sdemetri,
I will address each of you errors after a quote from you.
“The disarmament I suggest relates to nuclear weapons. I am not so unrealistic to think the neighborhood is not a dangerous one for Israel and they should be left naked against those that find its policies and behavior intolerable. The UN Charter allows for self-defense.”
— The UN Charter is only a ribbon on top of the package of rights of a people to have a nation and defend itself. The UN is not a body through which nations are legitimized. It is a forum for nations to try and settle disputes as a community and to avoid or solve catastrophes.
— It is not Israel’s policy and behavior that is intolerable to Israel’s neighbors. It is that Israel is a Jewish State that these countries refuse to accept.
“Israel has never expressed the will to destroy another people’s right to self-government.” I am not sure the Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank would agree with this statement.
— There is little value in the acceptance of fools and lunatics. Israel does not wish to destroy the Palestinian’s right to self-government. Israel does nothing to topple the government in Jordan, which is Palestinian. Israel is defending itself against a faction of Palestinians who have been terrorizing Israel’s population for decades. Until 1967, the territories Israel now holds were Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian. None of these Arab Muslim nations offered these territories to create a second or third Palestinian, Arab country. Israel offered these territories back to the nations they captured them from for peace (exempting Jerusalem, which is Israel’s eternal capital) and these offers were not accepted. Since then Israel has offered the territories to the PLO and this was not accepted without the “Right of Return”.
“”…to de-Jew the Jewish state…” I don’t see that. The one state proposal lets Jews be Jews and Palestinians be Palestinians. I see Arab and Persian efforts aimed at Zionist independence, not Jewish. Peaceful co-existence, as in your examples, should be the goal.”
— The, so-called, Right of Return and the de-Zionification of Israel undermines the Jewish nature of the State of Israel. Taking from the Jew his right to his one nation, for the sake of Arabs who have many or for Palestinians who have one nation already, is unacceptable.
—What is the difference between Jewish and Zionist independence? The Zionist idea is to have an independent Jewish nation. Lets not be pedantic here.
“I also see historical disputes…ethnic cleansing of Babylonians or Canaanites, or American Indians for that matter, as answered largely by education. If everyone passionately held to centuries old hostilities we would be a much, much darker world for it. That holds for the destruction of sites. There are no excuses and no good answers.
“I also believe the much trumpeted “Holocaust denial” sin Iran is accused of is mis-represented. Moderates have said Ahmadinejad’s comments are not reflective of the thoughts of the population at large. The historical record is undeniable, according to them. If Israel relies on the historical record to cover a multitude of other sins, it is a misuse of the record, and dishonors its dead.”
— Whether Holocaust denial is popular in Iran, or not, does not matter. Those in power, the representatives of Persian political and military might, are standing up and denying the Holocaust. When its leaders cease to behave in this manner then what the general population thinks will be of interest. Until then, the general population of Iran bears no relevence. The people are not the ones with their finger on a button.
— I am guessing that you are suggesting that Israel rationalizes its defense against Arabs because of the Holocaust. That is simply idiotic. Israel defends itself against the Arabs because Israel wants to survive. That is the nature of life. Jews and Israelis bring up the Holocaust to point to events that happened because there was no Israel to which Jews could escape. Jews and Israelis do not “cover up crimes” with the Holocaust. Show me evidence of this.
‘My reference to the age of the Iranian population is not an endorsement of a “Youth Movement.” The CIA World Fact Book puts the average age of Iranians at about 25. As I stated above, it is inevitable that change will happen in Iran simply because they do not hold the Iranian revolution in the same manner as the mullahs. Economic, and social forces are much more likely to drive Iranian society toward moderation, in the absence of a wrongheaded invasion by either Israel or the US.
— If these young Persians manage to take over the government in time to avoid the mullahs getting the bomb then we will be greatly relieved. I hope the change you suggest occurs and soon. Until then, Iran is our enemy. Israel was an ally of Iran until the mullahs took over and I expect that reasonable Persian leadership could win over Israeli support again. One certainly hopes that an invasion is not required. I don’t suppose you care to qualify your notion that Israel could invade Iran. The US would find it very difficult to make war against Iran, how would a nation of 6 million people invade a nation of dozens of millions?
“Recent history suggests, from pre-emptive attacks on neighboring states, that the advantage at this point in time is with Israel. How many billions in US military aid goes to Israel yearly? I still don’t see how you support the claim Israel would be “hundreds of times” more likely to be attacked. What is your evidence?”
— The history, the propoganda and the stated goals of Israel’s enemies promise us that if Israel does not have the military advantage then it will be overrun by her enemies. The reason the US lends aid to Israel is to avoid the catastrophe a clear disadvantage, had by Israel, would entail. The argument being made by many superior minds is that if Iran gets nuclear capability, Israel’s advantage is either finished or nearly so. That is why Iran cannot be allowed to develope this ability.
— Israel has supposedly had the bomb for decades now. It has not used it. Israel has been under attack a number of times since supposedly getting the bomb and has not used it. Major Iranian leaders have expressed the will that Israel be wiped off the map. One former president said that one bomb would empty the land of Jews and that there are enough Muslims to survive whatever the dying Israel might do in response. Whatever the specific likelihood of these nuclear attacks, Iran does not recognize Israel’s role as the Jewish homeland. Israel recognizes Iran as the Persian homeland. Iran’s leaders mimic the style of demonization of Jews that other groups, known to demonize and murder Jews en mass, have done. This copying of style is an unveiled threat. Israel has never murdered people en mass nor does it care to.
“For Iran to attack Israel would result in a very severe retaliatory attack. Why would Iran do that? Defies logic.”
— If we take your logic and apply it the other way around we can see why Iran does not need nukes. For Israel to attack Iran would result in a very severe retaliatory attack. Why would Israel do that? I defy your logic for Iran’s need for nukes
