Benny Morris Justifies Israel's Coming Attack on Iran

On Friday July 18 the New York Times published an op-ed by the Israeli historian Benny Morris. It is entitled "Using Bombs to Stave Off War." Morris chose this American venue to announce that Israel would "almost surely" attack Iran some time in the next few months. And he indicated that America would be well advised to support the attack.

The reputation of Benny Morris is founded on unquestioned scholarly achievement and a far more dubious political stance. As one of Israel's "new historians," he recovered the record of harassment, murder, and expulsion of the Palestinians in the war of independence -- a finding that largely discredits the Israeli myth that the inhabitants fled from their own timidity, or because they were told to flee by Arab governments.

But speaking as an Israeli citizen, more recently, Morris has declared his view that the mistake of Ben-Gurion and the leadership of 1948 was that they did not carry the expulsion of the Palestinians all the way. Morris sees Israel in 2008 as a state under perpetual siege and the focus of a clash of civilizations; he sees Palestinians -- and to a degree, all Arabs; and Iranians, too -- as a species of animals not yet inducted into full humanity. Thus in a well-known interview
with Ari Shavit, published in Haaretz on January 5, 2004, Morris described the Israeli problem with the Palestinians:

"Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another."

In the years since Benny Morris spoke those words, the construction of the Israeli wall in the West Bank, and the blockade of Gaza by land, sea, and air have created the cage he believed was necessary.

Now, writing from Israel for the American newspaper of record, Morris offers his advice concerning the proper treatment of Iran and Iranians. Since Iran is five years from being able to make a nuclear bomb (Morris says one-to-four years), Israel is compelled to bomb Iran "in the next four to seven months."

One may notice that the Israeli attack goes on a much faster schedule than the Iranian pace of research and discovery. Why the haste for destruction? Could it have something to do with the American presidential election of 2008 (which comes at Morris's four-month lower limit), or something to do with the inauguration of a new president in 2009 (thirty days before his upper limit of seven months)? Morris does not say. He writes, he says, because people need to realize that the success of Israel's coming "conventional assault" on Iran will be good for Israel, for the United States, and even for Iran. If, on the other hand, this conventional assault fails, Israel will some day launch a nuclear attack; and that will be less good.

The choice, Morris concludes, lies with the rest of the world, and especially with the United States. If Iran does not submit rapidly to the next round of international pressure, the world had better support Israel and hope for the success of its first aerial assault against Iran.

Morris confesses, or implies, one reservation. It would better if the United States could launch the attack. But, being realistic, he remarks the lack of enthusiasm among Americans "for wars in the Islamic lands."

"Which leaves," says Morris, "only Israel."

There is an irritant driving this article, a motive more deeply lodged than Morris is willing to avow. For he suspects Israel alone cannot do the job well enough. So having first dismissed the U.S. and the American public as faint-hearted and unequipped for "wars in Islamic lands," and having then come half way to ask again, Morris at last accuses the United States. If we do not soon intervene, and attack Iran as he counsels, the result will be further nuclear progress by Iran. This will be terminated eventually with a nuclear attack by Israel against Iran.

A nuclear attack on a nation of seventy million people (a great many of them innocent of the desire to wipe Israel off the map) is morally indefensible. How can Morris defend it? He can because he knows -- not believes but metaphysically knows -- that the moment that Iran comes into possession of its first weapon, the leaders of Iran will commit national suicide in order to obtain the pleasure of destroying Israel.

Morris alludes to his ulterior knowledge in two sentences so full of blandness, abstract jargon, and bureaucratic euphemism that their meaning is not initially clear; but if one reads with care, one sees that the message is never in doubt:

"Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificing mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and the White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build."

Iran will use a nuclear bomb, Morris is sure, as soon as it has one, even knowing that to do so means the destruction of Iran. The Mullahs will do it because that is the kind of people they are.

Here then is the way around the charge that Israel, in attacking Iran some time before March 2009, will be committing a crime. By Morris's logic the attack by Israel will be an act of self-defense. Indeed, it will be preemptive -- hardly more than common sense -- given the knowledge that Benny Morris possesses of the "fundamentalist, self-sacrificing" nature of the leaders of Iran. No evidence for his intuition is ever offered -- evidence from (say) the history of Iranian foreign policy over the past fifty years, or 200; evidence founded on actions rather than words. What if Iran's words since 1979 have been wilder than its deeds? What if Israel's actions since 2002 have been wilder than its words (wilder, even, than Benny Morris's words of 2004)? These findings could not possibly touch the argument. Morris writes as a man in possession of a racial and religious knowledge that is superior to evidence.

Of course, he hopes that Israel will not be forced to go all the way (though he has deplored Ben-Gurion's failure to go all the way with expulsion of the Palestinians). He imagines most Iranians would prefer not to see "Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland." Morris has thus given the readers of the New York Times a vision of a hellish future, but then atoned for the extravagance by suggesting that, if things fall out so, it will be the fault of Iran and the United States. Israel will have done the best it could with a monstrous and implacable enemy and a reluctant ally.

All circumstances taken together, this New York Times op-ed by Benny Morris is at once the most overt and the most peculiar intervention we Americans have witnessed thus far, by an Israeli attempting to influence U.S. policy in the Middle East. The article is weakly founded on partial facts and conjectural truths. It passes without transition from mock-prudential calculations to a tyrannical threat to destroy a civilization for the good of the world. Yet, though unpersuasive, it acquires significance when published between a recent visit to the U.S. by the Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and the current visit by the defense minister Ehud Barak. Morris's article is meant to be read in the context of such recent assurances as Olmert's, for example, that President Bush "understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and
intends to act on that matter before the end of his term in the White House."

But let us return for a last look at Benny Morris.

No person into whose mind had entered the idea that an Iranian may be a human being--and that there are millions of innocent Iranians -- could have generated with such casual facility the image of Iran as a "nuclear wasteland." Yet this was the image of Iran that the Israeli Benny Morris decided to conjure up for American readers in the New York Times.

In the Haaretz interview of January 5, 2004, the following exchange occurred between the interviewer Ari Shavit and Benny Morris:

"Would you describe yourself as an apocalyptic person?"

"The whole Zionist project is apocalyptic. It exists within hostile surroundings and in a certain sense its existence is unreasonable. It wasn't reasonable for it to succeed in 1881 and it wasn't reasonable for it to succeed in 1948 and it's not reasonable that it will succeed now. Nevertheless, it has come this far. In a certain way it is miraculous. I live the events of 1948, and 1948 projects itself on what could happen here. Yes, I think of Armageddon. It's possible. Within the next 20 years there could be an atomic war here."

This apocalyptic danger Morris may conceive himself to have put off a few more years by writing an editorial on behalf of Israel's coming attack. But whether the attack on Iran comes sooner or later, whether it is executed by Israel or the U.S. or both, and whether carried out with conventional or nuclear weapons, Morris has no doubt of one thing. It will have served the "apocalyptic" vision of the "whole Zionist project," and it will coincide with the highest values of
humanity properly defined.

Comments

[syllepsis]

Listen, people. The U.S. has just spent trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives redrawing the map of the Middle East, as the neocons bragged- IN FAVOR OF IRAN.
We are being asked to leave Iraq at the behest of the most pro-Iranian government in the world.(And we cannot stay there forever.)
It is perverse, to understate brutally, to allow Israel to set Iraq- our creation, made at such expense of blood and treasure- on fire again.
Whose interest is Morris speaking for? If I didn't know any better, I would say...[it is too obvious.]

[arvay]

I have been very critical of Israel's crazy polices, but the Israeli people will also be victims of this totally insane idea, if executed.

No human person wants to see them dead, either. If they could just think past the people who still believe in "Greater Israel" (an ironic echo of Grossdeutschland) and the inferiority of other peoples, peace in the area could be achieved.

South Africa achieved reconciliation despite decades of cruel apartheid. I never thought that possible, but we can all be humbled by the intellect and heart of someone like Mandela.

Somewhere, there may be a Palestinian Mandela and an Israeli de Klerk.

[Mogamboguru]

Israel had her Nelson Mandela: His name was Yitzhak Rabin. He was a great man, and a magnificent politician.

Yitzhak Rabin was about to reach an agreement and a peace-traty with the Palestinians and all the other countriesaround Israel.

But a rightwing Jew murdered him, just like MLK was murdered.

After the death of Rabin, Ariel Sharon became prime minister of Israel and revoked EVERY SINGLE NEGOTIATION, which Rabin had started to make peace in the region, before.

Rabin's assassination: Qui bono?

You name it.

[pkafin]

"After the death of Rabin, Ariel Sharon became prime minister of Israel and revoked EVERY SINGLE NEGOTIATION, which Rabin had started to make peace in the region, before."

Is this how retarded this discussion has become?

Rabin was assassinated in 1996. After his assassination Shimon Peres held the position of Prime Minister. His ideas for peace were even further towards the Palestinian positions than Rabin's. He was defeated by Netanyahu in the closest election in Israeli history following a rash of suicide bombings by hamas and rocket attacks from Lebanon.

Netenyahu was a right wing idiot for sure, but he, never the less, signed agreements that furthered the Oslo process and he gave away Hebron in the Wye River agreements even though it is a city central to Jewish history.

Netanyhu was driven from power halfway through his term and Ehud Barak was elected on the platform that e would finish the Oslo process and leave the Palestinians with a state of their own. Barak pursued those ideals through the summer of 2000 where, at Camp David his far reaching proposals included many Israeli concessions that were unimaginable just several years prior.

Arafat failed to acknowledge, accept, or counter his offer at the negotiating table. The Palestinians proudly launched a war in Sept. of 200 and Ariel Sharon was elected in early 2001.

Now, some may argue with the intentions of the Israeli leaders between Rabin and Sharon, but the timeline I just laid out is history. Mogamboguru's? nonsense.

[pkafin]

"Ariel Sharon became prime minister of Israel and revoked EVERY SINGLE NEGOTIATION, which Rabin had started to make peace in the region, before."

Also, in continuation of the post that probably is now below this one, Sharon has revoked none of what was handed to him. Most of those agreements had been rendered moot before he took office. The rest, remain in place waiting for a stoppage of hostilities.

Moreover, he forced the unilateral abandonment of Gaza and pulled out all of the Israeli settlers. Gaza is now 0% Jewish while Israel proper remains 20% non-Jewish.

[GZLives]

"If they could just think past the people who still believe in "Greater Israel" (an ironic echo of Grossdeutschland) and the inferiority of other peoples, peace in the area could be achieved."

Oh please .. you have this completely backwards.
The Arabs were the side that issues the famoue No recognition, No negotiation, No peace and NOT the Israelis.
Arafat stole billions of aid money

The enemy is Arab leadership NOT the Israelis
“When Arafat returned to Gaza in 1993, per capita income for Palestinians was running at about $3000, dwarfing that of their neighbors in Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The figure now stands at $934, with foreign aid making up well over half of that amount.
The collapse of the economy coincided with Israel’s decision to shut the door to Palestinians entering Israel in an attempt to stop the suicide-bombers killing its citizens. The immediate cost for the Palestinians was 100,000 jobs….”

In light of this, is it not more accurate to say that it is the terror intifada that has been the greatest enemy and cause of poverty amongst the Palestinians, and not the Israeli presence.

[Palspal]

arvay - If by Mandela you mean someone who is willing to spend a quarter-century in prison to liberate his people - then the Palestinians have plenty of Mandelas.
To date, every last Israeli Prime Minister has been an advocate of 'Erez Israel' - an Israel that comprises a much larger landscape than that gifted them by the West. There will be no Mandelas coming out of this gang. Its more land they want, even if it means driving every Palestinian into the desert.

[arvay]

I have been very critical of Israel's crazy polices, but the Israeli people will also be victims of this totally insane idea, if executed.

No human person wants to see them dead, either. If they could just think past the people who still believe in "Greater Israel" (an ironic echo of Grossdeutschland) and the inferiority of other peoples, peace in the area could be achieved.

South Africa achieved reconciliation despite decades of cruel apartheid. I never thought that possible, but we can all be humbled by the intellect and heart of someone like Mandela.

Somewhere, there may be a Palestinian Mandela and an Israeli de Klerk.

[Ithamer]

The crisis could be over in a heartbeat israel just has to give up on their demand for racial purity.

[GZLives]

"israel just has to give up on their demand for racial purity."

Stop lying and spreading misinformation or post some evidence of this

[SEQUOIABISON]

Maybe Benny Morris should appeal to Israel to start trying to be a genuinely good neighbor with their Arab brothers and sisters, instead of recommending Armageddon or the annihilation of humankind.

[GZLives]

"Maybe Benny Morris should appeal to Israel to start trying to be a genuinely good neighbor"

During the few years between the 2 intifadas, the Palestinian Arabs enjoyed the fastest growing economy with the highest employment in the Arab countries

But peace, in my opinion, is NOT what many (especially those with the guns) want with the Jews.
It was Arafat who explained that his"Palestinians" were specifically to create a wedge for the Arab countries to keep the Jews out of the region. Peace was never part of their plan.

You may or may not remember the three NO's of the Arab League Khartoum conference.

1. NO peace with Israel
2. NO recognition of Israel
3. NO negotiations with Israel

and yet you think its the opposite. One has to wonder whether its sheer ignorance or the desire to believe one way when its clearly the other.

Should you want to educate yourself

http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_khartoum.php

Please try and keep it honest here

[biwee]

Can you read UN res 194??????????????

[SEQUOIABISON]

If someone were coming from a foreign country and displacing my family and building settlements on my property because they claim this land once belonged to them back in biblical times then yes I think I would resist this invasion.

Now that the Israelis have displaced the former occupants of Palestine now Israel with the help of munitions from America they should be a little more magnanimous with their conquered subjects. Perhaps a little honey from the land of milk and honey, distributed among the refugees might go a long way toward brotherhood and peace.

[Ithamer]

The issue is , Do we relocate 5/ 6 million squatters or do we risk a nuclear war.......­......

[Palspal]

GZ - A fast growing economy is not the goal. Getting the Israeli boot off the Palestinian neck is the goal. Getting Israel out of what remains of Palestine is the goal. It is an illegal occupation - and Israel should have taken its cue from the first intifada - the occupation is unacceptable. Israel's only duty is to take its settlers and soldiers and go home.
It is not the Palestinians who invaded the shtetls of Europe, it is Zionist Jews who invaded Palestine and made clear their intention of building a Jewish 'homeland' on Palestinian land.
The Three NOs of Khartoum were in regard to the permissibility of Israel retaining land it had conquered in its 1967 war of aggression. Unless and until Israel relinquished its ill-gotten occupation, there could be no peace, no recognition, no negotiations. What's to negotiate? Just go home.
Instead, Israel had already made itself clear - that it was in Sinai, WB and Golan to stay. And the Allon Plan to absorb the West Bank was already under way.
Instead of getting your 'history' from propaganda web sites - you should try reading history in books - by historians.

[Publicola]

GZLives: "You may or may not remember the three NO's of the Arab League Khartoum conference"

You may or may not remember that the Khartoum conference was in 1967 - almost third of a century ago.

GZLives: "and yet you think its the opposite."

Here in the 21st-century modern era, you may or may not remember the Saudi Peace Initiative:

- - - - - - - - - -
Haaretz.com, March 29, 2007

Arab states unanimously approve Saudi peace initiative

Arab leaders gathering for a two-day summit in Saudi Arabia unanimously approved Wednesday the Saudi peace initiative originally launched in 2002...

The plan offers Israel recognition and permanent peace with all Arab countries in return for Israeli withdrawal from lands captured in the 1967 Six Day War. It also calls for setting up a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and a just solution to the issue of Palestinian refugees. ...
- - - - - - - - - -
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/843076.html

GZLives: "One has to wonder whether its sheer ignorance or the desire to believe one way"

Indeed.

GZLives: "Should you want to educate yourself"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1844214.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_828.shtml

GZLives: "Please try and keep it honest here"

I couldn't agree more.

[Ithamer]

Is it not enough that there is an occupation of Iraq,Afghanistan and Palestine? An effective attack on Iran will kill millions of innocent people , the result of which will make Jews legitimate targets wherever they live, and all because the US politicians seek the Jewish vote in New York /Miami .

[GZLives]

"An effective attack on Iran will kill millions of innocent people , the result of which will make Jews legitimate targets wherever they live, and all because the US politicians seek the Jewish vote in New York /Miami ."

or kill 6 million Jews and hold the entire western world hostage for oil supplies?
Which one works better for you?
For me what works the best is for the world community to stop Iran before this thing escalates beyond anyone's control - and it will

[Palspal]

Iran has not invaded any country in more than a thousand years and does not threaten to do so now. There are no quotes where Iranian leaders threaten to annihilate Israel. That Israel should come to an end does not mean by violence (unless you don't think that Israelis are capable of evolving beyond the 'Jewish state' idea). Israel, on the other hand, routinely invades its neighbors and has a 200+ arsenal of nuclear weapons. Its time the world leaned on Israel to start reductions in this arsenal. But if nukes are good for Israel, they are good for Iran too.
As for oil supplies - Jimmy Carter had a solar reflector on the White House - symbolizing the direction the nation's energy policy should take. Reagan took it down the first day in office. That the US is still buying Iranian oil - or any oil in great quantities - is solely the fault of Republicans and conservatives. Now its too late.

[tellner]

So what will you do if Israel doesn't attack Iran?

Will the fashionable leftish "death to the Zionist entity" crowd say "We were wrong"?
No. Never. In their simple minded little dramas Israel IS the Enemy. Israel always MUST BE the Enemy. If Israel does something good or fails to do something bad it is never to its credit. But months of rumors and speculations in the echo chamber prove that if there's talk of something bad or evil that MIGHT happen Israel MUST be guilty of it.

As far as it goes, Iran declared war on Israel, not the other way around.
Iran is calling for Israel to be wiped out. Not the other way around.
Iran's surrogates are bombing and rocketing Israel with the stated aim of causing as many civilian casalties as possible. Not the other way around.

[Palspal]

tellner - Iran has never declared war on Israel - or anybody else. Iran has not called on Iran to be wiped out. On the other hand, Israel routinely threatens to attack Iran - and perhaps use nukes to do so! So who is threatening whose existence?

There are no surrogates bombing and rocketing Israel. There are some desparate people living under Israeli occupation who hurl home-made rockets into Israel. Perhaps a dozen or so Israelis have been killed over the many years - that's a good days work for Israel's teen soldiers - who routinely put the children of Palestine between their gunsights - and fire. Just take your troops and settlers and go home.

[goldcoastsailor]

The monumental arrogance of the "chosen people" is astounding. Humanity, properly defined, indeed.

[GZLives]

"he monumental arrogance of the "chosen people" is astounding. "

The only thing chosen my friend is your post which only indicates the lack of knowledge. Israel is a secular country and most Jews in case you live very far under that rock, do not believe they are any more chosen then anyone else. That view my friend, comes more from the Jew hating crowd when they try and "prove" one of their nutjob theories.

[littleblackcat]

It is a sad but true thing that many, many nations consider there to be TWO truly ROGUE nations in this world today. One is the United States, having committed the crime of attacking an innocent nation for no reason, and the other is Israel, for committing the crimes of attacking innocent nations for no reason, again and again and again.

[GZLives]

"One is the United States, having committed the crime of attacking an innocent nation for no reason, and the other is Israel, for committing the crimes of attacking innocent nations for no reason, again and again and again."

"Attacking an innocent nation again adn again and again??"

Pray tell .. who would that be?

As much as you may hate Israel or Jewish people, please try and keep it honest.
The lies, exaggerations or just people's opinions that they claim are "facts" on this thread are not to be believed.

[abdallac]

Please try to seperate the idea of Israel and the Jewish people. They CAN be considered mutually exclusive in. Israel is a political state - to be Jewish means to claim a religious tradition. People DO have the right to criticize a political state without being called out as hating the Jewish people.

Sorry, I do not subscribe to Judaism as a "culture" or "race" of people. Any more than Hindu's, Christian's or Muslim's are a culture or race of people.

STOP WITH THE VICTIM / GUILT MENTALITY.

[yappnmutt]

it is testament to the biased view the msm continues to push with regard to israel. no one but an israeli posing as an american jew could have such overt racist views be broadcast throughout the world without fear of retribution . the irony of morris' hate is how it parallels the german complaint about sub humans. it is quite the historical feat for a former sub human group to rise to the status of being able to accuse another people of being sub human.....­..and furnish the maligned group with the same treatment afforded the former sub human group.

[Anastasia]

As the author Hermann Hesse, wrote - "You become what you hate."

[EspressoAtNoon]

Posters interested in this topic should read this grew new column by Glenn Greenwald:

Rendering public opinion irrelevant
by Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/20/israel/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/greenwald

[cunuck]

Israel is the 800 pound gorilla in America's living room. Everyone knows it is there but no one can say anything about it.

[Archie1955]

GZLives perhaps rather than trust anything seen or heard on TV you should read from various publications historical and otherwise. The Jewish population of Iran have lived there for centuries comfortably and in peace. Iran is one country that refrains from mixing it up with other countries all over the world. Yes they may support groups of "freedom fighters" (our terrorists) in countries located near them in the Middle East as a way of securing their territory ot protecting their national security as Americans would put it, but they have done NOTHING that comes anywhere near what Israel has done to its neighbours (Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, etc) or for that matter what the U.S. has done in Afghanistan and Iraq or if I recall my history correctly what the U.S. did in 1953 in Iran and in the 1980s arming Saddam Hussein so he could attack Iran. No I don't think you have anything new to add to the Middle East question.

[AdamWykle]

GZLives is an ardent Zionist, that's why he's been fighting so vociferously on Bromwich's post. He gets his information from Israeli textbooks.

[GZLives]

I'm a very proud Zionist as is my family and every single Jew I know and I bet every single Jew you know as well although my guess is you don't know many Jews Wykle do you?

At least 90% of all Jews are Zionists Wykle - are we all the demons you try and make us out to be? BS ...

Now you'll trot out the 200 members of Naturei Karta as your evidence that many Jews don't believe in Zionism.

Ask any Jew if they support Israel and listen closely. Do you hear many who are ready to trade it in for Hezbollah or Hamas or any of the Islamofascists you love and support that reside in the region?

You prefer those who kill homosexuals or those who hail a man who crushed the skull of a 4 year old little girl as their national hero?

Zionists Wykle, no matter how hard you try and make the word mean something it doesn't,
is merely the belief that Jews are entitled to live in their historic homeland.

You may try and demonize the word "Zionsit" as Newt Gingrich did to the word "liberal" but no matter how much you try and do so along with your friends who behead people
and stone gays to death and want to drag us all back into the 7th century will never mean what you pretend it means.

[Nooneyouknow]

If you read more you might know that the Jewish population of Iran is now threatened. There have been anti-Jewish riots and assaults in Tehran, and Iran's Jews are scapegoated for the crimes of Israel.
And, if you read more, you'd know that Israel's neighbors have attacked it far more often than it has attacked its neighbors. Please do more research on the subject; what you will find will surprise you.

[louisianacitizen]

I have come to believe that people in general, and the Israelis in particular, would rather play nuclear roulette than engage in the patient, day-by-day process of creating a joint future -- it's easier and more exciting! Hence Christ's prediction regarding the temple -- probably correct -- that "not one stone will be left on another".

[GZLives]

"would rather play nuclear roulette than engage in the patient, day-by-day process of creating a joint future"

The Israelis? Why and how do you reach a conclusion like this? Based on what? They leave Gaza, withdraw every Jew and two days later have rockets fired into their cities and YOU think its them that don't want peace?

Jeeesh ... read a book man ...

[PGx]

>>They leave Gaza, withdraw every Jew and two days later have rockets fired into their cities and YOU think its them that don't want peace?

[swoosie1]

It is time for Israel to go after the nuclear facilities in Iran. Period. They are taking Iran seriously about the statements of "wiping" Israel off the map and why shouldn't they? I think they have every reason and right to take out the nuke facilities.

[dromedaddog]

(A) There was never any statement about "wiping Israel off the map". If you bothered to google or research the context of the statement that was actually made - you'd realize it was just another piece of Israeli propaganda that has been blown completely out of proportion by the MSM and right wing nutjobs that love war for both profit and power.

(B) What "right" does any country have to attack and destroy another countries civilian or military infrastructure when there has been no real threat or attack? NONE.

By your logic, every country in the world has "the right" to preemptively attack the US - because the US (a) has the most nuclear weapons in the world. (b) has USED nuclear weapons to attack other countries whereas no other country has ever done that, (c) has threatened or are threatening to attack sovereign countries that have not posed a threat to us - ie: Iraq and Afghanistan .....and Iran!

(C) Anyone who believes that Iran would use the one or two or even twenty nuclear weapons that they MAY develop in a couple of years is seriously delusional. For any such attack would mean a massive counter attack that would totally eliminate Iran.

Those in power in Iran are just like those in power in the US, Russia, China, India, Israel, Pakistan. They are not going to commit suicide - use nuclear weapons to attack anyone - because they value power more than devotion to some religious cult (Christianity,

[PTCruiser]

It is time for Israel to stand down and recognize that there are no safely predictable results that can result from such a serious violation of international law and moral principles. Please explain why you and others believe that Israel and other nations have a right to have develop and own nuclear weapons but other nations like Iran have no such rights? Do you believe that Israel occupies some parallel universe where it sets all the rules for other sovereign nations?

[PTCruiser]

I want to add another point. I find it absolutely appalling that the New York Times, the so-called paper of record, would grant space to Benny Morris or any person to advocate such a monstrous policy. The New York Times would never, ever permit an Arab or Persian, Muslim or non-believer, to write an op-ed piece in its pages advocating war against Israel or any other state that was an ally of Israel. The Times should be ashamed.

[GZLives]

Do your moral principles allow for the extermination of all the Jews living in Israel - another 6 million?

Why do you conclude that the Iranians are not anxious to do this?

Have you ever seen what they broadcast and write in their newspapers?

Do you understand they have been telling their population for decdes that the Jews are not human and are planning a world wide takeover to put them in slavery? Have you any clue what's really going on there ...
from Iranian TV

Iranian researcher Shams Al-Din Rahmani: "The goal of the Zionists is the total destruction of Islam. They know that this destruction will not be achieved easily, and therefore, they are trying to Americanize the religion of Islam."

[...]

Iranian researcher Sayyid Hashem Mir-Louhi: "Over a century ago, the Russians attacked a [Jewish] gathering, and got hold of this book. Later, the book was published in various languages, and recently in Farsi as well. Some of those Jew-boys deny it, and say it is not theirs. But when you look into the modus operandi of those Jew-boys, when you examine it carefully, you realize that they are trying to operate in the same way that was outlined in their protocols.

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=SP197508

Read for yourself ... examine the facts

[Precisionist]

(contd. part 2 of 2)
There is no feasible, practical way to transport nukes to Israel without leaving a fairly obvious trail back to the guilty party. The world community will then be united in its opposition and loathing of this entity and likely truly "wipe" them from existence.

Sadly, the fear mongers don't tell you that suicide bombers do not exist in a vacuum. They are nurtured by other people who want very much to stay alive. Thus the imagined nuclear attack is, at best, fanciful thinking and, at worst, a means to an end - usually to grab land or oil or other resources e.g. water.

The real solution to the Middle East problems will occur when religion is taken out of the equation completely. In matters of rights and obligations to property, religion has no role. What some hearsay voice may have said to someone, whether real or imagined, in a bush or shouted down from the mountains, should have no basis in rational 21st century thought. If we are so willing to give credibility to what someone may or may not have said several thousand years ago, we should remember that other very "credible people" from those same ages thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth!

[gregjones]

Here...Her­e...Precis­ionist. Very true...ver­y well written...

Greg J.
B4B

[Nooneyouknow]

That should be "Hear, hear," dude.

[littleblackcat]

Very well put. Israel needs to stop with the war-mongering noise and remember that there are other nations with nuclear capability who will not tolerate ANY nation "pre-emptively" launching an attack that will have long-lasting effects on countries that happen to be in the air current patterns. Israel does not have the right to decide who may develop power, and until there is a serious threat, such as there being no question that Iran HAS a weapon, Israel should shut up.

[GZLives]

Narrator: "[Former Iranian PM] Sayyid Ziya Al-Din Tabtabai maintained secret ties with global Zionist imperialism. When he left office, in 1921, he went to Palestine, in order to carry out yet another mission of global Zionism. His mission was to purchase lands from Muslim Arabs in Palestine at a low price, and to give them to Jewish immigrants, in order to establish the State of Israel. Since the Muslim Palestinians were not prepared to sell their lands to Jewish immigrants, Sayyid Ziya Al-Din Tabtabai, in the guise of a Muslim, would buy these lands and pass them on to the Jewish immigrants­."[...]

Iranian university lecturer Ali-Reza Karimi: "They planned to take over large parts of Iran, and to establish concealed camps, which would be populated by Jews from around the world, particularly Europe. This way, they wanted to gradually take over Iran, like they did in Palestine.­" [...]

Narrator: "Is it possible that according to the schemes of the global Zionist empire, Iran was meant to become another Israel, like in the case of Palestine?"

EDUCATE YOURSELVES

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=SP197508