American Presidents, and Israel

[ogibillm]

I've explained that this is not government school.

Unable to process the information provided, you've been dismissed.

Step off.

Actually you haven't.
you gave some crap answer about shared values, but i believe that's the type of thing Washington would call "the illusion of common interest"

What????

Only a fool or a liar would deny how obvious the reason is.


Only "the illusion of common interest"?????
Really?

Here is Lyndon Johnson's answer to that question:

13. " Soon after the 1967 war, Soviet premier Aleksei Kosygin asked Johnson at the Glassboro Summit why the US supported Israel when there were 80 million Arabs and only three million Israelis. "Because it is right," responded the straight-shooting Texan.


.... prime minister Levi Eshkol's successful appeal for these weapons on a visit to the LBJ ranch. Israel won the 1967 war, and Johnson worked to make sure it also won the peace. "I sure as hell want to be careful and not run out on little Israel," Johnson said in a March 1968 conversation with his ambassador to the United Nations, Arthur Goldberg, according to White House tapes recently released.



The crafting of UN Resolution 242 in November 1967 was done under Johnson's scrutiny. The call for "secure and recognized boundaries" was critical. The American and British drafters of the resolution opposed Israel returning all the territories captured in the war. In September 1968, Johnson explained, "We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders."
A friend in deed - Features - Jerusalem Post




Lyndon Johnson: "..."We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace."

Barack Obama: "Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders"Obama calls for Israel s return to pre-1967 borders - CNN.com



This what happens when those unprepared to be informed voters put in office a man unprepared to be the President of the United States.

Saying something is right doesn't make it so. Again, that's just the Illusion of commonality. Neither should past support dictate unconditional support in the future. That's just the habit of alliance.


So what's the reason once again?

Here it is, once again.
Soon after the 1967 war, Soviet premier Aleksei Kosygin asked Johnson at the Glassboro Summit why the US supported Israel when there were 80 million Arabs and only three million Israelis. "Because it is right," responded the straight-shooting Texan.

And once again, simply stating something is right doesn't make it so. It also doesn't mean that the action will always be right.
that's the illusion of commonality and habit of alliance speaking.

What makes our support of israel to the detriment of relations with other nations acceptable today?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually you haven't.
you gave some crap answer about shared values, but i believe that's the type of thing Washington would call "the illusion of common interest"

What????

Only a fool or a liar would deny how obvious the reason is.


Only "the illusion of common interest"?????
Really?

Here is Lyndon Johnson's answer to that question:

13. " Soon after the 1967 war, Soviet premier Aleksei Kosygin asked Johnson at the Glassboro Summit why the US supported Israel when there were 80 million Arabs and only three million Israelis. "Because it is right," responded the straight-shooting Texan.


.... prime minister Levi Eshkol's successful appeal for these weapons on a visit to the LBJ ranch. Israel won the 1967 war, and Johnson worked to make sure it also won the peace. "I sure as hell want to be careful and not run out on little Israel," Johnson said in a March 1968 conversation with his ambassador to the United Nations, Arthur Goldberg, according to White House tapes recently released.



The crafting of UN Resolution 242 in November 1967 was done under Johnson's scrutiny. The call for "secure and recognized boundaries" was critical. The American and British drafters of the resolution opposed Israel returning all the territories captured in the war. In September 1968, Johnson explained, "We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders."
A friend in deed - Features - Jerusalem Post




Lyndon Johnson: "..."We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace."

Barack Obama: "Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders"Obama calls for Israel s return to pre-1967 borders - CNN.com



This what happens when those unprepared to be informed voters put in office a man unprepared to be the President of the United States.

Saying something is right doesn't make it so. Again, that's just the Illusion of commonality. Neither should past support dictate unconditional support in the future. That's just the habit of alliance.


So what's the reason once again?

Here it is, once again.
Soon after the 1967 war, Soviet premier Aleksei Kosygin asked Johnson at the Glassboro Summit why the US supported Israel when there were 80 million Arabs and only three million Israelis. "Because it is right," responded the straight-shooting Texan.

And once again, simply stating something is right doesn't make it so. It also doesn't mean that the action will always be right.
that's the illusion of commonality and habit of alliance speaking.

What makes our support of israel to the detriment of relations with other nations acceptable today?

There seem to be two problems....

1. You're a really, really slow learner

2. You've never been taught the difference between right and wrong.

 

[ogibillm]

What????

Only a fool or a liar would deny how obvious the reason is.


Only "the illusion of common interest"?????
Really?

Here is Lyndon Johnson's answer to that question:

13. " Soon after the 1967 war, Soviet premier Aleksei Kosygin asked Johnson at the Glassboro Summit why the US supported Israel when there were 80 million Arabs and only three million Israelis. "Because it is right," responded the straight-shooting Texan.


.... prime minister Levi Eshkol's successful appeal for these weapons on a visit to the LBJ ranch. Israel won the 1967 war, and Johnson worked to make sure it also won the peace. "I sure as hell want to be careful and not run out on little Israel," Johnson said in a March 1968 conversation with his ambassador to the United Nations, Arthur Goldberg, according to White House tapes recently released.



The crafting of UN Resolution 242 in November 1967 was done under Johnson's scrutiny. The call for "secure and recognized boundaries" was critical. The American and British drafters of the resolution opposed Israel returning all the territories captured in the war. In September 1968, Johnson explained, "We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders."
A friend in deed - Features - Jerusalem Post




Lyndon Johnson: "..."We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace."

Barack Obama: "Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders"Obama calls for Israel s return to pre-1967 borders - CNN.com



This what happens when those unprepared to be informed voters put in office a man unprepared to be the President of the United States.

Saying something is right doesn't make it so. Again, that's just the Illusion of commonality. Neither should past support dictate unconditional support in the future. That's just the habit of alliance.


So what's the reason once again?

Here it is, once again.
Soon after the 1967 war, Soviet premier Aleksei Kosygin asked Johnson at the Glassboro Summit why the US supported Israel when there were 80 million Arabs and only three million Israelis. "Because it is right," responded the straight-shooting Texan.

And once again, simply stating something is right doesn't make it so. It also doesn't mean that the action will always be right.
that's the illusion of commonality and habit of alliance speaking.

What makes our support of israel to the detriment of relations with other nations acceptable today?

There seem to be two problems....

1. You're a really, really slow learner

2. You've never been taught the difference between right and wrong.

Which is right and which is wrong-pursuing a diplomatic solution to a problem, or pushing an unrealistic agenda that will almost certainly lead to armed conflict?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Saying something is right doesn't make it so. Again, that's just the Illusion of commonality. Neither should past support dictate unconditional support in the future. That's just the habit of alliance.


So what's the reason once again?

Here it is, once again.
Soon after the 1967 war, Soviet premier Aleksei Kosygin asked Johnson at the Glassboro Summit why the US supported Israel when there were 80 million Arabs and only three million Israelis. "Because it is right," responded the straight-shooting Texan.

And once again, simply stating something is right doesn't make it so. It also doesn't mean that the action will always be right.
that's the illusion of commonality and habit of alliance speaking.

What makes our support of israel to the detriment of relations with other nations acceptable today?

There seem to be two problems....

1. You're a really, really slow learner

2. You've never been taught the difference between right and wrong.

Which is right and which is wrong-pursuing a diplomatic solution to a problem, or pushing an unrealistic agenda that will almost certainly lead to armed conflict?

"....that will almost certainly lead to armed conflict?"

Aha!

So.....fear is behind what passes for thinking in your case!
You're a 'better-red-than-dead guy'!

Here, possibly too late, is your tutorial:


1. Dare to be a Daniel, Dare to stand alone
Dare to have a purpose firm, Dare to make it known!
From From the hymn “Hold the Fort!” First Congregational Church of Chicago, Illinois.

2. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill


3. Then out spoke brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate:
‘To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods,
Horatius at the Bridge by Lord Macaulay

 

[ogibillm]

Yes i fear war - especially if it can be avoided and more can be accomplished through diplomacy.

"Wars not make one great"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes i fear war - especially if it can be avoided and more can be accomplished through diplomacy.

"Wars not make one great"

"...especially if it can be avoided and more can be accomplished through diplomacy."
Of course, that is not the case.

Even you, a proven dolt, won't say that you believe that Iran will honor any treaty.

Will you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Make no mistake: Prime Minister Netanyahu, giving that speech, is Obama's greatest loss to date. He did everything he and his apparatchiks could do to prevent the speech....and failed.

Worse....the speech produced 43 standing ovations!

Obama followed it, claiming that Netanyahu offered no alternnatives to his fraudulent negotiations; as usual, a lie from Obama. Netanyahu certainly did: increase sanctions, walk away. That is the way negotiations are done.




Lyndon Johnson:

14. .... "Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate."

This historic diplomacy was conducted under Johnson's stewardship, as Goldberg related in oral history to the Johnson Library.


Robert David Johnson, a professor of history at Brooklyn College, recently wrote inThe New York Sun, "Johnson's policies stemmed more from personal concerns - his friendship with leading Zionists, his belief that America had a moral obligation to bolster Israeli security and his conception of Israel as a frontier land much like his home state of Texas.


His personal concerns led him to intervene when he felt that the State or Defense departments had insufficiently appreciated Israel's diplomatic or military needs."


President Johnson firmly pointed American policy in a pro-Israel direction.

In a historical context, the American emergency airlift to Israel in 1973, the constant diplomatic support, the economic and military assistance and the strategic bonds between the two countries can all be credited to the seeds planted by LBJ."
A friend in deed - Features - Jerusalem Post



Now we have a Democrat whose impulses lie in a very different direction.
The American electorate sunk to a new low in installing Barack Hussein Obama.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The NYSun gives Obama the 'credit' he is due......


15. "Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech this morning will go down as one of the most memorable ever delivered to a Joint Meeting. No doubt the Israeli leader has President Obama to thank for a portion of that, given the degree of global attention the president placed on the speech merely by dint of objecting to it. He also has the Speaker to thank for it; Mr. Boehner showed admirable grit in asserting Congress’ inherent foreign policy powers to invite the premier and in sticking with it in the face of a boycott by the Democratic Party’s left wing.



There are those who feel that Mr. Netanyahu was too kind to President Obama, whom the Israeli leader extolled even in the face of Mr. Obama’s jibes and sneers in the weeks leading up to the speech. We thought Mr. Netanyahu was right to be as generous as he was; the security support that Mr. Obama has given Israel and the diplomatic cover at the United Nations, these are no small things. The fact is that it is Mr. Obama who has been acting off-kilter here, not the Israeli leader; he was generous, straight to the point, and wise. He is in a position to be generous."
Bibi s Finest Hour - The New York Sun

 

[georgephillip]

The name Iran means ‘Aryan,’ and was chosen to support a massive Nazi-dominated infrastructure which was ready to provide oil to the Nazis.

"The gentilicēr- and ary- (in e.g. ērān/aryān) in the Middle Iranian languages of Persian and Parthian derives from Old Iranian*arya-[1] (in e.g. Old Persian: ariya-, Avestan: airiia-, etc.), meaning 'Aryan,'[1] in the sense of 'of the Iranians.'[1][2]

"This word (i.e. *arya-) is attested as an ethnic designator in Achaemenid inscriptions and in Zoroastrianism's Avesta tradition,[3][n 1] and in Middle Iranian era (ca. 400 BCE - 700 CE) it seems 'very likely'[1] that the word ērān in Ardashir's inscription still retained the same meaning as in the Old era, i.e. denoting the people rather than the empire while the empire was properly named as ērānšahr.[1]"
Iran word - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

"The name Iran means ‘Aryan,’ and was chosen to support a massive Nazi-dominated infrastructure which was ready to provide oil to the Nazis. By the early 1930s, Reza Pahlavi's close ties with Nazi Germany began worrying the Allied states.[8] Germany's modern state and economy highly impressed the Shah, and there were hundreds of Germans involved in every aspect of the state, from setting up factories to building roads, railroads and bridges.[9]" Germany Iran relations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

None of this has anything to do with the ethnic cleansing of Arabs by Jews in Palestine during the mid-1940s, unless you're blaming Aryans for Jaffa?
"Jaffa was the largest city in historic Palestine during the years of the British mandate, with a population of more than 80,000 Palestinians in addition to the 40,000 persons living in the towns and villages in its immediate vicinity.

"In the period between the UN Partition resolution (UNGA 181) of 29 November 1947, and the declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel, Zionist military forces displaced 95 percent of Jaffa’s indigenous Arab Palestinian population.

"Jaffa’s refugees accounted for 15 percent of Palestinian refugees in that fateful year, and today they are dispersed across the globe, still banned from returning by the state responsible for their displacement."
Jaffa from eminence to ethnic cleansing The Electronic Intifada

 

[georgephillip]

Bibi is wrong. Time to part with him.

Bibi and his racist Likud party have been wrong for a very long time:
"The assassination of Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin was the culmination of Israeli right-wing dissent over the Oslo peace process.

"Rabin, despite his extensive service in theIsraeli military, was disparaged personally by right-wing conservatives and Likud leaders who perceived the Oslo peace process as an attempt to forfeit the occupied territories.

"Haredi conservatives and Likud party leaders believed that withdrawing from any 'Jewish' land was heresy. Rallies, organized partially by Likud, became increasingly extreme in tone.

"Likud leader (and future Prime Minister) Benjamin Netanyahu accused Rabin's government of being 'removed from Jewish tradition ... and Jewish values.'

"Netanyahu addressed protesters of the Oslo movement at rallies where posters portrayed Rabin in a Nazi SS uniform or being the target in the cross-hairs of a sniper.[1]

"Rabin accused Netanyahu of provoking violence, a charge which Netanyahu strenuously denied."

Bibi has a gift for getting peace makers killed; if his racist, corrupt party wants war with Iran, here's hoping he's among the first to die.

Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[ogibillm]

Yes i fear war - especially if it can be avoided and more can be accomplished through diplomacy.

"Wars not make one great"

"...especially if it can be avoided and more can be accomplished through diplomacy."
Of course, that is not the case.

Even you, a proven dolt, won't say that you believe that Iran will honor any treaty.

Will you.

Why wouldn't they?
Can you show a history of the iranian government breaking agreements with the US?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually you haven't.
you gave some crap answer about shared values, but i believe that's the type of thing Washington would call "the illusion of common interest"

What????

Only a fool or a liar would deny how obvious the reason is.


Only "the illusion of common interest"?????
Really?

Here is Lyndon Johnson's answer to that question:

13. " Soon after the 1967 war, Soviet premier Aleksei Kosygin asked Johnson at the Glassboro Summit why the US supported Israel when there were 80 million Arabs and only three million Israelis. "Because it is right," responded the straight-shooting Texan.


.... prime minister Levi Eshkol's successful appeal for these weapons on a visit to the LBJ ranch. Israel won the 1967 war, and Johnson worked to make sure it also won the peace. "I sure as hell want to be careful and not run out on little Israel," Johnson said in a March 1968 conversation with his ambassador to the United Nations, Arthur Goldberg, according to White House tapes recently released.



The crafting of UN Resolution 242 in November 1967 was done under Johnson's scrutiny. The call for "secure and recognized boundaries" was critical. The American and British drafters of the resolution opposed Israel returning all the territories captured in the war. In September 1968, Johnson explained, "We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders."
A friend in deed - Features - Jerusalem Post




Lyndon Johnson: "..."We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace."

Barack Obama: "Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders"Obama calls for Israel s return to pre-1967 borders - CNN.com



This what happens when those unprepared to be informed voters put in office a man unprepared to be the President of the United States.

Saying something is right doesn't make it so. Again, that's just the Illusion of commonality. Neither should past support dictate unconditional support in the future. That's just the habit of alliance.


So what's the reason once again?

Here it is, once again.
Soon after the 1967 war, Soviet premier Aleksei Kosygin asked Johnson at the Glassboro Summit why the US supported Israel when there were 80 million Arabs and only three million Israelis. "Because it is right," responded the straight-shooting Texan.

And once again, simply stating something is right doesn't make it so. It also doesn't mean that the action will always be right.
that's the illusion of commonality and habit of alliance speaking.

What makes our support of israel to the detriment of relations with other nations acceptable today?

"IRAN RENEWS VOW TO ‘ANNIHILATE’ ISRAEL"
Iran Renews Vow to Annihilate Israel NBC Buries Lede - Breitbart



"January 30
1942
Hitler repeats his threat to kill the Jews"
30th January 1942 Hitler repeats his threat to kill all the Jews of Europe in major public speech



Sometimes I mix the two up....
...which one did you say you support again?

 

[warf]

Do we really need to take advice from the leader of a nation that has been at war for almost 70 years?

A nation that has spied on us and tried to sink our warship and killed 36 American sailors and wounded over 50 others?

Iran has done us less harm than Israel.

 

[ogibillm]

What????

Only a fool or a liar would deny how obvious the reason is.


Only "the illusion of common interest"?????
Really?

Here is Lyndon Johnson's answer to that question:

13. " Soon after the 1967 war, Soviet premier Aleksei Kosygin asked Johnson at the Glassboro Summit why the US supported Israel when there were 80 million Arabs and only three million Israelis. "Because it is right," responded the straight-shooting Texan.


.... prime minister Levi Eshkol's successful appeal for these weapons on a visit to the LBJ ranch. Israel won the 1967 war, and Johnson worked to make sure it also won the peace. "I sure as hell want to be careful and not run out on little Israel," Johnson said in a March 1968 conversation with his ambassador to the United Nations, Arthur Goldberg, according to White House tapes recently released.



The crafting of UN Resolution 242 in November 1967 was done under Johnson's scrutiny. The call for "secure and recognized boundaries" was critical. The American and British drafters of the resolution opposed Israel returning all the territories captured in the war. In September 1968, Johnson explained, "We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders."
A friend in deed - Features - Jerusalem Post




Lyndon Johnson: "..."We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace."

Barack Obama: "Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders"Obama calls for Israel s return to pre-1967 borders - CNN.com



This what happens when those unprepared to be informed voters put in office a man unprepared to be the President of the United States.

Saying something is right doesn't make it so. Again, that's just the Illusion of commonality. Neither should past support dictate unconditional support in the future. That's just the habit of alliance.


So what's the reason once again?

Here it is, once again.
Soon after the 1967 war, Soviet premier Aleksei Kosygin asked Johnson at the Glassboro Summit why the US supported Israel when there were 80 million Arabs and only three million Israelis. "Because it is right," responded the straight-shooting Texan.

And once again, simply stating something is right doesn't make it so. It also doesn't mean that the action will always be right.
that's the illusion of commonality and habit of alliance speaking.

What makes our support of israel to the detriment of relations with other nations acceptable today?

"IRAN RENEWS VOW TO ‘ANNIHILATE’ ISRAEL"
Iran Renews Vow to Annihilate Israel NBC Buries Lede - Breitbart



"January 30
1942
Hitler repeats his threat to kill the Jews"
30th January 1942 Hitler repeats his threat to kill all the Jews of Europe in major public speech



Sometimes I mix the two up....
...which one did you say you support again?

iran is not nazi Germany.

 

[Jroc]

Saying something is right doesn't make it so. Again, that's just the Illusion of commonality. Neither should past support dictate unconditional support in the future. That's just the habit of alliance.


So what's the reason once again?

Here it is, once again.
Soon after the 1967 war, Soviet premier Aleksei Kosygin asked Johnson at the Glassboro Summit why the US supported Israel when there were 80 million Arabs and only three million Israelis. "Because it is right," responded the straight-shooting Texan.

And once again, simply stating something is right doesn't make it so. It also doesn't mean that the action will always be right.
that's the illusion of commonality and habit of alliance speaking.

What makes our support of israel to the detriment of relations with other nations acceptable today?

"IRAN RENEWS VOW TO ‘ANNIHILATE’ ISRAEL"
Iran Renews Vow to Annihilate Israel NBC Buries Lede - Breitbart



"January 30
1942
Hitler repeats his threat to kill the Jews"
30th January 1942 Hitler repeats his threat to kill all the Jews of Europe in major public speech



Sometimes I mix the two up....
...which one did you say you support again?

iran is not nazi Germany.

Not yet, if left up to people like you?

 

[georgephillip]

"IRAN RENEWS VOW TO ‘ANNIHILATE’ ISRAEL"
Iran Renews Vow to Annihilate Israel NBC Buries Lede - Breitbart

Iran seeks the extermination of a racist Jewish state that has maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated millions of Arabs in Palestine since 1948, and NOT the extermination of individual Israeli Jews, but you and Breitbart already knew that. When are you planning to renounce Bibi and his racist Likud Party Charter which calls for the annihilation of any viable Palestinian state west of the Jordan river?
"ANN CURRY: So how does Iran want to annihilate the regime of Israel, since you’re making the difference?

JAVAD ZARIF: We don’t want to annihilate. We don’t want to–

ANN CURRY: Well, the Supreme Leader–

JAVAD ZARIF: –annihilate anybody.

ANN CURRY: –tweeted that–

JAVAD ZARIF: We have– the– well, what he says–

ANN CURRY: –it should be annihilated.

JAVAD ZARIF: It– it should be annihilated. That this regime is a threat, is a threat…

Zarif has sought to turn the tables on Israel in recent days, calling Israeli Prime Minister

Iran Renews Vow to Annihilate Israel NBC Buries Lede - Breitbart

 

[Jroc]

"IRAN RENEWS VOW TO ‘ANNIHILATE’ ISRAEL"
Iran Renews Vow to Annihilate Israel NBC Buries Lede - Breitbart

Iran seeks the extermination of a racist Jewish state that has maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated millions of Arabs in Palestine since 1948, and NOT the extermination of individual Israeli Jews, but you and Breitbart already knew that. When are you planning to renounce Bibi and his racist Likud Party Charter which calls for the annihilation of any viable Palestinian state west of the Jordan river?
"ANN CURRY: So how does Iran want to annihilate the regime of Israel, since you’re making the difference?

JAVAD ZARIF: We don’t want to annihilate. We don’t want to–

ANN CURRY: Well, the Supreme Leader–

JAVAD ZARIF: –annihilate anybody.

ANN CURRY: –tweeted that–

JAVAD ZARIF: We have– the– well, what he says–

ANN CURRY: –it should be annihilated.

JAVAD ZARIF: It– it should be annihilated. That this regime is a threat, is a threat…

Zarif has sought to turn the tables on Israel in recent days, calling Israeli Prime Minister

Iran Renews Vow to Annihilate Israel NBC Buries Lede - Breitbart

You piece of shit you should be investigated by the federal government for supporting terroists

 

[georgephillip]

You piece of shit you should be investigated by the federal government for supporting terroists

 

[Jroc]

You piece of shit you should be investigated by the federal government for supporting terroists

and the ADL for pushing Jew hatred,although these things are easy for you over the internet. In person you're no doubt a little, sniveling scumbag, Sitting in your basement trolling your Jew hating web-sites. you're a small little man Georgie boy