Comments on: Jewish Community Leaders Lie Down With Anti-Iranian Dog, Get Up With Fleas

By: Alex Stein

Alex Stein — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:55:33 +0000

And what was 3?

By: Shirin

Shirin — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:48:36 +0000

1. All right, I will try to remember to call you Alex, if it bothers you for me to use your whole name.

2. No, I will not object to people complaining about the U.S. supplying massive amounts of money and arms to Israel despite the fact that it is a violation of U.S. law to supply arms and equipment that are used for aggression, and against civilians. I WILL point out, however, that this does not make the U.S. an aggressor, nor does it suggest that the U.S. is an existential threat to those Israel chooses to attack.

I have never denied that Iran provides some support to Hamas and Hezballah. What I have stated is that whatever support Iran provides to those two organizations is minor, and that in any case it does not justify a claim that Iran is a threat to Israel.

By: Alex Stein

Alex Stein — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 03:49:26 +0000

Shirin – please call me Alex.
Does this mean you will object to people complaining about the US supplying Israel with military equipment?
And does this mean you are – after all – acknowledging Iranian support of Hamas and Hizbollah?

By: Shirin

Shirin — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:46:39 +0000

Alex Stein, providing a second party with arms or military equipment is not aggression, even if they are used for aggressive purposes. Further, Hamas’ firing rockets at Israeli civilians, is not aggressive, it is a reaction, however inappropriate, to Israel’s even more inappropriate aggressive and oppressive actions against Palestinian civilians.

By: Alex Stein

Alex Stein — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:54:56 +0000

Aside from providing Hamas with rockets to fire at Israeli civilians, of course.

By: Shirin

Shirin — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 06:49:02 +0000

Among all the other things wrong with your statement is that Iran has no history of aggression going back nearly 300 years. To bad Israel and the U.S. can’t say the same.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 04:22:16 +0000

The truth is in the 1930s…

Say no more. We’ve all seen this movie (produced by the Likud). We know how it ends (not well). Could you at least come up with a new argument. This one is just plain lame & unconvincing. It’s historically inapt. In fact, it misuses history for partisan political advantage.

There can be no dialogue with a despotism. It must be isolated

So you ARE in favor of BDS??!

History will record who was on the side of the mullahs and who was on the side of Iranians seeking their freedom.

History will also note who abused it & will consign them to a special place in Hell reserved for ideologues, demagogues & rightist haters.

By: SimoHurtta

SimoHurtta — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:37:27 +0000

Didn’t you read who trained, armed and helped to power Idi Amin? Israel. Who sold weapons to Shah? Who made nukes with South Africa? No dialogue with despotism, hilarious isn’t it.

If we watch the situation from the viewpoint who has the power and is ready for aggressions the “rabbis’” position resembles more that of the situation of Germans in the 30′s than the “mullahs”. Iran is a militarily weak relative underdeveloped country. Israel is an militarily strong, aggressive country with serious human rights and an overblown religious nationalism created by a propaganda machine of which Goebbels could have only dreamed.