And both are based on the false assumption that Iran is about to develop real nuclear weapons know-how. Even Colin Powell, hardly famous for understating WMD threats, has just said a nuclear-armed Iran is at least five years away.

OD as usual can be counted on to provide his typically idotic take on the situation. Keep up the good work OD your stupidity is always worth a good laugh!

In response to OD's comments... It may take 5 years for Iran to have a working nuclear weapon in hand, but the window is dramatically shorter for the time until Iran masters the enrichment cycle. Once that critical point is reached, making nuclear weapons is simply a political decision, not a technical one. To put it more simply, the question shifts from 'if' to 'when' Iran will be armed with nuclear weapons.

"It may take 5 years for Iran to have a working nuclear weapon in hand, but the window is dramatically shorter for the time until Iran masters the enrichment cycle. Once that critical point is reached, making nuclear weapons is simply a political decision, not a technical one."

Surely that statement is a contradiction. If the time to mastering the enrichment cycle is dramatically short of five years, yet it may take five years to have a working weapon, then clearly there is technical work, as well as a political decision, involved in getting from one to the other.

The Manhattan Project suggests that synchronised implosion is an extra challenge, however good your fissile material.

It should be obvious what Israel fears if Iran gets the "bomb". Anybody who is sane would fear this sceanrio. Come on people, Iran has stated that Israel should be wiped off the map, it does not take a rocket scientist to realize Iran would strike first against Israel. Israel has had the bomb for decades and has not used it. That is the difference between a civilzed society and a country of radical Muslims.

It si a miracle thepost by Razor proves that their is one thinking person who participates in these inane chats.

Perhaps what Israel fears in regard to a nuclear-armed Iran is the same thing a lot of other countries fear: nuclear weapons in a country ruled by religious fanatics and which has a president who is definitely a couple of cans short of a six-pack.

"Perhaps what Israel fears in regard to a nuclear-armed Iran is the same thing a lot of other countries fear: nuclear weapons in a country ruled by religious fanatics and which has a president who is definitely a couple of cans short of a six-pack."

You're absolutely correct. A lot of countries have the exact same fear about the United States.

In partial defense of OD, I actually find most of his/her comments on on this site to be thoughtful, insightful, and logical.

Unfortunately, OD--like many others on this site--occasionally gives in to, if I may borrow a term from Alan Greenspan, the irrational exhuberance of unthoughtful anti-Americanism.

The response, though, should be to hold him/her accountable for such comments by challenging the comments themselves, rather than through the personal attacks which are causing this board to degenerate into the Springer show.

Sorry about that OD.

Asinine comments are being deleted now.

last comment funny, true, and disheartening

i meant the one about crazy presidents....

Mark - really? I wasn't aware we had a president who said he welcomes an apocalypse or who saw auras of light when he spoke at the U.N. or who claims that the Holocaust is a myth. Or that our government was preventing people from running for office who didn't have correct religious views.

In general, before making remarks of this nature, it would be a good idea to visit some of the places in the world where bad things happen, and make a rational comparison against the U.S. You will find it an eye-opening experience. When emotion enters the arena of political debate, reason tends to flee.

What happens when two opposing countries have nuclear weapons is deterance and mutually assured destruction. It is a stand off unless one of them is stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon. Besides being more cautious, I would expect no major policy changes from either side. Analysis needs to be based on facts and not theories or presumptions.

Thanks Morley, and (I guess) LWP.

Why does the underlying article garner no attention? Doesn't the astonishing blindness of the Muslim world revealed by an academic from that world - who asserts that the risk of a nuclear Iran is simply Israel's supposed inability to "pursue unilateral peace plans" - bother anybody?

Jeff....you actually think that someone like Parsi, who you admit is anti-Israeli, can be seen as a legitimate source as to what Israel feels? That is some pretty poor journalism. You have one source who has an admitted bias, and you seem to think that he has Israel's feelings pegged. You offer no quotes from anyone else that may have a different view, and your headline writer puts Parsi's view as gospel. Is this the kind of "reporting" that the Post is about these days?

Yes, I do think Parsi is a legitimate source. He's a serious analyst with interesting things to say. Just because he is critical of Israel is no reason not to share his views.

The previous post from Niall Ferguson offered a totally different point. He too is an interesting analyst with an important point of view. Just because he is supportive of Israel is no reason not to share his views.

Yes, Dan, this is exactly what Washington Post reporting is about, today and every day. Different points of view, presented respectfully. Get used to it.

"A nuclear Iran, Parsi suggests, "could force Israel to accept territorial compromises with its neighbors in order to deprive Iran of points of hostility that it could use against the Jewish state."

Could be. But the Israelis have stared down Islamists before. Parsi should also remember that the U.S. is an ally of Israel, and Iran may have to take the U.S.'s response to Iranian nuclear aggression into account.

Dan: "You have one source who has an admitted bias, and you seem to think that he has Israel's feelings pegged. You offer no quotes from anyone else that may have a different view."

From the article: As Ephraim Sneh, an Israeli parliamentarian, told Parsi, "We cannot afford a nuclear bomb in the hands of our enemies, period. They don't have to use it; the fact that they have it is enough."

I would have thought Ephraim Sneh, a former IDF Brigadier-General and member of the Knesset, might be considered someone who has Israel's feelings pegged and who doesn't have a pro-Iranian bias. From the horse's mouth...

Jeff, I am surprised at your lack of comprehension of my point. But I guess given your historic whining and self-defense whenever you are called out on not having a fair discussion re: Israel, it's not surprising at all.

I am not attacking Parsi's view, nor am I attacking the Post's presentation of it, but you delude your readers into actually thinking that Parsi KNOWS what Israel is thinking, without any counterpoint as TO WHAT ISRAEL IS FEELING. The Ferguson piece speaks absolutely nothing of Israel's state of mind or their fears. You do not qualify Parsi's feelings in any way. Having been a reporter in a prior life, and having sat through countless courses on writing and attribution, your article and obnoxious response is surprising from someone in your position, yet illuminating.

OD: It is obvious that Israel doesn't want its enemies to get a nuclear bomb, especially an enemy that has stated on the record that it wants to destroy Israel. My point earlier is that Parsi is speaking as to WHY that is the case, in Israel's mind, and he has no basis for that opinion. That of course is fine for Parsi to write, he is entitled to whatever opinion he wants, but for Jeff to portray it as uncontroverted fact, is irresponsible journalism.

Parsi speaks with the expert voice of somebody living in the safety of Sweeden and not in Iran. Very easy to look back over your shoulder with rose colored glasses but she does seem to forget that the leader of Iran said that Israel should be wiped off the map at around the same time he is persuing Nuclear weapons. Kind of a nice coincidence. You can sit here and use the Palestinians as an excuse for hatred of the Jews, but the rest of the world could just as easily then use Irans treatment of Religeous minorities or the Pashtun Ethnic group as an excuse to hate it. People have been so brainwashed it is ridiculous.

Parsi is right on the money.

Israel, a country founded by a majority of foeign-born citizens, does not want to be challenged by anyone in the Middle East.

Iran simply wants to protect itself from any foreign attack.

Parsi is right that when Iran gets its nukes, Israel will back off and respect Palestinian rights in order for the conflict to be resolved for once and all.

No Arab state has nuclear weapons, one wonders why Israel built such weapons?

The Arab states need to do the same unless Israel gives up its stockpile.

You See Morley this is the problem with US' Middle East policy it has been hijacked by Isreal firsters and likudniks. They immediately jump to the statement the Iranian president made, yet I am SHOCKED that no one questions GW who included Iran in an "axis of evil" and proceeded to take out the first country in his man made axis and yet somehow it is the Iranian president that the world has to fear.

GW has wiped Iraq off the map and we are looking at the results!!. I think Iran will win this dispute 'cos the whole world now sees the US for what it really stands for - World Domination.

So typical, nobody ever responds to an actual fact they always say "But what about this and what about that. Well again, I have a question for you Karim, Has the Israeli govt. ever said "We are going to wipe Iran off the Map"? The fact that Israel has had nuclear weaponds for years and hasn't nuked the countries around it would seem to indicate that they won't use the weapons. However Irans leader said Israel should be wiped off the map. You can try to say "But what about Bush calling Iran the Axis of Evil" all you want, but there are two problems with that. 1. It wasn't said by Israel, and 2. the leader of Iran said that about Israel, not about the U.S. There, I've said my piece, now you can go and ignore the facts and try to divert the conversation again. But think about this....if you have to lie, or avoid facts to win your argument, perhaps your argument isn't valid.

Israel has the legal and moral right to defend its citizens from Iran's terrorist proxies (e.g. Hizbullah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad) -- groups which oppose Israel's existence and intentionally target Israeli civilians for murder. It will be a dark day if Iran gets nuclear weapons and in any way deters Israel from defending its citizens from such monsters.

Cambel and Jeremy Israel has said worse things about Iran including clearly stating that the nuclear option is on the table and will do whatever it takes. The Iranian president does not control the nuclear issue in Iran nor does he determine issues such as war. Furthermore, you cannot pin the stupid Saddam propaganda on Iran it has never invaded other countries unlike Israel and the US. So please spare us your sanctimonious crap. Israel is the aggressor and the root of most of the middle east problems. I am tired of the US being a useful idiot for Israel. The US and Israel will surely lose this fight. Just watch.

Again Rob, you leave out the entire statement. The nuclear option is on the table if Iran attacks. but then again, that would have wrecked your point to be honest wouldn't it? Has Israel ever said it would wipe Iran off the map? No. So please And I'm curious, as far as invasions in the middle east. Hmm, funny, has Israel ever invaded another country or was it pushing back countries that invaded it? Again, you lie and twist to make your point, therefore your point is irrelevent. It would seem you have your opinion and need to bend facts to fit your opinion. That may be fine for a dinner party with like minded individuals but rarely works in real life. I'm off now, time to turn off the computer. But you can sit back and hope that the U.S. will be invaded and destroyed by terrorists or whoever else it is that you self hating Americans seem to hope will come to the rescue of the intellectual wonderkind such as yourself. I swear if your mommy had just paid a little more attention to you when you were young she would have saved the rest of us from having to listen to your pap.

All the screaming of the Arabhaters provers only one thing: Israelis need a strategic counterbalance or elsethey will never own up to their past crimes against Palestine, such as the ethnically cleansing it of 2/3 of its population, the murder of innocent Palestinian children and generally taking out on the innocent Palestinians what other people had done to them.

Nor will they stop it as long as they have US firepower lined up by local lobbies,

So, Iran should be cheered on in developing its bomb. Only ruthless pressure can stop the Israeli regime.

Cambel: "Hmm, funny, has Israel ever invaded another country or was it pushing back countries that invaded it?"

Lebanon 1982.

Oh, and Suez 1956.

Now I have a question for you, Cambel.
Has Iran ever invaded another country or was it pushing back countries that invaded it?

Ahmadinejad is President of Iran for the same reason that Jacques Chirac is President of France: in a two-round electoral system, the other guy who made it to the final round (Rafsanjani in Iran, Le Pen in France) was completely unacceptable to a majority of voters. He arguably has even less power than his predecessor, Khatami. His anti-semitic rantings do not define Iranian foreign or military policy.

Unlike nuclear-armed Pakistan, Iran is not an unstable military dictatorship. The clerical elite that actually run the show there may not be the guys the CIA would have put in charge if they had retained control of the situation, but they aren't fools. Any proliferation of nuclear weapons is to be regretted, but I think that, given Iran's history of being attacked and bled white by a powerful neighbor with Western support (Iraq under Saddam Hussein) and the nuclear status of its neighbors Pakistan and Israel, it's utterly unsurprising that they should seek nuclear weapons. I expect that they will have them within the next 10 years, and I think that the energy of the West would be better used in making sure that Iran remains a stable, if wierd, democracy capable of responsibly handling a nuclear deterrant than it is in making threats of pre-emptive military action to forestall the day.

As stated by a few, the window of opportunity to fix Iran in its place is closing, and closing partly because of Irans weapons program, but mostly because the US plan is to lower troop levels considerably and hunger down and support the Iraqi army.

In this situation, Iran could easily get the upper hand POLITICALLY in Iraq and mess up the US plan of having a friendly Iraqi government.

Look for military action this year.

"I wasn't aware we had a president who said he welcomes an apocalypse or who saw auras of light when he spoke at the U.N. or who claims that the Holocaust is a myth"

We do have a President who claims he talks to God, and with a messianic zeal and belief in his own rightness. He may not claim the holocaust is a myth, but he is perfectly willing to dig up myths when it suits him.

Furthermore, he has far more power than the Iranian President does.

"In general, before making remarks of this nature, it would be a good idea to visit some of the places in the world where bad things happen, and make a rational comparison against the U.S. You will find it an eye-opening experience."

I've spent well over half my life in third world countries. I've lived over a decade in India. India has managed to live with a nuclear armed Pakistan. Israel may have to live with a nuclear armed Iran.

miracle thepost by Razor proves that their is one thinking person who participates in these inane chats.

Posted by: Larry | Jan 24, 2006 3:54:30 PM | Permalink

Perhaps what Israel fears in regard to a nuclear-armed Iran is the same thing a lot of other countries fear: nuclear weapons in a country ruled by religious fanatics and which has a president who is definitely a couple of cans short of a six-pack.

Posted by: Jon | Jan 24, 2006 4:07:59 PM | Permalink

"Perhaps what Israel fears in regard to a nuclear-armed Iran is the same thing a lot of other countries fear: nuclear weapons in a country ruled by religious fanatics and which has a president who is definitely a couple of cans short of a six-pack."

You're absolutely correct. A lot of countries have the exact same fear about the United States.

Posted by: Mark | Jan 24, 2006 4:29:28 PM | Permalink

In partial defense of OD, I actually find most of his/her comments on on this site to be thoughtful, insightful, and logical.

Unfortunately, OD--like many others on this site--occasionally gives in to, if I may borrow a term from Alan Greenspan, the irrational exhuberance of unthoughtful anti-Americanism.

The response, though, should be to hold him/her accountable for such comments by challenging the comments themselves, rather than through the personal attacks which are causing this board to degenerate into the Springer show.

Posted by: LWP | Jan 24, 2006 4:36:56 PM | Permalink

Sorry about that OD.

Asinine comments are being deleted now.

Posted by: Jefferson Morley | Jan 24, 2006 4:38:03 PM | Permalink

last comment funny, true, and disheartening

Posted by: Damion | Jan 24, 2006 4:39:42 PM | Permalink

Τι το Ισραήλ φοβάται στο Ιράν; Το Trita Parsi, ένας ειδικός της Μέσης Ανατολής στο σχολείο του πανεπιστημίου Johns Hopkins των προηγμένων διεθνών μελετών στην Ουάσιγκτον, έχει ένα counterpoint στο σενάριο εφιάλτη του Niall Ferguson's για "το μεγάλο πόλεμο του 2007." Ποιο Ισραήλ φοβάται από ένα πυρηνικό Ιράν, Parsi γράφει στο καθημερινό αστέρι του Λιβάνου και το Ησραηλινοπαλαιστινιακό bitterlemons.org, είναι λιγότερος πόλεμος από μια απώλεια στρατιωτικής ανωτερότητας. Η αμεσότερη απειλή στη στρατηγική θέση του Ισραήλ, λέει, είναι μια συμφωνία ειρήνης μεταξύ της Ουάσιγκτον και της Τεχεράνης. Το Parsi, που γεννήθηκε στο Ιράν και μεγάλωσε στη Σουηδία, λέει ότι "ένα Ιράν που δεν έχει τα πυρηνικά όπλα -- αλλά που μπορούν να τα χτίσουν -- θα βλάψει σημαντικά τη δυνατότητα του Ισραήλ να αποτρέψει τις στρατευμένες παλαιστινιακές και λιβανέζικες οργανώσεις... Θα ήταν οι ημέρες όταν θα επέτρεπε η στρατιωτική υπεροχή του Ισραήλ σε το για να υπαγορεύσει τις παραμέτρους της ειρήνης και να ακολουθήσει τα μονομερή σχέδια ειρήνης." Δεδομένου ότι Ephraim Sneh, ένας ισραηλινός κοινοβουλευτικός, είπε Parsi, "δεν μπορούμε να αντέξουμε οικονομικά μια πυρηνική βόμβα στα χέρια των εχθρών μας, περίοδος. Δεν ειναι απαραίτητο να το χρησιμοποιήσουν το γεγονός που έχουν αυτό είναι αρκετό." Ένα πυρηνικό Ιράν, Parsi προτείνει, "θα μπορούσε να αναγκάσει το Ισραήλ για να δεχτεί τους εδαφικούς συμβιβασμούς με τους γείτονές του προκειμένου να στερηθεί το Ιράν από τα σημεία της εχθρότητας που θα μπορούσε να χρησιμοποιήσει ενάντια στο εβραϊκό κράτος." Μια ιρανική κυβέρνηση με τις πυρηνικές ικανότητες θα άλλαζε επίσης τους υπολογισμούς της Ουάσιγκτον, προσθέτει. "Η αποτροπή πολέμου και η δύναμη Ιράν θα κέρδιζαν με την κατοχή του κύκλου καυσίμων θα μπορούσαν να αναγκάσουν τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες για να κόψουν εξετάζουν την Τεχεράνη στην οποία το Ιράν θα αναγνωριζόταν ως περιφερειακή στρατηγική σημασία δύναμης και κέρδους στη Μέση Ανατολή εις βάρος του Ισραήλ. Αυτό είναι ένας σημαντικός ισραηλινός φόβος από το τέλος του ψυχρού πολέμου, όταν έχασε η στρατηγική χρησιμότητα του Ισραήλ στην Ουάσιγκτον την ιδιαίτερη αιτιολόγηση λόγω στην απουσία μιας σοβιετικής απειλής." Η συζήτηση των στρατιωτικών απεργιών στο Ιράν έχει έναν πολιτικό σκοπό στην Ουάσιγκτον, υποστηρίζει. "Ο πρόσφατος μεγάλος αριθμός διαρροών και οι υπαινιγμοί της ετοιμότητας του Ισραήλ να πάρει έξω τις ιρανικές πυρηνικές εγκαταστάσεις πρέπει να δουν λαμβάνοντας υπόψη το φόβο του Ισραήλ μιας διαπραγμάτευσης ΗΠΑ-Ιράν," γράφει. "Οι ισραηλινές διαρροές δεν έχουν συμπέσει με σημαντικές προόδους στο πυρηνικό πρόγραμμα του Ιράν, αλλά μάλλον με τους υπαινιγμούς μιας αμερικανικής προπαρασκευής να χτυπηθεί ένας συμβιβασμός με την Τεχεράνη που θα του χορηγούσε τη φοβησμένη τεχνογνωσία και θα περιόριζε τη στρατηγική ικανότητα διάπραξης ελιγμών του Ισραήλ." Το Parsi καταλήγει στο συμπέρασμα ότι "το Ισραήλ παίζει hardball για να αποτρέψει την Ουάσιγκτον από την κοπή εξετάζει την Τεχεράνη που θα μπορούσε να ωφελήσει την Αμερική, αλλά στερεί το Ισραήλ από τη στρατιωτική και στρατηγική υπεροχή του." Κατά συνέπεια το πολεμικό σενάριο του Niall Ferguson's και η ανάλυση Parsi μπορούν να δουν ως σχεδόν εικόνες καθρεφτών το ένα το άλλο. Το Ferguson βλέπει τη δύση να αποτρέψει τον πόλεμο στο Ιράν με τη διπλωματία -- και. Το Parsi βλέπει το Ισραήλ να αποτρέψει τη διπλωματία στο Ιράν με την ομιλία του πολέμου -- και την επιτυχία.

Okay, so Iran get's the nuclear capability, Israel already has over 100. Seems a little equity in the region is disturbing to some, but not all.

With Iran, China and Russia already in an unspoken military alliance, it would appear that Irsael's advantage has slipped and almost become irrevelant.

American and Israel have shown, over and over again, that they cannot be an honest peace brokers. Now Iran has some leverage, Europe realizes it's relationship with it's cold war adversaries are heating up again, and America - well they have shot themselves in the foot with their religious war blundering.

So what's the outcome? Who knows, but America's day of leverage in the region are coming to a quick end. Israel is in a panic because they are vunerable, and China and Russia are smiling as they see the opportunity to increase their participation in the region, more than ever before.

It's quite amazing to read the flurry of irrelevant whiney crap from Zionist types in these pages. If these jerks were taking over London (for example, instead of Palestine) in the name of racism, fundamentalism and a 2000 year old grudge, the conflict would last all of 10 minutes and the Jews would be history.
The tolerance the Arabs have shown for Israel's aggression is something the west is incapable of understanding.

People who are familiar with the strategic matters in th Middle East know that Iran has long-run goals in pursuing nuclear research - either civilian or military.

First, it helps Iran to gain further geopolitical weight in the region, counterbalancing the pressures from the Arab countries as well as Russia, Pakistan, Israel and possibly India and China in the decades to come. Second, Iran will benefit from selling cheaper electricity to many countries region on the one hand and changing the current political formula of the Middle East on the other.

Iran, it seems rational, would not attack Israel by a-boms under any condition, except another country (for example, the US) invades Iran. Attacking Israel does not do any good to Iran, to be empirical. Iran, in reality, has been competing with the Arab world for a long time. This is a chance to get one step ahead.

If people think that Iran would Israel to help creation of Palestine, this is a false assumption. To Iran, having an Arab Palestine is no more different than Jordan or Egypt. That is, Iran does not benefit from the creation of an independent Palestine economically or politically. If Iran currently supports some extremists in Palestine is only for short term, limited goals - as a pressure tool.

Bottomline: Iran will benefit from military and political supremacy in the Middle East by having the nuclear techs. Israel might fall out of favor. Gains for Iran, however, would be both political and economical.

To Karim, the reason why Israel built nuclear weapons is because the Arabs actively sought numerous times to destroy her.

If teh Arabs made peace with ISrael then maybe everyone could stop developing nuclear weapons. But it seems the Arabs still have a delusion of destroying Israel, and although Iranians are not Arabs, their rhetoric shows they enthusiastically endorse this.

Iran-We are going to wipe Israel off the face off the earth. Doesn't this sound familiar. I belive it was Egypt that said the same thing back in the 1960's or 1970's and then proceeded to attack them. If Israel decides on a pre-emptive strike I will support them fully!

To OD, a little honesty please!

Israel invaded Lebanon following numerous PLO attacks emanating from Lebanon, PLO murder of an Israeli diplomat and the attempted murder of Israel's ambassador to Britain. The PLO had set up a mini-state in Lebanon and was attacking Israel at every turn.

Suez happened because Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran (and not allowing Israeli ships through). Egypt was also encouraging terrorist infiltrations from the Gaza Strip. Hence, Israel acted.

WHile Iran may not have invaded another country (I don't know), it DOES sponsor terrorism and gets organisations like Hezbollah to do its dirty work. In fact, many Arab countries, knowing they cannot defeat Israel, sponsor terrorist orgs instead, and we all know they have cynically used the Palestinians to wage war against Israel.

Also, it appears that Iran has assisted Al Qaida too. Lovely bunch.

Iran is just bad news, and they don't contribute anything to teh world except oil and terror.

To DeDum, the "Dum" in your name reflects your idiotic posting, and your black hole of history.

There was some provocation to justify Israel's part in Suez, true, though not Britain and France's roles.

But Lebanon? Your version of events has been discredited by history. The truth about Begin's lies over Lebanon came out long ago.

You'll remember that after invading Lebanon, Israel set up a 'buffer zone' in the south complete with a collaborating force, the South Lebanon Army. Ostensibly this was a defensive measure against rockets sporadically launched across the border by terrorists. But the vast buffer zone bore no relation to the potential launching sites of these primitive Katyusha rockets.

It matched perfectly, however, the part of Lebanon which the Greater Israelites claimed as their own. Shortly after the invasion, Sharon's Cabinet colleague and close ally Yuval Ne'eman, founder of the Tehiya party, let the cat out of the bag. He said publicly that South Lebanon was "geographically and historically an integral part of Israel."

"Israel could integrate (Lebanon) south of Litani (River) into development plans," he added.

Over the 11 months between US envoy Philip Habib's border ceasefire and the start of the war Israel charged that the PLO staged 270 terrorist actions in Israel, the Occupied Territories, and along the Lebanese and Jordanian borders, in which 29 Israelis were killed and more than 300 were injured.

But after the war, former chief of Israeli Military Intelligence Gen. Yehoshafat Harkabi charged that the 1982 invasion had been engineered by deceit at the highest political levels. Harkarbi cites misleading statements to the cabinet by Sharon and Begin, inaccurate announcements by Israel's military spokesmen and the Likud government's gross exaggeration of terrorist acts conducted from Lebanon. Defence Minister Rabin later admitted in the Knesset that during the eleven-month ceasefire preceding the war Israel's northern settlements had been attacked only twice and that during this period Israel had suffered a total of two killed and six wounded from terrorist attacks out of Lebanon.

During the same period, the UN Secretary-General reported 2096 Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace, including bombing raids like the ones on June 4/5 1982, which killed 45 people. Or the raid at Damour on 21 April, which killed 23. This raid was a reprisal carried out after an Israeli officer INSIDE LEBANON stepped on a landmine.

The ostensible immediate pretext for the invasion was the (actually non-fatal) shooting of the Israeli ambassador to London. This led the Israeli cabinet to conclude that the PLO needed to be driven out of Lebanon.

The only problem was that the British police had proved beyond any doubt that the shooting was the work not of the PLO, but of Arafat's hated rival Abu Nidal, who had zero presence in Lebanon. When this was mentioned to IDF Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan, he uttered his famous quote: "Abu Nidal, Abu Shmidal, we need to screw the PLO."

Israel has fought plenty of purely defensive wars, but Lebanon wasn't one of them. About 17,000 civilians died in that war, including those massacred at Sabra and Shatila. And the architect of those massacres would be running Israel today were it not for a medical mishap.

"The tolerance the Arabs have shown for Israel's aggression is something the west is incapable of understanding" -DeDum

I had to laugh, and am happy the Post allows comedy.

OD gives his/her game away when he/she mentions Sabra and Shatilla (plus some statistics from who knows where).

We all know that the massacre was revenge by the Christian Phalange, for the numerous masacres carried out by the Muslims against Christians in the civil war. A commission found Sharon indirectly responsible, and Sharon successfully sued Time Magazine in the US for libel for similar accusations that OD makes. By that reckoning, Rumsfeld is responsible for the daily suicide bombs in Iraq, even if US forces are not committing them.

I suggest, OD, that you broaden your reading, and try to understand the political forces that apply after an event, particualarly when elections are around the corner. We see the same in the USA (Kerry vs Bush), UK (Blair vs Howard) and even Australia (Howard vs Latham).

to OD, "arhcitect of those masacres" re Sabra and Shatilla is just nonsense. You only discredit yourself and show that you are arguing based on emotion (hatred of Sharon?Israel?) and not reason.

To Johan, I would hardly say that Rumsfeld is responsible for the terror in Iraq, although I take your point.

Actually, Carol, Sharon was found to bear "personal responsibility" for those two massacres by an Israeli government inquiry, which demanded he be fired as defence minister for his role.

Those Phalangists were in those camps massacring people for 64 hours, while the camps were supposedly under the close guard of the IDF.

Is Rabin a discredited source? He said in the Knesset that only two Israelis had been killed by attacks from Lebanon.

I see you pass without comment over the annexation comments of one cabinet minister.

The fact is that many people in that government were profoundly unhappy over Lebanon, which is why the sordid truth eventually emerged.

Calling me ignorant (Johan) or anti-semitic (Carol) isn't going to cut it. These are standard fallbacks when you guys have nothing better to say.

I don't hate Israel. On the contrary, I agree with the millions of Israelis who hated the Lebanese war.

And you two represent Likud, not Israel.

Carol,

There is nothing to laugh about what DeDum wrote.

What's laughable is claiming lands in the middle east when you haven't set foot in it in the last 2000 years.

For the record, Israel attacked Egypt (along with France and Britain) in 1956.

In 1967, Israel again attacked Egypt.

In 1948, the great state of Israel celebrated its "independence" with a majority of foreign-born citizens.

Israeli government census bureau in 2004:

http://www.cbs.gov.il/hodaot2004/01_04_98e.htm

[
Of "Jews and others" today, about 66% are Israeli-born, and another 34% were born abroad. When the state was established, the situation was reverse: about 35% of the Jews were Israeli-born, and the rest were born abroad. However, today only about 30% of all residents of Israel (1.5 million residents) were born in the country to an Israeli-born father.
]

Even in 2004, the state of Israel still had a substantial foreign-born population (34%), AND even the 66% native born portion (Jews and others) include about 20% of native Arabs. So we are left with 42% of native born Israeli-Jews in Israel in 2004.

Still some wonder why the Arabs refused to accept Israel in 1948?

No one would have accepted a country founded by a majority of foreign-born people in the midst of their lands.

This is not about Jew vs Arab or Jew vs Muslim,

It was and it still is NATIVE VS SETTLER.

It just so happens that the natives are mostly Arab (Muslims and Christians) and settlers Jewish.

It could have been the opposite.

Carol,

Regarding Sharon's reponsibility, here is a link from the Human Rights Watch (that has quotes from the Israeli commission that found Sharon personaly responsible):

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/06/23/isrlpa97.htm

If you insist, I could find you the actual Israeli report.

Sharon was forced to resign from his minister of defense post after he led the Lebanese invasion in which about 20,000 people (just Arabs) were killed, on top the Sabra massacre.

The last country on earth that wants to see war break out involving Iran is China. They have a lot to lose and I predict they will influence Iran to join the NPT and have its "nuclear power development" verified. Its the only real answer and China can put the screws to Iran so I'm sure it is what will happen. It is why they joined the US and Russia on this matter.

What does China have to lose? Oil and lots of it. Say a war breaks out and oil stops flowing at its current pace from the ME. The remaining oil states will raise prices and sell to countries that have the most money and the most military/economic power to ensure they sell to those countries. China may have a lot of money but not the political or economic clout the US and EU have to ensure a continued supply of oil from the rest of the world.

So not to worry folks, no war about to happen. Watch for China to push and prod Iran into settling this peacefully. And if Iran's president continues on his messianic path, watch for him to be overthrown or democratically replaced. Iran is not old-Iraq and there are many who will make that happen should China turn the screw hard enough. Iranians are mostly sane people after all who love their country.

Iran developing the bomb is not a good thing but you have to give the Iranians credit for likely being as judicious as any other power about using the bomb. Frankly the "Bomb" is not useful as a weapon in a very real sense. You can't us it without being pummeled by competing powers who also have the ability to deliver a weapon back to you. Some countries such as the US and Russia could literally change large portions of Iran into a sheets of glass. The Iranians are not fools. With the US, Russia, France, China, Great Britain, India, Pakistan, Israel, N. Korea all having nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them Iran is not going to be a serious threat to use the weapons or that unusual in our world. What it does do for them is give them prestige.

I believe the Sharon government in Israel made a fundamental error in convincing the US it would help Israel to dismember Iraq. They have been hoodwinked and double crossed by the Iranians and Israel is now making belligerent moves to forestall development of Iran's bomb. A task that may be beyond Israel's capability. Unfortunately as things are going now the strategic equation in the region will change and not for the better. A new and strengthened Iran incorporating the Iraqi south will rival Israel in the region as a major military power and a religious power. They will eclipse Saudi Arabia as an oil power. We will see the rise of a muscular anti west Shiite state. The followers of Ali will have their bomb so the 20% of the Moslem world will now have a nuclear champion and vindication of their faith. Maybe they will settle down after awhile if not we will rue the day we smashed up Iraq.

Keep dreaming Karim, keep dreaming.

Interesting to read the comments here, and how little people really know about the history of the Middle East.

Probably the most incredible claim here is that Jews were not in the land of Israel for 2000 years. But there is clearly a sinister purpose behind such "ignorance".

I am a Palestinian, and am going to vote in our first real elections here today.

In my view, Iran should not get nuclear weapons. It is a dangerous state, and has actually made things worse for us here by supporting terrorist groups.

I hope for peace with Israel. I am against suicide bombings and our leaders have made a big mistake by breeding hate. Whilst Israel has done bad things, it is an open democratic country, and one which Palestine should copy.

Please, those who have good intentions for Palestine, please do not lie and change the history. Palestine will come, but it must not be built on lies and hatred of the Jews.

Thank you.

Samir

What is a shame here is the opportunity for the US to stand up and shine. By delivering the Palestinian people from their undeserving plight.

Unfortunately it'll be Iran that will be credited as the country who stood up for the Palestinians and freed them from their daily torment and not the great USA.

It was the Iranians(the Persians)that freed the Jews in Babylon from slavery in Egypt. And ironically it is going to be Iran to free the Palestinians from their daily oppression.

Carol, It seems that you are not interested in learning. Here are few other facts, where were most Israeli prime ministers born? The answer is: in Europe.

The very first Israeli Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, was born in Poland.

2nd Prime Minister Moshe Sharett, was born in Ukraine, 3rd PM Levi Eshkol born in Ukraine, 4th PM Golda Meir born in Ukraine, etc.

Only a few were born in the Middle East.

Here is the complete list:

http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500644_761575008_-1_1/Israeli_Prime_Ministers.html

So not only the population was a majority of foreign born, most of Israeli prime ministers were born in Europe.
This is simply supports what I wrote before:

It is a conflict of natives vs settlers.

Nathaniel,

I urge you to read my post again. I argued that the majority of Israeli never been to the Middle East for centuries, if not 2000 years. Is it serious and reasonable to claim settlement rights based on some event that occured 20000 years ago?

Of course there was always some Jewish presence in Palestine. In the 19th century and early 20th century, it was still a minority. Not enough to impose their will on the Arab majority and to violate their basic right to their own homes where they lived.

Labor Zionism (kibbutizm) that believed in socialist ethics excluded the native Arabs:

In 1946, kibbutizm father, A.D. Gordon (who was born in Russia) described the Arabs as "filthy, degraded and contemptible". (Karen Armstrong, Jerusalem one city three faiths, page 378)

Why such hatred and racism from someone who was not even born in Palestine? Gordon made Aliyah when he was about 40 years old.

This exclusion still occurs today except that the Palestinians gave them more reasons to do so.

Perhaps A.D. Gordon was commenting on the Arab tendencies in the 40s of supporting Nazism and murder of innocent Jews. Thousands of Jews who were born in Palestine and Jews who legally came there to live (prior to 1948) were murdered by Arabs in the 30s and 40s. The Mufti of Jerusalem visited Hitler and openly supported him. All this while worshipping in a Mosque built on top of the remnants of the Jewish Temple.
Jewish actions and attitudes to Arabs have been a reaction to Arab hatred, prejudice and violence.

Hi Jefferson,

Do you also read any international off-line media? The best Israeli military analysis I've seen anywhere is A. Pe'er's "Priviledged Information" column in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish newspaper Hamodia. It's not online but there is a weekly American edition in English. About a month ago, A. Pe'er wrote an excellent report explaining why Israel will not attack Iran.

Hateful anti-semitc imbeciles like Karim and OD are the resaon why peace is so hard to find in the middle east

David,

There was nothing legal in using a colonial power (Britain) to settle Palestine from Europe. That was dishonest and immoral since the settlers knew that Britain was occupying a foreign territory. They took advantage of it.

How about if the US, that is occupying Iraq today, allows people from say India to settle in Iraq? Would that be acceptable?

Gordon was just another racist and bigot like the many extremist European Zionists who first settled Palestine.

The Arabs had every right to fight the European settlers, although attacking the native Jews of Palestine was unjustified.

Jews lived in Palestine for 1400 years under Arab/Muslim and not once they were expelled by force.

Then came the Zionists from Europe and evicted thousands of innocent natives who were born in the wrong religion, and partitioned their land in the most unjuste way.

Kibbutizm racism still goes on today in Israel. they do not allow Arab-Israeli in.

Karim you really need to get back on your medication and return to whatever mental institution you excaped from!

Karim, do some research. Look into the numerous Jewish communities wiped out in the late 1800s and early 1900s by Arabs. Look into how many Jews came to Palestine long before the British Mandate, while it was under Turkish rule. The Turks let them in, took their money, allowed them to improve the land, and then let the Arabs kill them. According to you it is immoral to flee corrupt violent pogroms in Eastern Europe to try to start again in the only land you ever considered your homeland - the land where if you dig 5 feet down there is evidence of your culture and religion?

Jefferson,

Once again you place in a "World Opinion Roundup" an article by someone who lives in the USA:

--- Trita Parsi, a Middle East specialist at the Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Washington ---

Maybe you should take the advice of sarah and actually bring to this blog columns and article by those in other parts of the world, preferably by multiple sources. What I like about this blog is reading controversial articles from the rest of the world and the following discussions about that point of view.

Thank you Joan for expressing the views of the sane chat viewers!

Israel having to negotiate another country in the region AS EQUALS??!! What th' heck is this world coming to?

That would destroy the profitability of America's military contractors!! Oh yeah, and it would lead to a peace settlement in the Mideast, another no-no.

Israel having to negotiate with another country in the region AS EQUALS??!! What th' heck is this world coming to?

That would destroy the profitability of America's military contractors!! Oh yeah, and it would lead to a peace settlement in the Mideast, another no-no.

David,

The confrontation between native Arabs and settlers (and also native Jews) in Palestine in the 1800s is well documented. There was no large scale "ethnic cleansing" as you have suggested.

The natives were simply alarmed by the huge number of settlers coming from Europe. Why should you think they should welcome them with open arms?

You wrote that the Turks allowed Jewish immigration, that is true. And so did the Arabs. The immigration was taking place in reasonable numbers that did not threaten the natives.

All of that changed when Zionists planned for a country in Palestine. The Zionists failed to convince the natives of their plan, and instead of respecting their wish and seeking a peaceful solution, they went ahead with it by using the powerful colonial power at the time Britain (Balfour).

There is nothing immoral about feeling pogroms, persecution and suffering in Europe but it is immoral to inflict another form of suffering on the natives in the new "homeland".

You could argue that the Jewish suffering was greater (2000 years of persecution, holocaust etc) but it is up to the Palestinians to make that decision and to accept a lesser form of suffering (losing their homeland).

It is a shame that even after the Palestinians were forced to accept this "lesser form of suffering", Israel would not let them have their own country after more than 50 years.

Palestinians have a solid moral right in this conflict. The Israeli got away with their injustices because some felt that their people suffered too much in the past.

Joan,

Anyone who defends the Palestinian rights becomes an anti-semite?

I only posted few overlooked facts based on the Israeli government statistics itself.

Peace was not reached because Israeli would not let Palestinian fly their own flag for more than 50 years....not even in their refugee camps.

Palestinians are THE primary victims in this conflict.

Why do you even choose the side of Isreal? It is a small, artificially created country of Jews in the heart of milions of their enemies since the dawn of time. It will be a miracle if it survives the next 100 years at all. The arabs doesn't even have to wage war on it. Demographics and econimics could bring it down by themselves. And the USA won't be able to bail them out forever. China is clearly about to inherit the throne. The only reason someone could support Isreal is either emotional or religios because there is no logical one for sure. A handful of jews agains milions of muslims. Not a tough choice at all.

Razor, Larry and Jon - Do you actually know any Iranians? Have you, by chance, ever visited Iran, for that matter do you know any Muslims? It seems obvious that you do not and that you are simply regurgitating standard anti-Muslim doctrine as set down by ignorant Americans who have absolutely no idea of who and what Muslims, Arabs or Iranians are.

Arabs and Persians were 'civilized' while Europe was still in the Dark Ages and the US was not even a thought - the move to Islam did not eradicate this but enhanced it. You underestimate us, we are not a bunch of radical idiots clambering for war and mutual destruction, we want peace and stability on our terms not on terms dictated by an America that is interested only in our oil and an Israel interested only in its military supremacy and the expansion of its borders. Learn about us before you speak about us!

Cambel, Jeremy, Johan, Joan, David, Louis - Do you actually read history or do you get your information from various tabloids, or perhaps it is from that magnificent piece of work 'History for Dummies'? Do you really believe the rubbish you expouse? It is obvious that you know absolutely nothing about Middle Eastern history. Native Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in peace for hundreds of years. It was - as in the case of the Crusaders and later the Zionists - always the foreign elements that stirred up trouble, that is a reality. Actually, Jewish scholars thrived under Islamic rule and were some of the most respected of their time. The role of the IDF, and Sharon at Sabra and Shatilla, is a known fact. Israel did 'invade' Lebanon and the Suez, Iran (not Persia) has never invaded any country but was invaded by a Western backed Iraq. The Palestinians were driven from their homes by a Zionist movement that was given full leeway by a West that felt nothing but guilt for allowing the holocaust. The Oxford Dictionary's definition of a Semite is 'a member of a people speaking a Semitic language in particular the Jews and Arabs' and thus to call Arabs anti-Semitic shows your ignorance.

Please learn before you speak (or write), it would be far better for all concerned since ignorance is the real war we all fight.

Why do you even bother? All they saw with their "open" minds was probably bla bla bla. They only seem to hear the phrases "Death to America" or "Death to Isreal" and "Alah Akbar". Facts will really srew their peace of mind you know.:)

The main problem with the situation in Iran is that the concept of mutual deterrence is no longer valid.
It's too simple to secretly give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization and nuke the enemy without being officially involved.
I suppose that for a suicide-bomber, there is little differece in blowing-up using a conventional bomb or a nuclear one. There is no need to have costly missiles for this, and even a rudimentary device could cripple a nation.

So the prospect of having an Iran nuclear-capable is alarming, because:
1. has stated that it seeks the destruction of Israel
2. has extensible and proven contacts with organizations which employs the suicide-bomenbers tactics

It could be helpful if the nuclear material could be "marked" in some ways (during the controlled enrichment process), so that in case of a nuclear terrorist attack the nation (any nation) providing the weapon can be identified (and punished, of course). This would re-establish the concept of deterrence, but I fear that this is not currently technically feasible.

By the way, this is basically the same message Chirac sent few days ago, warning about consequences of supporting terrorist attacks with WMDs.

You do realise that arabs want that land and they are not going to nuke it just to get the jews off it because then it won't matter they are off it. Their real weapon is the demogaphic boom. In 50 years Isreal will no longer be a Jewish state so no need to nuke it and how will the Isrealis protect themselves against that without doing something drastic and inhumane hmm. Anyway you look it Isreal is doomed to simply dissapear as a jewish state at least.

While apprehension at Iran acquiring WMD is widely shared and understandable the likelyhood that Iran would actually use them is virtually nil. It would be impossible to use them on Israel without killing nummerous muslims and would see a response from Israel that would kill even more. The whole thing would almost ceratinly see the destruction of Tehran, Mecca and Jersusalem and even the loons in Tehran are not that stupid.

The point with WMD is that they are most effective when not used and this applies to Iran as much as to any other country.

The bigger worry isn't Iran having WMD in itself so much as the fact that this would encourage other middle-eastern states to acquire WMD and this is not a road anyone wants to go down.

Incidentally, the discussion here begs the question - who created modern Islamic Iran? The answer, of course, is America. In 1953 when the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, namely, Mr. Mohammed Mossadegh tried to oust the corrupt and tyrannical Shah the US intervened (Operation Ajax) to restore their ally to the throne. The thought of an Iranian leader that could think for himself and maybe even question Americas overwhelming control of Iran's oil was unthinkable and thus Operation Ajax was set into motion.

The resulting 25 year rule - supported wholeheartedly by the US in exchange for oil, various huge military and other contracts, as well as a subservient ally with a very large army - was marked by extreme corruption, at the expense of the majority of the population, and was maintained through the liberal use of SAVAK (the ruthless Iranian security and intelligence organization) and their torture chambers. These factors, combined with the Shah's continuing avoidance of allowing any form of democracy or any meaningful civic and political liberties, eventually led to a popular uprising in 1978 - 1979 that allowed the cleric Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic Republic to succeed the Shah.

Operation Ajax was the first time that the US overthrew a Middle Eastern Government, a democratically elected one at that, and the result is modern Islamic Iran. So much for the US ideology of democracy! You create your own demons - and the list in long, including a certain Mr. Saddam Hussein - and then wonder why the world turns against you.

Iran should be free, under the right international (not American) controls, to develop its nuclear capabilities. The Iranians fully understand that using a nuclear device against its neighbours, notably, Israel, would basically ensure its own destruction and they are - regardless of the nonsensical statements that they may publicly (and to their own discredit I might add) make - in no hurry to destroy themselves. They have survived many thousands of years and I very much doubt that they will allow themselves to be drawn into a nuclear confrontation that will result in their, and most of the Arab worlds (including Israel), annihilation.

Anyway, it will give some long awaited and much needed balance to the region and will force America (and Israel) and to think hard before it meddles in the region for their own gain and at the cost of the local populace. A good example of such meddling for its own gain would, I dare say, be Iraq?

NH,

It is refreshing to read your intelligent posts. They are factual and interesting. Please continue to post them.

Ignore the posts that are personal attacks and rhetorical. They are empty and hollow, because they have no where to run and are out of touch with facts and reality. Therefore the lunatic comments and statements.

Iran and iranians are indeed an old civilised culture with rich heritage and history.

Something's not kosher about her arguments.

NH:

In all due respect, is your characterization of Islamic, Christian and Jewish relations over the past meillenium and a half accurate? At the founding of Islam, did not its adherents begin a full-scale military conquest of the known world at the time? Wasn't that push turned back only as a result of reciprocal conquest by the West and others?

Steve:

You are quite right, the Muslim Arabs did begin a conquest of the known world which began shortly after the death of the Prophet Mohammed and continued throughout the sixth and into the seventh century. In 711 the Berber Tarik invaded and rapidly conquered Visigothic Spain. Famously by 733 the Muslims reached Poitiers in France. There a battle, more significant to westerners than Muslims, halted the Muslim advance. In truth by that stage Islam was at its limits of military expansion. I will state, categorically, that such conquest (as with all conquests) were not without the massacres, and other atrocities, that are done by all religions in the name of God (as though God would ever accept it!!). This, unfortunately, is human and all conquerors have made similar mistakes.

I am not in anyway trying to justify this at all, I am no advocate of war or of conquest - and certainly not massacres and atrocities - but the Muslims of the time felt it their duty, their Jihad, to convert the world to Islam and not all were balanced or even sane human beings. The conquests were not, however, pushed back by the subsequent conquests of the West, actually, the Muslins stayed and ruled in Spain until the fall of Grenada in 1492. The First Crusade (and there were seven in all) began in 1095, three hundred years after the battle of Poitiers. The Crusades, as I am sure you know, were nothing to do with the repelling of the Arabs from Europe but - at least in name - all about reclaiming Jerusalem from the 'Infidels'.

My point, however, is that under Islamic rule all faiths were allowed, under a system called the Dhimmi system - which was not perfect and did, it must be said, have some rather humiliating legislation attached to it - to worship freely and live is peace. In fact during the persecution of the Jews in Europe in the Middle Ages (circa 843 AD onwards) the only sanctuary for Jews in Europe was Muslim controlled Spain. Spain under Islamic rule was, in fact, by the tenth century the envy of all the World and boasted the greatest thinkers, scholars, artists, scientists etc.. of all faiths of its time. This was, at the time, true of all the regions under Islamic rule. Peace and prosperity reigned supreme and men turned their attentions to the bettering of their world rather than the destruction of it. The Crusades were the beginning of the end of this era.

I appreciate Trita Parsi's acknowledgement that ignorance is the greatest enemy in understanding each other in this dialogue. Unfortunately, he consistently makes references that only further the ignorance he claims to abhor.
He states, for example, that Jews lived for centuries in peace with their Arab neighbors, but this ignores the fact that this was only the peace of the dhimmi. The truth is that the vast majority of Arab Jews dropped everything and ran when given half the chance after the creation of the state of Israel.
He also claims that the Palestinians were driven out of their homes during the 1948 war by the "Zionist movement," but this ignores the fact that a pre-eminent researcher of the cause of the Palestinian flight during that war, Benny Morris, has concluded that there was in fact no systematic Zionist plan to drive the Arabs out.
He further claims that Israel will somehow seek out territorial compromise in order to avoid points of friction with Tehran, but this ignores the enduring fact that Israel's very existence is the only point of friction Tehran has ever needed.
What we end up with is a strange focus in his article on some feared relationship between Teheran and Washington. This ignores the simple reality of what Israel truly is focusing on and why it does so. Since its founding, Israel has faced an unyielding wall of Arab hatred whether in the peaceful form of declarations such as Khartoum's "No Recognition, No Negotiations, No Peace" in the 1960s, or the not so peaceful form of detonating Israeli civilians, all the way from the fedayeen raids of the 1950s to the suicide bombings of today. The bottom line today is, as has been elsewhere noted, that while a majority of Israelis accept the moral legitimacy of Palestinian claims to statehood, the vast majority of Palestinians have now formally reaffirmed their intent to see the Jewish state extinguished.
Unsurprisingly, therefore, Israel is focused on its own survival and, while it has committed terrible atrocities against Palestinians in this quest, the actions it has taken and will take in the future to secure the lives of its citizens simply cannot be trivialized in the manner Mr. Parsi intends, much less trivialized in so baseless a fashion.
This brings my comments back to Jonathan Morley. I still wait for his response to Dan's critique on 1/24 at 5:25 and 5:28. Morley states he introduced his readers to Mr. Parsi's article because he has interesting things to say. Maybe he does, but this piece, as void of substantiation as it is, does not deserve the legitimacy Morley chose to give it.

Mr. Chandler:

To use Benny Morris as conclusive evidence on whether or not there was a systematic plan by the Zionists to drive the Arabs out in 1948 is hardly justified. Mr. Morris, although an outspoken and intelligent man who shook the very foundations of Israeli academic society with his findings on the various wrongs done by Israel to the Palestinians - becoming a folk hero to many Palestinians - portrayed a very simplistic view on the conflict and was never very convincing in his arguments regarding this subject. In fact his book The Refugee Problem and Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001 tended to adopt the official Israeli interpretation of the said events.

I would like to draw your attention to the research work done by a certain Mr. Baruch Kimmerling a Professor of Sociology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem who concluded that there was a major drive to expel the Arabs from the land during the 1948 War, a drive that was implemented by the Jewish military and para-military forces and which resulted in the confiscation of 3.25 million dunums of rural land and determined that, all in all about 700,000 Arabs who were driven out of the territory had owned four million dunums of land. He, and other Israeli scholars, justify their claims by reviewing the amount of land actually owned by Jews prior to 1948 as well as referring to the military blueprint for the 1948 called "Plan D" (Tochnit Daleth). This blueprint clearly outlined the drive to expel the Arabs, by any means, and secure a much larger Israel than granted by the UN Partition Resolution.

Also in regards to the Dhimmi which - as I have previously stated - was far from perfect, it did secure a long lasting peace between the various faiths under Islamic rule at the time, something we are not seeing in today's world at all. The Dhimmi was not the cause of the flight of the Jews from the various Muslim nations they lived in when Israel was created. The cause of their flight was the promise of their own homeland which was given to them at the cost of the Palestinians.

NH: It is no more useful to attach importance to the unsubstantiated opinions you offer, such as Benny Morris' findings being "very simplistic" and "not very convincing," than to those offered by Mr. Parsi.

First, you are perhaps the first person I have read who seems to think that the extreme discriminatory practices carried out in history by Muslims against non-Muslims minorites offer any kind of model for relationships between peoples in this or any century in the future. In view of this, it is not surprising that you ignore the fact that the unspeakably oppressed Jews did not leave before the creation of the state of Israel only because they had no place to go.

As for Mr. Kimmerling, I consider his work somewhat underminded in view of his stated biases, including a belief, reported a few years ago by Le Monde Diplomatique, that Judaism and democracy are antithetical to each other. And this is separate from a more organic understanding of the historical context of Plan D, which includes the fact that Ben Gurion himself rejected the explicit petitions of some of the more extreme Zionist partisans, including Joseph Weitz, to issue any expulsion directive.

And of course, all of this is marginalized by the 2,000 pound gorilla that is today's reality, i.e., the majority of Israelis recognize the moral legitimacy of a Palestinian state, while the vast majority of Palestinians have just chosen leaders whose primary goal is to eradicate the state of Israel. In this face of this, I fail to see how a whole lot else matters.

Mr. Chandler,

I do not, and I do apologise if I have implied that I do, believe that the Dhimmi is a model for any time, I simply use it to underscore that - despite its obvious drawbacks and unjust nature - its use at the time did enable a peaceful, albeit discriminatory, solution to the problems that multi-faith societies were faced with at the time. I do not believe it to be a good working model but it did have the right effects vis a vis people of many faiths living and worshipping together in peace.

Also, if you read my last post, you would have understood that I did categorically state that the Jews left the various Muslim states as soon as they had their own 'homeland'. They lived, prior to their homeland, within the Muslim world before their homeland because it was the safest place for them to be. You seem to ignore the simple fact that the Jews living with the Muslim states at the time did worship, study, teach, write etc.. without regard for their religion. At the same time, the Jews of Europe etc.. were being persecuted and killed by the thousands. At the very least the Muslims offered some peace for the Jews, whereas the Christians of Europe offered only death. The persecution of the Jews was a Christian undertaking, not a Muslim one. That is an undeniable fact and you choose to ignore this yourself.

Also, the Palestinians choice of Hamas was not based on their policy for the eradication of the Jewish Sate but on their abilities on the Municipal level and their perceived lack of corruptibility. Fateh was a tremendously corrupt beast that simply had to go. What other choice did the Palestinians have? What other parties are there for them to choose from? Most Palestinians, contrary to your beliefs, recognize Israel but also want to be recognized and not treated as an occupied people which, despite the Oslo Agreements etc.. they still are.

Chandler,

You write about the Israeli majority having recognized the right of the NATIVES to self-determination as something extraordinary...it doesn't matter to you the fact that the same state to which Israeli pay taxes, and in which they serve in the army, still OCCUPIES military and by the use of force over 3 million people against their wish and in violation of UN resolutions.

Of course this little detail doesn't matter to Zionist apologists because really the occupation seems to be the fault of the Palestinians themselves and that the 200,000 Israeli settlers are just tourists in the territories!!

Any reasonable person who looks at the fact surrounding 1948 would not dispute the fact that Israel had to expel enough Arabs from its territories in order to secure a solid Jewish majority (of foreign born people too).

This is from the 1947 UN partition plan resolution:

http://www.mideastweb.org/unscop1947.htm

"But the Committee also realized that the crux of the Palestine problem is to be found in the fact that two sizable groups, an Arab population of over 1,200,000 and a Jewish population of over 600,000, with intense nationalist aspirations, are diffused throughout a country that is arid, limited in area, and poor in all essential resources."

>>> Please note 1.2 million Arabs vs 600,000 Jews (majority foreign-born settlers).

The proposed partition (1946 estimates, samle link above):

The Arab state: 725,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews.

The Jewish state: 498,000 Jews and 407,000 Arabs.

Jerusalem (international): 100,000 Jews and 105,000 Arabs

(of course today, Israel says Jerusalem must be part of Israel)

I wrote above that most of Israeli-Jews around 1948 were foreign-born, and here is my proof from the Israeli government itself:

http://www.cbs.gov.il/hodaot2004/01_04_98e.htm

If the Israeli government says only 30% of Israeli were native born in 1948, and this ratio includes Arabs who were left in Israel, then of the 498,000 Jews mentioned in the UN partition, only 194,000 were natives (vs 400,000 Arabs).

I hope this is clear enough for you to realize that not only the partition plan was one of the great injustices, the Israeli had to evict enough Arabs in order to secure a solid majority.

Before the eviction, there were almost 40% Arabs in Israel. Within a decade, they would have become a majority.

Even today, Israel still fears the 20%, and growing, Arab-Israeli despite the fact Israel did everything it could to bring in more Jews into Israel (almost 1.2 million Russians), not to mention the over 50 years illegal ban by Israel on Palestinian refugees from returning to their legitimate homes.