'The author hasn't commented on Israeli action in Iran, so ultimately unless he does, I suppose neither of us can comment comprehensively either way.'

Really!

Then what is this?:

'The key question facing a newly elected Rudd Government (or a re-elected Howard one) is a possible US or Israeli-led strike on Iran.'

That is initiating a discussion about the US, Israel and Iran.

I didn't make that up. Similarly I have reread the article numerous times and I see not one condemnation of his \suggested Israeli strike. I did however see much discussion and condemnation of a suggested US strike.

Of course it's obvious, that omission does not mean endorsement. In the context of the article which is criticism of the proposed US strike it means the author hasn't criticised the exact same proposal by Israel. That's unequal and indicates, if not error or oversight, then a deliberate bias.

I've made that point several times now and it has been misintreprepted and skewed.

The original statement and subsequent omission is exactly how many Israeli propagandists put forward and promote Israeli positions. They attempt to legitimise Israel's actions by comparison to the actions or lack of actions of others or they discuss possibilities without a searching critical examination of Israel's likely actions.

They simply state them as if they are an accepted fact. And of course if challenged ... well then my experience is that abuse usually follows.

I'll also make the point: I haven't challenged any of Loewenstein's attitudes to other Israeli - Mid East issues.

Many of you are assuming I am.

Keith,

It is clear your hatred and obsession with Israel has led you to post without having all the facts at your disposal. Your absurd attempts to cover this blatant error do you no credit. You were wrong about Lowenstein, admit it.

The article isn’t a critique of the much hyped American attack on Iran. The title of the article if you have forgotten, is the Rudd delusion, which refers to the delusion among many leftists that a Rudd led Labour Gov’t will be the answer to their prayers for a progressive leftist style gov’t. Clearly this won’t be the case.

Your contention that the Author brought up the subject and then deliberately avoided criticizing Israel because he was trying to smooth the way for the public to accept such an attack is arrant nonsense. You have no evidence for it, you just assumed that was his goal.

No one is assuming you are challenging Lowenstein’s attitudes to OTHER Israeli-Mideast issues. The point is that you made an assumption about Lowenstein article for which you had no proof and now you are using ridiculous excuses to back pedal.

Secondly,
You and some of your fellow travellers have attacked Israel over many issues whilst neglecting to criticize the many other states in the region with far worse track records. You can’t have it both ways Keith. You hold everyone to the same standard, in which case Israel is a shining beacon of liberalism in the Middle East, or you don’t complain when other people omit to criticize a particular group when the possibility arises

Yes, Keith, Kevin Rudd has that problem about a possible
Cheney-activated strike on Iran before Bush goes out.

Would say that Rudd should take the more radical academic point of view, be fully against any attack on Iran, not only because the US will have Israel much more condemned by having her do the first strike, but believe that Iran could still be used to promote future peace in the Middle East, not WW3 as everyone fears?

Reckon with V Pres' Cheney, the main instigator, it is much more about American pride, and how a comparatively weak country like Iran after making fools of America twice since WW2 could be well on the way to making it a third, especially if Putin has his way. Also possibly with China not far behind seeing that Russia and China have lately been playing war games together.

Not only about actual war, but intervening to prevent it.

Also could hope our Uni' students could be tickled up a bit, like with Vietnam.

Not much use now relying on the UN, especially with Condy Rice taking the lead every time commonsense is needed - some sort of Realpolitik needs to materialise, anyhow, at least.

Bushbred,

You seem thoroughly content to ignore the fact that Iran is making a fool of America right now in Iraq. The involvement of the IRGC in the current conflict in Iraq amply demonstrates their aggressive intentions. Your argument that Iran has never attacked anybody is demonstrably false.

Israel wouldn’t have nuclear weapons pointed at Iran if Iran didn’t continually make noises about Israel’s complete destruction. Ahmedinejhad is a complete madman. Israel are right to ensure their safety in that direction.

Your rose coloured view of Iran is fundamentally flawed. Your continued assertion that the whole issue revolves around the defense of Israel is also flawed. The UN security council obviously sees Iran’s nuclear program as a threat since they have passed three resolutions requiring Iran to desist. Germany and France are also unprepared to accept Iranian nukes.

Why should the world allow a racist, religiously intolerant, belligerent nation which has made real threats to destroy whole countries to gain access to nuclear weapons. Especially an unaligned minor power with no one to answer to.

Iran is intent on dominating the region and therefore the global oil trade. From this position Iran could do immense damage to the economies of the world, giving it the bargaining strength of a superpower. This is what Ahmedinejhad is after.

Iran doesn’t need nuclear weapons to protect itself. It has ample capability to do this. It needs nukes to become the dominant force in the region. Irans weapons program is the first stage of a naked grab for power. Wake Up.

The hippies of the Vietnam era have been shown up as the shallow, vapid, band wagon jumpers that they were. Has it not occurred to you that many students today actually believe that an extremist dictatorship is not an appropriate gov't to hold nuclear weapons.

I am still amazed that someone who believes in realpolitik could encourage or support the Chekist Putin who looks like becoming Russia’s newest dictator, especially considering his clear intent to regain Russia’s military dominance of central Europe and beyond.

PaulL

Typically you haven't negated my reasoning with solid argument. As usual you have merely made generalised criticism, twisted my opinion and then attacked me personally. Unless you actually present an argument and desist with the abuse you are just not worth talking with.

Since you've obliquely bought up another subject and just to be clear once again...sigh...

You claim Israel as a Liberal Democracy. I say if that is the case then Israel like all Liberal democracies must apply standards to it's behaviour that are above those of countries that are not or who don't lay claim to be Liberal Democracies.

Why can't you accept that...we liberal democrats do. It's all part of practising our philosophy. It's why we don't accept oppression nor practise unlimited occupations. You know the types of disgraceful behaviour that can be used as an example of how we treat others.

Btw I'll be voting liberal next saturday.

Oh and didn't Israel have nuclear weaopons pointed at Iran before the arrival of Ahmedinejhad? No? :-) Typical twisting PaulL.

Bushbred

Rudd will do as he's told by the US. The US won't make a strike on Iran. I can see George leaving Iraq and the mid-east to the next President who is very likely to be a feloow Republican. Especially given the failling performance of the Democrat's in the current Congress. They promised so much at the last Senate elections and have delivered so little or are changing their stances that there is now very real anger in the US over their now evident hollow electrol rhetoric. It is placing, once what was guaranteed, the election of a Democrat President at the next election, in real jeopady.

NB.
That electrol 'success' was organised by a bloke named Vic Fingerhut. Currently Vic Fingerhut is organising the electrol effort of the Australian Labor Party. Focus groups and all.

'Why should the world allow a racist, religiously intolerant, belligerent nation which has made real threats to destroy whole countries to gain access to nuclear weapons.'

A perfect description of Israel. 'Out of the mouth of babes.':-)