Likud minister to Huckabee: Nobody marches the Jews to ovens anymore

Forums: Obama, Holocaust, Israel, Iran, Huckabee
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Likud minister to Huckabee: Nobody marches the Jews to ovens anymore

Transportation Minister Israel Katz (Likud) on Tuesday rejected comments made by Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee in which the former Arkansas governor invoked the Holocaust in his criticism of the Iran nuclear deal.

Huckabee has faced accusations of extremism and partisanship from US President Barack Obama, the Democratic Party and the Anti-Defamation League after saying over the weekend that, with the Iran deal, Obama would "take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven."

Katz, who is considered one of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's closest allies in the Likud, implied Tuesday that Israel was stronger than Huckabee's comments suggest.

"Respected Mr. Huckabee: nobody marches the Jews to ovens anymore," Katz stated. "To this end we established the State of Israel and the IDF; and, if need be, we will know how to defend ourselves, by ourselves."

Katz agreed that the Iran deal must not allow the "Iranian terror kingdom" to become a nuclear threshold state, but said that the comments by Huckabee were "wrong and unnecessary."

Huckabee is running for the Republican nomination for president, and his rivals weighed in on his controversial remarks on Monday. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush said the comments were "just wrong," despite his staunch disapproval of the agreement; while former senator Rick Santorum said the remarks were "absolutely right."

In Jerusalem, Netanyahu continued his assault against the Iran deal during a speech he gave in the Knesset.

Syrian President Bashar Assad and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah are already celebrating the billions of dollars Iran will receive as a result of this agreement, which will be used to help them in their terrorist activities, Netanyahu said.

Iran, he added, continues to threaten the United States in spite of the agreement and has already declared that its nuclear sites will not be inspected even though it is one of its obligations under the deal, Netanyahu said.

“This agreement gives international legitimacy to Iranian nuclear armament in the future and its continued aggressive activity in the present,” said Netanyahu as he explained that Iran was the largest terrorist state in the world.

Michael Wilner and Tovah Lazaroff contributed to this report

Jerusalem Post Israel News On Line
7/28/2015

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 4,131 • Replies: 26
Topic Closed

@Miller,

In my opinion, this post might get no replies, due to intractable alienation from Jews and their concerns, in my opinion, and the cognitive dissonance of an Israel that doesn't typify the believed stereotype of the timid Jew, again in my opinion. So, I'll offer my simple thought in the way of a Jewish joke:

A minister, priest and rabbi were on an ecumenical fishing trip, on a rowboat in the middle of a lake. Suddenly, from behind a cloud a deep, booming voice was heard saying, "The end of the world is near. In two weeks it will start to rain for hundreds of days. The water will rise hundreds of feet. The end is near. Go tell your respective flocks."

The minister, priest and rabbi looked at each other and each said they'd better do as told. The fishing trip ended, as each clergyman went to deliver the message to their respective flock.

The minister called an emergency meeting of his congregation. Told them the news, and they each left the church saddened, hoping they'll all meet in Heaven, and left singing their Sunday favorite hymn.

The priest also told his parishoners. He ended by saying that hopefully they'll all meet in Heaven, and in five minutes he'll be available for Confession.

The rabbi told his congregants somewhat long-winded - "And then God said the waters will rise hundreds of feet, and the end is near..." A lady in the front row asked, "Rabbi, what does this all mean?" The rabbi thought a moment, and then replied, "What can it mean? We have two weeks to learn how to live under water!"

That might just be what the "deal" means. Israel has a decade to learn to live with the threat of a nuclear threat. However, I'll still bet on Israel.

3 Replies

@Foofie,

If Israel can learn to actually be the peaceful democracy it claims to be, that will be enough for me.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

That might just be what the "deal" means. Israel has a decade to learn to live with the threat of a nuclear threat.

Hasn't the US, Russia, China, Europe, etc been living with the nuclear threat for over half a century? It is in everyone's interest to delay nuclear proliferation.

2 Replies

@engineer,

Does anyone else find it a bit ironic that Israel itself is a nuclear threat?

2 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Foofie wrote:

That might just be what the "deal" means. Israel has a decade to learn to live with the threat of a nuclear threat.

Hasn't the US, Russia, China, Europe, etc been living with the nuclear threat for over half a century? It is in everyone's interest to delay nuclear proliferation.

I agree. My using the word "deal" in quotation marks connotated my sarcasm. As many media pundits have already stated, once Iran either get the bomb, or is perceived as imminently able to get it, other Muslim (Sunni) countries will want one too, since not everyone forgot the war between Iraq and Iran back in the '80's with some battles with more soldiers than any WWII battles.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

That is an interesting choice since that war was one that Iran did not seek and that it wiped out a generation of Iranian men. Iran has never been an aggressor in a war. The takeaway from that war should have been that Saddam Hussein has and is willing to use chemical weapons. Given your logic and since Israel has the bomb, why hasn't all of the Middle East armed already?

Back to the agreement, do you consider rolling back Iran's ambitions for at least a decade to be a win for Israel?

2 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

... Given your logic and since Israel has the bomb, why hasn't all of the Middle East armed already?

Back to the agreement, do you consider rolling back Iran's ambitions for at least a decade to be a win for Israel?

Because the Arabs know that they attacked in 1948, 1957, 1967, and 1973 and Israel fought all wars with conventional weapons. Plus, based on the non-proliferation previously, but likely proliferation in the future, the dirty little secret might be that fellow Muslims have more respect for civilized behavior coming from Israel than their fellow Muslim countries.

There is no win for Israel ever in the Middle East, in my opinion. Israel just has to manage the regional situation continually to survive. From being the proverbial Wandering Jew (in Europe) to being the barricaded Jew (in Israel) anti-Semites are laughing their you know what off, in my opinion! That is why, in my opinion, many Jews consider anti-Israeli rhetoric most likely stemming from a position of anti-Semitism that existed in Europe prior to Israel's existence in 1948.

1 Reply

Israel is looking its gift horse in the mouth, as it were.

0 Replies

I dont think anyone wants a state that supports terrorism to have Nuclear Weapons . Islam gave us the Hashashin and now the suicide bomber . We dont know what politics will evolve under Islam or in Iran, but I trust hedonists to not unleash nuclear weapons long before I trust the religious fanatics .

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Does anyone else find it a bit ironic that Israel itself is a nuclear threat?

Why would you call Israel a nuclear threat? To whom and for what purpose, in you mind, would Israel cconstitute a nuclear threat?

And if in your mind, you consider Israel to be a nuclear threat, why wouldn't you consider another country ( not Israel), that promotes extensive terrorism to be even a far greater threat than Israel?

2 Replies

@Miller,

Relative to Huckabbee's comment on the "ovens", a new comprehensive history of the Nazi concentration camps has recently been published by Nickolaus Wachsmann, a professor of modern European history at Birkbeck College, University of London.

The title of this book is KI, A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps.

The book is over 800 pages with about 200 pages devoted to the Appendix.

0 Replies

@Miller,

Miller wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

Does anyone else find it a bit ironic that Israel itself is a nuclear threat?

Why would you call Israel a nuclear threat? To whom and for what purpose, in you mind, would Israel cconstitute a nuclear threat?

And if in your mind, you consider Israel to be a nuclear threat, why wouldn't you consider another country ( not Israel), that promotes extensive terrorism to be even a far greater threat than Israel?

Perhaps, the term nuclear threat is just a euphemism for Israel being an existential threat to Gentiles that might have to compete with a future Israel that reflected many more Jews in the world. Let's be honest; Gentiles of many western and even mid-east cultures have been resenting Jews for a few thousand years. They've adopted the Hebrew testament and the creation myths. Sort of like the Romans were good at military maneuvers, and road building, but had to give Greek gods Roman names. Not deep thinkers?

Similarly, there are few Gentiles I've met that aren't nervous if I ask what they think about a world with 100 million Jews. If the truth be known, in my opinion, Gentiles collectively like having Jews as a resource in their country to be doctors, lawyers, professors, etc., etc., but Jews should not have a country to compete with Gentile countries. Sort of like Germany likes having ex-Soviet citizens in their country, to show off as their Jewish community, but were vehemently anti-Semitic when Germany was competing with a staid Jewish German community that had centuries to accumulate wealth and education and become quite the cultured German.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie Quote':
Gentiles collectively like having Jews as a resource in their country to be doctors, lawyers, professors, etc., "

In the US this is probably true, but then recall the 1960s/early 1970s in the US, when many medical schools used "Jewish quotas" to attempt to limit the number of Jewish medical students and as a result the number of practing Jewish doctors.

Today, the practice of discrimination against specific ethnic groups (in medicine especially) seems to have to shifted to Asian Americans, where supposedly the quota system is used in many graduate and professional
American schools to limit the numbers of enrolled Asian-Americans.

1 Reply

@Miller,

Miller wrote:

Today, the practice of discrimination against specific ethnic groups (in medicine especially) seems to have to shifted to Asian Americans, where supposedly the quota system is used in many graduate and professional
American schools to limit the numbers of enrolled Asian-Americans.

In my opinion, medicine has to be near the patient; therefore, to have a glut of one demographic as doctors might cause a problem, since then all the doctors for that one demographic might be clustered where their patients do not live.

Meaning, "let the market rule" might not apply in medicine, since Asian Americans might not want to live in inner-cities, nor commute to HMO's in inner-cities. So, the inner-cities need medical students that are from a demographic that might live adjacent to the inner-city? That might not be the upwardly mobile Asian community, nor the already advantaged American Jewish community. Wait! Russian immigrants! Polish immigrants? Latin American immigrants? And, let's not forget that in Russia the majority of doctors under the Soviet system were women. Nothing is wrong if lady doctors become the standard bearers of medicine in the future.

And, since there are specific well known universities that do have a student body of 25%, I wondered why Gentile parents would send their kids to those universities, considering the parents would not want their country club to have 25% Jewish members. The only answer I can come up with is that those Gentile parents wanted their children to have a proverbial "Baptism in fire," by competing with Jewish students, believing that will enhance their child's ability to cope in a competitive world. Might not be true, but it sounds nice to me.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Iranians are not Arabs. Arabs, along with Jews, are Semites. Iranians are Indo-European genetically and linguistically.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

That might just be what the "deal" means. Israel has a decade to learn to live with the threat of a nuclear threat.

No. The United States will go to war to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, if there exists no other way of stopping them.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

If Israel can learn to actually be the peaceful democracy it claims to be, that will be enough for me.

All Israel has ever done is defend themselves from aggressors who refuse to make peace. That does not disqualify them from being a peaceful democracy.

Well, I guess I should exclude 1953. There Israel got involved in a war that was really about Egypt stealing British property.

But other than that, all Israel has ever done is defend themselves from aggressors who refuse to make peace.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Does anyone else find it a bit ironic that Israel itself is a nuclear threat?

I perceive no irony. International law allows Israel to have nuclear weapons. International law prevents Iran from having nuclear weapons.

Is it irony when bank robbers are prevented from having weapons while police officers are armed?

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Iran has never been an aggressor in a war.

That depends on a particularly narrow definition of war.

Their raiding our embassy and holding Americans hostage in 1979 could be considered an act of war.

They heavily damaged a US warship by laying mines in its path in the 1980s.

They killed hundreds of US Marines by using truck bombs in Lebanon.

They killed a number of US soldiers by using truck bombs in Saudi Arabia as well.

Their support of Iraqi insurgents killed more Americans than were killed in the 9/11 attacks.

This last one is not related to the US, but they pulled off a particularly egregious bombing in Argentina, and they recently murdered a public prosecutor who was investigating that crime.

0 Replies

Likud minister to Huckabee: Nobody marches the Jews to ovens anymore

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know