Iran Red Lines
Washington Dispatch: Mother Jones has learned that a parade of high-level Israeli officials are on their way to the White House over the next two weeks to discuss Iran policy. Here's where the two countries differ on what to do next.
July 10, 2008
|
|
While the Israeli government considers the Bush administration highly sympathetic and sensitive to its security concerns, there are growing signs that Washington and Jerusalem may be diverging in their analysis of the urgency of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program and its defensive military preparations for countering a possible strike, and their subsequent prospective timelines for considering possible military action against Iran. While Israeli national security experts say that Israel would not act without coordinating with the US, and there are other significant factors weighing against prospective Israeli military action on Iran before the Bush term ends, there are also emerging differences between the US and Israel on the accepted intelligence over when Iran would be considered to have a nuclear breakthrough, as well as what would constitute a "redline" that would prompt military action, Washington analysts say. In addition, the US, unlike Israel, feels more deeply constrained by the considerable investment it has made in blood and treasure in stabilizing Iraq, which could be risked by the tumult that could follow military action on Iran.
"My sense is the Pentagon would be worried or opposed to an Israeli attack," says David Wurmser, former Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, who left the White House job late last summer. "They are afraid it would inflame the situation in Iraq, which could undermine the US position there.
"Ultimately, my gut tells me that most of the administration on most levels would push back very hard," on Israeli pressure on Washington to authorize it to strike Iran, Wurmser added. "What those in the administration who don't want Israel to act probably won't want is for it to be taken to the highest level. They would always be afraid that [the president] might not be so tough on the Israelis. If the Israeli [government] really intends to do something, they would go to the highest level without a lot of people knowing."
Last week, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen visited Israel, during which Mullen is reported to have told Israeli leaders that, speaking for the highest levels of the Bush administration, they did not have a green light from Washington for military action on Iran. Now, Mother Jones has learned, a parade of senior Israeli government officials is making its way to Washington over the coming two weeks, to discuss the Iran issue with top Bush administration officials. Among those scheduled to arrive, Mother Jones has confirmed with Israeli sources in Washington and Israel: Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak, who departs Israel Monday for meetings in Washington with President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Pentagon officials; and the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi, who comes the following week on his first visit to Washington in that position. A former Pentagon intelligence official who spoke with Mother Jones also alleges that Meir Dagan, the chief of the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, held secret meetings with officials in the White House on Wednesday. Neither the Israeli embassy nor National Security Council would comment on whether Dagan had been at the White House.
US sources who did not wish to be identified describe a disagreement between the US and Israeli intelligence communities over the timetable of Iran's alleged weaponization and research and development efforts. Nuclear analysts at Livermore nuclear facility crunched the numbers and looked at the information on Iran's centrifuges and concluded that they are sticking to the public estimates in the 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program, which forecast Iran could have enough enriched material for nuclear weapons capability in the mid next decade. The Israelis allegedly presented the US with Iranian weaponization evidence that they consider very credible, which the US intelligence community allegedly did not consider credible. Analysts also say Israel and the US are drawing different definitions and redlines about what they consider would be Iran's nuclear "breakout" capability.
"The last report from the [International Atomic Energy Agency] IAEA suggested that the Iranians are making considerable advances, and could reach a stage of having a mass of material for breakout capability before terribly long," says Patrick Clawson, an Iran policy expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. How long? "It's hard to say. Iran already has fuel rods shipped by the Russians. If they decided to just take that material and run it through centrifuges, that activity would be very obvious.
"What most people concentrate on is when Iran would have 600 to 700 kilos of its own low enriched uranium, which is enough to make enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb," Clawson added. How long is that projected to take? Clawson: "If everything works perfectly, two months. If everything doesn't work perfectly, a bit longer. The answer would be the space of a few months.
"It certainly appears from the last [IAEA] report that Iran is on track to have enough kilos [of low enriched uranium to enrich to weapons grade] within a year—well within," Clawson added.
Next page: "Adding to Israeli concern..."
"If they do such a stupid thing, Tel Aviv and the US navy in [the] Gulf will be set on fire as Iran's first targets in the first crushing response."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/681fbbb4- 4d5e-11dd-8143-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
So here it is.
Regardless of who strikes the Iranian Nuclear program and regardless of how many (or how few) human casualties result, Iran officially reiterates its threat to destroy Tel Aviv--a high-yield civilian target. Obviously, Israel takes such threats seriously and is quite capible of defending itself.
This would NOT be World War Three, as some in the world media have characterized. It would be 'World War 2.1', namely, the unfinished remnents of WW2. And that is EXACTLY what some people fail (or refuse) to appreciate, specifically, for the Jews, World War Two never actually ended. It simply took a "time-out" while certain enemies of the Jewish Nation re-armed and re-configured.
Note that among Iran's many compromise offers was the offer to immediately convert its low-enriched uranium into fuel rods, keeping none on hand which could theoretically be re-enriched into highly-enriched uranium for nuclear weapons use. Iran has also offered to implemenet legally-binding, IAEA monitored limits on its centrifuges to ensure that they don't produce highly-enriched uranium. (There were suggestions of making the centrifuges self-destruct if they exceed the set limits - flying bits and pieces of metal and hot uranium is probably not safe.) And finally, the Iranians have offered to open their enrichment program to multinational participation, thereby preventing any secret diversion of the low-enriched uranium into high-enriched uranium.
All of these Iranian offers exceed its legal obligations and even the Additional Protocol. None of the other countries producing enriched uranium have agreed to similar limits on their programs. And the EU/US insist on ignoring these options to peacefully resolve the issue by framing the issue as a false dilemma that "either sanction/bomb Iran or else Iran will make nukes."
Iran continues to be in bold defiance of a variety of U.N. Security Counsel resolutions. Specifically: U.N.S.C. Res. 1803 (2008), 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007). Incidentally, re: 1803, the vote was unanimous, with the exception of Islamic Indonesia, who nonetheless, could not muster up a "no" vote and merely abstained. http://www.associatedcontent.c om/article/636801/united_natio ns_security_counsel_paves.html?cat=9
I am not sure if your statements above are true, misleading or false. If Israel attacks the Iran nuclear program it will ONLY be the result of their well-founded perception that Iran wishes to use nuclear weaponry developed theirin to follow through on its promise to "wipe Israel off the map". If the USA attacks this Iranian development program, it will likely be for other reasons. Namely, if the US wants to avert the financial damages resulting from Iran converting oil off the U.S. Dollar as the standard international trading currency.
Your comments are therefore (seemingly) irrelevant. If the U.N. Security Council looses its authority to legislate and enforce international law, the entire United Nations should be disbanded as it would be far safer to have NO police then have police that DO NOT police.
Wow, evidence that the US did not consider credible? I didn't even know that was possible...I'm picturing a stick figure drawing on the back of a napkin of guy with a nuke
How a bout it if the Israeli get rid of their massive nuclear stockpile; estimated to be over 200 nuclear warheads? A second suggestion to defuse the crisis: How about it if Israelis return lands stolen from the Palestinians after the 1967 and demonstrate some deference for International Law?
It is contrary to the norm that a religious zealot state like Israel which is armed to the teeth with all kind of weapons, including nuclear, to ask the Iranians to disarm. It is contrary to the norm for Israel which practices daily apartheid and genocide against the Palestinians and violated hundreds UN resolutions to expect others to show good behavior.
Israel, not Iran, is the real danger to world’s peace. Israel has the weapon of mass destruction while illegally occupying Arab lands. On the top of that, Israelis believe that they are the chosen people, thus having a mandate from God to commit violence.
The United States is under no obligation to support such madness.
In fact Israeli politicians privately admit that Iran is NOT a threat to them despite all the rantings and propaganda: Livni behind closed doors: Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel
And a summary of Iran's compromise offers were listed in the International Herald Tribune by Javad Zarif:
Over the course of negotiations, Iran volunteered to do the following within a balanced package:
Present the new atomic agency protocol on intrusive inspections to the Parliament for ratification, and to continue to put it in place pending ratification;
Permit the continuous on-site presence of IAEAinspectors at conversion and enrichment facilities;
Introduce legislation to permanently ban the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons;
Cooperate on export controls to prevent unauthorized access to nuclear material;
Refrain from reprocessing or producing plutonium;
Limit the enrichment of nuclear materials so that they are suitable for energy production but not for weaponry;
Immediately convert all enriched uranium to fuel rods, thereby precluding the possibility of further enrichment;
Limit the enrichment program to meet the contingency fuel requirements of Iran's power reactors and future light-water reactors;
Begin putting in place the least contentious aspects of the enrichment program, like research and development, in order to assure the world of our intentions;
Accept foreign partners, both public and private, in our uranium enrichment program.
Iran has recently suggested the establishment of regional consortiums on fuel-cycle development that would be jointly owned and operated by countries possessing the technology and placed under atomic agency safeguards.
Other governments, most notably theRussian Federation, have offered thoughtful possibilities for a deal. Iran has declared its eagerness to find a negotiated solution - one that would protect its rights while ensuring that its nuclear program would remain exclusively peaceful.
International law says that Iran has an inalienable right to nuclear technology. But if you're so concerned about International Law, I suggest you urge the Israelis to start observing international law first.
Ha'aretz Oct 25 2007
By Gidi Weitz and Na'ama Lanski, Haaretz Correspondents
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel, Haaretz magazine reveals in an article on Livni to be published Friday.
Livni also criticized the exaggerated use that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears. Last week, former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy said similar things about Iran...(See more at Ha'arez: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html )
Everyone is a lawyer. Nowadays, everyone is a lawyer of International law. Lets get a few things strait off the bat, which are WIDELY misunderstood. (Perhaps purposefully misunderstood and deliberately misrepresented.)
The world is NOT a pure democracy. In fact, it is NOT any sort of democracy. International treaty law is NOT legally binding on every nation in the world. 99% of the time we hear the expression "International Law", it is referring to international treaty agreements. In the case of the United Nations, countries which are members have (in so joining) agreed to abide by United Nations rules and terms. If a country finds such terms untenable, they are free to resign from the United Nations and have NO remaining responsibility to follow their instructions. Exception: The United Nations Security Counsel is the ONLY world body charged with authority to legislate and enforce its own wishes with permission from no one else. For example, both Norway and Japan have simply decided NOT to abide by U.N. anti whaling restrictions. They are therefore technically in the same sort of violation of so called "international law" that you refer to with reference to Israel. At this time, Israel is NOT in violation of any U.N. Security Counsel resolutions while Iran is in blatant and deliberate violation of four separate BINDING international acts of law. Of course there is an ongoing (decades old) dispute as to the exact linguistic and/or legal interpretation of U.N.S.C. 242 and in fact its underlying jurisdiction. There is NO such ambiguity issue relating to U.N.S.C. Res. 1803 (2008), 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007), all four of which Iran has flaunted.
You wrote:
"In fact Israeli politicians privately admit that Iran is NOT a threat to them despite all the rantings and propaganda"
Incorrect. Which Israeli politicians are you quoting? Because I quote both Olmert and Mofaz when I tell you they believe there is a VERY GRAVE threat and moreover, have definitive proofs which they have already shared with various world leaders, including Russia's, which sensibly explains Russia's YES vote on U.N.S.C. 1803.
Moreover, what possible incentive would Israel have for striking a remote underground (Iranian) bunker and thereby risking VAST retaliation if they did NOT possess such proofs? I have answered your questions, will you please answer that one? (not likely--as the 'hard-left' is proficient at asking questions but lacking is the basic capability to answer anything significant).
Iran needs to comply with U.N.S.C. Resolutions: 1803, 1696, 1737 and 1747, not offer compromises of its personal choosing. The time for compromising was BEFORE these binding international laws were ratified.
Should the United Nations Security Counsel vote for that, then, perhaps they would. Without such a vote, it is both unlikely and unreasonable as Israel is perhaps the ONLY nation in the world which truely needs such an arsenal to offset the ocean of hostles who daily threaten it.
"How about it if Israelis return lands stolen from the Palestinians after the 1967 and demonstrate some deference for International Law?"
Propaganda.
"It is contrary to the norm that a religious zealot state like Israel which is armed to the teeth with all kind of weapons, including nuclear, to ask the Iranians to disarm."
The U.N. Security Counsel has made this demand (not request). If the Iranian leadership did not believe it was their religious duty to provoke "Judgement Day" as mentioned hundreds of times in the Qur~an, none of this would be an issue. If you were smart, you would see the threat to world peace due to this theological interpretation, which is so extreme it was specifically outlawed by under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
" . . .practices daily apartheid and genocide against the Palestinians . . "
Propaganda.
"On the top of that, Israelis believe that they are the chosen people, thus having a mandate from God to commit violence."
Anti-Semitic propaganda and false.
Jews (some Jews) believe they were "chosen" by God to receive the Torah. NOT chosen to be superior.
'Jerry Springer' comments . . .
A senior legal official who secretly warned the government of Israel after the Six Day War of 1967 that it would be illegal to build Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories has said, for the first time, that he still believes that he was right.
The declaration by Theodor Meron, the Israeli Foreign Ministry's legal adviser at the time and today one of the world's leading international jurists, is a serious blow to Israel's persistent argument that the settlements do not violate international law, particularly as Israel prepares to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the war in June 1967.
SEE The Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/n ews/world/middle-east/secret-m emo-shows-israel-knew-six-day-war-was-illegal-450410.html
You are obviously unqualified in the field of law. First of all, Israeli and US threats to bomb Iran are themselves not only a violation of international law and the UN Charter, but constitute the Crime Against Peace as defined by the Nuremberg Principles: "Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned..."
Secondly, to the extent that the anti-Iran UNSC resolutions demand that Iran give up its sovereign right to nuclear technology, which is recognized as being "inalienable" by the NPT, they are in contravention of jus cogens, are ultravires and therefore not binding.
Finally, Israeli war crimes are too many to list, but even Israeli human rights groups like Btselem and historians like Benny Morris have written extensively on how Israel has violated all humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons in times of war contained in the Geneva Conventions by its campaign of racist ethnics cleansing and expansionism. Only "trolls" would be in such denial by repeating wornout standard Zionist mythology that even the Zionists themselves have long since given up asserting.
There is an irony in the assumption that the Israelis who made living defying International Laws and the United Nation agree to scrap their illegal nuclear activities if asked by the Security Council. They don’t even allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit their nuclear facilities, thus all their nuclear activities are illegal under international law and should be shut down; no order from the Security Council is needed.
The Iranians may invoke God to justify their policies, but at least they have not attacked anyone. The Israelis, and millions of their Evangelical friends, believe that it is their religious duty to attack their neighbors, annex more occupied lands, and destroy more Palestinian homes for a religious fairytale of rebuilding the Solomon‘s Temple, thus preparing for the Messiah to return. How harsh can God be? Even Khomeini did not go that far in his religious prophesies.
This siege-mentality displayed by Israel reflects the attitude of intruders; after aggressing, stealing and expelling their neighbors from their homes; now the Israelis are concerned that such neighbors may come back to claim what they lost. Well, the truth is that Israel got hostile neighbors; however, this hostility is based on long policy of criminal violations committed by Israel against the Palestinians. Israel can reverse that by adhering to International Law, not by stockpiling a nuclear arsenal.
Now the Israelis want us to go one step further to help them solidify their lawless attitude; they want us to attack Iran on their behest. America was pushed by Israel to attack Iraq; the America paid heavy price in blood and treasure to appease the Israeli Lobby.
America has no business in fighting wars to fulfill Biblical prophesies or to support religious theocracies. If Israel is so determined to build the Temple, then they have to do it on their own this time.
I asked you only one question and as predicted by your’s troll-ly, you could not gag up any answer. Not surprising to me (of course) but I hope other readers have taken close note. I have addressed your topics and you have addressed YOUR topics. The standard ‘fungal infection’ of the hard-left and its frequent patrons, (oddly) the Islamic patriarchs.
One thing about Jews which is somewhat eternal: A small (yet significant) percentage of Jews can always be found supporting the adversarial position. Therefore, I point out your rather heavy reliance on your data being supported not by its moment but by its ‘circumcision factor’. Who do you think you are impressing? I frankly don’t care if Moses agrees with you. To me that makes one voice. Since we are playing that game, how’s this for a quote:
“When you say ‘Zionist’ you mean Jew. That’s anti-Semitism!”
~ Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
But the strike being contemplated would NOT be “ “ “. It would be to UPHOLD “international treaties, agreements”, namely the four separate resolutions of the United Nations Security Counsel which Iran has boldly defied.. Besides, the Israeli strike being contemplated would not even be a “war” because there is nothing to be won. It would be closer compared to a cannon shot on an Alpine mountain, calculated to trigger an avalanche while the snow is not yet deep enough to burry the town below.
It may trigger a real war but the contemplated strike itself would nonetheless be designed to mitigate a war. Therefore, your citation is inapplicable.
You wrote:
“Secondly, to the extent that the anti-Iran UNSC resolutions demand that Iran give up its sovereign right to nuclear technology, which is recognized as being "inalienable" by the NPT, they are in contravention of jus cogens, are ultravires and therefore not binding.”
I see. . .
The United Nations Security Counsel resolutions (4), though duely ratified lack authority?
I am SURE this would come as quite a surprise to the U.N.S.C. membership.
But lets play that game~
Using that same rationale, U.N.S.C. 242 is then unlawful because it endeavors to revoke legal sovernty established by a prior international tribunal, namely, the League of Nations Article 22.
You speak like a dime-store novelty gag, (chewing gum which turns your teeth black or ‘joy {hand-shake} buzzer').
less name-calling,
less approximations (far less)
less rethoric = less propaganda.
I have done extensive reading of credible materials and one thing I concluded from the experience--which is very cogent to this discussion:
Throughout 2,000 years of the “Common Era”, it has only been in the last 25 or so years that Jews have had any miniscule ability to control any part of the world’s political “playing field” (or “chess-board”). This fact should never be disregarded or marginalized. It is critical to understanding the controversy.
“ . . . agree to scrap their illegal nuclear activities if asked by the Security Council.”
13 words and two falsehoods. That’s 15% of your statement devoted to mis-casting reality. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is NOT illegal. Even if they are not in compliance with inspection requirements, such would not require that Israel abandon its arsenal. Once again, you guys are confusing treaty conventions with binding legal responsibilities. Maybe Israel should accede to inspections. I have no fundamental objection to that idea. But the (far) more interesting question is: Assuming Israel agrees to these inspections, then, would you retract your objection to Israel possessing them? If you do not answer I will take that as a “no”. As a “no”, then it becomes clear why Israel has not allowed inspections. For what purpose? To reveal to the world just how well they can defend themselves? That is a valuable piece of data, which should NOT be sacrificed fruitlessly.
Secondly, what the U.N.S.C. REQUESTS (“asked”) is of zero relevance. What they ORDER through a lawfully drafted and ratified resolution is of exclusive relevance. You replace the applicable word “resolve” with “ask” because a ‘request’ patently does NOT require unanimous support of the permanent membership (whereas a vote would).
Maybe Israel would defy such a resolution (???). But that is NOT the question of today. Today’s question relates to Iran’s defiance of the U.N.S.C., a subject that you and your teammates completely refuse to acknowledge.
“The Iranians may invoke God to justify their policies, but at least they have not attacked anyone.”
Nor has anyone attacked them. However, during their last war, about 1.3 million Iranians were sent to the war front to die, with the youngest conscripted combatants being age 13.
“The Israelis, and millions of their Evangelical friends, believe that it is their religious duty to attack their neighbors, annex more occupied lands, and destroy more Palestinian homes for a religious fairytale of rebuilding the Solomon‘s Temple, thus preparing for the Messiah to return.”
The above is a complete fable.
1. There is an unresolved dispute over borders which has remained unresolved since 1920. Just like there is an ongoing border dispute between Turkey and Greece. Israel DOES NOT attack its neighbors. It defends its nation from surrounding armies--who have numerous times attacked it. This has NOTHING to do with Jewish “religious duty”. When the Argentines attempted to re-capture the Malvines (a.k.a. the “Falklands”) England needed no “religious duty” to fight back. While there are some in Israel who believe in “Biblical rights”,
2. FYI: Qur~an 17:104 states: “And thereafter We (Allah) said to the Children of Israel, dwell securely in the Promised land . . . “
Apparently, Mr. Mohammed believed that God had PROMISED this land to the Jews. By contrast, the Hebrew Scriptures PROHIBIT the return of Jews to Israel until AFTER the reappearance of the “Messiah”.
“This siege-mentality displayed by Israel reflects the attitude of intruders; after aggressing, stealing and expelling their neighbors from their homes; now the Israelis are concerned that such neighbors may come back to claim what they lost. Well, the truth is that Israel got hostile neighbors; however, this hostility is based on long policy of criminal violations committed by Israel against the Palestinians. Israel can reverse that by adhering to International Law, not by stockpiling a nuclear arsenal.
Now the Israelis want us to go one step further to help them solidify their lawless attitude; they want us to attack Iran on their behest. America was pushed by Israel to attack Iraq; the America paid heavy price in blood and treasure to appease the Israeli Lobby.”
All bull-jive. Please read:
Jews, God and History by Max Dimont.
“Semites and anti-Semites” by Prof. Bernard Lewis (Princeton).
“From Time Immemorial” by Joan Peters.
“The Fight for Jerusalem” by Dore Gold
and lastly, please consult:
http://english.katif.net/index.php?sub=2&id=1824 for the legal background of the dispute. It is HIGHLY likely that Israel will strike on its own and is only trying to get the blessing of Washington. Israel had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq and Israel has NOT been helped by this situation. Blaming Israel (and Jews) is anti-Semitic. When that invasion seemed to be going smoothly and swiftly, no one gave a molecule of credit to Israel. I have heard some quite good propagandist bashing of Israel. Your’s sir is not among that grouping.
one can only shake his head to hear him and all the rest of those "know-it-all
Zionist" coughing up this same old,same:
“When you say ‘Zionist’ you mean Jew. That’s anti-Semitism!” As always and quite predictable,when they`re running out of any further creditable,objective arguments,those perennial losers always
ending it with" That’s anti-Semitism!”
Unfortunately,this [deleted]ed-up country has
caved in to such BS-accusations by those
very same characters,that we don`t have to surprised to see this once great nation go " to [deleted] in a hand basket" !
Possibly you did not read what you wrote about?
The "Zionist" comment was not my statement but was a quotation of Dr. M.L. King Jr.. (The Black civil rights leader who was shot in Memphis ???).
Did you REALLY mean to accuse Dr. King of being (in your words) "those perennial losers"?
As for myself, I do NOT believe that "Zionism" exists. THOSE are MY words. Feel free to comment (even insult) based on that statement. (Dr. King has long ago passed--and is not around to defend his statements.)
"Zionism" (you see) was a social and political movement, aimed at the re-establishment (and re-constitution) of a "Jewish National Homeland" located in the traditional (Biblical) zones of Jerusalem and its surrounding areas.
Once said homeland had been re-established, "Zionism" no longer functionally applied.
We no longer refer to women's rights activists as: "Suffragettes". Once they acquired the right to vote, the same people became “Women’s rights activists”.
African-American rights activists are no longer referred to as: “Abolitionists”. Once slavery was abolished in the U.S., these same people (and their modern-day counterparts) became known as “Black civil rights activists”.
So why do we still hear “Zionist”?
This is a mythical phrase, used on both sides of the same argument to perpetuate the conflict.
To the anti-Jew, this moniker congers up (false) images of a relentless brotherhood of “conquistadors”, who will never be satisfied with what they already possess and exist for the purpose of “raping, pillaging and burning”. It also is used to proffer the ongoing (and false) concept that Israel does not actually exist legitimately or legally and is merely a usurped portion of Arab “Palestine”, awaiting return to its rightful ownership.
To the zealot Israeli and pro-Israeli, they too are fantasizing--with the assignment and use of the term “Zionism”. In their case, they associate their claims with Hebrew “Biblical rights” and also are convinced that said rights will always be denied by the rest of the world. So these people are like married men who nonetheless, refer to their own wives as “girl friends”. (A VERY small percentage actually do lay claim to MORE land. This group is far too minor to rate their own category).
For everyone else, there are: ”Israelis”, “Pro-Israelis” and “Anti-Israelis” (or in some specific contexts, “Pro-Arabs”).
You say: “Zionist”, I say: “Boogie-man”.
In order to appreciate the truth, one needs to first understand that God is, before anything else, pure truth.
To deny the existence of God does NOT solve this equation.
To affirm the existence of God as being Jewish, Muslim, Christian or otherwise, is also a mistake because all of the above contain significant inaccuracies.
I think more than anything to be able to defend their country. Iran wants the same things as Israel, security. Who can they trust?
They remember 1979; Arabic nations who supported Iraq against Iran. The integrated financial, technical, and armaments that were provided by many Arab countries to support Arabic Iraq against non-Arab Iranians was responsible for death of about 500,000 Iranians and injury of several millions.
They remember our financial and technical support of Sadam Hossein to use chemical bombs against Iranians.
Iranians remember summer of 1953.
President George Bush often states that Iran is threatening the interests of the Unites States in Persian Gulf! What are the interests of England and the United States in Persian Gulf, the Persian front door to Iran?
A primer for discussion of these issues must start with review of British and the United States policies relative to the Persian Gulf region. Stephen Kinzer, a veteran New York Times correspondent, in his book “All the Shah’s Men, an American coup and the roots of Middle East Terror”, published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003, brilliantly reconstructs the events leading to the present dilemma of the United States in the Middle East. The events described in this marvelous book are not fiction; the events actually happened during the summer of 1953 in Tehran, Iran.
The United States Central Intelligence Agency operation Ajax staged coup d’état in 1953 against democratically elected Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh. Democracy was substituted with the despotic regime of Mohammad Reza Shah. The dawn of democracy in Iran, started in late 1880, flickered by democratically elected Mossadegh, was extinguished. This was the beginning of Iranian servitude once more to the interests of England and the United States. During his last years, Shah did not trust Iranian people; his inner palace was guarded by Israel commandos. Since 1979, the United States has been punishing Iranian people for ousting the immature, weak, despotic Mohammad Reza Shah. This punishment, Iranian assert, included Iraq invasion of Iran instigated by President Regan. During this war, the United States and her satellite nations helped materially and logistically Iraqi military forces to invade Iran and use chemical and biological weapons on Iranian population.
Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh
In the preface of his book, Kinzer recalls his conversation with an Iranian lady about Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh. He asked her: “What do you remember…about the coup against him?” She responded:
“Why did you Americans do that terrible thing? We always loved America. To us, America was the great country, the perfect country, the country that helped us while other countries were exploiting us. But after that moment, no one in Iran ever trusted the United States again…”
This un-American act was instigated by Winston Churchill-Anthony Eden of England and two American brothers John Foster Dulles (US Secretary of State) and Allen Dulles (Director of Central Intelligence Agency). The primary reason for this regime change was to subordinate Iranian people and exploit the Iranian natural resources.
Harry Truman once said: "There is nothing new in the world except the histories you don not know.” Have we learned from our past mistakes committed during 1953 not to repeat it once more? This time the price would be much larger for both the Iranian and our American societies! We must stop George Bush with his neocolonialism.
If you were the President of Iran, what would you do for your country?
Please read Persian Paradox [http://www.geocities.com/stmtraveler/PersianPardox.htm].
You wrote:
"nothing in the UNSC resolutions authorizes the use of force."
I never claimed it did. You therefore argued with yourself. Too bad yourself is not smart enough to argue back.
As is quite clear from the printed exchange you reference, my debate was against the treaty language quoted by the Thelasian lady.
BTW: The United Nations treaty against hunting sea mammals provides any interested entity with the authority to police and enforce the provisions of the treaty. This is example (for general clarity) of two issues already discussed.
1. The difference between acts of the U.N. General Assembly (Treaty Conventions) -vs- Security Counsel (binding law). Several nations have been operating in disregard of this U.N. treaty and doing so under the radar of public opinion or international action.
2. The Sea Shepherd Conservation society has created an actual fighting force which is in total compliance with the provisions of the U.S. treaties.
http://www.seashepherd.org/
Yet, this group has routinely been arrested and procecuted within various U.N. member nations for their COMPLIANCE with the international treaty.
People do as they please.
Treaties are usually written to be ambigious.
Only the Security Counsel retains the legal right to deploy force on its own accord.
If they choose NOT to deploy force (as is the case presently with Iran), this fact does not bring the breaching party (Iran) into compliance. They are nonetheless in violation. Israel would therefore be acting without Security Counsel authorization but NOT in contravention of the S.C., unless the Security Counsel pro-actively instructed Israel to refrain from doing so. Otherwise, we are back to the language quoted by Thelasian, which is inapplicible to this situation for reasons previously stated.
There is no shortage of mistakes and actual crimes committed by the USA and various of its allies throughout modern history. Nor are there any complete excuses. There are a few partial excuses. The USA became the world’s police force during WW2. This has been a very costly endeavor and if the USA goes bankrupt, it will be the expense of protecting the world from itself which would be the proximate cause.
Police forces generally overstep their authority at given times and for given reasons, some reasons being more legitimate then others.
The (son) Shah (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi), ran a brutal dictatorship and their secret police could have taught the Nazis a few things or two. Ironic because the Nazis had been close allies to the Iranian leadership during WW2 and in point-of-historical-fact:
The (father) Shah (Reza) [asked] the international community to use the native name of "Iran" in 1935 to address to his country, which in Persian means 'Land of the Aryans' and refers to Airyanem Vaejah, the Avestan name of the original homeland of the Aryans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-Iranian_relations
Anyway, the true story is slightly different then you suggest. For one thing, the Dulles Brothers had a long history of Nazi sympathy themselves
See: “The Secret War Against the Jews” by Luftus and Aarons.
Secondly, Mohammad Mossadegh was responcible for nationalizing the Iranian oil industry without compensation for its owners, BP. This was therefore more of a British initiated operation then an American one. Moreover, you neglect to mention a crucial fact re: Saddam Hussein: He was the ONLY tyrant in the entire world receiving support from BOTH the USA and Soviet Russia. As Baathist (Stalinist) his allegiance was clearly to Moscow more so then Washington and Washington was therefore the minor player in that event as well.
I could go on but I think you get the picture.
There three distinct phases in Iran’s contemporary foreign policy. The first began in 1979 with the Ayatollah Khomeini and the emergence of Iran as an Islamic theocracy. This phase adhered to the slogan “Neither West nor East but only the Islamic Republic,” which was actually incorporated into the Constitution of December 1979.
Khomeini sought to expand Islamic Iran without territorial bounds, to come to the aid of the world’s oppressed, and to “uproot” the three evils of Zionism, communism and capitalism. Most of all, the first phase saw the emergence of staunch anti-American views in Iran, demonstrated by riots, protests and the November 1979 hostage situation.
The foreign policy of this period was dramatically different than it had been just prior to the 1979 Revolution: Iran’s close relationship with the US turned very sour, Iran began to support militant Islamic groups, and Iran’s pro-West position turned into a pro-Islamic one. The resulting sanctions and shifting alliances greatly impacted Iran both immediately in the Iran/Iraq war, and in the decades to follow.
The second phase, between 1989 and 1997, marked the post-war reconstruction efforts under President Hashemi Rafsanjani. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait provided an open door for Iran to re-establish diplomatic ties with countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Tunisia among others, as Iraq had now replaced Iran as the immediate threat to security in the region. The invasion also created an opportunity for Iran to improve its ties with Europe.
Economically, Iran’s prospects were less than promising. President Rafsanjani introduced the First Five Year Economic Plan in 1989, attempting to stimulate economic growth. But despite all its efforts, by 1991 Iran’s economy had only reached its 1977 GDP. With population growth factored in, Iran’s per-capita income was down by 50%.
Iran’s relations with the US also suffered. While the Clinton administration remained open to diplomatic engagement with Iran, the US refused to end sanctions without Iran’s agreement to end its pursuit of WMD, support of terrorism, and open opposition to Israel.
The US also blocked Iran’s access to international financial institutions, and put pressure on Europe, Russia and others to sever ties with Iran.
The third phase began in 1997 and is associated with former president Khatami and his political and socio-economic reform efforts. Many young people and particularly young women were extremely unhappy with the political and economic situation in Iran as the presidential election in 1997 grew near.
Since Rafsanjani could not run for a third term, and the Council of Guardians felt the popular pressure for change from below, one of three candidates they approved was Mohammad Khatami, a former minister of Rafsanjani’s cabinet (first term) who had resigned due to Rafsanjani’s restrictive cultural policies.
Khatami won just under 70 percent of the popular vote in his first run for president, and an even greater majority in his second four years later.
Needless to say, Iran’s relations with the EU, already improved during the Rafsanjani administration, improved substantially under Khatami.
This visible reform in Iran is less a result of popular democracy and EU support than it is the non-elected elite’s decision to withdraw their control over the political, economic and socio-political arenas.
While many among the EU argue that increased engagement with Iran could only direct Iran down the path of further reform, particularly on issues such as the Israel/Palestinian conflict, WMD and support of terrorists; this thriving reform could well be in great danger given the Bush administration’s passion for regime change and its clear targeting of Iran as a rogue state.
What Iran needs more than anything right now is something to lose. We've backed it into a corner and given it few options. We should leave Iran an honorable path of retreat. Engaging Iran in the global economy is the only approach that has merit.
~ Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
I’ve been reading all this interesting back-and-forth and have been reluctantly avoiding arguments with the known ”Stollstein’s BS” who seems to be brainwashed to a point of no return. So I’ve decided to post this following comment but will definitely refrain from doing it again.
Stollstein… I am honored that you’ve quoted the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a great “real” American indeed. I’ll come back to that later.
Frankly, I am sick and tired of the ones calling themselves Americans who put our great Nation “second“ if you know what I mean. If you want to “protect” your Zionist State, please go ahead and die for it, just don’t ask of us Americans to do the job for you. I must admit that the strong Zionist lobby in this country has gotten its ways for a while… A long while. But I am one of those proud Americans growing in numbers who will hopefully stop this non-sense foreign policy. America gets nothing but trouble from this so called “ally” State called Israel. Our enemies have been growing, arming and hating fast because of it, not to mention the so many times we’ve captured spies spying on us for Israel. What an ally.
Now, coming back to your statement of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.,… Don’t try to fool us ones again. Even the Rev. Dr. M.L.K Jr. may have been fooled at that time, as we all know the word “Semitic” is definitely not a “registered trade mark” for the Jews only, but also for the same people Israel is slaughtering daily… The Palestinians. Semitics are also Arabs, some Turks and some people Persia, Iran today.
One day, and sooner than later, Uncle Sam will tire of blindly supporting and carrying the David star over his shoulders… And may God helps the Israelis on that day. If you can take a few simple advises from a common and humble man such as I am… Take what you can now, make a real peace soon before it’s too late and make sure you respect the “International Laws” you so often mentioned like all other Nations. The Israel/Lebanese war of July 2006, and the defeat of the so called “undefeated army” of Israel has proven one thing… Israel can be destroyed even with its nuclear arsenal. Think where your State would be in 20 to 30 years from now. I know, I am a military man.
We were fooled and invaded Iraq. We’ve paid dearly for that mistake (including my own brother and cousin). We’ll not get fooled again on Iran. If we did God forbid, we then shouldn’t cry wolf because this time, we’ve been warned.
You wrote:
“I know, I am a military man”
Well, this about says it all.
I am NOT a military man. Nor am I an Israeli (even though you care to address me as if I am).
When someone who is perceived as a Jew (I am NOT Jewish religiously) supports any part of the Israeli cause, they are accused of favoring their own--over the best interest of their own country. When someone with a Jewish name criticizes Israel, they are heralded as heroes and quoted widely and deeply.
Bull-crap.
I support some (not all) of Israeli policy because I have intellectually concluded from my reading of history, current events and my inherent knowledge of human nature, that they have gotten the shaft. I am also a vocal opponent of the government of Sudan and have been active in ending the genocides for over a decade. What does that make me? A self-absorbed Black?
Bull-crap.
You wrote:
“We were fooled and invaded Iraq. We’ve paid dearly for that mistake (including my own brother and cousin). We’ll not get fooled again on Iran.”
Who is fooling whom?
During the first “gulf war”, when Kuwait was liberated, missiles were fired from Iraq into Israel and Israel was asked (probably told) to suck-it-up and eat it, which they did. While the Anti-Jewish lobby loves to blame Israel for the more recent Iraq invasion, had that job been finished (by the “military men”) in the early 1990’s, such would have not been needed. Who stopped that? Did Israel tell the USA not to overthrow Saddam?
Bull-crap.
The USA has spent the second half of the 20th century protecting much of the world. The list includes as many as 100,000 US soldiers stationed just south of the DMZ in South Korea, following a bloody war which cost MANY US lives. The USA maintains a treaty with Taiwan, which mandates that we protect them from the RED ARMY of over 100-million soldiers, in the Chinese’s own back yard. The USA still has divisions stationed in Germany, where they protected the offspring of Nazis from the wrath of Stalin. All of this to the tune of TRILLIONS of American dollars. Now lets consider Israel. 5% of Israel’s fiscal budget is supplemented by the USA and guess what gunny? They don’t need it. They (unlike us) have a budget SURPLUS. What effrontery of you to think that a few US dollars (which are hardly worth anything anymore--thanks to Bush-W) would control the Israeli desire for its very survival. And bull-crap. Unlike all these other examples listed (and many more too voluminous to list), NO USA LIVES HAVE EVER BEEN LOST OR RISKED DUE TO THE USA’s support for the Jewish National Homeland. While Bin Laden recently released a diatribe blaming Israel for Sept. 11, this was years after his original video which blamed US forces being stationed in the Islamic holy-land (Saudi Arabia) as the cause of the attack.
Not too bright gunny.
Trollstein wrote to The World:
““I know, I am a military man”
Well, this about says it all.
I am NOT a military man. Nor am I an Israeli (even though you care to address me as if I am).
When someone who is perceived as a Jew (I am NOT Jewish religiously) supports any part of the Israeli cause…”
I do not see where The World have called nor addressed Trollstein such as a military man, an Israeli nor a Jew. Trollstein seems to have missed the point again, intentionally of course.
To The World:
You are right not to get involved with someone ignorant such as Trollstein as it’s a waste of time, so let me have a few laughs and do it for you. It is obvious that Trollstein does not know what the heck he is talking about. You have brought a couple of solid points/facts that were I believe intentionally ignored by Trollstein just because he could not challenge rightfully the facts you have inserted in your post. He has instead chosen to become personal and insulting to the USA and to the men and women who are dearly defending this country not to mention Trollstein‘s butt, God bless them all.
I think everyone agrees that without the USA Israel would have never existed (not England, not France - yes, the USA). And without our military help in materials, high tech, intelligence sharing (including support from our satellites) Israel will simply not exist today. By the mare and simple fact that our country supports Israel openly at the UN Security Council, when it brakes repeatedly International laws and elsewhere in the world… is giving “time” for Israel to survive. How much time? God knows. The bottom line is that Israel needs the USA and not the other way around.
It seem that living in denial is a way of life to Trollstein. Go play elsewhere with people your age and level Trollstein.
To put it very simply as it‘s much more complicated…
“Judaism” is simply the Religion. The Religion of the Prophet Moses and his people. Many orthodox Jews believe today that Israel is illegal under Jewish laws. And we all know that not all Jews are Israelis, Zionists or Israelites.
“Zionism” is the Political Movement of some Jews and some Christians. The Movement, even though in power since Israel‘s creation, doesn’t represent all Jews and definitely not all Christians. The Movement is as you well know represented not only in Israel, therefore its members carry different Nationalities.
“Israeli (is)” is the Nationality or Citizenship. Not every Israeli is a Jew or Zionist. There are 1.5+ million Palestinians Christians and Moslems (1948) who carry the Israeli Citizenship. And again, there are Jews who carry the Israeli Citizenship but do not respect nor practice its laws.
“Israelites” is the Historical Characteristic used to identify the decedents of the Prophet Abraham and his Son. Lots of those Israelites converted into Christianity and a few to Islam at a later stages. Not every Israelite is a Jew, a Zionist or an Israeli.
Understanding the above is crucial for understanding the complex nature of the Middle Eastern problem and why Israel can simply not continue to exist forever.
Oh and Strollstein, go learn from your Rabbi and spare us your comments on this one, positive or negative.
Shalom.
Oh oh . .
JZaid is speaking for ALL cyberspace. (“us”).
Well, in pure spite of the ongoing gang-fuss which I have had to endure, no.
Your comments SHOULD have been known to all mildly educated bloggers and therefore either:
a. They are not mildly educated –or
b. You are the one wasting cyber-time.
Plus, I don’t have a “rabbi” as I have already said I am NOT Jewish by religion, which seems to be your sole definition. But you also miss another category, namely, those who are culturally Jewish, separately from those who are Jewish by religion.
As for the Culturally Jewish (some of whom are Jews by religion and some are not) a portion of those support Israel because they feel the daily hatred directed toward them and realize how unnatural and unfair it is and— a portion condemn Israel because they feel the daily hatred directed toward them and believe it to be normal and justified.
Please don’t speak in the “royal” tenses ("we" or "us"). It pisses me off.
Gunny “TheWorld” had written:
“Frankly, I am sick and tired of the ones calling themselves Americans who put our great Nation “second“ if you know what I mean.”
To this you comment:
“I do not see where The World have called nor addressed Trollstein such as a military man, an Israeli nor a Jew.”
“ . . . if you know what I mean”
generally alludes to an inferred (though not spelled-out) allegation. In this case, the allegation is the traditional accusation that American Jews are Jews first and Americans second (if at all). Got it??
Gunny says:
“If you want to “protect” your Zionist State, please go ahead and die for it, just don’t ask of us Americans to do the job for you.”
You comment:
“ . . .someone has gotten badly to Trollstein by giving simple and positive advises.”
Obviously, you are reconstructing reality as you go and as it suits you.
No one gives a damn what you are or what your religion is or what you beleive in. No one is against YOU for God's sake...
I can tell you, I am proud to be a Jew and I am not pro-Israel, but I guess a so called aducated and smart guy like you got that from my last name. Huh.
You wrote" Please don’t speak in the “royal” tenses ("we" or "us"). It pisses me off." LOL. It deosn't take a lot to piss you off. I speak of "us" because I consider you a pesant. Again, you missed the point LOL
Anyhow this is not about YOU (poor you), this is about politics... Get over it.
In Yr. 2,000, the deal which was rejected by the Arabs was:
1) 95% of all land which had not part of pre-1967 borders. Of the 5% being withheld, some of that was truly traditional Jewish neighborhoods, which had no business being part of an Arab nation in the first place. If one factors in the land recently abandoned by Israel in Gaza, such would bump the percentages up to about 98% (though the 3% add-on would have been different land from that previously disputed).
2) $30-billion is international pledges--to compensate the Palestinian-Arabs for any real (or imagined) remaining grievances.
To the above offer, Yasser Arafat (the inventor of modern terrorism) stormed out in a rage and started the 2nd “intafata”. About 1-year later (09-11-2001) the USA was attacked (for the second time in a decade). What had been the “deal breaker”? Was it the 5%? Lets assume so for argument sake. Would that have been a legitimate reason to end all negotiations and commence plans for WW3? That was NOT Arafat’s problem.
His stated objection was that he insisted on (then) 5.5 million Arabs, of which 5.25-million had never set a foot in Israel, to become Israeli citizens and in certain instances, acquire property claimed to belong to their fathers and grandfathers. The $30-billion was deemed inadequate compensation. Chairman Arafat’s goal was to outnumber the Jews in Israel and thereby dissolve Jewish control and institute Islamic control. It was that or nothing. Of course, no country would agree to such a demand, not even France.
This is also the main fuel which Iran’s Ahmadinejad routinely uses to justify his oft repeated promise to dissolve Israel.
Therefore, with all the whining about alleged Jewish injustices against helpless Arabs, the bottom line is that the Arabs were offered peace in 1947 and roundly rejected it. They have been offered peace repeatedly again and again, most recently in 2,000 and their leader was insulted and enraged. Had the $30-billion been $300-billion, Arafat would have only been 10-times angrier as both concepts impeded his movement, not for Arab rights but for Israel’s destruction.
After he ended the peace discussions, he appeared before the Arab league and made the following statement, which was important enough for him to have repeated twice:
“ I am protecting the interests of all claims of all Arab nations . . . . I am protecting the interests of all claims of ALL Arab nations” .
Q- What where these outstanding (un named) claims and why was it in the Palestinian-Arabs best interest to protect them?
A- Of course, it wasn’t. Arafat was protecting the illegitimate claims of various host countries who wanted to be rid of their Palestinian-Arabs, in spite of the fact that all but a handful of these people had been born on the soil where then now reside. That goal, plus the desire to dissolve the Jewish National Homeland trumped the rights of the Palestinian-Arabs to have either peace, freedom or a nationality.
Once again you can't control yourself from speaking for the entirety of cyber-space.
“No one gives a damn what you are or what your religion is or what you beleive in.”
Rude and self aggrandizing.
There is no limit to the number of posts allowed and if there were, you would not be the judge.
If you wish to be the judge, start your own blog. Call it ‘Jews against Jewey Jews.’
World War II was not about Jews. In fact most of the world can care less (positively or negatively) about Jews. You need to get past your Hebrew School education which looks at the last 3,000 years of history as only being about non Jews persecuting Jews
Iran has never stated they will or want to wipe israel off the map. Ahmadinejad was mistranslated by some republican or israeli translator. He never stated he or Iran would wipe israel off the map. He said they would vanish in time. Meaning they would overstay their welcome and abandon the ridiculous idea of a post-colonial political settlement in occupied Palestine. Stop repeating your fundamentalist nonesense and go read an unbiased book.
If I were Iran, and Israel and the USA were hunting me down like they did during the Iraq-Iran war, I too would direct long-range missles at Tel-Aviv. The only way to get the Israelis to listen and wake up is to put a gun to their heads. They have been war-mongering the entire mid-east for over 60 years. Put-up or pack-up.
And for your information Israel had nothing to do with WWII. Most people who survived or died in concentration camps didn't have anything to do with zionism. Zionists had nothing to do with saving holocaust survivors. In fact if anything when the war was over zionists acted like organized crime by preventing holocaust survivors still living in the camps from receiving food unless they took an oath to move to Israel (occupied Palestine).
Israel is not still fighting WWII, American fundamentalists are deluded by Fox News and AIPAC that they still are.
StrollStein, you claim that you’re not a Jew nor an Israeli. And by attacking the USA and its military men; definitely not an American. Yet, you sound exactly that... An Israeli, a Zionist and a Jew. And with a name like that!!!
There is nothing wrong with being an Israeli, a Zionist nor a Jew. I am a Polish Jew myself. But what I found pretty low is the fact that you hide behind nothing but insults to everyone in here. Am I to believe that you’re the only educated one? That everyone else is just dead wrong? Judging from what I've read so far, definitely not.
Having said that, I would like to remind you that YES, American Service men/women have been killed by Israeli gun fire… Remember the USS Liberty that was attacked by the Israeli Air Force during the Six Day War? And what about the three first US Marines under the Reagan Administration who were shot and killed at the Beirut International Airport in 1982 during the Israeli invasion? Not to mention the UN peace keepers who were hit intentionally in Cana at the Lebanese/Israeli frontier!!! I can go on and on.
I have no apologies to make for the above unfortunate actions however. I still support Israel but cannot deny the facts. If you chose to defend Israel, I must insist that you do that by backing up facts and stop making up stories. You’re actually making it easy for Israel’s enemies to strike in here.
And YES StrollStein, without our friends in the USA, Israel will cease to exist. Period.
Iran was not an ally with the Nazis. Iran chose to remain neutral. In part because germany and the allied forces were much too strong to fight against. The nazis used Iran as a route to supply their troops in the war of Stalingrad. When the allied forces came in and forced Iran to choose a side they wouldn't accept the neutral stance, so they started boming the hell out of Iran (something like 3-5 continuous days) The Allied Forces cut off the nazi supply line and put their puppet the Shah of Iran into power. Remind yourself the King of Iran was forced by the Allies to abdicate his throne, so in revenge he put his worst son into power. Ergo, why the Iranian people hated him from the start.
Iran has been fuxored by the US until their revolution. Ever since the revolution the US, Israel and Iraq have fought unsactioned and unpproved wars with Iran.
Yasser Arafat was not the inventor of terrorism. can you recall the serbians of WWI? you have a selective memory and it digusts even Israelis. Most Israelis I've met are not even fundametalists. In fact I get along with them a lot more than Americans.
Let's be honest who you are; you're an american jewish fundamentalist. Most American jews I've met are simply that; American first and foremost. You on the otherhand are hellbent on annihilation of anything anti-zionist.
GailsHusband:
WW2 was not ONLY about Jews but to say that Jews were fortuitous to WW2 is completely wrong. Plus, I never attended Hebrew School. But why are the people on this blog page so hung up on me, my background, my religion, rather then addressing—with specificity—the subjects in discussion? Then these same people go as far as to accuse me of a narcissistic paranoia. . . When I write about myself, my background or my preferences, one thing is for certain, the information is true and accurate.
When others write about the same topic, it is generally subjective, projectionary and usually false.
I think we got us a load of control freaks.
Gopuux.com:
You wrote:
“stop listening to israeli rant radio”
I listen to NO talk radio. I listen to rock-and-roll music.
“get your facts from outside the Lekud party”
I also have no provider of my factual information within any Israeli faction.
0 for 2 so far.
This particular blog only allows one URL link per post so here it is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy n/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300629.html
“PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel.”
These are the sorts of sources I use for my information. Sometimes the web link leads to news sources completely outside the USA such as the Times of India, Guardian of the UK or elsewhere.
Strike three. Next:
NewPolonia:
You wrote:
“ . . by attacking the USA and its military men; definitely not an American . . “
Please clip and paste what you refer to.
A person calling himself “TheWorld” engaged me and attacked me. He stated that he “is a military man” and that I (by supporting Israel) sacrifice my loyalty to the USA.
While I may have replied in a terse manner, he got what was deserved under the circumstances. Putting on a uniform BTW: is NOT the only method in which one sacrifices and earns their place in a society and I continue to resent statements and inferences to the contrary.
“you hide behind nothing but insults”
Please specify.
You wrote:
“I would like to remind you that YES, American Service men/women have been killed by Israeli gun fire… Remember the USS Liberty that was attacked by the Israeli Air Force during the Six Day War?”
Let me see if I understand your point . . .
Here goes:
Germany was an enemy in two world wars and killed millions of Americans but the USA risked NUCLEAR WAR with the Soviets to protect West Germany?
Japan sunk nearly the entire Pacific Fleet in a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, yet, they are our best buddies--whom we have supported and protected with our military--since the end of WW2.
Israel gets money to keep an arsenal of weapons to defend it against relentless attacks from Arab and Muslim countries. (less money in the aggregate then the Muslims get).
To your clarity of thought, this makes Israel a basket-case of sorts and receiving special (improper) treatment?
“Uncle Jude” apologist.
I said MODERN terrorism. The airport metal detector was invented in his honor.
"“The shelling of Iran's parliament by the Russians, and the signing of the 1919 Treaty, firmly planted the roots of suspicion against Britain and Russia. This was while many people were aware of Wilhelm II's speech in Damascus in 1898 calling on all Muslims to rely on him as a true friend.
By the early 1930s, Reza Pahlavi's close ties with Nazi Germany began worrying the Allied states. Germany's modern state and economy highly impressed the Shah, and there were hundreds of Germans involved in every aspect of the state, from setting up factories to building roads, railroads and bridges. According to Edwin Black, the Shah became a stalwart admirer of Hitler and the concept of the Aryan master race. He also sought the Nazis' help in reducing British petro-political domination . . . “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-Iranian_relations
Our proud military had no problem dropping bombs and napalm on Vietnamese rice farmers and “shock and Aweing” Iraq, when there was no clear indication that a single shot needed to be fired to accomplish the real mission of toppling Saddam, but now, facing a dangerous enemy (and a crazy one) so all of a sudden all you legionnaires out there use this moment to bash Israel for the audacity of survival.
There . . I said it. Put that in your pipe and snort it.
What is interesting about this is that even under those circumstances, on varied occasions, claims were heard that the “Zionists” were behind that military action as well. Of course such a claim was patently absurd. But it sounded less absurd at the time then it does now, now that the military action was successful and there was no WW3 as a consequence.
I am starting to believe all the negative things others have been saying about you. You definitely intentionally avoid every important and/or factual point everyone makes in here. You completely missed the points in my post Trolly. Aren’t you the one who wrote the following the The World???
"Unlike all these other examples listed (and many more too voluminous to list), NO USA LIVES HAVE EVER BEEN LOST OR RISKED DUE TO THE USA’s support for the Jewish National Homeland."
My reply was to the above and should have been educational for you. Stop having selective memories.
Well, now that we’ve established your miss-information, get the facts straight. I’ve asked you kindly before and ask of you again to list the FACTS when you defend Israel and put a side your hallucination, hatred and personal feelings aside. You’re doing nothing but hurt us here. I arrest my case.
Let us stick to the subject as you’ve well mention it after so many have done so before you.
“Terrorism” is a complex word not everyone agrees on it’s definition. When we’ve created our Homeland Israel, we and our leaders, including "Nesi HaMedina" Chaim Weizmann, Joseph Ben Gorion, Menahem Begin and many others have been labeled and called “terrorists” by the Europeans especially the British and were “wanted“ by many states worldwide.
Today, the CIA defines “terrorism” as “the practice of the deliberate inflicting (either directly or indirectly) of harm, injury, death and/or destruction upon a civilian target sufficient to cause horror, revulsion or despair among civilian populations and/or their political leaders, with the goal of causing those populations or political leaders to act in a way desired by the terrorists.” Sound familiar??? Let’s not go there.
Again, I have no apologies for what Israel needs to do to survive including but not limited to “terrorism“. We’ll continue doing what it takes to stay alive and manipulation of others is the name of the game. Call it arrogance on my part, I really don’t give a damn what you label me. But I ask you all; who’s really to be blamed, the manipulator or the manipulatees? You’ll be the judge of that.
"If you wish to be the judge, start your own blog. Call it ‘Jews against Jewey Jews.’"
Why? Unless you consider yourself a "Jewey Jew!!!???
I think we've finaly got Trollstein's real identity LMAO.
The way things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised of the dumb decision.
“Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread skepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties.”
That wouldn’t surprise me either. Our administration has been completely blind to savvy military and economical advises.
“Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready…”
Well, we all know what that means…
“Nor is it certain that Bush’s amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility.”
Folks, here we are again finding ourselves in a position for sending our own troops to “save” an insignificant so called ally called Israel.
“It’s really all down to the Israelis,” the Pentagon official added. “This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided.”
At least our military got this one straight.
“The official added that Israel had not so far presented Bush with a convincing military proposal. “If there is no solid plan, the amber will never turn to green. The uniform people are opposed to the attack plans, mainly because they think it will endanger our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan”
Israel doesn’t need to present our President with convincing military proposal. It already has our charming businessman, our Vice President, to do it for them. Even though I know well that my wish would probably realized, but I cannot but hope that a “sort of” a mutiny from our armed forces be engaged. It happened many times before under Adm. William Fallon, it could happen again.
"NO USA LIVES HAVE EVER BEEN LOST OR RISKED DUE TO THE USA’s support for the Jewish National Homeland."
'Friendly fire' and accidental casualties aside--because these would have occurred whether the USA supported Israel or not.
I was mainly referring to the fact that the USA has gone into combat for many, many other nation's security and stayed on military alert in protection of many others--while the USA has never actually sent troops into combat or on alert to protect the Israelis. Your examples do not contradict my assertion. Your other statements are pure blather. I am answering literally dozens of adversarial comments and questions and few if anyone is answering my questions or addressing my points. I am not compelled by any law to address every single statement made by each and every blog-post. Covering most of the cogent ones does not equate to "definitely intentionally avoid every important and/or factual point everyone makes in here.". Some people are more deserving then others and you are low down on that list. You are one of those guys who throws rocks from behind a crowd. A carp in the center of the 'school'. I don't owe you any further explanation and I reject your judgment: "You’re doing nothing but hurt us here."
This is a Free Speech Zone and I shall post as I please without help or permission from you coppo.
Voices that had been silent for years as Iraq's brutal dictator Saddam Hussein courted the feckless nations of the West in his quest for nuclear bombs were suddenly raised in a chorus of indignation. "We don't think [Israel's] action serves the cause of peace in the area," sniffed French Foreign Minister Claude Cheysson, whose country had supplied the ill-fated reactor.
"Provocative, ill-timed and internationally illegal," cried US Senator Mark Hatfield.
"Armed attack in such circumstances cannot be justified; it represents a grave breach of international law," scolded the usually sensible British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.
The New York Times' editorial board was beside itself, too: "Israel's sneak attack... was an act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression."
Liberal columnist Anthony Lewis proclaimed that the raid "did severe damage to the hope in which Israel's true security must lie: the hope of realistic relations with all its neighbors."
Time magazine informed its readers that Israel had "vastly compounded the difficulties of procuring a peaceful settlement of the confrontations in the Middle East."
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, it should be noted, were in full sympathy with Iraq and helped push through a United Nations resolution condemning the attack on their good neighbor, Saddam Hussein.
SOMEONE UNFAMILIAR with the machinations of international relations would be forgiven for wondering about all the uproar. Wasn't the act of preventing a ruthless tyrant from developing a nuclear arsenal a good thing? Hadn't Saddam Hussein earned his nickname, "The Butcher of Baghdad?" Wasn't he, at the very moment of the Israeli attack, almost a year into his bloody invasion of Iran?
To better understand the world's strange reaction to a suddenly nuclear-less Saddam Hussein, one must look beyond the conventional hypocrisy and self-interest of the nations. Much of the response was disingenuous -- many nations privately expressed satisfaction with the Israeli raid -- and countries like France and Italy justified their involvement with Iraq's nuclear program in terms of economics. (Iraq has oil. Lots of it.)
But how to explain the outcry raised by those countries with no stake in Iraq's nuclear development, countries located well beyond the bounds of conventional Middle East double-talk? And what accounted for the negative reactions on the part of individuals and organizations normally given to shrill denunciations of nuclear proliferation? The answer, it should be fairly obvious, lies with the source of the attack on the reactor: Israel. More specifically, the Israel of Menachem Begin. . . . . "
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/010198/saddam1.html
On Aug. 2, 1990, Saddam & co., launched a full scale invasion into Kuwait. There is little doubt that if successful, Saudi Arabia would have been next. Armed with nuclear weapons, Mr. Saddam would have been playing with a different and far stronger hand of cards.
I therefore submit that while the USA may have saved Israel, particularly during the Nixon administration, Israel has repaid the USA and put a downpayment on the world.
Now Israel faces a similar decision. And the outside world is reacting in a similar way that they did in 1981.
BTW: The difference between Jewish decision-making thought patters and non-Jewish decision making thought patterns:
Hebrews will data-base as much factual information as they can and also consider public opinion as one element of their equation.
Non-Jews too often will use public opinion AS their data-base and the factual data as a secondary element.
Ahmadinejad is certainly crazy, but your ASSupmtion that all Iranians are crazy is hyppocritical considering all of Israel's national and foreign policies of apartheid and violent militantism inside and outside their illegal borders.
Let's not forget how Israel got their first nuclear weapons. It wasn't from France. It was from the US to counter the Soviet Iron Curtain that was beginning to expand even larger. When the cold war was over the US wanted its nukes back and Israel said, "What Nukes?".
And although Arafat was a petty stupid criminal, he did not invent modern terrorism. Israeli Jews invented modern terrorism. July 22 1946 the Irgun bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.
You're a douche Trollstain. Since Sharon took office and dies, Israeli sympathizers simply don't hold their weight anymore. Like I said, stop taking your marchinge order from the Likud Party in Tel Aviv.
Sarkozy accused of working for Israeli intelligence
"JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.
When David Jeselsohn bought an ancient tablet, above, he was unaware of its significance.
If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/w orld/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The above wire-report is actually not any significant revelation to those who study the history of the Essene Monastery ("Qumranian Community"). What it does provide is previously missing proof that the Early Christians, including Jesus were NOT a new religion. It provides a very important nexus between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Church. As such, the Dead Sea Scrolls must now be viewed in a different light.
"The Kingdom of God"
Has a specific meaning to the modern church but it also had a specific, definitive meaning to the ancient Jews. With this new revelation, it must be concluded that the meaning is one in the same and that the earlier (Jewish) meaning is the accurate one, since that was the one being quoted from the actual mouths of Jesus, John (the Baptizer) and James, (the brother of Jesus).
The Essenes were total pacifists. I mean TOTAL. Not only would they not own a knife (for any reason), touching one was considered a grave breach of communal discipline.
So, given this fact, how did Jesus intend to vanquish the Roman armies and not only restore justice to ancient Israel (Judea) but to the entire world? Of course, God was to appear and "the Kingdom of God" was a state in which God's appointed (Jesus) had no need for weaponry of any kind--since all would willingly bow down to the will of God, (once he appeared before humanity). For this to occur, (according to Essene prophecy), the Messiah would first be killed and reappear (alive) exactly, precisely three days later. Except here's where the story gets tricky: The Messiah was supposed to stay around and along with God, right the defects of the entire world. No weapons needed. Of course, whether one believes that Jesus rose from the dead, there is no debate that he did not stay around---took one look at humanity and headed back to forever, pending his return AGAIN---at some future moment, only this next time the point in which "the Kingdom of God" was to occur was a secret. When he and God got 'good and ready'.
The King David Hotel was a military target and was therefore NOT defined as an act of 'terrorism' under accepted USA standards.
wikipedia:
This act of terrorism resulted in the death of 91 people. An additional 45 people were injured. The bombing of the hotel produced the largest death toll of any single act of terrorism in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Next...
Allen McG: Interesting post there. May I ask where you've gotten the quotes from the Senior Pentagon Official? Does your source state the name of that Official?
I've read in Haaretz (Hebrew Edition) similar reports but your posting had little more details.
Thanks.
A very good idea NewPolonia. That would save everyone some valuable time.
Shalom
JZaid:
Feel free to ignore me. I could not be happier with that idea. There are PLENTY of other bloggers to go around and I assure you that your opinions are of limited moment in the blogisphere.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne ws/world/middle_east/article4322508.ece
Another good article in this morning's Haaretz on French Pres. Sakozy and Syrian Pres. Assad. It's very interesting. It shows how Washington can only watch, while incapable of doing a thing about the destruction of its ineffective so called “Syrian sanctions”.
Things are indeed changing on the ground in the Middle East and fast.
how convenient, you choose to follow a new definition of terrorism, but the even occurred 60 years ago. Worldwide the concensus is that the irgun were the inventors of modern terrorism. They killed not only british soldiers, but arabs, and jews inside that hotel. Let's also not forget the massacre the jews inflicted on civilian palestinians when the british decided to take down their flag from that hotel.
The Irgun were terrorists. they killed innocent people not just british soldiers. American who go to israel to join their military have the exact same motives as jihadis who travel from US, Canada and Europe to fight in Kososvo, Iraq and Afghanistan.
A Zionist to me is not defined by its intentions and the right or wrong of that intention or the legitimacy of its dreams/aspirations but by what they have done in the last 60 years regarding those dreams.
So a Zionist to me is a criminal and all those Jews that either supported them then or are supporting them now are criminals, pathological liars, and a pathetic racist clan of xenophobic idiots. Stretching all the way to their delusional granddaddy Abraham you know the one that wanted to kill his own son because guess what?? God you know the one that promised them the land had told him so.
My goodness these Semitic races have defiantly some real issues.
Meddle East was never as calm as when Iran was in charge
Makes me want to dream of a New Persapolice. lol
And about your 20 page self deluding BS
Here is the Iranian prospective
We know you have it we know America gave it to you and o