99 thoughts on “McCain Channels Aipac in Debate – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. “Problem is Ahmedinehad didn’t talk about exterminating Israel in New York or anywhere else. Does the Iranian president hate Israel? No doubt. Is the feeling mutual among Israeli leaders? You bet. But has Ahmadinejad ever said Iran would attack Israel?”

    By mutual you seem to be implying that Israeli leaders hate Iran (correct me if I’m wrong). Here’s what Peres said during his UN speech: “The Iranian people are not our enemies. Their fanatic leadership is their problem and the world’s concern.”

  2. The feeling is mutual in that “Israel” that the Iranian leadership hates is shorthand for its setup as exclusivist “Jewish state”, as ethnocracy, and its anti-Muslim politics. While Israel may not have a similar problem with Iran being an “Islamic republic”, it still points at the mutual antagonisms being political, not ethnical in nature. The Iranian leadership doesn’t hate Jews, as far as I’m aware. Having 10s of thousands of Jews peacefully living in the country, even with parliamentary representation, whatever that may be worth, is not exactly indicative of genocidal intent.

  3. Re: “Wipe Israel off the Map”.

    The defense that Ahmadinejad, as a representative of the Iranian government hasn’t threatened Israel is in fact nul and void.

    Iran threatens Israel daily by supporting Hizbulla and Hamas.

    End of argument.

  4. Yes, they hate a “Jewish State”. Israel does not have anti-Muslim politics, contrary to your statement, Mr. fiddler. It is an ethnical problem if Iran declares that Israel, the Jewish state, will cease to exist, and then Israel is soon under attack from Hezbollah (Iranina funded) and Hamas (Iranian funded) as happened before the Second Lebanon War.

    The Jews in Iran were imprissoned for use of Internet, for contacting someone in Israel, or for other such “subversive” activities, and threatened with the death penalty, including a teen, finally given length sentences instead. Iran persecutes Jews. They don’t hate them as long as they are under their control.

    The intent may not be defined as genocidal, but certainly not one of freindship. The intent to see Israel cease to exist, may not include the Jews under their control, in the state of Iran, but it, but the threat acted upon (see previous post).

  5. @Alex Stein: The fact that Israel has nukes influences the thinking of every country in the region regarding nuclear weapons. I’m not saying it’s the determining factor, but it has a strong impact. Pakistan wants nukes because India has them. Iran wants nukes both because Israel has them & because it feels it would be more protected from attacks fr. its neighbors (whether they have them or not). Israel wants them in case it faces an existential threat fr. an Arab enemy. Everyone in the region wants nukes. The more nations that have them the more the ones who don’t want them.

  6. @Alex Stein: Neither do Iran’s leaders hate Israelis. But they hate the state just as Israelis hate the state of Iran. Besides, Shimon Peres doesn’t determine Israeli policy and is practically irrelevant in terms of anything he has to say about anything.

    BTW, the Guardian reports that Olmert begged Bush to bomb Iran in May and that it was only Bush’s refusal to give the green light which prevented the attack. I’ll be writing about this scary story tonight.

  7. @Mazal:

    Israel does not have anti-Muslim politics

    No, but in effect Israel’s politics marginalize all non-Jews including Muslims. Many would call Israeli policy towards its ethnic minorities anti-Arab.

    There are thousands of Jews in Iran. Yechiel Eckstein offered every Iranian Jew $50,000 if they made aliyah. How many took up the offer? A handful. Why? If living in Iran is a living hell then thousands would’ve taken his offer. But they didn’t. Certainly being Jewish in Iran is no picnic. BUt there have been Jews far worse off in the world.

  8. Of course states having nukes influence other states having nukes. We could just as easily say America having nukes influenced Israel to have them. The point is that it’s rather odd to single out Israel going nuke as the leading factor in Pakistan’s decision to follow suit (the main factor was India).

  9. Iran’s nuclear capability has prompted the US to send and install an advanced radar warning system to Israel. This would not be seen as necessary without the threats from Iran, like those of Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah. Hizbollah is acting with Iran, is Iranian funded and has taken residence in Lebanon. Hizbollah attacked Israel to start the war two years ago.

    Certainly threatening Israel with destruction threatens Israelis. Israelis have and are actively participating in the creation and governing of Israel. Israel is composed of Jewish and Arab Muslims and Arab Christians, and other minorities, such as the Druze and
    Russians in the population. Hating Israel, wanting it’s destruction is viewed by them as hating Jews.

    It is ingenuous of you to speak for Ahmadinejad’s feelings, however, Mr. Silverstein. Could you also answer why he wants to see Israel’s destruction? Is this anti-Israel vision also your view?

  10. @Alex Stein: That’s disingenuous. American had no influence on Israel in terms of motivating it to develop nuclear weapons. For Pakistan, Iran or Syria to know that Israel has nukes motivates them to want them because they know that such nukes could well be used either against them or against fellow Arab allies. And they want the protection (imagined or real) of being able to reply if they need to with nukes of their own.

    I never said that Israel having nukes was the “leading factor” in Pakistan’s wanting them. Go back & reread what I wrote.

  11. @Mazal: You still have provided absolutely no proof that Ahmadinejad has said or done anything directly that reflects a desire to destroy Israel. Saying that Israel will disappear from the map is diff. than saying that Iran will destroy Israel. Where is that proof?

  12. Iran and Syria yes – Pakistan no; that’s why I referred to them. The idea that Pakistan got nukes because it thought Israel might use its nukes against her is fanciful. I don’t know enough about Pakistan’s diplomatic relations with the Arab world, but I’d guess the idea that it was motivated to any degree at all out of some kind of pan-Islamic kinship is also absurd. India is enough for Pakistan to be getting on with.

  13. @Alex Stein: And you think that Ehud Olmert begging George Bush for a green light to saturate Iran with Israeli bombs doesn’t reflect hatred of Iran?? How do you think the Iranian people react to knowing that Israel not only verbally threatened to bomb Iran, but that it actually asked the U.S. permission to do so (certainly indicating an intent to do so had it been approved)??

  14. Once again, a failure to answer a simple question. I think it reflects a mistaken approach to dealing with a potentially existential strategic threat, but certainly not hatred. Any equivalent of the conference for me?

  15. @Alex Stein:

    The idea that Pakistan got nukes because it thought Israel might use its nukes against her is fanciful

    If the Taliban or their Pakistani equivalents ever take over the country we’ll see just how “fanciful” the idea is. And if you think the idea that Islamist extremists could not take over Pakistan is “fanciful” or that they might not threaten to make their nuclear arsenal available should Israel use its arsenal on an Arab enemy–well, then it’s you who are being insufficiently realistic about Middle East possibilities.

  16. Richard – that’s absurd. Whoever takes charge in the future doesn’t change the original motivation behind getting the bomb. Of course, if Islamists took charge in Pakistan, latent anti-Israel feeling could prove devastating, but from my understanding of the subcontinent, the issue of Israel is relatively marginal. And again I’d appreciate you not speculating on what I might or might not say about something that might or might not happen (“And if you think the idea that Islamist extremists could not take over Pakistan is ‘fanciful'”)

  17. @Alex Stein:

    I’d appreciate you not speculating on what I might or might not say about something that might or might not happen (”And if you think the idea that Islamist extremists could not take over Pakistan is ‘fanciful’”)

    That is my rhetorical style & not something I intend to change.

    Neither of us are experts on Pakistan. But I continue to believe that the fact that Israel had a weapon would’ve entered into the thinking of the developers of Pakistan’s bomb & played some role in motivating their efforts. You can deride my view all you want but unless you can provide an actual Pakistani source that supports your view I think I’ll stick w. my own supposition.

  18. Your rhetorical style is to speculate on what people might say about future events (or, let’s not forget, what people might have said about past events). Extraordinary stuff, but at least you’re clear about it.
    Normally the person making the claim needs to provide some kind of evidence, no?

  19. @Alex Stein: Providing me a doctoral thesis or whatever this is isn’t providing a Pakistani source which documents what the developers of the nation’s nuclear weapon were thinking when they decided to make a bomb. If there is anything in this document that points to this or quotes such sources I’d be interested to see it.

  20. Anything on that Iranian conference?

    I think, Richard, that you have a problem with dissent. With many of the people commenting here, it’s easy – they are rabid likudniks yada yada yada, you can call them ‘wingnuts’ and provide long and rambling posts about their pathology.
    But, as we both know, I’m not like that. So it’s particularly discouraging that you never once acknowledge the validity of my claims. If you look at the points I make, I frequently say “that’s a good point” to you (or similar phrasing), which shows that I am listening to your positions and – where appropriate – changing mine accordingly. You never seem to do that.
    The Iranian conference is a case in point. Would it be that painful to acknowledge that an event like that shows a rabid hostility that isn’t mirror in Israeli society? Are you that afraid of modifying your position?

  21. Richard Silverstein said:

    @Mazal: You still have provided absolutely no proof that Ahmadinejad has said or done anything directly that reflects a desire to destroy Israel. Saying that Israel will disappear from the map is diff. than saying that Iran will destroy Israel. Where is that proof?

    So this claim that saying not once but multiple times that Israel will disappear from the annals of history, that Israel will be wiped off the map, etc, is just sort of an oracle on the wall and unrelated to any events involving Iran’s role in the ME or its support of terrorists who are actively engaged in attacking Israel and Israeli citizens? That is very naive, if not just outright denial.

    According to a recent news article (Sept 19):

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed Friday to keep supporting the Palestinian militant group Hamas until the “collapse of Israel.”

    The Iranian news agency Khabar quoted Ahmadinejad as telling Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh that Iran views the support of the Palestinian people as part of its religious and national duty and that Iran will stand behind the Palestinian nation “until the big victory feast which is the collapse of the Zionist regime.”

    In a phone conversation between the two leaders, the Iranian president said that the continued Hamas resistance against Israel and the group’s achievements would always be “a source of pride for all Muslims.” Iran does not acknowledge the sovereignty of Israel and vowed to support Hamas until what Ahmadinejad calls “deliverance from Zionists (Israel).”
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1020630.html

    (Israel’s leftist news resource)

    From Ahmadinejad’s own mouth, we have the proof you asked for.

  22. @Alex Stein: I don’t think you’re aware of the tone of your comments. They are largely hostile (& I’m not claiming that mine aren’t–but you were the one who came here as a reader & commenter & set a tone w. yr comments which I merely responded to). Maybe you & I have very diff. personal styles. But I’m not sure how aware you are of why it is that you’re commenting here & what you hope to accomplish by doing so. Personally, I think your goal is to try to trip me up in my arguments rather than have a serious discourse on the issues.

    I frequently say “that’s a good point” to you (or similar phrasing)

    Frequently?? I’d ask you to prove that. I don’t recall you ever saying I “made a good point.” I do recall yesterday or the day before you conceded once in a long series of exchanges that something I said was “fair enough” or something of that sort. I took that as meaning I’d said something that at least resonated enough w. you that you conceded it had some validity. But those comments are very few & very far between. If I’m mistaken, I’m prepared to amend my statement. But that’s my honest impression.

    As for my influencing you to change your positions, man you coulda knocked me over w. a feather! I hadn’t a clue that anything I said had changed yr mind about anything. And if this IS the case, you sure didn’t communicate that to me. And again, if that IS the case & I had known it was, I certainly would’ve reacted less confrontationally to yr frequent challenges & quarrels w. my views.

    As for the Iranian conference, there is a rabid hostility toward Iran within Israeli society just as there is a rabid hostility toward Israel in Iranian society. Perhaps you could say that such hostility is fanned far more by the leaders of the respective country than by the rank & file citizens. All this being said, I certainly denounce idiotic ravings like this conference and similar sentiment when I read about it coming from Israeli generals and politicians. But I’m not willing to concede that Iran is the chief offender when it comes to incitement.

    You were the one who made the claim. I’m the one who has asked you to back it up. That’s all. You seem unwilling to do so, at least I’m trying.

    No, you didn’t ask me to back it up. You denied its validity. I asked you to back up yr claim. You attempted to but didn’t succeed in finding anything that I considered sufficient.

    Don’t you think publishing 13 comments in 24 hr period in one blog is a bit much? Everything in moderation.

  23. I’m just at a bit of a loose end – am flying to the UK tonight for the hag, have to keep myself occupied somehow…

    To show that Israeli society has an equal hatred for Iran, you’d have to show something equivalent to those conferences. There isn’t anything like that. We don’t invest public money in books disparaging Iranian losses in the Iran-Iraq war. It’s quite extroardinary to draw an equivalence between the two societies in terms of the incitement. The point is you can’t show equivalent statements from Israeli leaders to the type of thing that goes on in these conferences.

  24. @Mazal: Does Iran support Hezbollah? Yes, of course. Is Hezbollah hostile toward Israel? Yes, of course. But what does this mean? That Iran wants Hezbollah to physically liquidate Israel? Of course not. Nor can Hezbollah do so regardless of whatever ranting to the contrary Nasrallah may have made.

    As for Iran’s support for Hamas, I have seen claims to that effect but I have read very little providing concrete evidence. They certainly don’t provide Hamas weapons that I’m aware of though they may provide financial support. And again, whatever support Iran provides Hamas doesn’t mean that either Iran or Hamas will actually succeed in destroying Israel. The only people who believe that Hamas can actually causes Israel’s extinction are you and perhaps a few thousand Islamist militants. Not even most Hamas militants believe this.

    we have the proof you asked for.

    Hardly.

  25. it seems to me that you hold Israel chiefly responsible for most of the problems dealt with on this blog, whether it’s the Palestinian front, the Iranian one, or – perhaps – even Pakistan getting the nuclear bomb. I’m not rude to you Richard, I don’t say childish things like ‘gimme a break’. I express dissent, yes, because I disagree with you, and I find the tone of your writings deeply disturbing (the teenage turn of phrase, the inane use of caps, the self-righteous ‘as a jew’ repeated ad infinitum, the faux-anger), all all the more so because we (more or less) agree regarding how we’d like to solve the various problems Israel faces today. You’re clearly proud of your blog, and rightly so. It’s davka because of that prominence that I think it’s important that people see there’s no simple progressive conensus on these issues – particularly when it comes to apportioning blame.

  26. Fiddler – none of your cases are government organised. That’s the point I was trying to make. You’ve just drawn examples largely from the settlement movement (aside from the horrendous example of the kids drawing on missiles up north).

  27. @Alex Stein:

    it seems to me that you hold Israel chiefly responsible for most of the problems dealt with on this blog

    I’m a Jew, not a Palestinian, nor Iranian. I naturally have more to say about Israel, its policies & governance than I do about Palestine or Iran. If I were Iranian or Palestinian the reverse would be the case. I think the key to the solution of this conflict lies primarily with Israel. Minds must change within Israel for there to be peace.

    I would like to see changes in Palestinian or Iranian society as well. But I don’t think that the primary roadblock preventing peace lies there.

    As for my rhetorical style and yr objections to it…all I can say is that’s what it is. If you find something about it childish, inane or self-righteous you’re going to have to figure out whether or not you can come to terms with it because I’m generally comfortable with my style (though of course one is always reviewing these things & doing a heshbon nefesh). It is what it is & won’t change unless I feel that your approach to me and my views has changed.

    we (more or less) agree regarding how we’d like to solve the various problems Israel faces today.

    Again, you could knock me over w. a feather! How would I know this? When have you ever said you agreed with my views on anything? I believe perhaps you once said you opposed the Occupation. But that comment is so common among Jews that it’s almost like Bush saying he doesn’t believe in torture nor does the U.S. practice it. The key is defining “torture” just as the key is defining how & when one proposes to go about ending the Occupation.

  28. Mazal:
    Your own quotes from Ahmadinejad, “collapse of the Zionist regime” and “deliverance from Zionists” put the “collapse of Israel” nicely in perspectve, don’t they? IOW, the Iranians are calling for regime change in Israel, not for “wiping it off the map”, “driving the Jews into the sea”, a “second holocaust”, or whatever. That’s basically the same position that Israel has on Iran, and it’s Israel and the US, not Iran, that has the incomparably bigger guns.

  29. Alex Stein:

    Israeli schoolbooks are certainly government-approved and have nothing to do with the settlements movement. But that’s not the point – isn’t it worse to have considerable segments of society, including some MKs, engage in such bigotry without any direct incitement necessary, and at most tepid denouncments by the government?
    These bigots might not represent Israeli society at large, but does Peace Now? Shouldn’t the government be at the helm of the charge for the values it wants to see implemented in society?

    You said, “To show that Israeli society has an equal hatred for Iran, you’d have to show something equivalent to those conferences.”
    Er, no. Those conferences were organised by the Iranian government, not by “society”.

  30. Mr. Silverstein:

    “As for Iran’s support for Hamas, I have seen claims to that effect but I have read very little providing concrete evidence. They certainly don’t provide Hamas weapons that I’m aware of though they may provide financial support. And again, whatever support Iran provides Hamas doesn’t mean that either Iran or Hamas will actually succeed in destroying Israel. The only people who believe that Hamas can actually causes Israel’s extinction are you and perhaps a few thousand Islamist militants. Not even most Hamas militants believe this.

    Although you come close to admitting that I was right, you are still in denial. That is unfortunate. Weapons and training are also being provided. Remember that Ahmadinejad is promising to support Hamas until Israel collapses. That is, not a regime change. There are democratic elections in the average of every 2-3 years in Israel. What Ahmadinejad wants is for Israel to collapse militarily, economically and socially.

    While that is not going to happen, I believes it will, and Iran, the country which he is the most noted spokesperson for, is providing material support to Hamas.

    A Palestinian source has said that the Iranian general nabbed in Gaza by Palestinian security officers supervised the manufacturing weapons and explosives for Hamas.

    The source told Ynet on Friday that the expert was in charge of several labs in the university, mainly chemistry labs in which he trained Hamas activists, most of them women, manufacturing the explosives.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3360122,00.html

    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53600

  31. Fiddler – let’s have a look one by one at what you’ve posted:
    1.
    1. Children on a settlement.
    2. An article that concludes both Israelis and Palestinians need to improve on how they portray the other in school textbooks.
    3Women in green.
    4. A kid with a toy gun. Without any explanation of where it is from/context etc.
    5. More settlers.
    6. More settlers.
    7. Ovadia Yosef (getting a bit more mainstream here – well done)
    9. More settlers.

    Hardly representative of Israeli society, is it? By all means talk about how Israeli society hasn’t done enough to combat this stuff (particularly relevant with what’s happened with Sternhell). But to draw major equivalences with Iranian society is absurd.
    5.

  32. Richard – I get frustrated with you because you don’t answer simple questions. You can preach all you want about how ‘it’s your style’ not to answer questions, but any neutral reader can see it for what it is (and yes, I already know that your readers love it and yada yada yada).

  33. Dear Richard
    I think Alex has a point. In order to succeed with your agenda, you will have to convince at least some of them with your point of view. You have responded by either belittling them or ignoring their questions, ie Acai Berry. For instance you imply a moral equivalence of Iran and Israel. this fails to address the following questions
    1) Why does Iran hate Israel?
    2) Why does Iran fund Hezbollah (to the detriment of its own econony?
    3) Why did Iran blow up Jewish centers in Buenos Aires?
    4) Why does Iran try Jews on charges of espionage (much like Saddam Hussein did to Iraqs Jews in 1969?

    You will likely argue that Israel hates Iran as well. As you know, Iran and Israel had diplomatic relations before 1979, when Khomeini seized the Israeli embassy and gave it to the PLO. Unlike Iran, Israel has not funded Iran’s enemies (Iraq, Taliban). The fact that a country does not have diplomatic relations with Israel doesnt automatically mean that country will fund armed action against Israel, ie Malaysia doesnt have diplomatic relations with Israel, but does not participate in armed struggle against Israel

  34. Alex, I actually said they were not representative of Israeli society. I wish folks like Peace Now or Yesh Din or Zochrot were, but you know as well as I do that they’re not either, they only prove is that Israel isn’t Sodom. Likewise Iran isn’t Gomorrah.

  35. Richard you seem to be saying from some of your posts that Iranian hatred of Israel and Israeli hatred of Iran are the same. how can you say something so against reality? If Israelis hate Iran, it’s BECAUSE of Iranian hatred and attacks against Israel. How can you equate the two like that? Iran has called for Israel’s destruction multiple times, and funds and supports Hamas and Hizbullah that have killed many Jews. Your moral equivalency is absurd, it’s like saying (to use an extreme example to flesh out the logic of your view) “Nazis hate Jews and Jews hate Nazis, so there’s plenty of blame to go around”

  36. @Yoni:

    If Israelis hate Iran, it’s BECAUSE of Iranian hatred and attacks against Israel. How can you equate the two like that? Iran has called for Israel’s destruction multiple times, and funds and supports Hamas and Hizbullah that have killed many Jews.

    As usual you put the cart before the horse. In terms of who hated who first it’s a little like asking whether the chicken or the egg came first. Israel has occupied Palestinian land since 1967. That is the root of all Arab hostility toward Israel. Until this wound is healed there will always be Arab countries willing to fight on the Palestinians or Lebanese behalf to right these wrongs.

    Hezbollah was created as a result of Israel’s first invasion of Lebanon. Iran supported Hezbollah because it wanted to show solidarity with the Lebanese suffering under Israeli occupation of their lands.

    Neither Iranians nor Hezbollah spontaneously decided that they hated Israel. Israel gave them something to hate. Similarly, it must give them something so they will stop hating. That is all or most of the lands Israel conquered in ’67.

    Yr example is not only “extreme” it is absurd. Neither Hezbollah nor Iran are Nazis. Neither have perpetrated a Shoah against Jews. And unlike during the Holocaust, Israel has actually committed acts of injustice which have fueled Arab sense of grievance.

  37. @Alex Stein: How can I know? You’ve basically only argued with me & tried to prove that my own views are unreasonable. You haven’t put forward yr own views. So how would I know what they are?

    If you’ve done this at yr own blog & want to provide a link I’ll read it. But other than that I can’t think how you’d expect me to know what yr views are based on the comments you’ve published here.

  38. @Mazal:

    Although you come close to admitting that I was right

    Not at all. I’ve not come anywhere near yr views on Hamas. Don’t flatter yrself.

    Ahmadinejad is not a spokesperson for Iran. He does not control Iranian foreign policy. The Ayatollah does. He at best controls domestic policies & even at that he is inept. Ahmedinejad mouths off for the benefit of gullible Jews like you who then can turn him and Iran as a whole into a big bogeyman.

    The story you noted happened over a yr. ago. Old news.

  39. @Alex Stein: Ah the beloved “neutral” reader of whom you of course are the ultimate representative. Where is that “neutral” reader? How many of them are there? Where do they live? What is their diet in their natural habitat?

    I’m afraid the “neutral reader” is an endangered species. In fact, it may have long ago gone extinct. Unless of course you’re the sole remaining survior like the final remnant of Israel (sherit Yisrael).

    Frankly, you can go on appealing to all those neutral readers about my alleged sins. And I’ll let all my readers be the judge of whether your alarums against me are warranted.

  40. The idea that Israel’s control of the WB and Gaza is the source of Arab hostility makes no sense. First of all, the Arab world attempted to destroy Israel before this, in 1948, and also in 1967 itself. Secondly, the WB and Gaza have never been “Palestinian land” as the “peace” community says: before Israel controlled it the West Bank was Jordanian territory and the Gaza Strip was controlled by Egypt. This is a simple, indisputable fact. The Arabs and the international community were never concerned about the “Jordanian occupation” when Jordan controlled the WB, or the “Egyptian occupation” when Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip for nearly two decades before Israel did.

    The whole land of Israel was part of the Mandate for Jewish settlement. There is no legal distinction between Israel and the West Bank and Gaza. The surrounding Arab countries and the Arabs of Palestine rejected the partition plan and then tried to take the whole land for themselves. As a result, according to international law, the last legally binding resolution concerning the distribution of land in western Palestine (eastern Palestine became Jordan) assigns that land to the Jews. Arabs got E.Palestine (Jordan), Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq.

    The reality is that Israel itself, as a non-Arab, non-Muslim state, is the problem, not its policies. In other words, if Israel was an Arab dictatorship that massacred its own people on a daily basis, no one would care. Arab hostility toward Israel is actually fueled by Arab racism and imperialism, and this reality is simply cloaked by the rhetoric of human rights and international law. As a result, left wing Israelis who are by definition “open-minded” to other cultures, try to sympahize by actually fall victim to enemy propaganda, allowing the enemy to actually further their attacks and killings.

    Thus the “peace-now” perspective on the conflict is paradoxical: you cannot explain why the “Palestinians” were actually more peaceful before the Oslo Accords, before Israel gave 98% of the Palestinian population over to Arafat’s control, and why suicide bombing didn’t exist until then as well. The fact is that the more land Israel gives to the Arabs, the more violent they become and the more Jews are killed. This is a fundamental feature of Arab culture that has been documented by the anthropologist Phillip Carl Salzman in “Culture and Conflict in the Middle East”.

  41. Your claim regarding Iran and Hezbollah also makes little sense. First of all, Israel invaded s.Lebanon because the Arafat turned it into a PLO mini-state that brutalized the population and of course fired katyusha rockets on n. Israel. Why didn’t Iran make Hezbullah to fight the Arafat’s brutal occupation of s. Lebanon? In fact, for that matter, why didn’t Iran make a Hezbullah to fight the Syrian occupation of the rest of the country???

  42. “And unlike during the Holocaust, Israel has actually committed acts of injustice which have fueled Arab sense of grievance.”

    Isn’t this what Germans said? Didn’t they say (and much of Europe for that matter) that the Jews are responsible for their suffering, and that their hatred of the Jews is simply in reaction to the suffering they caused? Don’t all anti-semites have a reason? They don’t just hate Jews because they’re narrow-minded to other cultures or whatever: it’s always because Jews did ABC or XYZ. The problem is that the Jews didn’t do those things – that’s the anti-semitism: believing that Jews are responsible for crimes that they did not commit.

  43. @Yoni:

    Didn’t they say (and much of Europe for that matter) that the Jews are responsible for their suffering, and that their hatred of the Jews is simply in reaction to the suffering they caused?

    German Jews had no army. They didn’t disposses an entire people of their land. They didn’t hold this land in contravention of international law for 40 yrs. They didn’t treat other Germans as a subordinate minority with inferior rights. They didn’t kill & maim another people in pursuit of their goal of dominating that other people.

    So no German Jews did nothing that would justify what happened to them. In contrast, Arab enmity toward Israel has a REAL cause no matter how unjustified some extreme manifestations of Arab grievance might be. Jews actually commited grave injustices against the Palestinians no matter how much you try to sweep this under the rug.

  44. @Yoni: I didn’t say the Occupation was the SOURCE of Arab hostility. But it is the most salient, most powerful one that currently affects Arab-Israeli relations. No Arab is prepared to reject Israel solely on the basis of what happened in 1948 or 1967. But almost every Arab rejects Israel for the Occupation. If the Occupation ended, Israel returned to more or less 67 borders, & a Palestinian state was created, the single-most powerful grievance Arabs possess against Israel would be removed.

    the WB and Gaza have never been “Palestinian land”…

    The whole land of Israel was part of the Mandate for Jewish settlement. There is no legal distinction between Israel and the West Bank and Gaza

    This is more militant pro settler narischkeit. The Territories ARE Palestinian land. This notion is accepted not only by the international community. It is also accepted by Jordan which used to administer the W. Bank and even by Israel foreign ministry legal advisors who in 1967 recommended against creating permanent settlements since it would violate international law. Who should we believe? Meir Kahane, Yoni Brukirer and the Hilltop Youth or those experts I mentioned above?

    Arab hostility toward Israel is actually fueled by Arab racism and imperialism, and this reality is simply cloaked by the rhetoric of human rights and international law. As a result, left wing Israelis who are by definition “open-minded” to other cultures, try to sympahize by actually fall victim to enemy propaganda…

    The more land Israel gives to the Arabs, the more violent they become and the more Jews are killed. This is a fundamental feature of Arab culture

    I find these ideas racist & deeply offensive. I will not hesitate to remove yr comment privileges should you stray into this territory in future. You have been warned.

  45. @Yoni:

    Why didn’t Iran make Hezbullah to fight the Arafat’s brutal occupation of s. Lebanon?

    Being the brilliant Middle East historian that you are, you neglected the fact that Hezbollah didn’t exist before Israel’s first Lebanon invasion. Therefore, it couldn’t very well have done what you suggested.

    why didn’t Iran make a Hezbullah to fight the Syrian occupation of the rest of the country

    Gee, maybe it could be because Hezbollah is also allied with Syria? I dunno, but that might have something to do w. it.

  46. “How would I know?” Well – it didn’t stop you from speculating on what I might or might not have said following the Ramallah lynching, and nor did it stop you from speculating on what I may or may not say if Islamists take over Pakistan.
    Anyway, I want the occupation to end, as close to the 1967 borders as possible (precise details to be worked out between the two sides; I suppose it will end up looking like something close to the Geneva Accords). As for Jerusalem, I support it being the capital of both states, although I’d prefer internationalisation over partition of the city.

  47. Richard:

    If the Occupation ended, Israel returned to more or less 67 borders, & a Palestinian state was created, the single-most powerful grievance Arabs possess against Israel would be removed.

    While that’s obviously a crucial part of it, I don’t think it’s sufficient. I tend to agree with Daniel Barenboim and Edward Said in that the deeper, underlying conflict is over narratives, which is also the reason for its intractability. The “war of independence” and “Naqba” narratives both exclude the other side from the picture, except as implacable enemies. That’s what’s got to change if there’s ever to be hope for peaceful coexistence (as opposed to “peace and quiet”), if in one or two states. Perhaps something like the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commissions would make sense in the future.

    There’s no doubt that Nazi Germany needed to be defeated, but there’s just as little doubt that the Allies’ military victory on its own wouldn’t have done a load of good in the long run. See under WW I and Versailles.

  48. Richard – I’d be interested in hearing your answers to these questions (perhaps you missed them in the chaos), posted by another commenter:

    1) Why does Iran hate Israel?
    2) Why does Iran fund Hezbollah (to the detriment of its own econony?
    3) Why did Iran blow up Jewish centers in Buenos Aires?
    4) Why does Iran try Jews on charges of espionage (much like Saddam Hussein did to Iraqs Jews in 1969?

    You will likely argue that Israel hates Iran as well. As you know, Iran and Israel had diplomatic relations before 1979, when Khomeini seized the Israeli embassy and gave it to the PLO. Unlike Iran, Israel has not funded Iran’s enemies (Iraq, Taliban). The fact that a country does not have diplomatic relations with Israel doesnt automatically mean that country will fund armed action against Israel, ie Malaysia doesnt have diplomatic relations with Israel, but does not participate in armed struggle against Israel”

  49. Alex Stein, while Israel may not be exactly funding Iran’s enemies, there is evidence that Israeli operatives give military training support to terrorist groups in Iran and Kurdistan to act against the Iranians (not just the nuclear targets but general acts of sabotage inside Iran). Read Seymor Hersh’s articles in The New Yorker (not available online) or even debka.

  50. Dear Richard
    I think you are avoiding answering questions that you are uncomfortable with. You would gain credibility if you tried to do so

    In terms of Israels relationship with Kurdistan, it preceeds the Islamic Revolution and Kurds, Iranians, and Israelis cooperated together in the 1950s to smuggle Jews out of Iraq (see Operation Babylon, by Shlomo Hillel)

  51. Please explain how the West Bank is Palestinian land. Here is the chronology:

    1) the whole region was Turkish

    2) Turks sided with German in WW1 and lost, area passed to British and French control

    3) British and French set up mandates

    4) British give Palestine for Jewish settlement in 1922 (W. Palestine made into “Transjordan” ruled by foreign Hashemites from Arabia). Event is known as “Naqba” in Arab world, since the Arabs didn’t believe that there was such a thing as Palestine, and condemned the idea of Palestine as a Zionist invention, since the Arabs saw Palestine as a part of Syria.

    5) Jews declare independence in 1948, and surrounding Arab countries invade to try and conquer and annex Israel for themselves.

    6) Jordan captures and annexes WB, Egypt takes Gaza

    7) Israel captures these territories, to which they legally belong (1922)

    Can you please explain how the West Bank “belongs” to the “Palestinians”? I understand that individual Arabs can own individual tracts of land, but how does that translate into the WB as a whole being “Palestinian”? In order for that to be the case, you need to delve into the history of political entities that controlled the land, and those entities are the ones described above.

  52. “Being the brilliant Middle East historian that you are, you neglected the fact that Hezbollah didn’t exist before Israel’s first Lebanon invasion. Therefore, it couldn’t very well have done what you suggested.”

    What I meant, obviously, is that the argument that Hizbullah was founded to fight the Israeli occupation makes no sense. That is what Iran and Hizbullah say, but you are just repeating their propaganda, because the simple fact is that the PLO occupied S.Lebanon beforehand and brutalized the population. So the fact is that if “occupation” was the problem, there already was an occupation going on, by Yasser Arafat, and Iran should’ve founded Hizbullah to resist the illegal PLO occupation of s. Lebanon. So too with Syria: it was occupying the entire country, so why not found a Hizbullah type group to resist their occupation as well, which was not dictated by anything defensive but is pure imperialism? You say they are allied with Iran: exactly! So how can you fall for Iranian propaganda that Hizbullah was founded to resist occupation???

  53. “This notion is accepted not only by the international community. It is also accepted by Jordan which used to administer the W. Bank and even by Israel foreign ministry legal advisors who in 1967 recommended against creating permanent settlements since it would violate international law.”

    Those legal advisors, Jordan, and the “international community” are wrong.

  54. @fiddler:

    Perhaps something like the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commissions would make sense in the future.

    Yes, I agree. I was referring to the basics necessary to end the conflict. There are of course issues that will need to be addressed after a settlement has been agreed to & implemented. Both Israeli & Palestinian societies will need to decide what direction they want to go. And both will need to do much soul searching. I’m hoping that such soul searching will lead both to reject the worst aspects of their respective social & political beliefs & to embrace the best. There does need to be some form of determining justice like the COmmission you suggested regarding the thornier issues confronting each nation.

  55. @Acai Berri:

    You would gain credibility if you tried to do so

    I have no interest in “gaining credibility” with those who come here merely to state an intransigent political position as you do. I don’t need to gain credibility with you or anyone else.

  56. @Yoni:

    British give Palestine for Jewish settlement in 1922

    What a load of hooey. First, it’s an entirely dubious claim. But even if it was credible, since when do the British of 1922 get to determine whether or not Israel must recognize a Palestinian state in 2008?? That’s a little problem you have w. yr argument.

    The Territories are Palestinian. Period. You can dredge up all the dubious historical claims you wish but it doesn’t obscure the fact that everyone in the world except right wing Israeli nationalists like you accept this as fact.

  57. @Yoni:

    Iran should’ve founded Hizbullah to resist the illegal PLO occupation of s. Lebanon. So too with Syria: it was occupying the entire country, so why not found a Hizbullah type group to resist their occupation as well,

    I think it’s rather funny for a right wing Israeli to tell Iran what it’s policies should be. Tell it to the Ayatollah, my friend. Maybe he’ll take yr advice more seriously than I.

    As for a group that would resist the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, what do you think the March 14th coalition is? Do you have the faintest idea about what’s going on in Lebanese politics. I mean, I don’t claim to be an expert, but you simply don’t have a clue.

  58. @Yoni:

    Those legal advisors, Jordan, and the “international community” are wrong

    There he stands, the lone moral man, the one who knows The Truth. The one who knows better than anyone who may have special expertise in international law what the law SHOULD say. I admire you yr certitude. But you’ll have to pardon the rest of us who find anyone so certain of their correctness with so little reason for being so, to be smug & insufferable.

  59. Pakistan was motivated by India’s nuclear weapons and its arms race with that regional power.

    Israeli nuclear weapons were originally (in my view) be the ultimate guarantor of the Israeli state, the guarantee that it won’t be pushed into the sea by Egyptian and Syrian tanks.

    But currently, it has evolved into something more sinister – it gives Israel impunity (alongside American political cover at the UN and world politics) to do as they see fit – pursue ethnic cleansing (mild form) in Palestine, bomb Lebanese infrastructure into oblivion, try for an attack on Iran.

    Of course, with American (read – neocon) military power in Afghanistan and Iraq, an Arab nation would have to be crazy NOT to try for some kind of a WMD program.

  60. I guess you haven’t been paying attention, Mr. Silverstein. Your post above:

    On September 28th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
    Richard Silverstein said:

    Not at all. I’ve not come anywhere near yr views on Hamas. Don’t flatter yrself.

    Ahmadinejad is not a spokesperson for Iran. He does not control Iranian foreign policy. The Ayatollah does. He at best controls domestic policies & even at that he is inept. Ahmedinejad mouths off for the benefit of gullible Jews like you who then can turn him and Iran as a whole into a big bogeyman.

    The story you noted happened over a yr. ago. Old news.

    EOM

    While Ahmadinejad was speaking in the UN, not as a private person, but as a representative of the Iranian gov’t he said not only Israel but the US would soon be diminished or non-existent.

    Here is a recent article for your continued amusement:

    Khamenei: Iran will stand by Hamas, ‘holy warrior’ Haniyeh

    Please note that Khamenei is the Supreme Leader of Iran.

    Second note: Israel has prevented most arms smuggling into Gaza, money has come in imported by Haniyeh on his trips abroad. So, as you have stated, Iran does support Hamas with funds, and if you are a Hamas supporter, I’m not in the least interested in the argument.

  61. @Mazal: I don’t care if Ahmadinejad claimed he represented Allah & all his prophets. He couldn’t personally order the destruction of Israel even if he wanted to.

    The Ayatollah has said he stands behind Hamas. Big deal. What does this mean? That Hamas will or even can destrroy Israel?? C’mon.

    Hamas has imported money into Gaza. It’s true. But fr. whom? Do you know? Do you have any proof? I thought not. And even if the funds come from Hamas, I repeat what does it signify? That Hamas is about to overrun Tel Aviv?? C’mon.

  62. Here are authorities who dispute the idea that the West Bank and Gaza constitute occupied or illegally occupied territory:

    Professor and Judge Stephen Schwebel, past president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

    Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, former ICJ judge

    Judge Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, a former member judge of the international court

    Judge Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, judge ad hoc of the ICJ

    Former British Ambassador to the UN, Lord Caradon, principal author of UN Resolution 242

    Professor Julius Stone, one of the twentieth century’s leading authorities on the law of nations

    Professor Eugene Rostow, dean of Yale Law School, US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and key draftee of UN Resolution 242

    Professor and Jurist Arthur J. Goldberg, member of the US Supreme Court, and US Ambassador to the UN in 1967 an a key draftee of UN Resolution 242

    Professor George P. Fletcher, professor of international law at Columbia who wrote that Kofi Annan’s phrase “”illegal occupation” is a perilous threat to the diplomatic search for peace” (“Annan’s careless use of language” NYTimes March 21, 2002)

  63. @Yoni: Others before you have quoted the same figures here & claimed they supported the same perspective you espouse. The problem is that if you probe what the figures actually said, which you haven’t even done here, they claim doesn’t stand the test. Undoubtedly, you all picked up these names fr. some right wing pro Israel discussion forum or site like CAMERA, FLAME, MEMRI, etc.

    You neither quote yr alleged authorities nor provide any link that would allow anyone to verify that they say what you claim. BTW, I know for a fact that several of those you mention (Caradon for example) do NOT in fact “dispute the idea that the Territories are occupied.” Right wingers like you CLAIM they do. But that is a diff. matter entirely.

  64. Your staement, Mr. Silverstein:

    The Ayatollah has said he stands behind Hamas. Big deal. What does this mean? That Hamas will or even can destroy Israel?? C’mon.

    One point at a time. You said that Ahmadinejad was not the leader of Iran and that whatever he said was not to be taken seriously as he was not the true ruler of Iran. Now we have the Ayatollah saying the same as Ahmadinejad, and he has made these statements from time to time over the past several years.

    Your statement, Mr. Silverstein:
    Ahmadinejad is not a spokesperson for Iran. He does not control Iranian foreign policy. The Ayatollah does. He at best controls domestic policies & even at that he is inept. Ahmedinejad mouths off for the benefit of gullible Jews like you who then can turn him and Iran as a whole into a big bogeyman.

    So now you say that Ahmadinejad could represent Allah, for all you care.

    @Mazal: I don’t care if Ahmadinejad claimed he represented Allah & all his prophets. He couldn’t personally order the destruction of Israel even if he wanted to.

    Of course, I know that Iran won’t destroy Israel, because Israel is strong. I am not worried, although I live in Jerusalem, because Israel has people who are capable of stopping Iran.

    The crossings into Israel are controlled, and will remain so. Hamas won’t be able to send the suicide bombers in (are you scoffing also that there are any such thing as a suicide bomber ready to detonate in Tel Aviv?) You say that you have a different view of Hamas than I do. I guess you are in favor of open borders and allowing free access to Israeli cities by Hamas? You view Hamas as a harmless organization that wants only peace? If Hamas is the future of the Palestinians the borders must remain tightly controlled.

  65. @Mazal: I didn’t say he wasn’t the leader of Iran. He is its president. I DID say that he does not control Iranian military or foreign policy. The Ayatollah does.

    Neither one has ever said explicitly that they favored Iran attacking Israel. Israeli leaders HAVE openly advocated Israel attacking Iran.

    Neither Iran nor Hamas pose an existential threat to Israel. Neither are capable of creating a second Holocaust as McCain & Netanyahu fondly call it.

    Therefore all your rhetoric about the Iranian “threat” to Israel’s existence is bogus.

  66. Again, Iran has attacked Israel through it’s support of Hizbollah and Hamas. Hizbollah used weapons made in Iran and Syria. That is as simple as it gets. That was the Second Lebanon War. Are you waiting for an atomic bomb to drop?

    Most of us won’t wait that long. This is your board and you are king. Therefore, there is no point in any further pointing out the truth to a blind man.

  67. I notice that your CIF piece doesn’t contain the claim that Israel’s nukes motivated Pakistan to get them. Am I to take this as belated validation of my point?

  68. Oy – I’m lost. My poor old aunti Ruthie Roth/Florida was a die hard Rebulican – maybe that’s why she died 😛

    ….on the other hand we had a Persian root here and there.

    I’ve got to say most of these Pars roots are scared sh**less of ahmadinejad and have split to canada and other portions of the globe.

    Its my understanding that Pak nuked due to India…where i also have a friend or two…I give up. Its all too big for me.

  69. have no interest in “gaining credibility” with those who come here merely to state an intransigent political position as you do. …How do you know I am intransigent?

    If you want your visions of peace to occur, you will have to become more credible to those who fear the ultimate intentions of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran are to destroy Israel. While you may feel these are tiny problems to Israel, many people do not. You have two options-convince those who fear Iran, Hezbollah, or Hamas, or impose your ideology on those who disagree with you. The second option doesnt sound too democratic

  70. @Acai Berri: I’m not about to impose my views on anyone. But you’ll have to pardon me if I don’t react terribly sympathetically to Israelis who have trouble giving up all the perks they’ve grown accustomed to over 40 yrs of Occupation. I’ve also grown weary of trying to hand-hold “moderate” Israelis & get them to understand that peace is worth compromising for. YOu can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.

    In the end, perhaps the rest of the world will simply have to tell Israel that it MUST compromise to resolve the conflict. Perhaps a settlment will more or less have to be imposed on Israel (& on the Palestinians too). That may the only way to get to endgame. Neither side seems capable of doing the right thing. This is the view that Prof. Sternhell has been espousing in interviews in the aftermath of the attempted assassination attack on him.

  71. Neither one has ever said explicitly that they favored Iran attacking Israel. Israeli leaders HAVE openly advocated Israel attacking Iran.

    Neither Iran nor Hamas pose an existential threat to Israel. Neither are capable of creating a second Holocaust as McCain & Netanyahu fondly call it.

    Therefore all your rhetoric about the Iranian “threat” to Israel’s existence is bogus.

    also:

    Neither Iran nor Hamas pose an existential threat to Israel. Neither are capable of creating a second Holocaust as McCain & Netanyahu fondly call it.

    Therefore all your rhetoric about the Iranian “threat” to Israel’s existence is bogus.

    What exactly is my so-called “rhetoric” and why should Khamenei’s statements about Israel’s existence (his rhetoric, not mine) be disregarded?

    Show me where Israeli leaders have advocated attacking Iran without further proof of atomic weapon development and without a response to the calculated rhetoric coming from Iran’s President and Iran’s Supreme Leader? Where has Israel given money and arms to the vowed enemies of Iran, who are engaged in attacking Iranian civilians?

    I don’t believe Iran is capable of creating a holocaust in Israel, so don’t put words in my mouth.

    I don’t favor attacking Iran, if you assumed so. I favor a diplomatic approach. The use of warfare to settle this dispute will only lead to greater bloodshed and sorrow. However, burying your head in sand, ignoring Iran’s Supreme Leader and President who speaks before the UN GA, in terms that can’t be denied, that he stands behind the enemies of Israel, and is in fact anticipating Israel’s destruction, whether or not he is personally capable of pushing the button, is beside the point. The point is he is a war monger. Israel wants peace but will not walk into the rhetorical trap to be lead into a situation where Israel will be attacked and be unprepared, or where Israel will be attacked and civilians killed in large number. I’m not talking about a holocaust, although some use that word whenever there is a possibility of atomic warfare.

    I stated above:
    Of course, I know that Iran won’t destroy Israel, because Israel is strong. I am not worried, although I live in Jerusalem, because Israel has people who are capable of stopping Iran.

    So why are you claiming “Therefore all your rhetoric about the Iranian “threat” to Israel’s existence is bogus.”

    About 1000 Israeli citizens were murdered during the “Second Intifada”. No one is saying it’s a holocaust, although Hamas leaders have claimed that they will unleash hundreds of suicide bombers, and that they are anxious for Israel to be destroyed. (Not my rhetoric, only looking at the facts.)

    Destroying Tel Aviv, for example would not be on the level of the Holocaust, although why should we say that would be acceptable, or that threat is acceptable?

  72. BTW,
    If you are only thinking of calming fears for the sake of getting Obama elected, that your mother might look beyond race as in issue, the argument is superfluous. Does your mother read your column?

    I plan to vote for Obama. I am reasonably sure that he would not let Israel come under attack without a strong response. He is, in my view, a more suitable candidate than McCain.

  73. @Mazal: I didn’t understand your first paragraph.

    I completely agree w. yr view about Obama. While a right wing Israeli government run by someone like Netanyahu will undoubtedly not like an Obama presidency, the latter will nonetheless be as supportive of Israel as all past U.S. presidents were. And should there be an emergency he would, as you say, protect Israel if that were necessary.

  74. @Mazal: I am glad to hear that you do not believe in attacking Iran. Yr view is very sensible.

    But you are wrong about Israel’s leaders. Olmert asked Bush for a green light to bomb Iran. Other senior cabinet members have openly advocated bombing Iran. The stories are covered right here in this blog so do a search and you’ll find them.

    I’m not saying that Khameini’s comments about Israel should be “disregarded.” I’m as disturbed about them as you are. But I don’t believe they mean that Iran will attack Israel directly nor do I think they mean that Israel is in any greater danger than it already faces from its current foes (Palestinian militants, etc.).

  75. Olmert asked Bush for a green light to bomb Iran.

    Excuse me, but this is not a threat. If there is a green light, it means there is agreement on an issue.

    There is a media war, that is without a doubt correct. Assuming that every statement that Ahmadinejad makes in a passive voice, and therefore innocent of reproach, and non-threating is also nonsense.

    Today’s news:

    In an interview published Sunday in the United Arab Emirates-based al-Ittihad newspaper, the Hizbullah member said his organization was on the alert. He referred to Israel as “a cardboard country which will be destroyed by the resistance fighters, who achieved the grand victory against the entity robbing Palestine’s land in the years 2000 and 2006.”

    He added that his organization dose [sic] not believe Israel will launch an attack against Lebanon. “Israel is frustrated by many internal problems and is incapable of launching a new war against Lebanon,” he said.

    He went on to say that Major-General Eisenkot’s remarks were a “media war.”

    The senior Hizbullah member repeated remarks made by his leader, Hassan Nasrallah, that whether Israel send five or eight divisions to Lebanon – they will all be destroyed.

    Eisenkot told Yedioth Ahronoth that the next war, if and when it breaks out, must be determined fast, forcefully, and without being concerned about the global public opinion

    Both are making non-threats, as they are using the passive voice. Nothing is threatened here, am I correct in assuming that that would be your interpretation?

  76. @Mazal: Israel was prepared to bomb Iran. It needed U.S. approval in order to fly over Iraq. If it hadn’t needed U.S. approval it would have bombed Iran by now.

    Again, I never said that Ahmadinejad statements were “innocent of reproach” [sic]. They are certainly worth of reproach. But do they represent anything more than the rabid rants of leaders boasting of their hate and destructive capacity (of which Israeli leaders have done more than their share as well?).

    Eisenkot’s rhetoric is equally pathetic or moreso than Nasrallah’s since everyone knows that Israel cannot win the next war it fights with Hezbollah any more than it won the last one. Perhaps it cannot lose the war either in the sense that Israel’s existence will never be in jeopardy. But gone are the days when Israel can “win” any war except perhaps one in which it uses nuclear weapons. And we don’t want to go there…

  77. Israei leaders have responded. Olmert was a little too heated in his response, it is true. Yet it was the Iranian leaders who were and are consistently, and with increasing levels of incitement and increasingly indicating their own actions (non passive voice) in the coming “destruction of Israel.” Of course Israel will respond.

    There is a media war, and clear intentions are given, just as Hitler stated his opinions and goals prior to the attempt to eliminate the Jews of Europe. No one really heeded that warning either.

    You take Hizbollah’s side in every argument, and also sound like you are anti-Israel.

  78. @Mazal:

    You take Hizbollah’s side in every argument, and also sound like you are anti-Israel.

    That’s bullcrap. Look, you’ve called me a “goon” at one of the sleaziest militantly pro-Israel site around. Lie about me again & call me “anti-Israel” & I’ll be happy to remove yr comment privileges. Maybe the RJC can get away with that sort of crap against Barack Obama, but you won’t here.

  79. fiddler said:

    Mazal:
    Your own quotes from Ahmadinejad, “collapse of the Zionist regime” and “deliverance from Zionists” put the “collapse of Israel” nicely in perspectve, don’t they? IOW, the Iranians are calling for regime change in Israel, not for “wiping it off the map”, “driving the Jews into the sea”, a “second holocaust”, or whatever. That’s basically the same position that Israel has on Iran, and it’s Israel and the US, not Iran, that has the incomparably bigger guns.

    I disagree with your view that Israel wants to “wipe Iran off the map” or see it “disappear from the annals of history”. Israel wants a peaceful relationship with its neighbors. There is no equation of equality between the words of Ahmadinejad and that of Israeli officials, because Israel would be defending itself from attack, even as Israel is defending itself in their media war, and the verbal attacks. Just think, who started the war of words? Who is claiming knowledge of Israel’s imminent doom?

  80. @silverstein:
    That’s bullcrap. Look, you’ve called me a “goon” at one of the sleaziest militantly pro-Israel site around. Lie about me again & call me “anti-Israel” & I’ll be happy to remove yr comment privileges. Maybe the RJC can get away with that sort of crap against Barack Obama, but you won’t here.

    What have I said against Obama? I am in full support of Obama’s campaign for the US presidency. He defends Israel’s right to exist, and will continue the tradition of US support for Israel.

    P.S. I’ve noted that you have a notorious antisemitic person helping you write yr posts.

  81. @Mazal: I was likening the RJC’s smearing of Obama to your smearing of me by calling me anti-Israel.

    No one “helps me write my posts.” There isn’t a single post written here by anyone other than me.

    I’m about to pull the trigger on you but for some reason I won’t do it quite yet. You’re on probation. The next lie or smear from you & you’re history.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *