dagblog - Comments for "Israeli Cabinet Fighting Over Netanyahu's Posture"

AA, Sorry I didn't get back

Bruce Levine — Fri, 04 Oct 2013 13:57:50 +0000

AA,

Sorry I didn't get back to you right away, was doing the LaGuardia travel shuffle in the afternoon.

First, I don't understand (that's an understatement) any Israeli are armchair American proponent of the country who expresses a view on whether "sides" should be taken when it comes to Shia or Sunni. Israel undoubtedly (as you and I have discussed I recall in the past) has contacts with representatives of virtually all of the countries in the region and elsewhere, because that's the buried side of international relations that is off the record for a reason. But going forward, I think most Israelis both inside and outside of government crave diplomatic relations with the Islamic world, without regard to sect, period. It cannot sustain itself without this long-term objective--it doesn't take an expert on that.

Second, Channel 2 is big-time Israel news, yes--ain't no Debka.

Third, Bibi, Bibi, Bibi. He is no dummy, believe me, but he doesn't seem to have a clue about Persian nationalism. What can you say except, Oy Vey.

Ciao.

Ok, on my whole question

artappraiser — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 23:42:03 +0000

In reply to All very interesting. This

Ok, on my whole question about showing preference to Sunni over Shia, when Shia are making promising signs of leaving anti-Semitism behind, I see part of the Bibi approach now, it's "appeal to the dissident Iranians not to trust". From Robert Mackey @ The Lede today:

Speaking on Thursday to BBC Persian, a satellite news channel widely viewed inside Iran, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pointed to the most indelible video of the brutal crackdown on dissent in 2009 as evidence that Iran’s people were being held hostage by an authoritarian government.

“The issue is this regime’s control of Iran, its aggressive designs, the brutalization of its own people, its own people,” he said. “We don’t forget. I saw Neda on the sidewalk, I saw her choking in her own blood. I saw the desire of the Iranian people to have real freedom, a real life. I know that it’s there.”

Unlike President Obama, who said in his address to the United Nations General Assembly last week that the United States was “not seeking regime change” in Iran, Mr. Netanyahu argued in his appeal to the Iranian people that they would never be free of the clerical theocracy if it armed itself with nuclear weapons.

In another part of the interview posted online by his office, Mr. Netanyahu continued to argue that Iran was bluffing over the ultimate aim of its nuclear program, slipping into Persian to cast the Iranian leadership’s “harfe pooch,” or “empty words,” as convincing only to “sadeloh,” or “dupes.”

Not that I don't think that that's not clueless about the link between secular Persian nationalism and the desire for to have nuke capability just as a point of pride, of equal standing. It's really surprising that someone like him wouldn't see any secular patriotism involved in Iranian pursuit of nuclear technology. Like they would all agree to give it up even though a much smaller country next door has it. And this part of the argument strikes me as ridiculous: appeal to the Iranian people that they would never be free of the clerical theocracy if it armed itself with nuclear weapons.

All very interesting. This

artappraiser — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 15:14:21 +0000

In reply to Thought this article makes

All very interesting. This struck my eye right away

One “high-ranking official” even came on a secret visit to Israel, the report said.

as in "sounds like Prince Bandar"

I presume that a TV station that is assigned channel 2 there would be considered mainstream media there, no? Not a wacko rumor monger outlet like, say, Debkafile? So it's a big deal for sources to reveal this to this particular outlet?

I glanced at the comments. The second one in line right now brings up a good point, though his last sentence, which I won't include, reveals he's got a ridiculously hyperbolic attitude about his point:

Jan Burton · Top Commenter · Toronto, Ontario

He's got it the wrong way around: it makes sense for Israel to join up with Shiites like Iran and Assad against the Sunnis.
It's the Sunnis who are the majority of hostile forces in the region. It's the Sunni Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia who spread Jew-hatred globally with their oil money. It's the Sunni jihadis who threaten to turn Syria into a chaotic terror-haven from which the "liberation struggle" for Palestine will be launched. And in case no one has noticed, the Palestinian Msulims are all Sunnis!.....

Now I know Hezbollah is an arch enemy forever for Israel, so that plays into the situation, so I'm not as naive as Jan Burton. But what he's getting at here is what bothers me about the Bibi/Likud attitude. Why show preference to government users of anti-Semite demagoguery against another group of government users of that in the past when they are now showing signs of rejecting it? Wouldn't you be better off showing preference to the group showing evidence of trying to tamper down the anti-Semitic demagoguery? What makes it such a sure thing that Shias can't be trusted? Because they have learned that they can work with Egyptian Sunnis? Are they relying on stereotype thinking themselves?

I get it that both Gulf Arabs and Israel don't want to see a nuke competition break out in the region. Still, what is the end game here. Doesn't Israel wish to end next door neighbors hating them, isn't that what they need to eventually work towards? In the end: nukes, suicide bombers, drones, what's the difference, if they hate you, they're going to torture you with whatever they can get.

An aside: you should save this quote for future debates about how Israel has the U.S. wrapped around it's finger:

Likud MK Tzachi Hanegbi, who is close to Netanyahu, indicated to The Times of Israel after the prime minister’s speech to the General Assembly on Tuesday that Israel was no longer certain that the Obama administration would use force against Iran even in a last resort to stop it attaining nuclear weapons.

Thought this article makes

Bruce Levine — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 13:41:20 +0000

In reply to Thanks for sharing your

Thought this article makes the point we were discussing last week, to wit, that Israel is hardly the only nation in the Gulf region that fears a nuclear Iran. Note at the end of the article, there is reference to a mistaken public budget entry a year or two back that exposed the opening an Israeli diplomatic mission of some sort in one of the Gulf States. From the link:

Israel has held a series of meetings with prominent figures from a number of Gulf and other Arab states in recent weeks in an attempt to muster a new alliance capable of blocking Iran’s drive toward nuclear weapons, Israel’s Channel 2 reported Wednesday. An Israeli minister said Thursday that it made sense for Israel and worried Arab states to work together, though he did not confirm the specifics of the report.

On Tuesday Netanyahu made it clear that “Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons” and could take military action to stop it from doing so. “If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone. Yet, in standing alone, Israel will know that we will be defending many, many others,” he stated.

He immediately added: “The dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran and the emergence of other threats in our region have led many of our Arab neighbors to recognize, finally recognize, that Israel is not their enemy. And this affords us the opportunity to overcome the historic animosities and build new relationships, new friendships, new hopes.”

He went on: “Israel welcomes engagement with the wider Arab world. We hope that our common interests and common challenges will help us forge a more peaceful future.”

Bibi gave his U.N. General

artappraiser — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 18:24:13 +0000

In reply to Israeli Cabinet Fighting Over Netanyahu's Posture

Bibi gave his U.N. General Assembly speech this morning. According to the U.N. General Assembly page, he was scheduled as the final speaker of the entire Assembly; the video and transcript aren't available there yet as I post.

Here's Reuters:

At U.N., Netanyahu calls Iran's president 'wolf in sheep's clothing'

The scheduling is kind of clever, as walk outs would not have any impact, as few would normally be in the room anyway?

Point taken. I'm sure that

Bruce Levine — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:28:49 +0000

In reply to I don't think it's unlikely

Point taken. I'm sure that some certainly fear Israel, and perhaps more tangibly to the extent some Iranians see more cooperation than you or I might from here between Israel and Turkey, and Israel and Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States.

I don't think it's unlikely

Verified Atheist — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:14:39 +0000

In reply to Some people say that Israel

I don't think it's unlikely that many Iranian officials drink their own koolaid. Although I also question their good faith, I do think it's possible that they're genuinely afraid of Israel's nuclear arms.

Some people say that Israel

Bruce Levine — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 15:22:17 +0000

In reply to I think you're right, but I

Some people say that Israel was on the verge of using its nuclear arsenal after Syria and Egypt overran Israel's front lines in the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Your question is a good one and a fair one, and if I were to answer it honestly I think it comes down to something more than what is rational--and it has to do with the decision of the Jews after the Holocaust--both inside and outside of Israel--that we will never, ever, ever again depend on anyone but ourselves to ensure our survival as a People. That said, Israel has purportedly had nuclear weapons since the 1960s; I don't believe most people would assert that it has them for anything but defensive purposes--which leads me to question the good faith of a position that Iran might take that ties Iran's agreement to Israel's own nuclear capacity.

I think you're right, but I

Verified Atheist — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:55:43 +0000

In reply to I think your question is

I think you're right, but I wonder what the actual utility of Israel having nuclear weapon is for them? It certainly hasn't deterred attacks from nearby enemies. I suppose it might be believed to deter an attack from Egypt or further away, but I don't know that anyone thinks that Israel would actually launch a nuclear strike when their other weapons systems are so much more advanced than most of their adversaries.

I think your question is

Bruce Levine — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:42:30 +0000

In reply to If I may play devil's

I think your question is completely reasonable, and I think that it's something that Iran needs to be assured about. But I would call that a "rich persons problem" because once we're there, we're basically past the main sticking point of Iran doing its own enrichment.

As I think about this, during the Bush Administration, Turkey and Brazil floated a proposal that they would be responsible for providing enriched uranium to Iran, and the "West" rejected that option at the time. Don't really recall the reasons why. At this point, however, it should be recognized that it's not just hard-liners who are demanding that Iran eliminate their internal enrichment program. It's also every permanent member of the Security Council, which of course includes China and Russia. So that's why I'm kind of curious about Traub's position on Iran's posture as I understand it in terms of being able to do its own enrichment.

There are many reasons, I think, that this deal won't work. My ethnocentric barometer says the deal is going down once Iran takes the position that there is no deal until Israel agrees to join the IAEA--because Israel absolutely will not do that (whether or not that's the right position).