Israelis call to assassinate Obama (the 'Islamic moon') and destroy the USA ('the sun') in 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
JEWISH ZIONIST APOCALYPSE!
Israelis call to assassinate Obama (the 'Islamic moon') and destroy the USA ('the sun') in 2012
Some rabbis close to Sarkozy and
racist's members of the French AIPAC (CRIF) are calling to the
assassination of Obama, and an attack on Lebanon-Syria at the end of
February 2012 to trigger a nuclear World War that will see Israel rising
as the new ruling state in the World, in control of the Middle East
Crossroads over 4 continents. Videos are here (in French, you'll need an online translator). Now israelis are openly calling to kill Obama !
Dear Editor of The Jewish Times: Please re-think your call to assassinate Obama
By Dr Kevin Barrett,
www.truthjihad.blogspot.com 
Dear Andrew Adler,
As the editor of a mainstream Jewish publication, you have an awful lot of chutzpah to call for the assassination of the President of the United States by the Mossad. I hope this email reaches you before the Secret Service does! If by some miracle you remain free on your own recognizance, or can afford the bail, I would love to discuss the pros and cons of a Mossad assassination of Obama on my radio show with you. I have openings next Wednesday and Friday, 4 to 5 pm Eastern.
You ask, "what would you do" if you were the Prime Minister of Israel, facing the fact that a war with Hezbullah and Hamas would be much nastier for Israel in 2017 than in 2012. Your answer is that Netanyahu's only choice is to start a war now - with Iran as well as Hezbullah and Hamas. And the only way to start that war is to kill President Obama, who stands in its way.
When an apparently logical line of reasoning leads to an illogical or insane conclusion, it is time to re-think your logic. (I'm no Obama fan either, but let's face it, publishing calls for his assassination is stupid and immoral as well as illegal! And war with Iran would be a disaster!)
So start re-thinking. Israel has been operating according to your kind of logic since 1948. And that logic is leading to its destruction.
In 1948, it seemed logical to slaughter whole villages full of men, women and children, in order to exterminate part of the Palestinian population and force most of the survivors into exile. This was the only logical way to get a Jewish majority for the new state. That logic, however, has led to a situation in which billions of people around the world hate Israel, and a significant fraction of those are committed to its destruction.
In 1963, "worst-case" logic dictated that Israel obtain nuclear weapons. To that end, it seems likely that the Mossad participated alongside elements of the CIA in the murder of President Kennedy, who was determined to deny Israel nuclear weapons. A growing minority of Americans is joining a much larger number of intellectuals from around the world who are aware of this likelihood; the result is more anger and disgust with Israel. (See Michael Collins Piper's Final Judgment.)
In 1967, strategic logic dictated an attempt to create a Greater Israel through a disguised war of aggression. During this war, strategic logic dictated that Israel destroy the USS Liberty and murder its entire crew. Through a minor miracle, that attempted coup failed, most of the Liberty crew survived, and today, a growing number of Americans loathes Israel in large part due to this incident.
Since the 1967 war of aggression, paranoid/bellicose "logic" has led Israel to refuse to return the territories it stole, despite the consensus of the world community that it must do so. The result is that Israel is a pariah nation, and few around the world would shed a tear at its demise. Ever-growing numbers want a world without Israel. So, in a vicious circle, Israel resorts to ever-more-insane acts of desperation.
Many further examples of your kind of logic have ensued: The Sabra and Shatilla massacres, false-flag terror attacks around the world, cross-border assassinations, invasions of Lebanon, Operation Cast Lead, and so on. Each time Israel acts this way, people like you cite the logical strategic necessity for such actions; while a much larger number of people incur more and more hatred and disgust for Israel and Zionism.
Personally, I have always disliked Israel, because I have always disliked injustice. But until recent years, this was not a high-priority issue for me. Now, after watching one Zionist outrage after another - the most important being the neocon-Zionist coup d'etat on 9/11/2001 and the ensuing war on Islam for Israel - I am committed to putting an end to Zionism.
And I'm far from the only one. I am told by people in a position to know that disgust with Israel is at an all-time high at the upper levels of the US military command. If Netanyahu takes your advice and murders Obama, you just might get to see Israel reduced to smoking radioactive rubble, and American Zionists - even those who had not overtly called for the assassination of the President - made to pay a heavy price. (I shudder to imagine what might happen to you personally, given your openly-published call for Obama's assassination.)
As you admit in your article, Israel has painted itself into a corner, a Kobayashi Maru situation, a "no-win scenario or facing a solution that involves redefining the problem." Maybe the best way to redefine the problem would be to forget about plans for mass-murdering Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iranians, forget about plans for assassinating the President of the United States, forget about plans for more big false-flag attacks, and go back to square one. Admit Israel's responsibility for the dead-end situation it is in. Admit who is really the aggressor, and who is the victim. And then, wholeheartedly seek to make amends, as Jews are supposed to do every Yom Kippur.
Imagine if Netanyahu gave a Yom Kippur speech along these lines: "We're sorry. You Palestinians are right. We are the aggressors, and we have perpetrated a grave injustice - not just in 1967, but in 1948 and before that. Your demands for right of return plus compensation, along with a return to the 1967 borders, are almost pathetically minimal and reasonable. Apartheid and endless war doesn't have a future. We want to work with you to build a new Palestine-Israel and a new Middle East. Come home - in numbers that we'll work out based on what's practical. We're willing to endure a temporary lowering of the standard of living for Israeli Jews and Russian-immigrant fake Jews in order to help you return to the country we stole so unjustly, and make it a country for you as well as for us."
After a certain number of Israeli outrages, it will be too late for this kind of offer. It may even be too late now. But it's worth a try, since the current road is such an obvious dead-end.
If you disagree, you're welcome to join me on my radio show and explain why. But please don't use my show as a platform to call for the assassination of the President.
Best,
Kevin Barrett
PS You might also enjoy my article on "Zionist shots across Obama's bow"
As the editor of a mainstream Jewish publication, you have an awful lot of chutzpah to call for the assassination of the President of the United States by the Mossad. I hope this email reaches you before the Secret Service does! If by some miracle you remain free on your own recognizance, or can afford the bail, I would love to discuss the pros and cons of a Mossad assassination of Obama on my radio show with you. I have openings next Wednesday and Friday, 4 to 5 pm Eastern.
You ask, "what would you do" if you were the Prime Minister of Israel, facing the fact that a war with Hezbullah and Hamas would be much nastier for Israel in 2017 than in 2012. Your answer is that Netanyahu's only choice is to start a war now - with Iran as well as Hezbullah and Hamas. And the only way to start that war is to kill President Obama, who stands in its way.
When an apparently logical line of reasoning leads to an illogical or insane conclusion, it is time to re-think your logic. (I'm no Obama fan either, but let's face it, publishing calls for his assassination is stupid and immoral as well as illegal! And war with Iran would be a disaster!)
So start re-thinking. Israel has been operating according to your kind of logic since 1948. And that logic is leading to its destruction.
In 1948, it seemed logical to slaughter whole villages full of men, women and children, in order to exterminate part of the Palestinian population and force most of the survivors into exile. This was the only logical way to get a Jewish majority for the new state. That logic, however, has led to a situation in which billions of people around the world hate Israel, and a significant fraction of those are committed to its destruction.
In 1963, "worst-case" logic dictated that Israel obtain nuclear weapons. To that end, it seems likely that the Mossad participated alongside elements of the CIA in the murder of President Kennedy, who was determined to deny Israel nuclear weapons. A growing minority of Americans is joining a much larger number of intellectuals from around the world who are aware of this likelihood; the result is more anger and disgust with Israel. (See Michael Collins Piper's Final Judgment.)
In 1967, strategic logic dictated an attempt to create a Greater Israel through a disguised war of aggression. During this war, strategic logic dictated that Israel destroy the USS Liberty and murder its entire crew. Through a minor miracle, that attempted coup failed, most of the Liberty crew survived, and today, a growing number of Americans loathes Israel in large part due to this incident.
Since the 1967 war of aggression, paranoid/bellicose "logic" has led Israel to refuse to return the territories it stole, despite the consensus of the world community that it must do so. The result is that Israel is a pariah nation, and few around the world would shed a tear at its demise. Ever-growing numbers want a world without Israel. So, in a vicious circle, Israel resorts to ever-more-insane acts of desperation.
Many further examples of your kind of logic have ensued: The Sabra and Shatilla massacres, false-flag terror attacks around the world, cross-border assassinations, invasions of Lebanon, Operation Cast Lead, and so on. Each time Israel acts this way, people like you cite the logical strategic necessity for such actions; while a much larger number of people incur more and more hatred and disgust for Israel and Zionism.
Personally, I have always disliked Israel, because I have always disliked injustice. But until recent years, this was not a high-priority issue for me. Now, after watching one Zionist outrage after another - the most important being the neocon-Zionist coup d'etat on 9/11/2001 and the ensuing war on Islam for Israel - I am committed to putting an end to Zionism.
And I'm far from the only one. I am told by people in a position to know that disgust with Israel is at an all-time high at the upper levels of the US military command. If Netanyahu takes your advice and murders Obama, you just might get to see Israel reduced to smoking radioactive rubble, and American Zionists - even those who had not overtly called for the assassination of the President - made to pay a heavy price. (I shudder to imagine what might happen to you personally, given your openly-published call for Obama's assassination.)
As you admit in your article, Israel has painted itself into a corner, a Kobayashi Maru situation, a "no-win scenario or facing a solution that involves redefining the problem." Maybe the best way to redefine the problem would be to forget about plans for mass-murdering Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iranians, forget about plans for assassinating the President of the United States, forget about plans for more big false-flag attacks, and go back to square one. Admit Israel's responsibility for the dead-end situation it is in. Admit who is really the aggressor, and who is the victim. And then, wholeheartedly seek to make amends, as Jews are supposed to do every Yom Kippur.
Imagine if Netanyahu gave a Yom Kippur speech along these lines: "We're sorry. You Palestinians are right. We are the aggressors, and we have perpetrated a grave injustice - not just in 1967, but in 1948 and before that. Your demands for right of return plus compensation, along with a return to the 1967 borders, are almost pathetically minimal and reasonable. Apartheid and endless war doesn't have a future. We want to work with you to build a new Palestine-Israel and a new Middle East. Come home - in numbers that we'll work out based on what's practical. We're willing to endure a temporary lowering of the standard of living for Israeli Jews and Russian-immigrant fake Jews in order to help you return to the country we stole so unjustly, and make it a country for you as well as for us."
After a certain number of Israeli outrages, it will be too late for this kind of offer. It may even be too late now. But it's worth a try, since the current road is such an obvious dead-end.
If you disagree, you're welcome to join me on my radio show and explain why. But please don't use my show as a platform to call for the assassination of the President.
Best,
Kevin Barrett
PS You might also enjoy my article on "Zionist shots across Obama's bow"
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Zionist bullets: Shots across Obama's bow?
To those brainwashed by America's Zionist corporate media, the question sounds like paranoid fantasy. But the truth is that powerful geopolitical actors do sometimes attempt to intimidate each other through "plausibly deniable" threats. And the Zionists, masters of hardball realpolitik, are said to do such things with some regularity, not to mention chutzpah.
Item: Obama leaves his microphone on to tell the world that Netanyahu is a liar. Zionist flack Dennis Ross is ejected from the White House. It looks like Obama isn't going to obey Netanyahu's orders to attack Iran.
Item: A bullet slams into a White House window. A "lone nut," branded like a steer by the word Israel tattooed on his neck, is arrested and charged with the crime.
Item: The FBI arrests some anti-Obama "good ole boys" armed with "52 weapons, including assault rifles, and 30,000 rounds of ammunition, including special sniper rounds." The crackers were targeting Obama, Eric Holder, and Cynthia McKinney. The ostensible message: "Us crackers gonna get you uppity communistic niggaz." Translated from cracker-speak, the real message might be: "Us Zionists gonna get you uppity pro-Palestinian schwartzes unless you attack Iran when we tell you to."
Any way you parse it, Netanyahu is obviously out of control, and he and his doomed, illegitimate settler colony are trying to drag the world down with them. Maybe it's time for the US to retaliate in kind, and send out some bullets with Netanyahu's name on them.
# # #
Listen to my interviews with Cynthia McKinney and Gordon Duff, in which we discuss Obama's dissing Netanyahu, and Netanyahu's possible response.
|
||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DVDs
|
|
|
||||||||
New
Book: Obama Voters Questioning the War on Terror
For Immediate Release - June 19th 2009
Contact:
kbarrett(at)merr.com
Fatna
Bellouchi
fatnabell(at)yahoo.com
According to a brand-new book, voters elected Barack Hussein Obama to the presidency for one overriding reason: They were skeptical about the Bush Administration's War on Terror. After rigorously scrutinizing the so-called War on Terror, the book concludes that this concept is an empty propaganda ploy that must be exposed and rejected if Obama voters are to get the change they voted for.
Dr. Kevin
Barrett, author of Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama
Voters (publication date July 1st, 2009) writes:
"The
election of Barack Hussein Obama tacked a giant flashing neon question mark
onto the Bush Administration's much-ballyhooed but never clearly defined
'War on Terror.' Surveys showed that McCain voters, like Bush voters before
them, were heavily motivated by fear of terrorists. Obama voters, on the
other hand, were more worried about the economy.
"By voting
for a dark-skinned guy with a Muslim father, a middle name Hussein and a
last name that sounds like Osama, Americans were saying they didn't buy the
Fox News propaganda demonizing Arabs, Muslims, and other vaguely
dark-skinned people with funny names.
"By voting
for the man they perceived as the anti-war candidate, Americans were
re-stating the message they had sent in 2006: End the war NOW already! (What
is it about the word NOW that the politicians don't understand?)
"The
rejection of the Republicans was also a rejection of torture. Obama
campaigned for ending torture and closing Guantanamo, and the voters
responded enthusiastically.
"Obama's
election showed the voters sensed a close connection between Bush's hugely
expensive, ruinous War on Terror and the economic difficulties America is
facing. By running up a ten trillion dollar deficit and dragging America's
good name through the mud, Bush had wrecked the economy. Perhaps Obama, the
peace candidate whose top priority was the economy, would be able to fix
it."
Dr. Barrett
uses rigorous analysis and just plain common sense to show that Obama voters
were right: the War on Terror is a profoundly dubious enterprise. He begins
with the observation that Americans are thirty times more likely to die from
lightning strikes, and ten times more likely to drown in their bathtubs,
than to be killed by terrorists: "Should we declare war against lightning
bolts and bathtubs? Should we install PA systems in our bathrooms reminding
us that the threat level of bathtub drowning has been raised to orange?
Should we create a new Department of Bathtub Security (DBS) empowered to do
sneak-and-peak warrantless searches of our bathrooms to make sure that we're
using no-slip bath-mats? Should we invade and occupy countries that we
falsely blame for bathtub deaths? Would this be any crazier than what we're
doing now, allegedly due to the equally insignificant 'terrorist threat'?"
Using the
Socratic method, Questioning the War on Terror asks fifty-four hard
questions that, taken together, effectively annihilate the central notion on
which our post-9/11 political life has been based. It concludes with a list
of twenty-two concrete actions that readers can take to end the War on
Terror and achieve the change they voted for.
About the author:
Dr. Kevin
Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America's best-known
critics of the War on Terror. Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox,
CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and
op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor,
the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has
taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin,
where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit
organizer, author, and talk radio host. His website is http://www.truthjihad.com
Questioning
the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters
(160 pages)
Publisher: Khadir
Press
Website:
http://QuestioningTheWarOnTerror.com
ISBN
978-1-4276-4138-0
Publication
Date: July 1st, 2009
UK Book
Tour: July 7th, London; July 11th, Liverpool. Contact Belinda McKenzie b.mckenzie(at)btinternet.com
Book
Release Party: July 23rd, Dardenelles restaurant, 1851 Monroe St., Madison,
WI (608) 256-8804
KSM
Conspiracy Charges Analyzed and Debunked
Don't believe the charges until you've read the charge sheet By Rolf Lindgren and Dr. Kevin Barrett December 9, 2009
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and five co-defendants have been
charged with conspiracy and related charges. Their trial,
recently announced by president Barack Obama, will be held in
federal court next year in New York. KSM has been labeled the
“mastermind” behind the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
and Obama has already
declared him guilty. This article will analyze those
conspiracy charges. (full article here)
Alan Hart's Appeal to
the American People
Address on Iceland and the IMF, Debt Moratoriumand Tobin Tax, Delivered by Birgitta Jonsdottir of The Movement in the Icelandic Parliament, October 5, 2009
Socrates is a Conspiracy Theorist
by
Kevin Barrett
9/11 Truth: A Furqan for Our Time By Kevin Barrett Thomas Paine, Two Hundred Years Hence by Sean M. Madden JFK Plugs Harrit & Barrett London Event, 7/7/09
Neils
Harrit, in case you missed the biggest story of the year, is the lead author
of
the new nano-thermite paper that puts the last nail in the coffin of the
official story of 9/11. I'm honored to be on the program with him on 7/7 in
London in what promises to be a great event. (More about JFK endorsement
video
here.)
On Thursday,
torture victim Ali al-Marri
–
the only "enemy combatant"
held in the US – entered a coerced guilty plea in a Peoria, Illinois courthouse...
"Zionizing
Muslims via Interfaith Dialogue" by Joachim Martillo:
America's Darth Vader / Dick Cheney 9/11 and Self-Incrimination by Kevin Barrett
Should George W. Bush Be Arrested in Calgary Alberta
– To Be Tried For International Crimes? by Anthony J. Hall
Dead Babies & the Death of the American Dream
By Kevin Barrett
Tarpley's Warning: The Bad News About Obama By Kevin Barrett
THE UGLY TRUTH
Extremism in ‘Defense’ of IsraelIsrael-Firster: “Take Out the President”
by Justin Raimondo
There’s no doubt about it: Andrew B. Adler, the editor of the Atlanta Jewish Times, is a fool. His article advocating the assassination of President Obama has by now been broadcast all over the internet, and brought condemnation from every quarter down on his head. His tearful apologies, his denials
that he actually meant to call for Obama’s death, and the swiftness
with which major Jewish organizations distanced themselves from his
crazed call are, perhaps, punishment enough for the poor man: I can’t
help feeling sorry for him.
The Atlanta Jewish Times is not exactly the Forward: with a circulation of around 3,000, it is an obscure publication that carries news of the local Jewish community and is seemingly typical of the dozens of similar niche newspapers throughout the country – except, of course, for the views of its editor, which are by no means typical of the Jewish community. That being said, this incident underscores a phenomenon that has been largely overlooked until recently, and that is the extremism of a certain segment of the pro-Israel community. That this element is present in the Jewish community was acknowledged by none other than my old friend Abe Foxman, of the Anti-Defamation League, in his statement condemning Adler’s piece: “There is absolutely no excuse, no justification, no rationalization for this kind of rhetoric. It doesn’t even belong in fiction. These are irresponsible and extremist words. It is outrageous and beyond the pale. An apology cannot possibly repair the damage. “Irresponsible rhetoric metastasizes into more dangerous rhetoric. The ideas expressed in Mr. Adler’s column reflect some of the extremist rhetoric that unfortunately exists – even in some segments of our community – that maliciously labels President Obama as an ‘enemy of the Jewish people.’” Foxman is right: there are indeed extremists among us who could easily be incited to act on Adler’s recommendation – and not all or even most of them are of the Jewish faith. We have millions of Christians in this country who have theological reasons for fanatically supporting the state of Israel, even over and above the interests of their own country – not that they would ever admit the possibility of any “daylight” between the nations. They are, to put it in popular parlance, “Israel-Firsters,” and proudly so. Adler, for his part, appears to be at least a sympathizer of the Chabad movement, an international ultra-orthodox movement some of whose followers reportedlycheered the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish extremist. I won’t get into their theological justification for such kookiness: suffice to say that Chabad has allied itself with the most extreme elements, including within Israel, with parties and politicians who call for the expulsion of all Arabs. Chabad of Georgia claims Adler is not a member, but this has to be taken with a very large grain of salt: after all, visitors to the web site of his newspaper are greeted by a promotion for the local Chabad organization. Whether he is an official member, or merely a sympathizer, is a detail, however: the larger picture is that the scenario imagined by Adler in his piece reflects the all-too-familiar narrative put out there by our Israel-Firsters, and by the Netanyahu government, which is that Israel currently faces an “existential” crisis, the inevitable result of which will be a second Holocaust: “You are Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. You are responsible for 7 million Israeli citizens who comprise the state of Israel. You wake up one morning, and the Israel Defense Forces’ military commander hands you a detailed report regarding what to expect during a major conflict with Hezbollah and Syria five years from today. “The report states that Israel will come under fire from 15,000 rockets and missiles, and that casualties will be in the thousands. That’s thousands, not hundreds- thousands. “Simultaneously, another IDF military commander strolls over while you are finishing your first cup of coffee and hands you a report that Iran has reached nuclear launch capabilities. “If that’s not enough, an Israeli diplomat informs you that you cannot expect much help from the United States due to its newly implemented military budget and the administrations never ending “Alice in Wonderland” belief that diplomacy is the answer. “To all the Netanyahus out there, what do you do?” Adler has three suggestions: 1) “Order a pre-emptive strike against both Hezbollah and Hamas,” 2) “Go against Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s wishes that Israel take a lethal bullet in the name of preserving a healthy, worldwide economic climate, and order the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities at all costs”, and 3) “Give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.” Adler describes these actions as possible “options,” and you’ll note they aren’t mutually exclusive – although carrying out the third option, in tandem with numbers one and two, seems like overkill , if you’ll pardon the expression. Yes, but not to someone so imbued with apocalyptic urgency that he would seriously contemplate the third option. Because, you see, Israel’s very existence is imperiled: it’ faces an “existential threat.” Once you accept this premise, the idea that one could save the lives of millions of Israelis by sacrificing the life of one man – even if he is President of the United States – becomes all too plausible. True believers in the “existential threat” narrative would have every reason to not only entertain the prospect of assassinating a President they thought was anti-Israel – or even a secret Muslim – they would consider it a moral duty, whether they did it for religious reasons or out of a devotion to pure utilitarianism. In Friday’s column I wrote about the case of the DC Five, the five bloggers for two liberal Washington think tanks who were reprimanded – and, in one case, fired – because they used the term “Israel Firster.” The same organizations – the American Jewish Committee, the ADL, etc. – that pounced on Adler had just finished jumping all over the DC Five for engaging in “toxic” and “classically anti-Semitic” discourse, promoting the “myth” of “dual loyalty” among Jewish-Americans and supporters of Israel more generally. James Kirchick, of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, claims to have traced the etymology of “Israel Firster” back to Willis Carto, the notorious anti-Semite who published The Spotlight newspaper: avid researcher Kirchick doesn’t even bother trying to prove the term originated with Carto (after all, how could one prove such a thing?): it’s enough for him that Carto’s obscure publication used terms like “Israel-Firster” and routinely hurled unfounded accusations of “dual loyalty” to make the entire subject off limits to the rest of us. In answer to defenders of the DC Five who say their writings are being taken out of context, Kirchick argues they are encouraging “far right” anti-Semitic discourse taken straight from The Spotlight’s repertoire, and adds: “As if there were ever a context, other than that of, say, Jonathan Pollard, in which it would be appropriate to label an American Jew an‘Israel-firster’ or ‘dual loyalist.’” I would ask Kirchick to read Adler’s article, and then revise his sweeping statement. Surely Adler qualifies as a bona fide “Israel-Firster”: he’s no Pollard, and he is very far from being an anomaly. Never mind his Jewishness: there are probably far more alleged Christians immersed in a similarly apocalyptic mindset who are just as likely to draw the same demented conclusions. The leaders of pro-Israel groups who lined up demanding the purge of the DC Five, are in denial: if they doubt the existence of Israel-Firsters, let them read the words of an American citizen calmly contemplating the assassination of his own President – in the name of “saving” Israel. Let them also begin to take some responsibility for Adler’s frame of mind: faithfully echoing the hysterical cries of the Netanyahu government, they have pushed the idea that Israel faces an “existential threat” from Iran against all available evidence. The chief persecutor of the DC Five, one Josh Block – a former AIPAC spokesman and longtime Democratic party operative – told Politico there is “no room” for “political rhetoric that is hostile to Israel, or suggests that Iran has no nuclear weapons program” in “mainstream Democratic party discourse.” As our policymakers contemplate going to war with Iran, the Israel-Firsters among us want to stop the debate before it even begins. They want to police our language so as to make it impossible to even talk about the issue in terms of what serves America’s national interest. I am struck by how much the War Party’s case for war with Iran resembles the “ticking time bomb” argument used to justify torture. Torture advocates routinely pose the question in the following terms: suppose you were confronted with the imminent destruction of New York City by a nuclear device, and your choice was either to torture the details of the plot out of a captive terrorist or allow the destruction of the city – which would you choose? This limns the scenario Adler presented to his readers, in which the “ticking time bomb” of a supposedly pending nuclear attack on Israel is prevented by the assassination of the President. Granted, it’s an extreme “solution” – but, hey, only an anti-Semite could possibly object. The reality is quite different from the impending apocalypse projected by the Israel lobby, which Adler takes to its “logical” and thoroughly nutty conclusion. Bristling with weapons bought and paid for by you and I, its hundreds of nukes aimed straight at Tehran, the Jewish state has easily repelled repeated attempts by its neighbors to enforce the Palestinians’ claimed “right of return”: its military superiority is unquestioned. Our own National Intelligence Estimate informs us Tehran stopped trying to create a nuclear weapons program in 2003, and in spite of a relentless propaganda campaign no new evidence has been uncovered to convincingly show otherwise. Yet to listen to Israel’s leaders, and their amen corner in the US, one would think nuclear-tipped missiles are already hurtling toward Tel Aviv. By manufacturing this phony “existential threat,” the Israel lobby implicitly gave the green light to idiots like Adler, who take their cynical propaganda dead seriously. Everyone was shocked by Adler’s article, but was anyone besides Kirchick, Foxman & Co. really surprised? In the context of the hysterics engaged in by Israel’s most vocal“defenders,” this was likely to happen sooner or later. Let us hope and pray no one is sufficiently “inspired” by their rhetoric to act out Adler’s prescription for Israel’s continued survival.
THE UGLY TRUTH
Andrew Adler, 'Atlanta Jewish Times' Publisher, Apologizes For Obama Assassination Comments
React
Follow
As reported by Gawker, Adler's article, written earlier this month, describes the urgency in protecting the Israeli people from threats such as Hamas and Hezbollah and argues that there are essentially only three options available to Israel: 1. attack Hezbollah and Hamas; 2. "order the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities at all costs;" 3. assassinate Obama. From Adler's column, which is not available online, but which Gawker uploaded to the web: Yes, you read "three" correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles? Another way of putting "three" in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives ... Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?In a subsequent interview with Gawker, Adler seemed hesitant to stand by his words, saying he had written them just to "see what kind of reaction I would get from readers." Now, however, Adler has issued a full apology.  | ||||||||||
