Again: I'm not saying that I interpreted your message as "Iran should nuke Israel" ... and unless you can quote me otherwise, please stop implying it. I know you're a tech writer, but let me at least fantasize that you know a bit of logic and the contrapositive isn't your downfall.
I'm just saying that when you say "They are not the same" you probably shouldn't give as your reasons that a) who died in Europe were "innocent and helpless" (begs the question: today's Israel's population not so innocent and helpless?) and b) the history of how Israel was formed and how the government has treated it's neighbors is "complex" (with, I'll be generous, a tilt toward "wrong") -- because it really really sounds like you're saying "if they got nuked, they'd deserve it."
I don't have a dog in this fight, but that's what it sounded like to me.
Besides: the title of his essay is THIS HOLOCAUST WILL BE DIFFERENT.
So, how are you being contrary by saying "not the same" ...?
Ok, it's not the same. You agree with him :-)
<shrug>
> 1. No one has shown that Iran has nuclear weapons.
Indeed. Including me, and including your pal Benny. Good one!
> 2. Morris' article lays the foundation for why Israel should attack
> Iran, which, right now is doing nothing other than developing nuclear
> power technology.
I don't think it does that. At least, that's not the impression I got. So if that's his idea, he's failed. He even seems to consider that a preemptive strike against Iran's purported nuclear ambitions would likely fail (the whole bit about it requiring a USAF-sized force taking many months). How is that a call for action? It sounds like a call for Prozac.
Anyway, this dismissal of Iran's ambitions as being "nothing other than developing nuclear power technology" is a bit of a fib on your part, no? If they wanted power and power only, they'd be advised to approach it in a different way than they have. I don't know if they want a bomb or not, but this whole exercise has been a lot more difficult than it would be if they wanted "nothing other" than electricity. Don't be disingenuous.
> 3. Israel has a couple of hundred nuclear warheads and has gone on
> record saying that it will use this technology even in the event of
> say, regime change in an Arab country that is not to Israel's liking.
Look, this is not a defense of Israel on my part. Please don't imply that it is. You can make a list of 1000 things you hate about Israel, and I'll probably not fight you on more than a handful.
I'm just saying that what you said sounded really like you think Israel deserves a nuke or five.
> 4. Yes, the state of Israel has enemies. Why is it not OK to ever
> discuss the reasons for that. It's not enough to say that they have
> enemies.
I'm okay with discussing why they have enemies, what leads you to think that I don't think that's okay? I think you'll find that I agree with you on many of the points you've made before.
That's not what you did.
Feh.
/jordan