BS: Netanyahu

Subject: BS: Netanyahu
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 05:36 AM

US members have been very quiet on Mr Netanyahu's speech to Congress, any views and what effect will it have on the forthcoming election?

What are Mrs Clintons views for example?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/world/middleeast/netanyahu-congress-iran-israel-speech.html?_r=0

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 05:59 AM

When asking for views it is usually common to let other people know yours first. Otherwise they may think you have some sort of hidden agenda waiting to trap them.

Not sure why you are asking for Mrs Clinton's views on here. I don't think she is a contributor and I am not sure if any Mudcatters are privy to what she thinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 07:49 AM

"What are Mrs Clinton's views"?

What an odd question? Unless of course you are the sort of person who pre judges others based on some irrational thoughts as to your opinion of them.

Although as Akenaton lives in Scotland and claims to be a member of SNP, yet dismisses equality as a liberal plot, perhaps I too could show my prejudice and wonder what Akenaton thinks of his leader's speech this week claiming that equality is the key to prosperity?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 08:39 AM

Sic him lads.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 08:43 AM

What Muskie and Dave just said - only to add that, hopefully, his arrogant declarations in Congress (beautifully summed up by a cartoon in this morning's Irish Times showing Nessie the Yahoo carrying a protest banner saying "Ban THEIR Bomb) will lead to the U.S. thinking twice before using their U.N. veto to prevent Israeli war crimes being tried at the International Criminal Court.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 08:45 AM

As Mrs Clinton will in all probability, be the next President of the US, I would be interested in her views on this very important issue ...for Americans.

President Obama is at present keeping Mr N at arms length and encouraging dialogue with Iran.....this is a huge "Sea change" in American politics, but Mrs Clinton has always been more pro Israeli and rather hawkish regarding the Palestine/ Israeli question.

I come here to learn and inform rather than make unfunny jokes or provoke nastiness.....I suggest you do likewise.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 08:49 AM

Jim....you have provided an interesting view, so why do you agree with the dynamic duo?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 08:55 AM

"why do you agree with the dynamic duo"
Because they sum up my opinion of you - that you have made up your mind on things and are not the slightest interested in what we believe unless we agree with you, which pretty well goes for your band of brothers.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 08:57 AM

They seem to think that I have some sort of hidden agenda regarding Mr N, or want to talk about the SNP and equality????? :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 09:01 AM

I really opened the thread to get the views of some of our US members, who I find a lot more forthright and genuinely interesting than your friends....to be honest.

You will no doubt be horrified to hear that I fully agree with some of your views, I'm sure that at some point you must have been a political radical :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST,puzzled
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 09:15 AM

"Not sure why you are asking for Mrs Clinton's views on here. I don't think she is a contributor and I am not sure if any Mudcatters are privy to what she thinks."

Since when has that troubled the Mudcat faithful?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 09:20 AM

Anything in the news about world events is purely for entertainment value, to reassure us that we're an informed electorate and to shape our opinions in preparation for what's happening next. We can only guess about what's really going on by looking at maps of pipeline routes and oil fields.

In the US, it's long been standard for the president's party to appear to support current US foreign policy and for the other party to want to impeach him for it. After an election, they reverse those roles. Israel has always been portrayed as the darling child or cute dummy who nonetheless habitually misbehaves against daddy or the ventriloquist. Now the powers that be seem to be trying to combine those two acts, so that Israel is the darling only of the opposition party and is the nemesis of the current president.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 09:27 AM

You forgot to mention AIPAC, The arch-Zionist elephant in the room (that room being the Oval Office). While they have their claws in US politicians you can forget any talk of democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 09:27 AM

That's VERY cynical guest!.....was your grandfather a Scot by any chance?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 09:27 AM

Issues, ake, issues. Not personalities. I have addressed the issue that you have not given us your view and that it is not likely that anyone on here will have intimate knowledge of Clinton's views. For that you attack me. Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 09:32 AM

There ARE people on here with intimate knowledge of Mrs Clintons views.    I did not start this thread to give MY view, I wish to be informed as the information available in our media is scant to say the least.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 09:40 AM

I agree with Dave fully about the opening post. I also think we should challenge, every time, anyone who puts links up without comment, whatever the issue. As for this matter, Mrs Clinton, just like every other president (if she gets in), will have her views on the Middle East moulded for her by pragmatism and expediency, not principles. Oh, and by AIPAC. Any US politician that doesn't fall in line with that is toast. In the land of the free, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 09:46 AM

Why the fixation on AIPAC Shaw when there are over thirteen thousand government lobbyists in the US or you believe that old shibboleth that Jews control the government along with the banks and newspapers.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 09:51 AM

You always agree fully with Dave, Steve.
I would expect nothing less of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST,cynical
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 09:53 AM

Steve: I did include AIPAC. That's part of the ventriloquist act. In reality, Israel is Airstrip Two. As part of the act, we're given to believe that US policy toward Israel is shaped by large campaign contributions from Jews. That's absurd. Other value is no doubt received in exchange for at least some of those contributions, but US foreign policy is shaped around non-sentimental objectives, and Israel plays its role in that policy. I assume that a corresponding act is presented to the public in Israel to try to distract them from the reality.

Akenaton: No Scots that I know of.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST,puzzled
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 09:56 AM

"was your grandfather a Scot by any chance?"

Not that I know of.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 10:23 AM

his arrogant declarations in Congress

I think you meant to say Netanyahu's lies.

Netanyahu is a putz, always was a putz, and always will be a putz.

...The Boehner-Netanyahu alliance has done something that larger foreign policy crises have not: It has led to the open distinction between support for the State of Israel and allegiance to politicians who lead it.

"It's a tipping-point moment," said Rabbi John Rosove, an outspoken liberal and head of Temple Israel of Hollywood. "It's no longer the Israeli government, right or wrong. The highest form of patriotism and loyalty is to criticize from a place of love."

Article Here

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 10:29 AM

"You always agree fully with Dave, Steve."
You always agree with Rabid Keith - I expect nothing MORE of you.
You once said that mass-murderer Breivik was saying things worth listening to
We can pick our friends, but not our relatives, as the old saying goes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 10:30 AM

What's a putz Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 10:30 AM

Not cynical enough, Guest. First, I wish to point out that AIPAC has many members who are not Jewish. It's a pro-Israel lobby. Second, it's about more than donations. It's also about aggressive lobbying (fine) and briefing against people who publicly criticise Israel for any reason at all (not fine). AIPAC has the influence and resources to prevent people from getting elected. Yet no-one elects them. You're being rather kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 10:37 AM

I do not always agree with Dave. Ask Musket why don't you. I still haven't forgiven Dave for losing two bingo balls in that car park. We never stop arguing about it. And his silence over my telling Betty Swollox that he's going to be providing her with "perks" so that I can pay her less than the minimum wage speaks volumes, frankly. A running sore.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 10:41 AM

Why the fixation on AIPAC Shaw when there are over thirteen thousand government lobbyists in the US or you believe that old shibboleth that Jews control the government along with the banks and newspapers.

Absurd post. Do call me Steve, Mr Angry. What's a "government lobbyist" by the way? And you mentioned Jews. I didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 10:41 AM

Jim, your problem is personalities, you just cant handle them.
This is not a battlefield, it's a discussion forum.
Keith and I disagree on most things political, and agree on a few things social, but I like Keith even taking into account our differences.

I think it's called social interaction?

Shouting and printing your views in blood red type does not make this social interaction any easier.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 10:42 AM

"There ARE people on here with intimate knowledge of Mrs Clintons views. "

I don't know of any... and she has said very little recently.

I have disliked Netanyahu since the first Gulf War. He is an extreme hawk and would have everyone at each other's throats if it served his/Israel's purposes. I can only assume he intends to make Israel the only relevant power in the area, and annex more & more territory, using 'security' as his justification.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 10:43 AM

Putz: look it up HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 10:47 AM

...annex more & more territory, using 'security' as his justification.

Kinda reminds one of the old "lebensraum" business, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 10:48 AM

Ironically, Bill, what he offers Israel with this latest spat is far less security. The Israeli people deserve better. I hope this blatant bit of electioneering (going overseas to show your big cojones whilst your own domestic policies flag: time-honoured ploy or what?) doesn't hoodwink the electors at home.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 10:57 AM

"....annex more & more territory"

What territory has Israel annexed?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 10:58 AM

"Jim, your problem is personalities, you just cant handle them."
I don't know any of you people - I detest your hatred of minorities, of other cultures, of homosexuality.... and I abhor the idea that you are prepared to use this forum for your bigotry when it a fact that if you made many of your statements away from the safety of the net you would lay yourselves open to prosecution.
I don't exactly admire the way you refuse to respond to points people make, avoiding having to do so by putting them down to "personalities".
You are of a type - not very bright and totally lacking in humanity in any shape or form.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 11:09 AM

"....annex more & more territory"

What territory has Israel annexed?

Barking. And I mean the adjective, not the borough in East London.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 11:45 AM

Hi Bill, I agree about the nature of Mr N, but he has similarities to President Putin, seeing himself surrounded by warlike enemies.
Israel and her neighbours is a complicated issue, stemming from lack of forethought in the 1940's.....no black and white in this argument.

My post was more about the effect on US voting intentions, given the distance between President Obama and Mrs Clinton which has become apparent. Big change in policy as a response to IS, or is it as Guest says, just a bit of cynical electioneering?

Off out till later but would be interested in your views.
I know at least one member who is a family friend.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 11:48 AM

Greg that was in Hebrew....unless I wasn't working it properly.
Still don't know what a putz is??? :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 11:52 AM

"Putz, a Yiddish vulgarism for penis"

Wikipedia

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 11:53 AM

"Barking. And I mean the adjective, not the borough in East London."

Try again.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 12:10 PM

I think you can answer your own question, and reset your cookie so everyone can see who you are, although the Secretary of the Israeli Aggression League doesn't need to say who he is, it's rather obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 12:43 PM

Netanyahu's performance was for his own domestic audience, he is about to go into an election and needs to show that he potentially has at least got tacit support if not absolute backing of US Congress, everybody knows that he and the President don't get along, but this current President is a dead duck with a Congress he cannot control and the next US Presidential election scheduled for Tuesday, November 8, 2016.

With a US Presidential election and more importantly selection of various Presidential candidates for both major parties coming up then I would very much doubt if any of the front runners would be sticking their heads above the parapet and commenting on the detail of this speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 12:45 PM

You weren't working it properly Ake, so here's the C&P from it:

"putz: jerk, fool, simpleton (vulg. penis)"

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 12:58 PM

Israel is a bad neighbor, and when they are the only one in the region with The Bomb, it is not surprising that someone else in the region wants to influence their behavior by developing their own.

Bill D can speak to this well for all of us "US liberals" - the Israelis encroach on Palestinian lands routinely, and for every step closer to a peace agreement or a two-state settlement, they slide two steps back when the zealots put in more new settlements and when walls are built around prime Palestinian orchards and more. I also agree with his remarks re: Hillary. She hasn't said much (but at times she is more hawkish than I like). It would be stupid to insert herself into this conversation and she isn't stupid.

A note to those who would start calling names - being opposed to Israel's politicians and governmental behavior is not being anti-Semitic. It's being rational.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 01:07 PM

There ARE people on here with intimate knowledge of Mrs Clintons views.

I doubt it but can always be proved wrong. I suspect that there are people who believe they know the views of politicians but they only know what the politicians and press tell them.

If there is anyone on here who actually knows her and is privy to her thoughts I will, of course, apologise. Provided that they share those thoughts with us. Think there is any chance?

You, ake, must have an interest or you would not have asked. If you have an interest you must have some views. Why not share them with everyone rather than just ask for the opinion of others? It is only polite when asking for something that you have already given something yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 01:13 PM

Netanyahu's performance was for his own domestic audience, he is about to go into an election and needs to show that he potentially has at least got tacit support if not absolute backing of US Congress

Absolutely. But he went to Congress knowing full well that he would be seen on telly at home getting a standing ovation or six from a sycophantic right-wing Congress packed, fortuitously, with backwoodsmen. And he knew that it would temporarily take the pressure off him over his inept handling of the domestic abuse and housing crises at home. It's what statesmen always do when there's trouble at home and there's an election in sight. Go and kick a foreigner or two on their soil. Even better, rattle your sabre or start a war. Orwell suggested it and Thatcher and Blair did it and Bush did it. Support from Congress for Israel is eternal. There are plenty of knives being quietly sharpened in the wings to make sure of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 01:21 PM

Indeed, SRS -- but bear in mind nevertheless the 2005 definition of antisemitism by the EUMC {The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia}, regarding 'the practice of disguised antisemitism masquerading as legitimate criticism of Israel'.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 01:22 PM

Thatcher, Blair and Bush started what wars Mr. Shaw?

Both the USA, Russia and the UN stand as guarantors of Israel's sovereignty.

Israel has no universally recognised and accepted borders. The Palestinian Authority wanders the globe talking about how they are seeking a Two State Solution but for some reason cannot show anybody their proposed borders for these two states - there is a very good reason for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 01:23 PM

the Israelis encroach on Palestinian lands routinely

I agree with the rest of your post, but, if I were one of the many Israelis who find these incursions into Palestine totally unpalatable, I'd be a bit cross for being included in "the Israelis". There are many voices in Israel which give the lie to the Israeli people's all being in it together.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 01:24 PM

"the Israelis encroach on Palestinian lands routinely"

The Israelis build housing developments on land that was owned by Jews prior to 1948 or was purchased by them after 1967. There is no border designating so called "Palestinian" land, there is an armistice line which was drawn up as a clause of the truce to end the war in 1967 with the stipulation, agreed to by both parties, that the final border would be determined by negotiation. Do you support the PA's policy of Jewish apartheid for a future Palestinian state?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 01:30 PM

Starting wars? Yeah, sure, it takes two to tango, innit. But the Falklands wasn't a war till the task force got there. And, remind me, who struck the first blows in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 01:34 PM

Israel has no universally recognised and accepted borders

And why would that be? Nothing to do with successive Israeli regimes refusing to acquiesce in UN resolutions, supported in that by routine US vetoes?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 01:35 PM

"...for every step closer to a peace agreement or a two-state settlement, they slide two steps..."

Israel accepted, and the Palestinians rejected, the two-state solution in 1938 and 1948.  It offered land for peace in 1967, only to be greeted with the three "no's:" no peace, no negotiation and no recognition. It offered generous proposals in 2000-01, 2008, and most recently in 2014, none of which was accepted.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 02:04 PM

"Starting wars? Yeah, sure, it takes two to tango, innit. But the Falklands wasn't a war till the task force got there. And, remind me, who struck the first blows in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

Shocking considering that that comes from someone responsible for educating children.

1: "Yeah, sure, it takes two to tango, innit." WTF what age you? - time you started acting it. Or is dumbing down and and aping illiterate teenagers too "kool" for you to resist? In your position you are supposed to be setting an example FFS.

2: "the Falklands wasn't a war till the task force got there." - Ehmmm NO, the Falklands was a war the second the Argentines landed on British sovereign territory in order to impose their rule on a free population against their will at the point of a gun.

3: "who struck the first blows in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

As far as Afghanistan goes Osama bin Laden supported to the hilt by the Taliban "government" of Afghanistan issued a fatwa in 1996 and then repeated and expanded it in 1998 that declared war on every single American, man woman and child declaring open season on them throughout the world. Al-Qaeda at Osama bin Laden's behest then launched an attack on mainland USA, an attack that had been organised, planned and financed under the direction of Mohammad Atef Al-Qaeda's Chief of Operations from inside Afghanistan (Atef was killed in Afghanistan in a US drone strike in November 2001).

With Iraq, Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime governing Iraq signed up to undertake some specific undertakings in order to end hostilities in March 1991 at Safwan. Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athist regime failed to comply with that ceasefire agreement.

So I will ask you again Mr. Shaw what wars did Thatcher, Blair and Bush start?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: pdq
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 02:08 PM

The current list of countries in the Arab World numbers 22.

In the West, we are usually shown a map where Israel exists and the West Bank and Gaza are lumped together is place called Palestine.

In the Arab World, Israel does not exist. Gaza and what we like to think of as Israel are joined in a fictitious state called Palestine.

The Arab World now has almost 400 million people. Both Iran and Turkey are not Arab, but their populations push the number of Israel-hating Muslims, just in the Middle East, to well over 1/2 billion.

Israel has just 6 million Jews. They have a lot to worry about.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 02:55 PM

I don't wear that at all. There is little talk of destroying Israel. Israel's fate is in the hands of its own leaders. Netanyahu is ditching the progress the west has made with Iran. No- one in Iran is bothering much about Israel at the moment and Iran is further away from a bomb than it was two years ago. We seriously need to stop demonising those hundreds of millions of people you refer to. The vast majority of them are like you and me. They want peace, prosperity and security. Israel's leaders can help by playing fair with their neighbours.

As for you, Teribus, the more childish of us round here are best exemplified by those who fail to keep civil tongues in their heads. And do keep calm, my dear. Your head sounds like it's exploding.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 03:09 PM

So Netanyahu is not the only one against the deal:

"Delivering the Tehran Friday Prayer, hardline cleric Ahmad Khatami took a tough line on the ongoing nuclear talks: "The 5+1 Powers, especially the US, intended to deceive the Iranian team of negotiators by trying to clinch a two-phased agreement instead of a single-phased deal."

This the place where every Friday since 1979 they have been chanted "Death to America, Death to Israel"

So I will ask you again Mr. Shaw what wars did Thatcher, Blair and Bush start?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 03:40 PM

........little talk of destroying Israel...... well, it is reassuring that any threats made in the past by israels enemies are now forgotten....

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 03:40 PM

"Arab nations have joined Israel in expressing concern over the emerging details of a US-led international nuclear deal with Iran, indicating in private talks with US officials that they are worried about the apparent terms of the agreement, the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.

Leaders of Sunni states such as Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia fear a bad deal with Tehran would allow it, with the removal of sanctions, to become a nuclear threshold state, the WSJ reported. They say it could also lead to a nuclear arms race in the region.

Arab officials have also reportedly held discussions with the US over the possibility of Washington placing their countries under its "nuclear umbrella" — a guarantee to take military, even nuclear, action to protect an allied state under certain circumstances."

Arab nations said deeply worried by Iran nuke deal

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 04:06 PM

This was discussed on the Diane Rehm Show today in the first hour. Panelists discussed the whole "Iran wants a bomb, Israel has one" conundrum, and felt that if Iraq got a bomb then Turkey and Saudi Arabia would also want them. Because of Iran, not because of Israel.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 04:26 PM

........little talk of destroying Israel...... well, it is reassuring that any threats made in the past by israels enemies are now forgotten....

Not forgotten, but wouldn't it be nice if what's in the past could be persuaded to stay in the past. Sorry to inflict my Christian values on you, pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 04:56 PM

There is little benefit in another re-run of the Israeli/Palestinian argument, we've been through it a thousand times and a hundred threads.
As I said earlier it was a historic mistake made by people who simply were not up to the job and thousands have died or lived in refugee camps ever since.....both Israelis and Palestinians have been pawns of the great powers, but power is now in flux...expect exciting times.

I would really have appreciated a little input concerning the effect of Mr Netanyahu's speech on American voting intentions....leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 05:07 PM

Ake, go listen to that radio link I posted. It is an hour long discussion with journalists, think tank members, with calls in from the listeners during the program. You might find it interesting.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 05:13 PM

Thanks SRS.....I had heard of Diane Rheims, but haven't had time to read your link, just home.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 05:41 PM

'the practice of disguised antisemitism masquerading as legitimate criticism of Israel'.

So, MG- Rabbi John Rosove is an antisemite in your book, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 05:47 PM

They have a lot to worry about.

Israel (not "the Jews") sure does, PeeDee- mos of it brought on itself.

what wars did Thatcher, Blair and Bush start?

T-Bird, dod you mean that as a joke, or a rhetorical question?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 06:10 PM

Certainly got me scratching me head, Greg. Thatcher, Bush, Blair...such pacifists... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 06:20 PM

Some interesting views on the face off between Israel and Iran SRS, but almost nothing on the effect of the speech on the principle Democratic candidates, or their likely direction of travel.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 06:52 PM

So tell me Mr. Shaw what wars did Thatcher, Blair and Bush START? No need to scratch your head it was after all yourself who stated that they HAD STARTED wars so tell us all what wars:

Certainly NOT the Falklands which was the direct result of Argentine aggression so that gets Thatcher off the hook

Certainly NOT Afghanistan which was the direct result of an attack on mainland USA.

Certainly NOT Iraq which was the direct result of Iraq's failure to comply with the agreed terms and conditions of a UN ratified ceasefire agreement (UN Security Council Resolution 687)

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 07:23 PM

The Khomenist regime must be wiped off the map.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 07:31 PM

All three total bollocks. The Falklands were walked over by Argentina. Not a war until Maggie started one. No-one from Afghanistan attacked the US on 9-11. Iraq was attacked on the bogus basis that it had WMDs which it did not have and that it harboured terrorists which it did not. Why don't you write a fairy story book? You're a bloody expert when it comes to fantasy history.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 07:35 PM

By the way, Teribus, if you're so keen on nations complying with UN resolutions, why do you let Israel off the hook? Just asking...

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 07:35 PM

Thatcher didn't start wars - she supported thugs who did
She befriended mass murderer Pinochet, helped get him off facing being tried for the torture, rape and massacre of thousands of his opponents and described him as being a hero of democracy
Care to comment -no/ Didn't think so.
Blair and Bush created the situation that now prevails in the Middle East which has lead to the death of many thousands of people - all in pursuit of oil
If it hadn't been for the shaky democracy that prevails in the West, both would have bene put on trial for their crimes.
"Netanyahu" is a serial war crimial, as have been several Israeli leaders before him.
Not only is he guilty of mass, he is now attempting to abolish the International Criminal Court with the aid of the U.S., which means that there will be no way of trying crimes such as those being presently carried out by Isis.
Funny old world!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST,cynical
Date: 04 Mar 15 - 09:33 PM

Netanyahu told Congress that if the US won't invade Iran, Israel will do it alone. So his speech was mostly directed at Iran, as more threats about what will happen to them if they don't stop trying to undermine the petrodollar.

Akenaton: Things like this don't affect US elections. Americans vote on the basis of a candidate's position on abortion or gay marriage. They support wars if the president at the time is the guy they voted for, and they oppose wars when the other guy is president.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 03:25 AM

GUEST cynical, is there no one in US politics capable of waking them up?
I think perhaps the US electorate give their "representatives" a little too much respect.
There does seem to be a schism appearing within both parties concerning Iran?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Musket
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 03:43 AM

I am rather appalled by the post by Michael saying that if your criticise Israeli aggression you are anti semitic.

Bollocks.

Large, veiny, wrinkly bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 04:09 AM

"The Falklands were walked over by Argentina."

In much the same way as the Golan Heights, Sinai, Gaza and the West Bank were walked over by Israel? So what's right for the Goose is right for the Gander? Well as far as Netanyahu, Israel and settlements go that seems to settles that - it is apparently alright to "walk over" things and take possession of them according to our secondary school master - What an example you set Mr. Shaw.

As far as the attacks of 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2001 go. Al-Qeada claimed responsibility for all of them and during that time Al-Qaeda were based in Afghanistan, protected by the Taliban in return for hard currency and Al-Qaeda assistance in the the ongoing civil war in Afghanistan against the Northern Alliance and in October 2001 the USA took action, not by invading Afghanistan but by assisting and giving support to the Northern Alliance - care to tell me how you start a war in October 2011 that has already been underway since November 1994?

Independent of one another the Joint House Security Committee and all 19 of the USA's intelligence and security agencies identified Iraq as posing the greatest threat to the USA in the Spring of 2002, prompting George W. Bush to go to the UN to demand enforcement of UN Resolution 687. Actions subsequently taken had nothing to do with Iraq having WMD, that was the myth and total misrepresentation fed to the public via extremely poor reporting by MSM which was largely anti-Bush because of the result of the 2000 election and anti-war in general. Had people actually listened or read what was said by the principals instead of reading some second hand account of what some reporter thought or was told they had said then the myth about Iraq having WMD would have been shown exactly for what it was. The plain truth was that nobody knew for certain and that was writ large in the UNSCOM Reports that formed the basis of all intelligence evaluations presented to the UN, to Congress and to the House of Commons:

"As is evident from this report, Iraq did not provide the full cooperation it promised on 14 November 1998.

In addition, during the period under review, Iraq initiated new forms of restrictions upon the Commission's work. Amongst the Commission's many concerns about this retrograde step is what such further restrictions might mean for the effectiveness of long-term monitoring activities.

In spite of the opportunity presented by the circumstances of the last month, including the prospect of a comprehensive review, Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in either the fields of disarmament or accounting for its prohibited weapons programmes.

Finally, in the light of this experience, that is, the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded against that the commission is not able to conduct the substantive disarmament work mandated to it by the Security Council and, thus, to give the Council the assurances it requires with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons programmes." - UNSCOM Report to the President of the UN Security Council dated 15th December 1998 signed by Kofi Annan, Mohammed El Baradei & Richard Butler.

In the assessment of discrepancies thrown up inspections and in evaluations undertaken by UNSCOM, their reports only highlight what Iraq MAY HAVE - check that for yourself - you sure as hell are not going to take my word for it. Claims made and seized upon as "lies" told by various principals by the MSM centre around what those principals BELIEVED to be the case - Sorry but what you believe to be the case does not necessarily make it in fact the case - so no lie told, if they are guilty of anything it is erring on the side of caution.

Action was taken against Iraq to ensure in a verifiable manner that it could be announced to the world with 100% absolute certainty that Iraq possessed NO WMD, that it had NO WMD related research and development programmes running and that it was NOT developing weapons systems for the delivery of WMD.

As a result of the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 the following "apples" fell out of the tree:

- Libya renounced it's WMD programme and revealed a secret and up till then unsuspected nuclear weapons - developing a nuclear weapon in secret means that you intend to use it - if it is secret then it serves no deterrent purpose.

- The Libyan nuclear weapons programme exposed the illegal nuclear weapons proliferation network of Pakistan's Dr.A.Q.Khan, which was shut down.

- A secret nuclear weapons plant was discovered in Syria and destroyed by the Israelis with assistance from Turkey.

- The existence of two secret, and therefore undeclared, uranium enrichment plants was exposed in Iraq.

That is three countries (five if you include Pakistan and North Korea) striving towards acquiring nuclear weapons in secret, that could only be targeted at one nation - Israel.

As a disruptive influence in the region and a state sponsor of terrorism were the same USA agencies to repeat the evaluation undertaken in 2002 today then the country posing the greatest threat would in all probability be identified as Iran.

As for UN sanctions against Israel? Perhaps you should read them Mr. Shaw, just as you should listened to or read what GWB and Blair actually said, if you read those UN Security Council Resolutions "against Israel", as you describe them, you will find that they include undertakings and commitments that have to be honoured by the other side and while Israel for the most part honoured her commitments the other side have not.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Musket
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 04:58 AM

"For the most part"

👳🔫👮

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 05:42 AM

"developing a nuclear weapon in secret means that you intend to use it"
Israel has one - where does it mean to use it, I wonder?
No comment on Mrs T fascist tendencies? - didn't think so.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 05:44 AM

"The Falklands were walked over by Argentina."

In much the same way as the Golan Heights, Sinai, Gaza and the West Bank were walked over by Israel? So what's right for the Goose is right for the Gander? Well as far as Netanyahu, Israel and settlements go that seems to settles that - it is apparently alright to "walk over" things and take possession of them according to our secondary school master - What an example you set Mr. Shaw.

Can anyone tell me what he's talking about? Did I say anywhere that the Argies were justified?

What do you do, if anything, for a living, Teribus?

...Wait for it... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 05:47 AM

Israel tried to sell nuclear weapons to Apartheid South Africa (perhaps in exchange for information on how to establish the same system in Israel!!)
Wonder where they thought the Aartheid regime would use it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 06:02 AM

Israel still won't admit that it's got the bomb. A sort of secret, eh?

The only trouble with this "deterrent" malarkey is that there's no evidence that it works. It didn't work on Argentina, it doesn't work on Hamas, it doesn't work on Hezbollah, it didn't work on the 9-11 attackers, it doesn't work on the Taliban. It didn't work on the Vietcong or Saddam. I think the existence of the EU has prevented a major European conflagration but I can't prove it. You think nuclear weapons deter attack. You can't prove that either. 70 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki and there's an increasing suspicion that there will never be an opportunity for appropriate use of nuclear weapons. The MAD argument is spurious because "deterrence" doesn't even work on non-nuclear powers.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 08:59 AM

"Israel tried to sell nuclear weapons to Apartheid South Africa"

Ehmmmm No Christmas Israel and South Africa were co-operating on the development of a nuclear weapon for South Africa - in the end South Africa built six bombs which were dismantled in 1989 two years before South Africa the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Once again Christmas grabs hold of a newspaper article and waves it like a flag as though it and it alone proved proof positive:

"In 2010, The Guardian released South African government documents that it alleged confirmed the existence of an Israeli offer to sell South Africa nuclear weapons in 1975. An allegation which Israel categorically denied at the time - the documents themselves do not indicate any offer for a sale of nuclear weapons. Israeli President Shimon Peres said that The Guardian article was based on "selective interpretation... and not on concrete facts." - much like Jim's take on things. Avner Cohen, author of Israel and the Bomb and the forthcoming The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel's Bargain with the Bomb, said "Nothing in the documents suggests there was an actual offer by Israel to sell nuclear weapons to the regime in Pretoria."

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 09:10 AM

So if Israel denies it that's OK then. Israel doesn't even admit to having the Bomb, so, er, in the words of Mandy Rice-Davies... By the way, that story was also carried in the Telegraph, a bit more up your alley than the Grauniad, I would have thought, Teribus, though possibly a little less so now...

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 09:24 AM

Google "Israel and the South African Bomb" for a good long read. There is no solid conclusion at the end but the piece highlights the reluctance of both sides to disclose material, as well as the destruction of documents.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 09:52 AM

"Steve Shaw - 05 Mar 15 - 06:02 AM"

1: "Israel still won't admit that it's got the bomb. A sort of secret, eh?"

Nope it neither confirms or denies their existence. But considering the tight corners that Israel has found itself in the past, particularly in 1967 and again in 1973 then any nuclear arsenal they possess there would appear to be many with extremely cool heads and nerves of steel in Israel charged with looking after those weapons.

Now had either Iran or Iraq had nuclear weapons in 1984 do you think they might have been used? Iran get a nuclear weapon, then Saudi Arabia will get a weapon, then Egypt will get a weapon, etc, etc. World much better off Shaw?

2: "The only trouble with this "deterrent" malarkey is that there's no evidence that it works."

Oh I don't know about that - The "Cold War" in Europe lasted from 1947 until 1991 and saw the nuclear arms race from start to finish without a single exchange - mainly due to the USA being the first to develop a weapon and due to the fact that the USA was the mainstay of NATO. The EU which did not come into existence until 1993, two years after the end of the "Cold war" - making your idiotic contention - "I think the existence of the EU has prevented a major European conflagration but I can't prove it." - utterly risible.

3: "It didn't work on Argentina, it doesn't work on Hamas, it doesn't work on Hezbollah, it didn't work on the 9-11 attackers, it doesn't work on the Taliban. It didn't work on the Vietcong or Saddam."

In the interests of observing what would be considered as responding proportionately (UN Security Council requirement in the face of aggression) - you do not use a sledge hammer to crack a walnut. Doesn't mean that if issued with the threat of the possible use of nuclear weapons had been issued I think "It would have deterred Argentina - It would work on Hamas faced with total destruction of their only toe-hold on earth (Amazing how being faced with a credible threat of total annihilation concentrates the mind) - It would work in a similar vein with Hezbollah - it might have saved a great deal of time, money and effort had the US response to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan been tactical nuclear (Maybe next time) - It would have worked on the North Vietnamese - And the threat of it most certainly did work against Saddam in 1991, Why do you think no CW or BW were used by the Iraqis in Desert Storm? - Rhetorical question; Saddam's pals the Soviets told him precisely what NATO's response to use of CW or BW weapons was - Tactical Nuclear which would have cost Saddam his country

4: "You think nuclear weapons deter attack. You can't prove that either."

Well you tell me Steve Shaw what war has been fought to date between two nuclear armed powers that has remained conventional? (Last shooting war between India and Pakistan was in 1999 - The Kargil War - India nuclear since 1974 with operational nuclear weapons; Pakistan only having carried out it's first nuclear test firing in 1998 had no operational delivery system). So instead of speculation I would say that the reason for no nuclear exchanges since Hiroshima and Nagasaki is down entirely to the fact that nuclear deterrence does work.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 10:27 AM

1: "Israel still won't admit that it's got the bomb. A sort of secret, eh?"

Nope it neither confirms or denies their existence.

What's "nope" supposed to mean? We're saying the same thing.

Now had either Iran or Iraq had nuclear weapons in 1984 do you think they might have been used? Iran get a nuclear weapon, then Saudi Arabia will get a weapon, then Egypt will get a weapon, etc, etc. World much better off Shaw?

Well they didn't so I won't respond to this silly conjecture.

making your idiotic contention - "I think the existence of the EU has prevented a major European conflagration but I can't prove it." - utterly risible.

If I say I think something then say I can't prove it, it isn't a "contention", is it?

In the interests of observing what would be considered as responding proportionately (UN Security Council requirement in the face of aggression) - you do not use a sledge hammer to crack a walnut.

Responding proportionately? Like Israeli regimes do all the time when irritated by their neighbours? There's no word for " proportionately" in the Zionist lexicon, I reckon!

Doesn't mean that if issued with the threat of the possible use of nuclear weapons had been issued I think "It would have deterred Argentina - It would work on Hamas faced with total destruction of their only toe-hold on earth (Amazing how being faced with a credible threat of total annihilation concentrates the mind) - It would work in a similar vein with Hezbollah - it might have saved a great deal of time, money and effort had the US response to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan been tactical nuclear (Maybe next time) - It would have worked on the North Vietnamese - And the threat of it most certainly did work against Saddam in 1991, Why do you think no CW or BW were used by the Iraqis in Desert Storm? - Rhetorical question; Saddam's pals the Soviets told him precisely what NATO's response to use of CW or BW weapons was - Tactical Nuclear which would have cost Saddam his country

So why don't we threaten every time then? Because we can't, that's why. Nuclear weapons are the opposite of " smart" and the good people of this planet will no longer buy that kind of warfare. The best you can come up with is that we don't threaten to use nukes, except for one time when the Russians told Saddam what we might do. Very funny.

Well you tell me Steve Shaw what war has been fought to date between two nuclear armed powers that has remained conventional? (Last shooting war between India and Pakistan was in 1999 - The Kargil War - India nuclear since 1974 with operational nuclear weapons; Pakistan only having carried out it's first nuclear test firing in 1998 had no operational delivery system). So instead of speculation I would say that the reason for no nuclear exchanges since Hiroshima and Nagasaki is down entirely to the fact that nuclear deterrence does work.

Instead of speculation? That IS speculation. What wars HAVE there been between two nuclear powers?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 10:35 AM

To clarify what I suspect you already know, when I too loosely used the term "EU" I meant Common Market/ EEC/EC/EU. And anything else it's been called, nice or otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 11:05 AM

if you read those UN Security Council Resolutions "against Israel", as you describe them

As I didn't describe them.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 12:02 PM

Hypocrisy: UN adopts 9 resolutions on Palestinians & Golan, yet silent on Syrian massacre of Palestinians

2014-2015 UNGA Session: 20 resolutions against Israel, 3 on rest of the world

22 UN General Assembly Resolutions Targeted Israel This Year, 4 for Rest of World, Holocaust Revisionist Endorsed

UN, Israel & Anti-Semitism

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 12:23 PM

Well, the board members of UN Watch (see Wiki on UN Watch: board and funding) are very heavily biased in favour of Israel. Not that that invalidates your links in any way, or passes judgement on their topics, but it's good to know where the information put up here comes from.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST,cynical
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 12:28 PM

...is there no one in US politics capable of waking them up?

Everyone in US politics and the media is waking us up all the time. We're so sleep-deprived we can't think. But fortunately thousands of intelligent and highly educated people work all day long on shaping and implementing policy and marketing it to us. In order to communicate with each other without disturbing the marketing strategy, they speak in code. For example, they talk about trying to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and being a threat to its neighbors. I don't know what that's code for; I assume it has something to do with Iran's non-dollar oil bourse scheme and their government's popularity with the Muslim rank-and-file and the fact that in the event of a major war Iran couldn't be counted on to supply oil only to our allies; but all I really know is that it doesn't mean that they think Iran is developing nuclear weapons or would ever wage aggressive war.

By the way, I don't mean to be cynical... just inquisitive. And I don't think the people running our government are cynical. I think they want to do good, but they believe that you can't do good without power and so job number one is consolidating power, even if you do some not-so-good in the process. And I think they speak in code because they see us as little children who wouldn't understand certain things without a lot of explanation, and they're probably right about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST,cynical
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 12:38 PM

There does seem to be a schism appearing within both parties concerning Iran?

I assume that any schism we're aware of is part of the show. As Chomsky said, there's a news hole, and you have to fill it every day or people worry. In reality, they'll do what they want to do about Iran and about everything else. Not that they aren't concerned about public opinion; they are, because they love us and want us to be happy. But that concern translates into shaping opinion rather than shaping policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 02:26 PM

I'm glad I opened this thread Guest....your posts are a delight.

I also think the American people in general still want to do good and I think their politicians sincerely believe what the song says....but it will all end in tears I'm sure.

Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy cynicism, especially when you are damned right. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Musket
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 03:21 PM

Funny how UN Watch is funded by activists in the two countries that feel they can ignore UN when it suits them, even though one hosts UN and props up the other...

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 03:34 PM

"Ehmmmm No Christmas Israel and South Africa were co-operating on the development of a nuclear weapon for South Africa"
ERM - YES THEY WERE
Of course - the newspapers could be wrong in the face of your mass of evidence to the contrary (or should that be denial)
All beside the point anyway - A regime claiming to represent a people who underwent a process of mass extermination should not co-operate with right wing regime which has divided their country on racist grounds - what happened to the Jewish cry of "never again"?   
If you weren't such an belligerently arrogant little jobbie, perhaps you wouldn't look as stupid as you do with your foot in your mouth
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 03:44 PM

"Alleged collaboration with Israel[edit]
See also: Israel–South Africa Agreement
David Albright and Chris McGreal have claimed that South African projects to develop nuclear weapons during the 1970s and 1980s were undertaken with some cooperation from Israel.[11][12][13] The United Nations Security Council Resolution 418 of 4 November 1977 introduced a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa, also requiring all states to refrain from "any co-operation with South Africa in the manufacture and development of nuclear weapons".[14]

According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, in 1977 Israel traded 30 grams of tritium for 50 tonnes of South African uranium[citation needed] and in the mid-1980s assisted with the development of the RSA-3 and RSA-4 ballistic missiles, which are similar to Israeli Shavit and Jericho missiles.[15] Also in 1977, according to foreign press reports, it was suspected that South Africa signed a pact with Israel that included the transfer of military technology and the manufacture of at least six nuclear bombs.[16]

In September 1979, a US Vela satellite detected a double flash over the Indian Ocean that was suspected, but never confirmed to be a nuclear test, despite extensive air sampling by WC-135 aircraft of the United States Air Force. If the Vela Incident was a nuclear test, South Africa is one of the countries, possibly in collaboration with Israel, that is suspected of carrying it out. No official confirmation of its being a nuclear test has been made by South Africa, and expert agencies[who?] have disagreed on their assessments. In 1997, South African Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad stated that South Africa had conducted a test, but later retracted his statement as being a report of rumours.[17]

In February 1994 Commodore Dieter Gerhardt, former commander of South Africa's Simon's Town naval base who was later convicted of spying for the USSR, was reported to have said:

"        Although I was not directly involved in planning or carrying out the operation, I learned unofficially that the flash was produced by an Israeli-South African test code-named Operation Phoenix. The explosion was clean and was not supposed to be detected. But they were not as smart as they thought, and the weather changed – so the Americans were able to pick it up.[18][19]        "
In 2000, Gerhardt claimed that Israel agreed in 1974 to arm eight Jericho II missiles with "special warheads" for South Africa.[20]

In 2010, The Guardian released South African government documents that it alleged confirmed the existence of Israel's nuclear arsenal. According to The Guardian, the documents were associated with an Israeli offer to sell South Africa nuclear weapons in 1975.[21][22] Israel categorically denied these allegations and said that the documents do not indicate any offer for a sale of nuclear weapons. Israeli President Shimon Peres said that The Guardian article was based on "selective interpretation... and not on concrete facts."[23] Avner Cohen, author of Israel and the Bomb and the forthcoming The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel's Bargain with the Bomb, said "Nothing in the documents suggests there was an actual offer by Israel to sell nuclear weapons to the regime in Pretoria."[24]"

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 03:51 PM

"Funny how UN Watch is funded by activists in the two countries that feel they can ignore UN when it suits them, even though one hosts UN and props up the other... "

Funny how you comment on who funds UN Watch and ignore the statistics it presents.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 05:04 PM

See How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff and Irving Geis

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 05:45 PM

Sorry, Guest, but UN Watch is seriously, SERIOUSLY biased towards Israel whether you can stomach that or not. Read the biographies of the board members - see wiki. None so blind...

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 05:59 PM

The UN resolutions are a matter of public record.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 06:14 PM

What's your point then? You have posted several times about resolution numbers this way and that but you are not saying what you think is wrong. This is a debating forum, not just a place for posting links without comment. Do YOU think that the UN is unfair to Israel, and, if so, why? Do numbers of resolutions alone prove that? Why do you think that Israel gets told off so often? Nothing to do with the fact that they never have to comply because their main ally routinely uses its power to veto the resolutions (as well as rubbishing and undermining the UN at every opportunity)? Don't you think that UN Watch might just be a wee bit biased?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 06:43 PM

"Do YOU think that the UN is unfair to Israel"

No I don't THINK it is unfair the evidence is clear.

"if so, why?"

See the fourth link in the post of 05 Mar 15 - 12:02 PM

"Why do you think that Israel gets told off so often?"

See above and:
Israel at the UN: A History of Biasand Progress

"Don't you think that UN Watch might just be a wee bit biased?"

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 06:52 PM

" Don't you think that UN Watch might just be a wee bit biased?"

Anyone who attempts to be NOT biased & neutral and point out the flaws on BOTH side gets branded as stupid or wishy-washy or something worse. This has gone on so long now that no one even has any idea how to sort out who is 'more at fault'.
So many nations have an *interest* in the area ...and *friendships* and *concerns*, that they cannot even pretend to see any point of view except their own. It become just what you read above... and in dozens of threads... a litany of "he hit me first" accusations.

The only fair solution(s) to the situation is/are actions which neither side would agree to. Bodes well for the future, hmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 07:00 PM

No? Then you are on a different planet. Kindly take a look at the affiliations past and present of the UN Watch board members. Looks suspiciously like an offshoot of the US pro-Israel lobby to me! That's all fine by me, as long as you're honest about them and as long as you don't expect me to even remotely regard them as neutral. Not saying for a minute that biased people can't get things right sometimes. But let's stay real, eh? Why are you in denial here?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 07:06 PM

That was directed at Guest.

That's all very well, Bill, but you seem to be defending bias, or to be defeatist about avoiding it. When I said a wee bit, I wasn't exactly being literal. The bias on that board is glaring. At best, those guys need to be treated with extreme suspicion. Take a look at their biographies and affiliations and tell me whether such a setup could be even remotely helpful.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 07:22 PM

If you call advocating against bias biased then yes UN Watch is biased.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 08:01 PM

So you think the UN is biased. I'd be the first to agree that there is a lot wrong with the UN. But, if I read you correctly, you are accusing the UN of bias because it passes a lot of what you regard as hostile-to-Israel resolutions compared with those hostile to other countries. Arguing from bare statistics is a bit bogus, though, isn't it. Suppose Israel really does deserve the flak. I think it does, a lot of the time. So you think other countries get away too lightly. Well, you could be right there. But, if you feel aggrieved about it, you need to focus on what's unjustified about those hostile-to-Israel ones and tell us what's up. And say what you think the UN could usefully be doing to rein in those other bad boys. Your numbers game does not necessarily prove bias. Bad resolutions or a lack of good resolutions is what you need to be talking about. And, by the way, have you looked at the makeup of that UN Watch board yet? Do you really think that its particular setup could have much credence beyond the pro-Israel camp, which, surely, is what you want? Why are you avoiding that question?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 08:10 PM

Do you it possible that the 47 Muslim majority nations and the 57 bodies that constitute the OIC might have something to do with those resolutions?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 08:40 PM

I am not defending bias... but I am certainly aware of how it is part of 'almost' any debate about the Middle East.

Defeatist? Not exactly... pessimistic is my choice of terms. I think anyone who really cares should never give up trying to make sense... and to promulgate a version of sense whenever possible.

I watched Netanyahu before he ever became PM and was struck by his inflexible attitude. Since then, I have seen my concerns justified.

I also see the Palestinian side give him constant 'excuses' for his rhetoric (rockets, bombers...etc.)... as I see him and/or Israel dare the Palestinians to obect to the settlements...etc.

NO ONE even considers a shared state in the region, with fair treatment for all; they can barely stand to allow 'the other side' to access the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif for worship.
When two sides of a dispute use deep-seated religious traditions as an ultimate defense for political/economic stances, why would I be anything BUT pessimistic? For 40 years now I have watched various friends of mine take sides, often vehemently, over the Irish situation, the Middle East situation, the USSR situation, the USA racial situation... and a host of issues which seem minor in comparison. I have recently been accused of bigotry & denial for my 'failure' to staunchly support someone else's arbitrary position........... pessimism is hard to avoid.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 09:08 PM

Guest, UN Watch has been run for the last 14 years by a powerful pro-Israel lobby group, the American Jewish Committee. Of the six board members of UN Watch named in Wiki, one is a past president of AJC and another is its executive director. Another member was for 27 years deputy chairman of the Sweden-Israel Friendship Association. Another is an advisor to MEMRI, a strongly pro-Israel propaganda organisation that routinely seeks to cast Islam in a negative light. Just in case anyone here might be thinking "UN Watch - sounds like an independent watchdog of the UN...", OK? Not for one second does any of that undermine the figures you relay to us via your links, but it does show where they're coming from. And, I think, where you're coming from too. The statistics might be part of the issue but they don't form its substance. It's what's in those resolutions that matters, how they're received and what resolutions you think the UN has been remiss in not making. Harder to talk about than numbers, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 10:38 PM

UN Watch shines a light on bias in the UN, MEMRI shines a light on Jew hatred and and Muslim extremism. It is understandable that some would want to vilify and discredit them.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 03:07 AM

"Jew hatred and and Muslim extremism"
Jew hatred comes from those who implicate the Jews in Israeli crimes Brucie
'The Jews' were not responsible for Sabra/Shatila - Israel was
'The Jews' weer not responsible for the Gaza atrocities last year - Israel was.
It wasn't 'The Jews' who formed death squads to target civilian survivors of the Israeli bombardment - that was the Israeli troops
It is Antisemitic to suggest otherwise - according to the Eutopean definition of Antisemitism.
"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."
Two years ago, on a filmed interview with six ex-heads of the Israeli Security Forces, they described their duties for the the State of Israel - they suggested that the State had fallen into the hands of extremists, as Einstein and a group of prominent Jews had warned in 1948
ANTISEMITIC JEWS!!
Please take your Antisemitism elsewhere
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 03:49 AM

Fuck all to do with being Jewish.

More to do with a rogue nation state propped up by imperialist style borders and guilt.

We can't turn back the British mentality over Palestine in the '40s but we can as a set of United Nations demand that all communities have an equal right to exist and that two wrongs don't make a right.

Apparently that's not an easy statement when most influential American politicians are both funded by Israeli interests and fed Fox all day with its naive Islamaphobic bullshit.

Complaining about radicalised young people should include asking why.

My time working in the region, admittedly a few years ago now, included comparing those I knew with our lot under Th*tcher. I would be horrified to have foreigners think I supported her and most Israelis I know feel the same about those who cling to power over there by scaring voters after ruffling neighbour's feathers.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 04:38 AM

All states have a right to exist.
How do we confront those forces that deny Israel's right to exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 04:54 AM

Why have you brought that up? That is not what this discussion is about. You're the first to moan about thread drift, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 05:25 AM

Because Musket said in the previous post, "we can as a set of United Nations demand that all communities have an equal right to exist"

Why are you always on the attack?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 05:40 AM

Ever thought that includes Israel?

Blinded by your own prejudice..

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 05:43 AM

It does include Israel.
Are they denying anyone else's right to exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 05:51 AM

No-one in this thread has suggested that Israel has no right to exist. As for how do we confront those forces, etc., I'd suggest by doing the very opposite of what Netanyahu has tried to do this week. He's trying to a scupper a deal that would be pretty good for Israel, a window of opportunity working with a far more moderate Iranian leader who has shown little interest in confronting Israel and who has demonstrably wound down Iran's nuclear aspirations. So tell us what you think of Netanyahu's work this week, Keith, the subject of the thread, and just for once stop trying to derail the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 05:59 AM

UN Watch shines a light on bias in the UN, MEMRI shines a light on Jew hatred and and Muslim extremism. It is understandable that some would want to vilify and discredit them.

Your less than moderate language aside, no-one here at least has vilified any organisation. When you put up links without comment, as you did, I think it's important to know who the people you're linking to are batting for. As you refrained from telling us, I assume you find their affiliations somewhat inconvenient to your argument. Just trying to shine a light, in your words, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 06:12 AM

"All states have a right to exist."
Israelis eating its way into Palestine
It is evicting Bedouins from areas the have occupied for centuries
It is an expansionist terrorist state, so any of its neigbours have a right to arm themselves against its well-established terrorism
How do they confront the threat from Israel that was warned about by some of the great Jewish thinkers 70-odd years ago?
As you rightly said - every state is entitled to defend itself.
Israel has been 'crying wolf' over Iran's "bomb' for several decades, there is no evidence that it either has or wants one.
If Israel has nuclear weapons, by your logic, there is no reason why Iraq, Egypt, Palestine, shouldn't have one.... nightmare scenario.
It's been bad enough having to live under the threat of America's bomb - theyare the only nation in the world to have used monster bombs, and during the Vietnam war, General Westmorland proposed that North Vietam should have been "nuked back into the Stone-age".
dr Strangelove re-visited
"Why are you always on the attack?"
Do you have any objection to MusKie's statement?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 06:20 AM

No objection to it.
I was objecting to Steve's belligerence.
We can discuss this emotive subject like grown ups I hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 06:31 AM

"Israelis eating its way into Palestine"

Please show us the borders of this mythical "Palestine".

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 07:03 AM

And therein lies the problem.

"Mythical"

No wonder you posted that as "guest". I'd be ashamed of posting it if I were you.

Call it what you will. Those living there call their home Palestine. Good enough for me.

And it should be good enough for a belligerent PM of a neighbouring country.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 07:24 AM

"Those living there call their home Palestine."

Calling it something doesn't make it so. There are some who call Israel Palestine too.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 07:31 AM

I asked you in moderate tones to refrain from hijacking the discussion. That was not at all "belligerent". If you want to see gratuitous belligerence, take a look at your mate Teribus's crude intervention on 4 March at 2.04pm. Makes ME look like a fluffy bunny, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 07:34 AM

Trouble is, who can tell whether we're addressing the same guest all the time?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 07:39 AM

"Please show us the borders of this mythical "Palestine"."
Ant thereby hangs the problem of Zionists who refuse to recognise that the Aranb people have occupied this area for Millenia and hav no intention of being driven "out into the desert" as is being proposed by the fascist right in Israel and being made a reality by the present regime.
"We can discuss this emotive subject like grown ups I hope."
Been going to night school to learn how to be one then?
Your own attitude ranges from belligerent to hand-wringing Uriah Heep impersonations - nothing "adult" there
as for your clownish "real historians" and "real bookshops" - you are a standing joke
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 07:56 AM

"UN Watch has been run for the last 14 years by a powerful pro-Israel lobby group, the American Jewish Committee. Of the six board members of UN Watch named in Wiki, one is a past president of AJC and another is its executive director. Another member was for 27 years deputy chairman of the Sweden-Israel Friendship Association."

It is not difficult to discern the sub text of your post.

As well as exposing the bias of the UN UN Watch is a respected champion of human rights. At the 2015 Geneva Summit for Human Rights, for example, it led a coalition of 20 NGOs in giving a rare UN platform to the Nigerian girl who jumped off a truck to escape from Boko Haram, the student leaders of the Hong Kong umbrella protest, and courageous dissidents and victims from China, Cuba, Iran, Tibet, Pakistan, Turkey, North Korea and Venezuela.

Should that work also be evaluated in the context that the organization is run by Jews and Jewish money?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 08:20 AM

How can someone with so much time on their hands and the dexterity to type so much remain so ignorant?

Granted. I only scan Terribulus posts but the bits I read rarely make sense and at best describe real events with false conclusions. The rest tends to be la la land.

I begin to see how presumably enlightened people allow bad things to happen. So long as it is happening to others eh? If only Israelis looked a little darker, who knows...

😕

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 09:25 AM

"UN Watch has been run for the last 14 years by a powerful pro-Israel lobby group, the American Jewish Committee. Of the six board members of UN Watch named in Wiki, one is a past president of AJC and another is its executive director. Another member was for 27 years deputy chairman of the Sweden-Israel Friendship Association."

It is not difficult to discern the sub text of your post.

The sub-text of my post is as follows. You put up links to stuff about UN Watch's criticisms of the UN's attitude to Israel. You said nothing about the current status of UN Watch, which is that it is run by AJC, a powerful pro-Israel lobby group, and that its board is dominated by members with long track records of belonging to either that or to other groups of similar demeanour. Your links post, which was strongly pro-Israel and anti-UN, failed to apprise us of that. Now I have no difficulty with UN Watch's findings, as I've already said more than once. As with findings reported by any other advocate of a particular position, I reserve the right to be a little sceptical and to do a bit of delving, as I've shown. What I do have difficulty with is you advocating a strong pro-Israel position whilst sidelining the inconvenient fact that your evidence comes from the pro-Israel lobby. I've asked you to address the substantive issue of the nature of the resolutions instead of just bandying numbers around. Tell us what you think is wrong with the SUBSTANCE of the resolutions you so dislike, then we can have something to actually talk about.

Now, instead of making snide little insinuations about my "subtext", perhaps you'd be brave enough to spell out what you think it is (give me one guess...). Do make sure you give evidence in support.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 09:37 AM

Sub text, sub-text, subtext. I dunno.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 09:40 AM

I'm settling for subtext.