Comments on: Netanyahu at AIPAC targets Iran, ignores other regional issues

By: skeptical

skeptical — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:58:23 +0000

Perhaps the folks who will be laughing when Israel attacks Iran are the Arab states who also do NOT like Iran… history runs long and deep in this part of the world. They will let USA and Israel do their “dirty work”: for them.

By: Piotr Berman

Piotr Berman — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:45:11 +0000

It may be of interest to Israelis that apart from Israel, there exists at least two states of holocaust survivors. Armenia follows Israeli example, after a fashion. Proportionally, they occupy less territory, and all Azeris were somehow persuaded to move out, the country is basically an armed camp. Azeris will now get a big help from Israel, but Armenians have high ground and determination.

A more curious case is that of Paraguay. Proportionally, Paraguayans lost more people than Jews or Armenian in a terrible war with Triple Aliance. (Hint to Israel: avoid a war with an alliance that contains two large countries, like Brasil, Turkey, Egypt and Iran.) How does Paraguay survive now? In the most undignified manner possible: it does not attack neighbors anymore. But it works.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:00:34 +0000

If there is one lesson for any independent minded Middle Eastern nation from the US invasion of Iraq it’s that the best way to prevent the same happening to them is a nuclear bomb. Bush never bombed North Korea. But US imperialism and its proxy Israel must have a compliant and disarmed Iran, they cannot allow it to build the bomb. It’s not about Iran attacking Israel, its the opposite. Nuclear weapons would all but eliminate the likelihood of Israel or the US invading Iran or conducting surgical strikes against selected targets.

By: John Yorke

John Yorke — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:40:29 +0000

Is it a question of weeks, months or years before economic and diplomatic pressures begin to tell on Iran’s alleged resolve to join the nuclear club?
Or will factors other than these makes their presence known well before then, ones that might give rise to much more ‘direct’ methods of dissuasion?

The problem is that no one knows for sure where exactly matters stand at the moment. How far along are Iranian scientists in building, testing and deploying their undeclared weapons of mass destruction? Who is to be believed, what assessment looks the most plausible, will there still be time to counter such supposed developments and how might this best be done?

There is just too much uncertainty surrounding the issue for any definitive answer to be given. And it is this very uncertainty that clouds the nature of whatever response should be forthcoming.
Indeed, the whole picture has, right from the very start, been that of rumour, speculation and doubt. These feelings are an integral part of the normal human reaction whenever circumstances such as those long prevalent in the Middle East are encountered. The persistence of these and so many other fears are the real reason why no progress of any sort has been made in every decade past. There is no bypassing of what has happened, no reconciliation to be made because the situation renders any such closure impossible.

It seems that, once again, we must all await the future with the same trepidation that has visited us on other such occasions. The cycle continues, the die is cast and not even the greatest of us commands the power to have it otherwise.

Or do we?

Http://yorketowers.blogspot.com

By: ToivoS

ToivoS — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 06:18:16 +0000

sorry for the double post. My first one did not seem to go through so I made a small change and sent it again.

By: delia

delia — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 00:58:12 +0000

He also mentions the holocaust 3 times and Auschwitz twice. These two words will soon be emptied of all meaning, just like the words antisemitism, terrorist, deligitimizer, nazi, and kapo.

This is foolish.

By: ToivoS

ToivoS — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 00:51:01 +0000

My read of the past two days is that Netanyahu left Washington in a much weaker position that when he arrived. For once he was out-flanked by Obama. His speech before AIPAC came across to me (I read it, not listened to it) as an almost hysterically defiant cry for attention.

What is the reaction in Israel? Will he return again as a conquering hero? Or will he be politically wounded?

By: ToivoS

ToivoS — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 00:47:42 +0000

My read of the past two days is that Netanyahu left Washington in a much weaker position that when he arrived. For once he was out-flanked by Obama. His speech before AIPAC came across to me, I read it, not listened, as an almost hysterically defiant cry for attention.

What is the reaction in Israel? Will he return again as a conquering hero? Or will he be politically wounded?

By: Bill Pearlman

Bill Pearlman — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 22:06:43 +0000

What did you want him to do. Bow down to a hezbollah flag and beg forgiveness

By: Schlesinger

Schlesinger — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 20:41:41 +0000

- Obama does not want war against Iran (yet)
- Netanjahu / Lieberman / Barak want a preemtive strike against the nuclear facilities of Iran
- Netanyahu does NOT want a second presidency Obama
- a war against Iran would bring multiple problems for Obama (economic risks, loss of lifes, costs of war, …)
- result: a war against Iran – from the perspective of Netanyahu – might remove 2 problems at once…