Benjamin Netanyahu Speech to Congress - March 03, 2015 Video and Transcript

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel used one of the most prominent platforms in the world on Tuesday to warn against what he called a “bad deal” being negotiated with Iran to freeze its nuclear program, bringing to a culmination a drama that has roiled Israeli-American relations for weeks.

The complete transcript of Netanyahu’s address to Congress
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke before a joint session of Congress on March 3, 2015. Here are his full remarks. (Associated Press)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is addressing a joint meeting of Congress; here is a complete transcript of his remarks.
NETANYAHU: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you...
(APPLAUSE)
... Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Pro Tem Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Minority -- Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it's good to see you back on your feet.
(APPLAUSE)
I guess it's true what they say, you can't keep a good man down.
(LAUGHTER)
My friends, I'm deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress.
(APPLAUSE)
I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.
I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.
(APPLAUSE)
I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.
(APPLAUSE)
[READ: Republicans loved every word of Bibi's address]
The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics.
(APPLAUSE)
Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American -- of America's people and of America's presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.
(APPLAUSE)
We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.
Now, some of that is widely known.
(APPLAUSE)
Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.
Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known.
I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid.
In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment.
Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists.
(APPLAUSE)
In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there.
And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister.
But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.
(APPLAUSE)

And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome.

(APPLAUSE)

Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you've done for Israel.

My friends, I've come here today because, as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

We're an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we'll read the Book of Esther. We'll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.
The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.

(APPLAUSE)

Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated -- he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn't exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.

For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran's chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.

But Iran's regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran's regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime.
The people of Iran are very talented people. They're heirs to one of the world's great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots -- religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.

That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran's borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime's founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to "export the revolution throughout the world."

I'm standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America's founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran's founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.

Iran's goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world's oil supply.
Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That's just last week, while they're having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran's attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.

Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.

In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran's aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.

So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.

(APPLAUSE)

We must all stand together to stop Iran's march of conquest, subjugation and terror.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!
Rouhani's government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.

Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I'd like to see someone ask him a question about that.

Iran's regime is as radical as ever, its cries of "Death to America," that same America that it calls the "Great Satan," as loud as ever.

Now, this shouldn't be surprising, because the ideology of Iran's revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that's why this regime will always be an enemy of America.

Don't be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn't turn Iran into a friend of America.

Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.

In this deadly game of thrones, there's no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don't share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.
So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.

(APPLAUSE)

The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember -- I'll say it one more time -- the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can't let that happen.

(APPLAUSE)

But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.

Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don't need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.
Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.

The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.

Because Iran's nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran's break-out time would be very short -- about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel's.

And if -- if Iran's work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.

True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran's nuclear program and Iran's adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here's the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don't stop them.

Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn't stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.

Now, we're warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.

Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It's done that on at least three separate occasions -- 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.
Now, I know this is not gonna come a shock -- as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.

The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught -- caught twice, not once, twice -- operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn't even know existed.

Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don't know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, "If there's no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn't have one." Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that's why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.

But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade.
Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it's the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It's a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran's nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs.

Iran's Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount -- 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.

My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.

Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.

And by the way, if Iran's Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the earth, including to every part of the United States.
So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That's why this deal is so bad. It doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb.

So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?

Well, I disagree. I don't believe that Iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite -- would only wet Iran's appetite for more.

Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it's under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?

Why should Iran's radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world's: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?

This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel's neighbors -- Iran's neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it's been given a clear path to the bomb.
And many of these neighbors say they'll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won't change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that's supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.

This deal won't be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.

If anyone thinks -- if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we'll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.

Ladies and gentlemen, I've come here today to tell you we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don't have to gamble with our future and with our children's future.

We can insist that restrictions on Iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.
(APPLAUSE)

Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second...

(APPLAUSE)

Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.

(APPLAUSE)

And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you.

If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.

(APPLAUSE)

If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn't change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.

(APPLAUSE)

If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.
(APPLAUSE)

My friends, what about the argument that there's no alternative to this deal, that Iran's nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?

Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn't get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can't drive. A pilot without a plan can't fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can't make nuclear weapons.

(APPLAUSE)

Iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table -- and this often happens in a Persian bazaar -- call their bluff. They'll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.

(APPLAUSE)

And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.
My friends, for over a year, we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It's a very bad deal. We're better off without it.

(APPLAUSE)

Now we're being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That's just not true.

The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.

(APPLAUSE)

A better deal that doesn't leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time. A better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in place until Iran's aggression ends.

(APPLAUSE)

A better deal that won't give Iran an easy path to the bomb. A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country...

(APPLAUSE)

... no country has a greater stake -- no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.

Ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war.
The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.

You don't have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire.

(APPLAUSE)

My friend, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel.
(APPLAUSE)

Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, "never again."

(APPLAUSE)

And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

(APPLAUSE)

Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.

But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.
(APPLAUSE)

We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.

(APPLAUSE)

This is why -- this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.

(APPLAUSE)

But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

I know that you stand with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

You stand with Israel, because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history's horrors.

(APPLAUSE)

Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this (inaudible) chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land.
And before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, (SPEAKING IN HEBREW), "Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them."

My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.

May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all.

You're wonderful.

Thank you, America. Thank you.

Thank you.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41129.htm
&
http://gerula.wblog.ro/2015/03/06/netanyahu-censored-voices-and-the-false-narrative-of-self-defense/
By Marjorie Cohn

March 05, 2015 "ICH" - On March 3rd, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued an impassioned plea to Congress to protect Israel by opposing diplomacy with Iran. Referring to "the remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States" which includes "generous military assistance and missile defense," Netanyahu failed to mention that Israel has an arsenal of 100 or 200 nuclear weapons.
The Six-Day War

The day before he delivered that controversial address, Netanyahu expressed similar sentiments to AIPAC, Israel's powerful U.S. lobby. He reiterated the claim that Israel acted in the 1967 Six-Day War "to defend itself." The narrative that Israel attacked Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in self-defense, seizing the Palestinian territories in the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula in 1967, has remained largely unquestioned in the public discourse. Israel relies on that narrative to continue occupying those Palestinian lands. And the powerful film "Censored Voices," which premiered at Sundance in February, does not challenge that narrative.

But declassified high-level documents from Britain, France, Russia and the United States reveal that Egypt, Syria, and Jordan were not going to attack Israel and Israel knew it. In fact, they did not attack Israel. Instead, Israel mounted the first attack in order to decimate the Egyptian army and take the West Bank.

Censored voices uncensored

For two weeks following the Six Day War, Amos Oz and Avrahim Shapira visited Israeli kibbutzim and recorded interviews with several Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers who had just returned from that war. Largely censored by the Israeli government for many years, those reels have finally been made public. "Censored Voices" features the taped voices of young IDF soldiers, as the aging, former soldiers sit silently beside the tape recorder, listening to their own voices.

The testimonies documented in the tapes reveal evidence of targeting civilians and summarily executing prisoners, which constitute war crimes. A soldier asks himself, "They're civilians - should I kill them or not?" He replies, "I didn't even think about it. Just kill! Kill everyone you see." Likewise, one voice notes, "Several times we captured guys, positioned them and just killed them." Another reveals, "In the war, we all became murderers." Still another says, "Not only did this war not solve the state's problems, but it complicated them in a way that'll be very hard to solve." One soldier likens evacuating Arab villages to what the Nazis did to Jews in Europe. As a soldier watched an Arab man being taken from his home, the soldier states, "I had an abysmal feeling that I was evil."

In what proved to be a prescient question, one soldier asks, "Are we doomed to bomb villages every decade for defensive purposes?" Indeed, Israel justifies all of its assaults on Gaza as self-defense, even though Israel invariably attacks first, and kills overwhelming numbers of Palestinians - mostly civilians. Each time, many fewer Israelis are killed by Palestinian rockets.

Israel's false self-defense claim

The film begins by showing a map of Israel surrounded by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, with arrows from each country aimed at Israel. The IDF soldiers felt those Arab countries posed an existential threat to Israel. "There was a feeling it would be a Holocaust," one soldier observed. The Israeli media claimed at the time that Egypt had attacked Israel by land and by air on June 5, 1967. According to British journalist Patrick Seale, "Israel's preparation of opinion" was "brilliantly managed," a "remarkable exercise in psychological warfare."

In his book, "The Six-Day War and Israeli Self-Defense: Questioning the Legal Basis for Preventive War," published by Cambridge University Press, Ohio State University law professor John Quigley documents conversations by high government officials in Israel, the United States, Egypt, the Soviet Union, France, and Britain leading up to the Six-Day War. He draws on minutes of British cabinet meetings, a French government publication, U.S. documents in "Foreign Relations of the United States," and Russian national archives. Those conversations make clear that Israel knew Egypt, Syria and Jordan would not and did not attack Israel, and that Israel initiated the attacks.

Egypt was the only one of the three Arab countries that had a military of any consequence. Israeli General Yitzhak Rabin told the Israeli cabinet that the Egyptian forces maintained a defensive posture, and Israeli General Meir Amit, head of Mossad (Israeli's intelligence agency), informed U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara that Egypt was not poised to attack Israel. Both the United States and the Soviet Union urged Israel not to attack. Nevertheless, Israel's cabinet voted on June 4 to authorize the IDF to invade Egypt.

"After the cabinet vote," Quigley writes, "informal discussion turned to ways to make it appear that Israel was not starting a war when in fact that was precisely what it was doing." Moshe Dayan, who would soon become Israel's Minister of Defense, ordered military censorship, saying, "For the first twenty-four hours, we have to be the victims." Dayan admitted in his memoirs, "We had taken the first step in the war with Egypt." Nevertheless, Israel's UN Ambassador Gideon Rafael reported to the Security Council that Israel had acted in self-defense.

"The hostilities were attacks by the Israeli air force on multiple Egyptian airfields, aimed at demolishing Egyptian aircraft on the ground," according to Quigley. On June 5, the CIA told President Lyndon B. Johnson, "Israel fired the first shots today."

Article 51 of the UN Charter authorizes states to act in collective self-defense after another member state suffers an armed attack. Although Jordan and Syria responded to the Israeli attacks on Egypt, they - and Egypt - inflicted little damage to Israel. By the afternoon of June 5, Israel "had virtually destroyed the air war capacity of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria," Quigley notes. "The IDF achieved the 'utter defeat' of the Egyptian army on June 7 and 8."

The United States empowers Israel

U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk said that U.S. officials were "angry as hell, when the Israelis launched their surprise offensive." Yet, Quigley notes, "Israel's gamble paid off in that the United States would not challenge Israel's story about how the fighting started. Even though it quickly saw through the story, the White House kept its analysis to itself."

Although Security Council resolution 242, passed in 1967, refers to "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and calls for "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict," Israel continues to occupy the Palestinian territories it acquired in the Six-Day War.

Israel has abandoned its claim that Egypt attacked first. Yet the international community considers that Israel acted in lawful anticipatory self-defense. Quigley explains how the UN Charter only permits the use of armed force after an armed attack on a UN member state; it does not authorize anticipatory, preventive, or preemptive self-defense.

"The UN did not condemn Israel in 1967 for its attack on Egypt," Antonio Cassese of the University of Florence explained. Quigley attributes this to Cold War politics, as the USSR supported Egypt. "For the United States in particular, Israel's success was a Cold War defeat for the USSR. The United States was hardly prepared to condemn Israel after it performed this service."

The United States continues to support Israel by sending it $3 billion per year in military aid, even when Israel attacks Gaza with overwhelming firepower, as it did in the summer of 2014, killing 2,100 Palestinians (mostly civilians). Sixty-six Israeli soldiers and seven civilians were killed.

If Israel were to mount an attack on Iran, the United States would invariably support Israel against Iran and any Arab country that goes to Iran's defense. Indeed, Netanyahu intoned to Congress, "may Israel and America always stand together."

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her most recent book is "Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41137.htm


Noam Chomsky: Opposing Iran oferta nucleare, Gooooool Israel nu este de supraviețuire - E Dominarea regională

video și Transcript - Democrație acum!

"Ei au un interes comun în asigurarea nu există nici o forță regională care poate servi drept orice fel de descurajare a israeliene și americane violență, violența major în regiune. " Chomsky răspunde, de asemenea dezvăluiri recente care, în 2012, agenția de spionaj israelian, Mossad, contrazise proprii avertismente teribile lui Netanyahu cu privire la capacitatea Iranului de a produce o bombă nucleară, concluzionând că Iranul a fost "nu desfășoară activitatea necesară pentru a produce arme."


AARON MATÉ: prim-ministrul israelian Benjamin Netanyahu a sosit la Washington, ca parte a ofertei sale de a opri un acord nuclear cu Iranul. Netanyahu se va adresa grupului de lobby AIPAC astăzi, urmată de un discurs controversat în fața Congresului marți. Vizita vine la fel de Iran și șase puteri mondiale, inclusiv SUA, sunt setate pentru a relua discuțiile în încercarea de a îndeplini un termen limită 31 martie. La Casa Albă, Secretarul de presă Josh Earnest a spus călătoria lui Netanyahu nu va amenința rezultatul.

COMUNICAT DE SECRETAR JOSH serios : Cred că răspunsul la scurt care este: eu nu cred așa. Iar motivul este pur și simplu că există o șansă reală pentru noi aici. Și președintele speră că vom avea o oportunitate de a face ceea ce este în mod clar în interesul Statelor Unite și Israel, care este de a rezolva problemele comunității internaționale cu privire la programul nuclear al Iranului la masa negocierilor.

AARON MATÉ: Călătoria a starnit cel mai rău ruptura public între SUA și Israel în peste două decenii. Zeci de Democrat ar putea boicota adresa lui Netanyahu la Congres, care a fost organizată de Casa Vorbitor John Boehner, fără consultarea Casa Albă. Administrația Obama va trimite doi oficiali, consilier de securitate națională Susan Rice, și ambasadorul ONU Samantha putere, pentru a aborda AIPAC summit-ul de azi. Acest lucru vine la doar cateva zile dupa ce Rice numit vizita lui Netanyahu, citat, "distructiv".

AMY GOODMAN : prim-ministrul israelian Benjamin Netanyahu se confruntă, de asemenea, critici interne pentru neconvențional vizitei sale la Washington, care vine doar cu două săptămâni înainte de alegeri, în care el caută un al treilea termen în Israel. Duminică, un grup care reprezintă aproape 200 de oficiali militari și de informații pensionari de top din Israel acuzat Netanyahu a asalt alianței SUA-Israel.

Dar, în ciuda vorbi de o SUA și dispută israelian, administrația Obama a avut dureri pentru a afișa sprijinul ferm pentru guvernul israelian. Vorbind doar astăzi, la Geneva, secretarul de stat John Kerry a marcat Consiliul pentru Drepturile Omului al ONU pentru ceea ce el a numit o "obsesie" și "prejudecată" împotriva Israelului. Consiliul este de asteptat sa lanseze un raport în săptămânile următoare pe potențiale pentru crime de război în sprijinită de SUA asalt Gaza Israel vara trecută.

Pentru mai multe, ne petrecem ora de astazi cu disident de renume mondial politic, lingvist, autorul, Noam Chomsky. El a scris mai mult de o sută de cărți, cel mai recent împotriva terorismului Vest: De la Hiroshima la Drone Warfare . Viitoarea sa carte, co-autor cu Ilan Pappe, este intitulat On Palestina și va fi lansat luna viitoare. Noam Chomsky este institut profesor emerit la Massachusetts Institute of Technology, unde a predat timp de mai mult de 50 de ani.

Noam Chomsky, e minunat să ai din nou aici, la Democrație Acum! , și în special în nostru foarte zăpadă afară, dar cald în interior, New York studio.

NOAM Chomsky : încântat să fiu aici din nou.

AMY GOODMAN : Ei bine, Noam, să începem cu vizita lui Netanyahu. El este setat pentru a face această adresă comună fără precedent la Congres, fără precedent din cauza tipului de ruptură a demonstrat între republicani și președintele democrat, președintele Obama. Poți vorbi despre semnificația ei?

NOAM CHOMSKY: For both president—Prime Minister Netanyahu and the hawks in Congress, mostly Republican, the primary goal is to undermine any potential negotiation that might settle whatever issue there is with Iran. They have a common interest in ensuring that there is no regional force that can serve as any kind of deterrent to Israeli and U.S. violence, the major violence in the region. And it is—if we believe U.S. intelligence—don’t see any reason not to—their analysis is that if Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which they don’t know, it would be part of their deterrent strategy. Now, their general strategic posture is one of deterrence. They have low military expenditures. According to U.S. intelligence, their strategic doctrine is to try to prevent an attack, up to the point where diplomacy can set in. I don’t think anyone with a grey cell functioning thinks that they would ever conceivably use a nuclear weapon, or even try to. The country would be obliterated in 15 seconds. But they might provide a deterrent of sorts. And the U.S. and Israel certainly don’t want to tolerate that. They are the forces that carry out regular violence and aggression in the region and don’t want any impediment to that.

Iar pentru republicanii din Congres, există un alt interes-anume, pentru a submina orice ca Obama, știți, entitatea Hristos, ar putea încerca să facă. Deci asta o chestiune separată acolo. Republicanii încetat să mai fie un partid parlamentar obișnuit în urmă cu câțiva ani. Ei au fost descrise, cred că exact, de Norman Ornstein, analistul politic conservator foarte respectat, American Enterprise Institute; el a declarat că partidul a devenit o insurgenta radical care a abandonat orice angajament de democrație parlamentară. Și scopul lor în ultimii ani a fost pur și simplu pentru a submina orice ca Obama ar putea face, într-un efort de a recâștiga puterea și servi circumscripția lor principal, care este foarte bogați și sectorul corporativ. Ei încearcă să-și ascundă acest lucru cu tot felul de alte mijloace. În acest sens, le-am avut la-nu se poate obține voturi în acest fel, așa că am avut de a mobiliza sectoare ale populației care au fost întotdeauna acolo, dar nu au fost niciodată mobilizate într-o forță politică organizată: creștinii evanghelici, naționaliștii extreme , oameni îngroziți care trebuie să le arme în Starbucks pentru că cineva ar putea fi după ei, și așa mai departe și așa mai departe. Asta-i o forță mare. Și frica de inspirație nu este foarte dificil în Statele Unite ale Americii. E o istorie lungă, din timpuri coloniale, de-ca o societate extrem de speriat, care este o poveste interesantă în sine. Și mobilizarea oamenilor în frică de ei, oricine "ei" se întâmplă să fie, este o tehnica eficienta folosita de peste si peste din nou. Și chiar acum, republicanii au-lor nonpolicy a reușit să le pună înapoi într-o poziție de putere cel puțin Congresului. Astfel, atacul pe aceasta este un atac personal pe Obama, și intenționează ca fel, este pur și simplu o parte a acestui efort general. Dar există o preocupare strategic comun care stau la baza aceasta, cred, și că este destul de mult ceea ce analize serviciile secrete americane: împiedicând orice descurajare în regiune a SUA și acțiunile israeliene.

AARON MATÉ: Tu spui că nimeni nu cu o celulă gri crede că Iranul va lansa o grevă, dacă ar avea arme nucleare, dar totuși Netanyahu acuză în mod repetat Iran de planificare a unui nou genocid împotriva poporului evreu. El a spus acest lucru cel mai recent pe Ziua Holocaustului în ianuarie, spunand ca ayatollahi sunt de planificare o nouă holocaust împotriva noastră. Și asta e un argument care a luat în serios aici.

NOAM Chomsky : Este luată în serios de către oameni care nu se opresc să se gândească la un minut. Dar, din nou, Iranul este sub supraveghere extrem de aproape. Supraveghere prin satelit american știe tot ce se întâmplă în Iran. În cazul în care Iranul chiar a început să încarce o rachetă, care este, de a aduce o rachetă langa armă a țării ar fi, probabil, distrus. Și orice crezi despre clericii, Consiliul Guardian și așa mai departe, nu e nici un indiciu că sunt suicidar.

AARON MATÉ: Premisa acestor discuții, Iran ajunge să îmbogățească uraniu în schimbul pentru ridicarea de SUA sancțiunilor-vedeți ca pe un parametru corect? Are SUA au dreptul, pentru a începe cu, care urmează să fie impunerea de sancțiuni Iranului?

NOAM Chomsky : Nu, nu. Care sunt dreptul de a impune sancțiuni? Iranul ar trebui să fie impunerea de sancțiuni pe noi. Adică, merită să ne amintim, când auzi pe buzele purtătorul de cuvânt al Casei Albe cu privire la comunitatea internațională, vrea Iran pentru a face acest lucru și asta, este important să ne amintim că expresia "comunității internaționale", în SUA discurs se referă la Statele Unite ale Americii și oricine care se poate intampla pentru a merge împreună cu ea. Asta e comunitatea internațională. În cazul în care comunitatea internațională este lumea, este destul de o poveste diferită. Deci, acum doi ani, Țărilor Nealiniate-fost Țărilor Nealiniate Mișcarea-e o mare majoritate a populației a avut-lume conferința lor obișnuit în Iran la Teheran. Și ei, încă o dată, a sprijinit cu fermitate dreptul Iranului de a dezvolta energia nucleară ca un semnatar al Tratatului de neproliferare. Asta e comunitatea internațională. Statele Unite și aliații săi sunt aberante, cum se întâmplă de obicei.

Și, în ceea ce privește sancțiunile, merită având în vedere că este acum 60 de ani de-in ultimii 60 de ani, nu o zi a trecut fără SUA torturarea poporului iranian. A început cu răsturnarea regimului parlamentar și instalarea unui tiran, Shah, sprijinind șahul prin foarte grave încălcări ale drepturilor omului și teroare și violență. De îndată ce a fost răsturnat, aproape instantaneu Statele Unite ale Americii a apelat la susținerea atacul Irakului împotriva Iranului, care a fost un atac brutal și violent. SUA a oferit sprijin critice pentru ea, destul de mult a câștigat războiul pentru Irak prin introducerea direct la sfârșitul anului. După război a fost de peste, SUA a sprijinit imediat sancțiunile împotriva Iranului. Și dacă aceasta este un fel de suprimat, este important. Acest lucru este George HW Bush acum. El a fost în dragoste cu Saddam Hussein. El a autorizat un ajutor suplimentar pentru Saddam în opoziție Trezoreriei și altele. El a trimis o delegație-o delegație a Congresului prezidențial la Iran. A fost aprilie 1990-1989, condusă de Bob Dole, congressional-

AMY GOODMAN : Pentru Irak? Trimis la Irak?

NOAM Chomsky : Pentru Irak. Pentru Irak, îmi pare rău, da-pentru a oferi salutări la Saddam, prietenul său, să-l asigur că el ar trebui să ignore comentariu critic că aude în mass-media americane: Avem acest lucru presă liberă aici, iar noi nu le putem taci . Dar ei au spus că vor decola de la Vocea Americii, scoate criticii prietenul lor Saddam. Asta a fost, el a invitat ingineri nucleare irakiene în Statele Unite pentru instruire avansată în producția de armament. Aceasta este imediat după războiul din Irak-Iran, împreună cu sancțiuni împotriva Iranului. Și apoi continuă fără o pauză până în prezent.

Au fost oportunități repetate pentru un acord, indiferent problemele sunt. Și astfel, de exemplu, în, cred că a fost, în 2010, sa ajuns la un acord între Brazilia, Turcia și Iran pentru Iran a navei în uraniul său slab îmbogățit pentru depozitare în altă parte-Turcia-și în schimb, Occidentul ar oferi izotopi care Iranul are nevoie de pentru reactoarele sale medicale. Când sa ajuns la acest acord, a fost condamnat vehement în Statele Unite de către președinte, de către Congres, prin mass-media. Brazilia a fost atacat pentru încălcarea grade și așa mai departe. Ministrul de externe brazilian a fost suficient de supărat ca a lansat o scrisoare de la Obama de a propune Brazilia exact acest acord, probabil pe ipoteza că Iranul nu ar accepta. Când au făcut accept, au trebuit să fie atacat pentru că a îndrăznit să-l accepte.

Și 2012, 2012, știți, nu a fost să fie o întâlnire în Finlanda, decembrie să ia măsuri în vederea stabilirii unei zone fără arme nucleare în regiune. Aceasta este o solicitare vechi, împins inițial de Egipt și alte state arabe înapoi la începutul anilor '90. Nu e atât de mult sprijin pentru el că SUA este de acord în mod oficial, dar nu și în realitate, și a încercat în repetate rânduri să-l submineze. Aceasta este sub auspiciile ONU, iar întâlnirea trebuia să aibă loc în luna decembrie. Israel a anunțat că nu vor participa. Întrebarea pe buzele tuturor este: Cum va reacționa Iran? Ei au spus că vor participa necondiționat. Câteva zile mai târziu, Obama a anulat întâlnirea, susținând că situația nu este potrivit pentru ea și așa mai departe. Dar asta măsuri ar fi, chiar și în această direcție ar fi un pas important spre eliminarea orice problemă ar putea fi. Desigur, piatra de poticnire este că nu există un stat nuclear major: Israel. Și dacă există o zonă fără arme nucleare Orientul Mijlociu, nu ar fi inspecții, și nici Israel, nici Statele Unite vor tolera asta.

AMY GOODMAN : Vreau să vă întreb despre revelații majore care au fost descrise ca fiind cea mai mare scurgere de la Edward Snowden. Săptămâna trecută, Al Jazeera a început publicarea unei serii de cabluri de spionaj de la agențiile de informații de top din lume. Într-un cablu, agenția de spionaj israelian Mossad contrazice propriile avertismente teribile prim-ministrului Netanyahu despre capacitatea Iranului de a produce o bombă nucleară în termen de un an. Într-un raport cu omologii din Africa de Sud, în octombrie 2012, israelian Mossad a concluzionat Iranul este "nu desfășoară activitatea necesară pentru a produce arme." Evaluarea a fost trimisă la doar câteva săptămâni după ce Netanyahu a mers în fața Adunării Generale a ONU cu un mesaj foarte diferit. Netanyahu a avut loc o diagramă de desen animat de o bombă cu un fitil pentru a ilustra ceea ce el a numit presupusa progresul Iranului pe o armă nucleară.

PRIM- MINISTRU BENJAMIN NETANYAHU : Aceasta este o bombă. Aceasta este o siguranță. În cazul planurilor nucleare ale Iranului de a construi o bombă, acest bombă trebuie să fie umplut cu suficient uraniu îmbogățit. Și Iranul trebuie să treacă prin trei etape. Până în primăvara anului viitor, cel mult până în vara anului viitor, la ratele de îmbogățire actual, ele vor fi terminat îmbogățirea mediu și trece la etapa finală. De acolo, e doar câteva luni, eventual cu câteva săptămâni, înainte de a lua suficient uraniu îmbogățit pentru prima bombă. O linie roșie ar trebui să fie elaborate chiar de aici, înainte de a-înainte Iran completează a doua etapă de îmbogățire nucleară necesare pentru a face o bombă.

AMY GOODMAN : Asta a fost prim-ministrul israelian Benjamin Netanyahu în septembrie 2012. Evaluarea Mossad contrazice Netanyahu a fost trimis la doar câteva săptămâni după aceea, dar a fost probabil scris mai devreme. Acesta a spus Iran, citat, "nu pare a fi gata", citatul, pentru a îmbogăți uraniu la cele mai înalte niveluri necesare pentru o armă nucleară. O bombă ar necesita 90 la suta de îmbogățire, dar Mossad găsit Iranul a îmbogățit doar la 20 la sută. Acest număr a fost redus ulterior sub un acord nuclear interimar în anul următor. Semnificația acestui, Noam Chomsky, ca prim-ministru Netanyahu se pregătește pentru această adresă comun în fața Congresului pentru a submina un acord nuclear SUA-iranian?

NOAM Chomsky : Ei bine, aspectul frapant în acest sens este implicat tupeu. Adică, Israelul a avut arme nucleare de probabil 50 ani sau 40 de ani. Ei au, estimările sunt, poate 100, 200 de arme nucleare. Și ei sunt un stat agresiv. Israelul a invadat Libanul de cinci ori. Se desfășoară o ocupație ilegală care efectuează atacuri brutale cum ar fi Gaza în vara anului trecut. Și ei au arme nucleare. Dar povestea principală este că, dacă-întâmplător, analiza Mossad valabil pentru analiză de informații din SUA. Ei nu știu dacă Iranul este în curs de dezvoltare de arme nucleare. Dar cred că faptul crucial este că, chiar dacă acestea au fost, ce ar însemna? Ar fi la fel ca analizeaza serviciile secrete americane: Ar fi parte dintr-o strategie de descurajare. Ei nu au putut folosi o armă nucleară. Ei nici măcar nu a putut amenința să-l folosească. Israel, pe de altă parte, poate; are, de fapt, a amenințat folosirea armelor nucleare de mai multe ori.

AMY GOODMAN : Deci, de ce este Netanyahu face acest lucru?

NOAM Chomsky : Pentru că nu vrea să aibă un efect disuasiv în regiune. E destul de simplu. Dacă sunteți un stat agresiv, violent, pe care doriți să fie în măsură să folosească forța în mod liber. Nu vrei nimic care ar putea să împiedice.

AMY GOODMAN : Credeți că acest în nici un fel a subcotat relația SUA cu Israel, conflictul Netanyahu-Obama, care, ce, Susan Rice a solicitat distructiv?

NOAM Chomsky : Există, fără îndoială, o relație personală care este ostil, dar ce sa întâmplat înainte. Înapoi în jurul anului 1990 în primul președinte Bush, James Baker a mers la fel de departe ca-secretar al Israelului, spune de stat, "Noi nu vom mai vorbesc cu tine. Dacă doriți să mă contactați, aici e numărul meu de telefon." Și, de fapt, SUA a impus sancțiuni ușoare asupra Israelului, suficient pentru a obliga prim-ministru să demisioneze și să fie înlocuit cu altcineva. Dar asta nu a schimbat relația, care se bazează pe aspecte mai profunde decât antagonisme personale.
"They have a common interest in ensuring there is no regional force that can serve as any kind of deterrent to Israeli and U.S. violence, the major violence in the region." Chomsky also responds to recent revelations that in 2012 the Israeli spy agency, Mossad, contradicted Netanyahu’s own dire warnings about Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear bomb, concluding that Iran was "not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons."

Posted March 05, 2015

AARON MATÉ: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has arrived in Washington as part of his bid to stop a nuclear deal with Iran. Netanyahu will address the lobby group AIPAC today, followed by a controversial speech before Congress on Tuesday. The visit comes just as Iran and six world powers, including the U.S., are set to resume talks in a bid to meet a March 31st deadline. At the White House, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Netanyahu’s trip won’t threaten the outcome.

PRESS SECRETARY JOSH EARNEST: I think the short answer to that is: I don’t think so. And the reason is simply that there is a real opportunity for us here. And the president is hopeful that we are going to have an opportunity to do what is clearly in the best interests of the United States and Israel, which is to resolve the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program at the negotiating table.

AARON MATÉ: The trip has sparked the worst public rift between the U.S. and Israel in over two decades. Dozens of Democrats could boycott Netanyahu’s address to Congress, which was arranged by House Speaker John Boehner without consulting the White House. The Obama administration will send two officials, National Security Adviser Susan Rice and U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, to address the AIPAC summit today. This comes just days after Rice called Netanyahu’s visit, quote, "destructive."

AMY GOODMAN: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also facing domestic criticism for his unconventional Washington visit, which comes just two weeks before an election in which he seeks a third term in Israel. On Sunday, a group representing nearly 200 of Israel’s top retired military and intelligence officials accused Netanyahu of assaulting the U.S.-Israel alliance.

But despite talk of a U.S. and Israeli dispute, the Obama administration has taken pains to display its staunch support for the Israeli government. Speaking just today in Geneva, Secretary of State John Kerry blasted the U.N. Human Rights Council for what he called an "obsession" and "bias" against Israel. The council is expected to release a report in the coming weeks on potential war crimes in Israel’s U.S.-backed Gaza assault last summer.

For more, we spend the hour today with world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, Noam Chomsky. He has written over a hundred books, most recently On Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare. His forthcoming book, co-authored with Ilan Pappé, is titled On Palestine and will be out next month. Noam Chomsky is institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s taught for more than 50 years.

Noam Chomsky, it’s great to have you back here at Democracy Now!, and particularly in our very snowy outside, but warm inside, New York studio.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Delighted to be here again.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Noam, let’s start with Netanyahu’s visit. He is set to make this unprecedented joint address to Congress, unprecedented because of the kind of rift it has demonstrated between the Republicans and the Democratic president, President Obama. Can you talk about its significance?

NOAM CHOMSKY: For both president—Prime Minister Netanyahu and the hawks in Congress, mostly Republican, the primary goal is to undermine any potential negotiation that might settle whatever issue there is with Iran. They have a common interest in ensuring that there is no regional force that can serve as any kind of deterrent to Israeli and U.S. violence, the major violence in the region. And it is—if we believe U.S. intelligence—don’t see any reason not to—their analysis is that if Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which they don’t know, it would be part of their deterrent strategy. Now, their general strategic posture is one of deterrence. They have low military expenditures. According to U.S. intelligence, their strategic doctrine is to try to prevent an attack, up to the point where diplomacy can set in. I don’t think anyone with a grey cell functioning thinks that they would ever conceivably use a nuclear weapon, or even try to. The country would be obliterated in 15 seconds. But they might provide a deterrent of sorts. And the U.S. and Israel certainly don’t want to tolerate that. They are the forces that carry out regular violence and aggression in the region and don’t want any impediment to that.

And for the Republicans in Congress, there’s another interest—namely, to undermine anything that Obama, you know, the entity Christ, might try to do. So that’s a separate issue there. The Republicans stopped being an ordinary parliamentary party some years ago. They were described, I think accurately, by Norman Ornstein, the very respected conservative political analyst, American Enterprise Institute; he said the party has become a radical insurgency which has abandoned any commitment to parliamentary democracy. And their goal for the last years has simply been to undermine anything that Obama might do, in an effort to regain power and serve their primary constituency, which is the very wealthy and the corporate sector. They try to conceal this with all sorts of other means. In doing so, they’ve had to—you can’t get votes that way, so they’ve had to mobilize sectors of the population which have always been there but were never mobilized into an organized political force: evangelical Christians, extreme nationalists, terrified people who have to carry guns into Starbucks because somebody might be after them, and so on and so forth. That’s a big force. And inspiring fear is not very difficult in the United States. It’s a long history, back to colonial times, of—as an extremely frightened society, which is an interesting story in itself. And mobilizing people in fear of them, whoever "them" happens to be, is an effective technique used over and over again. And right now, the Republicans have—their nonpolicy has succeeded in putting them back in a position of at least congressional power. So, the attack on—this is a personal attack on Obama, and intended that way, is simply part of that general effort. But there is a common strategic concern underlying it, I think, and that is pretty much what U.S. intelligence analyzes: preventing any deterrent in the region to U.S. and Israeli actions.

AARON MATÉ: You say that nobody with a grey cell thinks that Iran would launch a strike, were it to have nuclear weapons, but yet Netanyahu repeatedly accuses Iran of planning a new genocide against the Jewish people. He said this most recently on Holocaust Remembrance Day in January, saying that the ayatollahs are planning a new holocaust against us. And that’s an argument that’s taken seriously here.

NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s taken seriously by people who don’t stop to think for a minute. But again, Iran is under extremely close surveillance. U.S. satellite surveillance knows everything that’s going on in Iran. If Iran even began to load a missile—that is, to bring a missile near a weapon—the country would probably be wiped out. And whatever you think about the clerics, the Guardian Council and so on, there’s no indication that they’re suicidal.

AARON MATÉ: The premise of these talks—Iran gets to enrich uranium in return for lifting of U.S. sanctions—do you see that as a fair parameter? Does the U.S. have the right, to begin with, to be imposing sanctions on Iran?

NOAM CHOMSKY: No, it doesn’t. What are the right to impose sanctions? Iran should be imposing sanctions on us. I mean, it’s worth remembering—when you hear the White House spokesman talk about the international community, it wants Iran to do this and that, it’s important to remember that the phrase "international community" in U.S. discourse refers to the United States and anybody who may be happening to go along with it. That’s the international community. If the international community is the world, it’s quite a different story. So, two years ago, the Non-Aligned—former Non-Aligned Movement—it’s a large majority of the population of the world—had their regular conference in Iran in Tehran. And they, once again, vigorously supported Iran’s right to develop nuclear power as a signer of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That’s the international community. The United States and its allies are outliers, as is usually the case.

And as far as sanctions are concerned, it’s worth bearing in mind that it’s now 60 years since—during the past 60 years, not a day has passed without the U.S. torturing the people of Iran. It began with overthrowing the parliamentary regime and installing a tyrant, the shah, supporting the shah through very serious human rights abuses and terror and violence. As soon as he was overthrown, almost instantly the United States turned to supporting Iraq’s attack against Iran, which was a brutal and violent attack. U.S. provided critical support for it, pretty much won the war for Iraq by entering directly at the end. After the war was over, the U.S. instantly supported the sanctions against Iran. And though this is kind of suppressed, it’s important. This is George H.W. Bush now. He was in love with Saddam Hussein. He authorized further aid to Saddam in opposition to the Treasury and others. He sent a presidential delegation—a congressional delegation to Iran. It was April 1990—1989, headed by Bob Dole, the congressional—

AMY GOODMAN: To Iraq? Sent to Iraq?

NOAM CHOMSKY: To Iraq. To Iraq, sorry, yeah—to offer his greetings to Saddam, his friend, to assure him that he should disregard critical comment that he hears in the American media: We have this free press thing here, and we can’t shut them up. But they said they would take off from Voice of America, take off critics of their friend Saddam. That was—he invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to the United States for advanced training in weapons production. This is right after the Iraq-Iran War, along with sanctions against Iran. And then it continues without a break up to the present.

There have been repeated opportunities for a settlement of whatever the issues are. And so, for example, in, I guess it was, 2010, an agreement was reached between Brazil, Turkey and Iran for Iran to ship out its low-enriched uranium for storage elsewhere—Turkey—and in return, the West would provide the isotopes that Iran needs for its medical reactors. When that agreement was reached, it was bitterly condemned in the United States by the president, by Congress, by the media. Brazil was attacked for breaking ranks and so on. The Brazilian foreign minister was sufficiently annoyed so that he released a letter from Obama to Brazil proposing exactly that agreement, presumably on the assumption that Iran wouldn’t accept it. When they did accept it, they had to be attacked for daring to accept it.

And 2012, 2012, you know, there was to be a meeting in Finland, December, to take steps towards establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the region. This is an old request, pushed initially by Egypt and the other Arab states back in the early '90s. There's so much support for it that the U.S. formally agrees, but not in fact, and has repeatedly tried to undermine it. This is under the U.N. auspices, and the meeting was supposed to take place in December. Israel announced that they would not attend. The question on everyone’s mind is: How will Iran react? They said that they would attend unconditionally. A couple of days later, Obama canceled the meeting, claiming the situation is not right for it and so on. But that would be—even steps in that direction would be an important move towards eliminating whatever issue there might be. Of course, the stumbling block is that there is one major nuclear state: Israel. And if there’s a Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone, there would be inspections, and neither Israel nor the United States will tolerate that.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about major revelations that have been described as the biggest leak since Edward Snowden. Last week, Al Jazeera started publishing a series of spy cables from the world’s top intelligence agencies. In one cable, the Israeli spy agency Mossad contradicts Prime Minister Netanyahu’s own dire warnings about Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear bomb within a year. In a report to South African counterparts in October 2012, the Israeli Mossad concluded Iran is "not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons." The assessment was sent just weeks after Netanyahu went before the U.N. General Assembly with a far different message. Netanyahu held up a cartoonish diagram of a bomb with a fuse to illustrate what he called Iran’s alleged progress on a nuclear weapon.

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: This is a bomb. This is a fuse. In the case of Iran’s nuclear plans to build a bomb, this bomb has to be filled with enough enriched uranium. And Iran has to go through three stages. By next spring, at most by next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage. From there, it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks, before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb. A red line should be drawn right here, before—before Iran completes the second stage of nuclear enrichment necessary to make a bomb.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in September 2012. The Mossad assessment contradicting Netanyahu was sent just weeks after, but it was likely written earlier. It said Iran, quote, "does not appear to be ready," unquote, to enrich uranium to the highest levels needed for a nuclear weapon. A bomb would require 90 percent enrichment, but Mossad found Iran had only enriched to 20 percent. That number was later reduced under an interim nuclear deal the following year. The significance of this, Noam Chomsky, as Prime Minister Netanyahu prepares for this joint address before Congress to undermine a U.S.-Iranian nuclear deal?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, the striking aspect of this is the chutzpah involved. I mean, Israel has had nuclear weapons for probably 50 years or 40 years. They have, estimates are, maybe 100, 200 nuclear weapons. And they are an aggressive state. Israel has invaded Lebanon five times. It’s carrying out an illegal occupation that carries out brutal attacks like Gaza last summer. And they have nuclear weapons. But the main story is that if—incidentally, the Mossad analysis corresponds to U.S. intelligence analysis. They don’t know if Iran is developing nuclear weapons. But I think the crucial fact is that even if they were, what would it mean? It would be just as U.S. intelligence analyzes it: It would be part of a deterrent strategy. They couldn’t use a nuclear weapon. They couldn’t even threaten to use it. Israel, on the other hand, can; has, in fact, threatened the use of nuclear weapons a number of times.

AMY GOODMAN: So why is Netanyahu doing this?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Because he doesn’t want to have a deterrent in the region. That’s simple enough. If you’re an aggressive, violent state, you want to be able to use force freely. You don’t want anything that might impede it.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think this in any way has undercut the U.S. relationship with Israel, the Netanyahu-Obama conflict that, what, Susan Rice has called destructive?

NOAM CHOMSKY: There is undoubtedly a personal relationship which is hostile, but that’s happened before. Back in around 1990 under first President Bush, James Baker went as far as—the secretary of state—telling Israel, "We’re not going to talk to you anymore. If you want to contact me, here’s my phone number." And, in fact, the U.S. imposed mild sanctions on Israel, enough to compel the prime minister to resign and be replaced by someone else. But that didn’t change the relationship, which is based on deeper issues than personal antagonisms.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/03/05/zionist-things-fall-apart/
&
https://sites.google.com/site/manichiuracubardacalaului/zionist-things-fall-apart
Alexander Solzhenitsyn: "The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world."
Bursa sionist este decolorare. În luna februarie, evreu Daily Forward nu a ezitat să spună că Netanyahu "a afectat grav relațiile dintre cele două țări și a distrus orice aparență de încredere între liderii doi dintre cei mai apropiați aliați de pe pământ." [ 1]

Lui AIPAC "credibilitatea și puterea politică", revista a continuat să spună, a fost "grav agitat." [2]

Mai mult decât atât, Christian sioniști sunt, de asemenea, schimbă punctul de vedere și sunt încet, dar sigur încep să realizeze că ceva este fundamental și demonstra în neregulă cu narațiunea israelian. Citându-l pe Orientul Mijlociu Quarterly , Jon Vasile Utley a conservator american scrie,

"Cât de repede lucrurile se schimba. Zilele de a lua sprijin evanghelic pentru Israel pentru a acordat peste ... anti-Israel creștinii sunt penetrează lumea evanghelică la underbelly moale, generarea milenară.

"Credincioșii tineri răzvrătiți împotriva ... literalismul biblic excesiv de părinții lor ... cum se străduiesc să imite standul lui Isus cu cei oprimați și asupriți." [3]

Desigur aceasta este o veste bună, și pur și simplu arată că Împărăția sionist nu este la fel de invincibil ca oamenii cred că este. Dacă încă mai cred acest lucru, ține de lectură.

La sfârșitul lunii trecute , JJ Goldberg a evreiesc Daily Forward deplâns faptul că "Benjamin Netanyahu Iran Exagerările [este] acum clar pentru toate pentru a vedea." [4] În termeni simpli, Netanyahu a mințit.

Exagerare și minciunile lui Netanyahu au devenit atât de clar pentru toți că politicienii și comunitatea evreiască sunt acum distanțându-se de acest om rău și trist și nebun. Ei știau că Netanyahu a fost de gând să minți Congres-iar acesta nu a ratat. Înainte de discursul său, Netanyahu ar spune membrilor de partid Likud,

JJ Goldberg
JJ Goldberg

"Eu sunt rebel ta, martir ta pe nedrept discreditați, salvatorul tău. Eu sunt regele vostru. - Nu este altul " [5]

Ei bine, auto-proclamat "salvator" a eșuat lamentabil în timpul discursului său, iar poporul american nu a fost într-adevăr impresionat de vechiul său propagandă. Un scriitor a declarat că marțea trecută "marca un nou minim în stare de politică disfuncționale." [6] SUA Reprezentant pentru Illinois a 4 -a district al Congresului Luis Gutierrez a refuzat sa ma uit la discursul lui Netanyahu. [7]

Președintele Obama, care nici macar nu sa deranjat să se întâlnească cu omul nebun de la Tel Aviv-probabil pentru că, ei bine, el este "chickenshit" -said că Netanyahu a avut " nimic nou ", în noua sa confruntare politică.

Lucrurile s-au chiar mai rău. Universitatea din Maryland Programului de Politici Publice a efectuat un sondaj de opinie și a constatat că 61 la sută dintre republicani si 66 la suta din Democrat "favorizează un acord" cu Iranul. [8]

Susan Rice a adăugat unele condiment în creuzetul politic, atunci când ea a mers la AIPAC si a declarat destul de viguros ca visul lui Israel sau AIPAC este "nici realist, nici realizabil." [9] Și chiar după discursul lui Netanyahu, unul oficialii americani au declarat că "Netanyahu a subliniat un acord nuclear care nu se va întâmpla. " [10]

Flaming sionist Thomas Friedman însuși nu a fost impresionat de performanța lui Netanyahu:

"Am, de asemenea, o problemă cu propria ta Congresul urlă în sprijinul unui lider străin eronate încearcă să stopeze negocierile de propria ta guvern înainte de a fi terminat. Mă freacă în mod greșit. " [11]

Aici sunt unele dintre minciunile care Netanyahu perpetuat în timpul discursului său :

Iranul susține o ieșire violentă șiită din Irak
Iranul este responsabil pentru mii de victime americane din Irak și Afganistan
Iran și grupul militant islamic de stat numai în dezacord peste cine e responsabil
Iranul va confrunta cu nici o restricție, la sfârșitul unui acord nuclear temporar
Tranzactia cum a fost propus ar putea permite Iranului să dezvolte arme nucleare în câteva săptămâni.
Charlotte Alfred, care acceptă în mare măsură narațiunea sionist, a subliniat că nici măcar una dintre aceste afirmații este adevărată. [12] Alte reporteri, cum ar fi Bradley Klapper spus același lucru.

Pune pur și simplu, aspectul lui Netanyahu sa dovedit a fi o lovitură scăzut pentru mișcarea sionistă. Spectacolul a fost atât de dezamăgitor și dezgustător că fostul ministru al justiției israelian Tzipi Livni tweeted, "Bibi este acolo vorbind în timp ce suntem aici câștigătoare." [13] Atât Tzipi și fostul ministru de finante israelian Yair Lapid cred că Netanyahu este literalmente distruge relatia Israelului cu SUA [14]

Eitan Cabel, un membru al Knesset-ului pentru partidul Uniunii sionist, literalmente numit discursul lui Netanyahu de a Congresului "piromania politic." [15]

Înainte de discurs, cel puțin 200 de membri ai comandanții de Securitate al Israelului a declarat în mod expres că Netanyahu a căzut la capăt profund. [16]

În aceeași ordine de idei, Nancy Pelosi a declarat că Netanyahu insultat Americii. [17] Ascultați Press Associated aici:

"Liderul democrat Casa Nancy Pelosi a stat politicos și bătut când prim-ministrul israelian Benjamin Netanyahu a intrat în camera lui Casa de mult-așteptatul, și extrem de controversat, discurs la Congres. Cu cât el a vorbit, mai puțin entuziaști ea a luat.

"La un moment dat, când Netanyahu a sugerat relația țării sale cu Statele Unite ar trebui să fie deasupra politicii, Pelosi sa uitat la poala ei și clătină din cap. Când el a declarat că, "în cazul în care Israelul trebuie să stea singur, Israelul va sta," Pelosi a aruncat mâinile în exasperare.

"Mai mult de o dată, ea a apelat la adjunctul său, Rep. Steny Hoyer din Maryland, și a apărut pentru aerisire. Și chiar înainte Netanyahu a început ascensiunea lui la altar centru spre ieșire, Pelosi pivotat și a condus o altă ușă și în vestiar Democrat. "

. Ran Paul, care a participat la discurs, părea să fi simțit la fel [18] Se recuperează mai rău:

"Cele mai importante rețele de difuzare americane a refuzat să efectueze adresa direct prim-ministru israelian Benjamin Netanyahu la o ședință comună a Congresului boicotat de către mulți democrați de conducere marți, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC si CNN, a difuzat adresa, împreună cu CSPAN.

"Marile rețele, împreună cu mai mulți americani canale de știri on-line, inclusiv New York Times și Wall Street Journal , a live stream discursul pe site-urile lor. " [19]

Secretarul de stat John Kerry a fost mai puternică în opinia sa decât alți politicieni. El a fost atât de supărat la claptrap lui Netanyahu că el a declarat,

"Suntem efectuarea de politică externă, aceasta nu este o sinagogă."

Kerry mutat să spun că în loc de politică externă serioasă, logică și constructivă, America este legați la ochi cu "șmirghel ca Netanyahu. Netanyahu doar condus ne nebun ... pentru că el a fost doar incredibil de greu. " [20]

Stephen M. Walt de la Harvard si co-autor al Israelului lobby și politica externă a SUA a scris că "Bibi explodează relația specială." [21] Atât Walt și co-autor John J. Mearshemer de la Universitatea din Chicago a susținut din nou în 2012 că Obama nu crede ca Iranul ar putea fi o amenințare existențială în SUA sau Israel. [22]

Aceasta se bazează din nou pe dovezi solide. Citând șef atunci IDF a personalului Benny Gantz, Goldberg a afirmat că conducerea iraniană este rațional, și numeroase studii științifice au arătat că Iranul nu este la fel de irațional ca Netanyahu are iremediabil și a încercat cu disperare să spună. [23]

Deci, Netanyahu a mințit din nou mare de timp. Și dacă sioniștii sunt cu un timp de greu de mestecat care afirmație și digestia l, să ne aducem Gideon Aronoff și Dan Flesher a evreiesc Daily foward . În prima zi a acestei luni, cei doi scriitori păreau să indice faptul că Netanyahu, așa cum am argumentat în mod repetat în articolele anterioare, este la limita de nebunie. Ambele scriitori pus patru întrebări importante care Netanyahu trebuie să lupte cu pentru restul de uneltire său politic:

Există vreo rezultat v-ar susține că Iranul ar putea accepta teoretic?
Dacă nu va accepta orice acord care ar putea, de fapt, ajunge cu liderii iranieni, ce alternative propui și cum te aștepți să-i apere?
De ce nu este în interesul Americii de a urmări o pace rece cu Iranul?
De ce trebuie să faci caz într-un discurs public la Congresul? [24]
Are Netanyahu au suficientă putere de foc politică pentru a răspunde convingător și rațional la aceste întrebări? Nu.

În orice caz , puterea sionist este tremura, iar oamenii din interiorul mișcării par să se simtă căldura anti-sioniste.Datorită VT scriitori și alții care au făcut posibil acest lucru. Gordon Duff a scris recent că discursul lui Netanyahu "a fost un eșec epic pe o scară de homeric ... o umilire el nu poate recupera de la."

Duff este cu siguranță dreptate, și chiar dacă oamenii vor da probabil credință față de mașina sionist în public, se discuta cu ușurință în privat că Netanyahu este doar o "chickenshit."

În plus, faptul că comunitatea evreiască și-a criticat pe scară largă standul lui Netanyahu privind Iranul cu siguranță sugereaza ca anti-sionismul nu este egal la antisemitism, ca evreu neoconservatorii Jonathan S. Tobin și Steven Bayme și marionetele lor sioniste, cum ar fi Joseph Farah a World Net Daily . declarat scandalos [25] Farah a declarat din nou în 2012:

"Adevărul este că anti-Sionismul este egal cu antisemitismul, o formă virulentă de ură a unui întreg popor - aproape sinonime cu rasismul. Și, chiar mai precis, ceea ce eu numesc "palestinienilor" este egal cu antisemitism. " [26]

Această poziție special, așa cum știm cu toții, nu are rigoare morală și intelectuală în mare măsură pentru că există nenumărate evrei care sunt anti-sioniști. De exemplu, poate într-adevăr Farah sa te uiti la oameni ca Norman Finkelstein, John J. Mearsheimer, Gideon Levy, Miko Peled, Gilad Atzmond, Brother Nathanael Kapner, printre altele, și spun că sunt antisemiți?

Cum ar începe o conversație cu Farah Finkelstein, atunci când familia Finkelstein a fost în Germania nazistă? Ce zici Gabor Mate , un medic evreu, care, evident, este un ferm anti-zionist?

În orice caz, nu mă aștept Farah să se gândească prin aceste probleme în serios pentru că nu poți judeca oamenii dintr-o idee care nu a fost format pe baza de rațiune și principii morale.

Ne-am certat necruțător în trecut că regimul sionist este puternic, dar fragilă. Atunci când un sistem politic nu este construit pe adevăr, dar pe minciună, sistemul poate cădea în orice moment. Dezastrul recent Netanyahu este un semn care indică faptul că regimul sionist nu va împărăți în vecii.

Da, regimul exercită încă o putere enormă asupra politicii și o mare parte a lumii, și nu există nici o îndoială că administrația Obama încă permite neoconservatorii evrei sa dicteze politicile sale în locuri precum Ucraina. Ca Paul Craig Roberts a susținut recent, ideologia neoconservatoare a distrus relațiile de prietenie dintre America și Rusia.

Dar nimeni nu ar fi crezut că administrația ar opune public politicilor Netanyahu în raport cu Iranul.

Mai mult decât atât, nimeni nu ar fi crezut ca, chiar si israelienii și o mare parte a comunității evreiești din SUA ar ignora public Netanyahu ca un chimval sondare. [27] Cine ar fi crezut că Dianne Feinstein ar spune lucruri de genul Netanyahu "nu vorbește pentru mine pe aceasta " [28] ?

Președintele Dwight Eisenhower "amenințat sancțiuni împotriva Israelului în timpul crizei Suez 1956," [29] , dar nimeni nu a venit vreodată aproape de a convoca o prim-ministrul israelian o "chickenshit." Unii cititori au subliniat faptul că "niciuna dintre aceste" politicieni mari " sunt într-adevăr sforile. "

Am simpatiza cu aceste comentarii. Dar conflictul recent este un început. Ar fi dezastruos pentru orice politician de repede "apel focurile de armă" atât de repede, dar progresul lent sau treptat este idealist în acest război ideologic.

Pe scurt, nu trebuie să fie prea pesimist cu privire la evenimentele recente. Să ne luptăm pentru a vedea căderea regimului sionist. Poate Alexander Soljenițîn ar trebui să fie o sursă de inspirație pentru toți aici:

"Simplu pas al unui individ curajos este de a nu lua parte la minciuna. Un cuvânt de adevăr depășește lumii. "

Cu alte cuvinte, un cuvânt de adevăr este suficient de puternică pentru a aduce un întreg corp de minciuni la ruină.Miscarea sionista cunoaște și se teme acest lucru, iar acest lucru este motivul pentru care doresc să reducă la tăcere adversarii cu fotografii ieftine și simpliste, cum ar fi Ascultați ministrului israelian târziu și legiuitorul Șulamit Aloni foarte atent aici "antisemitism".:

[1] Natan Guttman, "De ce Israel Lobby-ul este mai mare victimă a Feud peste Discursul lui Benjamin Netanyahu,"evreiesc Daily Forward , 11 februarie 2015.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Jon Vasile Utley, "Netanyahu și mărunțire israelian receptie," american conservator , 02 martie 2015.

[4] JJ Goldberg, "Benjamin Netanyahu Iran Exagerările Acum Elimina pentru toate pentru a vedea," evreiesc Daily Forward , 27 februarie 2015.

[5] Bradley Burston, "un loc special în iad," Haaretz , 02 martie 2015.

[6] Lance Simmens, "Bibi Blusters, Boehner gafe, o altă zi în Republican Fantasyland," Huffington Post , 04 martie 2015.

[7] Luis Gutierrez, "De ce eu nu va fi la Discursul lui Benjamin Netanyahu," Huffington Post , 02 martie 2015.

[8] "Dl. Netanyahu neconvingătoare Discursul la Congres, " NY Times , 03 martie 2015.

[9] Ioan Hudson ", Susan Rice Spune lobby Israel cererile lor sunt "de neatins", " Foreign Policy , 02 martie 2015.

[10] citat din Barak Ravid, "Netanyahu a subliniat imposibil afacere Iran, oficial american spune:" Haaretz , 04 martie 2015.

[11] Thomas L. Friedman, "Ce Bibi nu a spus," NY Times , 03 martie 2015.

[12] Charlotte Alfred, "A Benjamin Netanyahu minți Congres? 5 Creanțe verificat-de fapt, de vorbire, " Huffington Post , 03 martie 2014.

[13] Citat în Nick Robbins-timpurie, "Ce Media israeliene și politicieni gândul de Big vorbire lui Netanyahu," Huffington Post , 03 martie 2015.

[14] Jonathan Lis și Yarden Skop, "Livni, Lapid Slam Netanyahu pentru Paste" ruinarea "cu Statele Unite," Haaretz , 24 ianuarie 2015; Itamar Sharon, "PM ruinarea ne leagă de vorbire alegeri, Lapid și Livni spune," Times lui Israel , 24 ianuarie 2015.

[15] Nick Robins-timpurie, "Ce Media israeliene și politicieni gândul de Big vorbire lui Netanyahu," Huffington Post , 03 martie 2015.

[16] Ilene Prusher, "Cum Israel consideră Discursul Benjamin Netanyahu a Congresului," Timpul , 02 martie 2015.

[17] Citat în Lauren franceză, "Nancy Pelosi: discursul lui Netanyahu" o insultă la inteligența Statelor Unite, " politico , 03 martie 2015.

[18] A se vedea Arit Ioan ", a Rand Paul Israel Problemă rezumat într-un singur Telling Gif, "Bloomberg, 03 martie 2015.

[19] Tina descuraja, "Broadcast Networks Nu Carry Adresa prim-ministrul israelian de a Congresului," Hollywood Reporter , 03 martie 2015.

[20] Citat în Gil Troia, "O istorie a SUA-Israel Ruperea și makeups," Daily Beast , 03 martie 2015.

[21] Stephen M. Walt, "Bibi Lovituri Up relația specială," Foreign Policy , 02 martie 2015.

[22] John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt, și Robert și Renee Felfer, "Mr. Obama trebuie să ia o poziție împotriva lui Israel peste Iran, " Financial Times , 04 martie 2012.

[23] A se vedea, de exemplu, Trita Parsi, perfid Alianță: afacerile secrete ale lui Israel, Iran, iar Statele Unite ale Americii(New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007); A Single rolă de zaruri: Diplomație lui Obama cu Iranul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012).

[24] Ghedeon Aronoff și Dan Fleshler, "4 Întrebări pentru Benjamin Netanyahu," evreiesc Daily Forward , o martie 2015.

[25] Jonathan S. Tobin, "anti-sionism Egal întotdeauna anti-semitism," Comentariu , 18 august 2014; Jonathan S. Tobin, Campus Instigarea dovedește anti-sionism Still Egal anti-semitism, " Commentary , 05 februarie 2015; Steven Bayme, "Are anti-sionism Egalitate anti-semitismului ?," Daily Beast , 22 octombrie 2012; Joseph Farah: "palestinienilor" Egal anti-semitismului, " World Net Daily , 30 martie 2012.

[26] Joseph Farah: "palestinienilor" Egal anti-semitismului, " World Net Daily , 30 martie 2012.

[27] Pentru un articol recent în acest sens, a se vedea Jonathan Alter, "Chiar Hawks israeliene sunt supărat pe Netanyahu," Daily Beast , o martie 2015.

[28] Natan Guttman, "AIPAC Urmărește Unitate ca Feud erupe peste" Arogant "Benjamin Netanyahu," evreiesc Daily Forward , o martie 2015; a se vedea, de asemenea, Bradley Burston, "un loc special în iad," Haaretz , 02 martie 2015.

[29] Jonathan Alter, "Chiar Hawks israeliene sunt supărat pe Netanyahu," Daily Beast , o martie 2015.

Legate de posturi:
Administrația Obama: Nightmare naspa Netanyahu până acum
John Kerry: Este timpul să Kill Discursul lui Benjamin Netanyahu
Israelian Mossad: Netanyahu este într-adevăr, foarte ciudat
Netanyahu continuă pentru a obține degetul de la Casa Albă
Casa Albă și eminente israelieni (Implicit) Grupuri Netanyahu Finger