Top Israeli Predicts Conventional -- and then Nuclear Attack on Iran
Benny Morris is a prominent mainstream Israeli historian so his words matter. And, according to what I hear, the views expressed here reflect what many Israelis think. So we better pay attention.
Morris predicts that Israel will attack Iran sometime between the Presidential election and Inauguration Day. He says that we all (including the Iranians) better hope that the Israeli attack succeeds in eliminating Iran's nuclear program because, if it doesn't, Israel will have to resort to using a nuclear weapon.
For Morris, there is no alternative (he dismisses the idea of negotiations). For Morris it is simple. Iran is working on a nuclear weapon. It won't be stopped by sanctions. The United States is too chicken to attack Iran. So....Israel has to do the job.
In passing he mentions that the war he envisions will destroy the global economy, spew radioactive pollution everywhere, and cause terrorist attacks in the US but, what the hay, we can't let them have nukes and we can't negotiate so....if we die, we die.
I'd say Morris is certifiable but for the fact that he is expressing a view common in Israel and in neocon circles here.
I was up at the Senate the other day, talking to a top aide to an important Democratic Senator. He thought that Senate Dems would push for impeachment if the US attacked Iran. When I agreed but said that if Israel attacks, the same Senators will come down to the floor to offer congratulations, he agreed.
We better pay attention to this. An attack by Israel will have the same consequences for America as an attack by the US. Unfortunately, we don't have a say on whether Israel attacks or not. We'll just pay the price (along with Israel, Iran, and the world).
How many days left until Jan. 20?
MJ says;
"An attack by Israel will have the same consequences for America as an attack by the US."
MJ, I agree, and as I've stated before; any attack on Iran by the US or Israel will be paid for in blood by Americans and Israelis alike.
July 20, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube to mp3
December 20, 2010 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job,children health indeed.
January 19, 2011 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iran is working on a nuclear weapon.
They could stop and all would be well. But they won't...because they know every leftie A-hole on the planet will justify their actions and blame Israel and the United States.
Just at MJRosenswine does.
July 20, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou quotes:
"Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power."
Every intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam had WMD. Perhaps it all depended on what the meaning of the word "had" is.
What would Iran do with a Nuke if they had one...or two?
As to your insult to MJ (MJRosenswine), I guess you just can't help yourself.
July 20, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
Has this been your position all along? I doubt it. Probably no more than the last 10 minutes. Because the usual leftie position has been that the CIA and our other intelligence agencies did NOT believe that Saddam had WMD, and that Cheney and friends manipulated and cherry-picked to make it seem as if they did. So why don't you prove to me that you publicly endorsed your current position for at least the last 3 years?
More important, nations act on the best intelligence estimate available, not on the worst, and certainly the lack of same which is typical of today's Left.
....or 10 or 20? Gee, I don't know. Why would they want them if they have no use? Israel - outside of its opposition to their atom program - never posed a threat to them...and no one else in the region has such weapons.
July 20, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Israel isn't in the "region" then or are you pretending they don't have nukes? It boggles the mind how people can believe that a nuclear armed Israel doesn't provoke an arms race by those who feel threatened by Israel. And since this thread is just one of a zillion on how Israel DOES threaten Iran why wouldn't Iran feel threatened by Israel and seek weapons or allies in response? It's simple game theory. I don't know why ideology and religious beliefs so blind people to objective cause and effect, action and reaction. And fine, tell me Iran threatens Israel. So what, it's still the same game, action and reaction, escalation and war.
July 20, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ bluebell
Why don't you tell me how Israel threatens Iran (outside of Iran's nuclear program)? Specifically. Not bullshit references to "game theory" which you don't understand. That ought to be easy since ther've been a "zillion" threads on the subject.
July 20, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you read the thread header?
July 20, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ bluebell
Stop being evasive. Just list the ways Israel threatens Iran (other than Iran's nuclear program).
July 20, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou asks;
Why don't you tell me how Israel threatens Iran (outside of Iran's nuclear program)?
Though you tried to slither out by using the word "outside", you answered your own question.
heh heh heh
July 20, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
Any other threats besides the threat to Iran's nuclear program? Come on, dumb-ass. Say something worthwhile.
July 20, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou says:
"Any other threats besides the threat to Iran's nuclear program? Come on, dumb-ass. Say something worthwhile."
One threat to bomb a number of locations, destroy infrastructure and obviously kill a number of Iranians is enough.
Your tactic is to try to discount the threat by adding qualifiers like; "outside of Iran's nuclear program", "other than Iran's nuclear program."
When is a threat not a threat? When there is not more than one.
How many threats do you require?
July 20, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
The Israelis have threatened to destroy Iran's nuclear program. They have made no other threat against Iran, now or ever.
Your attempt to portray the threat as something else is completely and thoroughly dishonest and despicable...
...but it's what I've come to expect from the Left which is why I treat you all with such contempt.
July 20, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
According to you morons, Iran is attempting to obtain nuclear weapons because Israel had threatened it.
But Israel NEVER threatened Iran prior to Iran's attempt to gain nuclear weapons. I've asked you all - repeatedly - to prove me wrong. You couldn't. Therefore, the justification for Iran's nuclear program fails.
The illogic of your position doesn't bother you. Nor have any of you mentioned the illegality of Iran's position as a signator to the non-Proliferation treaty...even though you are CONSTANTLY using legal arguments against Israel. Nor have any of you mentioned the UN opposition to Iran's nuclear program...even though you constantly blamed the US for defying the UN.
All you want to do is blame the US (particularly the Republicans and George Bush) and Israel. For the trouble in the Middle East. For the economic problems at home. For all your personal failures. For anything and everything.
July 20, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Offensivetoyou says;
You're obviously blind to the sarcasm and ridicule of "intelligence" in my post. And, your question about my proving my position for the last 3 years is asinine. How the hell could I accomplish that?
My current position has been the same as its always been, I never believed the Bush/Cheney gang and their Atta meeting in Prague, mushroom clouds, yellowcake and those aluminun tubes that their own energy dept told them were not conducive for centrifuges. I believed the weapons inspectors, David Kaye, Scott Ritter, and the Iraq Survey Group headed by Charles Duelfer and appointed by Bush, Saddam didn't have any WMD, they were destroyed after Desert Storm.
Gee, they might want them for the same reason Israel wants them, India and Pakistan want them, Russia and the USA want them.
July 20, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
There is an interpretation that I haven't covered; Benny Morris is either lying or misinformed about the opinions of the world's intelligence services. Somehow, I doubt you even thought of that...but it's worth asking.
July 20, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
India and Pakistan have fought several wars with each other and with China. The United States developed nuclear weapons because it was engaged in a war to the death with Japan and Germany and had good reason to fear that Germany was attempting to do the same thing. The Soviet Union had very good reason to fear the capitalist powers - beginning with their invasion in force in 1917-1919 in support of forces opposed to the Red army.
Exactly when has Israel threatened or invaded Iran? Never. Does Iran share a border with Isael? No. So why does Iran have to protect itself against Israel?
July 20, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Iran share a border with Isael? No. So why does Iran have to protect itself against Israel?
How will the Israelis destroy Iran's nuclear program? However we answer that question also answers the question of why Iran feels it needs to protect itself against Israel.
That seems rather obvious.
July 20, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ tankard
That is a very good question. You seem to have a talent for that. There is no good answer. Benny Morris emphasizes that. So does anyone else who's thought about it.
Sorry, no. This is the worst kind of circular reasoning. Iran is developing nuclear weapons because of the threat Israel poses. What threat? The threat that Israel will destroy its nuclear weapons. I'd be ashamed to be caught making an argument like that...but its the best any of you can do.
July 20, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You accuse me of circular reasoning, but I'm afraid I don't see how you complete the circle, so I'm not sure about what you would have me be ashamed.
You also accuse me of justifying Iran's actions, but don't seem to offer any evidence.
And I still don't understand how an Israel with nuclear weapons doesn't threaten Iran, but an Iran developing a nuclear weapon (if they are, which our NIE denies) does threatened Israel.
Maybe it's just because I'm such a stupid, uninformed anti-semite.
July 20, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ tankard
I presented the argument clearly. If you can't see it you never will.
What then were you doing? What are you doing now when you say
Of course, you're characterizing Iran's actions as defensive and therefore legitimate. I can't be sure you'd take the next step and characterize Israel's actions as offensive...as so many of the morons who inhabit this site repeatedly do. That's for you to tell me.
Nuclear weapons anywhere threaten everyone. That's the horrible thing about such weapons. But I don't think you mean that. I think you mean that Israel's weapons are specifically targeted at Iran for no good reason...and would be regardless of Iran's policies. I call bullshit! I've said, and say again, that is the Muslim world which is trying to destroy Israel, not the other way round.
Is Iran developing a nuclear weapon despite the findings of our NIE? Neither you nor I can answer that with anything more than opinion. Mine is that they are. Benny Morris says all the world's intelligence services agree. If it could be shown that that wasn't true I would be less certain.
July 20, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid that either you were totally unclear, or that I am completely bereft of my abilities with the English language. And since you seem unable or unwilling to clarify further, and I am too old to further my language skills, I suppose we are at an impasse.
Still, you keep replying to things I did not say, and for a person as intelligent as you this seems odd. Could it be that your point of view skews your reading of my comments just a jot?
As it seems I am unable to stop playing the asshole in your eyes, I don't suppose there is much sense in our continuing this conversation, so I'll let you run along to all the more important work you have to do, raising MJ's hit rate. No wonder you do so! You give your critics so many juicy targets at which to fire, and it appears you are congenitally incapable of letting them pass without some equally juicy rejoinder.
I hope you have enjoyed our tete-a-tete as much as I have.
July 20, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tankard says;
Tankard, he constantly misinterprets what the opposition says then he attacks his misinterpretation.
Exactly, and its what I told him a number of times;
he isn't a stupid person, but his mind is so ideologically fu**ed up it causes him to say stupid things.
July 21, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meaning absolutely no disrespect to you, I have recently come to the conclusion that when we discuss each others' personalities, characterizations of ideology or ideation, or debating styles, we seldom generate a productive discussion. For example, OTY could easily simply turn your criticism around on you.
You wouldn't have to look beyond this thread to understand that I am on your side of the argument. I, too, find that OTY's comments are founded on the appeal to negative emotions, with just a fig leaf of fact, pseudo-fact, analysis, and pseudo-analysis. But even stating these observations as I do here gives him reason and justification to strike back with More Of The Same. So complaining about it seems to me to counter-productive -- just generating the same behavior that we dislike. (Or do we?)
I hope you take this in the spirit I intend. I understand how you feel, and I often behave the same way as you do, so I have no position from which to criticize you. But I'm working on it.
July 21, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ tankard
Misinterpretation and misunderstandings are very common in human affairs...for lots of reasons. That's especially true in the political arena where passions run high and perceptions and interests vary greatly.
In my first post, my initial response to Rosenthal's article, I said that every poster would support Iran's right to nuclear weapons and blame Israel and the U.S. for the current escalation.
That's what happened...and virtually everyone continued with Rosenthal's characterization of the Israelis (and Americans) as mad and irresponsible, and the Iranians as sober, cautious, and reasonable.
So where's the misinterpretation, the misunderstanding, the strawman argument? Surely, you didn't expect that people as far apart as we are would find it easy to discuss our differences?
July 22, 2008 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
he constantly misinterprets what the opposition says then he attacks his misinterpretation
Your description, of course, is nearly a textbook description of a strawman argument. And you're correct, that is indeed one of the things OTY does on a consistent basis.
July 22, 2008 4:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon, I forgot to mention that I am a piece of excrement, delusional, a jackass wedded to my stupidity, and a masturbator. You won't have to remind me of any of these, but I have no doubt that you will have noticed any number of defects that I have yet to identify and claim.
July 20, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ tankard
I think I've treated you with respect in all our conversations, despite our disagreements. But if you want me to treat like an asshole, just start behaving like one.
July 20, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strange. I thought that Pakistan and Russia had nukes. Both are less than friendly with Iran and are contiguous with Iran. Then there's India right around the corner on the other side of Pakistan. Of course we know that Israel has them, 50 to 60 or so I hear.
Then there is the U.S. Navy sitting right off the Iranian Coast, a nation well-known to be no friend of Iran. The Navy either has the nukes or can get them within 12 or so hours. How long would it take the U.S. Air force to deliver a nuclear attack on Iran? The time is measured in hours, not days. And it is clear that America is led by madmen and oil men who have demonstrated that they prefer War to Peace. A nation whose leaders want control of the Middle East. A nation that would rather threaten and practice brinkmanship than talk, since they consider talking to be a reward to their enemies.
If I were an Iranian, I'd be thinking that it's better to die on your feet fighting than to die on your knees begging. The difference is whether you have the weapons you need.
July 20, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Richardxx
Iran has no record of conflict with either Pakistan or India. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is more theoretical than real and is completely directed at India, with good reason.
Iran has good historical reasons to fear the Russians but, in fact, has made no threat against them and has normal relations and strong business ties with them.
Iran's bellicosity has been almost entirely directed at Israel and the United States. It has very good reason to fear the United States but it's people seem to like us. Further, if the leadership of the US were as mad as you claim then the position of Iran is hopeless. The US will destroy its nuclear installations without even thinking twice and there's nothing Iran can do about it. But, of course, that's nonsense. And I have to wonder why it never occurs to you lefties that Iranian escalation is destabilizing when all you can talk about are the destabilizing effects of Israeli and US policies.
Which brings us to Israel - the real object of Iranian hostility, a nation which Iran has repeatedly characterized as evil, immoral, illegitimate. One which should be destroyed, one whose people should be driven from the region. This is not an unpopular position. It is not a position advocated only by a lunatic and unpopular President. Quite the contrary. In support, I refer you to the writings of Masoud Golsorkhi, who is often published in the Guardian.
It should be obvious from this, and from the writings of Christopher Hitchens, Benny Morris, and many, many others that Iran's intentions towards Israel are hostile, aggresive and violent, and that it is developing nuclear weapons in the service of those intentions. For no other reason.
July 20, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran wants to develop nukes in reaction to being threatened by Israel and the US. Benny Morris’ own ravings expose a motivation that any country would have under the threat Iran faces. Morris emphasizes, as all who push for bombing Iran, that they must be attacked before they obtain nuclear capabilities. The implication then is that once they have obtained nukes, they won’t be attacked. Now that’s not to say they are working on nukes. Our intel says otherwise. And they have been working on nuclear power for years, as they have every right to do under the NPT, with our help and encouragement at one time. But deterrence is certainly a motivation to at least let threatening countries think you’re getting nukes. We are forcing them into a corner. What other course do they have?
July 22, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
You realize that Joachim von Ribbentrop was hanged at Nuremberg for planning a "preemptive war."
July 21, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ diachronic
No. I don't realize that, but assuming its true its just another example of victor' justice.
Roosevelt would have been hanged for the same crime had we lost. Certainly Chamberlain should have been hanged for his part in the dismemberment of Czeckeslovakia (however you want to label that war) but he was lauded when he returned and suffered disgrace only when Hitler betrayed him as he betrayed the Czechs.
It's time for you to grow up and realize how nasty this world really is.
July 21, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another war in the Middle East would be a fitting götterdämmerung to 8 disastrous years of the George W. Bush administration.
July 20, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don’t know how mainstream Morris is but if his words “matter” they should raise alarms internationally. Israel is the only country in the region with a real nuclear arsenal and is threatening to use it. Who sounds like the ME madman here? Who is the rogue threat to peace and stability? If anything, the US should be thinking about how it is going to neutralize (and decommission) this out of control state that threatens not just the ME but the whole world. But, of course, Israel’s illegal nuclear arms are not to be discussed.
July 20, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Don Key
Your link didn't work for me. I'm not sure why (since it seems to be correct) but I found the article by googling "Counterpunch+Benny Morris".
Did you read the whole interview or just that schmuck Shavit's summation? I bet the latter.
Morris is really good. Hard-nosed and tough but right on the mark. I don't expect you political correctniks to agree.
A little background. As both Shavit and Morris note, Zhabotinsky had come to the same conclusions in 1923, with his book "The Iron Wall". What is not mentioned is that Ben-Gurion said the same thing a year earlier in a little known speech. He never publicly said it again, realizing that it was terribly damaging politically. Hertzl was of the same opinion 20 years earlier...but articulated his thoughts only in his diary, never openly and publicly.
July 21, 2008 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I’m familiar with Morris. My question about him being mainstream was facetious- where does that put the mainstream? His documentary historical work has been praised all around, but his positions are something else. That Ben-Gurion or Hertzl agreed with the expulsion of the Palestinians to Bantus or other Arab states is not a defense of either Morris or them.
I could not find the original Ha’aretz article or would have linked to it in the first place. I’ll try that Shavit article link again.
July 21, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Don Key
But it is. That's why I asked whether you'd read the whole interview. It's the same 2004 interview you referred to in this post. I told you how to find it. I don't want to go through the trouble now.
Basically, Morris, Ben-Gurion, Zhabotinsky, all of them, argue that Jews have just as much right to the land as the Arabs...but the Arabs have always refused to recognize that right. So fuck'em.
I agree.
July 21, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would say that that’s not a defense of expulsion and ethnic cleansing. It is a position or belief or excuse. The attitude comports with the analogy Morris makes in the quote above to the American annihilation of the Indian. Early American settlers had just as much right to this land as the native inhabitants, didn’t they? And they were barbarians. Clash of civilizations. So, fuck ‘em.
July 22, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Don Key
You didn't read the Morris interview, did you? I can tell because Morris makes a specific reference to Jewish history, to the historical Jewish connection to the land of Israel, to their violent expulsion from those lands, to the violent conquest of those lands by Arab armies, and to the refusal of modern day Arabs to consider any of it.
European immigrants to America had no such historical connection to it. So in that way your analogy is completely wrong.
But many immigrants were as needy as the Jews; victims of persecutions, outcasts, rejects, poor people seeking opportunity outside of over-crowded lands where there was none. They came and they took what they wanted, what they could. Many were terribly brutal. But the Indians weren't saints. They were just weaker than their opponents.
At this point Lefties usually respond by saying that all that's changed. Since 1945 we no longer accept such behavior. Why 1945? Because they think with the selection of that number they can fault the Jews while excusing everyone else.
July 22, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did read the article. The original quote I used was from a preface by Jim Hosen in CP.I thought Shavit might have framed differently in the original, which is why I looked for it.
I don’t specifically recall his reference to the historical Jewish connection except towards the end where he was discussing his new book about Jews being the bigger victims in all this. In fact, Hertzl and the original Zionists based those claims on biblical history, much of which has since been disproved. I understand that Morris, et al. justify ethnic cleansing, expulsion, transfer, apartheid, expansion settlements and wars with this idea of a tenuous ancient connection to the land, but that doesn’t prove anything. That Jews were living in Palestine before the Zionist movement certainly gives them rights to exist there but not rights to remove or “cage” non-Jews. Morris’ idea that there is no solution because Arabs are only interested in revenge is BS too. The “American annihilation of the Indian” was Morris’ analogy, not mine. I don't know who the "Lefties" are much less what they say. Weren't the Lefties a 1950's minor league baseball team from Scranton?
July 22, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Don Key
TENUOUS connection? Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.
July 22, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
OTY, “I find the best method is confrontation, argument. Not easy for a lot of people...but I have a thick skin and am good at it.”
Doesn’t seem so.
July 23, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Don Key
Since you don't know whether Morris is mainstream I doubt you know anything relevant.
Look at a map of the Middle East. Look at the population figures for Jews, Arabs and Persians. Look at the historical record.
Muslims in general and Arabs in particular feel that all of the Middle East lands are rightfully theirs. All of them. That Israel's very existence is a crime against their religion and a stain on their honor and they mean to rid the world of Israel and its Jews. They've said so for more a hundred years and repeatedly acted on their words.
Israelis have atomic weapons because they are the ultimate equalizer. If, one day, Arab armies were able to overcome Israel's superior weapons and - more important - superior creativity, courage, flexibility, imagination - then those weapons would be used. That was always their purpose (even if leftie idiots never understood). Iran's current atomic program has only brought the day of reckoning upon us.
It's actually worse than you feared, little leftie. For the weapons to be credible Israel must possess enough of them to virtually destroy the Muslim Middle East. Reduce it to cinders. Otherwise the Muslims, fanatically, might be tempted to sacrifice 30 or 40 (surplus) millions to attain their goals.
So sweat and quake and shit your pants. You have every right to.
July 20, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not so good with arithmetic, are you? (Not surprising, you're not much with anything else at all, including logic, so why would this be the exception?) Israel has existed since 1948, which basic subtraction tells me is 60 years.
Just more reasons not to take anything you say seriously, even presuming anyone here other than you does.
July 20, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ The Old Grouch
You ought to call yourself the Old Idiot because I've never seen such a stupid argument.
Israel didn't just suddenly appear one day in 1948, you vacuous airhead. It was actively in the making from the time of the first aliyah in 1880 and Hertzl's Zionist tracts appeared just after the turn of the century. The first documented Arab opposition took the form of protests to the Turks in 1891, and opposition steadily increased until the first truly violent pogroms occured in 1920 (remember Zhabotinky and Rothchild and others were working to obtain the Balfour declaration as early as 1914)
War has been the norm ever since. See, for example, Chaim Herzog's "Arab-Israeli Wars" published in 1982. That's assuming you can read and understand.
July 20, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your racist rant makes no argument but it does make my point. Again, who sounds like the madman here? I think it’s obvious who is shitting their pants- those superior beings who believe they must have the nukes to kill millions because the big bad barbaric fanatic Muslim Arab hordes are coming any minute. As an American my main concern is getting us untangled from the mess. If you want to defend Israel, I'm sure they can use your laser-like shrewdness and common sense judgement in the IDF.
July 20, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"For the weapons to be credible Israel must possess enough of them to virtually destroy the Muslim Middle East. Reduce it to cinders."
Towel yourself off, dude.
"So sweat and quake and shit your pants."
You're the one jakcing yourself off to visions of nuclear holocaust in the Middle East, and you're calling other people out? And wasn't your earlier argument that we "lefties" weren't taking the Iran threat seriously enough?
You are one sick fuck. You need to get back on your meds, stat.
July 21, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ brewmn61
Is there some point to your "argument"?
July 21, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Don Key
You piece of living excrement.
Numbers count. Especially in war-time. So do ingenuity and courage. And brains. Every one knows Jews have brains. Even a despicable moron like you should know that.
Are you a Muslim, or an Arab, or a Persian? Absolutely not. So you're some pathetic, anti-semite loser stewing in your hatred down in South Texas, aren't you? "Poor but proud", you say. What have you got to be proud of? Why should anyone take pride in being poor?
July 20, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Poor but proud", you say. What have you got to be proud of? Why should anyone take pride in being poor?
Apparently you have confused the meaning of the word "and" with that of the word "but." Nice try, though.
July 22, 2008 4:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
In passing he mentions that the war he envisions will destroy the global economy, spew radioactive pollution everywhere, and cause terrorist attacks in the US but, what the hay, we can't let them have nukes and we can't negotiate so....if we die, we die.
He has been hanging out with Reverend Dobson hasn't he? He sounds like a Rapturist with their 'the apocalypse is coming and that is fine with me' craziness. If enough of these types get in power, or are able to influence events, it will become a self fulfilling prophesy.
And he just mentions this 'in passing'? Uh huh...I always thought mankind was stupid enough to wipe out the race and this just confirms that human stupidity is alive and well.
July 20, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got enough pride not to act like a juvenile on a blog. Again, you offer only racism and name-calling. Do you think 3/4 of Americans are anti-Semitic, too?
July 20, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Don Key
I gave you the reasons Israel has atomic weapons. You call it a racist rant and then tell me I'm name-calling? I called you a piece of living excrement and that's what you are.
The world has been asking Iran to stop its nuclear program for some time now. None of you losers have mentioned that. You know why that doesn't surprise me? Because you're all living excrement.
July 20, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
“Because you’re all living excrement.” Do you know how ridiculous you sound?
July 20, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Don Key
No. And don't bother telling me. I don't have enough respect for your mental powers to care.
July 20, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
July 20, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
so Israel has the right to kill anybody who might possibly threaten Israel at some future point ???
can we call this the Final Solution to the Iranian question
then I'd say that the Iranians are right to destroy Israel
what goes around comes around
If Israel attacks Iran, and then Israel doesn't exist anymore, I'd say GOOD RIDDANCE OF BAD RUBBISH
I wouldn't believe it 10 years ago, but Israel may just prove Hitler right after all
July 20, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ free patriot
As I predicted in my first post, every leftie A-hole in the world is rushing to Iran's defense and blaming Israel and the United States. Not one has suggested that Iran stop its nuclear program.
Does Israel have the right to make its own decisions about what is necessary for its defense, does an extremely knowledgeable historian like Benny Morris have the right to speculate about it, must it consult your mommy first?
Hey, Rosenswine, are you aware of the beliefs of your biggest fans?
July 20, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The notion that the US couldn't prevent an Israeli attack on Iran is
B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.
The Israelis can't attack Iran without our assistance. Period.
July 20, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the idea behind Morris’ bluster is that the US better attack Iran or we’ll have to and that will lead to a nuclear conflagration. Israeli and neocon hawks have tried every kind of bait to push Bush to attack Iran for them.
July 20, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Don Key
It's not bluster. It's how he sees the world. You jackasses are so wedded to your stupidities that you have to completely deny any reality that conflicts with them.
July 20, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ lally
Why not? They have the airplanes. They have the bombs. How are we going to stop them? By channeling their ancestors?
Sure, we can threaten to cut off aid...or even military retribution. But what difference would that make if they feel that an Iran in possession of nuclear weapons is a sure death sentence?
Or are you proposing a pre-emptive strike? Now that's what I would expect from you, complete with long-prepared justifications claiming that Israel is a greater threat to us than Saddam's Iraq ever was. Come on now, admit it.
July 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel didn't ask for or receive U.S. assistance to destroy Saddam's reactor at Osirik in 1981 by preemptive strike. Israel didn't ask for or get U.S. assistance in destroying Nasser's air force in 1967 by its preemptive strike . It won't ask for assistance from Bush, Obama or McCain because it knows the U.S, won't give it.
If and when the democratically elected government of Israel makes the extremely grave and fateful decsion to strike Iran, it will have done so for the same reasons that Harry Truman killed a quarter of a million Japanese: there are no reasonable alternatives. Harry Truman is an American hero. If you don't think so, you can go fuck yourselves.
July 20, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ apacmember
Rather too generous when dealing with a bunch of masturbators, don't you think?
July 20, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then I think we'd have no other choice but to either stay out of it or condemn Israel. Why not? They've got their own backs, right? Certainly not helping us.
July 20, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ vcalzone
You were almost reasonable. Almost. If you'd said
July 20, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
That we should threaten to withold all support if they attack Iran? Yes, because it's the only thing that might make them think twice.
Here's the thing. Iran is (as I know you know) the world's largest producer of oil. The world depends on that oil. Anyone who attacks Iran unilaterally will be met with severe anger, because that country will have sent the world into severe chaos. If we are the ones backing that country, then we are SCREWED. Permanently.
Scary times! And I'm not saying the time won't be right for war with Iran. Far from it. But not now. If it means they actually develop a nuke, so be it (as you would say, there are no good answers here).
But by that point, perhaps we can help build up enough resistance to the regime in Iran that we can get change from within. We could build up resistance among Arabs and make it clear that Israel has to get peace with the Palestinians at all cost. Telling Israel that they would be completely undefended if they attacked would help. We can keep at least a dozen nuclear weapons aimed at their head just in case. But what we can't do is tolerate a nuclear attack launched in response to a possible nuclear attack within the next five years.
July 20, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
May I suggest that no one take offensivetoyou's bait.
It is usually true that if one finds himself without an attending audience, one will leave.
July 20, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ phelicity
Haven't you noticed that whenever I post the thread count rises astronomically? And here you are again, too.
July 20, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou says:
"Haven't you noticed that whenever I post the thread count rises astronomically?"
The rooster is taking credit for the dawn. heh heh heh.
Christ, you're delusional too. Anyone who has been to TPMCafe for any length of time is aware that, comparatively, MJRosenberg's columns almost always attract the most replies. And you're a piker as a draw compared to a participant named Davai.
July 20, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
Rosenberg thanked me for increasing his count. I guess you missed that. Nor did I ever claim to be the only opposition figure with high numbers.
But then you're too stupid to notice any of that.
July 20, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Iran share a border with Isael? No. So why does Iran have to protect itself against Israel?
How will the Israelis destroy Iran's nuclear program? However we answer that question also answers the question of why Iran feels it needs to protect itself against Israel.
Apparently, this was obvious to you as well, when you made this comment. So you seem to be arguing with yourself.
July 20, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ tankard
I've already answered this in my reply to your earlier post, but it's worth repeating. The Israelis are faced with terrible choices. Terrible, terrible, terrible.
Your justification for Iran's actions are also terrible, but for different reasons.
July 20, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should be grateful that the NYT published Morris's piece. All Americans should be aware of what mainstream Israeli positions represent. It means we should be willing to go to nuclear war in defense of Israel. They are ready, are we? If not then we should do a very simple thing -- back away, realize that these ME tribal conflicts are not our conflicts. We do not control the Israelis nor should we. Just back away. Let them do as they will and admit it is not our fight. OTY clearly angers many here, but again, he does serve an important role -- he does represent the views of many Israeli and American zionist. Listen to him. That way leads to more war for the US. We do not have to follow those views presented by Morris and OTY -- we can follow positions that in the best interests of the US.
I am not that afraid of nuclear war as long as the US is not involved. The Israelis and the Arabs can do their war but as long as we are not considered one of the combatants we can survive. Fallout sucks but we already experienced much of that during the 50s testing period and I think we can survive Israels use of nuclear weapons. But only if we get out of the way.
July 20, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ sylvanen
A sensible position but made before you read my reply to vcalzone.
I think we would back away if we could be assured of an uninterrupted supply of oil from the region no matter what happens politically. I don't see how that could ever be true.
The other alternative is to free ourselves from oil dependence. That's a sensible course for many, many reasons...but unachievable in the near future, or maybe ever.
July 20, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of Israel's bluster comes from the understanding that they have the world's preeminent military superpower at their back. Without that support, they would know that they might lose.
I'm not saying we shouldn't stand behind them. But there have to be limits. That's part of what caused WWI.
July 20, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ vcalzone
You're dumb as a post. Israel has always been a gamble and all Israelis know it.
July 20, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
the following is from: http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The case for Israel is made of four propositions that should always be presented in the correct escalating order.
1. We rock
2. They suck
3. You suck
4. Everything sucks
That's it. Now you know everything that it took me a lifetime to learn. The rest is details; filling in the dotted lines.
You begin by saying how great Israel is. Israel want peace; Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East; the desert blooms; kibutz; Israelis invented antibiotics, the wheel, the E minor scale; thanks to the occupation Palestinians no longer live in caves; Israel liberates Arab women; Israel has the most moral army in the world, etc.
This will win over 50% of your listeners immediately. Don't worry about the factual content. This is about brand identity, not writing a PhD. Do you really think BP is 'beyond petroleum'?
Then you go into the second point: They suck. Here you talk about the legal system of Saudi Arabia, gay rights in Iran, slave trade in the Sudan, Mohammad Atta, the burqa, Palestinians dancing after 9/11, Arafat's facial hair, etc.
There is only one additional principle you need to understand here. It will separate you from the amateurs. You need to know your audience. If you've got a crowd already disposed to racist logic, go for it with everything you have. But if you get a liberal crowd, you need to sugar coat the racism a bit. Focus on women rights, human rights, religious tolerance, "clash of civilizations", terrorism, they teach their children to hate, etc. Deep down your audience WANTS to enjoy racism and feel superior. They just need the proper encouragement so they can keep their sophisticated self-image. Give them what they crave and they'll adore you! But be careful not to 'mix n match,' because it will cost you credibility.
When you're done, there will always be dead-enders insisting that abuse of gays in Iran does not justify ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Take a deep breath, and pull the doomsday weapon: You suck!
You're a Jew-hater, Arab-lover, anti-Semite, you're a pinko, a commie, a dreamer, a naive, a self-hater, you have issues, your mother worked for the Nazis, Prince Bandar buys you cookies, you forgot you were responsible for the holocaust, etc. The more the merrier. By the time you end this barrage, only a handful would be left standing. For mopping them up, you use the ultimate postmodern wisdom: Everything sucks.
War, genocide, racism, oppression are everywhere. From the Roma in Italy to the Native-Americans in the U.S., the weak are victimized. Why pick on Israel? It's the way of the world. Look! Right is only in question between equals in power; the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Ethics, schmethics. Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Eat, drink! Carpe diem! The Palestinians would throw us into the sea if they could. Ha ha!
Trust me, that's as far as words can go. If you followed this method faithfully, you've done your work. You should leave the few who are still unconvinced to the forces of order.
Congratulations!
You are now ready to
apologize for Israel like a pro.
July 20, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ blue pearl
So either you support Israel or you're a fucking idiot! I agree.
July 20, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ vcalzone
As Isuspected.
July 20, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not aimed at Israel, aimed at Iran. Looking back, I should have doublechecked my phrasing.
No, I think we should make it clear that we are completely on their side against Iran..... unless they attack first without anything more than words coming from the other side.
July 20, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
More than a few top Israelis have stated in no uncertain terms that Israel will attack Iran unless Iran stops their nuclear program. They believe, rightly or wrongly but sincerely, that Israel's very existence is at stake. They believe their lives and homes and families are at stake. Are they bluffing? No. It can't be a bluff. Smart people never bluff if their opponent cannot be bluffed. Anyone who has played poker knows you never bluff if you are certain to be called. So, why have so many Israeli's stepped up and stated so unequivocably that Iran will be bombed? If bombing Iran is inevitable, it makes more strategic sense to be more quiet. I think the Israelis are genuinely scared. They know that what they are about to do could be catestrophic. Sometimes people who are afraid will express their fears.
July 20, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you completely. If I were an Israeli I too would be afraid. The question for the US is should we join them in nuclear war so they will feel less afraid. That is the question that the American people should disscuss. If a majority of the American people are ready to engage in nuclear war to defend Israel, then I suppose that is what we should do, given that we are a democracy. But if not, then maybe we should back off and get out of the way. I think if this were put to a vote, most Americans would elect to stand aside.
July 21, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is a threat to Iran by virtue of the fact that Israel possesses a large nuclear arsenal, and the capacity to use that arsenal in a non-deterrable way against Iran, while the two states have very tense and hostile relations toward one another. Surely any rational state in the world would have to regard such a circumstance as a threat.
Iran is also a threat to Israel, though in the current circumstances somewhat less so.
July 20, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Dan K
Why do Israel and Iran have "very tense and hostile relations toward one another"?
July 20, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The genealogy of the hostile relations doesn't matter. The question raised wasn't, "Who is most to blame for the sorry state of relations between Israel and Iran." The question was simply "Is Israel a threat to Iran?" And I think the answer is obviously "Yes."
During the Cold War, the USSR was a threat to the US. At the same time the US was a threat to the USSR. Recognizing this geopolitical fact is independent of any moral and historical questions about who was most to blame for the situation of mutual antagonism. US leaders were rational to regard the USSR as a threat, and to plan their defenses accordingly. Likewise, the USSR leaders were rational to regard the US as a threat, and to plan their defenses accordingly.
A similar situation of mutual threat exists between Iran and Israel, with one difference being that Israel and Iran are both more fanatical states than were either the US or the USSR during the Cold War. Both states are animated by species of ethno-religious extremism. Iran still exhibits many signs of the revolutionary Islamism that launched that state in 1979, and the fanaticism is heightened by Persian nationalism.
Israel has an intense ethno-religious commitment written into the basic laws of the state, and sees itself as perpetually beleaguered and besieged. It frequently gives evidence of a Masada complex: a willingness to endure national suicide rather than accept anything less than its maximalist aims of acquiring all of the lands that they believe were historically part of some ancient Jewish kingdoms, or accept the possibility of a state with an official character that is not ethnically pure. The dangerous thing for everyone else is that Israelis seem willing to bring down the entire world, if necessary, in committing this national suicide.
July 20, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Dan K
You are wrong. "The genealogy of the hostile relations" matters a great deal. In fact, it is everything.
Either Jews have a legitimate place in the Middle East...or they don't. Either they can have a state of their own, where they make the rules...or they can't, and must always be dhimmis. That's what the dispute is about.
I characterized the Muslim position as one of religious fanaticism because that's how they themselves characterize it. But one doesn't have to look at it that way. Palestinians lost their homes and homeland and they don't like it and refuse to accept it. All the historical and religious arguments have no real meaning for them.
While there's some ambiguity about how to characterize Muslims there's none about Jews. Your characterization is complete, unadulterated, anti-semitic, ignorant crap. The Founding Zionists were socialists, athiests, not in the least motivated by fanatical religious considerations. They wanted to survive. They wanted Jewish culture to survive. They'd had enough of living in other peoples' countries as second-class, insecure, non-citizens. They could see murderous hostility rising against them all over Eastern Europe and they were determined to do something about it.
Iran's position is that Israel has no legitimate place in the Middle East and that its people should be forced to leave the region or be extirminated. Most Arabs agree. My position is that they should all be extirminated unless they change their position.
July 21, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many of the people who are colonizing "Judea and Samaria" are motivated by ethno-religious considerations, as are their chief political backers in Israel proper. Jews already have a place in the Middle East. But for the settlement movement, that place is not enough. They want more.
July 21, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Dan K
Yes many of today's settlers are just as you describe. But the settlement policy was not theirs. It was begun by those very same founders...in reaction to the realization that the Arabs were not going to accept them, would likely never accept them.
There never would be peace so expansion was the best defense.
July 21, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
He thought that Senate Dems would push for impeachment if the US attacked Iran. When I agreed but said that if Israel attacks, the same Senators will come down to the floor to offer congratulations, he agreed.
Since the consequences for the United States of either an Israeli attack on Iran or a US attack on Iran would be virtually identical, this aide's statement amounts to an admission that Democrats in the US Senate are simply unfit to govern the country. If this is indeed a "top aide" to an "important Democratic Senator", who knows whereof he speaks, then we are in desperate straits in this country.
I assume the aide understands what the ramifications of such an attack would be, whether the attack came from the US or Israel. Now, either such an attack would be in the US interest or it would not. If Senate Democrats estimate that it would be in the US interest for a US or Israeli attack to be launched against Iran, then impeaching the president for launching such an attack would amount to a near-treasonous act of politically motivated turpitude.
If, however, Senate Democrats believe the attack is not in the US interest, as I suspect is the case, then congratulating the Israelis for launching it would amount to a near-treasonous act of subordinating the interests of the United States to the whims of another country. Either way, the aide has damned the people he works for as contemptible swine.
I hope future historians will have access to these statements, so that they can take the full measure of the startling pusillanimity of American politicians circa 2008. Perhaps these future historians will also be able to make some headway on the mysterious question of how the foreign policy of large, proud and once-powerful nation came to fall completely under the ownership of a single, small foreign state.
July 20, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Dan K
Unbelieveable.
I'd have never believed that a supposedly politically savvy person could hold such opinions.
Don't you even have a clue that desirable things are often not politically possible? Why do you think FDR was so famous - rightly - for his impeccable timing? He was openly [well almost] manipulating the country into war with the Axis but couldn't admit it because opposition was so strong. His opponents knew it but couldn't outmanoever him. That's why they accused him of deliberately permitting Pearl Harbor.
And what about surrogates, allies who do the dirty work that a great power can't or won't do directly? Never heard of them?
The aide was telling Rosenswine that many Democratic Senators were all for an attack on Iran but, because of the treasonous attitudes of much of their base - read anti-war progressives - they couldn't take an open stand in support.
July 20, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you probably have it backward. I suspect the aide was telling MJ that most Democratic Senators think an attack on Iran would be madness, such madness that it would merit impeaching the president, but that they lack the courage to defend US interests if doing so requires criticizing Israel.
July 21, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Dan K
That's because you think
I don't believe most Senators, even Democrats, are swinish, anti-semitic lunatics. Although I could be wrong.
July 21, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You may not think they are anti-semitic swine, but you do seem to think that they are swine of another kind. You appear to believe that, for political reasons, they are prepared to impeach our president for launching an attack that they actually believe ought to be carried out. There is something swinish in that, isn't there?
I continue to believe a substantial majority of senators, especially among Democrats, does not favor an attack, whether from the US or Israel. That's not because they are anti-semitic, as you would put it, but because they have a more-or-less accurate perception of US interests. However, a number of these same senators are afraid of people like you, and lack the political courage to adopt a policy toward Israel that reflects US interest, rather than Israeli interests.
July 21, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Dan K
It comes down, then, to a question of who Senators fear. You say Israelis - Jews - who run American foreign policy (with money I assume). I say millions upon millions of idiot Leftists whose votes they need to stay in power.
Nobody with a brain in his head ever said that politics was a clean endeavor run according to Marquis of Queensberry rules...but really. Look at what we're saying.
You claim the Senators are all venal traitors. I say they cannot always please their constituents.
Choose.
July 21, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Dan K
Let me amend that slightly. The country CLEARLY is opposed to war with Iran at this time, and CLEARLY does not want a nuclear confrontation. A President who took the country to war, and especially nuclear war, without changing those opinions SHOULD be impeached.
But that doesn't mean the country is best served by not going to war. You should be very clear about that. It may be that the country would be best served by an immediate and devastating strike against Iran. But unless the leader, our President, can convince the citizenry it can't be done.
That's why I used the example of FDR.
July 21, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have been a steadfast supporter of Israel. But a preemptive nuclear strike by Israel on another country would cause me to rethink that support. Conventional military actions can achieve objectives without causing massive civilian casualties. Nuclear strikes, in my mind, are intended to kill massive amounts of civilians. I am really dumbfounded at the fact that the possibility of doing that is even being mentioned. If it is 'posturing' a very dangerous game is being played, one that shouldn't. I am totally opposed to preemptive military action being taken against Iran in response to the nuclear program...and I find Israel's 'nuclear option' completely unacceptable. Civilized nations, a group I feel Israel is a solid member of, don't start raining nukes down on other nations...period!!!
July 20, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ libertine
Israel's choices are terrible. I've said so. Benny Morris says so. Everyone says so. But try to put yourself in Morris's position. No one is better informed about Israeli interests than he is. No one is more knowledgeable about its history. I am not saying that he is right, mind you. Not at all. So do try.
For him, and for many Israelis, Iran will use those nuclear weapons to wipe out Israel. If they have as few as five, and maybe less, they'll have that ability. Israel and its Jews will be gone. The second Holocaust in a century and this one even more successful than the first.
What can Israel do to prevent that? Can they count on other nations? Absolutely not? Can they count on deterrence? If they can wipe out the entire Muslim world of the Middle East. Yes they can. Otherwise no.
But wiping out the entire Muslim middle east in retaliation for the destruction of Israel will entail hundreds of millions of deaths, the destruction of the Jewish people and Jewish culture, and permanent damage to the entire earth's biosphere.
Much better to smash Iran nuclear capability now, even if that means a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
July 20, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Offensive...
I think that Israel has long used their nuclear arsenal to deter a massive conventional attack on Israel by a coalition of their Arab enemies. If another Arab country has nukes that deterrence would be gone. I really don't think the mullahs in Tehran are suicidal. Because it would be an act of suicide if they launched a nuclear attack against Israel, if they had nukes...which they don't right now.
I am fully committed to not allowing Iran to get 'The Bomb'. In fact I am someone who wants to see all nukes dismantled and attempt to put that genie back in the bottle, as implausible as that might be. And one of the main reasons for my position on nukes is exactly what people are suggesting Israel should do. It's insanity!!!!
July 21, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ libertine
Modern war is insanity...but so is living in slavery, or allowing yourself to be treated abominably. So until someone comes up with a way to prevent the latter war will continue.
July 21, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will life imitate art? Because I could see this happening if that route is taken...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmw6Jne0tAQ
(copy and paste)
July 21, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are all relieved to hear that you are willing to rethink that support. But do keep in mind if Israel engages in a nuclear attack against Iran, your support or non support will be quite irrelevant -- a new dynamic will take hold and the fact that the US is Israel's sponsor will be the operative factor. I cannot predict what the outcome would be, but I see the US at war against the rest of the world as one possibility.
Don't you think it would be better to not get into such a position in the first place? Is Israel really worth that price.?
July 21, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well in that regard we all are totally irrelevant, aren't we? Who really cares what any of us think? You, me or the man on the Moon?
But for the sake of discussion anyway...
I do think we need to stand fast with our allies. I am not suggesting walking away from Israel. In fact I think we are a 'insurance policy' for Israel. I see us reacting to an attack on serious and concerted attack on Israel like an attack on us. The US has the power to defuse this situation and it appears we are only encouraging it. I agree that the ramifications for the US, in the case of Israel launching a preemptive nuclear attack, as catastrophic. But I see these messages, that people like Benny Morris are sending, as being directed by people at the upper echelons of our government.
July 21, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very nice. You seem to believe that these are just messages from one government to another, but, that they really do not mean what they say. I hope you are right. But if nuclear war is really what they are talking about, don't you think it would be prudent to reconsider your support for Israel's policies? If they are not bluffing, we could be in for a real sh** storm. I don't think you want that.
July 21, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just messages? Well yes and no. A message in this context is about what action is under serious consideration to take. So in that regard I see this as very grave and a clear indication that a nuclear strike is very possible. Which I still view as insanity but sanity seems to be in short supply with our current administration. And I thought (hoped) I made that point with all of my posts. I see the 'message' which Benny Morris is sending as a real and tangible threat of a nuclear strike against Iran. But if our ('our' being our current administrations) intent is to drop nukes on Iran I am hard pressed to see how any of us can prevent it. The Iranian nuclear program gives them the perfect, in the powers to be minds, casus belli to rationalize a preemptive attack.
July 21, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
And as far as supporting or not supporting Israel goes...again I thought I was VERY clear that I would not support them if they wanted to or launched a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran. When I said that scenario would make me 'rethink my support of Israel' I was saying I couldn't support them in that case, even if I employed rhetoric to say it.
July 21, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of the 81 posts in this thread 37 are by OTY.
He does know how to drive up MJs numbers. But we should keep in mind he is not just some lone wolf troll, but someone who is articulating a position that is close to the mainstream in Israel. Listen carefully and be very afraid. His position is held closely to those who advise both Obama and McCain.
July 21, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
We can only pray to God MJ that this man is wrong.
Nothing would justify any such insanity and immorality.
If Israel attacks Iran with or without US approval (though I'm sure Bush approves) it will catapult Israel instantly to the head of the class of most hated states on the planet where it will remain forever. If they nuke Iran, defense of Israel by the US will be indefensible. While it is extremely concerning that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon, there is no reason to believe they would use it. They aren't stupid. They may be fanatical but they aren't stupid. Given the actions of the Israeli government the past few years I am not so sure that the Israeli government isn't stupid and that they might just have become so paranoid and insane that they would contemplate such a crime.
A preemptive attack by Israel upon Iran without an imminent threat would make such an attack every bit as illegal and immoral as the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the United States and would, by literal defnition be a war crime of huge proportions. Personally, I could no longer support a state that attacks another with nuclear weapons based on conjecture and with no imminent threat present. The entire world would recoil with revulsion. I just cannot believe such a thing would occur.
July 21, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just read the not so veiled threat written by this man and published in the NYT. This is the sort of sick and sickening logic that leads to mass murder. There is no political objective to be won. There is no "winning" at all. The fatalistic attitude of this man is discncerting. It's almost as if he's saying "Oh well, there has to be a nuclear holocaust someday. May as well be sooner rather than later."
The kind of thinking represented by this Op Ed is simple madness. Stark raving lunacy on a vast scale. Any rational person would take nuclear stalemat over any nuclear exchange. But this fellow, who argues that Israel is contemplating an illegal, immoral attack on Iran is claiming tht the mullahs of Iran are not reliable or rational? Has he lost his mind completely?
This is nothing but sheer insanity. Insane talk of insane actions.
July 21, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reminds me of the 'insanity' abroad in this country in the days of the Cold War. There were those who adhered to "Rather dead than Red" and there were those who adhered to "Rather Red than dead."
This either/or nonsense lasted throughout the '50's while the sane among us (fortunately there many were in both governments) spent the years thrusting and parrying with blunt end swords.
If Eisenhower was right that if a nuclear war between the USSR and the US were to occur, the entire northern hemisphere would be wiped out, and one had occurred, we wouldn't be here arguing anything.
July 21, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Morris writes:
A truly remarkable claim, given that last year, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear intentions and capabilities concluded
and that:
Of course, the NIE
So much for Morris's "every intelligence agency in the world."
July 21, 2008 4:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ gharlane
Yo, JohnW1141, where are you? Why aren't you criticizing the NIE as just another unreliable product of almost always incompetent intelligence agencies? Couldn't be because you only criticize those reports which conflict with your bias, could it?
Couldn't resist that, gharlane. Sorry.
Your observation is a very good one. At this point I have to say you've refuted Morris' claim about unanimity of all the world's intelligence agencies. I'm sure he'll have something to say about that, since you are not alone in this criticism, but so far he has not responded (at least I couldn't find a response).
Research on this has led me to revise some of my opinions, and to correct the context.
First, the 1907 NIE estimate was a revision of the 1905 estimate which had come to a completely different conclusion. So we have to say that all these NIEs are estimates. Best estimates, but estimates none the less; tentative conclusions based on uncertain and incomplete evidence.
Second, both Israel and Bush disowned the findings of the new estimate. Bush's response can be discounted as purely political but Israel often has better information about the region than we do.
Third, BOTH of our NIEs concluded that Iran had a nuclear weapons program before 2003. Why did they have one? I don't know...but its possible that their program was originally a response to Saddam's threat and was suspended when we toppled the latter.
Fourth, the 2007 NIE says
which is not reassuring to Israel.
Fifth, much rides on how one assesses the mentality and intentions of Iran's leaders and the strength of the regime. Hysterical morons on the Left continue to insist that Iran's leaders are rational men spewing violent rhetoric whose only purpose is to distract a disaffected population from domestic woes...while at the same time insisting that Bush and his Israeli handlers (a leftie vision, not mine) are madmen. Which is why I call them hysterical morons. Iran's leaders AND its population believe that Israel and its Jews have no legitimate place in the Middle East (a position the hysterical morons heartily endorse, which is why I consider them to be turds). How far they will go in violent pursuit of their version of justice is not easy to assess. Khomeini attempted for 6 years to conquer parts of Iraq - at terrible cost - before finally giving up.
July 21, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
To begin with, as an aside, and with all due respect, OTY, your arguments might be taken more seriously if they were a little less peppered with terms of endearment such as: leftie A-hole, MJRosenswine, pimply-faced retard, dumb-ass, moron, despicable moron, pathetic anti-semite losers stewing in their hatred down in South Texas, piece of living excrement, political correctniks, schmuck (referring to a well-known Ha'aretz reporter), leftie idiot, little leftie, vacuous airhead, piece of living excrement, jackass, masturbator (not that there's anything wrong with that), dumb as a post, and swinish, anti-semitic lunatic.
Now: You've admitted that the 2007 Iran NIE "refute[s] Morris' claim [and, by endorsement and quotation, your own] about unanimity of all the world's intelligence agencies." You haven't explained why either you or Morris made that assertion.
That's quite a remarkable factual error for people of his and your intellectual prowess, grasp of history, and understanding of intelligence developments, to make. Especially because it is a significant foundation, if not THE most important premise, of Morris's entire argument.
He could, for example, have said "The sixteen United States intel agencies involved in the production of the 2007 Iran NIE may disagree, but we have far better intelligence than they do and we think that Iran is building a nuke."
But he didn't. Instead he made a claim about what "every intelligence agency in the world" purportedly "believes". And he made that argument/assertion without pointing to a shred of actual factual evidence, while I have pointed to contrary evidence. Does Morris claim to know what the Russian, French, German, and British intelligence agencies know? We know he's wrong about the US.
I can't believe he's that stupid, but I'm forced to believe that either he is that stupid, or he thinks we're that stupid, or ignorant. Even with the infamously short American attention span, somebody really ought to be able catch that falsehood.
Hysterical morons on the Left continue to insist that Iran's leaders are rational men spewing violent rhetoric whose only purpose is to distract a disaffected population from domestic woes...while at the same time insisting that Bush and his Israeli handlers (a leftie vision, not mine) are madmen.
No doubt the left, as well as the right and the "center", has its share of hysterical morons. And some of them undoubtedly make the exact claims you purport to quote here, or at least paraphrase. There may even be a few such on TPM. There are, however, those who happen to disagree with you on Israeli policy, US Middle East policy, Iranian policy, and so on, who (are you sitting down?) aren't hysterical morons (or pimply-faced retards, or vacuous airheads, or ... you get the idea).
In another snarky comment on this thread, you wrote:
Indeed it is. In fact, absent new evidence that neither you nor Morris have shared with us, those seem at present to be the two most plausible explanations.
July 23, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if this happens, then it'll be the end of Israel, and the US will be expelled from the Middle East. I would hope that people would think very carefully about this.
July 21, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Tony Shifflett
Who's going to do the expelling?
July 21, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Morris needs to be locked up. He is a lunatic and a dangerous man. His suggestion will annihilate hundreds of millions people. An Israeli nuclear attack on Iran will put pressure on Pakistan to counter attack Israel with nuclear weapons and the outcome - the entire middle east will be inhabitable for 100 years.
July 21, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ ajazhaque
An error but still...
July 21, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Vlad,
Just wondering why you come here? I'd be interested in knowing.
Thanks.
July 21, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ oleeb
Here being TPMCafe? Because it and the Guardian are the most intelligent liberal, left, progressive sites I know of.
If one wants to be serious about government and society one has to try to understand the problems, views, proposed solutions, arguments, personalities which might influence and be influenced these entities and their members.
I find the best method is confrontation, argument. Not easy for a lot of people...but I have a thick skin and am good at it. You see me attacking and assume I am a conservative but I'm almost as confrontational on Free Republic.
July 21, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that why the Guardian has been scrubbing your posts?
July 21, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ syvanen
I had no idea they were. How do you know? They've always been there when I checked. But, really, who cares? They have their own reasons and policies, not all of them intelligent. If I want to continue to post I can always change my info and modify my modus operandi.
July 21, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well they are. How could you know, spamming so many sites it must be difficult to keep track.
July 21, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
@syvanen
I just posted over at CommentIsFree. No problem.
You're some sort of pimply-faced retard, aren't you? Into video games as a substitute for social life?
July 22, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
So it's okay for US and Israel to have nuclear weapons and threaten Arab countries with them, but it's not okay for Arab countries to have them to defend themselves against the US and Israel. Got it.
July 22, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iran is a Persian nation, not an Arab nation.
July 22, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
These remarks are mostly directly to OTY.
I think you make a good point about who is threatening whom. It should be pretty obvious that Israel has had the bomb at least since the 1960s and has, to my knowledge, never threatened to bomb anyone. In fact, it wasn't until recently that they even "admitted" to having the bomb, and they still haven't completely.
Similarly with Iran. Iran was fulminated against Israel since the ascension of Khomeini, and Israel never threatened to bomb her. It was only when the saber rattling was combined with an apparent desire and plan to get the bomb that Israel got worried. So all this talk about Israel is threatening Iran THEREFORE Iran "naturally" wants a bomb, or may want a bomb, seems off base to me. Doesn't really fit the timeline, at least as I understand it.
Similarly on preventive wars. OTOH, preventive wars would seem to be the smart and humane way to go IF you could have any certainty about the future. Certainly Hitler could have been nipped in the bud and the Japanese as well. But there are also counter examples. Had the US nipped the Soviets in the bud, there would have been much death and destruction, which, at least so far, and as far as we can see, would have amounted to senseless killing over a future we couldn't see.
Preventive wars, when waged, involve CERTAIN death. Future catastrophes may or may not occur. From a moral standpoint, it is hard to justify certain death by pointing to possible death. Even possible obliteration. While it's true that Israel is a postage stamp that really could be obliterated and Iran a vast area that could not be obliterated (except perhaps by unloading a substantial portion of the US arsenal), nonetheless Israel could deliver a mortal blow to Iran if she went nuclear. Moreover, with the submarines I understand she has, Israel isn't entirely vulnerable to a first strike.
I'm assuming also that Pakistan and India and Russia would simply sit by and let Iran lob nukes at another nearby country, regardless of its religious stripe. I don't think they would.
So with all these considerations in mind, I would argue for MAD between Israel and Iran, assuming Iran really is going for a bomb. I think it would work. Bombing would only delay the "inevitable." And I don't think the world would simply sit by and let Israel bomb Iran every few years. I'm leaving out, for the moment, all the death and destruction to innocent people that Israel's bombing raids would cause. I'm also leaving out all the death and destruction Iran could and would (probably) wreak on Israel and Jews around the world and her allies. It would probably be the last straw in the American public's support for Israel. Everyone would be running for cover, every man for himself. So we're left with CERTAIN death and destruction vs. a possible future if Iran gets the bomb that could be deterred through MAD, IMO.
The argument that the ayatollahs were mad in the way of Hitler while the US and Soviet leaders were not doesn't hold water in my mind. For one thing, I haven't seen the Iranian leaders act in a way that I would regard as mad or overly irrational. They seem to calculate. Also, it must be remembered that, at least at the start, the Soviet leaders were also characterized as willing to do "anything" to spread communism across the globe. They couldn't be trusted, IOW. Eventually, they were trusted to act in predictable ways and, eventually, they were defeated by the rottenness of their own system of government. I think there's some strong evidence that the Iranian regime is not particularly popular with its own people. I've known quite a few Iranians, albeit those who've emigrated here, and I can say they are quite "western" and "civilized" in their outlook, even though they have a non-Western identity and don't want to be "westernized."
So I think Benny is letting admittedly justifiable fears get the better of him, feeling weak when Israel is strong. I would go the route of MAD.
July 22, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Petermschwartz52
Preventative war is a risk? Absolutely.
Hitler was not mad...and the Ayatollahs are not mad. They simply had and have values radically different from ours. But we are in complete agreement that assessing their motivations is central to mounting an appropriate response. Dennis Praeger, in a recent article, points out that no government since Hitler has openly expressed such hatred towards Jews or threatened them with extirmination. That does not support your view.
July 22, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
OTY--
By mad I mean "suicidal" as regards the Ayatollahs. Are they willing to risk their own obliteration to wipe Israel off the map? No on knows, for sure, obviously, but thus far I don't see them ACTING this way.
They are rather stupid to make even poorly translated threats, not to repudiate them, and hold Holocaust denial parties, given Jewish and Israeli sensitivities, whether one regards it as paranoia. If you REALLY don't want to provoke an attack by Israel, you don't act in this way--I'll grant you.
And this may turn out to be a miscalculation on their part in much the way Hezbollah miscalculated a few years ago.
However, I don't see the Ayatollahs as brazenly willing to bet the farm in order do Israel in. Just haven't seen the evidence apart from words.
Hitler, of course, is a different matter. He never faced nuclear obliteration so his calculations must be judged differently. In his case, I'd say that anyone who believes in wiping out an entire people is mad by most other people's standards, even if he's just acting on his "beliefs." Sure, my friend believed that he was jumping into a swimming pool when he jumped off the roof to his death--he didn't think he was going to die. But we would call him mad, and with some justification.
This is one of the difficulties in the whole "is he anti-Semitic?" argument. Is "he" just making empirical statements about Jews that may or may not be correct? Or does he hate Jews?
BTW, what do you do for a living?
July 24, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I'd have to say that preventative war is MORE than a risk. It's a CERTAINTY. It's a certainty that you're going to wreak death, destruction, and mayhem. That's a definite. The risk is that you don't know WHAT ELSE the war will lead to, both for you and others. And you don't know if this death and destruction was really necessary or would have prevented a worse fate.
Certainty = death and destruction
Risk = future consequences
Risk = whether it did any good
July 24, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
religious sect may degenerate into a political faction,' wrote James Madison, but the new American nation would nevertheless be protected against the ungovernable combination of religious fervor and political power as long as the Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular creed as preeminent.
Egitim | Chat
March 2, 2011 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v virtual network, 2008 iscsi
April 7, 2011 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow great, I am happy to find it, Thanks for sharing it here. So you are thinking to go for gay marriage. :)
Michigan Summer Camp
April 10, 2011 5:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very nicely written post it contains useful information for me. I am happy to find your distinguished way of writing the post. Now you make it easy for me to understand and implement the concept. Thank you for the post.
The Krup Law Group
April 15, 2011 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the nice blog. Keep sharing such ideas in the future as well. This was actually what I was looking for, and I am glad to came here! Thanks for sharing the such information with us
short love poems for him
April 16, 2011 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of sql high availability
May 4, 2011 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink