Yesterday on the PBS Newshour, there was a shocker when the former head of Israel’s intelligence and special operations agency, the Mossad, Efraim Halevy, endorsed the Iran Agreement (http://video.pbs.org/video/2365550482/), saying:
“I believe that this agreement blocks the roads to Iranian nuclear capability for at least a decade. And I believe that the arrangements that have been agreed between the parties as such give us a credible answer to the Iranian nuclear threat at least for a decade if not longer.”
Halevy said that there had been a historic shift in the Iranian position that it was their sovereign right to pursue the nuclear program, adding that the Iranians had “caved in”.
Most notably, Halevy discounted the furor over recent media accounts of the UN-International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) side deal that would permit the Iranians to use their own inspectors:
“The Director of this agency, Yukiya Amano, has impeccable credentials. Up until now Israel has respected Yukiya Ano – respected his judgments – and I think we should wait and see the ultimate process of the negotiations he is now conducting with the Iranians and how he will be satisfied at the end of this year with the arrangements that he is setting up to monitor these activities.”
Halevy said that he expected Iran to cheat but that this is the whole point of the monitoring provisions of the agreement, and that the motto here should be “Mistrust and Verify”, and that “there is going to be a verification system in place which is second none and has no precedent.” The monitoring machinery that will be put in place by the United States “will not be in place if the agreement is scuttled by the U.S. Congress'” the Mossad chief added.
This is a peace-bomb from the ultimate Israeli security expert in support of the Obama Administration and its diplomatic and foreign policy competency, including Secretary of State John Kerry and his team, and should be trumpeted from the hillsides. Right now. Spread the word.
the MIMFPC ( Military/Industrial/Media/Fascist/Political Complex) and their Quisling minions/ass kissing/yahoo/know-nothing idiots — heads are exploding !
Don’t these peacemakers realize there is no profit in peace ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
It demonstrates how dovish many of Israel’s long time security establishment figures have become as a result of the stalled two-state solution and warmongering towards external threats like Iran.
Iran’s leaders repeatedly and routinely threaten to destroy Israel, yet Israel is the “warmongerer.” And if an Israeli opposes the nuclear arms deal, they are “racist Quisling minions…etc.” It’s no wonder many Israeli’s feel there is little interest among so many of their critics in constructive dialogue. Can we do without the name-calling?
Israel has 200-300 nuclear weapons, and the most advanced missile defense system on the market today. Iran still has zero nuclear weapons, and the international community will ensure it has zero with this deal. It’s special forces and terror squads are bogged down in the Syrian and Yemense Civil Wars and the fight against ISIL. The Shabab missiles have the range to strike Tel Aviv, but lack the counter measures to protect them from the Iron Dome, which also successfully intercepted nearly every rocket fired it’s way during the last Gaza Incursion.
Obama’s strategy to contain and bog down Iran has worked, it’s regime has buckled under the pressure of sanctions, and will now be slowly rejoining the international community and adhering to norms. In the event it ever launched an attack against Israeli or American interests it would be committing mass suicide. No regime in human history has ever done that.
So yes, Netenyahu is pressuring the United States to choose war over peace, I would call that war mongering, as would many members of the Israeli intelligence services. I am a liberal zionist who supports the two state solution, opposes the BDS movement, and generally supports Israel when it engaged in defense wars as it did last spring in Gaza. I am convinced the greater threat to Israel’s security is jeopardizing the alliance with America by actively lobbying against the deal as it is currently doing.
Is politically dead in Israel, as has been for a long time, and the Palestinian situation is the driver of everything. It is easy to simply blame Israeli Likudniks for being “warmongering” but the reality is that the pro-peace Israelis went way out on a limb in 1999-2000, and the Second Intifadah cut the limb off and then set it on fire. Of course Israelis are anti-peace; they found that policy to be completely futile, and to result only in continued conflict, but from a weaker position.
The two-state solution, if it is politically dead in Israel, needs to be resurrected (I’m trying to resist a number of terribly inappropriate puns). It needs to be resurrected because it is the only solution that can work. Without the two-state solution, Israel is dead. It may kill millions of people while dying, but it will still die.
Note that I said “can”, not “will” work. I think the brutal reality is that the founding premise of Israel is unsustainable. The nation was created after WWII, it was created by stealing land and property from people who already lived there, and its behavior since then (rightly or wrongly) has strengthened the resolve of its enemies to destroy it.
I wonder how far the US and our allies will actually go in attempting to maintain the current state of Israel as that existence becomes increasingly precarious over the coming decades. I wonder if there is a threshold where the consequences — in treasure, blood, and international reputation — will persuade the US of the futility of sustaining the unsustainable.
Being “anti-Peace” in Israel is being suicidal.
because it was “created by stealing land and property from people who already lived there,” then you have to argue the same thing about the founding of the U.S. We settled the country by kicking out its native inhabitants. The founding premise of the U.S. is therefore similarly unsustainable, and our behavior since then has strengthened the resolve of our enemies to destroy us. A ridiculous argument, I think most would agree; but one that is always applied to Israel.
We can’t go back to 1948, but we can go back to 1967 and say, you know what, Gaza and the West Bank belong to the Palestinians and the rest belongs to Israel. The settlements that are too big to be dismantled can be annexed by Israel proper, and the Israeli’s can give the Palestinians land and restitution in return. America and Israel can fund a marshall plan to rebuild Palestinian infrastructure and get their economy back on track and eventually, everybody will come out a winner. This is the only viable solution that works.
Palestinian activists and writers like the late Ed Said who think Israel can go away peacefully are delusional, right wing Israeli’s who think they can bomb and conquer their way to full Palestinian capitulation are similarly delusional.
The big difference is, the latter side could possibly do so, but it will essentially be Israel committing it’s own suicide in another way. It will cease to be a democratic state in any way shape or form and be a Jewish ghetto of it’s own creation armed to the teeth with no friends and no international support or sympathy. As a supporter of Israel, I strongly oppose such an outcome and weep at the prospect.
What sucks about this conflict is there are so few centrists willing to examine that both sides have a valid reason to want a state in this part of the world, both sides have to make concessions, and both sides have made mistakes and have blood on their hands. And I say this as someone more sympathetic to the Israeli side, but they are putting their liberal American supporters in a vice grip when they don’t have to. I am backing the deal, if that makes me anti-Israeli so be it, the deal is the only way we avoid a war that could destroy Israel and would certainly wipe out America’s ability to be a superpower.
We may not want to go back to 1948, but we may not be able to avoid it. My read of history suggests that the 1967 alignment was itself not sustainable — we wouldn’t be having this discussion otherwise.
I enthusiastically agree that a two-state solution is the only approach that can possibly work. My reservation is my gut feeling that it will prove to be no more sustainable than 1967 was.
I want to see a sustainable peace in the Middle East if it is humanly possible. I fear it may not be.
I’m not making some abstract philosophical argument.
Rightly or wrongly, the US crushed the Native Americans and now dominate the entire continent. The people we displaced are long-since dead, their culture had no notion of property ownership, and their descendants do not maintain military forces and do not have strong alliances with major world powers. If we had done that in the modern era, we would likely have been accused of genocide — with some justification. Nevertheless, we did it and it’s done.
Many of the people whom Israel displaced are still alive. Their legal rights to their property were well-established and were ignored when Israel was created. Their descendants maintain military forces and alliances.
It is true that Israel could perhaps attempt the same genocide against the Muslim peoples that surround it that the US did against our Native Americans. Is that what you advocate? I hope not.
What is ridiculous is attempting to say that Native Americans are somehow comparable to the growing constellation of Middle Eastern nations sworn to destroy Israel. This argument is applied to Israel because Israel’s situation is completely different from that of the US.
Another ridiculous aspect of this is being prickly about vocabulary like “war-monger” when all parties seem to agree that perpetual war — eventually including nuclear war — is inevitable given the current situation.
I completely agree with blaming Arafat for the Camp David collapse and the start of the Second Intifada, even if many on the left do not share that opinion. I will say that there is an element within the Israeli right-to the right of Likud-that is staunchly Israeli nationalist and religiously theocratic-to the point that it would annex Palestinian territories outright while continuing to deny voting rights. Avigdor Liebermen is a prime example of one of these figures, who went from the fringe to government in a short period of time.
Abbas is the best partner they’ve had in decades, and he an Olmert were willing to agree to a settlement that was less generous than Barak’s at Camp David. Then Olmert was ousted due to a corruption scandal and Netenyahu came into power and the deal was off. He has specifically ruled out ever considering a two state solution, in direct violation of several agreements made between his predecessors, Palestinian counterparts, himself in fact, and every US President since HW Bush.
But none of that happened in a vacuum. Netanyahu is able to take these positions because the opposition thereto doesn’t have much political credibility. Why would one thing that Abbas’ commitment to X would be any more substantial than Arafat’s?
Not this century anyway, and the West Bank has been passive under Fatah/PA control. PA even works with IDF on securing the area. It has shown itself ready to govern in a way Arafats PA and Hamas has not. The leaders that come after him will not share his commitment to a two state solution, he’s old, he may be toppled, so what does that leave Israel? The status quo is tragic and unsustainable, and the gridlock rests largely at Israel’s feet now.
This New Republic article was painful to read.
have many valid points about its weaknesses. The deal doesn’t stop Iran from using funds to support terrorist groups; it doesn’t prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon after 10 years. The majority of Israelis are against the deal, not just right-wingers. To dismiss them as “warmongerers” is wrong.
Israel is a lot closer to Iran than we are, so I put a lot of stock in how the average Israeli views Iran and the threat they believe it poses. You are perfectly within your rights to argue that it is unlikely that Iran will ever attack Israel, but you should know the average Israeli does not see it that way. That does not make them warmongers. Using terms like that is not engaging in constructive debate.
I think you’re probably correct about political opinion in Israel.
I’m not sure how much “constructive debate” is possible if the starting point of that debate is itself an impossible premise.
If perpetual and eventual war with its neighbors is inevitable, then whether or not we use the term “warmonger” to describe the average Israeli strikes me as nit-picking. I’m happy to choose a better word, but at the moment it appears to me that the continued long-term existence of Israel demands constant warfare.
As you observe, sooner or later Iran will join Israel in having nuclear weapons. It seems to me that reminding us of that only strengthens the argument against Israel’s long-term sustainability.
Opponents of the deal are warmongers whether they realize that or not, since the only alternative to the deal is war. Iran will not disarm on it’s own just because, it will either do so as part of a deal, which by definition means neither side gets exactly what it wants, or by armed interdiction which would be a tragedy far greater than the Iraq war.
Supporters of the deal are not arguing it’s a perfect deal, but it’s the only deal possible. There is simply no way a better deal could be agreed to by definition, those that are insisting a better deal was possible are committing deliberate or accidental epistemological fraud.
It’s why Gary Samore, the President of the anti-deal United Against Nuclear Iran quit his position and endorsed the deal. He realized it was the only option. This is because he is intellectually honest.
Other arms control experts agree, and as James Fallows points out, it could well be that this is an area where American and Israels interests diverge, in which case, America’s interests are paramount to the American president.
From the Foreign Policy Article:
So let’s quit the fiction that these folks want to avoid war, they are either in denial about reality-in which case-they have no credibility and we should ignore them, or they want a war. But there is no situation where we get a deal where Iran does what America and Israel wants without us giving something in return. That’s just idiocy.
is not constructive. We don’t describe the citizens of Iran as warmongers. Yet, you say that any opponent of the nuclear deal — which happens to be the majority of Israeli citizens — is a warmonger. Whether there is no such thing as a better deal, or whether even suggesting such a thing is committing “epistemological fraud” is something that I’ll leave to philosophers to debate. I happen to think it is open to debate.
Again, that does not make the average Israeli citizen a warmonger because he or she does not like this deal. The average Israeli citizen does not want war with Iran; they want to go on with their lives. When terms like warmonger and facist and other terms that I’ve seen in this thread get thrown around to describe the citizens of any country, much less a democracy like Israel, then it tells me we’re not engaging in reasoned debate.
Tom and I are making distinct arguments if he used he term.
I am saying you can’t oppose the war in Iran and oppose this deal. That is committing epistemological fraud. Just like you can’t simultaneously support broadly cutting taxes and funding infrastructure and services, or opposing gas taxes while also opposing climate change. Sure plenty of voters and “average” people hold those facts, but that doesn’t make them intellectually respectable opinions because they are not. In the real world there are trade offs, and to oppose the only realistic and viable path to peaceful disarmament of Iran is to support war to disarm Iran. Plain and simple. Schumer votes for war, Netenyahu is lobbying for war as he did with Iraq, and the entire Israeli political leadership including my comrades at the Zionist Union are blindly going along with him rather than educating the public. Even if they think they aren’t, it’s the only logical conclusion of their actions.
And sure, Iran has a warmonger faction that opposes the deal, hardliners who want the fight-but their President and Supreme Leader are backing the deal as are the majority of their people. I never said he Israelis are warmongering in generals or collectively here, I am saying their own security team is terrified that this is the direction the country is going on.
However we characterize them, the citizens of Israel are simply delusional if they think that killing this deal will somehow decrease the risk of war.
I don’t doubt that Israeli citizens “want to go on with their lives”. Lots of people in the US want to ignore our contribution to climate change in a similar way. Lots of privileged white males oppose efforts to end racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and so on using the same rationale.
The fact is that the world is FULL of people who “want to go on with their lives.” Sometimes, multiple groups of people who each “want to go on with their lives” come in conflict. When those groups conflict, somebody has to be willing to dig deeper to find a solution.
Advocating short-term decisions that clearly and inevitably greatly multiply the chance of war in the immediate (rather than eventual) future is, well, not a path towards peace. If “warmonger” is too upsetting, find a different word.
The fact of what opposition to the Iran deal means is the same. Opposing the Iran deal means multiplying the chance of war in the Middle East.
The deal reduces the chance of US involvement in a war in the region; I am not sure that it reduces the chance of Israeli involvement in a war in the region, the probability of which likely approaches 100% in either event. That’s why US and Israeli interests differ, as noted above.
Israel knows it can’t go to war with Iran without the United States, this is why it is lobbying hard (the government not the people so we are clear) to kill this deal now which will keep the military option on the table. It’s off after this deal, just as Americans are now coming around to embracing ACA because the benefits have kicked in, they have grown tired of war and will embrace this deal after it happens. After oil prices go down with Iran’s barrels hitting the market, after the drumbeat of war is reduced to the fringes. I doubt Israel pursues a unilateral course of action in a post-deal environment, it would risk losing everything to achieve very little the deal won’t already achieve.
And Iran won’t start a war either, far less likely to do so once the deal integrates it into the international economic community, and not likely to do so in the first place since its suicidal. It’s rhetoric and it’s bark is worse than its bite towards Israel, it’s bite towards regional actors is far more concerning.
With the second paragraph. Iran has been supplying Hezbollah with arms for 30+ years, with the intention of having those arms deployed against Israelis. They have been waging war against Israeli civilians, for decades now.
You mean “nuclear war.” OK, but let’s just recognize that the “nuclear” part affects us, and the conventional and terrorist war affects Israel. So by setting conventional warmaking and terror aside, we sort of toss Israeli civilians under the exploding bus, so to speak.
It’s bogged down fighting ISIL on Assads behalf in Syria at present, its capacity was severely degraded by the 2006 campaign and Isrsel regularly intercepts shipments to ensure that capacity remains degraded. I am not saying there aren’t legitimate security concerns with this deal, it’s imperfect, as any deal is, I am saying that those security concerns are near term while the risk and consequences of rejecting the deal are long term. We can’t let the myopia of the Israeli body politic-no matter how justified its concerns may be-dictate the long term security interests of the United States or Israel.
But certainly it’s a bad deal in the short term-I haven’t argued otherwise. The gamble is that we get peaceful disarmament and a reintegration into the global community. It will probably be another 20-30 years before an American Secretary of State can go to Tehran the way Kerry justwent to Havana-but without a deal it’s more likely Tehran and Tel Aviv could be craters in the same amount of time, if not sooner.
The word “fascist” appears exactly once in this thread, before your comment:
I see nothing in that comment to suggest that the author was referring to Israel at all. I read that comment to be a critique of the money-engine that drives so much of US foreign policy, including our Middle East policy.
I’ll tell you what’s “not constructive” — it is not constructive to needlessly escalate passions in a discussion where exchanges are already tense.
The post is about how the former head of Israeli security has endorsed the nuclear deal.
The commenter’s response was:
I interpret the comment as saying that those who are against the deal are warmongers and fascists etc. In any event, with a comment like that leading off the thread, why am I being accused of needlessly escalating passions? Is it needlessly escalating passions to suggest that we not use terms like “warmonger” and “fascist” and “ass kissing” and “idiots” in our discussion of this issue?
is what I fear most today. Even more than homegrown domestic terrorism. Why ?
Because it will sound the death knell to freedom and democracy as we know it.
My comment was meant to sound the alarm to what I see as a dangerous reaction in opposition to the peace deal with Iran. In previous posts I called on those right wing chicken hawks like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld who lied us into the Iraq War to step up and volunteer themselves or their sons/daughters for another such reckless Middle East adventure for oil. No volunteers yet amongst the bellicose 1 % ers but they are more than willing to sacrifice OUR sons/daughters as cannon fodder for their greed for money and power. I say NO to their madness !
Now their bombastic warmongering drumbeat is being taken up by Trump and his know nothing minions — ass kissing idiots all.
I say NO again to fascism !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
First, I read the comment as about the US, not Israel. I get that you may have read it differently, fair enough.
Second, I think Fred is expanding for rhetorical effect (as he does from time to time) the term “Military/Industrial Complex” that was coined by our own President Dwight Eisenhower.
I don’t think that comment is, in any way, aimed at Israeli citizens. I don’t even think it’s aimed at Israeli government officials in any broad sense.
I think it is, instead, aimed at those who profit from war. I think it’s a fair (though attention-getting) characterization. I think he’s saying that those in the “Military/Industrial/Media/Fascist/Polical Complex” are suffering from the sudden and catastrophic loss of structural integrity of their heads. I think he’s exactly correct — that’s why the comment by Efraim Halevy is newsworthy.
Is Israel now so sacrosanct that we can’t call Israelis who profit from war “war-mongers”? Do you have the same sanctimonious objection to the same group of US public figures? Do you object to describing the CEO of, say, Blackwater (or whatever they call themselves today) a “war-monger”, even though his company earns its profits by marking up mercenary warriors?
Fred’s comment is not, in any way, smearing all “those who are against the deal”. He is smearing a distinct subset, a subset that in my opinion OUGHT to be smeared.
to connect my comments on war profiteering as motivation for warmongering.
But even more troubling to me is the rise of American fascism which has been defined as the control of government by crony capitalism driven by right-wing ideology and bellicose nationalism.
FDR’s message to Congress in 1938 on the eve of WWII summed it up this way : “The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”
This is what I hear when I watch Trump spouting his racist, bellicose, chest-thumping rants. He sounds like a raving lunatic but remember, many decent, rational people laughed and shrugged off Hitler in the beginning too. This is what keeps me up at night.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
…but one thing that has not been discussed is the likelihood and yes I use the word likelihood that the current governor of Iran will no longer be in power 10 years from now.
Liberal zionists like myself are stuck somewhere in the middle, Michael Walzer had a reasonable piece on the Gaza conflict and finds himself, like me, between a bellicose right saying Israel can do no wrong and a far left that says Israel can do no right.
I try to be reasonable, examine the issues on a case by case basis. I certainly opposed and nearly protested the Lebanese incursion of 2006, but found myself profoundly discomforted by the sort of people who attend such rallies and the kinds of beliefs they espouse. I then got heat from my fellow progressives for editorializing in favor of the Gaza incursion in 2009 and 2014. One seemed like a foolhardy war that destabilized a nation finally rebounding out of it’s sectarian violence into some democratic existence, and I think events have proven that correct. The others were unavoidable means of disarming a bellicose Hamas, but that are necessary band aids that can’t heal the divisions between these two peoples the way a final settlement can.
I see the Iran deal as creating the breathing space for the US and Israel to prioritize our policies and theirs in the middle east in a more realistic way.
and needlessly inflaming passions,” and “holding Israel sacrosanct.”
But I’m not, as Tom contends, objecting to warmonger or “delusional” to describe Blackwater or other war profiteers in Israel or the U.S. Let’s be clear: The discussion in this thread has been about those who oppose the nuclear deal with Iran. According to polls, the majority of Israeli citizens happen to fall into that category.
In this thread Tom has said it’s “nitpicking” as to whether to call the average Israeli a warmonger. He also says Israelis who oppose the deal — again, the majority — are delusional.
Conway says that anyone who doesn’t believe this is the only, and best deal that can be had is committing philosophical or intellectual “fraud,” and is either “in denial about reality, or they want a war.”
Who is being sanctimonious here? Isn’t it somewhat sanctimonious to characterize the majority of the citizens of a country as warmongers or as delusional or intellectually dishonest because they happen to hold a political wiew or opinion that differs from yours? Do Conway and Tom really believe they have an insight into the truth that the majority of the people in Israel don’t have?
I happen to believe that the average Israeli citizen probably knows a bit more about Iran and the Middle East than either Conway, Tom or myself because they live with that reality every day.
Israel should have been at the negotiating table, but its leadership, like some of our own, prefer to not monger just war, but also fear. If Iran were to actually attack Israel, which I honestly think they are too smart to do, I have no doubt that the US would and should be the first to come to Israel’s defense.
delusional or intellectually dishonest. Polls show a majority of Americans are against the nuclear deal as well. Are the majority of the people in this country warmongers and delusional?
…and those who oppose it are definitely being influenced by the warmongers with megaphones.
Sorry, Dave, but you objected to “fascist”, and asserted (incorrectly in my view) that it was being applied to all Israelis, or to all Israelis who oppose the Iran deal. Your comments indicate that you strongly objected to the phrase “Military/Industrial/Media/Fascist/Political Complex”.
That specific objection to that specific phrase is what I refer to in my “sanctimonious” characterization, and I stand by it. I asked a specific question (“Do you have the same sanctimonious objection to the same group of US public figures”). That phrase refers to war profiteers, both Israeli and US. We seem to agree that it is acceptable to characterize those profiteers as “war-mongers”.
Here’s what I wrote about “delusional” and “war-monger” yesterday, as applied to Israeli citizens who oppose the Iran deal:
You seem to agree that dropping the Iran deal means multiplying the chance of war in the Middle East. We seem to be conflicted about the vocabulary used to describe Israeli citizens who oppose the deal. So we are struggling with a word to characterize a political view that advocates increasing the likelihood of war. If “war-monger” isn’t appropriate, then I invite you to offer an alternative that you prefer.
Similarly, you wrote:
We seem to be conflicted about my characterization of that view as “delusional”. What is a better term? How is that view of the average Israeli citizen towards the prospect of war with Iran — in the context their opposition to the Iran deal — different from the view of the average American towards global warming, in the context of their opposition to efforts to reduce our carbon footprint?
Our US right wing refuses to agree that “business as usual” has devastating consequences for global warming. Do you agree that this stance by our right wing is “delusional”?
You agree that blocking the Iran deal will multiply the chances of war (after all, you’ve said you support the Iran deal). You write yourself that the average Israeli who opposes the Iran deal is motivated by a desire to continue “business as usual”. If that stance is not “delusional”, what is a better term?
I’m happy to substitute a word of your choice for “war-monger” and “delusional”, so long as our agreed-on meaning is preserved. Given that substitution, I disagree that it is “sanctimonious” to make the observations I make. In my view, conflicted situations like this are seldom resolved by refusing to observe the reality of what is actually happening.
If we agree that constructive discussion is a good thing (isn’t NOT discussing it “delusional”?), and I agree to adjust the vocabulary of that discussion to address your concerns, then what — precisely — do you object to?
to avoid pejorative terms for those who hold differing opinions from one’s own, particularly if those people are the majority of the citizens of a country. “Warmonger,” in my view, is a pejorative term, particularly when it is applied to Israel. I see it as a political dog-whistle in that regard, along with terms like bully and oppressor. Those terms lack foundation, oversimplify a complex situation, and inflame passions.
I don’t have as big a problem with “delusional” to describe people who hold different opinions than yours or mne. But I don’t think that is conducive to constructive debate either. If you want someone to change their opinion, it probably won’t help to call them delusional or accuse them of intellectual fraud.
I would prefer to debate the issues without using any of those terms. I think the debate will stay on the issues that way without straying into the terminology involved, as it clearly has in this case.
…and those of us who use it mean it as such. Netanyahu came to Congress to beat the war drums, using many of the same ominous arguments used against Iraq more than a decade ago. Lindsay Graham, when questioning John Kerry, all but said since we can beat Iran in a war why bother with peace. I am absolutely convinced that there are people who really would prefer war over peace in both Israel and the US. They are absolutely warmongers.
I’ve asked several times, and you’ve gone in a different direction in your responses.
I invite you to offer a different word for “war-monger” and “delusional”.
Then let’s see where we stand.
You can’t argue and ask for a constructive debate when opposition to the deal has been anything put. Progressive Mass just issued an alert to call Joe Kennedy’s office since apparently the opposition calls are 3-1 against the deal, this is due in no small part to the misleading ads AIPAC is running in the district on television and on the radio.
I have personally argued with Professor Mearsheimer during his office hours about his book, my black boss proudly has his Chicago AIPAC Citizen of the Year Award in his office and I do not question his liberal credentials, I defended Steve Grossman’s on this blog as well. So I am not arguing AIPAC is evil or a cabal, I am saying, on this issue they are doing both countries they love a grave disservice and are intentionally misleading voters with whom they hold a lot of credibility.
But on this issue opponents of the deal are having a dishonest debate. There is no such thing as a better deal that Iran would have been willing to accept, if there had been, they would have accepted it already. There is no such thing as tougher sanctions and giving sanctions more time, since the international sanctions regime collapses the second the US Congress rejects this deal and overrides President Obama’s veto. The EU is already dealing with Iran, so is Russia and China, and unilateral US sanctions would be about as effective at regime change and arms control as the futile embargo we just ended with Cuba.
A key difference is that Cuba ended it’s WMD ambitions after it’s client state withdrew nuclear weapons at the behest of the American blockade, peacefully disarming Cuba. Since Iran’s capability is a native capability, sanctions and blockades can’t degrade it, only delay it, and this will inevitably lead to warfare with Iran since once the sanctions regime fails to prevent a bomb and Iran announces it’s capability, than the US will have no other alternatives than the last resort or accepting an Iranian nuclear weapon. Both alternatives would likely lead to a future war.
So yes, if any thinking person examines the actual facts of the issues and really thinks through them they will know that the choices are, the deal on the table or a future war. That’s it, there is no middle ground. Unicorns and fairy dust won’t destroy the Iranian nuclear program, only a negotiated solution and barring that, a military solution. It is absolutely clear that folks like Graham, McCain and Netenyahu favor a military solution. Folks like Schumer and Menendez are craven politicians playing to the short term fears of their constituents rather than leading or educating them. They know the deal will pass and are voting against it in public and likely favoring it in private-the worst kind of political leader in my book.
The Israeli public, and perhaps the American public in polls, may believe they can get a better deal. They also believe tax cuts, balancing the budget, and expanding services can happen simultaneously without any consequences or that stopping climate change while cutting gas taxes is a possibility, as MA voter apparently believe. I am arguing such a deal is an impossibility and opponents of the deal are either committing a sin of commission and favor war or a sin of omission and favor war by opposing the only deal on the table keeping peace possible.
Would that be the tide going out and the tide coming in?:)
are more clear-headed, intellectually honest, and knowledgeable than anyone who happens to disagree with you on this matter. There’s really no room for debate because anyone who does disagree with you is, by definition, being dishonest or delusional. What can I say? Congrats!
This is not a subjective discussion. Climate change is real, and if you disagree with me on that than I am more clear headed, intellectually honest, and knowledgeable than you on that particular subject. Why? Because 98% of climate scientists agree climate change is real and caused by man.
Similarly, 75 of the world’s top most arms control experts support this deal. Including Gary Samore, who was the face of the opposition to the deal until two weeks ago when he stepped down as the President of the lobbying group United Against a Nuclear Iran because he could not in good conscience oppose the deal and lobby against it. The fact that his replacement is Joe Lieberman, who might as well join John McCain in a singalong for ‘bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran’, speaks volumes as to the honesty and intellectual integrity of that organization.
Dermer and Netenyahu worked hand in hand with Republican politicians to politically embarass this president. That is a fact, and AIPAC has now outed itself as a partisan conservative organization, or at least, a neoconservative one, opposed to the only reasonable diplomatic alternative to forceful nuclear disarmament.
So forgive me if I won’t be polite to people lying and misleading voters about what President Obama is doing. I agree with Steve Grossman, no President has done more to fight for the security of Israel. Clearly it’s actual opponents agree with me on that. The sad thing is, this deal is the best chance the United States and Israel have of avoiding a war that would jeopardize their survival and our influence in the world.
And you don’t even disagree with me on the deal, so I am not sure why you feel the need to carry water for those that do. They are objectively wrong, as many sensible Israeli’s like Herzog and Livni are, or they sincerely want war, like Graham and McCain. There is no fact based principled opposition to this deal.
But claims of climate change are based on easily verifiable scientific evidence. Not all academic disciplines are as clear-cut. Economics is a famous example. Politics is even less prone to scientific verification, and I would place the vagaries of arms control in that category. There are too many variables involved to predict the likely outcomes of the nuclear deal with any degree of certainty.
But even if someone argues against the reality of climate change, I prefer not to question their sincerity or intellectual honesty.
They are questioning whether supporters of the deal are sincerely committed to Israel, which according to the largest non-partisan Israel lobbying group, we apparently are not. The pressure was apparently big enough to convince two 100% AIPAC lifetime perfect score Senators to vote against the deal, and staunch liberals like Brad Sherman to do the same. Joe Kennedy could join their ranks as Progressive MA has warned against an unprecedented barrage of attacks and phone lines blowing up with 3-1 opposition.
This is most definitely fear mongering at best, and war mongering at worse, since the alternative to the deal is war.
The leading nuclear scientists are calling out the misleading attack ads for the bullshit they are.
I again ask why you want to carry water for these people. Like Ian Bremmer, an IR analyst I otherwise respect tremendously, do you think this is a deal worth begrudging support but a better deal was possible? He never explained this position empirically, other than one of his sources told him one was possible. I don’t buy that, neither do most experts.
Feel free to source opponents that have credibly empirical based arguments for their positions, beyond Obama hates Israel or this deal weakens America. Those opponents really want war, or lack the understanding that failure to ratify the agreement is forcing us down that path.
I’m arguing for a principle, which is that we should engage in reasoned debate on a matter like this and not resort to name-calling or making unsupported accusations about the motives of people who have differing opinions on the matter.
One person whose views on this issue I respect is a friend of mine, who is very knowledgeable about Israeli history and politics. Here is his website: http://blog.davidgilfix.com/
We’ve had numerous discussions about the nuclear deal. I’ve taken a position in favor of the deal and he is against it. Neither of us has accused the other of being intellectually dishonest, delusional, or a warmonger.
I will sincerely check your friends website and see what analysis he brings to the table.
I am not resorting to name calling or making unsupported accusations, if anything, that is what many opponents of the deal are doing. ALL of my accusations in this thread are verifiable and supported by evidence I have provided. I do think we have both thrown around generalities which are unhelpful. We are conflating ‘all’ of x are x instead of the majority. In that spirit.
The vast majority of American opponents of the Iran deal are known warmongers. They desire war with Iran, they want war with Iran and prefer that to any deal, and to the extent that now they say ‘a better deal is better than a bad deal’ they are deliberately posturing to appear more reasonable and moderate than they actually are.
I can exclude folks like Chuck Schumer and Bob Menendez from this category, both know Obama won’t lose the override and are covering themselves due to the constituencies they represent. An awful way to make a long term foreign policy decision, but I can see why they are doing so, especially since Menendez is vulnerable to a challenger. I can exclude Herzog and Livni for the same reason. I bet they privately agree with the deal, but they know they would be committing political suicide if they go against the polls in Israel. They have a decent shot at getting into government due to the instability of the Netenyahu coalition and they have no choice but to go along with it. Considering that they are the only hope for Israel, I can give them a pass.
In terms of academics or pundits though, very very few people have credibly made the argument that a better deal is possible if we reject this deal. Even folks that feel a better deal was possible like Ian Bremmer and Gary Samore have come to that conclusion as well. It won’t be possible either way now. Outside of Commentary, the Weekly Standard, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page-I haven’t seen arguments advancing the notion that a better deal will be renegotiated if Congress kills this one. And none of the ones I have seen are credible.
I find the President’s arguments, Secretary Kerry who has the most direct experience of what the Iranians are willing to say yes or no to, and the arguments of many Israeli and American intelligence and security experts incredibly credible, along with the nuclear scientist and arms control community. There are very few skeptics or opponents over there. None of my State Department contacts, including some diehard Iraq War hawks that I worked with at the Office of Regional Security and Arms Control have opposed this deal. That includes retired people who have the liberty to oppose it. Every living former ambassador to Israel supports the deal, including those that worked for conservative Republicans.
I’ve reviewed your comments here.
Mostly what I see from you are complaints about others (including me). I’ve repeatedly asked you for different wording, in order to clarify what if any actual differences we have. You’ve not responded, and instead shifted your rhetorical attacks to another front.
Several of us, and the outsiders cited by jconway, have asserted the following:
1. Iran has already conceded as much as they’re going to concede in the deal currently on the table.
2. The risk of immediate “hot” war is many times greater without the current deal than with the current deal.
3. Some of those aggressively opposing the deal have long histories of profiting — either economically, politically, or both — from war.
4. Many Israeli citizens oppose the deal because “they just want to go on with their lives”.
5. Several of us find item (4) in intellectual conflict with items (1) and (2). Perhaps there is a better word than “delusional”, but if their opposition causes the deal to be killed, then immediate hot war with Iran is many times more likely. If we accept (1) and (2), then (4) will result in war, not peace.
If I am riding in a car, driven by a loved one, that is speeding towards a sharp curve, then I am likely to be rude in my urgency to get their foot off the gas. If you, as a passenger, complain about my rudeness, I am unlikely to pay much attention to you.
The stakes are high, the curve is sharp, and there is a very steep chasm on the other side of the curve.
this debate conducted.
You say I haven’t responded to your assertions about the virtues of the nuclear deal. That tells me you’ve missed the point I’ve been trying to make throughout this thread. I’m not interested in arguing the deal with you. I already said I support the deal. I’m talking about the civility of the debate over the deal. I would say that you’ve stayed remarkably clear of responding to my points on that.
Conway’s response to my assertions, as I read it, has been that he’s free to cast aspersions on the motives and even sanity of any and all opponents of the deal because he’s 100 percent certain of the correctness of his position. In which case, I say why should I debate the deal with you or Conway, even if I was opposed to it? One can’t really hold a debate with someone who is 100 percent certain they are right.
I respect the hell out your other posts here in BMG-especially the stuff on developmentally disabled youth and the piece on the Pacheco law.
I am arguing that we can’t have a civil discussion since Netenyahu choose to politicize this issue with his decidedly uncivil speech which was a severe breach of diplomatic decorum unprecedented in American history. AIPAC and other groups are now intentionally conflating support for the deal with opposition to Israel’s continued existence. All the uncivility and dishonesty is on that side. I am not arguing people who disagree with me are insane-I am saying they are far more comfortable with a war with Iran than I am or willfully or accidentally ignorant of the issues at stake. Much like the climate change debate-you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. These folks are denying facts.
You make the statement that:
In fact, there is uncivility and dishonesty on both sides. That’s the nature of lobbying on a controversial issue like this. But why should that mean that we have to use loaded terms on this site to categorize the majority of the citizens of a particular country?
You also state:
I don’t understand that reasoning at all.
It does seem, though, that you are backing a bit off your comment that opponents of the deal are delusional. Maybe that’s progress.
In any event, not all the “experts” are on board with this deal. Nearly 200 retired generals and admirals think it’s a bad deal. Apparently, they are not all Republicans with axes to grind against Obama.
This is why I don’t want to argue the deal itself in this thread. My whole point is there are good and bad people, honest and dishonest people, ignorant and knowledgeable people, sane and insane people, and experts, on both sides of this issue.
Report both sides as equally true and equally valid, just a difference of opinion. It isn’t in this case.
Where? Where has there been on the deal proponents side? I have already exhaustively pointed to instances of misleading statements and false assertions on the side of the deal opponents. I would like to be enlightened on similar claims to deal proponents.
The reasoning is really simple, which I have already articulated. Netenyahu has taken a position that should first and foremost be about America’s role in the region and made it into a default position on whether one ‘supports’ Israel or not. One can in fact, support Israel and support the deal-as both of us apparently do. I would be offended if I were an American Jew who supports Israel and trusts the President on this deal by the kind of threats and insinuations Netenyahu has made regarding the President’s character or the loyalty of Jews to Israel who support him.
Is Michael Oren, an academic I once respected, and his trashy new book that questions the loyalty, patriotism, and devotion of Obama and his Jewish supporters to their country? That trashes a liberal hawk like Leon Weisteleter as a pro-Palestinian activist? You tell me if that’s civil or constructive. Oren is just repeating what the Israeli center-right believes. Loyalty to Israel is now synonmous in their eyes with loyalty to their government and their kneejerk opposition to any deal.
Opponents repeatedly say they aren’t opposed to any deal but to this deal, but I would argue a) no better deal exists, that is a fiction and a diversion from reality b) even if it did, they would oppose it since they really want war and oppose anything Obama does. I strongly believe that at this point about the neocons in the US and the Likudniks in Israel, that they would oppose any diplomacy this Democratic President supported because they want war and they want a Republican in the White House.
I think the behaviour of Netenyahu and his government is clearly indicative of this.
on the Iran Deal.
And the fact that the neo-Nazi endorsed Trump warmonger, chicken hawks are opposed should be reason enough to give any sane person pause.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
on the pro-nuclear deal side: http://davidmweinberg.com/2015/07/20/iran-deal-fibs-and-feints/
Speaking of false equivalencies, you are guilty of that as well, I think. In attempting to paint Israelis with the same brush as terrorist organizations in the region, you state that Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was “murdered by his own people” for pursuing the Oslo peace process. This makes Israel seem like a lawless society, when we know it is among the most advanced democracies in the Middle East.
Rabin was assassinated by a far right-wing Israeli student, who was arrested and sentenced to life in prison for the crime. The entire country was shocked and embarrassed by the assassination, including right-wing religious community in Israel, which had opposed the peace accords. The assassination led to a wave of soul-searching in Israel — something you don’t see among groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and their followers. But many critics of Israel love to insist there is no difference between the attitudes of Israelis and of terrorist groups.
if it leads one to make the same mistake that caused the soul-searching in the first place.
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was a hero of mine. He was a decorated soldier General and courageous Champion for Peace. He was shot in the back by a right-wing assassin coward, warmonger, chicken hawk.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Rather than respond to this, I recommend you read what I post before you hit reply.
Well, I asked you for alternative language, specifically addressing the concerns you raised about “war-monger” and “delusional”. You’ve offered none.
Your answer is evasive and non-responsive. It seems clear enough that you actually do NOT want talk about the deal. My ask is really quite simple — two different words that you do not find offensive.
I think that, frankly, if you were truly interested in a courteous discussion, you’d at least make an attempt. Your continued refusal strikes me as eloquent in itself.
and “delusional,” I would suggest you refer to them as “opponents of the deal, whom I believe to be wrong; and here’s why…”
For your convenience, here’s my latest summary (which you again refused to address), edited to remove the remaining word that offends you:
Do you agree with this summary? If not, I invite you to clarify your disagreement.
I actually don’t know the answer to 1 and 2 on your list. 3 is probably true. 4 misconstrues a point I previously tried to make. The reason I support the deal isn’t because I think it’s a particularly good deal, but because I think it’s better to keep one’s enemies at the table, and keep talking with them. In my view, that lessons tensions and makes war less likely. But I respect the view of the average Israeli who sincerely believes the terms of the deal will make war with Iran more likely in the long run.
Points (1) and (2) are the key factors here, and you say you “don’t know the answer”. In the absence of an opinion about (1) and (2), I’m not sure how meaningful your “support” for the current deal is.
Point (1) doesn’t say it’s a “good” deal, it says instead that is the best deal (from the western perspective) that Iran will accept now or in the foreseeable future. If you don’t accept (1), then perhaps you can describe your view of a better deal that Iranians will accept.
Point (2) has been confirmed multiple times by multiple credible sources. I know of know of no credible sources who challenge this. If you don’t accept (2), then perhaps you can elucidate your disagreement.
How have I “misconstrued” your point in argument 4? I have used your words exactly, I have scrupulously avoided any characterization of any Israeli citizens, and I have intentionally chosen the neutral word “many”. Again, as before, I invite you to offer different wording that more accurately conveys your posture.
It is all well and good to “respect” a view, but that respect must include the possibility that the view — no matter how sincerely held — is incorrect. A large number of Americans sincerely believe, based on their sincerely and passionately held religious beliefs, that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old. How does one “respect” that perspective without noting that it violates virtually all of modern science?
A view that appears, on the basis of all available evidence, to be incorrect can be “respected”. Such a view still should not govern policy, especially when nuclear holocaust is a distinct possibility and the nations advocating that incorrect view already possess the nuclear arsenal needed to initiate the nuclear holocaust.
1) On the issue of sincere beliefs regarding foreign policies
It is utterly absurd to think this deal makes war more likely than the consequences of rejecting the deal, I would have to see an argument making that point, haven’t so far. This deal strengthens Israel’s security, even if they lack the capacity to recognize that in the current political environment. Over 90% of Americans on the eve of the war thought that Iraq was an imminent threat and war was our only option, events have surely proven them wrong. I am not bashing the Israeli people-our own people have bought into government propaganda in times of fear and anxiety, and certainly in their neighborhood surrounded as they are by Hezbollah, Hamas, the Syrian choas, and ISIL I can sympathize with their fears and anxieties. It takes an extraordinary leader like a Ted Kennedy or Russ Finegold to swim against the tide during those times, and sadly, Herzog and Livni are not up to the task yet.
2) On the issue of name calling
I have called Netenyahu a warmonger, because I believe he sincerely wants war with Iran as much as he wanted war with Iraq. He has never apologized for supporting the latter war by the way, and is making the same arguments to support this new one. I would never call him a Nazi, a capo, or a war criminal as many Jewish opponents of the deal have called Jerry Nadler and others.
The civility and discourse of this discussion was completely negated by opponents of the deal, many who were opposed before it was even negotiated, and many who would oppose it even if it were ‘better’ and are now smearing the American Jewish liberals who back their President and common sense as Nazis. And yet, you continue to lecture me, a fellow supporter of Israel and the deal on my commitment to Israel and my name calling. How about calling these assholes out too?
that have been heaped on Rep. Nadler and others for supporting the deal. In fact, the article you linked to noted that the Anti-Defamation League denounced those condemnations.
At the same time, this goes both ways. Sen. Schumer has been subjected to vicious and unfounded attacks for opposing the deal, including the usual “warmonger” charges, and other charges that have gone beyond the pale, in the opinion of many observers.
She is quoting Michael Bloomberg as a liberal, he is not, he is a centrist who has been consistently hawkish on foreign policy. She quotes the NY Post-another conservative outlet, quotes another article calling moderate Muslim commentator Fareed Zakaria anti-semetic for saying Schumer is influenced by money that goes on to claim that the only reason Schumer is compared to Liebermen is because ‘they are both Jewish’. Talk about a selectively edited piece ommitting key facts. Schumer is one of the top recipients of money from AIPAC which is now lobbying against the deal and withdrawn it’s support of Nadler, so that shows you he in fact may be influence by their campaign money and it is not anti-semetic to cite that fact. Similarly, he and Liebermen both voted for the Iraq War and are hawkish on all foreign policy questions-that is what Kos is lamenting, not that they are both Jewish. You don’t see Kos attacking Nadler for supporting the deal, or Jewish Senators like Boxer and Feinstein who support it, but you do see them attacking the non-Jewish Sen. Mendendez for his opposition. Clearly it’s not an anti-Jewish attack.
So that isn’t a great piece to link to from a long time Romney shill who admitted lying to her readers about her views regarding his chances I think the name calling on their side is accusing people of being things they aren’t, mainly, against Israel or anti-semitic. Accustations that demonstrably false in the case of pro-Israel Jewish leaders like Nadler who support the deal. Our form of name calling is accusing people who have always voted for war over diplomacy as warmongers, it really isn’t equivalent. It’s the pot calling the kettle black rather than the pot calling the kettle a Nazi.
I can say not all opponents of the deal are warmongers, but they are also engaging in a similar denial of basic facts like climate change, evolution or vaccination deniers-that they can just wish alternatives to be true that aren’t feasible in the real world.
More talk about name-calling, and no response from dave-from-hvad about the deal itself. This is an old and venerable strategy, familiar to anyone active in the climate change debate.
and not the U.S. http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/08/ugliness-iran-deal-supporters-call-schumer-a-greedy-disloyal-jew/ It’s a serious charge to make, and an unfounded one.
Didn’t you agree up thread that even if the deal is good for the US that the Israeli’s have a right to feel bad about it since they are losing out? Isn’t that why AIPAC is going after Jewish supporters of the deal specifically? You don’t see them targeting Liz Warren with these muck, but they did use it against Nadler. I credit Abe Foxman, whom I don’t always credit, for explicitly pointing out that questions of dual loyalty to Israel from critics of the deal play into the hands of American anti-semitism.
Here is a good fact based response to Schumer’s inconsistent position.
and vicious attacks against Nadler. Don’t you agree that supporters of the deal have done the same thing to Schumer?
If they are arguing he is unfit to be Majority Leader, craven to corporate lobbyists on finance and AIPAC on foreign policy, and a bad liberal for opposing the deal I find it hard to argue with any of those assertions. They are backed by facts. It is illiberal to oppose this deal since you are choosing diplomacy over war, he is craven to Wall Street and is now showing himself to be craven to AIPAC as even a centrist like Zakaria has pointed out, and I would argue for the same reason we wouldn’t have a pro-life or anti-climate change Majority Leader we shouldn’t have an anti-deal Majority Leader.
Any attacks on his loyalty or saying ‘he’s a Jew of course he opposes the deal’ are obviously beyond the pale and completely unfounded. I’ve seen both lines of reasoning, and I would hesitate to say traitor even against a political opponent for the implications it has in this particular case. But I would agree with folks who would vote against him for Majority Leader, who critique him for being in bed with lobbyists, and attack his liberal credentials on this issue and other ones since they are fact based attacks.
In either case, James Fallows is essential reading on the intricacies of the deal and how to deal with it’s critics. His exchange in today’s blog post is illuminating.
I read the blog piece. I have no doubt that it is reasonably accurate, and I agree that’s well written.
To me, it’s harshest spotlight is perhaps unintentional — I refer to the dominant role played by religion and religious beliefs in all this.
In my view, this is the futility of attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable. Between “Sharia” and the various other forms of Muslim dogma, all the various flavors of Jewish dogma, and whatever religious beliefs we in the US bring to the table, all of it strikes me as variations on the same fundamental them of us-versus-them tribalism, wrapped in the trappings of “God” (or “Allah”, or “YHWH”). All of it is rooted in primitive “sacred” writings, some which go back to the Bronze Age for crying out loud.
Where would we be if “scientists” had dogmatically maintained the “inerrancy” of Aristotle (and killed any who dared to disagree)?
What I see is a toxic stew of bias, prejudice, fear, superstition, hatred, tribalism, and everything else — all backed by enormous wealth, enormous firepower (including nuclear by all but one participant), and of course blinding passion and “faith”.
I really don’t care what side any participant comes down on, the conflict itself strikes me as utterly irrational. It makes me cringe that this entire belief system wasn’t discarded centuries ago. If anything, we in the US have been fanning the flames of it (for self-serving political gain) for decades now.
I try hard not to sound “anti religion”. I can’t help but conclude that religion itself lies at the heart of this conflict.
when he said: ” When fascism comes to America it will be holding a cross and draped in a flag.”
He’s the same guy who said : ” No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”
Fred Rich LaRiccia
and the variant is that “no one ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the voters.” Or something like that.
I almost pine for the days of secular Likudniks like Shamir and socialist nationalists like the PFLP compared to the religious fundamentalist underpinnings governing Hamas and the Jewish Home*. The PFLP was instrumental at Oslo, since their entire rationale was self-determination for the Palestinian people. They were under no delusions they could win the Temple Mount back for Islam, just as Shamir was a secular nationalist who sincerely felt his secular democracy depended on a harsh response to arab nationalism. Not saying I like either of them, but at least a deal could be made. Can’t say the same about the extremists on either side these days, they take it as an article of faith that the land is theirs and not the followers of the false religion who feel the same way about them.
*Not equating them at all, Hamas is a vicious and brutal terror organization that is far more violent and extreme than the Jewish. I am saying both groups are a threat to the peace process and have no pretense about preserving democracy for their respective peoples.
…that if Israel wanted to prove once and for all it is committed to peace, they should immediately cease and desist building those darn settlements! How can that be taken as anything other than unnecessary provocation? If Israel insists all the land is theirs then the people living there of whatever nationality are part of the deal and ought to be treated as such in the sense of full citizenship rights.
They don’t have to give statehood to the Palestinians because they have ‘autonomous’ governance over the settlements and for that same reason can avoid giving them citizenship rights in Israel proper. I think too many Americans fail to realize that Palestinians are truly stateless and the human rights deprivations that can occur because of that.
It’s a lot easier to see a lot of angry Muslims and equate them with the fanatics that attacked us on 9/11. It would do well if Abbas realistically set his sites either on recognition within Israel as citizens or true sovereign self determination over the West Bank and Gaza, all Palestinians have to give up the dream of a world without Israel, just as much as Israeli’s need to give up the dream of an Greater Israel where the entire Jordan Valley is theirs like in biblical times.
Land swaps and dismantled settlements will be painful in the short term, but faintly remembered in the long term. How many Israeli’s are pining for the Sinai now? Or Gaza? It will take leadership and honesty from politicians in both camps, those qualities are in short supply in America and non-existent over there. Rabin got murdered by his own people for his bold leadership, while Arafat walked away from a good deal since war and martyrdom suited his personality better.
Personally I don’t think I’d like the status quo of constant fear that the next bus I board or establishment I patronize will also be targeted by a suicide bomber while I am present.
And the incursions in Hamas keep the rocket fire at bay. I totally agree with you it’s an awful reality to sustain; morally, practically, or politically. But the Israeli left over-promised that land for peace would work, and Arafat really robbed them of that argument, leaving us stuck between centrists like Yapid, Livni, or Herzog and far right extremists like Bennett.
But you are entirely correct, the West Bank is just one incendiary action away from a full scale third intifada, but I suspect such a result will harden the resolves on either side and make compromise that much more difficult. It really doesn’t help that Netenyahu is forcing American Jews to choose between their liberalism and loyalty to Israel. There was a time not too long ago when being loyal to both was possible and actually essential to either identity. As a secular, gentile liberal zionist, I strongly hope that reality can come back.
…since all three religions in question at the end of the day worship the same God!
Perhaps it is the “worship” (as well as “believe”, “work on behalf of”, and so on) that is the key item, rather than the deity they share.
What I see here has to do with the nature and behavior of people, not “God” (or YHWH, or Allah). My objection is to “religion” (as in the human practice and belief system) rather than a deity.
…that if they took their religions seriously, both scripture and tradition, they’d understand they are children of the same God and act accordingly, and yes I know religious authorities themselves have been known to cast fellow Abramics as the Infidel, but that contradicts both real faith and common sense.
As I see it, the problem is that many of the participants in this conflict (including many Americans) take their religions TOO seriously — both scripture and tradition.
The current behavior of some contradicts YOUR “real faith” (and mine) and your “common sense” (and mine) — but this, to me, is the fundamental flaw of any discussion about religion. We claim that “tolerance”, “respect”, courtesy, and so on require that we give EVERY other radically different view of faith, tradition, scripture, and all that comes out of that the same respect that we demand for our own.
In matters of religion, we assert that there is no “objective” standard (this, after all, is another fundamental claim of religion). The result, in my view, inevitably leads to conflict — especially among those who take their scripture and tradition most seriously.
I thought that I took the scripture and tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures seriously until I started attending services at Temple Beth Zion (in Brookline), and learned that my view of “tradition” was and is radically different from that very liberal “Conservative” Jewish synogogue. The text of their scriptures is radically different from the translations of the same texts I’m familiar with from my Protestant tradition.
While I agree with your perspective about abstract conversations among liberal-leaning Christians (by culture) like you and me, I suggest that in the concrete reality of disputes involving war, peace, and economics (never mind social justice and everything else), taking “scripture and tradition” seriously is a prescription for perpetual bloodshed.
The young suicide bombers — men and women — give their lives for their scripture and tradition. Is it possible to take religion more seriously than that?
I take that pretty seriously as a fundamental tenet straight from Jesus’s own mouth (as quoted, leaving aside that nobody had a tape recorder at the Sermon on the Mount). OT prophets exalted beating swords into ploughshares and the very term “Islam” means peace. I realize I’m not really arguing with you when I make these points, but I do wish people would realize that martyrdom means willingness to die for your faith in the face of pressure, but not going to look for trouble and taking others down with you.
We’re in violent agreement.
The point that I’m perhaps belaboring is that, as sincere as you are, I don’t see you acknowledging that the radical Muslim faithful who celebrate the martyrs are just as convinced of their understanding of martyrdom as we are of ours.
So long as a sincere and dedicated group of followers believe the following tenets, bloodshed will continue unabated:
1. Martyrdom is a blessed outward sign of an invisible inward commitment to God/Allah/YHWH
2. Their understanding of God/Allah/YHWH is the only true path, and every other understanding is the work of the devil
3. All followers of their faith are doing the work of God/Allah/YHWH, and all followers of any other deity are sinners
In my view, a peaceful resolution to this conflict requires all of us to step back from, rather than redouble, our own interpretations of faith and scripture.
…I guess what I am saying is that there needs to be more and stronger religious voices on all sides calling for peace. As noted above you don’t have to dig too deeply into any of the Abramic religions to find the appropriate arguments and citations for this.
The tribes in the area have been fighting each other going back to when the Jews changed their strategy and withdrew support for Muhammed (pbuh) at the Battle of the Trench. It is beyond reason that these fires of hatred are still burning after all these years. To me the idea that we were able to get Russia, China and other countries to agree make this deal the best option at this time. If Kerry just whispered in one of the Iranians ears that we will carpet-bomb Tehran if they touch Israel and we’re all set.
I am proud of U.S. Representative Katherine Clark for coming out in favor of the Iran deal, after having thoroughly vetted the issue in a recent trip to Israel.