Iran's Vote, Obama's Challenge

Foreign policy is front and center in the Iranian electoral debate. It's clear from countless discussions I've had in Tehran this week that many Iranians blame Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for isolating Iran, creating a needless confrontation with the United States, provoking a harsh set of economic sanctions that has crippled Iran's oil, aviation, and computer/IT industries.

Those Iranians want the next president, whoever he is--and all signs continue to suggest that Mir Hossein Mousavi will be the winner--to make restoring Iran's relations with the United States a top priority.

Of course, that might be difficult.

I spent much of Wednesday morning in discussions at the Iranian foreign ministry. For two hours, I spoke with Ali Akbar Rezaie, the director-general of the ministry's office responsible for North America. He credits President Obama for his efforts in Cairo and elsewhere to put an end to the "civilizational" conflict between the West and Islam. "Compared to anything we've heard in the last 30 years, and especially in the last eight years, his words were very different," he says. "People in the region received the speech, from this angle, very positively, with sympathy."

He seemed to hint that the election would set the stage for a real Iran-US dialogue. "After the election we will be in a better position to manage relations with the United States. We'll be at the beginning of a new four-year period, and the political framework will be clear."

But the devil is in the details, he suggests. On the nuclear issue, the biggest stumbling block so far, he says that Obama was, well, fuzzy. While Obama said that Iran has the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy, he said nothing--either way--about Iran's right to enrich uranium on Iranian soil. From Iran's point of view, says Rezaie, the fact that Obama didn't rule out (or condemn) the possibility of an Iran-based enrichment program is a good sign. "But it is still vague for us. It is not clear whether he omitted that point intentionally or not. We don't know what he has in mind."

Of course, negotiating the details of a solution to this thorny problem is precisely the point. During my visit, a number of well-connected Iranians have said that if the United States creates a hospitable climate for relations beween the two countries--for instance, were Obama to stop saying that "all options are on the table" including military action--the whole process might move forward more easily. "From a technical point of view, there are many things that both sides can talk about, but those points won't tabled as long as there isn't enough political will, on both sides," says Rezaie. "I understand it's difficult to define the right level of political will, but it should be enough to convince the other side that it is serious. So far we have seen good words [from Obama], but it's not enough yet."

At least five separate, very influential Iranian officials and former officials have said that the key is for the United States to deal directly with Ali Khamenei, the Leader, rather than worry about who is president. (Of course, were Ahmadinejad to be ousted on Friday, it would be infinitely easier for Obama to sell the idea of talking to Iran to a skeptical US public.)

Sadegh Kharazi, Iran's former ambassador to France, expressed frustration about America's seeming unwillingness to deal directly with Khamenei. "The audience for the United States should be the Leader," he says. "After the election, the United States can work directly with the Office of the Supreme Leader. They know people who work with the Office of the Supreme Leader." Among them, he and other Iranians suggest, are Ali Akbar Velayati, an adviser to Khameni, and Kamal Kharazi, Sadegh Kharazi's uncle and head of Iran's Council on Foreign Relations. Both served as foreign minister previously. Perhaps half a dozen other leading Iranian figures can serve an intermediary, Iranian sources say.

"In Iran, the Iranian leadership--the president, the Leader, everyone--looks at Obama very positively," says Kharazi. "But we need a comprehensive plan from him. ... If Obama makes a practical gesture, Iran would immediately respond."

Currently, Kharazi is a chief foreign policy adviser to Mousavi's campaign. When  I met him yesterday. he was exhausted after a long campaign swing to southwest Iran, where he addressed a 10,000-strong Mousavi rally in Iran's oil capital of Ahwaz. He laid out for an eight-point plan for rebuilding US-Iran relations, including "transparency of Iran's nuclear program," i.e., strengthened safeguards to prevent the diversion of uranium into military use and a more stringent inspection regime.

Several other Iranians, perhaps less constricted by their official and semi-official positions were even more blunt about the problem.

Saeed Laylaz, a private businessman and economic analyst, earlier served in a top post in Iran's ministry of industry, until he ran afoul of President Ahmadinejad. He's on a personal campaign now to make sure the United States understands how to deal with the highly complex political system in Iran.

As we talked, he received a steady stream of phone calls from friends in Iran's far-flung provinces about the election outlook. Laylaz calls Ahmadinejad "stupid" and blames him for mismanaging Iran's faltering economy, including squandering $300 billion in oil revenue over the past four years that was "wasted and looted." But he is beside himself over America's inability to understand that power in Iran lies in the hands of Khamenei, not Ahmadinejad.

When Obama sent his remarkable Nowruz New Year's greeting last February, Iranians were stunned, he says. "People were excited and surprised. We realized that the US dialogue with Iran has changed basically and dramatically."

But Laylaz says that the US blew it. Very quickly after Obama's message, Khamenei responded with a public statement welcoming improved US ties and, he says, laying what he calls a "roadmap" for better ties."But Mr. Khamenei's response did not get the appropriate reaction in the United States." For instance, he says, Khamenei raised the question of Iran's frozen assets held in the United States dating back to 1979, a sum that amounts to something like $8 billion to $12 billion now, according to Laylaz. "Obama could have asked for a report about those frozen assets," he says. Doing so, even quietly, would have sent an enormous signal to Khamenei tha his message was heard loud and clear.

There are minefields aplenty in the coming US-Iran dialogue. Both sides are hugely suspicious of the other, and there are real, underlying issues that reflect conflicting interests between Washington and Tehran. On both sides, there are radicals and hardliners intent on sabotaging the prospect for better relations. In Iran, whatever happens in the election, there is bound to be a period of political instability during which the losing side (or sides) may not accept defeat quietly. (See the June 9 entry on The Dreyfuss Report about the forces that Ahmadinejad is mobilizing in support of his faltering campaign.)

But every day Tehran looks greener, as the Green Wave of the Mousavi campaign gathers momentum. Politics is getting raucous, with Ahmadinejad hurling accusations of corruption at his rivals, and their backers, including the powerful, wily former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Last night, Rafsanjani struck back, issuing a blistering letter attacking Ahmadinejad. It's an unprecedented display of vitriol, and increasingly it's looking like it's Ahmadinejad and a few cronies against, well, everyone else.

Comments (139)

1. I guess it is a good thing that Iran's Chimpie seems not to have an Irano- Cheney counterpart.

   I got a kick out of reports of the audience reactions to his address at Columbia - it would have easily made SNL

   Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 06/10/2009 @ 10:05am

2. Great read Mr. Dreyfuss.

   Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 10:13am

3. It would be terrific if a non-hostile US-Iran relationship could be developed. Both sides will need to take a step backwards for that to occur. But I question the existence of a factual basis to support the column's claim that the US has been insufficiently forthcoming and receptive. I do not recall Khamenei's response to Obama's overture as having been encouraging. While he welcomed better ties, he demanded a number of American unilateral concessions which were unacceptable. Similarly, the notion that America should be faulted for not removing military action as an option, and that Iran would be more forthcoming if we did, is simply frivolous.

   Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 11:00am

4. Larry/antisoc already gave away the spin from the "Nuke Iran's Nukes" Crowd...

   Mousavi wins it'll be "So what? The ayatollahs run everything. Who cares who the President is? Iranian Presidents are impotent!"

   Ahmadinejad wins it's "He's a mad-man. A Hitler! A power-hungry fanatic ready to strike! He's going to launch his nukes as soon as he gets them 'next week'!!!!"

   Such is the way of things.

   Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 11:06am

5. Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 11:06am

   I'm beginning to think you are buddies with "Im a Nutjob". Your consistent nut talk sure makes it seem like it.

   <But see, what's interesting about that....it undercuts their PREVIOUS investment in Ahmadinejad as the "focus of evil", i.e. his pronouncements on the Holocaust, etc.

   Why is it "Ahmadinejad wants to nuke Israel...look how he denies the Holocaust!!!!"...

   but if he's voted out of office, suddenly "Who cares who the President of Iran is...the ayatollahs run the show!"

   Neat, huh?

   Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 2:00pm

   I'm beginning to wonder if you have the capacity for more complex reasoning or is high school debate your limit?

   One can acknowledge "I'm a Nutjob" as evil with evil intents and also recognize the greater evil in the Ayatollahs and the Mullahs. I'm not aware of any conservatives who don't make that connection.

   Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 2:13pm

   But if Ahmadinejad is powerless ("And ultimately, the Ayatollahs and the Mullahs will still be running the show..")....then who cares what he says?

   if he can implement a plan of destruction for Israel....then your "ultimately" isn't true. HE is running the show.

   Which is it?

   Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 2:27pm

   First of all, neither he nor any president to follow is completely powerless. Secondly, their words have power. Power to inspire jihadists in other countries for instance. Third, as noted by Dreyfuss, some of the Ayatollahs and Mullahs use people like "nutjob" as a front. That still makes him dangerous.

   Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 2:57pm>

   http://tinyurl.com/kpwgen

   Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 11:58am

6. posted by ROBERT DREYFUSS on 06/10/2009 @ 09:18am

   I can't help but wonder what the response in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the peninsula will be, if a reformer determined to build a stronger US relationship is elected in Iran, and, in particular, if your sources are correct and the supreme leader in Iran is welcoming to President Obama's overtures. Iran has been such a convenient bogeyman for so long, for those various powers. The Israeli regime, in particular, is facing a quandary: it is being backed into the corner over Israel's handling of Palestinians, and has tried hard to change the subject to Iran. A stronger US-Iran relationship is antithetical to that effort. The Israeli regime must be very frightened of the potential for a stronger relationship, and if the election brings in Mousavi, the Israelis will have to try to permanently destroy any hope for engagement with Iran while Mr. Obama is president.

   Posted by syfriendly at 06/10/2009 @ 11:59am

7. Such is the way of things.

   Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 11:06am | ignore this person | warn this person

   A classic insight Mask. Well done! I am betting you are right.

   Big K was running things all along. Neocon's already drafting up the propaganda war.

   Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 12:09pm

8. May 12, 2008 William Kristol thinks Jewish terrorists are wonderful William Kristol has an op-ed in the New York Times extolling the virtues of Israel is almost mystical-mythical proportions as the fulfilment of some sort of many-thousand-year old prophecy that will supposedly save us all from a holocaust, etc. etc.

   It is frankly sort of embarrassing that a a political entity should be discribed in such grandiose, fawning terms in what is supposedly a sober, secular newspaper -- and it says a lot about the fascistic mindset of pro-Israeli crowd in the US.

   But what's really funny is how, whilst resorting to the usual, tiresome Hitler comparisons, Kristol compares Ahmadinejad with known Zionist terrorists like Weizmann and Jabotinsky, Ben-Gurion and Begin:

   I hate to dignify him by even taking note of his comments. I meant to pay tribute to the Zionists -- men like Weizmann and Jabotinsky, Ben-Gurion and Begin -- who made possible the almost miraculous redemption of the Jewish people Well, lets see now:

   Jabotinsky was a lunatic even in the judgment of fellow Zionists, who along with Menachem Begin, was a founder of the Irgun, a terrorist organization responsible for the mass murder of Palestinian civilians in places like Deir Yassin as well as terrorist bombing campaigns (including the bombing of the King David hotel.)

   Yitzhak Shamir was a member of the Lehi (the "Stern gang") which, in addition to murdering Swedish Count Bernadotte and British Lord Moyne, claims the questionable "honor" of the first use of letter bombs. In 1946, 70 letter bombs were sent in official British government envelopes to all members of the British cabinet, the heads of the Tory opposition, and several military commanders.

   Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 12:46pm

9. (The remains of the murderers of Lord Moyne, by the way, were brought to Israel and reburied with full honors in Mount Herzl national cemetery in Jerusalem, and Israel has a formal military decoration which was created in celebration of the Lehi.)

   Ben-Gurion was responsible for the policy of "cruel Zionism" which consisting of bombing fellow Jews in Arab nations in order to convince them to move to Israel (so as to create population pressure to force out innocent Palestinians.) Ben-Gurion, Moshe Dayan and Shimon Peres were also responsible for the Lavon Affair, when Israeli agents posing as Arabs placed bombs in British and American centers in Cairo, in an attempt to harm the relations of Britain and the US with Egypt. (Note that in 2005, the Lavon Affair terrorists were formally thanked and rewarded by the Israeli government.)

   And that's just for starters. I won't get into Sharon's deeds at Qibya, for example.

   So tell me, William Kristol, these are the men you adulate?

   http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2008/05/william-kristol.html _____________________________________ One can acknowledge "I'm a Nutjob" as evil with evil intents and also recognize the greater evil in the Ayatollahs and the Mullahs. I'm not aware of any conservatives who don't make that connection.

   Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 2:13pm

   So Liv, why don't I see reference to the Ayatollah from Kristol, who is a conservative?

   Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 12:50pm

10. If you're right, this contest is shaping up to be a Mousavi vs. Joey Lieberman in the playoffs of the US Foreign Policy Wold Series. Stay tuned, it's gonna be quite a matchup.

    Posted by DejaVu at 06/10/2009 @ 12:50pm

11. Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 12:09pm

    Ask and it shall be given...

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 11:58am

    You really think Larry wants a less aggressive Iran? No, of course not. First, it would prove his "prophet of God" powers were faulty when he said we ARE going to have a war Iran...no chance for peace.

    "There will be war with Iran, the only question is when."---Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 12:46pm

    Plus he later put God's stamp of approval on that prediction.

    So for Mousavi to get elected COULD NOT POSSIBLY change "God's prophecy"...ever.

    So naturally, no matter what political changes occur in Iran...Larry will say they are irrelevant.

    And that's MY prediction...God doesn't even need to help me.

    Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 12:55pm

12. tell one vote

    I challenge you to provide a credible cite that substantiates your claim that Ben Gurion / Israel bombed fellow Jews in Arab countries in order to get them to flee to israel.

    The attacks by Irgun and the Stern Gang against British army officials were part of a war of liberation against a colonial occupying army which prevented Jewish refugees from the Nazi holocaust from seeking sanctuary in Israel. While they also engaged in some questionable and some condemnable actions against the Palestinians, nevertheless they are Israeli heroes, similar to the patriots of the American revolution, who also rose up and drove the British out of their land in order to establish an independent country.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 1:18pm

13. So naturally, no matter what political changes occur in Iran...Larry will say they are irrelevant.

    And that's MY prediction...God doesn't even need to help me.

    Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 12:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Has something to do with them 'Muslims' I venture. Larry's prophecy and fight goes way - way back. The only diplomacy Larry views as justified is total and complete subjugation - in other words, giving your "enemy" little alternative to fight back.

    For Larry - it is written. For the rest of world, this is a great time for reconciliation with Iran - whom Larry forgets helped pave the way for our invasion in Afghanistan and the fight against Taliban - another enemy in Larry's prophecy - 'something to do abot Muslims I venture."

    You are right to call Larry out on his hate for Muslims at every opportunity Mask. Larry asks - 'why must we revisit this issue'? Because his hatred is the same hatred that drives sectarian civil war in Iraq and terrorism (state or stateless). We can and will learn to live together - with mutual respect. We can do our share by pushing back hard against the 'crusaders' every time they try to pander their nonsense.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 1:25pm

14. You really think Larry wants a less aggressive Iran? No, of course not. First, it would prove his "prophet of God" powers were faulty when he said we ARE going to have a war Iran...no chance for peace.

    "There will be war with Iran, the only question is when."---Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 12:46pm

    Plus he later put God's stamp of approval on that prediction.

    So for Mousavi to get elected COULD NOT POSSIBLY change "God's prophecy"...ever.

    So naturally, no matter what political changes occur in Iran...Larry will say they are irrelevant.

    And that's MY prediction...God doesn't even need to help me.

    Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 12:55pm

    Your usual distortions.

    I would love to see no more wars, no more death, or rape, or disease. However, that is not the world we currently live in. Until sin is finally removed from this world and in fact this world is destroyed and G-d brings forth a new earth, we will continue to see wars and death and disease.

    And as to Iran, you can choose to either believe some idealistic and unrealistic future, or one can choose the position that I and 100's of millions of Christians have, which is that the Bible is true and these things will happen.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 1:27pm

15. Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 1:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Take your complaint to the cite I posted Gren. Fighting colonialism huh....thats a good one. So Palestinians are justified in killing Israeli settlers in occupied territories then right? So the British were just self serving in considering such rabid Zionist groups such as Irgun terrorists? Might you apply that same logic to Israel's treatment of Palestinians?

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 1:30pm

16. You are right to call Larry out on his hate for Muslims at every opportunity Mask. Larry asks - 'why must we revisit this issue'? Because his hatred is the same hatred that drives sectarian civil war in Iraq and terrorism (state or stateless). We can and will learn to live together - with mutual respect. We can do our share by pushing back hard against the 'crusaders' every time they try to pander their nonsense.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 1:25pm

    Joining the Mask lie club?

    I do not hate Muslims. I don't hate anyone.

    I hate destructive ideologies. I hate destructive behavior such as murder, rape, and sexual perversion.

    This always seems to be a concept that is beyond the understanding of liberals and those who hate Christianity and Judaism. I don't say religion because they always seem to isolate these two faiths while seldom if ever voicing similar hatred of other faiths with strong belief systems.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 1:36pm

17. Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 1:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Right now then I would like you to acknowledge that Christians and Jews are guilty of murder, rape, and sexual perversion, and are not biblically, morally and philosophically exempt from the very same criticisms you level at Muslims. Mask has nailed you repeatedly on this, and you are part of the problem, not part of solution. You don't care if the world goes up in flames - you figure you've got a better life up high with Jesus afterward. For those who don't share your belief, we would like to live in the present, and make our journey in life as pleasant as possible, without making it miserable for others.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 1:46pm

18. Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 1:36pm

    I always pictured you as a Bob Marley, Rastafari, kinda guy.

    They have really cool music.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/10/2009 @ 1:47pm

19. So naturally, no matter what political changes occur in Iran...Larry will say they are irrelevant.

    And that's MY prediction...God doesn't even need to help me.

    Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 12:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    'And as to Iran, you can choose to either believe some idealistic and unrealistic future, or one can choose the position that I and 100's of millions of Christians have, which is that the Bible is true and these things will happen.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 1:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person'

    I think you've got this one pegged Mask.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 1:51pm

20. Gren, your knowledge of history is pathetic. For starters, the Holocaust happened nearly 10 years AFTER the Stern gang, Irgun shenanigans and the Balfour Declaration was a contact for the zionists to use the British Army to effectively clear the land for Jewish settlers. Without the British army, there would be no settlers. (or darn few anyway) The soldiers were attacked because they were TRYING to keep the peace and hold the settlers back from stealing whatever they could grab.

    Posted by DejaVu at 06/10/2009 @ 2:11pm

21. Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 1:27pm

    Larry, it's quite simple....peaceful relations with Iran are IMPOSSIBLE according to your dogmatic belief....impossible.

    Therefore, ANYTHING to the contrary you will dismisss.

    And you DO NOT want peace with Iran, because that would mean you want a "prophecy of God" to be wrong.

    Do you? You can't just say "Well, it doesn't matter what I want"....no, it does. You obviously have some PREFERENCE of two possibilities.

    I can say "I would like all nuclear weapons to disappear, but I know it won't happen"...but I don't say "Nuclear weapons will never disappear, but I'm going to remain neutral as to how good or bad that would be."

    Peace with Iran equals "proves God wrong" (atleast YOUR interpretation of "God").

    And you NEVER want "God" proven wrong....period.

    Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 2:15pm

22. Right now then I would like you to acknowledge that Christians and Jews are guilty of murder, rape, and sexual perversion, and are not biblically, morally and philosophically exempt from the very same criticisms you level at Muslims. Mask has nailed you repeatedly on this, and you are part of the problem, not part of solution. You don't care if the world goes up in flames - you figure you've got a better life up high with Jesus afterward. For those who don't share your belief, we would like to live in the present, and make our journey in life as pleasant as possible, without making it miserable for others.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 1:46pm

    You want to cite where I have ever said that no Christians or Jews EVER commit crimes?

    My Bible says it quite differently, so I could not imagine ever making such a statement.

    And as I said, I don't want to see anyone be murdered or see another war. But unlike you and others who share your views, I do believe what the Bible says about the nature of mankind and the devil.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 2:24pm

23. tell onevote

    the Israelis killed British military. hamas and Fatah target civilians. If you don't consider that a determinative difference....well, what can I say.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 2:26pm

24. Gren, your knowledge of history is pathetic. For starters, the Holocaust happened nearly 10 years AFTER the Stern gang, Irgun shenanigans and the Balfour Declaration was a contact for the zionists to use the British Army to effectively clear the land for Jewish settlers. Without the British army, there would be no settlers. (or darn few anyway) The soldiers were attacked because they were TRYING to keep the peace and hold the settlers back from stealing whatever they could grab.

    Posted by DejaVu at 06/10/2009 @ 2:11pm

    Hmm, according the Nation magazine, it was the British teaming with the Arabs, not the Jews. It was the Jews fighting against the British for their independence as the historical record shows. The attitude of the UK was not the same in 1946-1948 as it was in 1920-1922.

    http://emperor.vwh.net/history/br-role.pdf

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 2:32pm

25. tell onevote

    you're relying on a pro-Iranian propogandist site to support your claim. That's pathetic. Man up and aapologize for being duped.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 2:32pm

26. And as to Iran, you can choose to either believe some idealistic and unrealistic future, or one can choose the position that I and 100's of millions of Christians have, which is that the Bible is true and these things will happen.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 1:27pm

    How can one have a rational discussion with someone who states that God says it will happen, so therefore it will happen. Or that it is in the bible therefore it will occur and must be true?

    Too much faith is a mental illness, in that it prevents the use of logic. To make claims that since 100 million muslims believe that something is true, therefore it must be true is silly, to say that since (pick any religion) believes something therefore it will happen is insane! However, those who have enough faith calmly proclaim their insanity.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/10/2009 @ 2:33pm

27. Tell Dejavu

    the pathetic knowledge of history is your's alone. It is not surprising that you project your own failings onto others. Ideology is no substitute for facts.

    The Irgun was organized in 1931 as a defensive organization. After the Arab revolt in 1936-39, in which they massacred Jews and attacked Jewish kibbutz, Irgun became committed tomilitary action in pursuit of an independent Jewish state. During that same period, the Irgun came into conflict with the British because the British were refusing to allow Jews fleeing Germany and eastern Europe from entering Israel, even sending the ships carrying the refugees back to Nazi Germany or unsafe seas. The Irgun bombing of the wing of the David Hotel occupied by the British military occured in 1946.

    Any questions.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 2:41pm

28. Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 2:24pm

    What does your Bible say about Man's free will?

    and why Iranians don't have any?

    Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 2:45pm

29. The relevant issue about Irgun and the Stern Gang is that Ben Gurion and Hagannah disarmed them and prevented them from pursuing their vision of a Greater Israel once the UN had offered Israel a state pursuant to the 1947 petition. That the difference between Ben gurion and Israel on the one hand, and first Arafat and now Abbas and the PA on the other. Perhaps Abbas can be excused; he doesn't have the following or stature to confront armed Fatah militants or Hamas, although America is working with him to change that. But Arafat was a coward who lacked the courage to be a man of peace. He took no risks, and so the Palestinians have suffered bitterly.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 2:49pm

30. Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 2:41pm

    Just to add on to your comments. Two incidents are cited over and over by anti-semites as supposed proof that it was the Jews not the Arabs who are the terrorists.

    the first is Deir Yassin where Jews supposedly massacred Arab women and children. Let's start with statements by the residents.

    <This is the statement of Yunes Ahmad Assad, a prominent inhabitant of Dir Yassin who survived the battle:

    "The Jews never intended to hurt the population of the village, but were forced to do so, after they met enemy fire from the population which killed the Irgun commander."

    It was published in the Jordanian daily " Al Urdun" of 9 April, 1955.  Its only inaccuracy is in respect of the Irgun commander: Assad undoubtedly saw him fall in the attack, but he survived.

    All Radwan an Arab who lived in Deir Yassin said:

    I know when I speak that God is up there and God knows the truth and God will not forgive the liars.  There were no rapes. It's all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda that... Arabs put out so Arab armies would invade.  They ended up expelling people from all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin.

    For example, according to the Daily Telegraph, April 8, 1998, Ayish Zeidan, a resident of the village and a survivor of the fighting there, stated:

    "The Arab radio talked of women being killed and raped, but this is not true... I believe that most of those who were killed were among the fighters and the women and children who helped the fighters. The Arab leaders committed a big mistake. By exaggerating the atrocities they thought they would encourage people to fight back harder. Instead they created panic and people ran away."

    continued

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 2:55pm

31. more on exposing the Arab lies about Deir Yassin

    <The Palestinian leader Hussein Khalidi was one of the originators of the "massacre" allegation in 1948. It was Khalidi's claims about Jewish atrocities in Deir Yassin that were the basis for an article in the New York Times by its correspondent, Dana Schmidt (on April 12, 1948), claiming a massacre took place. The Times article has been widely reprinted and cited as "proof" of the massacre throughout the past 50 years.

    The April 2,1998 issue of the Jerusalem Report describes a BBC televison program in which, Hazem Nusseibeh a member of one of Jerusalem's most prominent Arab families who presently lives in Amman described "an encounter at the Jaffa Gate of Jerusalem's Old City with Deir Yassin survivors and Palestinian leaders, including Hussein Khalidi... 'I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story,' recalled Nusseibeh. 'He said, "We must make the most of this." So we wrote a press release stating that at Deir Yassin children were murdered, pregnant women were raped. All sorts of atrocities.'"

    The BBC program then shows a recent interview with Abu Mahmud, who was a Deir Yassin resident in 1948, who says that the villagers protested against the atrocity claims: "'We said, "There was no rape." [Khalidi] said, "We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews.'"

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 2:58pm

32. The actual batlle of Dir Yassin begain with a typical Arab subterfuge, which has been often rehearsed since. The Palestinian Arab and Iraqi garrison hung out white flags from houses nearest the village entrance. When the advance party of the Irgun unit advanced towards the entrance, it was met by a hail of fire. One of the first to be hit was its commander. Fierce house to house fighting followed. Midway, the Irgunists ran out of ammunition, but went on as best they could, with the weapons and equipment found in the first houses to fall into their hands.

    Most of the stone buildings were defended hotly, and were captured only after grenades were lobbed through their windows. Some of the garrison, as the battle neared its close, attempted to escape in women's dress. when approached, they opened fire. They were discovered to be wearing Iraqi military uniforms under the disguise.

    When the fighting ended, the Irgun unit found that it had sustained forty one casualties, four of them fatal. In the captured houses they were horror-striken to find that, side by side with those combatant Palestinians and Iraqis, were the bodies of women and children. Either these luckless villagers had trusted the Arab soldiers to beat off the attack, or had been prevented from leaving the village with the others when the opportunity was given, before the fighting began, or perhaps had been afraid to go; whatever the reason, they were the innocent victims of a cruel war, and the responsibility for their deaths rests squarely upon the Arab soldiers, whose duty it was - under any rule of war - to evacuate them the moment that they turned Dir Yassin into a fortress, long before the battle for the village began.

    http://www.afsi.org/arablies.htm

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 3:00pm

33. the Truth about the King David Hotel

    <Arabs claim that Jews are guilty of terrorism to since the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel. Why did the Irgun blow up the King David Hotel? The British restricted immigration by Jews to their ancient homeland during World War II cutting off the escape route of European Jewry. This led to Jewish resistance organizations fighting the British. The King David Hotel was the site of the British military command and the British Criminal Investigation Division. British troops invaded the Jewish Agency on June 29, 1946, and confiscated large quantities of documents. The information about Jewish Agency operations, including intelligence activities in Arab countries, was taken to the King David Hotel.

    The documents seized by the British had to be destroyed. In order to prevent casualties three telephone calls were placed, one to the hotel, another to the French Consulate, and a third to the Palestine Post, warning that explosives in the King David Hotel would soon be detonated. The British apparently did not believe the warnings.>

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 3:04pm

34. How can one have a rational discussion with someone who states that God says it will happen, so therefore it will happen. Or that it is in the bible therefore it will occur and must be true? Posted by Extraneous at 06/10/2009 @ 2:33pm

    Extraneous,

    I can't agree with you more. This Antisocialist fellow is no different than Bin Laden or Ahmadinejad. They all see the world through narrow tunnel vision greatly influenced by their religious dogma.

    The Zionists are thrilled to have a tenacious bulldog ideologue like him on their side. Matter of fact, he admitted once that the Israelis had offered him a commission at the IDF. A fellow like him is very cheap hire to perpetuate the Zionist propaganda. It is not an accident that there is always a dog like him strategically placed at every liberal blog to spew the Zionist's misinformation. This Antisocialist has been assigned to The Nation period; he views his role at this blog as his religious duty.

    Place a WMD in the hands of a fellow like him and watch the world goes up in flame.

    Posted by CripThink at 06/10/2009 @ 3:41pm

35. Hey, Larry...wanna be generous, so I got an "out" for you.

    You know how everybody THOUGHT the Cold War was over back in the late 80s and 90s...but it really wasn't...but Reagan DID win it...but Putin is bringing back Communism and it onlhy LOOKS like there are rich capitalists in Moscow?

    Maybe you can try the same thing with Iran?

    If Mousavi is elected and they go moderate and peaceful and it LOOKS like "God's prophecy" is wrong...simple...

    you just wait a few years a decade or so, when some hard-liner comes back to power in Teheran...and THEN your "inevitable war" can happen.

    That way...we can have peace and you won't ever have to admit you....er...I mean, God was wrong?

    How bout that?

    Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 3:44pm

36. But Arafat was a coward who lacked the courage to be a man of peace. He took no risks, and so the Palestinians have suffered bitterly. Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 2:49pm

    gren,

    You speak like statesman about taking risk for peace while your pant is pulled down. Was Arafat a coward because he did not sell out the entire city of Jerusalem to your fanatic religious settlers? I thought that your brave brethrens have poisoned Arafat because he stood to them courageously and refused to sell out his national and historic right to Palestine and Jerusalem.

    Do you really want to take risk for peace? Then go convince your fanatic Jewish settlers to surrender the land they have stolen form the Palestinians. Or maybe take the same argument about "taking risk for peace" to the fascist Netanyahu and Lieberman. Ask them to take risk in buying into the two-state solution. It is historically proven that a Zionist can't take risk for peace and remains a Zionist.

    Posted by CripThink at 06/10/2009 @ 4:09pm

37. you're relying on a pro-Iranian propogandist site to support your claim. That's pathetic. Man up and aapologize for being duped.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 2:32pm

    Oh I see Gren....Zionists have a monopoly on truth don't they. Sorry, I forgot. Have the British admitted that they were wrong about Zionist terrorist groups? Perhaps you can steer me to some Zionist website with the British apology and correction of their take on history.

    I didn't catch your reasoned refutation of analogy between Irgun for instance, and Hamas and Hezbollah. Perhaps that is because Zionists don't consider terrorism including assassination, killing of women and children, disproportionate military response on helpless victims, economic and humanitarian blockade, confined area imprisonment, racism, etc. as acts of terrorism per se?

    So any news source that is Pro-Iranian is taboo, and bound to be propaganda. Gren - please. You are making yourself foolish.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 4:15pm

38. tell onevote you swallow propoganda like a child with candy. Find a credible cite that references such action by Ben Gurion / Israel, otherwise be gone with you. If I cite an unknown Zionist blogger for some fanciful allegation, I would be properly ridiculed. But you self-righteously spout any garbage you can find.

    BTW, what is it w/you and dejavu. You guys resort to namecalling and insults like 4 year olds.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 4:21pm

39. You speak like statesman about taking risk for peace while your pant is pulled down. Was Arafat a coward because he did not sell out the entire city of Jerusalem to your fanatic religious settlers? I thought that your brave brethrens have poisoned Arafat because he stood to them courageously and refused to sell out his national and historic right to Palestine and Jerusalem.

    Do you really want to take risk for peace? Then go convince your fanatic Jewish settlers to surrender the land they have stolen form the Palestinians. Or maybe take the same argument about "taking risk for peace" to the fascist Netanyahu and Lieberman. Ask them to take risk in buying into the two-state solution. It is historically proven that a Zionist can't take risk for peace and remains a Zionist.

    Posted by CripThink at 06/10/2009 @ 4:09pm

    Arafat had no right to a city that was never his. That phony Egyptian terrorist had no rights to the land of Israel or Jerusalem.

    Only one nation has ever ruled that land as theirs and not a colony, that is Israel.

    One one nation has ever made Jerusalem it's capital, that is Israel.

    You can keep spouting Arab lies all you want, but it will not change the history.

    The Jews have maintained their presence there for over 3000 years. Yes, other nations conquered them for periods of time. That's also true of many other nations like England, Spain, for example. But no one would suggest that Spain be given to the Moors or England to Rome or Norway.

    Your hatred of the Jews is hardly different from that of the racist who killed a guard today at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC. He denied reality just as you do. He and you live your live like the Arabs in Israel, trying to create a reality that never existed.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 4:22pm

40. Tell cripthink

    You think you make some kind of point with your "pant[s] is pulled down" retort. And what's with personalizing the issue by insulting me. What's with you. Aren't you capble of having an adult conversation based on facts.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 4:25pm

41. tell cripthink

    BTW. Why do you throw Netanyahu and Lieberman in my face. Do you hold blacks responsible for Farakan and his racism. I fully support a 2-state peace, a 94% withdrawal from the west bank with land compensation, and a division of jerusalem.(the 4 urban areas next to the Green Line are unfortunate facts on the ground that have to be accomodated). (But no invasion of palestinians into Israel for the purpose of demographic destabalization and takeover.) Why not be civil instead of antagonistic.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 4:31pm

42. tell onevote.

    to clarify. the blogger site you rely on is not a news site. Did the blog you took your propoganda from cite a credible basis to support its assertion. If not, why are you repeating an unknown's rantings as documented historical fact. No one is claiming a monopoly on facts, truth or right. But if you are challenged on the facts, either back them up or admit you have no support and can't actually vouch for basis of the assertion. Attacking me doesn't strengthen an unsubstantiated libel.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 4:36pm

43. The documents seized by the British had to be destroyed. In order to prevent casualties three telephone calls were placed, one to the hotel, another to the French Consulate, and a third to the Palestine Post, warning that explosives in the King David Hotel would soon be detonated. The British apparently did not believe the warnings.>

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 3:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    'Mostly disguised in Arab costume, Irgunists planted a bomb in the basement of the main building of the hotel, under the wing which housed the Mandate Secretariat and part of the British military headquarters....' Wiki -

    Liv - there is some controversy about adequacy of warnings isn't there. British were trying to find Zionist terrorists weren't they. That is what Irgun was worried about wasn't it.

    Secondly, a bombing with warning that kills persons who do not evacuate is not a terrorist act? What exactly are you trying to say here? It was the British fault that they did not respond to a "terrorist" threat? What a hypocrite you are.

    '91 people were killed, most of them being staff of the hotel or Secretariat: 21 were first-rank government officials; 49 were second-rank clerks, typists and messengers, junior members of the Secretariat, employees of the hotel and canteen workers; 13 were soldiers; 3 policemen; and 5 were members of the public. By nationality, there were 41 Arabs, 28 British citizens, 17 Jews, 2 Armenians, 1 Russian, 1 Greek and 1 Egyptian. 46 people were injured.[3][4] Some of the deaths and injuries occurred in the road outside the hotel and in adjacent buildings.' Wiki

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 4:38pm

44. Ask onevote

    was the embargo of South Africa terrorism. Was the embargo of Iraq, which allegedly limited medical supplies, terrorism. If there is an embargo of N. Korea, will that be terrorism. Whether or not the existence or scope of the Israeli embargo of Gaza is appropriate is an issue on which reasonable people can disagree, But it is not terrorism. (Though I grant you it could be considered an act of war.)

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 4:41pm

45. Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 4:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    It cites Billy Kristol - one of your beloved. My post had to do with Ahmadinejad being the poster boy bad guy for the neoconservatives. Your response deals with your Zionist issues and tying to paint your brethren as holier than thou. If you are off topic, then I think you need to bring some documentation to the table - which you have failed to do other than promoting your ideology and ignoring contrary opinion - once again.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 4:43pm

46. Arafat had no right to a city that was never his. That phony Egyptian terrorist had no rights to the land of Israel or Jerusalem. Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 4:22pm

    Monk,

    That was exactly what I have stated in my previous posting about you; Zionist's dog. I thought that gren is capable of defending his views; but apparently your Zionist handlers have asked you to jump in. Can you have a candid moment, like that moment when you revealed your IDF commission, and reveal some details about your network? How many propagandists are in your immediate group? Who is your coordinator? Who supply the propaganda materials? How much is your weekly stipend? How often you travel to Israel for indoctrination?

    Remember, People of the Bible should be truthful and should utter no lies.

    Posted by CripThink at 06/10/2009 @ 4:46pm

47. But it is not terrorism. (Though I grant you it could be considered an act of war.)

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 4:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    So, Israel has declared war against Palestine Gren?

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 4:46pm

48. tell onevote

    during the American Revolution, the British considered the Americans to be terrorists. Some of the Irgun methods and actions arguably verged towards and maybe crossed the line of terrorism. but so did those of the Sandinistas, the South African blacks (and whites), the Algerians, etc. I maintain that the issue, as I said before, is whether one targets the military or civilians. When the Irgun targeted civilians, it crossed the line.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 4:46pm

49. tell onevote

    israel and hamas have been at war for a long time. please tell me this isn't news to you.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 4:48pm

50. Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 4:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Now here is a question for you.

    Israel had prior intelligence about the "terrorist" attack on our Marines in Beirut, in which approx 240 were killed.

    Is it not an Israeli act of terrorism not to provide warning to US or at least conspiracy to misprison an act of terrorism by Israel? My enemy's enemy is my friend....right Gren?

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 4:52pm

51. tell onevote

    you publish a litany of accusations and lies about Zionists, and because I refuse to let them pass unchallenged, I'm off-point. Please. Also, you are very funny. You want me to find support for the proposition that Ben Gurion did not order the bombing of Jews in Arab countries. Tell you what. Instead, I'll try to find support for the proposition that Washington did not drown some of his soldiers in the Deleware.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 4:52pm

52. israel and hamas have been at war for a long time. please tell me this isn't news to you.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 4:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    ah....so a blockade that affects all Palestinians in Gaza indiscriminately could be considered an act of terrorism could it not?

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 4:54pm

53. tell onevote

    this is what your propogandist wrote:

    'Cruel Zionism' was a term that Israeli Prime Minister BenGurion used to describe ruthless acts, including terrorist bombings, that were employed by Israeli forces against fellow Jews living in other countries, in order to convince them to move to Israel. Is there going to be more "Cruel Zionism" deployed in Iran against the Iranian jewish community?

    Kristal has nothing to do with this libel, not that he's my beloved. (Man, you gotta lighten up on the stereotyping.) And look, no substantiation at all.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 4:57pm

54. Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 4:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Gren - you can squirm all you want. Your bombastic denials and fawning incredulity is typical Zionist argumentative substance and de facto trash.

    Get off your ass to get to work.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 4:57pm

55. What does your Bible say about Man's free will?

    and why Iranians don't have any?

    Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 2:45pm

    I never said they didn't. They have exercised their free will in rejecting Christ and choosing instead to see death to the Jews and to the Christians also. Unless we submit to their authority and pay the jizya.

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

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 4:59pm

56. tell onevote

    squirm...bombastic...fawning...incredulity...Zionist...trash. Very persuasive stuff. If you're going to post, at least try to say something instead of ranting.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 5:00pm

57. Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 4:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Tell me what branch of Zionism do you belong to that Billy Kristol doesn't belong to?

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 5:01pm

58. squirm...bombastic...fawning...incredulity...Zionist...trash. Very persuasive stuff. If you're going to post, at least try to say something instead of ranting.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 5:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Wasting time Gren - nonresponsive once again. Game over.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 5:02pm

59. tell onevote

    I asked you first about the S.African, Iraqi and N. Korean embargoes. When you answer my questions, I will respectfully answer yours.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 5:02pm

60. Arafat had no right to a city that was never his. That phony Egyptian terrorist had no rights to the land of Israel or Jerusalem. Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 4:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person The Arabs owned land in Jerusalem long before Israel was created. Israel was not ruling the land until it was given to them in 1948 ( and they stole the rest). Even if you want to use Biblical texts, God took Israel back anyway, when the Jews broke the Covenant with him. "One one nation has ever made Jerusalem it's capital, that is Israel." Correction. One religious group once made Jerusalem it's capital a long time ago. It has been revealed that the Exile and the Dispora are a myth and that the Romans did not remove the Israelites from Israel. Those who remained converted to Islam and Christianity and subsequently became the Palestinians. If the Jewish nation rules Israel, and the members of that nation subsequently became the Palestinians of today, then does that make the land Jewish or Palestinian? Whether Jews maintained their presence there is irrelevant. Most Jews in Palestine converted to Islam, and thus it became the land of the Palestinians. In 1948 (pre war) Jews only owned 7% of the land and Arabs 50%. The Arabs refused to sell their land, so the Zionists stole it by driving the Arabs off their land and declaring that absentee landlords had forfeited their rights. The Nazis did the same thing during WWII. This is not about hatred of the Jews, and you know it. It's so predictable that one of you Zionist extremists would bring up the white racist who attacked the Holocaust Museum. The fact is that he is probably a member of the far right and hates everyone but his own kind. Your rush to compare him to the Arabs exposes your racism.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 5:03pm

61. Tell onevote

    I belong to the illuminati branch of Zionism and Kristal is a Mu agent masquerading as a Zionist of the 7th Order.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 5:04pm

62. That was exactly what I have stated in my previous posting about you; Zionist's dog. I thought that gren is capable of defending his views; but apparently your Zionist handlers have asked you to jump in. Can you have a candid moment, like that moment when you revealed your IDF commission, and reveal some details about your network? How many propagandists are in your immediate group? Who is your coordinator? Who supply the propaganda materials? How much is your weekly stipend? How often you travel to Israel for indoctrination?

    Remember, People of the Bible should be truthful and should utter no lies.

    Posted by CripThink at 06/10/2009 @ 4:46pm

    You certainly have a twisted little brain don't you, Qutaibah?

    I have no handlers. I don't get fed information. I have no network, no coordinator, no stipend. I haven't been to Israel for over 10 years.

    I am partially disabled and semi-retired.

    But at least mine is because of service to my country. I doubt you would ever have the courage to serve.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 5:12pm

63. "The Jews never intended to hurt the population of the village, but were forced to do so, after they met enemy fire from the population which killed the Irgun commander."

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 2:55pm

    Look antisocialist. We could go on back and forth forever comparing quotes and historical accounts to prove and disprove each other's version of events.

    The fact that Isreali historians like Benny Morris, Illan Pappe, Tom Segev and former Israeli foreign minister, Shlomo Ben Ami all agree that the Palestinians were driven from their land undermines your desperate attempt to deny history and reality. The fact that the far right in Israel are so desperate to deny the Nakba that they have proposed outlawing it's commemoration is also a testament to the fear that Israel has of having to acknowledge it's past.

    This is the reality. The Zionist founding fathers wanted to create a Jewish State with a Jewish majority. This would never have happened prior to the 1948 and indeed, had the 1948 war taken place, Israel might not even exist today because Jews would be a minority.

    There are countless quotes from Zionists prior to 1948 speaking openly about their plans and desires to remove the Arabs. Even Ben Gurion, who was otherwise sensitive to the plight of the Palestinians, stated that he saw no moral dilemma with the "transfer of Arab" from Palestine.

    So given that a Jewish state with a Jewish majority was always the goal, how were the Zionist founders going to achieve this goal without driving the Arabs from their land? The argument against right of return for the Arabs today is that it would mark the end of Israel as a Jewish State, but it was the ethnic cleansing of those Arabs in the first place that made a Jewish State a reality.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 5:13pm

64. I belong to the illuminati branch of Zionism and Kristal is a Mu agent masquerading as a Zionist of the 7th Order.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 5:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    And a Zionist like Ben Gurion would never consider killing another Jew for the sake of their cause - read carefully Illuminati.

    '91 people were killed, most of them being staff of the hotel or Secretariat: 21 were first-rank government officials; 49 were second-rank clerks, typists and messengers, junior members of the Secretariat, employees of the hotel and canteen workers; 13 were soldiers; 3 policemen; and 5 were members of the public. By nationality, there were 41 Arabs, 28 British citizens, 17 Jews, 2 Armenians, 1 Russian, 1 Greek and 1 Egyptian. 46 people were injured.[3][4] Some of the deaths and injuries occurred in the road outside the hotel and in adjacent buildings.' Wiki

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 5:22pm

65. For example, according to the Daily Telegraph, April 8, 1998, Ayish Zeidan, a resident of the village and a survivor of the fighting there, stated: Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 2:55pm

    Israeli tour guides in Israel to talk openly about the Deir Yassin masscare. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spage /1080456.html

    YEHOSHUA Zettler, a commander in the Stern Gang, spoke openly about his part in the Deir Yassin Massacre. http://www.theage.com.au/world/assassin boss-also-israeli-hero-20090524-bjfz.html

    Other quotes from those who took part or witnessed the massacre:

    "We eliminated every Arab that came our way." –Ben Zion Cohen, an Irgun commander "I saw the horrors that the fighters had created. I saw bodies of women and children, who were murdered in their houses in cold blood by gunfire, with no signs of battle and not as the result of blowing up the houses. I have seen a great deal of war, but I never saw a sight like Deir Yassin." –Eliahu Arbel, Operations Officer in the Jewish Haganah "The attackers chose to kill anybody they found alive as though every living thing in the village was the enemy and they could only think ‘kill them all.'…It was a lovely spring day, the almond trees were in bloom, the flowers were out and everywhere there was the stench of the dead, the thick smell of blood, and the terrible odor of the corpses burning in the quarry." –Yeshurun Shiff, assistant to David Shaltiel, commander of Jewish Haganah forces in Jerusalem "… A total of more than 200 dead, men, women, and children…One was a woman who must have been eight months pregnant, hit in the stomach, with powder burns on her dress indicating she'd been shot point-blank." –Jacques de Reynier, Representative of the International Red Cross "In the houses there were dead, in all ab

    Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 5:23pm

66. I never said they didn't. They have exercised their free will in rejecting Christ and choosing instead to see death to the Jews and to the Christians also. Unless we submit to their authority and pay the jizya.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 4:59pm

    Another lie antisocialist. Very bad form for someone who thinks he's a Christian.

    25,000 Jews live happily in Iran and in spite of bribes from Israle to leave Iran and move to Israel, they have refused.

    Obviosly there is no death to the Jews taking place in Iran.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 5:32pm

67. But at least mine is because of service to my country. I doubt you would ever have the courage to serve.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 5:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Serve what? How much blood do you have on your hands Preacher - innocent blood. WTF did Vietnam have to do with your personal security, the security of your family and that of your country. McNamara's honesty makes you look absolutely pathetic. You are either in serious denial or you truly are a jingoist imperialist war monger who will be judged accordingly by your maker. "I don't hate anybody" - yes you do. I am betting yourself most of all.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 5:35pm

68. BTW. Why do you throw Netanyahu and Lieberman in my face. Do you hold blacks responsible for Farakan and his racism. I fully support a 2-state peace, a 94% withdrawal from the west bank with land compensation, and a division of jerusalem. Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 4:31pm

    Ok gren,

    Now you are presenting some basis for rational debate, let me ask you:

    You know that Arafat was poisoned by Sharon because he refused to give in on the issue giving up all of Jerusalem to Israel. What would you have done had you been in Arafat's place? The Israelis are controlling 80% of historic Palestinian and even refusing to remove what they call remote outposts (settlements) and here is a fellow like you calling Arafat a coward because he did not take risk for peace. This is a blatant distortion of history. How about the hundred of thousands of Palestinians, and their dependants, who were uprooted from their homes in Haifa, Jaffa, akka (Akko), Jerusalem and hundreds other Palestinian villages? Their properties were taken over by European Jewish immigrants, do they have any rights? How could a Polish or Brooklyn Jew who lived there for generations have more right to Palestine than a Palestinian who was forcibly thrown out in 1948?

    Mahmud Abbas has taken risk and negotiated Peace with Israel since Oslo 1993. What did Abbas get in return from the Labor, Kadima or the Likud? You know that Arabs have presented a comprehensive peace plan in 2002, with full economic cultural and diplomatic ties with Israel. What did they get in return? Sharon answered them by ravaging the West Bank and Olmert quadrupled the Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

    You and Israel are in no position to ask anyone to take risk for peace; the ball is in your court.

    Posted by CripThink at 06/10/2009 @ 5:42pm

69. the Israelis killed British military. hamas and Fatah target civilians. If you don't consider that a determinative difference....well, what can I say.

    Posted by gren at 06/10/2009 @ 2:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Read carefully Mr. Propaganda watchdog. What can you say? How about you either a liar or sadly mistaken.

    '91 people were killed, most of them being staff of the hotel or Secretariat: 21 were first-rank government officials; 49 were second-rank clerks, typists and messengers, junior members of the Secretariat, employees of the hotel and canteen workers; 13 were soldiers; 3 policemen; and 5 were members of the public. By nationality, there were 41 Arabs, 28 British citizens, 17 Jews, 2 Armenians, 1 Russian, 1 Greek and 1 Egyptian. 46 people were injured.[3][4] Some of the deaths and injuries occurred in the road outside the hotel and in adjacent buildings.' Wiki

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 5:48pm

70. Consider this OneVote,

    In 2006, Israel celebrated the 60th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel. The Brits, who are friends of Israel, were really offended by this too.

    What other nation continues to celebrate a terrorist atatck in it's name? Predictably, Bibbi, the only leader in the world apart from Bin Laden who considered the 911 attacks a good thing, attended the festivities.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 5:53pm

71. But at least mine is because of service to my country. I doubt you would ever have the courage to serve.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 5:12pm

    antisocialist,

    Can you elaborate on which country you served? You mean Israel?

    Posted by CripThink at 06/10/2009 @ 5:56pm

72. Can you elaborate on which country you served? You mean Israel?

    Posted by CripThink at 06/10/2009 @ 5:56pm

    US Military 1966-1970 enlisted-(that means I volunteered).

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 6:03pm

73. What other nation continues to celebrate a terrorist atatck in it's name? Predictably, Bibbi, the only leader in the world apart from Bin Laden who considered the 911 attacks a good thing, attended the festivities.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 5:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Were you the one who posted Max Blumenthal's YouTube post regarding an on the street and bar interview with young Israelis response to Obama's recent visit to ME? Man - what a splendid example of gratitude, and what a testimonial of respect from our good ally. The virulent racism was unbelievable. British being hogtied by US Zionist interests that have nested in financial centers such as London. They (the Brits) and we should tell Israel to F__k Off - permanently. Like Zionist Gren points out - Israeli Zionist terrorists are considered heroes.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 6:12pm

74. Were you the one who posted Max Blumenthal's YouTube

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 6:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    No that wasn't me, but it came as no surprise. the real face of Zionism is coming to the surface and that can only be a good thing

    If you want another splendid example of gratitude, albeit amusing and pathetic, Israeli cabinet minister Yossi Peled is calling for sanctions against the US. Can you believe it?

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? cid=1244371046569&pagename=JPost/ JPArticle/ShowFull

    Consider the irony of someone "reconsidering military and civilian purchases" which are being made, or will be made, with our money!!

    Israeli Zionist terrorists have always been considered heroes. Like I pointed out previously, what other so called democracy has elected 2 terrorist leaders and a war criminal to lead the country.

    Israel - a country of the terrorists, by the terrorists and for the terrorists.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 6:29pm

75. Israeli Zionist terrorists are considered heroes.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009

    Not only Zionist terrorists are considered heroes; Zionists who spied on America for Israel are considered heroes too. The Israelis have named a square in Jerusalem after the American Jewish spy (Jonathan Pollard) who almost wrecked America's national security. Just consider this, we give Israel billions of dollars in financial and military assistance and they honor the spy who wrecked our national security. The Israelis did not stop there, information supplied by Pollard was given to the Soviets in exchange for more Soviet Jews to be allowed to come to Israel. Go figure who is the real enemy and who should top the enemy list: Israel or Iran?

    Posted by CripThink at 06/10/2009 @ 6:32pm

76. 25,000 Jews live happily in Iran and in spite of bribes from Israle to leave Iran and move to Israel, they have refused.

    Obviosly there is no death to the Jews taking place in Iran.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 5:32pm

    the level of your ignorance grows each time you post.

    I have a number of Jewish and Muslim friends who escaped from Iran after the "revolution" and they would seriously disagree with you.

    <The threat of retaliation against the entire community is an ever present factor in the minds of Iranian Jews and all community leaders. The Islamic Republic reminds Iranian Jews of their uncertain fate and future from time to time in speeches that are delivered by the leaders of the regime.

    On May 18, 2001, in a televised speech, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, directly attacked the Jews, calling Jews the enemies of the prophet Mohammad and threatened the Jews with expulsion and expropriation of their property, citing a similar action taken by the prophet Mohammad against the three Jewish tribes in Medina in which they were annihilated. This attack, placed in the context in which the Jews of Iran were still feeling shock of the Shiraz show trials reveals the true feelings of the Islamic Regime toward the Jews of Iran.

    In January 1993, the government-controlled daily, Kayhan revived the so-called blood libel according to which the Jews are accused of killing non Jewish children to use their blood to bake their Passover matzoh.

    http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2003/March/Jews/

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 6:45pm

77. Baruch Goldstein is regarded as a hero in Israel. His grave has become a shrine to the settler movement.

    I'm pretty sure those who fired on the USS Liberty were bestowed medals of honor.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 6:46pm

78. Israel - a country of the terrorists, by the terrorists and for the terrorists.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 6:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    The facts are the facts. Israel has been nothing but trouble for us, and costs each and every US taxpayer enormously not only in military and economic aid going to Israel, but in opportunity costs of being joined at the hip with the world's pariah. The amount of time our government spends on Israeli affairs is just outrageous, and the opportunity costs of Muslim ill will are just enormous. Saudi get a US arms deal with Israel's approval - conditioned on Israel getting an assured $30 billion arm's deal over 10 years. WTF - we have got to get Israel's permission? What about high oil prices occassioned by Middle East "tensions." The war in Iraq tied to Israeli security interest, and the war in Afghanistan - supposedly to go after Bin Laden - who stated that one of the main reasons for 9/11 attack was US support Israel. This is just insane.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 6:48pm

79. More for you Shingo on the "happy" Jews in Iran

    <The Jews suffer from official inferior status under Iranian Law and are not protected by police or the courts. The amount of financial compensation a Jew can receive from a Muslim in case of murder or accidental death of a relative is equal to one-eighth of that which would be paid if the victim was a Muslim.

    In practice this means that a life of a Jew in Iran has very little value. In addition, since Iranian courts routinely refuse to accept the testimony of a Jew against a Muslim, most cases of this sort are not even prosecuted and the police do not even investigate such claims. As a result of their legally inferior status, Jews find themselves outside the protection of the courts and police. This is not simply a perception on their part, but rather, sadly, a harsh reality. In none of the cases of the murder of Jews in Iran has a perpetrator ever been found, much less prosecuted.>

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 6:53pm

80. The Israelis have named a square in Jerusalem after the American Jewish spy (Jonathan Pollard) who almost wrecked America's national security.

    Posted by CripThink at 06/10/2009 @ 6:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You have got to be kidding?

    Excuse me while I go puke!

    Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2009 @ 6:57pm

81. Baruch Goldstein is regarded as a hero in Israel. His grave has become a shrine to the settler movement.

    I'm pretty sure those who fired on the USS Liberty were bestowed medals of honor.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 6:58pm

82. More of Shingo's happy Jewish life in Iran

    <and this report

    <The 2500 year old Jewish community, which numbered over 80,000 thirty years ago at the time of the Khoemeni Revolution which overthrew the Shah, has dwindled to about 20,000. The Islamization of the country has brought about strict control over Jewish educational institutions. Before the revolution, there were some 20 Jewish schools functioning throughout the country. In recent years, most of these have been closed down. In the remaining schools, Jewish principals have been replaced by Muslims. In Teheran there are still three schools in which Jewish pupils constitute a majority. The curriculum is Islamic, and Persian is forbidden as the language of instruction for Jewish studies. Special Hebrew lessons are conducted on Fridays by the Orthodox Otzar ha-Torah organization, which is responsible for Jewish religious education. Saturday is no longer officially recognized as the Jewish sabbath, and Jewish pupils are compelled to attend school on that day. There are three synagogues in Teheran, but since 1994, there has been no rabbi in Iran, and the bet din does not function.>

    http://tinyurl.com/mjy7c5

    Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, representative of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, summarized this annihilationist eschatology, redolent with Koranic Jew hatred (see Koran 5:82) - which pertains to Jews, generally, not "Zionists" - on November 16, 2006, stating: "The Jew is the most obstinate enemy (Koran 5:82) of the devout. And the main war will determine the destiny of mankind. . . . The reappearance of the Twelfth Imam will lead to a war between Israel and the Shia."

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 7:01pm

83. Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 6:53pm

    You might want to provide links to your propaghanda sources antisocialist, because for every quote you want to dig up, I can just as easily produce one from an Iranian Jew that contradicts yours.

    NYT Columnist, Roger Cohen, recently produced a report from a trip to Iran, in which he states that the "Jewish community is living, working and worshipping in relative tranquillity."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/ opinion/23cohen.html?_r=4&ref=opinion

    He went so far as to state that as a Jew, he felt more welcome than in most Western countries.

    "That may be because I'm a Jew and have seldom been treated with such consistent warmth as in Iran. "

    Needless to say, Cohean received a wave of attacks from the Israeli amen corner for daring to cast Iran in a positive light.

    If the life of Iranian Jews was remotely as hostile as your anti Muslim propaghanda woudl have us believe, then you might want to explain why virtually none of he 25,000 Jews in Iran accepted the cash bribes from Israel to move to Israel?

    In fact, it seems the Iranian Jews have a very low opinion of Israel:

    "At the synagogue, Benhur Shemian, 22, told me Gaza showed Israel's government was "criminal," but still he hoped for peace."

    Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 7:08pm

84. just to make sure Shingo that you have plenty of this "happy" Jewish life in Iran material

    <The conception of najis or ritual uncleanliness of the non-Muslim has also been reaffirmed. Ayatollah Khomeini stated explicitly, "Non-Muslims of any religion or creed are najis." Khomeini elaborated his views on najis and non-Muslims, with a specific reference to Jews, as follows:

    Eleven things are unclean: urine, excrement, sperm, blood, a dog, a pig, bones, a non-Muslim man and woman [emphasis added], wine, beer, perspiration of a camel that eats filth...The whole body of a non-Muslim is unclean, even his hair, his nails, and all the secretions of his body...A child below the age of puberty is unclean if his parents and grandparents are not Muslims; but if he has a Muslim for a forebear, then he is clean...The body, saliva, nasal secretions, and perspiration of a non-Muslim man or woman who converts to Islam automatically become pure. As for the garments, if they were in contact with the sweat of the body before conversion, they will remain unclean...It is not strictly prohibited for a Muslim to work in an establishment run by a Muslim who employs Jews, if the products do not aid Israel in one way or another. However it is shameful [for a Muslim] to be under the orders of a Jewish departmental head.>

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 7:10pm

85. More of antisocialist Islamophic bile from a website called arabracismislamofascism.wordpress.com.

    How desperate is this so called Christian racist?

    I guess you couldn't source a mainstream news article right antisocialist?

    Yes, the Jewish population in Iran actually dwindled from 80,000 to 10,000 during the Iranian revolution. What you conveniently ignore, is the fact that the population has grown since then to 25,000 (not 20,000).

    Given the fact that the repopulating today is a quarter of what it was 30 years ago, it is not surprising that there are are now fewer schools.

    The simple fact is that very few Jews were killed during the 1979 Revolution and very few since then. Quotes from the Koran antisocialist? Are things that dour that you have to scrape the barrel?

    Your fellow traveler, John Hagee has stated that Hitler was an agent of God and that the ant- Christ would be a Jew.

    I take it you are in agreement?

    "And the main war will determine the destiny of mankind. . . . The reappearance of the Twelfth Imam will lead to a war between Israel and the Shia.""

    Sounds a lot lime the battle of Armageddon. It looks like you are the Koran are on the same page, so to speak.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 7:18pm

86. Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 4:59pm

    No, Larry....Iranians have NO free will. They are robots and are pre-programmed by God to do what He planned out.

    How do I know?...God told me....well...his "spokesperson"-

    "There will be war with Iran, the only question is when."---Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 12:46pm

    If they had free will, they could stop it...but they can't. God won't let them or He'd be proven wrong.

    Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 7:24pm

87. "Jerusalem Square to be renamed for Pollard before Bush visit" proclaimed the Arutz Sheva Israeli National News.

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124739

    They call this the American-Israeli special relationship. You wonder what the Israelis would have done to us if we were not their friend.

    Posted by CripThink at 06/10/2009 @ 7:26pm

88. Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 7:10pm |

    Wow,this topic about the tranquility and freedom of Iranian Jews has really got you riled hasn't it antisocialist?

    So you want to play a game of nasty quotes do you? Fine, have it your way:

    "Our race is the Master Race. We Jews are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves." (Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a speech to the Knesset [Israeli Parlament], quoted by Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts," New Statesman, June 25, 1982)

    You see antisocialist? Zionists like Begin, who was elected to lead the Zionist state, believes that Christians are insects, beasts, animals, cattle at best.

    They believe that Christians are human excrement and that Christians are an inferior race.

    Tell me antisocialist. Are you proud to lick the feet of Zionists and serve them as slaves? What drives someone like you to loath yourself to such an extent?

    I can keep going if you like?

    have you seen the video of the Israeli settler who boasts about how his people killed Jesus? even Muslims have a higher regard for Jesus than teh settlers do.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 7:28pm

89. >> "his [Obama's] words were very different," he says. "People in the region received the speech, from this angle, very positively, with sympathy." <<

    Of course they did. Here was an American president standing before an Arab and Muslim audience in Cairo, next door to Sudan where Arabs and Muslims are waging the greatest humanitarian crime of our time. About that he was silent. Three million black African farmers ethnically cleansed, 300,000 murdered, countless rapes, and all that is continuing, and t America's leader was silent.

    According to Obama Bush/Cheney had abandoned US values. But now he had a chance to defend those values, admonish his listeners whose bretheren are causing that catastrophe, urging them to break their silence, to pressure Sudan to desist. He did not. Instead the leader of America said what pleased his listeners, not what upheld US values. He complemented the Arab's civilization and religion, he covered everything from the hijab to Guantanamo, of America's dark past and the injuries done Iran, he bowed from the waist to a region of tyrants, to Iranians who hang girls for teaching Bahai Sunday school and who seek nuclear weapons, but nothing about that mountain of black African suffering. He flattered an audience still enrage over 700,000 Palestinian farmers forced sixty years ago into exile during a war their leaders caused.

    You bet Obama's words were different. Of course the people in the region were happy at that speech. It was a dhimmi speech sans pareil. It was an abdication of US values, of America's soft p0wer, of her moral leadership. It was cowardly and a betrayal of our country by our president.

    You bet the Ianians loved it.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/10/2009 @ 7:28pm

90. Shingo is a racist hate monger who can't write a post without endless lies. The only way to treat him is to piss on him, and you do that by ignoring him.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/10/2009 @ 7:34pm

91. They call this the American-Israeli special relationship. You wonder what the Israelis would have done to us if we were not their friend.

    Posted by CripThink at 06/10/2009 @ 7:26pm

    They treat the British with no less contempt. After all, the did hold a big celebration in 2006 to commemorate the 60th anniversary of a terrorist attack against the British.

    These relationships are special indeed, to the point of being perverse.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 7:42pm

92. From Iran's point of view, says Rezaie, the fact that Obama didn't rule out (or condemn) the possibility of an Iran-based enrichment program is a good sign. "But it is still vague for us. It is not clear whether he omitted that point intentionally or not. We don't know what he has in mind."

    Robert Dreyfuss on 06/10/2009 @ 09:18am

    Seen fellow journalists Savage or Hannity anywhere?

    Anyway, thank you so much for representing - by listening - our country so well.

    AND to your point... transparency sure, but this is the most gigantic, delicate, nitroglycerinic issue since the Big Bang. Well, way way high on the list for Obama certainly. Clearly, there must be major back channels being forged. Carrots/sticks/the beginnings of 'trust but verify' (- why was that supposed to be so brilliant, anyone the more than an 8th grade level relationship knows about this)

    Hell, there's probably some raucus insider trading involving other Arab power centers, Iran's influence on Shiites/Iraq power centers, straight up cash, strange bedfellows pillowtalk with Israel - more than we'll ever, ever know.

    We need Iran badly - need them so badly to settle down, take up the natural regional leadership role they could so easily assume.

    Just wish one of the bargaining chips involved the prosecution of Cheney.

    Posted by winyahn at 06/10/2009 @ 9:43pm

93. Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 7:28pm |

    That's strange Dingo. Seems Begin makes exception for American Christians . Not bad sort of present either. Bet your masters, who obviously aren't "liberal Democrats" won't give you a private jet:

    1980: Israeli Prime Minister Begin Curries Favor of US Televangelist Jerry Falwell

    Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin seeks to expand his base of influence in the US. Israel has long enjoyed the support of liberal Democrats, so Begin begins reaching out to conservative American evangelicals who, in many cases, espouse anti-Semitic views (see February 1, 1972).

    But more important to Begin is the fact that these conservative Christians are becoming politically active and powerful. Begin seeks out conservative televangelist and political activist Jerry Falwell, who publicly views the birth of Israel as "the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy." Falwell has often said that the friendship between the US and Israel is a cornerstone both of political stability in the Middle East and a matter of faith.

    Begin presents Falwell (pic) with the prestigious Jabotinsky Award, making Falwell the first non-Jew to ever receive the award. More tangibly, he also gives Falwell's ministry a private jet. [Unger, 2007, pp. 109]

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/10/2009 @ 9:59pm

94. Clever devil too D. There might be something in that master race thing after all but it looks like Begin includes Falwell and I guess Christians of the right sort in the MR:

    June 6-9, 1981: Israeli Prime Minister Begin Alerts US Televangelist to Impending Strike against Iraqi Nuclear Reactor

    Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin calls televangelist and nascent political ally Jerry Falwell (see 1980) and says: "Tomorrow you're going to read some strange things about what we're going to do. But our safety is at stake. I wanted you, my good friend, to know what we are going to do." Israel is preparing to use US-provided F-16s to destroy Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor (see June 7, 1981).

    Begin is concerned that the US will object to Israel's use of the aircraft for non-defensive purposes. Falwell tells Begin, "I want to congratulate you for a mission that [makes] us very proud that we manufactured those F-16s." Many Reagan officials are not happy that Israel violated the agreement with the US over use of the warplanes, but even though Vice President Bush and Chief of Staff James Baker both believe that Israel should be punished, Begin has provided himself cover on the Christian right. [Unger, 2007, pp. 109-110]

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/10/2009 @ 10:06pm

95. So sorry to hear the leftist anti-semetics here have lost a close friend that finally went over the edge at the holocaust museum in D.C.!

    "Von Brunn has a racist, anti-Semitic Web site and wrote a book titled "Kill the Best Gentiles," alleging a Jewish conspiracy "to destroy the white gene pool." Writings attributed to von Brunn on the Internet say the Holocaust was a hoax.

    In 1983, he was convicted of attempting to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve Board and served more than six years in prison. He was arrested two years earlier outside the room where the board was meeting, carrying a revolver, knife and sawed-off shotgun. At the time, police said von Brunn wanted to take the members hostage because of high interest rates and the nation's economic difficulties."

    You may now have your "moment of silence"

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/10/2009 @ 10:59pm

96. crass, rio.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2009 @ 11:51pm

97. So sorry to hear the leftist anti-semetics here have lost a close friend that finally went over the edge at the holocaust museum in D.C.!

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/10/2009 @ 10:59pm

    Too funny.

    As it turns out, Von Brunn was a right wing racist who posted on the popular right-wing message board Free Republic, and who apparently loved his guns.

    Another angry white man who couldn't stand the thought of a black president with Jews on his staff. The only reason the right wing is pro Israel is because it hates Arabs more than it hates Jews.

    The only reason Christians are pro Israeli is because they are hoping that the realization of Israel will hasten the rapture whereby Jews will be forced to convert to Christianity or burn in hell.

    You're all pretty sick.

    You may now have YOUR "moment of silence" BigPasture, and don't forget to take your medication.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 11:52pm

98. Nice try, but its clear he is fringe leftist anti-Israel, holocaust denier, Jew hater! Most anti-American anti-Israel stuff you read at the nation sounds like it is parellel with his beliefs!

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/11/2009 @ 12:18am

99. "According to a relative, von Brunn attended Washington University in St. Louis and is an artist.

    About a dozen years ago, he applied to have his art shown at a gallery in Easton, Md., according to two of the owners. Laura Era and Jennifer Wharton said they rejected his work and he stomped out."

    Yep, definately a liberal leaning wacko!

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/11/2009 @ 12:34am

100. Far many years, we have been fairly close to Saudi Arabia which is more conservative than Iran. I don't see a problem with nuclear enrichment if it is combined with transparency. I saw the special envoy to North Korea on CNNI this morning who said the U.S. was not interested in invading North Korea. A similar statement to Iran would help clear the air. I had a fit with Bush's Axis of Evil speech, which was idiotic and inept. Diplomacy is not a political campaign and heated rhetoric is unprofessional. While Texans may be Texans, their Southern ancestors gave them manners. Anyone raised in Texas should have learned to treat people with respect.

     Posted by pjcasey at 06/11/2009 @ 12:35am

101. It's not a nice try at all, it's a fact.

     He was a right wing racist. He was pro guns, white and posted on right wing blogs.

     There are more anti Semites on the right than the left. The right has always been the natural home of the anti Semite, but became infatuated with Israel when they realized that Israel was a useful tool with which to bash Arabs.

     This guy was anti government, just like the right wing tea baggers and miltia wingnuts we saw the last time a democrats were in power.

     I know the truth hurts, but the guy was right wing through and through, just like the DHS warned us about earlier this year - of RIGHT WING extremists "that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups)."

     Wow, that sounds just like you BigPasture .

     Posted by Shingo at 06/11/2009 @ 12:41am

102. Posted by BigPasture at 06/11/2009 @ 12:34am

     Hey, RIO.....was Scott Roeder who killed "abortion doctor" George Tiller...

     a "leftist" too?

     Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 08:23am

103. Tell CripThink

     You raise the essential issues in your post. I welcome the opportunity to discuss them factually and civilly. We do need to be careful in the discussion to distinquish between facts, characterizations and conclusions. Only the former are necessarily true. I will try to respect those distinctions in my discussion.

     First, re: Camp David. Each of the American negotiators directly involved at Camp David, including Dennis Ross and robert Malley, have expressly stated that Barak's ultimate offer to Arafat was a Palestinian state on approximately 93-94% of the West Bank, contiguous with no Israeli settlements or roads, with a 2-3% land compensation, and the two Arab Quarters of the Old City, with a corridor block linking the Palestinian State with the Old City. You and I can argue whether Ross, Malley and the other American negotiators are telling the truth or lying, but their accounts of Camp David evidence that Arafat refused to make any offer at all, and simply refused every offer Barak made.

     Second, however Camp David went down, the past is done and only the present can determine the future. The issue is whether a 94% offer with 6% land compensation (there are four urban areas very close to the Green line with a ccouple of hundred thousand non-ideological Israeli residents which function as suburbs of Jerusalem), a division of Jerusalem and the Old city along existing neighborhood lines, adjusted to provide contiguity, and no right of return but economic compensation (funded by the Arab countries which confiscated the wealth and properties of the Jews they drove out post-1948) is a fair and reasonable basis for peace.

     Posted by gren at 06/11/2009 @ 08:26am

104. Tell CripThink

     (continued) The allegation that Israel poisoned Arafat lacks any material substantiating facts. If the autopsy had shown poisoning, there is no doubt that the autopsy report would have been made public. (Though the autopsy report could not evidence whether the poisoner was Israel or one of arafat's palestinian rivals.) As it stands, the allegation is nothing but a propogandist libel.

     Finally, the return of Jews to Israel from approximately 1900 -1939, to join the Jews in Israel (who constituted the majority population of Jerusalem), involved the legal and formal purchase and development of property. No Arabs were dispossessed of title to property, though leases with Arab tenant farmers were not renewed. If the Palestinians and Arab countries had accepted the 1947 UN partition of the land into both Israeli and Palestinian states, neither of which existed before the vote, there would have been no war and no refugees. Instead they attacked the Jews with the goal of preventing Jewish sovereignty. Just as in every bloody war, refugees resulted. Some fled out of fear, some were evicted from villages which were located along battle lines in order to prevent arab fighters from accessing them. Israel did not ethnically cleanse Israel, as the existing significant Israeli Arab population documents.

     Posted by gren at 06/11/2009 @ 08:38am

105. Tell CripThink -- and everyone else.

     There is plenty of blame to go around in the mid-east. No one is an innocent victim except for individual Jews, Moslems and Christians who are hostages to the decisions and policies of the respective political and religious elites, and the forces of history. Hete begets hate. We on this site should not be at war with one another, should not hate each other. We will continue to disagree, vehemently so. That is not a problem. But if we do not offer each other respect, and if we do not respect the truth and distinquish between facts and accusations, then we are no better than the worst of our respective enemies.

     Shalom. Salaam.

     Posted by gren at 06/11/2009 @ 08:42am

106. bigpasture-I'm not surprised to see that it was antisocialist and yourself who first used the Holocaust museum killing for political purposes and gain.Over on Huffpo is was lefties who first used it,but over here it was you two.None of you have any respect for anything and will use anything to further your political goals.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 06/11/2009 @ 08:43am

107. They call this the American-Israeli special relationship. You wonder what the Israelis would have done to us if we were not their friend.

     Posted by CripThink at 06/10/2009 @ 7:26pm

     Thanks for cite Crip - they even have a "captivity watch" for this US traitor. "Special friend" indeed. By special, Israel means a "one-way" friendship where they take and we give.

     Posted by OneVote at 06/11/2009 @ 09:06am

108. Tell CripThink -- and everyone else.

     Posted by gren at 06/11/2009 @ 08:42am | ignore this person | warn this person

     What is this "Tell" business. You remind me of the character in Silence of the Lambs who kept women imprisioned in an old well. He always referred to his victims in the third person - "she smears the oil over her back" - what kind of contempt for others of a differing opinion from a guy who wants to have a 'civil' discussion.

     Posted by OneVote at 06/11/2009 @ 09:11am

109. Is Rev Wright a "white right-wing extremist"?

     <Rev. Jeremiah Wright says "Jews" are keeping him from President Obama

     By DAVID SQUIRES | 757-247-4639 6:19 PM EDT, June 10, 2009

     If you were thinking the Rev. Jeremiah Wright had been tempered by a national backlash that nearly derailed Barack Obama's trip to the White House, guess again.

     In an exclusive interview at the 95th annual Hampton University Ministers' Conference, Wright told the Daily Press that he has not spoken to his former church member since Obama became president, and he implied that the White House won't allow Obama to talk to him.

     "Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me," Wright said. "I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office. ...

     "They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is">

     http://tinyurl.com/nfw6nv

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/11/2009 @ 09:14am

110. "she smears the oil over her back"

     Posted by OneVote at 06/11/2009 @ 09:11am

     "It rubs the lotion on it's skin."

     I miss Conshame.

     Posted by Benchrest at 06/11/2009 @ 09:21am

111. Hello OneVote

     Is that better. No offense intended.

     Posted by gren at 06/11/2009 @ 09:21am

112. They treat the British with no less contempt. After all, the did hold a big celebration in 2006 to commemorate the 60th anniversary of a terrorist attack against the British.

     These relationships are special indeed, to the point of being perverse.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 7:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Special relationship = special classes of Goyim.

     Various classes of goyim such as shabbat goy - or goyim that serve the special interests of Jews.

     Clearly these differentiations are based on utility of goyim (not friendship), and they are historically sanctified exploitation and ethnocentric racism and bigotry.

     Posted by OneVote at 06/11/2009 @ 09:31am

113. Is that better. No offense intended.

     Posted by gren at 06/11/2009 @ 09:21am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Much better. Good morning to you!

     Posted by OneVote at 06/11/2009 @ 09:32am

114. "It rubs the lotion on it's skin."

     Posted by Benchrest at 06/11/2009 @ 09:21am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Thanks Bench!

     Posted by OneVote at 06/11/2009 @ 09:33am

115. Posted by antisocialist at 06/11/2009 @ 09:14am

     But Wright doesn't...

     fear the Federal Reserve...as many Ron Paulines and Free Republicers do.

     hate Latino immigration....as Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan and Sheriff Joe Arpaio do.

     think McCain and Bush were too weak or not pure enough...as many of these "born again REAL conservatives" like Glenn Beck or Joe Scarborough do.

     and demand Obama's "real" birth certificate....as readers of World Net Daily do.

     That smell of a "liberal" to you, Larry?

     Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 09:47am

116. But Wright doesn't...

     fear the Federal Reserve...as many Ron Paulines and Free Republicers do.

     hate Latino immigration....as Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan and Sheriff Joe Arpaio do.

     think McCain and Bush were too weak or not pure enough...as many of these "born again REAL conservatives" like Glenn Beck or Joe Scarborough do.

     and demand Obama's "real" birth certificate....as readers of World Net Daily do.

     That smell of a "liberal" to you, Larry?

     Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 09:47am

     Are you trying to suggest that Wright isn't a liberal? That he's actually a conservative?

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/11/2009 @ 09:53am

117. There are black right wing extremists just as there is every type of extremist,as is seen on blogs and the real world.Of course, extremists are mentally ill so it does not matter whether you label them to be the left or right because they are just fruit loops and can be put in the general category of disturbed fanatic.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 06/11/2009 @ 09:55am

118. Hello onevote

     Please know that "shabbat goy" refers to the individual who turned lights, heat, etc, on and off in the shul on Shabbat in the time before programmable timers. (Orthodox Jews do not turn electricity on or off on Shabbat.) While some may have used the term with a derogatory connotation, for most the Shabbat goy was considered a righteous friend for whom the community was grateful.

     While there are prejudiced and racist Jews, and do not think the percentage is necessarily more or less than that in any other ethnic, national or religious community. We have our saints and our haters, and most are in the middle far from either extreme.

     You would not have or tolerate from others such a discussion about the black, hispanic or asian communities. Why do you exclude the Jewish community from your commitment to respect and reason.

     Posted by gren at 06/11/2009 @ 10:19am

119. Hello Onevote

     BTW, on the FICS site (chess), the way one has to communicate with other players is to type in "tell [name]." I'm used to that formula. do you play chess?

     Posted by gren at 06/11/2009 @ 10:23am

120. So now it is official! Thanks guys, I may now assume the duties for which I am fully QUALIFIED;........... Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security replacing Napolitano!

     All these returning "leftwing Vets" are being lured into white supremeist extremist organizations and pose a terrorist threat to the nation!

     (i'm noboby you appear to be the only child playing with this one that isn't slow)

     Posted by BigPasture at 06/11/2009 @ 10:52am

121. Posted by gren at 06/11/2009 @ 08:26am

     Re: Camp David.

     Taking Dennis Ross, AIPAC lobbyist who is known throughout Washington circles as Israel's lawyer, is like getting tax advice from Al Capone. Israeli foreign minister at the time, Shlomo Ben Ami, who was involved in the negotiations, said that if he'd been Arafat, he too would have rejected the grossly inadequate offer.

     We know that Ross is lying, because the negotiations did not stop at Camp David, but continued. What is clear is that Clinton and even Barak recognized this, which led to the Clinton Parameters and a new round of negotiations leading to the next talks at Taba. At Taba both Barak and Arafat agreed to the parameters laid down by Clinton and at both stated that they were on the brink of an agreement, but had to cut short the negotiations because of impending Isreli elections.

     Sharon won, and as Dov Weislgass told the world, suspended the peace process in formaldehyde. The rest is history.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/11/2009 @ 4:16pm

122. Posted by gren at 06/11/2009 @ 08:38am A longtime confidant of Ariel Sharon has told us that Arafat was poisoned. Israel has atrack record of countless assassination attempts against political enemies, and seeing as Israel controlled the foods Arafat ate, the water he drank and washed in and the air he breathed, it more than likely that he was poisoned.

     Even if it is true that the Jews who moved to Israel from approximately 1900 -1939, were involved the legal and formal purchases, the fact remains that as of 1948, Israeli Jews only owned 7% of the land and Arabs owned 50%. Even those Israeli title deeds are suspect, with recent revelations suggesting that the title deeds were fraudulent anyway.

     The Arab landlords were not prepared to sell their land, so the Zionists had a problem. There was no way of creating a Jewish state with a Jewish majority unless the Arabs were driven from their land, which is what took place in 1948. After the Nakba, Israel argued that absentee landlords had forfeited their rights to their property and those properties were seized under eminent domain – just like the Nazis did. The 1947 UN partition have no bearing on the title to private property, so it would have meant that 1 million Arabs would have been forced to live under Israeli rule. Would the US give us 50% of it's land to accommodate a wave of immigration?

     The Arabs did not attack the Jews out of nowhere. There was ongoing violence and terrorist attacks taking place for years prior to 1948. With most wars, refugees are allowed to return to their land.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/11/2009 @ 4:33pm

123. Posted by gren at 06/11/2009 @ 08:38am

     contigued...

     With most wars, refugees are allowed to return to their land. Not so with the 1948 war, because as countless quotes from Zionists prior to 1948 prove, the plan had always been to remove the Arabs. As Ben Gurion told us, he aw no moral problem with the transfer of Arabs.

     On July 12, 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary explaining the benefits of the compulsory population transfer (which was proposed in British Peel Commission):

     "The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland." (Righteous Victims, p. 142)

     Israel Zangwill, who had visited Palestine in 1897 and came face-to-face with the demographic reality, stated :

     "Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ..... [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7- 10, and Righteous Victims, p. 140)

     There are litreally hundreds where that came from.

     Like I said, were it not for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Zionists, there would not have been a Jewish majority.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/11/2009 @ 4:36pm

124. Posted by gren at 06/11/2009 @ 08:38am

     contigued...

     Like I said, were it not for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Zionists, there would not have been a Jewish majority. In fact, it is likely that there would no longer have been a Jewish state.

     You and your fellow propaghandists would have us believe that the 1948 was just ne big happy accident and that all the domnios miraculously fell into place and resulted in the realisation of plans Zionists had put in place for half a century.

     There is no point arguing that the earth is flat gren, because the world already knows otherwise. Benny Morris, Illan Pappe, Topm Segev and Shlomo Ben Ami have all documented the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/11/2009 @ 4:38pm

125. Tell Shingo

     it seems apparent that you have not actually read Benny Morris' works, especially the more recent editions. Morris expressly clarifies that he rejects your argument that the refugee problem was caused by the intended ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

     I have not read the works written by the others, so I cannot comment on whether they actually support your argument, or whether you are mischaracterizing them as you have Morris.

     Posted by gren at 06/11/2009 @ 4:45pm

126. Whoops. Meant to start last post with "hello Shingo", not "tell." Old habits die hard.

     Posted by gren at 06/11/2009 @ 4:46pm

127. Morris expressly clarifies that he rejects your argument that the refugee problem was caused by the intended ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

     Posted by gren at 06/11/2009 @ 4:45pm

     That's beside the point. In fact, Morris' latest position is that the refugee problem is a consequence of Israel having not finished the job in the first place. As you know, there were some Arabs who managed to remain behind.

     Charming hah?

     He does however, state that the enthnic cleansing did take place at the hands of the Zionist terror groups, but that the enthnic cleasing was a consequence of the war

     Illan Pape goes further and documents that the enthnic cleansing was pre meditated.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/11/2009 @ 4:58pm

128. Are you trying to suggest that Wright isn't a liberal? That he's actually a conservative?

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/11/2009

     Who did Wright kill? The Chances are that Wright doesn't even own a gun.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/11/2009 @ 5:05pm

129. Are you trying to suggest that Wright isn't a liberal? That he's actually a conservative?

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/11/2009

     Who did Wright kill? The Chances are that Wright doesn't even own a gun.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/11/2009 @ 5:05pm

130. Who did Wright kill? The Chances are that Wright doesn't even own a gun.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/11/2009 @ 5:05pm

     So tell us Shingo, do you agree with Rev Wright that the "Jews are keeping him away from Obama"?

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/11/2009 @ 5:10pm

131. So tell us Shingo, do you agree with Rev Wright that the "Jews are keeping him away from Obama"?

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/11/2009 @ 5:10pm

     I am pretty sure a lot of people are keeping him away from Obama. He's not exactly someone you want to invite to a dinner party now is he?

     Posted by Shingo at 06/11/2009 @ 5:17pm

132. So tell us Shingo, do you agree with Rev Wright that the "Jews are keeping him away from Obama"?

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/11/2009 @ 5:10pm

     I am pretty sure a lot of people are keeping him away from Obama. He's not exactly someone you want to invite to a dinner party now is he?

     Posted by Shingo at 06/11/2009 @ 5:17pm

     That's not what I asked you. Do you think that the Jews are keeping him from Obama?

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/11/2009 @ 5:56pm

133. That's not what I asked you. Do you think that the Jews are keeping him from Obama?

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/11/2009

     It's a rediculous question.

     Firstly, I don't believe in any such collective entity as "the Jews", so no, I don't agree.

     I'm not even aware of Wright making any attempt to get close to Obama for that matter, so I don't know whether anyone is trying to keeping him away from Obama.

     Could you enlighten me?

     Posted by Shingo at 06/11/2009 @ 6:27pm

134. It's a rediculous question.

     Firstly, I don't believe in any such collective entity as "the Jews", so no, I don't agree.

     I'm not even aware of Wright making any attempt to get close to Obama for that matter, so I don't know whether anyone is trying to keeping him away from Obama.

     Could you enlighten me?

     Posted by Shingo at 06/11/2009 @ 6:27pm

     It's not ridiculous given that Wright made this response in an interview this week when asked if he had seen President Obama since the inauguration.

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/11/2009 @ 6:39pm

135. antisocialist,

     I never saw the interview, so you'll have to forgive me. Do you have a link?

     Charles Barkley has also complained that Obama isn't returning his calls, though his explanation was that Obama was "big timing" him.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/11/2009 @ 6:54pm

136. I just came across this :

     On Sirius Radio's "Make it Plain with Mark Thompson" Thursday, Reverend Jeremiah Wright clarified.

     "Let me just say, like Hillary, I misspoke. Let me just say Zionists," Wright said, before going on to delineate the difference between them and "responsible Jewish persons." He went on to discuss the Israeli government and the power of the Zionist lobby in the U.S. government, saying he was basing his words on the work of Jewish historian Marc Ellis.

     In any case, Wright sounds like a nut to me. I can imagine Oabama's handlers not wanting his anywhere near Wright for pure political and PR reasons. He's like the senile uncle that embarrasses you at parties.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/11/2009 @ 7:00pm

137. I never saw the interview, so you'll have to forgive me. Do you have a link?

     Posted by Shingo at 06/11/2009 @ 6:54pm

     http://tinyurl.com/mjhan7

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/11/2009 @ 7:03pm

138. BTW, on the FICS site (chess), the way one has to communicate with other players is to type in "tell [name]." I'm used to that formula. do you play chess?

     Posted by gren at 06/11/2009 @ 10:23am

     Yes - but a long time ago. I get some pieces for an old chess board that I have and we can play instead of debate.

     How does that sound?

     Tell Gren - Pawn to King 4.

     Posted by OneVote at 06/11/2009 @ 7:13pm

139. You would not have or tolerate from others such a discussion about the black, hispanic or asian communities. Why do you exclude the Jewish community from your commitment to respect and reason.

     Posted by gren at 06/11/2009 @ 10:19am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Gren - the problem is that the prejudiced ones seem to call the shots. You know my criticisms are not anti-semitic. I have the utmost respect for the Jewish community. Why do you suppose I quote Jewish journalists on Jewish issues - like Max Blumenthal for instance. First, it is hard to call a Jewish person reporting on Jewish issues or Israel anti-semitic. Second, alot of them happen to be damn final journalists whom I love to read, and whose opinion I respect.

     Have a good weekend!

     Posted by OneVote at 06/11/2009 @ 7:20pm