The Madness Of Benjamin Netanyahu

8 03 2012

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

The recent sober assessment of Arnaud de Borchgrave—the distinguished editor-at-large of The Washington Times and of United Press International—is worth reading and reflecting on:

U.S. three-star generals and admirals, Defense Intelligence Agency and CIA sources, along with three former CENTCOM commanders and the three former chiefs of Israeli intelligence services who retired last year—a formidable array of military and civilian experts who share impressive expertise on the Middle East—are all waving a red flag against unilateral Israeli or bilateral U.S.-Israeli bombing of Iran’s nuclear installations.

They can see such actions triggering a wider conflict spreading to the entire Middle East and the rest of the Arab world.

. . .

A three-star with much recent experience in the Middle East says an Israeli strike could move the entire region in the wrong direction.

Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz, not just for a few hours, as the Israelis say, but long enough to drive oil prices into the stratosphere. An admiral with years of experience in the region at different times of his career said privately Iran can sow thousands of mines in an area that handles one-fifth of the world’s daily oil requirements. They are below the surface and can be detonated by remote control as a warship sails over them. Iran’s shore line, which covers the entire eastern side of the Persian Gulf, is pock-marked with concealed missile sites.

The Iranians would also use hundreds of small boats in a swarming configuration that U.S. warships are prepared to cope with—but one or two are bound to get through a curtain of fire and punch a hole in the hull of a U.S. or NATO minesweeper.

Such a small boat in Aden harbor in October 2000 punctured the hull of the USS Cole, a $1 billion Arleigh Burke class destroyer, killing 17 sailors, and putting the warship out of service for 18 months with a $220 million repair bill. Cost of the operation to al-Qaida: $10,000 plus three volunteer suicide bombers.

The response of Israeli naysayers is that such tactics would hurt Iran far more than any of its intended targets. U.S. generals and admirals respond that the Iranian leadership wouldn’t be averse to cutting off its nose to spite its face.

The Iranians can also absorb temporary belt-tightening far more readily than Western Europeans. And with gas at the pump suddenly selling at $10 to $15 a gallon, U.S. President Barack Obama’s updated resume wouldn’t look too appealing at the ballot box in November.

. . .

U.S. Navy 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain is vulnerable; two-thirds of its population is Shiite Muslim and rooting for Tehran in the current conflict.

. . .

Most Iran watchers in the intelligence community say that one Israeli or U.S. bomb on Iran would push Iran’s youthful protesters right into the arms of the government they despise.

. . .

More important than his meeting with Obama is Netanyahu’s speech to the annual AIPAC convention. The endorsement of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington’s most powerful lobby, is tantamount to solid congressional approval.[2]

By attacking Iran, Netanyahu and Israel will stir up a hornet’s nest in the Islamic world, and achieve little or nothing militarily. Israel does not have the means of destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities; and it is likely that the mission would end in failure. Also, what Arnaud de Borchgrave neglected to mention in his fine article is that in the Middle East, in Europe and worldwide, Israelis and other innocent Jews can be targeted by Islamic fascists; and there is nothing that Israel or its Mossad can do to prevent it.

A “silent” holocaust might take place globally, which would be unstoppable.  There are 1.3–1.65 billion followers of Islam worldwide, while Iran’s total population is approximately 78 million; and there are 14–18 million Jews worldwide, of which 6 million live in Israel.[3]

It is the Narcissistic demagogue Netanyahu who must be stopped, before he triggers actions in the Middle East and elsewhere that might be truly catastrophic.  His goal is to provoke an American attack on Iran, which is outrageous, reprehensible, and similar to the pressures that were brought to bear before the United States invaded Iraq.  There are no limits to his arrogance, or the extremes to which he will go to provoke the American attack.  He and Iran’s Ahmadinejad and Russia’s Putin are “moral equivalents.”[4]

America is not Israel’s surrogate; the two countries are not tied at the hip; and Iran is not America’s fight.  The American people are bone-tired of fighting wars in the region, and want out.  And our valiant and heroic military forces have been stretched far enough.[5]

The New York Times has reported:

Thomas E. Donilon, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, . . . spent two days [in Jerusalem] recently, along with a team of intelligence and defense officials, meeting with Mr. Netanyahu and his lieutenants. Both sides contended that the meetings were highly successful. The Israelis were told that the administration not only says it would use military force if sanctions against Iran failed, it is also doing the planning for it.[6]

Not a single drop of American blood should ever be spilled to protect or defend Israel, period.[7]  It is on its own, sink or swim.  It is a pariah state worldwide because of Netanyahu, who continually seeks to dictate and distort U.S. foreign and national security policies.  Barack Obama was right in reaching out to the Islamic world—and he must block all warmongering actions by Netanyahu.  An Israeli attack on Iran would undoubtedly draw fury from Islamic nations and the followers of Islam around the world.  America is not at war with Islam; and Netanyahu must not be allowed to provoke this.

On some level Obama views the Israelis as the oppressors, or the “enemy,” and the Palestinians as the oppressed—reflecting his deep-seated beliefs about Apartheid in South Africa, which he viewed as pure evil.  If one has any doubts, read his book, “Dreams from My Father.”[8]  Hence, there is no kinship whatsoever between Obama and Netanyahu; and it is not surprising that Obama would treat him with outright disdain and contempt.  Viewed in this context, one can understand what Obama is doing and why he is doing it.  To him, it is likely that Netanyahu personifies that oppression.

The following bears repeating:

[Netanyahu] was hated by former Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Rabin—and especially by Rabin’s wife Leah, who blamed Netanyahu for her husband’s assassination. She saw “only doom for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process” with Netanyahu at Israel’s helm; and her views were prescient.[9]

Perhaps most surprising—and disturbing—is that the Israeli people have not ousted Netanyahu before now, despite the warnings of Sharon, the Rabins and others.  One of my Jewish friends who follows Israeli politics closely is convinced that the problem lies in its fractured parliamentary democracy. Small splinter groups, such as Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party, are allowed to dictate Israeli domestic and national security policies.

It is a case of the “tail wagging the dog,” and Netanyahu has skillfully maneuvered this political system to his benefit.  Indeed, there appears to be little likelihood of change, certainly before he marches his fellow Israelis—and potentially Jews worldwide—to the edge of an abyss, of unfathomable depths.

In advance of Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu, the Los Angeles Times reported:

Obama said he plans to tell Netanyahu that he will order military strikes against Iran’s nuclear program if the current international sanctions are not successful in deterring its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

. . .

“I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff,” Obama said. . . .[10]

This is absurd, and simply political theater.

Obama has cut and run from Iraq, like a dog with his tail between his legs.  He is in the process of doing the same thing in Afghanistan, and losing the Middle East to Islamic fascists.  And he is trying to “gut” our great nation’s military might.[11]  The idea that America’s “Hamlet on the Potomac”—and “Jimmy Carter-lite”—would all of a sudden reverse course and launch the United States into a potentially devastating war with Iran and the Islamic world is nonsensical.

He is a political actor, pure and simple, and not much more.  Any notion that he has “Israel’s back,” and will protect it, must be viewed in the context of how he has protected the Iraqis, the Afghans, and dissenters in both Iran and Syria—which is not at all.[12]

The path on which Netanyahu is leading the Israelis is fraught with peril for their tiny Jewish nation . . . and potentially for Jews worldwide.  He is determined to take the United States and the American people on the “joy ride” with him, which is utter madness.

© 2012, Timothy D. Naegele

[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass).  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, which specializes in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see and  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g.,, and can be contacted directly at; see also Google search:Timothy D. Naegele

[2] See (“Geopolitical maelstrom”); see also” (“Is Netanyahu’s Next Irresponsible Adventure An Attack On Iran?”)

[3] See, e.g.,” (“Wikipedia: Major religious groups”) and (“New Attacks On Israelis Have Begun, Which May Spread To Other Jews Worldwide”)

[4] See, e.g.,; see also” (“‘2012 is not 1944’: Netanyahu invokes Auschwitz in warning to Obama over Iran”)

[5] See, e.g.,; see also” (“[T]here must be no illusions about what it would take to seriously damage Iran’s nuclear complex, the high costs and the limited returns”)

[6] See” (“For Obama and Netanyahu, Wariness on Iran Will Dominate Talks”)

[7] Many Americans will never forget the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty.  As stated at a memorial to those who died and were injured:

On June 8, 1967, US Navy intelligence ship USS Liberty was suddenly and brutally attacked on the high seas in international waters by the air and naval forces of Israel. The Israeli forces attacked with full knowledge that this was an American ship and lied about it.

. . .

Thirty four Americans were killed in the attack and another 174 were wounded.


[8] See

[9] See

[10] See,0,7234351.story (“Obama on Iran: ‘I don’t bluff'”)

[11] See, e.g.,

[12] See and and



117 responses

8 03 2012

Mr. Naegele,

I admire 99% of your commentary….but on this I disagree.

When Iran gets The Bomb , they will use it. Period. In such case the Arab countries will rally and jump on the band wagon ,,,anyway.

America will automatically be drawn in.

The war is coming whether we like it or not. It is tragic. But it is scriptural. This war is already underway. It had been since 1991. It is not going to get nicer. Israel is and has been the target. it is just now getting to this raped up pre nuclear stage.

There is a religiously motivated Ideological bully and tyrant on the block in Iran and they have been lying and wanting to rake over the world since 1979.

All of the military and intelligence assessments in the world are correct. But all the correctness in the world is not going to sway Iran. They speak it out publicly, in the United Nations no less.

It would be like one of your neighbors on your street telling you every week that he hates your other neighbor, am gonna stockpile guns, and is going to kill him as soon as he gets the chance…..and after the deed is done you tell the police, well yeah I saw him stocking guns [every] week but I thought he was bluffing.

Well, the bluff is up. The neighbor is dead.

Other than my three cents worth, I enjoy your blog!


8 03 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Gary, for your comments. Keep reading the blog. I appreciate it. 🙂

First, the same arguments that you make can be made with respect to North Korea, yet we have not gone to war against that country, nor has our much more important ally—South Korea—urged us to do so.

The same thing is true with respect to China and Russia. Thank God, cooler heads have prevailed. World War III might have happened ages ago if madness had been allowed to run amok. I remember as an elementary school student in Los Angeles going through mock nuclear attack drills, and hiding under our school desks.

Second, the United States’ national interest does not lie in making this world safe for Israel. It is on its own, sink or swim. Indeed, there are lots of Jews who are very worried that Netanyahu is leading his tiny country down a path that will lead to its destruction.

I am concerned about even worse than that; namely, the wholesale targeting of Jews everywhere in this world. I have made my views clear on this subject.

See, e.g.,

Third, Americans want out of the region, not another war—much less one to vindicate the madness of Netanyahu. He is a loose cannon, at best. The Rabins and Sharon knew this; other Israelis do too; and world leaders know it as well.

Fourth, taken to the logical conclusion of your reasoning—and I say this respectfully—what you are suggesting is tantamount to Armageddon. As I have written:

My paternal grandfather believed it was a mistake for the United States to be in the Middle East; and there is wisdom in his views. According to his logic, we would not have fought the Gulf War, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; and we would remain neutral with respect to Israel and the Palestinians, and the other countries of the Middle East as well. Any notion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a fundamental national interest of America is nonsense. Like the views of many in the United States prior to World War II, Americans might remain neutral and let the chips fall where they may, rather than engage in any more unpopular military incursions.


Please reread the last paragraph of my article above, and reflect on those conclusions:

The path on which Netanyahu is leading the Israelis is fraught with peril for their tiny Jewish nation . . . and potentially for Jews worldwide. He is determined to take the United States and the American people on the “joy ride” with him, which is utter madness.

Thank you again.

8 04 2012

North Korea is not an ideologically oriented regime, nor has it already used and finance proxy armies like the IRI does. I sadly agree with Gary, was is underway whether you wish to stare it in the face or not.

8 04 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Piet, for your comments from Belgium.

Of course, North Korea is an ideologically-oriented regime. It is pure communism, and as authoritarian as any regime on the face of this earth.

Of course too, it has used armies against us and our vital ally, South Korea. This is what the Korean War was all about, and why there is a risk of another war on the Korean Peninsula.


Third, you have read my responses to Gary, and I assume to Michael and Martin as well, so I will not repeat them.

Fourth, like other Narcissistic demagogues, Netanyahu stifles debate and criticism.

See, e.g.,

Also, he is determined to provoke the United States and the American people into a war with Iran, while at the same time perpetrating Apartheid. He is our enemy—make no mistake about that.

22 03 2012

You know, there is absolutely no evidence that Iran will use the bomb. If anything, the evidence is to the contrary as Iran hasn’t invaded another nation in over 250 years. On the other hand, Israel which does possess a number of nuclear weapons has a history of invading its neighbors and stealing their lands. A great percentage of people do not share your faith and see Israel as the greatest threat to world peace. Here is a link to the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s article on a poll of the matter:

It defies the imagination that a small nation would use an atomic weapon on the West and risk annihilation. The easiest way to stop Israel from dragging the US into an unwanted war is to stop funding first world Israel. If they want to invade nations then let them pay for it themselves. It’s not surprising that the vast majority of Israelis do not want to attack Iran if the US is not involved.

23 03 2013

“When Iran gets The Bomb, they will use it”


You use the bomb as leverage or to keep others from attacking you.
Nobody wins if you have to use it!

Were you sleeping when they hoodwinked you with the last Iraq war???

8 03 2012

Lots of emotions, not so much logic. With all respect to your paternal grandfather’s beliefs I was looking for some better arguments in your blog but failed.

8 03 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments, Michael.

All of the key arguments are there, backed up by the judgments of foreign policy and national security experts, including Israelis and other Jews. Indeed, the only parties trumpeting war with Iran are Netanyahu and his lackeys, AIPAC, and those who carry water for them.

Let them fight a war with Iran and the Islamic world. Leave the United States and the American people out of it. Then, let the chips fall where they may, whatever the consequences.

. . .

However, in the final analysis, it may be innocent Israelis and other Jews who suffer most from Netanyahu’s unbridled madness. Tragically, he is the face of Israel, Israelis and Jews around the world. As a demonic Narcissistic demagogue, he is preparing to risk their lives, his nation’s existence, and wager American lives in the process. He must be stopped.

See also (“Amos Oz, Israel’s most celebrated novelist, weighed into the debate . . . : ‘Anyone who compares Iran of today to Hitler, and Israel to Auschwitz, is committing an act that is anti-Zionist and demagogic, encouraging people to emigrate from Israel and sowing hysteria'”)

8 03 2012

– “We would not have fought the WWII and we would remain neutral with respect to Germany, Japan, Russia, England and the other countries as well. Any notion that the WWII conflict is a fundamental national interest of America is nonsense
Not a single drop of American blood should ever be spilled to protect or defend Europe, period It is on its own, sink or swim.”

that’s your and your grandfather’s logic

Forget about Israel. If Iran gets the bomb, next are Egypt, Saudis etc. It means nightmare for USA.

. . .

You wrote

“Leave the United States and the American people out of it.”

You should tell that to Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei.

I’m afraid he’s got different plans.

8 03 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Michael, for your comments.

Saving Israel from its own destruction at the hands of Netanyahu is not remotely comparable to World War II. If anything, it is comparable to saving the entire country of Georgia from Russian aggression under the guidance of the brutal “dictator-for-life” Putin. Next to come, which may happen, is the rest of Georgia that he has not seized already, and possibly the Ukraine.

We did not go to war in that instance, and we have no vital national security interest in going to war on Israel’s behalf, ever. Let them fight their own wars, sink or swim. We should be bystanders, period.

Next, with respect to the Ayatollah Khamenei having different plans, Putin does too—which are infinitely more important to our vital national security interests than Israel’s survival.

9 03 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Israelis, Like United States, Wary About Strike On Iran

This is the title of a Washington Post article, which stated:

[T]he Israeli public has displayed little enthusiasm for a solo preemptive military strike. A handful of recent polls have shown that ordinary Israelis are firmly against the idea of going it alone.

“Israelis are much more careful, much more cautious than their government,” said Ephraim Yaar, a Tel Aviv University professor who co-directs a monthly public opinion survey. This week, more than 60 percent of Israelis polled said they opposed an attack on Iran without U.S. cooperation.

. . .

Commentators and retired security officials have questioned whether the Israeli military has the capacity to carry off a solo assault. The Israeli public shares that doubt, the survey found — and believes that Iranian retaliation could kill more than 500 civilians, the figure estimated by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak in November.

In a column published Thursday in the Hebrew-language newspaper Maariv, columnist Yael Paz-Melamed echoed some of those concerns, accusing Netanyahu of making a more forceful case for action against Iran in Washington than he had at home. A strike could engulf the nation in a bloody conflict, she argued, and it is unclear whether a nuclear-armed Iran really would be more dangerous than a war with Iran.

. . .

Moshe Levin, a retired graphic designer . . . , said Netanyahu had seemed like a “beggar” seeking U.S. protection. Obama spoke eloquently, Levin said, but his cautious approach simply underscored how differently Americans, thousands of miles away, perceive the threat of an Iranian bomb.

. . .

Netanyahu returned to Israel on the eve of Purim, a holiday celebrating the biblical story of the Jews’ escape from a massacre plotted by Haman, a king’s minister in ancient Persia. Now, Netanyahu said, Jews “have a strong state and army. . . . We can defend ourselves.”

On Wednesday afternoon, parents in central Jerusalem held the hands of children costumed as fairies and superheroes, in commemoration of the holiday. Yael Nahari, a museum guide waiting for a tram, said the connection between the Purim story and the modern-day debate had not occurred to her. But she said she hoped the present scenario would end less dramatically.

“We must first try the diplomatic possibilities,” said Nahari, 34. An Israeli strike, she said, should happen only “if there are really no other options.”

See (emphasis added); see also (“[Meir] Dagan, who retired in January 2011 after eight years as director of the Israeli intelligence service [Mossad], has repeatedly warned that an attack could fail to curb Iran’s atomic ambitions while risking engulfing the region in conflict“)

. . .

The Washington Post‘s _ states in an article entitled, “Obama vs. Israel”:

[W]hat is Obama’s real objective? “We’re trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel,” an administration official told The Post. . . .

Revealing and shocking. The world’s greatest exporter of terror (according to the State Department), the systematic killer of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, the self-declared enemy that invented “Death to America Day” is approaching nuclear capability — and the focus of U.S. policy is to prevent a democratic ally threatened with annihilation from preempting the threat?

. . .

Obama wants to get past Nov. 6 without any untoward action that might threaten his reelection.


9 03 2012

Putin’s attack on Georgia is not threat to USA.

Obama says:

– A nuclear-armed Iran is completely counter to Israel’s security interests.
But it is ALSO counter to the national security interests of the United States.

– There are risks that an Iranian nuclear weapon could fall into the hands of a terrorist organization.

– It is almost certain that others in the region would feel compelled to get their own nuclear weapon, triggering an arms race in one of the world’s most volatile regions.

9 03 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Michael, for your comments.

First, Putin’s attack on Georgia was an attack on vital American interests. We have been promoting freedom in the former Soviet republics, and trying to move them into the West’s sphere of influence. Georgia had been progressing nicely, and Putin was challenged by this. To invade Georgia sent signals to the Ukraine and other countries, which cannot be tolerated by the United States.

At some point, Putin will be terminated, and the world will be better because of it. He faces a future comparable to Mussolini, Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

He is Stalin’s heir.

See, e.g., (see also the article itself, as well as the footnotes and other comments beneath it)

Second, there are more significant risks that existing nuclear weapons from North Korea or Pakistan or even Russia can fall into terrorist hands. Iran does not even have them yet.

Again, this underscores the madness of Netanyahu. He is “unhinged,” and the Rabins and Sharon knew this.

10 03 2012

Dear Mr Naegele

Let us please step aside one minute .Would YOU have recommended that President Roosevelt bomb the rail lines in to Auschwitz in 1944 when my Grandparents were taken to their deaths for no logical reason? At that point in time Hitler was fully aware that the War was lost but he was determined to link his downfall to the annihilation of Hungarian Jewry.Could Roosevelt not have spared a few bombers to bomb the tracks?He had hundres of planes in the air but the Jews of Hungary were not worth trying to save ?Be honest in your answer .
When in the 1990’s the Senate Banking Commission was involved in Holocaust restitution can we see your speeches and recommendations?How sad you had to be part of this debate .If Roosevelt had bombed the tracks to Auschwitz Hungarian Jewry would have survived and the major part of the Senate hearing would have been superfluous.
Netanyahu would have bombed the Train Lines in 1944 but sadly the State of Israel was only founded in 1948.Can I assume you would have also have attacked Netanyahu if he had done Roosevelts moral duty in 1944?

10 03 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Martin, for your thoughtful and poignant comments, which I appreciate.

First, I am so very sorry that your grandparents were taken to their tragic deaths. I visited Dachau years ago, and am well aware of the despicable Nazi atrocities, which never should have happened. They were and remain an unforgivable stain on human history—and represent continuing anguish and torment for the surviving victims and their families.

My paternal ancestors were Germans, who came to the United States in 1849. I have tried for years to understand how and why the Nazi Holocaust happened. Clearly, German-Americans and today’s Germans cannot be blamed. Among other things, Dwight Eisenhower is a German-American hero who destroyed the Third Reich.

Second, I agree that the rail lines should have been bombed. However, some have suggested that the camps themselves should have been bombed, with which I disagree. To have done so would have condemned the innocent Jews and others who were interned there to a certain death, and accomplished nothing.

The bombing of the rail lines may have been more symbolic than positive too. For example, the Nazis might have used other “killing fields” to accomplish their ends, as you know.

Third, I am always amazed that so many American Jews still revere the memory of Franklin D. Roosevelt, with some having become Democrats because of him. Based on everything that I know about him, there is reason to believe that he and those around him were anti-Semites or certainly very close to it.

One vivid memory comes to mind—aside from ignoring the plight of Jews in Europe itself—namely, what happened to the Jews aboard the MS St. Louis, who were denied entry to Cuba, the United States, and Canada. They returned to Europe, and most perished.

Fourth, with respect to the Holocaust reparations, I was not “part of this debate” in the United States Senate or otherwise. I have mixed feelings about them, and whether they have truly helped the survivors—instead of simply lining the pockets of lawyers and others.

As I have written:

Swiss banks and German companies were “extorted,” and forced to pay several billion dollars in reparations in the name of Holocaust survivors; however, only a relatively small percentage of the monies have actually gone to them. Many have died without receiving anything meaningful from the Claims Conference. This is wrong, and a travesty.


Lastly, my views about Netanyahu and his plans to attack Iran are clear; they are set forth above and elsewhere. There is no need to repeat them here.

See (see also the footnotes and comments beneath the article)

11 03 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

The Spymaster, Former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan, Compelled To Speak Out Because He Is So Opposed To Preemptive Israeli Strike Against Iran

Tel Aviv In Ruins After Iran Attack

[Tel Aviv in ruins after Iranian attack—Drudge Report, March 11, 2012]

In a rare interview, ex-chief of Mossad Meir Dagan has spoken out in opposition to a preemptive strike by Israel against Iranian nuclear facilities anytime soon. He says the Iranian regime is rational in its own way, CBS’ Lesley Stahl reported. The following script has been edited from “The Spymaster Speaks,” which aired on March 11, 2012:

[H]e told us he felt compelled to talk, because he is so opposed to a preemptive Israeli strike against Iran anytime soon.

Dagan headed the Mossad for nearly a decade until last year. His primary, if not his only mission was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. And he says there is time to wait, perhaps as long as three years.

Lesley Stahl: You have said publicly that bombing Iran now is the stupidest idea you’ve ever heard. That’s a direct quote.

. . .

Dagan: The regime in Iran is a very rational regime.

Stahl: Do you think Ahmadinejad is rational?

Dagan: The answer is yes. Not exactly our rationale, but I think that he is rational.

. . .

Dagan argues that a preemptive Israeli strike this year would be reckless and irresponsible. The Obama administration agrees that there’s time to wait.

. . .

In his memoir, former Vice President Dick Cheney says that in 2007 Dagan came to Washington with intel to make the case for bombing the Syrian nuclear reactor that Israel later took out in a surprise attack. Syria did not retaliate. This time, Dagan thinks it’ll be different. He worries about a rain of missiles which some estimate could be as many as 50,000.

Dagan: We are going to ignite, at least from my point of view, a regional war. And wars, you know how they start. You never know how you are ending it.

We went outside and looked out from his balcony at the bright lights of the very prosperous, modern city of Tel Aviv.

Stahl: If Israel does strike Iran, the retaliation would probably take place right here. Hezbollah could come from the north; Hamas could fire from the south.

Dagan: It will be a devastating impact on our ability to continue with our daily life. I think that Israel will be in a very serious situation for quite a time.

Dagan’s other concern is that a bombing attack would not be effective. It’s been widely reported that there are four main, heavily fortified, nuclear facilities dispersed across Iran. He says it’s more complicated than that.

Dagan: There are dozens of sites.

Stahl: Dozens?

Dagan: Dozens.

Stahl: Not four?

Dagan: Not four.

Stahl: So if Israel were to go and have their strike, they’d have to have a dozen hits?

Dagan: You’ll have to deal with a large number of targets.

Stahl: Here’s something that I saw that you said. You said, “There’s no military attack that can halt the Iranian nuclear project. It could only delay it.”

Dagan: Yes, I agree.

. . .

Dagan: I know it would sound anti-Semitic if I said some of my best friends are Arabs, but I truly, really admire some of the qualities of Arabs.

. . .

[G]lory turned to scorn at a Dubai hotel in 2010 during an operation to kill a top arms courier for Hamas.

What the 27 Mossad agents didn’t know was that the hotel was full of security cameras and while they succeeded in the assassination, the whole world got to watch their comings and goings including the two agents who conspicuously hung around the elevator in their tennis shorts. Pictures of the “secret agents” were on front pages around the world.

Stahl: This is considered kind of a disaster for the Mossad.

Dagan: I never heard that any Israeli was arrested.

. . .

Stahl: I wonder if it is the reason that you are no longer at the Mossad. That it was seen as such a botched operation, that that basically ended your career.

. . .

Dagan says he retired, but it’s widely believed in Israel that Netanyahu refused to renew his term and that’s one reason Dagan has broken the Mossad code of silence to criticize the prime minister’s stand on Iran.

. . .

Stahl: I’ve heard of talk that people want to put you on trial. They think what you’re doing is treasonous.

Dagan: Let them put me on trial. I’ll be very happy to go on trial. It’ll be fun.

See (emphasis added); see also (“[Lieutenant General Benny Gantz, the Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces] does not believe Iran will decide to develop nuclear weapons“) and (“Former Israeli [Prime Minister] Assails Netanyahu on Iran“) and (“Israel’s Senseless Killings And War With Iran”)

20 03 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

U.S. War Game Sees Perils of Israeli Strike Against Iran

The New York Times has reported:

A classified war simulation held this month to assess the repercussions of an Israeli attack on Iran forecasts that the strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead, according to American officials.

. . .

[The simulation] has raised fears among top American planners that it may be impossible to preclude American involvement in any escalating confrontation with Iran, the officials said. In the debate among policy makers over the consequences of any Israeli attack, that reaction may give stronger voice to those in the White House, Pentagon and intelligence community who have warned that a strike could prove perilous for the United States.

The results . . . were particularly troubling to Gen. James N. Mattis, who commands all American forces in the Middle East, Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia, according to officials who either participated in the Central Command exercise or who were briefed on the results and spoke on condition of anonymity because of its classified nature. When the exercise had concluded earlier this month, according to the officials, General Mattis told aides that an Israeli first strike would be likely to have dire consequences across the region and for United States forces there.

. . .

In the end, the [simulation] reinforced to military officials the unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of a strike by Israel, and a counterstrike by Iran, the officials said.

. . .

Many experts have predicted that Iran would try to carefully manage the escalation after an Israeli first strike in order to avoid giving the United States a rationale for attacking with its far superior forces. Thus, it might use proxies to set off car bombs in world capitals or funnel high explosives to insurgents in Afghanistan to attack American and NATO troops.

While using surrogates might, in the end, not be enough to hide Iran’s instigation of these attacks, the government in Tehran could at least publicly deny all responsibility.

Some military specialists in the United States and in Israel who have assessed the potential ramifications of an Israeli attack believe that the last thing Iran would want is a full-scale war on its territory. Thus, they argue that Iran would not directly strike American military targets, whether warships in the Persian Gulf or bases in the region.


Netanyahu’s madness must not distort American foreign policy or our vital national security interests. Also, the United States must not come to Israel’s aid, period.

Indeed, there is reason to believe that an attack on Iran will (1) end any hopes for a two-state solution between the Israelis and Palestinians, (2) hurt Israel in profound ways that are unknowable and unfathomable at present, (3) affect the United States and its relationship with the Islamic world in ways that are not in our strategic short- or long-term best interests, and potentially (4) result in the targeting of Israelis and other innocent Jews worldwide, which would be a tragedy beyond comprehension and make the attack in Toulouse seem like “child’s play.”

See, e.g., and (“Nearly one third of the Europeans surveyed held ‘pernicious anti-Semitic beliefs'”)

If necessary to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran, Barack Obama should order the shooting down of Israeli aircraft. Americans need to remember Israel’s brutal attack on the U.S. Navy intelligence ship, the USS Liberty, in which 34 Americans were killed and another 174 were wounded.

See, e.g.,

Anyone who endangers Americans and the national interests of the United States is our enemy. Benjamin Netanyahu is such a person; and he must be treated much like Russia’s “dictator-for-life” Vladimir Putin and Iran’s leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As stated in the article above and elsewhere, they are “moral equivalents.”

Anti-Semitism has no place in this world, and neither does Netanyahu’s recklessness. Indeed, the concluding paragraph of the article above is worth repeating:

The path on which Netanyahu is leading the Israelis is fraught with peril for their tiny Jewish nation . . . and potentially for Jews worldwide. He is determined to take the United States and the American people on the “joy ride” with him, which is utter madness.

See also

. . .

A growing number of Americans are not “fans” of Barack Obama, nor do they support his reelection. However, he may be the only candidate on the ballot in November who will stop Netanyahu in his tracks, and take decisive actions against him. Clearly, there is no love lost between the two of them.

The Republicans are pandering to Netanyahu and AIPAC, which is outrageous.

See, e.g., and and and (see also the footnotes and comments beneath the articles)

26 03 2012
30 03 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Apartheid 2012: Compliments Of Netanyahu

Netanyahu's Apartheid

The UK’s Telegraph has reported:

The “Land Day” rallies are an annual event marked by Israeli Arabs and Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who protest what they say are discriminatory Israeli land policies.

. . .

Sobhiyeh Mizari, 70, said she always taught her 12 children “never to forget Palestine.”

“We will liberate our land against the will of Israel and its backers,” said Mizari, who said her husband was killed in Israeli shelling of Lebanon in 1978.

. . .

Palestinians were banned from entering from the West Bank except for medical emergencies, and police barred Palestinian men under 40 from praying at a volatile Jerusalem holy site, citing security concerns.

The demonstrators performed their communal Muslim Friday prayers where they stood, praying on their flags instead of traditional mats.

They were surrounded by what appeared to be an equal number of Israeli security forces.

. . .

Many Palestinians, energised by Arab Spring uprisings that have overturned decades-old authoritarian regimes, see massive, coordinated marches as one of the most effective strategies to draw attention to their cause.

“After the Arab revolutions, there’s awareness of the importance of popular participation,” said Arab activist Jafar Farah. “This has rattled the Arab regimes, and now it’s frightening the Israeli government.”


Sooner or later, the “Arab Spring” may engulf Israel. Indeed, Israelis have every reason to be frightened, thanks to Netanyahu.

See also (“Amos Oz Rocks J Street”) and (“Israel has turned Palestine into a giant prison, but prisoners have a right to receive visitors”)

10 04 2012

Enjoyed your writing.

It’s Bibi’s father that is the fundamental “Nut” that the son is trying to impress.

The American taxpayer might be surprised to know that US aid to Israel is deposited the first of the year in “CASH”, one lump sum, directly into the Israel treasury. US pays the interest on that borrowed money, Israel turns around and invests it, gets return. All other foreign recipients get aid doled out quarterly with strings. Israel, NO strings and they get to involve the US in Mideast wars.

Why is Israel not concerned with “their” price of oil shooting up after their attack? Well, the 1978 Sinai II Agreement that Kissinger authored GUARANTEES US supply of oil to Israel, should there be an interruption.

What is wrong with this picture?

According to the Christian Science Monitor, the cost of Israel to the American TAXpayer has been over $1.6 TRILLION since 1973.

10 04 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments, Buddy.

First, the influence of Netanyahu’s 102-year-old father has been discussed in the past. Indeed, I have written:

[Jeffrey] Goldberg’s discussion of Netanyahu’s relationship with his 100-year-old father is interesting and instructive—about how Netanyahu will not do anything (e.g., peace) that would lose favor in his father’s eyes. This does not bode well for the peace effort, at least as long as his father is alive.

See; see also

[Note: Benzion Netanyahu, Hawkish Scholar, Dies at 102. See (“To understand Bibi, you have to understand the father“); see also]

Second, the cost to American taxpayers has been staggering. However, if Netanyahu provokes a war with Iran in which the United States is involved, the price may go through the roof.

16 04 2012

Typical liberal/libertarian banter. Timothy, you are not seeing the big picture. Iran’s has plans that go far beyond Israel. Iran and Russia intend to hold Europe, and the rest of the free world hostage by controlling the natural gas and oil in the region. There are many reasons why this is a threat to US security, and ultimately it is our battle…Let alone those that have died due to Iranian IED and proxies. Please Tim, stop the wishful thinking.

. . .

One more thing. Obama is just trying to save his own ass by thwarting an Israeli attack on Iran. By doing that, he is throwing one of our closest and trusted allies under the bus.We must stop Iran at any cost. Russia and Iran by themselves are scary. Together, with a nuclear Iran, we’d all be toast.

16 04 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Rick, for your comments.

First, as I have outlined in other articles and comments, Iran is way down the list in terms of meaningful threats to America’s national security interests, and will be for many years to come. For example, China, North Korea, the uncertainty of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, and the possibility of Russian nukes falling into terrorist hands make Iran seem like child’s play.

See, e.g., and (see also the footnotes and comments beneath these articles)

Second, America must not be drawn into another war in the region to make this world safe for Israel. This would be sheer madness; and Netanyahu is very much an enemy of ours. Obama is to be praised for thwarting Netanyahu at every turn, and treating him with the contempt that he deserves.

Third, Putin is a problem unto himself, which I have written about and will not repeat here.

See (see also the footnotes and comments beneath this article)

Fourth, Netanyahu is the wrong leader for his country at this critical juncture in its history. The Rabins and Sharon despised him, and with good reason.

Fifth, saving Israel from Netanyahu is not a vital national security interest of the United States. Israel will sink or swim on its own, and live with the decision of having placed him in a leadership position for a second time, after his first failed effort.

Lastly, I am concerned about the United States and the American people. As I have written in the article above:

The path on which Netanyahu is leading the Israelis is fraught with peril for their tiny Jewish nation . . . and potentially for Jews worldwide. He is determined to take the United States and the American people on the “joy ride” with him, which is utter madness.

26 04 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Paul Krugman Speaks Out

Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Krugman wrote in a commentary entitled, “The Crisis of Zionism”:

It seems obvious . . . that the narrow-minded policies of the current [Israeli] government are basically a gradual, long-run form of national suicide—and that’s bad for Jews everywhere, not to mention the world.


Amen, but it may not be a “gradual, long-run” process. Indeed, this is what I have written in the article and comments above, and in a related article and comments on this subject.

See (“Israel’s Senseless Killings And War With Iran”)

30 04 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Netanyahu’s Father Dies At 102

In an article entitled, “Benzion Netanyahu, Hawkish Scholar, Dies at 102,” the New York Times reported about Netanyahu’s father:

[H]e argued that Jews inevitably faced discrimination that was racial and not religious, and that efforts to compromise with Arabs were futile.

. . .

The goal of his group [the New Zionist Organization in the United States], which was part of the movement known as revisionist Zionism, was to prevent dividing Palestine between Jews and Arabs to create the new Israel. The group wanted a single, bigger state that would have included present-day Jordan.

. . .

In his 1995 book, “The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain,” . . . he traced what he called “Jew hatred” to ancient Egypt, long before Christianity.

. . .

Indeed, in 1998, Mr. Netanyahu said in an interview with The New Yorker that “Jewish history is a history of holocausts.” He suggested then that Hitler’s genocide was different only in scale.

Mr. Netanyahu believed Jews remain endangered in today’s Middle East. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Maariv in 2009, he said, “The vast majority of Israeli Arabs would choose to exterminate us if they had the option to do so.”

He further said that Arabs are “an enemy by essence,” that they cannot compromise and that they respond only to force.

. . .

“To understand Bibi, you have to understand the father.”


2 06 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama Ordered Stuxnet Cyber Attack On Iran

This is the title of an article in the UK’s Telegraph, which states:

The computer virus, aimed at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, was designed to damage centrifuges by making covert adjustments to the machines controlling them.

It formed part of a “wave” of digital attacks on Iran codenamed “Olympic Games” and was created with the assistance of a secret Israeli intelligence unit, The New York Times said in a report based on a book chronicling secret wars under the Obama administration.

The report confirms the suspicions of computer security experts who detected and forensically examined Stuxnet in 2010. They reasoned that the technical expertise and human intelligence sources needed to create and deliver what was described as the “world’s first cyberweapon” pointed to a joint operation by American and Israeli agencies.

. . .

“This is the first attack of a major nature in which a cyberattack was used to effect physical destruction,” said Michael Hayden a former director of the CIA and NSA, who did not reveal his own knowledge of “Olympic Games”.

Commentators suggested that confirmation of American involvement in Stuxnet had been released by others to neutralise any Republican election claims that President Obama has been soft on Iran.

“Obama wanted to get credit for Stuxnet, as that makes him look tough against Iran,” said Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer at F-Secure, one of the security firms that have investigated Stuxnet.

See; see also

If true, these are criminal acts of war against a sovereign nation by Obama, who has been “carrying water” for the demonic Narcissistic demagogue Netanyahu—who is an enemy of the United States and the American people.

Indeed, if Netanyahu attacks Iran—which is predicted—he may have embarked on a path of national suicide for Israel, which will touch the lives of Jews everywhere, as Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has written.


Even worse, Netanyahu has sought American involvement in such a debacle. As I have written above:

The path on which Netanyahu is leading the Israelis is fraught with peril for their tiny Jewish nation . . . and potentially for Jews worldwide. He is determined to take the United States and the American people on the “joy ride” with him, which is utter madness.

See; see also

3 06 2012
Richard Hameroff

You only see a two dimensional view of the situation between Israel and Iran. You fail to realize the impact Iran will have in the region, when they are able to use the atomic bomb as a tool for blackmail and control. Additionally, Russia is a major player in this game.The aim of Iran and Russia is to control the mother-load of gas and oil that is supplied to Europe. Why else would Europe care? Do you think they have any love towards Israel?

You continue to demonize Netanyahu, when he seems to be the only one with the guts to stand up to Iran. Perhaps you would like to see the American people paying 8 dollars a gallon for gasoline and heating oil. We must assist Israel in permanently neutralizing Iran’s capacity to wage any kind of war, period. Russia will fall back when they see the resolve that the rest of the world has in this matter.

War is awful, but having the worlds economy being held hostage to a nuclear Iran is far worse. The United states is heading for a total collapse, and Iran and Russia are salivating at the opportunity to hasten it along.

All you do is blog negatively about Netanyahu, as if somehow he is the problem here. Very naive sir…

3 06 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your thoughts, Rick, as always.

As stated in my comments above, I view Netanyahu as a “demonic Narcissistic demagogue,” who will rank right alongside Russia’s “dictator-for-life” Putin as pure evil if he attacks Iran and provokes the United States into another war in the region. And yes, Netanyahu is our enemy.

Because his goal is to drag the American people into another war—to do Israel’s “dirty work”—he exceeds Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in terms of being evil.

See, e.g.,; see also and (“[I]t would be a grave mistake to drop one bomb on Iran”)

As I have written:

He was hated by former Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Rabin—and especially by Rabin’s wife Leah, who blamed Netanyahu for her husband’s assassination. She saw “only doom for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process” with Netanyahu at Israel’s helm; and her views were prescient.


The people who have known him the best have hated him, including other world leaders up to and including today.

The first two sentences of your comments were used by Israelis and others to provoke us into the war with Iraq; and they are being used now to provoke us into the next war, with Iran, which is criminal.

Also, you stated:

Do you think [the Europeans] have any love towards Israel?

No, none; and I believe such sentiments exist globally today, with very few exceptions, thanks to Netanyahu—who has created or perpetrated his own brand of Apartheid and oppression against the Palestinians.

Indeed, his reign may hasten (1) the fall of Israel and the massacre of that country’s Jewry in our lifetimes, which has many American Jews petrified; and (2) the wholesale targeting of Jews worldwide, which Israel and its vaulted Mossad would be powerless to prevent, in an uncontrollable cycle of revenge for Netanyahu’s Apartheid and his likely attacks on Iran.

You added:

We must assist Israel in permanently neutralizing Iran’s capacity to wage any kind of war, period.

On the contrary, I believe all assistance to Israel must end, period. Many Israelis and American Jews agree that such aid should be stopped. Enough is enough.

Next, you said:

The United [S]tates is heading for a total collapse, and Iran and Russia are salivating at the opportunity to hasten it along.

I disagree completely; and believe that while the balance of this decade will be fraught with economic and other dangers, the United States will survive. Israel may not, certainly with Netanyahu at the country’s helm; and there are lots of very smart Jews who agree.

See, e.g., (“The Risk Of Runs Is Real”) and (“Syria’s military has ‘the largest chemical weapons arsenal in the region, which can reach any spot in Israel'”); see also

Lastly, you said:

All you do is blog negatively about Netanyahu, as if somehow he is the problem here. Very naive sir…

Again, he is demonic and evil personified. Nothing more needs to be added . . . except that my sentiments mirror the feelings of the Rabins and Sharon about him. The sooner he is gone, the better.

23 06 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

The Last Jews of Tunisia

This is the title of comments by journalist and author Michael J. Totten in World Affairs, which are worth reading. He writes:

Jews lived all over the Middle East and North Africa for thousands of years, and they lived among Arab Muslims for more than 1,000 years, but they’re almost extinct now in the Arab world. . . . Baghdad was almost a third Jewish during the first half of the 20th century. Morocco and Tunisia are the last holdouts. In Tunisia, only 1,500 remain.

. . .

[S]ince the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Republic regime in Iran, relations between Arabs and Jews are worse than they were at any time during the entire history of either.

. . .

[I]t has been so hard to be a Jew in the Arab world lately that there are almost none left.

. . .

“Last week . . . they held a demonstration in Tunis on Habib Bourguiba Avenue. They called for the killing of Jews.”

“Were they referring to Israel, to you, or to both?” I said.

“This is the third time they called for the murder of Jews. . . . The first time, we thought they were speaking about Zionists. And the second time, we thought they were speaking about Zionists. After the third time, though, it was clear that they meant the Jews.”


24 06 2012

Please explain the connection between Netanyahu and 1,500 Jews who remain in Tunis for Economic reasons.I presume each and very one has a second passport for if and when they need to run.On the other hand there is a far larger Jewish Community in Iran.I doubt any of them have a second passport but they also stay for Economic reasons.Maybe they pray that the regime will fall and that their real estate will have once again a substantial value.Its all money.Not every one wants to take this risk.

Please remember how those who did want to escapre Hitlers Europe on the St Loius ,amongst other ways, were turned back by the anti semites in the US administration and subsequently died in Hitlers death camps.NO American President has ever found it correct to apologise for the way his country acted in 1939.Will you take up the gauntlet?

If there had been a Jewish State as recommended by the Peel Commission in 1937 the Jews would have had where to run to.You would then have had an extra 6 million Jews and all their heirs with us today and you would have had more people to refer to as “some of my best friends are Jews.”

24 06 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you as always, Martin, for your comments.

First, the comments about Tunisia relate to the future of Jews in the Middle East generally, which is and will be influenced heavily by Netanyahu’s actions.

Michael J. Totten is very pro-Israel, yet he writes:

Jews [are] almost extinct now in the Arab world.

. . .

[I]t has been so hard to be a Jew in the Arab world lately that there are almost none left.

Second, with respect to the Jews in Egypt, you have written:

Maybe they pray that the regime will fall. . .

Yet, the Muslim Brotherhood just won the election in that country; and some prominent Egyptians and other Arabs are saying that Jerusalem will be their capital, and that it is simply a matter of time before this happens.

See, e.g.,

Third, with respect to the MS St. Louis, I have written about it before, inter alia, in previous responses to your comments. Again, my guess is that the “revered” Franklin D. Roosevelt was an anti-Semite.

See; see also

Fourth, the “Jewish State” that you describe in your last paragraph would have been, and was imposed against the will of the indigenous people; and Apartheid exists today, which Barack Obama has hated and still hates. The Arab Spring and the “Scent of Jasmine” may engulf Israel—and tragically, Netanyahu has been advancing that cause.

Fifth, your reference to my Jewish friends is presumably meant facetiously and/or derogatorily. What Israeli Jews and most American Jews do not realize is that I grew up in Los Angeles where my classmates were totally-assimilated Jews, and not from immigrant families. It was vastly different from Brooklyn or other American cities in which Jewish friends of mine grew up.

Also, I do not make my comments to pander to you or any other Jew, much less obsequiously. That is totally foreign to my nature. I have genuine Jewish friends, and have had some of them since childhood.

See, e.g.,

Lastly, as I have written many times, I am reminded of what a prominent American (who is a Jew and a strong supporter of Israel) told me a number of years ago:

I have long thought that Israel will not make it, if only because of what are cavalierly called WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and its very tight geographical compression. All else is immaterial, including the Palestinians, or us, or the nature of Israel’s [government].

My guess is that this person’s words will prove to be prophetic, and tragically so; and that Netanyahu will have hastened this result—which will be tantamount to the first “Holocaust” of the 21st Century.

Indeed, Netanyahu and Russia’s “dictator-for-life” Putin are moral equivalents; and both men are likely to meet similar fates, and be consigned to the dustheap of history. They are evil personified.

See, e.g., (see also the footnotes and comments beneath the article)

24 06 2012

I wonder how Michael would justify the the overwhelming air strikes on Gaza going on now that killed a six year old Palestinian boy. A now powerful Jewish state has the Gaza enclave totally sealed ground, air, and water and conducts regular attacks that are funded by the US taxpayer. Gazans need to submit to their misery or be beaten to a pulp. Yes, primitive rockets are lobbed across the fence, but is it ever mentioned that the Gazans were pushed out of their homes that they are firing rockets to?

Israelis have not been able to deal with their orginal sin.

Its supporters are always too keen to remind others of their sins though.

Ethnocentricity is what I see here with the writer. Netanyahu got the best American enlightened education but still believes in segregation, checkpionts, home demolitions, arrest without due process, extrajudicial killings, etc., … All based on religion.

24 06 2012

Seems like President Obama is not ready yet to release convicted US Navy analyst Jonathan Pollard. An Israel firster responsible for tens of millions of dollars of intelligence damage and the deaths of US operatives abroad. The treasure trove of intelligence would be sold by the Shamir government to the former USSR. Many thought Obama would cave including Grant Smith. The release of Pollard has been a Netanyahu priority for quite a while. Medal of freedom recipient (Qana victims must be rolling in their graves) Shimon Peres could not charm the US president to release the American born traitor either.

Peres’ other dubious credit is being chief procurer of stolen WMD technologies for Israel’s secret nuclear program in the 1950’s-60’s. He would also offer to sell the Nuclear-tipped Jericho missile to the Apartheid regime in South Africa.

Yes, worthy of the medal of freedom!

24 06 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments, Buddy.

I believe Pollard will die in prison, and rightly so.

25 06 2012

As you consider Pollard the biggest criminal in the US for 100 years please at least tell me which other person in the US ,even a murderer, has sat so long as him.Even Madoff will not live long enough to match the sentence Pollard has served.Every single spy imprisoned by the US is now free.Read all the remarks of those who unlike you were involved on the US side in the Pollard affair -each and every one has asked Obama to release him.Your hate for Israel has blinded you to any form of justice .You truly stand alone.

25 06 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Martin, for your additional comments.

It is surprising that Pollard has not been killed in prison, and true justice rendered to him.

The first line of your comments (i.e., “you consider Pollard the biggest criminal in the US for 100 years”) constitutes a total distortion and twisting of what I have said, much less my true feelings on the subject.

Also, your next-to-the-last sentence (i.e., “[y]our hate for Israel”) speaks volumes about you, not me. Anyone who criticizes Netanyahu or Israel is automatically labeled a “hater” or enemy of the Jewish state. This is outrageous, but it has become a standard, thoroughly-contemptible practice to silence critics.

See, e.g., (“[Netanyahu’s] critics, Jews and non-Jews alike, are falsely labeled as ‘Israel haters,’ ‘self-hating Jews’ or anti-Semites”)

Any attempt to engage in rational, civil discourse with you—devoid of personal attacks—appears to be impossible and a waste of time.

Lastly, I appreciate that you and other Israelis are worried about Israel’s survival and your own fate, and rightly so. However, this is what Netanyahu’s tragic reign has wrought, with much worse likely to come.

See, e.g., and and (A sign of things to come: 5 Israelis Killed in Bulgaria)

14 07 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

The Arab Spring Is An Islamist Ascendancy, And Israel May Fall In Its Path

In an article entitled, “The Islamist ascendancy,” Charles Krauthammer has written in the Washington Post:

Many Westerners naively believed the future belonged to the hip, secular, tweeting kids of Tahrir Square [in Cairo, Egypt]. Alas, this sliver of Westernization was no match for the highly organized, widely supported, politically serious Islamists who effortlessly swept them aside in national elections.

This was not a Facebook revolution but the beginning of an Islamist one.

See; see also and

14 07 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Rabin’s Widow Called Netanyahu A Nightmare

As stated previously:

[Netanyahu] was hated by former Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Rabin—and especially by Rabin’s wife Leah, who blamed Netanyahu for her husband’s assassination. She saw “only doom for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process” with Netanyahu at Israel’s helm; and her views were prescient.


In addition, Israel’s Haaretz reported:

Leah Rabin, the late widow of assassinated premier Yitzhak Rabin, used words such as “nightmare,” “monstrosity,” “corrupt” and “liar” to describe Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in letters she wrote over a decade ago that have recently been obtained by Haaretz.

In an election held the spring after Rabin’s November 1995 death, Netanyahu narrowly beat his replacement, Shimon Peres, and served as prime minister from 1996-1999. Leah Rabin’s letters, sent to an old friend, were written in the final months of Netanyahu’s term, from fall 1998 through spring 1999. They are being published here for the first time in advance of the 14th anniversary of Yitzhak Rabin’s death, which will be observed Thursday. Leah Rabin died in 2000.

In November 1998, about two weeks after the third anniversary of the assassination, Leah wrote: “I hope, pray, that the days of this government are numbered. Benjamin Netanyahu is a corrupt individual, a contentious liar who is ruining everything that is good about our society. He is breaking it to bits, and in the future, we will have to rebuild it all over.”

In March 1999, she wrote in a similar vein: “We all want this nightmare to end, that this monstrosity called Netanyahu will get lost. . . .”

. . .

Leah also stressed in her letters that her husband had always opposed the settlements and supported giving up the West Bank.

See (emphasis added)

If anything, Leah Rabin’s descriptions of Netanyahu constitute understatements. As I have written above, he is a demonic Narcissistic demagogue; and he and Russia’s “dictator-for-life” Putin are moral equivalents.

Both men are likely to meet similar fates—which cannot happen fast enough, for the good of the Israeli and Russian people—and be consigned to the dustheap of history. They are pure evil personified.

Putin and Netanyahu: two swine

See also and (“U.S. national security officials consider Israel to be . . . a genuine counterintelligence threat. . . . The CIA considers Israel its No. 1 counterintelligence threat in the agency’s Near East Division, the group that oversees spying across the Middle East, according to current and former officials“) and (“[Former defense minister and o]pposition leader Shaul Mofaz warned . . . that a preemptive unilateral Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities could have ‘catastrophic’ consequences for Israel“) and and (“Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey that he doesn’t want to be ‘complicit’ in an Israeli strike on Iran”) and,7340,L-4276276,00.html (“Washington reportedly sends Tehran indirect message saying it will not back Israeli strike on nuclear facilities as long as Iran refrains from attacking American facilities in Persian Gulf”) and (Charlie Rose/PBS interview with King Abdullah of Jordan) and (“Mr. Netanyahu, before you bomb Iran, say goodbye to everyone you know”—”When the war is under way, it won’t matter why you insisted on pursuing this; whether it was a bluff that went ballistic, or a tragic thirst for a place in history”) (“Iran: Israel’s existence ‘insult to all humanity'”); but see (“Why I Write And Say What I Do”)

31 08 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Charles Krauthammer And The Wall Street Journal Are Wrong In Saber Rattling On Behalf Of The Delusional Netanyahu

Netanyahu is Israel's Hitler

The Washington Post‘s Krauthammer has been a consistent advocate of war with Iran, to make this world safe for Israel, which is madness. His latest article is another example of this.


I agree with Krauthammer much of the time, but he is blinded when it comes to war-mongering on behalf of Israel’s demonic Narcissistic demagogue, Netanyahu.

First, it is only a matter of time before Iran and its surrogates are able to acquire nuclear weapons from others, including but not limited to North Korea and Pakistan.

Indeed, we did not go to war to prevent North Korea from acquiring such weapons, or in the case of Russia and China. Similarly, weapons from Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal may fall into the hands of our adversaries; and the same is true with respect to Russia, whose weapons are not adequately safeguarded.

Second, Israel will be unsuccessful in any attack on Iran, and will merely inflame the 1.57–1.65 billion followers of Islam, and make this world unsafe for Israelis and other Jews wherever they are located.

They will be targeted, and there will be nothing that Israel or its Mossad can do to change this result. Indeed, Krauthammer’s advocacy of war with Iran makes as much sense as American General Curtis LeMay’s advocacy of bombing the North Vietnamese back into the Stone Age.

Third, Netanyahu is determined to provoke the United States into another war in the region, right when we have exited Iraq and have set a timetable for leaving Afghanistan. Not a single drop of American blood should ever be spilled to protect or defend Israel, period. It is on its own, sink or swim. It is a pariah state worldwide because of Netanyahu, who continually seeks to dictate and distort U.S. foreign and national security policies.

Barack Obama was right in reaching out to the Islamic world—and he must block all warmongering actions by Netanyahu. An Israeli attack on Iran would undoubtedly draw fury from Islamic nations and inflame the followers of Islam around the world. America is not at war with Islam; and Netanyahu must not be allowed to provoke this.

Fourth, Netanyahu is threatening the United States and the American people. It is naïve to believe otherwise. He has been using every tool at his disposal (e.g., AIPAC, Netanyahu’s other American shills) to provoke the United States into a war with Iran. After two wars in the region already, the American people are bone-tired and do not want another war, yet this is exactly what Netanyahu wants.

Also, Netanyahu is leading his fellow Jews down a path that may be fatal for them. Yet, he is so consumed by his own Narcissism that it does not make any difference to him. He is probably the worst leader that Israel has ever had; and he is every bit as dangerous and sinister as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. America has become a target because of Israel, and Barack Obama has correctly recognized this.

We are not Israel’s protector or guarantor in this world, nor do we have any duties or obligations to make this world safe for Israel. Quite to the contrary, we are hated because of Israel.

Fifth, no amount of Israeli bombing can erase the hatred of Jews by the Islamic world. This is utter nonsense. Indeed, Netanyahu has done more than any other Israeli leader to insure this result. The Rabins and Sharon hated him, with good reasons.

Netanyahu is our enemy, pure and simple; and he must be treated as such. He is hated worldwide. Barack Obama is correct in showing him utter contempt, disrespect, and ignoring him. If Netanyahu launches a war against Iran, we must stand aside and let the chips fall where they may. It is not our war.

. . .

The Wall Street Journal is nothing more than a shameless shill for Netanyahu too. In an editorial entitled, “Israel Must Be ‘Eliminated'”—which could have been written in Tel Aviv—it is stated:

“Iran has been around for the last seven, 10 thousand years. They [the Israelis] have been occupying those territories for the last 60 to 70 years, with the support and force of the Westerners. They have no roots there in history,” Mr. Ahmadinejad told reporters and editors in New York on Monday.

. . .

Former Iranian President Akbar Rafsanjani—often described as a moderate in Western media accounts—had this to say in 2001: “. . . [T]he use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.”

So for Iran it is “not irrational” to contemplate the deaths of millions of Muslims in exchange for the end of Israel because millions of other Muslims will survive, but the Jewish state will not.

. . .

[W]e hear in U.S. and European policy circles that Israel is overreacting to such publicly stated intentions because Iran would never act on them and, in any case, Israel has its own nuclear deterrent. But no one believes Israel would launch a nuclear first-strike to wipe out Tehran, and an Israeli counterstrike would be too late to protect Israel from being “eliminated.”

. . .

[T]he cold reality is that after nearly four years of failed diplomacy and half-hearted sanctions that [Barack Obama] opposed until Congress forced his hand, neither Iran nor Israel believe him.

Someone should put Orwell on the President’s reading list before it’s too late.


Outrageous, inflammatory statements have been made by world leaders throughout our lifetimes—including the Soviet Union’s Nikita Khrushchev (“We will bury you!”), Cuba’s Fidel Castro, North Korea’s leaders and others—but the United States has not gone to war, and cooler heads have prevailed. This, however, is not what Netanyahu wants. As I have written above:

The path on which Netanyahu is leading the Israelis is fraught with peril for their tiny Jewish nation . . . and potentially for Jews worldwide. He is determined to take the United States and the American people on the “joy ride” with him, which is utter madness.

See; see also (France: “a radical Islamist network [has] . . . targeted Jews. . . . France’s 5 million Muslims are the largest Islamic minority in Europe”)

Netanyahu wants nothing less than the shedding of American blood on Israel’s behalf, in our third war in the region. He must be stopped!


Israel’s Hitler?

Netanyahu and missiles

Has Netanyahu morphed into Israel’s Hitler?

At the very least, he is a megalomaniac.

See, e.g., (“Benjamin Netanyahu warns future of world at stake over Iran’s nuclear programme”). See also (“The Spymaster, Former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan, Compelled To Speak Out Because He Is So Opposed To Preemptive Israeli Strike Against Iran”) and (“Rabin’s Widow Called Netanyahu A Nightmare”) and (“Last week, former Defense Secretary Bob Gates said a strike on Iran’s facilities would not work and, quote, ‘could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations.’ . . . [Vice President Biden:] ‘[H]ow close the Iranians are to getting a nuclear weapon. They are a good way away. . . . What Bibi held up there [at the UN] was when they get to the point where they can enrich uranium enough to put into a weapon. They don’t have a weapon to put it into. Let’s all calm down a little bit here. . . . The last thing America needs is to get in another ground war in the Middle East’“) and (“[W]ar crimes are being perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinian people”) and (“Israel’s attack underlines helplessness, hopelessness of Gaza Palestinians”—”[T]he water of the Gaza Strip is barely drinkable, with less than 5 per cent of their water supply fit for human consumption. Today, Gaza is an open-air prison and it comes as little surprise that UN agencies recently concluded that, in a few years, Gaza will become unlivable“) and (“Anonymous leaks personal information of 5,000 Israeli officials”) and (“The Israel-Palestine problem has a simple solution”) and (“Why I Write And Say What I Do”)

23 11 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Hamas Considers All Of Israel Occupied, Illegitimate, A Cancer, A Crime Against Humanity

These are the words of the Washington Post‘s Charles Krauthammer. He continued:

Hamas’s objective, openly declared, is to “liberate” — i.e., destroy — Tel Aviv and the rest of pre-1967 Israel.

. . .

What did Hamas hope to gain from this latest round of fighting, which it started with a barrage of about 150 rockets into Israel? To formally translate Hamas’s recent strategic gains into a new, more favorable status quo with Israel. . . .

Hamas’s new strength comes from two sources.

First, its new rocketry, especially the Fajr-5, smuggled in from Iran, that can now reach Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, putting 50 percent of Israel’s population under its guns.

Second, Hamas has gained strategic strength from changes in the regional environment. It has acquired the patronage and protection of important Middle Eastern states as a result of the Arab Spring and the Islamist reversal in Turkey.

For 60 years, non-Arab Turkey had been a reliable ally of Israel. The vicious turnaround instituted by its Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, reached its apogee on Monday when he called Israel a terrorist state.

Egypt is now run by Hamas’s own mother organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is simply the Palestinian wing. And the emir of Qatar recently visited Gaza, leaving behind a promise of a cool $400 million.

Hamas’s objective was to guarantee no further attacks on its leaders or on its weaponry, launch sites and other terror and rocket infrastructure. And the lifting of Israel’s military blockade, which would allow a flood of new and even more deadly weapons . . . this one brokered and guaranteed by Egypt and Turkey, regional powers Israel has to be careful not to offend. A respite for rebuilding, until Hamas’s Gaza becomes Hezbollah South, counterpart to the terror group to Israel’s north, with 50,000 Iranian- and Syrian-supplied rockets that effectively deter any Israeli preemptive attack.

See; see also (“So angered was Egypt, say Arab officials, by the killing of Ahmed Jabari—after Israel lowered his guard by expressing interest in a formal truce—that for the first two days Egyptian officials refused to pick up the phone when their Israeli counterparts called. A few days in, Israel had still failed to penetrate the upper echelons of Egypt’s politicians. . . . ‘Hamas lost the military battle but won the political war'”) and (“Shocking Poll on European Views of Israel”) and (“[The call] in parliament for Hungarian Jews to be catalogued and screened as potential national security risks”)

What is perhaps most surprising is that the rockets did so little damage, and caused so few fatalities. They were like “pin pricks” against Israel, albeit the psychological effects have been greater.

23 11 2012

“Hamas’s objective, openly declared, is to ‘liberate’ — i.e., destroy — Tel Aviv and the rest of pre-1967 Israel.”
says the Neocons’ DR STRANGELOVE.

And does not the Greater Israel crowd consider ALL of Palestine THEIRS less of course Muslim and Christian inhabitants, i.e. dispossesion by hook or by crook.

30 11 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

UN General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly To Accord State Status To Palestinians

Flag of Palestine

By a totally lopsided vote of 138 in favor to 9 against (Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Panama, Palau, United States), with 41 abstentions, the General Assembly accorded Palestine non-Member Observer State status in the United Nations.

See; see also and (“If the [International Criminal Court] were to indict Israeli officials on war crimes charges, they couldn’t be arrested on Israeli territory, though traveling to countries that are ICC members could become problematic”)

It is not beyond the pale to believe that Netanyahu might be arrested, imprisoned and tried if he travels outside of Israel to an ICC member state in the future.

See (“International Criminal Court”) and (“States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court”)

As one Israeli expert put it:

Israel is engaged on a course of self-destruction. . . . There is a justifiable fear in Israel that we are sliding into isolation of unprecedented dimensions. . . . The events that are unfolding will determine, in many ways, the long-term viability of Israel and its character.

What is amazing is that so many Jews, who earnestly seek peace, talk around the “800-pound gorilla in the room,” Netanyahu. He is the impediment to everything that the advocates of a two-state solution are trying to accomplish.

Barack Obama rightly pays lip service to him, and not much more. Netanyahu has done more to destroy the peace process than anyone else. Until he is gone, the chances of a meaningful and lasting peace are zero.

The questions become (1) whether Israel will have any real non-Jewish friends globally when he is finished; (2) whether it will be too late then; and (3) whether Israel can survive with him at its helm?

This is what the demonic Narcissistic demagogue Netanyahu has wrought: Israel is more isolated worldwide than ever, and it may be doomed because of him!

30 11 2012

Yes Tim. It’s all on Bibi. Those poor Palestinians have no fault in their demise . Get real.

30 11 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, “Richard,” for your comments.

First, there are reasons why Netanyahu was hated by the Rabins and Sharon, and why he is the symbol of the worst in Israel today.


The United States should not stand with him but against him. AIPAC and its shills in Congress are despicable; and they have distorted American foreign policy interests, which will inure to our detriment.

Second, history is not on their side. At some point, Israel may be overwhelmed, and the consequences might be catastrophic and constitute the first holocaust of the 21st Century. As importantly, Jews can be targeted around the world, and there is nothing that Israel or its Mossad can do to prevent it.

Third, Netanyahu is the wrong leader for Israel at this critical juncture in the country’s history.

See, e.g., the article and comments above, including but not limited to:

Fourth, just review the eight countries that sided with Netanyahu—which is pathetic—and the damage that this vote does to the United States in the Islamic world and elsewhere. Yes, Barack Obama was right to reach out to the followers of Islam, and he should continue to do so. As I have written:

America is not at war with Islam; and Netanyahu must not be allowed to provoke this.

And I added:

The path on which Netanyahu is leading the Israelis is fraught with peril for their tiny Jewish nation . . . and potentially for Jews worldwide. He is determined to take the United States and the American people on the “joy ride” with him, which is utter madness.


Lastly, the e-mail address that you provided was rejected by Google. Are you a real person, or simply a Netanyahu shill? Comments are omitted without valid e-mail addresses—which will not be disclosed to anyone, to protect a writer’s privacy.

27 12 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Netanyahu Travels to Jordan To Meet With King Abdullah Regarding Syria

In an article entitled, “Russia warns of ‘bloody chaos’ in Syria,” the UK’s Telegraph reported:

[The joint UN-Arab League international Syrian peace envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi], challenged all sides in the conflict to work together to pave the way for democratic elections and sideline President Bashar al-Assad.

His proposal received strong backing from Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister who said negotiations were the only way to end the fighting.

“The alternative to a peaceful solution is bloody chaos. The longer it continues, the greater its scale—and the worse things get for all,” he said.

After five days of negotiations with the regime in Damascus, Mr Brahimi claimed to have the outlines of a power-sharing pact but his proposals were instantly rejected by the main opposition council.

It has been angered by the suggestion that Mr Assad could stay on as figurehead despite the deaths of 45,000 in the fighting.

The Christmas mission by Mr Brahimi, who has kept a low profile for months, alongside a “softening” of Russia’s hardline support of Assad’s regime, has lifted hopes for a diplomatic end to Syria’s civil war.

. . .

Alarm over Syria’s disintegration led to crisis talks between Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister and King Abdullah of Jordan over the fate of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.

The meeting—the first between the two leaders in two-and-a-half years—was confirmed in anonymous briefings to the Israeli media after it was initially reported by the London-based Arabic newspaper, Al-Qods Al-Arabi.

It is believed Mr Netanyahu travelled to Jordan without the knowledge of Israeli diplomats.

Mr Netanyahu publicly predicted the collapse of Mr Assad’s regime this week and warned of “implications” for Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons.

Israel fears the weapons could fall into the hands of Islamists fighting Mr Assad or the Lebanese Shia group, Hizbollah, an ally of Iran.

Mr Netanyahu’s government has twice sought Jordan’s co-operation to attack the weapons facilities, according to the Atlantic magazine.

“Reports of this meeting in the press are quite credible,” one Israeli official told The Daily Telegraph. “It makes a lot of sense to have top-level co-ordination [between Israel and Jordan] about non-conventional weapons, which are a matter of great concern here.”


This is a seemingly-constructive development; and if true, it speaks positively about both Netanyahu and King Abdullah.

27 12 2012

The problem is if Israel was an unwilling or unable to make peace with surrounding dictators it is less likely it will have peace when another state slides into Islamic fundamentalism. Mind you lets not forget that Israel has been sliding into fundamentalism herself. Netanyahu himself with the finest US higher education that money could by never strayed from his pappy’s extremism

27 12 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again for your comments.

I agree with your first two sentences.

You and I have discussed the influence of Netanyahu’s father above.

See, e.g.,

27 12 2012

Gentlemen, there is no realistic chance of long term peace in this region. It’s going to come down to a big war in the end. Israel will have [no] choice but to use everything at its disposal. Surely, you realize this….

27 12 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Rick, for your comments.

Yes, I agree. It will be a fight for Israel’s survival, which many American Jews are deeply worried about, and rightly so.

As I have written:

I am concerned that the end may be coming to Israel, if things continue on their present course. . . . I am forever reminded of what a prominent American—who is a Jew and a strong supporter of Israel—told me a number of years ago:

I have long thought that Israel will not make it, if only because of what are cavalierly called WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and its very tight geographical compression. All else is immaterial, including the Palestinians, or us, or the nature of Israel’s [government].

I was stunned by this person’s seemingly-prophetic words, and I have reflected on them many times since. This undergirds my sense of urgency concerning the Israeli-Palestinian peace process . . . before it is too late.


28 12 2012

The problem is, as I see it, isn’t that it’s too late, rather, it just isn’t.. Tim, do you honestly believe, deep down, that there is any hope for peace in the middle east, in general? I see no way that can be achieved. You condemn Benjamin Netanyahu for being too hawkish and radical. But, what if he and those with his mindset have been right all along? That the Arabs have no desire to have a lasting peace with Israel.. It’s all part of the scam that Islamic fanatics use to further their ideals, and buy more time to deceive their enemies. You know all about this..

This issue has been beaten to death over many years, and many leaders, in both the USA and Israel. Never in all that time has any real progress been made with the Palestinian people. And of course, the real reason for that, is that peace is only desired by one side, Israel. With Iran trying to control that region, no good will ever come of this. Where do you go from here Tim? What can be done that hasn’t already been attempted? Really…

28 12 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Rick.

First, I have discussed all of these issues in depth: in the article and comments above; and in my earlier article and the comments beneath it, the link to which is cited right above your latest comments. Thus, I will not repeat any of those discussions here. To do so would be repetitious, and not helpful.

Second, my views are most closely in tune with those of Jeremy Ben-Ami and others at J Street, although in no way do I speak for that organization, nor do I embrace all of its views.

I have written an review of Ben-Ami’s book, which you might wish to read. He is “enlightened.”


The last line of my review is worth repeating:

In many ways, Ben-Ami evokes the wisdom of [Simon] Wiesenthal and the heritage of their forefathers, in asking about the treatment of Palestinians: “Is this how I wanted to be treated when I was a minority in another people’s country?”

Third, if you and I were Palestinians, we might feel exactly as they do, or even stronger.

Fourth, Netanyahu is what he is, and cannot be changed. I have discussed his character in both of my articles and the comments beneath them.

Fifth, in many ways, both Netanyahu and King Abdullah II of Jordan are similar. They were educated in the United States. Both speak perfect English and are very bright. Both want to survive and have their countries survive. And both are wrestling with thorny, intractable options before them.

Sixth, the chances of peace may have come and gone; and Netanyahu’s intransigence during his two terms as Israel’s Prime Minister may have cast the die. Nothing may be possible. If I was a betting man, this is what I would bet on. However, it leads to overwhelming tragedy and chaos, and possibly the first holocaust of this new century, in my opinion. Also, innocent Jews can be targeted around the world, and nothing can be done to protect them.

Can the abyss be avoided? Only time will tell.

Seventh, if I was an Arab, in all likelihood I would have no desire to have a lasting peace with Israel. Time is on their side.

Eighth, you have stated: “[P]eace is only desired by one side, Israel.” With due respect, I do not believe that for a nanosecond. The people of Israel, the Palestinian people, and most followers of Islam globally want lasting peace, or so I believe.

Ninth, I do not want to see the United States drawn into another war in the Middle East. Israel is on its own, sink or swim. America should not be funding Israel any longer, and many U.S. Jews agree. It has been on the “dole” far too long. Enough is enough.

Israel is not America’s “child,” nor should we provide any protection to them with respect to the forces that are massed against them. This is Netanyahu’s doing, and Jews may suffer greatly because of him.

Tenth, I want Israel to survive, and I have made this very clear.

See, e.g., (“Why I Write And Say What I Do”)

. . .

Lastly, I am a nationalistic American. I do not have any allegiance to another country.

American flag

28 12 2012
Richard Hameroff

Tim, I am curious as to how you feel about the nomination of Chuck Hagel for secretary of Defense…

28 12 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Richard Hameroff (or Rick):

I believe Chuck Hagel would be a mistake; and I doubt he will be nominated, much less confirmed by the U.S. Senate if he is.

See, e.g.,

The list of his detractors and/or those senators who may block his nomination is growing by the day.


My guess is that he is “dead in the water,” politically.

Among other things, as you know I worked in the U.S. Senate; and the mistreatment of staff members by Narcissistic senators gets around quickly. Also, Hagel possesses no administrative experience that would qualify him to run the Pentagon, where I worked as well.

But see (“[Hagel] could be the necessary corrective to the Netanyahu government’s expectation that anything Israel wants from Washington it’s entitled to get”) and (Krauthammer: “The meaning of Hagel”—”His views show where Obama wants to go”—”The overweening superpower that Obama promiscuously chided in his global we-have-sinned tour is poised for reduction, not only to fund the bulging welfare state—like Europe’s postwar choice of social spending over international relevance—but to recalibrate America’s proper role in the world”)

28 12 2012

“The problem is, as I see it, isn’t that it’s too late, rather, it just isn’t.. Tim, do you honestly believe, deep down, that there is any hope for peace in the middle east, in general? I see no way that can be achieved.”

But you could see an attack on Iran, I’m sure!

The status quo which Israel and friends are willing to accept is a fortress Israel that is very expensive to maintain and only sustainable with massive US Taxpayer subsidies.The US Congress might be willing to bankroll it but a 13 Trillion debt ridden American public will eventually resent it. When the US is automatically willing to replace muntions used up by Israel on her latest assualt on Gaza, but aid for victims of hurricane Sandy is still not forthcoming, something is wrong.

28 12 2012
Richard Hameroff

You mean 17 trillion on debt. And yes, I do see an attack on Iran in the near future. If the USA refuses to stand behind Israel, I think the Samson option may become a reality.

28 12 2012

“I think the Samson option may become a reality.”

Your Israel first crowd has been descredited and is getting smaller. Rest of the world has had it.

The lopsided UN Palestine vote shows this. US was bamboozeled into the disaster that was Iraq with cooked intel. Wonder where that originated??? Anybody ever find out who forged those Niger documents???

Israeli generals have to vist their justice ministry before foreign travel in fear of being arrested for war crimes. The BDS movement is gaining strenghth.

You see another Israel premptive war, I see a pariah state facing sanctions, if not from governments, but people. Even the once compiant German public no longer have the knee jerk Israel support they had.

Bibi had a fallout with Merkel on latest U-BOAT for his navy. Netanyahu was looking for the German taxpayer to pick up the whole tab for the dolphin sub. Merkel was willing to subsidise only part.

When you do not pay your own bills you get a bit of bluster.

Presently the US taxpayer subsidy to Israel is $10 million per day that we know of.

28 12 2012

Do you consider yourself a little anti-Israel buddy? I’m getting that from your posts.

Personally, I think Israel has done more than they have been given credit for, to bring peace to the region. Only to get kicked in the balls by Iran, who is the instigator in all of this mess…Stop blaming Israel for all of this violence and open up your mind a little, please. With the exception of Tim, these posts here are very lopsided, and against Israel. I’ve lived there, and trained side by side with their military. The country is worthy of our support and understanding. Some people here seem to forget that the United States, at least in part, is responsible for Israel’s existence. They are our child, and they need our protection from the forces that have massed against them.

The Palestinians mean nothing to Iran. Nothing. They are just an excuse to further their domination of the region. They are expendable cannon fodder to Iran. And by the way, with all of the property that other Muslim countries posses, and do nothing with, why is it that NONE of them are willing to give a small piece of it to them? Nobody wants them, yet Israel is expected to bend over and take a stiff one…

And what is our alternative exactly? Cutting Israel off, so with their backs up against the wall, they have no choice but to resort to nukes to defend themselves? You aren’t thinking very clearly buddy. Wanna pay 10 dollars a gallon for gas? Wanna see our economy really take a huge crap, once and for all? That’s what cutting off Israel will lead to in short order.

28 12 2012

Do you consider yourself a little anti-Israel buddy? I’m getting that from your posts.

if you say so buddy.

A country that has a thousand Palestinian civilians in prison including at least 500 woman and minors at any one time based on ethnicity is a tiolet. Especially if they claim to be a “democracy”. Only in Israel is torture legal but claims to be “light unto nations”, what a joke. A country that arrests/imprisons without due process, conducts extrajudicial killings, home demolitions, land theft. A country whose army can slaughter a young American woman, Rachel Corrie and whitewash the investigation and her trial is criminal. I could go on…

All on the US TAXPAYER’S dime, of course..

When a US senator can be taken to task for saying that he is indeed A US senator and not an Israeli senator, when special interest groups want him to bend over and touch his toes for a foreign nation, there is something terribly wrong in Washington folks.

Hey buddy,

I AM PRO AMERICA, first, second and last,
and So is that patriot Chuck Hagel.

2 01 2013

Buddy,I respect your opinion, even if you are wrong, which I believe you are. You don’t see the forest for the trees sir. You seem blind to the reality that Israel faces, and what’s worse, you don’t seem to care…

2 01 2013

Rick (22:21:09) :

“Buddy, I respect your opinion, even if you are wrong”


The mideast is a toilet because of religon.

Now there’s nothing wrong with religion mind you, but if that is the basis for your nation, it’s backward. It’s the religion you ain’t that gets you in trouble there. Now when Muslims do it, it’s called Sharia. Israel does the same, but more sophisticated. Even produce is classified as being grown on jewish or non jewish farms. Israel has to accept some of the blame for its predicament. They bankrolled Hamas in the seventies in order to work around the PLO and geez, they are fighting the Islamists now. They sign a peace treaty with Egypt, and that schlub Sharon with Polish army deserter Begin invade Lebanon and give birth to Hizbollah. Yea, use US made cluster bombs on civilians and they might just come back at you as suicide bombers. Home demolitions of Israel’s non jewish population does not seem to bother Israel supporters. Or arrest without due process, extra judicial assassinations, deportation, torture, etc….Again solely on Christian and Muslims.

It’s easy to know if you are on the wrong side of things.

When you see a youngster suffering or dead, and excuses are made cause they are the wrong religion, then you are part of the problem.

FYI been to mideast. When in Israel, a Scotsman had died in Ben Gurion airport in Israeli custody. Alistair Sinclair was his name. Israel “investigated”. It was found out later according to the ‘investigation’ he hung himself in his holding cell. Ah, Israeli efficency fails just at the right time!!!!! Body was returned to his family. Autopsy in Scotland showed his heart was missing and a certain bone in neck that would attest to a hanging.

I think you excuse too much of your “light unto nations”

3 01 2013

I think that given the opportunity, Israel would love a lasting peace with the rest of the region. But the reality is simple. They do what they need to do, based on the people they have to deal with. There is no honest partner for peace for them to deal with, buddy. There is nothing Israel can do going forward, aside from packing up their stuff and leaving that will suffice. And that sir, just aint gonna happen. So then, what do you do? What do you suggest as the solution? Aside from cutting them off from US funding, which will lead to what I wrote earlier..

3 01 2013

“I think that given the opportunity, Israel would love a lasting peace with the rest of the region” Really?

Perhaps something like a Pax Romana but under an Israeli boot.

You might want to look into some Ben Gurion quotes. He said he would understand the Arabs’ hostility and them not wanting peace, in that we Jews have come here to replace them.

There are two reasons why Israel will not make peace. One, Israel is too weak; the second, Israel is too strong and thinks it does not have to make peace with THE Yordim. That is the “n” word used freely in Israel for Arabs. So not having a partner is a sham argument.

The world has come to the realisation what the US will eventually realize. Israel is out of control. Funding a fundamentalist Jewish state will eventually dry up as America’s fiscal condition needs repair. Arming Israel to the teeth has only made them freely wage war against her neighbors with the US Taxpayer picking up the tab.

I do not know what the solution is except that religious states are part of another age. Yes, even a SUBSIDISED Jewish religous state. When IDF rabbis tell reservists to kill the Goyim wherever you find them and Israel supporters see nothing wrong, you got a some serious societal problems.

Read some history.

I would say the tribe needs some serious introspection.

The Goyim ain’t all going to lie down, pal

3 01 2013

BTW buddy, the world is fast becoming a toilet because of religion, but I will refrain from polluting Mr. Naegele’s blog discussing that topic..

3 01 2013

Extremist religion that is

What do you think about the building of a shrine to Baruch Goldstein, Israel? He slaughtered 29 Muslim worshipers several years ago. Why no opposition by Israel supporters? Why is Israel society so casual about non jewish victims?

5 01 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Netanyahu Must Go!

Netanyahu delete

Benjamin Netanyahu has created a climate of hate against Israel that I have never witnessed in my lifetime, and it is by no means limited to the followers of Islam. Anti-Semitism is on the rise, and Netanyahu is the reason.

It is time for Israelis to wake up and realize what he has done to them, and to Jews worldwide.

As the Wall Street Journal reported:

A former Israeli security chief issued a scathing attack on Benjamin Netanyahu’s foreign-policy record, accusing the prime minister of strengthening Hamas and neglecting an opportunity to make peace with Mahmoud Abbas.

The remarks of Yuval Diskin, who retired 18 months ago from the Shin Bet internal secret security service, come as Mr. Netanyahu heads into the homestretch of an election campaign in which he has been virtually unchallenged on foreign affairs and national security and is an overwhelming favorite for re-election.

Mr. Diskin, whose criticism was often highly personal, is part of group of ex-security chiefs to publicly call out Mr. Netanyahu, and he is one of six former Shin Bet leaders featured in an Israeli documentary film, “The Gatekeepers,” which began showing in local cinemas a week ago and criticizes decades of policies toward the Palestinians.

The remarks come one week after Israeli President Shimon Peres broke with the customary nonpolitical role of his ceremonial office, and prodded the government to pursue peace talks with Mr. Abbas.

But the Shin Bet former director’s remarks carry extra weight because he served as the government’s point man for maintaining daily security, providing intelligence, and giving strategic advice on the situation in the Palestinian territories.

In a lengthy interview published in the weekend section of the daily Yediot Ahronot, Mr. Diskin said that Mr. Netanyahu’s declared support for the two state solution amounted to “kalam fadi”—Arabic for empty words.

. . .

Mr. Diskin’s assessment marked a blunt departure from Mr. Netanyahu’s assertions that Mr. Abbas is primarily to blame for the impasse in the peace process by insisting on the precondition of a settlement freeze and seeking unilateral diplomatic gains through a November resolution upgrading the status of the Palestinians at the United Nations.

Mr. Diskin came to the defense of Mr. Abbas, saying he is genuine in desiring a peace accord and accused the prime minister of deliberately weakening the Palestinian leader.

He warned that the combination of the current negotiations freeze with continued settlement expansion by Israel had left the Palestinians seeing only a “dead end,” which has created combustible conditions for a new Palestinian uprising in the West Bank.

He also declared that Israel’s recent war in Gaza against Hamas had strengthened the Islamic militant rulers of the Gaza Strip.

The former Shin Bet director also undermined assertions made by Mr. Netanyahu political allies that Mr. Abbas’s reluctance to accept an Israeli peace offer in 2008 is evidence that the Palestinians prefer to not cut a deal.

Mr. Diskin said Mr. Abbas didn’t respond to former prime minister Ehud Olmert’s peace offer because he feared Mr. Olmert was too politically unpopular to conclude a deal.

“We are making Abu Mazen weaker every day, and believe that this is a success,” he said, referring to Mr. Abbas by his nickname. “And the most absurd thing: If we look at the situation over the years, one of the key people who contributed to the rise in Hamas’s strength is Bibi Netanyahu.”

Last year, former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan criticized Mr. Netanyahu over aggressive policies toward Iran, and suggested that potential regional fallout and damage from an Israeli pre-emptive attack against Tehran would overshadow any benefit from a direct hit. Former IDF chief Gabi Ashkenazi has also voiced concern over Iran.

Mr. Diskin in April criticized Mr. Netanyahu for “messianism” in his handling of Iran, which Israel accuses of developing a nuclear weapon. In the newspaper interview, the former security chief said that the prime minister is guided by personal rather than professional motives in handling Iran.

Mr. Diskin’s criticism of Mr. Netanyahu over Iran has helped sap support over the summer for an Israeli pre-emptive attack against Iranian nuclear targets.

It is unclear whether current criticism can erode the large lead enjoyed by Mr. Netanyahu and right-wing parties over rivals from the center and left, who until now have largely refrained from attacking him on national-security issues.

See; see also (“The Spymaster, Former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan, Compelled To Speak Out Because He Is So Opposed To Preemptive Israeli Strike Against Iran”)

Isn’t the central question to be asked about the treatment of Palestinians by Netanyahu and others:

Is this how I wanted to be treated when I was a minority in another people’s country?

See (see also the article itself, as well as the others comments beneath it); see also (“Arabs . . . make up one in five Israelis”—”‘The more visible we are, the more they discriminate against us'”—”a democracy for Jews only”“) and (“Britain and France ‘spearheading new Middle East peace plan’“)

As I have written about Netanyahu:

He was hated by former Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Rabin—and especially by Rabin’s wife Leah, who blamed Netanyahu for her husband’s assassination. She saw “only doom for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process” with Netanyahu at Israel’s helm; and her views were prescient.

See (“Israel’s Senseless Killings And War With Iran”) (see also the comments beneath the article)

Also, as I have written in the article above:

The path on which Netanyahu is leading the Israelis is fraught with peril for their tiny Jewish nation . . . and potentially for Jews worldwide. He is determined to take the United States and the American people on the “joy ride” with him, which is utter madness.

History may record that Netanyahu was the worst thing to happen to Israel and Jews worldwide since the country’s founding.

5 01 2013

Tim, why is he so popular with Israel citizens? His articulation skills perhaps? Or maybe he just has the guts to say what has been needed to be said all along. Or is he like Hitler? I think the latter is ridiculous.

Is it possible that he is acting based on the incoming intel the mossad is gathering? Surely he knows that Obama is not pro Israel, and his bold actions are alienating Israel from his administration. Why take that chance?

There is more going on here than meets the eye.

5 01 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Rick, for your comments.

Once again, as I responded to you earlier, I have discussed all of these issues in depth. I will not repeat those discussions here. To do so would be repetitious, and not helpful.

See, e.g.,

Second, the answer to the last question in your first paragraph is yes.


Third, he has systematically removed all who would disagree with him. Thus, he is merely hearing what he wants to hear.

See, e.g.,

Lastly, Netanyahu’s actions have alienated Israel from the world, which will only get far worse. There will be few non-Jewish tears shed when its very survival is at stake . . . or worse happens (e.g., the indiscriminate massacre of Israelis).

This is among the many tragic if not horrific legacies that Netanyahu has visited on Israelis and other Jews—most of whom seem to be in denial. Perhaps history is repeating itself.

5 01 2013

“Why is he so popular with Israel citizens?”

Well Israeli society is moving hard fundamentalist right wing.

Haredim are going to become the core of the IDF. Israeli generals have to visit justice ministry before travelling abroad in order to avoid arrest.

Israel is heading to be a Pariah state, Bibi is stepping on the gas…..

“Obama is not pro Israel”

Really, how many more hundreds of millions does the US president have to send over and above the $10 million per day Israel gets???

Israel decided it cannot afford Iron Dome, that is of course unless the US taxpayer was willing to foot the bill. Now the question is, does the US TAXPAYER really want to bankroll a religious state that is out of control??

What is going on that does not meet yer eye is the Israel first crowd is outa touch. The World and the US is fed up with the blackmail.

You want an Iran war, you pay for it!

5 01 2013

‘History may record that Netanyahu was the worst thing to happen to Israel and Jews worldwide since the country’s founding’

Agreed, but he is a product of his people.

At the risk of sounding flip, it’s Jewish mothers that could be the cause (in Bibi’s case, his pappy) of the madness and intolerance. Jewish mothers instill in their offspring (sons in particular) a sense of exclusiveness and a wariness of Gentiles. Victimhood is passed on with ritual. The “other” is always lesser. Could be a survival instrument.

Now if you are not living in Russian shettle but in the US, that is curious. In the US, Jews as a minority have not suffered much more than other minorities and have achieved much success and acceptance. Muscular political power has also been achieved by said group which allows massive American funding of Israel, allows it to be a renagade state and always claiming victimhood, while still possessing hundreds of nuclear weapons and large stores of chemical and biological weapons.

A country can be measured by how it treats its minorities. Israel not only made Palestinian Christians and Muslims a minority in their own land, but also practices Draconian policies against those captive civilians.

Tribalism in a highly cultured people is sad.

16 01 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama And Israel

Jeffrey Goldberg has written an article for Bloomberg, which states in pertinent part:

In the weeks after the UN vote, Obama said privately and repeatedly, “Israel doesn’t know what its own best interests are.” With each new settlement announcement, in Obama’s view, Netanyahu is moving his country down a path toward near-total isolation.

[I]f Israel, a small state in an inhospitable region, becomes more of a pariah—one that alienates even the affections of the U.S., its last steadfast friend—it won’t survive. Iran poses a short-term threat to Israel’s survival; Israel’s own behavior poses a long-term one.

. . .

On matters related to the Palestinians, the president seems to view the prime minister as a political coward, an essentially unchallenged leader who nevertheless is unwilling to lead or spend political capital to advance the cause of compromise.

. . .

[Obama] views the government of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas as weak, but he has become convinced that Netanyahu is so captive to the settler lobby, and so uninterested in making anything more than the slightest conciliatory gesture toward Palestinian moderates, that an investment of presidential interest in the peace process wouldn’t be a wise use of his time.

. . .

[I]t is in terms of American diplomatic protection—among the Europeans and especially at the UN—that Israel may one day soon notice a significant shift. During November’s vote on Palestine’s status, the U.S. supported Israel and asked its allies to do the same. In the end, they were joined by a total of seven other countries, including the Pacific powerhouses Palau and Micronesia.

When such an issue arises again, Israel may find itself even lonelier. It wouldn’t surprise me if the U.S. failed to whip [up] votes the next time, or if the U.S. actually abstained. I wouldn’t be particularly surprised, either, if Obama eventually offered a public vision of what a state of Palestine should look like, and affirmed that it should have its capital in East Jerusalem.

. . .

[W]hat Obama wants is recognition by Netanyahu that Israel’s settlement policies are foreclosing on the possibility of a two-state solution, and he wants Netanyahu to acknowledge that a two-state solution represents the best chance of preserving the country as a Jewish-majority democracy. . . .

So far, though, there has been no sign that the Israeli government is gaining a better understanding of the world in which it lives.

See (emphasis added).

Again, the last paragraph of my article above is worth repeating and emphasizing:

The path on which Netanyahu is leading the Israelis is fraught with peril for their tiny Jewish nation . . . and potentially for Jews worldwide. He is determined to take the United States and the American people on the “joy ride” with him, which is utter madness.

See also (“Obama Congratulates Netanyahu Nearly Week After Israeli PM Wins Election“) and (“‘Killing Jews Is Worship’ Ad Campaign Rolled Out On SF Muni Buses”)

16 01 2013

It is always important to note that the “settlements” are exclusive Jewish settlements in areas where Christians and Muslims are forced to move and their homes bulldozed, Palestinian economies further crippled by Israeli check points, etc…. So much for the “unhospitable” neighborhood Israel lives in.

The US taxpayer of course is unwittingly subsidising this ethnic cleansing.

Geez! I wonder I wonder why we have so many problems in the Mideast??

16 01 2013

You seem to ignore the fact that if Israel took down the checkpoints and such, suicide bombings would increase. No matter what Israel does, there will be no reward and no peace, ever….

16 01 2013

Tim, Obama doesn’t know or care what is good for his own country either. He has no right to talk.

16 01 2013

“Tim, Obama doesn’t know or care what is good for his own country either. He has no right to talk”

He most certainly has the right to talk.

First, the US is paying the freight for Israel.

Second, Israel firsters assume that what Israel does must be automatically rubber stamped by the US. This is nonsense and the times they are a changin’

If Israel was paying its own bills, they would behave differently. Now the Israel firsters would say if Israel was backed to the wall, they would consider the Sampson option. Read, NUCLEAR BLACKMAIL.

Israel resorted to this tactic during intial onslaught of 1973 war to force Nixon to resupply its beleagured forces, and the US and USSR would go on worldwide Nuclear footing due to this.

Cost of the resupply airlift to the US taxpayer, $1.1 BILLION.

But who’s counting? Not the Israel firsters!

16 01 2013

Buddy, Obama was just trying to get some payback for Netanyahu supporting Romney. In the end, he ended up helping Netanyahu with his statement.

17 03 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

The End Of Apartheid

The UK’s Economist has noted:

The campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, which is growing in strength in America and Britain, sees the one-state reality as a precursor to a civil-rights movement that would then bring down the “apartheid state” with the help, as in South Africa, of external support inflamed by the injustice. If Jewish settlers were determined to remain on the West Bank, they might be able to do so—but under Palestinian authority.

Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, and its former prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert—men in what used to be the mainstream of national politics—worry about just such a future. They have warned that, unless the occupation of the bulk of the West Bank ends, or Palestinians in the West Bank are given full voting rights in Israel, the country will lose its claim to be a democracy. It will, says Mr Peres, become a “pariah”, just as South Africa did. The BDS campaign may thus, he implies, become unstoppable. Even the Americans might find it hard to go on backing Israel come hell or high water.

. . .

In every one-state outcome, be it created by virtue of persuasion or under duress, Jews would eventually be a minority.

. . .

[G]ranting Palestinians proper civil rights within an enlarged Israel would mean that the Jews would soon be outnumbered and later outvoted by the Palestinians. Though ultra-Orthodox Jews are the fastest growing community in Israel, Palestinians still outbreed Israelis as a whole. Palestinians in Israel already add up to 1.6m, along with 2.6m on the West Bank and 1.7m in Gaza. Jewish Israelis on both sides of the green line number about 6m. “In ten to 15 years Palestinians would have a majority in one state,” says Mr Olmert.

This means that none of the one-state options makes sense for Israel in the long run. The idealists paint a picture of Arabs and Jews getting along swimmingly together: dream on. The hawks think the Palestinians can be kept quiet for ever if they are denied a state: again, dream on.

. . .

Israel, as [Israel’s Prime Minister] Netanyahu must know, cannot remain both democratic and Jewish if it continues to control several million Palestinians without granting them full political rights. At the same time, he dreads the encirclement of hostile Arab states around him, and frets that America, under Barack Obama, may fail to make good on its promise to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. Meanwhile he lamely repeats the old mantra that “there is no Palestinian partner for peace.”


. . .

One must never forget that Barack Obama hated Apartheid in South Africa. As I have written in the article above:

On some level Obama views the Israelis as the oppressors, or the “enemy,” and the Palestinians as the oppressed—reflecting his deep-seated beliefs about Apartheid in South Africa, which he viewed as pure evil. If one has any doubts, read his book, “Dreams from My Father.” Hence, there is no kinship whatsoever between Obama and Netanyahu; and it is not surprising that Obama would treat him with outright disdain and contempt. Viewed in this context, one can understand what Obama is doing and why he is doing it. To him, it is likely that Netanyahu personifies that oppression.

See; see also

. . .

The future of Israel is anything but certain and rosy. . . .

Will its apartheid be overturned like South Africa? The answer is a resounding “yes”—it is only a function of time . . . and whether it will be peaceful or very bloody.

See, e.g.,; see also

History may look back and conclude that owing to Netanyahu’s reign, Israel ceased to exist as a sovereign country.

17 03 2013

There are 2 reasons why Israel will NOT make Peace.

One, Israel is too weak and cannot risk peace with the minority population of Christian and Muslims still remaining within its borders. A mortal threat to the core beliefs of Zionism of an exclusive Jewish state. More so than foes outside its borders. Requires changing Demographics.

War has done that for Israel.

Secondly, Israel is too strong and does not have to! We are in the second stage which is massively bankrolled by the American taxpayer. Furthermore, due to the stranglehold of the Israel lobby AIPAC, and their hacks in Washington DC, Israel gets to intiate wars for the US to fight against its Muslim foes. IRAQ then and IRAN in crosshairs now.

The Zionist nuts in Israel have long taken over the ASYLUM.

The world is against the Jews, period.

200 WMD and bio and chemical stores will not make Israel feel safe as long as fundamentalist persecution beilefs reign and are passed on in ritual.

20 03 2013

Obama is a piece of crap, and it will be he that causes Israel to use Extreme measures to eliminate the threats that surround them. I don’t know if Israel will survive or not, but I assure you, they will take everybody else with them. It will be Obama’s fault, not Netanyahu. The time is near, and we all know how it’s going down…

20 03 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you as always, Rick, for your comments.

First, I have disagreed with Barack Obama regarding almost every issue, and I did not vote for him in 2008 or 2012.

See, e.g., and (see also the comments beneath both articles)

However, regarding this issue, I agree with him.

Second, if Israelis use “extreme measures,” I believe they will be annihilated; and the same will happen to innocent Jews globally.

As I am sure you know, the great Zionist “experiment” may disappear. Time is not on Israel’s side, as lots of American Jews realize today in spades.

Third, with respect to your comment, “I assure you, they will take everybody else with them,” I do not believe that at all. The world will strike back at them in unspeakable and unfathomable ways.

Fourth, you argue:

It will be Obama’s fault, not Netanyahu.

I do not believe that at all either. Indeed, Netanyahu may go down in history as the single person who was responsible for ending Israel’s existence. The Rabins and Sharon knew this, which is among the many reasons why Netanyahu was and is hated.

Lastly, you state:

The time is near, and we all know how it’s going down.

I believe time is running out. As I have written in the article above:

The path on which Netanyahu is leading the Israelis is fraught with peril for their tiny Jewish nation . . . and potentially for Jews worldwide. He is determined to take the United States and the American people on the “joy ride” with him, which is utter madness.

Tragically, it will be anything but a “joy ride” for Israelis and Jews worldwide; and it may be the first holocaust of the 21st Century. However, there is still time to turn back from the edge of the abyss. And to his credit, Barack Obama is pursuing this course of action.

Lesser men might step aside and let the chips fall where they may. As the elections of 2008 and 2012 underscored, he has American Jews in his hip pocket, so why spend political capital helping Israel at all? Indeed, as discussed above, he hates Apartheid with a passion.

See; see also (“Barack Obama made an impassioned plea to Israel’s people over the heads of its government by calling on them to put themselves in the shoes of Palestinians and pressure the country’s political leadership to seek peace”)

Also, any positive gestures that Obama shows toward Netanyahu is pure political theater, and merely demonstrates that Obama is the consummate actor.

See, e.g., (“Andrea Mitchell: Obama and Netanyahu have ‘one of the worst relationships I can remember, and I’ve covered every president going all the way back to Ronald Reagan. These, these leaders do not get along. They are not simpatico'”)

21 03 2013

Tim, for the life of me, I don’t see how you can agree with Obama on any issue, let alone this one. He has insulted the Israelis and all Jews for that matter, but American Jews, being predominantly liberal, thus brainwashed and foolish, are not engaged the way they ought to be…

I realize that you are a very intelligent, experienced man Tim, but your hatred for Netanyahu has blinded you to the far worse dilemma of Obama. Obama doesn’t want Israel to survive. He has no sympathy for their struggles with Islam, nor does he believe that Jerusalem should even be considered part of Israel, let alone the capital.. Hell, he doesn’t even respect the country he RULES over…

Why do you not come down as hard on Iran as you do on Israel? I just don’t understand it Tim… Iran will be the catalyst in all this.. There is no way Israel will keep letting the clock go on.. We all know what’s coming.. I do believe Israel does have the capacity to destroy all of its enemies, albeit at the expense of their destruction as well.. The Samson option seems like a real possibility at this point, and it worries me. But more than that, I worry about the ignorance of the people that let Obama, the Emperor, slowly but surely destroy the United States; and this stance against Israel is just another example of his stupidity and, no, wait…. He’s not really stupid, is he? He has been successful at his every endeavor, weakening the USA and pissing on Israel, while giving the Muslims a huge shot of B-12… Please Tim, whether you hate Netanyahu or not, realize that he is a small player in the big game. Surely you must see that… Why not use your vast knowledge and skills to blog about what a destructive piece of garbage Obama is?

That’s where it really is at… Him, and the liberals who are destroying our great nation. Surely you must be sick to your stomach about that, Tim….

21 03 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Rick, for your additional comments.

First, I have set forth my views many times, but perhaps most succinctly in the following comments:

I am an American nationalist, not a Jew or Israeli, or a Palestinian. Also, as stated above, I do not have any allegiance to another country.

Second, you have said:

Obama doesn’t want Israel to survive.

I respectfully disagree. I believe he does not earnestly care whether it survives or not. Given a choice, I believe he would much prefer to see the Palestinians survive and prosper. Again, you might wish to read (or reread) his book, “Dreams from My Father.” Indeed, my first article at this blog summarized his views, in his own words.


Third, you have written: “[H]e doesn’t even respect the country he RULES over…”

Again, please read his book. He was raised in different cultures—Hawaii, Indonesia, and Hawaii again—before he spent his college years on the American mainland, and later wrote:

Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man.

See id.

Fourth, you have stated:

Why do you not come down as hard on Iran as you do on Israel?

As I have written above (and elsewhere), I believe Netanyahu, Ahmadinejad and Putin are all evil men, and enemies of the United States:

He and Iran’s Ahmadinejad and Russia’s Putin are “moral equivalents.”

Fifth, you have written:

I do believe Israel does have the capacity to destroy all of its enemies, albeit at the expense of their destruction as well.

I am not convinced that it has such powers; and if it does, it will surely destroy itself. Also, its enemies are everywhere—not just in the Middle East. Will it destroy the world?

Sixth, you have asked:

Why not use your vast knowledge and skills to blog about what a destructive piece of garbage Obama is?

If you read every article that I have written at this blog, which mentions Obama—beginning with the first article, right up to the latest article—you will see that I have taken him to task on essentially every issue.

Next, you have written:

Surely you must be sick to your stomach about [him, and the Liberals who are destroying our great nation], Tim….

I am not pleased at all, which is why I voted against him and every Liberal aka Democrat—even though I began as a Democrat—and why I have written what I have. However, I do not believe America and Israel are “joined at the hip” in any way, nor does Israel’s continued existence affect the United States. We survived before 1948, and we will survive if it falls.

Lastly, I would like to see Israel and the State of Palestine survive and prosper as neighbors, with mutual trade agreements and respect for human rights. God only knows if that is possible.

And no, I do not believe in the Biblical genesis of Israel, nor in the notion that the Messiah is yet to come, or that Jews are God’s “chosen people.”

See, e.g.,

21 03 2013

Rick has said:

I don’t know if Israel will survive or not, but I assure you, they will take everybody else with them. It will be Obama’s fault, not Netanyahu. The time is near, and we all know how it’s going down.

Proving that Israel is a rogue fundaMENTAList state that is a danger to all. The world is getting sick of the experiment that went sadly wrong. I believe the growing boycott movement is gaining steam and the average person ain’t buying it any more. When Israeli Generals have to visit their justice ministry to make sure they avoid arrest when going abroad, you know the times are a changin.’

Israel army motto: Purity of Arms?

But, the dopes use white phosphorus munitions on civilian targets.

21 03 2013

That is what you desire buddy, for Israel not to survive, because you my friend are nothing but an anti-Semite.

Israel will fight back with the ferocious zeal that they always have fought with, and that is why their enemies will fall. Not because they are radical.

20 03 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Israeli Terrorism

In a Washington Times article that is subtitled, “Mossad tactics . . . lead to friction with the CIA,” it is reported:

[L]urking in the shadow of President Obama’s highly anticipated visit to Israel this week is a protracted and secretive war already being waged between Jerusalem and Tehran.

Analysts and former officials say the “shadow war,” featuring suicide bombings and clandestine attacks from Eastern Europe to Asia and the Middle East, is a potential source of friction between individuals at the CIA and Israel’s lead intelligence agency, the Mossad.

The shadow war has been defined over the past five years by a tit-for-tat exchange of terrorist-style attacks. Israel’s president has blamed Iran for car and suicide bombings that targeted Israeli diplomats and killed Israeli tourists. Iran’s president has accused Israel and the U.S. of colluding to kill nuclear scientists with magnetized car bombs in Tehran.

. . .

Jerusalem and Washington may share a common enemy in Iran, but when it comes to the use of clandestinely planted bombs, “It is likely that the United States government as a whole doesn’t see eye-to-eye with the Israeli government,” said one analyst familiar with the Obama administration.

. . .

Most Western analysts agree, however, the bombings on Iranian interests—such as those that killed the scientists in Tehran—can most likely be linked back to the Mossad.

The notion that Israel would sponsor such tactics is irksome for some members of the U.S. intelligence community. “By any objective criteria, this is terrorism,” said one former official, who also spoke with The Washington Times on condition of anonymity. “For that reason alone, I think you have people over [at CIA headquarters] who view it with repugnance.”

“But it’s not a CIA-specific thing,” the former official added. “It’s just American citizens, looking at these kinds of activities that are constituted as international terrorism.”

CIA concerns

Recent months, meanwhile, have been punctuated by reports that Mossad agents may be engaging in other nefarious shadow war pursuits likely to rub CIA agents the wrong way.

A January article posted on the website of Foreign Policy magazine homed in on secret U.S. frustration that Israeli agents allegedly pretended to be CIA agents in order to recruit members of the Pakistan-based terrorist group Jundallah to carry out Mossad-driven missions in the secret war with Iran.

“It’s amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with,” the article quoted one unnamed U.S. intelligence officer as saying. “Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. They apparently didn’t give a damn what we thought.”

The report came as no surprise to the former official who spoke with The Times, saying that “false flag dimensions to Israeli operations are not a new thing.”

Separately, Trita Parsi, whose recent book, “A Single Role of the Dice,” delves deeply into the Obama administration’s Iran policy, said that he had independently confirmed elements of the Foreign Policy article.

“It was in about 2006 when the Mossad was impersonating the CIA in order to help Jundallah, which was creating problems for Iran on the Iranian eastern border [with Pakistan],” said Mr. Parsi, who also heads the National Iranian American Council, the largest Iranian-American grass-roots organization in the U.S.

Iranian authorities subsequently cracked down on Jundallah, Mr. Parsi said.

Secret army reports

. . . Citing confirmation by unnamed U.S. officials, a February 2012 report by NBC claimed the Israeli agency had secretly trained and armed members of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalk, an Iraq-based Iranian dissident group, to execute the Iranian nuclear scientists in Tehran.

. . .

The former official and others interviewed for this story said it was unlikely there would be any specific dialogue on the shadow war while Mr. Obama visits Israel this week.

“It’s not going to get that granular,” said the former official, who added that if the subject does arise, it will be in “vague terms,” with Obama administration officials likely making the argument to their Israeli counterparts that progress is currently being made in the effort to bring Iran into a successful and peaceful negotiation toward ending the Islamic republic’s nuclear program.

The Obama administration, the former official said, might encourage Israeli leaders not to “screw up the process by making any provocative action that is going to cause the Iranians to be more militant and strike back.”


Israel has been conducting such terrorist activities for decades. Indeed, similar terrorist activities against the British gave birth to the State of Israel.

However, as I have written:

I am forever reminded of what a prominent American—who is a Jew and a strong supporter of Israel—told me a number of years ago:

I have long thought that Israel will not make it, if only because of what are cavalierly called WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and its very tight geographical compression. All else is immaterial, including the Palestinians, or us, or the nature of Israel’s [government].

See (see also the article itself, as well as the other comments beneath it)

. . .

It is interesting that in conjunction with President Obama’s visit to Israel, the White House released what it said is a map of Israel. As reported:

The only problem is that Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights are missing.

An Obama administration video highlighting the president’s plans for his Mideast trip depicts Jerusalem, the Golan and the West Bank—also known as Judea and Samaria—as non-Israeli territory.

. . . [T]the video shows the Golan Heights as part of Syria; Jerusalem is depicted as part of the West Bank; and northern Israel is shown as part of Lebanon.

WND reported in August 2012 when the White House refused to name the capital of Israel—not once, but twice—as the two most senior White House correspondents cornered Obama’s press secretary, doggedly questioning him on whether the Obama administration considered Jerusalem or Tel Aviv to be the capital of the Jewish state.

The itinerary on the White House website further implies that Jerusalem is not Israel’s capital or even part of Israel. . . . Obama’s schedule lists two stops in “Tel Aviv, Israel” and one in “Amman, Jordan,” while his trip to Israel’s capital city is identified as taking place only in “Jerusalem.”

See; see also (illegal lobbying of Congress by former Senators, Congresspersons, and others on behalf of Israel)

1 04 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

North Korea Says It Will Launch Nuclear Attack On America

In an article subtitled, “NORTH Korea led by tyrant Kim Jong-un has sensationally vowed to launch a NUCLEAR attack on the USA,” the UK’s Sun has reported:

The provocative statement comes weeks after the country conducted underground nuclear tests which caused a massive earthquake.

America’s west coast cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco are feared to be in Kim’s sights.

A foreign ministry spokesman said: “Since the United States is about to ignite a nuclear war, we will be exercising our right to pre-emptive nuclear attack against the headquarters of the aggressor in order to protect our supreme interest.”

. . .

On Tuesday North Korea threatend to scrap the armistice that ended the 1950-53 war with South Korea.

And it criticised military exercises between the US and South Korea. Pyongyang said it was shutting off a military hotline with the US and South Korea.

North Korea’s KCNA agency quoting a military source said: “We will completely nullify the Korean armistice”.

Last month the world was put on high alert when North Korea carried out its biggest nuclear blast yet.

The giant underground explosion caused an earthquake with a magnitude of 4.9.

The banned blast—which took place in the remote, snowy, north-east of the country—drew global outrage, even from Pyongyang’s only major ally China.

The actual device was thought to be smaller than those in two earlier tests—raising fears that the crackpot Communist state is close to its aim of perfecting a missile capable of hitting its number one enemy the US.

. . .

In February North Korea poached Michael Jackson’s peace anthem We Are the World to soundtrack a chilling video showing a US city under missile attack.

The bizarre footage was uploaded on the secretive state’s official webpage.

The propaganda movie depicts a smiling lad dreaming of a regime rocket being launched into the air and travelling to America.

The three-and-a-half minute vid[eo] then showed a mystery city full of skyscrapers being attacked with multiple explosions, while the Stars and Stripes flag flutters in the background.

See (emphasis added); see also (“North Korea threatens U.S. with ‘thermonuclear war’: Rogue nation vows to launch attacks ‘at any time’ in revenge for sanctions”) and (“‘Prepare for all-out war’: Kim Jong Un vows to attack South Korea as he cancels peace pact in revenge for tough UN sanctions“) and (“North Korea Declares War Truce ‘Invalid’“) and (“US to deploy more ground-based missiles as North Korea steps up threats“)

To some in this world, the destruction of San Francisco (e.g., the Gay capital of the United States) and LA (e.g., the global center of far-Left, immoral “entertainment”) would be the 21st Century equivalent of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah—which were completely consumed by fire and brimstone.

See also (“Earthquakes: The Big One Is Coming To At Least Los Angeles”)

. . .

As reported by the UK’s Sun, North Korea has released a video that depicts 150,000 U.S. prisoners taken in a Blitzkrieg or lightning war that would overrun South Korea:

The bizarre mocked-up footage—released on the secretive state’s official website—imagines a full-scale war against the South and a quick victory inside three days.

US Navy ships in the region would be destroyed and thousands of troops and expats would be held prisoner according to the nightmare scenario.

The four-minute film, titled A Short, Three-Day War, starts with images of a massive rocket and artillery bombardment.

Tanks and infantry—carrying huge Communist banners—are then seen streaming across a snowy landscape towards Seoul amid dramatic Hollywood style explosions.

A male narrator describes different stages of the invasion, including the destruction of forces under the US Pacific Command with “powerful weapons of mass destruction.”

The video shows pictures of an American aircraft carrier, and images of the Seoul skyline superimposed with footage of paratroopers and North Korean military aircraft.

The narrator says: “The crack stormtroops will occupy Seoul and other cities and take 150,000 US citizens as hostages.”

The video was posted on the North’s official website, Uriminzokkiri, which distributes news and propaganda from the state media.

A video released early last month showed New York in flames after an apparent missile attack, and another two weeks later depicted US soldiers and President Barack Obama burning in the flames of a nuclear blast.

And earlier this week, another video showed the dome of the US Capitol building in Washington exploding in a fireball.

The latest offering from the Pyongyang propaganda department comes during escalating tensions on the Korean peninsula.

Kim jong-un’s brutal regime has threatened strikes on US military bases in Japan and Guam, and is trying to build nuclear armed ballistic missiles that could hit Europe.

See; see also and (“Kim Jong Un reveals his ‘U.S. mainland strike plan’: Pictures inside North Korean leader’s war room show him plotting to attack America (with a map of target cities on the wall behind him)“) and (“In the event that the ‘bellicose rhetoric’ of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un turns into something more serious, the opening hours of conflict could be ‘pretty ugly,’ defense analysts warn“) and (“South Korean President Park Geun-hye appeared to give her country’s military permission to strike back at any attack from the North without further word from Seoul”—”‘As commander-in-chief of the armed forces, I will trust the military’s judgment on abrupt and surprise provocations by North Korea,’ she said“)

. . .

ABC News has reported:

Gen. James Thurman, the top U.S. commander in South Korea, said that in his two years on the job he has never seen things as tense as they are right now, telling ABC News the situation on the Korean peninsula as “volatile” and “dangerous.”

Thurman said in his exclusive interview with ABC News that his ” job is to prevent war,” but that his greatest fear is a “miscalculation” that causes “a kinetic provocation.” In military parlance, kinetic refers to combat.

Thurman said North Korea’s recent rhetoric has made the situation on the Korean peninsula “a dangerous period,” but he added, “I think we’re managing it quite well because on this side of the line we’re very calm. And we’re confident.”

Thurman commands the 28,500 American military forces based in South Korea and also serves as the commander of United Nations Command.

. . .

While he described North Korea’s missiles as their largest threat, Thurman pointed across the DMZ and noted “there’s 14,000 tubes of artillery just across this line beyond that far mountain range over there.” That artillery poses a direct threat to Seoul, the South Korean capital which is located just 27 miles from the DMZ.

See (emphasis added); see also,0,7973635.story (North Korea analyst: “[T]his is one of the most dangerous moments since 1953”“) and (“Rep. Peter King: US could make preemptive strike on North Korea“) and (NORTH KOREA APPROVES ‘MERCILESS’ NUKE ATTACK ON US) and (“North Korea says it has approval to use its ‘cutting edge’ nuclear weapons against the United States in a ‘merciless’ attack just hours after Chuck Hagel calls them a ‘clear and present danger’“)

. . .

It is only possible to deal with rash actors and actions if one’s opponent is rational if not sane.

We learned from Pearl Harbor and 9/11 that there are enemies in this world who want to destroy the United States, and are willing to defy conventional norms. One such actor is North Korea under Kim Jong-un.

He could launch an invasion of the south that would be tantamount to a Blitzkrieg, killing or taking American military personnel as prisoners, and overrunning our South Korean ally. He could launch missiles against Japan and American forces in the Pacific that would be devastating.

The U.S. would have to act quickly, and the only real deterrents are nuclear strikes against the command and control in North Korea, and against key military targets and forces massed against us and our ally.

No amount of talking would have prevented Pearl Harbor or 9/11, and the same may be true this time. Indeed, a massive strike against the North may prevent a “Pearl Harbor” that reaches American cities, including but not limited to a nation-ending EMP Attack.

See (“EMP Attack: Only 30 Million Americans Survive“)

. . .

North Korea has always eclipsed Iran as a nuclear-arms threat to the United States, except in the mind of Benjamin Netanyahu—who has been the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East, and has continuously sought to provoke America into a third war in the region.

As I have written:

The path on which Netanyahu is leading the Israelis is fraught with peril for their tiny Jewish nation . . . and potentially for Jews worldwide. He is determined to take the United States and the American people on the “joy ride” with him, which is utter madness.

See (see also the comments beneath the article)

Barack Obama should leave Israel to sink or swim, alone; and turn his attention to where it really counts for Americans, which is not Iran.

Also, as I have written:

I am an American nationalist, not a Jew or Israeli, or a Palestinian. . . . I do not have any allegiance to another country.

See also

15 08 2013

You’re wrong about Netanyahu, both with regard to your assertion that he is “mad,” and also in regard to your assertion that an attack on Iran will result in enraging Muslims throughout the world. For one thing, you evidently know nothing about the nature of that attack, it’s targets or its strategic objectives or the means or tactics Israel will employ. For one thing, the Sunni Muslims in the Saudi regime, Qatar, and other Sunni Muslim oil sheikdoms, would like nothing better than the obliteration of Shiite Iran’s military capacity which grows daily. Moreover, if Israel attacks Iran, you can blame Obama for his dilatory and deceptive tactics, his pro-Islamic views, and his personal anti-Semitism.

15 08 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments.

First, “madness” comes in various forms. If he leads Israel to its demise, or is an integral contributor to that result, then he is a demonic Narcissistic demagogue—which he is already—and mad.

Second, please read (or reread) the article above. The Rabins, Sharon and others have come very close to describing his “madness.”

Third, the revolutionary forces afoot in the Middle East want Israel eliminated—wiped off the face of this earth, without a trace. Many very knowledgeable, intelligent and well-meaning American Jews view this with fear, and rightly so.

Fourth, Barack Obama is pro-Islamic. After all, he grew up in Indonesia, etc. Yes too, he is anti-Israel—or so I believe—and he equates and/or views Israel’s policies vis–à–vis the Palestinians as the moral equivalent of Apartheid in South Africa, which he hated.


Is he an anti-Semite? No, I do not believe so. And there is a difference between being anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. They are not one and the same.

15 08 2013

Netanyahu is the most dangerous man in the world. Armed to the teeth (nuclear, chemical and biological), and looking for war on the next Islamic country. Sent to the best US institutions to study, and still he was not able to shed his family’s deeply-rooted racism.

“I am an American nationalist,” here, here!!

8 09 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama’s Syrian Debacle

According to the Washington Post:

Only 9 percent of [Americans] said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria; a RealClearPolitics poll average finds Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, making the country’s most hated political body almost twice as popular.


Yet, the foreign policy naïf, Obama, plunges ahead with his war plans for Syria.

As the Post‘s Charles Krauthammer has written:

Having leaked to the world, and thus to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a detailed briefing of the coming U.S. air attack on Syria—(1) the source (offshore warships and perhaps a bomber or two), (2) the weapon (cruise missiles), (3) the duration (two or three days), (4) the purpose (punishment, not “regime change”)—perhaps we should be publishing the exact time the bombs will fall, lest we disrupt dinner in Damascus.

So much for the element of surprise. Into his third year of dithering, two years after declaring Assad had to go, one year after drawing—then erasing—his own red line on chemical weapons, Barack Obama has been stirred to action.

Or more accurately, shamed into action. Which is the worst possible reason. A president doesn’t commit soldiers to a war for which he has zero enthusiasm. Nor does one go to war for demonstration purposes.

Want to send a message? Call Western Union. A Tomahawk missile is for killing. A serious instrument of war demands a serious purpose.

. . .

There are risks to any attack. Blowback terror from Syria and its terrorist allies. Threatened retaliation by Iran or Hezbollah on Israel—that could lead to a guns-of-August regional conflagration. Moreover, a mere punitive pinprick after which Assad emerges from the smoke intact and emboldened would demonstrate nothing but U.S. weakness and ineffectiveness.

In 1998, after al-Qaeda blew up two U.S. embassies in Africa, Bill Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles into empty tents in Afghanistan. That showed ’em.

It did. It showed terminal unseriousness. Al-Qaeda got the message. Two years later, the USS Cole. A year after that, 9/11.

Yet even Clinton gathered the wherewithal to launch a sustained air campaign against Serbia. That wasn’t a mere message. That was a military strategy designed to stop the Serbs from ravaging Kosovo. It succeeded.

If Obama is planning a message-sending three-day attack, preceded by leaks telling the Syrians to move their important military assets to safety, better that he do nothing. Why run the considerable risk if nothing important is changed?

. . .

Would the American people support it? They are justifiably war-weary and want no part of this conflict. And why should they? In three years, Obama has done nothing to prepare the country for such a serious engagement. Not one speech. No explanation of what’s at stake.

On the contrary. Last year Obama told us repeatedly that the tide of war is receding. This year, he grandly declared that the entire war on terror “must end.” If he wants Tomahawks to fly, he’d better have a good reason, tell it to the American people and get the support of their representatives in Congress, the way George W. Bush did for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

It’s rather shameful that while the British prime minister recalled Parliament to debate possible airstrikes—late Thursday, Parliament actually voted down British participation—Obama has made not a gesture in that direction.

If you are going to do this, Mr. President, do it constitutionally. And seriously. This is not about you and your conscience. It’s about applying American power to do precisely what you now deny this is about—helping Assad go, as you told the world he must.

Otherwise, just send Assad a text message. You might incur a roaming charge, but it’s still cheaper than a three-day, highly telegraphed, perfectly useless demonstration strike.

See; see also (“Pentagon Can’t Afford Syria Operation; Must Seek Additional Funds” . . . because the unconscionable naïf, Obama, has been systematically gutting our military!) and (Obama caves and proves he is a wimp: “[H]e will seek congressional authorization for the use of force . . . and a vote as soon as Congress comes back in September”) and (“‘AMATEUR HOUR’: Krauthammer slams Obama’s sudden decision to delay Syria strike”) and (“The Obama national security team that wants to go to war with Syria and demonizes President Bashar Assad is the same group that, as senators, urged reaching out to the dictator“) and (Syrian rebels arrested with Sarin gas!) and (“Liberals reject Obama’s case for Syria strikes; believe Obama and Kerry are lying“) and (“Adelson New Obama Ally as Jewish Groups Back Syria Strike,” which is not surprising in light of the fact that the “Neocons” pushed America into the Iraq War too, on behalf of Israel) and (“Video: Syrian Rebel Admits Using Chemical Weapons“) and (“The dirty little not-so-secret behind President Obama’s much-lobbied-for, illegal and strategically incompetent war against Syria is that it’s not about Syria at all. It’s about Iran—and Israel“)

. . .

No more wars nor one drop of American blood should be shed for Israel. It is on its own; sink or swim. Iraq was enough!

See (see also the comments beneath the article)

. . .

Barack Obama is pathetic. He has lost Iraq, after so many Americans died there, and other Americans suffered life-long injuries. He has effectively lost Afghanistan, with the same result—as well as much of the Middle East.

Now he wants to commit U.S. military forces to attacks on Syria, which would likely benefit America’s enemy—al Qaeda—that attacked us on 9/11. This man should be impeached . . . if the Republicans had any guts at all, which they don’t.

Any senators and members of Congress who vote in favor of such strikes must be voted out of office!

23 09 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Netanyahu Wants More American Blood Shed In The Middle East

The New York Times has described Netanyahu’s latest efforts to thwart peace in the Middle East:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, stepping up his effort to blunt a diplomatic offensive by Iran, plans to warn the United Nations next week that a nuclear deal with the Iranian government could be a trap similar to one set by North Korea eight years ago, according to an Israeli official involved in drafting the speech.

Mr. Netanyahu is scheduled to address the General Assembly next Tuesday, a week after President Obama and Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, are to speak at the United Nations.

But the Israeli government, clearly rattled by the sudden talk of a diplomatic opening, offered a preview Sunday of Mr. Netanyahu’s hard-edged message, in which he will set the terms for what would be acceptable to Israel in any agreement concerning Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

. . .

President Rouhani, in advance of his arrival in New York this week, has signaled a willingness to negotiate. The Obama administration, while professing wariness, is clearly intrigued by the possibility of resolving a problem that has bedeviled President Obama as long as he has been in office. And that, in turn, has deeply unsettled the Israelis.

. . .

American intelligence experts believe Iran is still many months, if not years, away from having [a nuclear] weapon.

. . .

This year, Israeli officials fear, the highest drama may be Mr. Obama greeting Mr. Rouhani on the sidelines of the General Assembly, something that has not happened for decades and which they worry would leave Israel more isolated in dealing with Iran.


Israel is isolated in the world because of Netanyahu!

The United States is not the world’s policeman. We have learned that in spades fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it owes nothing to Israel, nothing at all. Israel is on its own, sink or swim.

None of America’s vital interests are served by what Netanyahu advocates. The American people know this; Barack Obama knows this; and the United States must not become more deeply embroiled in a region that will see vastly more chaos in the months and years to come. Indeed, Israel may not survive; and we are not its protector, savior or supplicant.


23 09 2013

If Woodrow Wilson had persuaded Congress to allow the US to join the League of Nations in 1919, we may well have avoided WW2 and saved the lives of millions of US soldiers who died in that war.

Your Party has always had a vocal group who proclaimed appeasement. I suppose you think Henry Ford and Lindbergh were correct and the US should NOT have entered WW2?

How Netanyahu can never do anything right shows the appeasement bee in your bonnet. Oh dear I forget its all only against Netanyahu but some of your best friends are Jews. Correct? Do they all want Israel to disappear like you do?

23 09 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Martin, for your comments as always.

First, I do not believe the League of Nations would have prevented World War II, any more than the United Nations has prevented any war to date (e.g., Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).

Second, I am an Independent, not a Democrat or a Republican; and I have been one for more than 20 years. In my view, the Dems are “evil,” and the Republicans are “Neanderthals.”

See, e.g., (“The Rise Of Independents”) (see also the comments beneath the article)

Third, I have set forward my views about Israel, above and elsewhere; and I see no need to repeat them here.

See, e.g., (“Why I Write And Say What I Do”)

Fourth, as I have written above, Netanyahu is the moral equivalent of Vladimir Putin; and hopefully both share similar fates.

See (see also the comments beneath the article)

Lastly, the Germany, Scotland, Ireland and England of my ancestors—the first of whom came to Virginia in 1760, from Bristol, England—are just as foreign to me as Israel is, even though I have spent time in each of my ancestral countries.

I am “America-centric.” I only care about what is in the best interests of the United States, which is what most Americans believe. They do not have any allegiance to another country.

25 09 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Putin’s Macho Posturing Obscures Russia’s Continuing Decline, And Prevents Action To Avert It

This is the conclusion reached in a fascinating article by Richard Spencer, which appears in the UK’s Telegraph:

As time passes, the more it becomes apparent, as it should have been from the start, that the Russian “triumph” over America on the chemical weapons deal in Syria was an illusion. Vladimir Putin is driving Russia ever deeper into a mire in Syria. The conflict is repeatedly compared to the Iraq war, but the comparison with Afghanistan is much closer. Some have called it “Iran’s Vietnam” but there’s a chance it may become Russia’s Afghanistan all over again. President Obama’s decision to call off air and missile strikes in return for a chemical weapons deal may have been a short-term tactical win for Mr Putin, in that America was stopped, for now, from intervening in Russia’s “patch” (though such an intervention was beginning to look less and less likely anyway). That is one stated goal of Mr Putin. His longer-term goal is to frustrate American expansionism (what Washington likes to see as the spread of Western democratic values).

. . .

We have been told in Britain to worry about hardened jihadists returning from Syria (or Somalia) to strike back home. Yet we are no longer such a target as we were, having pulled out of Iraq, and being about to pull out of Afghanistan. Yet jihadists are being regularly told to focus on the insurgencies in those parts of the Russian Caucasus home to Muslim populations, such as Chechnya, Ingushetya and Daghestan. Remember Beslan? And this is before Russia is sucked militarily into the conflict. A good opportunity for that will come if, as its foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov has promised, it provides troops to defend the chemical weapons inspectors tasked with dealing with the chemical weapons programme under the UN-sponsored deal.

. . . Russian prestige in its announcement depended on the outside world listening to two very strong messages—without noticing that they were contradictory. One, repeated by Vladimir Putin in his article for The New York Times, was that President Assad was innocent of using chemical weapons and that it was the opposition’s doing. The second was that Russia had scored a hit in persuading Mr Assad to give up his chemical weapons. There will be some who are so determined to deny Mr Assad’s guilt that they will insist that this was some act of extraordinary benevolence by both leaders—a supreme example of turning the other cheek, to be the victim of a chemical weapons attack and give up your own in response.

However, if that is the case, the implicit agreement must be that Russia will defend Assad to the end, having taken away its ultimate deterrent, and that Russia has tied its own fortunes to the regime, as it unwittingly did in Afghanistan in the 1980s. It is far more likely, it seems to me, that Russia is convinced that the Aug 21 attack was the work of Mr Assad and that giving up his chemical weapons was its own (despairing) demand in return for continued support. There’s an interesting anecdote (among many) in a New Yorker profile this week of the head of the Iranian al-Quds force in which US intelligence agencies in December saw Assad troops loading up chemical weapons, and, via Russia and Iran, had the attack stopped. It’s unverifiable—of course—but it makes much more sense to see Russia as also tearing its hair out over its Syrian protégé (even Putin has given hints of that). Now Mr Putin has been handed the Syrian brief, but it is one he cannot now win. Russia will be vilified for Assad’s crimes; but if Assad somehow wins—or at least stays in some sort of power—it is Iran whose interests will be preserved. It is not clear, any more, what interests Russia has in Syria, other than pride, and it can’t have a lot of that, can it?

So much for Syria, but that’s just one strategic loss suffered by Mr Putin. It is often said that he is more determined to oppose a UN resolution over Syria because he allowed one over Libya and felt cheated when the West used it to help topple Col Gaddafi. This argument has always seemed odd to me since it was perfectly obvious at the time that this was the intention of the UN resolution Britain and France pushed through, but it remains the case that the fall of Gaddafi also represented the death of someone else who—like Saddam before him—was an albeit eccentric and unreliable part-client of Russia (at least of its arms industry). Of course it needs to defend Assad—from Ceaucescu to Gaddafi, the final moments of Russian proteges have not been pretty. Meanwhile, while Mr Putin’s attention was turned elsewhere, he’s losing elsewhere too: see this Economist article) for how Russia is being replaced by China as the leading influence in Moscow’s former Central Asian colonies.

There is little evidence, to me, that by the time Mr Putin does eventually retire, he will have restored Russia’s place in the world. Much more likely, that his macho posturing will be seen to have obscured Russia’s continuing decline, and prevented action to prevent it. The worst that can be said of President Obama meanwhile is that he is making the same mistake in Syria as President George Bush senior (allegedly) did in Afghanistan. Mrs Thatcher’s famous warning about Mr Bush (“don’t go wobbly, George!) could certainly apply to his current successor. By standing aside as Syria burns in the fallout from the growing inability of Russia to control its fiefdoms, he may well be setting aside trouble for later. Assad is unlikely to win back his northern kingdom, which could easily become a lawless centre for al-Qaeda operations, as Afghanistan did. But the truth is that strategically America has little to lose. It still has its key Middle East allies—Israel, the Gulf states. If a consensus with Iran is formed, unlikely I know but not to be ruled out, it could find its position strengthened, even if conflict continues in Syria. It will not be lost on Russia that if some sort of deal is done allowing Iranian oil back on to the market, prices will fall and its own oil-dependent economy will be in jeopardy. And what of Assad? Will he not be strengthened by this deal? It hardly seems likely. The rebels are still as near to the centre of Damascus as they were on Aug 21. They still control large parts of the country. . . .

See (“It’s Russia, not America, that has most to fear in Syria”); see also (Putin: “A Plea for Caution From Russia”) and (“Rising China, sinking Russia”)

The article’s bottom line—”Vladimir Putin is driving Russia ever deeper into a mire in Syria”—is worth noting.

Down deep, Barack Obama is a pacifist. In his seminal book, “Dreams from My Father”—which discusses almost every aspect of his life, and sets forth his core beliefs—there is no hint of any militarism or global ambitions.


Because Obama has hated Apartheid in South Africa and British imperialism with a passion—and he made this crystal clear in his book, and by getting rid of the bust of Winston Churchill as one of his first acts as president—one can understand why he has drawn back from any strikes against Syria or confrontation with Iran.

He will not “carry water” for Benjamin Netanyahu because, on some level, he views the Israeli leader with the same disdain that Putin enjoys. Also, Obama hates the Israeli Apartheid and oppression of the Palestinians.

It is doubtful that Obama will ever intervene militarily in Syria, or Iran, because the American people do not want to be involved in any more wars in the Middle East. Obama understands this, which is consistent with his own innate pacifism.

Most Americans are “America-centric,” and only care about what is in the best interests of the United States. They do not have any allegiance to another country—especially Israel.

Next, Spencer’s observation is worth repeating:

There is little evidence, to me, that by the time Mr Putin does eventually retire, he will have restored Russia’s place in the world. Much more likely, that his macho posturing will be seen to have obscured Russia’s continuing decline, and prevented action to prevent it.


Lastly, America’s attention has shifted to the Pacific, and rightly so. China is our greatest threat in the future, with Russia and North Korea behind it—not the Middle East.

See, e.g., (“Russia, China Hold Large-Scale War Games”); see also (“China Is America’s Enemy: Make No Mistake About That”) and (“Russia’s Putin Is A Killer”) and (“The Next Major War: Korea Again?”) and (“EMP Attack: Only 30 Million Americans Survive”)

30 09 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Try Bibi For War Crimes?

This was the chant from a crowd of protesters as Netanyahu arrived at the White House:

A crowd of protesters chanted “Try Bibi for war crimes,” as Benjamin Netanyahu’s limousine pulled up to the White House Monday. The Israeli prime minister is in Washington to urge President Obama to take a tougher stance against Iran over its nuclear program. Though Obama said he was optimistic following his phone call with Iran’s newly elected President Hassan Rouhani that a “resolution” to Iran’s dispute with the West is attainable, Netanyahu is more skeptical and has warned Obama not to be wary of Iranian “sweet talk.” Bibi is expected to insist that any diplomatic solution to the standoff between Iran and the West include the demand that Iran dismantle its nuclear weapons program.

See; see also (Netanyahu hyperbole: “A nuclear-armed Iran in the Middle East would not be another North Korea. It would be another 50 North Koreas”) and (“What is becoming increasingly clear is that Assad wasn’t behind the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in an eastern suburb of Damascus“) and (“Why I Write And Say What I Do”)

Not lost on the protesters is the notion that Israel must dismantle its own nuclear weapons program—as the quid pro quo—before it can expect such actions by Iran.

30 09 2013

Thank you for your contribution to this important and widely-misunderstood subject. Hostility toward Iran rests on three key assumptions:

1) Iran is building a bomb
2) Iran is genocidal
3): If Iran gets a bomb, it will use it regardless of the consequences

However, each of these tenets shrivels under close scrutiny. Here’s why Netanyahu is “The Bibi Who Cried Wolf”:

30 09 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you.

2 10 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Zehava Galon At J Street Conference 2013

She is excellent, and well worth watching!

See; see also

(Vice President Joe Biden at J Street Conference 2013) and (“Jeremy Ben-Ami, “A New Voice For Israel”—A Wonderful Book That Should Be Read By Anyone Who Cares About And Wants To Understand Israel’s Past, Present And Future”) and

(“Queen Rania at Yale University”) and (“Why I Write And Say What I Do”)

3 10 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Iranian Cyberwarfare Commander Shot Dead In Suspected Assassination

Netanyahu the Killer

The UK’s Telegraph has reported:

Mojtaba Ahmadi, who served as commander of the Cyber War Headquarters, was found dead in a wooded area near the town of Karaj, north-west of the capital, Tehran. Five Iranian nuclear scientists and the head of the country’s ballistic missile programme have been killed since 2007. The regime has accused Israel’s external intelligence agency, the Mossad, of carrying out these assassinations.

Ahmadi was last seen leaving his home for work on Saturday. He was later found with two bullets in the heart, according to Alborz, a website linked to the Revolutionary Guard Corps. “I could see two bullet wounds on his body and the extent of his injuries indicated that he had been assassinated from a close range with a pistol,” an eyewitness told the website.

The commander of the local police said that two people on a motorbike had been involved in the assassination.

. . .

Western officials said the information was still being assessed, but previous deaths have been serious blows to Iran’s security forces. Tighter security measures around leading commanders and nuclear scientists have instilled a culture of fear in some of the most sensitive parts of the security establishment.

The last victim of a known assassination was Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, a chemist who worked in the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, who died when an explosive device blew up on his car in January last year.

The death of Ahmadi, a leading specialist in cyber defences, could be an extension of this campaign of subterfuge. Iran has been accused of carrying out a number of cyber attacks detected in the West. Shashank Joshi, an expert at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), said this was seen as a lesser threat than the nuclear programme. “Iran’s cyber attacks on Israel and elsewhere in the region are a rising threat and a growing threat, but it hasn’t yet been seen as a major and sustained onslaught, so it would be pretty novel and significant to take this step in the field of cyber-warfare at this time,” he said.

The Revolutionary Guard has also been accused of lending its expertise to Syria’s regime, helping it to hack Western targets through a body known as the Syrian Electronic Army.

The killing of Ahmadi coincides with a new diplomatic effort by President Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s newly elected leader. He has voiced the hope that Iran’s confrontation with America and the leading Western powers over its nuclear ambitions can be settled within months.

See; see also (“Iran, the Mossad and the power of cyber-warfare”) and (“Huge explosion reported at Syrian air defense base: Unconfirmed reports suggest a missile strike from Mediterranean Sea; social media explodes with posts blaming Israel“) and (“Israel ‘furious’ with White House for leak on Syria strike“) and (“Palestinians say Israel ‘only suspect’ in Arafat death“)

The likely perpetrators are Israel’s Netanyahu and his Mossad. It follows the pattern that we have seen before; for example, in the killing of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh at a Dubai hotel.

See (“Israel’s Senseless Killings And War With Iran”) (see also the comments beneath the article)

. . .

Just as Barack Obama and the United States are seeking rapprochement with Iran, Netanyahu does whatever is necessary to sabotage such efforts.

. . .

The very essence of a pathetic, reckless warmonger shamed:

See, e.g., (“Israelis in secret trip to inspect Saudi bases. Could be used as staging ground for strikes against Iran”)

. . .

Richard Nixon worried about the “Clash of Civilizations,” which was described by Samuel P. Huntington.

Our more immediate threat, however, is that madman Netanyahu will plunge us into another war in the Middle East, which must be avoided at all costs.

11 11 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Anonymous Fights Israeli Apartheid

Boycott Israel logo

An article in the UK’s Telegraph—with the logo above appearing at the top of the article—states in pertinent part:

This weekend . . . Anonymous launched what it calls #OpBOYCOTTIsrael, a Twitter campaign aimed at encouraging “disinvestment” from Israeli goods. The manifesto for this operation, posted on Pastebin, says “Disinvestment works—the strategy played a potent role in dismantling apartheid in South Africa and it can work to dismantle Israeli apartheid in Palestine, too.”

The plan—explained in excellent detail here by The Daily Dot—is to highlight the 729 barcode which identifies Israeli goods, and thus enable a boycott. . . .

Anonymous seems to me to have a shaky grasp of an extremely complex situation. For example, the slur “apartheid” is pretty frequent in the Anonymous material. The existence of an “apartheid” in Israel I imagine comes as a surprise to the Bedouin and Druze Arab-Israeli soldiers I met during the Israel-Lebanon war, the million or so Arab-Israeli citizens or the 12 Arab MPs who sit in Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, making up 10 per cent of the chamber.

Equally, there’s a great deal of rhetoric about how the Palestinians have no army, and no defences and that therefore the IDF’s actions are by definition a “genocide”. Again, anyone who has been to Israel will know how often rockets launch from Gaza, aimed at Israeli civilian targets. Tens of thousands of the grenade-sized rockets, called “Qassams”, have been fired in the last few years. Every house in Israel has a bomb shelter in it by law for a reason.

It’s not just Israelis who think this bombardment is wrong—United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon stated that he believes that the rocket attacks by factions in Gaza are “completely unacceptable”. He has also stated that he believes that the Palestinian Authority should “take the necessary steps to restore law and order, and for all factions to abide by the ceasefire”.

As for a genocide, the populations of Gaza and the West Bank have hugely increased, not decreased—that of the Gaza Strip is now estimated at 1.7 million people, almost a million of whom are hereditary rather than actual refugees, having been born since 1948. If Israel is running a genocide, it’s not doing a very good job. Indeed, the current projections are that Israeli Arabs (let alone the Palestinians) will comprise the majority of the population by 2048.

. . .

Even if a boycott got the Israelis to the table, what guarantees that Hamas will negotiate? Its current stance is that it doesn’t even accept Israel’s right to exist. How is it possible for the Israelis to negotiate when the other side’s one demand is “cease to be”?

This “operation” by Anonymous is classic meddling in a problem that the meddlers don’t understand. The arrogance of looking at one of the worlds most intractable conflicts from behind your computer screen, picking a side, and then “solving” the problem with Twitter is breathtaking to behold.


The author of this article seems to be nothing more than another shill of Netanyahu; and the article could have been written—and perhaps was written—in Tel Aviv. It is pure Israeli propaganda.

1 12 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Israeli Arabs, Palestinians Protest Plan To Relocate Bedouins

As if Netanyahu’s brutal regime could not reach new lows, it has—as the Los Angeles Times has reported:

Thousands of Arab citizens of Israel and Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank demonstrated Saturday against an Israeli government plan that . . . would relocate Bedouins from traditional lands in the Negev desert to urban communities.

Some of the gatherings turned violent, with 28 protesters arrested and at least 15 police officers injured, one of them stabbed. Police fired stun grenades, tear gas and skunk water to disperse demonstrators.

The “Day of Rage” was called as the Israeli parliament was preparing to give final approval to what has become known as the Prawer Plan, named after an Israeli government official who wrote it.

Israeli officials say the plan was reached after extensive consultation with Bedouin leaders. It would provide recognition and previously denied services for some Bedouin communities that have been viewed by the Israelis as squatters on state land and relocate others while providing some compensation.

The controversial plan faces strong opposition from many Bedouins, who say it would in effect expropriate 200,000 acres of Arab land and forcibly relocate more than 40,000 Bedouins.

“The government is trying to present the plan as ‘in the best interest of the Bedouins,’ while with one hand it is acting to destroy Bedouin villages through the Prawer Plan and with the other it is building new Jewish localities in the Negev, some of these in the very same places where the villages stand today,” said law student Huda Abu Obeid, an activist.

“You cannot uproot an entire population and urbanize it without consultation—and that is precisely what the government is doing,” said Fadi Obra, a 29-year-old from the Bedouin town of Rahat.

Among the day’s protests, thousands of Arab Israeli protesters gathered near the Bedouin town of Hura in the Negev and Haifa in northern Israel carrying Palestinian flags and signs saying “Prawer will not pass” and “We will not leave our homes.” They clashed with police at both sites after blocking main roads. Dozens were arrested, according to police.

In Jerusalem, dozens of Palestinians protested the plan near Damascus Gate of the Old City, while Palestinians representing various political groups clashed with Israeli soldiers near an Israeli settlement just outside Ramallah.

Medics said many people were treated after inhaling tear gas and being hit by rubber-coated metal bullets. Soldiers arrested three people, said activists.

Late Saturday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the police action against the demonstrators. “We will treat offenders to the fullest extent of the law and will not tolerate such disturbances. . . . Attempts by a loud and violent minority to deny a better future to a large and broad population are grave.”

See,0,6789360.story#axzz2mFbpA3Kz (emphasis added); see also (“Thousands expected at protests throughout Israel, world against Bedouin resettlement”)

Tragically, some day the Israelis may reap a whirlwind of pain, suffering and devastation, stemming in no small part from the actions of Netanyahu.

6 12 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

The Legacies of Nelson Mandela


Barack Obama has hated Apartheid in South Africa and revered Nelson Mandela for most of his adult life. To him, Apartheid was a stain on Mankind, and Mandela was his hero.

See, e.g., (“For Mandela, Reverence, but Criticism, Too”) and

An outgrowth of these beliefs has been Obama’s goals of rapprochement with Iran, and a lasting peace in the Middle East. However, just as Obama and the United States have been pursuing these goals, Benjamin Netanyahu has been doing whatever is necessary to sabotage such efforts.

See (see also the article itself, as well as the other comments beneath it)

If anything, Mandela’s death may strengthen Obama’s resolve to end Apartheid in Israel, and to “tear down the wall.” This might be one of Obama’s greatest legacies, but it will not come about as long as Netanyahu leads Israel. To Obama, he embodies white oppression.

6 12 2013

Obama is an enemy of Israel, and of the United States. Period.

Benjamin Netanyahu is right, and has been right all along. Your hatred of this man is deep rooted, but misguided. History will decide the kind of man he really was, but in the end, Iran will lie and cheat, and through a proxy, attempt to destroy Israel, and Obama will be more than happy to let it happen..

Mandela was a communist..

6 12 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Rick, for your comments—which are always welcomed and appreciated, even though we may not agree.

I am not a fan of Barack Obama, nor have I ever voted for him; and I have made this crystal clear.

See, e.g., and (see also the comments beneath both articles)

However, I agree with him regarding his assessment of Netanyahu, and a lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Netanyahu stands in the way of this; and I believe Obama views him as the very embodiment of Israeli oppression. To him, Netanyahu may be equated with those who supported Apartheid to the bitter end.

My views of Netanyahu have not changed since his first term in office. If anything, they have hardened. While you may have seen me mention this before, it is worth repeating again:

[Netanyahu] was hated by former Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Rabin—and especially by Rabin’s wife Leah, who blamed Netanyahu for her husband’s assassination. She saw “only doom for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process” with Netanyahu at Israel’s helm; and her views were prescient.


With respect to your comment—”Iran will lie and cheat, and through a proxy, attempt to destroy Israel, and Obama will be more than happy to let it happen”—I agree that Obama will let it happen. However, his first choice is a lasting peace, which he is pursuing vigorously.

With regard to your comment that “Mandela was a communist,” I am aware of Mandela’s activities and beliefs. To many, he was a “freedom fighter,” just like those who fought the British to establish the State of Israel. One’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter or hero; it is in the eye of the beholder.

See, e.g., (“Mandela, the man once branded a ‘terrorist’ by the US”)

Lastly, whether the relative peace and reconciliation that Mandela brought about in South Africa can continue and be sustained, only time will tell. The same is true of a lasting peace for Israel with its neighbors.

6 12 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Woe To U.S. Allies

This is the title of an article by the Washington Post‘s Charles Krauthammer, which states:

Three crises, one president, many bewildered friends.

The first crisis, barely noticed here, is Ukraine’s sudden turn away from Europe and back to the Russian embrace.

After years of negotiations for a major trading agreement with the European Union, Ukraine succumbed to characteristically blunt and brutal economic threats from Russia and abruptly walked away. Ukraine is instead considering joining the Moscow-centered Customs Union with Russia’s fellow dictatorships Belarus and Kazakhstan.

This is no trivial matter. Ukraine is not just the largest European country, it’s the linchpin for Vladimir Putin’s dream of a renewed imperial Russia, hegemonic in its neighborhood and rolling back the quarter-century advancement of the “Europe whole and free” bequeathed by America’s victory in the Cold War.

The U.S. response? Almost imperceptible. As with Iran’s ruthlessly crushed Green Revolution of 2009, the hundreds of thousands of protesters who’ve turned out to reverse this betrayal of Ukrainian independence have found no voice in Washington. Can’t this administration even rhetorically support those seeking a democratic future, as we did during Ukraine’s Orange Revolution of 2004?

A Post online headline explains: “With Russia in mind, U.S. takes cautious approach on Ukraine unrest.” We must not offend Putin. We must not jeopardize Obama’s precious “reset,” a farce that has yielded nothing but the well-earned distrust of allies such as Poland and the Czech Republic whom we wantonly undercut in a vain effort to appease Russia on missile defense.

Why not outbid Putin? We’re talking about a $10 billion to $15 billion package from Western economies with more than $30 trillion in GDP to alter the strategic balance between a free Europe and an aggressively authoritarian Russia—and prevent a barely solvent Russian kleptocracy living off oil, gas and vodka, from blackmailing its way to regional hegemony.

The second crisis is the Middle East—the collapse of confidence of U.S. allies as America romances Iran.

The Gulf Arabs are stunned at their double abandonment. In the nuclear negotiations with Iran, the U.S. has overthrown seven years of Security Council resolutions prohibiting uranium enrichment and effectively recognized Iran as a threshold nuclear state. This follows our near-abandonment of the Syrian revolution and de facto recognition of both the Assad regime and Iran’s “Shiite Crescent” of client states stretching to the Mediterranean.

Equally dumbfounded are the Israelis, now trapped by an agreement designed less to stop the Iranian nuclear program than to prevent the Israeli Air Force from stopping the Iranian nuclear program.

Neither Arab nor Israeli can quite fathom Obama’s naivete in imagining some strategic condominium with a regime that defines its very purpose as overthrowing American power and expelling it from the region.

Better diplomacy than war, say Obama’s apologists, an adolescent response implying that all diplomacy is the same, as if a diplomacy of capitulation is no different from a diplomacy of pressure.

What to do? Apply pressure. Congress should immediately pass punishing new sanctions to be implemented exactly six months hence—when the current interim accord is supposed to end—if the Iranians have not lived up to the agreement and refuse to negotiate a final deal that fully liquidates their nuclear weapons program.

The third crisis is unfolding over the East China Sea, where, in open challenge to Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” China has brazenly declared a huge expansion of its airspace into waters claimed by Japan and South Korea.

Obama’s first response—sending B-52s through that airspace without acknowledging the Chinese—was quick and firm. Japan and South Korea followed suit. But when Japan then told its civilian carriers not to comply with Chinese demands for identification, the State Department (and FAA) told U.S. air carriers to submit.

Which, of course, left the Japanese hanging. It got worse. During Vice President Biden’s visit to China, the administration buckled. Rather than insisting on a withdrawal of China’s outrageous claim, we began urging mere nonenforcement.

Again leaving our friends stunned. They need an ally, not an intermediary. Here is the U.S. again going over the heads of allies to accommodate a common adversary. We should be declaring the Chinese claim null and void, ordering our commercial airlines to join Japan in acting accordingly, and supplying them with joint military escorts if necessary.

This would not be an exercise in belligerence but a demonstration that if other countries unilaterally overturn the status quo, they will meet a firm, united, multilateral response from the West.

Led by us. From in front.

No one’s asking for a JFK-like commitment to “bear any burden” to “assure the . . . success of liberty.” Or a Reaganesque tearing down of walls. Or even a Clintonian assertion of America as the indispensable nation. America’s allies are seeking simply a reconsideration of the policy of retreat that marks this administration’s response to red-line challenges all over the world—and leaves them naked.

See (emphasis added)

6 12 2013

[Netanyahu] was hated by former Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Rabin—and especially by Rabin’s wife Leah, who blamed Netanyahu for her husband’s assassination. She saw “only doom for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process” with Netanyahu at Israel’s helm; and her views were prescient.

Tim, respectfully, the fact that Sharon and Rabin hated him isn’t incontrovertible proof that his approach is wrong. Knowing that Iran will indeed lie and cheat, as per their doctrine, why are you so sure that Netanyahu is going down the wrong path? Hey, it’s not like the there will ever be peace with the Palestinians as long as Iran is pulling the strings. Surely, they are. Sir, your logic is flawed, in the most basic of principles..

6 12 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Rick, for your comments.

First, Netanyahu is hated worldwide; and he is the “poster boy” for hatred of Israel and the Jews.

Some may argue this is a sign that what he has been doing and saying is right, and that this is vindication of such beliefs.

I do not want the Israelis, or Israel, or Jews to be hated. It has gone on far too long. Yes, history records it throughout the centuries; however, it must not be perpetuated. If I were a Jew, this would be my lifetime goal.

See, e.g., and

Second, if rapprochement can be achieved with Iran—and some may argue that this is a fantasy, and pure naïveté—then the risks will have been worth it. The other choice is war, and continuing hatreds, which are unacceptable.

Like Mandela, Obama has dreams; and my belief is that this is one of them—and what he hopes will be his legacy.

6 12 2013

One more thing.. Obama, whom I believe is truly a liar and thug, doesn’t like Netanyahu because he actually stands for what is best for his country, He gets in Obamas way of allowing Iran to continue murdering US soldiers with IEDs,and developing weapons that will surely cause an arms race, and allow Iran to blackmail the world. I know you don’t like Obama Tim. Why you don’t like Netanyahu is what has me scratching my head…

6 12 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Rick.

Yitzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon stood for what was best for Israel; and I admired both of them, albeit somewhat begrudgingly in the case of Sharon until near the end of his “productive” life. Indeed, I have an article written already, praising him, which will be published when he dies.

As I have written before, I am much more concerned about China, Russia, North Korea, and Pakistan’s nukes falling into terrorists’ hands than I am about Iran. Indeed, there is a chance that we might “defang” Iran, although I am not willing to bet on it.

My “intense dislike” of Netanyahu probably began with his treatment of Yitzhak Rabin. And yes, I heard Leah Rabin speak at the National Press Club in Washington, and I was very impressed with her.

I have been around professional politicians most of my adult life, and I am not naïve about them, which is why I write what I do. However, some are “slimier” and more despicable than others, and Netanyahu is one of them—a narcissistic, demagogic thug.

My guess is that Barack Obama would destroy him politically, in a nanosecond, if he could.

Lastly, I have written:

The path on which Netanyahu is leading the Israelis is fraught with peril for their tiny Jewish nation . . . and potentially for Jews worldwide. He is determined to take the United States and the American people on the “joy ride” with him, which is utter madness.

I believe this completely.

6 12 2013

Knowing what you do Tim, would you agree that Obama is the slimiest of the slimers? Look at the mess he is making here at home…Even my Liberal friends are distancing themselves after the ACA debacle..

6 12 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Rick.

I have included the comments of Charles Krauthammer above, which catalogue a few of Barack Obama’s “errors of judgment.”


In my article above, and in my comments beneath it, and in other articles that I have written, I cover a plethora of policy and personal “mistakes,” including racism on Obama’s part. I criticize him unsparingly. However, I did not vote for him; and I fervently hoped that he would not be reelected.

See (see also the comments beneath the article)

The problem is that some Liberals aka “progressives” would vote for him again. George W. Bush probably stood by Israel more than any other president, yet he and his fellow Republicans receive a small percentage of the Jewish vote in American elections.

Indeed, I believe FDR was an anti-Semite, or certainly very close to being one, yet he and his Democrats are still revered by Jews.

6 12 2013

As a Jew, I could never really understand why Jews, being mostly liberal, are still indeed liberal..You cannot be pro Israel and pro-Obama..

Tim, I respect your opinion and experience.I am just a humble business owner in NY, but I have a good sense of what is happening in the world. I do a tremendous amount of reading. I think, based on the constant threat Israel faces from hostile extremists, a man like Netanyahu, albiet hawkish as hell, is needed. Look what we got with Obama.. A weak POS, that weakened our standing globally. Had Israel elected a man like Obama and not Netanyahu, things may have been far worse.. And indeed, peace has never occurred, nor will it, without a willing partner. Iran is not a willing partner, and as long as they remain powerful, there will be no peace. Where am I going wrong here Tim? Please, please make me understand, because I must be missing something when a man of your stature disagrees with my perspective..

7 12 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Rick, for your always-thoughtful comments—and kind words.

With respect to your first paragraph, there are a growing number of American Jews who are pushing Obama for a two-state solution; and I admire them. They are as pro-Israel as anyone on the face of this earth; and they are dedicated.

See, e.g.,

A key question has been asked—and must be answered—about the treatment of Palestinians: “Is this how I wanted to be treated when I was a minority in another people’s country?”

Also, how would you feel if either Yitzhak Rabin or Ariel Sharon was Israel’s leader today?

17 01 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Criticism Of Israel By Germany Is Verboten

Michael Freund has written an article—published in The New York Sun—which states:

With an impeccable sense of timing, the German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, arrived in Israel earlier this week, attended the funeral of Ariel Sharon, and then proceeded to browbeat Israel in public.

Speaking with reporters, Herr Steinmeier accused the Jewish state of “damaging” the peace process by building homes for Jews in Judea and Samaria.

In a discussion with Prime Minister Netanyahu on the sidelines of Sharon’s interment, he pressed the premier to refrain from additional construction as this “could still disturb the process.”

While I am not familiar with bereavement rituals in Germany, I assume they do not include insulting one’s hosts right after the burial service. Yet, while in Israel, Herr Steinmeier apparently saw nothing wrong in doing just that: exploiting the opportunity to highlight a political issue regardless of how tasteless and unseemly it was to do so.

This is not the kind of behavior one expects from a “friend,” is it?

What is even more offensive about Herr Steinmeier’s exploits is the German government’s historical amnesia, which has left officials bereft of any sense of irony regarding their position on the right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria.

After all, it was not even eight decades ago that Germany singled out Jews in the September 1935 Nuremberg laws, seeking to cast them out of civil society as a step towards “cleansing” German soil of their presence. Subsequently, in areas under German control, the right of Jews to live where they saw fit was severely restricted.

One would think that in light of this dark chapter in their history, Germans would be extra careful about wading into such an issue and proclaiming where Jews can live, build or raise their families.

That has not been the case.

Indeed, last summer it was widely reported that Berlin had decided to back a European Union initiative that singles out Jewish-owned businesses in Judea and Samaria.

The move is aimed at targeting them for special treatment, which could include the application of unique labels of origin on products produced by Jews in the areas. Needless to say, goods made by Palestinian-run plants in the territories would not similarly be branded.

In an interview with Reuters last month, the European Union envoy to the Middle East, Andreas Reinicke, warned that if the latest round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians fails, the EU would speed up its plans to slap labels on Jewish-made goods from Judea and Samaria.

The hypocrisy behind the labeling crusade is all the more apparent when one considers that no such campaigns are being contemplated for other “disputed territories.” Hence, there is no European demand to label Chinese products made in Tibet, Russian items manufactured in Chechnya, or Spanish goods from Catalonia. It seems that only when matters involve the Jewish state do European liberals insist on such measures.

This is not merely duplicity, it is discrimination pure and simple.

In the case of Germany, such a stance is especially outrageous, and the government of Angela Merkel should be ashamed of itself for going along with it. Whatever one may think of the peace process and the two-state solution, it should be obvious that treating merchandise and construction differently simply because the person who owns the factory or built the house is a follower of Moses rather than Muhammad is an act of bigotry.

In light of its own ignoble record during the 20th century, Germany and its leaders have a special responsibility to be exceptionally sensitive to such issues, particularly when they relate to Jews.

No one is suggesting Germany is planning a second Holocaust, but the country must show greater awareness regarding the painful irony at work here.

In 1936 a board game called “Juden Raus” (“Jews Out”) became popular throughout the Reich. Players would move figures representing Jews toward “collection points” from which they would be deported to the Land of Israel. “If you manage to see off six Jews,” the game instructed, “you’ve won a clear victory”.

Sadly, Germany is once again playing a similar game, albeit with one difference. Whereas previously the aim was to send Jews away to Israel, now their goal is to compel us to leave parts of it.

But I have a bit of news for Ms. Merkel and her colleagues: no one, especially not Germany, has the right to tell Jews where they can or cannot live.

In 1945, the Jewish people crawled out of the ovens of Europe and succeeded in reclaiming our ancestral homeland.

Regardless of what Berlin might think or say, we are not about to give any part of it away.


With all due respect to Mr. Freund, the central thrust of this article is patently absurd. Next year, it will have been 70 years since the end of World War II and the defeat of Hitler’s Third Reich.

After what the Jews lived through during the Nazi Holocaust, they should be particularly sensitive to the plight of Palestinians, but many are not. As I have written:

[W]hen Israelis are perceived as having morphed into their ancestors’ Nazi oppressors (e.g., by instituting “Apartheid” vis-à-vis the Palestinians), the world is quick to condemn—perhaps too quickly at times, or maybe not quickly enough at other times.

See; see also

Indeed, it has been asked by a prominent American Jew about the treatment of Palestinians:

Is this how I wanted to be treated when I was a minority in another people’s country?


A growing number of Jews and non-Jews in America and elsewhere in the world believe that Netanyahu and his ilk have been damaging the peace process by building more settlements. Such sentiments are not unique to the German foreign minister. Indeed, they undergird the efforts of Barack Obama and John Kerry to bring about a viable two-state solution, which Netanyahu has opposed consistently.

He was hated by former Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Rabin—and especially by Rabin’s wife Leah, who blamed Netanyahu for her husband’s assassination. She saw “only doom for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process” with Netanyahu at Israel’s helm; and her views were prescient.

Also, the funeral of Ariel Sharon brought together representatives of countries around the world; and it was a unique opportunity for them to discuss issues of importance, both publicly and privately. Surely, the German foreign minister was not alone in this regard.

17 01 2014

Why would Obama or Kerry, and especially Israel, ever think there could be peace, when the Palestinians won’t even acknowledge Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.. ? Iran is still calling the shots.. This is not a problem being caused or fueled by Netanyahu. Let’s not forget what Sharon, the Bulldozer was known to do.. Sure, he did an about face in the end, but to what avail? None! There will never be peace in the region. Never.. Time to talk about something else.

17 01 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you as always, Richard, for your comments.

First, if peace is impossible as you suggest, then everyone is wasting their time; and such efforts should be abandoned permanently. Henceforth, a state of perpetual siege will exist; and ultimately, “might makes right” (i.e., either the Israelis win or lose).

Second, at some point, Israelis will be a minority in their own country; and like Apartheid in South Africa, the world will clammer for an end to the Israeli Apartheid.

Sanctions may be levied against Israel and Israelis by countries and international bodies around the world; and even worse may happen—of a non-military nature (e.g., restricted travel outside of Israel; seizure of Israelis when they travel abroad, and trials before the International Court of Justice).

Third—as I have noted many times—I am forever reminded of what a prominent American (who is a Jew and a strong supporter of Israel) told me a number of years ago:

I have long thought that Israel will not make it, if only because of what are cavalierly called WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and its very tight geographical compression. All else is immaterial, including the Palestinians, or us, or the nature of Israel’s [government].

Suppose this person’s predictions are correct, and come true? What then? “Might” will have prevailed.

Those who genuinely seek peace are trying to avoid all of the disastrous options that might otherwise ensue.

Food for thought.

21 01 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Israel’s Maginot Line?

The New York Times has reported:

After a Katyusha rocket fired from Lebanon landed in Israel last month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blamed Hezbollah, the Shiite militia, and its Iranian backers. But Israeli security officials attributed the attack, as well as a similar one in August, to a Sunni jihadist group linked to Al Qaeda.

That disconnect is representative of the deepening dilemma Israel faces as the region around it is riven by sectarian warfare that could redraw the map of the Middle East.

Mr. Netanyahu and other leaders continue to see Shiite Iran and its nuclear program as the primary threat to Israel, and Hezbollah as the most likely to draw it into direct battle. Still, the mounting strength of extremist Sunni cells in Syria, Iraq and beyond that are pledging to bring jihad to Jerusalem can hardly be ignored.

As the chaos escalates, Israeli officials insist they have no inclination to intervene. Instead, they have embraced a castle mentality, hoping the moat they have dug—in the form of high-tech border fences, intensified military deployments and sophisticated intelligence—is broad enough at least to buy time.

“What we have to understand is everything is going to be changed—to what, I don’t know,” said Yaakov Amidror, who recently stepped down as Israel’s national security adviser. “But we will have to be very, very cautious not to take part in this struggle. What we see now is a collapsing of a historical system, the idea of the national Arabic state. It means that we will be encircled by an area which will be no man’s land at the end of the day.”

Mr. Amidror, a former major general in military intelligence, summed up the strategy as “Wait, and keep the castle.”

Israeli leaders have tried to exploit recent events to bolster their case for a long-term military presence in the Jordan Valley, a sticking point in the United States-brokered peace talks with the Palestinians. In a speech this month, Naftali Bennett, head of the right-wing Jewish Home party, ticked off violent episodes in Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon, and concluded sarcastically, “A really excellent time to divest ourselves of security assets.”

Mr. Bennett, who opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state, might seize on any excuse to undermine the talks. But Israeli officials, and analysts with close ties to the government and security establishment, said the argument also had traction in more mainstream quarters. The deterioration in Iraq, which borders Jordan, has revived concerns about vulnerability on Israel’s eastern flank.

“From the Straits of Gibraltar to the Khyber Pass, it’s very hard to come by a safe and secure area,” Mr. Netanyahu told reporters here on Thursday. “Peace can be built on hope, but that hope has to be grounded in facts,” he said. “A peace that is not based on truth will crash against the realities of the Middle East.”

Michael Herzog, a retired Israeli general and former peace negotiator, said that “what you hear in Israeli government circles” is that the regional chaos “highlights the need for solid security arrangements.”

“The U.S. accepts the basic Israeli argument that given what’s happening in the region—suddenly jihadists are taking over Syria, and there’s no telling what will happen elsewhere—there is a legitimate cause for concern,” said Mr. Herzog, who has been consulting with the American team. “How to translate that into concrete security arrangements is something the parties are right now coping with.”

Israeli security and political officials have been unsettled by the rapid developments on the ground and in the diplomatic arena in recent weeks. Washington’s gestures toward Iran, not only on the nuclear issue but also with regard to Syria and Iraq, underscore a divergence in how the United States and Israel, close allies, view the region. At the same time, Saudi Arabia, which shares Israel’s concern about an emboldened Iran, is financing Sunni groups that view Israel as the ultimate enemy.

More broadly, the intensified fighting has convinced many Israelis that the region will be unstable or even anarchic for some time, upending decades of strategic positioning and military planning.

“Historically, Israel has preferred to have strong leaders, even if they’re hostile to Israel,” said Jonathan Spyer, a senior research fellow at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, citing President Bashar al-Assad of Syria as an example.

“It’s a problem without an address,” Mr. Spyer said of the Islamist groups often lumped together as “global jihad.” “Israel always likes to have an address. Assad we don’t like, but when something happens in Assad’s territory, we can bargain with him. These guys, there is no address. There is no one to bargain with.”

Maj. Gen. Yoav Har-Even, director of the Israeli military’s planning branch, said in an interview published this month in the newspaper Yediot Aharonot that global jihad had already “taken control of some of the arms warehouses” in Syria and established a presence in the Golan Heights. He called it a “central target” of intelligence efforts.

“I don’t have, today, a contingency plan to destroy global jihad,” General Har-Even acknowledged. “But I am developing the intelligence ability to monitor events. If I spot targets that are liable to develop into a problem, I take the excellent intelligence that I am brought, I process it for the target and plan action. And I have a great many such targets.”

Since the Arab Spring uprisings began in 2011, there have been two main schools of thought in Israel. One argues that the instability in the region makes resolving the Palestinian conflict all the more urgent, to provide a beacon on an uncertain sea. The other cautions against making any concessions close to home while the future of the neighborhood remains unclear. The camps have only hardened their positions in response to the recent developments.

“The most important lesson from the last few weeks is that you cannot rely on a snapshot of reality at any given time in order to plan your strategic needs,” said Dore Gold, president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Israel’s former ambassador to the United Nations, who recently rejoined Mr. Netanyahu’s team as a freelance foreign policy adviser. “The region is full of bad choices. What that requires you to do is take your security very seriously. And you shouldn’t be intimidated by people saying, ‘Well, that’s a worst-case analysis,’ because lately, the worst is coming through.”

Efraim Halevy, a former director of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, views the landscape differently. Iran’s involvement in Syria and Iraq could distract it from its nuclear project, he said. Hezbollah has lost fighters in Syria and faced setbacks in its standing at home in Lebanon. Hamas, the Palestinian militant faction that controls the Gaza Strip, has been severely weakened by the new military-backed government in Egypt and its crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood. Syria’s military capacity has been greatly diminished.

“If you look all around, compared to what it was like six months ago, Israel can take a deep breath,” Mr. Halevy said. “The way things are at the moment, if you want to photograph it, it looks as if some of the potential is there for an improvement in Israel’s strategic position and interests. It’s more than ever a see and wait, and be on your guard, and protect yourself if necessary.”

See; see also (“Maginot Line”)

Will Israel’s “Castle Strategy” prove to be its Maginot Line of defenses—thought and hoped to be impregnable, but proven to be porous and strategically ineffective?

Time will tell.

11 02 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

The Campaign For Boycotts, Divestment And Sanctions Against Israel Is Turning Mainstream

Boycott Israel

This is the conclusion of the UK’s Economist:

ONCE derided as the scheming of crackpots, the campaign for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel, widely known as BDS, is turning mainstream. That, at any rate, is the fear of a growing number of Israelis. Some European pension funds have withdrawn investments; some large corporations have cancelled contracts; and the American secretary of state, John Kerry, rarely misses a chance to warn Israel that efforts to “delegitimise” and boycott it will increase if its government spurns his efforts to conclude a two-state settlement of its conflict with the Palestinians. Israel, says Yair Lapid, Israel’s finance minister, is approaching the same “tipping point” where South Africa found itself in opposition to the rest of the world in the dying days of apartheid. “Let’s not kid ourselves,” he told a conference of security boffins recently in Tel Aviv. “The world listens to us less and less.”

BDS has begun to grab the attention of some of the world’s largest financial institutions. PGGM, a big Dutch pension fund, has liquidated its holdings in five Israeli banks (though the Netherlands’ largest has affirmed its investments). Norway’s finance ministry has announced that it is excluding Africa Israel Investments and its subsidiary, Danya Cebus, a big building firm, from a government pension fund.

The campaign is drawing support from beyond northern Europe. Romania has forbidden its citizens from working for companies in the West Bank. More churches are backing BDS. An American academic association is boycotting Israeli lecturers. The debate turned viral after Scarlett Johansson, a Hollywood actor, quit her role as ambassador for Oxfam, a charity based in Britain, in order to keep her advertising contract with SodaStream, an Israeli drinks firm with a plant on the West Bank.

Mr Lapid, who favours a two-state solution, reels out figures to show how sanctions could hit every Israeli pocket. “If negotiations with the Palestinians stall or blow up and we enter the reality of a European boycott, even a very partial one,” he warned, 10,000 Israelis would “immediately” lose their jobs. Trade with the European Union, a third of Israel’s total, would slump—he calculates—by $5.7 billion.

Anxious to hold on to their markets, Israel’s businessmen are increasingly backing the peace camp. The names on a recent advertising campaign in its favour included such luminaries as the head of Google in Israel. Hitherto they had usually preferred to stay out of politics.

Israel’s government is divided over how to react to the BDS campaign. The finance ministry has temporarily shelved a report it said it would publish on the possible consequences of BDS. But Israel’s press and ministerial addresses are increasingly full of worried references to it.

Some Israelis argue that this publicity merely feeds the BDS campaign, others that isolation has benefits. Israel’s position as a hotbed of hi-tech start-ups is due in part to decades of circumventing Arab boycotts. A French arms ban in the 1960s sparked the development of its weapons industry, helping to catapult Israel into fourth place in the world’s league of arms exporters. And if the West turns its back on Israel, there is, they say, the east. Relations with India have warmed of late, and those with China are getting closer. The economy minister, Naftali Bennett, a sceptic of the peace process, recently toured the Far East, saying he was bringing a “light to the gentiles” by way of Israeli business. But Mr Bennett is in a minority on BDS: his colleagues are a lot less sanguine.

See (“Israel’s politicians sound rattled by the campaign to isolate their country”) (emphasis added)

This is what the regime of Netanyahu and his lackeys has wrought, which was predictable . . . and may get decidedly worse.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: