50 thoughts on “Iran Doomsday Clock: Four Minutes to Midnight – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. “And Iran fought and vanquished Saddam in an eight year-long war ”

    Not true. It was the Iranians who lost. At the end of the war in 1988, the Iranians were unable to defend their front, and Iranian exile militias allied with Saddam (presumably MEK, and perhaps others) were ranging up the main road to Tehran as far as Kermanshah. The Iranians were forced to make peace, though it was a pyrrhic victory for Saddam, and he threw it away two years later.

    1. You’re getting a bit confused here – once UN resolution 598 was accepted by Iran and the war ended, the MEK attacked Iran using Iraqi air support.

      This attack led to the direct or indirect death of over 30’000 MEK soldiers and permanently destroyed their army, which was a huge strategic victory for Iran.

      At no point in any of this did Iran ‘lose’ the war.

      1. Lifelong maybe you should research things better yourself. If Iran did win it was because it had help from the USA. Iran-Contra Affair with Reagan as president selling Arms to Iran from August 20, 1985 – March 4, 1987.

  2. I think the vast majority of us want Iran’s bomb to just go away. There is no red phone as there was between the Soviet Union and America. The button is in the hands of the mullahs. When ever God comes into the picture there is a serious problem. Even the fact that if a bomb went off in Tel Aviv half the Palestinians in the West Bank would die – wouldn’t constrain them.
    Half the Israelis want to attack immediately – the other half want to wait till Iran takes another step forward thus, hopefully, retaining support among , at least, the West.
    I am 100% sure that there are plans afoot that are meant to save lives – our and theirs. (I do remember the ‘Burning canal’ pipe that the Egyptians cut in seventy three and the massive bridge that broke in half – plans do go awry). There is one theory that we will just go on reducing there A-bomb development bit by bit. I do – BB doesn’t – he wants to be KING of the Likud and of The United States of Greater Israel

    I do detest BB and would leave the Occupied Territories before morning coffee, but this is bigger than just these. 50% of Israelis are directly linked to the holocaust – making us understand that the impossible may just be possible.

    BTW On channel 10 they hinted that Ahmanijad may have been killed in the second explosion. Does anyone have some info? Has anybody heard him rant recently?

    1. “I think the vast majority of us want Iran’s bomb to just go away”

      Not really.

      Of course no one should have nukes. On the other hand since Israel keep refusing to destroy its own nukes there is no reason to point fingers at Iran (not to mention US keep upgrading theirs, in violation of the NPT urging the nuclear powers to destroy their arsenal). That wont help the situation and that is why the conflict is a conflict to begin with. If it wasnt for israeli, american threats against Iran, Iran wouldnt be seeking out a deterrence (if thats the case today).
      Its ridiculous to even raise the notion that Iran would use such weapons, such rhetoric only benefit the people who use scarmonger and warmongering tactics (netanyahu etc). Israel want Iran to be a threat, Israel want to be the victim, because being the victim a strike would seem legitimate from an international perspective.

      Also a nuclear Iran would be good for the region (even people in the region think this according to survey carried out last year by Brookings) because if Iran get this deterrence that would mean that israeli monopoly over their neighbours regarding military and therefore politically power have come to an end. Israel could act like it want today because its the strongest force in the region and this stems from the fact that they are military superior when it comes to conventional but also non-conventional warfare, like having nukes. When another party get this capability, Israel’s power will decline heavily and they would have to compromise regarding Palestine, peace, nukes etc. And this is what all is about – power over the region.

      I think El Baradei put it correct when he said in his newly released book:

      “Iran’s goal is not to become another North Korea — a nuclear weapons possessor but a pariah in the international community — but rather Brazil or Japan, a technological powerhouse with the capacity to develop nuclear weapons if the political winds were to shift, while remaining a nonnuclear weapons state,”

    2. the heart of a society that was raised to think of itself as exceptional is cold as stone – and exceptional indeed, just in all the wrong ways.

      The danger in the ME is not Iran, but israel. And Israel is determined to “show them”, if it drags the entire world down with it. That’s the jihadist in the Jewish/Israeli soul = the golem the Jews of the world (now including the many and once-Israeli) need to confront.

      1. Israeli and US “experts” who speak about Iran or other nuclear threats should begin to explain the reality. In Israeli comments (for example Lieberman and Barak) they nowadays frequently mention Iran as a danger to the present world order. They do not speak about not to world peace. The present world order is also based on fact that Israel is one of the strongest nations with nuclear weapons and oil producing Muslim countries are not.

        The absurd situation people around the world seem not to understand is:

        country population amount of nukes (estimates from Wikipedia)
        India 1,170 million 80–100
        Pakistan 173 million 90–110
        China 1,338 million ~180 / 240
        UK 62 million 160 / 225
        France 65 million 290 / 300
        North Korea 24 million <10
        Israel <6 million (Jews) 80-200 (400)
        (Russia and USA are not included in the table because the absurd amounts of their bombs would distract the focus of the essential)

        Estimates of Israel's nuclear weapons is in some sources even 400. That would make it the world's nuclear power number 3. Anyway the amount of Israel's nukes is close or over those of India and China have and probably also over the of number of bombs which France and GB have.

        There is no military explanation in the enemy picture Israel presents in its propaganda to justify such an amount of nukes and the present long range delivery systems. That nuclear “deterrence” is aimed against all Eurasia, not only Arab countries. The often expressed Israeli "excuse" that "you do not have to worry because Israel has not threatened anybody with nukes and will not introduce them first" is simply idiotic and worth nothing. Israel's whole influence in international politics is in the end defined by the Nukes of Judaism. What would be Israel's influence be if it would have no nukes and other WMDs? That of a developed nation of 5 million people (and bit more than a religious sect of 12 million worshippers normally have). An as visible role in the world Slovakia, Norway, Denmark or Finland have. Little over insignificant compared to the present.

        It is certain that the Israeli and international Jewish/Zionist ruling elite will not give up voluntarily the present world order where it is as an equal among the other geopolitical giants. Why should a nation with 5.7 million (Jews) of whom one million live permanently abroad be the one which dictates the events and "rules" in a wast and vital region. It is clear that the other regional powers (Egypt, Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and even EU and Russia) will have to create ways of neutralizing the threat Israel causes to them.

        1. SimoHurrta:

          One Iranian nuclear bomb dropped on Israel will destroy around 4 million of its citizens. Since you seem to be knowledgeable about the Israelis, you probably heard of the Massada syndrom. The Massada syndrom, or the Massada lesson says that the Jews of Israel will not fall captive to their enemies and rather (if their existence is threatened) take with them all their enemies. That’s the reason you need 200-400 bombs aimed at all Islamic countries, but many more aimed at Iran. However, leave Israel alone in peace and Israel behaves quite well (except again when attacked from Gaza or Lebabon Hezbollah.) Capish?

          1. “However, leave Israel alone in peace and Israel behaves quite well (except again when attacked from Gaza or Lebabon Hezbollah.) Capish?”

            The Zionists started all this garbage when they’ve decided to clear the land of Palestinians in order to create a Jewish majority. Since it’s inception it is Israel who has refused to let other people live in peace.

          2. leave Israel alone in peace and Israel behaves quite well

            Similarly, if Israel would “leave alone” territory it conquered & occupies illegally its neighbors would also behave quite well. If it refuses then it can’t expect anyone in the region or the rest of the world to “leave it alone.”

            Read the comment rules. I don’t go in for snark nor do I go in for point-scoring or histrionic faux claims like Iran dropping bombs on Israel unless you’re willing to concede that Arab & Muslims are equally frightened of Israel doing the same to them.

            As for the Masada Complex, your interpretation of it is totally bizarre and is actually closer to the Samson story than the historical Masada story. But no one in Israel except you & perhaps radical settlers hold by a mass national suicide myth. That’s pretty wild even I have to admit. Something similar is also attributed by neocons & other crazies to the Iranian Ayatollahs. Both theories are absurd.

    3. “The button is in the hands of the mullahs. When ever God comes into the picture there is a serious problem. Even the fact that if a bomb went off in Tel Aviv half the Palestinians in the West Bank would die – wouldn’t constrain them.”

      This is all just baseless paranoia.

    4. RE: “When ever God comes into the picture there is a serious problem. Even the fact that if a bomb went off in Tel Aviv half the Palestinians in the West Bank would die – wouldn’t constrain them.” ~ SoftLef

      MY REPLY: The Iranians do not seem nearly as apocalyptic as Bob Dylan!

      FROM Bob Dylan – The Rolling Stone Interview (by Kurt Loder – 1984)

      [LODER:]…Your latest album, Infidels, is hardly subteen fodder. Some critics have even detected a new note of conservatism in some of the songs — even outright jingoism in “Neighborhood Bully”…
      [DYLAN:]…You’d have to point that out to me, you know, what line is in it that spells that out. I’m not a political songwriter…
      But what’s going on today isn’t gonna last, you know? The battle of Armageddon is specifically spelled out: where it will be fought, and if you wanna get technical, when it will be fought. And the battle of the Armageddon definitely will be fought in the Middle East…

      SOURCE – http://bobdylantalks.blogspot.com/2007/03/bob-dylan-rolling-stone-interview-by_5060.html


      (excerpt)…According to the Sue Fishkoff book “The Rebbe’s Army”, p.167, Bob Dylan is one of the biggest names associated with Chabad. In the early 1980s, Chabad “rescued” Dylan from a brief flirtation with Christianity, and for several years, Dylan studied with Minneapolis Rabbis Manis Friedman and Moshe Feller, whom he visited also for Shabbat dinners. Dylan made a surprise appereance at the 1988 and 1989 Chabad telethons, once playing “Hava Negila” out of tune on the harmonica…

      P.P.S. ALSO SEE: Bob Dylan’s neighbors sing outhouse blues, by Bob Pool, L.A. Times, March 17, 2009
      Malibu residents say wind-borne odors from a portable toilet at the singer’s compound are making them ill.
      LINK – http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/17/local/me-dylan-outhouse17

    5. The Iranians simply would not drop a bomb in T.A. or anywhere else unless another nation invaded them or attempted to overthrow their government. Which is precisely how Israel claims it would use its own weapon. The notion that mullahs or anyone else in Iran is a flaming lunatic psychopath is a false manipulation designed to foment war against Iran.

      Pls. don’t spread rumor or disinformation unless you can offer proof, a source or video for yr claim.

      1. “Which is precisely how Israel claims it would use its own weapon”

        bullshit. Israel has been invaded before, and it didn’t use its nuclear arsenal. as for “overthrow its govrement” israel gov gets overthrown every four years.

        “Which is precisely how Israel claims it would use its own weapon.”

        where? what are you talking about?

        “Pls. don’t spread rumor or disinformation unless you can offer proof, a source or video for yr claim.”


        1. You don’t have a clue about Israeli history. Israel was never “invaded” during the era in which it had a nuclear weapon. It had a crude weapon in 1967 & did indeed prepare to use it as Avner Cohen shows in his book on the subject. Luckily it didn’t have to.

          Israel has always claimed that it would not observe a first-use policy toward nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Or did you miss that memo too?

          1. You are wrong, Israel was invaded in 1973 during the Yom Kippur war, during said time Israel had more then crude weapons, which was never used or intended to be used. During said time Israel had Yericho 1 MD-620 Ballistic Missiles (developed and tested in 1965)

          2. No, YOU are wrong. ISRAEL was not invaded. Rather territory Israel conquered in 1967 was invaded. No Israeli territory was ever invaded, though one might argue that the attackers intended (at least in the Syrian case) to take Israeli territory, but they never got the chance.

            Again, in 1967 Israel had a crude nuclear weapon & made preparations to use it. If you don’t know this you haven’t read Avner Cohen & if you’re going to spout off on the subject, you must read him (the book’s in Hebrew).

          3. You said they invaded “Israel.” They did not. Ceasefire lines are not the same as territorial boundaries. No Arab nation crossed any Israeli territorial boundaries unless you wish to claim that Israel had annexed this territory & incorporated it into Israel proper, which would be false anyway.

          4. A Cease Fire agreement, is a document establishing the end of hostilities and the state boundaries until further agreement is to be reached. Such document is recognized by the International community.
            The opening stage of the Yom Kippur war, was in defiance of such agreement, and Is considered an Invasion by the international community and law.

            Regardless of what A.Choen states, no preparation to use nuclear weapons were made in 1967. Israel came much close to using one in 1973.

          5. No, a ceasefire boundary is not a state boundary. Again, stick to what you know & don’t speculate or offer opinions for matters that can be determined factually. No ceasefire line is recognized as a settled state border under any international agreement. Once again, the Arab states did not invade Israeli territory in 1973. So get off this. I can’t keep track of who’s attempting to argue this point but knock it off. 2 tries to advance a fake argument is 2 too many. Next subject.

            There is no international body community or anything which considered the 1973 war an invasion of sovereign Israeli territory.

            Again, Avner Cohen is one of the world’s foremost experts on Israel’s nuclear program & he says Israel had a nuclear device & prepared to use it. The more you spout nonsense the more you get on my nerves. YOu can’t simply pronounce an opinion here & have it accepted as fact. You may advance a credible source on any subject under discussion. But opinions, esp. false ones, no. For beating a dead horse, you will be moderated till you show you respect the comment rules.

      2. “The notion that mullahs or anyone else in Iran is a flaming lunatic psychopath is a false manipulation designed to foment war against Iran.”

        Right on Richard.
        Therefore does the likudniks and other warmongers not only profit alot from the islamophobia and obsolete xenophobic and stereotype views of muslims but they are also the forerunners to deepen the suspicion about muslims (through israeli politics, through certain lobbygroups, think-tanks and so called pro-Israel right wing islam “experts” that we could often see on foxnews etc).

  3. “But the mere fact that there is a regional Muslim power with a weapon acts as an unstated insurance policy for the Arab cause” Iran is no “Arab” force, they’re a Persian, Shiite Muslim force…I have been amazed at American think tanks with regards to the Middle East especially the Democrats seems to be disconnected with regards to Middle Eastern and Russian politics as in Geopolitics those two together with the Israeli relations and the Vatican holds the entire modern day WORLD POLITICS…Oh the Russians will deal with the USA just look at all the new weaponry out of Russia. Forget about the Chinese…

  4. One more thing: no one pays attention to the fact that Iran pretty much promulgated and started the Nuclear-Free Middle East movement. They even had a UN resolution passed recently and spearheaded it against nuclear arms.

    It’s just easier to believe they REALLY want those useless nuclear arms. Because people think Atomic Bombs = mushroom clouds. They don’t realize this technology has become SOOOOO much more advanced since. You have plumeless bombs. What if you found out that the US and Israel have been using nuclear weapons, tactically, in Iraq and more? Iraq has one of the highest rates of birth defect in the world, and many highly credible, intelligence experienced, sources provide empirical evidence, backed by science, to show nukes were used in Iraq. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/10/31/iraq-full-weapons-grade-uranium-use-proven-we-mean-nukes/

    The ability to control the media, images and narrative thus becomes a powerful tool. Remember when Pat Buchanan was labeled an insane racist and majorly shunned in the 90s? Remember when Ron Paul was aggressively attacked by an Israeli lobby that put Israel before America’s interests in a PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE? People have already made up their mind that he is “not a viable candidate” and has a “racist past”. No one looks to the details, they believe what they are told, hook, line and sinker. But what if one actually looked at the details? You’d see that they are saying nothing different from most other humanists who understand patriotism from corruption, and can see the overall picture: America is not American, but they want to make it that again.

    1. PersianAdvocate:

      Forget about ‘plumeless bombs’, that’s simply against the laws of the known universe. You can’t dissipate 20 kT equivalent TNT worth of energy (or much more in the case of a thermonuclear fusion weapon) within a second or so and not generate terrifying amounts of hot gas, which has to go somewhere. No amount of technology is going to change that basic fact.

      There’s another calculation Bibi and fellow Israeli hawks may be making. If Obama fails to endorse an actual Israeli, unilateral attack on Iran he will be electoral toast. That means Newt ‘taking America back for G-d’ Gingrich is in and when asked to jump by the Dr Strangeloves of Israel’s military industrial complex he’ll only ask: ‘how high?’ Newt would be willing to Astroturf over much of the ME, if it pleases the Zionist Entity…

  5. “. What if you found out that the US and Israel have been using nuclear weapons, tactically, in Iraq and more? Iraq has one of the highest rates of birth defect in the world, and many highly credible, intelligence experienced, sources provide empirical evidence, backed by science, to show nukes were used in Iraq.”


    1. You look awfully stupid dismissing top experts in the field way beyond your pay grade. The link is right there with all of the supporting evidence.

  6. Richard,
    Fine piece. When you say liberal Dems would abandon Obama if he attacked or allowed Israel to, I trust you are not referring to Congress. I think every Senate Democrat would support a war (because of AIPAC contributions to their campaigns) and all but 20 or 30 House Dems (and Ron Paul). So the independent left would oppose war but without any significant leadership. Paul Wellstone is gone and has not been replaced.
    Not by a long shot.

  7. it boils down to
    “Without means of delivery the BOMB is of no use”
    The liquid fuel rockets are dead ducks in the water
    Send it by mail. –
    it’s they MUST NOT have it.
    The chinese go – be careful what you wish for you may get it.
    So Iran gets it. question is NOW WHAT
    the answer is NOW NOTHING. period. waste of resources rather than food. same stupidity in here. the billions that go for IRON DOME or better yet MONEY DOME.
    There is no debate as to what the iranians MIGHT DO AFTER
    most of these things wind up being a white elephant because they defend against nothing. use a cannon to swat a tick. once in hand everyone realizes the uselesness but then it’s too late and the LOSS OF FACE is more fatal to leaders who set on to that road than any loss of lives that the BOMB will EVER MAKE.
    Like to cops say = there’s nothing here folks move on.
    what a sad story of propaganda for the sake of power.
    Even now Hizbollah with all its armories full will never dare twitch a finger for the response would be unfathomable and this WITHOUT THE BOMB.
    it is not a tool it’s an owner’s curse to have it than not to have it, boys will be boys with toys of bluster more than spades to seed.

  8. I agree fully with Richard that Bibi is a “two-bit tin-pot megalomaniac” itching for war with Iran. I also have every reason to believe that any kind of military action against Iran would be unwise and immoral — and probably unsuccessful. But I’m surprised that no one in the discussion has mentioned one thing: The ball is really in Iran’s court. While it is certainly NOT proven that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons (not proven in the public record, anyway), it is ABSOLUTELY proven that Iran has consistently violated the terms of the treaty it signed — the NPT — by building secret facilities (and acknowledging them only when they have been discovered), by serving late notice to the IAEA inspection teams, and by restricting IAEA access to some sites. Living up to the letter and the spirit of treaty terms should remove any causus belli.

    Also, I do a little business in the Gulf. There, among Sunni Arabs, an Iranian A-bomb would not be considered a “Muslim” bomb. It would be considered a Shi’a bomb. And it would likely start a new regional arms race… or force the Saudis and others to seek protection under the US nuclear umbrella or (tin-pot megolomaniac take note) an Israeli one!

    1. Steve, but your prosecution under the NPT is unduly unilateral and ignorant to the plaintiffs own errors under the same. What is good for the goose is good for the gander is the basic gist of Iran’s defense. But, also, it’s important to understand the technical aspects of nuclear armaments and development, and, finally, their utility in practice.

      In view of these factors, it is highly unlikely that Iran would even want to have a purchased nuclear weapon in its possession because a breach and occupation within its borders (which actually did occur after the Iraqi invasion of Iran) may be an opportunity to make a finding that would ring the death knell as to the international legitimacy of Iran’s government. The ability to safeguard the nuclear weapons while under intense scrutiny is another factor. Even the Mullahs will want to ensure that they are the only ones with access to their weapons. In effect, nuclear weapons would be albatrosses around Iran’s neck.

      Finally, the utility in practice:
      (1) Iran’s delivery systems are ancient as compared to the defensive capabilities of Israel for delivery of specialized payloads, like one-off nukes (as opposed to 400,000+ air-intake amped missiles). They would have to detonate on ground, which is near impossible by any stretch of the imagination;

      (2) it would kill the Palestinians and many surrounding Arab neighbors, making life uninhabitable in the area for some time (lest you want cancer assuredly at a young age);

      (3) Israel has Dolphin subs with second strike characteristics that assure way more than just a tooth for a tooth;

      (4) and Iran doesn’t have to do anything for its Israel problem to fall upon itself. The CIA report about Israel’s longevity without a two-state solution was real.

      Iran is under the most intense scrutiny ever by the UN nuclear inspector, it has major support from Russia and China, and there exists no world consensus whatsoever in belief that the Israeli position that (a) Iran is threatening or (b) Iran is developing nuclear weapons. At the last two NPT Review Conferences, Iran was not so much as mentioned. But Israel received many censures, including a signed demand by 198 countries for it to sign the NPT and come clean. The US actually got pressured into signing it by the Arab League… but then got pressured to walk back on it by the Israeli lobby, and did.

      So despite what the “journalistic” press says, or what is censured via a procedural US veto of world wishes at the UN, the world doesn’t follow the Israeli tune in actuality. The IAEA also was forced to step back as of the last report against Iran. It was hard to swallow for anyone (like the Saudi Plot) that it was not completely politicized.

      Germany recently announced that it wishes to seek much stronger mutual ties with Iran. Sweden the same. Iran and the UK will reconcile faster than people think. This was an abnormality in relations, not a regular symptom of trends. It was manufactured.

      So, your tale of nuclear weapons is a little too unsophisticated for what would be realistic Israeli intentions in painting Iran the way it has and trying to gather world consensus against Iran: Israel wants to retain its hegemony in the Middle East against a rising Iran. It’s that simple. It’s not even a big secret anymore. Behind closed doors, it never was.

      1. I repeat:

        1. Iran signed NPT.
        2. Iran violates NPT.
        3. Iran should be able to head off any trouble that MAY be coming its way by committing itself to obeying the treaty it signed.

        No amount of sophistry can get around this. Not living up to the treaty suggests to tin-pot meglomaniac and others that Iran has something to hide.

        1. Iran and others can also end their NTP “membership” and become an Israel. What can “you” then do? It is simply absurd that a theocracy with 200 – 400 “secret” nukes can become a IAEA member and lecture to others and make demands about practised nuclear policies.

          Not living up to the treaty suggests to tin-pot meglomaniac and others that Iran has something to hide.

          Do you claim that not signing the NTP and other agreements makes it OK, that Israel is full of nukes and other WMDs. Iran has very little to hide compared to Israel. Israel is an experienced professional paedophile when Iran is a trainee taking its first steps.

          Anyway there is no evidence which would make Israel and USA “want” to believe what Iran says about its nuclear program. Like it was not in the case of Iraq. And one million people were killed, a country destroyed and the oil-contracts given to loyal “friends”. They have done it before and they will try it again in future.

          1. 1. Israel never signed the NPT. It thus gave up the right to use nuclear power for commercial purposes.
            2. Iran signed it. Can’t successfully claim afterward that it never meant to live up to the terms because some country that never signed it has nukes! (… and Iran signed the NPT knowing Israel had nukes…)
            3. Anyone who walks away from the treaty would have to forego commercial nuclear power; Russia, for instance, would not be allowed to fuel or maintain the reactor it built for Iran.

            I don’t understand why this is so difficult to grasp. If you sign a treaty, and you get benefits from signing the treaty, you are supposed to live up to the treaty’s terms or suffer the consequences.

  9. I’ve made a comment on the factual incorrectness of describing Iran as an “Arab” nation or regional power. Iran broke their signed nuclear treaty, thats a fact. “Islamophobia” whats is that? In my studies I’ve never encountered any Muslim grouping that alows for a Jewish state with a Jerusalem Jewish presence…I also understand how difficult it must be for Americans to understand their relationship with the Jewish state, the power of the Vatican in their goverment and also the rethoric that Russia is a dead country and the fear for China. I however do not understand the notion of being Jewish outside the state of Israel, that is a paradox in itself.

    1. I never said Iran was an “Arab” country. I said that Iran’s bomb, if it gets one, could be used to advance or protect the interests of Arab countries. Get the difference & get down off yr horse.

      You haven’t “studied” anything & you’re an ignoramus as far as Islam is concerned. There are many Muslims who’d be willing to see Israel & Palestine share Jerusalem.

      1. I’ll admit that i am not that knowledgeable about the subject, could you please provide a link to such statement made by Muslim (religous) Scholars ?

        1. Sorry for the harsh language I used & I’m glad that you’re willing to open yourself on this subject. You should explore the site, Jerusalem Peacemakers which is devoted to clerics of all faiths dedicated to sharing Jerusalem. Though Imam Faisal Rauf doesn’t specifically address Jerusalem in his book (featured in my Amazon store), you might read it as he is precisely the sort of Muslim cleric who would certainly be willing for all religions to share that city. Rabbi Menachem Froman also has dedicated his life to working together with such Muslim leaders & he himself is a settler.

          1. As i know the problem with Jews residing in the land of Israel has to do with the land declared Muslim Holly land – Waqf – and therefore must be under a Muslim control.
            Such statement’s were made many times by Hamas who to the best of my understanding base those statements on verdicts of Imam Sheikh Hasan Ahmed Abdel Rahman Muhammed al-Banna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_al-Banna)
            the opening statements of the Muslim Brotherhood and of the Hamas Charter states “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it”

            To solve a religious conflict, you need prominent religious figures to step forward and denounce previous statements made by religious leaders. This is extremely important today as we see the Muslim political parties raising to power in the Arab world.

            So my question is do you know of any Muslim Scholar who specifically denounces and changes Hassan al-Banna verdicts ?

          2. Pls stop with the “history” lessons about Hamas & tenets of Islam about which you know nothing. Stick to what you know. Don’t theorize about what you don’t. The Hamas Charter is absolutely off limits here for discussion. It’s an irrelevant document having no basis or validity to anyone affiliated with Hamas. Read my comment rules before you publish another one. The Islamic Brotherhood does not run or govern Hamas. It served as a source for Hamas beliefs when the latter first began. Even the Egyptian Islamic Brotherhood has evolved over time. All the moreso Hamas, which has no direct affiliation w. it & is governed by its own leaders both religious & military.

            This is a political, not a religious conflict. The radicals on both sides wish to make it a religious conflict so it can never be settled w/o the extermination of 1 side by the other (which can never happen).

            I don’t answer questions of the sort you asked. I’m not here to engage in competitions or challenges. If you want answers to these questions you’ll have to go elsewhere.

  10. lol, Richard, yes spot on. I disagree slightly with what MJ Rosenberg above said, because Congress, if they’re not aware that another war would be ‘the straw that broke the camels back’ then they really are asking for trouble. It will the end for them. I suspect they are aware of that, ulike the bible and guns crowd they are not stupid, what with the growing Occupy Wall St movement, hence I don’t think they will push for a war with Iran.

    Obama if he has any sense, has probably already accepted that. It would be foolish of the US to make an enemy of Iran, if anything they should try to make the best of a bad situation. Offer incentives, and then make friends. Iran’s econony is better than the US’s. So is Turkey’s.

    and Fernando,

    You do exhibit a total disconnect with your statements on Iran, Israel, Palestine and Jerusalem. It’s always amazing how the the right wing live in a bubble. When that bubble bursts they won’t like the cold naked world.

  11. Imho. Iran has the right as any other living entity on the planet to defend themselves.. US has Nothing to do there.. and neither does russia or china. Its their turf let them settle it there. If anyone should be there it must be the UN and that ONLY to look after civil populace.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link