Netanyahu: With bin Laden dead, Iran Supreme Leader is world's greatest threat

[Jefferson23]

* Right on cue and wasting no time:

In interview with CNN, Prime Minister says Ayatollah Ali Khamenei effectively runs Iran, warning that if Iran 'gets atomic bombs, it will change history.'

By Haaretz Service

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei poses the greatest worldwide threat after the death of Osama bin Laden, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview with CNN on Thursday.

Claiming that Khamenei posed an even greater threat than Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Netanyahu told CNN that the Supreme Leader "runs the country and he is infused with fanaticism."

"If the Iranian regime gets atomic bombs, it will change history," the premier said, adding that the "future of the world -- the future of the Middle East -- is certainly at stake."

Netanyahu also urged increased international sanctions on the Iranian regime over its suspected nuclear ambitions, saying that those sanctions might work if the international community makes it clear that there is a credible military option if sanctions don't work."

remainder in full: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-with-bin-laden-dead-iran-supreme-leader-is-world-s-greatest-threat-1.360021

[tekisui]

1. Oh good! I was wondering who our new boogeyman would be.

[bemildred]

40. Well, he ought to pick somebody younger, we could be doing this every couple of years.

We need stable global boogeymen so society can move forward.

[damntexdem]

2. Netanyahu is one of the world's greatest threats.

And since he has nukes, he may be the greatest threat.

[oberliner]

3. Everyone please look closely at this post

We have a poster claiming that the Prime Minister of Israel may be the world's greatest threat.

I wonder how many posters here agree with that sentiment.

[fascisthunter]

4. the Prime Minister of Israel is a Right Wing Bigot

who gives a shit

[LeftishBrit]

5. Yes he is. But he is not the 'greatest threat to the world'

I think that the greatest threat to the world is that everyone has such a need to identify someone or somewhere as the greatest threat to the world!

Bogeynation creation, as I call it.

[fascisthunter]

7. no, the Prime Minister isn't... and I agree with your latter point too

[JonScholar]

22. Correct, he's not the "greatest threat to the world" but hes a greater threat than Khamenei

Israel has invaded Lebanon something like 5 times in the last few decades. When was the last time Iran invaded anyone? Netanyahu is just fearmongering

[shira]

24. Uhh, Iran subsidizes Hezbollah and Hamas and has used them to attack Israel

So enough of the bullshit about them not invading anyone.

Israel wouldn't touch Lebanon if it weren't for the PLO back in the early 80's or Hezbollah recently attacking Israelis.

[JonScholar]

30. Right, when was the last time Hamas or Hezbollah invaded someone? Oh wait...

That's right, they never have.

[shira]

32. Yeah, all they do is launch rockets at daycares or fire guided missiles at school buses.

With weapons provided by Iran.

So much better than invading...

:eyes:

[JonScholar]

35. How many people have been killed by Hamas rockets? 17,000 plus were killed in the 1982 war alone

So yeah, I'd say not as bad as the invasions.

[shira]

37. No country on earth would take what Israel has taken and not respond by invading. n/t

[oberliner]

33. Last month

Hamas school bus attack

The 7 April 2011 Hamas school bus attack was an incident in which Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip fired a Kornet anti-tank missile over the border at an Israeli school bus. Hamas militants claimed responsibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_school_bus_attack

[azurnoir]

18. I would doubt many IMO the world's greatest threat right now is a

nuclear armed Pakistan
eta add North Korea to that IMO countries that already have nuclear weapons pose a greater threat than those that could possibly have them in the future

[LeftishBrit]

6. Can't say I'm a fan of his; but no he is NOT the world's greatest threat

[Jefferson23]

12. November 30, 2010

snip* AMY GOODMAN: That was Secretary to Hillary Clinton yesterday at a news conference. I wanted to get your comment on Clinton, Netanyahu’s comment, and the fact that Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the King, who’s now getting back surgery in the New York, called for the U.S. to attack Iran. Noam Chomsky?

NOAM CHOMSKY: That essentially reinforces what I said before, that the main significance of the cables that have been released so far is what they tell us about Western leadership. So, Hillary Clinton and Binyamin Netanyahu surely know of the careful polls of Arab public opinion. The Brookings Institute just a few months ago released extensive polls of what Arabs think about Iran. And the results are rather striking. They show that Arab opinion does—holds that the major threat in the region is Israel, that’s 80 percent; the second major threat is the United States, that’s 77 percent. Iran is listed as a threat by 10 percent. With regard to nuclear weapons, rather remarkably, a majority, in fact, 57 percent, say that the region will be—it would have a positive effect in the region if Iran had nuclear weapons. Now, these are not small numbers. Eighty percent, 77 percent say that the U.S. and Israel are the major threat. Ten percent say that Iran is the major threat.

Now, this may not be reported in the newspapers here—it is in England—but it’s certainly familiar to the Israeli and the U.S. governments and to the ambassadors. But there isn’t a word about it anywhere. What that reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership and, of course, the Israeli political leadership. These things aren’t even to be mentioned. And this seeps its way all through the diplomatic service. So the cables don’t have any indication of that.

When they talk about Arabs, they mean the Arab dictators, not the population, which is overwhelmingly opposed to the conclusions that the analysts here, Clinton and the media, have drawn. There’s also a minor problem. That’s the major problem. The minor problem is that we don’t know from the cables what the Arab leaders think and say. We know what was selected from the range of what they say. So there’s a filtering process. We don’t know how much it distorts the information. But there’s no question that what is a radical distortion is—or not even a distortion, a reflection of the concern that the dictators are what matter. The population doesn’t matter, even if it’s overwhelmingly opposed to U.S. policy. This shows up elsewhere. There are similar things elsewhere.

So, just keeping to this region, one of the most interesting cables was a cable from the U.S. ambassador in Israel to Hillary Clinton, which described the attack on Gaza, which we should call a U.S.-Israeli attack on Gaza, December 2008. It states that—correctly, that there had been a truce. It does not add that during the truce, which was really not observed by Israel, but during the truce, Hamas scrupulously observed it. According to the Israeli government, not a single rocket was fired. That’s an omission. But then comes a straight lie: it says that in December 2008, Hamas renewed rocket firing, and therefore Israel had to attack in self-defense. Now, the ambassador surely is aware—there must be somebody in the American embassy who reads the Israeli press, the mainstream Israeli press, in which case the embassy is surely aware that it’s exactly the opposite: Hamas was calling for a renewal of the ceasefire. Israel considered the offer and rejected it, preferring to bomb rather than to have security. Also omitted is that while Israel never observed the ceasefire, it maintained the siege in violation of the truce agreement. On November 4th, the U.S. election, 2008, the Israeli army entered Gaza, killed—invaded Gaza and killed half a dozen Hamas militants, which did lead to an exchange of fire, in which all the casualties, as usual, are Palestinian. Then in December, Hamas—when the truce officially ended, Hamas called for renewing it. Israel refused, and the U.S. and Israel chose to launch the war. What the embassy reported is a gross falsification and a very significant one, since it has to do with the justification for this murderous attack, which means either the embassy hasn’t a clue what’s going on or else they’re lying outright.

remainder: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/30/noam_chomsky_wikileaks_cables_reveal_profound

[oberliner]

13. Wow - pretty much everything he is saying here is incorrect

The most ridiculous misstatements being the one's related to the end of the truce.

Hamas declares end to ceasefire with Israel in Gaza

(Reuters) - Hamas on Thursday declared an end to a six-month-old Egyptian-brokered ceasefire with Israel in the Gaza Strip, raising the prospect of an escalation in cross-border fighting.

"The calm is over," Hamas official Ayman Taha said in an announcement after concluding talks with Palestinian factions in the coastal enclave controlled by the Islamist group.

He said the ceasefire, which Hamas says was scheduled to expire on December 19, would not be renewed "because the enemy did not abide by its obligations" to ease a crippling blockade of the Gaza Strip and halt all attacks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/12/18/us-palestinians-israel-ceasefire-idUSLI75623220081218

[Jefferson23]

14. Let's see, your self selected sources or Chomsky's collective sources..hmm.

I say let the reader decide.

[oberliner]

16. He provided no sources

I posted a Reuters article with a direct quote from the Hamas spokesperson.

[Jefferson23]

17. Yea, Chomsky is known to not verify legitimate sources before he draws a conclusion....sure thing.

It is my hope that when members here or those
who merely lurk may become curious enough to investigate
for themselves then decide who has credibility and who does not on this subject.

[oberliner]

25. What sources did he provide?

I read the entire piece - there aren't any.

I can give you other pieces to supplement the Reuters article.

BBC, NY Times, Guardian, Associated Press - just let me know what would be acceptable to you.

[Jefferson23]

28. Yes oberliner, his word means nothing, his reputation for fabricating

information is well known...sure thing. You know damn well this is an interview on
Democracy Now, he didn't bring a chart for you to see his links..no.

As I said previously, people can decide for themselves, who is credible on this
subject and who is not. If they are interested they can read his work on the subject
with references. If they are not, that's fine too..that's how it works on a political forum.

I have no interest in your sources, this subject has been disused here many times, and you bring
the same ones you always do. I am sure some percentage of people will accept your sources, your chronology
of what transpired, your explanation of the events...I am not one of them.

[oberliner]

41. Noam Chomsky on Osama death....

http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_re... /

In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”

Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1062103

Good stuff.

[Jefferson23]

42. In your second link, what exactly is "good stuff " to you. n/t

[shira]

44. The good stuff is the 911 truther poop that Noam is spewing...

About as "good" as the birther nuts.

:)

[JonScholar]

43. I agree with Chomsky. If it's ok to assassinate OBL, then it's also ok to assassinate GWB

"Good stuff" is apparently your phrase of choice when you have no substantive criticism of the facts being presented. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to discard arguments simply because they contradict your world view.

[shira]

45. Think Chomsky's still a credible source with his truther views? n/t

[JonScholar]

46. Noam Chomsky isn't a truther. This is a pathetic attempt at slander.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7SPm-HFYLo

What he wrote was that there's little evidence to prove Osama bin Laden committed the 911 attacks, which is a truth even the FBI admits. That doesn't mean Osama bin Laden commit the 911 attacks despite the fact that there's little evidence to prove (hint: its his opinion that OSB did attack the WTC). It certainly doesn't mean that he believes 911 was an inside job (hint: he doesn't)

[shira]

47. Yep, that's right. Chomsky did call OBL an unarmed "victim". What do you think of that?

President Obama has continued Bush policy in Afghanistan/Pakistan and has presided over many drone attacks and worse that have killed many Pakistani civilians.

Should he be shot and dumped into the ocean along with GWB in your opinion?

[shira]

15. The narrative is truth-to-power. Facts don't matter.

Better to be a true believer, religious type and go with the Hamas narrative.

It's anti-intellectual and illiberal, but so what? It's "progressive".

:eyes:

[JonScholar]

19. Actually, chomsky was perfectly correct.

Hamas didn't renew the ceasefire because Israel refused to hold to the terms of the cease-fire. Namely the end of the seige and an end to military operations in Gaza. Israel violated the former clause almost immediately after the ceasefire was struck, refusing to open the border crossing and allow an unrestricted flow of aid into Gaza per the agreement. Israel violated the latter clause with a bombing run that killed several members of Hamas in November 2008, which lead to the ultimate breakdown of the ceasefire. Hamas offered to renew the cease-fire under the original terms, but Israel rejected the offer, thus Hamas announced that it would not renew the ceasefire.

As Chomsky plainly stated, the responsibility lies with the Israelis. Some resources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6e-elrgYL0
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45350
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3642815,00.html

[shira]

20. No he wasn't. Not even close.

Show us this truce agreement on paper, specifically what terms were agreed to by both sides so we can see who violated what. Short of doing that, you don't know who violated what and when. BTW, it was called a "tadiyah" or "calm", not a truce or ceasefire as those terms are different in Arabic.

As Oberliner showed, it was Hamas deciding not to renew the ceasefire and instead they launched "Operation Oil Stain" (look below) as they unleashed hundreds of rockets onto Israel during the week leading up to Christmas and in the days that followed - right after the Hamas leader said there would be no renewal. Chomsky either didn't know his facts or lied by saying Israel just decided to start a war. Israel started OCL in reaction to Hamas' declaration of war one week prior.

So did Chomsky lie or did he just not know any better?

:shrug:

Operation Oil Stain
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=207221

[JonScholar]

21. Are you intentionally ignoring the facts?

Hamas launched a rocket campaign AFTER Israel violated the ceasefire by bombing Gaza. And Hamas offered to renew the ceasefire, which Israel flatly rejected. I listed some sources in my other post for your convenience and the convenience of other readers. It would probably help if you actually informed yourself on this issue by reading them.

The truce was never put to paper. However, it was overseen by Carter officials who verify that the agreement was for Israel to lift the seige and end military operations in Gaza in exchange for an end to rocket attacks. Unless Jimmy Carter and his aides were all flat out lying (extremely unlikely, given they have nothing to gain from lying), it seems pretty clear what the terms of the ceasefire were, and that Israel violated them from day one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/07/AR2009010702645.html

"Since we were only observers, and not negotiators, we relayed this information to the Egyptians, and they pursued the cease-fire proposal. After about a month, the Egyptians and Hamas informed us that all military action by both sides and all rocket firing would stop on June 19, for a period of six months, and that humanitarian supplies would be restored to the normal level that had existed before Israel's withdrawal in 2005 (about 700 trucks daily)."

[shira]

23. Again, it wasn't a ceasefire, it was a calm or lull. Do you know the difference?

There is a difference. Why don't you try elaborating, if you know it?

As to Carter...

1. He claimed in the article you cited that 1.5 million Gazans were being starved and we all know that's bullshit, which immediately destroys Carter's credibility. Here's a news article on video exposing the lie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3smJH8jb6M&feature=player_embedded

TIME admits there was no starvation in Gaza...

Gaza's residents will concede that there is no hunger crisis in the Strip. Residents do love the beach, and the store shelves are stocked. But if you're focused on starvation, they say, you're probably missing the point.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2010064,00.html

The NY TIMES admits it too...

But the broader point many of these advocates are making — that the poverty of Gaza is often misconstrued, willfully or inadvertently — is correct. The despair here is not that of Haiti or Somalia. It is a misery of dependence, immobility and hopelessness, not of grinding want. The flotilla movement is not about material aid; it is about Palestinian freedom and defiance of Israeli power.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/world/middleeast/23gaza.html?partner=rss&emc=rss


2. Carter then added he couldn't confirm the details of the lull/calm with Israel.

3. Finally, he said the truce was broken by an Israeli response to a 'DEFENSIVE TUNNEL' dug by Hamas close to the Israel border. There is no such thing as a defensive tunnel bordering Israel (not Egypt) when a similar tunnel was used to abduct Gilad Shalit in 2006. Here was another attempt just days after Carter's article you cited...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3654983,00.html

4. Finally, here's what HRW said Nov 20, 2008...

"We recognize that until last week Hamas took efforts to halt rocket attacks by other groups as part of the 19 June ceasefire. However, throughout the ceasefire period other armed groups have continued to intermittently fire rockets from Gaza. As the governing authority in the Gaza Strip, it is your responsibility under international law to prevent such attacks, and to arrest and prosecute those who carry them out. We also urge you to take all necessary measures to curb such unlawful attacks whether or not the current ceasefire remains in place or is extended beyond its 19 December deadline. Security forces under your control in Gaza have also demonstrated an ability to curb rocket fire. On at least two occasions, Hamas security personnel arrested people accused of firing rockets. On 10 July at least three members of the Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades were detained for firing rockets. All were later released however, and no charges were brought against them.

Those attacks happening under Hamas' nose during the so-called ceasefire are Hamas' responsibility according to HRW. Thus, Hamas broke the so-called ceasefire many times over. It didn't help that the violators of the so-called truce were later released without charges brought against them. That's HRW, mind you.

Carter and Chomsky are both wrong and it appears they are deliberately misleading folks like yourself.

[JonScholar]

29. Ceasefire. As in Hamas CEASED FIRING rockets and Israel CEASED FIRING mortars and bombs.

1. Carter claimed that acute malnutrition rates were comparable to that of subharan Africa. That is a verifiable fact straight from the Red Cross. If your definition of "starvation" is that people are literally starving to death, then no, Gaza isn't starving. However, much of Gaza is malnourished and food insecure, which fits the definition by most reasonable standards: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/chronic-malnutrition-in-gaza-blamed-on-israel-1019521.html

"The report says the heavy restrictions on all major sectors of Gaza's economy, compounded by a cost of living increase of at least 40 per cent, is causing "progressive deterioration in food security for up to 70 per cent of Gaza's population". That in turn is forcing people to cut household expenditures down to "survival levels"."

More according to IRIN: http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=84018

The UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) said in January that 10.3 percent of children under five are stunted (low height for age), a steadily increasing trend over recent years.

Stunting is usually attributed to a chronic lack of protein and micronutrients, including iron and essential vitamins, according to WHO. “More than 10 percent of children in Gaza are chronically malnourished,” said WHO officer Mahmoud Daher in Gaza, reporting a slight increase over 2008.

In April 2008 UNICEF estimated there were about 255,000 under-five children in Gaza, with about 26,265 at risk of malnutrition, and 657 most likely to be severely wasted.

Roughly two-thirds of the population - 50 percent of whom are under 18 - is deemed food insecure, according to FAO.

Furthermore most of the water in the Gaza strip remains unsuitable for consumption as a result of the Israeli blockade: http://www.btselem.org/english/gaza_strip/20100823_gaza_water_crisis.asp

"The director of quality control in the Gazan Coastal Municipalities Water Utility, Eng. Majed Ghanem, told B'Tselem that an examination conducted in late 2009 in 180 wells revealed that, in 93 percent of them, the chloride level (which indicates the water's salinity) was 1,000 to 2,000 mg/liter, four to eight times higher than the 250 mg/liter amount recommended by the WHO. Water with a chloride level this high is unfit for drinking. According to Ghanem, the pollution also affects the water's color and causes its repellent odor.

In addition, an examination carried out by the UN Environment Programme on a number of wells in Gaza found that the concentration of nitrates was six times higher than the 50 mg level recommended by the WHO. This high level of nitrates is liable to cause anemia among children and methemoglobinemia (“blue infants” syndrome) among infants, which is liable to lead to choking and death. A study published in 2007, in which a sample of 340 infants from Gaza were examined, found that almost half of them suffered from troubling symptoms of the syndrome.

The Palestinian Water Authority estimates that almost 40 percent of the incidence of disease in Gaza is related to polluted drinking water. According to international aid organizations, 20 percent of Gazan families have at least one child under age five who suffers from diarrhea as a result of polluted water. A UN study published in 2009 estimates that diarrhea is the cause of 12 percent of children's deaths in Gaza. The lack of potable drinking water is liable to cause malnutrition in children and affect their physical and cognitive development."

Meanwhile, your own source from the NY Times pretty much sums up how blown out of proportion the opening of the mall has been:

"To the commentators who have never been here, certain points need to be cleared up. To those who contend the mall is proof that Gaza has construction materials: the building is 20 years old. To those who have described the mall as “gigantic” and “futuristic”: it is small and a bit old-fashioned. To Danny Ayalon, Israel’s deputy foreign minister, who wrote that the mall “would not look out of place in any capital in Europe”: it would."

Furthermore:

In recent weeks, many more Israeli goods were available, though the economy remains in shackles and only a thin slice of the population can afford to buy the fancier items.

“This is for the elite,” Mr. Abu Abdu said. “The money you see here belongs to a very few people.”

2. No because Israel didn't want to admit it was negotiating with Hamas. The terms were verified by the negotiators from Hamas and Egypt.

3. Even assuming the intention was to kidnap Israeli soldiers, it still didn't justify Israel's blatant violation of the cease-fire. As Israeli commentators noted at the time, the tunnel did not present a clear and present threat to Israel. If it was an offensive tunnel, Israel could have simply sealed it as it opened on the Israeli side of the border, or redirected troops from patrolling that area. The insinuation that Israel had to bomb the tunnel, killing 6 members of Hamas and blatantly violating the ceasefire simply incorrect. Furthermore, there are such things as defensive tunnels. Underground networks were crucial to Hezbollah successful routing of Israeli forces during the 2006 invasion.

4. It is Hamas' responsibility to prevent other militant groups from firing rockets during a cease-fire. However, it's generally agreed that Hamas held their end of the bargain. Gaza doesn't have the infrastructure to comprehensively crack down on all the militant palestinian factions within the Area. Hamas stopped firing its own rockets, and cracked down and prevented most other rockets from being fired. Not much more could be expected of them given their resources.

BTW here's another article by Chomsky that pretty much covers all that I've just said: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20090119.htm

After immediately rejecting the June 2008 ceasefire it had formally accepted, Israel maintained its siege. We may recall that a siege is an act of war. In fact, Israel has always insisted on an even stronger principle: hampering access to the outside world, even well short of a siege, is an act of war, justifying massive violence in response. Interference with Israel's passage through the Straits of Tiran was a large part of the justification offered for Israel's invasion of Egypt (with France and England) in 1956, and for its launching of the June 1967 war. The siege of Gaza is total, not partial, apart from occasional willingness of the occupiers to relax it slightly. And it is vastly more harmful to Gazans than closing the Straits of Tiran was to Israel. Supporters of Israeli doctrines and actions should therefore have no problem justifying rocket attacks on Israeli territory from the Gaza Strip.

Of course, again we run into the nullifying principle: This is us, that is them.

Israel not only maintained the siege after June 2008, but did so with extreme rigor. It even prevented UNRWA from replenishing its stores, "so when the ceasefire broke down, we ran out of food for the 750,000 who depend on us," UNRWA director John Ging informed the BBC.59

Despite the Israeli siege, rocketing sharply reduced. According to the spokesperson for the Prime Minister, Mark Regev, there was not a single Hamas rocket among the few that were launched from the onset of the June 2008 ceasefire until November 4, when Israel violated it still more egregiously with a raid into Gaza, leading to the death of 6 Palestinians and a retaliatory barrage of rockets (with no injuries). The raid was on the evening of the US presidential elections, when attention was focused elsewhere. The pretext for the raid was that Israel had detected a tunnel in Gaza that might have been intended for use to capture another Israeli soldier; a "ticking tunnel" in official communiques. The pretext was transparently absurd, as a number of commentators noted. If such a tunnel existed, and reached the border, Israel could easily have barred it right there. But as usual, the ludicrous Israeli pretext was deemed credible, and the timing was overlooked.60

What was the reason for the Israeli raid? We have no internal evidence about Israeli planning, but we do know that the raid came shortly before scheduled Hamas-Fatah talks in Cairo aimed at "reconciling their differences and creating a single, unified government," British correspondent Rory McCarthy reported. That was to be the first Fatah-Hamas meeting since the June 2007 civil war that left Hamas in control of Gaza, and would have been a significant step towards advancing diplomatic efforts. There is a long history of Israel provocations to deter the threat of diplomacy, some already mentioned. This may have been another one.61

[shira]

31. But rockets didn't cease being fired from Gaza before Nov 4, so there goes your "ceasefire".

Guess Hamas broke it, contrary to what your sources say.

And apparently you don't know the difference b/w a lull or calm vs. an actual ceasefire.

No point continuing as the rest of your post is pretty non-responsive to what I previously wrote. Even your attempt to quote the Red Cross fails given the Red Cross's discrimination up until 2006 of Israel's equivalent Magen David Adom. It's pretty difficult taking criticism from bigoted and dishonest sources.

I don't expect us to agree on anything. I have the same issue with truthers, birthers, and now the bin Laden deathers.

[JonScholar]

34. Except even the Israeli government admits that none of those rockets were launched by Hamas

So you're basically just being outright deceitful at this point. Also, nice job with the bigotry accusation. I was wondering when the old "anti-semite" card would be dragged into this.

[shira]

36. But those rockets are the responsibility of Hamas and Hamas did little to stop/prosecute...

....the people who launched those rockets.

With that reasoning, armed groups not associated with the Israeli government could launch into Gaza and that wouldn't violate any truce or ceasefire either. And Israel could do very little, if anything, to stop them and somehow still claim it's not Israel's fault. And you'd buy that? Are you serious?

I didn't accuse you of bigotry. Read carefully as Red Cross policy was bigoted WRT Israel's Magen David Adom service for the longest time. As to hunger and starvation claims, I just posted a few links here about that lie...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x327519

Why do you think so many lied about that? How were they allowed to get away with it for so long?

[Shaktimaan]

48. not according to your quote from chomsky

According to the Israeli government, not a single rocket was fired.

He did not qualify that statement by saying that "not a single rocket was fired by HAMAS, (but were by proxies.) His quote makes it appear that no rockets were being fired at all. As he said... not a single one.

Chomsky's assertions basically run counter to what was being reported in every single major news outlet at the time. For example, it maintained the siege in violation of the truce agreement. No actual truce agreement was ever signed or made available to the press so the terms of it can be arbitrarily asserted.

Hamas declared the hadiya over, a day before scheduled. Hamas said it would agree to a NEW agreement, with absurd terms. When Israel declined Hamas began attacking.

That's another critical point, Hamas DID begin firing without provocation in December on Israeli civilians. Regardless of the "treaty's" renewal or not they had no cause to attack Israeli villages. Hamas DID attack Israel, over and over, despite Israel's demands to stop before operation CL was enacted.

Also, nice job with the bigotry accusation. I was wondering when the old "anti-semite" card would be dragged into this.

You say this as though it proves the allegation wrong in some way. Do you deny that anti-semitism exists? Or that Israel is treated by vastly different standards at the UN and by other international bodies?

[oberliner]

26. IPS News - there we go

Good stuff.

[JonScholar]

27. I'd say the same thing about ynet and the rest of the Israeli press

[oberliner]

38. Including Ha'aretz?

Are there any Israeli news sources you'd be ok with?

[JonScholar]

39. I don't think they're lying

I just think they're all horrifyingly biased, and prone to omitting details in such a way that many Israelis end up with a distorted view of the facts. Haaretz is slightly better, and is more likely to report on important stories, but it ultimately suffers from the same syndrome, albiet to a lesser extent.

[whosinpower]

8. That is predictable

I don't recall Netanyahu ever saying that Bin Laden was the world's greatest threat however. He has been calling Iran a grave threat for some time now.

[no_hypocrisy]

9. Next!

[Scurrilous]

10. Bibi is an idiot.

Meanwhile...

Israel finalizes purchase of sixth German-made submarine

<snip>

"Israel has finalized the purchase of a sixth submarine from Germany, with payment to be spread over several years, an Israeli official said on Thursday.

The proposed expansion of the diesel-powered Dolphin submarine fleet, considered Israel's vanguard against foes like Iran, had been held up by wrangling with Berlin over the $500 million to $700 million price tag.

Israel currently operates three Dolphins and has two more on order from Germany with delivery expected in the next two years."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-finalizes-purchase-of-sixth-german-made-submarine-1.359991

[oberliner]

11. Hardly

A lot of things - an idiot isn't one of them.

No genius though, that's for sure.

[Lithos]

49. While he can see

He is still blind... that is how I categorize him.

[oberliner]

50. He does have a pretty good educational pedigree

Went to MIT and Harvard for what that is worth.

Maybe he would have made a good architect.

[oberliner]

51. Who do you think is the biggest threat?

Is there someone else who is on your radar?

[oberliner]

52. Ahmadinejad allies charged with sorcery

Close allies of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have been accused of using supernatural powers to further his policies amid an increasingly bitter power struggle between him and the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Several people said to be close to the president and his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, have been arrested in recent days and charged with being "magicians" and invoking djinns (spirits).

Ayandeh, an Iranian news website, described one of the arrested men, Abbas Ghaffari, as "a man with special skills in metaphysics and connections with the unknown worlds".

The arrests come amid a growing rift between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei which has prompted several MPs to call for the president to be impeached.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/05/ahmadinejad-allies-charged-with-sorcery

[Jefferson23]

53. You're posting this in support of Netanyahu's claim in the OP? n/t

[oberliner]

54. Something seems to be going on with The Supreme Leader

Not sure what exactly, but he is obviously displeased with the state of domestic affairs.

[Jefferson23]

55. Again, you posted this in support of Netanyahu's claim in the OP?

I don't see why else you would, but I'm asking for clarification.

[oberliner]

56. More information about the Supreme Leader for those who may be ignorant

With respect to the article, I would say this piece does, to some extent, support this part of what Netanyahu said in the OP:

The Supreme Leader "runs the country and he is infused with fanaticism."

He does run Iran and he is a fanatic.

[Jefferson23]

57. Ah, this is an educational piece you posted for the ignorant and

lends support to some extent to what Netanyahu said about him, in your opinion the OP you added is of substance to this end. Being a fanatic
gives credence somehow to equating Khamenei with Iran being the world's greatest threat; did I understand you correctly?

When you have support for his claim in the OP, that Khamenei is the world's greatest threat, please post it.

[oberliner]

58. Yes - lots of people are not very well-versed in how things work in Iran

For instance, Ahmadinejad is often perceived as having much more power than he does, when in reality, the Supreme Leader calls the shots.

And recently, as is evidenced by this piece, there has been some serious tension between the two.

Whether The Supreme Leader is the world's greatest threat or not, I do not know.

I would agree that him having nuclear weapons would probably not be the best thing for world peace.

[Jefferson23]

59. So you're not sure about whether Khamenei poses the greatest threat world wide.

I have my doubts that lots of people are not well versed in the basic power
structure of Iran, this is a political forum.

If you come across an OP to support the PM's claim, please post it.

[oberliner]

60. I don't think it can be quantified that way

How do you measure the 'greatest' threat? I don't think it's possible.

I would say he is one among several unstable, fanatical dictators around the world who rule over a relatively powerful regional state.

[Jefferson23]

61. It was Netanyahu who framed it as such, I was responding to

your decision to post an OP which was added in support of his claim, in part..as you stated earlier.

[oberliner]

62. Some parts of what he said can be supported, other parts not so much

The article in the OP that you posted contains more than just a title.

[Jefferson23]

63. The title reflects his direct claim and comes without support.

Let's be clear, it is your opinion the OP you posted contains support for such a claim. I do
believe relegating the term fanatic as you have gives no credence to the PM's position.

Fear monger, now that would be a more appropriate title imo.


"Speaking of recent unrest sweeping across the Middle East, the premier warned the Arab revolutions could be "hijacked" by extremists, saying that while Israel "would like to see the triumph of democracy... that's something that will guarantee the peace," the specter of Islamic extremism loomed large.

"The biggest threat is the possibility that a militant Islamic regime will acquire nuclear weapons -- or that nuclear weapons could acquire a militant Islamic regime," the PM said.

The premier's comments came a day after he told British Prime Minister David Cameron that Israel would not negotiate with a "Palestinian version of Al-Qaida," referring to the newly signed Hamas-Fatah unity pact.
"Declaring statehood in September is a dictate -- and you don’t achieve peace through dictates. It’s a very bad idea,” Netanyahu told Cameron during their talks in London."