You may recall how recently an array of high ranking Israeli officials in the Netanyahu government, including National Security Council head Ya’akov Amidror and Interior Minister Eli Yishai, briefed ultra-Orthodox rabbi and Shas leader Ovadia Yosef on the proposed war with Iran in the hopes of receiving his blessing. Both the war (which Netanyahu reportedly wants before the U.S. presidential election) and the need to get nod from a religious leader were criticized, including by some of us who noted the extreme views of Yosef. Now, Yosef has called upon Jews to pray for the death of Iranians and the destruction of the nation of Iran. Now we have spiritual leaders is both countries calling on God to annihilate whole countries as examples of divine and moral justice.
Yosef told his followers that good Jews should pray for destruction of the enemies of Israel, particularly Iran and Hezbollah. The lesson in morality came with his weekly sermon and specified that the prayers should arrange for the annihilation of the Iranian during Rosh Hashana (Jewish New Year). Apparently just to be clear in the prayers to avoid the annihiation of similarly sounding countries, Yoseh stressed “When we say ‘may our enemies be struck down’ on Rosh Hashana, it shall be directed at Iran, the evil ones who threaten Israel. God shall strike them down and kill them.”
With Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also calling on God to destroy Israel, we have perfect agreement on one point from both sides: God is being who can be called upon to kill millions in the name of faith. These guys both sound and look remarkably alike.
As noted in the earlier blog, Yosef has long espoused extreme and hateful views, including likening Palestinians to snakes and calling for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to “perish from this world” and describing non-Jews as “born only to serve us”. This is the person that the Israeli government wants to bless the upcoming war . Of course, as noted earlier, the scheduling of a new war against Iran before the U.S. election would be a transparent effort to use the American politics to guarantee support for the war on the assumption that neither candidate would want to risk alienating the Jewish vote and campaign donors. At a minimum, Israel would expect that the U.S. would help pay for the war — if not immediately than in a later mix of loans and military assistance. We could then ultimately find ourselves in a third war, particularly if Iran strikes U.S. assets in response to an Israeli attack. Of course we will have the comfort of knowing that Ovadia Yosef says it is all perfectly moral.
Source: Haaretz
Elaine:
I think the Israelis are our surrogates until the find another supplier of sophisticated arms and aircraft.
Blouise:
Right now, I’d take someone with just good horse sense.
mespo,
No, he wasn’t but he sure handled that Spain/France/England mess that resulted in the Louisiana Purchase, especially where New Orleans was concerned, with real wisdom and genuine genius.
All the while dealing with the charges of hypocrisy here at home.
Just a smidgen of that genius would be most welcome now.
nick:
Nobody has the all answers. That’s the nature of international affairs — incomplete knowledge. A US politician answers to his (for convenience, could be hers, also) constituency here, and not in Iran. If he takes Iran at its word and atatcks and then finds he’s wrong he apologizes. If he’s right, the threat is neutralized and he’s re-elected. Welcome to Realpolitik.
Elaine/Blouise (and other simultaneous great minds):
I think Jefferson would be in favor of anything that insured our national security and base it on the best information he had. I have no doubt he’d launch a strike on them to stop a strike on us.
Elaine,
How funny … I was typing so didn’t read your post until after I had posted.
Basically we asked mespo the same question.
Great minds, mespo my dear, great minds.
mespo,
Like lotta, I suspect there is a lot more here than meets the eye but then my government seldom gives me anything on foreign policy that I’d be willing to take to the bank. But what’s new about that? Jefferson was giving contradicting instructions to his own two emissaries during the negotiations for the Louisiana Purchase. Same old, same old.
Is it our dirty work being done? Or is it the dirty work of our surrogates?
I’m not being at all flip when I remark … “It’s da*n difficult being Roman”!
Hitler said he wanted to exterminate the Jews in Mein Kampf. He got pretty close. This midget in Iran praises Hitler and repeatedly says he want to destroy Israel. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. How did Kennedy react when the Soviets tried to put nukes in Cuba. We were prepared to go to war and took the pretty drastic action of a blockade. And I’m quite certain we would have gone into Cuba if the blockade didn’t work. I can see the folks here who have dug in their heels. But, for the reasonable folks you need to try and put yourself in the Israeli shoes. If you are old enough to remember the Cuban Missile crisis it might help.
The problem is both sides cannot let go of the past. The only true hope for peace is if both sides get over the past. Oh and the USA stops trying to make the prophesies of armaggedon come true. In short both sides need to let go of religious dogma and old grudges. Not easy I’m sure but I can’t think of any other solution.
Try harder.
mespo,
Do you think that Jefferson would be in favor of our starting a preemptive war with Iran?
mespo727272
1, August 27, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Elaine/Blouise:
I guess my question was: Is it better to have our surrogates do our dirty work to avoid a direct conflict or should we handle our own messes? Letting the other guy do it certainly is a better way than involving our own troops which avoids your predicament assuming there is no retaliation. Nothing will happen to Israel because the Arab League knows that we will back them militarily if need be. Same goes for Russia.
*****
I think it best that we not start another war. Do you consider the Israelis to be our surrogates with regrad to Iran? Or is it the other way around?
Blouise:
Jefferson was no pacifist nor isolationist:
“Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not.”
Bron:
We agree that Carter made a huge blunder allowing the Ayatollah to return to power. One fundamentalist helping another I suppose. Seems Carter is spending the rest of his life making up for the error. Look it was one 12th Century nut-bag for another but at least you could reason with the Shah.
id707,
Aye, Jefferson was in favor of forced removal and or forced assimilation … starting way back in the 1770’s. There’s a letter to Harrison dated sometime in 1803 (?) wherein he lays out his plans and another one to a guy named von Humboldt in 1812 or 13 in which he speaks to the matter.
It should be remembered that at that time many Native American tribes were forming alliances with European nations hoping to get back some of their lands through war and that the new nation, the United States, was bent on protecting their borders and expanding same which is why the Louisiana Purchase was such a huge coup considering no shots were fired and no “hatchets” were raised. The frontier was a very dangerous place to reside.
Shall we mention slavery next? The Louisiana Purchase contained all of present-day Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska; parts of Minnesota that were west of the Mississippi River; most of North Dakota; most of South Dakota; northeastern New Mexico; northern Texas; the portions of Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado east of the Continental Divide; Louisiana west of the Mississippi River, including the city of New Orleans. Lots of slave expansion.
Elaine/Blouise:
I guess my question was: Is it better to have our surrogates do our dirty work to avoid a direct conflict or should we handle our own messes? Letting the other guy do it certainly is a better way than involving our own troops which avoids your predicament assuming there is no retaliation. Nothing will happen to Israel because the Arab League knows that we will back them militarily if need be. Same goes for Russia.
Can anybody confirm that this is a genuine quote of Ben Gurion?
“I was amazed how honest our Prime Minister David Ben Gurion was when he said: “Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves. Politically, we are the aggressors, and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view, we want to take away from them their country.””
From this site:
http://rense.com/general54/thank.htm
mespo:
dont you think it matters as to the psychology and philosophy of the individual in charge of the country?
I think Iran would use it against us or Israel. I would have taken out Iran a long time ago or better yet never let that first Ayatollah come to power. That was the ultimate mistake; thinking the Shah was worse than those 7th century nut bags.
The Iranian people at least the ones who are sane are probably praying Israel takes out their leadership.
lottakatz,
“…their subterfuges were pretty well wrecked by Stuxnex…”
I think their centrifuges were pretty well wrecked by Stuxnet, but “subterfuges” is much wittier.
A subterfuge could be a secret, subterranean centrifuge. Works for me.
Ralph,
If you’re referring to Ronald Reagan, Ronnie sold arms to the Ayatollah, who proclaimed the U.S.A. to be The Great Satan. Iran, at the time, was under an arms embargo. Ronnie used the money to illegally fund Contra terrorists in Nicaragua.
This isn’t esoteric history. It’s the Iran/Contra scandal.
The word “treason” is defined in the Constitution:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
The government of Iran certainly thought it was our enemy.
I believe Ronnie thought the government of Iran was our enemy.
Did he knowingly give them aid and comfort? Yes, he did. He armed them.
Yes, Ronnie did take decisive actions regarding terrorists. He funded them with money gained by selling arms to Iran.
That’s a REAL president? I prefer fakes.
Oh…and your rant against J Turley?
“You much prefer to say that when Israeli blood, bones, and tissue are splattered all over the streets, “too bad.” …But for those of us in the civilized world, and who want to keep it that way, we know that you can’t let the barbarians get too close to our gates.”
If your rhetoric is spawned by the civilized world, I prefer barbarism.
Oh yes, it is his list of consequences which I refer to.
Ralph,
What do you suppose the Iraqis would have attcked the US with–their weapons of mass destruction? We are becoming a fearful nation.