I want publicly to congratulate Antony Lowenstein and others, some of whom I know personally, on their brave and timely initiative, and Dr Larry Stillman on his measured analysis of the context. This is a debate we should be having. I am not Jewish by religion - I am a practicing Catholic brought up in that faith - but I am proud that my mother was Jewish, and a refugee from her homeplace Vienna after the Nazi Anschluss in 1939. Yes, I know that makes me Jewish in terms of Jewish tradition under which identity customarily passes down through the mother. And I know that in any case, as a person with just one Jewish parent, I would have been marked for the camps had I lived in Europe under Nazi rule - a sobering thought.

It is a painful but necessary debate now involving the Australian Jewish community. I have crossed swords on occasion with the AIJAC and I have a low opinion of them. I know they do mot speak for Australian Jews but for a particular hard-right neo-con faction, now becoming more and more discredited as the truth emerges about what is really happening in the Middle East.

Tony Kevin

As a retired farmer, formerly poorly educated but having developed an intense interest in political philosophy, might say that the Israelis, mostly former people who were cruelly and obscenely murdered by the German Nazis, have now proven their true potential regarding most all aspects of what we might term Western progress.

Moreover, it is thus so interesting that though the Nazis appeared to regard the Jews as low life, it may otherwise have been that they feared that Jewish proven success in business and leadership may have caused a fear of them possibly polluting what the Nazis believed was a superior Germanic or Anglo culture.

Also we do pay respect to the way the Jews as Israelis are proving themselves, leaving the Arabs next door with verily little thoughts about progress, and mostly resigned to an afterlife.

But looking at the whole Middle East in a democratic sense, or better still by using balance of power principles - a critical adjunct of political philosophy - for the US and allies to have allowed Israel to go militarily nuclear may prove to be one of the most disastrous decisions of modern times.

The above is the only reason that Iran would want to build an atomic arsenal, and yet may not only set most of the Middle East aflame, but much of the Islamic world.

Ode to the decisions of those who have little sense of the real future. Certainly John Howard with his misplaced loyalties is proving to be well among them. where

"leaving the Arabs next door with verily little thoughts about progress, and mostly resigned to an afterlife."

I guess you haven't been to Dubai. And perhaps you don't know alot about the educational and business achievements of the Palestinian diaspora. For instance, did you know that Joe Hockey is of Palestinian heritage?

It is difficult for someone who is not a Jew but who is deeply appreciative of the contribution Jews have made to culture and science, to observe the mess they have made of creating their own state of Israel. Perhaps nothing has been more disadvantageous for world peace than the uncritical support given to Israel by the US. Organisations like the Anti-Defamation League, which links criticism of Israel with anti-semitism to maximise the corporate power of US capital, and Christians United for Israel, which is encouraging George Bush in his apocalyptic visions of Armageddon and the Rapture,
have helped create a hell on earth in Palestine. The lack of effective criticism of Israel is astonishing.

This article is timely and an expression of support for those critical of current directions within the state of Israel appropriate. Publishing such an article in OLO is most apt as I believe this discussion should not belong exclusively to the Jewish community.

Well said Irfan. There are many hard working and successful Palestinian people in the Australian community.

Irfan, may be mistaken seeing you've been there, but thought Dubai was always a Western-inspired effort.

As a matter of fact in a University of Third Age group where I have been taking groups in Philosophical Topics, one of our members was a former nurse in Dubai who says how even in the medical areas most of the undergrads are usually preferably Western, and even if the locals get work, they are given lower wages.

In fact, most of our social scientists regard Dubai a bit like a heap of Crusader castles, not bringing democracy to the Middle East, but the American Way, as it happened to be Western Christian Way back in the Crusader days.

Looks like George W's presidential offsider, Dickie Cheney could be shifting his mob of Halliburton oily camp followers over there permanently.

Hells Bells, will us Westerners ever learn? As Mubarek of Egypt let fly against some smart ar-se British journalists when they asked what the real problem in the Middle East was?

Simply Western intrusion an injustice

The current "Jewish firestorm" has now become something of a breezy farce. First, there was an angry response to the Loewenstein petition from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, then a counter-petition from Michael Danby MP. In this week's "Jewish News" there is a letter from Yours Truly suggesting yet another petition calling on all protagonists to cool it, and a hilarious article by John Safran saying pretty much the same thing. Hats and yarmulkes off to Dr. Stillman for a perceptive piece!

Could Brushy, TonyKevin, and the author please explain to me how they see HAMAS fitting in to the picture of peace and tranquility that they seem to believe will be ushered in when all sides adopt a common sense approach. Utopia has always been elusive, and really, it doesn't matter how many petitions or positions, or pleadings, or pronouncements or platitudes are done on the Jewish side, ..in fact it doesn't even matter if you follow Keiths idea of 67 borders and handing over Jerusalem... what matters is this:

1/ Who is the "elected" government ? (HAMAS)

2/ HAMAS CHARTER "Palestine is an Islamic Waqf from the days of the conquering till the day of resurrection".

In another part of the Charter they refer to "and no one can give up in whole or in PART the Islamic Waqf."

I won't even bother mentioning the Orthodox Jewish or Settler position. Lets just assume they can be defeated by democratic means.

So, we are left with a radical, Islamist group, who see no other future for the whole land except a "Jew Free Zone"

So.. this is my only real question.... 'What about Hamas' ?

Just 2 days ago their spokesperson said "This does not mean we will ever recognize the Zionist Entity"

Having outlined the 2 extremes in other posts, and being picked on for my trouble "Only positive posts please BOAZ" (Keith) the ball is fairly and squarely in the court of those who see a settlement possible with Israel still present.

Ziad Dayeh Hamas spokesman "We reject any document that includes recognition of the Zionist entity and gives up one inch of Palestinian land,"

Hamas Cabinet spokesman Ghazi Hamad said Haniyeh's government is "not opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders." (yeah right ! this says NOTHING about recoginizing Israel)

If some optimist can show me a statement from HAMAS which specifically recognizes Israel (or will) then there is a starting point for a discussion.

Bushbred, I guess you are next going to tell me that when the Crusaders went to the middle east, they were inspired to invent all these interesting things like Hindu/Arabic numerals and soap.

Civilisations borrow off each other all the time. It doesn't necessarily make one culture superior to the other. Unless, of course, you subscribe to eugenics ...

Why this obsession with hamas? They're a collection of people with not much power, certainly not enough to defeat another country. So what about hamas, DB? Do we ignore the imperial actions of one party at the expense of the creed of another?

Perhaps if Israel was not perceived as zionist there would be less reason for palestinians to elect a party with the stated intention of opposing them.

Here's another starting point for discussion: what about making it plain to Hamas, possibly through third parties, that useful talks, including about their recognition of Israel, cannot take place until they rescind their lunatic allegiance to the "Protocols of Zion" in their Covenant? If pressure can be brought to bear on them about this, especially by better-informed Palestinians such as Hanan Ashrawi, there might be some hope. It's vital to remember that Hamas is no longer an opposition group answerable to no-one, but now has a serious responsibility to those who voted for it as well as to the world community.

PS It would help if their leader Haniyeh didn't look like George Clooney's older brother...

How can anyone seriously believe that peace in the Middle East is in Israel's hands?

That plucky little country is surrounded by millions of seething, racist Arabs who absorb Jew-hatred with their mothers' milk.

Palestine is a hopelessly corrupt, gangster state that is incapable of evolving into a functioning country. Even if it wanted to, countries like Iran and Syria fund and arm its terrorist gangs in order to prolong the conflict and further their regional ambitions.

Most Israelis know occupation of the territories is not sustainable. But there is no genuine peace partner among the Palestineans. People who lay the blame for the last 60 years mostly at Israel's feet are either blind, stupid or just plain barracking for its destruction.

YoungSteve a good start.. recognizing the problem. Your reference to the Protocals of Zion is not something I've actually seen/read in their charter, but rest assured I accept that you saw it...it's there.

1 Point. Even if it was not there as something to hang a 'reaction' on, it would not change the foundation of 'Islamic Waqf' which is primarily theological, nor reactionary.

Bennie.. a bad start.. denying the problem.

DENIAL 101. "they don't count, just this that.. blah blah.."
REALITY 101. "They are the elected government"

Bennie, in all seriousness mate.. Hamas has gone to a lot of trouble to
a) Expand
b) Gain influence and cred with the Palestinians.

i.e. they are working systematically toward the basic goal of destroying Israel and while their ability to do it might not be very close, they are still heading in that direction.

You may as well say "The Orthodox Jews and the Settlers" don't really matter because 'they are but few'....but they aint.

On February 8, Hamas head Khaled Mashal speaking in Cairo had clarified that "Anyone who thinks Hamas will change is wrong", stating that while Hamas is willing for a ceasefire with Israel, its long term goal remains: elimination of Israel by Islam via a jihad.

Ok... they won't change, so the only direction critics of Israel must now take is.."They don't matter..they are insignificant" (Bennie)

REALITY 102 HAMAS won 76 out of 132 seats. "insignificant" ?

I cannot see why my focus on this group is described as an 'obsession'.

There is a solution for Israel of course.. a rather brutal one. Round up all Hamas leaders, ask them "Do you adhere to your charter" ? if yes, line them up and execute them summarily, no further questions.
If they are committed to their charter, they are committed to your (Israeli) death. Personally, I'd rather see them find Salvation that would also end the problem with a much nicer outcome.

If I was a Palestinian Christian stuck in Israel or the West Bank I reckon I would support HAMAS, there is no other political force that is supporting my right to exist.

As it is, I am a a nominal christian living near the author and I support the author's right to express and opinion that is not totally in support of the Israeli government and the actions of its defence forces.

I have known Larry Stillman for nearly 20 years. It will not surprise him, however, that whilst I find his article interesting I disagree fundamentally with parts of his argument.

I don’t believe the IAJV petition is as important as Larry suggests. It is the 4th such petition in 25 years in the Jewish community, and all it demonstrates is that a minority of Jews don’t agree with the Israeli Government. Surprise, surprise. I doubt it will go much further simply because many of the signatories are driven mostly by a left political identity, rather than a specifically Jewish identity. Hence they will only get involved spasmodically if at all in Jewish affairs.

As for the contents, much of it is little more than a motherhood statement. The key issue is around the motivations and agendas of the main organizers. In principle, a petition like this could serve a positive purpose: to remind many on the anti-Zionist Left that Jews hold a diversity of views, to educate the Left about Jewish concerns and emotions regarding Israel, and to promote some sort of constructive dialogue between Jews and the Left, and perhaps even between Jews and Arabs/Palestinians. However, this would only happen if the organizers were acting broadly in solidarity with Jewish concerns.

It seems to me more likely, however, that the organizers see the petition as a means of extending an existing one-sided anti-Israel agenda. This means that the petition will probably end up being used to reinforce existing prejudices about Jews and Israel in sections of the Left, and that some left-wing Jews will find themselves being paraded – naively or otherwise – as “good” Jews used to knock down the overwhelming majority of “bad” Jews. This sort of happening of course has a long history dating back to the defence by some Jewish communists of Stalinist anti-Semitism in the early 1950s, and the various Jewish “anti-Zionist fronts” in the 1970s and 80s. I suspect this is what we are about to see here.

Philip Mendes

Sorry to get back to the original article but first look at Lowenstein's own website to see his beliefs, then consider why the publicity given to a small group is unpopular with many Jews in Australia. (Actually the majority have never heard of him or his group, or for that matter Larry Stillman).

Actually the firestorm is more like a cigarette lighter, 430 signatures from over 100,000 people is hardly a spark. The only reason why Jewish organisations even bothered to reply is because their group's publicity implied that the other 100,000 plus were not interested in a peaceful settlement . Such a misrepresentation could not go unchallenged in the public domain.

And what is the Jewish community that Larry and Lowenstein's voices think denies the right of expression? I and my relos and the Jewish friends I grew up with are all from families who arrived in the 1880s or earlier. Others have quite different backgrounds and different views on religion but if we have heard of Larry Stillman at all we wonder who in the hell he and his minuscule band of supporters are.

Their antics are a bit embarrassing to us all, what is the Jewish left - a hangover from Trotskyism? Is our dear writer living in the same century as myself?

forgot this bit.

Firstly a couple of corrections. The former editor of the now defunct Jewish Herald was Mark Braham, not Paul Bram. And to the best of my knowledge Braham is still alive in Sydney. And lest he be seen as some sort of “anti-Zionist martyr”, it should be pointed out that for the last 20 years he has appeared to be an unapologetic admirer of the Israeli hard right.

And secondly, AJDS was admitted to the JCCV not recently, but back in 1994. This is important because the Jewish community changed significantly following the 1993 Oslo Accord. Prior to 1993, the Zionist Federation of Australia was aggressively supportive of Likud’s Greater Israel viewpoint, and regularly denounced AJDS as “anti-Zionist” and “anti-Israel” merely for arguing that Israel should talk directly to the PLO to negotiate a land for peace settlement. After Oslo, this argument became ridiculous. So the community began to accept a much wider diversity of views.

Today, the roof bodies of the Jewish community all state their support for a two-state solution which is a remarkable turnaround from 15 years ago. Larry may feel this position is insincere. My response would be to engage with their perspective, and to test it out.

Larry uses terms such as “tribal mentality”, “vilifying” etc. to describe the attitude of some Jewish leaders to the IAJV petition. But as I have said before in OLO, this is no different to other ethnic communities. You don’t see 400 Greeks publishing a petition in The Age supporting the Macedonians in their dispute with the Greek Government. You don’t see hundreds of Serbians marching in defence of Croatian national rights. And you never see Australian Palestinians condemning suicide bombings.

Thanks very much to Radical Phil for capturing my Paul Bram for Mark Braham error: And thanks for the date correction on the entry of AJDS into the Jewish Community Council of Victoria. In both cases, I was working from memory.

I also think Radical Phil makes an interesting point about the lack of 'counter' voices in Palestinian or Serbian communities. It may be in part due to the nature of diaspora politics in Australia--the pressure to conform toe the party line (familiar?). On the other hand, there are a number of Palestinians (e.g. Maher Mugrabi) who have been quite outspoken in condemning extremism.

Phil Mendes is off the mark when he says that it is 'more likely, however, that the organizers see the petition as a means of extending an existing one-sided anti-Israel agenda.' and that left-Jews will be paraded Stalin-style. There are elements of unproven conspiracy theorising here. There is a further problem in Phil's use of ther generic and emotive term 'anti-Israel agenda'. If I support the position taken by Matzpen, or Yesh Gevul or any of the anti-occupation and civil rights organisations that exist in Israel, it appears that these are 'anti-Israel' in the essentialist of world view that Phil believes the left has moved into to, hammer and tong. Of course Phil knows that the members of these Israeli organisations believe that Israel is facing an enormous democratic challenge but they are not anti-Israel as much as anti-racism, anti-occupation etc.

And so what if IAJV is the 3rd or 4th petition over the years--I think we all admit that things have not got better despite all tinkering around the edges, and the constant tit-for-tat acts of violence that have got nowhere. Hence the attempts to open up debate.

As for Logic who says he hasn't heard of me or any of the other signatories-- well, he hasn't been reading the Jewish News then, to which I have been contributing on and off since early 1989! And we can't all be famous!

Lary Stillman

Sorry all, I did not mean to say Matzpen (which was on the fringe), but rather, a party like Meretz to which Shulamit Aloni, a former Israel government minister and critic of the occupation belongs.

I know I will be condemned for this error by those who see conspiracies in errors.

Larry

David

You are persistig with your outright lies.

Here is the full article from which you are quoting small excerpts. Remember it is the same one you cited in support of your argument.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173700695225&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Read the whole bloody thing it is only a couple of thousand words. It is quite clear, it doesn't support your contentions. It shows Hamas as giving way on it's demands for the destruction of Israel. Why do you continue to argue against peace? The quoied article does show there are elements within the Palestinian leadership who, while the don't outright condemn extremist violence, do show the want peace.

Why don't you talk about and show support for the ideas conyained in the current article. Surely as an avowed liberal democrat you'd support open discussion within every democracy?

Larry,

Logic doesn't read much at all.

"Am I my brothers keeper" http://www4.jrf.org/showdt&rid=296&pid=8

So my brothers, are you my keeper? and am I your keeper? No and yes...

There is no real 'independent jewish voices', its the same old story from time of abel and cain... destruction/growth, deceit/fact, evil/good... and we take our respective sides in this... and unfortunately from the acts happening around us and in middle east it appears that the destruction/deceit/evil has the power and authority over the later...

But on closer look, each community has the same forces, palestine/jewish, arab/christian, mother/father...

It is in nature of former to divide and rule with previledged/oppressed...good hands are reaching out to clasp each other in different communities, for it is nature of later to unify and bond.

'Goods' fundamental problem was to treat the former with same respect and honor given to themselves, and that was a weakness that was exploited to lead to what we have now... the solution is different rules apply to the former and later and how the two meet...then there will be peace by former/later power and authority extend only within it and the boundary carefully patrolled...it forces both sides to take due care(Yes... the two dont mix well unfortunately)...so my brothers, yes we are each others keepers...

Sam

I should think being Jewish is much like being of any other religion. It comes with a certain amount of expectation. When discussing Middle East issues with friends, of which only a couple are Jewish, I can see a philosophical/religious struggle in their comments. It's like watching myself and other non-Jews in the group dance around the issues and specifics hoping not to be misinterpreted and come off sounding like anti-Semites. It's a wonderful world we have built for ourselves. Political correctness before all else. I think one needs to separate out and consider independently being a Jew, Zionism, and Israel or Israeli.
Surely one may have an opinion as one on all four with out being all for. :-)

Cheers

aqvarivs

You are quite right. Except that being Jewish has a tribal element about it and DNA seems to show a small degree of common inheritance. Also it is a minority and as such there is a defensive and also a shared history element.

Most Jews are fond of the concept of Israel. The problems of Palestinian refugees are a tragedy to almost all Jews but this must be seen in the light of history and tempered with the plight of Jewish refugees from Muslim lands. The numbers of both were similar but the contrasting behaviour of the two is something to consider.

Lary

You are also right I rarely read the Jewish news and certainly don't read the letters. I am sorry but I don't change my views, and have little respect for the academic left.

Logic...quite right about the "tribal element", but I'm not so sure about the DNA. I must get mine checked some time. One of the effects of belonging to a minority is that its members tend to have little or no empathy with the feelings of others. That is why it is almost impossible to get most Jews, whether in Israel or outside, to put themselves into the shoes of Palestinians. This leads inevitably to the "blame game", in which who fired the first shot becomes of fundamental importance. Do Palestinians have justified grievances? Not to be discussed. Are Israelis going the right way about resolving differences with the Arab world? Not to be discussed. How can there be light at the end of the tunnel when no one believes the tunnel exists anyway?

radical phil,

Your attempt to portray the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as just another conflict like the Macedonian/Greek or Serb/Croatian is inaccurate.

In these conflicts:
- no one ethnic group is confined to a walled ghetto where their survival is at the whim of their oppressors
- no one ethnic group receives roughly half of the US annual foreign aid budget
- no one ethnic group has nuclear weapons
- no one ethnic group receives substantial military aid from the US
- no one ethnic group has Nuremburg type laws that distinguish between citizenship and national rights to discriminate against the other

The list could go on…

In fact, as I remember it was a NATO assault led by the US that intervened to stop the bloodshed in the Balkans. The Palestinians repeatedly asked for international intervention with peace keeping troops under Arafat but were denied, at Israeli's insistence, by the US. Of course the internationalisation of the conflict would make it much harder for the Israelis to mount operations like the 2004 rampage in Rafah. And that would be the last thing Israel wants.

If you want to find comparisons with other conflicts then apartheid South Africa would be a better place to start.

It's a bit much to expect Hamas and lots of others to "recognise the state of Israel" when Israel will not delineate its own borders. This, as we all know, is because it intends to hang on to the West Bank by hook or by crook, but does not want to reveal its intent, which of course is totally illegal. But the illegal settelements go on expanding relentlessly, while the water in West Bank aquifers is transferred conveniently into "Israel proper".

In my book Hamas and all other Palestinians have every right to refuse recognition to an entity with no borders, but with obvious ambitions to expand into the remnants of the Palestinian homeland.

Youngsteve

You are presuming that Jewish groups have no sympathy for the Palestinians. In my experience that is not so for the majority.

Regarding who fired the first shot, that was well before WW2 and it was fired by Arabs against what they perceived as newcomers. Discrimination against non Muslims, leading in modern times to Jews (and some Christians) fleeing to Israel, started with the spread of Islam.

There is a question of who was responsible for the flight of some of the Arabs from Israel. Obviously Israel must take some blame for that, but what about the Mufti of Jerusalem who inspired them to attack, and the King of Jordan who did nothing to help them even though he claimed they were has own people? Or Egypt or Yemen or Iraq who happily edged out ancient Jewish (and Christian) communities but were not prepared to give hospitality to similar numbers of their own kind, ie the Palestinians.

You see the superficial view of the so called left continually ignores the other side of complex situations (why Communism was a total disaster).

Naturally the poor Palestinians feel totally aggrieved but their own people have disowned them and taught them to blame Israel for everything. None of the Arab nations unfortunately are remotely competent by the standards we set ourselves. And this is not just a western thing, I am also comparing them with Thailand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India and Malaysia. It is not PC to say this but it is true.

The Palestinians, like the Christians in the Arab world and the Jews in Iran are caught in a nasty situation, not of their own making, but blaming Israel, Jews or even George Bush will not help.

Larry: I’ve actually been very careful in my various writings on the Academic Boycott debate and related issues to distinguish between those Left groups which support a two-state solution, and those which advocate the destruction of Israel. The latter are definitely a minority, but they tend to be vocal and passionate, and very effective at demonising Israel. I fear that some of the key people in IAJV, rather than challenging these views and educating the Left against them, are willing to cooperate with the anti-Zionist fundamentalists.

The same nuances that you refer to of course also apply to the Jewish community. It is not just IAJV who support peace and reconciliation. There are many thousands of Australian Jews who identify with the Israeli Left, but equally they believe that peace will only come when both sides are willing to change and compromise.

Of course, Israeli groups such as Meretz and Yesh Gvul are not anti-Israel, but they operate in a very different context in which the tensions around Israeli security vis-à-vis Palestinian national rights are well understood because everyone serves in the army, and understands the complexities. This is not the case in Australia where people live in a peaceful and overwhelmingly innocent society, and often don’t understand what it means to live in a region afflicted by terrorism.

Philip

logic, I don't know if I agree that the Palestinians are embroiled in a situation not of their making. I'm of the opinion that both parties share equally in this conflict. I'm not in favour of the blame game but, I do think both Palestinians and Israeli's ought to have their feet held to the coals of their own fire. Both contribute equally to the prevailing misfortune. I call it a misfortune because for 60 years give or take, peace has been nothing but an opportunity to rearm and renew the battle after a little R&R. I call it misfortune because it is not a situation that will lead to a victory.
There is one fundamental difference that I believe in the long run {God only knows how long) puts Israel heads above the PA. That is that the Palestinian brain trust leaves as fast as it develops and the country is poorer for not addressing that loss. Where Israel has intelligent or at least motivated migrants coming to live in Israel from around the world with diverse experiences and abilities. Very few Palestinians return from overseas to make life in the old country any better.

To comment on what Phil Mendes has said.

Philip claims " [I have] actually been very careful in my various writings on the Academic Boycott debate and related issues to distinguish between those Left groups which support a two-state solution, and those which advocate the destruction of Israel".

I beg to differ. The public effect of what you have often said in the past few years has been to reinforce prejudice against 'the left' by conflating what I'd call the the 'sectarian left' with the position taken by many progressives. You have given vastly too much importance and legitimacy to the sectarians and their hairsplitting and at the same time, forgotten that there are some baseline facts about the nature of the occupation, and so on that have lead to such hostility to Israel and an over-generous tolerance of extremism on the other side.

We need to present strong & positive options beyond both Zionist and Palestinian nostrums, for two states (and issues such as over which you may differ, but they have been raised in different forums, including one or two state options, negotiations over 'the Jerusalem question', the water question, the Golan heights, reparations [including reparations for Jews from Arab lands], the right of return--for both communities, etc.) This will require a lot of compromise, reconcilitation, and abandonment of ideological and religious zealotry on on both sides. The more support the mainstream 'left' gives to deepening such mutual talk the better.

However, it's a hard task to raise such controversial issues in Australia. For example, to speak of shared Jerusalem sovereignty among Australian Jews will attract vociferous labelling, even though Palestinians Christians and Muslims have just as much historical right to the city. But it is a mainstream issue in other environments and is debated by Israelis and Palestinian thinkers. In an attempt to transcend the usual, MIT is running 'Just Jerusalem' competition, http://web.mit.edu/justjerusalem.

I know that one respondent has bagged 'academics'--but violence certainly hasn't provided any solutions

Larry... speaking as a Christian.. I don't see any skeric of 'Christian claim' to Jerusalem. The only thing of significance to us, is the connection with the history of the Israelites, and the particular geographical places of interest. But 'claim' ? not a chance.
The primary "claim" has to be for the Jews.. Israel.. because whether you accept it or not, it was established by G-D. If the Old Testament says anything, it says this 'on turbo'.

We all know the history of the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in AD70ish, so if we want to find a 'villain' why not make a class action against the current "Roman" government in Italy ?

After that great crime against humanity, various others came in on the coat tails of the Muslim invaders, so.. they were basically in receipt of stolen property/land. Living on stolen land is one thing, keeping it against the determined efforts of the original owner is another -As the Palestinians have discovered.

Now.. in the Australian context, I suppose you would begrudge the Aboriginals from taking it back if they could ? Personally I would not. The problem is.. we are simply too overwhelmingly powerful.
They have the high moral ground in the strict legal sense..we do not.

The Jews have the high moral ground in re-claiming stolen land, and they HAVE military clout to back it up.

Some here don't share my view of history and try to justify the establishment in piecemeal legal ways. (Logic is one) To me.. its really simple. If you have the basic claim, and the clout.. its yours. But that claim is meaningless apart from the promises of G-D, otherwise all claims are relative to purely human factors.

Even on that score I'd have to say the Jews win, approx 1400 yrs continuous (except for 2 exiles) presense, interrupted only be a Roman land grab. Then Muslim terrorists invaded, and so forth.
Jews are now saying "Our turn....again." and I say.. 'all power to them'.

The most compassionate response to Palestinian suffering is complete removal, relocation and compensation.

I don't support the Boaz view but when it comes to a historic claim on Jerusalem, everyone knows it was the Jewish city with the Temple. The Christian claim is not very strong. The Islam religious claim is very tenuous.

Jerusalem is not mentioned directly in the Q'uran. The reference is to a distant city which some scholars argue is not Jerusalem. The visit by Muhammad to Jerusalem (?), if that is where it occurred is a fabled account which modern rationalists cannot believe.

Muslims have made it a holy place to them and have built (converted a Church to) a Mosque on the site where archaeologists consider the ancient temple was. They also have built on the site one of the finest buildings of all time, the Dome of the Rock which effectively stymies any building of a new temple.

Other than these religious buildings the only real claim Muslims can logically have to Jerusalem is the structures built by the Turks during their long occupation and the time some of them spent there. Israel has guaranteed the diverse holy sites and allowed the various faiths to visit them and worship them. They are the only administration which has done this.

Notice that there are not many Commentaries condemning Israel's right to possess atomic artillery, which is the main political danger now in the Middle East, because it is causing Iran to become even more dangerous. And which means that Iran lawfully has the right of protection.

The position has not only proven the UN as useless but the US which pretty well gave consent for Israel to go militarily nuclear - as a law-breaker

Now because Pax Americana as our unipolar global commander still agrees to Israel having become a dangerous viperous atomic state next to non nuclear states - George Bush similar to Richard Nixon must be due for impeachment.

If the world public is asking for scientific reasoning rather than religious decisionmaking, the above is surely it.

As do others, I get hugely frustrated and angry with Israel's bloody own-foot shooting, and the "My country right or wrong" types are simply appalling. But Lowenstein is a Grade A divisive creep, who should be given no time whatsoever. He uses the word "Zionist" in the same derogatory and meaningless way that American Protestants (used to?) use the word "Jew".

Extract from 1994 article in "Australian Jewish Democrat":

...it will be enough here to venture the notion that since the formation of the state of Israel in 1948, at least three Zionisms have been abroad. These may be labelled Zionisms A, B and Bl, the first having positive connotations and the other two negative.

Zionism A is the legitimate national independence movement of the sorely-tried Jewish people, which expressed itself in the creation — admittedly (sometimes) at Arab expense — of the state of Israel after the Holocaust and the Second World War. It is a powerful but benign influence in Jewish communal affairs.

On the other hand, Zionism B is an ugly outgrowth of colonialism; it is an ethnocentric Jewish movement which has expelled tens of thousands of Palestinian Arabs from their homeland and has denied civil, political and land rights to those who remained. Except as a cynical Zionist A argument, the Holocaust has almost no significance.

Zionism Bl, the other negative Zionism, is that of the traditional antisemites of the British National Front, the Australian League of Rights and similar bodies. Here, Zionism is seen as a modern manifestation of the eternal Jewish drive to world domination through both capitalism and socialism. The Holocaust, if it happened at all, was a thoroughly understandable gesture of irritation on the part of Christendom. One of the best known of the sacred texts of these groups, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", originally a Tsarist Russian concoction, was widely used by the German Nazis as a school textbook. It has since been republished in a number of Arab countries…

Jews are naturally inclined to identify with Zionism A, even if numbers of them may not agree with particular policies and actions of the Israeli government or of local Zionist organisations. Whether members of "real" Zionist bodies or not, their feelings for the continued existence of Israel as an identifiable Jewish state are strong, and they tend to see themselves as Zionists — even if only in this limited sense. The right of Israel to exist is never in question.

Larry: you obviously haven't been up to date with your reading. My most recent article in The Engage Journal (February 2007) (www.engageonline.org.uk) explicitly distinguishes between two staters, and anti-Zionist fundamentalists (See below a citation).

Any true moderate has to critique extremists from both sides. The problem with many on the Left is that they attack Israeli extremists and their local supporters, and completely neglect Palestinian extremists and the local apologists.

Philip

"As I have argued elsewhere in relation to the academic boycott of Israel debate, pro-Israel groups have had some success in targeting elite groups in Australian society. However, many grassroots activists are more sympathetic to the Palestinian narrative rather than the Israeli narrative. It is evident that campaigns based solely on defending all Israeli actions or at least all current Israeli Government policies are not working, or at least are not convincing many non-elite groups in the community.

Arguably there is a case for adopting both new lobbying content and new lobbying strategies based on incorporating a wider range of perspectives, and a more diverse group of advocates. Pragmatic alliances with sympathetic leftists who support Israel’s right to exist (irrespective of their views on specific Israeli policies) are essential for any broad defense of the State of Israel".

I am an extremely moderate Leftist. I believe a two-state goal is most practicable, I condemn extremists wherever they are, and feel just as hostile to the distributors of the "Protocols of Zion" in the Arab world as I do to the ethnic cleansers on the Israeli/Jewish side. I wish they would all go away.

Youngsteve

I am in agreement with you. Unfortunately extremists don't go away, it is the moderates who do.

Bushbred

On the question of atomic bombs, the world does not question India or Pakistan who also have bombs. It does question Korea and Iran. It is a question of trust. A nation which denies rights to women and people not of the state sanctioned religious faith, practices stoning, and whose leader runs a conference denying the holocaust is generally considered more dangerous than the nations where the leaders have to face the voters and independent law courts.

I have approached the question of nuclear bombs, now will someone answer the matter of non Muslims edged out of from Islamic countries and the failure of those very countries to then give shelter to those Muslims who left a non-Islamic country in the region?

'A nation which denies rights to women and people not of the state sanctioned religious faith, practices stoning, and whose leader runs a conference denying the holocaust is generally considered more dangerous than the nations where the leaders have to face the voters and independent law courts.'

Are you saying this applies to the military dictatorship in Pakistan?

CHRISTIAN CLAIM on TEMPLE MOUNT. I should add something to this point, because prior to reading logic's mention of a Church having been there before the Mosque of Omar/Al Aksa.. I was not aware of this.

As far as I'm concerned, (and I doubt we could find very many Christians of any flavor who think to the contrary, except perhaps some liberals) we Christians have no claim whatsoever on that piece of ground.

Christianity does not depend on Geography or buildings, it depends on the living hope we have in Christ, our LORD.

So, for the record, I for one would be most happy to see any vestige of former Church buildings on the Temple mount being completely removed. Especially so, if it was to make way for a re-establishment of the Jewish temple which many of also long for, as it would be a very imminent sign of Christs return according to some eschatological views.

I don't see any future for lasting peace in the human sense, because the theological positions are too opposed,extreme and entrenched. (Islamic and Orthodox Jews) Christians simply observe the providential work of God as history unfolds.

INTELLIGENCE_GATHERING
One way to test this theory, would be to ask a MUSLIM journalist to quizz key Hamas and other Islamic figures regarding the Hamas Charter, and the concept of "Islamic Waqf" or Muslim lands, and gain a cross section of opinion for the record.
Ask Imams, Muftis, Scholars etc.. and make sure its from a cross section, and includes Sunni and Shia.

I say a "Muslim" journalist and add 'in arabic' so that people speak freely and give their true opinions. It might be a worthwile exercise.
Then..after gathering this information, it should be rated and weighted in terms of 'radicalism/propensity2violence/justification of Jihad' to support the views.

This will provide a reasonable_estimate of the likelihood of future_outcomes.

Carl

I was referring to Iran. While Pakistan is less democratic than India I am not aware of it being anything like Iran.

I have just received information about the ‘Independent Australian Jewish Voices’ Petition.

This was by someone whose name was placed on their petition without their consent. This was someone who actually strongly opposes their view. Apparently there are others.

There are also bogus names including at least one which apparently means something rude in Hebrew.

Their petition is just a sham. One wonders how many real names appear on it.

Logic, your argument about Iran not being allowed to have atomic artillery because her Sharia Law allows the stoning of women, is rather weak because many other Islamic states have such laws, as Saudi Arabia does.

Such an argument would certainly be left out of an academic discussion, and, anyhow the main reason that Iran is being locked out by the UN, is as she opposes Israel largely because Israel possesses atomic artillery, with rockets ready to go.

If there has been any violation of rules, Logic, the UN should have its sights on little Israel, which has not only its nuclear arsenal but well-equipped fighter bombers making her easily the strongest military nation in the Middle East.

With Israel being close to being the most poorly populated nation in the Middle East, any true historian would call this simply a bastardisation of the principles of power balance.

What Iran is up against mainly is the old Western elitism still carried through from the colonial days, added on, of course, by the way both the US and Britain in order to get their hands on the high quality Iranian oil, broke the decolonisation code after WW2 to devise an anti Communist revolution in Iran in the 1950s setting up the puppet Shah.

Then up came the Ayatollah, a geat many Westerners clapping their hands when the whole US Embassy was captured and held for a year.

Not satisfied, an angry US backed Saddam to attack Iran in 1982, the war finally won by a victorious Iran after eight years, despite Donald Rumsfeld dropping in to give advice, even including the use of chemicals.

Really, Logic, as many historians can vouch for, Iran can pride itself on being much more fair and honest than ever our Anglophilic allies have been.

Also these historians can feel so ashamed, the religous ones wondering what a good God up there really feels about it all ....?

Could be shades of Socrates -..... out with the Gods and in with the Good.

Firstly

Back to the petition. The following link is from article about bogus names appearing on the petition.

www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=2824#comments

Bushbred

A regime whose laws, and practices allow the unbelievably cruel practice of the Islamic form of stoning, and which encouraged children to be used in a war as human mine detectors is so lacking in morality that for it to posses nuclear weapons is a particular worry. This is a matter of commonsense, it has nothing to do with history.

Before the present clerical regime Iran (Persia) might have had a non-warlike history, but at present it has a cruel and evil disguised dictatorship. Practices from the past are no indicator of how they will behave now.

And before anyone brings up a red herring of stoning, Israel and the bible, Jewish interpretation has never given it the meaning that Sharia law has. Cruel executions are simply forbidden in Jewish law. The same applies to Eye for an Eye which never had the meaning popularly given to it by some other religions notably Christianity. Remember that the bible was written in an ancient form of Hebrew not in English, the most valid interpretations are those made by ancient scholars.

Reckon you could do with a bit of political science training, Logic.

Your mind seems eternally on religion. Please to remember that not so many years ago the Puritans were stoning women also, and European Catholics doing even worse.

Seems most of your barracking is for that American payback, Logic, or even more - both the one of Iran holding the US Embassy for a year, for which many of us gave a cheer, and the other of course, Iran winning the eight year war against Iraq which was aided and abetted again by the US, similar to the one placing in the puppet Shah in the 1950s.

Looks like you are a real American neo-colonial backer, Logic, well for that especially with George Dubya in charge you can really stay by yourself.

Bushbred

At the time when the Puritans were stoning women and European Catholics doing even worse I would have been concerned about letting them have nuclear weapons. As this was a development only possible in a post enlightenment society, that of course was not possible at the time otherwise history would have been very different (I studied physics).

But Iran now has a medieval theocracy (did you study theocracies in Political Science?). As a result it would be madness to let them have such weapons. It would have been better if UK, India France Israel etc did not have them either but at least their governments are directly answerable to their people in proper elections and their leaders do not believe in an imminent Armageddon leading to the arrival of the hidden Imman. (sorry to mention religion again but it is hard to avoid when discussing a theocracy).

Perhaps you need an update on you political theory to accommodate the new religious fanaticism, which is also present in parts of the US but at least religious dissent there is encouraged, as it is in Australia.

I would not however like to draw attention away the original topic. Lary Stillman protest is nonsense. And his petition has been padded out with false and bogus names, which show much credence can be given to his views.

Logic:

(a) It was not "Larry Stillman's protest".

(b) The most obvious thing to do with a petition you don't agree with is try to discredit it by adding names such as A. Hitler or J. Stalin. You can then imply that few, if any of the signatories are genuine.

(c) The whole thing has become a joke, anyway.

The thing has become a joke. But several of the names which appeared were of real people who didn't even sign the petition and who had no intention of doing so. The full number is not known.

That is what discredits it.

The basic statement of the petition of wanting peace with the Palestinians and two states is not an argument except by a tiny group of fanatics. There is no real opposition to that, and there was no need of that kind of petition.

I know of people who signed the petition taking it at face value and not realising the full agenda of Lowenstein. The true signatories should spend less effort claiming they are being silenced and when they get a platform such as OLO, actually telling us what they do want and why that is an alternative to the attitudes of the rest.

Logic:

No Jewish "dissident" is being silenced (see almost any edition of the Jewish News), though I am sure that there are some who would like this to happen.

I signed the dreaded Loewenstein petition because of the tone of the debate, in which those Jews who publicly state, for instance, that the Lebanon war was badly conducted are described as "traitors", "closet antisemites", "self-haters" and worse. People such as Phillip Adams are "antisemites" too, as are those who a few years ago stated that the campaign against Hanan Ashrawi receiving the Sydney Peace Prize was vicious, unbalanced and unwarranted.

I do not see eye to eye with Loewenstein on a number of matters, but to see him described, as in one well-known Jewish chat group, as "traitorous scum" and "a Jewish Quisling" is well over the top.

More light, less heat!

Youngsteve

"More light, less heat!"

I could not do anything but agree with that statement. But as one who has the Jewish News bookmarked but almost never reads it and who is on the edge of what we might call a community I do understand the problems that others see with the general publicity surrounding the petition.

In an environment where there is a lot of hate publicity against Israel such a group does cast aspersions on Jewish people in general by tarring them all with the brush of conspiring with the persecutors of Palestine, and none of that is true. Lowenstein does look to me as someone who is grandstanding.

Many extreme remarks to which you refer come from holocaust survivors and their families (of which I am not one) and understandingly they are very sensitive to any criticism of Israel. Nevertheless there are a large number of Jewish people outside of this loop including multi-generation Australians who still consider Israel receiving totally unfair press coverage and wonder what this "alternative" group are up to.

The way you talk about a country like Iran, sounds superior, or worse still, very elitist.

Maybe a few lessons in post-WW 1 and 2 Middle East history might enlighten you.

Like all you ultra-right wingers, you seem to believe that the only good future for the Middle East is still the now very worn-out neo-colonial one.

George W's missile diplomacy and its shock and awe failure, should surely be a lesson after what has happened with Iraq. So much we pray that it be relegated to the dustbin like 18th and 19th century Promised Land philosophy.

Or maybe like Socrates we should make our prayers not religous but the one that says Out with the Gods and in with the Good.

In the bush we call it commonsense, while the social scientists whom you so much deter, simply call it insight, only gained by taking lessons fom history.

Maybe then you might change your mind about Iran, a country even since its Persian days, has never attacked another ME country unless attacked herself when Iraq backed by Americana could not even do her in.

In fact, even many Westerners clapped their hands when Iran finally won, similar to when we gave a cheer when they captured the Yankee embassy when the fake Shah was given the boot.

bushbred

Are you referring to me? If so I am no right winger, more left of centre, and an ALP member. Still you can't always be right.

I see nothing elitist about distrusting a religious based government who treats woman and Jews as second grade citizens denying them the same rights as male Muslims, or which has stoning for adultery on its books. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with colonialism.

I accept that Iran as Persia had a peaceful existence but it was not always a theocracy. The situation now can be quite different. Certainly a leader who stages an international conference to deny the holocaust is short of a shingle or two. I am sure the women of Iran who found their rights diminished somewhat do not appreciate the current regime.

Also the expressions of disdain for modern Western liberalism from Islamic theocracies and dictators should give all of us reason to worry. And so should you.

The Promised Land philosophy as you put it started earlier than the 18th century. The Romans did not force all Jews out of Judea, and many remained and their descendants are still there. Also nearly a million Jews were edged out of Muslim lands, as well as Christians Druze Zoroastrians and other non Muslim groups. The golden age of the Islamic world never ever gave equality to non Muslims.

The claim that Israel is just a land for European Jews is totally false. It has given refuge to Jews Christians and Druze leaving Muslim controlled lands. This fact is always ignored by the left because it spoils their argument. There are many on these posts who wish I would go away because I keep on bringing up a fundamental truth.

Logic: Another fact which the Left (with honorable exceptions) finds embarrassing is the wide circulation and acceptance in the Arab/Moslem world of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", a nineteenth-century antisemitic concoction, which first came out in Tsarist Russia and was used as an excuse for bloody pogroms. It was later used as a school textbook in Nazi Germany. The Hamas Covenant quotes it as a reliable source on what the Jews get up to. Check it on your search engine!

Yes I am well aware of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In fact one particularly aggressive writer to OLO actually referred to it as a proof of his anti Israeli arguments.

You should take a look at the anti-semitic websites some coming from Egypt. In our country the owners of the sites would be charged with offenses. And the interviews on Al Jazeera of women proud that their sons and daughters have committed Jihad (ie murder). One woman even was encouraging her younger son into following his older sibling into Paradise. Quite sickening.

The sooner the left wakes up to the reality of Islamic fundamentalism and realises it is so far from their values the better. You'd think the Bali and other bombings would be a wake up call. Nor can I understand why the decent Muslims (by far the majority) don't distance themselves more openly from these fanatics.

Logic: I think the main reason why most Moslems do not distance themselves from their fanatical brethren is that they live in countries where "agreeing to disagree" is not part of the social fabric, as it is in those parts of the world which inherited the European Enlightenment. Europe's colonising history has forced the Arab/Moslem world into a subordinate position which leads directly to a fortress mentality, in which dissident opinion is seen as dangerous to the common weal. In some respects Israel shares this mentality -- and also not without reason.

This does not explain the attitude of the left. You would think that they would have more sympathy with a slightly socialist Israel than with theocratic dictatorships with a landed upper class and poor attitudes towards women. Perhaps they just automatically oppose anyone that the US supports.

I think that some of them have simply boxed themselves in with a self hate of their own societies and that to examine new facts might leave naked with their opinions.

Logic: There is Left and there is Left. I have long been associated with this broad current, but I abhor the brutal treatment of women in many Moslem-ruled countries as well as the primitive feudal dictatorships which rule those countries. I also have great sympathy for Israel, though I believe many of its policies and attitudes are short-sighted and make it more, not less vulnerable to attack. Of course it has a right and a duty to defend itself -- but it's a question of HOW.

The first thing Israelis need to understand (many already do) is the main source of Palestinian Arab resentment -- land dispossession. Of course the Palestinians need to understand a few things about the Israelis too!

There are some on the Left, though, who do see such matters in primitive black-and-white terms, and it is unfortunate that these people seem to get the most publicity. More colourful, I suppose.

There was land dispossession on both sides. The Palestinians (and the Left) need to see that too. There is also the issue of the Islamic world wanting everyone to be Muslims. A Jewish western state in the middle of what they see as their territory is an affront to them. The Israelis are only just starting to see that. But then on the positive side there is the half of Israel who stem from Arab countries. They are growing in influence, (there are many Arab Jews) and this is a force for understanding.

The Jews were probably the worst victims of dispossession: loss of land and property, and worst of all, the greatest loss of life to befall almost any one group in history. If this were some kind of ghastly game, victims vs. victims, the Palestinian Arabs would lose hands down. But precisely because of geography, they cannot be expected to feel as strongly about Jewish dispossession as do the Jews themselves. For them, the loss of their land, homes etc. is of far greater moment. The reasons why Jews have taken over their territory is of almost no importance to them. This helps explain why, for instance, a bizarre tissue of lies such as "The Protocols" can have such explanatory force for them.

Logic, don't know why you call yourself Logic, because you fail to take lessons from history.

1. First. Believing that a large nation like Iran should be made a mess of like the Americans are doing with Iraq, just because they believe in Sharia Law, does not sound very logical to me. Or maybe you have just got a set on the present leader.

2. Also your concept of the Promised Land seems a bit hazy. You did not state that that the Promised Land was God's promise in the Old Testament to His Chosen People that they could destroy the occupants of the Promised Land because they were unbelievers.

3. Although the young Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount spoke about loving your enemy, or having respect for unbelievers, the Christian Church finally gave into the greed for the strong to slaughter and conquer in the name of a classical elite, eventually mostly white. Could recommend you do a study of the CFR, Council of Foreign Relations, which plainly states how a newer classical Anglophilic elite was originally the love-child of the ageing Cecil Rhodes, some say also the original Zionist.

Must say personally the way the world is going, would tend more to believe in Socrates, who gave the original quotation - Out with the Gods and in with the Good

bushbred

You accuse me of lack of logic.

Your last post seem to bare no relationship to any of mine.

I have not mentioned God, Jesus or the promised land. My doubts about Iran are not directly to do with Sharia law. It seems to me reasonable to suspect a nation which has stoning on its books, which denies rights to women and non Muslims and whose President hosts a conference denying the historical reality of the holocaust and invites a former official of the Klu Klux Klan may be particularly dangerous with nuclear weapons. The connection between lack of respect for human rights and attempts to wreck the rest of the world has an several historic precedents.

Where is you historical evidence of Iran or Persia ever having the combination of such a leader plus the possession of nuclear weapons?

Logic: Certainly, two major obstacles to the ME peace process are the election of Hamas to the Palestinian leadership, and the presence of Ahmedinejad as Iranian leader. At the moment, these are leading Israel's sworn enemies, and their mere existence is grist to the mill for Israel's hardliners. I wish I could wave a magic wand and make them vanish -- but that's not likely to happen. On paper, they have to be isolated from their support bases and pushed to the margins of their societies, but how to achieve this miracle? For a start, is there any chance of Israel putting a halt to building settlements on the West Bank and thus infuriating the Arab world even further? Is the present Israeli leadership capable of supporting the more moderate elements on the Palestinian side? Is there no-one in Iran who can see the folly of Ahmedinejad's crazy rhetoric?

Youngsteve

Sorry I am no Israeli and I don't know. Also I have no crystal ball but surely their must be people in Iran who detest the theocratic state. I believe that this is in fact the case. The settlements should not have occurred, I never was impressed with them. But the Muslim world does have a huge image and well being problem and the existance of a successful Western State in their midst will not do their self esteem much good.

Would like to know what your future plan for Iran is, Logic?
To be logical, also means to be academically knowledgeable, which you do not appear to be.

If you were you would be wise enough to leave Iran alone, and even let her go atomic, which would create a nuclear power balance in the Middle East, similar to between India and Pakistan.

The scary thing, Logic, is that your mindset steers pointedly towards Iran being invaded, or possibly a nuclear strike by either the US or Israel.

If you believe an old established society of nearly 70 million people deserves such a thing, it places you with a
no better mental capacity than George W Bush, who we fear might still try to prove himself, not having brains enough to have learnt his lesson with Iraq.

Fear your logic has become frozen, Logic, better go back to school, though sometimes we wonder what sort of schooling you've ever had

We have to look at this whole issue from a different perspective.

I only want at this stage to discuss the "lowenstien issue" from the perspective of the value of Jewish life in the Diaspora and the Land of Israel.

The Jews in the diaspora need a strong Israeli army that is capable of defending the Jews in israel and in the Diaspora. You can argue untill the cows come home, but the fact remains that the Jews have never been able to rely on the Christian or muslim or any other
bunch for their saftey. History is replete with the sick murder of Jews. It is also replete with the rantings of intellectuals who have either exasserbated the problem or succumbed to their own demise without ever accepting responsibility or even understanding their culpability.

So any critisism of The nation of Israel that will allow other sick Jews or Gentiles or Muslims to benefit or increase their capacity to harm in any way a Jew physically or mentally is an absolute no no. This is not rocket science it is simple self preservation. Any lowley animal in the wild knows this and its about time we indellably etched this in our minds. It is a cardinal rule of survival.

Any critisism against a Jew or the Jewish Nation that is clearly biased and or ignores the Jewish Perspective is clearly immoral and intended to harm the Jewish Nation and is unacceptable. This is anti semitism and no amount of intellectual obfuscation can change this.

All anti semites should know that you will go down in history as the evil that allowed evil to flourish while you tried to harm the Great Nation of Israel. You are complicit in the countless murders and genosides that plague our world. You choose to turn a blind eye to these attrocities for money or out of the sick need to try harm the Great Nation Of Israel. You are so obsessed that you allow the evil to floursh.

I worry that lowenstein may fit into this catagory .

bushbred

"The scary thing, Logic, is that your mindset steers pointedly towards Iran being invaded, or possibly a nuclear strike by either the US or Israel."

Where did I say that?

You keep on harping ad nauseum about balance of power and Iran's past record. These are some classical conjectures but as you know a good education enables one to think and adapt with the times.

What sort of balance of power would have stopped Hitler or Stalin on their mad rampages? What sort of imperialistic record did Italy have before Mussolini took power? What would have happened if any of these people possessed nuclear weapons?

How can you be so sure that Israel has a fully operational nuclear bomb? Where could they have tested it? What makes you sure Iran has sufficient technical knowhow to produce enough U238 for a bomb or to make a weapon system capable of delivering it?

My doubts come not from political scientists or philosophers but from a nuclear engineer with adequate knowledge and experience in the field. Think about all of this. Use your much lauded education. Mine by the way is a degree in Engineering.