The points made by Halevi and Oren are very similar to that made by Philip Stephens in the Financial Times on Friday.

I am puzzled by your view. If you accept the Halevi and Oren's analysis which includes using Hamas and Hezbollah as their surrogates doesn't it call into question most of the rest of your policy prescriptions?

When have sanctions worked, except perhaps agaainst South Africa? If Israel or the West negotiates with Iran as Iran continues to work on their weapons how long before Israel cannot take out the nuclear program?

Is there an acceptable number of dead Israelis that you are willing to accept rather than alienate the American Left?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

And then there's Lieberman, the great Patriot. Only problem is that his patriotism is for Israel and not for the US.

Jan Knaus

"Your future is our future"

Fascinating, fascinating, fascinating. I thought you had to petition for statehood and pay federal taxes to get that kind of unconditional guarantee!

I'll bet Edwards isn't saying that in Iowa.

Do these idiots THINK about what they are saying and the kind of over the top commitments they are making?

We've got a population that's more than 95% not Jewish. What delusional fool in Israel would believe that our commitment is unconditional?

Iran Images not usually seen

http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html

IF:

We are absolutely committed to Israel, and therefore must assume Iran is an implacable enemy intent on using nukes, someday in the indefinite future, we are shackled to a heartbreaking and hopeless task.

That would be ensuring control of the Middle East, which has not gone well to date, and there is not much reason to suppose we or Israel can do better.

The wisdom of the conservative position is that governments can't really control things intelligently. While I disagree with that as an absolute position, especially within our borders, it has resonance in the wider world. Given that we know ourselves best, and other cultures to varying degree less, and considerably less when we get to the Middle East, what kind of hubris says we can take on this Herculean task?

Here I repeat my stance; make friends, not enemies. We and Israel can use more friends. Enemies we don't need. The USSR had a position that we were the losers and they would bury us, economically and militarily. Even so we talked and managed to get along, keeping our contests controlled and small.

Trying to control Afghanistan and Iraq is using us up. Add Iran and we're headed down the tubes. Simply whacking Iran is a prescription for more terrorism, which is supposedly an existential threat. While I would not call it that, it is terrible and to be avoided. Why invite it?

Why not simply announce a nuclear guarantee for Israel? If we assume Iran's leaders are nutso and intent on sending their citizens to Heaven prematurely we'd better get started on Armageddon. But I would assume they are not that different than us underneath. They want their country to prosper, which will reflect well on them and their legacy.

What Irans's leaders will want, at such time in the future if or when they develop nuclear weapons, is unknown now. But certainly it will be different than the current circumstances, and we just have to wait and see.

thanks so much

Hillary Clinton's anti-escalation stance is a joke. Once we bomb Iran (and we all know its going to happen), we have to maintain or increase the number of troops in Iraq.

Is there anyone who can get Clinton to render an opinion about the number of troops in Iraq if Iran is bombed? I just can hear the campaign rhetoric - first, she was for the war, then she was against it and now she's for it. Mrs. CiC, my ass.

Start telling people in this country that more and not less troops will be needed in Iraq if we bomb Iran and just see how much public support for bombing Iran there is.

I haven't formulated an opinion on all this except to say that talking about using force before negotiating seems utterly wrongheaded.

The West has been negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program for years now.  In this, the Bush Administration followed exactly the prescription laid down by the international community, letting the Europeans take the lead. 

It is a clarion call for war with Iran.

It is no such thing.  It is in fact quite a balanced piece, giving plenty of space to those who favor strong sanctions instead of war.  Here's the key passage, for those without TNR access:

Given these nightmarish scenarios, one would expect to find a mood of near-despair within the Israeli defense establishment. Yet senior officials believe that events are actually working in Israel's favor and that, one way or another, Iran's nuclear program can still be stopped. Partly, that is because Israel's assessments of Iran's intention to acquire nuclear weapons have finally been accepted not only by Washington but even by the Europeans. After years of isolation on the Iranian issue, Israelis are basking in a rare moment of international credibility. 

As a result, some in the defense establishment are convinced that the military option can still be forestalled, even at this late date, by aggressive economic sanctions, forcing the Iranian regime to choose between its nuclear program and domestic stability.

[snip]

But sanctions advocates do believe that, by formally placing Iran in the category of "threat to international peace," the United Nations has tacitly empowered the United States and its allies to pursue more aggressive sanctions that could trigger Iranian instability--such as the Bush administration's quiet efforts over the last year to force foreign banks out of Tehran. Combined with Iran's preexisting social and economic problems--massive hidden unemployment, widespread corruption, and growing drug addiction and prostitution--and hatred for the regime among students and the middle class, aggressive sanctions could, some Israelis believe, hasten regime change in Tehran by forcing the Iranian people to pay the price for their leaders' provocations. And, with regime change, of course, the threat posed by an Iranian bomb would ease: After all, the problem isn't the nuclearization of Iran but the nuclearization of this Iran.

The piece does not argue for war or sanctions or something else.  It argues that the problem must be taken seriously, which so many refuse to do, and that we are rapidly approaching a crisis point.

Edwards the fool doesn't know what the f he's talking about.

So who gave him (and lord knows how many other American politicians) a chopper ride into Lebanon's SOVEREIGN airspace during the summer war to show him Hezbollah's rockets? What rockets? Oh, maybe he means THESE rockets that Thomas Ricks noted to Howie Kurtz (and later much regreted opening his yap about):

"Tom Ricks, you've covered a number of military conflicts, including Iraq, as I just mentioned. Is civilian casualties increasingly going to be a major media issue? In conflicts where you don't have two standing armies shooting at each other?

THOMAS RICKS, REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I think it will be. But I think civilian casualties are also part of the battlefield play for both sides here. One of the things that is going on, according to some U.S. military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.

KURTZ: Hold on, you're suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of it's fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here?

RICKS: Yes, that's what military analysts have told me.

KURTZ: That's an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here.

RICKS: Exactly. It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/06/rs.01.html

It also must help to provide a boo-scary show-and-tell to ignorant and compromised American politicians. How very generous of the IDF and the Foreign Ministry Dept. of Hasbera to arrange such exciting and educational field trips.

What's interesting is that if the Israel Lobby in the USA had not been so arrogant, then a nuclear -armed Ahmedinejhad would currently be Saddam Hussein's problem --not ours.

And Iraq would be Ahmedinejhad's problem --not ours.

Ah, but everything has to be done solely from the viewpoint of Israel.

Sharon envisioned importing 1 million new Jewish immigrants to offset the Arab's greater birth rate. But Israel does not have the water to expand.

So it has to take the water out of the Turkish headwaters of the Euphrates. Which Saddam objects to so Saddam has to go.

But how to get the Americans to do the dying? Ah, have Kenneth Pollack, "Director of Research" for Israeli billionaire Haim Saban, tell America that Saddam is on the verge of acquiring nukes.

You would think Kenneth would go in hiding. But this morning I turn on Meet the Press and who do I see? Ta Da. Kenneth Pollack.

Presumably, in the words of John Edwards, "So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran."

So tell me. Back in 2002, How did John Edwards vote re the attack on IRAQ?

I am usually reluctant to cite Robert Novak, but he had a very interesting column back in 2002 in the Chicago Sun Times.

The column described a private talk between Ariel Sharon and US Senators
in which Sharon urged that Saddam Hussein be removed.

The column is here: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/% 20is_20020617/ai_n12466410

A few excerpts:
******************
"We need many more Jews to come to Israel, a million more Jews," Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee behind closed doors last week. Here was something entirely new even for well-informed senators, and their facial expressions conveyed surprise. Massive immigration to a country of 6 million signified no interest by Sharon in negotiating a settlement with the Palestinians.

Indeed, speaking off the record to mostly uncritical American politicians, the old soldier-statesman was even more blunt than he is in public. Sharon pointed to no Israeli-Palestinian deal for at least 10 years and talked of a hundred years' struggle with Arabs. Warning of Egyptian and Saudi duplicity, he informed the senators that removal of Saddam Hussein from Iraq would be the best way to deal with Palestinians."
*********
"Sharon claimed the ancient boundaries of the "Land of Israel" are guaranteed to the Jewish people by Holy Scripture. "The pope told me so," Sharon added. That sent freshman Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island home to search the Bible for justification. Sharon added he was prepared to compromise anyway, but was not specific, and he emphasized he never would compromise Israel's security."
*********
"Committing himself to a hundred years' war against Arabs, Sharon warned the senators not to trust his adversaries--including moderate states closely aligned with the United States. He expressed nothing but contempt for Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. The royal rulers of Saudi Arabia, he said, are liars. The only Arab leader he spoke of favorably was Jordan's King Abdullah. Sophisticated senators perceived Sharon pointing to the Kingdom of Jordan as the only Palestinian state, take it or leave it.

Voices of Arab caution should be disregarded, said the former Israeli general, when it comes to ousting Saddam. Sharon contended U.S. military action against Iraq, instead of exacerbating the Palestinian problem, would end it. No senator disputed this judgment.

A few Foreign Relations Committee members left this remarkable session deeply disturbed about the outlook for peace in the Middle East. They include Biden, Kerry, Chafee and Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. However, the current political climate precludes overt criticism of Israel or even so controversial a figure as Sharon."
*******

The Democrats race for AIPACish money, the Republicans race for the fundamentalists and their crazy, Israel-centered apocalyptic vision, and the rest of us lose no matter which of them wins. MJ, I don't even know why you bother. The whole topic is a waste of time.

J. McCutchen

Been There Done That

It has not helped that even as the administration is making its case against Iran, the perjury trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, was opening just a few blocks away. Where There's Smoke.... Bush, IraN, IraQ (NyT)

Bush Is About to Attack Iran
Why Can't Americans See it?
by Paul Craig Roberts

I actually would like to have Israel safe.

The idea to weld the safety of Israel to an increasing unpopular war, and THEN to triple the scale of this war is so stupendously moronic that it actually requires some IQ.

On the other hand, this is dream come true to abicyclist (I do not mind 6 dollars for gallon of gas) and a classical history buff --- and empire overextends itself over the sands of Mesopotamia to be subsequently wacked by Persians.

For those who are into detailed military strategy, the following is a link to a "working paper" titled "Osirak Redux?" produced at MIT that helpfully gives the Israelis some scenarios they can pursue in their attack on Iran.

(I ran across it because of my interest in Incirlik and due to some very curious goings on there of late, followed some promising threads. Oren and Halevi (briefly) and this working paper discuss the northern route and IMO it's more a viable option than either source admits)

This is the html version of the file;
http://web.mit.edu/ssp/Publications/working_papers/wp_06-1.pdf.

From the intro:
.....
"More than twenty years later, some in Israel are again mulling the possibility of preventive action against an unfriendly state’s attempts to gain nuclear weapons, this time Iran. In a report given to Prime Minister Sharon in 2003, a group of Israeli and American scholars and analysts present a grand strategy that calls for Israel to develop and maintain a “Long Arm” capability for long-range precision strike. This report, known as Project Daniel, further argues that this “Long Arm” be used for preventive action against attempts by unfriendly states to gain weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

5 Theproject’s chair, Louis Rene Beres, reiterated this view in a recent op-ed, calling on Israe to maintain strong preventive capability against adversaries’ attempts to develop WMD even as it develops anti-ballistic missile systems.

6 As Iran’s nuclear program moves forward, the argument of the Project Daniel group may seem increasingly compelling to the government of Israel (as well as outside observers in the U.S. and elsewhere). Yet no unclassified net assessment of Israel’s
current capability to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities exists.

7 The capabilities of the IAF have grown dramatically in the past two decades, yet the Iranian facilities are a significantly more challenging target than Osirak. This paper will attempt to fill this gap in the existing literature by providing a rough net assessment of an Israeli strike on known Iranian nuclear facilities. It will do so by taking the strike on Osirak as a generic template for the strike and then
attempting to update the scenario to account for both the improved IAF capabilities and the much tougher Iranian defenses. "

Have fun.

10. Oren and Halevi are not afraid negotiations with Iran will fail. They are afraid that negotiations will succeed, and that by pursuing them the US will sccessfully advance the interests of the American people in a way which works contrary to the interests of Oren and Halevi.

Exactly! And this precisely parallels the Bush-Cheney attitude toward U.N. inspections in the pre-Iraq day: their efforts (including illicit surveillance and such) focused entirely on making sure the inspectors would be seen as failing.

I have a confession to make, because I'm finding myself posting on subjects more on emotion than logic. In general, I feel I have a neutral attitude, leaning in the friendly direction, to Israel. I certainly have respected colleagues there.

It just struck me that my emotional responses to Mr. Greenbaum has gotten my postings to be more hostile toward Israel. That isn't quite right. My responses make me more and more suspicious of Israeli exceptionalism, and more and more in favor of the US distancing itself.

Are these reactions, on my part, unique? Or might they be indicative of the reaction of an increasing number of American voters -- yes, and decisionmakers -- to what seem increasingly shrill demands for American blood and treasure?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

It is apparently already in the last stages of preperation.

At 6PM CST today Minnesota Public Radio carried a news brief regarding the departure of ground crews and flight crews for places unknown attached to the B-1 Bombers based at Ellingworth AFB in South Dakota. The B-1's have already left. The crews left on Sunday.

You can hear it yourself by going to Minnesota Public Radio, and look on the News and Information service for the Commonwealth Club speech by William Perry about the Iraq Study Group, and if you listen to his speech the news bulletin immediately preceeds his speech.

B-1's gone -- it may be too late to think.

Several technical points are relevant. If B-1's have been committed to attack Iran, that attack is not going to be nuclear. Under arms limitation agreements with the Russians, B-1's are not nuclear delivery vehicles and are subject to inspection that they have not been so equipped.

AFAIK, the B-1 also is not certified to carry the large "bunker buster" bombs. It is more likely to be used for a mission requiring many smaller conventional bombs, perhaps precision guided. Might there be such a mission in Iraq, or could this be diversionary?

If there were to be an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, I'd think the likeliest platform would be the B-2 stealth bomber, which has a better chance of penetrating air defenses, and also is certified for B-61/B-83 nuclear weapons and for the GBU-34 conventional "bunker buster". The B-61-11 is the only US nuclear weapon with any ground penetrating capability; that might make it more survivable if it had to go through a hole opened by something else, with debris still flying.

The home base for the 509th Bomb Wing, the only unit flying combat-ready B-2's, is Whiteman AFB in Missouri. There may be some forward-deployed at Diego Garcia or Guam. A few aircraft are assigned to other bases, but for R&D.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Why have we done so little to control Musharraf, who implicitly threatens 1 BILLION Indians, and then we get bent out of shape about Iran not even threatening 6 million Israelis?  It is obvious that our stated policies are a farce.

I haven't formulated an opinion on all this except to say that talking about using force before negotiating seems utterly wrongheaded.

Wrongheaded does not begin to describe the idea of using force without exhausting every negotiating option.

I am a Jew. I have family in Isreal. My parents were adamant Zionists. I have a deep abiding fondness and connecton to Israel, a land I have visited. Israel, and the Israeli right wing which has unfortunately controlled Israeli politics far too much for the last decade are promoting diasastrous policies, both for Isreal, and the US. If you need proof, pick up a paper and read abut Iraq. Look at the results of the recent dust-up with Lebanon. Far from securing us, or Israel, attacking Iran will weaken and perhaps destroy us.

As Atrios says, "The stupid, it burns!"

One of the few useful things I've learned about this topic is that when people say, "I haven't formed an opinion on this," they really mean either "I have formed an opinion, but my ethics and common sense are balanced by my nationalistic allegiance to side X," or else, "I don't have the courage to say what I believe/think/feel." If you read real closely between the lines of the person's future comments, you can usually figure out which one it was.

I still wonder why anyone bothers. The whole topic is a pilotless plane, on its way to some crashlanding somewhere. We're just spectators, arguing over which patch of ground will be unlucky.

We have a pilot, Darth Vader is using his "mind" to direct the Chimp's hands.  Darth is drunk and the Chimp has no thumbs.

If you do not listen and respond to friends
and will never talk to adversaries,
you lock your country into military action.

When these actions are not producing your goals
and you spread new conflicts,
your actions are seditious to your country
and called war crimes by other countries.

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

Mr. Rosenberg seems to be itching for fights about Israel and is looking for any excuse he can find. Now it’s an article in a newspaper, tomorrow it will be Olmert and after that it will be yet another excuse.

Most experts believe that Iran is developing the bomb. There is nothing the US or anybody else can do about it. You can damage the program, you can kill many Iranians, but you cannot demolish the program or stop it. The solution now, and in the past, is to make the Iranian less eager to use bomb or share it. If the Saudis can be respected company, what cannot the Iranians be?

There is nothing one can do about the past. You cannot unkidnap the American hostages. The question is: are you itching for a fight with Iran, e.g. Mr. Rosenberg, or are you trying to avoid some fringe terror group from dropping the bomb in Tel Aviv and New York?

Howard, all things considered, are 2000# JDAMS considered large bombs?

From the following article, the B-1B seems to be pretty versatile. From "Phoenix Risen: THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE BOEING B-1B":

"This sentiment was reinforced by the conflict in Afghanistan, where the B-IBs had another success. Although they flew only five percent of the missions, they dropped 40 percent of the weapons and 70 percent of the joint direct-attack munitions (JDAMs). The keys to the B-1B's triumph are its long range and loiter time-attributes that proved even more valuable during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The Bone in Iraq

Flying combat missions in Operations Southern Watch and Northern Watch, the USAF has confronted Iraq for more than a dozen years. An important element of this confrontation was the 405th Air Expeditionary Wing, commanded by then Col. James M. Kowalski. A composite Wing, the 405th operated 10 B-1Bs, 10 KC-135s and two to four E-3 AWACS aircraft. In a recent interview, Brig. Gen. Kowalski said, "I had few concerns about either the aircraft or my crews. I knew we had a solid weapon with the Joint Direct Attack Munitions combination of precision and punch; our defensive systems ranked among the best in the Air Force, and our speed and maneuverability inspired confidence. Most important, we had a secret weapon-the best munitions and maintenance folks in the world." His ground crews kept the B-1Bs at an extraordinary 80-percent-in-commission rate despite their flying eight 11-hour missions a day. The 10 Bones dropped 2,159 JDAMs-43 percent of the total used in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 22 percent of all the guided weapons used in the campaign. The 213 sorties flown by the 405th AEW B-1Bs were only one percent of the total flown by coalition forces, but they took out 10 percent of the targets.

Success on this scale was possible because the B-1B was able to change its mission planning from the traditional scripted approach to a far more flexible one that operated under special instructions (SPINS) that made the best use of its long loiter time. Crews could launch with the latest intelligence and communications information, be assigned specific targets in the air and then organize ad hoc aircraft force packages as required."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200504/ai_n13498079/print

I agree about the friendship thing but I am not sure how realistic it is or to what extent it could be taken advantage of.

But I've always thought a quick way to "perastroika" would be to invite such cold neighbors who could be realistically turned warm to be a member of NATO.

I thought it would have made sense to do this with the soviet union to end the cold war.

Just because a nation becomes a member of NATO doesn't mean you provide them with sensitive information or technology. It justt means they are under the protective and collaborative umbrella of NATO.

Ideally all nations would be members and the only enemy would be roque terrorist organizations (or aliens - although I don't believe in aliens, that is just to make a point.)

Of course I'm a dunce when it comes to politics. Although I'm not short on ideas on the other hand.

Lets not forget that supposedly anyways george bush is a fundamentalist christian. and let us assume the stereotype of fundamentalists to be people who believe NATO is evil and that a world government would be akin to the anti christ. I'm not sure why they think this since we have separation of church and state in the US. But I think it must be rooted in the same old root problem of "we are the chosen ones according to God and you are not."

At any rate, it isn't a coicindence I don't think that NATO isn't involved in the Iraq war. That only the Dubya Administration is plus the UK. "We don't need a permission slip from the united nations." And loo what this lack of permission slip has done for us.

If anyone more educated and with a higher IQ than I would like to expand on these thoughts that would probably be a good idea. : )

The 2000# JDAM is certainly a large blast-fragmentation bomb. It doesn't have much ground-penetrating capability, so the explosive payload is reduced and the case made much stronger to form the GBU-34/B. This is a JDAM with a BLU-116/B penetrating warhead.

Thinking about it, the B-1 can probably carry this even though my first reference didn't say so. GBU-34's, which are an interim weapon, have aerodynamics similar to the 2000#. IIRC, the penetrating bombs have about half the explosive of a regular bomb.

Larger bombs are dropped from transports. The largest (although an even larger one is supposed to be in development) GBU-43 MOAB. MOAB is officially Massive Ordnance Air Blast, but, in a nod to Saddam, it is generally called the Mother Of All Bomns.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

J. McCutchen

Guardian UK

Nuclear plans in chaos as Iran leader flounders -Boasts of a nuclear programme are just propaganda, say insiders, but the PR could be enough to provoke Israel into war

Actually, I should say that the current version of the game started in the early 1990s.

Actually, I seem to recall that a Jew named Sidney Reilly started the game back around 1904.

Then CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt continued the game in the 1950s when he overthrew the elected government of Mossadagh and installed the Shah on Iran's Peacock Throne.

In his memoir, Countercoup, Kermit indicates that the idea for the coup came
from the British Anglo-Iranian oil company -- nowdays know as BP. Of course, US oil companies got their cut and Iranians got --well, short rations and a visit with the Shah's SAVAK torturers if they complained.

We're not known as "The Great Satan" for nothing. That, our nuclear bombs, and Israel's nuclear bombs go some way to explaining why the Iranians don't want to sit down and sing Kumbaya.

Once a member of NATO, you no longer need to possess weapons of mass destruction, there is an economic benefit as well as a security benefit.

You just setup an economic alliance for NATO members. Lower barriers to trade (lower tarriffs, etc.)

So the roque nations who insist on possessing weapons of mass destruction - north korea and iran if iran chooses to make nukes, would not be allowed tot be members of NATO. With the exception that one nation - or perhaps a limited number based on who had weapons of mass destruction first - would be allowed to have nukes. (America.)

Any nuclear strike on any NATO member nation would result in a retaliatory strike by the US and/or approved NATO nuke member.

So now we've reduced the number of nukes, the number of countries with nukes, the likelihood of course of rogue organizations buying nukes through the black market.

And we have the economic incentive already in place to prevent nations from going rogue.

There would also be unofficial trade "preferences" for NATO members. Or all out trade sanctions against the rogue nations.

I just wonder why this sort of system wasn't put in place 40 years ago. I think we weren't thinking out of the box. We were in the box of the cold war.

And it seems to me the Bush Administration is without any doubt still in the cold war box.

The article I linked to identifies "the Bone" aircraft as responsible for the destruction of the Baghdad restuarant that Saddam & Sons had just left
by delivering two "hard target penetrating" GBU-31's.

? Would there be critical differences in the upgraded versions and how significent is the tweaking that determines the need for a new numerical designation?

Just an observation: once the balloon goes up and the US takes out Iran's oil export facilities, the US will have succeeded in eliminating both of the sources of Persian Gulf oil which excluded US oil companies -- Saddam's Iraq, and Iran. Everywhere in the gulf, either US oil companies will have a cut of the business, or the flow will be cut off.

Just an observation.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

This thread tangent has a, "besides THAT [the bullet caliber, weapon manufacturer, range, killing power] Mss. Lincoln, how was the play" feel to it. It seems like the color commentary to a sporting event (which I realize is an extremely crass way of expressing a deadly serious subject).

The real besides THAT in this case is more of THIS.

More times than not I read detailed and knowledgeable technical post like these and come away questioning myself why. Why do I read them? They often take me away from the thrust of the thread.

Like;

What is going on behind the scenes with the people who pull the trigger… and I don’t mean the pilots of the B1s. Why are these planes being deployed? And what does it mean relative to a further escalation?___________________________________________

“I, ..., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Dave that's why I posted the MPR report. Spent some time doing Google and it may not be Iran -- it seems they are using the B-1 in Afghanistan at this point, at least a couple stories indicate that as of five days ago they were. It was to "destination unknown" -- so it could be either one. It looks like the Ellisworth planes (Rapid City) are one package, and the crews and ground crew are Minnesota Air National Guard, so that was why MPR passed the news. I think the Air Tankers are at Grand Forks. The BRAC had a huge debate about this, and I am not certain how it came out in the wash. But Destination Unknown is still Destination Unknown.

Bill Perry said in his Commonwealth Club Presentation that he believed the votes were present in the Senate for a medium strong resolution on the Surge (a symbol, but he thought the number would impress) and a binding resolution requiring congressional action before any Iranian action would be permitted -- deny use of any funds currently in pipeline for anything in Iran without congressional action. He thought the Senate numbers would be higher on that resolution.

In a way I do think this is step one in re-balancing the powers of Congress and the Executive, though I don't like seeing that done with a spat over B-1 bombers. Apparently Biden will hold hearings on the Iraq Study Group report this week in Foreign Relations. Perry had choice things to say about Bush, Cheney and the whole troupe of Neo-Cons in the Q and A. One question was about his evaluation of the current crop of top brass -- he named off three or four, and someone said any more, he answered he didn't think so. (I show my age when I quote, "What a revolt'en development this is."

What I'm "itching" for is to see both America and Israel adopt policies that make less likely the use of atomic weapons by anybody.

I see absolutely no reason not to negotiate on every issue with Iran (nukes, Iraq, crazed rhetoric, sanctions, trade) with the Iranians. We negotiated with the Soviets (Stalin, one of the most evil leaders who ever lived was our ally). Why not Iran?

On Sept. 12, 2001, a million Iranians took to the streets of Tehran in a mass demonstration of solidarity and sympathy with America. Why are we determined to take actions that will turn every Iranian into an America-hater and a Mullah-Ahmedenijad backer?

And before the accusation arises. Yes, I am deeply worried that an attack on Iran will have consequences that could lead to terrible destruction in Israel. For me, the survival of Israel is too critical to be trifled with by neocons who get everything wrong.

Yes, Teheran with nukes is scarey. That is why we need to negotiate about them.

It is amazing. Even as Iraq rages, the next Iraq is being planned. And by the same people who promised us the Iraq cakewalk.

Going to war with Iran is now the Israel lobby's top agenda item.
In case one wonders why Hillary is an Iran hawk, here is the answer from Joshua Frank today.

Hillary Clinton and the Israel Lobby
By Joshua Frank
Online Journal Contributing Writer

George W. Bush's position on Iran is "disturbing" and "dangerous," reads a position paper written in late 2005 by American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). One year ago the Bush administration accepted a Russian proposal to allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear energy under Russian supervision. Needless to say, AIPAC wasn?t the least bit happy about the compromise.

In a letter to congressional allies, mostly Democrats, the pro-Israel organization admitted it was "concerned that the decision not to go to the Security Council, combined with the U.S. decision to support the 'Russian proposal,' indicates a disturbing shift in the administration's policy on Iran and poses a danger to the U.S. and our allies."

Israel, however, continues to develop a substantial nuclear arsenal. In 2000, the British Broadcasting Corporation reported that Israel has likely produced enough plutonium to make up to 200 nuclear weapons. So, it is safe to say that Israel's bomb-building technologies are light years ahead of Iran's budding nuclear program. Yet Israel still won't admit they have capacity to produce such deadly weapons.

Meanwhile, as AIPAC and Israel pressure the U.S. government to force the Iran issue to the U.N. Security Council, Israel itself stands in violation of numerous U.N. Resolutions dealing with the occupied territories of Palestine, including U.N. Resolution 1402, which in part calls on Israel to withdraw its military from all Palestinian cities at once.

AIPAC's hypocrisy is nauseating. The Goliath lobbying organization wants Iran to cease enriching uranium while the crimes of Israel continue to be ignored. So who is propping up AIPAC's hypocritical position? None other than Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.

As one of the top Democratic recipients of pro-Israel funds for the 2006 election cycle, pocketing over $83,000, Senator Clinton now has Iran in her crosshairs.

During a Hanukkah dinner speech delivered in December of 2005, hosted by Yeshiva University, Clinton prattled, "I held a series of meetings with Israeli officials [last summer], including the prime minister and the foreign minister and the head of the [Israeli Defense Force] to discuss such challenges we confront. In each of these meetings, we talked at length about the dire threat posed by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and Russia. Just this week, the new president of Iran made further outrageous comments that attacked Israel's right to exist that are simply beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability. During my meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I was reminded vividly of the threats that Israel faces every hour of every day . . . It became even more clear how important it is for the United States to stand with Israel . . .?

As Senator Clinton embraces Israel's violence, as well as AIPAC's fraudulent posture on Iran, she simultaneously ignores the hostilities inflicted upon Palestine, as numerous Palestinians have been killed during the continued shelling of the Gaza Strip over the past year.

Clinton?s silence toward Israel's brutality implies the senator will continue to support AIPAC's mission to occupy the whole of the occupied territories, as well as a war on Iran. AIPAC is correct -- even President Bush appears to be a little sheepish when up against the warmongering of Hillary Clinton.

Hillary inIsrael?s pocket

Hillary, along with her husband Bill, paid a visit to Israel in the fall of 2005. The former president was a featured speaker at a mass rally that marked the 10th anniversary of the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. It was Hillary's second visit to Israel since she was elected to office in 2000.

The senator did manage to take time out of her tour to meet with then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to discuss "security matters." Hillary also made her way to the great apartheid wall, which separates Palestine from Israel. As the barrier is nearing completion, the monstrosity will ultimately stretch to over 400 miles in length.

Palestinians rightly criticize the obtrusive wall on the grounds that it cuts them off from other towns in the occupied in the West Bank. Thousands more will be cut off from their jobs, schools, and essential farmland.

Hillary and her pro-Israel buds don't get it. When you put powerless Palestinians behind a jail-like wall where life in any real economic sense is unattainable, you wreak pain and anguish, which in turn leads to more anger and resentment toward the Israeli government?s brutal policies. Indeed, the wall will not prove to be a deterrent to resistance, but an incitement to defiance.

"This is not against the Palestinian people," Clinton said as she gazed over the massive wall. "This is against the terrorists. The Palestinian people have to help to prevent terrorism. They have to change the attitudes about terrorism."

The senator's comments seem as if they were taken word-for-word from an AIPAC position paper. They may well have been as the lobby packs her coffers full of cash. In May of 2005 Clinton spoke at an AIPAC conference where she praised the bonds between Israel and the United States:

"[O]ur future here in this country is intertwined with the future of Israel and the Middle East. Now there is a lot that we could talk about, and obviously much has been discussed. But in the short period that I have been given the honor of addressing you, I want to start by focusing on our deep and lasting bonds between the United States and Israel."

Clinton went on to talk about the importance of disarming Iran and Syria, as well as keeping troops in Iraq for as long as "it" takes. It was textbook warmongering and surprise, surprise, Hillary got a standing ovation for her comments.

It is of no matter that Iraq will never see true democracy. The U.S. won't allow that. Our government will never allow a free Iraq to form that embodied even the slightest disgust toward Israel or America. Democracy in Iraq, like democracy in Israel, has clear limitations.

Similar to her husband and the current president, Hillary Clinton will never alter the U.S.' Middle East policy that so blatantly favors Israeli interests.
Joshua Frank is the author of Left Out!: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush and edits BrickBurner.org, the official news blog of DissidentVoice.org.

"What the f... is going on?" I do think it's time to place you in the "thou doth protest too much" category.

Chill dude. I find it hard to believe that you are chiding MJ of all people for simply admitting that he hasn't crystallized his thoughts on an issue. I guess you have everything figured out Seth, just like I did back in the day when I ingested little laced-sugar cubes and everything become oh so clear (until the next morning).

Israel's very possession of actual, existing nuclear weapons is a threat to the existence of Iran and however you want to characterize Ahamadinejad's words, they're still words not actual existing nukes.

A serious question here for MJ and others who know more than I about such things. I followed Lally's link to the Herzliya Conference (dedicated to Israeli national security issues) and learned that three presidential candidates (Edwards, McCain, and Romney) and several former US officials (Gingrich, Woolsey, maybe others) attended. Most of them made statements similar to Edwards's, which Lally has quoted. My question: do American politicians and officials attend similar conferences dedicated to the national security of nations other than Israel? If so, do they make such strong statements about America's commitment to protecting the security of that nation? If attendence at such conferences dedicated to the security of nations other than Israel is common, then I would say Walt and Mearshiemer's thesis about the unusual strength of the Israeli lobby is weakened. If not, then Walt and Mearsheimer's thesis would appear to be rather strong. Can anyone answer the question with examples?

Examples of non-statements can't be provided.

Yes but my point was that even an Israeli attack on Iran will be counterproductive and not "the solution" as many here seem to assume.

Iran is an heir to an ancient civilization which has significantly influenced the West (Christmas, anyone?) and country of 70 million intensely nationalistic people (for a sense of proportion, all of the other Arab states of the Persian Gulf minus Iraq don't have a population that can match even Tehran) which is larger than France, Germany, Spain and Britain combined.

In short, know who you're picking a fight with.

"It’s true that Israel has nuclear weapons and is fighting a bloody war with the Palestinians"
is this some sort of joke? I'm on the Palestinians side on the "war" as again are most people. Give them back their land or share it.

"The government in Iran is far less stable than Israel’s"
But I trust the reformers in Iran more than I trust the Israelis, whether reactionary or liberal and merely racist. You might want to read up a bit.

And someone rated the last with a "1" Why? Am I supposed to want to side with the Israelis? Are they "like me" in some why that other people aren't. Are they "western" or white or do they watch star trek and eat Pizza in from of the teevee?
As I said I'd rather be a Jew in Tehran than a Palestinian in the the west Bank. And the Jews in Tehran don't want to leave.
The Jews in Israel with the exception of the fascists, are having second thoughts themselves.

Dave,

Indeed, the technical discussion might have gotten more specific on things, such as bomb designations, than is useful to most people looking at policy and, generally, what the Administration is doing. Pointing out that the B-1 is not a nuclear weapons capable platform, however, does speak to that deployment not being meant for a nuclear strike. To me, that's important negative information; sometimes it's as important to know what is not being done as to know what is being done.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

The War in Iraq is an off shoot of Afghanistan. Violence is violence. When Mexican drug lords sell drugs in L.A. does that mean the Mexican Army comes to the U.S. and kills off the American drug pushers? I'm sure if we gave them the permission it would do us a favor to have them do that. The only problem is these drug pushers in L.A. are usually U.S. citizens and it would be a violation of their civil rights to do that. In Iraq, we have permission to help them take care of terrorists within their borders, but instead of helping us they are letting us do all the work. Iran is a different story, they are like Columbia, Iran is where all the terrorism originates and is the only Sovergn Nation that we can bomb other than North Korea and let the world that the U.S. can in fact bomb a country to combat terror. That would be like Mexico bombing Columbia to stop the drug pushers in L.A. selling Mexican muled illegal drugs.

The baseline estimate for the centrifuge cascades comes from the IAEA, which, IIRC, either saw in production or being prepared about 3,000 centrifuges. Again from memory, and just for context without verification, Ahminejad talked about expansion, in the near term, to about 12,000; that was in the context of a slap back at sanctions. Again not knowing the specific design of the Iranian equipment, a fair number of analysts consider a significant number to be around 30,000. Iraq did get by with a much smaller number by using them in series with another separation technique, but Iraq also did not develop a significant weapons capability -- not for lack of trying.

How do we know at this point? While it's never sure, overhead imaging tells a lot. While we only have a limited ability to look underground with ground-piercing radar, we have a better ability to look for heat signatures. While it's low-probability, if they ever have an accidental release, air sampling at the borders is certainly present.

Most important in identifying a large centrifuge cascade is identifying the very large electrical generation and transmission system needed by this incredibly power-hungry technique. While the US did not use centrifuges as its main technique, gaseous diffusion, the technique used, has comparable power needs. As a result, the Oak Ridge installation was deliberately sited near Tennessee Valley Admininstration hydroelectric generation.

Even if the power plants are underground, satellites should be able to see a good deal of construction. It's going to be extremely hard to hide the thermal signature of a non-nuclear power plant, unless it's hydroelectric and thus visible at the dam. Yes, in theory, they might be doing geothermal or some new method, if that would provide enough power.

I was one arguing that Iraq was not a clear and present threat. My posts leading up to the war will show that I didn't exclude Iraq as a future threat, but I thought a better strategy was engaging the fUSSR Central Asian Republics to try to establish a northern pressure from Turkey to Afghanistan. I also wanted more involvement from the Arab nations of the Maghreb (North Africa).
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

When it comes to unintentional puns, my favorite is probably from a hairspray-abusing TV reporter, back from a first Foreign Correspondent assignment. The reporter spoke of the former Yugoslavia, where she had been, and gasped "The former Yugoslavia is becoming Balkanized!"

Clancy is wrong on a lot of technical details if one is expert in the technology, but quite plausible. He explicitly said he fuzzed some details of a nuclear weapon, but, from my own knowledge, there were problems with his biological weapons. When I went to see the movie of Hunt for Red October, I went with a sonar engineer friend, who became sufficiently annoyed at the sonar techniques to jump up in the theater, yell "Go active, you idiot!" and then sit down quickly, red-faced in the darkness. Clancy's Palestinian solution actually might have some elements worth examining.

Ever since he wrote about a suicide airliner crash into a major government building (no spoilers, I hope) in a 1994 book, people do wonder about his predictions.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Here's another "negative information" data point: Guam Water to be Shut Off.

As annoying as I eventally found Clancy to be, his comment on the lead up to Iraq War II was pretty cogent: "I see no causus belli".

sPh

Since Guam is a plausible forward staging base for heavy bombers (Anderson AFB), this could be part of protecting the water from deliberate contamination, or could just be as routine as it sounds.

Students of WWII intelligence will remember the trick that the US used to determine that the code-within-a-code Japanese attack target AF was indeed Midway. Pearl Harbor, through a then-untappable underwater cable, sent a message that AF should broadcast, in a code known to be broken by the Japanese, a request for repair parts for its water plant and a shipment of water. Soon afterwards, "AF is short of water" came up in an intercepted Japanese message.

Midway is worth studying as an example of how strategic intelligence can work extremely well, especially if the decisionmakers use it (and it's right). It did not hurt that Japanese tactical intelligence was poor, although there was immense sacrificial heroism, as well as just plain good luck, in the decisive American victory. We may not have suicide bombers in the jihadist sense, but I wish that more of the jihadi leaders knew what the torpedo squadrons did at Midway -- and stopped assuming Americans are weak and cowardly.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Unfortunately the standard of proof to wage war is pretty low these days."

Good point, but I don't think we can all it "the standard." It is the Bush administration's standard. But this standard is in violation of international law, and therefore illegitimate, and there is a good possibility that we'll see war crimes trials in the future because of America's use of this standard. Especially if it's used as justification for a US attack on Iran at a time when the world has lost patience with us.

If Bush, whose future is already bleak and growing more so, has an ounce of self-preservation he will resist the urge to broaden this war.

The only Israel exceptionalism found at TPMCafe is holding Israel and Jews to a standard that no other country is held. Another part of the exceptionalism is that Palestinians and other Arabs are never held to account for their behavior.

As part of the ground that would that would have been exterminated I can live with your perceived view of Israeli exceptionism. By and large such claims are held by those who do not care if Israel and Jews are exterminated.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Much as I believe the Bush Administration wants to go to war for irrational reasons, I have yet to see an international treaty, other than the generally ignored Kellogg-Briand Accord, that outlaws war. As I read the UN Charter, members are strongly urged to bring disputes (short of war) to the Security Council, and, once they have done so, they do subject a war decision to the UNSC. If neither party to the conflict (i.e., Iran could do it) brings it before the UNSC, I see stupidity and arrogance but not illegality.

I do believe that, especially in the current Congressional majorities, an attack without Congressional authorization would trigger a Constitutional crisis and probably impeachment proceedings.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Since I posted one unreasonable piece on Iran, I'm making up for it by a very reasonable one by Iranian-American scholar, Dr. Trita Parsi.  For the record, Parsi is no friend of the Iranian government and is decidely NOT anti-Israel.  

Daniel, as you can see from the reply of Hass, some people will always reject the notion that Israel has any right to consider its own self-defense. Thus, Hass has to return to the Jewish victimization thing to deflect any notion that self-defense is a legitimate consideration even for countries one might loathe (such as Hass' loathing for the State of Israel).

You're not going to change that, and neither will I. I will say that I am genuinely skeptical of any claims coming from the Bush Administration on the progress of Iran's nuclear capabilities, and I'm almost as suspicious as reports being leaked by members of Israeli intelligence to Haaretz et al.

My bottom-line is that I see no harm in talks but I do see harm in refusing to talk. I subscribe to the "speak softly but carry a big stick" credo on this one (to the extent such a stick exists at this point).

Yes I am sure - to the extent that the offer was ever finalized (never)

You can check out the real terms of the Israeli self-described "generous offer" to the Palestinians that Arafat rightfully rejected here: Gush Shalom (an Israeli peace group site) or the Washington Report's Q&A.

I don't speak for the Palestinians but they've repeatedly indicated that they want their capital to be in East Jerusalem - the REAL east Jerusalem and not just a make-pretend version. They also want their lands to be contiguous, meaning attached to each other as one piece - not just a bunch of enclosures and bantustans that separated by Israeli roads and that are constantly shrinking as Israeli settlements cotninue to "naturally expand"

Well, I wasn't talking about a final agreement Hass in 2000 since there wasn't any, but very well. lol

Just to make sure I understand, am I correct that you agree that a viable solution for Jerusalem would be to cede East Jerusalem to Palestine and West Jerusalem to Israel (subject of course to working out jurisdiction (as I discussed with HC) in the various quarters of the Old City)?

Maybe we can get a li'l consensus here, eh?

Last night I left a comment with johnedwards.com that they have lost my vote and support, and it wasn't just talk. I liked Edwards' performance in his debate with Cheney, and I've put in a good word for him ever since, but this is too much.

I wonder how Edwards plans to "educate" us. Will we all get free flights to Israel now, to go on a tour with their PR teams?

I'm glad we agree that while Nueremberg is explicit, its status, as an order of the four-power International Control Commission, is iffy in formal terms. Ironically, the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 clearly outlawed war and clearly was a ratified (with reservations by the US) treaty that applied to the US. Kellogg-Briand is considered moot by the principle that an enforceable international law has to have some track record of anyone trying to endorse it.

There is a UN GA resolution adopting the Nueremberg principles, but, significantly, the UN SC did not do a similar resolution.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Given that this was a period of rabid anticommunism, from the relatively rational containment policy of George Kennan to Joe McCarthy's hysteria, I believe the greatest, essentially automatic response on Truman's part was seeing Communist expansion. I doubt tungsten particularly entered his mind.

No, reporters got quite a few photographs. The North Koreans also made a very specific practice of shielding their troops with refugees. My late father-in-law was a naval aviator in 1950, during the "Bug-Out", and had nightmares for the rest of his life -- and pretty clear PTSD -- from US orders to strafe refugee columns from which friendly forces were taking gunfire.

Americans, like Task Force Smith, took very bad casualties in the early days. This was due to sending them in with a nearly criminal lack of training and supplies. I doubt you would have found many American troops that had seen North Korean atrocities complaining about the use of napalm on clear military targets. Today, we have better weapons, perhaps safer, to use against troops in the open, but there were relatively few alternatives to napalm then for certain tactical situations.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Another Cold War factor strengthening the relationship with Israel was the large amount of technical and tactical intelligence they provided from captured equipment and prisoners. Embarrassing Soviet clients in general was attractive at the time.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

What a fantasy you and your fellow bigots live it. The Palestinians if they are being exterminated it is by the likes of you and each other. How many Palestinians have been killed by Fatah and Hamas?

That Israel is not weak and won't rollover over for murders and bigots only suggests how stupid the Palestinian leadership is. The Palestinians will not murder the Israelis out of Tel Aviv or Haifa.

Today the bombing in Eliat is defended as "The bombing, said senior Islamic Jihad leader Khaled al-Batsh was "a natural response to the continued crimes by the Zionist enemy."(From Bradley Burstons www.Haaretz.com column)

As long as Arab leadership is excused, as you do, as long as Israelis are expected to die and risk death as no country, certainly not the United States is expected then there is really no point in taking people like you or the Palestinians really seriously.
Daniel A. Greenbaum

I would not believe Bush if he told me the sun rises in the East. And I agree that Israelis might be using Haaretz to force Iran to the bargaining table.

However it is not just these two sources. The former head of the Mossad talked about it on CNN a couple of months ago, the Financial Times columnist Philip Stephens and the article cited by J.M. Rosenberg to start this thread is in the NewRepublic.com.

There is no reason not to try to talk to Iran. If anything having Europe, the U.S. and others talk to Iran might work especially if Iran knows that Israel is prepared to take out their facilities.

However, no one has said there is any example of none military means really working. The only hope is the good will of the Iranians. The Iranians who brag about their nuclear program, deny the Holocaust and call for Israel's destruction. Not to believe the claims of those who want to do evil tends to be shortsighted if not stupid.

Thus let talks proceed but only to the point that Israel, acting on its own, can't stop Iran. My only point that even this will not be acceptable to many.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

2/24/01 Cairo Press Conference

Secretary of State Colin Powell:

"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."

LOL - You mean the Chuck Hagel who was CEO of the voting machine company that counted most of the votes when Hagel won his senate seat in a major upset in 1996? Hagel still has money in the voting machine company through his investment in the McCarthy Group.

This sort of stuff apparently flies in Nebraska but, come on, we are talking about a presidential election. Is there no such thing as a "conflict of interest" anymore?

BTW, the McCarthy Group has redacted a number of pages in the last six months from its former website stored in the internet archives. I guess the McCarthy Group is gearing up for Hagel's big run.

You said no one ever held Arab states accountable. Perhaps you meant only toward Israel, as opposed to things like invading Kuwait, where Iraq was very much held accountable. While I disagreed with the second invasion, the reality is that Saddam was held accountable by the neck until he was very dead.

Israel has only once come close to not handling an Arab force without the use of nuclear weapons. If Israel feels it must develop a large nuclear force, including missiles with range to hit some Soviet targets, fine -- but let Israel also be on its own about expecting to be protected. Let me be blunt: no country has a right to exist paid by another country. If Israel wants to have that nuclear deterrent, as far as I am concerned, it's on its own. Yes, I suppose that might mean it is exposed to annihilation. It made choices and has to live with the consequences. The United States spent years threatened with annihilation by the Soviet Union, and took responsibility for its own survival.

You have an uncanny ability to make me turn from neutrality for Israel to active dislike, mostly because you seem to insist that Israel's right to exist must be guaranteed by the US. That guarantee has no associated treaty.

CNN is reporting a Defense Ministry investigation about the use of M26 MLRS rockets against Lebanon, in violation of the agreement by which they were sold to Israel. At the time that Israel urgently demanded resupply of the M26, which is no longer in the US inventory due to its propensity to create the equivalent of antipersonnel minefields, I suggested that this was extremely questionable. Apparently, this has gotten to the policy level. Again, I suppose, you will say Israel had to do so to protect itself from annihilation by, I guess, relatively small artillery rockets.

When US forces are hit by similar rockets, which are much less dangerous to prepared soldiers, they do not respond with cluster munitions. Israel uses US radars to track rockets and shells, and has the same 155mm M109 howitzers (well, M109A5 rather than M109A6) with the same M107 shells that reduce collateral damage. Israel chose not to use a proportional weapon -- and being on the receiving end of six M107 airbursts can ruin your whole day. The M107 has a faster time of flight and thus a greater chance of killing the crew that fired the rocket.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Purple State:

I think you have written an excellent post and I thank you for it. It was unintentional to not address your question directly, and I guess the best answer I can give is that I think you will find American politicians "campaigning" in Israel far more often than in any other foreign country I can think of. Improper? I don't necessarily think so. Wierd? Maybe so. Pandering? Probably.

On the issue of Professor Murray, I am intimately familiar with him and I don't think I can ever forgive TNR for running its puff piece on him several years back. I have no idea who invited him to the conference in Israel, but whoever chose to do so has questionable judgment at best. I would have no problem questioning any American presidential candidate about his or her decision to appear at a conference with Professor Murray. It makes me a bit ill frankly.

Again, thanks for your engaging post and I hope I adequately responded to your questions.

Ah, more of the usual attribution of "hatred" to anyone who'se posts you can't refute on the basis of facts.

He said something bad about Israel ... which is factually true... therefore he must "loathe" Israel and "hate" Jews...and never mind the content of his post.

Do you people really think this tactic of yours isn't embarrasingly transparent? LOL!

Thank you for your kind words, bslev, and you did respond more than adequately.

I'm tempted to joke that in inviting Murray, the Jew who invited him disproved Murray's thesis. Given that envy of Jewish success is probably one of the primary causes of anti-Semitism it seems like a remarkably stupid invitation. But then maybe the inviter understood the irony of his invitation and therefore was cleverer than I suspect--and more generous too, since he anticipated that even his non-Jewish audience would be smart enough to understand his irony. It's all very complex indeed . . .

Hass, You can cite facts, you can argue about what "facts" mean, and you can still hate at the same time. Makes you quite the juggler, but not munch of a convincer. Hate away, laugh away, spew away, and I will continue to seek consensus.

The record builds.

I was thinking of your previous mention of cluster munitions when I saw that story earlier. I agree it was not justified from our point of view.

They no doubt had their reasons, but what were they? An incorrect understanding of effects? A desire for the minefield effect? Hoping to catch missile teams trying to get away? Or intending to deny repeated use of a location?

I don't want to make unjustified assumptions about trying to inflict civilian casualties, but I am absolutely puzzled why they used MLRS at all, when the M109 howitzer would generally have had a better chance of killing the rocket crews. There is a cluster munition warhead for the M109, but US doctrine wouldn't use it in this case. While MLRS has greater range than the M109, the M109's range is greater than a GRAD rocket, so that would not be a practical problem.

MLRS, and indeed cluster munitions (including antitank types that aren't a "landmine" threat) do have appropriate roles against conventional military forces, and Israel is threatened by such. The M26 is unguided, but the US has replaced it with guided missiles, either carrying cluster munitions more accurately, or a quite large unitary explosive.

Ironically, there are "self-sterilizing" antipersonnel mine cluster munitions for the M109 howitzer, which are less erratic than the bomblet carried by the M26. US engineers are working quite hard to solve the dud bomblet with continuing hazard problem, but it isn't an easy one.

One of the problems here is that Israel intensely censors anything about their tactics, leaving the observer without advanced intelligence capabilities to rely on informed guesswork. You'll remember that during the Lebanon action, I commented on the apparent use of the M270 MLRS, and especially once I learned the Israelis wanted resupply of M26 rockets. If they hadn't asked for resupply, we might never have learned what they did.

There were also reports that Israeli sent fighter-bombers to attack some missile teams, which I am also at a loss to explain. Unless the aircraft is in the perfect position and the timing of the bombing order is perfect, it can take several minutes, at least, for it to attack a position.

It must be remembered that the Soviets developed the GRAD and earlier Katyusha rockets to be fired in volleys from multiple tubes on trucks, and move away immediately. The single fire rockets used by Hizbollah don't need more than a very simple ramp, which could be discarded, or picked up later if it survives. A realistic firing team is 3 or 4 men in a truck: put up the ramp, put the rocket in it, connect the firing wires to the control box, get away from the ramp, push the button, cut the wires, and drive like a bat out of hell. You probably have 30-60 seconds after firing to get them. That's the general US Army assumption about how long [armored] artillery has to get out of range when firing against a conventional enemy with counterbattery radar linked to the firing systems -- maybe 90 to 120 seconds.

I am also puzzled that the Israeli ground forces seemed very surprised by tactics involving antitank missiles against both armor and infantry, when the Chechens have been using these tactics since about 1999.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Your post was likely rated a '1' because your argument is weak. See my above previous post.

Your response to my response hasn't furthered your case that Israel is the biggest threat to the region. You've said Israel should give back Palestinian land and that I should read up a bit on Iran. You made the argument that Israel is the biggest threat to the region, for your argument to be persuasive you should provide evidence to support your claim. Telling me to read more and the Israel should give back Palestinian land is not evidence but merely statements.

In Bush's state of the union address, he said that U.S. troops were operating in Iraq under a United Nation's mandate. Didn't Kofi Annan say that the Iraq war was illegal?

President Bush:

In Iraq, multinational forces are operating under a mandate from the United Nations.

United Nations mandate? Hmm.

Given the apparent lack of training for the mission (much discussion of occupation-enfeebled forces) perhaps there was confusion about tactics and goals. Political pressure no doubt complicated things, too.

Likely some folks there are asking hard questions, not that we'll find out anytime soon exactly how those conversations went.

First off the Mithraism which influenced Christianity was ROMAN Mithraism; the Persian variety had been extinct for some centuries given that Zorastrianism was a monotheist (or Ditheist, since Ahriman was also conisdered a god, albiet the god of evil) faith that refused to recognize old IndoAryan gods like Mithra.
Secondly though I have seen a very thorough debunking of many of the so-called Mithraist elements in Christianity, and not by a Christian authotrity but by a classical scholar with a thorough academic knowledge of the subject. I wish I had a link, but unfortunately I do not. However most of the things that Christianity supposedly borrowed from Mithraism (virgin birth, Dec 25 birthdate, 12 disciples, Last Supper etc.) were never part of the ancient cult in either its Roman or Persian variety. They were simply made up out of whole cloth by some modern day neo-Pagan with an ax to grind, and then posted on the web where of course they have been repeated endlessly by people who really ought to check out the sources before buying in to disinformation.

On the Magi (certainly), and the influences of Zoroastrianism on Judiasm you are at least on firmer footing.

Thanks Howard.

I appreciate your perspective (an often marvel at your breadth of knowledge), however sometimes I think it is simply an Army-Aircore version of Navel-gazing.  :)

___________________________________________________

“I, ..., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

FYI, the Persians and the CHinese were reading each other's books long, long, long before the US or the UK were invented.

as long as Israelis are expected to die and risk death as no country, certainly not the United States is expected

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

It's interesting that Iran can live with a nuclear Israel, but Israel can't live with a nuclear Iran. Why should Iranians assume that Israel will exercise any kind of caution or reason anymore than the Israelis assume the Iranians would? Mutually assured delusions...

The only way you get to 900,000, do you have any proof for this number, is if you include the state of Israel. The U.N. already decided that issue in 1947.

Golda Meir's statement was unfortunate especially when it came to making a deal with Jordan and Egypt. Arabs agreed with her for a long time rejecting the Roman term and seeing the area of Israel being part of greater Syria.

The Palestinians, and their apologists, have two choices. They can continue to murder Israelis in an effort to drive them out of their country. They will strengthen the settlements and cause many more Palestinians to die. In all likelihood other Arabs are going to grow tired of this conflict with the Persians knocking. Or, the Palestinians can accept a deal similar to the one proposed by Clinton at Taba.

You can whine all you want but Israel is going nowhere and a Palestinian State is largely in Arab hands.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Howard

With all due respect this does not show that Israel is now not expected to take risks no other nation would. If anything it proves my point.

There is also always an odd element to these debates and that is the seeming assumption that only Israel has America's protection. I am bit curious. Should the United States defend Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Great Britain, Germany, Australia or Canada? While it would not shock me to discover that America has more troops in Israel that is made public I would be it is not as many as in Germany, Japan and South Korea. The U.S. is also regularly patrolling the Strait of Taiwan sometimes called the most dangerous spot on earth. Except that Israel is surrounded by more potential enemies than any country save Taiwan and it gets more money from the U.S. it does not seem to me that Israel is treated so exceptionly by America.

Just War sounds nice but since the Thirty Years War has largely been something debated in philosophy books. If people run to hide within populated areas then they are responsible for the deaths of their own people.

As for you definition of what constitutes acceptible proof of Iran's nuclear program is simple a call for Israel to see it it can be exterminated first. I hope that Israel totally ignores such a theory designed to murder them.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

You seem to know a lot about drugs.

Daniel has stated my sentiments more trenchantly than I could, except that while I share his fear that Iran is using the lure of negotiations with the U.S. to buy time to advance their technology rendering any later Israeli attack useless, I do agree with those here who think the Administration should at least try to talk directly to Iran. Given the willingness of Republican Presidents from Eisenhower to Nixon to Reagan to conduct one-on-one talks with Russian leaders who had the capacity to annihilate American civilization, it seems illogical that we would eschew bi-lateral talks with Iran which, for the moment, does not.

Some Israelis hope America goes to war with Iran, thereby sparing them the necessity of attacking Iran in their view. I am not convinced that is a position which as of now commands a majority of Israeli voters however, so I would caution those who consider Bibi Netanhyu to be a spokesman for Israel.

I haven't converted completely to your viewpoint: I am with Hilary and John Edwards all the way in not ruling out any option even while we talk to Iran.

The likelihood that I would have found this myself is minuscule. Thanks for the link. 

aMike

I know where it is located - how do you think Mithraism got there? Had you read the full encyclopedia entry, you'd seen it came from Persia to Asia Minor, by way of modern Armenia and Georgia.

Correction: I don't "wish" to ascibe to it anything, lots of others do. Correct or not, I'll let the scholars debate it rather than this forum, and people who are interested can find more sites like this one.

The fact remains that the Persians have significantly influenced Western civilization and just the influence of Zoroastrianism is sufficient proof. That was the point. Iran isn't some isolated backwater a la North Korea.

Oh and there was Manicheanism too - another Persian religion that came to the West...

The Head of the UN knows a thing or two about international law, and has said that the " US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally

While it is true that the GA affirmed the Nuremberg Principles in 1946, the prohibition of the use of force except in self-defense is in the UN Charter (Art 51), and is derived from the prohibition of "Crimes Against Peace" from the Nuremberg Code.

The Iraq war was neither authorized by the UNSC nor was justified as self-defense (proportional response to an imminent threat? I don't think so!) and as such it constitutes a breach of international law.

People have hanged for waging Wars of Agression and committing Crimes Against Peace. Why should Bush not face justice?

I do search for the moral high ground Hass, but not to monopolize it. Perhaps if you take a couple of deep breaths, understand that you, like all others, lack all answers, perhaps then you and I can share the moral high ground together. I would welcome that.

If people run to hide within populated areas then they are responsible for the deaths of their own people.

As for you definition of what constitutes acceptible proof of Iran's nuclear program is simple a call for Israel to see it it can be exterminated first.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

It can be easily argued that Taiwan is strategically important to the US.  It gives us an important port and strategic ally virtually on the coast of our most important rival.  Comparably, Israel amounts to a thorn in the side of all the strategically important countries within 1000 miles of its boarders.  Taiwan does very little to annoy China, certainly it does not wage genocidal war against any ethnic Chinese population.  So, your comparison is meaningless.

It is clear that the Iranian leaders have not been reading BradTheDad, DanGre or Sage, else they would have launched massive conventional attacks on Israeli nuclear capacity long ago.

Exactly.

Plain and simple: Iran is Israel’s enemy, not ours.

After our invasion of Afghanistan, Iran was helping us in that fight. It was noted that our relationship with Iran at that time was our closest to them in 35 years. It was only when Bush, at the neocon’s behest, cut off ties and declared Iran an enemy that they became one. In a Washington minute, they went from WOT partner to being enshrined in the Axis of Evil (always sounded like a comic book title to me).

Of course, Iran is a bad actor on many fronts. But this case against them is a fiction. It goes hand in hand with this War against Islam that the neocons have tried to gin up and the conflating of the war on global terrorism into the global war on terrorism (al Qaeda equals Hezbollah equals Hamas). Besides defending itself against a U.S.-backed Iraq, what wars has Iran fought much less started? Who have they invaded? Who have they bombed? Putting Israel aside, how could Iran ever be an imminent threat to the security of the U.S.?

Peace Rally Washington D.C. 01/27/07 video here.

The definition of a ZIonist precludes recognition of Palestinians. You can't create a racially/religiously purified homeland where Palestinians (Christian and Moslem) continue to inconveniently live. So, no, by definition you can't be a Zionist and yet recognize the right of Palestinians to exist....unless you're implying that the Palestinians should just go exist somewhere else (the old spin that "Jordan is Palestine") so as to make it easier for the Zionist to have their pureified ethnically-cleansed homeland.

Calling me "angry" is your self-flattery and isn't going to get you any points. You can call me all the names you want, but it only shows that you can't respond to the content of my posts and instead resort to shooting the messenger.

There you go again, trying to monopolize the high ground. You're an angel and I'm the devil, yes, we know. Stop repeating it and instead lets see you actually respond to the content of one of my posts. OK? Otherwise you're just boring and full of yourself.

you can say that again!

this is probably an old joke. sorry, but i'm going to go with it.

FOREIGNID: 201043
FOREIGNPARENTID: 200867
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 12939
AUTHOR: hass
DATE: 01/29/2007 10:47:04 PM

Mr. HC,

Thank you so much for your e-mail.  I have already relayed the information to the questioner.

BTW  I was very careful not to put the video link on your blogs, just for you. I have removed it from several spots, but alas, it is locked in here for posterity by your reply. Please forgive me.

Big hug,

 Ticia

This is getting rather old. Earlier, I gave you references on why Israel's disproportionate response to Hizbollah rockets was to Hizbollah's advantage. Now, it seems necessary to educate you on some basic international law, such as mutual defense treaties and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Believe it or not, US commitments tend to be defined by treaty, except when the President is acting with "unitary authority".

Protection of the United States extends to all except Taiwan by formal treaty. It is not at all clear that the United States would specifically protect Taiwan, although it certainly sells military armaments to Taiwan. Under the Shanghai Communique agreed to by Nixon, the relation of Taiwan to the PRC is considered an internal matter.

...Israel has America's protection.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

J. McCutchen

Cole in Salon.com: Bush's Anti-Iran Fatwa

It all depends on what you think Zionism is. If you accept Ze'ev Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall" definition of Revisionist Zionism, then, yes, Zionism precludes decent treatment of the Palestinians. But this is really only accepted by Likud and the really loony rightwingers. Classical Zionism as first set forth by Theodor Herzl, while it certainly has its flaws, is not shot through by the same racism and near-fascism that the Revisionist form is. Herzl's Altneuland envisioned equality for Jews and Arabs in the Holy Land. Israel must return to Herzl's ecumenical vision and reject the Judeofascism of Jabotinsky.

Hass, I only call you angry because you act angry on here. I don't think you can genuinely deny that. You have a clear history of angry denunciations.

Now, I'm not suggesting that behind all that anger is a real love for the downtrodden, in particular with you the Palestinians. But it gets lost with your venemous outbursts.

I mean, for example, just the other day, I responded to someone's question about what the right to return was. I thought it was an innoncent question, and I pointed out that the only other nation that I knew of with a right of return was Italy. In response to a simple fact I stated, you come rumbling in and declare: Yea, well Italy isn't flattening Palestinian villages and murdering Palestinian families! No shit, that's what you wrote.

And, so that's just one example of the kind of thing you're doing on here that convinces me that your anger is so pervasive that it's difficult to talk to you--and all on here can see that I've tried to engage you. I tried to engage you yesterday about what a Jerusalem settlement might look like, and instead of talking about possible parameters, you give us your version about why prior peace negotiations have unravelled--and of course, it's only Israel's fault in your narrative.

Heck, I even put out Morris' own writings in order to show that I'm not afraid to address painful issues. You have to agree Hass that throwing out Morris does not help the position of what is your apparent definition of anyone who might consider himself a Zionist in this posting environment.

Hass, I'm sorry I don't meet your stereotype (not mine)of an angry and stubborn pro-Israel poster. I'm sorry if I admit that I don't know the answers to all of the complex questions. And I'm sorry if I'm both not afraid to admit when I'm wrong, while at the same time not sheepish about pointing out the errors in the ways of others.

I'm here to engage, but I will call you angry to the extent you simply post polemics, and I will engage you when what you post invites folks to be engaged. And when I see someone leading with anger I will point that out too, whether it is someone who supports Israel's right to exist, or whether it is someone like you who writes with such anger that it makes it difficult to even imagine the type of solution you envision for the Middle East.

You are so angry, you don't even hesitate to accuse me of things I've never written and do not believe. Are these the kinds of "facts" you accuse me of not respnding to? What a joke. OK Hass, here's my response:

1. I don't believe that everyone hates Jews; I don't believe that most people hate Jews. I don't even believe that you hate Jews.

2. Israel is in constant danger of being attacked, but Israel has the means of protecting itself for the moment.

3. Iran is hardly Hitler, and it has the potential of being a genuine ally of the United States. I am concerned about some radical elements in Iran in the event that Iran does obtain a nuclear capability, and I would never automatically take a military response off the table. That said, I see no genuine reason to apply force against Iran in the near future, and I think current sabre rattling against Iran is not productive.

4. I've already responded to Mr. Good 4 America on my views on the USA's support for Israel, and I certainly don't think that "the US had better support Israel or else."

5. You close "etc. etc." I know not how to respond to that.

Sorry, but you're going to need some new talking points if you'd like to address me with civility and for the purpose of productive discussion. I invite your discourse, and not your anger.

The original ZIonist vision was that Israel was a "Country without a People" in which the Arabs either didn't exist or were simply savages who didn't know anything and would only benefit from being the "hewers of wood and fetchers of water" for the more civilized European Jewish settlers. This was how all European colonizers viewed others and Zionists were no different naturally.

Many people doubted this view, including Ahad Ha'am (Ginzberg) but were ignored:

In 1891 Ahad Ha'Am opened many Jewish eyes to the fact the Palestine was not empty, but populated with its indigenous people when he wrote:

"We abroad are used to believe the Eretz Yisrael is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed ..... But in truth that is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains .... are not cultivated."

In 1891Ahad Ha'Am similarly wrote of the Palestinians:

"If a time comes when our people in Palestine develop so that, in small or great measure, they push out the native inhabitants, these will not give up their place easily."

Ahad Ha'Am published a series of articles in the Hebrew periodical Hameliz that were sharply critical of the ethnocentricity of political Zionism as well as the exploitation of the Palestinian peasantry by the Zionist colonists. Ahad Ha'Am sought to draw attention to the fact the Palestine was not empty territory and that the presence of another people posed problems:

" ....[the Zionist pioneers believed that] the only language the Arabs understand is that of force ..... [They] behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7)

So sorry, no. Zionism was never compatible with the fact of the existence of Palestinians. They had to be "cleansed" as Benny Morris put it, or else Zionism could not succeed. Zionism is based on ethnic cleansing and genocide. To the extent that Zionists ever acknowledged the Palestinians, it was as a people to be ethnicall cleansed.

Other things the Iranians have given us:

Lemons.
The tulip.
Formal gardens.
The damask rose.
English words such as "paradise".

"Since your assertions seem mainly based on your hostility toward Israel..."

Which of his assertions...

'Thus if there is no other way to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons"...assumes that Iran is indeed getting nuclear weapons, something which has ABSOLUTELY no evidence behind it except repeated assertions, much as Iraqi WMD were created out of thin air by simple repetition.

...show hostility towards Israel? Please cut & paste them below. You really have a one-track-mind.

Jan Knaus

Hass, there you go again. I'm not questioning the scholarship of Benny Morris to any extent. I'm focusing on his comments that would appear to justify the possible expulsion of Palestinians en masse in the future. I think you would join me in condemning those comments.

This is address to hass as well. Both of you are capable of excellent posts, without resorting to "nyaaah nyaaah" or "your mother wears army boots*". In this thread, I actually see you two agreeing more than disagreeing. Could we get back to regular quality?



*For the record, my mother did wear army boots. Designer pumps just wouldn't have coordinated with her fatigues at the field hospital (tries, and fails, to think of Jimmy Choo's version of Corcoran boots).

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Obviously this is all the propaganda of the Mollah regime. Everyone knows that Iran is one large desert, dotted with camels, oil wells, and libidinous, tent-dwelling sheikhs who regularly beat their 40 wives and hate us for our freedoms. For some TOTALLY UNFATHONABLE REASON, Hollywood agrees with this portrayal of Iranians=Arabs=Moslems=Anti-Semites=Anti-Americans=Terrorists, so it must be true.

Oh, and they don't love their children as much as we do either (BradtheDad says so)

I am afraid you are mistaken about Meir's statement. The context was her desire for Jordan to be the Palestinian State. For a long time after the 6 Day War Israelis took the position that Jordan was the Palestinian State, as was more or less laidout by the U.N. in 1947. It was a convenient argument, but unfortunately shortsighted. The israelis did not appreciate that their nationalism had given rise to a Palestinian nationalism.

Benny Morris' argument is that most of the Arabs who left what is now Israel left as refugees from the war. A war as usual launched by the Arabs themselves.

Finklestien like Rosenberg is an anti-Israeli voice. So what. They give rise to support to those who either want policies that will end up denying the Palestinians a state or lots of dead Jews.

The region of Israel was controlled from Alexander's time to the British by many peoples but not Arabs. Unless you think Americans ought to get out of America then your hysteria is both hypocritical and irrelevant.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I assume this is meant in humor. Taiwan is quite a thorn to the Chinese. They prevent the election of any candidate who advocates Taiwan independence. Also as the Chinese get stronger and stronger one wonders how long they will allow part of their country to stay indendent. See Hong Kong and Macao.

That Israel annoys the Arabs is fine so does the United States. Israel also provides a bridge to Turkey and other countries for the United States.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Howard

What does the existence of treaties have to with the basic point. The U.S. is committed to to protecting many countries.

You can't educate me on anything except perhaps the very technical aspects of warfare. Indeed I find you go on and on to defend the murder of Jews. What sets you off is the desire to stop the murder of Jews.

As for exceptional treatment.

In 1998 bin Laden announced a "new enterprise: the International Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders.... An angry litany of anti-American threats and grievances, the manifesto was signed by militant leaders from Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Kashmir....

At the center of bin Laden's reasoning lay the cause of his own person humilation in late 1990. Then he had sought to persuade the Sauid royal family to let him lead a Jihad against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Instead the royal family had invited the American military to wage warand had banished bin Laden from the kingdom for protesting. Since the Gulf War in 1991, bin Laden now declared, the United States "has been occupying the most sacred lands of Islam: the Arabian Peninsula. It has been stealing its resources, dictating to its leaders, humilitating its people, and frightening its neighbors. It is using its rule in the Peninsula as a weapon to fight the neighboring peoples of Islam."

"Bin Laden often spoke about the imperative for Lslamist violence in frightening but general terms. Al-Zawahiri, on the other hand, spoke like a bloodthirsty staff sergeant just back from the trenches. 'Tracking down the Americans and the Jews is not impossible,' he wrote, "Killing them with a single bullet, a stab, or a device made up of a popular mix of explosives, or hitting them with an iron is not impossible.... With the available means, small groups could prove to be a frightening horror for the Americans and the Jews.'"
[Coll, Steve "Ghost Wars" pp.381-383)

It would seem that Jews(not Israelis alone) suffer more from the positions of the United States than the other way around. Also bin Laden and his fellow signatories put the Jews in an exceptional position.

If you want to ponfiticate some more while proving absolutely nothing please enjoy yourself.

As for the Daniel A. Greenbaum

*sigh* Again, I am hearing, under the annoyance, more agreement than not. For the record, I don't consider Zionism ultimate evil. We have too many examples of unquestioned examples of evil.

Indeed, Zionism has evolved significantly, along with the establishment of the State of Israel and its regional military dominance. Some major phases might be, not counting Biblical claims (many dates are arbitrary). Obviously, the list of phases below blurs the distinction between Zionist principles and those of the State.

I have not attempted, this being long enough, to capture the changes and positions of the last decade or so. I have also not tried to describe the involvement of non-Jewish Zionists, especially US Christian Fundamentalists; perhaps that is a mistake but this grows too long.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

J. McCutchen

Iran won the IraQ War on or about March 7, 2003. And Israel wants to bring on another one?

With Iran Ascendant, U.S. Is Seen at Fault Arab Allies in Region Feeling Pressure

[Shadid via TPM]

Somewhere up thread, a reader posted a comment to the effect that the region's capitals would cheer a war on Iran.

I don't the source for this. Perhaps the reader should double check his/her's

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- Kuwait rarely rebuffs its ally, the United States, partly out of gratitude for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But in October it reneged on a pledge to send three military observers to an American-led naval exercise in the Gulf, according to U.S. officials and Kuwaiti analysts.We understood," a State Department official said. "The Kuwaitis were being careful not to antagonize the Iranians."

Four years after the United States invaded Iraq, in part to transform the Middle East, Iran is ascendant, many in the region view the Americans in retreat, and Arab countries, their own feelings of weakness accentuated, are awash in sharpening sectarian currents that many blame the United States for exacerbating.

You're right Howard. My apologies for that snide post.

:-) Well said, although the double post was vaguely appropriate, if not a bit much. One form of saying "thank you" in Japanese was (incorrectly) translated as "I throw myself, with craven gratitude, at your feet. Double-posted apologies are a bit like that.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"People have hanged for waging Wars of Agression and committing Crimes Against Peace. Why should Bush not face justice?"

Although this is slightly off-thread, I agree so strongly that I thought I would say cheers to Hass, whom I have rated poorly for some of his, shall we say, heated, ahem, rhetoric concerning Israel. At any rate, he is right on this one. Why should The Decider not face the same justice as those at Nuremburg? After all, he, and those under him, appear to have committed similar offenses. And, no, he should not be allowed to choose the Göring option, either.

Hee--gettin a li'l old to throw myself anywhere!

Well, Nuremburg was victor's justice. I think the Hague would be a better venue for the war crimes trial of Mr. Bush. With any luck, Cheney will have died by the time this could happen (±2012).

This almost wholly one-sided talk, which verges on abject pandering, shows why Edwards should never be President.

Its not MY conclusion that expulsion of Palestinians is a necessary element of Zionism - it is Benny Morris's conclusion. He said so himself in his interview: "cleansing" was necessary, and more of it is needed.

You know Benny Morris...the same fellow whose scholarship you "weren't going to question" according to your previous post?

Not exactly sure what this selective recounting of history accomplished. Palestinians are still in refugee camps, Jewish settlements are still growing. Zionism hasn't changed, and its success in creating a purified Jewish-dominated homeland depends on the subjugation and "transfer"(aka Genocide) of Palestinians and there are more & more people Israel who are explicitly calling for that. See Morris and Avigdor Lieberman...

If you don't call that evil, then I guess Apartheid S. Africa wasn't evil either.

"One last thing. I do not believe Israelis share this view of Iran. Check out Gen. Shlomo Brom's
speech at Herzliyah. This is a neocon argument not an Israeli one."

????? MJ. I'm a big fan of General Brom and can't find anything that suggests he was a speaker at Herzliya. Could you clarify?

[Duplicate, and I'm afraid more coming, deleted]

[Quadruplicate. My face glows ruby red]

Benny Morris' research on what happened in the 1940s has nothing to do whatsoever with his non-scientific "justification" for possible expulsions of Palestinians in the future. One is a fig (historical analysis of the War of Independence) and the other a date (well, in my view, Israel should have kicked em all out back in 48 so maybe they'll have to do it in 2010). The distinction is not too profound for anyone, much less an obviously intelligent guy like you, to understand.

Sorry, I'm having trouble parsing a sentence. Kicked whom out? The West Bank Arabs in 1948?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Israel's actions meet the legal definition of genocide under the relevant international convention. Period.

You may not see Israeli actions as amounting to ethnic cleasing - but apparently Israeli historians do.

See Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe and Shlomo Ben-Ami:

“The reality on the ground was that of an Arab community in a state of terror facing a ruthless Israeli army whose path to victory was paved not only by its exploits against the regular Arab armies, but also by the intimidation and at times atrocities and massacres it perpetrated against the civilian Arab community. A panic-stricken Arab community was uprooted under the impact of massacres that would be carved into the Arabs' monument of grief and hatred.”

Now, was this ethnic cleansing "better" than Dafur's? Is one genocide "better" than another? I don't know about you but I certainly wouldn't want to make such distinctions from the comfort of my computer desk.

No I was talking about Palestinians on the Israeli side of the green line.

If Nuremberg was victor's justice, the law today is perfectly crystal clear and not victor's justice. Attacking another country with UN Sec Council authorization and in the absence of self-defense is a crime.

Not to mention that torturing people and other war crimes charges are already pending. Charges have been filed against Bush, Cheney and Rummy in Europe, Israeli Maj. Gen. Doron Almog is an international fugitive for war crimes charges, and Henry Kissinger fears going anywhere near Spain.

I'll pass on a legal discussion on the use of force in international law in general, however there are more than enough sources online such as this one, and a good general law review article in the Georgetown Law Journal

You're in denial. Even as you type, more Israeli settlements are being built.

No, I haven't been to a Palestinian refugee camp recently. I track Darfur much more closely, and I have direct emergency medicine experience and a fair bit of knowledge on prioritization. The fact that people are in the camps, however, tends to indicate they are not dead. To the best of my knowledge, the Palestinian refugee camps are not regularly raided for rape, child soldiers, or general sadism, as in Darfur.

One atrocity is not a justification for another, but there are people with much more critical problems than the Palestinians. Yes, I believe the Israelis abuse them, but it isn't a completely one-sided matter.

Yes, I'm listening to myself. If there is a world humanitarian priority list, one goes to where the greatest deaths are occurring, to the extent that it is logistically practical to do so. Please save the emotional appeals, and I suggest some education on triage. I understand the reason Palestinians fight, but I also believe they have gotten into a culture of hate that is not to their benefit in finding solutions.

I have no argument that the US is contributing to the Israeli occupation. I would be quite willing to see major interruptions in military aid until all settlements are gone. Settlements are not military outposts for security surveillance, under military discipline.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*