Israel

Netanyahu Was Right to Bring Up the Holocaust

The U.S. is now on a path that will enable a force that openly threatens Jews to become far more powerful and dangerous.

|

One aspect of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress that really seemed to get under the skin of many Obama loyalists was his contention that the Jews are facing another 1938. And of course, the historical analogy is imperfect because historical analogies are almost always imperfect. The problem for the Jews is that in this case, there simply isn't a better one.

Across the media, Netanyahu's reference to the greatest tragedy in Jewish history was treated as some kind of political stunt. It was kind of like … well, I guess, like questioning a president's patriotism.

"At the end of it, when I think he really veered off into political territory, don't know if it was on a delay at that point, but when he sort of raised the specter of the Holocaust and 'never again' and Elie Wiesel, I mean, there was this great—Ari Fleischer could have done this great political speech," explained Gloria Borger on CNN.

And James Fallows at The Atlantic argued that to make such a comparison, a person must first answer "whether the world of 2015 is fundamentally similar to, or different from, the world of 1938."

The answer is yes. The world is fundamentally different and similar.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader, is a theocratic revolutionary and an anti-Semite. His beliefs reflect a deep scriptural and political animosity toward Jews prevalent in Iran's institutions. So if you were a Jew living in the same neighborhood as a nuclear Islamist state—a nation where leaders are persistently threatening to carry out a Jewish genocide and, at the same time, denying that a Jewish genocide took place in the past—you, too, might be anxious.

It's fair to say that the Holocaust plays an oversize role in contemporary Jewish life. Not every skinhead is working to rebuild the Schutzstaffel. Not every instance of anti-Semitic graffiti portends a new Holocaust in Europe. And members of Hamas may think like Nazis and may wish they could be like Nazis, but they lack the clout, ingenuity, and society to threaten an annihilation of the Jewish people.

But there is a prospective menace to Israel's existence, and that is the pairing of fundamentalist Islam and nuclear weapons—whether it happens in six months, 10 years or 25 years. That doesn't necessarily mean that Iranian mullahs—radicals by any standard, including their own—will begin laying waste to the region as soon as they break the threshold. But for the first time in a long time, a force that unambiguously menaces the lives of millions of Jews will possess a weapon that allows them to take a shot at obliterating them.

So I'd say it's as good as any time to bring up 1938.

Interfaith conferences, education, and the hard work of P5+1 nations are all nice, but the Jewish call of "Never again!" has only worked because of F-16s, Tomahawk missiles, and genuine red lines. It's worked because of the Begin doctrine, most likely still in effect, which is the idea that a preventive strike against enemies that possess weapons of mass destruction is the moral responsibility of the Jewish state. This is why there is no Osirak reactor in Iraq and no al-Kibar nuclear facility in Syria.

Yes, Netanyahu's been warning for many years that Iran will soon possess centrifuges for uranium enrichment and be on the threshold of a nuclear arsenal. We probably don't know when. But most commentators have stopped pretending it won't happen. Instead, most argue that it's likely that most Iranian leaders are rational and concerned about their own self-preservation. That sounds like a lot of projection with a potentially disastrous downside.

Despite the seer-like ability of American pundits, there is always the chance that Iran means what it says about the Jews. But I suspect that many American progressives like the idea of another nation's effectively checking Israel's regional power. A nuclear Iran, though, can protect allies, proxies and terrorist groups, all of which destabilize both Israel and Sunni neighbors, without having to worry at all about the threat of retaliation. That itself is a nightmare. But what if 20 years down the line, the Iranian government takes on an even more radical and apocalyptic disposition? What if there's another revolution? Will Islamists give back nuclear weapons?

So though imperfect, the 1938 analogy works well enough. It's probably the stark moral clarity of the analogy that makes progressives most uncomfortable. Some regimes, such as the Iranian state, are authoritarian, backward, and evil. I don't have any answers as to how to stop them. And perhaps the Israeli government has exaggerated the speed at which it will be able to obtain weapons. But the United States is now on a path that will enable a force that openly threatens Jews to become far more powerful and dangerous. Which seems—like another event I can think of—unconscionably irresponsible.

NEXT: Unintentional self-parody alert: Dana Milbank predicts "social upheaval" if the USSC rules against Obamacare

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But how can this be. According to Sheldon “George Lincoln Rockwell” Richman, the mullahs in Iran have stated that nuclear weapons are against Islam. If you can’t take an argument like that, based on a statement coming from theocrats, seriously, what can you take seriously? How can you possibly doubt a man who claims that Iran, a paymaster for more terrorist organizations than any other state on Earth, is really the nation whose very existence is threatened, rather than Israel’s? Really, Mr. Harsanyi, when it comes to the issue of nuclear weapons, if you can’t draw a moral equivalence between a liberal democracy and a terror-supporting theocracy, what can you do?

  2. Increasingly it seems that Reason authors are writing to a party line.. guess which one?

    So lets see. Iran wants to exterminate the Jews. Ok. How long have they been able to deliver chemical and biological weapons? And using those they don’t destroy all the precious religious shrines and if they get the wind right, Hezbollah survives too.

    Increasingly I am of the opinion we should just give Iran 20 nukes and be done with it. Thats’ a credible enough deterent against Israel who, after all, doesn’t want to lose their regional monopoly.

    Its also funny how little attention Reason or the elephant camp pay to nukes in Pakistan (and India). Thats all ok because well, there are no nutters in either country who might want to use one against the US and same countries have never ever considered fighting each other, unlike Iran and Israel who have fought countless wars the past hundred years.

    1. There were two articles in just as many days denouncing Israel’s plans and proposed policy. This is the first article I’ve seen supporting Israel in any sort of way.

    2. Give Iran 20 nukes, and you can count on losing the top 20 cities in the USA and Europe.

      -jcr

      1. Hysterical nonsense.

        1. Hey Tony, when are you going to visit Iran? I hear they have a tall building they want to show you.

          -jcr

      2. Sorry, John, but Tony is right here. Your comment is insane. If Iran attacks the U.S. and Europe with nuclear weapons, literally tens of millions of Iranians die and the government is totally destroyed and the land totally laid waste with a barrage of destruction. No one, not even Russia or China, wants that. So no, that’s not going to happen. This article is asinine.

        1. Yeah those Mullahs are so well known for their reason and respect of human life.

        2. They need those ICBMs for self defense after the US nukes them, then?

    3. Iran and Israel who have fought countless wars the past hundred years.

      Wait, what?

      1. That one in 1921 was the WORST.

        *shudder*

        1. Citation needed

    4. “unlike Iran and Israel who have fought countless wars the past hundred years.”

      I think you’re over-estimating. You’re probably also over-estimating US concern for the lives in distant parts of the globe.

      Note that the US did nothing, absolutely nothing, when North Korea, threatened to develop nuclear weapons, did nothing when North Korea withdrew from the NPT, tested weapons, or developed delivery systems. North Korean rhetoric is even more inflamatory than Iran and is aimed at the US herself, Japan and South Korea, both allies of the US. Given that, what can Israel expect of US. They are not even allies.

      1. North Korea does not fund various and sundry active terrorist organizations that murder Americans.

        1. No, they fund a nuclear weapons programme and routinely threaten the US and their neighbours. I thought I’d made that clear in my original post. But if you prefer to fear a terror attack from Iran, go right ahead. You’ve got plenty of company.

    5. I am increasingly of the opinion that a sizeable amount of the commentary here is Salon-level batshit insane.

  3. I am of the opinion that this really doesn’t concern us.

    I do believe that Iran wants to get a nuclear weapon as a deterrent so they can use their proxies (Hezbollah and Hamas) more openly without the fear of an invasion by either Israel or the U.S.

    I don’t believe that they are insane enough to just out and out nuke Israel as that would assure a quick ass kicking by the rest of the world, not to mention that Islam really, really wants Jerusalem back under its control.

    I also however would not be that opposed if Israel decided to blow up Iran’s facilities before they could develop them any further. Israel is perfectly capable of fighting its own battles and they have a pretty good record of beating up the Arabs so I doubt a few Persians would give them that bad of fits.

    We just need to stay out of it.

    1. “I don’t believe that they are insane enough to just out and out nuke Israel as that would assure a quick ass kicking by the rest of the world”

      By whom? The Russians? The Chinese? The EU? The Zambians? Brazil? The US?

      On what basis would a country engage in a nuclear war with Iran after they nuked Israel?

      1. Zambia has the bomb? Those perfidious Bemba!

      2. Mostly likely, the U.S. I think even the present dude in the WH would be tempted but certainly Hillary or GOP guys would.

        1. The present guy wouldn’t be the least bit tempted to lift a finger for Israel.

      3. Do you seriously, even for a nanosecond, think that Israel would not launch a large percentage of their estimated 200 nukes at Iran? Do really suppose that Iran is going to knock out those?

        1. So what if they did? Even if the Israelis launched 1 minute after Iran did, they’d all be dead.

      4. “I don’t believe that they are insane enough to just out and out nuke Israel as that would assure a quick ass kicking by the rest of the world”

        Pfftph! The rest of the world that wasn’t partying might weep and gnash their teeth. Pontificate at the UN. Talk, yak, bitch, moan.

        But an ass kicking? They’d trot out “Never again, and we really really mean it this time.” And then take a nap.

        1. You’re right, that was pretty fucking stupid what I said earlier. I’d say most of the world and half of the U.S. would be living it up at the thought of Israel getting wiped out. Hell, I’m surprised the progressives haven’t been offering to fund Iran’s nuclear program for them.

      5. I didn’t really mean a nuclear retaliation. I have to admit that I was trying to be un-bias but I’m actually completely with Israel on this one. You are correct and so is that other guy a few posts down.

        Nobody would do anything to help Israel. I must have had a senior moment in my 20’s, as I thought the world wasn’t ran by cowards and corrupt pieces of shit for just a second there.

        1. It is also silly to assign reason and morality to Iran’s leaders, or assume their regime is stable and will not become more insane.

          1. Or think “we must apply the NAP to actively hostile foreign governments” who would gladly exterminate us in second, had they only the ability to do so.

    2. We just need to stay out of it.

      Indeed. Including clearing a path for Iran via a bad treaty or threatening Israel if they take action.

    3. Given that Iran has been actively waging low-level war against Americans and their rights since 1979, we aren’t ‘out of it’ and won’t be until the Iranian regime is gone.

  4. Dear reason eds.,

    There’s a bunch of neocon horseshit when I log onto reason.com. Have you guys been hacked?

    As a Leftist I’d like to honestly argue with libertarians who think the government should be limited. It’s too bad that the modern day libertarian opposes the use of military force except for when the Republican Party advocates it? Nick G., do you have any fucking integrity left?

    1. Dear American Socialist,

      Support for Israel or an Israeli politician’s is not purely a ‘neocon’ or ‘Republican’ position, nor does randomly screaming those names actually invalidate Harsanyi’s argument. We understand that you can only think in simple, binary concepts rather than any degree of complexity, but we ask that you at least attempt to understand an argument before attempting to ineffectively discredit it. Given your constant dishonest method of argumentation, including in this letter, you have zero right to question other people’s integrity. ‘As a Leftist’ frankly makes your opinion on a libertarian magazine’s content worthless.

      Sincerely,

      Reason

      1. Support for Israel or an Israeli politician’s is not purely a ‘neocon’ or ‘Republican’ position, nor does randomly screaming those names actually invalidate Harsanyi’s argument. We understand that you can only think in simple, binary concepts rather than any degree of complexity, but we ask that you at least attempt to understand an argument before attempting to ineffectively discredit it.

        Sure would be nice if this charity were extended to me.

        1. Little late but I recognize the fact that you get your foreign policy dictated to you from the Church of Rand.

    2. The article was written by David Harsanyi, but then you’d know that if you’d done anything more than scan the title and skip straight to the end of the comments, you disingenuous little turd.

    3. As a Leftist I’d like to honestly argue

      Liar.

      -jcr

      1. Come on now, he *might* like to honestly argue, but leftists are congenitally disabled when it comes to honesty.

  5. my friend’s mother-in-law makes $68 every hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for 5 months but last month her pay check was $15127 just working on the computer for a few hours. see post……………

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

    1. Is she a Jew?

      1. A Persian Jew at that!

        *head explodes*

  6. The Holocaust should never be forgotten but it shouldn’t be used as an excuse to blow up Muslims and then pretend that it didn’t happen over and over for decades.

    1. We need an excuse now??

  7. Every time a representative of Israel invokes the specter of the holocaust, it only serves to undermine any actual suffering that may have taken place then.

    1. Shorter Warren: Shut up Jews.

  8. But the United States is now on a path that will enable a force that openly threatens Jews to become far more powerful and dangerous.

    Okay? What exactly is your alternative solution?

    That we attack Iran now? Which is stupid. And wouldn’t work.

    That we enforce even more sanctions? Also stupid. Also wouldn’t work.

    That we let Israel attack Iran? Also stupid. Also wouldn’t work.

    That we negotiate with “more force”? We’re already reaching wit’s end with many of the negotiating partners on our side.

    1. Not destabilizing that traditional counterweight to Persian/Iranian hegemony of the Gulf known as Iraq would be a start.

      1. Post 1990-Iraq never acted as a real counterweight to Iran.

    2. What makes you think the sanctions aren’t working? The Mullahs wouldn’t even be at the negotiations now if the sanctions weren’t effective.

      1. The sanctions are working at murdering Iranian civilians who have no control over their government. Nice.

        1. Citation needed. Not that your statement would matter even if true.


    3. That we let Israel attack Iran? Also stupid. Also wouldn’t work.

      And why? Because you say so?

  9. I cannot recall the time when I disagreed with Harsanyi’s articles. This one isn’t an exception. But you know when I realized it? When shreek said that he agreed with all the Reason writers except Harsanyi, then I noticed it.

  10. What should be most troubling to everyone is Iran’s full on stifling of the IAEA for years now. Not much as changed. Any agreement with Iran should meet the minimum requirements of fulfilling the verified answers the IAEA is seeking (e.g. NYTimes, 2/20/2015, Sanger and Broad). Unless the questions are answers the treaty can not be rooted in fact.

    1. It shouldn’t be troubling at all unless you are irrational. Multiple countries, including Pakistan, Russia, China, and India, not considered the most rational of nations, have nukes, and have not used them, because of MAD. It is a clear fact, no one gains anything from a nuclear war. Use reasoning, not hysteria or ideology. It doesn’t hurt anyone if Iran gets nukes.

      1. You’re missing my point. The IAEA is key to verifying the treaty elements. Otherwise you have just a piece of paper if they continue to be relegated irrelevant by Iran.

      2. It is a clear fact, no one gains anything from a nuclear war. Use reasoning, not hysteria or ideology.

        No one gains either from flying airplanes into buildings or donning a suicide vest and exploding in a restaurant or marketplace. But a certain type of person does these things.

        Not all are rational actors. Israel, surrounded by countries who hate them and have tried several times to exterminate them, should be wary. For the Israelis the Iranian nuclear program is an existential question – will they be exterminated (this time).

        1. I like how he dismisses Pakistan and Russia’s possession of nukes as perfectly fine, as if that hasn’t made the world a much worser place.

  11. You know who else meant what they said about the Jews?

    1. Mel Gibson?

    2. Pontious Pilate?

    3. Henry Ford?

  12. 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
    Just sayin.

  13. Muslims. Making NAZI’s look good.

  14. Time for a Reason-sponsored cage match between David Harsanyi and Sheldon Richman.

  15. But the United States is now on a path that will enable a force that openly threatens Jews to become far more powerful and dangerous.

    No. It merely threatens Israel, an autonomous nation halfway around the globe, and simply not America’s concern either way.

    1. Because Muslims have never attacked Americans on American soil.

      1. And you’re suggesting that the way to prevent Islamic terrorism in the US is to get more involved with Israel? Are you insane? The only reason Muslims are paying any attention to the US is because we are supporting Israel and because we are supporting various regimes throughout the Middle East.

        The US should disengage from the Middle East as fast as possible and let Jews and Muslims work out things between themselves. And if anybody has a historical responsibility to Israel, it’s the Europeans, not the US.

        1. So that’s why they attack marathons, cartoonists, and so on.
          I’m suggesting Iran with nukes poses a threat to us, and any other civilized nation.

          I agree, we should disengage from the ME, and stop being friendly with the insane freaks who run Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
          Israel, as the only secular democracy, and only country not engaged in genocide in the region, should be supported, though.

          1. Israel as a matter of law is not a secular democracy.

            1. Neither is the USA or England, if you want to get down to brass tacks.

          2. Israel, as the only secular democracy, and only country not engaged in genocide in the region, should be supported, though.

            It’s irrelevant how wonderful Israel may or may not be; it isn’t the job of the American government to support them or get involved with them politically. We should trade with them and that’s it.

            (Even if we were to select countries based on how nice and democratic they are, Israel is a shithole of a democracy, distinguished only by the fact that its neighbors are even worse.)

            1. Your Jew hatred is showing:
              When I start hearing folk talking about ending aid to Taiwan, Ukraine, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, China, etc, then maybe there will be a case for not aiding Israel, who happens to face existential threats.

              But, since it’s only Israeli aid that you yell about, it’s obvious that your problem is not with giving aid, but in giving it to Israel, which makes you an anti-semite.

              1. But, since it’s only Israeli aid that you yell about, it’s obvious that your problem is not with giving aid, but in giving it to Israel, which makes you an anti-semite.

                You’re jumping to conclusions. I clearly stated that I think the US should disengage from the entire ME, which is all we were talking about. But I’m happy to tell you: I think the US should end all foreign aid and bring all US troops home, in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere. However, I think aid to the ME currently does the most harm to US foreign policy interests, so we should wind that down ASAP.

                As for calling me “anti-Semitic”, I really don’t care; the term has become so overused that it has become meaningless. Such feeble attempts at ad hominems only demonstrate what a weak debater you are and that you have no substantive points to make.

        2. The only reason Muslims are paying any attention to the US is because we are supporting Israel and because we are supporting various regimes throughout the Middle East.

          That’s a lie. They hate us for our freedoms and have said so.

  16. I wonder what goes on when Bebe and his speech writing team get together?
    Oh I know say “Never Again” every chance you get and people will think Iran has something to do with events of WWII. Good work guys !

    1. What a shallow thing to say.
      http://www.realcourage.org/wp-…..lism-2.jpg

      http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OX6Yd0HeT28/hqdefault.jpg

      He has every reason to say “Never Again”.

  17. “It’s fair to say that the Holocaust plays an oversize role in contemporary Jewish life. ”

    I think it’s even fairer to say that nuclear weapons play an oversize role in the contemporary American imagination. In another thread the other day commenters claimed that the US beat Japan thanks to the use of these weapons. The fact that it was entirely the use of conventional weaponry that destroyed Japan’s military capacity and reduced the population to the point of eating dogs off the street was ignored. It was down to nukes. A claim nobody bothered to refute. I guess this over-valuation of nukes is due to somethng in the drinking water or maybe the curriculum of the public schools.

    A non-nuclear nation is capable of defeating a nuclear nation. Americans and Israelis should know this fact without my repeating it. It’s not a magical wand that gives the possessor super powers over others even if the owner is evil like Iran or the Soviet Union. The author says that a nuclear armed Iran could “destabliize” Israel and her Sunni neighbours. A nightmare! he says. As though the region was a model of stability. As though any nation should enshrine something as vague as stability a foreign policy goal. Stability is not a right. Not for an individual, not for a nation. Embrace dynamism! That’s the Libertarian way.

    1. “A non-nuclear nation is capable of defeating a nuclear nation.”

      Citation needed.

      Of course, never, in history, has a non-nuclear nation actually gone to war with a nuclear nation and won.
      Proxy wars are something else altogether, though, and currently, Iran is arming Hamas as a proxy against Israel.

      Here’s a scenario:
      Non-nuclear nation A lands a million troops on the shores of nuclear nation B. Nation B utterly destroys nation A’s cities and industry in 1 hour of concentrated nuclear bombardment. Nation A’s troops in Nation B now have no homeland to speak of, no resupply coming, no reinforcements, are utterly demoralized, but continue to make a nuisance of themselves for a few years, before they are all caught, killed or desert.

      1. “Citation needed.”

        Ask your local librarian for a book about a country called Vietnam.

        1. Vietnam defeated the USA?
          Funny, we’re still speaking English and our money still has old US presidents on it.

          1. “Vietnam defeated the USA?”

            The Vietnamese nationalists accomplished pretty much what they set out to do. Those Americans clinging to the choppers at the embassy in Ho Chi Minh city couldn’t claim as much. All this despite the three nations of Indo China coming 1, 2 and 3 in terms of being history’s most heavily bombed nations. Not nukes of course, but it all goes to underline American faith in raining fire on people from a safe distance.

            1. Yes I agree.
              We were arguing semantics of the word “defeated”.
              Much of American military foreign policy was very poorly thought out, it is true.
              I often liken the whole idea of “Pax Americana” to the world keeping their heads down while America raves like a rabid gorilla and lashes out almost randomly.

              America could have destroyed Vietnam with nukes, but I wouldn’t call that “winning”.

              1. In one sense America did ‘win’ the Vietnam war – did Communism spread throughout SE Asia? Are those countries satellites of the Soviet Union or China today?

                Of course, those objectives would likely have been achieved without engaging in a war in Vietnam.

            2. Actually the VietCong were defeated and North Vietnam forced to the negotiating table.

        2. Vietnam won nothing. Americans young threw the war to the North Vietnamese, no one else.

          1. The fact is, whoever controls the territory at the end of the conflict is called the winner, for whatever reason.

            1. Vietnam has defeated France, the US and China. Their military is in the top 5 worldwide.

              1. No, Vietnam failed to be defeated by France, China and the US.
                Vietnamese troops have never set foot in any of those nations.

                1. Which was never part of their actual military objective. Did America lose the Revolution because they never marched through London?

                  The Vietnamese were able to successfully defeat superior armies on the field a la Dien Bien Phu and their conflict with China. Despite pretty much losing every major battle against the United States, they were able to continue combat operations despite massive disadvantages. Yes, they defeated these militaries by making them unable to complete their military objectives while fulfilling all of their own, and maintain those objectives through negotiation afterwards. Everything else is semantics.

                  1. America never defeated Great Britain.

                    1. I hear that the Redcoats are planning a surprise come-back attack any time now… The Rethuglicans and ESPECIALLY the Tea-Baggers over here have REALLY pissed them off! So no, that old-old war? It is NOT over yet!

                    2. Except they did militarily to the extent that they were willing to agree to peace terms in favour of the United States.

                      War is not some one-way street of total annihilation, it’s about fulfilling military objectives and being able to retain them. You defeat an enemy in war by getting what you want despite their best efforts. Total annihilation need not apply (in fact this notion is a very recent phenomena driven by 20th and 21st century ‘total war’ conflicts. Looking back further this is clearly not the case).

                    3. The 2012 UK Telegrapg poll found that George Washington was England’s greatest foe. Hitler was dropping bombs and sending V2 rockets across the Channel yet he didn’t make it to the top.

                  2. Despite pretty much losing every major battle against the United States, they were able to continue combat operations despite massive disadvantages.

                    Nope. The VietCong were destroyed.

                    1. Except a) The Vietcong were not the sole group the U.S. was fighting in Vietnam (there was this country called North Vietnam) and b) were not destroyed (Seriously Cytotoxic I’d love you to go up to anyone present at the Fall of Saigon and tell them the Vietcong were destroyed at that point in time).

      2. I love z by the way.

        1. Not the Pulp Fiction Zed, I hope. 😉

          1. Bring out the gimp!

      3. “Nation A’s troops in Nation B now have no homeland to speak of,”

        All the more reason to simply kill every man, woman, and child they encounter in Nation B and set at least a portion up as their new homeland. Well, I guess maybe not the women, unless they brought their own supply.

        1. Like I said, they’ll make a nuisance of themselves for a while, before being killed, captured, or deserting.

  18. So the 2007 NIE on Iran and every IAEA report verifying the non-diversion of enriched uranium from the declared civilian program are lies and we should believe that this time Netanyahu is not crying wolf even though he has never produced a shred of evidence and his own intelligence and defense establishment have publicly disagreed with him.

    1. The 2007 IEA report does not say that.

  19. David, let me give you a libertarian principle that you seemed to have missed…if Mr. Netanyahu wants to take our money (and he does), he needs to stop whining about things we have to say. And its clear…not only do we have an American President who has been elected twice saying that a negotiated deal with Iran is in our best interests, but the American people themselves say the same in every poll on the issue.

    Here is Mr. Netanyahu’s (as well as yours) stance:

    Iran is run by genocidal maniacs who are building a nuclear weapon which they intend to use to destroy Israel, and sanctions have not been able to stop them. Let’s wait and see what these genocidal maniacs will do.

    Insane, both of you.

  20. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,
    http://www.wixjob.com

  21. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
    go to tech tab for work detail

    ?~?~?~?~?~~~~~~~ http://www.jobsfish.com

  22. Jews are the most important people in the world and should be defended at all costs.

  23. This boils down to one simple consideration. Israel has had the military capability to obliterate any surrounding country at any time they want. They could do this with conventional or nonconventional means. However, they have not, showing restraint, regard for human life and and concern for world opinion. If the situation was reversed and Israel was militarily inferior to one of its neighbors, its state would literally last no longer than a snowman in the desert.

    1. Restraint is in the eye of the beholder.

      1. Do you think Israel is committing genocide?

  24. *popcorn*

    this is amazing.

    -FFM

  25. Israel must be defended and supported by every Western nation.

    Israel is the front line between civilization and barbarism. Israel is the front line between Western Liberty and Islamic Fascism.

    What most Leftist/Neofascist assholes are unwilling to recognize, is that Israel is a modern Western Democracy with a citizenry 20% Arab Muslim, with representation in the Israeli government, with all the same rights and responsibilities as any other Israeli.

    You won’t find even a minute comparison of equality of rights in any Islamic nation.

  26. It’s so nice to see Reason take a break from letting Richam and others post lies about foreign affairs and run a serious column from a serious commenter for once.

    1. Yes it is…. You’re absolutely correct on this!

  27. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,
    http://www.go-review.com

  28. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,
    http://www.big-reports.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.