March 6, 2012 § Leave a comment
From Greenwald, who invariably frames the thought better,
“The so-called “gulf” between Israel and the U.S. — the two viable sides of the debate — consists of these views: (1)Iran should be attacked when it develops the capacity to develop nuclear weapons (Israel) or (2) Iran should be attacked only once it decides to actually develop a nuclear weapon (the U.S.). Those are the two permissible options, both grounded in the right and even duty to attack Iran even if they’re threatening to attack nobody — i.e., a preventive war. That it’s unjustified to attack Iran in the absence of an actual or imminent threat of attack by Iran, or that international law (as expressed by the U.N. Charter) bars the use of threats of military attack, or that Iran could be contained even if it acquired a nuclear weapon, has been removed from the realm of mainstream debate (meaning: the debate shaped by the two political parties).”
Zionist, neo-apartheid, Israel harms the U.S. by dragging it along. A non-Zionist, non-neo-apartheid Israel wouldn’t be a problem for the U.S. These problems come from thinking a god has chosen a people for a land. Another example of the dangerous lunacy of religious fanaticism.