Netanyahu becomes political player, so Kerry treats him like one

[michaelintp]

All these political posts reinforce the view that things are destined to go from bad to worse.  Despite the efforts of some good people to prevent it.

Why?

The War of Gog & Magog.

Unlike many Christians and Muslims (at least as I understand those two faiths), Jews do not believe that "Armageddon" is inevitable to bring the Messiah. The War of Gog & Magog is not a prerequisite to the Messianic Era.  While that Final Battle was foretold by the Jewish Prophets, it was a negative painful prophecy. And does represent one way the Moshiach will come, with much trial, tribulation and death. However, pursuant to Jewish Tradition, God only keeps His promises for the good, but out of mercy will refrain from "bad" promises if the people show sufficient teshuvah (repentance).  We know this from the story of Jonah, where God sent the Prophet Jonah to tell the people of Nineveh the prophecy that Nineveh would be destroyed because of their evil ways.  Yet, when the people of Nineveh donned sackcloth and ashes, and repented, God spared them.  The negative prophecy went unfulfilled.

Thus, there are two ways the Moshiach can come: (1) before his appointed time, as a result of our good deeds and teshuvah, without pain and suffering, or (2) at his appointed time (the final deadline) with all the horrors foretold.

Thus, Jews do not long to precipitate the War of Gog & Magog to initiate the Final Redemption.  On the contrary. Religious Jews hope and pray that by their devotion and acts of loving kindness, Moshiach will come before his appointed time, without global suffering, in peace and joy.

In contrast, as I understand it, the militant ruling Shi'ite Mullahs of Iran believe that such a Final War will take place, and is necessary to take place, to bring the Final Redemption.  At the time of that Ultimate Conflict, the Jews will appoint a false Messiah, the Dajjal (literally or figuratively).  Jesus will return and battle the Dajjal.  The Jews will be exterminated.  Even the last ones hiding behind trees and rocks.  The Hidden Imam, the final Imam, the Mahdi, will reveal himself in the course of these events. A Glorious Kingdom will be ushered in, with all Mankind serving Allah as devout Muslims.  I don't wish to place my trust in such men.  It is far more likely that they plan on doing exactly what the Supreme Ayatollah says they will do. Develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. To precipitate the Final Battle that, they believe, will usher in a Glorious Kingdom on Earth. (Militant Sunni Muslims hold similar beliefs, though they differ with the Shi'ites over the identity of the Mahdi).

Reg, I read the articles you keep posting. My fear is that these "politics" (and similar inane factors, petty egoism, blind partisanship, and the like) discussed in the articles, are indeed pushing the world to the dreadful End Days scenario ... with all the horror, pain, and suffering foretold by the Prophets.  I pray this isn't so.  But ... the more you post, the more I believe it to be so.  Because ... it is so irrational, yet we appear to be running headlong toward the abyss  ... despite its irrationality. Like lemmings.

It is almost as if God is "hardening the hearts" of world leaders, and their followers, allowing them to pursue this irrational destructive path. Much as He did with Pharaoh in connection with the Exodus, the first "redemption," so very long ago.

May God have mercy on us.

[Reginald Hudlin]

What Was Missing From Coverage of Netanyahu's Speech
byJim Naureckas


The New York Times' caption quoted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, "This regime will always be an enemy of America.” That regime got 36 words of rebuttal in the nearly 1,500-word article.
Reading the lead stories on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress about Iran in five prominent US papers–the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today (all 3/3/15)–what was most striking was what was left out of these articles.

None of them mentioned, for example, that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. Surely this is relevant when a foreign leader says that it needs the United States' help to stop a rival state from obtaining nuclear weapons: The omission of the obvious phrase "of its own" changes the story entirely.

Another thing largely left out of the story is the fact that Iran has consistently maintained that it has no interest in building a nuclear weapon. There was one direct statement of this in the five stories–the New York Times' reference to "Iran's nuclear program, which [Iranian] officials have insisted is only for civilian uses." The Washington Post alluded to the fact that Iran denies that it has a nuclear weapons program, referring to "a program the West has long suspected is aimed at building weapons," Iran's "stated nuclear energy goals" and "the suspect Iranian program." Elsewhere the military nature of Iran's nuclear research was taken for granted, as when the LA Times said that the issue under discussion was "how to deal with the threat of Iran's nuclear program."

Entirely absent from these articles was the fact that not only does Iran deny wanting to make a nuclear bomb, the intelligence agencies of the United States (New York Times, 2/24/12) and Israel (Guardian, 2/23/15) also doubt that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program. Surely this is relevant to a report on the Israeli prime minister engaging in a public debate with the US president on how best to stop this quite possibly nonexistent program.

Instead, these articles generally seemed content to cover the subject as a debate between Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama, perhaps with some congressmembers thrown in–as if these were the "both sides" that needed to be covered in order to give a complete picture of the controversy. When Iranian officials were quoted for a few lines in these pieces–which some neglected to do altogether–it seemed an afterthought, despite the fact that Netanyahu's speech was mainly a long litany of allegations and threats against their country.

(Though I'm confining my analysis to what seemed to be the most prominent and comprehensive article on the speech on each paper's website, it's worth mentioning that the New York Times' website featured a piece by Iran's ambassador to the UN, Gholamali Khoshroo, rebutting Netanyahu's speech. Reading it one is struck by how different the news pieces would read if Iran's perspective on Iran's nuclear program were given equal weight with Israel's and the US's views.)

None of these news articles mentioned the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, signed by both the United States and Iran but not by Israel, which guarantees "the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."

One article–the New York Times'–had a reference to Netanyahu's decades-long record of making false nuclear predictions about Israel's enemies. And even that was framed in partisan terms: Netanyahu "did not succeed in mollifying all Democrats, who recalled a history of what they deemed doomsday messages by him." A reporter, of course, could look up Netayahu's previous projections to see if they came true or not–as Murtaza Hussain of the Intercept (3/2/15) did–but holding officials accountable for what they have said in the past is not something an "objective" journalist is likely to do.

Another striking omission from these articles, about a speech in which Netanyahu talked about Iran's "aggression in the region and in the world," were words like "Palestine," "Palestinian," "occupation" or "Gaza"; none of these  came up in any of the five articles. USA Today headlined its piece "Netanyahu: Stop Iran's 'March of Conquest'"–as though it were Iran, not Israel, that has conquered, occupied and in some cases annexed its neighbors' territory.

[michaelintp]

The very last paragraph of the above article is one long lie, as anyone with knowlege (or who cares to have knowledge) of the 1967 Six-Day War and 1973 Yom-Kippur War knows. This reveals where the author's head is at.   The author's presentation reveals that he is likely making a broader reference and embraces the chant, "From the [Jordon] river to the [Mediterranean] sea, Palestine shall be free!" That is to say, the annialation of Israel.  Of course Israel, given the history of agression against it, and threats of annialation, from its inception to the present, is entitled to maintain and must maintain the strongest deterrent possible.

Anyone who might be interested would have no problem finding through a simple Google search statements made by Iranian leaders and government institutions regarding the utter destruction of Israel and dehumanization of Jews.  I was going to share some articles but ... I've done so in the past and they obviously fall on deaf ears. So to hell with it. 

As to Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, as if Iran trying to hide nuclear facilities from the IAEA is not enough, the International Atomic Energy Agency warned in a May 2011 report of Iranian efforts “involving the removal of the conventional high explosive payload from the warhead of the Shahab-3 missile and replacing it with a spherical nuclear payload.”  Duh.

This article is an example of the accuracy of my characterization of those persons who have any unbridled positive feelings about the Iranian nuclear situation. See my post above on this thread.

Reg, do you agree with this article you posted?  Or are you just trying to get a reaction from me to "stir up the pot" ...?

[Battle]

"As-Salaam-Alaikum"

Haven't read a single word of what michaelintp posted in this thread nor did I watch or heard any news in the last 2 days. 
What I did view this morning is MSNBC's News Nation hosted by Tamron Hall report that New York Mayor Bill De Blasio revealed that New York Public Schools will, for the first time in America,  begin observing 2 Muslim holidays:  Eid Al-Ftr and Eid Al-Adha. "...which will be observed September 24th this year, commemorates Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son for God (Eid Al-Adha). Eid Al-Ftr, which will occur July 2016, marks the holy month of fasting known as Ramadan.", notes Mr. De Blasio.
Linda Sasour, Director of the Arab American Association of New York,  seemed very pleased as a guest regarding this news on Ms. Hall's show.

Would You Like To Know More?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/03/04/new_york_city_public_schools_will_close_for_muslim_holidays.html

[michaelintp]

Haven't read a single word of what michaelintp posted in this thread nor did I watch or heard any news in the last 2 days. 
What I did view this morning is MSNBC's News Nation hosted by Tamron Hall report that New York Mayor Bill De Blasio revealed that New York Public Schools will, for the first time in America,  begin observing 2 Muslim holidays:  Eid Al-Ftr and Eid Al-Adha. "...which will be observed September 24th this year, commemorates Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son for God (Eid Al-Adha). Eid Al-Ftr, which will occur July 2016, marks the holy month of fasting known as Ramadan.", notes Mr. De Blasio.

That's nice.

If major Christian and Jewish Holidays are recognized, Muslim ones should be as well.

[Reginald Hudlin]

Here's what I think:  when people say there will be peace once all those people over there are all dead, that's not an effective solution.  There used to be wars between England and France and Germany over stuff they thought was important, and now it's not.  They learned to live together.  That's what has to happen in the Middle East.  It sounds simplistic, but between the civil wars and the sectarian wars and wars between nations in that region, no one is winning and humanity isn't advancing. 

[michaelintp]

Here's what I think:  when people say there will be peace once all those people over there are all dead, that's not an effective solution.  There used to be wars between England and France and Germany over stuff they thought was important, and now it's not.  They learned to live together.  That's what has to happen in the Middle East.  It sounds simplistic, but between the civil wars and the sectarian wars and wars between nations in that region, no one is winning and humanity isn't advancing.

I agree with you as to how the world should be. Unfortunately it isn't.  Your sentiments are similar to sentiments likely expressed in the past, that provided small solice to the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, the Jews in Nazi Europe, the Tutsis in Rwanda, and so many others.

Particularly in the Middle East. the world is not as you wish it was. Israel is surrounded by ISIS, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood (stopped in Egypt but still active) and HAMAS. All theologically fanatic and dedicated to wiping Israel off the map. Every Jewish man, woman, and child. The problem is that pursuant to militant Islamic theology, once a geographic area becomes part of dar al-Islam (the House of Islam), it forever remains, requiring the militants to purge any non-Muslim state located on that territory that forever belongs to the Muslim Ummah (the Islamic Community).  Add to this that militant Muslims have a special antipathy toward Jews, a group that expressly rejected Muhammad as a prophet during the dawning days of Islam in Arabia, and you can understand why Israel is referred to as a "stain" that must be removed (and so on) by these religious fanatics.

So yes, I wish the world were as you describe, but sadly it is not. 

I really wish you understood this, instead of passing along articles that play into those haters' hands.  I know, given your view of how the world should be, and who you are, that you don't share their hate.  Unfortunately, you may be unwittingly promoting it by largely posting articles regarding Israel (when you do) written by those allied with them or sympathetic with them. Such as the article above, that is flawed on so many levels.

[Reginald Hudlin]

I don't see the world in binary terms.  In other words, Disagreeing with the current leader of Israel doesn't mean a person is anti Israel or anti-Semitic.

[michaelintp]

I don't see the world in binary terms.  In other words, Disagreeing with the current leader of Israel doesn't mean a person is anti Israel or anti-Semitic.

I agree with the second sentence of your statement.  Some persons have expressed views disagreeing with Netanyahu because they differ with him regarding the best course of action in this terrible situation where we seem to have terrible choices. Unfortunately, the perspective of Jim Naureckas, the author of the article you posted, was way beyond disagreeing with the current Prime Minister of Israel. His article was an apologia and whitewashing on behalf of the openly genocidal current leaders of Iran and a dishonest slandering of Israel (not just its current leader).

When it comes to fanatics who openly advocate genocide and are seeking the means to accomplish it, on the one hand, and their intended victims, on the other, there is absolutely nothing wrong with "binary" thinking. Morality demands it.  Can you imagine someone saying about the Ottoman Turks and the Armenians, or the Nazis and the European Jews, or the Rwandan Hutus and Tutsis or the Cambodian Khmer Rouge and their victims, "I don't see the world in binary terms."  While I know some people did talk that way, before and even during the genocides, I would never want to be one of them. 

Reg, of course everyone on the forum, and even more so you, is entitled to post whatever articles they wish. That is one thing I love about the HEF.  But ... we've all got to think about the fact that when one posts an article without comment, the normal implication is that one more-or-less agrees with the article. That might not always be the case, but usually if one disagrees, one says so by expressing some criticism of it along with the post.  So ... you can understand why I asked.

[Reginald Hudlin]

Massive anti-Netanyahu rally draws over 50,000 in Israel as elections loom
byDavid Harris Gershon
Originally published in Tikkun Daily

Days after Israel's Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, claimed to be speaking for "the entire Jewish people" in his speech before Congress, tens of thousands of Israelis took to the streets, rejecting such a ridiculous notion by calling for his ouster.

The explicitly anti-Netanyahu rally, which organizers say drew 80,000 people, comes just 10 days before Israel's elections, with most polls showing Netanyahu's Likud vulnerable to being defeated by a center-left coalition.

At the rally, former Mossad Chief, Meir Dagan, blasted Netanyahu as more dangerous than any perceived enemy and the greatest obstacle to peace:

“Israel is a country surrounded by enemies, but the enemies are not scaring us. I am afraid of our leadership."
[...]

“Benjamin Netanyahu has served as prime minister for six years straight, six years in which he has not led a single genuine process of change to the face of the region or the creation of a better future. On his watch, Israel conducted the longest [military] campaign since the War of Independence.” a

Dagan's voice is representative of those in Israel's security establishment who both rejected Netanyahu's speech before Congress and his attempts to derail President Obama's Iran diplomacy. Indeed, Netanyahu organized the speech behind the back of his own National Security Advisor, knowing it would be rejected as dangerous and damaging to U.S.-Israel relations.
This week, Netanyahu defended himself from attacks on the right by claiming to be the greatest supporter of Israel's settlement enterprise in Israel's history, the only claim he's made recently which rings true. In response to this and Israel's continued occupation, multiple speakers at the Tel Aviv rally charged Netanyahu with pushing Israel toward full apartheid, including Dagan.

It remains difficult to determine whether Netanyahu's foreign policy push and speech before Congress, one of the most elaborate election stunts in recent history, will end up helping or hurting his election chances.

However, one thing remains clear: not only does Netanyahu not represent "the entire Jewish people," he doesn't represent the majority of Israeli Jews, thousands of whom made that clear on the streets of Tel Aviv. 

[Battle]

From the article:

Massive anti-Netanyahu rally draws over 50,000 in Israel as elections loom
byDavid Harris Gershon
Originally published in Tikkun Daily

Days after Israel's Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, claimed to be speaking for "the entire Jewish people" in his speech before Congress, tens of thousands of Israelis took to the streets, rejecting such a ridiculous notion by calling for his ouster.

The explicitly anti-Netanyahu rally, which organizers say drew 80,000 people, comes just 10 days before Israel's elections, with most polls showing Netanyahu's Likud vulnerable to being defeated by a center-left coalition.

I'll be wearing this virtual button on my virtual shirt for the next 10 days! 

[Curtis Metcalf]

Reg, of course everyone on the forum, and even more so you, is entitled to post whatever articles they wish. That is one thing I love about the HEF.  But ... we've all got to think about the fact that when one posts an article without comment, the normal implication is that one more-or-less agrees with the article. That might not always be the case, but usually if one disagrees, one says so by expressing some criticism of it along with the post.  So ... you can understand why I asked.

Hmm. I do not assume that the poster agrees with articles by others that they post but rather that it is being offered for our consideration. Members can and do make commentary when they want to. I think it's best to ask if you want to know.

[michaelintp]

Massive anti-Netanyahu rally draws over 50,000 in Israel as elections loom
by David Harris Gershon
Originally published in Tikkun Daily

Yes, Israel is a vibrant democracy.  Political rhetoric is frequently strong. Pre-election hyperbole rivals or exceeds what we see in the United States.

Can you imagine what would happen, what has happened, in Iran to people who criticize the Supreme Ayatollah and the theocratic Iranian regime?  Who hold rallies?  We've seen what happens.

This contrast between democraric Israel and autocratic Iran again demonstrates the threat posed by the fanatic Iranian regime.

[michaelintp]

Reg, of course everyone on the forum, and even more so you, is entitled to post whatever articles they wish. That is one thing I love about the HEF.  But ... we've all got to think about the fact that when one posts an article without comment, the normal implication is that one more-or-less agrees with the article. That might not always be the case, but usually if one disagrees, one says so by expressing some criticism of it along with the post.  So ... you can understand why I asked.

Hmm. I do not assume that the poster agrees with articles by others that they post but rather that it is being offered for our consideration. Members can and do make commentary when they want to. I think it's best to ask if you want to know.

I disagree with you with regard to the normal assumption. In the vast majority of cases people post articles without comment that they (largely) agree with. Why? Because people usually are not interested in promoting points of view they disagree with. Unless the purpose is to expressly criticize or mock the article. In that case, there is almost always some comment.

However, in this case I did ask Reg if he agreed with the flawed Naureckas article ... and he didn't really directly answer the question with regard to the article.

Curtis, why are you bringing up this article matter?  When I did ask Reg if he agreed with it?  I chose not to push for a direct response to the question, and instead made a general observation that I believe is true.  If you doubt the truth of the observation, just look at the polital/ideological slant of the vast majority of artices posted and the political/ideological views of the person posting the article. In the overwhelming number of cases you will see a "remarkable" correlation.

Of course there may be an exception from time to time. Which was why I asked. 

[Curtis Metcalf]

Reg, of course everyone on the forum, and even more so you, is entitled to post whatever articles they wish. That is one thing I love about the HEF.  But ... we've all got to think about the fact that when one posts an article without comment, the normal implication is that one more-or-less agrees with the article. That might not always be the case, but usually if one disagrees, one says so by expressing some criticism of it along with the post.  So ... you can understand why I asked.

Hmm. I do not assume that the poster agrees with articles by others that they post but rather that it is being offered for our consideration. Members can and do make commentary when they want to. I think it's best to ask if you want to know.

I disagree with you with regard to the normal assumption. In the vast majority of cases people post articles without comment that they (largely) agree with. Why? Because people usually are not interested in promoting points of view they disagree with. Unless the purpose is to expressly criticize or mock the article. In that case, there is almost always some comment.

However, in this case I did ask Reg if he agreed with the flawed Naureckas article ... and he didn't really directly answer the question with regard to the article.

Curtis, why are you bringing up this article matter?  When I did ask Reg if he agreed with it?  I chose not to push for a direct response to the question, and instead made a general observation that I believe is true.  If you doubt the truth of the observation, just look at the polital/ideological slant of the vast majority of artices posted and the political/ideological views of the person posting the article. In the overwhelming number of cases you will see a "remarkable" correlation.

Of course there may be an exception from time to time. Which was why I asked.

First of all, there is nothing for you to disagree with. I simply stated what I assume about members' reasons for posting, namely, as little as possible.

Secondly, I know you asked Reggie about that article. I think that's a good idea which is what I said.

Lastly, the reason I mentioned it is that I noticed a difference between your assumptions and mine. (I don't pretend to know what's "normal" there.) I do think you sometimes leap to conclusions that turn out to be mistaken. As do we all on occasion.