Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

Who needs anti-Semites when we've got Bibi?

This time it’s true: Israel really is trying to manipulate the U.S. into going to war.   

Who can disagree any longer that Israel is out to push America into war – and is putting on quite a show of it, too? The Obama administration is trying to neutralize Iran’s nuclear program diplomatically, and Bibi Netanyahu and the Israel lobby are the unquestioned, highest-possible-profile leaders of the campaign to stop them. Netanyahu is all over TV around the world, beating the drum against this “very, very bad deal” being put together in the Geneva talks, which resume Wednesday. His American-accented emissary Naftali Bennett is walking the halls of Congress, right in the White House’s face, lobbying senators and congress members to crank up the sanctions on Iran. Meanwhile, AIPAC and the rest of the Israel lobby, of course, are blasting away with the same theme.

America, together with Russia, China, Britain, Germany (but evidently not France), are trying to make peace with Iran, which is a pretty important, fairly historic mission  – and Israel is out in front trying to torpedo it. After warning that the failure of the Geneva talks “could … become a pathway to war,” a recent New York Times editorial concluded:

[I]f talks fail now, Mr. Netanyahu and the hard-line interest groups will own the failure, and the rest of us will pay the price.

Food for thought, no?  

But Netanyahu isn’t saying he wants the talks to fail or, God forbid, for America to start a war by bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. No, he wants to prevent that – by intensifying sanctions and forcing Iran to agree to tear down its nuclear project completely and let inspectors inspect where they please. That’s reasonable, isn’t it? This is how an Obama administration official summed up Netanyahu’s strategy to the New York Times this week:

Mr. Netanyahu “will be satisfied with nothing less than the dismantlement of every scrap of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure,” one administration strategist said the other day. “We’d love that, too — but there’s no way that’s going to happen at this point in the negotiation.”

Netanyahu’s idea of diplomacy with the Iranians is to present them with terms of surrender – to agree that they have no right to build anything connected with anything nuclear, while the U.S. and the other world powers, not to mention Israel, are free to build all the hydrogen bombs they want. If the Iranians don’t agree to such terms, if they instead go home and continue  their nuclear program unfettered, it won’t be Netanyahu who caused the U.S. to bomb them – it’ll be the Iranians themselves.

This is the way Bibi and his countless admirers in Israel and the United States think. They make the other side an offer it has to refuse, and if the result is war, it’s not their fault. Thus, if Team Netanyahu succeeds in blocking Obama’s quest to defang Iran’s nuclear project peacefully, the squad’s next step will be to pressure the president to keep his pledge to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, and by then there will be only one way left to do it: with missiles.

Obama doesn’t want to risk another war in the Middle East. Neither do the American people. But none of that has any effect on the prime minister of Israel.

The media are reporting that there’s a good chance for an agreement in the coming days in Geneva between the world powers and Iran. But the U.S. Congress, where Israel is most influential, could very well trash such an accord soon afterward by turning up the already devastating sanctions.

Israel’s leader and his fans could actually push America into war against its will. They are certainly trying as hard as they can to do so. This is the sort of claim against Israel that used to be made only by extremists and anti-Semites, because in the past it wasn’t true, it was a gross exaggeration. But now this claim is being made by the likes of the New York Times, and it is true. The truth of it is right out in the open, loud and clear.

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. Philos

      Larry, the truth is a well known anti-Semite, and you and I are self-loathing Jews who belong in Gaza (or Syria, depending who you ask) whose families should be murdered (read some of the comments on any “Breaking the Silence” Facebook post) so clearly Bibi is right

      Reply to Comment
    2. steve

      Larry,
      No disrespect..but what do you not understand about an existential threat?
      This is about Israels safety not Israel’s rush to war.
      Not to believe that, is really naive in my opinion.
      It’s easy for countries not threatened directly by a nuclear Iran, to make nice and appease.History shows us very clearly the stall tactics of Iran. It’s almost like you have a death wish …nothing less than dismantling will ensure safety for Israel

      Reply to Comment
    3. Danny

      America’s political system is so infected with the AIPAC cancer that I doubt at this point that there’s anything left to salvage of it. It’s become so bad that the U.S. is seemingly following France’s lead, instead of the other way around.

      Somewhere, the corpses of Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy are all shifting uneasily in their graves.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        America’s political system is so infected that they still did not find who killed Kennedy.

        Reply to Comment
    4. Kolumn9

      So.. If the United States is about to make a deal that leaves the Iranian nuclear program intact Israel should sit on the sidelines and keep its mouth shut until the Iranians get the first nuke? Or should they sit on the sidelines quietly until the deal is done and then bomb the nuclear program that negotiations did little to stop? Or should they trust the US to stop the Iranian nuclear program militarily despite the quite apparent lack of will to do so on the part of both the administration and the population, which this deal that the Americans are pushing demonstrates? Or should they sit on the sidelines quietly until the first nuke drops on Tel Aviv?

      I always get confused about what action Israel should pursue to avoid stoking anti-Semitism. The last one I think is best, right?

      Reply to Comment
      • Danny

        “I always get confused about what action Israel should pursue to avoid stoking anti-Semitism”

        That one is actually pretty simple. Make a just peace with your neighbors and normalize your relations with the Arab and Muslim world. It would mean, of course, giving up stolen lands and paying compensation for their illegal 50-year occupation and use.

        Would you be willing to do that? If your answer is no, then please stop your whining.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          >Make a just peace with your neighbors and normalize your relations with the Arab and Muslim world.

          Wow. You managed to break my nonsens-o-meter.

          1) 100 years ago, in Europe, Jews did not steal any land, not that it prevented Germans from exterminating few millions.

          2) 100 years ago in Palestine Jews did not steal any land as well, not that it prevented Palestinian Arabs from attempting to exterminate few more.

          >It would mean, of course, giving up stolen lands and paying compensation for their illegal 50-year occupation and use.

          This one is particularly worthy.
          So, Israel should give back all “stolen lands” thus ceasing to exist BUT also should pay compensation.

          >Would you be willing to do that? If your answer is no, then please stop your whining.

          Since there was antisemitism BEFORE Jews “steal” any lands, there is no reason to think that once Jews return “stolen” lands there would be no antisemitism.

          Reply to Comment
          • Danny

            I never said there was never anti-semitism. This opinion piece is about *fake* or *manufactured* anti-semitism today that is the direct result of Israel’s irresponsible government’s unrelenting effort to push the world into a third world war. What you call anti-semitism, I call anti-zionism.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >What you call anti-semitism, I call anti-zionism.

            Let’s get clear with terms first…

            Antisemitism is prejudice, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage.

            Zionism is a form of nationalism of Jews and Jewish culture that supports a Jewish nation state in the territory defined as the Land of Israel.

            So, anti-Zionism is prejudice, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews for their desire to have/live in a nation-state.

            >I never said there was never anti-semitism.

            Jolly good.
            Than WHAT you had said in the previous post, for Ockham’s sake, where you suggested that all Israel need to reach peace is give back the country and pay compensation?

            >This opinion piece is about *fake* or *manufactured* anti-semitism today

            So, now we have two kinds of Judeophobia:
            1) Generic, or inherent, which always existed and has nothing to do with Israel, aka. anti-semitism
            2) Fake, or manufactured, where Jews are hated for demanding the basic human right of self determination, aka. anti-Zionism

            > that is the direct result of Israel’s irresponsible government’s unrelenting effort to push the world into a third world war.

            What efforts exactly are you talking about? The whole Iran quaffle? But 20 years ago no-one ever though of nuclear Iran, however anti-Zionism thrived.

            By the way, of two parties, Israel and Iran, it is Iran who is in violation of international law – the NPT – not Israel.

            Reply to Comment
    5. Yaron

      Larry, I did not come to Israel to live under a nuclear threat and I don’t need Bibi to scare me. As far as I am concerned the Israeli people have every right to live without that threat as any other people and I have not a single reason to trust the Iranians.
      No one, and I mean no one, has ever pointed out why the US wants this deal, but if you just think about ‘interests’, this may be a hint. The ‘peace loving’ Americans, but also Britain, Germany, France and Russia are losing money from the sanctions and they are desperately seeking a way to pep up their crisis bound economies. Next to that, the US has been changing its dependency on ME-oil so it will be able to leave the conflict ridden ME, including Israel. In short: it is not Israel pulling the US into a war, it is the US pushing Israel into defending itself. If this means that the US will receive a blow from that, well, I don’t mind, I just care about this tiny, vulnerable country with so little people and so little impact that is hated so much, and so do my fellow citizens (and they are not all fans of Bibi!). Israel has only one thing to lose: itself. Is that sacrifice worth the few bucks that these superpowers can make from this deal? In a game of life and death, you seriously do not gamble.

      Reply to Comment
      • Empiricon

        The US lived with an actual nuclear threat from the Soviet Union for 40 years – not one based on hyperbolic fear. We thrived. Suck it up, cowards.

        Reply to Comment
        • CigarButNoNice

          1) Your country’s a bit bigger than Israel, meaning with a lot more room for cynical expendability calculus on a politician’s part.

          2) The Soviets had no regard for the lives of others, but they did for their own. Islamic imperialists lack even that to inhibit them.

          In short: comparison fail.

          Reply to Comment
          • Empiricon

            “Islamic imperialists lack even that to inhibit them.” Religio-racism combined with psychologocal projection at its finest. Which country confiscates land, attacks and kills outside its borders in the name of “security”. Iran or Israel?

            Reply to Comment
          • CigarButNoNice

            All over the world there is testimony to suicide murder: Europe, Nigeria, India… you name it, you’ll find Islamic imperialist aggression as the root cause. Israel is no different; it’s only that the effort to whitewash Islamic imperialism in her case has gained far more traction than elsewhere.

            Sorry if you can’t handle the truth.

            Reply to Comment
          • Empiricon

            You didn’t answer my question, now, did you? “Sorry if you can’t handle the truth.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Yaron

            The answer is: Iran.

            Reply to Comment
          • Empiricon

            Interesting. So two questions:
            1) What land confiscated by Iran outside its border are you refering to?
            2) Not Israel?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yaron

            If confiscating land is the benchmark for being a rogue nation, then most of the world’s countries fail.
            I don’t think I need to explain how Iran promotes and supports war, hatred, repression and terrorism in the most extreme ways in most countries of the Muslim world, leading to deadly violence on a daily basis: Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, the Arabian peninsula, Sudan, to name just a few. The scope of this dwarfes Israel’s impact on the region to a microscopic level. Beyond that, the actions of Israel are not politically motivated: their goal is to protect its people. The scope of its influence is limited to a relatively small area. The Iranians, on the other hand, follow an agenda of gaining and expanding power in the region at the cost of anything.

            Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          1) One (1) medium-yield device (500 kilotons to 1 megaton) is enough to kill over 50% of Israel’s population, basically destroying the country.

          2) During all these years USA was attempting to dismantle the Soviet threat – and succeeded eventually. But now you are demanding that Israel would not do the same.

          A question: Are you an idiot, a judeophobe or both?

          Reply to Comment
          • Empricicon

            1) The Soviets had enough nukes “to kill over 50% of [the US's] population, basically destroying the country.”

            2) We dismantled the Soviet threat by negotiating as equals, which is what we are trying to do now — not by dictating terms like Bibi. We already tried that at Versailles — that didn’t turn out well, esp. for the Jewish people. “Trust, but verify.” Iran has no nukes as of now and is a signatory to the NPT. Israel has 200(ish) nukes that it won’t admit to and is not a signatory. Based on this, which country is more worthy of trust on nukes? I’d call it a toss-up at best.

            I know you beleive that anyone who disagrees with you is racist. Funny thing is, you don’t even know if I’m Jewish or not. Such is the intellectual and moral vapidity of your fear-based belief system. I understand and am sympathetic to its origins, but it’s 2013 so you really need to re-examine it.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >The Soviets had enough nukes “to kill over 50% of [the US's] population, basically destroying the country.”

            The Soviets had enough nukes to sterilize the whole planet. Americans too, by the way, which is the one single reason why the Cold War never turned to hot phase – everyone knew that there will be no winners.

            Also, the physical distance between USSR and USA ensured that either side would have enough time to respond, should ICBM launch be detected.

            The situation here, however, is completely different.

            1) 1 (one) nuke is enough to cripple/destroy Israel.

            2) The device might be delivered by many means, not only a ballistic missile

            3) A ballistic missile launched from Iran will reach Israel within 6-7 minutes.

            > We dismantled the Soviet threat by negotiating as equals

            That’s nonsense. You really should study Soviet history of 1980′s-1990′s.

            >Iran has no nukes as of now and is a signatory to the NPT. Israel has 200(ish) nukes that it won’t admit to and is not a signatory.

            Iran, being signatory of the NPT is OBLIGED to grant IAEA inspectors access to ALL her nuclear facilities while Israel is NOT OBLIGED to do so.

            >I know you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is racist.

            You don’t know shit.
            An example: “Based on this, which country is more worthy of trust on nukes? I’d call it a toss-up at best.”
            So, Iran is in direct violation of the NPT, but you call it at least as trustworthy as Israel, which is not in violation of the NPT.
            There is only one explanation to that – you hate Jews/Israelis, meaning that you are – guess what? – racist, correct.

            >Funny thing is, you don’t even know if I’m Jewish or not.

            I really could not care any less whether you are Jewish, Muslim or Pastafarian.
            What is really funny, tho, is that you mention it at all.

            >Such is the intellectual and moral vapidity of your fear-based belief system. I understand and am sympathetic to its origins, but it’s 2013 so you really need to re-examine it.

            Basically, you are saying that in 2013 one should not be afraid of anything because nothing bad would happen. Sure. Right.

            Reply to Comment
      • Piotr Berman

        “The ‘peace loving’ Americans, but also Britain, Germany, France and Russia are losing money from the sanctions and they are desperately seeking a way to pep up their crisis bound economies.”

        Economic interests are perfectly valid reasons for the foreign policy. If following Israel’s whims costs tens of billions of dollars to American consumers alone, per year, it is a powerful argument. More powerful than making Mr. Netanyahu said, or Mr. Yaron having second thought about immigrating to Israel (after all, probably from a country where the government does not scare the citizenry with existential threats on 24/7 basis).

        Mind you, existence of Israel is not in doubt. What is in doubt is the sustainability of the current policies. How many dollars per year should countries around the year loose to make Israel comfortable as it perfects methods of harassing villagers that it wants to get rid of without a “humanitarian crisis”? Is ten billion too much? 50 billion? 100 billion?

        Reply to Comment
    6. Laurent Szyster

      Larry “Cassandra” Derfner is back with the imminent – but always postponed – iranian war he’s been warning us against for the last decade.

      Nothing really new and certainly not the classic trope about how some evil Jews are the culprits for antisemitism.

      Who needs antisemites when we have Larry “with trembling knees” Grepser …

      Reply to Comment
    7. Empiricon

      (This may be a bit of a duplicate – wasn’t sure if earlier post went though)
      1) The USSR nuclear arsenal was “enough to kill over 50% of [the US's] population, basically destroying the country.”

      2) We succeded by negotiating with the USSR as an equal rather than by dictating terms. We are trying that same strange tactic with Iran. Has Israel ever sat down to negotiate with Iran? The same neo-cons who opposed Reagan negotiating with the Soviets in the ’80s today oppose negotiations with Iran. ‘Nuf said.

      To answer your question: I can type lucidly so I’m likely not an idiot (though my wife at time would differ). And I am not the one who brought religio-ethnicity to the discussion, so no evidence of racial animus on my part. But your acusation is evidence of psychological projection on your part. You should look into that.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >Has Israel ever sat down to negotiate with Iran?

        Israel can not sat down to negotiate with Iran.

        Wanna know why, silly?

        Because Iran does not recognize Israel.

        >The same neo-cons who opposed Reagan negotiating with the Soviets in the ’80s today oppose negotiations with Iran. ‘Nuf said.

        Irrelevant.

        >To answer your question: I can type lucidly so I’m likely not an idiot

        With all due respect, a person who suggests that Israel should sit down and negotiate with Iran, while Iran refuses to recognize the existance of Israel is, most likely, an idiot. Sad but true.

        >And I am not the one who brought religio-ethnicity to the discussion, so no evidence of racial animus on my part.

        Actually, you are the one who did. And there is rock solid evidence of your racism. “The “existential threat” is a cultish belief”, “Suck it up, cowards.”, “you don’t even know if I’m Jewish or not”, “Based on this, which country is more worthy of trust on nukes?”

        >But your accusation is evidence of psychological projection on your part. You should look into that.

        I’m afraid that these are not mere “accusations” but rather grim facts. Shall we have a look?

        1) You are strongly biased against Israel, which is pure racism.

        2) You are suggesting that Israel should negotiate with a party which does not even recognize existence of Israel, which is pure idiocy.

        Reply to Comment
        • sh

          Since negotiations with people who do recognize Israel have not led to anything either (20 or so years on the Iranians have probably recognized that recognizing Israel isn’t going to dissipate the belligerence, it will be used to exacerbate it) why should they bother? And here’s a question. Why is the State of Israel the only country in the world that demands recognition from its enemies every Monday and Thursday? At 66 it still doesn’t it believe it exists?

          Reply to Comment
          • JohnW

            “Since negotiations with people who do recognize Israel have not led to anything either (20 or so years on the Iranians have probably recognized that recognizing Israel isn’t going to dissipate the belligerence”

            This is really cute. It implies that Israel started the belligerence against the theocracy of Iran which just minded it’s own business.

            Do you really believe that Sh?

            Reply to Comment
          • sh

            The eternity of negotiation we’ve been treating the world to is with whom, John? Which of the neighbouring countries was invaded in an attempt to avoid even starting those negotiations? Other countries in the region watching the decades-long spectacle can hardly be blamed for concluding what John?

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Why is the State of Israel the only country in the world that demands recognition from its enemies every Monday and Thursday?

            Because Israel is the only country in the word who is forced to negotiate security issues with countries which are not recognizing Israel under the same law.

            Reply to Comment
    8. Well, Larry, I suspect that the Pentagon has said that a strike against Iran will place war at others’ doorstep. It would also completely undermine the new Iranian President’s policy direction and continue Iran toward a military controlled State (which his election shows as yet not the case).

      Bibi has become a militant nationalist in nearly a religious sense. I don’t think he can conceive of error in the defense of Israel. Now he is interfering in Presidential politics. Obama has a very long fuse, but it is finite. My impression is that Bibi, knowing there will be an American regime change in 3 years, the last year somewhat frozen, doesn’t care. When I heard they had talked for 90 mins, I wondered if they kept from yelling. But I don’t know if Obama can yell.

      I would not say I will never trust Israel again, but I will say that of this governing coalition mix, together or separately. They are thieves who come from a political culture of thievery. Yes, so to in the US–but the rule of law, the judiciary, is much stronger here now.

      Lastly, I do hope Israel does not have an H bomb. Whatever for? The return fallout from an A bomb would be bad enough. Maybe Israel could threaten to evaporate the Mediterranean via H bombs as its final strategic option.

      Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        Greg

        I really don’t know why you people are so convinced that anyone in Israel, Bibi, Smimi or whoever else can bully America. But let’s put that aside for a minute.

        What I fail to understand even more is your un-shaking conviction that as soon as any new Iranian leader clicks his finger and adopts seemingly moderate tones, then there is 100% chance that they really mean it and 0% chance that they deceive in order to gain time.

        Me, I am somewhere in the middle. I say, maybe Iran means it, maybe they don’t. Time will tell and in the meanwhile I want MY leaders to tread with caution. But hey, that’s just me …

        Reply to Comment
        • I don’t think it is 100%, for I don’t think the new President is that secure–even if he wanted that 100%. At present, there is no single Iran either being truthful or lying. Under the last President I think a single coloring of things would be valid. But what we see presently is an attempt to move away from internal military dominance, as revealed by the election. Attempt.

          In any case, the US Administration is not inclined to provide benefits to Iran without transparency. But if you want the dismantling of its nuclear industry you are not going to get it. I do not believe that a nuclear weapon can be indefinitely precluded. But one may be able to push it further down the road until future Iran decides to forego it internally, and think a strike will make that internal decision quite unlikely.

          As there is no single Iran there is no single US. Bibi is trying to alter Congressional input into foreign policy in a highly polarized environment. He’s trying to throw a wrench in the works by removing Administration discretion. If it was Latvia so trying, it wouldn’t matter. But Israel is God’s baby to many polarized right voters over here, and what Bibi is doing plays right into Tea Party politics. Yes, he can do it; but a sitting Democrat is not going to trust this coalition again (I suspect Hillary has been saying “you’re nuts to try and trust Bibi” all along). As I said, given about two years left, effectively, in this Presidency, I don’t think Bibi et al care. To me, Bibi’s interference in Congressional politics indicates complete disingenuousness in the peace talks; indeed, to push on Iran signals a similar attitude in the talks (i.e., blow them up). But to an Israeli rightist, both of Bibi’s stances are best for the nation–a nation which now includes Greater Israel.

          Reply to Comment
    9. Richard Witty

      I’m confident that Kerry will not accept a deal that leaves Iran permanently with a short window to nuclear arms.

      The six-month moratorium is meant as firming up that it is a bi-lateral agreement between parties rather than Iran relinquishing its rights under NNPT.

      That renunciation of demanding that they selectively don’t have a right to a nuclear program, gives them a path to form the bi-lateral agreement (that is in their interest).

      The long-term bilateral treaty will include what Netanyahu demands, grave reduction in Iran’s enrichment program to the point that it is 1 year+ from breakout, not a couple months.

      Skilled diplomacy gives a path. Unskilled diplomacy only puts pressure.

      The “only putting pressure” is the failure of both the right (sanctions and threat of war without feasible conditions) and the left (sanctions, boycott and threat of terror, without feasible conditions). Or, opportunistically playing good cop/bad cop (with an impotent good cop stating the humane argument for BDS, while the mean, angry bad cop threatens forced removal or selective denial of civil rights in the name of affirming civil rights.)

      Reply to Comment
    10. Giora Me'ir

      Netanyahu and Co. don’t care if they create more anti-Semites. In fact, they would prefer it. The more Jews throughout the world suffer because of Israeli actions, the more who will immigrate to Israel, they figure.

      Reply to Comment
    11. Giora Me'ir

      Still waiting for the answer why Israel should be permitted to have nuclear weapons but Iran not. Not some legalistic reason, but why as a matter of geopolitical reality.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Oh great g-d…

        Iran is not allowed to have nuclear weapons because Iran signed the NPT.

        All they have to do to *legally* pursue nukes is leave the NPT, like N. Korea did.

        Not too complicated, right?

        Reply to Comment
        • Giora Me'ir

          And not responsive. But disengenous.

          So, you wouldn’t have a problem with them developing nuclear weapons if they left the treaty?

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Not responsive but disengenous?
            what?

            wtf is disengenous?
            like disenhof?

            >So, you wouldn’t have a problem with them developing nuclear weapons if they left the treaty?

            No, I would not. It would be awfully racist of me if I would.

            It would be funny tho, if Iran would declare that it develops nuclear weapons because it is intimidated by the undeclared Israeli arsenal, and would allow IAEA to monitor its facilities should Israel allow to monitor her’s.

            It would be even funnier if it would turn out that it is all bluff and Iranians don’t have shit while Israelis had demonstrated all 200(ish) nukes and who knows what else ROFL

            Reply to Comment
          • Giora Me'ir

            If you take a couple of deep breaths and lie down, your incoherence may pass.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Dude, it is you who is making up new words.

            I’m really not going to waste sugar and oxygen to try and analyze your gibberish.

            Reply to Comment
    12. Giora Me'ir

      And AIPAC:

      “The Illinois Senator was unsure whether he would succeed in ramming through new sanctions. He said Majority Leader leader Harry Reid, whose procedural powers have reportedly held up the amendment, was sending mixed signals to the Senate Banking Committee, “which is always where AIPAC wanted this legislation written because it has such a potential for bipartisan support in the senate banking committee”—one of Kirk’s assignments.

      “Plan B is marking up in the banking committee with something that [AIPAC chief] Howard Kohr and AIPAC have gotten us floor time from Harry to do an amendment to the upcoming NDAA whose debate is coming up as early as this week,” Kirk told his supporters on Monday”

      http://www.salon.com/2013/11/21/exclusive_gop_senator_unloads_in_private_call/

      Reply to Comment
    13. Average American

      Let Israel do what it wants. Let them attack Iran with Israeli nuclear weapons. Let them use their own army. Let their own young men and women be killed and maimed. Let them expend their own treasury and equipment. And let them bear the consequences themselves.

      And let them stay the hell out of the halls of our Congress. There is no American who gets the access to Congress that Israeli lobbyists get. Don’t confuse what our elitist pampered protected pretentious overpaid Congress says with what average Americans say. We will not send our sons and daughters again for Israel.

      Reply to Comment
    14. Ӏ do ոot create а leave a response, ƅut after readung a feww of the comments herе
      Whho ոeeds anti-Semites ѡhen աe

      Reply to Comment
    15. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel