Oxford Research Group, a “think-tank” that promotes non-violent solutions to conflict, said military action should be ruled out as a response to Iran’s possible nuclear weapons ambitions, since an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would start a long war and probably not prevent Iran from eventually acquiring them.

“An Israeli attack on Iran would be the start of a protracted conflict that would be unlikely to prevent the eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran and might even encourage it,” it said in a report.

It would also lead to instability and unpredictable security consequences for the region and the wider world, it added.

The report is written by Professor Paul Rogers, who also opposes the War on Terror.

‘Nuff said.

Updates (Israel time; most recent at top)

Cosmo Peres

5:05PM: Introducing Israel’s Top 10 Names in Hollywood.

As an aside, it would be nice to hear them speak out in support of Israel (I have noticed Noa Tishby doing so on Twitter).

4:35PM: Quote of the day:

“I didn’t dream of being president. My dream as a boy was to be a shepherd or a poet of stars.”

– Israeli President Shimon Peres

Say what?

4:25PM: Iranian nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri – who returned to Iran after claiming he was kidnapped and brought to the US – has claimed he suffered extreme mental and physical torture at the hands of US interrogators and that Israeli agents participated in interrogations with the CIA.

“Israeli agents were present at some of my interrogation sessions and I was threatened to be handed over to Israel if I refused to cooperate with Americans,” Amiri told Reuters reporters.

OOGA BOOGA!

3:45PM: Ynet reports:

A female cadet in the IDF’s flight course sustained light wounds Thursday morning after bailing out of her aircraft during her first solo flight.

An initial debriefing led by the IDF Flight School commander revealed that the flight cadet lost control of the training plane a short while before landing. She then decided to bail out in line with procedure.

The plane continued to travel on the landing strip and was damaged, but not heavily.

[insert women drivers joke here]

3:24PM: The IDF has released the following film, produced by the Eiland Team of Experts, breaking down the events of the flotilla using a timeline that alternates between 3D models and footage captured throughout the incident (this film has been available for a number of days, but I purposely waited until for the version with English subtitles).

10:58AM: Gaddafi’s son plans to send $50 million to Gaza, with the approval of Israel.

And it looks like Junior is as coherent as his batsh*t crazy father.

“We go the grapes, so why kill the vineyard guard?” Reuters quoted him as saying, citing a report from London-based paper a-Sharq al-Awsat.

10:00AM: That’s what I’m talking about.

best Middle East cities

From Travel and Leisure’s World’s Best Awards 2010: Best Cities – Middle East.

6:10AM: Alan Hart, former Middle East Chief Correspondent for ITN and a former BBC presenter, claims Israel perpetrated 9-11.

58 thoughts on “The Day In Israel: Thursday July 15th, 2010”

  1. What 5 guys are they talking about?

    All I know is that anyone who knows what they are talking about knows that the buildings were designed to collapse in that fashion. The structure is on the inside and the floors hang on the central structure. Compare to normal buildings that have an external superstructure. For example, the Empire State Building could probably withstand five fully-fueled 747s.

    1. What these morons never realize is that there is no logic in Israel having Hussein taken out (as well as the Taliban). All that did is pump up Iran, which is much worse a threat. Israel cannot profit from a decimated Iraq, that was already more or less sedated by multiple wars and sanctions. Of course, Israel could certainly have not thought of this, but that would make Israel stupid. In fact, I think the people who were stupid and didnt realize what would happen were in the previous US administration.

      1. Well, no. It's just that we live in the time after Saddam and hence don't realise how much has changed.

        Iran would have become more powerful anyway. Saddam's Iraq without American troops wouldn't have been able to stop them.

        But Saddam was also the biggest supporter of the PLO. It was the fall of the Iraqi regime that made the PLO harmless and fully dependent on western support. That's why the PLO's most harmful weapon now is a refusal to talk to Israel. They don't have money to buy lots of weapons any more. The days of trying to take over Jordan or causing civil wars in Lebanon are over.

        1. Thats not fully clear. I forget if its a fallacy, but there is something incorrect or unjustified in saying "it would have happened anyway". We dont really know that and it may have been a different Iran than we see now. We certainly hastened its rise.

          Oh yeah I remember learning that in Hebrew school he sent money to the families of suicide bombers and Israel demolished the homes so theyd have to spend the money on that.

          But now we have Hamas and Hezbollah, which is nearing the Tamil Tigers in capability. Devil you know vs. Devil you dont…

      2. Michael Zvi Krumbein

        And eventually, France would have prevailed, the sanctions would have stopped, Saddam would have had his scientist dig up the centrifuge from his garden, and the WMD program resumed in ernest.

        Compared to the Baath party, the mullahs of Iran are sane, liberal (small "l"), tolerant, and democratic. Plus Iraq is young and highly educated, s othe base for "progress" in that area was there.

        1. Thats a bunch of rubbish. Theres little, if any, proof of that. I thikn youve shown about alleged WMDs being found in Syria before, but those are still vague and sketchy sources.

          Saddam was secular and really not that much of a threat after we put him in his place. Of course the neocons love their demons. Iran may have been so until 2003-5, but no longer is. Its not even clear if they are still in control. The Guards seem to have muscled up that we could see a civil war in 20 years. It will be interesting when Khameini dies. Policy-wise, Iran was more liberal under Khatami and still is more liberal than our friends in Arabia.

          Iraq and the Taliban held Iran back. in fact, Iran asked us in the late 90s if they could attack the Taliban. (Imagine if we had let them!). Ironically, now the two are allied. Gotta love US foreign policy since 1945. (Sorry, I know you love it all, but we have done nothing but screw up the world since Truman.)

          1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

            (Why would I love it all? Eisenhower was Arabist until State was forced to realize that Israel was a better ally agaisnt the COmmunists.)

            What's rubbish? The physicist even wrote a book about it – "The centrifuge in my garden". At any rate, hindsight is 20/20, certainly Britain and apparently Israel though he had the WMD, even if Avital claims we wold them not to.

            At any rate, Saddam was clearly a terrorist supporter. He had a training camp with an actual airplane to practice on; I've seen an aireal photo of it. AND he was shooting at our planes, and we were basically still at war with him. If we were to have a "war on terror", he was the logical next traget. (I am really sorry we didn't attack Syria, though.)

            1. Oh not the Israeli aspect. The general foreign policy. The first blunder was starting the Cold War (while people in FDR and some of Trumans administration called for friendly competition, Truman, with urging from Churchill, instigated the Cold War). Next would probably be taking out Mossadegh in Iran (there is simply no modern justification for this at all). In fact, I think that one event single-handedly sealed the future of radical Islam. A strong, secular, democratic Iran, combined with Turkey and Israel would have sedated radicalism and reinforced each other well. Look at Turkey now: it looks to Iran and has no secular ally to reinforce it.

              Oh Im not doubting the centrifuge, just that Saddam had any intention of using it.

              Certainly, but that was with the PLO and had little impact on us, at least directly. Terrorism does sleep around, but it was nothing like Bush claimed. The war on terror was an idiotic concept from the beginning. Syria probably would be a better target. It would free Lebanon and not rebalance power in any bad way that I can tell, unless something worse came in after. Still, I dont like the idea of invading countries to change the leadership.

          2. Michael Zvi Krumbein

            Regarding Iraq holding Iran in check, first of all, that's too cold-blooded for me. Secondly, Iran sent out Hezbollah decades ago (I remember evryone joking about it – we no longer laugh). You aren't going to tell me they only got active a few years ago?

            Regarding the countries, Iraq was tiotalitarian, while Iran is still relatively free and Democratic. We discussed Iran before; I thought we basically agreed. (You are mixing up "free" and "secular".)

            BTW, why do you use prejorative terminology (neo-con) when talking to a memeber of a group you disagree with? The use of "neo-con" make me think of people lie Buchnan. (If you think everyone uses it, you ought to get out more.) (BTW, one of the reasons Iraq was our "demon" was that they were considered the greatest threat to Israel. I really am not going to fault someone for being too pro-Israel.)

            1. Well it happens to be fact. Iran only rose up the minute Iraq and Afghanistan were crippled. This idea isnt my own; I read it somewhere. And I think almost any geopolitical expert would agree. Hezbollah wasnt really really active until today. Before it was more focused on Lebanon. Part of this is because of the withdrawal also.

              Iraq was not totalitarian. It was authoritarian and greatly exaggerated by a lot of myths. Thats not to say there wasnt brutality, but it was not near some of the demonic claims that are made. Iran was free and democratic principally from 1997-2005. Democracy faltered in 2005 and collapsed in 2009. Now, its the same oppressive regime as elsewhere. The exceptions being in social aspects (womens rights, etc), although there is still much ground to cover. So yes we did agree. But Iraq was no North Korea or Saudi Arabia. Secularism is a type of freedom, although they can be separated.

              Well, partially its a shortening for convenience, but I dont really like your group at all. I think they are responsible for a lot of the problems in the world today. A lot of people do use the term, primarily in liberal and libertarian circles. Ron Paul didnt say it, but he implied it.

              Certainly it was a threat, but Iraq was somewhat crippled after the Gulf War, sanctions, and no fly zones. And as walt and I have said, eliminating that "threat" created a much bigger one. "Devil you know…"

        2. balance of power

          as long as sadaam was there, iran wasnt going to do anything…he kept them in check

          they honestly thought he had wmd

          once the us got rid of sadaam, iran was untethered

          it was a huge mistake

          1. And he thought we were trying to outbluff him. If he knew we were seriously going to invade, he probably would have come clean that he was full of crap, and avoided the invasion.

            Geopolitics is like a specially prepared jenga set, or dominoes. And weve inadvertently disrupted it all.

    2. Michael Zvi Krumbein

      I am trying to remeber, but it was more complicated than that, although the basis is true. Originally they were supposed to use a different from of reinforcement, but there was some poilitcal issue. At any rate, I will not blame the victim.

      Please note: the Zionists and the neo-cons – in other words, the Jews. False charges of anti-semitism, anyone?

      By the way, as long as we are talking about the original basis of political arguments one is making, Juvanya, it would seem pretty clear that anti-neo-conservative arguements (neo-con is prejorative, of course) are rooted in anti-Semitism. (Pat Buchanan, anyone?)

      1. I think its more that Zionists (antisemitic usage) are part of the neocon cabal, which wouldnt make neocon an antisemitic usage.

        I think it comes down analagous development (to borrow from biology). I know plenty of neocon critics/haters that support or are neutral on Israel, myself included. The antisemites have just ruined the whole thing by claiming Israel is part of the neocon conspiracy/scheme (nevermind that it precedes neoconservatism by a quarter of a century), which is not even remotely true.

        1. although aholes like finkelstein like to run around and scream that the israelis lobbied for the us to go to war with iraq….there is no evidence for that scenario

          the united states would never fight a war for israel

          bush and his criminal cabal had plans drawn up to go after iraq long before 9/11 ever happened

          they wouldve come up with something…they got lucky…just like his daddy did

          the reality is, despite his paying terrorist families 20k each per suicide bombing, israel knew that he was keeping iran at bay

          israel also remembers how it was served up as a sacrificial lamb during the first gulf war….why would they have wanted to do that again?

          1. Yeah. He talks strange too. Like hes a programmed robot or something. hmm…..

            Yeah I think Ive heard that before that there was always a plan to go into Iraq. Of course Lucky Dick managed to forget his words from a 1994 interview.

            Good. At least Im not alone in thinking all of this. 😛 at MZK

            1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

              No, paranoid conspiracy theorists think alike 🙂

              P.S. Dick Cheney was reliably pro-Israel, unlike W. I wish HE had been president.

              Why shouldn't we have a plan to invade Iraq? We were in a shooting war with them, for heaven's sake. Heck, I hope we have a contingency plan to invade CANADA!

              1. Seriously, he sounds like he had a stroke or is a programmed robot! Or Maybe hes a reptilian.

                Heaven help us all if that were ever to happen. 😛

                Oh nonsense. He wanted nothing to do with us. Now youre just trolling. 😛

                1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

                  What are you talking about? He was consistently pro-Israel. I am quite serious. I would have loved to see him as president. (I will ignore the insults, as I don't want to drag this out.)

                  At any rate, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that non-racist Obama opponents (otherwise known as "the American people") are latching on to some rasict stuff, and then claim that the neo-conservative-haters just co-incedentally sound just like the anti-semites.

          2. people have very short memories. sadam ignored a arge amount of sanctions by the UN (as Iran is doing now) and NO one in the UN was willing to punish saddam for it. that is when bush was given the ok to invade Iraq. Please do some reasearch before spouting on about what you think you remeber.

        2. Michael Zvi Krumbein

          I am simply using your argument regarding racism and Obama. There are plenty of anti-Obama people who are neither truthers not birthers nor racists (although they seem to be sparse here).

          BTW, one of the original neo-conservatives, John Corry (see his book, My Times) was an early critic of the Iraq invasion. A neo-conservative is simply a '40's liberal.

          1. Certainly there are and Ive used that argument with Israel too. Although as specific critic of Israel or Obama may not be antisemitic or racist, a lot of the criticism has its roots in racism. That is, racism was the shovel that dug up the skeletons that normally would remain in the earth.

            Exceptions always exist. That Spectator article I linked somewhere here is somewhat of an exception in a neocon magazine, although I think it still argues that Iraq was our enemy and deserved invasion. I have to reread it again.

            1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

              Oh, that's AmSpec, my favorite maganize. They are mostly neo-conservative, but have carried other opinions. They clearly don't have a racist bone in their body. (On the side, they are pretty pro-immigration, although not amnesty.) I tried the Economist first (used to pick it up in the basement of the WTC when coming in to NY for an interview); when that got too offensive to me, I tried the Weekly Standard, when that did the same, I get to AmSpec, and stayed with it until I moved to Israel and couldn't justify the expense.

              I hadn't seen the article, although to me that is a distinction without a difference.

              1. Yeah. Most media do, contrary to popular belief, carry other opinions. I would never say neocons are racist. Arguably, one could say its the opposite.

                I like the Economist, but they are so anti-israel now and the comments online are sickening. They still have a lot of good stuff though, like this about the Saudi throne succession. I would subscribe, but Im so behind on National Geographic, Trains Magazine, and a comic that it would be just silly.

                Here is the article It says basically OBL had nothing to do with 9/11 and died in July or December 2001. The true culprit is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is already in custody. There have been no credible sightings of OBL since 2001, and the tapes since 2001 are not authentic. Further, there is a strong incentive for OBLs guards to kill him and run away should US forces ever be closing in. (I think the article mentions this, or maybe Ive seen it elsewhere)

        3. Michael Zvi Krumbein

          We didn't say that. He said Zionists AND "neo–cons", two groups heavily identified with Jews.

          In the second part, I was mainly referring to your argument regarding racism, not that I was convinced of it. But now that you use a term like "cabal" (as in Zionist cabal, Jewish Cabal), I think I may have something there. Thanks for giving us neo-conservatives a new tool! 🙂

          1. Zionists yes. Neocons, coincidentally. As I said, I think the problem is that antizionists and their ilk have mistakenly sweep Zionism into the neoconservative worldview (spread democracy by force, Pax Americana, American Empire). And it is a cabal pretty much. Once again, its more coincidence that the word is also used for Zionists and Jews. Neoconservatism has absolutely nothing to do with Zionism or Judaism. Zionism and Neoconservatism do overlap in a few goals, but they are not the same or even related.

          2. Michael Zvi Krumbein

            One reason a lot of people like me are interventionists is that the isolationists have been pretty consistently against us, from the America First Committee in WWII, to Geogrge McGovern (a southern isolationist like his predecessors) to the Bucannans of today.

  2. Alan Hart's credentials are all "former." What are his current affiliations and why is he no longer with these news organizations?

  3. Also, heres a good read for everyone. Not a conspiracy theory, but a genuine alternative theory to 9/11.
    http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/13/osama-bi

    To summarize: OBL had nothing to do with 9/11 and died in July or December 2001. The true culprit is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is already in custody. There have been no credible sightings of OBL since 2001, and the tapes since 2001 are not authentic. Further, there is a strong incentive for OBLs guards to kill him and run away should US forces ever be closing in. (I think the article mentions this, or maybe Ive seen it elsewhere)

  4. what is the point of posting troofer vids here?

    these people are nutjob jew hating bastards….every single one of them

    1. I think it's clear the point is to show the kinds of people employed by the likes of the BBC.

      I could spell it out, but I give you guys credit for being intelligent 🙂

      1. you arent telling us anything new about the bbc

        the guy over at screw loose change already ripped into this vid and the bbc

        1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

          It's important to rehash as much as possible. The BBC is still considered respectable and reliable. Ditto CNN and the New York Times.

    2. Funny, but today, the Jerusalem Post reports that Israel is among the top 20 countries investing in Britain. You would think that the cesspool of anti-Semitism found in the media, academia and spilling over into labor unions and entertainment would raise red flags about where to park investment money. All we need are native know-nothings complaining about Jewish domination. Better are friendlier developing countries like Colombia.

  5. Michael Zvi Krumbein

    What exactly are those awards for? Please note that our leftist, anti-religious journalists hate Jerusalem and consider it unlivable. It's good to have an impartial opinion.

  6. Michael Zvi Krumbein

    Wow! What a film. Thanks, Dave. Our soldiers were magnificent. Note that the soldiers were NOT let go, as reported. (Anyone want to chack if this is still in Wikipedia?)

  7. Michael Zvi Krumbein

    Here's some lawfare from our side, from families of Israeli victims accusing Al Jezzeera of giving targeting information. I would think that's a war crime, since they were warned.
    http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=121&loa

    (P.S. Some idiotic Israeli reporter did this during the Haifa shelling, but they stopped her.)

  8. Michael Zvi Krumbein

    Lost my main posts responding to Juvanya. Well, just presume I completely refuted your arguments. 🙂 Also, the spell check failed.

  9. Michael Zvi Krumbein

    To answer your invisible comments, I think I've made my points. I try to stay out of things that don't have to do with Israel, here. Regarding American policy, we are interpreting motives here, which are complex. I do not think that the average person is subject to arrest because of weird suspicions in Iran, as they are under Ba'ath regimes (which is sort of a secular religion, anyway). (An example in Syria was someone stopped for opening a map.) At least you do accept the difference between authoritariansim and totalitarianism. And I certainly don't think the U.S. started the cold war; may I remind you that there was an agreement to hold free elections in Easern Europe?

    Regarding Hezbollah, I live in Haifa.Hezbollah in Lebanon is no joke to me. And I really don't think that the "balance of power" was areason not to take action. If the Right (the sane right, not the AFC) and the press during WWII would have acted like the Left and the press did during the War on Terror, we would be in death camps now. (Hitler didn't attack the U.S., either.)

  10. I meant Finkelstein. Sorry. Cheney though does seem like a robot now that I realize what you mean. Hes definitely a cyborg with all those mechanical parts.

    I, though, couldnt trade Israel for his other policies that were very destructive and dangerous.

    I never said that. What I said is that the source of much of the criticism is from racist people. He was criticized quicker than any president in history. There were people making up bulls/ about him before he won the Iowa Caucus.

    As for neocons, I can see what you mean, but I dont really agree. Zionism and neoconservatism overlap a bit and it can seem that the two go hand in hand, and criticism towards one is similar to criticism to the other. Of course you can also have neoconservative Zionists… I can assure you though that the two ideologies are pretty much separate, not that a lot of people will accept that. They have been allies of convenience at times and neoconservatives generally like Israel.

    Speaking of these cabals, I meant to say something about how the neoconservatives are speculated to be related to the Council on Foreign Relations (I have mixed opinions) and then you start getting into conspiracy theory land, ranging from the CFR to some other group, to the Bilderbergs, to the Illuminati and Masons. Im sure youve seen stuff about "Zionist-Illuminati conspiracy". One (I think) theorist whos a family friend said that the Illuminati and Masons are actually on our side and the real overlords put out propaganda to make it seem like the Illuminati are the overlords.

    Some of this probably has elements of truth. You can reasonably argue that rich people (what I call the hidden rich—below the super-rich that we know about: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett…) do control a lot of aspects of the world. But Ill stop here. Certainly you can go and say this is an antisemitic theory because Jews are associated with money in antisemitism, but anyway…

    I once told a conspiracy theorist that the Illuminati (or maybe Zionists) dont control the world…because "ExxonMobil wouldnt allow it."

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top