a world of victims and executioners

February 12, 2006 5:16 AM

It's on. Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.
posted by The Jesse Helms (102 comments total)

I wonder, under what authority does Bush claim the right to attack yet another soverign nation that poses no threat to the United States?

I mean other than the orders of his Israeli masters?
posted by three blind mice at 5:35 AM on February 12, 2006

Remind me again why Americas nuclear arsenal is unquestionable when Irans "will not be tolerated".

Remind me again which country has actually used nuclear weapons on someone else.
posted by 6am at 5:37 AM on February 12, 2006

I wonder, under what authority does Bush claim the right to attack...
Pre-emptive defense, of course. Just like last time.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:38 AM on February 12, 2006

It is America that controls Israeli policy, mostly, as seen in giveback of occupied lands, to further Road plan. It is American money that makes this control possible.

As for attacking Iran: the military is always making plans for contingencies. However, if the past is any indication, they often try to push their designs upon the White House (see Bamford book on Cuba issue). America at this point unable to handle Iraq situation and Iran issue going to Security Council, where, doubltelss, Russia and China will play nice and frustrate Bush...

How many times have you seen articles that claim Israel and/or US about to attack Iran? Think those pieces got tomedia by chance?
posted by Postroad at 5:42 AM on February 12, 2006

Pre-emptive defense, of course. Just like last time.

Well, that was "the reason," but "the authority" was the Congressional declaration in the wake of 9/11 "authorizing" Bush to use force to get "teh terrorists." I just wonder what legal authority he claims now? (And why it didn't apply to North Korea when Kim Jong Il did the SAME thing?)

Better start building that Security Fence around America Georgie.
posted by three blind mice at 5:47 AM on February 12, 2006

Remind me again why Americas nuclear arsenal is unquestionable when Irans "will not be tolerated".

because America has them. it and other nations are in a position to forbid those who don't from developing them. power isn't a game of playground 'fairness.'
posted by Kino at 5:50 AM on February 12, 2006

It's on? link 1 'drawing up plans', link 2 'updating its war plan', link 3 'probable timing of such operations is neccessarily speculative', link 4 'There is no evidence that President Bush has already made the decision to attack Iran if Tehran proceeds with uranium-enrichment activities'.
posted by tellurian at 5:53 AM on February 12, 2006

It is America that controls Israeli policy, mostly, as seen in giveback of occupied lands, to further Road plan. It is American money that makes this control possible.

Sorry, postroad, I think that is a laughable assertion. The money might come from America, but it is not "American" money. Wealthy Israel receives more U.S. foreigh aid than any other country because this is in America's interest? America tolerates the occupation of the West Bank and the assassination of Palestinian leaders because it is in America's interest? Please.

Tell me, why does America tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea? Why does America tolerate a nuclear-armed Pakistan whose scientists are responsible for the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology? But Iran removing seals and engaging in enrichment is cause for war?

I find it hard to accept that this has anything to do with American interest.

Let the Israelis - in their American planes with their America bombs and with their "American" money - fight their own goddamed enemies. Enough is enough.
posted by three blind mice at 6:02 AM on February 12, 2006

Now is the time to do this too, because the Muslim world is *so* well-disposed towards the West these days.
posted by clevershark at 6:05 AM on February 12, 2006

Reminder-

Iran seems to want Isarel gone, as in blown off the map. That's enough right there to give the world pause about them getting nuclear weapons.

My solution: oh just give it to them and be done with it. They're going to get eventually, so lets just cut to the chase and go from there.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:11 AM on February 12, 2006

If I remember correctly, Russian government isn't leaving Iran alone in the struggle to exploit nuclear energy.

Putin delivers the blow

Putin said: "We are deeply convinced that the spread of nuclear arms across our planet does not help strengthen security."

Nothing about building reactors for pacific purposes...mmhhh..

Russia is building an $800 million nuclear power plant in southern Iran, near the city of Bushehr

Ohhh ! U.S. better write a USD 800 million check to Russia. Yet it could not be enough, as russian strategic considerations and interest in Iran is worth much much more then a puny billion.
posted by elpapacito at 6:12 AM on February 12, 2006

America does not want to see an increasae in rogue states having nukes. N.Koea has them and there is nothing we can or will do about it. Iran may not yet have them. We may or may not do anything about them. Israel has them and they are for defensive purposes. Israel, no matter what you may claim, is not a rogue state. The US has them and used them during a time of war when we were attacked by Japan and Germany issued a declaration of war against us. Pakistan and India have them but there is nothing we can or will do about it. Israel occupies land taken in war and has not given it all back as yet. Copun tries do not go to way when attacked and then give back land gained without some assurances (treaties) in place. How did the US acquire a large part of our SWest? we took it from Mexico and then told them what we would pay to keep it.Take it or leave it.
Philiipines? etc etc We still have forces in those countries we beat in WWII but we do not condiser them occupiers, though in S. Korea and Japan, and German etc many people there do think of them as such.
posted by Postroad at 6:17 AM on February 12, 2006

Dubya Dubya III ?
posted by lobstah at 6:17 AM on February 12, 2006

I wonder, under what authority does Bush claim the right to attack...
Pre-emptive defense, of course. Just like last time.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:38 AM PST on February 12 [!]

Thank you, "pre-emptive defense" is going into my premium oxymoron list.

Fun fact. Dictionary.com writes this under its definition of "pre-emptive":

"Relating to or constituting a military strike made so as to gain the advantage when an enemy strike is believed to be imminent: a preemptive nuclear attack."

Zero evidence says an enemy strike is imminent. The dictionary must be anti-american terrorist propaganda.
posted by Emotive Adamantium at 6:19 AM on February 12, 2006

"It's on" makes it sound like the B-2s are already airborne. These links are interesting, but they add up to more of the same saber-rattling we've been seeing for over a year now. I flagged this post as noise.
posted by alumshubby at 6:20 AM on February 12, 2006

This has nothing to do with upcoming release of the oil bourse, I'm sure.
posted by mullingitover at 6:23 AM on February 12, 2006

The US has them and used them during a time of war when we were attacked by Japan and Germany issued a declaration of war against us.
posted by Postroad at 6:17 AM PST on February 12 [!]

Frankly I don't think the Pentagon or the NSA's CryptoKids have enough brains outside of their asses to tell modern day Iran from 1940's Japan.

Whatever the case, the US will ultimately end up being responsible for more gratuitous innocent civilian deaths. This comes just as the news of Bush's plan to sell 1 billion dollars of america's national forests to help pay off the national debt hits the press.

Is he only able to get off when he's planning on killing things?

/pentagon needs to put their dicks back in their pants
posted by Emotive Adamantium at 6:33 AM on February 12, 2006

These links are interesting, but they add up to more of the same saber-rattling we've been seeing for over a year now.

Note that this "noise", alumshubby, was front page news this morning in the London Times and Telegraph.
posted by three blind mice at 6:34 AM on February 12, 2006

oil bourse? wha?
posted by slater at 6:35 AM on February 12, 2006

Iran seems to want Isarel gone, as in blown off the map. That's enough right there to give the world pause about them getting nuclear weapons.

Which remains a silly argument. The President of Iran is an anti-semitic douchebag but he's not exactly salivating at the idea of dying. Iran would be vaporized if they attacked Israel with nukes.

Remind me again why Americas nuclear arsenal is unquestionable when Irans "will not be tolerated".

You never played Civilization, did you ;)
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:36 AM on February 12, 2006

The President of Iran is an anti-semitic douchebag

No doubt. And that is putting it kindly, XQUZYPHYR.

but he's not exactly salivating at the idea of dying.

Well, I'm not so sure of that, but he seems smart enough to realize that playing Saddam Hussein's hand and allowing UN/IAEA inspectors back in and playing nice isn't going to work.

Iran would be vaporized if they attacked Israel with nukes.

Which is precisely why Iran should have nuclear weapons or Israel should have hers taken away. A little more military balance in the region might result in more common sense. The status quo of M1 tanks v. stone throwing children hasn't done much to advance peace in the region.
posted by three blind mice at 6:53 AM on February 12, 2006

I find it hard to accept that this has anything to do with American interest.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The answer to each of your rhetorical questions would no doubt be "Yes because of the oil".

That you see Israel as something more malevolent than a distasteful pawn in a geopolitical power struggle over fossil power says more about you than about the situation.

An ideologically opposed nuclear power that could turn of the regions spigots is a huge threat to the Western way of life in a way that a nuclear Korea or Pakistan/Indian simply isn't.
posted by srboisvert at 6:53 AM on February 12, 2006

arrrgh

"turn off the region's spigots"
posted by srboisvert at 6:54 AM on February 12, 2006

three blind mice:

I wonder, under what authority does Bush claim the right to attack yet another soverign nation that poses no threat to the United States?

I mean other than the orders of his Israeli masters?



Let the Israelis - in their American planes with their America bombs and with their "American" money - fight their own goddamed enemies. Enough is enough.

Maybe you would be happier reading this site, or maybe this one...
posted by JeffL at 7:07 AM on February 12, 2006

Note that "it's on," three blind mice, means that it's started. Which it hasn't, yet, hence my flag. If you have a problem understanding that, then you have a problem.
posted by alumshubby at 7:11 AM on February 12, 2006

That you see Israel as something more malevolent than a distasteful pawn in a geopolitical power struggle over fossil power says more about you than about the situation.

Pawns are sacrificed to gain position.

If the U.S wanted to secure it's oil supply, it seems to me that if the U.S. took the position of a nuclear-free Middle East - and instead of punishing just Iran put equal pressure on Israel to join the NPT and give up its own nukes - it would create an enormous goodwill with the oil-rich states of the Middle East.
posted by three blind mice at 7:11 AM on February 12, 2006

Tell me, why does America tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea?

because north korea could turn seoul and perhaps toyko into a smoking crater ... for some reason, south korea and japan aren't comfortable with that scenario

also, the chinese don't want us in their backyard

Why does America tolerate a nuclear-armed Pakistan

they're far too big to invade

an invasion of iran would probably be more than we can handle, also ... and if we bomb iran, i'm certain we can kiss middle east oil and good relations with islamic civilization goodbye for a good long time
posted by pyramid termite at 7:13 AM on February 12, 2006

Note 1
Note 2
Note that this "noise", alumshubby, was front page news this morning in the London Times and Telegraph.
posted by three blind mice
What's the message here? This post says 'It's on' The linked articles say 'It's not on'. You know. I don't usually participate in this type of debate here, but in an idle moment I clicked on these links and was somewhat taken aback at the interpretation (especially with regard to the opening statements of each article) and so decided to comment.
posted by tellurian at 7:28 AM on February 12, 2006

Note that "it's on," three blind mice, means that it's started. Which it hasn't, yet, hence my flag. If you have a problem understanding that, then you have a problem.

Note that you flagged the post as "noise" alumshubby. You concluded from "it's on" that the B-52s were in the air. If you followed the link, which obviously you did not, you would have understood that it meant the war plans were on. Again, whilst the London Times is not Metafilier, front page news in the Sunday London Times is more signal than noise.
posted by three blind mice at 7:30 AM on February 12, 2006

three blind mice, I read all the links, not just "the link" -- there are four (4) of them; stick out all your fingers without your thumb; it's that many. I'm sorry to learn of your reading-comprehension difficulties. Get a friend or relative to read my first post in this thread and explain it to you carefully in words you're likely to understand.
posted by alumshubby at 7:33 AM on February 12, 2006

More likely, they are reviewing and updating Clinton's plans to do the same thing. Hell, the US military has contingency plans for attacking everybody.
posted by mischief at 7:34 AM on February 12, 2006

Postroad: "America does not want to see an incr[eas]e in rogue states having nukes. [...] Israel has them and they are for defensive purposes. Israel, no matter what you may claim, is not a rogue state.[...]"

What are "rogue states" and how do you define them? Why is Israel allowed to have nuclear capacity "for defensive purposes" and other independent nations are not?
Oh, and a real puzzler: N.Ko[r]ea has them and there is nothing we can or will do about it.
What came first, the chicken or the egg? Can't you do anything about North Korea because they have nukes, or do they have nukes so you can't do anything about them? Doesn't this suggest that Iran should get some to be safe from American threats?
I'm not trying to troll, but the reasons you give seem to rely on a classification into "good" and "bad" nations. How do you arrive at these?
posted by PontifexPrimus at 7:35 AM on February 12, 2006

Dammit, you yanked my chain. I thought "It's on" meant that it was 100% certain, inevitable, as in going forward no matter what. Grrr.

And for those who don't know about the upcoming opening of Iran's oil bourse, here is one economist's alarming take on what it will mean for the US. (Bad news)
posted by beth at 7:37 AM on February 12, 2006

Our missiles will be greeted as liberators.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:37 AM on February 12, 2006

"drawing up plans"

...so it;s not really *on* then is it?
posted by Artw at 7:42 AM on February 12, 2006

Remind me again why Americas nuclear arsenal is unquestionable when Irans "will not be tolerated".

The attempt to limit military capacity is not new to the atomic age. When the dreadnaught was the most fiercesome weapon, we had a nice five nation treaty that limited who could have what and how many.

Remind me again which country has actually used nuclear weapons on someone else.

Yes, because the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a wild departure from the wide scale urban bombing practiced by both the Allies and the Axis during the war. Hence, they are atrocious evidence that the United States has used its atomic weapons like some war hungry mad nation.

The fact that the United States has not used nuclear weapons since World War Two is a remarkable testament of restraint. Nukes in the Korean war could have radically changed the situation, as well as a nuclear weapon dropped on Hanoi, also might have altered the course of the Vietnam War. The option was discussed and dismissed in both conflicts.

But hey, why not play the A-bomb fun? Arrrrg, avast, we be havin' nuclear weapons for blowins upses things! Fear America! Arrrg!
posted by Atreides at 7:43 AM on February 12, 2006

I'm sorry to learn of your reading-comprehension difficulties. Get a friend or relative to read my first post in this thread and explain it to you carefully in words you're likely to understand.

Persuasive argument, alumshubby. Well done.

Alum, give the hubby a treat.
posted by three blind mice at 7:43 AM on February 12, 2006

Sure thing. Can you tell the difference between one and four unaided, or did my fingers-and-thumb suggestion help?
posted by alumshubby at 7:51 AM on February 12, 2006

The fact that the United States has not used nuclear weapons since World War Two is a remarkable testament of restraint.

Or perhaps the fact that the United States, nor anyone else, has used nuclear weapons since WW2 is a testimony to how useless they are as a military weapon. In both cases you mention Atreides, the political fallout from using nuclear weapons was far more dangerous than any tactical advantage that might have been gained on the battlefield. That was what resulted in the restraint.

And that is the reason that restraint - and not bellicose threats of military action - is what is called for now.

Israel has gotten away with an illegal nuclear program since the 60's. One cannot "deal" with Iran's nuclear program without dealing with this.
posted by three blind mice at 7:54 AM on February 12, 2006

The fact that the United States has not used nuclear weapons since World War Two is a remarkable testament of restraint.

We're setting the bar really low these days, aren't we? I couldn't even limbo under that shit.
posted by poweredbybeard at 8:00 AM on February 12, 2006

Can you tell the difference between one and four unaided, or did my fingers-and-thumb suggestion help?

Not in the least. C'mon alumshubby! If you're gonna go ad hominen, you gotta go nuclear. Get your B-52s in the air.

And do try to think of something clever. I've dispersed my enrichment facilities, my missiles are on mobile launchers, and I've got all afternoon here on a rainy day in London.

Bring it on!
posted by three blind mice at 8:03 AM on February 12, 2006

Ex-UN Official: Iran's Next


Ritter described how the U.S. government might justify war with Iran in a scenario similar to the buildup to the Iraq invasion. He also argued that Iran wants a nuclear energy program, and not nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration, he said, refuses to believe Iran is telling the truth.

He predicted the matter will wind up before the U.N. Security Council, which will determine there is no evidence of a weapons program. Then, he said, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, “will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves.”

“How do I know this? I’ve talked to Bolton’s speechwriter,” Ritter said.

Ritter also predicted the military strategy for war with Iran. First, American forces will bomb Iran. If Iranians don’t overthrow the current government, as Bush hopes they will, Iran will probably attack Israel. Then, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.
posted by digaman at 8:09 AM on February 12, 2006

Iran seems to want Isarel gone, as in blown off the map. That's enough right there to give the world pause about them getting nuclear weapons.

The United States has branded Iran and North Korea as part of an Axis of Evil, invaded the other "Axis of Evil" country on false grounds, and has nuclear weapons. Israel has weapons of mass destruction and has repeatedly defied the United Nations.

Iran is twice as big as Pakistan.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:15 AM on February 12, 2006

We're setting the bar really low these days, aren't we? I couldn't even limbo under that shit.

I think its a perfectly fine answer to the crowd who like to use the bloody flag of Hiroshima, etc, to substantiate their arguments.

I'm no fan of the current administration and certainly not a fanatical defender of the American military. However, the fact that America has not used the most decisive weapons in its armory since their inception is significant.

Three blind Mice, the uselessness of nuclear weapons is debatable. I certainly would be happy in a world with less of them, but some might argue that their presence has prevented wider conventional wars. If the United States and the Soviet Union had not had the capacity to wipe each other out in a matter of minutes, I think the possibility that we might have had a war on the scale of destruction of the Second World War as very high.
posted by Atreides at 8:17 AM on February 12, 2006

I mean other than the orders of his Israeli masters?

Let the Israelis - in their American planes with their America bombs and with their "American" money - fight their own goddamed enemies.

What the fuck?

Oh, I get it... it's the Jews fault. Because, you know, Israel has sworn to obliterate Iran from the face of the world at all costs. Because millions of Muslims have been slaughtered based upon their religion for hundreds of years. Because those poor Iranians, in a country the size of New Jersey, are surrounded by people who want nothing more than their death. Because Israel funds terrorist groups that massacre innocents on a regular basis. Because Israel is ruled by fundamentalist maniacs who want nothing more than the death of everyone who doesn't agree with them. Damn Jews, stoning women to death and executing fags -- I think those Israelis should have some free elections and then we'll see what's what.

By the way, it's not "on". I'm pretty sure we have contigency plans to invade the Vatican but that doesn't mean it's "on". It means that the DoD wargames everything and this is a hot button topic at the moment. Myself, I think we'll go for Syria first because the Iranians might be a whole lot closer to a bomb than they're letting on and are crazy enough to use it.

What worthless post. This isn't news, it's an excuse for you to propogate your anti-Semetic conspiracy nonsense.

Israeli masters, my ass.
posted by cedar at 8:18 AM on February 12, 2006

three blind mice, stop being such a drama queen.

My problem isn't with you. It's with the FPPer for writing "It's on" when clearly it isn't; there's just continuing contingency planning for military action. I' haven't and won't dispute assertions as to whether it's likely the US and/or the Israelis will attack Iran. I sorry if you've failed to notice that crucial point.

I (mis?)undstood that applying flags such as "noise" are the acceptable way of pointing out lies/hyperbole/BS in the blue without picking on the poster. If you think I've applied it inappropriately, feel free to write to Matt or Jessamyn to ask them to remove the flag, with my blessing. But I still think it's wrong to assert "It's on" when, at least in the English usage I'm familiar with, nothing significant has happened yet.
posted by alumshubby at 8:19 AM on February 12, 2006

Why does Scott Ritter hate America? If he'd only understand-- the only way to protect America from those who hate our freedoms is to dismantle then until there's no freedoms left to hate.

I'm still thinking Millennialists in control of the Black Briefcase wasn't such good thinking on the part of the American voters (nee: Diebold).
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:19 AM on February 12, 2006

Nice work, three blind mice. Only took you 20 minutes to blame Israel for America's actions. Next time maybe you can even improve on that time.

How 'bout this: America "tolerates" North Korea's and Pakistan's nukes because - well, they already exist. We (I use that pronoun shamefully) don't invade countries who already have nukes, for fear that they will use them to defend themselves against our troops. This is, of course, immensely hypocritical and morally objectionable, but it is also a far cry from saying that Israel dictates American foreign policy.

Secondly, just how much aid does the United States give to Egypt? I think, if I'm not mistaken, that they are number two - right behind Israel, of course, no arguement there. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that Israelis are the only people who benefit ENORMOUSLY from American foreign aid. Your beloved Mr. Arafat swelled his coffers quite considerably thanks to foreign aid, including American. Never mind all those poor, starving people in Gaza and Hebron.

Third - could it possibly be that an administration swimming in oil prioritizes the security of those nuclear-threatening states who also happen to be sitting on a majority of the world's energy reserves? Talk about a perfect storm. Again, I'm not saying it's right - let's spend ALOT of that defense budget on developing alternative fuel sources! - just that it is most definitely NOT the fault of Israel.

By no means do I intend to defend the imperialist tendencies of the administration. I'm simply trying to call out anybody who suggests that America is Israel's puppet in all of this.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 8:23 AM on February 12, 2006

So it could possibly be in the initial planning stages of being kind of on-ish?
posted by Devils Slide at 8:37 AM on February 12, 2006

What's the deal with some Euro-denominated Oil Stock Market thing in Iran opening soon supposedly?
posted by amberglow at 8:38 AM on February 12, 2006

amberglow, I think that's the "oil bourse" mentioned upthread.
posted by alumshubby at 8:43 AM on February 12, 2006

You concluded from "it's on" that the B-52s were in the air.

They still touring?
posted by papakwanz at 8:51 AM on February 12, 2006

My problem isn't with you. It's with the FPPer for writing "It's on" when clearly it isn't

Thank you alumshubby. That's much more persuasive - and nicer.

Your beloved Mr. Arafat swelled his coffers quite considerably thanks to foreign aid, including American.

Where did you get that, fingers_of_fire? My beloved Mr. Arafat? Nigga please. Arafat wasn't beloved by me. I didn't even like him. The rat bastard.

Why is it that you believe that people who criticize ISRAEL - not Jews - automatically are anti-semitic and pro-Arab? Prejudice is an ugly thing fingers_of_fire: whether it's anti-semitic, or anti-Arab.

My problem is what appears to be an obvious double standard, that seems to me to cause more harm to America than benefit. 9/11 didn't happen because we buy oil from the region.

If America is NOT Israel's sock puppet in the region, then why doesn't Bush trade Tel Aviv's nuclear arsenal for Tehran's? It's an easy, simple, peaceful, and in my view, equitable solution to the problem. Can there be any doubt that Iran would accept it? It seems to if America has a lot to gain from it.

The double standard - to ignore what Israel does while holding the Arabs/Persians/Kurds to a higher standard - is what undermines America in the Middle East. Israel has repeatedly ignored UN resolutions - but enforcing UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein was cause for war?

This is a curious thing. Perhaps, fingers_of_fire, being better informed than I, you could explain where the double standard come from?
posted by three blind mice at 9:03 AM on February 12, 2006

If the United States and the Soviet Union had not had the capacity to wipe each other out in a matter of minutes, I think the possibility that we might have had a war on the scale of destruction of the Second World War as very high.

I heard Noam Chomsky say that too, and it's probably quite valid, which is funny in a way.

"...it's because we knew that the next time we played that game it was gonna be the end."

Why can't all the world leaders get together in a big room and resolve their differences with a national counterstrike tournament...
posted by 6am at 9:03 AM on February 12, 2006

their last record bombed
posted by pyramid termite at 9:07 AM on February 12, 2006

If America is NOT Israel's sock puppet in the region, then why doesn't Bush trade Tel Aviv's nuclear arsenal for Tehran's?

because the israelis won't do it

if you want to disarm them, you'll have to invade them ... and i really don't think that's very likely for us to do
posted by pyramid termite at 9:10 AM on February 12, 2006

what Kino said, then what cedar said.
posted by quonsar at 9:18 AM on February 12, 2006

Secondly, just how much aid does the United States give to Egypt? I think, if I'm not mistaken, that they are number two - right behind Israel, of course, no arguement there. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that Israelis are the only people who benefit ENORMOUSLY from American foreign aid.

Bad example. Egypt gets that aid as part of the Camp Daivd peace deal brokered by Jimmy Carter in 1979 in which Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and Egypt's recognition of Israel (for which Sadat was assassinated by some of his own people.) That aid bought peace for Israel and was the last decent attempt by an American administration to act as a neutral broker.

Egypt no doubt benefits from this aid, but it seems also that this aid benefits Israel.
posted by three blind mice at 9:19 AM on February 12, 2006

A roguge state is one that is erratic in its behavior, usually lacks a democratic form of governbment, threatens its neighbors continually, seeks to enlarge its land holdings, seldom if ever allows arguements with other nations to be resolved at the UN...now, snippy statements about the US aside, Pakistan has nukes but will use them only as a detterent for maintaining a balence of power with India, its neighbor and also a nuke state. They will not surprise attack each other. Israel has, like it or not, nukes and has not used them or even threatened to use them unless they are attacked by the use of nukes, or as a last resort. China is now a full-trading power with the West and needs to keep that economy going: it will not dump nukes on countries it must trade with. And so on....Iran has just today said it will with its neighbors eliminate Israel someday. It won't so long as Israel has nukes.
And, for those who are bitter about the money US gives to Israel, can you name the country that is next in line (second) in getting US aid? And now: why that country?
posted by Postroad at 9:23 AM on February 12, 2006

Ummm...fingers_of_fire suggests it's Egypt...?
posted by alumshubby at 9:31 AM on February 12, 2006

"Israel has gotten away with an illegal nuclear program since the 60's. One cannot "deal" with Iran's nuclear program without dealing with this." - three blind mice

Question- why do you consider Israeli having nukes illegal, when they were never part of the NPT treaty, the only thing making it "illegal" to have nuclear weapons? (India and Pakistan never signed either.)

Iran is having troubles over all items nuclear, not just because Bush wants more oil, but because they were found to have been building secrety nuclear facilties and not been convincingly forthcoming about their purposes.

"If America is NOT Israel's sock puppet in the region, then why doesn't Bush trade Tel Aviv's nuclear arsenal for Tehran's? It's an easy, simple, peaceful, and in my view, equitable solution to the problem. Can there be any doubt that Iran would accept it? It seems to if America has a lot to gain from it."

Are you serious now or just trolling? Perhaps, just perhaps, neither country is eachothers sockpuppet? Also, as to doubt on wether or not it would be "easy, simple, peaceful" and Iran would accept? You've got a big old doubter here. Yep, it should be that way, but those countries have history of not doing anything towards eachother easy, simply, or peacefull.y
posted by superchris at 9:35 AM on February 12, 2006

Can there be any doubt that Iran would accept it?

You're joking, right?
posted by Krrrlson at 9:36 AM on February 12, 2006

Oh, he's trolling, all right. Thinking the US can just cash in one country's nuclear-weapons stockpiles for another's sounds like a foreign policy initiative you'd come up with playing Stratego.
posted by alumshubby at 9:39 AM on February 12, 2006

Also it should be noted that in the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel was under very serious threat of being overrun but Golda Meir still didn't give the go ahead to use their nukes.
posted by PenDevil at 9:41 AM on February 12, 2006

The fact that the United States has not used nuclear weapons since World War Two is a remarkable testament of restraint.

However, the fact that America has not used the most decisive weapons in its armory since their inception is significant.

Wow, and here I was like an idiot thinking the whole mutually-assured destruction thing had something to do with it. And Russia never even sent us a card.

Before I start laughing again, could you do me a small favor and name one single incident in world history where the U.S. would have been justified in launching nukes at someone, especially given the fallout for the U.S. after doing so- and I mean that literally?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:47 AM on February 12, 2006

Three Blind Mice is right. Iran's leaders spout on about destroying Israel on a daily basis. If they build a nuke, it's likely designed to take out Israel, not the US (besides that, delivering the nuke to far away America is a lot harder than nearby Israel).

Therefore, this is Israel's problem, and they should take care of it. They surely have equal or better intelligence on Iran than we do, and they have all the tools for the job (they get 'em from us).

The only way the US should take out Iran's nukes is if they keep flying to take out Israel's as well.
posted by b_thinky at 9:48 AM on February 12, 2006

three blind mice - sorry for the Arafat crack. That was unnecessarily ad-hominem, and totally uncalled for.

That said, please note that I did NOT in my post accuse you of anti-semitism. If one were to make that case, however, I think it would go something like this - take away Israel's nukes and all of the sudden they become a conventional army of - what, a couple million, at BEST? I'm not sure, I think the population of Israel is about 6 million. Anyway, they face an enemy exponentially greater in numbers. Now, here are my cards on the table, probably the point at which you and I are irreconcilable - I believe, in the deepest way possible, in Israel's right to exist, on that land, as a Jewish state. I do NOT believe that this gives Israel the right to murder, or enslave. I do NOT blindly accept everything that Israel does. I do, however, think that Israel needs to protect itself - and I think the balance of power in the middle east depends on Arab countries knowing that attacking Israel in any kind of conventional way would result in utter annihilation. Otherwise, in my opinion, Arab troops would not stop fighting until they utterly destroyed Israel.

Is this a double standard? I suspect that you and/or many people will think so. For me, it's based on an emotional position, admittedly - that Israel has the right to be there, and the right to defend herself. In my reading of things, Israel has been pretty trustworthy with those nukes - ie, in 1973, with Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian armies bearing down on Haifa and Tel Aviv and the continued existence of the state in question, with little help coming from anywhere (including Washington) - in other words, at the one time in Israel's history when the defensive use of nuclear weapons was perhaps strategically understandable - she exercised restraint. Again, it's emotional on my part, but I simply don't trust Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, or Iran to exercise that same restraint, in the face of complete destruction.

OK, sorry for the long post, sorry again for the ad hominem.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 9:50 AM on February 12, 2006

A rogue state is one that is erratic in its behavior, usually lacks a democratic form of governbment, threatens its neighbors continually, seeks to enlarge its land holdings, seldom if ever allows arguements with other nations to be resolved at the UN.

Israel fits 4 out of 5 Postroad. Being democratic undermines what is otherwise an outstanding, well-rounded performance. They could be more erratic and that detracts from a very stong score on points 3, 4 and 5. No medal here.

North Korea fits 4 out of 5. Kim Jong Il doesn't appear to want to increase his land holdings, only to hold on to what he has, but a more erratic and bellicose leader is hard to find. Extra marks in the threatening your neigbor for firing missiles towards Japan. Here's your silver medalist.

Iran 3 out of 5. Stable, but imperfectly democratic, they don't appear interested in expanding their landholdings. High marks for threatening their neighbors: second only to North Korea on this exercise. Despite it not being one of the scoring items, extra marks have to be awarded for Iran's denial of the Holocaust. A solid broze medal performance.

Pakistan fits 5 out of 5. A strong showing in all categories. Clearly the gold medal winner in this rogue state competition.
posted by three blind mice at 9:59 AM on February 12, 2006

Three Blind Mice is right. Iran's leaders spout on about destroying Israel on a daily basis. If they build a nuke, it's likely designed to take out Israel, not the US (besides that, delivering the nuke to far away America is a lot harder than nearby Israel).

Simply not true. Iran wants nukes for the very reason all of you have been defending Israel's nuclear arsenal- it prevents the attack and destruction on their own country. Israel can launch any military operation they want on any country in the region, and there is no chance of retaliation- as you noted if Iran invaded Israel they'd be glass by the end of the day. An Iran capable of retaliating against a final-option strike changes the issue- the campaign is reduced to the ground (which Israel likely would still win). Whether or not you agree Israel has the right to solve most of their worries through airstrikes has nothing to do with it- Iran wants it to stop and Israel doesn't.

Anti-Israeli sentiments aside, why is is silly to imagine Iran is in some case desiring to maintain nuclear defense? Clinton bombed three Arab nations; Bush invaded two. For god's sake, these countries have rioted over a feeling of loss of dignity over some cartoons in the newspaper... you really think daily comments from the U.S. and Israel about their authority and ability to do whatever they want to their country if they feel like it hasn't struck a chord?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:04 AM on February 12, 2006

I believe, in the deepest way possible, in Israel's right to exist, on that land, as a Jewish state.

I disagree with that, because it essentially denies other people's right to exist, on that land, under their own religion, when they've been there a lot longer than most of the Jews in Israel.

If Israel wants to be a Jewish state in the middle of Muslim-land, that's fine, but I don't feel that we should protect them. Our constitution is against state religion and it's counter to our own national beliefs to so thoroughly help a country that grants rights prejudicely to only one religion/ethnicity (some people, including Jews, consider the religion an ethnicity).

I believe our support for Israel brings more problems than solutions. If it weren't for our support of Israel, we'd probably have lower oil prices, better international standing and less security issues.

Three Blind Mice is also right about our support for Egypt. We basically bought them off in exchange for their recognition of Israel.
posted by b_thinky at 10:09 AM on February 12, 2006

BTW, I meant Muslim-land as in muslimville (a place where lots of muslims live) and not as a claim that only muslims have the right to be there. I believe all people should be able to do as they wish regardless of their religion.
posted by b_thinky at 10:12 AM on February 12, 2006

Israel's existence as a Jewish state on that land most certainly does NOT prevent ANYONE from also living on that land an observing their religion. Just ask the Arab members of the Israeli knesset. Just try to patronize one the hundreds of Arab-run businesses in Jerusalem or Jaffa on a Friday, the muslim day of rest.

Conversely, how do you think the Jews of Baghdad fare? Or of Cairo? True, the existence of a Jewish state on that land will prevent the implementation of sharia law a la the Taliban, but that is a far cry from denying the practice of Islam.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 10:14 AM on February 12, 2006

XQUZYPHYR: you make a good point, regarding the need for Iran to hold nukes as a defensive measure, both versus the U.S. and Israel, however their rhetoric does not indicate that desire.

Your point illustrates the tension caused by Israel's simple possession of nukes. If we wish to disarm Iran we should also do so to Israel, or give some kind of concession to Iran that can legitimately lay to rest their security fears.
posted by b_thinky at 10:16 AM on February 12, 2006

XQUZYPYR: An Iran capable of retaliating against a final- option strike changes the issue-the campaign is reduced to the ground (which Israel likely would still win).

Maybe in the past when Iran had a less superior army by far but not today. Which is basically the reason that Israel is not to fond of Iran getting nukes. If it had to Israel could mobilise 1.5 million people. That's basically every able bodied man in the country between the ages of 18-49.

Iran on the other hand could mobilise 18 million. No one knows better than the Israeli's themselves that they can't last in a war with 10:1 odds, which is also a reason why every war Israel has been part of in the last 50 odd years has been characterised as extremely short with Israel willing to negotiate at the earliest possible time.

b_thinky: I disagree with that, because it essentially denies other people's right to exist, on that land, under their own religion, when they've been there a lot longer than most of the Jews in Israel.

I'm not sure I understand you here are you saying non-Jewish religions (and I assume you mean specifically Islam) are illegal in Israel? If so that's demonstratively false.
posted by PenDevil at 10:19 AM on February 12, 2006

sorry for the Arafat crack. That was unnecessarily ad-hominem, and totally uncalled for.

No apology needed, but anyway much appreciated and very big of you fingers_of_fire. I note that you DID NOT call me anti-semitic and I apologize for suggesting that you did - it usually happens in these discussions and I read between your lines something that was not there.

Now, here are my cards on the table, probably the point at which you and I are irreconcilable - I believe, in the deepest way possible, in Israel's right to exist, on that land, as a Jewish state.

We disagree only on one item fingers_of_fire. Israel's right to exist as a"Jewish" state. I believe Israel has a right to exist as a pluralistic, democratic state that extends equal rights and protections to all of its citizens. Israel has as much right to exist within its borders as any other nation borne of conflict. An apartheid state - whether based on race or religion - is anathema to democratic legitimacy. I know that my postion is contrary to the core of what Israel is for many people, but there you have it.

I am not anti-Israel. I am pro-American. I do not want my country involved in another war which I think can only have devastating result for America and for which I believe there is a suitable diplomatic solution. In my estimation, attacking Iran is not in America's interest, and I do not believe it would be in Israel's long term interest.

The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and to pretend that nations can be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons forever is irrational. It is better to deal with this now than later.
posted by three blind mice at 10:23 AM on February 12, 2006

If I were an Arab muslim, how hard would it be for me to gain citizenship in Israel? Conversely, how hard would it be if I were a Jew from Ethiopia or Russia?

If I were a Palestinian with legitimate ancesteral claims to the land which Israel lies on, would these Ethiopians or Russians instantly have more rights than I?

Would the state of Israel, seeking to expand its land, provide financial incentives to its new immagrants who choose to live on land not within their borders, and that sits on the edge of my farm? Now, would the state of Israel attempt to fence off my own farm, from me, it's owner as a security precaution?

My uncle is an arab citizen of Israel. He's here right now. Please, come tell us about equality.
posted by b_thinky at 10:32 AM on February 12, 2006

Not to get dragged further and further into this, but there are one million Arab-Israeli citizens living and voting in Israel. If they feel oppressed they could with ease leave. They choose not to. Why is that?
posted by Postroad at 10:53 AM on February 12, 2006

Well, consider that various officials in the Iranian government have made it quite clear they'd like nothing more than to attack the US and the west in general. That and their government support of brainwashing of people for suicide attacks is likewise worrisome. The cold war never had this sort of insanity.

Consider why muslim countries, once involved in a good bit of civilization's development, fell out of favor. To see them cointinue thinking that forcing their form of worship on others is justified, along with nuclear weapons capability, is unthinkably disastrous. While attacking them pre-emptively is a likewise unthinkably bad idea, what're the viable alternatives?
posted by wkearney99 at 10:57 AM on February 12, 2006

It's likewise quite disingenuous to think disarming israel would allay some sort of 'fears' on the part of iran. While I'm quite disgusted with Israel's handling of settlements and palestinian issues (being against israeli policies is NOT being anti-semitic, so just don't make THAT leap) there's nothing in their policies that comes even close to how various arab/muslim nations continue to quite openly proclaim a desire to destroy israel utterly.

As for 18M vs 1.5M, quantity didn't help Iran fight Iraq that much. Battles have a lot more to do with strategy and equipment than infantry numbers.
posted by wkearney99 at 11:04 AM on February 12, 2006

The middle-east is shaping up to be a 21st century cold war, only instead of capitalism v. communism, it's judaism v. islam. Get your war on indeed.

IMO one of the reasons that atomic bombs haven't been used since WWII is because of their complete failure in WWII to further U.S policy. Japan was already beaten when the bombs were dropped. The ultimate goal was to end the war quickly to prevent the entry of the USSR into the pacific conflict, and thus hamper the spread of communism. We all know how well that worked. I imagine using nukes in the middle-east will be as effective in preventing the spread of wacky-islamic-dictatorships too. but then again, I'm no policy analyst.
posted by blue_beetle at 11:32 AM on February 12, 2006

Thanks beth for that link. It explains things more convincingly than anything else I've seen.
posted by jam_pony at 11:50 AM on February 12, 2006

I'm pretty sure we have contigency plans to invade the Vatican but that doesn't mean it's "on".

Dammit.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:50 AM on February 12, 2006

i don't think there really are that many Arab citizens of Israel, Post--you have stats?

I do, however, think that Israel needs to protect itself - and I think the balance of power in the middle east depends on Arab countries knowing that attacking Israel in any kind of conventional way would result in utter annihilation.
It also would result in utter annihilation of 1/2 the world population of Jews, which means they can never ever use them. That's also known by the Israelis and their enemies, and why Israel is always upgrading their conventional army and weapons and stuff (bankrolled by us).
posted by amberglow at 11:52 AM on February 12, 2006

amberglow: According to the CIA World fact book 19.9% of Israeli's are Arab. So of a population of 6 million (which does not include West Bank) that's just over a million Israeli Arabs.
posted by PenDevil at 12:17 PM on February 12, 2006

The United States should do the right thing and set an example for other nations by getting rid of its nuclear weapons.
All else is a double standard and hypocrisy.
And don't give me that "we're better and more trustworthy so it's OK" bull.
If they're wrong, they're wrong in any country.
posted by nofundy at 12:17 PM on February 12, 2006

i'm surprised by that Pen--thanks. They all have full voting rights and all the rights other citizens have? (or does that include non-citizens?)
posted by amberglow at 12:20 PM on February 12, 2006

Full voting rights since 1948.
posted by PenDevil at 12:31 PM on February 12, 2006

It is the Pentagon'w policy to plan. It is the President's job to decide. However, if you read Bamford, Body of Secrets, you will find (he claims) that the Pentagon was all for invading Cuba after doing some crazy stuff--acts of terror- in the US and blaming Castrol JFK would not go along with it. Similarly, though we point to Bush as wanting NSA to spy on Americans, it was really a suggestion by NSA, accepted by Bush, that called for this (search NSA released files) for this. Truman noted The Buck Stops Here. Under Bush, by contrast, What? Me worried?
posted by Postroad at 12:42 PM on February 12, 2006

Having thought it over, I'm all for the Iranis achieving membership in the nuke club. When they do, they'll realize that they can't actually use their nuclear weapons against an enemy. If they do, they'll risk nuclear annihilation themselves.

If they want to join the club, they're welcome to the high level of uncertainty it brings.
posted by alumshubby at 1:24 PM on February 12, 2006

three blind mice is a troll.
posted by nlindstrom at 1:41 PM on February 12, 2006

If they want to join the club, they're welcome to the high level of uncertainty it brings.

I thought the very idea of mutual assured destruction (MAD - was an accronym ever so apt?) is the certainty it brings. I take your point, though - weirdly, I think I'd actually rather see, with an eye on stability in the Middle East, Iran with nuclear weapons than the US/Israel/whoever attacking them on the offchance they might get nuclear weapons. (Though obviously full decommissioning by every nuclear power would be the best bet. Can't see that happening, somehow.)

Re: Arabs in Israel, the recent Guardian series comparing Israeli treatment of Palestinians inside Israel to Apartheid South Africa is very interesting reading (and much, much less sensationalist than it sounds).
posted by jack_mo at 1:53 PM on February 12, 2006

I thought the very idea of mutual assured destruction (MAD - was an accronym ever so apt?) is the certainty it brings.

MAD won't be relevant to Iran. MAD requires having thousands to tens of thousands of warheads, like the USSR and US did/do. Enough to credibly claim that after enduring a nuclear first strike, they will have enough surviving warheads to annihilate any adversary.

Iran isn't talking about having tens of thousands of thermonuclear warheads. It's talking about, AFAIK, having a few tens of plain-old-fission bombs. Hiroshima/Nagasaki-style bombs. This isn't enough to assure the destruction of anyone (except maybe Israel), much less to assure the destruction of any country after enduring a counterforce first strike.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:16 PM on February 12, 2006

amberglow: According to the CIA World fact book 19.9% of Israeli's are Arab. So of a population of 6 million (which does not include West Bank) that's just over a million Israeli Arabs.
posted by PenDevil at 12:17 PM PST on February 12 [!]

Arab does not equal Muslim. The truth is many Israeli Jews, including some of the founders, were more or less athiests. They consider Judaism to be as much a race as a religion, which is even scarier. Hey, can I convert to Judaism just to please some of the zionists? Nope, that wouldn't be good enough.

Hey, wanna have some fun? Be an muslim Israeli and see if any Jews with their houses listed will sell to you. Or hire you for a decent job. Or simply be friendly to you.

Not to get dragged further and further into this, but there are one million Arab-Israeli citizens living and voting in Israel. If they feel oppressed they could with ease leave. They choose not to. Why is that?
posted by Postroad at 10:53 AM PST on February 12 [!]

Man, I really don't know. I wonder if it has anything to do with their great-great-great-great-great grandfathers being from Palestine. BTW, how about those pesky black fuckers who wouldn't leave South Africa? What an ungreatful bunch of twats those n*ggers were.

I wonder what would happen if some random ethnic group violently stormed my neighborhood and kicked everyone out of their houses and started living in them. They could say "we simply want to have a peaceful street of Pakistanis" and "what are you complaining about? You other people have the entire rest of the city?" Would it be allowed to go down? That's pretty much what Israel is right there.
posted by b_thinky at 2:54 PM on February 12, 2006

Iran vows missile retaliation. Jan 28: Iran said on Saturday it would launch medium-range missiles if attacked. Military experts reckon the Revolutionary Guard’s Shahab-3 missiles have a range of some 1,200 miles, meaning Israel, U.S. bases in the Gulf and foreign troops in Iraq lie within their range.
posted by jjj606 at 3:29 PM on February 12, 2006

b_thinky, I understand many of your points on this issue. But Israel is not out to get Iran, despite their historical injustices with the Palestinians. There's no evidence that Israel has any desire now or has ever had (since statehood) any designs on any soverign country. Just never happened, despite what you might think about the symbolism of the Israeli flag.

Israel is not a threat to Arab countries in terms of invading them to gain land. Israel did attack Egypt in a pre-emptive strike in 1967, and famously (infamously?) bombed a nuclear facility (a "medical facility") in Iraq. But these were both, deterance against future strikes. I'm not a fan of pre-emptive defense. But Israel is a case where I make an exception. I do it as a Jew and a Zionist, but still, I think that Israel's peril is/was real and that they're within their rights as a nation to

I'm genuinely interested in this issue, and if smart people like you b_thinky and others on metafilter, can distinguish between two issues: Israel's Palestinian problem and the regional conflicts. Israels not-so-hot treatment of Palestinian lands and people is a separate issue from the the JI, Syrian (Lebanese), Iraqi, and Egyptian threats.
posted by zpousman at 6:10 PM on February 12, 2006

I don't believe Israel has designs on Iran (and didn't claim they did). I said if anyone is going to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nukes, it should be Israel, since

a) Iranian nukes would threaten Israel, not the U.S.
b) Israel has all the capabilities needed to do so
c) they have a history of doing such things

But if Israel feels threatened by Iran trying to get nukes, how does Iran and the rest of the middle east feel about Israel having them? By your logic, if they feel threatened, they have every right to pre-emptively strike Israel.

Israeli treatment of Arabs and Arab threats towards Israel may feel like two different issues to you, but not to the Arabs. Imagine, if you will: I'm standing with my foot on your loved one's throat, so you point a gun at me. Are the threats - me to your loved one and you toward me - two seperate issues or are they in fact one and the same?
posted by b_thinky at 8:50 PM on February 12, 2006

ROU_Xenophobe writes "Iran isn't talking about having tens of thousands of thermonuclear warheads. It's talking about, AFAIK, having a few tens of plain-old-fission bombs. Hiroshima/Nagasaki-style bombs. This isn't enough to assure the destruction of anyone (except maybe Israel),"

Everyone has to start somewhere.
posted by Mitheral at 9:12 PM on February 12, 2006

Valerie Plame Was in Covert Op on Iran When Outed
posted by homunculus at 1:06 PM on February 13, 2006

every single day, more interconnected shit about this administration comes out. we'll soon find out the guy that Cheney shot had some connection to some other dirty, criminal act they've been doing.
posted by amberglow at 4:22 PM on February 13, 2006

"Israels not-so-hot treatment of Palestinian lands and people is a separate issue from the the JI, Syrian (Lebanese), Iraqi, and Egyptian threats."

I'm sorry, zpousman, but I must echo b_thinky: to the Arabs and Muslims, they are facets of the same problem, with the addition that Israel holds Jerusalem, which is also a holy place to the Muslims, under its control.

They are separate issues to Israel, and probably to the rest of the world, but the Arabs conflate these into one issue - as do the Islamic extremists. This is why you get hotheads like Iran's president spouting off about "destroying Israel." The whole concept of pushing the Israelis into the ocean is at its crudest form all about how they feel Israel was established on stolen land that "belongs" to Islam. The poor treatment of the Palestinian Arabs simply adds more fuel to that fire.

I think it would be well for everyone involved to remember that the "other side" sees things a bit differently, and to take that into account. It just seems to me that "our" side is failing to work with the other side's point of view.

I think that treating Israeli Arabs and the Palestinians like first-class citizens - which hasn't happened yet - would go an awful long way toward calming Israel's enemies down.
posted by zoogleplex at 4:51 PM on February 13, 2006

*sigh*
posted by raedyn at 6:35 PM on February 13, 2006

Arabs hate Palestinians. They always have. Jordan wouldn't take 'em. Egypt didn't (and still doesn't) want 'em -- Nasser, then President of Egypt declared a Palestinian state in 1948. And then promptly annulled it. Lebanon / Syria have killed more Palestinians (3,000 is a rough number bandied about) than Israel ever did. The linked article has Israel playing a big part in this massacre, which I can't dispute -- I'm sure Israel watched and even fomented. The Palestinians are the Jews of the Arab world -- always downtrodden and abused.

I'm all for a state and I sincerely hope that Arabs are finally ready to negotiate a peace with Israel.

Israli Arabs, zoogleplex are as first-class as can be. They vote in elections (for Arab and other parties), they have passports, they pay their taxes and generally have a high standard of living (esp. when compared to "middle class" Arabs in other countries). Palestinians in Jenin and Ramalah are not as lucky, but they still have the only free press in the Arab world (I guess the Iraqi press is nominally free these days).
posted by zpousman at 7:49 PM on February 14, 2006