Israel Needs to Step Back & Ponder Danger of Palestinian Deaths Becoming So Easy

-

idf shooting.jpg
This kind of story needs to be getting less frequent — not more prevalent.
Easy killing of unarmed people will undermine Israel, and it must turn this around.
Israel sets the temperature in its region. Israel is a superpower — and is over-reacting to rock-throwing Palestinians.
While securing itself, Israel must also show magnanimity towards a people who will always be on its border.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

75 comments on “Israel Needs to Step Back & Ponder Danger of Palestinian Deaths Becoming So Easy

  1. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “One of the most articulate, insightful comments I have ever come across on the subject. Many thanks for taking the time to post it”
    Yep, its been a delight watching his common sense catch up with his intellect. They make quite a team. And lately his wit is covering his flank. One hell of a trio.

    Reply

  2. David says:

    Dan Kervick,
    One of the most articulate, insightful comments I have ever come across on the subject. Many thanks for taking the time to post it.

    Reply

  3. JohnH says:

    sagesiah–Thank you for your well reasoned comments.
    The reason that I call Nadine a supremacist is that she has never repudiated any of the behavior or attitudes of Israel’s “religious” nationals. In fact, she has never even disputed my calling her a supremacist!
    Nadine constantly engages in name calling, feeling free to label anyone an anti-Semite. Critics of Israeli behavior have typically been reluctant to respond in kind, cognizant of the tragic history of Jews. However, the behavior of Israel’s “religious” nationalist government is so egregious that they really merit a label. I can’t think of a label more appropriate than ‘supremacist,’ since it was applied to people with similar attitudes throughout history–White Southerners, Afrikaners, and Nazis.

    Reply

  4. Dan Kervick says:

    “No. The neoconservative right are not romantic about war.”
    I think you need to read a little bit more Boot and Hansen.
    “You will see that Israel is such a tiny sliver of land that the map has to write the name “Israel” in the Mediterranean because there is no room in the country”
    Palestine – or what is left of it – is an even tinier bit. And of course the maps do not typically include the West Bank in Israel, even though Israel is currently in the process of absorbing much of it.

    Reply

  5. Dan Kervick says:

    “One point I forgot to make earlier: Hazony’s thesis is saying the opposite of your statement: that Europe has shifted to a paradigm where the natural end product of nationalism is Auschwitz. So an Israeli politics that is an expression of nationalism IS enough by itself to explain the European opposition to Israel.”
    Yes, I understand that is his thesis. I was disagreeing with the premise that the current European “paradigm” is that Auschwitz is the natural end product of nationalism. That seems to me to overstate European attitudes toward nationalism.

    Reply

  6. WigWag says:

    This is quite an interesting comment section on this post.
    The idea that Europe eshews nationalism is demonstrably wrong. Nationalism is more vibrant in Europe than on any other continent.
    After spending the better part of the past two centuries sorting themselves into homogeneous nation states the only places in Europe where violence still reins are the nations where this sorting process has not been completed (the former Yugoslav Republics, Cyprus, the Basque regions of Spain; could we see violence in Belgium?)
    If there is a continent in the world where the nation states residing there are more ethnically, religiously, linguistically and culturally homogeneous than Europe, I’d like to know what it is. If there is a nation in the world more homogeneous than Norway, I’d like to know what it is.
    Of course one needs to go back in European history only a couple of hundred years to find a very different situation.
    The Europeans practically invented nationalism; they remain the most nationalistic people on the face of the earth.
    Do we need any more proof of this than the pending collapse of their long cherished dreams for continent-wide integration?

    Reply

  7. nadine says:

    “And hope you also note that Rafsanjani says such an Iranian action would only harm the Islamic world. It is the voice of realism and pragmatism. “(sagesiah)
    That is not how most people read it, esp. when Rafsanjani added, “It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality,” which makes it sound like he thinks it would be an acceptable trade-off for destroying Israel.
    Add in Ahmedinejad’s Holocaust denial, his insults to Israel (“rotting corpse”, “cancer”, “worm” etc) and his predictions of its imminent demise (“will be wiped off the map”, “will vanish from the pages of history”), you really don’t have to be particularly paranoid to suspect that Ahmedinejad is contemplating becoming the agent of the removal of Israel.
    The Israelis have learned from recent history to be quite paranoid about threats like that.
    All the best to you too.

    Reply

  8. sagesiah says:

    @ Nadine
    Perhaps, had France not squandered its wealth on the Maginot Line. By the time of Munich the power discrepancies were large. And Iran cannot refine its own petroleum, and it will never rise militarily to be on par with the US or even Israel, at least not for decades. Like I said, we will never agree. And even on the west coast it is 3:20 so I must be going to sleep. Wish you the best, Nadine.

    Reply

  9. nadine says:

    “Germany was the only one with the
    appetite to fight (at least partially due to
    ridiculous repairations demanded by France). And
    with debt they financed their rearmament. If
    Germany was truly not as powerful as England and
    France, then why did they agree to allow Germany
    to take the Sudetenland? Why was 1938-1941 a
    literal string of German victories? ” (sagesiah)
    Your first sentence answers your own questions. What historian doubts that if England and France had had more stomach for a fight, and built up their forces in the 1930s, they could have taken Germany on in 1938 on better terms than they finally did in 1939? Power and morale are not the same thing. On paper, the French army should have been a match for the Germans. In the field, it was no contest.

    Reply

  10. sagesiah says:

    @ Nadine
    I hope you realize that this statement says that if
    Iran has a bomb then it would stop the
    “imperialists’ strategy” because Iran could
    hypothetically attack Israel. This denotes as Iran’s
    goal the end of unchecked Israeli military action.
    And hope you also note that Rafsanjani says such an
    Iranian action would only harm the Islamic world. It
    is the voice of realism and pragmatism. Thank you
    for citing your sources, and I stand by my defense
    of what you say.

    Reply

  11. nadine says:

    Hashemi Rafsanjani:
    “If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists’ strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.” (December 2001) [ [http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2001/011214-text.html “Rafsanjani’s Qods Day speech (Jerusalem Day)”] , “Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran”, Tehran, in Persian, translated by “BBC Worldwide Monitoring”, original broadcast December 14, 2001] ]

    Reply

  12. nadine says:

    “The mere fact that Israeli politics is an expression of nationalism is not enough to explain opposition to Israel in Europe or anywhere else. ” (Dan Kervick)
    One point I forgot to make earlier: Hazony’s thesis is saying the opposite of your statement: that Europe has shifted to a paradigm where the natural end product of nationalism is Auschwitz. So an Israeli politics that is an expression of nationalism IS enough by itself to explain the European opposition to Israel:
    “Many Europeans, too, see Auschwitz as being at the heart of the lesson of World War II. But the conclusions they draw are precisely the opposite of those drawn by Jews. Following Kant, they see Auschwitz as the ultimate expression of that barbarism, that brutal debasement of humanity, which is national particularism. On this view, the death camps provide the ultimate proof of the evil that results from permitting nations to decide for themselves how to dispose of the military power in their possession. The obvious conclusion is that it was wrong to give the German nation this power of life and death. If such evil is to be prevented from happening again and again, the answer must be in the dismantling of Germany and the other national states of Europe, and the yoking together of all the European peoples under a single international government. Eliminate the national state once and for all

    Reply

  13. sagesiah says:

    @Nadine
    I must also ask you to declare your source(s) when
    it comes to your statement that Iranians have said
    Israel is a one-bomb country. As always, I wish you
    the best.

    Reply

  14. sagesiah says:

    @ Nadine
    Israel will always defeat Iran in a conventional
    war. The remark about Iran’s size was meant to
    illustrate that an occupation of Iran would make
    the war in Iraq look like the cake-walk we were
    told it would be (to use Ali Ansari’s, Univ. of
    St. Andrews, words).
    Germany was NOT far from the most powerful nation.
    Every European nation lost a generation of young
    men in WWII. Germany was the only one with the
    appetite to fight (at least partially due to
    ridiculous repairations demanded by France). And
    with debt they financed their rearmament. If
    Germany was truly not as powerful as England and
    France, then why did they agree to allow Germany
    to take the Sudetenland? Why was 1938-1941 a
    literal string of German victories? They were
    quite obviously the most powerful state in Europe.
    And the reason the string of German victories
    ended in 1941 is because that is they year they
    declared war on the US, which tipped the balance
    against them. Meaning, Russia and Britain combined
    were not enough to contain them.
    I really wish I had not felt compelled to write
    this, because I truly believe we simply are not on
    the same wavelength, and never will be. Because I
    predict this will be the last thing I say to you
    on this thread, I want to say that I believe what
    some of the other commenters say about you is
    unfair, rude, and at the very least unhelpful.
    People are people. There is an incessant desire to
    paint one another in a terrible light, but there
    is no way for the battle of ideas to be waged if
    everyone doubts each other’s intentions. I do not
    agree with you but I will never doubt the fact
    that you believe what you say. Perhaps this is me
    being naiive, as I am new to writing in the
    comments section on blogs, but I hope everyone
    realizes that there is an actual person behind the
    names of the people that post comments. Adhere to
    respecting each other and the best ideas will win
    out.

    Reply

  15. nadine says:

    “when speaking of Iran’s pragmatism in doing things states generally don’t do, that one of the reasons Iran can view such actions as in their interest is because there can be no real backlash against doing it; they are already sanctioned, aren’t members of the WTO, and have no diplomatic relations with the US. They have little to lose.” (sagesiah)
    That’s because the current Iranian revolutionary government started off as a rogue, diplomat-kidnapping regime. At any point, they could have gained recognition, WTO membership, etc, by making some good faith offer to stop doing those things; but as you say, they never did. They preferred to continue as they began, for instance expressing their gripes with Argentina in the 1980s by sending Hizbullah to blow up a Jewish community center in Buenes Aires (Iranian Defense Minister Vahidi is still on an Interpol wanted list in connection with this attack).
    “As for the Munich argument. The problem with using WWII as a lens to view the current situation with Iran is the great power discrepancy. Germany did what it wanted because it could. Only the Germans wanted war at the time, and the Germans were easily the most powerful nation in Europe”
    This is looking at history backwards, not forwards. Germany was far from the most powerful nation in 1933; it had had lost a generation of young men in WWI, it lost its economy in the Weimar hyperinflation, it still suffered under reparations and was demiliterized by the Treaty of Versailles.
    Had England and France moved forcefully against Hitler’s treaty violations in 1934 or 1936, historians agree they could have toppled him. Instead they did nothing, or appeased him; and each new acquisition financed Germany’s rebuilding and rearming. By 1939 it was a different story. But for most of the 1930s, Hitler was just bluffing — and he didn’t even have the equivalent of Iran’s oil revenues. Which should send the lesson: sometimes a ruler’s intentions matter more than his current constraints, for things can change.
    As for Germany’s great size, Iran is three times bigger than Germany was in 1939, and has about the same population, about 75 million. Israel by contrast is tiny, less than 1/64 the size of Iran, and has only 7 million people. Facing odds like that, in any head-to-head war Israel would have to use nukes first, just as the US always planned to do if the USSR poured across the Fulda Gap in Europe. High tech and skill gets you just so far without numbers or defense in depth; and as any number of Iranian leaders have mused out loud, Israel’s tiny size makes it a “one bomb” country.

    Reply

  16. sagesiah says:

    @ Nadine
    First off, the Iranian hostage crisis should have
    popped in my head when you said Iran kidnaps
    diplomats. It did not, and I apologize for
    overlooking that. However, the kidnapping was done
    by students and was not ordered by the government.
    Indeed, at that point in the revolution the
    government was a coalition of nationalists,
    Islamists, democratics, and Marxists. It is true
    that Khomeini, upon hearing of it, gave it his
    support. This was in order to discredit the
    provisional government at the time, which was very
    moderate (and knew that kidnapping diplomats would
    harm Iran’s long-term standing), because the
    action was very popular amongst the people. The
    consolidation of power in Iran was the far right
    teaming with the far left to oust the moderates,
    and then the far right killing off the left (the
    largest group of which is the MEK, which has been
    a source of intel against Iran for us, as well as
    a terrorist organization). The hostage crisis was
    supported because it ousted the moderates. It is
    also an interesting fact that Ahmadi was indeed
    one of the hostage-takers. He was one of five
    leaders of the student organization (the
    organization was on five campuses). What is lesser
    known is that they voted, 3-2, to take the US
    embassy over the USSR’s. Ahmadi voted for the
    USSR’s.
    I also should have mentioned, when speaking of
    Iran’s pragmatism in doing things states generally
    don’t do, that one of the reasons Iran can view
    such actions as in their interest is because there
    can be no real backlash against doing it; they are
    already sanctioned, aren’t members of the WTO, and
    have no diplomatic relations with the US. They
    have little to lose.
    As for the Munich argument. The problem with using
    WWII as a lens to view the current situation with
    Iran is the great power discrepancy. Germany did
    what it wanted because it could. Only the Germans
    wanted war at the time, and the Germans were
    easily the most powerful nation in Europe. It took
    a huge balancing coalition to stop them: Russia,
    Britain, and the United States ALL had to combine
    to MATCH German power. Iran is not terribly
    strong. Excluding Israel, Iran is certainly the
    strongest state in the region. But Israel would
    defeat Iran hands down in any war, not to mention
    the US (the problem would be occupation, as Iran
    is 4 times larger than Iraq and has 3 times the
    population – not to mention much more rugged
    terrain and their strong sense of nationalism). So
    the problem with appeasment, as it were, is that
    it does not discourage states from acting in their
    interests. Munich did nothing to alter Germany’s
    interests; they were an angry, expansionist power
    that had the means to act on those policies. But
    reestablishing ties with Iran, and supporting a
    WTO candidacy in return for a transparent nuclear
    program (ie, ratifying the Additional Protocols)
    and renouncing terrorism is not really the same as
    letting Germany take the Sudetenland. And it would
    considerably alter Iran’s national interest
    calculations, in my opinion.
    It is true, and unfortunate, that the US and Iran
    have never been able to agree on the terms to
    reestablish ties. A lot of that problem lies with
    the way Iran has been villified in the American
    mind, and the way that America has been villified
    in the Iranian mind. There is always someone on
    each side standing ready to benefit from
    torpedoing rapproachment. That is why now is a
    particularly good time: there are enough people
    that see the benefit of reestablishing ties with
    the US, not least in order to simply humiliate
    Ahmadi.
    I also agree that if the regime changes, it will
    be much easier to secure an agreement (assuming it
    is a democratic government). I just don’t believe
    we can force that. But the Iranian people will,
    eventually, reach that point. But you also must
    realize that no matter how much some in Iran may
    hate this government, any more democratic
    government that comes to be will still trace its
    roots to 1979. Not to the religious takeover, but
    to the overthrow of the Shah; at that moment, Iran
    was ruled by Iranians that weren’t pawns of a
    foreign government for the first time in 300 years
    (first half of the Qajar dynasty weren’t pawns,
    but they were Turkish). And, I guarantee you, that
    government will still insist on forwarding Iranian
    national interests. It just may be easier to
    negotiate with. Once again, wish you the best.

    Reply

  17. nadine says:

    “I would also add that Iran misbehaving on the
    world stage by doing things that are traditionally
    not done by states (kidnapping diplomats,
    supporting terrorism, etc.) is pragmatic to its
    situation” (sagesiah)
    It seems to me that you have redefined “pragmatic” to mean nothing more than “advantageous,” which robs it of all meaning. Of course, every ruler everywhere tries to act in a manner he considers advantageous, but very differing calculations and strategic goals may apply. Saddam acted “pragmatically” in this sense when he gassed the Kurds, slaughtered the Shia, and believed that the US was bluffing and would not invade Iraq.
    “Athough, I must add, I don’t know of any diplomatic kidnappings or hostage taking done
    directly by Iran or even by Iranian orders.”
    Say what? Have you forgotten that Iran took Russian and American diplomats hostage in 1979? The Russians reacted forcefully and got their diplomats released; we had a wuss named Carter for President and ours were held until Reagan took office in 1981. According to the former hostages, Ahmedinejad was one of the hostage-takers.
    “I believe that if Iran feels secure, and if Iran is allowed to rise to the place that the natural order would generally suggest it exist, they would foreswear support of terrorism and open their nuclear program to more intrusive inspections because such a deal would inherently change their calculations of what is in their national interest”
    In case you didn’t recognize it, I’m a believer that you do not moderate extreme regimes by giving them more power and other rewards. “What gets rewarded, gets repeated” is a much more reliable rule of thumb imo.
    If allowing a nation to rise to its rightful place in the natural order, etc. was sufficient to moderate an extreme regime, then the Munich pact of 1938 should have worked like a charm. It didn’t.
    Every American administration has tried in one way or another to negotiate with Iran (some in public, all in private) and come to some better understanding; but the Iranians do not respond to normal diplomatic overtures. This, combined with their terror-master track record, makes me believe that they really believe their revolutionary Islamist ideology; or enough of the ruling elite do to prevent greater pragmatism. If the regime changes, then maybe we will see a change of course.

    Reply

  18. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Saddam Hussein killed millions, Wigwag. He was the toast of the Arab world”
    Actually, you blubbering jackass, he was the toast of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. THEY supplied him with chemical weapons.
    He WAS NOT the toast of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.
    Do you think before you shit this stuff out, or are you just intellectually incontinent?

    Reply

  19. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “If MORE not LESS of these basterds are shot in the head,perhaps some law and order will break-out on the west bank and this dispute could be ended”
    Were is the chorus of Jews telling this asshole to shut the fuck up?
    Lets try this….
    “Too bad more of these Palestinians don’t retaliate and murder five Jews for every dead Palestinian. Then those bastards would get the message to stop slaughtering Palestinians”
    Hows that work? You think that might raise a ruckus with the Jewish posters here? Is a statement like that any different than the fare that Marcus vomits here with his every post?
    But nope. With exception of jdldell, who occassionally posts here, we see the blog bigots, who presume to talk for Israel and the Jews, go unchallenged, no matter the venomously racist and toxic nature of their comments.
    The truth is that NO ONE here doubts the gravity and commonplace occurrence of Israeli attrocities committed against the Palestinians. NO ONE here is ignorant of the disproportionate number of deaths, incarcerations, injustices and attrocities. Those here that present rationales and justifications for Israel’s actions are LIARS, and they KNOW they are liars. This entire thread of comments from Nadine and Wig-wag is pure unadulterated bullshit. Their comments are no different than an SS trooper lying about the number of Jews marched into gaseous showers, and justifying the attrocity by offering carefully laundered and manicured fantasy that is far too pat and scripted. The message is ALWAYS the same; The Jews are the victims. The Muslims deserved it. The Jews are just defending themselves, the Muslims started it.
    Nadine has shown her true colors here many times, but what REALLY personified what she is made of is when she justified a number of IDF troops gangbanging a fourteen year old child by declaring that “the sex was consensual”.
    And Marcus??? Is there anyone here that thinks he is doing Israel or Jews any favors with his obscene sexual insinuations, and his roving ISP which makes it IMPOSSIBLE for Steve’s techies to push the flush handle on him?
    If people like Marcus and Nadine are going to carry Israel’s water, and are indicative of what Israeli society is becoming, than Israel is doomed. No reasonably informed person can read such a litany of despicably unfounded justifications and contrived rationales without recognizing the putrescent direction of such an attitude and narrative.
    Interesting how this thread has morphed from a commentary of yet one more Israeli attrocity, (that is no different than attrocities that occur on a regular, almost daily basis), to yet one more rambling over intellectualized parade of horseshit about anti-semitism. Now, the poor Jews are victims of European hatred. Oh woe is me. Some fuckin’ IDF jackboot, consumed with state sanctioned hatred and bigotry guns down a Palestinian, and all the sudden the issue is European bigotry.
    Well, screw ’em. The cat is outta the bag. Israel, and Jews, keep shooting themselves in the foot. In large ways by actions such as frying Muslims in white phosphorous or murdering peace activists on the high seas, and in small ways by not having the basic decency and common sense to tell people like Nadine and Marcus to just shut the hell up, because they’re giving away the farm. Do you want YOUR tax dollars going to someone like Nadine or Marcus? Are these the kind of people these sniveling cowards in Washington DC are pissing our money away on???
    124 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 1,441 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000.
    http://www.ifamericansonlyknew.org/
    1,072 Israelis and at least 6,348 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000.
    8,864 Israelis and 39,019 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information.
    During Fiscal Year 2009, the U.S. is providing Israel with at least $7.0 million per day in military aid and $0 in military aid to the Palestinians.
    Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none.
    1 Israeli is being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 7,383 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel.
    0 Israeli homes have been demolished by Palestinians and 24,145 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israel since 1967.
    The Israeli unemployment rate is 6.1%, while the Palestinian unemployment in the West Bank is 16.3% and 41.3% in Gaza.
    Israel currently has 223 Jewish-only settlements and

    Reply

  20. nadine says:

    “Surely [Yoram Hazony] far overstates the case when he says that the idea of the nation-state has pretty much “collapsed”. The Robert Kaplanesque fin-de-siecle anxiety about collapsing and failed nation-states all over the world, about the end of nationalism as an organizing principle, and about wildly spreading stateless anarchy has not been born out. Most of the world is still as well-organized into nation-states as it ever has been” (Dan Kervick)
    I wouldn’t say that Hazony overstates the case; rather, that since he is trying to look through European eyes, he is looking at what Europe looks at, which is: Europe, America, Israel. Not the rest of the world; certainly not in any sense of telling people how they should organize themselves politically. We never hear the EU demand that China or India give up its atavistic nationalism. But they do demand this of America and Israel all the time.
    Hazony doesn’t go into the influence of multi-culturalism on this belief, which I think is a serious limitation of his argument. My sense is that multi-culturalism has induced an overwhelming cultural myopia into Europe. As part of their penance for their former sins of nationalism and colonialism, the Euro-believers forbid themselves from even looking critically at their former colonies, much less ordering them to shape up and respect human rights.
    But these strictures do not apply to America or Israel, with the result that Europeans criticize Israeli misdemeanors far more harshly than Arab or Persian felonies, a situation which the Palestinian propagandists have learned to take good advantage of.
    “The mere fact that Israeli politics is an expression of nationalism is not enough to explain opposition to Israel in Europe or anywhere else. But the contemporary European ethos does stress temperateness and moderation in everything”
    There is a BIG difference between stressing moderation in everything, and pretending that everything is already moderate. When it comes to the actions of those it is self-forbidden from criticizing, Europe does a lot more of the latter than the former.
    “Another thing Europeans have re-evaluated and repudiated in recent years

    Reply

  21. sagesiah says:

    @ Nadine
    I would also add that Iran misbehaving on the
    world stage by doing things that are traditionally
    not done by states (kidnapping diplomats,
    supporting terrorism, etc.) is pragmatic to its
    situation. It has no ability to project military
    power beyond its borders and does these things
    instead. Athough, I must add, I don’t know of any
    diplomatic kidnappings or hostage taking done
    directly by Iran or even by Iranian orders.
    And if you can’t tell, I am a strong proponent of
    the Grand Bargain strategy, whereby we restore
    diplomatic relations with Iran. I believe that if
    Iran feels secure, and if Iran is allowed to rise
    to the place that the natural order would
    generally suggest it exist, they would foreswear
    support of terrorism and open their nuclear
    program to more intrusive inspections because such
    a deal would inherently change their calculations
    of what is in their national interest. Ascension
    to the WTO could also break up the Revolutionary
    Guard stranglehold on the economy, and an offer of
    reconciliation to Iran could unite the anti-
    Mahdists in Iranian government which would remove
    them from power. It is also a unique opportunity,
    as it is generally rare to see a situation in
    which a majority of Iranians in power would agree
    on something.

    Reply

  22. sagesiah says:

    @ JohnH (and then also @ Nadine, later)
    I think (maybe?) the first paragraph of the post
    indirectly suggests your support for my
    conclusions; if that is the case, I thank you for
    that support.
    One thing I wanted to say, however, is that you
    are right that Supremacists look for every
    opportunity to assert supremacy. And there is
    certainly some evidence that could suggest Bibi at
    least shares some of this sentiment. Now, I’m a
    long-time reader of The Note but this is the first
    day I’ve ventured into the comments threads – I
    rarely do this on any site, and what was
    attractive to me is that readers of this blog tend
    to be well-informed and because Steve seems to go
    out of his way to read comments and respond to
    questions. So I don’t know if Nadine has said
    something in the past or has a history that
    suggests she is a supremacist. And I do not wish
    to tell you what to do. But I would suggest that
    it’s certainly possible she is just misinformed. I
    certainly was, a neocon in high school. It took 4
    years study of the Middle East, IR theory, and the
    Persian language before I came around to a more
    pragmatic viewpoint. My basic premise here is that
    it has been traditionally difficult to get
    relatively unbiased coverage of the region in the
    US, and there has been a 50 year period of Mass
    Media in which we have used moral reasons to
    justify decisions taken for national interest
    reasons (which distorts everything even more). So
    all I want to say is I wouldn’t be so quick to
    call Nadine a supremacist. Of course, you have
    been commenting on this blog for much longer than
    I have and maybe you know something I don’t about
    her. Maybe I feel bad about the views I used to
    hold and wonder how many people out there are like
    what I used to be. But that is all. Thanks again
    for your support of my conclusions, and it is of
    course your right to say what you want on this
    thread.
    Nadine: There is considerable evidence that Iran’s
    attempts to export the revolution stopped sometime
    in the middle of the Iran-Iraq War, when the
    Shiite Arabs in Iraq were not open to Iran’s
    product and when Iran was baptised by fire in the
    reality of international affairs. Acting
    ideologically on the world stage is a luxury that
    only the US has, because we have virtually no
    existential threat.
    The way Iran is ruled is certainly Byzantine. In
    fact, I would not be surprised if all of the
    possibilities you listed were all true. But there
    has been a considerable split against the Mahdists
    among the hard-line conservatives, and the
    pragmatic conservatives already hated Ahmadi.
    I am not saying Iran’s pragmatism makes them an
    inherent stabilizer at all; their pragmatism would
    suggest otherwise, as they are a rising power. But
    Iran does have an interest in stability, and that
    is in oil shipments. It also would like stability
    on its borders, although there is a tug-of-war
    between “stability” and “keep the US mired”.
    Israel of course can do what it will. I just think
    action against Iran is unnecessary and would have
    catastrophic effects. In either case, I doubt we
    will see eye-to-eye on this. I wish you the best.

    Reply

  23. Dan Kervick says:

    Don’t Israelis *ever* get tired of using the phrase “existential crisis”? After a while it sounds pretty ridiculous.

    Reply

  24. nadine says:

    sagesiah, while it is certainly point to particular examples where Iran has acted pragmatically for its short term interests, looking at the bigger picture, this Iranian regime is revolutionary, not pragmatic, especially if you mean by pragmatic “interested in stability”. Iran is interested in exporting revolution, and has set at naught normal diplomatic protocols: they have kidnapped diplomats, taken hostages all over the place, are the main terror-masters on the planet, having funded and grown the A Team of terror, Hizbullah, which has operated not just in Lebanon, but in Argentina, the tri-state region of South America, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as becoming the patrons of Hamas. This long-running attempt to destabilize neighboring states is usually not called “pragmatic”. And let’s not even go into their arming and support of insurgents (including Al Qaeda) in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    I have seen arguments that Khamenei controls Iran today; that Ahmedinejad does; and that a Revolutionary Guard military junta does. I can’t sort it out, nor tell whether the true believer Mahdists will have the last word or the pragmatists. If the Mahdists have the last word, normal calculations about deterrence may simply not operate.
    You can hardly expect Israel to bet its survival on the proposition that Ahmedinejad is not the religious fanatic he appears to be, or that he doesn’t have the power to make war.
    In any case, you don’t have to come down on the side of saying that Iran is run by millenial nutcases in order to argue that Israel faces an existential crisis in a Persian Gulf where Iran will use its nukes and unpredictability to make itself the regional hegemon.

    Reply

  25. JohnH says:

    But…but…but, Nadine says, “Iran can’t be led by pragmatic people. They must be irrational ideologues. Israel needs them to be existential threats to justify Israeli brutality.”
    And but…but…but, Nadine says, “we need the puerile bravado of powerless people, because then Israel can justify its pogroms against them.”
    Jewish Supremacists are not looking at any reality other than one which, as Bibi says, allows Israel to “beat them up, not once but repeatedly, beat them up so it hurts so badly, until it

    Reply

  26. Dan Kervick says:

    I met Yoram Hazony at an academic conference last year, and found him to be a very thoughtful and enjoyable person. He presented one of the more interesting papers at the conference.
    There is surely something close to the truth in his blog post. But I think he puts his point far too starkly. Surely he far overstates the case when he says that the idea of the nation-state has pretty much “collapsed”. The Robert Kaplanesque fin-de-siecle anxiety about collapsing and failed nation-states all over the world, about the end of nationalism as an organizing principle, and about wildly spreading stateless anarchy has not been born out. Most of the world is still as well-organized into nation-states as it ever has been. The two most populous states in the world are actually growing stronger. Political stability under nation-state systems of government is the rule, not the exception. And the great predicted global terrorist uprising and destabilizing insurgency of non-state actors has clearly failed to materialize, despite the efforts of strategists to dream a very limited problem into a nightmarish global scourge.
    My sense is that even the conservatives are starting to come around to this latter realization in recent weeks, and are beginning to recognize that there is something rather absurd in the wildly disproportionate nine year Afghanistan operation.
    I would also suggest that the late 90’s, early 00’s intellectual fad of seeing dissolution and anarchy everywhere was the result of a temporary loss of intellectual bearings due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, which obviously did have the real but temporary effect of producing a wave of dissolution in the former Soviet empire.
    But not only have nation-states not collapsed as a matter of political and institutional fact, the idea or ideal of nationalism hasn’t “collapsed” either. One can read news reports any day of the weak detailing various expressions of European nationalism, from that supposed hotbed of absolutist anti-nationalism.
    Europeans haven’t repudiated nationalism outright. They have simply modulated and attenuated their nationalism – and some have modulated it more than others. And they have decried nationalism in its extreme forms, just as earlier enlightened Europeans repudiated intensely superstitious and enthusiastic forms of traditional religion in favor of the rationalized and emotionally moderate forms of religion they developed as alternatives. This is really nothing new; European history is filled with various movements in the direction of cosmopolitanism, liberality and universalism. A good part the European intellectual heritage fits into this tradition. The European record of dynamism and growth is in part due to its history of intellectual innovation, fluidity, cultural openness, diplomatic internationalism, cosmopolitanism and porous national barriers in the “Republic of Letters”. And part of this integrative impulse is likely the long lingering effect of the Catholic centuries, which left a memory and legacy of a millennium under a universal church, and an abiding ideal of universality and social hope, with a variety of different peoples, tongues and nations finding a path to harmonious intercourse under a broad set of common ideals.
    (By the way, and this is just a subjective impression, but on my recent trip to Belgium I found the Europeans to be, on the whole, more optimistic than Americans. We Americans currently seem to be haunted by various forms of apocalyptic pessimism, all across the political spectrum, which is leading to an inability to invest in, and even envisage, an achievable and desirable future. The Europeans I met seemed more convinced that problems can be identified and dealt with in a positive and matter-of-fact manner, and that we are not doomed to dreadfulness. If my subjective impression is correct, it represents a reversal from the old postwar stereotype of the

    Reply

  27. sagesiah says:

    @Nadine
    Genocide against the Israelis is certainly a very
    serious matter that cannot simply be waved away or
    shrugged off. And, indeed, that vile, racist
    sentiment called anti-Semitism is certainly on the
    rise in some places – but it is also important to
    point out that anti-Semitism is almost non-
    existent in other places, such as the US. In
    addition, more Jews have immigrated to Germany
    than Israel per year for awhile now, a testament
    to German success of dealing with its terrible
    actions of the past.
    Dealing with anti-Semitism in the Middle East is
    indeed a tricky process. The truth is really a
    terrible dilemma: Israel must act to defend itself
    from violent groups that are anti-Semitic, but
    because Israel is itself a Jewish state, can
    actually increase anti-Semitism by acting in a
    heavy-handed way, or in ways that are percieved to
    be heavy-handed. It is not a security dilemma that
    any state would like to have, and certainly not a
    democracy, whose officials stand to gain
    politically in many cases by stoking fear.
    I did want to briefly respond to your post about
    Hizbullah.
    It is true that we must look to the Iranian world,
    as Iran is a sponsor of both Hamas and Hezbollah.
    However, I would strongly encourage you to ignore
    statements made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The office
    of the presidency in Iran has very little power;
    the most significant thing he can do is affect
    economic policy. The person to listen to is
    Aytaollah Ali Khamenei, who controls the Iranian
    military and its foreign policy. I would argue
    that Khamenei is a very pragmatic leader; both his
    statements (support of 2-state solution if the
    Palestinians want it, nukes are unIslamic, etc.)
    and his actions. This takes into consideration
    Iranian backing of Christian Georgia over Shiite
    Azerbaijan in their brief spat (Iran did not want
    an Azeri nationalist uprising in THEIR Azerbaijan
    province); Iranian cooperation in removing the
    Taliban from power (Iran generally views Sunni
    extremists like the Taliban as agents of Saudi
    Arabia or Pakistan); Iran’s later backing of
    Taliban forces and the Iraqi insurgency when they
    became convinced we wanted to invade them (thus
    miring us down and dampening support for a US
    invasion of Iran). I would argue that as
    horrendous as it was, the regimes response to the
    unrest in June 2009 was also pragmatic; they clung
    to power.
    Now, Khamenei isn’t going to live much longer.
    He’s already quite old. And I have read certain
    pieces that suggest the Revolutionary Guard is
    really in control now (Daniella Pletka is adamant
    about this; she has been wrong before but that
    does not mean I can say she is wrong 100% here).
    However, the Revolutionary Guard is enriching
    themselves as their control of the economy grows
    and don’t seem to be very ideologically motivated
    by anything but power (which is no different from
    Khamenei). I will introduce this caveat: If the
    next Leader is Ayatollah Yazdi, then we’re
    probably in trouble. But I don’t think he will be,
    and in any case, he isn’t yet.
    What I’m trying to argue, in essence, is that Iran
    is an extremely pragmatic actor. The reason they
    provide support for Hamas and Hezbollah is because
    Israel and Iran are regional rivals, and Iran
    happens to share enmity for Israel with these two
    groups. The reasons for this enmity in Israel and
    Iran ARE partially ideological: Iran certainly was
    trying to export the Revolution to Lebanon when
    Israel was occupying it, and Israel certainly
    trained the Shah’s brutal SAVAK forces in torture
    (which is not the same as saying Israel tortures).
    But the biggest reason for enmity is the fact that
    they are regional rivals. Because Iran is a
    pragmatic state (at least since Khomeini’s death),
    it is extremely unlikely that Iran would risk its
    existence to use a nuclear weapon of any sort on
    Israel, as it could not be sure that such an act
    would not be traced back to them; it is extremely
    unlikely that Hamas would use a nuclear weapon of
    any sort on the land they wish to occupy. I would
    also argue Hezbollah wouldn’t either: partially
    because they have moderated themselves somewhat
    since becoming a more “legitimate” political party
    in Lebanese politics, and partially because the
    destruction of Israel is not in their charter and
    is not something you hear them utter nowadays. And
    there certainly have been accusations that
    Hezbollah has been receiving weapons via Syria,
    but my understanding is that these are anti-
    aircraft weapons which are decidedly defensive in
    nature. Please feel free to comment on the weapons
    thing, because I’m actually not entirely sure.
    I want to stress that this does not mean we should
    not take the threat of Israel’s existence
    seriously. Of course we should take such a thing
    seriously. I just do not believe they are in
    mortal danger. And although every state would like
    to be 100% secure, there is no way to achieve 100%
    security for any state. The closest thing to that
    is a nuclear deterrent, which Israel of course
    has, and which the US of course has.

    Reply

  28. WigWag says:

    “Just as America is having a “ruling class” vs “country class” fight over law and culture, we may see the same in Europe.” (Nadine)
    I think that there is some truth in this statement; I actually expect the fight to be significantly worse in Europe than in the United States and I think it’s almost inevitable that the “left” in Europe will lose this fight.
    That doesn’t mean that the European left won’t have some victories here and there, but the days of a left of center Europe are rapidly drawing to a close. What I think is somewhat scary is that when Europe eschews the left it frequently swings far to the right; the rise of fascism in Europe is a distinct possibility; its far more likely than in the United States (history has proven that).
    It will be interesting to watch what happens in Greece in this regard. Greece could well turn out to be the proverbial “canary in the coal mine” for Europe.
    Probably the best we can hope for is that Europe commits demographic suicide. The signs that Europe is moving in this direction are inescapable.

    Reply

  29. kotzabasis says:

    Balance from Steve? Clemons is the victim of the snow ball effect: He has made so many erroneous appraisals about the Middle East and instead of correcting them, by melting the snow ball, he continuous to roll the latter and hence increasing them. Balance will find its pivotal point only after the

    Reply

  30. nadine says:

    “I also think, Nadine, that the European take on nationalism is particularly fascinating. I think it’s true that Europeans now delude themselves into thinking that “nationalism” is at the root of much of the evil in the world. Of course it’s easy for Europeans to talk now that their 200 years of ethnic cleansing and ethnic sorting is largely complete. ” (Wigwag)
    It may have been complete, but two generations of usassimilated Muslim immigration has undone the sorting in many areas, which creates a problem which the increasing undemocratic institutions of the EU have so far resolutely refused to address.
    I’m far from sure that European nationalism is dead and gone; I doubt the population in the affected areas will quietly become dhimmis of Eurabia, whatever their betters in the EU parliament wish them to do. Just as America is having a “ruling class” vs “country class” fight over law and culture, we may see the same in Europe. Certainly the rise of non-EU-approved politicians like Wilders imply as much.

    Reply

  31. nadine says:

    “Nadine – You are getting more shrill every day. Talk of genocide is ridiculous. Hamas, Hezballah and the entire Arab world are in no position to accomplish that, anymore than they could fly to Mars. Give it up. It does not matter what talk they might make or what their charter or Koran says – IT”S IMPOSSIBLE. ” (jdledell)
    I suggest you talk to Hizbullah, it’s they who need to give it up. Their actions to date show that they are quite stuck on the idea. Their arsenal and Iranian funding make them a formidable foe. It is no longer just the Arab world we need to consider, but the Iranian world as well. All they need for the impossible to become possible is a few dirty bombs, not even a working nuke, and we know they can make plenty of those. So we are no longer discussing capacity at this point, but will.

    Reply

  32. Marcus says:

    For a multi-cultural society to survive it must be underpinned by Universal values of tolerence and respect,this is not to be confused with cultural-relativism,which Paul seems to do. Israel or france or any other multicultural country must hold the middle-that is to say they cannot fall prey to cutural-relativism. A dominant mainstream majority culture must exist,otherwise the parts,the individual cultural communities ghettoize themselves and the whole,the collective, falls apart.
    Perhaps that`s the problem in Europe ie;the majority populations do not hold the Universal values of respect and so on,they cannot inspire and hold the smaller ethnic communities as part of a greater whole.
    Yet they do go on and on about those Universal moral values.The very same ones they cannot even muster to hold there own countries together.

    Reply

  33. WigWag says:

    “Do you personally know any Muslims?” (Paul Norheim)
    As a matter of fact I do. In fact, I have participated in panel discussions with Muslims and Christians designed to promote mutual understanding in the days after 9/11.
    I don’t care what Muslims wear. It’s not illegal for them to cover their heads or faces in Florida and a law has never been passed making it illegal for Muslims to attach minarets to their houses of worship.
    We do have a fair number of policians who hate terrorists and unfortunately we have too many who conflate Muslims with terrorists but the issue of where Muslims live, what they wear, and what their houses of worship look like is not the abiding issue in Florida that it is in Europe.
    Europe’s bigotry against Muslims isn’t all that different than it’s bigotry against Jews. Perhaps the only modern innovation is that it’s now wrapped up in Europe’s hatred of religion in general.

    Reply

  34. Paul Norheim says:

    “It must just be something about the cultural milieu of
    Europeans that makes bigotry such a prominent feature of
    European society.”
    If you had added some self-reflexions regarding the cultural
    milieu among certain Jewish retires in Florida, WigWag, I
    may have taken your comment a bit more seriously than I
    actually do. Getting lectured about bigotry from the likes of
    you and Nadine is… well, amusing. Do you personally know
    any Muslims?

    Reply

  35. JohnH says:

    “If Israel’s answer to every security problem it has is overwhelming force then Israel will forever live in a state of perpetual war.”
    Well said.
    The point that Jewish Supremacists refuse to address is–how do the following contribute to Israel’s long term security:
    – Confiscating people’s homes without compensation.
    – Killing large numbers of women and children.
    – Jim Crow racism, like convicting an Israeli-Palestinian who had consensual sex with a Jewish woman.
    – Using internationally banned chemical weapons like white phosphorous.
    Rather than enhance Israel’s long term security, such actions seem intended to reinforce the impression of supremacy–Israel is above the law. And Israel seems intent on flaunting its disregard for international norms whenever it can.
    This is surely the way to alienate friends and antagonize everyone else, a sure path to long term insecurity and self immolation.

    Reply

  36. WigWag says:

    “On a slightly different note, I would be very interested in your reaction to this important essay by Yoram Hazony on why hatred for the Jewish state is so intense and so increasingly prevalent, especially among Europeans…Europeans now blame nationalism for all the sins of Europe in the 19th and 20th century, and are now trying to recreate their own polity as a multi-ethnic empire called the EU. Having ditched nationalism themselves, they have no patience with it in Israel (or America).” (Nadine)
    Nadine, this is a very interesting subject.
    First of all, I think it

    Reply

  37. Paul Norheim says:

    sagesiah,
    thanks for taking the effort to add so much to the length of
    this post:)
    And well said, by the way! Especially the last paragraph.

    Reply

  38. sagesiah says:

    I’m not going to get too involved in the
    ridiculousness of wall post arguments. What I will
    say is that there are a few reasons why Steve
    probably highlights this but doesn’t post every
    time a Palestinian throws a rock at an Israeli
    child or something.
    Israel is a US ally, and Steve believes that our
    allies ought to follow intelligent strategies so
    as not to make things more difficult for them or
    for us. Israeli actions like this simply point to
    the fact that Israel is far and beyond more
    powerful than the Palestinians, and when one side
    wields the lion share of the power while the other
    is burdened with the lion share of the suffering,
    it at the very least portrays the powerful in a
    bad light.
    The other reason is probably because everyone in
    America knows there is Palestinian terrorism
    against Israel but do not know that Israel often
    wields grossly disproportionate force against (at
    the very least some) innocent civilians. That
    imbalance of information is harmful when making
    educated decisions in a democracy. For example,
    everyone in America knows Hamas rejects the right
    of Israel to exist. Very few people in America
    know that a majority of Knesset members (75/120 or
    thereabouts) belong to political parties that
    explicitly reject the idea of a Palestinian state.
    The ultimate thing Steve is trying to point out, I
    believe (he can correct me on this list if I’m
    wrong), is that Israel may be tactical geniuses
    but they are seemingly operating without a long-
    term strategy. If Israel’s answer to every
    security problem it has is overwhelming force then
    Israel will forever live in a state of perpetual
    war. And anyone on this list can scream facts at
    me as loud and as much as they want, but it
    doesn’t really matter (strategically) what the
    “truth” is. What matters is what the Palestinians
    believe, and overwhelming Israeli force will
    continue to convince Palestinians that Israelis
    are oppressors and are not viable partners for
    peace. Plenty of other intelligent people (even
    Ehud Barak) have already explained what will
    happen to Israel if no solution is reached, so I’m
    not going to bother adding to the length of this
    post.

    Reply

  39. Paul Norheim says:

    Nadine, I had a quick look at some parts of Hazony’s
    essay, and his historical perspectives were thought
    provoking. I don’t have much time now, but I’ll read the
    rest during the weekend.
    Yes, speaking about historical “paradigms”, I believe that
    the timing of the establishment of the Israeli state was
    “unfortunate” on several levels (but probably unavoidable),
    but I’ll wait to comment more on that until I’ve read the
    essay.
    As for his claim of recent negative sentiments toward
    nationalism and a sympathy for empires, perhaps this is
    true, perhaps not. However, some questions remain
    unresolved: America is clearly not an “empire” in the old
    sense, occupying more and more territory, the way the
    Roman, the Ottoman and British empires increased its
    influence and wealth. America operates in a different way
    then the empires of yesterday, but possesses some of the
    characteristica of the traditional empires (among them
    being “multi-culti”, and not founded on ethnicity).
    And Europe… what kind of project is that? Some copy of
    the USA? Something more like the old empires? Or
    something new? It’s correct that many Europeans, also
    (perhaps especially) among the elites, regard nationalism
    as an ugly monster that almost destroyed the continent
    through the last centuries, and regard the Union as an
    escape from that monster. But the question remains open
    as to what Europe is supposed to become. It will of course
    to a large extent be defined by the historical
    circumstances, and well… tomorrow never knows.
    And so on… But I’ll read the essay more closely later, and
    perhaps comment.
    —————–
    Pahlavan:
    I especially thought of the Hamas charter that Nadine
    quoted from in an earlier post on this thread, and
    Nadine’s often repeated point that Hamas tells different
    things to their Arab audiences than when they address
    their international audiences. This is true, but so do the
    Israelis, as seen recently in the discovery of a discussion
    from 2000 between Netanyahu and some settlers
    regarding Oslo, the Palestinians, and certain US politicians.
    Did you see that? And have you read the Hamas charter?
    I do not read Farsi, but I have read from apparently
    credible sources that the infamous “wiped off the map”
    quote attributed to Achmedinejad is a mistranslation of
    words that may perhaps better be translated as: “vanish
    from the pages of time” or something like that.
    Fine.
    As for Achmedinejad’s general view of the Jews and
    Holocaust and related issues, I don’t trust him, although I
    do not believe that Tehran represents an existential threat
    to Israel. If you are interested, you may ask fellow
    commenter JohnH here what Achmedinejad have said
    recently, if you are in doubt. JohnH understands Farsi and
    saw some recent ugly anti-Semitic remarks from that
    corner. His denial of Holocaust does not help his
    credibility either, although I oppose the US/Israeli attempt
    to portrait the Iranian leader as a dangerous, world
    threatening demon.
    In my view, the Iranian leadership is more characterized by
    realpolitik and regional considerations, and not a bunch of
    Islamist irrational fanatics – although I must admit that
    this Achmedinejad fellow is sometimes annoyingly
    unpredictable in his actions, re-actions, and speeches.
    Until now, judging from the last decade, America and
    Israel have created much more mayhem and tragedy on a
    grand scale in tandem than Iran. But I try to resist the
    temptation to demonize the Jews and the Americans, just
    as I try to resist the temptation to demonize the Persians
    or the Arabs. The only people I hate are our neighbors, the
    Swedes. (Just joking)

    Reply

  40. jdledell says:

    Nadine – You are getting more shrill every day. Talk of genocide is ridiculous. Hamas, Hezballah and the entire Arab world are in no position to accomplish that, anymore than they could fly to Mars. Give it up. It does not matter what talk they might make or what their charter or Koran says – IT”S IMPOSSIBLE.
    Israel has killed more Palestinian civilians than the reverse. I know many in the IDF and while they don’t actively seek to kill Palestinians they do have what I consider a depraved indifference to whether a Palestinian lives or dies. Americanna has crept into many facets of Israeli and IDF life and you will frequently hear the equivilent of the “only good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian” and any who are left over should be put on “reservations”.
    I am seriously disappointed in you as a Jew with such a vibrant defense of Israel. You seem not interested in visiting the West Bank and meeting Palestinians to help you formulate your views. Books, newspapers and magazines do not, and cannot, tell the whole story. In order to truely understand this conflict you must feel it, taste it and touch it. This will yield the empathy and understanding of both sides in this conflict. I hope you understand that there are really two sides and one side is not 100% right and good and the other 100% wrong and evil.
    I am guessing you are Jewish but I don’t know if you are a mother. If you are a mother do you understand how you would never let your children do whatever they wanted as long as they were not as bad as the other kids. That is the same standard with which Jews should treat Israel.
    Speaking of standards, I would be curious about what you think of the demolition of the Palestinian village of Farasiya in the Jordan Valley.

    Reply

  41. nadine says:

    “Well, “situationally speaking”, Israel actually has that
    luxury, because neither Hamas nor Hizbullah nor their
    supporters in Tehran have the capability to “eliminate
    Israel”, no matter what some of them say in their charter
    or in some inflammatory speeches etc” (Paul Norheim)
    Hizbullah now owns Lebanon for all intents and purpose. They have SCUDs, 40,000 rockets, who knows what else their superiors in the Revolutionary Guard may have supplied them with? They hold the South of Lebanon hostage and have covered the border with bunkers and tunnels, strategically placed near schools, hospitals and mosques. Not to mention their track record of using these rockets on Northern Israel!
    And your advice is to ignore everything until they prove their capacity to destroy Israel.
    Remind me not to hire you as a military strategist.
    By this logic, the British and French were correct to watch the Third Reich rearm, march into the Ruhr and Rhineland, do the Anschluss, and do nothing — because Hitler only expressed the intention to conquer Europe, but they didn’t think he had the capacity to do so at the time. After all, the Treaty of Versailles disarmed Germany, didn’t it?
    Did you read Yoram Hazony?

    Reply

  42. JohnH says:

    “As a rabbi I see my Arab brothers as my unqualified equals in every respect and Islam as a godly religion. I therefore hold both to the very same standards I hold for myself and my faith.”
    But what standard has Nadine the rabbi ever held Israel to?
    Did she ever condemn land confiscation? (Eighth Commandment)
    Did she ever condemn Israel’s killing of innocent women and children in Gaza or Lebanon? (Sixth Commandment)
    Did she ever condemn the use of internationally banned chemical weapons?
    Did she ever condemn Jim Crow racism?
    What kind of Judaism is it that entitles Jewish Supremacists to presume themselves above the laws of Moses.
    Nadine’s only “moral defense” is that Israel is the lesser of two evils. By asking people to support Israeli atrocities, she expects us to support evil. That’s rich!
    But for intense public relations efforts and hasbara, Israel lost the moral high ground decades ago.

    Reply

  43. Pahlavan says:

    “no matter what some of them say in their charter
    or in some inflammatory speeches etc.”
    Paul, do you speak Persian? If so, why aren’t you objecting to the western media’s gross and intentional mistranslations of Ahmadinejad’s comments?

    Reply

  44. Paul Norheim says:

    Is that your answer, Nadine?
    Well, “situationally speaking”, Israel actually has that
    luxury, because neither Hamas nor Hizbullah nor their
    supporters in Tehran have the capability to “eliminate
    Israel”, no matter what some of them say in their charter
    or in some inflammatory speeches etc. It’s only Israel who
    has that kind of capability, so your premises are abstract,
    and not rooted in the actual situation.
    I’ve both read and personally referred to the Hamas
    charter here, Nadine, so your reply was not much of an
    answer to my reflections and challenges.
    Should I perhaps translate your post as an admission that
    that you are a survivalist in the social-Darwinist tradition?
    Or may I read it as an admission that being a
    “universalist”, as opposed to a “cultural relativist”, is an
    unattainable position for you, due to the unique
    circumstances of the state of Israel?
    Neither a universalist nor a multi-culti, but simply a….
    Zionist?

    Reply

  45. nadine says:

    Paul, the Israelis ARE dealing with a brutal world that would exterminate them if it could:
    “Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.”
    Hamas, Hizbullah, et. al. can lay out their plans for genocide in dead earnest, and have done so, and you won’t believe it until you see them carry it out. Indeed, as Rabbi Boteach pointed out, you have defined moderation down to the point where instead of listening to plans for genocide, you will snatch up any hint of moderation and praise it, as if being relatively nice to women negated plans to kill the Jews.
    Situationally speaking, Israelis don’t have the same luxury.
    On a slightly different note, I would be very interested in your reaction to this important essay by Yoram Hazony on why hatred for the Jewish state is so intense and so increasingly prevalent, especially among Europeans.
    His thesis is that there has been a paradigm shift in Europe since WWII: the status of a self-affirmation in a nation-state, which was the basis for international legitimacy fifty years ago, has now been declared illegitimate; what’s more, Europeans now blame nationalism for all the sins of Europe in the 19th and 20th century, and are now trying to recreate their own polity as a multi-ethnic empire called the EU. Having ditched nationalism themselves, they have no patience with it in Israel (or America).
    Does Yoram Hazony have it right? Is this what you believe, Paul? Please let me know.
    Israel Through European Eyes
    http://via.readerimpact.com/v/1/792bc4b1ec4cad1ee531faa767415e58abbea5209e0fb1f0
    Long but well worth the read.

    Reply

  46. Paul Norheim says:

    “As a rabbi I see my Arab brothers as my unqualified
    equals in every respect and Islam as a godly religion. I
    therefore hold both to the very same standards I hold for
    myself and my faith.”
    That sounds very noble, Nadine, but it’s too abstract to
    make much sense in the real world.
    I don’t expect of Israelis to behave or think exactly like
    Scandinavians, because the historical background and
    current environment of the Israelis and the Scandinavians
    are so different. Still, as human beings, we should all
    adhere to certain moral principles. So the challenge is on
    one hand to tolerate and respect that the circumstances
    are different, and on the other hand to realize that there
    are certain principles that should be respected. In other
    words: The challenge is to achieve a balance between rigid
    universalism and total relativism.
    The same goes for Arabs who may have lived under
    despots until yesterday, or who still live in a society which
    lacks democratic traditions: you can’t expect the same
    political or moral standards in those environments as you
    may expect among Scandinavians, Canadians, or, for that
    sake, among Israelis, who have had democratic institutions
    for many decades. So the challenge is, again, to achieve a
    balance between principles and pragmatism due to history
    and concrete circumstances.
    JohnH has every right to expect more of the Israelis than
    of their Arab neighbors due to the Israeli development of
    democratic institutions and their claim to be a democracy
    (a claim that is widely accepted in America). But JohnH
    would be a fool if he expected that the Israelis should
    behave like the Canadians or the Swedes.
    The challenge is always to find a balance between abstract
    and rigid universalism (which BTW is always influenced by
    the concrete circumstances, traditions, and subjectivity of
    those who attempt to define the “universal” criteria), and
    the actual context of those we judge or criticize.
    This is actually the basic challenge in every courtroom,
    where the judge is ALWAYS confronted with a combination
    of the unique and concrete circumstances of the case on
    one hand, and on the other hand the general laws. The
    same applies, in my view, to criticizing societies and
    countries.
    You’re wasting your time when you accuse “the left” en
    bloc of being cultural relativists. Some are, some are not.
    And of course you are throwing stones from a glass house
    when you accuse “the left” of defending “the other” all the
    time, while you spend most of the time here defending
    “us” (i.e. Israel and America).
    If always defending and excusing me and mine is
    principally preferable to defending and excusing “The
    Other”, we’ve left the moral sphere, and entered the
    sphere of naked, brute social-Darwinism.
    But perhaps that’s your, and also WigWag’s, Marcus’, and
    Larry Birnbaum’s real “moral” position on these issues?
    Jewish-American and Jewish-Canadian survivalists
    confronted with a brutal world that you are convinced
    would exterminate you if not for the IDF and the US
    Military?

    Reply

  47. dirk says:

    Marcus, Jul 22 2010, 4:05PM – Link
    ” “I`m sure Moses would approve” !?!? What planet are you on ? If Moses had anything to say about it,he would kill every Arab man , women and child”
    Marcus, Jul 22 2010, 1:14PM –
    “If MORE not LESS of these basterds are shot in the head,perhaps some law and order will break-out on the west bank and this dispute could be ended.”
    hmmmm . . . ok.

    Reply

  48. Paul Norheim says:

    “…and settlers had complained of a rise in thefts.” (from the
    NYT article Steve linked to).
    That’s rich.
    They call Ahmed a thief because they stole his house last
    year….

    Reply

  49. Marcus says:

    “I`m sure Moses would approve” !?!? What planet are you on ? If Moses had anything to say about it,he would kill every Arab man , women and child ,the original realpolitik that got results that this surreal cat and mouse game never will.
    Nadine`s only defense is the truth (if that counts for anything on this alternate-reality blog)
    The only reason this conflict is still in the news is that Israelis have always been way too gentle with their arab tormentors,my personal wish is that they will one day soon take the gloves off,and win.
    in JohnH`s and or Obamas relativist world every country (the USA included) are exacty equal, The Sudan is as lawful as Finland, Saudi Arabia as liberal as Holland and Haiti as well run as Canada,how can you argue with this level of irrationality ?
    When reality slaps them in the face (like the UAE minister asking the US to bomb Iran) they are shocked,shocked I say,Yesterday poll results were released showing that the VAST majority of people in Britain,Sweden and France want much tougher action taken with Iran, the usual suspects here I`m sure are ONCE AGAIN surprised to find that their incessant/obsessive Israel bashing/blaming is in the tiny minority.
    Yet, they still claim to speak for all of us,or the world or all sane people etc. now THAT`S chutzpa.
    I`m sure they are so few that they would`nt even make a human sheild long enough to stretch around Iran`s nuke sites…..but they could try.

    Reply

  50. nadine says:

    In a funny way, JohnH, YOU are the only Jewish Supremacist on the thread, since you think only the Jews should be held to high standards. This pays Jews the complement of thinking that only they are capable of civilization, and insults everybody else. Apparently, you think that Arabs are too primitive to be civilized or have standards.
    Rabbi Shmuley Boteach hits the same point discussing all the fawning Western treatment of Imam Fadlallah.
    “Why are so many literate Westerners grieving over Fadlallah’s death?
    The answer lies in the hidden contempt shown by many apologists on the left for Arabs and Islam. As a rabbi I see my Arab brothers as my unqualified equals in every respect and Islam as a godly religion. I therefore hold both to the very same standards I hold for myself and my faith.
    But then there are those who treat Arab regimes as inherently uncivilized and Islam as a primitive religion, such that even the slightest deviation on the part of a Muslim cleric from genocidal terror suddenly makes him into a saint and a progressive. For people like Guy, Nasr and Friedman, an imam like Fadlallah who wants to kill Americans and Israelis but who is unexpectedly nice to women has taken a giant leap forward from the Dark Ages, deserving respect and praise.
    This attitude is, of course, not only deeply amoral and patronizing nonsense but historically false.”
    http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-the-praise-of-sheikh-mohammed-hussein-fadlallah-shows-a-silent-contempt-of-islam/19563457

    Reply

  51. nadine says:

    non-hater, remember this:
    “Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.”
    That’s what they Hamas wants. They don’t want a multi-ethnic state. They want a mono-ethnic state: Islamic and Arab. They want the Jews dead, and don’t bother to hide it.

    Reply

  52. JohnH says:

    Will the Jewish Supremacists here ever answer the question about why they feel ENTITLED to practice Jim Crow racism, used banned chemical weapons, kill women and children with impunity, and confiscate Palestinian owned property without compensation?
    Of course not! All they can do is prattle on continuously about the other side.
    BTW–Saddam, a profoundly evil character, did his deeds with US aid.
    And Israel and has no qualms about supporting genocide in Iraq. Israel supported sanctions that killed half a million Iraqi children. And Israel and the largely Jewish neocon community actively promoted the occupation of Iraq and the resulting million or more deaths that the US presided over.
    Yet, these Jewish Supremacists assert, it’s the OTHER SIDE that is worse. Go figure!

    Reply

  53. non-hater says:

    “Easy killing of unarmed people will undermine Israel, and it must turn this around.”
    It has, and it won’t.
    I supposed you’d get kicked out of the club if you admitted that there will never be a viable Palestinian state, and there is only one just solution left: full citizenship for Palestinians in a multi-ethnic state. But that’s the cold, hard truth.

    Reply

  54. nadine says:

    Saddam Hussein killed millions, Wigwag. He was the toast of the Arab world — and JohnH is still in mourning for him.
    Here, btw is a more thorough account of the attempted infiltration into Barkan. Sounds a lot less rash and “easy” than Steve portrayed it, but then, Steve never has to wait for evidence to know what side of the Israel/Pal issue he comes down on:
    “BARKAN, Israel – An IDF unit prevented a group of Arab infiltrators from entering the community of Barkan in southern Samaria (the West Bank).
    Because of repeated attempts by local Arabs to infiltrate the town, the IDF has posted a night guard from the Ephraim Brigade in Barkan.
    About 2:00 a.m., the troops spotted a group in the area and waited to see what they were up to. One of them appeared to be armed.
    When it became clear they were approaching the town’s security fence, the soldiers called to them to halt, but they ignored the order. At that point, the troops opened fire on the cell, killing the armed gunmen and taking another into custody, while the others managed to escape.
    IDF forces were searching the area for the rest of the infiltrators.
    Following the incident, Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, head of the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, contacted commanders from the Palestinian Authority security forces in the Kalkilya region to request a joint investigation into the attempted attack.
    Mordechai asked PA commanders to deploy their own forces to restrain the local Arab population.
    The PA forces sent a representative to the scene, the IDF Spokesperson’s Office reported.
    Initial assessments indicate the motive may have been criminal rather than nationalistic, but that remains to be verified.
    Barkan, founded in 1981 and located slightly west of Ariel, is home to a large industrial park housing 120 businesses and factories employing around 5,000 people.
    Arabs from surrounding communities work alongside their Jewish neighbors in many of these businesses.
    In April, PA President Mahmoud Abbas signed legislation banning Arabs from working in Jewish-owned businesses. Violators could face up to a five-year prison term and hefty fines.
    The PA also ordered a boycott on all goods and produce from Jewish towns and farms in Judea and Samaria.”
    http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2010/July/IDF-Thwarts-Attack-on-Jewish-Town/

    Reply

  55. WigWag says:

    “…the Arabs can kill millions and you don’t mind.” Problem is…the Arabs never killed millions….” (JohnH)
    That may be true, JohnH, but genocide is as much a Muslim phenomonon as a Christian one; after all the Muslim Turks murdered in excess of 1 million Armenian Christians and like Ahmadinejad denying the holocaust, you’ve claimed the whole thing never happened.
    I think you’re right; Arabs never did kill millions; but if they had (or if they ever do) I am sure we can count on you to claim it never happened.
    How do I know?
    Well, you’ve already done it once.

    Reply

  56. nadine says:

    No, JohnH, I am just plumbing the depths of your massive hypocrisy and your TOTAL lack of concern over human rights.

    Reply

  57. JohnH says:

    Nadine’s only defense is that “other side is worse,” even though she has nothing to show as evidence but the wild assertions of her fertile imagination.
    Anything Israel does is justified because her paranoia imagines that the other side might, possibly, someday do something worse!

    Reply

  58. dirk says:

    so . . . you’re saying (apparently) if Lebanon does “it”, it’s okay for Israel too.
    hell of a validation there.
    i’m sure moses would approve.

    Reply

  59. JohnH says:

    As expected, Nadine proclaims, “the Arabs can kill millions and you don’t mind.” Problem is…the Arabs never killed millions.
    The real problem is that Israeli Supremacists–Nadine doesn’t even contest the term–think that they are ENTITLED TO KILL a hundred Arabs for every Jew. They’re entitled to use chemical weapons like white phosphorous. They’re entitled to enforce Jim Crow racism. They’re entitled to confiscate land with no compensation.
    The real questions are why Israeli Supremacists feel themselves to be a superior race, and why they can never admit that Palestinians have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

    Reply

  60. nadine says:

    No, why don’t you go live among the Palestinians? Try the ones in Lebanon, who don’t have citizenship, who can’t leave the camps, who are proscribed from 50 professions, who don’t have any civil rights.
    But that’s Arab on Arab, so you think it’s fine. After all, Arabs don’t claim to be like us, so that makes it okay. Just ask JohnH.

    Reply

  61. dirk says:

    Posted by nadine, Jul 22 2010, 12:30PM
    “Why don’t you show some balance once in a while”
    Is that some sort of cynical joke? Balance!?
    Please go live among the Palestinians for a while, and come back and tell us about balance.
    And, by all means, keep throwing your verbal stones from Vermont — it makes you so credible — almost Palestinian-like.
    Oh, and please take marcus with you. he appears to be an expert in “balance” —

    Reply

  62. nadine says:

    The idea that if Arab governments are complaining about Israel, they will become more friendly to us if we become more hostile to Israel, is a classic case of projection — of thinking that Arab governments behave the same as western ones.
    Ike fell for this idea when he sided with Nasser during the Suez crisis in 1956 against Israel, Britain and France. Did he get any good results? No, Nasser ran straight into the arms of the USSR. That’s because Arab governments don’t behave like western governments.
    For Arab governments, regime protection comes first, second, and third, and anti-Americanism is a pillar of their public support. Its foundations are bedrock: the tradition of Muslim hatred of the West. Arab governments don’t change it unless something directly threatens their survival, like Saddam Hussein did to Saudi Arabia in 1990. On the contrary, if they think they have a soft touch on their hands, they will complain louder.
    Has Obama gotten one good result, a single change in position, from any Arab government as a result of the fights he has picked with Israel? Can anybody name one?

    Reply

  63. Marcus says:

    If Arabs want to throw rocks at people, it should be an organized event,a outlet for their aggression,like” Arab Stone Chucker Idol” or” Throwing with the Stars “or maybe “So You Think You Can Throw”.
    Or maybe they could convict 16 yr.old rape victims ,and bury them up to their necks in sand and then invite their friends and family for a day`s recreation throwing rocks at her face….oh yea,they already do that.
    If MORE not LESS of these basterds are shot in the head,perhaps some law and order will break-out on the west bank and this dispute could be ended.

    Reply

  64. nadine says:

    “The Israeli Supremacists here will surely argue that Arabs are worse, but that’s not the point. Arabs never claimed to be “like us,” to share our values”
    No, they can kill millions and you don’t mind? Such a fine humanitarian you are.
    JohnH thinks Arabs aren’t human like us. All Arabs have to do is openly proclaim their intent to genocide and that’s cool, because they’re not “like us”. But he’s not bigoted, no. JohnH doesn’t think Arab life is cheaper than dirt. JohnH is a fine example of a modern leftist humanitarian.

    Reply

  65. nadine says:

    Just a reminder of the positions of Hamas, the organization Carroll has said she supports:
    “From the Hamas Charter, written in 1988:
    “Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.”
    “[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith”
    “The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Obligation. When our enemies usurp some Islamic lands, Jihad becomes a duty binding on all Muslims”
    “The Zionist invasion is a mischievous one. It does not hesitate to take any road, or to pursue all despicable and repulsive means to fulfill its desires. It relies to a great extent, for its meddling and spying activities, on the clandestine organizations which it has established, such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions, and other spying associations. All those secret organizations, some which are overt, act for the interests of Zionism and under its directions, strive to demolish societies, to destroy values, to wreck answerableness, to totter virtues and to wipe out Islam.”
    “Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present [conduct] is the best proof of what is said there.”
    http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html

    Reply

  66. nadine says:

    “The problem is that if the Palestinians were indeed armed and entered the community to perpetrate acts of terrorism or even common criminality, and if they killed or injured Israelis, in all liklihood, Steve wouldn’t have done a post about it at all.” (Wigwag)
    Exactly. Just as Steve has never done a single post (have you seen one, Wigwag?), about the hundreds of attacks on settlements, the cars being shot by snipers, the killing of families, the kids mowed down at school, the babies shot in their parents arms, etc. But these unmentioned attacks are the reason that two Palestinians creeping onto a settlement in the dark before dawn are taken for terrorists.
    Why don’t you show some balance once in a while, Steve?

    Reply

  67. Carroll says:

    Steve has done great work keeping the US-Isr-ME issue on the board.
    Just one quibble, in general, about the way the killing of civilians and the unarmed is presented most of the time by public speakers on Israel.
    Comments on the killings, death and destruction, wrought by Israel is usually punctuated with.. “this behavior is bad “For Israel”. That “concern” for Israel because of it’s bad deeds actually encourages it to continue those deeds and perpetuates their security excuse for their aggressions.
    They need to quit paying homage to Israel’s political hold on the US with the “murder is ultimately bad for the poor criminal” type presentation on Israeli behavior and speak plainly about right and wrong and Israel’s victims.

    Reply

  68. JohnH says:

    Wow! The Israeli foreign ministry has even admitted that the IDF uses white phosphorous and kills civilians needlessly:
    http://news.antiwar.com/2010/07/21/israeli-army-slams-defeatist-pledge-to-curb-civilian-deaths-in-next-war/
    And 2nd “wow!” An Israeli-Palestinian man got convicted of having consensual sex with a Jewish woman: http://www.juancole.com/2010/07/israeli-court-punishes-palestinian-israeli-for-passing.html
    Now that it’s firmly established that Israel is institutionally a racist nation that commits war crimes, what’s left to argue about?
    The Israeli Supremacists here will surely argue that Arabs are worse, but that’s not the point. Arabs never claimed to be “like us,” to share our values. Israel did claim to be a “light unto humanity.” And that claim was the basis for having the West support Israel.
    Now it’s out there: Israel is not “like us.” They do not share our values. And so, there is no longer any reason for anyone with Western values to support this rogue, racist, war criminal state.

    Reply

  69. Carroll says:

    Haven’t seen if Steve followed up on the Nixon Center discussion, if not..here’s Freeman…
    On Tuesday, July 20, The Nixon Center hosted a luncheon discussion on

    Reply

  70. Carroll says:

    Haven’t seen if Steve followed up on the Nixon Center discussion, if not..here’s Freeman…
    On Tuesday, July 20, The Nixon Center hosted a luncheon discussion on

    Reply

  71. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Hmm. Steve, you are to be commended for posting this. But why now??? Whats different? Such events are almost a daily occurrence. Israeli troops murder Palestinians with impunity, with nary a peep usually uttered in the deceased defense.
    And what of Tristan Anderson or Emily Henochowicz, or the recnt british human rights activist that was gunned down by these children racists and wanna be nazis that man the ranks of the IDF???
    Perhaps its just a series of typos, and you really meant to revisit Neda’s unexplained murder? I mean hey, not knowing all the facts, its so much easier to spin Neda’s story to fit the accepted narrative about Iran, is it not? We don’t know who killed her, so we can create our own version of events. Not so easy with Tristan or Emily, is it? We KNOW what happened to them. We KNOW who gunned them down. We know WHY, and we know HOW. Can’t spin their tragic tale, can we??? So best left ignored, shoved under the rug, while our State Department makes half-hearted and limp little mewlings of protestation under the media radar, designed to placate families that are implored not to raise too loud a stink. Meanwhile, the subservient witch Clinton jumps into the media spotlight with adoring promises of everlasting fealty to The Jewish State, and slams the Goldstone report as “seriously flawed”.
    So, yeah, great Steve, its nice to note your concern. But its futile, Steve. Israel has absolutely NO incentive to change its behaviour. We have a President with no balls, a Secretary of State that is little more than a whore, (Israel being her favorite trick), a media that gets its narrative directly from the Hasbara scriptwriters, and a Congress that is bought and paid for by Israel’s premier lobby organization of propagandists, blackmailers, pimps, spies, and bigots. And above all else, Israel realizes that no matter WHAT they do, the check is in the mail.
    Here is an excellent and revealing blog that should be required reading for anyone wishing to get past the carefully manicured Israeli narrative of bullshit and fantasies…..
    http://ingaza.wordpress.com/

    Reply

  72. WigWag says:

    Predictably, the Israelis said that the Palestinians attempting to enter the settlement were suspected of being armed; predictably the PA said that they were not. Steve doesn’t have the slightest idea of whether or not they were armed or what their intentions were; neither does anyone else reading his words.
    The problem is that if the Palestinians were indeed armed and entered the community to perpetrate acts of terrorism or even common criminality, and if they killed or injured Israelis, in all liklihood, Steve wouldn’t have done a post about it at all.
    Ultimately the Palestinians and Israelis are going to have to show magnanimity towards each other. The reality is that that won’t be happening for many years.
    That’s why the “Middle East peace business” is the only game in town and it’s why when Obama’s special envoy to Muslim Communities, Farah Pandith, was asked by Steve in a recent interview how she responds to Muslim complaints about the slow progress to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute she responded,
    “You cannot push fast something that is taking time to develop.”
    Ms Pandith, a prominent Muslim American, seems far more sage about the state of affairs in the Middle East than alot of other commentators.

    Reply

  73. Cato the Censor says:

    “While securing itself, Israel must also show magnanimity towards a people who will always be on its border.”
    Israel is basically starving the Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip and yet you write this with a straight face. This is sort of like saying North Korea should be a little more considerate of its neighbors.

    Reply

  74. lol says:

    The apologist is otherwise occupied as a concern troll on the Warren thread below.

    Reply

  75. jonst says:

    What is the over/under on the number of hours/minutes it takes before we are told by the apologists that this Palestinian death was cause by some obscure Persian residing in the city of Qum? All part of a plot for Iran to take over the world. If only you blind fools could see……
    I say 20 minutes.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *