"Against pre-emptive holocaust in Iran," by Larry Derfner
Updates:
And here's the article by Benny (aka, "Bat-shit Crazy") Morris on nuking Iran, mentioned in this article.
There is a titanic battle in the American and Israeli Jewish communities over Iran. I actually have (now ex-) friends -- people just under 40 -- who support Morris, an attack on Iran, and so forth. Morris has been drifting far-right for some time. He's even suggested that it was a mistake not to have totally "cleansed" Israel of all Palestinians (the original has been taken down, apparently) to the horror of his Ha'aretz interviewer.
I do not know much about what various European Jewish communities are talking about, but the neocon, hyper-paranoid sector in the US and Israel is riding (and being ridden by) the Bushevik revolution, and, now, has reached the omega point of paranoia:
To wit, we must cause a holocaust to prevent one.
That's called "insanity," and I will have nothing to do with it. Not only that, but as any reader of this blog knows, I'm also doing what I can to fight this lunacy. I encourage you to do the same: call your rep and senators; write letters to the editor; don't be afraid, whether you're Jewish or not, to pound on this insane notion of nuking, or even attacking, Iran.
Do not let lame-ass Holocaust-rhetoric stop you. Take it from a Jew who lost family members in the Holocaust: it's a total load of bullshit, the propagandistic effect of which is completely obvious once one stops responding emotively to "the Holocaust" and starts thinking rationally. And asking questions, such as, "What's the likelihood of Iran -- or anyone -- using nukes against Israel?" Or, "If Iran -- or anyone -- did so, what would be the likely result for that country?" Or, "What kind of assumptions does Morris, et al, have to make in order to make the Nazis-equal-Ahmadinejad/Iran stick?" And, "Are those assumptions warranted, by virute of human nature, Iranian culture, or history?" Or, "Who benefits from a war in Iran -- what specific cohort(s) in what countries, and why?" And, "Who will pay the price?"
No one is about to destroy a country armed to the teeth, with the largest military force the world has ever known right behind it. If anyone, ever, detonates anything even radiological, let alone nuclear, anywhere near Israel, then Iran, rightly or wrongly, will be turned to glass. Think Iran doesn't get that?
If anything, I would say if the Iranians aren't developing a North-Korea-like "insurance program," they're actually being derelict. We and the Israelis have been inviting this kind of response, which isn't even clearly occurring, having started a host of wars around the gulf/middle east region. As was predicted. Not that there isn't plenty of blame to share: India, Pakistan, Russia, and China are all nuclearized. Add to that Israel and the US's apparently permanent presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Iran is surrounded. What, pray, is to be expected from Iran, given that situation? Apparently, the US and Israel expect total submission, for a start. This full-spectrum-dominance ideology requires permanent dominance, as you will at minimum exacerbate, if not create, virulent hatred toward yourself by ruling solely through force. It is a self-fulfulling prophecy: soon you will be universally hated. The true believer then says, "See, I told you so! They're all out to get us!" That's known as "insanity."
Meanwhile, in your rush to dominate, internal enemies will become at least as high a priority, if not higher, than external ones. We've all seen this play before, haven't we? Isn't that what we're supposedly fighting against?
One irony (if that's the right term) is that Iran came to the Busheviks in 2003, as has been widely reported (that link is just one example) with a plan to give us basically everything we wanted, including help against the Taliban and al-Qaeda (you remember, the actual folks who took down the Twin Towers?) -- Sunni extremists whom Shia Iranians despise -- as long as we promised to stop supporting Iranian exile groups trying to overthrow the government. Seemed like a fair deal to me. The Busheviks rejected it.
A further irony is that the reformist movement in Iran, an exceedingly young country (age-cohort-wise), will most likely change that regime over time if left alone. Creating outside enemies for people like Ahmadinejad is perfectly counterproductive. The US loves to have permanent enemies, such as Iran and Cuba. It's a sign of weakness...or of a need to have an enemy, at all costs. Cui bono? Maybe, um, arms makers? You do the math.
Obviously, the key issue here is nuclear arms and the proliferation thereof (as Chirac had to retract recently), as well as the obvious and predicted effect of the US declaring international law null and void and romping all over the globe since 9/11: states will do whatever they can to deter us. Duh. A child in a sandbox would know that.
The only sane alternative is for the US to return to the international fold; to put serious pressure on Israel to stop destroying the possibility of a Palestinian state; to move toward the global lockdown of fissile material and a reinvigorated global nuclear-arms reduction. Why, exactly, are we still pointing missiles at Russia, and vice versa?
The only alternative to the above, considered "naive," is eventual destruction of at least any shred of representative democracy and civil liberties (what do you think will happen when a nuke does go off somewhere -- nuclear terror is a real risk), if not something far worse.
Oil, as per usual, lies at the center of this insanity. We aren't in the middle east for the olives. We're there so that you, Dear Reader, can continue to drive your Hummer, not use compact fluorescent bulbs, keep your heat at 75 degrees, and generally eat up an unfair and unsustainable amount of the world's energy.
We must shift to renewable energy sources, and away from rapacious and continual "expansion" of population and economies. The globe can't hack it, and will "fight back." No species can expand exponentially, as we have over the past few hundred years, without a very painful "correction." It's automatic, and would be obvious to most Americans if they accepted evolution at the levels at which they accept the existence of angels.
We, as a species, will either hang together or hang separately, to paraphrase Ben Franklin.
- From Australia..."Denounced, but Jewish dissent grows"
- Silencing critics not way to Middle East peace
- Prominent Jews call for open debate on Israel
- Canadian government forming pro-Israel lobby
- A time to speak out
- Who speaks for Jews in Britain?
And here's the article by Benny (aka, "Bat-shit Crazy") Morris on nuking Iran, mentioned in this article.
There is a titanic battle in the American and Israeli Jewish communities over Iran. I actually have (now ex-) friends -- people just under 40 -- who support Morris, an attack on Iran, and so forth. Morris has been drifting far-right for some time. He's even suggested that it was a mistake not to have totally "cleansed" Israel of all Palestinians (the original has been taken down, apparently) to the horror of his Ha'aretz interviewer.
I do not know much about what various European Jewish communities are talking about, but the neocon, hyper-paranoid sector in the US and Israel is riding (and being ridden by) the Bushevik revolution, and, now, has reached the omega point of paranoia:
To wit, we must cause a holocaust to prevent one.
That's called "insanity," and I will have nothing to do with it. Not only that, but as any reader of this blog knows, I'm also doing what I can to fight this lunacy. I encourage you to do the same: call your rep and senators; write letters to the editor; don't be afraid, whether you're Jewish or not, to pound on this insane notion of nuking, or even attacking, Iran.
Do not let lame-ass Holocaust-rhetoric stop you. Take it from a Jew who lost family members in the Holocaust: it's a total load of bullshit, the propagandistic effect of which is completely obvious once one stops responding emotively to "the Holocaust" and starts thinking rationally. And asking questions, such as, "What's the likelihood of Iran -- or anyone -- using nukes against Israel?" Or, "If Iran -- or anyone -- did so, what would be the likely result for that country?" Or, "What kind of assumptions does Morris, et al, have to make in order to make the Nazis-equal-Ahmadinejad/Iran stick?" And, "Are those assumptions warranted, by virute of human nature, Iranian culture, or history?" Or, "Who benefits from a war in Iran -- what specific cohort(s) in what countries, and why?" And, "Who will pay the price?"
No one is about to destroy a country armed to the teeth, with the largest military force the world has ever known right behind it. If anyone, ever, detonates anything even radiological, let alone nuclear, anywhere near Israel, then Iran, rightly or wrongly, will be turned to glass. Think Iran doesn't get that?
If anything, I would say if the Iranians aren't developing a North-Korea-like "insurance program," they're actually being derelict. We and the Israelis have been inviting this kind of response, which isn't even clearly occurring, having started a host of wars around the gulf/middle east region. As was predicted. Not that there isn't plenty of blame to share: India, Pakistan, Russia, and China are all nuclearized. Add to that Israel and the US's apparently permanent presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Iran is surrounded. What, pray, is to be expected from Iran, given that situation? Apparently, the US and Israel expect total submission, for a start. This full-spectrum-dominance ideology requires permanent dominance, as you will at minimum exacerbate, if not create, virulent hatred toward yourself by ruling solely through force. It is a self-fulfulling prophecy: soon you will be universally hated. The true believer then says, "See, I told you so! They're all out to get us!" That's known as "insanity."
Meanwhile, in your rush to dominate, internal enemies will become at least as high a priority, if not higher, than external ones. We've all seen this play before, haven't we? Isn't that what we're supposedly fighting against?
One irony (if that's the right term) is that Iran came to the Busheviks in 2003, as has been widely reported (that link is just one example) with a plan to give us basically everything we wanted, including help against the Taliban and al-Qaeda (you remember, the actual folks who took down the Twin Towers?) -- Sunni extremists whom Shia Iranians despise -- as long as we promised to stop supporting Iranian exile groups trying to overthrow the government. Seemed like a fair deal to me. The Busheviks rejected it.
A further irony is that the reformist movement in Iran, an exceedingly young country (age-cohort-wise), will most likely change that regime over time if left alone. Creating outside enemies for people like Ahmadinejad is perfectly counterproductive. The US loves to have permanent enemies, such as Iran and Cuba. It's a sign of weakness...or of a need to have an enemy, at all costs. Cui bono? Maybe, um, arms makers? You do the math.
Obviously, the key issue here is nuclear arms and the proliferation thereof (as Chirac had to retract recently), as well as the obvious and predicted effect of the US declaring international law null and void and romping all over the globe since 9/11: states will do whatever they can to deter us. Duh. A child in a sandbox would know that.
The only sane alternative is for the US to return to the international fold; to put serious pressure on Israel to stop destroying the possibility of a Palestinian state; to move toward the global lockdown of fissile material and a reinvigorated global nuclear-arms reduction. Why, exactly, are we still pointing missiles at Russia, and vice versa?
The only alternative to the above, considered "naive," is eventual destruction of at least any shred of representative democracy and civil liberties (what do you think will happen when a nuke does go off somewhere -- nuclear terror is a real risk), if not something far worse.
Oil, as per usual, lies at the center of this insanity. We aren't in the middle east for the olives. We're there so that you, Dear Reader, can continue to drive your Hummer, not use compact fluorescent bulbs, keep your heat at 75 degrees, and generally eat up an unfair and unsustainable amount of the world's energy.
We must shift to renewable energy sources, and away from rapacious and continual "expansion" of population and economies. The globe can't hack it, and will "fight back." No species can expand exponentially, as we have over the past few hundred years, without a very painful "correction." It's automatic, and would be obvious to most Americans if they accepted evolution at the levels at which they accept the existence of angels.
We, as a species, will either hang together or hang separately, to paraphrase Ben Franklin.