Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Statement Analysis of Benjamin Netanyahu's Defiance

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke before a joint session of Congress on March 3, 2015. Here is the transcript from the Associated Press.  The following is both Statement Analysis and commentary on the speech in bold type.  Emphasis has been added to the original for clarity.  

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint meeting of Congress.  

NETANYAHU: Thank you.

Thank you...

... Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Pro Tem Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Minority -- Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it's good to see you back on your feet.

I guess it's true what they say, you can't keep a good man down.

We note both the order of the names and the inclusion of both Republicans and Democrats.  

My friends, I'm deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress.

The subject notes the legislative body of the U.S. is "the most important" in the world, indicating more than his own.  


I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.

To the topic of being "political", he used the word "that" rather than "this", distancing himself from it at the time of the invitation, with "was" being past tense.  He recognizes that it may be political at this time.  The setting of the speech is important in order to understand these words (context). 

He believes that the world is about to embark on the most dangerous time for his people since the Holocaust and that the very survival of his nation is in doubt.  
He is now standing before the most "important" lawful body in the world and will either agree, or defy, the most powerful man in the world; the President of the United States. 
This, as political, is either political suicide or political life, but likely nothing in between.  He will either force the United States to not allow Iran, its avowed enemy, the nuclear bomb and not interfere with Israeli military efforts to stop it, or he will provoke the United States and its allies against them, even to the point of military showdown. 

Iran has publicly condemned the United States, and Iran has refused to acknowledge Israel as a nation.  

This is the setting.  

The President of the United States wishes to give Iran (through sale) the nuclear bomb.  The Prime Minister of Israel means to stop him. 

The belief:

Islam will use the bomb, even if it means suicide, for the glory of "Allah", its god.  

The belief of the President of the United States:  trust Islam with the bomb. 

The two are mutually exclusive.  

The historic reference is clear:  

Will America "appease" Islam in a manner similar to Europe's appeasement of Hitler, which led to the murder of 6 million Jews, or will America refuse.  
What is different is significant. 

The "appeasement" is similar to not simply allowing Hitler his conquests in territories, but to give him the most powerful weapon known to mankind in order to "empower" him.  
Netanyahu is fighting for survival of his people, and the only ally America has had.
Barak Hussein Obama is fighting for Islamic acceptance in this country and in the world, proclaiming Islam to be a "religion of peace", allowing for unrestricted Islamic immigration into the United States, and giving one of the most vocal threateners of death the world's most powerful weapon to use against Israel, something avowed as they have denied Israel's right to even exist as a nation and a people.  
In effect, Netanyahu is risking everything to go around the President and plead to the American people to stop this arming of his enemy knowing the President's plan. 

The setting also includes that 58 Democrats boycotted the speech in allegiance to Obama because Obama was not first consulted about this invitation to speak.  


I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.

Note "Democrat" comes before "Republican" here.  We will see if this priority continues, or is given its reason in the speech. 

I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.

The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics.

He stated that when he received the invitation, it was not about politics, and used the distancing word, "that" to confirm.  Here, he reminds them that since 1948, the alliance has been "remarkable" and "above" politics. 
Politics being self-serving "appearance" that individuals use for personal gain.  This will also be repeated and clarified in the speech. 

Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American -- of America's people and of America's presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.

Always note the first introduction of the pronoun "we" in a statement as important.  Here it is "America and Israel", with "America" first, as he stated the "most important" above. 
Note that "freedom" does before the "offer" of "hope", as there is no hope without freedom. 
Note the use of two names of Presidents, only, the first to recognize Israel's right to exist, Harry Truman, and the current, who is seeking to arm Iran into taking away Israel's existence. 

We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.
Now, some of that is widely known.

Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.
Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known.
I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid.
In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment.
Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists.

In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there.

After praising Obama, with the repetition of calling the president and getting a positive response, he now uses the distancing word "those" rather than "these."
Please note that the President refused to meet with the Prime Minister citing "politics" and the Israeli "election" and had been against this speech.  


And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister.
But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.
The support is gone.  The word "that" indicates the continuity of distancing language from Obama's support.  The past tense gratitude now changes to present tense because of "the American Congress" is identified: 

And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome.

Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.

Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you've done for Israel.

My friends, I've come here today because, as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

Here he explains why he is speaking.  It is a "profound obligation"
An "obligation" is something that one must do, or is "obliged" to do.  This suggests a personal understanding of the consequences and shows that he "had to" make this speech.  
To defy the most powerful man in the world, who has killed other leaders in other countries and who can kill him, his family, and turn against his nation, is not just an obligation, but a "profound" obligation.  "Profound" speaks to something in awe of, which requires much thought and consideration.  

We're an ancient people. 

This is to address the argument that in 1945, Jews had no right to go to Israel (Palestine) and have no right (claim) upon the land since they immigrated from Europe in search of a homeland due to Hitler's extermination policy.  This is also to address the same theme applied to sections of Jerusalem, for example, where Obama wants parts of it taken from the Jews and given to the Palestinians.  
The subject is asserting Jewish right, by historical claims, to the land. 

Next, he mentions an ancient plot to exterminate the Jews.  This is the early echo of Hitler's plan and is consistent with the speech:  
Obama is giving Iran the very weapon that can do what has been tried before: 

In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we'll read the Book of Esther. We'll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.
The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.

Note the words, "the right to defend themselves against their enemies" is to be 4,000 years old.  He is signaling what Israel will do:  exercise their right to defend themselves against their enemies.  
Note the inclusion of "Persian" to connect to the word, "today" which follows:  

Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated -- he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn't exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed. 

"tweets" is present tense.  

He is showing that these tweets are in English, to be understood by the United States; by Obama.  
Note also that he mentions "free" internet, which some may consider a direct plea to the American people about Obama and his intentions towards the internet.  

For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran's chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world. 

The quote refers to world wide anti-semitism.  Please note that recently Netanyahu called for European Jews to immigrate to Israel just as Muslims have immigrated throughout Europe and are being encouraged in their desire for Islamic rule by the political correctness of Europe.  

But Iran's regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran's regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime. 

Here a specific inclusion of "nuclear weapons", in the plural, and the threat beyond Jews. 

The people of Iran are very talented people. They're heirs to one of the world's great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots -- religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship. 

This is similar language that was used in the late 30's and even into the early 40's, separating "Germans" from "Nazis" which continued until the allied death toll rose.  Eventually, soldiers did not recognize, in general, the difference.  

Please note the specific year mentioned, "1979" as a reminder of the barbarity of Iran in its actions against the American hostages.  

That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran's borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime's founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to "export the revolution throughout the world."

This name was on the lips of all Americans at that time.  Note the contextual words deliberately chosen to appeal to his targeted audience:  Americans. 

This refutes the Obama administrations claims that it was a political speech intended for re-election.  His appeals, for his people, are made not only repeatedly to the American people, but he uses specific references that would emotionally appeal to anyone who remembers the captives, threats, violence and the specific name of their leader. 

I'm standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America's founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran's founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.

Iran's goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world's oil supply.

Note the inclusion of "oil" here; reminding Americans that the world's oil supply, found in these oil rich regions, is not where nuclear "energy" is needed. 

Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That's just last week, while they're having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran's attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real. 

He tells the American people that Iran is rehearsing attacking its military, while the American president is seeking to give them the world's most powerful weapon.  

Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Order:
American hostages
American soldiers
Marines
American service men and women

It is to this murderer that Obama seeks to arm. 

Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.

He gives specific locations around the world where Islamic terror has been unleashed by Iran.  Note "attacks" is present tense. 

In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran's aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.

So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.

He educates Congress is plain language, naming names, dates and locales.  This is "transparency" language; he does not use sophisticated wording to impress.  

We must all stand together to stop Iran's march of conquest, subjugation and terror.

The word "all" is unnecessary, therefore, very important.  "We must stand together" would be to show unity.  By using "all", he is emphasizing unity, showing the need for emphasis.  This is weakness to acknowledge that not "all" are standing together.  This is in reference to Obama and the 58 who boycotted the speech.  

Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!
Rouhani's government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.

Note the order;

a.  gays
b.  Christians
c.  Journalists
d.  prisoners 

Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I'd like to see someone ask him a question about that.

This is in reference to Obama's acceptance of Zarif, who mourns terrorists, putting Islam above country.  

Iran's regime is as radical as ever, its cries of "Death to America," that same America that it calls the "Great Satan," as loud as ever.

These two phrases are now more than 30 years old as catch phrases from Islam Iran.  They are familiar to American ears and not something the president would like to be used to remind the public of Islamic intentions.  He recognizes, in the negative, that this should "not" surprise Americans, but recognizes that the administration's sympathy lies with Islam:  

Now, this shouldn't be surprising, because the ideology of Iran's revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that's why this regime will always be an enemy of America.

The President of "America" is giving the "enemy of America" the most powerful weapon known to mankind.  He thus tells the people a very simple mandate: 

Don't be fooled. 

This is to acknowledge that someone is attempting to "fool" Americans into thinking that their publicly sworn and proclaimed enemy (tweets, actions) is not going to use this weapon against them, or against Israel, of whom they have sworn death. 

The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn't turn Iran into a friend of America.

Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.

The common tie is Islam.  The fight is over which gets to be Islam's ruler, not Islam, itself  

In this deadly game of thrones, there's no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don't share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.
So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.

He connects the dots of Islam and turns a common phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (from warfare). 

The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember -- I'll say it one more time -- the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can't let that happen.

Note the abbreviation for the "Islam state" is used here; the one Obama avoids:  "ISIS"

"We can't let that happen" and not "we can't let this happen" uses the distancing language. 
This suggests a belief it will not happen.  What gives him this belief?

1.  Obama will change his mind
2.  Obama will not change his mind, but be overruled by congress, or the American people or:  
3.  The possibility of something else gives him the belief that Iran will not get the bomb.  


But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them

Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don't need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it. 

Obama administration claim to the contrary is addressed. 

Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.

The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.

"Demolishment" and "destroy" are only "according to the deal."  This may signal what Israel hopes to accomplish, first through warning the American people, but secondly, a different alternative which remains to be mentioned.  

Because Iran's nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran's break-out time would be very short -- about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel's.

And if -- if Iran's work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.

True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran's nuclear program and Iran's adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here's the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don't stop them.

Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn't stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.

"North Korea" is now introduced to the American audience. 

Now, we're warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.

He puts Israel and America together as being concerned about North Korea.  Notice how close he puts the two enemies together in the sentence: 

Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It's done that on at least three separate occasions -- 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras. 
Now, I know this is not gonna come a shock -- as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them. 

Here, he steers away from Islamic ideology of death to Israel and America, and turns towards their behavior of mistrust:  

The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught -- caught twice, not once, twice -- operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn't even know existed. 

Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don't know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, "If there's no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn't have one." Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that's why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.

But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade. 

He states that no deal, or deal, Iran gets the bomb.  He shows the futility of giving an enemy a weapon to pacify it. 


Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it's the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It's a blink of an eye in the life of our children. 

Political life is simply how appearance can make or break a career, regardless of what good or bad has been brought to citizens.  The life expectancy of Obama is to be eight years.  What he leaves behind will impact our children.   

Note "nation" comes before "children"; with "children" an emotional appeal.  


We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran's nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs. 

"all" shows need to emphasize (see above) indicating lack of unity.  

Iran's Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount -- 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision. 

He tells the American audience that any details in a deal will be meaningless.  This is likely something that Obama did not want publicly known.  
Please note the lengthy list of secrecy that the Obama administration has engaged in with regard to "transparency" vowed before the first election. 

My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires. 

Here is an interesting social introduction.  The complete social introduction is 
"my friend, John Kerry" with
a.  "my" possessive pronoun
b.  "friend" being title
c.  "John Kerry" being the name. 

Yet, we have the title "friend" qualified with "long-time" and the title, "friend", qualified with position "Secretary of State" here. 

Please note:

"my friend, Secretary of State, John Kerry" is different than:

"my long time friend" and the name coming before the position.  

Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy. 

note measurement of time in the speech, throughout. 

And by the way, if Iran's Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the earth, including to every part of the United States. 

Note "Iran" can reach "every part of the United States" does not use the Iranian nicknames for America when specific war activity is mentioned. 

So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That's why this deal is so bad. It doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb.

So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?

Well, I disagree. I don't believe that Iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite -- would only wet Iran's appetite for more.

Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it's under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?

Why should Iran's radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world's: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?

This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel's neighbors -- Iran's neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it's been given a clear path to the bomb.
And many of these neighbors say they'll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won't change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that's supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.

This deal won't be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox. 

If anyone thinks -- if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we'll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.

Note the theme of time within the speech.  Both specific and non specific language employed.  

Ladies and gentlemen, I've come here today to tell you we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don't have to gamble with our future and with our children's future.

We can insist that restrictions on Iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.

Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second...

Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.

Numerics in language indicates logic over emotion.  

And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.

Thank you.

If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.

If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn't change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.

If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.

This simple language insults the American regime, which has sought to complicate everything, with not only hidden information, but of thousands of pages of indiscernible documents where no transparency is evidence. 

My friends, what about the argument that there's no alternative to this deal, that Iran's nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?

Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn't get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can't drive. A pilot without a plan can't fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can't make nuclear weapons.


Iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.

Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table -- and this often happens in a Persian bazaar -- call their bluff. They'll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.

And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.
My friends, for over a year, we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It's a very bad deal. We're better off without it.

"for over a year"; this has not been covered in the American press, nor part of our dialog.  


Now we're being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That's just not true. 

The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.

A better deal that doesn't leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time. A better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in place until Iran's aggression ends. 


A better deal that won't give Iran an easy path to the bomb. A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country...

... no country has a greater stake -- no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.

Ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war. 
The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.

You don't have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire. 

Here he signals that something very difficult is going to happen. 

My friend, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel. 


Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, "never again."

And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace. 

But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.

He tells Obama, arming his enemy, that he will strike militarily 

We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.

"No longer", negative:
1.  scattered
2.  powerless to defend ourselves. 

Note the reaffirmation of ownership of the land.  


This is why -- this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.

Military option will be with, or without Obama.
Military option will be even if it means Obama is faced with military action against Israel.
This is the ultimate defiance by Benjamin Netanyahu against Barak Hussein Obama.  
But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.

Strong pronoun usage throughout the speech, yet "know" is to indicate weakness.  


I know that you stand with Israel.

not, "You stand with Israel" nor "Israel and America stand together" but the distancing language of "with" between them.  

You stand with Israel, because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history's horrors.

The history of resistance is now brought up: 

Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this (inaudible) chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land.
And before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, (SPEAKING IN HEBREW), "Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them."

My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.

May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America.
Appropriate order for PM of Israel. 

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all. 

You're wonderful. 

Thank you, America. Thank you.

Thank you.

Historical setting is made by the subject. 
He relates Iran to Nazi Germany and shows that both were publicly opposed to Jewish existence and both were not ashamed to speak and carry out their intentions. 

There are two words missing:  "appeasement" and "Hitler" in the speech, while the theme of appeasement is strong. 
Why is it that he avoided these two specifics?
It may be due to the context. 

He has avoided saying that Obama is appeasing Iran by giving them the bomb. 
It may be that he does not believe that Obama is appeasing Iran by arming them, but that Obama is an ally of the Islamic regime  and that this is not Neville Chamberlain being naive about Iran, with the Churchill reference above. 

It may be that he avoided those obvious words deliberately because the context is different:

Obama, with his pro Islam speeches, his pro Islam lawless immigration and now, far beyond what anyone thought of, is giving the atomic bomb to the Islamic regime with not only a history of killing 'the infidel' but of conquest and threats to destroy "the Great Satan" (America) and annihilate the "zionists", that is, those who believe that the Jews had a right to their own land.

He has defied the President of the United States, appealing directly to the American people for his cause; to save his nation, but has also told Obama that his nation will not allow the Islamic regime of Iran to have the nuclear weapon Obama is giving them.  

He now has thrown down the gauntlet to Obama and has threatened to go to war, even if it means that Obama will, as reported, "shoot down Israeli jets" in attempt to defend Iran.  

Commentary:

This is the rare speech where a politician, normally self interested, defies a bully in a challenge where everything is at risk. 

There are two examples of this, with one given in a life or death threat, and the other a threat of a break down of relations:

1.  Winston Churchill stood up to Adolf Hitler and the powerful German military, alone, as France surrendered, rather than fight.  His speeches were bold, courageous and left him with the consequence that should the Battle of Britain be lost, he would have been hung, or shot, by the Nazis.  

2.  Ronald Reagan, in seeing the result of appeasement of the Soviets by America, said, "Mr. Gobechev, tear down this wall" with the bold calculation that the oppression of communism had to be broken.  

Obama will do everything he can to destroy his enemy, Benjamin Netanyahu, including sending his advisors and pollsters, with money, to Israel, in an attempt to influence the election.  

His anti-semetic stance is now before the American people who were not appearing to be alarmed by the arming of the Islamic terrorist nation.  In deference to Obama, some networks refused to carry the speech.   

In the time of the Nazis, there were self loathing Jews who told Roosevelt to "ignore the propaganda" of the British, who were reporting concentration camps. 

In Israel, there are self hating Jews who believe compromise with Islam is the answer, rather than powerful defense, as the last of the Holocaust survivors, who knew first hand what anti-Semitism is, dies off.  

There are those today who yield to political correctness regarding Islam, smear history, ignore the teachings of the Koran, and curry favor with the current Obama administration and his dictatorial mandates.  Same sex advocates, by and large, have embraced "multiculturalism" as an ideology, allowing for Islam's extreme intolerance to oppose them.  

Nancy Pelosi, Jewish and female, backs the pro Islam Obama, in spite of knowing what Islam believes about both Jews and women.  One can imagine the laughter within Tehran while watching Pelosi's body language during the speech.  

The Jews have always had to "go at it alone" throughout history.  Truman was mentioned because he was the first world leader to recognize Israel as a state, regardless of what went on behind the scenes:  the end result was formal recognition by the most powerful man of the most powerful nation  on earth, 1948.

That generation is all but gone now, and the most powerful man in the most powerful nation on the earth is giving the new Nazis, the Islamics, the most powerful weapon known to man. 

Israel has bombed the nuclear facility in the area, previously, as the "neighborhood bully" had to act alone, in an almost suspension of nature itself action, and has, since then, executed (my belief) atomic scientists who have helped Islamic cause in nuclear research and structure.  

They will continue so. 

Netanyahu has stood up to Obama and defied him, in his own country. 

Condemned by Pelosi and by newsman Chris Matthews, it is the very same thing America has always done: 

appealed to people against their government's own wishes, separating dictatorships from the people.  

Pelosi's body language showed a 'need to persuade', which is often called "acting" when before an audience, while Matthews makes a living by saying illogical and off the wall things for rating's sake, not unlike Fox News' use of beautiful women in short skirts, with camera angles on their legs, delivering commentary in news stories.  Neither reports the news plainly, with both showing an agenda.  

Here, Israel, as represented by its leader, has appealed directly to us, no matter what our political leanings are.  

We are, in effect, giving Adolf Hitler a nuclear bomb.   

The objection of "mutually assured destruction" is addressed by the invocation of Castro, and the history of suicide bombings .

Islam is a "static religion" that is not concerned with cultural continuity, nor continuation.  

Where Islam settled, oppression has hindered progress.  The "West", where culture, art, libraries, plays, musical concerts" and so on flourished historically, is in stark contrast.  The Jews believed first, and then Christians, that the mandate to "dress and keep the garden" was to, in practical ways, adorn the earth, build it up, beautify it, as a reflection of its Creator.  
Islam tears down to "submission and order", which is why, in symbolism, the destruction of works of art, is evidenced.  

It is not specific art, where one debates the content of art, but art, itself, that is targeted. 

The irony of the San Francisco city officials condemning the "hate ads" exposing Islamic beliefs, was sadly evidenced in the photo of the gay man being thrown to his death by ISIS.  

The single common theme of beheading, dismembering, crashing planes into civilians, subjugating women, and so on, is the teaching of the koran.  
Mohammad taught that the first generation of Muslims was the pure Islam, which is why Muslims so venerate the actions, and why the murderers of non-combatants are not condemned by Muslim leadership throughout the world, instead reaching for the "Islamiphobia" tangent.  It speaks to an "irrational" fear of Islam. 

There is nothing irrational about fearing oppression.  There is nothing irrational about wanting to be free to have an opinion, and not be persecuted for it.  Jews do not run into pizza parlors strapped with bombs.  Christians do not hijack planes and crash them into buildings.  Neither is promised sickening sexual rewards for suicidal attacks.  Jews and Christians cherish life, and their religions are "life affirming" religions, accepted or not.  

It was Christians who's ideology set the stage for the United States of America's freedom, and through struggles, the freedom, once limited, progressed, howbeit painfully. 

Islam seeks to, in short order, reverse those freedoms.  Obama has created a divided country of fear, yet, it may be that he has gone so far, that his desire for all things Islam, including the final act of hatred, the arming of the Islamic nation of Iran, may unite America again.  He is a bully who could not lawfully get his agenda passed, so he circumvented the law.  His "redistributing of wealth" was interpreted as jobs for black Americans.  It wasn't. It was, as it states, legalized theft from one group, to give to another, except that it was not blacks to whom his loyalty was evidenced, as seen in not only his betrayal of black Americans, but of his defense that the thousands and thousands of Islamic immigrants who illegally cross the border each month would not only remain here, but would receive "tax refunds."  From whom does this money come from, seeing America is in massive debt?  When he wrote of "redistribution of wealth", he was not joking, nor was he addressing black Americans.  They were not where his loyalty was to be found.  

He promised transparency while making sure that secretive legislation would dominate society, from the thousands of pages of indiscernible Obamacare to lawless immigration and now to not wanting America to know what he was doing with the Islamic leadership of Iran. Executive order on Americans owning arms?  Executive order on new taxes?  What will be next?  Will it be a crisis of such immensity that he will issue an "executive order" that will "temporarily" suspend elections?  Will this be due to threats of succession, or even war with our ally, Israel?

 What was unthinkable just 6 years ago, is the reality we now face. 

I wrote that once relations between India and Pakistan thawed a bit, that I have believed that I would not live to see the day when a nuclear bomb was detonated in anger.  The Soviets did not want to be destroyed in retaliation, no matter how driven they were by communism.  

Islamics have shown no regard for life, historically, nor of our generation.  They are promised sensual reward and are a "culture of death" where even its youngest are indoctrinated with dying for 'allah' while its "moderates" did not mind celebrating in the streets of the United States on September 11, while media was hesitant to video the street parties held.  

That Obama was able to get networks not to televise the speech shows how powerful he has become, just as having a federal law enforcement official give the public a lesson on Muslim teaching was last week, and that no American politician has had the courage to oppose him, only increases our fear of impotency in the face of a dictator. 

We have not had a lot of experience with lawlessness in this country.  We saw the skirting of the constitution by Roosevelt, but winning the war made that palatable.  We saw the rule of law skirted by presidents throughout Viet Nam, and right on through to current day, but nothing showed the escalation of lawlessness like the last 2 years of Obama.  

We are a polite people.

We are a generous people. 

Yet our leaders have had no problem telling other countries how to conduct themselves, and have bombed them until they promised to behave.  

Can you imagine Britain, for example, bombing Washington until it agreed to change its policy?

When a crisis hits, Americans, not the government, give like no nation on earth has ever given.  We want to help. 

Yet, while placing a camera on the planet Mars, we were told that we were not able to deliver food to the Sudan, as Islam was killing Sudanese who refused to "submit" to its oppressive teaching.  There, women had their breasts cruelly cut off so as not to nurse their 'infidel' offspring.  There was no outcry from Obama. 

Sure enough, when Egyptian Christians were executed specifically as "hate crime" by Islam, Obama not only invoked the Crusades, thus justifying Islamic murder, but refused to say that killing one specifically due to religion was not religious.  

If we repeat "islam is a religion of peace" long enough, will we believe it?  Will it erase history?  Will it change the koran?  Will it bring peace?

Benjamin Netanyahu has risked everything for himself and his people to speak to us. 

In spite of the Obama black out, were we listening?  Are we a people who will stand with our ally in their right to live?

Or is short term (think, two years), political gain, more important?  

Ask the 58 cowards who refused to attend a speech, whether or not they agreed with its content, whether any shining to Obama will be enough gain to justify their disgraceful disrespect of a foreign dignitary. 

Lastly, what will be said if Iran uses the atomic bomb? What will history say of the politicians who opposed it?

The answer is found in history. 

Nothing. Or, at least, very little. 

People do not speak much of the voices that paved the way for the deaths of millions because the death toll in measurement of human tragedy, is far beyond the pales of individuals. 

Yes, Neville Chamberlain is equated with appeasement and compromise with evil, but no one says that he caused the deaths of 60 million people.  In fact, we like to call Hitler the world's greatest monster while ignoring what Josef Stalin did, before World War II even began.  

This is the ultimate tragedy. 

We have seen Europe rush to be politically correct, bowing to the god of multiculturalism, as if having more cultures necessarily is a good thing.  If the culture is good, it is good, but if the culture is death, mixing it into a culture  of life, just to have "more ingredients" is madness.  

Madness.

Irrationality. 

It may be that if the worst happens, it will be Obama's name that will, alone, be in history books, 50 years from now, as the great Benedict Arnold of our time.  Yet, Arnold's prideful betrayal may have cost...

hundreds of lives. 

What will be the cost of Obama's Muslim betrayal of Israel and America?

Yet, I do not believe this will happen, or at least, I hope not.  

I believe, however, that a showdown will precede it, as I believe Netanyahu's promise that it is still too close to the holocaust to forget; the pain is still there, enough at least, to take military action against Iran, even if it means becoming what it appears Obama desires most;  the pariah of the world's nations. 

The tiniest of nations, surrounded by religious ideology that calls for its destruction, with pathological hatred engrained in even the most "moderate" Muslim for all things Jewish, it will have to defend itself. 

The remaining question will be how America responds.  

Israel would do well to try to postpone military action for as long as possible, until Obama leaves office.  I do not see a single candidate yet, on any side of the aisle, who is pro Muslim and will attack Israel, beyond Barak Hussein Obama.  

It is interesting to note that the speech used "one year" regarding the nearness of final development. 

This speech may be viewed in history alongside the speeches of Winston Churchill.  

The bravery and courage displayed was fresh, bold, and unusual for our day.  

Listening to it via radio, as millions of others did, gave the echo of yesteryear. 

Obama and his 58 lackeys gave Netanyahu a greater audience, in the end, than the regime in Washington would have liked. 

This is a major misreading of the American people. 

Again. 

Netanyahu did not compare Obama to Chamberlain's appeasement of Adolf Hitler. 

His comparison is that Obama is giving Hitler the atomic bomb to use on Jews instead of concentration camps, ovens and bullets.  


41 comments:

Dee said...

I was wondering if you'd analyze this. Thank you.

Picked a Name said...

Wow. I look forward to your characterization of future Republican administrations. I'll bet the assumptions behind the analysis are very different ("Obama and his 58 lackeys"? That's analysis, or is that opinion?). It matters, because statement analysis is supposed to be a science. If it's applied differently to different speakers, it can't be.

Anonymous said...

That was quite a brazen display of political demagoguery!

Do you honestly believe that the President of the United States "is seeking to arm Iran into taking away Israel's existence"? (would you also accuse Isaac Herzog et al. of this as well?)

I find statement analysis very interesting; yet I can't use what you've written as a resource anymore (how am I to know whether you have been using your expertise honestly or competently?)


P.S.
Do you remember all those radical lunatics on the left who went into hysterics about Bush/Cheney conspiracy theories? Look in the mirror, that's you right now.

john said...

OT Update:

Ferguson Report: DOJ Will Not Charge Darren Wilson in Michael Brown Shooting

http://abcnews.go.com/US/ferguson-report-doj-charge-darren-wilson-michael-brown/story?id=29338078&cid=fb_2020

Sus said...

I have to agree with other comments. I love statement analysis, but your objectivity abandons you in politics. This is not an analysis, but your slanted interpretation. That's a pity. This speech was ripe for analysis.

Dee said...

1st - Picked a Name and Anon, Peter clearly stated that this was both analysis of the speech and commentary. It was clear to me where the analysis left off and the commentary began.

Secondly - "Ask the 58 cowards who refused to attend a speech, whether or not they agreed with its content, whether any shining to Obama will be enough gain to justify their disgraceful disrespect of a foreign dignitary."

I did just that. I sent an email to Rosa DeLauro. She used the excuse that the WH was not informed of the visit (which is a lie) as a reason not to attend. I told her that as one of her constituents, I am disgusted and ashamed of her using that lie as an excuse to disrespect a head of state's speech, especially such an important ally to the US. I also said she showed cowardice in playing politics with such an important matter and she doesn't represent my feelings or opinions.

Jen Ow said...

"The following is both Statement Analysis and commentary on the speech in bold type.  Emphasis has been added to the original for clarity."

It is clearly stated that this post is "both Statement Analysis and commentary on the speech".

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
trustmeigetit said...

OT

"I would not, I could not, I did not kill those children"





Thoughts on that statement above?
Starts off as clear unreliable denial but not sure bout then adding the more reliable denial.

I am reading some old cases (this was a case about 3 boys killed in Chicago in the 50s and the man, Kenneth Hansen was convicted years later. That was a statement he blurted out during court. It’s all I can really find.




He did not know the 3 boys.

There are also thoughts he was the murderer of 2 sisters as well. Body's of all kids were found near his home.

1crosbycat said...

Awesome, thank you.

1crosbycat said...

To Peter for both his analysis and commentary. Just to clarify.

Anonymous said...

OT

http://thebea.st/1FVh799

The Pickup Artist Too Sleazy for Pickup Artists

John Mulvehill allegedly masturbated on a woman and was kicked out of his community for it. Now he's back with a new name and a new company.

Quotes from article.

“she kept resisting.”

“she didn't comply.”

“she still is being somewhat non-compliant so i tell her that it's a huge turn on for girls to watch me jerk off. i take my dick out and tell her that if she watches we can go watch the sunrise and party. she is reluctant to watch but eventually starts looking.”

“I know that sounds sort of rapey,” Mulvehill said in a phone interview with The Daily Beast, but he said “compliance” and “resistance” don’t mean the same thing to pickup artists as they do to laypeople. “It’s not about convincing girls to do something they don’t want to do,” he said.

“Honestly, I got carried away with it, but I’m not posting stuff like that anymore,” he said. “And with the new company, we’re not advocating for any misogyny or disrespect towards women.”

“Being a man is enough for a woman to be attracted to you,” Mulvehill says.

But women will often “come up with a certain number of objections,” he says, that can be knocked down by overwhelming the rational brain with stimuli. For the woman who just doesn’t know when to say yes, Mulvehill’s new product offers additional ways to “diffuse her objections one by one” and a “rejection-proof kiss technique.”

Lemon said...

Snarkapotami-

What part of the word "Commentary" did you not understand?

Carry on.

Anonymous said...


I listened to Netanyaho carefully
yesterday and was enthralled.
He did his country proud and it was required.
His reception in our Congressional setting looked positive to me. I hope all those clapping people get their acts together to prevent the current president from engineering Israel's destruction.
To me, it is that simple.

sidewalk super said...


And, thank you, Peter!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Juli Henry said...

So.....who's using ISIS, and for what?

My Sew Imperfect Life said...

Yes, I skip these now as well because I've noticed things that jump out at me that he glosses over when it doesn't fit the narrative. It bums me out bc I love this blog, when the discussion is fact-based. Its Peters blog so he can write whatever he likes, but I choose to not read or skim it. I feel it devalues his other work when he goes on political tirades. I also don't like insulting language and its used, like "lackeys." :-(

Anonymous said...

how do you know he used lackeys if you skipped it?

im with you. let iran have the bomb. i don't live next to them.

REGINA – Three Regina high schools and one in Saskatoon have pulled out of a cheerleading competition after threats were made against West Edmonton Mall in an online video.

And that has one mother suggesting the terrorists have won.

The video purportedly came from the Al-Shabab group and urges Muslims to attack malls including the Mall of America in Minneapolis and the one in Edmonton.

Denise Fisher of the Alberta Cheerleading Association says a dozen teams have pulled out of the competition scheduled for this coming weekend.

They include Campbell Collegiate, Balfour Collegiate and Winston Knoll Collegiate in Regina, and Bethlehem High School in Saskatoon.

Tina Caderna says her daughter, Trinity, was panicked when told about the cancellation, as she is serious about her cheerleading and trains for 30 hours a week.

“Whoever it was that posted that video has now won because we’re making a decision not to go based on the surfacing of that video naming West Edmonton Mall,” says Caderna.

The Regina Public School Division says it had heard from some parents who were concerned about the trip and would not be sending their children to the competition.

“The school division determined that due to the parents’ safety concerns and because we the school division can’t ensure the safety of the students travelling to the event, that we would not be participating as a school division,” explains Terry Lazarou, supervisor of communications with the school division.

Caderna, whose daughter also competes on another squad, says she will drive her daughter to Edmonton if she has to.

“This is something that she’s been doing for a long time and it wasn’t even an option not to go,” she says. “We were going, regardless.”

The Edmonton competition is a qualifier for cheerleaders to go to the 2015 World Cheerleading Championships in Florida in April.

The association’s website says the mall’s administration has confirmed “there will be significantly increased mall and police presence in the mall during the competition, although many will be plain-clothes officers.”

It also says the cheerleading association has contracted some additional security of its own, and has been working with an independent company to have onsite first aid and to ensure that its response plans align with West Edmonton Mall’s plans….

ANGRY in TX said...

I'm greatful that Peter has the fortitude to stand up against what's wrong in this country! I interpret (what you call) his rants as righteous indignation for the destruction of MY country. I'm angry that there aren't more Americans who will stand up and say "ENOUGH!!!" Obama is now promising to veto this bill if the Republicans pass it. History IS repeating itself and Obama is making SURE it does.

Snarknado said...

Lemon said:

What part of the word "Commentary" did you not understand?

Yes, commentary.

I think Peter and Lemon are being humble, though. The gems are indeed before the “Commentary:”

Obama, with his pro Islam speeches, his pro Islam lawless immigration and now, far beyond what anyone thought of, is giving the atomic bomb to the Islamic regime.

That is more than commentary, more than analysis, but a repeated assertion. If it were true, I’d say a bold statement of fact. As is, it is a statement that 90% of us would be unable to make.

Swallow any political pride if need be, readers, we have someone exceptional from whom to learn about deceit.

And the way he misspells “Barak”; Wow. That shows ‘em.

Though, I do wish he’d learn that “hanged” is the past tense for “hang” and “hung” is how some women describe…well, you get the point.

Anonymous said...


How many times did Netanyahu say
"I", or "me" or "mine" in his
Congressional address?
It might be useful to compare and contrast with the arrogant person in the White House and his constant narcissism.
Yes ?

My question: Is it treason if a sitting president makes treaties without Congressional consent?
Or, does a treaty made without Congressional consent mean nothing, and is not valid?

Jen Ow said...

Hi Angry in TX,

I agree, and I also appreciate this piece. If anyone thinks Peter's comments on this topic constitute a 'rant', then they should have heard my Mom and I discussing this today. ;-)

OldPsychNurse said...

Thank you for analyzing Netanyahu's speech.

I don't want to believe that the President of the United States is intentionally trying to destroy America, but that's what Obama's is doing.

Allowing Iran to increase its enrichment of uranium will bring about the nuclear destruction of America and Israel.

Anonymous said...

But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.


This one statement should stand alone and above all other statements in his speech. In direct relationship to the date and religious activities planned for his tribe.

Heather said...

What has frightened me the most about the Nazi regime was how the German people didn't/wouldn't/couldn't see what was happening around them. This is what I see happening in America, now. Media is controlled and the government is seeking to control it further. Things are done in secret, and no one seems willing to stand up to the one in power, thinking it better to bide their time while putting political loyalty before what is right.
I hope there are enough Americans with eyes and ears open to stop this madness before it goes too far down a road that doesn't have a pleasant exit.

Anonymous said...


Right on Heather,
the waiting for 2 years while doing nothing but collecting a paycheck and being bullied into submission is very very strange for Americans.
Not exactly our frontier, pioneer, founding spirit.
as far as that goes, not very good for the self esteem either.

Sara said...

Netanyahu IS the Winston Churchill of our time.

Great analysis, Peter. It is obvious that you keep learning and improving with time. Thanks for having the courage to speak out. I fear the financial consequences to you for doing so. I'm glad you do it anyway.

Peter Hyatt said...

Thank you, Sara.

I was aware of the potential financial consequence when I wrote the articles on propaganda, and wondered within myself if the Prime Minister would make the correlation to the 1930's Nazi Germany which had its share of denial there, England and in the United States.

As to the subtle and not so subtle insults, I respect honest disagreement when presented as such, rather than insults used in tangents.

Those who boycotted the Prime Minister's speech simply due to (as they stated) Obama not being told of the invitation have dishonored themselves, their office, and showed disdain for Israel.

Even if they disagreed with Obama not being notified, they should have respectfully attended and could have given rebuttal if they felt compelled.

To simply not show up because of a lack of prior notice given to Obama, relegated them to a "lackey", which is the word I took from the Prime Minister's speech, as it applies to one who simply follows without discretion.

I left some of the insults posted as they are, using pseudo names or anonymous.

Indeed.



Peter

Anonymous said...

I hope there are enough Americans with eyes and ears open to stop this madness before it goes too far down a road that doesn't have a pleasant exit.

Many have already passed that exit, Heather. Those of us that have lived with this German analogy knows how it works: They set up charities, collect people they force into those charities, terrorize and extort for their own gain. Maybe it's about politics and world affairs, but I don't think so.

When someone needlessly searches a vehicle and leaves padlocks in a different location and keys on the mat, it's safe to assume it's a 'Us against them' feat. Not about drugs, saftey or any thing but wanting to be saluted or soley for intimidation. It's easy to think that when house keys have been reproduced, home searched while away, and drug dog unleashed at a yard sale to intimidate people. Nope, it's Germany where I live. They never do this to the drunks and druggies because they are too young to know better. Ha! They never seize drugs only assest of major drug dealers only to let the others spread it to intimidate and terrorize everyone else for the snitching, paranioa to get more funds to do the same.

When a person is towed away after an accident instead of the uninsured drive, a person scratches their head. To have this happen continually...someone isn't kissing enough azz! Oh, I'm sorry, did I do that?

People don't want to hear the truth! We're already in it and have been for some time. All they need is a reason, a cause, a political purpose, a religion or lack thereof.

Agree with me or else!

These truth seekers are merely burglary rings and stalking people to increase terror and mental illness. That's it.

It isn't 1930. It isn't 1970. It is, however, surreal!

Anonymous said...

And, they are pumping out more and more morons everyday!

Someone wants to get elected. Great, send some flunky journalists to bait and antaganize a man over an old horse using animal rights as the issue.Get him so mad he hits you and can be arrested for not engaging in friendly discourse.

Want to stop murdering moms? Destroy the entire family, extended family and whole neighborhood. That's a great solution to the problem and the intellectuals dun gone and thunk it up themselves.

Want to be a good citizen? Give both parties to an accident your name and number and let it be known you'd swing either way. Hmmm. Too much TV! Unless, of course that citizen caused it.

Peter Hyatt said...



The teaching of Islam is not something new, but from reading here, I have noticed that few people seem to understand Islam, and why the phrase "Islam is a religion of peace" is necessary and oft repeated.

Islamic teaching (the Koran) teaches deception to "infidels" (us) is not a sin (transgression) and for Muslims, Jihad is the call for every man, woman and child, as a duty.

In non-religious nations, "submission" by tax is accepted but for Jews and Christians, given the history, only conversion or death is accepted.

The non-religious nations are seen as "ignorant" but Israel and America (USA is seen by Muslims as "Christian land") are not "ignorant" of the "truth of Islam" but are "arrogant"

This is a different status and why they call for death, entirely, rather than just subjugation (duty-tax) and even slavery.

The attitude towards women is frightening, as cruelty is considered a way to "amaze", that is, catch the attention of the public.

Women in "education" become "arrogant" to Islam, which is why they oppose it.

People do what they believe.

With our president, this is not something Americans should be ignorant of.

Anonymous said...

The Old Testament teaches violence to infidels as well. Yet the book and the actions of Christians are not one and the same. This is where your statements about Islam and Muslins falls short of truth: you are generalizing. While there may be many Muslims committed to jihad, the are many more, tens of millions, who have not and will not raise a hand to anyone. Yet it seems you paint them all with the same brush.

You recently commented on the head of the FBI's "moralizing" about targeting Muslims, calling out those who discriminate. You said you'd rather hear him discussing legal matters. But for Obama, that's what he's doing- talking about violent "crimes" rather than religious doctrine, and you criticize him for it. So which is it? Do you want the government fighting violent people and protecting religious exercise or engaging in a Holy War because of a book? Do you want us to judge Muslims based only on the words from this old book or based on their actions as individual creatures of God?

I respect if you believe Obama's negotiations on Iran are too soft. But you don't say that- you misrepresent his position by saying he "is giving" them nuclear weapons, like he's loading some up on the USS Eisenhower and shipping them over there. That is a dishonest statement. So, you can say you like "honest debate" ad nauseum, but that particular claim and several others are not part of "honest debate." I don't mean this as an insult, but as observation and rebuttal.

Several of us called you out on your bias. One went so far as to call you "radical." I apologize for my comment, under "snarknado" but I stand by my assessment that you are going farther than disagreeing, and you are deceiving your readers about certain things about the President. I don't mean to defend him blindly; I have plenty to disagree with. But I can disagree with him and still represent his, or his political adversaries' positions and actions fairly and honestly. Where I can't, I hope to be called out on it.

Again, I mean this as perspective and not a personal insult against you as a man, but we've got somebody here calling us much worse names than "biased radical." I'd repeat them but get deleted. We take these insults, we are asked to be silent in the face of what can only be classified as ongoing verbal abuse. When it's not directed at us, it is at a fellow SAer. We mostly ignore it and it sometimes gets deleted. We're adults and can "take it" but it's still cruel and can impact the mind or our sense of belonging here. Yet it goes on, unaddressed. Then a part analysis part politics piece appears and you, who teach us to find deception and to analyze words evenly, get "called out" for showing bias. Not merely for a "difference of opinion" but for treating political language differently based on preferences, not principle.

It's a testament to you we can do this, but unfortunately, you seem to take it as a personal affront or *only* a bias on our part. You chastise our commentary on your commentary as being an "insult" all the time we're remaining silent in the face of chimpy "shite" b-words and hijacking of our name to insult others. It just makes getting upset over "biased!" a little petty. This is perspective from down below, not an insult or indication of a failing on your part. I hope you recognize it as such.

Stuart said...

I don't believe in collective guilt. I don't think the actions of one muslim or group of muslims makes all muslims terrorists.

To the greater point that it would be a disaster for Iran to have nuclear bombs and intercontinental ballistic missiles, I wholeheartedly agree.

I also agree that Obama is an enemy of America. His speeches on race seek to divide the American people for his own gain. He is not transparent. He is hostile towards Israel and Netanyahu in particular.

Peter, I think your characterizations of Islam and Christianity reach too far, but I agree with your characterization of Iran and its leadership.

I am proud of much of what our founding fathers did and they were certainly Christians, but many of them were also slave owners and created a government that perpetuated chattel slavery for roughly four score and seven years.

"It was Christians who's ideology set the stage for the United States of America's freedom, and through struggles, the freedom, once limited, progressed, howbeit painfully."

I can't tell if that's a vague reference to slavery. If it is, then at least it is being acknowledged.

I credit the teachings of Christianity for a lot of good, but I cannot credit Christianity for creating our Constitution and for making our country what it is.

Peter, thank you for the analysis and the commentary.

Peter Hyatt said...

Stuart,

I have a new article coming out on the language, and your response is what I am specifically looking for: what people think, from a non-Muslim perspective.

Thank you,

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Stuart,

on Slavery, you will find some interesting facts upcoming...

for example, 60% of abolitionist societies in the United States were located in the southern states. Where this stat comes from is also going to be fascinating.

Another issue:

England freed its slaves without shedding blood.

We could have, and should have, done the same thing.

Our war was not fought to free the slaves. This issue came to the forefront in 1863, two years after the war began.
It led to massive northern departures AWOL, protests, and sadly, more deaths of blacks, especially in the NYC riot.

Wars are, for the most part, conquests of money, tariffs, trade, etc. Religion is often a front, or a way to sanitize killing for greed. The exception is the one religion in the world that teaches conquest by warfare.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous Picked a Name said...
Wow. I look forward to your characterization of future Republican administrations. I'll bet the assumptions behind the analysis are very different ("Obama and his 58 lackeys"? That's analysis, or is that opinion?). It matters, because statement analysis is supposed to be a science. If it's applied differently to different speakers, it can't be.

March 4, 2015 at 12:40 PM Delete

I betcha others might have picked a name for you, too.



Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Sus said...
I have to agree with other comments. I love statement analysis, but your objectivity abandons you in politics. This is not an analysis, but your slanted interpretation. That's a pity. This speech was ripe for analysis.
March 4, 2015 at 12:57 PM


Sus, if it is "ripe for analysis", won't you enlighten us?

Peter

Stuart said...

"The exception is the one religion in the world that teaches conquest by warfare."

I have not read any of the Koran, but I have read the book of Joshua. It teaches conquest by warfare. They did not impose sanctions upon Jericho. They killed every man, woman, and child (except for Rahab's family).

Here is a small piece of Joshua 8:
-----------------------------------
24 When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the wilderness where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed[a] all who lived in Ai. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the Lord had instructed Joshua.

28 So Joshua burned Ai[b] and made it a permanent heap of ruins, a desolate place to this day.
----------------------------------

It isn't fair or accurate to say that Islam alone teaches conquest by warfare.

I'm with you on your comments about Iran, but I disagree with your generalizations about Islam.

Peter Hyatt said...

Stuart,

Regarding Judaism and the conquest of Jericho:

This was a specific warfare instruction over a specific town to a specific people. Jews did not take this as "walking papers" to spread Judaism.

It is a specific battle command. It was neither interpreted, nor practiced by the Jews, as anything else.

It is a good and fair minded question.

Upcoming is the words of religion and mandates from the words.

Peter

Anonymous said...

http://www.jihadwatch.org