In this propagandist campaign in the New York subway, is it Israel or America the client (the American Freedom Defense Initiative), the citizens should feel concerned? And why would this be? Who are the savage if not Israel? Who are the civilized man? Isn't it a colonialist language? Why would we support Israel? And why would another country advertise on its behalf on another country's soil? Isn't it to encourage racism and violence?
I applaud Obamas reaction to all the crap Netanyahu has heaped on his opportune set "The Red Line" crap to force his hand. Where does anybody think this came from? Israel wants desperately for the US to jump into another war this time with Iran so they don't have to get their hands dirty or bare the expense. Romney like the big goof he is already wants to jump into this mess to create some more military spending to spark the economy. More unpaid wars is the result just like before. The more I look at Romney I see another sequel to "Back to the Future" in a desert far away.
I've listened to Obama's speech in the United Nations and it isn't what it seems like. I believe that after his reelection, he will go on war against Iran because it has been planned a long time ago. Libya, Irak, Syria, Lebanon and Iran are part of the plan.
You are probably right. The writing is on the wall for some confrontation but I think Obama has been biding his time to see if something from within Iran might make a move as the rest of the region has been overthrowing their governments. I do think it refreshing that an American President hasn't jumped when Israel cracks the whip. Something we have not seen since Eisenhower.
I still think Romney will jump in with both feet as McCain would have done had he been elected. The GOP loves war and the financial and power brokering benefits it presents. Unfortunately we the taxpayer and poor recruits for the military get no relief with their grandiose schemes.
I know war is supposed to spark the economy, but it didn't work this time (if it even did before). Instead it took money away from schools, health care, and transportation infrastructure, where we really need it. It helped jack up oil prices, which raised the cost of raw materials, and decimated our middle class business sector. That sector is where all the jobs are/were.
And it took attention away from the focus we really needed - to open up and support new technologies that are earth friendly and allow us to decrease dependence on oil . . . not just foreign oil, but oil, period. I would love to see us stop all wars. I would love to see us spend that $7 trillion + on LEED certifying all government buildings, getting out of debt, and relieving the tax burden of middle class America.
Israel has developed some great technologies for conservation of water and other natural resources. Why don't we use our partnership with them to share technologies, instead of something so destructive as war? Is either candidate looking in that direction?
I agree with your assessment that the wars take away investment where it is needed but the priority is neither directed at the needs of the miidle class and the poor by the GOP with their war agendas. They aim high and to fill the pockets or their "real constituency", the rich. The rich are invested heavily in the Military Industrial Complex and that is the foremost focus of Romney and the GOP. Why would Romney pledge 2 trillion dollars towards new military spending when they did not even ask for it. The fact that we learned that two unfunded wars helped directly to throw us into this recession is lost in the GOP rhetoric because they want to get the MIC back in motion and Romney is fully behind it.
I thought I would share this column. I think Netanyahu is trying to push us into a move that his own country does not support. The guy has very large... oh never mind you get the gist.
Mad or Crazy?
BINYAMIN NETANYAHU may be crazy, but he is not mad.
Ehud Barak may be mad, but he is not crazy.
Ergo: Israel will not attack Iran.
I HAVE said so before, and I shall say so again, even after the endless talk about it. Indeed no war has been talked about so much before it happened. To quote the classic movie line: “If you have to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk!”
In all Netanyahu’s bluster about the inevitable war, one sentence stands out: “In the Committee of Inquiry after the war, I shall take upon myself the sole responsibility, I and I alone!”
A very revealing statement.
First of all, committees of inquiry are appointed only after a military failure. There was no such committee after the 1948 War of Independence, nor after the 1956 Sinai War or the 1967 Six-day War. There were, however, committees of inquiry after the 1974 Yom Kippur war and the 1982 and 2006 Lebanon Wars. By conjuring up the specter of another such committee, Netanyahu unconsciously treats this war as an inevitable failure.
Second, under Israeli law, the entire Government of Israel is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Under another law, all ministers bear “collective responsibility”. TIME magazine, which is becoming more ridiculous by the week, may crown “King Bibi”, but we still have no monarchy. Netanyahu is no more than primus inter pares.
Third, in his statement Netanyahu expresses boundless contempt for his fellow ministers. They don’t count.
Netanyahu considers himself a modern day Winston Churchill. I don’t seem to remember Churchill announcing, upon assuming office, “I take responsibility for the coming defeat.” Even in the desperate situation of that moment, he trusted in victory. And the word “I” did not figure large in his speech.
IN THE daily brainwashing, the problem is presented in military terms. The debate, such as it is, concerns military capabilities and dangers.
Israelis are especially, and understandably, worried by the rain of tens of thousands of missiles expected to fall on all parts of Israel, not only from Iran, but also from Lebanon and Gaza. The minister responsible for civil defense deserted just this week, and another one, a refugee from the hapless Kadima party, has taken his place. Everybody knows that a large part of the population (including myself) is completely defenseless.
Ehud Barak has announced that no more than a measly 500 Israelis will be killed by enemy missiles. I do not aspire to the honor of being one of them, though I live quite near the Ministry of Defense..
But the military confrontation between Israel and Iran is only a part of the picture, and not the most important one.
As I have pointed out in the past, far more important is the impact on the world economy, already steeped in a profound crisis. An Israeli attack will be viewed by Iran as American-inspired, and the reaction will be accordingly, as explicitly stated by Iran this week.
The Persian Gulf is a bottle, whose neck is the narrow Strait of Hormuz, which is totally controlled by Iran. The huge American aircraft carriers now stationed in the gulf will be well advised to get out before it is too late. They resemble those antique sailing ships which enthusiasts assemble in bottles. Even the powerful weaponry of the US will not be able to keep the strait open. Simple land-to-sea missiles will be quite enough to keep it closed for months. To open it, a prolonged land operation by the US and its allies will be required. A long and bloody business with unpredictable consequences.
A major part of the world’s oil supplies has to pass through this unique waterway. Even the mere threat of its closure will cause oil prices to shoot sky-high. Actual hostilities will result in a worldwide economic collapse, with hundreds of thousands - if not millions – of new unemployed.
Each of these victims will curse Israel. Since it will be crystal clear that this is an Israeli war, the rage will be turned against us. Worse, much worse – since Israel insists that it is “the state of the Jewish people”, the rage may take the form of an unprecedented outbreak of anti-Semitism. Newfangled Islamophobes will revert to old-time Jew-haters. “The Jews are our disaster,” as the Nazis used to proclaim.
This may be worst in the US. Until now, Americans have watched with admirable tolerance as their Middle East policy is practically dictated by
Israel. But even the almighty AIPAC and its allies will not be able to contain the outburst of public anger. They will give way like the levees of New Orleans.
THIS WILL have a direct impact on a central calculation of the warmongers.
In private conversations, but not only there, they assert that America will be immobilized on the eve of elections. During the last few weeks before November 6, both candidates will be mortally afraid of the Jewish lobby.
The calculation goes like this: Netanyahu and Barak will attack without giving a damn for American wishes. The Iranian counter-attack will be directed against American interests. The US will be dragged into the war against its will.
But even in the unlikely event that the Iranians act with supreme self- restraint and do not attack US targets, contrary to their declarations, President Obama will be compelled to save us, send huge quantities of arms and ammunition, bolster our anti-missile defenses, fund the war. Otherwise he will be accused of leaving Israel in the lurch and Mitt Romney will be elected as the savior of the Jewish State.
This calculation is based on historical experience. All Israeli governments in the past have exploited American election years for their purposes.
In 1948, when the US was required to recognize the new Israeli state against the express advice of both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, President Truman was fighting for his political life. His campaign was bankrupt. At the last moment Jewish millionaires leaped into the breach, Truman and Israel were saved.
In 1956, President Eisenhower was in the middle of his re-election campaign when Israel attacked Egypt in collusion with France and Britain. It was a miscalculation – Eisenhower did not need Jewish votes and money and put a stop to the adventure. In other election years the stakes were lower, but always the occasion was used to gain some concessions from the US.
Will it work this time? If Israel unleashes a war on the eve of elections, in an obvious effort to blackmail the president, will the American public mood support Israel – or could it go the other way? It will be a critical gamble of historic proportions. But like Mitt Romney, Netanyahu is a protégé of the Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, and he may be no more averse to gambles than the poor suckers who leave their money in Adelson’s casinos.
WHERE ARE the Israelis in all this?
In spite of the constant brainwashing, polls show that the majority of Israelis are dead set against an attack. Netanyahu and Barak are seen as two addicts, many say megalomaniacs, who are beyond rational thinking.
One of the most striking aspects of the situation is that our army chief and the entire General Staff, as well as the chiefs of the Mossad and the Shin Bet, and almost all their predecessors, are totally and publicly opposed to the attack.
It is one of the rare occasions when military commanders are more moderate than their political chiefs, though it has happened in Israel before. One may well ask: how can political leaders start a fateful war when practically all their military advisors, who know our military capabilities and the chances for success, are against it?
One of the reasons for this opposition is that the army chiefs know better than anyone else how totally dependent on the US Israel really is. Our relationship with America is the very basis of our national security.
Also, it seems doubtful whether Netanyahu and Barak have a majority for the attack even in their own government and inner cabinet. The ministers know that apart from everything else, the attack would drive investors and tourists away, causing huge damage to Israel’s economy.
So why do most Israelis still believe that the attack is imminent?
Israelis, by and large, have been totally convinced by now (a) that Iran is governed by a bunch of crazy ayatollahs beyond rationality, and (b) that, once in the possession of a nuclear bomb, they will certainly drop it on us.
These convictions are based on the utterances of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in which he declared that he will wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
But did he really say that? Sure, he has repeatedly expressed his conviction that the Zionist Entity will disappear from the face of the earth. But it seems that he never actually said that he – or Iran - would ensure that result.
That may seem only a small rhetorical difference, but in this context it is very important.
Also, Ahmadinejad may have a big mouth, but his actual power in Iran was never very great and is shrinking fast. The ayatollahs, the real rulers, are far from being irrational. Their whole behavior since the revolution shows them to be very cautious people, averse to foreign adventures, scarred by the long war with Iraq that they did not start and did not want.
A nuclear-armed Iran may be an inconvenient near-neighbor, but the threat of a “second holocaust” is a figment of the manipulated imagination. No ayatollah will drop a bomb when the certain response will be the total annihilation of all Iranian cities and the end of the glorious cultural history of Persia. Deterrence was, after all, the whole sense of producing an Israel bomb
IF NETANYAHU & Co. were really frightened by the Iranian Bomb, they would do one of two things:
Either agree to the de-nuclearization of the region, giving up our own nuclear armaments (highly unlikely);
Or make peace with the Palestinians and the entire Arab world, thereby disarming the ayatollahs’ hostility to Israel.
But Netanyahu's actions show that, for him, keeping the West Bank is vastly more important than the Iranian bomb.
What better proof do we need of the craziness of this whole scare?
If Israel starts the bombing it will be with the American consent. So far it already killed Iranians on their soil. It is not as if Israel kept its distance. They were already involved in terrorist attacks.
In different sources, I read that the invasions of Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Somalia were planned by the US since 2002. And whatever Israel will decide, behind closed doors, it would be an American maneuver. It would be a logical move in their conquest of the middle east.
I support Israel, I think all thinking Americans do.
Only Americans with Jewish descent support Israel!
I'm as far away from being Jewish as a person can get. I support Israel everybody I know supports Israel, I don't even know any Jews. I support them and hope they exercise their military might in the harshest of ways against OUR shared enemies.
Yes sure. Show me your ID.
The organization that ran this campaign is Jewish and pro-jew. It is not the typical American one. And don't talk in the name of the Americans. I know a lot of them who are anti-zionist. Who is right then, you or me?
Real Americans support America!
Know many Jewish Texans? I don't and I'm a Texan. Good luck with your Jihad!
What are you talking about when you refer to jihad, did you mean my crusade against zionism?
Let me guess, you're the good texan, with his cowboy hat, his blonde, his Bush obedience... ready to eradicate any Muslim countries from the middle east, only because he understands nothing about international politics, or because he is limited by foxnews alike networks! You easily categorized me as a jihadist. I'm showing you that I can do so. Does it mean we are right?
If suddenly the jews decide that America is the enemy, I guess you will follow them without thinking twice! And this is what America is about! People who only understand Netanyahu's degenerate drawings!
Seems reminiscent of the 'Innocence of Muslims' hate mongering.
So far, if we notice well, verbal violence started on our soil. Aren't we the ones who made the hate mongering movie? Aren't we, once again, firing hate? And who hides behind? Israel. So my question is, why are we allowing them to express their racism at our expense? Unless it suits our government? Where is the rationale behind this move?
That wasn't "we" Max. That was an Egyptian coptic Christian presently living here. Even if it was "we," the violent reaction was based in incredible stupidity. It's hard to defend Islam, when it does not stop the moronic responses of the worst element within it.
Most Muslims are nice and denounced the stupidity of the extremists, but the ones bent on violence are the ones who are ensuring the more videos, more cartoons, more insulting depictions of Muhammed are just around the corner.
Attacking a religion is not racist. It's bigotry. You might want to look up the meaning of words before you continue to misuse them.
UC rejects anti-Semitism resolution
The University of California says it won't support a resolution condemning anti-Semitism on campus - approved unanimously by the state Assembly on Tuesday - because the resolution says "no public resources will be allowed to be used for any anti-Semitic or any intolerant agitation."
"We think it's problematic because of First Amendment concerns," said Steve Montiel, a UC spokesman.
The nonbinding resolution, says, in effect, that UC and other public universities should ban activity that could be interpreted as intolerant or anti-Semitic, including certain demonstrations, from taking place anywhere on its property.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/education/article … z27WVJyT7f
I do not even know what to make of this yet, just started reading?
So it is fair to advocate racism because behind "defeat jihad", it is the whole Arab community that is targeted. How come on one hand we can't be anti-semitic and on the other hand we push to hate the Arab people? We know who are the real culprits! Enough of the manipulation! My mind is NOT malleable! Israel has to assume its responsibility as a criminal!
Their message is clear, it is an invitation to hate and violence towards Muslims "jihad" and therefore Arabs. I have to acknowledge that it is fueling a dislike towards zionists. I have enough of their untouchability? Who do they think they are? They pick, either they are Americans and proud to be either they are Israelis. Why don't they go to Israel if they want to support it. But speak to me about YOUR country, where is the point? Nobody can force me to support Israel versus another country. I will support the US, only.
I'm with you, RB. And you, too, Maxomam.
It feels like the US is being backed into two different corners by three opposing forces.
On the one hand, we have to stand up for free speech because that's an American value
But, we cannot support Israel no matter what and turn our back on the rest of the Arab world.
Philsophically and practically, that is not the right stance.
It's a precarious balancing act not to set off either of the bullies leading Isreal and Iran.
I read yesterday (allthough cannot find link now) that Israelis do NOT support the strong arming that BB is doing on Obama or that he is so blatantly pushing for Romney to become POTUS.
American Jews are NOT the zionist zealots.
The word "jihad" is inflammatory. By design.
It's the far right Israel firsters behind this, I would bet.
Same far right crazies that I would also bet, if you follow the money trail not too far, you will find were behind "Innocence of Muslims."
My (not learned but earnest) opinion.
What did I tell you?
American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) brought to you but those Islamophobes Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.
Protected, alas, by free speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Islam … of_America
My problem is that they speak in the name of America. When they hide behind a name like the American bla bla bla, they are engaging the American people, name and values. They are dragging the Americans in their hate mongering. I wish that for once they decide on which side they are standing, Israeli or American. It is a real manipulation.
Breaking!! Israel Lobbyist - We Need a False Flag to Start War with Iran!
"Patrick Clawson of the influential neo-con Washington Institute for Near East Studies OPENLY suggests that the US should provoke Iran into taking the first shot.Israel Lobbyist suggests False Flag attack to start war with Iran. Just like 911 in New York causing the deaths of American civilians and soldiers, a million dead Iraqis and for what?"
"Patrick Lyell Clawson (born 1951-03-30) is an American economist and Middle East scholar. He is currently the Director for Research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy"
"The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) is a think tank based in Washington, D.C. focused on United States foreign policy in the Middle East. Established in 1985, the institute's mission statement states that it seeks "to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in the Middle East." The group is often described as being pro-Israel"
Guys like this believe atrocities can be committed by a government to create a crisis in which said government can continue to pursue its agenda by fooling the people into believing the government's fable of the incident! He pretty much confessed of previous false flag operations conducted by the government of the United States!
When atrocities are far from your land, I understand Clawson's enthusiasm in attacking civilians from another country. Because once again, people who are suffering are civilians. The military industrial complex is the big winner. The fearer the world will be, the richer they will become. When Asia fears China, it is at the American advantage. It will need protection and weapons to ensure its inviolability.
Israel must be fearing very much its neighbor since it is willing to pulverize them all! Lebanon, Syria are boiling. Egypt, Iran, Irak are Israelis' enemies. And which country, meaning its people, isn't against Israel's foreign policy?
Racism of any type should not be tolerated on federally funded campuses. That doesn't mean that students should not be allowed to point out policies they feel are detrimental to peace.
But, when things like swastikas start showing up - as indicated in the topic article, it's no longer about policy - it enters the world of racism and hatred.
College students (bless their hearts) are typically bandwagon-riders. Only later in life do they stop to analyze issues before jumping on the wagon.
Swatiskas or words are the same incitation to violence. What I don't understand is why it is happening on the American soil. In the name of the freedom of speech, you can insult people. Then in that same logic, like many other people said it, holocaust never existed! Would I be right?
Why anybody would listen to this charlatan Netanyahu is beyond me.
1992: Netanyahu predicts Iran will have a nuclear weapon by 1997
http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/pri … int/422252
ISRAELI DEPUTY PM: AHMADINEJAD DIDN‘T ACTUALLY SAY ISRAEL MUST BE ’WIPED OFF THE MAP’
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/israeli … f-the-map/
He said that the "Israeli regime in Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time", which is something many will agree with when they understand that Israel is an apartheid state.
Sounds like his countrymen agree with you!
Uri Avnery's Column this week!
Of Bombs and Comics
MY FIRST reaction to Binyamin Netanyahu’s exhibition of comics at the UN General Assembly was shame.
Shame that the supreme elected representative of my country would stoop to such a primitive rhetorical device, bordering on the childish.
(One Israeli commentator suggested putting him on a rug with a lot of paper and Indian ink, and letting him play to his heart’s content.)
He was speaking to a half-empty chamber (Israeli TV was careful not to show the entire hall during the speech), and the audience consisted of second-grade diplomats, but these were still educated people. Even Netanyahu must have realized that they would despise this display. But Netanyahu was not talking to them at all. He was talking to the Jewish audience at home and in the US.
THIS AUDIENCE was proud of him. He succeeded in touching their deepest emotions.
To understand this, one must recall the historical memories. Jews were a small, powerless community everywhere. They were completely dependent on the Gentile ruler.
Whenever their situation was in danger, the Jews chose the most prominent person among them to plead their cause before the emperor, king or prince. When this “pleader” (Shtadlan in Hebrew) was successful and the danger was averted, he won the gratitude of the whole community. In some cases, he would be remembered for generations, like the mythical Mordecai in the Book of Esther.
Netanyahu fulfilled this function. He went to the very center of Gentile power, today’s equivalent of the Persian Emperor, and pleaded the case of the Jews threatened with annihilation by the current heir of Haman the Evil (same Book of Esther).
And what an idea of genius to exhibit the drawing of the Bomb! It was reproduced on the front pages of hundreds of newspapers and on TV news programs around the world, including the New York Times!
For Netanyahu this was “the Speech of his Life”. To be precise, as one TV commentator dryly pointed out, it was the 8th Speech of his Life at the General Assembly.
His popularity soared to new heights. Moses himself, the supreme pleader at the court of Pharaoh, could not have done better.
BUT THE crux of the matter was hidden somewhere between the torrents of words.
The “inevitable” attack on Iran’s nuclear installations to prevent the Second Holocaust was postponed to next spring or summer. After blustering for months that the deadly attack was imminent, any minute now, no minute to spare, it disappeared into the mist of the future.
Why? What happened?
Well, one reason was the polls indicating that Barack Obama would be reelected. Netanyahu had doggedly staked all his cards on Mitt Romney, his ideological clone. But Netanyahu is also a True Believer in polls. It seems that Netanyahu's advisors convinced him to hedge his bet. The evil Obama might win, in spite of the Sheldon Adelson millions. Especially now, after George Soros has staked his millions on the incumbent.
Netanyahu had the brilliant idea of attacking Iran just before the US elections, hoping that the hands of all American politicians would be tied. Who would dare to restrain Israel at such a time? Who would refuse help to Israel when the Iranians counter-attacked?
But like so many of Netanyahu’s brilliant ideas, this one, too, flopped. Obama has told Netanyahu in no uncertain terms: No attack on Iran before the elections. Or else…
THE NEXT President of the United States of America – whoever that may be – will tell Netanyahu the same after the elections.
As I have said before (excuse me for quoting myself again), a military attack on Iran is out of the question. The price is intolerably high. The geographic, economic and military facts all conspire to prevent it. The Strait of Hormuz would be shut, the world economy would collapse, a long and devastating war would ensue.
Even if Mitt Romney were in power, surrounded by a crowd of neocons, it would not change these facts one bit.
Obama’s case is very much strengthened by the economic news coming out of Iran. The international sanctions have had amazing results. The skeptics – led by Netanyahu – are in disarray.
Contrary to the anti-islamic caricature, Iran is a normal country, with a normal middle-class and citizens with a high political awareness. They know that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a fool and if he had really wanted to produce a nuclear bomb, would he have made all these idiotic speeches about Israel and/or the Holocaust? Shouldn’t he have kept his mouth shut and worked hard at it? But since he is about to go away anyhow, no need to make a revolution just now.
The practical upshot: Sorry, no war.
THE WHOLE affair brings up again the Walt-Mearsheimer controversy. Does Israel control US policy? Does the tail wag the dog?
To a very large extent, that is undoubtedly the case. Enough to follow the present election campaign and perceive how both candidates treat the Israeli government obsequiously, competing to outdo the other with words of flattery and support.
Jewish votes play an important role in swing states, and Jewish money plays a huge role in financing both candidates. (O tempora, o mores! Once there was a Jewish joke: A Polish nobleman threatens his neighboring nobleman: “If you hit my Jew, I shall hit your Jew!” Now one Jewish billionaire threatens another Jewish billionaire: If you give a million to your Goy, I shall give a million to my Goy!”)
The Obama administration’s Middle East policy staff is manned by Zionist Jews, down to the US ambassador in Tel Aviv, who speaks better Hebrew than Avigdor Lieberman. Dennis Ross, the grave digger of Middle East peace, seems to be everywhere. Romney’s neocons, too, are mostly Jews.
Jews have a huge influence – up to a point. This point is extremely significant.
There was a minor illustration: Jonathan Pollard, the American-Jewish spy, was sent to prison for life. Many people (including myself) consider this penalty unduly harsh. Yet no American Jew dared to protest, AIPAC kept quiet and no American president was swayed by Israeli calls for clemency. The US security establishment said No, and No it was.
The war on Iran is a million times more important. It concerns vital American interests. The American military opposes it (as does the Israeli military). Everybody in Washington DC knows that this is no side issue. It touches the very basis of American power in the world.
And lo and behold, the US says NO to Israel. The President says coolly that in matters of vital security interests, no foreign country can order the US Commander in Chief to draw red lines and commit himself to a war. Especially not with the help of a comic-book drawing.
Israelis are astounded. What? We, the country of God’s chosen people, are foreigners? Just like other foreigners?
This is a very important lesson. When things really come to a head, the dog is still the dog and the tail is still the tail.
SO WHAT about Netanyahu’s Iran commitment?
Recent I was asked by a foreign journalist if Netanyahu could survive the elimination of the “military option” against Iran, after talking for months about nothing else. What about the Iranian Hitler? What about the coming Holocaust?
I told him not to worry. Netanyahu can easily get out of it by claiming that the whole thing was really a ruse to get the world to impose tougher sanctions on Iran.
But was it?
People of influence in Israel are divided.
The first camp worries that our Prime Minister is really off his rocker. That he is obsessed with Iran, perhaps clinically unbalanced, that Iran has become an idée fixe.
The other camp believes that the whole thing was, right from the beginning, a hoax to divert attention from the one issue that really matters: Peace with Palestine.
In this he has been hugely successful. For months now, Palestine has been missing from the agenda of Israel and the entire world. Palestine? Peace? What Palestine, What peace? And while the world stares at Iran like a hypnotized rabbit at a snake, settlements are enlarged and the occupation deepened, and we are sailing proudly towards disaster.
And that is not at all a comic book story.
Worse who would believe a clown professing in front of a nine year old drawing of a bomb that Iran is a danger to the international community and himself is not. Who is he targeting with his drawing? Nine year olds or rational adults? I guess nine year olds.
Unfortunately his speech got to some Americans! You can here the cries of "we must stand with out strongest ally (no matter what they want from us)" too often.
Fear mongering, war mongering are key to people like Netanyahu, to nations that based its economy on its military branch. Bush to the example of Netanyahu knew which button to push for us to be manipulated. The big wolf was Al Qaeda and still is. What is incomprehensible is people still believing in the terrorism narrative.
Just a guess, Max, but I think part of the reason folks think Iran might be a threat is because the Iranian President and leading cleric frequently make noise about destroying the West, the US and Israel in particular. Maybe just shooting off of mouths - but it raises concerns. Israel, on the other hand, hasn't made those kinds of threats - so it isn't viewed as being the danger that Iran is.
Suppose you had a gun but you kept it locked up (Israel), but you also had a whacky neighbor that threatened to kill your children and your dogs. Suppose you got word that your neighbor was buying a big gun - just like your gun. You might be concerned, in light of your neighbor's threats to your kids and animals.
Now, multiply that concern by millions, to account for all the citizens in Israel and you can begin to see why it's essential that they not let Iran obtain a nuclear weapon.
Israel has (probably) had nukes for a long time, yet you don't hear them threatening to eliminate their neighbors. We DO hear that from Iran, however.
Therein lies the difference. Just my two cents.
Just suppose one more thing. That wacky neighbor who is threatening you happens to be the brother of the landowner you stole as recompense for some other person who wronged you. Is it fair to ignore the rights of the former brother owner? Or is it too much ancient history to consider anymore?
I think Ahmadinejad is a very dangerous lunatic but his words carry some truth and justice in the Arab world and merely casting off his rants as ludicrous while concentrating on the threat is ludicrous as well.
Good point. I'd like to think that it's ancient history, but both sides continue to beat the drum of "this land is MY land."
For lasting peace at least two things have to happen. Israel has to accept Palestinian statehood and the Arab world has to accept Israel as well.
As Mister Averny keeps pointing out the whole Iran issue is to take the worlds eyes of the Palestinian situation.
And in this thread again we make excuses for Israel, yes they have nukes but they don't threaten their neighbors? Letting people know you have nukes is a threat in itself I would think. Plus the threat that Iran is 6 months for a weapon has been going on for almost 20 years and so is the threat to attack them.
Accepting Israel is a given, however Israel accepting Palestine as a state AND allowing right of return for the worlds largest refugee population is the major point that is holding up the process. These people were displaced and many still are, all they owned was taken from them why is it we can turn such a blind eye to this and not see the connection between them and all the unrest in the middle east?
I disagree, Just. The US has nukes - most of the world doesn't view that as a threat. Same with Israel. countries that MAKE threats are the ones viewed thusly. No one's making excuses for Israel - but no one should make excuses for Iran, either.
There will be no right to return. That's off the table.
There will be no right to return? That is THE major problem. And why is it a problem? If a Jew wants to return to Europe and their way was blocked as are these people... The world would be outraged. Why are we not outraged for these people? Israel is wrong, and I would think the treatment the Jewish people received in the past would make them more empathetic to the Palestinian people.
I'm bored and tired to listen to the Israelis' (the government) constant lamentations (don't they have a wall for that purpose?). Many people suffered and are still suffering why would we only focuse on them? They want war, then declare it! Don't force us to send our kids! Don't force us to finance the war "effort" through the taxation! If American private companies want to wage war, I advise them to do it at their own expenses! Our army should be use only in the eventuality of another army invading our territory or attacking physically civilians. But once again, it would an army, not mercenaries paid to destabilize a country (sept 11).
Palestinian statehood? The area was named Palestine by the Romans. If you asked a Roman Centurion to show you a Palestinian, he would point to a Jew. The British continued the tradition of using the old derogatory Roman name for the area. The people claiming to be Palestinians are dispossessed Arabs who wandered into the area. There is no Palestinian people group. The Arabs would do well to provide their kinsmen some land if they have such strong convictions that the so called Palestinians need a homeland. God gave the land to Israel, and it will remain in their hand until the "Day of the Lord".
So far the only people wandering in the bible and in the history were the Jews.
Firstly they were called palaestini because of a shell collected on its shore. Secondly since people like you only refer to the bible. If I recall well the Jews arrived in Palestine led by Moses. And who were the rightful inhabitants at their arrival. You have two options the Palestinians or the Jews. Logically the Palestinians. Thirdly, The Brits proposed two destination choices to the Jews after world war 2 when they left Europe, that were Argentina and Palestine. The zionists picked Palestine because of Jerusalem.
I agree with the two sides coming together to reach peace but who is qualified to help broker the deal? If anybody mentions the US as the possible mediator they have to be kidding. The US is the one who pushed this situation in 1948 and has repeatedly backed Israel through all these years. How can they be determined to be neutral in anything at this point. It is a real mess and nobody with any ethical history in the area is qualified to step up and figure out a solution.
I suppose you haven't ventured upwards to the part where it's proven that Iran has made no threats against Israel? If not, I shall re-post.
ISRAELI DEPUTY PM: AHMADINEJAD DIDN‘T ACTUALLY SAY ISRAEL MUST BE ’WIPED OFF THE MAP’
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/israeli … f-the-map/
I wrote a hub about the so-called peaceful Israel. Here is an extract.
For a country that advertises and prioritizes peace, it devoted NIS 53.2 billion to its defence department in 2010, an equivalent of 15.1% of its overall budget. In 2007, it concentrated its investments in U.S. fighter aircrafts (262 units), in missiles (superior to a thousand units, -many are not divulged...). It explains the U.S. involvement and support. It is also a supplier, India is among its last clients. For a pacifist, it declared war sixteen times since 1948 (the last one ended, "officially", with the Gaza War). To finish, it developed and possesses the nuclear weapon on the sly... And so, and so, and so... In spite of their efforts to polish their image I hardly can't associate them to the Vatican City, the Liechtenstein or Andorra in that effect.
Israel depends on the well-being of its backbone, its military-industrial complex to survive as an economy and uses its neighbors as platforms to display its sophisticated defence and technology of protection.
by rhamson7 years ago
ISRAEL triggered a fresh rift with Washington over settlements on the West Bank yesterday by approving the construction of 900 new homes there. The houses will be built on land Israel occupied in the 1967 war and...
by Stacie L2 years ago
National JournalMarina Koren The Israeli prime minister was speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's policy conference ahead of an even more hyped speech on Tuesday, in which Netanyahu is expected to...
by rhamson8 months ago
With Kerry and Netanyahu arguing the US vote in abstentia effectively condemning Israel for continued new settlements on the West Bank one has to wonder why all the remaining votes went to condemn Israel without notice...
by Ralph Deeds5 years ago
The Sunday NY Times Magazine cover story this week reports on the current state of the standoff between Iran, Israel, the US and other countries over Iran's nuclear facilities and intentions. It's a very frightening...
by Yes Dear6 years ago
Sunday, May 15th, 2011 | Posted by Alan Hart Rebranding Israel: Will Netanyahu get away with it?by Alan Hart"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a master of Zionist double-speak and deception, is about to...
by Deforest4 years ago
forthcoming terrorist strike from our government in the name of Al-Qaida in any of our cities? The fact that the threat comes from the Saudi peninsula and that the Saudi house is our friend, what is the probability for...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.