There's no doubt that Israel faces substantial security challenges that are driven by something larger than a sincere desire to secure justice for the people of Palestine. That said, I'm constantly astounded by the lengths to which some commentators will go to deny the fact that the Palestinian issue has anything at all to do with the situation. According to Yossi Klein Halevi, for example, everything that's happened in Israel since 2000 is all part of one vast Iranian conspiracy and everything else is just some kind of fig leaf or distraction. It's as if Israeli occupation of Palestinian land has nothing to do with existence of Palestinian nationalist groups for Iran to support -- like the Mullahs put all those Palestinians there in order to inconvenience the Israelis.
« The Return | Main | McCain Enters the Octagon »
It's All About Iran
13 Mar 2008 08:41 am
Comments (52)
The article is ludicrous, but hardly surprising. After all the Israelis have done nothing to Iran, so if they can make it all about Iran they become free of any responsibility for what happens.
And it is not that the US has done any better with this kind of thing. We tried to save the Vietnamese from the Russians for a decade undeterred by the fact that the Vietnamese were actually fighting for themselves against us.
And now we blame Iran for our soldiers killed in Iraq (regardless of what group actually killed them) because it is better to blame Iran which was there before our invasion than to blame the groups unleashed by our invasion, since that could be traced back to our own actions.
So you have too primal urges combining here. One is the desire to see bad things that happen be the result of some important source of evil, the same desire that gives rise to most conspiracy theories. The other is the desire for our own actions not to have consequences, so the obvious consequences of our actions are assigned to something that did not result from our actions. (Although here the US case in blaming Iran requires not going too deep into the history).
Matt, you might want to start tracking uptics in commentary banging the war drums with Iran now that Fallon's out.
Everyone knows the road to peace in Jerusalem runs through Tehran. It also runs through Mecca, and Islamabad, and Jakarta, and every other predominantly Muslim city. So let's just declare war against 1.3 billion Muslims, who have no business caring about the Palestinians or Jerusalem, and when they all surrender, Israel will live in peace.
Spitzer = Clinton
Clinton = Spitzer
There's no doubt that Israel faces substantial security challenges that are driven by something larger than a sincere desire to secure justice for the people of Palestine.
Allow me to introduce a doubt that Iran is motivated by something larger than a desire to secure justice for Palestinians.
First though, just to make sure we're speaking the same language. "Secure justice for the people of Palestine", to Iranians and most people in the Middle East includes securing a right to return, and therefore securing the right to make Palestine not have a demographically Jewish state.
You, Matt, and most Westerners think "secure justice" should or must be defined in a way that does not threaten Israel's Jewish demographics. That is a disagreement you have with the Muslim world over what "justice" means, and the other side has a reasonable position.
I have to say this at this point. Mandela thought "justice" meant no White state in Southern Africa. Most Africans agreed. If instead of Apartheid, White South Africans had driven the vast majority of Blacks clear off of the territory they intended to claim, as happened in Israel, that would have changed nothing in the eyes of Africans. Justice still would have meant no White State.
Secondly though, if you think Iran doesn't want to secure justice, what do you think Iran wants? Iran is paying a heavy price for its support of the Palestinians - even heavier than the US is paying for its support of the Israelis. Other than it's doing what it thinks is right, what do you think Iran's motive is?
Do you think Iran is motivated by an inexplicable hatred of Jews? Really?
If there was no Jewish state, a nuclear armed Palestinian state would have no problem with Iran enriching uranium even if that made Iran theoretically "nuclear capable".
The US objective of ensuring there is no regional state that would threaten Israel would not apply if Israel was Palestinian (because most Muslims in the region would not be inclined to threaten Israel if they didn't see Israel as an injustice in itself) - which means that Iraq could elect whoever it wanted, even Sadr or Hussein, Egypt could elect the Muslim Brotherhood if it wanted.
Israel's security challenges are entirely the result of the widespread and near universal perception in its region that Israel is illegitimately a non-Palestinian nation. I'm not sure what you even mean when you say there is something larger.
I'm pretty sure if you knew what you meant by something larger, you would have spelled it out.
I think the existence of Iran makes it important to elect a president with foreign policy experience and a record. For example, Sen Clinton has a record suggesting that by 3:10a.m. she'll be on the phone with Crawford, Texas abdicating her responsibilities for decision making to George W. Bush, again.
I think the existence of Iran makes it important to elect a president with foreign policy experience and a record. For example, Sen Clinton has a record suggesting that by 3:10a.m. she'll be on the phone with Crawford, Texas abdicating her responsibilities for decision making to George W. Bush, again.
Halevi's article is, to a degree, correct.
He's right that Iran is a strategic threat to Israel. And that stopping Iran from being a strategic threat is something that, if it can be done, can only be done at great expense by the US.
He skips over, and I'm not sure he's consciously aware, that Iran's anti-Israel policies are popular in Iran, because most Iranians think they are the right thing to do.
These policies are in line with what the people of Lebanon would choose, if they had a one-person, one-vote democracy. They are in line with the policies the people of Egypt would choose if they had a democracy and they are nearly the exact image of the policies the people of Saudi Arabia would choose if the people of Saudi Arabia had any input into Saudi foreign policy.
The Global War on Terror (which I call the Global War over the Legitimacy of Israel) means removing from power any Muslim leader or organization that would pursue populist policies with respect to Israel.
The problem for Israel and for the US is that this is a hard war for the US to win, and it's more likely that ultimately the US and Israel will lose.
Matt has apparently left any ideas of decent journalism behind. This post is a ridiculous misrepresentation of what Halevi said.
Personally, I don't necessarily agree with the emphatic conclusion of Halevi's essay of an already-underway war with Iran, but it is just obviously the case that Iran is responsible through proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah for an escalation of hostilities on Israel's border, and that this represents a calculated policy reflecting the broader goals and methods of the current Iranian President and his supporters.
Cheap shot, Matt. And transparently so.
One problem, Robert, is that the policies Halevi is decrying began before Iran's current president or his supporters came to power.
The problem isn't the current president of Iran, but that the people of Iran (and most people in the Middle East) have a different perception of Israel's legitimacy than you, Matt, Halevi and most people in the West.
Matt thinks there is something bigger than that. He's wrong. You write as if you think the problem is smaller than it is. You're wrong.
Well, all the the TNR-types like Halevi used to generally claim that Israel's "domestic" problems in the West Bank-Gaza were due to a close three-way alliance between Iran, Saddam's Iraq, and Al-Qaeda.
After all, Stephen Hayes and Cheney et al have conclusively proven that Al-Qaeda and Saddam were close allies, so how could their bosom-buddies the Shiite Iranians also not be part of the same group.
But that just proves how totally naive they are. It's pretty obvious to me that North Korea, Cuba, and Hugo Chavez are also part of the conspiracy as well.
Poor, poor Israel... Everybody always gangs up on her...
The movie "Syriana" was about a world in which Israel did not exist. Most people didn't notice that since the two world's (ours and the movie's) were identical except that Israel did not exist in the movie's.
There's going to be violence in the MidEast and beyond due to MidEastern politics whether or not Israel is in the mix of causes or not.
Arnold Evans,
You are overreaching here. A number of other states in the region would resist an Iranian bomb regardless of the existence of Israel or not. Iran is a non-Arab state trapped in a region with a lot of Arabs. It is also a Shiite (and strongly Shiite-identified) state in a region with Sunni (and strongly Sunni-identified) states. It also has repeatedly suffered invasion from neighboring powers, whether they be Ottoman, Soviet, British (out of India), Iraqi, whatever. Basically, Iran is always going to be an outsider in some respect in the Middle East and strongly needs friends and allies. Part of Iranian foreign policy must be seen as a struggle with Saudi Arabia for power and influence. The existence of Israel makes a lot of their policy choices easier and more popular, but it isn't the root of everything.
Calling the Global War on Terror all about Israel is also a simplification, because part of it is about maintaining small, vulnerable Arab oil-producing principalities beholden to the US, a policy that predates the foundation of Israel.
C'mon love, when Israel pulled out of Gaza, there were rocket attacks against Israel within two weeks. There is no nation on earth who would be as forgiving as Israel against such neighbors.
How about that celebration they had over the seminary shootings? Were all of you who hate Israel celebrating as well?
The lefts indirect support of Hamas and Hezbollah is shortsighted.
When people face the fact that Islam has made war on the west since A.D.632, we can begin some progress towards peace.
This stuff I have read here about the U.S. and Israel losing any war is a laugh.
The West will go atomic before it falls Islamic.
Any war we "lose" will be because we chose mercy and did bomb some nation into a sandbox.
Jeffrey:
Huh? Superman was about this guy from Krypton where there is a red sun instead of a yellow sun. What am I talking about? What are you talking about?
Hektor:
I'm not sure we have a specific disagreement more than that what I wrote rubbed you the wrong way.
My assertions are:
1) Iran really is a strategic threat to Israel
2) Iran is a threat to Israel because Iran is doing what it sees as right with respect to justice for the Palestinians
3) What Iran sees as "justice for the Palestinians" really includes allowing for a Palestine without a Jewish majority state.
4) Most people in the Middle East agree with Iran - most governments in the Middle East would pursue similar or aligned policies if they were accountable to their people
5) Most people in the West and Israel disagree with Iran
6) Removing strategic threats to Israel means limiting the power of populist political groups in Iran and throughout the Middle East - which Israel cannot afford to do on its own.
Of these six assertions, my guess is you would agree with all of them but are saying not to go further than that. I don't have to go further than that. Those are the things I'm saying.
The West will go atomic before it falls Islamic.
Did you know that rhymes? You may be a poet and you don't even know it.
There is the objection that Iran would do something in the region even if there was no Israel.
If there was a South Africa-style Palestinian majority state where Israel and the territories are now:
Would Iran support Hamas? Maybe in some form.
Would Hamas be a threat to Israel? No.
Would Hamas be shooting or allow the shooting of rockets into Israel? No.
Would Iran's support for Hamas be a problem for the US? No.
Would Iran support Hezbollah? Probably in some form, but so would the US. Lebanon's Shiites are its largest demographic group.
Would Hezbollah be a threat to a Palestinian majority Israel? No.
Would Hezbollah be an extra-governmental militia? No, Hezbollah would, by popular accord, be melded into Lebanon's official military structure.
Would Iran's support for Hezbollah be a problem for the US? No.
Would Iran still want domestic uranium enrichment? Yes.
Would Iranian domestic enrichment be more of a threat to Saudi Arabia than Brazil's enrichment is to Argentina? No.
Would Iranian domestic enrichment be a threat to Palestinian majority Israel the way it is perceived as a threat by Jewish majority Israel? No.
Barring the perceived strategic threat to Israel, would Iranian domestic enrichment under IAEA supervision - as Iran has repeatedly offered - be a problem for the US? No.
So I don't have to argue that there would be no problems or disputes in the Middle East if not for Israel. But the specific problems we see today have at their core this dispute over the legitimacy of Israel.
For those apologizers for the evil regime in Iran like Mr. Don Williams, Mr. Arnold Evans, Mr. RKU, etc. I am attaching a like to a post on another blog. The fact is that the regime in Iran is every bit as evil as was that of Saddam Hussein. The sooner the mullahs cash in their chips, the better off everybody in the Middle East will be.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/03/britain_denies_asylum_to_irani.php#more
Mr. Evans--
With all due respect, I think your sources on Iranian public opinion need updating. I'd recommend writers who have been there like Timothy Garton Ash and Max Rodenbeck in recent issues of The New York Review of Books. It's been a very long time since I've been there, but I've still got friends in Teheran, and Iranian friends where I live in Europe who are in regular touch with family members back home. I have yet to see any evidence to contradict these sources' clearly stated views that most Iranians don't give a rat's ass about the "Palestinians", resent the amount of aid they get from the Iranian government, and have a generally curious rather than hostile attitude towards Israel.
Like Israel itself, contemporary attitudes about the "rights" of people who were displaced when governments acting in their name launched an unprovoked war of aggression against a legitimate and generally-recognized state in 1948 and lost, are a post-WWII invention. I live in a place where literally tens of millions of people, Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Balts, Finns, etc. were expelled from their homelands, and any mention of a "right of return" was likely to result in a one-way ticket to Siberia or a bullet in the neck. It's very peaceful here now, and would be in the Middle East if the mostly tyrannical governments there didn't find it convenient to manipulate the misery of Palestine's Arabs.
the "rights" of people who were displaced when governments acting in their name launched an unprovoked war of aggression against a legitimate and generally-recognized state in 1948
Israel's legitimacy and right to exist are recognized and guaranteed by the same UN and international laws and treaties as the Palestinian's rights. You can't have one without the other.
Robert,
My source of Iranian public opinion is a poll. Readers Digest 2006. Please show me a more recent poll then that if you have one. If your source is your friends, all I can do is laugh at you. An Iranian would have a hugely erroneous view of the US if he asked his friends in New York what they think.
http://www.rd.com/images/content/071306/iranpollresults.pdf
18. Level of agreement - The state of Israel is illegitimate and should not exist.
Strong disagreement - 3.9%
2 - 4.6%
3 - 21.1%
4 - 14.6%
Strong agreement - 51.9%
The argument that Palestinians should just get over it, like the Poles is a persuasive argument. If you're trying to convince Matt.
The people of the Middle East do not find your argument persuasive. Sorry.
The fact that they do not find it persuasive is the core dispute between the West and and Middle East.
We're going off topic. My original point here was that it wrong to say "There's no doubt that Israel faces substantial security challenges that are driven by something larger than a sincere desire to secure justice for the people of Palestine."
Does anyone still disagree with my original point? If so let's discuss that.
"So you have too primal urges combining here. One is the desire to see bad things that happen be the result of some important source of evil, the same desire that gives rise to most conspiracy theories. The other is the desire for our own actions not to have consequences, so the obvious consequences of our actions are assigned to something that did not result from our actions. (Although here the US case in blaming Iran requires not going too deep into the history).
Posted by Lon | March 13, 2008 9:06 AM"
I think this is very true. Adapting the guise of a "very serious person" whose answer to everything is bombing Muslims and suspecting all Muslims of secretly wanting to make hummus out of Israelis masks some batshit crazy ideas that are little more than conspiracy theories. Hell, the Iraq War was based on a conspiracy theory. Guys like Podheretz and Kristol have been among the worst offenders of this type.
The fact of the matter is that many of Israel's security problems, while daunting, are a lot more manageable with decent policies than they actually are. So many strategic decisions that seem clever to Israeli elites are just mind-numbingly stupid, shut as unilaterally pulling out of Gaza, thus making it look like Hamas scard them out, instead of making it look like Abbas negotiated that result. In addition, even TNR's Open University blog was discussing the fact that Haaretz was reporting that Sharon apparently based the Gaza pullout on the South African Bantustan model. Most Israeli voters want peace, an end to settlements, etc., but they have no capable voice in the Israeli political process, instead getting incompetents (Olmert, Peretz) or psychos (Sharon, the rapist former president). The average Israeli has too little power while the wackjobs that live in settlements or do things like publicly celebrate Rabin's assassination (while the state allows his assassin to have his son circumcised on that anniversary) have too much.
As Fareed Zakaria pointed out in the Oct 29 Newsweek, Iran "has not invaded a country since the late 18th century." It was the US who encouraged Saddam to initiate the Iran/Iraq War.
Currently we are madly using scare tactics to sell weapons to the Sunni nations; our defense industry is our nation's big money-maker. We tell these nations they must be ready for revenge attacks by Iran when we attack Iran on behalf of Israel.
Although the Israel Lobby did not want the American public to hear Ahmadinejad speak at Columbia, since they prefer to continually misquote him for devious reasons, the Iranian president was able to state clearly that he would accept any peace negotiation acceptible to the Palestinians. He also acknowledged the Holocaust.
"It's All About Iran" actually applies to this election since the main issue is not Iraq or the economy but whether, due to the war-mongers' lies, America will lose a third war by attacking Iran. Wasting $3 trillion in Iraq is not enough for the Israel Lobby.
What's so surprising about this? Israel wants to evade responsibility for its rather substantial role in Mideast mess, and shift blame onto someone else.
Also, don't forget - it was an Israeli who shot Rabin, not an Iranian. Israel needs external enemies to create a unified domestic front. Otherwise, all the contradictions of the state of Israel (a 'democracy' based on religious/ethnic superiority, etc.) will come to the front, and possibly tear the country apart.
Iran threatens our ally? All the more reason to stop bickering and start bombing. Come late September, with McCain probably lagging a bit in the polls, the temptation will become well-neigh irresistible. The attendant cheerleading from the military-industrial-neocon-media complex will briefly spike public opinion in McCain's favor (sure buyer's remorse will set in, but only after the election). The Bush administration will -- briefly -- be seen as fighting for the security of our ally, our own national security and lower oil prices. The Democrats will be in disarray, since they've never forthrightly challenged the propaganda that Iran is a rogue state and threat to our national security. And the neocons should feel confident of success. After all, didn't Bill Clinton prove in Serbia that you could force regime change through bombing alone? And if success doesn't come fast enough, they can always amp it up and start throwing around those nuclear bunker busters. Frightening.
With war with Iran looming, the neocons are desperate to eliminate Obama since he alone favors diplomacy over war. The neocons hate him because he said he would meet with the Iranians. Hillary follows the neocon policy of no talks without impossible preconditions which boils down to no talks. McCain is even more gung-ho to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Both Hillary and McCain voted for the 2002 Lieberman-Warner-McCain Resolution authorizing war with Iraq and the 2006 Lieberman-Kyl Resolution giving the neocons a green light to attack Iran. The media which lied us into war with Iraq is lying us into war with Iran. The media shifts the focus to the economy without mentioning that the $3 trillion wasted in unnecessary wars is the reason we're stuck in an economic mess. In the warmongers' view, the ideal race is Hillary vs. McCain.
To understand this (relationship between US, Iran, Israel [and the Palestinians]) check out Trita Parsi's Treacherous Alliance. An astonishing book that could really change the way you see the situation. It rips off the ideologigal facades maintained by all the parties to reveal the concealed dynamics.
Arnold Evans,
I'm not sure we do agree. For example,
2) Iran is a threat to Israel because Iran is doing what it sees as right with respect to justice for the Palestinians
No, Iran doesn't really care about "justice" for the Palestinians. Iran sees the Palestinian issue as a way to increase its sympathy and support from Arab nations and increase its power among Shiite Arab forces.
3) What Iran sees as "justice for the Palestinians" really includes allowing for a Palestine without a Jewish majority state.
Actually, Iran is on record as recognizing anything that the Israelis and Palestinians negotiate among themselves. In addition, it was perfectly willing to exchange its support for Hezbollah and Hamas for recognition by the US in 2003.
4) Most people in the Middle East agree with Iran - most governments in the Middle East would pursue similar or aligned policies if they were accountable to their people
There is substantial anti-Iranian sentiment (frequently religiously based) among the general population in the Middle East that would strongly resist any increase in Iranian influence and prestige, so "agreeing" with Iran is neither automatic nor to be assumed.
And another thing here:
Would Iran still want domestic uranium enrichment? Yes.
Would Iranian domestic enrichment be more of a threat to Saudi Arabia than Brazil's enrichment is to Argentina? No.
Totally false. Saudi Arabia sees an Iranian bomb as a direct threat to it and is growing increasingly interested in nuclear weapons (as is Egypt) due to the Iranian bomb.
Would Iranian domestic enrichment be a threat to Palestinian majority Israel the way it is perceived as a threat by Jewish majority Israel? No.
Unknowable, since we don't really know what kind of foreign policy a Palestinian majority Israel would undertake.
Barring the perceived strategic threat to Israel, would Iranian domestic enrichment under IAEA supervision - as Iran has repeatedly offered - be a problem for the US? No.
See above. If the US maintained its policy of supporting weak oil-producing Arab skeikdoms, which is independent of its Israeli policy, then this would be viewed as a threat.
So I repeat, you are over-reaching on your Israel is everything thesis and need to step back a bit.
Re Chris Dornan
Not having read Ms. Parsis' book, I am not going to comment on it directly. However, the fact that it is praised by Israel bashers like Prof. Brezinzski and Prof. Mearsheimer does not inspire confidence.
Re J. E. Dundee
Mr. Dundee, like Mr. Don Williams just delights in spreading lies about Israels' role in the US Iraq adventure. They just ignore the testimony of Lawrence Wilkerson who actually met with officials of Israeli intelligence and has reported that they were rather less then gung ho about the Iraq invasion. But of course, Mr. Dundee would rather believe the ravings of counterpunch and stormfront.
Regarding the question of whether Saudi Arabia, etc, would be interested in nuclear weapons if Iran developed them: Israel has hundreds and has long been viewed for obvious reasons as the major threat in the region. Israel occupies and attacks Middle East countries all the time: Lebanon, Syria, etc. Until we accommodated the US Israel Lobby by occupying Iraq and fomenting a civil war there on behalf of Israel, Israel was the most hated country in the world, but now it's the US. Certainly all the Middle East countries would like nuclear weapons as long as war-mongering Israel backed by the US is on the loose. Don't forget, the Israel Lobby after 9/11 wanted us to attack Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc,etc.
Re Sabine Wales
1. Mr. Wales is a fucking liar. Israel has had a nuclear arsenal since 1970 and none of the countries mentioned by him have had any interest in acquiring same. The reason is that these countries knew that Israel would never attack them without permission of the US, which would obviously never be given for an attack on Saudi Arabia. The interest Egypt and Saudi Arabia have shown of late is entirely due to their perception that Iran is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and Iran would not need the permission of the US to use them.
2. Far from desiring an attack on Syria, the Israeli security services are, shall we say, rather less then enthusiastic about regime change there, much like they were rather less then enthusiastic about regime change in Iraq, according to Lawrence Wilkerson.
Mr. Wales is all too typical of the lying shitheads on this blog who persist in their prevarications about the State of Israel. It is quite obvious that Mr. Wales, like Mr. Saifedean desires that the Government of Israel agree to go out of business.
The thing I like about SLC's arguments is the way he presents his points rationally, avoiding far-reaching global claims and ad hominem attacks.
This lets me know he is a neutral observer who carefully has weighed evidence on both sides, and thus can be trusted.
Re !bang
I readily admit that I am not a neutral observer. I support the State of Israel 100%. I reserve the vitriol for those who prevaricate, like Mr. Wales, Mr. RKU, Mr. Williams, Mr. Hack, Mr. Saifedean, etc. For those who are merely uninformed, I try to be a little more calm.
Re: 2) Iran is a threat to Israel because Iran is doing what it sees as right with respect to justice for the Palestinians
Right away I disagree with this. Iran idoes not have a dog of its own in the Israel-Palestinian fight. The Iranians are not Arabs, and unlike Syria, etc. they have no lost honor to avenge because of some previous defeat by Israel. Iran has adopted the Palestinian cause for purely cynical and propagandist reasons. Iran desires to become the Middle Eastern hegemonic Power; hence it pays for Iran to adopt the position of sympathy for the Palestinians, in order to gain a hearing among the Arabs, a people who, for historical and often religious reasons, are very suspicious of Iranian intentions.
Re: Most people in the Middle East agree with Iran - most governments in the Middle East would pursue similar or aligned policies if they were accountable to their people
Even in the democratic west public accountability really doe not intrude much on foreign policy. Almost all of the "coalition of the willing" disagreed (at the popular level) with aiding the US in Iraq. The US public itself disagrees with the Bush foreign policy.
Finally, the cases of Israel and South Africa are not remotely comparable. White people were strangers in South Africa before the late 1400s (For that matter so were the Bantu peoples of southern Africa, who arrived more or less at the same time as the whites). There has been a Jewish presence in Palestine for the last 3000 years. That isn't necessarily dispositive, but it does mean that the Jews are not aliens.
Hektor:
You're going out of your way to disagree. As far as I can see, my overall substantive point still stands. Your caveats are arguable, but why should I bother? There is no law that you have to agree with my assertions.
SLC (who has been accurately described as SLC: Settlers' Likud Cabal) pretends to know for a fact that even though Israel has long had nuclear weapons, its neighbors have not been remotely interested in same. Ha! Why did Israel bomb Iraq's reactor? Why did Israel just bomb Syria? Obviously as long as Israel occupies Palestine, part of Syria, and part of Lebanon, and refuses to let the 4 million refugees it created through ethnic cleansing come home, it will be hated by all its neighbors, and it will have to worry about its neighbors' ability to retaliate. Currently Egypt and Saudi Arabia have another worry: the US Israel Lobby is trying to start a world war against Iran and Iran's allies to preserve the Israeli occupation. As US allies, Saudi Arabia and Egypt could be in the line of fire and thus want defensive nuclear weapons.
"Saudi Arabia sees an Iranian bomb as a direct threat to it and is growing increasingly interested in nuclear weapons (as is Egypt) due to the Iranian bomb."
Hektor, in plain words, THERE IS NO IRANIAN BOMB.
Period.
There isn't even a perception among the Arab nations that there is an Iranian bomb. None. Zero. Every single Arab nation in the region has supported Iran's nuclear energy program and right to enrich.
And they all support a nuclear-weapon free zone in the Middle East - if Israel can be disarmed.
As for SLC, he's STILL shoveling his Wilkerson bullshit, even though I and a dozen others have proven him wrong multiple times on this very site. Israel intended the US to attack Iran first, then Iraq. The US went the opposite way, but is slowly under Cheney's and Israel's prodding swinging back to starting a war with Iran before the end of this year.
There's absolutely no question that Israel wants the US to attack Iran, rather than Israel doing it. Cheney wants Israel to do it, so he can use the Iranian retaliation against the US as an excuse to get the US involved. Israel doesn't want to be blamed for starting it either.
This is the only thing that appears to be holding up the starting of the war, other than the push back from a number of Pentagon officers who think the war would be insane.
Supposedly the idea is being floated now that the reason Admiral Fallon was dumped was his criticism of the "pause" in the draw down of forces from Iraq, not his opposition to an Iran war. I don't see why this has to be an either-or thing. Clearly, if Bush and Cheney mean to start an Iran war this year, Fallon has to go. If he argued for speeding up the draw down, so what? He's hardly in a position to refuse orders and he's never said he would resign over such an issue. But if he resigned over an attempt to start a war with Iran, that would be highly negative for Bush and Cheney in the PR program for an Iran war. So Fallon had to go, and he had to go over Iran, not the pause in the Iraqi draw down.
Mr. Evans--
Perhaps you didn't notice my citation of two extremely credible experts reporting for NYRB from inside Iran? I'm not basing my views about Iranian public opinion on the remarks of a few friends, but on a great deal of first-hand reporting from some of the most insightful and credible authors writing today on issues of this sort. The fact that people I know substantiate this reporting unanimously counts for me, but you should really check out Ash and Rodenbeck. With all due respect to the Readers' Digest, my experience is that public opinion polls taken by foreigners in police states aren't worth the paper they're written on. Hektor Bim presents a much more sensible assessment.
Gary Sugar--I'm concerned about the plight of the Palestinians too, but attempting to compare Israel's status as a recognized member of the General Assembly with some Chapter VI Resolutions rammed through by the anti-Israel cottage industry at Turtle Bay is apples and oranges.
In the first place, unlike Chapter VII Resolutions which are binding and mandatory, Chapter VI Resolutions are non-binding recommendations for the peaceful resolution of disputes. Secondly, Israel couldn't implement most of those recommendation unilaterally even if it wanted too--they require negotiation of the sort the Arabs, excepting Egypt, have categorically refused to engage in.
It is extremely clear to any remotely objective and informed observer that the principal source of the oppression of the Palestinians has been the Arab states. The refugees have been warehoused like livestock for use as bargaining chips, cheap labor, and terrorist recruits since 1948 not by Israel, but by their Arab brothers.
I believe some of you are not familiar with the history of middle east. Sunnis and shiahs were hostile to each other from the beginning. That started at the late life of Mohammad between his followers. But gradually they become used to live peacefully together. Safavid shiahs in sixteen century were empowered to engage sunni but very persianized (Solaiman the magnificent was a persian poet all the time imitating persian mythological kings)otoman' empire. After safavid Naader shah accepted the coronation from shiah mullahs under the condition that they stop hostility with otomans and cursing the sunnis sacred figures. Naader conquered Delhi and Baghdad and defeated Peter the great as a great king, not a shiah or a persian. Again shiah and sunni started to live peacefully and after second world war the great sunni authorities at Alazhar, egypt voted shiah as an equal faction to other four sunnis factions. Saudis follow the policy of Britain depicted before first world war in creating hostile factions in middle east. Vahabi as zealot enemies to both islamic culture of shiah Iran and sunni ottomans and zealot against shiahs started to act as antithesis to kamal pasha young turk secularism. Vahabis believed Islam is a pure religion and societuy should be ruled only on that shariah basis. Kamal pash believed Islam is a culture and has nothing to do with administrating a societ and both of them were suepported or actually were agents of Britain empire. Even in watching the movie 'lawrence of Arabia' you notice that the Lord of Mecca was a shiah. such a thing is impossible now in saudi arabia. Iranians switch back. Those who support change of government in Iran to a friendly government of israel and usa will not sustain any disturbing situation. they were there when mobs were in streets of tehran in 1978 putting taverns and bars on fire.
Peter Jones-Smith
I mean scare of saudi arabia is not inspired by being a sunni state. it is solely in defending imperialism. its support for small sheikh who already were acting barrons of iran or kings of masqat is support of neo colonialism or actually classical colonialism in having very small and fake independent countries where like colonial time give naval base to oversees powers. during the decolonialism era of un after second world war this practice should be banned and scrapped for ever in the history.
Peter Jones-Smith
Re Sabine Wales
1. Lying cocksucker Mr. Wales demonstrates his stupidity by moving the goal posts. In his original posts, he cites Egypt and Saudi Arabia. When I called him out on it, he cites Iraq and Syria. The fact is that Egypt and Saudi Arabia did not show an interest in obtaining a nuclear capability until they determined that Iran might be interested in such a capability. Since it was well known that Israel had such a capability since at least 1970, and between 1970 and roughly 2006 they did not show such interest, a reasonable analyst would come to the conclusion that Iran was the motivating factor, not Israel.
2. Mr. Sabine Wales shows his true colors by calling Israel occupied Palestine. Mr. Sabine Wales is cordially invited to go fuck himself.
SLC:
For your information, I don't consider Israel to be "occupied Palestine," although Israel has indeed occupied all of Palestine. I am in favor of a two-state solution as put forth in the Iraq Study Group Report, following UN Resolutions. Like Admiral Fallon, I know an attack on Iran would be a mistake. I believe the US should endorse the Arab League Peace Plan, which was endorsed by Arafat,Saddam, and all the other Arab leaders when first proposed in 2002. If we had persuaded Israel to accept it at that time, we would not have been pushed by the Israel Lobby into invading Iraq. Regardless of what you report of the views of the Israeli secret services, the neocons in power in the Bush administration in 2003 had been on record for a long time as advocating an Iraqi invasion on behalf of Israel. Furthermore, fomenting civil wars in Arab lands has long been an Israeli strategy.
Re Sabine Wales
1. Once again, Mr. Sabine Wales lies. He claims to be in favor of a 2 state solution. However, he also supports the resettlement of Palestinians living in refugee camps in what is now Israel. That, of course, has been a deal killer since day 1 as no Israeli government will agree to any such thing (this was, by the way, at least implied in the so-called 2002 Saudi peace plan for which we have only Tom Friedmans' testimony). In fact, such a proposal is tantamount to a 1 state solution with the Jews in Israel eventually getting the heave ho.
2. The neocons were calling for regime change in Iraq as early as 1996. Although some of them may have thought that such an adventure would be in support of Israel, the reason that the Bush administration went along was due to Iraqs' oil reserves, the second largest in the world. Does anybody in his right mind think that the US would have given a hoot about Saddam if Iraq had no oil? The evidence is that the Assad kleptocracy in Syria was every bit as bad as Saddams' if not worse (if Mr Wales doesn't believe that, he should consult with citizens of Jordan). Syria was not invaded because Syria has negligible oil reserves. And by the way, those same Israeli security services are equally negative about regime change in Syria.
However, in closing, I have a flash for Mr. Wales. No government in Israel will ever agree to resettlement of Palestinians living in refugee camps in what is now Israel. Period, end of story. As long as the Palestinians persist in this demand, there will be no peace. If that's not acceptable to Mr. Wales, tough noogies.
Kudus to Sabine Wales for not responding in kind to name-calling and insults. SLC, when you're right, you don't have to be ugly.
That said, the idea that the US was "pushed by the Israel Lobby into invading Iraq" is ridiculous on its face. We have a representative democracy. Gallup, which did large-sample, good-methodology polling about twice a year between 1991 and 2003, shows that always a majority, at times approaching 3:1 and averaging about 2:1 for the entire period, answered "yes" to the unambiguous question, "Would you support invading Iraq with US troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power".
We went to war with Iraq in 1991 because it invaded, raped, and annexed Kuwait, a member of the UN General Assembly and US ally. Over the next twelve years we ran more or less continuous combat operations there, and Iraq comprehensively violated the terms of the ceasefire and related Chapter VII Resolutions. We invaded in 2003 because after 9/11 it was generally seen as unacceptable to have an overt enemy state sitting on the fulcrum of the world economy in the keystone state of the region producing most of the oil, and most of the terrorism.
The rest is partisan political blue smoke and mirrors.
There's no doubt that Israel faces substantial security challenges that are driven by something larger than a sincere desire to secure justice for the people of Palestine.
I say this is a false statement. Iran's security threat to Israel is driven by Iran's desire to secure what it perceives as justice for the people of Palestine and nothing bigger.
To the objections as I understand them so far:
1- Iranians don't really believe justice is served by supporting Palestinian groups that call for a solution that does not include a Jewish state
To this I've provided a poll. For every Iranian, according to that poll, who disagrees strongly or weakly that Israel is illegitimate, 6(!) agree. According to the only poll data presented, Iranians overwhelmingly agree with the proposition that there should not be a Jewish state.
Robert says his friends and western reporters are more reliable than a poll. That is laughable. Western reporters in Iran are notoriously subject to the Friedman cab driver effect - where the people who speak to the Western reporter report that surprisingly(!?), the people of the foreign country agree with the reporter. Compared to a poll, interview data is of no value at all.
A poll can be trumped by a better poll, but not by reports of some guy having tea with guests in a foreign country.
2- Iran's opposition to Israel is motivated by its rivalry with Saudi Arabia.
Laughable. Iran recognizes Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia recognizes Iran. Saudi Arabia came to the US and notoriously, none of the Saudi delegation would make any physical contact with any Israeli. On two separate occasions in 2007, the King of Saudi Arabia was photographed holding hands with Ahmadinejad.
There comes a point when I have to wonder if some people are being serious or just joking around.
3- Iran's opposition to Israel is motivated by its need/desire for approval on the Arab street.
This theory admits that the Arab street favors support of groups that do not support Israel. But we have a poll that shows that the Iranian street favors support of the same groups. The idea that Iranian strategists are concerned with the Arab street but not the Iranian street is a little crazy.
4- Justice for the Palestinians objectively precludes a right to return for the refugees, and/or precludes threatening the Jewish demographic majority of Israel
This is important. Maybe the core of what is happening in this comment thread. Your opinion is an opinion. Your opinion that any "sincere" effort to get justice for the Palestinians has to allow a Jewish state to deny refugees is simply not shared in the Middle East. It is quite possible, in fact it occurs more often than not that people in the Middle East hold sincere desires to get justice for the Palestinians that go outside of the bounds that you as a westerner would allow.
I'll say again, the Muslim desire that there be no Jewish state on in the Middle East is just as validly, sincerely and widely held as the desire that there be no White State in Southern Africa. You have a great argument that Jews are different from White South Africans? I'm happy for you. Very people in Iran or the Middle East are persuaded by your great argument. And as it is your opinion, they have every right to reject your opinion and your argument supporting your opinion. And they do reject it and that does not make them insincere.
***
Matt alludes to "something bigger" that motivates Iranian policy towards Israel but nobody has given any clue what this "something bigger" could be. Happily nobody here has said that Iranian policy is motivated by an inexplicable hatred of Jews - I have a feeling that is what some of the commentators believe but would not put into an open forum where the belief could be challenged. I wonder if Matt is in that category.
Again about the disagreement between the Muslim world and the West over the legitimacy of Israel. Westerners really have a psychological need to present their opinion as objective. It is not. It is always interesting to watch the contortions westerners force themselves to make rather than accept the opinion that Israel is not legitimate as a differing but valid opinion.
Iran can't possibly believe that. Even though that's what most Iranian believe according to the polls we've seen.
The Palestinians can't possibly believe that. Even though when polled about a solution where Israel is able to limit the right to return, most Palestinians do not agree with that.
You can disagree. You have a right to disagree. You can believe Israel is legitimate as a Jewish state and that the refugees right to return is of less importance than the right of Israel to maintain a Jewish majority. The people of Iran do not share your opinion. The people of the Middle East do not share your opinion. Your opinion is an opinion. Your opinion is not, regardless of your contortions, an objective fact. This is a very difficult point to get Westerners to understand. Very few Westerners can grasp that.
The relationship between Israel and Iran's nuclear progam is probably worthy of comment but I don't really have to address that to make my original point so I will not.
Re Arnold Evans
I have a flash for Mr. Evans. No Israeli Government is going to agree to resettlement of Palestinians in refugee camps in what is now Israel. The opinions of Palestinians, Iranians, Saudis, etc. have no relevance to the discussion. In short, it ain't going to happen. And if Mr. Evans is unsatisfied with that, tough noogies.
However, if Palestinians refugees have a right to resettle in what is now Israel, then Germans who were ousted from the Sudetenland after WW 2 have the right to reclaim land in the Czech Republic from which they were ousted. And Native Americans have the right to reclaim the land that was stolen from them by white settlers from Europe.
I have a flash for Mr. Evans. No Israeli Government is going to agree to resettlement of Palestinians in refugee camps in what is now Israel. The opinions of Palestinians, Iranians, Saudis, etc. have no relevance to the discussion.
See SLC, if the discussion is the motives of Iranian policy, (which is an assertion Matt made and that I have been challenging) then the opinions of the Iranians is the _single most relevant_ possible issue to the discussion.
Saying opinions that differ from yours are irrelevant are a symptom of your inability to deal with the fact that opinions that differ from yours on this issue exist and can be validly held.
It is a difficult thing for you. For example, I doubt you could type:
"Most people in the Muslim world have a valid opinion that that Israel's Jewish demographic majority is neither a legitimate or permanent phenomenon but I have a different, also valid, opinion."
But the statement about the opinion widely held in the Muslim world is a fact borne out by all available evidence.
Instead you block out their opinions. You put yourself into a world where opposing opinions do not and cannot exist, or at least for some reason or another cannot be examined (now because they are irrelevant)
This is a mental block on your part that you share with essentially every supporter of Israel I've come across. I don't expect you to get past it, but in Matt's case I pointed out where it threatens to interfere with analysis of other issues.
Re Arnold Evans
We can examine the Iranian opinions relative to the existence of a Jewish State in Palestine ad infinitum. It has no relevance because the desire of the Iranian Government and the Palestinians that the State of Israel go out of business ain't going to happen, despite the rantings of this boards' favorite nutcase ex-con, Richard Steven Hack. Until such time as the Palestinians and the Iranians and everybody else in the Middle East accept this principle, there is not going to be peace there. Now, evidently, Mr. Evans is unhappy with this position. Well, it is not the duty of the Government of Israel to act in a manner to make Mr. Evans happy.
The following is a Boston Globe op-ed which outlines a peace plan for Israel/Palestine
A 'declaration of principles' for the Mideast
By Herbert C. Kelman
March 9, 2008
HAIM RAMON, a vice prime minister of Israel, recently stated that Israel hoped to reach agreement with its Palestinian negotiating partners by the end of 2008 on a "declaration of principles" for peace, but not on a detailed peace treaty. At this time of escalating violence and diminishing hope, the call for such a declaration offers an opportunity for revitalizing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
To represent a dramatic breakthrough, a declaration would have to go beyond a vague, general commitment to a two-state solution, and lay out the fundamental principles on which such a solution must be based if it is to be perceived as fair and just by the two populations and offer them a positive vision of their future relationship. The statement must address the key final-status issues - notably borders, Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees - that a viable two-state agreement would have to resolve. In essence, the statement would frame the envisaged final agreement as a principled peace, based on a historic compromise that meets the fundamental needs of both peoples, validates their national identities, and declares an end to the conflict and to the occupation consistent with the requirements of fairness and attainable justice.
To concretize the components of a statement of basic principles for framing a negotiated agreement, I offer the following hypothetical draft of what such a statement, issued by the two leaderships, might contain, in the hope that it might stimulate thought.
Israeli-Palestinian joint statement of principles
The parties agree that the land that has been in dispute between the Jewish and the Palestinian peoples - the land that includes the State of Israel and the occupied territories (the West Bank and Gaza) - belongs to both peoples: both have historic roots in it, both are deeply attached to it, and both claim it as their national homeland. We are convinced that there is no military solution to the conflict resulting from these competing claims.
The attempt to impose a solution by violence has caused pain and suffering to both peoples for generations, which we deeply regret. The conflict threatens to destroy the future of both peoples and of the land itself. We are therefore committed to ending the conflict by negotiating a principled peace, based on a historic compromise in the form of a two-state solution. We agree to share the land in a way that allows each people to exercise its right to national self-determination, express its national identity, and fulfill its national aspirations in its own independent, viable state within the shared land.
The details of a peace agreement that concretizes this historic compromise have to be negotiated, but we are committed to certain basic principles, dictated by the logic of the historic compromise, that must be followed in resolving the key issues in the negotiations. Specifically:The borders between the two states will follow the 1967 armistice lines, with minor, mutually agreed-upon adjustments, based on an exchange of West Bank territories that contain most of the Israeli settlements for Israeli territories of equal size and value, and with a secure link between the West Bank and Gaza. These borders are necessary in order to enable the Palestinian state to meet the criteria of true independence, viability, governability, and contiguity within the West Bank. Palestinians can accept the fairness of these borders because they conform with international legitimacy, as expressed in appropriate United Nations resolutions.
Jerusalem will be shared by the two states and contain the national capital of each state, in recognition of the central importance of the city to the national identities of both peoples. Jerusalem's Jewish neighborhoods will be under Israeli sovereignty and its Arab neighborhoods under Palestinian sovereignty, with jointly administrated arrangements for security, freedom of movement, and municipal services for the entire city and for governance of the Old City. A plan of shared or joint sovereignty will be negotiated for the holy sites, allowing each side control over its own sites and assuring free access to them from both parts of the city.
Israeli settlements with extraterritorial rights and status (including separate roads and protection by Israeli troops) will be removed from the Palestinian state in order to ensure the state's independence, viability, governability, and contiguity. The right of individual settlers to stay in place as Palestinian citizens or as resident aliens, subject to Palestinian law, will be negotiated.
In negotiating solutions to the problem of Palestinian refugees, Israel recognizes that the refugee problem and the right of return are central to the Palestinian national identity and national narrative, and acknowledges its share of responsibility for the plight of the refugees. Concretely, the refugee problem will be addressed in all its dimensions, with comprehensive plans for financial compensation, regularization of the status of refugees in host countries, and resettlement when needed or desired. Refugees will be granted citizenship in and the right of return to the Palestinian state. Only a limited number, however, will return to Israel proper, in order to allow Israel to maintain its character as a Jewish-majority state.
The final negotiated agreement, based on a historic compromise as reflected in the above principles, is designed to yield a principled peace, characterized by the following conditions:
Mutual recognition of the national identity of the other people and of each people's right to express this identity in an independent state within the shared land.
A sense that the agreement is not merely a product of the balance of power, but is consistent with the principle of attainable justice and with international law and the international consensus.
An end to the occupation and to the conflict.
Integration of both states in the region and the international community.
As we commit ourselves to negotiating a final agreement based on the concept of a historic compromise and meeting the conditions of a principled peace, we are enabled to develop and to communicate to our publics a positive vision of a common future for the two peoples in the land they are agreeing to share. Our vision contemplates:
A secure and prosperous existence for each society.
Mutually beneficial cooperation between the two states and societies in various fields, including economic relations, public health, environmental protection, telecommunications, cultural and educational programs, and tourism.
Regional development.
Stable peace with ultimate reconciliation.
Our positive vision extends not only to the future of the two peoples in their independent states within the land they are agreeing to share, but to the future of the shared land itself: a land to which both peoples are attached, even though each agrees to claim only part of it for its independent state.
In this spirit, our vision of a common future includes freedom of movement across state borders, as well as a range of cooperative activities that treat the shared land as a unit and are designed to benefit it in its entirety.
A joint statement of principles along the lines proposed above would reassure the two publics about the intentions of the other side and help to reestablish trust in the availability of a negotiating partner. By advocating a principled peace that acknowledges each side's national identity and national narrative, that conforms to the dictates of attainable justice, that provides a rationale for the concessions each side is expected to make, and that offers a positive vision of the future, it has the potential for energizing the two publics and eliciting their full support for the negotiated agreement on a two-state solution.
Given the apparent readiness of the two leaderships to formulate a declaration of principles, the challenge now is to utilize this moment as an opportunity to create a visionary document that will reassure and energize the two publics and elicit their enthusiastic support for negotiating a historic compromise.
Civil society efforts, in the form of unofficial Israeli-Palestinian dialogue, can be instrumental in generating ideas for such a document and conveying them to the political leadership. The US government and other third parties can contribute significantly by encouraging the parties to formulate a statement of basic principles and identifying the issues that it must address, keeping in mind that, in the end, the document must be crafted by the parties themselves in order to reflect their concerns and engender their commitment.
Finally, to be maximally effective, movement toward and beyond the proposed joint statement of basic principles must be accompanied by significant changes in the conditions on the ground, designed to improve the security, economic well-being, quality of life, and personal dignity of the two populations.
Herbert C. Kelman is a professor social ethics emeritus and cochairman of the Middle East Seminar at Harvard.
Arnold Evans' lack of familiarity with the work of Timothy Garton Ash and Max Rodenbeck is demonstrated by his risible comparison of them to Tom Friedman. Have it your way, Mr. Evans. Ignorance is its own punishment.
Evans' religious awe of opinion polls is touching, but baseless. Some poll of unknown methodology taken by unknown people in a police state can hardly be a basis for grand pontifications about what tens of millions of people really think about something like the internationally recognized definition of a state's legitimacy, especially when the various police states in question have been pumping propaganda on the issue 24/7 for decades. The evidence of history demonstrates that support for the "Palestinians" in the region is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Mr. Evans' idea that a ruthless tyranny like Iran's is supporting Palestinian terrorist groups out of a deep moral sense of justice is simply funny.
Comments closed March 27, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
1) Why not? Our own New York Times lies through its teeth, in my opinion. The bodies weren't cold from 911 before the Times put up an article "Israel as Flashpoint Not Cause"(Sept 23,2001) arguing that US support for Israel was not a motivation for the attack.
An obvious falsehood, given that Bin Laden had repeatedly cited US support for Israeli killing of Muslim Palestinians as one of the three reasons for Al Qaeda's Jihad.
2) In a Nov 2001 interview, Bin Laden again cited US sales of advanced weapons to Israel as justification for Sept 11. When Ariel Sharon bombed an apartment building in Gaza in the Middle of the night--killing nine children -- do Americans think the Islamic World doesn't realize that the F16s and bombs are made in USA?
Posted by Don Williams | March 13, 2008 9:01 AM