.
.
.
It would be a pathetic Pyrrhic "victory' if by 2050 the Jewish empire of ERETZ Israel was ever achieved through some 3 dozen wars, millions killed, nations destroyed and Israel populated by 1.8 million zealots of a single passport holding nation of racially pure homogeneous people, containing only one religious group.
So its not going to happen.
But how much suffering and experience must be endured before this FACT and reality dawned on the zealots of Israel?
In Israel, Opposition to Attacking Iran Gains Upper Hand
by Mitchell Plitnick at antiwar.com
The ambitions of a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran, as harbored by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak, have been defeated by internal opposition. A growing number of observers have come to believe this in the wake of dramatic opposing statements by prominent Israeli leaders, including President Shimon Peres.
The picture emerging is one of the prime and defence ministers’ isolation in advocating for unilateral Israeli action.
It has been known for some time that the chief of staff of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), Benny Gantz, and Tamir Pardo, the head of the Mossad, or the Israeli intelligence agency, both oppose a strike on Iran.
This knowledge in itself is unusual.
While such sentiments can be leaked, both Gantz and Pardo have been clear in media interviews that they do not share Netanyahu and Barak’s assessments regarding the immediacy of the Iranian threat or the utility of a military strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities.
(Isn't this how it should be in an open democracy as a pose to a dictatorship? The wisdom and perspectives of many men rather than the linear view of one or two, around critical state make and break issues.
Israel in this respect only can be a fine example for the USA, and other advanced countries who have pro-active foreign policies around globalist agenda's.
It would also help if Israel CLEARLY also backed away from installing "al-CIA-duh" in several Middle East regimes such as Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Somalia, and so forth which guarantee continued future conflicts for Israel and the faggots in Western security, masturbating
and sodomizing their way, along with the future of the world.
It is the UK/USA who brought the mullahs into power after all in 1979, and deposed the pro-Israeli Shah of Iran puppet.....which has generated this latest faggotty obsessed saga for Israel and the world around the nonexistent nuke bomb program of the mullahs as verified by the IAEA, and American NIE 2007.)
It is worth noting that both Gantz and Pardo were appointed by the current government. Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea, writing in the daily Yediot Ahoronoth on Aug. 10, listed not only Gantz and Pardo among current military leaders opposing an Israeli attack on Iran,
but also Air Force chief Amir Eshel,
Military Intelligence chief Aviv Kochavi
and General Security Services (Shin Bet) director Yoram Cohen, in what amounts to a consensus among Israel’s top defence and intelligence leaders.
Public disagreement
But it was statements by Peres and by the former IDF Director of Military Intelligence General Uri Saguy that exposed the extent of Netanyahu and Barak’s isolation and criticised Israeli’s leaders on points rarely raised in public.
Peres told Israel’s Channel 2:
“It is now clear to us that we cannot go it alone. We can forestall (Iran’s nuclear progress); therefore it’s clear to us that we have to work together with…America.”
( Peres disingenuously is not critiquing the overall policy that Iran must be attacked eventually to forestall an eventual nuke bomb program of Iran......but rather as to how it should be done. He is thus delaying a false policy for another day, rather than settling the matter by simply stating that Iran does not have a nuke bomb program as verified by the IAEA and NIE 2007. Peres does not solve the problem for Israel.
The problem and solution would be moved forward enormously if key figures in Israel simply stated that Iran does not have a nuke bomb program CLEARLY, UNAMBIGUOUSLY.......the MAIN SOURCE OF WHY WE ARE AT THIS PROBLEMATIC JUNCTURE......and that Israel has the absolute means to verify if the mullahs ever initiate a nuke bomb program. Independently by itself or with the USA.
Further and no less important that there are 40 nations around the world which have "Surge Program" , and that by attacking Iran...with the mullahs initiating a real nuke bomb program, many other nations will have actual live nuke bomb programs...and some of these states may also be hostile to Israel.
The debate needs to move further here by key Israeli figures with greater detail, clarity with the Israeli public, beyond narrow arguments that it is simply a bad idea to attack Iran over its alleged nuke bomb program, whether unilaterally or with the help of the USA )
The problem and solution would be moved forward enormously if key figures in Israel simply stated that Iran does not have a nuke bomb program CLEARLY, UNAMBIGUOUSLY.......the MAIN SOURCE OF WHY WE ARE AT THIS PROBLEMATIC JUNCTURE......and that Israel has the absolute means to verify if the mullahs ever initiate a nuke bomb program. Independently by itself or with the USA.
Further and no less important that there are 40 nations around the world which have "Surge Program" , and that by attacking Iran...with the mullahs initiating a real nuke bomb program, many other nations will have actual live nuke bomb programs...and some of these states may also be hostile to Israel.
The debate needs to move further here by key Israeli figures with greater detail, clarity with the Israeli public, beyond narrow arguments that it is simply a bad idea to attack Iran over its alleged nuke bomb program, whether unilaterally or with the help of the USA )
“Iran is a global threat, to the U.S. and Israel alike,” he said, adding that he was convinced that the U.S. would take action when necessary.
(Mullah Iran was brought to power by the UK/USA in 1979, rather similarly in the way the USA/NATO/west/Israel is now doing by bringing "al-CIA-duh" into power in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria.......to the well connected Israelis the mullahs of Iran aren't the devils they don't know about.
Mullah Iran a "global threat" was defeated by CIA Saddam in 1988, and CIA Saddam was himself convincingly defeated by the USA, whose covert and open allies armed him in the first place.
Iran is NOT a great military power, with global ambitions, but rather a corrupt venal dictatorship where the mullahs wish to be left alone so that they can lord over the Iranian state coffers. That is why the mullahs offered Israel, through the USA a grand bargain for peace in 2003, which the Bush II junta rejected presumably after consultations..directions from Israel.
Mullah Iran, a so called "Global threat" according to Peres, at least since 2003 has not mounted a single ops of retaliation for the numerous Israeli illegalities that the state has conducted against Iran. This suggests mullah Iran is either incapable of being a threat, or does NOT seriously desires to be an aggressive threat against Israel.
That Iran is a threat to Israel's existence and that mullah Iran is conducting secret nuke bomb programs is utter balderdash
...and the Israelis know it.
So what we really have here, beyond the smoke and mirrors, is a desire by A FEW Messianic Israelis wishing to create Eretz Israel upon the ashes of existential regional threats.)
Peres’s statements were widely interpreted as criticism of Netanyahu’s and Barak’s ongoing attempts to pressure President Obama to attack Iran and the perception that Netanyahu was working to unseat Obama in favour of Republican candidate Mitt Romney, who is on much friendlier terms with Netanyahu.
There was also a widespread belief that Peres was warning that the tactics Netanyahu and Barak were employing with the U.S. threaten to harm the “special relationship” between the two countries.
While Israelis value their freedom to act on their own, they also recognise the need for U.S. support, as the United States is the only major power that has consistently supported controversial Israeli policies and actions.
The idea that the Israeli government may be directly interfering with U.S. politics is an extremely unpopular one in Israel.
Diminished credibility
For his part, General Saguy cast doubt on the ability of Netanyahu and Barak to lead the country under dire circumstances.
A reporter who interviewed Saguy for the Israeli daily Ha’aretz described his views of both.
“Saguy does not trust (Netanyahu) because he has not seen him make…one single important decision. He does not trust Barak because he’s seen the results of many important decisions the minister has made, as chief of staff, prime minister and defence minister,” the reporter wrote.
This view from a highly respected Israeli military leader seriously undermines the credibility of Israel’s two leading decision-makers with regard to military action.
Combined with the military and intelligence consensus, the public statements suggest the possibility of an open revolt against the current leadership if Barak and Netanyahu try to move forward with an attack on Iran.
Netanyahu, however, sharply criticised Peres for “overstepping” his role as president, a largely ceremonial office in Israel. That sharp retort, as well as Netanyahu’s continued campaign among important Israeli party leaders, such as Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual head of the Shas party, could indicate that he has not yet given up on finding a way to attack Iran.
It is widely believed that at least part of the Israeli strategy in beating the war drums on Iran is to pressure the Obama administration into acting against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Netanyahu surely fears that if Israel is no longer believed to be seriously considering a unilateral strike, the urgency in Washington, already far less than he would like it to be, will diminish considerably.
Challenges for Obama
Obama’s position on Iran has been remarkably consistent: pursue sanctions and diplomatic engagement in the hope that Iran will agree to the monitoring of its nuclear program to ensure that weapons are not being developed.
Obama has also pledged that all options, including a military one, remain open to prevent Iran from obtaining such a weapon.
An Israeli strike could put Obama in a very difficult position: he could either risk staying out of a conflict not of his making, which would surely set Israel’s supporters in the United States ablaze in opposition to him, or he could support, either directly or indirectly, the Israeli war effort, which would make it easy to cast him to blame when oil prices skyrocket as a result.
With the Israeli threat diminished, at least for the moment, Obama can continue to pursue his approach to Iran with a reasonable level of confidence that this will not hurt his chances of re-election in November.
That surely does not please Netanyahu, but unless the situation changes in Israel, he will find it very difficult to raise this issue again before the election.
