Ayoon Wa Azan (He Who Lives By The Sword Shall Die By The Sword)

Israelis have been targeted in New Delhi, Tbilisi and Bangkok, prompting the Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, almost immediately, to claim that Iran is behind the three failed attempts. But Barak is a terrorist. He was a terrorist before he visited Beirut in 1973, a terrorist afterwards and he remains a terrorist to this day. After he joined the Labor Party, I wrote that Barak is a closeted Likudnik who did not find a leading position in Likud, and so opted for the other party which he soon destroyed. Now I read in the Israeli press that the terrorist Benjamin Netanyahu is looking for a position for Barak in Likud, ahead of the next Knesset elections. According to an English saying, it takes one to know one. Barak the terrorist knows that Israel has carried out terrorist attacks against Iran, killing five or six Iranian nuclear scientists, most recently last month. For this reason, he knows that Iran would respond to terrorism in kind. I condemn terrorist acts by both sides, but I note that it is Israel that initiated this cycle. The initiator is always more to blame, and he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. However, I choose today to attack those who support and enable terrorism. I was inspired to do this after reading an editorial in the New York Times entitled “The Enablers”- i.e. those who enable a given party to carry out illegal acts, with the issue here being terrorism. The editorial begins by saying, “China, Russia and India see themselves as global leaders. So why have they been enabling two dangerous regimes, Syria and Iran, to continue on destructive paths?” Now I reject and deplore the killing of protesters by the Syrian regime, and I state this today as I stated it every time I wrote on Syria. However, the issue today is Iran and Israel. The policies of Syria and Iran are indeed bad, but the worst policy in the Middle East and the world is Israeli policy, based on terrorism against the Palestinians and around the world, as well as occupation, killing, dispossession and racism. The Israel of Likud, Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu is a criminal gang and a disgrace to Jews around the world. Nevertheless, the New York Times thinks otherwise. The NYT editorial mentions that Navi Pillay, the top United Nations human rights official, has condemned the killing in Homs. We condemn it too, but the newspaper fails to mention that the largest number of condemnations in the history of the United Nations was issued against Israel’s crimes, and that these condemnations would have probably been double the number were it not for the American veto. On the same day, the Washington Post spoke in an op-ed about “The U.S.-Israeli trust gap on Iran”. WP questioned the Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s objection to a military strike against Iran two months earlier, and also his statement during an interview with David Ignatius in which he pointed out that there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June this year. The Post believes that the Secretary’s statement undercuts Israeli efforts. The editorial then concludes by calling on the U.S. to spell out its willingness to take military action if Iran is found taking steps toward producing a nuclear bomb, such as enriching its uranium to further levels. According to the Post, saying “all options are on the table” is not enough; instead, Obama should be explicit about Iranian actions that will violate red lines — and what the consequences will be. I accuse the two liberal and prestigious newspapers the New York Times and the Washington Post of aiding, inciting and enabling a war on Iran that will kill thousands of Muslims, just like they did with the war waged by the administration of George W. Bush on Iraq, and which culminated with the death of one million Arabs and Muslims. Their blood is on the hands of the journalists who were allowed by the New York Times to run fabricated news stories on the paper’s front page, and the journalists who were allowed by the Washington Post to take charge of the paper’s op-ed page for Israeli reasons. I am not concerned by the known Likudnik websites’ incitement to killing Arabs and Muslims, as this is rather expected of them. The same goes for Efraim Halevy calling for the destruction of Syria to weaken Iran in the New York Times, since he is part and parcel of the terrorist regime in Israel, and Benny Morris writing in the Los Angeles Times about the (American?) military option to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, as he is an Israeli historian who has shifted away from modernism into the realm of fabrication. However, it does concern me a great deal when two of the best newspapers in the world enable and incite Israel to commit crimes because those in charge of the Middle East section in both papers happen to be Likudniks.