I do, in fact, trust the Iranians. I trust them not to be suicidal. Israel has nukes, and Israel's great big trigger-happy friend in the West has lots & lots of 'em. I see no evidence that the people comprising Iran's leadership want to die horrible deaths while destroying their own country. Mutually Assured Destruction, unpleasant though it is, has been an effective keeper of nuclear peace for a long time, and will continue to do so long after Iran inevitably joins the nuclear fraternity.

In view of American aggression in Iraq and the continuing anti-Iran rhetoric among the neocons, Iran's interest in obtaining nuclear capability is more likely defensive than offensive. If I were the Iranians, I'd look at what happened next store and I'd get me some nukes as fast I possibly could.

Omooex:

In assigning responsibility for the 1967 war, how do you factor in Eqypt's unilateral pre-war expulsion of the UN PEACEKEEPING force? You seem to have overlooked that inconvenient little detail. Hard to imagine a clearer expression of warlike intent than kicking out the peacekeepers...

I understand that the heroic myth of Israel's history frustrates you and many others, but creation of an equally erroneous counter-myth does no one any good. In the reality-based world I strive to inhabit, Israel is neither a perpetual victim nor a perpetual aggressor. As to the matter under discussion, portraying the 6 Day War as wanton Israeli aggression is just ahistorical nonsense.

LWM:

I just don't share your interest in the Liberty incident. Don't know what happened; not interested in being enraged about it even assuming your unproven theories are correct. I guess I'd say that if I were piloting a ship, I would try to keep it away from war zones.

Omooex: Your "Egypt had every right to kick out the UN peacekeepers" says it all, as far as where you're coming from. I'll leave it there.

LWM: I DID say "I don't know." Right there in the comment you were responding to, I said "I don't know what happened." If you go back and check, you'll see it.

Take care all.

How DARE that horrible awful Goldberg ask a presidential candidate QUESTIONS about the candidate's views toward Israel?!!? Scandalous!! J'accuse!!

I have neither the time nor the legal background to determine who is right, but I'm sure if we knew more about all this, we would support whatever the Bush Administration is doing.

When I read the Guardian article Glenn linked to, I quickly learned that Israel's stated reason for arresting and banning Finkelstein was his meetings with Hezbollah earlier this year, a fact oddly omitted from Glenn's column. Given that Finkelstein flew to Israel 15 times before without incident, is it possible that this time was different due to his recent actions (meeting with Hezbollah) rather than his speech?

Ha'aretz, perhaps to its credit, was skeptical of the Israeli government's stated reasons, but at least it (unlike Glenn) discussed them. If one read only Glenn's column, one would have no idea of the existence of a possible non-speech reason for Israel's actions. I guess the omission made it easier for Glenn to fit this incident in with his broader theories about suppression of free speech by right-wing Zionists.

Glenn, you're correct that Israel has not formally stated a reason for arresting/banning Finkelstein, so my use of the phrase "stated reason" was imprecise.

BUT, the articles you first linked to suggest quite strongly that Israel was interested in, and/or purportedly basing its actions on, Finkelstein's meetings with Hezbollah.

GUARDIAN: "interrogated him for around 24 hours about his contacts with ... Hizbullah, when he traveled to Lebanon earlier this year and expressed solidarity with the group which waged war against Israel in 2006."

HA'ARETZ: "The Shin Bet argues that Finkelstein constitutes a security risk. But it is more reasonable to assume ... that the Shin Bet ... latched onto his meetings with Hezbollah operatives, in order to punish him."

Now maybe the Guardian and Ha'aretz are wrong, and the anonymous government officials cited in the J-post article are correct. (Although you are usually not so quick to assume the conclusive truth of statements attributed to anonymous government officials.)

It may well be that Israel has sought only to punish a vehement critic for his speech. But, given the above quotations from your own source material, for you not to mention his recent meetings with Hezbollah in your column was at best sloppy and at worst grossly slanted.

I would absolutely defend the right of any person of any nationality to sing Al Qaeda's praises to their heart's content. But if someone from another country actually met personally with Al Qaeda members (after lavishly praising that organization) and then sought to enter the US, I'm not sure I'd see it as tragic if they were told to go home.

for starting my morning with a link to a blog post comparing Israel to the Third Reich. That's always charming.

It sounds like you are calling Obama a flat-out liar who is simply misrepresenting his beliefs to get elected. Was he just lying to AIPAC about his beliefs regarding Israel, in order to dupe them into supporting him? Are you saying he actually opposes the death penalty for child rapists, but deliberately lied about this belief so he could appear more Republican?

Have you considered the possibility that he is being honest about his beliefs, which differ from yours in some respects?