Certainly in looking at the lame stream media, you'd think that Iran already has nuclear weapons. Why this very minute, they may be mounted on ICBMs targeted at New York and Washington, DC. A recent poll says that 70% of Americans actually believe this bullshit.
Let me tell you. Iranian nukes are as real as the Easter Bunny. The International Atomic Energy Agency says so. The CIA and every other branch of the American intelligence community says so, and even the Israelis say so. So why is everyone in such a hot flash about our "need" to attack Iran?
I don't want to spend a lot of time analyzing the internal and external forces operating on Israel, Iran, and the US. For that, I'd strongly recommend that you read Trina Parsi's excellent book, TREACHEROUS ALLIANCE: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S. If you take the time to look at the historical record, you'll find that what official spokespeople say about their country's foreign policies and what their actual intents are -- are often two completely different things.
For just one example, did you know that it was the Iranian government that set off the Iran-Contra scandal of the Reagan administration by leaking critical information to a Hezbolllah newspaper in Beirut? Or did you know that Shimon Peres said that Iran was on the cusp of quickly obtaining nukes in 1996, or that Bibi Netanyahu said that the Iranians would be 100% nuclear armed by 1999? I'll bet these little facts escaped your attention.
So, it's obvious that with the whole question of whether the Israelis or US go to war over Iranian nukes, that we're dealing with a hall of mirrors and trap doors. The latest news is Leon Panetta's announcement that the Israelis are planning to attack Iran some time between April and June. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has done a 180 on his previous radio interview where he said that any Israeli action against Iran is "far, far away." Now he's saying that domestic public pressure is leading Israel into taking action against Iran.
But the truth of top level Israeli thinking came in an NPR interview that journalist Ronan Bergman gave last week. The condensed transcript of what he said is as follows:
I know that most of Israel's leaders do not believe that Iran is going to use nuclear weapons against Israel. They want to live. The problem is that once Iran acquires this ability it would change the balance of power in the Middle East. Minister of Defense Barak said just imagine that tomorrow we go into another war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, but Iran says to attack her is like attacking Iran. It would certainly make us think twice. And for years, Israel have adopted the policy that it should maintain the monopoly of a nuclear arsenal in the Middle East.
There you have it. Netanyahu & Company are afraid of the concept of nuclear deterrence in the Middle East, even if they have a 300-1 advantage of nukes over Iran (were Iran ever to actually acquire one, which all sides agree it doesn't have right now).
Israeli public opinion polls (and US public opinion polls) show that citizens in both countries have no appetite for war. It's interesting to see the spin in Washington, DC on all of this. Israeli apologist David Ignatius has said that Panetta's announced timeline coincides with when American and EU sanctions against Iranian oil actually begin to take effect. Not only this, but Panetta's announcement actually increases the probability that Israel will take unilateral action against Iran. This analysis has even been accepted in some lefty quarters.
In my opinion, this is neocon spin from the boys in DC that are in thrall to American Christian fundamentalists, AIPAC, and greedy defense contractors. My take on Panetta's announcement is that he's actually pissing on the Israelis, giving the Iranians a heads up on when they might expect Israeli military action. In the meantime, he's putting pressure on the Iranians to open up more on the very tentative nuclear talks that are currently underway.
And as to the Iranians? It's a country with a deeply divided government with antagonistic factions within the far right wing hierarchy. Iran spends 1/40th of what the US does on the military according to some estimates, and Iran has not preemptively attacked another country in over 200 years. However, given the shaky legitimacy of the Iranian government, it knows that nothing would solidify all political factions (including the Green Movement) faster than an Israeli or American bombing campaign.
I see one other dynamic at work here, and that's the bad blood between Barack Obama and Bibi Netanyahu. Since Obama rolled on the issue of Israeli expansion into the West Bank, Bibi may have begun to feel as if Barack was his bitch. So imagine his surprise when the Obama administration actually begins to get tough with Israel as far as their desire to bomb, bomb, bomb -- bomb, bomb Iran. This is no doubt driving the powers that be in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv crazy. And so we see this escalation of words.
Unfortunately, this whole situation looks to me like three punk kids throwing lighted matches at each other in a room filled with gasoline. Accidents will happen, you know.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
LEV JANASHVILI
Omnipotent Poobah
Donegal Descendant
Emily Holleman
MarianneSp
Reverend Billy Talen
Salon.com
Comments
Between the matches of the mideast and the repeated drone attacks on nuclear unstable Pakistan, I view some kind of hot war by election-time as something cynical obama would contemplate were the re-election to appear even remotely close.
americans view war as a Super Bowl and always rally around the home team, regardless of the malevolence or malfeasance of the home team.
-R-
I agree with your analysis that Israel knows Iran would not hit them, but, as has been stated, the politics dictate that Israel hit Iran.
If the Iranians had half a brain they would have contingency plans in place to at least take out one of our carriers--which they could do. They know they would be toast, but they would greatly damage American morale.
Geez, I've been saying for the last year or two that Israel would hit Iran. Although Obongo still enjoys much Jewish support, most in the Israeli government know Obongo is their enemy.
Bottom line though is that Iran MUST get attacked. I just hope they go down fighting. Allah Akbar!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bergman said ONCE IRAN ACQUIRES THIS CAPABILITY.
Nobody anywhere says that Iran has nukes. The analogy I make is between someone who has some parts of a '57 Chevy in his garage, as opposed to someone who actually owns a functioning '57 Chevy.
Iran may be a wannabee, but it's not in the nuke club. Period.
Doesn't look like Moscow and Beijing are going to let it happen though. At least they're holding out for now. Iran has to be wondering how much they're worth, what will the other er gentleman on the Security Council accept as a sufficient bribe from Uncle Sam to unleash the dogs of genocide on Tehran...it remains to be seen.
rate
"Sanctions" sounds so benign, a little tightening of something or other, like bottom-line nurturance which means hundreds die, many children. (like how benign "no fly zone" sounds ... which really meant no you fly, we or our proxies bomb the sh*t out of ya).
And the sanctions won't touch the presumed declared enemy specifically in Iran but they don't care, the war criminals, all the better the population is weakened whoever they are, what gender, what age. No, it won't be the Republican Guard or the pols in Iran or the 1 percent power brokers, but the innocent 99%ers who suffer from sanctions, like this country as the millionaire's club of Congress preaches austerity and people of the lowest rungs lose homes and enough food to eat. But Mitt assures us that it is the poor middle class deserving attention, that the lower class has social programs. Is Mitt no longer paying attention?
I'd call destabilizing black-ops activities as starting the said war, too, and assassinations of nuclear engineers. Like with abortion doctors here in the US, with some people not giving a serious sh*t or even celebratory about innocent engineers getting killed by international war criminal probably Israel in this case.
I consider Israel a nation with a "borderline" personality disorder. If you are not swigging the koolaid, all of it, and only politely sipping it you are not a crony and have not earned their trust or tolerance. ALL OR NOTHING. Total obsequiousness is required. Just watch Chuck S. or Lieberman to see how it is done. Hell, all of Congress, both houses, actually.
I sure don't trust Obama to block a war with Iran if his own political opportunism is involved. He may not be beating the drums, but he sure is putting notches on his belt with countries invaded and drone attacks and assassinations. Nor will Hillary help him be moral, she is even more militaristic re Iran than he, neocon-lite she is called.
Election year and Obama will say anything even more than usual and corporate media are stenographers or addicted to excitement and love a good fight, nuclear or otherwise. Especially when it is off our own turf.
Don't try to analyze what the red mist is, anyone, as the US/Israel/NATO warmachine "paves paradise and puts up a parking lot" (for the 1percent elite only, of course)!
Sorry to go on. I spent yesterday afternoon marching with 500 other New Yorkers against a war with iran, a robust crowd, but I then went home and couldn't begin to find us on the corporate news. Grrrrrr. Plenty of superbowl, of course.
libby
Israel thinks that big brother USA is going to back them up if they poke at Iran...I'd like to give them a big surprise, especially after Lebanon in 2006 and their treatment of the humanitarian ships to Palestine.
You are so right that there is a lot that we are not getting and with something this scary, we can't afford to be having secrets withheld from us. I also want to know what kind of game Hillary C is running behind the scenes and with little accountability. The Clinton years were not free of this business.
Not many secrets to the motivations, or
much doubt in my mind at least, that
some degree of awful is imminent.
And we, WE, will all be further marginalized.
Even then many of ... us, US.. will cheer
because we are, as a whole, idiots
That said, another war in the Mideast won't be result of alliances, any more than our attack of Iraq was revenge for 9-11 or an attempt to bring democracy to the Mideast. The Iraq War was about oil, just as Greenspan admitted in his book, and just as everyone with any sense knew at the time. Obviously, I exclude Paul Wolfowitz from the list of people with sense. The straw that broke Saddam's back was his threat to to use euros rather than dollars as the exchange currency for Iraqi oil.
If I may return to the turn of the last century, you won't find it HS history books or on the MSM, but WWI wasn't the result of the assassination of Austrian archduke. It was the result of a decision by the British Navy to convert from coal to diesel to power their ships. Wouldn't do to have the Germans have control of all the Mideast oil.
Unfortunately, we are still fighting the oil wars 100 years later. All the more reason, the govt should be spending lavishly on alternate energy sources. But there's fat chance of that as long as the oil and coal lobby owns half or more of Congress.
My solution? Demand that all wars be paid for by a surtax on the rich who profit from them, and demand that the sons and daughters of those who support far-flung wars be sent to the front lines. A good place to start would be with the five strapping sons of Mitt Romney.
Israel has nukes but doesn't admit it has nukes because the only point to their nukes is survival. I have never heard of Israel using nuclear blackmail along the lines of "Do what we say or we'll nuke you." The point has always been "If you attempt to destroy us and we can't defend ourselves by other means, this is our last resort."
No one on the planet has said they want the Iranians out of Iran. Other nations in the area, emphatically including Iran under the present administration, have said that they want the Israelis out of Israel. Iran doesn't have a good defensive reason for nukes that involves Israel. As to whether Iran has a good defensive reason for nukes that involves the United States, that's a different question, one with at least some ambiguity, but I haven't heard as much about Ahmedinejad talking about destroying the US. Not that he could; the US is too big. Israel isn't. Israel has, incidentally, enjoyed this nuclear monopoly for somewhere in the vicinity of forty years, probably including during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Israel suffered a surprise attack on the major religious fast day of the year, an attack that was, incidentally, initially successful in that Egypt overran Israel's positions in the Sinai. I'm curious what you think the consequences of that nuclear monopoly are other than survival.
Israel has never talked about destroying Iran, not on a wish list, not as a policy goal, with the possible exception of pre-emptively eliminating a nuclear threat. Ahmedinejad has certainly talked about obliterating Israel.
Ahmedinejad has hosted Holocaust denial conferences in Tehran. That more than suggests antisemitism, meaning that his actions concerning Israel have at least one clear motive.
I'm not saying that Israel should attack Iran, nor am I saying that it would be wise for Israel to attack Iran. Nor am I any fan of Netanyahu's - I think, by and large, he's been terrible for Israel. I am certainly not a fan of American neocons; if anything, I'm embarrassed that they're Jewish. They do not represent the political leanings of the majority of American Jews, who are not conservative, neo or otherwise.
However:
When I add up what each country has done regarding the other:
1. The president of Iran has talked about destroying Israel (without any defensive references even being part of the conversation); Israel has not talked about destroying Iran.
2. The president of Iran has attacked Judaism in obvious ways in terms of the aforementioned conferences. There is no way this could be considered defensive from a Muslim standpoint. Israel has not done anything symmetrical attacking Islam as a religion.
3. Iran has sponsored armed action against Israel that has resulted directly in Israeli deaths. Israel has not sponsored anything that has resulted in Iranian deaths.
4. Iran has been working on nuclear technology at a time when no one is trying to destroy Iran, so the defensive necessity of such technology is dubious. Israel's survival has been threatened so often (including by Iran) that the defensive necessity of such technology is obvious. One could reply that Iran is clearly not near developing nuclear weaponry but, if they're not, then cooperating with the United Nations or whichever international organization wants inspections shouldn't be a problem. One of the reasons Iraq got attacked was because Saddam Hussein liked the idea of being ambiguous about WMD's; given Iran's location and history, this can't have escaped their notice.
What I'm trying to figure out is how Iran could attack Judaism, kill Israelis by proxy, talk about destroying Israel, and work on developing nuclear weapons without any symmetrical aggressiveness on Israel's part and yet it is Israel that is held responsible for being unreasonable here. I detest Netanyahu but, compared to Ahmedinejad, he's reasonable, which is really saying something.
I question such an asymmetrical assignment of responsibility, particularly when by any objective standard such assignment should be asymmetrical in the other direction.
Libby, you're right about the nature of sanctions, which are virtually meant to force the parties into eventual military action.
M Toubin, you're certainly right about my title. I got your attention. In my defense, I try to write foreign policy analysis in an easy to understand way, and I don't care if I'm undiplomatic or even crude. But believe me. As a PhD dropout in political science, more than anything, I am a serious student. And I've personally read and agreed with the findings of the IAEA report. The problem is the way the press has interpreted those findings. Go back to my previous comments about '57 Chevies.
As to "Iran's multi-dimensional threats to the USA, Europe, or Saudi Arabia" I find very, very little threat to Saudi Arabia and the GCC and no threat at all to the US and Europe. Economically, politically, and militarily, Iran is no more of a threat to NATO than Nicaragua.
Kosher, as far as the GCC countries, geopolitically and historically, Iran has strived to be a regional power in the Middle East and it's always been in a rivalry with other Arab countries. In part this rivalry goes all the way back to the sectarian split of Islam in the 700s when the Sunni and Shiite sects were formed. So the potential for conflict between Iran and the GCC is always there.
As to Hezbollah, you're certainly correct. And while we're at it, let's throw in Iran's support for the despicable Syrian regime. But "control" or influence of these parties would be like saying that the US controls Canada. We're talking about natural allies who think very closely alike, but you can't overestimate the role that nationalism plays in the ME.
Now to Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitism. He is the Iranian equivalent of George W. Bush. And of course Ayatollah Khameni is another distinct faction of far right wing ideology in Iran. Having said that, if we examine the historical record of the Shah, we'll see that he abetted the same kind of thinking under his rule. That's because Iran not only has a huge percentage of its population of devout Shiites who love the ayatollahs, but because Iran is also trying to play to the audience on the Arab street. And you and I know how much the Arab street thinks that the Protocols of the Elders is gospel truth.
Having said that, I think you're completely discounting the workings of realpolitik as opposed to giving lip service to ideology, no matter how ridiculous that ideology is. Look for example at the ideology (as opposed to governing) of the Republican Party in this country. Or you could look at the ideology of the Soviet Union. What many people fail to realize in Israel is that Iran's ideology is eggs, and its actions in international affairs are apples. For many years, Iran spouted its anti-Jewish garbage, but that didn't stop Israel from working closely with the Iranians as long as the Soviet Union was around.
And there's one point where you're wrong. You're right that Iran has sponsored many a lethal action against Israeli citizens with assassinations, bombings, and rocket attacks. However, Israel has sponsored many lethal actions against Iranians -- not only against Iranian nuclear scientists, but by arming militant Kurds and other anti-regime groups inside of Iran.
While your points are all well-taken, you have also made some very glaring omissions -- including ignoring the first causus belli.
The Jews own Holy Book boasts about taking these lands away from its rightful owners a long time ago. The claim that this was done on the authority of God is dubious as well as tenuous. Such a claim rests only on religious belief -- and on the supposed ability of a Supreme Being to bend events in favor of his Chosen People. It should come as no surprise that those of another faith might see all this differently.
As for "law", whatever "right" to these lands Jews may have had by right of conquest were negated when they were defeated and dispersed by the Romans 2000 years ago.
Israel exists today thanks to the terrorist actions of Menachem Begin and other Zionists, and no fair-minded person disputes that. To decry terrorism only after one has achieved one's ends through terrorism is beyond hypocrisy, and it certainly makes a mockery of one's claim to innocence in that regard.
Israel's existence is also due to highly dubious actions taken by the Allied powers after WWII, actions that were justified as an attempt to give Jews a homeland, but that were in reality a way to solve the "Jewish Problem". Those actions were also motivated by a desire to gain a toehold in the Mideast -- and thus help insure access to Mideast oil.
It can certainly be argued that Jews deserved a homeland, but why not give them Ireland or West Germany or Poland or Alabama or Mississippi or South Carolina? It's a safe bet the Carolinians would have reacted the same way as the Palestinians reacted -- and I'd wager much worse.
I bring this up not to justify the actions of terrorists, but to suggest that resentment of Israel is only natural, and thus this problem is likely to remain intractable for a very long time to come -- likely for as long as Israel exists.
An attack on Iran may solve the immediate problem of Iranian nukes -- to say nothing of throwing a sop to Israeli hardliners, but in the long run, it will exacerbate the problem and increase tensions in a region that is already a powder keg. And surely, it will increase hatred of Israel. Thus, Israel's long term survival will be even more threatened by such an attack.
As was written long ago -- he who lives by the sword will perish by the sword.
I assume you are right about Israel arming the Kurds, but I have to ask if that was a response to Hizbollah and Syria or if it predated them. My guess is a response because I see no motive for Israel to try to destabilize Iran without something to trigger that.
Yes, there has been a Sunni/Shia rivalry forever, but I don't think that involves people wanting to get Persians out of Iran like other conflicts involve people wanting to get Israelis out of Israel.
I'm glad to hear that what's left of the Persian Jewish community is criticizing Ahmedinejad, even though I'd imagine it's dangerous.
By the way, there is one significant way in which Ahmedinejad's government could represent a real threat to Arab governments: Most Arab governments are not Islamic but the Iranian government is. Islamicist movements in various Arab countries get support, at least moral support, from Iran, and if they gain power, a lot of the current governments face prison and worse. Governments find these movements threatening and they've gained a lot of ground.
As you know from personal experience, not all Americans rally around the home team regardless of the malevolence or malfeasance of said team. If that were true, we'd still be in Vietnam.
Trita Parsi is coming to Anchorage next week to speak and I plan to ask him his thoughts on this.
Try and be serious, Kosh. Protests started in '63 (the majority of americans supported it until '67, when too many of their own sons and daughters were coming home in body bags)
american involvement ended TEN years later.
Cause we want their popcorn!!! They gots it, we needs it, we's gonna take it and probably top it off with Israel's butterscotch!!!!!!!!!
It's what Jesus would want if he wasn't so busy in Mexico trying to save the red tail jackasses!! ~nodding~
~wanders off to sell some more nukes to peoples~
"How about Ahmadinejad’s famous statement that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map? Here’s the problem: he didn’t say it. You heard that right. The famous line that has become the one-line argument for bombing Iran has been stated incorrectly — again and again. Repetition of a false charge doesn’t make it true. I’m not an expert in Farsi, but notice what Ahmadinejad said: “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.” What does the word “rezhim-e” sound like to you? It turns out that it means “regime.” So what he was saying was that the Zionist regime should be eliminated. This is not at all the same as proposing that a country be wiped out."
http://original.antiwar.com/henderson/2012/02/05/is-iran-a-threat/
It might behoove you to do some homework before foaming at the mouth.
Iran has lots of OIL, therefore the US would like to take it. Second, Israel thinks somehow that it has dibbs on the whole mideast, because "the Bible tells me so!". Iran threatens everyone else, because it is the proverbial mouse backed into a corner. And lastly, we support Israel first because they are our biggest buyer of American made weapons, and secondly because the religious right in this country, somehow believes that Israel is instrumental in the "second coming".
So there is my simple minded opinion on the subject!
As to the funding of Islamist governments, remember that
Saudi Arabia is the chief funding operation, only of the Sunnis.
Therefore with the exception of possible support to Hezbollah and various elements in Syria, the Sunni Islamists get support all over the world -- from Indonesia to Algeria and even the United States. I'm not totally sure, but I think that the Palestinians are Sunnis.
Are they?
As for me, I publicly bow down to the Jews because I like getting invited to their social functions. I am a hypocrite, but so what? That's the way the world works. Behind their backs I call them fucking kikes and I maintain links to the neo-Nazis. When times get tougher here I want to keep my options open...dubble wink for you, good post anyway.
ONL,
To my knowledge, the Palestinians are Sunni. However, there isn't a whole lot of question concerning Shiite Iran's strong military links with Hezbollah anyway. I don't really know how that dynamic works.
Regarding Tom Cordle's comment:
I don't have time to address that one completely in the comments section of someone's blog. There are too many issues to address, including which population was indigenous to what extent (this is absolutely not a case like Europeans invading the Americas - the assumptions that no Jews were long-term indigenous and that the entire Palestinian population was indigenous are both incorrect) and how Jews before the foundation of Israel acquired land there (by purchasing it). Yes, one could make the claim that Jews acquired Israel originally by invasion, but the more recent Biblical example of this occurred about 3,300 years ago, presumably earlier than many European migrations that are currently accepted, possibly including Angles and Saxons into the British Isles though I'd have to check what we know about those dates. I don't think we have enough data to determine whether the Palestinians are descended from whatever peoples were in what is now Israel in 1,300 BCE. That what is now Israel represents the original Jewish homeland is, I believe, stated in the Qur'an.
Oddly enough, when Herzl first envisioned Zionism, he wasn't specific about where the Jewish homeland should be. It was other early Zionists who suggested going home.
Jews can try, but they can't very well expect others to let them have it both ways. You can't very well boast about conquest in your holy writ and simultaneously claim to have always been there all along or to have bought the land.
As to the anthropological aspects of this, there is far too much bigotry in that part of the world for a scientific conclusion to be drawn. It wouldn't surprise me if someone found proof that the Moses myth was related to the expulsion of the Aten One-God cult of Ankhanaten, and that the Hebrews were in fact expelled Egyptians. It would surprise me greatly, however, if that proof was accepted by either side.
Personally, I consider the whole miserable pissing contest a sibling rivalry, a competition between brothers, a replay of the Cain and Abel and Jacob and Esau myths. It's just too damned bad that the rest of the world keeps getting sucked into their family squabble.
Please read what I said more carefully "You can't very well boast about conquest in your holy writ". Frankly, I don' think this is an argument you can win with me -- let alone with most of the people in that region.
As far as I'm aware, the conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews has not been written out of the scriptures. Nor has the notion of being God's Chosen People, a notion others find hubristic and xenophobic. I understand that notion is a bit more complicated, but that doesn't make it any less objectionable to others.
Strikes me that is tantamount to the notion that Americans are God's New Chosen People, a basic tenet in the dogma of the Religious Wrong in this country. Same goes for the hubristic and xenophobic politics of American Exceptionalism espoused by Wingnut Republicans. I refer to this as the New Manifest Destiny.
As to your other point, yes, the conquest of Canaan was 3,000 years or so ago. But it's also true that 2,000 years passed after the Diaspora, during which those lands belonged to someone else.
You seem to be suggesting that the past is past, and we should all move on. An audacious hope, but that argument doesn't carry much weight in a part of the world where the past is never forgotten.
The Likud Party traces its origins to Menachem Begin and Irgun. Ben Gurion and the founders of Israel were secular socialists yet, by putting in place the Rabbinate, they created the foundation for a theocracy that has empowered a group of ultra-orthodox religious zealots to hold Israel and the Western World hostage. Secular Israelis, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim all suffer because of that fatal historic mistake.
Because of his familial and party roots, Netanyahu is congenitally incapable of negotiating peace with his Palestinians and his bombastic response to the threat from Iran is intended to create a causus belli that will lure the United States into war and unleash a cataclysm in the middle East.
Two problems:
1. You're speaking as if there hasn't been a Jewish presence in what was called Palestine by the Romans (to punish the Jews for revolting when the Temple was repurposed as a Roman temple) for 2,000 years straight. Not true. There have been Jews living there in small populations for most of that time. In 1948 the Jordanians destroyed Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter. It was called that for a reason and had been called that for an awfully long time.
In the 1800's, Palestine didn't have many people, period. It was a sparsely populated backwater.
After Jews started migrating to Palestine around the turn of the last century, their presence created jobs, which Syrian Arabs migrated to Palestine to take. Their descendants comprise part of what is now called the Palestinian population. Also, the reason Israel is able to support as large a population as it does has a lot to do with Jews reclaiming arable land from the desert. Without the Jewish presence, Palestine wouldn't support that many people of any kind. You seem to have this model in your head that the Jewish presence in Israel is analogous to the European presence in the Americas, only with some silly mythic origin crap. That's not an accurate picture.
2. Regarding the Chosen People: Before getting into what Chosen means and doesn't mean (it actually comes with zero perks other than the privilege of the work), it would help if you would remember WHEN we got the label. At the time, the competition was all pagan. Now, almost 100% of the competition worships God. We weren't ostensibly chosen OVER Christians or Muslims; their religions didn't exist yet.
I should also point out that every religion thinks it has a special relationship with whatever deity is its object of worship. That isn't unique to us. We seem to be unique in being criticized for it, but that's about it. The only way you can follow ANY religion is to believe that everyone else is wrong to the extent that they disagree with you. Incidentally, the reason we are criticized for it more than other religions is because of how often They evangelize Us; the basis of this criticism is that we don't willingly convert to their obviously superior successor religion to ours. Unlike Christianity and Islam, we don't evangelize. Because we predate them all, a lot of their legitimacy is based on superceding us and the fact that we don't roll over is intrinsically critical. We're not looking to be critical; we're looking to be left alone practicing our own religion. That's why Zionism happened in the first place - we went through two millenia of no single place letting us do our thing without giving us grief (and a whole lot worse) about it.
Not true. At the height of their power, Muslims were tolerant of both Jews and Christians, believing they shared in the Abrahamic traditions as people of The Book. Jews and Muslims both suffered when Catholics regained control of much of Spain, and adopted a "convert or die" policy.
Look, we can continue this as long as you like, but it is apparent to me that your view of history is clouded by your faith. Unfortunately, you are not alone -- that IS the root of the problem in the Mideast. And as long as that is the case, the problem will remain intractable.
In terms of Islam being more tolerant of Judaism than Christianity was during the Middle Ages, that's absolutely correct. I've made the same point many times when people try to tell me that Islam is inherently intolerant. It isn't; that's just where some of the Middle Eastern strains of Islam are at the moment. In all religions, emphasis changes from era to era. Jewish fundamentalism has gotten way crazier than it was, say, thirty years ago; we're not immune to the same crap other religions go through. Sometimes under Islam we had extra taxes because we were Jewish, but that beats the crap out of actual persecution.
OK, so now I'll ask you, being as you think my judgment is clouded by my membership in my particular tribe:
What do you suggest the Israelis do?
(I have my own suggestions and I am emphatically not a fan of the Netanyahu government, but still...)
Depending on the kindness of strangers doesn't exactly have a history of working. We were a particularly loyal minority in Germany, in many cases chauvinistically so. A lot of Jews in the German military were decorated for service in WWI. That passivism cost us a third of our worldwide population, and a third of the murdered were children.
So, what do you think would work? There are two criteria here:
1. Jews can continue to worship
2. Jews stay safe.
So, assuming that I've decided to clear the religious/ethnic haze in my brain and listen to your advice, give me some.
I'm listening. With no facetiousness whatsoever
I wish I had an answer; I don't -- and neither has anyone else in the last 3,000 years or so. The purpose of my comment in the first place was merely to suggest that while bombing Iran may have short-term political and strategic benefits, it is not likely to benefit Israel in the long run.
That's because it exacerbates the root cause of the problem, which in my view is tribalism, the Us and Them problem, a problem that's been around as long as mankind. Religion -- all religions -- have tended to add to the problem of tribalism, since it gives "tribes" one more thing to disagree about, something about which there typically can be no compromise.
While I agree that the US has historically been more tolerant of the Other -- with the notable and despicable exception of people of color (red, yellow, black and brown) -- and while religious freedom is written into our Constitution (tho religious tolerance is not) -- I fear a substantial portion of the population is becoming much less tolerant of the Other and the religion of the Other -- particularly when it comes to Islam.
It is clear to me that the Religious Right is hell-bent on establishing a theocracy based on OT "sharia" law. Witness the murder of abortion providers, the move to outlaw contraception even in marriage, the persecution of homosexuals, and the religious test for public office. For those into signs, these are all bad ones.
As for the unholy marriage between Fundies and Jews, I wonder how many Jews understand the true intention of the Fundies is not ecumenicism, but the destruction of ALL Jews who don't convert in the end times? I realize some Jews think they are playing Fundies for fools; I would remind them that's the same game Karl Rove and Krew played, and we see how that's turning out.
What strikes me as bitterly laughable about Kindergarten Kristians is that they don't seem to understand that Jesus was a Jew, and that the faith they claim is largely an invention of Saul/Paul -- also a Jew, I might add. In contrast, the teachings of Jesus -- at least as they have come down to us -- were quite tolerant and forgiving. To my mind, they also came down full force for pacifism and communism -- two ideas very much not acceptable to Kindergarten Kristians.
I fear I've wandered from the subject at hand -- on the other hand, I haven't -- it's all about tribal fundamentalism, and I have no cure for that other than patience and understanding -- both of which I (and the world) are running short of. One would hope that time and education would change this, but the evidence suggests tribes of every stripe are more and more embracing fundamentalism. I suppose that's to be expected in a fear-filled world.
But at least it appears our discussion is getting somewhat closer to a middle ground.
Most religions have competing priorities of compassion and vigilance. Whenever vigilance has the upper hand, expect a problem. It doesn't matter which religion it is, emphatically including mine.
I agree that the American Religious Right is trying to get us to conform to their version of sharia. In most respects I don't expect them to be successful, particularly when it comes to gay rights, because the demographics on views shift so heavily as you get younger. The pro-gay-rights majority will age into power. It will just be hairy on the way.
Yes, Jews get that some support for Israel from the Christian Right is based on the assumption that sooner or later we won't be Jewish any more. Also understand that the Israeli government is playing the Christian Right card harder than the American Jewish community is. The majority of American Jews are way to the left of Likud, so Likud's unquestioning support in America tends to be concentrated in the Christian community, not with us. Support for Israel's survival is another question altogether.
About Islam in America, I tend to agree. Oddly enough again, Jews in America are kind of divided on this. The biggest organized movement, the Reform movement, which I belong to, tends to worry about anti-Muslim sentiment here because we don't like seeing any minority take shots like that. (One thing you might not know is that the initial movement to bring the Bosnian Muslim plight to the attention of the Clinton administration came largely from American Jews, not Muslims anywhere, because once we heard "ethnic cleansing" we understood instantly what it meant.) You might be surprised to find how much energy, particularly online, I've devoted to defending Islam.
My priority when it comes to Israel is twofold:
1. Survival. We worry about that. Israelis worry about that, in spite of the military imbalance between the Palestinian entity and Israel. This worry is completely serious.
2. A fair shake. I don't mind criticism of Israel. I think the settlements are shortsided and wrong, as an example. However, when the vitriol in Israel's direction reaches levels that are completely out of proportion to the vitriol expended in the direction of any other nation guilty of equivalent offenses, I see bigotry, and that concerns me. It is precisely this phenomenon that leads me to defend Israel a lot on OS. I'd rather have the luxury of criticizing Israel more but I don't, for kind of the same reason I've defended Islam to a lot of people - the criticisms I see and hear get too nuts. In Islam's case, you'll hear something like "I've read and studied the Qur'an and this is the horrible thing I found; in order to be a good Muslim you have to adhere to it because it's in the Qur'an. Proof!" That would be like an Imam somewhere getting up in front of his congregation and saying: "I've read the Bible and there is clearly support for slavery here. In order to be a good Jew or good Christian you have to adhere to it because it's in the Bible. Proof!" It bothers the crap out of me that people making these accusations don't understand that they're driving on a two-way street.
Especially with this:
"The problem is that once Iran acquires this ability it would change the balance of power in the Middle East. "
I think that the leaders of Israel are realistic enough to accept that as an unavoidable fact.
I think that even the leaders of America are becoming realistic enough to understand that the power balance in the world will an unavoidable way change so that America will not stay as the leading power of the world even not more than 5 years from now... The economy of America is now simply collapsing and the only real way to avoid the catastrophic end of the story is to reduce... the consumption of weapons.