DIALOGUE
Rid the Middle East of All Nuclear Weapons |
||
| If Iran dismantles its nukes, will Israel do so, too? | ||
 by Justin Raimondo, May 23, 2007
14 comments
|
||
TAGS:
From this Dialogue
To: Michael Freund
Subject: Taking chutzpah to a new level
Señor Freund,
You purport to speak not only for the entire nation of Israel as well as the United States, but now also “the rest of mankind.” And this from someone who entitles his last email: “Facts, Not Fantasy”! You give new meaning to the word chutzpah. I also have a very hard time reading comments like “you appear to inhabit…a…fantasy world.” Especially when they are written by someone who has totally ignored my arguments, and appears to be involved in a “dialogue” with himself. I am having trouble figuring out if this is an ethno-cultural trope, or a political statement: Perhaps it is a little of both.
Okay, okay, on with the “discussion.” To begin with, Michael, you don’t seem to know where you are, and this strange disorientation is immediately apparent in the following:
“You see, Justin, out here in the real world, there are people such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who want to kill you and your family and destroy our collective way of life.”
What is this “collective way of life” that we share? You, my friend, are sitting over there in Israel. I, on the other hand, am hanging around Pacific Heights in the City by the Bay. If you get on a bus, the journey may end in a blast from a suicide bomber; if I get on a bus, the worst thing that can happen is for one of San Francisco’s many homeless individuals to emit the organic equivalent of a stink-bomb, clearing the area around him in minutes. I am living on land that was stolen from the Indians many moons ago, so many moons that there are few of the original inhabitants left to claim it; you, on the other hand, are living on stolen land that has the original owners glaring though the fence that separates you from their wrath, hating you and plotting revenge.
Our “collective way of life”? We couldn’t live in more different worlds. You live the life of a settler colonist: dangerous, and even a little brutal. You live in constant fear. I have no reason to live in such a condition, and I refuse to make your enemies my own—which seems to be the entire thrust of your last note. Try that “assessment of reality” on for size.
You don’t give any references for your quotations from Iranian leaders, or provide links with which to back up your screed. This is typical of the War Party, which throws out assertions and expects we'll blindly accept them, just as we’re supposed to accept the “intelligence” provided by our leaders to rationalize a policy of relentless aggression. I would point out, however, that the alleged Ahmadinejad-Khamenei plot to blow up America—and, one assumes, the rest of the West—is contradicted by this comment from CNN State Department correspondent Zain Verjee:
Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is usually praised for his defiance of the West. Now it seems he’s gone too far and his country has had enough. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei handed Ahmadinejad a stinging slap over the country’s nuclear policy in a newspaper he owns.
The paper says...Iran’s nuclear policy needed toughness, sometimes flexibility. Now 150 Iranian lawmakers, some from Ahmadinejad’s own party, are publicly blasting his nuclear and economic policies.
In the black-and-white world of the Likudnik ideologues, Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are cut from the same cloth, and both are poised to destroy the West. In the real world—as opposed to the Bizarro World universe inhabited by you, Michael, and your American and Israeli co-thinkers—the situation is a bit more complicated than that.
So what if Iranian missiles can reach Europe? The Europeans lived with the threat posed by Soviet missiles for the entire length of the Cold War, and lived to tell the tale. Israeli missiles, too, can reach Europe: Should NATO order air strikes on Israeli nuclear facilities on account of this?
Speaking of Israel’s nukes: Everything you have said about the Iranian nuclear program applies to the Israeli nuclear program. Israeli nukes were developed in secret: The Israelis refuse to allow inspections. And, unlike the Iranians, they refuse to allow “snap” inspections—or, indeed, any sort of inspections.
Iranians may not like the “international community,” and may ignore its pleas to stop pursuing the nuclear path. Yet is their contempt any deeper than the Israelis’, who have regularly flouted international opinion, not only in actually creating a formidable nuclear arsenal, but also in treating the Palestinians like dirt, killing them, occupying their land, and bulldozing their homes?
Israel may be threatened by Iran, but this threat can be diminished and perhaps even permanently ended if Israel dismantles its nukes in exchange for similar actions on the part of the Iranians. The proposal for a nuclear-free Middle East has long been a central demand of Israel’s Arab neighbors. Tel Aviv has steadfastly ignored this eminently reasonable request. You don’t even address it, although it was a central point in my previous email to you.
In trying to convince us that Israel’s fight is America’s fight, you assume that Israel and the U.S. are such tight allies that their interests are virtually one and the same. If that is true, how does he explain this, and this—not to mention this?
Israel is popularly viewed as our special ally, but it often acts like our adversary—and it is, increasingly, a problem rather than an asset. Many Americans are beginning to question the “special relationship,” and for good reason.
Justin
NEXT: Your taunts and mudslinging illuminate nothing
 |
Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement (1993), |
14 comments | leave a comment
A neoconservative Jewish convert to Islam blasts Ahmadinejad for...
Soderbergh's "Che" fails as art and as history
If Tom Cruise Was A Jew, How Would He KJW?
The Boston Hebrew College
| Advertise | Privacy Policy & Terms of Use | FAQ | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | Contact | Submissions |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
lester
thank you for a great essay and for laying to rest the tired "why don't you give America back to the Indians" analogy. We fought the Indians for hundreds of years. I doubt any american begrudges the Indians this. if we had faced the odds israel faces today, an enemy a hundred times our size with rising levels of civilization, arms, and coordination abilities, we would have been wiped out at plymouth rock.
Josh Strawn
lester, "fought the Indians" hardly explains a policy of lies, theft and population extinguishing. And why would Americans begrudge Native Americans for this--what possible reason might there be? What a truly bizarre thing to say! And the way Justin writes, entire populations disappear with little more than the passage of time. We no longer have to deal with Native Americans because they were killed off a long time ago and the reason Israelis have to deal with Palestinians is because they haven't been killed off. Raimondo's an odd fellow who seems to think that rightly cited quotes might back up Freund's argument. Freund's argument is conceptually flawed which means the supporting quotations won't mean a thing. It's important to avoid putting one's own words in the mouths of extremists--jihadists aren't the heroes of the postcolonial struggle. It's also important to understand the nuances of the culture from where these threats originate. In Iran, sloganeering is an essential part of politics. When a student playwright was accused of writing a play that was blasphemous to the hidden Imam, the Hezbollahi and conservatives chanted "the playwrights must die!" When a rally leader was asked by western reporter Afshin Molavi after the demonstrations if they really meant for the playwright to be executed, he said 'Those are slogans, just slogans.' Like most slogans and/or bullshit repeated ad infinatum, they lose their meaning and become rote. This is no different with 'Death to Israel' or 'Death to America.' Still, this fact does not prove the slogan benign--it merely gives us some insight into how they function in Iranian politics. The playwright could well have been executed. Its unlikely, but possible and the possibility isn't cancelled out by the lack of seriousness with which slogans are tossed around. Freund would have us believe possibility is inevitability and that words once spoken will always be translated into action, which isn't necessarily the case. Still, in the case of nuclear strikes, the possibility must be treated with gravely serious attention. If Justin thinks a nuclear strike on Israel wouldn't have world consequences, he's doing a poor job of being a global citizen. Raimondo's points about Israeli nukes are, to my knowledge, somewhat valid. But the idea that Israel's flouting of these standards is the equivalent of a repressive, unstable revolutionary theocracy doing the same is nothing short of nonsensical. This doesn't mean such disregard for important standards is dismissable or forgivable in Israel's case, it only means that it would take a fool to imagine a warhead in the hands of Khamenei poses the same set of problems as a warhead in the hands of Olmert.
Anonymous
Nuclear free middle east? I remember liberals in the US in the 1970s with similar utopian ideas. Is that what defeated the Soviet Union and ended the cold war? If we had adopted that strategy, we'd still be fighting the cold war.
Reagan was right on this issue: Peace Through Strength is the only way. If Israel gave up its nuclear deterrent it would only encorage future conventional wars that arab states might win.
lester
josh- my point was that we didn't blame the indians for logically wanting to fight for what was there land. But Israel seems to resent the palestinians efforts to do just that. Since when can you conquor something by UN fiat then get pissy about defending it?
I agree that israel and iran having nukes is different, but I don't know that Iran having them is MORE dangerous necassarily. I think Israel is more likely to use theirs don't you? A pre emptive attack. They atalk about doing it every day. If the guy who wrote the previous pages column had a nuke he'd probably use it. You shold read the letter to the editor of the jerusalem post. it's total insanity.
Anonymous
THE FOLLOWING ISSUE CAN DESTROY ISLAM, ZIONIST RACIST ISRAEL AND THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH AND NOT THE WAY OF JESUS WHICH IS PERFECT. RESEARCH THE BELOW SMALL THESIS to see if there is any truth to it.
READ THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES FROM THE BIBLE AS IT HAS IMPLICATIONS ON THE WAR AGAINST TERROR/ISLAM and the claim of Israel that god gave them the land. If the child is an infant than the Judeo-Christian version becomes null and void and we are wasting our time and resources i.e. we could save trillions of dollars and create a more peaceful world rather than fighting against Islam the religion of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all).
The COVENANT with Abraham and his DESCENDANTS is central to JUDAISM/CHRISTIANITY/ISLAM.
Please note this is not a competition between faiths but an attempt to decipher fact from fiction.
Genesis 21:14 Contemporary English version se below link
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GENESIS%2021;&version=46;
Early the next morning Abraham gave Hagar an animal skin full of water and some bread. Then he put the boy on her shoulder and sent them away.
GENESIS 16:16
And Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ish’mael. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ish’mael to Abram.
GENESIS 21:5
Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.
At Genesis 22 Abraham had only 2 sons others came later. The Quran mentions that it was Ishmael that was sacrificed hence the reference in genesis 22:2 your only son can only mean someone has substituted Ishmael names for Isaac!!
BY DOING SOME KINDERGARTEN ARITHMATIC USING ARABIC NUMBERS (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10)
NOT ROMAN NUMERALS (I, II, III,IV,V,VI,VII,VIII,IX,X) NB no concept of zero in roman numerals.
100 years old – 86 years old = 14 ADD 3 YEARS FOR ISSAC’S WEANING
THAT WOULD MAKE ISHMAEL 17 YEARS OLD IN GENESIS 21:14-21
BUT IT IS A DESCRIPTION OF AN INFANT.
Carefully read several times the above passage and then tell me the mental picture you get between the mother child interactions what is the age of the child. If the mental picture is that of a 17 year old child being carried on the shoulder of his mother, being physically placed in the bush, crying like a baby, mother having to give him water to drink, than the Islamic viewpoint is null and void. Why is there no verbal communications between mother and (17 YEAR OLD) child?
GENESIS: 21:14 - 21
So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the (17 YEAR OLD) child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the (17 YEAR OLD) child under one of the bushes. Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, “Let me not look upon the death of the (17 YEAR OLD) child.” And as she sat over against him, the (17 YEAR OLD) child lifted up his voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad where he is. Arise, lift up the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation.” Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the (17 YEAR OLD) lad a drink. And God was with the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt.
The age of Ishmael at this stage is crucial to the Abrahamic faiths. If he is 17 than the JUDEO/CHRISTIAN point of view about the Abrahamic covenant is correct. This has devastating theological consequences of unimaginable proportions.
This makes the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac and there descendants a work of fiction. I would strongly suggest it is clear cut case of racial discrimination and nothing to do with god almighty. The scribes have deliberately tried to make Isaac the only son and legitimate heir to the throne of Abraham??
Please can you rationally explain this anomaly?
I have asked many persons including my nephews and nieces - unbiased minds with no religious backgrounds but with reasonable command of the English language about this passage and they all agree that the child in the passage is an infant.
AS THE DESCRIPTION OF ISHMAEL IN GENESIS 21:14-21 IS THAT OF AN INFANT IT CAN BE ASSUMED SOMEONE HAS MOVED THIS PASSAGE FROM AN EARLIER PART OF SCRIPTURE!!! AND HAVE GOT THERE KNICKERS IN A TWIST.
For background info on the future religion of mankind see the following websites:
http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/Muhammad_Bible.HTM
(MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE)
http://bible.islamicweb.com/
http://www.islamicity.com/
http://www.islamonline.net/english/index.shtml
http://www.islamalways.com/
http://ifamericansknew.com/
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm
(BIBLE, QURAN and SCIENCE)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
ANTI-WAR
http://www.harunyahya.com/
(EVOLUTION DECEIPT)
http://www.barnabas.net/
http:/www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm
HOLY QURAN CHAPTER 37 verses 101 - 122
101. So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.
102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"
103. So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah., and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
104. We called out to him "O Abraham!
105. "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
106. For this was obviously a trial-
107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
108. And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:
109. "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"
110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
111. For he was one of our believing Servants.
112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous.
113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.
114. Again (of old) We bestowed Our favour on Moses and Aaron,
115. And We delivered them and their people from (their) Great Calamity;
116. And We helped them, so they overcame (their troubles);
117. And We gave them the Book which helps to make things clear;
118. And We guided them to the Straight Way.
119. And We left (this blessing) for them among generations (to come) in later times:
120. "Peace and salutation to Moses and Aaron!"
121. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
122. For they were two of our believing Servants.
ISHMAEL IS THE FIRST BORN AND GOOD NEWS OF ISSAC DOES NOT APPEAR UNTIL AFTER THE SACRIFICE?????
Therefore the claim that god gave the land to Israel is destroyed without the need of any WMD’s.
HADITH
Volume 4, Book 55, Number 583:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
The first lady to use a girdle was the mother of Ishmael. She used a girdle so that she might hide her tracks from Sarah. Abraham brought her and her son Ishmael while she was suckling him, to a place near the Ka'ba under a tree on the spot of Zam-zam, at the highest place in the mosque. During those days there was nobody in Mecca, nor was there any water So he made them sit over there and placed near them a leather bag containing some dates, and a small water-skin containing some water, and set out homeward. Ishmael's mother followed him saying, "O Abraham! Where are you going, leaving us in this valley where there is no person whose company we may enjoy, nor is there anything (to enjoy)?" She repeated that to him many times, but he did not look back at her Then she asked him, "Has Allah ordered you to do so?" He said, "Yes." She said, "Then He will not neglect us," and returned while Abraham proceeded onwards, and on reaching the Thaniya where they could not see him, he faced the Ka'ba, and raising both hands, invoked Allah saying the following prayers:
'O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring dwell in a valley without cultivation, by Your Sacred House (Kaba at Mecca) in order, O our Lord, that they may offer prayer perfectly. So fill some hearts among men with love towards them, and (O Allah) provide them with fruits, so that they may give thanks.' (14.37) Ishmael's mother went on suckling Ishmael and drinking from the water (she had).
When the water in the water-skin had all been used up, she became thirsty and her child also became thirsty. She started looking at him (i.e. Ishmael) tossing in agony; She left him, for she could not endure looking at him, and found that the mountain of Safa was the nearest mountain to her on that land. She stood on it and started looking at the valley keenly so that she might see somebody, but she could not see anybody. Then she descended from Safa and when she reached the valley, she tucked up her robe and ran in the valley like a person in distress and trouble, till she crossed the valley and reached the Marwa mountain where she stood and started looking, expecting to see somebody, but she could not see anybody. She repeated that (running between Safa and Marwa) seven times."
The Prophet said, "This is the source of the tradition of the walking of people between them (i.e. Safa and Marwa). When she reached the Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she asked herself to be quiet and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, 'O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?" And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zam-zam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), till water flowed from that place. She started to make something like a basin around it, using her hand in this way, and started filling her water-skin with water with her hands, and the water was flowing out after she had scooped some of it."
The Prophet added, "May Allah bestow Mercy on Ishmael's mother! Had she let the Zam-zam (flow without trying to control it) (or had she not scooped from that water) (to fill her water-skin), Zam-zam would have been a stream flowing on the surface of the earth." The Prophet further added, "Then she drank (water) and suckled her child. The angel said to her, 'Don't be afraid of being neglected, for this is the House of Allah which will be built by this boy and his father, and Allah never neglects His people.' The House (i.e. Kaba) at that time was on a high place resembling a hillock, and when torrents came, they flowed to its right and left. She lived in that way till some people from the tribe of Jurhum or a family from Jurhum passed by her and her child, as they (i.e. the Jurhum people) were coming through the way of Kada'. They landed in the lower part of Mecca where they saw a bird that had the habit of flying around water and not leaving it. They said, 'This bird must be flying around water, though we know that there is no water in this valley.' They sent one or two messengers who discovered the source of water, and returned to inform them of the water. So, they all came (towards the water)." The Prophet added, "Ishmael's mother was sitting near the water. They asked her, 'Do you allow us to stay with you?" She replied, 'Yes, but you will have no right to possess the water.' They agreed to that." The Prophet further said, "Ishmael's mother was pleased with the whole situation as she used to love to enjoy the company of the people. So, they settled there, and later on they sent for their families who came and settled with them so that some families became permanent residents there. The child (i.e. Ishmael) grew up and learnt Arabic from them and (his virtues) caused them to love and admire him as he grew up, and when he reached the age of puberty they made him marry a woman from amongst them.
Anonymous
>>my point was that we didn't blame the indians for logically wanting to fight for what was there land.
hmmm..."we" (assuming you are also a North American) or perhaps one should say, our European-descended forbears, certainly did in the past think the Indians were savage brutes who should just disappear off the face of the earth and get out of the way of "our right" to land. Manifest Destiny and all that.
So "we" DID think that they were in our way and that it was their fault for being there in the first place, or for at least not recognizing our "Superiority" and just meekly letting us have it all without a fight.
Josh Strawn
Wow--this topic's really lured the hoodwinked, faithful and superstitious away from their prayer sessions!! Reading the comments too long gives one the sensation they're watching a canine tail chasing tournament. Once people are posting links to sites that explain the "error" of Darwinism, the conversation really has come to an impasse. When will those who refuse Darwin also refuse all the medicine that has been developed on Darwinist priniciples, using the same methodology Darwin used to determine the principle of natural selection?
lester
anonymous- I'm not trying to justify what was done to native americans. I'm saying that the israel-palestine conflict is different than the european/ native american conflict. they weren't fighting against a billion indians by guilting King george into sinking his treasury on defending the colonies.
The reason they won is that the odds were on their side. By the time zionism rolls around, native people are pretty well on to the designs of their new neighbors.
Anonymous
Is that the reason why Israelis are ALWAYS screaming
and YELLING at the top of their lungs, even in small, crowded
places? And, I'm sorry, but Hebrew at 120db sounds horrible!
Cesco
Great first post.
But I don't agree with the contention that Nukes in the hands of Olmert is better than in teh hands of the Mullahs.
The only country that has ever used nukes is the "freedom loving democratic" USA. And do you know why? because Japan did not have that kind of weapons AND being an island, no possible fallout on the USA or its allies.
If you don't have nuclear weapons, you sure could be nuked (or attacked in many ways, see, Iraq) because, there is no way you could relatiate accordingly (hint: USA vs URSS vs CHINA, or INDIA vs PAKISTAN).
BUT, if you do have Nukes, you are SAFE! that's why Iran (with or without the mullahs) HAS to have nuclear weapons as a deterent. Same with Israel.
As to Olmert versus the Mullahs: if Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons, they could be nuked someday if there is a war between Iran and Israel (hint: USA versus Japan). With Israel "existence on the balance", Olmert or any Israeli leader will not hesitate to use them.
Since Israel (and the USA) are already nuclear powers, there is NO CHANCE the mullahs are going to use their couple of nukes against the tens of thousands in the hands of the USA and Israel. Iran will be destroyed before one of their nuke leaves their airspace.
The only reason Israel and the USA does not want Iran to have nuclear Powers, is because, if it happens, then Iran can do whatever it thinks it is in their national interest regardless of whatever the USA wants (economically or otherwise). For Israel, imperialistic agendas become less likely to materialize.
Ask yourself this simple question: who has been the deadliest, most bellicose of all in recent years? The USA and Israel. Whatever the justifications, the fact remains: those 2 countries are responsible for the most despicable crimes against human beings since the end of WW2.
Peace
Detain this.
(I can add 9 & 6.)
Here's just one more of innumerable examples of an action – in this case, planting of propaganda – which serves the interests of Israeli and U.S. war profiteers, media elite and "settlers," and not the interests of the The People of the United States:
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/2229
It was upbraided in a timely and professional manner by the Campaign against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran; however, the damage can't exactly be erased, and that sucks.
As most discerning news readers and truth diggers already know, that's neither a new thing nor an isolated occurance; it's the latest in a long string of media and government stunts which have had the Kibbutzniks and K Street-ers jumping for joy, but have been hurtful to domestic, humanitarian, Constitution-defined, U.S. interests.
Anonymous
Justin,
I am shocked at your article. You are blase! How can you be so blase as to suggest that Israel should give up her nuclear capabilities so that Iran may do the same? What is to stop Iran from saying she has given up hers as well, while secretly stockpiling? If peace were as easy as nations acting in such good faith, then we would live in a peaceful world.
I pray that you will rethink your position. Perhaps you will not change your mind tonight, but please think long and hard about your stance.
There is nothing wrong with wanting peace. We all want peace. Only madmen want war. But, naivete will not bring peace -- it will only bring horror.
Thank you.
mmausner
While the whole story may never come out, in both '67 and '73 it is possible that Israel was able to keep the Soviet Union from intervening by way of letting the Soviets know that israel had nukes. As well as the rumored nuclear blackmail of the syrians in '73 which may have stopped their advance on the Golan.
America at times has implicitly recognized that as a nation-state threatened with destruction like no other, israel needs a credible deterrent threat. I don't know if I agree with this, but I recognize that the logic has validity.
Real Liberal Christian Church
We answered Ahmedinajad here: "<a href="http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/wordpress/?p=981">Judaism and Islam: Missing the Point of Christ</a>."