Ha'aretz Predicts Israeli Attack on Iran: "Is Netanyahu Bringing Israel Closer to a 'Second Holocaust'?
This is amazing stuff.
Aluf Benn, a top Israeli journalist, is predicting an imminent Israeli attack on Iran. He thinks Netanyahu has already made the decision.
Read this and be scared. This is a lot more dangerous than swine flu.
Advertisement
I love it. We withdraw, and the rest of the world fights it out amongst themselves. With any luck at all, Israel takes over the entire ME after foolish muslims retaliate.
May 1, 2009 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
With any luck you'd be among the very first casualties. Of course, that would mean someone would have to bomb your mother's basement, you sniveling coward. Heaven forbid you'd actually put your own self on the line for anything other than your next bag of Cheetohs.
May 1, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good heavens, you should so Dick Cheney-ish.
May 1, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I regard you as a lower life form. You are worth neither courtesy nor respect.
May 1, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This reads like N Korea is starting up it's nuke production - little Bibi wants attention. If he tries to make a move Obama will shut him down, hard.
But anything is possible, these days I never underestimate the gall and stupidity of Israeli politics. Can I return my right of return before it's totally worthless.
May 1, 2009 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bet Cheney is cheering him on. I wonder if the NSC has Cheney's phones tapped?
May 1, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "Can I return my right of return before it's totally worthless?"
MY COMMENT: Good one! (LOL)
May 1, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs to bitch slap the yahoo out of Netanyahu.
May 1, 2009 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama plausible deniability blueprint was probably signed off on by Rahm before the inauguration.
You can imagine the synchronize media coverage, rationalization, and very brief faux outrage by one member of panel discussions.
May 1, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Netanyahu = "bad cop" setting up Obama for more favorable outcome?
May 1, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aluf Benn, a top Israeli journalist, is predicting an imminent Israeli attack on Iran. He thinks Netanyahu has already made the decision.
The article doesn't contain any prediction of an imminent Israeli attack on Iran. Nor does Benn express the opinion that Netanyahu has already made the decision to attack Iran. The attribution of these claims to Benn are fabrication:
The article does, however, contain the following statement:
As long as the diplomatic process continues, and Obama is asking Israel to hold off on any action, it is too early to declare that a war against Iran is inevitable.
May 1, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scary stuff!
May 1, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has no one learned anything lately ?
Let the other guy start the war.
Think about some examples ... then think some more.
May 1, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
DanK is absolutely correct. MJ's post is blatantly dishonest. Read the article. Haaretz is not "predicting" an Israeli attack on Iran, nor is Benn "predicting an imminent Israeli attack on Iran."
The question that naturally arises is how can someone who takes such extreme liberties with the truth be considered a responsible commentator on the subject? The answer is that MJ is really just a propagandist. To what end, one asks? Although MJ apparently believes he is saving Israel from itself, I can't see how stoking of an imminent attack on Iran helps anything, other than providing more fodder for the usual anti-Israel suspects.
Looking at the situation sensibly, there is little Israel can do alone to stop Iran's nuclear program. Moreover, Israel has little to gain and much to lose from launching an attack. Despite his rhetoric, Netanyahu must realize this. His sabre rattling, while sincere, is aimed at forcing the US and our allies to keep the pressure on Iran to restrain its nuclear program.
May 1, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
DanK is not absolutely correct. The only error is MJ's piece is to call the possible attack "imminent". Aluf Benn is predicting, on the basis of Netanyahoo's character that he will attack. But not before he meets with Obama and Aipac has softened up Congress. What is new in this piece, to me anyway, is that there is no bluffing going on here and Netanyahoo is putting things into place where backing down will become impossible.
I question this hypothesis, but it is a new twist.
May 1, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Imminent" is a very important expression in this context. So is "already made the decision". To say Benn makes these claims in his piece is not just loose. It's blatantly false.
I have to agree with Armchair Guerilla. This is not an isolated incident. MJ has displayed a consistent pattern of flagrant disregard for accuracy. In post after post, MJ routinely mischaracterizes the words of other people. Either he is too lazy to get it right, or not smart enough to parse what he reads logically, or is just dishonest.
This pisses me off, because it makes the critics of Israel look ignorant and dishonest. I hate having to disassociate myself so often from this dishonest spinning and transparent hackery. When there is such a strong case to be made against Israeli behavior, and there are so many intelligent and competent analysts out there who can make the case, why is TPM Cafe content with MJ's puerile and scurrilous lobbyist drivel.
This has gone on way, way too long. Josh really needs to think about doing something about it.
May 1, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are being a silly pedant. MJ is an advocate. He uses polemics and a little rhetorical flourish in his advocacy. MJ takes another's opinion piece, really not much more than intuition with very few facts, who comes up with the hypothesis that Netanyahoo is not bluffing and at some point he may end up forcing himself to go to war against Iran. Not very substantive. But it is worrying.
As an advocate himself, there is nothing wrong with MJ engaging in this kind of writing. Of course, it assumes a certain level of intelligence on the readers part, but that shouldn't be a problem here.
May 1, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody has some sort of "right" to bullshit, exaggerate or misrepresent, even if that's what somebody is paying them to do. And it is entirely possible to be a vigorous advocate for one's position while sticking to the truth and not making things up. MJ is not an honest advocate; he's a hack.
May 1, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh oh, I think you done it now, for sure you're soon going to get the label of neo-con or a bitter Hillarybot, or both (sometimes I think that's part and parcel of the whole shtick, as is having a commentariart that never reads the link but just comes to dittohead what MJ said about it.)
May 1, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
AA, the problem is that the commentariat here is not, by and large, composed of dittoheads. I would say that in the typical thread, about 85% of the comments are smarter and give evidence of more thought and perspicacity than the post by MJ that started the thread. That goes for right-wing and left-wing comments, pro-Israel and anti-Israel. So I don't know whom MJ thinks he's fooling or convincing with his silly agitpoop. I guess maybe he's happy talking to the bottom 15%
May 1, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe he does it to inspire debate to get people to actually challenge and discuss what he's saying? I could be wrong -- but I don't see any hidden agenda here?
And, ok maybe an attack is not "imminent" but I certainly don't trust Dennis Ross roaming the ME with military men by his side.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1081728.html
Just creeps me out.
May 1, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
from U.S. Seeks to Assure Arabs on Iran Wall St. Journal, April 27.
My italics and bold.
May 1, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
AA - Just wondering how you manage to do blockquotes, italics and bold in comments? Is there a link to someplace where these arcane codes are explained for luddites such as myself seeking to spice up my otherwise dull comments.
May 1, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
AG,
To get italics type before the text you want to be italic, then to turn off the italics.
For bold, the codes are to turn on and to turn off.
I never try blockquotes but there is a
Since, I typed the codes in this reply, we'll see if they actually work. If you want to try other effects, google "html codes" and you'll find various lists of codes that may work if they are supported by the TPMCafe software.
(PS: Nice to see you and Dan agreeing. I agree on this too, but don't feel like wading in to it.)
May 2, 2009 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops . . the codes worked, but like good codes, they don't show. All html codes are surrounded by angle brackets -- < > .
To turn on italics, type < i > . To turn off italics < /i > .
To turn on bold, type < b > . To turn it off, < /b > .
For blockquote, < blockquote > and then < /blockquote > .
May 2, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple,
thanks for the info on codes.
Italics test
this is a test
Bold test
this is a test
I know to blockquote.
May 2, 2009 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
IT WORKS!!!!
May 2, 2009 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
One other good one to try is this:
To get a bulleted list like this, type <li> before each line.
May 2, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks so much for the code info.
Now I just have to cut n paste it quickly before MJ deletes the thread.
May 2, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
AG.
LOL about the shameful MJ predeliction for deleting threads as he just did it again with his AIPAC thread for some inexplicable reason. Well, maybe not so inexplicable if my find on Ynet is true (that Obama will be addressing AIPAC Monday ) had something to do with it's blackholing.
With MJ, one can never tell.
Not a good example to the grandchildren, is he?
PS. I followed your example and saved Purple State's clear instructions as well.
May 3, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that the "Arabs" referred to in these pieces are the monarchical and despotic heads of deeply unpopular governments.
A look at public opinion in the region shows that the people and countries who "Arabs" are supposedly worried about are actually more popular among ordinary Arabs than the elite Arab leaders who are doing the worrying:
http://www.brookings.edu/topics/~/media/Files/events/2008/0414_middle_east/0414_middle_east_telhami.pdf
Once again, the US is lagging behind change in the region, and attaching themselves to the past, instead of getting out ahead of it. Sure, some of these leaders are worried about Iran. They are desperate to hang on to their evaporating privileges and special relationships among the wealthy in the West.
Iran is the 21st century Middle East; Mubarrak and Abdullah are the 20th century. (Abdullah is actually more like the 18th century; but that's another issue.) Iran is a republic that is actually going to have an election in June. Elections are deeply disturbing to the decadent autocrats of the old Sunni states.
May 1, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh tsk tsk. The WSJ is lying to you, aa.
"Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa says it is Israel's military nuclear program that worries Arab countries not Iran's nuclear program.
In an interview with Saudi Arabia's "Medina" newspaper, he voiced his support for dialogue with Iran, Mehr news agency reported on Sunday.
Moussa noted that today it is proven that Israel's nuclear program is military in nature but there is no evidence to indicate that Iran is pursuing a military nuclear program.
He also warned against any Israeli attack against Iran and stressed that such a wrong decision could set the region on fire.
The Arab League head expressed hope that Washington would not give Israel the green light for a strike on Iran."
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=91894§ionid=351020202
Marc Lynch:
"Moussa didn't bite when Ignatius suggested that Arab leaders were urging the U.S. to be tougher on Iran and to hold off on the promised dialogue. On the contrary, he responded, for the last few years it has been the Americans coming to the Arabs and talking up the Iran threat and not the other way around. He acknowledged Arab concerns about Iran, but concluded that the Arabs and Iran would have to learn how to co-exist. As to the Iranian nuclear program, Moussa would only talk about the double-standard surrounding Israeli nuclear weapons."
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/25/listening_to_both_sides_of_the_arab_divide
FYI, Amr Moussa is an Egyptian and it's widely speculated that his countrymen would elect him leader if they could.
May 2, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't trust Ross either - not one bit. And Netanyahu and his paranoid outlook are deeply worrying. That's why its so important to get these things right and be accurate. If you just run around with your hair on fire every day, crying wolf and setting of false fire alarms about things that don't transpire, and making up inaccurate representations of other people's words, you make your case look ridiculous.
MJ is like the Lyndon LaRouche of Likud critics. The sheer presence of such erratic and intellectually inept hysterics damages the ability of more rational criticism to get a foothold.
May 1, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of the criticism here is quite off-base.
Mr. Rosenberg is one of the most prolific columnists on this website. It is to be entirely expected that amongst many informative pieces from him there are and will be some real gems along with some duds. I would assign this one to the latter, though much rarer, category. It is an over-hype of an article that is based on unoriginal over-hyping. But in no way does this make Rosenberg "dishonest" or a "hack"; such remarks are rude, wrong-headed, and quite inaccurate.
We have had decades of "intelligent and competent analysts" making "strong cases against Israeli behavior" while that behavior and the US response to it has gone from acceptable to questionable to bad to worse. Most of this competent analysis has also been esoteric, obscure and heavily ignored. When it has been most needed, e.g. circa 2001-2005, we have tended to get deafening silence.
Now a critical period of new risks and opportunities has begun. There are new governments in the US and Israel. Most of the rest of the world has long been waiting for change from those two directions and is likely be be generally supportive. More esoteria and navel-gazing is not called for. The case for diplomatic compromises is decades old, common-sensical, and sound. What has been lacking most has been a solid, direct, flow of timely information blasting through stupified US mainstream media reporting and Congressional cravenness. That barrage of information, necessarily of somewhat uneven quality, is what MJ Rosenberg delivers here, swiftly, skillfully, and above all with the kind of steady repetition that will be essential to finally achieving progress.
May 1, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may be delivered swiftly PTroub, but it is not delivered skillfully. Maybe when I am less tired tomorrow, I can go through the archives to compile a list of citations of the tediously long string of posts in which MJ has been nailed saying things that are blatantly false. But he goes right on doing it. He has no respect whatsoever for his audience, typical of lobbyist hacks.
Lying is lying. People shouldn't put up with it.
May 1, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm beginning to think MJ is indulging in hyperbole in order to tweak his detractors in the Cafe. Read the commentary on this article at the link. It's completely free of the silly overwrought claims he makes here.
That said, it's a stupid tactic on Mj's part as time is wasted on complaining about HIM instead of discussing the subject at hand.
May 2, 2009 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, having read some of the things MJ writes in other venues, it appears he has much more respect for those other readers than he does for his readers here at TPM Cafe.
May 2, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The article says:
"Removing the Iranian threat to Israel has been Netanyahu's main goal for years, and the Iranians' progress in this realm has only reinforced his awareness that the fateful hour of decision is fast approaching."
MJ apparently interprets this as:
"Benn, a top Israeli journalist, is predicting an imminent Israeli attack on Iran."
This is a dubious interpretation, probably resulting from not reading the whole article carefully.
It is not "lying", not even close.
May 2, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about the obvious distinction between, "the hour of decision is fast approaching" and "the decision has already been made"?
Maybe MJ is just a lazy reader and not a liar. Either way, he has a low regard for accuracy. And the pattern is long-running.
May 2, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rare are the days when I agree with Dan K on anything having to do with the Middle East, but while I find his commentary here perhaps a bit blunt and confrontational for my taste, the gist of his criticism is spot on. There is no excuse for the clowning, distortions and out and out fabrications MJ peddles here regularly. This post is just an extreme example of the tripe we see here regularly. Coming from the "Director Of Policy Analysis" of the IPF, it really boggles the mind.
Unlike Dan K, I approach this as a supporter of Israel dismayed by the steady stream of misrepresentations from a respected voice purportedly like-minded viewpoint.
That said, I keep coming back for more.
May 1, 2009 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 1, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's excessively scary Iran gets the bomb. I think it's a well documented inevitability.
What I find truly scary is that we continue to have such counter productive polices towards Iran which destabilizes the country, increases radicalism and hampers moderation and reform.
May 1, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Top journalist or not, the article is not of high quality. It refers to candidate Netanyahu talking of militarily preempting a supposed second Holocaust from Iran but also expressing "support for Obama's proposal for rapprochement with the Iranians." It ignores what every military analyst commentator for last several years seems to invariably conclude: a conventional attack by Israel (or the US) would NOT stop Iran from getting the bomb. Probably this is why an attack on Iran has been "imminent" for the last four years. Also, no mention in the Benn article of the fact that the utterer of the supposed new Holocaust threats is also now a candidate for office, and plays to his nutcase constituents as Netanyahu has played to his.
May 1, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israeli arrogance will, without any doubt, ensure a strike against Iran. Probably a 'cut and run affair' as the IDF is not at all anxious to face a properly armed enemy with aircraft and tanks, bombs and missiles.
All previous 'battles' have been one-sided events with hundreds of tons of mainly US supplied cluster bombs and rockets being dropped or fired safely from the air and without any danger.
Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and the old Arab armies were just clusters of olive farmers in uniform. Iran, however, is a real, grown-up adversary with real bombs and real missiles and very real soldiers.
The only methodology that Israel can employ is to 'attack' with unmanned drones carrying nuclear warheads. That way , so the argument goes, 'we can kill without being killed'.
Somewhat of a naive underestimate of the 'enemy', I would venture. And a gross underestimate of international reaction. If and when there is a so-called 'pre-emptive attack' - that will be the end of a dream.
May 1, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel doesn't even have such a capability to launch "unmanned drones" with 1000+ mile strike capability, carrying nuclear weapons no less.
They have F15i & F16i for strike capability. Which are not "stealthy" or otherwise magically impervious to being shot down.
Let's keep in mind anything leaving Israel has to go through some combination of Jordanian, Syrian, Turkish, Egyptian, Saudi or Iraq/US airspace. Most likely would be Syria > Iraq > Iran. Meaning US AWACS would be watching and permission would need to be given beforehand.
So before anyone talks about such things just "happening" let's keep in mind the actual technical limitations.
May 1, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Iran was able to make a nuclear weapon, what would they do with it?
May 1, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing. Nothing whatsoever.
Nuclear weapons can only be used if nobody else has them. Israel has a large nuclear arsenal, and would retaliate massively if attacked, against a specific state or the whole region.
Nuclear weapons are ultimately defensive. Using them ensures annihilation, therefore the only time they may be used is in retaliation if expecting annihilation.
The exception of course being if truly suicidal people get hold of nuclear weapons. Which is why we should be doing everything possible to aid the stability of near-nuclear powers like Iran, or nuclear powers like Pakistan, rather than inflaming anti-US and anti-Israel sentiments which inevitably gives rise to radical elements.
We should always keep in mind the Ayatollah Khomeini and Irans's leaders believe strongly in self preservation and order within Iran. Inflaming the truly radical and dangerous elements within Iran, and rallying the country around the leadership while quashing moderate elements, is the worst idea possible.
May 1, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reality check on Israeli on "existential" crisis and why the very suggestion another Holocaust is even possible, is a form of insanity:
Israel has a large nuclear arsenal, disproportionately large relative to size. It ranks behind China, on par or possibly ahead of Pakistan and India.
Israel's nuclear arsenal includes "2nd strike" capability on submarines. Meaning, even if Israel suffered crippling surprise attack, the response would be devastating, and perhaps indiscriminate, over a wide span of the ME.
Iran has a clear sense of self preservation and does not wish to risk nuclear war. While both Iran and Israel frequently conduct low scale conflict to irritate one another, neither side is suicidal.
All the politicians in the region know these facts.
Any politician who claims either side faces a "holocaust" or "existential threat" is lying and fear mongering.
May 1, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the Brits aren't stupid they got their troops out of Basra a month early.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8026136.stm
Seems like they weren't going to take a chance letting their troops get any blowback.
May 1, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
M. J.,
you give haaretz the wrong interpretation and credit of being able or even presuming to "predict " things. its just this countries mantra's which help to sell news.
its just busy scaring people with the apocalyps which uses the holocaust, as it being the core of Israel's fear, which is the only unifying ethos of this oppressed public.
In other words- it's no different from the Fox channel extreme conservative state of mind. and no, its not a left winged newspaper as you refer to it all the time, but a high-class "quality" for the righteous well founded (or that would like to be) petit bourgeoisie. you give haaret'z the wrong interpretation
May 1, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Israel Attacks Iran, they are a clear and present danger to the United States and, therefore, our enemy.
May 2, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The headline implies that the second Holocaust will be perpetrated by Netanyahu (on Iran?) yet the article itself clearly states that Netanyahu himself is deeply worried about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and perpetrating a second holocaust on Israel. How can Netanyahu be bringing Israel to its second holocaust if he is preparing to remove the Iranian threat by military action?
Ha'aretz conflates the two and makes it seem that Netanyahu is the aggressor bringing about a Holocaust (on Iran?). Confusing to say the least given the body of the text that follows the headline
May 2, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read the article, and it doesn't say at all what you say it does. In fact, there is really nothing new here. Far from an Israeli attack being "imminent," the article just reiterates what we already know, that Bibi is bound and determined to attack Iran if Obama's efforts at diplomacy fail and Iran is on the verge of obtaining a nuclear bomb. Since as far as we know, Iran isn't even seeking a nuclear bomb, the critical moment may never come. The real thrust of the article is expressed in its second to last sentence:
The article was well worth reading, but shame on you MJ for your alarmism!
May 2, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Israel is trying to rile up fear in the US that Israel may do something drastic if we don't appease them. And how could we appease Israel? By passing harsh new Iranian sanctions designed to strangle Iran's economy. That's what the AIPAC conference is about. And Jane Harman has been pushing economic sanctions against Iran ever since she arrived in Congress.
If you recall, we used harsh Iraqi sanctions to strangle Iraq's economy, also pushed by AIPAC, to soften Iraq up.
As for Ross' leaks to the WSJ, I am very suspicious of leaks saying the Arabs agree that Iran has to be constrained for fear of starting an arms race. I don't believe it for a second. Why would they agree for another country to be placed into the same track leading to distraction that Iraq was?
If these sanctions pass the Congress, we should begin to be very worried.
May 2, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Dan K, for putting into words what I feel so many have been thinking.
I generally agree with MJ on the broad outlines of Mideast policy, and I scan all his posts for the links he provides to interesting, often excellent articles.
But the polemical, quasi-hysterical, bizarro-Fox-News-ish spin he gives facts, analysis and opinion often makes me wish he were back working for AIPAC. It would be so much easier to simply disagree with him all the time.
I hesitate to label him an agent provocateur, but he certainly shows disrespect for his TPM audience. Look at this thread: we're smarter, and more sober, than you give us credit for, MJ.
May 3, 2009 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
`s poll. I need to read more on this topic...I admiring time and effort you put in your blog, because it is obviously one great place where I c
duffle bag factory.
August 11, 2010 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
if you are a fashion man,you must heart the abercrombie and fitch or the vibram five fingers
August 18, 2010 3:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Feel good, thank you on the article。by the way,Upstairs is a sucker.
christian louboutin|Abercrombie and Fitch london
August 20, 2010 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v iscsi, iscsi mirroring
March 30, 2011 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
i hope no war in the future. econimics crisis very disturbing on our life. We find mortgages for bad credit for shortherm solutions. We keep applying free insurance quotes to help more in financial
April 5, 2011 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability virtualization
April 28, 2011 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink