Israel, Iran, US, NATO, Russia - Nuclear War? Is Washington Deaf As Well as Criminal?

[Peter Lemkin]

I know the military is not monolithic in either country. While there certainly exist the Curtis Le Mays and Dr Strangeloves in both countries not everyone is suicidal and there also exist pockets of sanity with in the beast. Will they be in positions to stop or direct events once in train? I don't really know but sure hope so. We have seen evidence of their work in the past (Minot AB comes to mind). Israel has the most to lose casualty and territorially speaking since they are in the middle of the bee hive and it is an all or nothing gamble. Are they feeling lucky? The USA is a whole continent and ocean away and may feel they have more options and can always choose isolationism. Which would be quite a relief to many where they are unwelcome and so much of the problem. It was the wrong set of dominoes they were worried about before.....

Need one need reminding that no one stopped 9-11 and all of its sequential wars of mass destruction...and in all of those, many could have...but didn't or were unable to. I think we are at a critical and dangerous time in human history. The madmen are literally running the Asylum and they also have most of the money and all of the weapons worth mentioning. Yes, good people are still in place....but.... I wish I had your optimism on this one Magda. If it isn't Iran, per se, something very similar is coming down the road within the next year. The Earth is running out of resources and the USA and a few others are fighting for the might to have total control over those increasingly scarce resources. Top-down solutions will result in total war. ONLY bottom-up solutions could save the Planet and all living things on it. That would call for / demand totally new ethical, environmental, economic and Political paradigms...a tall order...but IMO NOTHING LESS will do, and the time we have for this is in the range of 5-20 years. Maximum. A frightening prospect!

[Adele Edisen]

The New York Times
August 22, 2012

U.N. Visit Will Set Back a Push to Isolate Iran
By RICK GLADSTONE


Efforts led by the United States and Israel to isolate Iran suffered a setback on Wednesday when the United Nations announced that Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general, would join officials from 120 countries in Tehran next week for a summit meeting that Iran has trumpeted as a vindication of its defiance and enduring importance in world affairs.

Mr. Ban's decision to attend the meeting of the Nonaligned Movement, announced by his spokesman, Martin Nesirky, came despite objections from both the Americans and Israelis, including a phone call from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. It was announced a few days after the new president of Egypt, a country that has long been estranged from Iran, said he would attend the summit meeting as well, a decision that had already unsettled the Israelis.

Taken together, the moves reinforced Iran's contention that a reordering of powers is under way in the Middle East, where Western influence is waning, and that the American-Israeli campaign to vilify Iran as a rogue state that exports terrorism and secretly covets nuclear weapons is not resonating in much of the world.

The meeting of the Nonaligned Movement, a group formed during the cold war, includes a number of other countries that the United States has sought to marginalize, among them North Korea and Sudan, whose president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, is wanted under a war crimes indictment by the International Criminal Court. Although Iran's hosting of the meeting is strictly a coincidence of history under a rotating system, Iran presides over the group through 2014 Iranian leaders have portrayed it as a privilege that repudiates the American narrative.

"The extraordinary effort that the Iranian leaders have put into the summit is intended to showcase Iran's global role and offer concrete evidence that the U.S. policy of isolating Iran has failed," said Farideh Farhi, an independent Iranian scholar at the University of Hawaii.

"A case is being made that it is not the global community' that has problems with the Islamic republic, as repeatedly asserted by U.S. officials, but merely a U.S.-led-and-pressured coalition of countries," she said. "And ironically the Obama administration is conceding the point by trying to pressure various leaders from attending the meeting."

Mr. Ban's decision to participate, which might have gone nearly unnoticed in other years, was particularly fraught now because of the tensions surrounding the host country. Iran has defied United Nations Security Council resolutions to halt its uranium enrichment and has strongly supported the Syrian government's sharp repression of an armed uprising, a crackdown that Mr. Ban has repeatedly condemned.

Mr. Ban has also castigated the anti-Semitic statements and calls for Israel's destruction made recently by Iranian leaders, reminding them that the United Nations Charter prohibits one member from threatening the existence of another.

But many diplomats and others said it would have been extraordinarily difficult for Mr. Ban not to go. The 120 countries that are in the Nonaligned Movement represent the biggest single voting bloc in the 193-member General Assembly at the United Nations. It is customary for the secretary general to attend the movement's annual meetings regardless of political delicacies surrounding the host country.

"A sizable chunk if not a majority of the world's population are citizens of nonaligned nations," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "It's not something the United Nations secretary general can easily dismiss."

Acknowledging that Mr. Ban has been under pressure not to attend, Mr. Nesirky, his spokesman, said Mr. Ban viewed the visit as a chance to raise the issues of Iran's nuclear program, its support for Syria and its campaign against Israel directly with his hosts.

"The secretary general is fully aware of the sensitivities of this visit," Mr. Nesirky told reporters at the United Nations. "He's heard the views of some of those who said he should not go. At the same time, the secretary general has responsibilities that he is determined to carry out."

Mr. Nesirky also said Mr. Ban expected to meet with senior Iranian leaders, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "It is certainly the secretary general's expectation that he will have meaningful and fruitful discussions with the supreme leader," Mr. Nesirky said. To boycott the invitation from Iran, Mr. Nesirky said, "would be a missed opportunity."

There was no immediate reaction to Mr. Ban's decision from Israel. But according to Mr. Netanyahu's office, he had telephoned Mr. Ban on Aug. 10 and told him that such a trip, even if well intentioned, would be a mistake. "Your visit will grant legitimacy to a regime that is the greatest threat to world peace and security," Mr. Netanyahu was quoted as saying.

Even before Mr. Ban made his decision known, the Israeli government was asserting that the sanctions effort against Iran was not working, a conclusion that was reinforced for the Israelis because of the decision to attend the summit meeting in Iran by President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt.

"If you're going there, if you're paying homage to the leaders of Iran, what kind of diplomatic isolation is that?" Mark Regev, Mr. Netanyahu's spokesman, said of Mr. Morsi's decision.

The reaction to Mr. Ban's announcement was more muted from the Obama administration, which had engaged in a less public effort to dissuade him.

Some administration officials sought to put the best face on the situation, urging Mr. Ban to exploit the moment to convey his unhappiness with Iran's behavior.

"We think that Iran is going to try to use the event for propaganda purposes and to try to cover up the extreme isolation Iran is feeling politically and economically," said Tommy Vietor, the spokesman for the National Security Council. "That said, if people choose to participate, we believe they should take the opportunity of any meetings that they have with Iran's leaders to press them to comply with their international obligations without further delay."

The American Jewish Committee, among a number of pro-Israel voices in the United States that had exhorted Mr. Ban not to visit Iran, called the decision "a grave mistake" in a statement posted on its Web site.

"Tehran is not the place for the U.N. secretary general to visit, not at this time, not to meet with this Iranian regime," David Harris, the group's executive director, said in the statement. "We are stunned that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would honor a regime that consistently ignores both him and the world body he heads in ways that threaten regional and global security."

Some said that Mr. Ban's three-day visit, which begins next Wednesday, could also turn out badly for Iranian leaders, particularly if he raises issues in an unfiltered way to the Iranian public about the government's human rights record.

Others said that Mr. Ban could surprise critics by confronting or embarrassing Ayatollah Khamenei and his subordinates over their anti-Semitic statements.

"The fact that he's going is going to be viewed as a victory for Iran," said Trita Parsi, the president of the National Iranian American Council, an advocacy group of Americans of Iranian descent. "But if pressure leads Ban Ki-moon to express harsh criticism of their statements on Israel, then it could be viewed as a victory for those who had not wanted him to go."

Jodi Rudoren contributed reporting from Jerusalem, and David E. Sanger from Washington.

Adele

[Jan Klimkowski]

I know the military is not monolithic in either country. While there certainly exist the Curtis Le Mays and Dr Strangeloves in both countries not everyone is suicidal and there also exist pockets of sanity with in the beast. Will they be in positions to stop or direct events once in train? I don't really know but sure hope so. We have seen evidence of their work in the past (Minot AB comes to mind). Israel has the most to lose casualty and territorially speaking since they are in the middle of the bee hive and it is an all or nothing gamble. Are they feeling lucky? The USA is a whole continent and ocean away and may feel they have more options and can always choose isolationism. Which would be quite a relief to many where they are unwelcome and so much of the problem. It was the wrong set of dominoes they were worried about before.....

Magda - I agree.

However, a "Soldier of Principle" tends to make perfect cannon fodder and is usually considered far too dangerous to consider for promotion to the highest ranks.

The Command structure, Rank Rules, means that multi-starred epaulettes are usually required for fundamental decision-making, and the miltary doesn't want Honour and Moral Conscience getting in way of Business As Usual.

Four-star generals may consipire to kill a President. But they're usually too self-obsessed to risk blowing the whistle.

A rare exception appears to be Chair of the Joint Chief of Staff, Admiral Thomas Moorer, who told the truth both on the USS Liberty and Tailwind war crimes, and was discredited and marginalised as a result.

[Adele Edisen]

The New York Times
August 24, 2012

Diplomacy With Iran Still Is Viable, U.S. Says
By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON The Obama administration insisted Friday that "there is time and space" for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis, despite new evidence, to be released next week by international nuclear inspectors, that Iran is bolstering its ability to produce a type of uranium that can be converted relatively quickly to bomb fuel.

In a statement that was notable chiefly for the fact that it was issued before the International Atomic Energy Agency's report is scheduled to be made public, a White House spokesman, Tommy Vietor, said Iran "is continuing to violate its international obligations" despite the imposition of sanctions that severely restrict the country's oil revenue.

The energy agency's inspectors found that Iran had installed hundreds of new centrifuges in the deep underground site called Fordow in recent months, but Mr. Vietor said that did not change the White House assessment that diplomatic solutions to the Iranian nuclear issue were still viable.

The White House statement appeared intended to pre-empt statements from Israeli officials, who are citing the forthcoming inspectors' report to bolster their argument that the negotiations with Iran have simply allowed Tehran to speed ahead with its construction program, and that sanctions have been ineffective.

The office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reported Friday that during a meeting with Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who heads the intelligence committee, Mr. Netanyahu said, "Just yesterday, we received additional proof of the fact that Iran is continuing to make accelerated progress toward achieving nuclear weapons while totally ignoring international demands." He appeared to be referring to news accounts about the inspectors' report.

Iran's top negotiator was in Vienna at the International Atomic Energy Agency's headquarters in an effort to work out an agreement for Iran to allow inspectors to visit a site, called Parchin, where inspectors believe weapons work may have been conducted. But the effort failed, along with parallel efforts to get Iran to answer a series of questions about suspected weapons-related experiments that the country has refused to discuss for several years.

An administration official, who declined to speak for attribution about intelligence matters, confirmed that in the American assessment, "the numbers of centrifuges being installed and operating" at the Fordow plant, which he characterized as "a few hundred," would "add to Iran's ability to produce more 20 percent low-enriched uranium." That purity can be converted relatively rapidly to bomb-grade fuel, a process called "breakout." But, the official added, "Any breakout would not be a quiet affair: the I.A.E.A. is in the facility regularly and they would detect a move" to build a weapon. He concluded that while the work at Fordow was a violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions, "it is also not a game-changer."

Iran insists that the 20 percent enrichment is for a reactor that produces medical isotopes. But it has already produced far more of the 20 percent uranium than is needed to fuel that reactor for many years.

The contrasting responses to a report that is still being written reflect the very different strategies being pursued in the United States and Israel. President Obama is trying to keep the pressure on Iran without letting the confrontation tip into crisis before the presidential election. As a result, the White House emphasizes the steps it is taking to pressure the Iranian leadership which range from diplomatic isolation to sanctions to sabotage and avoids discussion of why, despite those steps, Iran's nuclear program continues on course.

Mr. Netanyahu has a different calculus. He and his defense minister, Ehud Barak, have said that time is running out. They have broadly hinted that a decision on whether Israel will strike at Iran's nuclear facilities may come soon, in a matter of weeks. The betting in Washington, however, is that those threats are largely an effort to extract commitments from Mr. Obama to act against Iran in the future, perhaps in 2013. An attack joined by the United States, Israeli officials have said, would be far more effective than one Israel conducts alone. But so far, there has been no such assurance from the White House.

Jodi Rudoren contributed reporting from Jerusalem.


Adele

[Peter Lemkin]

The whole 'Western' premise is obscene - hard to know where to start. Its OK for Israel [a rogue state, now, if ever there was one] to have 'em - and Pakistan and India...but others...now way!....

It seems to me the Iranians are dead set on having the capability to create nuclear weapons - but have not started production. They can read tea leaves and know that N. Korea is not much bothered ONLY because they have nukes. They'd like not to be ****ed with further [the history of UK and US ****ing with them is long, and look it up if you are unaware! - the opposite has not happened except in the minds of the fantasy prone neocons]

Technically, what they are planning is not against the rules: no weapons-grade uranium or plutonium; only the technical capability and to have that set up so that, if desired, it can rapidly be produced.

While I think the Ayatollahs that run Iran are an odd lot and not very democratic at all. We created them by our undemocratic actions in Iran - killing their democratic leaders and setting up puppet tyrants who tortured and killed and ran a dictatorship for us...and then the Iranians overthrew that - how dare them! The product of that overthrow is not perfect IMO not even what the majority of Iranians want, but we have no one but ourselves to blame.

Iran is not a suicide cult, so even if they have nuclear weapons, I can't see them using them unless attacked. Let us pray that is true for all nations with nuclear weapons and that there are no faked attack scenarios by third or false-flag entities.

As the US and Israel are poised to bomb all the facilities Iran has for both civil and military nuclear production - and this could cause a regional to World war - an oil war at the very least - likely not that contained -what nation wouldn't want to protect itself from that?! Iran would not bomb Israel unless Israel bombed Iran, of this I'm sure.

Who's to say they haven't purchased secretly a few nukes and have them stored away, already.

As to the USA's stand it is so hypocritical - as the only nation to incinerate two cities for no real good reason with nuclear weapons....and we think we can tell others how to behave re: nuclear weapons?!?!?!

..and I could go on...

[Adele Edisen]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...e32308.htm


Iran's Call for Nuclear Abolition by 2025 is Unreported by New York Times

By Alice Slater

August 28, 2012 "Information Clearing House" ---- The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), formed in 1961 during the Cold War, is a group of 120 states and 17 observer states not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc. The NAM held its opening 2012 session yesterday under the new chairmanship of Iran, which succeeded Egypt as the Chair.

Significantly, an Associated Press story in the Washington Post headlined, "Iran opens nonaligned summit with calls for nuclear arms ban", reported that "Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi opened the gathering by noting commitment to a previous goal from the nonaligned group, known as NAM, to remove the world's nuclear arsenals within 13 years. We believe that the timetable for ultimate removal of nuclear weapons by 2025, which was proposed by NAM, will only be realized if we follow it up decisively,' he told delegates."

Yet the New York Times, which has been beating the drums for war with Iran, just as it played a disgraceful role in the deceptive reporting during the lead-up to the Iraq War, never mentioned Iran's proposal for nuclear abolition. The Times carried the bland headline on its front page, "At Summit Meeting, Iran Has a Message for the World", and then went on to state, "the message is clear. As Iran plays host to the biggest international conference …it wants to tell its side of the long standoff with the Western powers which are increasingly convinced that Tehran is pursuing nuclear weapons", without ever reporting Iran's offer to support the NAM proposal for the abolition of nuclear weapons by 2025.

Surely the most sensible way to deal with Iran's nascent nuclear weapons capacity is to call all the nations to the table to negotiate a treaty to ban the bomb. That would mean abolishing the 20,000 nuclear bombs on the planetin the US, UK, Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israelwith 19,000 of them in the US and Russia. In order to get Russia and China to the table, the US will also have to give up its dreams of dominating the earth with missile "defenses" which, driven by corrupt military contractors and a corporate- owned Congress, are currently being planted and based in provocative rings around Russia and China.

The ball is in the U.S. court to make good faith efforts for nuclear abolition. That would be the only principled way to deal with fears of nuclear proliferation. The US must start with a genuine offer for negotiations to finally ban the bomb in all countries, including a freeze on further missile development. It should stop beating up on Iran and North Korea while it hypocritically continues to improve and expand the US arsenal, with tens of billions of dollars for new weapons laboratories and bomb delivery systems, and fails failing to speak out against the nuclear activities of other nations such as the enrichment of uranium in Japan and Brazil and the nuclear arsenal of Israel.

Alice Slater is NY Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and serves as its UN NGO representative. She is a member of the Global Council of Abolition 2000, a network in 95 countries working for a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Adele

[Adele Edisen]

Sun, September 2, 2012 6:06:53 AM
Finian Cunningham: NAM Summit - Ban Ki-Moon in disgraceful show of US puppetry
From: Global Research E-Newsletter <crgeditor@yahoo.com>

NAM Summit: Ban Ki-Moon in disgraceful show of US puppetry
By Finian Cunningham

Global Research, August 30, 2012
Press TV

URL of this article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=32578

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon ©, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ® and Iran's Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi at the opening ceremony of the 16th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Tehran on August 30, 2012.


Seated alongside Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the day that Iran took over presidency of the NAM of 120 nations, the presence of Ban could be seen as a blow to the diplomatic machinations of the United States and its Western allies, including Israel.
But, rather than making a forthright statement of support for Iran, the veteran South Korean diplomat showed his true colours as a servile puppet of American imperialism.

In the weeks leading up to the 16th summit of the NAM, Washington had been calling on the UN top official to decline attending the conference in Tehran. When Ban announced last week that he was going ahead, the US government was evidently peeved, calling his decision "a bit strange".

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was predictably more strident, denouncing Ban's visit to Iran as "a big mistake". In typical vulgar and provocative language, Netanyahu subsequently attacked the NAM summit as "a stain on humanity".

What the United States and its Western allies feared most from the NAM summit was a global display of goodwill and solidarity towards Iran. For more than three decades now, Washington has invested huge political capital in a global campaign of vilification against Iran, denouncing the Islamic Republic as a "rogue state", a sponsor of "international terrorism" and, over the last 10 years, as "a threat to world peace" from alleged nuclear weapons development.

The Western powers of the US, Britain and France in particular continually arrogate the mantle of "international community" to browbeat Iran, claiming that the nation is in "breach of its obligations".

In attempting to portray Iran as a "pariah state" these powers, along with Israel, have partly succeeded in turning reality on its head and to assume the outrageous right to threaten Iran with pre-emptive military strikes and enforce crippling economic sanctions.

However, the attendance of some 120 nations in Tehran this week - two-thirds of the UN General Assembly - is a clear statement by the international community that resoundingly rejects this Western campaign of vilification.

Clearly, the majority of the world's people do not see Iran as a rogue state or a threat to world peace. Indeed, the endorsement of Iran's presidency of the NAM for the next three years is vindication of the country's right to develop on its own terms, including the pursuit of peaceful nuclear technology.

In one fell swoop, the NAM summit liquidated Washington's political capital for denigrating and isolating Iran as worthless. Seated at the top of the summit's gathering in Tehran, the mere presence of the UN General Secretary to witness the appointment of Iran as the new leader of the Non-Aligned Movement was partially a symbolic vote of confidence.

But then, in his speech on this historic day, Ban engaged in a disgraceful diplomatic offensive. He pointedly denounced those who "deny the [Nazi] holocaust" and who call for the Zionist state's destruction. Ban championed "Israel's right to exist" without a word of condemnation of Israel's decades-long crimes against humanity on the Palestinian people and its violation of countless UN resolutions. In that way, the UN chief was peddling the spurious Western propaganda that seeks to besmirch Iran's principled opposition to the Zionist state's record of criminality.

Ban went on to cast bankrupt Western aspersions on Iran's nuclear rights. He said that Iran needed to use its presidency of the NAM to demonstrate peaceful intent, allay fears that it was developing nuclear weapons and to engage positively with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Western-dominated P5+1 group - the group that has used every step in bad faith to hobble and hamper a negotiated agreement with Iran.

The question is: what planet has Ban Ki-Moon been living on? The fact is that Iran has done everything to comply with the IAEA and its obligations to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran has consistently demonstrated its peaceful nuclear ambitions and its responsibility to the NPT - unlike the Western powers and their illegal nuclear-powered Zionist rogue state. Just this week, Iran even invited the member states of the NAM to visit its nuclear facility at Natanz - an unprecedented show of openness.

For Ban to reiterate such unfounded, scurrilous suspicions against Iran on the day that it assumes the presidency of the NAM is a reflection more of his abject servility to Western powers - and it underscores the urgent need for a total structural reformation of the UN to make it more democratically accountable.

What was even more telling was what Ban omitted to say in his speech at the NAM summit. Unlike his pointed jibes at Iran, he only used the vaguest language to condemn the violence raging in Syria whenever the evidence is glaring that the US, Britain, France and their Turkish, Israeli and Persian Gulf Arab allies are now openly flouting international law by fuelling a covert war of aggression in that country.

Just this week, a US Congressional report revealed that the United States is responsible for nearly 80 per cent of all global arms sales in 2011 - some $66 billion worth - a figure that has tripled on previous years. Half of this trade in weapons and death has been plied by the US to the Persian Gulf monarchies who are in turn laundering the arms to Syria. No words of condemnation from Ban on that.

Nor did the UN chief speak out to condemn the illegal economic sanctions that Washington and its coterie of imperialist allies have slapped on Iran - sanctions that are, in effect, an act of war and are viciously imposing hardship on Iranian civilians, including thousands of infirmed people in need of vital medicines.

Nor did Ban condemn the Western powers' covert war of sabotage and assassination of Iranian scientists, some of whose bereaved families were attending the NAM summit as he spoke.

In a further reprehensible omission, the UN General Secretary lauded the Arab Spring pro-democracy movements. He mentioned several countries by name, but significantly did not include Bahrain even though the people of that country are being butchered and incarcerated daily since their uprising in February 2011. The Western powers and their corporate media do not mention the depredations of their despotic ally in Bahrain against women and children. And neither does Ban Ki-Moon.

No, he would rather engage in pejorative, baseless innuendoes against Iran, while disgracefully covering up Western crimes of aggression in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran and the ongoing slaughter of innocents with US drones in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.

NAM stands for solidarity against imperial aggression. In his address to the NAM, Ban Ki-Moon was acting like an ambassadorial puppet for his Western masters. Maybe in reforming the UN, the Non-Aligned Movement should from now on seek to ensure that any future head of the United Nations be truly representative of the concerns and anguish of the world's majority, and not a diplomatic salesman for imperialist powers.

Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Many of his recent articles appear on the renowned Canadian-based news website Globalresearch. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in journalism. He specialises in Middle East and East Africa issues and has also given several American radio interviews as well as TV interviews on Press TV and Russia Today. His interests include capitalism, imperialism and war, socialism, justice and peace, agriculture and trade policy, ecological impact, science and technology, and human rights. He is also a musician and songwriter. Previously, he was based in Bahrain and witnessed the political upheavals in the Persian Gulf kingdom during 2011 as well as the subsequent Saudi-led brutal crackdown against pro-democracy protests.

GLOBAL RESEARCH | PO Box 55019 | 11 Notre-Dame Ouest | Montreal | QC | H2Y 4A7 | Canada


Adele

[Peter Lemkin]

No one becomes UNSG unless the USA approves [or appoints] and the one they really were unhappy with [Hammerskjold] they murdered.......others they just got 'rid of' in less lethal ways, spied on and compromised, or controlled.

[Lauren Johnson]

No one becomes UNGS unless the USA approves [or appoints] and the one they really were unhappy with [Hammerskjold] they murdered.......others they just got 'rid of' in less lethal ways, spied on and compromised, or controlled.

What he said.

[Magda Hassan]

Israelis protest potential war on Iran outside Barak's house

Israelis hold signs during a protest against a possible Israeli attack on Iran, Tel Aviv, occupied Palestinian territories, August 23, 2012.

Mon Sep 3, 2012 5:55AM GMT





It's inconceivable how badly those in office who are advocating an attack can disregard human lives mine, yours, all of ours."
[B]Yifat Solel, an Israeli protester
[/B]

[B]A group of Israelis have gathered outside the house of the Israeli Minister for Military Affairs Ehud Barak to protest against a potential military strike against Iran.[/B]


The protesters gathered outside Barak's home in Tel Aviv on Sunday.

"They are toying with human lives… One thing is certain - if we attack Iran, we will be led to war. We can't drag Israel into war," Ynetnews quoted Yifat Solel, one of the protestors, as saying.

"It's inconceivable how badly those in office who are advocating an attack [against Iran] can disregard human lives - mine, yours, all of ours," Solel added.

Israeli demonstrators, furious and concerned about a potential Israeli attack on Iran, have been gathering outside Barak's house for the past three weeks.

"We've been demonstrating in front of the home of minister of war, Ehud Barak, and we will continue to demand… to stop the madness," said Naomi Saroussi, another protester.

Iranian authorities have dismissed the repeated Israeli threats of military action against the Islamic Republic, warning that in case Israel makes the mistake of launching such an attack, it will spell the end of the Israeli regime.

A number of senior Iranian military commanders have also emphasized that in case of any attack on Iran, the conflict is certain to expand well beyond the region.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/09/03/...arak-home/