10 thoughts on “Why Bibi, Barack and Mitt Are All Wrong on Iran – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. The antics of Netanyahu are an obscenity and illustrate the extent to which Israeli meddling permeates US foreign policy. Anyone who isn’t familiar with the repulsive “special relationship” between Israel and the US is not becoming quickly enlightened. Not only has the US taxpayer been bled to the tune of more than $3 billion annually to support Israel’s military, but obviously that’s not enough anymore. Now a demand is being made for Americans to give their lives to cater to the hysterical existential fears of Netanyahu and his ilk. Sorry, but psychiatric help is much cheaper. I suggest Obama give Bibi and his friends a referral to a good shrink. The US is in too many zionist-instigated wars as it is

  2. Great talk, Richard. You put to bed any benefit in allowing Netanyahu to attack Iran. Indeed, Netanyahu’s behavior is anti-Israeli, a series of strategic calculations that he has been warned about, by everyone under the Sun, will surely end in huge and unrecoverable losses for Israel — probably the destruction of Israel altogether. Not to mention the millions of others that will be killed throughout the region and possibly the world (global economic collapse would be inevitable).

    Netanyahu claims that he has a “moral right” to ILLEGALLY attack Iran with zero justification while violating every parameter of its own false complaint against Iran. In this case, the US has a moral right to put a bullet between the used furniture salesman’s eyes.

    Not our children, Bibi. Yours.

  3. Regarding Obama’s “settlement freeze” fiasco. NOTE that Bibi and Co. had already won most of the prizes when they got Obama to “frame” the issue as “freeze”. Next time even a “settlement cooling” will be blasted

    Obama should (after November, of course) rexcite to the American people the international law on settlements, read the relevant part of UNSC 465 (1980):

    5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
    6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

    (see: What-UNSC-465-and-ICJ-7-2004-actually-say. And then ask the American people whether we wouldn’t all — Americans and Israelis and Palestinians — be better off if all the settelrs were removed and all the settlements demolished or dismantled. Little “fireside chat”. to set up UNSC action of course.

  4. On the issue of settlements, while polls were showing that American public is not supportive, very few people care. Thus AIPAC push did not have a counterpush (that would matter in Congress).

    The issue of attacking Iran is different because USA cannot do it and it cannot let Israel do it. I conjecture that if Iran is restrained in its response, it will get support from Russia and China. A theoretical possibility could be to close Hormuz until to nations that oppose the demand that Israel pays reparations for the attack. China would get oil, and India etc. Russia could declare that it does not agree to any subsequent attack on Iran. Then what? USA would had to declare if it supports the attack, or opposes, and we will have plenty to loose either way.

    Details may vary, but Iran supported by China, Russia, Pakistan and India can collectively deliver a hugely expensive and humiliating stalemate. Clearly, some “red lines” were drawn, otherwise the opposition to an attack on Iran would be much smaller. Moreover, why the full potential for disaster is not understood, the public understand by painful experience what a bloody quagmire is, and few wish that to happen.

    The mildest that can happen is that Asian countries will abandon embargoes and sanctions and Russia will veto (with nukes) follow-up attacks. Iran will declare victory.

  5. That shirt is really fantastic. I wish I had the guts to wear something like that.

    On a more serious note, let’s hope everyone will be talked off the ledge on this.

  6. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/22/sense-of-the-congress-with-bibi-over-obama.html

    “After midnight yesterday, the Senate voted 90 to 1 to express the “sense of the Congress” as weighing in on the debate about what red lines the U.S. should declare against Iran. You’ll remember this issue as the one roiling the relationship between Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama at the moment. On the Hill, almost everyone—including most of the Democrats—just sided with Netanyahu.”

Leave a Reply

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

Share via
Copy link