Bushbred, re “global law”: There is no such "global law". Personally, I think there should be. No one should have nuclear weapons. No one should weapons at all. If it were up to me, they wouldn't. In the meantime, there is no such law. And if Israel has nuclear weapons, it is not because the United States "allowed" this. If anything, you should blame France.

Nothing Vaanunu did was in defense of any international law. Specifically what international law is broken when a country supposedly "violates" the terms of a treaty it hasn’t signed?

You can blame America or whomever you want for whatever you want. You are now dealing in false generalities (Israel is “arrogant” and “lawbreaking”) instead of facts. The alleged violation of a treaty one never signed isn’t a good example of “lawbreaking”.

Re Iraq:

-Again, meaningless, false generalities. Unlike Australia, Israel didn’t participate in the invasion of Iraq.

-If Israel looked forward to Saddam’s defeat, it cannot be blamed. Saddam threatened to destroy Israel (not Australia or the US) countless times, and Israel (not Australia or the US) was the victim of multiple unprovoked Iraqi attacks, the latest in 1991 when Saddam launched more than 40 ballistic missiles at Israel.

-Given your concern about nuclear proliferation, you should thank Israel for destroying Saddam’s nuclear capacity in 1981.

-Israel does not require Iraqi agreement. Recognition and peaceful relations would be wonderful, but we’ve done without these for almost 60 years; if necessary, we can continue to do so. And Israel is not a “new state” in regional terms. All local states achieved independence after WWI, most around the same time as Israel. In many cases, this was only nominal independence, with a significant colonial presence continuing for many years.

Re colonialism:

-If you truly oppose imperialism and colonialism, you can’t support continued Arab efforts to conquer and colonize Israel;

- Some introspection is in order. You enjoy the spoils of colonial efforts that stole an entire continent, and live under the protection of America’s nuclear umbrella. And don’t forgot those strike bombers you let America sell you....

Sganot, you are too damned sure of yourself, so sure, in fact, very much like the Israelis themselves, one wonders whether you have some connection.

What you want, in fact, for the Middle East, will never happen, because I will say again, such policies are based on colonial greed, the very thing the Bush regime first tried on Iraq, but they are now trying to change.

Nothing much to do with global democracy, but it was simply colonial-style regime change, which the British tried for a long time in India, but Mahatma Gandhi thought otherwise.

Nelson Mandela showed the way also more recently in South Africa. As with Gandhi they achieved it without hardly firing a shot.

Could recommend you get onto Google and ask for John Locke, an English philosopher whose doctrine has been used both by Britain and America.

However, while Britain stayed true, the US broke the code by allowing its President too much latent power in the Constitution which is causing much of the problem now in Iraq.

Most university political science studies are or were until recently based on the theories of John Locke, which are said to be based on decency and fair play, rather than on religion. Locke also wrote a treatise on the Reasonableness of true Christianity.

Bushbred,

1) I'm an Israeli. I thought you knew that.

2) I'm sorry that you think I sound too sure of myself, but I cannot apologize for my knowledge and opinions. The 350-word limit here tends to encourage bluntness. Correcting others' mistakes can sound rude and arrogant, but there is a tremendous amount of hostility toward Israel based on ignorance, misunderstanding, double standards, and often the purposeful spreading of lies. (No, I am not accusing you of the latter.) If you want, we can have a more friendly, relaxed, and in-depth conversation offline. Email me at sganot@gmail.com

3) What do you know about what I want for the Middle East, and what makes you think it is based on “colonial greed”?

4) I’ve studied John Locke. Not sure what he has to do with our conversation, but “most university political science studies” are NOT “based on [his] theories”. He is an important classical political philosopher, but political science is much broader than just one man.

Locke’s treatise on the Reasonableness of Christianity is interesting, but I remain a non-Christian :)

The following may be of interest: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2096/is_1_56/ai_n16462582/pg_1

5) I haven’t discussed the situation in Iraq at all. I only pointed out a few reasons why most Israelis (like most Iraqis, actually) are happy to see Saddam’s regime go, and pointed out that your country, not Israel, participated in the invasion.

6) I’m not sure what US presidential power has to do with the topic at hand. Israel’s system of government is parliamentary, like Britain’s and Australia's. We also have a president who is mainly a figurehead, like your Queen. But our system is more democratic than yours. (For example, the head-of-state is not a monarch who inherits the position, but is elected by the parliament.)

7) Finally, it is fitting to note that today is Memorial Day in Israel, commemorating the sacrifice of 22,305 men and women killed in the establishment and defense of Israel. At sundown, the country will transition from deep mourning to joyous celebration as we mark 59 years of independence. CHAG SAMEACH to those who celebrate!

As a retired wheat and sheep farmer, Sganot, have had plenty to do with your people, and generally found them good to get on with, even though it is part of their historical makeup to drive a hard bargain as regards buying our wool proceeds and so-forth.

Have now been retired over 32 years, two gradsons now running the growing farmlands with me and second eldest son, also retired, sharing directorship.

As I was only poorly educated originally, was surprised how well I did in the military forces, easily showing more understanding than college boys.

While my now deceased wife became a popular artist, I managed to receive honours studying Third World problems in Sri-Lanka. Also studied global power balance initiatives towards the end of the Cold War.

Anyhow, glad to make your personal acquaintance through OLO, Sganot, and I must close by saying I have great admiration for Jewish intellect, which indeed may need to be held back somewhat, as many social scientists are either scared or wary of it - especially as regards certain influences in the White House.

Bushbred,

I am sorry for your recent loss. May your wife’s memory and your family’s love comfort you in this difficult time.

You sound like a good, hard-working, and honest person who has much to be proud of. But like many good people, perhaps as a result of your education or a function of when and where you were raised, you have inherited attitudes about Jews incorporating certain stereotypes that may appear complimentary, but that are offensive nonetheless. No, it is not in our nature to “drive a hard bargain”, and as far as I know, we have no “inborn mental aptitude” for anything in particular

“Jewish intellect” is very controversial. You say that “many social scientists are either scared or wary of it”. I wouldn’t quite put it that way. But the whole subject is fraught with difficulty and scientifically questionable. Most importantly, it approaches the dangerous territory of racism and eugenics. If one believes that a group is intellectually or otherwise superior, it is a short step to believing that the same group, or others, is actually inferior. Add a belief in biological determinism, and society’s response could be monstrous, as history shows.

For more on this, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_%28Controversies%29 .

Finally, if I understand your reference to “certain influences in the White House”, this seems to be based on A) ignorance and B) irrational fear (perhaps combined with traditional anti-Semitic beliefs about “Jewish power”).

A) Ignorance because Jews make up a tiny percentage of US citizens, and overwhelmingly support the Democrats. By far the vast majority of Republicans, Bush supporters, conservatives, so-called “neo-conservatives”, etc., are non-Jews. And compared to the general population, Jews are significantly over-represented among early and vociferous critics of the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq.

B) Irrational fear because, let's say, for the sake of argument, that you’re right. Assume that Jews are innately more intelligent than others, and are disproportionately influential in the White House. How would it be a bad thing? Wouldn't you want Bush's advisors to be smart? I certainly would.

Finally, Happy ANZAC Day!
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1177514486024&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I guess what it is mostly about SGANOT, is respect. My wish as I get older, is that we may all live together in peace, while respecting our differences.

As a strong student of philosophy and history, I was very struck when I read that most of the students who attended the Great Library of Alexandria in Egypt were Jews, and as a student of Greek philosophy, I wondered if Golden Greek Scientific Reasoning might be a way of getting us all together, but still paying respect to each other's beliefs.

One wonders whether it was the intentions of the Jews who did attend the Great Library, especially as reason was being taught there as a balance to faith.

To be sure there is a much deep-seated interest in such a point of view among academics, knowing that the early Moslem converts in the more intellectual areas of the Middle East did have according to historians, quite a wonderful mixture of a belief in Allah coupled with a strong knowledge of Socratic Reasoning as some call it.

In fact, it is said that the rise of reason had a double-edge, bringing progress to the West with the help of Muslim scholars, yet forcing Islam away from an early respect for reason, down into its own Dark Age.