Lieberman Compares Iran to Nazis, Iran Deal to Munich Pact…Again
Over the past few days, a tempest has been brewing after Pres. Obama defended his Iran nuclear agreement by correctly noting that the entire Israeli defense and intelligence leadership acknowledges that it has improved Israeli and world security. This apparently angered defense minister Avigdor Lieberman, who couldn’t leave well enough alone. As a result he felt compelled to rub Obama’s nose in it with this response:
“The Israeli defense establishment believes that agreements have value only if they are based on reality. They have no value if the facts on the ground are opposite to the ones the agreement is based on. The Munich Agreements didn’t prevent World War II and the Holocaust because their fundamental assumption – that Nazi Germany can be partner to any agreement – was false, and because world leaders at the time ignored clear statements made by Hitler and other Nazi leaders.
This is also true of Iran, which clearly and publicly declares that its goal is to destroy the State of Israel…This is why the defense establishment, along with the entire people of Israel and others around the world, understands that agreements like the one signed between the world powers and Iran don’t help, but only undermine the unwavering battle that has to be waged against terror states like Iran.”
So there you have it: a defense minister who compares Iran to Nazi Germany; and Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain; who deliberately lies about the views of his own military and intelligence command in the service of his own blind ideological obsession; and who lies in claiming Iran wants to eradicate Israel.
The circus atmosphere became more pronounced when Bibi Netanyahu, who agrees completely with Lieberman’s views (and has made precisely the same false historical analogy), released a statement which refused to renounce his defense minister’s attack. Haaretz’s report falsely says that Bibi “distanced” himself from Lieberman, but his statement did no such thing:
“The Israeli position on the Iran deal remains the same, but the prime minister staunchly believes that Israel has no ally more important than the U.S.”
Apparently, the only thing Bibi objected to was the Munich reference, one that the prime minister has often made in the past. Apparently, the comparison of the Iran deal to the Munich pact was one step too far. What’s curious about this dog and pony show is that Bibi and Lieberman play good cop-bad copy when they’re both crooked cops. It’s just that one talks a good game and the other would just as soon put a bullet in you as look at you.
16 thoughts on “Lieberman Compares Iran to Nazis, Iran Deal to Munich Pact…Again – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم”
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
“Obama defended his Iran nuclear agreement by correctly noting that the entire Israeli defense and intelligence leadership acknowledges that it has improved Israeli and world security”
– you are hilarious!!
The army released a statement disputing that and you quote here the political leadership. Obama can say that in his opinion the agreement is good but he can’t say that Israelis think that way, especially when they disagree.
If I wanted your opinion, I’ll give it to you. Right?? LOL
@Danny: The entire leadership of the IDF, Mossad & Aman support the deal. The political leadership doesn’t. Obama correctly noted the military & intelligence services support it.
“The army” didn’t put out a statement disputing Obama, Lieberman did.
Caught up in the world of spies … CIA – Mossad assassinations of Iranian nuclear physisists. Disappeared in 2009 during the Hajj to Mecca, a few months before the murder of Masoud Alimohammadi. In the end, Iranian intelligence found his version of events not truthful.
○ Body of Shahram Amiri returned home
○ 2 Years later in 2012: US condemns Iranian nuclear scientist killing
The policy of Khamenei is that Israel/Palestine should be re-united into a single democratic Arab-majority state, and to this end he supports armed resistance to Zionist rule by the Palestinians. There is no possibility that this would work, as the PLO realized in 1988. Even if it did, and there was no State of Israel, the Jewish community in Palestine would continue to exist.. To call this proposal the ‘destruction’ of Israel’ gives a quite wrong impression. Iran has never ever threatened that it will itself use military force against Israel.
For many decades the religious and political leadership in Iran has been totally opposed to nuclear weapons. Khamenei says “The Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.”
US intelligence says that Iran had a nuclear weapons program which ended in 2003. That is an exaggeration. If they had evidence of a nuclear weapons program they would have been obliged to provide it to the IAEA inspectors, and the inspectors would have closed it down. What there was evidence of was a program of research, not involving nuclear materials, into some dual-use technologies of possible relevance to construction of a bomb. This was an unauthorized program which Rouhani, current President of Iran, discovered and shut down when he became nuclear policy chief in 2003.
“The policy of Khamenei is that Israel/Palestine should be re-united into a single democratic Arab-majority state,.. ”
Ha! How utterly naive.
The policy of the ayatollahs is to divide and conquer the Arabs, the implaccible foes of Iran.
The ayatollahs use the Israel-Pal conflicit as a catspaw, a tool to make inrounds into the Arab world, gain ‘street cred’, and divide and conquer Arab States (Lebanon and Syria).
Mind you, Iran doesn’t actually fight Israel, they have their moronic Arab proxy/stooges do the dying for them. Win, win.
Iran has no real beef with Israel. Never did.
It was the Arabs that nearly defeated Iran in the ’80’s, killing the flower of Iran’s youth. The Arabs who invaded Persia 1000 years ago and spread Islam by force.
And then there are those European ‘useful idiots’….
There are many other candidates to spread the ‘useful idiot’ card around .. every PM of Israel since 1967 …. thinking of the many ‘intermediaries’ for peace with Arabs and Palestinians … Dennis Ross as a great specimen, wat about George Bush and his neocon pushers for the Iraq invasion in 2003 … still hear the echo of the Ayatollahs: “thank you, thank you, .. you, you ..!”
Hillary as Secretary of State and the push for regime change in Libya and Syria. Her MB friends in Egypt, Turkey and Qatar didn’t quite get the expected result. Speaking of proxies, the US from Brzezinski/Carter to Rice/Biden/Obama added one policy failure on the next in the past three decades. Enough is enough.
I suppose you think it would be much better if these Arab states were left to be dominated by a nuclear Jewish state.
Nuclear Israel utterly failed to dominate any Arab State. Her nuclear arsenal failed to deter wars in ’67 and ’73. Non-nuclear Iran, on the other hand, now dominates in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
Think about that.
@Trippin’ Jon: Nuclear Israel dominates every frontline state. If Israel didn’t have nukes it might not exist. If it would exist, it would’ve fought many more wars than it has. Alternatively, a non nuclear Israel would not have the luxury of pursuing maximalist policies. It likely would’ve been forced to negotiate a peace deal by now.
WMD are poison in Israeli context.
“Her nuclear arsenal failed to deter wars in ’67 and ’73.”
For deterrence, well for a bare minimum Israel would have admitted it possessed a nuclear arsenal and not mislead her allied nations France and the U.S. During the Kennedy administration, Israel was suspect in seeking nuclear weapons … president Johnson knew in 1967. Johnson was a great friend of Israel, to the detriment of the Palestinian people and Arab states.
Israel, the U.S. and the ‘useful idiots’ Gulf states are trying to break the alliance of Shiites from Teheran through Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut. It’s in the interest of Iran to prevent any further genocide of Shia as history has witnessed.
Any occupation and chaining of a people is doomed to failure. The occupying force becomes fascist at some point in time.
what an asinine comment
@ Trippin’ Jon: I do so love the high quality analysis offered by our hhasbara mavens. So where did you learn all this international strategic analysis and your stellar penetration of the Iranian mind? I stand in awe of your powers of analysis.
Not quite. Just as Israel claims it is the state of the Jewish people (we can quarrel about that one another time), so Iran sees itself as the guardian of Shia Muslims. So when Israel assaults Shia in Lebanon, Syria or elsewhere, Iran feels an obligation to defend them. If Israel saw the Jews of a particular country were under severe existential assault, it would presumably do whatever it could to help them defend themselves. At least in theory that’s what should happen if Israel’s leaders behaved as they should according to Zionist principles (but of course that’s NOT the way they reacted during the Holocaust–but that’s another story), and that’s the way Iran looks at things.
What you know about Iran wouldn’t fill a thimble. Don’t try to pretend you know anything about it. You don’t.
[comment deleted: evidence-free anti-Iran propaganda based on nothing more than your own prejudices, will not be published here]
I’ve noticed on your twitter feed justifying Lebanese behavior toward Israeli athletes so how do you explain Tunisia refusing to play Israel in tennis what land is Israel occupying in Tunisia
Here is the historic reason why Liebermann is averring dangerous nonsense. Soon after the Russian revolution West-European states led by France began an attempt to construct what was then named “le cordon sanitaire” against the Soviet Union. The intent was to create viable anti-revolutionary states in Eastern Europe to avert the spread of the Russian Revolution Westward to Germany and beyond. The kingpin state in that cordon was always Poland which is why GB and France guaranteed its independence hence were obliged to enter what became WW2 .
Because Adolf Hitler was a known anti-communist GB and France hoped to make his state a kind of “back stop” behind Poland. A safety valve yes but not a major player. He had to be mollycoddled and the sacrifice of Sudentenland was considered to be a worthy mollycoddle. Munich was not about peace. It was about a strong dike against the Soviet Revolution even though Stalin had already scotched Trotsky’s “permanent revolution”.
Fast forward to today. Which nation is the danger facing president Obama for which he would need to enlist Iran as a helper to stench that danger?
Israel? That would be immensely ironic. Russia? Would Obama sacrifice the West Bank to Iran to save a tacit anti-Russian alliance? Get real you dolts.
If Czechoslovakia had owned a nuclear arsenal in 1936 or Poland in 1939 but Hitler had not there would not have been a war. Got it?
Iran has given up any intent to develop a nuclear arsenal. Stalin was not believed by some. Iran is not believed by some.
Can you now see how utterly ridiculous if not dangerous the Liebermann statement and the support of his ignorant followers are? They are deliberately falsifying history. They deserve my highest degree of contempt.