RSN August 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Chomsky writes: "Although citizens of Arab countries generally dislike Iran, they do not regard it as a very serious threat. Rather, they perceive the threat to be Israel and the United States."

Author, historian and political commentator Noam Chomsky. (photo: Ben Rusk/flickr)
Author, historian and political commentator Noam Chomsky. (photo: Ben Rusk/flickr)



The Gravest Threat to World Peace

By Noam Chomsky, ZNet

06 January 13

 

eporting on the final U.S. presidential campaign debate, on foreign policy, The Wall Street Journal observed that "the only country mentioned more (than Israel) was Iran, which is seen by most nations in the Middle East as the gravest security threat to the region."

The two candidates agreed that a nuclear Iran is the gravest threat to the region, if not the world, as Romney explicitly maintained, reiterating a conventional view.

On Israel, the candidates vied in declaring their devotion to it, but Israeli officials were nevertheless unsatisfied. They had "hoped for more 'aggressive' language from Mr. Romney," according to the reporters. It was not enough that Romney demanded that Iran not be permitted to "reach a point of nuclear capability."

Arabs were dissatisfied too, because Arab fears about Iran were "debated through the lens of Israeli security instead of the region's," while Arab concerns were largely ignored – again the conventional treatment.

The Journal article, like countless others on Iran, leaves critical questions unanswered, among them: Who exactly sees Iran as the gravest security threat? And what do Arabs (and most of the world) think can be done about the threat, whatever they take it to be?

The first question is easily answered. The "Iranian threat" is overwhelmingly a Western obsession, shared by Arab dictators, though not Arab populations.

As numerous polls have shown, although citizens of Arab countries generally dislike Iran, they do not regard it as a very serious threat. Rather, they perceive the threat to be Israel and the United States; and many, sometimes considerable majorities, regard Iranian nuclear weapons as a counter to these threats.

In high places in the U.S., some concur with the Arab populations' perception, among them Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the Strategic Command. In 1998 he said, "It is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East," one nation, Israel, should have a powerful nuclear weapons arsenal, which "inspires other nations to do so."

Still more dangerous is the nuclear-deterrent strategy of which Butler was a leading designer for many years. Such a strategy, he wrote in 2002, is "a formula for unmitigated catastrophe," and he called on the United States and other nuclear powers to accept their commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to make "good faith" efforts to eliminate the plague of nuclear weapons.

Nations have a legal obligation to pursue such efforts seriously, the World Court ruled in 1996: "There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control." In 2002, George W. Bush's administration declared that the United States is not bound by the obligation.

A large majority of the world appears to share Arab views on the Iranian threat. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has vigorously supported Iran's right to enrich uranium, most recently at its summit meeting in Tehran last August.

India, the most populous member of the NAM, has found ways to evade the onerous U.S. financial sanctions on Iran. Plans are proceeding to link Iran's Chabahar port, refurbished with Indian assistance, to Central Asia through Afghanistan. Trade relations are also reported to be increasing. Were it not for strong U.S. pressures, these natural relations would probably improve substantially.

China, which has observer status at the NAM, is doing much the same. China is expanding development projects westward, including initiatives to reconstitute the old Silk Road from China to Europe. A high-speed rail line connects China to Kazakhstan and beyond. The line will presumably reach Turkmenistan, with its rich energy resources, and will probably link with Iran and extend to Turkey and Europe.

China has also taken over the major Gwadar port in Pakistan, enabling it to obtain oil from the Middle East while avoiding the Hormuz and Malacca straits, which are clogged with traffic and U.S.-controlled. The Pakistani press reports that "Crude oil imports from Iran, the Arab Gulf states and Africa could be transported overland to northwest China through the port."

At its Tehran summit in August, the NAM reiterated the long-standing proposal to mitigate or end the threat of nuclear weapons in the Middle East by establishing a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. Moves in that direction are clearly the most straightforward and least onerous way to overcome the threats. They are supported by almost the entire world.

A fine opportunity to carry such measures forward arose last month, when an international conference was planned on the matter in Helsinki.

A conference did take place, but not the one that was planned. Only nongovernmental organizations participated in the alternate conference, hosted by the Peace Union of Finland. The planned international conference was canceled by Washington in November, shortly after Iran agreed to attend.

The Obama administration's official reason was "political turmoil in the region and Iran's defiant stance on nonproliferation," the Associated Press reported, along with lack of consensus "on how to approach the conference." That reason is the approved reference to the fact that the region's only nuclear power, Israel, refused to attend, calling the request to do so "coercion."

Apparently, the Obama administration is keeping to its earlier position that "conditions are not right unless all members of the region participate." The United States will not allow measures to place Israel's nuclear facilities under international inspection. Nor will the U.S. release information on "the nature and scope of Israeli nuclear facilities and activities."

The Kuwait news agency immediately reported that "the Arab group of states and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) member states agreed to continue lobbying for a conference on establishing a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction."

Last month, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution calling on Israel to join the NPT, 174-6. Voting no was the usual contingent: Israel, the United States, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.

A few days later, the United States carried out a nuclear weapons test, again banning international inspectors from the test site in Nevada. Iran protested, as did the mayor of Hiroshima and some Japanese peace groups.

Establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone of course requires the cooperation of the nuclear powers: In the Middle East, that would include the United States and Israel, which refuse. The same is true elsewhere. Such zones in Africa and the Pacific await implementation because the U.S. insists on maintaining and upgrading nuclear weapons bases on islands it controls.

As the NGO meeting convened in Helsinki, a dinner took place in New York under the auspices of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an offshoot of the Israeli lobby.

According to an enthusiastic report on the "gala" in the Israeli press, Dennis Ross, Elliott Abrams and other "former top advisers to Obama and Bush" assured the audience that "the president will strike (Iran) next year if diplomacy doesn't succeed" – a most attractive holiday gift.

Americans can hardly be aware of how diplomacy has once again failed, for a simple reason: Virtually nothing is reported in the United States about the fate of the most obvious way to address "the gravest threat" – Establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+51 # Activista 2013-01-06 19:14
Bibi - Israel’s prime minister says he will erect a fortified fence on the border with Syria .Jan 2013.."
So Israel Third Reich is annexing Golan Heights?
...United Nations Security Council resolution 497, adopted unanimously on 17 ... calls on the State of Israel to rescind its de facto annexation of the Golan Heights....
Hope that )Obama and Hillary will be anforcing this UN resolutioin as vigorously as they did bobmbing of Libya ..
Israel is Numero Uno threat to the World Peace
 
 
+7 # Artemis 2013-01-07 02:03
Most people do consider American and Israel a threat to world peace, but we should not compare Israel to the Third Reich (even though Victor Klemperer, a German Jew, did compare the Zionist emigrants to the Nazis in 1933). It is now not correct or useful. The behaviour of Israeli citizens while their governments lie and brainwash them into believing they have the right to dispossess others of their land, while their children are educated to despise and hate the 'other', etc. can certainly be compared to the behaviour of Germans in the thirties, but there are also substantial differences.
 
 
+4 # Activista 2013-01-07 15:05
I agree - any analogies half century and thousands miles apart are quite stupid - sorry - but we are so bombarded (and effectively) with holocaust so I used it.
For the informed people I do apologize.
To the pagrad below:
"...United Nations Security Council resolution 497, adopted unanimously on 17 ... calls on the State of Israel to rescind its de facto annexation of the Golan Heights...." try to search on the subject - and Israel announced to make the occupation permanent to build its famous fence. How many hundreds civilians were killed on Israeli walls? Likely more than on Berlin wall - at least in proportion to population.
 
 
-8 # pagrad 2013-01-07 10:28
[quote name="Activista"]
So Israel Third Reich is annexing Golan Heights?

So, Activista, you are advocating that the US return Texas and New Mexico back to Mexico! Good for you, should ALL countries return their acquisitions?
 
 
+20 # reiverpacific 2013-01-07 11:21
Quoting pagrad:
[quote name="Activista"]
So Israel Third Reich is annexing Golan Heights?

So, Activista, you are advocating that the US return Texas and New Mexico back to Mexico! Good for you, should ALL countries return their acquisitions?

To a point, starting with the Black Hills and the large swathes of land within US Border that were stolen by broken treaties when force didn't work, from the native peoples who would have been good stewards instead of raping, extracting, wasting and poisoning them, then leaving them like festering wounds on the face of the planet, in the name of "National sacrifice areas" for the so called "National Security Corporate State" to fuel and feed the bloated behemoth that is the US Military (and it's LIKUD-driven baby bro' the Israeli Military and Mossad's already bloody hands).
Indeed that would be a minimum.
 
 
-35 # ghw 2013-01-06 19:47
Actually we need to de-you. I do not understand how your post passed.
 
 
+48 # Activista 2013-01-06 20:53
We do not need more censorship - we need freedom of speech - US military oligarchy floods media with Iran/Syria war propaganda.Quoting ghw:
Actually we need to de-you. I do not understand how your post passed.

Passed what? Censorship of ghw?
 
 
-5 # Liberalthinker 2013-01-06 22:48
GOODNESS...I certainly am relieved that there are no anti-semitics among this group.ACTUALLY ...the most serious threat to peace among men ,women and children on this planet we must share , is stereotyping and blatant hate mongering in the process.
 
 
+10 # reiverpacific 2013-01-07 19:54
Quoting Liberalthinker:
GOODNESS...I certainly am relieved that there are no anti-semitics among this group.ACTUALLY ...the most serious threat to peace among men ,women and children on this planet we must share , is stereotyping and blatant hate mongering in the process.

Some of you need to examine the difference between anti-semitic or Jewish and anti-LIKUD.
It's a bit like so many Americans who traveled during Dimwits Bushes' time, who many times had to declare that they didn't vote for him. People were keen to separate the US from what it had become under that cabal of liars and chicken-hawks. Same in Israel under Nutty-Yahoo.
Chomsky was recently denied entry into Israel where he was scheduled to give a speech at a University.
That was typical right-wing, anti-freedom of speech, militarist LIKUD. The decision to have him as a speaker was issued by a Jewish university; that's universal desire for a broad-based education which is their function.
Surely that must be clear, even to you.
 
 
+5 # Activista 2013-01-08 13:19
Stan "The holocaust survivor Dr Hajo Meyers on his site has a video in which he says the word anti-semite has changed it's meaning and that now it means " some one who is hated by Zionists not as it used to mean someone who hates a certain people . Sulart Aloni Former Israeli minister adds that the word is a trick played on Americans like the Zionists use holocaust in Europe to hide all criticism such as the treatment of the Palestinians or control of the monetary system"
 
 
+2 # maddave 2013-01-11 12:04
Quote: "...the most serious threat to peace among men ,women and children . . . , is stereotyping and blatant hate mongering . . . " Unquote

Liberalthinker has a very valid point: It is our standard operating procedure for our government, (many of) our spiritual leaders and our media to single out, stereotype, dehumanize, and demonize any serious country, movement or economy which threatens our status quo. On the bottom line, we find it much easier to overrun and kill these "threats to national security" - these "enemies" both real and imagined - when they are seen as "other than human, free or christian (like us). Ask any indian.

People of good will get along just fine until politicians and preachers get involved.
 
 
+32 # Activista 2013-01-06 22:53
This is standard solid article by mirror of our conscience - Noam Chomsky. Assembly of facts with intellect and slight touch of satire to describe what US government/Stat e Department calls US "foreign policy".
Th question "The Gravest Threat to World Peace"? Answer: Not what Murdoch's Wall Street Journal claims.
Chomsky is also pointing to the pervasive censorship in US media:
report on the "gala" in the Israeli press, Dennis Ross, Elliott Abrams and other "former top advisers to Obama and Bush" assured the audience that "the president will strike (Iran) next year if diplomacy doesn't succeed" not reported at NYT ..
1% rules - at gala dinners of the military oligarchy, the wars are made.
 
 
0 # Activista 2013-01-07 16:15
Search:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ross
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams
people who run US foreign policy
 
 
-45 # jerelwe 2013-01-06 23:35
Noam Chomsky always writes negative articles about Israel which distort history and present day political reality. In this commentary he remains true to form by once again proving that his excellent work on understanding language should not be a passbook to write about politics if he is as biased as this article shows. Iran a sh'ite nation supports Assad and his muderous Alawite regime in Syria. Sunni arabs know that and Iran and Hezbollah sh'ites are fighting for and arming Assad's regime and both will pay the price for this military support and intervention. As for his biased commentary about Israel I can only wonder why RDS never tries to offer more positive articles about Israel. How can the RDS be read as a credible news and commentary source if only a one sided and not even moderate point of view is ever offered about Israel. In effect the news and commentary is often so extreme that it resembles what news organizations like Fox news try to do about support for extreme right wing ideas. Israel by the way has allowed tens of thousands of Black Africans, often from Sudan and Somilia and islamic to immigrate and live in Israel in recent years. Your support of only one side in this region does not serve your mostly intelligent readership. To allow commentary from members who equate Israel with Hitler's Germany is ridiculous and a cruel joke. What might be next expected from Noam Chomsky would be an article to support the idea that Israel does not have a right to exist.
 
 
+24 # aaheart 2013-01-07 01:29
If Israel would start behaving in accordance with the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and other international laws, they might get a better press. At least RSN is not an owned PR dept for a country that the UN Human Rights Council has called a
"terrorist organization".

Israel by the way has discriminated against black people who are Jewish, police have been permitted to harass them, and many are in danger of being deported. Your propaganda, Jerelwe, is fortunately an anomaly here on RSN
 
 
+25 # Artemis 2013-01-07 02:24
Noam Chomsky does not always write "negative articles" about Israel's government (note: GOVERNMENT). He reports facts - and thank goodness, he is among the few who do.
Do let us know some positive facts about Israel that have to do with their Middle East policies and their nuclear arms, which is what the article concerns. I see only their extraordinary contribution to unrest for more than sixty years, with no end in sight. That doesn't mean I don't respect individual Israelis or recognize positive potential in their society.
Chomsky writes of changes in the world that the US and Israel stubbornly ignore or ignore, as they arrogantly ignore the rest of the world's thoughts on these matters. As you ignore what Chomsky is actually stating.
And by the way, I have recently spoken to someone returning from Israel who was appalled by the way the Africans are treated and another who saw mothers and children languishing in prisons awaiting deportation, so don't falsify the real situation.
 
 
-18 # jerelwe 2013-01-07 08:58
Noah Chomsky distorts facts and uses them as he sees fit to attack Israel. If you have read any positive article about Israel written by Mr. Chomsky please send me the reference.
One person's report about Black Africans that you gave is at best a factoid. The facts are that over 50,000 Black Africans have illegally immigrated to Israel; yet they presently live and work there, have basic freedoms and a quality of life that often is better than they had in their home countries and are not being deported beyond those who are criminals. Israel is far less racist towards Black Africans than most if not all Arab nations. Why would they want to come to Israel if this wasn't the reality of a chance for a better life in a country that despite security restrictions guarantees basic individual freedoms.
 
 
+6 # dkonstruction 2013-01-08 12:55
Quoting jerelwe:
Noah Chomsky distorts facts and uses them as he sees fit to attack Israel. If you have read any positive article about Israel written by Mr. Chomsky please send me the reference.
One person's report about Black Africans that you gave is at best a factoid. The facts are that over 50,000 Black Africans have illegally immigrated to Israel; yet they presently live and work there, have basic freedoms and a quality of life that often is better than they had in their home countries and are not being deported beyond those who are criminals. Israel is far less racist towards Black Africans than most if not all Arab nations. Why would they want to come to Israel if this wasn't the reality of a chance for a better life in a country that despite security restrictions guarantees basic individual freedoms.


You have not provided even one example of how in this piece or any other Chomsky "distorts facts." The fact that someone consistantly criticizes the policies of a gov't (any gov't) does not mean they are "anti" that country. Chomsky has always made it clear that his critique is of Israeli gov't policy. He has always supported the two-state solution and consistantly opposed attacks on civilians no matter who was perpetrating it.
 
 
-20 # stannadel 2013-01-07 05:22
Unlike Activista and some others here, Chomsky doesn't take the position that Israel should be wiped out. But he gives them an opening to spew their hatred of Jews.
 
 
+1 # Activista 2013-01-07 15:14
Quoting stannadel:
Unlike Activista and some others here, Chomsky doesn't take the position that Israel should be wiped out. But he gives them an opening to spew their hatred of Jews.

Please document when and where Activista and "others" here advocate destruction of Israel.
Israel is apartheid/terro rist state. Threatening Middle East/World peace with nuclear warheads mounted on German supplied submarines.
 
 
+4 # dkonstruction 2013-01-08 12:53
And, where in this piece does Chomsky "defend" the Iranian regime? Nowhere. You also fail to mention that Chomsky has consistantly condemned the rocket attacks on into Israel by Hamas or anyone else (as well as all attacks by any gov't anywhere in the world against civilians). You also suggest that Chomsky is opposed to Israel's right to exist which is also wrong: Chomsky has forever consistantly supported the two-state solution. finally, your piece offers no real critique of Chomsky's position at all other than the fact that you don't like it but then that is hardly a serious critique.
 
 
-31 # brux 2013-01-06 23:36
Yeah the US is belligerent and violent ... and we have done a lot of wrong. But seems to me the Muslims are their own worst enemy and they are mostly paranoid of Israel because they are brainwashed to be.

It is simply not a liberal position to be rabidly anti-Israel or pro-radical-mus lim.
 
 
+20 # aaheart 2013-01-07 01:32
A liberal position is one based on facts and truth. In fact, Israelis are mostly paranoid about Muslims because they are programmed to respond that way. Some Americans are similarly programmed that way.
 
 
+1 # MJnevetS 2013-01-08 08:54
Quoting aaheart:
In fact, Israelis are mostly paranoid about Muslims because they are programmed to respond that way...
(OK, I promised I would not involve myself with any more Chomsky or Israeli issues because of the (one-sided) mind set of those who respond, but... I don't know, maybe Israelis are paranoid because since the countries inception it has been the stated goal of every one of its neighbors and their militant terrorist offshoots to destroy Israel and wipe Jews from the Middle East. Remember the Yom Kippur war in 1973? Back on June 19, 1967, the National Unity Government of Israel voted unanimously to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace agreements. But although Egypt and Syria both desired a return of the land lost in the Six-Day War, the Khartoum Arab Summit issued the "three no's", resolving that there would be "no peace, no recognition and no negotiation with Israel". in an October 24, 1972 meeting with his Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, Sadat declared his intention to go to war with Israel even without proper Soviet support. Planning had begun in 1971 and was conducted in absolute secrecy. Although Israel had some advanced intelligence of the offensive, PM Meir decided there would be no preemptive strike because it was imperative that Israel would not be blamed for starting the war. 'If we strike first, we won't get help from anybody', she said. Con'd.
 
 
0 # MJnevetS 2013-01-08 09:17
Con'd. It is still the case, that no matter how aggressive the terrorist attacks are upon Israel, that any action (whether preemptive, or responsive) is seen as Israeli aggression. During the war, Syria ignored the Geneva Conventions and many Israeli prisoners of war (POW) were reportedly tortured or killed. The Egyptians, too, killed about 200 Israeli soldiers who had surrendered. In addition, dozens of Israeli prisoners were beaten and otherwise mistreated in Egyptian captivity. The Arab/Islamic/Co mmuinist countries that sent military aid in hopes that this pre-emptive war against Israel would wipe it from the map included Algeria,Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan (even though they gave Israel pre-strike intelligence), Iraq, Tunisia, Lebanon, Sudan, Cuba, North Korea and of course all of the main finance and military support came from the Soviet Union. Ultimately, the failure to destroy Israel by Egypt led to peace talks which, culminating in 1979 led to the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty in 1979. Israel subsequently withdrew its troops and settlers in the Sinai, in exchange for relations with Egypt and a lasting peace. Many in the Arab world were outraged at Egypt's peace with Israel. So, please, don't repeat that it is Israel's aggression which prevents peace treaties. When Arab nations are ready to concede Israel's right to EXISTENCE, Israel has conceded land gained through military victory in the face of Arabic aggression. LONG history, no easy answers.
 
 
0 # brux 2013-01-10 20:56
I try to reason with the rabid here, but to no avail.
 
 
0 # brux 2013-01-10 20:55
> In fact, Israelis are mostly paranoid about Muslims because they are programmed to respond that way.

OK, if you think murders and having rockets fired at you ... I guess their programmed.
 
 
-4 # cwbystache 2013-01-07 06:34
Everyone I have ever met in my sixty years is his or her own worst enemy.
 
 
+10 # mjc 2013-01-07 10:13
Your charge about Muslims being their own worst enemy could also be applied to Israel. Israel has for many decades since its founding professing their right to exist and the necessity therefore to acquire more territory and attack their neighbors, even the US with the USS Liberty attack. Judging only by the Israeli propagandist who post on HuffPo, the brainwashing has worked that any criticism of Israel or their policies is automatically anti-Semitic. They descend in a swarm on any indications that a poster doesn't believe the US should be fully in line with Israel's foreign policies.
 
 
-1 # brux 2013-01-10 20:57
The Liberty was a mistake ... not Israeli policy, what's wrong with you anyway to be so dishonest in your presentation?
 
 
+41 # AlWight 2013-01-06 23:40
There is no moral justification for our nuclear policy or our one-sided support of Israel. This is the main reason for terrorism toward the U.S. We need to agree with the other nuclear powers to reduce our stockpile of nuclear weapons, stop upgrading our own weapons, and stop threatening other countries. We should support a nuclear free Middle East and require Israel to reach agreement with the Palestinians.
 
 
+21 # DRPJJ 2013-01-07 05:18
Quoting AlWight:
There is no moral justification for our nuclear policy or our one-sided support of Israel. This is the main reason for terrorism toward the U.S. We need to agree with the other nuclear powers to reduce our stockpile of nuclear weapons, stop upgrading our own weapons, and stop threatening other countries. We should support a nuclear free Middle East and require Israel to reach agreement with the Palestinians.

Perhaps we also need to quit supplying Israel with our sophysticated nuclear armaments. Non proliferation is best served by the US staying out of those mid east arguments. Is this not the time to say, non-proliferati on begins with recognizing what is best first for the US and the world. Does Israel "deserve" to exist? Perhaps no more so than other nations that were expunged from the map. Playing "nice" would help. The money we spend sticking our noses into other countries business could do a whole lot to fixing our own countrys' problems.
 
 
+10 # mjc 2013-01-07 10:17
You are aware that Israel has never admitted to HAVING nuclear weapons, right? And that weaponry has never been inspected by UN as most of the nations with nuclear facilities have, including Iran!
 
 
+3 # reiverpacific 2013-01-07 11:23
Quoting mjc:
You are aware that Israel has never admitted to HAVING nuclear weapons, right? And that weaponry has never been inspected by UN as most of the nations with nuclear facilities have, including Iran!

Yeh right -and Fox news is "Fair and balanced"!!!!!
Talk about head-in-the-san d!?
 
 
0 # Sweet Pea 2013-01-07 13:28
AMEN to that!
 
 
+1 # MJnevetS 2013-01-08 09:54
Actually, the US did not aid Israel at all in their (possible) development of nuclear weapons during the early 60s. That would have been France, S. Africa and Italy and the support was in the obtaining of materials and the building of facilities, not the development of weapons themselves, which Israeli scientists developed on their own (as did Jewish scientists and theorists in the U.S.). BTW, you are aware that many of 'our' modern developments in science came from Israel, so you seem to have it backwards, it is Israeli technology which is being used by the US. i.e., the cell phone was developed in Israel, Intel Israel developed the 8088 processor (the “brain” of the first PC), the capsule endoscopy camera, The world’s first solar window, combining energy efficiency, power generation and transparency. The Wind Tulip, a cost-effective, silent, vibration-free wind turbine, producing clean energy at high efficiency. Flash Card memory and USB interface for connection to personal computers. The Pentium MMX Chip. Voice mail technology. Instant Messenger service. Surgical robots to transform spine surgery from freehand procedures to highly accurate, state-of-the-ar t operations with less need for radiation. Solid rapid prototyping machines craft 3D models of engineering parts directly from a computer. Used in the automotive, aerospace, consumer products and medical industries. I could go on, but you get the idea, and I'm not even mentioning medical developments!
 
 
-15 # stannadel 2013-01-07 05:20
And what "agreement with the Palestinians" should we require Israel to reach with Hamas which says it will settle for nothing less than the elimination of Israel and the expulsion of its Jewish population? Read the Hamas charter and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion which is its inspiration and you will see unadulterated Antisemitism on a level with Nazi propaganda. Arabs are "Semites" but that doesn't mean they can't be Antisemites because Antisemitism has always meant Jew hatred, not hatred of all Semitic peoples.
 
 
+17 # ishmael 2013-01-07 05:57
The US defense industry, which is really in charge, doesn't require moral justification.

Gotta be realistic. Putting an end to ME conflict is not in its interest.
 
 
+8 # reiverpacific 2013-01-07 11:25
Quoting ishmael:
The US defense industry, which is really in charge, doesn't require moral justification.

Gotta be realistic. Putting an end to ME conflict is not in its interest.

And to call it a "Defense industry" is an oxymoron to start with.
How about department of "War with anybody on any excuse"?
 
 
+15 # Rita Walpole Ague 2013-01-07 03:14
Yes, AlWight, and by my support of a nuclear free Middle East and the requirement of Israel and the U.S. to stop the Palestinian grab/slaughter, I am, along with countless good Jewish folks (some of whom are my friends and relatives), anything but anti-Semitic. Yep, I and countless and ever growing number of others are anti-AIPAC (that super lobby involved in constant buyout of politician clowns), and anti-constant warmode for $$$ into the pockets of the mic greedies and other 1%ers we are, and the 'we' includes many good peace and justice advocates who are Jewish.
 
 
+21 # RMDC 2013-01-07 05:24
The opening comment referring to the Wall Street Journal's claim that Iran is the biggest threat in the middle east shows perfectly the idiocy and mendacity of US news madia. Iran has not attacked anyone. It did fight a war with Iraq in the 80s but that war was instigated by the US and Iraq attacked Iran.

Israel and the US WILL start a war against Iran when they are ready. And they are working hard to get ready for it. Starting a way is a crime against peace -- the worst crime any person or nation can commit according to the Nuremberg declaration. It was what the Nazi leadership was convicted of doing. How are the US and Israel any different than Nazi leaders in the imperialism.
 
 
+17 # ishmael 2013-01-07 05:37
As in E Asia and Europe the US defense industry requires ongoing conflict in the region to keep $$ rolling in.

It will not permit an end to ongoing conflicts that are lucrative. If the US was serious about a peaceful ME it would stop its ridiculous - and tragic - drone program, and demand effective negotiations between Israel and its neighbors. Iran is a gold mine for US defense industry fear-mongering.
 
 
+14 # seeuingoa 2013-01-07 06:55
and don´t forget that the sons dying
on the battlefield are never the sons
of the politicians starting the war.
 
 
+14 # Peace Anonymous 2013-01-07 07:25
It is all about control. If your political perspective is not in-line with US/Israeli views you will be the enemy. Things with Iran went south when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran in 1953, which was all about oil. Sound familiar? And as long as political leaders suffer from the notion that they can actually lead their nations, without being subjected to US, and yes Israeli manipulation, they will continue to be tagged as the enemy. And, in turn, the US/Israeli alliance will always be the threat to those who seek self-governance .
It isn't complicated. We create enemies in order to maintain huge defense budgets so the boys at the top of the food chain can control the world. You get the bill, they get the profit. Simple.
 
 
+13 # Smokey 2013-01-07 08:42
A wise person may ask, "Why does Iran want nucler power?"

The Iranians insist that they don't want nuclear weapons. They say that they need nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Many of their people live in
poverty. And that's a legitimate concern that should be recognized.

Therefore, let the wise and generous nations - the ones that are concerned about nuclear power abuses - step forward to help provide Iran with clean and safe sources of energy production.

It's a better strategy than bombing Iran. And it's a strategy that may be helpful in other situations.

Developing nations say that they need to burn more fossil fuels? Instead of shouting about global warming, why not help the developing nations develop clean and safe sources of energy? Make this a major campaign for the whole planet.

A radical proposal? Of course. And it's seldom suggested. Still, the suggestion that wealthy nations can help the poor solve energy problems - without cursing and fighting - may do some good for a lot of reasons.
 
 
+6 # Lao Tzu 2013-01-07 12:55
Smokey your idea is way to radical .That we should all realize we are in the same life raft.and we all should help each other for a common good where's the profit in that? Check out Costa Rica they disbanded their army 50 years ago and are 99% powered by renewable energy.Look what happened to them, oh they have a beautiful nation and money to spend on worthwhile projects. We would not that idea to spread.
 
 
+5 # Activista 2013-01-07 15:23
Quoting Lao Tzu:
Smokey your idea is way to radical .That we should all realize we are in the same life raft.and we all should help each other for a common good where's the profit in that? Check out Costa Rica they disbanded their army 50 years ago and are 99% powered by renewable energy.Look what happened to them, oh they have a beautiful nation and money to spend on worthwhile projects. We would not that idea to spread.

And Costa Rica is Numero Uno nation on Earth: each year .... and growing
Costa Rica is world's greenest, happiest country | Environment ...
www.guardian.co.uk › Environment › Carbon footprintsJul 4, 2009 – Costa Rica is the greenest and happiest country in the world, according to a new list that ranks nations by combining measures of their ...
 
 
+4 # reiverpacific 2013-01-07 17:09
Quoting Activista:
Quoting Lao Tzu:
Smokey your idea is way to radical .That we should all realize we are in the same life raft.and we all should help each other for a common good where's the profit in that? Check out Costa Rica they disbanded their army 50 years ago and are 99% powered by renewable energy.Look what happened to them, oh they have a beautiful nation and money to spend on worthwhile projects. We would not that idea to spread.

And Costa Rica is Numero Uno nation on Earth: each year .... and growing
Costa Rica is world's greenest, happiest country | Environment ...
www.guardian.co.uk › Environment › Carbon footprintsJul 4, 2009 – Costa Rica is the greenest and happiest country in the world, according to a new list that ranks nations by combining measures of their ...

Shshshsh!!!!!
Keep it quiet or it'll be invaded by Americans and trashed.
I've been there and loved it but would hate to see it annexed by "El gran Hermano del Norte".
 
 
+2 # Activista 2013-01-07 20:14
Quoting reiverpacific:
Quoting Activista:
Quoting Lao Tzu:
Smokey your idea is way to radical .That we should all realize we are in the same life raft.and we all should help each other for a common good where's the profit in that? Check out Costa Rica they disbanded their army 50 years ago and are 99% powered by renewable energy.Look what happened to them, oh they have a beautiful nation and money to spend on worthwhile projects. We would not that idea to spread.

And Costa Rica is Numero Uno nation on Earth: each year .... and growing
Costa Rica is world's greenest, happiest country | Environment ...
www.guardian.co.uk › Environment › Carbon footprintsJul 4, 2009 – Costa Rica is the greenest and happiest country in the world, according to a new list that ranks nations by combining measures of their ...

Shshshsh!!!!!
Keep it quiet or it'll be invaded by Americans and trashed.
I've been there and loved it but would hate to see it annexed by "El gran Hermano del Norte".

Do nor worry - RSN is safe - just do not publish in NYT - and there it would not pass censors :)
 
 
+4 # aaheart 2013-01-07 14:21
It's not just a good idea that nuclear nations step forward and help Iran develop nuclear power for domestic use, as signatories to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, it is a MANDATE to help. It's also a MANDATE to NOT obstruct or threaten signatory nations that are seeking to develop nuclear power. The US is violating the NNPT in both ways, a double violation of international AND US law which places treaties at the top of US law.
 
 
+3 # MJnevetS 2013-01-08 10:00
Yes, Japan, Russia and the US have proven how safe and reliable nuclear technology is as a power source. How about we actually further develop solar, wind and hydro sources of power none of which have (direct) military application and don't rely on petroleum based technology. (Oh, wait, THAT'S WHY they are NOT BEING DEVELOPED!
 
 
+4 # fredboy 2013-01-07 09:15
The gravest threat to world peace is people. And ignorance.
 
 
+6 # Activista 2013-01-07 16:16
Quoting fredboy:
The gravest threat to world peace is people. And ignorance.

IS GREED
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN