"Even Israeli Hawks Are Angry At Netanyahu"

This piece makes very good sense to me - I agree with it. When you have so many members of Mossad and the Israeli military speaking out against his actions, that says it all to me.

Netanyahu acts more like a Republican Congressman than the leader of Israel in how he's acting toward President Obama.

There are only two ways of meeting his demands on Iran - nuking the country or sending in tens of thousands of ground troops. A state like North Korea had no problem developing a nuke and Iran would not either if it wanted to. What can be done is to ensure that the government of Iran knows that attacking Israel with nukes would result in their utter destruction. And, on the other side, that stopping their nuclear program has tangible benefits (while at the same time giving them the ability to have a face saving gesture).

Even Israeli Hawks Are Angry At Netanyahu

As Netanyahu’s plane was in the air Sunday en route to Washington, a group called Commanders for Israel’s Security, made up of 180 retired generals and national security officials—including three former heads of Mossad—denounced the prime minister’s trip. “The present policy constitutes a destruction of the alliance with the U.S.,” said retired Major General Amnon Reshef, a hero of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, who co-founded the group.

On the eve of the visit, Michael Oren, a distinguished historian who a former ambassador to the United States under Netanyahu but has since broken with him, denounced the trip as a “cynical political move.”
...
The main hawkish rap on Bibi is that he has been an ineffective leader. After years of claiming he would take down Hamas, he had an opportunity last summer after the attacks on Israel from Gaza and failed. The commanders believe his embrace of King Abdullah of Jordan on confronting ISIS was ham-handed and largely unproductive. Most important, his failure to deal with what Israelis call “The Situation”—the military occupation of the West Bank—has made Israel an outcast nation rather than the “start-up nation” it aspires to be.
...
It’s not a coincidence that Bibi’s biggest backer is Sheldon Adelson, who owns the largest (and free of charge) newspaper in Israel and uses it as a daily propaganda rag for Netanyahu. In 2012, when Adelson pumped $100 million into Mitt Romney’s campaign, Netanyahu—apparently reading bad polls—all but endorsed Romney, despite the fact that three quarters of American Jews—most of whom are strong supporters of Israel—voted for Obama.

Obama’s reaction to Bibi’s behavior has been: No good deed goes unpunished. Every time the president would do something positive for Israel—like vetoing a Security Council resolution—Netanyahu would find a way to stick a thumb in his eye, like violating his promise of a settlement freeze at the exact moment when Vice President Biden was visiting Israel in 2010.
...

Click to expand...

I find it bizarre how obsequious the US Right is to Israel. The worst was Mitt Romney's performance there during the last election, it was so obsequious and supplicatory it should have made all Americans feel humiliated.

Again, the Right are embarrassing their own country just so they can grovel before an Israeli leader in a cheap political stunt aimed at bashing Obama.

I thought the Right were supposed to be uber-patriotic, but seems they hate Obama more than they love their own country. It is possible to be pro-Israel without being servile and sycophantic after all.

Either way it is all about domestic elections, rather than national interests, from both parties. A sad symptom of the state of modern politics.

Tail wagging the dog and all that.

Nietzsche said:

Tail wagging the dog and all that.

Click to expand...

That would imply they are acting in this way because Israel tells them to. Their self-abasement is entirely voluntary and deemed politically shrewd. Just as they are in competition to be toughest on immigration, most pro-business, etc they are also in competition to be the most pro-Israel (well really pro-Likud). It plays well with their political base, and for most the primary is more important than the election, as they can't possibly lose that if actually selected by their party.

More the dog wagging itself.

What I love most about this is that some news agency in Qatar claimed it and that's really about it.

Nothing else and everyone jumps on it.

The news story is from a New York base, not Qatar.

Heh, maybe Meretz will make a comeback.

Tarheeler said:

Heh, maybe Meretz will make a comeback.

Click to expand...

Works for me. I voted Hatikvah.

Lyndon said:

The news story is from a New York base, not Qatar.

Click to expand...

Yeah except that first Ma'an cited a Qatari newspaper. Then the whole thing was picked up by the Palestine... uh I mean Jerusalem Post.

Tarheeler said:

Heh, maybe Meretz will make a comeback.

Click to expand...

Is it already the end of days?

Imagine Israel taking measures not to be annihilated by a nuclear Iran.

What nerve!!!

Flankerl said:

Is it already the end of days?

Click to expand...

I was kinda hoping we could avoid getting that far anytime soon.

A poll taken in Israel and released early last week indicated that more Israeli's opposed Bibi's visit than support it. I think most people there see through it as both interference in the U.S.'s long-standing tradition of having foreign policy discussions "stop at the border", and the Bibi's move probably has political motivations behind it both there and here in the States.

It's obvious that there's no love lost between Bibi and Obama, but there is also the issue of how we should go about dealing with Iran. Essentially, Bibi wants to attack and Obama doesn't want to unless the peace process fails and it becomes more likely that Iran will develop nukes. In the case of the latter, both the administration here and American sentiment seems to indicate that an attack by Israel will be allowed and supported by the U.S.

Because of the distances involved, Israeli fighter-bombers need refueling, and the U.S. is the only country in position to do that. Also, even if the U.S. tried to stay out of a conflict between Israel and Iran, the U.S. still would be fully blamed as well.

And then there's the issue of oil supply, whereas I've heard two estimates by oil experts who believe gas here in the States could temporarily jump to $15-17 a gallon. As if the oil companies need an excuse to raise prices.

Because the stakes are so high, I believe we'd be foolish to attack Iran at this point, whether that be Israel alone or also having the U.S. involved, but there's no doubt in my mind that Iran cannot be allowed to develop nukes, and even if they secretly managed to do so, then a much larger attack on Iranian facilities probably would have to be in order.

And let's face the reality that Boehner invited Bibi over in large part to stick both Boehner's and Bibi's thumbs in Obama's eyes besides trying to derail the peace process, and that alone was a terribly unethical move under the circumstances and our own long-standing tradition. If Dems took some similar actions when a Republican was president, I don't doubt for one minute that the Reps would be screaming bloody murder.

It was an unethical move on both Boehner's and Bibi's part, and there are indications this could backfire on both of them.

I agree with the points metis made. But beyond, that simple bombing would not stop Iran from getting nukes if they chose to do it. Bury the facilities deep underground would be enough unless nukes were used by Israel. And the consequences would be a war between Iran and Israel carried out by Iran's proxies. ISIL would love to see both their enemies fighting each other.

A key part of that story for me was that the Mossad and IDF professionals agree on the danger Iran represents but think Netanyahu is incompetent when it comes to addressing that danger outside of blustering about it.

You dont have to achieve fission to have a nuclear weapon any more.

Pack some reactor waste into a conventional missile and lob it at your enemy.

I think that is the nuclear weapon of the future.

Imagine if Timothy McVeigh's rental truck also contained some spent fuel rods. There would be no Oklahoma City.

Tom

columbus said:

You dont have to achieve fission to have a nuclear weapon any more.

Pack some reactor waste into a conventional missile and lob it at your enemy.

I think that is the nuclear weapon of the future.

Imagine if Timothy McVeigh's rental truck also contained some spent fuel rods. There would be no Oklahoma City.

Tom

Click to expand...

No that's really not how it works. Even a dirty bomb needs some basic physics. You can't just put some TNT and Uranium together and expect a dirty bomb.

Thankfully.

Flankerl said:

No that's really not how it works. Even a dirty bomb needs some basic physics. You can't just put some TNT and Uranium together and expect a dirty bomb.

Thankfully.

Click to expand...

All you have to do is put something as deadly and long lasting as nuclear waste on top of a bomb. You can make the bomb out of fertilizer.

I could do it if I were that evil and believed in God and Heaven. Fortunately I don't.

Tom

There are two types of "dirty bombs", with one being nuclear material spewed out by a conventional explosion, and the other is a nuclear bomb with a long radioactive half-life.

metis said:

There are two types of "dirty bombs", with one being nuclear material spewed out by a conventional explosion, and the other is a nuclear bomb with a long radioactive half-life.

Click to expand...

I am referring to the former.

Tom

طقس