Strange Neglect

There's an awful lot wrong with this Moshe Ya'alon op-ed in today's LA Times and I don't have the time to go through the whole thing right now, but just note the first sentence: "After a few years of benign neglect, Israel is back on the itineraries of well-meaning foreign emissaries."

Israel was hardly being neglected by the United States during the years before Condoleezza Rice semi-rediscovered the Arab-Israeli peace process -- it was, then as now, our country's largest recipient of taxpayer dollars. Less quantifiably, but also significantly, Israel continued to receive a very large quantity of American diplomatic support. One can sympathize to some extent with Israeli officials feeling like their country attracts a disproportionate quantity of busybodies pushing peace plans, but while it would be one thing for Ya'alon to genuinely argue that Israel should be left to its own devices, it's another thing entirely to say that the United States should just be totally indifferent to how our most generously subsidized client state relates to its neighbors and to the millions of stateless Arabs over which it rules.

Comments

I posted this comment earlier on another post, but it seems to be more relevant here - so please excuse the repeat posting...

I had commented earlier about Bush's lament for the premature withdrawal from Vietnam - and I think the focus in that discussion should be on the Bush administration, and whether it is competent enough to accomplish the said victory in Vietnam in another ten years...

;)

And talking about Bush's goals in Iraq, were we not supposed to have a Palestinian state this year? Wasn't 2007 the date Bush set for achieving Palestinian statehood? Is it going to happen in the next three months? Surely, no Democrat or other traitorous cowardly fiend in domestic policy has interfered with the Great Plan / Bush Roadmap, so where is the Palestinian state?

And those who lament a slow down in US support for Israel forget that just last year, in July-August 2006, the Bush administration gave enough room for Israel to invade Lebanon, while Bush complained to Blair that Syria should tell Hizbollah to cut the "shit" and run... In fact, the Bush administration had been the most supportive ally the Israeli hawks have had, though, obviously, Bibi Netanyahu could always ask for more...

Posted by Abhinav Aima | August 26, 2007 7:01 PM

I particularly enjoyed this from ol' Moshe:

For the sake of Palestinian society, Hamas and its ideology must be defeated.

Yes, no one cares more about Palestinian society than Moshe Ya'alon. Why just yesterday he was explaining how it was critical to "sear deep into the consciousness of Palestinians that they are a defeated people."

Posted by Jon | August 26, 2007 7:24 PM

The short form of this article:

Israeli irridentism good
Palestinian irridentism bad

Had this article appeared with a few trivial changes in The Gaza City Times, Martin Peretz would soon be regaling us with more proof gleaned, from the indispensible MEMRI translation, of how how a settlement with the Palestinians would forever be impossible.

Posted by ndm | August 26, 2007 7:34 PM

Actually, Ezra, the Israelis have a right to bitch. We only give them about, what, $500 per capita per year. Imagine what they could do if we spent as much per capita on them as we do on the Iraqis. Yeah, that's the ticket! A little military occupation by the U.S. would take all the pressure off of them, and we could pass on all of our hard-earned expertise in how to handle millions of stateless Arabs and promote Arab democracy. The 82nd Airborne manning the West Bank barrier ... I wonder why Billy Kristol and Charlie Sauerkraut never suggest it.

Posted by DCBob | August 26, 2007 7:55 PM

Matt,

Have you fulfilled your quota of "see how objective this American Jew is about Israel" posts yet? Maybe you've bought yourself some time you can spend reading that big book about India now.

Given that India has 200 times Israel's population, perhaps you could spend a little more time blogging about it and a little less navel-gazing about Israel?

We get it already: you're one of the good Jews who doesn't want to see American policy unduly influenced by the lumpen Jews in the Israel lobby. We also understand that wariness toward Israel is of a piece with your panoply of politically correct positions, and grant you the status you deserve from holding these enlightened views.

Posted by Chandra | August 26, 2007 7:56 PM

Well, here we go again, Mr. Yglesias and his amen chorus bleating about the fact that there is no Palestinian state. The Palestinians had the opportunity to achieve a state in 2000. Unfortunately, the only state the Palestinians are interested in is one encompassing all of Palestine with the Government of Israel going out of business. The peace process failed in 2000, just as it has failed in all previous years and all subsequent years. And the reason is that the Palestinians absolutely refuse the give up their demand that Palestinian refugees in refugee camps be resettled in Israel (see attached link). It ain't going to happen and until and unless the Palestinians give up this demand, there ain't going to be any peace and there ain't going to be any Palestinian state or states. Period, end of story.

Posted by SLC | August 26, 2007 8:01 PM

Israel...bad. Palestinaians...good.

There, I've just summed up every Matt Yglesias post on the issue.

We wouldn't have to worry about the Israel Lobby's undue influence if Jews weren't so over-represented in the media. Why not ask major media outlets such as the NY Times, the Atlantic, the WSJ, etc., to limit the percentage of ethnic Jews on their editorial staffs to, say, 200% of the percentage of Jews in the American population.

For balance, we could ask major media outlets also to hire Muslims in proportion to their percentage in the American population as well. The rest of the gap in the editorial staffs left by the reduction of Jews could be filled by Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, and blacks, to allow previously marginalized voices more say.

One benefit of this policy would be that the remaining Jewish political writers wouldn't have to try so hard to prove their objectivity, as Matt does. No one would care if they were biased, since their numbers (and corresponding influence) would be so much smaller.

What say you, Matt? How about instead of another WASP or Jew Harvard grad, the Atlantic hires a Muslim Michigan State grad next time? Let's get some authentic Muslim opinions instead of more Jewish devil's advocacy.

Posted by Harry | August 26, 2007 8:34 PM

My complaint about this post is that, while Matt admits that "there is much wrong" about the article, he can only find time to complain about the first paragraph and some minor issue about how many "peace envoys" there are (like Blair is really going to do squat about anything except collect his paycheck for not so doing!).

The REST of the article is standard Zionist propaganda. Nothing less, nothing more.

It's drivel, the lot. The same kind of shameless lies, intellectual dishonesty, distortions, and outright BS one can expect from any Zionist or their apologists.

As for the government of Israel going out of business, yes, that is EXACTLY what needs to happen, and by any means necessary. The state of Israel is an ILLEGAL, ROGUE, TERRORIST state that makes Hamas and Fatah look like amateur terrorists - which they are, actually, since they're getting no where with their so-called "resistance". If they'd hire me, I'd bring Israel to its knees in a year - and I'd enjoy it, provided I got paid enough.

If I was President of the US, by Monday Israel would be informed that every single one of their nuclear facilities would be under inspection by the IAEA by Tuesday, and every single nuclear weapon would be inventoried and scheduled for dismantlement by Wednesday. And if they wanted to have a military of any kind still standing by Thursday, they'd bloody well better comply.

After that, they would be informed that their new national borders were those of 1948, and they'd better start shuffling off to them NOW. And if Alan Dershowitz opened his mouth about it, he'd be in Guantanamo contemplating his navel.

There's literally no distinction between Zionist trash and Nazi trash. The same racism, the same ideology, the same nationalism that got their asses kicked out of Palestine in the first place when they went up against the Romans who were really good at that sort of thing.

And yet they have the nerve to post crap like this op-ed, proclaiming themselves to be "morally superior" to the Palestinians.

They aren't. They're international criminals. It's no accident that they have a huge, flourishing Russian-Israeli Mafia operation going and are engaged in arms, drugs and nuclear weapons technology smuggling all over the world. They make North Korea look like Adam-12 cops.

The state of Israel has to go - and go soon. The original Palestinian Mandate must be reactivated and the entire territory turned over to the Palestinians, with full right of return, and with Israeli citizens security recognized, all of this guaranteed by the international community's military and economic blockade capability if the Israelis or Palestinians do not comply.

If the Israelis don't comply, blockade the entire country, land, sea and air, until they're no better off economically than the Palestinians are now. Israel isn't Iran. Sanctions won't do squat to the Iranians. Israel can be physically blockaded and should be.

You want to solve the Middle East problem and get Al Qaeda off our backs? I've just told you how - along with dumping support for the Arab monarchies and getting out of Iraq and making nice with Iran.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 26, 2007 8:38 PM

We wouldn't have to worry about the Israel Lobby's undue influence if Jews weren't so over-represented in the media.

Oh sweet jeebus.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 26, 2007 8:43 PM

"And if they wanted to have a military of any kind still standing by Thursday, they'd bloody well better comply."

Hard to believe that President Richard Steven Hack would be a such a tough guy with Israel, when every post about bombing Iran's nuke sites elicits Chicken Little cries from him.

Posted by Juan | August 26, 2007 8:55 PM

Matt, yes there's a lot wrong with his op-ed, but do you have to purposefully misconstrue what he wrote to make that point?

In the quote you cited, he wasn't talking about our level of aid to them, but our level of public diplomacy, as well as that of other foreign emissaries.

I realize that this op-ed, especially coming from him, is obnoxious on many levels, but shouldn't you at least deal with each quote on the merits?

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 26, 2007 9:11 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

Where have we heard this kind of rhetoric before? From the German American Bund before the Second World War who plotted to align the United States with Nazi Germany. It is obvious that Mr. Hack gets his rantings from the David Duke, rense, and stormfront web sites. Well I have a flash for Mr. Hack. None of these fantasies are going to happen. However, the following article from a speech by Senator John McCains' brother shows why Mr. Hacks' fantasy wouldn't achieve his aim, even if he attempted to implement it.

"Washington, DC – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today made the following remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Conference regarding the current situation in the Middle East:

"There will always be an Israel. The terrorist onslaught against her people represents not progress towards a refoundation of historic Palestine but a plunge into an abyss of moral decay perpetrated in the name of the Palestinian people by their own leaders. There will always be an Israel, because the Israeli people will defend their homeland against murderers who pose as martyrs, and will never accept justice imposed on them by leaders who send children to kill their children.

"There will always be an Israel, strong and free, because Israel, and her supporters in this country, will never allow the depravity of her enemies to obscure the moral clarity that inspired her founding, 54 years ago last week, as the homeland of a people who understood evil long before Americans saw its more recent expression on September 11th.

"Terrorism is terrorism, whether in the form of professional killers who crash civilian aircraft into buildings or amateur murderers undistinguished by anything other than their willingness to take innocent lives.

"A political solution to the conflict with the Palestinians is the best answer to Israeli insecurity, of course. But no moral nation -- neither Israel nor America -- can allow terrorists to chart the political course of its people. No freedom-loving nation can tolerate a terrorist state on its border. And no great nation can abandon the obligations of moral clarity for the convenience of situational ethics.

"If we are serious about the values we in America and Israel live by, and the opportunities we would like all people in the Middle East to enjoy, we can allow terrorists no role in the political process.

"Indeed, we must work to spread our values in the Middle East, first by opposing tyranny in the Arab world. The celebration of freedom in the streets of liberated Baghdad will serve as a counterpoint to the state-directed Arab media's distortion of the Palestinian conflict. It will be a reminder to other Arab tyrants that the United States is a natural ally of Arab people who aspire to freedom. Freeing Arabs from repression by tyrannical regimes is the priority of neither Yasser Arafat nor the dictators he counts as his allies. But bringing liberty's blessings to Arab peoples will do much more to improve their lives than will their jihad against Israel.

"Unfortunately, when it comes to advocating freedom and opportunity in the Arab world, our values know few champions. In the monarchies and dictatorships of the Middle East, cynicism is the essence of statecraft. Americans find ourselves handicapped in our Middle East diplomacy by a native regard for moral clarity.

"It is our fidelity to the values Arab leaders reject that makes it unmistakably clear to Americans who destroyed the peace process begun in Oslo. The authors of that disaster were the Palestinians themselves -- and the Arab leaders who encouraged or accepted Yasser Arafat's rejection of the sweeping settlement offered by former Prime Minister Barak at Camp David, and provided rhetorical and material support for the ensuing intifada waged by suicide bombers.

"I don't think our cultural differences with Arab states are so vast that a common recognition of what constitutes real peace and a just settlement is unattainable. I think Arab leaders know exactly what it will take to achieve real peace between Palestinians and Israelis, and that what they currently offer serves only to perpetuate the conflict.

"Telethons and poems glorifying suicide bombers are not steps toward peace. Cash payments to the families of suicide bombers are not steps toward peace. Communiques glorifying the murder of innocents are not steps toward peace. All of this is evil, pure and simple.

"It is not peace, but fear of each other that motivates Arab dictators, and fear of their own populations, whose resentments toward Israel and America have been inflamed for generations to distract them from grievances against their own rulers for the economic and political inequities they are expected to endure permanently.

"It is the unenlightened rule of Arab dictators, not the plight of the Palestinians, that condemns the Arab world to the civilizational crisis in which it finds itself. Which Middle Eastern nation grants its Arab citizens the most political freedom? Israel. Which countries' leaders have the blood of innocents on their hands but hear nothing about it from the Arab League? Iraq, Syria, and Sudan, for starters. Which country has the most egregious record of occupying another today? Syria, in Lebanon. In which countries do Palestinian refugees suffer without rights and the most basic freedoms? Other than Israel, only Jordan has treated these people with any dignity. Which nation in the region has matched its payments to the families of Palestinian murderers with money for health care, education, and other development in the territories? Not one.

"How Arab leaders can abide their own hypocrisy is one question. Why they expect us to do so is a better one.

"Arab leaders recoil in mock indignation from any suggestion that they have a responsibility to discourage Palestinian treachery. Instead, they demand that the United States pressure the Government of Israel into forsaking its obligation to defend its citizens from terrorism that Arab governments celebrate and support.

"I'm also distressed that some of our European allies are dismissing Israel's legitimate security concerns. In some quarters, Jews are once again threatened with attacks on their institutions. We are witnessing once again the torching of European synagogues. All world leaders must condemn, in the strongest terms, such despicable behavior.

"Israel has proved its willingness to risk its strategic interests by returning territories captured in war, and living cheek by jowl with a Palestinian state in exchange for peace and acceptance of Israel's right to exist by its Arab neighbors. Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority he claims to lead insist on a settlement that would threaten the eventual extinction of a Jewish state in the Middle East, and accept and support murder as a means to achieve it. Official sponsorship of Palestinian terror is a self-induced mockery of the Palestinian leadership's moral authority, and that of its Nobel Peace Prize-winning chairman.

"The Oslo peace process was premised on the notion that Israelis and Palestinians could live together. I believe it is now time to explore ways in which they can live apart. It is time to consider alternatives such as that proposed by former Prime Minister Barak -- to erect a security barrier between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This is not to accept the hopelessness of a political solution, but to embrace the hope that Israel's people can live in safety until a Palestinian leadership truly committed to peace emerges from the chaos and despair inflicted on Palestinians for generations by leaders who lack the courage and compassion and wisdom to make a better life for their people.

"Friends, I make no claim to wisdom on how to resolve the crisis in the Middle East. Like you, I look for guidance in the values we share with the only democracy in the region. I know this: no American leader should be expected to sell a false peace to our ally, consider Israel's right to self-defense less legitimate than ours, or insist that Israel negotiate a political settlement while terrorism remains the Palestinians' preferred bargaining tool.

"The moral clarity you bring to American understanding of Israel's plight is the most effective antidote to the cynicism and hostility that parade as Arab diplomacy in the Middle East today. We will defeat terrorism against America, and we will stand with Israel as she fights the same enemy.

"One of the great privileges of my life was the friendship that I developed with the late Senator Henry Scoop Jackson. I got to know Scoop when I was the Navy liaison to the Senate in the late 70's. Scoop was and remains the model of what an American statesman should be.

"In 1979, I traveled to Israel with Scoop, where I knew he was considered a hero. I had no idea how great a hero he was until we landed in Tel Aviv. When we arrived, we were transferred to a bus big enough to accommodate our large delegation, as well as the U.S. Ambassador in Israel and several of his staff. About a hundred yards outside the airport, the bus was surrounded by a crowd of seven or eight hundred Israelis screaming for Jackson, waving signs that read "God Bless you, Scoop," "Senator Jackson, thank you," and dozens of other tributes. For a patriot like Scoop, their affection for him was nothing less than affection for America.

"Scoop understood a deep truth. The bond between America and Israel is not just a strategic one, though that is important. Today, in the war against terror, we have no stronger ally than Israel. The more profound tie between our two countries, however, is a moral one. We are two democracies whose alliance is forged in our common values. To be proudly pro-American and pro-Israeli is not to hold conflicting loyalties. As Scoop understood, it is about defending the principles that both countries hold dear.

"And I stand before you today, proudly pro-American and pro-Israel. Thank you."

Senator John McCain's brother on The Jews & Israel.

There is a lot of worry popping up in the media just now -- "Can Israel Survive?" Don't worry about it. It relates to something that Palestinians, the Arabs, and perhaps most Americans don't realize -- the Jews are never going quietly again. Never. And if the world doesn't come to understand that, then millions of Arabs are going to die. It's as simple as that.

Throughout the history of the world, the most abused, kicked-around race of people have been the Jews. Not just during the holocaust of World War II, but for thousands of years. They have truly been "The Chosen People" in a terrible and tragic sense.

The Bible story of Egypt's enslavement of the Jews is not just a story, it is history, if festooned with theological legend and heroic epics. In 70 A.D. the Romans, which had for a long time tolerated the Jews -- even admired them as 'superior' to other vassals -- tired of their truculent demands for independence and decided on an early "Solution" to the Jewish problem. Jerusalem was sacked and reduced to near rubble, Jewish resistance was pursued and crushed by the implacable Roman War Machine -- see 'Masada'. And thus began The Diaspora, the dispersal of Jews throughout the rest of the world.

Their homeland destroyed, their culture crushed, they looked desperately for the few niches in a hostile world where they could be safe. That safety was fragile, and often subject to the whims of moody hosts. The words 'pogrom', 'ghetto', and 'anti-Semitism' come from this treatment of the first mono-theistic people. Throughout Europe, changing times meant sometimes tolerance, sometimes even warmth for the Jews, but eventually it meant hostility, then malevolence. There is not a country in Europe or Western Asia that at one time or another has not decided to lash out against the children of Moses, sometimes by whim, sometimes by manipulation.

Winston Churchill calls Edward I one of England's very greatest kings. It was under his rule in the late 1200's that Wales and Cornwall were hammered into the British crown, and Scotland and Ireland were invaded and occupied. He was also the first European monarch to set up a really effective administrative bureaucracy, surveyed and censused his kingdom, established laws and political divisions. But he also embraced the Jews.

Actually Edward didn't embrace Jews so much as he embraced their money. For the English Jews had acquired wealth -- understandable, because this people that could not own land or office, could not join most of the trades and professions, soon found out that money was a very good thing to accumulate. Much harder to take away than land or a store, was a hidden sock of gold and silver coins. Ever resourceful, Edward found a way -- he borrowed money from the Jews to finance imperial ambitions in Europe, especially France. The loans were almost certainly not made gladly, but how do you refuse your King? Especially when he is 'Edward the Hammer'. Then, rather than pay back the debt, Edward simply expelled the Jews. Edward was especially inventive -- he did this twice. After a time, he invited the Jews back to their English homeland, borrowed more money, then expelled them again.

Most people do not know that Spain was one of the early entrants into The Renaissance. People from all over the world came to Spain in the late medieval period. All were welcome -- Arabs, Jews, other Europeans. The University of Salamanca was one of the great centers of learning in the world -- scholars of all nations, all fields came to Salamanca to share their knowledge and their ideas. But in 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella, having driven the last of Moors from the Spanish Shield, were persuaded by the righteous fundamentalists of the time to announce "The Act of Purification". A series of steps were taken in which all Jews and Arabs and other non-Christians were expelled from the country, or would face the tools and the torches of The Inquisition. From this 'cleansing' come the Sephardic Jews -- as opposed to the Ashkenazis of Eastern Europe. In Eastern Europe, the sporadic violence and brutality against Jews are common knowledge. 'Fiddler' without the music and the folksy humor. At times of fury, no accommodation by the Jew was good enough, no profile low enough, no village poor enough or distant enough.

From these come the near-steady flow of Jews to the United States. And despite the disdain of the Jews by most 'American' Americans, they came to grab the American Dream with both hands, and contributed everything from new ideas of enterprise in retail and entertainment to becoming some of our finest physicians and lawyers. The modern United States, in spite of itself, IS The United States in part because of its Jewish blood.

Then the Nazi Holocaust -- the corralling, sorting, orderly eradication of millions of the people of Moses. Not something that other realms in other times didn't try to do, by the way, the Germans were just more organized and had better murder technology.

I stood in the center of Dachau for an entire day, about 15 years ago, trying to comprehend how this could have happened. I had gone there on a side trip from Munich, vaguely curious about this Dachau. I soon became engulfed in the enormity of what had occurred there nestled in this middle and working class neighborhood.

How could human beings do this to other human beings, hear their cries, their pleas, their terror, their pain, and continue without apparently even wincing? I no longer wonder. At some times, some places, ANY sect of the human race is capable of horrors against their fellow man, whether a member of the Waffen SS, a Serbian sniper, a Turkish policeman in 1920's Armenia, a Mississippi Klansman. Because even in the United States not all was a Rose Garden. For a long time Jews had quotas in our universities and graduate schools. Only so many Jews could be in a medical or law school at one time. Jews were disparaged widely. I remember as a kid Jewish jokes
told without a wince - "Why do Jews have such big noses?"

Well, now the Jews have a homeland again. A place that is theirs. And that's the point. It doesn't matter how many times the United States and European powers try to rein in Israel, if it comes down to survival of its nation, its people, they will fight like no lioness has ever fought to save her cubs. They will fight with a ferocity, a determination, and a skill, that will astound us.

And many will die, mostly their attackers, I believe. If there were a macabre historical betting parlor, my money would be on the Israelis to be standing at the end. As we killed the kamikazes and the Wehrmacht soldaten of World War II, so will the Israelis kill their suicidal attackers, until there are not enough to torment them.

The irony goes unnoticed -- while we are hammering away to punish those who brought the horrors of last September here, we restrain the Israelis from the same retaliation. Not the same thing, of course -- We are We, They are They. While we mourn and seethe at September 11th, we don't notice that Israel has a September 11th sometimes every day.

We may not notice, but it doesn't make any difference. And it doesn't make any difference whether you are pro-Israeli or you think Israel is the bully of the Middle East. If it comes to where a new holocaust looms -- with or without the concurrence of the United States and Europe -- Israel will lash out without pause or restraint at those who would try to annihilate their country.

The Jews will not go quietly again.

Joe McCain"

Posted by SLC | August 26, 2007 9:17 PM

To Chandra-the-Fool:

Yes, indeedy, we should certainly focus our critical eye on India rather than Israel.

After all, everyone knows that America's financial/military/political aid to India totally dwarfs that to Israel...

And didn't we just invade Pakistan recently, in support of India's claim to divided Kashmir...

And America's popular media coverage of India is so totally pervasive and absurdly one-sided that it's really important for MY to devote all his time to presenting a more balanced view...

Posted by RKU | August 26, 2007 9:22 PM

it's another thing entirely to say that the United States should just be totally indifferent to how our most generously subsidized client state relates to its neighbors and to the millions of stateless Arabs over which it rules.

Believe me, Matt - he and all other Israelis know that's not the case. Some of them are fine with that program and some are not.

For example:

U.S. Blocks Israel-Syria Talks

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 26, 2007 9:27 PM

Worst comment thread ever.

Posted by david | August 26, 2007 9:46 PM

RKU,

The ignorance emanating from your post is reason enough for pundits like Matt to spend more time learning about India. You're tentative military actions along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan have absolutely nothing to do with the Kashmir conflict.

India's nascent relationship with the United States dwarfs your relationship with Israel in importance. Israel obsessives would also benefit from studying our history. We achieved independence from Britain at about the same time Israel did; we also had a Muslim population, some of whom who wanted to live in our country, and others who wanted to form their own. I would submit that we have done a better (though still far from perfect) job of addressing our differences than the Israelis and Arabs have, and we have done so with far less "help" from the UN, Europe, and the United States.

Posted by Chandra | August 26, 2007 9:47 PM

Why regard attention to Israel and attention to India as mutually exclusive alternatives? Both are important.

Posted by jason | August 26, 2007 9:53 PM

"Hard to believe that President Richard Steven Hack would be a such a tough guy with Israel, when every post about bombing Iran's nuke sites elicits Chicken Little cries from him."

Well, as to that, two responses.

First, as an anarchist, I'm not ever likely to be President. If elected, my first act would be to quit, as someone once said.

Second, the US vs Israel is a lot easier than the US vs Iran. That should be obvious. Israel is a tiny country with no population and no strategic depth. It's military, except for its submarines, is bottled up in its own country. A conflict with the US would be over in a week. A conflict with Iran will drag on for a decade, worse than Vietnam.

Third, the US has no justifications for acting tough with Iran. Iran has no nuclear weapons program, its support for "Islamic terrorism" is almost entirely due to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, and the same applies to its actions in Iraq - totally due to our own stupid actions there. Not to mention that Iran hasn't invaded or even threatened to invade anybody for centuries.

Whereas, Israel is a rogue nuclear state, engages in military aggression against its neighbors regularly, engages in massive war crimes during those aggressive wars rather than mere "terrorism", is engaged in ethnic cleansing that doesn't quite amount to "genocide" - yet - depending on your definition of genocide, and pursues an ideology which is racist and nationalist and indistinguishable from the Nazis in many respects.

So there's no comparison. By the standard neoconservative measure of justification for invasion, Israel should have been invaded decades ago and Iran should be at least engaged in a friendly diplomatic way.

Not that it's going to happen, of course. But that's how it should be going.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 26, 2007 10:06 PM

"It is obvious that Mr. Hack gets his rantings from the David Duke, rense, and stormfront web sites."

While I've heard of David Duke and Rense, as an anarchist, I'm hardly interested in any rightwing or anti-Semitic, let alone Nazi, Web sites.

Since I view Zionism as indistinguishable from National Socialism in terms of its racist and nationalist character, it would seem less than "obvious" that I have any interest in the "German American Bund" - which hasn't been around since WWII, if I'm not mistaken.

Citing the nitwit John McCain here is probably not in your best interests, either.

As for "the Jews not going quietly again", well, as I recall, they didn't go quietly in many places during WWII, either. In any event, that is irrelevant, since Jews exist everywhere today - including, I might add, a large number in Iran, who have no intention of emigrating to Israel - unless of course they end up getting persecuted as a result of an Israeli attack on Iran - which, of course, the Israeli government and the AMERICAN Zionists agitating for said attack on Iran couldn't care less about...

Finally, I don't expect the Israeli government to go "quietly". I expect them to be nuked out of existence either by some Arab terrorist group, or by the response of the international community when they finally show their colors after such an incident and murder millions of Arabs in Arab cities with their own nuclear weapons in a spasm retaliation.

It will be unfortunate for those innocent Israelis - not to mention the large population of Arabs and Palestinians who do live in Israel - who believed the Zionist notion that Israel was going to be a "safe haven" and a "Fortress Judaica" for them when that happens. But as we Transhumans say, "That's nature's way of eliminating the stupid."

Israel is doomed. It's that simple. Unless it dumps the fanatics like you, SLC, and somehow manages to elect more rational persons to govern it.

Have a nice day, Zionist.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 26, 2007 10:18 PM

"Worst comment thread ever."

Oh, hell, no. Over at Talking Points Memo Cafe, this thread would be up to 200 or more posts now, and Daniel Greenbaum would be screaming that MJ Rosenberg was a "self-hating Jew" and I was an "anti-Semite". And Josh Marshall would have banned me by now for suggesting that Israel was "doomed", his presumption being that I was in favor of nuking everybody in Israel because I "despise Jews", as he put it in one of his drive-by snarks, despite the fact that I'm merely predicting that denouement, not advocating it.

Repeatedly pointing out to people that, as a Transhumanist, I couldn't care less about ethnic or racial differences between chimpanzees apparently makes no impression. Since everybody hates some race or ethnicity or nationality, I have to, too, apparently.

The notion that I might just dislike individuals and groups who behave irrationally and destructively just isn't believable, I guess.

For the record here, I have absolutely nothing against Jews as an ethnicity. As an atheist, of course, I despise Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and just about every religion except maybe Taoism and Buddhism, which are more spiritual philosophies than religions - although most of their adherents seem to treat them as religions.

Nor do I care about any nationality, although every culture has its negative aspects as well as positive aspects.

The same applies to race - as every human characteristic is on a bell curve, there are dumb and smart people in every race. The relative percentages of same per race are probably impossible to quantify and not terribly relevant anyway except statistically.

When people declare that everybody should be proud of their race, cultural heritage, or nationality, I say, "Why? None of you are exactly paragons of either intelligence or virtue?" I say, concentrate on trying to be a decent human - or better, Transhuman.

So calling me "anti-Semitic" because I oppose Zionism is WAY off base.

But of course, that is the point. The "New Anti-Semitism" is precisely that - ANY criticism of Israel OR Zionism is, by THAT definition, "Anti-Semitism". Look up "New Anti-Semitism" in Wikipedia, if you don't believe me.

In fact, here's the link, don't bother looking it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism

If you want a clear-cut example of shameless intellectual dishonesty, there is no better example than this.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 26, 2007 10:36 PM

To Chandra at 9:47pm: I think it's pretty clear that when RKU wrote "And didn't we just invade Pakistan recently, in support of India's claim to divided Kashmir..." s/he was being sarcastic. RKU is presumably aware that the USA actually did not invade Pakistan.

I do not make any claims about whether Chandra or RKU is more correct about the desirable Israel-to-India ratio of posts. (I'm still trying to think about it)

Posted by nbt | August 26, 2007 11:01 PM

Pretty interesting thread...

Actually, from a completely value-neutral analytical perspective, I'm reasonably sure that Zionism---or at least some of its major components---was indeed explicitly modeled on Fascism, and to some extent even proto-Nazism.

For example, I remember that some years ago there was a big article in the NY Times focusing on the fact that the current Prime Minister of the Israel during the 1930s had formally applied to Mussolini to join the Fascist International, writing in his fawning application letter how much he and all his associates hated democracy and Western liberalism and admired Fascism. During that same period, a remarkable fraction of Mussolini's leading Fascist associates were Jewish (including I think his Eva-Peron-style mistress), though he gradually pushed them aside once he allied with Hitler.

Also, Leo Strauss, ideological godfather to many of the leading neocons, was always a ferocious opponent of democracy and admirer of rightwing dictatorship, though, being himself Jewish, he felt Hitler had somehow taken a wrong turn somewhere. There's a hilarious letter he wrote to a fellow Jewish refugee after arriving in America, saying that despite Hitler's "mistakes" they must both steadfastly maintain their total rejection of democratic liberalism and its decadent rule by the worthless, ignorant masses.

Admittedly, though, the vast majority of the early Zionists were not in this camp, being instead closely aligned with Communism and therefore fanatical supporters of Stalin and every aspect of his regime, maintaining that admiration even after Stalin himself turned rather anti-Semitic towards the end of his life and began executing large numbers of his leading Jewish associates for alleged Zionist sympathies.

The real history of the world has more peculiar twists-and-turns than your average comic book or SF novel...

On another matter, I'd personally crawl over broken glass if America's crazy foreign policy changed so that all of us did NOT need to focus so much attention on Israel/Mid East. Maybe our friend Chandra can give a call to Bush or Cheney...

Posted by RKU | August 26, 2007 11:16 PM

Re SoCalJustice

The issue of regime change in Syria is currently a point of disagreement between Israel and the US. The US Government is convinced that regime change in Syria would be a positive accomplishment. The Israeli Government isn't so sure; they follow the old saying that better the devil you know then the devil you know not. Given the result of the regime change in Iraq, maybe the US should consider the Israeli position vis a vis Syria.

Re Richard Steven Hack

1. "Iran has no nuclear weapons program," Mr. Hack is seriously in error. The Iranian Government itself brags that it has a nuclear program which US intelligence is convinced is for the purpose of obtaining a nuclear capability.

2. "Second, the US vs Israel is a lot easier than the US vs Iran. That should be obvious. Israel is a tiny country with no population and no strategic depth. It's military, except for its submarines, is bottled up in its own country. A conflict with the US would be over in a week" Has Mr. Hack considered what would be the consequence of the US declaring war against Israel? Israel has enough nuclear weapons and delivery systems to wipe out the entire oil production of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq which they would certainly do if faced with such a threat. Further, the radioactivity ensuing from such an attack would prevent restarting oil production anytime in the next 1000 years. Thus the result of such a war would be the ruin of the entire Western economy which is heavily dependent on the oil production of these countries. Mr. Hack would have some trouble making house calls for his business because of the subsequent severe gas rationing that would ensue.

3. For Mr. Hacks' information, the current Jewish population if Iraq is very small. Most of that population has emigrated elsewhere, many now living some 350 miles southeast of Mr. Hacks' current location. The only Moslem country with any substantial Jewish population is Morocco.

4. Mr. Hack claims he isn't prejudiced against anybody. Well, as my Syrian friend Ammar Kanaan says, Dr. SLC is prejudiced against everybody and hence doesn't discriminate.

5. The fact that Mr. Hack doesn't like Senator McCain or his brother is to their great credit.

6. "As for "the Jews not going quietly again", well, as I recall, they didn't go quietly in many places during WWII, either." The difference is that the Jews of Europe didn't have 600 nuclear weapons at their disposal, possibly including thermonuclear weapons and the concomitant delivery systems.

Posted by SLC | August 26, 2007 11:23 PM

SLC and Mr. McCain threatening genocide and mass murder against non-Jews is not exactly helping the cause of presenting Israel as a reasonable member of the family of nations. It's almost (almost!) enough to get this Jew listening to the Richard Hacks of the world...although SLC and Hack deserve each other, hopefully the non-fantatics on both sides can work something out. It's rather astonishing how many more reasonable voices there are among actual Israeli Jews than one finds among the self-apponinted representatives of the Jewish people over here.

And Matt doesn't focus on Israel because he's Jewish, he focuses on it because defending the priorities of the Israeli right wing has unfortunately become central to our foreign policy.

Posted by mq | August 26, 2007 11:44 PM

Richard Steven Hack,

Is Israel the only country you are confident in our ability to attack militarily? I still think it's odd that President Hack would be confident launching an all-out war against Israel but terrified of the consequences of launching a limited bombing campaign against Iran's nuke facilities. Maybe it's a "transhuman" thing.

Posted by Juan | August 27, 2007 12:23 AM

Maybe if we put a bunch of the weirdos on both sides of this thread into a padded room with baseball bats, we would all be better off. No topic seems to bring out the weirdos more.

"We wouldn't have to worry about the Israel Lobby's undue influence if Jews weren't so over-represented in the media."

The thing is, American Jews aren't exactly a fan of Israeli foreign policy. In every diaspora, you get the fringe weirdos who claim to somehow speak for those in the homeland despite never having lived there and our media and political elites somehow take them at face value as representative of the general population of that group in the US. It is such with the American media, DC beltway culture and Israel. The fringes also have been rather aggressive in taking over Hillels and such and bullying Jewish dissenters in silence.

Also, Zionism goes back to at least 19-century central Europe. It did have some ugly moments before the creation of Israel (for instance, in the late 19-century some Zionists organization lobbied the US government to invade what is now Ghana, kick out the local population and create a Zionist state). Nationalism and such can be a progressive or regressive force depending on who is in charge. For instance, I doubt that Hitler, Gandhi, Mao, Einstein (turned down the chance to be Israel's PM), Ho Chi Minh, Senghor, Peron and Castro can all easily be lumped together.

Posted by Reality Man | August 27, 2007 12:28 AM

"...I'm reasonably sure that Zionism---or at least some of its major components---was indeed explicitly modeled on Fascism, and to some extent even proto-Nazism.

For example, I remember that some years ago there was a big article in the NY Times focusing on the fact that the current Prime Minister of the Israel during the 1930s had formally applied to Mussolini to join the Fascist International..."

Zionism at its core was simply the belief that Jews should have their own country, in the site of their ancient homeland. Zionism predated both Nazism and Fascism, and had nothing in common with Nazism's racist theories. Most early Zionists and proto-Zionists were actually quite fond of Arabs, some considering them "Jews on horseback", and they imagined a Jewish state would get along well with them. This may sound crazy today, but it didn't seem so crazy to them a hundred years ago.

As for Mussolini, in the late 1920's and early 1930's, he was pretty popular throughout the West. His fascism, which was anti-racist (he called Hitler's racism and anti-Semitism "the German disease"; Hitler, in response, called Mussolini's system "Kosher Fascism") was seen as a stronger bulwark against Bolshevism than European democracies. At this early stage, there were some Italian Jews serving in the Fascist party. I don't know if any of these were Zionists. Mussolini did endow a fascist chair at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem though. Hitler eventually converted Mussolini to his form of fascism, of course, and roped him into his ill-fated world war.

The Orientalist, by Tom Reiss, covers a lot of this fascinating late 19th and early 20th Century history, including the origins of Zionism, Communism, Nazism, and lots of bizarre cases and strange bedfellows.

Posted by Fred | August 27, 2007 12:54 AM

SLC writes: The Iranian Government itself brags that it has a nuclear program which US intelligence is convinced is for the purpose of obtaining a nuclear capability.

This sounds vaguely familiar. In fact, the word in U.S. intelligence circles is that the Iranians are buying up yellowcake uranium in Niger. Or something like that. These people must know what they're talking about, right?

Posted by Geaghan | August 27, 2007 3:52 AM

"1. "Iran has no nuclear weapons program," Mr. Hack is seriously in error. The Iranian Government itself brags that it has a nuclear program which US intelligence is convinced is for the purpose of obtaining a nuclear capability."

See, here we have a clear example of blatant Zionist intellectual dishonesty. This clown KNOWS - if he has read anything other than Zionist propaganda - that the IAEA has explicitly said in every single one of their reports on the Iran nuclear ENERGY program that absolutely NOTHING has been diverted to a nuclear WEAPONS program. The Iranian government - indeed, its highest authority, the Ayatolloh Khamenei himself, has explicitly disavowed any interest whatsoever in nuclear weapons. Of course, what the Ayatollah wants, and what the Iranian military wants, may be too different things. Certainly the Iranians would not be stupid to want a nuclear deterrent to the nuclear arsenal of Israel, if only to insure that Israel's - and the US's - policy of regime change throughout the Middle East is taken off the table.

But none of this means anything to this Zionist. Despite zero evidence of any nuclear weapons program, despite the fact that every single bit of it is under IAEA inspection, and that the Iranians for three years actually engaged the IAEA as if the enhanced Protocols were in effect even when they were not legally required to, none of this matters to this Zionist.

And here we see the true Zionist attitude:

"Israel has enough nuclear weapons and delivery systems to wipe out the entire oil production of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq which they would certainly do if faced with such a threat. Further, the radioactivity ensuing from such an attack would prevent restarting oil production anytime in the next 1000 years."

In other words, just as Zionism is Nazism in essence, it's ultimate threat is the same as Hitler's - destroy everything rather than admit to sane control.

Of course, Israel could not do what SLC believes they would do. If under US attack, the US would certainly be able to limit Israel's capacity to attack anybody outside their borders. The US, if so determined, could literally obliterate Israel long before a single Israeli aircraft could leave Israeli air space. And US submarines could easily take down Israel's long before any cruise missiles could be launched from them.

As I said before, Israel is not Iran or any other large country. While it's military is powerful compared to the militaries of the surrounding countries, it is weak compared to the US capability.

In any event, the discussion is pointless, as I've admitted that the US will never do such a thing, no matter how important it would be to disarm Israel.

What matters in this discussion is the Zionist willingness to kill everybody both inside and outside of Israel rather than admit that the ideology itself is braindead.

"3. For Mr. Hacks' information, the current Jewish population if Iraq is very small. Most of that population has emigrated elsewhere, many now living some 350 miles southeast of Mr. Hacks' current location. The only Moslem country with any substantial Jewish population is Morocco."

For YOUR information, the Jewish population in Iran is the highest in any Arab country. The relative population is irrelevant to the point I made, which is that Iranian Jews have no interest in emigrating because they are not subject to significant anti-Semitism in that country.

Meanwhile, more Israeli Jews have emigrated to GERMANY - the site of the Holocaust - in the past year than all the Jews from anywhere who have emigrated to Israel. If that doesn't trounce the Zionist notions that Israel is some sort of "safe haven for Jews against anti-Semitism", I don't know what does.

"SLC is prejudiced against everybody and hence doesn't discriminate."

This is a position I share - except I'm prejudiced against chimpanzee humans who can't think logically - a group into which SLC fits more than most.

As for the number of nuclear weapons Israel has, I don't think the number has even been acknowledged to exceed 200, although some have speculated 400. For SLC to reveal the number is 600 means either that he is revealing Israeli secrets - or more likely, that he is puffing up the number to be more impressive. Since many of the estimated Israeli nukes are considered to be of lower tactical yield rather than strategic, I'd say the likely max of "city busters" is considerably smaller.

Whereas one US submarine with a handful of cruise missiles could obliterate ALL the major cities of Israel in minutes. So I'm hardly concerned. Arabs in the Middle East, however, should be concerned, given the murderous nature of the Zionist thugs running and supporting Israel, as illustrated by this Zionist thug.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 27, 2007 5:07 AM

"SLC and Mr. McCain threatening genocide and mass murder against non-Jews is not exactly helping the cause of presenting Israel as a reasonable member of the family of nations."

Ya think?

Try going back and reading some of the statements of the founding members of Israel and the Zionists who preceded them. Threatening genocide and mass murder - or at least ethnic cleansing - has been part and parcel of the Zionist concept even since it became obvious that the original plan of buying up Palestine was a non-starter.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 27, 2007 5:10 AM

"Is Israel the only country you are confident in our ability to attack militarily? I still think it's odd that President Hack would be confident launching an all-out war against Israel but terrified of the consequences of launching a limited bombing campaign against Iran's nuke facilities. Maybe it's a "transhuman" thing."

Look, stupid. What part of the simple concept of Israel being a small nation with a small, conventional military and Iran being a LARGE nation with a large population and an estimated one to six million man potential for guerrilla war don't you understand?

Sure, the US can bomb Iran's infrastructure and economy into the Stone Age. We did it in Iraq and we can do it in Iran - if we haven't run out of cruise missiles and bombs in the last five years doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan. I fully expect Iran's infrastructure and economy to be devastated in the upcoming war.

That is irrelevant to the outcome of the war.

As I have pointed out repeatedly - and which apparently you are too stupid to read or comprehend - the war will not be a "limited air campaign." You and anyone else who believes that Iran will just sit back and let the US bomb it without retaliation are complete morons. That retaliation will then require Bush - if he wasn't already considering it, which he is because regime change and oil are his only goals here - to invade Iran on the ground to counter its retaliatory capability and to seize the Khuzestan oil fields (ostensibly to deny Iran its funding for its retaliatory capability, but in reality for his oil cronies.)

Air power cannot do that. It never has and never will. Since you are ignorant of this simple fact that everybody except the US Air Force has acknowledged since Vietnam, it's no surprise that you think there is something wrong with my concept.

It's also no surprise that you run your mouth without any concept of what you're talking about.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 27, 2007 5:20 AM

"The thing is, American Jews aren't exactly a fan of Israeli foreign policy."

Reality Man, we know that. We're talking here about the Zionist freaks who are and who have the money and organization and Congressional influence to pressure Congress into supporting Israeli foreign policy,

"It did have some ugly moments before the creation of Israel (for instance, in the late 19-century some Zionists organization lobbied the US government to invade what is now Ghana, kick out the local population and create a Zionist state)."

And you think the actions SINCE the creation of Israel are somehow different in kind? Interesting notion. More interesting is the fact that even back then, the Zionists were interested in using the US to do their dirty work for them. Thus it seems appropriate that the Zionists in the US want the US to attack Iran - and that it took a $30 billion bribe from Dick Cheney to, as Avigdor Lieberman told the Israeli government recently, give them the "green light" to attack Iran themselves because they preferred the US do it and take the blame when it goes badly. Because the Zionists inside and outside the US do not care how many US lives and US taxpayer dollars get expended to further THEIR cause.

"Dual loyalties"? It isn't even close. It's pure "all Israel all the time" for some of these people. And any sacrifice by the US is dismissed - and if necessary, any US involvement that isn't to Israel's benefit is met with outright murder if necessary - as the attack on the USS Liberty demonstrated conclusively. Not to mention the Israeli agents arrested during 9/11 HIGH-FIVING each other as the towers collapsed - and Netanyahu's remark that 9/11 was "good for Israel."

"Nationalism and such can be a progressive or regressive force depending on who is in charge. For instance, I doubt that Hitler, Gandhi, Mao, Einstein (turned down the chance to be Israel's PM), Ho Chi Minh, Senghor, Peron and Castro can all easily be lumped together."

Which is irrelevant to any point being made here. Racism and religious fanaticism - which is an essential part of Zionism - does not bode well for the Zionist concept of nationalism being "progressive." More importantly, the actual implementation of Zionist nationalism has been clearly shown to be regressive and excessively aggressive in a way that reminds one of Nazi Germany more than any other country you cite.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 27, 2007 5:31 AM

"Zionism at its core was simply the belief that Jews should have their own country, in the site of their ancient homeland. Zionism predated both Nazism and Fascism, and had nothing in common with Nazism's racist theories."

1) The operative word in the first sentence is "was". It evolved into something far more sinister as the chances of its success began to recede when the Palestinians and the Arab world began objecting to the notion of establishing a Jewish state on somebody else's property.

Then Zionism turned to terrorism, with the Irgun, the Haganah and other groups steering the course of the Zionist movement through violence and terrorism, both against the British who were slowing their buildup of the Jewish population and against the Palestinians in order to seize the land.

Subsequent to the founding of the Israeli state, ethnic cleansing became the order of the day - and this was explicitly declared by Israel's leaders for many years, albeit not publicly to the world press as official policy statements.

2) The predating of Zionism is irrelevant. The elements of racism and nationalism are clearly reminiscent of Nazism. The political expression of these notions with regard to non-Jews has clearly been "fascist", depending on the nuances of how you define "fascism" as a political theory. I prefer to consider fascism as the behavior of a state rather than a more technical definition. As such, Israel fits.

In any event, the problem is not the original concept of Zionism - even though it never made any sense, in terms of the modern world at least. The issue is what Zionism turned into over time. There were plenty of supporters of National Socialism in the United States at one point before WWII - the degree that some major industrialists wanted to establish a coup here to promote here. When it became obvious what National Socialism really meant, that support went by the wayside.

Such is not the case with Zionism, due almost entirely to the lack of knowledge of the average US citizen about its history, its concept, and its actual effects. And this ignorance is promoted and defended by the Israeli Lobby. This is the Lobby's primary purpose - to use the emotional impact of the Holocaust - which every US citizen understands - and the charge of anti-Semitism to prevent any discussion of the REALITY of the Zionist cause.

This is why the Zionists invented "New Anti-Semitism" - to enable them to stifle any discussion of the reality of Zionism's implementation by Israel and its negative effects on United States foreign policy - from which Israel and its Zionist masters benefit so greatly.

Claiming that Zionism is somehow irrelevant to the actions and purposes of Israel is disingenuous. It is Zionism - or perhaps even more egregiously, the naked pursuit of power under the banner of Zionism - that makes the Israeli state a rogue, terrorist state. Only by overthrowing that concept can the actions of Israel be judged properly and the proper foreign policy of the US vis-a-vis Israel and the Palestinian situation be established.

And this is why people like Dershowitz and SLC pop up whenever the subject is raised. Israel simply cannot afford to have anyone address their history and actions with objectivity. These things must be buried in emotional and religious claims about the persecution of the Jews by other states and religions in history, and by the distortion and rewriting of history in an attempt to cast all blame for events on anybody and everybody except the Zionist concept itself.

This is why whenever the issue is raised, the subject immediately turns to what Hitler did, or what the Arabs did, or what anybody but the Zionists did. The Zionists' actions are always utterly blameless and their motivations pure while those who disagree are either subhuman animals - "terrorists" - whose only desire is to kill Jews, or "Anti-Semites" - again, whose only desire is to kill Jews.

A more classic case of the psychological concept of "projection" can not be found in the annals of history.

And a more classic case of how those who are persecuted become the persecutors can not be found in the annals of history.

Unfortunately for the Zionists, history is not so easily manipulated. Events proceed at their own pace and what goes around comes around.

As I've said, Israel will reap the same rewards that Nazi Germany reaped when its reach exceeded its grasp. And so will the United States as long as the same naked lust for power and greed control our foreign policy.

There will be more 9/11's and worse. And Israel will one of these days end up with at least one nuked city - probably by one of its own stolen nuclear weapons. It's only a matter of time.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 27, 2007 5:58 AM

Re Richard Steven Hack

It is perfectly obvious that Mr. Hack is an agent of the International Zionist Conspiracy, as his moronic comments totally discredit the anti-Zionist position. As I said on a previous thread, the State of Israel will be around long after Mr. Hack has departed this mortal coil.

Posted by SLC | August 27, 2007 7:42 AM

SLC, I believe you're right ... Hack is some sort of agent provocateur.

There's simply no better explanation for his cartoonish villainy.

Posted by Joe G. | August 27, 2007 8:49 AM

Richard Hack is a raving ravaging anti-Semite. There we have definitive anti-Semitism in all its hatefulness.

Posted by Jennifer | August 27, 2007 8:51 AM

Joe G.,

The same logic proves that SLC is a deep-cover Hamas agent, so I think you may be on to something.

Posted by William Burns | August 27, 2007 8:52 AM

Richard Steven Hack,

Without getting your panties in a bunch this time, please explain why bombing Iran's nuke sites would require a ground invasion to occupy Iran's oil fields. How is an invasion necessary to deal with Iranian retaliations? Why couldn't a broader-based bombing campaign do that, should one be warranted? If we can destroy Israel's military in a week (without an amphibious invasion, I assume), certainly we can put a hurting on Iran's military with our air power as well. And we could throw a wrench in the works of Iran's economy if we decided to do so by simply bombing their few gas refineries.

You can't be so stupid to think that President Bush -- or any other American President -- would launch an invasion of a country, post-Iraq, to achieve the limited goal of degrading that country's nuke program. We now know that Clinton's 4-day bombing campaign against Iraq (Desert Fox) effectively destroyed Saddam's dispersed WMD program.

Posted by Juan | August 27, 2007 9:16 AM

Juan, are you capable of thinking of not bombing Iran or any other country with whom we are not at war or are you just too stupid. I think you are just too stupid to think. Care to tell us more garbage about Desert Fox as a rationale for bombing Iran, you idiot?

Posted by Jennifer | August 27, 2007 9:30 AM

Re William Burns, Jennifer

Actually, I think that Mr. Hack is a poor soul who has neglected to take his lithium for a while. On the other hand, Mr. Burns should admire Mr. Hack who not only uses his name but also give out his address in San Francisco on his web site and has a myspace presence. His web page describes himself therein as a computer consultant for both home and businesses. His myspace profile describes him as a 58 year old male who does freelance tech support and who has, by his own description a sad history.

Posted by SLC | August 27, 2007 9:53 AM

We now know that Clinton's 4-day bombing campaign against Iraq (Desert Fox) effectively destroyed Saddam's dispersed WMD program.

Actually, no. I assume you've been misled by Clintonite claims about this, but Desert Fox didn't destroy Saddam's dispersed WMD program. By 1998 there was no WMD program to destroy.

Posted by Jon | August 27, 2007 10:06 AM

Re William Burns

Gadzooks, Mr. Burns with his keen intellect and keen eye for detail has seen behind the mask of SLC and has forced me to reveal my true identity. My real name is Ishmael Amadinejad and my purpose in commenting on this blog is to provide support for my son Mahmoud who is conducting a lonely campaign against the evil Zionist conspiracy which controls every country in the world, and includes the lead Zionist agent, Joseph Ratzinger in Rome. The only exception to this nefarious control is, of course, his nation of Iran. It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it. We can't let those evil Zionists get away with their vile conspiracies.

Posted by SLC | August 27, 2007 11:13 AM

Jon is completely right. "By 1998 there was no WMD program to destroy." Reports to the Security Council by weapons inspectors made this clear, but the story is repeated with no challenge.

Thanks to Jon.

Posted by Jennifer | August 27, 2007 11:15 AM

"Without getting your panties in a bunch this time, please explain why bombing Iran's nuke sites would require a ground invasion to occupy Iran's oil fields. How is an invasion necessary to deal with Iranian retaliations? Why couldn't a broader-based bombing campaign do that, should one be warranted?"

What part of "air power alone does not win wars" don't you understand? We bombed Yugoslavia enormously - ninety percent of their military survived it.

Read my lips: air power is not enough to win a war. Everybody - I mean everybody in the military except the US Air Force - now acknowledges that.

"If we can destroy Israel's military in a week (without an amphibious invasion, I assume), "

Did I say that? No. What I did say is that Israel would be unable to do anything outside their own country (aside from possibly a few special forces operations) without getting creamed by the US military if that was the US military's intention. The US would have overwhelming air superiority which means the Israeli Air Force would be out of action (albeit at the cost of a lot of US pilots lives since the Israeli Air Force IS by all accounts very good.) The Israeli armored force would be sitting ducks anywhere in Israel. Ditto their conventional infantry formations.

Iran's military will suffer the same fate if the US bombs Iran. I said that repeatedly. What will NOT be defeated in Iran is their insurgent and guerrilla war capability.

Just as Israel was unable to defeat Hizballah in Lebanon last year, and as the US is unable to defeat the Iraqi insurgency, so too the US will be unable to defeat an Iranian insurgency.

Am I getting through to you?

"certainly we can put a hurting on Iran's military with our air power as well. And we could throw a wrench in the works of Iran's economy if we decided to do so by simply bombing their few gas refineries."

I didn't deny that. What I denied is that that would "win the war." What part of that can't you understand?

"You can't be so stupid to think that President Bush -- or any other American President -- would launch an invasion of a country, post-Iraq, to achieve the limited goal of degrading that country's nuke program."

You can't be so stupid as to believe that Bush attacking Iran has ANYTHING to do with degrading Iran's nuclear ENERGY program. It has to do with regime change and oil.

"We now know that Clinton's 4-day bombing campaign against Iraq (Desert Fox) effectively destroyed Saddam's dispersed WMD program."

Others have pointed out your error here.

Now if only you could just read...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 27, 2007 6:05 PM

Meanwhile SLC demonstrates such an obsession with anti-Zionism critics that he spends considerable time looking up my MySpace page.

Hey, you forgot to mention that I like the Corrs! Did you notice the ad banner for Andrea's new album?

You also forgot to mention that I like Winona Ryder, nee Winona Horowitz? Remember the Adam Sandler song? "Winona Ryder drinks Maneschewitz"...

Or were you somehow trying to scare me by proclaiming that "We Know Who You Are"?

Bwahahahahahaha!!!

These Zionist thugs are a circus, aren't they?

Meanwhile, according to Wayne Madsen, rumor has it that the FBI is looking for certain "Middle Eastern-looking men" (FBI codewords for "Israelis" - they're not allowed to say "Israelis" because it might offend somebody) in the Western US who are suspiciously hanging around Western ferry and other transportation hubs. The suspicion is another 9/11 incident is in the offing - just as the Israeli spies in the US were tailing the 9/11 hijackers for months before it occurred.

Scott Horton also notes that US military contractors are being hurriedly asked for their supply capabilities due to an operation about to occur - in a "West Asian" country, i.e., Iran.

Meanwhile, the current conspiracy theory is that people are leaving the Bush administration now because they know something big is coming down this fall.

Reportedly there are also rumors that a massive short position - similar to the short positions taken before 9/11 on airline stocks - has been taken out. The entity taking it stands to lose nearly a billion dollars if the market doesn't fall 30% by September 21st. If it does, it stands to make $4-5 billion.

In other words, the current conspiracy theory is that we are about to have another 9/11 - which by my guess will be conveniently blamed on the Iranian IRGC, conveniently about to be named a "terrorist" group.'

Followed of course by a war on Iran.

All rumors, of course. Pay no attention to the Israeli behind the curtain.

For the record, I make no declaration concerning the accuracy of any of these predictions by third parties. Let's wait and see what happens.

Just remember if anything DOES happen that it WAS predicted by some people.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 27, 2007 6:21 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

1. Actually, I spent about 30 seconds at Mr. Hacks' myspace page. I'm afraid I don't have the slightest idea who the Corrs are and have barely heard of Winona Ryder (I understand she some kind of movie actress). I'm afraid that I move in different cultural arenas then does Mr. Hack.

2. The Wayne Madsen which Mr. Hack refers to is a 9/11 conspiracy buff and contributer to the far left wing antisemitic counterpunch web site. He has about as much credibility as David Horowitz. It's not surprising that a schmuck like Mr. Hack gravitates to assholes like Mr. Madsen.

3. "The suspicion is another 9/11 incident is in the offing - just as the Israeli spies in the US were tailing the 9/11 hijackers for months before it occurred." I think that Mr. Hack should cease and desist from smoking those lefty luckies as he is obviously totally deranged.

As I said previously, whackjobs like Mr. Hack make even Mr. Don Williams look like a sane and sober commentator. He only discredits the antiZionist cause with his insane ravings.

Posted by SLC | August 27, 2007 7:16 PM

"I'm afraid that I move in different cultural arenas then does Mr. Hack."

Ya think? I'd say you're completely out of ANY "cultural arena". "Culture" is not something a thug appreciates.

"have barely heard of Winona Ryder (I understand she some kind of movie actress)."

Yeah, I'd say seriously out of any "cultural arena".

I guess Zionist thugs have something better to do than spend time being aware of the world - namely try to figure out how to screw it up even worse than it is by starting more wars.

They really are utterly indistinguishable from Nazi goon squads. Maybe that's why half the neo-Nazis in the US turned out to be Jewish when people started probing their backgrounds.

Again, a Zionist is just a mirror image of a National Socialist.

Yeah, yeah, I know - people like MJ Rosenberg claim to be "Zionists" - "old school" or something - that just believe in a "safe haven" and a "homeland" for Jews (never mind the ridiculousness of the notion in the modern world.) Since they get condemned by the "Nazi Zionist" Israelis for not supporting everything Israel does, I don't see the value in claiming to be a Zionist. Zionism never made any sense, and it makes even less sense today than it did in the late 1800's. If you want to support the world Jewish community today, just do that. Why tie yourself to an obsolete and rightly condemned ideology that is giving Jews a bad name everywhere?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 27, 2007 11:10 PM

To Richard Steven Hack and SLC--What is this argument establishing? What have any of you gained from each other in this argument other than enraged and extreme assertions that are not being considered on the other side? Both of you have reasonable points as well as angry refutations. At the same time, immature insults about one's personal life have nothing to do with Zionism.

In addition, calling Zionists "thugs" is counterproductive and an act of generalization. Zionism is the basic belief and support of a Jewish homeland, not requiring full agreement with the current Israeli policies. To say that any Zionist is a racist neo-Nazi or a "mirror of a Socialist" or even a "thug" simply does not adhere to the reasons grounded in Zionism itself.

At the same time, it is true that some Zionists may support Israel to the degree that it may lead them to be "giving Jews a bad name" sporting the "new Anti-Semitism" and such. A Zionist's passionate warnings and shouts may be seen as manipulative and to aggressive. Without even considering the "other side," these Zionists may seem radical and irrational.

So the question: where can a line be drawn? This conversation has been going back and forth for and against Zionism. Is there an end to this argument? What will be accomplished from this discussion?

Posted by Elaina | August 28, 2007 1:41 AM

"Reportedly there are also rumors that a massive short position - similar to the short positions taken before 9/11 on airline stocks - has been taken out."

R.S. Hack: Might this be the short position you are alluding to: (see "short% of float" on the right toward the bottom)? Sixty percent of that stock's float is sold short, can you believe it? Does that mean the next attack will be perpetrated by jihadists wearing exploding Heelys? Check out the name of the new product listed on the Heelys homepage: The "Escape 9111".

Posted by Fred | August 28, 2007 2:10 AM

"In addition, calling Zionists "thugs" is counterproductive and an act of generalization. Zionism is the basic belief and support of a Jewish homeland, not requiring full agreement with the current Israeli policies."

Reread my post. Specifically this part:

"Yeah, yeah, I know - people like MJ Rosenberg claim to be "Zionists" - "old school" or something - that just believe in a "safe haven" and a "homeland" for Jews (never mind the ridiculousness of the notion in the modern world.) Since they get condemned by the "Nazi Zionist" Israelis for not supporting everything Israel does, I don't see the value in claiming to be a Zionist. Zionism never made any sense, and it makes even less sense today than it did in the late 1800's. If you want to support the world Jewish community today, just do that. Why tie yourself to an obsolete and rightly condemned ideology that is giving Jews a bad name everywhere?"

The problem is that calling yourself a "Zionist" these days means one of two things: 1) you either DO support everything Israel does; or 2) you are assumed to support everything Israel does.

Neither is a good place to be. You're either a thug or in the company of thugs.

Face facts - "Zionism" as a word and a concept has been taken over by rogue state terrorists and their supporters. Just as the term "anti-Semitism" which once meant someone who hated Jews is now taken to meant someone who disagrees with anything remotely connected to Jews, most especially the subject of Israel and its actions.

And I repeat, Zionism per se never made any sense, even in the late 1800's. There is not and never was any need for a "nation state" for the world Jewish ethnicity or religion, any more than there was one for any other ethnicity or religion that didn't already have one. The Diaspora guaranteed the security of Jews and their religion for the rest of history. It did NOT, however, guarantee that for those Jews in any particular country.

The notion that Jews need to return to some "homeland" and do...what?...makes no sense. Even if it did, the entire method of its implementation has been stupid in its entirety. I could just barely agree that people of a given ethnicity or religion want to hang out with other people of the same demographic. But to suggest that this was at all feasible given the change in demographics of the Middle East during the course of the last two thousand years is just ridiculous.

The bottom line: trying to take back Palestine and make it the Jewish homeland was doomed to failure from Day One. And the present state of Israel - and more importantly, its future problems - make that clear. There's no way that an equal or larger group of Palestinians are going to be ethnically cleansed off Palestine, short of outright genocide.

The plan has failed. Give it up. Give...it...up.

And if you want to point a figure at "anti-Semitics", start with the entire Christian religion. Paul of Tarsus was a Roman double agent who was criticized by Jesus' own brother, and was threatened with death by forty of Jesus' followers. He "checked in" to Roman protective custody and was escorted out of town by Roman soldiers. Centuries later, the descendants of Jesus came to Rome and demands a cut of the action of the "Christian Church". The Bishop of Rome (prior to the invention of the term "Pope") told them to kick rocks. It was the Christian Church who promulgated the myth of "Jews killing Christ" solely to cover up the fact that the Jews knew that Christ was not "the son of God" and the resurrection was so much horseshit. This was the origin of anti-Semitism - a cover for the Christian religion.

Which makes it particularly disgusting to see Zionists lining up to curry favor with so-called "Christian Zionists" in this country, most of whom only want to help Israel so that Armageddon will occur, Israel will be destroyed and Jesus will come back, and they can all get "Raptured."

As one Jewish person put it, "With friends like these, who needs enemies?"

Right now, the worst thing a Jew can do to support Jews in the world is to support Israel. Because Israel is at the bottom of the list of countries that people in other countries like - along with the US and Iran. Because everybody else in the world can see what the Zionists - of either type - can't - that Zionism has produced an illegal, rogue, terrorist state that is conducting ethnic cleansing for racist, religious and nationalist reasons.

THAT is what Zionism means to the world.

What YOU think it means is mostly irrelevant. You're not running Israel - and your type of Zionist isn't likely to ever do so.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 28, 2007 3:08 AM

Richard Steven Hack, why is incorporating all of the population of Israel and the West Bank into a single presumable democracy (whether we call it Israel or Palestine seems not to make a huge difference -- it's the one-state solution either way) really preferable to the two-state solution of a seperate Israel and Palestine? It seems like a single state -- whether Israel with enfranchised Palestinians or your anti-Zionist Greater Palestine) which includes both Israel and the West Bank would be prone to political strife between Arabs and Jews, which would seem to give it the risk of becoming a bit like Nigeria with Hausas and Igbos and Yorubas replaced by Arabs and Jews. At least, I see too much historical antagonism to really see how they'd make a unified state: we're not talking Waloons and Flemings here.

Posted by Julian Elson | August 28, 2007 3:27 AM