|
|
View My Stats |
 Subscribe in a reader |
|
|
March 22, 2009
MJ Rosenberg's "genius post"
According to Mondoweiss, "MJ Rosenberg has a genius post about Israeli President Shimon Peres sending his New Year's greeting to Iran right on the heels of Obama's greeting to Iran." Rosenberg asks:
Did [Israel] respond with a hasty and insulting message in order to kill the effect of President Obama's? If so, it was a serious breach. If the shoe was on the other foot, Jerusalem would go ballistic.That's an interesting display of naive faith in Obama's ability to leap Iranian intransigence in a single conciliatory bound unless he's thwarted by Israeli kryptonite. And the attitude towards Iran is totally condescending. There is no sense at all of Iran as a country with its own agenda and interests. Iran is staking quite a bit on its nuclear program. It isn't just some momentary whim that is going to evaporate at the first sign of a U.S. change in tone. Iran has defined itself for decades by its anti-Americanism and it is reaffirming it now. They aren't going to change everything they stand for any time soon. The only thing that could conceivably open the door for diplomacy to accomplish something would be a convincing demonstration of willingness to use force if it doesn't. See here also. (h/t: memeorandum)Some reporter needs to develop a tick-tock on this one. We need to know what happened. If it was an innocent coincidence, fine. If it wasn't, it bodes ill for any US attempt to mend relations with Iran (and prevent an Iranian bomb diplomatically rather than by attempting and failing through military means).
Crossposted on Judeopundit
Posted by Judeopundit at March 22, 2009 4:13 AM
Hezbollah in passive voice
A cynical and mistrusted offer
Wapo: peace process succeeding because of the great work of the administration
Council speak 100610
Nyt: peace process failing despite the great work of the administration
Do we have enough regulations yet?
Iranian General: "US, Mossad played roles in 9/11 event"
Absolving arafat, ten years later
Rahm can't run? antisemites!
The politics of peace
I can't believe how pathetically naive and stupid people like M.J.Rosenberg are. They really believe that appealing to the non-existent humanity of inhumane savages and reading them poetry will make these mullahs relinquish nuclear weapons and the power it will give them.
The only diplomacy I would conduct with Iran is to say either you dismantle your nuclear program, or we will do it for you.
Posted by: Laura at March 22, 2009 12:58 PMLaura, I hope you're kidding. Israel has an extremely aggressive nuclear program, and many experts believe that these weapons, along with chemical ones, were used in the Lebanon offensive in the summer of 2006. The only reason Iran is (allegedly) pursuing a nuclear program is that they are actually afraid of Israel and are just trying to protect themselves and their interests, which I see no problem in.
Posted by: common sense at March 22, 2009 3:56 PMI hope you're kidding or being ironic in calling yourself "common sense". It sounds like you are doing a parody of a leftist. You can't possibly be serious in what you said. Israel using nuclear and chemical weapons in Lebanon? There is no allegation too absurd for the haters of Israel to make. You are a sick joke.
Posted by: Laura at March 22, 2009 6:55 PMDear "common sense" __ "many experts"???? There is no way Israel could have used nukes in Lebanon without leaving copious evidence. See, nukes are radioactive. Moreover, using nuclear weapons a few miles from your own inhabited country isn't considered a viable tactic due to the fallout and radioactive residue in the air, etc.
More to the real point: Iran has consistently said it is not building nuclear weapons, but only "peaceful" nuclear power. That has been the only real defense provided by Iran and its apologists (including those making zillions supplying and building the research and development facilities.
However your argument assumes (albeit with the "allegedly") that Iran is, in fact, building weapons. If Iran admitted such, it would have much more difficulty in pursuing this program, which will endanger the Western world.
The idea that such a program is only "defensive" has no support. If Iran wasn't building nukes and missiles to carry them, Israel wouldn't be concerned and certainly wouldn't want to attack Iran. Before the nuke/missile program, Israel didn't make any noises about going after Iran, and the only reason offered now is to take out the nuclear capability before it develops to the point of imminent danger to Israel (and anyone else in range of the missile delivery systems).