the reason you can't comprehend Mr raimondos article is because he is not a lawyer making a case. Here in America we have a saying that you can indict a ham sandwich. Well iran is that sandwich here. You out a microscope on any country you can make them look like Hitler. India has a class of people who have to clean up the feces of the higher castes. China has big statues of Chairman Mao the biggest mass murderer in history.

but India and China are not a threat to the United States. The only difference between them and iran is they are a client state and Iran is not.

Is there anyone who doubts that saudi Arabia has far far more tro do with al queda than Iran? You'd have a next to impossible hard time proving it as they are proudly a wahabi state.

If you honestly feel that if the United States military left the middle east completely and allowed them to live as they ahve for thousands of years that they would STILL start an apocolyptic nuclear war you are demented.

When one tries to distort the reality of an argument by accusing people of personal attacks, then it's time to admit defeat. I expect no less, after reading the nonsense you have written in defense of your "Bomb Iran Now". That position is indefensible....and hence now you throw dust in your opponent's eyes and hope everyone looks away quickly. THAT is a shame.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6659239.stm

Your wrong translation of what Iran's President said is enough to question the rest of your sick writings. He never said that
Israel will be wiped of the map.
Although that would be surely the best thing to happen for peace in the Middle East.
Let all Jews emigrate to Australia, there is enough desert to make green, less original people to displace, and it is a former Brittish colony, like Palestine was before the Haganah and Stern gangs' terrorists started the genocide of the Palis.

Mister Freund,
i really don't know if you really believe the crap you are writing or if you are just lying to make a case for the agenda you share with a lot of people in Israel and in the USA.
Do you really think that Iran can destroy (if attack) the USA even with nuclear weapons??? Ok Ok Ok! with the possibility of getting a few nuclear bombs in 10 years, Iran is going to attack Israel and the USA ... LOL!!!!

As for the "wipe out of the map" thing, please read the following article. The Iranian president is mistranslated ... what's new. Everything goes when it comes to the zionist land grabbing and USA oil resources nabing agendas:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html

The only way you could justify attacking Iran is by trying to convince us that the iranian regime is full of mad men. I'll just post the following link to respond to that: http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/07/24/die-with-love-version-2/ as to let you know that madness is not always where you think it is.

Ignoring this denigrating "discussion" for the moment, it's clear to me what the larger problem is. The problem, my friends, is governments and their habit of interfering with the daily lives of normal people. Despite what Iran's idiot leadership says, I have no more malice towards Iran's people than I do towards fellow U.S. citizens whose own idiot government just doesn't talk about killing perfectly innocent strangers, but actually does it. I don't want to see Iranians, or North Koreans, or Venezuelans, or Cubans, or any other enemy du jour, blown away because of perceived threats to interests of governing elites. Eliminate governing elites, both here and abroad, and these so-called security problems will go away. Do people really think that Muslims hate Jews, and vice versa, because of differences in religion? Of course not! Much of the hatred exists because people are manipulated by elites into hating The Other, as a tool for protecting the interests of power concentrated into the hands of the few. Let us govern ourselves and not only will the violence among nations diminish (as will the concept of the nation itself), but as an added side benefit, know-nothing mouthpieces-for-power like Michael Freund will have to find a real job!

Mark my words, Freund: Bomb Iran and Israel will only sow more seeds of self-destruction.

...these kinds of hatreds and organized hate campaigns have to be orchestrated by people with the resources to mobilize.  Still, ridding the world of government sort of neglects the entire last 300 years' history--the development of centralized power and nation-states has not been entirely evil, nor is it something any sane person can wish away.  Centralized power was necessary to the creation of raods, networks of communication, the avaliablility of health-care.  Large-scale urbanization, which was also a result of the rise of central government and nation-states, also forced a spatial experience that led to salon life, the buzzing of ideas in the public sphere and the very possibility of any form of effective organized self-governance.   Not that this coin doesn't have its dark side, many points Mike just made.  Most specifically, the idea of nationalism has had a similar effect--at heart it is a form of outgrouping and tribalism, which makes it inherently dangerous.  At the same time, it is the form of social organization that signaled the end of the era of naked empire.  It is hard to concieve (though some are trying) of a newer and better way of 'imagining community,' to use Benedict Anderson's term.  Ottoman history shows a very different relationship of Jews, Muslims and Christians prior to the advent of nationalism.  Bombing Iran is a terrible idea.  But to suggest that it is only late 20th century Anglo-American Western meddling that has created problems in the Middle East is to neglect the entire history of Ottoman sultans selling economic advantage to Europe in the form of the capitulations.  lester seems to think that if we'd just leave the Middle East alone, everything would be dandy--that's hardly the case.  Unfortunately, after Europe bought and ultimately subjugated the majority of the Ottoman empire, especially upon defeat in WWI, most of the countries in question were stripped of their autonomy and their existence still continued to serve interests in Europe.  This is why the piety of Europeans--especially the British, Germans, French and Russians--over the Iraq war smells fishy.  For anyone with a historical memory at all, the issues in the region absolutely must be interpreted with the capitulations, the Great Game, and imperialism in mind.  There is a distinct odor of passing the buck and washing one's hands of colonialism, fascism, and Nazism--all gifts from the continent.  Which leads us to the other issue--fascistic ideas filtered their way into the Middle East by way of scholars who went to Europe for their education (for instance, Ba'athism was practically birthed in Vichy France).  But while fascism was defeated and discredited in Europe, it lived on in spirit in the regimes of the Middle East.  Neither the U.S. nor Britain is responsible for having invented fascism or for its migration to the oil-rich Middle East (though they DO bear blame for having allowed these regimes to thrive according to ther use in the Cold War).  If lester imagines that these poisonous ideas can inform governments and all will be well as long as they are just left alone, he's got very little comprehension of where fascism's necessary end lies.  It is not an isolationist or non-aggressive way of life.  I find it amazing to see that Freund and Raimondo actually get billed as intellectuals, given the absolute poverty of the arguments they've presented to one another.  No one has yet offered sufficient evidence that Iran will develop nuclear weapons sooner than its fed-up liberal majority will turn Iran around.  According to Danny Postel, activists in Iran mainly read Hannah Arednt, Isaiah Berlin and Habermas.  A new liberalized superpower in the Middle East inspired by the ideas of such thinkers--one that has good memories of America's right action and support as opposed to bad memories of its constant militaristic interventions couldn't be such a bad thing, does anybody think?  Its no more idealistic than Freund's imagining that dropping bombs will inevitably lead to security for America and Israel.  AND its far more realistic than Raimondo's fantasy that a clerical oligarchy who jails famous fiction writers and murders them in prison could be so unthreatening.                             

...that Iran probably needs nuclear weapons to defend itself.

His panicked call for war illustrates the precise reason that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is almost rational. Amedinejad hasn't written an essay entitled "Bomb Israel Now." But Feund did write "Bomb Iran Now." Unfortunately for all of us (Iranians especially), Feund is just one single member of an "intellectual" class in the US and Israel that will say anything to manipulate us all into war... again. These are the truly dangerous people - Amedinejad is a puppy dog in comparison.

Take 30 seconds and put yourself in the position of a person just like you, but in Iran: Don't you want to have military means to prevent the foreign powers from attacking you? Don't the Israelis seem to be the irrationally belligerent ones? Occupying and brutalizing the Palestinians - a battle the Israelis cannot win without engaging in genocide. Don't the Americans seem to be the irrationally belligerent ones? The invasion and occupation of Iraq are evidence that the Americans are more violent than they are intelligent. On top of all that, you have Feund and others calling for blood, and they aren't letting the truth get in thier way. Iran faces increasingly open and violent threats from the two most dangerous armies in the world. How would you defend yourself?

All the people advocating the bombing of Iran are Jewish, including Freund, Blumenthal, Joey Kurtzmann and even Josh Strawn, who tries to take a more tortured road towards bombing. I would guess all the people who oppose bombing are non-Jewish. That brings up the fact that the vast majority of the Jewish population in the world pushed for and supported the invasion of Iraq, bringing the US to the brink of disaster. Try pointing that out, and you will be painted as an anti-semite. But here we have the amazing spectacle of Jews plotting the destruction of Iran, and they might well succeed. But God help us if after Iran is history, we try to pin it on the Jews.

I'm seeing parallels here with Michael Moore's depiction of Iraqi Parklife right before the Evil Empire storms in. When will people realize that saying 'Iraqis' or 'Iranians' without qualifying which Iraqis or Iranians they are addressing makes for nothing more than pointless babble. The mullah regime didn't need to write a 'Bomb Israel Now' essay, they have billboard campaigns that say as much all over the country! Ahmadenijad is a puppy dog--but is Khamenei? Do you know that it is a common opinion among even most conservative Iranians that the clerics are liars and thieves? If Iranian citizens want nuclear power it is more a matter of autonomy and national pride, not because they're any more eager than the rest of us to see what their leaders will do with them. You're right--American and Israeli armies are two of the most dangerous in the world--but to whom? Ba'athist dictators, Al-Qaeda militants, Iranian theocrats, all of whom are economically, psychologically, and politically violent toward average citizens (mostly fellow Muslims) as a matter of daily course. Just because Freund is a nut, doesn't mean you should get behind the mullahs who are loathed by the majority of people they 'govern--' people who want the freedom to wear what they like, read and listen to what they like, say what they like and make democratic political decisions. Take 30 seconds, indeed!! Put yourself in the position of a student brutally assaulted for non-violent protest--maybe even a student whose friends were murdered by the Ansar-e Hezbollah during that protest. Now imagine that you discover that some liberals in America think that the friends of your attackers--your friend's killers--should have nuclear weapons. I took those 30 seconds and it makes what you've just said sound totally weird.

"All the people advocating the bombing of Iran are Jewish, including Freund, Blumenthal, Joey Kurtzmann and even Josh Strawn, who tries to take a more tortured road towards bombing." 

I hesitiate to say what I'm about to say, because I wouldn't want to do anything to confirm your stupid non-point.  But for the record, I'm Scottish, English, French, Cherokee, Greek and--oops!--Azeri/Persian.  Raised protestant, no longer subscribe to any kind of superstition, no matter how many years of cultural respect it has under its belt.  Also, everything I've written has been in staunch opposition to any military action against Iran.       

In America, we have TWO civilizations, not one. The first is based on reciprocity, the Golden Rule, human dignity, national sovereignty and our founding principles, e.g., "All men are created equal". The second, promoted by the "Skull and Bones" Establishment, rests on a fascistic self-destructive master/slave ideology -- "might makes right", "kill and be killed".

The second "civilization" sustains itself on fear and hatred -- the master-race must fear the slaves, Jews must fear non-Jews, Americans must fear OTHERS (Chinese, Russians, Iraqis, Cubans, French, etc..).

Synthetic fear quickly becomes an addiction: The fear-drug adds a veneer of "purpose" and "significance" to a meaningless self-hating existence. Like the paranoid, we delude ourselves into thinking that the whole world hates us. Thus we put ourselves in the center of the world and make ourselves seem "important".

Fear is the drug and war is the high. Our self-defeating behavior fosters an exciting genocidal orgy of death and destruction that leaves us feeling "vindicated". We go down in a blaze of self-pitying glory, corpses stretching to the horizon. How "wonderful"!

This is the dynamic that drives Freund. Underneath his hatred for the "Other", of course, lies an even greater hatred for self. He cannot face the man in the mirror, so he takes refuge in the predatory war-crazed collective.

All of this death and destruction is needless, of course -- as needless as the slaughter that occurred in Europe sixty-five years ago. There is an alternative: the FIRST civilization, the one that our naive cynicism has led us to dismiss. In fact, the FIRST civilization -- based on reciprocity and equality -- is the ONLY one that has a chance of working. And it HAS worked, to a large extent, here in America.

There is no way that Palestinians or any other group can or should be expected to accept subhuman "untermenschen" status: the master-slave ideology cannot possibly work! So the question then is "How long will we continue to cling to this failed ideology?" How soon can we recover the will to live and CO-exist with our fellow human beings?

Our fascistic self-pity may taste sweet, but it is a poison drug. Let us renounce this drug and discover the life we have scorned for the last sixty years.

Apparently you didn't see this where Jews were the largest religious group to oppose the Iraq War (I, for one, was in favor of it FOR reasons of oh, ya know, a little thing such as the human rights and safety of the Kurds).

 http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26677

77% of American Jews. Now what? I am awaiting the inevitable Gallup is run by the Jews statement.

Face it...your sad, angry life has no meaning so you have to lash out against someone. I pity you, I really do. What's more, it saddens me that people like yourself have loud opinions within leftist circles.

"All the people advocating the bombing of Iran are Jewish, including Freund, Blumenthal, Joey Kurtzmann and even Josh Strawn, who tries to take a more tortured road towards bombing."

My surname has only one n, "man" rather than "mann," please observe that if you again have cause to spell out my name. Generally the only Jews who spell their names "mann" are little dandies descended from German Jewish immigrants, precious little hothouse yekkes, but not me, no, I'm not going to bullshit you, my people are hale and hearty Galicianer stock, each a kaftan-wearing whirlwind of challah and schmaltz, that's how it was, storming out of steerage with pickled herring on their breath and in their beards, you could smell it from eight blocks away and the dudes didn't give a shit, they had 2nd cousin Bunya's address in hand and a mighty "Yawp" on their lips, and that was it. So next time, only one N, ya dig?

Yeah, right. This is a poll result from 2007. how many Jews supported the war in 2003? My unofficial poll had the following Jewish luminiaries, who represent a huge percentage of the media and Govt., as supporting the Iraq war:
Lieberman, Wolfowitz, Frum, Perle, Feith, David Wurmser, Tom Friedman, William Safire, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Scooter Libby, Natan Sharnsky, Norman Podhoretz, Elliott Abrams, Robert Kagan, David Horowitz, Chris Hitchens, Michael Weiss, Anne Applebaum, Jonah Goldberg.

This is of course, only a partial list. These people were responsible for getting the media to preach the war to the public. All Jews of my acquaintance also supported the war. I'd like to kow who those mysterious Jews are who opposed the war IN 2003. I know many are backtracking as swiftly as possible from their pro-war views to avoid the fallout.

As for those who still admit to supporting the war, the rationale given now is that they were sooooooo concerned for the well-being of the Kurds. I'm sure the well-being of Israel wasn't on their minds. Sell that to the brain-washed, brain-dead American majority.

20 whole Jews! How impressive Anon!  I also enjoy how two of them aren't Americans, one of whom (Hitchens) is an atheist.
If you'll remember the majority of both houses also voted in favor of the war, not very many Jews there my friend.
And trust me, vis-a-vis Iraq, there were any number of nations that posed far more of a threat to Israel. Your arguments are bigoted assertions with no proof to back them up other than your own hatred of Jews.  It takes a lot for me to play the anti-semitism card, but if it walks like a bigot, talks like a bigot, smells like a bigot..well anon., you are one angry person. I weep for you, I really do. And I weep for those Jewish acquaintances of yours (I enjoy that you don't apparently have any Jewish friends...well you can't trust them anyway, their loyalties clearly lie elsewhere) that do not realize what a tiny, angry person you are.

And even if 100% of all American Jews supported the war in Iraq, what would that prove?? That they disagree with your opinion? Or that they are part of a cabal to take over the world?  There are any number of opinions on any number of issues, some times people are wrong in hindsight, sometimes right, sometimes ill-informed, sometimes well-informed. Whether those are proven to be wrong or right is not an indemnation of an entire group of people's malevolent intentions in the world.  Oh, an entire group of people that makes up a percentage point of a percentage point of the world's population.

you look like a nice guy. intelligent and really friendly.
You lost me when you pulled the , er, anti-semite card ... hhmmmmm! c'mon!

I found nothing on Anon posty that could lead you to call him a bigot. The fact is that in the US, a huge majority of people of jewish heritage or friends of Israel were FOR the war.

In the Bush administration and in the media, at least 99% of those where FOR the war. I desagree with Anon when he says most of the jewish community in the world was FOR the war. I'M not sure about that. BUT at the same time, jewish people or so called friends of israel were FOR the war. Question is: are they representative of the majority? don't think so.

As for you being for the war for the sake of the Kurds???? GREAT now, hundreds of thousands have died for sake of the kurds. Reminds me of the death of more than 1000 lebanese AND 100s Israelis for the sake of a couple of Israeli SOLDIERS!!!!!!! what a logical ... logic!

Take care Ashprintzen and God bless ... Please, never be for any war...
Most of the time, those who want to start a war don't do it for ideas such liberty or freedom. GREED is always behind that. And oh yeah, a LOT of people (innocent) die.

I never have and never will be "for a war" in the sense of being in favor of violence. Never ever ever. I do, however, believe in the need to fight those who bring war to the world. I bring up my position on Iraq just in order to be honest;  that I had a point of view, one that trust me is NOT popular in jewish circles. Bully on me for ever thinking that this administration could pull off such a venture humanely and as ethically as possible. That does not, however, discount my point of view; it was and still is a legitimate perspective driven by a real and true humanitarian concern for people that were wantonly slaughtered and tourtered. Yes, I agree that it is awful that such things are now occuring in Iraq and perpetuated by our government. That does not, however, void the possibility that sometimes as a last resort war is both inevitable and preferable. It most certainly was preferable to the millions of Rwandans killed, no? Or to the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans? Or perhaps to today in the Sudan?
My point regarding Anon is this...perhaps the Jews that he named or knows who supported the war did so for any number of reasons: ideological, political, humanitarian, and yes some for malevolant reasons. But to suggest that such ideas are BECAUSE of their Jewishness links to any number of old anti-semitic ideas regarding Jewish power and loyalty. Half of this entire nation supported the Iraq War when it began, and Jews are less than 2% of this country's population. To suggest that such a small group wields such power is not only inaccurate, it is also based in old, reoccurring stereotypes.

ashprintzen brings up the same old slur used to shut down critics of Israel or the Israel lobby. The fact is that the people in power, in the media, who were in a position to influence the American public in the march to war, were mostly Jews. False insinuations were made about the connections of Iraq to 9/11, fake WMD claims. Judith Miller, anyone? Even Wolfowitz admitted that WMD was a smokescreen to get the public to support the war. True Straussian obfuscations. Sharon proclaimed that the Iraq war was good for Israel. People who opposed the war were painted as pansies, as traitors.

BTW, not all the neo-cons were American. Plenty of them were in the UK, including Nick Cohen, Hitchens annd this other Jewish guy whose name escapes me. Also, btw, Hitchens identifies as Jewish. After all, we are pounded with the fact that Judaism is an ethnicity as well as religion.

Also, I would like ashprintzen to explain the PNAC paper "A Plan for Securing the Realm", authored by such Jewish luminaries as Frum and Perle, which advocated the invasion of Iraq. This paper was presented to Netanyahu in 1997, and to Clinton as well, long before 9/11. However, Clinton wasn't going to invade Iraq, so the neo-cons had to wait so Bush could come to power. I won't forget how the media went after Gore and elevated the idiotic Bush to the Presidency.

Try to read a book about the selling of the Iraq war. The same tactics are being used on Iran now.

Mr Freund has lost the debate.
Raimondo's key point was that Israel has a secret nuclear program and that even with routine Soviet threats the West survived. So why should the West think that one nuclear weapon in the hands of Israel is a threat to humanity?
None of these points have been addressed in any way. Ironic that he has titled his response "The Logic of an Ostrich, the Temper of a Bully" Maybe he was describing himself...

srry, it should read one nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran

Guys! Come on, now. It seems like when we're angry or upset about something, we look for a monolithic "them" to blame for it. It's the JEWS! Alternatively, it's the PALESTINIANS! Or, the AMERICANS! We're not that mechanical, we're not clockwork automatons. When you look at the Frum-Wurzer-Kristol-Krauthammer clique, I don't know what you see. Me, I see Likudniks. Are they Jews? (Or Jewish?) Sure! But you simply can't expect me to believe that "the Jews" are behind everything. I know far too many Americans of Jewish extraction or confession who think that the invasion of Iraq was, as the Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons might say, "the worst idea, ever."

When I look at Ahmadinejad and Khameni, I don't really see "Iranians" or "Persians," I see the ruling clique of Iran. When I look at George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, I don't really see "Americans" but rather (ya guessed it!) the ruling clique of America.

I can easily understand why the Israeli government doesn't want Iran (or any other Middle East power) to get nuclear weapons. I can easily understand why, conversely, the Iranian government really wants nuclear weapons.

But some of Mr. Freund's comments make no sense. If Iran was to, for instance, nuke Israel . . . he wouldn't get much chance to destroy the rest of the West. Hasn't the air wing of the IDF shown it's ability to go pretty much anywhere it wants? And on the laughable theory that the IDF wouldn't rearrange Persian geography in a nuclear manner, I'm pretty sure that "the West" (or at least the US) would so do in short order.

Good points overall.
But:
1- AIPAC for example is very influencial when it comes down to foreign policy (middle east). May be the most powefull lobby in the USA. However, I understand that AIPAC does not represent the views of most of the american jews. It also understandable (not acceptable however) how people can easily link the acts of the likes of AIPAC to the whole jewish people. That's what happens when the US administration kills on destroy overseas. Then the american people become a target. Same for the US jews.

2- Jewish organizations are very powerfull and influential (not a de facto bad thing). That also is a fact. Might be a cultural thing. I for one believe many other groups should try to copy the many good things that are done my Jewish organization. BUT, the only downside (that I know of) is that they pretty much tend to be blindly Pro-Israel.

Those 2 points are NOT to say that jewish people are all for the conquest of the whole Palestine or for the destruction of Iran, Syria ...etc. Like in the US, I believe that small groupes have their own agendas and are manipulating the masses. BUT the actions of those powerfull few are why people tend to point the finger on all jews. And as you know, we, the people, are not that bright and we are so easily directed one way or the other.

As for wars, I again can tell you that most wars can be avoided.
I like your example of the Rwandan genocide. I know quiet a bit about that one. I'm a canadian of african descent, born in Cameroon (central africa). That massacre could have easily been avoided. UN troops where in Rwanda at the time. I guess you did not know that. They where simply told NOT to do anything because "proactive" intervention was NOT their mandate!!!!! can you believe that! People were killed in front of UN troops. At the start of the, a few belgian troops where killed. Guess what happened: THEY LEFT THE COUNTRY!!!!! (like the US left Somalia).
At the security council, they were doing kind of like the thing they did while Lebaneses were dying in the last war: Talking! That genocide led to the intervention of the KAGAME rebels who took over. FYI, KAGAME was backed (trained and armed) by ... the USA. They could have taken over way before the genocide. They patiently waited for a reason to take over and genocide was the perfect excuse.

As for Sudan, great thing again. Why is that nobody is doing anything. My (wild) guess is that humanity is NEVER behind the interventions... only strategic resources. In the case of Sudan, I heard something like China is there, backing the local government because of .... OIL! So NOBODY moves.

Sorry for being too long and sorry for the poor english.
As for what a french speaking african guy is doing on jewcy ...I guess it's the power of google and I consider myself a citizen of the world. I can't help but add my 2 cents on subjects that I believe very important.

Peace

Yes, great points vis-a-vis Rwanda (a conflct that I have studied quite a bit). In a way, your example of the UN troops precisely proves my point; UN Peacekeepers are not a fighting force, their role is specifically to ensure a peaceful resolution between two sides. However, in an instance like Rwanda where there is a clear, racist aggressor in power, wantonly slaughtering another group, peacekeepers are inherently ineffectual. Only direct militrary intervention (namely defeating the Hutu government) would have changed anything.

 Re: AIPAC...do we ever hear about a conspiracy of old people (the American Association of Retired Persons) trying to guide American foreign policy? The assertion that AIPAC is this rogue organization seems to be oft-overstated. While specifics of the organizations policies may vary from some normative policies, it is also a given truth that the majority of American Jews do support a thriving, safe and strong state, just in the same way that I am sure that you believe that there should be a Cameroonian homeland. Yet Jews are the only people condemned for speaking up in favor of their national homeland.

Anon's main, misguided and (I would say) anti-Jewish point--and this is at the heart of what makes it anti-Jewish--is that there were Jews involved with the decision to go to war in Iraq, and those decisions were driven by their Jewishness, rather than their philisophical leanings, political party or own personal convictions. And that is based in an idea that Jewish loyalty cannot be trusted. Again, at the start of the war nearly half of the American populace supported the idea, and both houses of congress voted in favor. Yet Jews, less than 2% of the population in the United States, and less than 1% of world population are given the blame--all because of their state that is smaller than New Jersey.

ashprintzen- why would old people want to guide are foreign policy? Besides, they're AMERICAN old people. They are not lobbying for old people in other countries

"Anon's main, misguided and (I would say) anti-Jewish point--and this is at the heart of what makes it anti-Jewish--is that there were Jews involved with the decision to go to war in Iraq, and those decisions were driven by their Jewishness, rather than their philisophical leanings, political party or own personal convictions. And that is based in an idea that Jewish loyalty cannot be trusted. Again, at the start of the war nearly half of the American populace supported the idea, and both houses of congress voted in favor. Yet Jews, less than 2% of the population in the United States, and less than 1% of world population are given the blame--all because of their state that is smaller than New Jersey. "

blah blah blh. tell someone who cares. I blame AEI AIPAC and and the bush admin for lying us in to war. tough if you ddon't like it. and the unfortunate truth is someone has to pay for that lie. So we're taking away the one thing the neo cons love most: the US's relationship and support of Israel. you play you pay.
Don't tread on me

Jews have already caused Communism, Socialism, Homosexuality, AIDS, Hollywood, the International Banking System and The Plague. Why not throw the Iraq War on top of the pile!

I personally.caused the release of all Wayans Brothers movies, so feel free to throw that one on the list as well.

I enjoy how while you say that you disagree with my points you don't actually offer an argument, just that you don't care. Thus proving just how misguided and specious your ideas are.

"Jews have already caused Communism, Socialism, Homosexuality, AIDS, Hollywood, the International Banking System and The Plague. Why not throw the Iraq War on top of the pile!"

I would argue that Socialism, Hollywood, IBS are all good things. You can also accuse Jews of another, rather small conspiracy.... the idea of seperating church and state. Jews were very prominent in the Enlightenment, and were very much in favor of a government set up by the people, for the people where religions could flourish and be left alone, free of persecution. Their history is precisely the lesson one should look at when even thinking of EVER justifying a theocratic state. Israel, is a theocratic state....and is therefore on the same institutional level as Saudi Arabia...and even the Taliban. Policy wise, of course there are differences, but at the very core of their "raison d'etre" they are identical.

A democracy cannot have a purely religgious character. Period.

Regardless of the fact that a community is less than 2% of anything, opposing the idea of a "right" based on religion over a native population is NOT hateful and it isn't nitpicking. Native populations deserve a homeland...not native religions. Jews weren't EVER the only occupants of Palestine. The distortion and silencing of Palestinian history is another subject all together. Demanding a homeland because of your religion is nonsense and is, ultimately, bound for failure.

Sorry...I think I've rambled.

Though I do think you are missing the point. haha, though first off I got confused and thought that you were pinning Irritible Bowel Syndrome on Jews...

 Ok, here is the point...Israel has a national character that is NOT, I repeat NOT religious. Saudi Arabia does, because they have sha'aria. Israel is a demoncracy without an official religion. And with multiple official languages. So if you are going to argue that Israel shouldn't exist, a nation for a PEOPLEHOOD (where all religions can practice freely), then you are basically questioning the inherent right of all nation-states to exist as constructed. This is a fair enough argument I suppose. But it does fly in the face of international law and the UN, and every sensae of post-colonial nation status.

I repeat, there IS the separation of church (umm synagogue) and state in Israel. It is a secular, liberal democracy. Check out Irshad Manji's chapter in The Trouble With Islam on her trip to Israel, I think it would be eye opening. Oh wait, but she is an agent for the Mossad, I forgot...

+( Israel is a demoncracy without an official religion. And with multiple official languages. So if you are going to argue that Israel shouldn't exist, a nation for a PEOPLEHOOD (where all religions can practice freely), then you are basically questioning the inherent right of all nation-states to exist as constructed.
)+ -- ashprintzen, 25 May 2007 1:30 pm

Ironic that you grant an inherent "Right to Exist" to your STATE, but grant no such right to non-Jewish human beings! This is a "Democracy" for Jews only, a "Democracy" where half of the population has been stripped of all rights! Isn't that a lot like the sort of "Democracy" Alabama had sixty or seventy years ago?

Israel calls itself "THE JEWISH state". Religious and/or ethnic segregation is its founding principle. In practice, this translates into horrifically violent ethnic supremacy: The all-important "Jewish gene" determines whether or not one is deemed human. Along with Einstein and Hannah Arendt and other prominent Jews, I find this ideology fascistic.

Would you support dividing up America and creating a separate state for each religion? Should all Methodists be forced to move to Montana, say, and all Lutherans to Maryland? If not, why not? If it is ok for us Americans to live together, why is it NOT ok for Jews and non-Jews to live together?

I think Zionists have things completely backwards. Where they advocate ethnic supremacy and division, I advocate equality and cosmopolitan mingling. Where they give rights to the state, I give rights to the human being.

Dividing people into separate little "Homelands" creates the basis for genocide: What is one supposed to do with people who insist on occupying the wrong "Homeland"? What happens when reality refuses to conform to ideology? Do we then bomb reality?

your idea of a borderless world, where puppy dogs and ice cream cones abound and love and harmony flows throughout the new Pangea!

Your examples are entirely specious in that they ignore both reality and history. Last time I checked every nation in the world has a majority character with minority groups living in it. Israel is the only state in its region that actually recognizes the full and equal rights of its minority citizens, by law. Yet they are the state that you believe shouldn't exist.

Half of the state? Umm, I am assuming you are speaking of the Israeli-Arab population, which is actually closer to about 20%. And they have equal protection, and it is the ONLY state in the Mid East where Muslims, Xtians, Druze, Bahai, etc...etc...of every stripe can practice (or not practice) their religion freely and openly.

Have fun in Utopia NZ, just like all other utopian visions for the world it is both inherently flawed and dangerous.

like i said, tell someone who cares. We want revenge for Iraq and we're going to get it.

an anger management course? Yoga? Rational thinking?

Lester, you are a sad sad person.  Yet I am glad that your ignorance and anger are so visibly on display here; it shows exactly the kinds of people that we are up against.

shut up

just kidding bro. you are being kind of condescending though

but you were the one who, instead of going the route of reasoned debate called for "revenge" and didn't care what I had to say. And at that I expunge myself from this conversation. Being against a war, or a government or whatever is a fully valid point of view (not correct necessarily, but valid and debate worthy). Spitting out platitutdes and accusations does nothing but inflame and close conversations. There is a distinction. Re-read your post...you want revenge and you are going to get it. Good luck, "bro" because I hate to break it to you, most people aren't buying it.

If I may interject--to what sort of revenge are you referring?  Revenge for the Iraq war I know, but be more specific...

I'm sorry man. I got frustrated. But it demonstrates that the " 77 percent of jews OPPOSED the war" thing doesn't make much of a difference to people who are upset about our involvement in the middle east. the go to guys for republicans on foreign policy still, amazingly, are the very pro israel neo cons. People think they are getting facts from them, but you and I know they what they are getting is at least colored by israeli propaganda. so the issue is Israel and the most vocal supporters of it are rich beltway jews. If you have difficulty seeing how that would lead to s revival of sorts of anti semetism and/or anti zionism you are pretty naive.

Maybe I'm not being straighforward enough here. this dude has a column called "bomb iran now". the implication is clearly some US involvement. what kind of pimp and ho relationship is this? All the billions we've given israel have corrupted it and it's drunk on it's own power. we've fomented socialism in the middle east with our money and weapons.

so everything about it is telling those who have the survival of america at heart to retreat from this dangerous friend.

Listen, it is perfectly reasonable to disagree with the perspective of yes, Iran should be bombed.  However it is also just equally reasonable to believe that it should for any number of reasons; flawed or unflawed. Whether you agree or disagree with a neo-con ideology is neither here nor there. What is problematic is that you attach this ideology that you hate so much to these peoples' Jewishness, rather than their philosophical pedigree, incompetence or inherent personality flaws. To spread ideas of shadowy cabals does nothing to further our understanding and in the process to avoid similar mistakes. Take some time to understand where the neo-cons came from, how their ideology evolved, how they aren't just monolithic, evil, greedy, corporate whores (not any more or less than your average democrat at least). 

Israel has fought for its survival since day one..and will continue to, I am sorry to say, for my lifetime. And it really gets to people to see Jews standing up for themselves. Well, tough luck...the ghetto has been broken for more than 60 years and we aren't the mere victims anymore. We fight back when we are threatened. Do not ever presume to know what I think. Israel is smaller than New Jersey, and would love nothing nothing NOTHING more than to live in peace AND to have a peaceful Palestinian state living next door. That is official government policy. Compare that to every Arab nation outside of Jordan and Egypt; after 60 years none recognize that there is a jewish state in the Middle East.

One more tiny little fact...

In 2000, 19% of the American Jewish population voted for Dubya. 79% for Gore.

In 2004, 24%. 76% for Kerry. Who is to blame again?

you don't think this guys jewishness has anything to do with the fact that he wants to bomb iran? Does he just like Israel because it has a pleasing shape?

repost

Irving Kristol, writing in"Irving Kristol, writing in 1973 (in Congress Bi-Weekly, a publication of the American Jewish Congress):

Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel... Jews don't like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States... American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don't want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel. "

" Here, for instance, is Here, for instance, is Norman Podhoretz, neocon godfather, writing about the centralness of Israel, in Breaking Ranks (1979):

There was, to be sure, one thing that many of even the most passionately committed American Zionists were reluctant to do, and that was to face up to the fact that continued American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs-- from which it followed that an American withdrawal into the kind of isolationist mood that prevailed most recently between the two world wars, and that now looked as though it might soon prevail again, represented a direct threat to the security of Israel
"

both quotes from Phil Weiss's blog

continues to ignore some of the points I made, including the one about the paper "A Plan for securing the realm", which calls for taking out Iraq, Iran and Syria. Is it a coincidence that enemy # 1 of the US now corresponds to that of the Jews? If the invasion of Iraq was not for Israel, why did so many American, English, French and Israeli Jews call for the invasion? Didn't matter if they were Republican or Democratic. Lieberman and Feinstein are both Democrats, and they are some of the biggest war-hawks around. Everytime I talk to a Jew, they rail about the dangers of Iraq and Iran. I haven't met a single Jew who has yet to condemn the war. Yet these polls show that Jews oppose the war. the only conclusion that I can come to is that Jews lie when called for these polls.

lester, some of the greatest thinkers and activists in the realm of social justice have been Jewish, too.  Did their Jewishness have anything to do with that?  some of the greatest thinkers period have been Jewish--Spinoza, anyone?  Did his Jewishness have something to do with that?  Was it Emma Goldman's Jewishness that made her agitate for women's rights?  ashprintzen, I agree wholeheartedly with the first paragraph of your last comment.  The second maybe not so much.  You rightly point out that so many on these threads neglect the complexity of philosophical leanings in American and Israeli politics.  But then can you neglect the schisms within Israeli governance that have alternated between spectacle militarism and more dove-ish policies?   I'm sorry I can't remember the attribution right now (but I feel almost certain it was David Ben-Gurion) but I remember a quote from a seminal Israeli politician stating outright that in order for Israel to remain strong it needed not to forget how to fight.  The implication of that statement, if I'm not incorrect, was that if Israel needed to provoke conflict in order to keep its muscles sharp, it should do so.  Now, of course this isn't THE official Israeli policy, just like neoconservatism isn't THE official American policy.  But its hard to say that Israel qua Israel would like nothing better than to live in peace.  Certainly most Israeli citizens and politicians would like that.  But still certain politicians and citizens do take the position that this fighting spirit should be upkept by fighting and by seeking out conflict.  Israel qua Israel doesn't want a quiet Palestinan state next door--some do, some don't.  I'd like to think most do.  But its no more fair to take the best elements in Israel and claim them as the main or only ones than it is in Arab and Muslim societies to take the worst as the main ones and gloss over the liberalists, the reformers, the democrats, the socialists and feminists, etc.  I know I'm nitpicking here, but I just thought it was worth fleshing out some of that.      

Freund's hysterical demand is that America bomb anything that looks iffy... no matter what, just bomb and keep bombing. That makes no sense even pragmatically. Iran has dispersed its nuclear facilities and knowhow over possibly more than a hundred sites, many of them underground or camouflaged.

We all know about how 'smart' the Pentagon's weapons (and Israel's) are supposed to be, and how 'collateral damage' is always carefully minimised so that only ten or twelve innocent bystanders get killed when a Palestinian leader is shelled in Gaza. So the choice is stark: either the short window during which targeted bombing raids in a pre-emptive war could be carried out before the world's outrage called them to a halt, would at best retard the progress of the putative drive towards nuclear weaponry... or a more furious and indiscriminate assault would awaken memories of Hiroshima and Dar Yassin.

No doubt Freund and his fellow colonists wouldn't kvetch too much about a few score or a few hundred thousand Iranian civilians getting killed; but Israel, even if it contained military and/or terrorist revenge, would at last achieve the feat of being worse thought of than North Korea, which has made a nuclear non-aggression pact with the States. And as the internal problems of Israel and the OTs inexorably mount with the Arab birth rate, that would be a very awkward inheritance for Olmert's successors.

Interestingly, Mossad advised against overthrowing the Baathist regime because it correctly foresaw that Iran would replace Iraq as the regional ME power-- and was more antagonistic towards the USA, Israel's protector, than Saddam was. Such nuances are lost on Freund, whose antiquated shock 'n' awe, blood-and-iron solutions to standoffs that require patient statecraft and diplomacy risk pitching his kin into a new Masada.

Iran is not a monolithic dictatorship but a tangle of competing factions, secular and religious. Pres. Ahmadinejad, who himself was elected against the clerical establishment's wishes, has lately suffered losses in local elections to other groups critical of his failure to tackle corruption and the economic crisis. Waving a big pre-emptive stick is the only surefire way to unite Iranians against the West and the Jewish state, and to step up Iran's backing for Hizbollah and other mischief makers.

If Freund had been in power in the States in the late 1940s, would he have A-bombed Moscow because the Soviets were on the brink of getting their own bomb? Maybe he would, but there are cooler heads in Washington and even, one suspects, in Jerusalem. And there are years before Iran can sport one warhead to set against Israel's 200 or more, or Pakistan's 100.

josh strawn- I don't know or care if it's the guys "jewishness" that makes him want to turn the middle east upside down. If Israel was a catholic country I'd say the same thing. I wouldn't want to go to war with China over Taiwan either. Even if I agreed with Israel 100%, which I don't obviously, I still wouldn't want the US involved in the middle east via ou