This is bullshit
I met and interviewed Javedanvar, a leftist Iranian Jew two years ago and we had strong disagreements. I reported on the Petraeus matter yesterday in Blame the Jews .
The proposition put forward by Petraeus is that continued expansion is putting American lives at stake. I for one can’t see the connection but even if it were true, the least I would expect from an ally is that it should hang tough rather than sacrifice Israel’s national interest. How many times did American actions cost Israeli lives. Many.
Javendar says “Regional players such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE are not going to take America’s promises to stand up to Iran seriously when Obama cannot even convince his best friend in the region to assist him.” If ever there was a non-sequitor, this is one. Everyone knows that Israel is ready to assist in attacking Iran even going it alone. So the ability for Obama to force Israel to stop building has nothing to do with Iran.
Israel must help US tackle Iran
Israeli settlement-building is undermining the security of US forces, limiting its ability to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat
Meir Javedanfar, Guardian.co.uk,
For some in Israel, the issues of Jewish settlements and Iran’s nuclear programme are not connected. But for the United States, they are becoming more and more intertwined.
The factor that links them together is American concerns about casualties in the region.
According to Mark Perry writing in Foreign Policy, one of the main parties in Washington calling for Barack Obama to put his foot down against Israel’s settlement expansion, even before Vice-president Joe Biden’s recent call, has been General David Petraeus. In the Pentagon’s view, the Obama administration’s inability to stop the expansion of settlements is eroding America’s military posture in the Middle East. Such erosion could embolden Muslim extremists to increase their attacks on US forces in the region.
Petraeus wanted to confront the settlements by getting the US government to include the Palestinian issue under his command in Centcom. This was denied. Obama preferred to let George Mitchell and Biden handle it.
But when Biden heard Israel’s recent announcement of plans to expand housing in East Jerusalem, he decided to be frank. He openly told Israel’s prime minister: “What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
American concern about the settlements issue having an impact on the security of its forces could have two major impacts on Israel’s Iran policy.
One is that due to this increasing concern for the security of its soldiers, and the need to increase its credibility in the region, the US may place the settlement issue as part of its strategy to isolate Iran.
Such a move would not be without its own logic. The US needs to build a regional coalition against Iran. Regional players such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE are not going to take America’s promises to stand up to Iran seriously when Obama cannot even convince his best friend in the region to assist him. In order to have the credibility to persuade such countries to isolate Iran both politically and economically, the US could be pressured to bring Binyamin Netanyahu’s settlement policies into line.
The same goes for plans to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. Any such attack runs the risk of Iranian retaliation, through its proxies or even directly against US forces in the region. In order to reduce Iran’s influence prior to such an attack, the US may again need to improve its position by asking Israel and the Palestinians to push forward with the peace process.
As time goes by, failure to do so will become less and less of an option for Washington. Or put another way, it is unlikely that the US will risk the lives of its troops even before an attack, through Israel’s provocative gestures against Palestinians, and then to endanger them even more, by allowing an Israeli attack against Iran.
For now, the recent developments have shown that it will almost be impossible for Israel to go it alone against Iran, without American permission or participation. In fact, the recent US reaction to the settlements may have been designed to send this very message to Jerusalem: don’t take any unilateral action that could harm us.
This will place Netanyahu in a bind. On the one hand, he will have his coalition partners to deal with. On the other, he can’t ignore the Iranian nuclear threat. Far-right parties such as Yisrael Beitenu will be wanting Israel to build more in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, simply because they don’t see such areas as occupied lands. As Israel’s deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon (who belongs to Yisrael Beitenu) put it: “There is this perception that Israel is occupying stolen land and that the Palestinians are the only party with national, legal and historic rights to it. Not only is this morally and factually incorrect, but the more this narrative is being accepted, the less likely the Palestinians feel the need to come to the negotiating table.”
In other words, the way he sees it, in order to encourage Palestinians to return to the negotiation table, they have to be persuaded that the land occupied by Israel after 1967 is, in fact, not entirely theirs. Therefore by convincing them that they are entitled to less, they could actually be encouraged more to come forward and negotiate.
This warped sense of reality is a strong indication of the task ahead for Netanyahu.
The recent report in the Washington Post that Iran tried to buy nuclear bombs from Pakistan in the late 1980s is another reminder of the urgency and danger posed by the Iranian nuclear programme. Israel needs to help Obama put a stop to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s nuclear dreams. Putting an end to the construction of settlements is a fair and powerful way to help Obama help Israel.
The US (i.e. “Obamanation”) does not need help from Israel nor anyone else in “tackling Iran”; because the US has no intention of tackling Iran — The US is hurriedly running off the field and leaving all its Middle Eastern team-mates, Jew and Arab alike, to take whatever Iran throws at them.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — March 16, 2010 @ 4:38 pm
You know, Oat, aside from your pathological anti-Semitism you’ve got a lot on the ball, which falls into the category of:
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Comment by ayn reagan — March 16, 2010 @ 4:42 pm
Bland other than state the obvious; what else you got?
Comment by yamit82 — March 16, 2010 @ 5:35 pm
The White House
http://lemonlimemoon.blogspot.com/
Binyamin Netanyahu
Somewhere in Israel.
Dear Benny,
You may have noticed headlines in American news today that we still consider you a strategic ally and to a point this is true but mainly you serve us as a strategic whipping boy.
Now don’t get your yarmulka in a twist over this. I mean it in the best possible way and it’s all between friends. We can talk plainly right? You serve a valuable function by allowing us to take all of our feelings of , shall we say, distaste for middle eastern 5th rate terror nations and take them out on you. I mean, come on boy, do you think we could get away with these demands in Riyad or something like that?
In all honesty you should not feel badly about this. We are bigger than you. We have more money than you and so it is your duty to suck up to us and if that means serving a lowly purpose on the international food chain then that is what you should do. Consider it being a martyr.
Another headline today says that we do not want you to build anymore houses in East Jerusalem. This is also true.You see, we cannot make the A-rabs angry at us. They have come here now too and well, we don’t want to handle any upsets that might occur due to catering to your childish whims about owning homes in Jerusalem.
Now, we know it’s been a Jewish capital forever and a day, but come on guys, when you think of the inconvenience it might cause us here in Washington can’t your better instincts and sense of fair play take over? Exactly how much emotional blackmail does it take to get you to do our bidding? Just funning with ya Ben. Don’t get all wee-wee’ed up over it.
Look , we here in America have some real serious problems going on right now. Our money’s running out. We regulated and damaged insurance so much that health care needs our help again.
Look at these headlines and weep for us Israel:
The Hamptons have the worst beach erosion in 20 years says one headline. Our cocaine users are making global warming worse says another. Google has a huge decision to make: whether to shut down, sort of, kind of , China’s internet, or something like that. Brad and Angelina had a spat. I mean you just can’t make stuff like this up Ben.
So, don’t whine to us about your petty home building problems in Jerusalem. It’s only real estate Ben… hellooooo! Hey, I just thought of something funny. You are the only nation on earth that can’t name your own capital city. In fact you are the only nation on earth everyone else meddles in to such an extent. Ha! Doesn’t that make you feel special in a kind of weird way? So play ball Israel. Let your enemies inside, let them have half your capital , let them claim your holy sites and trash them. For Pete sake Ben, turn the other cheek once in a doggone while.
Get a life. I mean seriously.We would do it if we were you.I have real serious stuff going on over here and don’t have time to piddle around with your stupid whining. Not that I am trying to talk down to you or anything.
Just saying…
As always,
Barack Obama.
Comment by yamit82 — March 16, 2010 @ 5:38 pm
American demands on Israel
Haaretz reports that Israel has not only received a tongue lashing from Secretary Clinton delivered to Ambassador Michael Oren, but has also received four peremptory demands:
1. Investigate the process that led to the announcement of the Ramat Shlomo construction plans in the middle of Biden’s visit. The Americans seek an official response from Israel on whether this was a bureaucratic mistake or a deliberate act carried out for political reasons. Already on Saturday night, Netanyahu announced the convening of a committee to look into the issue.
2. Reverse the decision by the Jerusalem District Planning and Building Committee to approve construction of 1,600 new housing units in Ramat Shlomo.
3. Make a substantial gesture toward the Palestinians enabling the renewal of peace talks. The Americans suggested that hundreds of Palestinian prisoners be released, that the Israel Defense Forces withdraw from additional areas of the West Bank and transfer them to Palestinian control, that the siege of the Gaza Strip be eased and further roadblocks in the West Bank be removed.
4. Issue an official declaration that the talks with the Palestinians, even indirect talks, will deal with all the conflict’s core issues - borders, refugees, Jerusalem, security arrangements, water and settlements.
American demands on the Palestinians
1.
2.
3.
4.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 16, 2010 @ 5:58 pm
The preceding is what’s known by liberals as “The Even-Handed Approach”.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 16, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
Israel needs a feisty pro-Israel campaign in America from its pro-Israel base. Israel can drum up more public support than the administration can, but right now support is mostly sentiment; it needs to become a major political issue and pushed to the front. Where are our leaders who are pro-Israel? They should be all over this. Even from a purely political perspective Obama’s political foes could profit greatly from this right now if they had the sense to realize it. If the status of Israel becomes a center stage issue, negative public opinion will drift over to hurt Obama’s domestic agenda. If high profile figures and politicians would stand up to Obama to help a friend, and Israel is a friend, it would help them immensely in many ways they don’t seem to realize.
Comment by RandyTexas — March 16, 2010 @ 6:44 pm
American lives are already at stake. They would kill every Jew and every American today if they could. At most, expansion is merely bringing up to the surface hatred that is already there. Even if there were no expansion, hostility would remain beneath building up pressure like a volcano. It’s better this way; the plume of smoke gives you a glimpse of reality. If you keep appeasing, you fool only yourself by hiding the truth until you can’t any longer. That’s when you have a catastrophe. Are we there yet?
Comment by RandyTexas — March 16, 2010 @ 7:02 pm
The same Pentagon beaurocrats who say Israel is putting American troops at risk by building houses did nothing to prevent the Fort Hood jihadist from murdering 13 American soldiers on their own base, despite the fact that he openly proclaimed himself a soldier of allah and that it was ok to kill American troops. And their report on the incident refused to even mention islamic jihad as a motivation. But Jews building homes in Jerusalem are a threat to American troops. These are the same pentagon beaurocrats who have created such strict rules of engagement which endanger our troops on the battlefield of Afghanistan every day. But its Jewish homes in Jerusalem which endangers American troops. These are also the same pentagon beaurocrats who have court martailed Navy SEALS because a jihadist who murdered and mutilated the bodies of Americans in Fellujah received a fat lip under their watch. But its Jewish homes in Jerusalem which endanger American troops. Keep telling yourselves that.
Comment by Laura — March 16, 2010 @ 10:14 pm
Remember that in 1973 the Pentagon actually was insubordinate when Nixon ordered that Israel must be militarily resupplied.
He had to tell the generals that unless they followed his commands, heads would roll.
Only when faced with dismissal did they send the weapons Israel needed to survive.
Anti-Semitism is hardly a new phenomenon within the American military.
The fact that Petraeus requested a Palestinian presence in CENTCOM should inspire a pro-Israel journalist to investigate the general’s past.
It seems likely that Petraeus has a history of Jew hatred.
He sure as hell didn’t want the Palestinians because of their military aptitude or history of success.
I am guessing (and as yamit has verified I am never wrong) that Petraeus is from the Patrick Buchanan School Of Judaism Afficionados.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 16, 2010 @ 10:35 pm
Well perhaps the skanks at moveon.org got one thing right concerning petraeus.
Comment by Laura — March 16, 2010 @ 10:43 pm
It appears Perry was embellishing:
http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2010/03/msm-and-the-petraeus-factor.html
MSM and the Petraeus Factor
With Israeli-US relations strained, Mark Perry adds fuel to the fire. Perry, a fomer advisor to Yasser Arafat, claims that Gen. David Petraeus managed to fundamentally shift Washington’s strategic thinking towards Israel.
The article, published in Foreign Policy gives traction to the argument that Israeli settlement policies and lack of progress in peace talks endangers US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
. . . a team of senior military officers from the U.S. Central Command (responsible for overseeing American security interests in the Middle East), arrived at the Pentagon to brief Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The team had been dispatched by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus to underline his growing worries at the lack of progress in resolving the issue. The 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned Mullen. The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM’s mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) “too old, too slow … and too late.”
. . .
The message couldn’t be plainer: Israel’s intransigence could cost American lives.
But Max Boot disputes Perry’s veracity. A military officer familiar with the Petraeus brief said the General “never recommended shifting the Palestinian territories to Centcom’s purview.” Boot adds:
I further queried this officer as to whether he had ever heard Petraeus express the view imputed to him by Mark Perry — namely that Israel’s West Bank settlements are the biggest obstacle to a peace accord and that the lack of a peace accord is responsible for killing American soldiers. This officer told me that he had heard Petraeus say “the lack of progress in the Peace Process, for whatever reason, creates challenges in Centcom’s AOR [Area of Responsibility], especially for the more moderate governmental leaders,” and that’s a concern — one of many — but he did not suggest that Petraeus was mainly blaming Israel and its settlements for the lack of progress. They are, he said, “one of many issues, among which also is the unwillingness to recognize Israel and the unwillingness to confront the extremists who threaten Israelis.”
Jay Bookman also smells a rat. Although he doesn’t question Perry’s credibility, the Atlanta Journal Constitution columnist writes:
Reading between the lines of Perry’s piece and its later clarifications, there was a clear decision at high levels, apparently from within the Pentagon, to make this story public. If so, the leak was itself a policy decision, an effort by the military to throw itself publicly behind both the Petraeus warning and the sterner line taken in response by the Obama administration.
So is the Pentagon making a strategic shift? Winnipeg Free Press correspondent Sam Segev provides this interesting tea leaf to read:
Well-placed Israeli sources revealed that a similar message was conveyed recently to Israeli chief of general staff, Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi, by the chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Michael Mullen. Mullen recently told Ashkenazi he met in January with a group of senior officers who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They told him various Arab leaders perceive America as a “weak” country that is losing its influence in the region. The Arab leaders cited “America’s inability to stand up to Israel.”
Comment by Laura — March 17, 2010 @ 5:40 pm
ROTFL!
So, the Arabs NOW think poorly of America for aligning with Israel?
But America has been (to varying degrees) aligned with Israel since 1948.
And I’m guessing the very same Arab leaders have ALWAYS held America in contempt for not violating the Evil Zionist Entity.
Yet these senior military officers are impressed by Arab leaders saying, “If you just fuck over the Jews, boy, will we be awed by your strength!”
“Okay. We are easily manipulated doofuses. If you say you will view us as being strong if only we slap the Jews around, your wish is our command.”
This story reveals something very important: some of our senior military leaders have shit for brains.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 17, 2010 @ 6:05 pm
Or The United States Armed Forces have become totally politicized. That’s more dangerous and disturbing than if they just had shit for brains. It’s like organized crime controlling all the police forces. It would mean that no POV of the military can be viewed as militarily objective but must be viewed in light who who they are aiming to please in the political echelon.
Comment by yamit82 — March 17, 2010 @ 6:44 pm
This analysis is far more perceptive than mine.
Who wrote it for you?
Comment by ayn reagan — March 17, 2010 @ 6:54 pm
How long has it been since we’ve waltzed?
I would die for her. I would kill for her. Either way, what bliss.
Querida?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Last night you were unhinged. You were like some desperate, howling demon. You frightened me. Do it again!)
Comment by yamit82 — March 17, 2010 @ 7:26 pm
Talking sense to nonsense makes no sense at all. What those here and elsewhere who talk sense fail to see and accept is that the nonsense is winning.
Javedanfar’s article, Petraeus’ statements and those statements of a number of American leading voices, be they from Obama’s camp or the conservative camp led by the likes of James Baker III who contend the unsettled Israel - Palestinian war and now recently Israel’s announcement of plans to build 1600 apartments in a Jewish sector of East Jerusalem, are prejudicing American interests and costing American lives is nonsense that does make sense.
The fact is that this view, by any Western standard of reason and logic is nonsense.
The Arab nations, Palestinians and Islamists across the Middle East however see and understand facts by a very different standard of reason and logic, so much so that we Westerners would call that standard unreasonable and illogical.
Americans have about 150 thousand plus troops in the Middle East, not to mention the lesser number of troops from other Western nations. There are 350 million Arabs in the Middle East and over 30 million Iranians, bring the total number of Muslims to about 400 million. If the most conservative estimates of the number of Jihadists is correct at between 5 - 10%, that means these American and Western troops are having to deal with a threat from between between 20 - 40 million Jihadists.
It doesn’t matter if these 20 - 40 million Jihadists are unreasonable and illogical in their beliefs. The reality is that this is what they believe and what they act on in their Jihadist actions against America and her troops.
This is the reality that must be contended with.
Obama and Western leaders still cannot see or accept that appeasing the unreasonable and illogical Jihadists, at best will only bring them a temporary respite from mortal threats and a period of peace. They cannot or will not see that such peace will only be shortlived as the Jihadists once they have Israel out of the way, will then focus on advancing the Islamic manifest destiny by attacking the West and America which is for the Jihadists the personification of the West.
For American political and military leadership, they thus far do not appear to have the courage to do so. Thus America under Obama is trying to force Israel to give up more of her rights and security so that they might live in peace.
The challenge is to find a way that those who do talk sense, to impose their will on the 20 - 40 million Jihadists and eliminate them as the threat that they most assuredly are to American and Western troops and interests.
Comment by Bill Narvey — March 17, 2010 @ 7:44 pm
Gomez!
Or is it Gomez!
Comment by ayn reagan — March 17, 2010 @ 8:05 pm
Actors who played Gomes adams
John Astin or Raul Julia? Tough one!
I’ll go with Gomez “>#___
Comment by yamit82 — March 17, 2010 @ 8:46 pm
If another Addams Family film is made, I select Benicio Del Toro.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 17, 2010 @ 8:52 pm
I screwed it up.
My cat jumped up hit my keyboard and edit didn’t give me enough time to correct!
John Astin or Raul Julia? Tough one!
I’ll go with Gomez #___Or
KASSAM JUST LANDED NOT TO FAR FROM HERE. HIT AN OPEN FIELD. IT WILL GO UNREPORTED AND UNPUNISHED. THEY WILL EVENTUALLY HIT A SCHOOL OR KINDERGARTEN AND THEN ALL THE FINGER POINTING WILL BEGIN. NOBODY WILL ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY.
Comment by yamit82 — March 17, 2010 @ 9:02 pm
Good choice staying with the original Spanish character. That’s what I liked with Raul Julia. He was Gomez.
I thought Julia when he was alive as one of the best in the business.
Then Nathan Lane is a good Choice
Comment by yamit82 — March 17, 2010 @ 9:19 pm
Too bad LaWanda Page is gone.
She would have been the ultimate Gomez.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 17, 2010 @ 9:33 pm
r
Comment by yamit82 — March 17, 2010 @ 9:59 pm
You do have an unorthodox even weird sense of humor. Next you will be seeing Bea Arthur as Gomez
Comment by yamit82 — March 17, 2010 @ 10:06 pm
No.
I see Bea Arthur as Rahm Emanuel:
Comment by ayn reagan — March 18, 2010 @ 12:27 am