Report: U.S. "reassures" Israel that Iran is "at least 12 months" from nuclear bomb despite starting reactor today

What a lovely and poignant song, Hugh ...

friend! you are quite correct in your statement and it is so sad that it has come to this. even when reagan was the president,(i.e. someone who is obviously proud of the usa, unlike the current mooslime occupant, who thinks that america is exceptional, just like a french would think france to be exceptional or a greek etc) there were condemnations for israel's daring and successful attack on irak's nuclear reactor, instead of words of praise... which means that when you want something done - you do it yourself. 60 years after the holocaust took place, it is already taken out of schools' curriculum in england... so as to not offend the sensitivity of the friggin' mooslimes.. it is a world gone crazy! watching a train wreck occuring in slow motion...
israel should nuke bushehr for starters.
the only comment after, should be "next?"
we all know that the 'enlightened press' msm will start to spew their venom... so be it!
btw, an article in israel today states that israel will be purchasing m346 jets from italy ...

joseph: ypu are off by a mile my friend. as you know I am from iran and the Shah was a Douch bag and a f...ing tyrant that is why these a...holes are here now. and yes, Obama should not back up the Iranian protesters. otherwise the mullahs will use it a s apropengda telling we told you this protests are backed by american. american and british do need to keep a low profile here. these a...holes are done antway. there will be a friendly government. in fact yesterday Mr. keroubi one of the green movement leaders said that if the peole want a non religious government they are entitilred yto

You wrote: "Israel would be well advised to review the list of countries which various "American" administrations have betrayed in the last 100 years in assaying the worth of any assurance from an "American" administration, particularly this extremely Muslim-friendly administration."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"The US sought to reassure Israel that Iran is still a year away from building a nuclear weapon......"

Surely trusting in America will come back to bite Israel.

There is this bit of scripture in the book of Isaiah. Often I wonder if it was written to Israel about America:

"Now in that day the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel....." (Isa chapter10)

Great song, Hugh. I just wish I could walk into some restaurants and hear that sort of stuff; the closest I've found is Olive Garden with the Italian vocals. You should open your own chain: Hugh's Dhimmi Diner?.

Guess what, Miriam? The mullahs blamed America anyway even though we didn't intervene! I say if they're gonna blame us anyway, we give them something to complain about!

I'll bet the shah is looking mighty fine to a lot of iranians right about now.

And I agree with Joseph, if you're going to be blamed (just like Israel) no matter what you do, you may as well do what you want. Prince Barry missed a perfect opportunity to help the persians and he blew it. I doubt the families of the martyred will ever forgive him, nor should they.

Very well said.

I'm sure many Americans wonder why their heroes have become cowards over the years. We aren't used to our leaders backing down to threats, prostrating themselves or being viewed as weak. It's humiliating & self-destructive.

The deluded liberals are responsible for that. They wish for peace while portraying themselves as limp victims which in turn initiates more aggression from their enemies. If they want peace, the only way they'll ever get it is with respect, the kind of respect one gets from displays of strength & determination not apologies & excuses.

Which brings me to Israel, I hope that Israel had the "will" & courage to do something about iran, but was simply stopped by the US which refused to give them the "way" (bunker busters).

But Israel has a habit of playing Mr. Nice Guy and refusing to deal with situations forcefully and with finality. I hate to think that israel would let her people once more walk placidly into traps, to their death. Or maybe that is what she is trying to avoid?

Still, It's time she acted with clear & final intentions when it comes to the muzlims, force is all they understand & respect. Damn the consequences because the results may be the same either way and certainly public opinion is always against her no matter what she does.

To sum up my rant, I can see many elite cowards, using many excuses but I fail to see the heroes. Where are the leaders that are supposed to be the heroes?

The Russian government, Thomas Pellow, has rarely acted in the best interests of the Russian people, whether under the czars, the Communists or now under a clever and subtle control-freak---Putin. This is the major reason why Russia has not advanced far more than it should have to present, given all its natural resources, immense size and hugely unfulfilled potential in the Russian people themselves.

Russian leaders keep trying to make Russia great but what they invariably manage to do is to make Russians smaller. It's the freedom element that eludes the Russians. Russia has yet to produce George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln types. Complicating this dearth is that the Russian people themselves don't get this. Freedom to them means being able to buy whatever amount of vodka they want and being left alone in their little apartments. If the Russians can change this particular and peculiar pathology, their potential is unlimited. Meanwhile, Russia can do no better than a Putin, who is a political pygmy compared to the great Americans I mentioned above.

Russia is still drifting and stupidly siding with that part of humanity which would destroy Mother Russia if it can only get the chance. Unwise, but very Russian.

Scripture is replete with verse after verse regarding God's protection over HIS land. When God speaks of Isra-El, He refers to it as HIS LAND and HIS PEOPLE.

Nothing is impossible with God. Maybe Obama's election was part of the wake up call "plan." Many, many people are praying more than ever and this could be the linch pin of our revolution.

If Israel strikes Iran and the US doesn't join our ally, their will be blood in OUR streets, and the liberals will never hold another office in this land.

The Democrat legacy: slavery, infanticide, mosque building, and enabler of a nuclear Iran.

True, about blame.

But a lot of the Iranian people currently do not blame the U.S. A lot of the Iranian people hate the Iranian government. It's mainly the Iranian government that always blames the U.S. for everything. America and Americans are apparently rather popular among ordinary Iranians.

With Europe, the U.S., Israel, the Middle East, and some Iranians all working covertly to sabotage the Iranian efforts toward nukes, it might not be necessary to bomb them, or not as soon as one might think...

Muslim apologist "Mac" is back, it seems.

If the Iranians are,in fact,trying to develop nuclear weapons,they are probably intended as a deterrent to Israeli or US agression, anyone considered this possibilty?
------------
Weren't you on here some time ago arguing that Iran was only developing nuclear for energy and that ignorant folks like us should get our facts straight, or something like that? What happened, Mac?

Now you appear to be defending their position still as it seems clear that Iran is going for weapons and that we, the ignorant, had our facts in order all along.

As to Iran and their "need" to deter our aggression: If they hadn't pushed on for nukes, they wouldn't be facing that kind of aggression, would they?

More generally: It seems to me that Iran uses the logic that might be employed by a very drunk man who's been caught doing something he ought not be doing and then tries to argue his way out of his pickle. He THINKS he's being perfectly logical.

So what's the big difference between that very drunk man and Iran? Iran won't wake up sober and embarrassed in the morning.

Mac, as you hate Westerners so much, off you go back to your Pakistani shithole. we don't want treacherous parasitical leeches like yourself here.

I'm sorry but however much the Iranians hate their Government, these savages hate Western and their own infidels even more. We need to topple the mad mullahs simply to prevent another Holocaust and avoid having duck and cover once again rammed down our throats.

Miriam, you have just outed yourself as an ungrateful West-hating troll who ought to get back to Iran. You want the mad mullahs in charge there. You've just as much admitted it. You obviously don't support those Iranians who wish to overthrow the tyrants who have their boots on their necks 24 hours a day. You don't want freedom. You endorse tyranny of the worst kind. You have drawn a moral equivalence between the Shah and the tyrants who have ruled Iran with a rod of iron for the past 31 years. That would be like drawing a moral equivalence between Jesus Christ and Adolf Hitler. And I'll tell you something: Those with the guns are invincible when they're prepared to use them against unarmed protesters, and this Iranian regime has amply demonstrated its readiness to use them, firing on unarmed Iranians. And as for your assertion that "Mr. keroubi one of the green movement leaders said that if the peole want a non religious government they are entitled to" is hogwash. Freedom is not an entitlement and has to be fought for in the face of tyranny, and if achieved guarded steadfastly, and no tyrant readily gives up their power without a fight, and we know that the Iranians are only wanting ther present tyrants to be replaced by different faces but not a different regime, so change will mean no change without shaking off the tyranny of Islam.

With all due respect mate, the first people to use nukes were the allied forces (I won't blame just the US like many have done - it was an allied decision to end the war) at the end of WW2. You surely must remember Japan?

i am not even going to bother getting in a discussion with you

Thats because you've been outed for what you are big time. You're a troll who shrills for the Iranian regime under the pretence that you're against it.

And the use of the atom bomb saved a good 10 million lives. How many lives would have been lost if the atom bomb wasn't available and an invasion of Japan had gone ahead, with the war lasting until at least 1947? Another week of war would have spelt doom for thousands of prisoners in Japanese POW camps, so I shudder to think of what a further two years would have meant.

But does Israel plan to DO anything about Iran? CAN it do anything at this point, technically, to achieve the aims desired by reasonable people (as I define reasonable)? BHO has wasted a year of the world's (esp. Israel's) time, on diplomacy, so now - we are worse off.

The Iasraelis probably don't have enough aircraft, pilots or bunker busters to take out Bushehr, and we kbnow therre are other nuclear installations at Natanz, which also has to be taken out. The only country that could or would do it has chosen to do nothing over the last five or more years. This is the 1930s all over again but much more dangerous - this is 65 years into the nuclear age. Our moral cowardice will prove to be our undoing, and this is how history will remember our generation for posterity.

The only use of nuclear weapons was by a democratically chosen government against an autocratic regime, yes. Because of oft stated valid reasons, of weighing the costs of using the atombomb and the cost of not using it.

But no comparison can be made with the non-use of totalitarian regimes of nuclear weapons, because nukes were either not in their possession or it was clear that use of them would lead to their own destruction.

So in this view no one can say any totalitarian government was any better than the USA, because at no time any totalitarian government had the chance to use them.

And someone like you, mac, may be derisive about this, but the secular democratic system causes less wars to start than all the other sorts of ways of organising society, among them Islamic totalitarian countries.

This is because in secular democracies war has to be decided by the majority of the people's representatives, in the presence of an independent press and freedom of speech and demonstration. So democratic countries do not so easily engage in war.

And israel only does in clear self-defence, which any child can see. The major exception is the USA, but that is the superpower, the police-agent. That country goes to war, either because of big threats or spreading democracy. And why not? It only means given the majority of a country's people the right to rule. As opposed to the inevitable MINORITY that otherwise oppresses the minority.

And even if the military-industrial complex or say, the big companies, manipulate the press and the masses, they still have a much bigger task to do that in democratic countries than in dictatorial Islamic countries. Because there, they only have to bribe the minority in power, and they do that just as easily as they try to manipulate the masses in secular democracies. Islamic theocratical society-system is definitely susceptible to bribery more than secular democracies are. With all their faults, that system simply has no comparable competitor as of yet, is my opinion.

So Irans government is really protecting its own ass and profiteering business, along with ITS bribers, to a large extent against its own people. And not just against Israel and USA, the ones that have emancipated their own people to the fullest extent yet seen in human history, I think.

Good post, Demsci.

Thanks for the reasoned opinion,it's a contrast to the usual ad hominem attacks.
My point was regardless of the type of government on either side it's highly unlikely that any sane government would attack another state that possesses nuclear weapons.This I imagine is the reasoning of the mullahs in Iran,they're just frightened of Israel,that's not hard to believe.
I don't want to get into a discussion in regard to the reasons for the nuclear attacks on Japan,it's easy to take the moral high ground nearly 70 years later and claim that it was unjustified.After all,the Japanese were the Nazis of the Asia-Pacific region.

"So democratic countries do not so easily engage in war",actually they do easily engage in war,what they don't do is go to war against each other. The current superpower, the US,has a very long list of deadly 'interventions' in order to protect its imperial interests,the invasion of Iraq is simply the most egregious.The US also 'invites' its loyal little allies,like my country, to participate. Britain's record in the 19th century is very similar.

The portrayal of Israel as the beacon of democracy,surrounded by ferocious enemies and on the front line of the anti-jihad is rather self-serving. Israel has most of the firepower and consequently little interest in peace while the Zionist project is still incomplete.

I have no sympathy for Islam and I acknowledge that most Moslem countries are ruled by authoritarian and often brutal regimes,however this is a human rights issue,the nature of the governments in the ME is irrelevant.

I certainly feel sorry for all those innocent Iranians who will be pawns in Israel's and America's game,what's next after a 'pre-emptive attack' on Iran,liberation of its oil fields?

"Mac's openly-expressed Judeophobia",where? You'd have Buckley's chance of finding any genuine examples,I remind you that criticism of the nation-state of Israel is not necessarily evidence of 'Judeophobia'. Anyone who could write such a prejudiced statement such as "..the general Muslim hatred of(sic)*all*(sic) non-Muslims",really needs to reset his moral compass.What the hell are the asterisks for?
Sooner or later the Chinese will refuse to continue to finance America's(and indirectly)Israel's military adventurism and then there will be a reckoning.

oh puhlease! this is so old. get over it. spy for Iranians. May be you should write a fiction

Miriam, I've got news for you. Had I been US president at any time in the last 30 years, the mad mullahs of Iran would be history and the likes of Ahmadinejad, Khamenei etc as dead as door nails and feeding Satan's furnaces. There would be no Iranian nuclear programme to worry about. There would be no sense of guilt for anything I did. There would be absolutely NO political correctness, no aid for Muslim countries, and in the wake of 9/11 Saudi Arabia would have been overrun, the crucifix planted in Mecca and Medina, and Osama bin Laden's family imprisoned for life and I mean life. Muslim hate preachers and murderers like Abu Bakar Bashir of Bali infamy would be eliminated. Nobody would have been allowed to get in the way. Islam would be described as it is and has been for 1,400 years whether it offends or not. The Ann Coulter doctrine would have been carried out to completion.

VampireJack wrote: "With all due respect mate, the first people to use nukes were the allied forces (I won't blame just the US like many have done - it was an allied decision to end the war) at the end of WW2. You surely must remember Japan?"

With all due respect, this writer sounds resentful of the use of the atom bomb to end WWII. Would this writer prefer that Germany or Japan would have used it first on the US, and the UK? That was the choice along with the saving of millions of draftee US soldiers' lives. May I remind this writer that our draftee soldiers were Dads snatched from their homes to fight and they were in every way civilians just months before they were drafted and quick trained with wooden rifles. Also, just who started the war? Remember Pearl Harbor? Germany was well on their way to developing the atom bomb and we did not have intimate knowledge of their exact progress. The idea was to win the war and stop the killing so our soldiers could go home to their families. The atom bombs worked perfectly and millions upon millions of lives were saved. The war quickly ended. I would call that a complete success and a highly worthwhile effort.

There will always be some small minded whining bed wetting liberals that think only of the bomb and the Japanese loss of lives, which was the fault of the Japanese anyway because they would not stop fighting, even after ample warning was given to them by Truman of the coming new devastating weapons.

I resoundly second your last comment to miriam rove.

Mac

you're making the mistake of expressing your opinions as if they were facts. To blandly assert that America conducts military interventions to "protect its imperial interests" is a contentious statement which many here could refute. It's not a fact Mac, its just your opinion.

And before we drop the subject can I say that America decided to use the A-bomb on Japan in order to bring the war to a swift end with the minimum loss of life on both sides. One can imagine the cost in human lives if we, the allies, had mounted a ground war against the Japanese main islands. The fighting would have gone on for years and many millions would have died.

You then refer to Britain's record in the 19th century being similar to the current USA. Well, we didn't have an entirely stainless record during our imperial years (as any American can tell you, I dare say!). However, we did give the British parliamentary and judicial system to many populations who now enjoy levels of freedom and representaion they could never have imagined before the Union Jack arrived, as well as access to undreamt of levels of technology, engineering and education which are still emulated, or at least aspired to, around the world. I think that modern Americans can now also make a similar claim, and be equally proud of it.

You then say that Israel "has little interest in peace while the Zionist project is still incomplete." Again, this is opinion stated as if it were a fact. What Zionist project? Staying alive, perhaps? To assert that Israel, a country the size of Wales with the population of greater London, surrounded on all sides by millions of Muslims, the vast majority of whom detest that state and wish to see it destroyed, is planning to take over the region is similar to accusing Britain in 1940, surrounded by Nazi-occupied nations, of planning to embark on world conquest. Like Britain in 1940, Israel is fighting every day for its very life, with its back against the wall and a knife at its throat (to mix metaphors). The reality that Israelis face is not some fanciful expansion of their Jewish state into a giant super-Zionist entity, but the very real possibility of imminent destruction, brought about by their abandonment by former allies and the uniform hostility of their neighbours.

As for the mullahs of Iran practising restraint with nuclear weapons I agree with others here that judging by their past record, their stated aims, and their stated belief that the world is facing the end of days, it is unlikely that they plan to play any sort of cold-war nuclear chess game. If they get nukes, they're all too likely to use them.

Hard Rain,

Actually, I'm expressing my opinions.

I'd be fascinated to see some of these 'refutations',the first topic could be the Iraq invasion debacle,that would certainly require some nimble sophistry,then the inumerable interventions in Latin America,SE Asia-well the world in general. I'm not singling out the US for specific criticism here,it's simply the nature of the 'imperial beast' throughout history and certainly the US has relied far more on 'soft power' than any other hegemonist in history.
If you had read my earlier comments in regard to the nuclear attacks on Japan,you'd have noticed that I wasn't prepared to make facile judgements.
I also agree with your opinions in regard to Britain's contributions to civilization,former British colonies have a superior record of political,social and economic development. However, that's not relevant as the subject was the exercise and cost of imperial power by the metropolitan country,not its legacy.

As to Israel,"little Israel",the fact is that Israel still expands through colonization,look at a map and the justification for this is religious chauvinism, QED.The Zionist project continues.
Israel is a well organized,well-armed modern state supported by a superpower and has an overwhelming military superiority over its neighbours.The presentation of Israel as under siege is simply Zionist propaganda,it's fighting a colonial war against the Palestinians.
Like apartheid South Africa Israel claims to be an ally in a common cause,no it isn't,the West can't afford such a tainted ally.

Mac

I was very much in favour of the Iraq invasion. I thought it was justified then, and I still do. Primarily my reasons were as follows:

A. Risk assessment: The Saddam Hussein regime had shown itself to be aggressive towards its neighbours, violently expansionist, ruthlessly savage, and had taken a stance of permanent unrelenting hostility towards the West. Although the regime had apparently taken no part in the 9/11 attacks, there was a high risk that it could at any time offer its services to any number of Jihadist units, thereby supplying our militant enemies with all the resources and logistical support of an entire nation state. It's worth noting that the phrase "The enemy of my enemy, is my friend", is originally an Arab saying.

B. Warfare potential: The regime had relentlessly pursued and developed wide-ranging programmes of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons technology, much of which was hastily destroyed or spirited away over the Syrian border in the run-up to the invasion. If there had been no invasion these programmes would undoubtably have been brought to disastrous fruition.

C. Energy requirement: Iraq's huge oil resources, and the reliance of the West on fossil fuels, made it imperative to assure the supplies kept flowing. The 'oil weapon' could all too easily have been used against us at any time of Saddam's choosing. It's wise to remove that much initiative from the hands of ones enemies. Oil is a major factor in modern geopolitics, but the West does not go in to take anyone's oil. We are quite happy to buy it and enrich the donor nation. We want to do business, we want to trade, not steal.

D. Morality: Modelled on the worst characteristics of his twin heroes, Hitler and Stalin, Saddam's regime was anathema to the democratic West. I won't dwell on the vile practises of that murderer, but thousands of his own people were tortured and died on his orders, at his hands, every year, if not every month. Even worse, while Saddam himself was a monster, he intended to pass the rule of Iraq into the hands of his son Uday, a fully functioning psychopath. Raised in the moral vacuum of absolute power Saddam's offspring were textbook examples of the worst excesses of imperial megalomania.

The other Arab nations were either in cahoots or too frightened of this bunch of madmen to seriously oppose them. If the West had not halted the weapons programmes, hobbled the power of the Husseins, and then finally removed what was essentially the hereditary Hussein monarchy, God knows what devastation would have occurred across the Middle East, and possibly beyond. The entire region, perhaps the whole world, owes the coalition a huge debt and should have the spine to admit it.

The other American interventions you mentioned would need to be looked at on a case by case basis. Personally, many of them I agreed with, some I didn't, but as I said in my previous reply, no country on Earth has an absolutely stainless record and it's unreasonable to imply that the United States should.

Odd that you should lay the charge of religious chauvanism solely at Israel's door while ignoring the widespread overtly violent and openly murderous persecution of non-Muslims across the entire Islamic world. The term 'cognitive dissonance' springs to mind. And apartheid? Oh please. Because Israel is a modern advanced democracy, an Arab Muslim living in Israel enjoys more rights than he or she would ever get if living in any neighbouring Muslim state. If you want to level accusations of apartheid against anyone then have a go at Jordan, a place where Palestinians are institutionally, by law, restricted to a tiny number of largely menial professions.

The Israelis are not conducting a colonial war, if that was the case they could have finished the job long ago. Fortunately for the Palestinians, the Jews have a deep sense of themselves as a people who have to do good, to obey the compassionate laws of God. They feel they have to live to a higher standard of humanity than that expected from the rest of the world. So, while supplying the daily needs of Gaza, they are also required to keep the lid on a boiling pot full of people who will try to kill them en masse if given the chance. I think it was Hugh Fitzgerald who pointed out that no other nation on Earth is expected to look after the day to day needs of its enemies, and is criticised if it fails to do so. Given the circumstances, the Israelis are being incredibly humane.

Hard Rain,

(A) Saddam Hussein was very much 'our S.O.B'(an American saying) prior to the invasion of Kuwait and in fact received intelligence support in his invasion of Iran. Mysteriously some time in the late 80s,apparently Saddam became an enemy of the West,possibly because his ramshackle army failed to defeat the Iranians who have always been the main concern of the Western strategists and no Western spook could find any further use for him.

(B)Your comments are apparently claiming that the 'absence of evidence' for WOMD is somehow proof of existence.By your logic, if the Allies had found any WOMD,that would have been 'proof' of their non-existence.

(C) This argument is the classical imperialist justification for invasion and theft and is morally bankrupt.It's their oil,get over it.

(D)Yes,Saddam was a brutal tyrant,but why elimination of that particular psychopath should have required a massive US led attack is another one of those mysteries.Nobody's liting a finger to depose Mugabe for instance, an equally bloodstained dictator,perhaps the reason for this masterful inaction is that Zimbawe doesn't have much oil.So your moral justification is rather specious.

Israel is far from the only society plagued by religious chauvinism,I have never claimed that it was.

There is no reason to believe that Jews are morally superior to the rest of humanity,of course the Israelis are occasionally kind to the natives,so what? Your last paragraph is philo-semitic nonsense.

Think of the dead in Iraq,Afghanistan and elsewhere

To paraphrase Tacitus-"The Americans make a desolation and call it 'democracy'".

Mac

Thanks for your reply.

Yes, we gave Saddam some logistical support during the Iran/Iraq war. At that time the newly formed Islamic Repuplic of Iran had already shown itself to be virulently hostile to the West while Saddam's regime, though clearly repressive, was more westernised, secular and openly courting favour from us. Hardly surprising then, that Saddam was looked on more favourably.
If Saddam had pursued a course of engagement and strengthened his relationship with the West then we could have helped him avoid the worst excesses of his later reign. However, he chose to take the path of hostility, confrontation and military adventurism, for which he paid the price.

Your answer to my point B is a bit silly isn't it? Are you seriously denying that Saddam had chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes running in Iraq? It's clear that these programmes really did exist, there's mountains of undeniable evidence, no-one seriously denies it. Therefore, and logically, our not finding them after the invasion means they can only have been moved or destroyed prior to our arrival. There's no other possible explanation. So what did I get wrong?

You then say my point C is 'morally bankrupt' and accuse the West of theft, but fail to explain either of these accusations. We know it's their oil, no-one's denying it's their oil, that's why we're not stealing it, that's why we're happy to buy it. Am I not explaining this clearly enough?

Then on point D it seems I'm being specious, but at least you explain why. I agree that Mugabe is a pimple on the butt of humanity. However, the question of removing a tyrant is never simply about the single issue of whether we find him distasteful. As you could see from my ABCD list, there were several reasons why Saddam couldn't be ignored, one of the greatest being the threat he posed to his neighbours. Mugabe, on the other hand, while being an odious tyrant, has mismanaged his country to such an extent that if he tried to invade anyone his soldiers would probably end up going house to house begging for food. Under the Christian concept of a 'just war' there's little military action we can take against a ruler who tyrannises his own people. Should Mugabe begin to threaten his neighbours, or start WMD programmes, then direct military action (as in Iraq) or armed containment (as in N Korea) would become justified.

The Israelis are not 'occasionally' kind to the natives. The Israelis exercise compassion and humanity towards their enemies every day of the week as the supply truck convoys roll through their checkpoints into Gaza.

And I never claimed that the Israelis were morally superior to the rest of humanity. My point is that the history and experiences of the Jewish people have given them a profound view of their obligations towards humankind. If you think that's nonsense, just ask any Rabbi about it.

Mac, it's been lots of fun but this thread's getting old now so I'm moving on to a fresher one. Hope to cross swords with you again soon.