Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
Iran Watch, part 6.
Tags: Iran Watch media Israel Nuclear Iran
What on earth's happened to this thread in the last 24 hours? There's something to be said for restraint regarding volume, I feel.
Anyway, I've just seen on AP that Israeli officials now agree with the US assessment that Tehran has not yet decided on the actual construction of a nuclear bomb: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74157.html
Hopefully we can look forward to a general defusing of the situation, although I'm not holding my breath given the severity of the sanctions.
I would like to say, once and for all, that I am NOT in favor of a strike against Iran at this point. Let Iran unequivocally and verifiably abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and there will not be a reason for a strike. Israel does not want to strike Iran if the conflict is settled otherwise, it knows the high cost of such a strike.
"Some of the trash written on this comments page by those who claim to suport Israel is right down there in the gutter."
i agree. to be fair though, no-one takes those people all that seriously. it's more of an annoyance than anything more.
Who speaks for America's Jews? J Street lobby group works to loosen big beasts' grip on Congress
Boost for J Street as Obama adviser attends conference, but Israeli ambassador will be staying away
But the organisation opens its first national conference in Washington tomorrow with a stamp of legitimacy from a White House that is clearly sympathetic to its view. General James Jones, Barack Obama's national security adviser and one of his point men on Israel, is to make a keynote speech. About 140 members of Congress have pledged their support, even after others backed away, and former Israeli cabinet ministers and generals will be in attendance.
But perhaps the best measure of its impact is the fury that has greeted the organisation's rise.
Olijaan, I will try to find as complete a quote as possible, but let me just say that it is Iranian commentators themselves that took Rafsanjani to task for this remark, because even they felt that he went too far. So, I am not the only one who interprets it this way.
For anybody who knows anything about the Holocaust, it is clear that to compare Zionists not to anybody else but to Brown Sirts, is a vile anti-Semitic insult.
The trouble with much of the reporting in the mainstream UK media, apart from a handful of journalists) is sloppy, ill informed and shows no understanding of the Arab/Muslim world. We have been told to hold journalists such as John Simpson, Jim Muir, Mark Urban et al of similar ilk worthy of high regard and yet to me they come across as colonial, pompous, high minded twats. I put John Rentoul in this category. I must add Matthew Parry to this category. John Rentoul got lucky in hanging onto the coat tails of Blair. His works are nothing extraordinary and I doubt any readers to his columns would remember the next day what he said the previous day. Considering he claims to be a Blair expert his knowledge of Iran and the Middle East shows breaktaking ignorance. The scary thing here is that this ignorance is typical of the our political masters who make ill informed decisions to go to war.
The Palestinian Arabs should have accepted the UN partition plan of 1947. Even Abbas said so in November 2011. See this from the Leftwing Haaretz newspaper, Carlos Stanger's piece of November 2nd, 2011:
'In his interview with Henrique Cymerman, which aired a few days ago on Israel’s Channel 2, Abbas took a second step of possibly even greater importance. He explicitly said that the Arab world and the Palestinians made a crucial error by rejecting the UN partition plan in 1947.'
'Abbas’ admission that the Palestinian people’s fate could have been dramatically different if they had made wiser decisions is crucially important, because the Palestinian denial of responsibility for their own fate has led them to a state of freeze. Instead of moving toward compromise with Israel, too many Palestinians have waited for too many years for a reversal of history. They forget that they joined an all out war against Israel in 1948 and that they need to accept the consequences of their decision.
The Middle Eastern conflict has been described masterfully in Benny Morris’ Righteous Victims, and the book’s title sums up one of the conflict’s essential aspects. Both sides insist that they are righteous. Both sides insist that they are victims forced into their deeds by the other side’s inhumanity, cruelty and intransigence. '
To Mariella etc.: I rest my case.
To Julia and Alexander: We've won the debate.
"The Jewish people are superior to all other peoples and this is why God called them the chosen people."
two big claims Fredddie, care to provide your evidence this is true? how do you measure superiority, and, last time i looked there were several gods, all saying all sorts of things.
CRITICISM OF ISRAEL
IS NOT "ANTI-SEMITISM"
While the media is proclaiming the recently concluded European Conference a reaffirmation of the fight against anti-Semitism, the reality is that Israel has been dealt a stunning political setback.
Long used to equating criticism of Israel as an expression of hate against the Jewish people, Israeli supporters attending the conference (when they were not vandalizing artwork) tried repeatedly to define criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism, and were rebuffed at every turn. Even Colin Powell, Secretary of State to the one nation always willing to protect Israel at the United Nations, delinked criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism. In the end, even the ADL's Abe Foxman had to grin and try to put the best face on it. But Israel has lost one of its oldest and most effective means to deflect criticism of its actions.
Simply put, it is NOT anti-Semitism to criticize Israelis for what they DO.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to report on Israeli spies in this country taping into police phone systems and warning Israeli drug dealers of investigations that threaten them.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to point out that Israel has defied more UN Resolutions that Iraq.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to mention that Israel is the only nation in the Middle East that actually HAS weapons of mass destruction.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to remind people that Ariel Sharon has been charged with war crimes.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to oppose the continuing sending of US tax dollars to Israel (totally four times the cost of the entire Apollo Moon Program) during times of great economy hardship in this country.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to express concern over the vast sums of money that pro-Israel lobbyists are pouring into Congressional coffers.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to be concerned about reports that the Mossad has suceeded in tapping even the White House phone system.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to point out that many of these supposed "hate crimes" Israel loves to hide behind are hoaxes.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to want the US Government to be more concerned with the American people than with Israelis.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to reject politicians who openly display their loyalty to a foreign power.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to be angered by Philip Zelikow's admission that the war in Iraq was not fought to protect the US, but to protect Israel.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to tell Israel's supporters that hiding their crimes behind the entire Jewish people by screaming "anti-Semite" at every criticism is a really good way to set those same people up as targets!
Make no mistake, Israel has been dealt a serious blow by the conference in Europe. While there is no question that Israel's supporters will go on harassing and spearing those who dare criticise the policies of Ariel Sharon, the tar won't stick. It's official. Criticism of Israel is NOT anti-Semitism.
My lawyer will be instituting legal proceedings against all search engines, ISPs, and content filtering companies which have labeled this site as "anti-Semitic".
I came across this piece on Gilad Atzmom. Kevin Barrett: Why Hate Gilad Atzmon?
Gilad Atzmon is one of the sweetest, funniest, most charming and likable people I’ve ever met. He’s also one of the world’s best saxaphone players. Gilad’s music is not only gorgeous, but uncommonly accessible for music in its class. His writing, which includes two novels, a nonfiction book, and countless essays, is grounded in the highest humanistic ideals, invigorating laughter, and an irrepressible joie de vivre. In short, Gilad is outrageously easy to like.
So why is he hated so much?
Why are his appearances protested by angry picketers? Why is the most vicious and mendacious kind of calumny being hurled at him in such quantities? Why is there an organized effort to make this gentle, loving free spirit out to be some kind of deranged Nazi? His detractors say his writing invites it. But they’re wrong. The proof is that the anti-Atzmon brigade has to resort to lies (or to be charitable, gratuitous distortions) to make him look bad.There must be some deeper reason why they hate him. Maybe it’s because he’s such a powerful symbol of – and argument for – the end of Zionism. Gilad Atzmon grew up in Israel in a Jewish family that included Holocaust survivors. He fell in love with jazz as a teenager, so when it came time to serve in the IDF he joined a military band. During his IDF service, Gilad awakened to the horrors of Zionism and its brutality toward Palestinians. Shortly after leaving the IDF, he also left Israel and never returned. Now London-based, Gilad Atzmon is considered one of Europe’s top jazz musicians – and, increasingly, its leading ex-Israeli anti-Zionist voice. He has published two acclaimed novels, and his new book The Wandering Who? has endured vicious attacks, smear campaigns, and boycotts by such Zionists as Alan Dershowitz, and is becoming a worldwide bestseller.
In all of this, Gilad Atzmon is quite the anti-Zionist success story. His creative output, both musical and verbal, challenges arbitrary boundaries and celebrates freedom. (Jazz, the greatest art form America ever produced, is at its root a celebration of musical freedom by once-enslaved African-Americans.) Today, more and more Israelis are lining up to get second passports and asking themselves, “Is there life after Zionism?” Gilad Atzmon offers a perfect example, with plenty of supporting arguments, of how ex-Zionist Israelis can liberate themselves from the shackles of a brutal, abusive, and ultimately doomed ideology and identity. So that’s why they hate him. He’s the walking, talking, saxaphone-blowing embodiment of the joy of life after Zionism. You see, most of the people who hate Gilad are radical Zionists; all (including the handful of “pro-Palestine” phonies) are prisoners of Zionist ideology. THEY HAVE BEEN TRAINED TO HEAP MOUNTAINS OF HATE ON ANYONE WHO CROSSES THE ONE MEANINGFUL LINE in the whole Israel-Palestine debate: The line that separates those who support or accept the existence of a “Jewish state” in Palestine from those of us who do not.As Norman Finkelstein inadvertently pointed out, Israel – despite its horrendous human rights record – is not going to be changed by people focusing on ephemeral abuses of human rights. The Zionists (like Finkelstein) will simply respond, “There are, and have been, human rights abuses elsewhere that are just as bad; so anybody who focuses on Israeli human rights violations must be an anti-Semite.” (Most murderers don’t get off by pleading to the judge that someone else committed an equally bad murder; but we’ll let that slide.)
Chris Hedges might respond to Finklestein that nowhere else do army snipers lure children into range of their guns, then gut-shoot them for sport; and British Medical Journal might add that the more than 600 children sport-shot during the interval they examined, who were essentially hunted and killed for fun by IDF soldiers as a de facto national policy, died from a specific and horrific type of human rights abuse that has never been seen anywhere else. But these events will be buried by the Zionist-dominated media; and no matter how horrific the abuses, there will always be different sufficiently revolting examples of inhumanity from other times and places to relativize the Israeli atrocities.
There is only one argument the Zionists cannot possibly win: The argument over whether there should be a “Jewish state” in Palestine in the first place. Defenders of this bizarre notion must argue that it is perfectly fine for a religious-ethnic group to invade and occupy another group’s land, halfway across the world, on the basis of the aggressor group’s ancient mythology. And that it is perfectly fine for the aggressor group to dispossess and destroy the people living on that land, and to create an ethnic-specific apartheid system under which the invaders are first class citizens, while the victims are either second-class citizens or permanently exiled from their homeland. To defend Zionism, you would also have to grant American Celts (like me) the right to invade, occupy, and erect a “Celtic state” in the Baltic or Western France or wherever our mythology says we originated. You would have to allow Andalusian Muslims (another ethnic-religious category I identify with) to invade, occupy, and ethnically-cleanse Spain. You would have to allow Protestants, whose mythology tells them that they are the true Christians, to invade and occupy the Vatican – and Palestine, for that matter. You would have to allow virtually all of the 3,000 ethnic groups on earth to invade, occupy, and ethnically cleanse someplace halfway across the world that they can claim is their “ancient homeland.” Obviously, any and all “invade-and-occupy-our-mythological-ancient-homeland” projects are equally indefensible and equally insane.Zionism is genocidal insanity. It must be ended.
No more Jewish state in Occupied Palestine. This is the bottom line. This is the line that all the Zionists, from right-wingers like Netanyahu to left-wingers like Chomsky and Finklestein and Amy Goodman and Matt Rothschild and Michael Lerner and Rob Kall and Chip Berlet and all of the hundreds of other Zionist gatekeepers that dominate the “alternative” as well as mainstream media DO NOT WANT YOU TO CROSS. These are the Police Lines that the Zionist thought police have erected, and are working overtime to maintain. Because if you ask that one little simple question – “is the Zionist project, and the Israeli ‘nation,’ legitimate in the first place?” the whole thing crumbles to dust and ashes. That’s the real reason the Zionists want to nuke Iran. The Iranian government is the only government in the Middle East to have, as its official policy, exactly the same position as the vast majority of the people of the Middle East: The Zionist entity in Occupied Palestine is not, and never will be, legitimate. And that’s why the Zionists are getting more and more hysterical in their denunciations of “delegitimizers.” (How can you delegitimize something that was never legitimate in the first place?) And that’s why they’re hate-swarming all over Jenny Tonge, who correctly pointed out that Israel won’t last forever.
And that’s why they hate Gilad Atzmon. Not only is Gilad forthrightly anti-Zionist, thereby showing the “peacenik Zionist” phonies up for what they are; but he is also fearless in his analysis of the way Jewish identity politics fosters the delusion that Jews are an “exceptional people” who should be allowed to do things to Palestine that no other ethnic/religious group would ever be allowed to do to its mythological ancient homeland across the seas. Worse: The guy expressing these taboo but obviously-correct views, and setting such a beautiful example as an ex-Israeli anti-Zionist, is an energetic and fabulously talented Renaissance man – a superb musician and writer and mesmerizing public speaker. This must gall the Zionists to no end.
No wonder they hate Gilad Atzmon.
Maybe someday, when they get tired of hating, they’ll drop their Zionism (itself an ideology of hatred, starting with self-hatred) and embrace the love, joy and liberation Gilad embodies so beautifully.
I agree that the holocaust was a terrible tragedy but I do not feel that the Jews should hijack the moral high ground. What happened to my nation, the black race during the slavery period brought unimanageable suffering to the black community. WHole communities in Africa were devastated. It has been estimated that some 40 to 100 million blacks were affected. The word '''Maafa''' (also known as the African Holocaust) is derived from a Kiswahili word meaning disaster, terrible occurrence or great tragedy. On a scale of suffering, I would say that slavery was a far greater evil than Nazism.
J Street lies and cover-ups: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/j-street-down-the-ra...
it seems quite elementary that you have to provide inconclusive proof and argument for doing what you and Israel, which seems your only concern, want to do.
And it seems elementery to me also that those who wish to avoid a major war, death and distruction, dont need to make a case for non action.
the burden of proof is on you.
To make a decision based on the arguments you and Netanyahu pose, is sheer lunacy and warmongering.
Israel will attack Iran because it can and it knows no one can do anything about it. Its just waiting for the US to adjust itself domestically to its policy.
200 years from now, hostorians will write about the greatest irony of the 20th and 21st century was how the victims of national socialism went on to imprint their own history of national socialim with its devastating consequence.
war, war war. This is israels legacy.
Israel is crying for war
Thttp://lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff382.htmlhe American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is an anti-Iran influence on U.S. foreign policy that cannot be ignored.
In its words, AIPAC wants to "prevent Iranian nuclear weapons capability". Yet Israel has that capability and far beyond. Israel has actual nuclear weapons.
Note the following four contrasts between Israel and Iran:
(1) Israel has not entered into the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Iran has been a signatory to the NPT since 1968.
(2) The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) does not inspect Israel for nuclear-related activities. It regularly inspects Iran.
(3) Israel is thought, not only to have the capability of building nuclear weapons, but to have an arsenal of nuclear bombs. Iran has no nuclear weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Iran does not.
(4) Israel threatens to attack Iran preemptively. Iran does not threaten to initiate an attack on Israel. It threatens to respond with force only if it is first attacked by Israel.
AIPAC’s "prevention" position does not respect Iran’s rights. AIPAC does not contest Israel’s nuclear weapons of mass destruction, but it wants to violate Iran’s right even to have the knowledge that it takes to build a nuclear weapon.
Has Iran given up rights by some sort of recognizable aggressive behavior with respect to Israel, such that Israel may attack Iran and claim self-defense? Not at all. Iran has not attacked Israel in any of the wars that Israel has fought since it became a state.
The closest one can come to such an attribution of Iranian aggression occurred in 2006. On the occasion of the July war in 2006 or the second Lebanon War, Foreign Ministry Deputy Director-General for Public Affairs Ambassador Gideon Meir said that Hizbullah was a party to the Government of Lebanon. He also said that it had "clear Syrian sponsorship". He also said that Iran "provides funding, weapons and directives" for Hizbullah and "For all practical purposes, Hizbullah is merely an arm of the Teheran Jihadist regime."
However, Israel didn’t make an official or public case against Iran. It didn’t argue that Iran had intended or instructed the war to take place, and it didn’t declare war on Iran. It is not even clear that Hizbullah had the intent of starting a war at that time since there had been problems along the border for some time before the war began.
The word "capability" in AIPAC’s objective is an extremely strong word. It is a much stronger limitation or restriction than to prevent development, production or acquisition. It’s one thing to say someone should not possess or have a gun in hand. It’s far more restrictive to say that someone should not have whatever it takes to make a gun if he wanted one.
AIPAC’s position on Iran and nuclear weapons is extreme.
With all due respect, Andrew, one may agree or disagree with JJ's views, but he has never used the kind of abusive language that the ones he has criticized have resorted to.
The professional antisemites out in force. The call went out to the paymasters, the purse strings were loosened and voila the thread has been hijacked by the Jew haters including the usual suspects, those with Jewish sounding monikers.
We've had Sarah, then Rachel, wait for Leah...
On the Latvian SS thread, Arminius is defending the murderers of Jews.
Wonder what Mehdi Hasan thinks of all this...
Your capacity for self deulsion knows no bounds. Trapped in a ancient time warp, you repeat time and time again the same old rhetoric about ancient Jewish entitlement to the land of Israel. The trouble is that whereas in the US mainstream media the average American is fed on a diet of Zionist propaganda, that level of monopoly has thankfully not extended to the UK. As pointed out in the article by Kevin Barrett you along with Julia and the other have been:
TRAINED TO HEAP MOUNTAINS OF HATE ON ANYONE WHO DARES TO CROSS THE LINE OF DE-LEGITIMIZING ISRAEL.
The world has moved on my friend, but you are still trapped in the past.
We hear in the news on a regular basis that Iran is blocking inpsection of its nuclear sites. What I do not understand is why Israel which has nuclear weapons does also not permit the Atomic Agency to inspect its nuclear weapons. Israel can only gain by having its sites monitored by annual or permanent inspections. It is only fair to monitor both sides.
Furedi's article that I have adduced explains clearly that anti-Israelism is not automatically anti-Semtisim, and I stated the same. However, it shows a deep interconnection between these notions. It is also interesting that the other side claims allegiance to the freedom of speech and yet threatens with institution of legal proceedings for speech
@Olijaan "Hopefully we can look forward to a general defusing of the situation"
Rabid Israel-haters say Gilad Atzmon is too Zionist for them
A group of people whose single-minded aim is to take away the Jewish right of self-determination has decided that Gilad Atzmon's nutty anti-semitic rantings is too crazy - even for them.
From the "US Palestinian Community Network," quoted in Electronic Intifada:
I don't know if it is worth fisking the absolute stupidity and purposeful lies seen here - for example, the ridiculous idea that Zionism is colonialism, or the myth that Palestinian Arab nationalism would accept Jews as equals, or even the sheer hypocrisy of stating that "Palestinians," who have enjoyed peoplehood for a few decades at most, have a greater claim for self-determination than the 3000 year old Jewish nation (which these signatories deny even exists.)
The people who signed this are attempting to put on a "moderate" facade on their sheer hate by distancing themselves from a Holocaust denier and anti-semite, but their excuses are hardly more moral than Atzmon's sickening rhetoric. It is equally anti-semitic to deny Jewish peoplehood and Jewish self-determination.
And who signed it? A score of Arab academics and thinkers, whose signatures to this letter show that there is no relationship between being an intellectual and being a moral human being. They include Ali Abunimah, Joseph Massad, Omar Barghouti and a host of prominent Palestinian Arab professors and activists who cloak their hate in big words and lofty-sounding concepts - that only apply to their own people.
Unlike Iran, Israel does not present a danger to the world. Quite the contrary.
In all fairness, Jankaas, I think that Freddie was being ironic, it was said tongue-in-cheek. He can confirm or deny m y interpretation.
Iran is going to be in such dire straits soon, where did they get the money to pay these people? Seems that we need tougher sanctions.
The issue is America is saying it will not allow Iran to have a bomb and it is saying it believes Iran is not activly trying to make a bomb and while it did some research in the 1990's it stopped in 2003.
Israel is saying it does not want Iran to get to the point of development were Iran could after making a decision could make a bomb in a relatively short period. That is they want the rest of the world to stop Iran getting to the point Japan, or Brazil and several West European countries are at.
The problem is most of the UK media are too stupid or lazy to understand the discussion. IAEA allows Iran and other countries to enrich Uranium and Iran is not going to stop because the US is inventing new rules which are specially for Iran because it does not like the regime.
There is a potential Resoloution whereby Iran agrees to sign additional safeguards agreement with the IAEA (which some countries have signed but many have not) in return for removal of sanctions. The problem is most of the sanctions are US unilateral sanctions which demand do all sorts of things unrelated to the nuclear issue, free elections, release all political prisoners all but announce the end of the regime.
If you want to negotiate you have to be prepared to change on both sides.
I am wondering what percentage of the Jewish community support Israel. Or is it a case of those who shout the loudest. I wonder too if they have divided loyalties. I sure hope as not. My first loyalty is to the US not to Africa.
@barry:'My lawyer will be instituting legal proceedings against all search engines, ISPs, and content filtering companies which have labeled this site as "anti-Semitic".'
Ha ha ha! Keep going barry.
You are a patronising snob, weaving your web of crap DO you think you are bette then me. Dicxhexx
How many wars has Israel been involved in since 1948 and with whom.
your assertion of being of the 'Jewish faith' is impossible to prove as your other claims re your connection with Israel. WHo the Fxxk is JJ that I need to prove my Jewish credentials. The truth is Jankaas is that these so called supporters of Israel on this page are giving Israel a bad name. Look at some of the cranks coming out of the woodwork and the garbage they are coming out with. They have hijacked the debate.
Battle for American Jews
@Ronaldo19:11 - 'I agree that the holocaust was a terrible tragedy but I do not feel that the Jews should hijack the moral high ground.'
Yes, try telling that to the Jews who were Martin Luther King's supporters and some of them lost their lives during his campaign.
I don't understand this comment at all. This a thread discussing Iran and nuclear weapons. Care to elaborate on 'hijacking the moral high ground'? Many of your Arab friends hate black people with a vengeance.
Unless of course you are from the Nation of Islam movement in theUS.
I am deadly serious about what I have said and I do not think I am alone in holding this view.
Am i missing something here. I believe Netenyahu has specifically siad that he does not believe that Iran has nuclear weapons and that the purpose of the strike will be pre-emptive. AT his recent meeting in Washington he said the following@
My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.. When I say all options are at the table.
Israel has a right to be mad and bad as a dog. That is the only way that the Arabs can know their place. Israel can wipe out all those Arab countries in a second. Who cares if other people say Israel is a troublemaker who is only looking for war. It is true but who cares; we got the bullets, we got the brains, we got the equipment.
I say let's get the Iran business done. After that, there are plenty other Arab states to fight with.
Any news on the Arab League's attempts to get Assad to see sense?
Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that Iran advised Assad to attack the West and Israel as a way to deflect attention from the Baathist massacres.
The wonderful Iranian theocratic regime of tyrants advises the tyrant Assad.
Meir Dagan, former head of Mossad is not someone whose views can be ignored. And if he says that attacking Iran now is madness then Israel should listen. But he'd better be right because the world is not safe with the Ayatollahs and their nuclear toys.
For those calling for Iran to abandon it nuclear programme, will the same call be made to Israel who does have nuclear weapons.
Hey Professor, didn’t anyone ever tell you in school to raise your hand before speaking?
Hadar Susskind, J Street’s policy director, was being interviewed at the gathering by a Haaretz reporter when, according to the reporter, none other than Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz “broke in to the conversation with a verbal onslaught against the group.”
Thus reports Tablet Magazine on the latest update in Dershowitz’s thrilling fight against the evil, anti-Israel J Street.
Arguing that J Street “shouldn’t call themselves pro-Israel,” he accused them of prioritizing certain policy positions over others to cast Israel in a negative light. Noting that he, like J Street, opposes settlements, he nonetheless maintained, “But I spend 80 percent of my time supporting Israel.”
Yeah, Dershy! Hit those anti-Israel punks right where it hurts! Seriously, though, this is just pathetic. Compare this kind of angry and reflexive rant to Susskind’s measured and reasonable response:
In response, Susskind told the reporter: “We have disagreements with AIPAC that I don’t want to minimize. But we are all on the same side.”
It should be totally obvious who’s reasonable here and who’s not.
The desparation of the Israeli lobby knows no bounds. Devoid of a cogent ideology, Israel has to continually invent enemies. The PLO, HAMAS, Finklestein, CHomsky, Atzmom etc etc.
If Israel is such a fabulous place to live, one has to ask why do so many Israelis have dual citizenship. Even Gilad Shalit has French citizenship. WHY? Further why are so many Israelis desparate to leave Israel.
@Christian - When the lion shall lie down with the lamb.
"First, Rentoul wants to misquote people and then pretend he didn't and/or pretend it doesn't matter"
Israel should be "wiped from the map" versus "wiped from the pages of history". I don't think it matters either. This is silly stuff.
What does it even mean for a country to be wiped off the map? The Soviet Union was wiped off the map in 1991.
This is about whether or not you believe there should be a Jewish state. If you want a "one state solution", then you want an end to Israel as a Jewish state. I don't see that it matters whether you call this being wiped from the map or the pages of history or anything else. There is also no way this could happen without violence.
Why should anyone be attached to the idea of a Jewish state? Why might Israelis be justified in feeling threatened by this rhetoric?
Could anything in Jewish history explain why this is something to get upset about?
"Iran has not attacked Israel in any of the wars that Israel has fought since it became a state"> The author has forgotten to consider that during the vast majority of the wars in question Iran was ruled by the Shah, who was not antagonistic to Israel like her current rulers. To treat the pre-Islamic Republic Iran as analogous to the present regime is ridiculous in the extreme. Why don't we bring the Sassanid dynasty as well?
Not content with claiming intellectual superiority on the question of Israel, you are now shocking us with your insightful gems about Syria. It is clear from your comments about Syria that you are clueless.
You don't have the intellectual armoury to defend Israel. I am waiting with baited breath to hear your next masterpiece.!!!! LOL. OMG. SHock, Horror!!! I really am Mehdi, Blah, Blah, Blah!!!! The suspense is killing me.
Well said, Agoodword
Israel's legacy is WAR, WAR and more WAR. This is why the current Iran/Israel nuclear debate is linked to the question of Palestine. The Israelis need war after war in order to justify its existence. The Iran complex/enemy is a continuation of their war legacy mentality.
@Karatekid - satire not your strongest suit in your empty wardrobe, right?
I think you are still being tongue-in-cheek even in denying that you are tongue-in-cheek.
I don't speak on behalf of any body, Nation of Islam or any other.
All I know is that on a scale of human suffering, we blacks suffered the most. It annoys me that the Jewish community always wants to claim that they have suffered the most. I am not talking about Arabs, I am talking about the fact that the black holocaut caused more suffering to black people than did the Jewish holocaust. If you take it down to numbers, we are talking about 40-100 million blacks. That is a hell of a lot of people.
Butt out Alexander. Don't try to hijack what I say. You do you thing and I'll do mine
Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.