Haaretz, which is Israel's preeminent left wing paper, published an article by Ari Shavit today titled "Facing an Iranian winter".
In it, the prospect of a US attack on Iran in the winter by the Bush administration, before an assumed President Obama takes office, is contemplated. The article describes a hypothetical decision by the Bush administration to attack Iran as
"without precedent and without legitimacy. It will be perceived as the final, delusional trumpet blast of a raving religious administration."
So far so good. Looks like Haaretz understands the dire consequences of such an attack. The article then begins explaining how Bush and Cheney might rationalize such an illegitimate move:
"That logic might lead the president and his second-in-command to the conclusion that if they do not act, neither will Obama. If Obama does not act, Iran will become a nuclear power. And if Iran goes nuclear, evil will win."
Kind of stupid logic if you ask me, especially when you consider that Iran has absolutely no chance of developing a nuclear arsenal that could ever change the balance of power in the region (Israel would win nuclear war against Iran), but the article is pointing out that this is potentially the Bush administration's logic, not any reasonable people's.
The writer of the article then reveals the extant of his maliciousness and immorality with this startling and remarkably dim-witted assertion:
"There is a genuine possibility that Bush will end his miserable presidency not with a whimper, but with a bang. The scenario is a wild one..
In the long run, the wild scenario is good for Israel, as it is good for the United States. A nuclear Iran will endanger Israel's existence, the stability of the Middle East and the welfare of the West. An Iran stripped of nuclear ability will allow the Middle East to become more moderate; it will enable the West to uphold its values and perpetuate its way of life for a long time to come."
So after making it clear how illegitimate a US attack on Iran would be -that only unreasonable people without regard for the will of the American nation would carry it out- the article concludes that this attack would still be good for Israel and the US. The writers' conception of morality and its proper role in guiding policy seems totally deficient. The writer sees no contradiction between an action being wrong and his view that it should be promoted as "good for Israel".
How many more people need to die to assuage the paranoid Israelis' fears that a potential competitor could threaten its power monopoly? If this is the kind of article being published by Haaretz, it's clear that Israeli culture is insane and totally oblivious to its own murderous intentions.