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 You May Think The Problem Is Palestine; The President May...

THE SPINE MAY 4, 2009

You May Think The Problem Is Palestine; The President May Even Think The Problem Is Palestine. But, If You Care To Look And Think, It Is Really Pakistan.

BY MARTIN PERETZ

There are two front page articles in the Times--yes, we are still
dependent on the Times for our news, very much dependent--that are,
well, positively terrifying. They are about Pakistan.

The first is a story by Sabrina Tavernise who documents the
historic educational vacuum in the country, a vacuum that was filled by
the madrasas, overwhelmingly of the fanatical Islamic persuasion: their
graduates possess a certain limited religious literacy, are militant in
matters of God and faith, sworn to a life-long crusade is easily
assimilated into the Taliban now sweeping through the country. This
force can be traced back to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan when
fervent Muslim militants from Pakistan basically eliminated the
unmarked border between the two countries.

Tavernise notes that there are now roughly 12,000 madrasas is Pakistan.
Of course, these are only the ones that are registered. Perhaps a
historical note would be useful. When Pakistan was founded by Mohammed
Ali Jinnah in 1947, after Mahatma Mohandis Gandhi's "non-violent"
campaign for Indian independence turned into a romp against the
Muslims, "the father of the nation" hoped to keep the new country
secular and constitutional.

At that point there were only 245 madrasas in the country. In 1960,
there were 464; in 1980, 2056. Alas, now there are the 12,000
mentioned above. Pakistan is an intrinsic disaster. As Tavernise
points out, one of three children do not attend school at all; a third
drop out by third grade. "Girls' enrollment is among the lowest in the
world, lagging behind Ethiopia and Yemen." Yes, Ethiopia and Yemen.
 So is not Pakistan a failed state?

But it is a failed state with 60 to 100 nuclear bombs, as David E.
Sanger reports in his account, "Pakistan Strife Raises U.S. Doubt
On Nuclear Arms." There are many reasons why these bombs are liable to
be seized and used. And one of them is that America has only the
slightest notion of where these weapons are dispersed and, for that
matter, how many there are. The president has said that he is
"confident that we can make sure that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is
secure." Still, the fact is that we can't even guarantee that one or
two of them are not in Al Qaeda's or the Taliban's possession. Why
would Abdul Qadeer Khan, the country's mad nuclear physicist and
weapons entrepreneur, now completely free, have not sold some of his
products to some party in the Islamic Internationale?

Besides Israel, another reason that Shi'a Iran is frantically pursuing
a nuclear arms capacity is that Sunni Pakistan already possesses one.
There is no hatred in the world that has taken as many innocent lives
 in recent years as the hatred between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam. This is a rancor that goes back a lot longer than a millenium. But
since our leaders have convinced themselves that Islam is a peaceful
religion--intrinsically and presently--they are reluctant to confront
the terrible truth that would give them nightmares and trouble their
sleep.

I read in Saturday's Wall Street Journal an op-ed by former
American ambassador to the U.N. John R. Bolton titled "The Taliban's
Atomic Threat." Oh, yes, I know, some of you think that Bolton is  a
fear monger. Well, read Sanger's Times piece together with Bolton's
op-ed. This is not the best of all possible worlds.In fact, it's
pretty close to the worst.

And apropos Palestine: it is an annoyance in world politics. It is
not a danger. Put it in perspective and put it in the drawer. You
won't solve it anyway.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 45 comments

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

45 comments

Sorry, Marty, I don't follow the logic.  Why does the existence of problems in Pakistan mean that there is no need to worry about Israeli/Palestinian relations?  Does that mean that we can stop worrying about North Korea, Cuba, the recession, health care and global warming too?  Now that I think about it, isn't that kind of what the last administration (the one Bolton worked for) also thought -- as long as we are busy worrying about Iraq and pretending like we're still chasing Al Qaeda, we can forget about everything else?

- wildboy

May 4, 2009 at 4:39pm

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

wild,

He's speaking to the Walt/Mierscheimer thesis, which holds that the center of the America--and indeed, the world's--problems are in Israel, and because of Israel.  This is different from previous arguments he has made because Peretz is making is clear that I/P casualties aren't even close in scale to Shia/Sunni conflict casualties.

- dylanposer

May 4, 2009 at 5:03pm

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

"He's speaking to the Walt/Mierscheimer thesis,..."

seems like  "wildboy" agrees with W&M.

- jacksondyer

May 4, 2009 at 5:12pm

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

"This is different from previous arguments he has made because Peretz is making is clear that I/P casualties aren't even close in scale to Shia/Sunni conflict casualties."

Here are some actual figures,

"In the six decades since Israel's founding, "only" some 62,000 people (40,000 Arabs, 22,000 Jews) have been killed in all the Israeli-Arab wars and Palestinian terror attacks.

During that same time, some 11 million Muslims have been killed in wars and terror attacks -- mostly at the hands of other Muslims.

In Arab nations such as Lebanon (150,000 dead in the civil war between 1975 and 1990) or Algeria (200,000 dead in the Islamists' war against their own people between 1999 and 2006),”

online.wsj.com/.../SB123171179743471961.html

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be trying to solve the Arab Israeli conflict but it does put the whole thing in persepective.

- jacksondyer

May 4, 2009 at 5:21pm

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

In his recently posted TNRtv appearance (here: blogs.tnr.com/.../tnrtv-will-obama-let-iran-go-nuclear.aspx), Yossi Klein Halevi succinctly explains why pursuing a settlement with the Palestinians at this point will lead the Obamanauts to naught.  Worth re-viewing in the current context.

hg

- ginzy

May 4, 2009 at 6:12pm

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

Sorry, Jackson, I don't agree with Walt & Mearshimer -- I think they are anti-Semitic (or at least anti-Israel) hacks.  But that doesn't make Marty's argument less fatuous, since his clear subtext is that we should just forget about Israeli-Palestinian relations and let Israel do what it will in the West Bank and Gaza for foreseeable future, while we should REALLY worry about Pakistan's instability and nukes.  The hard truth is that actively advancing the ball on Israeli-Palestinian settlement is an important part of heading off Iran's hegemonic offensive in the region, since Iran has leveraged its position with Sunni Arabs (who otherwise would disdain or fear Shia Iranians) by its loud and aggressive anti-Israel rhetoric and advocacy of Palestianian revanchism.  While probably nothing short of regime change will get the Iranian government to stop its ranting any time soon, helping along some kind of viable peace settlement with the Palestinians will make this issue less explosive for Arab public sentiment and make it easier for Arab governments to resist Iranian pressure.  Which is why that notable Jew-hater Barack Obama, Reichsmarshcall Hillary Clinton and their Gauleiters Dennis Ross and George Mitchell are pursuing that exact strategy.  

As for the fact that deaths in the Israeli-Arab conflicts are so much lower than those in intra-Arab conflicts (Sunni-Shia or just Sunni-Sunni), that's all well and good but a little beside the point of Iran's nukes versus Pakistan's.  Iran wants the bomb in order to dominate Middle Eastern affairs and create a deterrent/threat to Israel's weapons, not because it fears Pakistan's bomb.  That would probably change if the Taliban was taking over Pakistan's nuclear program, but Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons long before the Pakistani Taliban were a threat to its government.  And, I believe that the historic death toll for Iran-Pakistan conflicts is approximately zero.

- wildboy

May 4, 2009 at 6:15pm

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

"...pursuing a settlement with the Palestinians at this point will lead the Obamanauts to naught.  "

Palestinians do not want their own state. They want to destroy Israel. None except Hamas  has thus far even outlined what a Palestinian state, built upon the ruins of Israel, will look like. As long as everyone makes much of the Palestinian issue, they will continue as they are. There is no incentive to establishing accountability for collecting garbage and making the buses run on time. There is nothing in their core except hatred of Israel. Even Edward Said recognized that. In his conversation with Salman Rushdie in "Imaginary homelands" he practically admitted that Palestinian peoplehood is about telling and re-telling their stories. He even mocked himself for having once insisted that there is such a thing as an authentic Palestinian cuisine.

- noga1

May 4, 2009 at 7:23pm

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

" But that doesn't make Marty's argument less fatuous, since his clear subtext is that we should just forget about Israeli-Palestinian relations and let Israel do what it will in the West Bank and Gaza for foreseeable future, while we should REALLY worry about Pakistan's instability and nukes."

You are misreading him, WB.

Marty has said on many occasions that he favors a real peace with the Palestinians and that he is for a two State solution.  He also thinks that the Palestinian leadership is not ready to make real peace.

Peretz has also said that some of the settlers on the West Bank are thugs and has called for the Israeli government to take action against them.

This is the context in which his remarks should be read.

You can disagree with him but don't put words in his mouth.

For my part while there are many more pressing in the world, Pakistan being one of them,  I don't want Israel to stop trying to come to a reasonable and realistic agreement with either the Palestinians themselves or with those countries that had responsibility for them before 1967.

- jacksondyer

May 4, 2009 at 7:44pm

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

Speaking about fatuous arguments, and the Walt/Mierscheimer thesis, how's about this?

"Thwarting Iran's nuclear program is conditional on progress in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, according to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. "

www.jpost.com/.../Satellite

- bl462

May 4, 2009 at 8:05pm

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

For my part, I'm glad to welcome anyone to the previously small -- but now growing -- camp of people who think that Pakistan was, is, and most definitely will be a problem.

For years, here and on other boards, we've been the object of derision and contumely, in one or two cases from people who had enough intelligence to know better.  Sometimes from the right, from nincompoops and loudmouthed thugs who believe that their own social resentments reflect the state of international affairs, sometimes from the left, from vacuous preacher-folk who think that moral purification and ideological self-flagellation are the road to sanity in the world.

I'd like to continue with the vilified prophet thing, 'cause it feels so good, but it's somewhat more important to point out that one of the least qualfiied people in the known universe to speak on this complex of issues is Bolton, who ranked high among those who insisted for years that the only real 'front' for the war against terrorism was Iraq, and insisted further that anyone who said differently was a maladjusted liberal appeaser with a beef against real Americans.

- ironyroad

May 4, 2009 at 8:09pm

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

"Thwarting Iran's nuclear program is conditional on progress in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians"

What does that mean, exactly? How are the two related, except in the way Arab rulers maintain their control over their famous restive  "street"?

- noga1

May 4, 2009 at 9:20pm

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

Come on B1462, the argument may prove not to be accurate but it's far from "fatuous."

An Israel under threat from Iran is more likely not make the kinds of compromises needed to achieve an accord, especially if Iran keeps supporting Islamic jihadist among the Palestinians.

It’s a complicated matter and needs a complex analysis and not a dismissive word. You don't need to endorse it but are you capable of thinking your way through the argument?

- jacksondyer

May 4, 2009 at 9:37pm

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

Good point about Pakistan, Irony.

- jacksondyer

May 4, 2009 at 9:39pm

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

marty:

There are two front page articles in the Times--yes, we are still dependent on the Times for our news, very much dependent--that are, well, positively terrifying. They are about Pakistan.

george:

Why do you keep apologizing to us because you read the New York Times? It's as silly as the Times apologizing to us because you are one of their readers.

Please, no one at The Spine holds either one of you in comtempt for consorting with The Enemy. You know what they say: Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.

As for Pakistan, here's my own take on that from The Plank:

Pick any week at random during the Second World War. There will have been many times over the death and destruction back then...in one week...than the death and destruction caused by Islamic terrorists going all the way back to the Reagan administration.

Same with the Korean War and the Vietnam war.

But, hey, okay, maybe the terrorists have inflicted more damage on us than was wrought by the 1983 "war" in Grenada. You got me there.

Nowadays, literally weeks, months and years can go by without any significant attacks. But still we get endless reminders from endless prognosticators in the mainstream media about the "imminent" collapse in Pakistan or Afghanistan...about how easy it would be for terrorists to blow up nuclear plants, plant dangerous WMD, kill tens of thousands...about how god awful dangerous the terrorists have made the world we live in.

Right.

If you come to understand how "the terrorists" have become the new Communists and the new Fascists, you will begin to grasp, in turn, how all this "war on terror" bullshit is just the sort of hype the military industrial complex needs to scare folks into supporting ever bigger defense department budgets. It's the economy, stupid. Wars have always fueled it.

But that probably never even entered your mind, did it? And it won't if you get all your information about terrorism from the mainstream media. Sadly enough...and this speaks volumes abut the state of journalism in America today...it never even occurs to most of them that there might BE alternate narratives.

george walton

- iambiguous

May 4, 2009 at 9:40pm

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

nogal,

I think it means trouble and that Jimmy Carter is smiling...

- bl462

May 4, 2009 at 9:42pm

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

A lack of progress on peace negotiations is therefore being positioned as the reason for any inability (rather than the unwillingness) of the US to thwart Iran's nuclear program.  The Israelis are being set up.

- bl462

May 4, 2009 at 9:48pm

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

bl462 said:  "A lack of progress on peace negotiations is therefore being positioned as the reason for any inability (rather than the unwillingness) of the US to thwart Iran's nuclear program.  The Israelis are being set up."

I don't believe so, b1462.

Iran is a real problem and it can't be wished or talked away. However, it's not the only problem the peace negotiators have to deal with.

- jacksondyer

May 4, 2009 at 10:15pm

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

merci, JD.

I was being somewhat hyperbolic, of course, but beyond all the jocularity is a rather scary scenario.

And there's not only one ball -- Pakistan today or Iran yesterday or whatever tomorrow -- there are multiple balls and we can't afford to take our eye off any of them.

I don't claim to know how to get a handle on this thing.

- ironyroad

May 4, 2009 at 10:26pm

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

"Pick any week at random during the Second World War. There will have been many times over the death and destruction back then...in one week...than the death and destruction caused by Islamic terrorists going all the way back to the Reagan administration."

This is a restatement of the true comment that many more Jews were killed on any single week during WW2 than died in all Arab Israeli wars combined.

Now, while the above  is true George's unambiguous twisting of the argument isn't true at all.

During the Iran Iraq war more than a million and a half people died. Now, while this didn't equal the millions of people who died during WW2 I doubt that more than a million and half people were killed in one week during WW2.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Iran-Iraq_War

George is also ignorant of the hundred thousand plus people killed in Algeria in a war between the Jihadists and the leftist radical government.

George thinks that if Islamic terrorist aren’t killing Westerners or attacking Western targets, then they are not terrorists.

Here are some statistics of which unambiguous George is ignorant:

"In the six decades since Israel's founding, "only" some 62,000 people (40,000 Arabs, 22,000 Jews) have been killed in all the Israeli-Arab wars and Palestinian terror attacks.

During that same time, some 11 million Muslims have been killed in wars and terror attacks -- mostly at the hands of other Muslims.

In Arab nations such as Lebanon (150,000 dead in the civil war between 1975 and 1990) or Algeria (200,000 dead in the Islamists' war against their own people between 1999 and 2006),”

online.wsj.com/.../SB123171179743471961.html

11 million Muslims killed, George, get it?

- jacksondyer

May 4, 2009 at 10:33pm

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

jacksondyer said,

I don't believe so, b1462.

Iran is a real problem and it can't be wished or talked away. However, it's not the only problem the peace negotiators have to deal with.

I agree that Iran is a real problem that can't be wished or talked away, especially by linking its nuclear program to Israeli Palestinian peace negotiations.  Iran's real linkage to Israel-Palestinian peace negotiations is through its sponsorship of terrorist annihilationists such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and its power and influence in Syria, not through its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.  

- bl462

May 4, 2009 at 10:39pm

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

irony:

And there's not only one ball -- Pakistan today or Iran yesterday or whatever tomorrow -- there are multiple balls and we can't afford to take our eye off any of them.

george:

America is a ball too.

For example, America helped to creat the 1979 Islamist revolution in Iran by ousting the democratically elected government in the 1950s. We installed a brutal dictator [remember the Shah of Iran?] and our CIA helped to train the thugs in the torture cells in the infamous Evin prison.

The United States also propped up [for years] the dictatorship that was the Musharraf regime in Pakistan.

But you don't go there do you? You don't want to smudge the illusion that America is the knight in shining armor trekking the globe in the name of democracy, freedom, justice and human rights.

A patent lie, of course; but OUR patent lie, eh?

george walton

- iambiguous

May 5, 2009 at 1:05am

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

j:

During the Iran Iraq war more than a million and a half people died. Now, while this didn't equal the millions of people who died during WW2 I doubt that more than a million and half people were killed in one week during WW2.

g:

This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the point I raised; but that's to be expected from someone who could twist the outcome of the Kentucky Derby into a Nazi plot.

Jackson: "Mine That Bird is 12 letters long. Adolph Hitler is 12 letters long too!!"

And so is Martin Peretz!!! And so is George Walton!!!

My point of course revolved around the number of casualites Islamic terrorists have inflicted on the U.S. and its allies---going back to the Reagan years.

As for the Iran/Iraq war, reading J's post one would think it only lasted a week!! Instead, it lasted nearly 9 years.

One is left wondering this: Did Jackson flunk both history AND arithmetic?

gw

- iambiguous

May 5, 2009 at 1:36am

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

"But you don't go there do you? You don't want to smudge the illusion that America is the knight in shining armor trekking the globe in the name of democracy, freedom, justice and human rights."

Any actual evidence for that assertion, george?  Or is that just one more piece of snot you pulled out, rolled into a ball, and threw at the "submit" button?

- ironyroad

May 5, 2009 at 2:54am

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

George the unambiguous communist wanna be clown says:

“Jackson: "Mine That Bird is 12 letters long. Adolph Hitler is 12 letters long too!!" “

No matter how many letters your name has it will always spell malicious evil clown:

Georgy boy likes to change the terms of an argument when he realizes that his previous position held no water:

He now says:

“My point of course revolved around the number of casualites Islamic terrorists have inflicted on

the U.S. and its allies---going back to the Reagan years.”

Here was his earlier point:

“Pick any week at random during the Second World War. There will have been many times over the death and destruction back then...in one week...than the death and destruction caused by Islamic terrorists going all the way back to the Reagan administration.”

He compared one week of WW2 casualties to all the deaths inflicted by Islamic terrorists since Reagan, i.e. 1980:

When I showed him how wrong he was he came back with:

“As for the Iran/Iraq war, reading J's post one would think it only lasted a week!! Instead, it lasted nearly 9 years.”

I am pointing this out not because Georgy boy can ever be corrected but to show what unmitigated liar he is. When caught he resorts to insults. Not that anyone cares about a George insult. It’s like being insulted by a drunken (in his case drug overdosed) street bum.

In a previous post he concluded with this piece of wisdom about Islamicists:

“ …. "the terrorists" have become the new Communists and the new Fascists,… “this "war on terror" bullshit is just the sort of hype the military industrial complex needs to scare folks into supporting ever bigger defense department budgets…”

Given that george is a bit of a fascist communist himself it’s no wonder that he hates the war on the Islamicists and would rather blame the “capitalist system” for it.

Not that anyone here takes seriously what he says, except mackenzie whose ideas he parodies.  

- jacksondyer

May 5, 2009 at 9:05am

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

Binyamin Netanyahu ??????????? ??????????? to AIPAC: We want peace with Arab world

www.haaretz.com/.../1083175.html

"..enough war, enough destruction, enough hatred.  It is a time for change."

- AaronBBrown

May 5, 2009 at 9:33am

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

Irony,

which assertion of george's do you think needs evidence, that the U.S. was involved in the coup that installed the Shah of Iran, or that we supported Musharraf in Pakistan?    George does have a point.

- kerFuFFler

May 5, 2009 at 9:35am

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

"which assertion of george's do you think needs evidence,"

george accused ironyroad of hypocrisy and imperialist delusion. He imputed to ironyroad the position that he doesn't want  " to smudge the illusion that America is the knight in shining armor trekking the globe in the name of democracy, freedom, justice and human rights."

It's the most stupid charge to hurl at ironyroad, or indeed at anybody participating on these boards. With the possible exception of george who seems unable to cope with real world problems, only imaginary problems which he thinks up in his fervid but rather poor imagination.

- noga1

May 5, 2009 at 11:22am

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

"which assertion of george's do you think needs evidence, that the U.S. was involved in the coup that installed the Shah of Iran,..."  kerFuFFler

How about this one from old Georgy boy:

"For example, America helped to creat the 1979 Islamist revolution in Iran by ousting the democratically elected government in the 1950s."

This is wild speculation. That the US and the British helped install the Shah is a fact that it led to the Islamist revolution is conjecture.

Islamicism has been around for a long time and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was founded in the 20's.

In Iran had the Shah not been around it's possible that Khomeini (who had his own Shiite version of Islamicism) would have attacked the secular type government like that of Mossadegh whose regime might have become as autocratic as that of Mubarak in Egypt.

Blaming all contemporary ills on the US may comfort some people but it's still speculation and dangerous speculation at that.

Some have argued with better reason that modern Arab and Muslim politics was shaped more by Soviet and Nazi propaganda since the 20’s and 30’s than by anything the US, a late comer to the Middle East, did.  But to admit this is to give up simplistic explanation about world political history.

- jacksondyer

May 5, 2009 at 12:08pm

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

As Noga said.  I didn't see the slightest basis for geoge's assertion that I was envisaging the United States as a "knight in shining armor treking the globe" (but hey, we do have some shining armor, right?).  Or that there was some virtual place I wouldn't "go" as if I were avoiding meeting some historical recognition there.

Almost everyone else around here knows that that is nonsense (just mention "Nicaragua" and see what happens!).

On the other hand, as the last time george and I engaged over a topic with me his favored term of address was "full of crap," I wonder why he's going soft in his old age.

- ironyroad

May 5, 2009 at 1:53pm

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

george says:

"the terrorists" have become the new Communists and the new Fascists... this "war on terror" bullshit is just the sort of hype the military industrial complex needs to scare folks into supporting ever bigger defense department budgets."

talk about fatuous arguments.

the Communists and Fascists were pretty bad.  remember?  regardless of the intentions of the those who defeated them, i'm glad they were defeated.

- ILANSANDBER

May 5, 2009 at 2:00pm

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

I wrote a rather long post Monday evening (Israel time) at the beginning of this thread but after 5 tries & two different browsers, the site would not post it.  Although in the past I have attributed the "Mystery of the Disappearing Posts" (Franklin W. Dixon, where are you?) to the apparantly mediocre software and / or hardware running the TNR web site, even I am beginning to get paranoid about hidden censorship.

Nonetheless, I will try again, albeit splitting it into separate components between different threads.

Dr. Peretz, PLEASE do something about the software & hardware running this august site or else we will have to invoke censorship!!

hg

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Concern, perhaps even panic, about Pakistan's nukes is well placed.  Even if terrorists don't get their hands on actual bombs, they could probably more easily get their hands on enough radioactive material (which need not be bomb grade U-235 or plutonium) to make a "dirty bomb" which in and of itself would sow panic and probably cause problems with habitability.  And some people would be killed.

However, although the Sunni-Shi'ite divide and hostility is a conflict that goes back to the earliest days of Islam and is a major motivator for SOME Islamist groups (most especially the Salafis (e.g., the late unlamented Zarqawi) -- they make the Wahabis seem moderate), there are many examples of modus vivendis be struck between Sunnis & Shi'ites especially when facing off against the West & their allies.  By way of example Hamas, very much a Sunni organization (there are almost no Palestinian Shi'ites) which gets aid from the Shi'ite Hezbolla which in turn originates in Iran.  Indeed Iran has shown itself very adept at penetrating the Sunni world as a stepping stone to establishing its hegemony over the cradle of Islam.  For more on this, see Amir Taheri's piece in the WSJ here:  online.wsj.com/.../SB124139838660282045.html

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

May 5, 2009 at 3:35pm

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

irony:

Any actual evidence for that assertion, george? Or is that just one more piece of snot you pulled out, rolled into a ball, and threw at the "submit" button?

george:

Lots of evidence. In fact I have posted it at TNR a number of times.

Exhibit A:

Philip Brenner [professor of international relations at American University. Saul Landau is vice chair of the Institute for Policy Studies board of trustees:

Under President Theodore Roosevelt, the doctrine stood for the informal colonization of most "independent" Caribbean Basin countries. The so-called Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine claimed Washington's right to preemptively intervene and occupy a Latin American nation, even if no European power had yet threatened to impose its power there. Roosevelt asserted that by virtue of going into debt to a European bank, a Latin American country weakened itself sufficiently to be vulnerable to re-colonization. Ergo, anticipatory military intervention became a necessity from 1900 to 1933.

U.S. troops invaded Colombia in 1901 and 1902; Honduras in 1903, 1907, and 1911; and the Dominican Republic in 1903, 1904, 1914, and 1916, occupying the island nation until 1924. U.S. troops landed in Nicaragua on multiple occasions, occupying it for some 20 years, and occupied Cuba for three years (1906-1909) and Haiti for 20 years. U.S. forces also made incursions into Mexico, Panama, Guatemala, and Costa Rica.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower used the doctrine in 1954 to justify the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Guatemala. President John F. Kennedy embraced it from 1961 to 1963 in attacking Cuba, and President Lyndon B. Johnson raised its banner in 1965 when he sent 23,000 Marines into the Dominican Republic in support of generals who tyrannically governed the country over the next 13 years. President Ronald Reagan said it was the basis for the CIA wars he pursued in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala during which more than 200,000 Central Americans died, as well as the U.S. attack on Grenada.

For these historic reasons, "Monroeism" carries a deeply negative meaning in Latin America and the Caribbean. Throughout the region, the mere mention of the Monroe Doctrine hints at impending U.S. aggression.

Nearly two decades after the Cold War's demise, U.S. policy elites still cling to this doctrine as an axiom of U.S. policy. In recent years they added as the latest corollary a demand that Latin American governments adopt neoliberal economics. No wonder Latin Americans have elected leaders — in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Guatemala, Honduras, Uruguay, and Venezuela — who repudiated not only the doctrine's implied hegemony, but the economic rules that accompany it today. Notably, not one Western hemispheric country supported the United States in October, when the UN General Assembly voted 185-3 to end the U.S. embargo against Cuba.

Exhibit B:

from z magazine editors:

PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.

IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.

GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.

PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.

PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.

INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.

OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.

CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.

ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.

EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.

NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.

LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.

LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.

PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.

PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.

SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.

BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.

HAITI 1994-? Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.

ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.

LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.

AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.

IRAQ 1998-? Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.

YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.

YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole bombed.

MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.

UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC

AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime. Forces also engaged in neighboring Pakistan.

YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.

PHILIPPINES 2002 Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Muslim Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into US combat missions in Sulu Archipelago next to Mindanao.

COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.

IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Second Gulf War launched for "regime change" in Baghdad. US, joined by UK and Australia, attacks from Kuwait, other Gulf states, and European and US bases.

Exhibit C:

George:

When Madeline Albright was asked on 60 minutes [in May of 1996] if the death of over 500,000 Iraqi children [caused by the US trade sanctions against Iraq] was justified, she told Lesley Stahl, "I think it was a tough choice, but the price---we think the price is worth it."

No doubt folks like Dick Cheney went apoplectic upon hearing at this typical commie, pinko spin.

But then we can't all be Spartan warriors like him, right?

And it's true, yes, that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. But he was no less a brutal dictator when Don Rumsfeld was gladhanding him in Baghdad in 1983. But back then [as the saying goes] he was OUR brutal dictator. We had to support him against the theocratic clerics in Tehran who came to power in 1979 by ousting the brutal dictator the US and Britain put in power back in the fifties. Here's how James Risen put it in The New York Times in 2000.

From CP web site:

"The Central Intelligence Agency's secret history of its covert operation to overthrow Iran's government in 1953 offers an inside look at how the agency stumbled into success, despite a series of mishaps that derailed its original plans.

"Written in 1954 by one of the coup's chief planners, the history details how United States and British officials plotted the military coup that returned the shah of Iran to power and toppled Iran's elected prime minister, an ardent nationalist.

"The document shows that:

"Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.

"The C.I.A. and S.I.S., the British intelligence service, handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and covertly funneled $5 million to General Zahedi's regime two days after the coup prevailed.

"Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government.

"The shah's cowardice nearly killed the C.I.A. operation. Fearful of risking his throne, the Shah repeatedly refused to sign C.I.A.-written royal decrees to change the government. The agency arranged for the shah's twin sister, Princess Ashraf Pahlevi, and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the father of the Desert Storm commander, to act as intermediaries to try to keep him from wilting under pressure. He still fled the country just before the coup succeeded."

George:

And while we go back and forth about the morality of using torture today, this has always been weapon in the CIAs tool shed.

Here is Seymour Hersh's take on that in 1999:

"A former Iran analyst for the central intelligence agency said yesterday that his reports characterizing Shah Pahlevi as thirsty for power and a megalomaniac were repeatedly rejected by the agency as being contrary to official US policy.

"Jesse Leaf said in an interview that for five years had had been the chief CIA analyst on Iran before resigning from the agency in 1973.... A spokesman for the CIA confirmed that Mr. Leaf had been an employee there but said, "We will not discuss former employees."

"Mr. Leaf also said in the interview that he and his colleagues knew of the torture of Iranian dissenters by Savak, the Iranian secret police set up during the late 1950's by the Shah with help from the CIA. Furthermore, Mr. Leaf said, a senior CIA official was involved in instructing officials in the Savak on torture techniques, although Mr. Leaf said that to his knowledge no americans did any of the torturing. The CIA's torture seminars, Mr. Leaf said, "were based on German torture techniques from World War II."

"The Shah himself was "one of our sources" of information, Mr. Leaf said. "He was a regular contact for a case officer."

"Mr. Leaf said that because of the CIA's complacency about the Shah, no one considered protesting about the Savak's use of torture. "Why should we protest? We were on their side, remember?"

"Although the Iranian use of torture was widely known inside the agency, Mr. Leaf said, he knew of no Americans who admitted that they witnessed such treatment. 'I do remember seeing and being told of people who were there seeing the rooms and being told of torture. And I know that the torture rooms were toured and it was all paid for by the USA.'

"Mr. Leaf said he decided to resign from the CIA after receiving an adverse fitness report in 1973. His basic complaint, he said, was that "policy pretty much determines reporting rather than the other way around."

George:

And did you know this:

Norm Dixon from GreenLeft:

"On August 18, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined, “Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas”. Quoting anonymous US “senior military officers”, the NYT “revealed” that in the 1980s, the administration of US President Ronald Reagan covertly provided “critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war”. The story made a brief splash in the international media, then died.

"While the August 18 NYT article added new details about the extent of US military collaboration with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during Iraq's 1980-88 war with Iran, it omitted the most outrageous aspect of the scandal: not only did Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq's Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs."

And:

"Even William Safire, the right-wing...NYT columnist, on December 7, 1992, felt compelled to write that, 'Iraqgate is uniquely horrendous: a scandal about the systematic abuse of power by misguided leaders of three democratic nations [the US, Britain and Italy] to secretly finance the arms buildup of a dictator'”.

"The August 17, 2002 NYT reported that, according to “senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program”, even though “senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents … President Reagan, vice president George Bush [senior] and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.”

George:

I can get more if you need it. But first, please cite your own evidence to rebut the points raised above.

george walton

- iambiguous

May 5, 2009 at 9:57pm

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

I haven't a clue what you' re rambling on about, george.  I'd have some quibbles and queries in re the lengthy above -- in particular I'd ask why restoring Haiti's legal government in 1993 and trying to stop the Yugoslav massacres in 2996-2000 weren't the right things to do -- but largely I'd agree that it's a comprehensive list of U.S. interventions abroad and in many cases I'd agree also that they involved unwanted -- and indeed unwarranted -- interference.  It does appear to leave out WW2, when we defeated Nazism and Japanese militarism, but that's just a minor detail, of course.

My beef with you was I didn't and don't see the slightest basis for your assertion that I envisage the United States as a "knight in shining armor trekking the globe" or for your implication that there was some virtual place I wouldn't "go" as if I were avoiding meeting some uncomfortable historical recognition there.  The record of my posts over years on Iraq, Nicaragua, Chile etc here and elsewhere bears that out.

So I ask again, on what do you base those easily falsifiable assertions?

- ironyroad

May 5, 2009 at 10:46pm

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

"I haven't a clue what you' re rambling on about, george."

Neither does he.

He is like befuddled student being at a loss at what the right answer is decides to write everything he ever heard about some topic whether it fits or not.

For example question, “how do we get from the overthrow of Mossadegh to the Ayatollah Khomeini taking power. Answer pace George:

“U.S. troops invaded Colombia in 1901 and 1902; Honduras in 1903, 1907, and 1911; and the Dominican Republic in 1903, 1904, 1914, and 1916, occupying the island nation until 1924. U.S. troops landed in Nicaragua on multiple occasions, occupying it for some 20 years, and occupied Cuba for three years (1906-1909) and Haiti for 20 years. U.S. forces also made incursions into Mexico, Panama, Guatemala, and Costa Rica.”

And if this isn’t enough he is threatening to post even more irrelevant factoids.

I could point to this relevant historical fact:

“Pahlavi era

Image from 1916 French magazine showing the "Russians at Ispahan".One result of the public outcry against the ubiquitous presence of Imperial Russia in Persia was the Constitutionalist movement of Gilan. The rebellion, headed by Mirza Kuchak Khan led to an eventual confrontation between the Iranian rebels and the Russian army, but was disrupted with the October Revolution in 1917.

Russian involvement however continued on with the establishment of the short-lived Persian Socialist Soviet Republic in 1920, followed by the Republic of Mahabad, the last effort by Soviet Russia to establish a communist republic in Iran.

In 1941, as the Second World War raged, Soviet Russia and Great Britain launched the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, ignoring Iran's plea of neutrality.

In a revealing cable sent on July 6th 1945 by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the local Soviet commander in northern Azerbaijan was instructed as such:

"Begin preparatory work to form a national autonomous Azerbaijan district with broad powers within the Iranian state and simultaneously develop separatist movements in the provinces of Gilan, Mazandaran, Gorgan, and Khorasan".[3]

The end of World War Two brought the start of American dominance in Iran's political arena, and with an anti-Soviet Cold War brewing, the United States quickly moved to convert Iran into an anti-communist block, thus ending Russia's influence on Iran for years to come.”

Or this one:

“Post 1979

During the Iran–Iraq War, the USSR supplied Saddam Hussein with large amounts of conventional arms. Ayatollah Khomeini deemed Islam principally incompatible with the communist ideals of the Soviet Union, leaving the secular Saddam as an ally of Moscow.

After the war, especially with the fall of the USSR, Tehran-Moscow relations witnessed a sudden increase in diplomatic and commercial relations, and Iran soon even began purchasing weapons from Russia.

By the mid 1990s, Russia had already agreed to continue work on developing Iran's Nuclear Program, with plans to finish constructing the nearly 20 year delayed Nuclear Reactor plant of Bushehr.”

en.wikipedia.org/.../Iran-Russia_relations

But why bother he wouldn’t recognize a real historical argument if it hit him in the face.

- jacksondyer

May 5, 2009 at 11:56pm

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

irony:

My beef with you was...

george:

You  asked me to provide you with evidence...historical and empirical evidence...to back my contention that the motive behoind American foreign policy is purely economic. Or fundamentally economic.

I did this.

You call it "rambling". Please. Don't make your own lack of rebuttal rest on something I would expect from Jackson or Noga.

How is it rambling? How does it not expose the intention behind the nation's trek across the globe securing markets, cheap labor and cheap natural resources.

And interventions like the Second World War revolved fundamentally around self-defense. And even here it took the attack on Pearl Harbor for FDR to wrest control of it from the isolationists.

In Central and South America, the Monroe Doctrine was just another rendition of manifest destiny. Just as we conquered and ruled the Indians in America proper, we extended that mentality all the way down the Andes. Only this time Washington set up indigenous thugs to "secure a favorable business climate" for United Fruit and all that followed.

irony:

My beef with you was I didn't and don't see the slightest basis for your assertion that I envisage the United States as a "knight in shining armor trekking the globe" or for your implication that there was some virtual place I wouldn't "go" as if I were avoiding meeting some uncomfortable historical recognition there.

george:

That's a good point. I think you are right. I think I was wrong to say those things. I often come into TNR "in character" as a polemist.

But: For you to suggest my "exhibits" on the underlying nature of American foreign policy above is not "proven" by the accumulated historical facts is so preposterous [to me, of course] I won't waste anymore of your time or mine arguing about it..  

It would be analogous to arguing with Jackson about whether or not I am a Nazi.

So be it. We will just have to agree to disagree here.

george

- iambiguous

May 6, 2009 at 3:10am

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

j:

For example question, “how do we get from the overthrow of Mossadegh to the Ayatollah Khomeini taking power. Answer pace George:

George: "U.S. troops invaded Colombia in 1901 and 1902; Honduras in 1903, 1907, and 1911; and the Dominican Republic in 1903, 1904, 1914, and 1916................"

george:

No, that was "exhibit A". It related soley to the historical march of the Monroe Doctrine throughout central and south america.

It was "exhibit C" that focused on Iran.

Here it is again:

"The Central Intelligence Agency's secret history of its covert operation to overthrow Iran's government in 1953 offers an inside look at how the agency stumbled into success, despite a series of mishaps that derailed its original plans.

"Written in 1954 by one of the coup's chief planners, the history details how United States and British officials plotted the military coup that returned the shah of Iran to power and toppled Iran's elected prime minister, an ardent nationalist.

"The document shows that:

"Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.

"The C.I.A. and S.I.S., the British intelligence service, handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and covertly funneled $5 million to General Zahedi's regime two days after the coup prevailed.

"Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government.

"The shah's cowardice nearly killed the C.I.A. operation. Fearful of risking his throne, the Shah repeatedly refused to sign C.I.A.-written royal decrees to change the government. The agency arranged for the shah's twin sister, Princess Ashraf Pahlevi, and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the father of the Desert Storm commander, to act as intermediaries to try to keep him from wilting under pressure. He still fled the country just before the coup succeeded."

George:

And while we go back and forth about the morality of using torture today, this has always been weapon in the CIAs tool shed.

Here is Seymour Hersh's take on that in 1999:

"A former Iran analyst for the central intelligence agency said yesterday that his reports characterizing Shah Pahlevi as thirsty for power and a megalomaniac were repeatedly rejected by the agency as being contrary to official US policy.

"Jesse Leaf said in an interview that for five years had had been the chief CIA analyst on Iran before resigning from the agency in 1973.... A spokesman for the CIA confirmed that Mr. Leaf had been an employee there but said,

"We will not discuss former employees."

"Mr. Leaf also said in the interview that he and his colleagues knew of the torture of Iranian dissenters by Savak, the Iranian secret police set up during the late 1950's by the Shah with help from the CIA. Furthermore, Mr. Leaf said, a senior CIA official was involved in instructing officials in the Savak on torture techniques, although Mr. Leaf said that to his knowledge no americans did any of the torturing. The CIA's torture seminars, Mr. Leaf said, "were based on German torture techniques from World War II."

"The Shah himself was "one of our sources" of information, Mr. Leaf said. "He was a regular contact for a case officer."

"Mr. Leaf said that because of the CIA's complacency about the Shah, no one considered protesting about the Savak's use of torture. "Why should we protest? We were on their side, remember?"

"Although the Iranian use of torture was widely known inside the agency, Mr. Leaf said, he knew of no Americans who admitted that they witnessed such treatment. 'I do remember seeing and being told of people who were there seeing the rooms and being told of torture. And I know that the torture rooms were toured and it was all paid for by the USA.'

"Mr. Leaf said he decided to resign from the CIA after receiving an adverse fitness report in 1973. His basic complaint, he said, was that "policy pretty much determines reporting rather than the other way around."

george:

The irony here is superb, isn't it? We helped to create the1979 Islamist Revolution in Iran. In fact, America under Reagan embraced Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.

Just as we helped to create the Taliban in Afghanistan after we armed the anti-Soviet factions there and then just abandoned them once the Soviets were gone. Just as we abandoned the Kurds and the Shia in Iraq after "Operation Desert Storm" ended. We all but assured the Kurds and the Shia that we would back them against Saddam. Instead, we just sat back and watched Hussein and his goons retaliate against them.

The word "pathetic" leaps to mind.

george walton

- iambiguous

May 6, 2009 at 3:29am

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

Curious George  is still here, and he is still writing.

"Here is Seymour Hersh's take on that...."

Seymour's great claim to fame was his Mai Lay expose. After that very little of what he exposed predicted was either verifable or came to pass.

The man is an overpaid gas bag who appeals to unumabiguous leftist gas bags like curious George who still claim that:

"We helped to create the1979 Islamist Revolution in Iran."

Followed by this non sequitor:

" In fact, America under Reagan embraced Saddam Hussein in the 1980s."

And so did the Soviets and yet not a word about that.....

To curiious George whatever the world problem the US is behind it.

- jacksondyer

May 6, 2009 at 6:08am

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

"To curiious George whatever the world problem the US is behind it."

To a man whose only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

- noga1

May 6, 2009 at 6:28am

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

Any buyers?

normblog.typepad.com/.../as-time-goes-by.html

- noga1

May 6, 2009 at 11:23am

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

george:  "For you to suggest my "exhibits" on the underlying nature of American foreign policy above is not "proven" by the accumulated historical facts is so preposterous [to me, of course] I won't waste anymore of your time or mine arguing about it."

I didn't suggest that.  I suggested that your characterization of my comments and my position was wildly wrong and supported by no evidence whatsoever.

For a "philosopher," you're a pretty bad reader.

- ironyroad

May 6, 2009 at 11:27am

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

From Noga's link:

"On the two-state solution sought by the Americans, he said: "We are with a state on the 1967 borders, based on a long-term truce. This includes East Jerusalem, the dismantling of settlements and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees." Asked what "long-term" meant, he said 10 years."

Yea, I'll buy that Hamas wants to destroy Israel slowly by flooding it with refugees since it can't do it quickly through the  force of arms.

- jacksondyer

May 6, 2009 at 12:11pm

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

And for those who like to draw  moral equivalence between Hamas and  Avigdor Lieberman:

www.beyondimages.info/b240.html

- noga1

May 6, 2009 at 12:28pm

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

J:

Seymour's great claim to fame was his Mai Lay expose. After that very little of what he exposed predicted was either verifable or came to pass.

g:

Gather around me fellow Spinesters. I want everyone in The Spine to note Jackson's "rebuttal" here. A lesson in how NOT to post.

What does he do? The same thing he does with me. In other words, rather than confute the points Hersh makes, he makes Hersh the target instead. He dumps on him just as he does with me.

Here is another one of his feints:

J:

George: "We helped to create the1979 Islamist Revolution in Iran."

j: Followed by this non sequitor:

george:   "In fact, America under Reagan embraced Saddam Hussein in the 1980s."

Only someone utterly deprived of a rational sense of American history would deconflate these two points. Allow me please to reconstruct them:

In the 1950s, America, along with the British, ousted the democratically elected government in Iran. Why? Because the Iranians dared to nationalize their own oil fields.

The Shah of Iran was then installed in Tehran to keep the black gold coming at a reasonable price.

As the brutality of his regime created increasing outrage among Iranian citizens, he was ousted in 1979. The Islamist Ayatollahs took over the country. To show how furious they were regarding America's role in propping up the thug Shah they took over the American embassy. The rest is history.

Yet Jackson is completely at a loss here. He can't grasp why America would back Hussein in the 1980s. As though arming Saddam against the Ayatollahs in Iran was completely out of the blue!!

As if one had absolutely no relationship to the other!!!!

george

- iambiguous

May 7, 2009 at 2:39am

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

irony:

I didn't suggest that. I suggested that your characterization of my comments and my position was wildly wrong and supported by no evidence whatsoever.

george:

Did you read my post?

you posted:

My beef with you was I didn't and don't see the slightest basis for your assertion that I envisage the United States as a "knight in shining armor trekking the globe" or for your implication that there was some virtual place I wouldn't "go" as if I were avoiding meeting some uncomfortable historical recognition there.

I posted this:

"That's a good point. I think you are right. I think I was wrong to say those things. I often come into TNR "in character" as a polemist."

Maybe I didn't grasp your point above. Or maybe you meant something else instead. That's possible of course.

But I will certainly not retract my point that the evidence I presented clearly confirms my view about American foreign policy.

george

- iambiguous

May 7, 2009 at 2:48am

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

Pakistan will not disappear. It will probably get worse before it gets better. If it ever gets better

- Anonymous

May 14, 2009 at 11:09am

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close