Mr. Hicks Goes to Geneva

Submitted by Anatoly Tsaliovich (United States), Nov 9, 2013 at 12:05

This is certainly a response to the commentary by Kenneth J. Hicks. But if possible, I would prefer this material to placed separately from Mr. Hicks' write up, because I suspect that many readers will be so disgusted with what Mr.Hicks wrote that they will not read it to the end and miss this response.

Before Mr. Hicks crams his duffel with his brown shirts and other anti-Israel schlock, he'd do smart to think over several items per his commentary:

1. For starters, he should check whether the deal that the US has begun to forge with Iran is not a dirty deal, akin to the one made by the powers to be in Munich, 1938. We know what such "deals" lead to. And since the deal, 2013, is a " nuclear" one, Mr. Hicks shouldn't forget to pack his Geiger counter.

2. Mr. Hicks should keep in perspective that President Obama never turned his back on israel (sic), but he was born in this position. He was also born with his "front" turned toward the Israel's enemies.

3. I guess, Mr. Hicks knows how to guarantee that Iran doesn't "slip up even slightly", unless of course he views as an insurmountable obstacle the additional funding for nuclear development that Iran gets from easing the sanctions . Sorry, Mr. Hicks, you are not Neville Chamberlain, even if you try to sound like one.

4. Israel has never asked the USA for military strikes on Iran, and doesn't ask for this measure now. What Israel asks is to tighten, or at least retain the existing sanctions. Nuclear-free Iran is not only in Israel's interests, but in the interest of Mr. Hicks himself, even if he still doesn't understand this.

5. The second part of Mr. Hicks' politico-analytical pearl explains the driving force behind the first part: "illegal" (sic) West Bank settlements! This is a real eye-opener into the internal world of Mr. Hicks.
Who cares if many of those settlements existed at the same place for 3000 (three thousand!) years and were illegally expropriated from Jews by who knows who – up to modern "balyastinian" (there is no letter for "p" in Arabic ) squatters whose rights to this land are questionable by any "legalities"; that Israelis revived the desert and created scientific, agricultural, and industrial miracles on their own land; and that we can quote Mr. Kerry threatening Israel with a new intifadah (sic) unless Israel commits further "painful" territorial giveaways. From the first moments of the state inauguration (and tens of years before that) Israelis has been constantly suffering from Arab terrorism – that's what Mr. Hicks calls the "smells of aggression". You have a pretty hard nose, Mr. Hicks!

6. Further, Mr. Hicks, a 10-month long "settlement building freeze" was already announced and observed, with the same result as settlement building: intransigence from Arabs and flout from Obama administration. What would you, Mr. Hick, prefer personally: to be damned if you do or to be damned if you don't? We do know the answer!

7. And "finally" (sic), Mr. Hicks, while we wholeheartedly agree with you that no nation should "give away any of its treasure -- especially since it could just as easily be turned against them", but aren't many nations presently gladly give away their conventional weapons to be used against Israel – and Iran is one of such countries.

In summary, we should congratulate you, Mr. Hicks, with defending the interests of our new ally, Iran, with dignity and vigor, and denigrading the worse enemy of the USA, that is Israel.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".