Former AIPAC spokesman endorses AIPAC approach. Headline news...

you also missed a key person...samantha power....and trust me, she is behind the scenes maneuvering for what comes AFTER obama wins in november. She is a force in obama's ear, and not a friendly force to israel. Its amazing how the irish have some deep seated connections to anti israeli positions...just look at their WWII sympathies...ahhh the irish...

anyhow, yes, its true jstreet are a bunch of charlatans, out for their own powerplay, but samantha power and her connections to soros, these are the ones to be careful of. I dont trust either her or obama. Not at all. I think obama will be vindictive come 2012 IF he hets through the year unscathed by iran. His ego is too big to not make this personal.

This idea that Iran is committed to the total destruction of Irael is repeated as if it were a given. It's not.

One very loosely translated comment by one Iranian president doesn't mean it's actual policy, let alone that it's realisically going to happen. Bombastic statements for the benefit of one's political base don't automatically become reality.

Iran would never launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on Irael. Think about it. They would kill the palestinians, destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque and spread radioactivity throughout the entire region, including Mecca. Oh, and of course they would be committing suicide into the bargain, as the payback from the US would wipe out their entire civilisation. You can say what you like about what an awful regime Iran has, but they are far too canny to bring any of the above onto their heads.

The REAL reason Israel is paraniod of a nuclear Iran is that it ends their monopoly on nukes and presents a strategic check to their ability to act as they like towards the Palestinians. And, they might be forced to end the current long-term land grab around Jerusalem, or be forced to make more painful concessions.

Block: "even in Israel's capital city of Jerusalem,"

Err, dude, that has *never* been the policy of the USA.

Remind me again what the "A" of "AIPAC" stands for.....

It seems to me that Israel might try to gain the trust of Palestinians by sticking to its concessions at the bargaining table before it complains to the US about them not coming to the party.

The inability to judge Israel by the same standards as the rest of the world has shown how important AIPAC is. Can anyone say without a smile that Israel is the one not making concessions, really Israel is and has been the ONLY one making concessions. Even BO doesn't suggest pressuring the PLO/PA to make any because he knows it's useless, they haven't moved off their original stancel
As for Iran and their massive crowds calling for the death of the USA and Israel, their leaders regularly calling for the death of the USA and Israel, I can only suggest denial of similar group think hatred left the US unprepared and vulnerable in the build up to WW 2. Thankfully many of us have learned from history and are not inclined to look the other way when a country has murdered Americans while continuing to call for our destruction.. A nuclear Iran is a danger to Arab middle east countries and the world, stopping them now or later will not be pleasant, but stopping them later will certainly be far more costly.

RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.

"It seems that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani is forgetting that due to the present intertwinement of Israel and Palestine, the destruction of the Jewish State would also means the mass killing of Palestinian population as well", observed one Iranian commentator.

While Israel is believed to possess between 100 to 200 nuclear war heads, the Islamic Republic and Iraq are known to be working hard to produce their own atomic weapons with help from Russia and North Korea, Pakistan, also a Muslim state, has already a certain number of nuclear bomb.

In a lengthy speech to mark the so-called "International Qods (Jerusalem) Day" celebrated in Iran only, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who, as the Chairman of the Assembly to Discern the Interests of the State, is the Islamic Republic’s number two man after Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i, said since Israel was an emanation of Western colonialism therefore "in future it will be the interests of colonialism that will determine existence or non-existence of Israel".

Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani made the unprecedented threat as, following new suicide operations inside Israel and against Israeli settlements by Palestinian extremists in PA-controlled zones, responded by Israel’s heaviest bombarding of Palestinian cities, police, communication and radio-television installations, killing and wounding more than 200 people on both sides, resulted in the halting of all contacts between Israel and the PA of Mr. Yaser Arafat.

He said since Israel is the product of Western colonialism, "the continued existence of Israel depends on interests of arrogance and colonialism and as long as the base is helpful for colonialism, it is going to keep it.

Hashemi-Rafsanjani advised Western states not to pin their hopes on Israel's violence because it will be "very dangerous".

"We are not willing to see security in the world is harmed", he said, warning against the "eruption of the Third World War.

"War of the pious and martyrdom seeking forces against peaks of colonialism will be highly dangerous and might fan flames of the World War III", the former Iranian president said, backing firmly suicide operations against Israel.

Quoted by the official news agency IRNA, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani said weakening of Palestinian Jihad is "unlikely", as the Palestinians have come to the conclusion that talks would be effective only "in light of struggle and self-sacrifice- the two key elements that gave way to beginning of the second Intifada".
Iranian analysts and commentators outside Iran immediately reacted to Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s statement, expressing fear that it might trigger an international backlash against Iran itself, giving Israel, the United States and other Western and even Arab nations to further isolate Iran as a source of threat to regional security.
"Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world", Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani warned, blaming on the United States and Britain the "creation of the fabricated entity" in the heart of Arab and Muslim world.

"The man who considers himself as the most able politician in the Islamic Republic utters such nonsense and empty threats at a very time that the hard line and extremist government of Israel under Mr. Ariel Sharon is looking for justification of its repressive policy against Palestinians", said Mr. Ahmad Salamatian, a veteran political analyst based in Paris.

"At a time that the right wing Israeli government is claiming that the very existence of Israel and the Jews are threatened and uses this pretext as an instrument to advance its policy of repression in Palestine, such statements and ushering such dangerous menaces by one of Iran’s top officials is nothing but bringing water to Israel’s propaganda mill, providing it with more justifications explaining its present maximalist policy", he told the Persian service of Radio France Internationale.

Though Mr. Salamatian is of the opinion that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s words are part of both his own show and the ongoing internal tensions between conservatives and reformers, however, he also agrees with other Iranian analysts that his "untimely" menace could backfire, becoming a justification for threats against Iran, at a time that the United States and its allies are determined to continue the fight against international terrorism.

"One of Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s main characteristics in Iranian politics during the past twenty years is that in order to preserve his own position, he is ready to set fire to all the Caesareas for one handkerchief, including, in the present case, providing Israel with enough pretext to attack Iran", he noted, adding: "for the time being and what is important for Mr. Sharon is that this kind of statements are open invitation for more violence, an encouragement to extremists on either side of the Israel-Palestine conflict".

Observing that despite the fact that Israel is believed to have more than one hundred atomic warheads and the necessary technology to transport them to the very heart of Iran and elsewhere, but no Israeli official nor any newspaper have ever raised the slightest possibility of an atomic threat, "even in defence of their very existence", Mr. Salamatian wondered the reasons behind Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s declaration, which he said should be taken seriously "considering the rank of the man who pronounced it". ENDS RAFSANJANI NUKE THREATS 141201

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke2.htm

Nuclear Weapons - Iranian Statements

Iranians officials generally deny that they are engaged in developing a military nuclear capability. However, in a February 1987 address to Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI), President Ali Khamenei stated: "Regarding atomic energy, we need it now... Our nation has always been threatened from outside. The least we can do to face this danger is to let our enemies know that we can defend ourselves. Therefore, every step you take here is in defense of your country and your evolution. With this in mind, you should work hard and at great speed."
Hashemi Rafsanjani, president of Iran from 1989 to 1997, gave a speech on 14 December 2001 that was widely interpreted as indicating that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons as a deterrent to Israel. Calling the establishment of Israel among the worst periods of our contemporary history, Rafsanjani stated that, "If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality. Of course, you can see that the Americans have kept their eyes peeled and they are carefully looking for even the slightest hint that technological advances are being made by an independent Islamic country. If an independent Islamic country is thinking about acquiring other kinds of weaponry, then they will do their utmost to prevent it from acquiring them. Well, that is something that almost the entire world is discussing right now."

Rafsanjani spoke at the Qods Day (Jerusalem Day) rallies, which are held on the last Friday of Ramadan, and in 2001 fell on 14 December. "You should make the world understand that Israel is the oppressor and that Israel must be destroyed," Ayatollah Ali Meshkini said during the nationally televised 8 December Friday Prayers in Qom. Khalid Mashaal, head of the Hamas political bureau, told Iranian state television on 11 December 2001 that events such as Qods Day contribute to "increasing our people's resistance and made the Palestinian people realize that the Islamic nation was right behind them and that it was supporting them." On Qods Day, millions of people marched through Tehran. They carried the usual inflammatory placards and voiced the usual "Death to..." chants. Their resolution, IRNA reported, said that US support for the "Zionist Regime" was the "key" to the suppression and massacre of the Palestinian people, and "the cancerous tumor of Israel is the top threat to the Middle East and the world of Islam."

Asked how Iran would react to an Israeli attack against the Bushehr nuclear reactor, Minister of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics Ali Shamkhani declared, "If Israel carries out such an action, it will receive a response, which no politician in Israel can even imagine." Shamkhani denied that Iran would resort to nuclear weapons, Al-Jazeera television reported on 4 February 2002, and he added, "Actions will speak."

Similarly vague threats of retaliation if attacked were made between then and at least June 2008, by various Iranian officials since then. Observers have also suggested that this could be an allusion to disruptive asymetric attacks, as in closing the Straight of Hormuz and attacking shipping, terrorist attacks, or even cyber terrorism. In September 2005, shortly after his election, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cited the high casualties of the Iran-Iraq War as evidence of the dangers of attacking Iran. The Voice of America reported in August 2006 that an influential cleric in Iran's Assembly of Experts had suggested that Iranian ballistic missiles would target US interests in the region and Israel if it were attacked. In April 2008, however, Deputy Commander-in-Chief Mohammad Reza Ashtiani said that Iran would "wipe out" Israel if attacked. The comments in 2008 were followed by an Israeli military exercise widely viewed as a warning to Iran and a show of resolve to prevent their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

While Tehran sent conciliatory signals about Parchin, it has made clear that it does not want to reveal the management structure or foreign purchases for its alleged secret nuclear program, according to a draft agreement with the IAEA.

Both issues go to the heart of the country's alleged nuclear weapons research and development projects, which the IAEA says seem to be linked to the Ministry of Defense.

The document, which was obtained by dpa, was drafted during recent unsuccessful talks between both sides.

Iran struck two items from the list of issues to be tackled, titled "Program management structure" and "Procurement activities,”the document's proposed amendments show.

“They ruled it out categorically," a diplomat closely following the IAEA's work said Tuesday.

The IAEA reported in November that Iran's uranium enrichment Program and apparent efforts to design a nuclear warhead were grouped in the same project structure.

Iran says it enriches uranium only to make fuel for civilian reactors.

The Vienna-based agency also said that actual or attempted procurement of various equipment, "although having other civilian applications, would be useful in the development of a nuclear explosive device”.

Tehran's nuclear procurements "would be difficult to explain for Iran because the IAEA has a lot of intelligence information" on this topic, the diplomat said. The nuclear agency says it has collected independent information corroborating the intelligence findings.

Besides refusing cooperation on these two issues, Iran also rejected IAEA demands for repeated visits to nuclear sites, to be able to reopen questions after they have been addressed by Iran, and for information about future nuclear projects.

Summarizing Block's major points:

"settled our differences in private"

-No official statements on policy differences.

"elevate the issue of Jewish housing construction across the 1949 armistice lines, even in Israel's capital city of Jerusalem, as the fundamental issue of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. "

-Completely ignore Palestinian demands in the peace process.

"History teaches us that progress toward peace is most likely when there is no daylight between the United States and Israel, and that public spats undermine trust and encourage recalcitrance among the Palestinians."

-Israeli side must be taken in all circumstances, no matter how absurd (no daylight).

"Above all, the looming threat of Iran's nuclear program calls for an extraordinary relationship of trust to ensure the closest possible cooperation between the United States and Israel. It's impossible to exaggerate the weight of responsibility resting on the Israeli prime minister, charged with safeguarding the people of Israel after millennia of Jewish life being subject to the whims of others."

-Any diversion from Netanyahu's rhetoric or actions is taking the side of those who desire the annihilation of the Jewish people.

"truly intolerable threat coming from a nuclear Iran -- which has pledged to annihilate the Jewish state."

-Iran is a suicidal state who will gladly sacrifice their entire population and culture in order to get a shot at Israel.

The American people are unlikely to be amused when gas prices go sky high due to an Israeli strike against Iran. That people like Netanyahu continue to believe that AIPAC can hold Congress forever shows how delusional the mindset in Israel truly is...

Summarizing Block's major points:

"And even with the greatest level of trust imaginable, Israel has never let any country fight its battles. Israel and can and clearly will defend the Jewish people herself."

-Endorsing a non-interventionist role for the United States and taking Israel off their leash and letting them "go it alone".

"Many in the pro-Israel community shook their heads and some crowed "I told you so" as the administration made early misstep after misstep. Analysts pointed not only to the troubling approach coming from a candidate, now president, they didn't fully trust. They also shook their heads at the predictable outcome of the White House approach to the peace process, where emboldened Palestinians refused to negotiate with Israel and ultimately set back the peace process to a pre-1991 status -- when the Palestinians literally refused to be in the same room as Israel."

-Obama sucks.

"Trust, participants explained to the president, was key to Israel's ability to undertake difficult choices on peace and was vital for U.S.-Israel cooperation on Iran.

"I disagree," the president responded. "Public pressure compels people to act.""

-The POTUS must not make any public statements that are not scripted by Israel. Obama has stabbed them in the back.

"Despite the administration's support for increased security aid to Israel, eventual pursuit of sanctions against Iran, and continuation of U.S. support for Israel at the United Nations, these incidents and others caused deep distress among the mainstream pro-Israel community and undermined the trust between the two governments. "

-Israel is given huge sums of money during a recession, has punished Israel's enemies, has a de facto seat on the UN Security Council but administration rhetoric is not desirable.

"It appeared that reality, experience, and the uncooperative nature of Israel's adversaries and enemies had trumped the White House and its allies' "confrontation" theory. To many in the mainstream pro-Israel community, this was a welcome change in the administration's tone and, in some cases, its policy."

"Trust matters. Friends can disagree without losing that trust. But it cannot survive diplomatic campaigns waged in public or in the press. That's a lesson that the White House, at long last, seems to have learned."

-The rhetoric became desirable in late 2011 when the re-election of the POTUS became the top priority of the administration.

israel has nothing to do with rising oil prices..thats the iranians you are referring to! lol...get your story straight.

Why is AIPAC and for that matter any pro-Israeli advocate allowed to be extremely outspoken about the benefits of Israeli policies and the necessity of any US administration supporting Israel, no matter the cost, when at the same time it wants the Obama administration, which is simply making foreign policy statements that many in the Israeli body politic (reminder: Israel is a democracy, a fact which the right in Israel use to tout the reasons for the US to support THEIR OWN position, and a fact increasingly under threat from radical settlers controlling the political process and national dialogue) clearly agree with, to be silent on any possible differences? AIPAC seems to spout its own point of view and attempt to hush all others--even when those opposing voices are talking solid diplomatic strategy--in the name of preserving the special friendship with the US. If the Obama administration wants to take the public discourse to a higher level and highlight some areas where Israel could make some beneficial changes in its policies, he has every right to do it--this does not denote a strategic shift away from the necessary defense of the Israeli state. If AIPAC and right wing elements within Israel want to keep the discourse at the level of enabling bad foreign policy, they ought to discontinue their claims of democracy which is based on a fair and open public discourse - not calling everyone else a traitor.

The entire population of the whole of Israel, numbers substantially less than the population of London.

This undeclared nuclear state has a government headed by Binyamin Netanyahu, a right-wing, political Zionist who leads the Likud party which subscribes to an agenda that has called for the forcible ‘transfer’ of all 5m Palestinians to neighbouring countries.

The Palestinian Arabs are, of course, the largest indigenous people of the region notwithstanding the influx to the former land of Palestine of refugees from Europe and settlers from America. 500,000 of these immigrants now live in illegal settlements in the Palestinian West Bank and in East Jerusalem, in an attempt by the Israeli government to frustrate the will of the international community for the creation of a Palestinian state.

Now Israel threatens to bomb Iran in an attempt to maintain its regional superiority. Furthermore, it demands that the US joins with it in such attack. Iran, of course, has no nuclear weapons and it would take it over 20 years to amass the quantity of nuclear weapons that Israel already secretly possesses.

This raises two vital questions:

1. Who is the greater danger to world peace, Iran or Israel?
2. If there were no unelected, powerful Israel lobby capable of influencing US foreign policy, would President Obama even consider using American soldiers to support an attack by Israel upon another sovereign state?

What I would like to know is if FP is prepared to give free space for AIPAC to print its twisted propaganda why doesn't it allow Al Qaeda the same right? The article written by Block is a total figment of his imagination and only proves that members past or present of AIPAC show that their allegiance to Israel is far greater than that they demonstrate to America and American interests.

Why do AIPAC want the USA to wage yet another war in the Middle East after they pushed them into the debacle that is the ongoing war in Iraq? Americans have given their lives and money for nine years already waging a war that they can ill afford while fighting another war in Afghanistan? It would interest me in the extreme to know how many members of AIPAC are on the front line in either war.

And now AIPAC want America to wage war against Iran when neither of the previous wars are won and a third front would be military suicide for a piece of fantasy a figment of Israel's paranoid mind.

It is highly questionable that Iran is building a nuclear weapon in the first place. Surrounded by America and America's client states the latest of which has already gone to war against Iran at America and Saudi Arabia's behest. It is Iran that should be paranoid not Israel sitting on its 200 nuclear war heads dictating that no other Middle East country may posses nuclear weapons. To imagine that Iran would be accept another precondition to talks by willingly to perform a military strip tease for its enemies is absolute insanity.

Block we in America support America and Americans first and foremost our allies come after the safety of our country. If your conscience tells you that Israel comes first then join the Israeli armed forces and go and fight for them that is your right and your choice but don't involve Americans that have suffered two military defeats and trillions of dollars in your ungrateful stand on our American President and all that we have done for Israel to date.

Asked how Iran would react to an Israeli attack against the Bushehr nuclear reactor, Minister of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics Ali Shamkhani declared, "If Israel carries out such an action, porno it will receive a response, which no politician in Israel can even imagine." Shamkhani denied that Iran would resort to nuclear weapons, Al-Jazeera television reported on 4 February 2002, and he added, "Actions will speak."

I think that, Israel–United States relations is becoming more important. Israeli-U. S. relations are an important factor in U. S. policy in the Middle East, and Congress has placed considerable importance on the maintenance of a close and supportive relationship. The main vehicle for expressing support for Israel has been foreign aid; Israel currently receives about $3 billion per year in economic and military grants, refugee settlement assistance, and other aid. Congress has monitored the aid issue closely along with other issues in bilateral relations, and its concerns have affected Administration's policies.