File under Israel’s changing image: The National Interest ran an article saying Israel can’t live with a nuclear Iran, even when the U.S. could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, co-authored by an Israeli Air Force veteran and a protege of Elliott Abrams. And readers have rebelled against the Israel-centric argument in the National Interest Comments section.

The piece, by Avner Golov and Uri Sadot, is titled, “Why Israel Fears Containment of a Nuclear Iran“, and explains why Israel is exceptional:

For Israelis, their country is too small to comply with existing mutual-deterrence models, because only two or three bombs are what it would take to wipe out their entire country. Nuclear deterrence theory requires a “stable nuclear dyad”. But Israelis see themselves as faced with not a single enemy that can be deterred, but rather with a broad league of states and nonstate entities who are out to get them.

And the authors justify these concerns:

Israel’s pronounced fears should not be dismissed off-hand. The risk that the positive American experience with containment will not repeat itself in the Middle East is great. Ironically, by opting for containment, America may increase the incentives for both Israel and Iran to take greater risks. For Americans who believe their national interest is better served by containment of a nuclear Iran than by its preemption, it would be prudent to adapt their strategy to the context of the Middle East…

Almost all the comments are negative. I’m cherrypicking, but these are typical/the best. Some excerpts:

Peter:

How about the denuclearisation of the whole Middle East, before it is too late? Starting with Israel…

TomB. Note the anger at being emotionally blackmailed by how Israelis feel, and the question about why National Interest doesn’t publish arguments on behalf of Iran:

Oh for God’s sake. In the first place if *United States’* publication “The National Interest” is going to publish some piece by some blatant, over-the-top partisans of a *foreign* nation just as a matter of keeping us readers up to date on foreign thinking, fine. But then what the hell is wrong with saying that? What the hell is wrong with just simply and at least disclosing the bloody *nationality* of your writers when it comes to foreign affairs matters? And how come we keep seeing this kind of gross-partisanship-for-a-foreign-country piece so often when it concerns Israel and rarely if ever otherwise? I mean … how many times have we seen, say, pro-Iran pieces, where the author’s citizenship isn’t even mentioned? And man oh man, how freaking *head-snapping* it is to read in an outlet calling itself “The American Interest” this piece calling for us Americans to … permanently station our troops there in Israel, and/or to extend our nuke umbrella over it and so possibly incur war on its behalf, and/or ladle some more trillions over Israel for its “second-strike” abilities. What next, “The National Interest” going to publish a piece calling for the transfer of Fort Knox to Tel Aviv, and changing the Commander in Chief of our armed forces from our President to the the Israeli Prime Minister?… But of course the supposedly cosmic, all-important standard of these authors—how Israelis *feel*—no doubt have an answer to that too. “Oh gee, it’s because of … the Holocaust that the Israelis have this deep need that we must serve to not just be safe from nuclear annihilation, but to be able to wreak nuclear annihilation on *others.* So of *course* that’s what God wants and what the United States should honor…” What crap. What absolute crap this piece is. Disingenuous when it isn’t being actively dishonest, America’s *true* “national interest” here is recognizing that we have a foreign power here that for some self-glorified reason sees it as our positive duty to sacrifice our blood and treasure for it, without the slightest apparent concern as to what’s in *our* interest.

ApqlA ties in the global anti-Semitism study by the ADL:

Israel — a western-style nation inserted against the violent objections of the people who inhabit region where it lives– is a mistake.

It will never be accepted or at be at peace — the result would be the same if its population were Christian and it demanded it be recognized as a “Methodist state.”

Under these conditions, Israel aggravates the emotions and political forces it sees as perpetual hatred of Jews: it’s a self-fulfilling dystopia.

The ADL’s recent piece on global anti-Semitism, intended to show the need for Israel as a “refuge” — actually indicates it’s inherent unsuitability for that purpose. http://global100.adl.org/#map NB: The “hatred” is most intense the closer one gets to Israel. This meens that far from being a “refuge” — Israel is both a target and a source of resentment.

MidwestMet pushes the double standard coddling Israel demands, “like some college freshman”: