Context, context, context MJ. Israelis still choose to live on a hostile frontier and often do their best to maintain the hostility, and to remain a separatist minority in the region. And, of course, there are two side to every coin. Tel Aviv may be the "embodiment of Zionist accomplishment" and "represents the best of Zionism," but so too are the West Bank and Gaza embodiments of Zionism and its core anti-nativism. Call it yin/yang, but please, see it for what it is. For every asset there is an equal and offsetting liability.

"And for others it is the return to Judea and Samaria"

And still others want all the land to the Euphrates, as in King David's time.

But I think he is talking about a present embodiment, not the imperialistic dream of the right-wing Zionists.

MJ, regarding your reference to Ahmadinejad;

I've often wondered how Israelis see him. Do they see a real threat from him or do they see someone playing to the cameras and his base, someone enjoying the notoriety his outlandish comments have bestowed on him?

If the Palestinians feel that it is their "destiny" to destroy Israel and "push the Jews into the sea", then Israel does have the right and the obligation to control that destiny. And unfortunately, at this point, the Palestinian leadership as well as a large number of their people feel exactly this way.

well, its good that you have a solid opinion about Ahmadinejad. You've given two options that render all others void.

"When you beat your wife, do you use your hand, or your arm?"
"George Bush, great president, or greatest president?"

That being said, Ahmadinejad has one real priority on his hands, the Iranian people and dealing with the US threats, and perhaps Israeli threats. Lets not forget that Israel launched an attack on Iraq in the 1981 without provokation or international support. It was denied for years.

If Israel sees Iran's project in the same eyes as they did Osirak nuclear plant, then it is reasonable for that leader, Ahmadinejad, to be talking back at Israel.

If I simply approach both sides strategically, I'd say they have a nice historic stalemate. If i'm concerned about future peace, I must diffuse their situation, but I'm not god, so who knows which suicide bombing makes a nation homocidal again.

Iran has been portrayed in the West well beneath its historic relevance and that has been a big mistake in getting the citizenry sober about Iran. The idea that we are not doing well in Iraq, would look like kids playing in a sandbox compared to a war with Iran. It is indeed the worst of conclusions to think a fight with, well anyone, is appropriate now.

Israel has blood on her hands though too, and between the Palestine occupation, Lebanon, Iraq in crumbles, and Iran on the defensive, who gains from more provokation?

Does anyone believe a fight between Israel and Iran will not result in a detonation of a nuclear device before its over?

I have good Persian friends who do not like the current leader any more than many of us like ours. But lost in the translation to CNN and others is the leader of Iran telling you what he wants, and it is not what is reported as headline later. The only headlines are, "Ahmadenajad challenges the Holocaust", when he didn't really do that in the interview or quote at all. He struck at what he sees as Hypebole of the Holocaust for political gain. And before anyone questions whether his points are valid, he is vilified on the spot. For a thinking person, if I don't understand the argument, I instinctively believe shutting up the arguer is wrong, and to twist what they say is wrong. Because I know more than enough about the Holocaust, I can confront his argument easily, but the press can't, or won't?

Sorry, I have a problem with making up boogey men. Saddam was about as suave as any of the thugs in Mafia lore, and we loved it till it was politically convenient to be otherwise. Why would that be different for Ahmadinejad?

Only a fool repeats the same habits and expects a different outcome.

Israel is one tough cookie, and her right survive and be peaceful is something I support. But in time it should be a country as important as...well any other. That isn't Israel's fault either, but it should be the result we look for in my mind. And a free Tibet.

That old idealized sentimental past!

Zionism in Israel has been dead for years. Probably killed by Rabin the day he decided to convert Israel into Hong Kong (Singapore?) on the Med.

Beautifully done.  Moving, and hopeful. 

aMike

MJ

An excellent post. Ahmadinejad isn't Hitler and Iran is not Germany precisely because there is not only an Isreal but many other nations that alrady trying to restrain Iran's nuclear ambitions. Israelis seem quite confident that Iran can be stopped, if necessary long before Israel will be at serious risk.

Tel Aviv is a wonderful city. The original modern Zionists thought they would bring the socialist ethos to the land of Israel by bringing Jews from the ghettos of Europe to work the land. As long as the Ottoman's and then the British controlled the terms under which Jews bought the land, from Turkish and then Arab owers, the two groups Jews and Arabs could sort of co-exist.

What I am never clear with your posts but I presume is that you are prepared to ignore the endless claims by Hamas and other Palestinians that they don't want two states they want one Arab State. If that is correct what evidece is there that the call for Israel's destruction is just so much fluff?

If it is not fluff then the settlers among the Israelis must be squelched and not allowed to drive Israeli policy. However, it is the fear of destruction and death that drives policies toward Palestinians not a desire to control their destiny it is desire to stay alive.

If the Palestinians want to relize their own destiny why not just recongize Israel and negotiate the boundries pretty much along the 1967 borders with some changes as proposed by Clinton? If the fight is about Israel's legitimacy then as Bradley Burston put it the Palestinians will really learn how long never is.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

My knowledge of the Israeli/Palestinian issue is limited compared to many who post here. What I do "know" about the subject is from mostly casual reading and asking questions.

Daniel, let me ask you this;

You refer to Hamas and other Palestinian groups that don't want two states just one Arab state. (I know there are people like this)

The question is; are there Palestinians and Palestinian groups that would accept two states?

If groups like this exist why do I rarely, if ever, see them referred to?

oops, that's 2 questions. :)

Hi Jdledell,
In general, I found your comments to be intellectually honest,
so please find and post two links that you think describe typical position of American Jewish organizatio and mainstream thinking of Israeli government (broadly speaking).

Here are my links that I found after quick search:

http://www.aipac.org/Publications/AIPACAnalysesIssueBriefs/Irans_Pursuit_of_Nuclear_Weapons(1).pdf

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798958.html

"Kaplinsky, who was speaking at a conference of mayors that took place on Kibbutz Ma'aleh Hahamisha, said that a nuclear Iran would constitute an existential threat to Israel. "

I don't see much difference in their positions.
I also don't think that M.J honestly describes
position of "Jewish organizations here".
M.J. just made it up.
BTW. My comment was not about issue of Iran nuclear weapons, just about inaccuracy of M.J comments.

Although there is nothing wrong with being part of a minority, the whole point of Israel is to have one place in the world where Jews are not one.

If we define ourselves as human beings rather than as members of religious, ethnic, or racial groups, none of us will ever be in the minority, nor will any of us ever feel the need to make our group the majority.

Your absolutely rigtht but mankind was tossed out of Eden a long time ago. In your senario Jews, B'hai and others will end up not as minorities just dead.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Daniel, thanks for the reply.

It would be a plus if those Palestinians who will accept two separate states got as much publicity as those who won't. Its like the muslims in the world who aren't fundamental fanatics, those that simply wish to live in peace, and who also get little publicity.

As to the following:

"The question is when do the Palestinians who want peace shut down the firing of missiles at Israel, the inflitration of suicide bombers, as Egypt just did, and the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers inside Israel?"

Excellent question. One wonders why it hasn't happened.

If the Palestinians want to relize their own destiny why not just recongize Israel and negotiate the boundries pretty much along the 1967 borders with some changes as proposed by Clinton? If the fight is about Israel's legitimacy then as Bradley Burston put it the Palestinians will really learn how long never is.

Daniel, I agree that, with facts on the ground, a two state solution is the only feasible outcome. Only a minority of fanatics on either side are opposed to some eventual compromise for peace, but the devil is in the details. I'm not trying to bait you or "reverse-troll" here, but I think that in arguing for this or that solution, you have to look at the big picture first. That means hearing the claims of the party being asked to compromise to get some of their state territory back.

As the original landholders, it is the Palestinians who will be conceding everything in this “solution.”. They have been displaced and oppressed for forty years. How much more should they give up? Will they come to the table under duress and coercion? Would you? Do you see the Palestinians as a conquered people who should negotiate a surrender?

The question is when do the Palestinians who want peace shut down the firing of missiles at Israel, the inflitration of suicide bombers, as Egypt just did, and the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers inside Israel? Related to this when will Shalit be returned?

Does this mean that the Palestinian authority must first demonstrate its effective performance as a sovereign state within colonized Palestine as a pre-requisite for gaining sovereignty?

That seems like it could easily be a catch-22 of the type used by many colonial authorities to justify their continued rule.

Sorry John, I was addressing your post as a whole, but with specifics about the backdrop of such a question.

I wasn't weighing in too heavy on your particular query, but to the idea as a whole that Ahmadinejad or Iran is a "real threat" or that his comments are "outlandish". You aren't the only such person to offer these two choices. So the response is to the question as a whole.

Your post states two choices that are already negative. Its either "real threat" or "outlandish comments". I can easily guess YOU could have considered other options too, but you didn't write them here, and this isn't uncommon. I see the same thing happen whenever Hugo Chavez comes up, "real threat" or "outlandish comments". After a while it goes unquestioned. And then the conversation stays real limited to convenient notions.

I don't support not thinking. Get some coffee, grab some grub, and think.

So if you want to ask a question of what people think, especially Israelis, then why would you give the option of "real threat" or "outlandish comments"? Maybe, I wonder what Israelis really think.

The rest of the article was drawing a backdrop for reasons Iran might have of not trusting Israel and thus speak aggresively towards them.
The majority of the post wasn't dealing with yours, but the topic as a whole.

What points in the rest of my response did you have a problem with, aside from what you saw as an overreaction to yours? before suggesting that I read your post for what it is, why not do the same in kind? friend.

"Do you see the Palestinians as a conquered people who should negotiate a surrender?"

Yes, Yes, Yes. It's a fact. They lost several wars. Last war they lost was second intifada that
they foolishly started.

Japan and Germany were conquered people who just surrendered, lost huge chunk of land (in case of Germany) had a lot of displaced people.

Look where they are now and were Palestinians are now.
So who were smart and who were fools?

If Palestinins get all land behind the fence and stop fighting and arguing about the right of return, they can build mini-Japan too.

Most Palestinians, I hope, would take this deal in the moment but they are too disfunctional right now (in Gaza)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/853107.html

So let's hope that Israel will continue smart
"control over Palestinians" in West Bank to prevent Gazafication there until somebody will come up with better ideas.

Let me also congratulate you on an excellent post here. I'd like to address two issues.

First, the Iranian nuclear threat. It's hard for me to imagine, with a reasonable knowledge of the weapons proper and delivery systems, how, under the most pessimistic assumptions, this is a short-term threat to Israel.

Even if I assume that Iran is intent on Israel's destruction, or at least massive damage, I find it hard to consider them so irrational that they wouldn't:

1. Want a level of assurance that first attack, probably by ballistic missiles, would actually do do significant damage


2. Understand that massive retaliation is a given and they would get no second chance

...the endless claims by Hamas and other Palestinians that they don't want two states they want one Arab State. If that is correct what evidece is there that the call for Israel's destruction is just so much fluff?

If it is not fluff then the settlers among the Israelis must be squelched and not allowed to drive Israeli policy. However, it is the fear of destruction and death that drives policies toward Palestinians not a desire to control their destiny it is desire to stay alive.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]