By Request: Ahmadenijad and Genocide

Chris Dornan raises an issue that "is not a topic that many people will want to deal with" but I said I was taking requests, so "What is your position on the Goldberg/Walt disagreement over whether Ahmadinejad has called for genocide." You can construe Ahmadenijad's remarks about Israel the way Jeff Goldberg is doing, or you could draw a distinction between the idea of destroying Israel as a political entity and the idea of destroying its population. Independent Poland ceased to exist in the nineteenth century without there being a genocide of the Polish people.

But the whole discussion seems to be undertaken in bad faith. One way or another, Iran isn't going to destroy Israel. And one way or another, Iran's rhetoric about Israel is ugly. At the same time, you have people in the United States who want to scuttle efforts at good-faith diplomacy with Iran in favor of an approach centered exclusively on coercion up to the point of actual bombing, and semi-pornographic displays of Iranian rhetoric about Israel is part of their political strategy. But bombing Iran is still a bad idea, the "bomb Iran" brigades are still crazy, and a serious, good-faith effort to improve relations with Iran is still a good idea. That's the Iran debate that matters.

Comments

For the life of my I can't understand how being a friend to the state of Israel requires dramatically overestimating the threats facing the country. Israel is the most powerful country in the region, bar none-- diplomatically, militarily, strategically, economically. It is not seriously threatened by Iran, and of course if actual harm was to come to Israel at Iran's hands, it would be the death knell for the Iranian government as we know it, because the United States would intervene. Attacking Israel would be an act of suicide for the Iranian government, and they are well aware of that fact.

Posted by Freddie | June 18, 2008 12:49 PM

One way or another, Iran isn't going to destroy Israel.

What's to stop them?

OTOH ... in re the bomb Iran crowd ... suppose we do just that. What next? What is the plan for a destructive, total war for Iran? How will we manage to pull that one off?

Posted by DAS | June 18, 2008 12:50 PM

What's to stop them?

The same thing that stops Burkina Faso from destroying the United States. They don't have anything near the military capacity to invade, and they don't have nuclear weapons, so they can't engage in a little mutually assured destruction.

Posted by Freddie | June 18, 2008 12:55 PM

I would agree with Mr. Yglesias to the extent that dropping a few precision munitions on Irans' suspected nuclear sites will not accomplish much, even if we knew where all of them are. If the US and/or Israel are going to bomb Iran for the purpose of removing a threat to perceived interests in the Middle East, it must be done in such a way that the threat will not reoccur in the near and middle futures. Thus, the example of Hafaz Assad relative to the issues posed by terrorist threats emanating from the Syrian City of Hama is the one to follow.

Posted by SLC | June 18, 2008 1:00 PM

"Israel is the most powerful country in the region, bar none-- diplomatically, militarily, strategically, economically."

Actually, they are not the most powerful economically. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates all have larger economies. Turkey's is the largest and roughly four times the GDP of Israel. Turkey also has a much more formidable military, but Israel's nuclear arsenal balances that out.

Posted by fostert | June 18, 2008 1:00 PM

Actually, they are not the most powerful economically. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates all have larger economies. Turkey's is the largest and roughly four times the GDP of Israel. Turkey also has a much more formidable military, but Israel's nuclear arsenal balances that out.

Well, GDP does not equal economic power, and specifically wartime economic power. Due to its close relationship with the United States, Israel has economic leverage that the other countries in the region don't. At the same time, though, Israel doesn't have power over the world's oil supply, so that's important too. I was imprecise and dumb, sorry about that.

Posted by Freddie | June 18, 2008 1:07 PM

What is the plan for a destructive, total war for Iran? How will we manage to pull that one off?

"Shock and awe!!!" [Thump chest and wave American flag for effect.]

Posted by LFC | June 18, 2008 1:15 PM

The value of refuting the allegations that Ahmadinejad has called for genocide is that it's easier to assemble the political will to negotiate with leaders who aren't seen as insane and genocidal.

Goldberg's list of quotes is pathetic--most of them are explicit about the idea that the problem is the Israeli government and in calling for the dismantlement of the government. No call for genocide there. And the "wiped off the map" language is a mistranslation (interestingly, mistranslated by the Iranian news agency). "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must the page of time." Again, not a call for genocide. If Goldberg wants to claim that Ahmadinejad has called for genocide he's going to have to present, you know, at least one single piece of actual evidence.

The Iranian position on Israel is certainly radically different from the American or Israeli position, but it's not so unreasonable as to make negotiation impractical. Demonizing Ahmadinejad is primarily aimed at making war seem like the only option.

Posted by Galen | June 18, 2008 1:17 PM

You can construe Ahmadenijad's remarks about Israel the way Jeff Goldberg is doing, or you could draw a distinction between the idea of destroying Israel as a political entity and the idea of destroying its population.

I don't know... even the quotes Goldberg has presumably cherry-picked seem to stick to the same line about removing the "regime". He suggests moving Israelis to Canada, or says "let them go find somewhere else". He says Israel will be wiped out "just like the Soviet Union was wiped out" and it's not like the Russians were massacred.

Odious to be sure, but he is deliberately not talking about genocide.

Posted by right | June 18, 2008 1:22 PM

The partitions of Poland is a provocative analogy. While they didn't immediately lead to genocide in Poland, they did set the stage for it the next time Poland was partitioned, in 1939.

There's no doubt that Iran desires the evolution of Israel from a Jewish state to one dominated by a Muslim majority and they appear to have a variety of tactics in play towards achieving that aim, one of which is getting nuclear capability.

Hama was a city that was shelled into submission by Assad, killing 20-30,000 "insurgents" in a few days. Iran is a nation of 78 million people, most of whom don't give a rat's ass about "the Palestinians" or what happens to Israel. Attacking Iran, even in a "limited" way, would be so ridiculous even George Bush wouldn't do it.

The best current strategy would be to approach Iran through our mutual friends in Iraq with a view to normalizing relations on the model of China; and following up on current developments to decouple Syria from Iran in terms of Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Hamas. I think Syria is sitting down with Israel this weekend at a very high level.

Posted by robert powell | June 18, 2008 1:26 PM

Freddie, it's true that Israel's economic clout is magnified by its relationship with the US. But let's face it, if Mali had the same relationship with the US, we could say the same about them. And they're dirt poor. But Turkey also has close relations with the US and even closer relations with the more economically powerful EU. They have a military that is one of the most powerful in the world. And Turkey controls more water than anyone in the region. When it comes down to it, water is the real source of economic power in the region. Which is why Turkey is currently building massive water projects on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Fortunately for them, Iraq doesn't have a functioning government to complain about the water turkey is stealing from them. I think the biggest mistake we can make in the Middle East is to underestimate Turkey. The second biggest mistake we can make is to allow our traditional (since the early 1800s) close relationship with Turkey to go sour. Your comments otherwise stand up.

Posted by fostert | June 18, 2008 1:29 PM

the difference is that Mearsheimer and Walt are academics, while Goldberg is a knee-jerk armchair pundit. he doesn't have to defend his selective quotations of the previous duo's work or his often poorly conceived (being kind...) attempts at rebuttals to those non sequiturs of his own creation in any official fashion.

Posted by BA | June 18, 2008 1:33 PM

it must be done in such a way that the threat will not reoccur in the near and middle futures. Thus, the example of Hafaz Assad relative to the issues posed by terrorist threats emanating from the Syrian City of Hama is the one to follow.

In other words, the proper way to forstall an improbable threat of genocide is to commit genocide ourselves, on a larger scale than those who we accuse of plotting it now.

The partitions of Poland is a provocative analogy. While they didn't immediately lead to genocide in Poland, they did set the stage for it the next time Poland was partitioned, in 1939.

WTF??? The partition of Poland 1772-1795 caused genocide in 1939-1945? You might as well blame George Washington for the Iraq War.

Posted by rea | June 18, 2008 1:35 PM

It's worth noting, as well, that Iran is hardly the only Middle East nation-state or political entity whose leader uses hateful, anti-Semitic, and anti-Israel rhetoric. Yet we have relatively normal relations with many of these other states-- i.e., we don't take their statements about the "Zionist entity" seriously.

This stuff plays very well for domestic political consumption, because the cause of the Palestinians is popular and Israel is unpopular. Indeed, the views of the Iranian public on this issue are not likely to change even if we fought and won a war against its government.

This is why it is important to at least be attempting to solve the Israel-Palestine dispute, even if the hard-liners are correct that the can't be a real resolution of the problem unless and until the Palestinians make a commitment to renounce terrorism and violence against civilians. These sorts of efforts reduce the intensity of hatred directed towards the United States in that region, a goal which is central to achieving our strategic objectives in the region (and which is ultimately helpful to Israel as well).

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 18, 2008 1:40 PM

What will Matt blog about WHEN Obama "totally obliterates" Iran after listening to all the Hillary castoffs he just named to his FP "working groups"!

Posted by centrist | June 18, 2008 1:47 PM

I have to agree with a couple of others above. There do not seem to be two ways to understand Goldberg's quotes. Ahmadinejad specifically refers to the Israeli regime either directly or impicitely in every quote. He points only to actions of the government. He suggests other places be used for the Israeli state if one is necessary. And he draws a parallel to the Soviet case in which there was no massacre of citizens at all.

There does not seem to be any good faith reading of Ahmadinejad's quotes as collected by Goldberg which has him advocating genocide.

Yglesias is right that for the purpose of policy it doesn't matter that much. But for the purpose of an honest debate about the middle east it makes a bigger difference.

Posted by Lon | June 18, 2008 1:53 PM

What will Matt blog about WHEN Obama "totally obliterates" Iran after listening to all the Hillary castoffs he just named to his FP "working groups"!

Oh, maybe when Madeleine Albright becomes Obama's Secretary of State. To wit, never.

Posted by David in NY | June 18, 2008 2:00 PM

As must be tiresomely pointed out, again and again, Ahmadinejad is quoting Khomeini. Now, what was Israel's response to those remarks when Khomeini made them? Why, it was to arm Iraq. Because Israeli politicians know the difference between rhetoric and a threat. What is the difference now? Israel is not fighting for its survival, which is the picture that Israel's defenders like to press upon a gullible public: the reactionary politicians in the Likud want to make Israel the Middle East's indispensible power. Iran is an obstacle to that goal, because the Iranians are never going to accept a, the assimilation of the West Bank or of Jerusalem into the state of Israel, and b, as the holders of the fourth largest oilfields in the world, Iran clearly has the potential wealth to block Israel should it try - as it has in the past - to destroy Lebanon, its commercial rival, or to dominate nearby Arabic countries to its own benefit.

Iran is not going to get what it wants. Israel, I imagine, will assimilate Jerusalem. On the other hand, I imagine terms of coexistence can be hammered out on the model of the terms of coexistence that smooth over Israel's relations with Saudi Arabia, the world's most virulently anti-semitic society.

It is essential to point out how hypocritical and stupid the idea of Iran attacking Israel is - it is essential to point out that Israel armed the man who first called for wiping Israel off the map, Khomeini, since they frankly didn't believe him - in order to sort through the Middle Eastern quagmire. I think the possibility that Iran will stop processing uranium is pretty minimal. It is a stupid demand to base negotiation on. Rather, the demand should be Iran's acceptance of the Middle Eastern status quo, subject to the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. That's it.

Since the U.S. at the present moment is fighting for Hezbollahs biggest ally, the government of Iraq, and since the U.S. violated the treaty on nuclear proliferation by supplying India - a non-signee - with nuclear useable materials, and since there has been no punishment meted out to either Pakistan for illegally making nuclear weapons nor Saudi Arabia for paying for Pakistan to make its nuclear weapons, there is no moral standing for sanctions against Iran. Its sheerly a power play in the service of a blind and futile politics.
An Israel that is satisfied to remain within its rightful boundaries, and that does not block a Palestinian state, and that does not interfere in Lebanon by financing proxy fascist forces

Posted by roger | June 18, 2008 2:32 PM

you could draw a distinction between the idea of destroying Israel as a political entity and the idea of destroying its population

We are very merciful and humane...we will not exterminate your populace, we will only conquer and possibly enslave them!

Posted by Noah | June 18, 2008 2:53 PM

the difference is that Mearsheimer and Walt are academics, while Goldberg is a knee-jerk armchair pundit.

Ah yes, but do Mearsheimer and Walt have ponies? Huh? Bet they don't. So there.

Posted by Glenn | June 18, 2008 3:25 PM

Israel's relations with Saudi Arabia, the world's most virulently anti-semitic society.

And as must be tiresomely pointed out, again and again, the Saudis are not anti-semitic at all, chiefly because they themselves are Semites.

Posted by nolaboyd | June 18, 2008 3:39 PM

"One way or another, Iran isn't going to destroy Israel."

It goes beyond arrogance to make this a statement of fact, but that is par for the course, I guess.

Posted by Dave | June 18, 2008 3:56 PM

At the very least he wants the complete and total ethnic clensing of jews from Israel

October 5, 2007: "Canada and Alaska have vast lands, why don't you relocate them over there and keep helping them over there with (aid of) 30 to 40 billion dollars per year for building a new existence over there?

August, 2007: "Our support (for the Palestinian people) is unconditional. As for the Israelis, let them go find somewhere else.”

Posted by Dave | June 18, 2008 4:00 PM

Wouldn't it make America terrorism-free and improve our relations with the civilized world if we bombed the country which really threatens our security and leeches off us to no good end - namely Apartheid Israel? Don't they richly deserve it? Surely, Putin has contemplated this for the good of the world.

Posted by Trevor | June 18, 2008 4:01 PM

Well, well, well. The first "substantive" post on Iran by Matt.

And he didn't even answer my two questions. Instead, the asshole decided to answer Chris Dornan's question - which is basically a side issue. Thus he once again evaded answering MY two questions which are far more specific.

Let's parse Matt's response in detail, shall we?

We'll ignore the first paragraph, which is basically correct. Iran has never called for the destruction of the Jewish people in Israel, and their official policy is the removal of the Jewish state in favor of a Palestinian state.

"But the whole discussion seems to be undertaken in bad faith."

As is Matt's refusal to discuss the issue in substantive terms.

"One way or another, Iran isn't going to destroy Israel."

This isn't entirely correct, but is substantially so since, as stated, Iran has no intention of "destroying Israel" in the military sense. Whether Iran can destroy or assist in destroying the Jewish state is up for grabs, depending on what tactics are used.

"And one way or another, Iran's rhetoric about Israel is ugly."

No, it isn't. It's precisely correct. The Israeli state is an imperialist, racist, fascist, terrorist, rogue state in a way that Iran can't even come close to. Pretty much everything Ahmadinejad has stated about Iran is correct. His rhetoric is the sort of rhetoric that the rest of the world understands, and should be adopted by the leading politicians of this country.

"At the same time, you have people in the United States who want to scuttle efforts at good-faith diplomacy with Iran in favor of an approach centered exclusively on coercion up to the point of actual bombing, and semi-pornographic displays of Iranian rhetoric about Israel is part of their political strategy."

That is correct.

"But bombing Iran is still a bad idea, the "bomb Iran" brigades are still crazy, and a serious, good-faith effort to improve relations with Iran is still a good idea. That's the Iran debate that matters."

Okay, here we get to the meat of the issue of my two questions. While Matt is correct that a "serious, good-faith effort to improve relations with Iran is still a good idea", he STILL hasn't answered the question of what HE would do IF it is PROVEN that Iran actually HAS a nuclear weapons program.

The current situation is that it is NOT proven that Iran has such a program. In fact, all the evidence shows that Iran does not and never did have such a program. So it's a no-brainer to come down on the side of not bombing Iran under the current conditions.

That's not what I asked.

Actually, he hasn't stated whether he believes that Iran HAS an actual nuclear weapons program, either. Instead, he talks around the issue by talking about Iran's rhetoric and whether bombing Iran is a good idea. By extension, one COULD reason that since Matt doesn't think bombing Iran right now is a good idea, then by definition he believes Iran does NOT have a nuclear weapons program, or at least that he doesn't know one way or the other.

But why can't he SAY SO?

So he's STILL ducking my two questions. What's so hard about answering my two questions, Matt? You either believe (or don't know whether) Iran has a nuclear weapons program, or you don't. You either believe that a military response is appropriate if Iran DOES have such a program, or you don't.

It's extremely simple - unless of course you're afraid of screwing sales of your book, or revealing yourself to still be a "liberal hawk" on matters of proliferation (as you've hinted frequently in past posts), or you've been told by The Atlantic management to avoid any issues that might upset the AIPAC crowd.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 18, 2008 5:36 PM

nolaboyd - since Anti-semite popularly means anti-Jewish, whereas anti-Arab takes over the rest of the semitic grouping, I don't really find your objection very convincing. In any case, Saudi Arabia teaches anti-Jewish propaganda in its schools, the state run tv stations have dramatized the ever popular protocols of the elders of zion, etc., etc. While Iran, justly, gains headlines when a gay man is executed - even though the state claims it is for rape - Saudi Arabia gains no headlines when it condemns a woman to be stoned to death for sorcery, which happened a few months ago.

If Obama shook Ahmadinejad's hand, journalists, egged on by the mentally incompetent attack right, would compare that to shaking Hitler's hand ad nauseam. Bush, on the other hand, can pal around with Bandar or the King of Saudi Arabia, both of whom think Hitler was right, both of whom think Jews are inferior, money grubbing secret rulers of the world, and are part of a government that has made that the official ideology, spread in newspapers and magazines and on state owned tv as to be almost unnoticed - and you will notice that Commentary, Weekly Standard, New Republic, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc., will not raise a peep. Their reporters have gone to Saudi Arabia often - now, when was the last time one of them asked - given the chance to ask the Saudi leaders questions - about the Saudi penchant for running dramatizations of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? That would never happen. The reporter that did that would be yanked. Can't insult our all important ally!

Thus we get the completely useless cadre of reporter-spinners, and they will never, ever step out of the box the administration has drawn for them.

Posted by roger | June 18, 2008 5:45 PM

I just saw Jamie Kirchick's response to Matt's post on the Plank. As I don't subscribe there and thus can't post a comment, I will vent a bit here. Kirchick drives me nuts. His arguments frequently defy logic, and he virtually always personally attacks those with whom he disagrees. He rarely ever seems to behave/write like an adult.

Posted by Chunche | June 18, 2008 6:32 PM

MY - and a serious, good-faith effort to improve relations with Iran is still a good idea

The problem is that the Europeans and Russians have tried that for decades and all their good faith and endless talking has gotten them no where with the revolutionary clerics who have run the place for almost 30 years.

And the Euros are also conceeding, even on the Left, that endless talk and endless diplomacy to avert danger does no good if it clearly isn't working and all they are doing is sitting collectively twiddling their thumbs and doing nothing as Iran continues to plow ahead with its MRBM, weapons grade fuel enrichment, re-entry warhead heat shield testing. They are the limits of diplomacy and talk, and are now turning to sanctions and a belief that an irrational country cannot be allowed ICBMs.

At the very least, an irrational Islamist regime with nukes and the ability to deliver them as far as Cairo, Paris, or Kiev means that they would trigger a regional nuke arms race. Where KSA, Egypt, UAE, Turkey, and Iraq would want a crash program to get their own nukes, or an ironclad guarantee a big power would use it's nukes on their behalf even if millions in the Big Power died in consequence.

If sanctions don't work, bombing may have to happen, with even Russia and the Euroweenie's concurrence and support from Turkey, Pakistan, and the Arab states led by Iraq and KSA. Possibly even their main armorer, China, which only cares about oil and a stable ME that keeps the stuff flowing - not Iran setting up to blow up shit, directly or through proxies. A bombing aimed at forcing Islamist moderation on WMD and stopping Iran being the greatest exporter of terrorism and armed anti-democratic elements in the ME.

Such a bombing, like the Gulf War, cannot include the pariah state of Israel. Nor can we sit back and let Israel do it alone with conventional weapons because Jordan&Iraq will contest the IAF over their airspace, not just Iran, and if we let Israel fly unmolested over Iraq and Jordan, we would surely be judged 100% complicit and 100% on Israels side against all Muslims.

But a precision conventional bombing raid aimed at forcing Iranian regime moderation even changeout is feasible - if done strategically at sparing civilians but crippling their economy until Iran agrees to knock off the nuke bomb, terrorist support and long-range ballistic missile stuff.
You don't even need to find and bomb hidden nuke facilities...and certainly not bomb the Russian PWRs that are designed to discourage weapons grade plutonium production as long as the plants are run at power long enough under IAEA oversight.

In the Persian areas, sparing the 40% Azeri and 13% other minority areas as much as possible - you knock out all electricity for 6 months to a year with certain damage outside the maim generation units. You take out their only refinery and all N-S rail yards. All airports and AAA destroyed. Sever their global telecomm links and freeze all bank assets. If their Navy and AF resists, they are wiped out over a week or so.
Then say it will all be fixed when Iran: (1) fully opens up to the IAEA and it is verified they have ended work on nuke bombs. (2)And stopped all long-range guided missile R&D and construction. (3)That they pledge to cut off all funds and weapons for armed groups in Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, and Gaza along with no more Al Quds terror cells supported in Europe and elsewhere.(4) Commit to open and fair elections and agree that who runs the security forces of police and military will be those in charge of the State, not unaccuntable religious authorities or working in secret behind Mosque walls and using unaccoutable clerical goon squads with power of life, death, prison without trial intimidating the population.(5)Commit to ending the rampant corruption of present Revolutionary Iranian leaders.

If not, Iran stays shut down, not able to do much of anything without fuel or electricity. And if Iran remains intransigent and threatening it's neighbors and others, then peel off the the Azeri part where most of the oil and gas is to form a confederation with their Azerbijan ethnic neighbors.

That is a doable war, which should be avoided if it can be prevented - likely would not happen if Russia and Turkey stay opposed to it...but the trend is a growing consensus that talking and diplomacy are going nowhere and Iranian nuke bombs and ICBMs would be a catastrophe for the ME. It would push oil over 200 a barrel for the few months it would take to defang Iran and regain control of Gulf traffic, another undesirable thing...But an attack on infrastructure, even if it temporarily hurt the average Iranian family, would trigger rage more at the regime for provoking Iran being attacked than on the attackers. Unless, of course, Israel is bombing....

Posted by chris ford | June 18, 2008 6:46 PM

Considering that the unofficial State Religion of the U.S. is now zionist imperialist interventionism - Jewish liberals who aspire to Sandy Bergerian careers like Matt are under enormous pressure to appear on the one hand - against the Bush doctrine of Preemptive War but on the other to appear sufficiently indifferent to the suffering of the Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli Government or the Iraqis at the hands of the American Occupation. It's a pickle and there's no easy way out of it.

Posted by Trevor | June 18, 2008 6:55 PM

Actually, the final partition of Poland - undertaken by Catherine the Great and her Prussian and Austrian allies occurred near the end of the 18th century. The Russian army's occupation of Warsaw was accompanied by the deaths of tens of thousands of Poles by contemporaneous accounts (Catherine was widely pilloried for this).

Poles regard the period of the partition as a long, long night - and rightfully so. If there's any implication here that it wasn't so bad, the insinuation is ahistorical and irresponsible.

Posted by Tom | June 18, 2008 7:20 PM

Actually, the final partition of Poland - undertaken by Catherine the Great and her Prussian and Austrian allies - occurred near the end of the 18th century. The Russian army's occupation of Warsaw was accompanied by the deaths of tens of thousands of Poles by contemporaneous accounts (Catherine was widely pilloried for this).

Poles regard the period of the partition as a long, long night - and rightfully so. If there's any implication here that it wasn't so bad, the insinuation is ahistorical and irresponsible.

Posted by Tom | June 18, 2008 7:22 PM

Actually, the final partition of Poland - undertaken by Catherine the Great and her Prussian and Austrian allies - occurred near the end of the 18th century. The Russian army's occupation of Warsaw was accompanied by the deaths of tens of thousands of Poles by contemporaneous accounts (Catherine was widely pilloried for this).

Poles regard the period of the partition as a long, long night - and rightfully so. If there's any implication here that it wasn't so bad, the insinuation is ahistorical and irresponsible.

Posted by Tom | June 18, 2008 7:27 PM

Re Trevor

Ah, the poor Fakestinians, the poor babies. Oh what suffering they are enduring. It's about time that Hama Rules were imposed on them to really give Mr. Trevor something to bitch about.

Posted by SLC | June 18, 2008 7:52 PM

The Greekish-Ukrainians burned up their town in advance of the Persian onslaught.

Maybe we should perplex the Ahmadenijad fellow similarly.

Posted by Linus | June 18, 2008 8:41 PM

Ah, the poor Fakestinians, the poor babies. Oh what suffering they are enduring. It's about time that Hama Rules were imposed on them to really give Mr. Trevor something to bitch about. (SLC)

This from a fart who's still weeping about Dachau 65 years after the fact. If I'm even to believe that SLC really is a Jew - I think what he's really upset about is that the Palestinians rather than go to their graves like sheep take a few Jews with 'em each day. In other words the kind of guy who throws pebbles at zoo tigers and then runs away like a fagala when they roar.

Posted by Trevor | June 18, 2008 8:48 PM

Zionists bitching about the evils of ethnic cleansing in the Levant makes me laugh every time.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 18, 2008 8:54 PM

Whoops - server error. Sorry about the triplicate.

Posted by Tom | June 19, 2008 7:06 AM

dear moron -

So he's STILL ducking my two questions. What's so hard about answering my two questions, Matt? You either believe (or don't know whether) Iran has a nuclear weapons program, or you don't. You either believe that a military response is appropriate if Iran DOES have such a program, or you don't.

You said two questions. Not three, TWO.

Posted by the puzzled ibex | June 19, 2008 8:40 AM

nolaboyd:

And as must be tiresomely pointed out, again and again, the Saudis are not anti-semitic at all, chiefly because they themselves are Semites.

Sophistry. You and I both know that 'anti-semitic' meant 'anti-Jewish'. As did every single person who read that thread.

Posted by the puzzled ibex | June 19, 2008 8:46 AM

Re Ed Marshall

Of course, Mr. Marshall, in complaining about alleged ethnic cleansing by the Government of Israel (by the way, if they are engaging in this activity, they aren't very good at it as there are in excess of 1 million Arabs in Israel) completely ignores the ethnic cleansing of Jews from countries like Iraq in the years immediately after the 1948 war.

Re trevor

"his from a fart who's still weeping about Dachau 65 years after the fact."

Mr. trevor, by this statement, reveals his total ignorance of the history of the Holocaust. There were virtually no Jews interned in the Dachau camp which was reserved for political prisoners who were opponents of the regime. Quite typical of Mr. trevor, a pimple on the asshole of humanity.

Posted by SLC | June 19, 2008 9:01 AM

I'm still interested in Matt's Poland analogy which, no doubt accidentally, introduces a provocative point--should neighboring states be able to simply wipe out a legal, internationally-recognized national entity just because they find it inconvenient? The partitions of Poland were bloody and catastrophic for the Poles, but they also established a precedent that was clearly noted by Hitler and Stalin when they decided on a do-over.

Israel has at least as much right to exist as the rest of the states created in the twentieth century, including Poland. Palestine, which has never in history existed as anything other than a province in someone's empire, has much less of a claim.

In the aftermath of WWII tens of millions of people were variously murdered, expelled and ethnically cleansed from their traditional homelands--Poles, Ukrainians, Balts, Germans, Finns, and many others including a few hundred thousand Arabs. The vast majority of these people weren't allowed to so much as mention the idea of a "right of return". Only the Arabs have been given the false hope that, unlike everyone else in world history, they can launch a war of aggression against a recognized state, lose, and not only escape the consequences but have a victory awarded to them by the "international community".

Posted by robert powell | June 19, 2008 11:10 AM

I've spend a lot of time defending the left from charges of antisemitism. I'm starting to think I'm wasting my time. If Ahmadinejad or anyone else is calling for the destruction of the Israeli regime that IS calling for the destruction of the state of Israel! And such an action would be an attempt at genocide. Of course it won't happen and of course most supporters of Israel are over estimating the treat. But could you Israel haters for once be honest about vicious antisemitic rhetoric!

Posted by ebg | June 19, 2008 11:33 AM

Re Robert Powell

Not to mention what happened to Native Americans in North and South America who were treated far worse then any of the ethnic groups mentioned by Mr. Powell.

Posted by SLC | June 19, 2008 12:31 PM