Trending Topics:

Who cares what Jeffrey Goldberg and Netanyahu don’t like about the Iran deal?

Middle East
on 49 Comments

Today on NPR’s Morning Edition, the host interviewed Jeffrey Goldberg for four minutes about his reservations about the Iran deal. Goldberg worried that Iran would be able, notwithstanding constraints on its nuclear program, to develop the capacity to make a bomb when those constraints are lifted years from now. Obama need to show “what can he do in the next three months to make sure that Iran does not emerge ten or 15 years from now with a really advanced program.”

What can he do? host Steve Inskeep asked. Goldberg:

One thing he could do is negotiate the final agreement so that Iran is limited in what it can do in research and development.

Why is Goldberg granted such expertise? This is the journalist who 13 years ago conveyed wrong information about Saddam Hussein’s supposed chemical weapons that became a pretext for the disastrous Iraq war. Five years ago Goldberg said that the Israelis were preparing to bomb Iran in the next year– wrong again. And in the 80s Goldberg emigrated to Israel and even served in their army because he thought the U.S. was too dangerous a place for Jews. Wrong again.

Meantime, The New York Times publishes this polite editorial today, “Israel’s Unworkable Demands on Iran,” deprecating Benjamin Netanyahu’s advice against the Iran deal. While the editorial is critical of Netanyahu for “acting as if he alone can dictate the terms of an agreement that took 18 months and involved not just Iran and the United States but Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China,” it grants him some of that very power by going on for ten paragraphs and taking the Israeli objections very seriously, often treating them with kid gloves:

As outlined on Monday by Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s minister of intelligence and strategic affairs, the Israelis are now insisting that Iran end all research and development on advanced centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium; reduce the number of operating centrifuges at its Natanz plant beyond what was agreed to in the framework; and close its underground enrichment facility at Fordo. Also, Israel has demanded that Iran allow inspections “anywhere, anytime” by international monitors, ship its stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country and disclose past nuclear-related activities that might involve military uses.

Nowhere does the editorial question Netanyahu’s judgment: his use of the Iran issue to distract attention from the criminal occupation, his massacre in Gaza last summer, his crazy conflation of Iran and ISIS as Islamists seeking world “domination.” You’d think this is a sober leader. Even John Kerry has slammed Netanyahu for being wrong about the Iraq war, just like Jeffrey Goldberg. And Dianne Feinstein has told Netanyahu to “contain himself,” and bug out of our deliberations.

Both pieces are symptoms of the same problem. Israel and its friends have too prominent a place in our political discourse.

 

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

49 Responses

  1. eGuard
    eGuard
    April 8, 2015, 4:10 pm

    Why is Goldberg granted such expertise?. Goldberg didn’t even mention Israel having nuclear weapons.

    Ironic that Britain, France, and Germany are negotiating with an NPT-member state. France and UK proliferated the nuclear weapon to Israel (by f*cking around with it). And today, Germany donates Dolphin-class submarines to Israel, with which it can spread nuclear arms from Gibraltar to Goa and beyond.

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      April 9, 2015, 10:18 am

      I thought Iran missed a good propaganda victory opportunity when Bibi demanded that they’d recognize Israel.

      They should have countered by saying, sure, only if you join the NPT first.
      The Iranians are a bit too cautious, unfortunately, unlike Israel and its agents(Goldberg).

      As for why they have so much influence, this is partly a sociological question. A lot of the white liberals have a lot of Jewish friends who, at least at the top echelons of the establishment, are uniformly Zionist. Quite a few gentiles have Jewish spouses, too, and even if your spouse isn’t a Zionist, her family most likely is to a large extent and so whenever you are eating family dinner, if your reporting is anti-Zionist, you’re likely to pay a significant social/personal price for that. Most Americans, including most journalists, don’t care all that much about the Middle East.

      People underestimate the importance of social proximity and the impact it has on politics. How many Palestinians, let alone muslims, can you find in the top echelons of the white media? How many of the people in that space have Palestinian/muslim spouses?

  2. justicewillprevail
    justicewillprevail
    April 8, 2015, 4:27 pm

    Prof Cole has a simple, but good take on this: why is Netanyahu granted hours of talk show on this topic, to which he is tangential, and not involved. Any decent journalism or news outlet would interview the other parties to the agreement – Britain, France etc but also, crucially, the iranians, to hear their side of the story and what they expect. That is journalism 101. Instead the leader of a small country, not involved in the agreement, is granted hours to spin and distort the agreement, whilst viewers are not informed about opinions and facts regarding a historic breakthrough. It is worse than pathetic – it is a dereliction of any pretence to journalism, and a craven kowtowing to an isolated, impotent loudmouth who has nothing to offer except ill-informed ranting, threats and delusions. What a pitiful, and dangerously inept, media. Why does it take a blog to raise questions and attempt to answer them, while well-funded journalists repeat verbatim wild, unfounded accusations?

    • just
      just
      April 8, 2015, 6:24 pm

      +1, jwp !!

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      April 9, 2015, 9:46 am

      Yes Cole articulately points out what many of us have been saying for years. When will the U.S. MSM provide the American public with fact based information about Iran?

      On MSNBC’s Ed Show over a week ago Ambassador Joe Wilson ask what many of us have been asking why in the hell does the U.S. MSM provide platforms for the same Iraq warmongers who have been pushing for a military confrontation with Iran since soon after the invasion of Iraq. Why has Cheney, Netanyahu, Bolton, Friedmann etc been provided with convenient and always compliant main stream media outlets ready to allow them with a national audience? Who gives a rats ass about what these deadly warmongers think about the Iran deal?

      Why is NPR, CNN, MSNBC etc ready to jump when they want to speak to American public.

      When will these same outlets have the Levertts (granted Melissa Harris Perry has had Hillary Leverett on I think six times since the summer of 2014) Prof Cole, El Baradei, Scott Ritter on their programs? Those who were spot on before the invasion of Iraq

      MSNBC Ed has had Colonel Wilkerson on a bunch to talk about the issue. Finally even Al Sharpton is stepping up to the plate on this issue. Rachel Maddow had head Iran deal negotiator Dr. Moniz on. She failed to ask him any in depth questions that we have not all ready heard answers to.

      Not one of these outlets will touch the fact that it is so hypocritical to have the very nation of Israel demanding that Iran play by NPT rules when Israel’s sits on massive stockpiles of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons that go un inspected by the international community. That Israel has and continues to sign the NPT and Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty.

      Who cares what Goldberg, Cheney, Friedmann, Pollack, Bolton think. They have their bloody fingerprints all over the deadly debacle in Iraq.

      Will the U.S. MSM fail the American public once again by failing to provide people with the facts about the deal, history of negotiations, Israel’s serious failings in the same areana etc…

      • RockyMissouri
        RockyMissouri
        April 9, 2015, 10:44 am

        Thank you for an excellent comment!

    • ivri
      ivri
      April 9, 2015, 10:46 am

      So, let me understand. Congress is horrible, the media is inept, the Republican Party beyond pale, the American high-tech industry (with industrial plants all around Israel) doesn`t care, the CIA, NSA and American defense industry are in bed with Israel, and so on and on. But then not all is lost because there is a blog site that saves the day – it tears all masks and reveals it all to everybody.

      • justicewillprevail
        justicewillprevail
        April 9, 2015, 1:58 pm

        Well no, you don’t understand then. That’s not the argument, as if you didn’t know, with your feeble attempt at sarcasm. Try a bit harder.

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr
        April 9, 2015, 9:24 pm

        I thought it was a pretty good example of sarcasm. maybe you don’t like/support it but its good nonetheless. And your response was a dodge-not an answer.

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        April 10, 2015, 3:27 pm

        Dabakr, did ivir ask a question?

        Sarcasm, which is often ugly and always contempt-filled mockery is only that.

        It is never good and always reduces the one dishing out the mockery as the looser with nothing to say.

      • April 10, 2015, 3:35 pm

        Congress is hopelessly corrupted by Big Money. You doubt this?

        The MSM is 95% owned by half a dozen companies and serves primarily as a propaganda tool for those who own it. You actually disagree with this?

        The CIA and NSA are part of the political system and subject to chain of command. Do you need a primer on how that works?

        The defense industry is in it for the money. Period. Wars for Israel are good for business. After all, executives and big shareholders kids don’t join the military. Now if the Israel Lobby was ever in the Peace business (something we don’t have to worry about), then we might see a clash of The Lobby vs. the military industrial complex.

        Now a comment/question for you. Are you so Israel centric that you cannot refer to the American high tech industry — far and away the powerhouse in high tech — without asserting that it is somehow reliant on Israel? Really? I think we could survive without Soda Stream. How about you?

      • ivri
        ivri
        April 11, 2015, 7:22 am

        All I was trying to point out that assuming that all the major institutions of your country are occupied by blinded fools or immoral creatures that sell values for own interests is not only very degrading but also quite implausible. I think looking at the mirror would tell those that hold such views where blindness and immorality really lie.

  3. Rusty Pipes
    Rusty Pipes
    April 8, 2015, 5:05 pm

    DiFi has shown a lot more leadership ability than Schumer. Why is he the Senatorial heir apparent?

    • Blownaway
      Blownaway
      April 8, 2015, 8:59 pm

      Because she’s at the end of her career and she has more money than the pope. They all seem to find principles at the end or after their career

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      April 9, 2015, 9:50 am

      She has recently shown a great deal of leadership. Although still wonder about the alleged claim that her family profited off of the invasion of Iraq.

      • just
        just
        April 9, 2015, 10:16 am

        “…The Democrats aren’t just letting the Republicans get away with murder, however: some of them are also reaping the benefits of the Bush wars. We constantly hear about Dick Cheney’s ties to Halliburton and how his ex-company is making bundles off U.S. contracts in Iraq. But what we don’t hear about is how Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her husband are also making tons of money off the “war on terror.”

        The wishy-washy senator now claims Bush misled her prior to the invasion of Iraq. I don’t think she’s being honest with us, though. There may have been other reasons she helped sell Bush’s lies. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Feinstein’s husband Richard Blum has racked in millions of dollars from Perini, a civil infrastructure construction company, of which the billionaire investor wields a 75 percent voting share.

        In April 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gave $500 million to Perini to provide services for Iraq’s Central Command. A month earlier in March 2003, Perini was awarded $25 million to design and construct a facility to support the Afghan National Army near Kabul. And in March 2004, Perini was awarded a hefty contract worth up to $500 million for “electrical power distribution and transmission” in southern Iraq.

        Feinstein, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee as well as the Select Committee on Intelligence, is reaping the benefits of her husband’s investments. The Democratic royal family recently purchased a $16.5 million mansion in the flush Pacific Heights neighborhood of San Francisco. It’s a disgusting display of war profiteering, and just like Cheney, the leading Democrat should be called out for her offense. …”

        http://antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=8609

        I don’t trust her, sorry. She uses the same excuses as Judy Miller.

        Perhaps she realizes that President Obama is not gunning for war with Iran like his predecessor did, and that there’s more money to be made by making peace with Tehran.

        It always pays to know which side your bread is buttered…

  4. just
    just
    April 8, 2015, 5:13 pm

    I don’t care what either of them say or think, but too many still do. They’ve both been wrong so many times that I’ve lost count.

    So has Cheney been wrong on everything. He came out of mothballs again (and slithered from under his rock) to seize his moment in the Republican limelight to slam the (American) President for daring to choose peace, prosperity and rapprochement over MIC, misery, and death.

    I want to know who thinks they are worse off today than they were during the G.W. Bushco years!

    Anyway, Peter Beinart has a good piece up today. I would venture to say his best in a long time. His assessment of Mr. Obama is quite good. He also does a fair job with Netanyahu. His evolution continues. ;)

    “Obama and Netanyahu see Iran differently because they see their own countries differently

    Their conflict isn’t about centrifuges or enriched uranium: It’s about a different view of the world.

    …..Underpinning Obama’s willingness to compromise lay his ability to see the world through Iranian eyes.

    This ability to empathize with those who have grievances against your country is alien to Benjamin Netanyahu…….”

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.650961

    • RockyMissouri
      RockyMissouri
      April 9, 2015, 10:47 am

      Netanyahu is a bully and thug, of the worst kind.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      April 9, 2015, 5:22 pm

      …..“Underpinning Obama’s willingness to compromise lay his ability to see the world through Iranian eyes.”

      I guess the idea that just maybe Obama is seeing this through American eyes is a bridge too far for Beinart.

  5. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    April 8, 2015, 6:06 pm

    At first I thought someone must be spraying air-freshener on all these Zionists so their stink wouldn’t preclude them from talking to NPR, NYT, etc. But air-freshener would not be enough. Some diabolical perfume has been sprayed on them. The Zionists and neocons are actively courted, and the wrongnesses of the past are forgotten and forgiven the neocons and Zionists.

    But of course, in the USA, the whole system reeks so much of the awful stink of money (in large bundles) that the comparatively mild odor of the Zionists and neocons goes unnoticed.

    And those in the media who make a business of cozying up to the courtiers of power have lost their sense of smell anyhow.

  6. Eva Smagacz
    Eva Smagacz
    April 8, 2015, 6:14 pm

    Did you guys see that ??!!

    The-White-House-just-trolled-Benjamin-Netanyahu-on-Twitter

    http://www.businessinsider.in/The-White-House-just-trolled-Benjamin-Netanyahu-on-Twitter/articleshow/46857365.cms

    • just
      just
      April 8, 2015, 6:22 pm

      Woo- hoo! Made my day better!

      Thanks, Eva!

      • annie
        annie
        April 8, 2015, 6:51 pm

        omg that’s hysterical!

    • annie
      annie
      April 8, 2015, 8:15 pm

      eva, check out the front page ;)

  7. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    April 8, 2015, 6:59 pm

    Actually at this point all we/they have is a framework and there are many details needed to be filled in. Read David Ignatius in the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-delicate-path-ahead-on-iran/2015/04/07/c6626e84-dd57-11e4-acfe-cd057abefa9a_story.html A delicate path ahead on Iran. Those who wish to exert pressure might be best advised to take the framework as the starting point and pointing out: well, if the final agreement based upon this clause is x then Obama has appeased again, but if it is y then we will see that he did his best.

    I still assert from a 20-20 hindsight point of view that the US should not have attacked Iraq in 2003 and should have used the world’s empathy and its own citizens’ rage for a targeted sanctions campaign against Iran that would have resulted in a much more severe limitation on Iran’s nuclear program. It is the weakened fatigued US of 2015 that is negotiating this agreement and thus the brevity of the period of severe limitations on Iran.

    • tommy
      tommy
      April 8, 2015, 8:50 pm

      It is the military and economic power of the US that allowed for the unlawful sanctions levied against Iran for following the NPT in order establish a nuclear energy industry. No Americans should be proud its might was used to make Iranians suffer, especially progressives and liberals. Fatigue with peace and fair play with a former petroleum colony is why the sanctions were imposed on Iran, and, sadly, they were imposed by an ill-liberal Democratic president.

    • April 9, 2015, 10:27 am

      Hey Yonah. What about a “targeted sanctions campaign” against Israel rather than Iran?

      Israel actually has nukes and is not a signatory of the NPT, unlike Iran.

      Israel has attacked and invaded several of its neighbors over the past 65 years, unlike Iran.

      Oh that’s right. It is a US “weakened and fatigued” by AIPAC and the rest of the tentacles on the Zionist power structure that we are talking about after all.

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr
        April 9, 2015, 9:33 pm

        no arab regime has gotten nervous about Israel supposedly possessing nukes. The just complained and coaxed advance weapons out of the US in exchange for silence.

        They only got nervous when Iran started up a weapons research program. Why is that. The only folks who seem to think Israel would ‘be the first to introduce nuclear weapons’ into the region are people here who think Netanyahu is no different then Slim Pickens in Doctor Strangelove.
        Funny but absurd as he’s always caved into to US demands to “pull back”.

        It isn’t Israel who has troops, money and arms surrounding Iran but it is the other way around. I believe the majority of Americans believe Iran is an enemy nation at present and the love for this nation here and the desire to see it trump US power based on a 50 yr old CIA aided coup that wasnt even instigated by the US is pretty close to treason and definitely anti-American. (Unless you consider something historically similar-like Lindberghs love of Hitlers regime as ‘pro-American’ as well) The mullahs are still calling for “death to America’ yet obama dismisses this as mere ‘political pandering’ while anything Netanyahu has said to get elected is the absolute truth and a man of his word.

      • annie
        annie
        April 10, 2015, 12:24 am

        The just complained and coaxed advance weapons out of the US in exchange for silence

        silence for what? exchange for what? what did the US get again?

        It isn’t Israel who has troops, money and arms surrounding Iran but it is the other way around.

        why would israel spend their troops, money and arms when it has the US congress at it’s beck and call? wouldn’t it make more sense to use US troops, money and arms? so to adequately argue israel isn’t “surrounding” iran you’d have to argue israel is not influencing their proxy..in the US congress.

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr
        April 10, 2015, 2:20 am

        @an

        my auto-correct is still insane. I meant to write that in exchange for not making more then the typical condemnation of the ‘supposed’ (yes, I know Israel has nukes) Israeli Nuclear arms program they were supplied the most advanced US weapons in the region except for Israel. Saudis, Jordan Egypt. I’m not arguing for the rightness or wrongness of weapons. I am just staring that even if the Arabs didn’t support Israel having nukes they were never so alarmed as to initiate their own programs. I can only assume that they may have simply trusted that Israel would keep its pledge to “not be the first to introduce….” . It is Iran that has the Arab bloc afraid. And while Netanyahu took ALL the heat for going against Obama-its well known the Arab nations are just as violently opposed to Iran having a bomb.

        Of course you have a point about US troops but that is at the behest of US policy and empire more then Isralei preference. Israel has always been adamant that we will never have US troops on Israeli soil and that we will defend ourselves on the land. There has never been an interest to fight in any land other then Israel despite the constant charge of ‘expansionism’-Israel has shrunk considerably from the size it was with Sinai, S.Lebanon and withdraw from parts of WB

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        April 10, 2015, 6:38 am

        “It isn’t Israel who has troops, money and arms surrounding Iran but it is the other way around. ”

        For a while, at least, it looked as though it was the U S, Israel’s servant, who had troops and ships surrounding Iran?

        “I believe the majority of Americans believe Iran is an enemy nation”

        Believing it doesn’t make it so.

        ” the love for this nation here and the desire to see it trump US power based on a 50 yr old CIA aided coup that wasnt even instigated by the US is pretty close to treason and definitely anti-American”

        It seems to me that the Americans here (I am not one of them) are concerned with what is good for America as well as what is good for Iran. They do not believe American government enmity to Iran is good for either country. This hardly sounds treasonous.

  8. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    April 8, 2015, 7:47 pm

    Yuval Steinitz!

    that voice sound familiar

    “Yuval Steinitz, a Likud party member of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, says he sees another advantage for Israel. The installation of a pro-American government in Iraq would help Israel vis-a-vis another enemy: Syria. ‘After Iraq is taken by US troops and we see a new regime installed as in Afghanistan, and Iraqi bases become American bases, it will be very easy to pressure Syria to stop supporting terrorist organizations like Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad, to allow the Lebanese army to dismantle Hizbullah, and maybe to put an end to the Syrian occupation in Lebanon,’ he says. ‘If this happens we will really see a new Middle East. It might be enough not to invade Syria but just to have an American or UN blockade so that no one can ship weapons to it,’ Steinitz adds”
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/01/25/israel-american-jews-and-the-war-on-iraq/

  9. DaBakr
    DaBakr
    April 9, 2015, 12:15 am

    very easy to gloat, primp and take umbrage now but with the actual historical experiences of both WW2 with the ‘p-3′ [GB F and R vs G -leaving the most effected out Czk) -either the Naval War act with Germany or the Munich pact. Both were broken by the tyrant. and Clintons “great deal” with North Korea” in the 90s it remains to be seen that Obamas “peace in our time” moment won’t go down as the single most dangerous act of appeasement which brings the world closer to a ww3 then any single ignoring of historical precident since the early 30s 20hC.

    Are things different now? Sure. But not enough for the nations left out of the hopeless non-deal-agreement to deal to takemtheir own course she the deal is never signed which it won’;t likely be since it NOT really a DEAL but just an agreement to a potential deal. But y’all are so excited-I think I should let you gloat awhile. Its your would too and maybe you need time to think on it and your safety

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      April 9, 2015, 10:49 am

      ” Its your would too and maybe you need time to think on it and your safety”

      I suggest you hide under the bed and pee your pants, Dabakr. A man’s got to do what he can, do what he’s best at.

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr
        April 9, 2015, 9:47 pm

        @ms
        Unfortunately -more likely Major Kong. Zionist style . Been in situations where piss is the least of ones problems so I can’t assume you have a clue about what you speak. And I used to be more serious but clowns like you make me realize the world is still a circus. Please save in archives for future use.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        April 10, 2015, 2:12 pm

        “Please save in archives for future use.”

        “Dabarkar” you don’t have to request that, the archiving is automatic. Stuff gets saved whether we like it or not. Comes with.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        April 10, 2015, 2:24 pm

        .” Been in situations where piss is the least of ones problems”

        Yes, I’m sure you were, but through bravery, strength, and sheer grit, you were able to complete your mission and see the King David Hotel blow up as scheduled. Torah, Torah, Torah!

  10. just
    just
    April 9, 2015, 7:39 am

    Apocalyptic Ari:

    “Barack Obama is a sophisticated interviewee; the U.S. president knows how to hide his argument’s weak points behind cool curtains of clear, insightful and ostensibly well-balanced words. But my dear friend and distinguished colleague Tom Friedman is an excellent interviewer. Instead of being confrontational and petty, he knows how to wrench far-reaching statements out of his subject.

    That’s the origin of a historic scoop that surprisingly seems to have escaped the attention of the U.S. media. “Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch,” the president told his country’s most important journalist; The New York Times also included a video of the interview. I repeat, Obama told Friedman: “Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch.”…

    And what’s supposed to happen 10 years from now? Don’t we want to live after 2025? Doesn’t the Lausanne deal pave the way for a nightmarish not-so-distant future in which Iran is nuclear, the Middle East is nuclear and the world order collapses?

    The 15 words that Obama said to Friedman turn the question marks into exclamation marks. And they were uttered in his own voice as the camera whirled: “I’ve been very clear that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch.” In other words, the man leading a hair-raising historic adventure says he’s committing that Iran will not become nuclear before January 20, 2017.

    It’s not the 21st century that the president is trying to save. It’s not the next 21 years that the president is promising to stabilize. All Obama is promising is that in the next 21 months Iran will not produce or assemble its first nuclear bomb. …

    The Obama-Friedman interview doesn’t set off one alarm bell, it sets off a thousand. And when we add all the fateful questions about the Lausanne agreement, we get a strong feeling that something very dire is happening right before our eyes. We begin to suspect that the Obama-Khamenei agreement will not prevent Iran from going nuclear, but will only postpone the achievement by a few years.

    The next 80 days are critical. History is watching us all closely. Where did we stand, what did we say and what did we do when the most important decision of our time was made? There will be no forgiveness for our mistakes. There will be no pardon for weakness, apathy or pettiness. The ordinary politics of left versus right is no longer relevant, nor is the love for Obama and hatred of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, or vice versa.

    This is a time of trouble for Jacob — a time of trouble for every Israeli, Arab, European and American who favors stability and sanity. In the balance is the world in which our children will live or die.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.651084

    Oy vey!

    He’s a regular Henny- Penny, and a chip off the old block of his PM. He and his “dear friend and distinguished colleague” better build a bigger bunker for all those “Israeli, Arab, European and American” folks that he’s so concerned about!

    (What, no mention of Africans, South Americans, Canadians, Iranians, Afghans, Far Eastern people, Down Under people?, etc? Not a peep about the Palestinian people, btw! But Israeli people are the only specific group of people that he bothers to mention~ at the top of the list!)

    • SonofDaffyDuck
      SonofDaffyDuck
      April 9, 2015, 10:33 am

      And with how much fervor will the Iranians seek the bomb when they know there is “no partner for peace?” How long do you think the Europeans are going to follow an unreliable US in maintaining sanctions on Iran once the Netanyahu-republican coalition kills the negotiations? How long are they going to maintain a devotion to US-israeli hegemony in the Arab World?

      Sanctions are a lot like massive bombing campaigns. Both inflict great suffering on the populations involved, but they alone(unless you go nuclear) will not bring a united nation (England-Germany- Japan-Viet Nam) to its knees.

      Iran will be quite capable of seeking a Bomb once the deal is dead and coordinated sanctions disappear. That leaves only War and its trail of unknown consequences.

  11. SonofDaffyDuck
    SonofDaffyDuck
    April 9, 2015, 10:18 am

    Focusing on the last line of the article. Both NPR andPBS depend almost exclusively on Zionist commentators when dealing with middle-east problems….as though the proper perspectives on these problems are infused into the DNA by inheritance.
    Even the supposedly “evenhanded” Charlie Rose show follows the same guidelines. For these reasons, I no longer subscribe to either NPR or PBS as part of my personal BDS campaign.

    Now cometh self-proclaimed “Shomer Yisrael” Chuck Shumer to lead the Democrats. He will undoubtedly be the leading guest on all networks concerning the Middle-east.

    Again, quoting Mr. Weiss, “Both pieces are symptoms of the same problem. Israel and its friends have too prominent a place in our political discourse. “

  12. catalan
    catalan
    April 9, 2015, 10:39 am

    Oh that’s right. It is a US “weakened and fatigued” – Giles
    I have lived in the United States for 20 years, having worked first in fast food restaurants and then in management in major corporations and now in government. The single most depressing thing I have observed is the incessant complaining of Americans about how bad they have it. It’s just a sad comment on human nature that in a country where teenagers have more spending money from their parents than trained doctors do in Bulgaria (an EU country!), people still find it so easy to bitch and moan.
    Let’s face it, the vast majority of Americans have it pretty good. Even the poor have more than the so called rich anywhere else.

  13. just
    just
    April 9, 2015, 10:43 am

    And here comes another Netanyahu acolyte, Amiel Ungar:

    “Israel, beware of Obama’s Iran deal

    …A nuclear Iran means Israel will face the threat of a Vietnam on its doorstep, not an ocean away. If Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah are working under an Iranian nuclear umbrella, then Israel will have to think very hard before responding strongly to a provocation such as kidnapped soldiers or a missile barrage. One memory that Hezbollah carries from the Second Lebanon War was Israel’s flattening of its Beirut stronghol, Dahiyah. If Iran goes nuclear, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah will be emboldened by the knowledge that Israel may not swiftly escalate, for fear of getting into a nuclear war.

    This is what the Obama framework will bring. Despite the protestations of concern for Israel, the Israeli leadership should respond “Lo Miduvsheich Lo Mi’uktsech”: We want neither your honey nor your sting.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.651172

    No mention of the rest of the nations involved in the negotiations. btw, when the “Israeli leadership respond[s] We want neither your honey nor your sting.”, please let it be that you’ll not be getting any more billions, weapons, nor vetoes.

    Hopefully, you’ll only be getting sanctions slapped on you.

    • eljay
      eljay
      April 9, 2015, 10:55 am

      … Amiel Ungar: ” … If Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah are working under an Iranian nuclear umbrella, then Israel will have to think very hard … “

      …about continuing with its:
      – almost-70-years-long campaign of belligerence, theft, occupation, colonization, destruction, torture and murder;
      – refusal to honour its obligations under international law (including allowing refugees from Israel to return to their homes and lands); and
      – refusal to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

  14. crone
    crone
    April 9, 2015, 11:29 am

    via Counterpunch

    The Special Relationship is Becoming a Harder and Harder Sell
    The U.S. and Israel: Diverging Interests

    … snip

    Obviously the real “concerns and interests” of the United States in the Middle East have noticeably diverged from those of Israel. As a consequence Israel is now loudly complaining that Washington has abandoned it. Well, Washington might do well to play the same game – to loudly complain about Israel’s traitorous behavior. After all, the U.S. gives that country a lot of money and weaponry and now the Israelis chose to support their benefactor’s enemy.

    We can count on the Zionist lobby to try to obfuscate this fact. And, given that their financial and ideological power helps shape self-serving political interests in Congress, they may be able to pull it off, at least in that venue. They are also financially backing the Republicans when it comes to the 2016 presidential race. Can those politicians who support the Israeli perspective win that election?

    Hopefully, the Israeli point of view will now prove to be a hard sell when it comes to the American voter. The recent agreement with Iran has created a new reality for the country’s foreign policy – one that is consistent with the popular desire for no further U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. It is going to be difficult for bought-off politicians, even those allied with Fox TV, to throw everything into reverse and declare al-Qaeda an ally and Iran still the mortal enemy. Hopefully, that will translate into political failure in 2016 for anyone who wants to undo the new accord with Iran.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/08/the-u-s-and-israel-diverging-interests/

    imho, Obama sees Iran as more valuable to US interests than Israel…

  15. piotr
    piotr
    April 9, 2015, 11:31 am

    Goldberg proposed modest half-measures. I would start by giving him a veto power in UNSC, as we clearly cannot trust Obama, and other permanent members were disappointing as well.

    The second measure would be to remove lies from school textbooks. So-called “solar system” consists of bodies that rotate around Benjamin Netanyahu, so it should be Netanyahu system. All attempts to deny the obvious truth and brainwash the school kids are simply caused by anti-Semitism prevalent among the leftists in charge of school programs.

    The third measure … [I am out of ideas at the moment]

  16. ckg
    ckg
    April 9, 2015, 10:39 pm

    While reading about the Iran negotiations, I have to say all this talk of, “blah blah Bibi blah Israel blah” reminds me of the Masters coverage, “blah blah Tiger blah Tiger blah”. Who cares?

  17. jayn0t
    jayn0t
    April 12, 2015, 11:21 pm

    “Who cares what Jeffrey Goldberg and Netanyahu don’t like about the Iran deal?” Their pseudo-opponents, the Democrats and the liberal Zionists. The more the right attack them, the more it looks like they’ve pushed Israel back. In fact, Israel wins either way, remaining the only nuclear power in the Middle East. The opposition between the two factions is a complete illusion.

Leave a Reply