Israel Preparing For Strike On Iran?

The escalating conflict between Israel and Iran has thus far been limited to a War of Words: Israel is threatening to engage in a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear installations while Iran is threatening Israel with total annihilation. Meanwhile, spectators throughout the world are insisting that either side is simply engaging the other with meaningless rhetoric, rather than meaningful threats. Yet a series of recent headlines seem to point to one insurmountable truth: Israel is Preparing to Strike.

Speaking to Wolf Blitzer of CNN last week, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced that Iran was rapidly approaching the point of no return for the procurement of nuclear weapons.

"This technological threshold is nearer than we anticipated before . . . because they are already engaged very seriously in enrichment. . . . [Reaching that threshold is a matter of] months rather than years."

(. . .)

"We will certainly try to convince other countries that . . . before they cross the technological threshold . . . measures will be taken to stop them." AP

Though Israel has been claiming for some time that a nuclear Iran was on the immediate horizon, a time frame that can be measured in months adds significant pressure on the Israeli government to take action.

More importantly, Olmert's decision to make a case for an Iranian strike on American TV makes it seem like Americans are making the decision with him, rather than following his lead. Indeed, the American people's perception of Israel is extremely important to the Jewish state, as Israel depends on its alliance with America.

Having already spoken to the American people, Olmert then pled his case to the US Congress:

"For us, this is an existential threat. A threat to which we cannot consent. But it is not Israel's threat alone. . . . A nuclear Iran means a terrorist state could achieve the primary mission for which terrorists live and die: the mass destruction of innocent human life."

He continued, "If we do not take Iran's bellicose rhetoric seriously now, we will be forced to take its nuclear aggression seriously later." Ha'aretz

Here, Olmert has testified before Congress that any action his country takes is in no sense gratuitous, but rather it is a matter of survival. Thus, the impression is such that a justified strike today will save countless, innocent lives tomorrow.

Of course, one might otherwise conclude that Olmert is simply engaging in the next level of rhetoric. However, that rhetoric has been followed by action in the past couple of days.

The Telegraph on Monday reported that Israel admits that it is buying 500 "bunker-buster" bombs, which would be the weapon of choice for attacking Iran’s underground facilities. The bunker-busters are otherwise of no use to Israel — with the possible exception of Syria. In fact, the only other major challenge that Israel currently faces involves the Palestinians, for which the weapons would be useless.

Nevertheless, Palestinian terrorist groups, along with Hizbollah, would pose a major threat should Israel decide to undertake military action against Iran. The terrorists have warned in the past that any such strikes would be immediately avenged. Israel’s only hope to quell that threat would have to come from within the Palestinian territories. For that, Israel is putting its faith into the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and his Fatah faction, who are currently battling those same terrorist groups.

The obvious problem with this scenario, however, is that Fatah is inadequately equipped to handle such a battle. The solution:

"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz decided on Thursday, in accordance to defense establishment recommendations, to allow the transfer of weapons and ammunition from Israel to supporters of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas." Jerusalem Post

Consider Fatah equipped.

If any of you got this far, you're probably thinking that Dr Politico is:

(A) A crackpot conspiracy theorist

(B) Way off base

(C) Handsome and charming

(D) All of the above

If you picked C or D you may be right. However, if you don't hear back from me in the next couple of days, you can be sure that the Mossad got to me (and I was right).


Posted by Dr Politico at May 25, 2006 7:35 PM
Comments
Comment #151397

I favor the America attack Iran rather than Israel.

That said… it is easy to see why Israel does not want to lose its nuclear advantage. Once an Arab Nation has the Bomb, Israel won’t be able to bully the Palestinians anymore.

Posted by: Aldous at May 25, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #151398

Dr P:

You are not a crackpot or a handsome or charming OOOPs sorry that slipped.

Anyways more to the point. Israel did do a preemptive strike to Iraq in the past. I think they will do it again if they perceive they are in immenant danger.

I agree with them if they do it. Iran has continuously stated that they will wipe Israel off the face of the earth. They have not been coy about it so Israel not only should they strike but they are obligated to protect their people.

So in conclusion DrP I have noticed this same thing as you have.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 25, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #151399

Aldous. Since when has Israel detonated bombs in a Palestinian Pizza parlor just to kill old women and children. Or at a bus stop. Palestinians are the ones who are the agressors not Isreal.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 25, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #151402

Dr.P
Should Israel do that preemptive strike they will do it with success. And maybe we should go out in the streets like people did when 9/11 occured.
I personally will leap for joy.

Posted by: tomh at May 25, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #151403

tomh

if you bring a couple of beers along I will definitely join you!

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 25, 2006 8:30 PM
Comment #151414

Israel has been prepared to strike for decades. Only thing holding them back is the proposition of losing world and UN backed support. Israel can defend itself as an arguable proponent for peace and sovereignty. Isreal knows from its own history that it cannot survive world wide condemnation. Israel will not preemptively strike unless either the U.N. would look the other way, or, they acquire a political ruling faction with support from the military as radical as Ahmadinejad in Iran. Also, not likely.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 25, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #151417

israel has been violating international law and the geneva convention for over 50 years. according to those laws, israel’attack on iraq was illegal. so what? the zionist state is so used to getting its own way, not much they do surprizes me anymore. however, i do not believe israel will attack iran when the u.s. will attack for them. since the u.s. congress is israel-occupied territory, the u.s. is being manipulated by israel in western asia and elsewhere.

Posted by: russell bates at May 25, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #151419

Randall Jeremiah:

Oh ofcourse!!!!

When the shrapnel from a hellfire missile kills/wounds 60 bystanders, its collateral damage.

When a car 30 feet away gets hit by a shockwave and kills 3 children, its an unfortunate occurance.

Heh. I am sure if the Palestinians had American made Apaches, American made missiles and American made Bradley Fighting Vehicles, the Palestinians would stop killing who they can and take on the IDF full on. As it is, they do what the Zionists have done 50+ years ago, kill civilians.

Posted by: Aldous at May 25, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #151421

Haven’t you noticed that in the past decade or so, Israel has been asked or perhaps forced to sit on the sidelines while American airplanes and shock troops do the dirty work?

The only way Israel can protect itself, the Iraq attack not withstanding, is to stay neutral while our forces do the killing.

Posted by: hank chapot at May 25, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #151422

It’s sad that when the topic of Israel comes up, rationality is left at the door.

Russel Bates,

you are truly a paranoid crackpot.

Aldous,

It’s always amusing to hear one-sided condemnations from Palestinian sympathizers. Somehow, within that ridiculous rant of yours you never once said killing civilians is wrong regardless of who’s doing it. But I guess you believe that power asymmetry justifies killing civilians. That, my friend, is a noble perch on which you rest.

As to your reference to 50 years ago, a bit more specificity is required (unless you’re actually talking about the Suez War, otherwise mighty fine coincidence).

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 25, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #151424

“The only way Israel can protect itself, the Iraq attack not withstanding, is to stay neutral while our forces do the killing.”

You’re kidding, right?

Israel has one of the most sophisticated militaries in the entire world. It’s the only country that possesses a functional anti-ballistic missile system in the entire world (read: “The Need to Block a Nuclear Iran).

Also From the Jerusalem Post:

Israel and the United States are battling over the sale of the next generation of warplanes, the F-35, with Israel considering canceling plans to purchase some 100 aircraft, IDF officials said Monday.

Israel is insisting it be allowed to upgrade the planes with its own technological warfare systems, as it has done with the F-15, the F-16 and the F-16-I, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the sides are trying to resolve the issue.

The United States has rejected Israel’s request, at least partly because the Israeli systems are considered the best in the world and provide stiff competition to US companies, the officials said.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 25, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #151425

Dr Pol

you are truly a paranoid crackpot
Nice job of critiquing the message, and not the messenger.

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 25, 2006 10:13 PM
Comment #151426

Russel, I meant it with love, though I apolgize if I was offensive.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 25, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #151427

hey, Russell bates, seems like ive heard that kind of speech before, coming out of germany in the 1930s, try to run your Bates MOTEL, Instead of your Bates mouth.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 25, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #151428

I strongly believe that either the USA or Israel will strike Iran. It will make more sense for Israel to do so for America’s case. That will America will be in a better position to react to the Iranian response. America has Armies on both sides of Iran. If Iran attacks those Armies in any way it will be an act of War, particularly if Israel did the bombing. So sick’em Israel!

Posted by: Theway2k at May 25, 2006 10:17 PM
Comment #151432

Theway2k,

“America has Armies on both sides of Iran.”

And unfortunatly, not enough troops in either one.

Posted by: Rocky at May 25, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #151438

Rodney Brown, your comment above violates our Critique the Message, Not the Messenger policy. Please comply with our policy to critque what is written, not the people WB visitors who write them, or you will lose your comment privileges here. This will be your only warning.

Posted by: WatchBlog Managing Editor at May 25, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #151448

I apologize, for the poor choice of words, but sorry, I will never apologize for the hate and vulgar predijices that occur on these posts.if you want to remove me fine, let it be.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 25, 2006 11:52 PM
Comment #151454

If Rodney says it with love, does that make a difference?

It wouldn’t surprise me if Israel strikes first. Don’t they always? I wonder what the world will say when they make a first strike with a nuke?

I say that with love, peace and flowers.

xoxox

Posted by: gergle at May 26, 2006 12:16 AM
Comment #151481

post at 12.16 am. please refer to my 11.52 post.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 26, 2006 1:51 AM
Comment #151482


I don’t think Israel can do it. According to the article, their delivery system will be a F15i. I doubt that it has the capability to fly a round trip to Iran and back. If it doesn’t, will the planes land in Iraq and refuel? Or, will they be refuled in flight by American tankers? This is just one of several logistic problems that will have to be solved.

I believe that any strike against Iran will have to involve the United States and already involves us if we are furnishing them with block-buster bombs.

Might this just be retoric to give the Iranians something to think about. Another posibility is that this is the begining of a scheme to conceal American involvement to avoid Congressional approval.

If this attack takes place, it will be an act of war and reprisals will be forthcoming. Although Iran is not a military superpower like Israel they have the capacity to inflict serious damage on Israel, American troops in Iraq and the oil fields in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. If the oil fields were knocked off line for even a short time, it could cause serious damage to the World economy.

Posted by: jlw at May 26, 2006 2:08 AM
Comment #151496

The Iranians better hope that the US, not Israel deals with the Iranian nuclear program. Israel has the firepower, no doubt, but they wouldn’t show as much concern for collateral damage as the US would. Given Israels geographic and political relationship with Iran, I wouldn’t expect them to take great care when attacking the nation that has sworn that Israel will cease to exist.

BTW, Doctor, thanks for the excellent article.

The complaint that regional if not global war will erupt in the event that Israel deals preemptively with Iran is interesting. I never see these same peace bringers denouncing Iran for its open intention to see Israel gone. Where are the cries that Iran must be reasonable for fear of inflaming the region? Prior to September 11th, these same peace bringers demanded that US keep its nose clean and start no trouble in the Middle East for fear of starting a conflict with the forces that clamored for American blood. The strategy of waiting to be attacked didn’t work so well for America and I don’t think it will be beneficial to Israel either.

In support of the good Doctor’s premise that conflict maybe imminent, I offer an article in the 5/29/06 Weekly Standard, “Reading Ahmadinejad in Washington” by Hillel Fradkin. Fradkin, unlike most analysts, does not discount the flowery, threats of rising muslum supremacy contained in Iran’s letter to Bush. Instead, he points out that it is characteristic of jihadist leaders to issue a warning to their enemies of the inevitable, rise of their interpretation of true Islam and the dire consequences of those found lacking in the requisite virtues. He also points out that Ahmadinejad has been positioning himself to claim the mantle of a prophet of the Hidden Imam, the ultimate authority in the muslim hierarchy. He has claimed a vision of the Imam (while in the UN building) and claims to be the voice of the teachings of the prophets. This messianc view of Ahmadinejad may take hold, with one ayatollah having referred to the recent letter as the “hand of God”.

While the talk of the destruction of capitalism and democracy may seem like so much fluff to Westerners, it is playing differently to the Muslim audience who are taking a different message from Ahmadinejad’s letter.

The Iranians are playing with almost all their cards on the table. Only the hole card, the timetable for nuclear capacity, is hidden, and the Israelis, like good card counters, have a pretty good idea what, or rather when, that card is. The last report I heard was that the Israelis were willing to give negotiations no more than 12 months. Accoding to Dr.Politico, the time is even shorter.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 26, 2006 4:52 AM
Comment #151519

Rodney, my point was that this policy is a bit of a fraud, but it does help civility I suppose. I’ve simply learned that you only have to veil your digust at the vile rhetoric slightly and watchblog is totally fine with it. Rewording attacks to avoid directness is the most common veil. Personally, a penis is a penis to me, fig leaf or not.

I try to only rage against those that attack with venom by returning their venom, but a lie is still a lie and does not earn my respect.

Posted by: gergle at May 26, 2006 7:41 AM
Comment #151526

Rodney,

As I understand it, you can put all the unveiled hatred you want into your posts, as long as you direct it at the MESSAGE, and not the MESSENGER. You can express disgust at what Russell is saying, but avoid personal attacks against HIM. Subtle difference at times, I know, but it makes the difference between a heated debate and a flamewar.

Now, getting back to your message…

Why exactly do you equate Russell’s message with the Nazis? While I don’t jump on the ‘Israel = Evil’ bandwagon per se, they actually HAVE violated the Fourth Geneva Convention several times in their handling of the Palestinian occupation. These violations aren’t justification for suicide bombings by any means, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t happening.

Israel does actually make mistakes, and occasionally violates laws and human rights — just like many other civilized nations (including the U.S., Great Britain, France, and many others). Pointing out those violations doesn’t make one a Nazi.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 26, 2006 8:38 AM
Comment #151583

Rodney- dont let russ “bate” you. No matter what the smear campaigners or hate-mongers spew,the fact is that Israel is a bastion of democracy in a very troubled area. They have been a friend and ally for some years,and deserve our respect and cooperation. This does not mean however,that they are on the moral high ground in all their dealings,particularly with Palestinians. Russell-if it was up to you we would throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Posted by: jblym at May 26, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #151589

israel a democracy?baloney, unless you are jewish. over 90% of stolen land in israel is only for jews. an israeli marrying someone from the occupied territories cannot bring their spouse to israel. house demolitions,deportations,targeted killings,checkpoints,targeting of children by idf snipers,etc. israel is a theocracy

Posted by: russell bates at May 26, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #151595

Russel,

“israel is a theocracy”

While to no extent do I agree with your conscusion, I’m unsure as to why you’re bothered.

Is your antipathy reserved for Israel alone or is it the entire Middle East that sickens you?

After all, if Israel is a theocracy, and the human rights violator that you believe it to be, then Israel is simply a typical Middle Eastern country. Please clarify your position:

A) Anti-Israel

B) Anti-Middle East

C) you tell me

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 26, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #151603

russell bates,

israel a democracy?baloney, unless you are jewish. over 90% of stolen land in israel is only for jews. an israeli marrying someone from the occupied territories cannot bring their spouse to israel. house demolitions,deportations,targeted killings,checkpoints,targeting of children by idf snipers,etc. israel is a theocracy

I’ve read several sources claiming similar things, but have failed to find much to back it up in research. The only Israeli law that I’ve found that favors Jews over anyone else is the Law of Return — that Jews that move to Israel are automatically accepted as citizens, while everyone else has to go through the standard beaurocracy.

Of course, there are other laws that could be seen as favorable to Judaism, even if they don’t single it out. For example, there are laws limiting the right to proselytize religion (attempt to convince others to convert), which is much more convenient for a religion that people are born into (i.e. Judaism) than one that actively converts (i.e. Christianity).

Also, in Israel, there is no such thing as a civil marriage — ALL marriages are religious marriages. While this doesn’t put Jewish marriages as any more important than Christian or Muslim marriages, it does discourage interfaith relationships.

Still, this hardly qualifies Israel as a Theocracy. Israel is no more theocratic than the U.S. was in its first 50 years.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 26, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #151604

Aldous:

I read your links. they are defiantly interesting reading. I have to say though they seem a bit revisionist. I have studied this particular topic a bit and I have read much of the stuff he used for quotes. Much of it comes from out right Anti Semetic folk (I know the ifamericansknew (iak) says they are jewish) while others are made by archeologist and so forth. Many are very biased and are interpreting things there way as opposed to taking facts for facts.

I will give you an examlple. On the IAK site it said at the beginning that it is not true that the Jewish folk who came there purchased there land. Later he said they purchased there land from Arab Landlords who did not live there but were absentee landlords. That last statement is true. They did purchase land from landlords who did not live there. Which meant that is was their land not the arab lands. The peasant farmers who were there knew they did not own the land.

Also he calls the Arabs indigenous to the area but later states that they have only been there 1200 years. He also states that the canaanites were the real indigenous people (which is true) but that they are fully unknowable at this time. I am sure if you study history you realize that Israel goes further back on that land then 1200 years.

If you want to blame the Italians for this fighting between these two sides you probably could since it was Rome that caused the last diaspora for the jews.

there are many people who like to revise history and those sites are just another one of those. I could go on and on but this post would end up way to long.

going back on topic. I do not wish to see Israel make the first strike but they have a right to protect itself against and enemy that has publically stated (to the world) that it wants it total destruction.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 26, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #151608

Russ-I feel your pain,but let talk facts. Land taken during unprovoked attacks by belligerent neighbors is fair game. Or are you suggesting we give back California,New Mexico,and Arizona. In point of fact,Mexico has a better claim than The surrounding Arab States. Where people can live is a internal social problem that we can object to but not change,within the confines of their autonomous borders. While you may argue that the Orthodox factions in Israel wield too much influence,they do not have complete control. It is a democracy in the truest sense,but also a country that is very much under the yoke of terrorists ,extremists,and powerful and ruthless neighbors. Israel is in a very real way a country that hangs under the sword of Damocles.

Posted by: jblym at May 26, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #151612

jblym,

Land taken during unprovoked attacks by belligerent neighbors is fair game.

That’s true… Israel has every right to lay claim to the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights. While some Arab nations (specifically the ones that these lands were taken from) might object to that, most of the international community won’t.

Where the international community objects is here…

Where people can live is a internal social problem that we can object to but not change,within the confines of their autonomous borders.

This is where the real problem lies. The Fourth Geneva Convention allows for a country to take land during wartime, but requires that the country accept the people with the land. It forbids moving the native people off of that land, or moving your people onto that land, for sake of demographic change.

This is where Israel is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They need the land — or at least control over it — for defensive reasons. But, if they just make it all part of Israel, they’d have to accept the population, too, which would make Palestinians, not Jews, the majority population in Israel. So the solution for the last 50 years has been to “occupy” the territory, leaving it and its population in limbo.

Imagine if the U.S. occupation of Iraq lasted 50+ years. Or, even better, imagine if we were still occupying Japan and Germany. Would you agree that something was wrong with the situation then?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 26, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #151618

Rob Cottrell,

There is some truth to what russel claims about spouses being barred from living in Israel.

Read more about that law here.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 26, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #151626

Here is a big part of the problem. The
Arabs are not native. Yes they have been there for about 1200 years but the Jewish people where there even before that. The Jewish people come from, originally what we would call Iraq today. The native folks were Canaanites which are no longer with us. I do not see the claim Arabs say they have there. I have no problem with them living there but I have a huge problem with the terrorism that is rampant from many of the Arab organizations that reside there.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 26, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #151632

Aldous: How could you! Trying to sneak that revisionist history past knowledgeable true believers.

Posted by: jlw at May 26, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #151633

Rob- I used the term autonomous borders specifically. A large part of the righeous paranoia Israel feels is in the fact that it needs a buffer. What will become the de jure borders is still up in the air. I think that more has to be done to have the Arab States not only recognize Israels right to exist,but to move them toward a moderate policy more like Jordans.
Its hard to sleep at night when you know that the person sleeping next to you may hold a knife to your throat at any moment. Hopefully,the wall will go a long way toward easing the Israel’s discomfort.

Posted by: jblym at May 26, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #151636

And by the way,what makes you think we are not still occupying Germany and Japan? And Korea by the way.

Posted by: jblym at May 26, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #151640

Dr Politico,

There is some truth to what russel claims about spouses being barred from living in Israel.

Indeed there is. But as far as I can tell, there’s no religious bias in the law. It simply bars Palestinian citizens (regardless of religion) from gaining residency in Israel on the basis of marriage alone. While I disagree with the law, I don’t see it as showing any religious bias, or in any way justifying the label of “theocracy”.

jblym,

Its hard to sleep at night when you know that the person sleeping next to you may hold a knife to your throat at any moment.

Absolutely true. But remember, that works both ways. There are hardliners in Israel who would like to see Zion stretch from the Nile to the Euphrates. Thankfully, they’re not in power today, but they have been in the past, and they may be in the future. They’re the big reason that Israel hasn’t been able to act more decisively in opposing Jewish settlements in the occupied territories — the hardliners support them.

Those sentiments make the Arabs nervous, too. Keeping these hardliners out of mainstream Israeli politics will be as important, in the long run, as encouraging moderate governments in the Arab states.

And by the way,what makes you think we are not still occupying Germany and Japan? And Korea by the way.

Hey! That’s MY argument! And don’t forget Kosovo… and, until a few years ago, France. In 2004 (I think), we finally closed our last air base in France, thus ending a 60-year American occupation…

It’s nice to see someone else notices these things…. :-)

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 26, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #151753

What was it Ben Franklin wrote in Poor Richards Almanac?
“an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”
and
“there are no little enemies
Israel would be foolish and doomed if they didn’t prepare to take out Iran, and so would we!

Posted by: JR at May 26, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #151777

JR,

Israel would be foolish and doomed if they didn’t prepare to take out Iran, and so would we!

I have no doubt we’re preparing to take out Iran. We’ve been preparing to take out Iran for decades now. That’s what the Pentagon does… it determines who our enemies could be, and makes plans to handle them. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if they have an invasion plan for CANADA laying around somewhere… :-)

But there’s a difference between preparing to take them out and actually doing it. The big question to me is, have we prepared enough that we won’t have to take them out?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 26, 2006 8:36 PM
Comment #151808

Rob
Wearing out the UN diplomacy options, hoping and prodding and dangling the carrots in front of China and Russia, waiting for the EU to apply pressure. Reagan used to bug the heck out of Gorby by constantly saying - “trust but verify”. But he was dealing with a person who was at least open to rational discourse. We cannot afford to trust Iran, until we can first verify the dismantling of their nukes. No sane person looks for war as the solution, but no sane person stares at gun pointed at their head and asks to talk about it for just a while longer as the trigger is pulled. Push comes to shove, we and or Israel must shove first. It’s not just a matter of protecting Israel or even the greater middle east, Mahmoud has designs on being the new Islamic strongman, and his stated intent is to destroy all things not Islamic. I pray words will be the end of the situation, but demand that my government be prepared to protect my friends, my family and my country using all means necessary.

Posted by: JR at May 26, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #151809

Aldous, just imagine how many people a hellfire missle could kill if it was aimed at them!

Posted by: scolex at May 26, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #151901

yes,israel and the u.s. came from stolen land. the difference is that israel stole its land when there were international laws against such goings on. also, check out “today in palestine”,palestine chronicle, and palestine news network. read the book by robert fisk: the great war for civilization. read the websites over time and only the most crazed fanatic will insist israel is justified in its state terrorism of the palestinians

Posted by: russell bates at May 27, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #151910

russel,

“the difference is that israel stole its land when there were international laws against such goings on.”

Oh, so it’s not a moral issue, it’s a technical issue.

“only the most crazed fanatic will insist israel is justified in its state terrorism of the palestinians”

And only the most blind ideologue will insist that the Palestinians are justified in theirs.

“also, check out “today in palestine”,palestine chronicle, and palestine news network.”

And for more irrefutable facts, check out Mao Zedong’s Little Red Book.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 27, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #151934

DP,

You’re right on point with this one. Except for one thing; Mao’s Red Book.

A lot of people rag on the little book for the sake of its redness, but few have actually read it. If you read it you can see its just a bunch of borrowed and rephrased philosophies of the Greeks. Mao actually borrows a lot more from Plato than from Marx in the book. A lot of the platitudes in the book are also completely paradoxical within the reality of modern China. It’s not just a copy of the good ol’ Manifesto.

Regardless, the little red book is actually an interesting thing, given the dynamics of its heritage and the personality of its author. It’d only take you about 15 minutes to read, check it out.

Posted by: beijing rob at May 27, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #151943

beijing rob,

Thanks for the tip; I’ll definitely check it out :)

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 27, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #151944

Russell Bates, Dr Politico, etc.,

The more I learn about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with history and context, the more I come to one overwhelming conclusion — that both sides are human, just like everyone else, and are motivated by the same loves/hatreds and hopes/fears as the rest of us. If you really see one side as the Good Guys and the other side as the Bad Guys, then you don’t understand the conflict.

There are a lot of people out there eager to prove one side right by portraying the other side as inhuman, unfeeling animals. While they may make interesting debating opponents, they really only make the problem worse.

I recommend that all of you take time to research the issue, without eyes to “prove” anything. You may be surprised at what you find.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 27, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #151951

Rob Cottrell,

I have adequately researched the topic and if you read my comments more carefully you’ll realize that I never claim that one side is right and the other side is wrong. Actually, most of my posts have been in response to people claiming that Israel alone is to be blame. I have basically said exactly what you are saying. I am with you 100% on this.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 27, 2006 2:57 PM
Comment #151958

Dr Politico,

I apologize if I seemed to direct my comment to you. It was directed at the group in general (less emphasis on the specific names, and more on the “etc.”).

So, out of curiosity, are you actually a “Dr”? If so, what kind? Medical, Dental, or Evil Genius? :-)

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 27, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #152379

Rob,

It simply bars Palestinian citizens (regardless of religion) from gaining residency in Israel on the basis of marriage alone.

As you said, “jews that move to Israel are automatically accepted as citizens”.
Which mean that jews living in palestine are not bared to gain residency if they married with a Israel citizen, *just* because they’re jews.
While a non-jewish palestinian married with an Israel citizen will be bared, period.

Sorry, but IMHO that’s far from being “regardless of religion”. Doesn’t make alone a nation a theocracy, though.

PS: Subtracts jews from palestinian citizens and guess what major proportion of faith believers you’ll get… Still “regardless of religion” case?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 29, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #152387
Hey! That’s MY argument! And don’t forget Kosovo… and, until a few years ago, France. In 2004 (I think), we finally closed our last air base in France, thus ending a 60-year American occupation…

Correct.
Although I think it was more a rented building on a french air base (Istres IIRC) than a full american air base hosted in France…
The american “occupation” of France was, if something like this ever happened, way shorter than 60 years!


Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 29, 2006 10:36 AM
Comment #152399

Philippe Houdoin,

“While a non-jewish palestinian married with an Israel citizen will be bared, period.”

Actually that is not the case. If you want to learn more about the law, go here.


Posted by: Dr Politico at May 29, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #152411

Philippe,

Yes, there’s bias when you combine the Law of Return with Citizenship and Entry Law. But the bias is in the Law of Return, not in the Citizenship law.

And it’s questionable whether this is “religious” bias at all. Jews are as much a Race as they are a Religion. The Law of Return doesn’t differentiate, so I honestly don’t know which it refers to. But I continue to see references to “people of Jewish descent”, which implies more of a racial division than a religious one.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 29, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #154014

Jerimiah, I am glad someone is actually defending Israel! I wish people would take a look at a map. Israel an agressor!? She is smaller than the State of Rhode Island, surrounded on all sides by hostile Muslim nations dedicated to her total demise! What about this tiny state engenders so much hatred in the world? All she wants is to be left alone, and her people granted the right to exist as a free state! Why should that be such a thorn in the side of all Islamic lands? For the answer, you must go back much farther than Mohammand, to the days of Issac and Ishmael. The hatred started then, and Mohammed just built a religion around that hatred, and decided to lump Christians in with the Jews,making a clean sweep of everyone except Muslims! It worked really well for him, as succeeding centuries accepted hatred of Jews, and more recently Christians, as a world-wide sport. It seems as though every nation on earth now, except our government, would be happy to see Iran and the Hamas wipe out Israel tomorrow, if possible! One tiny little piece of land,more hotly contested than any other place on earth! And it belongs to the JEWS! Ironic, isn’t it?

Posted by: Angel 1 at June 3, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #166039

I think it is telling that Israel will go to such lenghths to rescue their soldier,whereas America will diddle around until the soldiers are found mutilated in the street.Which country would you rarther have backing you in a bad situation?

Posted by: LR at July 9, 2006 12:53 AM
Post a comment