He may have blotted his copybook in 2003 and baulked at bombing the Iranians in his blog, but, fingers crossed, we can't really complain:
Zionist Federation of Australia:
"ZFA president Philip Chester said it was unfair to judge his stance on [Iran]. 'There are lots of arguments for and against pre-emptive strikes [on Iran], including in Israel as well', he said. 'I think the important point at this stage is does he understand the grave risk that Iran represents to Israel and the world, [and] basically, I think he does'. Chester described Carr as a 'champion of human rights and democracy'. 'I think overall he brings a lot of knowledge and understanding to the table', he said." (Carr warns against Iran attack, The Australian Jewish News, 9/3/12)
Executive Council of Australian Jewry:
"'Bob Carr has a long record of support for Israel and the cause of democracy and human rights. He was a founder of Labor Friends of Israel in the 1970s, campaigned actively for the freedom of Soviet Jews, and has been an outspoken champion of Israel's right to exist in peace and security', said ECAJ's president, Dr Danny Lamm." (ibid)
Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council:
"AIJAC executive director Dr Colin Rubinstein applauded Carr's long association with the Jewish community and record of support for Israel. 'AIJAC's positive working relationship with him goes back to the time before he was in Parliament, when he was an outstanding journalist and Labour Council activist', he said. 'We trust he will be an effective colleague to Prime Minister Gillard in furthering the government's policies in a range of areas, including maintaining the primacy of the Australia/US alliance, opposition to the dishonest and damaging Palestinian campaign for unilateral recognition of statehood, and the imperative of preventing Iran acquiring nuclear weapons', he said." (ibid)
The Australian Jewish News:
"A controversial blemish on his Israel record occurred when, as NSW premier, he presented the Sydney Peace Prize to Palestinian politician and activist Dr Hanan Ashrawi in 2003, but this has been far outweighed by his positive words and deeds. This made it that more surprising to read on his personal blog recently... that he strongly disagrees with a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities... Consolation can be taken from a Sunday Age interview with Carr from last weekend, which stated that 'views he held as a 'freewheeling private citizen' should be 'set aside' for the 'more precise' views he will now express on behalf of the nation'. Carr's predecessor Kevin Rudd ultimately was unable to keep his personal views out of Australia's foreign policy debate. Let's hope Carr fares better." (Editorial: The world according to Carr, 9/3/12)
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Israel's Dalai Lama
OK, so he doesn't have a crimson robe or a giggle, but Israel's president, Shimon Peres, has guru-babble down to a fine art:
"The Israeli President, Shimon Peres, praised Facebook as a vehicle for social change during a visit to the company in Menlo Park, California. Peres, 88, arrived on Tuesday to launch his personal page on the site that he hopes will open a dialogue with Arabs. 'The matter of peace is no longer the business of governments but the business of people', he told Facebook's chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, in an interview streamed live. 'Today the people are governing the governments. And when they begin to talk to each other, they are surprised. We should be friends'. Asked what Facebook could do to promote peace in the Middle East, Peres said: 'What you are doing is convincing people they don't have a reason to hate'. (Peres gets on Facebook, LAT/Sydney Morning Herald, 8/3/12)
"Israel is a small piece of land. We are not even 1% of the Arab space, you know. We don't have water. We don't have oil. Our greatness, if one may say greatness, stems from the fact that we had nothing to start with. So we turned to human talent because there weren't natural resources. The Arabs can do it too." (Epiphanies from Shimon Peres, Foreign Policy, March/April 2012)
"The Israeli President, Shimon Peres, praised Facebook as a vehicle for social change during a visit to the company in Menlo Park, California. Peres, 88, arrived on Tuesday to launch his personal page on the site that he hopes will open a dialogue with Arabs. 'The matter of peace is no longer the business of governments but the business of people', he told Facebook's chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, in an interview streamed live. 'Today the people are governing the governments. And when they begin to talk to each other, they are surprised. We should be friends'. Asked what Facebook could do to promote peace in the Middle East, Peres said: 'What you are doing is convincing people they don't have a reason to hate'. (Peres gets on Facebook, LAT/Sydney Morning Herald, 8/3/12)
"Israel is a small piece of land. We are not even 1% of the Arab space, you know. We don't have water. We don't have oil. Our greatness, if one may say greatness, stems from the fact that we had nothing to start with. So we turned to human talent because there weren't natural resources. The Arabs can do it too." (Epiphanies from Shimon Peres, Foreign Policy, March/April 2012)
Friday, March 9, 2012
Pack Attack
The following eminently sensible letter from Peter Loewensohn, Cremorne, appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday:
"As an Australian Jew, I sit and observe in trepidation, as the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, endeavours to drag Barack Obama, kicking and screaming, into bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities ('Fears Obama meeting will not prevent Israeli strike on Iran', March 7).
"The purpose of Iran's reactors is sketchy. The West claimed proof of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The West was wrong.
"Iran has nothing to gain by attacking Israel, nuclear or otherwise. It may well attack, if in retaliation. We do know that to bomb the Iranian reactors is by all accounts an extremely difficult exercise, with no guarantee of the desired results, even if the US assists Israel.
"Netanyahu is reputed to have stated he doesn't want to be remembered as the Prime Minister on whose watch Israel was annihilated by Iran. With his present ambitions, he might well be remembered as the Prime Minister responsible for, at best, mass conflict in the Middle East, or at worst, World War III.
"If he devoted his energies to making peace with the Palestinians, rather than humiliating them, blockading them, bombing them and building on their land, his legacy may be that a peaceful solution was his doing.
"Regrettably, I can't see that happening with him as Prime Minister. There would need to be a change of government in Israel and a swing of opinion, more in line with increasing support there, for peace with the Palestinians. I hold my breath."
When non-Jews dare to criticise Israel on the letters page, Jewish Zionists (and occasionally non-Jewish Zionists) invariably trot out a propaganda-ridden response of some kind. Note, however, that our Jewish critic of Netanyahu, Peter Loewensohn, is singled out in today's Herald for special treatment, a veritable pack attack:
"Peter Loewensohn writes that 'Iran has nothing to gain by attacking Israel, nuclear or otherwise'. Simple logic should prompt all to share Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's concerns.
"First there is Iran's comments of annihilating a United Nations-member state from the face of the earth. Couple this with Iran's actions, of which the UN's nuclear watchdog has expressed 'serious concerns' relating to research and development 'specific to nuclear weapons' capabilities.
"While we have the luxury of contemplating the costs of an Iranian confrontation from the comfort of our distant Australian shores, Israelis are busy asking themselves what the far greater price will be of enabling a radicalised, despotic regime to gain a nuclear stranglehold on the Middle East." Evan Guttman, North Bondi
Nuclear stranglehold on the Middle East? Pot calls kettle black.
"Peter Loewensohn hasn't cottoned on to the fact that it is not Israel that is 'dragging the US, kicking and screaming' into a conflict with Iran. It's Israel doing the heavy lifting for the Obama administration facing an election in November and a public fearful of yet another Middle East war." George Fishman, Vaucluse
The chutzpah! The chutzpah!
"As an Australian Jew, I object to attempts by Peter Loewensohn to claim some sort of moral authority by opening his letter stating that he is an 'Australian Jew'.
"The nationality and religion of the writer is irrelevant.
"My nationality and religion give me no moral authority, intelligence or expertise in appreciating the nuclear threat, nor the military, political or geopolitical implications of Iran's theocratic government's quest to develop nuclear facilities and possibly nuclear weapons." Eric Borecki, Bellevue Hill
On the contrary, Mr Borecki, if a foreign government, which claims to speak not just for its own citizens but for Jews everywhere*, including Australia (even should they decline such 'representation'), trumpets its desire to attack another country, Mr Loewensohn, both as an Australian Jew and a thinking man, is not only within his rights to say that Israel does not speak for him, but no doubt feels morally obliged to do so.
[*"In every generation, there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people. We are blessed to live in an age when there is a Jewish state capable of defending the Jewish people." Netanyahu's AIPAC speech, 5/3/12)
"As an Australian Jew, I sit and observe in trepidation, as the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, endeavours to drag Barack Obama, kicking and screaming, into bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities ('Fears Obama meeting will not prevent Israeli strike on Iran', March 7).
"The purpose of Iran's reactors is sketchy. The West claimed proof of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The West was wrong.
"Iran has nothing to gain by attacking Israel, nuclear or otherwise. It may well attack, if in retaliation. We do know that to bomb the Iranian reactors is by all accounts an extremely difficult exercise, with no guarantee of the desired results, even if the US assists Israel.
"Netanyahu is reputed to have stated he doesn't want to be remembered as the Prime Minister on whose watch Israel was annihilated by Iran. With his present ambitions, he might well be remembered as the Prime Minister responsible for, at best, mass conflict in the Middle East, or at worst, World War III.
"If he devoted his energies to making peace with the Palestinians, rather than humiliating them, blockading them, bombing them and building on their land, his legacy may be that a peaceful solution was his doing.
"Regrettably, I can't see that happening with him as Prime Minister. There would need to be a change of government in Israel and a swing of opinion, more in line with increasing support there, for peace with the Palestinians. I hold my breath."
When non-Jews dare to criticise Israel on the letters page, Jewish Zionists (and occasionally non-Jewish Zionists) invariably trot out a propaganda-ridden response of some kind. Note, however, that our Jewish critic of Netanyahu, Peter Loewensohn, is singled out in today's Herald for special treatment, a veritable pack attack:
"Peter Loewensohn writes that 'Iran has nothing to gain by attacking Israel, nuclear or otherwise'. Simple logic should prompt all to share Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's concerns.
"First there is Iran's comments of annihilating a United Nations-member state from the face of the earth. Couple this with Iran's actions, of which the UN's nuclear watchdog has expressed 'serious concerns' relating to research and development 'specific to nuclear weapons' capabilities.
"While we have the luxury of contemplating the costs of an Iranian confrontation from the comfort of our distant Australian shores, Israelis are busy asking themselves what the far greater price will be of enabling a radicalised, despotic regime to gain a nuclear stranglehold on the Middle East." Evan Guttman, North Bondi
Nuclear stranglehold on the Middle East? Pot calls kettle black.
"Peter Loewensohn hasn't cottoned on to the fact that it is not Israel that is 'dragging the US, kicking and screaming' into a conflict with Iran. It's Israel doing the heavy lifting for the Obama administration facing an election in November and a public fearful of yet another Middle East war." George Fishman, Vaucluse
The chutzpah! The chutzpah!
"As an Australian Jew, I object to attempts by Peter Loewensohn to claim some sort of moral authority by opening his letter stating that he is an 'Australian Jew'.
"The nationality and religion of the writer is irrelevant.
"My nationality and religion give me no moral authority, intelligence or expertise in appreciating the nuclear threat, nor the military, political or geopolitical implications of Iran's theocratic government's quest to develop nuclear facilities and possibly nuclear weapons." Eric Borecki, Bellevue Hill
On the contrary, Mr Borecki, if a foreign government, which claims to speak not just for its own citizens but for Jews everywhere*, including Australia (even should they decline such 'representation'), trumpets its desire to attack another country, Mr Loewensohn, both as an Australian Jew and a thinking man, is not only within his rights to say that Israel does not speak for him, but no doubt feels morally obliged to do so.
[*"In every generation, there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people. We are blessed to live in an age when there is a Jewish state capable of defending the Jewish people." Netanyahu's AIPAC speech, 5/3/12)
The Illusion of an Imaginary Common Interest
In light of the most recent Obama-Netanyahu AIPAC love-in, and the increasingly bizarre and dysfunctional US-Israel relationship, few words have as much resonance today as these from George Washington's Farewell Address:
"The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave... Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification... As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils!... Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests."
Read on and you'll see what I mean:
Obama to Netanyahu:
"As I've said repeatedly, the bond between our two countries is unbreakable. My personal commitment - a commitment that is consistent with the history of other occupants of the Oval Office - our commitment to the security of Israel is rock solid. And as I've said to the Prime Minister in every single one of our meetings, the United States will always have Israel's back when it comes to Israel's security. This is a bond that is based not only on our mutual security interests and economic interests, but is also based on common values and the incredible people-to-people contacts that we have between our two countries." (Remarks by President Obama & Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, Oval Office, whitehouse.gov, 5/3/12)
Netanyahu to Obama:
"Americans know that Israel and the United States share common values, that we defend common interests, that we face common enemies. Iran's leaders know that too. For them, you're the Great Satan, we're the Little Satan. For them, we are you and you're us. And you know something, Mr President - at least on this last point, I think they're right. We are you, and you are us. We're together. So if there's one thing that stands out clearly in the Middle East today, it's that Israel and America stand together." (ibid)
"The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave... Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification... As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils!... Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests."
Read on and you'll see what I mean:
Obama to Netanyahu:
"As I've said repeatedly, the bond between our two countries is unbreakable. My personal commitment - a commitment that is consistent with the history of other occupants of the Oval Office - our commitment to the security of Israel is rock solid. And as I've said to the Prime Minister in every single one of our meetings, the United States will always have Israel's back when it comes to Israel's security. This is a bond that is based not only on our mutual security interests and economic interests, but is also based on common values and the incredible people-to-people contacts that we have between our two countries." (Remarks by President Obama & Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, Oval Office, whitehouse.gov, 5/3/12)
Netanyahu to Obama:
"Americans know that Israel and the United States share common values, that we defend common interests, that we face common enemies. Iran's leaders know that too. For them, you're the Great Satan, we're the Little Satan. For them, we are you and you're us. And you know something, Mr President - at least on this last point, I think they're right. We are you, and you are us. We're together. So if there's one thing that stands out clearly in the Middle East today, it's that Israel and America stand together." (ibid)
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Another Compelling Reason to Go to War
As if invoking the Holocaust in his AIPAC speech to sell an attack on Iran were not sufficiently outrageous, the seriously unembarrassed Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu, also saw fit to invoke the biblical story of Esther:
"This week, we will read how one woman changed Jewish history. In synagogues throughout the world, the Jewish people will celebrate the festival of Purim. We will read how some, 2,500 years ago, a Persian anti-Semite tried to annihilate the Jewish people. We will read how his plot was foiled by one courageous woman - Esther. In every generation, there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people. We are blessed to live in an age when there is a Jewish state capable of defending the Jewish people. And we are doubly blessed to have so many friends like you, Jews and non-Jews alike, who love the State of Israel and support its right to defend itself. Thank you for your friendship. Thank you for your courage. Thank you for standing up for the one and only Jewish state."
Remember the refrain over Iraq? We were lied into a war. Well, this time around, not only are we being fed Israeli lies about Iran, but we're expected to swallow delusional Zionist fantasies and biblical mythology as well. That's chutzpah for you.
Author Robert Wright's reflections in The Atlantic on Netanyahu's abuse of the story of Esther are well taken:
"Yesterday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave president Obama a copy of the book of Esther, which will be read in synagogues this week in observance of Purim. Esther tells the story of a Persian government that tries and fails to wipe out all the Jews in the Persian Empire. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Netanyahu saw this as an occasion to generalize about Persians (or, as we call them today, Iranians). He told Obama, 'Then, too, they wanted to wipe us out'." (Bibi Netanyahu's Bible story, 6/3/12)
And Obama a) rolled his eyes? b) muttered to himself? c) sighed deeply? d) thought Jeeesus! e) bit his tongue and grinned idiotically f) all of the above?
"Here's a thought experiment: Supppose that an Arab or Iranian leader of Muslim faith met with President Obama and told him about some part of the Koran that alludes to conflict between Muhammad and Jewish tribes. For example, according to Muslim tradition, the Jewish tribe known as the Qurayzah, though living in Muhammad's town of Medina, secretly sided with Muhammad's enemies in Mecca. Suppose this Muslim said to Obama, 'Then, too, the Jews were bent on destroying Muslims'. What would our reaction be? I think reactions would vary. Some people would say, 'See, the Koran teaches Muslims to hate Jews!' Some would say, 'Wow, this Muslim is looking really hard for reasons to keep hating Jews, isn't he?' That second point, at least, would have some merit. After all, the Muslim could just as easily have pointed to parts of the Koran that say nice things about Jews - such as the part that says that God, in his 'prescience', chose 'the children of Israel... above all peoples'. Or the part that says that God 'sent down the Torah' as 'guidance to the people' and now had sent down the Koran 'confirming what was before it'." (ibid)
"This week, we will read how one woman changed Jewish history. In synagogues throughout the world, the Jewish people will celebrate the festival of Purim. We will read how some, 2,500 years ago, a Persian anti-Semite tried to annihilate the Jewish people. We will read how his plot was foiled by one courageous woman - Esther. In every generation, there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people. We are blessed to live in an age when there is a Jewish state capable of defending the Jewish people. And we are doubly blessed to have so many friends like you, Jews and non-Jews alike, who love the State of Israel and support its right to defend itself. Thank you for your friendship. Thank you for your courage. Thank you for standing up for the one and only Jewish state."
Remember the refrain over Iraq? We were lied into a war. Well, this time around, not only are we being fed Israeli lies about Iran, but we're expected to swallow delusional Zionist fantasies and biblical mythology as well. That's chutzpah for you.
Author Robert Wright's reflections in The Atlantic on Netanyahu's abuse of the story of Esther are well taken:
"Yesterday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave president Obama a copy of the book of Esther, which will be read in synagogues this week in observance of Purim. Esther tells the story of a Persian government that tries and fails to wipe out all the Jews in the Persian Empire. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Netanyahu saw this as an occasion to generalize about Persians (or, as we call them today, Iranians). He told Obama, 'Then, too, they wanted to wipe us out'." (Bibi Netanyahu's Bible story, 6/3/12)
And Obama a) rolled his eyes? b) muttered to himself? c) sighed deeply? d) thought Jeeesus! e) bit his tongue and grinned idiotically f) all of the above?
"Here's a thought experiment: Supppose that an Arab or Iranian leader of Muslim faith met with President Obama and told him about some part of the Koran that alludes to conflict between Muhammad and Jewish tribes. For example, according to Muslim tradition, the Jewish tribe known as the Qurayzah, though living in Muhammad's town of Medina, secretly sided with Muhammad's enemies in Mecca. Suppose this Muslim said to Obama, 'Then, too, the Jews were bent on destroying Muslims'. What would our reaction be? I think reactions would vary. Some people would say, 'See, the Koran teaches Muslims to hate Jews!' Some would say, 'Wow, this Muslim is looking really hard for reasons to keep hating Jews, isn't he?' That second point, at least, would have some merit. After all, the Muslim could just as easily have pointed to parts of the Koran that say nice things about Jews - such as the part that says that God, in his 'prescience', chose 'the children of Israel... above all peoples'. Or the part that says that God 'sent down the Torah' as 'guidance to the people' and now had sent down the Koran 'confirming what was before it'." (ibid)
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Doing the Time Warp Again
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference on Monday, March 5.
Although beginning with a funny ("I'd like to talk to you about a subject no one has been talking about recently... Iran"), towards the end of his speech a strange thing happened.
The lights suddenly dimmed, flickered and went out for the briefest of moments, and before the assembled AIPACers (who included more than two-thirds of the US Congress!) knew what was happening they had been transported, by some mysterious magic, from Washington DC, 2012 to Auschwitz, 1944!
But stranger still, Netanyahu didn't so much as bat an eyelid! It was as though time travel of this kind was somehow normal for him. No, he just carried on as though nothing had happened:
"As Prime Minister of Israel, I will never let my people live under the shadow of annihilation. Some commentators would have you believe that stopping Iran from getting the bomb is more dangerous than letting Iran have the bomb. They say that a military confrontation with Iran would undermine the efforts already underway, that it would be ineffective, and that it would provoke even more vindictive action by Iran. I've heard these arguments before. In fact, I've read them before. In my desk, I have copies of an exchange of letters between the World Jewish Congress and the US War Department. The year was 1944. The World Jewish Congress implored the American government to bomb Auschwitz. The reply came 5 days later. I want to read it to you: 'Such an operation could be executed only by diverting considerable air support essential to the success of our forces elsewhere... and in any case would be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not warrant the use of our resources...' And here's the most remarkable sentence of all. And I quote: 'Such an effort might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans'. Think about that - 'even more vindictive action' - than the Holocaust."
Seriously now, the man's mad. Bonkers. Loopy as. And yet did this realisation occur to any US congresscreature or government official within earshot?
Back in 1982, after the Israel Offence Forces, under the direction of then Likud prime minister Menachem Begin, had reduced large parts of West Beirut to what one Western diplomat described at the time as "truly a scene from Dante's Inferno," American, and even some Israeli, officials began to question the man's sanity.
Mind you, incredibly, it wasn't so much what the maniac had done, as his justification for it that caused the penny to drop:
"Contemplating the destruction of Beirut, Israel's prime minister sees a historical parallel. In his response to Reagan's birthday cable, Menachem Begin talked about Berlin. 'I did feel as a prime minister empowered to instruct a valiant army facing Berlin where, amongst innocent civilians, Hitler and his henchmen hide in a bunker deep beneath the surface'. A couple of days after the 'Berlin' message reached Washington, some senior US government officials genuinely seemed to question Begin's mental health. Even in Jerusalem, the disturbing thought has occurred to some Israelis that their prime minister is gripped by a 'dark and macabre fantasy'. 'He is now living in a surreal world', said a professor from the Hebrew University. 'Sometimes I think he is fighting the Warsaw ghetto all over again. He sees the PLO as Nazis and Arafat as Hitler in his bunker'. Ze'ev Mankowitz, teacher of holocaust studies in Jerusalem, described the prime minister's message to Reagan as 'a dangerous and delusional analogy'." (Beirut: The liquidation of a city, Robin Wright et al, The Sunday Times, 8/8/82)
Dangerous and delusional?
Yet who in authority today, in the US, in Israel, anywhere, dares say this of Netanyahu? Must Tehran become a scene from Dante's Inferno before anyone speaks out?
If ever proof were needed that we do indeed live in strange times, one need go no further than this month's AIPAC conference, with its preponderance of congressional sycophants, Obama's obscene grovelling and Netanyahu's hysterical rant.
Although beginning with a funny ("I'd like to talk to you about a subject no one has been talking about recently... Iran"), towards the end of his speech a strange thing happened.
The lights suddenly dimmed, flickered and went out for the briefest of moments, and before the assembled AIPACers (who included more than two-thirds of the US Congress!) knew what was happening they had been transported, by some mysterious magic, from Washington DC, 2012 to Auschwitz, 1944!
But stranger still, Netanyahu didn't so much as bat an eyelid! It was as though time travel of this kind was somehow normal for him. No, he just carried on as though nothing had happened:
"As Prime Minister of Israel, I will never let my people live under the shadow of annihilation. Some commentators would have you believe that stopping Iran from getting the bomb is more dangerous than letting Iran have the bomb. They say that a military confrontation with Iran would undermine the efforts already underway, that it would be ineffective, and that it would provoke even more vindictive action by Iran. I've heard these arguments before. In fact, I've read them before. In my desk, I have copies of an exchange of letters between the World Jewish Congress and the US War Department. The year was 1944. The World Jewish Congress implored the American government to bomb Auschwitz. The reply came 5 days later. I want to read it to you: 'Such an operation could be executed only by diverting considerable air support essential to the success of our forces elsewhere... and in any case would be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not warrant the use of our resources...' And here's the most remarkable sentence of all. And I quote: 'Such an effort might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans'. Think about that - 'even more vindictive action' - than the Holocaust."
Seriously now, the man's mad. Bonkers. Loopy as. And yet did this realisation occur to any US congresscreature or government official within earshot?
Back in 1982, after the Israel Offence Forces, under the direction of then Likud prime minister Menachem Begin, had reduced large parts of West Beirut to what one Western diplomat described at the time as "truly a scene from Dante's Inferno," American, and even some Israeli, officials began to question the man's sanity.
Mind you, incredibly, it wasn't so much what the maniac had done, as his justification for it that caused the penny to drop:
"Contemplating the destruction of Beirut, Israel's prime minister sees a historical parallel. In his response to Reagan's birthday cable, Menachem Begin talked about Berlin. 'I did feel as a prime minister empowered to instruct a valiant army facing Berlin where, amongst innocent civilians, Hitler and his henchmen hide in a bunker deep beneath the surface'. A couple of days after the 'Berlin' message reached Washington, some senior US government officials genuinely seemed to question Begin's mental health. Even in Jerusalem, the disturbing thought has occurred to some Israelis that their prime minister is gripped by a 'dark and macabre fantasy'. 'He is now living in a surreal world', said a professor from the Hebrew University. 'Sometimes I think he is fighting the Warsaw ghetto all over again. He sees the PLO as Nazis and Arafat as Hitler in his bunker'. Ze'ev Mankowitz, teacher of holocaust studies in Jerusalem, described the prime minister's message to Reagan as 'a dangerous and delusional analogy'." (Beirut: The liquidation of a city, Robin Wright et al, The Sunday Times, 8/8/82)
Dangerous and delusional?
Yet who in authority today, in the US, in Israel, anywhere, dares say this of Netanyahu? Must Tehran become a scene from Dante's Inferno before anyone speaks out?
If ever proof were needed that we do indeed live in strange times, one need go no further than this month's AIPAC conference, with its preponderance of congressional sycophants, Obama's obscene grovelling and Netanyahu's hysterical rant.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Barack Obama Renews His Vows
Sunday, March 4. Barack Obama, US president and long-suffering partner of insanely jealous and (some would contend) certifiably mad Bibi Netanyahu, aka Mr Israel, finds himself once again at an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, preparing to reaffirm his love and commitment for his moody, unpredictable partner.
'Shit, what sort of marriage is this?' thought the president - and not for the first time, either. 'I mean, it was only last May* I was here renewing our vows. Now here I am again! Why is he so damn insecure? Honestly, it's not only me, he's driving everyone nuts! As I confided to Sarko at the G20 conference last year: You're fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day!** I just couldn't control myself. He treats me like a doormat. No matter what I do for him, it's just never good enough. And as for gratitude - forget it! Oh well, here we go again':
"[B]ecause of AIPAC's effectiveness in carrying out its mission, you can expect that over the next several days you will hear many fine words from elected officials describing their commitment to the US-Israeli relationship. But as you examine my commitment, you don't just have to count on my words. You can look at my deeds. Because over the last 3 years, as President of the United States, I have kept my commitments to the state of Israel. At every crucial juncture - at every fork in the road - we have been there for Israel. Every single time.
"Four years ago, I stood before you and said that, 'Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable'. That belief has guided my actions as president. The fact is my administration's commitment to Israel has been unprecedented. Our military and intelligence cooperation has never been closer. Our joint exercises and training have never been more robust. Despite a tough budget environment, our security assistance has increased every single year. We are investing in new capabilities. We're providing Israel with more advanced technology - the types of products and systems that only go to our closest friends and allies. And make no mistake: We will do what it takes to preserve Israel's qualitative military edge - because Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.
"This isn't just about numbers on a balance sheet. As a senator, I spoke to Israeli troops on the Lebanese border. I visited with families who've known the terror of rocket fire in Sderot. And that's why, as president, I have provided critical funding to deploy the Iron Dome system that has intercepted rockets that might have hit homes and hospitals and schools in that town and in others. Now our assistance is expanding Israel's defensive capabilities, so that more Israelis can live free from the fear of rockets and ballistic missiles. Because no family, no citizen, should live in fear.
"And just as we've been there with our security assistance, we've been there through our diplomacy. When the Goldstone report unfairly singled out Israel for criticism, we challenged it. When Israel was isolated in the aftermath of the flotilla incident, we supported them. When the Durban conference was commemorated, we boycotted it, and we will always reject the notion that Zionism is racism.
"When one-sided resolutions are brought up at the Human Rights Council, we oppose them. When Israeli diplomats feared for their lives in Cairo, we intervened to save them. When there are efforts to boycott or divest from Israel, we will stand against them. And whenever an effort is made to delegitimize the state of Israel, my administration has opposed them. So there should not be a shred of doubt by now - when the chips are down, I have Israel's back."
[*See my 27/5/11 post Obama: Feel the Love; **See my 8/11/11 post That Shitty Little Prime Minister.]
'Shit, what sort of marriage is this?' thought the president - and not for the first time, either. 'I mean, it was only last May* I was here renewing our vows. Now here I am again! Why is he so damn insecure? Honestly, it's not only me, he's driving everyone nuts! As I confided to Sarko at the G20 conference last year: You're fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day!** I just couldn't control myself. He treats me like a doormat. No matter what I do for him, it's just never good enough. And as for gratitude - forget it! Oh well, here we go again':
"[B]ecause of AIPAC's effectiveness in carrying out its mission, you can expect that over the next several days you will hear many fine words from elected officials describing their commitment to the US-Israeli relationship. But as you examine my commitment, you don't just have to count on my words. You can look at my deeds. Because over the last 3 years, as President of the United States, I have kept my commitments to the state of Israel. At every crucial juncture - at every fork in the road - we have been there for Israel. Every single time.
"Four years ago, I stood before you and said that, 'Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable'. That belief has guided my actions as president. The fact is my administration's commitment to Israel has been unprecedented. Our military and intelligence cooperation has never been closer. Our joint exercises and training have never been more robust. Despite a tough budget environment, our security assistance has increased every single year. We are investing in new capabilities. We're providing Israel with more advanced technology - the types of products and systems that only go to our closest friends and allies. And make no mistake: We will do what it takes to preserve Israel's qualitative military edge - because Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.
"This isn't just about numbers on a balance sheet. As a senator, I spoke to Israeli troops on the Lebanese border. I visited with families who've known the terror of rocket fire in Sderot. And that's why, as president, I have provided critical funding to deploy the Iron Dome system that has intercepted rockets that might have hit homes and hospitals and schools in that town and in others. Now our assistance is expanding Israel's defensive capabilities, so that more Israelis can live free from the fear of rockets and ballistic missiles. Because no family, no citizen, should live in fear.
"And just as we've been there with our security assistance, we've been there through our diplomacy. When the Goldstone report unfairly singled out Israel for criticism, we challenged it. When Israel was isolated in the aftermath of the flotilla incident, we supported them. When the Durban conference was commemorated, we boycotted it, and we will always reject the notion that Zionism is racism.
"When one-sided resolutions are brought up at the Human Rights Council, we oppose them. When Israeli diplomats feared for their lives in Cairo, we intervened to save them. When there are efforts to boycott or divest from Israel, we will stand against them. And whenever an effort is made to delegitimize the state of Israel, my administration has opposed them. So there should not be a shred of doubt by now - when the chips are down, I have Israel's back."
[*See my 27/5/11 post Obama: Feel the Love; **See my 8/11/11 post That Shitty Little Prime Minister.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)