Ahmedinejhad regards Western Liberal Democrats about the same as the Israel politicians regard us.

I don’t support nuclear proliferation … I’m a realist and think the spread of such is likely wherever one side in an ongoing enmity acquires them.

Israel’s problem in the west long-term isn’t about non support from lefties. It's about a growing realisation by liberal democrats, like me, that the Israeli position is an indefensible one in relation to its behaviour towards its neighbours. That'll erode support politically in Western Democracies over time. Decline in financial and military aid will follow.

You know Hezbollah and Hamas would lose total support if Israel was to accept the existence of a Palestinian state set at pre ’67 borders. We're all coming to that realisation.

You know longer-term it would be best for Israel to accept the Arab peace proposal and confine itself to the pre ’67 borders. If it doesn’t, inevitably in consequence, it will lose western support and its neighbours will overrun and totally destroy it. For that not to happen Israel will need western support to ensure its security…and it might surprise you that I think it entirely reasonable the West should assist Israel in ensuring its security… but it will require Israel to face hard facts. ie It cannot continue indefinitely it’s occupation and land stealing and expect continued support from the Western Liberal Democracies.

Stevenlmeyer,

I can show you ‘on the public record’ where I supported the invasion of Iraq…before the invasion. Can you show me similar with regard to your opinion and subsequent opposition to the invasion of Iraq?

I reckon the nukes in Israel are already in the hands of terrorists…state terrorists who will employ them if, when and where it suits them without one iota of regard for the opinion of the rest of us. And that makes them as unpredictable as the Iranians.

I don’t know of anyone who would possibly think Melbourne a target worthy of nuking…but then again I’m a Queenslander and could reasonably argue both the position for or against a nuke attack on Melbourne. :- )

keith,

I agree with you verbatim on just about everything you write. One thing I can't understand though is the Liberal's unquestioning support for Israel. I'm a liberal democrat too. I support the government in most policies (I like Rudd too but question his ability to keep his extremeist colleges in check). But why would a party guided by essentially humanitist ideals support an extremist state like Israel? Even today's SMH had a frightening article about Australia's support for a US attack on Iran:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-garners-support-for-strike-on-iran/2007/10/01/1191091029426.html

Those people who bleat on about Israel's peaceful nature might take note of the quote from Seymor Hersh, a well connected US journalist:

"The Israelis, of course, have gone bananas. They're very upset about the idea of not going … They want us to go. And they want us to hit hard."

Except for the enormous influence of the pro-Israel lobby, how can support for these people be justified?

Unfortunately, I think you badly underestimate the way the pro-Israel lobby is distorting liberal democratic policy around the world. Even the French seem to have taken leave of their senses!

Also, those people who believe Israel is content withing its own borders might read Olmert's speech to the US congress last year:

http://blogs.zmag.org/node/2710

"I believed, and to this day still believe, in our people's eternal and historic right to this entire land."

Keith

You’re still whining.

You very helpfully listed some of my points and then didn’t bother trying to disprove any of them.

Your claim that Iran is more stable is laughable and totally ignores their involvement in Iraq, Israel and elsewhere. Just because Iranian jets are not doing bombing runs doesn’t mean they aren’t prosecuting a war. Iranian operatives, weapons and cash are the backbone of the Shia militias in Iraq. Iranian rockets form Hezbollah’s front line of attack on Israel.

You clearly don’t have a clue. The moment the Palestinian Leadership renounces their campaign of terror, I’ll support the demand to end Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. That’s the real long term solution and the only way forward.

Your belief that “Hezbollah and Hamas would lose total support if Israel was to accept the existence of a Palestinian state set at pre ’67 borders” is tremendously naïve. Hezbollah and Hamas have very little support now, outside the Muslim world. A victory over Israel on this issue would encourage them to greater terrorism in their pursuit of their ultimate goal, which is a ONE state solution ( A Muslim one). Every time Israel has pulled back, the terrorists have just brought the fight forward.

Some quotes from Hamas’s charter,

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavours."

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The IRM believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

You said “open up your mind to the way we liberal democrats in the west think.” Western liberal thought, especially in foreign relations is the problem, its just totally lost perspective. When liberals begin to champion tyrants and dictators over democrats I think its time to admit you are no longer liberal.

Iran is the most serious threat to stability in the Middle East - a most vociferous opponent of Arab-Israeli peace efforts and also advocate for the destruction of Israel. In October 2005, recently elected President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, stated:

“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”

Ahmadinejad has endlessly repeated this. One observer stated that it is the only time that the aim of destruction of one country by another has been set down in writing.

Iran has its own uranium reserves. In February 2003, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami announced this discovery near the central city of Yazd.

Hassan Rowhani who headed talks with Britain, France and Germany until 2005, admitted to Islamic clerics and intellectuals a secret nuclear program had been uncovered in 2002 by the opposition; also that Iran had completed the installation of equipment for conversion of yellowcake at its Isfahan plant.

In May 2006, UN inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium, higher than the low-enriched material used to generate power and heading toward weapons-grade level in an Iranian research center linked to the military. It (AP, May 13, 2006).

UN Security Council Resolution 1737 (Dec 23, 2006) reported that
Maj Gen Yahya Rahim Safavi, Commander, IRGC (Pasdaran) headed up the 15 member team (each named) involved in ballistic missile and nuclear programmes.

For civilian purposes? Given the country’s enormous reserves of petroleum and gas, this is a nonsense. US intelligence indicates Iran is trying to fit missiles to carry nuclear weapons - achieve nuclear capability.

Just this year ...

In January 2007, Iran reached an agreement with North Korea to share data and information the Koreans obtained from their nuclear test in October 2006. Iran also stepped up its research activity in preparation for their own underground nuclear test (Daily Telegraph, January 24, 2007).

cont ...

On February 22, 2007, the IAEA found Iran in violation of a Security Council Resolution 1696 (S/PRST/2006/15, 29/32006) to freeze uranium enrichment. The IAEA are in no doubt that Iran intends to build nuclear weapons. In response Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki reiterated that Iran would never suspend uranium enrichment.

In August, the IAEA reported Iran was expanding its nuclear program in defiance of the UN. The agency said Iran was operating nearly 2,000 centrifuges, the machines that produce enriched uranium. (New York Times, August 30, 2007)

This month, Iran unveiled a new version of its ballistic Shahab-3 missile already capable of reaching Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East. The missile’s range has been improved from 810 to 1,125 miles . The missile, capable of carrying a non-conventional warhead, could be stationed anywhere in Iran. Not only could it reach Israel, but also parts of Europe. (JTA: Breaking News, September 23, 2007)

As early as March 2005, Ukraine admitted exporting cruise missiles to Iran that can carry nuclear weapons

Officials in Tehran confirm Iran will never scrap its nuclear program.

Talks with Europe are aimed at protecting their nuclear achievements; not negotiating any end to them.

Experts calculate three atomic bombs could destroy Israel. The “Palestinian” excuse does not hold scrutiny. The territory and environs would be completely unihabitable ... ..

Iranians repeatedly warn of Ahmadinejad's terrorist, genocidal and nuclear ambitions. Why doesn't the West listen to them?

PaulL

Let's just analyse this conversation.

You've so far called me or suggestted
I'm an apologist,
I'm forgetful,
I'm mad,
I'm a soft leftie,
I support and help terrorists,
I'm against a secure Israel,
I'm a terrorist apologist,
I have a distorted view of history,
I'm not an independant thinker,
I'm soft,
I'm whining,
I'm a hypocrite,
I favour military adventurism,
I favour nuclear proliferation,
I'm a looney-leftie,
I have no sense,
I support the purging of homosexuals, female activists, and opposition politicians,
I don't have a clue,
I'm naive,
I've lost perspectuive,
I support tyrants and dictators.

I think I been quite restrained in my responses:

in calling you a liar
in showing you are contradictory,
in saying you are not balanced
in saying you are illogical.
in suggesting you are one-eyed
in calling you a propagandist.
in saying you are whining and grizzling
in showing your attitude is racist.
in saying you were an apologist
in saying 'you'd simply begin a screeching whining campaign and you'd end up alledging I'm anti-semitic.'
in saying 'You really are behaving the blustering clown with such outlandishly incoherent and demonstrably false comments.'

Now tell me why anyone with any sense would bother to read our posts or take either of us or our points of view seriously?

:-)