Nowruz Greetings

nowruz mubarak to you too JK. Unfortunately, am stuffed with work this weekend so won’t be able to celebrate but it’s on the list of things to do.

Homer (not Iranian, but married to one)

…lentil soup and a good Persian stew…
.
Got recipes?

after watching Pres’ nowruz message I am reminded that it should of course be “eideh shoma mubarak”

Joe Klein~

…the gulf between the decency, humor and sophistication of the Iranian people and its brutal government is enormous.

Would you attribute any of President Ahmadinejad’s hard-line approaches to factors outside the realm of his own alleged apocalyptic fanaticism? In other words, is it not true that Iran, under President Khatami, made overt gestures towards improved relations with the west on several occasions only to be casually dismissed? I believe he worked towards these efforts in 1997. But, again, in 2003, he made a magnanimous offer to the United States. The proposal was that Iran would cease supplying arms, resources, and support to Hezbollah and other so-called rogue groups, that Iran would assist in quelling the insurgency in Iraq and stabilize Afghanistan, that Iran would provide intelligence on Al Qaead to the United States, and that Iran would support the two-state solution and recognize Israel’s right to exist. In return, Iran wished to pursue civilian nuclear capabilities and requested that the United States take the military option off the table in its dealings with Iran. The Bush administration, with extreme pressure from Israel, flatly rejected this offer. In fact, by 2005, when Ahmadinejad was elected, the rhetoric coming out of Tel-Aviv and Washington was a mirror reflection of the saber-rattling that led to the Iraq invasion. Under such conditions, is it not somewhat understandable that Iran would look to a more aggressive leader, one who would seek to elevate Iran’s deterrent capabilities amidst such existential threats posed by western powers? Not to excuse the crackdown on dissidence and freedom within Iran, Joe Klein, but can you see where one might feel the need to project a more powerful image to the world in an attempt to give pause to the would be inavders in the US and Israel? In conclusion, I give you this to dwell on, from Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations:

Iran’s nuclear calculations are not derived from an irrational ideology, but rather from a judicious attempt to craft a viable deterrent capability aganist an evolving range of threats…Iran’s leadership clearly sees itself as being in Washington’s cross hairs, and it is precisely this perception that is driving its accelerated nuclear program.

Exiled–I agree with Ray Takeyh and have stated it often here on Swampland. As for the other stuff, you may have a case when it comes to 2003–although no one can be sure–but the Clinton Administration made a concerted effort to reach out to Khatami, a handshake was supposed to take place at the 2000 UN General Assembly, but the Supreme Leader et al pulled Khatami back at the last moment. (Khatami later said it was the moment he most regretted during his presidency.)

By the way, another lost moment may have been when President Rafsanjani offered Conoco an oil-development deal and the Clinton Administration turned it down. I’m told–by Rafsanjani’s brother, in fact–that it was an effort to open diplomatic relations via commerce.

Joe,
Thank you very much for the response.
.
In regard to the Conoco deal, that was far more than a simple matter of Clinton turning down the offer. The Iranians were seeking to develop the Sirri oil fields, and after many contract requests were made, they went with the American company Conoco. This was widely perceived -as you note- as a gesture to improve Iranian-American relations. Clinton did not simply turn the offer down. On March 15, 1995 Clinton issued an executive order banning all American companies from developing Iranian oil fields. Then, on May 6, he issued another executive order, which banned all investments and corporate trading with Iran. Not to be outdone, and fearing that the executive orders could be rescinded under another administration, Congress put forth the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act which placed American sanctions on any foreign companies investing more than $40 million in oil resources in Iran or Libya. It passed the HOuse by a vote of 415-0 on June 19, 1996 and unanimous approval in the Senate. This, effectively, killed any opportunities of improving relations with Iran. The message was crystal clear.

Exiled, I find it curious and troubling that you are so willing to give Iranian leadership the benefit of doubt (though you do at least acknowledge Ahmedinejad’s fanaticism), while always assuming the worst about Israel without regard to the nearly two decades of negotiations they have held with Palestinians. I agree with JK that Iranians are not bad people – in fact, I have several Iranian friends, and I find them to be some of the friendliest people I know.

But the Iranian leadership, since the Islamic revolution in 1979, has consistently shown itself to take hard line, extremist positions and actions, from its takeover of the US embassy at the onset, to its despicable use of children as human mine-disposal tools during the Iran-Iraq war (granted, neither side was innocent of horrific actions during this war), to Ahmedinejad’s Holocaust denial and calls for the destruction of Israel.

This is not to say that the US shouldn’t strive to open diplomatic channels and try to come to a peaceful resolution regarding Iranian nuclear aspirations. But to delude yourself into believing that a nuclear Iran would only serve as a “deterrent”, and not present a genuine threat of nuclear war, based on unbelievably gullible interpretations of Iran’s past intentions and rationales, is frankly foolish. It reinforces the fact that you hold Israel to a completely different standard than any other country.

As evidence, let me ask you this: When Iran (or any other Muslim or Arab country, for that matter) is scheduled to compete against Israel in a sporting event, which side refuses to compete against the other? (Hint: The answer is not Israel…)

I’ve always been interested in the offer of 2003 via the Swiss ambassador that Joe mentions. More information quoted from a Frontline documentary.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/grandbargain.html

This article explains how Rumsfield and the neo-cons sabotaged Iran’s offer for help after 9/11. I didn’t know the author, so the paragraph following the very interesting link is from his bio on Huff Post.

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0602a/copyright/neoconiran911.html

Dr. Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist on U.S. national security policy who has been independent since a brief period of university teaching in the 1980s. Dr. Porter is the author of four books, the latest of which is Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam (University of California Press, 2005). He has written regularly for Inter Press Service on U.S. policy toward Iraq and Iran since 2005.

Grueven~
.
I apologize in advance for what will likely amount to a rather lengthy post.
.
From your perspective, these are all fair concerns. I will do my utmost to clarify them all.
.
First, let me just say that I am not giving the Iranian leadership the benefit of the doubt on anything. I am merely stating that it is entirely reasonable for Iran to seek nuclear capabilities to offset the threats posed by the US and Israel. Irrespective of whether Iran continues with its nuclear weapons program, America, and especially Israel, will still pose a grave threat to Iran. The quest for regional transformation, through regime changes in Iraq, Syria, and Iran, has long been a vocal priority of the Israeli leadership. The United States at one point in time had a policy of playing the Muslim states against one another. We took the Shah’s side for several decades, and then we supported Iraq against Iran, and then we went after Iraq. Our goal was to prevent any one state from reaching a level of regional hegemony. It was the Israelis, however, who encouraged us to pursue a policy of ‘dual containment.’ That is, having a large American military presence in the region to undermine both Iran and Iraq simultaneously. From an American standpoint this was unwise. For one thing, neither Iran or Iraq pose any substantial threat to the United States. We are more than capable of protecting ourselves from these states, and neither have given us any reason to believe that they would use WMD or nuclear weapons against the United States. Therefore, our sole grievances with them are the threat or rivalry to supremacy that they pose to Israel. That’s Israel’s problem, not ours. Israel can do whatever she likes in that respect, but American military forces should not play a role in this, nor should US foreign policy center around the interests of Israel.
.
I see no reason to believe that Iran would actually use her nuclear weapons on a first-strike basis. You know, Grueven, during the Cold War, many people just as yourself argued that the Soviet Union was an irrational power, with little concern for the consequences of its actions, and therefore presented a severe and erratic threat that could not be quelled through diplomacy. Fortunately, these people were wrong and deterrence actually worked. It would appear that those seemingly suicidal Soviets were actually driven more by self-preservation than ideology. Could it be that the Iranians, too, would consider their survival of greater importance than that of striking Israel? Surely, they must know that were they to use nuclear weapons the world would descend upon them in collusion and ultimately cripple or eliminate Iran altogether. Obviously, this assessment relies upon the assumption that the Iranian leadership is not quite as genocidal as some would have us believe. For example, according to Jaun Cole, Ahmadinejad has never actually called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” Nor has he called for the annihiliation of Israel. What he refers to is the demise of the Zionist regime. In other words, he is calling for the toppling of a government, not the genocide of a people. Is this any different than Israel advocating for regime changes in Iraq, Syria, or Iran? Certainly, those who called for the collapse of the Soviet Union were not urging for the genocide of the Russian people, either.
.
Now, you are absolutely correct that I hold Israel to a different standard than many other states. Just as I hold Europe and the US to higher standards. If Israel is really the liberal, western democracy that it claims to be, and is our ally, than I expect better than a third-rate autocracy.
.
You must understand that my motives are not derived from some warped hatred of Israel, but rather the best interests of the United States. I do not wish to see my country further involved in the injustices of the world, nor do I wish to see my country further drawn into conflict or opposition with regimes that frankly pose me and my country no foreseeable threat.

Ivy, that is fascinating information in those links you posted. I had run across the Gareth Porter article on another site, anti-war.com but had not seen the Frontline piece. It causes one to wonder what is up that we don’t know about. Much of this information was not especially secret, yet you have to dig to get at it. I ran across the Porter article seeking information that I was vaguely aware of that Iran had cooperated during the initial assault on the Taliban. I never found the information I was originally looking for. Also hard to find is information about Iran’s support of the northern alliance in Afghanistan during the civil war after the Russian withdrawal, and their and Russian’s continued support against the Taliban while the US sat idle until they needed the northern alliance to defeat the Taliban. Now you can easily find references to some suspicion that Iran is helping arm the Taliban, but no mention of the fact that such would go against all of the evidence that Iran has never, and probably would not now, have any use for the Taliban.
.
People think there is no Soviet era Pravda like propaganda spin out of the US government and in the US media. They would be mistaken.

Exiled,

Thank you for taking the time to respond in detail. I am glad that, despite our wide differences in opinion, we are able to hold slightly more civil discourse than the frequent mudslinging that appears on Swampland.
.
I personally believe that Israel, as a modern liberal democracy, should hold itself to the highest moral standard, and not play the game of making excuses based on the substandard behavior of its neighbors and enemies. In particular, a Jewish nation built on the foundations of centuries of persecution and discrimination all over the world should be doubly concerned with avoiding perpetrating discrimination of its own, and I am sorry to say that Israel does not have a stellar reputation in this regard.
.
However, you seem to be taking both sides of the road here. On the one hand, you accuse Israel of being far more nefarious than its enemies, disputing its justifications and even its right to existence, but on the other hand you hold it to a higher standard than those same enemies, who’s right to exist you presumably don’t deny. You can’t have it both ways. If Israel is indeed “worthy” of judgment as a democratic sovereign state, it should also be worthy of the benefits of such, like acknowledging its right to existence and self-defense.
.
As for Iran’s “right” to nuclear power for defensive purposes, exactly why do you believe that Israel and the US (acting as Israel’s proxy, according to you) pose a grave threat to Iran? Have you ever witnessed demonstrations in Tel Aviv or New York with massive crowds of people shouting “Death to Iran” and burning Iranian flags? Contrast that to the government sanctioned (and organized) protests in Iran shouting “Death to America” and “Death to Israel/the Zionists”. Neither Israel nor the US bear any ill will towards Iran. What they do have issue with is the threat that the Iranian leadership and its policies poses to them and their interests.
.
You do not deny the support that Iran grants to Hamas and Hezbollah, which you refer to as “so-called rogue groups”, who unabashedly target civilians, making them terror groups by any objective definition. Israel is not imagining the threat posed to it by Iran. Any reasonable person will surely realize that keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of such a threat is not a farfetched strategy. When viewed as such, what you term “the quest for regional transformation, through regime changes in Iraq, Syria, and Iran” is no more than Israel’s goal to seek leadership in Arab and Muslim countries who are not actively and irrationally pursuing its destruction. Israel would much prefer to see “regime change” (since all these countries are ruled by dictatorial regimes and revolution is the only way to oust the leadership) rather than fight wars against young soldiers who are following their hate-inspired commands.
.
So presumably, you concur that Israel has legitimate reason to worry about Iranian military capabilities. Now the question becomes, should America? And there are three possibilities on that front: Iran threatens America directly; Iran threatens American interests (ie: oil); or protecting Israel is an American interest.
.
I don’t believe that Iran would directly attack America, or American troops in the Middle East, since Iranian leadership is rational enough to recognize the folly of that. I do believe that a nuclear Iran would shift the balance of power in the ME, with potential disastrous repercussions in so-called “moderate” Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, propelling a new nuclear race and increased extremism in a Sunni-Shia standoff. This would very likely endanger oil exports from the region, with infrastructure and tankers becoming pawns in a deadly game. The US would certainly want to avoid such a scenario. (Though on the plus side, this would undoubtedly spur alternative fuel development!)
.
As for Israel being a strategic American interest, if you do acknowledge it to be a (flawed) liberal democracy, the US certainly should have a strategic partnership with the only country in the region that shares its values. Israeli companies, as well as American subsidiaries in Israel, produce a huge assortment of technologies in use across the world, from microchips to pharmaceuticals. Israeli academics have won multiple Nobel prizes, and Israeli artists are world-renowned. From a political standpoint, as you repeatedly point out, Israel enjoys support from across the political spectrum. What you seem to think is a vast conspiracy led by the Israel lobby (an idea which has ominous overtones of the debunked Protocols of Zion) is actually the clearheaded result of people who realize that Israel is, in fact, a natural and worthy ally of the United States, much as Taiwan is despite China’s opposition. (Having said that, I take issue with those who only view hardline Israeli positions as legitimate, and much prefer J-Street’s approach to AIPAC’s.)
.
Your Soviet analogy is a good one. Yes, the end results bore out the strategy of deterrence. Keep in mind, however, that the Soviet leadership was (mis)guided by a secular economic strategy, whereas Iranian leadership is led by fervent and (by definition) irrational religious fundamentalist belief. And I would ask you this in response: do you believe the nuclear standoff that existed during the Cold War was a positive thing? Because even if Iran doesn’t actually end up using nuclear weapons, surely you realize that a similar situation would exist vis-a-vis Israel once they achieved nuclear capability. Also, since you seem opposed to the concept of regime change, how would you propose that situation be resolved? After all, it was regime change (of sorts) in Russia that led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War!
.
You are clearly well-informed on these issues, and I am pained when you rely on marginal sources to make your point. Juan Cole hardly represents a definitive historical perspective. While “wiped off the map” may not be a precise translation of the Farsi phrase used by Ahmedinejad, it is the phrase his own translators posted on his official English website. And his speeches unquestionably called for Israel to be actively eradicated. As for the idea that he is simply calling for the toppling of Israel’s government, as opposed to Iran, Israel holds legitimate and fair democratic elections, so the regime need not be toppled for Israel’s policies to change.
.
And I’m sorry, but I do believe that your views are shaped by a warped view of Israel. To debate whether it is in America’s interest to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear capability is legitimate. To criticize Israel for its policies regarding the Palestinians, or discrimination of Israeli Arabs, is legitimate. To question whether America should be granting Israel so much aid money is legitimate. But to question Israel’s right to existence, or its sovereignty over the land within the borders of the 1949 armistice lines, is not. And for you to focus so much energy on criticizing Israel, while giving lip service at best to the dozens of other countries around the world where human rights are abused, including the other parties involved in the mess called the Middle East, does indicate a warped view.
.
P.S. I wasn’t trying to compete with you over length of response. I just had a lot to say.

greuven : “In particular, a Jewish nation built on the foundations of centuries of persecution and discrimination all over the world should be doubly concerned with avoiding perpetrating discrimination of its own, and I am sorry to say that Israel does not have a stellar reputation in this regard.”
..
What if I don’t agree with the conclusion that the establishment of the nation of Israel was the only or best resolution for the persecution and discrimination? It is just an academic question, because no doubt Israel is here to stay until we all go down the tubes in annihilation. What if I think that this solution has caused more harm than good to that cause? And if that is the case, shouldn’t all of diaspora be settled there? Assuming, of course, that room is found for them, and Israel certainly seems to be on that job, however, anybody agrees or disagrees with the methods.
..
As a US citizen, am I completely unreasonable to be resentful and believe that my interests are not served in this matter by my government, or by other US citizens, based on religious beliefs that I have no interest in?
..
Why should I care about Israel more than other countries in the middle east? Because some people in those countries would as soon see me dead for being and American? To continue your circular reasoning, why do they wish me, as an American, ill will?

greuven, as I think more about the questions I posed to you, it occurs to me that if my country had sided with the Palestinians (just a funny thought), that Zionist terrorists would replace the Islamic terrorists efforts to kill Americans. Somebody ought to write one of those revisionist historical novels about that scenario. Also, I wonder, do you live in Israel? If not, why not?

Formerlyjames, my point about Israel and discrimination is that Israel should be very sensitive about the issue, not that previous discrimination is the justification for Israel’s existence. If you research the issue, you’ll discover that the Zionist movement existed for well over half a century before the Holocaust took place, and continuous Jewish presence in Israel goes back a good three thousand years or so. But I’ll agree with you that the “solution”, as you call the establishment of Israel, was far from ideal. It would have been much better to have established the country with agreed upon borders, recognized by Arab and Muslim countries, and not maintained a state of war for the past 60 years. Unfortunately, this was not to be, and Israel made the most of a lousy situation, building a country with a strong economic foundation, absorbing millions of new immigrants (including many kicked out of Arab countries while forced to leave their possessions behind), all while staving off repeated attacks by armies and terrorists alike. But you are free to your opinion that Israel’s establishment was a bad thing. I am sure that, in the interest of consistency, you also oppose the existence of the United States, as it was established on land stolen from the Native Americans. The fact that this happened hundreds of years ago should be irrelevant, since it’s the principle that counts, right?
.
And I assume you mean by “the diaspora settling there” that you mean all Jews should move to Israel, since it’s the Jewish homeland? Well, maybe you should ask the 6 million Jews living in America if they want to? Presumably they might want to have the right to make that decision for themselves. Actually, they do, and there are still 6 million Jews in the US. I’m sorry if this is a burden for you.
.
If I sound a little snarky, that’s because I really have a problem with people who assume that there’s no difference between being Jewish and being Israeli. The fact is that some of Israel’s most prominent critics are Jewish, but that doesn’t stop some Israel-bashers from blurring the lines between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and overt Antisemitism. (Not coincidentally, a recent Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project survey found that in Arab countries, including Egypt, Lebanon and the PA, 95 to 98 percent of the respondents held negative attitudes toward Jews. Not toward Israelis, but toward Jews. Link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155901.html)
.
As a U.S. citizen, you have the right to free speech, and to ascribe to whatever beliefs you want. And I have the right to point out the fallacy of those beliefs.
.
Why should you care more about Israel than other countries? I don’t know. Why do you? Clearly you care enough to let your thoughts be heard on forums like these. I’m assuming you use a computer (since you do participate in this forum). Which means that you benefit from Israeli technologies. But if you’d prefer to enjoy the contributions of the Arab and Muslim world, be my guest. (Keep in mind that America imports more oil from Canada than the Middle East.)
.
I’m not sure what the circular logic you’re referring to is, but if you believe that America is a target of Muslim terrorists because of American support of Israel, I have a bridge to sell you.
.
And as much as I enjoy “what-if” alternative histories, I’m afraid your scenario doesn’t hold much water. You see, there is a rich Jewish tradition of sanctity of life, which is why you don’t see Jewish terrorists in the real world (with a very few notable exceptions). As Thomas Friedman once succinctly stated: “Not all Muslims are suicide bombers, but all suicide bombers are Muslim.”

Grueven~
~
I do not believe that I am taking both sides of the road. You present my case as if I think that Israel is worse than its enemies and that I question its right to exist while simultaneously holding it to a higher standard than its enemies and not questioning their right to exist. Let me be clear, I do not oppose the right of Israel to exist or to defend itself. Do I question the soundess of the initial creation of the state of Israel? Yes, I do. I believe it to be a major international blunder to carve out a Jewish nation in the Middle East surrounded by an Arab populace that was hostile to that notion and that had the overwhelming demographic majority in the Mandate of Palestine. People were, without question, uprooted from their lifelong homes to make room for a Jewish state. This was bound to lead to the endless cycle of conflict that we bear witness to today. With that said, and taking into account my skepticism as to the rationale for the partition of Palestine, I do not at this point in time dispute the right of Israel’s existence. Just as it was, in my opinion, an injustice to take lands from the Arab populace in 1947, I think it equally unjust to advocate the revocation of the now Jewish homeland, for there are +5 million Jewish inhabitants who have now lived their lives on those lands. I do not ask that Israel be nullified. I ask, no I demand, that it be limited to the 1949 armistice lines in accordance with international law.
.
As for Iran’s right to nuclear weapons, I do not think it ideal. Not by any means. I recognize the absolute problems posed by your scenario of nuclear standoff and the imbalance of influence between Shia and Sunni states. With that said, however, from an Iranian perspective, nuclear weapons are a reasonable way to protect itself from US and Israeli aggression. Just because we are not demonstrating in the streets with “Death to Iran” slogans does not make us any less of a threat. One must only listen to the rhetoric of the neoconservatives and Likuds to understand the aggressive threat we pose to Iran. Their people protest in the streets because of a perceived collusion of injustice between the US and Israel in respect to the Palestinians. Does that make them more or less dangerous than us, whose powerful leaders openly make the case for war with Iran? While you can suggest that it would be beneficial to dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, should we actively prevent such? If my memory serves me, we did not prevent Israel from aquiring nuclear weapons. It is that sort duplicity that strains American relations with the world.
.
Now, given that Iranian President Khatami made a bold proposal in 2003 that was rejected by the US, I see no reason why we should think that Iran is incapable of peace. They offered to cease supplying Hezbollah and to openly support the right of Israel to exist. You see, Grueven, Iran does pose a threat to Israel at the moment. However, by your own admission of Israel’s flawed policies and behaviors, is it not at least somewhat understandable why Iran would feel the urge to be an enemy of Israel? Were Israel to align itself with international and humanitarian law, it would not face so many fundamental enemies. But, this is problematic for Likud, not all Israelis, but Likud, who need enemies and threats to justify aggressive expansion and annexation through occupation and illegal settlements. Without these threats, Likud has no justifiable reason to continue its aggressive posture. That is why Likud, with neoconservative backers, undermines peace initiatives, such as the 2003 Iranian proposal.
.
As for the strategic relationship, I don’t question the economic link between the US and Israel. But, geopolitically speaking, I think the benefits of Israel have been widely overblown. Additionally, I flatly reject the argument that alleged shared values between two states is cause enough for an alliance. I absolutely think that our alliance with Israel should be based more on its compliance or lack thereof with international law than with what principles of domestic governance we both happen to share. And, further, our relationship with Israel should definitely not come at the expense of cordial relations with Arab states. We could, and should, be a friend to all in the region, and with that would come the leverage of probity that allows us to truly be an honest broker of peace.
.
Now, on one last note, I feel I must defend my honor. You said this:

And I’m sorry, but I do believe that your views are shaped by a warped view of Israel. To debate whether it is in America’s interest to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear capability is legitimate. To criticize Israel for its policies regarding the Palestinians, or discrimination of Israeli Arabs, is legitimate. To question whether America should be granting Israel so much aid money is legitimate. But to question Israel’s right to existence, or its sovereignty over the land within the borders of the 1949 armistice lines, is not. And for you to focus so much energy on criticizing Israel, while giving lip service at best to the dozens of other countries around the world where human rights are abused, including the other parties involved in the mess called the Middle East, does indicate a warped view.

While I certainly appreciate and respect your willingness to accept the legitimacy of many of these concerns with Israeli policies (it makes you a far more worthy opponent than most Israel supporters), I do not think that the energy I expend on this issue is indicative of a warped view. I side with the Tamils over the Sinhalese, the black Africans over the Arab Sudanese oppressors, and any other groups of the dispossessed and reviled. In fact, in my capacity as a freelance journalist I have covered these conflicts, including the ongoing genocide in the DR Congo far more than I have covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The reason I am so passionate about the Middle East, though, is two-fold. For one, I have traveled to Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon. Secondly, the length of the conflict and the implicit involvement of the United States, my country, warrants additional effort on my part. I do think that the international repercussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict far surpass those of the world’s other ongoing conflicts. Whether this is the way it should be is another matter, but I must respect the impact of this particular conflict on world relations and therefore give it its due attention. So, while I respect your views, I must also respectfully say that your characterization of my motives is entirely wrong. I am not warped, I am realistic.

Grueven~
In reading your exchange with formerlyjames, I noticed that you presented the oft-cited polling data about Muslim racism towards Jews. To that, I must respond that 75% of Israeli high schoolers believe Arabs to be unclean, uncivilized, and uneducated. And over 50% of Israelis support the “transfer” of Arabs out of Israel. It would appear that there is plenty of bigotry to go around in the region, and it’s not unique to Muslims either.
.
See, Jerusalem Post: Rattling the Cage: the Racism of the Israeli Youth

Exiled, I stand corrected on your opinion of Israel’s right to exist. I would pose to you that it hurts your position to continue insisting that it was not a sound decision to “carve out a Jewish nation in the Middle East surrounded by an Arab populace that was hostile to that notion”, since it is easy to mistake this for delegitimizing Israel’s existence. Also, if you accept it as established fact, it becomes irrelevant to the discussion. (By the way, who is it that you fault for making this decision? The UN when it voted for partition – though not along the ’49 borders – in 1947? I’ll agree if you want to place blame on Britain for screwing things up in the Palestinian Mandate, as well as India, South Africa, Australia…)
.
I suppose one area where we disagree is the reasons that Israel and the US constitute a threat to Iran, and vice-versa. As you state:
.
“Just because we are not demonstrating in the streets with “Death to Iran” slogans does not make us any less of a threat. One must only listen to the rhetoric of the neoconservatives and Likuds to understand the aggressive threat we pose to Iran.”
.
I would argue that the rhetoric towards Iran is a response to the Iranian hostility and proven violence towards Israel (and the US in Iraq). I’m sure you feel this is justified as coming in defense of Palestinians, to which of course I respond that if Iran and the rest of the Muslim and Arab world were really so concerned about the Palestinians, they would take more concrete measures than funding suicide bombers and keeping the rest of the Palestinian refugees bottled up in disgusting refugee camps throughout the Middle East. As someone who has visited the region, I am sure you can account for this first hand. My point being that each side has reasons (justified or not) for its rhetoric, and we could go all day arguing whether or not there is justification for them. But I will repeat what I said earlier: when Israel meets Iran in the Olympics, which side refuses to compete?
.
I believe this also reveals the difference in attitudes towards Israel’s nuclear capabilities and Iran’s. Israel never threatened to exterminate another country (again, I’m sure you hold its policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians against it, but do not forget that Benjamin Netanyahu himself – a Likudnik! – has agreed to the principle of a Palestinian state). In the meantime, an entire block of countries has adamantly refused to accept Israel’s existence, vowing to redeem Jerusalem with blood. Let me remind you that this did not start with Israel’s occupation in 1967, but with its establishment in 1948. Israel’s (alleged) possession of nuclear arms is clearly intended as a strategy for preventing its destruction, and not as an offensive weapon, as evidenced by the fact that they have never been used. How many countries are threatening to destroy Iran? (I differentiate between going to war and destroying.)
.
May I ask you a question? Why did Hezbollah continue to attack Israel’s northern border after Israel withdrew from the security zone in southern Lebanon, as certified by the UN? Why did Hamas continue launching attacks from Gaza after Israel withdrew from every square inch of territory there? (The answer is not the blockade – that only began after Hamas wiped out its opposition violently.) Why would Israel have any reason to believe that the hostility against it would cease if only it would “align itself with international and humanitarian law”?
.
Now, again, I think that Israel should strive to achieve peace with all its neighbors, and I think the US should try to resolve the Iranian nuclear situation without resorting to combat. But I also think that both countries must take measures to protect and defend themselves if their counterparts won’t cooperate.
.
As for racism among Israelis, it is a sad reality. While I could not find independent corroboration of the numbers you cited (the article did not appear in a Google search), I do not dispute that the numbers are despairingly high. I would, however, add the caveat that much of these feelings come as a result of the hopelessness that many Israelis feel given the events of the past decade, and I believe these numbers would be significantly reduced were Israelis to feel that they had a real shot at peace. This doesn’t excuse these opinions, but it puts them in some context.
.
And I sincerely applaud your efforts to focus the spotlight on the dispossessed and the reviled. It is shameful that events such as those ongoing in Sudan garner so little attention. I would merely caution you that the underdogs are not always completely innocent, and the “overlords” are not always completely guilty. As I said previously, you clearly have a great deal of knowledge regarding the Israel-Palestinian conflict, but I do think you have a tendency of seeing things more black and white than shades of gray.
.
Also, I would recommend using the term Israeli right wing(er) rather than Likud. There are sadly several parties to the right of the Likud in Israel, and some Likudniks, believe it or not, occasionally show pragmatic leanings. Right wing would be a more technically accurate term.

Grueven~

By the way, who is it that you fault for making this decision? The UN when it voted for partition – though not along the ’49 borders – in 1947? I’ll agree if you want to place blame on Britain for screwing things up in the Palestinian Mandate, as well as India, South Africa, Australia…

Yes, I’d say Britian and the UN are largely to blame. It was a provocative partition and one sure to lead to war. Especially given that Ben-Gurion flat out stated that he had no intention of abiding by the partition lines, but was willing to formally accept them initially in order to gain the offically santioned state of Israel. When the leader of the soon to be created state says that he will expand beyond the partition lines with force, then it is probably not a wise plan to continue with the partition. But, alas, as you say, I accept the state of Israel within the armistice lines because to do otherwise would now be an injustice to the Jewish people who have lived there for +60 years. Though Israel is now a legitimate state, however, does not suggest that it’s creation and early expansions are not also a legitimate source of animosity for Muslims.

But I will repeat what I said earlier: when Israel meets Iran in the Olympics, which side refuses to compete?

I’m not sure why this matters. It’s childish. It’s symbolic. It’s irrelevant.

May I ask you a question? Why did Hezbollah continue to attack Israel’s northern border after Israel withdrew from the security zone in southern Lebanon, as certified by the UN? Why did Hamas continue launching attacks from Gaza after Israel withdrew from every square inch of territory there? (The answer is not the blockade – that only began after Hamas wiped out its opposition violently.) Why would Israel have any reason to believe that the hostility against it would cease if only it would “align itself with international and humanitarian law”?

Well, as for Hezbollah, I do not think that Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon fully atones for the 18 year occupation. Finally adhering to international law after 18 years of violent violation of that law is hardly cause for Hezbollah to forgive and forget. As I am sure you are aware, Hezbollah was only formed after Israel invaded Lebanon, and even after Israel withdrew it continued to meddle in Lebanese affairs and carry out targeted assassinations. I assume Hezbollah’s continued aggression is a form of revenge. As for Hamas, I would assume that though Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas aggression is directly related to Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank. Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are still joined in spirit. And, again, I am sure you aware that Israel funded the rise of Hamas in Gaza as a means of offsetting PLO influence and dividing the Palestinian people. This backfired, obviously, as Hamas turned out to be far more violent and far more ideological than the PLO could ever dream to be. Basically, though Israel has withdrawn from both Gaza and Lebanon, that is not the sole measure of compliance with international law. You seem to be saying that Hamas and Hezbollah continue to wage war against Israel despite the withdrawal, and that therefore is evidence that Israel’s compliance with international law will not necessarily bring peace. Well, what you leave out, grueven, is the fact that Israel continues to violate many other areas of law and continues to occupy the West Bank. Until these are remedied and Hamas and Hezbollah still continue their aggression, your argument falls flat.
.
Finally, while you are correct that there are regrettably fringe parties to the right of Likud, I think it is fairly obvious that Likud itself represents a particularly vile brand of right-wing warmongering. Avigdor Lieberman. Need I say more?