Israel-Iran: not now, not ever?
In the wake of Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert's announcement that he's stepping down in September, thanks to Daniel Levy at Prospects for Peace for pointing out this impressively-argued piece by the respected military strategist Martin van Creveld on why Israel might think very carefully before taking military action against Iran.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~41~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Indeed hopefully never.
But consider the 1930s. There were idiots then and, as the jews know only too well, the world stood by.
Lets consider today. Are we any better? Darfur? Burma? Zimbabwe? Iraq (Kuwait)? to name but a few.
If someone says they will hit you, do you ignore it? Do you wait until they act first? Look what happened to Kuwait.
I don't know what I would do. Do you?
Then add the atomic bomb to the equation.
The (small) bomb terorists don't mind blowing themselves up. Fact.
Now what?
Complain about this comment
#1
Do not ignore the aggressive, expansionist plans of Israel (as presented by Sharon and others) to Uri Avnery, Tanya Reinhardt et al.
The plans of Sharon (to take only one example) included the invasion and occupation of IRAN.
The claims for "Greater Israel" range from the West Bank to the entire World.
Since religious fundamentalists exercise a controlling interest in Israeli politics, Israel is a far greater threat than Iran.
As the probable successor of Olmert, Netanyahu presents a special problem.
A good argument can be made for classifying him as a Zionist sociopath.
Thus, an attack would, indeed, not be a rational idea but it is a mistake to consider the state of Israel to be rationally directed according to civilized Western criteria.
Complain about this comment
So let me get this right, Xie-Ming. The chairman of the Likud Party is a probable successor to Olmert as chairman of the Kadima party?
Complain about this comment
#3
As PM of Israel, not as Kadima leader.
Complain about this comment
Xie Ming,
You should at least try to disguise your hatred of Israel by being a bit more subtle. These are just outright lies and blatant propaganda:
"The plans of Sharon (to take only one example) included the invasion and occupation of IRAN.
The claims for "Greater Israel" range from the West Bank to the entire World."
Sharon, in fact, was instrumental in the sadat-Begin peace process, which led to Israel returning the Sinai to Egypt.
Ariel Sharon was a bright and pragmatic leader. Only an idiot would imagine that tiny Israel could succeed in "invading" and "occupying" the vast territory of Iran. You also obviously have no idea that Israel is a democracy, unlike the dictatorships that surround it.
Do you actually believe the lies you swallow and regurgitate?
Complain about this comment
"Impressively argued piece" from Martin van Creveld? Why then does he begin by almost contemptuously dismissing the stance of Shaul Mofaz? Does he not even know that Mofaz has an Iranian background and that he might therefore be better placed than others, including van Creveld himself, to ascertain the extent of the Iranian threat?
And the following is just simply the childish parrotting of stale ideas that we see so often from the anti-war ideologues:
"The CIA, DIA, NSA, Mossad and the rest may, or may not, know where Iran\'s main nuclear installations are located....If ever there has been a house built on sand, it is theirs. Considering their past record, probably they cannot even tell whether they do or do not know; lie or do not lie, to their superiors, to each other, and to themselves. Anybody who believes one word they are saying, let alone accepts the "hard” data they supposedly provide without very thorough questioning indeed, must be out of his or her mind."
I'm finding it difficult to understand how anyone can be impressed by such drivel. This man is a professor? The very first thing one learns in an university education is to argue your point convincingly and back it up with facts. He fails miserably on both those counts.
Complain about this comment
Truetoo: According to Wikipedia: "Martin van Creveld is an Israeli military historian and theorist. He was born in the Netherlands but has lived in Israel since shortly after his birth. He holds degrees from the London School of Economics and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he has been on the faculty since 1971. He is the author of fifteen books on military history and strategy, of which Command in War (1985), Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton (1977, 2nd edition 2004), The Transformation of War (1991), The Sword and the Olive (1998) and The Rise and Decline of the State (1999) are among the best known. Van Creveld has lectured or taught at virtually every strategic institute, military or civilian, in the Western world, including the U.S. Naval War College, most recently in December, 1999 and January, 2000."
Complain about this comment
Do the rules permit URL's?
If so, I will provide them for Uri Avnery's
articles available from gush-shalom.org or zope-gush-shalom.org.
Avnery has been an Israeli journalist for more than more than sixty years, was a member of the Knesset, fought in the war that drove the Palestinians from their homes, received, with his fellows, orders to kill any Palestinians who attempted to return.
He has also been a confident of Israeli leaders and is trusted by Arab leaders.
Visiting the web site, one may search in English as well as in Hebrew. Three articles apply exactly to the unfortunate assertions of #6 poster.
a) A History of Israel from Biblical times to date.
b) The interview that Sharon gave him concerning the plans, pretext and goals of the First Lebanon invasion. This was months before the attack and Sharon only stated that it was not to be attributed him.
Avnery published accordingly. Alexander Haig approved and insisted that a pretext be found. The pretext used was a killing in London.
c) Sharon's showing Avnery the plans for the INVASION AND OCCUPATION of IRAN.
Sharon took the plans to Washington, but apparently did not receive approval there.
If any sincere person is interested, URLs can be supplied. As #7 would suggest, it is considered better in Western society to obtain facts before indulging in character assassination or ad hominem aspersion.
Complain about this comment
This article is very interesting. It not only reports Sharon's plans before he invaded Lebanon, but also covers some of how the Israeli generals hoped to change the map of the Middle East:
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1149931512
Of course, one need not confine himself to a single source. To Google, enter:
Avnery + Sharon + Iran + interview + plans
One choose among many thousands of entries. Here is one, quoting Gush-Shalom:
http://contreinfo.info/article.php3?id_article=2139
Complain about this comment
Martin van Creveld: "[is] the intelligence on which Western governments and Israel rely really reliable?"
Answer: Of course they are, the current CIA report says that Iran is years away from developing a nuclear bomb and is not at the moment actively working on it, or have things changed?
If the US attacks Iran it will be for US interests, namely to keep oil trading in $US allowing Federal Reserve to print more of its worthless money.
Here's the stinger:
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has revealed the Bush administration recently held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered during the meeting to stage an incident where it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz.
Seymour Hersh: “There was a dozen ideas proffered how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was, why don’t we build—we, in our shipyard—build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats, put Navy Seals on them with a lot of arms, and, the next time one of our boats goes through the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives. And it was rejected, because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. But that’s the kind of—that’s the level of stuff we are talking about: provocation. But that was rejected.”
Link: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/1/headlines#2
Complain about this comment
#6 - TrueToo
You do not have to agree with Mr. van Creveld in order to acknowledge his expertise in the field and dismissing him in the way you do simply because you differ is non-productive and discourteous. He argues his case well and I for one buy into it. This topic has been rumbling on under different guises and through different threads for some time. I have consistently argued that any form of nuclear confrontation in the region would be catastrophic for everyone involved, that whatever the rhetoric may sound like, the hard nosed realists in Israel and Iran know the consequences and will step back.
Paradoxically, the one factor which could upset the status quo is mutterings coming out of Washington that if the Israelis want to act, they should do so soon because there is no guarantee that a future administration would be as supportive of drastic action.
Complain about this comment
Robin Lustig,
Yes I am aware of van Creveld's "impressive" CV. Why does he then find it appropriate to play the man instead of the ball in the "argument" I mentioned at comment no. 6? If he had submitted an assignment containing that bit of unsubstantiated invective about the CIA and Mossad and others to lecturers in a university undergraduate course, they would have failed him, and rightly so.
Unless, of course, they shared his bias.
threnodio, since when do official appointments and the writing of books indicate "expertise?" Is David Irving an expert on the Holocaust because he has lectured on it and written books on it?
I didn't dismiss him because I wanted to be "discourteous." I dismissed him because he was presenting a one-sided, agenda-driven argument without facts to back it up.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Western society is far from homogeneous, and there are those who bring their subcultures with them from shriller marketplaces.
Although our society may frown on ad hominem argument, personal aspersion, etc., there are those who routinely practice it.
Two common explanations for this are: (1) such tactics are normal in the sub-culture of the individual so doing, and/or (2) the individual is a sociopath and will use any tactic.
"A wise old Hebrew adage says: 'He who finds fault (with others) finds his own fault.' By branding the Arabs as habitual liars, this self-appointed paragon of Judeo-Christian culture [Barak] is actually branding himself".
I have lived a long time and have found it so in Western culture, also. The individual who throws about assertions of "lies", "liars" should immediately be suspected himself of the practice, much as a pawnbroker who calls himself "honest Joe" should be also be suspect.
Uri Avnery has a very high standing in Israel and his reputation, made over sixty years of journalism, cannot be dented by vicious and irresponsible aspersion.
Readers would do well to familiarize themselves with the gush-shalom website:
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/weekly_ad/1186085804/
Complain about this comment
Ok, though it is a lie, let's assume for the sake of argument that Ariel Sharon did in fact intend to "invade and occupy Iran." Would this actually be illegitimate? Here we are debating whether Iran is a threat to Israel when it is not only a threat, but has been attacking Israel for decades through its terrorist proxies, Hezbollah, Islamic jihad and Hamas, whose purpose is the murder of Israeli soldiers and civilians, including women, children and the elderly, with the ultimate goal of the destruction of Israel.
Iran arms, sponsors and trains these terror groups and bears direct responsibility for the slaughter of hundreds of Israeli civilians and soldiers. Anyone remember the Karine A from years ago? That was the ship bristling with Iranian arms and bound for the Gaza Strip, though thankfully intercepted by the Israelis. Any guesses on where the arms smuggled daily into Gaza come from?
I'd be interested to know why BBC journalists are silent on these points and whether they in fact think that Israel has no legitimate cause to attack Iran, when Iranians present the gravest threat, not only to Israel, but to the world since their fellow Aryans, the Nazis, unleashed the Holocaust on the Jews, and anyone else they deemed subhuman, and sparked the Second World War in which tens of millions were killed.
Complain about this comment
Robin Lustig:
I have reread your paragraph and van Crefeld's article. There is no fact that anyone has challenged.
The mantra of Iran "being an existential threat to Isreal" is a common one. Creveld points out that Israel's nuclear response capability is more than sufficient to forestall such an eventuality.
However, the attitude of the Israeli generals is that anyone within potential rocket range of Israel constitutes a threat.
Thus, the strategic plans exist to fragment the surrounding states (see Tanya Reinhardt "The General's Grand Design").
In Sharon's view, Israel's arc of domination is to extend from Pakistan to the southern tip of the Arabian peninsula.
To these ideas of the military, one must add the doctrines of the religious fundamentalists (who dominate Israeli politics). Here we talk of "Greater Israel" and its "Biblically defined" borders.
For the armed Gush Emunim, this means the entire World. The most common idea is "from the Nile to the Euphrates". Others claim Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia as well.
So, we have a military and a religious concept of Israeli aggression and expansion.
This is an "existential threat" to the other countries of the Middle East.
Complain about this comment
#10
Raises the disquieting determination of the NeoCons to involve the United States in an attack on Iran before they lose power.
In addition to what Hersh reports, we have already seen the absurd claims regarding rubber boats threatening US warships- eventually exposed as a hoax.
This website has some data on these NeoCon efforts:
This is a conglomeration of references concerning NeoCon plans for aggression:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG502A.html
They have until January to effect their nefarious designs- let us hope that the US Congress acts to forestall it.
Complain about this comment
"That did not prevent Ariel Sharon from planning to conquer Iran, as I have already disclosed in the past. When I was writing an in-depth article about him in 1981, after his appointment as Minister of Defense, he told me in confidence about this daring idea: after the death of Khomeini, Israel would forestall the Soviet Union in the race to Iran.
The Israeli army would occupy Iran in a few days and turn the country over to the much slower Americans, who would have supplied Israel well in advance with large quantities of sophisticated arms for this express purpose.
He also showed me the maps he intended to take with him to the annual strategic consultations in Washington. They looked very impressive. It seems, however, that the Americans were not so impressed.
All this indicates that by itself, the idea of an Israeli military intervention in Iran is not so revolutionary. But a prior condition is close cooperation with the US. .."
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1215904313
Complain about this comment
#10
The NeoCons are still in power in the USA administration.
"..Indeed, the style sounds vaguely familiar. In the early 80's, I heard about several plans like this from Ariel Sharon (which I published at the time).
His head was full of grand designs for restructuring the Middle East, the creation of an Israeli "security zone" from Pakistan to Central Africa,
the overthrow of regimes and installing others in their stead, moving a whole people (the Palestinians) and so forth.
...Sharon's grand design floundered, as we know. The bold flights of imagination and the superficial logic did not help -
Sharon simply did not understand the real currents of history. I fear that the band of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, Wolfowitz, Pearl and all the other little Sharons are suffering from the same syndrome.."
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/archives_article210
Complain about this comment
Hell, Xie Ming, we know you are obsessively anti-Israel but that volume of copy-and-paste comments is close to spam.
When will you begin to actually debate the issues?
Complain about this comment
The issue that Robin Lustig has raised
(1) the risk of an attack on Iran
(2) the likelihood of Israel making such an attack.
(3) the likelihood of the USA cooperasting in such an effort.
We see that Israel is ideologically and ethically quite capable of such an aggression and that their leaders have had and declared such intent.
Further, the NeoCons in Washington are still pushing for such an aggression.
The real question is whether, despite the disastrous influence of the Israeli lobby as documented in the Measheimer and Walt study, the US Congress will act to prevent the USA from contributing to this further aggression.
Complain about this comment
Re: #10
The planned aggression by Israel, and its support by the NeoCons in Washington, can be further explained by the close links that most NeoCons have with Israel.
The situation is particularly grevious in the case of Richard Perle.
Most Americans would find this situation shocking. Unfortunately, it receives little attention in the media.
Complain about this comment
I can understand Xie_Ming coming to his conclusions if they are based on the Mearsheimer and Walt paper, however, both Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein say that the flaw in the "Israel Lobby" argument is that Israel has an influence on US foreign policy when it comes to war with Iraq and Iran, it doesn't, the interest of energy and trade in $US does.
If the US green lights Israel to strike against Iran it will be for US interests, the last roll of the dice by this truly corrupt administration. If Israel doesn't trust the IAEA and promote an option for Iran to develop non-lethal Nuclear energy based on Thorium then they are the ones that are being played.
Complain about this comment
#23 - straightchris
Green light it? They would love it. Iran attacked and not a blemish on USA's lily-white hands. The Israelis are not that stupid. Surely not.
Complain about this comment
#24
We may also recall that Bush/Cheney caused a large quantity of special "bunker buster" bombs to be delivered to Israel.
That was a year or two ago, as I recall, and the American attitude may be less enthusiastic now.
However, Israel now has them and the use for which they seem intended is clear.
Complain about this comment
With all due respect to Martin van Creveld's credentials as a military historian, I don't think he understands or fully appreciates the psychology or calculus of nuclear weapons and nuclear war. It has a logic or illogic all its own. For example, 17 years after the fall of the USSR and the end of the threat of Soviet conquest of all of mankind, the custodians of the nuclear arsenals on both sides can't figure out how to stand down tens of thousands of nuclear weapons targeted at each other and ready to launch at a moments notice. This would bring about the end of the entire human race and both sides know it yet with the purpose for their existance long gone, they are still an immutable fact of life.
The question is the perception of Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, not the reality. If it is perceived as a worst case that Iran may be close to acquiring them even if there is no hard evidence for it, then those countries that feel most threatened by the prospect of Iran actually having them would be forced to choose a pre-emptive strike. The consequences of being wrong and allowing it to happen and then the worst happening being far worse to contemplate even if it is in fact almost entirely unlikely.
The question is who would react first and who would be most effective in reacting.
The realities are these. It is likely that Iran's nuclear materials are dispersed throughout the country. That will be assumed. So a conventional surgical strike against a limited number of targets with conventional weapons would be ineffective at eliminating the threat entirely. This could allow Iran to retaliate which is not an acceptable option. It is also possible that Israel will feel that if Barack Obama wins the US presidential election, he may try to pressure Israel into backing off no matter how grave the threat becomes. This makes a massive strike against the entire country of Iran likely before the inauguration, especially if Obama wins.
There is no technical difficulty in destroying the entire nation of Iran in one strike. In this regard, America clearly has the edge. It not only has a vast arsenal of its own N-weapons, it has a wide choice of effective delivery systems. One must realize that there are N-weapons and then there are N-weapons. All of weapons in America's nuclear arsenal are thermonuclear. They make the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like firecrackers. For example, the W-87 is about 15 to 20 times as powerful as the bombs used against Japan, the W-88 about 25 times. Each trident missile can carry 11 but are limited to 8 by treaty with Russia. Each Trident submarine has 24 such missiles, nearly 200 warheads. Two dozen should easily do the job. There are a vast array of other missiles and manned bombers. If America decided to launch a full fledged nuclear strike on Iran, the entire country would be gone in 10 to 15 minutes. For Israel it is more problematic. It is believed to have somewhere between about 150 to 200 and 400 nuclear weapons. By now many are likely full fledged thermonuclear weapons. Its problem is its delivery systems. I think it may have some nuclear weapons capable missiles but its main line of attack may be the fighter jets the US provided. It has nothing comparable to a long range American bombers like the B-52, the B-1 or the B-2 stealth bomber. BTW, anyone who thinks that people or machinery protected by 300 feet of rock, earth, and concrete will survive a blast equal to half a millon tons of dynamite at a temperature of 100 million degrees is being very unrealistic. Not only that but everything around the blast including tens of thousands of tons of rock and earth as well as all the oxygen will be propelled 20 miles into the stratosphere.
The consequences of a first strike against Iran to wipe it off the face of the earth could be a disaster for us all. There would likely be enormous releases of radiation that could blanket the earth. And there could be huge oil fires that could never be put out. In addition, should Israel feel the political consequences of such a strike would threaten its survival, it might not limit its targets to Iran. When will this happen? When those who actually control these weapons come to the conclusion that the consequences of attacking would be less than the consequences of not attacking. And in either country, that may not be a decision strictly under the control of civilians.
Complain about this comment
24. threnodio,
As I pointed out at no. 15, the Iranians are not only a threat to Israel, but have been attacking and murdering Israeli civilians for decades through their terrorist proxies of Hezbollah, Hamas and the appropriately named Islamic Jihad. Iran is the bloodstained guiding hand of terror in the region.
So it is not a case of the Israelis being "stupid" but of trying to figure out how to thwart the Iranian intention, as stated by Ahmedinejad, to destroy Israel before they become capable of it.
Typically, the BBC will not look at this evidence. I listen frequently to the World Service and I scrutinise the BBC News website but I have never heard a report or seen a single article exposing Iran's genocidal intentions towards the Jewish state or bringing us news of ongoing Iranian terror attacks, through their proxies, on Israeli civilians.
I have had a number of comments rejected on the BBC's 'Have Your Say' simply for mentioning these indisputable facts. It is as if the BBC's knee-jerk reaction is to obfuscate and hide the real intentions of Iran.
So here's a question for Robin Lustig: Why is the BBC protecting Iran? And a related question: Why does the BBC automatically gravitate towards those who pour scorn on the idea of Israel's pre-emptive defence against Iran?
There is no shortage of highly-qualified people, in Israel and elsewhere, who have correctly assessed the threat to Israel and the world posed by nuclear weapons in the hands of the terrorist regime in Tehran. Why does the BBC not publish the findings and concerns of these people?
Complain about this comment
Here's a glimpse into the character and accomplishments of the Ariel Sharon people know nothing about since they allow themselves to be duped by anti-Israel lies and propaganda.
Ariel Sharon:
*Grew up with Arabs and was on friendly terms with them throughout his life
*Employed Arab workers on his farm, including a foreman who was also a trusted confidant
*Court-martialled an Israeli soldier he found beating a captured Egyptian soldier
*Supervised the installation of a modern irrigation system on Anwar Sadat's farm as part of the peace process between Egypt and Israel
*Made certain, along with Menachem Begin, that every defensive Jewish settlement he established on high ground in Judea and Samaria was on unoccupied land and would not displace a single Arab landowner nor interfere with the pasture of Arab herders
*Was a fearless and highly competent commander in Israel's defensive battles against invading Arab armies and Arab terrorists
*Was instrumental in pushing for the invasion of Lebanon because he saw that was the only way to stop relentless PLO terror attacks on Israelis from that country.
Be interesting to have Ariel Sharon’s take on the Iranian nuclear threat. Damn pity that it is not possible.
Complain about this comment
#27 - TrueToo
You misunderstand me. I am not blind to the threats posed by Iran. My position is simply that the nuclear option is not tenable, not least because the geography of the region makes a decisive strike without serious collateral damage elsewhere impossible. Xie-Ming has rightly pointed to the disastrous long term consequences. Ahmedinejad is nearing the end of his term and is in some difficulty domestically, Ali Khamenei has ruled out the nuclear option and Olmert's imminent departure might well lead to an election and an entirely different approach.
Ahmedinejad, Olmert and Bush are all queuing up at the exit door and scratching around for a legacy. Personally, I find that more scary than the realities on the ground.
Complain about this comment
True Too
It has been observed by many people that that BBC's reporting has a strong anti-Israeli and coincidentally anti-American bias. So much so that BBC was believed to have been required to prepare a report, a sort of internal audit believed to be about this topic. This is believed to be what is in the "Balen Report." Until recently, BBC has squelched all mention of this report in any blog entry. But I've managed to get it published in a couple of recent entries. BBC has spent considerable sums of its license fee money I think even in the courts to squelch this report, to keep it from being released to the public. Is it a matter of national security to release it? No, it is one of national embarrassment, especially for the entirety of BBC's staff, management, and government overseers. It is believed by many to be a scathing indictment of BBC bias reflected in the way it presents the news and interprets it. If military secrets are inevitably leaked, so will this. It's just a matter of time. That will only make the embarrassment and humiliation that much worse.
Complain about this comment
The judicial committee of the House of Lords in May of this year allowed an appeal against the suppression of the Balen Report. We will have to wait for the outcome. It is worth noting however that the report dates from 2004 and relates to alleged bias in reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If published, it will not throw any light on current reporting on tension between Iran and Israel.
Complain about this comment
#31
Those who search Avnery's articles (URL supra) will see that Israel has been aligned with Iran and helped to train and arm them on various occasions.
Complain about this comment
threnodio
Why not? If the bias is against Israel, why wouldn't it by extension skew reporting of another conflict in which Israel is involved. Ironically it is in fact the same conflict with the same demand for the ultimate destruction of Israel. If you are suggesting that because 4 years has passed since the report was prepared, I see this as insignificant. Many of the same people presumably with the same views are still at BBC. There is the same corporate culture also. The only complicating factor which might mitigate their views is the recognition stated explicity by Chirac, Sarkozy, and now Brown that the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons presents a security threat to their own countries.
Complain about this comment
#33 - MarcusAureliusII
Because if the report is critical, one would have hoped that the BBC had reacted to it and addressed the problem. But the BBC is a double headed creature. As a news reporting medium, it is supposed to be impartial but that does not prevent them from publishing comment. The trick is to keep them separate and make the distinction clear to the public.
Complain about this comment
The issue here is the desire of Israel's leadership to attack Iran and the fostering of this by the NeoCons within the USA.
If one has evidence of false reporting, one should point it out and it will be published.
If not, and one alleges such, one is off-topic and seeking to "poison the wells".
In the interests of a better discussion, any such puerile attempts should be deleted.
Complain about this comment
The issue here is the apparent desire of both nations to intimidate the other
Complain about this comment
To claim that Iran seeks to "intimidate"
Israel and the USA is absurd.
It is obvious that Iran hopes to deter them from aggression.
On the other hand, I think all will agree that the USA seeks to intimidate Iran.
Whether Israel seeks to intimidate Iran or to engage public opinion for an attack is open for discussion.
Complain about this comment
I was struck this evening by Ahmedinejad's conciliatory tone following his talks with Assad today. No coincidence, I imagine that Syria has a land border with Israel and has already been given a lesson in what happens if you do not listen. But Damascus has certainly learned the value of the negotiating table of late. Perhaps some of that has rubbed off on Tehran.
Complain about this comment
As an alternate possibility, a serious attack against Iran needs a neutral Syria.
To impede the support for Shia militia groups also would need the cooperation of Syria.
Certainly, Iran must consider itself threatened, considering the disposition of US forces and threats and Israel's long-repeated threats.
Since Syria and Israel are still technically at war, the air strike into Syria was legal.
An aggression against Iran would not be legal, but I doubt that such a concern would be of interest to Israel.
It is quite possible to explain Iran's actions for the past several years, specifically including its support for militias, as defensive.
Since 2003, Iran and Ahmedinejad have sought peaceful dialog with the USA and have been rebuffed. Only very recently has any dialog been permitted by the USA.
The whole framework of public discourse/ propaganda line needs to change:
let our pundits operate from the assumption that Iran is not aggressive and seeks peace.
[We know that the USA NeoCons have been aggressive and do not seek peace].
Complain about this comment
29. threnodio
Point taken. Though I would disagree that Xie Ming has "rightly pointed" to anything.
30. MarcusAureliusII
Yes, I know about the Balen report. If all else fails, maybe Balen himself can be prevailed upon to reveal his findings. The BBC's bias is virtually out of control.
35. Xie_Ming
"The issue here is the desire of Israel's leadership to attack Iran and the fostering of this by the NeoCons within the USA."
No, the issue here is what the world should do about the very real and imminent threat of WMDs in the hands of Iran's deranged leaders, driven as they are by ideological and 'religious' hatred and the barbaric urge to take more Jewish lives with bigger and better weapons.
Europe, of course, will sit on its hands and hope someone else does something about it, and Arab states will follow the same path of inaction. Russia and China are firm friends and trading partners of the terrorist Mullahs and the USA is in rather deep in a few other countries.
So I guess that leaves one country that will be expected to solve this developing global crisis alone and unaided. Tall order indeed.
Complain about this comment
Iran's leaders have demonstrated themselves to be anything but "deranged".
They have defended themselves against an Iraq led by an American-armed Hussein and continue to act defensively.
The bombastic assertion of #40:
[quote deleted] is total religio/ethnic propaganda, unsubstantiated, and of a nature that should not be allowed on this Forum.
We have shown and documented above the aggressive intent of Israel with regard to its neighbors.
If desired, we can document the religion/ethnic intent of Israel toward its neighbors.
For the time being, one should merely let Israeli leaders speak for themselves, and I shall later post a URL to that.
Here is what a former Foreign Minister of Israel has to say about Israel, Iran and the nuclear question:
This is an important article concerning Iran, Israel and nuclear weapons. A former Foreign Minister of Israel is a co-author:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0702/p09s01-coop.html
Complain about this comment
#41
We have seen the aggressive plans of Israel towards its neighbors, especially those of Sharon, documented above.
These quotes, from Zionist and Israeli leaders, suggest the religio/ethnic ideology underlying the expansion and ethnic cleansing:
http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/Israel-History-X.pdf
These quotes are from Zionist and Israeli leaders
Complain about this comment
If Israel decides to take the fateful step of eliminating Iran as an inhabitable land, given the almost certain political consequences, why would it not do the same for all of its other enemies at the same time. After all, obliterating Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, even Egypt would hardly be more than an incremental step. Once you've taken a first bite of the nuclear war apple, it shouldn't be that hard to go the rest of the way. Of course it could wait for a short while...giving them an ultimatum or face Iran's fate. Make unconditional peace immediately or good-bye forever.
Complain about this comment
#40
If the Forum wishes to permit this sort of assertion:
"No, the issue here is what the world should do about the very real and imminent threat of WMDs in the hands of Iran's deranged leaders, driven as they are by ideological and 'religious' hatred and the barbaric urge to take more Jewish lives with bigger and better weapons"
One should equally consider what the World should do about very real and imminent threat posed to peaceful countries of the Middle East by the sociopathic Israelis leaders, indoctrinated by their religion with a hatred for gentiles and a Biblical injunction to kill all gentiles within Greater Israel who are not "daily humiliated servants and slaves".
This indoctrination is emphasized in the separate school system from which most government administrators (the kipa skuga) come.
The fundamentalist religious ideology is one of hatred for and devaluation of gentiles, here focused on Muslims.
The deranged ethnocentrism is further illustrated by the much talked of "Sampson option", wherein Israel threatens destruction of the entire World.
To this must be added Israel's possession of many nuclear weapons, missle carrying submarines and the intent, revealed by Sharon, to extend Israel's "protective shield" from Pakistan to Central Africa.
Thus, the civilized World is faced with the ideological religious hatred of Israel toward the gentile world, its known military capability, its revealed aggressive plans, and its immediate threats toward Iran.
The danger is heightened by the known aggressive desires of the NeoCons in Washington, who still control the Washington administration.
Complain about this comment
My goodness Xie Ming they have done a really thorough job on you. And now you are doing your best to indoctrinate others. All that time and energy misused on trying to spread hatred and suspicion of Israel around the place. It's a great pity.
If you are unwilling to tolerate opinions other than your misguided and prejudiced own then you have no business partaking in an internet forum - except of course for those sites that will parrot the views you parrot. There are thousands of such sites available. I am sure you would be more comfortable there.
Since I have no intention of accessing any of your links, I wont be debating their content. But the attempt to portray the Jewish state as the aggressor in the conflict with Arab and other Muslim states is simply to turn reality on its head. The truth is that shortly after the Jews began to return to their ancient homeland (and join those Jews who had never left through the succession of conquerors during the intervening centuries) they came under Arab attack. We are going back nearly a hundred years here, to 1920s Palestine and long before the establishment of modern Israel - which led of course to the immediate and unprovoked attack by the surrounding Arab countries and beyond.
The invasions and terror attacks have carried on to this day, with the Arabs, and more recently Iran, only pausing for breath and to rearm and plot more and more heinous crimes. The actual and intended victims here are not only Israelis but Jews worldwide. This exposes the anti-Semitic motivation of those who would destroy the Jewish state and reveals their hypocrisy when they claim to be only against Zionism. To portray Israel as the aggressor here is to show a truly impressive blindness to historical and current reality.
Against that background, how does Israel cope with the threat of annihilation from Iran - which has become the chief force behind the blind drive to destroy Israel?
Complain about this comment
No doubt you've got your copy of the Protocols forgery open as you type. "Biblical injunction to kill all gentiles within greater Israel" spouts the propagandist. Fortunately, Jews have moved on from biblical injunctions of those times, whatever they might have meant in context and however they may be misconstrued by the Jew-haters. Unfortunately, a great many Muslims have not moved on from the most negative parts of their Koran. They follow them to the letter and take the instruction to kill Jews as a 'divine' commandment. This is obvious both from the terrorist actions of present-day Muslims against Jews and the 'religious' instruction emanating from countries like Saudi Arabia and even poisoning the minds of Western schoolchildren against the Jews.
Yes, the 'peaceful' countries of the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia, which deliveries wagon loads of cash to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and Syria, which harbours terrorists and regularly assassinates anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians and journalists.
There is no grand design for a 'Greater Israel'. This propaganda is really out f date and I seriously doubt that the people who spread it even believe it themselves. Israel is prepared to remain the shape and size of a toothpick in comparison to its 'peaceful' neighbours as long as they stop their terror attacks. It is even prepared to whittle that size down in a vain hope for real peace - Sinai and Gaza being good examples.
You should slow down a bit. Your agenda is becoming more and more obvious with every comment you make.
Complain about this comment
True Too;
You are wasting your time and keyboard. BBC gives a free and largely unfettered platform for antisemitism to any and all comers who would use it that way. The poster you are referring to and several others who are well known and post often will use any excuse to express their hatred and objection to the existance of Jews and Israel. They will find a way to justify interjecting it in any discussion of any topic no matter how unrelated it is to what is being discussed. Usually, anti-semism among them is thinly veiled by the term "anti-Zionism." However, there are sharp limits to what BBC will allow in rebuttal. It goes part and parcel with BBCs' management and staff's own views and prejudices. This is why they fight release of the Balen report so desperately. This is the first time it is even allowed to be discussed on their blog sites. I could count endless examples but why waste my time. BBC is not taken as a credible news source in either Israel or the US, its opinions so intermeshed with its reporting of the news it is at times impossible to tell where on ends and the other starts. In the US it is regared by most of the relatively small percentage of people who even know it exists as a barely tolerable hostile alien entity. As a gateway to Europe, to this American, BBC is a window on an otherwise largely unseen world that is so different, so antithetical to my own that I had to live there for nearly two years to see it with my own eyes so that I could understand it and believe it for what it appeared to be. Don't be surprised at anything you read or see here. None of it is to be taken seriously. We know Europe and Europeans for what they are. After all these centuries, how could they possibly hide it?
Complain about this comment
The term 'Zionist' is used to define a political movement whereas 'Semitic' defines a racial and ethnic grouping which, by the way, includes Arab races. It is why being 'anti-Zionist' is a perfectly respectable position to take whereas being antisemitic is reprehensible. As I am neither, I refrain from further comment.
Complain about this comment
#45 #46
Contain ad hominemisms, an unfortunate, but routine, practice of Zionist propagandists.
The refusal to recognize the Israeli sources cited is unfortunate.
They document the expansionist and aggressive intentions of Israel toward its neighbors as well as its commitment to the policy of ethnic cleansing.
The time window to exercise this aggression against Iran is short, because the NeoCon-dominated American administration is coming to an end.
Journalists who have the freedom to do so should report on the public attitudes within Iran and the efforts of its leaders to have diplomatic dialog with the United States.
The media situation within the United States makes it difficult for the American public, and thus their Congress, to have access to the facts. The Christian Science Monitor is one source available to them.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming
Your comments on the issue ignore the most important facts when one has to have a general conversation about who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.
And the facts that you or any anti-Isaeli can not deny are that Israel is a democracy who respects the right of every person living in its country,including Arabs,Muslims etc.Sharon,Netanyahu,Olmert etc, are not Theocrats or dictators,but democratically elected politicians.Israel is not a danger to any democracy or to any democratic prossec whatsoever.
Israel is on good and friendly terms with any democratic country in the world.
Iran,through Ahmadinejad did threaten to *Wipe Israel of the face of the earth*
and many other simmilar statements.
Iran Admits it is developing nuclear technology,and its clear it would love to have the Nuclear Bomb.
All democratic nations are united in their concern of Irans nuclear technology.Of course Israel would consider every option because it is the one directly in danger.
I am not sain that at this point in time military attack is the best option,it might well be,or not,i dont know,but consider the above general facts before your next post.
Complain about this comment
#50
Presents assertions, rather than facts.
Israel is controlled by religious fundamentalists. All Israeli politics takes account of this fact.
Non-Jews are very definitely second-class citizens and subject to government and political discrimination.
Democracy? Mugabe's land is also a democracy.
As Sharon proved, Israel is a threat to all its neighbors. Whether one styles them "democracies" or not is irrelevant.
Ahmadinejad speaks for Iran far less than Bush does for America and both are on their way out. The cited phrase was to "take it off the map", much as Zionists have sought to take Palestine off the map.
Ali Khamenei is the Supreme Leader of Iran and his words are very careful and measured. He has, by religious fatwah, forbidden any development or use of nuclear weapons.
Public opinion in Iran is favorable to the USA, but not to Bush and his policies.
The intelligent course of action is for the USA to foster trade , cultural and diplomatic exchange.
Threats only serve to unite everyone behind the mullahs and make the need for military preparedness more urgent.
The general Western fear is not of Iran, but of nuclear materials getting into the hands of terrorists.
That this will eventually happen is inevitable. The solution is to act so as to reduce the number and motivation of terrorists.
Complain about this comment
Xie Ming
There is a difference between expressing opinions knowing them to be controversial - which takes courage - and making outrageous comparisons which do not stand up to scrutiny. Comparing the democratic systems of Israel and Zimbabwe is gratuitously insulting and serves no purpose.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming wrote:
#50
Presents assertions, rather than facts.
------BOTH,i would say right assertions of the present situation.--------------
Israel is controlled by religious fundamentalists. All Israeli politics takes account of this fact.
------------Absolutely not true,and with this kind of argument you making my point much easier-----------------------------------
Non-Jews are very definitely second-class citizens and subject to government and political discrimination.
---------------Again not true,give us some credible sources please,examples,news stories,anything you wish to back up this claim,there is no evidence foreign immigrants are treated in Israel worse then other countries-------------------------
Democracy? Mugabe's land is also a democracy.
-------------------again you making my point much easier,there is no point whatsoever to reply such argument----------------------
As Sharon proved, Israel is a threat to all its neighbors. Whether one styles them "democracies" or not is irrelevant.
----------------It can not be irrelevant,the fact that Israel is a democracy and its neighbours are not,can not be irrelevant,is actually the most relevant thing-------------
Ali Khamenei is the Supreme Leader of Iran and his words are very careful and measured. He has, by religious fatwah, forbidden any development or use of nuclear weapons.
----------thats good to hear,but i would sugest you learn what religious fatwah is,because it can not be used to forbid the use of weapons,it can be used against an enemy of religion,wether be it an person or phenomenia---------
Public opinion in Iran is favorable to the USA, but not to Bush and his policies.
---------thats good to hear ,still i dont get your point-----------
The intelligent course of action is for the USA to foster trade , cultural and diplomatic exchange.
-------------Absolutely,but on condition that Iran does not aquire to have nuclear weapons,or suports terrorism------------
Threats only serve to unite everyone behind the mullahs and make the need for military preparedness more urgent.
------------------------Thats sad to hear,still i think soon the west and Israel will be left wiothout a choice unless Iran changes position-------
The general Western fear is not of Iran, but of nuclear materials getting into the hands of terrorists.
------------Iran suports terrorism,and nuclear weapons is the hands of Iran are nearly the same as nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists,thats the problem-------
That this will eventually happen is inevitable. The solution is to act so as to reduce the number and motivation of terrorists.
-----------------No,wether that happens or not,we dont know,but we should be clear on one thing,there should be no let up in the war against maniac terrorist killers--------------------
Complain about this comment
#52
The point is that the word "democracy" is meaningless, not that Israel and Zimbawe are equivalent.
#53
Anyone not having a definition of "democracy" is in trouble here.
If your neighbors do not happen to meet your definition of democracy, this is totally irrelevant to a justification for aggression against them.
Israel does not have a Constitution for the simple reason that it cannot reconcile its discrimination against non-Jews with a constitutional system of law.
Anyone who does not know this is too ignorant of the situation within Israel to comment.
Similarly, religious fundamentalists control Israeli politics and government. Again, anyone within Israel should be able to explain this- and this Forum is not the place to develop the exposition- one known to any student of Israeli politics.
The contra fact is that the fundamentalists are in a minority- the majority is secular and the Reform are not the outrageous bigots that the Orthodox are.
Thus the real problem is how to allow the civilized majority to take control in Israel.
One justification advanced by fundamentalists is that gentiles are "without souls" and thus may be treated as animals. You see, fundamentalism is a problem for all faiths!
___________________________
For journalists:
The need becomes evident to report the deeds and decrees of Ali Khamenei, for there is great ignorance concerning them and their import.
It is also highly desirable to report more "man in the street" data from Tehran and also from Iranian academics.
We see great ignorance among those repeating catch phrases with which they have been indoctrinated.
Good reporting from Iran and Israel is needed, although the latter is very unwelcome by the authorities there.
Complain about this comment
Despite the propaganda, Iran is country with a long history of civilization and has attacked no one.
The Islamic Revolution was the result of the US intervention against the elected government and the USA appointed Shah as puppet.
First the British, and then the Americans, sought to control Iran. As we have seen, Sharon proposed that the Israelis rush in and occupy Iran upon the death of Khomeini.
In the face of such continuous provocation, Iran has only acted defensively.
Israel, by contrast, has planned and executed aggressions and is urging more.
We need the exposition of honest journalists.
Complain about this comment
47. MarcusAureliusII
Thanks for that comment. I have the virtually identical experience of seeing the most outrageous anti-Israel and anti-Semitic comments appear on BBC forums like 'Have our Say' and then finding that my rebuttal is rejected, even though it breaks no rules. HYS has another method of censorship available. It can simply leave a comment in the 'Moderation Queue' until the debate is closed so that the comment never sees the light of day. Rejection is different. Here the moderator is making a petty political statement and also ensuring that no other moderator can come along and rescue the comment from the Moderation Queue, since once it is labelled as 'rejected' that's that.
The BBC demonstrates its bias on a daily basis but it's also fair to say that it has come a long way in terms of openness to debate. The fact that we are having this discussion at all proves that.
What got me going here originally was the BBC's typical tendency towards appeasement of radical Islamic regimes. This is not a game of cricket and there is no middle ground between Iranian terrorists and those who fight that terror.
As named-Erion wrote at no 53, there's no great difference between terrorists and the Iranian regime. I'll take it one step further: the Iranian leaders are themselves terrorists. Apart from sponsoring, arming and training terror groups to attack Israeli civilians and Americans in Iraq, they even terrorise their own people. They commit the unforgivable obscenity of publicly hanging teenage girls from cranes for having sex. They do the same to teenage homosexuals.
And there are many otherwise intelligent people who imagine that a nuclear armed Iran would not necessarily be a bad thing.
Complain about this comment
I meant to add that I agree 100% with this last statement by Named-Erion:
"...but we should be clear on one thing,there should be no let up in the war against maniac terrorist killers."
This is indeed a war: civilization against Islamic terror.
Complain about this comment
#56 #57
The Israeli Cabinet has authorized terrorist murders throughout the world, specifically including within the USA.
The horrors of Israeli terrorism are practiced mostly against Palestinians.
One that sticks in my mind was the shooting of a twelve year-old girl who was picking flowers along a fence.
The Israeli captain who shot her then came out and emptied his clip into her.
How do we know about it? His own men turned him in for murder! He punishment? He was transferred to another unit!
Those interested can receive daily reports of these incidents- just ask for the URLs.
Israel was created in terrorism and the early Prime Ministers of Israel were infamous terrorist leaders.
A Prime Minister of Israel who sought peace was murdered by a fundamentalist
law student who was convinced that to seek peace made the PM a criminal rodef, liable under religious law to be killed by anyone.
The student was not at all insane and is still convinced that he did the right thing.
A medical doctor from Brooklyn in the Israeli army entered a Mosque and shot more than 150 worshippers. He had been making speeches about the "demographic problem" and sought to do his bit to reduce the Arab population.
He is celebrated as a "martyr" who did the right thing and his wife is suing those who killed him on the spot.
It would be incorrect to style these as "maniac terrorist killers" as was done above. Rather these are religiously indocrinated fanatics who are convinced that they are right.
The use of millions of cluster bombs in the final hours of the last invasion of Lebanon illustrates the total contempt of gentile life entertained by the Israeli leadership.
This sort of religious fanaticism controls Israeli politics. Coupled with the aggressive
intentions already documented, it is evident that Israel constitutes a continuing threat to World peace.
Only by bringing the facts to light, in the face of great suppressive pressure, can journalists enable the public to know the truth.
Complain about this comment
In response to #57, "...This is indeed a war: civilization against Islamic terror."
Well, it would be nice to see Israel behaving in a civilised way, and not heaping collective punishments on the ill and sick and elderly and poor, and children.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming, you must admit that True Too has a point in #56. If the Iranian government had even one small shred of human decency....it would hang teenage girls in private, never in public. Think of what it does for their reputation and public image...not to mention that of the girls.
Complain about this comment
Wild assertions have been made about the Iranian leadership, suggesting that they are crazed fanatics, etc. The only specific cited has been Ahmadijinedad's statement that Israel should be erased from the map.
The Zionists have been claiming that this has already been done for Palestine and that Palestine never existed!
The facts are that Iran has attacked no one and has reacted defensively to aggression by the USA and Iraq, as well as Sharon's plans for invasion and repeated threats of aggression from Israel.
The NeoCons of the USA and Israel have been demonstrated to be aggressors in the Mid-East, as documented above, and are urging further aggression.
Israel has nuclear weapons, missile -carrying submarines and the intention to use military force to enlarge its zone to extend from Pakistan to Central Africa (as Sharon explained).
These military plans and capabilities are combined with the control of the government by fundamentalist religious fanatics whose intolerant indoctrination takes no heed of soulless gentile life and includes the assassination even of Israelis who do not follow their views.
The terrorism and ethnic cleansing practiced against the Palestinians is government policy, documented daily.
The cluster bombing of Lebanon in the final hours of the invasion illustrated the attitude of the Israeli government toward the wanton sacrifice of gentile life.
The general practice of ad hominemism and uproar have largely silenced reporting of these facts. If there is to be peace in the Middle East, then our journalists must have the courage to find and report the facts despite the pressure.
Issues include:
public and academic opinion in Iran concerning the West;
overtures of the Iranian government toward diplomacy with the USA;
the actions of clandestine US Special Forces within Iran;
the complicity of the British government in such actions;
the attitudes of US Congressmen toward US and/or Israeli aggression against Iran;
the attitude within Israel toward such an attack;
the reasons for the fundamentalist domination of Israeli politics;
the likelihood of change in such domination;
the comments of Mid-Eastern leaders concerning Israeli and US policy,
etc.
It will take courage, but facts are facts.
Complain about this comment
What I don't understand is if the US and Israel believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and cannot be deterred by any peaceful means....what are they waiting for? Not now, not ever? It's beginning to look that way. Early tenth century minds in possession of late twentieth century weapons. It's like your neighbor's ten year old kid had gotten his hands on a loaded gun. The time to disarm him by whatever force is necessary is before he uses it on someone.
Complain about this comment
Once the decision is made to get and report the facts, a lot of false ideologies will crash.
For example, in Latin America, Protestant evangelicals are making great numbers of converts from Catholicism.
This is being done by preaching a message of individual initiative and small business entrepreneurship.
Such authors as Rhonda Byrne and Joel Osteen, who push the same idea, are said to be selling well in Iran.
If true, it is consistent with reports that have appeared in the Christian Science Monitor.
Iran is ripe for American culture and commerce and has mullah fatigue- it is a wonderful opportunity to effect regime change and to make a great strategic ally.
Threats and Special Forces sabotage are exactly wrong- but it will take energetic reporting to get the public through the propaganda walls.
Complain about this comment
Who has the time to combat the obsessive vilification of Israel, composed of lies, distortions and half-truths so energetically plastered all over this blog by the chief propagandist for Iran? Xie Ming thus far is responsible for 25 out of 62 comments. (Not 63, since one of mine was deleted.)
I make that 43% of the comments posted on this topic. This is approaching the level of copy-and-paste spam and, in fairness, a moderator should tap him on the shoulder and politely point this out to him, since the topic of the conflict between Israel and Iran has been hijacked by Xie Ming so that he can indulge in his favourite hobby - bashing Israel.
Where is any on-topic evidence here that Israel represents a threat to Iran? In words allegedly spoken more than twenty-seven years ago by Ariel Sharon, a man now in an irreversible coma? Or in the allegation that Israel is run by religious fundamentalists when there is currently a left-wing, mostly irreligious government in power?
Unfortunately for the propagandist, wishful thinking will not create facts out of thin air.
On the other hand, as I have tried to make clear, Iran not only represents a threat to Israel, it has been attacking Israel through proxies for decades. The propagandist will not acknowledge this. Strangely enough, neither will the BBC.
Complain about this comment
I've never been a fatalist and I lived through the cold war era when we knew the world could end in a thermonuclear conflagration at any time, even one launched by technical error or miscalculation but I have never felt the end of all human existance was so likely as I do now. While the dire predictions of the consequences of global warming may be a few decades away, the threat of wars that could spell an ecological catyclism for the entire human race seems not merely possible but inevitable. The prospects are grim. Iran is one possible trigger. Another is a nuclear strike by terrorists on the US and its aftermath when America goes berzerk. Yet another is a nuclear war over Kashmir between India and a government in Pakistan ruled by a Taleban like clan. In any case these events seem to not only loom large but not far off on the horizon.
If the worst were to occur and I here in North America nearly half a world away from events in Asia were to face my final months and days looking back on my reasonably long and fulfilling life so far, there will be the comfort of the irony that the end was brought about by the consequences of hatred by countless tens, even hundreds of millios of people for others whom they unrelentingly but incorrectly blame for all of the worlds ills including their own shortcomings in life. In other words scapegoating. And it would be double irony if it is the result of an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran knowing that not only were the most despised people on earth, the Jews who were turned from a passive harmless culture which became the object of annihilation and were turned into desperate killers using the only means they felt they had left availabe to have any chance to survive at all, but that the means to achieve this terminal event of species suicide was created in large part by Jews themselves like Einstein, Fermi, Oppenheimer, and Teller. Xie_Ming, when the end comes and I am sure we are all going to die, I will find comfort having read so much of your venom and knowing that there are countless other millions out there just like you that make me certain the human species does not really deserve to survive. Humanity will finally get the justice it so richly deserves.
Complain about this comment
The foregoing illustrate the need for accurate reporting.
Facts will conquer vilification if the media will not be intimidated.
Ad hominemisms expose those who engage in it.
Complain about this comment
War:
Robin Lustig wrote in an earlier post that if Israel were to strike Iran they would need to go through US controlled Iraqi airspace.
Mohamed Elbaradei has said on numerous occasions that he can't effectively do his job monitoring Iran in this belligerent/ignorant climate.
Complain about this comment
#67 - straightchris
A missile strike would certainly require access to Iraqi airspace. An aircraft strike could, I imagine, go through Turkish airspace but the chances of the Turks agreeing to that are nigh on non-existent.
Complain about this comment
This petition is from a group of academics in Israel:
"..it is clear that the main source of the immediate danger of a new, widespread war stems from the policies of the Israeli government and the flow of threats from it, backed by provocative military maneuvers.
After serious consideration, we reiterate our position that all the arguments for such an attack are without any security, political or moral justification.
Israel might get caught up in an act of adventurism that could endanger our very existence, and this without any serious effort to exhaust the political and diplomatic alternatives to armed conflict."
The Other Israel peace group
Complain about this comment
The stories I've heard have it that it is Israel that is trying to restrain America from attacking and if the Bush administration had its way, America would have attacked Iran already.
Xie_ming, where are the comparable voices in Iran? There must be people there smart enough and aware enough of what is going on in the world to be concerned about the dire consequences that their government's provocative actions could have if Israel or the US actually strikes. I'll bet I know where they are. Sitting with their tongues tied lest they get them cut out if they dared to speak.
Complain about this comment
Robin Lustig,
How about popping in here when you have the time and answering the question I posed at no. 27. Here it is again:
Why is the BBC protecting Iran? And a related question: Why does the BBC automatically gravitate towards those who pour scorn on the idea of Israel's pre-emptive defence against Iran?
MarcusAureliusII,
Good point. Where are those voices? There are quite a few anonymous ones on the internet but nobody in Iran has the freedom to form groups that vilify the Iranian government.
And our propagandist for Iran dominating this board thinks it's impressive that he can find subversive Israelis and Jews who support his position. Well, I guess it is impressive, but not for the reasons he thinks.
Complain about this comment
A 5000 year old civilization is at real risk of being wiped off the face of the earth forever for real because a relative handful of crazed Iraniacs are determined to reconstuct at any cost an imagined empire that supposedly existed 1400 years ago and no one among them dares to say a word about it in public. Didn't they learn a lesson from what happend to Iraq? And that was just a taste of what will happen to them. Like Hirohito and Hitler, they have no idea of what they are up against and what the inevitable consequences will be. By trying to acquire nuclear weapons, Iran along with North Korea will be at the top of the list of targets to be eliminated as potential future threats if the US is attacked by a WMD no matter who the perpetrator is. They just don't get it.
Complain about this comment
#71 - TrueToo
#72 - MarcusAureliusII
I fear you are wasting your efforts. Xie_ming has convinced himself that Israel is fundamentally evil and expansionist and nothing we write is going to change his mind.
What I find very interesting is that a surgical strike in Syria proved very effective. The Syrians are now at the negotiating table again. It also struck me that Ahmadijinedad's position has softened noticeably since his summit at the weekend with Assad. The nuclear option, if there ever was one, seems to be less likely by the day.
Complain about this comment
#73
It should be clear that it that the "fundamental evil of Israel" is fundamentalist religious extremism.
And that there is a majority that could improve matters, were there to be political changes in Israel.
The amoral expansionism is documented in Israel and shared with the (also documented) NeoCon plans in Washington.
The chief Pentagon planner of the Iraq adventure was on the Israeli government payroll.
These are not matters of personal attitudes that can be validly answered with ad hominemisms.
They are facts and a free media should be able to present them without intimidation.
Complain about this comment
#73
The Iranians have been seeking negotiations since 2003 and have continually expressed a desire for diplomatic negotiations.
On the other hand, if there were to be "surgical strikes" against Israeli nuclear facilities, a far more reasonable attitude could quickly emerge in Israel.
It may be difficult to accept that the "other" is also a human with equal rights- and an equal claim to having a soul.
Complain about this comment
#75 - Xie_Ming
This is becoming very tiresome. If you can produce a single post under my name which suggests that the Iranians are anything other than perfectly decent and civilised people, are less than human or have no claim to a soul, I would be grateful if you would find it.
I am also tiring of the ad hominemism accusation. I have criticised your opinions, not you personally. The phrase has no recognised definition I can find anyway. All I have ever said in respect of your position is that your aggressive and contentious view of Israel is no more helpful than some of the more outrageous comments that have been made by others regarding Iran.
Perhaps you might like to enlighten us as to where your first hand experience of either Jewish or Persian culture was acquired.
Complain about this comment
Part of the tactics of political Zionists include frequent death threats and intimidation.
One BBC program requested and received a phone number from me. This number was subsequently used for such threats.
If a target is also identified as Jewish, then he or she is labeled a "traitor", or a "self-hating Jew" and efforts are made to ostracise him.
Such tactics are coupled with routine ad hominemisms and attempts to intimidate editors and employers.
The purpose is always to suppress facts, for simple opinion is easily dismissed.
A review of this thread will illustrate ad hominemism.
Complain about this comment
#77 - Xie_Ming
So you cannot find any such references and you cannot define 'ad hominemism'. Enough said.
Complain about this comment
References can be easily supplied for any fact. Which fact is of interest?
__________________________
The former Chief Rabbi of Israel appeared at the olive harvest and announced that all trees in "Greater Israel" belonged only to Jews.
Under the guns of the Israeli Army ("Defense Force"), thieves then swarmed in and stole the olives of the poor Arabs.
Such religious fanaticism dominates the policies of the government and, as we have seen consitutes a major threat to peace in the region.
Thus, we the government of Israel publicly and repeatedly threatens Iran, civilized states should be concerned.
Comprehension seems to be lacking of simple equity- a state so threatened would be equally justified in responding.
Complain about this comment
Olmert, the PM of Israel, outlines plan for attack on Iran in the current issue of the magazine Focus:
“Perhaps it is not possible to destroy their whole nuclear program, but it is possible to so damage it that it will be put back for years. That is technically possible. The attack would last ten days and involve a thousand Tomahawk rockets”, said Olmert.
“We must ask ourselves if such a military initiative wouldn’t make the entire Iranian people our enemy. And would such an attack not bring other Muslim nations against us and so create more problems?”.
[Apparently the USA, in addition to thousands of special “bunker buster” bombs, has provided Israel with Tomahawk missiles!]
April 28, 2007
Complain about this comment
Israel mulls military option for Iran nukes
By STEVEN GUTKIN
Associated Press Writer
JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel is building up its strike capabilities amid growing anxiety over Iran's nuclear ambitions and appears confident that a military attack would cripple Tehran's atomic program, even if it can't destroy it.
Such talk could be more threat than reality. However, Iran's refusal to accept Western conditions is worrying Israel as is the perception that Washington now prefers diplomacy over confrontation with Tehran.
The Jewish state has purchased 90 F-16I fighter planes that can carry enough fuel to reach Iran, and will receive 11 more by the end of next year. It has bought two new Dolphin submarines from Germany reportedly capable of firing nuclear-armed warheads - in addition to the three it already has.
And this summer it carried out air maneuvers in the Mediterranean that touched off an international debate over whether they were a «dress rehearsal» for an imminent attack, a stern warning to Iran or a just a way to get allies to step up the pressure on Tehran to stop building nukes.
According to foreign media reports, Israeli intelligence is active inside Iranian territory. Israel's military censor, who can impose a range of legal sanctions against journalists operating in the country, does not permit publication of details of such information in news reports written from Israel.
The issue of Iran's nuclear program took on new urgency this week after U.S. officials rejected Tehran's response to an incentives package aimed at getting it to stop sensitive nuclear activity - setting the stage for a fourth round of international sanctions against the country.
Israel, itself an undeclared nuclear power, sees an atomic bomb in Iranian hands as a direct threat to its existence.
Israel believes Tehran will have enriched enough uranium for a nuclear bomb by next year or 2010 at the latest. The United States has trimmed its estimate that Iran is several years or as much as a decade away from being able to field a bomb, but has not been precise about a timetable. In general U.S. officials think Iran isn't as close to a bomb as Israel claims, but are concerned that Iran is working faster than anticipated to add centrifuges, the workhorses of uranium enrichment.
«If Israeli, U.S., or European intelligence gets proof that Iran has succeeded in developing nuclear weapons technology, then Israel will respond in a manner reflecting the existential threat posed by such a weapon,» said Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, speaking at a policy forum in Washington last week.
«Israel takes (Iranian President) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements regarding its destruction seriously. Israel cannot risk another Holocaust,» Mofaz said.
The Iranian leader has in the past called for Israel's elimination, though his exact remarks have been disputed. Some translators say he called for Israel to be «wiped off the map,» while others say a better translation would be «vanish from the pages of time» - implying Israel would disappear on its own rather than be destroyed.
Iran insists its uranium enrichment is meant only for electricity generation, not a bomb - an assertion that most Western nations see as disingenuous.
Israeli policymakers and experts have been debating for quite some time whether it would even be possible for Israel to take out Iran's nuclear program. The mission would be far more complicated than a 1981 Israeli raid that destroyed Iraq's partially built Osirak nuclear reactor, or an Israeli raid last year on what U.S. intelligence officials said was another unfinished nuclear facility in Syria.
In Iran, multiple atomic installations are scattered throughout the country, some underground or bored into mountains - unlike the Iraqi and Syrian installations, which were single aboveground complexes.
Still, the Syria action seemed to indicate that Israel would also be willing to use force preemptively against Iran.
«For Israel this is not a target that cannot be achieved,» said Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi-Farkash, former head of Israel's army intelligence.
However, it's unlikely Israel would carry out an attack without approval from the United States.
Recent signs that Washington may be moving away from a military option - including a proposal to open a low-level U.S. diplomatic office in Tehran and a recent decision to allow a senior U.S. diplomat to participate alongside Iran in international talks in Geneva - are not sitting very well with Israel.
That may help explain recent visits to Jerusalem by Mike McConnell, the U.S. director of national intelligence, and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, each of whom delivered a message to Israel that it does not have a green light to attack Iran at this time.
Senior Israeli officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they do not wish to appear at odds with their most important ally, said they were concerned about a possible softening of the U.S. stance toward Iran.
Apparently to allay Israeli concerns, Bush administration officials last week assured visiting Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the U.S. has not ruled out the possibility of a military strike on Iran. And the U.S., aware of Israel's high anxiety over Iran's nukes, is also hooking Israel up to an advanced missile detection system known as X-Band to guard against any future attack by Iran, said a senior U.S. defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions over the issue have not been made public.
With sanctions and diplomacy still the international community's preferred method to get Iran to stop building the bomb, an Israeli strike does not appear imminent.
If it did attack, however, Israel would have to contend with upgraded Iranian defense capabilities, including 29 new Tor-M1 surface-to-air missile systems Iran purchased from Russia last year in a $700 million deal.
Russia has so far not gone through with a proposed sale to Iran of S-300 surface-to-air missiles, an even more powerful air defense system than the Tor-M1. An Israeli defense official said the deal is still on the table, however. This is a big source of consternation for Israel because the system could significantly complicate a pre-emptive Israeli assault on Iran.
Military experts say an Israeli strike would require manned aircraft to bombard multiple targets and heavy precision bombs that can blast through underground bunkers - something Israel failed to do in its 2006 war against Hezbollah. It's widely assumed that Israel is seeking to obtain bunker buster bombs, if it hasn't already done so.
Elite ground troops could also be necessary to penetrate the most difficult sites, though Israeli military planners say they see that option as perhaps too risky.
America's ability to take out Iran's nuclear facilities is far superior to Israel's.
Unlike Israel, the United States has cruise missiles that can deliver high-explosive bombs to precise locations and B-2 bombers capable of dropping 85 500-pound bombs in a single run.
Yet the cost of an attack - by the U.S., Israel or both - is likely to be enormous.
Iran could halt oil production and shut down tanker traffic in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which could send the price of crude skyrocketing and wreck Western economies.
It could stir up trouble for the U.S. in Iraq by revving up Shiite militias there just as Washington is showing some important gains in reining in Iraqi chaos.
It could activate its militant proxies in both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, from where Israel could come under heavy rocket attack. And it could strike Israel with its arsenal of Shahab-3 long-range missiles - something Israel is hoping to guard against through its Arrow missile defense system.
Perhaps most importantly, any strike on Iran - especially if it's done without having exhausted all diplomatic channels - could have the opposite of the desired effect, «actually increasing the nationalist fervor to build a nuclear weapon,» said Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born Israeli and expert on Iranian affairs.
Whether an attack on Iran would be worth its cost would depend on how long the nuclear program could be delayed, said Chuck Freilich, a former Israeli deputy national security adviser and now a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School.
«A two, three-year delay is not worth it. For a five to 10-year delay I would say yes,» he said.
---
Associated Press Writers Anne Gearan and Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report from Washington.
Complain about this comment
#81
That was a well-selected article.
Certainly anti-missile defense for Israel is an excellent idea- and far better than given them bunker-buster bombs and Tomahawk missiles!
However, can anyone grasp that it is an even better idea for Russia to supply Iran with anti-aircraft defense systems?
The absurd premise that Israel may attack but that Iran may not defend is quite irrational and shows that we need to examine carefully our assumptions!
The aggressive and expansionist plans of Israel have already been explained by Sharon and others of their generals (as documented on this thread).
The aggressive and expansionist plans of the "American" NeoCons are known and have already been evidenced to the World.
Let the Congress act now, until the new American administration can take over!
Complain about this comment
I was fortunate to see Robin Lustig's post before it was deleted but it would be entirely inappropriate to comment now that it has gone.
I am absolutely dumbfounded that (a) anyone would have the discourtesy to refer to the moderator a comment posted by the blog's owner and (b) that a moderator would presume to know better than the owner what was suitable to his own blog.
Complain about this comment
73. threnodio
I have no intention of trying to change his mind. It's obviously too thoroughly pickled in anti-Israel bias. My intention is simply to counter the lies, distortions and half-truths he keeps on pushing here. An example is the 'greater Israel'. Israelis are pragmatic people and they have no designs on other countries. How would tiny Israel with her strictly limited manpower defeat, occupy and police the surrounding countries? The propagandist gets so carried away by his hatred that he can no longer set out a rational proposal for debate. The only attacks that come from Israel's side are to stop terror from her enemies.
So the Israel-bashers have a hard time trying to find evidence for this concept of the 'greater Israel' but it doesn't stop them pushing the lie, even while Israel reduces in size through withdrawal from Gaza, for example. The Israel-bashers and anti-Semites don't need much of an excuse to start spitting venom, though. One Israeli settler adding a bedroom to his house is enough to get them going.
76. threnodia,
Only facts about Iran have been mentioned on this thread - the arming, training and financing of terrorists who slaughter Israeli civilians, the threats from the insane, Jew hating Ahmedinejad and the terrorising of their own people by putting innocents in front of kangaroo courts and then executing them in public. This is a barbaric regime and it cannot be compared to democratic Israel, which even handles Arab terrorist prisoners with blood on their hands with great attention to their 'rights' and to the rule of law. Child murderer Samir Kuntar was able to walk free to his hero's welcome in Lebanon. If Kuntar had infiltrated Iran and murdered an Iranian child he would not have been left in one piece.
The vast gulf between the two countries is evident to any fair-minded person. Nothing "outrageous" has been said about Iran here, but only the truth about that outrageous regime.
What truly is outrageous is not only to draw a comparison between Israel and Iran but to actively try to distort reality to make it appear that Israel has the qualities of Iran vice versa.
Complain about this comment
83. threnodio,
If that really was Robin Lustig who wrote the comment then I am also amazed that someone would have the bare-faced cheek to refer him to the moderators. Maybe it wasn't him and that's why it has been referred. Hopefully this will be cleared up tomorrow.
Complain about this comment
It is time to reread #14 and put it simple language: One who calls "liar" repeatedly is likely a liar himself and a a sociopath.
Sharon had aggressive plans and maps.
He realized them in Lebanon and had them but did not implement them for Iran.
Uri Avnery published them. The URLs have been cited on this thread.
How can anyone continue to deny this?
That there are individuals who, in fact, make such false claims and will continue to do so in the face of all the facts in the World.
The civilized World must take account of this situation and the media must not be intimidated by their efforts.
Complain about this comment
In the face of assertions concerning the "civilized" activity of the Israeli government (above), there are numerous organizations trying to reduce to the toruture and ethnic cleansing. Among them:
(Most have free mailing lists).
http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp
http://www.phr.org.il/phr/
Physicians for Human Rights - Israel
PHR-Israel, established in 1988, is dedicated to promoting and protecting the medical human rights of residents of Israel and the Occupied Territories. PHR-Israel opposes the subjugation of medical care to political considerations and fights against breaches of medical human rights by the Israeli authorities. PHR-Israel also works to rectify and prevent breakdowns in health care delivery in the West Bank.
The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI)
An apolitical organization dedicated to the elimination of torture as a means of interrogation by Israel's security forces. PCATI is the only organization in Israel exclusively devoted to the issue of illegal interrogation. PCATI documents, monitors and responds to cases of illegal interrogation, ill-treatment and police brutality within Israel, the Occupied Territories and the Palestinian National Authority.
Rabbis for Human Rights
The only organization in Israel today concerned specifically with giving voice to the Jewish tradition of human rights. RHR has helped numerous individuals, publicized causes, engaged in civil disobedience, lobbied the Knesset and participated in a landmark high court case limiting the scope of the army to abuse human rights under the guise of security.
Yesh Din – Volunteers for Human Rights
An Israeli not-for-profit organization comprised of women and men who have come together to take concrete action against the constant human rights abuses inflicted on the Palestinian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The members of the organization come from diverse personal, professional and political backgrounds, but share a deep concern for the significant damage these abuses are causing Palestinian and Israeli societies. To ensure the effectiveness of its action, Yesh Din is assisted by legal, human rights and media professionals.
Recall the earlier note that the majority in Israel are not fundamentalist religious fanatics, but that political control rests with the fanatics.
Btselem has URLS for many such organizations.
Great efforts are made to insult, disparage and threaten editors and others who bring to light the terrible abuses done by the extremist religious fanatics who control Israel's government.
Sincere folk should save these URLs and begin to inform themselves.
These fanatics are quite capable of the aggression against Iran and it is tragic that American politicians, for local political reasons, have armed them.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming #77
"Part of the tactics of political Zionists include frequent death threats and intimidation."
Since you are so certain of this, I assume you have first hand knowledge of it. Aren't you worried about your own personal safety? Have you alerted the authorities to this threat. I think it is your civic duty to make them aware of it at the earliest possible moment.
Complain about this comment
#88 - MarcusAureliusII
If I am right, our friend blogs under his real name and has a personal profile on a networking website for the whole world to see. Not exactly the behaviour of a person whose life is under threat.
Complain about this comment
#81
The temporarily removed post mentioned that Israel now will have five missile-carrying submarines.
Strickly for defense against the Palestinians, of course. But, if need be, London,Washington, etc.
Those who are curious may also want to checkout the "Samson Option". The fanactics have announced that, if the World is unkind, Israel will use it nuclear arsenal to bring down the World, as Samson did the Temple.
Never underestimate what Israel's religious fanatics are capable of.
Complain about this comment
Defense is, of course, important.
Within the United States, the Jewish League has a long record of such defense-
including bombings of foreign embassies, Us Congressmen and other such existential threats.
Even after 9/11, two leaders planned the bombing of the Office of a US Congressman.
We must understand that such actions, including the attack against neighbors in the Mid-East, are not evidence of sociopathic religious fanaticism-
but of innocent defense.
Complain about this comment
#91
The reference is to the Jewish Defense Leagus (JDL).
Complain about this comment
By my count it's 39 to 17 so far in favor of Xie_Ming over True Too (through posting #91.) For awhile True Too was keeping up with Xie but in the end Xie pulled way out in front and is ahead by more than 2 to 1. This proves one thing....Xie has more free time on his hands than True Too. What's even more impressive is that Xie is just as active on a lot of other BBC blogs. Amazing, how does he do it?
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII,
It's that useful invention, copy and paste. to which he sometimes adds a few oblique comments to show that he has skimmed over what others have said on a particular forum. The style of debate - never mentioning his opponents' names, but only the number of the comment - is probably intentionally belittling.
Eight people have contributed to the 94 comments here. On a balanced forum that would be roughly 12 comments per person. I think I'm going to drop this debate and let Xie Ming talk to himself.
The avoidance of truths about Iran while inventing 'facts' about Israel is a dishonest tactic designed to muddy the waters and draw attention away from the crimes of the Iranian regime.
There's a committee against torture in Israel? Well, good for them. I also don't agree with torture. But Xie Ming, in his copy and paste haste at no. 87 let slip that they also deal with torture in the Palestinian Authority. I don’t think I would like to know what goes on there, but if they can throw prisoners off buildings and execute them in the streets, then the odds are that it is pretty grim. Israel has a strong human rights tradition and a judiciary unfettered by the state and as far as I know, there is no physical torture of detainees in Israel, though apparently psychological torture is sometimes employed to extract information on imminent terror attacks. Pity, but I guess you have to get your hands a bit dirty from time to time stemming terror against your civilians.
If anyone was a likely object of torture it would have been Samir Kuntar, who was released by Israel rosy-cheeked and plump. So far he has claimed that the little girl he brutally murdered with his rifle butt was "killed in the crossfire" and has proved his heroic resistance to what is now being called the "plundering entity" by relating how he stood up to the Israelis when they wanted to release him unsuitably dressed for the grand occasion and insisted on his own choice of attire. But as far as I know, he has not got around to claiming that he was tortured. For those who have a strong stomach, Kuntar's view of himself as a heroic member of the "resistance" can be seen on the Middle East Media Research Institute, (MEMRI), that excellent organisation that exposes Arab media propaganda for what it is by translating it into English.
When I ask the anti-Israel brigade on the internet what they would do to stem terror, I get the text equivalent of a blank stare. They have never thought about it and don't want to think about it because that would mean trying for once to see things from the Israeli perspective.
Complain about this comment
There are groups, both academic and governmental, all over the World specializing in what to do about terror.
The consensus is that one should reduce the conditions that make people want to become terrorists.
Of course, the policies of the religious fanatics controlling Israel are completlely
contrary to this and serve to create terrorists.
__________________________
The US Congress has conveniently passed legislation that declared that a governmental employee cannot be styled a "terrorist", even when performing an act that, done by another, would constitute terrorism.
As (nearly) everyone knows, there are some difficulties in distinguising "terrorist", "freedom fighter",
"resistance group", "militia" and "irregulars".
We need more reporting on the activities of US Special Forces within Iran, for our friends can never be "terrorists" and, of course, Washington would need fund and arm resistance ("terrorist") groups- would it?
Complain about this comment
#87 #94
Attention is again invited to #87 which lists several Israeli human rights groups, concentrating on various aspects of the comprehensive and planned abuse and ethnic cleansing by the religious fanatic-dominated Israeli government.
There are also Palestinian and international groups that concern themselves with such matters and their URLs are available from btselem.
Sincere folk should get on their mailing lists, for great efforts are made by the Israeli regime to conceal such facts.
#81
The suppressed #81 also mentioned certain very advanced air/missile defense systems being provided by the US taxpayers to Israel.
Providing defensive weapons could be a good way to ease the religio/ethnic paranoia so evident in Israeli discourse.
Certainly, offensive weapons should never have been provided. However, given sociopathic tendencies, good defensive weapons might be taken as more reason to indulge in the planned aggression.
Complain about this comment
My entry at #81 has been reinstated. Don't ask ...
Complain about this comment
Robin Lustig, I'm not sure how good that article is. Seems to consist mostly of old news regurgitated. And this kind of thing is just lousy journalism:
"According to foreign media reports, Israeli intelligence is active inside Iranian territory."
Foreign to whom, Israel or Iran? Or if we can regard the Associated Press as based in London, then would "foreign" mean anything outside of the UK? Why doesn't Gutkin reveal his sources?
This reminds me of the BBC with its tired old phrase, "Some say..." Yes, some do indeed say, but who are these "some" and what exactly is their claim to expertise in the matter under discussion?
But anyhow, it would be good news, if true, that Israel has intelligence operatives in Iran. Israeli intelligence is second to none. The AP and the BBC and the rest of the motley crew can indulge in idle and uninformed speculation that passes as news, and quote "experts" pickled in political correctness but it wont change the fact that Iran is committed to Israel's destruction. Until lefty journalists acknowledge that central fact as a basic premise, they should simply be ignored.
Complain about this comment
Yes, the MOSSAD has agents inside Iran, as do many others.
The MOSSAD had agents set up to film the twin towers disaster in the USA ("Urban Moving Systems") and two other teams watching Wahabbis in the USA.
(Somehow, they preferred the photos to giving a useful warning).
Murdering the wrong people (as in Norway) is also a MOSSAD specialty.
Those who read Hebrew can apply on their website.
_________________________
What is needed is BBC reporting from Iran- man in the street and interviews with academics and with Ali Khameini.
These people are looking for dialog with the West and facts will do much to counteract the vicious religio/ethnic propaganda of the Israelis.
Complain about this comment
Around the beginning of 2007, Rageh Omaar's documentary from inside Iran, which presented an extremely favourable image was aired. The problem was that it took the BBC well over a year to get permission to make the film. If, as you say 'These people are looking for dialog with the West', they may be well advised not to make it so difficult.
Complain about this comment
#100
How about it Robin, ready to go?
Complain about this comment
#81, will the real Robin Lustig please stand up?
(part of an old American quiz show "What's My Line" in case you didn't know.)
This is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time, a posting by the owner of a blog site deleted by its moderator. You broke rule #3947573937 subparagraph B section 346.79 which prohibits the use of two or more consecutive words using all capital letters of five or more letters each. Remind you of anything? Maybe a Constitution or Treaty or something? :-)
A statute by Henry VIII directed that "every pillory shall always have due strength so that offenders may have judgement executed upon them without danger to their bodies."
Since idleness is regarded as sin, it must be that when lawmakers exhaust the obvious, they will inevitably resort to endless arcane oddities.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A07E7D61231E033A2575BC0A9659C94679ED7CF
Here's a serious question for Xie_Ming. What do you think of the Nuremberg trials? Did the defendants get justice or a bum rap?
Complain about this comment
#102 Query is off-topic.
#101
A series of BBC people should make the trip-
the local fellow (perhaps wisely) is hyper-cautious.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
102. MarcusAureliusII,
Yes, I also saw the humour in that "moderated" comment. This could be the first time such a thing has happened.
At no. 104 you have Ming's agenda right. The style of debate is also really unpleasant - no direct, frank response to challenges, but simply the twisting and distorting of the point under discussion in order to make it part of the endless repetition of the same old propaganda, even really dated stuff such as the "Greater Israel." I would have thought that even the most hate-filled of the anti-Israel crew would have given up on that one after Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai a generation ago.
I will no longer be responding to or even reading anything this vindictive troll posts here or anywhere else.
Complain about this comment
Peace:
Norman Finkelstein has said that the most effective argument against Israel are the UN resolutions and the opinions of the International Court of Justice; the only countries that veto these UN resolutions are Israel, USA and some South Pacific islands.
Noam Chomsky makes the point that as Israel possesses Nuclear weapons it is no longer eligible for aid under the conditions in which the aid is provided.
As'ad AbuKhalil says that Hezbollah didn't exist prior to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
Ray Hanania: "Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has declared Hamas as one of Israel's greatest threats, but he was one of the architects who encouraged the rise of an Islamic alternative to the Palestine Liberation Organization that gave Hamas its start."
David Rose Iran-Contra 2.0: "General Dayton had asked for Israeli clearance to allow an import of armoured cars, heavy weapons and machine guns into Gaza from Egypt, which were part of this covert programme, to arm Mohammed Dahlan's Fatah forces in Gaza for a coup against Hamas in June 2007".
So, what are they saying about Iran? wasn't Israel middle-men for arms deals during Iran-Contra?
Complain about this comment
#106
Sharon's long-planned aggression against Lebanon (see Avnery report supra) was also the reason for the creation and development of Hezbollah.
The Israeli regime relies on the cooperation of its many "friends" (whom it styles as fellow countrymen) throughout the civilized world to spread its fictional claims and propaganda.
Unwelcome facts are suppressed with personal denigration, threats and and complaints to editors. The Mearsheimer and Walt report details the strong influence exercised over the US Congress and taxpayers.
That is why generalized claims of "insanity" etc. against Iran and its leaders are put forward in abusive terms
(see this thread)- to pave the way among public opinion in the civilized West for the aggression against Iran planned by the fundamentalist Israeli regime.
Complain about this comment
So, BBC gives a free and open platform to an openly anti-semitic hate filled racist but refers a pointed rebuttal to the moderators. WE KNOW EXACTLY WHERE BBC BIAS LIES THROUGHOUT ITS ENTIRE CORPORATE CULTURE RIGHT DOWN TO ITS ROTTEN CORE. The Balen report as much as say so. Small wonder BBC is fighting so hard to suppress it. True Too you are wrong, BBC has not changed one jot. BBC is not only a repugnant reflection of its own management and its British government overseers but of the British population as a whole which is indifferent to it and of European culture as a whole which it strongly mirrors. This is why I find Europe so repulsive. At its heart, it is still the same irrational hate filled place it always was. This time it was Jews but it could have been Gypsies (Roma) or anyone else it chooses to scapegoat for its failure.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Facts are the best antidote to orchestrated propaganda ploys.
By reporting from Iran, by interviewing the Supreme Leader, academics, and the man in the street, the BBC can do much to inform the public.
People will then be able to judge for themselves how valid the slurs against Muslims and Iran are.
Such facts may prove embarassing to the expansionist and aggressive plans of Israel against Iran and the other lands in the Mid-East.
Complain about this comment
Marcus - you have been quite civilised and rational in this thread. Why on earth, at the last gasp, do you revert to type lambasting Europe as though we are all less than human? You simply place your arguement on a par with Xie_Ming's anti Zionist ravings. You have no idea what is in the Balen report because all we have ever been given are a few leaks. I agree that this is unacceptable and the Corporation should come clean about this but I do not accept that it follows the report is wholly critical.
As to your question about Nuremburg, it was a wholly appropriate process as is the ICYC and the ICC. Strange how the USA supports the first two but will not sign up for the third.
Complain about this comment
108. MarcusAureliusII
I really can't see what there was about your comment at no. 104 to warrant it being referred to the moderators. They should reinstate it.
"True Too you are wrong, BBC has not changed one jot."
I don't recall saying that it has, unless you mean my perception of more openness in "Have Your Say" and other forums. While I believe this to be true, there is no doubt at all that opinions that depart from those of the politically-correct left are viewed as aberrations by the BBC. You can take pretty much any subject or controversy under the sun and it will be apparent what the BBC's stance is on it:
Pro:-
Palestinian
Iran
Islam
Theory of man-made global warming
Communism
Che
Castro
ANC
Homosexuality
Labour
Democrats
Obama
Abortion
Socialist nanny state control
UN
EU
Anti:-
Israel
America
Christianity
Capitalism
Pro-lifers
Republicans
McCain
Free-market
And so on and so forth.
So yes, you are correct. The BBC has not changed. If anything, it is sticking more grimly to its guns. It would be bad enough if BBC journalists insisted on a false moral equivalence between the Iranian terrorist regime and democratic Israel, but they go one step further and strive to portray Iran in a good light while demonising Israel.
This is why it was entirely expected that that the BBC would minimise the threat from Iran against Israel on this blog and ignore the actual terror attacks by Iranian proxies on Israel, as the BBC habitually does. So I come back to the question that I keep posing and that the BBC will not answer:
Why is the BBC protecting Iran? And a related question: Why does the BBC automatically gravitate towards those who pour scorn on the idea of Israel's pre-emptive defence against Iran?
But of course, the most important question of all is why the BBC ignores the bloody guiding hand of Iranian terror against Israel as it funds, arms and trains Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Hezbollah for their ongoing atrocities against Israeli civilians.
This question must be central to any informed and balanced debate about Iran going nuclear and what Israel should do or, according to the BBC, should not do about that fact.
Complain about this comment
The facts above speak for themselves.
When such facts cannot be answered, the response is aspersion. The thread can be followed to see this.
Sadly, typical are #40, #78 and #111.
When one is unable to respond to facts resort is had to ad hominem aspersion.
Perhaps it is a cultural thing?
Complain about this comment
111. threnodio,
Give MarcusAureliusII a break. He has put his finger quite accurately on the BBC's pulse. There was nothing wrong with his comment at no. 104 while our resident propagandist for the Iranian terror regime is given free rein to transform this blog into his personal Israel-bashing site.
As for Europe, if it does not soon redevelop a backbone and guard its hard-won freedoms, it will be thrown back to the worst of the Middle Ages under an Islamic Caliphate.
It is no coincidence that so few European countries are prepared to actively assist in the war on terror in Afghanistan.
This is appeasement of radical Islam, ably assisted by the BBC as it tiptoes delicately around the "terrorism" word, only touching it gingerly at times and with a very long pole and insisting on telling us that the war on terror is just a "so-called" war.
Just as well that courageous men like Winston Churchill, who valued freedom and fought so hard for it, are not around to witness Europe's extraordinary decline.
Complain about this comment
#113 - Xie_Ming
Yes it is a cultural thing, forming an opinion on the basis available information as opposed to picking up on and emphasising only that which suits your argument. It's called balanced debate. Having access to that information and being able to express a view is called freedom.
Complain about this comment
We have seen (above) Sharon's plans for Lebanon and the invasion and occupation of Iran. These plans were published. Syria has also been mentioned.
Sharon has never specified the limits he envisioned for "Greater Israel", except to say "the Biblical boundaries of Israel".
Those are mentioned in Genesis 15:18. They have been interpreted in various ways. The Gush Emunim have pretensions to the entire World, others to the headwaters of the Euphrates, parts of Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Secretary of State James Baker said the Israelis must "lay aside, once and for all, the unrealistic vision of a Greater Israel". Nonetheless, it is a fundamental goal of the Likud Party.
Olmert has said that "greater Israel and a Jewish nation.. only exist together in the minds of deluded fantasists.."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3547986,00.html
But, it is indeed deluded fantasists who exert such influence over Israeli politics.
Invasions of Lebanon have sought control over the headwaters of the Litani River, this has been a recurring objective of Israeli aggression. A neutral Syria would be important for such a goal.
Although Sharon was vague about the limits of Greater Israel, there can be no doubt that the Zionists want as much of their neighbor's land as possible.
If armed militias could be deprived of Iran's support, such aggression would be facilitated.
Complain about this comment
Juan Cole has said that there is no link between the arms that Hezbollah posses and the Iranian regime.
The whole Middle East region is armed from various sources including the US.
I agree, Iran has no need for uranium enrichment when thorium is available, Israel, with some 200 nuclear warheads cries foul, and Iran argues double standards.
Iran has sanctions against it that has resulted in an increase in poverty in that country, the lifeline Iran has is a trading pact with Russia and China.
Israel is pivotal for peace in the region and peace for the world, but this can't start until the wishes of the International Court of Justice are implemented.
Complain about this comment
#117
The rockets of Hezbollah are a major deterrent to Israeli aggression against Lebanon.
I suspect that, with the removal of Israel's nuclear capability, the whole area would gratefully foreswear such arms.
However, the US has allowed (thanks to the disappearance of plutonium from a naval fuel deport and many other actions) a monster threat to develop in the hands of religio/ethnic fanatics.
As with Iraq, it is time for the US Congress, or the US voters, to correct the situation that they have fostered.
Without US arms and money, Israel would be far less able to threaten peace.
Complain about this comment
117. straightchris.
With respect, if you believe Juan Cole, with his anti-Israeli agenda, you'll believe anything. Iran has not only been funding and arming Hezbollah and other terrorist groups for decades, it sends personnel over to Lebanon to advise and train Hezbollah on technical issues. Iranian technicians were present during the last war, assisting the terrorists in such acts as firing an Iranian missile at an Israeli ship.
After Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, Iranians were seen arrogantly striding along the border and gazing into Israel - the country they are obsessed with destroying.
Where do you think Hezbollah is getting its vast supply of missiles from? It's Iran, with Syria as the conduit and the UN, typically, turning a blind eye even though they are mandated to prevent Hezbollah's rearmament.
Complain about this comment
It is typical, but disgusting, to observe the tiresome repetition of:
a) defamation of individuals to "poison the wells" and discredit evidence thereby.
b) mounting uproar against editors and media to intimidate them from presenting facts.
c) absurd, emotional, undocumented, and often irrelevant assertions
by those who would serve as apologists for Israel's fundamentalist religious/ethnic extremism and aggression- at the moment focused on Iran.
BBC researchers and others of a more rational nature should be aware of the publications of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The following discusses the views of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/index.cfm?
Those interested would do well to consult such sources, rather than the unfortunate assertions of fanatics and their sympathizers (sayanim).
Complain about this comment
Since the URL is not complete, check
Karim Sadjadpour
on the Carnegie site.
Complain about this comment
threnodious #111
Not less than human, less than civilized and all too human. In fact under a thin pretentious veneer as barbaric as ever. What Europeans do is first pretend that Americans are also civilized and then find reasons to prove they are not so they can boast that the are better than Americans. No need to struggle on that account. America was barbaric enough and stupid enough to blow up the world by immediately incinerating 2 billion people to prevent Europeans from being enslaved by Soviet Communism with the result that the remaining 4 billion would be irradiated and die too. Europeans didn't mind that, they never said don't do it, we'd rather be slaves than risk the end of humanity but let a few people be tortured in GITMO to find out what murderous plots their frends are hatching and Americans are accused of being barbaric. I'll save you the trouble...guilty as charged. Next case.
BTW threnodious...don't ever accuse me of being civilized. I'd push the button myself if it came to that.
Complain about this comment
Just think Xie Ming, if America hadn't entered World War II Hitler could have finished the job he started and there wouldn't be an Israel. Wouldn't you have preferred that?
Complain about this comment
What can one expect on a blog site where even the owner of the blog is censored by the moderators? I will test to see whether or not BBC blog censors are even more restrictive that Communist China's government. They will be one sentence entries that will ask another contributor his opinion of a topic. No profanities. Let's just see how hypocritical BBC is. I'm betting they are worse than Communist China's internet censors.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
125. MarcusAureliusII,
My guess he will avoid the question as he has avoided my question of why nobody will will acknowledge the fact of Iran being the bloody guiding hand of terror against Israeli civilians - a fact vital to any informed debate on the Iran-Israel conflict and to the conclusion of who is in fact the aggressor here. But I'll have no way of knowing if he does in fact avoid it since I have no intention of reading any more of his comments, let alone responding to them.
China is behaving in a despicable fashion in Sudan - arming the genocidal Khartoum regime when it knows what those weapons are being used for and vetoing anti-Sudan resolutions in the Security Council. All because of China's oil interests in Sudan, of course. And the BBC for some reason has been ignoring China's role here for years - and also Russia's role- only reporting on it when the UN got a bit stern about the situation early this year. The BBC will always follow the UN's lead.
I like sport but there is no way I will be spending one cent to watch the Olympics. I will not support China in any way, shape or form as long as it continues to support the genocide of African people.
And China, of course, also supports the terror regime in Tehran.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII,
You are right, so long as these vetoes in the UN continue we'll all be frustrated. There are principles of natural justice that need to be somehow upheld and the UN is the best we've got.
Making comparisons of vetoes to justify vetoing another is getting us nowhere.
Iran does pose a threat to Israel, Norman Finkelstein said that if Israel withdraws from the Shebaa farms Hezbollah could no longer justify having arms, this would mean Iran would no longer have the threat of Hezbollah attacking Israel should Israel attack Iran.
As far as where the weapons that Hezbollah has and where they originate from remains ambiguous.
General Pace: "We know Explosively Formed Penetrators are manufactured in Iran, what I'd like not to say is that the Iranian government, per se, knows about this." (source voice of America)
Juan Cole: "Hezbollah pioneered these shaped charges against Israeli tanks in Lebanon so when the Sunni Arabs started using them against US armoured vehicles [in Iraq ]then they must have got them from Hezbollah and Iran, the other possibility is that they are not that hard to make and other Sunni groups picked it up from them."
"Iraq gets weapons from the US which corrupt officials sell on a lively black market; Lebanon has been importing black market arms from Iraq which originally came from the US so the place is awash with weaponry".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrCmXTUBpTo
Complain about this comment
127. straightchris,
"As far as where the weapons that Hezbollah has and where they originate from remains ambiguous.'
This is what your sources want you to believe, so thank God for Google:
"Arming of Hezbollah Reveals U.S. and Israeli Blind Spots
"While Iranian missile supplies to Hezbollah, either by sea or overland via Syria, were well known, officials said the current conflict also indicated that some of the rockets in Hezbollah’s arsenal — including a 220-millimeter rocket used in a deadly attack on a railway site in Haifa on Sunday — were built in Syria."
From the New York Times (no friend of Israel) July 19, 2006.
And here's Haaretz, the left-wing Israeli paper often highly critical of Israel:
"Iranian official admits Tehran supplied missiles to Hezbollah."
(05/08/2006)
If you need more evidence, have a look at some more of the 1,850,000 results obtained by Googling "Iranian Missiles to Hezbollah."
Also, Google "Karine A" - the name of the ship captained by a senior Palestinian Authority official and laden with Iranian-made and Russian-made weapons bound for terrorists in Gaza, including Katyushas and explosives for suicide attacks. That was more than six years ago.
That will get 3,720,000 results
You can choose to believe anti-Israel propaganda or you can do your own research to unearth the truth.
Complain about this comment
Juan Cole has been invited to give advise on policy/security issues so it is part of overall intelligence.
Ha'aretz is an authoritative source.
"You can choose to believe anti-Israel propaganda or you can do your own research to unearth the truth."
"The truth?" It depends what the truth serves is it disputed, uncontrolled events spirally inexorably towards more conflict?
UN resolution 242 is the truth do you dispute that?
Complain about this comment
straightchris
The insistance that we are restricted to use a tool which we know doesn't work is not only irrational, it is dangerous. The UN was created to provide collective security. It can't even pretend that it does any more. We are not secure. There is no consensus upon which to take effective action to collectively head off war where possible and to fight one when necessary. The security of the United States cannot be held hostage to an extranational organization written by well intentioned by naive people to address entirely different world situations. There was no threat of terrorists including those with no allegience to any country being armed with nuclear weapons when the UN was created. Such a possibility was not conceived because neither technology nor the possiblity of their widespread availability was practical anywhere on the forseeable horizon. But that is today's reality.
If the United States and the rest of the world is going to survive in anything like the form we now know it, however badly flawed it is, those nations most at risk which includes the US at the top of the list will have to take unilateral pre-emptive action that is effective.
Norman Finkelstein is a fool. You'd have to be an idiot to think that if Israel gave up a handful of farms Iran would stop sending almost half a billion dollars a year to Hezbollah and they would simply disarm. They'd find another excuse to pursue their relentless goal of destroying Israel. The've already got a hunderd additional excuses ready and waiting in their pocket. This is the same demented thinking that Chamberlain used to rationalize ceding Czechoslovakia to Hitler. Peace in our time. Hardly a year later, the worst bloodbath in human history began.
Because the US and Israel failed to identify and eliminate the Iranian nuclear weapons program in its nascent state when it was relatively contained to a localized geographical area, they will have no choice but to destroy the entire country if they want to have any possiblity of eliminating the threat now. In fact there may be Iranian weapons beyond its borders such as in third countries like Syria or on ships which could be used in a counterattack on the US even if Iran was destroyed. It's a risk the US will have to take. The only thing worse than attacking and destroying Iran would not be attacking and destroying Iran. It doesn't matter what the majority of Iranians want, it's the intent, capabilities, and actions of its government that counts. To try to surgically elminate only those elements that can be identified for certain would leave a wounded animal still alive and even more dangerous than ever. This is not only an existential matter for Israel but for American and Western civilzation. Time to act pre-emptively is growing very short. That it is being temporarily stayed because it is being held hostage to the US Presidential elections would be an act of lunacy.
Complain about this comment
Marcus Aurelius 2: the bbc's management of this blog (and all management is therefore editorial) is puzzling. Are they off-the-peg socialists, or rural conservatives?
As for Iserael-Iran, there's something imperial about this discussion: they are, after all, sovereign states with their own grievances. If we (the West) can helpfully intervene, that would be great, but they are not children on a foreign playground.
Complain about this comment
131. evenmorelovely,
Ain't much management on this blog. Must be the single most casual BBC blog I've been on.
129. straightchris,
All I was trying to say is that anyone who claims Iran is not arming Hezbollah as we speak, and has not been arming them for decades is talking out of the incorrect aperture.
Resolution 242 happened, so of course it is true. It is also true that it has been cleverly twisted to make it seem as if Israel is obliged to withdraw from all the territories when the wording was 'territories' and not 'the territories' - meaning the number of territories would be negotiable. This was a compromise reached in the course of debate on the wording of the resolution.
Complain about this comment
wouldntitbeloverly;
Iran's program to develop nuclear weapons is a threat not just to the security of Israel but to many other nation's as well. That not only includes the US but much of Europe and Arab countries in the area. Iran doesn't need long range missiles to target some of them. Their huge terrorist networks are the perfect delivery system. As President Bush said many years ago, a nuclear attack by terrorists will likely leave no smoking gun, no fingerprints.
There is only one sure measure that will work, a massive pre-emptive strike against Iran. BBC ran an article which favored the B-61 bunker busting thermonuclear bomb. I personally prefer the W-88 warheads myself. You don't need to make a 300 foot crater to destroy underground installations 300 feet deep. An explosion that's 100 million degrees driectly above it and takes everything for a mile around including oxygen 20 miles into the stratosphere will work just fine.
Complain about this comment
So, 247 hangs on the indefinite article "the".
"Iran has been arming Hezbollah for decades," forget Juan Cole what does he know; this exonerates Israel of all blame for all that has come to pass.
Militias are created they don't just come from thin air, they are born from conflict, frustration, sectarian hatred and injustice.
These people have been systematically marginalized by an oblivious corporate media that bludgeons any pro-Palestinian argument as polemic at best, they have suffered corrupt leaderships incited by covert divide and rule policies, pointlessly fighting against an arm of the military industrial complex, why? A pregnant woman was shot and her baby killed before it was even born that's enough to make anyone's blood boil to dismiss this and weekly atrocities are the acts of a sneaks.
Ronald Regan wanted to have a definition of terrorism drafted but it was scrapped as it described exactly what the US were guilty of. Who's a terrorist? who supports them? they all do.
Negroponte, Brzezinski, Kissinger, Rumsfeld, Albright.
Abbas is a holocaust denier and a joke and his henchman Dahlan is a gangster and these are moderates with which Israel and the Quartet want to negotiate with? they are greedy self serving puppets just as Arafat was.
MarcusAureliusII aka Norman Podhoretz: "I personally prefer the W-88 warheads."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bLq6pzOc5w
Complain about this comment
132: 'aperture'. Nice one.
133: 'An explosion that's 100 million degrees...will work just fine.' Not so nice, but I admire your radicalism!
Complain about this comment
evenmoreloverly
Do you dispute that the temperature at the center of a thermonuclear weapon detonation is 100 million degrees? That is not radicalism, that is a physical fact. It's about a hundred times hotter than the center of the sun...for three millionths of a second. Nothing known nearby will survive.
Complain about this comment
134. straightchris,
"So, 247 hangs on the indefinite article "the"."
Nope, it's 242, 'the' is a 'definite' article and only the 'territories' hangs on it:
"The elimination of the definite article 'the' was an explicit compromise engineered by the United states in order to permit the retention by Israel of territories necessary to assure secure boundaries."
'The Case for Israel' Alan Dershowitz p 96.
He also points out on the same page that Resolution 242 "for the first time in history ordered a nation to return territories lawfully captured in a defensive war."
That was the 1967 Six-Day War of course.
I'm not saying that Cole's ignorance (or deliberating ignoring of facts) "exonerates Israel of all blame." But it is a bit disturbing if, as you say, he is in a position of influence, since he is an anti-Israel propagandist.
Palestinian terrorists are not "militias" and they were created out of the unholy mix of a deep hatred of Arab for Jew and the radical Islamic obsession with ridding the Holy Land of any trace of Jews or Christians - or anyone who doesn't practice Islam. Wake up, old chap.
Who shot this pregnant woman and was there an autopsy? Was it intentional or accidental? Why do you assume it was the Israelis?
What "weekly atrocities" are you talking about? Can't be Palestinians responsible since they commit hourly atrocities.
The US is not guilty of terrorism. Here's a working definition:
The premeditated murder of noncombatants in order to spread fear and panic for political and/or religious ends.
The US deliberately isolates noncombatants and sets out to murder them for political ends? Give me a break.
"Abbas is a holocaust denier and a joke and his henchman Dahlan is a gangster and these are moderates with which Israel and the Quartet want to negotiate with? they are greedy self serving puppets just as Arafat was."
Agreed. It's Western (and Israeli) wishful thinking to try to turn these people into negotiating partners.
Now you seem to be arguing against yourself. Will the real straightchris please stand up?
You seem to be arguing against both sides.
Complain about this comment
137 TrueToo
Thank you for your correction on the definite article, could you tell me if the latest edition of "The Case for Israel" aka "From time Immemorial" has changed any of its errors? for example, the main framer of Resolution 242 was Lord Caradon.
Dershowitz's "Case for Israel" has been exposed by Norman Finkelstein as a fraud.
Definition of terrorists: "The premeditated murder of noncombatants in order to spread fear and panic for political and/or religious ends." Ever heard of Honduras and El Salvador, Jack R. Binns, Jim Steel, John Negroponte?
As'ad AbuKhalil is deeply scathing of the leadership of Fatah and Hamas, I'm repeating commonly held beliefs from secular leftists.
It's nice that we can agree on something.
Complain about this comment
The case for Israel is actually much simpler and more clear cut than these resolutions. There is no such thing as international law when you apply one set of standards to one group in a conflict and another set of standards ti their adversaries. By any fair measure, the leaders of the Palestinians whether in Fatah or Hamas are war criminals who have commited countless crimes against humanity and should be brought to justice in the Hague. But the Hague is also a joke. So was Saddam Hussein a war criminal as were those in his government. You can't trot out a UN resolution when it suits your purpose and ignore all of the other crimes going on when it doesn't and claim you have law. International law is a sham. Good thing we don't have a UN that's a world government with a military to enforce it.
Complain about this comment
138. straightchris,
What on earth are you on about? I haven't read 'From Time Immemorial' but I know it was by Joan Peters and that she started off anti-Israel but became a staunch supporter. What has it got to do with Dershowitz' book?
This takes the cake:
"Dershowitz's "Case for Israel" has been exposed by Norman Finkelstein as a fraud."
Dershowitz is a lawyer. He presents both sides of the argument before each chapter by quoting the anti-Israel position and then showing how and why that position is incorrect. I watched a video of him debating Noam Chomsky at Harvard and he certainly got the better of him.
If you believe what Finklestein says, you'll believe anything. Funny thing is, it's Finklestein who is the fraud.
Complain about this comment
#138
The overwhelming evidence against the religio/ethnic (Nazi) evil that the fanatics in the Israeli regime are perpetrating is evident to the World and to the UN.
All that is left to their "sympathizers" is to make personal attacks, wild assertions and Yeshiva-type quibbles.
Mearsheimer and Walt, two distinguished academics, published a paper detailed the extraordinary influence that the Israel lobby exerts on the US Congress.
Dershowitz rushed in, not with facts, but with generalized assertions designed to asperse their competence.
This is unfortunately typical of the ethics and tactics that may be expected from such ilk.
[Dershowitz also advocates inserting a "sterilized" needle under the fingernails as a form of torture ]
Complain about this comment
There is no general definition of terrorism.
The US Congress has passed a law saying that governments, by definition, cannot perform terrorism.
Thus, the act, done by an employee of the state is not. The same act, done by one who is not a state employee, is.
The Israelis indiscriminately kill Palestinians, preferably with helicopters and artillery.
They are particularly converned with the "demographic problem" - the fact that, despite the oppression and killing, the Arabs are increasing more than are the Israelis.
By checking some of the Israeli civil rights groups shown above at #87, you can get daily reports of the atrocities of the Israeli regime.
These groups thus show that there are decent and civilized folk in Israel. Unfortunately, the government is controlled by religio/ethnic fanatics who are happy to eliminate the souless "other" whom they consider as animals.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming
Why would Israelis prefer to kill Palestinians with helicopters and artillery? Wouldn't it be far cheaper to just use rifles?
Do you worry that Israel has a doomsday weapon? I'd bet they have several. And if enough people like you in this world get their way...they will surely detonate them. Doesn't that worry you?
Complain about this comment
Killing with rifles means that one must get up close to people who might be able to shoot back. It is much safer to use artillery and helicopters at a distance, weapons that the victims do not have.
The damage of such weapons also takes out a lot of women and children, thereby reducing the "demographic problem".
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/archive/1208009105
The "Samson Option"- the threat to destroy the World- should not concern those who hope for a better World.
However, it does illustrate the extemist paranoia of the ethno/religious fanatics who control Israel.
Complain about this comment
If one gets close with rifles, one might get hurt back- much safer to use weapons at a distance, weapons that the victims do not have.
The "Samson Option" should not concern those who wish to live in a better World, but it does reflect how deep and widespread is the paranoia of the extremist religio/ethnic fanatics.
Complain about this comment
Ah, asymetric war. Use to your advantage that your enemy does not have comparable means with which to fight back. Now the Isralis don't have suicide bombers....but they do have those missile firing predator type drone planes. Seems to me the whole idea got started from model airplane fans. I wonder if Radio Shack will have a version soon. My neighbor's dog barks all night and.....
I wonder if it bothers the Palestinians that they aren't even on the front pages anymore. I know it bothered some journalists....or those who called themselves journalists.
Complain about this comment
From the August 14, 2008 Christian Science Monitor:
"World
Not only is the Bush administration opposed to a preemptive Israeli attack against Iran but it also has rejected requests for military hardware that could be used in one, reports said.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israel's Army Radio that the US position leaves only the option of "continu[ing] to act in the field of intelligence and to strengthen economic sanctions" against Iran's government.
The Haaretz newspaper said the US has refused to sell offensive weapons to Israel but offered to upgrade its surface-to-surface missile defenses."
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS