I was over there in March and fielded a lot of curiosity about the US elections. When I told them that I supported Obama, they were shocked. "...but he's a Muslim." I agree completely with Rob that their anxieties are non specific. Some of the more articulate folks I met said that they thought Obama would try to get them to do things leading to some form of settlement, which is the definition -- as far as I can tell -- of someone who is not a friend of Israel. I wish Bob and Rob would have talked about the profound differences between Jerusalem and the rest of the country (esp. Tel-Aviv). This dialog is overly Jerusalem-centric, which it certainly is. Note to Bob: the left-right continuum may not be the best way to conceptualize this split. It may be better put to think of Tel Aviv as something of a cosmopolitan European city, while Jerusalem is nothing of the sort. It and the settlements are definitely provincial and that goes a long way toward explaining the respective political environments.

Man, this freaked me out. Brought me right back to watching The Exorcist for the first time. My damn heart went nearly came out of my chest. Okay, so the rest of you don't have the same childhood scars. Please go about your business, and take a moment to be thankful that you are not similarly afflicted. ;^)

"This is some truly scary shit from a reporter whose credibility could not be higher." You must be kidding. Hersh is a complete joke. Everyone of his sources are conveniently anonymous. He has written basically the same article every year for the last three years saying either Israel or the US is about to attack Iran. Remember his article that said Israel would NUKE Iran --again based on anonymous sources? It turned out to be a complete and utter fantasy.

It's not very encouraging to hear of high level Israeli officials and academics setting up conferences with their American academic counterparts and launching the tour with a lecture on Islam as an inherently hostile religion that's inferior to Christianity and Judaism. Seems like the mirror image of Louis Farrakhan ranting about Judaism as a gutter religion.

Quoting Wonderment: It's not very encouraging to hear of high level Israeli officials and academics setting up conferences with their American academic counterparts and launching the tour with a lecture on Islam as an inherently hostile religion that's inferior to Christianity and Judaism.

Seems like the mirror image of Louis Farrakhan ranting about Judaism as a gutter religion.

It would be problematic if Israeli officials were involved. Good thing you are wrong and they weren't. In fact Robert specifically says it was a right wing academic and not a government spokesman and the trip was set up and controlled by an American group not an Israeli group.

Quoting gwlaw99: Remember his article that said Israel would NUKE Iran --again based on anonymous sources? It turned out to be a complete and utter fantasy.

No, I don't. Do you have a link?

Quoting gwlaw99: It would be problematic if Israeli officials were involved. Good thing you are wrong and they weren't. In fact Robert specifically says it was a right wing academic and not a government spokesman and the trip was set up by an American group not an Israeli group.

Note first that Wonderment said government officials and academics. Second, Robert did state that Israeli academics often have a history of working for the Israeli government, and said that he was pretty sure that the specific one under discussion had previously been so employed. It's probably also at least a little disingenuous to think that there is absolutely no interaction between this American group and elements within the Israeli government. And finally, Robert did specifically remark upon speakers that had clear government connections -- the scary 5'2" Shin Bet guy, for example.

Quoting bjkeefe: No, I don't. Do you have a link?

My mistake, It was the Sunday Times that said Israel was going to nuke Iran. http://www.france24.com/france24Publ...srael-Iran.php Hersh claimed the US was going to nuke Iran. Which of course was complete fantasy.

"The plan is similar to one said in a report in the New Yorker magazine last April to have been considered by the United States. The White House dismissed investigative reporter Seymour Hersh's article as "ill-informed".

Here is the cite to Hersh's article in 2006 that said the US was going to nuke Iran
Hersh, Seymour (4/17/2006). The Iran Plans. The New Yorker.

Quoting Wonderment: It's not very encouraging to hear of high level Israeli officials and academics setting up conferences with their American academic counterparts and launching the tour with a lecture on Islam as an inherently hostile religion that's inferior to Christianity and Judaism.

Seems like the mirror image of Louis Farrakhan ranting about Judaism as a gutter religion.

I agree. On the other hand, I do think it's foolish to pretend that the three religions are the same, particularly as manifested in some of their adherents. Now, let me hasten to say that I continue to believe that the vast majority of Muslims worldwide are no more prone to violence or thirsting for a global caliphate than are Christians or Jews. I am also of a mind that much of what is labeled as "Islamic terrorism" is, in fact, a pathological mindset that has cloaked itself in religion for PR and security purposes; e.g., it uses the Koran to provide a patina of legitimacy for the actions and rhetoric, and finds it helpful to self-identify with the predominant faith of the people living in their bases of operations. There is also the

Quoting bjkeefe: Note first that Wonderment said government officials and academics.

Second, Robert did state that Israeli academics often have a history of working for the Israeli government, and said that he was pretty sure that the specific one under discussion had previously been so employed.

It's probably also at least a little disingenuous to think that there is absolutely no interaction between this American group and elements within the Israeli government.

And finally, Robert did specifically remark upon speakers that had clear government connections -- the scary 5'2" Shin Bet guy, for example.

1. It makes no difference whether he said "and academics" or not. Academics are individuals who can have any opinion they want. Crazy or not. Saying such statements make the individual a nutcase. Adding, haphazardly, that Israeli officials made the same point is not just a throw away line. It means the Israeli government is officially saying this and it impugns the entire Israeli government. 2. Who cares if he works with the government or was once employed by the government? Would you argue that every academic in the US who once worked with for the US government now speaks for it

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07012008.html A Hersh perspective critique.

Quoting gwlaw99: Hersh claimed the US was going to nuke Iran.

Hersh didn't really claim that, did he?

Quoting gwlaw99: Which of course was complete fantasy.

You actually have no idea whether it was "complete fantasy" or not, do you? What's your thesis, GW? That Hersh just makes it all up?

Quoting gwlaw99: My mistake,

It was the Sunday Times that said Israel was going to nuke Iran.

http://www.france24.com/france24Publ...srael-Iran.php

How come the article you linked to doesn't say what you claim it does?

gwlaw: Thanks for the partial clarification. The Sunday Times article about Israel strikes me as a he said/she said story about a rumor, and in any case, is not relevant to the current point of contention. I still don't see a link to an article by Hersch that supports your claims. In the meantime, I will note that I have heard the proposition floated on several talking head shows that the US would "have to" use tactical nukes to get at Iran's facilities, since they're so well-buried. I'm sure that such scenarios have been drawn up, and exist in some Pentagon filing cabinet or computer. I doubt whether Hersch ever reported that the implementation of such plans was imminent, however, and will remain skeptical until you can show me something more. If this is the article to which you refer, please find me a more substantive excerpt than the anonymous third-party quote that you gave, which doesn't, in the first place, scan as coming from anything written by Hersch.

gwlaw: I am not trying to say that all academics are marching in lockstep with the government, nor that any one necessarily represents the government. All I am saying is that it's probably a mistake to think there is absolute separation between the two groups.

Quoting bjkeefe: Man, this freaked me out. Brought me right back to watching The Exorcist for the first time. My damn heart went nearly came out of my chest.

Okay, so the rest of you don't have the same childhood scars. Please go about your business, and take a moment to be thankful that you are not similarly afflicted.

;^)

OMG you heard that too, thanks! I thought it was some weird stream-delay catching up since I didn't bother to download the whole thing first, or it was in my head...
"Your mother darns socks that smell!" ('70s SNL think it was Loranne Neuman)

oh, i had the same reaction. wtf is wright doing having someone who is obviously an incarnation of the dark lord on???

Quoting handle: OMG you heard that too, thanks! I thought it was some weird stream-delay catching up since I didn't bother to download the whole thing first, or it was in my head...
"Your mother darns socks that smell!" ('70s SNL think it was Loranne Neuman)

You've got tubular bells in your batfry!

You must be kidding. Hersh is a complete joke

Seymour Hersh is one of America's most esteemed journalists with impeccable credentials. He won a Pulitzer Prize for exposing the My Lai massacre and has won five Polk Awards. In addition, his 1983 book "The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House" won him the National Book Critics Circle Award and the Los Angeles Times book prize in biography. We're not kidding.

There are wingnuts among all faiths...

, Amen to that.

.... but the problem does seem worse in Islam

I disagree. As Islamic societies democratize, they'll become increasingly secular and tolerant just as Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu societies have. As Rodney King or the author of "Nonzero" would put it, we can all just get along.

Quoting gwlaw99: You must be kidding. Hersh is a complete joke. Everyone of his sources are conveniently anonymous. He has written basically the same article every year for the last three years saying either Israel or the US is about to attack Iran.

Remember his article that said Israel would NUKE Iran --again based on anonymous sources? It turned out to be a complete and utter fantasy.

Nicely nuanced argument. Sy Hersch, the guy who won a Pulitzer for his exposure of American Military responsibilty for the My Lai Massacre, among many other professional awards, is a "complete joke?" There have been credible complaints about Hersh's journalism, to be sure - but characterizing somebody with his record with that blank put-down is just off-base. Hersch has been responsible for uncovering some of the ugliest details of recent American history. It's impossible to know whether his reporting on W's plans for Iran contain any truth, but the mere fact that we haven't seen the Administration act yet is not exactly a refutation of his reporting. And, that the sourcing in a matter as sensitive as this is anonymous isn't exactly surprising is it?

Quoting graz: You've got tubular bells in your batfry!

No one will argue, not even me...

Quoting Wonderment: As Islamic societies democratize, they'll become increasingly secular and tolerant just as Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu societies have.

That is my belief, and certainly my hope. The problems are how to get that to happen, and how long it will take in regions that have never known democracy. I do not see much chance in any of the big countries of the Middle East, especially the oil-rich ones, for example, although sometimes Iran seems like a possibility.

Quoting Wonderment: ,

Amen to that.

I disagree. As Islamic societies democratize, they'll become increasingly secular and tolerant just as Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu societies have.

As Rodney King or the author of "Nonzero" would put it, we can all just get along.

As long as religion and law are synonymous within Islam, I'm skeptical of this.

Yes and democracy is so likely to come to the Islamic world that Atatürk Devrimleri in 1922 abolished the Ottoman sultanate, and in 1924 it also abolished the caliphate dismantling, the religious office that Sultans had used to rule the Ottoman empire for centuries. And one of Turkish Armed Forces is to protect the secular form of governance from subordination by Islam. But in your Utopia the Islamist will lay down their fear and hate to lie with the lambs.

Quoting AemJeff: As long as religion and law are synonymous within Islam, I'm skeptical of this.

In fairness, this was also effectively the case for much of Europe and Christianity, not to mention early (colonial) America. Of course, it did take a while to grow out of this mindset.

In fairness, this was also effectively the case for much of Europe and Christianity, not to mention early (colonial) America. Of course, it did take a while to grow out of this mindset.

It's also the case for Orthodox Judaism, which is why Israel is the world's only democracy not to have civil marriage. The overwhelming majority of Jews both in Israel and the Diaspora have become secularized and non-Orthodox over the past couple of centuries, but the core of the tradition is a program called Halakha (the Law) which determines every aspect of public and private life.

Wonderment: Thanks. I had a vague sense of this, but I didn't have the specifics at hand.

Quoting bjkeefe: There are wingnuts among all faiths, but the problem does seem worse in Islam.

True, but actually, the ratio is way worse in Islam than in some other religions which really are not fairly lumped in the same generalization (see below).

Quoting Wonderment: I disagree. As Islamic societies democratize, they'll become increasingly secular and tolerant just as Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu societies have.

I hope you're right, but I doubt it. Islam's baseless triumphalist superiority complex, deliberate population proliferation vis-a-vis other religions, prejudice against educating women, low-incidence of cosmopolitan education, education-mostly-via-madrassa, and staunch prejudice and imperviousness to learning from others all militate strongly against this hopeful fantasy. Optional reading for folks with nothing better to do: At the risk of seeming too discursive, I've seen so many variations here on this comment casually and innocently lumping Buddhism with theistic religions, I figure it wouldn't hurt to point out a distinction with a difference: Unlike the theistic religions, Buddhism has absolutely none of this "conquer-the-competition" rhetorical nonsense so typical of theistic religions. Historically and doctrinally, Buddhism was, from the get-go, and by insistence of the Buddha himself, entirely "tolerant" of other traditions. (In fact, the Buddha forbade monks from prosletyzing, allowing them to teach doctrine only on sincere request.) Nor

The difference is that Islam and Sharia are the same - there's no distinction. In the case of Christianity it's true that the political (and therefore legal) reigns were in the hands of the Church for a very long time, but that wasn't demanded by scripture. I don't know technically what the relationship between Orthodox Judaism is precisely, but additional facts about Judaism are that Jews don't prescribe laws for non-believers and have no apparent ambitions to spread their particular belief system.

AemJeff: I take your point, even in theory. And of course, in practice, in today's world it stands alone in this regard.

This keynote address (transcript) by E.L. Doctorow seems relevant to our discussion of religion's encroachment onto the rest of society: The White Whale. (h/t: SG)

Quoting Wonderment: Seymour Hersh is one of America's most esteemed journalists with impeccable credentials. He won a Pulitzer Prize for exposing the My Lai massacre and has won five Polk Awards. In addition, his 1983 book "The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House" won him the National Book Critics Circle Award and the Los Angeles Times book prize in biography.

We're not kidding.

Sorry but Hersh is a joke. 1983 was 25 years ago and was the last time he did serious reporting. How can you take anyone seriously who writes the same article about the US attacking Iran for last three years using completely anonymous sources and none of them turn out to be true. Here is a report on his 2005 article in which he made the same exact claim he is making now:t hat the US is using covert ops to identify targets to bomb in Iran. http://www.democracynow.org/2005/1/1...ducting_covert and the article itself
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/200.../050124fa_fact I look forward to his article next summer that regurgitates the same story.

Quoting gwlaw99: Sorry but Hersh is a joke. 1983 was 25 years ago and was the last time he did serious reporting. How can you take anyone seriously who writes the same article about the US attacking Iran for last three years using completely anonymous sources and none of them turn out to be true.

Here is a report on his 2005 article in which he made the same exact claim he is making now:t hat the US is using covert ops to identify targets to bomb in Iran.

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/1/1...ducting_covert

and the article itself
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/200.../050124fa_fact

I look forward to his article next summer that regurgitates the same story.

What of Al-Shifa reported on on in 1993? And a lawyer ought to know that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. (Of course the "evidence" here describes what's available to us. Hersch obviously has sources, even if he hasn't named them.) Hersch might be nuts enough to to continue making baseless charges against an administration he hates - it's a possibility. But, that really ought not be the first assumption, based on his record.

Go Wildcats!

gwlaw:

How can you take anyone seriously who writes the same article about the US attacking Iran for last three years using completely anonymous sources and none of them turn out to be true.

Why not believe that the plans to invade or otherwise harass Iran are themselves ongoing? That Bush and Cheney keep refining them? And maybe even that one of the factors preventing their having been implemented is the exposure brought by Hersch's reporting? Given the many stealthy things this Administration has done, I find this to be an entirely plausible explanation, although I grant the last part is pure speculation. As for anonymous sourcing, well, yes. No one likes that. But I would say that there is at least some worth in this sort of information, suspect though it may be, if the only other choice is no information at all. I would also say that you exaggerate to say "completely." He does have some named sources in all of the Iran-related reporting that I have read; e.g., military and intelligence people who have recently retired. P.S. Still looking forward to you substantiating with a direct quote your claim that Hersch reported that