Netanyahu Threatens Attack on Iran in Months
And here I was working on a piece arguing that the new Israeli government either wants the United States to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities or else, more likely, implicit U.S. approval for Israel to do so itself. Jeffrey Goldberg just asked Bibi Netanyahu:
In an interview conducted shortly before he was sworn in today as prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and quickly—or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities itself. [...]
Neither Netanyahu nor his principal military advisers would suggest a deadline for American progress on the Iran nuclear program, though one aide said pointedly that Israeli time lines are now drawn in months, “not years.” These same military advisers told me that they believe Iran’s defenses remain penetrable, and that Israel would not necessarily need American approval to launch an attack. “The problem is not military capability, the problem is whether you have the stomach, the political will, to take action,” one of his advisers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told me.
To make just a quick point, the idea that Israel would be “forced” to bomb Iran is laughable; people shouldn’t write stuff like that. It’s possible that Israel will bomb Iran in the near future, but nobody’s going to force them to do it.
As for needing American approval, I suppose this all comes down to what we mean by “necessarily” “need” and “approval.” You can’t fly from Israel to Iran without going over Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or Iraq and every discussion of this I’ve ever heard specifically says the Israelis would need to go through Iraq. It would of course be possible for Israel to do that without American approval. But none of those three countries would conceivably give Israel permission to use their airspace for this mission and the United States is committed to the defense of all three. In practice, the fact of an Israeli attack would be read throughout the region as proof of an American green light, especially were the attack not swiftly followed-up by a sharp curtailment of American aid. And for Americans, that’s really the point—as long as Israel is the biggest winner in the U.S. aid sweepstakes, Israeli actions are inevitably seen as the actions of American proxies, and if we can’t get Israel to respect our interests then we need to revisit that relationship.
82 Responses to “Netanyahu Threatens Attack on Iran in Months”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 31st, 2009 at 3:06 pm
If Israel bombs Iran I really think people will be surprised at how well it would be accepted in the US for Obama to cut off aid and tell them to screw themselves. We are, after all, dealing with an economic crisis, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, as well as still being in the wake of the disaster known as Iraq.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:07 pm
If they couldn’t get Bush II, who was as friendly to the Israelis as any American President, to approve their right to fly over Iraq, they’re certainly not going to get it from the current American government.
They could try the operation anyways, but it is an extremely complex, massive endeavor that would involve multiple in-air refueling over the skies of Iraq, and that’s rather risky if you don’t and can’t have control over the air space in question. Moreover, as you said, it would make the US look really bad in the eyes of the Arab and Persian worlds (the leadership of the Arab states would probably be secretly grateful, though), and we’d be compelled to punish Israel in some fashion.
On top of all that, there’s no guarantee that they’d hit every site in question.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:09 pm
The Israelis can also use the Georgian airfields, thus avoiding any need for long refueling or permission to fly over Iraq. This is why the Israelis have been helping the Georgia military for the last few years.
Also, the Israelis have no need to actually be effective in disrupting Iran’s nuclear energy program. They just need to force the Iranians to retaliate against the US, thus dragging the US into the war (not that much dragging would be needed, given Obama’s conviction that Iran is a “threat”). The Israelis then allow the US to complete the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities, as well as absorbing the brunt of the Iranian retaliation.
This report confirms a separate rumor I’ve seen that says Netanyahu is definitely planning a war within “the very near future” of forming the new Israeli government.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:14 pm
There’s that, but it’s not as if a military build-up to launch a major bombing campaign from Georgia would go unnoticed by the Powers That Be. I imagine the Russians, especially, would be very interested in such activity, and not inclined to keep it secret.
That’s a very cynical way of looking at the prospects. Of course, Israel would hardly go unscathed in this situation; the Iranians could turn around and launch some rockets and missiles from their territory at Israel (although there’s no guarantee that they’ll reach), and they could always egg on Hezbollah to start launching rockets at Israel from southern Lebanon.
But you’re right – the US would absorb the major brunt of the Iranian response, probably in Iraq.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I think it would be interesting to see what the aftermath was if Israel tried to fly over Iraq without US approval, and the US military shot the planes down.
Of course, this is a case where “interesting” is as much a curse as a blessing.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:17 pm
I’m half-hoping Netanyahu does something stupid – not just ordinary stupid, but something really psycho ward crazy stupid. Then our pols will have to decide if they’re going to go on with their blank check support of Israel, or finally tell their AIPAC pimps to go stuff it.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
“But none of those three countries would conceivably give Israel permission to use their airspace for this mission”
I’m not sure that’s true. Turkey and Iraq certainly wouldn’t give permission, and Turkey has the capabilities to actually prevent an airspace incursion. But there’s no love lost between Iran and Saudi Arabia. We Americans tend to think of all Muslims and all olive-skinned people as being the same, but they aren’t. The Sunni and Shia have fought each other for centuries. And so have the Arabs and Persians. It’s not too hard to imagine that a Sunni Arab country might allow someone to attack a Shia Persian country. And when Saddam Hussein did just that against Iran, Saudi Arabia ponied up a lot of money to back Saddam. I really don’t think Iran can count on Saudi Arabia’s cooperation.
But in the end, it doesn’t matter anyway. Who’s to stop Israel if it doesn’t get flyover permission? We won’t shoot their planes down, and nobody else but Turkey even can shoot them down. And we won’t cut off aid to Israel. After all, an attack like Bibi’s proposing would create a situation where Israel needs even more aid, not less. It will be politically impossible here to refuse to back Israel when in it’s engaged in a full scale war. Even if Israel started the war.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Well, why wait? Cut off military aid to Israel now in response to Netanyahu’s threat.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:20 pm
“To make just a quick point, the idea that Israel would be “forced” to bomb Iran is laughable; people shouldn’t write stuff like that. It’s possible that Israel will bomb Iran in the near future, but nobody’s going to force them to do it.”
He shouldn’t write what Bibi actually said? The idea of being “forced” to start wars because of some rising threat is as old as war itself.
“If Israel bombs Iran I really think people will be surprised at how well it would be accepted in the US for Obama to cut off aid and tell them to screw themselves.”
Sadly, I don’t think this is true. A big chunk of Congress would never stand for cuts like that. The American public maybe indifferent, but then again the American public wildly overestimates the amount of the budget that goes to foreign aid.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Somewhere in here is an argument as to why the Iraq war is bad for Israel.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Liberal Jewish-Americans really need to open their eyes. Israel has been hijacked by neocon psychopaths who in every way resemble the rightwing freaks who ruined this country.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Could this be Israel volunteering to be the Bad Cop in Obama’s diplomatic efforts with Iran?
March 31st, 2009 at 3:36 pm
They just need to force the Iranians to retaliate against the US, thus dragging the US into the war (not that much dragging would be needed, given Obama’s conviction that Iran is a “threat”).
I don’t see them attacking from Georgia and I don’t the see the US being dragged in. Bush wouldn’t sanction an Israeli attack last year and Iran agents have been killing US soldiers in Iraq for a while and now Hillary invited Iranian diplomats to the conference on Afghanistan. Wrong and wrong in other words. I think it’s likely Bibi will attack and it will be an epic disaster.
Just like Gaza and the Lebanese invasion in 2006, it will put more pressure on the autocratic regimes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:37 pm
No Joe, this is much worse. This is the last outpost of bloodthirsty neocon fascism instigating another war. This is pretty much the last chapter. And it’s going to end as destructively as all their stupid war pig ideas end.
Simply put, he’s cashing in the equity of the U.S.-Israeli relationship before it changes. He has to attack Iran quickly because the window to do so is closing. So attack Iran while the U.S. is still obligated to back him unconditionally and uncritically.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Netanyahu is really trying to up the stakes. Bibi knows he has absolutely no leverage with Obama right now on the Palestinian issue, so he uses the possibility of stirring up Iran as a bargaining chip.
I say call his bluff. Make him tear down the settlements and tell him he’ll eat shit and like it. There is no way in hell he’s striking Iran while our troops still own the house next door.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:41 pm
We all know that the remaining American troops in Iraq are very vulnerable in the event of any attack on Iran. Presumably Scud missiles will initially kill a lot of them on our big bases before we are drawn into the war and obliterate Iran.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Somewhere in here is an argument as to why the Iraq war is bad for Israel.
Shia Iraq will side with Iran against Israel. Democracy in the Middle East and all that. It’s an irony at the expense of the doves.
Plus there’s a chance, Obama could say “no you don’t” or “back down” b/c our troops are in harms way. I doubt that will happen though.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:46 pm
We all know that the remaining American troops in Iraq are very vulnerable in the event of any attack on Iran. Presumably Scud missiles will initially kill a lot of them on our big bases before we are drawn into the war and obliterate Iran.
Again some anonymous person on the Internets is wrong. Is this what Juan Cole is predicting becaus it would be nice to see him proven wrong yet again.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:48 pm
There’s a difference between helping an Arab country attack and helping Israel attack. Not saying they wouldn’t, just that there’d be a bigger risk of blowback from it.
Just how (un)popular is Iran in that neck of the woods?
March 31st, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Simply put, he’s cashing in the equity of the U.S.-Israeli relationship before it changes.
Maybe.
He can’t help but notice that the Likudniks’ standing among the American public is cratering.
Between the Lebanese attack and fostering the Gaza conflict, Israel has been making a habit of bone-headed military moves lately.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Liberal Jewish-Americans really need to open their eyes. Israel has been hijacked by neocon psychopaths who in every way resemble the rightwing freaks who ruined this country.
Don’t worry. We noticed.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:04 pm
“Just how (un)popular is Iran in that neck of the woods?”
Unpopular enough that nearly every Arab country backed Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. And, yes allowing Israel flyover rights will result in some blowback. But Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship that does not have to rely on popularity with the public to survive (unlike Iran). And they can minimize the blowback by claiming (correctly) that they don’t have the ability to stop the flyovers. Think about it, how much did Jordan suffer when Israeli planes flew over its territory to bomb a nuclear facility in Iraq? Last I checked, the same dictatorship is still in power in Jordan. And that was an attack against an Arab country, not a Persian one. Bombing Persians will be more palatable to the Arabs than bombing fellow Arabs was.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:20 pm
I can’t see Iran targeting Iraq at all. They are developing a good relationship with Iraq, which, considering their history, I imagine that to be very important to them.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Well, they’d have to be insane to try to fly through US-controlled airspace without advance permission. They could wind up in an armed confrontation before the high level decision-makers would even have a chance to get involved. The same goes double for Turkish airpsace or Saudi airspace.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Why is it inconceivable that we would shoot down Israeli planes if we explicitly warn them “Don’t fly over our heads?”
March 31st, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Osirak and the Iran-Iraq war were over two decades ago though. I doubt that Iran is the most popular guy at the potluck, but have attitudes changed so that it’s no longer as easy to play the evil Shi’ite Persians card?
I suspect that Netanyahu is worried more about the Iranian election than the opinion of the US president. If June rolls around and the Iranians elect someone on the reformish side, it becomes much harder for Israel to push the Iran is insane meme.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Actually, Saudi Arabia and Iran have been making several moves towards opening relations and reconciliation. The Saudi’s view of the Iranian government is that they’ve become a stable entity. It’s not the same situation as held 1979 – 1985 in the post-Shah revolutionary period.
It’s unlikely that Saudi Arabia would risk internal destabilisation and external revenge by assisting or cooperating with Israel in an attack on another Muslim country, not even a Persian/Shiite country.
Overall, factoring in the endless logistical problems, the need to hit literally hundreds of targets, the likelihood of ineffectiveness, the lack of benefit and likely blowback… it’s not going to happen. Netanhyu is just being bellicose.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:47 pm
This is the “foreign policy test” that Biden was talking about. Sort of a reverse-Cuban Missile Crisis.
I don’t see any trustworthy realists telling Obama that losing the AIPAC vote is worse than losing a war with Iran.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:49 pm
“If Israel bombs Iran I really think people will be surprised at how well it would be accepted in the US for Obama to cut off aid and tell them to screw themselves.”
Frankly, THAT is the big blowback that should concern all supporters of Israel.
Mike
March 31st, 2009 at 4:50 pm
If Israel attacks Iran, it will be seen by the world as an attack by the United States. Israel has the largest F16 air force in the world outside the USAF — made in the USA, supplied by the USA. Same goes for probably most of her other weapons.
It would be deeply irresponsible of Obama to let this attack proceed if it will damage US interests. And it will. Forget any cooperation from Iran in dealing with AL Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. IN fact, Al Qaeda will now have a large, much more secure sanctuary.
Obama will have given Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan to China. Look at the globe to see what that means.
I doubt that Georgia will allow an Israeli attack from within Georgia. Iran may not be able to take on the US but she can kick Georgia’s ass. Especially with covert Soviet Aid. In which case, forget that nice Baku-Tbilisi-Turkey Pipeline and any Caspian Sea oil. In which case, write off Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan as well.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Here’s a news flash for Bibi-baby and his newly formed governing coalition of Hot Heads — the idea that you can bomb and kill your way to national safety and security is ridiculous. Plain and simple. You may not like your neighbors and they may not like you, but 60 years into this chapter of your tortured existence together, it’s time to see the forest for the trees and get to finding agreement where you can and settle some of the more pressing issues facing your nation, namely what are you going to do about your settlements and where are the Palestinians going to live? Under your thumb can only be defended for so long and a significant portion of your most vocal defenders likely soon will be indicted in Spain.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:51 pm
How DARE Israel not just sit back and self destruct? Right on Matt and fellow libs. They deserve a 2nd Holocaust for even THINKING of defending themselves…
Now seriously, what the hell happened to you liberals? What is wrong with you morons? One holocaust through pacifism and denying evil isn’t enough for you morons?
March 31st, 2009 at 4:52 pm
All those oil tankers have to go down the coast of Iran — anyone have any idea how many Silkworm missiles Iran has?
Guess Russia and CHina will have some nice ports on the Persian Gulf as well.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:52 pm
In Sept. 2007 Israel bombed a “nuclear plant” in Syria and everyone acted like it didn’t happen. Even Syria, which was weird.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2983719.ece
Bibi just appointed a nutjob as foreign minister, of course he’ll do it.
And it will help the hardliners in Iran.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
If the attack happens, the world needs to band together to occupy Israel-Palestein, peacefully or otherwise, create an interim government which will oversee the transition to a single state under fully democratic secular constitution, oversee the repatriation of Palestinian refugees, and then turn over the government to a duly elected democratic government in roughly 5 years.
None of the current residents of the area would be forced to leave, though land claims would be settled in the West Bank in a manner which probably would force the settlers to move to what is currently Israel proper, assuming that accomodation of the true owners of the land couldn’t be reached.If the attack happens, the world needs to band together to occupy Israel-Palestine, peacefully or otherwise, create an interim government which will oversee the transition to a single state under fully democratic secular constitution, oversee the repatriation of Palestinian refugees, and then turn over the government to a duly elected democratic government in roughly 5 years.
None of the current residents of the area would be forced to leave, though land claims would be settled in the West Bank in a manner which probably would force the settlers to move to what is currently Israel proper, assuming that accommodation of the true owners of the land couldn’t be reached.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Re Louis Wranton at 32: “How DARE Israel not just sit back and self destruct? Right on Matt and fellow libs. They deserve a 2nd Holocaust for even THINKING of defending themselves…”
————-
How is ATTACKING another nation –contrary to UN Charter Article 31 — defined as “defending oneself”?
Oh –because Iran MIGHT develop a nuclear weapon down the road. Gee, I have an idea. Why don’t we cut a deal with the Middle East — if everyone drops their pursuit of the bomb, we will take Israel’s nuclear weapons away.
After all, Israel’s nukes is what is driving all this anyway. Right?
March 31st, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Think about it, how much did Jordan suffer when Israeli planes flew over its territory to bomb a nuclear facility in Iraq?
Well, King Hussein tried unsuccessfully to warn Iraq after the planes flew over his yacht. So he had that going for him.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Did I mention that Zionism is a disgrace?
Today Zionism is not just something in bad taste, like Nazism in, say, 1922, but it’s an actual wicked disgrace, like Nazism in, say, 1939.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Louis Wraton . . . what are you smoking? I’d like some. No one is saying a nation can’t defend itself, we’re just disagreeing (those of us here who are) on what the definition of defense is. Bombing a country you fear might someday somehow obtain a nuclear weapon (when your nation itself has violated the various nuclear treaties and obtained nuclear weapons of its own – likely in part through espionage of its purported allies), ain’t exactly self-defense.
When will you war-mongers learn. Might don’t make right every time and like W’s excursion into Iraq, has many unintended consequences. The most relevant one to this discussion is the fact that Iraq did NOT have WMD, but was making like it did so it’s neighbors would mess with them. Gee, sounds sorta familiar don’t it. Too bad we don’t know the details, but then Brewster Jennings got outed along with Ms. Plame.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:02 pm
A writer questioned Saudi Arabia’s defense capabilities and it should be noted that the US has armed the Saudi’s with many if not most of the same weapons that we’ve sent to Israel, surface to air and air to air missiles, radar networks including AWACs (remember that controversy), which gives SA limited over the horizon capacity.
With out SA permission it is quite likely any Israeli attack would suffer losses before entering Iranian air space and would also no longer be a surprise. Add also that the Israeli planes would need to return, unless of course they pulled a Doolittle and landed in Afghanistan or another Stan.
While it is widely assumed that in retaliation that Iran would attack US interests, but would they, at least initially? A smarter move would be to avoid the US and simply strike at Israel.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Maybe all this Iran is crazy and must be bombed into the ways of peace (apparently Saddam tried for 8 long years to teach them but they still haven’t learned) is really just a way of helping keep the hard-liners in power and thus Iran chained by it’s own theocracy.
It would make some sense. More than the official ‘OMG Iran’s about to blow up the world’ line does.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:12 pm
To a neocon, a country’s willingness to suffer extraordinary losses is evidence that it is run by madmen: Iran.
A country’s unwillingness to suffer extraordinary losses is evidence that it is run by effette, freedom-haters: Anyone who opposed the Iraq War.
Heads you win, tails I lose.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:28 pm
All countries should be like frakking Denmark: mind your own frakking business, and try to be a real ‘Western democracy’.
The US tortured people to death, and now is protecting the elected officials responsible for it. Israel carpet-bombed one of the most densely populated areas in the world, not surprisingly killing hundreds of civilians, a war crime. Those two countries are not ‘Western democracies’. That’s a fact.
In any case, Americans have no right to lecture Israelis on what they should do. And Israelis don’t have the right to lecture anybody (except, perhaps, North Koreans).
March 31st, 2009 at 5:38 pm
By YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI
Enemies of the American-Israeli alliance could not have conjured a scenario more fraught with potential for misunderstanding. In Washington, a new president is reaching out to the Muslim world, including Iran. In Jerusalem, the government about to take office represents the disillusionment of the Israeli public with 15 years of failed peace talks. For President Barack Obama, power is a means to encourage the rational self-interest of opponents. For Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu, power is the means of defending his people from irrational hatred. Mr. Obama’s mandate is for change; Mr. Netanyahu’s is for survival.
Though the inclusion of the Labor Party in Mr. Netanyahu’s otherwise right-wing coalition will shift it toward the center, differences between Washington and Jerusalem will persist. With Iran about to achieve nuclear capability, and its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza gaining strength, this is the worst possible time for tension between the U.S. and Israel. But a crisis can be averted if both countries consider each other’s most pressing needs and remain focused on their shared anxieties.
The first prerequisite is genuine realism in Washington regarding negotiations with the Palestinians. It will be tempting in the coming months to blame Mr. Netanyahu — who has refused to commit himself to a two-state solution — for the absence of a peace agreement. But that breakthrough would have eluded any Israeli government. Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his foreign minister, Kadima leader Tzipi Livni, couldn’t have tried harder to reach an agreement with the Palestinians.
Instead of continuing to pursue the unattainable, the American-Israeli approach should focus on creating a civil society in the West Bank that is an essential precondition for the eventual creation of a Palestinian state. Mr. Obama will find a ready partner in Jerusalem for improving economic conditions in the West Bank. That process would present the Palestinians with a stark choice between their two territories: the beginnings of prosperity in a peaceful West Bank, or devastation in a jihadist Gaza.
Inevitably, the most sensitive issue in managing the American-Israeli relationship will continue to be settlements. Under President Bill Clinton’s December 2000 Middle East peace plan, settlement blocs like Gush Etzion near the 1967 border would be retained by Israel in an eventual agreement. Indeed, no Israeli government will stop building in those West Bank blocs.
The tacit agreement between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu, then, needs to be American acquiescence in continued building within the highly populated settlement blocs, in exchange for Israeli restraint in building beyond the blocs. The Netanyahu government has a mandate from the Israeli public to act decisively against any security threat, and to resist international pressure for premature peace agreements. But it doesn’t have a mandate to resume massive settlement expansion across the West Bank.
The Israeli Jewish public that voted overwhelmingly for right-wing parties did so primarily for security reasons. The Israeli right of 2009 is a mood, not an ideology. And Mr. Netanyahu understands the expectations of his voters. During the election campaign, he spoke incessantly about stopping a nuclear Iran and the jihadist threat generally — not about settlement growth. However grudgingly, Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition partners will likely accept some limitation on settlement building. And the presence of the Labor Party in the coalition will ensure moderation on the settlement issue. Indeed, the small National Union party is the only right-wing party that places massive settlement building at the top of its agenda, and it will not be part of this coalition.
For all their differences over the nature of a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, Mr. Netanyahu and Labor leader Ehud Barak have set those aside to focus on the most urgent issue facing the Middle East in the coming months: preventing the emergence of a nuclear Iran and the imposition of an irreversible blackmail on the region. Dealing with that threat will define this Likud-Labor coalition.
America and Israel should emulate the new Israeli government’s single-minded focus. This is not the time to be distracted by what are, for now, secondary issues, like eventual Palestinian statehood. Nor should disagreements between Israeli and American intelligence agencies over the pace of Iranian nuclear development distract the two governments from their agreement over the danger posed by a nuclear Iran. By focusing on thwarting Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, the U.S. and Israel will find Arab allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. That dynamic is already creating a shift in regional alliances, and could eventually lead to a real Middle East peace process.
In sparing Israel a narrow right-wing coalition and by persisting in creating a semblance of a national unity government, Mr. Netanyahu has taken the essential first steps in protecting his country’s relationship with Washington. Now Washington needs to take the next step and affirm its readiness to work with the Netanyahu-Barak government to save the Middle East from apocalyptic threat.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:09 pm
This line from ba’s posted article stands out:
“Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his foreign minister, Kadima leader Tzipi Livni, couldn’t have tried harder to reach an agreement with the Palestinians.”
Really? They couldn’t have tried harder? Didn’t they jail the Hamas portion of the unity government, for instance? How about Gaza? The list goes on and on and on.
This is why pro-Israeli propaganda is starting to fail. It’s simply not possible to apply it to reality. Rabin might’ve been genuine, Olmert and Lizni’s actions toward the Palestinians speak far louder than this kind of baseless claim.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Perhaps, ba, you could provide a link to YOUR OWN BLOG.
Turkey and Israel are having a spat right now. Turkey and Iran are developing a stronger trade relationship. link
I just don’t see anyone rallying behind Israel on this.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Jeez the whole article full of gems:
By brutally punishing the Gazans but rewarding the West Bank Palestinians will see a stark choice. Note that building a viable Palestinian state involves intense settlement growth, but only where it’s already intense.
Also simply taking office Bibi has reached out to America and it is now America’s turn to give something nice to Israel.
With logic like this, who needs to negotiate?
March 31st, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Also simply taking office Bibi has reached out to America and it is now America’s turn to give something nice to Israel.
How ’bout we give Bibi the finger? In fact, I think I’ve got one somewhere for Yossi as well.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Hi wiley — I missed your stupid commentary from last week. Welcome back a**hole!
the revolution! viva the revolution Lefties!!
Is this what you all look like?
March 31st, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Apparently, none of the commentors here read the article linked to a few days ago. Israel doesn’t have to get permission from Turkey, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia to attack Irans’ nuclear facilities because by aren’t going to use aircraft; they will launch cruise missiles from submarines to do the job. And those missiles will have nuclear warheads.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:39 pm
March 24, 2009 6:45 AM | Khaled Abu Toameh
Journalist
On Campus: The Pro-Palestinians’ Real Agenda
During a recent visit to several university campuses in the U.S., I discovered that there is more sympathy for Hamas there than there is in Ramallah.
Listening to some students and professors on these campuses, for a moment I thought I was sitting opposite a Hamas spokesman or a would-be-suicide bomber.
I was told, for instance, that Israel has no right to exist, that Israel’s “apartheid system” is worse than the one that existed in South Africa and that Operation Cast Lead was launched only because Hamas was beginning to show signs that it was interested in making peace and not because of the rockets that the Islamic movement was launching at Israeli communities.
I was also told that top Fatah operative Marwan Barghouti, who is serving five life terms in prison for masterminding terror attacks against Israeli civilians, was thrown behind bars simply because he was trying to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Furthermore, I was told that all the talk about financial corruption in the Palestinian Authority was “Zionist propaganda” and that Yasser Arafat had done wonderful things for his people, including the establishment of schools, hospitals and universities.
The good news is that these remarks were made only by a minority of people on the campuses who describe themselves as “pro-Palestinian,” although the overwhelming majority of them are not Palestinians or even Arabs or Muslims.
The bad news is that these groups of hard-line activists/thugs are trying to intimidate anyone who dares to say something that they don’t like to hear.
When the self-designated “pro-Palestinian” lobbyists are unable to challenge the facts presented by a speaker, they resort to verbal abuse.
On one campus, for example, I was condemned as an “idiot” because I said that a majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas in the January 2006 election because they were fed up with financial corruption in the Palestinian Authority.
On another campus, I was dubbed as a “mouthpiece for the Zionists” because I said that Israel has a free media. There was another campus where someone told me that I was a ‘liar” because I said that Barghouti was sentenced to five life terms because of his role in terrorism.
And then there was the campus (in Chicago) where I was “greeted” with swastikas that were painted over posters promoting my talk. The perpetrators, of course, never showed up at my event because they would not be able to challenge someone who has been working in the field for nearly 30 years.
What struck me more than anything else was the fact that many of the people I met on the campuses supported Hamas and believed that it had the right to “resist the occupation” even if that meant blowing up children and women on a bus in downtown Jerusalem.
I never imagined that I would need police protection while speaking at a university in the U.S. I have been on many Palestinian campuses in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and I cannot recall one case where I felt intimidated or where someone shouted abuse at me.
Ironically, many of the Arabs and Muslims I met on the campuses were much more understanding and even welcomed my “even-handed analysis” of the Israeli-Arab conflict. After all, the views I voiced were not much different than those made by the leaderships both in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. These views include support for the two-state solution and the idea of coexistence between Jews and Arabs in this part of the world.
The so-called pro-Palestinian “junta” on the campuses has nothing to offer other than hatred and de-legitimization of Israel. If these folks really cared about the Palestinians, they would be campaigning for good government and for the promotion of values of democracy and freedom in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Their hatred for Israel and what it stands for has blinded them to a point where they no longer care about the real interests of the Palestinians, namely the need to end the anarchy and lawlessness, and to dismantle all the armed gangs that are responsible for the death of hundreds of innocent Palestinians over the past few years.
The majority of these activists openly admit that they have never visited Israel or the Palestinian territories. They don’t know -and don’t want to know – that Jews and Arabs here are still doing business together and studying together and meeting with each other on a daily basis because they are destined to live together in this part of the world. They don’t want to hear that despite all the problems life continues and that ordinary Arab and Jewish parents who wake up in the morning just want to send their children to school and go to work before returning home safely and happily.
What is happening on the U.S. campuses is not about supporting the Palestinians as much as it is about promoting hatred for the Jewish state. It is not really about ending the “occupation” as much as it is about ending the existence of Israel.
Many of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas officials I talk to in the context of my work as a journalist sound much more pragmatic than most of the anti-Israel, “pro-Palestinian” folks on the campuses.
Over the past 15 years, much has been written and said about the fact that Palestinian school textbooks don’t promote peace and coexistence and that the Palestinian media often publishes anti-Israel material.
While this may be true, there is no ignoring the fact that the anti-Israel campaign on U.S. campuses is not less dangerous. What is happening on these campuses is not in the frame of freedom of speech. Instead, it is the freedom to disseminate hatred and violence. As such, we should not be surprised if the next generation of jihadists comes not from the Gaza Strip or the mountains and mosques of Pakistan and Afghanistan, but from university campuses across the U.S.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Get your own blog, asshole.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Re Wiley
Mr. Wiley is cordially invited to go fuck himself.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Re ba
When posting an article like Mr. Toamehs’ one should also post a link to the source, which I presume was taken from a web site somewhere. I don’t recall seeing this article in the Jerusalem Post where Mr. Toameh is employed.
Just for the information of the readers, Mr. Toameh is an Israeli Arab and a Muslim who is a reporter for the Jerusalem Post, tasked to report on news items occurring in the PA, covering both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Formerly, he was a reporter for several Palestinian newspapers but grew tired of seeing his reportage continually censored by the PA and the editors of the newspapers. He accepted a job with the Post, I believe in 2000 and has been with them ever since. In, I believe, 2002, he gave a presentation at Princeton, Un. and stated that he had never had his reportage censored, either by the government or by the publisher or the editor of the Post.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Half right. He should post a fucking excerpt, and then put in a link. God knows it’s impossible to say something in the comments that will get you banned, but you’d think copyright infringement would at least raise an eyebrow. And since there’s no link, how do you even know it’s by Toameh?
March 31st, 2009 at 8:03 pm
I believe the original source of Toameh’s article to be a post on Hudson New York’s website. The organization’s website suggests that it is a neo-con mouthpiece masquerading as an organization with an interest in human rights.
March 31st, 2009 at 8:07 pm
In, I believe, 2002, he gave a presentation at Princeton, Un. and stated that he had never had his reportage censored, either by the government or by the publisher or the editor of the Post.
It is not of course Government censorship if you are not able to report the news in the first place. I don’t think there were too many journalists doing first-hand reporting of the war in Gaza.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I’ve got nothing specific against Toameh, but it sounds like he’s got a highly developed sense of exaggerated personal whinism. I have no idea if his cr*p about the evil scary campus leftists are true, but even if they are, politics, as well as ideological extremists tend to be uncivil. More to the point, get back to me when you’re ready to make a point about Matt Yglesias’ blog post, rather than whinism about how mean student lefties are.
And those missiles will have nuclear warheads.
I have no idea what your political background or even point of view is. If you think Israel is going to nuke Iran, you’re a nutjob. End of discussion.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:17 pm
I think I can understand Israel’s concerns, without agreeing with Israeli policy. Keep in mind that in September 2007, Israel really did attack Syria, apparently wiping out a nuclear reactor. I think the main concern in Israel is not all-out war with Iran, but nuclear weapons somehow finding their way to Hezbollah and Hamas. I’m not sure what the solution is, and I really wish Israel would end their occupation of the West Bank. But I think if I were in Israel’s shoes, actually “in the arena”, I’d be considering all kinds of crazy options.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:39 pm
If the attack happens, the world needs to band together to occupy Israel-Palestein, peacefully or otherwise, create an interim government which will oversee the transition to a single state under fully democratic secular constitution, oversee the repatriation of Palestinian refugees,
Wow. And I thought that we couldn’t find an idea mor likely to blow up in our faces than “bomb Iran.” Yes, let’s occupy a nuclear-armed country and dictate to the people there what they should do.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Zionism is a dangerous ideology that has little respect for others.
April 1st, 2009 at 12:32 am
Why is it inconceivable that we would shoot down Israeli planes if we explicitly warn them “Don’t fly over our heads?
We were too scared to even go to the aid of our own sailors when Israeli fighter pilots attacked the U.S.S. Liberty. What makes you think we’d go so far as to fight the Israelis, themselves?
April 1st, 2009 at 12:34 am
Re glasnost at 58, (responding to SLC’s comment about Israeli Submarine-launched nuclear missiles) “I have no idea what your political background or even point of view is. If you think Israel is going to nuke Iran, you’re a nutjob. End of discussion.”
——————-
1) If you have a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail. There have been multiple news reports in the past decade of Israel developing cruise missiles to carry nuclear warheads. Citations available on request.
Their conventional Harpoon and PopEyes only carry 500 to 800 lb warheads –not enough to attack buried facilies. Even with the penetrator version. And payloads with that weight results in only limited range inland from the Iranian coast.
April 1st, 2009 at 12:48 am
LA Times Oct 2003 article re Israeli submarine launched nukes:
http://www.nukewatch.org/media2/postData.php?id=546
I’m sceptical re the Harpoon being the missile — I think Israel’s bigger Turbo PopEye is a more likely platform.
April 1st, 2009 at 12:51 am
SLC (fuck yourself, too) WANTS Israel to nuke Iran.
April 1st, 2009 at 1:34 am
If memory serves, Israel has been developing a close relationship with the Iraqi Kurds. The geographic footprint of the Kurds extends into Iran. Perhaps the Israelis are planning on launching some sort of covert action in concert with the Kurds?
April 1st, 2009 at 1:51 am
Again, Israel doesn’t have to use nukes on its cruise missiles. All it needs to do is attack Iran with conventional missiles and drag the US into it.
If Iran retaliates initially only against Israel by launching missiles, who here doubts that Obama won’t immediately back Israel militarily to at least some degree? Both Bush and Obama have sworn to respond to any attack on Israel.
And that starts the war.
There is no downside for Netanyahu. Sure, the US-Israel relationship will sour a bit. Sure, a few Iranian missiles will hit Israel, and perhaps many more from Hizballah (although Hibzallah is not a puppet of Iran and may not do anything at all.) Neither of those events is a serious threat to Israel. The end result – Iran battered – is all Israel cares about.
“Keep in mind that in September 2007, Israel really did attack Syria, apparently wiping out a nuclear reactor. I think the main concern in Israel is not all-out war with Iran, but nuclear weapons somehow finding their way to Hezbollah and Hamas”
First of all, there is little to no evidence that the facility hit in Syria was a nuclear reactor.
Second, not even Israel is stupid enough to believe that if Iran had a nuclear weapons program that it would be stupid enough to give away its best weapons to a bunch of terrorists, knowing that would cause an immediate nuclear strike on itself.
So Israel is not concerned about that all. It is solely concerned that Iran is a political influence in the region and supports Hizballah and possibly Hamas in opposition to Israel’s own designs on the Middle East.
If Israel attacks Iran unilaterally, it should be brought up before the UN as violating the UN Charter, be subject to a total international boycott, plus a blockade of its sea and air ports, and be ordered to disarm its entire nuclear arsenal.
As for not telling a nuclear nation what to do – the US has far more nukes than Israel has. If Israel wants to try lobbing a couple at the US, bring it on! We only need two or three to make Israel disappear. Israel wouldn’t get more than one off – if that – before it ceased to exist.
April 1st, 2009 at 2:18 am
“As for not telling a nuclear nation what to do – the US has far more nukes than Israel has. If Israel wants to try lobbing a couple at the US, bring it on! We only need two or three to make Israel disappear. Israel wouldn’t get more than one off – if that – before it ceased to exist.”
Why can’t we use this logic with North Korea?
April 1st, 2009 at 3:21 am
A dogfight in the skies over Iraq between US pilots desperate to save Iran from destruction and Israeli pilots equally determined to deliver it.
My world has turned upside down.
April 1st, 2009 at 3:54 am
I think a dogfight between any middle east country and the US would be short, fierce, and overwhelmingly decisive for the US. The idea that we are a bunch of wimps who somehow get our directives from the Israeli’s is a lark.
Israel has been asking for friend or foe codes for quite some time and the answer will remain no. If the IAF engages US controlled airspace it will be turned back immediately, if they show even a waggle they will be taken out as hostile so I trust that they would not mess with the big guys.
And that bit about Israeli subs, don’t bet on it the Navy has made it clear that nobody is going unchallenged in the Persian Gulf.
April 1st, 2009 at 8:15 am
Since the attack on the alleged Syrian nuclear facility has been broached, a few things should be made clear.
1. The IAF had permission from President Bush to attack the site. They would not have done so without that permission.
2. The intelligence that indicated the nuclear nature of the site was developed from both CIA/DIA sources and from the Mossad. There is considerable speculation that the Mossad had infiltrators at the site posing as nuclear experts. It is also likely that the US intelligence agencies had information from Syrian dissidents as to the nature of the site.
3. Permission to attack the site was given only after multiple sources indicated its nuclear nature; the US Government did not depend solely on information provided by the Mossad, nor should it have.
Given the points listed above, it is highly likely that Israel will not attack alleged Iranian nuclear sites without getting permission from President Osama, which permission will not be forthcoming in the near future as US intelligence indicates that Iran is at least 2 years away from developing a nuclear weapon capable of being delivered by any of their missiles.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:06 am
Somewhat off topic but the following article will be of interest to the Israel bashers, like Mr. Yglesias on this blog. Ms. Zuabi is hot!
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1238423651844&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
A money quote:
New Balad party MK Haneen Zuabi, the first woman to be elected to the Knesset as a representative of an Arab party, has welcomed Iran’s growing influence on Palestinian affairs and praised Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon as a means of offsetting Israel’s regional military edge.
Balad MK Haneen Zuabi.
Having Israel as the region’s sole nuclear power, she said, was “dangerous to the world.”
April 1st, 2009 at 10:20 am
I pray to God every night that some patriotic Israeli assassinates that madman Netanyahu.
The Israeli right wing crazies proved that assassinating opposition leaders WORKS; the Israeli left needs to take a page from their book.
April 1st, 2009 at 10:24 am
And SLC, if you are correct and Israel uses nukes on Iran, I hope and pray to God that Tel Aviv is wiped out by several nuclear bombs, and that other Isreali cities are targeted by chemcial and conventional weapons.
April 1st, 2009 at 10:36 am
Re Voice of Reason
Mr. Reason must have overdosed on his daily nose candy this morning.
April 1st, 2009 at 10:43 am
You know what SLC? My guess is this – given that most Israelis (aside from, say, the 10-20% right wing crazies like yourself) are an almost perfect example of basically decent people who, through rationalization, nationalism and fear, commit atrocities (like the majority of Germans in WWII), most of them will have as their dying thought the following: “you know, we deserved this.”
April 1st, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Why do the Israeli terrorist refuse to recognise their neighbors Right to Exist and Right to Defense??? Something HAS TO BE DONE to contain the aggressor state of Israel!!!
April 1st, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Obama is counting on Israel to attack Iran. Were he not, he would pull Israel back right now (and not just with some behind the scenes whispering). Obama has no problem warning other nations we call “enemies” that there will be “consequences”. No nation deserves that warning more than Israel, and its time we gave it to them. There is NO excuse whatsoever to wait until Israel attacks, especially when Obama knows that Iran will almost certainly retaliate against us, so that it will quickly become OUR war.
It’s time to stop making up fantasies about what a peace guy Obama is. He’s not. He wants a wider war.
April 1st, 2009 at 4:47 pm
While Iran has never stated it will militarily attack Israel unprovoked (”wiping it off the face of the map” has been well-documented as a cliched mistranslation and misinterpretation), Israel has repeatedly threatened military strikes against Iran based on a perceived threat which even its own analysts say is based on very poor intelligence.
It has been stated that if Iran hypothetically attacked Israel, it would be “obliterated”. If Israel decides to attack Iran unilaterally, I believe the state of Israel’s days will be counted too.
The situation is a clear stalemate in my opinion. Netanyahu is trying to score political points by looking bold. Israel to date only has experience in fighting battles against enemies who have a very limited ability to respond in kind. Iran is not Lebanon, Syria or Gaza. Israel would be bankrupt ten times over before a war between Israel and Iran has even emerged out of its beginning phase.
April 1st, 2009 at 4:59 pm
“If Israel decides to attack Iran unilaterally, I believe the state of Israel’s days will be counted too.”
From your lips to God’s ears.
April 1st, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Israel is doing pretty well considering the current economic situation within the Global economy. Israel has a healthy defense industry, is allowed to have an advanced electronics industry and nuclear weapons and is a very successful Global Provider of software services.
The notion that Israel will bomb Iran is inconsistent with its economic interests and Israel knows very well that it can continue the saber rattling and war rhetoric as long as it wants to without fear of a strike from the recipients.
On the flip side Iran wants to be part of the Global system and is definitely in control of parts of the middle east so Israel should turn on the charm and try a different approach.
The US has isolated Iran for 30 years and what has it gotten in return….(an independent Iranian state gaining technical capabilities far greater than possible had we maintained diplomatic ties)
Israel needs to dump the 2 state solution, assimilate the Palestinians and accept the reality of the situation. There will not be a theocracy in Israel and that is a good thing.
Pushing the envelope with its neighbors (like the overflight in Southern Lebanon today) is a poor strategy and it will ultimately lead to a serious mistake which in turn will put Israel in a no win situation with the end result being a one state solution with limited Jewish influence and a mass migration out of the country by the Jewish leadership that fought so hard to create the country in the first place.
As for the Superpowers, we are not going to let the little guys get us into a World War and the sooner our micro sized allies get that straight, the better for them. The USA won’t betray Israel, but it will not put Israel’s interests ahead of its own (Regardless of what the Israel-basher’s may tell you, Israel is not so powerful that it trumps US National Security).
As for Bibi Netanyahu, he knows his limits and while he is crazy like a fox, he is a political animal and he loves to be in power and a protracted war with Iran would immediately end his political career and ruin everything he has worked for.
April 1st, 2009 at 11:39 pm
What horrible journalism. Just horrible journalistic ethics.
At no point in the article did Bibi say he would attack Iran if the U.S didn’t.
Jeffrey Goldberg should be fired. He admitted to JTA he hyped the headline.
No where is netanyahu quoted saying he will attack Iran if the U.S doesn’t.
To just make up a headline without any quotes to back you up is outrageous. So Jeffrey Goldberg to get attention to his article just flat out lied and made up a headline.
Goldberg even admitted he hyped the headline to the JTA.
Fire Goldberg. And if Yglesias read the article he would see Bibi never said anything about attacking Iran or saying if the U.S doesn’t Israel will. What ever happened to journalists actually reading an article and seeing what the quotes are instead of just reading a hyped headline that is meant to get attention.
Netanyahu has said for many years Israel won’t attack Iran.