SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Why Israel Still Can’t Trust That Obama Has Its Back

POLITICS MARCH 7, 2012

Why Israel Still Can’t Trust That Obama Has Its Back

BY YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI

When the President of the United States repeatedly says he’s got your back, and in precisely those words, what more can you ask for?

Yet as I read Obama’s interview with Jeff Goldberg in The Atlantic, then his speech to the AIPAC convention, and finally reports of his meeting with Netanyahu, I felt increasingly uneasy. True, Obama went farther than he ever has in reassuring Israel of his commitment to stopping a nuclear Iran. He explicitly mentioned the military option. He upheld Israel’s right to defend itself. He articulated the reasons why a nuclear Iran would be disastrous—from an accelerated nuclear arms race in the Middle East to the threat of a nuclear suitcase in the hands of terrorists. He affirmed, in other words, what we in Israel have been warning about for years.

Why, then, the unease? Because Obama wasn’t speaking primarily to Iran but to Israel. Even when he seemed to be warning Tehran, he was really warning Jerusalem. His goal these last days hasn’t been so much to deter them but us. The headlines got it right: Cool down the war talk. Give sanctions—and diplomacy—a chance.

If this were, say, two years ago, that would be a reasonable request. But it has taken Obama the better part of his first term to finally put in place serious sanctions—and at this late date, the sanctions may still not be strong enough to work. Speaking to AIPAC, Netanyahu implicitly responded to Obama: We gave diplomacy a chance for a decade, and sanctions for the last six years. If you’re asking for more time—when we are now looking at Iran achieving nuclear capacity in months rather than years—the sanctions had better be tougher.

Writing in The New York Times on Friday, Emanuele Ottolenghi of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies suggested one scenario for effective sanctions:  “a complete United Nations-imposed oil embargo enforced by a naval blockade, as well as total diplomatic isolation.” And, he added, the West must unambiguously warn Iran that it is “willing to inflict devastating harm.”

Obama’s main argument for why Israel and its American friends should trust him on Iran is because he has been Israel’s most dependable ally all along. Look at my record, he’s argued. I believe Obama is a friend—but a problematic friend. True, security cooperation with Israel has been excellent, which is at least partly a result of George W. Bush’s agreement with Israel to enhance military cooperation over this decade – though Obama went farther than Bush in one crucial respect, providing Israel with bunker busters, which Bush withheld.

Still, in recalling his record, Obama omitted some crucial details. Israelis still recall with disbelief how Obama refused to honor Bush’s written commitment to Ariel Sharon—that the U.S. would support settlement blocs being incorporated into Israel proper. And never has an American president treated an Israeli prime minister with such shabbiness as Obama has treated Netanyahu. Indeed one gets the impression that of all the world’s leaders, Obama most detests the prime minister of Israel.

Consider how Obama squandered Netanyahu’s ten-month settlement freeze. Rather than pressing the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table, Obama provoked an ugly public fight with Netanyahu over building in a Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem. The message conveyed to the international public by that and other humiliations was that the special relationship was fraying.

Obama’s resolve on Israel often comes too late, an attempt to compensate for his own clumsiness. Like his speech defending Israel to the U.N. General Assembly last September. It was a powerful speech—I wrote about it enthusiastically in TNR at the time. But in retrospect the speech was irrelevant. Except for the Jews, no one seemed to be listening. In the Arab world the speech was dismissed as electioneering. The missed moment was as much a part of the story as the speech itself. That was the speech Obama should have delivered in Cairo in 2009, when he had the attention of the Muslim world. Instead, he squandered a historic opportunity to affirm Israel’s legitimacy, and by the time he did deliver the right speech, it was too late.

All too often that defines Obama’s relationship to Israel. He finally says the right thing and it no longer matters. Because the context is wrong. Or the timing. Or because he seems to be addressing one audience while in fact addressing another—like seeming to talk tough to Iran while in fact trying to restrain Israel.

Nor does Obama’s record in the Middle East more broadly reassure Israelis. Perhaps the worst moment of his presidency was turning his back on the Iranian anti-government demonstrators in 2009, who chanted “Obama, are you with us or with the regime?” Obama’s silence was a historic missed opportunity. So is his current inaction on Syria, Iran’s most important ally. There appears to be no strategic coherence in his Middle East policy. Why, for example, help bring down Qaddafi, as odious as he was, after he had abandoned his nuclear program and his support of terrorism—while allowing Assad a free hand?

Instead of the increasingly harsh warnings we’ve been hearing from Washington in recent weeks against a preemptive Israeli strike, we are now being overwhelmed with reassurance. In fact that has been the pattern in Obama’s relationship to Israel all along: first abuse, then flowers.

Even with all the current goodwill, there was a nasty undertone to Obama’s message. It was this: I believe in a peaceful resolution to the Iranian crisis, while you Israelis are pushing for war.

Those who opposed sanctions in the past and now accuse Israel of war-mongering share at least some of the blame for the current crisis. Since 1993, when Yitzhak Rabin first defined the Iranian nuclear threat as the ultimate existential challenge facing Israel, successive Israeli governments, along with pro-Israel American Jews, have advocated sanctions as the way to avert a choice between preemptive strike and a nuclear Iran. It took five years before the Clinton administration accepted Israel’s assessment that the goal of Iran’s nuclear program was a bomb; and it took Europe a few years longer. And then it took nearly a decade before the international community adopted the Israeli position of real sanctions. Even at this late date, that remains the Israeli position: Only devastating sanctions can break the regime’s determination to produce a bomb. When Obama complains that war talk has forced up oil prices, what are Israelis to conclude except that he will not push sanctions to the limit?

For me to trust Obama on Israel’s ultimate security threat, I need him to speak directly to Iran, not to American Jews and the Israeli public. I need to know that he is as committed to a military solution as he is to a diplomatic solution, if the first option fails. I need to know what his red line is for determining when diplomacy has exhausted itself. Most of all, I need to know whether he is prepared to live with Iranian nuclear capability, just short of developing a bomb—a position he hinted at in his AIPAC speech, when he repeatedly spoke of opposing Iranian nuclear weapons, rather than the capability to produce those weapons.

Mr. President, I’m not reassured. On this one I need to watch my own back.            

Yossi Klein Halevi is a contributing editor for The New Republic and a fellow of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 259 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

259 comments

It's also important to keep the Iranians guessing, rather than giving them more information than they need. It's not the president's job to lay out fixed lines of response but it is his job to make the direction of American policy clear. Under that umbrella, different things can take place. It seems fairly obvious that one could, for example, make a public declaration of a commitment to diplomacy (genuinely meant) while delivering through other means such as naval movements and sanctions administration a message that things are going to get tougher.

- ironyroad

March 7, 2012 at 1:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know what, Halevi, fuck you. Barack Obama is the president of the United States of America. Can you please point to the part of the oath of office which states that the primary job of the president is to cater to every little whim of Israel? How can it still be so goddamned confusing to you that Obama puts the interests of the US above those of a foreign nation?

- bunthorne

March 7, 2012 at 4:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bunthorne, HaLevi is an Israeli citizen living in a perilous situation, but I am a US citizen, and so are millions of other Israel supporters in the United States. Obama is not the United States incarnate. He is, yes, an elected President, not a King. I voted for Obama in 2008 and will likely not vote for him this year. As much as I share the liberal perspective on the US economy, I will not be party to betraying Israel. I wish I could share Irony's confidence in the Obama administration. When Panetta promises that action will be taken when all other options are exhausted, that condition is to be determined by the Obama administration, not the country in peril, Israel. The administration was reluctant to impose recent sanctions on Iran; it's hand was forced by Congress. The administration is now allowing Iran to buy time with spurious negotiations involving Europe. The Europeans are even less trustworthy, in Israeli experience, than Obama. Not to mention Obama's spotty history from Reverend Wright, William Ayres to collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood and bromance with Turkey's militant Islamist leader Tayyip Recip Erdogan. The Administration has lately been arm-twisting the American Jewish community. If we make a campaign issue out of this Israel - Iran situation, Biden aide Anthony Blinken reporttedly hinted to Jewish groups, Israel will get rougher treatment in the next Obama administration. They have already silenced the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee. That is not a the behavior of friends. One of the purposes of Zionism, one of the greatest and most profound national liberation movements of the past century, is to make the Jewish people a self-reliant historically responsible people able to defend themselves and act independently as an equal member of the world of nations. Obama does not respect Israeli sovereignty. He conspires every day to undermine Israel's independence with all the threats and blandishments that can be applied by a great power. This is dangerous because Israel is not the 51st state with US territorial defenses. Every last Aleutian Island is more reliably defended by the United States.

- amidut

March 7, 2012 at 6:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let me add Rashid Khalid to Obama's spotty history.

- amidut

March 7, 2012 at 6:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Can you please point to the part of the oath of office which states that the primary job of the president is to cater to every little whim of Israel?" What's the "little whim" you are referencing here, bunthorne? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203458604577263382407488986.html "Should Israelis and pro-Israel Americans take President Obama at his word when he says—as he did at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference in Washington, D.C., on Sunday—"I have Israel's back"? No. Here is a president who fought tooth-and-nail against the very sanctions on Iran for which he now seeks to reap political credit. He inherited from the Bush administration the security assistance to Israel he now advertises as proof of his "unprecedented" commitment to the Jewish state. His defense secretary has repeatedly cast doubt on the efficacy of a U.S. military option against Iran..."

- noga1

March 7, 2012 at 7:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And about Khalidi's influence on shaping Obama's positions about Israel: http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/2009/06/sweeping-khalidi-under-obamas-rug/ "Wolf has impressions about Obama’s initial views on Israel more than specifics, and the impression was one of sympathy for the views that he and their mutual friend, Palestinian advocate Rashid Khalidi, expressed to him on Israel—views including the need to pressure Israel to give up the West Bank. In retrospect, he believes that Obama was carefully considering their perspective rather than endorsing it. “When he was listening, we had his ear, but he didn’t come down on our side,” he reflects. “I think he was listening and learning and thinking.”

- noga1

March 7, 2012 at 7:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

About Bibi: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lorna-fitzsimons/we-need-to-talk-about-bibi_b_1323889.html?ref=uk in response to this, by Avi Shlaim, a known anti-Zionist "New historian": "The central thread of Netanyahu's policy, [Shlaim] argues, is "outright hatred towards the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular." Bibi "does not believe in peaceful co-existence" but in the "never-ending struggle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness" - hence his war-mongering over Iran. Netanyahu leads "the most...diplomatically intransigent, and overtly racist government in Israel's history" and under his watch "settlement expansion has gone ahead at full tilt," making negotiations with the Palestinians impossible. After a career spent denying the possibility of Arab democracy, "the Arab Spring has proved him wrong," but this "jim-crack politician from a small country" can't seize the moment."

- noga1

March 7, 2012 at 7:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think that Halevi describes with great precision the feeling of Israelis.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 7, 2012 at 7:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Speaking from the Eastern end of the Mediterranean (the one not slaughtering its citizens) Y.K.Halevi does I think capture what many, if not most Israelis feel. Keep in mind that Halevi is very much the moderate who oscillates on a center-moderate left axis. And bunthorne also demonstrates why in the end Israel will probably have to deal with Iran one on one. I don't say this happily, but rather grimly but with a mix of determination and resignation. It's my sons (including the father of my granddaughter) and son-in-law, all combat soldiers now in the reserves, who will be called up for emergency reserve duty to secure the country's borders and deal with a possible rocket barrage from Hezbollah and / or Syria and / or Gazan Hamasniks (although I think the latter is less likely) if / when we go after the Iranian nukes. And my daughter (married to said son-in-law) will probably also be called up for emergency reserve duty. But as bad as it will be, it beats having to contend with the Iranian nukes. For more examples of why Israelis don't trust Obama see Dan Senor's recent piece in the WSJ, here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203986604577257191372525750.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h Amidut -- I have disagreed with you in the past on some issues but I take my kippah off to you for recognizing what Obama is to Israel, and for voting accordingly. Contrary to a common belief among American Jews you will not be struck by lightning; nor is there an 11th commandment "Thou shalt always vote Democratic". חג פורים שמח. -- A Happy Purim to all for whom it is relevant, Hershel Ginsburg Jerusalem / Efrata

- ginzy

March 7, 2012 at 8:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

amidut: well stated. and, always good to hear from you ginzy. I forced myself to watch/listen to Obama's AIPAC speech. I still do not know if he was being honest, but he sure did not look or sound like he wanted to be there. Using "have your back" was so out of character - that is a police and military term that has real meaning. (it is what Rick Perry said, after calling for sanctions on Iran's Central Bank) Of course, I am more curious as to why Nancy Pelosi used the word "evacuate" instead of "excavate" when she was referring to the archaelogical dig that uncovered the 2,700 year old seal with "Netanyahu" in Hebrew. Will future US policy be to evacuate Jerusalem, the eternal and undivided capital of ...?

- K2K

March 7, 2012 at 9:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Nor does Obama’s record in the Middle East more broadly reassure Israelis. Perhaps the worst moment of his presidency was turning his back on the Iranian anti-government demonstrators in 2009, who chanted “Obama, are you with us or with the regime?” Obama’s silence was a historic missed opportunity. So is his current inaction on Syria, Iran’s most important ally. There appears to be no strategic coherence in his Middle East policy. Why, for example, help bring down Qaddafi, as odious as he was, after he had abandoned his nuclear program and his support of terrorism—while allowing Assad a free hand?" I have a hard time believing that Halevi is this dense. Even if Obama's policy on the Middle East turmoil has been ad hoc and driven by events, there is still plenty of strategic coherence in his Middle Eastern policy. Let's start with Iran in 2009 -- the democracy protests were admittedly a surprise to the US, as they were unanticipated and seemed to throw the administration off its preferred path of trying to engage Iran in good faith to test out their intentions in order to prepare the ground for effective sanctions at a later date. That said, the part about protestors calling for Obama to help them is grossly exaggerated as the vast majority of reports of a very well-reported event emphasized that the protestors were asking for help from the broader world and not specifically importuning the United States or its President (yes, there were some people chanting for Obama -- just like there were more people chanting for Khomeini's son). But the Administration made, if not the "right" decision, at least a defensible one to not get too heavily involved in the election protests beyond vaguely worded support. They know America's history in Iran and the resonance it would have with the mass of Iranians who were not out in the streets and could be galvanized by their government to stand up against one more instance of American meddling with their country. They also knew (or guessed correctly) that the protestors had no supporters within the security organs of the state, and that a crackdown would be effective once it came. What would the US have gotten out of a failed attempt to fire up the Iranians against their government? Not more support for sanctions against the nuclear program from other states; not more regional support, as Iran's neighbors would have likely felt the need to lie even lower so as to not anger a government whose masses had just rallied to its defense against foreign meddling. If Obama refused to be swayed by the thought of how good it would be to wake up in the morning as the hero of jailed Iranian dissidents but with all of America's problems with Iran being as far from resolved as ever, that makes him a statesman in my eyes. As for Syria and Libya, there is plenty of strategic coherence in attacking one but not the other. Libya's uprising came at a time when the more important uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt were in critical stages where popular revolt could still have been crushed by government forces. The West needed to prevent this, and stopping Qadaffi from launching massacres gave the West space to ensure orderly transitions in both states. The rebels quickly controlled half the country, thereby making it easier to defend them militarily. Finally, Qadaffi had no friends that mattered, which minimized the risks of broader geostrategic fallout from assaulting him. None of these factors are present in Syria -- certainly not in a combination that should result in a Western air assault in support of Syrian rebels and a military effort to oust Assad's government. It goes without saying that the majority Israelis for whom Halevi purports to speak are not eager for Western military intervention in Syria even to oust the hated Assad, because they rightly fear what might come next -- and, in any case, Syria is already so weakend by internal revolt that it is no longer an effective proxy or ally for Iran. If anything, the Israeli view of intervention in Syria is like their view of US intervention in Iraq in 2003 -- while it's always nice to throw out an anti-Semitic despot, what comes next could well be worse than the despot in power and there are more important things to worry about. In pining for Assad's ouster, Halevi is betraying the views of the American Jewish neoconservative that he used to be rather than the Israeli "moderate" he claims to be today. As to the substance of his argument about America and Israel -- he's right, the US is mostly interested in getting Israel to back off right now. They are interested because the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before him -- the most pro-Israel administration in American history, bar none (and I say this with no irony whatsoever) -- have concluded that whatever Iran does with their nuclear in the next 12 months will not irrevocably and permanently alter the balance of power in the Middle East or result in the endangerment of Israeli security. Based on what they believe to be solid intelligence, they have concluded that Iran's nuclear program can be stopped even after Iran has produced more highly refined uranium and put it underground in Fordo. The Israelis obviously disagree with this, and want the US to strike militarily to prevent the uranium enrichment even if it means that the sanctions against Iran will crumble as a result and that a regional war might ensue. They wanted the same thing from Bush in 2007, and didn't get it. So this is another example where the Israelis' perceived national security interests and the Americans' perceived national security interests differ. Better to see why that is the case on the basis of facts rather than running around casting aspersions on Obama's intentions. Of, and as for Ginzy and Amidut's decision to vote against Obama on the basis of Israel foremost -- everyone is free to vote for anyone for President as they wish, and there is obviously no commandment that requires American Jews to vote for Democrats. But, unlike Ginzy, those of us who live in America are voting on the basis of what affects our lives here foremost rather than what affects Israel. I would count myself in the large majority of American Jews who believe that life in an America run by today's Republican Party would be almost intolerable and a return to the incompetence and economic chaos of the late years of the Bush Administration. Pardon us for believing that it is more imporant to keep America prosperous, safe and strong (so that it can still have the financial and military capability to assist Israel when necessary) than it is to always agree with Israeli intelligence assessments.

- wildboy

March 7, 2012 at 10:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is wrong headed. Obama spoke to Israel because it's Israel that doubt doubts his intention to challenge Iran's development of nuclear bombs. Halevi also confuses the Iranian crisis with the stalled peace process. All in all a disappointing article written by a usually very astute analyst of the Israeli scene.

- arnon1

March 7, 2012 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, I feel sorry for Nancy Pelosi. She is an astute politician and legislator. She knew the mood of her audience, but couldn't deviate from the White House message. If only Obama had her back and Harry Reid's back during all the tussle over health care reform. Wildboy, the relationship between Left and the Jewish voters has become an abusive one. Whenever some Jews deviate on matters of Jewish concern, all the patronizing house Jews come out of the American Left's Yevsektsia to abuse us and warn us of the dire consequences of independent thought and action. If the United States could not anticipate the democracy protests in Iran, as Wildboy admits, how good is its military intelligence? We have lots of well-paid Iran specialists in Washington and in the Middle East. Are they failing to provide useful information and analysis or are the top policy makers unwilling or unable to comprehend what is happening? I submit that it is Obama's vacillation that is contributing most to the uncertainty and risk of war in the Middle East, not the anguished Israelis who face the hardest decisions.

- amidut

March 7, 2012 at 10:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

all Israel has to do is wait until after November's elections and they will have free rein to do what they want. If Obama wins he will not have to worry about running for re-election and if Romney wins then no way in hell would he object. The greatest catastrophe for Israel would be for them to act now and either cost Obama the election and then have to deal with a deep, long standing enmity amongst millions of Democrats from now on or if Israel acts now but Obama still wins then they will have to deal with the enmity of the Democrats and a sitting President all of whom will despise Netanyahu and will not be inclined to lift a finger for Israel. I can deal with the fallout of an Israeli action with a re-elected Obama because I think he could weather it as well as anyone could. And if the US is dumb enough to vote for Romney, then since we are going to hell anyhow might as well take Iran with us. But for the love of God, if Israel delivers the election to Romney then I will have had it. This is my life too. If Israel knifes the Democrats in the back then to hell with them. If Netanyahu acts partly because he thinks he can deliver the Presidency to Romney he will bring ruin upon Israel. Now to be clear I am not accusing him of this since as of now he has not done anything, but Israelis had better be fully cognizant that this is how millions upon millions of Democrats will feel. Halevi is an effing moron if he is not aware of this danger. Now if Iran test fires a nuke before then, or shows unequivocal evidence that they have a working bomb then none of this matters, the US and Israel will act with the support of most of the world because Iran will have shown itself to be a liar who brought it upon themselves. But it better be sure, Americans won't stand for another war with relying on spotty evidence of WMDs.

- blackton

March 7, 2012 at 10:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When faced with an existential crisis, build a few apartments in Jerusalem. What could be more important? And what could be more indicative of the disdain of Netanyahu at least, and perhaps a large part or even the majority, of the Israeli electorate for the United States and for the notion that the relationship demands reciprocity. Israel taxes the United States. With its vulnerability and the US commitment to Israel's defense, it has yoked us to its settlement policy, a policy that violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, a multitude of UNSC resolutions, is deplored by the entire world, rejected as illegal by the ICJ, including conspicuously by the Israeli justice, and is, yes, contrary to stated US policy too. Oh, and did I mention that Israel committed in the Road Map to a complete freeze, including "natural growth," a commitment it ignored? So contrary to our own interests is this, that the world looks at us agog and can only assume that it is the result of the successful pressure of the Israel lobby. And that may well be correct. Why should an American president not be uncomfortable appearing at AIPAC? How can an American president not be uncomfortable when under political pressure to swear fealty to a foreign power and have to grope for that rhetorical line that will allow him to keep faith with his responsibilities to us, to the American people, without creating for himself an intractable political problem? I would be uncomfortable within a square mile of the AIPAC convention. I admire his cool and his guts for being able to show up and comport himself so well. So, Halevi is right. As I said here, the speech was addressed to Israel, not as a threat to Iran. But it was also addressed to Iran and the world. The message is this: Israel has no sanction from us to attack Iran. It is contrary to our policy, contrary to our interest, and, if it occurs, will be without our participation. Indeed, we have done, and will do, our best to restrain it. This is appropriate. Given the risks in both directions, the US should not be dragged into a war with Iran at Israel's behest. If we are to be at war with Iran, then it should be at the time and in the manner of our own choosing, as best serves our security and our interests. As to Israel's sovereignty and our purported offenses against it, that is risible. States jockey for position within the world and exist to do so. They use all the tools at their disposal to induce actions by other states that conform to their interests. Israel does this too, although its diplomacy has become more and more clumsy and brittle over time as it has slipped into the thrall of religious fanatics and settler zealots. Unless preparing or making illegal war (and that has only been illegal for less than a century), it is no offense to sovereignty. Israel pursues its interests in trying to have the US act in Israel's interests. That is no offense to our sovereignty, although directly lobbying our legislature, in a manner unique to Israel, might be considered such. While I doubt it will be the immediate response, and it may never be the response, if Israel begins to wake up to the fact that its greatest safety is not in demanding that the US, the world, align with Israel but that Israel align itself firmly with the US and the west. AIPAC does a disservice by continually tempting Israel to the belief that it can successfully control US policy in Israel's interests. In the short-term, perhaps. Else AIPAC wouldn't exist, would it? But in the long-term, when so much is at stake, that is not possible. Better to start figuring out how to regain its status as member in good standing of the western community. As for the instant problem, Obama has done his best to establish that American military policy will be our policy, not Israel's. If Israel insists on attacking Iran anyway, there are various possible outcomes. Perhaps the single most likely, is not much. Not much of an impact on Iran's program and not much of a response from either Iran or oil markets. Not far behind that, I would place not much of an impact on Iran's program and a large response from Iran, perhaps leading to a spreading war, and/or a large response by oil markets leading to a marked slow-down in the world economy. We are then well-place at least to point the finger at Israel. Less likely in my opinion is that there is a large impact on Iran's program, with or without a strong adverse response by Iran or markets. If the miracle occurs, and Iran is hugely set back with little adverse consequence, well then, it will be Osirak all over again. The world will issue admonitions to Israel briefly and all will rejoice, openly or secretly. Withal, we are positioned as best we can be. And if the worst happens, it just may be the case that the world, including the US, will conclude that it is simply too dangerous to permit the conflict over Palestine to continue without resolution and will resolve it. That would be a good thing. So far, the Green Line is not in contention as an acceptable recognized border for Israel. If the worst possible outcome, although not what I would wish, is that Israel is forced back to the Green Line and the conflict is over, it would be worth it. So, yes, Israel must watch its own back. And the sooner it starts shouldering that responsibility, the better for all concerned, because that is not just a matter of adopting the right path as far as Iran, but tending to its place in the world in general. Alienating the world and depending on the US to protect it from the consequences is a dead-end.

- roidubouloi

March 7, 2012 at 11:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Wildboy, the relationship between Left and the Jewish voters has become an abusive one. Whenever some Jews deviate on matters of Jewish concern, all the patronizing house Jews come out of the American Left's Yevsektsia to abuse us and warn us of the dire consequences of independent thought and action." Amidut, I hope that you were one of those Jews who voted for George W. Bush in 2004, primarily on the basis of his stalwart support of Israel in facing down the Second Intifadah and his Global War on Muslim terrorists. If so, you got exactly what you deserved, right down to the financial crisis. How did that "independent thought and action" work out for ya?

- wildboy

March 7, 2012 at 11:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, and Amidut, did Israeli intelligence anticipate those Iranian protests in 2009? If so, I don't recall reading about it anywhere. That would have been something they would have bragged about, in showing how well Israel understands Iranian society, right?

- wildboy

March 7, 2012 at 11:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes - more adjectives please! Maybe Obama should start calling the "military option" the "military option of extreme harm, destruction, and death." What he needs is some sort of branding expert really. Maybe he should pitch his boring sanctions as "mangling measures" or something like that ... a little alliteration could go a long way.

- NR851651

March 7, 2012 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I pretty much concur with blackton. Obama has done his best not only to inform Israel, Iran, and the world of what US policy is, independent of that of Israel if you can imagine such a thing, but to insulate himself politically from negative consequences should Israel proceed on its own and make a big mess of it and the world economy. If he were seen in any way as condoning Israeli action, he would not only be inviting the mess, but chaining himself to it. Being well-positioned at least to say I told you so is the soundest course for him and for us. I am encouraged at Obama's threading of this needle. Not perfect (how could it be perfect in the face of a political anomaly such as AIPAC?), but the best that could be done under the circumstances.

- roidubouloi

March 7, 2012 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I wish I could share Irony's confidence in the Obama administration." Well, I think there is some evidence for confidence, in particular the contrast between the focus shown by this administration and the drift the Iran policy showed under its predecessor. Also fwiw I think there should be a new version of the absurd point in any discussion, the Argumentum ad Hitlerandum (you know, when someone scrapes the bottom of the barrel and says something like 'Well Hitler was a vegetarian too!'). I'm going to call it the Khalidi Pirouette, and it describes the moment when, lost for anything else to bring up against Obama's foreign policy, the speaker/writer whirls around and snaps "And he was a friend of Rashid Khalidi!"

- ironyroad

March 7, 2012 at 11:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is imperative that the republicans do not win in November. They are mortal enemies of the middle class. What we have seen this week is two friends USA and Israel that agreed to disagree. Both leaders Obama and Netanyahu were as always very articulate , very intelligent, frank, honest and assertive. It was a show of democratic free world discourse. I wish the middle eastern countries would do the same. I hope that Israel will obtain the alliance of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Kurds from Iraq, Azerbaijan in stopping Iran from nuclear weapons. I have been wondering why Sadam used chemical/biological weapons exclusively against the Kurds in Iran and in Iraq. Why he never used them against the Shia in either Iran or Iraq. On the Kurds topic. They are not involved against Assad in Syria. These shows the weakness of the Syrian revolt.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 7, 2012 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You shouldn't have to wait long, irony.

- roidubouloi

March 7, 2012 at 11:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh yes, I'd also like to point out something that keeps getting missed here: the process by which Obama is reframing the Iranian threat from something that hangs over Israel into something that hangs over the region and, ultimately, U.S. national security interests at the highest level. Friedman laid it out this morning in the NYT quite effectively and I'm pretty damn sure that Netanyahu knows exactly what the president is doing. This changes the nature of the whole discussion and gets it out from under some "Mirror mirror on the wall / Who's the more pro-Israeli of us all?" competition in which the one who shouts loudest wins. If carried out effectively, it makes Iran realize that Israel is only one aspect of what they have to deal with. Teheran can bluster, but they understand that (a) they have to decide if they really want to base their future on some Islamist fantasy and (b) they are not going to get the free ride they got between 2001 and 2008.

- ironyroad

March 7, 2012 at 11:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

According to one erratic blogger stated that the budget of USA intelligence agencies is larger than Israel GDP. This lie is such a lie, Israel GDP is 240 billion, that is more than risible. And the USA intelligence agencies failed in predicting, and understanding, first the Iranian society uprising, followed by the Arab spring. It is not only the failure of Israel in the understanding of these societies, but that of the " enormously rich USA intelligence agencies". The king... Is a dishonest distorter, shame on him, followed by the other soon to be domesticated and to become a grownup fellow blogger. Two of a kind, dishonest, distorters, and above all biased very very biased.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 7, 2012 at 11:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I guess the message doesn't get through. The NYT and it's spokesmen Thomas Friedman and Roger Cohen are fiercely anti Israel distorting and dishonest, very biased. Their credibility is much less than zero. The logo of the NYT is "all the biased news fit to print". Roger Cohen distinguished himself as an Iranian apologist. Thomas Friedman not only posts anti Israel diatribes. But also anti Semitic. On Netanyauh's previous speech to Congress, where he received multiple standing ovations, Thomas wrote that all of Congress had been bribed by the Israel lobby. All the biased news fit to print. I kid you not.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 7, 2012 at 12:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have told over and over to my fellow articulate blogger to stick to correcting grammar.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 7, 2012 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lunch break.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 7, 2012 at 12:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Enough of this Iran stuff! What I really want to know is whether JAIMECHUCH is celebrating Purim starting at sundown tonight, like most Jews, or if he is celebrating it on Chuchan Purim starting at sundown tomorrow?

- wildboy

March 7, 2012 at 12:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Calm down, Jaime. It was a joke, meant to draw attention to the reality that the US is going to decide whether to make war on Iran based both on its own interests and its own intelligence assessments. However, the fact is that the US intelligence budge is northwards of 35% of Israel's GDP. Now, you might think that the US would be better off ignoring its own intelligence services and depending instead on Israel's. Maybe you would be right. But for bureaucratic reasons alone, even assuming the US gets nothing for its $80 billion a year, that is not going to happen. More generally, the fantasy that Israel's experience of urgency and angst is going to be the mover of US policy -- even were it backed up even by the Word of God delivered to Netanyahu's ear -- is just that, a fantasy. Perhaps it is something about Jerusalem as the navel of the world, the center of universal religious forces (think the vortex in Ghostbusters), that results in so much sheer craziness surrounding Middle East policy. Is there anything like this melodrama concerning our policy as regards anything else whatsoever?

- roidubouloi

March 7, 2012 at 12:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wildboy and others: I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.

- amidut

March 7, 2012 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And so?

- roidubouloi

March 7, 2012 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"When faced with an existential crisis, build a few apartments in Jerusalem. What could be more important?" Roid, those two sentences are a great formulation of just about everything that's wrong with the current Israeli government and its relations with the US.

- wildboy

March 7, 2012 at 2:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I really do wish TNR would publish one article, just one, that isn't regurgitating the same line, over and over and over again on this issue. In serious danger here of being seen as a propaganda outlet rather than a serious magazine.

- IggyPop

March 7, 2012 at 2:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

IggyPop is welcome to peruse The Nation, American Prospect, The Guardian, The New York Review of Books and all the other predictably anti-Israel organs. He's just upset that TNR takes a more independent line on Israel. He has a strange definition of quality: adherence to the party line.

- amidut

March 7, 2012 at 2:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You could argue it's independent all right Amidut. (Although every article I've read in other brands, including the ones you mention, all frame the question in the same terms: when to strike, how to strike, etc.) If this is an independent approach, then it's certainly a myopic one. It's essentially the same article by analysts, professors, politicians, citizens, again and again and again.

- IggyPop

March 7, 2012 at 2:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, no kidding, our articulate blogger goes haywire , now is 80 billion handout from USA to Israel. we better check the NASDAQ with the large number of Israeli companies making billions for American investors. Just ask Intel, Microsoft, HP, Apple what they think about their billions in investment in Israel. My fortune cookie advised: avert misunderstanding by calm, poise and balance. No way with dishonest, distorted bloggers. Why are they anti Israel? Why are they self hatred Jews? Maybe bad experiences during their youth? Maybe jealousy ? Nobody knows. They probably don't know. One is a frustrated , maybe, fired diplomat. The other ... Why don't you tell us the truth. We are listening soon to be domesticated old fool. To my domesticated soon to be grownup, I will use the noise generated to destroy the Persian evil during Purim, to destroy the evil anti Israel coming from self hatred Jews. Even if they are Galicianer dishonest, or domesticate to be grownup.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 7, 2012 at 2:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

IggyPop are you referring to demonization of republican candidates. Adulation of incumbent Obama. Or what. However I am against republicans winning in November, they are enemies of the middle class. Anyhow. TNR is the only free for all boogers site. Even you can give credit to this. Now we have established self discipline. Try to blog in the NYT, it is screened for everything specially if you criticize their obsessed anti Israel policies. TNR is true freedom of the press, NYT is all the biased news fit to print. However I am a fan of the Yankees , and the NYT reporting of the Bronx baseball team is just terrific. Otherwise I bypass Thomas Friedman, Roger Cohen, and all their reporting, editorials, blogs anti Israel malfeasance .

- JAIMECHUCH

March 7, 2012 at 2:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Whoa, Jaime, whoa! I hate to interrupt you when you are on a roll, and doing so well I might add, but the $80 billion figure I quoted is the US intelligence budget. It has nothing to do with Israel. I was comparing the size of the US intelligence budget, literally this time, to the size of Israel's GDP and noting that, for better or worse given the magnitude of this expenditure. the US is going to rely on its own intelligence assessments. It will certainly listen with great interest to anything Israel has to say, particularly as to facts, but is not going to rely on Israeli judgments even if those were not responsive to Israeli interests that are not identical to US interests. ______________________ I think so too, wildboy.

- roidubouloi

March 7, 2012 at 3:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When I first glanced over this article, dated today, it was deja vu, but I was mixing it up with the article a few days ago, http://www.tnr.com/article/world/101304/obama-israel-iran-usa-preemptive-strike-war .

- yerubal

March 7, 2012 at 3:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let me ask you a personal question soon to be domesticated old irritant. Do you play the role of Amman in Purim? I am sure yo enjoy it. Surely our articulate blogger does enjoy it. 80 billion USA-Israel handout , my foot, even that I have been recovering from burst inflammation on my left foot. Keep it coming . Galicianers are known to be dishonest. And you re-afirm the rule. Although my late Galicianer father in law was not dishonest .

- JAIMECHUCH

March 7, 2012 at 3:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would also like to take this opportunity, because it amuses me to do so, to note that the GDP of the City of New York, comparable in population to Israel, is six times that of Israel and about 10% of the entire United States and is larger than that of the State of Texas. The GDP of Tel Aviv appears to be 50% of that of Israel. How about that? For some reason I cannot fathom, the GDP of Tokyo appears to be slightly larger than that of New York. Must be a statistical error. The internet and google are grand things, surely.

- roidubouloi

March 7, 2012 at 3:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am struck dumb, Jaime. What does the size of the US intelligence budget have to to with "USA-Israel handout?" Yes, it is true that all we Galicianers, except your late father-in-law of course, are liars. But I looked the numbers up. You can look them up too if you don't believe me. I am completely mystified at your dyspepsia over this.

- roidubouloi

March 7, 2012 at 3:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't be ridiculous, Jaime. Friedman is not anti-Israel and if you think so, you then have the job of explaining why it's bad for Israel to have the Iranian nuclear program an American and even a global security/proliferation issue. Indeed, there has been much commentary elsewhere about how Israeli governments have always wanted to make this whole affair "Iranian threat toward everyone" and not "Iranian threat toward Israel," with the promise of a broader resistance to Teheran. But when Obama does exactly that -- making it clear to Iran that the stakes are a lot higher than they might like to believe -- he gets pilloried. Curious.

- ironyroad

March 7, 2012 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Reluctantly and with great regret, in the main I support what roi and blackton have said. I am a passionate supporter of Israel and always have been, and though noga has respectfully and I think sympathetically discounted my declaration to make every effort to go to Israel myself to help it defend itself—unrealistic as it probably is to suppose I would succeed, I mean it with all my heart, as does my partner who is in total agreement with me and similarly a passionate defender of Israel. I don't want Israel to be destroyed or forced to cede some or any of its sovereignty. I believe it would be disastrous, even calamitous, for the World should Israel, G-d forbid, cease to exist. I don't believe that will happen. But, as I think everybody here would agree, Israel is truly between a rock and hard place. It's not its own fault, certainly, nonetheless I believe it to be so now. If it attacks Iran's nuclear facilities on its own, the attempt will fail one way or the other. Even with full U.S. military backing, including ground forces, I doubt the outcome would be favorable. And, it would set Israel back which would be tragic. But, having said all that, I don't think by any means that Iran's Revolutionary Regime has won anything. It too is vulnerable so that if it attacked Israel itself, the Iranian people would suffer, whereby whatever support they now nominally give their own government would collapse. In sum, military confrontation between Israel and Iran, whichever side might initiate it, would plunge the region into chaos. All bets would be off, and the outcome could be most anything the imagination could conjure; that would be a global tragedy. Even though I agree that Obama is a reluctant partner to Israel, I take him at his word, he would have Israel's back. However, what good that might do is anybody's guess, the situation is so volatile. The best possible outcome would be Iran's Regime being brought to its knees in the face of international opprobrium. That won't happen, at least, I don't think it is reasonable to expect. But it must yield, and therefore must be given enough breathing space to do so, in as face-saving way as possible. That would really do them no favors, just offer the highest-probability chance they would survive. War now will be lose-lose only. That's why I think it best to press Obama to the max, but to allow for more time to work out a compromise Iran can accept. This is the reasoning of my heart. My mental reasoning isn't up to the task to arrive at any other way through: not a solution but a way through is what I hope and pray for. It won't make myself or any defender of Israel happy, but Israel may have to accept conditions it now deems unacceptable. Its just the way the chips come down: no reassurances, let alone any guarantees, have much credibility any longer. I'm sorry but that's the way I see it for today. Tomorrow may bring hopeful or promising changes, I can only hope.

- Tgossard

March 7, 2012 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

History of Israel intelligence. Menachem Begin was given an intercepted dispatch saying that there was a plot to assassinate Sadat of Egypt. Begin told him why do you give it to me send it to Sadat. This was just after the Yom Kippur war triumph of sorts of Egypt vs Israel. The news riched Sadat and he was spared assassination, at least then. Good news good feelings. Then Sadat said I will visit Jerusalem if you Begin invite me. Begin invited Sadat, and he came to Jerusalem. Everything else is commentary. At least one of the successes of Israel intelligence. You wouldn't hear it from our articulate fellow blogger.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 7, 2012 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Oh yes, I'd also like to point out something that keeps getting missed here: the process by which Obama is reframing the Iranian threat from something that hangs over Israel into something that hangs over the region and, ultimately, U.S. national security interests at the highest level" Yes, that is a good reframing of the Iranian threat and one that Israel has insisted upon for many many years now. Obama, until a while ago, chose to create a non-existent linkage between the Iran threat and the building of a few apartments in Jerusalem. Maybe he HAS learned something but what I'm hoping is that it not too late now. If he really means it, if he really meant what he said to AIPAC, then it is not too late. And there is no way we can know that, is there?

- noga1

March 7, 2012 at 3:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry my friendly grammar corrector. Thomas Friedman is going to come and kiss you, and I wouldn't blame him.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 7, 2012 at 3:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Many thanks to TNR and the editors who got this timely followup to the earlier Halevy article to happen. This is indeed a restrained but serious, subtle and fair critical piece that should serve as a reminder to open-minded readers of the salient elements of the problem. I too voted for Gore and Kerry, and then Obama (with fingers crossed). And I, too, like Halevy, have now seen this tragedy unfold to this point. If I were describing the situation in a nutshell, I would have nothing to add or subtract from what Halevy has exposited here.

- yerubal

March 7, 2012 at 3:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Our articulate fellow blogger. Frustrated diplomat is terrific, he brings the best on me. I keep catching him on anti Israel lies. First he had the canard of USA Israel 3billion aid to Israel as a waste, in spite that Israel with 240 billion GDP, spends over 16 billion in military purchases exclusively with American companies. Then he states that USA intelligence agencies budget is larger than Israel's GDP, ost du shein geert, 240 billion!!!. Then he phrases, as only a diplomat can, a dishonest one, that USA 80 billion expenditure is wasted. Then he explains that is the USA intelligence budget. Well at least you are a distorter. At any rate Israel should attack Iran if and if only Saudi Arabia, Iraqi Kurds, Jordan, Azerbaijan come aboard. Otherwise let Iran develop the bomb. Let us see how the USA and these neighbors manage it. And that includes Turkey and Egypt. They deserve it.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 7, 2012 at 3:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If the rhetoric of Obama's speech is satisfactory to noga, even while she distrusts his intentions, then it was a very successful speech. We can likely expect this shortly to become a non-issue through the election, and Obama will not be under untoward pressure to do damage to US interests for domestic political purposes. Goodbye, AIPAC. Have a pleasant trip home.

- roidubouloi

March 7, 2012 at 4:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jaime, Jaime, Jaime. I expressed no opinion about whether the US $80 billion intelligence budget is wasted. I said that, even if it is, the US is not going to base its strategic decisions on the opinions of Israeli intelligence in preference to those of its own intelligence agencies. Yes, the US $3 billion for Israel is a waste, wholly unjustified. I would end it tomorrow.

- roidubouloi

March 7, 2012 at 4:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From AP Wires: VIENNA (AP) -- Satellite images of an Iranian military facility appear to show trucks and earth-moving vehicles at the site, indicating an attempted cleanup of radioactive traces possibly left by tests of a nuclear-weapon trigger, diplomats told The Associated Press on Wednesday. The assertions from the diplomats, all nuclear experts accredited to the International Atomic Energy Agency, could add to the growing international pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes. While the U.S. and the EU are backing a sanctions-heavy approach, Israel has warned that it may resort to a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent it from obtaining atomic weapons. Two of the diplomats said the crews at the Parchin military site may be trying to erase evidence of tests of a small experimental neutron device used to set off a nuclear explosion. A third diplomat could not confirm that but said any attempt to trigger a so-called neutron initiator could only be in the context of trying to develop nuclear arms. The diplomats said they suspect attempts at sanitization because some of the vehicles at the scene appeared to be haulage trucks and other equipment suited to carting off potentially contaminated soil from the site. The images, provided by member countries to the IAEA, the U.N's nuclear watchdog, are recent and constantly updated, one of the diplomats said. The diplomats all asked for anonymity to discuss sensitive information. The IAEA has already identified Parchin as the location of suspected nuclear weapons-related testing. In a November report, it said it appeared to be the site of experiments with conventional high explosives meant to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. It did not mention a neutron initiator as part of those tests, but in a separate section cited an unnamed member nation as saying Iran may have experimented with a neutron initiator, without going into detail or naming a location for such work. In contrast, the intelligence information shared with the AP by the two diplomats linked the high-explosives work directly to setting off a neutron initiator at Parchin. In explaining such a device, the agency's November report said that "if placed in the center of a nuclear core of an implosion-type nuclear device and compressed, (it) could produce a burst of neutrons suitable for initiating a fission chain reaction." If Iran did try to trigger a neutron initiator, it would harden international suspicions by adding a nuclear component to a suspected string of experiments linked to weapons development that generally have not included radioactive material. Iran has previously attempted to clean up sites considered suspicious by world powers worried about Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Iran razed the Lavizan Shian complex in northern Iran five years ago before allowing IAEA inspectors to visit the suspected repository of military procured equipment that could be used in a nuclear weapons program. Tehran said the site had been demolished to make way for a park, but inspectors subsequently found traces of uranium enriched to or near the level used in making the core of nuclear warheads. The Iranians also embarked on an extensive redo at the Kalay-e Electric Co., just west of Tehran, before agency inspectors were given access nine years ago. Although the site was re-painted and otherwise sanitized, samples taken from Kalay-e also showed traces of enriched uranium, though at levels substantially below warhead grade. One official from an IAEA member country with good intelligence on Iran said the Parchin neutron initiator experiments were conducted between 2003 and 2010. Another said any such tests were closer to 2003, adding it was not clear whether they were successful. The timing is important. U.S. intelligence officials say they generally stand by a 2007 intelligence assessment that asserts Iran stopped comprehensive secret work on developing nuclear arms in 2003. But Britain, France, Germany, Israel and other U.S. allies think such activities have continued past that date, a view shared by the IAEA, which says in recent reports that some isolated and sporadic activities may be ongoing. Iran vehemently denies allegations that it conducted any research and development into atomic weapons and says the totality of its nuclear activities are meant purely to generate power or for research. Asked for comment, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's chief delegate to the IAEA, told the AP he would not discuss any nuclear issues until after he delivered his statement to the agency's 35-nation board meeting Thursday. IAEA officials also said they could not comment. Attention most recently focused on Parchin several days ago, when senior IAEA officials first spoke of unexplained activities at the site without saying what they could be and said an inspection of buildings there was taking on added urgency. One of six diplomats who spoke with the AP said his country continued to reserve judgment on what the movements at the site meant but two others who had seen recent spy satellite imagery said the trucks and other equipment at the site almost certainly showed attempts to clean it of radioactive contamination. They declined to go into detail but said radioactive traces could also be left by material other than a neutron initator, such as uranium metal which can be used as a substitute for testing purposes. IAEA expert teams trying to probe the suspicions of secret weapons work by Iran tried - and failed - twice in recent weeks to get Iranian permission to visit Parchin. Tehran then said on Monday that such a visit would be granted. But it said that a comprehensive agreement outlining conditions of such an inspection must first be agreed on - move dismissed by a senior international official familiar with the issue as a delaying tactic. He, too, asked not to be named because the matter was sensitive. The diplomats and officials spoke ahead of a meeting of the IAEA board Thursday focusing on Iran's defiance of U.N. Security Council demands to end uranium enrichment - which can make both nuclear fuel and fissile warhead material - and dispel other suspicions that it may be seeking nuclear weapons. That session was to take place Wednesday but had to be adjourned to give six world powers time to find common ground on how harshly to criticize Iran. They agreed on a text late Wednesday but only after marathon negotiations reflecting the difficulty of presenting a united front at upcoming talks with Iran. Officials did not detail the text agreed upon, but the U.S., Britain, France and Germany wanted a joint statement that takes Iran to task for defying U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding it end uranium enrichment and cooperate with an IAEA probe of suspicions it secretly worked on nuclear arms. A senior Western diplomat, however, told the AP that Russia and China, which have condemned Western sanctions on Iran as counterproductive, sought more moderate language. He also asked for anonymity to discuss confidential matters.

- Tgossard

March 7, 2012 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On re-read, the AP article is not so dramatic as it first appeared to me. My nerves are on edge and I need to pull back. I'm a musician, not a national defense or diplomatic affairs expert. So I'm checking out of this thread now with best wishes to all, whether or not I agree with them. (;

- Tgossard

March 7, 2012 at 4:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Do my eyes deceive me, or is Bibi starting to look like Ariel Sharon?

- roidubouloi

March 7, 2012 at 5:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And I, too, like Halevy, have now seen this tragedy unfold to this point. If I were describing the situation in a nutshell, I would have nothing to add or subtract from what Halevy has exposited here." But yerubal, why is eight years (2001-8) of letting the Iranian nuclear issue drift (to Teheran's advantage) not a "tragedy" but three years of actually focusing on the problem and getting significant international backing for tougher sanctions is one? It makes no sense.

- ironyroad

March 7, 2012 at 5:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"three years of actually focusing on the problem and getting significant international backing for tougher sanctions" If that is so, then why are people here complaining that Obama fought against the Congress's resolution to impose tough sanctions on Iran? Who is lying or misrepresenting the truth about this matter? I may not be as focused as you are, but I don't have the same recollection as you do, ironyroad, of Obama being focused on Iran. To me it seems he was much more focused on creating a false link between Iran's aspirations and Israel building a few residential units in Jerusalem. You have not explained how we know he means what he says this time around? And is roi correct that AIPAC is being duped just long enough into supporting Obama, only to be discarded as soiled cloths once he starts his second term in office?

- noga1

March 7, 2012 at 5:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Our articulate blogger is wrong as always. The 3 billion has been the best USA foreign , not aid, investment ever. Don't be shy, recognize it, it will make you happy. Go and celebrate Purim. Do not forget to make a lot of noise to chase away the evil of Amman , to chase away the evil of haters of Israel. To chase away the evil of detractors of Israel.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 7, 2012 at 6:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like every president I can think of, Obama doesn't want his foreign policy being made by Congress. That is plenty of reason to resist congressional resolutions on the subject. I don't know if AIPAC is to be duped and discarded, but it has no proper role here in the first place, so I don't much care. Lobbying for a war on behalf of a foreign power? I find that quite objectionable. AIPAC clearly should be registered as an agent of a foreign power. It is only politics that has compelled the Dept of Justice to fail properly to enforce our laws as they apply to Israel and American Jews. I personally do not like to be a member of a group that is obtaining special, favorable treatment from the US government at the expense of my fellow citizens. I know, of course, that Israelis also do not want to be members of groups obtaining special favor from their government at the expense of their fellow citizens. "The Foreign Agents Registration Act is a United States law (22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.) passed in 1938 requiring that agents representing the interests of foreign powers be properly identified to the American public. . . . The act requires people and organizations that are under foreign control ("agents of a foreign principal") to register with the Department of Justice when acting on behalf of foreign interests. This law defines the agent of a foreign principal as someone who: Engages in political activities for or in the interests of a foreign principal; Acts in a public relations capacity for a foreign principal; Solicits or dispenses any thing of value within the United States for a foreign principal; Represents the interests of a foreign principal before any agency or official of the U.S. government." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act Now tell me that doesn't describe AIPAC to a tee. If it were duly registered, the great unwashed public would have a much clearer understanding of what is going on. I am sure that, election or not, Obama will make his decisions about how to proceed with respect to Iran with the best interests of the United States of America in mind. He has thus far shown himself to have a cool head and a gift for assessing advice on strategy and tactics. That is all I could wish for. ___________________ I cannot think of a single, solitary reason why Israel, with its $240 billion economy, should be receiving another dime of aid from the US. But, keep your hand out, Jaime. Very becoming.

- roidubouloi

March 7, 2012 at 6:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know why others are complaining, Noga, but I do believe that it's not always a good idea to do diplomacy by megaphone. Also, my guess is the Obama -- like all presidents -- wants to keep decision-making levers in the White House. My impression was that they wanted to keep ratcheting up sanctions on Iran and not blow all the toolbox in one go. I do remember that the administration started working on Iran from Spring 2009, at which point Obama offered an opening to Teheran to step into a proper dialogue with U.S. in which a substantial number of issues, including the nuclear one, would be on the table, with the prospect down the line of a new relationship between the two countries. There was much discussion about that here on TNR. This caused some ripples of uncertainty among the Iranian leadership, but any potential opening was squished by Khameini. It was predictable that that would happen, but it was also very important to show the rest of the world that the rigidity and foot-dragging was not the fault of the U.S. but of Iran. This, I think (at least, it seems logical) was of considerable help in moving other countries toward supporting tougher sanctions. Again, the sudden appearance of the summer protest movement was much discussed here (whether the U.S. should have been more full-throated in support or not). I don't know if that counts as solid evidence, but I would say that there has been considerable focus on Iran for the last three years. The key administration players up to and including the president have also done a couple of extended interviews (there was a big one with several f-p writers including Robert Kagan about 18 months ago) in which they have laid out aspects of the strategy. These were also debated here.

- ironyroad

March 7, 2012 at 6:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Halevi doesn't believe Obama. He represents an important strand in Israeli leadership that feels that way. Fine. As an Israeli supporter, I look at other voices, and can't find much in Halevi's history to give me confidence in his belief system. He's constantly a voice that naysays movement on the Palestinian front. He's basically shown up here as a full blown Netanyahu fan. Yes, he speaks with the voice of radical concern about Iran, but that doesn't mean he's right. His positioning of how Obama treats Netanyahu is parochial to the point of dangerously hermetic, as if the American president has some special responsibility to any figure who runs Israel. It's "leadership" like Netanyahu who, in mind mind, are tragically obsessive about their own role in history and want to alter it so badly that they'll drag everyone they're supposedly trying to help down in the muck. So Halevi once granted Obama showed up as he wanted (at the UN). Big whoop. His voice reminds me of Netanyhu's, which looks at the world as if there are only two issues; Israel and its ability to maintain a status quo, a status quo which many Zionists feel is fairly rotten, not just for the non-Jews in their midst, but also for the Jewish people. Pushing for a war because of a desire to leverage short term political opportunity may be good real politik. But for much of us, it's obscene. And I'm more than happy to see many non-lefties (as evidence by the recent ad taken by retired American generals) as well as progressives, voicing their own rejection of it.

- sollyman2

March 7, 2012 at 6:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Like every president I can think of, Obama doesn't want his foreign policy being made by Congress. That is plenty of reason to resist congressional resolutions on the subject." And like every President Obama will have to acknowledge that under our political system citizens (elected official are citizens) have a right to express their views on foreign and domestic policy. This had been argued since John Adams and Thomas Jefferson came to blows over the French revolution.

- arnon1

March 7, 2012 at 6:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sollyman2 "Halevi doesn't believe Obama. He represents an important strand in Israeli leadership that feels that way. Fine. As an Israeli supporter, I look at other voices, and can't find much in Halevi's history to give me confidence in his belief system..." I don't care about his belied system I just don't agree with his reading of Obama's position on Israel. Obama is, as are Hillary and Biden, staunch supporters of Israel. I don't know how many people here remember the primary when Hillary said that if Iran attacked Israel with nukes she wold launch a massive and fierce retaliatory attack against Iran. This wasn't just campaign rhetoric. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Iran "On April 22, 2008, Clinton threatened Iran with nuclear annihilation if they attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. On ABC News Good Morning America, she said "If Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel what would our response be? I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. That's what we will do. There is no safe haven." She continued, "Whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they may foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."[75] Iran complained to the UN about her comments.[76]" That Republicans accuse Democrats of being anti-Israel is disgusting.

- arnon1

March 7, 2012 at 7:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The link didn't work: "On April 22, 2008, Clinton threatened Iran with nuclear annihilation if they attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. On ABC News Good Morning America, she said "If Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel what would our response be? I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. That's what we will do. There is no safe haven." She continued, "Whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they may foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."[75] Iran complained to the UN about her comments.[76]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Iran That Republicans accuse Democrats of being anti-Israel is disgusting.

- arnon1

March 7, 2012 at 7:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One more time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Iran

- arnon1

March 7, 2012 at 7:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hallelujah!

- arnon1

March 7, 2012 at 7:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"His voice reminds me of Netanyhu's, which looks at the world as if there are only two issues; Israel and its ability to maintain a status quo, a status quo which many Zionists feel is fairly rotten, not just for the non-Jews in their midst, but also for the Jewish people." Bravo!

- roidubouloi

March 7, 2012 at 8:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

", a status quo which many Zionists feel is fairly rotten," Yes. Absolutely correct, until you think of the alternative. Apparently most Israelis, fully aware of the alternative, are willing to be satisfied with the "fairly rotten" status quo.

- noga1

March 7, 2012 at 8:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You mean the alternative of not insisting that Israel's colonization of the Palestinians be legitimized as a condition to ending the occupation and making peace? That alternative? Yes, awful situation. Israel has no choice but to colonize the Palestinians. Anything else is unthinkable.

- roidubouloi

March 7, 2012 at 8:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama in Cairo, 2009: http://nyti.ms/xezGpv America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied. Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve. Some people -- and some countries -- are never satisfied. Let's pretend too that '67 borders with "mutually agreed swaps" was some kind of radical departure or deep betrayal -- when Netanyahu issued a joint communique with Hillary Clinton using identical language months earlier. And that it was Obama, rather than Netanyahu, who humiliated and undermined his counterpart in the settlement dance. In a sane political climate, if Israel unilaterally attacked Iran against U.S. wishes, the U.S. would cut off all aid. And Israel would know now that that would be the consequence.

- adsprung

March 7, 2012 at 9:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Galicianer dishonest is spilling his anti israel venom worst than ever. This ultra self hatred Jew is out of control. When Israel has provided freedom to the liberated territories. When 20% of Israel's population are Arabs ,mostly Moslem ,with full freedom. When Jerusalem once liberated since 1967, is free to all worship, that was not allowed under Jordanian control. When the liberated territories are progressing at high pace providing good paying jobs to Palestinian construction workers. Who otherwise would be unemployed, or killed, like most under Moslem rule. The Galicianer dishonest pariah is spiting lies and distortions about Israel. What he doesn't understand is that the liberation of the territories is legal and here to stay and that it will continue here to stay. He is obsessed with international institutions that are completely failed, inept and corrupt. He continuously obstructs progress. Yes a failed pariah.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 7, 2012 at 10:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Galicianer dishonest is spilling his anti israel venom worst than ever. This ultra self hatred Jew is out of control. When Israel has provided freedom to the liberated territories. When 20% of Israel's population are Arabs ,mostly Moslem ,with full freedom. When Jerusalem once liberated since 1967, is free to all worship, that was not allowed under Jordanian control. When the liberated territories are progressing at high pace providing good paying jobs to Palestinian construction workers. Who otherwise would be unemployed, or killed, like most under Moslem rule. The Galicianer dishonest pariah is spiting lies and distortions about Israel. What he doesn't understand is that the liberation of the territories is legal and here to stay and that it will continue here to stay. He is obsessed with international institutions that are completely failed, inept and corrupt. He continuously obstructs progress. Yes a failed pariah.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 7, 2012 at 10:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Yes, awful situation. Israel has no choice but to colonize the Palestinians. " What do you mean by "colonizing the Palestinians"? You know full well that when Palestinians speak of colonization they mean Tel Aviv, Haifa and Eilat, not Hebron or Nablus. So, how are they to be de-colonized? http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0008c&L=fofognet&D=0&F=P&P=2403 "To what extent would a post-occupation Israel still resemble the old South Africa? "There is certainly an ideology of difference. The sense that Israelis created a system in which one people has more than others. Is it total apartheid like it was in South Africa? Probably not. But there are similarities. The Afrikaners had a proto-Zionist ideology. They felt they were chosen by God. "But what is more important in my mind is the question of responsibility. I think it should be in the consciousness and conscience of every Israeli that his state obliterated the Arab life of pre-1948. That Jaffa was formerly an Arab city from which the Arabs were expelled. And I think Israelis should be aware that their presence in many places in the country entails the loss of a Palestinian family, the demolition of a house, the destruction of a village. In my mind, it is your duty to find out about it. And act in consequence, in the Kantian sense. "Many Israelis resist this because they think the consequence would be to leave. Not at all. As I told you, I'm against that. The last thing I want to do is to perpetuate this process by which one distortion leads to another. I have a horror of that. I saw it happen too many times. I don't want to see more people leave." What you are saying is that Israelis should know that, like white South Africans, they have a right to stay as long as they give up their ideology. "Yes, an ideology that denies the rights of others." So what is needed is a process of de-Zionization? "I don't like to use words like that. Because that's obviously a signal that I'm asking the Zionists to commit harakiri. They can be Zionists, and they can assert their Jewish identity and their connection to the land, so long as it doesn't keep the others out so manifestly." Following this logic, it would then be necessary to replace the present Israel with a New Israel, just as the New South Africa replaced the old. Unjust state mechanisms would have to be dismantled. "Yes. Correct. Let's say reformed. I am ill at ease with talk of dismantling. It is apocalyptic language. And I would like to use words that are as little as possible taken from the context of apocalypse and miraculous rebirth. This is why I don't say de-Zionize. It's like waving a red flag in front of an angry bull. I don't see what purpose it serves. So I prefer to talk about transformation. The gradual transformation of Israel. As well as the gradual opening of all Middle East countries. Two years ago you wrote an article in The New York Times endorsing a one-state solution. It seems you've come full-circle - from espousing a one secular-democratic-state solution in the '70s, to accepting the two-state solution in the '80s, back to the secular-democratic idea. "I would not necessarily call it secular-democratic. I would call it a binational state. I want to preserve for the Palestinians and the Israeli Jews a mechanism or structure that would allow them to express their national identity. I understand that in the case of Palestine-Israel, a binational solution would have to address the differences between the two collectives. "But I don't think that partition or separation would work. The two-state solution can no longer be implemented. And given the realities of geography, demography, history and politics, I think there is a tremendous amount to be gained from a binational state." Do you think the idea of a Jewish state is flawed? "I don't find the idea of a Jewish state terribly interesting. The Jews I know - the more interesting Jews I know - are not defined by their Jewishness. I think to confine Jews to their Jewishness is problematic. Look at this problem of 'Who is a Jew.' Once the initial enthusiasm for statehood and aliyah subsides, people will find that to be Jews is not a lifelong project. It's not enough." But that's an internal Jewish question. The question for you is whether the Jews are a people who have a right to a state of their own? "If enough people think of themselves as a people and need to constitute that, I respect that. But not if it entails the destruction of another people. I cannot accept an attitude of 'You shall die in order for us to rise.'" Are you saying to Israelis that they should give up the idea of Jewish sovereignty? "I am not asking people to give up anything. But Jewish sovereignty as an end in itself seems to me not worth the pain and the waste and the suffering it produced. If, on the other hand, one can think of Jewish sovereignty as a step toward a more generous idea of coexistence, of being-in-the-world, then yes, it's worth giving up. Not in the sense of being forced to give it up. Not in the sense of we will conquer you, as many Arabs think when they call Arafat Salah-a-Din - which means that he is going to kick you out. No, not in that sense. I don't want that dynamic. And you don't want that dynamic. The better option would be to say that sovereignty should gradually give way to something that is more open and more livable." In a binational state, the Jews will quickly become a minority, like the Lebanese Christians. "Yes, but you're going to be a minority anyway. In about 10 years there will be demographic parity between Jews and Palestinians, and the process will go on. But the Jews are a minority everywhere. They are a minority in America. They can certainly be a minority in Israel." Knowing the region and given the history of the conflict, do you think such a Jewish minority would be treated fairly? "I worry about that. The history of minorities in the Middle East has not been as bad as in Europe, but I wonder what would happen. It worries me a great deal. The question of what is going to be the fate of the Jews is very difficult for me. I really don't know. It worries me." IV: Talbieh Do you personally have a right to return, a right to return to Talbieh in Jerusalem? "I worry about that. The history of minorities in the Middle East has not been as bad as in Europe, but I wonder what would happen. It worries me a great deal. The question of what is going to be the fate of the Jews is very difficult for me. I really don't know. It worries me."

- noga1

March 7, 2012 at 10:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What do you mean by "colonizing the Palestinians"? You know full well that when Palestinians speak of colonization they mean Tel Aviv, Haifa and Eilat, not Hebron or Nablus. So, how are they to be de-colonized?" Oh, please. Don't be intentionally obtuse. The Saudis have accepted and indeed advanced the principle of the Green Line as the final border of Israel. The Palestinians have accepted the principle of the Green Line as the final border of Israel. The US has accepted the principle of the Green Line as the final border of Israel (although with the Israeli rhetorical caveat of "agreed upon land swaps" that, in the mind of Israel, doesn't mean agreement, as in mutual bargain for exchange, at all so much as it means, "We keep the settlement blocs and you 'agree" to take some patches of desert that no one wants.) It is settlement in admittedly occupied territory, east of the Green Line, that is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and hence constitutes colonization. Therefore, quite obviously, Israel abandoning its colonial ambitions does not mean Tel Aviv, Haifa, or Eilat. It means abandoning the ambition of any Israeli sovereignty east of the Green Line, the de facto international boundary. This, however, is what the right-wing government of Israel refuses to accept (despite years of insistence that the settlements were not permanent and hence not a violation of international law), as it is a government dominated by religious nuts and settler zealots. They insist on the legitimation of Israel's doomed, illegal, colonial project in the West Bank as the condition to peace. Hence there can be no peace -- not a one-state solution, not a two-state solution (because Israel will not accept either), but a no-solution solution, a farce. Is there the possibility of negotiating rectification of the Green Line where there are genuine security issues presented by its exact path? Surely. But these have mostly vanished with time and modern warfare. The security issues are not at the border, but at the Jordan, as Rabin stated clearly. Are genuine land swaps possible to retain some of the settlements? Probably, if they are genuine bargains starting with the principle that east of the Green Line belongs to the Palestinians and Israel must give land they want to get land it wants, rather than offering land no one wants in exchange for land that both want. (What kind of dopey bargain would that be?). Will there have to be some form of condominium in Jerusalem, which was not part of either the Jewish or Arab partition? Most likely. Will there need to be some Palestinian give on security arrangements to prevent militarization of Palestine? Certainly. Will Israel have to decide to accept Palestinian returnees if Israel opts not to evacuate the illegal settlements in their entirety and to leave settlers in Palestine to become Palestinian citizens? I am quite sure of it. All of these matters are the stuff of negotiations. But there can be no negotiation with Netanyahu, because he insists both on continuing illegal settlement and on Palestinian concession of Israel's major demands, the border Israel wants and abandonment of a Palestinian right of return, in advance of negotiations. Any idiot who has ever negotiated anything can plainly observe that Netanyahu is unwilling to negotiate, makes negotiations impossible, but seeks to obfuscate sufficiently to avoid blame. Why? So that the awful status quo can be maintained as long as possible in the utterly vain hope that it can somehow become permanent. The Palestinians for their part don't demand that Israel concede their major demands in advance of negotiations. They have not demanded Israeli acceptance of a Palestinian right of return in advance, although they will not concede it in advance. They have not refused to negotiate about "agreed upon land swaps." All that they have insisted upon is that israel refrain from further violation of international law by freezing the settlements. Israel won't do it, because it prefers the vanishing dream of colonialism to peace. That is the saddest thing that could possibly have happened to Zionism. So, don't give us the nonsense about Tel Aviv and Haifa. In openly accepting the Green Line, the Palestinians have already surrendered their claims on Tel Aviv and Haifa. Israel has won, but refuses to accept its victory. On the other hand, just as there are some amongst the Arabs, like Said, who demand a one-state solution, so too in Israel. The charter of the Likud still calls for Israeli sovereignty in all of the land west of the Jordan. There are maximalists galore on both sides. So what? None of that is an excuse not to take sensible steps to get to the table to negotiate and settle. The sensible step is to do exactly what the president of the United States, Israel's great patron, called upon it to do. But where are Netanyahu and the Likud? Nowhere to be found. The are busy with their colonial project.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2012 at 12:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fabulous stuff, Jaime. Keep up your great work. No one here has yet succeeded as you do in so thoroughly discrediting Israeli rightists. And single-handedly too. You are some kind of genius.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2012 at 12:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JKH, you are worried, scarred even, that any week now the Mullahs will greet the citizens if Israel with bright bursts of light in the sky, followed by the incineration of Tel Aviv. An existential threat, a nightmare made real. Well guess what, we all live under that threat, and we have for a long time. Even today, a good portion of the old USSR's nuclear arsenal are still aimed at US! Why? God only knows. Second, you distrust Obama. Guess what, that's your problem. Speaking as an American jew, you have just laid out, once again and in great talmudic detail, the list of particulars that bothers you about this man. It's basically gets down to an ad hominem attack. And there's no solution for building confidence if you fundamentally distrust the man. Which aligns you with quite a nice crew here in the US, even if it's true, as some of the commentators have said, your thought and fears reflect the average Israeli's sentiment, which I don't doubt. So here's another fact: There is NO MILITARY SOLUTION to Israel's existential threat short of a diplomatic one. Much as you 'd not like to second guess the Mullahs and pull a Geo. Bush pre-emption on Iran, it's not a SOLUTION to this crisis. It will only earn you an rain of Hezbollah rockets and a couple more years of time and the enmity of an even more ardent enemy. Finally, I have to say in the tradition of other great ad hominems: you accused Obama of treating Netenyahu shabbily. Well Netanyahu is by far Israel's shabbiest PM to date! Perhaps you could do something to improve the quality of candidate Israelis would be proud to vote as PM, and send to the US president as spokesperson for their country.

- gabriel2001@comcast.net

March 8, 2012 at 12:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm also very impressed with the level of this discussion. The space between Iran and a hard place brings out people's best thinking. The important thing is not to just react. There is an element of thinking in Israel that will not be satisfied until bombs are dropped on Iran. And you find the same sentiment here as well. Which begs the question: "Have we learned absolutely nothing about the wisdom of preemptive wars in the last 10 years?" God protect us all from our dark longings. Lest anyone think I am disdainful of YKH and his viewpoint, I have a child who's an Israeli citizen and another who lives there, many friends and acquaintances too. If only life were so simple as to be improved by an act of violence.

- gabriel2001@comcast.net

March 8, 2012 at 1:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Galicianer continuously distorts information about Israel. Never mentions the Palestinians or Iran for that mater. He mentions Palestinians and Iranians are irrelevant to the discussion. He mentions that historical facts are irrelevant to the discussion. He attacks his opponents as rightists, regardless of the fact that all Israeli governments left, center, right have followed the same policies. That the Palestinians and the Iranians are the ones that don't cooperate and don't want any peaceful solution with Israel. The Palestinians in particular want to profit from the progress that Israel has achieved by their own merit. Palestinians also profit of handouts from UN, USA, EU for Palestinian refugees maintained by their corrupt leaders in refugee camps for 64 years. There are now grandchildren and great-grandchildren born in Palestinian refugee camps in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Gaza, and the liberated territories discriminated and not assimilated by their corrupt leaders. Thus the Galicianer is obsessed with Israel. The Palestinians and Iranians don't exist in the imaginary world of the Galicianer. However he continues to dishonestly slander Israel. I wonder if he could be sued in court for slander. He would certainly not win. What would be his punishment. Obligate him to live in the liberated territories doing community work between Israelis and Palestinians, and reporting to us the truth and only the truth.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 8, 2012 at 2:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"US is going to decide whether to make war on Iran based both on its own interests and its own intelligence assessments." Are those the same "intelligence assessments" that concluded that Iraq is chock full of weapons of mass destruction?

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 8, 2012 at 7:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tgossard: German expert: North Korea tested Iranians nukes. http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=260534

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 8, 2012 at 7:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Well Netanyahu is by far Israel's shabbiest PM to date!" You have been reading the NYT too long. Here is a different view: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lorna-fitzsimons/we-need-to-talk-about-bibi_b_1323889.html?ref=uk Oh, and Gabriel, if you urge American Jews to believe the sincerity of Obama's words at AIPAC, you should read what roi has been saying about it here: http://www.tnr.com/article/tel-aviv-journal/101418/obama-netanyahu-israel-jordan-koran?page=1

- noga1

March 8, 2012 at 7:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.tnr.com/article/tel-aviv-journal/101418/obama-netanyahu-israel-jordan-koran?page=1

- noga1

March 8, 2012 at 7:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Fabulous stuff, Jaime. Keep up your great work. No one here has yet succeeded as you do in so thoroughly discrediting Israeli rightists. And single-handedly too. You are some kind of genius." Not nearly as genius as you, roi. I encourage you to keep up your present semi-professional politician's tactics and continue to persuade the doubters that Obama is not to be trusted in anything he says about anything in an election year.

- noga1

March 8, 2012 at 7:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I loved these parts of the encomium to Netanyahu above as linked by noga: "Between two thirds and four fifths of the population growth in West Bank settlements since between 2005 and 2010 was within settlement blocks which Israel can expect to keep in a final status agreement. From March 2011, Netanyahu made clear he wanted to negotiate with the Palestinians without preconditions [except that "Jewish state" think that Michael Oren explained means abandoning any claimed Palestinian ROR]. A further step, first made in private, then hinted at in Netanyahu's UN address of 23 September 2011, was tentatively accepting Obama's proposal that 1967 borders plus land swaps be the basis for a territorial agreement, albeit taking into account demographic changes on the ground [oh sure, "demographic changes," that's a good, as if they occurred, well, demographically rather than by a government policy of illegal colonization]." ____________________ So, only 20-33% of settlement growth in 2005-11 was outside settlement blocs that "Israel can expect to keep." Maybe it can expect to keep them if it were actually willing to trade something for them other than the end of an occupation that is only legal to the extent needed for security purposes. Israel has negotiated the terms of settlement with itself -- including legitimation of its illegal settlements -- and cannot seem to understand why it cannot then make a deal on that basis. Netayahu's no-solution solution. This paean to Netanyahu is by some self-proclaimed "independent" organization called Britain Israel Communications & Research Centre. About as independent as AIPAC. Amazing how it manages to repeat the Israeli propaganda line so faithfully, yet independently of course. Nothing better than friends or advisers who tell you exactly what you tell them to tell you. Speaking of which . , . If the US needs intelligence assessments on Iran, perhaps Israel will make available those that anticipated the Yom Kippur war. However, I have it on excellent authority that Obama will not be relying on Bush-like intelligence (even Bush couldn't rely on Bush-like intelligence). That is because we now have a president who wants actual assessments rather than to have assessments corrupted to suit his political objectives and ideology. Unlike the vast right-wing, enmeshed in the fantasies of its own devise, Obama just doesn't do faith-based reality. As far as believing Obama, if right-wing American Jews believe Israeli propaganda, plainly they can be led to believe most anything that faith requires. So, there is every reason to expect they will, or at least not say otherwise in public, unless perhaps an "independent" AIPAC decides to agitate against the president. But I don't think it will, because I don't think that is in Israel's interest even or especially if Israel plans to go it alone. The American decision has been made, by the president of the United States, not by the prime minister of Israel (shocking as that seems to at least some Israelis). There will be no US military action against Iran in the year 2012 and no support for Israeli military action. Continued public agitation by Israel would only result in deepening its isolation and present the risk that if things go badly it will be left very much on its own. From haaretz, that Stalinist organ: "In an ideal world, public opinion should not be a factor in the decision whether to go to war or not, but American public opinion is a strategic asset of Israel that needs to be factored into any strategic equation. It is in this context, with a view ahead, that Israel would do well to restrain its public expressions of dissatisfaction with what it perceives as the Obama Administration’s wavering."

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2012 at 8:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The best place to hide is in plain sight, noga. Everything Obama said to AIPAC is true. Did he say that he would attack Iran on Israel's timetable? Not that I recall. The bomb-bomb crowd desperately wants to read that in somewhere, and so it will. All most Americans need and want to know is that the American president is doing his job of protecting American security. Let the Republicans set themselves up as putting Israeli interests first and foremost if they want to. Let them over-extend themselves. They can be cut off at the knees with a single line when and if the time comes, and the result will be hostility toward Israel for having tried to dragoon American policy.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2012 at 8:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Before Yom Kippur war Israeli assessments were correct. What was not correct was Israeli attempts to pander to US and not initiating a preemptive strike against Egyptian forces on the West Bank of the Suez canal. In addition, it was not prudent to succumb to American pressure not destroy Soviet SAM missiles which the Egyptians were trying to move into range. Were Israel acting in it's own interest and not trying to accommodate US commercial interests that would not have happened. "Obama just doesn't do faith-based reality." No, and that's why he supported the removal of Mubarak. Because he knew that what will come after him will be Egyptian Switzerland. And this is also a fact that his decisions regarding the Iranian issue are greatly influenced by his reelection campaign. In fact it's fair to say that this is the only issue that seems important right now to this president. By the way roid, for somebody who lives on "colonized land" you speak rather loudly. I say that only to point out that all land was "colonized" sometime in the past by somebody.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 8, 2012 at 9:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi's furiously back-pedaling responses remind me of the Disney cartoons where the chaser has run all too fast all too triumphant for his own good, and suddenly finds there is no longer any ground under his feet and he is suspended in mid air over an abyss of nothingness.

- noga1

March 8, 2012 at 9:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah yes. Egypt's tactical surprise in the Yom Kippur war was not a failure of Israeli intelligence. It was all due to the US. My my, we do enjoy living in a fictional world, don't we? Yes, makover, all land was colonized in the past by somebody. And if the world still lived by the moral standards of the ancient world, African-Americans would still be slaves and Hitler wouldn't have needed to be at war to murder six million Jews. Israel would not exist. I suppose that European powers would still have world-girdling colonial enterprises. Apartheid would not be a crime against humanity. Here in the modern world, we have fitfully evolved what I do believe are higher moral standards. Some of them are reflected in international human rights accords, such as the Fourth Geneva Convention and the UN Charter itself. Israel is a party to them. These are the rules and standards that we are expected to observe today. It is not acceptable for Arabs to make war to extinguish a duly-constituted state, to wage what we now call aggressive war. It is not acceptable for Jews to colonize occupied territory in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Perhaps you long for an earlier world, less than 200 years behind us, in which both of these would have been acceptable. I don't. I have not the slightest doubt that if Obama thought it necessary at this time to take military action against Iran, he would, election campaign or not. Your regret is only that he has successfully defused the ability of AIPAC and Israel to use the pending election to force him to take action that Israel wants but he thinks is not justified by our interests, or at the very least to punish him for it. Your complaint is not that he cares about the election too much, but only that his constituency is not you. Too bad. ___________________ Nice occasion to talk about truth and falsity and political rhetoric. Since about the time of Reagan, although the roots lie deeper, right-wing politics and rhetoric have become the politics and rhetoric of unmoored desire. I think that at one time the right thought it necessary publicly to press policies that it believed were for the best and would work, although belief in efficacy has always been and always will be heavily influenced by interest. But the right has completely abandoned this notion in favor of pure demagoguery. There is not even the pretense any longer to be asserting any rational policy views. Rather, policy claims, even false claims about reality and science, are used merely to indicate desire, what the speaker desires and believes the audience desires. With that very different metric, it does not matter whether the concrete proposals or claims are completely insane. All that matters is that they are an authentic expression of what the speaker desires, whether it is achievable or not. Indeed, while enjoying the snake oil pitch, the audience wants to believe that the salesman is rational, doesn't take the pitch literally, and will if elected not get carried away and attempt to implement the asserted policies beyond the point where harm results. What is critical though is that the audience believes in what the speaker wants and therefore will in office attempt to achieve it to the greatest extent possible. Bush and Cheney's signal failure was in taking the whole thing too literally, not knowing when to stop, both in domestic and foreign policy. Obama will never be believed by AIPAC and rightist Israel because Obama clearly does not desire what they desire. Obama does not desire to bomb Iran. He might very well do it if persuaded of the strategic necessity. But he does not want to do it, he does not long to do it. For him, it would be a sad necessity. Israel and its right-wing supporters, in contrast, desire to bomb Iran, to punish it for its aggressive rhetoric and unrepentant flouting of rules, and will press as far to do so as rationalization and justification will permit. Obama does not hate Iran. Hence, those who do would be repelled by him even if they believed that he likely is in the best position to make the right strategic judgment. Obama does not desire that Israel be able to colonize the West Bank and repress the Arabs indefinitely to do it. For him, giving up these things is not at best a sad necessity in response to political reality. He does not think these things are just or desirable. He does not desire them even if he knows he cannot have them. All of his language about the conflict makes this clear. Hence, it does not matter whether Obama is committed to Israel's legitimate security needs. He does not hate the Arabs. He feels sympathy for their circumstances. He is not to be trusted. For the right in the modern world, desire is everything. And the more extreme and objectively absurd the rhetoric, the better it serves to confirm your desire. You may be intensely stupid (Bush) or a fruitcake (Cheney, Bachmann, Santorum, Palin), but if you authentically desire what the right desires, then you are acceptable. If you fail to share its desires, its mostly illicit desires, then it matters not at all whether you will do a better job of navigating amongst the very dangerous obstacles of the world. You cannot be trusted. Ever. Ironically, this is Romney's problem too. It is not flip-flopping that the extremist right, which is almost all of it these days, cannot abide. They tolerate flip-flopping aplenty and couldn't care less. What makes Romney unacceptable to them is not that he will hedge, trim, reverse himself, but that they know he does not really desire what they desire however impossible to achieve. For the nuts of the political right, rational decision-making about means, ends, likelihood, outcomes, the sorts of things Obama is superbly good at, take second place to having the proper desires. Whatever Obama needs to say to get the right-wingnuts off his back and our back is a service to the cause of world peace and security -- as long as it works. I wouldn't care if it is lying, pandering, whatever. The fact is, though, that Obama is a brilliant speaker and managed to assert his will to do what is strategically necessary without committing himself to anything he is unwilling to do. It is not what the uncontrolled id of the right wants, but it is likely in this case to sound close enough to do the job for the time-being. It is pandering by virtue of the very fact that Obama must appear before AIPAC, this agent of a foreign power, and say anything at all other than that he will due what is necessary for American security. In a sane world, any group advocating that the US go to war in the interest of a foreign power rather than its own interest would be shunned.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2012 at 10:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"do what is necessary"

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2012 at 10:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, most of it was due to the US and the stupid preoccupation of the Israeli leadership that what is good for the US is always good for Israel. " I wouldn't care if it is lying, pandering, whatever." Yes we know, you don't care what the Dear Leader does. I am glad that you at least come out with this. It means that everything goes in your opinion, as long as it to promotes your goals. Don't whine then when the opponents will use the same tactics. Yes, it's not right for the Arabs to wage war on Israel over and over again, to loose and to whine that there is a price. That's the way the world works.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 8, 2012 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We are not shocked by any decisions this president makes. Nothing coming from him can shock us. Even his faith in "Arab awakening" is not shocking to us. In fact, we would be shocked if he approached Middle East with anything bordering on understanding. Till now, it's faith based only. "I have not the slightest doubt that if Obama thought it necessary at this time to take military action against Iran, he would, election campaign or not.": http://youtu.be/wVHAQX5sSaU

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 8, 2012 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Yes we know, you don't care what the Dear Leader does." makeover, unless I'm misreading, the "Dear Leader" you refer to is the elected president of the United States, subject to all constitutional and legal constraints, and responsible ultimately to the will of the people come November. I don't like (a) some kind of malicious and, to be honest, stupid parallel being drawn with unelected or totalitarian figures, and certainly not (b) the implication than anyone who supports Obama is equivalent to some hypnotized peasant cheering the North Korean dictator.

- ironyroad

March 8, 2012 at 11:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover, your attacks on Obama borders on the obscene. Check out the weapons systems he has provided Israel. You are like an ungrateful child blaming his parent because he needs his help and gets it. If you think Israel can do without the US you can go your own way. The US isn't holding you hostage.

- arnon1

March 8, 2012 at 11:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This whole discussion, btw, is obscene and that includes many of the comment made by Roid who gets too excited when talking to Noga and Makover. Roid needs to stop taking them seriously.

- arnon1

March 8, 2012 at 11:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"makeover, unless I'm misreading, the "Dear Leader" you refer to is the elected president of the United States, subject to all constitutional and legal constraints, and responsible ultimately to the will of the people come November. I don't like (a) some kind of malicious and, to be honest, stupid parallel being drawn with unelected or totalitarian figures, and certainly not (b) the implication than anyone who supports Obama is equivalent to some hypnotized peasant cheering the North Korean dictator." A "Dear leader"'s infallibility, ironyroad, was suggested by roi and if you have an issue with the image of Obama as represented by roi, take it up with him. Makover is only responding to roi's overexcited responses to perfectly reasonable doubts cast about Obama's genuine intentions underlying his AIPAC speech. It was roi who proposed that Obama was misleading American Jews into having faith in his commitment to Israel's security. It was roi who proposed that Obama is pretending in an election year because he needs Jewish money. It was roi who proposed that Obama's deliberate duping of American citizens is a great quality in a president. Arnon had made the case for Obama that he was not speaking as a mere politician but as the President of the US, whose word is his bond, which is why there should be no doubting his genuine intentions. Then roi came along, challenging this view in the most radical way, proposing that Obama is indeed no more than a two-bit semi-professional politician, who will wheel and deal for money and power and that he ought to be commended, applauded and admired for it. Interesting that instead of challenging roi's view of your President's integrity and wisdom, you are both attacking makover.

- noga1

March 8, 2012 at 12:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://hurryupharry.org/2012/03/08/israel-is-wrestling-with-an-excruciating-real-world-dilemma-not-acting-out-a-psychological-complex/ "of the repeated expressions of the desire to ‘wipe Israel off the map.’ The Iranian nuclear threat is real. And now Iran’s programme is moving towards what Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak calls a ‘zone of immunity’, i.e. out of reach of Israeli weaponry. Iran has started up the underground uranium enrichment facility in Fordow, which may be impossible for Israel to bomb. This is no psychological projection by Israel. It is real. The inherent risk in having a nuclear standoff with a regime which not only uses genocidal rhetoric and has messianic tendencies but has a fractured unstable and unaccountable leadership should be obvious. The intelligence is not hazy. Uranium enrichment is happening in the plain sight of IAEA inspectors, following their exposure by Iranian opposition groups and Western intelligence agencies in 2002. Intelligence evidence of weaponisation has been declared ‘credible’ by the IAEA in its November 2011 report. Once we put cod psychology aside and talk uranium, this is the picture. Iran has already enriched 120 kilograms of uranium to a level of 20%. A basic nuclear bomb requires 250 kilograms enriched to a level of 90%. But the transition from 2% to 20% takes much more time than enriching uranium from 20% to 90%. Once Iran gets ‎250 kilograms of uranium enriched to a level of 20%, we will be about 90 days from their first nuclear bomb should they decide to go for breakout. It is that stark."

- noga1

March 8, 2012 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The "Dear Leader" phrase came from makeover. That was what I was objecting to. I have criticized Netanyahu many times on this board but I've never suggested or implied that he was anything else except the duly elected leader of Israel.

- ironyroad

March 8, 2012 at 12:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Yes, most of it was due to the US and the stupid preoccupation of the Israeli leadership that what is good for the US is always good for Israel." Fine by me if we go our separate ways, makover. We, for example, do not need to lobby the Knesset in order to enlist power we do not have ourselves to achieve that which we ought not. Somehow I think the US would manage without you. "Don't whine then when the opponents will use the same tactics." I don't whine about it for a minute. I absolutely expect you all on the right to stop at absolutely nothing to achieve power in pursuit of your illicit desires. If I complain about it, it is only that the left fails to appreciate the depth of the depravity of the right and is reluctant to do what is necessary to defeat it. Hence, I don't whine. I exhort.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2012 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rather sane comments Arnon1.

- basman

March 8, 2012 at 12:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: I am referring to roids statements about the president and not the president himself or the office of the presidency. Roid is speaking about the president like he was a Dear Leader: "Whatever Obama needs to say to get the right-wingnuts off his back and our back is a service to the cause of world peace and security -- as long as it works. I wouldn't care if it is lying, pandering, whatever." How does that sound to you irony? I had no intention to insult or demean the office of the president.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 8, 2012 at 12:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lie cheat and steal as long as it serves the cause. The ends justify the means. Is that not a dishonest, totalitarian tactic irony?

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 8, 2012 at 12:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The "Dear Leader" phrase came from makeover. That was what I was objecting to. I have criticized Netanyahu many times on this board but I've never suggested or implied that he was anything else except the duly elected leader of Israel." You did not read my comment very attentively, if you continue with this point. Take your complaint to the source, to roidubouloi. He started the image of the lying, cheating, wheeling and dealing, much admired President. And if you don't like leaders being called names then you should also have scolded roidubouloi's natural inclination to refer to Netanyahu by any insulting name in the book. Funny. I don't remember you ever minding it in the least bit.

- noga1

March 8, 2012 at 12:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Before Obama got elected, none of those complaining now about his Iran policy ever said a peep about Bush Iran policy. One can only excuse their disingenuous whining only if one believes the Iranian nuclear issue began three years ago.

- scrubby

March 8, 2012 at 12:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More Israeli propaganda courtesy of BICOM, self-proclaimed "independent" organization, as linked by noga. "Israel is wrestling with an excruciating real-world dilemma not acting out a psychological complex." Guest Post, March 8th 2012, 1:01 pm, by Professor Alan Johnson, Senior Research Fellow at BICOM ____________________ According to noga, I suggested that Obama is "infallible?" When have I ever suggested anything remotely like this? Another noga invention, what happens when she is frustrated. Do I trust Obama's judgment? I do. His gradual reassembly of an international consensus fractured by the cowboy juvenility of Bush and company has been masterful. He has shown himself willing to use force, but not stupidly like a Republican or Likud thug, when necessary. Do I want him rather than AIPAC or, god forbid, Benjamin Netanyahu making decisions about US strategy? I sure as hell do. Does that imply that I think he is infallible? Hardly. All that implies by itself is that he is sentient and not a captive of moonbat religious nuts and settler and ideological zealots as are Netanyahu and AIPAC. But I do think he is overwhelmingly more reliable and sounder of judgment than either of those two. Without any exaggeration, I would trust my 11-year old daughter to make life and death decisions before I would trust either Netanyahu or AIPAC to do more than choose where to have lunch. Even that would be a risk. Anyone who can shut up AIPAC deserves the thanks of a grateful nation. As for makover's reasonable doubts, I would have them if I were makover. Anyone who thinks Obama will in the end do other than what is best for the United States, all things considered, is a fool. But Israel can protect itself. It can build apartments in Jerusalem, the single most important strategic objective accomplished by Benjamin Netanyahu during his tenure as prime minister. Unlike Netanyahu who cowers and panders to the religious nuts and settler zealots of the Israeli right, Obama managed to stand up to AIPAC and to deal with them deftly. That is surely what infuriates noga and makover, that our president is not a doormat for ideologues, a nothing who blows in the political winds, like Netanyahu. It is a pity for Israel, of course. But you all elected that clod.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2012 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The reason, scrubby, is that this is not about Iran. It is merely what the rightwing, including conspicuously the Israeli right, saw as an opportunity to get at Obama politically. But he is too smart for them. Now they sputter in impotent fury. It is a delightful spectacle from where I sit.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2012 at 12:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And if you don't like leaders being called names then you should also have scolded roidubouloi's natural inclination to refer to Netanyahu by any insulting name in the book. Funny. I don't remember you ever minding it in the least bit." Call Obama whatever names you want, as you do, ceaselessly. And I shall do likewise with respect to the clod, Netanyahu.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2012 at 12:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Incredible that the right-wingnuts suddenly find lying by politicians objectionable. On the right, they do nothing else, not ever. They are so far gone they don't even have the slightest idea any longer what is the truth and what their fabulous inventions for political gain. Yes, Obama needs to do whatever is necessary politically to prevent the bloodthirsty right-wingnuts from pushing us into yet another war that we do not need. Whatever it takes. If it requires political deception, so be it. Much easier to bear than the consequences of another stupid war ginned up by the nuts.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2012 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are wrong scrubby. The Israeli public was very critical of Bush Iran policy. The major Israeli media outlets pointed out that the Iraq war was a mistake and it should have been directed toward Iran. Whether US electorate was complaining about his policy is also open to discussion and cannot be dismissed as "ever said a peep".

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 8, 2012 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid response : "Incredible that the right-wingnuts suddenly find lying by politicians objectionable." is akin to Spiro Agnew response when confronted to by tax evasion: "The bastards changed the rules and didn't tell me". What a despicable statement, particularly by roid, since he is not a politician like Agnew.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 8, 2012 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

<<...One of the purposes of Zionism, one of the greatest and most profound national liberation movements of the past century, is to make the Jewish people a self-reliant historically responsible people able to defend themselves and act independently as an equal member of the world of nations>> True, indeed. So make your own bunker buster bombs, your own airplanes, and see just how self reliant you really are. Sorry, Obama's right on this, as are a number of other commenters here. The US should make its choices based on its own self interest, and that may or may not overlap with Israel's interest.

- gwcross

March 8, 2012 at 2:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, let me put it this way. Approximately 50% of Americans in accordance with the polls don't trust Obama. I guess they all must be right wing nuts and Likud thugs.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 8, 2012 at 2:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is no secret that the rules of political discourse in the United States changed, four times. First with Reagan, when it became clear that there was no political cost, indeed a political payoff, to making objectively preposterous claims, such as that we could cut taxes and have tax revenues go up. The second was when Newt Gingrich decided to put an end to political-legislative compromise and make all-out political war the order of the day. The third was when the right successfully swift-boated John Kerry. The last was when Mitch McConnell declared that the legislative objective of Senate Republicans was not to adopt good policy for the contrary, but to defeat Obama. In between each of these landmark events there has been a steady descent of the right-wing into lunacy, culminating with the Tea party. None of this is harmless, as we see from the depredations of the Bush administration. When confronted with a vicious, unscrupulous enemy that will stop at nothing -- including all sorts of manipulation of elections -- one cannot afford to be too persnickety about the tactics used in response. We are in an all-out political war. My criterion is what works. While it is undesirable to resort to outright lies, although the right does this routinely, I don't rule that out. Most of the time aggressive attack based on shades of gray is sufficient. But, again, what matters is that it work. Whatever it takes. The stakes are too high and the adversary observes no rules of behavior whatsoever. And I am indeed a politician, although only on a local level. When I took over as Democratic party chair, we were being beaten by the same sort of disgraceful tactics evident on the national level. My committee wanted to "take the high road." I pointed out that we were getting killed on the high road and that if the enemy is in the gutter, you have no choice but to get into the gutter to fight. It wasn't at all necessary to tell lies, just to punch back very, very aggressively. It worked just fine. 11 out of 14 major races won that way. The reason people use over-the-top political rhetoric is because it works. To fight it, one must also use what works. It is that simple.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2012 at 2:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makeover and Noga -- let me be as plain about this as I can: 1. I am not objecting to anyone calling politicians names. If I think it's unfair, I'll say so (if I think it's necessary) 2. I probably formulated my original comment somewhat ineptly, but the "Dear Leader" reference struck a wrong note with me because it ties in with a narrative being pushed for the last three years on these boards, to wit, that anyone defending Obama's actions is just a mindless adoring fan incapable of critical assessment of his record. I for one, and I'm not the only one, have been critical of Obama on several occasions, but mostly not in foreign policy. That doesn't make me a fawning acolyte, and I have objected and do object to that implication.

- ironyroad

March 8, 2012 at 2:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The reason people use over-the-top political rhetoric is because it works." So it's OK if Democratic piece of furniture uses it but otherwise it's thuggery. irony: When anybody supports politician to cheat lie and steal as roid does, it struck a wrong note with me. Defending a politician behaviour on this level is just as you said, mindless and adoring, incapable of critical assessment of his record. I have no critical assessment of Obama on any other record but foreign policy since his domestic policy means nothing to me. I disagree with you on your assessment of his foreign policy an I think that US will suffer in a long term as a result of it.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 8, 2012 at 2:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For roi, politics is a gang war. There is no nobility in the service of your country, your society. It's all about force and thuggery and who can outinsult the other. It is strange that he should be so attached to Obama and not learn anything really worthwhile from him. Cuss Sunstein, in his endorsement of candidate Obama wrote this about him: "The antonym of respect is disdain or (better) contempt; the antonym of charity is selfishness or (better) stinginess. It is much worse to be disrespectful than to be uncharitable. Politicians who show respect--Senator McCain is a good example--tend not to attack the competence, the motivations, or the defining commitments of those who disagree with him. Politicians who show charity as well as respect--Senator Obama is a rare example--tend to put opposing arguments in the best possible form, to praise the motivations of those who offer such arguments, and to seek proposals that specifically accept the defining commitments of all sides." So I'm wondering who is misreading Obama, roi or Sunstein? Who is doing the greatest disservice to Obama? You may note that roi's perverse tantrums followed soon after I suggested to Ironyroad that maybe Obama had spoken out of genuine intentions in his AIPAC speech. Here is how roi responded: "03/07/2012 - 4:11pm EDT | roidubouloi If the rhetoric of Obama's speech is satisfactory to noga, even while she distrusts his intentions, then it was a very successful speech. We can likely expect this shortly to become a non-issue through the election, and Obama will not be under untoward pressure to do damage to US interests for domestic political purposes. Goodbye, AIPAC. Have a pleasant trip home." From then on, it was a careening snowballing down a very snow-fluffy slope. Note how he could not contain his own malice. What kind of a supporter is such a person for Obama?

- noga1

March 8, 2012 at 3:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You can be satisfied with Obama's intentions if you want, or dissatisfied. I don't care. I care only that it was a pretty good job of neutering AIPAC's immediate ability to press for a war on Iran that I don't think is in our interest and Obama does not think is in our interest. The balance is of no interest to me. Sunstein was, unfortunately, too far correct in his assessment of Obama, which is why for nigh on three years the Republicans succeeded in cleaning his clock and wrecking the Democratic control of Congress (although Sunstein is far too generous to McCain in the interests of appearing non-partisan in his comments as McCain is quite a nasty piece of work). I find no fault with Obama for adopting this political persona. It can be very useful. The problem is that, by all appearances, he actually believed it and thought that if he behaved this way he would be met with a condign response from Republican thugs. Clearly that was not the case and I hope that he has learned his lesson. His handling of AIPAC and his push-back on Republicans suggests that he has at least made progress. There is great nobility in service to society, something no living Republican would understand as service to money is not at all the same thing as service to society. However, one cannot serve in office unless one can win and then successfully fend off the goons, the insane, the wreckers, in short, the Republicans. Therefore, it is incumbent upon anyway who takes the task seriously and is not just there for self-gratification or glorification to be prepared when entering the political lists to do what is necessary to win. In modern America, where political rhetoric has been debased beyond all recognition by the Republicans, that requires brass knuckles and a strong stomach. Very ironic that Israelis, who well understand that they cannot fight their wars without being willing to adopt successful tactics and whose parliament is characterized by fistfights on the floor, should be so squeamish about political battle. But they aren't really. It is just a rhetorical tactic. Part of the right-wing effort always to deny to the left the tools it needs successfully to defeat the right so they can get on about preying on the world.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2012 at 4:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let us recall here that in 2000 the Republican party and the Bush campaign send busloads of political operatives to Palm Beach County in order physically to threaten its Board of Elections and prevent the vote from being counted. And they did. In that light, all discussion of what is and is not political thuggery is moot. The only thing that matters is beating these criminals within the bounds of law. If it's legal, and it works, do it.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2012 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One must also note of makover that he is perfectly willing to resort to verbal abuse, and does, whenever he doesn't think he can succeed in pressing his arguments without it, that is to say, whenever he feels the ground falling away beneath him. His actions here are thus quite at odds with his expressions of shock that politicians use rhetorical weapons because they work and those who oppose them have to be willing to do the same. I, of course, am perfectly willing to do this to makover whenever he misbehaves. Humiliating him when he steps out of line and decides to try on his brass knuckles is very effective. That's why I do it.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2012 at 4:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I wasn't aware of the precise sequence of comments until you mentioned it -- for me, I think Sunstein is more accurate and my impression is that Obama has a self-drawn and narrower domain of political tub-thumping and provocation than some. At times, like all of us, he has said the first thing that came into his head (the Henry Louis Gates incident was a classic) but most of the time he seems to want to square what he says with his inner sense of proportion -- to that extent he's the opposite of someone like Gingrich, who is entirely unpredictable (or even Joe Biden, who can dig a hole for himself at times). It seemed to me that at AIPAC he was trying to speak to several audiences, knowing that all eyes and ears would be on him: Americans, American Jews in particular, Israelis, the Iranian leadership. He was trying to craft a message that combined reliability, flexibility, and a clearly formulated warning that could not be misunderstood. Maybe it came across in the intended configuration -- it's difficult to be sure. I think the fragility of the global economy was a shadow hanging over the speech too -- probably inevitably. makeover -- fair enough. I see it differently.

- ironyroad

March 8, 2012 at 5:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi "You can be satisfied with Obama's intentions if you want, or dissatisfied. I don't care. I care only that it was a pretty good job of neutering AIPAC's immediate ability to press for a war on Iran that I don't think is in our interest and Obama does not think is in our interest. The balance is of no interest to me." Who said AIPAC was pressing for war with Iran? When and where did they do that?

- Packard

March 8, 2012 at 5:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The words of mine that you quote, packard, answer your question. There is never a ray of light between what Israel wants for the US and what AIPAC then works to get for Israel from the US. Israel tells AIPAC what it is to do and AIPAC does it (which is why by rights it ought to be registered as an agent of a foreign principal). Here is a link to the account of Netanyahu's speech to AIPAC. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/06/netanyahu-iran-nuclear-weapons-israel

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2012 at 10:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From the Foreign Agent Registration Act: The term ‘‘political activities’’ means any activity that the person engaging in believes will, or that the person intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests,policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party; From the AIPAC website: AIPAC’s mission is to strengthen the ties between the United States and its ally Israel. As America’s leading pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC works with Democrats, Republicans and Independents to enact public policy that enhances the U.S.-Israel relationship. A Strong U.S.-Israel Relationship AIPAC’s staff and citizen activists educate decision makers about the bonds that unite the United States and Israel and how it is in America’s best interest to help ensure that the Jewish state is safe, strong and secure. Cooperation between the two countries is advantageous for both nations. AIPAC urges all members of Congress to support Israel through foreign aid, government partnerships, joint anti-terrorism efforts and the promotion of a negotiated two-state solution—a Jewish state of Israel and a demilitarized Palestinian state. Working with Congress to ensure that Israel is able to defend itself. The Jewish state needs more than $3 billion in critical security assistance to remain capable of facing increased threats posed by terrorist groups and those sworn to its--and America's--destruction.

- roidubouloi

March 8, 2012 at 10:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Galicianer dishonest. You posted your canard in two different blogs. It most be dear this canard to you. You don't realize you lost your argument a long time ago. I am sorry you are degenerating into becoming also a whiner. But to give you credit you care about a dear subject , hatred of Israel. The whiner only cares about himself, selfish to the maximum.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 8, 2012 at 11:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey, Jaime. 'sup? I love your stuff. Keep up the good work. This place needs comic relief.

- roidubouloi

March 9, 2012 at 12:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Galicianer dishonest self hatred Jew slandered of Israel. You can not win your failed arguments. Have you posted anything but anything about Palestinian/Iranian intransigence, terrorism, militarization. Have you given an international opinion, you so much love to distort about, about the Syrian massacres. About the continuous loudness of Iran/Hamas/Hizbolah to destroy Israel? king du stinking baloney you are a real failure. Articulate and brainless.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 9, 2012 at 5:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

king du stinky baloney. Read and learn. JJ Goldberg interpretation of Obama Netanyahu meeting, gift from Bibi to BHO.   http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-07/netanyahu-gives-obama-a-purim-message-to-heed-jeffrey-goldberg.html Then the Israeli Prize to Rabbi Druckman , the man that headed conversions of Russian immigrants to Israel. They love Israel, and they were not even born Jews.  However you already know the situation with the Galicianer dishonest self hatred Jew .  http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4200306,00.html

- JAIMECHUCH

March 9, 2012 at 5:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid: You are able to humiliate only yourself by your idiotic statements.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 9, 2012 at 6:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're such a child, makover. Do you dress yourself? Jaime, I agree with Goldberg's assessment. Netanyahu is determined to attack Iran. Unless the Iranians have been asleep, it won't achieve much. And if it precipitates a crisis, there may even be an upside. The world may decide it has had enough of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and impose a settlement, one that Israel will be completely powerless to resist despite all the bluster and bullshit that Bibi can muster. Who knows? Maybe that's what he secretly wants as he sees no other wy out of the corner into which he has backed himself and Israel. In that manner, he would not have to take political responsibility for dismantling settlements or leaving them behind in Palestine. The important thing, however, is that Netanyahu's gambit failed. He was betting that he could extract US concessions for delay, binding the US to help his attack or otherwise support him. My read isvthat he got nothing which is why he amped up his rhetoric. Israel's ability to play the United States is waning, at least under this president. There will not soon be another president as stupid as Bush, with the country in fact run by an ideological extremist like, Cheney, and so ripe for plucking by the Israeli right. I think Obama has taken the measure of Netanyahu. He offered him the opportunity of full cooperation with American diplomacy. Netanyahu, the clod and a weakling who feels overshadowed by his heroic older brother, could neither understand what he was being offered nor accept it. And so events will take another course.

- roidubouloi

March 9, 2012 at 8:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izw8wddjqAw&feature=youtu.be wherein Obama explains what he meant by "have your back" - seems he was NOT using this military/police phrasing in any military context. I watched NCIS re-runs on USA channel last night. One episode focussed on what "have your back" really means, in the context of military police teams. It is 100% about who you can REALLY trust when the bad guys start shooting first :)

- K2K

March 9, 2012 at 11:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The United States has coddled and "had Israel's back" since the Truman administration despite the atrocious acts it has committed in Palestine and Lebanon since it's inception. No other country has provided the support to Israel that the US has consistently. As a American citizen I have to wonder by what right Israel expects us to cow tow to a nation that is bully and has been too long indulged. Since the beginning of the Obama administration we have provided overt and covert support to Israel and now Netanyahu, embodying the attitude of the Israeli state, is trying to bully the President into committing our resources and possibly lives prematurely. If the state of Israel had behaved better in the past, it would not be facing all these hostile neighbors. Netanyahu should be coming hat in hand to ask for assistance from the President. The state of Israel needs a sea change.

- gcjc1

March 9, 2012 at 12:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" If the state of Israel had behaved better in the past, it would not be facing all these hostile neighbors" You are so right. There would be no hostile neighbors as there would be no Israel.

- noga1

March 9, 2012 at 5:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid. When Olmert was prime minister it was the coalition with Livni and Ehud Barak. Kind of center. Olmert asked Bush for those huge bunker bombs, it is said that Bush blushed. Olmert did not get the bombs. Now we learn that Obama gave those bombs to Bibi. No wonder Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres say Obama has been the best. Still I say Israel should not attack Iran, unless Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraqi Kurds, Azerbaijan are all aboard.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 9, 2012 at 5:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Israel insolent behavior. Attacked by Arab armies and terrorist attacks, 1948, 1948 to 1967, 1967 to 1991, 1991 Iraqi missiles, 2006 Lebanon, 2008 Gaza. Presently Iran has refurbished Lebanon/Hizbollah 55,000 missiles, Hamas/Gaza 10,000 missiles. Iran is helping Syria in the ongoing massacre. Iran Ayatollah Khameini and Ahmadinejad deny the Holocaust as a Jewish fabrication multiple times declare they will destroy the Zionist entity. Iran rapidly developing a nuclear bomb. Let us hope Israel has learned the lessons and will behave better in the future. It is Purim . Put on the masks. Make as much noises to chase away the evil spirit of the Persian Amman trying to destroy the Jewish people.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 9, 2012 at 6:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From the NYT: "Not that Israelis are unaware of the gravity of the situation. Recent polls indicate that a clear majority oppose any Israeli attack on Iran without American backing. Israel’s news media have given prominent coverage over the past few months to prominent opponents of military action, like Meir Dagan, a former director of Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/world/middleeast/in-israel-pondering-iranian-threat-but-taking-panic-off-the-table.html It seems that ordinary Israelis have a great deal more sense than their prime minister. This does not surprise me in the slightest.

- roidubouloi

March 9, 2012 at 7:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course. A sensible Israeli Prime Minister would serve Israel's interests by announcing to the world that Iranians have nothing to fear from an Israeli attack on their nuclear facilities, that Israel will not attack without American approval. So much more sensible than what Netanyahu is doing.

- noga1

March 9, 2012 at 8:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are rumours that Obama is planning to visit Israel in July. I think his visit would be more effective if it came AFTER he was re-elected.

- noga1

March 9, 2012 at 8:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, a sensible Israeli prime minister would mostly shut up, limiting himself to saying things like, "I believe that the United States and the broader western community well understands the threat to peace and security posed by Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons. I am confident that the means will be found to bring Iran back into compliance with its obligations." Behind the scenes, he would be as supportive as possible of American efforts while endeavoring always to understand American thinking and express his support. Then, if it were none-the-less deemed necessary to act alone, he would do it as suddenly as possible in order to achieve complete tactical surprise. That's what a sensible Israeli prime minister would do. Netanyahu, however, is a clod, kind of like Bush, more interested in demonstrating how tough he is than acting smartly in his country's interest. His very cloddishness is a threat to Israeli security as Bush's stupidity was a threat to American security. That is the best we can expect from the right.

- roidubouloi

March 9, 2012 at 8:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Netanyahu also suffers from delusions of grandeur, believing that both he and Israel are much more important in the scheme of things than they are. He actually thinks of himself as the peer of the president of the United States.

- roidubouloi

March 9, 2012 at 8:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Netanyahu and Obama are playing good cop/bad cop with Iran. Right now I'm willing to bet the Iranians are quite at a loss to figure out what the hell is going on. Which is exactly where they ought to be.

- noga1

March 9, 2012 at 10:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Piss poor game of good-cap, bad-cop, as Israel really has not much credibility. It can attack, but it cannot do enough damage and is vulnerable to reprisal. To play the game properly requires a much larger and more threatening actor to play the bad cop. If it is a deliberate game of good-cap, bad-cop, then there is no reason for all of the hand-wringing by Israel and friends.

- roidubouloi

March 9, 2012 at 11:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If it is a deliberate game of good-cap, bad-cop, then there is no reason for all of the hand-wringing by Israel and friends." Of course, Israel and America should tell the Iranians what they are doing, so that the Iranians should be reassured.

- noga1

March 9, 2012 at 11:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It can attack, but it cannot do enough damage" And this sure knowledge probably comes directly from your first rate sources, your three nephews who are senior officers in the IDF, right?

- noga1

March 9, 2012 at 11:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The hand-wringing is by such as you. ____________________ "The skeptics include Martin van Creveld, Israel’s preeminent military historian and theorist, who said in an interview that Israel could do some damage to the Iranian program but could not knock it out. “I would not be surprised if there was a strong element of political theater” to the Israeli threats, he said. Barry Rubin, an Israeli expert on terrorism and international affairs, described the notion that Israel would attack Iran as “an absurd idea” and concluded: “It isn’t going to happen.” “So why are Israelis talking about a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities? Because that’s a good way—indeed, the only way Israel has—to pressure Western countries to work harder on the issue, to increase sanctions and diplomatic efforts,” Rubin wrote on Pajamas Media." ________________________ If Iran were to become a nuclear power, the most immediate question would be what it means for Israel, where warnings have reached histrionic heights. “Absolutely nothing will happen,” says Martin Van Creveld, an Israeli historian and author of some 20 books on military strategy. “Israel has what it takes to deter Iran, and the Iranians know it.” Mr. Van Creveld is implying that Israel’s own nuclear arsenal of an estimated 200 warheads would prevent any Iranian first strike. Israel has the only such arsenal in the Middle East, and – unlike Iran’s program – it has never been subject to UN inspection or safeguards. “Say they build one bomb – it’s not good enough. They need how many – 2, 3, 5, 10, 20? And that will take them a long time, so it’s all nonsense,” says Van Creveld. Iran is “not going to commit suicide by dropping the bomb – or even threatening to drop the bomb – on us.” *** In Israel, even talking about living with a nuclear-armed Iran has long been taboo because it might appear to concede that what the US, Israel, and Europe have declared “unacceptable” is, in fact, acceptable. Yet that was the scenario of a simulation last October by the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an Israeli think tank affiliated with Tel Aviv University, that gave insights into what might happen across the region if Iran became a nuclear state. The surprising result, the day after a hypothetical Iranian nuclear test, was not war. Instead, all the main players – from Washington to Moscow to Tel Aviv – adjusted rather easily to the new reality, with few dramatic changes in behavior. Even Iran, rather than wielding its handful of new atomic bombs as a sword of Damocles over a fearful region, attempted “to use them to reach an agreement with the major powers to improve its strategic standing,” according to the INSS report on the simulation published in January. “The sky won’t fall the day after,” says Yoel Guzansky, a research fellow at INSS who shaped the simulation and was an Iran specialist in the Israeli prime minister’s office for four years until 2009. ________________________ Clapper's comments largely echoed those of Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, who recently downplayed the likelihood of an Israeli knockout blow. "At best," an Israeli attack "might postpone [Iran] maybe one, possibly two years," Panetta said in December at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. "It depends on the ability to truly get the targets that they're after. Frankly, some of those targets are very difficult to get at." Clapper told the Senate Armed Services Committee that U.S. intelligence agencies cannot calculate with precision how much damage, or delay, an Israeli strike might achieve. "There's a lot of imponderables," he said, including the targets chosen, how ordnance is used and how quickly Iran might recover. Most experts argue that Iranian scientists now possess enough technological know-how so that no air campaign, not even sustained bombing by U.S. forces, could destroy Iran's ability to someday produce a nuclear weapon should it choose to do so. Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made headlines when he told a reporter that Israel can "cause severe damage to Iran's nuclear sites and bring about a major delay in the Iranian nuclear project." U.S. intelligence officials are skeptical. Former CIA Director Michael V. Hayden told a group of foreign policy experts last month that Israel is not capable of inflicting significant damage on Iran's nuclear sites. Some are situated at the outer range of Israeli bombers, and others are underground, he said. "The Israelis aren't going to [attack Iran] … they can't do it, it's beyond their capacity," Hayden said. "They only have the ability to make this worse." A month-long U.S. bombing campaign would inflict far more damage, Hayden said, but it wouldn't be worth it. The George W. Bush administration studied the issue, he said. _______________________ A little common sense, and some knowledge of the history of air warfare, is enough to make clear how unlikely it is that Israeli F-16s can deliver sufficient ordinance significantly to damage facilities that Iran has been burying. They are fighter-bombers, but fundamentally fighter aircraft. Their capacity is tiny when compared to that of heavy bombers. Noga enjoys being ignorant because it allows her to believe whatever she likes.

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 12:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The hand-wringing is by such as you." Yes, so? Your REsponses are completely irrelevant to what I was suggesting. Either you are losing your concentration, or you are trying to divert, yet again, from what I was saying.

- noga1

March 10, 2012 at 8:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I understood quite well. Of course, if it is a deliberate game of good-cop, bad-cop, then Obama and Netanyahu would have to appear at odds. But, as I said, it would be a very foolish game as the bad cop is not threatening enough and is highly unlikely, remote in the extreme, to dissuade. That is the point of the game (in the game-theoretic sense) after all, to persuade or dissuade. On the other hand, if it is a deliberate game, however misconceived, there is no reason for all the public hand-wringing by such as you and halevi, unless we are to understand that you all are just engaged in role-playing too, your contribution to the game. I rather doubt that. But then, if the hand-wringers don't think it is all a game, the criticism is unjust and unjustified. Obama's job is to deploy the power of the United States, military and otherwise, to defend and protect the people and interests of the United States. He and we owe Israel nothing, certainly not to protect it at our own expense, other than the respect we owe all nations. That is not to say that there is not benefit to the patron in a patron-client relationship. There is. And, as with all long-term, human relationships, some short-term sacrifice in the interest of maintaining the relationship may be in one's own interest. But it is silly to suppose that any relations between states are not based on self-interest, even if upon a long-term view of that interest. Nations do not love one another so as to consider the interest of the other more important than one's own. AIPAC exists to subordinate the US interest, as the US would otherwise pursue it, to the immediate interests of Israel. And, due to the nature of our political system, it can enjoy some success at this. That doesn't require the rest of us to like the outcome any more than we like it when big financial interests suborn the system to the detriment of the rest of us. Personally, I am quite content with having Obama make the decisions that it is his job to make in the interest of Americans. I am not much interested in whether that is to Israel's liking or in Israel's interest as it, or AIPAC, perceives it. I would prefer to see Israel pursue its own interests without the expectation that it will be protected by the US. I think if it did, its behavior would be rather different and would better serve the collective interest in peace and security. By relying on borrowed US power to pursue ends that are otherwise beyond its means, Israel creates jeopardy for others as well as itself.

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 9:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The risk in the game, if it is one, is that Israel's rhetoric as bad cop may drive it into a corner where it feels it must attack Iran, for the sake of credibility, even if that is a terrible tactical and strategic idea. In general, bluffing in matters of life and death for hundreds or perhaps thousands is not a good idea.

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 9:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course historically the record is that Israel takes very easily the decisions to attack, retaliate or go to war. Israelis are known for their shrugging indifference to the possibility that "hundreds or perhaps thousands" of their sons and daughters will be killed. You seem to run out of even remotely - plausible arguments. You begin to sound very dangerously like the voices on the Arab street, for whom Israel is the name for perfidy and evil incarnate, where no natural decency and feeling are even possible, let alone likely. I'm very pleased that you are now exhibiting so openly and unreservedly these ideas and interpretations.

- noga1

March 10, 2012 at 9:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On Normblog this morning: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2012/03/david-grossman-against-attack-on-iran.html "The Israeli novelist tells The Nation magazine why he is opposed to a military strike against Iran - 'saying the likely consequences [are] more daunting even than those of Iran building nuclear weapons'. Note, however, that Grossman is opposed to it while recognizing that the prospect of Iran acquiring nukes is, precisely, daunting. He doesn't indulge in the soft-headed discourse of those who say, in effect, 'What's the biggie? So there'd be one more nuclear-armed country.' Grossman explains why he hasn't expressed his view on the issue up to this point: The 58-year-old author said the prospect of war with Iran was "the most basic concern of my life in this period. I wake up with it, I go to sleep with it, and I spend hours every day trying to understand it." He said he discusses it with colleagues, acquaintances and "people who have influence," and everyone he's spoken with is "reluctant" for Israel to initiate a war. " Asked why he hasn't, until now, spoken out on this matter when he's been so vocal in his dissent against past Israeli wars and the occupation of Palestinian territories, Grossman said he is beset by the same doubts and hesitations that have quieted the public at large, including the peace camp. "We are dealing here with the most crucial existential problem that the State of Israel may ever have faced in all its history," he said, "and most people are reluctant to express their opinions because they feel they just don't have all the necessary information. "Remember," he said, "we are talking about fanatic, fundamentalist leaders in Iran who have declared openly that they want to eradicate Israel. And they may come into possession of nuclear bombs. It's important to face the complexity of this dilemma - it's not an abstract moral debate, but something very, very concrete." One should take seriously the view that attacking Iran now would be a folly; one cannot take seriously the opinion of people for whom the possession of nukes by a 'fanatic, fundamentalist' regime is to be treated as merely business as usual."

- noga1

March 10, 2012 at 12:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0wbH5KVPrPo URL for "Daylight: The Story of Obama and Israel", the thirty-minute extended version. The truth really is the truth.

- K2K

March 10, 2012 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I do understand that you find it unable to distinguish me from Arab anti-Semites and therefore do your best to place their words in my mouth, noga. That's okay, because I find it near impossible to distinguish you from white supremacist Afrikaners who also considered themselves victims no matter what they were doing. Thus, there is no low behavior of yours that could possibly come as a surprise. I, however, have no need to put words in your mouth. Your own words are quite sufficient. It is true that I cannot think of a single positive thing to say about the character of Benjamin Netanyahu, but my point was only that bluffing under these circumstances, when the consequences of a failed bluff are so grave, would be extremely stupid. I think Netanyahu is that stupid, something I will get to in a moment. However, I have to point out that it is you, not I, who offers the theory that he and Obama are engaged in an elaborate bluff. Having first accused Obama of failing to have the concern for Israel that you somehow believe is due (based on what I don't know), you do a volte-face and then insist that they are merely play-acting to confuse Iran. Netanyahu is dumb enough for that; Obama is not. No, Netanyahu is making real threats, but he isn't threatening Iran, he is threatening the US and the west: If you don't take care of Iran, we will fuck up the situation to a fare-the-well. Think about it. Threats directed at Iran can only make matters worse. They are sure to provoke resistance to accommodation and spur it to protect absolutely as much of its nuclear infrastructure as possible. It eliminates the possibility of tactical surprise with absolutely nothing to be gained. So, given that threats levied against Iran have no upside and a serious downside, the only ones that Netanyahu could rationally be threatening would be the US and the west generally. Supremely stupid. When faced with a purported existential crisis, what do you do? Why, threaten your friends and, of course, build apartments in Jerusalem. Unlike the clod Netanyahu, Obama understands that making direct threats can limit your room for maneuver and place you in a position where it is difficult not to carry them out even if you think the results will be very bad. Hence, he refuses to allow Netanyahu's threats to push him into making commitments, or drawing red lines, or doing anything else that might compromise his own ability to choose the best course under the circumstances as they evolve. Obama is not stupid like Netanyahu.

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 3:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I do understand that you find it unable to distinguish me from Arab anti-Semites and therefore do your best to place their words in my mouth, noga." I don't think you understand that there is very little daylight between your kind of fulmination and the kind I read on Prof. AbuKhalil's blog. That you are a de-facto antisemite is unassailable, given the kind of rhetoric you use when speaking about pro-Israel Jews in America. That you think you are a splendid semi-professional intellectual of great moral depth and breadth is also unassailable. That the two can go together is unfortunately a historical fact. Jewish history is full of Jews like you who thought that sidling up to antisemites and agreeing with the worst canards about Jews would actually be a good thing for the Jews. You don't get the pleasure of being called a self-hating Jew. This is a gross misnomer, nearly every time it is used. Jews like you have an inflated view of their own importance and wisdom and ability to see beyond the horizon. It is a good thing that you self-inflated ego and pugilistic shenanigans are of such intense quality that you will never really achieve any significant importance in American politics, not even on a local level.

- noga1

March 10, 2012 at 4:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, wow. Now that really hurts. Especially coming from you. The thing is, noga, you wouldn't have to try, try, try to put words in my mouth if my own were so damning. And you wouldn't have to try to rebut any factual claim or argument with smears. Surely there is something you would be able to rebut on the merits? But you cannot. Not today, not any day. Given your own long history of, to put it quite gently, a very tenuous relationship with the truth, what stock do you think I or anyone would place in your claims about where daylight can and cannot be found? Are you trying to tell me that you are quite satisfied that, even without AIPAC, American policy would natively be sufficiently to Israel's benefit to satisfy you? All those people are just wasting their time? Or is it that any truth, if it should be observed also by Prof. Abu Khalil, becomes ipso facto an untruth? See what I mean about your tenuous relationship to truth? For you, there is no value to the truth and hence no point in arguing the facts. You expect everyone to invent or deny facts as necessary to support your ideological conviction, just as you do. And your ideological conviction is that one cannot support, morally and materially, Israel's right to exist and its right to self-defense unless one turns a blind eye to whatever immoral and illegal thing Israel chooses to do and then allows Israel to determine American policy in Israel' own interest and in the service of whatever immoral and illegal thing Israel chooses to do. Support for Israel demands self-imposed stupidity. In the ideological crazy house in which you live, even to suggest that the job of the president of the United States is to defend the security and interests of the American people becomes anti-semitism -- de facto of course. All nonsense. First-rate nonsense. You have no ability to parse truth and falsity, morality and immorality. You cannot be taken seriously, and I don't.

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 6:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's some homework for you, noga. I had never read anything by AbuKhalil before today. When I went to his website, I found a re-posting of this, from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/03/israel-iran-and-america See if you can tell us why The Economist is mistaken in its assessment, as it must be since the text was re-posted by AbuKhalil, automatically rendering it false.

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 6:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't expect you to take me seriously. If you did, it would mean I've been corrupted to your ugly brutal worldview -- fat chance. The fact is you cannot explicate away the hateful and slanderous statements you made about AIPAC or Israel, or, for that matter, Obama, who at least on this occasion has acquitted himself quite well with some bona fide verbal commitments. Whether these verbal commitments will survive his re election, there is no telling. He seems for now to understand fully the meaning of a nuclear Iran. Which you still don't. I think you should be given every encouragement to continue to demonize AIPAC and Israel and expound upon the type of President you think Obama is, or should be. And for my part, I will try to draw you out on it whenever the opportunity offers itself. The fact is you cannot take back what you said. They are here on this thread and here: http://www.tnr.com/article/tel-aviv-journal/101418/obama-netanyahu-israel-jordan-koran?page=1

- noga1

March 10, 2012 at 6:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://blog.thecst.org.uk/?p=3508 The Economist’s Pathetic “Auschwitz Complex” "Where to begin with this? For the sake of brevity, two points: [--] Firstly, it is plain wrong to say that Palestinians cannot be “fitted into a familiar ideological trope from the Jewish playbook: the eliminationist anti-Semite”. Palestinian and Arab threats to destroy Israel have consistently formed an “ideological trope” in the Israeli psyche, just like today’s Iranian threat. Prior to the state’s creation, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was (and still is) reviled in this manner, just as Egypt’s President Nasser was in the 1950 and 60s. Then, Menachem Begin’s leadership of Israel (1977-1983) was marked by his characterisation of Yasser Arafat and the PLO as Nazi inheritors. Similarly, the Hamas charter bears comparison with any “eliminationist” text. Secondly, as the ever-excellent Professor Alan Johnson points out, “let us note that far from the concept of eliminationist antisemitism – being part of some ‘Jewish national playbook,’ it was the absence of such an orientating concept among the Jews of Europe that made the nature of the Nazi assault so difficult to understand and respond to.” The author, “M.S.”, then draws upon Netanyahu’s presentation to Obama of the Book of Esther, which tells how a Persian king was persuaded by (the Jewish) Queen Esther to prevent the massacre of his country’s Jews. The story is read at the festival of Purim, which coincided with the Netanyahu-Obama meeting. We are then told how Passover includes the “Ve-hi she-amdah” prayer, “Because in every generation they rise up to destroy us, but the Holy One, Blessed be He, delivers us from their hands”. The article says that Netanyahu “seems to be wooing Mr Obama and the American public just as effectively” and that this “resembles” a “doomed marriage” in which the more stubborn and unstable partner drags the other into increasingly delusional and dangerous projects whose disastrous results seem only to legitimate their paranoid outlook. No consideration is given to Iran’s past and present actions. No mention is made of its nuclear programme, its goal of regional domination, its leader’s apocalyptic outbursts, its denial of the Holocaust, its terrorism against Jews and Israelis. It is simply all down to Israeli delusions, which rest upon paranoid Jewish religious and Holocaust foundations. This is superior to Gilad Atzmon’s work, such as “Trauma Queen [Esther]…Pre-Traumatic Gas Syndrome…From Purim to AIPAC”, but it is still reminiscent of it. Surely the Economist ought to have far higher standards than the dross psychology and selective facts that comprise and compromise this article."

- noga1

March 10, 2012 at 6:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's another piece from The Economist, about America's ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, Jewish and the child of a Polish Holocaust survivor, getting in trouble with the "Jewish groups" (the term used by haaretz, not me) including Abe Foxman and the ADL, for daring to note that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict contributes to Moslem antipathy toward Jews. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/12/anti-semitism And here is a superb rebuttal by a scholar of anti-Semitism: http://www.jewishjournal.com/a_jew/item/was_howard_gutman_right_israel_and_antisemitism_what_do_we_know_39111206/ The right-wing Jewish ideological enforcement that requires of us stupidity, to refuse to observe obvious truths in the world, lest we be branded anti-Semites (of either the de facto or de jure variety) is not confined to noga. But gosh she does participate with zest. __________________________ I will cop to a particular hatred. I loathe the right, in all its current manifestations (which doesn't include Ike), the American right, the Israeli right, the Jewish right, the neo-cons, the right-wing. With their craziness and their viciousness, these people are a threat to decency, to law, to morality, and to life on earth itself. But, no, I don't advocate killing them, imprisoning them, or silencing them, as noga likes to claim. I do think we cannot be the slightest bit sanguine about the threat they pose. Some of them post on these blogs and their insufferable dishonesty, their revolt at any uncomfortable truth, is not hard to discern.

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 6:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But the piece wasn't about Iran, it was about the pathology of Israel. Inevitably, noga's response to anyone noting something discreditable about Israel is to try to draw our attention elsewhere. No, the Palestinians cannot be fitted neatly into eliminationist anti-Semitism because they are in fact dominated by Israel. This history of how this comes to be the case is a somewhat different point. People who are dominated in this way get angry, all people, irrespective of how they got there. But gosh, no effort is spared to convince us that the particular circumstances of the Palestinians should be completely ignored on the grounds that it is all one great big ball of anti-Semitism. Even Howard Gutman , Jewish child of a Polish Holocaust survivor is not pure enough for this crowd.

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 6:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The link from above that wouldn't link: http://www.jewishjournal.com/a_jew/item/was_howard_gutman_right_israel_and_antisemitism_what_do_we_know_39111206/

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 6:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292954/oh-thats-it-just-pesky-ol-auschwitz-complex-victor-davis-hanson "This is all gibberish. As I recall, Israel was attacked from the West Bank in 1967 (in the words of King Hussein “the die was cast”), and had no real desire, with its hands full with Syria and Egypt, to “tangle” itself up with Jordan at the time — had not Jordan foolishly decided to join the doomed pan-Arabic attack on Israel. The author’s real ignorance, however, shows when he touches upon nuclear gymnastics. Does the author really think that Pakistan’s bomb or North Korea’s was ever claimed to be a threat uniquely to Israel? Moreover, Iran’s bomb is not comparable in general to nuclear Pakistan, which, although dangerous enough, is deterred by a far larger, far more powerful nuclear and democratic rival, India, next door. North Korea, far smaller and poorer than Iran, is still on a Chinese leash of sorts, and its ostensible targets — South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan — are, for the most part, under the American nuclear umbrella. And we still station several thousand troops on North Korea’s border, precisely to deter any sort of insane attack by land or air. None of those deterrents, again, would apply to a nuclear Iran — a fact apparently known to most of the Sunni regimes in the region who quietly hope Israel deals with Iran, lest they must themselves either go nuclear or else show some sort of obeisance to the Shiite theocracy in Tehran. As far as a “A new Holocaust is overstated” — well, about half the world’s Jews live in tiny Israel, which could be made uninhabitable with a good-sized bomb or two. The dead would roughly approximate the numbers of those lost in the Holocaust — a genocide that most who run the government in Iran now, of course, deny. This article easily could have been written around 1939, when pesky Jews were then being blamed both for stirring up trouble that might upset tense world relations with Germany and draw the U.S. into an unnecessary war — and, of course, in supposedly psychodramatic fashion, for talking about a planned genocide."

- noga1

March 10, 2012 at 6:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's another great one, http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/09/israel-palestine-0 that goes to the dishonesty of Netanyahu's demand for recognition of Israel as "a Jewish state" and another way in which charges of anti-Semitism are abused by the Israeli right to justify any observation of discreditable behavior by Israel.

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 6:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, like I said, you need to be encouraged to express to the fullest range possible, you hatred to Israel. You are dancing with joy, quoting articles from the well known anti-Israeli "Economist" which you found through the good services of prof. As'ad AbuKhalil. Nuff said.

- noga1

March 10, 2012 at 7:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's a great passage from the rebuttal by the National Review (yes, that one) of The Economist: "The so-called settlements in the West Bank will have to be negotiated, but the dismantling of them in Gaza brought no peace; and it remains a fact that roughly a million Arabs are currently treated far better inside Israel than were the roughly 500,000–600,000 Jews who were ethnically cleansed from their homes in the now Judenfrei major Arab capitals — not to mention that Arab Israelis enjoy rights not granted under most Arab autocracies. Somewhere in this polemic full of moral equivalences, the unsigned author seems to have forgotten that Israel is a consensual democracy unlike all of its front-line Arab rivals. As far as lands occupied after war, I suppose the author is just as worried about global “imperial” tensions arising over the Polish possession of former German East Prussia, or the current Turkish occupation of Greek lands in Cyprus, or the Russian occupation of islands off the Japanese coast?" Always the same misdirection, it's okay to colonize the Palestinians because: (1) Israel is a democracy, (2) worse things happen elsewhere, (3) Israeli Arabs (the ones who are recognized as citizens, mind you) are better off than Arabs in Arab countries, (4) other territory in the world has changed hands (except that the current Polish formerly German East Prussia are not occupied, they are in Poland, which is separate from Germany and not under its domination or vice versa). What is a "so-called settlement", one wonders?

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 7:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I will cop to one hatred, noga, but not of Israel or my own people. I detest the right-wing, American, Israeli, Jewish, neo-con. All of you. All alike, profoundly dishonest, profoundly amoral, crazy enough to deny even the laws of physics in the service of ideology, bellicose, forever looking for the next war to fight. And always trying to enforce your ideological view with charges of anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, socialism, whatever. You fit right in. You are a natural.

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 7:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Turkey is not occupying "Greek lands" in Cyprus. It isn't occupying Cyprus at all to my knowledge. The unrecognized regime it supports there in the north is, if nothing else, ethnically Turkish.

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 7:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I note the conspicuous silence about the attacks on Howard Gutman as insufficiently ideologically correct and absolutist on the subject of Moslem anti-Semitism. Is there actually some right-wing perfidy that even noga cannot swallow or defend, or is it just a moment of inattention?

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 7:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Am I under any obligation to read anything you post here which you think serves your point of view? I have little respect for The economist as a news and analysis source. Your pouncing on it as a trove of articles which "prove" your points only serves to further delegitimize the Economist. We can see what kind of people draw comfort and support from its publications: people like you, who hate Israel, Israelis, American Jews who support Israel, Americans at large who support Israel. You love lies and slanders and their purveyors. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-XYV43ddBc You are a lost case. You spend your time writing copious comments on TNR Message Boards and focus on Israel as if it and its people were the greatest evil thing in the world. You cannot escape your words. You wrote them. They are here. You cannot undo them.

- noga1

March 10, 2012 at 8:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A digression from this extremely interesting and stimulating exchange with roi. Just read this: http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/03/09/199614.html Some in the comments blame the religious institutional radicalization on Iran's interference in Iraq. If true, then just a sample of how a very bad situation in the Arab world will get nightmarishly worse with the ascendancy of Iran in the region.

- noga1

March 10, 2012 at 8:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't want to undo my words. I stand by them. It is sufficient if you don't invent words to place in my mouth. Obviously, you would not feel the need to engage in such smear tactics if my own words were even half as damning as you claim. The point is not at all the The Economist is to be taken as the Word of God. Only fanatics such as yourself and the religious nuts and zealots with whom you make common cause believe they have absolute access to the truth and therefore have no compunction about lying freely in the service of this supposed absolute truth. The point, rather, is that there is no opinion critical of Israel which you will not: (a) fail to address either in terms of facts or arguments and (b) assimilate to anti-Semitism, no matter where it appears or how much of western society comes to share that view. There is no possibility that Israel is wrong, that Israel's violations of the human rights of Palestinians are just that, violations of human rights, that Israel's illegal, immoral, oppressive and repressive behavior, repugnant to western morality, stokes hatred and renders a dangerous conflict intractable. No. The whole world is anti-Semitic and any crime by Israel is justified as a result. You are a fanatic, unprincipled, dishonest to the core, and capable of nothing but smears. In order to take seriously any accusation, it must come from someone who manages to display at least some shred of moral character. You don't. Your accusations are therefore as impotent as you are.

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 9:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And you and those who share your fanaticism will be the undoing of Israel. When my sister said to me in despair the last time I visited Israel, "This country is fucked," she wasn't talking about the Arabs, the anti-Semites, the Iranians. She was talking about you, that Israel is fucked by its right-wing, the same nuts who are doing their best to destroy the United States. And she isn't hiding in Canada, cowering under a bed.

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 9:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga posts a video claiming The Economist is both biased and mistaken in a story about the timing of traffic lights in the West Bank (although it did not actually provide any data to prove the story wrong, just said it was wrong). Oh my. How about this story from OxFam. More anti-Semites making up lies about Israel? http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2010-07-24/palestinian-village-destroyed-israeli-military Palestinian village and nearly $30,000 of aid destroyed by Israeli military “The Israeli authorities are obliged to protect the lives, property and livelihoods of civilians under their occupation.” Cara Flowers Oxfam's water and sanitation advocacy officer Published: 24 July 2010 Aid agency calls on government to compensate villagers for damage done Oxfam today called upon the Israeli government to compensate Palestinian villagers after the Israeli army demolished 79 structures in the village of Al Farisiya in the West Bank on Monday, forcing families into further impoverishment after years of harassment. Structures destroyed include homes, stables, storage sheds, water tanks, two tons of animal fodder, fertilizer and wheat. An initial assessment of the damage inflicted on the area carried out by Oxfam together with other development NGOs working in Al Farisiya established that the destruction has affected 113 Palestinians – identified as some of the poorest in the area, and half of whom are children. The estimated cost of the overall damage to the village is at least NIS 111,270 ($29,000). This includes damage to water tanks and irrigation pipes provided by Oxfam. "The hillside looked as if a natural disaster had taken place," said Oxfam's water and sanitation advocacy officer, Cara Flowers, after visiting the site. "Families had begun to gather their belongings into some semblance of order but no one knows when things will return to normal. Pipes for irrigating crops lie destroyed and water tanks desperately needed to store drinking water for people and livestock were badly damaged. With no access to shelter, water or fodder for their goat and sheep herds, an entire community is being forced to leave their land." The Israeli military posted a sign last year declaring the area a ‘military zone'. Some villagers – several of whom have lived in Al Farisiya for decades – were reportedly served eviction orders in June, but others said they had not received eviction notices prior to the demolition of their property.

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 9:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is from an article written by a Jeffrey D. Dillman, J.D. who is identified as someone who works for the Legal Counseling Project of the Washington, D.C. office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Anti-Semite? "At present, there is insufficient water in the area to meet the needs of both the Palestinian and Israeli populations. When one considers the projected growth in population and water requirements, the situation becomes even more critical. Currently, Israel and Jewish settlers in the occupied territories receive a greatly disproportionate share of the water of Israel/Palestine. Of the total water resources, Israel uses approximately 86 percent, Palestinians in the occupied territories use 8-12 percent, and Jewish settlers 2-5 percent. On a per capita basis, Israelis use 375 cubic meters per year, Palestinians use 107-156 cm per year, and the settlers use 640-1,480 per year. This situation has come about both through legal impediments that Israel has imposed on the Palestinians in the territories and through the discriminatory application of laws and policies. Many of these laws and their application by Israel violate international law."

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 9:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are plenty more. For every story about bias in reporting of timing of stop lights, how many of the actions of Israel in the West Bank, how much of the burden of the apartheid-like preferences given Israeli settlements there go unreported and unnoticed? Yet, we are to believe that all of the opprobrium that attaches to Israel, its diplomatic isolation, is the result of world-wide anti-Semitism. The Fourth Geneva Convention applies to occupied territory, regardless of whether the territory came to be occupied in an illegal war or a justified war. Israel, under the thrall of apologists such as noga, seems to want nothing more than to make itself a pariah in the western world.

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 9:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At the end of the day, noga, what kind of people are you?

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 9:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The actual words of Howard Gutman, American ambassador to Belgium, a Jew, the son of a Polish Holocaust survivor: “There is and has long been some amount of anti-Semitism, of hatred and violence against Jews, from a small sector of the population who hate others who may be different or perceived to be different, largely for the sake of hating. … What I do see as growing, as gaining much more attention in the newspapers and among politicians and communities, is a different phenomenon. “It is a tension, and perhaps hatred, largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian territories and neighboring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem. … An Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty will significantly diminish Muslim anti-Semitism.” ____________________ So, Gutman can state the obvious (before the Jewish right-wing attacks him for it), that Moslem hatred is, at least in part, a response to the conflict, not a justification for it, let alone justification for the continuing violation of Palestinian human rights and Israel's refusal even to "freeze" its current violations, so as to make the conflict intractable, fuel hatred, and maintain indefinitely the status quo of war, occupation, and repression. Then the Jewish right demands that Gutman get stupid again and recite the ritual verse that "Jews are not responsible for anti-Semitism," in atonement for daring to state the obvious. It seems that Israel's most ardent supporters are convinced that support for Israel can only be built on a foundation of deliberate lies. Everyone is therefore obliged to repeat them or risk being labelled an anti-Semite by such moral ciphers as noga.

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 10:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You are a lost case. You spend your time writing copious comments on TNR Message Boards and focus on Israel as if it and its people were the greatest evil thing in the world. You cannot escape your words. You wrote them. They are here. You cannot undo them." This short comment of mine was followed by 1350 roi's words to explain that he did not really say what he did so clearly say.

- noga1

March 10, 2012 at 11:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Still hanging on my every word, I see. Why would I undo my words? I meant them. I stand by them. The short comment of yours is just the sort of self-congratulatory lie you tell after you have attempted, yet again, to distort beyond recognition something said someone else said. Your ever lame attempts at a smear job do, however, afford an opportunity to set the record straight and fill it in with relevant history and facts. Inevitably, it always takes many more words to tell the truth and back it up than it requires for one of your lies. The effort is worth it. It serves to make that much clearer your moral emptiness.

- roidubouloi

March 10, 2012 at 11:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: "You are a lost case. You spend your time writing copious comments on TNR Message Boards and focus on Israel as if it and its people were the greatest evil thing in the world. You cannot escape your words. You wrote them. They are here. You cannot undo them." roi: "Why would I undo my words? I meant them. I stand by them." The words roi stands by (just a sample): AIPAC is an organization of warmongering foreign agents working for perfidious Israeli interests. AIPAC uses money to corrupt most American elected officials, including Obama. Obama's conciliatory speech to AIPAC was actually a hostile confrontation with this traitotious body of Jews in which he backed them against the wall and managed to remove their threat over. And please pay close attention to the fact that roi is declaring here that he stands by each and every word and interpretation that he made here.

- noga1

March 11, 2012 at 10:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your incapacity, desperation, and depravity are getting more evident by the minute. Care to refer everyone to the time and place where I supposedly said that? Oh, you can't? You mean you just made the whole thing up and attributed it to me? You really are a shameless liar. Fortunately, you are as incompetent at that as you appear to be at everything else. If you were not quite as stupid as you are, you really might be dangerous. As it is, merely deplorable. Do you think your country deserves to be represented here by someone as awful as you are? What a pity.

- roidubouloi

March 11, 2012 at 10:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All anyone needs to do is to go back and read your comments, roi. Maybe you should, too. You seem to have no idea what you actually said and wrote and restated here.

- noga1

March 11, 2012 at 11:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Anyone can help themselves. That you have to invent your own versions or re-arrange my words to put elements in contact that do not follow one another or relate to one another in the way you claim is evidence enough that what I say cannot sustain your perverted interpretations. You are a shameless liar, and have been since you first appeared here. Nothing more to it really. You are also an incompetent, unable to frame an argument. Hence you are reduced to this sort of absurd behavior in order to try and justify your prejudices and discomfort with reality. In the end, you are just an empty space.

- roidubouloi

March 11, 2012 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Anyone can help themselves. That you have to invent your own versions or re-arrange my words" No need to invent or rearrange. It's all here, in this thread and in the Pollard thread, in your own voice: "So AIPAC and the 14,000 gathered in DC for its convention are an invention of Mearsheimer? And if AIPAC does not serve to affect US policy regarding Israel, why does it exist? Just as a figment of Mearsheimer's imagination? I certainly believe AIPAC and the money behind it have an impact on US policy. Otherwise an awful lot of rich and powerful American Jews are wasting their time and effort." “AIPAC is detrimental to American interests as it is an agent of a foreign power [--] Lobbying for a war on behalf of a foreign power? I find that quite objectionable." "Israel ... in order to support its right to self-defense, its right to live within secure and recognized boundaries free from threat or intimidation, its right to participate on an equal basis in world commerce and affairs, one is then supposedly obliged public to affirm things that are manifestly untrue. [--] the case for Israel is so weak that, unless one is prepared publicly to affirm ridiculous things, it cannot be sustained. And anyone who refuses to demonstrate loyalty to Israel by publicly affirming ridiculous things can expect to be targeted with the standard epithets, etc., etc. " "(Noga) So how come AIPAC has escaped being prosecuted for its crimes against America? What kind of power does it wield that it can corrupt and subvert the legislators of the very laws you cite as proof of AIPAC's criminality?" Because this is America, the great bankocracy. Money talks, nobody walks. With enough money and the willingness to use it for political clout, you can corrupt just about anything. The trick is only to do it in plain sight, not with cash in paper bags. MollySimon is of course quite correct. Unfortunately, due to the corruption of our political process by monied interests, the American president cannot simply stand up and say, "As president of the United States, my job is to see to the security and well-being of the American people, and that is what I am going to do." Obama knows he is pandering, giving AIPAC the velvet glove treatment. But with some steel in the velvet glove. Good for him that he did not shrink from the political task of pandering as necessary in order then be left free to do his real job. He's learning.” "Obama is facing down the corrupt political power of AIPAC" "Obama ... has backed them into a corner where they don't have and more immediate ability to threaten him". "Just to be clear, AIPAC is not going to get off Obama's back as a favor to him, but because he has backed them into a corner " ____________ To recap, AIPAC is a war mongering foreign organization of rich Jewish agents working to do harm to to the US. Obama's speech to AIPAC was not about reassuring American Jews of his commitment to Israel's security but a staring down match, meant to back AIPAC that threatens him, into the corner.

- noga1

March 11, 2012 at 11:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is one redeeming possibility here, that may be born out by roi's repeated vehemence that I "invented" what he was saying. That roi is suffering from a serious case of cognitive dissonance. He seems not to understand what he was saying. When collated and put in order, all his comments about AIPAC, Obama and Israel join to form the type of narrative that shocks even him.

- noga1

March 11, 2012 at 11:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Put my way, in my words, without your malignant paraphrasing and efforts to cut and snip to create new meanings, it all makes perfect sense to me. Doesn't shock me, to say the least. I am happy to affirm every word. If there were a way to double-down, I would. Consider that I have. You sum up nicely, at least the part about a staring down match won by Obama, except that it is not AIPAC's intention to harm US interests. Rather, it is to prefer Israel's interests to those of the US in American policy-making. If AIPAC (which is to say the government of Israel) believed that US interests and Israel's were in reality convergent, it would have little reason to exist, certainly not as an organization that directly lobbies Congress and directs campaign contributions rather than one that limits itself to providing information to and discussion with the proper officers of the administration. Nor is AIPAC an organization of war-mongers, or of anything else for that matter. It is simply an agent of the government of Israel. AIPAC has no policy on anything independent of the government of Israel. If there is war-mongering going on (certainly there is by Netanyahu), it is the government of Israel that is war-mongering and AIPAC that is merely doing as it is told by its principal, trying to move the USG in whatever direction Israel wants at the moment. Thus, I don't attribute any intention to AIPAC, good or bad, other than to do the bidding of the Israeli government. However, I happen to resent any foreign government lobbying my legislature to procure a policy that diverges from that of the administration, even of a Republican administration. With all the flaws of our system, that is still an American government. Israelis are not citizens here and I don't like them, or any other foreign polity, attempting to set our policy on anything other than by interaction with the agents of the American government, of the administration, whose job it is to interact with them. Were AIPAC properly declared as an agent of a foreign power, I am quite sure that its relationship of both members of Congress and the administration would be quite different. I am sure AIPAC thinks so too which is why it doesn't register and why its immediate predecessor disbanded rather than register, as then Attorney General Robert Kennedy demanded. AIPAC is corrupt because it must conceal its nature, in violation of our law, in order to accomplish its goals. As to how a politically powerful organization can violate the law with impunity, this need be explained only to grade-school children or those who want to act like them. Given the improper, and illegal, interference of the government of Israel in the internal affairs of the United States, I have no problem with Obama saying whatever is necessary to stymie that effort and free him to do his job on behalf of the American people. I would much rather see AIPAC prosecuted than have our president have to engage in a humiliating ritual, but that, sad to say, is not realistic. On the other hand, one could indulge the noga-ish fantasy that US and Israeli interests naturally converge but the American government is unable to figure out where our interests lie without the arm-twisting of AIPAC. There are no redeeming possibilities as to noga or her incessant lying.

- roidubouloi

March 11, 2012 at 2:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Nor is AIPAC an organization of war-mongers, or of anything else for that matter. " It's what you said. You cannot even pretend it is an implication. You explicitly stated that AIPAC is "Lobbying for a war on behalf of a foreign power? I find that quite objectionable." Then you said: "it is not AIPAC's intention to harm US interests." Yet here is what you said which I quoted: “AIPAC is detrimental to American interests as it is an agent of a foreign power [--]" "DETRIMENTAL: Definition: [adjective] (sometimes followed by `to') causing harm or injury;" ___________ As I said, you cannot escape your own words, which you declare you stand by. You can always recant, of course, and explain that you misspoke. Will you?

- noga1

March 11, 2012 at 2:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You really are challenged by the English language, noga, or else deliberately obtuse, or both. Yes, DETRIMENTAL. That's correct. It is an agent of a foreign power that does its best to divert American policy from whatever course it would otherwise take in order to serve the interests of that foreign power. If the US were natively inclined, in its own interest, to do what Israel and AIPAC wanted, then there would be no reason for AIPAC to exist. If AIPAC is successful (as it surely is in some degree as I don't think all those people are simply wasting their time and money) in moving US policy away from what it would be without AIPAC, then it is detrimental to American interests, unless, that is, you indulge the fantasy that we cannot figure out what is good for us unless the prime minister of Israel tells us what that is. You confuse intention with outcome, because you are a crazy thinker who cannot follow even the simplest logical argument. There is a difference between saying AIPAC intends harm or detriment to the US and that it causes harm or detriment to the US. I don't think that anyone in AIPAC intends harm or detriment to the US. Rather, AIPAC gives priority to Israeli interests over US interests and, where they diverge, pursues Israel's interest in preference to that of the US. "A warmonger is a pejorative[1] term that is used to describe someone who is eager to encourage a people or nation to go to war." That would be a good description of Netanyahu, and of the right-wing generally, but one need not attribute the intention, the "eagerness" to go to war, to AIPAC. AIPAC's only intention is to do what the government of Israel tells it to do. If that means lobbying for war, then that is what it does. As that is want the government of Netanyahu wants, that is what AIPAC does. All of which is damaging to the United States, as the decision by the US to go to war ought to be the decision of Americans based on American interests without improper influence by any foreign power. If Israel wants to engage the American government diplomatically to urge war, that's fine. That is the proper way for a foreign power to interact with our government and seek its own objectives. That is not, however, what AIPAC exists to do. And even if were only engaging the administration, it still must be registered as an agent of a foreign principal so that there is no ambiguity that it approaches the American government as an agent of the government of Israel. Not really that complicated, except for you.

- roidubouloi

March 11, 2012 at 3:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi helpfully explains: "A warmonger is a pejorative[1] term that is used to describe someone who is eager to encourage a people or nation to go to war." roi, having provided the dictionary meaning of a "warmonger" would have us believe that when he decsribed AIPAC as an organization that lobbies for war on behalf of a foreign power ("Lobbying for a war on behalf of a foreign power? I find that quite objectionable.") did not mean those lobbyists to be warmongers. What is the meaning to "to lobby"? "To try to influence (an official) to take a desired action." If a lobbyist tries to influence American legislators to go to "war on behalf of a foreign power", what is he? 1. A patriot? 2. A warmonger? 3. A peace activist? 4. A traitor? __________________ Is there any doubt that roi said that AIPAC is a warmongering organization? Can anyone who reads roi's comments really believe that he meant Netanyahu and not AIPAC when he wrote ""Lobbying for a war on behalf of a foreign power"?? Does roi recant in his latest comment what he actually said? Either he said what he said and stands by each and every word he wrote, or he admits that he spoke out of turn, or mis-formulated what he actually meant to convey. We need roi to answer this question. _______________ roi's furious, and I must say rather desperate, backpedaling on what he actually said, which cannot be in any doubt, reminded me of this scene from the 1995 movie "Sabrina": "Maude Larrabee: Did Elizabeth pick out her dress yet? Mrs. Ingrid Tyson: We're still working on the guest list. Six hundred so far, and that's just on our side! Patrick Tyson: That's not a wedding, it's a town. Mrs. Ingrid Tyson: Stop, it's going to be wonderful! Elegant but simple, lavish but tasteful... Patrick Tyson: Cheap but expensive. "

- noga1

March 11, 2012 at 5:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From The Ottawa Citizen: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Iran+away/6279960/story.html "Benjamin Netanyahu — surely a standard character — passed through our continent this last week, sounding the ancient note of the sacrificial goat, preparatory to sacrifice. He has been trying to win support from the English-speaking far west of the western world — the people best acquainted with the Chamberlain/Churchill narrative. He delivered a powerful Churchillian speech to the friendly American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference. He tried to sound prophetic. Prophets are, according to a well-established storyline, without honour in their own countries, and just as Churchill was written off as a nutjob in Depression-era England, Netanyahu has seriously alarmed detractors back home in Israel. Read Ha’aretz (the New York Times of Tel Aviv) to get some taste of how atheism flourishes in the foxholes, and liberalism at the very front line. Netanyahu is actually more popular in the U.S. and Canada; and we probably underestimate the limitations upon his action within the Israeli military, cabinet, and Knesset. Indeed, he cultivates popularity here, to enhance his standing there. On returning home Thursday, he told Israeli TV, “I am not standing with a stopwatch in hand. It is not a matter of days or weeks, but also not a matter of years.” Israel is waiting, to see if economic penalties that hurt Iran’s people, will also stop its nuclear weapons program. (Of course they won’t.) This nuclear weapons program, with missile delivery systems and all other requisites, is plain as day. You do not excavate the middle of a mountain to produce medical isotopes. The skeptics’ reminder of intelligence failures in Iraq are irrelevant to this case, where there can be no dispute over the facts from which we are inferring. That U.S. President Barack Obama is by nature an “appeaser,” and thus the Chamberlain figure in our unfolding puppet play, might go without saying. He has backed off every challenge to U.S. and western interests in the Middle East, and elsewhere. But it would be unfair to suggest that he does not realize Iran’s nuclear ambition, and Israel’s existentially self-defensive response to it, could ignite a conflagration into which the U.S. would be dragged. It would be fairer to suggest, that when he says that he “has Israel’s back,” he is being about as sincere as when he said “marriage is between a man and a woman” during the 2008 election campaign. We know what Obama really thinks of Netanyahu; it was captured by the microphones while he was chatting with Nicolas Sarkozy in France. We know what Chamberlain really thought of Churchill, thanks to cabinet minutes disclosed to history. In both cases, something along the lines of, “knuckle-dragging warmongering idiot.” In the end, it doesn’t matter: Chamberlains get replaced by Churchills, not Lord Halifaxes." Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Iran+away/6279960/story.html#ixzz1or2SPgGe

- noga1

March 11, 2012 at 7:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Keep trying, noga. You only render yourself more ridiculous by the moment. AIPAC is like the Stalinists of old; it will espouse whatever the party line happens to be at the moment. If that is a complete reversal between Tuesday and Wednesday, no matter. Whatever the chairman, meaning Netanyahu, hands down will be followed slavishly. It is offensive that AIPAC should lobby for war on behalf of a foreign power, Israel. If it makes you happy to consider that AIPAC is a war-monger because it does the bidding of the government of Israel in this, why, make yourself happy. I don't think that the label alters the facts one way or another. The action itself is offensive no matter what label you care to put on it. I didn't label it. You insist on doing it for me. You cannot put words in my mouth. They are your own. If AIPAC lobbying for war on behalf of a foreign power makes it a war-monger in your view, so be it. The facts are what matter, not the label. You are obsessed with labeling, this one an anti-Semite, that one something else, etc. etc. as a substitute for thought. That is your obsession and problem, not mine. The salient fact is that AIPAC is an unregistered agent of a foreign power. I don't find it necessary to hold the agent accountable for the particular policies of its principal, the government of Israel, because I understand perfectly well that AIPAC is naught but the dutiful servant. I hold the government of Israel responsible. AIPAC should be held responsible for evading the law. _________________ The fact that Netanyahu is widely reviled does not suffice to make him Churchill. Churchill was, if nothing else, brilliant. Netanyahu is a clod. Among other things, Churchill understood that friendship with the president of the United States was very much in his country's interest and acted accordingly. The clod does not.

- roidubouloi

March 12, 2012 at 12:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Poor roi. Trying to find cover among the shadows of his own words. Only there is no shadow. The words are well lit, even in between. But as I said, I'm all for encouraging you to continue in this vein.

- noga1

March 12, 2012 at 12:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're a fruitcake. And, with every post, you only get fruitier. Now, as your attempted reinventions of my words are in shards on the floor, because, although unscrupulous, you are incompetent, you peddle your delusion that I am "trying to find cover" in my own words, whatever on earth that is supposed to mean. Let me then help you out: AIPAC lobbies on behalf of a foreign power, Israel, for America to go to war in Israel's interest, as its benighted prime minister conceives that interest. I believe that should offend all Americans who rightly expect their government to be responsive to and responsible for their interests and security, and not suborned in the interests of a foreign state, in all matters, but most certainly where the subject is our nation at war. It offends me. Israel, like any state, is most welcome to press its views and interests upon our administration by customary diplomatic means. That does not included lobbying our legislature or agencies that are not held out as proper channels for diplomatic contact with the United States. Beyond that, AIPAC flouts our law requiring an agent of a foreign principal to register as such. That too is offensive. Further, it makes clear that Israel can only behave in this manner based on deceit, the deception that AIPAC is something other than the agent of a foreign principal. That too is offensive. Find cover in that if you can.

- roidubouloi

March 12, 2012 at 1:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The beauty of the situation here, roi, is that one does not need to be particularly competent or even intelligent to read what you said and understand the meaning of it. For all your limitations you recognize it but you don't have the moral fibre necessary to admit you f***ed up and be done. Do go on repeating that you did not say what you did say. What a pusillanimous whiner you are.

- noga1

March 12, 2012 at 6:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Since your last gasp of a smear is to invent a state of mind to attribute to me -- regret or discomfort with my own words -- there is naught to be done but repeat them with emphasis. Amongst your problems is that you imagine that everyone else is as witless as you. Because you spew onto the page any rash thought that pops out of the soup that swirls around inside your head, you imagine that everyone else does too. Do you really suppose my views on AIPAC arose while reading this article and its posts? Not hardly. Indeed, you might recall that I expressed pretty much the same view months or years ago when you complained about the US interfering with Israeli internal politics. I thought that quite risible in light of Israel's interference with our internal affairs via its agent, AIPAC. My opinions are what we call "considered," I think about them and integrate them with the rest of what I know about the world before I express them, which in turn implies that I have no reason to regret them. When someone comes along to refute them or at least offer a strong counter-argument -- that could not possibly be you as you have not the wit -- then I shall have to reconsider. Until then what could I possibly regret? You will invariably detest my view because you are one of those who insists we must all, in support of Israel, be as stupid and unthinking as you, blindly accepting and repeating things that are obviously untrue lest the truth disturb the carefully drawn fiction of Israel as nothing but "tiny and beleaguered," as you put it so well. If you had the capacity, which you don't, you might contest my view, offer contrary facts, advance arguments as to how and why I draw incorrect conclusions. But, you have no such ability. So, you resort to lies, smears, and the efforts we see above to fictionalize my state of mind. Nothing there to whine about. I need only bring attention back to the truth, what I actually said and what it actually means in ordinary English, leaving you evidently more frustrated than ever. It is the least I can do to one so deserving of mind-cracking frustration as you.

- roidubouloi

March 12, 2012 at 7:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"a smear "? Do you mean I imagined you writing "“AIPAC is detrimental to American interests as it is an agent of a foreign power [--]" or (about AIPAC's activities) ""Lobbying for a war on behalf of a foreign power? I find that quite objectionable." When you wrote, that "Obama ... has backed them into a corner where they don't have and more immediate ability to threaten him". you implied a hostile confrontation between two opponents, where one backs the other, who threatens him, into a corner. This does not represent the AIPAC event by any stretch of imagination and you know it. So now you are trying to persuade your readers that what you said was actually what happened, by changing the meaning of words, such as "back into a corner" and "threaten". That is the work of liars and thugs.

- noga1

March 12, 2012 at 7:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, well. Given your now evident failures to understand ordinary, colloquial English -- or your malign efforts to create your own meanings for my words -- it seems that your are now furiously backpedaling, trying to demonstrate that your efforts had some actual sense to them. Here's an opinion piece by MJ Rosenberg about Obama's speech to AIPAC that appeared in various places, including Huffington, and is linked in The Washington Post: The President Scores Big At AIPAC By Sticking To His Guns May 22, 2011 2:57 pm ET — MJ Rosenberg I didn't expect anything good to come out of President Barack Obama's AIPAC speech today. I was wrong. The President strongly endorsed "two states for two peoples" and explained to a skeptical crowd that the status quo is Israel's worst enemy. Politely and nicely, he stuck it to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu by explaining that Bibi's faux-outrage over the '67 lines is utterly bogus. This was critical. He showed, citing history, that there is absolutely nothing new about saying that peace must be built on the '67 lines with modifications (made up by land swaps). And AIPAC accepted it, even applauded it. The right-wing meme was destroyed, as much by AIPAC's reaction as by Obama's explanation. Yes, he gave AIPAC the usual Israel boilerplate. He'll veto a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, etc. But all that stuff is standard and subject to change as situations change. However, the overarching message was the necessity for two states and the unsustainability of the occupation. And AIPAC applauded. Strongly. The President did a masterful job. The neocons are outraged. And I expect that Netanyahu, seeing AIPAC's reaction to their President, will cut his losses and back down. Bravo, Mr. President. You even brought out the best in AIPAC. You gave us all — Americans, Israelis, Palestinians — reason for hope. ___________________ Notice the language -- "he stuck it to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu" or "Netanyahu, seeing AIPAC's reaction to their President, will cut his losses and back down." You would have to say, as you did above, that this description "implied a hostile confrontation between two opponents," with one sticking it to the other and the loser having to cut his losses and back down. But you would insist that, "This does not represent the AIPAC event by any stretch of imagination" and therefore that M.J. Roesenthal is a "liar and thug." Of course, this is not the first time that we have seen your either genuine or faux confusion between political contest, rhetorical contest, and violence. You do not understand that the dueling speeches before AIPAC were a political/rhetorical contest and that there was indeed a winner and a loser. The winner was Obama, the loser Netanyahu and the AIPAC leadership and organization that does his bidding. Seems that there are plenty of others besides me who can observe this, but it is over your head. That is rather a distinct matter from my opinion about the improper behavior and role of AIPAC in American political life. That explains why I am so pleased to see AIPAC the loser in this contest. Give it up, noga. You are caught and toasted. You attempted another one of your smears. You failed. As a going away present, here is another article by Peter Beinart, that vicious anti-Semite and self-hating Jew, for you to ponder: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/?pagination=false A couple of quotes: "But in the United States, groups like AIPAC and the Presidents’ Conference patrol public discourse, scolding people who contradict their vision of Israel as a state in which all leaders cherish democracy and yearn for peace. The result is a terrible irony. In theory, mainstream American Jewish organizations still hew to a liberal vision of Zionism. On its website, AIPAC celebrates Israel’s commitment to “free speech and minority rights.” The Conference of Presidents declares that “Israel and the United States share political, moral and intellectual values including democracy, freedom, security and peace.” These groups would never say, as do some in Netanyahu’s coalition, that Israeli Arabs don’t deserve full citizenship and West Bank Palestinians don’t deserve human rights. But in practice, by defending virtually anything any Israeli government does, they make themselves intellectual bodyguards for Israeli leaders who threaten the very liberal values they profess to admire." The whole piece is well worth reading. It is a fair summary of the pathologies of contemporary Zionism, Netanyahu's Zionism, Shas's Zionism, the Zionism that dominates Israel (and AIPAC) today. ______________________ One more thing. In his speech, Obama again affirmed his formula of "1967 borders with agreed upon land swaps." It is quite clear to me that Obama's intention when he says this is quite different than what Israel has attempted in past, failed negotiations, and is the reason why Obama's rhetoric, although formally consistent with Israel's retention of settlement blocs, incites the ire of the right. Obama means actual swaps, actual trades, where the parties bargain for mutual exchange, each receiving something it wants in exchange for giving something the other wants. That is not at all what Israel has in mind. The Israeli vision is that it will receive the settlement blocs while giving only scraps of desert here and there that no one wants. That is not trading, that is not swapping, and that is the reason why Israel cannot make the dea. Land swaps require mutual benefit; the only benefit Israel offers is to end its occupation. That is, Israel wants to hold the Palestinians hostage until they will agree to accept the legitimation of the illegal settlements in exchange for what amounts to nothing, while tossing in their claims west of the Green Line for good measure, a bargain for fools. Israel keeps expecting the Palestinians to be played for ools, and it isn't working. Israel then expresses its shock, shock that the Palestinians won't acknowledge its generosity, its sacrifices for peace. So well aware is Netanyahu that he cannot make this absurd deal that he does whatever he has to in order not to have to come to the table. Netanyahu will not go down in history as Israel's Churchill, but as Israel's Chamberlain, the man who utterly failed to understand the nature and meaning of the historical moment in which he found himself leader of his country.

- roidubouloi

March 12, 2012 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good time (for this thread) to re-post the thirty minutes of Obama's word-flipping on Israel since 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0wbH5KVPrPo URL for "Daylight: The Story of Obama and Israel", the thirty-minute extended version. The truth really is the truth. No matter what the parasitical propagandists pen...The truth really is the truth.

- K2K

March 12, 2012 at 12:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"or your malign efforts to create your own meanings for my words -- " Excuse me. I quoted dictionary meanings to your words. You are the one trying (desperately) to claim that the words used by you are not really the words used by you. I've already provided a few times the quotes paragraphs. You cannot escape them. These words are your words, not mine.

- noga1

March 12, 2012 at 12:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's rich, roi looking to MJ Rosenberg to back up his own vileness. Just like he went harvesting AbuKhalil's blog for enlightenment on Israel. http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishFeatures/Article.aspx?id=260313 "Additionally, M.J. Rosenberg, a fiercely anti- Israel writer, continues to work for Media Matters and has defended the use of the phrase “Israel Firster” to denigrate supporters of Israel. Thursday’s ad cites quotes from American liberal Jews blasting the two organizations for stoking anti-Semitism. According to Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, “Media Matters and Center for American Progress are two extremely left-bigoted groups that are so virulently anti-Israel and anti-supporters of Israel that they’ve gone over the line from anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism.” Dershowitz also says in the ad, “When I started reading their stuff, it sounded like the kind of stuff you read on neo- Nazi websites... Or on Hezbollah- supporter websites. It is so extremist.” The ad also quoted from a widely read article in the online magazine Tablet, written by liberal journalist and blogger Spencer Ackerman. “For months, M.J. Rosenberg of Media Matters, the progressive media watchdog group, has been throwing around the term ‘Israel Firster’ to describe conservatives he disagrees with... ‘Israel Firster’ has a nasty anti-Semitic "

- noga1

March 12, 2012 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course Dershowitz labels Rosenberg an anti-Semite. As if anyone would take Alan Dershowitz's word for anything. He is just one more enforcer of the right-wing Israeli line. This is what the lot of the crypto-fascist, McCarthyite thugs does. Any critic of Israel who doesn't couch the criticism in the mildest terms both preceded and followed by ritual abasement and repetition of platitudes concerning Israel is inevitably branded as an anti-Semite. Thomas Friedman is an anti-Semite, The Economist is anti-Semitic, Ambassador Howard Gutman is anti-Semitic, Human Rights Watch is anti-Semitic. Basically, everyone other than Alan Dershowitz and the right-wing cultists who follow the Netanyahu line is anti-Semitic. "M.J. Rosenberg is Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network. Previously, he worked on Capitol Hill for various Democratic members of the House and Senate for 15 years. He was also a Clinton political appointee at USAID. In the early 1980s, he was editor of AIPACs weekly newsletter Near East Report. From 1998-2009, he was director of policy at Israel Policy Forum." This guy used to write for AIPAC. He's an anti-Semite too. _________________________ And here is a perfect example of the ritual stupidity demanded by the Jewish political goon squad: "Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, a left-leaning voice on Israel issues, said he had no problem with "Israel-firster." "If the charge is that you're putting the interests of another country before the interests of the United States in the way you would advocate that, it's a legitimate question," Ben-Ami said. Then Ben-Ami has to recant. Update: Jeremy Ben-Ami sent over this "clarification" of his comments to The Washington Post: "I agree that the use of the term "Israel Firster" is a bad choice of words. The conspiracy theory that American Jews have dual loyalty is just that, a conspiracy theory and must be refuted in the strongest possible way." Here it is, ritual stupidity. OF COURSE American Jews, at least the vast majority who support Israel, have dual loyalty. Obviously they have dual loyalty. What the hell else does it mean to be an American supporter of Israel, let alone to take marching orders from the government of Israel as AIPAC does? Are we American supporters of the US and everyplace else? No, we feel loyalty toward Israel, and if we do not demonstrate sufficient dual loyalty, the goon squad will be right there to brand us as anti-Semites for an insufficient display of dual loyalty. How is this for totalitarian double-think: If you observe that AIPAC exists for the very purpose of moving American foreign policy in a direction that it both otherwise would not go and that favors the interests of Israel, then you are accused of insufficient dual loyalty. But if you observe that AIPAC has, at the very least, dual loyalties, you are accused of anti-Semitism for suggesting that such dual loyalty exists. This is straight out of 1984, the demand that people constantly affirm ridiculous things to prove that their very minds are enslaved to ideological conformity. This is what the goon squad demands, that to support Israel's right to exist, as a peer of all other nations but not as a mini-empire among nations, one must constantly engage in the ritual affirmation of things that are obviously untrue. Apparently the goon squad believes that Israel cannot be supported without constant lying. That is a terrible indictment of Israel and Zionism if it were true. I don't think it is, but if one wants to talk about reality and Israel, the reality of illegal settlement, the reality of racist cabinet members, the reality of Israel's repudiation of previous undertakings, the reality of Israel lobbying the Congress through AIPAC, the reality of dual loyalty, then it is necessary to accept being attacked by the goons. As Roosevelt said about the right, "I welcome their hatred." ___________________ More homework for noga, our local enforcer of Jewish ideological conformity: Every time you quote me correctly, I reaffirm every word I said. You insist none-the-less that I try to run away from the plain meaning of my own words or to reinterpret them so that they mean other than what they mean (which actually means refusing to accept your invented re-creations). But, go ahead, make my day. Provide one single example of the supposed discrepancy between what I say and what I say I mean by it. One will do. Then you can get back to your work on the goon squad.

- roidubouloi

March 12, 2012 at 1:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

James Fallows (anti-Semite of course) writing in The Atlantic: "I appreciate the delicacy with which the reader raises an indelicate issue -- whether it's anti-Semitic to note the "oddity" of the AIPAC appearances by U.S. politicians. Let me be respectfully precise in reply. Of course politicians aspiring to any office, including the presidency, plead for support from any number of groups. Even sitting presidents, with all their augustness and power, do something similar, especially at re-election time. Barack Obama would be crazy not to remind everyone in Michigan how he pushed for the auto-bailout bill -- or not to tell an AARP convention or a university crowd, respectively, about what he has done on Social Security and student-loan programs. I have seen Bill Clinton in front of black organizations, arguing that he had been their dependable tribune. What I found odd about the AIPAC performance is that an American president was expected to make similar pleas about his reliability in support of another country's government." ______________________ Turns out most Israelis are anti-Semitic too. Here's a quote from a March 6 piece in CommonDreams: On Iran Strike, Israelis Trust Obama Over Bibi by Robert Naiman A funny thing happened on the way to the Showdown at the AIPAC Corral, where pro-war Republicans and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have been planning to ambush President Obama with charges of being "soft on Iran" because U.S. military commanders have said that an Israeli military attack on Iran would be a very bad idea. Someone asked the Israeli public what they thought. And it turns out that the majority of Israelis have their shekels on the lanky guy from Chicago. Who knew? In a poll conducted this month by Professor Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland and Israel's Dahaf Institute, only 19 percent of Israelis said they would support an Israeli military attack on Iran if it is not approved by the U.S. But that's not even the most striking result of the poll. The poll suggests that the reason that the majority of Israelis don't support an Israeli military strike on Iran without U.S. approval is not because they are afraid of making the U.S. angry. The poll suggests that the reason that the majority of Israelis do not support an Israeli military strike on Iran without U.S. approval is that they share the cautions of U.S. officials against an Israeli strike on Iran: they think that the costs would be high, and the benefits small or nonexistent. That is, they see the assessments of U.S. officials of the dubious merits of an Israeli strike as good data - better data than they are getting from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

- roidubouloi

March 12, 2012 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's a nice accusation of anti-Semitism from just this past week (not that the accusation is used profligately or anything - and, no, in this case it wasn't Alan Dershowitz making it): Jerusalem - MK Yisrael Eichler (United Torah Judaism) was removed from a Knesset Women’s Committee meeting this week, after he called members of the Reform Movement “anti-Semites.” Reform Movement representatives present the Knesset’s Committee on the Status of Women with a report about women’s exclusion in Israel, at which point Eichler lashed out at them for being “anti-Semites who hate Israel,” adding that the “Reform Jews are worse than our enemies.” Advertisement: Committee Chairwoman MK Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) removed him from the meeting over his “unacceptable behavior.” MK Eichler told Hotovely that by including Reform Jews in the committee, “she marked herself as an enemy of the Haredi Judaism.” He further threatened that “Hotovely would pay for her actions.” The Reform Movement announced that they are planning to file a complaint with the Knesset Ethics Committee over MK Eichler’s “inciting words.” http://www.vosizneias.com/102163/2012/03/03/jerusalem-knesset-member-eichler-reform-jews-are-anti-semites

- roidubouloi

March 12, 2012 at 2:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Jewish ideological conformity:"??? Is that something like the "Jewish behavior" you spoke of not too long ago, which caused some of your admirers here to pause and raise an eyebrow?

- noga1

March 12, 2012 at 4:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"ideological conformity amongst Jews," if you prefer. You get nowhere by pretending not to understand ordinary, colloquial, spoken English. We are not writing learned articles here. It is supposed to be a conversation.

- roidubouloi

March 12, 2012 at 4:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are a living, breathing Amelia Bedelia.

- roidubouloi

March 12, 2012 at 4:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, let's be grateful for small mercies. At least your comments got shorter, roi.

- noga1

March 12, 2012 at 4:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ma’ariv, Gilad Sher and Ami Ayalon (11.03.12) Constructive Unilateralism (see below) "The resumption of a meaningful peace process is not visible on the horizon. The coalition in Israel is far more hawkish than it was a number of years ago, and the Palestinian leadership can no longer count on the support of the moderate Arab states, as a result of the changes in the Arab world. The anticipated collapse of the effort to renew the negotiations could cause irreversible damage to the chances of a stable arrangement being achieved between two states. At the same time, the status quo is also nothing but an illusion. Both sides have become more extreme. Israel is facing mounting isolation, which is going to adversely affect its security and economy, and will face it with the risk of losing its future as a Jewish and democratic state. A loss of hope by the Palestinians could lead to a renewed outburst of violence. As such, it is crucial to come up with a new paradigm for the peace process, one that will give both sides a sense of progress and hope and which will allow for a swift return to the negotiating table on the basis of the 1967 lines with land swaps. The way being proposed here is one that is based on constructive unilateral measures. A unilateral measure is constructive if it does not come into conflict with the vision of two states for two peoples and if it advances in practical terms a two-state reality, provided its results do not pose an obstacle to a return of both parties to the negotiating table. This paradigm will allow for the moderation of the conflict through the gradual creation of a two-state reality by means of a series of unilateral steps that are not contingent upon either the resumption of the negotiations or progress being made in them. Israel needs to take action to create a reality of two states for two peoples. It needs to announce that it is prepared at any time to return to direct negotiations and, in tandem, to declare that it has no intention of demanding sovereignty over the territories to the east of the security fence. Israel then needs to prepare for the return of the settlers who live either to the east of the fence or outside the settlement blocs and it needs to freeze construction to the east of the security fence and in the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Construction can continue in the settlement blocs and in the Jewish neighborhoods in the Jerusalem area. Legislation should be passed for the voluntary relocation and compensation of settlers who live east of the security fence so as to allow them to move to new housing either inside the Green Line or within the settlement blocs irrespective of reaching a final status arrangement, while being adequately compensated for their property. A national plan needs to be drafted for the absorption of the settlers who will return to the recognized and secure boundaries of the State of Israel, either in the event of a final status arrangement or even in the absence of one. That plan needs to address questions of housing, jobs, security, psychological trauma and social changes, among others. By promoting a reality of two-states, Israel will be sending a message that it does not see its future in those territories that lie to the east of the security fence, and it will do so without endangering its security either in the transition phase or thereafter. That message will be intended for a number of audiences: the international community will be persuaded of the sincerity of Israel’s intentions and that will facilitate a rehabilitation of trust and Israel’s extrication from its mounting isolation. The Palestinians will see that Israel is not opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state. The public in Israel will be given a clear message by its government regarding the urgent and vital need to achieve a two-state solution. World Jewry will also see the fortitude of the Zionist enterprise. Since there is no need for reciprocal agreement for the above-cited measures, this paradigm will allow Israel to act in keeping with its own long-term national interest, irrespective of actions taken by the other side, its inaction or its failings. As to the international community, it might decide to embrace this paradigm and urge the parties to advance on its basis. Steps, such as an Israeli disengagement from Gaza or northern Samaria, or a credible Palestinian commitment not to allow terror attacks against Israelis—will receive support, whereas rocket fire and continued Jewish settlement to the east of the security fence will be condemned." These proposals are actually consonant with the Bush/Sharon understandings that Obama and Clinton reneged upon. Whether they will, as the authors suggest, "thaw the deadlock in the peace process" is much in doubt. But these are important steps, regardless. I also doubt whether any action on the part of Israel will improve its international standing. In my opinion, Israel's bad reputation has little to do with its actual policies. This course of action will leave an open door to dialogue and is geared to demonstrate that the goal is an agreement between two states, and that a permanent status arrangement can only be reached by means of negotiations. This proposed paradigm encourages constructive unilateral steps without undercutting the aspiration to reach an agreement in negotiations. Progressing with this paradigm will create a two-state reality, will thaw the deadlock in the peace process, which is working to Israel’s detriment, and will contribute to laying the groundwork for a resumption of meaningful negotiations on a final status arrangement with broad international support. Given the recent developments and uncertainties in our region and beyond, one cannot hope for greater achievements than those.

- noga1

March 12, 2012 at 4:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Edit: Ma’ariv, Gilad Sher and Ami Ayalon (11.03.12) Constructive Unilateralism (see below) "The resumption of a meaningful peace process is not visible on the horizon. The coalition in Israel is far more hawkish than it was a number of years ago, and the Palestinian leadership can no longer count on the support of the moderate Arab states, as a result of the changes in the Arab world. The anticipated collapse of the effort to renew the negotiations could cause irreversible damage to the chances of a stable arrangement being achieved between two states. At the same time, the status quo is also nothing but an illusion. Both sides have become more extreme. Israel is facing mounting isolation, which is going to adversely affect its security and economy, and will face it with the risk of losing its future as a Jewish and democratic state. A loss of hope by the Palestinians could lead to a renewed outburst of violence. As such, it is crucial to come up with a new paradigm for the peace process, one that will give both sides a sense of progress and hope and which will allow for a swift return to the negotiating table on the basis of the 1967 lines with land swaps. The way being proposed here is one that is based on constructive unilateral measures. A unilateral measure is constructive if it does not come into conflict with the vision of two states for two peoples and if it advances in practical terms a two-state reality, provided its results do not pose an obstacle to a return of both parties to the negotiating table. This paradigm will allow for the moderation of the conflict through the gradual creation of a two-state reality by means of a series of unilateral steps that are not contingent upon either the resumption of the negotiations or progress being made in them. Israel needs to take action to create a reality of two states for two peoples. It needs to announce that it is prepared at any time to return to direct negotiations and, in tandem, to declare that it has no intention of demanding sovereignty over the territories to the east of the security fence. Israel then needs to prepare for the return of the settlers who live either to the east of the fence or outside the settlement blocs and it needs to freeze construction to the east of the security fence and in the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Construction can continue in the settlement blocs and in the Jewish neighborhoods in the Jerusalem area. Legislation should be passed for the voluntary relocation and compensation of settlers who live east of the security fence so as to allow them to move to new housing either inside the Green Line or within the settlement blocs irrespective of reaching a final status arrangement, while being adequately compensated for their property. A national plan needs to be drafted for the absorption of the settlers who will return to the recognized and secure boundaries of the State of Israel, either in the event of a final status arrangement or even in the absence of one. That plan needs to address questions of housing, jobs, security, psychological trauma and social changes, among others. By promoting a reality of two-states, Israel will be sending a message that it does not see its future in those territories that lie to the east of the security fence, and it will do so without endangering its security either in the transition phase or thereafter. That message will be intended for a number of audiences: the international community will be persuaded of the sincerity of Israel’s intentions and that will facilitate a rehabilitation of trust and Israel’s extrication from its mounting isolation. The Palestinians will see that Israel is not opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state. The public in Israel will be given a clear message by its government regarding the urgent and vital need to achieve a two-state solution. World Jewry will also see the fortitude of the Zionist enterprise. Since there is no need for reciprocal agreement for the above-cited measures, this paradigm will allow Israel to act in keeping with its own long-term national interest, irrespective of actions taken by the other side, its inaction or its failings. As to the international community, it might decide to embrace this paradigm and urge the parties to advance on its basis. Steps, such as an Israeli disengagement from Gaza or northern Samaria, or a credible Palestinian commitment not to allow terror attacks against Israelis—will receive support, whereas rocket fire and continued Jewish settlement to the east of the security fence will be condemned." This course of action will leave an open door to dialogue and is geared to demonstrate that the goal is an agreement between two states, and that a permanent status arrangement can only be reached by means of negotiations. This proposed paradigm encourages constructive unilateral steps without undercutting the aspiration to reach an agreement in negotiations. Progressing with this paradigm will create a two-state reality, will thaw the deadlock in the peace process, which is working to Israel’s detriment, and will contribute to laying the groundwork for a resumption of meaningful negotiations on a final status arrangement with broad international support. Given the recent developments and uncertainties in our region and beyond, one cannot hope for greater achievements than those." _____ These proposals are actually consonant with the Bush/Sharon understandings that Obama and Clinton reneged upon. Whether they will, as the authors suggest, "thaw the deadlock in the peace process" is much in doubt. But these are important steps, regardless. I also doubt whether any action on the part of Israel will improve its international standing. In my opinion, Israel's bad reputation has little to do with its actual policies.

- noga1

March 12, 2012 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Israel needs to do three things, all of which are within its control: Comply with outstanding UNSC resolutions by suspending construction east of the Green Line, thereby moving toward ending its status as a rogue state and supporting American diplomacy. Offer at any time to return to negotiations for a final settlement, with no preconditions whatsoever, and not unilaterally to alter further the status of territory east of the Green Line so long as negotiations are continuing in good faith. Take all actions to ease the burden of occupation that can be taken consistent with security (its obligation under the Fourth Geneva Convention in any case). ____________________ Israel's strategic position is eroding. The occupation is a wasting asset. Israel needs to get something for it while the opportunity exists. Eventually, if Israel does not negotiate a settlement, one will be imposed by the UNSC.

- roidubouloi

March 12, 2012 at 11:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No doubt, in order to do these things Netanyahu would have to allow the extremist right-wing parties to walk and form a national unity government with Kadima. Shouldn't be too hard. Netanyahu could have done this from the start if he really wanted to negotiate peace.

- roidubouloi

March 12, 2012 at 11:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is information you will not hear from the roi..dent. Hamas and Abbas were talking of joining forces, Iran told Hamas not to do it. It was not done. Islamic Jihad kept showering hundreds of rockets from Gaza to civilians population in the Israeli Negev . Israel retaliated forcefully. Hamas and the Egyptians brokered a truce, Iran told their client Islamic Jihad not to do it to continue showering Israeli civilians with rockets. Since roi..dent is an apologizer for Iran he will keep mum. True roi..dent is a Galicianer, known to be dishonest. He is a self hatred Jew vitriolic-ally anti Israel. Continuously slanders Israeli leaders. And those american jews, that defend Israel from demonizers, slanderers, like roi..dent He is not an anti-Semite , he is simply a self hatred Jew. It is hard to explain, only he knows the truth, something must have happened during his youth.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 12, 2012 at 11:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kinda stuck there are you, Jaime? I think you need a little fresh material to keep it interesting. You may be losing your audience. Read this: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/?pagination=false Then I double-triple dare you to write here that Peter Beinart is "a self hatred Jew." Let's see if you really believe your own bullshit or whether you are just a poseur trying to draw attention to yourself. You've already branded Thomas Friedman (and god knows who else) a self-hating Jew. Shouldn't be too much to add Beinart to your list. Do it right here, Jaime, at TNR, where Beinart was editor. Show 'em all what you are made of.

- roidubouloi

March 12, 2012 at 11:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't be frantic, take control of yourself. Realize you are wrong.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 13, 2012 at 12:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's very funny, Jaime! You, of all people, the single most out-of-control poster ever to appear here, urging self-control. You are fabulous. I couldn't have invented you. Noga's unbound id made corporeal.

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2012 at 8:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah you are awake roi..dent. Let us compare reporting by Israel unfriendly Thomas Friedman and Israel friendly Jerusalem Post. The OECD reported results of study on education by world wide countries. How books and oil don't mix. Or resource rich countries =poor education , resource poor countries=good education +people are better off. OECD report analyzed by self hatred Jew Thomas Friedman compared by friendly Jerusalem Post.  Thomas Friedman biased analysis of the OECD report. He never mentions Israel, until he comes to the NASDAQ  listings where he couldn't hide any longer. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/friedman-pass-the-books-hold-the-oil.html?src=me&ref=general March 10, 2012 Pass the Books. Hold the Oil. By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN EVERY so often someone asks me: “What’s your favorite country, other than your own?” I’ve always had the same answer: Taiwan. “Taiwan? Why Taiwan?” people ask. Very simple: Because Taiwan is a barren rock in a typhoon-laden sea with no natural resources to live off of — it even has to import sand and gravel from China for construction — yet it has the fourth-largest financial reserves in the world. Because rather than digging in the ground and mining whatever comes up, Taiwan has mined its 23 million people, their talent, energy and intelligence — men and women. I always tell my friends in Taiwan: “You’re the luckiest people in the world. How did you get so lucky? You have no oil, no iron ore, no forests, no diamonds, no gold, just a few small deposits of coal and natural gas — and because of that you developed the habits and culture of honing your people’s skills, which turns out to be the most valuable and only truly renewable resource in the world today. How did you get so lucky?” That, at least, was my gut instinct. But now we have proof. A team from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or O.E.C.D., has just come out with a fascinating little study mapping the correlation between performance on the Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, exam — which every two years tests math, science and reading comprehension skills of 15-year-olds in 65 countries — and the total earnings on natural resources as a percentage of G.D.P. for each participating country. In short, how well do your high school kids do on math compared with how much oil you pump or how many diamonds you dig?  The results indicated that there was a “a significant negative relationship between the money countries extract from national resources and the knowledge and skills of their high school population,” said Andreas Schleicher, who oversees the PISA exams for the O.E.C.D. “This is a global pattern that holds across 65 countries that took part in the latest PISA assessment.” Oil and PISA don’t mix. (See the data map at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/9/49881940.pdf.) As the Bible notes, added Schleicher, “Moses arduously led the Jews for 40 years through the desert — just to bring them to the only country in the Middle East that had no oil. But Moses may have gotten it right, after all. Today, Israel has one of the most innovative economies, and its population enjoys a standard of living most of the oil-rich countries in the region are not able to offer.” So hold the oil, and pass the books. According to Schleicher, in the latest PISA results, students in Singapore, Finland, South Korea, Hong Kong and Japan stand out as having high PISA scores and few natural resources, while Qatar and Kazakhstan stand out as having the highest oil rents and the lowest PISA scores. (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Algeria, Bahrain, Iran and Syria stood out the same way in a similar 2007 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, or Timss, test, while, interestingly, students from Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey — also Middle East states with few natural resources — scored better.) Also lagging in recent PISA scores, though, were students in many of the resource-rich countries of Latin America, like Brazil, Mexico and Argentina. Africa was not tested. Canada, Australia and Norway, also countries with high levels of natural resources, still score well on PISA, in large part, argues Schleicher, because all three countries have established deliberate policies of saving and investing these resource rents, and not just consuming them. Add it all up and the numbers say that if you really want to know how a country is going to do in the 21st century, don’t count its oil reserves or gold mines, count its highly effective teachers, involved parents and committed students. “Today’s learning outcomes at school,” says Schleicher, “are a powerful predictor for the wealth and social outcomes that countries will reap in the long run.” Economists have long known about “Dutch disease,” which happens when a country becomes so dependent on exporting natural resources that its currency soars in value and, as a result, its domestic manufacturing gets crushed as cheap imports flood in and exports become too expensive. What the PISA team is revealing is a related disease: societies that get addicted to their natural resources seem to develop parents and young people who lose some of the instincts, habits and incentives for doing homework and honing skills. By, contrast, says Schleicher, “in countries with little in the way of natural resources — Finland, Singapore or Japan — education has strong outcomes and a high status, at least in part because the public at large has understood that the country must live by its knowledge and skills and that these depend on the quality of education. ... Every parent and child in these countries knows that skills will decide the life chances of the child and nothing else is going to rescue them, so they build a whole culture and education system around it.” Or as my Indian-American friend K. R. Sridhar, the founder of the Silicon Valley fuel-cell company Bloom Energy, likes to say, “When you don’t have resources, you become resourceful.” That’s why the foreign countries with the most companies listed on the Nasdaq are Israel, China/Hong Kong, Taiwan, India, South Korea and Singapore — none of which can live off natural resources. But there is an important message for the industrialized world in this study, too. In these difficult economic times, it is tempting to buttress our own standards of living today by incurring even greater financial liabilities for the future. To be sure, there is a role for stimulus in a prolonged recession, but “the only sustainable way is to grow our way out by giving more people the knowledge and skills to compete, collaborate and connect in a way that drives our countries forward,” argues Schleicher. In sum, says Schleicher, “knowledge and skills have become the global currency of 21st-century economies, but there is no central bank that prints this currency. Everyone has to decide on their own how much they will print.” Sure, it’s great to have oil, gas and diamonds; they can buy jobs. But they’ll weaken your society in the long run unless they’re used to build schools and a culture of lifelong learning. “The thing that will keep you moving forward,” says Schleicher, is always “what you bring to the table yourself.” Different analysis by the Jerusalem Post on the same OECD report http://www.jpost.com/Features/InThespotlight/Article.aspx?id=261551 The oil-rich countries of the Gulf are investing heavily in education to diversify their economies and build a workforce capable of competing in knowledge-intensive industries. But a paper by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released on Monday has some bad news for them. Students in resource-rich economies nearly always underperform compared with their peers in countries where people have to study and work hard for a living. The OECD reached its conclusion after surveying the educational performance of students across 65 countries globally, measuring them with a standardized test called the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). Looking at the Middle East, the paper compared PISA scores from 2009 by resource-poor Israel with the energy exporters Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). “As the Bible notes, Moses arduously led the Jews for 40 years through the desert – just to bring them to the only country in the Middle East that had no oil. But Moses may have gotten it right, after all,” Andreas Schleicher, special adviser on education policy to the OECD secretary-general and head of its Indicators and Analysis Division, said in an online comment. Israel, which derives a tiny fraction of its gross domestic product from natural resources, scored a national average of 447 points on the mathematics PISA, the highest in the Middle East. By comparison, Saudi Arabia, which gets close to half its national income from energy extraction, scored close to the bottom of the 65 countries surveyed with an average of 336. Other energy exporters scored little better.  “One interpretation is that in countries with little in the way of natural resources -- other examples [besides Israel] are Finland, Singapore or Japan -- education has strong outcomes and a high status at least in part because the public at large has understood that the country must live by its knowledge and skills,” Schleicher said. The Gulf oil exporters are wealthy, but they suffer from high unemployment and a lack of opportunities to start businesses or make careers in challenging, well-paid jobs. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, the jobless rate is in the double digits, with unemployment for people aged 20-24 estimated at four times the national average, even as the economy has been growing quickly, boosted by high oil prices. That has prompted the country to beef up its educational system, investing in multi-billion-dollar university campuses and luring world class researchers to shake up a primary school system focused on religious studies. Saudi Arabia’s $2.4 billion Tatweer education project, backed by King Abdullah, aims to form partnerships with international companies to develop an education industry, curricula, teacher training and technology intended to create so-called smart schools. In fact, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) says the Arab world is one of the biggest spenders on educational globally. It estimates that the region is spending 4.89% of GDP on schooling, ahead of any other region of the world except North America and Western Europe. Resource-rich economies are widely acknowledged to be economically and socially less developed because their exports of oil and other mineral wealth undermine other industries. But Schleicher adds lazy students to the list of woes that easy income creates. Among oil exporters at the bottom of the class are Iran with a PISA score of 397, Kuwait 358 and Qatar 368. Only the UAE, at 421, breaks the 400 barrier. “Many of the countries with below-average GDP succeeded to convert their national resources into physical capital and consumption today, but failed to convert these into the human capital that can generate the economic and social outcomes to sustain their future,” he writes. Muhammad Faour, a senior associate the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Middle East Center, said in a recent interview that most education systems in the Arab world have failed to prepare students to compete in the global economy. But he blamed the suppliers (the schools) rather than the consumers (the students). “Teaching in most Arab states continues to be highly didactic, teacher-directed, and not conducive to fostering analytical free thinking,” he said in a Q&A published in December. “On top of that, Arab countries have a shortage of qualified teachers and most of those currently employed have relatively low salaries and limited opportunities for professional development.” By contrast, Israel has spawned a world-class high technology sector and all seven of its universities ranked among the world’s top 500 in last year’s Academic Ranking of World Universities. But Israel’s laurels are wilted; its PISA scores lead the Middle East but are about average for the 65 countries surveyed by the OECD. It also faces the bittersweet prospect of easy, energy-generated wealth after the discovering of huge natural gas reserves off its Mediterranean coast. In Israel’s favor, the government plans to divert much of its energy income into a sovereign wealth fund. Under a plan approved in principle by the cabinet in February, half of the state’s royalties from gas and oil will be deposited into a fund that will invest in foreign securities and spend profits in education and defense. That kind of strategy, the OECD’s Schleicher said, is the key to enjoying natural resource wealth and ensuring the nation’s children do not coast through school. He noted in his paper that the few economies, among them Canada, Australia and Norway, where student performance and reliance on natural resources are both high, governments have deliberate policies of saving rather than spending the wealth.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 13, 2012 at 9:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here are the two analysis . You read, you judge. Jerusalem Post analysis http://www.jpost.com/Features/InThespotlight/Article.aspx?id=261551 Thomas Friedman analysis http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/friedman-pass-the-books-hold-the-oil.html?src=me&ref=general

- JAIMECHUCH

March 13, 2012 at 9:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is the Jerusalem Post analysis The oil-rich countries of the Gulf are investing heavily in education to diversify their economies and build a workforce capable of competing in knowledge-intensive industries. But a paper by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released on Monday has some bad news for them. Students in resource-rich economies nearly always underperform compared with their peers in countries where people have to study and work hard for a living. The OECD reached its conclusion after surveying the educational performance of students across 65 countries globally, measuring them with a standardized test called the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). Looking at the Middle East, the paper compared PISA scores from 2009 by resource-poor Israel with the energy exporters Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). “As the Bible notes, Moses arduously led the Jews for 40 years through the desert – just to bring them to the only country in the Middle East that had no oil. But Moses may have gotten it right, after all,” Andreas Schleicher, special adviser on education policy to the OECD secretary-general and head of its Indicators and Analysis Division, said in an online comment. Israel, which derives a tiny fraction of its gross domestic product from natural resources, scored a national average of 447 points on the mathematics PISA, the highest in the Middle East. By comparison, Saudi Arabia, which gets close to half its national income from energy extraction, scored close to the bottom of the 65 countries surveyed with an average of 336. Other energy exporters scored little better. “One interpretation is that in countries with little in the way of natural resources -- other examples [besides Israel] are Finland, Singapore or Japan -- education has strong outcomes and a high status at least in part because the public at large has understood that the country must live by its knowledge and skills,” Schleicher said. The Gulf oil exporters are wealthy, but they suffer from high unemployment and a lack of opportunities to start businesses or make careers in challenging, well-paid jobs. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, the jobless rate is in the double digits, with unemployment for people aged 20-24 estimated at four times the national average, even as the economy has been growing quickly, boosted by high oil prices. That has prompted the country to beef up its educational system, investing in multi-billion-dollar university campuses and luring world class researchers to shake up a primary school system focused on religious studies. Saudi Arabia’s $2.4 billion Tatweer education project, backed by King Abdullah, aims to form partnerships with international companies to develop an education industry, curricula, teacher training and technology intended to create so-called smart schools. In fact, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) says the Arab world is one of the biggest spenders on educational globally. It estimates that the region is spending 4.89% of GDP on schooling, ahead of any other region of the world except North America and Western Europe. Resource-rich economies are widely acknowledged to be economically and socially less developed because their exports of oil and other mineral wealth undermine other industries. But Schleicher adds lazy students to the list of woes that easy income creates. Among oil exporters at the bottom of the class are Iran with a PISA score of 397, Kuwait 358 and Qatar 368. Only the UAE, at 421, breaks the 400 barrier. “Many of the countries with below-average GDP succeeded to convert their national resources into physical capital and consumption today, but failed to convert these into the human capital that can generate the economic and social outcomes to sustain their future,” he writes. Muhammad Faour, a senior associate the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Middle East Center, said in a recent interview that most education systems in the Arab world have failed to prepare students to compete in the global economy. But he blamed the suppliers (the schools) rather than the consumers (the students). “Teaching in most Arab states continues to be highly didactic, teacher-directed, and not conducive to fostering analytical free thinking,” he said in a Q&A published in December. “On top of that, Arab countries have a shortage of qualified teachers and most of those currently employed have relatively low salaries and limited opportunities for professional development.” By contrast, Israel has spawned a world-class high technology sector and all seven of its universities ranked among the world’s top 500 in last year’s Academic Ranking of World Universities. But Israel’s laurels are wilted; its PISA scores lead the Middle East but are about average for the 65 countries surveyed by the OECD. It also faces the bittersweet prospect of easy, energy-generated wealth after the discovering of huge natural gas reserves off its Mediterranean coast. In Israel’s favor, the government plans to divert much of its energy income into a sovereign wealth fund. Under a plan approved in principle by the cabinet in February, half of the state’s royalties from gas and oil will be deposited into a fund that will invest in foreign securities and spend profits in education and defense. That kind of strategy, the OECD’s Schleicher said, is the key to enjoying natural resource wealth and ensuring the nation’s children do not coast through school. He noted in his paper that the few economies, among them Canada, Australia and Norway, where student performance and reliance on natural resources are both high, governments have deliberate policies of saving rather than spending the wealth.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 13, 2012 at 9:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Jaime, but the Jerusalem Post explanation of the OECD report and Friedman's explanation of the same report are virtually identical.

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2012 at 9:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't agree, skahn. Noga has no point but these: -- As Israel faces real threats, it is and ought to be exempt from the obligations of human rights law (at least until all worse violators are brought to the bar of international justice) and from criticism gnereally. -- Criticizing Israel is therefore indistinguishable from desiring its destruction. -- All critics of Israel are therefore anti-Semites to a greater or lesser extent (correlated with the extent of their criticism) and the appropriate response to any criticism of Israel is to find some means or other of claiming that the critic is an anti-Semite, hangs out with anti-Semites, "shares sensibilities" with anti-Semites, etc., etc. -- As any critic of Israel is by definition an anti-Semite, there is no rhetorical tactic, no matter how corrupt, dishonest, or besides the point of the criticism, than cannot and should not be applied to the critic, and she does, freely. I don't consider any of those points worthy of respect. Her behavior here is execrable. I have no interest in insulting her other than my commitment to not allowing such behavior to go without a condign response. Otherwise, it is a waste of time and energy. It never fails to be the case, ever, that noga responds to claims or criticism she doesn't like with ad hominem attacks, because she is unable or unwilling to muster any argument in rebuttal. She is always the first to resort to this. Typically, she then whines about ad hominem attacks. She doesn't need your help to play the victim. She does this very nicely on her own. But your even-handedness is admirable.

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2012 at 10:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Uh oh. New navigational error. Don't know why my cursor doesn't stay in the box on the thread I am reading.

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2012 at 10:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi..dent on top of all your problems as an apologizer of Iran, you are hysterical. What can you expect from a dishonest Galicianer hater of Israel self hatred Jew. If you can not see that Thomas Friedman does not mention Israel but his friend in Taiwan, then you can not see nothing. By now hemor...roid you are becoming a failed irritant. Continues admiring the ayatollah Kameinih and his excitement about Obama defeating Netanyahu at the AIPAC meeting. Btw how are your pals at AAPAC the American Arab PAC. There is also an American Iranian PAC. I understand roi..dent is forming a new PAC ASHJPAC, American Self Hatred Jews PAC. Grr...Grrr...Grrr. While we were talking several dozen apartments were completed in the liberated territories by Palestinian construction workers. While as usual roi..dent was obsessed with the international failed legality of his hysterical imagination.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 13, 2012 at 12:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now I see what an anti-Semite Thomas Friedman is. He used Taiwan as an example of a resource poor country doing well and an Israeli newspaper used Israel as an example. You're getting over-heated, assuming it is possible for your normally over-heated stated to heat up any more. You put on a great show, Jaime, bringing discredit on Israel, the right, the Israeli right, American Jews, the City of Brotherly Love, all at once. Talent like yours is rare.

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2012 at 1:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When are you going to really get going and tell us that Peter Beinart is a self-hatred Jew? Come on. You can do it. I know you have it in you. Read his article. See all the nasty things he said about Israel, Zionism, American Zionists. Doesn't he make your blood just boil?

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2012 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

gallicianer dishonest slanderer of Israel self hatred Jew. When are you going to stop defending ayatollah khameini and Ahmadenijad? When are you going to stop being obsessed about international legal liberated territories, fast pace construction by Palestinian construction workers paid by Israel, 1.4 billion dollars, and Israel passing 100 million to the Palestinian authority w/o which they can not survived. When are you going to stop defending Iran opposing Hamas Abbas union. Iran opposing cease fire between Gaza Islamic Jihad firing rockets at Israeli civilian population. Galicianers are famous for being dishonest but you surpass their fame. On top of that you have become hysterical because you have lost miserably. If you eat guacamole it calms your hysteria. Trust me hemor...roid. You can not continue living with your Israel hatred, and being pounded by honest defenders of Israel. Bad being awake all night suffering.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 13, 2012 at 2:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Quite frankly, Beinart's recent articles do not make my blood boil at all. He says nothing that I have not read or heard before. It makes my blood go cold. Spinoza wrote a very detailed critique of the old Israel prophets. He argued that none of the prophets said anything particularly truthful, interesting or important. He then added a waiver: the only true prophet was Jesus, he wrote in one sentence. It did not make sense. On several levels. I asked my professor, an eminent scholar in Judaic Studies, for the meaning of it. You have to understand, he told me, that Spinoza was living in a certain time at a certain place and within an intellectual environment that would not tolerate his writings without this caveat. He had to pander to that ethos, if he wanted to continue to produce and be read. This by no means suggests any analogy whatsoever between Spinoza and Beinart, except to make the point that even a great historical thinker like Spinoza succumbed to the tyranny of his peers, however briefly and only once.

- noga1

March 13, 2012 at 2:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What, lost your nerve, Jaime? Cannot include Beinart on your list of "self-hatred Jews" although his writings make noga's blood go cold? I am disappointed to you. In defense of the indefensible, the American Jewish right and the Israeli right spare no effort to tyrannize and force critics to succumb, to conform, to recant. Who can criticize Israeli human rights violations and the obstacles that they and Israel present to peace and not expecting a goon like Dershowitz or noga to brand them as an anti-Semite or even a "self-hatred Jew." These people understand tyranny very, very well. They cannot defend Israel's conduct, but they are not short of epithets, smears, slanders, vituperation, the whole tool-kit of McCarthyism at their fingertips.

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2012 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry for the grammatical typos. My fingers have a mind of their own and have trouble reading within this box.

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2012 at 3:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In defense of the indefensible, the American Jewish right and the Israeli right spare no effort to tyrannize and force critics to succumb, to conform, to recant." What is "The indefensible"? Perhaps Gilad Sher and Ami Ayalon's Constructive Unilateralism, which I had quoted in full above? What is the dictionary meaning of "Tyrannize"? "1. To exercise absolute power" This is cut from the same cloth as roi's earlier fulmination that AIPAC "threatens" Obama. Beinart's article is published in "The New York Review of Books". Where then is the tyrannizing, forcing to succumb, to conform, to recant by roi's arcane cabal of "the American Jewish right and the Israeli right"?? Where is that absolute power of AIPAC in this case?

- noga1

March 13, 2012 at 4:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Galicianer dishonest are you going to comment about Iran or not, don't be a coward. Want to hear you apologizing for Iran. Don't pick on the clan you self hatred Jew demonizer of Israel distorter of international legal liberated territories. Tell us about your love affair with the AAPAC, American Arab Political Action Committee.Israel Tel us why Hamas and Abbas can not unify because Iran says no. Tell us why Gaza Islamic Jihad can not stop firing missiles at civilians in Israel because Iran says so. Stop slandering Netanyahu. Stop slandering AIPAC . Stop slandering American Jews. Stop defending self hatred Jews. The roi..dent is hysterical being a sore looser. The hemor..roid loves Thomas Friedman the self hatred Jew by excellence.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 13, 2012 at 4:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is it that you imagine needs to be said about Iran? I have no doubt that it is in pursuit of nuclear arms and that we should do what is necessary to prevent this from happening. However, I think it very unlikely that greater belligerence, threats, or even bombing, are going to achieve this. Those who insist on pursuing this line believe in self-defense by stupidity. I don't. Consistent economic pressure, which requires a measure of international consensus, however difficult to obtain, is the only means by which success can be achieved. And it is not necessary, though it is desirable, that it be achieved before Iran acquires the technical means or even builds weapons. If we go about this the right way, that event would only further isolate Iran. It is oft forgotten that South Africa gave up nuclear arms after it had built actual weapons. That is not out of the question with Iran but is not going to happen if we keep upping the state of belligerency. So, it is not an apology for Iran to observe that the right-wing, both here and in Israel, is occupied by no end of morons who make the same geopolitical errors over and over and over again without learning a thing. Their prescriptions for how to deal with Iran are fully as stupid as their reasons for invading Iraq and no more likely to have a good outcome. I don't believe in self-defense by stupidity. Go that?

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2012 at 5:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Iran is in a proxy war against Israel the thousands of missiles they have provided Hezbollah/Lebanon and Gaza Hamas/Islamic Jihad has to be answered directly. Since Friday Islamic Jihad fired 200 missiles at civilian populations in Israel. Iran objected to the Egyptian brokered truce. It is long overdue that Israel should respond in kind. Iran has to be bombed out of existence. The sooner the better. This is justice. Obama has to realize we are dealing with a murderous fanatic country that has been killing Americans in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Iran is deeply involved in Syria killing innocent Muslims. It is only a matter of time before Iran will be pulverized. One way or another. This is completely different from Iraq or Libya. The Iranian mullahs and Ahmadenijad have overstepped their evil reach. And there are no apologizers that will save Iran, they are criminals that have to be stopped. They will be pulverized sooner or latter. The world will be a safer place . Destroying Iran will be like shooting fish in a barrel. They are completely innocuous.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 13, 2012 at 6:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Iran is in a proxy war against Israel the thousands of missiles they have provided Hezbollah/Lebanon and Gaza Hamas/Islamic Jihad has to be answered directly. Since Friday Islamic Jihad fired 200 missiles at civilian populations in Israel. Iran objected to the Egyptian brokered truce. It is long overdue that Israel should respond in kind. Iran has to be bombed out of existence. The sooner the better. This is justice. Obama has to realize we are dealing with a murderous fanatic country that has been killing Americans in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Iran is deeply involved in Syria killing innocent Muslims. It is only a matter of time before Iran will be pulverized. One way or another. This is completely different from Iraq or Libya. The Iranian mullahs and Ahmadenijad have overstepped their evil reach. And there are no apologizers that will save Iran, they are criminals that have to be stopped. They will be pulverized sooner or latter. The world will be a safer place . Destroying Iran will be like shooting fish in a barrel. They are completely innocuous.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 13, 2012 at 6:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"a murderous fanatic country '" It's not the country that is murderous and fanatic. The Ayatolah regime is.

- noga1

March 13, 2012 at 6:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga's ego surfaces to impose the slightest restrain on her uncontrolled id, Jaime. But the distinction is one without much difference, other than an appearance of propriety. The conclusion is the same: Kill them all. Thus we see emerge the inevitable genocidal tendency of the right.

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2012 at 6:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The country deserves the government they have. Gaza fires over 200 missiles at Israeli civilians. And Erdogan, the Islamist Turkish pig, is criticizing Israel. Egyptian lower chamber criticizes Israel. They are mum about the Islamist terrorists. These savages are mum about the Syrian massacre. The Islamists are a cesspool of the lowest human(?) denominator. they deserve Muslims killing Muslims. And you will see more and more. Iran is having a ball blowing up Moslems in Iraq, blowing up Moslems in Pakistan, blowing up Moslems in Afghanistan. I guess the UN, the EU, the quartet ha , Hillary and BHO, have said nothing about Gaza showering hundreds of missiles against civilians in Israel . About the thousands upon thousands Iranian missiles in Lebanon and Gaza. Can you trust can you trust BHO trying to talk to the beast that is Iran? You must be kidding. Indeed it is Aushwitz all over again. We have to be thankful to the vision of Jabotiskin , Menachem Begin, Ben Gurion, Ariel Sharon. If Israel doesn't defend itself , who else. in the meantime we have to also confront the self hatred Jews. The Islamists don't know what is coming upon them. But first things first, let us pulverize the Iranian Satan.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 13, 2012 at 6:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"03/13/2012 - 6:25pm EDT | roidubouloi Noga's ego surfaces to impose the slightest restrain on her uncontrolled id, Jaime. But the distinction is one without much difference, other than an appearance of propriety. The conclusion is the same: Kill them all. Thus we see emerge the inevitable genocidal tendency of the right." Mark my words. In no time roi will assert that he is being smeared, that when he said that AIPAC was a warmongering criminal organization in the service of a foreign power, threatening Obama. In no time will he come here saying that it is insane of Israel to demand a recognition of its Jewish rights in the Land of Israel, in no time will he show up here calling every one who does not agree with his solution for a weaker, less defensible Israel, is a rightwingnut. Yet each and every statement written here he said, again and again. This is the man who then thinks he is in a position to demonize another poster's comment in this vile manner without the littlest bit of textual support. The difference between you and I, roi, is that I can, and have done so, prove, by quoting from your own words, every single thing I claimed you said. Courageous, righteous, honest poster that you are, you should have no problem, none whatsoever, proving that the above quote is correct. Just provide the quotes and the place where they were said, and you will not be seen as a liar, slanderer and an inciter of mob. Let's see you, big man. Match all that bravado to actual proof. Remember, that if you do not provide precise quotes, from checkable sources, that you what stated is true, then you are simply a liar. But then, you already know that, don't you? You take special pride in your slandering ways.

- noga1

March 13, 2012 at 7:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Galicianer dishonest self hatred Jew slanderer of Israel apologizes for Iran. His hatred is so immense that rejoices in seeing Jews killed. Is the epitome of evil. I was in Toulouse France in 1960. The institute du genie chimique director was Joseph Cathala. His wife was Jewish, they had two sons. One was smart. The other was dumb (a la roi..dent). As expected, I learned that during the nazi occupation, the Vichy government, the dumb son a teenager at that time denounced the mother to the nazis. The hemor..roid reminds me of Cathala's son. I wouldn't be surprised roi..dent will handle his mother to the Iranian mulah's. It makes sense he hates his mother for bearing him as a Jew.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 13, 2012 at 7:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very amusing, I must say. Since you get nowhere in your mischaracterizations of what I do say -- because the words are there -- you have no shifted to much safer ground for you, predicting what I am going to say. "Mark your words" indeed, you loon. Textual support for what? Does this require "support?" Jaime writes of Iran, "Iran has to be bombed out of existence. The sooner the better. This is justice. Obama has to realize we are dealing with a murderous fanatic country . . . They will be pulverized sooner or latter. The world will be a safer place. Destroying Iran will be like shooting fish in a barrel." The you turn up to offer this correction: "It's not the country that is murderous and fanatic. The Ayatolah regime is." Did you not notice that Jaime advocates "bombing Iran out of existence?" I think the whole thing so evidently insane as to not be worth commenting upon. Where would one begin? But you think that the only think of note is that it is the regime not the country that is murderous and fanatic. Very fastidious of you. Should we not then infer that you found the rest unobjectionable? As in, "Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" And is not the logical end point of "death to all enemies" genocide, especially when, as you believe, enemies of Israel are everywhere and everyone? You are a fanatic noga, but, unlike Jaime who has no governor, you understand that you need to keep a lid on it in public. And then the mask slips, very unconsciously. You cannot help it. And there you are! If you would like to explain your remark, why go ahead. You can always admit that your mouth outran your brain and retract.

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2012 at 7:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Does it make any sense to discuss with the self hatred Jew like roi..dent that deep in his evil heart wants to see Jews murdered with impunity. He is a complete waist he would indeed handle his own mother to the Iranian mulahs. He is pure evil. He is dangerous. Full of hatred , full of madness. Do you realize that hemor..roid? We need a close watch of this criminal mind.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 13, 2012 at 8:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In the meantime Iran arms with thousands of missiles the Islamic terrorists, attacking constantly Israel. They are already killing innocent Muslims in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan. Soon they will start killing Muslims in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, even dumb dumb Erdogan in Turkey. Yes Iran is an amoral regime. The sooner they are destroyed the better. It will happen sooner than later. It is just a matter of time. It is sarcastic how BHO, UN, EU, even Russia, China, India just standby thinking they can deal with this evil regime. Poor Iranian people, they don't even imagine what is coming to them. Well the Shia religion is a suicidal religion anyhow , immolation is the fet dujour. Do you realize that roi..dent? Is your self hatred such that it is ok to patronize the Iranian regime fanaticism acceptable? You are not as reasonable as you think you are. It is Aushwitz all over again, but with a big difference, there is Israel to stop the Iranian evil.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 13, 2012 at 8:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi: I take your last comment to be a recantation of: ""03/13/2012 - 6:25pm EDT | roidubouloi Noga's ego surfaces to impose the slightest restrain on her uncontrolled id, Jaime. But the distinction is one without much difference, other than an appearance of propriety. The conclusion is the same: Kill them all. Thus we see emerge the inevitable genocidal tendency of the right." If it is not, then you will have to support this accusation, made against me, that I ever suggested or advocated that Iran be bombed out of existence. If you don't do it, then you are nothing but a filthy cowardly liar and slanderer. _______________ BTW, your kindred spirit, Abukhalil, practices similar measuresas you. He quoted this segment from the 60 minutes interview with Dagan: ""Dagan: The answer is yes. Not exactly our rationale, but I think that he is rational. Stahl: Do you think they're rational enough that they are capable of backing down from this? Dagan: No doubt that the Iranian regime is maybe not exactly rational based on what I call Western-thinking, but no doubt they are considering all the implications of their actions." and called it "Casual Israeli racism toward Iranians". Apparently you share his criterion, that if you call the Iranian regime irrational and murderous, you are a genocidal racist. Great minds thinking alike.

- noga1

March 13, 2012 at 8:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you are? Here you spend no effort trying to connect me to AbuKhalil in order to establish that I am anti-Semitic, as you claim. (Leave aside the absurdity of this accusation on its face. Do I get to call other Jews, like you, anti-Semites because I abhor your political views?) I have never read AbuKahlil. I don't cite, him refer to him, quote him, or even know who the hell he is and don't much care. You attach me to him, or vice versa, because you detect "similar sensibilities." Nothing about this strikes you as grossly improper. Then you link to and quote from a Breitbart article as authority for the proposition that M.J. Rosenberg is an anti-Semite. (Who isn't these days? Especially Jewish men, it seems. Is this really about misandry on your part?) I read the article you link and cite with approval and it is obvious that it is the worst sort of smear job. They repeatedly quote Rosenberg and then assert that Rosenberg is saying anti-Semitic things that he plainly is not saying at all. You then resent being attached to the Breitbart article that you held up as authority for this proposition. Then, Jaime says: "Iran has to be bombed out of existence. The sooner the better. This is justice. Obama has to realize we are dealing with a murderous fanatic country." To which you respond, "It's not the country that is murderous and fanatic. The Ayatolah regime is." No mention of the fact that Jaime has just said that Iran should be bombed out of existence. That apparently is not a problem for you. But you want to tidy up his statement a bit so that, instead of referring to a murderous and fanatic country, it refers to a murderous and fanatic regime. Now you say, "Apparently you share his criterion, that if you call the Iranian regime irrational and murderous, you are a genocidal racist." No, it is when you say that, "Iran has to be bombed out of existence. , , , They will be pulverized sooner or latter. The world will be a safer place. Destroying Iran will be like shooting fish in a barrel." that it is appropriate to say you are a genocidal racist, you know, when you like call for genocide. Now, you did not utter these words in the first instance. Jaime did. But you only took issue with a comparatively trivial aspect of his premise, not with his conclusion. Should we not then infer that you agree with his conclusion? If not, why not? So you see, you think nothing of tying me to words by some distant figure that I have never seen, heard, or commented upon. But you are incensed at the obvious inference from your own words in comment upon Jaime's call for an Iranian genocide. That is so utterly perverse that gross hypocrisy doesn't begin to describe it. But, you know what? Even if I just played a dirty propaganda trick on you by drawing an unjustified inference (I don't think so) and attributing it to you, it is the game you here play all the time. So, if it is unfair, consider that you have been noga'd. Now look in the mirror, you maniac, and perhaps you will begin to understand why the number of people here who are disgusted by you keeps growing.

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2012 at 10:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I almost hate to admit it, but I am starting to pity you in spite of your behavior. You are so clearly unbalanced that it becomes difficult not to.

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2012 at 10:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More mistakes: "Here you spare no effort trying to connect me to AbuKhalil . . . "

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2012 at 10:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't "connect" you to Abukhalil, but to me, he serves as a paradigm of all that is evil thinking and you seem to fit the paradigm. In other words, your own thoughts and methods of responding to facts and arguments remind me strongly of the way he does things. There is no denying that it is effective. He is enormously popular with the Arab street and you never stop bragging how successful you are with these methods. You yourself invoke your many fans here as testament to your own righteousness and rightness. So, the similarities exist and they intrigue, because of the structural cognitive dissonance that has to be at the core of such thinking and sentiment that maintains it. One wonders about these things. One also wonders how readers remain ignorant of them. It explains a great deal. I believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant which is why I encourage you to express your positions and opinions to the full.

- noga1

March 14, 2012 at 6:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just more of your propaganda swill. As if I need your encouragement to express my positions opinions to the full. As if I am doing anything else. If you believed your own nonsense, you would not feel it necessary to reinvent my opinions in absurd ways or attempt to drown them out in a welter of slurs and smears. The sunlight would suffice. Or you would offer some counter-argument in order to persuade that I am mistaken, to point out my errors. But you never do. "Responding to facts and arguments?" You never advance any. There are none to respond to. Only slurs and smears. You don't suffer from cognitive dissonance. You suffer from a profound delusion regarding who you are and what you are doing here. While you and the rest of the right in Israel and within American Jewry stand with your hands over your ears, accusing everyone, from Thomas Friedman to Howard Gutman to Reform Jews, of being anti-Semitic and imagining that you are drowning out criticism, Israel's stature and strategic position continue to decline, for which the bill will come due sooner or later. The anti-Semites aren't the reason why. You, along with the rest of the zealots who behave as you do, are the cause. You are to blame.

- roidubouloi

March 14, 2012 at 7:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"accusing everyone, from Thomas Friedman to Howard Gutman to Reform Jews, of being anti-Semitic" Really? Where did I ever accuse Thomas Friedman, Howard Gutman (who is he?) or Reform Jew of being antisemitic? Can you offer some supporting quote for these accusations? i said your own opinions and tones of voice when you talk about AIPAC is a de-facto antisemitism. I will challenge you to show that it is not antisemitic to accuse an organization of Jews of serving a foreign power to cause harm to the US, an organization that even the President himself saw no problem addressing and appealing to for confidence in him. In the comments to this favorable account of the AIPAC event, someone said: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jayson-littman/gay-times-at-aipac_b_1341481.html "AIPAC May Have Connections to the 1940s Spy Rings Within the US http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2012/03/aipac-may-have-connections-to-1940s-spy.html AIPAC FOUNDER IDENTIFIED BY FBI AS MEMBER OF COMMUNIST PARTY http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2012/03/aipac-founder-identified-as-communist.html Commenters of this type are your friends, roi. If they read you they will get all the comfort and support they need to continue with these slander. You had better be totally clear about what you have been pushing in the thread and the other on on Pollard. Antisemitism is promulgated through stalking, slander and singling out. Your comments here about AIPAC, about American Jews who support Israel, about Israeli society, about Israel's warmongering criminal leadership are all characterized by these three factors. So even if you think you can use your sister as a shield for your harmful heinous propositions, you cannot escape what you actually said plainly, explicitly, proudly.

- noga1

March 14, 2012 at 12:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here here. Another Iranian attempt to terrorize stopped. The roi..dent apologizer of Iran can not deny. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/14/22-arrested-in-azerbaijan-in-plot-on-us-israeli-embassies/ What is hemo..roid going to say now about his beloved Iranian terrorists? As said in the Godfather ...tell Michael it was only business, only business. Can you help me just for old times sake.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 14, 2012 at 12:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And how about international agency mismanagement. USA contributes close to one billion. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/14/united-nations-high-commissioner-for-refugees-blasted-for-poor-financial/ And still roi..dent obsessive syndrome about international legality of liberated territories.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 14, 2012 at 12:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

USA warns Iran accede or be attacked http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=261804 What is hemor...roid going to say the sorry apologizer for Iran.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 14, 2012 at 12:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Simply Jews have a question for Peter Beinart: http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/2012/03/peter-beinart-and-benefits-of-twitter.html "Peter Beinart and the benefits of Twitter Norm brings up a question asked by Peter Beinart on Twitter: ? for war supporters: why is Iran/Hitler analogy better than analogy w/ Stalin getting nuke in 1949 or Mao getting it in 1964? Norm's own response to that: One could turn that around. Why isn't it a better analogy? I am not sure whether Mr Beinart is genuinely baffled by the question he twits tweets around or, possibly, there is some deeper meaning to it. In any case, I would like to turn it around another time. Why indeed, dear Peter? And how, precisely, it matters? "

- noga1

March 14, 2012 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The whole post from Normblog: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2012/03/nuclear-proliferation-as-fairness.html "There are quite a few interesting questions attached to the possible acquisition by Iran of nuclear weapons. I find them so anyway. How far along, whether technically or in terms of the time remaining to have functional weapons and a delivery capability, is the Iranian regime? What should be done, if anything, once its acquisition of nukes becomes imminent, if it does? Should Israel be contemplating a strike against Iran, to set back its nuclear programme, or not? Should the US? What would be the consequences of such a strike by either country? These questions are not only interesting, they are also worrying. And there are doubtless others of as much interest that I haven't mentioned. One angle on this issue, however, which merely makes me chuckle is the one I'll call, adapting the title of a famous article by John Rawls, 'Nuclear proliferation as fairness'. It's the concern of those who find it morally troubling that anyone should worry about Iran's acquisition of nukes when Israel - don't you know? - already has them. For the latest round of this lament, you can look at a recent tweet by Katrina vandenHeuvel, John Cassidy's concern about 'the charge of double standards', and Mehdi Hasan's reference to the latter in saying on his own behalf that 'no Israeli official or spokesman should be allowed to come on the BBC or ITV or Sky News and fear-monger about Iran's nuclear programme unless he is first questioned about Israel's own nuclear weapons programme'. Chuckle, and chuckle again. John Rentoul has already said some of the necessary in replying on this score (though don't expect Hasan to be moved, construing the threat of the eradication of Israel as relatively benign since it would only be via the one-state solution - which, unless the Israeli Jews agree to it, means via withdrawing from them the right to national self-determination, and no big deal, eh?) But I would like to develop John's response to the Israel-has-nukes view slightly differently. Those who worry, including those national governments which worry, about Iran's possible acquisition of nukes may not be wholly swayed by a nuke-possession-as-fairness perspective. They may think it more worrying for some countries to have nukes than for others to have them. Consider - if one more country is to get nuclear weapons, which do you prefer: New Zealand or Assad's Syria? Tough one. Fairness to Iran in light of Israel's nuclear armoury isn't uppermost in the minds of those who fear the prospects of a theocratic tyranny with such weapons. They just worry in a non-comparative way about what might happen. My advice to those who are upset by this is to get over it and join the real world. Possession of nuclear weapons is not a sphere of justice and isn't likely to become one any time soon. In a tweet yesterday Peter Beinart asked, 'for war supporters: why is Iran/Hitler analogy better than analogy w/ Stalin getting nuke in 1949 or Mao getting it in 1964?' One could turn that around. Why isn't it a better analogy? And what a choice anyway. In any event, it is not only war supporters who think the world a better and less dangerous place if Iran as presently ruled remains without nukes; whatever might be the desiderata of impartiality and fairness."

- noga1

March 14, 2012 at 12:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can see you are making some effort to stay grounded in something resembling fact and argument. That alone is a positive development. Before I respond to the substance, let me first respond to the slander. Here are your friends at work: http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2012/03/hared-mk-calls-reform-jews-anti-semites-worse-than-our-enemies-789.html http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/01/new-york-times-israels-greatest-enemy/47617/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/a-gutman-backlash--except-in-the-white-house/2011/12/06/gIQAm2OHZO_blog.html Are we done? If I assert that "these are your friends," are their words now your words? If they, including Netanyahu, are profligate in their accusations of perfidy and/or anti-Semitsm, and you are profligate in you accusations of perfidy and/or anti-Semitism, can we now correctly attribute to you anything "your friends" say, and their intentions to boot? Indeed, applying your standards, is it sufficient if I merely "detect" what I think are similarities in their "style of thinking" and yours? Or do I have some obligation to take you to task for what you yourself actually say? _____________________________ While you ponder that, and the boundaries of civil discourse: In order to be slander, something must first be false. 1. Is it not the case that AIPAC exists for the very purpose of lobbying the US government, and not through normal diplomatic channels, on behalf of the interests of Israel? Here is what the HuffPost article that you link with approval said: "AIPAC is a lobbying group that lobbies the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. government for pro-Israel policies." 2. Is it not also the case that AIPAC takes direction from the government of Israel? 3. Is it not the case that AIPAC plainly meets the definition of "agent of a foreign principal" contained in the law requiring such agents to register with the Department of Justice? 4. Is it not the case that AIPAC has not registered as such an agent? We do permit such agencies to exist, but require that they be declared as agents of a foreign principal. Is AIPAC not in flagrant violation of this requirement? Why does it matter that its political power allows it to evade the law without prosecution? 5. How is it anti-Semitic to object to a foreign power lobbying my government and legislature for my country to adopt policies both favorable to it and not what my government would otherwise do on behalf of me and my fellow citizens? Is there any lobby for a foreign power that remotely resembles AIPAC in scale and political power? Indeed, is there any other lobby for any other foreign power that you can think of? 6. Is AIPAC not lobbying for the position of the Netanyahu government that the United States should commit itself to make war upon Iran if "red lines" laid out by the Netanyahu government are crossed? Is it not clear that our president, who conducts our foreign policy, considers this to be not in the best interests of the United States whether or not it is in the interests of Israel (a proposition I think dubious)? 7. Is this in some way distinguishable from "lobbying on behalf of a foreign power for the US to go to war?" How would you draw such a distinction? 8. Is AIPAC not in fact working to bring political pressure to bear on President Obama to adopt the policy urged by the government of Israel in the interests of the government of Israel? 9. Did I ever say that AIPAC is a "warmonger" or intends to harm the interests of the United States as you claim? Are these not your words that you attempt to place in my mouth? 10. If Israel, working through AIPAC, succeeds in the interests of Israel in shifting US policy from what it would otherwise be in the service of American interests, how is that not detrimental to the interests of the United States? 11. How is the interference by a foreign power in our domestic politics not by itself detrimental to our democracy? Is it not the responsibility of our government to make decisions in our interests and not to subordinate those interests to those of a foreign power? I object deeply to AIPAC on principle. I believe that Israel, if it wishes to press for particular American policies, ought to do that through the same diplomatic channels as every other nation. The American government then considers how much weight to give to the desires of friendly nations within the constellation of American interests. But, insofar as we do permit lobbying on behalf of a foreign power, then the law requiring AIPAC to register should be observed, not least because an open and honest declaration of its status would without doubt alter its relationship to our government. As to my supposedly anti-Semitic tone, you consider it anti-Semitic per se that I am hostile to the policies of the Netanyahu government, including its coddling of right-wing lawbreakers, and to the policy of Israel more generally regarding its illegal settlement activities, its conduct of its occupation of the West Bank, and its evasion of both previous undertakings and of peace negotiations, what I perceive to be its utter lack of good faith in that regard. I am hostile to them because they are immoral and because they are dangerous to both Israel and the United States. Danger for the sake of morality is one thing. Acts of otherwise questionable morality, such as we engage in in war, are sometimes a sad necessity for the sake of security in a world that is ungoverned. Acts that are both immoral and dangerous, especially dangerous because they place immoral purposes above the needs of security, are heinous. Further, it appears likely to me that, but for illegal lobbying by such as AIPAC, my government would not be enabling and de facto supporting these policies of Israel that conflict with its own stated policy. Hence, I object both to the existence of AIPAC as an unregistered agent of a foreign power and to the policies for which it lobbies as agent of Israel. Attempting to prevent me from expressing those views, delicately or indelicately as I choose, with accusations of anti-Semitism is McCarthyism, and not because of what I may surmise to be your motivation. That is irrelevant. It is the deed itself that is objectionable. Faced with such abuse, I have no compunction whatsoever (see above re morality and security) in saying whatever I think necessary to cause you to fail and in reprisal for your bad behavior so that you will either desist or be discredited.

- roidubouloi

March 14, 2012 at 2:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can see you are making some effort to stay grounded in something resembling fact and argument. That alone is a positive development. Before I respond to the substance, let me first respond to the slander. Here are your friends at work: breakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreak http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2012/03/hared-mk-calls-reform-jews-anti-semites-worse-than-our-enemies-789.html breakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreakbreak http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/01/new-york-times-israels-greatest-enemy/47617/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/a-gutman-backlash--except-in-the-white-house/2011/12/06/gIQAm2OHZO_blog.html Are we done? If I assert that "these are your friends," are their words now your words? If they, including Netanyahu, are profligate in their accusations of perfidy and/or anti-Semitsm, and you are profligate in you accusations of perfidy and/or anti-Semitism, can we now correctly attribute to you anything "your friends" say, and their intentions to boot? Indeed, applying your standards, is it sufficient if I merely "detect" what I think are similarities in their "style of thinking" and yours? Or do I have some obligation to take you to task for what you yourself actually say? _____________________________ While you ponder that, and the boundaries of civil discourse: In order to be slander, something must first be false. 1. Is it not the case that AIPAC exists for the very purpose of lobbying the US government, and not through normal diplomatic channels, on behalf of the interests of Israel? Here is what the HuffPost article that you link with approval said: "AIPAC is a lobbying group that lobbies the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. government for pro-Israel policies." 2. Is it not also the case that AIPAC takes direction from the government of Israel? 3. Is it not the case that AIPAC plainly meets the definition of "agent of a foreign principal" contained in the law requiring such agents to register with the Department of Justice? 4. Is it not the case that AIPAC has not registered as such an agent? We do permit such agencies to exist, but require that they be declared as agents of a foreign principal. Is AIPAC not in flagrant violation of this requirement? Why does it matter that its political power allows it to evade the law without prosecution? 5. How is it anti-Semitic to object to a foreign power lobbying my government and legislature for my country to adopt policies both favorable to it and not what my government would otherwise do on behalf of me and my fellow citizens? Is there any lobby for a foreign power that remotely resembles AIPAC in scale and political power? Indeed, is there any other lobby for any other foreign power that you can think of? 6. Is AIPAC not lobbying for the position of the Netanyahu government that the United States should commit itself to make war upon Iran if "red lines" laid out by the Netanyahu government are crossed? Is it not clear that our president, who conducts our foreign policy, considers this to be not in the best interests of the United States whether or not it is in the interests of Israel (a proposition I think dubious)? 7. Is this in some way distinguishable from "lobbying on behalf of a foreign power for the US to go to war?" How would you draw such a distinction? 8. Is AIPAC not in fact working to bring political pressure to bear on President Obama to adopt the policy urged by the government of Israel in the interests of the government of Israel? 9. Did I ever say that AIPAC is a "warmonger" or intends to harm the interests of the United States as you claim? Are these not your words that you attempt to place in my mouth? 10. If Israel, working through AIPAC, succeeds in the interests of Israel in shifting US policy from what it would otherwise be in the service of American interests, how is that not detrimental to the interests of the United States? 11. How is the interference by a foreign power in our domestic politics not by itself detrimental to our democracy? Is it not the responsibility of our government to make decisions in our interests and not to subordinate those interests to those of a foreign power? I object deeply to AIPAC on principle. I believe that Israel, if it wishes to press for particular American policies, ought to do that through the same diplomatic channels as every other nation. The American government then considers how much weight to give to the desires of friendly nations within the constellation of American interests. But, insofar as we do permit lobbying on behalf of a foreign power, then the law requiring AIPAC to register should be observed, not least because an open and honest declaration of its status would without doubt alter its relationship to our government. As to my supposedly anti-Semitic tone, you consider it anti-Semitic per se that I am hostile to the policies of the Netanyahu government, including its coddling of right-wing lawbreakers, and to the policy of Israel more generally regarding its illegal settlement activities, its conduct of its occupation of the West Bank, and its evasion of both previous undertakings and of peace negotiations, what I perceive to be its utter lack of good faith in that regard. I am hostile to them because they are immoral and because they are dangerous to both Israel and the United States. Danger for the sake of morality is one thing. Acts of otherwise questionable morality, such as we engage in in war, are sometimes a sad necessity for the sake of security in a world that is ungoverned. Acts that are both immoral and dangerous, especially dangerous because they place immoral purposes above the needs of security, are heinous. Further, it appears likely to me that, but for illegal lobbying by such as AIPAC, my government would not be enabling and de facto supporting these policies of Israel that conflict with its own stated policy. Hence, I object both to the existence of AIPAC as an unregistered agent of a foreign power and to the policies for which it lobbies as agent of Israel. Attempting to prevent me from expressing those views, delicately or indelicately as I choose, with accusations of anti-Semitism is McCarthyism, and not because of what I may surmise to be your motivation. That is irrelevant. It is the deed itself that is objectionable. Faced with such abuse, I have no compunction whatsoever (see above re morality and security) in saying whatever I think necessary to cause you to fail and in reprisal for your bad behavior so that you will either desist or be discredited.

- roidubouloi

March 14, 2012 at 2:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Beinart's point, that normblog is apparently too obtuse to understand, is that these analogies are of limited utility in deciding upon a strategy. They don't prove anything one way or another. Not least because both Germany and the Soviet Union were far more powerful relative to adversaries than is Iran, to either the United States or to Israel.

- roidubouloi

March 14, 2012 at 2:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Attempting to prevent me from expressing those views, delicately or indelicately as I choose, with accusations of anti-Semitism is McCarthyism," Let it be noted that at the conclusion of thread in which roi managed to rope in antisemitic tropes, distortins of events as they happen now, insult and slander and incite against anyone who dares to disagree with his way of seeing the world, covering the pages of TNR's message boards with thousands of incontinent enraged words that repeat the same slanders, invective, and lies, in which he descends to the bottom of the sewage system with his boundless need to control and dictate, he whines that he is being persecuted and prevented from speaking his mind. roi is a victim of MacCarthyism, what do you know. Inuff said. _____________ "Beinart's point, that normblog is apparently too obtuse to understand," Norm is too obtuse to understand Beinart's point? Are you for serious?

- noga1

March 14, 2012 at 4:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Anyway, these two threads are off the most commented list so it is prudent to assume that noone is reading them anymore. So, arrivederci, roi. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMYLNN2xYu4&feature=related

- noga1

March 14, 2012 at 4:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What, you didn't even have the nerve to attempt to rebut my argument about everything that is wrong with AIPAC and its pressure on American policy? I think we can take that as your confession that you have every intention of continuing with your profligate accusations of anti-Semitism, epithets, McCarthyite smears and slurs, and above all, lies, as you have exclusively to date. Not only is this all you are capable of, it is all you desire. Much as you might wish it were so, I am not your victim because I am well able to defend myself against a little thug like you. Slows things down a bit, but, as I said on the other thread, you are just a bit overhead, a cost to be covered in order to be able to say what I want to say. But, pity poor Israel to have a horror show like you to represent it. You imagine yourself as Israel's defender, yet all you succeed in doing with your gross behavior is to bring discredit upon it. Like it or not, you are one of the few faces of your country here. And it is a very ugly face, even, or particularly, for the American Jews among us who have gradually seen the need to distance themselves from you or openly to express their scorn for you. Were I your mirror image, I couldn't possibly inflict the sort of damage on America that you do upon Israel. As for norm, of course he can understand Beinart. He chooses to be obtuse rather than engage the point. That's something you understand quite well as you do the same rather consistently. Au revoir. It's been a pleasure, as always.

- roidubouloi

March 14, 2012 at 5:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One last word about Commentary's MacCarthyism: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/14/mearsheimer-anti-semitism-scandal/

- noga1

March 14, 2012 at 7:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Somehow I knew you would be back. The Long Goodbye. Did someone here say something about Commentary's McCarthyism? I don't remember that. I think the subject was your McCarthyism. "McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence." I don't know whether that describes Commentary, but it certainly describes you. On the other hand, I wouldn't take Commentary's word for anything. Bunch of certifiable right-wingnuts, but Jewish. Here's a quote from editor Jonathan Tobin leading an article on July 10, 2011: "The idea of using the debt ceiling crisis as the lever to enact both long-term entitlement reform as well as a simplification of the tax code was a good one." Just another wacko, but Jewish. Here's a nice piece on point, rather lengthy though: 'If you’ve only read Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post and Eli Lake in the Weekly Standard over the past couple of weeks, you’d have to conclude that there was one thing that New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, Time magazine columnist Joe Klein, US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman, Secretary of Defense Panetta, Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama had in common: they’re all anti-Semites! Never mind the fact that some of the members of this esteemed club are Jewish. But all of them made the mistake of criticizing the policies of the state of Israel or highlighting the very real power that the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has on American foreign policy." http://pragmaticmiddleeast.tumblr.com/post/14810456418/disentangling-criticism-of-israel-from-anti-semitism

- roidubouloi

March 14, 2012 at 10:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/obamas-iran-bluff-6624 "Israeli-U.S. Solomonic Deal All this has been made mute for now, because according to reports that make a great deal of sense on the face of it, the Obama administration and the Israeli government may strike a deal that works for both sides: Israel would get advanced bunker-busting bombs that increase the window of opportunity during which it can strike before Iran moves more of its nuclear facilities into a box of immunity, and Israel would get refueling tanker airplanes it badly needs. In turn, Israel may promise not to attack before the elections. Thus, President Obama may not have to worry that Israel will cause a spike in the price of gasoline during the election cycle and the United States would not face another war in the Middle East in 2012. Then if whoever is elected is willing to defang Iran, Israel will be better off. If not, it will be much better equipped to strike on its own."

- noga1

March 15, 2012 at 3:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Doubtful in the extreme.

- roidubouloi

March 15, 2012 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close