Comments on: Short takes: Assad, Iran, Nidal Hasan, Barack Obama http://fresnozionism.org/2009/11/short-takes-assad-iran-nidal-hasan-barack-obama/ A pro-Israel voice from California's Central Valley Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:54:46 +0000 hourly 1 By: Robman http://fresnozionism.org/2009/11/short-takes-assad-iran-nidal-hasan-barack-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-7583 Robman Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:26:29 +0000 http://fresnozionism.org/?p=2317#comment-7583 Vic, you are absolutely right about Obama. In some ways, he is worse than Nasrallah because he has far more power and influence than Nasrallah. As an illustration of my point, many Jews get all up in arms when there is some rally somewhere of neo-Nazi cretins. While I myself find this annoying as well, I don't get nearly as perturbed over these occurrences, since there really aren't that many neo-Nazis, and most people don't take them that seriously. What I get far more upset about is credible, respected journalists/pundits who engage in the far more insidiuos and sophisticated Israel bashing we find in much major media today. I'm talking about the Gwynne Dyer-types who may be nationally or internationally syndicated columnists. They don't wear swastikas. They don't deny the Holocaust. If they are in a generous mood, they might even grant Israel's "right to exist" (how big of them!). But in the end, the effects they have on mass informed opinion are far more potentially deadly than any Goebbles wannabe on a city streetcorner handing out leaflets. And so it is with Obama. Most reasonable observers in Western societies can readily perceive the likes of a Nasrallah for the bloody-minded thug he is. But a president of the United States, who professes on the one hand that the bonds between Israel and the U.S. are "unbreakable" (subtext: since I said that, if they DO break, then it must be YOUR fault, Israel), who then goes on to act essentially as a lawyer for the murderous thugs of the PA, who can lend enourmous cerdibility to the narrative that says that the lack of peace can be laid at "intransigent" Israel's doorstep, that does more damage to Israel than any half-wit Islamist gangster. As to Iran, yes, I expect an Israeli strike any time in the next six months, and we have to hope it works. I still hold out the possibility - as elaborated in other posts - that the U.S. even under Obama will act (mostly for the sake of Gulf Arabs, not Israel). Failing that, we all better hope the mullahs are overthrown before they can amass an arsenal of a couple dozen or so deliverable warheads, because if not, it is a virtual certainty that there will be a regional nuclear holocaust in SW Asia. Vic, you are absolutely right about Obama. In some ways, he is worse than Nasrallah because he has far more power and influence than Nasrallah.

As an illustration of my point, many Jews get all up in arms when there is some rally somewhere of neo-Nazi cretins. While I myself find this annoying as well, I don’t get nearly as perturbed over these occurrences, since there really aren’t that many neo-Nazis, and most people don’t take them that seriously.

What I get far more upset about is credible, respected journalists/pundits who engage in the far more insidiuos and sophisticated Israel bashing we find in much major media today. I’m talking about the Gwynne Dyer-types who may be nationally or internationally syndicated columnists. They don’t wear swastikas. They don’t deny the Holocaust. If they are in a generous mood, they might even grant Israel’s “right to exist” (how big of them!). But in the end, the effects they have on mass informed opinion are far more potentially deadly than any Goebbles wannabe on a city streetcorner handing out leaflets.

And so it is with Obama. Most reasonable observers in Western societies can readily perceive the likes of a Nasrallah for the bloody-minded thug he is. But a president of the United States, who professes on the one hand that the bonds between Israel and the U.S. are “unbreakable” (subtext: since I said that, if they DO break, then it must be YOUR fault, Israel), who then goes on to act essentially as a lawyer for the murderous thugs of the PA, who can lend enourmous cerdibility to the narrative that says that the lack of peace can be laid at “intransigent” Israel’s doorstep, that does more damage to Israel than any half-wit Islamist gangster.

As to Iran, yes, I expect an Israeli strike any time in the next six months, and we have to hope it works. I still hold out the possibility – as elaborated in other posts – that the U.S. even under Obama will act (mostly for the sake of Gulf Arabs, not Israel). Failing that, we all better hope the mullahs are overthrown before they can amass an arsenal of a couple dozen or so deliverable warheads, because if not, it is a virtual certainty that there will be a regional nuclear holocaust in SW Asia.

]]> By: Shalom Freedman http://fresnozionism.org/2009/11/short-takes-assad-iran-nidal-hasan-barack-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-7582 Shalom Freedman Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:43:08 +0000 http://fresnozionism.org/?p=2317#comment-7582 Unfortunately on the critical Iranian issue I believe you are right. No one is stopping the Iranians and they continue to enrich uranium, and do the other work required for them to have a nuclear option. The only way to stop this is for a direct military strike upon their installations. The United States is not ready to go it alone, or with Israel to do this. They are bogged down in Afghanistan- Pakistan and to a degree in Iraq. The last thing they want is another major confrontation with an Islamic state. The consequence of this is to put it mildly extremely troublesome for Israel, and for other American allies, including the far from virtuous Saudi Arabia. It seems to me more and more that the risk of Israel going it alone to take out the Iranian installations is just too great, in many ways, to be taken. Of course I can be completely wrong. But it seems to me that without the United States wholly backing us the other side's military response plus the condemnation and possible sanctions and isolation we would face would be too great a price. I hope I am wrong and there is a piece or many pieces of the puzzle I simply am not seeing. Unfortunately on the critical Iranian issue I believe you are right. No one is stopping the Iranians and they continue to enrich uranium, and do the other work required for them to have a nuclear option. The only way to stop this is for a direct military strike upon their installations. The United States is not ready to go it alone, or with Israel to do this. They are bogged down in Afghanistan- Pakistan and to a degree in Iraq. The last thing they want is another major confrontation with an Islamic state.
The consequence of this is to put it mildly extremely troublesome for Israel, and for other American allies, including the far from virtuous Saudi Arabia.
It seems to me more and more that the risk of Israel going it alone to take out the Iranian installations is just too great, in many ways, to be taken. Of course I can be completely wrong. But it seems to me that without the United States wholly backing us the other side’s military response plus the condemnation and possible sanctions and isolation we would face would be too great a price.
I hope I am wrong and there is a piece or many pieces of the puzzle I simply am not seeing.

]]>