The path of least resistance. Start by bringing up Chamberlain and equating Iran with Munich. Its ingenious because Iran could conceivably threaten the West, but the comparison with Iran’s capabilities, although extensive does not measure to the killing capacity of Germany against England and France. In any event, as with anything Israel does, it leaves few people indifferent; if Netanyahu at the U.N. had stood on his head and spit King Solomon’s gold coins he would still be razed and braized by the peanut gallery. All in all, behind the propaganda was something of a softening of the position and playing nicely with America. Sanctions are effective but also reinforce a stubborn willingness to continue as well. Perhaps Netanyahu subscribes to the Henry Ford school of speak of me well or poorly, but speak of me .
7:56 P.M. Netanyahu quotes Historian Bernard Lewis: For Iran’s leaders, mutual self-destruction is an incentive – Iran’s policy is guided by Shi’ite belief in the return of the Mahdi.
7:55 P.M. Netanyahu: deterrence worked with the soviet union – it may not work with Iran once they get nuclear weapons
7:54 P.M. Netanyahu: Iran’s rulers continually deny the holocaust and call for Israel’s destruction, as they did from the UNGA this week. If this is Iranian aggression without nuclear weapons, just imagine Iran with nuclear weapons. Who would be safe in the Middle East? In Europe? In America? Anywhere? ….
7:53 P.M. Netanyahu: Nothing could imperil the world more than a nuclear-armed Iran. To understand the impact, imagine a nuclear-armed al-Qaida.
7:52 P.M. Netanyahu: The question is not whether this fanaticism will be defeated, but how many lives will be lost in the meantime. Those who opposed Hitler waited too long – we can’t let that happen again – at stake is the future of the world.
As far as these mass consumption speeches go, Netanyahu’s pitch was not terrible; actually after Iran’s shot at the limelight, a paranoid black comedy at best, the Israeli P.M. showed he has some flair as a song and dance man. The cartoon stole the show as theatrical device, ice breaker, but it was the convenient flashing of the Wansee minutes and the architectural blueprints for Auschwitz were just to tempting for him not to blow some holocaust smoke on the proceedings. The fetish and obsession over the holocaust, and in some cases as Finkelstein has called it, the “holocaust industry” or even part of Adorno’s “culture industry,” the constant repetition of this theme does the Hebrew state no service. Time to move on.
After all, the transfer Agreement with the Nazis was what solidified the entire Zionist enterprise and the treatment of Sephardic immigrants and holocaust survivors was less than ideal to be generous. In addition, this tendency of Netanyahu to position himself as speaking for all Jewish people is a chronic and recurring tendency on his part that muddies the waters; according to the relig
the Torah, the creation of the state was a presumptuous act that actually served to delay the Redemption. But then Zionism and the Torah has always been an ambiguous, and even antagonistic relationship. The lyric in the national anthem Hatikva, calls for the people to be free…..free of the Torah and the tradition to which Netanyahu drags into service as he requires it for propaganda.
(see link at end)… Now there is ominous talk of an “Islamist Fall” and “Salafi Winter” after a supposedly failed Arab Spring. To these skeptics, religion is the driving force in Arab politics, and hateful anti-Western slogans and the killing of America’s ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, are evidence of a “clash of civilizations” between Islam and the West.
While these fears are understandable, such alarmism is misplaced. The Arab revolutions have not turned anti-Western. Nor are they pro-Western. They are simply not about the West. They remain fundamentally about social justice and democracy — not about religion or establishing Shariah law….
The democratization of Tunisia, Egypt and other countries has allowed a number of extremist free riders into the political system. But it has also definitively refuted the myth that democracy and Islam are incompatible. Islamists are political actors like any others: they are no more pure, more united or more immune from criticism than anyone else.
Islamist parties are now free to take part in political debates and to win seats in legislatures and governments. However, these political changes have also rendered the divisions among Islamists more apparent than ever before.
Islamists span a wide ideological and political spectrum. Yet many observers still seem to believe that extremist Salafi groups represent a majority. They are wrong. Radical Salafis who advocate violence and Shariah constitute a very small minority in Tunisia — and even in Egypt they are vastly outnumbered by more moderate Islamists….
… The strength and importance of extremist groups have been unduly amplified by the news media. Images of angry Muslim mobs, like the one featured on a recent cover of Newsweek magazine, once again revived the old Orientalist trope of a backward and hysterical Muslim world, unable to engage in civilized and rational debate or undertake peaceful negotiations — in other words, incapable of conducting political affairs.
However, that image is a distorted fantasy; it does not represent any sociological or political reality. Arguing that the groups who have recently staged violent demonstrations represent the entire Arab population is as absurd as claiming that white supremacist groups represent the American people or that the Norwegian right-wing mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik is representative of Europeans.
We are in a race against poverty. At this crucial moment, the West must not abandon us. It must continue to aid Tunisia in strengthening democracy and the rule of law, securing our borders to stop arms from reaching extremists, and creating economic opportunities that give our citizens hope. Read More:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/opinion/the-arab-spring-still-blooms.html?_r=1
Netanyahu UNGA speech conclusion….Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the “confirmed unteachability of mankind,” the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.
Churchill bemoaned what he called the “want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”
I speak here today in the hope that Churchill’s assessment of the “unteachibility of mankind” is for once proven wrong.I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history — that we can prevent danger in time.
In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.