Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel

[bemildred]

The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.

"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."

Netanyahu reportedly made the comments during a conference at Bar-Ilan University on the division of Jerusalem as part of a peace deal with the Palestinians. Meanwhile, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cast doubt over the veracity of the September 11 attacks Thursday, calling it a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Four or five years ago, a suspicious event occurred in New York. A building collapsed and they said that 3,000 people had been killed but never published their names," Ahmadinejad told Iranians in the holy city of Qom.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975574.html

Boy, we have a rich harvest today, newswise ...

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Hate to disagree with a Likud leader, but 9/11 and Iraq has caused me to detest the

government of both Israel and the USA.

[LeftishBrit]

4. Why should they cause you to detest the government of Israel?

To clarify: I don't argue with your detesting the government of Israel as such - it has many faults. But it had nothing to do with either 9-11 or the Iraq War. Just as Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. I disagree. I strongly believe that Bush&co. had the full blessings of Israel to invade and occupy

Iraq. One of the motivations for Bush's 'war' is to establish a mighty US military control within the region to 'protect' Israel from those fanatics who attacked the US and promise to eliminate Israel.

Second, the NeoCons controlling our government and the Likud party of Israel hold the same views, i.e., Leo Strauss' philosophy.

edited.

[azurnoir]

8. The problem is that Saddam's Iraq

was not much of a threat to Israel or anyone else for that matter, so I have to disagree about Israel's wanting the US to invade Iraq, now Iran is another story and the truth is that Iraq has weakened the US military to the point that we can not do a whole lot invading or warring against anyone else at the moment.

[sinkingfeeling]

11. Didn't say Iraq was a threat to Israel. I said that the plan was to put large, military

bases in the middle east. And I doubt if Israel was opposed to the idea.

[sabbat hunter]

9. why would they need

the blessings of israel to invade and occupy Iraq? Does Israel run the US foreign policy?

[Vegasaurus]

10. Yes, according to the conspiracy nutters

and Protocol of Zionist types.

Jews, by proxy for Israel, control American foreign policy, the world banks, control the media, money and everything in the whole world. Jews are taking over the world, and by damn, we have to stop them!!! (Hitler almost succeeded).

Of course the US began a costly war for Israel. Oil, geopolitics, and the rest has nothing to do with it. It was all for Israel.

:sarcasm:

[asjr]

2. BiBi just can never keep his mouth shut.

[GoesTo11]

3. Wrong, wrong and wrong

First, it's crass for a former - and possibly future - prime minister to even view the world in such terms.
Second, the crassness itself doesn't help Israel's image in the US
Third, not long before the attacks, Israel and the Palestinians were close to a deal. Now Israel's got major problems on its northern and southern borders.

[azurnoir]

5. Oh but Bibi wouldn't say that

I'm sure it was a "bad translation" or maybe it was lie or something:sarcasm:

"If" he did say that, at least he is honestly stating Likud's position on the subject, for once. At this point I dought it will make much difference, at least not until after the 2008 elections.

[LeftishBrit]

6. Bibi is a fruit-and-nut-case all right...

I hope the Israelis have enough sense not to re-elect him. But I'm still reeling from the Italians re-electing Berlusconi.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. What % of Israeli public opinion do you think he represents?

[LeftishBrit]

13. When I last heard, he was unfortunately ahead in the polls...

This was a few months ago, and before some of the nuttier remarks that came out of his mouth.

Hope he loses in the end! Israeli elections are usually very close.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

14. So if he's a nut, what does that say about the Israeli populace?

It's time to quit dismissing these represnetative leaders as "nuts" and grasp the fact that they speak for large numbers of people.

If he's a nut, then are the majority of Israelis nuts?

-----------
The same can be said for Palestinians and American as well, btw.

[Howardx]

15. thats always the story here

"oh he's a nut" "oh he doesnt speak for large numbers of people" bullshit he doesnt.

[LeftishBrit]

17. What does it say about any populace? Yes, you're right about the Palestinians and Americans

and Brits and everyone.

My view is that as a huge generalization, the baseline answer in most groups to "what percentage of the population are represented by the hawks?" is "about 50%". There tends to be a pretty sharp division between those who have a fundamental tendency to support violence against an 'enemy' as first port of call, and those who do not. Certainly in the places you mention: the American elections in 2000 and 2004 were VERY close; and until very recently, polls in Israel and Palestine tended to show close divisions, with a slight majority on the dovish side, on issues like whether to favour peace negotiations and give up land for peace(Israel) and whether to support/ oppose the rocket attacks (Palestine).

Many circumstances can change the proportions; and because they tend to be so close at baseline to 50-50, it's not necessary to change them *much* to have a profound effect. If there is a serious threat to one's country, the proportion of hawks will go way up: at the extreme, an invasion or a threat of nuclear attack may put it up to nearly 100%. And unfortunately this can be exploited by hawkish leaders who invent, exaggerate or distort a threat: e.g. convincing people that there were WMD in Iraq, or encouraging people to think of Iraq as linked to 9-11. On the other hand, frequent 'crying wolf' by a leader or experience of a long and damaging war can push people more toward the dovish side in future decisions. And so, I like to think (and there is some evidence for it) can contact between the groups that leads people to see the 'others' as individual humans rather than a monolithic bunch of oppressors, terrorists, or 'bad guys'.

At present, Americans have probably moved more to the anti-war side because of the disastrous quagmire of Iraq. However, recent polls suggest that the proportion of hawks has increased both among Israelis and Palestinians; and this is probably mainly because of mutual threat (and also its exploitation by propagandists). The bombings of Gaza helped to make Palestinians more hawkish IMO; and the continuing rocket attacks have helped to make Israelis more hawkish. Violence tends to escalate, and reinforce hawkishness on both sides. And one day I hope it will be peace that 'escalates' - but not much sign of that right now.

But I do *not* think that anything like 50% of Israelis think that 9-11 was good for Israel; or that even most hawks would welcome the 'Trojan horse' of a Hagee - and in these respects I do think that Netanyahu is particularly extreme.

[Purveyor]

16. I understand that similar statements were made back in Sept. 2001... eom