ADL Poll: Israelis Want Attack on Iran
For whatever reason, the Anti-Defamation League decided that their mission of fighting anti-semitism extends to surveying the Israeli public’s attitudes toward a preemptive military strike on Iran:
A large majority of Israeli Jews support military action aimed at destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to a survey sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League. According to the poll, co-sponsored by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, a large majority of those who support a move by the army said they would maintain their support even if the Obama administration opposed it. An overwhelming majority also said they believed close relations with the United States were essential for ensuring Israel’s security.
Just as food for thought, what would the ADL say about a poll showing a large majority of Iranians supported the idea of military action aimed at destroying Israel’s nuclear facilities?
In policy terms, I think this gets at the point that there are a whole number of ways in which the Obama administration might “oppose” an Israeli attack. Israelis seem willing to go ahead even in the face of a condemnation from Obama. But at the same time they recognize that a good relationship with the United States is very important. Has Obama—or will Obama—send a message that indicates that Israeli strikes would seriously imperil US-Israeli relations? Would such a message be credible even if he did send it?
107 Responses to “ADL Poll: Israelis Want Attack on Iran”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 4th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
How about a poll of Americans supporting an immediate, total cutoff of military aid to Israel?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
My irony detector is going off, but I can’t quite express why.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Not just the Israeli public, either. The Israeli Jewish public. The ADL is not, apparently, interested in the opinions of non-Jewish Israelis.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
What makes Mr. Yglesias believe that President Osama would be opposed to such an attack if the proposed negotiations were seen to be failing?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
What makes SLC such a crazy asshole?
May 4th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Re This Machine Kills Fascists Says
Mr.Machine is cordially invited to take a running jump to himself.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
How DARE you suggest a false equivalence between wonderful, blessed Jews and dirty, cockroach-like Persians who deserve to be incinerated by an Israeli nuclear strike???!??
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go back to running my organization that is devoted to opposing bigotry and racism.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
@ mds: me too
@ the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies who is on their ‘International Advisory Board’
* Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman
http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/international_advisory_board.html
Israel working hand in hand with our Congress.
Journalist Helena Cobban recently had an interview with their Director, Efraim Inbar
Likud strategic thinker Inbar’s self-confident view of the world [March 04, 2009]
http://justworldnews.org/archives/003422.html
May 4th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Israeli belligerence: good
Iranian belligerence: holocaust redux
Israel’s admitted nuclear weapons: unproven
Iran’s alleged nuclear program: a global threat
May 4th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Since Israel is a nuclear power, yet not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, isn’t there some kind of legal problem for our military aid to that state?
May 4th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
It’s a valid polling question, and the results are not shocking given the public stance taken by both the new government and the old. But what the hell is the ADL doing sticking their brand into a potential military conflict between Israel and Iran? After all, they’re not polling anti-Israeli sentiment, but anti-Iranian. Surely the ADL has a different job to do than publicizing how pro-attack Israelis are? In both Canada and the US there is a disturbing tendency for the line between Jewish organizations and Israeli ones to utterly disappear. It may well help support Israel, but it ignores the needs of non-Israeli Jews and may at times undermine them.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
The conclusion we are supposed to draw is that since most Israeli Jews want an attack on Iran, anyone who opposes such an attack opposes Jews and is therefore an anti-semite.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
The IAF is preparing to put the wood to the Iranian terrorist regime.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-05/03/content_11304368.htm
May 4th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
This may sound silly, but I think there’s a difference between “supporting” an attack on Iran and “actually wanting an attack on Iran to happen in real life.”
I think a lot of people “support” hypothetical military action in order to feel like they’re hardcore, while not actually caring much about whether the military action in question comes to be.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Good. That way, Ollie North can sell them some new stuff.
‘Bout time.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
From an article talking about the film “Defamation:”
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46668
And more hypocrisy from Foxman:
Not So Wild for Wilders at the ADL @ Jim Lobe’s blog:
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=248
I guess Lobe’s an anti-semite too.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Would such a message be credible even if he did send it?
Perhaps not until the USAF knocks an IDF flight out of the sky over Iraq. An AMRAAM would definitely get the message across.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
I dunno, I mean it seems like they’re betting that many more Americans would see the Israelis as “the good guys” and therefore worth support in any military conflict with Iran regardless of the situational basis. I’m not so sure that’s untrue.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Re cmholm
Since the Israeli attack will be made with nuclear tipped cruise missiles fired from submarines, the USAF isn’t going to shoot anything down.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
cmholm (no. 17) addresses my question: doesn’t the US have to give actual consent to an Israeli attack? Doesn’t the US control Iraq, and wouldn’t Israel have to fly over Iraq to get to Iran? Maybe not. I think Israeli jets would not have the range to fly down and around the Arabian Peninsula to get to Iran.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Phew. For a second there, I thought SLC was admitting to getting wood just thinking about it.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
No it would not be credible.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
The IAF is preparing to put the wood to the Iranian terrorist regime.
Like the wood they put to Hezbollah? Lot of good that did. I think liberals like Matt are naive on how bad things can get with a nuclear Iran, but a war with Iran will be a disaster that will make Iraq look like a tea party.
However you can’t say the Iranian theocrats didn’t ask for it with their “wipe Israel from the map” talk. This won’t end well, it’s just too bad so many innocents will suffer.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
FWIW.
Cue the glib idiot response of how a full scale Israeli nuclear attack reducing Iran to dust and broken pavement would certainly destroy knowledge. Har har!
May 4th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Cue the glib idiot response of how a full scale Israeli nuclear attack reducing Iran to dust and broken pavement would certainly destroy knowledge.
Only an ANTI-SEMITE would oppose nuclear genocide against Iran.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
“Just as food for thought, what would the ADL say about a poll showing a large majority of Iranians supported the idea of military action aimed at destroying Israel’s nuclear facilities?”
First off, I didn’t know that the ADL had anything to say about the poll.
Second, such a poll would not indicate the results you hypothesize – as Israel doesn’t make it a policy to wipe other states from the page of time, or however you want to translate Ahmedinejad’s quote.
Third, they probably wouldn’t find it as troubling as finding a poll showing that a majority of whichever state’s population thinks it’s ok to suicide-bomb Israeli civilians. But maybe that’s just me. Silly.
Yglesias should stick to his technocratic musings on domestic policy.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Obama should clearly send the message that an Israeli strike on Iran would gravely imperil the national security of the United States. That message is entirely credible.
Obama should also point out that the Bush Administration tied Obama’s hands in advance by locking in a 10-year 25% increase in military aid to Israel without regard to whether Israel’s actions would imperil the national security of the United States.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Whoa. How did I miss this thread?
Nuking Iran?
wow.
Puts our discussion in the other thread into much better context. Glad I saw that.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
So what’s Israel been doing since 1948, especially since 1967? Tell us, what IS the Israel endgame regarding the Palestinian state?
May 4th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
This is one of those clever questions that I would expect someone on Fox News to ask — although with a different slant, of course. The rhetorical nature of this question is either disingenuous or downright sloppy in its logic, for the following reasons:
1. One must first assume there is consensus of moral/political parity between Israel and Iran. I don’t think we would be asking the same questions about U.S. actions in WWII against Germany or Japan. If you believe Iran’s government and polity to be on equal footing with Israel, then it would be a fair question of ask. But such an assumption needs to be stated.
2. Similarly, what ostensible and demonstrated threat does Israel pose to Iran, and vice-versa. In the decades that Israel has held nuclear weapons, has it ever used them, or evenn threatened to use them against Iran. Has Israel called for the destruction of Iran, funded, trained and armed terrorist organizations (such as Hizbullah, Hamas) that have attacked Iran and also called for its destruction?
I do not support an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, but find myself appalled that anyone would not even begin to make a serious effort to compare Israel and Iran vis-a-vis the above two criteria. Again, these silly bits of rhetoric are something I’d expect to come out to the mouth of Rush Limbaugh.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Re Maynard Handley
So what’s Israel been doing since 1948, especially since 1967? Tell us, what IS the Israel endgame regarding the Palestinian state?
At this point,they don’t know themselves what the endgame is. Like most other nations, they just live day to day, stamping out fires as they occur.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Just as food for thought, what would the ADL say about a poll showing a large majority of Iranians supported the idea of military action aimed at destroying Israel’s nuclear facilities?
Is this the “reality-based” liberalism that seeks to fill the void left by neoconservatism? Do you really not understand the difference between a nuclear-armed Israel and a nuclear-armed Iran?
May 4th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Do you really not understand the difference between a nuclear-armed Israel and a nuclear-armed Iran?
One is a shitty, paranoid, little, herrenvolk, settler apartheid state that starts wars every few years?
May 4th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Sorry all you anti-semitic geniuses. Israeli Jews and world Jewery will take care of business. NEVER AGAIN!! That’s right. You heard me…NEVER AGAIN. Now go tell all your anti-semitic friends that the Jews of the world will unite on this one. Teheran may end up the biggest parking lot in the world. Period end of stories.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
That’s right Matthew! Moral equivalency!!! And let’s not forget that Israel has threatened to wipe Iran off the planet, and questioned whether or not the Iran/Iraq war ever happened. Oh wait….um…
May 4th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Translation: It’s okay to bomb people for saying things, regardless of their actions or capabilities. Isreal’s actual possession of nuclear weapons is irrelevant, because everyone (including Iranians, apparently) knows Israel is pacific. Iran’s president’s articulated desire to do something that’s physically impossible, however, must be construed as a profound threat. The utterance of the Iranian president on that occasion was the final and absolute articulation of all Iranian policy with regard to Israel, and is irrevocable and unchangeable by any instrumentality, and must be regarded as a serious and concrete aim of the Iranian political and military establishment.
Translation: Iranians who die in a preemptive strike had it coming, because the opinions of a statistical share of their population made all of them objective murderers. Note that these are the same people that if you polled them, the poll “wouldn’t indicate the results” that they had any desire to destroy Israel’s nuclear facilities…
If the ADL had conducted such a poll in Iran, it might have actually told us something about, oh, defamation.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
The difference between a nuclear-armed Israel and a nuclear-armed Iran is…Israel has 250 nukes, and Iran has none.
Also, there is ZERO evidence that Iran HAS a nuclear weapons development and deployment program, and next to ZERO evidence that Iran has EVER had such a program.
That is the salient difference.
Israel is demanding that Iran be militarily attacked for something it has not done. Iran has not advocated Israel be militarily attacked by anyone.
That’s also a salient difference.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Really? Show me Palestine on the map. I can’t find it anymore.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I’m sorry, but exactly what rock have you been living under?
May 4th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
One is a reality and the other is hypothetical?
May 4th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Is it like a fucking article of faith for these dipshits that they *have* to misuse “moral equivalency” for “moral relativism”? Is it a fetish that marks you in their in group?
May 4th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Nice, Ed. In classic leftist moron form, you’ve attacked the grammar and left the issue unaddressed. Talk about mindless articles of faith.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Perhaps one of the people who keep quoting Ahmadinejad on wiping out Israel would care to comment on the fact that the Supreme Leader in Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, has issued a fatwa that it is forbidden for any Islamic state to possess (let alone use) nuclear weapons. (See http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=302258).
Since Ayatollah Khamenei outranks Ahmadinejad in Iran, I would expect that his position would carry more weight, wouldn’t you? So why is it that the eager supporters of war between Israel and Iran never cite him?
May 4th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Zionism is a disgrace.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
In addition to my above comment — the snarky headline of this post is an out-and-out lie. The poll did not ask Israelis if they “want [an] attack on Iran”. Among the many questions the poll asked, was the following (quoted in full from the poll):
Suppose all diplomatic and economic efforts fail to convince Iran to shut down its uranium enrichment plant. If that happens, would you support or oppose Israeli military action aimed at destroying the Iranian nuclear facilities?
Furthermore, if Mr. Yglesias had spent five minutes looking into the poll, he would not have needed to profess his ignorance about why the ADL “decided that their mission of fighting anti-semitism extends to surveying the Israeli public’s attitudes toward a preemptive military strike on Iran”. The poll, cosponsored with an Israeli organization, is titled “Israeli Views of President Obama and US-Israel Relations”, and includes about 15 questions concerning Israel-U.S. relations and attitudes. As such, the poll does address issues relevant to the ADL’s mission (which is clearly spelled out on its web site).
This blog demonstrates the worst of web journalism. Bad reporting and fact-checking with no editorial back up to make certain a story if covered honestly and fairly.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Never again to what? Genocide of Jews or genocide in general? 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, there’s between 8 and 13 million people living in Teheran.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I had no idea! So we should just disregard what Ahmadinejad says…as the vapid prattle of a ceremonial leader? Thank goodness we have you here to straighten us out. After all, you all disregarded what Dick Cheney had to say, since George Bush outranked him.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
@ pjx:
How DARE you commit the moral equivalency of treating Persian lives as the equivalent of JEWISH LIVES?????!?!?!?
May 4th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
This isn’t really analogous, since to my knowledge Israel’s leaders do not openly call for the total destruction of the Iranian state.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
There are a lot of very bad things Iran could do to the US in response to such an attack:that are far short of forcing a US attack on Iran, which is why Bush vetoed it:
1 Iran could destabilize Pakistan- its not very stable as it is (nukes + alqueda=bad; this would probably force US intervention)
2 send anti-tank missiles into Iraq
3 send anti-tank missiles into Afghanistan
The worst case response situation for Israel would be the attack creates massive nuclear fallout and civilian suffering, Iran quits the NPT starts a spread out secret program (beneath hospitals and orphanages) does 2 and 3 without attacking Israel or mucking with oil supplies . . . Try occupying a country when your enemy can blow up tanks/outpost from 2 miles away . . . The US couldn’t take too hard a line for fear Iran would start working on #1 and being tied down in both those countries the rest of the world wouldn’t care too much.
The best case Iranian response (for Israel) would paradoxically be Iran shooting missiles at Israel injuring a lot of civilians in front of reporters and therefore making Israel the victim (assuming Iran couldn’t target them well) and/or interfering with world oil supplies which would make the rest of the world take an interest.
It makes a certain logic for Israel to make noise about this to wring concessions from the US with regards to funding and settlements, I just don’t see it happening. Iran and Israel really are pretty careful countries, despite their bluster and proxy wars. I don’t see Israel making a big gamble or Iran passing up an opportunity for normal ties with the US.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
There will be no attack on Iran.
Look, its very simple. Israel, in order to sustain its social and political equilibriums must present itself as a society under continuing existential threat.
Without that continuing existential threat, Israeli society falls apart. It becomes difficult if not impossible to justify the hypermilitarisation of the society, it becomes impossible to justify the massive foreign aid from the United States, the Palestinian conflict is recasat in a brand new and unfavourable light, the right wing political parties lose their raison d’etre, the the driving force of consensus in Israeli society vanishes and economic and political contradictions come to the fore.
Historically, Israel has always perceived itself as a nation under existential threat. This mentality was forged in the 1930’s before the creation of Israel, reinforced by the Holocaust, and found expression in military conflicts and Anti-Israel Arab alliances in military campaigns in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973.
However, in the 70’s, the existential threat vanished. Two things happened. 1) Egypt initiated and with the support of the United States engineered a peace treaty that saw the return of its territory and a guarantee of perpetual American support. 2) Israel obtained nuclear weapons and essentially an ultimate trump card which made further ventures pointless.
Despite this, Israel, a state founded in paranoia, was unable to cope with the prospect of peace. Rather, long term peace came to Israel with a variety of economic and social developments which, while not existential threats, were perceived as painful – the oil price shocks of the 70’s and Opec, increased agitation on the part of Palestinians, a worldwide economic malaise.
The result was a deliberate choice to return back to the ongoing crisis mode.
Israel embraced the state of ‘false existential threat’ an echo of a previous genuine situation in order to maintain a delicate political and economic consensus.
Syria became the new Uber-Threat. Particularly in the context of conflicts over the Invasion of Lebanon. The result was a decisive 1982 Air War with Syria, and the long fade of the Syrian threat. Focus then shifted to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. And following Iraq, to the far removed and extremely hypothetical challenge of Iran.
The truth is that making Iran an existential threat to Israel stretches credibility to the breaking point. The two states are separated by over a thousand miles and as many as three intervening states. The Iranians as ethnic Persians and religious Shiites have never fully embraced the causes of Arabs and Sunnis. The Iranians genuine strategic rivals are Iraq, Pakistan and the Gulf. Their military has little to no projection capacity, they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon, and their civilian nuclear program is carefully monitored.
That said, Israel cannot live without an Existential Threat, even if it has to be fabricated. Iran fits the bill as a fabricated threat.
Eliminate the Iranian ‘threat’ and Israel would merely need a new one. But Iran poses no genuine threat. Ergo, lots of Anti-Iranian hysteria, but no action will be taken.
What this poll represents is Israel’s version of the two minute hate. What Iran represents is Israel’s Emmanuel Goldstein.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
No: we should assess the ACTUAL situation in Iran, and what people ACTUALLY say and think, as a whole. First, if you think that the relative power held by Ahmadinejad and Khamenei is analogous to Cheney and Bush, then you know so little about Iran that you should be ashamed even to comment on it. Khamenei doesn’t merely outrank Ahmadinejad in theory, he has considerably more power and authority in practice.
Second, I didn’t say that people should ignore Ahmadinejad – I said that they should understand him in the context of Khamenei’s fatwa. Ahmadinejad did not threaten and has never threatened to use nuclear weapons against Israel or anyone else; and if you think that his statement about “wiping out Israel” has something to do with nuclear weapons, Khamenei’s fatwa is there to prove you wrong.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Fact, Israel is currently and openly threatening to attack Iran. Fact, Iran is openly hostile to the Jewish State of Israel and wishes for it to end, but also openly rejects the idea of attacking Israel.
I don’t find any of that hard to understand, or to believe. To those yelling false equivalency for comparing Iran and Israeli intentions (or public reactions to polling on pre-emptive military strikes) I am confused about one thing: does Iran have a right to defend itself? Or is that a another false equivalent.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
SLC,
While I accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel, you should not talk so glibly about starting a nuclear war with Iran. The use of weapons of mass destruction, for any end whatsoever, even the preservation of the state of Israel, is gravely wrong. It is also, by the way, forbidden by the Mosaic law which Jews are bound to obey. Exodus 23:7, “The just and innocent man ye shall not put to death.”
May 4th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Could it be, I dunno, that Iran is anti-semitic? Just a guess.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Den Vardon,
Brilliant post. Well put. My only question is that once the premise of the false existential threat is entrenched, either it must come to an end or, surely it will eventually lead to something very much like an attack on Iran. Illogical, but consistent with the supposed existential threat.
More importantly, does it not potentially cause some to seek a genuine existential threat, so as to more firmly ground that portion of the bedrock of the state?
May 4th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Re SLC
SLC is hereby requested to stick a grenade up his hemorrhoidal asshole and dance around screaming “Hama Rules!”
As opposed to using a large dildo, which is his daily routine.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
The ADL’s disgraceful performance regarding the question of the Armenian genocide made it perfectly clear that they’ve chosen to put the national interests of Israel above their stated agenda of battling for human rights.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Thank you Den Valdron! Every word of that is so true, except for one detail: “The result was a decisive 1982 Air War with Syria, and the long fade of the Syrian threat.” I would substitute Sharon’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon in place of this and the “long fade” of the Isreali occupation of the border zone, but otherwise this is just spot-on.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
If Israel – if any country, other than a major global power like the US, China, Russia, or Britain – were to launch a nuclear first strike against a country that had not committed aggressive acts, it would immediately become an international pariah.
Even countries like Egypt and Turkey that currently have good relations with Israel would open up a can of whup-ass on them. Tel Aviv would become every bit the parking lot that nuked Tehran had become.
The Israelis know this; that’s why SLC’s sick little genocidal fantasies are never going to come to pass.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Iran is openly hostile to the Jewish State of Israel and wishes for it to end, but also openly rejects the idea of attacking Israel.
And who is the main funding source for Hezbollah and Hamas? And how many rockets rain down on Israel on a yearly basis? How Israeli rockets have hit Iran recently?
May 4th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Re Ed Marshall
Do you really not understand the difference between a nuclear-armed Israel and a nuclear-armed Iran?
One is a shitty, paranoid, little, herrenvolk, settler apartheid state that starts wars every few years?
By this criteria, the USA qualifies, except we are not small. Don’t believe it, just ask the few Native Americans still living here.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
An Israeli strike will require the active cooperation of the US. Active disengagement and acquiescence is cooperation . Hello Gulf War 3. American forces will suffer significant casualties as they pull back to the large bases and fortified positions. Iraq will go further to hell. The crazies in Lebanon and Palestinian areas will attack of course, all part of Gulf War 3.
20 million dead Persians and a few million assorted others here we come. It will take awhile but we will get there. If Obama does not acquiesce dark events may occur.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Bullsmith leads directly to my bet with Arnold Evans on the outcome of all this.
The bottom line: somebody has to “blink” – and it’s not going to be the Iranians, unless Obama really offers them total diplomatic recognition and nuclear energy assistance (as the NPT REQUIRES the US to do.) That isn’t going to happen because Obama would be assassinated by Israeli agents (who would no doubt turn out to be “Al Qaeda” by the time the investigation was over).
So that means Obama is going to either have to attack Iran when his “diplomacy” fails – as it must – or Israel is going to have to attack Iran or be perceived as a paper tiger. Or both of them have to “blink” and accept Iranian uranium enrichment.
And time is running out because after another four years with Iranian uranium enrichment going full steam and NO IRANIAN BOMB, it’s going to look increasingly ridiculous for both the US and Israel to insist that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
So my prediction is that somehow Israel will start a war with Iran dragging the US into it. Whether it will be within the next two years or the two years after that is mostly irrelevant, but that’s how Arnold and I have our bet: either it will be in the next two years or we reschedule for the following two years.
If after Obama’s first term, there has been no war and Iran is still enriching, then I think we can say there probably won’t be one.
As for HOW Israel can attack Iran, well, besides nuclear cruise missiles (which is risky since it involves nuclear weapons, so I suspect Israel will merely use conventional warheads), Israel also has the option of attacking by air from Georgian air fields. That is WHY Israel has been assisting Georgia in its conflict with Russia. I also wouldn’t underestimate Israel’s ability to figure out a way to attack Iran somehow. Remember, they don’t have to do an effective attack on Iran – merely one that causes Iran to retaliate and thus drag the US into the war.
Israel has no intention of fighting Iran alone. It’s sole purpose in all this is to get the US to do the dying for it, just as it did with the Iraq war. And before SLC chimes in with his bullshit about how Israel didn’t want the US to attack Iraq, it has been established that Israel wanted the US to attack IRAN BEFORE attacking Iraq, and only came on board with the Iraq war when the neocons assured them that Iran would be next after the Iraq “cakewalk”.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Diana
The Air War with Syria strongly overlapped with the invasion of Lebanon, which was also characterized (but rather less convincing) as an existential struggle.
In the Air War in 1982, Israeli fighters shot down over 90 Syrian aircraft and lost nothing. As far as knock down, drag outs went, Syria utterly failed to even present a credible defensive posture against Israel even on the level of 1973. Within seven years, with the dissolution of the USSR, Syria had lost its principal patron. The Syrian ‘threat’ was conclusively demonstrated as hollow in 1982, and even the residue faded with each passing year.
It’s significant that after 1982, Israeli threat perceptions then focused on Iraq, and a number of anti-Iraqi actions were taken, including the assassination of Gerald Bull, the raid on Osirak, and supplying arms and support to Iran through the Iran-Iraq war.
This of course moved Saddam Hussein into a strongly anti-Israel mode, although he may well have gone there anyway, in order to try and forge some Arab consensus. In Saddam’s mind, his enemy was an Israeli/Iranian Axis.
In contrast, the 1982 Invasion of Lebanon was presented as an effort to end a northern border ‘existential’ threat and decisively crush the PLO. But that proved tricky in that the PLO was both weaker and more resilient than conceived.
Bullsmith,
One of histories comedies is that genuine life and death struggle inevitably becomes ritualized as theater. In many states and right wing movements, there are two contradictory impulses held: First, that we are powerful to the point of omnipotence, and Second that we are simultaneously so week that we are only heartbeats from defeat and annihilation. Think of it as a combination of Super-Pride and Self-Pity.
If you look at American political theater, I think that we’re looking at constant repetitions of WWII as a passion play. Tinpot third world dictators are regularly puffed up into latter day Hitlers, we intone solemnly about appeasement at Munich, and ‘never again’. For some constituencies, its powerful and evocative. But its not real.
It’s possible that Israel will be so caught up in existential threat fantasies that it will do something stupid. But to my mind, the more realistic outcome is that it becomes theatre. Israel has always been at war with its nemesis Iran. Iraq has always been Israel’s ally. Israel is the mightiest nation in the region. But Israel is only a heartbeat from annihilation by its insane untrustworthy eternal enemy.
The prescription and result is not action, I think, but a state of eternal fear masquerading as calls to vigilance.
Is it sustainable? I’m not sure. But endless paranoia is no way to live, and probably not a good long term strategy if one of the side effects is that you ignore your real problems.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
History matters. Iran’s material support to Hezbollah matters. Iranian president’s mystical pre-occupation with the coming of a Shiite Islamic messiah figure (the Mahdi) matters. So, I do not want to take chances with the current lot in power in Iran and nuclear power.
Also, the idea that we should treat proven terrorist supporters and a liberal nation that respects the rule of law as equals does not make sense to me.
Let us talk to Iran but to accept a nuclear Iran would not be a good idea. Let us imagine a world in which Pakistan did not have nuclear weapons.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Den Valdron,
Thanks for the response, and apologies for mucking up your name. The old saw about history repeating itself, first as comedy, then as tragedy comes to mind. This one’s feels a bit like it’s in a soap opera phase, if not kabuki. Lots of ritual and familiarity, not much catharsis.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
a liberal nation that respects the rule of law
Is this spoof?
May 4th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
History does indeed matter, Nara. But only as a vehicle for intelligent analysis, not a platform for hysterical posturing.
Any politician who subscribes to mysticism, be it John Ashcroft, George W. Bush, Stockwell Day or Adolf Hitler, is a concern and should be watched. But its also not a definitive tick.
Hezbollah was first and foremost a Shiite insurgency movement opposing the occupation of Lebanon. We can call them terrorists. But that’s no more useful than calling Israel a terrorist state on the basis of the Stern Gang.
At this point, there’s no evidence that Iran is seeking or developing a nuclear weapon. So what’s the point?
May 4th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
All of those things matter. And Ayatollah Khamenei’s fatwa that it is forbidden for Iran to possess nuclear weapons matters too (http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=302258), perhaps even more. So my question for you is: since Khamenei is the person above all “in power” in Iran, why would taking a chance on Iran and nuclear power be worse than the certainty of disaster and chaos if Israel were to attack them?
May 4th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
In many ways, I really don’t give a crap what the Israeli people think, other than finding it unfortunate they would be thinking in such counterproductive ways, at least as regards security and order in that region, as well as our interests here in America.
We already have a tenuous situation in Iraq that has nearly bankrupted us already and which we’re trying to withdraw from in the near future, and which will rely on diplomatic relations and agreements with Iran, if not active cooperation, in terms of assuring that the situation doesn’t go from tenuous to chaos or catastrophic again.
Then we also have serious problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan we’re trying to deal with on the cheap, and again likely requiring diplomatic relations and agreements with Iran, if not active cooperation.
So why exactly would we want to set the whole region on fire by bombing Iran, the country most in position to actually assist us in our strategies?
The results throughout the Muslim Arab world would likely be disastrous, especially amongst the hearts and minds of the actual peoples, Sunni or Shiite, and our jobs would suddenly get a whole lot tougher and eons more expensive trying to assure Pakistan doesn’t fall, Afghanistan doesn’t return to the Taliban, Iran doesn’t send Iraq into freefall, etc.
The only people who could support this, at least it would seem on the surface, would be those who really just want to have a big damn war throughout the region that would surely condemn millions of civilians, women and children to death, with the survivors likely in complete and total destitution for a prolonged period, their hopes and dreams crushed (if not their lives) along with what’s left of the moral standing of Western liberal civilization.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
I’ve been called worse, Bullsmith.
History does indeed repeat as tragedy and farce, but this is largely because people seek comforting narratives that reinforce their view of the world.
It strikes me that Israel’s real threats are demographic and economic, and that they are largely intractable to the political theatre and solutions that worked well in the past.
I can’t fault the Israeli’s for dwelling on their passion play as opposed to wrestling with real issues. Genuine challenges often require painful or expensive solutions. Always better to have the circus which is cheap and exciting, symbolic victories without real pain, virtue demonstrated without sacrifice.
But in the end, reality usually comes to the fore, and the passion play is swept away. Sooner or later, people have important things to worry about.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
—————————————————
Hey, Glesi Baby! Wherever do you pick up all the illiterates? You know. The buttholes who don’t understand the difference between an attack on a nuclear facility and an actual nuclear attack? The buttholes who don’t know the difference between an action whose goal is to destroy a facility and an action whose goal is to kill people? The buttholes who assume that the phrase “whichever state” refers to Iran specifically?
People who think they’re in the business of “translating” other people’s words into twisted meanings that don’t have anything to do with what was written should try learning how to spell first — starting with the word ISRAEL – not “Isreal”. Ahem.
May 4th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
“The buttholes who don’t know the difference between an action whose goal is to destroy a facility and an action whose goal is to kill people?”
Apparently this moron thinks there are no people at the facility – not to mention that there are radioactive materials at said facilities, and that at least one of said facilities is near to a major Iranian population center.
It has been estimated that an attack by the US on Iranian nuclear facilities with nuclear bunker buster munitions – the only munitions likely to take out some of the underground facilities – would kill thousands of Iranian workers at the facilities and tens of thousands of civilians in nearby cities and possibly contaminate and accelerate cancer development in countries as far east as India.
So this “butthole” sees a difference there?
May 4th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
The only people who could support this, at least it would seem on the surface, would be those who really just want to have a big damn war throughout the region that would surely condemn millions of civilians, women and children to death, with the survivors likely in complete and total destitution for a prolonged period, their hopes and dreams crushed (if not their lives) along with what’s left of the moral standing of Western liberal civilization.
I imagine Osama Bin Laden (and Al Qaeda) would be one of these people, for differing reasons, as this plays right into his “America overreaches” strategy, in the process going bankrupt financially, politically and morally.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
AIPAC, the Neocons and their politically rewarded mouthpieces want to strangle Iran just as Iraq was suffocated for a decade before the US Invasion. Disband the Iraqi army, de-Baathify down to the lower ranks and foment civil war between the Sunni and Shia, with the ethnic cleansing and defacto Partitioning of Iraq into weaker, smaller states as the ultimate goal.
Watch the BBC documentary “The War Party”, part 1 of 5
Listen to Philip Weiss discuss the War for Israel agenda on Antiwar Radio:
antiwar.com/radio/2008/07/12/philip-weiss/
antiwar.com/radio/2009/03/18/philip-weiss-2/
antiwar.com/radio/2009/04/30/philip-weiss-3/ <- Phil discusses the recent Harman espionage case
Philip Weiss is a self described anti-Zionist covering the AIPAC conference, check out his blog @ philipweiss.org
May 4th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Also, the idea that we should treat proven terrorist supporters and a liberal nation that respects the rule of law as equals does not make sense to me.
Which one of those two is meant to be Israel?
May 5th, 2009 at 1:19 am
This report and comment completely distorts the findings of the poll. Mr. Yglesias, your credibility is close to zero. You either didn’t read the poll or worse, you did, and chose to distort the findings. For your readers’ information the question was: “Suppose all diplomatic and economic efforts fail to convince Iran to shut down its uranium enrichment plant, it that happens, would you support or oppose Israeli military action aimed at destroying the Iranian nuclear facilities?” If you think that nuclear Iran doesn’t pose a threat to Israel and the world, read again a few basic books about the reaction of people like you to Hitler’s threats and military building between 1933 and 1939.
May 5th, 2009 at 8:52 am
This reads like what someone would write to mock a neoconservative.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that a country that hasn’t launched an aggressive war in four centuries isn’t a precise analogue of Hitler’s Germany in the 1930s.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Polls/Schmolls – who cares?
The substantive issue is which country has the right to self-defense: the one that has a free press, an independent judiciary, genuinely free elections with open membership in political parties, and the unfettered right to emigration (for non-criminals) … or the other one? When a single Iranian newspaper is allowed (without any reservations) to criticize its government’s foreign policy, then we can _start_ talking about the legitimacy of that regime.
The world will vocally piss and moan when Israel does what it must do to ensure its continued existence, and will secretly smile a broad smile that someone had the moral courage to delay this impending threat. It’s too bad we’ve come to this – a civilization which is unable to openly defend itself against the barbarians in its midst.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Every country has a right to self defense.
What a strange question.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Re: When a single Iranian newspaper is allowed (without any reservations) to criticize its government’s foreign policy, then we can _start_ talking about the legitimacy of that regime.
Because clearly any regime that makes pussified, gutless suburban liberals feel uncomfortable must be illegitimate.
Iran should feel under no obligation at all to allow every yahoo who runs a newspaper to treacherously undremine its government. Middle Eastern countries can only be ruled by hard men who are willing to rule with an iron hand, and “liberal democracy” is a wildly inappropriate Western export that can never and should never take root in any Middle Eastern country. My problems with Iran are related to their aggressive foreign policy, and their threats against Israel (which it’s unclear whether they actually intend to act on). But as for their domestic authoritarianism, all I can say is that if it bothers whiny cosmopolites like Roger Z, then boo f*cking hoo.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Both Iran and Israel have done amny things that are wrong. But to their credit, both countries are run by real men, not by suburban hipster p*ssies. Thank God.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:32 am
So the subs will beach themselves and launch 10 cruise missiles to carry one bomb?
May 5th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Apparently, Hector thinks that Iran’s “iron hand” in domestic policy is unrelated to its aggressive foreign policy. This inability/unwillingness to think in terms of principles is typical of most of us that have been educated in America’s “pussified gutless” school system.
Joe from Lowell thinks all regimes are morally entitled to defend themselves, regardless of the degree to which they violate the rights of their citizens. So the Nazi resistance to the Allied advance was _morally_ appropriate? North Korea would be righteous in fighting off an invasion that would seek to free its millions from living death? Pol Pot was a hero to defend his Killing Fields against the Vietnamese onslaught?
More prosaically – a convicted murderer has the right to try to escape from prison? The analogy is precise.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Not to mention, Israel can’t attack Iran’s nuclear facilities with a decent chance of success. SLC’s “nuclear tipped cruise missiles” are a fantasy that wouldn’t even get the job done if they existed.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:48 am
And the same is true for central and South America, Eastern and Central Europe, and Japan.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:52 am
RogerZ,
Perhaps you could list which nations have a right to self defense and which do not. Since you clearly are able to discern a bright line that completely eludes me. When did Iran lose it’s right to self defense anyway, only under the Islamic regime? If treatment of the internal population is the litmus test then I guess it goes back at least to the Shah.
PS- Just because you don’t like a country doesn’t make it Nazi Germany. In fact, in all of human history there have been many, many horrors perpetrated by men, but only one Holocaust. Or do you know something about Iran the rest of us don’t?
May 5th, 2009 at 9:52 am
The Nazis weren’t “defending themselves,” but attempting to maintain their imperialist and illegitimate occupation of other countries, until the very end of the war. Not really the same thing as a country deterring an attack on its homeland at all.
But as far as that goes, it was perfectly morally justified for Germans to fire anti-aircraft artillery at planes that were bombing their cities, just as it was for every other nation. Stalin had a horrific regime, too. Was it morally unjustified for the Red Army to try to fight off the Nazis? Of course not.
The analogy is laughably absurd. A prison is an arm of a legitimate government that is both legally and morally authorized to use force. Citizens of a country are rightfully bound to submit to that country’s laws, in a way that even the worst regime, most deserving of overthrow, is not bound to submit to a foreign invader. Governments have sovereignty over their populations, while nation-states do not have sovereign power over other nation-states.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:55 am
The implication of Roger Z’s argument is that the United States is, quite literally, the world’s policeman.
We have the right and duty to use force against other governments that is “precise(ly)” the same as that which a police officer, correctional officer, and other agent of the state has against a convicted murderer.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:34 am
The Iranians have repeatedly threatened nuclear war against Israel, have lied about their nuclear weapons development, have violated the treaties that they’ve signed, and proved themselves wacky by publicly endorsing Holocaust Denial as a state policy.
Since the 1979 Iranian revolution, only Saddam Hussein has threatened Iran, and he is gone. The threats against Israel are legion, are repeated over and over, and are both near and far.
Iran wants to use the nukes to at least create an oil monopoly (or hegemony) to use the oil as a weapon to spread their brand of Imperial Islam to the rest of the world. You can fight them now or you can fight them later when they have both nukes and oil.
Do you really think Iran has enemies sufficient to justify nuclear warheads and ICBMs? Or does their nuclear weapons program produce new enemies?
May 5th, 2009 at 10:40 am
The Iranians have repeatedly threatened nuclear war against Israel
Lie.
Since the 1979 Iranian revolution, only Saddam Hussein has threatened Iran
Lie.
Iran wants to use the nukes to at least create an oil monopoly (or hegemony) to use the oil as a weapon to spread their brand of Imperial Islam to the rest of the world.
Hilarious lie! Iranian imperial Islam? Iran has NEVER LAUNCHED A WAR. Shiite imperial Islam?!? Is this a joke?
Do you really think Iran has enemies sufficient to justify nuclear warheads and ICBMs? Gee, I don’t know. Can you think of any major nuclear-armed countries who’s political leadership has threatened Iran? Any at all?
May 5th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Joe from Lowell –
We have the right, yes, but not the duty. Our duty is only to overthrow regimes which pose a legitimate threat to the rights of our own citizens. I admit that judgment of when that threat becomes legitimate is difficult, but that does not mean there are some obvious bright lines. Afghanistan was one of them. Iraq probably wasn’t, but, yes, I believe we had the right, not to say the implementation was correct. And, not to go off topic, but I do think the Iraqi citizenry, the US citizenry, and indeed the entire world is net better of without the Baath in power.
Also, in my first post, I listed the basic criteria on which to judge the legitimacy of a regime. These amount to the minimal institutional structure for enabling peaceful change. If all four are absent, then there is such remote hope for internally-driven change that the outside intervention is justified. Again, we can argue in some cases about which practical cases fall on which side of the line, but there are also some clear cut instances, on which I all liberals (either classical or modern) should be able to agree: North Korea and Iran are clearly on one side right now, whereas Venezuela and Saudi Arabia fall on the other side.
But, again, unless there is a legitimate threat to the US, it is our right, not our duty. We are not the world’s policemen.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Roger Z,
We have the right, yes, but not the duty. Right there is why your prison/murderer analogy fails. The prison, and the correctional officers, have the duty to stop the murderer from escaping. They have the duty to protect the public from him. They have the duty to endanger themselves, even, to stop him and protect the public. When the murderer tries to escape, he is, among other things, compelling the correctional officers and police to put themselves in harm’s way; that is, he is aggressing against them. Not the same thing as a state fighting off an outside attack at all.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:37 am
[...] Posted by Joe Klein | Comments (0) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This According to Yglesias, the Anti-Defamation League has expanded its services beyond calling Jews like me anti-semitic, to [...]
May 5th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Re: And the same is true for central and South America, Eastern and Central Europe, and Japan.
Njorl,
Quite so. Political liberalism in the Jefferson/Smith/Locke tradition is, simply put, an unnatural deformation of the human spirit, and an amalgam of each one of the seven deadly sins in varying proportion.
Re: Again, we can argue in some cases about which practical cases fall on which side of the line, but there are also some clear cut instances, on which I all liberals (either classical or modern) should be able to agree: North Korea and Iran are clearly on one side right now, whereas Venezuela and Saudi Arabia fall on the other side.
Well, I’m not a liberal (classical or modern), I’m a virulent antiliberal (at least in the classical sense) so perhaps that explains it.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
And just what do you mean by talking about Saudi Arabia and Venezuela in the same breath? Just because yahoos like yourself don’t like the Venezuelan govrenment is no reason the rest of us have to humor your ignorance and immorality.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Iran runs proxy wars by Hezbollah and Hamas. They provide weapons, money and training. There is no way this can be seen as defensive.
Rafsanjani and others have repeatedly stated they want to spread Islam by use of international power projection. These are their own claims.
The threat to nuke Israel is very clear and has never been repudiated by the Iranian leadership.
Do you think the Saudis understand the Middle East? Read this article.
If the US or any western country wanted to destroy the Iranian Revolution they’ve had 30 years to do it. With the nuclearization of Iran’s weapons, though, there is now a reason.
Do you think the United Arab Emirates understand the Middle East? Read this article from the UAE on Iran.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
It’s nice to see Hector coming out in favor of fascist Central American dictators, the Shogunate in Japan, the Kaiser, Czarist Russia, the Ottoman Empire and the Hapsburgs (including the oppression of the slavs by the latter four). Hector, do you even go as far as embracing enlightened despotism, or is despotism what you really prefer.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
First, that speech of Rafsanjani (from 2001) was not threatening to “nuke Israel” (despite the lurid headline, which was not part of Rafsanjani’s words, but was – as I’m sure you appreciate – added by the anti-Iranian government website that was reporting it). All he was threatening was political STALEMATE (his word) if the Islamic world ever acquired nuclear weapons, because Israel would have much more to lose from a nuclear conflict than they would. (Which is probably true, if grossly overstated.)
Second, and more importantly, surely Ayatollah Khamenei’s fatwa (from 2005) banning any Islamic country from the possession of nuclear weapons (http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=302258) IS a repudiation not only of Rafsanjani, but of anyone else inclined to fantasize about the advantages to the Islamic world of their possession. I’ve repeatedly referred to this in the thread, but have yet to see a sensible response from any of those claiming that Iran’s nuclear program poses an “existential threat” to Israel.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Iran runs proxy wars by Hezbollah and Hamas.
Iran runs those groups, do they? Hezbollah and Hamas are just agents being run from Tehran?
Hey, look at that; those non-state actors turn out to be agents of the country that just so happens to be in the neoconservatives’ crosshairs.
There is no way this can be seen as defensive. There’s no way it can be seen as a war on Iran’s part, either. Unfriendly actions, certainly, but not a war. A war is 1967. A war is 1973.
Rafsanjani and others have repeatedly stated they want to spread Islam by use of international power projection. These are their own claims. I’m sorry, could you be a little vaguer? Or provide something approximating evidence?
The threat to nuke Israel is very clear You mean this: “”If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world?”
You do understand that we can read the things you link to, right? The part where Iran “threatens” Israel with a MAD stalemate – we can read that. Repeating your spin on something doesn’t make it so.
If the US or any western country wanted to destroy the Iranian Revolution they’ve had 30 years to do it. How many years were we not just tolerant of the Iraqi Baath but even allied with them before we invaded and occupied their country? You can’t actually be arguing that the Iranians have no plausible reason to believe we pose a threat to them, after we just toppled their neighbor, put them on the “you’re next” list, and threatened them publicly for the last eight years.
With the nuclearization of Iran’s weapons, though, there is now a reason. Don’t you think this has occurred to the Iranians? Don’t you think they understand that development of a nuclear program comes with a cost? It was precisely because of this cost that the Iranians dragged their feet on their nuclear program in the pre-George W. Bush era. I guess for SOME incomprehensible reason, SOMETHING changed their mind in the last few years. Whatever it was, let’s do the opposite.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
The ADL is now an objectively racist, bigoted, and *pro-war* organization. Nobody should have anything to do with it.
As for Israel, hopefully they’re more sensible than to try to start a war with Iran. Iraq tried and lost, after a long, ugly, and extremely bloody war. Meanwhile, Iran has armed itself strictly for defense in a very effective manner. If Israel’s governemnt is run by complete idiots, expect any Israeli “air strikes” to consist of Israeli airplanes being blown out of the air by anti-aircraft missiles. That’s if they get through the no-fly zone in Iraq– there is no way in hell Obama will let them go through Iraq to cause trouble, and I’m pretty sure the Saudis would keep them out too.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Oh, for the ignorant: no Sunni Arab country is an unbiased source on Iran, which is Persian (long ethnic conflict) and Shia (long religious conflict).
May 6th, 2009 at 12:01 am
“Also, the idea that we should treat proven terrorist supporters and a liberal nation that respects the rule of law as equals does not make sense to me.”
Quite right. But Israel’s government are proven terrorist supporters — in fact, direct and proud practicioners of terrorism — and do not respect the rule of law; while Iran’s government are not proven terrorist supports (and do not respect the rule of law). Neither are particularly liberal.
You want a liberal nation that respects the rule of law and doesn’t support terrorists, and you want it in the Middle East? Try Turkey; it’s as close as you’ll get.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:51 am
News flash: 90% of today’s Jews are NOT Semitic. Ashkenazi Jews make up the bulk of today’s Jews, and they are from a Turkish tribe called the Ashkenazi, who lived in a now nonexistent country called Khazaria. They converted to Judaism in about 740 A. D. or B.C.E. as they call it, and became more Jewish than the Sephardic Jews, who are also less Semitic than–the Arabs! Yep, Palestinian Christians and Muslims are the purest Semites in the area. (Iranians are not Arabs–they’re Persians, and not Semitic.) Anyway–when a Jew says you’re “anti-Semitic” because you criticize Israel, just remember–it’s the Palestinians who are the Semites, not the Israelis. As for Israel nuking Iran…they’ll be sorry!
May 6th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Joe from Lowell #94 – The threads have intertwined, so your confusion is understandable: the police in the analogy (#85) is _Israel_ not the US. They are the legitimate authority, based on the premise that they are, fundamentally, a protector of individual rights. In this case (of imminent threat), then, yes, they have a duty to defend the lives, liberty and property of their citizenry by all practical means. The convicted murder (to be 100% clear, I should have written “justly convicted”, instead of depending on the implication) is Iran, a regime that has abrogated its legitimacy by virtue of its principled and institutionally supported violation of the rights of its citizens. It has no rights in the matter. To the extent that it (disingenuously) claims that all it wants is to be left alone, it is simply asking for more leeway to continue to commit its crimes.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:46 am
For further illustration of my position, I should have added Zimbabwe, an illegitimate regime if there ever was one. Any semi-free country (or independent individual, for that matter) has a clear-cut right to overthrow Mugabe and hang him and his cronies by their testicles. No morally serious person could argue that this would be an unjust action simply because, de facto, this thug is “in charge” of that dying state. Nor could anyone argue that, the people of Zimbabwe (mostly) and the rest of the world (somewhat) wouldn’t be better off if this occurred.
However, since Zimbabwe poses no perceptible threat to any other nation, there can be no moral duty to engage in whatever risk, no matter how small, in order to accomplish that overthrow. For now, that duty rests only with the people of Zimbabwe. They are the police in the analogy – the legitimate authority that seeks only to defend its natural rights.