Trending Topics:

Chomsky: Obama strongly supported Israel’s 2006 Lebanon invasion

on 88 Comments

“Barack Obama was a senator before he was president. He didn’t do much as a senator, but he did a couple of things, including one he was particularly proud
of. In fact, if you looked at his website before the primaries, he highlighted the fact that, during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, he cosponsored a
Senate resolution demanding that the United States do nothing to impede Israel’s military actions until they had achieved their objectives and censuring Iran and
Syria because they were supporting resistance to Israel.”

–Noam Chomsky, in answer to a question from David Barsamian, in a piece at, originally published by Tom Engelhardt, and excerpted from a new book by Chomsky, Power Systems.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

88 Responses

  1. Cliff on February 4, 2013, 11:39 am

    Nothing to impede until Israel achieved it’s objectives?

    Namely, killing 1000+ civilians and then turning around and hiding behind the hiding behind human shields argument.

    Disproven by the US Army War College report.

    • James Canning on February 4, 2013, 3:39 pm

      Cliff – – How interesting that idiot Republicans claim Obama is a “Muslim” when Obama was content to allow the murderous Israeli rampage in Lebanon to proceed day after day.

      And let’s remember the foolish Condoleezza Rice, who claimed she heard “the birth pangs of a new Middle East”!

  2. Citizen on February 4, 2013, 11:46 am

    I’m sure the Pritzkers were happy their senator boy voted that way, back in the day. As Hagel said, Obama is the best thing POTUS Israel since Truman. No matter how bad the economy, or Israel thumbing it nose at Obama, he will keep pouring more taxpayer dollers into Israel–there’s no longer daylight between the US Defense budget and aid to Israel. Aid to Israel will only increase, no matter how many jobless Americans exist–unless you count aid to Egypt, which might get cut if Obama decides the Egyptian military cannot off set the new Egyptian regime–aid to Egypt is slightly indirect aid to Israel.

    • Mooser on February 4, 2013, 12:10 pm

      “happy their senator boy voted “

      Ah! Here we go with the “boy” thing again. One could, based on an ordinary American experience, become concerned about the self-perceived interior dimensions of someone who needs to call people “boy”.

      • Citizen on February 8, 2013, 10:08 am

        @ Mooser

        One could also become concerned about the interior agenda dimensions of those wealthy people who appear to always quickly surround any young American politician wannabe with ambition and talent who happens to bear a minority color.

        But hey, take another cheap shot–it brings out antlers.

      • Citizen on February 8, 2013, 10:28 am

        “One could, based on an ordinary American experience, become concerned about the self-perceived interior dimensions of someone who needs to call people “boy”.”

        My ordinary American experience includes three years in a US Army combat engineer unit wherein all the NCOs were black, and the troop composition was 50% black, mostly teens, just like me. We were the proverbial band of brothers, and our own version of “college buddies.”
        Tell us more about your ordinary American experience.

    • James Canning on February 4, 2013, 3:37 pm

      Citizen, yes the billions given to the Egyptian military, by the US, are in fact aid to Israel.

  3. Kathleen on February 4, 2013, 11:47 am

    I was watching Obama while he was in the Senate. Could never figure out where all of the PR hooey “hope and change” was coming from when he was running. While in the Senate he either sat on the fence or went along with the crowd most of the time. “hope and change” came from a stellar campaign team. While I worked my ass off for him because of Hillary’s vote for the Iraq war resolution (Senator Dick Durbin on the Senate intelligence committee voted against..should have been a clue) many of us were not that impressed but jumped on the bus anyway. Had worked on the Ohio Obama campaign and in Colorado. Was amazed by how many Republicans I met who were not only voting for Obama but working for him. They had just had it with how far right the Republican party had gone.

    Phil hope you do a post on the rest of Chris Hayes Sunday program. Impressive panel discussions on the Hagel hearing

    • on February 4, 2013, 12:36 pm

      Kathleen: Is it really necessary to remind everybody of how gullible some of us are? What’s the idea, trying to convince us that one of the dictatorship parties is better than the other re Palestine?

    • ritzl on February 4, 2013, 5:52 pm

      Kathleen, yeah, agree that that panel on Sunday was important. Particularly on the FP “mainstream” convergence/consensus and simultaneous Repub fracturing/dissembling on anything resembling coherent and realistic thought. The conclusion of the panel, that I sensed anyway, was that the Beltway R views on FP were bat-sh.t crazy (call it “unrealistic” in TV panel-speak) and unsupportable even by a significant swath of their base (i.e. Tea Party-ers). That was the good news.

      The bad news/take from that panel was that the consensus has glom-ed around a more right wing perpetual war view of FP, and that there is NO/ZERO “left” counterpoint to speak of to oppose that center-right consensus.

      Still, a refreshing discussion.

      PS. I have seen Hastings now on Tavis Smiley and Chris Hayes. I hope he gets more air time. He’s blunt and not afraid to mix it up, and does [coherently] present the “lefty”/alternative view on these matters.

      • Kathleen on February 5, 2013, 6:50 pm

        Hastings cuts to the core. So did the other panelist. That guy from Daily Beast was no nonsense and funny too.

  4. Rudolph on February 4, 2013, 11:52 am

    It’s worthwhile to remember how easily Israel manipulated a pretext in 2006–the capture of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah–to pursue its key strategic goal–Hezbollah’s destruction: “In leaked testimony to the Winograd Committee investigating Israel’s mismanagement of the summer 2006 Lebanon war, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert admitted that the war had been carefully planned at least four months ahead of time…Facts such as that Hezbollah fired no rockets into Israel until after Israel’s savage aerial attacks…had begun, or that Israel had left unresolved for years the bitter issues of Lebanese prisoners of war and the occupation of the Shebaa Farms region, only generate more questions when one considers how easily negotiations could have defused growing tensions.”

    As Chomsky might say, it is a clear indicator of the discipline of the US mainstream media that Hezbollah’s significant popularity among Shia and non-Shia in Lebanon is so unfathomable to Americans. How could Obama have voted in any other way in such a disciplined political environment?

    • James Canning on February 4, 2013, 3:35 pm

      Rudolph – – Bravo. Yes, Israel wanted to attempt to smash Hezbollah, and only waited for a pretext to give it a go.

      • piotr on February 4, 2013, 4:33 pm

        I am not sure how this war can figure in the annals of “careful war planning”. The strategic doctrine apparently is “it is bothersome to figure out where the military targets are, so if not sure just bomb residential neighborhoods and merely check if they are mostly Shia”, although that does not explain how they manage to kill Syrian Kurdish workers in a poultry plant close to the northern border of Lebanon. Basically, assorted and utterly unrelated “industrial targets” were added for a good measure.

        Besides being inhumane, this doctrine is idiotic because bombing random places does not advance military objectives. Not to mention specific objectives like “smashing Hezbollah” and later “smashing Hamas”.

      • Montrealer on February 4, 2013, 6:07 pm

        In fact, bombing random places does indeed advance military objectives, if you consider maintaining a permanent terrorist threat in the neighboring countries as one…

        Actually, Israel would probably collapse under internal tensions if it couldn’t maintain a state of permanent existential fear in order to unite its various constituencies.

      • James Canning on February 4, 2013, 7:35 pm

        Insane Israeli attack tried to wreck the Beirut airport, destroy oil refineries, etc.

      • Walid on February 5, 2013, 10:49 am

        ““it is bothersome to figure out where the military targets are, so if not sure just bomb residential neighborhoods and merely check if they are mostly Shia”

        Israel did more than bomb the Shia, a super-genius Israeli figured that if Israel bombed Christian areas about 70 to 150 km from any Shia stronghold, it would anger the Christians to the point of hating Hizbullah and the rest of the Shia for it so that when the invasion would start, the Christians would side with the Israelis. When Israel bombed Christian villages’ roads, bridges and overpasses in the north of the country, the Christians so hated the Israelis for the senseless bombings that they actually sympathized with the million fleeing Shia refugees from the south and opened their homes to them. Israel’s stupidity succeeded in uniting the north and the south of the country for the first time in decades. A dumb Israeli tactic that they also tried on the Gazans with Cast Lead but there too, Israel’s viciousness brought the people closer to Hamas.

      • Keith on February 5, 2013, 8:40 pm

        WALID- “The US didn’t just support it, it called it up and had it carried out by its depraved goon.”

        I’m glad you brought this up. So many Mondo commenters have deluded themselves that the US would restrain Israeli militarism if not for “the lobby,” rather than seeing the general congruence of US/Israel’s actions.

      • Walid on February 6, 2013, 2:56 am

        Keith, you were also one of the few here that realized what was really happening in Egypt and Libya with their fundy “springs”, as they were happening.

      • James Canning on February 6, 2013, 2:35 pm

        Surely this primary issue is Israel’s effort to keep most of the West Bank permanently, even if this means endless war. And surely the US would not back this insane programme, were it not for the ISRAEL LOBBY.

      • Walid on February 8, 2013, 1:12 am

        James, it’s about the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned against 51 years ago. The lobby is the bag man used to pay off the legislators to support endless wars all over the place and Israel-Palestine is one of those many places.

      • Citizen on February 8, 2013, 10:50 am

        @ Walid
        It’s all about what Ike warned us about (military-industrial-complex) AND what Washington warned us about (enmeshment with a foreign country).

        Neither Farewell Address to the American people has ever registered with Dick and Jane.

      • James Canning on February 8, 2013, 1:32 pm

        Walid – – Yes, to some extent the military-industrial-congressional complex does use the Israel lobby to keep the trough full of US taxpayer cash.

  5. Mooser on February 4, 2013, 12:05 pm

    Phil, have a care! Did you know that if you Google [Chomsky gatekkeeper] you’ll get bunches and bunches of “hits”? Now, what does that tell you, as if you didn’t know!

    • aiman on February 5, 2013, 12:07 am

      Yes those are conspiracies, but how does that take away from legitimate critiques of Chomsky’s analysis of responsibilities? Since Chomsky is often regaled as a guru, it is only right to shine the light where he doesn’t tread all too well. Why is that a problem?

  6. Jeff Klein on February 4, 2013, 12:14 pm

    Obama was also the principal sponsor of the 2007 Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, a law designed to promote state-by-state divestment campaigns. It was clearly an effort to place himself for the 2008 presidential campaign. The house sponsor was mega-PEP Congressman Barney Frank, Enough said.

    The whole Iran divestment campaign was hatched in Israel by Netanyahu and promoted in the US by Mitt Romney — who was also running for president in 2007.


  7. American on February 4, 2013, 12:56 pm

    I didn’t vote for O the first time around, I really wanted to fall for the hopey changey but past experience wouldn’t let me, I wrote in a name.
    The last thing I expect from any politician campaigning for office is morals and integrity…if they have any at all they are way down on the to do list for 99% of them.
    If someone offered me a million dollars for my dog cause they wanted to roast and eat him would I accept it?…no, but they would, they do it every day.

  8. Obsidian on February 4, 2013, 2:07 pm

    The historically volatile Israel-Lebanon border has been very quiet these past 6 years. That’s good for these two neighbors.

    Deterrence works.

    • Dan Crowther on February 4, 2013, 3:16 pm

      Ha! If by “deterrence” you mean “embarrassing yourself in front of the world with your ill trained soldiers and shitty equipment.”

      1200 hezbollah fighters held back a full blown IDF invasion. The IDF is a joke, and everyone – including them- knows it. The reason they had to go over the top with the bombardment is because there was no fear of the Israeli ground units, in fact, it was the Israeli’s who proved to be fearful…..

      • annie on February 4, 2013, 4:04 pm

        1200 hezbollah fighters held back a full blown IDF invasion.

        and that’s exactly how deterrence works. israel’s ground army is used to ‘deterring’ unarmed civilians. they got a little wake up call in 06.

    • marc b. on February 4, 2013, 3:21 pm

      Deterrence works.

      agreed. a formidable military force in south lebanon has kept israeli ground incursions to a minimum since 2006. so you’d support the US provision of a sophisticated air defense system to the lebanese? that might deter the israeli air force from regularly violating lebanese air space.

      • Walid on February 5, 2013, 12:57 am

        “… that might deter the israeli air force from regularly violating lebanese air space.” (marc b.)

        Israel’s overflights are to provoke Hizbullah to show it what it has but it’s wasting its time; Hizbullah won’t until an actual war breaks out. In 2006, Hizbullah’s C-802 Chinese cruise missile was announced a minute before it took out the Israeli destroyer “Hanit” anchored 10 km off Beirut’s shore. Since 2006, Hizbullah now has unmanned drones that have proven they can reach Dimona and most probably has the necessary SAMs to take out the F16s.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius on February 4, 2013, 4:01 pm

      Quiet? Apart from the Israel jets which violate Lebanese air space on a regular basis?

      That sort of quiet?

      Anyway, the ‘border’ had also been fairly quiet in the years between the July war and Israel’s 2000 defeat in Lebanon. So your point is rather silly.

      • Shingo on February 5, 2013, 5:02 am

        Yes, according to UNIFIL, Israel have violated the ceasefire 3,000 times.

        That’s Isrsel’s idea of peace.

      • marc b. on February 5, 2013, 9:20 am

        according to UNIFIL, Israel have violated the ceasefire 3,000 times.

        That’s Isrsel’s idea of peace.

        the state of israel doesn’t see itself in conventional geographic terms. that’s part of the confusion over all of the ‘territorial concessions’ it purportedly makes. it may withdraw from the sinai or gaza, but as far as it is concerned the sinai and gaza are still an extension of its geographic defenses. same with lebanon.

    • WeAreAllMadeOfStars on February 4, 2013, 4:47 pm

      Obsidian : “Deterrence works”

      Oh really ? … Well let’s hope Iran gets the bomb then !!

    • DaveS on February 4, 2013, 5:16 pm

      obsidian, you are falsely implying that in the six years preceding Israel’s invasion/bombing of Lebanon, the border was not “quiet.” In fact, since Israel’s long-overdue exit in 2000 and the start of its 2006 campaign, there were exceedingly few hostile acts from anyone in Lebanon against Israel (though I have seen Michael Oren and Ethan Bronner falsely imply that Hezbollah launched thousands of rockets during that period). There were frequent Israeli incursions into Lebanese airspace, but virtually nothing from the opposite direction. So why was deterrence needed?

      Similarly, in 1982, after 11 months of total cessation of hostile acts against Israel originating from Lebanon, Israel invaded and slaughtered 15 to 20,000 Lebanese and Palestinians for the sake of this same “deterrence.” When Israel does bomb/invade, that’s when Hezbollah strikes back with whatever is in its arsenal. Israel’s obscene military actions in Lebanon are not deterrence, they are provocation.

      • marc b. on February 4, 2013, 7:08 pm

        Similarly, in 1982, after 11 months of total cessation of hostile acts against Israel originating from Lebanon, Israel invaded and slaughtered 15 to 20,000 Lebanese and Palestinians for the sake of this same “deterrence.”

        that’s an important point. just as you have to view the latest gaza atrocity and threats of war against iran in the context of israeli development in the OPT, it’s worth looking at lebanon ’82 in the context of sharon plans for settlement expansion. from eyal weizman.

        The Likud came to power two elections later, in May 1977. Ariel Sharon was appointed minister of agriculture, and took over the ministerial committee in charge of settlement. This was an influential and powerful portfolio in an administration of politicians that had become accustomed to a permanent role in the political opposition and were utterly inexperienced in governance.

        Sharon seized his opportunity to devise a new location strategy for settlements in order to turn the West Bank into a defensible frontier and consolidate Israeli control of the occupied territories. Having successfully demonstrated the shortcomings of the Bar-Lev Line, he now moved against the second of the Labour defensive lines, the Allon Plan.

        Seeking to implement the lessons of the Sinai campaign, Sharon claimed that: “ …a thin line of settlements along the Jordan would not provide a viable defence unless the high terrain behind it was also fortified….” Consequently, he proposed to establish “other settlements on the high terrain… [and] several east-west roads along strategic axes, together with the settlements necessary to guard them.”

        Sharon and Gush Emunim saw in the depth of the West Bank a sacred territory and a defensible frontier, a border without a line, across whose depth a matrix of settlement could be constructed.

        Labour had traditionally conducted its state-building policies almost entirely through the construction of settlements. Before the creation of the state, as Sharon Rotbard has written, it used the “Tower and Stockade” cooperative settlements to mark and defend Israel’s future borders. After its creation, prime minister David Ben Gurion laid out the so-called “organic wall” composed of a string of development towns inhabited by immigrant communities, mainly Jews from the Arab states, along the state’s new borders.

        But after the 1967 war, Labour was indecisive about what policy to take with regard to the new territories and was unable to reinvigorate its past pioneering energies; thus it pursued its settlement policies with far less enthusiasm and vigour.

        Instead it was Sharon, the Labourite turned Likudnik, and Gush Emunim, the national religious and messianic organisation, who managed to revitalise the pioneering ethos of Zionism. They saw in the depth of the West Bank a sacred territory and a defensible frontier, a border without a line, across whose depth a matrix of settlement could be constructed.

        The “artificially-created” Green Line, Israel’s internationally-recognised 1949 border, was deeply repressed, and the borders became fluid and elastic again, pulled out to incorporate every new settlement.

        After the Yom Kippur war, linear fortifications were no longer trusted and the sense was to fortify the entire depth of the terrain. Thus the open frontier replaced the rigidity of the line and blurred the distinctions between a political “inside” and “outside”; or, in the words of the Israeli sociologist Adriana Kemp, it blurred the difference between “the political space of the state and the cultural space of the nation” a difference “hidden by the hyphenated concept of “nation-state”.”

        In a famous syllogism, Lenin once described strategy as “the choice of points where force is to be applied”. Points have neither dimension nor size; they are mere coordinates on the X/Y-axis of the plane and on the Z-axis of latitude. In Israel, the settlement “location strategy” is based upon a close reading of the terrain and a decision made with the precision of acupuncture regarding where effort should be concentrated.

        The fact that the word settlement means in Hebrew a ‘point on the ground’, and sometimes simply ‘a point’ (nekuda) is indicative of a planning culture that considers the positioning of a settlement less in terms of its essence, than in terms of its strategic location.

        Because settlements are autonomous and separate points on a matrix, a reliable communication had to be established between them.

        In 1982, few months before his invasion of Lebanon, Sharon, then minister of defence, published his Masterplan for Jewish Settlements in the West Bank Through the Year 2010 – later known as the Sharon Plan. In it he outlined the location of more than a hundred settlement points, placed on strategic summits, and marked the paths for a new network of high-volume, interconnected traffic arteries reaching also into the Israeli heartland.

        The fact that the word settlement means in Hebrew a ‘point on the ground’ is indicative of a planning culture that considers the positioning of a settlement less in terms of its essence, than in terms of its strategic location.

        Ariel Sharon saw in the formation of continuous Jewish habitation a way towards the annexation of the areas vital for Israel’s security. These areas he marked onto the map attached to his plan in the shape of the letter H. The “H-Plan” contained two parallel north-south strips of land: one along the Green Line containing the West Bank from the west, and another along the Jordan valley, accepting the presence of the Allon Plan to contain the territory from the east.

        These two strips separated the Palestinian population centres, organised along the central spine of the West Bank’s mountain ridge from both Israel proper and from the (much relieved) kingdom of Jordan. Between these north-south strips Sharon marked a few east-west traffic arteries – the main one connecting through Jerusalem, thus closing a (very) approximate H. The rest, some 40% of the West Bank, separate enclaves around Palestinian cities and towns, were to revert to some yet undefined form of Palestinian self-management.

        The settlements, relying on their own weapons, ammunition and military contingency plans, were to form a network of ‘civilian fortifications’ integrated into the IDF’s overall system of defence, serving strategic imperatives by overlooking main traffic arteries and road junctions in their region.

        The Sharon Plan, 1981

        The role of settlements as observation and control-points promoted a particular layout for their urbanity. The (sub)urban layout of a mountain settlement is concentric; its roads are stretched in rings following the topographical lines closing a complete circuit around the summit.

        The outward-facing arrangement of homes orients the view of its inhabitants towards the surrounding landscape in which “national interests” – main roads, junctions and Palestinian urban areas, compose a part of a picturesque panorama. The essence of this geometric order, as Rafi Segal and Eyal Weizman have written, is to produce ‘panoptic fortresses’ – optical devices on an urban scale, laid out to generate observation, spatially and temporally, all round.

        The high ground, on which settlements were located, thus offers the strategic assets of self-protection and a wider view. But beyond being employed militarily, the urban layout of vision also serves an aesthetic agenda: it allows for contemplation over a pastoral landscape evocative of history, one in which biblical scenarios could be easily imagined and participated in, at least visually. All this feeds the national mythic imagination, giving settlers the sense of foundational authority based on long historical continuity.

        Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu on the West Bank

        In the early 1980s another of the construction frenzies that are indicative of Ariel Sharon’s closeness to executive power had began. The “Biblical” heartland of the West Bank became overlaid by the two symbiotic and synergetic instruments of security: the settlement observation point and the serpentine road network, the latter being the prime device for serving the former, the former overlooking and protecting the latter.

        Sharon realised the double potential of emerging messianic-religious impulses: to settle a mythological landscape and to facilitate the desire of the middle classes to push outside of congested city centres to populate his matrix of points with civilian communities. Unlike Labour’s agricultural settlements of the Kibbutz and the Moshav, the new ‘community settlements’ were in effect dormitory suburbs of closely-knit social groups composed mainly of national-religious-professional middle classes.

        Israeli suburbia made perfect use of the system laid out for mobile defence in depth merging the needs of a sprawling suburbia with national security and political ambitions to push ever more Israelis into the West Bank.

        Architectural organisation and aesthetics were conscripted in order to create uniform communities as well as to establish the state’s control of its territories. Uniformity of architectural taste was imposed through the repetition of a small variety of single and double, family house-and-garden structures. Beyond responding to middle-class suburban aesthetics, the adorning of settlement homes with red roofs, served a further military agenda – identifying these sites from afar as Israeli.

        The fact that the inhabitants had to seek work outside the settlements made them rely on the roads to connect them with the employment centres in the metropolitan areas around Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, within Israel proper. This was similar to the way that the American suburbs developed as an offspring of pacified second world war construction technology, and especially around the system of interstate highways, developed to serve the integrated industry of the American war economy.

        Israeli suburbia made perfect use of the system laid out for mobile defence in depth. The massive system of fifty highways together with a modern matrix of infrastructure became effective instruments of development – merging the needs of a sprawling suburbia with national security and political ambitions to push ever more Israelis into the West Bank.

        Sharon and the engineers, already experts in military defence works, and now building for civilian communities, had to become urban planners. Sharon “… got tremendous satisfaction seeing how everything was moving forward, how drawings on a map were every day becoming more of a reality on the ground.”

        sh*t. that’s longer than i thought. in any event, my point being that lebanon ’82 (deterrence? what deterrence?) should be looked at in conjunction with sharon’s visionary plan for settlement expansion.

      • James Canning on February 6, 2013, 2:32 pm

        Great post. It appears that European countries will need to take the lead in telling Israel it must accept the Green Line as its border with Palestine, unless Palestine agrees to certain swaps of territory.

    • Montrealer on February 4, 2013, 6:11 pm

      Deterrence indeed works, but in the opposite direction you may expect… Hizbollah kicked IDF’s bummer big time in that 2006 campain. Now they’re afraid Hizbollah’s going to get anti-aircraft missiles so they won’t be able to fly over Lebanon as they please, which justifies an outright agression on Syrian soil, of course.

    • Shingo on February 5, 2013, 5:03 am

      The historically volatile Israel-Lebanon border has been very quiet these past 6 years.

      Yes, having had it’s ass handed to them, Iseael have not tried to invade Israel ever since.

  9. James Canning on February 4, 2013, 3:33 pm

    As a practical matter, was Obama obliged to support Israel’s murderous ramapge in Lebanon, in order to avoid roadblocking his own road to higher office?

    • Walid on February 5, 2013, 12:34 am

      “… Israel’s murderous rampage in Lebanon…”

      The US didn’t just support it, it called it up and had it carried out by its depraved goon. 6 days into the war, Olmert wanted to stop the war but the US and Arab friends insisted on keeping the war going. With the lesson learned from the Lebanon war, the US has given up on the military option; now it simply stirs up civil unrest in a country and sits back and watches the people kill each other.

      • James Canning on February 7, 2013, 2:56 pm

        Israel planned the attack on Lebanon months in advance. I think you are correcct to believe foolish Bush administration officials encourated the Israeli rampage. The ghastly Condi Rice then heard “the birth pangs of a new Middle East”.

      • lysias on February 8, 2013, 9:50 am

        According to Patrick Tyler’s Fortress Israel (which I just finished reading,) the U.S. was even calling on Israel during the 2006 war to go on to Syria and topple Assad’s regime. Israel refused.

      • James Canning on February 16, 2013, 1:51 pm

        Who were the neocon warmongers calling for this act of idiocy?

  10. Maximus Decimus Meridius on February 4, 2013, 3:59 pm

    I remember during that war, all the talk, on both sides of the Atlantic, was about allowing Israel to ‘get the job done’. Then we had the repulsive Condi Rice and her horrid talk of ‘birth pangs of the new Middle East’. It’s so obvious that Israel provoked this war – with the full knowledge of the US and other Western powers – in the belief that they could ‘crush’ Hizballah and, as a result, greatly weaken Iran. When it then became equally obvious that no ‘crushing’ would take place, they looked for a ceasefire. Despite Condi’s predictions, the Middle East remained pretty much as it was, except that Israel’s enemies were newly emboldened and Hizballah’s status rose greatly in Lebanon.

    A roaring success. Not.

    • James Canning on February 4, 2013, 7:32 pm

      One wonders who fed the dreadful Condoleeza Rice that preposterous comment, that she “heard the birth pangs of a new Middle East”.

      • piotr on February 6, 2013, 1:58 am

        Joking about spinsters is in poor taste, but Condi had her true “Chicken hawk moment” with those “birth pangs”.

    • Walid on February 4, 2013, 11:59 pm

      “Despite Condi’s predictions, the Middle East remained pretty much as it was, …” (Maximus)

      Yes it did at that time, but the US never gave up. Since then, Iraq has been forever fractured, the Sudan split in 2, Yemen brought under its neighbour’s control, the Tunisian, Libyan and Egyptian regimes changed, Iran and Gaza under siege, Israel has expanded, Syria at war, Lebanon talking about breaking up and Jordan being set up to become Palestine. Condi was wrong in her timing only.

  11. Rusty Pipes on February 4, 2013, 4:01 pm

    We’re talking 2006. What Israel did to Lebanon in 2006 was a turning point in raising the awareness of progressive netroots lurkers about Israeli hasbara. The majority of congresscritters, assuming that no one in the base cared about the issue but AIPAC’s listserve, overwhelmingly rubberstamped an AIPAC drafted statement. Efforts by a few, like minority whip Nancy Pelosi, to soften AIPAC’s proposed language were smacked down hard. Efforts by a few adventurous senators, like Hagel and Feinstein, to offer a more balanced statement got little support from colleagues. Like many senators with Presidential ambitions, freshman Senator Obama co-sponsored an AIPAC-sponsored resolution. At the outset of the I/L conflict, no constituents with any power would punish him for doing so and key backers who could open doors for his presidential potential would support him.

    But the I/L conflict was a major turning point for the Democratic wing of the Democratic party in its perception of Israel — not just among blogging activists, but among delegates to the Democratic convention. Whatever platitudes the politicians think that they have to continue to mouth, more and more in the base are saying, “no.”

    • lysias on February 8, 2013, 9:52 am

      I believe Pelosi was majority leader by that point.

    • lysias on February 8, 2013, 9:53 am

      According to Jeff Connaughton’s The Payoff: Why Wall Street Always Wins, the reliable donors to whom Democratic candidates always turn are: Jews, trial lawyers, and labor unions.

  12. Cliff on February 4, 2013, 5:58 pm

    I think Obsidian bears a strong resemblance to proudzionist666.

    Anyways about that Israeli deterrence:


    The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) issued a short statement on December 24, 2007, on the results of an internal inquiry into its controversial use of cluster munitions during the 34-day war with Hezbollah in July and August 2006. During that short conflict, the IDF rained an estimated 4 million submunitions on south Lebanon, the vast majority over the final three days when Israel knew a settlement was imminent. The inquiry was the second internal IDF investigation into the use of the weapon, and like its predecessor it exonerated the armed forces of violating international humanitarian law (IHL). Neither a detailed report nor the evidence supporting conclusions has been made public, however, making it impossible to assess whether the inquiry was carried out with rigor and impartiality, and whether it credibly addressed key issues about targeting and the lasting impact of cluster munition strikes on the civilian population.

    Human Rights Watch’s researchers were on the ground in Lebanon throughout the conflict and after, and our findings paint a quite different picture of the IDF’s conduct. Research in more than 40 towns and villages found that the IDF’s use of cluster munitions was both indiscriminate and disproportionate, in violation of IHL, and in some locations possibly a war crime. In dozens of towns and villages, Israel used cluster munitions containing submunitions with known high failure rates. These left behind homes, gardens, fields, and public spaces-including a hospital-littered with hundreds of thousands and possibly up to one million unexploded submunitions. By their nature, these dangerous, volatile submunitions cannot distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, foreseeably endangering civilians for months or years to come.

    • Obsidian on February 6, 2013, 12:36 pm


      “I think Obsidian bears a strong resemblance to proudzionist666”

      I’m flattered by the comparison.

      • Cliff on February 6, 2013, 4:19 pm

        So in other words, you’re a sock puppet who got banned and came crawling back? Gotcha

  13. fillmorehagan on February 4, 2013, 7:00 pm

    Israel in Syria

    They have been involved in every Arab civil war for decades– always on the side of the most reactionary forces.

  14. anonymouscomments on February 4, 2013, 11:20 pm

    and chomsky still derides or soft peddles the “pro-israel lobby”? is israel still our client state serving US (the godfather’s) will? or is he starting to acknowledge the obvious reality?

    or has the old man with great intellect but astonishing blind spots, changed his tune now that he can’t survive in the establishment left without a new tune?

    i live in boston and saw him for like the 5th time a few months ago… i used to respect him greatly, but some of his positions have turned out to be unforgivable, and doom the “left” and others to utter failure, and perpetual futility. ie his position on the israel lobby, his position on “(un)strategic voting” every 4 years, and his take on 9/11.

    and to bring back, yet again, jeffrey blankfort-
    MUST listen about chomsky and the left…. and israel of course-

  15. sandhillexit on February 5, 2013, 12:10 am

    We all saw the dim-bulb Los Angeles mayor lie on national television about the result of the vote we had just watched, at the Democratic Convention. The Progressives don’t want the fight, but the drumbeat for another American war in the M.E. will likely be a match to tinder.

  16. Walid on February 5, 2013, 11:24 am

    Obama now going along with the Bulgaria-Israel frame-up of Hizbullah for the Burgas airport bombing to get the Europeans to declare it a terrorist organization, something the Europeans have been refusing to do.

    • Montrealer on February 5, 2013, 2:38 pm

      Strange you bring this up, I was just reading this morning on the actual reasons why Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by some countries. It looks like the Bulgaria terror attack is considered one of them.

      Do you have actual information on whether this was a frame-up? Any independent sources confirmed this or point in that direction? Just inquiring out of curiousity… it’s obviously counterproductive to label Hezbollah or Hamas or any other genuine resistance group with wide political support as terrorist, but on the other hand, this position is hard to defend when said group engages in terror acts on civilians…

      • Walid on February 6, 2013, 3:16 am

        I just read the news as you do, Montrealer, but Hizbullah doesn’t go around killing civilian tourists. When the time comes for it to avenge Mughnieh’s killing, it will surely be on someone of equal military or political importance and not a few innocent civilians visiting Bulgaria. These days, Hizbullah has become the bugaboo for all of the world’s problems. Next, it will be blamed for screwing up the ozone layer. So far, all Bulgaria could produce by way of proof is a security video of a Swedish Muslim walking around the airport that at one point was a guest at Guantanamo. Mossad’s investigation is saying that 2 Hizbullah operatives using legitimate Canadian and Australian passports were involved. Mossad; that should give you an idea.

      • Rusty Pipes on February 6, 2013, 3:35 pm

        A couple of articles on Bulgaria today from Al Akhbar:

        Bulgarian Opposition Blasts Burgas Bombing Charge:

        The US and Israel are using the accusations leveled against Hezbollah in the 2012 Burgas bus bombing to pressure the EU into including the resistance group on its terrorist list. But the Bulgarian opposition is crying foul.

        Israeli and US pressure on Bulgarian authorities to formally accuse Hezbollah as the organization behind the 18 June 2012 bus bombing in the city of Burgas – in which six people, including five Israelis, were killed – has not been entirely successful.

        They have succeeded in pressuring the Bulgarian investigators probing the bombing to link the attack to Hezbollah. This has been done in such a way as to strike a compromise between the hardline stances of Israel and the US, and the cautious position of European countries, who do not see it in their interest to up the ante against Hezbollah at this juncture.

        Bulgarian Minister of Interior Tsvetan Tsvetanov announced Tuesday, 5 February 2013, that two people believed to have been connected to Hezbollah were involved in the Burgas bombing.

        Israel waging “campaign of intimidation” over Bulgaria attack: Hezbollah

        Hezbollah denounced Israel on Wednesday for waging an “international campaign” against it after Bulgaria said the resistance movement was behind a July bombing that killed six Israeli tourists.

        Naim Kassem, the group’s number two, slammed the “international campaign of intimidation waged by Israel against Hezbollah,” and said it is “ever improving its equipment and training” and that “these charges will change nothing.”

        The European Union will consider adding Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement to its list of terrorist organizations after Israel and the US stepped up a campaign to push the Union to blacklist the resistance group, an EU foreign affairs spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

        However, she said listing the group was just one of several options and said no decision had been taken.

        “Currently, Hezbollah is not on the list of terrorist organizations in the EU and member states will look into several options. This is one of them but not the only one,” Maja Kocijancic told reporters.

      • marc b. on February 7, 2013, 8:49 am

        Mossad’s investigation is saying that 2 Hizbullah operatives using legitimate Canadian and Australian passports were involved. Mossad; that should give you an idea.

        right. mossad and their holographic, passport printing press. fake irish passports, fake UK passports, fake australian passports, fake NZ passports. but these are ‘legitimate’.

      • Shingo on February 6, 2013, 4:04 am

        It looks like the Bulgaria terror attack is considered one of them.

        The Bulgarian government continues to deny there is any evidence of a link.

      • annie on February 6, 2013, 1:39 pm

        they do shingo? do you have a recent link? for some reason i thought this allegation came from their investigation, i haven’t really been following it tho.

      • Montrealer on February 6, 2013, 5:00 pm

        According to this BBC report, the Bulgarian police has officially blamed Hezbollah for the attack (this news came out yesterday)…

        It makes me wonder why Hezbollah would revert to such tactics – I just don’t see any political gain for them in targetting Israeli civilians on European soil. Since the attack, Bibi has been pushing the EU to recognize Hezbollah as a terrorist group. Why would they risk having their European assets frozen? Even our Canadian foreign minister is now into it:

        “We urge the European Union and all partners who have not already done so to list Hizbullah as a terrorist entity and prosecute terrorist acts committed by this inhumane organization to the fullest possible extent,” [Baird] said.”

        I am guessing that maybe the attack was planned by rogue elements of the group? I saw the suspects were mentioned as “members” of Hezbollah but haven’t yet seen convincing “proofs” that it was an act plotted by the Hezbollah itself in a top-down fashion.

        As for it being an Israeli false flag operation: as lowly as I consider the morality of their secret services, I still have a hard time believing they would be willing to sacrifice their civilians in such a barbaric act. After all, these were Jews worthy of their human life…

      • Antidote on February 6, 2013, 5:35 pm

        “Even our Canadian foreign minister is now into it”

        Hardly surprising. Canada has long outlawed Hizbollah as a terrorist organization. From 2006/Ottawa Citizen:


        There is “no way” Hezbollah will be taken off Canada’s list of terrorist organizations, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said yesterday.

        “We see no chance of Hezbollah being de-listed,” Mr. Day told CTV’s Question Period.

        “We’ve got this organization that is one of the most vicious, murderous groups in the world today and they’re stating clearly that they want the genocide of all Jews and the annihilation of an entire nation, being Israel. There is no way we can (delist a group) that has those kind of horrific plans.”

      • Ellen on February 6, 2013, 6:37 pm

        Montrealer, I still have a hard time believing they would be willing to sacrifice their civilians in such a barbaric act.

        Please do not be delusional. Governments sacrifice their own all the time under the ideas that is it best for god and country. How many young people sent into useless wars? Where many young men (women on the way) die horrible deaths, or survive forever damaged with no legs or arms.

        What is the difference between than and quickly blowing up a few for a bigger cause?

        If Israel can get Europe to declare Hezbollah a “terrorist” organization it is worth it big time to the Israeli government.

      • Woody Tanaka on February 6, 2013, 6:57 pm

        “As for it being an Israeli false flag operation: as lowly as I consider the morality of their secret services, I still have a hard time believing they would be willing to sacrifice their civilians in such a barbaric act. After all, these were Jews worthy of their human life…”

        I have no problem believing it. Look at how they treat people in Palestine. Do you think they’d be stopped because it’s Jews? They’ve been trying for years to get the EU to blackball Hezbollah with no luck. What’s the lives of 5 people if it could help secure the “north”?? And then this person just happens to find out where these israelis are in Bulgaria??? I will suspend by disbelief until all of the evidence is released. (Ha! don’t hold your breath on that one…)

      • on February 6, 2013, 10:33 pm

        Ellen – “Governments sacrifice their own all the time under the ideas that is it best for god and country.” Especially this government, who for 65 years has been importing millions of civilians into a war zone, i.e. the entirety of Palestine, not only the “settlements”, as live shields. Also, remember their past foreign murders and other terrorist false-flag operations (the Lavon Affair operatives recently received medals from the Zionist President.)

      • Shingo on February 6, 2013, 11:05 pm

        I stand corrected Annie,

        I was basing my argument on a statement made by Bulgarian government a week earlier, where they denied this claim after it was leaked.

      • Shingo on February 6, 2013, 11:08 pm

        It makes me wonder why Hezbollah would revert to such tactics – I just don’t see any political gain for them in targetting Israeli civilians on European soil.

        I agree, it makes no sense whatsoever. This is nothing but a lose – lose proposition for them and completely out of character.

        The fact that one of the accomplices allegedly was carrying an Australian passport leads me to believe this is a set up. Israel have been caught stealing or forging passports from Australia and other countries.

        The Drivers licenses were also allegedly produced in Lebanon, which suggests to me they were bad forgeries made with the intention of creating a false lead.

      • Antidote on February 6, 2013, 11:25 pm
      • Walid on February 7, 2013, 6:13 am

        Shingo, to give you an idea how bogus is this Bulgarian accusation, Bulgaria’s parliamentary opposition that represents almost half the country has already questioned and refused it, saying this has come about after American and Israeli pressure was applied on the government to go along with it.

        Speaking about the Bulgarian Government that was formed after the 2009 elections, keep in mind that during its first 6 months in office, it signed several security and joint cooperation agreements with Israel, so you cab guess where this Burgas airport incident was cooked up.

        From Reuters yesterday:

        Bulgarian opposition questions blaming of Hezbollah for bomb
        By Angel Krasimirov

        SOFIA | Wed Feb 6, 2013 8:27am EST
        (Reuters) – Bulgaria’s opposition criticized a government statement that Hezbollah carried out a bomb attack that killed Israeli tourists, saying on Wednesday the conclusion was unjustified and dangerous.

        The July attack in the coastal city of Burgas raised tensions in the Balkan country, where 15 percent of the 7.3 million population are Muslim, and opposition parties said the government acted under Israeli and U.S. pressure.

        The charge made by European Union and NATO member Bulgaria on Tuesday may open the way for Brussels to join the United States in branding the Iranian-backed Lebanese militant movement Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

        “It is an unjustifiable act that is very dangerous,” Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) leader Sergei Stanishev said. “The government entered into an international political game in an irresponsible manner, without calculating the consequences.”

        The nationalist Attack and ethnic Turkish MRF party joined the Socialist criticism, saying it was too soon for the rightist government of Prime Minister Boiko Borisov to blame Hezbollah because the investigation had not yet concluded.

        They said the government had failed to provide a thorough analysis of faults in national security and Bulgaria would remain vulnerable.

      • James Canning on February 7, 2013, 1:50 pm

        Substantial scepticism is indeed warranted.

      • annie on February 7, 2013, 5:56 pm

        saying it was too soon for the rightist government of Prime Minister Boiko Borisov to blame Hezbollah because the investigation had not yet concluded.

        thanks walid, interesting.

      • Montrealer on February 7, 2013, 6:11 pm

        Great Walid, just the kind of critical article I was looking for. We need to find out who funds this rightwing Bulgarian government… any similar type of lobby as AIPAC in the US?

      • Shingo on February 8, 2013, 6:07 pm

        Hi Annie,

        I remember I came across this report a few days ago.

        Bulgaria Denies Report it Linked Hezbollah to Burgas Terror Attack
        JANUARY 18, 2013 9:15 AM

        The Bulgarian government and media have denied any Hezbollah link to the terrorist attack against Israeli tourists at the Black Sea resort of Burgas last summer which had killed five Israelis and one Bulgarian.

        It’s very fishy how after visiting Israel to report their findings, the Bulgarian government did an about face.

      • Antidote on February 8, 2013, 7:49 pm

        “who funds this rightwing Bulgarian government… any similar type of lobby as AIPAC in the US?”

        No. All Bulgarian Jews survived the Holocaust (even though Bulgaria was an ally of Nazi Germany the country resisted deportation of Bulgarian Jews). Also unusual: 90 % of Bulgaria’s Jews emigrated to Israel in 1948, with no objections from the Communist government. Bulgaria is one of the poorest (but fiscally healthy and not a member of the Euro zone) countries in the EU, and its remaining small Jewish community is substantially funded by American Jewish groups.

        Tourism is a major industry, and Bulgaria benefitted greatly from a sharp increase in tourism from Israel after the deterioration of Turkish-Israeli relations in the wake of Cast Lead, the low-chair incident, and the Flotilla disaster. The Turkish/Muslim minority in Bulgaria has not in any way benefitted from the alleged old tradition of religious tolerance in Bulgaria

        Tourism from Israel dropped 20% in the wake of the Burgas attack that killed several Israeli tourists. So Bulgaria has a vested interest in countering any fears that Israeli tourists are less safe there than they would be in Turkey, or Greece – where tourism is also a major industry, hampered by being in the Euro zone (more expensive than Bulgaria or Turkey)

        Is this why the Greek Jewish Council has filed a complaint at the UN about a year ago, regarding Bulgaria’s unacknowledged role in the Holocaust (Bulgaria did deport several thousand Sephardi Jews from the northern part of Greece which it occupied during WW II and sought to annex as originally Bulgarian territory)

        The Bulgarian parties opposed to and doubting the claim that Hizbullah was behind the Burgas attacks — the socialist far Left and xenophobic far Right – are also united in their anti-American and pro-Russian stance

    • Antidote on February 5, 2013, 9:39 pm

      keep in mind that any such foreign policy decision requires unanimous consent in the European Council (liberum veto).

      “In order to add Hezbollah to the list of terrorist organizations, consensus must be found among all 27 EU members. The European Council, comprised of representatives of all member states, must unanimously agree on a “common position.” Achieving consensus is, not surprisingly, a more difficult endeavor as the EU continues to expand.(8) Furthermore, the proceedings of the designation process are kept secret, and so it is difficut to know exactly each country’s position, except for those countries that have voiced their opposition forcefully, such as France. ”

      One reason why an economic boycott of Israel is unlikely to pass. At least one of 27 countries could be bribed to vote no. Usually the Czech Republic, long time Zionist supporters (Benes), and one of the most corrupt countries in the EU.

      • Walid on February 6, 2013, 3:29 pm

        In July 2012, Israel failed to get Hizbullah declared a terror organization by the EU, so it went back to the drawing board and now supposedly Mossad has the goods on a couple of Hizbullah operatives. Given that Mossad is a master at false-flag operations, one has to wonder what it has cooked up now.

        Speaking of Mossad false-flags, Argentina’s Jewish Foreign Minister, Hector Timerman recently agreed with Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi to establish a joint “truth commission” to examine the 1994 bombing of the Jewish Community Center (AMIA) in Buenos Aires and 1992 bombing at Israeli Embassy building.

        Rehmat wrote about it on his blog yesterday:

        Israel’s foreign ministry has lodged a protest with Argentinian ambassador in Tel Aviv, showing country’s outrage over Argentina’s Jewish foreign minister Hector Timerman for agreeing with Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi to establish a joint “truth commission” to examine the 1994 bombing of the Jewish Community Center (AMIA) in Buenos Aires and 1992 bombing at Israeli Embassy building.

        On January 30, 2013, former Assisstant Secretary of State for South America, Roger Noriega, currently a senior fellow at pro-Israel Jewish advocacy group, ‘Inter-American Security Watch’, also blasted Argentinian President Christina Kirchner over the said agreement. “It’s bad enough that the US national security establishment is ignoring the Iran-Hizballah threats in the America. Now, Argentina’s President Christina Kirchner has made matters worse by agreeing to help Iran whitewash its terrorist legacy,” wrote the paranoid Zionist.

        The Zionist regime is mad because Argentinian government did not consult with it before inking the said agreement with Tehran.

        The Israeli and American Jewish lobby reaction to the probe clearly shows that they’re scared the “truth commission” may digout the real criminals (Mossad) behind the bombing.

        It’s interesting to note that the very first day of the Jewish Center (AMIA) bombing in Buenos Aires on July 1994, which resulted in the death of 85 people, the Zionist owned mainstream media blamed Iran and Hizb’Allah – in order to cover the long histroy of false-flag operations by Israeli Mossad – and as expected, a team of Israeli investigators arrived in Buenos Aires the very next day to remove any possible lead to Israel.

        Tehran denied the Zionist allegations and later the presiding judge, Galeono, was dismissed for taking bribe from Mossad and fabricating evidence against the Iranian diplomat Soleimanpour. A British court refused to order the extradiction of the Iranian diplomat. The corrupt judge had blamed five Iranians including the current Iranian defense minister Ahmad Vahidi.

        For rest of the story:

      • Antidote on February 8, 2013, 8:57 am

        Remember the USS Maine?

        Ynet published this just after the Burgas attack in July 2012:

        “Anybody with eyes in their head can see we are in the middle of an escalation orchestrated by various elements, and where occasionally, we are the instigating side. We hurt Imad Mughniyah a few years ago and mostly we are in a battle against Iran,” former National Security Advisor Uzi Arad said Thursday

        Arad, speaking with Army Radio in reaction to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pointing a finger at Iran over Wednesday’s terror attack in Bulgaria, was referring the alleged Israeli connection to Mughniyah’s death, as alluded by foreign media sources.

        “All the signs are pointing to Iran. Only in the past few months we’ve seen Iran try to target Israelis in Thailand, India, Georgia, Cyprus and more,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said following the deadly terror attack on a bus in carrying Israeli tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria.

        In the interview Arad was asked whether those who are privy to intelligence information can say who was responsible for attacks hours after the incident. He explained that this was not the state of things.

        According to Arad, “We are in a battle against Iran. We are an active side. We are not passive. The opposing side, which is of course deserving of the campaign we are running against it, is a defensive side, it deters, it is also an attacking side…You don’t need intelligence for that. Any person with eyes in their head understands that this is what is behind us and ahead of us.”

        Arad addressed the Iranian responses to Israeli operations: “They did it before, they have proved that they have better operational capabilities and less successful capabilities. They work in the field and both intelligence and strategic logic say that this is how Iran will act.

        “And the closer the sword gets to its neck, the more it will need to both deter and say that these acts are acts of retaliation which it will take.”

        He warned: “This is why we need to prepare strategically otherwise, without saying ‘we’ll wait for the golden piece of intelligence that will come at the last minute.’ The strategic intelligence alert is on the wall. Now the question is, when is it Iran itself, when is it Iran using its ally Hezbollah and when is it a third party that joined the party and could be Hamas or (a source in) Sinai.”,7340,L-4257899,00.html

        “Within hours (of the Burgas attack], Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blamed Iran and Hezbollah, justifying his brilliant conclusion on the fact it had occurred on the anniversary of the 1994 AMIA bombing, which was blamed by Netanyahu’s predecessors on Iran and Hezbollah. The foolishness of this deductive technique is better illustrated by 9/11. One could claim that the date of the event—September 11—was chosen carefully. In the USA, 9/11 is the police emergency call number. From that day onwards, every American will connect both events, emphasizing its terror, allowing the fear to transcend time and space. This is true in America. Few countries use 9/11 as an emergency code (for example, Israel uses 100). Thus, using Netanyahu’s innovative methods, one could claim the 9/11 event was planned by an American, the only one likely to immediately recognize the additional value of the date. […] What we must look is who is profiting politically from the event; obviously, neither Iran nor Hezbollah enter this category. The initial statement by Netanyahu was followed by truly odd declarations. Yoav Limor told to Yisrael Hayom that the attack is “another reason, along with the steady collapse of the Assad government, to justify an Israeli offensive in Lebanon to stop Syrian chemical weapons falling into Hezbollah’s hands.” Government Minister Yaakov Katz told the Jerusalem Post that he thinks the government will take its time before deciding how to retaliate: “Above all, it will first work to create an intelligence dossier to prove to the world that Iran really was behind the bombing.” The verb “create” perfectly fits the minister’s intentions. Similar astonishing declarations were said by others. Israel is seeking for a justification to open a war; any other attempt to solve its inner social problems has failed. If its declared enemies won’t provide it, be it through a false flag operation. It worked on 9/11, didn’t it? Let me be absolutely clear. If Mr. Sherlock Netanyahu thinks that he can blame Iran based on a an anniversary date, we, the people, have the right to blame him for 9/11. After all, he has double citizenship, American-Israeli. ”

        Who remembers that ground was broken for the construction of the Pentagon on September 11, 1941?

        Lindbergh delivered his Des Moines speech on the same day. It is widely seen as derailing of the largest anti-war movement in American history: the America First Committee

  17. biorabbi on February 5, 2013, 7:40 pm

    Is Obama visiting Israel around Passover? or so I heard today.

  18. biorabbi on February 5, 2013, 7:41 pm

    Old news… he is. visiting in the Spring according to Haaretz.

  19. Rusty Pipes on February 5, 2013, 8:03 pm

    Whenever I see a statement about Israel by Chomsky, I wonder, “what would Jeffrey Blankfort say?”

  20. munro on February 6, 2013, 2:33 pm

    Obama had to say that to get elected and appoint Hagel who said:

    “How do we realistically believe that a continuation of the systematic destruction of an American friend, the country and people of Lebanon, is going to enhance America’s image and give us the trust and credibility to lead a lasting and sustained peace effort in the Middle East?”

    • James Canning on February 6, 2013, 8:01 pm

      Bravo. And the idiot Ted Cruz attacked Hagel for calling the insane Israeli rampage in Lebanon a “sickening slaughter”!

Leave a Reply