A key political opponent of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized his hawkish stance on Iran’s nuclear program on Saturday, making the issue a central theme in the upcoming elections expected later this year.
“It’s a most serious mistake to turn the issue of defense against Iran into Israel’s biggest problem,” said Shelly Yechimovitch, leader of the Labour party, calling the Iranian issue a “problem of the entire world” and “the fact we take it upon ourselves to be the spearhead is an error.”
Israeli elections are scheduled to take place in 2013, but Netanyahu’s Likud party has put forth a motion to hold them in September of this year. Some have argued this is so that Netanyahu can win an early election and have the freedom to maintain hawkish policies toward Iran regardless of Israeli public opinion and at a point when Obama will be paralyzed in his own reelection campaign.
Yechimovitch is only the latest high-profile Israeli figure to criticize Netanyahu’s approach to Iran. Everyone from former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, current head of the Mossad Tamir Pardo, Israel’s military chief Benny Gantz, former prime minister Ehud Olmert, leader of the Kadima party Tzipi Livni, and internal security chief Yuval Diskin have come out to push back against Netanyahu. They explain that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, that Iran doesn’t present an existential threat, and that war is not the appropriate answer.
Netanyahu’s apparent move to have early elections may be a sign that his reelection is in jeopardy, and that will especially be the case if his political and ideological opponents keep making his hysterical positions on Iran the central issue.
The fascinating thing about a war with Iran is that it appears as if both Israeli and American voters will get a chance to vote before it happens. This is very rare … certainly in US history, its far more likely for politicians to stay away from talk about a war, until after their election when suddenly they spring their plans. Think Dubya campaigning on staying away from "nation-building", or Woodrow Wilson promising to keep America out of World War One.
Thus, before this war, voters will get a chance to speak. It sounds like there's a name on the Israeli ballot that things this war isn't such a good idea. And there's certain to be anti-war candidates on the American ballot besides the pro-war candidates of Obama and Romney.
If you don't want a war with Iran, don't vote for Obama, Romney or Netanyahu.
Don't be too sure about the timing…Netanyahoo understands that if he were to start a war before the American election, say in October, Obama would have no recourse politically except to support our Israeli "friends." I do not know what the Israeli population would think and what it would do to Netanyahoo's election chances but the hue and cry from the Israeli Firsters and the Armageddonists within our Congress would be legion.
If Netanyahoo's election chances are iffy as stated in the article, then why would Bibi move it up – wouldn't delaying it be more appropriate – time to rebuild his support? So, why rush it? Because he knows that if he casts the die before the American election, he can guarantee America will be there to bail him out and fight his war for him. And when, as he believes, the Americans vanquish the Iranians or at least bomb them back a century or two as we did in Iraq, Bibi will be quaranteed re-election – hell, sainthood probably within his own country – and the history books.
Israel's campaign for an American war with Iran may yet succeed. Israel has similarly instigated all our other Mideast wars and benefited from all. None were in American interests, yet we did the dying and nearly wrecked our economy. How did this happen? Enormous amounts of ingeniously distributed Jewish money have corrupted our entire electoral system. Among the perpetrators are AIPAC, the Jewish Conference of Presidents, and other monied Israel Firsters. Netanyahu's Israel now controls much of American government and may choose to spill more American blood. An American war with Iran guarantees further economic ruin and effective terrorism right here at home. Israel would thrive, accelerating its land theft, apartheid subjugation and murder with little criticism or even notice.
The Jewish state is determined to conquer and annex all land from the Nile to the Euphrates. Knowing this will necessitate wars explains its belligerence and highly visible abuse, humiliation and murder of Palestinians. Not peace, but perpetuation of an environment justifying aggression is the Jewish state's purpose. Just now, the addition of a, preferably American, war with Iran would do nicely.
Much as I detest Netanyahu and oppose his war, he is right about his being Israel's problem. The rest of the world has a problem too, but its problem is Israel.
The rest of the world is frantic, but not to stop Iran — it is frantic to stop Israel from launching a war others would then be forced to fight, a war which would disrupt the world economy even worse than the 73 oil embargo, a war which could not be won in any meaningful sense at any remotely reasonable cost.
Israel has been a sociopathic entity since its inception. Like the United States it always needs an enemy, and fear so that the populaces in both countries remain compliant. Both Americans, and Israeli's are being lead to the abyss by governments that are racist, methodical in their purpose, and self serving. Iran has never been a threat, but it serves as the perfect "boogeyman" since it is powerful, and refuses to cede to American, and Israeli terrorist exploits.
Who cares Nothingyhu is wrong on Iran? I say Anti-war is wrong on the news.
Just imagine how much news is generated on this site day in day out because of noises from various officials of the Israeli regime regarding Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapon, so much so that it is becoming sickening.
But do you ever see Anti-war publish anything about Israel’s stockpile of nuclear weapons? Think about it, Israel is reported to have hundreds of nuclear weapons. It is also taking delivery from Germany of the fourth nuclear-armed capable submarine.
But have you heard this: One Israeli official has said—and you can goggle this to know who—that under some circumstance Israel re ready to destroy the entire world! No kidding, can you really sleep at night? I don’t expect the mainstream/corporate/Zionist media to publish anything about it, but what about Anti-war? Would Anti-war give a tenth of attention to the real danger, rather than publish rubbish coming out of Israel?
"But do you ever see Anti-war publish anything about Israel’s stockpile of nuclear weapons?"
I guess that depends on who "you" is.
If "you" is anyone who actually reads Antiwar.com, the answer is a fairly obvious "yes."
Since you're responding to an article by Glaser, I spent about 15 seconds on Google to see if I could find his most recent mention of Israel's nukes, which appears to have been about two weeks ago:
"Any opaqueness Iran has demonstrated, along with its emphasis on being 'nuclear capable,' is merely a defensive posture. But there is a simple solution to this which would vastly decrease the geopolitical tensions in the region. If Israel, Iran’s main adversary and not a NPT signatory, agreed to dismantling its vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons and to a deal enforcing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East – a deal Iran has repeatedly proposed – Iran’s defensive posture would probably expire."
It appears from Google results that Justin Raimondo has written about Israel's nukes, the Dimona complex, etc. about 200 times here at Antiwar.com.
The phrase "Israel's nuclear weapons" returns more than 18,000 results from antiwar.com.