Shimon Peres is nominally a politically powerless president of Israel, a symbol of its sovereignty and the man who approves clemency requests. But then, Shimon Peres is much more than that, and his T.V appearances last night, in which he expressed his opposition to an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear program proved again that the old lion of Israeli politics, a recipient of the Noble Peace Prize is a formidable force to be reckoned with, a man who is on a mission to prevent what he considers to be a potentially disastrous Israeli move.
By going public the way he did, Peres dramatically shed light on the debate which is tearing apart the Israeli political establishment and polarizing public opinion: Israel's policy with regard to a state whose leaders publicly call for the complete liquidation of the Jewish state and which many believe is feverishly developing the weapon which can achieve that exact goal.
On the face of it, the debate in Israel is yet another strategic-security question to be resolved, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, the debate is much more profound, and it touches most delicate issues, which have to do with the very essence of Israeli statehood and national character. To start with, Peres' appearance is an unprecedented move by a state president, and as such calls into question the nature of the relationships between the presidency and the hitherto undisputed center of power in Israel, the prime minister, who in this particular case, is strongly supported by his defense minister. The question aroused yesterday will not be decided by a court of law, rather in the court of public opinion, where the affection and respect felt towards President Peres will be tested against the political support given to P.M Netanyahu.
This is a new situation in the history of Israel, and the result is far from certain. Peres put all his prestige behind his latest move, but he is not alone. Here is another unprecedented situation, and this is the almost unanimous position of the military-intelligence establishment, both past and present, against the P.M and the defense minister, himself a decorated war hero. What adds significance to this state of affairs is the fact that a debate over an issue of utmost national security risk has become so public. Peres' appearance may indicate, that the opponents of an Israeli military strike have become so desperate in their bid to prevent it, that they are ready to go to the last resort and appeal directly to the public.
The Israeli people, for obvious reasons, have developed a long-standing love affair with his military and intelligence leaders. A confrontation between them and the Democratically elected civilian leadership can develop into a real challenge to the foundations of Israel's democratic system, based on the supremacy of the politicians. Netanyahu himself alluded to this aspect of the situation in a T.V interview just a few days ago, when he firmly reasserted his role as the actual, though not nominal Commander-In-Chief. His defense minister, Ehud Barak, reiterated this point stating, that only the elected politicians can make the crucial decision whether or not to go to war with Iran.
The problem, that both Netanyahu and Barak are facing, is compounded by their lack of popularity, as exemplified by many public opinion polls, due mainly to domestic issues. A decision of the magnitude discussed now, surely requires a large measure of public support, and this is lacking now, and may even get much weaker, as it seems so clear to so many Israelis that a lot of their beloved generals and intelligence heroes go against the political leadership. Here is where the alliance between President Peres and these people could be so influential, effectively forcing the hand of the P.M and the defense minister.
But then, there is something else at play, that overshadows even these important issues discussed above. It has to do with a question that has always been in the background of every major, historic decision taken by Israel's leaders during its short history: How much can the Jewish state trust world leaders to come to Israel's help in its time of utmost need? One of the most fundamental convictions of the big majority of Israelis is that ''the world is against us, so we could and should trust only ourselves." This conviction has almost become a sacred cow, though history shows that it has not always been backed up by reality. Ben-Gurion made his fateful decision to declare statehood in May 1948 without being sure about world, particularly American support. Then he went to the Sinai campaign of 1956 only after being guaranteed the cooperation with and support of Britain and France.
In 1967, the Israeli leadership inflicted the inevitable preemptive strike against Egypt and its Arab allies without the outright support of the U.S and in face of stiff opposition from France, then Israel's main weapons supplier. Menachem Begin ordered the destruction of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 expecting an American condemnation, which indeed came, so past record is somewhat confusing in this regard. Benjamin Netanyahu made it clear on various occasions that his historic horizon is heavily influenced by the Allies failure to bomb Auschwitz. This is a view held by many Israelis, but now, confronting a problem considered to be existential, many Israelis, including many of their leaders believe that Israel could and should trust its greatest ally, the U.S, led by President Obama.
The final decision taken by Israel's leaders will tell us a great deal whether it is still the shadow of the past which determines the present and the future of Israel. It is, therefore, no less than a debate over the very soul of the Jewish state.
According to retired Army Colonel W. Patrick Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose.
Bush senior later stated the use of chemical weapons on Kurds (in the North of Iraq ) was intolerable,somewhat double standards there
So we have a country that was attacked with the backing of the US ,where weapons were sent through Saudi to Iraq, where an estimated 1 million died during the war,that did not use chemical weapons and returned land it had won on the battlefields.
No WMD were used nor chemicals released by Iran
Can someone show me where Iran has been the aggressor in this or subsequent actions?
There are certain indisputable facts often overlooked regarding the war between Iraq and Iran.
The US ,scared of the sheer power of Iran and the geographical control they had over the Straights of Hormuz ,decided to back Iraq and give them weapons. I quote -
United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War, against post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.[2][3]
Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the power it became",[4] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq
After the invasion by Iraq on Iran ,it took the United Nations Security Council two years to call for an end to the war .TWO YEARS.
They also took another 4 years to "Deplores" the use of chemical weapons in the Iran–Iraq War..They never made it clear ,although it was known ,the only country to deploy chemical weapons was Iraq.
What is the justification for Israel bombing Iran? Iran's statements that Israel has no right to exist. But what does this mean? Does it mean that Iran intends to nuke Israel or does it mean that Israel should not be a Jewish state but an Arab state. It means the latter because if we include the "occupied territories" in Israel then the Arabs outnumber the Jews and, by our democratic standards, Israel should be an Arab state. Also, Iran would not nuke Israel because it would be wiped out the next day by Israel and the US. Also, no state has used nuclear weapons on another... except of course the US on Japan... would the US have bombed Japan if a couple of millions westerners had been living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No.
The only reason Iran wants nuclear weapons is to discourage other nations from attacking it. They have a solid reason for wanting this... remember Iraq attacked Iran and killed a million or more Iranians.
We should never approve one state to preemptively strike another state - words are cheap and usually only bluster.... we should wait for action.
Conclusion: Let Iran have nuclear weapons - It won't make any difference to world order, except to protect them from attack. Encourage Israel to make accommodations with its neighbors rather than threaten and attack them.
Because it is an inherent right of every sovereign state, Israel included, to use a preemptive action in order to ensure its very survival and the life of its citizens. And, sadly, Islamist Iran has been threatening both, time and again, and has been making the preparation of a mass murder of the six million Jews of Israel.
We, Jews, simply apply our very first of all human rights, i.e. the right to life and to its defense, and say loud and clear: Never Again!!
One might think that the Zionists would tire of producing the same wailing and whining lies year after year.
Israel wants Iran demolished in order to maintain their nuclear and military hegemony in the Middle East so there can be no challenge to their "Greater Israel" agenda.........
David Ben Gurion 1937
The Jewish state now being offered to us is not the Zionist objective. But it can serve as a decisive stage along the path to greater Zionist implementation. It will consolidate in Palestine, within the shortest possible time, the real Jewish force, which will lead us to our goal.
1952 Moshe Dayan, Israeli defense minister, declared:
"Our task consists of preparing the Israeli army for the new war approaching in order to achieve our ultimate goal, the creation of an Israeli empire."
WHERE ARE THEY???
Americans are sick of war and don't want Israel's.
Which is only sensible, as it among the public that the suffering will overwhelmingly be shared, should the leaders decide to go to war.
Barak: Waiting on Iran would be more dangerous, complicated
Defense minister tells Knesset that discussions on the Iranian issue are more in-depth than any other war or peacemaking effort in Israeli history..
Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Thursday discussed the timing of a possible military strike on Iran, saying, "it would be much more complicated, much more dangerous and much more expensive - to deal with a nuclear[-armed] Iran in the future."
Barak, speaking to the Knesset plenum, added that discussions surrounding the issue are unprecedented in their thoroughness."In all the wars and peacemaking in Israel's history, there is no issue that has been dealt with in such depth as Iran has," he said.
I strongly suggest we listen carefully to Barak's words!!
You don't need Sugar Daddy to hold your hand or back up your thuggery.
The United States does not support an unprovoked attack on Iran by Israel.
The liklihood of such an attack occuring is very high.
1952 Moshe Dayan, Israeli defense minister, declared:
"Our task consists of preparing the Israeli army for the new war approaching in order to achieve our ultimate goal, the creation of an Israeli empire."
That "sentiment" is well reflected in the actions of subsequent Israeli leaders.