Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

This is not a discussion for the weak of heart. The degree of self centeredness that these two gentlemen display regarding Israel's place in the universe is astonishing. I wonder for how long the rest of the world has to put up with this kind of discourse and the global dangers associated with this degree of paranoia.

Larry talks about "crazy homicidal maniacs" who have nuclear capabilities but don't necessarily use them. True. Israel has nuclear capability and the current discourse is as crazy, paranoid and maniacal, that we need to question who it is that that rest of the world has to be weary about.

Elliot states that the possibility of Iran getting nuclear weapons isn't just Israel's problem and that the rest of the world has to intervene. I wonder if they realize how much of a problem Israel itself is. They seem to take for granted that Israel's interest is above all else and seemingly it's free of fault.

The international community has to make sure that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, but perhaps the international community should make sure that Israel can't use its own, mostly considering the insanity of its current leadership. They seem to be as dangerous as any other "crazy" state being discussed.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

Here's Uri Avnery's left-wing take on why Israel will not attack:

Israel -- by appearing crazy (consistent with its status as a rogue nuclear state) -- is trying to goad the USA, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Europe and other players into collectively punishing Iranians with "crippling sanctions" (as all the GOP debaters signed onto tonight) or quarantine, as these two endorsed. "Crippling sanctions," like cyber attacks and assassination of scientists, constitute ongoing warfare against Iran and we are in the process of escalating.

That said, I agree with Larry that ultimately a nuclear-weaponized Iran is NOT unacceptable. There is more danger with deterring Iran by lethal force (or sanctions) than by allowing them to join the Nuke Club.

The only way to eliminate the risk of nuclear war is to abolish nukes. Iran, I am certain, would be amenable to dismantling its (alleged) program in the context of international nuclear disarmament.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

So are these two deceived or deceiving?

This acting crazy is scaring the bejesus out of me!

Well, yes, at the end of this conversation I had the impression that Iran may be after all more sane than Israel. I didn't anticipate to end up with that conclusion, but the lack of self awareness and their complete Israelcentric perspective was scary.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

What an illuminating statement. People on left seem to say nihilistic things frequently, throughout the West. Relativism is the road to self-immolation.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

If you listen to this diavlog and you were to take off your partisan hat, you would understand my comment. Self-immolation is what these two are talking about but for the entire species.

I rarely comment on Israel/Palestine/Middle East politics and mostly because I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other except that I wish those people reached some form of peaceful coexistence. Their history is too complicated and messy. I've never come to the conclusion that there's an absolute right or wrong there. But for the sake of future generations I hope they don't continue to escalate one's craziness with the other's paranoia.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

Nah, "relativism" is a catchphrase designed to keep people from actually thinking carefully about moral issues. It's so much easier when you can pretend that such issues are simple to parse and fundamentally support the notion that one's own position is by definition in the right.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

Until one wants to defend, say, torture and then suddenly everyone's a relativist.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

Virtue may be simple, AemJeff, but that doesn't mean it is easy. You sit at the razor's edge of three thousand years of struggle. Three thousand years of men questioning the world and themselves. Three thousand years of blood and iron and sacrifice. Three thousand years of progress, made in miles and in inches, sometimes at the expense of nations.

In this struggle, the West has elevated man to the heights of Gods, and has done so at some great cost. We now live in a world of Reason, a world of rights, and of liberty. Israel is a small outpost of this world, in a place where many of these cherished gains are alien. The tiny state of the Jews was purchased with the blood of six million men, women, and children. Simple, but not easy.

I do not ask anyone to avoid "careful" thinking about a matter. I ask them to commit. I ask people to cleave to virtue and hold to a course. If a man values the Enlightenment's conception of rights, if he purports to believe that the law binds the state just as much as it does himself, if he holds the quaint idea that a people are sovereign and not the property of a despot, then there is no choice to be made. There is no "other side". The other side is an abyss of intellectual and moral quality. The Quds advisor with his pistol in a Hezbollah bunker is functionally no different than the Persian satrap with his whip driving Xerxes' horde through Greece. The truth of the matter is the struggle is less one about peoples; and more about futures. And this struggle is as old as recorded history. It is life affirming civilization against thralldom. It is the vitality of Renaissance against the nihilism of a death cult and the suicide bomber.

The question all of us should ask ourselves is not who the Iranians are. We know them from the bodies of women and children, stretching from the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia to the blood drenched streets of Iraq to the shores of the United States, where our sacred dead lie in silent witness at their barbarity.

Nor should we be asking ourselves who the Israelis are. We know them from the haunted, sunken eyes staring back at us from the survivors of totalitarian atrocity in Germany and the Soviet Union. We know them from their writing on philosophy, their music, their art, their shared culture with us. We know them from the kinship we have as our friends and neighbors.

No AemJeff, we must ask ourselves who we are. Are we changeable, rootless men who breeze through our existence without holding to virtue? Are we a people who abandon our friends because friendship grows difficult? Are we a people who would, unmoored to a sense of honor or duty, allow convenience guide us to betray a Friend and Ally of this Republic? Or are we made of sterner stuff? I believe we are. I believe it is incumbent on a great people to stand against the tide, no matter how rough the tempest, and hold to a course of virtue regardless of the cost. Rarely is the choice so stark.

Virtue is simple, not easy.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

@ Mr. Derfner

a) next time take an anxiolytic before the diavlog, the most commonly used is called Ethanol which is widely available without any prescription.

b) saying "OK" lots of times is not OK, OK?

c) Israel's defence minister leads one of the major coalition parties. I don't think Dagan could have gotten that job.

d) never believe in any politician, specially someone who was the head of a spy agency.

Iran won't get the bomb

Assume that the intelligence services of France, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UK and US are all working in concert to sabotage it. On the other hand look at the players with power inside Iran: Khamenei (Supreme Leader), Ahmadinejad (president), Larijani Brothers (Ali is head of parliament and Sadeq is head of judiciary), Qalibaf (mayor of Tehran and former IRGC commander), Rafsanjani (former president has lost most of his power but still carries some weight). And except Larijanis who are on good terms with Khamenei any pair you pick from that crowd are enemies. With such a fragmentation I am pretty sure CIA et al. have filtrated Iran's nuclear and military programs to the very highest level. For example about 24 hours ago there was a massive explosion near Tehran. BBC reports: "windows in nearby buildings were shattered and the blast was heard in central Tehran, 40 km (25 miles) away". The spokesperson for IRGC said this was an accident when they were trying to move ammunition which begs the question why Brigadier General Hassan Moqaddam, head of IRGC's "self-sufficiency Jihad unit", was among the dead? Maybe he was there loading AK47s in trucks because IRGC is truly revolutionary and ranks don't matter. Another explanation is that the IRGC used to assemble and store long-range Shahab-3 missiles in the site of explosion and the destruction of the missile silo and the death of a high ranking IRGC commander was the result of a successful intelligence operation. If true this would be yet another major blow to IRGC inside Iran. High ranking IRGC officers have a surprisingly low shelf life ...

Nuclear Iran can not be contained

If Iran had a nuclear weapon Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey would want the bomb too. It would be a disaster for anti-proliferation efforts. Moreover Iran unlike France has very high levels of corruption they might lose a bomb without wanting to lose one (it would be Pakistan without all the covert and overt US activity to protect them). In short the cold war nuclear deterrence model would not work at all and that is why the assumption I made above seems reasonable.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

I hope you are under influence because the level delusion which you need to think Iran is saner than Israel is just unimaginable.

The conversation of two Israelis about Israel's foreign policy is Israel-centric? The horror ... the horror ...

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

THIS. IS. SPARTA!!

We're actually talking about the future of the world here, not a morality play.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

They are one in the same. The issue raised was relativism in Israel vis a vis Iran. If virtue is the polestar of policy, there is no confusion on the matter.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

Ah, so Ocean herself is using catchphrases to keep people from "thinking carefully" [sic] about moral issues.

But let's examine what moral relativism is. It's the claim that no moral position is any better than any other, that they are all a matter of taste. Does one think carefully about matters of taste? No. So by definition, moral relativists like Ocean don't think carefully about moral issues.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

I have one quibbling point regarding your distaste for relativists. I don't think people can be anything but relativists; the question seems a matter of degree and to what extent. After all, if an older adult were to self-reflect upon her actions as a younger person, she would find her own deeds deserving of reprobation.

As to your main point about virtue, however, I must agree.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

A state threatening a small, democratic, free state with destruction is "more sane" than the democracy, because the democracy is thinking of ways to defend itself using means Ocean doesn't like. A state that protects women's rights is less sane than a state that lowered the marriageable age of girls to 9 in imitation of the infamous child molester, one that stones them to death, rapes them in prison for protesting. A state that has freedom is less sane that a state that currently has a Christian pastor on death row for "apostasy" (even though he never followed the religious peace).

Your little world is fascinating, Ocean.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

What does that have to do with relativism? The fact that even I can be wrong, does not demonstrate the relativist's position that every moral position is as good as any other. Hell, the fact that the older person can recognize that he made mistakes or did things that were wrong, is hardly any support for relativism - which denies that there is any such thing as something that is wrong, affirming instead that it's just what the older person believes is wrong, no better or worse than what the younger person believed.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

Yes, and I wish that there were rainbows and unicorns EVERYWHERE!

Or anywhere else, as a self-proclaimed moral relativist. I'm glad you were not around in the 1940s, or you would be proclaiming that there's no absolute or objective right or wrong there, either.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

Nah, too childish.

Apple, you have a blind spot and knee jerk reaction whenever the idea of Islam/ Arab enters your consciousness. There's no way there could be a rational discussion with you about anything even closely related to it. Additionally, I wouldn't be the one holding that discussion anyway because I have no real interest in debating this topic. My thoughts were mostly an overall reflection about the sad situation over there.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

Stop that blabber Apple, don't be obtuse and don't assume anything about me. Or keep doing it and continue to be a troll. Up to you, of course.

And by the way, I'm not a moral relativist in the way you are portraying it at all.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

No, I'm not under the influence of anything. I don't use anything to be under the influence.

Perhaps you didn't understand what I said. I said that if I was to go by what these two gentlemen discussed I would end up with the impression that Iran is saner than Israel. I also said that I hadn't anticipated that conclusion. So the main point is that if anyone who isn't familiar with the context of this discussion was to listen to these two, they would have to question the sanity of their politics.

Some are going into great lengths writing their comments, invoking intoxication or moral relativism, when in fact, I wonder whether the message from the discussants is the result of an intoxication with self centeredness, and a very good example of moral fallacy, where Israel seems to believe that anything they do is inherently justified, that the world owes them some special blind loyalty.

I'm hoping that Netanyahu and the Israeli aggressive machine will be stopped before they start an irreversible conflict with global consequences.

Israel is not beyond good and evil, and clearly they can be wrong. Some here should come to terms with that.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

I already answered everything that I had to say. Your bubble is even tinier, though. It doesn't let you take any perspective beyond the "I hate Muslims and therefore I love Israel unconditionally and anything Israel does or says is perfect and wonderful and justified and no one should ever be allowed to express any degree of criticism about Israel and if they do they're monsters". Geez!

It is amazing how many here jump full force whenever Israel's position is questioned even in a quite modest fashion. Is it so threatening to you guys to have someone express an skeptical view about Israel's aggressive stance in the region?

Wow. It's quite striking.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

That's not an accurate definition of "moral relativism," though it does seem to be an approximation of the idea of normative relativism. Sulla was simply using the term as an epithet, his strangely orthogonal rant regarding "virtue" notwithstanding. (What's "virtuous" about West Bank settlements or IDF phosphorus bombing, e.g.) If I were to use the term non-ironically, I'd be trying to describe the idea that every moral claim must be evaluated within a specific context if there's to be any chance to make useful assertions about it. I'd have a hard time, for example, asserting a clear moral comparison in regard to, say, the effects that the careers of Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat had on the lives of those who have lived in the region. Does that mean that I think no claim has greater value than any other? I don't think so. It means I think the competing claims are far too complex for my tiny little brain to fairly evaluate.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

Derfner: "Goldberg, a responsible journalist..."

Jeffrey Goldberg, 2010, "In 1981, Israeli warplanes bombed the Iraqi reactor at Osirak, halting — forever, as it turned out — Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions."

Jefrrey Goldberg, 2002, "Saddam Hussein never gave up his hope of turning Iraq into a nuclear power. After the Osirak attack, he rebuilt, redoubled his efforts, and dispersed his facilities. "

Jeffrey Goldberg, 2002, "The administration is planning today to launch what many people would undoubtedly call a short-sighted and inexcusable act of aggression. In five years, however, I believe that the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality."

Goldberg's forthcoming memoirs: "My journey from prison guard in Israel to propagandist for the Atlantic."

My advice to Derfner: Look up the word stovepiping in the dictionary.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

Two Jews, twenty five opinions.
chamblee54

The more things change the more they stay the same.
 

This was a fascinating peek inside the Israel bubble. Iran could get the bomb, linger on the cusp of one, and I don't think much changes. It could embolden their support for groups like Hezzbollah or it could reduce it, but I doubt it means a nuclear attack anytime soon. I don't think Europe is overly worried, nor the Russians or really the Gulf states. A nuclear free middle east should be a more of an issue, as well as a US free middle east, if one want's to really cool things down.

Elliot was going to mention how he thinks such a bomb might be bad for the i/p issue, but never got a chance to explain. It could just as easily be the jolt that sober ups Israel's settlement binge.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

I'm as sorry as you are that you were born a century too late, but that hardly seems relevant to this conversation.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

A century too late? I think you may be off by two or more millennia.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

Perhaps, but I'm inclined to be more charitable. I think Sulla's mode of thought would be perfectly normal in say, Prussia in 1911 or so.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

You're right. Mine was a cheap shot. Thoughts like this:

have a distinctly Prussian ring, even if Prussia was never much of a friend to anyone.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

Yeah, that's the basic problem whenever the R word comes up. There's little effort to define terms and clarify what people are saying before asserting dramatic and unlikely conclusions about people's positions.

Technically, Sulla was misusing "nihilistic."

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

Oh, I think you cottoned on to what he was going for, actually, although I don't think he was as successful -- and certainly not as relevant -- as intended.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

Perhaps you didn't read the origin of this conversation. It is about assessing value. Or maybe you did not read my reply, which stated values.

The situation is clear. To be unclear on the difference between Iran and Israel is to be unclear on virtually everything.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

He sounds like someone who thinks that the first world war was tragic because some people actually learned from the experience.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

I misused the word in what way, technically?

Israel refuses to tell US its Iran intentions
 

Reports in the press are saying that Israel is refusing to confirm that it will inform the US should it choose to strike. If meant to pressure Obama or Tehran I don't know, but it could backfire in spectacular style if true. It's one thing to snub the US in asking permission, quite another to ignore them completely.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ntentions.html

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

So are your kumbaya-fantasies about Jews and Muslims. Muslims believe that the following was actually said by the best man who ever lived:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews. (Sahih Moslem Book 041, Number 6985)

Lo and behold, your beloved religion of peace.

This claim is almost as absurd as your claim about Iranian leaders being more sane than the Israeli ones. Try to be more rational.

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

I am clear about the difference between Iran and Israel. I am unclear what difference this difference makes to the issue of this diavlog--whether it would be wise to launch a preemptive attack against Iran. Are you suggesting that because Israel is an ally of the US and shares certain values with the US that a preemptive attack, either by the US or Israel, is the right thing to do?

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

In that case, I will not be so presumptuous as to think that what you say accurately reflects what you actually believe. I now also realize that people who do, are "trolls".

Re: Will Israel Attack Iran? (Elliot Jager & Larry Derfner)
 

Heh. I don't suppose the Austrians or the Turks gained much from Germany's friendship, now did they? But then that brings us back on topic, right? Just as Germany would have been a better friend to Austria by pulling them back from the brink, Americans would be a better friend to Israel if we dissuaded them from their current waltz towards disaster.