> The first holocaust was a mass, state led pogrom that targeted
> innocent and helpless people.
> Arab aggression against Israel has a much more complicated
> history: a reaction against the colonialism, terrorism, and
> theft that attended the founding of the zionist state,
> continuing with the reaction to the permanent occupation of
> Palestine and treatment of Palestinians since 67, and also
> including the need for corrupt regimes to win popular support by
> targeting Israel.
In other words: if the country and people of Israel get nuked by the government of Iran, well hey, they had it coming to them? I know you've made no secret of your contempt for the positions and actions of the Israeli government, but ... is your emphasis on "innocent and helpless" above because you think that there are no innocent and helpless people in Israel?
> But what he plants in your mind is that the destruction of Israel
> is the same as the mass murder of a newly born infant and the
> subsequent deportation and death of its mother in WWII Europe.
That's not exactly what he planted in my mind, but I think the kind of scenario he sketches -- a drive toward ownership of nuclear weapons specifically in order to enable the extinguishment of the state of Israel even at the expense of the state of Iran -- isn't all that different from a sketch of The Final Solution, except that maybe he thinks the mullahs are much less concerned with what happens after that task is completed as compared to Hitler's plans.
I have no idea whether his prediction will come true, but I don't think it's a stretch to agree that the state of Israel has enemies and Iran is one of them and nuclear tipped missiles fired to the west from there would be a very bad thing for lots of reasons.
/jordan