US press blacks out Israeli defense minister’s citation of ‘Nagasaki and Hiroshima’ as model for dealing with Iran

Philip Weiss 

This is a story about the media blackout of important information about Israel: that their leaders are seriously misguided.

Two weeks ago, Electronic Intifada reported public comments by Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon in which he cited Hiroshima and Nagasaki as role models in responding to Iran. Ya’alon suggested that Israel might have to nuke Iran in order to prevent a long war: “at the end, we might take certain steps.” Last week Ali Gharib picked up the EI report at Lobelog and linked to the video of Ya’alon, speaking in English on May 5 to the Israel Law Center (and posted by that rightwing group, which supplied a transcript).

A man asked if democracies are “at a strategic disadvantage” in dealing with a threat like Iran. Ya’alon disagreed, and without prompting, brought up the possibility of Israel nuking Iran:

Now those who claim that this battle is not fair because democracy can’t fight back tyrannical regime — not talking about terror organizations–  I don’t agree with it.

In certain cases, we might take certain steps that we believe that these steps should be taken in order to defend ourselves. I mentioned the discussion about the interception of the rockets’ positions on civilian houses. We decided to do it.

I can imagine some other steps that should be taken. Of course, we should be sure that we can look at the mirror after the decision, or the operation. Of course, we should be sure that it is a military necessity. We should consider cost and benefit, of course.

But, at the end, we might take certain steps.

I do remember the story of President Truman was asked, How do you feel after deciding to launch the nuclear bombs, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, causing at the end the fatalities of 200,000, casualties? And he said, When I heard from my officers the alternative is a long war with Japan, with potential fatalities of a couple of millions, I thought it is a moral decision.

We are not there yet. But that what I’m talking about. Certain steps in cases in which we feel like we don’t have the answer by surgical operations, or something like that.

So not only is he implicitly threatening nuclear war, he’s admitting that Israel has nukes?

Chemi Shalev of Haaretz and Ahmed Shihab-Eldin, who has worked at Huffpo, retweeted the piece. Eli Clifton tweeted:

Israeli Def. Minister is using WWII and nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a moral guide for dealing w Iran

Jon Schwarz pointed out:

It would be pretty big news if Iran’s Defense Minister were asked about Israel & he started talking about Hiroshima

But there has been no coverage of this story in the mainstream media. It’s a blackout, conscious or not.

So the mainstream media are once again covering up crazy/scary/rightwing Israeli attitudes. Jodi Rudoren of the New York Times, for instance, is of the opinion that only a “small strain” in Israeli society is for holding on to the West Bank. It’s no wonder that the Times hasn’t covered Ya’alon’s frightening statement.

Yet these are the officials that the Obama administration is dealing with. These are the paranoid war-planners whom the White House has struggled to contain for years. And the American people are clueless.

(Related: Here is a report again from EI saying that the BBC has faulted a reporter for going easy on Ya’alon:

A BBC investigation has found that one of its senior presenters, Sarah Montague, breached the organization’s editorial standards on impartiality in a radio interview she conducted with Israeli defense minister Moshe Yaalon in March.

(The Palestinian Solidarity Campaign had taken apart that interview, showing how Ya’alon repeatedly denied the occupation–

they enjoy already political independence. They have their own political system, government, parliament, municipalities and so forth. And we are happy with it. We don’t want to govern them whatsoever.’

They are connected with us like Siam twins, so the whole idea of full separation isn’t viable.

(EI now quotes a statement from Fraser Steel, head of complaints at BBC, agreeing with the complaints in an email:

Mr. Yaalon was allowed to make several controversial statements … without any meaningful challenge, and the program-makers have accepted that the interviewer ought to have interrupted him and questioned him on his assertions.)

Fear of Death Behind Trump’s Cowardly Stealth Visit to Afghanistan

By: S. Nawabzadeh

The medieval British playwright, William Shakespeare, in his drama "Julius Caesar”, put the following famous sentences in the mouth of the ancient Roman dictator when soothsayers warned him against venturing out on the Ides of March – 15th March 44 BC, the day he was assassinated:
"Cowards die many times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once.”
Here, the metaphor of death has been used to convey how a coward feels when he runs away from a challenge, losing strength of character each time he chickens out. In other words, a gutless person, scared to death because of his breach of promises, accords, and commitments, is never fair, frank, and forthright in his plans, for fear his characterless life might be snuffed out anytime by some fearless figure unafraid of the consequences that befall him.
In contrast to the coward, a valiant person never thinks of himself and is not swayed by greed or self-interests while discharging duties and responsibilities with honesty, even if death is imminent, since there is no time for machinations, jealousies, regrets, or cover-ups.
US President Donald Trump is definitely no Julius Caesar, whose name and fame is alive despite the passing of two millenniums – whatever his faults and shortcomings as an imperialist striving to make Rome a superpower in those days when the other superpower, that is, Iran’s Parthian Empire, had checked Roman expansion in the east nine years earlier through General Sourena by a resounding victory in 53 BC at Carrhae (Harran in present day Turkey).
It means neither Trump is anywhere in the list of the valiant, nor will he be remembered by anyone in the US – let alone the world – after, say, a half century.
The man who likes to boast that he will make America Great Again, is actually a Lilliput, despite his hulk and the bombastic language he uses from the safety of the iron-cage security surrounding him.
As a matter of fact, like all cowards, who die many times before their death, Trump is terrified of the fast approaching day when he would be a lifeless corpse, no matter how he shrouds his movements around the US and abroad in secrecy.
The person, who last Christmas sneaked like a thief into Ain al-Asad airbase (a hundred km north of Baghdad), without the knowledge of Iraqi authorities, late last November committed the same cowardly crime, and this time in Afghanistan.
According to a CNN report: "On Thanksgiving eve, President Donald Trump slipped unnoticed out of his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida on his way to a bare-bones military plane with just a handful of top aides. His departure was concealed even from White House staff and military personnel who were at Mar-a-Lago… Sixteen hours later, he touched down for the first time in Afghanistan… after a similar Christmas Eve trip last year to Iraq.
"The 16-hour trip – plus the three more Trump spent on the ground at Bagram Air Field north of Kabul – were shrouded in secrecy. At 2 p.m. reporters traveling with the President were authorized to report on his visit, minutes before Air Force One took off to return Trump to Florida.”
It is clear that Trump, who despite the utmost secrecy of his trip may have gone through scary thoughts of death if some malfunction were to occur with the aircraft or if a stray Taleban shell were to end his life, breathed a heavy sigh of relief on returning intact to Florida.
We are not concerned here with the results or lack of results of his Afghan trip as well as his empty words of restarting peace talks with the Taleban which he himself had broken off some months before.
To sum up, it was a carbon copy of his last year’s Iraq trip, with the only difference being President Ashraf Ghani answered the call of the uninvited guest and came to Bagram to meet him, while in December 2018 a similar call by Trump to Prime Minister Adel-Abdul-Mahdi to come and meet him at Ain al-Asad was firmly rejected as an insulting demand by a violator of Iraq’s sovereignty.
Mr. Trump, for your information, Shakespeare has further said: "Strange that men should fear; seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come.”

US Protecting Daesh to Sustain Pretext for Its Regional Bases: Australian Prof.

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – A senior professor and political analyst based in Australia said recent reports about a covert operation by the US to help Daesh (ISIS or ISIL) commanders escape a Taliban prison in Afghanistan prove that Washington is seeking to “sustain a pretext” for its bases in the region.

“Washington seems keen to keep its prime assets, not least Daesh commanders, in the region for 'divide and rule' operations which help sustain a pretext for US bases across the region,” Professor Tim Anderson, a lecturer at the University of Sydney, said in an interview with the Tasnim News Agency.

“Driving divisions between peoples, with the help of Israel and the Saudis, and preventing the normal peaceful integration of neighboring countries of the region, has become a key to US strategy in West Asia,” he added.

Professor Tim Anderson is a distinguished author and senior lecturer of political economy at the University of Sydney, Australia. Author of the 'The Dirty War on Syria', he has been largely published on various issues particularly the Syrian crisis.

The following is the full text of the interview:

Tasnim: Recent evidence shows that the Daesh (ISIS or ISIL) terrorist group is on the rise in war-torn Afghanistan with the support of the US government. According to Tasnim dispatches, a large number of prisoners, all of whom senior members of Daesh, recently broke out of a Taliban prison in northwest Afghanistan after US troops helped them escape through a covert operation. Given that Daesh's so-called caliphate has collapsed in Syria and Iraq, what goal is Washington pursuing by transferring the terrorists to Afghanistan and strengthening them?

Anderson: Washington seems keen to keep its prime assets, not least Daesh commanders, in the region for 'divide and rule' operations which help sustain a pretext for US bases across the region. Driving divisions between peoples, with the help of Israel and the Saudis, and preventing the normal peaceful integration of neighboring countries of the region, has become a key to US strategy in West Asia. That is also why they wish to keep their own troops stationed on the borders of Syria-Iraq, and surrounding Iran. Washington is reported to have lost some of its special forces soldiers in the operation to free Daesh fighters from a Taliban prison.

That can raise an image problem for Washington back home, where US soldiers dying to rescue Daesh fighters does not look good, given the well-publicized but false pretext ('fighting Daesh') for US troop presence in much of the region.

Tasnim: As you know, some regional countries, including Iran, have been sensitive about the presence of Daesh in Afghanistan due to their national security concerns. How justifiable do you see their concerns?

Anderson: Of course, Iran will be concerned about Daesh in Afghanistan, as they are about Daesh in Iraq and Syria and in the Caucasus. Iran is the chief target of both Israel and Washington, because of its leading independent role. Not that long ago the Saudi regime (chief sponsor of terrorism and effectively a 'cat's paw' for the US in West Asia) sent in Daesh terror attacks on Iran's National Assembly (parliament), the Imam Khomeini mausoleum and, more recently against a military parade. Riyadh has even tried to recruit for Daesh, with limited success, within Iran. There has been an ongoing war - including economic, terrorist and propaganda wars - against Iran ever since 1979. There can be little doubt that Daesh assets in the region are being mobilized against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Tasnim: Do you think that Daesh would be able to establish a foothold in Afghanistan given the fact that the Muslim people in the country are strongly opposed to them and their extremist ideologies?

Anderson: It will indeed be difficult for Daesh to build support within Afghanistan. First, the Afghan people are fiercely and famously independent. Second, while extremism in Afghanistan was fed by Washington in the 1980s, the particular strains of fanaticism in that country come from the Deobandi (South Asian) and not from the Salafi (Persian Gulf Arab) traditions. Although these can appear similar to outsiders, Deobandis and Salafis generally do not get along. However Saudi money can broker some alliances, with local intermediaries. We have seen, for example, some Pakistani mercenaries within Daesh groups in Syria.