mardi 5 novembre 2013

Médiats juifs anti-juifs? CNN et le NY Times mentionnent l'arsenal nucléaire d'Israël, qui explique pourquoi ses voisins se sont dotés d'armes chimiques



http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/10/opinion/miller-iran-us-israel-negotiations/index.html?iref=allsearch

Why the U.S. and Israel are split over the Iran deal
By Aaron David Miller, Special to CNN
November 10, 2013

(...) Israel isn't some hapless victim, a piece of driftwood bobbing about on a turbulent sea; it's a dynamic nation (and a nuclear weapons state) with great military power with the capacity if need be to deal with Iran too. (...)



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?ref=world&_r=1&

Syria Destroys Chemical Sites, Inspectors Say
By ANNE BARNARD
Published: October 31, 2013

(...) “Some government supporters — and indeed, some rebel fighters — have criticized the deal as giving up weapons that belong to the Syrian people and are needed as a deterrent against Israel, which maintains an undeclared nuclear arsenal.
“But Syrian officials said that the weapons were of little practical use and that giving them up allowed them to claim new moral standing and draw attention to the push for the elimination of Israel’s nuclear weapons.” (...)




http://consortiumnews.com/2013/11/01/nytimes-mentions-israeli-nukes/

NYTimes Mentions Israeli Nukes

My Catbird Seat November 6, 2013
Exclusive: The U.S. press is very tolerant of Israeli cross-border attacks inside Syria, like the latest one against a military target in Latakia. Israel’s nuclear arsenal usually goes unmentioned, too. But the New York Times surprisingly deviated from that pattern, notes Robert Parry.
Israel has 80 nukes, can about triple inventory – report
In a rare break from the selective outrage over who possesses WMDs in the Middle East, the New York Times acknowledged on Friday that, yes, Israel does have an undeclared nuclear arsenal.
Apparently the Times had little option but to include this inconvenient truth because the context was the complaint from some Syrians that their government was wrong to surrender its chemical weapons capability – in an agreement with the United Nations – because the CW was needed to deter a possible Israeli nuclear attack.
The article by Anne Barnard reported, “Some government supporters — and indeed, some rebel fighters — have criticized the deal as giving up weapons that belong to the Syrian people and are needed as a deterrent against Israel, which maintains an undeclared nuclear arsenal.
“But Syrian officials said that the weapons were of little practical use and that giving them up allowed them to claim new moral standing and draw attention to the push for the elimination of Israel’s nuclear weapons.”
Amazing! References to Israeli nukes in back-to-back paragraphs. More typically, the Times and other U.S. news outlets avoid mentioning Israel’s rogue nuclear arsenal even when the context calls for it, such as when writing about Syria’s reasons for possessing chemical weapons or why Iran might actually want a nuclear bomb. By leaving out Israel’s secret nukes, the media denies the U.S. public an understanding of why these Muslim countries might legitimately fear that Israel will attack them with nukes.
Israel’s nuclear arsenal is usually even ignored in the U.S. press when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is threatening to attack other countries to punish them for their possession – or their possible future possession – of weapons of mass destruction. For instance, Netanyahu has threatened to bomb Iran if it crosses his “red line” in refinement of nuclear fuel, despite Iran’s repeated assurances that it wants only a peaceful nuclear program.
Israel’s use of aggressive air strikes also is not just hypothetical. Israeli jets have struck Syrian military targets, presumably to destroy what are primarily defensive weapons, i.e. Russian-made surface-to-air missiles. In those cases, the Israeli claim is that the missiles might be transferred to Hezbollah, the militant Lebanese militia that fought Israel’s occupation of South Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s and was the target of an Israeli air war in 2006.
These Israeli attacks receive only cursory notice in the U.S. news media. For instance, there were a few brief references in some U.S. news outlets on Friday, describing an attack on Thursday by Israeli warplanes against the Syrian port city of Latakia.

 
I’m told that some U.S. intelligence analysts believe the latest strike was a show of Israeli anger over the failure of President Barack Obama to intervene militarily in the Syrian civil war – and to demonstrate to Israel’s new ally, Saudi Arabia, that Israel is ready to assist in efforts to tip the Syrian conflict in favor of Saudi-backed rebels.

Principles of Journalism
The lack of objectivity in mainstream U.S. reporting about the Middle East – and particularly issues relating to Israel – has distorted how many Americans understand the issues in that strategic region. Pro-Israeli propagandists have been particularly effective in intimidating editors and writers with accusations that they are “anti-Israel” or “anti-Semitic” if they don’t adopt Israel’s preferred narratives on developments in the Middle East.
Often that pro-Israel slant is reflected not just in what editors put in a story but what they choose to leave out. That is most noticeable in the endless alarm expressed on the news pages of major American newspapers over the alleged possibility that Iran might build one nuclear bomb when Israel already possesses hundreds. It’s also rarely noted that Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, accepting international observers, while Israel hasn’t.
That relevant context doesn’t even show up often when Israel threatens to bomb Iran, i.e. a nuclear-armed state announcing plans to attack a non-nuclear state. So, for the casual reader, the selective rendering of the story – ignoring Israel’s actual nuclear arsenal and exaggerating the possibility that Iran might build a bomb someday – creates the impression that Israel is undertaking the noble cause of trying to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons into the Middle East, when the reality is that Israel is seeking to keep its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East.
Some Americans may like that idea – trusting Israel to be responsible in what they do with their nuclear bombs while fearing that a Muslim country would be reckless – but journalism is not supposed to about taking sides. It’s supposed to be about providing relevant information to the reader, something that the New York Times did on Friday.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.





"Israel, everyone agrees, is an established nuclear weapon state. It was the sixth nation in the world—and the first in the Middle East—to develop and acquire nuclear weapons. Indeed, while exact figures are speculative, Israel's nuclear forces are believed to be (in qualitative terms at least) more like those of France and the United Kingdom than India's and Pakistan's. Yet Israel's code of conduct and discourse in the nuclear field differs distinctly from the other established nuclear weapon states. Unlike the seven acknowledged nuclear nations—the five de jure nuclear weapon states under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) (the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, and China) and the two de facto nuclear weapon states outside the NPT (India and Pakistan)—Israel has never advertised or even admitted its nuclear status __ Nobody—in or out of Israel—cares to ask Israeli leaders uncomfortable questions about the nation's nuclear status... In Washington, and subsequently in other Western capitals, the Israeli bomb has become a most sensitive issue, almost untouchable ... under which the United States treats Israel as a special (and unique) nuclear case. Under this policy, the United States has exercised its diplomatic influence and power to ignore and shield the Israeli case. Israel is treated as an exception, somehow exempt from the nonproliferation regime that applies to everyone else. Friends and foes of Israel (and of the United States) have to reckon with this aura of exceptionalism. For friends it is a matter of political embarrassment; for foes it highlights the double standard and inequality of America's unevenhanded approach to non-proliferation."
—Israeli historian Avner Cohen "The Last Taboo: Israel's Bomb Revisited" Current History - April 2005 (in Michael Collins Piper's The Golem)










Israel’s deathly nukes and Canada’s deafening silence 
 by Brandon Martinez

With all of the recent chatter about the murder of JFK, I am tempted to delve into the subject. In my view, one cannot credibly comment on the matter without reading Michael Collins Piper’s book “Final Judgment”. Piper’s book unravels an encyclopedic array of evidence showcasing Israel’s bloody fingerprints all over the JFK assassination. Israel’s motive for murder, Piper determined, was the president’s staunch opposition to the nuclear arms ambitions of the Zionist state. Kevin Barrett recently noted in a column for Press TV: “Ben Gurion haughtily refused to answer JFK’s letter demanding that Israel abandon its nuclear aspirations. Instead, he resigned. Six months later, JFK was publicly executed. A few years after that, Ben Gurion got his nuclear weapons… and his longed-for war of aggression to steal Jerusalem.”



Iran calls for global nuclear disarmament
Un Moyen-Orient sans nucléaire et sans armes chimiques, c'est pas Israël qui veut ça, c'est la Syrie et l'Iran. Israël a accumulé un important arsenal chimique et nucléaire soi-disant pour assurer sa survie. En voyant Israel faire ça et les menacer en plus, les autres pays qui environnent Israel ont été forcés de se procurer un arsenal eux aussi, pour parer à la menace d'un Israël menaçant et  doté d'armes chimiques et nucléaires.

FLASHBACK: NYTimes Op-Ed Never Appeared in US Edition - Let’s Be Honest About Israel’s Nukes

Center for Public Integrity | The 47-year-old nuclear elephant in the room A growing number of U.S. experts say that feigning ignorance about Israel’s nuclear arsenal creates more trouble than it averts

18 Arab states single out Israel for its nuclear arsenal

Arabs draft resolution on Israel nukes

Nuclear Inspection of Israel by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rejected

UN nuclear assembly rejects Arab anti-Israel bid

L'AIEA n’instaurera pas le contrôle nucléaire sur Israël

Netanyahu praises defeat of Arab-backed resolution on Israel at IAEA

If Israel can ignore the IAEA, why should anyone else listen? 

Don't like that Israel has the bomb? Blame Nixon

“Who Runs America?”—Answer to be Seen in Latest International Atomic Energy Agency Vote

VIDEO - Mark Glenn: Israeli nukes threaten the entire world, not just the Middle East

New York Times: Netanyahu on ‘Messianic Crusade’


NYT: Netanyahu seems 'eager for a fight' with Iran

Netanyahu ‘sabotaging diplomacy,’ NY Times warns Paper calls PM ‘eager for a fight,’ says he may block ‘best chance to establish new relationship’ with Iran following his ridicule at the UN of a 2005 NYT editorial on N. Korea

New York Times criticises Netanyahu's speech to the UN General Assembly 


Netanyahu’s rage at Iran nuclear deal is fueled by 1938 Western betrayal at Munich
For PM and others, Israel is Czechoslovakia, Geneva is Munich, P5+1 are Chamberlain’s heirs and American Jews should now atone for Holocaust silence.
By | Nov. 11, 2013 | 10:58 PM | 6
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, cannot accept any agreement that Iran has agreed to. Conversely, the only nuclear accord that Israel can live with is one that Tehran can’t. Actually, nothing short of complete and utter dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure can convince Israel that the mullahs in Tehran have changed their ways. That Iran has given up its quest for nuclear weapons. That Tehran is no longer pursuing a bomb with which to achieve regional hegemony and to threaten Israel with extinction.
In his book “A Place Among The Nations,” Netanyahu wrote about the Iranian drive for nuclear weapons. In this very context, he noted that a “deep cultural and psychological distortion” of Islamic fundamentalism has turned it into a “cancerous tumor that threatens modern civilization”. You don’t treat cancer by reasoning with it. You need to stop it in its tracks, and then eradicate it altogether.
In Netanyahu’s eyes, Iran’s fanatic regime is no more capable of reversing its raison d’etre than the National Socialists were in Germany or the Bolshevik communists in the Soviet Union. The only realistic way of neutralizing the clear and present danger presented by Iran is by using the methods that worked so well against similar evil tyrannies in the past: subjugation or regime change or both. The Allies vanquished the Nazis by using brute military force, while the United States caused the collapse of the Soviet Union by bringing its overwhelming economic and technological superiority to bear.
It follows, therefore, that any accommodation with the ayatollahs is, by definition, weak-kneed appeasement, a clear indication of Western naiveté, an act of capitulation to rival Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 surrender to Adolf Hitler.
Declarations by Iranian President Hassan Rohani that Iran is not seeking a nuclear bomb are as worthless as Hitler’s signature on Chamberlain’s infamous “piece of paper” in which the two leaders proclaimed “their desire never to go to war with one another again.” And under the surface of U.S. pledges to safeguard Israel’s security one can hear distant echoes of Chamberlain’s blunt words to the British Parliament: “However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account.”
Indeed, Netanyahu’s harsh reaction to reports of the impending agreement in Geneva were but an unrehearsed, gut-instinct rendition of a speech from which he is sure to quote if such a deal is ultimately concluded: “We have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road,” as Winston Churchill told the House of Commons a few days after the Munich Agreement was signed. And as he told Chamberlain: “You were given the choice between dishonor and war. You chose dishonor, but you will have war.”
The analogy may seem contrived, lopsided or farfetched to many and perhaps even most outside observers, but for Netanyahu, indeed for many Israelis, the concept of “Western Betrayal” has a deep and enduring resonance that is pertinent and prominent to this very day. In fact, its impact has probably increased exponentially in recent decades, as the Holocaust has claimed an ever-growing presence in Israel’s educational system, political discourse and national psyche.
The Munich precedent has consistently featured as a staple of Netanyahu’s core beliefs. In “A Place Among the Nations”, written in 1995, Netanyahu devotes significant space to the Hitler-Chamberlain analogy, comparing Israel to pre-War Czechoslovakia, Judea and Samaria to the German-speaking Sudetenland, a generic Arab monolith to Nazi Germany, and the Palestinian claims of human rights abuses and demand for self-determination to the irredentist provocations of the Sudeten Nazis led by Konrad Henlein.
“It is small wonder that like in other anti-Israeli schemes, the Arabs are implementing important chapters from the propaganda strategy of the Nazis,” Netanyahu wrote. “But what is surprising and disappointing is that fact that elitist circles in the West were quick to ‘swallow’ this transparent fraud.”
Unlike Menachem Begin, Netanyahu has made only rare public comparisons between Yasser Arafat and Hitler, but he was far less restrained when it came to the Iranian regime and former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In a 2006 Knesset speech, Netanyahu said that the Iranian president was even worse than the Nazi Fuehrer. "Hitler went out on a world campaign first, and then tried to get nuclear weapons. Iran is trying to get nuclear arms first. Therefore, from that perspective, it is much more dangerous," he said.
And if Iran is Nazi Germany, and its nuclear plans are but an updated version of the Final Solution, then it follows that U.S. Jews are now being given a chance to atone for their self-inflicted silence during the Holocaust. This was the undisguised gist of Netanyahu’s audacious “I will not be silenced” statement this week at the Jewish General Assembly in which he called on American Jews to fight the proposed deal in Geneva: “When the Jewish people were silent on matters relating to our survival, you know what happened. This is different,” he said.  
That leaves U.S. President Barack Obama with a choice of alternatively being cast as history’s ultimate Patsy Chamberlain or as America’s thirty-second president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But this is not your Jewish grandfather’s FDR who saved the American economy from collapse and the world from Fascist domination. This is the FDR who “abandoned the Jews,” who succumbed to the anti-Semites in his midst, whose public image has been slowly evolving in recent years from being a hero of the Jews to a misguided leader who was callous about their tragic fate.
These will be the popular Israeli terms of reference, no matter what is ultimately concluded in a nuclear accord with Iran. Even under much improved stipulations, Netanyahu’s scrutiny of such an agreement will be filtered through a 75-year-old prism and a direct line will be drawn from Geneva to Munich and back.
Follow me on Twitter @ChemiShalev




White House meets Jewish leaders to press for delay in new Iran sanctions

Jewish organizations deny 60-day delay on Iran sanctions push

AIPAC, AJC won’t suspend Iran sanctions lobbying; ADL willing

AIPAC: ‘Absolutely no pause’ in Iran sanctions lobbying

US Jewish groups divided over more Iran sanctions

Israel trying to undermine Iran-US talks

Iran calls for global nuclear disarmament (Un Moyen-Orient sans nucléaire et sans armes chimiques, c'est pas Israël qui veut ça, c'est la Syrie et l'Iran. Israël a accumulé un important arsenal chimique et nucléaire soi-disant pour assurer sa survie. En voyant Israel faire ça et les menacer en plus, les autres pays qui environnent Israel ont été forcés de se procurer un arsenal eux aussi, pour parer à la menace d'un Israël menaçant et doté d'armes chimiques et nucléaires.)

Obama paying ‘lip service’ on Iran strike option, says top MK
 
New book quotes Obama calling Netanyahu 'a pain in the ass'
US president made comment during 2012 US election campaign, Double Down by Mark Halperin and John Heilmann reveals.

Israel surprised by US course of action on Iran, officials say

Israel: "USA Crossed Red Line" Until now, in the Israeli political speech, only Iran could cross red lines. Now, also the USA.
Pour Israël, les USA ont franchi la ligne rouge! Allons-nous vers une guerre entre Israël et les USA, ou encore l'assassinat d'Obama?

Kerry tells senators to disregard Israeli reports on Iran

Obama asks senators to ignore Israel

Israel Lobby Smears Kerry as Anti-Israel, Pro-Hamas; Questions His Conduct of Iran Talks

Republicans blast Kerry’s 'anti-Israeli' Senate briefing against new Iran sanctions

VIDEO - Presstv: MARK GLENN: Israel seeks Iran’s total destruction

Israel wages media campaign against prospective American-Iranian deal

Iranians angry and bewildered after French (FABIUS) torpedo Geneva nuclear entente

Thierry Meyssan à propos de l’attitude de Laurent Fabius lors des négociations sur le nucléaire iranien

Meyer Habib a-t-il fait pression sur Laurent Fabius pour durcir les négociations avec l’Iran

The Endless Cycle of Hate: French Jewish Parliamentarian Threatens War over Iran

Why France Sank an Iran Nuke Deal

DAVIDDUKE.COM-The Truth about Iran, Atom Bombs and the Jewish Lobby

MSNBC: Israel Sends Delegation To White House (More Likely Congress) To Derail Talks With Iran

Kerry: Putting More Pressure on Iran Won't Work (Ça c'est nouveau de la part du gouv US, c'est une nouvelle position vis-à-vis du nucléaire iranien. Ils disent maintenant: "plus de sanctions ça va nous mener en guerre et on ne veut pas la guerre"!)

Sheftel: "US Secretary of State is the enemy of the Jews"
 
There is no credible US military option, and 9 other pointers from Jerusalem As has been publicly unmistakable for the past 10 days, Israel and its key ally the United States are deeply at odds over the terms of an interim deal that may well be concluded shortly between the P5+1 countries and Iran.

Kerry is Persona non grata: After betraying Israel, can Kerry be trusted as 'loyal' mediator in peace talks with Palestinians?

The Lobby vs. Obama

AIPAC Says Either Obama Backs Down on Iran Or Its War

Israeli Minister Suggests Israel Will Attack Iran If U.S. Gets ‘A Bad Deal’

White House: Israel’s all-or-nothing proposal on Iran would lead to war

US has ‘folded’ on Iran, Israeli political sources charge
The US folded during negotiations in Geneva with Iran over its nuclear project, political sources in Israel charged on Saturday. They added that Israel was stunned when it learned over the weekend that a version of the deal being proposed was far worse than it believed.

Key Republican compares Obama push to delay Iran sanctions to appeasement of Nazis before WWII

The Israel Lobby Is Killing Iran Negotiations

Obama and Kerry's betrayal of 'never again'
What President Obama means when he says he has Israel's back is that he will partner with Israel's enemies behind its back, giving succor to a regime that operates against both Israel and the U.S.

AIPAC 'threatens many US senators' over Iran sanctions bill

The truth about Israel's secret nuclear arsenal


Israel: "Worse than a Nuclear Bomb"
Paraphrasing President Obama, Netanyahu said "Today the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world."

Isolated Israel, angry with US, denounces Iran deal

US Official: Netanyahu ‘Desperate’ in Opposition to Iran Deal

Olmert: Netanyahu tried to interfere in U.S. elections

Olmert: PM has ‘declared war on the US government’

Netanyahu: I will not ‘shut up’ when Israel’s interests are at stake

Administration dismissed Israeli intel on Iran’s nuke program as ‘misleading’

Obama rejecting calls from Netanyahu amid tension over Iran

Netanyahu says NPT is useless in Middle East BULLSHIT

Syria opposition leader praises Benjamin Netanyahu ÇA C'EST UN NOUVEAU CLASSIQUE!

Benjamin Netanyahu Tells AIPAC To Put Its Head In a Noose

Minister: Israel doesn't recognize Iran's right to enrich uranium

ISRAELI HAWKS RESISTING DEALS To Benjamin Netanyahu and his Israeli stooges, any deal with Iran is “a bad deal.”

'A New York Times reporter in Israel is invariably called an anti-Semite or self-hating Jew'

Le grand dilemme étasunien. Faut-il sacrifier la Syrie ou Israël ?

NeoCon 'reality-creating': Paper published in 1982 by Israeli journalist describes exactly what's going on in Iraq, Syria and across the Middle East



Haaretz--Total, unmitigated defeat
President Obama had to choose between dishonor and war, and he chose dishonor. Now we will have war. He has dishonored US allies in the Middle East, including Israel and the Persian Gulf states, by abandoning their security concerns regarding a nuclear Iran by believing that appeasing Iran is the only way to avoid war.
These words are those of Churchill after the Munich Agreement was signed, when Britain and France believed that handing Czechoslovakia to Hitler was the only way to save the world from another war. It is regarded as the shameful culmination of the Allies refusal to confront Nazi aggression and gave Hitler what he wanted in exchange for his verbal promise of "peace in our time" as Chamberlain called it.After the Munich Agreement, Churchill gave a speech in the House of Commons on the future consequences to Europe and the world of the agreement which he called “total and unmitigated defeat." Following the Geneva agreement, these warnings ring as true now as they did then.
W
e cannot consider the abandonment of US allies only in the light of what happened the last few weeks. This agreement in Geneva is the culmination of the uninterrupted retreat of US power under Obama for the last five years in the Middle East. For five years, the president has been betraying Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE but accommodating enemies and tyrants like Syria’s Assad, Iran’s Khamenei, and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. (...)

US will not be trusted again Obama, Kerry and other White House official’s panicky statements during the last two weeks that threatening to impose additional sanctions on Iran will be a "march to war" reassured the Iranians that Obama was desperate for any deal. US officials' defamatory attacks against legitimate Israeli concerns about a potential bad deal by calling them "war mongers" and keeping many of the details of the negotiations from them, as well as US reluctance to attack Syria, has told the Israelis that there is no longer any credible US military option against Iran.

Israel is not Czechoslovakia. Israel was abandoned by its ally but it is not broken and will never be silent. Israel is a nuclear power and can attack Iran on its own like it did against the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear reactors. The only obstacle is that Obama has tied Israeli hands for the next six months of negotiations. By then Iran will be a month away from building a bomb.

Knowing that Obama will never attack Iran militarily and will do his best to delay Israel from attacking Iran in time will have disastrous consequences to the Middle East.(...)

Haaretz--Obama and Kerry's betrayal of 'never again'
What President Obama means when he says he has Israel's back is that he will partner with Israel's enemies behind its back, giving succor to a regime that operates against both Israel and the U.S.
By | Nov. 24, 2013 | 11:03 PM
“Never again” was the statement Menachem Begin made after sending a wave of F-16s against Iraq’s nuclear reactor. "There won't be another Holocaust in History. Never again."
No such language could have been used by President Obama in respect of the agreement reached in Geneva. In plain English, the best that could be said of it is that — for the time being — the mullahs can keep their crematoria, so to speak, on standby.
That may sound harsh. But feature the fact that President Obama has been saying for years that he has Israel’s back. What this turns out to mean is that he will treat with Israel’s enemies behind Israel’s back, enter a partnership with them on terms to which the freely elected government in Jerusalem objects, and in boasting about the betrayal declare that Israel has good reason to be skeptical of Iran’s intentions.
The intentions about which this deal raises questions are Obama’s — and not just his. The concerns of those of us who opposed the elevation of John Kerry to Secretary of State go way beyond Tehran. This, after all, is not the first time Kerry went to Europe to treat with an American enemy and emerged to put the gloss on the enemy’s position. He began his political career by traveling to Paris in 1970 to meet with envoys of communist Vietnam.
It took fewer than five years between Kerry’s trip to Paris as a young reserve officer in the Navy and the decision of the 94th United States Congress to abandon free Vietnam. People tend to forget the particulars. There were no American combat troops in Vietnam when the Congress voted to cut off all aid to Saigon. It just decided to pivot out of Indochina and move on, ignoring the pleas of President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger. The devil took the hindmost.
We’re a long way from that in respect of Israel. But President Obama clearly understood what he was doing when he picked Kerry as state secretary. And picked, in Charles Hagel, a defense secretary who had also turned against the war in Vietnam. A lot of patriotic Americans turned against the war in Vietnam. All the more reason to remember the consequences. The last negotiation for which Kerry plumped plunged a population the size of Eastern Europe’s into the darkness of communism.
Neither Kerry nor Obama were alive at the time of Munich. But the catastrophe of 1938 was well marked on Sunday by Israeli MK Moshe Feiglin, who called the handshake at Geneva this weekend “the Iranian version of the Munich Agreement.” He noted that like the doughty Czechs in 1938, Israel was not a party to the parley. “Israel today watches from the sidelines,” is the way he put it.
One could but add that there was one difference between Geneva today and Munich in 1938. The envoys of the free European governments knew deep down that they had blundered at Munich. “Imbeciles” was the word Prime Minister Daladier of France famously muttered when, on his arrival back at Paris, he was cheered by throngs of his countrymen. Where is the self-awareness in the Western leadership today?
We are but 15 years after India stunned the world by disclosing that it had an A-bomb. Yet “after spending billions of dollars,” the New York Times spumed in its astonishment, our spies “inexplicably gave President Clinton no warning that India was ready to test nuclear weapons.” It and the rest of the Left was almost inchoate with surprise when the North Koreans betrayed their assurances in respect of their own atomic bomb.
It is too soon to tell what the Republicans in Washington will make of the deal in Geneva. But there is a faction that reckons the problem in Iran is not only the weapons but the regime, which for years has been operating against us, surreptitiously in combat, the same as it has against Israel. This faction reckons that Reagan would have long since either found a way to bolster Iran’s democratic opposition or helped found a government-in-exile of Iran that could have levied a revolution. That is the surest way to put the “never” in the phrase “never again.”
Seth Lipsky is editor of The New York Sun. He was a foreign editor and a member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, the founding editor of The Forward and its editor from 1990 to 2000. His books include “The Citizen’s Constitution: An Annotated Guide,” and most recently “The Rise of Abraham Cahan.”




Sur ce blog:

Inversion accusatoire: Israël furieux que les États-Unis n'aient pas étouffé la nouvelle concernant les bombardements israéliens en Syrie

Devoir de mémoire, devoir de faire tomber l'axe Iran-Syrie-Liban

"Je larguerais Israël demain matin!" dit au Congrès le professeur Michael Scheuer, ancien directeur de l'unité anti-Ben Laden à la CIA

Détenteur d'un important arsenal nucléaire et chimique, Israël est responsable de la course à l'armement nucléaire et chimique au Proche-Orient... Qu'attendent nos chères démocraties pour condamner cet état terroriste partisan d'al-Qaïda et le compter parmi leurs ennemis?

Les médiats juifs tels que le New York Times dissimulent les efforts des groupes juifs pour pousser l'Occident en guerre en Syrie pour lsraël

NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL - PLUS JAMAIS DE GUERRES POUR ISRAËL! Prévisible false flag israélien et pressions sionistes pour envoyer l'Occident se battre pour les intérêts d'Israël

Un autre grand comique juif, Sheldon Adelson, qui s'autoproclame "le juif le plus riche du monde", appelle à bombarder l'Iran avec du nucléaire, donnant raison à Jack Straw

Jimmy Carter révèle qu'Israel a 150 armes nucléaires

Les médias juifs désignent Obama comme bouc émissaire du scandale d'écoute électronique par la NSA, pour faire pression sur lui et son administration afin que l'option militaire soit envisagée dès maintenant en Syrie et en Iran

Après JFK et Obama, au tour de l'Onu de demander à Israël d'ouvrir ses installations nucléaires aux inspections

La piste israélienne n'est plus ignorée dans les ouvrages de référence sur JFK, panique des néocons dans les médias (National Review, Washington Free Beacon) - Extrait de la fin du livre "The Letters of John F. Kennedy"

Les États-Unis semblent en avoir marre de devoir toujours couvrir Israël et prendre le blâme pour ses activités criminelles, lèvent le voile sur l'espionnage international israélien. Israël a-t-elle vraiment besoin d'épier la planète entière comme elle a besoin de son arsenal nucléaire et de son "Option Samson", simplement pour "survivre"?

Le jeu des devinettes: qui donc pourrait bien s'être mis en tête qu'il faut briser à tout prix l'unité des peuples nordiques, germano-perses, celtes et scandinaves, c'est-à-dire indo-européens, autrement dit Aryens?

Morsi avait tenté un rapprochement avec la Russie et l'Iran, Israël soutient le coup et la répression militaire en Égypte

NYTimes: sans ennemi extérieur à combattre, Israël est voué à l'éclatement

NYTimes: 16 agences US de renseignement confirment que l’Iran n’a pas la bombe // Le général Dempsey refuse d’être complice d'une attaque israélienne

Maîtres du monde, maîtres de l'humour: Netanyahou accuse le New York Times et Haaretz de donner le ton de la campagne anti-Israël à travers le monde

Un autre grand comique, propriétaire et éditeur d'un journal juif américain, soutient qu'il ne prônait pas vraiment l'assassinat d'Obama

Les massmédias juifs antijuifs? Le directeur des organisations internationales pour le congrès juif mondial et l'ex directeur de la branche états-unienne du WJC, Shai Franklin: "oui il existe un lobby juif"

Les massmédias anti-juifs? Netanyahou caricaturé le jour de la mémoire de l'Holocauste

Les massmédias anti-juifs? Ils disent où va l'argent des universités

Les massmédias anti-juifs? Un Tweet d'une correspondante de la BBC à Washington réfère au pouvoir et à l'argent du lobby juif

Les massmédias antisémites? Le Washington Post rapporte que le virus Flame serait, comme Stuxnet, une cyber-arme us-israélienne contre l'Iran

Le réseau criminalisé Netanyahou-Adelson-Romney

Inversion accusatoire : l'empire israélite accuse l'Iran d'être "la plus grave menace pour la paix dans le monde"

Le jeu des comparaisons: des ressemblances entre la période actuelle et celle d'avant l'accession d'Hitler au pouvoir