12 thoughts on “There are Lies, Damn Lies, and Ron Dermer – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. In this odious advertisement George Shultz is quoted as saying about Iran: “They don’t want a nuclear weapon for deterrence. They want it to use it. On Israel.”

    I have not been able to verify the authenticity of this quote. If Shultz really came up with this it is easier to assume that he is individually losing his marbles than that the ayatollahs are collectively doing so. Why would they hanker after the assured destruction of most of their own country?

    I am inclined to think however that the quote is apocryphal – in spite of Shultz’s reputation of being the most pro-Israel Foreign Secretary ever.
    His known present preoccupation with nuclear matters suggest that he is still sane enough. He wants nuclear disarmament on al sides and attends many meetings where this aim is discussed. One of these was the International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament of February 2009, which gathered at the initiative of the Norwegian government.

    What was one of the more remarkable moments for Shultz there? In an interview with him, published in MIT News, he is quoted as saying inter alia: “At that United Nations meeting, in some ways the most startling comment was made by President Sarkozy of France. He said, “Well, this is very fine and we’re all for it. But let’s get real. If a tinpot country like North Korea cannot be stopped, where are we? If we can’t stop Iran, where are we?”

    Remarkably enough Israel wasn’t mentioned here. Even though Israel has the bomb, and Iran hasn’t (yet). Even though no effort has ever been made – with the exception of some futile attempts by President Kennedy – to stop Israel and the US is bending over backwards to stop Iran.

    So yes Mr. Sarkozy we should heed your advice: “Let’s get real”.

    MIT NEWS 18th October 2010

    http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2010/3q-shultz-1018

    1. The Shultz quote appears to be accurate.
      http://topnews.4wy.net/Shultz:_No_Empty_Threats_If_You_Want_People_to_Trust_Foreign_Policy_-_PJ_Media

      Mind you, I stopped paying too much attention after this nonsense: “We have granted the right to enrich.”

      Apparently the “right to enrich” isn’t a “right” at all, merely something that is “granted” by the US government to those countries deemed worthy enough for American largesse.

      And here was I thinking that the NTP said “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.”

      But, no, apparently not.

      In Shultz-world(tm) an “inalienable right” isn’t so must “inalienable” as it is “granted” from Up On High. Or from the White House. Whichever is the mightier.

          1. Oui, Shultz didn’t mention Israel in the prepared (or in his case, unprepared) portion of his testimony.

            Which didn’t sit well with The Warmonger, so McCain asked Shultz (and Kissinger, but not Albright…. odd) to have another go before they ended the meeting.

            It’s that second bite of the cherry that elicited the all-important money-shot from Shultz.

            So fast forward to about 1:14:14 in that video and you’ll see Shultz say that “they don’t want a nuclear weapon for deterrence, they want a nuclear weapon to use it on Israel”.

            Quite what McCain would have done if he hadn’t got that quote is anyone’s guess – tho’ I imagine he’d still have that committee sitting even now, trying one more time to get somebody – anybody! – to give him the soundbite that he needed.

            But, so sorry, the ol’ koot really did indeed oblige the warmonger.

      1. PJ Media erroneous/false quotation reads as follows:

        Schultz underscored that he’s “very uneasy about the way our negotiations with Iran are going on.”

        He added it’s “a very threatening situation” because Iran gives “every indication … that they don’t want a nuclear weapon for deterrence, they want a nuclear weapon to use it on Israel.”

  2. I couldn’t find a quote anywhere close except perhaps from Richard Cohen and specifically president George Bush.

    President Welcomes German Chancellor Merkel to the White House – Jan. 13, 2006 [cached]

    President Bush: I want to remind you that the current President of Iran has announced that the destruction of Israel is an important part of their agenda. And that’s unacceptable. And the development of a nuclear weapon seems like to me would make them a step closer to achieving that objective.

    Picked up by media as: “Bush: Iran Intends to Nuke Israel.

    In 2012 especially, Netanyahu threatened to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, thereby blackmailing the White House for further support for funding and shipment of advanced military arms. In the meantime increasing settlement espansion on Palestinian land with impunity.

  3. Are the Iranian leaders rational?

    J.J.Goldberg in the Jewish Daily Forward – 2/27/15

    “The other, more veiled critique of Netanyahu is the assertion that the Iranian leadership is “rational,” as stated by then-IDF chief of staff Benny Gantz in an April 2012 Haaretz interview, and that Iran doesn’t pose an “existential threat” to Israel, as stated by Mossad director Tamir Pardo in a December 2011 speech and repeated since then by former IDF chief Dan Halutz and former Mossad director Efraim Halevy.
    Despite its preparations, Gantz told Haaretz, Iran would stop short of actually manufacturing a nuclear device as long as it faced a credible military threat, because its leaders are “very rational people” who aren’t suicidal. The same logic led Pardo, Halutz and Halevy to conclude that Iran isn’t an “existential” threat — that it wouldn’t drop a nuclear bomb on Israel, knowing that Israel would retaliate in kind.

    Netanyahu insists any Iranian enrichment is too much. Nobody believes Iran will voluntarily drop its entire project, but the prime minister believes — sincerely, his aides insist — that if he can convince enough people, a truly crippling sanctions regime can bring the mullahs to their knees. Apparently they’re irrational enough to welcome nuclear Armageddon, but rational enough to yield to economic punishment.”

    Read more: http://forward.com/articles/215562/benjamin-netanyahu-s-iran-exaggerations-now-clea/#ixzz3TGv3B9kw

    It is Bibi’s paranoia, which has probably a lot to do with listening too much to his late father, Ben-Tzion Netanyahu, that is the “existential threat” .

    Uri Avnery wrote in 1998 in a column that has attracted a lot of attention:

    “Binyamin is no intellectual. He is utterly devoid of any creative thinking, beyond tactical matters. His whole world view, his concepts and his philosophy have been absorbed from his father. Ben-Tzion laid down the conceptual tracks upon which the Binyamin train runs. And thus it is Ben-Tzion Netanyahu who, in effect, is running the country. And that is a scary thought.

    Ben-Tzion Netanyahu has a few fundamental premises: We live in a jungle. All countries are predatory animals. The whole world hates the Jews. “The Arab quest to annihilate the Jewish state has neither ceased nor abated…if allowed, they will slaughter us to the last person.” When this happens, in Ben-Tzion’s view, Europe will not even send ships to rescue the survivors.”

    In short: among sane people there is little doubt about the rationality of the Iranian leaders, but a lot about the sanity of Bibi’s ideas.

    1. Exactly so – there must be a monumental amount of cognitive dissonance going on in Netanyahu’s brain. Either that or the man is utterly venal and completely unscrupulous.

      On the one hand the Iranians are utterly irrational, not open to any argument or persuasion.
      On the other hand you only need to squeeze them harder and they’ll submit because…. err… because.

      You can’t square that circle, so either Netanyahu has Two Brains that he keeps in separate compartments or he knows perfectly well that he’s spouting nonsense and simply does not care so long as it wins him votes at home.

      Either way, is that really the man you want to have in charge of a nuke-armed rogue state?

Leave a Reply

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

Share via
Copy link