Regardless of the limits of social constructivism, much of Israel's material capabilities are what they are because of foreign aid. Thus, if 'Jad can undermine the rationale for said aid he has reason to hope for more than just an epistemological victory.

Dan, I know what you're saying is a bit tongue-in-cheeck, but seriously, this doesn't make any sense:

"There are limits to social construction when brute facts are involved. Ahmadinejad's assumption, for example, that the Israeli government has no material power of its own borders on delusional."

The Israeli government has no "material power" outside of the fact that its constituent agents--its military commanders, tax collectors, public works officials, police officers, and so forth--believe:

1) That there is an Israeli government and;
2) That its laws and regulations ought to be followed or, at least, that others will enforce its rules upon them if they do not.

What you're talking about isn't a "limit" on social construction, but a correct claim about the plasticity of specific kinds of social constructs, specifically with respect to the beliefs of certain kinds of actors.

In other words, we need to distinguish between social constructionist claims about the nature of social kinds--like states, ideologies, and so forth--and claims about the plasticity of those social kinds. Both constructivists and their critics in International Relations often conflate the two.

I want to put on an academic conference full of papers explaining that Iran doesn't exist, never existed and the Persian empire was a fiction created by Herodotus

Though I have no sympathy for Holocaust denial, and I have great sympathy for Jewish suffering at the hands of the Nazis (I can't believe that I actually have to disclaim that I believe in the Holocaust), there are obvious reasons these views are gaining currency in the Middle East. Rather then Dan’s view that it is a constructivist approach, actually, I think it is a deconstructionist's approach. The idea behind Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's conference was not to cause Israel to stop existing by inventing reasons that it does not exist, but he is trying to show that one of the most important events resulting in the foundation of the State of Israel is not solid (so he thinks) and therefore Israel itself is not solid. He is trying to promote the idea that Israel is an illegitimate state by arguing that its founding event (basically) was also illegitimate.

And this appeals to people in the Arab world because, as Joseph Massad explained (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/720/op63.htm) Arabs are not generally anti-Semitic in the way that Europeans are. But Arab anti-Semitism is a reaction to Israel, rather then a racist hate.

Basically he is trying to deconstruct the State of Israel and he is focusing on a major event to do it.

You can count on Joe M. at Apologetics R US. Isn't Holocaust denial beyond the pale enough for you to realized that Ahmadinejad's agenda, and all those who fall in with it, are twisted and evil? It IS a racist hate, if you read any of the viciously anti-Semitic propaganda routiniely propagated throughout the Arab world. Homegrown anti-Jewish sentiment apparently wasn't strong enough, so the Mufti and the Baath and now the Khomenists had to import the Nazi version. Bernard Lewis points out that much of the fury of the Arab world is that Jews were traditionally thought of as comically non-martial, so getting their asses kicked by Jews repeatedly is an unbearable cultural humiliation. Maybe that explains the attraction to the swastika.

You can count on Joe M. at Apologetics R US. Isn't Holocaust denial beyond the pale enough for you to realized that Ahmadinejad's agenda, and all those who fall in with it, are twisted and evil? It IS a racist hate, if you read any of the viciously anti-Semitic propaganda routiniely propagated throughout the Arab world. Homegrown anti-Jewish sentiment apparently wasn't strong enough, so the Mufti and the Baath and now the Khomenists had to import the Nazi version. Bernard Lewis points out that much of the fury of the Arab world is that Jews were traditionally thought of as comically non-martial, so getting their asses kicked by Jews repeatedly is an unbearable cultural humiliation. Maybe that explains the attraction to the swastika.

You can count on Joe M. at Apologetics R US. Isn't Holocaust denial beyond the pale enough for you to realized that Ahmadinejad's agenda, and all those who fall in with it, are twisted and evil? It IS a racist hate, if you read any of the viciously anti-Semitic propaganda routiniely propagated throughout the Arab world. Homegrown anti-Jewish sentiment apparently wasn't strong enough, so the Mufti and the Baath and now the Khomenists had to import the Nazi version. Bernard Lewis points out that much of the fury of the Arab world is that Jews were traditionally thought of as comically non-martial, so getting their asses kicked by Jews repeatedly is an unbearable cultural humiliation. Maybe that explains the attraction to the swastika.

I think what Iranian's president is doing is whta alot of countries would like to do but lack the guts to do.The president would liken to see freer nation,well,what a better way than to stand against the USA?

I'm putting together a paper on this,check it out soon at www.allkenya.co.ke

Scenes from the Holocaust conference?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP2Fp7vJD4E

I don't think Holocaust denial is any worse then the denial of any of the world's tragedies. Actually, I think that it is a much bigger disgrace that the West ignores the suffering of the world's poor than that a handful of people deny the Holocaust. For example, it is shocking that the American media spent countless hours talking about this Holocaust conference, but have not spent more then 10 minutes of time covering any of the countless tragedies currently happening.

For a people currently suffering injustice, whether Palestinian, Congolese, Columbian, a slum dweller in any city... being inundated with information about the Holocaust, how can you not expect resentful? Resentment like this is even more prominent when your suffering is indirectly resultant of the events that are constantly used as justification for their country’s existence (and therefore your suffering).

Whether you like it or not, the Holocaust is used to justify Israel’s existence. Its existence was general a great justice for the Jewish people, but a horrible injustice for the Arabs (and particularly the Palestinians). Regardless of the historical record, it is totally natural people to want to discredit the Holocaust as a result. Just as the West doesn’t take responsibility for colonialism and the destruction they have caused to the third world and it continues to cause suffering to this day, until the Jewish people take responsibility for the suffering they have caused to the Palestinians (and stop causing it), there will be a continued degeneration of the world’s view of Jews. While Israel doesn’t represent all Jews, it clearly claims to. This is the problem.

Speaking of constructing reality from mere imagination, Daniel, could you comment on the Tripoli Six scandal and provide some insights from IR theory? I'm not sure ou take direct requests from your readers but I'll take my chance.

BTW if you need another good example next time you need to describe social constructivism, don't forget the small epistemic community who went to the UN with reports that some Middle-East country was developing a chemical arsenal.

What in the heck is "the plasticity of social kinds?" I'm all in favor of examining social construction, but one would think that even the most hard core constructivist would recognize objective material capabilities -- power is more than what states make of it. The question is whether Israel's capabilities establish a compelling threat to Iran. Threat perception is reduced when states' interests are socially constructed by shared histories, alliances, norms, etc., like the bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Britain (British nukes are non-threatening to the U.S.). Ahmadinejad is indeed delusional if he discounts the realities of Israeli power (but this is doubtful, as his actions in pushing for Iranian nukes reflect lucidity, for he knows if Iran gets nuclear capability he'll be able to establish strategic parity with the key regional nuclear power). The Iranian leader will push a double standard to advance his cause of deligitimizing Israel. Whatever the case, he's trouble, and the U.S. will be off with his riddance.

Earth to Joe: Non-Palestinian Arabs and Iranians care not at all about the well-being of the Palestinians. That's why they've kept them in those refugee camps instead of resettling them the way Israel did with the Jews fleeing massacres in Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, etc. I suspect that the Palestinians themseles don't care that much about their own well-being, at least on the margin.

All of these people are much more interested in vindicating their unjustified and grandiose cultural superiority complexes than they are in a better life or justice or any of the other fine Western concepts to which they pay lip service. It's more important to beat the Jews, to take them down, than it is to create a viable Palestinian homeland. The Holocaust just rubs salt in the wound of Arab and Muslim inferiority because it says that the historically wimpy Jews, who got slaughtered by the millions in the West, are still able to survive against staggering numerical odds when they fight Arabs. It drives the Ahmadinajads around the bend.

The proof of this attitude is the set of self-defeating tactics employed by the Palestinians and their eggers-on. Terrorism, fomenting blind hatred of Jews in the schools, and maximalist political positions are self-evidently stupid ways to get sovereignty for Palestinians. If there's one society on the planet that would be vulnerable to Gandhian passive resistance and guilt-mongering, it's Israel. The Palestinians would have their state, including half of Jeruasalem, by now if they had invested in orchestras and cultural pursuits (that stuff really impresses liberals and leftists) and combined that with a disciplined campaign of non-violent resistance.

But that kind of success would be intolerable for the Arab and Muslim Middle East population because it would depend on an appeal to the Israelis' conscience, implicitly conceding the umma's martial weakness. The bulk of the Arabs and the anti-Israel Iranian faction have a deep psychological need to prove that they can defeat the Jews, slaughter them, and turn Israel from a reminder of their backwardness into a symbol of their potency.

srp, you can invent any bulls**t reason you want to try to justify your own ignorance or racism towards the Arabs, but I am just stating the obvious.

And you can try to argue that Arabs and Muslims don't care about the Palestinians, but that is just idiotic. Some of the region's governments might be bought off by the USA and Israel, but the people have almost universial support for the Palestinians.

You know, there is a real problem in the American political class. The average American politician or congressman doesn't know a damn thing about the Middle East and was not elected based on their views of the Middle East. Since there are so many problems in the Middle East that effect the USA, they obviously have to reach out to people for information. But they don't reach out to Arabs or Muslims because we have been demonized by the media and in popular thought here. So, obviously, they turn to Jews generally, as they are a community that typically has ideas (if crazy ones) about the region. But unfortunately the Jewish community has deep interests in the Middle East that consistently bias them against fairness to Arabs, because Jews see themselves are the victim of Arab violence and such (and in all fairness, have been consistently f*cked by history, so their paranoia is not random). But it is especially a problem as they pass themselves off as impartial or knowledgable sources. The average American can't even name two Arab countries, so anyone with even the most basic knowledge could pass themselves off as an expert. It is a real problem and i don't know how to fix it. and of course, many Jews are extremely fair and honest in Middle Eastern issues, but they get excluded from the political discourse too. maybe because they are associated with Arabs, or because their views are contrary to American imperial views of itself, or whatever. But the Middle East discourse is dominated by radical and stupid right-wingers. And that is true for every faction of the American political spectrum except for the far right and left. This is what I think walt and mersheimer missed in their article (well and a couple other things too, like how the charge of anti-semitism silences dissent to make sure to keep the Arab side out of the mainstream).

You need to improve your apologetics. I cited three salient pieces of evidence to support my position, and you either ignored or reinforced all of them. Then you had the gall (though not the skill) to pose as a source of neutral enlightenment about the Middle East.

It is isn't only Jews who've figured out that a constructive solution in the Middle East isn't the goal of the Ahmadinajads and those who cheer them on. Or the goal of Hamas. Or of most of Fatah. Or Assad. Or the Palestinians of Jordan. Why do you think even their Western liberal apologists have to pass off the Palestinian preference for bloodlust over concrete progress with "They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" (usually delivered with a slight smile and a rueful headshake)? As if it were just a random string of accidental tactical errors from the Mufti's embrace of Nazism through the election of the eliminationist Hamas.

The Palestinians have always backed anyone who promises to put off the day when they have to admit that they can't defeat the miserable Jews. And the "intellectuals" who write in the Arab newspapers in the region have taken the same line, by and large--they even treated Sadat's pragmatism, which got back the Sinai and stopped Egyptian blood from being shed, as a betrayal. Which in a sense it was, because it removed Egypt fromt the grand dream of driving the Jews into the sea. So you're in large, if not honorable, company.