Peres Calls to Attack Iran
Another priceless pearl from the man that claimed England is anti-Semitic...
New in the Website
A few days ago, in A French Kiss to Netanyahu, I mentioned Israeli President Shimon Peres had said that “the military option against Iran is the most probable outcome of the current situation.” With this declaration, the triumvirate of supporters of a military attack on Iran was completed: Netanyahu, Barak and Peres. Only the date wasn’t agreed upon, or at least had not been disclosed publicly. Peres being Peres, this idyllic Zionist threesome couldn’t last. Yesterday (November 14, 2011), he gave an interview to CNN's Pierce Morgan in which he said the international community should engage in a moral attack on Iran, not a military one. “Yes and No,” “Attack and not Attack,” this week we saw Peres performing his best trick.
Yes and No!
In 1981, Shimon Peres and Menahem Begin competed against each other in what became the hottest campaign in Israel’s very short history. Then, Shimon Peres lost not only the elections, but also his good name.
The Labor was trying to return to the power after it lost it for the first time in the country’s history to the Likud Party in 1977. The economic situation was very bad and it seemed Shimon Peres – the Labor’s leader - would easily win against Menahem Begin. Peres invited a young entertainer to help in the campaign; his name was Dudu Topaz (“Dudu” is a Hebrew nickname for “David”). For the Labor, Mr. Topaz was "one of us," "the son of" and "educated at." All the right classifiers for the job. None of the Labor's leaders could imagine the disaster about to happen.
In an elections rally held in Malchei Yisrael Square (now Tel Aviv's Rabin Square), Topaz said: "It's a pleasure to see the crowd here, and it's a pleasure to see that there are no ‘chahchahim’ who ruin election gatherings. The Likud's ‘chahchahim’ are at Metzudat Ze'ev." At that moment, he changed history.
"Chahchahim" is a derogatory term alluding to Sephardic Jews, especially those of Northern African descent; its meaning is related to "being untidy," though it is just Hebrew slang. "Metzudat Ze'ev" - the "Fort of Ze’ev (Jabotinsky)" - is the name of the Likud Party Headquarters, which is not far away from that square.
Following the insult issued by Topaz, the Likud party reacted on a personal level. A comedian working for the Likud and named Sefy (nickname for Yosef) Rivlin was invited to run the Likud television campaign. He began a very successful personal campaign against Peres based on how he was generally perceived by people. Its motto was “Ken Velo,” namely “Yes and No” in Hebrew. Peres was presented as giving an answer “yes and no” to everything he was asked (“Do you want sugar in your coffee?” “Yes and No! Yes and No!”). The combination of Peres shaky reputation with the funny voice used by Rivlin and his very disturbing eyes transformed Peres into a clown forever.
Needless to say, most "chahchahim" voted for Menahem Begin’s Likud Party and gave him victory. Peres never won – before or after the “ken velo” campaign – a political campaign; at his best he shared the government in a rotation agreement with the Likud after the 1984 election.
To Israeli minds, Peres is the classical “politruk” – a Soviet Political Officer (Israeli society shares many terms and organizational techniques with Soviets), an officer working for obscure personal or Communist party goals. Despite his tainted image – especially following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin - Peres is always there, always with the silent support of the Shin Beth. In 2005 he made another political transition, this time from the Labor to the new Kadima party led by Sharon (both shared a past in Mapai) and this opened the road to his being elected president in 2007.
After so many years in the Ministry of Defense, the Knesset, the Government and the Presidency, these institutions had all been heavily influenced by Peres. What kind of influence? “Ken velo,” “yes and no,” a Talmudic Pharisee leaving all the options open – regardless what is moral – in order to chose an answer fitting his convenience at the last moment. No matter what. No matter the sound of shattered bones at the bottom of the cliff. The sound of the State of Israel.
Under these circumstances, his calling for a “moral attack on Iran” must be seen as part of a more complex move.
Peres: “England anti-Semitic”
Peres has a long history of questionable assessments and remarks. On July 26, 2010, Peres said during an interview with historian Benny Morris for the Jewish-British Tablet magazine: “England is anti-Semitic”. “Is he senile?” was the first question that crossed my mind after I read that nonsense. After all the UK is one of the very few countries in the world supporting Israel’s racist policies and systematic violence. Then I remembered: there is no chance of that: Peres is under an extensive anti-aging program for more than twenty years. Ironically, the specialized clinic of his physician is next to Rabin’s assassination spot in Tel Aviv (though Peres get special service in Jerusalem).
Then Peres added: “There is in England a saying that an anti-Semite is someone who hates the Jews more than is necessary,” and “Our next big problem is England. There are several million Muslim voters. And for many members of parliament, that’s the difference between getting elected and not getting elected. And in England there has always been something deeply pro-Arab, of course, not among all Englishmen, and anti-Israeli, in the establishment.”
Last year, I ended my analysis of that freakish interview with the words: “Not senile and not rebuking Cameron. Peres had a different thing in mind. He was speaking to the British Jewish community through a Jewish paper and over the head of the general British public. He was presenting a plan of action. Pay attention to the words: “Our next big problem.” Peres was exposing the Mossad assessment of the situation in England and presenting the direction of action to be expected from international Jewish organizations in the following years. Does that mean a false flag attack, or just a mass attack on the Muslim community through the Jewish owned and manipulated media? We’ll wait and see.”
We waited a bit over a year and saw exactly that: Peres staging an attack on Islam, by attacking Iran over the manipulated media. Such an attack is an attack on Islam since Peres is defining it on moral grounds. By claiming the Iranian society basic principles – Islam – are immoral; Peres subtly transformed the issue into a religious confrontation. That is Israel’s best bet for selling an attack on Iran to the USA and Nato.
What is a “Moral Attack?”
So, we could hear yesterday how Shimon Peres was trying to indoctrinate American media on the nature of moral attacks. That’s interesting coming from a country which is continuously increasing its level of racism; most recently with the abominable Jewish Fatherland Law. Did he mention the bombing of children in Gaza with white phosphorous by Israel? No. Did he mention the definition of Israel as a Terror inflicting organization by the UN? No. Did he mentioned there is No Water to Arabs in Israel? No. According to Peres, these crimes are above moral definitions because they are perpetrated by Jews. Judaism is discriminatory to its core.
What is a “moral attack?” Peres should define such revolutionary terms; we can’t ask Stalin for clarifications on Comrade Peres’ intentions anymore. Would he attack Iran while making sure every step of the event is moral? That is a contradiction. There is no such a thing as a moral attack. “Respect others” God told Jews in an incredible variety of ways. Invariably, they failed, and did so with much gusto.
The closest hint Peres gave to his vision of a “moral attack” was: “I would rather prefer to see tighter economic sanctions, closer political pressure and what is lacking very much is an attack in the moral sense.” To me it sounds like the initial chapter of a regular military campaign; there is nothing especially moral here.
Then he contradicted his own words from last week, by denying Israel would act alone against Iran's nuclear program, saying that "Israel will first of all see what the world is doing." In other words, Israel may attempt to wag the dog by forcing the USA and NATO into such a war. Dear Shimon Peres, on moral grounds, isn’t this behavior called cowardice?
Readers' Reactions to “England is anti-Semitic”
Peres is not right in saying that England is anti-semitic.
He should have said; "I, Peres, is anti-Semite."
My articles on the web are my main income these days; please recognize my efforts in writing them by donating or buying a copy of The Cross of Bethlehem, or Back in Bethlehem.