Imagine: Israel is cranked up to bomb a country that likely has chemical and biological weapons to go with its missiles. Imagine: It is planning a future of one such ‘pre-emptive’ war after another.
I’ve been preoccupied for several years with the prospect that Israel would bomb Iran, and what started it was something that people don’t talk about much, certainly not now that an attack seems to be imminent: the possibility that Iran will hit back with chemical or biological weapons. Experts on WMD say it’s a good bet Iran has both these weapons. (Syria is known to have chemical weapons, and we all know what Israel’s got.) Missiles carrying chemical warheads can kill thousands, while missiles carrying biological weapons – which have never been fired by anyone - can kill more than thousands.
I found it strange that Israeli leaders – not just Netanyahu, but across the board – considered an attack on Iran less dangerous than letting Iran go nuclear, when such an attack meant risking literally millions of lives – Israeli lives, Iranian lives, maybe Syrian, Lebanese, Palestinian lives, maybe others. Bombing Iran meant opening the door not only to a regional war, but to a regional WMD war.
And everyone was aware of this. In 2007, I had an informal debate with Michael Oren (before he became ambassador to the U.S.) on an American public radio show, and while he didn’t explicitly argue for war as a last resort, he very clearly leaned that way, even while acknowledging that if Iran struck back with WMD, at least some Israeli cities would be left “in smoking ruins.”
In that same year I asked Dany Shoham, an expert on WMD at Bar-Ilan University’s BESA Center, a generally hawkish think tank, about this threat, and he said that before striking Iran’s nuclear facilities, Israel would have to first knock out Iran’s missile launchers or depend on the Arrow and notoriously undependable Patriot anti-missile missiles to protect it from a possible fate that he wouldn’t even describe because he “didn’t want to terrify the readers.” Mind you, Shoham wasn’t saying the Iranians would definitely use chemical and/or biological weapons in response to an Israeli strike, just that they might. At any rate, if Iran’s nuclear project could not be stopped any other way, it would be best, he said, for Israel to try to destroy it militarily because if Iran got the Bomb, a nuclear war with Israel would erupt sooner or later because there was too much mutual fear and uncertainty to avoid one.
In other words, even though Israel has an estimated 200 to 300 nuclear bombs, even though the Iranians know their country of 75 million people would be wiped out if they tried to nuke Israel, we have no choice but to try to pre-empt Iran’s nuclearization even though it means risking multiple genocides, including our own.
Seeing that this was the dominant way of thinking among Israel’s decision-makers and opinion-makers, I became pre-occupied with the issue. Lately, this pre-occupation has become almost an obsession, an overhanging dread.
These days, the possibility that Iran would retaliate for an Israeli attack with chemical or biological weapons isn’t discussed, and if it is, it’s dismissed as being unrealistic. The Iranians wouldn’t fire such weapons, the argument goes, because they’re afraid of Israel’s response. I love the logic here: We have to bomb the Iranians’ nuclear facilities because they might not be deterred later on by the prospect of their own annihilation - but we don’t have to worry about them shooting back at us now with chemical or biological weapons because, after all, they know they’d be annihilated.
I understand why people don’t think about missiles loaded with poison gas or bubonic plague landing on Israel; I don’t think about it much anymore, either, because it’s become too close. Instead, I think more about the less-than-doomsday scenarios: a conventional missile war lasting weeks, spreading beyond just Israel and Iran. I think about those 200,000 missiles pointed at Israel, and about what sort of blood account the Muslim Middle East is going to have with this country after we launch a war to defend, for the third and by far most dangerous time, our exclusive “right” to nuclear weapons in this part of the world.
I imagine the day after the smoke clears, for however long it clears, when Israelis count their dead and realize they’re going to have to do it again in another year or two or three, and I wonder what it’s going to be like in the interim. I try to imagine a future in which Israel, believing it has no choice, starts one war after another after another whenever some Middle Eastern country decides it wants a fraction of one percent of the weaponry Israel has had for decades.
I try to imagine such a future, and I can’t. My image of Israel is of a teenager who decides to run across the freeway, makes it, decides to try again, makes it again, and then just does it over and over, thinking he’s immune from catastrophe, until one day the law of averages catches up with him.
I lived through the end of the Cold War in America; I remember the scare headlines about the Russians, the drop drills in school, the Cuban missile crisis. Then one day Americans realized that the Russians didn’t want to die, either, and they began to calm down. That’s the problem – I can’t imagine Israel calming down, not anytime soon. It would require people here to realize that the Muslims don’t want to die, either, and there seems to be too much demonology about Muslims in the Israeli mind for that to happen.
Can this terminal future be averted – for starters, by averting an attack on Iran? Until about a week ago, I thought that maybe if enough Meir Dagan types came out of the closet and went public with their opposition to the war, a backlash might build. So I made inquiries to a couple of well-placed Meir Dagan types; I don’t think it’s going to happen.
Maybe Obama will read Israel the riot act. That’s the only chance I see left. Otherwise, I’m hanging my hopes on my spotty record as a fortune-teller. I’d much rather be proven wrong than see these foreboding images in my mind come true.
February 12, 2012
10:46 am
YES…there seem to be so many nuclear-capable countries that want to nuke Israel… lets count them together,children
1,Iran
2….oh..well..lets see…north korea?
February 12, 2012
11:49 am
Well, this is an obsession we share, although not for exactly the same reasons. As an American, I’m terrified that the Israeli-Firsters in Congress will drag us into Israel’s war.
.
How to prevent this? Derfner sees Obama as the only hope. That’s a mighty weak reed to lean on. If Congress declares war on Iran, can Obama refuse to wage it? Will he even try?
.
The only real hope is the weakening of the Israel lobby, breaking its hold on Congress. But too many people are more concerned with the feelings of US Jews than preventing a possible nuclear war in which Israel will certainly suffer serious losses – not to mention the rest of the Mid East, about which they do not care.
February 12, 2012
11:57 am
remember cyrus the great
February 12, 2012
12:15 pm
If we take these fears about non-nuclear WMD into consideration, the argument against attacking Iran is also self-contradictory: Many argue that Iran wants the bomb as an insurance policy against regime change, not because it would use them against Israel. Okay, sure. But if you believe that (which it seems you must if you’re against attacking Iran), then cannot really think that Iran would retaliate against Israel with non-nuclear WMDs. If it did, Iran’s majors cities, not to mention the Islamic Republic itself, would definitely not survive. Seems like someone betting that Khamenei wants to endure would expect a conventional response large enough to avoid total humiliation, but not large enough to justify American termination of the IRGC. If you’re betting that Iran would use non-nuclear WMDs, then you’re also betting it would use nukes, since either can be expected to trigger nuclear strikes from Israel – that is – you’re agreeing that Israel cannot rely on conventional deterrence.
PS: you don’t really think the Sunni Muslim world would be disappointed if Israel attacked Iran, do you? Niall Ferguson isn’t right about many things, but he is right about that.
February 12, 2012
12:34 pm
Iran has to go down. Not because it’s a military threat, but because it’s resisting the US/Israeli domination of the region. By its arrogant dismissal of the NPT, Israel has created a situation that can only lead to disaster. The only way to stop this madness is to stop the jewish supremacy attitude and get into a dialogue. It’s not the populations who want death and destruction, it’s their leaders who will sacrifice millions if need be, just to be able to encounter their Napoleon-like self-esteem in the mirror.
February 12, 2012
12:45 pm
Jazzy, I think the chance of Iran retaliating w/chem or bio weapons is far, far greater than the chance of it firing first-strike nukes – just like I think the same thing is true of Israel. You have to be crazy to start a nuclear war. But if somebody decides to humiliate you, to in effect emasculate you – which is how Iran would take an attack on its nukes and how Israel would take an attack on its nukes – then you don’t have to be crazy to strike back with everything you can. You just have to be humiliated enough and enraged enough.
February 12, 2012
1:08 pm
Larry: Do you think that the Islamic Republic would survive Israeli/American retaliation for something like a Sarin gas attack on Tel Aviv? If not, I don’t see why you think the chance of Iran retaliating against an Israeli preemptive strike with chemical weapons is far, far greater than a nuclear first strike. Both would have the same outcome for Iran’s leadership – death. To argue that Khamenei would choose suicide for the Islamic Republic in response to a conventional Israeli/American strike on its nuclear facilities seems very bizarre – he wouldn’t be driven totally mad with humiliation – survival of the Islamic Republic after such a preemptive strike would require a measured response. Let’s get some perspective on this: the US/NATO would not permit the existence of an Iranian military if Iran launched chemical weapons at Israel. The Iranian state as it currently exists would simply come to an end. Remember Gulf War I? Remember the highway of death? And that was for a conventional land invasion of a US ally, not a chemical weapons attack.
PS: I don’t live in Israel so of course I cannot put myself in your shoes – you have yourself and friends and family to think of. I sympathize with your risk aversion – this is just an outside perspective.
February 12, 2012
1:26 pm
The entire point is to make sure Iran has no cause for retaliation. That is to say, deterrence.
.
Israel is out of joint because one of its neighbors may acquire a deterrence against its agression. Because it might lose its impunity.
.
No one can doubt that Iranian aggression against Israel would be met be overwhelming retaliation – from both Israel and the US. Which fact makes it entirely unlikely. But the prospect of the US being forced to join in against Iranian retaliation – totally justified – for Israeli agression is the real horror.
February 12, 2012
1:33 pm
Jazzy, I’m not saying an Iranian WMD counterattack is a probability. But in an escalating war that went on for weeks, with lots of casualties and devastation and blood and maddening scenes, with the Iranian regime fearing destruction anyway, people could lose their heads. However unlikely a scenario that may be, it seems far, far more likely than Iran INVITING its own annihilation by setting a nuclear war w/Israel in motion.
February 12, 2012
2:17 pm
What would Israel do if it was surrounded by 50+ military bases and a nuclear power with religious crackpots nearby? All aiming to destroy it. Isn’t it they only way out to at least pretend it would retaliate?
We have heard this story about Iran since the 1990′s. We have learned nothing from the Iraq scheme. It took many intelligent people until the end of the 1930′s to understand the true meaning of nazism. Just as what is left of the left in Israel is hiding in illusions about a fake destiny.
Israel has even threatened Europe with nuclear warheads: if we go down, we will take the rest of world with us. The Old Testament ethics are present in every act of horror against Palestinians, as much as in the international presence. Recently, Netanyahu came to Holland to find support for his campaign against Iran. Just a glance on the map shows that the reality is the opposite of they want us to believe.
I don’t think Israel is ready to dismiss its leaders, and the price it will pay will be in its own acts, as it has been for decades. Moral bankruptcy and a sustained need of fearmongering to keep the public in place. The irony of history: holocaust religion turns into a new holocaust.
February 12, 2012
2:29 pm
Larry: OK, yes, I can imagine that if there were a missile war that went on for weeks, and Khamenei felt there was less and less to lose, chemical weapons might enter the equation. But it won’t come to that because (1) Iran is too smart to put that much on the table in the first place – major escalation would be at Iran’s discretion, and (2) The entire world, including Russia and China, would be totally fixated by such a conflict the moment it began and would help it come to an end very quickly. Putin is not so keen to prevent US hegemony in the Gulf as to let the region burn.
February 12, 2012
2:55 pm
Jazzy, that’s the best-case scenario. There are others.
February 12, 2012
3:05 pm
Dishonest Israel-basher ARISTEIDES wrote: “Israel is out of joint because one of its neighbors may acquire a deterrence against its agression. Because it might lose its impunity.”
…
Reality Check: No, Israel is out of joint because Iran, a country run by crazed psychopaths who each week talk about how joyously wonderful it would be to make Israel cease to exist, may eventually have nuclear weapons.
February 12, 2012
3:14 pm
Larry: and what of Israel’s assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists? Or covertly destroying entire missile bases? Where is the retaliation for these attacks? I don’t see much evidence that Khamenei is taking anything other than an extremely cautious, defensive posture. I’d be surprised if you’d not already considered this.
February 12, 2012
3:15 pm
Steve – go away. Rational people are trying to have a serious discussion.
February 12, 2012
3:32 pm
It is not rational to discuss Israel’s concern for Iran maybe getting nukes without also recognizing that Iran is lead by people who seem completely obsessed with removing Israel from the map.
February 12, 2012
3:33 pm
ENGELBERT LUITSZ wrote: “Israel has even threatened Europe with nuclear warheads”
…
Silly Israel-bashing nonsense does not lead to any real progress.
February 12, 2012
3:40 pm
@aristeides – to call your rhetoric rational is an a dramatic re-definition of word.
You got it all so twisted, your logic has broken to shards and you’re hanging on fallen debris.
So – reality check:
1. Who is calling for a destruction of a state in the
middle east?
Oh yes, Iran calls for the destruction of Israel.
2. Who is funding and training terror groups (or do
you call them freedom fighters?)?
Oh yes, Iran funds Hezbollah, Hamas and Jihad.
3. Who denies the holocaust only to call for a new
one? Oh yes, Iran does.
4. Suppose Israel does have nukes.
What are their purpose?
Isn’t the call for the destruction of the Jewish
state is enough to try and defend it?
The call for the destruction of Israel reverberates
so loudly in the Mosques and schools, it is really
deafening.
5. What purpose would Iran nukes have?
Oh yes – Iran leaders explicitly said they would
offer their nuclear facilities to anyone who is
engaging in elimination of the Zionist state.
6. To call the __apparent__ military superiority of
the IDF as the “Jewish supremacy” is really an
insult on rationalism.
Though I am not happy about trigger happy
generals, it is clearly obvious that Israel barely
holding to its meagre territory could hardly
count as a
“Jewish supremacy”, or a Jewish Empire.
Sounds more like a movie of Mel Brooks.
February 12, 2012
3:43 pm
One problem is that is is not particularly clear if Iran has a program to build nuclear weapons.
A corollary is that it is not particularly clear what are the facilities of the program that may, or may not, exist.
This whole enterprise may be a gigantic misdirection laden with traps. What we know about the program that it consists of centrifuge-based enrichment facilities are are modular and replaceble, You would need to go after the production of centrifuges which probably is dispersed as well.
Then you can read an article in Technology Review that there exists a technique of laser separation that offers isotope enrichment for a fraction of the cost of the centrifuge program. The authors estimate that given much smaller energy and space requirement, this would be a preferred method for high enrichment, and it can be well hidden. Or not.
At least some of the sites that would be targeted have decent anti-aircraft defenses, and if Israel also sends commandoes, commandoes will be a toast. In general, the experience of 2006 does not bode well. We all know what element of surprise there will be.
The first line of Iranian defense, in the eventuality that bombardment does not kill many Iranians, and IDF looses at least one plane, would be to issue a defiant message of victory. Other steps would probably be coordinate with China and Russia — I expect a closure of Strait of Hormuz, with exception for non-allies of USA, and an offer to lift that closure as soon as sanctions on Israel are in place.
At that moment diplomatic and political fallout will start. Who will be blamed by public opinion in USA and EU? Good people will claim that it is all Iran’s fault, and bad people, that it is all Israel fault. Good people will be talking very transparent nonsense, Which is often OK, but it will also be very expensive nonsense, several dollars per gallon.
The best case scenario for Israel is that the operation will be a total flop and it will merely result in a defiant communique by leaders of Iran. And it is not totally impossible. Perhaps Larry frets too much. Or perhaps he will gain credibility and power. [Today we will be talking with an expert who correctly ....]
February 12, 2012
3:56 pm
ENGELBERT LUITSZ above wrote: “The only way to stop this madness is to stop the jewish supremacy attitude and get into a dialogue.”
…
Reality Check: This sort of nonsense about “supremacy” is absurd is has no basis in reality. It’s just a smear. Israel is happy to ‘get into a dialog.” The issue is that Hamas want Israel dead. Iran’s leaders want Israel dead. And Israel isn’t sure what to do about it.
February 12, 2012
4:27 pm
Aristeides: I’m sorry to report that revelations concerning Arab support for an attack on Iran took the wind out of your “Israel-firster” sails a while ago – you and MJ Rosenberg, whose AIPAC myopia is pretty much pathological at this point, are the only ones still peddling this discredited trope.
February 12, 2012
4:31 pm
I’ll do this once, although the answers are clearly evident from my earlier posts.
.
So – reality check:
1. Who is calling for a destruction of a state in the
middle east?
Israel is calling for the destruction of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
.
2. Who is funding and training terror groups (or do
you call them freedom fighters?)?
All parties to the conflict, explicitly including Israel, who uses them to conduct terrorist attacks against Iranian civilians.
.
3. Who denies the holocaust only to call for a new
one?
No one. Iran correctly says that Israel uses the holocaust as an excuse to disposses the Palestinians.
.
4. Suppose Israel does have nukes.
What are their purpose?
An umbrella of deterrence under which to carry on aggressive wars.
.
5. What purpose would Iran nukes have?
Deterrence against Israeli/US aggression.
February 12, 2012
8:04 pm
Nice of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s mouthpiece to stop by and share his opinions, above
February 12, 2012
10:25 pm
What we may have here is a perfect example of a people constructing their very own self-fulfilling prophecy, building it out of the bleached bones of others of the same type. The intense fear that something may happen can often bring about conditions that almost guarantee that it will. It’s like being on the brink of an abyss and peering down into the murky depths below. There is a natural desire to shrink back from the edge but this can go hand in hand with a perverse impulse to plunge headlong from so precipitous a height to what must seem like certain death.
One way to circumvent such a fatal compulsion is to overlay it with a new set of circumstances, circumstances that can have a fascination all of their own but, by demanding much more immediate attention, will refocus hearts and minds in an totally different direction.
It would appear that the time may be fast approaching when a little creative thinking might very well improve the overall situation. The abyss awaits. Only by creating and gazing into a still deeper version of its kind can its siren call of oblivion be heard no more.
Http://yorketowers.blogspot.com
February 12, 2012
10:45 pm
Aristeides uses “Israel-Firsters” with impunity here. Why? It is antisemitism. Can’t the Left challenge this despicable scourge from among its members?
Larry, you make some excellent points in your article. What I am trying to understand is what you propose as an alternative. Right now Israel isn’t attacking anybody. It appears to be desperately trying to get the world to use pressure to stop the Iranians. Isn’t this precisely what you’re proposing?
February 12, 2012
11:15 pm
Thanks, Passerby – I’ll write that post – what we should do about Iran – very soon. BTW, I wrote a post here last week called “Junk the term ‘Israel-Firster.’”
February 13, 2012
12:35 am
[...] 13: Forget the impossibleJerusalem PostIsraeli State Sponsored Terrorism using MKOCASMIIAverting doomsday: My obsession with stopping a war on Iran+972 Magazine – Independent commentary from Israel and the Palestinian territoriesall 5 news [...]
February 13, 2012
3:15 am
My bet is – all this war talk will cease after the elections.
When people plan a surprise attack, they don’t brag about it all over the world, unless they are complete idiots (can’t rule this out either).
February 13, 2012
4:26 am
OK, here’s one of several articles appearing lately full of reasonable alternatives to where we are:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/opinion/envisioning-a-deal-with-iran.html
Of course, no one imagines Israel will get out of its unfortunate “we can’t talk to our enemies because they are first cousin to Adolf” complex for many years, so most of these reasonable alternatives sit on Obama’s shoulders.
As in most of these cases, the “partners” wishing ill will towards each other (the two “I” countries) are resembling each other more and more (it’s basic psychology, we tend to become the things we hate):
1. Both resemble embattled nationalistic theocracies more and more
2. Both have large segments of their populations that are either hypnotized by their leaders’ demagoguery, or are outright oppressed by the authoritarian governments (of course including the 4 million Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza whose daily lives are controlled/limited by the Israeli military)
3. Both claim “democracy”, but more and more, strip citizens of rights if they loudly voice opposition to current policies (many Israel defenders make the flimsy excuse, equating opposition to somehow destroying the state, “If someone within our population works towards our destruction, we have no alternative but to shut them up”
4. Both have a “superiority-inferiority complex”, which is perfectly suited to feeling like a victim, while simultaneously acting like a loudmouth or a bully…..
As my Mom used to say, “Oy!!”
February 13, 2012
7:01 am
There is a lot to be depressed about. I am depressed by what I read is happening in Israel (from the two of you guys actually – Harvey and Larry).
I am though also depressed by Iran’s responses, and by Iran’s rallying of enemies of Israel, most importantly Gaza Hamas (now that there is another internal squabble in Hamas – its all triangular) and Hezbollah.
Israeli embassies in India and Georgia were bombed yesterday. Noone knows who is responsible, but more than a couple consider Hezbollah as a suspect.
Haniyeh all last week, when visiting Iran, announced that Hamas will NEVER recognize Israel, and that they will never renounce or even deemphasize armed resistance.
There are no conditions named, no “if you do this, then we will accept you”. The quote is “NEVER”.
Do you think that they don’t mean it?
What happens?
The three options are:
1. Do not fight back at all. Run away. Israeli Jews all go “back” to Europe or the states, or back to diaspora Arab and Persian world? (only 80+% of current Israeli Jews were born there after all.)
2. Defend vigorously, but in a saintly and all-seeing manner, rigorously undertake distinctions between civilian warriors, and civilians.
3. Reach out on the ground, making close friends that will value the friendships more than they value their familial, national, pan-Arab and pan-Islamic authorities.
4. Abuse the other in some vain attempt to keep danger at a distance, pushing danger into others’ homes.
What a crucible?
February 13, 2012
7:15 am
Aristeides uses the term “Israel-firster” deliberately because it points directly at the problem that will most likely precipitate the greater war all the rational among us fear – the excess of zeal in the US circles of power to back up the worst of Israeli warmongering, regardless of the potential harm to US interests and the peace and safety of the entire world. Larry Derfner is right to be very concerned, but the greatest concern has to be that Obama can’t or won’t stand up to the Israel-first mania in Congress.
.
And the obvious symptom of this problem is when posters like Passerby attempt to quash all reference to it by means of the old antisemtism canard. It’s a blatant attempt to intimidate, to censor, to insist that no one is allowed to use the term “naked” when mentioning the emperor.
.
If people find the term offensive, that’s good. It calls out the Israel-firsters as acting in a very offensive way by placing the interests of a foreign state against the welfare of their own people. They SHOULD feel ashamed, and worried that their own people will turn on them as the authors of the coming catastrophe.
.
As for it being antisemitic, that’s just bull. The term was coined and first used by Jews back in the days before Zionist idolatry had corrupted Judaism, by Jews who were presciently aware that the excesses of Zionism posed a threat to the security of Diaspora Jews. Nor do I use it to refer exclusively to Jews, but to all Americans who support Israel-first policies, including the entirety of the US Congress.
.
Furthermore, if you will recall Derfner’s earlier article, it became pretty clear that there just is no better term available to refer to the phenomenon. And that, if any other, more apparently innocuous term were adopted, that it, too, would be within a day condemned as antisemitic. Because the real problem isn’t with the term used. It’s with what it refers to – the problem that will doom us all.
February 13, 2012
7:55 am
Human first.
If that starts with American human first, wonderful. If it starts with Israeli human first, wonderful. If it starts with Iranian human first, wonderful.
When it extends to American human not at all, or Israeli human not at all, or Iranian human not at all, then it becomes a problem.
Liberal Zionism is Israeli human first, Palestinian human second. Likud Zionism is Israeli human first, Palestinian human not at all.
BOTH Zionism.
Liberal solidarity is suppressed Palestinian human first, Israeli human close second. Reactionary solidarity is Palestinian human first, Israeli human not at all.
Its not a badge of shame to be “Israel first”, so long as there is a respected second.
February 13, 2012
7:56 am
The term “Israel-firster” is an offensive name-call, a means to dehumanize the other, more than a means to inform.
February 13, 2012
12:45 pm
Keep it clean, fellas.
February 13, 2012
12:49 pm
Whoa! Why was my first response to Areistedes comment erased?
“And the obvious symptom of this problem is when posters like Passerby attempt to quash all reference to it by means of the old antisemtism canard. It’s a blatant attempt to intimidate, to censor, to insist that no one is allowed to use the term “naked” when mentioning the emperor.
.
If people find the term offensive, that’s good. It calls out the Israel-firsters as acting in a very offensive way by placing the interests of a foreign state against the welfare of their own people. They SHOULD feel ashamed, and worried that their own people will turn on them as the authors of the coming catastrophe.
.
As for it being antisemitic, that’s just bull.”
Are you reading this? Why are you allowing this on your site? I’m the one causing offense by calling this person an antisemite?
February 13, 2012
1:17 pm
Passerby, I don’t think you should have called Aristeides an anti-Semite, and I don’t think he should have called you what he did, so I took them all off.
February 13, 2012
1:33 pm
Aristeides, the fight’s over.
February 13, 2012
1:49 pm
Larry, although you’re an interesting writer, even if we do disagree on many things, I am going to stop participating in your discussions. I realize that’s not all that important to you in the scheme of things but I will explain why anyway.
——-
A regular on this site made an antisemitic remark. Nobody commented on it, including you, except for me.
——-
In response to my comment about it being antisemitic, he simply shrugged it off and then pressed even harder with his commentary. After all, this is becoming a common phrase nowadays with anti-Israelis.
——-
The problem is that when you allow common phrases to become part of normal discourse and when you allow it without any consequences or even some form or approbation, you essentially ensure that next time, it will get worse. That’s how the “Israel Lobby” became a commonly-used phrase when its implications are downright antisemitic and that’s how Israel-Firster is going to become commonplace in the discourse about Jews and Israel.
——-
As you must know, this is the real canard here, not calling the person using that phrase “antisemitic.” You’re allowing the inexcusable through and then in a few years you’ll blame Jews or Israel for the fact that his has become part of normal discourse.
———
Goodbye.
February 13, 2012
7:12 pm
Larry – how about an ‘Israel is Pushing the US into War in Iran’ American speaking tour?
.
Going over/under the head of the American Media and informing America how a 2nd American Revolution is needed to free America from Israel and her Israeli Lobby…
February 13, 2012
11:49 pm
Israel lobby exists, and it is pretty obnoxious. Depends on taste, of course. But I find it obnoxious, and if this is “anti-Semitic” conclusion, duh.
Israel-firsters are the vanguard, the shock troopers.
If you doubt it, read Caroline Glick, she explains pretty clearly:
“To oppose Iran’s nuclear program effectively, American Jews are required to oppose these strongly supported US policies. [Opposition to Israel attack on Iran by Bush and Obama.] And at some point, this may require them to announce they support Israel’s right to survive and thrive even if that paramount right conflicts with how the US government perceives US national interests.
That is, it may require them to embrace Zionism unconditionally.”
“To be a Zionist Jew in the Diaspora means that you embrace and defend the notion that the Jews have the right to their own interests and that those interests may be distinct from other nations’ interests. That is, to be a Zionist involves rejecting Jewish assimilation and embracing the fact that Jews require national independence and power to guarantee our survival. And this can be unpleasant.”
Yes, it is unpleasant. Note “power to guarantee”. Bombing other nations to “parking lot” (a popular phrase in Jerusalem Post).
Glick is a former American, but she clearly issues instructions to American Jews. Is she simply a weird lady in Jerusalem, or we should watch for people who think similarly?
February 14, 2012
6:49 am
Note “required.”
February 15, 2012
4:41 pm
It must be apparent to the meanest intelligence here that it is the Jews and the Arabs who are going be the primary instigators of peace in this 64 year-old quarrel that they have with each other.
Equally, it is obvious that neither of them can initiate or follow through on any normal peace proposal, not without dire consequences for one side or the other and, usually, it’s both. The history of the region and the conflict between them has demonstrated this time and time again.
In a nutshell, it appears that only they can settle the matter but they won’t because they can’t; they’re mirror images of themselves and any gesture or movement towards peace can also be interpreted as a subterfuge to gain some unseen advantage or bargaining chip. Hence the dilemma.
It seems to me that the only way to achieve peace is to push both of them, kicking and screaming if necessary, towards that goal. On their own, they won’t be able to do this, not even if it’s their dearest wish – which it probably is in most cases.
So, how do you propel many millions of people towards peace, when those same millions have known nothing but war, privation and constant tension throughout the course of several generations?
Doesn’t seem doable, does it? Or is it so simple a thing that the possibility of achieving it may have escaped us entirely?
Http://yorketowers.blogspot.com
February 18, 2012
6:55 pm
I realize that this comment will sound uneducated, ridiculous, and insensitive to other people, but here goes…God will protect Israel. The U.S. I’m not so sure about. I’m not saying this to start any religious argument or debate. I just see all the fear and rationalizing in the comments being made, but I don’t see any faith.