What If Iran Offers To Trade Its Nuclear Program For End To Israeli Occupation
Akiva Eldar, the distinguished journalist for Ha'aretz, wonders what the US would do if Iran offers to give up its nuclear enrichment program in exchange for Israel ending the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. (Israeli troops left Gaza but still control all its borders, air space and sea lanes).
Eldar writes: "Let us assume that tomorrow Iran informs its American interlocutors that it will cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency, abide by all United Nations resolutions relating to nuclear weapons, and recognize Israel - but on two conditions: first, that Iran will receive assurances from the international community that it will immediately act to implement UN resolutions calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state in territories conquered in 1967, and a commitment to expedite the end of Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights; secondly, that Israel be forced to open its reactor in Dimona to IAEA inspectors, to ensure that the country has developed nuclear energy solely for peaceful purposes rather than for producing dozens of atomic bombs, which foreign press reports say do, in fact, exist."
Eldar's scenario is not that far-fetched. He cites Flynt Leverett, the senior director for Middle East affairs on the National Security Council during President George W. Bush's first term in office, who stated "that on at least two occasions, Washington ignored conciliatory gestures from Tehran." Eldar continued:
"In a lecture he gave in June 2006 before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Leverett recalled that in the spring of 2003 - a short time after the U.S. invasion of Iraq - the Swiss ambassador to Tehran relayed to the White House an Iranian offer which included three elements: an agreement to launch negotiations with the U.S. administration over the nuclear issue, to adopt the Arab League initiative {i.e, the exchange of the occupied territories for full peace with the entire Arab world], and to cease support of Palestinian terrorist organizations based outside of the territories. The Bush administration ignored the message.
According to an article written by Leverett at the time, this was not the first time that an Iranian offer was met with a cold shoulder. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, he noted, Iran offered the Bush administration assistance in stopping the terrorism sowed by Al-Qaida and the Taliban. Bush preferred to adopt the 'Axis of Evil' strategy. In a New York Times op-ed piece which he co-authored with his wife, Hillary Mann Leverett, Leverett warned U.S. President Barack Obama not to repeat the same mistakes as his predecessor vis-à-vis Iran." Eldar writes.
It is possible that Iran will push for this kind of linkage again. Why not? For Americans and Israelis, United Nations resolutions on Israel and the Palestinians are mere suggestions while resolutions relating to Iran are demands that must be respected.
It should be no surprise that the rest of the world - and certainly not the Iranians - do not share that view.
It is unlikely that the United States would acquiesce to all the elements to which Leverett refers. But we might want to consider the possibility that Iran will offer this kind of trade. One way to avert being put on that particular hot seat is by promoting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process now. We can start by insisting that Israel completely freeze settlements - as the President has demanded - ease the blockade of Gaza and begin immediate negotiations toward the end of the occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state.
After all, those three demands already constitute US policy. We just don't try very hard to see them implemented. We should - not only to further our negotiations with Iran, not just for the Palestinians, but also for our ally, Israel, which can only look ahead to a bleak future until the occupation ends.
Cross posted Media Matters Action Network
Such a proposal would be dismissed as duplicitous. Iran would be accused intending to secretly continue developing nukes while seeking to weaken Israel so that her enemies could drive the Jews into the sea.
It's an interesting idea but the above is what Israel would say.
October 5, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
And they'd be right...
October 5, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The international nuclear criminals in some unspecified middle east state starting with the initial I, who ALREADY HAVE dozens of nuclear bombs, are distrustful of others? And why?
October 5, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, they can't be trusted because you say so.
Incidentally, how much duplicity did Israel engage in to develop its nuclear capacity?
But we're supposed to trust Israel.....?
October 6, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
What should happen? We should make the trade and force Israel, for the good of the world, to go along.
What would happen? It would be dismissed as a joke, for sure. If not dismissed, people would immediately accuse Iran of cheating. Folks would argue that we're letting Iran dictate terms to us, as if their pursuit of nuclear secrets (which is really just a pursuit of science, this stuff is elemental) is akin to terrorism.
And, that last part, in the end, is what people will say both overtly and not -- anyone who supports the trade will be accused of "negotiating with terrorists."
October 5, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel would never go for it, having the example of pre-war Czeckoslovakia and Neville Chamberlain in mind. They've seen enough sacrifices of other peoples "for the good of the world".
I have something better in mind. All United States "progressives", especially those of the Jewish variety, should be forced to trade places with Palestinians and other Arabs who don't like their situations. That would certainly vastly reduce tensions in the Middle East, vastly improve the reputation of the United States, and answer, once and for all, the accusation that "progressives" are generous only with other peoples' money.
October 6, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just returned from spending the High Holy Days in Israel. I found the attitude amoung Israelis I spent time with to be very disturbing (admitedly a skewed sample since I was in the settlements). First, there is great relief that Bibi has totally overpowered Obama. His backing off the settlement freeze and forcing Abbas to jettison the Goldstone report indicates that Israel retains the upper hand and that means no peace agreement will be necessary.
No one I talked to in the settlements is particularly worried about Iran, but they are grateful for diversion it creates for the settlements. Regardless of the public announcements about Iran as an existential threat, the settlers are convinced that sanctions will inhibit Iran so much that even if they develop atomic bombs their size and delivery capacity will be limited.(they joke about Iran would likely bomb Tel Aviv first so, nothing would be lost anyway) They also do not buy the fear that mutual deterence would not work with Iran. The settlers have one goal and that is to bring Judea and Samaria under Israel's permanent wing and they are gaining confidence every day that it will happen.
I hope someone in the US is watching and counting the 3,000 buildings that are supposed to be legally constructed. There is a tremendous amount of building going on and it sure did not look to be to be limited to 3000. By the way, the people in Ma'ale Adumim believe that some construction in the E-1 corridor will begin early in 2010. That will be Obama's big test because that will be the death knell on a viable Palestinian state. But the hints coming out of the Ministry of Housing and Construction to the settlers indicate that since Bibi is on a roll, he will keep on going.
The day of Palestinian "reservations" is drawing nearer and it does not seem like anyone can stop it.
October 5, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! So you hang out with fanatics and then wish to report that you heard some disturbingly fanatical things? That's like spending time in a place like Alabama and reporting a disturbing trend toward ostentatious religiosity.
Nonetheless, your friends in the settlements are quite possibly correct. One of the other characteristics you see in Israel is a lot of fatalism. As the years go by and Israel continues to prosper and Israelis go about their lives, it becomes harder and harder to argue that the conflict that surrounds them is anything but a natural part of the landscape, as eternal as the rocks and sand and mountains. Furthermore, while the existential threat to Israel has receded, Israelis ask themselves what is in it for them to make such sacrifices for "peace". What sort of peace is on offer anyway? A cold non-belligerence like with Egypt with extreme hatred seething just below (or on) the surface? For this Israel should tear itself apart trying to confront the settlers?
I think we here can argue all we like about how short-sighted this view is, what with the demographics being what they are etc. But from the Israeli perspective, I think a lot of people who are not settler fanatics ask themselves just this question. Even if by some miracle we were able rein in the settlers, how will this "peace" improve my life? Chances are, a lot of people are saying, "not very much."
October 5, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What insight. So the problem with apartheid was not that is was immoral, it was just that the white South Africans couldn't secure the country?
So if Israel is able to completely bludgeon the Palestinians into becoming "Finns," then Israel should do it? Because, as you have educated us on prior posts, the people who are being bludgeoned need to "reform" their society "root and branch." Only when they surrender any hopes of being free of Zionism in their own towns and villages and farmland will they be entitled to any rights?
You are a real piece of work, BTD.
October 6, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
They want to be free from Zionism in Tel Aviv. This is the issue.
October 6, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure you've interviewed every single Palestinian man, women, and child before you made this declaration.
Applying your method, if I can find one Zionist Extremist (like you, for example), I can extrapolate his views to every Zionist.
October 6, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the only issue: Palestinian right of 7 millions Arabs to "return" to Israel is non-negotiable. Palestinians demand that Israel agree to self-destruction, and they get mad that Israel refuses to oblige, and progressive Jews like MJ don't provide enough cover for Obama to help them with their goals.
http://www.palestine-pmc.com/details.asp?cat=7&id=199
October 6, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's an interesting question, although I suspect that morality is something that doesn't motivate too many people, especially if it runs counter to their own interests. It's easy to wag your finger from across the ocean and say that morality should trump all other concerns. It's quite a different perspective when it's your own life that's affected. That's not a value judgment on either South Africans, Israelis or anyone else for that matter. The same thing could be said of Americans in the South. That's just a fact.
For many years, through the 1980s, most South Africans were comfortably enough with their lives that they deferred making the tough choices to bring their country in from the cold. The worldwide boycott of South Africa was certainly a factor, but it was hardly decisive. South Africans lived with it. Until, that is, Nelson Mandela was released from prison in 1990 and he proved himself to be a leader that white South Africans could do business with. They decided, prodded by the enlightened leadership of FW De Klerk, the white South African Prime Minister at the time, to bite the bullet and remake their society.
Israel is nowhere near the same point that South Africa was in 1990. In the first place, Palestinians are vastly more responsible for their plight than black South Africans were during the apartheid era. Yes there was terrorism in South Africa, but it was sporadic and minor. By contrast, Palestinian nationalism is defined by terrorism. Second, over 70 years, Israel has made multiple attempts to solve the basic territorial problem, whereas South Africa never did. Third, the land itself is NOT unambiguously Palestinian. It is disputed. Furthermore, the land in question is central to Jewish history. Historically, the Jews have a valid claim to the land. Now as a practical matter, most people accept the need to preserve the rights of Palestinian land ownership in order to make a future state more viable. But that is not the same as saying the Palestinian right to the land is a moral case. It is not. It is a practical case.
Because of these reasons, and because of the basic prosperity and progress that Israel has made, Israelis don't feel the heat the way white South Africans did 20 years ago. Add the fact that the Palestinians don't have any leader with anywhere near the stature of Nelson Mandela, and you can see why Israelis are reluctant to remake their country the way South Africa did. They would be rewarding terrorism, they would be handing over power to a corrupt dictatorship of mediocrities, and they would stand to gain much in the way of tangible benefits. Sure, maybe they'd feel a bit more warmth from the rest of the world. But is that worth tearing the country apart trying to wrench the settlers away from the land? It's a tough case to make I think.
October 6, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That should be "would NOT stand to gain much".
October 6, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting statement:
" Historically, the Jews have a valid claim to the land."
WWhen did the world begin?
According to the Bible, the ancestors of the Jews first moved into the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea when Abraham moved there from the city of Ur. Then, under the leadership of Joseph, they voluntarily left to go to Egypt. Did that disqualify any claim they had to that land?
Later, under Joshua, the Israelites moved back into Caanan, displacing the people who had moved into that land in the meantime with orders from "God" to kill all the inhabitants.
Later, the Jews were disposessed of that land by the Chaldeans and taken into captivity.
During Roman times, the Jews were decimated and dispersed in 70 AD, only to return in 1948, 1878 years later, again displacing the people who had moved there in the meantime.
So, when did the world begin that the Jews have any legitimate, historical claim to this land?
The point is that the right to claim any land is in the present and is supported solely by the power to take and hold that land against all comers.
This is the same claim that the USA has over the claims of the American Indians for the territory of the USA.
Israel has that power in the present, so in effect, the world begins today for the Israeli's claim the Israel.
.
October 9, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad - Your dismissal of the South Africa example is, I believe, a little too glib. I find the parallels with Israel to be quite instructive. The Likud wants Palestinian "reservations" and that is the direction all the settlement activity is focused. If you listen to their politicians, not just Bibi, you will hear the words spoken quite clearly - autonomy not citizenship. The morality of disenfranchisment does not even enter their minds. Literally to hear them talk you would not know Palestinians were humans.
During my travels around the West Bank this past month, I witnessed Israeli surveyors east of the settlement Mevo Dotan lending credence to the rumor that the military base east of Qabatiya will be expanded into a settlement. This will cut Jenin off from the rest of the West Bank. The same thing is rumored to be happening to the military bases outside Qedumim and Itamar which would cut Nablus off from everything else.
You can already see caravans strung along the hills east of Ariel making a continuous Israeli settlement hooking up with Eli and Shilo. Ramallah and Bethlehem are already virtual population islands with only a few more dunams of land needed to complete their enclosure.
I give it 5 years for Israel's plan of "reservations to be finished. How long do you believe the world will tolerate a permanent disenfranchisment of the Palestinians after a viable state of their own becomes impossible?
October 6, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no way of independently evaluating your claims, so I won't try. But the basic point I think is correct. It is shortsighted of the Israeli government to promote continued settlement. I think that on balance it will eventually come back to haunt the country.
My point is that "eventually" can seem a long way off from today's perspective. In the short and medium term, there is very little upside for Israel to unilaterally confront the settlers for the foreseeable future. As long as the Palestinians remain hostage to barbarism, it provides a convenient excuse for politicians to do nothing about the long term problem. Which is why the Palestinian Authority is even more short-sighted than the Israeli government. If they were smart, they would call the bluff of Netanyahu and his ministers. Agree to whatever phony precondition Netanyahu wants. Just start getting the land and start building a state. As soon as possible.
October 6, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congrats, BTD. This one surely wins the "let them eat cake" award:
" Now as a practical matter, most people accept the need to preserve the rights of Palestinian land ownership in order to make a future state more viable. But that is not the same as saying the Palestinian right to the land is a moral case. It is not. It is a practical case."
October 6, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The blacks of Zimbabwe are dispossessing, killing, and forcibly expelling whites whose families have been resident for a hundred years or more. No complaints from you.
The Arabs were able to expel 800,000 to a million Jews from their countries during the period 1940-70. You haven't said a word about it...nor has anyone else.
The Chinese have dispossessed the Tibetans and are in the process of dispossessing the Uighers. Not a word from you.
There are many more examples. You don't focus on any of them. Only on the Jews. What is it with you? Who do you think you're fooling? What you call your morality is nothing but a fig leaf for Jew hatred and fear for your own well-being.
October 6, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are tiresome. So unless I complain about every evil in the world, I cannot complain about even one?
October 6, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad - The saying goes - you can choose your friends but not your relatives. That is the bane of my existence.
October 6, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eldar's journalistic masturbation is ludicrous.
Obama can't even get Israel to stop building settlements and expanding beyond what they already have. Why in heaven's name would anyone think the United States government has either the political will, inclination or power to force the Israelis all the way out of the West Bank or East Jerusalem in exchange for Iranian cooperation on enrichment? It's laughable.
The Obama administration wouldn't dare attempt to trade a massive Israeli withdrawal from territory the Israelis are painlessly absorbing and a long war they are clearly winning, given that the administration has essentially taken the position that it is Iran's responsibility to give up its enrichment capacity, dead stop. Can you imagine the ferocity of the howls that would arise in this country from a move that the pro-Israel camp would have no difficulty in painting as a Munich-like appeasement? The public relations battle would be over before it started.
Anyway, how would the US government get the Israelis out or make them stop their expansion, even if they were so inclined? There is no way. Generally speaking, the only way to get an expanding power to stop expanding into the territory it coverts is military action. And that will never happen. The US could try cutting off all government aid, and even sanctions. But aside form the fact that that will never happen either, it wouldn't work. The Israelis are too determined. They will take the economic hit and just keep going. Anyway whatever is denied them by the US government will be re-supplied openly or clandestinely by the Jewish communities in the US, Europe and Russia, including by the networks of gangsters, black-market traders and money-launderers who help keep Israel going.
It has been revealed for all to see that Obama simply has no cards to play. Whether he is serious or not doesn't matter at all, since he's not the boss. He's naked. It's over.
These kinds of opinion pieces are pathetic. Why do Jewish liberals torture themselves, and us, with these preposterous fantasies? I can't beieve that Israeli peace-campers continue to hold out the hope that the United States government, or some hero-president is going to come riding in to save the Palestinian state. Dope springs eternal.
The Palestinians will end up with a couple of semi-autonomus enclaves in "Judea and Samaria", and one in Gaza. There will be an "Arab-town" in Jerusalem. But the Israelis will settle most of the West Bank territory, and retain possession of a thick strip on the western bank of the Jordan. And everything will be under an overarching Israeli sovereignty and military control, no matter what kind of formal autonomy Palestinians are offered on paper. Israel's agenda now is to try to make sure that those enclaves don't end up as grotesquely unsightly and embarrassing apartheid homelands, and instead look something more like semi-prosperous "business zones". At least they will have a few fancy and shiny buildings to keep the world's attention off the slums. Call it the "Mohegan Sun option", or the "Dubai" option.
October 5, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan, with all due respect, people like Eldar and me are in the business of getting people to re-think their misconceptions.
Too many Americans know nothing about the I-P situation today and believe Israel is a helpless victim of terrible Arabs.
Knocking down those misconceptions is a start to getting new US policies that will end the occupation and achieve security for both peoples.
We work pretty hard at it too and we (and lots of others) are having an impact.
The bad guys are nervous as hell.
Change will come.
Calling us names is just unfair. Would you rather nobody take on the Israel first crowd?
October 6, 2009 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
People like you and Elder are in the business of deluding yourselves. If you want to take on the Israel-first crowd, get real and support BDS. There are many "misconceptions" that need debunking. The first, though, is your own that anything can change without serious pressure being brought against Israel.
October 6, 2009 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Presure to do what? Allow unlimited immigration of Arab to Israel, i.e., so called the right of return?
October 6, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Rosenberg is deluding himself...but not the way you think.
Neither Israelis nor Arabs are "victims". They are combatants and have been for more than 100 years. Nearly 1500 to be precise.
For most of that time the Jews were losers. Now the tables have turned. About time.
Rosenberg, for reasons I can't begin to fathom, believes peace between the two groups can be achieved if Israel relinquishes the occupation, its atomic capability, its jewish character, God knows what else. Since the overwhelming majority of Israelis don't agree he's convinced himself that its ok to get the United States to force them...but he still calls himself a Zionist, still claims to have the interests of the Jewish people at heart.
The rest of you are not so charitable, your concern for Jews ranging from indifference to non-existant.
October 6, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's right. the baby won't stop crying until it has all the cake.
October 6, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on. First, Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Then the world.
Oh, wait. You already believe Jews control the world.
October 6, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
October 6, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: You and agree on the outcome, but it's getting more and more obvious that Obama has failed.
He has internalized the "Israeli rules of negotiation", i.e., the US must press both sides to negotiate, but only threaten the Arabs. Israel risks no consequences for flouting the American President. When Obama is embarrassd, he can always prove he's "tough" by going after Iran.
I fear that David Seaton may be right. Should we "wake up" on Obama?
October 6, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama can't force Palestinians to accept Israel, as a Jewish state. Without that acceptance, what do you expect him to do?
October 6, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Still pining for apartheid, are you?
October 6, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not apartheid. Separation.
That's what was done on a huge scale at the conclusion of WWII - transfer in modern verbiage - in recognition of the fact that many groups could not live together and were not likely to learn to do so in any reasonable length of time.
In your case, however, I would make an exception. You should be permitted to stay where you like...so long as your fellow citizens agreed to treat you far worse than would be permitted with any dog.
October 6, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Separation"? Like separate but equal?
I do declare that Bull Connor is in the house.
October 6, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Separation like separate countries. Like India and Pakistan. Like forcing ethnic Germans out of Eastern Europe. Like moving Poland to the West. Like partitioning Yugoslavia and Czeckoslovakia along ethnic and religious lines.
What I meant was obvious but a race-bating scumbag like you chooses not to see it. You complain about racism in others but you're a terrible racist, aren't you? You want to complain only about one evil and have the nerve to cloak that complaint in morality. Murder is commonly thought to deserve punishment but what kind of justice would it be to single out and punish only one murderer? Would anyone believe in such justice? Any real person that is. I'm not talking about "progressives".
October 6, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a new demand, this bit about recognizing existence "as a Jewish state" for any of you trying to follow along and just a bit confused. Old demand was that Israel's right to exist be recognized; that's now been done and can be reaffirmed. Remember that?
So that old demand, right to exist, is thus no good as a provocation. That's why they recently added the "as a Jewish state," i.e., as an added antagonism to block peace. Without a stroke, Anna will accuse any and all who deviate from his appalling propaganda as vitriolic anti-Semites, of course, but that's how she sees her role: ninja-enemy of the truth.
Who's listening beyond the Joe-the-Plumbers of the world, though, one wonders...
October 6, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real question is the insistence Arab on their right to unlimited immigration to Israel to make sure that Jews will be a minority on Israel. This is what the conflict has been all about from the very beginning.
October 6, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, I would rather that people take on the Israel First crowd by forthrightly supporting firm action against Israel.
Israel is an aggressive nationalist state now ruled by a center right/far right coalition. It is never going to be driven out of its conquests by few more US liberals getting their consciousness raised.
Unless you are willing to play the same kind of hardball that your neoconservative opponents and their Israeli allies are willing to play, you can't defeat them. You might get more people to sign up for your organization so they can feel good about themselves, but their opposition will remain merely symbolic and ineffective.
In the end, liberal Jews in the US have enough outrage to speak out against Israeli aggression, but too much affection and partiality for Israel to act against that aggression.
October 6, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, only the far left has "enough outrage to speak out against Israeli aggression". Most liberal Jews - and indeed most liberals - don't take such a one-sided view of things.
Just get it through your head: Israeli "aggression", to use your terminology, is only one of many factors that perpetuate this conflict and only one of a number of issues to get outraged about. Most people don't take the one-sided view that you do because it's profoundly intellectually dishonest.
October 6, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The silliest thing about this proposition is believing that Iran will give up something of great value to the Iranian nation in exchange for Israel doing something good for non-Iranian Palestinians. The Iranians may have sympathy for the Palestinian cause, but they are not going to give up something that they believe is valuable to their nation to help a different people, no matter how much they support that different people. It's as if the US would offer to give up its nuclear program if only the Castro brothers were to step down.
This kind of delusion is only possible if one thinks of all Middle Eastern Muslim-majority nations as one undifferentiated mass. "You know, who can tell them apart? They all look alike . . . " It's also possible only if one's obsession with all things Israel has elevated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a significance it simply doesn't have to anyone but Jews and Palestinians. The rest of the world (including the Iranians) may have a horse in the race, but the stakes aren't really that high. It's absurd to think that any country will sacrifice anything of significance to solve a problem that affects it only marginally.
If MJ really wants to end the occupation, he should support BDS. BDS worked with South Africa and it might work against the Israeli equivalent of apartheid. But if MJ is unwilling to unequivocally condemn what Israel is doing and support sanctions against Israel, he's merely a silly eunuch, whining endlessly at an unnaturally high pitch.
October 6, 2009 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
This kind of delusion is only possible if one thinks of all Middle Eastern Muslim-majority nations as one undifferentiated mass. "You know, who can tell them apart? They all look alike . . . " It's also possible only if one's obsession with all things Israel has elevated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a significance it simply doesn't have to anyone but Jews and Palestinians. The rest of the world (including the Iranians) may have a horse in the race, but the stakes aren't really that high. It's absurd to think that any country will sacrifice anything of significance to solve a problem that affects it only marginally.
Amen.
October 6, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
the military-rabbi-settler complex has won. get used to it. western governments are complicit. that is i why i support BDS.
October 5, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Why not? For Americans and Israelis, United Nations resolutions on Israel and the Palestinians are mere suggestions while resolutions relating to Iran are demands that must be respected."
Uhmm...that's because they are different. There is a difference between Article VI resolutions on Israel (non-binding), and Article VII resolutions - like the ones on Iran (binding). A trifling matter of international law, M.J. But as ususal, don't let the facts bother you.
As to Iran giving up its nuclear program for anything at this point, it will never happen. Their thinking is: Look at how much we can get with a fledgling nuke program. Just imagine how much more we will be able to get when we have a bomb.
October 5, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is a Zionist arguing about "international law"?
Maybe we should have that argument after Israel signs the NPT.
October 6, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The real issue is the insistence of Iran, Palestinians and most of the Arab countries, that Israel should allow unlimited immigration of Arab to Israel, i.e., so called the right of return.
Only committed enemies of Israel, such as MJ, would insist that Israel should withdraw from the West Bank without guaranties that the West Bank will not be used by Iran for a low grade war with Israel, and without the final resolution of the refugee problems, Jewish refugees from ME and Arab refugees from Palestine.
October 6, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fully support the right of Jewish refugees to return to their countries of origin.
That, of course, has squat to do with the Palestinian Right of Return.
October 6, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jewish refugees returned to their country of origin.
Thank you very much for being honest about your dreams to destroy the Jewish state of Israel.
October 6, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gotcha!
So if Israel is their country of origin, then the Jews are not refugees.
Life is hard when you actually have to think for youself instead of cutting and pasting the thoughts of others.
(Sound of AnnaA frantically searching the Weekly Standard for a rebuttal.....)
October 6, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The obvious contract is that Iran stops any nuclear weapon program when Israel stops hers.
The skewed American logic that has allowed tiny Israel to be now estimated to be the 3rd most powerful nuclear weapon state in the world after Russia and the US, is not only inexplicable but, to any sane person not consumed with fundamentalist dogma, frightening and disturbing.
Who in their right mind would want to bring children into such a world? That is the question increasingly posed in a Europe that has no wish to be controlled by either Russia or America, or Israel.
October 6, 2009 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
October 6, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thought experiment: What would David Duke sound like if he converted to Judaism?
October 6, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
What would David Duke sound like if he converted to Islam?
Something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
October 6, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, AnnaA. I've re-read your posts and you've answered my thought experiment.
October 6, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.burnyourtodolist.com
October 6, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or what if Iran offered to cease enrichment in exchange for Israel disclosing what it knows about this?
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/movers-and-shakers/
October 6, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is the issue really Iran's nuclear program? Aren't we seeing the old neocon/Likud project play out? That durable scheme would have all Israel's enemies in the oil-rich region - Iraq, Syria and Iran - reduced to status of vassal states, never again to be threats to our oil supply or Israel's security. One down, two to go. Iran's nuclear ambitions are just a smokescreen. Why don't we discuss something more realistic, like exchanging lunar real estate for the keys to Israel's vast nuclear arsenal.
October 6, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go SFCurt:
Remember, the "fact" that Iran has a nuclear weapons program is brought to you by those same people who proclaimed that Saddam sought yellowcake from Niger, that Saddam had WMD's, that Saddam had mobile WMD labs, and that there was any connection between Saddam and Al Queda.
.
October 9, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to understand better what Eldar is up to with this column, and whether there is any real substance behind his speculations, but my basic reaction depends on neither of those unknowns.
I think MJ is right on here, and most of the criticisms in the comments above, even those that are constructively-intended (and to which due respect should thus be granted) yield about as much positive and convincing effect for the posters as Hamas or Hezbollah random trajectory rockets on Israel benefit Palestinians or Lebanese.
The simple fact is that a peacefully negotiated Palestinian state on the West Bank and a firm international constraint on nuclear weapons in the region, especially Iran, would be a huge and obvious WIN WIN outcome for the U.S.! And, of course the people of Israel and Iran, and the world community, too.
Of course, we can't trust the Iranian ruling clique not to cheat at the first opportunity. Of course, the Israeli settler maniacs would cry like the spoiled babies they are, and as they did when Sharon pulled them out of their Gaza playpens. The United States of America, if it can act rationally for once, has plenty of means at its disposal (including beaucoup allies) of getting these various Mideast barbarians to behave like members of civilization for a change.
If we had not had one of the, if not THE, simultaneously most harebrained AND pigheaded US presidential administrations of all time during 2001-08 we probably could have had such a "grand bargain" already, either in the wake of 9-11 when the whole world was ready to do our bidding (a rare opportunity monumentally squandered by the neo-con chickenhawk hypocrites) or a few years later when the Mother Sharon and Father Arafat of all Mideast roadmap Roadblocks conveniently died (there IS a God, after all).
Pulling such a deal off, and making it stick would not be easy, and there is no real evidence here that this kind of grand bargain is even on the current strategic radar screen of A-Jad and the Persian mullahs. But, absolutely, if they are or were to start making noises in such directions, Obama and Mitchell would have to disconnect 90% of their brains not to make every reasonable effort to capitalize on the opportunity.
Thanks for the fine reporting, MJ.
October 6, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
October 6, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Gaza playpens were evacuated, because their infantile zealot occupants were needed to reinforce the cement fortification settlements in the promised land of Samaria and Judea (a single one square inch of which could in fact be donated to a Palestinian sovereign state without Nazi stormtroopers immediately appearing at the door of every Jew in London, New York, and Timbuktu).
October 6, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The simple fact is that a peacefully negotiated Palestinian state on the West Bank and a firm international constraint on nuclear weapons in the region, especially Iran, would be a huge and obvious WIN WIN outcome for the U.S.!
Of course it would be. But it's not going to happen.
1. For numerous political reasons, the US will never trade an Israeli withdrawal from its West Bank colonies for Iranian cooperation on its nuclear program.
2. Even if the US did try to make such a trade, it clearly doesn't have the political will to see the deal through and make the withdrawal happen.
3. Even if it possessed the political will to make the withdrawal happen, it doesn't possess the political power to enforce its will.
Running around chasing after the latest half-baked liberal dream-of-the-week only gets in the way of understanding the political realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the US role in that conflict.
October 6, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes I wonder: Does America really want a settlement? Or does "defending Israel" serve as a more palatable reason to hang around the neighborhood than "defending Medieval Saudi monarchy"?
October 6, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Mother' Sharon is somewhat misleading.
He was known and is remembered with disgust as 'Butcher' Sharon - the Israeli 'commander' who allowed the massacre of hundreds of innocents in the Sabra and Shatila camps, by troops under his control, in a night of infamy, bloodshed and murder, whilst he was content to ignore the screams of the dying.
That is the only 'achievement' for which 'Mother' Sharon will be remembered. Ugh.
October 6, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mother of all roadblocks to peace.
Not Mother.
October 6, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJR,
Your speculation is a wonderfull thought experiment. But Iran see's the Palestinians as their Fool's Tool. And therefore, the Palestinians are deemed Iran's 'cannon fodder'.
Consequently, Iran relinquishing it's national self-interest, is not likely, even in the best of times. And as to Israel, Israel has learned the 'lessons' of the USA, and to the historical point that Irael will eventually arrive at the conception and construction of a Palestinina Rez that is equaivalent to the Native American Rez in the good old USA.
Of course, political 'framing' does have its applicability if it can find the Israeli version of America's Frank Luntz, and whom will craft the label of the "Palestinian International Zone" or even a "TransNational Development Zone" or some such alliteration and to be found acceptable among the international community.
And since the USA is Israel's "lawyer" perhaps, we should wait and see if Team Obama moves in the direction of these acceptable international labels?
Jaango
October 6, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJR,
Your speculation is a wonderfull thought experiment. But Iran see's the Palestinians as their Fool's Tool. And therefore, the Palestinians are deemed Iran's 'cannon fodder'.
Consequently, Iran relinquishing it's national self-interest, is not likely, even in the best of times. And as to Israel, Israel has learned the 'lessons' of the USA, and to the historical point that Irael will eventually arrive at the conception and construction of a Palestinina Rez that is equaivalent to the Native American Rez in the good old USA.
Of course, political 'framing' does have its applicability if it can find the Israeli equivalent or a version of America's Frank Luntz, and whom will craft the label of the "Palestinian International Zone" or even a "TransNational Development Zone" or some such alliteration and to be found acceptable among the international cognoscenti/odoriferous.
And since the USA is Israel's "lawyer" perhaps, we should wait and see if Team Obama moves in the direction of these acceptable international labels?
Jaango
October 6, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
be happy spider. israel has accomplished it's goal. you've won.
October 6, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be silly.
Israel has won a small battle, not the war. Even if it had, even if it had succeeded in driving all Arabs out of all the lands it conquered in 1967, it would still have a precarious existence, an island surrounded by a sea of enemies.
Look what happened to France of the Sun King, to the thousand year Reich, to the empire upon which the sun never sets, to the mighty Soviet Union, what is happening to us today.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. For everyone. Or, less pretentiously, maybe the comic book heroes understand reality better than the rest of us.
October 6, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
by won i mean that there won't be a palestinian state. there will be apartheid reservations wrapped up in a nice sounding word like "Palestinian International Zone" as Jaango writes above.
Look what happened to France of the Sun King, to the thousand year Reich, to the empire upon which the sun never sets, to the mighty Soviet Union, what is happening to us today.
duhhh...everything has a beginning, middle, and end. that is the nature of this world. suffering comes from wanting to make something which is transient by its nature into something which is eternal. show me one thing in this world that does not eventually come to an end. nothing escapes impermanence.
October 7, 2009 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apartheid reservations?
As far as Jews are concerned the entire Arab world is an apartheid reservation...or judenrein by design.
That doesn't bother you one bit.
October 7, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
As an AMERICAN, Spider,it WOULD very assuredly bother me greatly if unscrupulous lobbyists and other professional liars acting on behalf of Arab demagogues had been browbeating the US Congress for years, trying with paranoia-based intensity, shameless flaming hypocrisy, arrogant egomaniaical constancy and practically every BS trick ever invented, not to mention with considerable success, to continually bend American Mideast policy so that it is everlastingly dominated by their anti-Semitic crap.
The world is full of hateful bigoted and/or fanatical scoundrels, in many shades and stripes. Few of them go so far as to consider it their right to use gullible American dupes and amoral stooges to foist their garbage upon the politics and policy of the United States. Far fewer still have any success at perpetrating such outrages.
October 8, 2009 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take a pill.
October 8, 2009 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The lack of any willingness to compromise in the arguments being made here is perhaps indicative of the hopelessness of the I/P situation. Notwithstanding the sophistication and even the apparent erudition, you all sound, by and large, like a bunch of children in the school yard. 'Tis so ...'tis not ... 'tis too. I would suggest that you all swap sides and try arguing the case from the other's point of view. Walk a mile in the other's shoes and then sit quietly for a while and re-read and hopefully re-think some of the stuff you have written so glibly.
October 8, 2009 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink