Thursday, July 23, 2015
- Thursday, July 23, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
This conference was already planned well before the Iran deal.
The domain was registered in April.
300 business people have registered, and Salzburg.com adds:
(h/t Dian)
The domain was registered in April.
300 business people have registered, and Salzburg.com adds:
Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz said on Thursday morning to the APA and the "Wiener Zeitung" that the agreement is a "chance for the Austrian economy and intensification of relations" with Iran. "We have traditionally good relations with Iran and if the deal is implemented and the sanctions are lifted, it will help Austrian companies a variety of ways," said Kurz, who wants to travel in September together with Federal President Heinz Fischer and a large trade delegation to Tehran.There is so much pent-up demand from the EU to sell to Iran that the idea of "snapback sanctions" is nothing but a joke.
At around 400 million euros, exports from Austria amounted to Iran in 2004. Ten years later, they are only at 232 million euros. We are now ready to again significantly increase the volume of trade between Austria and Iran and to achieve the a billion euros, said the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber.
(h/t Dian)
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
From Ian:
'Ancient Arab Susiya' - The Town That Never Was
NGO Monitor: European-funded NGOs and the Susya Narrative
'Ancient Arab Susiya' - The Town That Never Was
The Palestinian Authority, with direct financing of the European Union and blind acceptance of lies as facts by media, is swallowing up the southern Hevron Hills, a huge area between Kiryat Arba-Hevron and Arad-Be'er Sheva.The Truth on Susiya
The latest chapter in the Palestinian Authority's re-invention of history is taking place in Susiya (pronounced "Soos-eeya") located two miles from the old borders of Israel, on the western edge of the Judean Desert that leads to the Dead Sea, and less than half an hour from Be'er Sheva, the capital of the Negev.
The Arab strategy: An Arab family erects a tent, illegally, near the archaeological site of the ancient town of Susiya. As time passes, the tent becomes a makeshift structure, which expands into several structures. With the support of extreme left-wing activists, the 'ancient' town of 'Palestinian Susiya' is invented, reported the Tazpit News Agency.
"This makes for a great human interest story, but for one setback — the 'ancient Palestinian Susiya' never existed. It shows up on no records," Tazpit wrote.
Yigal Dilmoni, deputy director-general of the Yesha Council, told Tazpit, "Fifteen-year-old [i.e., 1998—ed] aerial photos clearly show that there was no Arab village at this site ... The Arabs have come for the village of Yatta, and ... repeatedly disseminate lies."
[Back in June 2013], the Civil Lands Authority issued approximately 40 stop-work orders against projects funded by the European Union and intended to firm up Palestinian Authority claims to land where they never lived until Jews came to the area in 1983.
In that year, for the first time in 1,500 years, Jews began living in the southern Hevron Hills, setting up a community in nearby Beit Yatir, two miles to the south, and in Susiya, where the old Jewish town existed until approximately the 6th century.
NGO Monitor: European-funded NGOs and the Susya Narrative
Khirbet Susiya (Susya) is a small Arab village in the South Hebron Hills. There are widely divergent narratives regarding the village and its history; according to Israeli authorities, the village’s structures have been illegally built. A protracted court battle ensued regarding the demolition of the village.International court may not reopen flotilla case, prosecutor says
The Israeli Supreme Court recently cleared the legal barriers to demolition, on the grounds that the structures were constructed illegally, entirely without permits or approved plans. (Under the Oslo framework, Israel is responsible for planning and construction in Area C, which is where Susya is located.)
A number of governments, including the U.S. and European governments, are lobbying the Israeli government to prevent the demolition. In June, “a delegation of all European Union heads of missions to the Palestinian Authority visited Susya, accompanied by Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah.”
As with many such contentious issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict, many NGOs are active in promoting the Palestinian narrative, which is then repeated by the European and U.S. officials. These NGOs are themselves heavily subsidized by European and U.S. entities. (h/t Bob Knot)
The International Criminal Court will not necessarily open an investigation into the 2010 Mavi Marmara incident, despite a pretrial chamber ordering the prosecutor last week to reconsider her decision to close her initial probe into the case, the court’s chief prosecutor said Tuesday.
“The decision on whether to open an investigation depends on the facts and circumstances of each situation,” said Fatou Bensouda. “We are carefully studying the decision and will decide on the next steps in due course.”
In an email exchange with The Times of Israel, the Gambian-born Bensouda said she was aware of the United Nations Human Rights Council report on last year’s Gaza war and would consider “all credible and reliable sources of information.”
At the same time, she promised to conduct her own “independent analysis” of the controversial report.
- Wednesday, July 22, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
It seems to have started with the "Jewish Voice for Peace" writing a letter to Alison Weir, founder of the "If Americans Knew" website dedicated to exposing the supposed "Zionist" influence on the media and politics, and who has referred to Judaism as a "ruthless and supremacist faith" while using fake Talmud quotes:
Then the "US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation" followed suit:
Oh, and virulent antisemite Gilad Atzmon defended Weir as well and slammed JVP for being too, well, Jewish.
Missing among all of these self-righteous arguments about whether some anti-Zionists are also anti-semitic is, of course, a single word from these "anti-racist" groups against widespread and explicit Arab antisemitism. Mentioning that is going too far!
Dear Ms. Weir,
Jewish Voice for Peace has chosen not to work with you because our central tenet is opposition to racism in all its forms, and you have chosen repeatedly to associate yourself with people who advocate for racism.
You have been a repeat guest of white supremacist Clay Douglas on his hate radio show, the Free American. Clay Douglas is concerned primarily with the survival of the White race and sees malign Jewish influence everywhere. His racist, anti-Jewish, and anti-gay rhetoric can be found across the front pages of his multiple websites.
In the course of your appearance with Clay Douglas on August 25, 2010, for example, you were silent when Douglas invoked the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and engaged in a racist diatribe against Jews. Your repeated appearance on this show (April 23 and August 25, 2010; February 9 and May 18, 2011) show that you knew his extremist views and chose to continue the association....
Then the "US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation" followed suit:
1. Ms. Weir posted a blog on her personal website that references Jews as a race being “an object of hatred to all the peoples among whom it has established itself,” effectively blaming Jews for anti-Semitism. (See Section 1 of Part 3)In response, the Free Palestine Movement defended Weir and publicly withdrew from the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation (received via email):
2. In writing about a controversy surrounding allegations of the Israeli military harvesting the organs of Palestinians in 2009, Ms. Weir responded to supporters of Israel claiming this was a new “blood libel” by citing the research of Ariel Toaff, who purported to have uncovered ritual murder of Christian children by Jews in medieval Europe (the very definition of “blood libel”). (See Section 2 of part 3)
3. Ms. Weir has appeared at least five times for hour-long episodes on notorious white supremacist and militiaman Clayton Douglas’s radio show, the “Free American Hour,” between 2010 and 2012. A cursory glance at Douglas’s homepage would raise concerns about the host and program’s political content. Douglas’s homepage features the confederate flag, a video that opens with the title “9/11 Brainwashing and the Holohoax,” and numerous references to the “Jew World Order” and its “war on Adolph Hitler,” as well as claims of “ritual murder of Christians and Children by Jews.” While interviewing Ms. Weir, Douglas:
a. made derogatory remarks about Arabs (See 3.a and 3.d of Part 3)
b. repeatedly asserted Jewish control of the world (3.b, 3.g, 3.h, and 3.j)
c. quoted and played speech by the former head of the KKK, David Duke, proclaiming a war on Christianity (3.c, 3.e)
d. demonized adherents of communism, insinuating it is a Jewish conspiracy (3.h)
e. downplayed or denied the existence of apartheid historically in South Africa, analogizing criticism of white South Africans during apartheid, which Douglas sees as unfair, to the treatment of white Americans today. Similarly, Douglas analogizes the average German between WWI and WWII and average white American today (3.f 3.j)
...
Taken as a pattern, we concluded that Ms. Weir’s views and actions, on behalf of If Americans Knew, contradict the US Campaign’s anti-racism principles.
Please be advised that the Free Palestine Movement resigns from the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, effective immediately.Gives the word "solidarity" a whole new meaning!
We resign because of the disgraceful, disrespectful and unjust treatment of Alison Weir and her organization, If Americans Knew, in the procedures to expel her from the Campaign on the spurious grounds of insufficient avoidance of anti-Semitic persons and institutions.
We resign because it is clear that the decision had been made to expel IAK before the proceedings to do so had ever begun.
We resign because, in defiance of the most basic principles of justice, Ms. Weir was not given the opportunity to confront her accuser.
We resign because no evidence was presented that she herself is anti-Semitic.
Oh, and virulent antisemite Gilad Atzmon defended Weir as well and slammed JVP for being too, well, Jewish.
Missing among all of these self-righteous arguments about whether some anti-Zionists are also anti-semitic is, of course, a single word from these "anti-racist" groups against widespread and explicit Arab antisemitism. Mentioning that is going too far!
- Wednesday, July 22, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
From the WSJ:
But isn't it interesting that Iran insisted as part of the deal to lift sanctions on a non-Iranian convicted nuclear smuggler, who was involved in nuclear bombmaking?
Clearly Iran felt it could ask for nearly anything it wanted in this joke of negotiations. And clearly - they were right, since the US said, "sure, no problemo! We want a deal, and if this would derail it, then we have to give in!"
Just as they did with dozens of other concessions, big and small.
The Obama administration and European Union agreed as part of the accord last week to lift sanctions over eight years on a network of Iranian scientists, military officers and companies long suspected by the U.S. and United Nations as central players in a covert nuclear weapons program.More::
The U.S. also agreed to remove a German engineer from its financial blacklist by late 2023 after he was targeted by sanctions for his alleged role in a global black market in nuclear weapons technology run by the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan.
Obama administration officials said the U.S. was required under the Vienna agreement and U.N. resolutions to lift sanctions on Iranian individuals and entities for their role Tehran’s nuclear program.
Lawmakers and nuclear experts were also puzzled by the Obama administration’s decision to remove Gerhard Wisser from its sanctions list by 2023. The German engineer was convicted and sentenced to 18 years in prison by a South African court in 2007 for his role in supplying centrifuge components to the A.Q. Khan black market network.
The U.S. and IAEA accuse Mr. Khan and his associates of facilitating the sale of nuclear equipment to North Korea, Iran and Libya during the 1980s and 1990s.
The senior U.S. official didn’t provide specifics about why Mr. Wisser was granted sanctions relief as part of the Iran deal. Mr. Wisser could not be located. He pleaded guilty in 2007 in South Africa to manufacturing components that could be illegally used in nuclear technology.
A South African court sentenced a German man to 18 years in prison on Tuesday but suspended the jail term after he pleaded guilty in a case involving a global black market in atomic weapons technology. Gerhard Wisser, an engineer living in South Africa, was accused of having ties to a network run by Abdul Qadeer Khan.Wisser was also suspected of providing nuclear weapons components to Al Qaeda!
But isn't it interesting that Iran insisted as part of the deal to lift sanctions on a non-Iranian convicted nuclear smuggler, who was involved in nuclear bombmaking?
Clearly Iran felt it could ask for nearly anything it wanted in this joke of negotiations. And clearly - they were right, since the US said, "sure, no problemo! We want a deal, and if this would derail it, then we have to give in!"
Just as they did with dozens of other concessions, big and small.
- Wednesday, July 22, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
Jerusalem, July 22 - Minister of Religious Services David Azulai, hearing that Evangelical Christians have been inquiring of people whether they have found Jesus, has ordered his staff to assemble a search party to assist in efforts to locate the man.
Minister Azulai has been keen to demonstrate tolerance and support of religious communities other than Orthodox Jews after an episode several weeks ago in which he dismissed Reform and Conservative Jews as not authentically Jewish. Feeling his backpedaling on that statement has been insufficient, Azulai has sought out ways to display openness and acceptance of others, and, upon hearing that Evangelicals are habitually making inquiries after Jesus, decided to pitch in to help them.
Protestant movements, as a rule, are not officially recognized communities in Israel, with the notable exception being the Anglican Church. That recognition mainly takes the form of authority over marriage, divorce, and assorted other functions affecting each respective denomination. Nevertheless, Israel welcomes Christian tourists, and does not bar members of non-recognized denominations from living or working there. Azulai's aides identified Evangelical Christians, who enjoy political influence in large stretches of the US, as a key demographic with which to develop rapport, in part to offset the growing alienation of non-Orthodox American Jews. Helping in the search efforts for Jesus, they reasoned, would cement Azulai's, and therefore his Shas Party's, reputation for ecumenicism where they had previously been known as inward and intolerant.
Ministry officials explained that the resources a government could bring to bear in the search efforts could prove effective where private efforts have failed. "This Jesus character has been sighted all over the place, but apparently many of the places with which he is most closely associated are here in Israel, so we stand a good chance of locating him," said ministry spokesman Enli Mussag. "We will of course take into account eyewitness reports that he has appeared elsewhere in the world, such as on pieces of toast in Arkansas, but the most reliable accounts place him in these parts."
Mussag said the search party would first concentrate on surveillance of the most likely sites, and would set up cameras and other sensors in the several dozen locations where Jesus is reported to frequent. With those sites covered technologically, the team would then concentrate on other locations where reports place him. "Fortunately, those places are concentrated in two principal areas: Jerusalem and the Galilee. We should be able to make a thorough search of all the sites by the end of the summer."
Ministry officials have not said what they intend to do if they find Jesus. "We're not going to say we've found him, and certainly not by ourselves," said Minister Azulai magnanimously. "Evangelicals have been asking people whether they have found Jesus for many years already, and it is only thanks to their efforts that the search can be conducted with this level of detail. No, if this operation results in someone finding Jesus, we will step back and allow our Evangelical friends to claim the achievement as their own."
From Ian:
Caroline Glick: How and why to kill the deal
Caroline Glick: How and why to kill the deal
Unfortunately, while eminently reasonable sounding, Ignatius’s analysis is incorrect. Kerry’s details of the deal are beside the point. The big picture is the only thing that matters. That picture has two main points.Alan Dershowitz: US gave away better options on Iran
First, the deal guarantees that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. Second, it gives $150 billion to the mullahs.
The details of the deal – the number of centrifuges that keep spinning, the verification mechanisms, the dispute resolution procedures, etc. – are all debatable, and largely irrelevant, at least when compared to the two irrefutable aspects of the big picture.
According to the administration, today Iran needs a year to use the nuclear materials it is known to possess to make a nuclear bomb. Other sources claim that Iran requires several months to accomplish the task.
Since these materials will remain in Iran’s possession under the deal, if Iran abandons the agreement, it will need at most a year to build nuclear weapons.
Then there are the unknown aspects of Iran’s nuclear program. We must assume that Iran has ongoing covert nuclear operations in unknown installations through which it has acquired unknown capabilities.
These capabilities will likely reduce the time Iran requires to make bombs.
Under the deal, the US and its negotiating partners are required to protect Iran’s nuclear assets from sabotage and other forms of attack. They are required as well to teach Iran how to develop and use more advanced centrifuges. As a consequence, when the agreement expires, Iran will be able to build nuclear bombs at will.
If Iran remains a threat, the deal bars the US from taking any steps to counter it aside from all-out war.
The agreement ends the international sanctions regime against Iran. With the sanctions goes any prospect of an international coalition joining forces to take military action against Iran, if Iran does walk away from the deal. So sanctions are gone, deterrence is gone. And that leaves only war.
In other words, far from diminishing the chance of war, the deal makes it inevitable that Iran will get the bomb or there will be a full scale war, or both.
The most compelling argument the Obama administration is offering to boost what it acknowledges is a compromise nuclear deal with Iran is this: it’s better than the alternatives. That sort of pragmatic point is appealing to members of Congress, particularly skeptical Democrats who are searching for ways to support their president and who are accustomed to voting for the lesser of evils in a real-politick world where the options are often bad, worse, even worse, and worst of all.Moynihan’s message on BDS and Iran appeasement: We’ve got to stop this
But the question remains: How did we get ourselves into the situation where there are no good options?
We did so by beginning the negotiations with three important concessions. First, we took the military option off the table by publicly declaring that we were not militarily capable of permanently ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Second, we took the current tough sanction regimen off the table by acknowledging that if we did not accept a deal, many of our most important partners would begin to reduce or even eliminate sanctions. Third, and most important, we took off the table the option of rejecting the deal by publicly acknowledging that if we do so, we will be worse off than if we accept even a questionable deal. Yes, the president said he would not accept a “bad” deal, but by repeatedly watering down the definition of a bad deal, and by repeatedly stating that the alternative to a deal would be disastrous, he led the Iranians to conclude we needed the deal more than they did.
These three concessions left our negotiators with little leverage and provided their Iranian counterparts with every incentive to demand more compromises from us. The result is that we pinned ourselves into a corner. As Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute put it: “The deal itself became more important than what was in it.” President Obama seems to have confirmed that assessment when he said: “Put simply, no deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East.”
Only time will tell whether this deal decreases or increases the likelihood of more war. But one thing is clear: By conveying those stark alternatives to Iranian negotiators, we weakened our bargaining position.
The consequences will be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and a greater likelihood of war.
Forty years ago, in July 1975, America’s new UN ambassador heard how American diplomats at the first International Women’s Conference in Mexico City tolerated Third World insults. Banging his fist on the table, Daniel Patrick Moynihan exclaimed: “We’ve got to stop this!” These are sobering times. The international threats are daunting – and leadership is wanting. Whatever you think of the Iranian agreement, the image of the great, virtuous United States of America negotiating with Iranian diplomats in exclusive European hotels while Iranian thugs yell “Death to America” on Teheran’s streets diminished all democracies. And whatever you think of Israel’s particular policies, the fact that many Progressives consider democratic Israel public enemy number one, not Iran, North Korea or other truly evil regimes, demeans liberalism.
This topsy-turvy world needs some history lessons and inspiring role models. With liberal Democrats dominating the American government and media, let’s remember muscular liberals who defended America proudly. Forty years after he became US ambassador to the UN, while building toward the fortieth anniversary of his denunciation of the infamous “Zionism is racism” resolution in November 1975, we should echo the great liberal statesman Daniel Patrick Moynihan, vowing: “We’ve got to stop this!” Moynihan refused to be an appeasing diplomat. Diplomats should deploy many tactics, he said, not just negotiation and compromise. Occasionally, diplomats had to defend national dignity, courageously, aggressively.
Accused of picking a fight over the Zionism-is-racism resolution, he replied, “Damned right we did!” Moynihan’s vigor stemmed directly from his liberal belief in an activist government operating intelligently, creatively and proactively, both domestically and internationally.
Moynihan mocked diplomats who believed their mission was to woo the enemy rather than defend America.
- Wednesday, July 22, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
On CNN, Fareed Zakaria says that Ayatollah Khamanei doesn't want to destroy Israel by force, but by peaceful democratic means:
The problem is that while Zakaria notes that Khamenei is a canny politician, he is clueless that he is the person being conned.
Zakaria is brainwashed like most reporters into the fiction that the "occupation" is the single biggest obstacle to peace and that if only Israel would give away more land then everything would be OK. He applies this false meme into what Khamanei says, and therefore ignores what Khamanei actually says and means.
Yes, it is true that Iran does not want a direct war with Israel. It wants to destroy Israel by any other means. But, contrary to what Zakaria ways, that means includes indirect war. In 2012, he said:
Nothing about democracy there. Iran knows that if it attacks through Hezbollah or other terror groups, Israel would find it difficult to muster world support for an attack on Iran in response. So Khamenei cultivates those willing to die for the cause while shielding Iran from reprisals.
However, Khamenei knows that the Western world is enamoured of the idea of democracy, so he also created a lie that he cares about democracy too.
In the beginning, his message was not quite as on target. In 1994 he said:
This isn't democracy; it is rigging the game so that suckers like Zakaria believe that Khamenei cares about democracy while he plans on ethnically cleansing millions of Jews from their homes.
Zakaria doesn't think that is worth mentioning.
And in the tweet that he mentions, Khamenei says this explicitly - but Zakaria only quoted the part that make Khamenei sound like he is peaceful:
Zakaria expesses puzzlement over the idea of "throw migrated Jews into the sea," not noticing that Khamenei is explicitly advocating a plan to ethnically cleanse practically all Jews from Israel.
Notice that Khamenei's plan also includes attacks against Israeli Jews by arming West Bank terrorists.
And the one word that Khamenei doesn't say, but Zakaria emphasizes, is "occupation."
Now, let's look at the quote that Zakaria did take from this screed, where Khamenei is saying he doesn't want a "classical war" with Israel. would handing a nuclear bomb to Hezbollah or another group to approach Tel Aviv by sea and explode it be considered "classical"?
Khamenei also puts out videos like this threatening Israel with missiles:
Zakaria's defense of Khamenei, and his idea that Israel's control of its ancestral lands is a problem that would neutralize Khamenei's threat, is fantasy. And one must wonder why he either didn't read, didn't understand or chose to not inform his audience about the entire Khamenei plan that he quoted that shows that democracy is the least of Khamenei's interests.
(h/t Richard Landes)
The problem is that while Zakaria notes that Khamenei is a canny politician, he is clueless that he is the person being conned.
Zakaria is brainwashed like most reporters into the fiction that the "occupation" is the single biggest obstacle to peace and that if only Israel would give away more land then everything would be OK. He applies this false meme into what Khamanei says, and therefore ignores what Khamanei actually says and means.
Yes, it is true that Iran does not want a direct war with Israel. It wants to destroy Israel by any other means. But, contrary to what Zakaria ways, that means includes indirect war. In 2012, he said:
We have intervened in the anti-Israel struggle, and the results have been the victories in the 33 days war [the 2006 war with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon] and the 22 days war [Israel’s attacks on the Gaza strip in December 2008]. From now on we will also support any nation, any group that confronts the Zionist regime, we will help them, and we are not shy about doing so. Israel will go, it must not survive, and it will not.
Nothing about democracy there. Iran knows that if it attacks through Hezbollah or other terror groups, Israel would find it difficult to muster world support for an attack on Iran in response. So Khamenei cultivates those willing to die for the cause while shielding Iran from reprisals.
However, Khamenei knows that the Western world is enamoured of the idea of democracy, so he also created a lie that he cares about democracy too.
In the beginning, his message was not quite as on target. In 1994 he said:
Palestine belongs to the Palestinians. If the Palestinians in Palestine—in all of Palestine—form a government, peace will prevail. If you [Israel’s supporters] are truthful [about wanting peace], and if you have not conspired against the Palestinian nation, Islamic nations, and Islam, that is the solution.Nothing about democracy then either. But then he refined the message:
The solution is for the millions of the Palestinians to return to Palestine, the several millions that live away from home to return to Palestine. The indigenous people of Palestine—Jews, Christians, and Muslims—should hold a referendum to decide what kind of a regime they want. The vast majority are Muslims. There are also Jews and Christians that belong there, as their parents also lived there. They can decide the political system that they favor. Then, that state would decide what to do with the people that have moved there over the last forty to fifty years. Keep them there, return them to their original country, keep them in a special part, whatever decision the new Palestinian government makes should be respected. This is the solution to the crisis. So long as it is not implemented, no other solution will be effective.Khamenei isn't saying that the people who live in the arbitrary boundaries of British Mandate Palestine should be allowed to vote, as Azkaria implies. Jews are a majority there. Khamenei is saying that all Palestinians whose ancestors lived in Palestine at any time should be given the right to vote, but the only Jews who have that right are the ones who lived there before Israel existed. Any Jews who lived in Israel for decades have no say. And then, the resulting nation has the right to expel those Jews if they decide to do so "democratically."
This isn't democracy; it is rigging the game so that suckers like Zakaria believe that Khamenei cares about democracy while he plans on ethnically cleansing millions of Jews from their homes.
Zakaria doesn't think that is worth mentioning.
And in the tweet that he mentions, Khamenei says this explicitly - but Zakaria only quoted the part that make Khamenei sound like he is peaceful:
Zakaria expesses puzzlement over the idea of "throw migrated Jews into the sea," not noticing that Khamenei is explicitly advocating a plan to ethnically cleanse practically all Jews from Israel.
Notice that Khamenei's plan also includes attacks against Israeli Jews by arming West Bank terrorists.
And the one word that Khamenei doesn't say, but Zakaria emphasizes, is "occupation."
Now, let's look at the quote that Zakaria did take from this screed, where Khamenei is saying he doesn't want a "classical war" with Israel. would handing a nuclear bomb to Hezbollah or another group to approach Tel Aviv by sea and explode it be considered "classical"?
Khamenei also puts out videos like this threatening Israel with missiles:
Zakaria's defense of Khamenei, and his idea that Israel's control of its ancestral lands is a problem that would neutralize Khamenei's threat, is fantasy. And one must wonder why he either didn't read, didn't understand or chose to not inform his audience about the entire Khamenei plan that he quoted that shows that democracy is the least of Khamenei's interests.
(h/t Richard Landes)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)