Israel to World: "Suck It."

DV, I was referring to comments like this, which I see often:

"The intent is seen in the fact that Muslims who fled under fire were forcibly blocked from returning to their homes and lands, even if they possessed deeds and keys. Further, the '67 war was a war of choice to capture Jerusalem and the West Bank. Then the West Bank has been strategically dotted with occupying "settlements", while the Muslims already in the West Bank have had their living conditions made progressively unlivable. This has all been in keeping with Ben Gurion's plan to take more land after partition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine And it explains why Israel keeps sabotaging progress toward peace. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharmine-narwani/net...

This intent goes back well before WWII. In 1896, before the First Zionist Congress, Jewish bankers tried to buy Palestine from Turkey in order to create a Jewish state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl Most Jews in Western Europe at this time were assimilating into their various countries, doing quite well, and strongly opposed creating a Jewish state since that could derail their progress. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15... But the bankers went ahead and aligned with fundamentalist Jews of Eastern Europe, who philosophically opposed assimilation, and wanted a Jewish state in Palestine.

With this philosophy, the resulting Zionist movement joined the Nazis in promoting the idea that Jews did not belong as citizens of any European nation, a catastrophic idea that helped sow the seeds of the Holocaust. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html

Jewish writer Amira Hass, Ha'aretz columnist, has said that without the Holocaust there would be no Israel. http://uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=19985 While the back-room dealing to establish a Jewish state in Palestine well pre-dated the Holocaust http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_John.html , there is no doubt it wa a key factor in squeeking out the needed international support to create a Jewish state. http://www.controversyofzion.info/Controversybook/Controversybook_eng_43.htm The main obstacle was the massive injustice required for the inhabitants of Palestine.

Here's a documentary that interviews people from both sides of the Nakba, the driving of Muslims from their homes and lands to make way for a Jewish state. http://vimeo.com/3714871/

User ID:http://slate.com/mItyJ5g3GCu9xmobFySQchVAv%2B6XLigfLyme4pZ7fUWbiQ%2BU5XWG4A%3D%3D/

5 Hours Ago from slate.com· Reply"

Of all the offensive things in that comment, I this one is the most:

Most Jews in Western Europe at this time were assimilating into their various countries, doing quite well, and strongly opposed creating a Jewish state since that could derail their progress.

I think* this...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/what-could-possibly-motivate-israel-to-kill-iranian-nuclear-scientists/251280/

Responding to a letter writer:

You have to explain to me why the Zionists are so committed to picking a fight with Iran? What could possibly motivate Israel to kill Iranian nuclear scientists? It makes no sense, unless Israel is looking to start a war to extend its military domination of the Middle East (everyone knows Israel has the strongest military in the Middle East). So you'll have to explain this to me, please.

The thickheadedness of the letter is way more interesting than Goldberg's response.

Why shouldn't Iran have a nuclear weapon? Well, because it's an anti-democratic theocracy that menaces its neighbors, oppresses its own people, and calls for the destruction of another Middle Eastern state. It is profoundly anti-American, anti-Israel, and anti-Sunni. It is in the American national interest to see Iran denied nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. They are especially dangerous in the hands of totalitarian regimes, and so these regimes should be discouraged from acquiring them.

But..I...what... Eh. HOW DOES ANY OF THAT MAKE VIOLENT INTERFERENCE BY ANOTHER STATE OKAY? What ever happened to another country's sovereignty?!? Am I just naive?

I think people confused about this would be much less confused if they realized Israel + Iran have been in a state of semi-hot war for years now. Iran openly funds groups (ie Hezbollah) that kill Israelis and use public rhetoric about wiping out Israel.

Also, I don't understand why this is the assassination that is getting all the attention among left-wing American writers (Greenwald, Sullivan, etc). Israel has been assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists for years.

Israel has been assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists people for years.

Also true.

So has Palestine

How convenient for America that we have so far refused to acknowledge the existence of state-sanctioned terrorism. Or is Israel the reason for that?

Or state-sponsored, either.

Assassinations != state-sanctioned terrorism.

tbf, assasinations aren't terrorism. they don't serve the same purpose.

Also I don't know what you're referring to re America refusing to acknowledge state-sponsored terrorism and afaik everyone acknowledges that Iran sponsors terror throughout the region.

i'd've said that the killing of nuclear scientists serves an analogous purpose to terrorism in that it's at least partly intended to discourage others from pursuing a career in the Iranian nuke-development industry

you can characterize any assassination that way. assassinating a general is to discourage others from pursuing a career in that country's military. assassinating a weapons designer (which is what this was) is to discourage others from pursuing a career in that country's weapon design industry. assassinating a whatever is to discourage others from pursuing a career in whatever whatever whatever.

yeah, to be clear i really don't think the world wd be improved by a nuclear-capable Iran, i'm just saying that inasmuch as the assassinations act as a warning or an attempt to speak to sections of a community they are terrorist-like

the problem is with the word "terrorism", obviously

Also I don't know what you're referring to re America refusing to acknowledge state-sponsored terrorism

I don't know all the particulars but I think the official American political line is that if a government does it, it can't be "terrorism." Because "terrorism" is only performed by err dissidents/unaffiliated groups.

I would say the program of assassinations is clearly a sign to Iran to turn aside from their goal of nuclear capabilities? Because killing individuals (who have done nothing wrong but be good citizens of their own country and be smart and have a rare talent), isn't going to stop the program. Wouldn't it fit the criteria for terrorism in the sense of being intended to change Iran's behavior?

I'd like to see specifically what you're referring to re state-sponsored terrorism. What you're saying sounds a bit like a particular argument I've heard used against the United States that they distinguish between their own actions (like drone programs) and what's is generally referred to as terrorism as being separate. Not that this is a particular policy, but that the author of this argument is trying to implicate the US in the very actions they claim to condemn. (I'm not saying whether this argument is legitimate or not. Just where I suspect your comment comes from.)

I do think that if you participate in development nuclear weapons for your country, there is a level of culpability involved in your actions beyond being a "good citizen" who is "smart" and has a "rare talent." You are participating in a program that is designed to kill many people, and that may one day in the future do so. Certainly there were other ways for this man to make a living with his gifts + intelligence beyond designing weapons of death?

Yeah but Mordy, I somehow don't think you would consider it ok for Japan to have assasinated Oppenheimer, and knowing what we know now there was probably considerably more justification for that than this.

I think the official American political line is that if a government does it, it can't be "terrorism."

uh Axis of Evil lol

lol, actually I had written something in that post that I deleted that said that very thing. I would've totally understood if someone had assassinated Oppenheimer, and I understand anyone who assassinates someone who designs weapons for another country. Especially (maybe exclusively?) an antagonist country that is perceived as a threat. xp

My source is the guy Greenwald interviews here.

"As Brulin explains, this dilemma is often “resolved” by countries trying to create definitions that simply bar the possibility that they themselves could ever engage in Terrorism (as exemplified by the long-standing efforts of the U.S. to insist that Terrorism is, by definition, something that only non-state actors can engage in, even as it labels other governments “state sponsors of terrorism”)."

the actual American political line is "when they do it, it's terrorism. when we do it, it's ... uh forget I said that, we don't do it! THIS CONVERSATION IS OVER"

Also I think Goldberg's line of thinking kind of unfairly differentiates Israel's concerns from Iran's. I mean Iran is also a country surrounded by hostile nations, it's fought wars with neighbors in recent memories, and therefore has interest in self-defense, or w/e

Yeah Laurel -- even that quote acknowledges that the US believes some governments are state sponsors of terrorism. Greenwald is trying to condemn US actions, he's not making a nuanced argument about US law + terror.

Uh Hurting, if you read the whole thing:

"By the way, I understand why Iran's unelected supreme leader might believe that nuclear weapons are in his country's best interests. I don't agree that he should have them, but I understand why he would want them. "

But Goldberg believes that Israel should have them for the same reasons that Iran wants them and shouldn't have them.

You are participating in a program that is designed to kill many people

in the US we call this joining the army

Yes?

in the US we call this joining the army paying taxes

fixed courtesy of HD Thoreau

Can we not turn this thread into Morbz-Nonsense-Comedy-Hour? There are already half a dozen threads for that.

But Goldberg believes that Israel should have them for the same reasons that Iran wants them and shouldn't have them.

He also believes Iran would misuse theirs and that Israel has (and will) not. I agree with him. I think Iran will possibly misuse nuclear weapons.

well the odds that Iran might leak nuke stuff to a proxy seems pretty high. Israel's not gonna do this, since all their allies already have nukes lol

"misuse"

Does the whole mutually-assured destruction thing not hold for everyone in the world? If Iran nuked Israel, wouldn't some other ally (probably us lol) destroy them immediately? Or are they counting on other countries being more afraid of the loss of life than they are?

I guess I mean hypothetically. If they were ever to use them, which can't really be established.

If Iran nuked Israel, wouldn't some other ally (probably us lol) destroy them immediately?

hence my ref to likelihood of proxy. MAD scenarios only apply to states. if you don't know who just nuked Jerusalem, you can't nuke them back.

Oh hmm.

There is a discussion about whether mutually assured destruction applies here being as how Israel is a small enough country that there might be a potential to destroy them without retaliation. Mutually assured destruction doesn't classically apply to an ally responding. Also, I believe there is a concern that Iran might use nuclear weapons through a proxy.

aka what Shakey said

why does sullivan have hair on his daily beasy avatar

The theory that Iran might use nuclear weapons at some stage is pretty much reliant on the idea that they don't particularly care if Iran is detroyed as well. It's meant to be a grand armageddon scenario. There's not much to back it up.

The US would nuke Iran in retaliation, even if Israel couldn't. Iran doesn't want secret weapons it can use through proxies, it wants big fancy ones it can parade through the streets.

there might be a potential to destroy them without retaliation

oh come on. Israel sees some missiles in the air headed their way you think they aren't gonna press the button?

it wants big fancy ones it can parade through the streets.

this is obvious. it's a nationalism thing, and a deterrence thing as well.

People forget that Iran's defining foreign relationship is with Iraq, not the US or Israel. The Iran-Iraq war, which was started by Iraq and fuelled by the US and UK, killed a million Iranians. Their nationalism and deterrence policy is determined by the need to be in a position to stop that happening ever again.

eh I doubt they're worried about Iraq nuking them. they've got other ways to manipulate Iraq, thx to shi'a presence in Iraq's new gov't

I would buy that entirely without caveat if they didn't fund military groups to attack Israel or take numerous opportunities to discuss destroying Israel and wiping it off the face of the map. If it's just about protecting themselves from a resurgent Iraq, why even bother with Israel? If it's (as is popularly assumed) just to appease their citizens with rhetoric, I think you have to ask why they would appease their citizens with rhetoric and proxy military action but not with direct military direct.