The world against more wars in the Middle East: The Israeli "right" panics?
The "Independent," a leading U.K. newspaper (which does not mean that any given statement it makes is true) was rather tough today on Israel, or, specifically, the Israeli "right." (In Israel this everywhere-misused term seems to connote a tending to strong religious orthodoxy, a tending to advocate an Israel rooted in religion and Jewish ethnicity, a tending to reject any negotiation with the Palestinians, and a tending to advocate aggressive military approaches to perceived threats.)
The Independent noted that the refusal of the U.K. and the U.S. to attack Syria sent Israel's right-wing parties into over-drive, mounting aggressive lobbying efforts on U.S. politicians who opposed attacking Syria. At the same time, says the Independent, the polls, at least, show the great majority of Americans opposing war with Iran, and the Israeli rightists are comparing this with appeasement at Munich. The Independent suggests that as the Israeli rightists are more and more isolated from world opinion, which is turning against more war in the Middle East, they are more adamant in calling for war immediately.
A few weeks ago, Iran's new President Rouhani, who a few weeks ago sent Israel and Jews worldwide good wishes on Roshashana--and was attacked as cynical and manipulative by the Israeli right, including Israel's president--now, apparently, has said he fully accepts the reality of the European Holocaust--surely a more substantive change (one that his inflammatory predecessor as president adamantly opposed).
Here, at any rate, is an opinion piece worth your reading:
The Independent noted that the refusal of the U.K. and the U.S. to attack Syria sent Israel's right-wing parties into over-drive, mounting aggressive lobbying efforts on U.S. politicians who opposed attacking Syria. At the same time, says the Independent, the polls, at least, show the great majority of Americans opposing war with Iran, and the Israeli rightists are comparing this with appeasement at Munich. The Independent suggests that as the Israeli rightists are more and more isolated from world opinion, which is turning against more war in the Middle East, they are more adamant in calling for war immediately.
A few weeks ago, Iran's new President Rouhani, who a few weeks ago sent Israel and Jews worldwide good wishes on Roshashana--and was attacked as cynical and manipulative by the Israeli right, including Israel's president--now, apparently, has said he fully accepts the reality of the European Holocaust--surely a more substantive change (one that his inflammatory predecessor as president adamantly opposed).
Here, at any rate, is an opinion piece worth your reading:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...
Whether 'the world' does or does not want a middle east war is not a concern to Iran which as a dictatorship needs to suppress the very considerable internal opposition with continual hysteria against zionism, the US, atheism, materialism, etc.
My opinion is that the Israelis would like the US to move out of the area, from Saudi, Jordan, the Gulf, to give their planes a clear run, as it is the US is protecting Iran. Factual errors and bias from the Independent is to be expected. It is disappointing to see them echoed. For example, who wants what state to be eliminated? Who says, no peace, no negotiations?
Anybody who thinks the new Iranian president is an agent for peaceful relations with the rest of the world is a fool and an idiot.
We are on the side of Israel for two reasons; first and foremost, America said there will be an Israel. That's the end of the argument. Either the world can learn to live with it, or go to nuclear hell.
Second, we are on the side of Israel because the side of Islam is evil. Does anybody really think anywhere in the Moslem world there's any hope for individual liberty?
I opposed "attacking" Syria, that is, I opposed lobbing a few missiles at them for political show. This kabuki theater of eliminating Assad's WMD supply is just that; theater. I'd be willing to bet that much of what's being destroyed is either being repurposed, or was old stock that had become more dangerous to keep than to use.
However, I'm very much in favor of a war with Iran.
In 2003, when our tanks were lining up to invade Iraq, I celebrated. Because I can read a map.
Conquer Iraq and Afghanistan, yes I said *conquer*. Appoint American governors-general to keep our boot on their necks while we use them as staging grounds to crush Iran between, then swing west in a hammerblow to take out Syria, appointing governors-general to both of those places. Then we can once again regroup, in preparation of conquering the rest of the middle-east, if necessary. As this was so blindingly, historically obvious, I assumed it's what Bush had in mind. But it had to be done fast.
Instead, Bush engaged in nation-building. In trying to win the hearts and minds of people whose cultural base and value system are as alien to America's as would be Klingons'. Granted he was under a lot of pressure from the left, who once again out-played him in the propaganda war, but he bears a lot of the blame. Looking back, I shouldn't have been surprised, as the Bushes are as much progressives as Obama; they just want to get to an autocratic state by a different path, with different agents in charge.
I favor attacking Syria, if we're going to attack it. Send in our troops with rational rules of engagement; no more making our troops servants of the enemy. Have a rational goal; conquest of Syria to use as a staging area for invasion of the rest of the middle east. Conquest, not "liberation".
I know, not a popular view, especially among libertarians, especially among libertarians with an anti-Semitic bent.
We gave tons of money to Jews, and they made the desert fluourish. The Moslem world gave tons of money to the palestinian Moslems, and they live in squalor, using it to buy weapons to destroy Israel.
If you want a metaphor for the world of Atlas Shrugged, Israel would be Galt's Gulch, and the palestinians would be the outside world of looters and moochers.