Iran: Initiating a Holocaust To Prevent One
Is it possible to discuss Iran and Israel without invoking the specter of another Holocaust? It seems like it isn't. Israeli officials, John McCain, and journalists all invoke the possibility of a second Holocaust with reckless abandon.
Reckless it is, too. Once the possibility of another Holocaust is posited, there can be no alternative but to take action, no matter how extreme, to prevent it. Israeli historian Benny Morris is so hysterical about the Iranian threat that he would use nuclear weapons to prevent it.
That's right. On July 18, in perhaps the most ridiculous op-ed I've ever seen in the New York Times, Morris called for a conventional military strike to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb and inflicting a holocaust on Israel. He predicted the strike would fail, and concluded that the only alternative left would be a nuclear attack against Iran.
In other words, he called for a holocaust to prevent a holocaust.
The approach taken by Morris is not only hysterical; it also negates the existence of the state of Israel. After all, if Jews today remain so vulnerable to annihilation--by a second rate power like Iran, no less--then who needs Israel? If Israel's existence cannot protect Jews from holocaust, then why was Israel created in the first place?
A little Holocaust education is in order.
The Holocaust took place because the world's second most powerful nation made the destruction of the Jewish people its number one priority. The "Final Solution" almost succeeded in destroying all the Jews of Europe, some six million men, women, and children.
The reason total annihilation almost succeeded was because Europe's Jews were defenseless. They had no country of their own, no army, and--it goes without saying--no weapons. They had no ability to fight back. The Nazis were able to kill them but the Jews could do nothing or--during the course of several revolts--very little in response. The Nazis were able to destroy the Jews of Europe with near total impunity.
Imagine for a minute if the Jews of Germany, Poland, Hungary, and the rest, could have fought back. Imagine if they somehow had hugely powerful weapons that could destroy Berlin and Frankfurt and Munich. Imagine if they had an army, air force, and navy that was powerful enough to inflict on the Nazis what the Nazis were inflicting on them.
What would have happened then?
There would have been no Holocaust. If the Jews had the power to take the Nazis down with them, the "Final Solution" could not have occurred. It is only because the Jews could not fight back--because they had no army, no weapons, and, above all, no state of their own--that the Holocaust could happen.
And that, as everyone knows, is why the state of Israel was created. That is what "Never again" means. It means that never again will a defenseless, stateless Jewish people be led to slaughter. It means that any power considering annihilation of the Jews will pay a fatal price.
That is why all this talk about another Holocaust is so insulting to Israel. There cannot be another Holocaust. A powerful nuclear-armed Israel is the ultimate deterrent.
Those who insist that another Holocaust is imminent believe that this form of deterrence--known as "mutually assured destruction"--would not work with Iranians. Unlike say the Nazis, Soviets, North Koreans, and pretty much everyone else on the planet, Iranians are said not to care if their own civilization is destroyed in the process of destroying their enemy.
Here's Benny Morris in the New York Times: "Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build. . . . Thus an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps toward getting the bomb is probable. The alternative is letting Tehran have its bomb. In either case, a Middle Eastern nuclear holocaust would be in the cards."
In other words, the only way to prevent a nuclear war is to initiate one.
Now I may be naïve but I have yet to hear of any civilization that would choose to go down in flames just to take out the enemy. The Imperial Japanese were as fanatical as any people on the planet, but once they saw the destructive power of the atomic bomb, they surrendered. The Soviets, under Stalin ("comparatively rational," according to Morris) knew they could not defeat the United States so they decided on coexistence, preferring a cold war to a suicidal hot one. The Red Chinese, in their fanatical mode, developed nuclear weapons at a moment when they considered themselves in a life-and-death struggle with both the United States and the Soviet Union but chose not to use them. The same goes for the Indians and Pakistanis who have been engaged in a bloody struggle for fifty years. They both have nuclear weapons.
Iran is different, the hawks say. Sounding like Ahmadinejad describing the Jews, Israel's minister of transportation and candidate for prime minister, Shaul Mofaz, says that "the Iranians are the root of all evil."
Morris agrees. There is no one like the Iranians. Only Iranians are willing to give up their cities, their children, and their civilization to destroy the enemy. (Believing that one's adversaries don't love their children is nothing new. In every war it is said that the other side is willing to sacrifice its own kids which proves that they--unlike us--are essentially not human.)
I don't buy it. I don't believe that the Iranians would sacrifice Tehran to take out Tel Aviv. Yes, they would sacrifice soldiers at the front (look at the mass carnage of the Iran-Iraq War) but not their civilization. And certainly not their children.
Those who insist that they would are precisely the same people who told us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that, in the words of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, we must invade Iraq rather than wait for a "smoking gun" which would likely be a "mushroom cloud."
It's hard to believe that anyone would heed these people twice.
There can be no doubt that the Iranian threat has to be addressed. Although President Ahmadinejad has to answer to the mullahs, his obscene threats need to be taken seriously. But that means using every means at our disposal to contain the Iranian threat, starting with diplomacy without pre-conditions. The worst thing that can happen is that no agreement would be reached and other plans would have to be made. But to assume, as Benny Morris does, that we need to trigger the apocalypse in order to prevent it is nothing short of nuts.
I'm not saying Morris wants a nuclear war, only that he thinks that there are worse things--like diplomacy (an option he never mentions in his op-ed). Here is what he says about nuclear war: "It is in the interest of neither Iran nor the United States . . . that Iran be savaged by a nuclear strike, or that both Israel and Iran suffer such a fate. We know what would ensue: a traumatic destabilization of the Middle East with resounding political and military consequences around the globe, serious injury to the West's oil supply and radioactive pollution of the earth's atmosphere and water."
"Traumatic destabilization." "Serious injury to the West's oil supply." And "radioactive pollution of the earth's atmosphere and water."
That's all! He doesn't even mention the dead.
Imagine this is what a noted historian thinks is preferable to talking to Iran. As for Israel, the Promised Land to which Jews have dreamed of returning for 2,000 years, it supposedly would survive both nuclear devastation and the world's awareness that it triggered nuclear war. What planet does Morris live on?
The good news is that there is a Jewish state. It is strong. It has nuclear weapons. And it isn't going anywhere. Declaring otherwise to advance the same neoconservative agenda that has already done America, Iraq, Israel, and the world so much damage is inexcusable.
Benny Morris was anything but hysterical...and atomic weapons have completely changed the military landscape. As usual, you are completely wrong about everything.
August 8, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Crazy OTY, you'd have us all die to defend your personal agenda. Bad news. It's not going to happen. The neocons are finished.
Another thing, OTY, how about volunteering at a veterans hospital. The war you helped instigate has caused 4000 American dead (but who are they to you?)
August 8, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're really dishonest, Rosenberg.
Benny Morris is not my puppet, nor is the Israeli government, nor the American government. Nor did Bush consult me when he made the decision to go to war.
I'm already a volunteer director at my local hospital (the only hospital within a hundred miles). What do you do other than cry crocodile tears for those who serve while characterizing the government which they've volunteered to serve and its policies as crazy and criminal?
August 8, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you join either the IDF or the American military. You certainly seem sprightly enough to fire off missives as a member of the 101st keyboarding brigade. Why not fulfill an obligation for service. Too old? Well, maybe you served in the military as a youth? But it seems doubtful.
But more precisely, the invocation of the second holocaust is both utterly ridiculous and insulting. Israel is bar none the most powerful military in the middle east and it faces no existential threat from anyone, especially Iran. Not only do the Iranian's not possess the capabilities to adequately destroy Israel (they don't have nuclear weapons), they would never do so. Notwithstanding the imbecilic insistence that Iran is a suicidal enterprise, the reality is they have no interest in causing their own obliteration through an attack--as would be the response if they launched a nuclear attack.
But back to reality, they do not possess nuclear weapons and according to both the NIE and the IAEA, they likely suspended their "weapons" program (different from uranium enrichment). So in the absence of such a reality, it becomes clear that the invocation of a second holocaust is dishonest and meant to instill a wholly illogical fear. Despite the psychobabble about Ahmadinejad and his rantings, he is merely a staw man. Of course he exercises no power over nuclear and foreign policy, rather he is just another in a long list of Middle Eastern blowhards with no intention of actually destroying Israel (remeber Nasser, the man who sought American assistance and acquiesced to Israel babbling about 'throwing the jews into the sea'. Just like Iran, he did not have the capability by any means and was using bluster to hide his relative powerlessness).
So this begs the question why, if Iran posses no existential threat to Israel, do they continue pretending so. Well, just as they have for sometime, Israel is gunning at Iran to remove their creeping regional prowess in the ongoing game of geopolitical power politics. They want to knock out Iran so they can hobble Syria and Lebanon to be compliant client states, devoted to the service of Israeli political aims and timid to their territorial expansionism and mistreatment of the Palestinian populace which they occupy.
But back to the holocaust card. It is so disgusting that the holocaust gets brought up by Israel at every historical bend ('48, '56, '67, '73, and every subsequent Palestinian issue since). By constantly invoking the holocaust when there is no such threat, it cheapens the historical relevance and lives of the millions that suffered and were slaughtered during the Holocaust. It also diverts attention from real genocides in the present, which we should be foremost concerned with as opposed to manufactured threats for political aims.
As for Benny Morris, nothing new here. Great historian who successfully challenged the mendacious exodus-style work masquerading as scholarship, revolutionizing the prism through which we view the conflict. But also a class A ethnocentric racist with the moral compass of Eichmann (kinda like our friend here). He considers the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to be necessary and continues to advocate for their full dispossession from the lands of eretz israel. Therefore, it is no surprise that he wholeheartedly supports the murder of thousands in Iran for no reason other than to expand Israel's military hegemony in the Middle East. And let us be clear: advocating for an attack on a country when it possesses no threat to you is not "preemption" but willful slaughter. I just wish tough guys like OTY might put their keyboards down and take up arms.
August 8, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
k-town,
excellent post, well written. I'm now wondering if OTY will reply or hide under his desk.
August 8, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ k-town
Israel...faces no existential threat from anyone, especially Iran
The word from on high, is it? Compared to your pontification the beliefs of some of Israel's highest military and civilian leaders, and leading intellectuals are nothing?
I didn't bother reading further given the self-evident fact that you are an ignoramous.
August 8, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
he hid.
August 8, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see if we can make the case for the "existential threat" theory.
Iran is enriching uranium.
That with breeder reactors capable of producing plutonium is a key step towards building a nuclear weapon.
As we see with North Korea, Pakistan etc, once Iran has a nuclear weapon, much of the conventional options have to be radically recalculated. (Say if Israel were to contemplate an air strike of the enriching facilities in Iran while Iran had say even one nuclear weapon that can be delivered to Israel, the calculation would be a lot more riskier than it is now. Therefore, if Iran continues to enrich it is probably likely that it will have the capacity and the incentive to build a deliverable bomb with it to position itself in a strategically better position Is vis-à-vis Israel.
Post nuclear Iran changes the entire equation.
For one, after the first bomb, it becomes much easier to build a larger stockpile without fear of a strike by Israel or the USA. Eventually Iran can and probably will try to achieve parity with Israel's arsenal.
Then--since MAD prevents a first strike nuclear option on either side--it becomes an arms race of the conventional kind.
Israel cannot win a future conventional war against Iran; especially if Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and even the PLO join the fight.
Therefore if Iran goes nuclear, it poses an existential threat to Israel.
Note: by existential threat I don't mean a Holocaust (assuming that MAD does not get initiated), but a threat to its existence as a nation.
Therefore, even Rosenberg would have to concede that this would be very bad for Jews. (MJ stresses that for the Jews to have a state that allows Jews to fight back is better than to be at the mercy of historical anti-Semitism and persecution.
August 9, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you are a chickenshit.
August 10, 2008 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your faith that Iran will never have nuclear weapons is touching. Are you risking our life and that of you entire family on that faith?
August 8, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ughh, if this is a response to me, I must say I come away a bit bewildered. Nowhere do I mention that Iran will never have nuclear weapons. So I would suggest a reread on your part, for I pity your reading comprehension skills.
As far as my children: No, I would not risk my children's lives to butcher another people who pose no risk to my country or any other.
August 8, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The word is mightier than the spear.
August 9, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But back to the holocaust card. It is so disgusting that the holocaust gets brought up by Israel at every historical bend ('48, '56, '67, '73, and every subsequent Palestinian issue since)."
k-town
In 1967 Eguptian President Gamal Nasser and his friends publicly proclaimed their intention to drive Israel's Jews into the sea--if that wasn't evidence of a desire to foment a second Holocaust, then nothing will persuade you.
You are a disgusting bigot, k-town, and I thank G-d that neither President Obama nor President McCain, will pay any attention to your vile views.
Israel had a right in 1967 to defend its citizens from Nasser, and it has a right to defend itself from Iran. If and when Israel attacks Iran, Barack Obama will support Israel. Trust me. Fuck you.
August 10, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, Rosenberg, did you ever look at the clock of the Atomic Scientists? It's never been more than 15 minutes from midnight and, for most of its existance, was 5 minutes or so from Armaggeddon. That's how confident the most knowledgeable people on the planet are about the deterrent power of MAD.
August 8, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are a Good German.
August 8, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
That last was my last reward to you for the week. Post away. (And sometimes think about THIS COUNTRY. You live here, pal).
August 8, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Surprised I'm already a volunteer, I see. And you didn't respond to my request for any service you might perform...so I take it your public service is equal to that of your military service - zero.
No response to the position of the Atomic Scientists either. Here's their Doomsday Clock for those who are interested in facts.
And I see you've no compunction about freely resorting to name-calling and slurs when reason fails you.
By the way, I'm not your "pal" and you're certainly not a tough guy. Stop pretending. It makes you look ridiculous (well, more ridiculous).
August 8, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can say you're a volunteer. Why would we choose to believe you, when everything else you write is a lie (including the words "and" and "the")?
August 10, 2008 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can bomb nuclear sites but you can't bomb knowledge.
Eventually Iran will figure out how to make a bomb. Once they figure it out it only a matter of will power and money to make and test a bomb.
I don't see how bombing will deter that will, espesially bombing from such a hated enemy. I feel it will just harden the resolve of Iran.
August 8, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
@adamchaz
You're right when you say you can't bomb knowledge. That was the argument of the scientists who developed the bomb, the reason they rued the day they did so, and the reason the Doomsday clock is always so close to midnight.
However, both the Germans and Japanese have that knowledge and have not used it. Without doubt, it's because they lost WWII.
You have the mentality of a loser. That's why you think winning is impossible, why you think bombing will "just harden the resolve of Iran". Tell me, if Iran destroys Israel and its population by doing what Rosenberg thinks is unthinkable do you think it will only harden Jews' resolve to retaliate (I say Jews because there will be damn few Israelis left)? Have you even asked yourself that question?
Look carefully at MAD. An Iranian first strike using atomic weapons will completely annihilate Israel and its people. How damaging can Israel's response be? Iran has a population of around 80 million and is bigger than France. Can Israel wipe out 40 million and most of its cities? That's assuming Iran fires off a first strike in its own name. Suppose the strike comes from Hizbullah in Lebanon, or from some other, similar group located elsewhere in the Middle East?
August 8, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou says:
Offensive seems to be suggesting Israel is too unsophisticated (stupid?) to consider an enemy first strike and how they (Israel) can ameliorate/retaliate.
August 8, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The death of 10 million Jewish people and the death of 10 million Iranian people are equally terrible.
You argument is that because there are only 10 million Jewish people than there deaths are somehow more important than the death of 10 million Iranian people.
That is a flawed argument.
August 8, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ adamchaz
My argument is that the Iranians can completely destroy Israel with a few atomic weapons while Israel can only severely damage Iran. In war that's called winning.
August 8, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Depends entirely upon your definitions of "destroy" (do you mean entirely depopulate or destroy leadership and infrastructure to the point that the nation may no longer function coherently?) and "damage," but this is likely true--with only "a few" nukes, Israel would be trashed whereas Iran would survive, although it would not likely be a regional power any longer.
However, Israel doesn't have "a few" nuclear warheads; it likely has between one and two hundred. And I'm guessing that's enough to right proper fuck Iran.
(http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/)
August 9, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ asks:
MJ, I don't know the answer to THAT question, but I know the answer to THIS question;
"Is it possible for MJ Rosenberg to discuss Iran and Israel without being attacked by right wing champions of the warlike neo cons who warp what Rosenberg says?"
The answer is, No.
August 8, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I other, but inaccurate words. I oppose a strike on Iran, from Israel or the U.S., but a nuclear attack on a hardened site does not mean a holocaust. There is quite a bit of difference between an attack on a clear military target and a deliberate campaign to exterminate an ethnic group.
August 8, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any nuclear attack will have signifigant radiation damage for a very very long time.
August 8, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Significant lingering radiation is not a Holocaust. No matter how you spin it, a targeted strike on an isolated military site is not the same as a strike on a large city and is certainly not the same as a targeted extermination of an entire ethnic group.
August 8, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
John, the good news is that the neocons' agenda is now so transparent.
And the good guys are waking up. That war resolution the neo's were pushing in the House has stalled and the Senate's version is almost innocuous by comparison.
It's getting better.
I don't even think that Mc Cain would go to war with Iran, although I sure don't want to find out. At least not for another 100 years.
August 8, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is talk like this, threatening to use Israel's nukes (which it won't admit it has) against a country which doesn't have nukes and hasn't threatened Israel, that would lead to a justifiable Iranian nuclear weapon capability. Who could blame them? And then the Saudis would need nukes, and so on throughout the Middle East.
So the only real answer is to free the Middle East of nuclear weapons, and that means Israel.
August 8, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Don Bacon
But this sort of talk is very recent, while Iran has had a nuclear program for a long time, which the Left has had no problem justifying. Just read the thread on the issue; on every one you'll find posters saying Iran has every right to defend itself in the way others have...Russia, Pakistan, and particularly Israel, have nukes so Iran has every right to have them. On and on like that.
For me, the new Left's hatred of Israel is transparent, as transparent as the old Left's hatred of the United States.
August 8, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The left has no problem justifying Iran's nuclear program because it is entirely legal and in conformance with the NPT. "Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty."
Israel is a renegade nuclear power, a non-signer of the NPT.
Again, Iran has threatened nobody with military attack, but has been threatened with attack by the US and Israel.
August 8, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Don Bacon
Look again.
The Left has defended Iran's right to possess nuclear weapons.
There are legitimate doubts about the real nature of Iran's nuclear program. Very, very strong doubts. Every nation and the United Nations have their own intelligence services. They do no all agree and all have records of very big failures on very important issues.
You are as bad as Rosenberg, citing intelligence reports when it suits you, distorting those reports by quoting only those parts you like, and criticizing the services for their failures when they've come to conclusions you didn't like or were proven wrong.
The same criticm applies to your use of legalisms.
August 8, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you mean to say that if some lefties think that Iran should have nukes, that this is a reason for Israel to attack Iran? That's crazy.
There are no doubts, strong or otherwise, about the real nature of Iran's nuclear program. Iran's program is subject to a full, continuous and comprehensive IAEA surveillance, and the IAEA has found no deviance from a peaceful program. If anyone has doubts it is a result of US propaganda and has nothing to do with what is actually happening. But that's not a new situation, is it?
August 8, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Don Bacon
In your original post you claimed that it was talk like Morris' which would justify an Iranian nuclear weapons program. In response I pointed out that many on the Left have been justifying such a program long before Morris, or anyone of similar views, spoke.
I want to be clear. You really believe that there are no doubts about Iran's nuclear program? You share k-town's view that everyone, particularly the Israelis, knows with complete certainty that Iran is not working on weapons, and that all claims to the contrary are just an excuse to allow Israel and the United States to expand their powers?
August 8, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Don Bacon
You do realize that Morris, in his NYTimes OpEd piece which is the subject of Rosenberg's article, says that every intelligence agency in the world believes Iran is trying for atomic weapons, and that the NIE of 2007, which the Left so dearly loves, directly contradicts that of 2005, and, read in its entirety, is far less certain of Iran's capabilities, intententions, direction than the sentence which the Left always quotes indicates?
Further, depriving Israel of nuclear weapons while leaving everything else unchanged puts Israel severely at risk against an enemy possessed of much larger armies and great and increasing wealth in the form of oil revenues.
But I'm sure that's your intention. As I've said repeatedly the Left's hatred of Israel and tremendous anti-semitism is completely obvious to me. Phony fig-leaves don't even begin to cut it.
Rosenberg might seem more interesting because he is Jewish. But he isn't. He's just more awful.
August 8, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ all
Rosenberg says
But Morris said
"despite the current talk of additional economic sanctions, everyone knows that such measures have so far led nowhere and are unlikely to be applied with sufficient scope to cause Iran real pain, given Russia’s and China’s continued recalcitrance and Western Europe’s (and America’s) ambivalence in behavior, if not in rhetoric"
which, to any reasonable person, means that Morris thinks diplomacy has been tried and failed.
But Rosenberg is not a reasonable person. He's completely and thoroughly dishonest. The only kind of diplomacy he recognizes is one which leads to a result he approves of. In this case that's not diplomacy. It's appeasement which will lead to the destruction of Israel. But, in his view, that is in the best interest of both Israel and the United States because it keeps his family, HIS FAMILY, safe and fat.
August 8, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bye, bye OTY. Common sense does seem to decrease as testosterone levels increase.
Just prior to Reagan's first inauguration, Daniel Moynihan gave a speech to people who needed to hear it in which he suggested that if the Soviets were going to launch a nuclear war against the US, they would do it prior to Reagan's taking office. And, if they didn't they never would.
Moynihan reasoned that for a country to pass up the opportunity to attack its enemy when its enemy was at the weakest it would be for years to come would be foolish.
Of course the Soviets didn't, and of course nobody paid attention to Moynihan's reasoned conclusion that, therefore, the Soviets were never going to attack us. In fact Reagan managed to increase the defense budget how many fold? Who can forget SDI?
The point is the Soviets who had starved Russia's economy for years to build up its military prowess, when the opportunity arose to use it didn't. That defies common sense. The US when it became obvious that the Soviets would more likely than not never attack us went on a defense spending binge. That defies common sense.
What's scary is how little common sense ever deters a nation's policies or actions.
August 8, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ phelicity
First. I liked Daniel Patrick Moynihan a great deal but he was not God and was not an expert on everything.
The Soviets came closest to nuclear war with us when Kennedy took office. That was when THEY thought we were weakest. What counts in determining their actions is THEIR assessment, not Moynihan's. So I think you should rethink
because the Soviets were very strong during Khruschev's time and grew progressively weaker afterwords. So much so that the Left argues - repeatedly - that Reagan's defense expenditures were a complete waste because the Soviets were on the road to collapse anyway. But perhaps you've forgotten this argument because it is so inconvenient to you now?
August 8, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
OTY - I have not forgotten how weak the Soviets really were when Reagan took office. In fact, if I remember correctly, I think it was Nixon who was told by the CIA that Russia was in a state of collapse and probably couldn't successfully launch a rock with a sling-shot. The CIA was told to shut-up.
The CIA works for the president so unless the Soviets had become progressively stronger since Nixon's time, Reagan would have been informed of her weakness. Why he found it necessary to increase defense spending as he did, I can't explain.
August 8, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ phelicity
You have changed your argument.
which, I guess, was meant to support the idea that Iran wouldn't use nuclear weapons either.
But that was wrong. The Soviets had about 80 short-range nuclear missiles in place in Cuba with crews who were instructed to use them if attacked. It was as much luck as anything else that prevented a nuclear exchange.
Reagan didn't like communism and saw a change to completely defeat it. He also didn't like MAD and was after something better, something which would give us more safety or, if you prefer, more power.
August 8, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I didn't change my argument (is it Straw man time yet?) Back to basics, my argument was and is that common sense rarely comes into play when nations are pitted against each other. Even the common sense that blowing each other to smithereens gets us nowhere other than mutually dead goes out the window.
WWI was a product of chauvinism, of ambitions for national prestige, of capitalist competition for markets and new fields of investment, of age-old hatreds between nations, and fears engendered by crises and by the race for superiority in armaments. When such factors combined to rule the constellation of events political leaders were hardly more than playthings of fate.
As you can see, a nuclear war between Iran and Israel wouldn't surprise me in the least.
August 8, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ phelicity
My apologies if I misunderstood you.
I agree that war is very risky and destructive, and that motivations and justifications for it are as clouded as anything else in human affaires.
However, yielding to the unreasonable demands of an opponent is even less appealing...which is why wars have occurred and will continue.
August 8, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems like Benny Morris has become the Ahmadinejad of Israel.
I can see it now, the lunatic fringe in Iran babbling about Morris the way the wingnuts and neo-cons here babble about Ahmadinejad.
I wonder if the Iranians have their equivalent of
William Kristol.
August 8, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remain skeptical of the possibility of a preemptive Iranian nuclear strike on Israel even if they had nukes, which they don't. I remain wholly unconvinced of the alleged suicidal nature of the Iranian leaders.
I don't doubt that Tehran wants nuclear weapons but I also don't doubt that they want a nuclear energy program. While not suicidal Iran is still a rogue nation. I would be even more uncomfortable with them having nukes than I am with the fact that there is a nuclear armed Pakistan, which is far more politically unstable than Iran and have poor relations with a nuclear armed neighbor. But while I am FULLY opposed to the Iranians having 'The Bomb' I am also fully opposed to using that same kind of weapon, that will kill tens of thousands of Iranian civilians, to prevent the Iranians from developing it.
Anyone who would propose preemptively dropping a nuclear device on another country, especially one that possesses no such weapon, is sociopathic, psychopathic, homocidial, genocidal and should be locked up so he/she poses no threat to themself or any others.
August 8, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ libertine
"Suicidal" is a word which is used too often and with little thought.
During wartime many people are knowingly and willfully sent to their deaths by their leaders in the service of some greater "common good". And they knowingly and willfully go. All nations and all peoples behave this way.
The nations of the Middle East have been consumed by a war between Jews and Muslims for at least a hundred years. The leaders of all those nations know that and behave accordingly.
August 8, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Puuuuulllllease!!!
And in those 100 years which country has shown/proven they will sacrifice all their people, country and culture for 'the cause'? Examples Buehler? Hell Pakistan probably 'hates' India as much as Iran 'hates' Israel and not a single nuke has taken off from its silo. And if there is such a great antipathy towards Israel within the Muslim world why hasn't Pakistan been talked into/decided to do the deal on their own? Your martyrdom loving, Israel hating to the point of genocide/complete self destruction, crazed Muslim stereotype has no basis in fact that I can see.
August 8, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ libertine
Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is as much a hope and prayer as a reality...and it is entirely directed at India.
I suggest you look at the Iran/Iraq war if you want to see the sacrifice Iran is willing to make in pursuit of its goals, or at the massacre of the Palestinians by the Jordanians. I'm sure there are many other examples. Many, many more.
August 8, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off Pakistan's program is more than a hope and a prayer. It exists, it is real...they have nukes.
Secondly you cite the Iran-Iraq War. If I remember right Iraq invaded Iran and used chemical weapons on the Iranians and their would have been an Shi'a ethnic cleansing if Iraq prevailed. I think people of any country would fight to the death to defend themseves from such an attack by such an opponent. It doesn't make the Iranians fanatical in any way. So outside their 'provocative' move of seizing the US embassy can you cite any examples of Iran undertaking preemptive military action while showing no concern for their country and people? You don't have proof...your's is a flight of full paranoia and doomsday scenarios, and it's a tour de force.
August 8, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine,
exactly, Iran didn't start the war with Iraq, they were defending themselves, so offensivetoyou's reference to what Iran was willing to sacrifice is a non starter.
August 9, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or, to put it another way "The Constitution is, in fact, a suicide pact."
Unless I miss your meaning.
August 8, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bombardier General,
In your post, you said Don Bacon was "citing intelligence reports when it suits you, distorting those reports by quoting only those parts you like..." Except he did no such thing. He quoted the NPT, which, as you may not know, is not an intelligence report but rather a treaty to which the U.S. and Iran are party.
In fact, it was not until the following post that Don Bacon made reference to intelligence reports (IAEA). It seems you are so desperate to make a point that you falsely attribute claims to your naysayers. Maybe it's time to hang up the spurs, 'ole boy.
But anyway, back to waging the good fight from the bunker of your bedroom.
August 8, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ ignoramous
I made reference to his "legalisms". I guess two ideas is one too many for you.
August 8, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Iran speaks of wiping Isreal off the map, is it reckless to take them at their word?
August 8, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Abdul Abulbul Amir
I'm beginning to think tnathan was right; these people are a bunch of gibbering monkeys totally unamenable to reason.
August 8, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the Iranian president also said the holocaust didn't happen...by him saying so does that mean it didn't. Didn't the USSR vow to destroy the US during the Cold War too too? How did that turn out?
I am not saying threats to Israel's security aren't tangible and serious but when the fringe on one side says something which is responded to by the fringe on the other side it doesn't represent mainstream thinking.
August 8, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
That part of the world is known for bellicosity.
Bottom line, Iran HAS NO CAPACITY TO WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP.
So the answer to your question is obvious:
Of course you can't take them seriously given that they don't have the capacity to deliver on their threats.
What is going on is jockeying for position as the future regional hegemon.
August 9, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ libertine
Yes, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. A few. Of doubtful reliability...and a delivery system which is even less reliable.
The first two years of the war were Saddam's attempt to capture the Sunni Arab part of Iran. The next 6 were Khomeini's attempt to capture the Shia part of Iraq. It was during this part of the war that most deaths occured and Saddam used chemical weapons.
You can make up whatever justifications you like. I'm not interested.
August 8, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, it must be acknowledged that, at this moment, the only rogue nuclear state in the ME is Israel, who refuses to join the NPT. How did they get their nuclear weapons again? How many Iranian spies have been caught in the US?
Second, it has been well documented that Ahmadinejad's comments have been poorly translated and taken out of context as much as possible, in order to fire up the bedwetters. Nevertheless, the Israeli defense minister can use Holocaust imagery with carte blanche to threaten the Gaza ghetto with 'shoah.' This was, of course, minimized away.
Third, it should be noted that the Zionists have no problems putting the Palestinians in a modern-day Warsaw Ghetto, and engaging in Nazi tactics like collective punishment and state-sponsored assassination.
Finally, I would bet my bottom dollar that the trolls here were 110% behind the US 'War on Terror' and invading Iraq. Look where that got us. To those trolls, I'd suggest some quiet time for reflecting on how your personality defects allowed you to be gulled into demanding war the first time.
I'll bet you were beside yourselves with the prospect of eeevil Muslims dropping anthrax from crop dusters, weren't you?
August 8, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
@OTY
You said -
Yes, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. A few. Of doubtful reliability...and a delivery system which is even less reliable.
I remember a few weeks ago everyone talking about Iran having to use Photoshop just to make it look like they could launch their "advanced" missiles during maneuvers. U.S. newspapers were suckers and European newspapers called us out on it. You are a tool. Iran got beat by Sadam, they have less reliable missiles than Pakistan, and they are less likely of launching preemptive nuclear strikes than is the U.S. or Israel. You are crazy. If radical Islamists get a nuke it will be smuggled with opium shipments through the mountains of Pakistan, not strapped to a Shahab missile and launched from Iran. Besides, we have ships in the region that can shoot them down anyway. Hey, I think I hear Cheney calling you...
August 8, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ John_P_T
Why don't you think before you post? Everyone who is informed certainly understands Pakistani and Iranian limitations - both current and likely. That's especially true of Israeli intelligence...so I'm sure they have good reason for fearing Iran more than Pakistan.
I've never seen it put into words but I would guess that Pakistan has India and China and the United States to worry about, and huge problems internally. Israel is way down the list.
August 8, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well... if you're referring to our lickspittle, lap-doggy media - which has never heard an Administration whopper it didn't like - it's not difficult to believe, at all. Once the bombs start falling, and, if necessary, the ash starts rising, we'll get nothing but sober, serious cheerleading from our chronically embedded news industry.
This "thinking the unthinkable" in media and government of both the U.S. and Israel seems an attempt to lay propositional groundwork for an attack already blueprinted and approved. Proponents aren't trying to convince anyone - certainly not common-folk citizenry in either nation - that such an attack is called for, much less that it is the only remedy to dead-end, regressive nuclear proliferation in the region. They merely seem to be preparing us for a future already certified, to help guarantee there is no unpleasant surprise followed by unhappy reaction. They don't need our approval. They want our quiescence.
August 8, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Rosenberg
Something else I just noticed.
The Soviet Union had those weapons. The French and English had those weapons. The United States had those weapons. Fighting back cost the Russians something like 30 million lives. The French lost their honor, their dignity, their self-respect. The English suffered tremendous destruction at home and the complete loss of Empire. The United States was spared destruction at home but only at the cost of half a million men.
I have no words to describe the depths of my hatred for you.
August 8, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou says;
MJ isn't the only one you hate, and the hate you have shows in your posts. Its eating you alive.
I can say with confidence, I've never seen anyone online who is as vicious and full of venom as you.
August 8, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I have no words to describe the depths of my hatred for you."
Offensivetoyou - Your obsession with MJ is totally out of control. Please see a Psychiatrist who can help you. When that is done please make aliyah and join the IDF or some other activity that actually helps Israel. Sitting at your desk responding to each and every posting illustrates a fragile hold on reality. This is a damn blog - it's not real life. You are NOT going to change one person on this site with your positions, especially with the angry tone you use.
Take the time you spend you waste on this site and do something useful for Jews and Israel that you claim to support.
August 8, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ jdledell
I come from a family that was active in the formation of the state of Israel. I mean they fought in the war of independence and other wars. My mother spoke Hebrew, my aunt spoke Hebrew, and they spoke it before the state existed. So I don't need lectures from a putz like you.
Nobody who posts here believes their voices fall on entirely deaf ears, and they don't. I influence all those who post, all those who read the posts, all those who advertise. Just as Rosenberg does. Hell, someone pays him a lot of money to write drivel just like what he posts here in some other venue.
Nor is my "obsession" with Rosenberg an obsession. I take the time to respond to him and others who respond to him but I there are other aspects to my life just as there are other aspects to Rosenberg's life, Johnwjackass life, etc. So once again I don't need lectures from a putz like you.
August 8, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensuvetoyou says;
I can almost hear the theme from EXODUS playing in the background.
August 10, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typical Rosenberg sophistry.
Diplomacy has been tried by the Europeans for five years, yet Iran grows ever closer to attaining the nuclear capacity needed to carry out its explicit threat: the annihilation of the Zionist Entity.
If the choice is the destruction of the Jewish State or the destruction of the genocidal anti-Semitic state that has promised to reprise the Holocaust, I choose the latter.
Rosenberg obviously prefers the former. Here is the money quote: "The approach taken by Morris is not only hysterical; it also negates the existence of the state of Israel."
MJ, bubby, every word you write negates the existence of the state of Israel. You have never invoked negation about any other country. Only the Jewish nation possesses no right to self-defense, just as your ilk believed that European Jews possessed no right to self-defense.
Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that Israel must cease to exist. Your visceral response? Bash a Jew, in this case Benny Morris.
It is all so familiar. During the 1930s, the Sulzbergers viciously assailed in the New York Times anyone who claimed that European Jewry was endangered. Those self-hating Hebrews got their way...six million Jews were slaughtered.
Let's hope MJ Rosenberg never gets his way so that the six million Jews of Israel do not endure a similar fate.
Besides, Rosenberg, if all Israeli Jews are killed who will you libel? There will be no AIPAC...no Likudniks. And we know you are incapable of criticizing Palestinians, especially the homicidal ones.
No, for the sake of your poison pen career let's hope Israel prevents Iran from launching a nuclear first strike.
August 8, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Bob Lane
Bravo! If I ever said a negative word about you I take it back. I knew about Warburg and some of the others but not the Sulzbergers. Thanks.
August 8, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
During the 1930s, the Sulzbergers viciously assailed in the New York Times anyone who claimed that European Jewry was endangered.
I found this so discouraging.
These are people who had better access to information than anyone else. Yet they refused to believe (publicly) that Hitler posed a serious threat to European Jewry and continued to employ Walter Duranty and others who were quite simply apologists for Hitler and Stalin. In their defense they genuinely feared anti-semitism in America, but it is also true they had strong business ties to Germany.
It's a colossal example of blindness caused by ideology and personal greed. I compare it to Stalin's refusal to believe that Hitler was preparing to invade despite his own agents reports that the Nazis had massed 3 MILLION soldiers on his borders.
If such things can occur - and I think they occur often - then the importance and power of reasoned political argument is vastly inflated, just as Hitler stated. Far, far better to use a marketer's approach and dumb appeals to passion.
August 9, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Bob Lane
The more I look into the Sulzbergers and the New York Times of the '30s the more discouraged I become.
They employed Pulitzer Prize winner Walter Duranty who refused to report on the Russian famine of 1931-34. But they also employed Pulitzer Prize winner Frederick T. Burchell who reported, from Germany, on the immense size of the famine. Burchell, however, was reporting very favorably on Nazi Germany.
There were very serious attempts to portray Hitler's anti-semitism as nothing but bombastic propaganda intended for domestic consumption only to distract the public from real problems (sound familiar?). I know this was the line of the American Jewish Committee (later the ACLU) and I think Burchell's as well.
I've read too much without making notes so I can't be sure of who said what but the general picture is clear...and very, very discouraging.
August 9, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well this is obviously a hot and interesting topic, and I don't want to get into any contest with any of the commentors here so I'll just make a few comments about what MF has said.
First...the destruction of the world's Jews wasn't really Hilters main prority or a reason for the war. It was more of a bonus program for his twisted concept of the "pure" Motherland. The nazis also got rid of millions of other unacceptable humans too.
Second..."Imagine for a minute if the Jews of Germany, Poland, Hungary, and the rest, could have fought back. Imagine if they somehow had hugely powerful weapons that could destroy Berlin and Frankfurt and Munich. What would have happened then?".......
Well MJ, basically the same thing. Except the jews would have died in battle instead of in camps. The Germans killed 25 million Russians soliders and civilians, imagine that. I think we don't understand today what a huge effecient army machine the Germans put together back them. The most astounding the world had ever seen. The Jews even with weapons would have gone down with the Russians and others, just earlier in the war. You only have to read thru the Presidential libraries to see how many times right down to the end the US actually believed it was going to lose the war.
Third...Israel was not create in response to the holocaust, lobbying for a Jewish State and settlers to Palestine began long before WWII. But there is no doubt that without the holocaust Israel would not have been formally established and assisted into statehood.
Fourth...."It means that never again will a defenseless, stateless Jewish people be led to slaughter. It means that any power considering annihilation of the Jews will pay a fatal price".....
Unfortunately relying on Israel's nuclear weapons is faulty thinking. It's sort of like whistling thru the graveyard. Think about the other nukes in the near regions. Consider the entrance of Russia which has more nukes than the US, and that's just the ones we know about. I think the best Israel can say is that when/if they go down they are going to take as many as possible with them. Do yourself a favor and look at the land mass of Russia for instance compared with the US, it's more than 5 times larger. Who do you think could sustain a nuke attack better and could come out with some suriviors, Russia or the US? Now look around the ME land mass. Who do you think would have enough survivors to come back after a ME Nuclear exchange, 6 million in Israel or a billion in Arabia?
Pardon my minor corrrections but I am something of a history nut along with being a military history nut.
The rest of MJ I mostly agree with. I don't know of any expert that believes the Persians are suicidual and want to or would bomb Israel. Iran wants a couple of things; their former standing in the region before the US screwed with them back in the Shah puppet days and for the US to have to recongize and have a relationship with Iran as an equal, at least as equal in their region. Israel is nothing to Iran, of no real consquence really. But it doesn't hurt Iran in their region or in the world to be seen as condemning the Israeli "occupiers of Palestine" and for the world to see the Israeli hysterics and threats to disrupt the world oil suppy and economy by premptively bombing Iran. It doesn't hurt Iran for the public to see discussions on Israel's nulcear weapons.
Where the Israelis make a mistake is every time they open their mouths and clammer for Iran to be bombed. Will they ever learn to just shut up? The first nuclear power in the ME to premptively use nukes will cease to exist by popular demand, the Jewish state included. The jewish WWII holocaust won't be considered an acceptable reason for a 21st century ME holocuast. You would think that Israel would understand that, Iran understands how the world would react to the first user of nukes, everyone understands that evidently except the Israelis.
Israel's best bet lies in the US developing a good relationship with Iran and all Muslim countries regardless of whether they develop nukes or not. Although a nuke free ME would be ideal that's another can of worms.
Israel cannot destroy all those they consider enemies and potential enemies, because their enemies list is too long and keeps growing and would grow even more once they bombed Iran.
Israel and the Jews are going to have to give up their personal holocaust nightmares because that is all they are, personal nightmares, kept going by hysterica, not reality.
August 8, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ calypso
If Iran were to preemptively destroy Israel, there would be the Israeli response and then nothing. What could anyone do? Israel and its Jews would be gone, Israel's response would have caused terrific destruction and that would be that. They world would set-about restoring the oil fields.
If Israel preemptively bombed Iran's nuclear installations that would be another matter entirely, which, I think, is one of the reasons Morris went public. The world was put on notice of the seriousness of Israel's opposition to an Iranian bomb. If I were in the Israeli government I would be targeting the major cities of every country whose response was likely to be violent.
August 8, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou, you convinced me, so,
Saudi Arabia sends money to Hezbollah and Hamas, they also support terrorist attacks against Israel and reward the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
There is not doubt that IF Saudi Arabia gets a Nuke they will use it on Israel so I support a nuclear attack by Israel on Saudi Arabia.
Pakistan, a Muslim country, has nukes, and many support al Qaeda. al Qaeda is a known enemy of Israel. There is no doubt that IF al Qaeda gets a nuke they will attack Israel. I would support a nuke attack by Israel on Pakistan before they give nukes to Osama.
Syria, friendly with Iran, may one day receive nukes from Iran. IF Syria gets nukes they will use them on Israel, therefore, I support a pre emptive nuclear strik by Israel on Syria in order to prevent a nuclear attack on Israel.
August 9, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou
Why did it take you so long?
M.J. is a type of Jewish liberal who probably would be a Stalin supporter is he was an adult 60 years ago. He is beyond hope.
Get out. Don't waste your time
August 8, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ tnathan
You really think its a waste of time? The modern Left has an awful lot of followers. When I address Rosenberg I am speaking to them to the extent I can; TPMCafe has a big and influential audience.
August 8, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, tpmcafe doesn't have big and influential audience.
Second, most of them are committed lefties who hate America. They've eagerly anticipated a new Vietnam in Iraq and they still hope for defeat in Iraq. If they hate America, how can you expect them not to hate Israel. They don't care about anything you have to say.
August 9, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ tnathan
That's from the advertising link at the top of the page. Do you have some good reason to believe they are exagerating?
August 9, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
A million a month is about 33,000 a day. I don't know how many people read it on a daily, weekly or monthly basis...but I would guess TPM reaches somewhere around a quarter of a million people.
August 9, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Evidence ?
August 10, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your mistake is in presuming to be taken seriously.
That and apparently taking perverse delight in being hated.
Get help.
August 10, 2008 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
You 2 really take the cake. You claim intellectual dishonesty when someone else won't accept what you claim to be facts, without any corroboration, as truth. Anybody who disagrees with you gets smeared 'antisemitic' and gets subjected to the most vile baseless ad hominem attacks. You both try to drag the discourse down by using these baseless attacks in an attempt to shout everybody down who disagrees with you.
The latest example is on this thread where we keep on hearing that since Iran will bomb Israel with an atomic bomb one they have yet to build it justifies a nuclear strike on a, as of yet, non-nuclear armed country. You are basing your whole position on suppositions. You suppose that Iran will not be prevented from developing the bomb and then you suppose further that once they have that bomb that they will in fact be suicidal enough to use it on Israel. There is absolutely no proof either of these scenarios will become reality but we are ridiculed when we don't accept as fact it will indeed happen and therefore Israel is justified in using a nuclear weapon to 'prevent it' from occurring. It might happen and it very well might not happen but it is all based on nothing factual, only in the hypothetical game of 'what if's?'.
I have seen this dog and pony show before from El Presidente and Dr. Evil Cheney in the run up to the Iraq War. Aluminum tubes, Yellowcake Uranium, mushroom clouds, meetings in Prague, hidden caches of WoMD, mobile weapons labs, etc was passed off as 'fact' when in reality there was no proof of any of it and in some cases it was out and out lies. But this time the rhetoric is has been ratcheted up...now we'll have the blood on a genocide on our hands if we don't take for fact something that has yet to happen. It might have worked for the Iraq War, but not this time. It is an attempted use of psychological fascism/terrorism to stifle debate if I have ever seen it. And I am not, nor is anyone else, antisemitic if we say 'nobody can see into the fucking future'. And to claim so is complete and total bullshit!!! You can have your opinions, I won't begrudge you that, but you can't have the facts that as of yet aren't and might never be.
August 9, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
M.J., why does it seem like neo-conservative Jews don't understand the concept of 'projection'?
Great post. Rec'd.
August 9, 2008 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
It is amusing that the neocons here, all 3 of them, go into such a tizzy when I post. They are so accustomed to going unchallenged that they will do almost anything to crush the truth.
But it's over. Nobody buys the line anymore and they are terrified.
August 9, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
closed minded, right wing, neocon zealot, offensivetoyou, can't get you or many others here to accept his worldview, ergo, you and others here must be closed minded left wing liberal zealots*.
*who also hate Israel.
August 9, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Rosenberg
All 3 of them? How many would you expect to find on a leftist site? Any conservative posting here would EXPECT to be SERIOUSLY challenged.
Nobody buys the line anymore? Bush is one of the most unpopular Presidents in the history of the Republic. The economy is threatened in a way not seen since the '30s. McCain is a dreadful candidate. And yet, despite all that, polls indicate that the race is very, very close. You, yourself, said so in a recent article. Of course, in your twisted view, it was not support for neocon policies but racism which accounted for the situation (as usual you simply refused to face the fact that Hillary or Edwards would not have done better).
You are totally impervious to reason, to fact, to decency...and so are your most ardent supporters.
August 9, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are "challenged". Psychologically, emotionally, and socially.
Seek professional help.
August 10, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the writer. I would equate those who disagree with him vehemently as players of Israeli-Iranian Golf, much like Obama Golf.
http://www.correntewire.com/obama_golf
Here's how Israeli-Iranian Golf works.
Sentence: The physics department at the Iranian University sought and received additional funding.
Time to play golf.
0. Physics
1. They teach Physics at Iranian Universities.
2. Physics is essential in building nuclear weapons.
3. Iran is training many physics students.
4. Physics Students can learn to produce nuclear boms.
5. Iranian Nuclear bombs could be used to strike Israel
That ladies and gentlemen is Israeli-Iranian Golf.
I challenge you to play Israeli-Iranian golf better than I did. It took me five strokes to get physics into the hole. I am sure others can do better.
August 9, 2008 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mideast fanatics like Ahmadinejad and Morris -who repeatedly insinuate reckless notions such as preemptive mass destruction being an effective antidote to mass destruction- feed upon each other. It is up to spokespeople for common sense to stand up all and expose these dangerous charlatans. In the case of the USA, it is high time for ordinary sensible Americans to mince no more words in telling dishonest, cowardly and recklessly hypocritical neo-cons that we have had enough of their deceit, trickery, incompetence and fearmongering. I commend M.J. Rosenberg for his forthright and frequent outspokenness on this and many related questions of the day. One need not agree with every syllable he utters to appreciate the value of his commentaries. I wish he had spoken up more, and been listened to more, six years, trillions of US taxdollars, and many US foreign policy disasters ago, but I certainly applaud the general import and tenor of his columns here at TPM in recent months.
August 9, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
August 9, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ all
Essay: This Holocaust will be different
Here Benny Morris lays out his argument in detail in Jan 2007, a year BEFORE his NYTimes article. So the question is why did the Times decide to make it new news?
This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post and might be difficult to reach. Keep trying. It can be done.
@ tnathan
I'm not interested in M.J. It's his readership, the readership of TPMCafe which I estimate to be somewhere between 100,000 and a quarter of a million which interests me. Most are unreachable, I agree, but not all.
August 9, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
People who read tpmcafe have very strong opinions.
You are not going to change them.
August 9, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
tnathan says:
tnathan, I take it you're referring to offensivetoyou.
August 10, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
To offensivetoyou,
I really don't know what to say to your suggestion that:
"If Israel preemptively bombed Iran's nuclear installations that would be another matter entirely, which, I think, is one of the reasons Morris went public. The world was put on notice of the seriousness of Israel's opposition to an Iranian bomb. If I were in the Israeli government I would be targeting the major cities of every country whose response was likely to be violent."
All I can think of in response to this plan is the Mash song... "Suicide is painless, it brings on many changes.."
I've been watching the Israeli & ME events since it crossed my political radar screen some years ago. My conclusion was that time was not on Israel's side. Not because of threats from others but because they are pushing the envelope too far. Not only in their Palestine conflict but their agressive attitude in the region and reliance on the US strongarm to back them up unconditionally as in the Lebanon bombing.
I predicted the US and Israeli interest would eventually diverge and now they have over Iran. Economic and military reality and concerns about our other wars going on has trumped Israeli interest in US policy on the Iran issue.
Now Israel is hanging out there all alone jumping up and down, issuing all these threats and looking desperate. Not good. Although the US might give Israel material support I am thinking they aren't going to put any more American boys and girls on the line in the ME if congress values their political offices.
As I said I believe for Israel to survive the best bet is for the US to start a program of alliances and work on regional treaties with all ME states. This means Israel would have to give up some of their delusions about regional dominance and Greater Israel in Palestine and do business the old fashion way with horse trading and money, not military force. If the US were to do this it would allow Israel to tag along on the inititive and have an imput without losing a lot of face.
This is just my opinion of course..well not exactly mine alone, a lot of strategist and experts on the region have suggested similar ideas.
August 9, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ calypso
Israel has been a very, very long shot, not just from its inception, but from its conception. It has never been very far from utter and complete destruction and has been saved from such by the quality of its people and leadership, not by outside help. That's why it's so hated by its enemies.
I suggest you read Benny Morris' earlier (2007 in the Jerusalem post) statement of his position (which I linked in my post just above yours). It shows that he's been thinking carefully about it for a long time. A later version appears in the New York Times in 2008 because Morris believes that Israel now has its back against the wall and will soon implement the policy he outlined. In sum, he's saying that if Israel goes down it will take a lot of the world with it, as much as it can. That's meant to put the fear of God in a lot of people.
I believe war is unavoidable and that Israel will do everything in its power to complete the transfer begun in 1948...and that that is its only path to survival. Whether or not it will succeed is unpredictable as always.
August 9, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the 63rd anniversary of the first use of a nuclear weapon in Hiroshima, they have only been used once since then, at Nagasaki. MAD, as crazy as it sounds, has worked.
Iranians don't want to turn their cities into glowing molten glass any more than anyone else does. Any attack from Iran would be avenged.
Attacking Iran would have a huge negative affect on an already shaky world economy. If Israel initiates it, Jews will be blamed and be targets of new anti-semitism. It lurks in a lot of people and needs an excuse to erupt. Like $8/gallon for gas.
August 9, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sometimes agree in part with MJ and disagree in part. This time I agree completely.
August 10, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ flavius
You agree that if the Jews had had weapons in WWII there would have been no Holocaust? That their fate would have been different than that of the millions upon millions of Russians, Poles, Czechs, French, English, and Americans who did have weapons?
I'd like to see you explanation. Because, without one, Rosenberg's argument falls to pieces.
Weapons are certainly better than no weapons but they do not guarantee safety. Isn't that obvious? Post WWII the Soviet Union and the United States were armed to the teeth with mightier weapons than humanity ever possessed. Those weapons guaranteed only mutually assured destruction in a DIRECT confrontation. That's very, very far from safety and stability.
In 1967 Israel demonstrated its great superiority over multiple well-armed Arab armies. Did that prevent the Arabs from trying again in 1973? Has Israel's current superiority prevented Hizbullah and Hamas from repeatedly attacking? Would Israel and its Jews be better off without weapons?
Rosenberg is a completely dishonest person who makes arguments totally lacking in merit. If a person of your quality and experience can't see it then there's little hope for the future of reasoned political discourse.
August 10, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really ? If so,I'll take the time to reply . Rightly or wrongly , my impression is you're so committed to your own position that your question was just a rhetorical device. If I'm wrong , I'll take your word for it.
August 10, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ flavius
Your question is equivalent to asking me whether I've stopped beating my wife. Does it really matter?
Think of our conversation as I do; a public debate in which many, many people read the proceedings and make decisions for unknown, but hopefully good, reasons. Address them, not me.
If you think the appropriate response is a personal attack, or complete disregard, then by all means do it.
August 10, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't do personal attacks. Partly because I personally discount the far too numrerous posts of those who do.
Personally I would greatly prefer Israel's existence to be ensured. Not because of any strategic reason not because of any direct connection to it. I would also greatly prefer to protect the existence of the large number of Iranians who would die in a nuclear attack .
I've written here many times that I would endorse stationing a serious US military force in Israel- say a division- which would automatically guarantee it against an existential threat. But as a condition I would want to be able to prevent Israel from using its wmd so that we were equally guaranteeing its neighbors against an existential threat.
Probably that's an unachievable scenario but
I mention it not as a proposal but as an indication of which side I choose to support. In fact what I choose to support is the lives of both the Israeli citizens who would suffer in an attack and of the Arabs who would suffer in an Israeli attack. To me , they're all people, who go out and collect the morning paper to read with their coffee, who hope their children will get good grades and will be good human beings.
Prick a human being, doth he not bleed.
August 10, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ flavius
Yes, we're all people and deserve consideration as such but you're talking about millenial hopes rather than the realities of history.
Stratfor's War: Five Years Later
A Gift. I've found his thinking to be very useful.
August 10, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not either/or.There are lots of ways to San Jose.
August 10, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ flavius
Yeah. There's the yellow brick road. It's always been there...
But we always choose another path; the one through the pass at Thermopylae which requires swords and tanks and shihab missiles and arrow anti-missile missiles.
I don't share your faith that we'll make a different choice this time.
August 10, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ flavius
In depth / Contrary to popular belief, war with Iran is not imminent
Here is the latest military analysis of the situation, probably the best available anywhere to the public.
August 10, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
God forbid we ever take ideas and arguments seriously enough to actually address them, instead of poking at one another by turns with giddy characterizations of "lefties who hate America" and "right-wing neocon Likudniks."
When human civilization destroys itself, despite all of its intelectual capacity and potential, my last remaining hope is that we take as few other species in nature with us when we go.
August 10, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can't take ideas and arguments seriously when the moderator/poster is a nutcase.
I'm not suggesting that most of Democatic voters are lefties who hate America, I suggest that most of the people commenting on M.J posts are.
If you want to discuss ideas and arguments seriously, do it in other places. You can read M.J only with entertaining purposes.
August 10, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is constantly repeated here and, much worse, by every politician in existence, that we must not allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. That is a fantasy. Once the knowledge needed to build nuclear weapons was learned, it was inevitable that every country on the planet who wanted nuclear weapons would eventually have them. Knowledge is dangerous.
When Nobel invented dynamite the world shuddered at the prospect that the "_____" would one day have dynamite. Look at how effective preventing that has been.
The only sane answer to the danger of nuclear weapons is to learn to live with other nations, no matter how much we dislike them. This is the era when war should be declared off limits. We developed the ability to speak many, many years ago. That is the weapon we must still learn to use effectively.
August 10, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Hoppy
Spoken like a true Stalinist, a true "useful idiot". Tell us more about the glorius "Potemkin villages" you saw. Or perhaps you agree with the Chinese that the Uighur terrorists are just that?
That's just from your most recent comments and you are a man completely without power. Still, maybe you can give us lessons on how you plan to live with people who are much, much worse and not restricted by the political rules and mores which govern our culture.
Or do you think our culture produces the worst of all possible men?
August 10, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
OTY:
You've distorted MJR's remarks and attacked a strawman.
He didn't just say, what if the Jews "had weapons" in WWII. His what if, compararable to current realities, was, "Imagine if they somehow had hugely powerful weapons that could destroy Berlin and Frankfurt and Munich." A bit different.
The only serious argument against Rosenberg's was that of Andrew Strat who argued that Israel's fear of Iranian nukes was not that Iran would be stupid enough to use them but that by balancing Israel's existing nukes negating Israel's nuclear advantage, their aid to Hezbollah and other clients would become more menacing and a long-term threat to Israel.
That's worth talking about, because that's really the issue here - but nobody did. Your stuff isn't. It's just ad hominem attacks and hysteria.
August 10, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ sTiVo
The Nazis' opponents all had hugely powerful weapons which they did use to destroy Berlin and Frankfurt and Munich...and the Nazis knew they had those weapons and knew their power from Europe's WWI experience, from the Russian Civil War, from what the Japanese were doing in China, even from our Civil War.
You're not even worth an ad-hominem.
August 10, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
>> You're not even worth an ad-hominem.
Maybe not, jerk, but you still didn't answer the question. It is true that the Allies had weapons they didn't use, as they might have, to defend the Jews but Rosenberg's hypothetical is, what if the Jews had weapons with which to defend themselves. That is a totally different hypothetical. That you either can't or won't acknowledge the difference speaks volumes about you.
August 11, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ sTiVo
The point is that the allies had those weapons and it didn't save them from suffering tremendous losses. The Jews, far fewer in numbers and not loved by others, could not have done as well as Czeckeslovia even if they had had their own state and decent weapons. They would have been wiped out anyway.
Hitler, unlike Rosenberg, was not a coward, was not deterred by the prospect of deadly conflict, and was determined to destroy out European Jewry. That and lebensraum at the expense of the Slavs were his principal goals. He achieved the first and came damn close to the second, and no hypothetical Jewish state or weaponry would have prevented it.
I'm tired of repeatedly explaining the obvious to you. If this doesn't do it, ask someone else.
August 11, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
We have highter income,but less morals runescape money sevise.
August 14, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink