan Publishing Co. , Inc., New York
        Erscheinungsdatum: 1984
        Einband: Hardcover
        Zustand: Very Good front end paper.

        German site but American vender=Anbieter:

        Anbieter: Willis Monie-Books, ABAA (Cooperstown, NY, U.S.A.)
        Bewertung: 5 Sterne

        Is there a rumor to drive up the price? Most editions from 1984 are really expensive, the above one not.

      • Bruce Wolman on January 24, 2012, 11:25 am

        @Annie and @LeaNder

        I am only reporting what Mr. Black told me.

        As I wrote previously, the body of the different editions are the same. The changes were in the front and back material. The forwards from the different editions are available on Mr. Black’s web site.

        After he has recovered from his surgery, Mr. Black is willing to answer questions from MW.

      • LeaNder on January 24, 2012, 11:28 am

        Here the US link for the page. Many, many 1984 editions starting from a few pennies up.

      • annie on January 24, 2012, 11:49 am

        click the available links where it says (ISBN 10: 157129077X / ISBN 13: 9781571290779 )

        ISBN 10: 157129077X / 1-57129-077-X
        ISBN 13: 9781571290779
        Verlag: Brookline Books
        Erscheinungsdatum: 1999
        Einband: Hardcover

        Ihre Zufriedenheit ist garantiert:

        Über AbeBooks
        Sicher bestellen und bezahlen
        Datenschutz & Sicherheit

        Zu diesem Buch:
        Buchbeschreibung: Brookline Books, Manchester, New Hampshire, U.S.A., 1999. Trade Paperback. Buchzustand: Very Good. No Jacket. 8vo

        these are not macmillian additions. funny you should mention abe books. i became familiar with them recently when trying to purchase some books for a friend in gaza.she wanted a copy of a book that will not be released until july although it is on kindle. but i still looked everywhere just in case. it was available thru abe books. so i checked their reputation. they do not actually have a storefront.

        For some reason I decided to google the seller’s address, because I’m in the same city (NYC) and thought briefly about going to pick it up. When I did, however, I got multiple results with multiple different companies with the same address.

        Not only that, but the other companies seem to be still active, with working websites at least. And then on top of that, one of those other companies has an unsatisfactory record in the BBB, as well as negative reports from consumers online.

        Oh, and I checked the bookstore on Abebooks, and they have 3000 other books for sale, all of them the international edition.

        i don’t think this is the same abebooks out of canada.

      • LeaNder on January 24, 2012, 12:08 pm

        Annie, strictly your links could be economical warfare. No storefront? In the age of Amazon? Which is perfect for used books dealers and their customers, the age of internet that is. I’ve only encountered one problem and in the the end it was OK. Admittedly I usually order US used books via only.

        I ordered a book from the UK once, sent to us continentals out there via a French postage service, as I later found out. It didn’t arrive. When I complained after two weeks they sent me another edition. Not sure if there was a trick involved. It was a rather fat book though, and it wouldn’t have fit into my mailbox. (no American style mailbox) But I offered to research the whereabout of the mail myself. They didn’t even have a number to trace the shipment. A week later my copy arrived.

        Can you shortly tell me why you prefer the 1984 edition, not that I sometimes don’t want to checker earlier editions. But in this case?

      • Danaa on January 24, 2012, 12:44 pm

        Bruce: “don’t flatter yourself by believing regularly writing comments on MW is doing anything about stopping another war in the Middle East”.

        So what do you suggest be done about stopping the planned murderous attacks on Iran and the complicity of the Jewish community in promoting this disastrous course of action by their malfeasant brethrens half a world away? Or for that matter what can we do about the support the jewish establishment provides for continuing pogroms and persecution West bank or the herding of people into internment camps in Gaza?

        Negotiations are obviously useless (because Israelis and supporters control the negotiating teams from the inside). Activism by many good people on the ground helps but it is not for everyone, and there are not enough of them. Supporting Ron paul is a way for some. Educating the jewish community in the US about the looming disaster reaching out from an ocean and sea away is a tool that some – on this and other blogs, are using, though it is a slow process, as education often is.
        Shining the light on what persecution looks like, on the co-opting of the Jewish people in the US (and the christian zionists) into the plan to up the ante and reinforce the terror regime in the west bank, and on the use of outright blackmail to suppress the truth about both present and past, that is what people at MW do. Posters, editors and commenters alike. It’s a drop in the bucket – none of us entertain any illusion about that. But it is something, and I was expressing the hope that you’ll care to lend us your considerable energy in this pursuit.

        For example, what will really help is making BDS a US policy to ensure that israel starts behaving like a civilized country. maybe you would care to contribute intellectual capital to help bring this about?

        It’s your prerogative BTW to hound any poster here to kingdom come. It is mine – and anyone’s – to ask why do you care this much about this one issue? why does that matter to you enough to keep tearing into it? Are you the keeper of Black’s reputation? By the same token, it’s your prerogative not to answer, if you don’t want to. That’s how the internet works – we put out a question on and maybe we get one and maybe we don’t. Look at the responses on this thread. Only a few jump in to weigh on the matter, and those who do are looking to help settle things by identifying and finding that old 1984 edition. Some people may even be going to libraries to look for it. Perhaps we’ll all learn something in the end. That’s both fair and commendable.

        My request to you to “cut it out” was in the interest of polity and ethiquette, not because I have any special rights. My point was exactly that – neither I, nor you, nor anyone else who comments here, has or should have any special rights. We all speak our mind even if some have more of it to contribute than others. Yet I think most of us are willing to take note of even the least contributor, before either dismissing them or challenging them or choosing to ignore them. Didn’t you support Donald in his effort to impose “civility”?
        You remind me of the duel challenges at sunrise noble hotheads of the past were so fond of. Invariably that was the result of some perceived slight to honor. Thing is, nowadays no one is obliged to take you up on it, maybe because the days of nobility have passed?.

        Along these lines, I was indeed questioning is your apparent self-appointment as Black’s champion. It’s a bit unseemly, which makes it puzzling, given your keenness on “civility”. But you owe me no reply, though I wouldn’t mind if you cared to share some insights.
        In any case, not to worry, I don’t do sunrise so there’s no counter-challenge forthcoming. My hobby (one among many) is psychological profiling. And that one is more than enough to keep me busy. lately I’ve been looking into OCD. Very interesting, that…

      • annie on January 24, 2012, 12:52 pm

        only because it appears to be unavailable.

      • LeaNder on January 24, 2012, 1:00 pm

        Annie, try a library. Admittedly I was puzzled about two different publishers and editions in the same year at one point too. But then I wasn’t sure if it wasn’t my attention.

        If you don’t trust, contact the seller, ask him about his shipment. Keep the emails, offer higher costs for sending. The old editions seem to sell really cheap.

        I was wondering how US books could be sent for less than the price for shipment over here. Of course Amazon offers a certain security.

        Strictly once a book is on the market, you can’t easily make it go away. Although US libraries sell off their old editions; I have got one. Simply try yours, ask a local librarian if he can order you a 1984 edition.

      • Bruce Wolman on January 24, 2012, 1:44 pm


        I have to suspend this exchange, as I do want to finish a posting answering the question: “what should be done to try and stop a war with Iran.”

        In the previous comment thread, I dialogued on a number of different points that MRW raised without “hounding him”. In one comment, having read Mr. Black’s book, I wrote that I doubted Mr. Black reached the same conclusions as Jeffrey Blankfort. MRW responded with specific information/facts/personal knowledge about Mr. Black, which MRW claimed proved I was wrong. I was prepared to believe MRW, but decided to write Mr. Black to confirm. That is what I do.

        Mr. Black denied the specific facts MRW made about him. This is not the same as different interpretations of the facts or different historical conclusions being drawn. In my mind and most likely in the law, there is a difference between writing somebody joined the American Nazi Party in 1956 and writing this person speaks like a Nazi. Both statements could be libelous, but if false the first statement certainly is. One of these two individuals is not telling the truth, or one or both are suffering from serious memory lapses.

        I have not been the one to give The Transfer Agreement such prominence on MW. And I am not among the commenters who insisted that this is an important issue that should have been discussed on MW and which should continue to be discussed on MW. Hence, I don’t understand your insistence on my dropping it.

        Besides, MW and Edwin Black are now involved and the issue is not going to be dropped regardless of what I think. I hope to be able to diffuse the problem.

      • LeaNder on January 24, 2012, 3:10 pm

        Bruce, you have to bear with our dear MRW. He had to visit Public School in the UK. After that slightly traumatizing experience you can’t expect him to be neutral on the Britons; maybe some other topics should be taken with a grain of salt too?

      • American on January 24, 2012, 5:47 pm


        I agree with Danaa, move on. Your pursuit of MRW’s comment on what he was told about Black is becoming ridiculous.

        I don’t care about this book flap and am only commenting really because I am intrigued by the non denial-denials you are quoting from Black that are suspiciously incomplete and some statements you made that are wrong.

        First, there was a Herald Tribune, commonly referred to as the Chicago Herald Tribune that merged with the Examiner, and after decades of megers and unmergers there is today a Herald Tribune in Chicago still referred to as the ‘Chicago’ Herald Tribune to distinguish it from other Herald Tribune newspapers in the US. A minor detail but still a silly denial and people ask why people tell silly lies when trying to deny something.

        Second……”Mr. Black claims he never hid out at anyone’s house for any memorable period of time”.
        Does for any “memorable” period of time mean he may have hid out or stayed with someone for some un-memorable period of time for any reason? That is not what I would call a complete denial.

        Black isn’t coming across as unequivocal and totally honest in his denials.
        So this case you are trying to make doesn’t look good for you.

      • Bruce Wolman on January 24, 2012, 9:41 pm


        I am not moving on because you or Danaa say so or because you think it is ridiculous.

        First, according to Wikipedia, there was a Chicago Herald that merged with the Examiner in 1918 to form the Chicago Herald-Examiner, a Hearst paper. The Herald-Examiner was consolidated with the Chicago American in 1939. The Chicago Tribune bought the Chicago American in 1956 and renamed it Chicago’s American. The paper was converted to Chicago Today in 1969 and ceased publication in 1974.

        I cannot find any indication there is a Herald Tribune in Chicago as you state. There is a Herald News, a Chicago Sun-Times suburban publication, as Mr. Black pointed out to me before I wrote my comment. The Herald News is not nor has it been connected to the Tribune. The Chicago Sun-Times and the Tribune remain competitors to this day.

        Google Chicago Herald Tribune and nothing comes up. No matter what care I have taken to not mis-interpret Mr. Black, some of you still want to nitpick. But if you are going to do that, you should make certain your nits are accurate.

        No matter what are the pedigrees of the Chicago papers, Mr. Black states he never worked for any of them, a fact you ignore.

        Second, I pondered how to most accurately telescope what Mr. Black said about”hiding in anyone’s house”. He told me he never hid out in anyone’s house, but he doesn’t want to go so far as to say that he never stayed over in somebody’s house for a few days or so after The Transfer Agreement was published. He was on the road a great deal during that time. A simple way to resolve this is for MRW to reveal the name of Marilu Henner’s brother and his contact information. Mr. Henner can then confirm whether or not he hid Mr. Black.

        Mr. Black was unequivocal with me. Whether he has been totally honest is something I am trying to determine. Neither you nor MRW have demonstrated otherwise. I am not a witness here, but so far I am still comfortable Mr. Black’s case is looking good, and I would think he would be willing to wager with you on the outcome.

      • LeaNder on January 25, 2012, 10:31 am

        Bruce, BS, then he was lying then.

        It isn’t easy to follow the whole debate, for instance I don’t seem to be able to trace Jeffrey’s (Blanckfort) statements on the issue, thus you seem to be the main culprit that spreads these kind of rumors. And strictly Edwin Black could persecute you for libel. Interestingly I can only find similar stuff on sites that are dubious at best like this one. Disclosure, since the times I spent in US conspiracy circles post 911 I am allergic to any kind of wake up cries connected with The Truth will set you Free, or a sentence like this: What if everything you believed was a lie? (Plato’s cave allegory?) I also believe that your statements need more backing up than you have provided here.

        Didn’t Black became a big Settler supporter in the years hence?

        Something will stick. A carefully grafted statement? Implanting an idea via a simply question. Easily deniable.

      • Hostage on January 25, 2012, 3:34 pm

        I don’t seem to be able to trace Jeffrey’s (Blanckfort) statements on the issue

        Blankfort’s statements simply revealed Herl & Co.’s nauseating Zionist theories “which openly postulated that Jews were not like other human beings and that antisemitism was an understandable reaction on the part of gentiles who were forced to live with them”

        He said that those public statements fed into existing antisemitism in pre-WWII Germany. That’s a pretty unassailable fact. For instance, in “Zionism in the Age of the Dictators” Lenni Brenner cited Hitler’s use of Zionist views to prove they weren’t Germans in his account of an encounter with an Hasidic Jew. Brenner noted that there is no better proof of Zionism’s classic role as an outrider to anti-Semitism. Hitler wrote about:

        “an apparition in a black caftan and black hair locks. Is this a Jew? was my first thought.” . . .“Is this a German?” . . . And whatever doubts I may still have nourished were finally dispelled by the attitude of a portion of the Jews themselves. Among them there was a great movement, quite extensive in Vienna, which came out sharply in confirmation of the national character of the Jews: this was the Zionists.

        It looked, to be sure, as though only a part of the Jews approved this viewpoint, while the majority condemned and inwardly rejected such a formulation. But… the so-called liberal Jews did not reject the Zionists as non-Jews, but only as Jews with an impractical, perhaps even dangerous, way of publicly avowing their Jewishness. — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p.56.

        Didn’t Black became a big Settler supporter in the years hence?

        Yes and he repeats the worst lies and distortions that ever came out of the old Mandate era Jewish Agency Political Department with a straight face. The crude and shopworn hasbara talking points that he included in the article at the link below have long-since been debunked by mainstream authors and historians. With the advent of the Internet, you can usually access the declassified documentary records in the US and UK archives which disprove many of the details of the steamy pile of BS that he is serving-up these days.

    • yourstruly on January 22, 2012, 4:01 pm

      why? because they’re no longer of use to the israeli juggernaut.

      • Winnica on January 22, 2012, 4:20 pm

        Yeah. Except that of course there’s no truth to the statistic. If you wish to regard all the elderly Jews from the former Soviet Union who lived through WWII and then moved to Israel when they were in their 70s as Shoah survivors, then there maybe a noticable minority of survivors under the poverty line – but probably not. As for the 2-300,000 survivors who made their way to Mandatory Palestine or Israel between late 1945-1960, they mostly lifted themselves by their bootstraps and became the backbone of Israeli society. To use yourstruly’s term, they became the Israeli juggernaut. Many are no longer alive, obviously, but most did not or still don’t live below the poverty line. This is simply the kind of urban legend people like to tell themselves.

      • eGuard on January 22, 2012, 5:39 pm

        Winnica: all the elderly Jews from the former Soviet Union who lived through WWII

        Claims Conference was fast enough to claim for these Russians, and any neighbor who spoke their language. Read Norman Finkelstein on where the Swiss money was spend.

        We both agree, Winnica: the money did not meet the persones it was paid for.

      • Blake on January 22, 2012, 6:36 pm

        “they mostly lifted themselves by their bootstraps and became the backbone of Israeli society.”

        “israeli” historian Tom Segev reported that: “Entire cities and hundreds of villages left empty were repopulated with new [Jewish] immigrants… Free people – Arabs – had gone into exile and become destitute refugees; destitute refugees – Jews – took the exiles’ places in the first step in their lives as free people. One group [Palestinians] lost all they had while the other [Jews] found everything they needed – tables, chairs, closets, pots, pans, plates, sometimes clothes, …”

        In 1948 your self declared nascent state immediately embarked on a program of plunder & destruction of Palestinian homes, property, & possessions left behind. Dr. Don Peretz (State Uni of NY) wrote in ‘54, …[N]early half of new Jewish immigrants live in homes abandoned by Arabs. They occupy nearly 400 Arab towns & villages.. Arabs left over 10,000 shops & stores … The Israel Custodian of Absentee Property took over more than 4,000,000 dunams of former Arab land, or nearly 60% of country’s cultivable area. This was nearly two and a half times the total Jewish-owned property at the time the state of Israel was established, and include most of its olive orchards, a large part of its fruit and vegetable cropland and almost half the citrus groves.

        In Lydda and Ramla, where 60,000 inhabitants were forcibly expelled at gunpoint, zionist terrorists loaded 1,800 trucks worth of looted property from Lydda alone.

        Palestinian losses in land and property estimated to be valued at 562 billion US 1998 dollars. These are only the direct material losses and do not include loss of life, suffering, injuries, and loss of income.

      • mikeo on January 22, 2012, 7:13 pm

        Winnica is right. It’s “only” one in three Shoah survivors that lives in poverty in Israel.

      • tree on January 22, 2012, 9:06 pm

        As for the 2-300,000 survivors who made their way to Mandatory Palestine or Israel between late 1945-1960, they mostly lifted themselves by their bootstraps and became the backbone of Israeli society. To use yourstruly’s term, they became the Israeli juggernaut.

        They may have tried to “lift themselves by their bootstraps” but Israel did little to help them do so from the very beginning, unless doing so profitted the State’s interest first and foremost. For the most part, successive Israeli governments marginalized them individually and exploited and instrumentalized them collectively.

        From Israeli Michael Warshawski, discussing the recent travesty of Israeli government actions(and inactions) in re Holocaust survivor compensation:

        Under pressure of the international Jewish committee and the Zionist Histadrut, Germany decided to compensate the Jews collectively, through the State of Israel which presented itself, with absolutely no justification, as the representative body of world Jewry throughout the ages! The initial infrastructure of Israel was built thanks to the hundreds of millions of dollars paid by West Germany in compensation for the Holocaust of European Jewry.

        It must be noted that in transforming Israel into the representative of the destroyed communities in Europe there is much bad taste, to say the least. As is known, the Zionist leadership did not overextend itself to attempt and save European Jewry, neither prior to nor during the war, even if it is correct to note that its abilities were limited. Even on the level of empathy toward the victims and survivors, Israel does not receive a good mark – again also to say the least. “The Seventh Million” of Tom Segev brings endless testimonies which document the lack of sensitivity of the Zionist leadership toward the victims of the Holocaust.

        So much for history. However, the behaviour back then pales in comparison to that of the current leaders. Their delayed responses to the recommendations of the Dorner Commission transform them into grave robbers, as simple as that. Stealing from those who have nothing, in the light of day and with absolutely no compunction. If not empathy and a sense of honour, then at least the debt owed by Israel to the Holocaust survivors obligates it and its leaders to guarantee them a respectable and comfortable old age. However, this is not the case! In Israel, thousands of survivors subsist on the edge of hunger and endure living conditions difficult to describe.

        It is easy to imagine what would happen if one state in the world would treat the Jewish Holocaust survivors with a tenth of the cynicism that Israel demonstrates toward them: Israel and its mouthpieces in the Western press would initiate a huge international campaign against the anti-Semitic state that desecrates the Holocaust victims. However, what is forbidden for Holland, France and of course Germany, is permissible for the state of the Jews. And if this is the way in which the heads of state act toward their survivor relatives, flesh of their flesh, the remainder of European Jewry, how can it be expected that they will demonstrate empathy and justice toward the local Palestinian population?

        The violation of Palestinian rights is of course a result of the Zionist enterprise. The treatment of a few thousand elderly Jewish survivors puts the cruelty toward the Palestinians in another light: the Zionist leaders are evil, cold hearted and unfeeling.

        And here is a description from Israeli Shraga Elam about the prevalent attitudes towards Holocaust survivors in 1950’s Israel:

        Shraga Elam, an Israeli investigative financial journalist based in Zurich, said after the war many Israelis showed little sympathy for the European Jewish refugees who arrived in Israel.

        “David Ben Gurion [Israel’s first prime minister] notoriously called them ‘human dust’, and I remember as children we referred to them as sabonim, the Hebrew word for soap,” he said, in reference to the rumoured Nazi practice of making soap from Jewish corpses.

        “In fact, I can’t think of any place in the world where [Holocaust] survivors are as badly treated as they are in Israel,” Mr Elam said.

        Elam’s quote is part of an article on Israeli banks that continue to refuse to compensate survivors and their heirs who had accounts in Israeli banks that were never returned to them. Israel has rightly been accused of having a double standard on this compensation, demanding it of banks in European countries, but ignoring and justifying it when the banks are Israeli.

        Israel’s second largest bank will be forced to defend itself in court in the coming weeks over claims it is withholding tens of millions of dollars in “lost” accounts belonging to Jews who died in the Nazi death camps.

        Bank Leumi has denied it holds any such funds despite a parliamentary committee revealing in 2004 that the bank owes at least $75 million to the families of several thousand Holocaust victims.

        Analysts said the bank’s role is only the tip of an iceberg in which Israeli companies and state bodies could be found to have withheld billions of dollars invested by Holocaust victims in the country — dwarfing the high-profile reparations payouts from such European countries as Switzerland.

        “All I want is justice,” said David Hillinger, 73, whose grandfather, Aaron, died in Auschwitz, a Nazi camp in Poland. Lawyers are demanding reparations of $100,000 for Bank Leumi accounts held by his father and grandfather.

        The allegations against Bank Leumi surfaced more than a decade ago following research by Yossi Katz, an Israeli historian.

        He uncovered bank correspondence in the immediate wake of the Second World War in which it cited “commercial secrecy” as grounds for refusing to divulge the names of account holders who had been killed in the Holocaust.

        “I was shocked,” said Dr Katz, from Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv. “My first reaction was: ‘My God, this isn’t Switzerland!’ ”

        He [Elam] said Bank Leumi’s “lost” accounts were only a small fraction of Holocaust assets held by Israeli companies and the Israeli state that should have been returned. The total could be as much as $20bn.

        He said European Jews had invested heavily in Palestine in the pre-war years, buying land, shares and insurance policies and opening bank accounts. During the Second World War Britain seized most of these assets as enemy property because the owners were living in Nazi-occupied lands.

        In 1950 Britain repaid some $1.4 million to the new state of Israel, which was supposed to make reparations to the original owners.

        However, little effort was made to trace them or, in the case of those who died in the Holocaust, their heirs. Instead the Israeli government is believed to have used the funds to settle new immigrants in Israel.

        “These are huge assets, including real estate in some of the most desirable parts of Israel,” Mr Elam said.

        Last year the Israeli media reported an investigation showing that the finance ministry destroyed its real estate files in the 1950s, apparently to conceal the extent of the state’s holding of Holocaust assets.

        (same link as above)

        If you desire further reading on Israel’s exploitation and instrumentalization of Holocuast survivors, I would recommend these three articles below, concerning Yosef Grodzinsky’s “In the Shadow of the Holocaust:The Struggle Between Jews And Zionists In The Aftermath Of World War II”, and Idith Zertal’s, “Israel’s Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood “.,1

      • Jeffrey Blankfort on January 23, 2012, 1:02 am


        In so many words, you are full of it. The holocaust survivors who arrived in Israel, and I am speaking of those from the camps, were treated like shit by the smug Zionists in Palestine after the war as Tom Segev describes in all the ugly details in “1949: The First Israelis,” a story which has been buried as deep as the history of the Zionists’ earlier collaboration with the Nazis. Is it not curious that not a single survivor from the camps, to my knowledge–and I know you’ll correct me if I’m wrong with their names–ever reached a high political office in Israel?

        I was there in 1983 when the terrorist and and war criminal Begin resigned and was replaced by his fellow terrorist, Shamir (nee Yezernitsky), a group of survivors sent a petition to the government protesting Shamir’s appointment claiming that it was a sacrilege that this man who offered to collaborate with Hitler while with the Stern Gang should become the country’s prime minister. Their petition, of course, was ignored and received only a brief paragraph in the Jerusalem Post.

        About a decade or so ago, a group of survivors sent a letter to the government with another telling complaint, that Israel was treating the Palestinians similar to how they were treated by the Nazis. That story, like the protest against Shamir, never made it to the Western press and received short shrift from the Israeli government.

      • peeesss on January 23, 2012, 3:03 am

        oh,oh the “bootstraps” again.

      • Woody Tanaka on January 23, 2012, 10:28 am

        “As for the 2-300,000 survivors who made their way to Mandatory Palestine or Israel between late 1945-1960, they mostly lifted themselves by their bootstraps and became the backbone of Israeli society. ”

        They, like the rest of the Israeli Jews, didn’t lift themselves up by their own bootstraps, they hoisted themselves up by stomping with those boots on the skulls of Palestinian children and standing on the necks of innocent Palestinian men and women.

    • eljay on January 22, 2012, 4:25 pm

      >> “There is no lack of bitter enemies today,” Netanyahu said. “The will to destroy the Jewish people has not changed. What has changed is our ability to defend ourselves and our determination to do so”

      “Oh, and there’s also our ability to maintain a 60+ years, ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder AND make it look like WE are the victims! Pretty cool, eh?”

      • jonah on January 22, 2012, 5:37 pm

        “campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder”

        This list of epithets has become a lame excuse not to engage in concrete productive peace negotiations with Israel. The useful mantra of the BIS (Blame Israel Syndrom).

      • MLE on January 22, 2012, 11:50 pm

        Well israel could show good will and halt the construction of new settlements. I’m not entirely sure why you think the outcome should be anything different, what new and bold steps towards a peace deal are the Israelis offering? The Palestine Papers from last year revealed that the Palestinians offered numerous concessions, including drastically cutting back the concept of a Palestinian controlled East Jerusalem and cut a huge percentage of the number of refugees that the Israelis would be responsible for and the Israelis still said no. I think it’s the responsibility of Israelis who want peace via two state solution to ask their leadership, “What exactly are you holding out for?”

      • American on January 23, 2012, 1:07 am

        Negotiate with psychopaths? Are you kidding me?

      • Shingo on January 23, 2012, 1:32 am

        This list of epithets has become a lame excuse not to engage in concrete productive peace negotiations with Israel.

        No, the excuse not to engage in concrete productive peace negotiations with Israel comes from Israel itself, seeign as they tend to tear up agreements they sign and ratify. it’s part of the ICS (Israeli colonail syndrome).

      • Chaos4700 on January 23, 2012, 1:57 am

        Because it’s supposed to the Palestinians’ fault that Israeli settlers are belligerent, violent hateful racists who are there because the Israeli government pays to move them there?

      • Hostage on January 24, 2012, 1:39 am

        This list of epithets has become a lame excuse not to engage in concrete productive peace negotiations with Israel. The useful mantra of the BIS (Blame Israel Syndrom).

        LoL! Bibi can’t even deliver on a Court ordered removal of the Migron outpost. How the hell is he going to deliver on anything else as a result of negotiations? It’s pretty obvious that Israel will need to have Iranian-style sanctions imposed.

    • on January 22, 2012, 6:31 pm

      “the will to destroy the Jewish people has not changed.”

      take this quiz

      If you find yourself answering “yes” to the following questions (for yourself or on behalf of a people/nation), you (your nation) may be suffering from a traumatic bonding syndrome. The more the number of “yes” answers, the more severe your (your nation’s) condition is. Call 1-800-SNAPOUTOFIT.

      1) Do you obsess about people who have hurt you even through they are long gone?

      2) Do you continue to seek contact with people whom you know will cause you further pain?

      3) Do you go “overboard” to help people who have been destructive to you?

      4) Do you continue to be a “team” member when obviously things are becoming destructive?

      5) Do you continue attempts to get people to like you who are clearly using you?

      6) Do you trust people again and again who are proven to be unreliable?

      7) Are you unable to retreat from unhealthy relationships?

      8) Do you try to be understood by those who clearly do not care?

      9) Do you choose to stay in conflict with others when it would cost you nothing to walk away?

      10) Do you persist in trying to convince people that there is a problem and they are not willing to listen?

      11) Are you loyal to people who have betrayed you?

      12) Do you attract untrustworthy people?

      13) Have you kept damaging secrets about exploitation or abuse?

      14) Do you continue contact with an abuser who acknowledges no responsibility?

      15) Do you find yourself covering up, defending, or explaining a relationship?

      16) When there is a constant pattern of non-performance in a relationship, do you continue to expect them to follow through anyway?

      17) Do you have repetitive, destructive fights that are no win for anybody?

      18) Do you find that others are horrified by something that has happened to you and you are not?

      19) Do you obsess about showing someone that they are wrong about you, your relationship, or their treatment of you?

      20) Do you feel stuck because you know what the other is doing is destructive, but you believe you cannot do anything about it?

      21) Do you feel loyal to someone even though you harbor secrets that are damaging to others?

      22) Do you move closer to someone you know is destructive to you even though you do not trust, like or care for the person?

      23) Does someone’s talents, charisma, or contributions cause you to overlook destructive, exploitive, or degrading acts?

      24) Do you find you cannot detach from someone even though you do not trust, like or care for the person?

      25) Do you find yourself missing a relationship, even to the point of nostalgia and longing, that was so awful it almost destroyed you?

      26) Are extraordinary demands placed on you to measure up as a way to cover up exploitation?

      27) Do you keep secret someone’s destructive behavior because of all of the good they have done or the importance of their position or career?

      28) Does your relationship have contacts or promises that have been broken which you are asked to overlook?

      29) Are you attracted to “dangerous” people?

      30) Do you stay in a relationship longer than you should?

      • seafoid on January 23, 2012, 4:23 am

        What is trauma?

        In dangerous situations, our defence system produces an adrenalin rush which helps us to be alert and to either fight or run. Traumatic reactions happen when we are overwhelmed and cannot fight or run. This can produce traumatic changes in the body and mind.


        Many people experience a change in consciousness during trauma – if you cannot escape by getting away, you try to escape in your head. You may not feel any emotion or you may deny that anything happened to you at all. You may have experienced the trauma as if it was happening to someone else. You may not be able to remember parts of the traumatic event or your memory of it may feel completely unreal.

        You may try to block out the memory by taking drugs or by drinking too much. For many, this is a normal reaction to a traumatic situation that helps you to survive in the short term. But it is important to realise that this short-term solution can become unhelpful and harmful in the longer term. If you can’t stop, there is support out there to help you.


        Short-term effects

        Being on permanent alert. You expect danger at any moment. This may result in being easily startled, reacting irritably to small things, not being able to sleep and eat as normal, or feeling intense fear and anxiety.
        Flashbacks and nightmares. It may be impossible to forget the traumatic event, especially in the short term. Years later, the event can pop back into your memory. Flashbacks can be very vivid and detailed, yet it might be difficult to express in words what is happening in them.
        Re-enacting dangerous situations. You may seek out dangerous situations to prove to yourself, for example, that the assault has not affected you.

        Long term effects

        Your self-esteem and personal power can be affected. The experience of sexual violence violates your boundaries and your sense of control in the world. Sexual violence can make you feel that your feelings or decisions are of little value.
        You may carry guilt and shame, feel self-destructive or suicidal, or be addicted to alcohol or other drugs. The trauma may lead to mental illness. This can affect your expectations of how you should be treated and how you relate to others. Talking about your story and being believed can be a big step in regaining power and control in your life and in building up your sense of self-worth.

        Your feelings

        You may have survived the experience of sexual violence by going emotionally numb or by blocking out physical pain. Being numb worked for you – it got you through the trauma. You may have used it to survive ever since. Feeling the anger, fear, grief and sadness that you could not feel back then may be too scary. This may mean you can’t feel the good emotions either or that you can’t tell the difference between them. It is possible to recover and to feel a full range of feelings

  7. yourstruly on January 22, 2012, 3:11 pm

    to the relatives and friends of sailors on u.s. ships in the gulf of hormuz

    president obama needs to know
    so as not to anger israel-firsters
    are you willing to sacrifice your loved ones

    • seafoid on January 22, 2012, 5:02 pm

      Israel doesn’t care who dies in the crossfire. Egyptians, Lebanese, Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Americans – it is all the same, innit.

    • MLE on January 22, 2012, 11:52 pm

      Maybe they assigned lots of Jewish sailors on the ship? Don’t make the Iranians shoot them, these are potential Aaliyah recruits!

  8. justicewillprevail on January 22, 2012, 3:13 pm

    Israel gives the finger to the US, you know the country whose taxpayers funded their munitions, their hi tech planes, their pampered lifestyles, and expects them to meekly go along with their war raising, their segregation and apartheid. What a bunch of arrogant, insufferable dependents. Time for them to give something back, instead of sucking the US taxpayer dry.

  9. snowdrift on January 22, 2012, 3:16 pm

    For what it’s worth, the French weekly Le Canard Enchaîné, which is mostly concerned with domestic matters but has a small foreign affairs section that draws from sources in the diplomatic corps and French intelligence, also says that it’s the US that cancelled the joint exercise, and that Dempsey was there to throw some cold water on the Israelis.

  10. radii on January 22, 2012, 3:19 pm

    and we should give israel 12-hour notice before we cut off all of their US funds … and 12 minutes before we shoot down their planes engaged in the attack that will harm US interests

  11. yourstruly on January 22, 2012, 3:47 pm

    to the relatives of sailors on u.s. ships in the gulf of hormuz

    rather than president obama putting a leash on israel,
    are you willing to have your loved ones face the consequences of israeli warplanes attacking iran?

    • ToivoS on January 22, 2012, 4:42 pm

      are you willing to have your loved ones face the consequences of israeli warplanes attacking iran?

      What is so dangerous about this discussion is that very few Americans realize the vulnerability of US warships to Iranian anti-naval defenses. Our navy certainly knows and let us hope that the administration does. The entire nation could be in for a terrible shock if Israel unilaterally attacks Iran. That shock will lead to rage and would set off a series of events that Obama would be unable to control.

      • chet on January 22, 2012, 6:49 pm

        On various sites, several posters with military-technology knowledge have indicated that Iran possesses anti-ship missiles for which the US Navy has no defence and if that is correct, then even carriers in the Persian Gulf (with their 7000 crew-members) would be seriously threatened.

        For anyone denigrating the deadliness of anti-ship missiles, please be reminded of the necessity of the British navy having to withdraw from the coast of Argentina when they were struck by missiles for which they had no defence – the Argentinians had five Exocets and sank two ships.

        As this appears to be the definitive article re the Iranian anti-ship missile capability, I recommend it for its careful analysis:

      • chet on January 22, 2012, 7:27 pm


        “During the Second Lebanon War, a Chinese C-802 anti-ship missile struck Israel’s INS Hanit off the Lebanon coast. Four Israeli sailors were killed in the incident…”

        “There could have been a more direct hit on the vessel. …The Chinese C-802 anti-ship missile is a sea-skimmer, an advanced conventional weapon – not a ballistic missile – and carried a 400-pound time-delayed semi-armor-piercing high-explosive warhead that blew up near the fan tail of the ship. As it was, the explosion caused substantial damage, engulfing the aft section in flames and caving in the ship’s helicopter pad. But the Hanit didn’t sink. If the Chinese missile had struck amidships where most of the ship’s company was eating, or had impacted at the water line, many more crewmembers would have been killed or permanently injured, and it’s unlikely the ship would have survived.”

      • ToivoS on January 23, 2012, 3:06 am

        If you haven’t noticed the navy is no longer stationing aircraft carriers in the Gulf — the three in the area today are in the Arabian Sea more than 1000 km from the Iranian coast. The really deadly antiship missiles have a range of no more the 300 km which is about the widest dimension of the Persian Gulf. The warships that would be most vulnerable would be the mine-sweepers, frigates and destroyers that patrol the Persian Gulf. Sinking a few of those ships would still produce political shock waves inside the US of unpredictable consequences.

      • Walid on January 23, 2012, 8:56 am

        ““During the Second Lebanon War, a Chinese C-802 anti-ship missile struck Israel’s INS Hanit off the Lebanon coast. Four Israeli sailors were killed in the incident…”

        Chet, your Washington Times propaganda article wasn’t sure which of the Chinese or the Iranians to demonize for Hizbullah having crippled the Hanit anchored 10 km off Beirut’s shores with the C-802. The article that reads like a press release from the MFA left out the fun part on how the hit was announced a minute before the missile was actually launched and that anouncement had come about at the end of a live televised speech by Nasrallah which ended by him saying something like,”and now we will show you what will happen to the Zionist ship that has been shelling Beirut and I’m asking everyone to look out towards the sea where it’s anchored and you will see it getting sunk. About 20 seconds later, there was a big flash but regrettably, the ship was not sunk because the missile landed 6 meters from the ship’s critical point but it was so crippled that it had to be towed to Haifa where it remained for about 2 years getting repaired. 2006 was also the year Hizbullah immobilzed over 80 “invincible” Merkavas with Russian Kornet anti-tank missiles that also brought down a couple of Israeli helicopters. The next serious encounter should involve Russian SAMs. Big difference for the most moral army in the world when it has to face Hizbullah men instead of unarmed Palestinian men or their women and stone-throwing children.

      • Opaleye on January 23, 2012, 11:40 am

        ToivoS, not sure why you say that. The report below is from 16 hours ago:

        WASHINGTON — The US aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln has passed through the Strait of Hormuz and is now in the Gulf, the Pentagon said, after Tehran threatened to close the strategic shipping route.

        “USS Abraham Lincoln … completed a regular and routine transit of the Strait of Hormuz … to conduct maritime security operations as scheduled,” Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain John Kirby told AFP via email Sunday.

        “The transit was completed as previously scheduled and without incident.”

        The carrier, which can have up to 80 planes and helicopters on board, was escorted by the guided-missile cruiser USS Cape St George and two destroyers.

        Earlier, Britain’s Ministry of Defence said a British Royal Navy frigate and a French vessel had joined the carrier group to sail through the strategic waterway.

        While allied ships often participate in US naval exercises and sometimes are part of joint naval flotillas, the presence of British and French ships seemed to be a message to Tehran about the West’s resolve to keep the route open.

        “HMS Argyll and a French vessel joined a US carrier group transiting through the Strait of Hormuz, to underline the unwavering international commitment to maintaining rights of passage under international law,” said a spokesman from Britain’s MoD.

        He said Britain maintained “a constant presence in the region as part of our enduring contribution to Gulf security.”


        The presence of US carriers (with multiple AWACS aboard) combined with in-flight refueling based in Qatar essentially gives the USN control over airspace in most of Iran, Iraq and KSA. The stated goal is to keep the Gulf open. The media assumes that this is aimed at Iran … and, well, sure it is … partly.

        It has now become clear that the exercise was cancelled by the US (which, BTW, was the only explanation that ever made the slightest sense) and the Israelis were off balance for several days, trying to get their story straight. The WH wants to keep it vague in public because they don’t want to hand ammo to the Lobby, obviously.

        Since they are always demanding more equipment and deployments from the US, the idea that Israel would cancel at the last minute just never made sense (and yes, I am taking into account the capricious nature of their PM and DM and the fact that a lot of what they do doesn’t make much sense. But even they have limits).

        Iran seems to have gotten the de-escalation message and is trying to calm things down also.

      • chet on January 23, 2012, 1:04 pm

        Opaleye –

        Believe it or not, the entry of of a carrier group into the Persian Gulf can be seen as a positive de-escalation move – the USN knows that it is vulnerable to Iranian anti-ship attack in the Gulf and instead of avoiding the threat it says: “We won’t be starting anything here” – a weird kind of a hostage.

        There is much more to fear if, in the course of threat and counter-threat, the carrier group leaves the Gulf.

      • ToivoS on January 23, 2012, 1:12 pm

        It looks like I was wrong. So this makes it even more dangerous. Maybe this signifies that the US knows for sure that Israel is not going to attack this week. Or maybe the Navy thinks it can protect one of the carriers inside the Gulf during full scale war.

      • Opaleye on January 23, 2012, 1:52 pm


        yes, I agree, that’s basically what I argued here:

        (see point # 6)

        So whilst the presence in the Gulf is partly aimed at Iran, in my view it is intended mainly to restrain Israel, because they are much more likely to be breaching the peace than Iran is. The chances of Iran actually starting the war are negligible, so it isn’t necessary to put a fleet in there to deter them. Yet there they are and they must be there for a reason …

  12. seafoid on January 22, 2012, 4:55 pm

    There are some great comments on the ha’aretz talkback re Bini’s wannsee speech

    • Jews always boasst about their intilecct;
    o James Lemley-Texas
    o 22.01.12
    o 15:33

    their Nobel prizes and all they accomplish. Then every other word that escapes their mouth, is about security. Opressive people never stay in power long. Look around you. You’re loosing you’re power base all around the world. If you really want security: MAKE PEACE! Warmungering isn’t working for you. Anyone you opress is going to fight you untill you are gone. Peace brings security.

    • The right to defend the Jewish People
    o Messiah
    o 22.01.12
    o 15:20

    How do we prevent the elimination of the Jewish people? Force and strength of the army is one way. If combined with the greatest weapon a daily relationship with Hashem through the Torah, prayer, Mitzvot, both positive and negative commandments, the one GOD and personal Savior of the Jewish people who call upon him to save them, then you are doing all you can to prevent it. The will to destroy the Jewish people does still exist. If the Jewish people are doing Hashem’s work, there is a protective shield around them from Hashem (GOD), where no man, country, weapon can harm them. Also, the non Jew is receiving light, and that eliminates the desire to destroy the chosen people who have a special gift, and with that gift comes responsibility.

    • Bibi, get real: a Jew is far safer in the USA or italy than in Israel.
    o Ari
    o 22.01.12
    o 15:09
    o Reply to this talkback
    o Rate:topbt

    • 31.118157
    o An Israeli
    o 22.01.12
    o 15:09
    We shouldn’t allow Bibi, Yvet & co drag us in their paranoic, nationalist, ghetto/victim delusion

    • This is a good first step: Live in reality (not idelusional like in a movie). Next step is to annex all of Judea & Samaria. Step three is to stop beating up on Jews and find a way to encorporate good and religious Jews into the army because Israel is going to need every one of them.

    o Israel
    o 22.01.12
    o 14:42
    The problem is not and has never been THEM. The problem is and has always been US. We don’t know who we are as Jews and we are too afraid to BE the people we are supposed to be. But THAT is the only solution and only way to peace.

    o Reply to this talkback
    o Rate:topbt

    o 677

    You’re going to annex the West bank and give citizenship to the 4 million Palestinians living there… so you’re for a one state solution?

     Ari
     22.01.12
     15:10
     Reply to this talkback
     Rate:topbt

    o 2133
    Firstly, there are 1.5 Million Arabs in West Bank, not 4 Million.
     Alex
     22.01.12
     15:35

    • This usage of the perennial victim card is losing all credibility

    o Curious kuku
    o 22.01.12
    o 14:39
    Bibi trots this one out whenever he cannot think of anything better to say, it portrays Israeli Jews and Jews everywhere as weak children cowering in the shadows afraid to face life. Hard to equate such a portrayal with the brutalisation of the Palestinians isn’t it? One can only conclude from the evidence that the Jewish psyche is afflicted with a deep seated schizophrenia.

    o You can call me any names you want, as long as you and other anti-Semites are unable to murder me, I don’t really mind.
     Gal
     22.01.12
     15:30

    Your animal hatred makes it clear you would exterminate us all if you ever got a chance.

    • Netanyahu:
    o Plus15
    o 22.01.12
    o 14:33
    Watching Netanyahu and his right-wing associates over the last few years it is clear that although they are the ruling class in Israel they have done more and continuing damage to World Jewry then any recent player other than the usual culprits. And no dummy! Obama is not an anti-Semite but many who Netanyahu and cronies embrace and fondle are definitely haters. The most frequent defense that Bibi and buddies have to the complaints to their thoughtless behavior is that the complainant is a self-hating Jew and that’s BS and normal in the topsy turvey worlds of the Israeli and American right-wing. To Bibi Jews around the world are only good for their financial contributions and the pressure they put on their governments to keep the heat off the shameful Netanyahu spoiled brat

  13. HarryLaw on January 22, 2012, 4:56 pm

    An Israeli attack on Iran will not happen without agreement with the US, an Israeli attack on Irans nuclear sites is the most they could mount and even that is problematical, such an attack could create a hugh dirty bomb effect in the region effecting many countries and open up a wider conflagration throughout the middle east. The main reason they will not act alone is that it would break the first rule in the military playbook, leaving Irans retaliatory capacity intact.

    • Chaos4700 on January 23, 2012, 1:59 am

      You underestimate Israeli hubris. And control. Israel could drop a nuke on Iran and Obama and the Republican candidates (minus Paul) would all bobblehead — at least at first.

  14. Charon on January 22, 2012, 5:24 pm

    12 hours is plenty of time to intercept and stop the attack. Iran is completely surrounded by US military bases. Completely, even in the water. The US use military facilities in Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan, and they have bases in Kuwait, Afghanistan, Qatar, Turkey, and Iraq. They have naval fleets in/near the Mediterranean and Gulf and also cooperate with Azerbaijan’s navy in the Caspian Sea. Armenia is the only bordering country without a US/NATO military presence or agreement, but they do have troops in Georgia. Look at the map:

    There is no route that Israel can take to Iran without going through US military-monitored airspace. This map kinda gives me the creeps. Not only can you tell that Iran is surrounded, you can also see that Mexico is surrounded, Yemen is surrounded, and the entire East is surrounded by the West. Israel themselves along with Lebanon and Syria are also surrounded.

    This doesn’t look like an ordinary map. It looks like two major world powers that don’t trust one and other. Everything we think we know could just be superficial. Behind the scenes, who knows? If Israel is serious about a unilateral attack, I wouldn’t be surprised if they infiltrated and commandeered American aircraft to carry it out from one of those bases.

    • NorthOfFortyNine on January 23, 2012, 12:33 am

      @ Charon: “There is no route that Israel can take to Iran without going through US military-monitored airspace.

      Yes, and as importantly, there is no way iran can strike back at Israel witout doing same. That is key. The whole point is to draw the US into the resulting mess. All Israel has to do is drop one tiny bomb inside Iranian territory during the US election and you almost guarentee a regional conflagration. Which, as far as Israel is concerned, is the whole idea.

      Now, if Iran would only see this and thwart Israel designs by not taking the bait, well, that would be ballsey indeed. Don’t take the bait! -N49.

      • Charon on January 23, 2012, 2:17 am

        Iran hasn’t taken the bait so far. Explosions, assassination, no retaliation. The MSM rhetoric would have everybody believe that Iran is a governed by religious extremists hell bent on jihad because they hate freedoms and such. The facts say otherwise. If only the US knew that the US shot down a civilian airliner and never apologized for it. Among other things (like operation ajax). We may not agree with their culture (and to be fair, it’s a regional thing.. even in Israel. Doesn’t mean they are a threat to us.

    • Theo on January 25, 2012, 12:59 pm


      I can read maps very well, however the one provided by you through Wiki just doesn´t make any sense.
      I could not figure our who the blues and the yellows are. This must be a map from a very long time ago and it indicates something else than military power groups and their locations. Who is the yellow one in Marocco as that country do not belong to any military group?

  15. NickJOCW on January 22, 2012, 6:22 pm

    The UK has taken Iran’s English language off the air which could be a prelude to something bloody.

  16. chris_k on January 22, 2012, 7:17 pm

    The Sunday Times also ran the story about the Roshan hit, which I thought was suspect. The story quoted a relative of Roshan at the funeral, saying that he the scientist said he was trying to build a bomb for an Israel attack.

    I don’t want to play “who would want to leak this/ make this up” but I’m not convinced this is legit yet.

  17. American on January 22, 2012, 8:02 pm

    I hope this is true…the part about the US and Israel being on a collision course.
    This needs to come to head—- because until there is some real face off between the US and Israel and uncrossable lines are set in concrete by the US the Israeli craziness will increase.

  18. Les on January 22, 2012, 8:32 pm

    When the head of the most powerful government in the world sends the commander of US forces to grovel before a well paid puppet, the world can see unbounded weakness.

  19. kalithea on January 22, 2012, 11:32 pm

    How did we go from a potential holocaust on the Iranian people back to pimping the historical holocaust to indulge paranoia-gone-amok and the urge for a psychotic, suicidal invasion?

  20. kalithea on January 23, 2012, 12:02 am

    As I stated previously, Netanyahu just might test Obama’s 3 a.m. reflexes with an October surprise to end all surprises which would catapult Gingrich (should he win the nomination) into the seat of power with his unsteady, sweaty, pudgy hand grasping the Nuclear Football.

    That’s why people are SO STOOPID not to do everything possible to help Ron Paul clinch the GOP nomination. If Ron Paul became the nominee, Netanyahu would be forced to gnash his teeth while pushing for a 2nd-term Obama. But again, some people around here want to put Ron Paul’s shortcomings under their thick magnifying glass WHILE ALL HELL IS BREAKING LOOSE! They’re willing to risk a Gingrich nomination and the last-minute DIRTY TRICK Zionists will pull on Obama to make him lose the Presidency to that lunatic Gingrich.

    Ask yourselves WHY; WHY would these critics of Ron Paul (on this very site) prefer the prospect of “hell on earth” for years to come to a Ron Paul nomination? Now they’re gonna tell you, they don’t fear a Ron Paul nomination; it’s a Ron Paul Presidency that worries them. SO IF THAT’S THE CASE, WHY SINK HIM BEFORE HE EVEN GETS THE NOMINATION???

    Don’t anyone tell me I don’t have a LEGITIMATE reason to suspect their motives! Then they point at the irrational paranoia of their comrades in Israel, when in fact they share the very same affliction!

    • Walid on January 23, 2012, 5:15 am

      “Don’t anyone tell me I don’t have a LEGITIMATE reason to suspect their motives! ”

      Kalithea, from my non-voter perspective, I don’t see anything so special about your man on Palestinian issues and what would he do for them or other Arabs. Can you name one president that’s played fair with Palestinians or the Arab people (not their dictators) in the past 50 years? If Paul wins the presidency, I doubt very much he’d be any different from any other pro-Israel president. After the monumental deception with Obama, I don’t think Arabs really care which person becomes US president. It has become a case of which of the candidates would hurt the Arabs the least. So far, I don’t see much difference between any of the candidates and Obama and I don’t see anything in Paul to get excited over.

      • CloakAndDagger on January 23, 2012, 8:32 am

        “If Paul wins the presidency, I doubt very much he’d be any different from any other pro-Israel president.”

        1. He would stop all aid to Israel
        2. He would withdraw US troops from all bases – particularly the ME

        That alone would completely change the dynamics in the area and pull the rug out from under Israel and dampen their war-mongering, with the knowledge that any action on their part, they would have to go it alone.

        I would say that would be a huge change from past presidencies.

      • Walid on January 23, 2012, 9:50 am

        “1. He would stop all aid to Israel
        2. He would withdraw US troops from all bases – particularly the ME”

        C&D, Paul did not zero-in on Israel, but said that he would stop ALL aid to ALL countries because the US is broke and the money its using for its foreign aid is borrowed money. Everybody latched on the Israel thing because it was the fun part as it involved sticking it to the bad guys.

        As to closing down those thousands of bases, what would he do with all the military people presently posted in them? You probably also remember Obama’s promise to close Guantanamo, and speaking of the place, would the US surrender the base back to the Cubans? What about all those other bases and radar posts encircling Russia? Talk is easy.

      • Citizen on January 23, 2012, 11:06 am

        Walid, what makes Ron Paul unique among candidates past and present is that he would not exclude Israel from the foreign aid chopping block. Paul has stated one thing he’d do with troops back from closing overseas bases is put them on our border with Mexico.

      • Emma on January 23, 2012, 11:56 am

        Ron Paul is also the only candidate to oppose war with Iran, who states that Iran is not a threat to us, that Islam is not our enemy, that we were attacked on 9-11 because of our foreign policy, and that we should stop bombing, invading, and occupying Muslim countries.

        On military spending and reasons for 911 attack during Tea Party debate:

    • Kathleen on January 23, 2012, 10:07 am

      With Adelsons money and influence in Florida…Gingrich could pull it off. I have worked in South Carolina for Dems and lived in Florida for a couple of years. The only difference between Florida and South Carolina is the right wing radical Jewish and Cuban votes. Gingrich played the racist, sexist, classist card in South Carolina and it worked. He can play that card just as well in Florida

      • Citizen on January 23, 2012, 11:07 am

        Yes, Kathleen, he can.

  21. American on January 23, 2012, 12:55 am

    EU Iran sanctions: Nations poised to ban Iran oil imports

    Tensions over Iran’s nuclear programme are raising fears of a confrontation over oil supplies.
    European Union foreign ministers are expected to announce a phased ban on the purchase of oil from Iran at a meeting on Monday in Brussels.’

    So the anty has been upped. I am not sure how far the EU and US will take the ban which includes also imports to Iran. From reading, the EU is commanding their EU members not to buy oil from Iran as the US pressures Asia not to buy from Iran. From what I see South American countries are not keen on the US-EU or Isr and the Iran I am wondering if Iran could ship oil to them for resale or if the “Ban” means the US will blow any Iranian tankers out of the water if they leave Iran. If Russia feels like it and wants to show their muscle they could send tankers to Iran for Iranian oil …what would the US do then?…blow up some Russian ships. I don’t think so.
    This is all such sheer idioticy…all for Israel who started this entire Iran gang bang on the phony claim Iran ‘might someday attack them if it had nukes—which No serious person believes…but got the US Jews exerting all the political pressure. Israel thru the Jewish lobby has goaded the US politically into all of this…not because of any nuke threat, but zionist pure greed, wanting to once again have access to Iranian oil thru US control of Iran and to maintain their nuke superiority.

    Also in the Financial Times is talk of the US using it’s strategic oil reserves to make up to some countries the ‘loss’ of Iranian oil. Irregardless the price of oil will go even higher. If some countries like Egypt and Russia lash back by cutting oil sales to Israel, as Russia did back in 2006, the US will be shipping our oil to Israel under the ’73 MOU.
    Here our government has spent 90% of their time for 4 years going after Iran for Israel, willing to starve out Iranians like we did Iraqis, ignoring US interest and Americans for what?….a bunch of US Israel loyalist with big political bucks and their psychopathic, parasitic ‘true homeland’. And how did they do this?…get the US and world hyped up over Iran?….with their usual blackmail of threatening to do something themselves like attack Iran, even knowing they would fail, create a total mess but that US zionist and Jews would raise such hell the US bought and paid for politicians would push the US into going in to pull their worthless asses out of the fire.
    And THAT …is the whole Iran story in a nutshell. Israel once again blackmails the US politically and send it out to twist the arm of the world for Israel.

    • Citizen on January 23, 2012, 11:16 am

      American, I agree with your summary analysis of the status quo US foreign policy, as to both cause and effects.

  22. NickJOCW on January 23, 2012, 5:04 am

    Watching Russian TV yesterday, I would say the Russian view of the Iranian nuclear threat is that it is a ‘fantasy’ crisis. The commentator pointed out that Iran is entitled to nuclear power and to develop a capacity to export surplus energy, has no nuclear weapons, doesn’t want them, has conformed to IAEA requirements, has threatened no other nation, and hasn’t initiated a conflict in living memory. Israel on the other hand…

    I cannot imagine Russia and China simply standing on the sidelines if an attack were to escalate beyond Iran’s passive acceptance of a couple of targeted bombs, as it surely would. The problem of oil prices is bad enough but there is also the further dissemination of the residual depleted uranium that is causing such horrific birth disorders in Iraq, has contaminated the bodies of returning veterans, and threatens the genetic structure of the human race.

    The Israeli hierarchy appears unhinged, an individual displaying such characteristics would be confined to a strait jacket in a psychiatric clinic. Human beings are not born ‘rational’, it is a discipline acquired through subsistence relationships with the natural world or serious intellectual training; both, alas, now cloudy dreams. I am not even persuaded Obama knows what he is doing, if ever there was a time for the Security Council to get together to fulfil the peacekeeping purpose of the UN, it is surely now.

    Bye the way, one guy suggested that Iran should commission a TV documentary featuring IAEA officials and other experts being given an exhaustive tour of all Iranian nuclear facilities.

    • Walid on January 23, 2012, 6:48 am

      “… there is also the further dissemination of the residual depleted uranium that is causing such horrific birth disorders in Iraq, has contaminated the bodies of returning veterans, and threatens the genetic structure of the human race.”

      This problem is not new. Gulf War Syndrome started back in the days of Iraq I but it turned out that genetic screw up takes about 10 years to surface. Over 100,000 US vets are today experiencing the serious effects of:
      ■Burn pits
      ■Chemical and biological warfare agents
      ■Depleted uranium
      ■Oil well fires, smoke and petroleum
      ■Pyridostigmine bromide (anti-nerve agent)
      ■Vaccinations (including anthrax and botulinum toxoid)

      and probably another 100,000 or so from Gulf War II. That makes a lot of seriously sick former US soldiers because of what America did. As to what happened to the civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza, Americans don’t really give a shit.

      In another 4 years, Israel can look forward to the same health problems for its vets having served in Lebanon and over Gaza in 2006 because of all the radioactive stuff it dumped on the Lebanese and Gazans. A couple of years after that (2018), there will be more surprises for Israel’s for the Cast Lead adventure.

      • Chaos4700 on January 23, 2012, 9:16 am

        Never mind the hundreds of thousands of Lebanese, Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghani civilians who will suffer all of these effects because DC and Tel Aviv made their homes the battlefield on which these horrific weapons were used.

        My God. What kind of monsters have we become?

      • Walid on January 23, 2012, 10:59 am

        “My God. What kind of monsters have we become?”

        Chaos, you already know about what the Americans did at Fallujah but
        what can never be forgiven is the 22 years of occupation in Lebanon and double that in Palestine when and where Israel field-tested arms and munitions, such as the unmaned drones, the white phosphorus, the DIME and Bunker Buster bombs on Lebanese and Palestinian civilians on behalf of American and Israeli military industries. Nor can the Israelis be forgiven for having bombed hospitals and orphanages and for what they did in Sabra and Shatila in Beirut in 1982.

        Chomsky wrote about what the monsters did in 1982:

    • RoHa on January 23, 2012, 7:04 am

      “I cannot imagine Russia and China simply standing on the sidelines if an attack were to escalate beyond Iran’s passive acceptance of a couple of targeted bombs, as it surely would.”

      I am given to understand that Russia has explicitly said that it will regard an attack on Iran as an attack on Russia, and that China has hinted strongly that it would intervene in a war against Iran.

      Israel certainly could not take on either Russia or China alone, and would do its best to drag the US into the conflict. The US might be able to defeat Russia. It might be able to defeat China. It might, with help from the usual allies, be just able to defeat them both together. But the US military establishment will have a pretty good idea of what that would cost, and even I don’t think they are insane enough to want that.

      So I’m pretty sure that the Pentagon is leaning very heavily on the President to keep out of it.

      • NickJOCW on January 23, 2012, 4:15 pm

        I have a strange feeling that Obama’s ‘by a special route’ warning to the Ayatollah not to close the Straits was designed to separate the issue of an Israeli attack on Iran from the closure of the Straits. That is to say, What you and Israel do is up to you (and doesn’t involve us) but if you try to close the straits you will have us to contend with. That might also be a signal to Israel that it cannot expect US support for such an adventure. Maybe I am being fanciful but there is something like that in there somewhere.

  23. Dan Crowther on January 23, 2012, 9:03 am

    It’s very simple, if the US did not want the Israeli’s to attack Iran, it would make clear to the Israeli’s that their aircraft will be shot down if they fly over Iraq.

    If Dempsey told them this, the Israeli’s wouldn’t be going public announcing that they would give the US the heads up.

    • Kathleen on January 23, 2012, 10:04 am

      I believe awhile back Zbig said shoot them down

    • MLE on January 23, 2012, 10:06 am

      Well the problem is the US is not in Iraq to shoot the weapons down.

      Do you think the Israelis would even listen to us as this point? Especially in an election year where the almighty Jewish campaign contribution is on the line? They know very very well that we won’t touch them. Even if someone had the balls to make that threat, the lobbyists will start buzzing and the SuperPAC money will churn and somehow congress will pass a resolution stating that the American military can not shoot at an Israeli anything.

      Yes I’m aware this is not how it works… But no matter what we tell them, Israel will attempt to circumvent us and try to make themselves the victims of mean old antisemite Obama.

      • Dan Crowther on January 23, 2012, 10:43 am

        The US has almost its entire Navy over there right now, to say nothing of NATO – they are flying all over the region, daily. The US most certainly has the capacity to stop a non-missile attack on Iran. Does it want to? thats a different question

      • CigarGod on January 23, 2012, 2:53 pm

        Hi Dan,
        Copy that.
        I say it a lot, but 24+ major U.S. bases also surround Iran.
        We should also remember that Iran is almost 4 times the size of California and almost completely mountainous. 14K size.

        Iraq by contrast is about the same size as California and has almost no mountains.

        Unless Israel and the USA see some real positives to being even further isolated….

  24. Alvin Alexsi Currier on January 23, 2012, 2:33 pm

    James Wall in his Website :Wallwritings” writes: “Unlike the younger Bush and Bill Clinton, this Democratic president is resisting orders from Tel Aviv
    After the early January assassination of Iranian scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, Barack Obama took an action US presidents before him rarely dared consider. He informed Israel that the US would not take part in the planned joint military exercises with Israel. Finally, the Big Dog took command of its own tail.” Does anyone have news of this or a source for the claim. If true it would be a “God send”

  25. Blake on January 23, 2012, 2:50 pm

    US and Israel on ‘Collision Course’

    By Uzi Mahnaimi

    January 22, 2012 “The Times” — ISRAEL has warned the US’s top general that it will give Washington just 12 hours’ notice if it decides to launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

    The refusal to give more advance warning, which would prevent the US blocking the raid, is the latest sign of a breakdown of trust between the two allies over Israel’s response to Iranian ambitions to develop nuclear weapons.

    The impasse was highlighted after a meeting in Tel Aviv between General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, and Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defence Minister, last week.

    This followed a stormy transatlantic conversation between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in which Mr Netanyahu turned down Mr Obama’s request for early warning of an attack on Iran.

    Mr Netanyahu suspects that Mr Obama, fearful of soaring energy prices, will go to any lengths to stop an attack going ahead before the US presidential election in November.

    The US and the EU have opted for tighter sanctions to deter Iran from building a bomb.

    EU foreign ministers meeting today are expected to ban Iranian oil imports. But the Israeli Prime Minister is concerned that military action may ultimately be necessary.

    The Israeli army has already undertaken intensive training and its elite 35th Paratroopers Brigade is preparing for long-range operations.

    Publicly the Americans and Israelis are playing down their differences. But Ron Ben-Yishai, a leading defence commentator, wrote last week on the Ynet website that “Israel and the US are on a head-on collision course unheard of in recent history.”

    A large joint anti-missile exercise planned for April has already been cancelled, officially for “technical and logistical reasons”.

    “All lies,” said an Israeli defence official, who claimed that Washington had pulled out as an expression of its displeasure. “We were shocked,” the official said. “It’s been planned for the last two years.”

  26. lysias on January 23, 2012, 3:02 pm

    A congressional resolution prohibiting the President from using force to protect the lives of American servicemen and women would be clearly unconstitutional.

  27. Marlene on January 23, 2012, 8:52 pm

    How generous of Israel. Hopefully, they’ll give the same notice to Obama before its Mossad assassinates him.

Leave a Reply