Alliance Blackmail: Israel’s Opposition to the Iran Nuclear Agreement

26 Jul


The Vienna Agreement [formally labeled by diplospeak as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)] reached by the P5 + 1 on July 14, 2015 has been aptly hailed as a political breakthrough, not only because it calms regional worries about Iran’s nuclear program, but more so because it has the potential to remove an ugly dimension of conflict from the regional turmoil in the Middle East. Such a diplomatic success, after so many years of frustration, chaos, and strife, should be an occasion for hope and celebration, and in many venues it is, although not in Israel or Saudi Arabia or among the neo-con kingpins in Washington think tanks and their numerous Republican allies in the U.S. Congress.


Which side will prevail in this dysfunctional encounter is presently obscure, which itself is an indication of the dismal conditions of political life in America. Many unanswered and unanswerable questions bedevil the process: Will this agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear program be approved, and then implemented, or will it be blocked or unacceptably revised before coming into operation, or later on? Will Iran become associated more openly with Western attempts to defeat ISIS and in the desperate need to bring peace and humane governance to Syria where the people of the country have endured such severe suffering since 2011? Will these developments allow Iran to be treated as a normal state within regional and global political settings, and if this reduced atmosphere of external tension occurs will it also have moderating impacts on the internal governing process in Iran? Or will Israel and its allies succeed in keeping Iran in ‘a terrorist cage’ reserved for pariah states, and continue to insist upon a military option to wage war against Iran? Will Israel receive ‘compensation’ in the form of enhanced military assistance from the United States to demonstrate Washington’s unwavering commitment to the alliance? Will Israel’s secretly acquired nuclear weapons capability be called into question in an effort to achieve denuclearization, which is more consistent with peace and morality than calling into question Iran’s threat of nuclear proliferation? Further afield, will this gap between the American/European and Israeli/Gulf approach lead over time to new geopolitical alignments that broaden beyond policy toward Iran’s nuclear program?


At the core these many concerns, is the nature and health of the United States/Israel relationship, and more broadly the appalling balance of forces that controls political life from the governmental hub in Washington. The alliance bonding between the two countries have been called ‘unconditional’ and even ‘eternal’ by Obama, words echoed by every American public figure with any credible mainstream political ambitions, currently including even the supposed radical presidential aspirant, Bernie Sanders. And yet that is not nearly good enough for AIPAC and the Adelson-led legions pro-Israeli fanatics, which periodically lambaste this strongly pro-Israeli president for alleged betrayals of Israel’s most vital security interests, and generally take derisive issue with the slightest sign of accommodationist diplomacy in the region.

The most illuminating discussion of these issues from Tel Aviv’s perspective is undoubtedly the recently published memoir of Israel’s American born ambassador to the United States, Michael B. Oren, who served in this key role during the period 2009-2013. Oren was elected to the Knesset earlier this year representing, Kulanu, a small centrist Israeli party focused on economic and social reform. Oren’s bestselling book, Ally: Managing the America/Israel Divide (Random House, 2015) succeeds in combining an intelligent insider’s account of the strained relations between the Netanyahu government and the Obama presidency with frequent vain and self-aggrandizing autobiographical reflections in the spirit of ‘Look Ma, I am dancing with the Queen,’ reinforced by analysis that justifies every aspect of Israel’s extreme right-wing and militarist approaches to security policy and diplomacy. To understand better the Israeli worldview that mixes genuine fears of its enemies with arrogant behavior toward its friends there is no more instructive book.


An American–born Jew, Oren conceived of himself both as a product of and an emissary to the Jewish diaspora in the United States, diplomat discharging his conventional government-to-government diplomatic role. Above all, Oren during his tenure in office (2009-2013) apparently did his best to keep political tensions between these two countries and their personally uncongenial leaders below the surface while unreservedly supporting the public claim that this special alliance relationship serves the interests and values of both countries. Oren ends his book with a dramatic assertion of this overlap: “Two countries, one dream.” Perhaps even more disturbing than the rationalization of all that is Zionist and Israeli throughout the book is the seeming sincerity of Oren’s sustained advocacy. A bit of cynicism here and there might have made Oren less of a self-anointed Manchurian candidate.


Given this posture of dedicated advocate, it is hardly surprising that Oren is a harsh opponent of those liberal groups that question AIPAC’s constructive influence on American policy debates or that he views initiatives critical of Israel, such as the Goldstone Report or the BDS campaign, as dangerous, disreputable, and damaging threats to Israel’s security and wellbeing. Even J-Street, harmless as it has turned out to be, was viewed as an anathema to Oren who turned down its invitations and regarded it as somehow exhibiting a leftist posture toward Israel. Only later when it became domesticated by denouncing the Goldstone Report and generally supportive of Israel’s use of force against Gaza did Oren feel it had joined what he calls ‘the mainstream’ of Beltway politics, which in his slanted vision is where he situates AIPAC and the U.S. Congress. Quite incredibly, even Martin Indyk, early in his career an AIPAC researcher and more recently the American ambassador to Israel, was viewed as a poor appointment as Special Envoy to the Kerry peace talks of 2013-2014 because he did not have a cordial enough relationship with Netanyahu. From my perspective, it was also a poor appointment, but for opposite reasons–an in-your-face display of pro-Israeli partisanship that undermined any credibility the United States claimed as a responsible intermediary at the resumed negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.


Central to Oren’s presentation of Israeli behavior is the one-way street that he treats as embedded in the word ‘ally,’ which for Oren expresses the peculiar and generally unacknowledged character of this ‘special relationship.’ It is well illustrated by Oren’s support for Israel’s effort led with undisguised bluntness by Netanyahu to undermine Obama capacity to negotiate a nuclear arrangement with Iran despite JCPOA being strongly endorsed as in the national interest of the United States, but also of France, United Kingdom, China, Russia, and Germany. The agreement also seems beneficial for the Middle East as a whole and indeed for the world. Such an encompassing consensus endorsing the elaborate arrangement negotiated was exhibited in a resolution of support adopted by the UN Security Council [SC Resolution 2231, 20 July 2015] by an unusual unanimous vote. Oren still complains bitterly that Israel’s rejectionist views toward an agreement with Iran were in the end circumvented, at least so far. At one point Oren even suggests that Israel was better off when the inflammatory Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was Iran’s president rather than the more measured Hassan Rouhani. In his view, Iran remains just as aggressively disposed toward Israel despite the more moderate language of the present leadership, but that the West has been falsely reassured to the point of being willing to ease gradually the sanctions previously imposed in this latest diplomatic initiative, thereby raising the level of threat faced by Israel and accounting for Netanyahu’s frantic opposition to the agreement.


In the end, despite siding with Israel at every turn with respect to tension with the U.S. Government, Oren recognizes that Obama has been on balance been a faithful ally. Although indicting the Obama presidency the United States for being a disloyal ‘ally’ when the Iran chips were on the diplomatic table. It is not presently clear whether Netanyahu’s insistence that the nuclear deal (JCPOA) is ‘a historic mistake’ will overcome rationality and self-interest in the American setting either in the immediate future of approving the (non-treaty) agreement, or over a longer period should the United States have the misfortune of electing a Republican president in 2016 who are presently stumbling over one another in their competition to denounce more decisively.


More generally, Oren outrageously proposes that this alliance between Israel and the United States, to live up to its potential, should have three dimensions that would make it unlike all others: ‘no daylight’ on common concerns, that is, no policy differences; ‘no suprises,’ that is, advance notification to the other government of any international policy initiatives bearing on the Middle East; and never a public display of disagreements when policy differences between the two governments emerge as happened with Iran. The justifications given by Oren emphasize the usual litany of two states sharing commitments to political democracy, anti-terrorism, and having common regional strategic and security goals.


What seems superficially astounding is that the world’s number one state seems frightened to step on the smallest Israeli toe, while Israel is ready to do whatever it needs to do to get its way on policy issues in the event of a dispute with its supposedly more powerful partner. After negotiating a far tougher deal (on enriched uranium and intrusive inspections) with Iran than the realities warrant, at least partly out of deference to Israeli concerns, Washington still feels it appropriate and apparently necessary to indicate a readiness to provide ‘compensation,’ that is, enlarged contributions beyond the current $3.1 billion, offers of weapons systems designed to bolster further Israel QME (Qualitative Military Edge) in the Middle East. The White House additionally sends its recently appointed Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, to Israel with hat in hand, evidently to reassure the Israeli leadership that nothing about the agreement is inconsistent with continuing support of Israel’s right to defend itself as it sees fit, which appears to be a writ of permission in violation of the UN Charter and international law by granting Israel assurance in advance of U.S. support should it at some future point launch an attack on Iran. It should be noted that no state in the world enjoys such inappropriate benefits from an alliance with the United States. The whole dubious logic of QME implies a continuing willingness to put Israeli security permanently on an unlawful pedestal in the region that places other states in a subordinate position that makes them susceptible to Israeli military threats and hegemonic demands. It is tantamount to providing Israel with assured capabilities to win any war, whatever the pretext, that should emerge in the future, and also means that Israel is the only state in the Middle East not deterred by concerns about retaliation by an adversary. For years Israel has been threatening Iran with a military attack in flagrant violation of Article 2(4) that unconditionally prohibits “any threat or use of force” except in situations of self-defense as strictly limited by Article 51.


Oren, of course, sees things much differently. He repeats without pausing to entertain the slightest doubt, that Israeli is the only democracy in the Middle East and joined at the hip to American foreign policy as a result of these shared interests and values. He insists that the UN is biased against Israel, and is thankful for American blanket opposition to all hostile initiatives, whether justified or not, that arise within the Organization. For Oren UN bias is clearly evident in the greater attention given to Israel’s alleged wrongs than those of much bloodier international situations and worse violators. He also faults Obama, as compared to George W. Bush, for being a weak ally, too ready to please the Palestinians and indeed the entire Islamic world, and supposedly causing an unspecified ‘tectonic shift’ in the alliance with Israel during his presidency. In this regard, the Iran Agreement is the last straw for Oren, and the most damaging example of a departure from the alleged alliance code of no daylight and no surprises (epitomized by recourse to secret diplomacy between Washington and Tehran that left Tel Aviv out of the loop for several months leading up to the agreement). Of course, Oren is unapologetic about Israel’s obstructionist behavior. He treats Netanyahu’s conception of Israel’s security as essentially correct, if at times unnecessarily confrontational. He believes that in this instance Israel’s worries are sufficiently vital and well-founded as to deserve putting aside diplomatic niceties. This was the case when the Israeli leader was invited by the Republican leadership in Congress to speak on Iran at a special joint session convened for this purpose in early 2015 without even informing the White House in advance of the invitation, a violation of political protocol.


Deconstructing the Oren view of alliance politics makes it clear that its operational code would be better observed if the Congress and not the President represented the United States in matters of foreign policy. Netanyahu and a majority of the U.S. Congress do seem to see eye to eye, including of course on whether the Iran Nuclear Agreement, as negotiated, should be approved. Across the board of foreign policy in the Middle East, Netanyahu and Congress are bellicose, inclined toward military solutions despite the dismal record of failure, and inclined to decide about friends and enemies on the basis of geopolitical alignment and religious orientation without the slightest concern about whether or not supportive of democracy, human rights, and decency.


Should a Republican with these views be elected president in 2016, then Oren’s dream of the alliance as based on ‘no daylight, no surprises, and no public discord’ would likely come true, illustrating the proposition that one person’s dream is another person’s nightmare. More carefully considered, it would seem probable that if Hilary Clinton gets the keys to the White House her approach to Israel will be closer to that of Congress than that of Obama even recalling that Obama backed away quickly from his early demand that Israel freeze settlement expansion and has significantly increased military assistance for Israel without exhibiting much concern about peace and justice in the region, or with regard to the Palestinian ordeal. U.S. response to the Sisi coup in Egypt is indicative of a strategic convergence of approach by the Obama White House and Netanyahu’s Likud led government.


Two realities are present as surfacing in response to the Iran Nuclear Agreement (JCPOA):

-the presidency is on one side (along with Clinton) and Congress/Israel is on the other side;

–yet more broadly conceived, the alliance remains as unconditional and bipartisan as ever, defiant toward the UN and the constraints of international law whenever expedient.


A final point. JCPOA imposes more restrictions on Iranian enrichment capabilities and stockpiles, and on inspection and monitoring of compliance, than has been imposed on any country in the course of the entire nuclear era. Its regional justifications, aside from Israeli security, emphasize the avoidance of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East involving Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey. And left out of consideration altogether was the nuclear weapons arsenal of Israel acquired with Western complicity and by covert means, as well as through operations outside the Nonproliferation Treaty regime, which is used to tie Iran’s hands and feet. Such are the maneuvers of geopolitics, that underpin the alliance so strongly celebrated by Michael Oren.






34 Responses to “Alliance Blackmail: Israel’s Opposition to the Iran Nuclear Agreement”

  1. baroukh July 26, 2015 at 4:28 am #

    Could you please comment on the fact this “breakthrough” is actually on the basis that was proposed two years ago by Iran and that the only ones who did concessions are the P5+1 during this time?

  2. Gene Schulman July 26, 2015 at 4:59 am #

    Thanks for the review of Oren’s book. Not that I would have bothered to read it – his views are already too well known.

    The “break through” agreement with Iran is all theatrics. It has nothing to with Iran’s alleged nuclear bomb program, already well known to be non-existent. It has to do with lifting the sanctions, not for the humanitarian sake of the Iranian people, rather for the sake of the western corpratocracy to begin (exploiting) doing business with energy rich Iran again. Even so, I believe the agreement will not pass Congress, because the goal has always been, and still is, regime change. One way or another, Israel will find a way to go to war with Iran.

    Your overview, as usual, is excellent. I’m only afraid the subject will bring back the usual trolls (Ira and Fred) to support Oren’s views.

  3. M.L. July 26, 2015 at 5:24 am #

    Reblogged this on PAJU – Palestiniens et Juifs Unis and commented:
    «Should a Republican with these views be elected president in 2016, then Oren’s dream of the alliance as based on ‘no daylight, no surprises, and no public discord’ would likely come true, illustrating the proposition that one person’s dream is another person’s nightmare. More carefully considered, it would seem probable that if Hilary Clinton gets the keys to the White House her approach to Israel will be closer to that of Congress than that of Obama even recalling that Obama backed away quickly from his early demand that Israel freeze settlement expansion and has significantly increased military assistance for Israel without exhibiting much concern about peace and justice in the region, or with regard to the Palestinian ordeal. U.S. response to the Sisi coup in Egypt is indicative of a strategic convergence of approach by the Obama White House and Netanyahu’s Likud led government.»

  4. ray032 July 27, 2015 at 4:46 am #

    A small thing, Richard, but I think you intended to write, “In his view, Iran remains just as aggressively disposed toward “Israel” despite the more moderate language of the present leadership.”

    • Richard Falk July 27, 2015 at 5:49 am #

      Thanks, Ray, for calling this to my attention. I have made the change. It always amazes me that such
      awkward oversights escape my proofreading efforts!

  5. rehmat1 July 27, 2015 at 5:31 am #

    Yes Dr. Falk – only fools would call it “breakthrough” – because Iranian agreed to something which they never had the intention to do!

    Obama called the “agreement” a “victory of the Free World”. Sheikh Rouhani called it “victory of the Iranian people” – and Israeli former terrorist turned “peacemaker”, Uri Avnery, accused Netanyahu for making Iran’s “most powerful nation” in the region.

    Avnery also said: “Clearly, Iran and its allies are the wave of the future, Saudi Arabia and its allies belongs to the past.” I hope Avnery realizes that his Zionist entity is also an ally in Saudi Arabia’s war against the ‘Axis of resistance’ (Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Iraq).

    • Richard Falk July 27, 2015 at 6:51 am #

      You are right, of course. Yet it is a breakthrough with respect to ending potentially Iran’s isolation, etc..

      • baroukh July 27, 2015 at 7:38 am #

        So you believe that Iran doesn’t deserve isolation (despite its continuous violations of human rights) but Israel does (through BDS). Interesting…

      • Richard Falk July 27, 2015 at 8:35 am #

        Being aggressive in this way does not encourage dialogue.

        Iran is not oppressing another people, and was not put under trust with the League, then UN, for
        the sake of its indigenous population. Israel continuously defies the UN, international law, and world public opinion,
        and BDS only emerges after decades of Palestinian suffering have led no where but to continuous
        encroachment by way of settlements, wall, roads, on the 22% remnant of historic Palestine left under the control of the
        Palestinian Authority after the 1967 War via Oslo framework.

      • rehmat1 July 27, 2015 at 10:50 am #

        @ baroukh – BDS is NOT anti-Israel. Instead it legitimizes Zionist occupation of 78% of historic Palestine.

      • baroukh July 27, 2015 at 9:57 pm #

        My comment was not agressive and you didn’t answer my first question in a previous comment which was not agressive either.

        Israel is not oppressing another people, it only tries to defend its citizens in the best way for everyone and anyway the Palestinian people is completely artificial and didn’t exist when you were young.

        Iran is oppressing its own people, the ones who are not religious, the ones who don’t believe in the same way, the women, the minorities, the homosexuals in a violent and autocratic manner but it seems that you don’t care, as long as the people oppressed are labeled Iranians. Otherwise how could you be glad that it stops being isolated in the international scene?

        When you say “22% of historic Palestine”, could you please elaborate on what you mean by “historic Palestine”? Arab control is on way more than 70% of the real “historic Palestine”.
        What do you have to answer to Mudar Zahran, a palestinian Arab, leader of Jordan’s opposition who believes that Jordan should be considered as the new Palestine country:


        Thanks in advance for your answer.

  6. Walker Percy July 27, 2015 at 2:45 pm #

    Richard, you wrote: “Should a Republican with these views be elected president in 2016, then Oren’s dream of the alliance as based on ‘no daylight, no surprises, and no public discord’ would likely come true, illustrating the proposition that one person’s dream is another person’s nightmare.” I agree that would be true if Huckabee, Cruz or Bush is elected president, but they probably won’t be (the only one who has a chance, bush, sounds exactly like his brother, and appears to be as cluelss, so I can’t see how he can win). I know everyone will poo-poo me for saying so, but please don’t count out Rand Paul. He is the only candidate from either party that is not beholden to AIPAC (he received the smallest amount of AIPAC money, by far, of any senator). His carefully worded statements about Israel leave open the possibility that he is trying to avoid the wrath of the vast right-wing conspiracy, while at the same time ensuring that he says nothing now that could interfere with his plan to defund all foreign military aid, including aid to Israel, by executive order once he and his father seize the presidency. I believe we are on the brink of tipping into full-on anti-zionism in America, and those of us who see the eventual dissolution and dismantling of Israel as the key to world peace should not write off Rand Paul.

    • rehmat1 July 27, 2015 at 5:43 pm #

      I think you’re mixing Sen. Rand with his father Ron Paul, who was labeled ‘antisemite’ for suggesting to cut-down US military aid to Israel.

      Sen. Rand Paul is a ‘closet Zionist’ – unless you believe in Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie who called Rand Paul the greatest threat to the Zionist entity.

      “The greatest danger to Israel’s standing in the United States doesn’t come from the radical left, the antisemite fringe or anti-Israel groups on campus. It comes from Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who is running hard for president and currently leads the pack of potential 2016 GOP candidates,” says the Rabbi in July 2013.

    • baroukh July 27, 2015 at 11:55 pm #

      Dissolution and dismantling of Israel?
      You forgot to add “slaughtering of the Jews”, Walker Percy.
      According to you, world peace is prevented by the existence of Israel, what a clever way to look at the world…

      • rehmat1 July 28, 2015 at 5:24 am #

        Who were the world’s mass-murders, Jews or the non-Jews, baroukh?

        Harvard historian professor Niall Ferguson in his highly praised 2006 book, The War of the World, claimed that some of the greatest mass murderers of modern times were Jewish. Ferguson’s research, however, centered on the Bolshevik revolution and the Lenin and Stalin era during which Jewish elites in the Russian government and Bolshevik terrorist organs like Cheka, GPU, NKVD and KGB, sent over 100 million Christian and Muslim communities to death camps or rooted out of their native homelands.

        Some other books on this subject include ‘Behind Communism’ by Frank Britton, ‘Stalin’s willing Executioners’ by Yuri Slezkine, ‘The Rulers of Russia’ by Rev. Denis Fahey, and ‘The Secret Behind Communism’, by David Duke Ph.D.

        On February 15, 2012, the Jewish Mayor of Las Vegas Carolyn Goodman, performed the opening ceremony of Las Vegas Mob Museum, which honors some of America’s most notorious Jewish mob gangsters.

        Dr. Elias Akhleh, is a Palestinian Christian writer whose parents survived Jewish genocide of Palestinians during the NAKBA in 1948. His latest article, entitled, Jewish Greatest Genocidal Criminals has claimed that the worst mass-murderers throughout history were Jewish.

      • baroukh July 28, 2015 at 6:19 am #

        Dear Professor Falk, is such a purely antisemitic piece accepted as a comment on your blog?

        Rehmat, if Jews were mass-murderers as you antisemitically claim, do you really believe the number of palestinian Arabs would have climbed from less than one million to about 5 millions since 1948? Antisemitic people claim stupid things against the Jews and their sight is so blinded by their hatred that they can’t see it by themselves.

      • rehmat1 July 28, 2015 at 8:12 am #

        Stop whining like Netanyahu and face the truth, baroukh. The claim Jews being some of world’s murders, even without counting David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Sharrett, Begin, Gen. Ariel Sharon and Bibi, was made by a Jewish historian and not by me.

        Hating mass-killers, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhist, and Arabs is not anti-Semitism – because they happened to be Evildoers. ask your rabbi how Talmud tell to deal with such Evildoers.


      • baroukh July 28, 2015 at 8:28 am #

        Your comments are not the truth but pure antisemitism. That a Jewish “historian” claimed something on the Jews doesn’t make it the truth.

        If Jews in Israel were mass-murderers and a genocide had happened since 1948, there won’t be any more Arabs on this land. Instead, Arabs are thriving, their number grew drastically since 1900 and the ones with Israeli citizenship (about 20% of Israel’s citizens) live in the best environment possible which is not in the same league as all the Arab countries.

      • rehmat1 July 28, 2015 at 12:30 pm #

        @ baroukh – Making some sense out of a professional Zionist propaganda liar is like talking to 10ft thick Wailing Wall.

  7. baroukh July 29, 2015 at 12:21 am #

    I didn’t say a single lie. Everything I say are facts. I am not paid to say these facts and the truth and I waste my time talking to people like you who are so brainwashed they can’t see the light even when the sun is high in the sky.

    By the way, what a funny sentence: It “is a myth Zionists created 350 years ago”…
    Zionism didn’t exist at that time so how could Zionists create something at a time this movement didn’t exist? But what for sure didn’t exist 350 years ago (even 60 years ago) is the Palestinian people…

    Muslims are hard at work on the Temple Mount destroying evidences that the dome of the rock is built on the remains of the Temple (they throw away tons of materials and among these garbages, archeologists were able to save many proofs and clues of the Temple presence on that site).

    Judaism is at the foundation of Christianism and Islam. You can’t destroy the foundation without destroying what tries to stand on it.

    • rehmat1 July 29, 2015 at 8:23 am #

      Lol….. Another example of your mass lies Mr. baroukha!

      Islam and Christianity claims to be followers of Abrahamic faith. and Abraham was. certainly, not Jewish, as according to Israeli historian, Dr. Shlomo Sand, Jewish race was INVENTED only a century ago!

      • baroukh July 29, 2015 at 8:45 am #

        Again I said the plain truth.

        Islam and Christianism use the Judaism as their foundation. It is a fact you can’t deny. I didn’t talk about the Jewish People but even the Quran talks about it so as it is older than one century, Shlomo Sand lies (he is a business man who gets a lot of money from antisemitic people). Even if the Jewish People had been invented only one century ago (this is obviously not the case), it would still be in existence longer than the Palestinian People 🙂

  8. rehmat1 July 29, 2015 at 8:19 am #

    American Jewish journalist and author, Steve Lendman, posted an article supporting Nasrullah’s stand against the Zionist regime, which debunks the US and Israeli lies about Hizbullah.

    “Hizbullah is a legitimate part of Lebanese government. It’s not a terrorist organization as Washington and Israel claim. It’s born out of Jewish army’s 1982 invasion – devastating naked aggression slaughtering nearly 18,000 people mostly civilians including Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camp massacres,” Lendman said.

    The massacre was carried out on the orders of Gen Ariel Sharon, a Crypto-Jew, who was born to Jewish father and Russian Christian mother. Sharon never converted to Judaism based on Halaka, the Jewish Shari’ah laws.

    “Hizbullah is more than a political entity. It has a military wing for self-defense – not the naked aggression the way America and Israel operate. It provides vital social, charitable, educational and healthcare services. It established dozens of hospitals and schools. It enjoys widespread support, specially among Shias comprising over one-third of country’s total population,” Lendman added.

    “Israel’s high crimes take many forms. Muslims are targets for praying to the wrong G-d. Thousands are wrongfully imprisoned for political reasons,” Lendman claims.

    • baroukh July 29, 2015 at 8:53 am #

      I see that you like the “Jews” who broadcast lies about Israel and other Jews.

      “The massacre was carried out on the orders of Gen Ariel Sharon”
      => A plain lie of yours…
      Phalangists (christians) did this massacre as a response to massacres perpetrated by palestinian Arabs (for example in Damour but you probably never heard about this town). Israel’s army didn’t enter these refugee camps.

  9. ray032 July 29, 2015 at 8:57 am #

    Richard, I just came across this video of you Today, on your thoughts from Operation Cast Lead.

    • Richard Falk July 29, 2015 at 2:19 pm #

      Thanks, Ray, for bringing this video to my attention. I had not known about it. Richard

  10. Laurie Knightly July 29, 2015 at 9:20 am #

    The question of which side will win may not matter – Israel will win. If the deal goes through Israel will get billions more in munitions and if they decide to bomb Iran they will create a pretext to do so. Meanwhile, Iran will be weakened militarily and Israel strengthened even more so. Neither the US nor Israel are troubled ethically about instigating war. After Israel assassinates more nuclear scientists, bombs a reactor like in Syria and Iraq, encroaches on land etc, Iran might resist. Then Israel will hit hard and the US will concur that they had a right to protect themselves.

    On the subject of alliances, issues like human rights etc have no interest to the US nor Israel if the nation is a firm ally. Not much concern about human rights in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain etc. The question is raised as to why Iran does not drop out of the NPT which it signed early in its inception. It’s probably the only country currently expected to meet the requirements and constantly harassed over bogus issues. The answer is that this would appear to be an admission of guilt. Rogue nuclear nations get almost no criticism. Why doesn’t Iran state that it will abolish nuclear capability when Israel does? Pakistan and India? No problem…as non compliant states.

    Freezing a country’s assets seems to me as raw theft. Return their funds and stop doing business with them but what right to seize their investments? It might have had validity during the hostage crisis but not after.

    • Gene Schulman July 29, 2015 at 11:47 am #

      Nice to see Ms Knightly back in good form, addressing the issues and the subject of this post. Unlike baroukh and rehmat1, who, like children in the playground, are content to call each liars.

    • Richard Falk July 29, 2015 at 2:14 pm #

      Thanks, Laurie, for this highly intelligent and perceptive series of comments! Richard

      • baroukh July 29, 2015 at 10:59 pm #

        I am yet to understand how this can be called “highly intelligent”…
        Actually “highly intelligent” seems to actually mean “similar to what I think”…

    • rehmat1 July 30, 2015 at 11:57 am #

      YEs, it’s a “win, win, win” deal for the Zionist regime. Let’s not forget, it’s Netanyahu who blackmailed Obama by calling “Israel will attack Iran if the US didn’t do the dirty work for Israel.

      “It was the Zionist regime which threatened the White House in 2011-2012 to drag the US into a war that it couldn’t control. One that would likely have devastating effects on both the US and Israel. Thus started an urgent search for a nuclear deal. By clinching the deal with Iran, Obama has, above all, succeeded in averting a disastrous war that wouldn’t have prevented Tehran from acquiring nukes. And it was Netanyahu who made sure Obama thought war was on the horizon,” says Dr. Shibley Telhami, a senior fellow at Jewish Brookings Institute – quoted by Reuters July 21, 2015.

      The longest-serving Jewish Congressman, Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich) in a statement Tuesday, supported US-Iran nuclear deal claiming it will generate more financial, military and moral support from Washington.

  11. Beau Oolayforos July 30, 2015 at 10:09 pm #

    With Mike Huckabee’s statement about “ovens”, the sweepstakes appear to be in full swing for Adelson’s campaign money. I too had hopes for Rand Paul, considering his pedigree, as the most recent slaughter in Gaza was unfolding – but alas, dude actually co-sponsored 498 – ouch – could’ve been the Wayne Morse of his era at least, but maybe doctor needs to go back to popping boils, or whatever.


  1. French Zionist FM excited over visit to Iran | Rehmat's World - July 28, 2015

    […] in French universities, they achieve excellence and are the embodiment of Iran. Now, everything is in place for us to step up our exchanges,” Fabius […]

  2. Mitch McConnell: US cheat before Iran does | Rehmat's World - September 17, 2015

    […] power, so, what’s going to stop US proving that Iran cheated on the agreement and has developed a nuclear bomb, or purchased it from its allies Pakistan or North Korea? How difficult it’s for CIA, Mossad, […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: