Today’s speech by Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, about the sanctions on his country and its determination to persist in its quest for nuclear capability was a significant news event. Khamenei served notice on the United States that he would not be bluffed into giving up his nuclear plans. Though he conceded the economic pressure on his country has hurt, he said Iran is undaunted and would retaliate against the United States should its nuclear facilities come under attack. All this was reported in newspapers around the world, including the New York Times, which posted a story on the speech Friday morning.
However, there was something missing from the Times report of Khamenei’s speech that was reported elsewhere. Other accounts noted that in addition to threatening the United States, Khamenei said this: “The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor and it will be removed.” While we don’t know how or why a mention of this element of the speech managed to get excised from the account in the Times, it’s a question worth pondering.
Any discussion of the nature of the Iranian nuclear threat that ignores the regime’s murderous intentions toward Israel is clearly incomplete.
An Iranian bomb would change the balance of power in the region and endanger all moderate Arab regimes while strengthening the hand of Tehran’s terrorist allies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas (though relations between Gaza and Iran have cooled recently). It would also threaten the free flow of oil from the Gulf to the West and diminish the strategic position as well as the security of both the United States and Europe.
But it is only Israel that Iran has promised to destroy. That is why placing a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime pledged to the eradication of the Jewish state is a different order of threat than Khamenei’s usual bluster aimed at the United States. Because of its small size and concentrated population, one or two nuclear explosions would mean another Holocaust.
So when Khamenei repeats the Islamist regime’s pledge to make good on its threat to destroy “the Zionist regime” in the same context as its vow to satisfy its nuclear ambitions, this is no minor rhetorical point. It is, instead, tangible evidence that Israel’s alarm about Iran is justified and that the question of what to do about this threat is a matter of life and death for millions in the Jewish state.
For the Times to eliminate Khamenei’s threat to Israel from its coverage even as it accurately reports other elements of the speech is more than curious. At the very least, it is an egregious error of judgment. At worst, it smacks of an effort to skew the discussion about Iran away from the imminent peril that its Tehran’s nuclear program represents.
Those who seek to dismiss the justified fears expressed by friends of Israel about the Obama administration’s hesitancy in taking actions and efforts to forestall an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities wish to lower the temperature of the discussion and ignore Khamenei’s threats. But doing so makes it impossible to make a rational decision about averting the danger. Further prevarication such as that going on in Washington right now about Iran is exactly what Khamenei is hoping for as Iran seeks to run out the clock and achieve its ambitions before the West or Israel acts to stop them. Those who believe a nuclear Iran can be “contained” or doubt Iran’s evil intentions need to understand what Khamenei said and what he meant by it. But that won’t happen if major media outlets suppress the full story about Iran.
Perhaps the NYTIME's thinking goes something like this: n n'Cancerous tumors must always be excised. Common sense. No news value there. Better to spend column inches on adding opinion to the news piece.' '
It is this supposed to be amusing? hard to tell here, is this criticism of the Times or something else?
Criticism of the Times, of course. I'm Jewish, not a New York Times editor.
The New York Times writers,publishers and editors have been the lackey of the Obama administration (and other liberal ruling classes) forever. They probably may not even have realized the severity of their "editing". Thankfully, Israel has a better idea of the danger of Iran.'s nuclear capacity.
The NYT has been a fully functioning arm of the White House regardless of the administration. Judith Miller?
You write: "Because of its small size and concentrated population, one or two nuclear explosions would mean another Holocaust." n nThis prompts an intriguing question. I understand that the death of 2 million or so Muslims who reside within Israel, the West Bank and neighboring Gaza would, in the Muslim world, be perceived as a necessary and acceptible sacrifice, and that the dead would be rewarded in the afterlife as holy martyrs. But, doesn't nuking Jerusalem also mean the destruction of the Al Aqsa Mosque? And doesn't that act pave the way for the subsequent building of the Third Temple in its place, assuming Israel somehow rebuilds? How can such perfidy be justified by any faithful Muslim?
The Palestinians themselves may not be up with this sacrifice. Current reports have Hamas trying to get out from under the Persian Shiite thumb. You never know. Iran is not necessarily worrying about its Sunni rivals.
Think "fallout" — think lingering radioactivity. Think suicide as a religious value. n nTouch off a big nuke ON the Al Aqss Mosque. Right on the roof of it. nDepending on the type of the nuke, its efficiency (which will be low hence making the bomb dirtier), nand a few other things, this will change, but touch off that nuke and you will have a big, smoking and HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE crater == and depending on some things, could have the crater so radioactive that nothing could be built there in 100 years, maybe 1000 years. n nThere would be no Third Temple — no one would live long enough in the hole to build it. n nAre the Iranians crazy enough to think this way? Hmmmm……
The Times is not alone in its attempts to downplay the threat to Israel posed by Iran. To listen to many MSM accounts of the increasing tensions in the wake of Leon Panetta's new and puzzling public revelations, one couldn't be blamed for concluding that it's the feeling of the U.S. government that if there's indeed a loose cannon abroad that needs to be carefully handled, it's Israel not Iran. n nMany journalists seem to find it puzzling that the Israelis take the prospect of their own extermination a bit more personally than does the media. To paraphrase a famous film quote, "This is business and these Israelis are taking it very, very personal!"
This is not about the Times or Obama or even Western acquiesence to Iranian Hitlerian pledges to remove the Zionist cancer. It is about the regime that threatens this crap. With their active exhortations for enemies of Israel to arise to exterminate Israel under their tutelage and their vigorous attempts to fund same they have declared war de facto de jure by word and deed on Jews and the Jewish state. Screw the nukes. It is long past due to teach them a lesson they will long remember. The West can keep out of it. Israel should pee or get off the pot already.
One of the guiding principles of the NYT is to minimize any threat to the Jews.
The speech is complete justification for an Israeli strike. It is no more or less the same threat made by Nasser in 1967. Panetta's statement reported in the Times only confirms that the Israelis are in final preparation for a "short" war which can only mean the missiles are fueled and the warheads attached, the planes are on the runways and armed and the orders to call up the Israeli reserve army have been cut and only awaiting distribution. 30 – 90 days at most. It's my belief that the Israeli strike will be crippling and final and not a 1 -3 year delay as forecast by many in the government and media which can only mean one thing – the Israelis will use nukes on fortified Iranian positions and take out the above ground sites with smart bombs. As for Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria – if they're willing to take the risk they can expect the same treatment. As for what the Times says or doesn't say – well, who cares. They operate in a different universe and just lost $40 million. Gee, I wonder why that is.
Don't bet on Israeli nuclear preemption. Latest reports, contradicting earlier reports, is that they believe that conventional arms are perfectly okey dokely to meet the relatively modest list of targets they've drawn up–the main enrichment facility at Natanz is not hardened and above ground AFIK.
Obviously an existential threat to Israel is deemed news not fit to print. Perhaps the better to blame the Jewish state if conventional war comes now or nuclear war later.
Israel can make the best out of an inevitable situation here. n nAn Israeli action, if successful, would: n nShow up Obama as inept and vacillating, and spell his doom come Nov. n nThanks to Obama’s need to distance the US from ISrael prior to this action, it would break the strings of perceived and real vassalage of Israel towards the USA – Israel would finally be a ‘free’ and independent country, that the arab world would have to deal with directly, rather than through American coercions, that only poison the US/Israeli relationship. n nThe US would have to deal with Israel if not quite as an equal, at least as a valued ally whose worries and capabilities must be respected. n nA tremendous, if risky, geopolitical opportunity for Israel to come into its own. n nBut to the extent that she may be forced, by American weakness, to go it alone, it is worth considering the upside. n
An interesting and typical omission by the Times. n nIsrael, of course, lives in a state of immanent existential treat of its destruction, at the same time as one of its 'reasons for existence' is to provide refuge and safety for the Jewish people. n nAgainst this backdrop, it is important to keep in mind a bit of the RealPolitik in front of the Rhetoric. Israel is not weak in this matter. Whatever the words and posturing, the use of nuclear weapon against Israel would mean, without question, the utter destruction of Iran. n nIran's leadership may be many things, but it is not suicidal.
Israel could attack tonite as far as I'm concerned. n nthink about it: Israel leaves Gaza. the next day the Palestinians start firing rockets. the world is silent. after 5 years or so, Israel finally says "Enough" and defends itself. suddenly the world rises up in horror. same with the flotilla: it is a LEGAL blockade, yet the terrorists trying to run it are seen as "peace activists" and victims of the Zionist entity. n nIsrael can do nothing that the nations will approve of. therefore, it ought to look out for itself and the hell with everyone else, and I mean that literally. because even if Obama's not on Israel's side, G-d is. n
In my view, the Iranian regime's actions and statements regarding Israel are definitely acts of war. Therefore, Israel is fully justified in taking any actions it deems necessary to protect itself. If the rest of the world does not like it they can go to hell. The world in general does not give a s–t about Israel anyway. I say this as a Christian and am not Jewish myself. However, I do love, respect, and honor the Jewish people for their achievements and good contributions throughout world history. I do not wish to see another Holocaust happen. Israel, be strong! There are many people throughout the world who do love you and have your back. Remember that.