Israel’s future more urgent than Obama’s

March 10, 2012


— It’s Lucy and the football, Iran-style. After ostensibly tough talk about preventing Iran from going nuclear, the Obama administration acquiesced to yet another round of talks with the mullahs.

This, 14 months after the last group-of-six negotiations collapsed in Istanbul because of blatant Iranian stalling and unseriousness. Nonetheless, the new negotiations will be both without precondition and preceded by yet more talks to decide such trivialities as venue.

These negotiations don’t just gain time for a nuclear program about whose military intent the IAEA is issuing alarming warnings. They make it extremely difficult for Israel to do anything about it (while it still can), lest Israel be universally condemned for having aborted a diplomatic solution.

If the administration were serious about achievement rather than appearance, it would have warned that this was the last chance for Iran to come clean and would have demanded a short timeline. After all, President Obama insisted on deadlines for the Iraq withdrawal, the Afghan surge and Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Why leave these crucial talks open-ended when the nuclear clock is ticking?

This re-engagement comes immediately after Obama’s campaign-year posturing about Iran’s nukes. Sunday in front of AIPAC, he warned that “Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States.” This just two days after he’d said (to the Atlantic) of possible U.S. military action, “I don’t bluff.” Yet on Tuesday he returns to the very engagement policy that he admits had previously failed.

Won’t sanctions make a difference this time, however? Sanctions are indeed hurting Iran economically. But when Obama’s own director of national intelligence was asked by the Senate intelligence committee whether sanctions had any effect on the course of Iran’s nuclear program, the answer was simple: No. None whatsoever. Obama garnered much AIPAC applause by saying that his is not a containment policy but a prevention policy. But what has he prevented? Keeping a coalition of six together is not success. Holding talks is not success. Imposing sanctions is not success.

Success is halting and reversing the program. Yet Iran is tripling its uranium output, moving enrichment facilities deep under a mountain near Qom and impeding IAEA inspections of weaponization facilities.

So what is Obama’s real objective? “We’re trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel,” an administration official told the Washington Post in the most revealing White House admission since “leading from behind.”

Revealing and shocking. The world’s greatest exporter of terror (according to the State Department), the systematic killer of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, the self-declared enemy that invented “Death to America Day” is approaching nuclear capability — and the focus of U.S. policy is to prevent a democratic ally threatened with annihilation from pre-empting the threat?

Indeed it is. The new open-ended negotiations with Iran fit well with this strategy of tying Israel down. As does Obama’s “I have Israel’s back” reassurance, designed to persuade Israel and its supporters to pull back and outsource to Obama what for Israel are life-and-death decisions.

Yet 48 hours later, Obama tells a news conference that this phrase is just a historical reference to supporting such allies as Britain and Japan — contradicting the intended impression he’d given AIPAC that he was offering special protection to an ally under threat of physical annihilation.

To AIPAC he declares that “no Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map, and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel’s destruction” and affirms “Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions ... to meet its security needs.”

And then he pursues policies — open-ended negotiations, deceptive promises of tough U.S. backing for Israel, boasts about the efficacy of sanctions, grave warnings about “war talk” — meant, as his own official admitted, to stop Israel from exercising precisely that sovereign right to self-protection.

Yet beyond these obvious contradictions and walk-backs lies a transcendent logic: As with the Keystone pipeline postponement, as with the debt-ceiling extension, as with the Afghan withdrawal schedule, Obama wants to get past Nov. 6 without any untoward action that might threaten his re-election.

For Israel, however, the stakes are somewhat higher: the very existence of a vibrant nation and its 6 million Jews. The asymmetry is stark. A fair-minded observer might judge that Israel’s desire to not go gently into the darkness carries higher moral urgency than the political future of one man, even if he is president of the United States.

— Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.


Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

I tend to think that if Israel is wiped off the map, Iran will be eliminated. It is quite obvious that the total destruction of Tehran would be no problem at all, since it is surrounded by mountains that will reflect the nuclear blast towards the city, instead of the shock wave of the nuclear blast simply blowing off to the side, as was the case with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Plus, the bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only tiny firecrackers, compared with the weapons that are available today.

That is well within the bounds of possibility. I wonder how many Iranians are aware of that.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

" I wonder how many Iranians are aware of that."

Probably nearly all of them. Which is why the Israeli hysteria over (non-existent) Iranian nukes should not lead the US to aid Israel in starting a regional (or worse) war that very well could lead to the destruction of Israel, and much more.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 2 months ago

Those non-existent nukes that Iran is developing, like the non-existent nukes in Pakistan, India, North Korea? The question isn't does Iran now possess nukes, it's are they working towards that goal? And if the answer is yes, what, if any, should the response be to that? But saying non-existent nukes assumes they are not working towards that goal which could be a very misleading statement. You don't want to mislead anyone here, do you, Bozo? BTW - Israel has never confirmed they have nuclear weapons. They never signed on to non-proliferation treaties and are therefore not subject to international inspections. Therefore, I might make the statement that Israel's nuclear weapons are also non-existent. Right? Or, better yet, I can tell the truth. And so might you.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

It's pretty widely accepted that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and doesn't really even have the capability of producing them yet.

And there is absolutely no doubt that Israel does possess hundreds of nuclear weapons.

There are also dozens of countries in the world more capable of producing nukes than Iran, many of them in less than a year. Should they all be bombed? Should Israel bomb Pakistan and India? There are millions of Muslims in each of those countries.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 2 months ago

It's widely accepted that Iran is in the process of developing nuclear weapons. Your statement about them being non-existent is misleading. I called for the truth.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

Both Israeli and US intelligence reports say that there is no clear evidence that Iran is producing, or even intends to produce, nuclear weapons.

But I understand that without bogeymen, you and Israel can't maintain your persecution complex.

yanman 6 years, 2 months ago

Please provide a link to these Israeli intelligence reports that state there is no clear evidence that Iran is producing, or even intends to produce nuclear weapons.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 2 months ago

Yanman - This is where Bozo typically disappears. Having told a tale that cannot be backed up with with facts, Bozo goes bye-bye.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

I apologize in advance that it doesn't say what you want to hear (but that you could have easily found yourself if you were truly interested.)


Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force…. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under.” - Martin Van Creveld, one of Israel’s most respected military historians (Google that phrase, there are 97,200 results)

jafs 6 years, 2 months ago

Well, there you have it.

WWIII will be brought to us care of Israel.

Why exactly should Israel be targeting European capitals?

jhawkinsf 6 years, 2 months ago

"Why exactly should Israel be targeting European capitals?" Considering Ron is quoting a historian, let me give a historical analogy. During the Cuban missile crisis, the Soviets made it clear that should the U.S. invade Cuba, they would retaliate by occupying that part of Berlin they did not already occupy. Why Berlin? Because of the distance from Cuba, the Soviets just couldn't defend Cuba. Likewise, the U.S. would be hard pressed to defend Berlin.
So why might the Israeli's threaten Rome, London, Paris. They might as a way of influencing policy in those capitals. Then again, the historian Ron quotes is not a member of the Israeli government, he is an academic. And his quote should be put into proper context. The likelihood of Israel attacking European capitals is nil. One professor in one university making some outlandish remark does not mean "WW III will be brought to us care of Israel".

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

But the quote just goes to show that Israel's wackos are just as wacko as those in Iran.

Only problem is, US foreign and military policy is heavily influenced by such wackos.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 2 months ago

Every country has it's fair share of nut cases. The issue is do these nut cases make policy decisions in their respective countries. In Ron's example, the answer is no.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

Israel once conducted an unprovoked attacked on a US ship, killing dozens of US sailors.

And Israel regularly conducts espionage on its supposed ally, the US.

And yes, Israel really is ruled by nut cases, Netanyahu at the very top.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 2 months ago

Yes, Israel did attack the "Liberty". It was a mistake, done during a war against a ship that had reportedly been a hundred miles away from where the Israeli's thought it was supposed to be. They apologized. The very unfortunate reality of war is that mistakes like that will happen. Of course, shall we list the acts of aggression done by Israel's adversaries against Americans, soldiers and civilians alike. The list will be long, longer than this forum allows. And as for Netanyahu being a nut case, something along the order of the president of Iran, who denies the Holocaust and says Israel should be wiped off the planet, well, Bozo, I challenge you to find a quote as preposterous as holocaust denial coming from Netanyahu. There are hard liners and there are nuts. Netanyahu falls into the former category while the leader of Iran is in the latter.

jafs 6 years, 2 months ago

First, I don't understand your analogy - how is that at all similar? And, if Israel is threatening (or wants to threaten) European capitals in order to influence policy, is that something we should support?

Next, I think that this quote is not just representative of one academic with an extreme position, but more widely held than that.

Is RH a whacko right wing Israeli extremist? If not, and I see nothing in his previous posts to suggest that, why would he quote somebody like that unless he thought it admirable, and agreed with the sentiment?

jhawkinsf 6 years, 2 months ago

I can't speak for Ron. And a professor in an Israeli university can't speak for the government of Israel. If you think the statement is representative of broader Israeli sentiment, then you're speaking for them. I would caution against that.
I think if you're looking for a reason to be critical of Israel, you may find that reason in that professor's comment. However, if you're looking at the comment and putting it in proper context, it's a nothing. The question I have is Jafs, are you looking for reasons to be critical?

jafs 6 years, 2 months ago

I look for information, and try to seek that without bias, as much as possible, rather than have a preconceived notion.

Then, I like to form my views after gathering the information.

If you're looking for reasons to excuse Israel, then I think you find them, and ignore reasons to criticize them.

I notice you failed to respond to any of the points that I made in my comment.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 2 months ago

Jafs - While you would like to think of yourself as an objective seeker of truth, it's more and more clear with each discussion that you have a bias in a certain way. Some little known professor makes an idiotic statement and you say "well, there you have it. WW III will be brought to you by Israel". Meanwhile, the president of Iran says that Israel should be wiped off the face of the planet and ..... "WW III will be brought to by Israel". Your objectivity has been a disappearing entity for some time. So much so it's become invisible.
And what comments would you like me to respond to. Comments about Ron? I told you, I can't speak for him. In fact, much of what Ron's says is cloaked in religious terms, something I'm not as familiar with nor does it interest me very much. As I've said previously, I'm not a very religious person. Was there anything else?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

Translation-- if you don't believe everything that jhawkinsf does, it's because you lack objectivity.

jafs 6 years, 2 months ago

You're welcome to your opinion, no matter how flawed.

And, it's interesting that instead of responding to my comments, you start to make the conversation personal - that's usually an indication that the poster has no good refutation of the comments.

I questioned your analogy, which seemed off to me and not applicable to the issue at hand.

I asked if we should support such a policy by Israel as threatening European capitals in order to influence policy, since you commented they might want to do that.

And, I pointed out that RH posted the comments, and doesn't appear to be a right wing extremist, which must mean such sentiments aren't exclusive to them, as you suggested.

You're starting to seem like Alan Dershowitz in his debate with Noam Chomsky, in which he yelled and threw his hands around when he couldn't respond to Chomsky's points.

For the record, I think Iran's possible nuclear weapon is also quite scary, and might spark the same kind of horrible conflict.

Also, as I've said numerous times, I don't find a simple "good guy, bad guy" scenario in the region - I think both sides have made bad decisions, and in some sense are both responsible for the ongoing tragedy.

Based on your own comments about the history, which you seem to know better than I do, my general view has a lot of merit, and yours seems to ignore a lot.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 2 months ago

You asked if we should support Israeli policy of targeting European capitals. - It's a flawed question. You're assuming facts not in evidence. Some obscure professor makes a comment and you assume it is Israeli policy. It's not, at least as far as I know. In fact, I've never heard of such a thing nor have I ever heard of this professor. And as you said, I seem to know a lot about this topic. It is in fact something that I have tried to be well informed about. Of course, I've listened to and read Mr. Dershowitz and Mr. Chomsky. Van Creveld, I had to google him to find out who he is. Your response was interesting. "Well, there you have it......." Really, Jafs. WW III will be Israel's fault because some Israeli professor makes a dumb comment but the Iranian president says what he says and you place blame where you do. Not objective, if you ask me. What you're doing, if you ask me, is holding Israel to a higher standard, a common thing to do amongst Jews. In fact, it's common with many groups, holding their own to a higher standard. I think that's what you did. Ron - I told you, I have no idea why he chose to include this professor's quote. I have rarely engaged him in conversation, precisely for the reason I gave. He cloaks much of the conversation in religious terms. He frequently speaks of ethics and then explains where in religious texts he gets his justification. While I've strived to be informed on matters of history, I have never been very interested in, nor have I read much about religion. It's not the way I was brought up and I have never really been interested in it. As to the analogy. It was a way of showing that when a country in confronted with a situation, a direct response might not be what they do. Rather than responding to the problem at hand, they present their adversary with an equally troubling, yet non-direct problem. (If you attack Cuba, I'll attack Berlin). In this case, If Europe sits by and allows the destruction of Israel by Arab forces, Israel will respond with an attack on Europe. (To emphasize, this latter example is flawed because it is not the policy of Israel. It was a statement of an obscure professor).
If you think my observation that you're being less than objective, please explain your comment, "Well, there you have it. WW III will be brought to you by Israel".

jafs 6 years, 2 months ago

You said they might want to target the capitals in order to influence policy - I asked if we should support that.

RH does not appear to be a right wing extremist to you, does he?

Again, if Israel retaliated against Europe for keeping out of their conflict with the Arab forces, do you think we should support that? Do European nations have some sort of obligation to help Israel? What's the foundation for that exactly?

Israel has nuclear weapons, and the comment made indicated a willingness to "take the whole world down" with them - those are potent ingredients for a nuclear based WWIII, in my view.

Iran's nuclear program is also disturbing and dangerous, and they clearly don't seem to like Israel very much, but to my knowledge they're not saying things like "We'll take the whole world with us if we go down".

I grant you it was a bit provocative, but it was my reaction to the quote.

Is all of this more complex? Probably. Should we take the comments of one person as indicative of a nation? Probably not. Do I trust leaders of Israel and Iran, etc. to be open and honest about their real feelings and intentions? Absolutely not.

When my father-in-law says Iran is just "saber rattling", I don't know if he's right or not. When Israel takes a hard line stance, I don't know if it's real or posturing.

I am afraid of nuclear weapons, regardless of who has them, given their great destructive power.

In my view, it's entirely possible that we may destroy ourselves and much of the planet due to our inability to find better ways to solve conflicts, and our increasing destructive capacity.

And, if that happens, I think it's entirely plausible that it may start in the Middle East.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 2 months ago

The thing is this, Jafs., I have no idea if Israel would target Europe if they themselves were in peril of being overrun. Quite frankly, the quote Ron gave of that professor was the first I had ever heard of it. I can think of a million scenarios that are more likely, more probable. But only the scenarios the countries in the region are contemplating really matter. And I truly believe that the "European" scenario is not one being contemplated. The reason I jumped on you is that you took an implausibility, assumed it was plausible and then reacted to that. Why make that assumption? Do you assume that the black guy walking towards you will rob you?
Now Ron, a voice you obviously respect throws that out. That's fine. But before you go blaming Israel for WW III, you might want to dig a little deeper. He makes reference to religious texts frequently. I make no assumption as to those references being true or not. I have no idea. Just as I had no idea who this professor was. But after looking it up on google, it's clear he's not a member of the government nor does he speak for the government.
And even the issue of nuclear weapons, absolutely no one has a crystal ball that can tell the future. But we can look at history as a guide. Will that guide be accurate all the time? No. But we can take reasonable guesses. Israel has had nuclear weapons since about 1970. What have they done with those weapons? Israel has attacked the nuclear facilities of two regional foes, Syria and Iraq. What happened after that? I would recommend you read a good book about the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Israel was feeling invincible after the 1967 war. They were caught off guard. Things did not go well in the beginning. Did they resort to some doomsday scenario? (I'll give you the answer to that one, because it highlights how things that seem unrelated suddenly become important). In short, Israel was caught off guard. They called Washington begging for more weapons. Washington procrastinated. Meanwhile, the fighting went bad for Israel. Then they sent word that they might be forced to use their nuclear weapons. Washington then called Moscow, who called Cairo. Meanwhile, Washington called Tel Aviv and things calmed down. So faced with the early stages of a doomsday scenario, Israel made a phone call. That's history. Will it play out like that again. Probably, with a chance it would go another way.

jafs 6 years, 2 months ago

You said those things, I just asked you about them.

They were your own ideas.

We don't really know what scenarios they're contemplating - that's one of my concerns.

I simply read the comment, and reacted to it.

We didn't use nuclear weapons until we did either.

I'm glad, of course, that diplomatic pressure prevented the use of nuclear weapons in the past.

But, I'm not confident that that will always be the case.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 2 months ago

"I simply read the comment, and reacted to it." My problem is that you assumed it was true. It was a fairly outrageous comment, yet if you're in the mood to believe the outrageous, especially when it's negative and about Israel, and it's becoming a pattern, then one might question the objectivity of the believer. If I said China was planning an attack on Canada and then referenced some obscure Chinese businessmen, someone with no link to the Chinese government, would you believe such a tale? And if you did believe it, why? Better yet to simply say whoops, my comment about WW III being brought to you by Israel was a mistake, a knee jerk reaction. And if you wish to regain your objectivity, try to avoid future knee jerk reactions.

jafs 6 years, 2 months ago

And, didn't you check and find it was in fact true?

Thanks for the confirmation - also, RH is Jewish, he supports Israel, etc. If he were wounded soldier, who exhibits a very pro-Palestine view, I would question his quotes like this. But, why would RH provide a negative quote about Israel?

If one is so disinclined to believe anything negative about Israel, and it's a pattern, what does one conclude then?

I have concluded that you are biased in favor of Israel.

I am biased in neither direction, neither in favor of Israel, nor in favor of Palestine, no matter how much you seem to want to believe that.

I understand the tragedies in both of their histories, I understand the reasons behind the formation of Israel, I understand the flaws in their beginnings, I understand that there are both extremists and moderates on both sides, I understand that both sides have made mistakes, etc.

Why does it bother you so much that I read, believed, and reacted to that quote in that way?

If I had read a similar quote by a Palestinian, I would have reacted similarly (although Palestinians don't have nuclear weapons).

Neither side has "clean hands" here, in my view, nor do they possess a clear moral superiority. If you want me to change my view to support Israel the way that you do, Israel would have to change the way they operate.

And, I find it fascinating that you continue to ignore the questions I asked about your own ideas - in your speculation, you provided clear reasons and scenarios involving Israel and European capitals.

cato_the_elder 6 years, 2 months ago

The headline to this column says it all, but the campaigner-in-chief isn't listening.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

The problem with our political system is that very few politicians can see past the next election.

A statesman, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

There have been 80 rockets fired at Israel since Friday. I wonder what this means. Is someone itching for a war?


Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

Clipped from Facebook:

Southern Israel under fire; rockets shot down www.ynetnews.com News: Palestinians fire incessant rocket barrages at southern Israeli communities, one man hurt; Iron Dome intercepts at least two rockets fired at Ashdod; earlier, IDF killed four terrorists in Gaza

News: Palestinians fire incessant rocket barrages at southern Israeli communities, one man hurt; Iron Dome intercepts at least two rockets fired at Ashdod; earlier, IDF killed four terrorists in Gaza

Facebook User 1: Tell me about it :-/

Facebook User 2: Line Singer Be safe, Facebook User 1!

Facebook User 3: Dislike

Facebook User 4: two more right now

Facebook User 1: Where are you Yoav? I am in Ashdod

Facebook User 5: One of them was a terrorist freed in the Shalit swap. You can dress a pig in silk clothing, but it's still A PIG. Cannibals, demons from hell terrorists.

Facebook User 6: I heard/felt explosions 5-7 times here in Ashdod.

Facebook User 7: Too bad there's not technology to turn them around and have them hit where they came from.... boomerang bombs.

Facebook User 8: Shlomit Cevy done....]

Facebook User 9: Too good to be true !

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

You really have to wonder, how would the United States respond if rockets were flying into San Diego every week from Tijuana?

Abdu Omar 6 years, 2 months ago

You don't tell the rest of the story Ron, because you follow the Israeli line like most Republicans follow Fox news. How many homes have the Israelis razed by calling the inhabitants "terrorists" then bulldozing them down? Why wouldn't Hamas launch rockets into Israel when Israelis bomb them every day? Oh, you didn't tell us about that did you, you just blame the Palestinians for everything. Israel is lilly white and the Palestinians are always to blame.

How would you like it if you were trying to form your own country and somebody was building settlements on your land then annexing it? How would you like to sleep outside or in a bombed out dwelling for you whole short life? How would you like to be told by a foreign power when you could eat, work, go to prayers or live a decent life. And for what? "Because we will never forget"?

tomatogrower 6 years, 2 months ago

What happened to the Jews in the holocaust was horrible, and they deserved their own country, but that does not give them the right to hurt others. The other Arab nations are partly to blame, because they fed the Palestinians the line that the Jews would kill them, if they didn't leave when the Jewish nation was born. They should have stayed and tried to get along. But that didn't happen, and now Israel seems to want to live down to the expectations set by the other Arab nations. These cultures also do not have a forgive and forget tradition. They both just seek revenge back and forth for generations. Until their mind set changes, this conflict will continue, and both sides are to blame and both sides are doing horrendous things. It's all disgusting. I say we let them fight it out, and we'll clean up the mess later. But I don't think we can use radioactive oil, so I suppose we will continue to be in the middle of it all.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 2 months ago

tomatogrower - Letting them fight it out, us staying out of the conflict sounds reasonable until you look at what will likely happen. The conflict has never been limited to Jews and Palestinians. Multiple wars have been fought by multiple Arab countries against Israel. They have largely fought to a stalemate. A withdrawal of U.S. support would tip the balance of power in favor of the Arabs as far as conventional weapons is concerned. Of course, Israel has a huge advantage in nuclear weapons. A withdrawal of U.S. support, and along with that a loss of U.S. influence greatly increases the chances that both sides will use what advantages they possess. That won't be good for anyone.

tomatogrower 6 years, 2 months ago

I know we can't let them fight it out, but I don't see one side is any "holier" than the other. They both have done things that are horrible.

Paul R Getto 6 years, 2 months ago

+1. Good point. Drop the religious overtones and admit we want a democracy over there with a kick ass army we will pay for. They can carry our water if that's what we want. "My god can beat up your god" is not good foreign policy. I admire the Israelis in lots of ways, but they are not saints.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

There is a lot to admire about Israel. For instance, Israel has not ever lost a war. In contrast, no Arab country has won a war against another Arab country for over 100 years.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

That has to be one of the most utterly ridiculous (and pointless) statements you've ever made.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

"Israelis bomb them every day?" That's true, I didn't say that, because it's not a fact.

"somebody was building settlements on your land then annexing it? " It is true that 77% of Palestine was seized to form "Trans-Jordan", later named "Jordan".

Arab Muslims have all the rights of Israeli citizenship. You left that out.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

"It is true that 77% of Palestine was seized to form "Trans-Jordan", later named "Jordan"."

This is nothing but a distorted and incomplete version of history that serves no purpose other than to divert attention from the transgressions of Israel.

"Arab Muslims have all the rights of Israeli citizenship. "

There you go, repeating that lie again.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

I assume you're talking to the Israeli Jews who somehow never quite get the message that Arabs are theoretically equal to them.

Abdu Omar 6 years, 2 months ago

So you want to go to war, Ron? You want to start World War III over foolish threats by Iran? Why should Israel have security when they threaten the security of others? How do Palestinian men, women and children sleep at night knowing that if Israel wants their home they will take it? Any future that might have been is being taken away by the building of more and more settlements on Palestinian land and there is no stop. What will stop this aggression? Why does keeping Israel safe trump keeping the Palestinians or anyone else safe? The rest of the world is has always thought that the aggressor must be stopped and except for a few countries, the rest think Israel is the aggressor. Just because the American media fails to report Israeli atrocities done on others, the worldwide media isn't afraid to report these truths. Some day their cover will be blown and Israel will be exposed.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

77% of the British Mandate over Palestine was taken over by "Trans-Jordan", later named "Jordan". Why was there no fuss over that?

jafs 6 years, 2 months ago

I wonder what Krauthammer thinks we should do exactly?

Nuke Iran?

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

If he had his druthers, he'd probably be all for the overthrow of the democratically elected leader of Iran, as the CIA did in 1953, and restore the Shah to the throne of Iran, which was a government much more to the liking of the USA.

Iranians have long memories, and we have short ones.

jafs 6 years, 2 months ago

Good point.

Our support of that shah, who was clearly and strongly opposed to traditional customs, and used force to try to change them, undoubtedly caused many in that region to dislike us.

verity 6 years, 2 months ago

I did a quick Google search and couldn't find out for sure, but it seemed to be accepted that Mr Krauthammer, along with William Krystle and a number of other Zionists, hold dual citizenship (Israel and the United States). This appears to be somewhat of a conflict of interest.

verity 6 years, 2 months ago

I think this hit piece would be more accurately titled "Israel’s future more urgent than the United States."

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

It's a foothold for democracy in a part of the world where that concept seems to have very little traction.

While the Koran does specify many things, it does not specify exactly what a proper form of government should be.

Abdu Omar 6 years, 2 months ago

Ahh, you haven't read it then, have you? Islam propagates the thought that all decisions of government should be made by an elected committee or branch of government, not a dictator or king. It was the West that installed the kings and dictators who are being overthrown in the Middle East now. Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East - there is Lebanon who was a democracy before Israel became a country.

juma 6 years, 2 months ago

There is no logical reason for Israel to exist. It is wholly and only religious fanaticism. With friends like Israel America needs no enemies. What is very sad is the level of propaganda that the American public has been fed over the last decades about the 'importance' of Israel. Important for what?? It has only caused America endless problems with the rest of the Middle East. One important fact is that Islam recognizes Judaism as a 'sister' religion. Tehran lets Jews have synagogues, practice openly, etc.. The problem is not Jews the problem is Zionism. Once America wakes up to this fact then the Israel fiasco can be dealt with.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

It was quite predictable from the start that the founding of Israel on top of an Arab population that had been there for hundreds of years would lead to strife, justified or not.

Nevertheless, Israel is a fact, and it's not going away. But another fact is that Israel needs to learn respect for the Palestinians that they displaced, and make accommodations that will allow those Palestinians to live with the same peace and prosperity that Israelis expect on the lands they now share. Palestinians need to do the same, but that won't happen until Israel ends its theft of even more Palestinian lands, ends its siege of Gaza and tears down the Apartheid walls it's build over the last several years in other Palestinian areas.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

"Israel needs to learn respect for the Palestinians that they displaced"

How do you explain the existence of the Palestinian citizens of Israel?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

You mean those second-class citizens who face a good deal of discrimination? Yes, they do exist, and a large percentage (a majority?) of Israeli Jews believe they should be expelled from Israeli territory.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

"tears down the Apartheid walls it's build over the last several years in other Palestinian areas."

If there had been no suicide bombers, the separation barrier would not have been necessary.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

The tit-for-tat violence didn't start with suicide bombers-- it was merely the only weapon available to Palestinians (I'm sure they'd trade their vests for fighter jets and tanks, if you think that would be better.) Until both Palestinians AND Israelis choose to end the violence, the cycle will continue.

And for quite some time, the level of Israeli on Palestinian violence has been much greater than the other way around.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

Our endless problems are caused by our need for crude oil.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

Israel Muslims have mosques, and practice openly, etc. That is guaranteed by the Constitution of Israel.

Plus, all citizens of Israel have the right to vote and elect members of the Knesset.

The opposite is not true of many Arab countries.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

It's a bald-faced lie to contend that Israeli Arabs (whatever their religion) have anything approaching equal standing in Israeli society and politics.

It may not be as bad as the Jim Crow era was for blacks in this country, but it is definitely a two-tiered society.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

Democracy = " is wholly and only religious fanaticism." - Juma

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

Artificially Created States Eli E. Hertz

Fifty-one member countries - the entire League of Nations - unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:

"Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

Unlike nation-states in Europe, modern Lebanese, Jordanian, Syrian, and Iraqi nationalities did not evolve. They were arbitrarily created by colonial powers.

In 1919, in the wake of World War I, England and France as Mandatories (e.g., official administrators and mentors) carved up the former Ottoman Empire, which had collapsed a year earlier, into geographic spheres of influence. This divided the Mideast into new political entities with new names and frontiers.

Territory was divided along map meridians without regard for traditional frontiers (i.e., geographic logic and sustainability) or the ethnic composition of indigenous populations.

The prevailing rationale behind these artificially created states was how they served the imperial and commercial needs of their colonial masters. Iraq and Jordan, for instance, were created as emirates to reward the noble Hashemite family from Saudi Arabia for its loyalty to the British against the Ottoman Turks during World War I, under the leadership of Lawrence of Arabia. Iraq was given to Faisal bin Hussein, son of the sheriff of Mecca, in 1918. To reward his younger brother Abdullah with an emirate, Britain cut away 77 percent of its mandate over Palestine earmarked for the Jews and gave it to Abdullah in 1922, creating the new country of Trans-Jordan or Jordan, as it was later named.

The Arabs' hatred of the Jewish State has never been strong enough to prevent the bloody rivalries that repeatedly rocked the Middle East. These conflicts were evident in the civil wars in Yemen and Lebanon, as well as in the war between Iraq and Iran, in the gassing of countless Kurds in Iraq, and in the killing of Iraqis by Iraqis, Syrians by Syrians as well as the killing of Egyptians by Egyptians.

The manner in which European colonial powers carved out political entities with little regard to their ethnic composition not only led to this inter-ethnic violence, but it also encouraged dictatorial rule as the only force capable of holding such entities together.

The exception was Palestine, or Eretz-Israel - the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, where:

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country [Palestine] under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

The racist hypocrisy, double standards, selective history and outright lies in that piece of trash are astounding.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

You don't like the declarations of the League of Nations?

That's a quote.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

Who cares who said it? Israel was just as artificial a creation as any of those Arab states.

And to assert that Arabs have no culture (which is essentially what it does) merely to posit Israeli superiority is purely racist.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

World War 1 ended in 1918, and the beginning of World War 2 was in 1939, when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia.

That is only 21 years.

It has been 67 years since there has been any conflict approaching the magnitude of World War 2, although there have been many minor skirmishes over ideological differences that appear to be quite pointless today.

Something is going right. Now, if we only had a statesman among us to explain exactly what that is, we would be in a much better position than we are in today.

I can't help but draw analogies to my own family. We have been refugees twice, once from the German Principalities in about 1820, and later from Russia in the years between 1882 and 1917. None of us ever looked back, and we left with only what we could carry.

But, Arabs are not capable of doing the same. I wonder why.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

And I suppose that while Arabs go wherever it is you expect them to go, they can eat cake along the way.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

We had to take our own food along the way.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

Since you seem to think it's so wonderful there, why don't you go?

But I better warn you - you had best talk to my friend who's 1/2 Syrian before you consider doing that.

jafs 6 years, 2 months ago

Why should they have to, any more than you should have had to do that?

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

Actually, there is a big difference between most of the Palestinians of today and my family. We were never kept in refugee camps in neighboring countries, we were free to travel where ever we wanted to.

None of the "refugee camps" that you hear about are in Israel, they are all in the surrounding Arab nations, because they don't want the Palestinians to be citizens of their own countries. A notable exception is Jordan, whose population is 75% Palestinian.

I've been told that the Palestinians are the N-words of the Arab world. No one wants them to be citizens, because they are so useful for propaganda purposes.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

Just more rationalization for Israel's (and your) racism and barely repressed genocidal tendencies.. Truly despicable.

Abdu Omar 6 years, 2 months ago

The reason no Arab country wants the Palestinians is because when they are in country, the Israelis follow them and make war in that country to get at the Palestinians. Palestinians have no respite, they have no place to call their own because the usurping Israelis take it from them by force anywhere they go. I remind you of Sabra and Shatilla, and other places in North Africa and Syria where Israel has bombed and caused countless deaths because they want to eradicate the Palestinians.

Israel is an avowed "Jewish State", not an open democracy accepting every and all peoples. It pays for Russian and Eastern European immigration to fill the spaces it creates on Palestinian land. It knows no such thing as peace because they contend : "Never Again" meaning that no country, people or race will ever put Jews down. This is not about religion or Muslims against Jews as Muslims believe that the Jew is their brother, not their enemy. It is about Apartheid and the pure race of Jews in one place, sort of like Hitler and the "Master Race" because Jews think they are the Chosen people of God.

Answer this: If God has power over all things, why did He allow the Germans to kill 6 million Jews, especially if the Jews are His chosen people?

jafs 6 years, 2 months ago

I'm just going to respond to your last comment - that kind of thinking is a bit dangerous.

Many tragic things happen all of the time - if God has power over all things, why doesn't he stop all of them?

I think it's a rather large mistake to think that because he allows these things, that he wants them to happen, and supports them.

The traditional answer to the question is that we have been given free will, and the ability to act in ways that are both good and bad, and that we are responsible for those actions.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

This is a good website to read if you're actually interested in solutions, instead of just complaining about it:


Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago


We are developing partners who support a shared future between Palestinians and Israelis. Please support our efforts in the holy land. Contribute online or by mail here: http://www.freemuslims.org/contact.php

Please respond to this article by posting your comment here: http://www.freemuslims.org/blog/?id=166

For more information visit www.freemuslims.org

Contact Kamal Nawash, president@freemuslims.org

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

Did you come from Mars, Jupiter, or Pluto?

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

But, that's assuming you can read. That's maybe too much of an assumption.

juma 6 years, 2 months ago

Ron -- it is obvious you are Jewish (or some born-again) and you will say/do anything to support your religious view of the world. I would not expect less; like asking the Pope for condoms. It just ain't going to happen. Nor is your view of "reality" going to change. My only problem with Israel is; Why does my tax money have to pay for this hypocrisy?????????" Enough is enough!!

love2fish_ks 6 years, 2 months ago

Why have we gave up on gettong China Russia, and Pakistan joining us in sanctions? We have a huge lever over all three, i.e. imports. Jiust check the shelves of the local retailer and you will find most of the goods from China, and clothing from Pakistan and China. Russia would dry up without Western investments and tourism. It is time for our beloved Prez to quit begging and to start leading. If Hillary would have beat Barack, we would not be facing this mess. Leading from behind is no leadership. What a joke. And why, pray tell, will he not support Hillarys initiatives to try and force Russia, China, and Pakistan (those that buy Iranian oil) to teh table. I guess he is just skert she will show him up, people will wake up, and draft Hillary for President. Heck, I would rather have ole stuff shirt Romney than this clown.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.