Urgency

I'd been dimly curious as to what explained the paranoid attitude that seems to prevail in Israeli circles with regard to Iran, and yesterday's New America event crystallized one possible explanation. Basically, from Mustafa Barghouti's perspective, the Israeli side side has basically lost interest in achieving a final-status agreement. They basically see themselves as having nothing to lose from the status quo continuing more-or-less indefinitely, though obviously if some kind of Palestinian quisling leadership emerges that's willing to accept less than what was offered at Camp David were to emerge, they would listen to those guys. But basically the Israeli's feel no urgency about this.

Rita Hauser essentially agreed, as did Daniel Levy and MJ Rosenberg. Not really being knowledgeable about Israeli politics, this seemed remarkable to me, because the logic of the situation seems to me to be that Israel should regard the demographic tipping point issue as a question of great urgency. Ariel Sharon himself seemed to recognize this just a few years ago, and though the "unilateral disengagement" strategy he devised to deal with it was fatally flawed, it at least constituted recognition of the issue, namely that we're close to the point when Palestinians are going to start acknowledging Israeli sovereignty over all the land from the Jordan Sea and demanding rights — equal access to roads, equal access to education, equal share of water rations, voting rights, etc. — rather than a separate state and that's going to be the end of the idea of a sovereign Jewish democracy.

Meanwhile, there is on the table right now the very promising "Arab Initiative" for full recognition of Israel in exchange for full withdrawal to the armistice lines. Israel isn't merely rejecting this offer, but the Israeli government is refusing to deal with it until they can get an unrealistic guarantee of 100 percent assurance of perfect security from rejectionist attacks. Obviously, security from attacks is a reasonable thing to want, but since refusing to negotiate doesn't provide perfect security and does risk throwing the entire Zionist project away by letting the window of Palestinian interest in a two-state solution close, this seems like an odd attitude to have.

One way to understand the somewhat hysterical view of the Iranian situation that seems to prevail in Israeli government circles is as a mirror image of the weird complacency about the Palestinian situation — perhaps it's a kind of displacement of anxiety about the Palestinians onto an Iranian problem that appears more amenable to emotionally satisfying Gordian airstrikes.

Comments

we're close to the point when Palestinians are going to start acknowledging Israeli sovereignty over all the land from the Jordan Sea and demanding rights

And this should bother the Israelis why? It's not like we didn't spend 100 plus years denying formal equality to people who had their citizenship formally recognized. The Palestinian case seems much weaker than that, so I'm not sure why they couldn't stonewall for a long, long time. And, in any case, if you concede that Iran's nuclear program is a potential threat, it seems to be the one that is likely to mature first.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 31, 2007 11:56 AM

I'm not sure about the government, but among run-of-the-mill Israelis I've talked to, the concern is that Iran will use a nuclear weapon to obliterate Israel. The Palestinians, on the other hand, will just launch terror attacks. In contrast to the rest of the world, Israelis see themselves as small and vulnerable, and the biggest dangers come from other states.

I'm not sure thinking about the demographic issues has really penetrated. Israelis have a long history of not noticing Palestinians going back to decades before there was an Israel.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | October 31, 2007 12:03 PM

I dunno, Tim. I guess they could enslave the Palestinians, we got away with the 100 years ago. They could just genocide them, we did that 200 years ago, and obviously our only honest response would be just to shrug our shoulders and wax philosophical. Or maybe this is an incredibly stupid line of thought.

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 31, 2007 12:03 PM

There is a rising consensus in Israel to just declare the West Bank as a part of Jordan and the Gaza Strip as part of Egypt and be done with it. Two separate entities and because the West Bank will become part of Jordan, there is no need to worry about how much one gives to the Palestinians, you just need to transfer the main population centers to Jordan, screw any comparison with the Ehud offer of 2000. This type of unilateral solution could cause an upswing in violence and thus Israel supports taking out Iran and Hezbollah since they can provide aid or military support to the disenfranchised Palestinians.

Here is one take on this very likely future scenario:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=874024

To me the current focus on Iran and Hezbollah is necessary if Israel is going to implement its unilateral solution to the Palestinian problem. You need to make the Palestinians as powerless as possible before you do this, because the Palestinians are not going to be very happy about it.

There will be no acceptance of a one-state solution in Israel. It doesn't matter how logical or in line with human rights standards such a solution may appear, it won't be accepted and don't fool yourself into thinking it has a chance.

Posted by Jeff | October 31, 2007 12:03 PM

"I dunno, Tim. I guess they could enslave the Palestinians, we got away with the 100 years ago. They could just genocide them, we did that 200 years ago, and obviously our only honest response would be just to shrug our shoulders and wax philosophical. Or maybe this is an incredibly stupid line of thought."

Posted by Ed Marshall

Ed, Israel has basically 'reservationed'/killed/expelled Palestinians since 1948. The result is that the world's only superpower has a bipartisan (elite) consensus that this is OK, and that criticizing it is Evulizm. And that was before 9/11.

So yeah, it wouldn't be surprising that there'd be a bipartisan elite Israeli belief that they could get away with this for another generation or two. Or three.

Posted by Barry | October 31, 2007 12:08 PM

"Why don't the worthy orators come as always
to make their speeches, to have their say?

"Because the barbarians are to arrive today;
and they get bored with eloquence and orations.

"Why all of a sudden this unrest
and confusion. (How solemn the faces have become).
Why are the streets and squares clearing quickly,
and all return to their homes, so deep in thought?

"Because night is here but the barbarians have not come.
And some people arrived from the borders,
and said that there are no longer any barbarians.

A"nd now what shall become of us without any barbarians?
Those people were some kind of solution.

Constantine P. Cavafy (1904)

Posted by Diana | October 31, 2007 12:08 PM

Basically, from Mustafa Barghouti's perspective, the Israeli side side has basically lost interest in achieving a final-status agreement.

There isn't exactly one "Israeli side," just like Abbas and Hamas don't exactly constitute one uniform "Palestinian side." A more precise formulation would be that:

--The Israeli right doesn't want any final status agreement with the Palestinians that would entail giving up land (and never has wanted that).

--The Israeli left still supports a doable final status agreement but largely has doubts about the Palestinians' ability to deliver on any such agreement (more precisely, that's the "left-of-center" view; "the left" in Israel does support negotiations right away).

--The mushy Israeli center/right-of-center, which finally emerged within the political system from Sharon leaving the Likud to achieve his Gaza withdrawal and continues in power via Olmert, would like negotiations but (a) doesn't think the Palestinians can deliver, and (b) doesn't want to go much beyond what was offered at Camp David.

The group that's currently in power is probably susceptible to friendly pressure from an actively involved U.S. government effort that could assuage their concerns about the Palestinians' ability to deliver on security, which would conceivably make it easier to push for the Clinton Parameters-style package that would be necessary to reach an actual agreement. But, absent any such U.S. involvement, what's the rush (so goes the thinking in Israel)?

namely that we're close to the point when Palestinians are going to start acknowledging Israeli sovereignty over all the land from the Jordan Sea and demanding rights — equal access to roads, equal access to education, equal share of water rations, voting rights, etc. — rather than a separate state and that's going to be the end of the idea of a sovereign Jewish democracy.

I continue to be mystified why anyone makes this argument. The Palestinians demanded exactly what you're taking about--one state for everyone, no Jewish state, no Israel--for decades, and got precisely nowhere. The fact that they're getting closer to 51% of the population between the Jordan and the Mediterranean does not change this dynamic at all. No one in Israel will agree to the dissolution of their own state, and no one outside of Israel will be able to force them into it, regardless of what the demographic balance is.

The reason that peace is important is because occupation, settlements, suicide bombs, Qassams, etc. are bad for the Palestinians, bad for Israel, bad for everyone, and the only way out of that is a two-state solution. It has nothing to do with any "doomsday scenario" vis-a-vis demographics.

Posted by Haggai | October 31, 2007 12:09 PM

The fact that they're getting closer to 51% of the population between the Jordan and the Mediterranean does not change this dynamic at all

Wow, in talking to people who identify as anti-zionists who see no value in soft zionists, I've heard this argument before: Zionists are totalitarians who when push comes to shove will jettison democracy in a heartbeat if it interferes with the project, soft zionist or revisionist. I've never actually heard it articulated.

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 31, 2007 12:17 PM

Oh I don't know. A degree of paranoid hysteria about adversaries in the region is, I think, just the permanent operating condition of the State Israel. Israel is a very tiny country, surrounded by a sea of actual and potential enemies, against whom they have been in permanent conflict or war, in one form or another, since their inception. It's also a country settled by people convinced that dark, powerful forces were massing to kill them because ... well ... because dark, powerful forces were massing to kill them. Finally, every Israeli is in the armed forces, meaning they have a permanent vocation to obsess about the nation's security. Who wouldn't be paranoid in such a situation?

Given it's weird, precarious and anomalous presence in that region, Israel's security depends mightily on the kindness of foreign strangers outside the region, and on maintaining their position as the favorites of some powerful patrons. What the Israelis fear more than anything is that eventually those patrons will fall victim to some breakout of rationality and a geopolitical reality principle according to which it makes less sense to be best buddies with Israel than to be best buddies with some of Israel's rivals in the region. They fear this because ... well ... because geopolitical reality does recommend moving away from Israel and towards some of Israel's rivals in the region. Israel is terrified that some American president will eventually get the very bright and obvious idea to do a "Nixon to China" in Tehran, and that the much larger, more populous and strategically brilliantly placed Iran will displace Israel as the new flagship US ally in the region. Once that happens, and the umbrella of uncoditional US diplomatic protection and interference is gone, Israel finally will have to knuckle under to the international community.

So Israel has always worked to undermine and defeat potential rivals for Western attention and affection. What is going on with Iran now is no different than what happened with Nasser, for example, before.

Posted by Dan Kervick | October 31, 2007 12:18 PM

Wow, in talking to people who identify as anti-zionists who see no value in soft zionists, I've heard this argument before: Zionists are totalitarians who when push comes to shove will jettison democracy in a heartbeat if it interferes with the project, soft zionist or revisionist. I've never actually heard it articulated.

I have no idea what you're blathering about. Israel's occupation of Palestinian land is bad for Israel and bad for its democracy (where have I argued otherwise?). This is true regardless of whether the population between the Mediterranean and the Jordan is 51% Jewish or 49% Jewish. Please enlighten me as to how this is a "totalitarian" point of view.

Posted by Haggai | October 31, 2007 12:20 PM

I have no idea what you're blathering about. Israel

I don't think he's saying that your view is totalitarian, but that you conceive of Zionists (or, you know, Israelis, I'd think) as totalitarian.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 31, 2007 12:23 PM

Brian-

Martin van Creveld said this much better than I ever could, but for the sake of repetition, I'm going to paraphrase him.

Iran might, in about four or five years, probably three at the very earliest, be able to build one shitty example of 1944/45 technology. Any bomb they build will require immense resources and would be at best the equivalent of devices used before the first H-Bomb.

Israel has at least 200 warheads, and at least some of the Thermonuclear variety - this means large enough to not just gut a city, but to turn the city into glass. Furthermore, they have the best air force in the world, a submarine+cruise missile option, and alliance with Turkey, Jordan and the US.

In other words, if the Israelis were really scared of Iran destroying the state, they could literally turn every city in Iran into a graveyard, and still have enough weapons to destroy every capital in Europe twice.

So I can't feel that your "man-in-the-street" view is woefully misguided. There is no reason, NONE, that the Jewish people need to fear Iran.

Why on earth does everyone (especially Zionists, and I'm pretty zionist myself), always forget the Israelis have a better nuclear deterrent than CHINA!?!

And you think they should be afraid of Iran?

Posted by Greg | October 31, 2007 12:29 PM

I don't think he's saying that your view is totalitarian, but that you conceive of Zionists (or, you know, Israelis, I'd think) as totalitarian.

I literally do not understand what I'm supposed to be arguing about here. The fact that Israelis won't agree to the dissolution of their own state makes them totalitarians? Or is it that if the total population of Israel the Palestinian territories is 49% Jewish, then continued occupation is "totalitarianism," whereas occupation with a 51% Jewish total population isn't?

Posted by Haggai | October 31, 2007 12:30 PM

"we're close to the point when Palestinians are going to start acknowledging Israeli sovereignty over all the land from the Jordan Sea and demanding rights — equal access to roads, equal access to education, equal share of water rations, voting rights, etc. — rather than a separate state and that's going to be the end of the idea of a sovereign Jewish democracy."

Well, it would be if the Israelis suddenly up and agreed to those demands. Which is a pretty silly assumption, when you come right down to it. I mean, who would have thunk it, all the Arabs had to do to get rid of Israel was to aknowledge Israeli sovereignty over the whole of the middle east, and then use their majority to vote to dissolve Israel. Problem solved!

This has been one of your sillier efforts, and that's saying a lot.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | October 31, 2007 12:30 PM

Say Matt, is it possible that Israel's enthusiasm for peace negotiations with the Palestinians was dampened a little by the Palestinians' election of Hamas, an organization openly dedicated to Israel's destruction? I don't claim to be an expert on the ebb and flow of these things, but Hamas' ascension to power sent a hell of a message, I would think. Sort of like if Meir Kahane was elected Prime Minister of Israel.

Posted by Gator90 | October 31, 2007 12:33 PM

US concern over human rights in the Middle East only apply to enemies of the US. Thus we care about Iran and Saddam's Iraq. The US elite consensus does not care about Israel/Palestinians, except when it impacts US-Arab relations.

Here is a case in point of how the US views the Israel-Palestinian situation: There are reports in the Israeli press that the US is dangling support for a Palestinian state in summer 2008 if the Arabs support an attack on Iran.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3465248,00.html

The only way there will be a one-state solution in Israel is if the American Jewish community changes its position and supports it. Otherwise, there is no chance of that happening, no matter what the facts are on the ground.

Posted by Jeff | October 31, 2007 12:39 PM

If Arabs made up 60% of the population of Mandatory Palestine, I don't think it would bug Jewish-Isrealis one bit. After all, Jews were a miniscule fraction of the population in Herzl's time.

But it would bug Americans a lot. A whole lot. That's the point Matt intends to make.

Posted by Anonopus | October 31, 2007 12:41 PM

I literally do not understand what I'm supposed to be arguing about here.

I don't think you're supposed to be arguing about anything. Ed's trying to characterize you (or maybe the Israelis, or both). It's not entirely clear what the characterization is supposed to be: antisemite, totalitarian, immoral accepter of totalitarian...dunno.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 31, 2007 12:41 PM

But it would bug Americans a lot. A whole lot. That's the point Matt intends to make.

But my point is that it doesn't actually make any sense. Occupation and armed conflict are bad regardless of whether 51% of the population is on the occupying side, or 49%, or 40%, or 80%, or whatever. None of those percentages is any more or less "democratic" or "totalitarian" than any of the others. And in this case, splitting the land into two separate states for the two separate national movements is the only way to go, regardless of what the percentages are.

Posted by Haggai | October 31, 2007 12:46 PM

"because the logic of the situation seems to me to be that Israel should regard the demographic tipping point issue as a question of great urgency. "

Demographics may be a shield as well as a threat. As long as a large number of muslims are living in Israel, this may be perceived as protection from nuclear attack. Whether the threat is real or not is immaterial, as long as it is perceived.

Posted by Njorl | October 31, 2007 12:53 PM

Brett,
While I hesitate to respond to your almost certainly intentional ignorance, no one is talking about Israel having sovreignty over the whole middle east. It is a merely a matter of acknowledging claims that Israel has made. Those claims will soon encompass an area with a majority Muslim population, if they don't already.

Posted by Njorl | October 31, 2007 1:02 PM

Read Naomi Klein's book. The War on Terror has been great for the Israeli economy. Powerful people in Israel have a strong incentive for continuing war.

Posted by Mark Zimmerman | October 31, 2007 1:07 PM

Haggai --

I think you're looking at this from a Jewish-Israeli perspective. Think like an American -- civil rights, voting rights, equal protection under the law, and all thse otherwords that make Americans weepy.

If Palestinians argued that all people living under the control of the Israeli government should have equal rights, it would be a powerful and simple emotional argument for Americans.

Some people, like you, would note it would be the end of the Zionist (Jewish-nationalist) state, but a lot of Americans wouldn't understand why an ethnic state is important. (These same Americans want to build a wall on the Mexican border, but like Walt Whitman said, they are large, they contain multitudes)

I don't think it will ever happen, becase Palestinian national identity really does exist (there is such a thing as Palestinians, contra Wisconsin's own Golda Meir), and they won't want to be subsumed into a Neutered State of Canaan and more than an Isreali would.

Posted by Anonopus | October 31, 2007 1:11 PM

"The Palestinians demanded exactly what you're taking about--one state for everyone, no Jewish state, no Israel--for decades, and got precisely nowhere."

This is untrue. The Palestinian demand was for a single state, the return of all refugees, and the dispossession of all Jews who had arrived after 1948. That was obviously not going anywhere.

What the current demographics mean is that the Palestinians will be able to revise their claim to something much less extreme. "One person one vote," they will be able to say. Whether they will say it is a different question, but if they are reasonable, they will. They have blown many an opportunity before, but maybe they will seize this one.

"One person one vote" was the slogan of the ANC in South Africa. If the Palestinians ever take up, the analogy to apartheid will become irrefutable. The Israelis will not be able to say with a straight face that the West Bank is not part of Israel when, even today, Jews who live on the West Bank can vote in Israeli elections but Arabs cannot. The 800 Jewish settlers living in Hebron today have the right to vote - even those who moved there directly from Brooklyn, and have never lived in Israel proper. If in five years the 165,000 Arabs living in Hebron demand the right to vote, on what ground other than race will Israel deny it to them? How will Israel respond to mass rallies of hundreds of thousands of people, all seeking the right to vote?

Sharon belatedly understood this. He realized that Israel cannot survive as a democratic state if it does not detach the Arab areas from Israel proper and allow them self-government. And he also understood that Israel cannot survive if it is not a democratic state. If Israel turns into a theocracy or a genuine racist state along South African lines, the condemnation of the international community will begin to bite seriously, and the elite technocratic classes will simply leave. And the issue is not merely one of international condemnation. The people who make Israel an economic and military powerhouse - the engineers and scientists in every branch of hi-tech - are not interested in living in a country ruled by a coalition of the "black hats" (the ultra-orthodox) and the right-wing Russian immigrants. And it is the secularists as well who form the Israeli armed forces. The ultra-orthodox, on the whole, do not serve. The secularists will not fight and die, and will not allow their children to fight and die, to save a country ruled by the ultra-orthodox.

Unfortunately, due to an entirely different demographic trend - that within the Jews of Israel - the secularists are losing ground and the extremists are gaining. The ultra-orthodox birth rate is much higher than that of the secularists, and by virtue of their numbers they have built a welfare state in which the secularists, who they hate, support them through state subsidies of their schools. The black hats have no commitment to democracy and do not care what the world thinks: they believe that God gave them the land and they intend to keep it.

The Russian immigrants, who brought almost a million new residents to Israel in the 1990's and who remain culturally and politically distinct, do not believe in democracy either; they believe in force. They are prone to authoritarianism, just as non-Jewish Russians are, and they do not care about the world community. Today's Ha'aretz shows what the Russians intend to do: they have introduced legislation that would bar anyone who visits an "enemy state" from serving in parliament. This would have the effect of disqualifying the current Arab members of the Knesset from taking their seats. It is a step in the direction of genuine apartheid, which would be just fine with them.

All this is clear to the more moderate secularists, who do still have political clout. Olmert, for example, is a secularist. But he and his government are so weak, after the debacle of the Lebanon War, that they cannot face down their right-wing supporters and extremist coalition partners in order to carry out Sharon's program.

Sharon's stroke, bizarrely enough, was a catastrophe for prospects of peace. At present Israel's government depends on the support of extremists and theocrats who actively oppose the program that the government was elected to carry out. What is the way out? I frankly don't see one, and it's very discouraging to me.

Posted by Bloix | October 31, 2007 1:12 PM

This is such typically poor Yglesias anaysis. Whoever doesn't agree with me is obviously arguing in bad faith. Then I will site people whose views are even further away from those who don't agree with me to prove my point.

"from Mustafa Barghouti's perspective, the Israeli side side has basically lost interest in achieving a final-status agreement."

Maybe one place to start looking ofr answers is with Mustafa's cousin Marwan Barghouti who organized the murder of Israeli civilians in the second intifada.

Posted by Dave | October 31, 2007 1:13 PM

Between the original post and the comments by Jeff, Haggai, Dan Kervick and Greg, this is one of the most sane & civil discussions of Israel/Palestine I've seen online in a while. Plus a Cavafy poem. Yay!

I don't buy Jeff's doomsday scenario (tho it's helpful as a data point on the range of thinking in Israel.) Israel declares Gaza part of Egypt. Egypt says, "no thanks." And Israel is left in military control of a piece of non-sovereign territory ... just like it is right now.

It's easy to show why a two-state solution can't work. It's easy to show why a one-state solution won't work. No decent person will advocate "transfer". So just accepting the status quo is almost rational.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | October 31, 2007 1:14 PM

I'm not saying I agree with the view on the street, I'm just saying that's what it seems to be.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | October 31, 2007 1:15 PM

"One person one vote" was the slogan of the ANC in South Africa. If the Palestinians ever take up, the analogy to apartheid will become irrefutable. The Israelis will not be able to say with a straight face that the West Bank is not part of Israel when, even today, Jews who live on the West Bank can vote in Israeli elections but Arabs cannot.

Of course they can. The Israelis can annex the parts of the West Bank that have been settled by Jews, and continue to say that the rest of the West Bank is not part of Israel - at least until such time as they successfully pressure Palestinians to move out of some of those other areas, at which point they can settle and annex them too.

Or they can continue to make up various kinds of legal mumbo-jumbo to classify the settlements, short of annexation, and say that while the settlements are not part of Israel, they still have a "special status" that permits their residents to vote in absentia, and to make claims on the Israeli government for certain protections and services. One way or another, Israel will continue to claim that Israeli jurisdiction and sovereignty extend only to those places where Israelis live. In South Africa, by contrast, the Afrikaners claimed that the townships were part of South Africa.

You seem to think this all has something to do with what sorts of arguments make logical and legal sense. But since when has logic played a significant role in this conflict? This is a conflict about politics and power. Any number of Israeli claims have long since ceased to make sense, but that doesn't stop them. The Israelis have shown themselves perfectly capable of keeping a "straight face" through all manner of inanities.

Israel successfully moved Arab Palestinians out of most of Palestine in 1948. Since then, they have succeeded in gradually moving ever more Arabs out of other remaining parts of Palestine, and making the lives of many other Arabs so thoroughly miserable that moving away is a permanently attractive prospect. The people who actually lost their homes in 1948 are dying off, along with many of their memories. If I were an Israeli, I would probably conclude that I am winning - slowly, steadily and over longer historical time than usual - but winning nonetheless. I would conclude that if we just continue to display the same stick-to-itiveness that has been employed for about century now, eventually we will succeed in clearing almost all of the Arabs out of the lands we want - either by dribs and drabs, or in big crowds of evacuees during a major war. At that point, Israel can finally formally recognize the facts on the ground and annex the West Bank. There may be a few final grumbles, but since there will be hardly any Palestinian Arabs left there, hardly anybody will really care anymore.

You might think this is all just so outrageously illegal and transparently cynical that the world couldn't possibly buy it. But the world never buys it; they just acquiesce in it. If Israel wants to go this way, who is going to stop them? Rudy Giuliani? Hillary Clinton?

Posted by Dan Kervick | October 31, 2007 1:46 PM

Brian, please don't think I was directing my comments at you.

However, I should point out that I have also seen your man-on-the-street view from none other than my own roommate and a friend of mine here that served in the IDF (the roomie is a Russian Israeli, and the IDF guy is a New Yorker).

What is funny is that both guys know fully well how powerful Israel's armed forces are; and yet I constantly here about Iran. Only once have I expressed my thoughts the matter, and my roommate was more or less bashful. He essentially admitted that my feelings were right.

What I told him was what I posted above. My suggestion was that if he thought, as he had often said, Ahmanejad=Hitler, then his country should just get on with it. That is the incredible bankruptcy of the argument pushed by those who would like to attack Iran. If these people really presented the sort of threat to Israel that Hitler did to the Jews, then they should act rationally.

By rationally, of course, I mean destroy Iran in its entirety. As my post above indicated, to do so would be entirely possible. Why then don't the Israelis do so?

The only possible answer is that Iran, a somewhat annoying midlevel power at best does not pose an existential threat to the third or fourth best deterrent in the world (depending on the state of the French Force de Frappe).

Therein lies a really uncomfortable truth. Iran may want a second Holocaust. Iranian leaders might want to kill every jew they can get their hands on. And Khamenei, who actually RUNS Iran, might even be willing to try to drop a bomb on Tel Aviv.

But this is simply *not* going to happen.

So what I think is that the reason this threat is seized upon is that for the first time in thirty years, Israel has an enemy. It has a state with 9 times its population, an utter hatred of its existence, and an avowed goal to destroy it.

For thirty years, the IDF has had to fight a bitter "police action" against a bunch of dirt poor former peasants armed with rockets my youngest cousin could design or sticks of TNT lashed to their abdomen.

As van Creveld, again, has said, "he who fights the weak always loses" because in fighting the weak, the strong always end up looking bad. If they win, they are shamed by the pathetic abilities of their enemy, but if they lose, then they are idiots.

Iran allows a very, very, very proud people the chance to regain their honor. Nevermind that Israel's leaders could erase the Islamic Republic from the pages of history - what matters is the appearance of the threat.

However, the main threat, the only thing that could destroy Israel, is the Palestinian problems.

To solve that Sharon had a half right idea. But as van Creveld said, in the defiance of all military logic, he insisted on being present on both sides of the wall. What should have been done was to build a wall that only birds could cross.

And if anyone comes on the other side, well, then you kill him.

But to do this is just to disheartening to those Israelis who wish they could keep all the land, or to American supporters who would be shocked at the building of a new Berlin Wall.

These men, whether they be hardliners like NPod or more moderate men like Friedman (since in aims, if not in means, both men are equally committed to Israel), either forget or never understood that the Berlin Wall fulfilled its purpose wonderfully. That after it was built, the greatest source of mutual provocation during the Cold War, divided Berlin, was safely quarantined.

Posted by Greg | October 31, 2007 2:09 PM

"Since then, they have succeeded in gradually moving ever more Arabs out of other remaining parts of Palestine, and making the lives of many other Arabs so thoroughly miserable that moving away is a permanently attractive prospect."

This is false. The population of Gaza was about 360,000 in 1967. It is almost 1 million today. The population of the West Bank was about 600,000 in 1967. It is about 1.6 million today. The Arab population of Israel proper was under 400,000. It is 1.4 million today. The whole point of this thread, you may have noticed, is about the rapid natural increase of Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. The claim that Israel is moving Palestinians out of Palestine in sufficient numbers to make a demographic difference is so contrary to fact that it's simply ridiculous.

Posted by Bloix | October 31, 2007 2:11 PM

One way or another, Israel will continue to claim that Israeli jurisdiction and sovereignty extend only to those places where Israelis live. In South Africa, by contrast, the Afrikaners claimed that the townships were part of South Africa.

So what about the homelands? Weren't those an effort to do exactly what Israel is doing on the West Bank? It seems to me that the biggest obstacle to a one-state solution is that this is simply not the aspiration of Palestinian leadership or, as far as one can tell, the vast majority of Palestinians.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | October 31, 2007 2:15 PM

I completely agree with Bloix on his/her point: "The claim that Israel is moving Palestinians out of Palestine in sufficient numbers to make a demographic difference is so contrary to fact that it's simply ridiculous."

I think that the situation can change in the future (and there is significant evidence of shifting demographics derivatives in Israel proper), but at the moment the Palestinian population is growing.

It is also important to remember that the real demographic threat to Israel isn't the Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip but rather the Palestinian refugees outside of Israel who are demanding a right of return. There are 7 million Palestinian Arabs if you combine the Israeli Arabs, the Palestinians in the occupied territories and those in the refugee diaspora.

Posted by Jeff | October 31, 2007 2:16 PM

Jeff-

The territories plus the Arab Israeli population are the real danger.

The point is that in 15 years or 20, the diaspora won't even have to return for the population of Jewish Israel to be smaller than the population of Arab Israel and the rest of Palestine.

Meanwhile in 15 or 20 years, the total Palestinian population worldwide will be not only larger than Israel's population.

It will be larger than the world's JEWISH population.

Posted by Greg | October 31, 2007 2:26 PM

"I'd been dimly curious as to what explained the paranoid attitude that seems to prevail in Israeli circles with regard to Iran"

Let me see if I can help you with that:

1) Iran's President says Israel should be wiped off the map.

2) Iran is developing the means to do that.

3) Iran's leaders may have a religious motivation to attack Israel and be unafraid of any retaliation, which, at worst, would send them to paradise.

Posted by Harry | October 31, 2007 2:43 PM

Maybe Israel should turn itself into a monarchy like Jordan? Jordan is 70% Palestinian, the Palestinians have no political control, and yet, the king of Jordan is continually lauded for his brave efforts at political "reform". Works for Jordan, why not for Israel?

Posted by Juan | October 31, 2007 2:47 PM

Harry-

As I've said twice now, if this really scared them, then Israel, unlike Iran, could this very day destroy every major city in the country.

And every major European city for that matter.

Your post is just not adequate in light of the very real ability of the IDF to literally wipe Iran off the map.

Ahmadnejad might talk tough, but he does NOT POSSESS 200+ THERMONUCLEAR WARHEADS.

Posted by Greg | October 31, 2007 3:02 PM

I agree with Greg and disagree with Harry on the question of whether Iran is an existential threat to Israel. Many current and former Israeli leaders have also suggested that Iran is not an existential threat to Israel. Here is some coverage of this aspect of things:

Livni statement:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html

Halevy statement:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/914171.html

Posted by Jeff | October 31, 2007 3:16 PM

"1) Iran's President says Israel should be wiped off the map.

2) Iran is developing the means to do that.

3) Iran's leaders may have a religious motivation to attack Israel and be unafraid of any retaliation, which, at worst, would send them to paradise."

1) No he didn't.

2) According to the IAEA, no they're not.

3) No they don't.

Simple answers to simple bullshit.

In other words, the whole "If one crazy muslim suicide bomber is willing to kill himself in order to kill hundreds of people to get to Heaven then it logically follows that a whole lot of crazy muslims would have no problem killing their country if it means killing millions of people to get to Heaven" meme is just so very, very, very stupid that it's hard not to conclude that anyone pushing it is quite obviously either a) stupid, or b) a pathetic little wart.

And there really is no c)

Posted by Tony J | October 31, 2007 3:26 PM

Actually, Tony, every poll conducted in the Middle East, even in countries we're "allied" to, suggests the average citizen of one of the Muslim countries surrounding Israel would love to wipe it off the map.

So the idea that Ahmanejad would also like to is utterly uninteresting.

The question on the table, Tony, is why do Americans and Israelis fear Iran so much? I have been a broken record on this now, but apparently this fact bears repeating: THEY do not have any ability in the slightest to destroy US.

Leaving aside our thousands of warheads, the Israelis still possess the ability to turn every population center in Iran into a sheet of glass.

If they are so afraid, then they should just get it over with and destroy the whole damn country. And yet, they don't. This suggests that their fear of Iran is masking something else.

The purpose of this discussion is *not* to insult Harry, but rather, to explore just what exactly is driving this paranoia.

Posted by Greg | October 31, 2007 3:45 PM

I am surprised there is so little mention in this discussion of internal Israeli political differences (some discussion, but not much).

The basics may be pretty simple: The Israeli right maintains power only so long as a perception of emergency, siege, existential threat--whatever you want to call it--exists. If Israelis think peaceful coexistence with Palestinians in particular, but secondarily other Arab/Muslim states, is on the horizon, the political window of opportunity for the Israeli right, as it has existed since the rise of Menachem Begin, starts to close. That's what happened in the 1990s.

The Israeli center-left, for its part, has a pretty good idea of what sacrifices will be necessary to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians. This is reflected in the majority in Israeli opinion polls that reportedly favors a land-for-peace swap. But it's easy to say you favor that and hard to actually do it. And even more so when you're faced with the bitterness and hatred of the enemy your nation has been keeping down for decades. That makes it hard to trust that a peace deal will be kept, no doubt.

There are various scenarios that Israeli elites envision for "containing" the Palestinian "problem." A reservation system is one, ethnic cleansing ("transfer") is another. But I think the essential point is that giving up the West Bank as a whole (save small bits around the edges), sharing Jerusalem in any real sense, and allowing Palestine to take on the true and generally accepted attributes of a nation-state--an Israeli majority isn't ready to do this, and neither are Israeli elites. The alleged Iranian threat perhaps seems not rationally connected, but I believe it is in terms of Israeli public opinion. In a strange way (maybe not so strange), Israel needs to see itself as endangered, badly threatened, in order to stave off the day of compromise with its "internal" problem. As I say, this somewhat psychological interpretation is required only to explain the actions of the center-left. The right has perfectly rational motives for fueling a sense of panic about Iran or anything else in the Arab/Muslim world.

Posted by Doug | October 31, 2007 4:03 PM

Doug, I'm in basic agreement with you, with one exception.

I think that the Center Left has finally realized that there won't be a Mandela, there won't be a Truth and Reconcilation Commission, and that there is no Desmond Tutu.

As a result, even if they give up the land, they won't get the peace. The Palestinians are just too scarred by their treatment and too radicalized by their leaders, and I think those Israelis who are not on the Right honestly wish the West Bank and Gaza would just disappear.

Thus they are able to present no opposition to the Right's fear-mongering, because frankly, they know in their heart of hearts that there is no hope for a solution now, since the Palestinians are angry, far too angry for the West Bank to satisfy them. They want blood, their very existence is a dagger held against Israel's throat, which is why I think Israel will see mass emigration. In fact, this has already started, and I don't see it stopping.

Posted by Greg | October 31, 2007 4:20 PM

I disagree with Greg's latest comment.

I'll just deal with the first bit that Greg wrote because I think it reveals the core disagreement I have with him. Greg wrote: "I think that the Center Left has finally realized that there won't be a Mandela, there won't be a Truth and Reconcilation Commission, and that there is no Desmond Tutu."

The Center Left doesn't want a Palestinian "Mandela", there is no significant support for a one-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict in Israel or in America. A Palestinian "Mandela" in essence would be calling for the end of Israel as a "Jewish state", something that is not acceptable to the majority of American Jews and a majority of Jewish Israelis. A Palestinian "Mandela" would by necessity be an anti-Zionist and likely to be proclaimed a dangerous anti-Semite by a large portion of commentators on this issue.

A one-state solution is not at all acceptable in public discourse. Tony Judt, who advocated something like this back a couple years in the New York Review of Books, has since become a person non-grata in mainstream American Jewish circles.

That essay of Judt's is here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16671

Posted by Jeff | October 31, 2007 4:36 PM

Jeff, you are right, of course, but then the South African elite didn't want the South African Mandela either. The real question is whether there is significant Palestinian support for a one-state solution, and if not (as I suspect) whether there's any reason to expect that to change.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | October 31, 2007 5:20 PM

Greg,

You keep repeating that Israel could destroy all of Iran's cities and therefore it need not be worried if Iran gets a nuke. This makes no sense. If Iran develops nukes (or when Iran develops nukes, as many commenters would gleefully correct me), it will have the capability of destroying Israel, by either delivering nukes via terrorist proxies or via missiles. Once Tel Aviv lies in radioactive rubble, bombing every Iranian city twice won't bring it back.

Mutual assured destruction doesn't work well when millenialist Shia fundamentalists think they can bring back the hidden imam by starting a nuclear war.

This odd sanguineness about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is really an artifact of Bush Derangement Syndrome and Iraq War hangover; no serious American on the left or the right would have been complacent about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran 10 years ago.

Posted by Harry | October 31, 2007 5:31 PM

Lemuel Pitkin wrote: "The real question is whether there is significant Palestinian support for a one-state solution, and if not (as I suspect) whether there's any reason to expect that to change."

That's a complex question. There is a lot of support for a one-state solution among Palestinian groups, but the nature of those one-state solutions differ in very important ways, and some one-state solutions aren't desirable (such as HAMAS's desire for a single Islamic Palestinian state.)

I think it is more than possible to sell a secular/binational one-state solution to the Palestinian public where everyone has equal rights. From a purely rational perspective, the Palestinians have much to gain from such a situation. The resistance will come from those who have the most to lose.

Posted by Jeff | October 31, 2007 6:10 PM

Harry, you are arguing that if Israel allows Iran to develop weapons, then they can render Israel more or less uninhabitable, while the best Israel can hope for is to destroy Iran's cities in retribution.

That is not at all what I have been saying.

My argument is that if Israel was honestly worried about Iran getting a warhead in the *future*, then it would destroy Iran *now*. Not air strikes on suspected facilities, not special forces operations, not US invasion. Full scale destruction of each major Iranian population center. Utter decimation. The operative phrase has been the following for 2000 years: "Atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant"

Who would try to stop them? The only powers with a strategic deterrent (as opposed to India, Pakistan, and probably NK, which have at best theatre deterrents) to dissuade Israel would be the US, UK, France, Russia, and China.

I doubt any of them would move to retaliate. All of them have their own Muslim problems.

The fact that Israel does not do this suggests that, in fact, this is *not* an existential threats.

Harry, if someone says to you, tomorrow I will kill you, but today I not, and you have a gun, what do you do? Iran is saying that in the near future, they will try to destroy Israel. If Israel takes them at their word, then the solution is make the Islamic Republic as extinct as the Persian Empire.

Posted by Greg | October 31, 2007 6:12 PM

Jeff, perhaps I should have said the Palestinians seem to have no Michael Collins. What I mean to say is that a two state solution seems like no solution at all, unless the Arab Muslim one is firmly authoritarian.

Friedman always argues that "they" hate us but also want our culture. However, every poll, every election suggests that the Palestinian people may want to be free, independent, and democratic, but that they also want to obliterate something they see as the cause of their suffering for the last 50 years.

Unfortunately, the closest thing to Collins in Palestine (heroic leader of the resistance with enough personal power to enforce a settlement that is less than the whole area), was Arafat. And between his corruption and, as you rightly point out, the intransigence of Israel's leaders with the support of the majority of Israelis, that chance was blown.

Posted by Greg | October 31, 2007 6:18 PM

"While I hesitate to respond to your almost certainly intentional ignorance, no one is talking about Israel having sovreignty over the whole middle east."

I'm quite aware of that. My point, Njorl, and I thought it clear, is that the Palestinians can acknowledge whatever the heck they want, and it's not going to magically prompt Israel to give them the right to vote in Israel. In practical terms, Palestinians 'acknowledging' Israeli sovereignty means about as much as Jordanians doing the same.

Matt is once again being silly, pretending Palestinians demanding rights automatically entails Israelis granting them.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | October 31, 2007 6:55 PM

Harry, I shall give you - one time - the benefit of the doubt. I shall assume that you just don't understand the reality of the situation.

"If Iran develops nukes (or when Iran develops nukes, as many commenters would gleefully correct me), it will have the capability of destroying Israel, by either delivering nukes via terrorist proxies or via missiles. Once Tel Aviv lies in radioactive rubble, bombing every Iranian city twice won't bring it back."

1) Iran will never give nukes to any "proxy". No state with any rationality at all - even North Korea - would do that. The "blowback" would be immediate and obvious and result in Iran's destruction.

2) Israel cannot absorb a first strike - at least if it hits Tel Aviv. This is true,

3) What part of "MAD" don't you understand?

"Mutual assured destruction doesn't work well when millenialist Shia fundamentalists think they can bring back the hidden imam by starting a nuclear war."

These people do not have power in Iran. The Iranian Mullahs have power. They do not believe what you just said. Ahmadinejad, even if he believed in that nonsense, which is not established, does not, and neither he nor his supporters are ever likely to, hold that degree of power in Iran. They don't now. There is no evidence they ever will.

There is also no evidence that Ahmadinejad has ever said anything explicitly requiring the physical destruction of Israel or its people, let alone that this is official Iranian policy.

Official Iranian policy and all official Iranian statements have said is that Israel is an illegal political regime which should be removed and replaced by a Palestinian state, in the same sense that the Soviet Union or the Iranian Shah were removed and replaced.

Period. End of story. Look it up.

"This odd sanguineness about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is really an artifact of Bush Derangement Syndrome and Iraq War hangover; no serious American on the left or the right would have been complacent about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran 10 years ago."

You don't know this. While it is true that the Iran of ten, or better, twenty years ago was considered more radical than acceptable, the facts on the ground have changed in that time. What might have been considered unacceptable twenty years ago is now acceptable because Iran is seen with the benefit of the last twenty years experience. And that experience is that Iran is not expansionist, it is not exporting its theocracy by force against its neighbors, and it has behaved rationally in terms of its military and its oil weapon.

This is also the standard neocon argument that even if Bush was wrong on Iraq, he's not wrong on Iran. Sorry. He IS wrong on Iran, and virtually everyone with any real knowledge of either Iran or the Iranian nuclear energy program (i.e., the IAEA) agrees with that assessment.

And finally, if you believe that Iran's religion compels it to start a nuclear war, then you have to explain why its Supreme Leader, based on his interpretation of that religion, has issued a fatwa against Iran EVER possessing nuclear weapons, as being against the Muslim religion.

One time I give you to consider these facts. If you can't come up with opposing FACTS, and just re-iterate your incorrect conclusions, I will consider you just another right wing troll like Al and Fred and SLC and the rest of the Zionist/neocon freaks here.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 31, 2007 9:02 PM

"1) Iran will never give nukes to any "proxy". No state with any rationality at all - even North Korea - would do that. The "blowback" would be immediate and obvious and result in Iran's destruction."

This is a point I'm not entirely certain of. I think it's quite possible that a country like Iran, or North Korea, might think that by providing a nuke to some terrorist group which is already motivated to attack a specific state, through enough cutouts, they could arrange for that state to take a blow that they couldn't with moral certainty trace back to it's ultimate source.

Israel is, however, probably the last state this would work against. Since they can't survive a first strike, they've got no particular reason to pull their punches when striking back from the grave. Every country on their fecal roster is going to end up glowing in the dark when THAT 2nd strike is done.

It's the greater powers, like the US, that have to worry about that scenario. Precisely because we COULD survive a first strike of that limited magnitude, and have to consider the consequences of responding with a generalized attack on everybody who might have been responsible. Because we'd actually still be around to suffer those consequences.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | October 31, 2007 9:19 PM

"These people do not have power in Iran. The Iranian Mullahs have power."

You don't believe that the Iranian mullahs are Shia fundamentalists?

"And finally, if you believe that Iran's religion compels it to start a nuclear war, then you have to explain why its Supreme Leader, based on his interpretation of that religion, has issued a fatwa against Iran EVER possessing nuclear weapons, as being against the Muslim religion."

Doesn't Islam allow for deception in matters of war? Perhaps this is an example of that.

Posted by Harry | October 31, 2007 9:20 PM

It is often said that anyone, standing outside two countries threatening war with each other, and with adequate knowledge of the two countries military capabilities, can usually determine which one will win the war. Absent the actual "fog of war", this is usually true.

Anyone looking at history and looking at the situation of Israel in the ME can see that Israel is doomed.

Whether that doom is ten years, twenty years, thirty years or fifty years away is irrelevant.

Israel cannot survive as it is today: a besieged and hated minority with an occupied majority.

It simply isn't going to happen.

How it will change from its present state to whatever will exist in the future may not be clear. What is clear is that it can't remain the way it is.

The factors forcing change are these:

1) Technological and economic development in the rest of the ME and elsewhere, leading to military development of the other ME countries.

2) Geopolitical developments in the ME, i.e., the rise of Iran as a regional power and/or the effect of a war on Iran to prevent that.

3) The demographics of the Palestinians and internal Israeli Arabs.

4) Changes in geopolitical and military theory and its applications, e.g., 4th Gen War.

5) The basic lack of validity of the notion of an "pure" Jewish state seized by force from a much larger ethnic population and held forever by means of a "Fortress Israel" - with or without nuclear weapons.

What IS going to happen over the next X decades is that Israel and Palestine are going to be resolved by one or more of the following:

1) forced expulsion of all or most Palestinians from Israeli-controlled territory;

2) genocide of all or most Palestinians in Israeli-controlled territory;

3) forced expulsion of most or all Jews from Israel;

4) genocide of most or all Jews in Israel;

5) a two-state solution accepted by both sides (with or without continued hostilities on one level or another);

6) a one-state solution accepted by both sides (with or without continued hostilities within that one state on one level or another.)

There aren't any other options.

Pick the one you support.

Even if you pick number 1 or 2, Israel is still doomed because the hostility that will generate in the Muslim world will be such that Israel will never be accepted. This will inevitably result in war. And despite Israel's nuclear superiority, Israel will never win every war. The Arab world can lose many times because it it vastly larger than Israel; Israel cannot afford to lose once. You can see where that ends.

Solution 3 or 4, on the other hand, could very well occur without either the Israelis or the world's Jewish population being able to prevent it or revenge it. I doubt solution 4 would be allowed to occur, despite the Zionists paranoia about such a thing, so I think it is the least likely outcome of the current situation. Solution 3 could happen, however, given Israel's losing a war, or refusing to accept a one-state solution.

That leaves solution 5 and 6. The problem for both solutions is demographics. Eventually the Palestinians and internal Arab Israelis (unless expelled from Israel - which simply turns them into external Arab Israelis) will outnumber the Jewish population - not just by a few percent, but by factors or two, three or more.

If there is a one-state solution, the result of the demographic shift will be that the "Jewish" nature of Israel will be diminished to the point where the whole POINT of the Zionist project - to establish a "pure Jewish state where Jews are safe from the majority" - would be utterly compromised.

If there is a true two-state solution, where the Palestinian state has no restrictions on its population or economic development, the population increase will eventually translate into economic development which will overshadow Israel. It might take five decades but it would happen.

So what happens then? What if the Palestinian state decides it wants nukes since it is "existentially threatened" by the Jewish state next door? What if it develops a conventional army as large as Israel's? Hard to use nukes against the state next door given the close confines of Palestine and Israel - too much chance of irradiating your own people? And if they have more people in their army - and the same technical and economic level of that army - as your state, well...

So what happens to the "pure Jewish state where Jews are safe" project yet again?

Bottom line: The Zionist project is not one that could have ever succeeded indefinitely. It was impossible - although had it been done by the original plan of buying property and engaging the Palestinians as equal citizens, without the imposition of the notion of a "Jewish state" on them, it might have just been reasonably feasible or at least not impossible.

Given the way it was done, there is no way Israel can continue to exist in its present form. And very unlikely that it will continue to exist in the form of either a two-state solution or a one-state solution. And impossible to exist in any other solution.

So what IS the solution?

Simple - give up the "Zionist dream" and deal with reality. You've got X million Jews and X million Palestinians in a given area. Form one state, with civil and religious rights guaranteed to all, and with US and UN protection for the resulting state from its neighbors.

And the only way you can do this is get the Zionist extremists and the Islamist extremists out of the picture. It's not that Israel can't find a "legitimate negotiating partner" - it's that neither side can.

Can't do it?

Prepare for the destruction of the Palestinians and/or Israel within the next few decades.

Because the status quo is NOT going to hold forever. That IS a certainty.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 31, 2007 9:33 PM

Harry, whether the Mullahs are Shia fundamentalists or not is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what these clowns believe, just as it doesn't matter what the Christian fundamentalists believe.

What matters is what the people in power believe - and people in power never believe in committing suicide - at least not until it's brought home to them, like Hitler, that they are no longer in power. And that's only if the people in power really have the power at that point to do anything - which even Hitler didn't. Hitler could kill himself - every few of his remaining associates were willing to kill themselves or take any more effort to support the war at that point.

Besides which, as I said, if you don't understand the intricacies of the Muslim religion, it's hard to just randomly claim that they believe that the way to heaven is starting a nuclear war.

In other words, what Shia authority do you know of that advocates that? Grand Ayatalloh Sistani in Iraq? Grand Ayatollah Khomenei? Grand Ayatollah Khamenei? Anybody? Anybody considered as a major authority by any significant number of Shia in any country?

Either produce some evidence of that belief by the leading Shia authorities, or you're talking out your ass.

As for Islam permitting deception in war, I've heard this is true. Produce some evidence that this has anything to do with the situation at hand.

Your speculations are not a basis for starting a war with Iran which will in hard, cold, reality cause a major military and economic and geopolitical disaster for the US and the ME.

Christ, most of the morons in the Bush administration didn't even know the difference between Sunnis and Shia before they started the Iraq war. I'm supposed to believe that they are justified in starting a war with Iran based on their considered religious interpretation that Iran is going to nuke Israel so the Mullahs can go to heaven?

Get serious.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 31, 2007 9:43 PM

Brett, your theory that Iran could pass a nuke through enough cutouts that would ameliorate blowback on them is not totally impossible. But consider the bottom line of such a plan: how could they possibly be CERTAIN of that?

It's simply a risk that no even moderately rational actor would accept. The more cutouts you use, the more likely the action would be exposed and the worse the situation gets for the actor.

It's just not a believable scenario.

Having a weapon stolen and used by someone else IS a legitimate concern, because "military security" is an oxymoron, as Dick Marcinko proved here in the US with his Red Cell SEAL Team. Which is why Israel should be disarmed. If anything is a threat to world piece, having 200 nukes in a tiny country specifically targeted by terrorists is a MAJOR security threat to the entire world.

If an Israeli nuke is stolen and used to target Tel Aviv - or New York - what is anyone to do? If the terrorist group isn't even clearly supported by a given nation, what is anyone to do?

What WILL be done is that Israel WILL be disarmed after that scenario occurs. But it will be too late.

So, sure, Iran having nukes is not a good idea. But at least they will only have a few, and probably not easily transported, large, heavy weapons. Whereas Israel has a variety of types, reportedly even including "nuclear mines".

But that puts us back to square one: Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program at this time as far as anyone knows. That's what has to be dealt with first, before we worry about Iran handing them out to anybody else.

Even if Iran wanted nuclear weapons - and THAT hasn't even been established, and there is evidence that they do not - they would probably be persuaded to give them up if 1) they had security guarantees from the US, and 2) Israel was disarmed - which would be a net win for everybody.

The whole thing tracks back to the US and Israel policy of "regime change" in the ME. If that issue is not addressed, the rest of it is just irrelevant window dressing.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 31, 2007 9:54 PM

Doesn't Islam allow for deception in matters of war? Perhaps this is an example of that.

Well no, at least they *say* there isn't. There is a dusty old hadith from the Shia tradition that says you can lie about your faith to avoid persecution, and I've seen the Pipes brand of "scholorship" try and blow that up into the Great Islamic Conspiracy. That would correspond with every other religous sect on the planet that faced persecution (Catholics, Druze, etc..). I've never met a Muslim yet that had any idea what the hell this thing was until they heard it from various people with a bug up their ass about Islam. At least that's what they tell me while they secretly plan my forced conversion or dhimitutude or death. Grow up.

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 31, 2007 10:17 PM

"Brett, your theory that Iran could pass a nuke through enough cutouts that would ameliorate blowback on them is not totally impossible. But consider the bottom line of such a plan: how could they possibly be CERTAIN of that?"

How could they be CERTAIN that letting "students" invade the embassy of a superpower and hold that superpower's citizens hostage for over a year wouldn't spur that superpower to respond with a devastating military retaliation? They couldn't have been certain; they were just batshit crazy and didn't care -- and it worked out for them.

Posted by Fred | November 1, 2007 1:46 AM

Haggai:

. . . that's going to be the end of the idea of a sovereign Jewish democracy.

I continue to be mystified why anyone makes this argument. The Palestinians demanded exactly what you're taking about--one state for everyone, no Jewish state, no Israel--for decades, and got precisely nowhere.

I agree that Matt's conclusion is extreme. But a milder conclusion is more widely held, and, I think, correct: that if and when Israel is seen to have aborted the two-state solution, its rejection of the one-state solution will be quite a bit harder to sustain, locally and internationally.

Anonopus:

Think like an American -- civil rights, voting rights, equal protection under the law, and all thse otherwords that make Americans weepy. . .
If Palestinians argued that all people living under the control of the Israeli government should have equal rights, it would be a powerful and simple emotional argument for Americans.

I dunno, if that's how they think, how come they supported the establishment of Israel in the first place?

Posted by rmd | November 1, 2007 2:02 AM

Iran remains a wildcard, but the Arab-Israeli situation looks brighter to me now than it has in long time. Two of the movements that drove the conflict on the Arab side - pan-Arabism, and the Arabs' version of militant leftism -- are pretty much dead, and jihadism has been discredited now that Arabs have seen the results of it in their own lands. What's new in parts of the Arab world is an embrace of capitalism.

Fueled by oil prices so high that Gulf potentates still have billions left over after all their boozing and whoring, Arab sovereign wealth funds are pouring capital into Dubai, and into Cairo, spurring economic growth. There's still plenty of corruption, but growth is getting to the point where the benefits of it are starting to spillover to a broader class of people.

With the open flows of capitalism are coming more open flows of ideas, with even Saudi Arabia opening up Western-style universities, and schools like Cornell setting up campuses in the Persian Gulf.

Capitalism, commerce, and affluence tend to temper sectarian divisions. People with thriving businesses have something to lose and tend to be wary of nihilism and war.

After a decade or two of this, and the separation of Israelis and Palestinians, the stage will be set for a permanent peace.

Posted by Fred | November 1, 2007 2:57 AM

Fred, that's blatantly false. Capitalism does not stop conflicts. It usually exacerbates them, because the thing about Capitalism is that there are often those who (initially anyway) lose out.

Furthermore, you know what country had amazing economic growth from 1890 until 1914? I'll give you a guess.

War does not go away simply because we're all rich. Differences do not disappear.

You're basing your argument on a flawed assumption that those affluent European states are free from sectarian division. That is wrongwrongwrong.

European states are the product of a multicentury process whereby the dominant culture, language and religion were forced on the remainder. That is why French is spoken in France, German in Germany, etc. However, the countries that still contain ethno-religious minorities are possessed of some of the world's longest running insurgencies: the IRA and the ETA.

Furthermore, the one state in Europe that was explicitly founded to be a multiethnic state, Belgium, is currently threatening to fall apart.

The only state in Europe that seems to balance multiple cultures and religions is probably the most decentralized 1st world nation on the planet. And the ONLY reason the Swiss are like that is because of a series of civil wars. Essentially, their solution is to make the central government extremely weak and allow the different cantons autonomy. Also, they very clearly delineated what is what. They have Protestant districts and Catholic districts, French districts and Romansch districts.

In fact most Swiss, be they German, French, or Italian-speaking are more fluent in English than in one of the other languages. Which demonstrates how "strong" the "central" state is.

I'm also very confused where you got the idea that militant Islam is somehow losing. Right now, in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are barely holding our ground against forces that the Wehrmacht wouldn't even consider cannon fodder. Combine that with the fact that the Islamic militants are the only ones who resist the occupations there and in Judea.

Frankly, I don't agree with their ideas or their methods. I actually consider militant Islam a very unsettling foe. I would love to defeat them.

But I retain a healthy amount of respect for these people. They are motivated by things I can't really understand, and are in no way cowardly.

If a Western Christian Zionist can acknowledge them, imagine the feelings they engender in the masses so long oppressed by external occupiers and internal tyrants. No, Fred, I doubt very much militant Islam is "discredited" at all.

Posted by Greg | November 1, 2007 3:30 AM

"How could they be CERTAIN that letting "students" invade the embassy of a superpower and hold that superpower's citizens hostage for over a year wouldn't spur that superpower to respond with a devastating military retaliation? They couldn't have been certain; they were just batshit crazy and didn't care -- and it worked out for them."

First of all, the only reason it "worked out" was because we screwed up the rescue mission - or did you forget that?

Second, said "devastating military retaliation" would have killed the hostages - which, if you remember, is the point of taking hostages.

Third, there is no comparison between holding a bunch of people hostage and nuking a city. You negotiate with hostage takers - if you haven't got a decent plan to release them by force - but you don't with people who just nuked your city.

But a moron like you doesn't have that level of discrimination, so I'm not surprised you don't get it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 1, 2007 6:28 AM

I'm sure there's a lot of economic growth in Dubai, thanks to all the money they're funneling in there. But, so far as I can see, they're not spending much of that money on things that will keep their economies going after the oil is gone. Some of it, but not much.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | November 1, 2007 6:48 AM

1. The idea of giving Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan is a non-starter. Why would Egypt and Jordan want to solve Israel's problem? And the Palestinians are not Egyptians or Jordanians. There is absolutely no benefit to either country. And can you imagine Mubarek or Abdullah telling their own people, "We will accept millions of poverty-stricken Palestinians so that the Jewish State can be more Jewish." Right. And Mexico wants to stop emigration.....

2. Downgrading Dubai is foolish. Dubai is booming because they have made smart strategic decisions to become the Switzerland of the ME. They are relying on Chinese and Russian money. As Americans, always focused on our own navels, we can't imagine that people can thrive without American help. That type of thinking is an anachronism. Have you looked at South America lately. The more our government "ignores" them, the better off they are.

Posted by Matthew | November 1, 2007 11:04 AM