Top 10 errors in Netanyahu’s Speech Demanding Iran give up ‘Genocidal’ Policies

By Juan Cole

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu demanded on Sunday that the world community constrain Iran to change its “genocidal policy” toward Israel, in the course of a speech in which he attacked President Obama’s current round of negotiations with Iran over its civilian nuclear enrichment program.

The rhetoric Netanyahu uses is not just sprinkled with falsehoods, it is pure propaganda, every word of it. It has been crafted to deceive. In that it is not very different from thousands of speeches given by thousands of other politicians around the world. But note that other prominent Israeli politicians seem perfectly capable of discussing Iran without invoking various forms of apocalypse or foaming at the mouth. Here is what the prime minister said on Iran:

Transcription
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Address to the Saban Forum
December 8, 2013…

…Ladies and gentlemen,
Our best efforts to reach Palestinian-Israeli peace will come to nothing if Iran succeeds in building atomic bombs.

A nuclear-armed Iran would give even greater backing to the radical and terrorist elements in the region. It would undermine the chances of arriving at a negotiated peace.

I would say it would undermine those peace agreements that we have already reached with two of our neighbors.

Just three days ago Iran’s representative to the U.N. reiterated the regime’s refusal to even recognize Israel. This came a fortnight after the ruler of Iran referred to Israel as a “rabid dog” and to us as not worthy of being called human. He said we were doomed to “failure and annihilation”.

And earlier in November, Khamenei called Israel “an illegitimate and bastard regime”. So the Iranian regime’s pursuit of nuclear weapons makes these remarks more than a simple matter of “sticks and stones”.

People tend to discount rhetoric from rogue regimes, from radical regimes. They said, well, it’s just talk, but talk has consequences.

We’ve learned that in history, especially when the regime that makes these statements is actually building the capability to carry it out.

This same regime supplies its terrorist proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, with thousands of rockets, rockets that are aimed at Israeli civilians, rockets that are precision-guided munitions that are increasingly lethal and deadly.

This is a regime committed to our destruction. And I believe there must be an unequivocal demand alongside the negotiations in Geneva for a change in Iranian policy. This must be part and parcel of the negotiations.

In other words, I’m saying that what is required is not merely a shift and a diminution of Iran’s capability and elimination of its capability to produce nuclear weapons, but also a demand to change its genocidal policy. That is the minimal thing that the international community must do when it’s negotiating with Iran…

And here are the falsehoods in what he said:

1. Israel is not making peace with the Palestinians. It is actively stealing Palestinian land on the West Bank and it has Gaza under a barbaric and creepy blockade intended to keep people on the edge of hunger.

2. Netanyahu frames his speech with the assumption that Iran is seeking a nuclear warhead, when all the indications are that it simply wants a breakout capacity (i.e. the deterrence that comes from outsiders knowledge that they could if they wanted to). The Supreme Leader of Iran, a theocrat, has forbidden making, stockpiling or using nuclear weapons on many occasions, which rises to the level of a hukm or theocratic decree.

3. An Iran with a breakout capacity could not force Egypt and Jordan to revoke their peace treaties with Tel Aviv. In fact, Netanyahu knows very well that Israel is arguing behind the scenes to Egypt and Jordan that they are in the same boat in confronting Iran. Neither Jordan nor the Egyptian generals are at all well disposed toward Iran, and they wouldn’t become more well disposed if Iran seemed more powerful!

4. Netanyahu accuses Iran of seeking what Israel already has. Israel sneakily and with French help constructed its own nuclear bomb, and now has hundreds of them. Israel refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has repeatedly brandished its nukes in the region to cow others. Iran has signed the NPT and is regularly inspected by the United Nations, and doesn’t have a single atomic bomb, nor is there any proof that they have a military nuclear program.

5. In a 2003 proposal sent to the US through the Swiss embassy, President Khatami of Iran suggested the possibility of a full peace with the US and Israel. The Bush administration threw this proposal in the trash can. It demonstrates that there are forces in Iranian politics that can imagine recognizing Israel under the right circumstances.

6. Netanyahu says that Iran presently refuses to recognize Israel, and later suggests that this stance is genocidal. But Netanyahu refuses to recognize Palestine as a state. Is he being genocidal toward the Palestinians?

7. Netanyahu complains that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called the Israelis names, saying they were doomed to failure, and are “rabid dogs” and said that they “cannot be called humans.” But during the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006, the Israeli ambassador to the UN called Hizbullah “animals.”

Besides, Khamenei did not threaten violence in that speech. Quite the contrary. The speech was about the difference between war-making, aggressive regimes and peaceful ones (like Iran, he said). And it is true that Iran has not invaded a neighbor in an aggressive war in modern history. He was saying that aggression as a policy always fails. He instanced Saddam Hussein, who launched two wars of aggression and isn’t there any more. He claimed that the US is hypocritical in talking of peace, since it commits acts of aggression in the region and backs other states that do, as well. So that is the context of his remarks on the “Zionists.” What he said was that Israel is an aggressive country that has repeatedly launched wars on its neighbors and grabbed land in the region, and that an aggressive country cannot survive in the long run. He said that in the course of its wars of aggression, the “Zionist regime” backed by “Zionist financiers” acts like “wild beasts” and doesn’t deserve to be called “Insan.” In Persian, the word for a human being as in a human person is Aadam, named for Adam. The Arabic “insan” means human in the sense of a good person, an ethical person. It is like the Yiddish Mensch or Mentsh, which is probably influenced by the Hebrew ish, which is a cognate of the Arabic Insan. So what Khamenei is saying is that the Zionists (he didn’t say Israelis) are super-nationalistic and warmongers and therefore aren’t Mensches and their state can’t long survive if they go on with those policies. Khamenei has an unfortunate tendency to pepper his speeches with antisemitic asides such as the trope of the powerful Zionist financiers allegedly behind Israel. But to use Khamenei’s speech as proof of genocidal intentions is to do utter violence to the meaning of his text.

رژيم صهيونيستى يك رژيم تحميلى است، با حركتِ زور به‌وجود آمده است، هيچ پديده‌اى و موجودى كه با زور به‌وجود آمده باشد قابل دوام نيست و اين هم قابل دوام نيست. دفاع كسانى كه به نحوى وام‌دار شبكه‌ى سرمايه‌دارى صهيونيستى هستند از اين رژيم مفلوكِ صهيونيستى، مايه‌ى بى‌آبرويى آنها است. بعضى از اروپايى‌ها هم متأسّفانه تملّق ميگويند؛ ميروند در مقابل اين موجوداتى كه نام انسان براى آنها حيف است – اين سردمداران رژيم صهيونيستى واقعاً مثل وحوش ميمانند، اينها را نميشود انسان ناميد

8. Netanyahu throws around phrases like Iran’s “pursuit of nuclear weapons,” which Iran denies and for which his former defense minister admitted there is no proof.

9. Netanyahu says that Iran has supplied the Lebanese and Palestinians with rockets. This is true. But the French supplied the Israelis with a nuclear weapon, which surely trumps little katyushas. Since Israel kept invading southern Lebanon, and tried to annex 10% of Lebanon’s territory, and occupied it for 18 years, it was inevitable that the Lebanese Shiites would mobilize to stop the Israelis from doing those things. The only large-scale use of those rockets by the Lebanese Shiites was in self-defense. Israel’s planes in 2006 wiped out 20 years of economic progress in Lebanon. The Israelis then dropped a million cluster bombs on the south of the country, which is a war crime, since they were clearly targeting the civilian population. Hizbullah has used the rockets offensively as well, but not on a significant scale and not since 2006. There is wrong on both sides. But if Netanyahu wanted Iran to stop sending the rockets, the best way to accomplish that is to pursue peace with the Lebanese, who then wouldn’t want or need rockets. Israel still occupies the Shebaa Farms and routinely threatens Lebanon, flies over it aggressively, occasionally bombs it, and has threatened to prevent the Lebanese from developing the natural gas off Lebanon’s coast in the Mediterranean. As for Gaza, what is amazing is that most Palestinians there put up with what Netanyahu has done and is doing to them with so little protest. Most of them were kicked out of their homes in places like Sderot by Jewish immigrants from Europe, then imprisoned in Gaza and denied a port, airport, or ability to export most of what they make (since 2007). But anyway, Hamas broke with Iran over its support for the Alawite-dominated Baath regime in Damascus, so Netanyahu is out of date.

10. Netanyahu neglects to mention that his government has repeatedly threatened to bomb Iran, whereas Iran has made no such threats against Israel. Indeed, since the bombing of nuclear sites in Natanz would release radioactive toxins and kill at least a hundred thousand people in Isfahan, it is Netanyahu who has threatened genocide.

——

Related video

RT reported on Netanyahu’s initial reaction to the Geneva negotiations with Iran

47 Responses

  1. Thank you very much for the great article. It’s nice to read somthing with reasonable arguments and common sense behind it.
    It’s high time to end the propoganda of war loving extremists from both sides.

  2. “Our best efforts to reach Palestinian-Israeli peace will come to nothing if Iran succeeds in building atomic bombs.”

    Looking at this strictly as a geo-political contest: if Netanyahu wants to use the peace talks as a hostage, he’d better provide some signs that the hostage is alive. What are those of us who support an I-P peace deal supposed to worry about losing?

    If there was a promising, ongoing peace process going on that an Iranian nuclear program might undermine, talking about threats to that process might carry some weight, but based on Netanyahu’s behavior over the past few years, why would anyone sacrifice any other foreign policy goal for what looks like such an illusory hope?

    As a player on the world stage, Netanyahu is as incompetent as he is vicious.

  3. Maybe Netanyahu is more worried about losing control of US foreign policy in the Middle East than he is about the fantasy Iran he loves to portray. He may perceive that our “Israel, Right or Wrong” doctrine is in jeopardy.

  4. “The rhetoric Netanyahu uses is not just sprinkled with falsehoods, it is pure propaganda, every word of it.”

    And many of (supposedly) our senators and representatives in Congress buy into his propaganda. Even some who would otherwise be considered good people. 29 standing ovations when Netanyahu last addressed Congress!!! Not quite another Nuremberg rally, but it is on the same side of the moral divide.

    • “And many of (supposedly) our senators and representatives in Congress buy into his propaganda.”

      You are spot-on about Congressmen, so many of whom are either true believers or, if not, so cowed that they might as well be true believers. It is not exclusively the province of Congress, however. Both the President and the Secretary of State reflexively parrot the phrase, “There is no daylight between the United States and Israel,” thus demonstrating that true belief (or cowardice masquerading as true belief) is alive and well in the Executive branch as well.

      • Your points well taken, but you have to remember it is in the politician’s nature to be two-faced. They are plenty of statements made, having left office, when senior people voice their absolute resentment, if not anger, at the way Israel has handled themselves. The problem here is when such statements, over time and with endless repetition, actually become a matter of institutional policy.

        • And what does that say about politicians in office when they willingly do what is wrong and lack the moral courage to do what is right?

        • It says that they’re constrained by political forces – something that internet commenters don’t have to take into account, but officerholders do.

          Tell me, Bill Bodden, was Ted Cruz’s government shutdown strategy a demonstration of moral courage, because he didn’t pay any attention to any outside political considerations, or was it stupidity that led to failure?

        • “Tell me, Bill Bodden, was Ted Cruz’s government shutdown strategy a demonstration of moral courage, because he didn’t pay any attention to any outside political considerations, or was it stupidity that led to failure?”

          I’m not a mind reader, but I would guess arrogance and ideology were factors.

      • The Iranian nuclear deal itself, and the stiff-arms Netanyahu has received on his policy efforts, would seem to suggest that the administration is not quite the “true believers” you wish to portray them as.

        When evaluating politicians, it’s wiser to pay attention to what they do, not what they say.

        • There is no “nuclear deal” as yet. There is simply an interim agreement to later tackle the real issue of Iran’s nuclear program. And while the Obama administration is pursuing talks with Iran in the face of Israeli objections, that is hardly “stiff-arming” Netanyahu.

          Your uncritical admiration for Obama is evident in your posts, Joe, but you appear to overlook what a weak and indecisive President he is. Remember Obama’s “demand” that Israel dismantle its settlements on the West Bank? Netahyahu did, in fact, stiff-arm Obama on that issue, and Obama backed off. Remember when Obama’s primary issue in Syria was “Bashar al-Assad must go”? Today Assad sits in Damascus in a stronger position than when Obama made his threat.

          Obama then made Syrian chemical weapons his issue (having failed to depose Assad). Thanks to Obama’s inept sudden reversal from lobbing cruise missiles to requesting Congressional authorization, and thanks to Kerry’s inept handling of the issue, Putin and the Russians’ entered the breach and laid the groundwork for what appears to be a solution. No thanks, however, to a deliberate plan by Obama.

          Obama makes demands (“settlements must go,” “Assad must go”) but fails to follow through. He thinks that his interlocutors are as inspired and taken by his rhetoric as he himself is. He tends to violate one of the basic tenets of international (or any other) relations: to make threats and demands that one is not prepared to follow through with simply diminishes one in the eyes of others. Better not to make such threats at all.

        • “There is no “nuclear deal” as yet. There is simply an interim agreement to later tackle the real issue of Iran’s nuclear program.”

          Thank you, Dr. Semantics. What, exactly, does this have to with the issue of Obama’s alleged habit of hewing to Israel’s line? Did Israel support “an interim agreement to later tackle the real issue of Iran’s nuclear program?” Does Netanyahu appear to consider it meaningless, or consistent with his own policy preferences?

          “Your uncritical admiration for Obama is evident in your posts, Joe, but you appear to overlook what a weak and indecisive President he is.”

          People who dive right into the psychobabble generally do so because they can’t answer the substance. I can’t help but notice that, in your entire piece, you fail to address the actual point: whether Obama’s actions are, or are not, consistent with the desires of the Israeli government.

          But you know what’s really funny? You started off trying to argue that Obama’s rhetoric – not actions, but rhetoric – about the Iranian nuclear deal and Israel give us a solid indication of where he stands, but by the end, you’re arguing that his rhetoric is meaningless.

          So which is it?

        • “Thank you, Dr. Semantics.”

          One of the problems today is the sloppy and loose use of language. The “nuclear deal” you mentioned is anything but, yet you use the phrase to justify your position extolling the virtues of Obama regarding Israel. I was Pointing out the lack of precision in using the phrase. Hurling the epithet “Dr. Semantics” at me does nothing to increase the required precision.

          “I can’t help but notice that, in your entire piece, you fail to address the actual point: whether Obama’s actions are, or are not, consistent with the desires of the Israeli government.”

          I pointed out that simply engaging the Iranians against the desires of Israel is hardly “stiff-arming” Netanyahu, and then I expanded the theme to reference instances where Obama has demonstrated weakness and indecisiveness, using his “demands” (and subsequent backtracking) regarding settlements and Assad as examples, with the additional bumbling of the Syrian chemical weapons affair. He has yet to demonstrate that he will counter Israel on the hard issues.

  5. Thanks Juan. How anyone can believe the whoppers of the Paranoid Maniac of Israel amazes me. I suppose”US Reps” and “US Senators” are bribed enough or threatened enough.

  6. Netanyahu is doing what he does best: fear-mongering to imbecilic supporters.
    While the Iranian regime deserves condemnation for its behavior toward domestic critics, the conflict the US and Israel has with Iran “springs from the exigencies of geopolitics rather than ideology: Iran’s age-old ambition to be recognized as a–or the–regional hegemon versus the determination of the U.S. and Israel to foil its ambition and preserve their regional preeminence. Many informed Israelis freely acknowledge” this reality. For example, according to Eliezer Tsafrir, former head of Israeli intelligence in Iran and Iraq: “However ideological and Islamic, everything Iran was doing was nationalistic, and even similar to the Shah”.
    Fortunately, saner elements in the US have come to accept the need of Iran’s help in “organizing” the Middle East and Aghanistan. Iran has already demonstrated its rational management of regional affairs at the Bonn conference, etc.; all Iran expects is to be treated as the regional power it is.
    link to detailedpoliticalquizzes.wordpress.com

  7. For what it is worth: “Obama and Netanyahu downplay differences on Iran nuclear deal: Israeli prime minister says he shares US preference for ending Tehran’s alleged weapons programme through diplomacy” by Dan Roberts – link to theguardian.com

    It might be a good idea to file the comment about Netanyahu preferring diplomacy with stories of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

    • It is manifestly in the domestic political interest of both an Israeli Prime Minister and an American President to insist that the countries are on the same page, even when they are not. American Presidents have to worry about the pro-Israel lobby and voters, while Israeli leaders have to worry about appearing to screw up the country’s relationship with the global superpower that backs it.

      • “It is manifestly in the domestic political interest of both an Israeli Prime Minister and an American President to insist that the countries are on the same page….”

        President Eisenhower thought otherwise in 1956 when he very strongly condemned and threatened Israel, along with Britain and France, for their joint invasion of Egypt to take over the Suez Canal. It most assuredly is not manifestly in the domestic political interest of an American President to insist that the US and Israel are on the same page. That has been our problem all these years. We would be far better off to show both substantive and rhetorical distance from Israel when our national interests are at odds. A US president’s mandate is not just to follow a domestic constituency’s desires, it is also, and more importantly, to demonstrate leadership, and justify his position with persuasive arguments.

        • This isn’t 1956, and the statement ” It most assuredly is not manifestly in the domestic political interest of an American President to insist that the US and Israel are on the same page,” would be laughed at by any politician capable of being elected to the state legislature.

          Sheesh, all the undeniable evidence of the power of the Israel lobby and voters staring us in the face, and Bill somehow comes to the conclusion that there are no political consequences for a President to be seen as anti-Israel! How is that even possible?

        • Don’t put words in my mouth, Joe. I did not state that there are no political consequences for a President to be seen as “anti-Israel.” I did not even come close to using the term “anti-Israel.” This is another example of your imprecise use of language.

          If you read my comment carefully you will see that I wrote that it is not manifestly in the political interest of a President to “insist that the US and Israel are on the same page.” There is a big difference between being “anti-Israel” and stating that the US and Israel are not necessarily “on the same page” regarding every issue. Your apparent notion that to suggest that US and Israeli interests may diverge at times is equivalent to being “anti-Israel” sounds like you are a spokesman for AIPAC.

          In short, it would be in the political interest of both the President and the United States if we began treating our relationship with Israel as we do any normal ally such as Germany, France, and all other allies with whom we occasionally disagree. That, of course, would take Presidential leadership.

  8. Thanks for this. It is really well done, and much needed.

    If our press were really what it always tells us it is, then this would be the mainstream take on these events.

  9. These reactions and a few others have all been made many times in many similar posts re Israeli behavior.

    The point that hasn’t been made is how, judging by their past behavior, Israel is most liable to handle this sort of inevitably:

    One, that they would hope to capitalize on, is a threaten to carry out military action. they are, however, too rational, and that option really isn’t a viable one here; the threat does help set up a second action. And the sort of publicity we now see suggests what we (especially America) can now expect it:

    THE BIG SHAKE-DOWN:
    Israel will tacitly cooperate with a potential peace by shutting-up, “not” taking military action, and (promising) to freeze additional settlements (as they are apt to do from time to time), IN EXCHANGE for $$$$$$$$$. In other words, expect a BIG aid package or other concessions in the works from the US when Kerry returns from a trip like the one he’s now on.

    Nothwithstanding all this, as Sherm notes, Israel really does stand to lose its position in the driver’s seat with US foreign policy in the region, and Iran nominally rejoining the regional economic scene really does pose an existential threat to Israel’s traditional way of doing business. But you know what they say: when presented with lemons, make lemonade.

    • But is Netanyahu – not Israel in general, but him in particular – a rational actor?

      His behavior, especially towards President Obama, in recent years suggests he is not.

      • I think Bibi is a pretty astute politician. His abuse of Obama appears to be done for domestic consumption, to demonstrate amongst other things just what he can get away with (and it really is very, very telling).

        Is he Nutz? That’s the question he’s maneuvering to make us all ask, striving to sow seeds of fear that maybe he is crazy enough to do something irrationally kinetic if we don’t do his bidding. And this leads directly to the extortion I see shaping-up, as a “compromise” position to present to the US. But as far as actually being crazy? Nixon’s approach to the Xmas bombings of Hanoi back in the day, were a tactical calculation along these lines, but its hard to see any utility for Bibi to want to carry through on the bluster. Ultimately States tend to be pretty rational, as were Nixon’s actions, and I don’t think Bibi has such a card to play with any real effectiveness……still, you DO have to wonder (which, again, would be his intent), because there are a lot of people to the Right of him, who give the guy much of his domestic power, who are capable, IMHO, of ANYTHING.

        So, the real question becomes: How well can Bibi handle folks like Lieberman?

        • “I think Bibi is a pretty astute politician.”

          There are, however, indications he is not as smart as he believes himself to be, and he won’t be the first person to discover that the hard way.

      • Your point on Bibi Boo-Boo is well taken, Joe, but he’s not the only nutcase here. His once again Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has also made outlandish falsehoods, just not as clownishly as Bibi, though. In fact, the vast majority, if not all, Likudniks are nutcases.

        Along with the Likudniks, there are the fanatical settlers, the nuttiest of all. The real sane people, unfortunately, are in the minority.

  10. Many thanks for this illuminating account, which is totally missing from the corporate media. Falsehoods and exaggerations, such as Ahmadinejad allegedly threatening to wipe Israel off the map or the latest remarks of Khamenei as distasteful as they are, are repeated long enough until they are treated as facts and shape public perception.

    The first sentence of the quote from Netanyahu’s speech gives a clue to his real agenda: “Our best efforts to reach Palestinian-Israeli peace will come to nothing if Iran succeeds in building atomic bombs.” This is the game that Israeli leaders have played successfully for many decades to avoid discussing the Palestinian issue. For the past half a century, Israel has used an imaginary foreign threat to continue its occupation of Palestinian lands. Those who have followed the Arab-Israeli conflict know very well that Gamal Abdel Naser, Hafiz al-Assad, Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat and Ahmadinejad were all described as Hitler and any negotiation with them was a repetition of Munich Agreement and a sign of appeasement. Now it seems President Rouhani who has come with a message of peace and wishes to resolve the conflict over Iran’s nuclear program is going to be subjected to the same treatment. This shows that the deal with Iran is by no means guaranteed and Israel and her powerful friends in US Congress will do everything to kill it.

  11. Thank you so much for this highly informative article. I can’t understand why the USA with its massive State Department full of talented people, hasn’t been in constant negotiation with Iran. If there’s anything humans should have learned from the 20th century, it’s that we always need to be communicating with our enemies. War indeed has to be a last resort with a madman opponent. Iran has never met those conditions.

    I hope the United States can remain steadfast in its pursuit of peace with Iran, and push the Israelis aside since all they seem to want is regime change.

    • ” I can’t understand why the USA with its massive State Department full of talented people, hasn’t been in constant negotiation with Iran.”

      Rx: Israel Lobby

  12. Meanwhile the US position is confirmed at Mondoweiss: “Obama and Kerry drop talk of Palestinian state for ‘state institutions’ and ‘transition’” by Allison Deger – link to mondoweiss.net

    and

    “Kerry threatens to delay Palestinian prisoner release if PA refuses US/Israel demands” by Ira Glunts – link to mondoweiss.net

    Despite the happy talk about the US-Iran nuclear deal, the Iranians should probably watch their backs – as they probably are.

  13. A couple of things not quite so informed… :)

    “when all the indications are that it [Iran] simply wants a breakout capacity”

    Interesting interpretation of the UN and all 16 US intelligence agencies saying multiple times that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. What are your “all indications”? Do they come from the US NIE reports that confirm Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, despite desperately wanting to find that it is?

    “The Israelis then dropped a million cluster bombs on the south of the country”

    It was four million. This was the single most dense saturation bombing in history, pushing out the former leader, the USA, and its dropping of 20 million cluster bombs over a wider area of Iraq in 1991.

    “what is amazing is that most Palestinians there put up with what Netanyahu has done and is doing to them with so little protest.”

    Not amazing at all, considering they have been ethnically cleansed and crushed by Israel for over 60 years straight, since 1967 thanks entirely to the funding and backing of the USA.

    • I think you’re a little confused about what “breakout capacity” means. It doesn’t mean you’re building a bomb, but developing the ability to build one later if you change your mind.

  14. Israel allowed a first-ever IAEA inspection of its Soreq reactor this year, however Dimona’s reactor has never been inspected by the IAEA.

    Israel destroyed the Iraqi reactor at Osirak in June of 1981 and sustained a 44-7 censure by the UN General Assembly. The Israeli Air Force in 2007 pursuant to “Operation Orchard” destroyed an underground nuclear reator in Syria – kiling a number of North Korean technicians in the process.

    Israel has always played under its own rules with respect to its nuclear program and dealing with Middle Eastern nations seeking nuclear power capabilities.

    What if Avigdor Lieberman or some other right-wing extremist became prime minister and over-reacted? While many fear Iran’s nuclear program, the greater fear should be some dangerous reactionaries in Tel Aviv authorizing introduction of atomic weaponry in a conflict – especially since Lieberman has already publicly bandied about the possiblity using a nuclear option in Gaza and even bombing the Aswan Dam in Egypt. Other influential Israelis have even be heard discussing firing nuclear weaponry at European capitals in the event of exercising its “Samson option”. Since Israel has, per a declassified USAF intelligence report issued in 1997, some 400 fission and thermonuclear fusion bombs in its arsenal and could deliver many these anywhere on Earth given its multibillion-dollar submarine fleet purchased from Thyssen-Krupp, the German industrial giant, what is being done by the international community to address these dangers.

    The Dolphin submarines from Germany were deployed in 2012 and can fire sea-launched cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. This gives Israel a “second strike” capability in the event it is militarily defeated by a foreign power.

    Given Israel’s history of deception and subterfuge in developing its nuclear program and the fact its chief architect was Israel’s current president, the world community may have much to fear if Israeli assurances cannot be verified.

    • Israel will not be defeated by any combination of regional armies. They have done it before and are no less powerful now. However they are not in a good position. Apartheid was not defeated by any conventional army. The French in Algeria, the British in India, Kenya etc. were not defeated by conventional armies. Nor was the US in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. They were all defeated because the situation was uncontrollable. They did not know who the enemy was. Nuclear weapons were useless.

      The worst enemy that a top notch conventional army can face is chaos. There is no one to shoot or everyone to shoot, either way it makes no difference. Listen to the American generals in Afghanistan complaining that the locals need years of training. They neglect to mention that the other side is fighting with those same guys and they are doing pretty well.

      Israel will reform or be defeated when they realize that they can never win. They fight, they kill lots of people, but they never win. They will become exhausted just like America in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I hope they come to choose reform.

      • “Nuclear weapons were useless….”

        Israel’s homeland security leaders have already considered an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) option to wreak havoc on Iran on an across-the-board basis.

        The detonation of a one-megaton hydrogen bomb 100 kilometers above Iran would, via gamma radiation, damage electrical circuitry and shut down that nation’s vital industrial, transportation, telecommunication, and banking systems.

        Israel has the capability to deliver such a weapon via Jericho IV intercontinental ballistic missiles or nuclear-armed Dolphin submarine – Israel always maintains at least one Dolphin submarine located in international waters within the Persian Gulf as a nuclear deterrent to any unreasonable aggression by the Iranian government.

        Israel has a highly sophisticated nuclear weapons delivery system that has acted, and shall continue to act, as a deterrent to its actual and potential foes in that region.

        Of course the nuclear fallout that would incidentally result from such an EMP device could infuriate Iran’s neighbors, including Russsia and China.

  15. Was the delegitimization of apartheid South Africa anti-White? Of course not. Nor are demands for the delegitimization of apartheid Israel anti-Jewish. In both instances what’s being sought is equality and justice for an oppressed people, Black Africans in the case of South Africa, and Palestinians when it comes to Israel. Netanyahu raises the issue of antisemitism in order to divert attention from the real issue; namely, Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

  16. Netanyahu: “This came a fortnight after the ruler of Iran referred to Israel as a “rabid dog” and to us as not worthy of being called human.”

    Hmmm, I was under the impression that Khamenei was referring to NETANYAHU as a rabid dog, he was not referring to “Israelis in general”.

    And – let’s be honest here – Netanyahu does rather make a habit of frothing at the mouth when discussing Iran.

  17. “Break out capacity’ means very little, and is unnecessarily alarming, unless it is defined in terms of real capability, meaning what procedures have already been achieved toward the development of a workable bomb, and what procedures remain, and how much time it would take for the remaining procedures to be implemented.

  18. “Break out capacity” is so general and vague as to be interpreted over a wide range of capability. Netanyahu most probably believes the ability to enrich to 3.5 % is already a “breakout capacity”.

Comments are closed.