Has the Guardian become the mouthpiece for World Jewry
First my comment:
The Guardian reporter, Haroon Siddique is a news reporter on the Guardian website. He previously worked for North London institution the Ham&High, and before pursuing his passion for journalism he was a commodity trader in the City
The Guardian used to hire Jews to speak on behalf of world Jewry but it seems that they have now escalated it to hiring Muslims or people from Muslim regions with Muslim sounding names to do the Jewish state's dirty job. The logic is so convoluted in this article and all articles written on behalf on Jews when it comes to the Question of Palestine. This man is very sympathetic towards the Jewish state and is on the offensive against Muslims.
The man is repeating the same non-sense that the apparently air-head Palin had been repeating ad naseum that Iran would like to ‘wipe the Jews’ state off the map’.
He says Muslims are angry at ‘the perceived injustice’. Yea? I guess he does not consider gunning down 10-year old Palestinians injustice? I guess he does not consider the fact that the European people dumped their Jews on the Arabs to solve their age old problem as injustice?
But this man’s logic is so not only convoluted but outright silly that one has to wonder how he made it to be a writer for the Guardian. He says in this article that it is the Zionist’s state proximity to Iran that makes it vulnerable. But why should that be the case? This Jewish nation is the 4th most powerful military in the world. Why should the Jewish nation be entitled to acquire ammunition that is forbidden to its neighbors? But where he gets outright silly is when he said ‘the military might of the US make Israel a much more likely target than America.’ Explain that to me, please. I would think the reverse logic would make much more sense.
"And for the Israelis, the idea of Ahmadinejad with his finger on a nuclear button is unthinkable."
But a nuclear alien European enemy inserted in the heart of the Arab world against the wishes of the people would poses no problem for the people of the region? The number of articles that have been coming out of the Guardian with this kind of outrageous statements are in the hundreds if not thousands.
"Israel is said to believe that Iran could possess a nuclear bomb as soon as 2010."
Are we to take the words of this ‘state’ at face value? Would this ‘State’ not have motives to fabricate any ‘evidence’? Why not rely on reliable source such those who been entrusted to overlook nuclear proliferation?
Explainer: Relations between Iran and Israel
Haroon Siddique
guardian.co.uk,
Thursday September 25 2008 19:
While the west has at times been divided in its evaluation of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear programme, in Israel the feeling is unambiguous.
Israelis believe the threat is best exemplified by Iran's hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly expressed his contempt for their country since taking office in 2005.
Ahmadinejad has described the Holocaust as a myth and most famously, in 2006, was reported as saying he wanted to see Israel "wiped off the map". There were claims that the quote was inaccurate but either way he has shown little love towards Israel and has used threats towards the country to try to boost his popularity among Muslims angry at perceived injustices inflicted on the Palestinians.
Only yesterday, in New York for the UN general assembly, Ahmadinejad claimed that "a small but deceitful minority of Zionists are playing with the American public", comments aimed at the forthcoming US election.
Israel's geographical proximity to Iran and the fact that it is so resented by the Muslim world – who Ahmadinejad still looks to for support despite most leaders' dislike of him - coupled with the military might of the US make Israel a much more likely target than America. And for the Israelis, the idea of Ahmadinejad with his finger on a nuclear button is unthinkable.
After a US intelligence report published at the end of 2007 said Tehran's nuclear weapons programme had been on hold since 2003, Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, was quick to indicate that he did not agree, saying that "all options are on the table". Israel is said to believe that Iran could possess a nuclear bomb as soon as 2010.
Israeli officials were reportedly unhappy when the US announced plans to station diplomats in Iran for the first time since 1979, fearing a softening of Washington's stance towards Tehran.
And when Olmert announced a series of initiatives designed at ending long-running conflicts with Lebanon, Syria and Hamas earlier this year, Iran was conspicuous by its absence. What is more, the talks with Syria were seen as a deliberate attempt to isolate Iran from the one Middle East country it could truly call an ally.
The world may have shuddered when Israel's deputy prime minister, Shaul Mofaz, said in June that a strike on Iran's nuclear sites would be "unavoidable" if Tehran refused to halt its alleged weapons programmes, but within Israel the reaction was more muted. Mofaz himself was unrepentant, even going so far as to repeat the threat.
While Olmert publicly disassociated himself from the comments – Israel's relationship with the US dictated that nothing less would be acceptable - he later assured the Israeli public: "Iran will not be nuclear."
Olmert's successor, Tzipi Livni, has also talked tough on Iran but the scale of her rhetoric has not touched that of Mofaz. The Israeli public's concerns were perhaps reflected by the fact that Mofaz – who had been viewed as an outsider – in the end only lost the election to be Kadima's new leader to Livni by a whisker.