White flag politics?

just Louise

Melanie, on that "lethal spinelessness", which effects political elites across Europe, read Isi Leibler's piece in the Jerusalem Post (10 Dec. this year). It's absolutely superb, but contains the stuff of nightmares. It also draws attention to a fine new book by Christopher Caldwell, "Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Islam, Immigration and the West". ("Call Me Dave", take a look!)

http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=1944

Rachael

As Peter Hitchens keeps saying, what is the point of voting Conservative any more when the best thing is to let Labour win, watch the Conservatives implode and let a new political party take their place.

When was the last time the Conservative Party was good for anything?

Truthtriumphs

The issue of a nuclear Iran is, or should be, the no.1 issue of our time.
It beggars belief that it isn't, apparently, blindingly obvious.
A nuclear Iran will change the status quo irreversibly, and will bequeath a terrible legacy to our children and grandchildren.
It will, inevitably, make regime change in Iran much more difficult.

just Louise

I'm completely baffled as to why Brown, Cameron and the rest of the Westminster bunch would be willing phlegmatic about such a dangerous future for their children.
And on that note, hold on to your your old M & S headscarves, gals, it looks like you're going to need them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

Martin

A combination of farce & tragedy.
No muslim who fails to integrate 100%
& condemn islamist extremism should be
respected or made to feel welcome here.

As for Iran, if the Israelis don't deal with that
problem soon (helped I trust by the US & the civilized world), then the recent Iraq affair
will look like a minor police operation.

simone bacchini

Although not a fan of the House of Lords - with the absurd, semi-corrupt(ing) system of honours it entails, I'm much happier to see a man of the calibre of the Chief Rabbi, Dr. Sachs, to be given a peerage rather than a dubious character (to say the least), like Dr. Bari with his dislike for western values.
As far as Iran is concerned, with the American President so naive and amateurish in his dealigns with that truly dangerous country, what hope is there that lovely, green, hoodie-hugging Cameron will help prevent a nuclear Iran or stand up for westen and British values?

JH

A nuclear Iran restores the balance of power in the region. It can only be good for Middle East stability. If nothing else, it should ensure the good behaviour of the Israeli and US govts.

Jeremy

"...in the upper echelons of the Conservative Shadow Cabinet, the sanguine conclusion has been reached that they can ‘live with a nuclear Iran’...."

If the mullahs remain in charge, surely the expression should be: "...we can die with a nuclear Iran..."

Dixon

Obamma has cancelled the basing of TEN interceptors in Poland to provide some protection for the US against Iranian missiles...to much lefty applause. But he's opted to deploy HUNDREDS of Patriot and SM3 anti-ballistic missiles there instead! The Poles and US have just signed the agreement permitting the basing of such US forces on Polish soil.

So Obamma is very certainly a window-dresser.

Meanwhile, I didnt discover until last night and very few realise that NATO has a plan to site hundreds of THAADS and SM3 missiles across all of Europe to protect against Iranian missiles.

On both counts, we see politicians expressing complacence in public whilst behind the scenes their military staff accept the reality of an Iranian danger.

Watt Tyler

Another reason why a vote for either the Conservatives or Labour is a dangerous thing to do.

For the New Conservatives - with Added LibDem-iness, just the sort of thing to attract those protest voting Liberal Democrats (and the Tory vote is going to take it).

Darwin Akbar

I suppose granting a peerage to a "moderate" radical Muslim as a "quid pro quo" for granting a similar honor to a Jew is akin to the government's decision to lump American radio talk show host Michael Savage, a Jew, with radical Muslims on the list of those banned from entering the U.K.

John Edwards

A good comment by JH. If Iran were to develop nuclear weapons this would end Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East and applying the doctrine of mutually assured destruction which applies everywhere else in the world makes war less likely. It also means no other states will attack Iran to effect "regime change" leaving such matters to the Iranian people themselves.

Derek

Could someone - Melanie perhaps - please explain what the 'West' should do about the prospect of a nuclear Iran? If Israel feels threatened, despite already possessing sufficient nuclear weapons to ensure mutual assured destruction, it already has the military means - and presumably the political will - to eliminate the problem.

Given that the US and UK are both embroiled in Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems wholly unrealistic to me to expect them to fight a war on three fronts.

So once again, to all those who oppose dialogue or sanctions, and who feel that we should not accept a nuclear Iran as inevitable, what course of action do you recommend (other than condemning in knee jerk fashion the "spinelessness" of those who disagree with you)?

Jez

Red flag politics more like Melanie... no borders and all that 'BS'.

The liberal elite are sat on a 'Slavery' type disaster.

A policy (such as Slavery) to benefit a small proportion of the elite is ram-raided through.

By the time it is 'out of fashion' then the social implications regarding any aspect of this are; irreversable, catastrophic and terminally perpetuating downward.

This isn't a Sunday league footy division- one season you're down- say, with bad management- but then sort-out your 'act' and you're back up the next year.

This is it.

Stick about for the grand finale- but maybe keep eyes on the exit if it goes 'pop', all the same.

Augustus

Yes, it does sometimes seem that both main parties in this country want only to cement themselves in, white flag and all, with this Islamic culture of the Middle East. And as for bestowing a peerage on this man 'whose goal is the Islamisation of the UK', no doubt when he decides to invite
Ahmadinejad round for a debate in the House of Lords, there won't be any question of not allowing him past the barriers at Heathrow.

ahem

Face it, Melanie, this is one of those times in history--rather like the Weimar--where those who would pretend to govern are way out of their depth. Fortunately--or unfortunately--nature abhors a vacuum. I have a feeling that, in the future, we will recognize this era as the calm before the storm.

Chip

"...balance of power in the region..." -- JH

Not unlike the balance of power extant preceding WWI. Balances of power, historically speaking, tend to create arms races and world wars.

I also note your tacit admission the Iranian nuclear program is in fact a weapons program. Moving seamlessly from one idiotic position to another: the hallmark of the Left. What happened to the "peaceful nuclear energy" meme of a year ago?

EDDIE

Once Iran has the bomb, all the other Arab states will be sufficiently scared enough to get their own bomb. It will destabilise the whole region. If the EU and America decide to chicken it out and accept a nuclear Iran that it makes Iran the most powerful in the region other than Israel. If Israel decides to attack it would need to do it extremely effectively on a wide range of targets in a very large country. The EU and America would be delighted but it would mean an extremely widespread, vicious and hypocritical condemnation of Israel by the UN and all the rogue voting States plus the Arab block States and an excuse for a whole range of countermeasures against it. However, if Israel feels that its very existence is under threat mainly due to the European appeasement it will just have to do so, I suppose.
The greatest mistake by the West is to assume they are dealing with logical people, and that the canard of “Mutually Agreed Destruction” would apply as in dealing with Russia, but the mindset in the Near East is quite different from that of the West.

patricia

So why not leave while there s still time?

harvey

John Edwards writes
" No other states will attack Iran to effect regime change leaving such matters to the Iranian people themselves"
John ,how did you manage to keep a straight face while writing that ? Suggest you send it on to Ricky Gervais .

Sergey

Derek: I would recommend two week bombardment using unmanned drones and cruise missles on all known Iranian rocket and nuclear sites. All critical military infrastructure should be busted, too, Persian Gulf blocaded by navy, and all Iranian military fleet sunk. This is completely compatible with Afganistan war, since no new troops are needed. Simply repeat what RAF did to German military industry in WWII. It took 6 month then, but with modern sattelite reconnensance and vastly improved firepower it can be now done much faster. Costly, but without US human losses this will be palatable to US public. When Iranian export will be reduced to Persian carpets and transport to donkey carts, it would be high time to seize oil fields and declare them international property administered by US government.

David Lindsay

Not our problem. If it exists at all. But certainly not our problem.

C. Gee

JH:

"A nuclear Iran restores the balance of power in the region."
What balance was that? How is it being "restored"? Is it a good thing that a fanatical theocracy should have any regional power?

"It can only be good for Middle East stability."
Iran is now conducting proxy wars with Israel through Hizbollah. It is a destabliizing force in Iraq and in Lebanon. Its rise to power is putting the wind up Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who are looking to go nuclear. Does a Sunni bomb versus a Shia bomb sound like a stable balance of power?

"If nothing else, it should ensure the good behaviour of the Israeli and US govts."
And what is "good behaviour" according to Iranian lights? Leaving Iran free to wage proxy war, to destabilize the region, to assert Shia dominance, and to repress its own people.
What do you believe "good behaviour" is?

Your ideas are rotten warmed-up left-overs from the MAD Cold War. Bad then, worse now.

JH

Chip, you fail to understand the primary reason for possessing nuclear weapons - i.e. deterrence (I admit I'll have to hard time selling this to Japanese, but anyway).

Barry Larking

If Iran feels safer with nuclear weapons obviously 'safe' has changed its meaning. Should they be so unwise to threaten to deploy any such weapon (when or if it comes) they will be unwise. Actually, given the time scale I presume the 'children of the Revolution' will have knock the mad mullahs from power.

A peerage fro some Islamic hate spreader? I suggest you write and often to 10 Downing Street. Start today.

Jan

I've also read that now Britain intends to issue an arrest warrant against Tzipi Livni. Makes one really, really wonder about Britain.

Baron

JH, the grand strategist of the modern world:

How long do you reckon the Saudis will wait before they get one, too. And then….

EC

Israel will not live with a nuclear Iran - and neither will many Iranians!

Regarding the prospect of the good "Dr" being offered a peerage - it makes me feel so much better about declining mine.

YA

Peerage is a mechanism for preserving meritocracy, as a counter-balance for populism.
Peerage should be given for accomplishments in important universal, non-political, non-ideological, secular activity, i.e. beneficial for all humans, like medicine, science, technology.

I would say both Cheif Rabbi, and General Secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain are unsuitable for peerage.

Britain is secular democracy, historically formed under influence of Hellenistic, Judeo-Christian and essentially, Renaissance and Reformation backgrounds. Presently, the Judeo-Chrsitian religious component might retain some emotive but not ideological importance.

Religious authorities that pursue narrow, sectarian interests, should be kept out of peers.

Zephanish

Cameron might be able to live with a nuclear Iran. I cannot. I want to see a strong government committed to defending the free world and its values. There is nothing to be achieved by trying to accommodate Islamic Iran - it is a terrorist state which must be overthrown just we overthrew Saddam in Iraq. Lets us learn from our mistakes there and get invasion right this time. Is there a government in exile for Iran? A proto-constitution guaranteeing free elections, freedom mod religion and free speech? Is there an infrastructure plan and capable men and women already set to take over? If not why not? Let us match the bravery of our troops in Af/Pak with the best in military hard ware but most importantly with a renewed confidence that we , the west must triumph or all will be lost. Nazism - Communism - Apartheid - Peronism - and now Extremist Islam - its all the same phenomena. The only way to peace in the middle east is through ending Islamic dictatorship and replacing it with democratically and tolerance for ones neighbor - especially Israeli neighbors.

patricia's ghost

Misery loves company, but company does not reciprocate.

Marcher Baron

John Edwards - the idea of mutually assured destruction doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent when suicide bombers abound, don't you think? You really ought not to apply Western thinking to non-Western peoples.

Joblop

I fail to see why someone should be given a peerage because the Jewish leader was.

Peerages *should* be given for the right reasons, not because a Muslim is jealous of a Jew.

Are the Hindus jumping up and down because a Jew got a peerage?

We should stop caving in to the fanatical Muslims. Hasn't the MCB boycotted Holocaust Memorial Day?

And we want to reward this man and his organisation?

That is sickening.

Suffolkbor

I think that I now know what the poor dumped on Saxons felt when they were conquered by the Normans in 1066.

The handing out of peerages to individuals who wish to mould our society into their own cultural vision,rather like a dog , pissing on a tree stump to mark out it,s territory has become a somewhat standard insult towards our present long suffering populace .

We , as a people in these isles , appear to have been totally disenfranchised .

YA

Sergey: I think resources are already allocated for something that you described. And, as Dixon says, missile defence is placed where needed.
But this is huge action. First, one needs to take out comman-control, air defence, ballistic missile, anti-ship missile sites, then usual corps, navy, military industry, nuclear and terror training facilities.
It is unthinkable to do it without major Iranian provocation. So, nobody but Iranians decide on go ahead, - and they might not be interested.

Tracey

From the 'fuel' excuse to the 'deterrent' excuse.

Iran needs a 'deterrence' - from what? Iran has said it wants to wipe Israel off the map, so who's the aggressor? All Israel wants is to be left in peace, thimble on the Middle Eastern map that it is.

As for 'mutually assured destruction', that disincentive doesn't work when the possessor of such weapons believes they will go to heaven if they get blown up using them. Jihadists do it often enough. This is one suicide bomb they mustn't get their hands on.

daniel maris

More white flag surrender to Shariah:

- Our subversive judges issuing a warrant for the arrest of Ms. Livni, ex foreign minister of Israel.

I know you don't like her Melanie but I think you'll agree that's a surrender to the pro-Shariah campaign.

just Louise

Someone (Boy Miliband, L'il Willie Hague, perhaps?) should remind Brown and Cameron of the fact that Ahmadinejad is believed to harbour fantasies of the coming of "the twelfth imam", a coming that is to be preceded according to lore by strife and bloodshed. It's an apocalyptic necessity, apparently, to a kind of Islamic version of a Messianic Age. Apart from his expressed wish to wipe Israel off the map, Ahmadinejad might be just irrational enough to think a nuclear war worth it.

Mladen Andrijasevic

On “living with a nuclear Iran”

Bernard Lewis in an article in the Wall Street Journal wrote:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768

“In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.”

What puzzles me is whether British politicians who claim that they “can live with a nuclear Iran” 1) have ever read Bernard Lewis’s quote, or 2) they believe that Bernard Lewis, the author of some thirty books on Islam and Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, does not know what he is talking about. Which is it?

JH

Israel is a hyper-aggressive, expansionist, nuclear-armed Imperialist western power in the Middle East.

Is it any wonder that Iran is nervous? (a proud nation with 3000 years of written history, I should add.)

John.

The native British people are now not represented by any of the three main parties. Saying this here changes nothing. What can we actually begin to do to regain some kind of control of what is done in our own country and to our own people? Where are the leaders we are crying out for?

Watt Tyler

David Cameron continues to try to sell out to Guardian readers, and is banking on the Tory faithful taking it.

In the light of the recent developments, have a look at this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/15/david-cameron-energy-efficiency-copenhagen

and please don’t tell me that you are still going to vote tory (cos I don't want to hear your pathetic whining).

A few of my favourite quotes:
“Cameron sees the idea for a ‘localist green revolution’ as an answer to his fear that what he describes as the current top- down climate change agenda is ‘in danger of starting to lose people’”.

No Dozy Cast Iron, the bad science is losing people. ANd as for that science:

“Faced by a mini-revolt from climate change sceptics within his own party, he said: ‘A very small number of people take a different view on the science, but the policy is driven by me, and that is the way it is going to be.’”

There you are. Cameron still thinks that the science is good, and that its sceptics are a fringe minority. Strewth. Will he be the next Prime Mentalist in more than name?

“Cameron also insisted that if his party wins the election next year, he will try to turn any political agreement reached at Copenhagen into an internationally legally binding document as quickly as possible.”

Cameron is committed to taxing us like a load of baskets, based on a load of cobblers.

Is anyone seriously going to vote for his party while he is the boss?

St. Bruno

Let’s face it our present Prime Minister is a class warrior of the first water.
I can’t get to grips with whom he is fighting but the answer lies somewhere it appears in English society. Note English not British because Britain includes Scotland the favoured place. The English deserve all they get or don’t get as the case maybe.

Piss taking on a grand scale. Fill the Houses of Parliament with foreigners and diverse compliant riff-raff and there you go straight into a dictatorship of the wonderful Mr Brown.

How can he balance Muslims with Jews, even this save this world genius might find that just a little taxing if not impossible. Seems he is ripe for retirement, go back to jockland ASAP, I bet he feels happier sipping the malt with his Masonic banker friends in Edinburgh, give us all a rest.

Derek

For the record,
"Derek" @
December 15th, 2009 3:34pm is not me. I would lean to the response given by Sergey
(December 15th, 2009 5:02pm). The interests of the Iranian democratic opposition however should be kept in mind and the plans tempered to minimize their alienation. In principle, the robust move of seizing oil fields is appealing as long-term measure to pull the teeth of enemies of our civilization in the area. I would prefer as a matter of tactics though to follow Malfleur's proposal in the Coffeehouse two or so months ago to take those in Libya first, perhaps in a move coordinated with the strike by Israel against the green fascists nuclear infrastructure in Iran.

Derek

JH may or may not be a left-wing British politician, though his unreflecting linguistic excess bears all the signs, but may I nonetheless invite him to essay a reply to
Mladen Andrijasevic's question above?

Derek

...and - while the West sleeps - "The Arab states of the Gulf region have agreed to launch a single currency modelled on the euro, hoping to blaze a trail towards a pan-Arab monetary union swelling to the ancient borders of the Ummayad Caliphate." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6819136/Gulf-petro-powers-to-launch-currency-in-latest-threat-to-dollar-hegemony.html

terence patrick hewett

Hyper-aggressive, expansionist This describes precisely the world-wide Mohammedan threat.

Chip

Israel is so "expansionist" it's the only nation to have shrunk itself by more than half over the last forty years.

But don't let facts get in the way of your fashionable UK antipathy towards Jews, JH.

As for "deterrence," you have managed to encapsulate one small part of nuclear strategic doctrine. Regarding Iran's intent towards Israel you might want to search the terms "decapitation first strike" and "genocide".

Kirkey

JH, Iran is a hyper-aggressive, annihilative, nuclear-armed theocratic Islamic regime in the Middle East.

Is it any wonder that Israel is nervous? (a proud nation with 5000 years of written history, I should add.)

Who do you choose? A democratic nation founded on the rule of law, or an Islamic theocracy hellbent on eliminating Jewish Israel?

We know the left is in bed with extremist Islam. By how much? Will they allow Iran to get the bomb, threatening Israel's very existance?

Make no mistake, allowing a nuclear Iran will be the death of Israel a la Holocaust II. Iran already weaponizes Hezbollah with the flimsy weapons it has at its disposal.

A rogue nuke detonated in Tel Aviv will be highly likely.

And it will all be Israel's fault, they cry...

Antonia

'Israel is a hyper-aggressive, expansionist, nuclear-armed Imperialist western power in the Middle East.'

Really? JR, have you looked at the map of the region? For an 'expansionist and hyper-aggressive' power armed with atomic weapons Israel remains a tiny country and haven't conquered or expanded much, despite all the wars, except into parts of Judea, Samaria and Golan?
The problem with people like you is that you don't even feed the need to make a plausible arguments, you simply make unsupportable and false statements and rely on the fact that most people are completely ignorant of the geography and the history of the Middle East.

Dixon

It seems to be general opinion that Israel posesses enough nuclear weapons to blast Iran out of existence if it needed to: hence commentors bandying the phrase "Mutually assured Destruction".

In fact, its worth bearing in mind that during the cold war NATO intended to defend itself against a conventional Soviet army invasion by letting off hundreds, possibly thousands of nuclear weapons on the territory of the very countries being defended. Mainly West Germany. This was not regarded as self-destruction but a practicable way of defeating overwhelmingly larger numbers of Soviet tanks. Hard to believe? Well that was the reality of "Nuclear Battlegroup" strategy and it was reflected in the deployment of thousands of nuclear weapons that had insufficient range to reach any targets further East than West Germany. Particularly hundreds of Lance systems and thousands of Davy Crocket nuclear bazookas that were operated by two men from the back of a jeep and had a range of at most five miles. Large bore artillery was also equipped to fire nuclear shells. Nuclear bombs were deployed for dropping from even the very smallest ground attack aircraft ( the A4 Skyhawk, for example ).

This was considered, by sober military planners, an entirely feasible method of war-fighting, as long as it could be contained within European territory without escalation.

Now look at Iran on the map. Its about as large as the entire theatre of a Cold War conflict in Western Europe. Quite clearly, if West Germany was thought able to survive hundreds of nuclear detonations in its territory, Iran could shrug off everything Israel can throw at it.

It wouldnt be pretty. Millions would die. But Iran, its planners surely realise, as a state...one that has been preparing for the worst... would survive.

Roy

With Netanyahu so outraged at the warrant issued for the arrest of former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni in Britain, it would not be surprising to see Israel hatching a surprise move to harass the continuing anti-Israeli jibes. It is about time some retaliatory moves came from the Israeli Prime Minister, for far too long he has put up with the lies and misrepresentations issuing forth from the spineless ones of Britain and America.

JH

Bernard Lewis is clearly writing a lot of nonsense. Pakistan also has the bomb, does it not? India wasn't a smoking ruin the last time I checked. MAD is just as valid now as it was 40 years ago.

just Louise

Regarding Livni's arrest warrant, Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard, in his latest online blog, has one word for Miliband: "hypocrite". He points out that late last year Miliband promised to change the law, but reneged post-Cast Lead, to curry favour with Labour MPs and to avoid relying on the Conservatives to get the change through.

Trumpeldor

@JH,

The first military alliance was signed between Jews and the mighty Persian Empire more than 2500 years ago
Many wars saw Persian ,Median ,Parthan forces fighting alongside Jewish armies for centuries,till the last Persian takeover of Jerusalem
This alliance was very alive and robust during the reign of the former Shah
Your attempt to portray Israel as an expansionist power is shameful
Even a pupil coming from the failing UK elementary school system should be able to look at a general middle east map .
I am pretty confident you should cnanges your glasses strenghth given the fact that Israel is so tiny that most maps are unable to show its name on its proper location....

Roy

Not only do some need better glasses but a better grip on their fair play sensors, and a readjustment to their faculty of who's responsible for what.

Rachael

JH: "Bernard Lewis is clearly writing a lot of nonsense. Pakistan also has the bomb, does it not? India wasn't a smoking ruin the last time I checked. MAD is just as valid now as it was 40 years ago."

What drivel.

A'jad is a jihadist. The Pakistani government is terrified its jihadists will get control of its nuclear bombs.

And where's all this Israeli imperialism and hyper-aggression in the Middle East? You make it sound like it has a empire.

It's the size of a dot on my map compared with the rest of the Middle East.

Edward in the USA

JH said... "Bernard Lewis is clearly writing a lot of nonsense. Pakistan also has the bomb, does it not? India wasn't a smoking ruin the last time I checked."

Err Pakistan is not run by ayatollahs dreaming of the apocalyptic return of the "12th Imam". The iranian regime is.

The Pakistani government doesn't have a president declaring his genocidal goal of wiping a country off the map. The iranian regime does.

The Pakistani government denounced the 2008 Mumbai India terrorist attack. The iranian regime celebrates terrorist attacks.

The iranian regime is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has already threatened to withdraw from the treaty, if pressured to curtail its nukes for "peace" (LOL!) program. Either way, the iranian regime has issued genocidal threats, is creating WMDs, is establishing relations with other regimes (Chavez Venezuela). It doesn't take a nuclear scientist to figure that the iranian regime will "help" Venezuela with it's own nukes for "peace" program.

Letting the iranian regime continue its nuke weapons program is as big a mistake as letting hitlers Germany re-arm.

The consequences for the entire World will be devastating.

I say nip it in the bud.

Stephen Gash

As an organiser of Stop Islamisation Of Europe, I fail to make a distinction between the anti-semiticism exhibited by Mohammed Abdul Bari and that shown by Lord Sachs.

Mladen Andrijasevic

JH,

How about reading up on Shi’a eschatology and the differences between Shi’a and Sunni Islam before you continue to display your ignorance?

Genesis of Shi’a Islam
http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=116&Itemid=2

Who is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/who_is_mahmoud_ahmadinejad.html

Or why don’t you just not read Ahmadinejad’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly?

http://www.un.org/ga/64/generaldebate/pdf/IR_en.pdf

“The world is in continuous change and evolution. The promised destiny for the mankind is the establishment of the humane pure life. Will come a time when justice will prevail across the globe and every single human being will enjoy respect and dignity. That will be the time when the Mankind's path to moral and spiritual perfectness will be opened and his journey to God and the manifestation of the God's Divine Names will come true. The mankind should excel to represent the God's "knowledge and wisdom", His "compassion and benevolence", His "justice and fairness", His "power and art", and His "kindness and forgiveness". These will all come true under the rule of the Perfect Man, the last Divine Source on earth, Hazrat Mahdi (Peace be upon him); an offspring of the Prophet of Islam, who will re-emerge, and Jesus Christ (Peace be upon him) and other noble men will accompany him in the accomplishment of this, grand universal mission. And this is the belief in Entezar (Awaiting patiently for the Imam to return). Waiting with patience for the rule of goodness and the governance of the Best which is a universal human notion and which is a source of nations' hope for the betterment of the world.
1 They will come, and with the help of righteous people and true believers will materialize the man's long-standing desires for freedom, perfectness, maturity, security and tranquility, peace and beauty. They will come to put an end to war and aggression and present the entire knowledge as well as spirituality and friendship to the whole world.
Yes; Indeed, the bright future for the mankind will come.”

Keith D

Its worse than spinelessness although thats there in spades.It is a verdict on a political class that served its time in chattering university debate rooms and gathering nepotistic political advancement.

Small wonder they have demonstrated beyond any doubt that not only are they unfit to lead,but that they are a level of consciousness apart from those they seek to govern.

Any fool could tell you its a bad idea to let a destructionist play with nukes.

Until we get leadership that lives in our world and understands how it works,it will always be thus.

Sergey

Concept of strategic balance and containment, including MAD, does not work with eschatological cults, political or religious maniacs. Stalin made such blunder with Hitler. He assumed that after "engagement" (Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) Hitler would not risk aggression against Soviet Union, since this would be a suicide for Germany, considering strategic balance. He was wrong. Nazi were apocaliptic death cult, just as current Iranian rulers. In such cases the only rational policy is preemptive annihilation of potential agressor.

JH

I think it is unlikely that a website named 'americanthinker.com' will be a reliable and unbiased source for information concerning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

wonderer

Stephen Gash, please explain what anti-semiticism (sic) has ever been "displayed by Lord Sachs".

Mladen Andrijasevic

JH,

So Bernard Lewis according to you is “writing a lot of nonsense”, and Amil Imani cannot be considered reliable since his article is published in americanthinker.com’. Would you please comment on this Rafsanjani’s statement reported by Iran Press Service. (based in Paris):

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

JH

Mladen, theoretically, would the destruction of Israel be so great a loss? Take the long view here. Yes, some pain in the short term, but perhaps then the weeping sore in the Middle East would heal over.

YA

JH - just look at events that have lead to 2006 Lenbanon war, and to 2008's "Cast Lead", as rehearsals in Israel's destruction. Yes it will be "so big loss", it's known who will suffer most, and BTW, success of Israel's destruction isn't guaranteed, at all.

Not talking about allies' existential obligations to protect Jewish state (USA, Germany). Present days Germany is wonderful country, with politics embracing responsibility, compassion and rationality. Germans recently built another 3 submarines for IN, and also donate 2 A100 type frigates.
Briefly - there will be no Israel's destruction.

Oh and another BTW - British army's combat losses in 2009 are 10 times bigger than IDF's (despite "Cast Lead"). Israel, as fighting nation, is in better position than Britain. I would say, destruction of Britain is more realistic prospect.

Romo

I wonder where JH lives. Do you think that the destruction of his home and his family and his relations and the restaurants he goes to and the parks he walks in and the cinemas he frequents and his car and his college and the buildings in his cities would be such a great loss? On a par with Israel perhaps? Does his country contribute anything to civilization? Does he? Maybe the destruction of JH wouldn't be such a loss. Nah, the weeping sore of JH wouldn't be a loss at all.

Adam B.

Yes JH, if only those Jews would go quietly, we'd all be better off.

What a crass, disgusting, hateful and morally bankrupt statement. You are what's known as a moral vacuum, JH.

I await a substantive reply to the points raised above. Try writing more than one sentence.

JohNW

I wrote to the Conservative website asking them for clarification of this.

No reply.

JohnW

"I think it is unlikely that a website named 'americanthinker.com' will be a reliable and unbiased source for information concerning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

So what's your source, JH? "IRNA.com" or "Jihadtoday.com"?

daniel maris

JH -

Unless JH stands for Jihad I think you stand lose a great deal from the destruction of Israel. The idea that the Middle East would become healed and peaceful is so fanciful as to merit at least a somewhat hollow laugh.

The death of Israel would be followed by a surge of support for totalitarian Islam. The idea that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would survive such a collapse is risible. A wave of religious fervour would sweep away the Saud family and produce fresh demands for a restored Caliphate.

War between Sunnis and Shiah would become a real possibility.

Europe would not escape unscathed. There would be pressure points: Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Malta. We might see a flood of refugees from the Middle East. And if a nuclear armed Caliphate emerged from the chaos we would all be directly threatened.

Derek

Daniel Maris. I was interested by your comment at 9.30am which is fine as far as it goes. However, i think the spiritual damage to western civilization would be catastrophic and would entrain political and military events which go far, far beyond what you imagine. All the more reason that I find it difficult to understand why, in another thread (I think it was Melanie Phillips' Inconvenient Truth blog) you opposed the idea of our head of state going for a walk in East Jerusalem, were she ever permitted to visit Israel, because it had been annexed by Israel and such a walk-about would be seen as approving that annexation. Why I sit here scratching my head is not just because this is a non-sequitur, but that it also exhibits that approach to history which the art of parti pris polemic allows to pick and choose and refuse and discard as the logic of the polemic dictates. East Jerusalem was indeed annexed by Israel from Jordan; but Jordan had annexed East Jerusalem, after first expelling the Jewish inhabitants of the Old City one should note,when it illegally waged war against the infant state in 1948 in a conspiracy against the United Nations with other hoodlum nations. According to Mr. Maris then one right does not right a wrong.

Edward in the USA

JH said...

"Mladen, theoretically, would the destruction of Israel be so great a loss? Take the long view here. Yes, some pain in the short term, but perhaps then the weeping sore in the Middle East would heal over."

My 2 cents are...

JH, theoretically, would the destruction of Mecca and the Kabba be so great a loss? Take the long view here. Yes, some pain in the short term, but perhaps then the weeping sore in the Middle East would heal over.

YA

..thanks daniel maris - "JH" is likely a code for "jihad".
I'll neglect by "JH" opinion in the future.

..no word in British MSM about 35-ton, illegal North Korean airplane arms shipment, intercepted in Bangkok. It was monitored by Ukrainian and Israeli intelligence. The route of the huge IL-76 airplane was intentionally made erratic, ending in Iran. In the similar way, this "drilling equipment" could have been landing in the UK, delivered to some bogus company, and eventually to local "JH"s.

Do we need to wait until car bombs, ambushes on motorways, hostage takings, pogroms, beheadings, rocket/mortar shellings, sniper attacks - start here, in the name of the "defence of true religion"?

Isn't it hard to understand that Iranian regime is to be taken out, ASAP, at least its strategic weaponry and arms smuggling infrastructure? The alternative is gradual replacement of European civilization by the barbaric swamp first, and theocratic Mordor, in the end.

Henry Sidgwick

JH
December 16th, 2009 7:38pm
"...theoretically, would the destruction of Israel be so great a loss? Take the long view here. Yes, some pain in the short term, but perhaps then the weeping sore in the Middle East would heal over."

Is this intended as a Swiftian satire on the brutal imperialism of other contributors here? If so, however laudable it is in principle, in practice it is in very poor taste. A failed attempt at satire is bad enough, but if you were in earnest, then it so much the worse. You have gone way beyond all bounds of decency and humanity, and you should be ashamed.

Mladen Andrijasevic

JH,

You wrote:
"Mladen, theoretically, would the destruction of Israel be so great a loss? Take the long view here. Yes, some pain in the short term, but perhaps then the weeping sore in the Middle East would heal over."

I guess this is your way of admitting that you have lost the argument regarding your statement "MAD is just as valid now as it was 40 years ago."

I had originally thought that I had come across an uninformed poster, but now I see that you are in a hypnotic trance of anti-Semitism which makes you immune to any rational argument, so further elaboration from my side would be utterly pointless.

logdon

YA
December 17th, 2009 11:57am

Do we need to wait until car bombs, ambushes on motorways, hostage takings, pogroms, beheadings, rocket/mortar shellings, sniper attacks - start here, in the name of the "defence of true religion"?

Thanks to our appeasers, leaders is superfluous here, we face a prospect of internal civil war and external threat of nukes heading our way.

That's some going, even for Brown.

As for Cameron, the single figure poll narrowing plus massively increased support for the BNP should be enough for the thickest to discern where the conjunction of those two lies.

Rachael

Henry Sidgwick, that, sad to say is the grand plan.

They genuinely think this will stop the global jihad.

daniel maris

Derek -

I think I'm the one who's being consistent I support Israel in as much as it is a civilised democracy supporting the rule of law at home and internationally. To the extent that it acts illegally I don't support it. Had I been around at the time I doubt I would have supported Jordan's annexation of East Jerusalem. I certainly don't support the intention of the PLO or Hamas to illegally seize Israel.

I do agree that if the West allowed Israel to be exterminated its spiritual impact would be quite devastating.

Roy

I would say JH that "americanthinker.com" is a far more reliable and unbiased source than the information you must be privy to.

Derek

Daniel Maris

I am not sure that being around at the time of the annexation of East Jerusalem by Jordan is the sine qua non for determining whether one can approve it or not. The principle would deprive us of almost every political and historical perspective - but doubt away.

The imposition of some utopian standard on Israel, however, is disproportionate when compared with the free pass you have just given Jordan. Why not screw your courage to the sticking point and condemn Jordan for an illegal act against "the rule of law at home and internationally", then at leastthat night form a basis for opposing a visit by the Queen to that part of the Israeli capital now. But since you're still only doubting that you would support Jordan's annexation "Had I been around at the time", we face the formula: B annexes EJ from A = OK. C annexes EJ from B = not ok. Hm.

Isn't there here though an expression of the wider, deeper malaise that infects this and similar blogs, namely that Israel is held by the majority of its critics to unreasonable standards which tend (and are perhaps aimed) to deprive her of her right to defend herself, while her enemies are given disproportionate leeway to indulge in gross crimes against her?

I therefore see this idea that support can be given to Israel "in as much as it is a civilised democracy supporting the rule of law at home and internationally" to be an expression of bad faith or, at best, inconsistency of thought.

Why is that?

First, because it begs the question of whether Israel is in any particular case in violation of the rule of law. In what way, for instance, was annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel an illegal act? The question was not addressed by you, and indeed you avoided mention of the Jordanian annexation or mention that prior to that aggression the United Nations, an impeccable arbiter of justice,had recklessly decreed Jeruslaem to be an "international" city. These considerations surely have some complicating effect on what you see as a clear cut case of illegal seizure, surely?

Secondly, since there is a prejudice in place that Israel should stand still like a child in a playground and receive the buffets of the bully in the name of good manners; while the bully should be permitted to get his licks in as and when he feels like it "because" as the scorpion observed to the frog "it is my nature".

I would therefore comment that when you say that "I certainly don't support the intention of the PLO or Hamas to illegally seize Israel", it is easy to oppose intentions, especially if you bow to capabilities. Do you perhaps have a legal seizure of Israel in mind? Bit of a problem here unless of course one considers the PLO and Hamas to be "civilised democracies supporting the rule of law at home and internationally"?

Pangloss was as consistent.

Lupus Lungfish

Why don't the Tory party come out and say what they really feel?. We don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Why are they scared to state the bleedin' obvious?. No fancy big words please, just the blatant obvious truth.

Mladen Andrijasevic

We do live in strange times when a French specialist in nuclear military affairs and intelligence for the French government is more resolute than his British and American counterparts:

How to Stop Iran
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004574599610512260066.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

âœIt might be necessary to go beyond that and actually resort to force to prevent the Iranians from achieving nuclear military capabilities. Planning for a massive air and missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities (known and suspected) should be considered seriously, and this planning made public (at least partially) to convince Iran that the West can not only talk the talk, but also walk the walk. Such planning should also, to the extent possible, involve NATO, against the territory of which there is little doubt that the majority of Iranian missiles and nuclear weapons would be targeted (if only because they cannot yet reach the U.S.). The U.S., U.K., French and Israeli intelligence services should better co-ordinate what they know, and contributions from others should also be welcome, as well as any information that could be provided by internal opposition movements in Iran.â�

daniel maris

Derek -

I don't think I could make it any clearer. I full support Israel's right to exist and prosper.

I believe that the tendency to hold Israel to a higher standard than other countries in the region or around the world is often motivated by declared or hidden anti-semitism.

However, in order for me to continue to actively support Israel, it IS necessary for it to remain a civilised democracy and as such I would encourage it to discontinue the annexation policy on the West Bank pursued with varying degrees of commitment by various Israeli governments.

Jersualem's position as a city that has resonance for three major world religions means it is something of a special case and I think the initial UN judgement that it should be an international city was a wise one. I think an international dimension to it will be one of the pieces in the settlement, but as stated previously no settlement can be reached as long as the Arabs/Muslims stick to their genocidal vision for Israel.

Henry Sidgwick

Derek
December 18th, 2009 10:08am

Your remarks to Daniel Maris raise some questions.

When Jordan annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem did Israel not annexe Galilee and West Jerusalem; and did not the "international community" that winked at Jordan's crime not wink at Israel's? If Jordan is to be condemned, as it is, then Israel should be condemned. None of the states in the region have had the Palestinians' interests at heart; but this is surely no argument for Israel to continue oppressing them in pursuit of its own interests.

You do what you accuse Daniel Maris of - you beg the question. You have not simply to assert but to demonstrate that the standards Israel is held to are unreasonable, that they amount to depriving Israel of the right to self-defence, that its enemies are given disproportionate leeway. None of these assertions is self-evident.

Your remarks on the legality of Israel's actions are also questionable. The vast majority of international jurists who have considered the question are clear that Israel's actions in the "Occupied Territories" is illegal under international law. The burden of proof is on you that Israel has not broken the law.

Irene

I am told that, in the upper echelons of the Conservative Shadow Cabinet, the sanguine conclusion has been reached that they can ‘live with a nuclear Iran’.

I would prefer to hear this being announced properly rather on some blog via the grapevine!