Comments on: Nadler Blames Iraq War on Ignorant, Arrogant, Theorizing Neocons

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Nadler is smart just not smart enough to coin the necessary alliances to fix the problems of the Middle East.
He must stop the shallow slogan: I support Israel.
Which one represented by the 7 million citizens?
He should start with blunt criticism directed at all guilty people in the Middle East.
The amazingly decent many ordinary Israelis, Palestinians, Iraqis, Saudis, Iranians must know that there are large numbers of nasty barbaric citizens among them who preach false political, religious, and chauvinist dogmas.

If Nadler is honest, he would propose a clean up of the rotten figures in the Middle East.

The conflict is not between Israel and the Palestinians.

It is a conflict between decent and barbaric.

Most Israelis have relatives on the other side. There were mixed marriages in all diasporas.

Many Palestinians are descendants of Jews.

The Sharons, Begins, Ovadias, Arafats, Haniyahs, Meshals are the indicent dogmatic people, who poison the atmosphere.

For peace, we need an alliance between enlightened and more or less secular people.

Some religious sentiments can be carried on privately, but no religious argument can not be carried in to the public forums.

The Jewish diaspora failed in the assimilation because of the rabbinical limitations.

The Jewish and Islamic theology must be thrown in the dustbin of history.

The remaining secular decency must be the basis for a compromise.

By: David

David — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

I usually find Phil's writing crystal clear, but this piece confuses me. Just what is so brilliant about Nadler's analysis? Didn't Wolfowitz already tell us back in 2003 that "the truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason."

Surely brilliant isn't the right word for someone who says with a straight face, "Itâs as wrong to say that the road to peace in Iraq goes through Jerusalem as it was for the neocons to say that the road to peace in Jerusalem and Israel goes through Baghdad... You should not try and link these two things."

By: Larry

Larry — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

If the Neocons were wrong to believe that toppling Sadam would ignite a democratic revolution in the Middle East, it also seems likely that those who claim that peace will be brought to the region by reaching an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians are equally deluded. This is not to diminish the urgency of peace in Jerusalem, or the region.
Let's be clear: all politics are local. Why didn't Saddam simply admit that he had no WMDs to avoid a U.S. invasion? It turns out he was worried about the Iranians next door. He wanted them to think he might have WMDs. He also didn't blow up the bridges across the Tigris and Euphrates to block the advance of American troops because he thought he would need the bridges to send troops across to fight the Iranians and his own people.
Bush launched the war in Iraq to insure his reelection. He thought it would be a cake walk. And he wanted to do what his Dad didn't do. The Neocons put a nice gleam on the enterprise and Karl Rove approved it.
Nadler supports Israel unflinchingly because he is a New York City congressman and wants to keep his job.
Forty years ago, the United States went to war in Southeast Asia on the premise that Communism was monolithic. Four years after the Vietnamese took Saigon and won the war, they were at war with their erstwhile allies, Communist Cambodia and Communist China. Anyone familiar with the history knew that those enmities were a thousand years in the making.
I don't know much about Iran and Iraq but I bet that after the U.S. withdraws, as it eventually will, the so-called Shiite Crescent will begin to fracture. This will happen regardless whether Israel and Palestine reach a modus vivendi.
The Jewish Left should focus its meagre resources not on scoring points against the already discredited Neocons but by showing American politicians that the majority of American Jews do not support war in Iraq or Iran. Sadly, the language of American politics is money. When contributions begin flowing from the left, politicians will begin to take greater notice.

By: No Namer

No Namer — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Nadler smart? Are you kidding me? He is still hung up on that democracy excuse that was thrown in after they haven't found any WMDs. Wasn't that a couple of excuses ago, If Nadler is smart, then Fritz Hollings all true leftists must be Einsteins.

Nadler is probably considered brave for using the word neocon, but we are not in 2003 anymore and his bravery would be considered politically brave but is considered truly brave with a subscripted "b".

By: anon

anon — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

But the majority of American Jews DO support a war in Iran, just as they supported a war in Iraq.

What are the principles of this Jewish Left you speak of? I didn't know "left" had ethnic versions.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

"Anyway, Wisse said quite a few things I found amazing. One was instructing these young journalists and budding intellectuals that they should think of themselves as a kind of adjunct to the Israeli army and ignore all intellectual distinctions, issues of personal honesty, moral complications, etc., and just defend Israel against its attackers..."
Alterman

David, thanks for the link to Alterman's. By the way, don't you think even the commentators in this blog have been under such spell? Take a look at this:

"If the Neocons were wrong to believe that toppling Sadam would ignite a democratic revolution in the Middle East, it also seems likely that those who claim that peace will be brought to the region by reaching an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians are equally deluded."
Larry

How cute this Larry. Making a causal connection between two unconnected events. The first a proven lie which we despise, the second being the very first step in a long list of "to do" tasks his beloved Israel must tackle before it is considered something more than a bag of corrupt rogue cats. So much for verbal cleverness.

And did you see the way they manipulate the british hostage treatment in the other thread: "oh then Ahmadinejad lied when he said the Pied Piper of Hamelin had caught those boys. Force was used, oh bad, bad, evil iranians".

A little more time and they will start saying the real sailors were beheaded and golems were sent in their place. Ridiculous.

By: Phil Weiss

Phil Weiss — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Maybe i gave Nadler too much credit. I was just amazed to hear a poltician speaking so franklyabout something usually so swathed in euphemism.
Larry makes a number of great points. I had no idea about WMD and Iran in Saddam's strategic thinking. I take his point re Nadler's district.
I differ on a couple points. I dont think neocons and the left are equally deluded when it comes to our belief that the I/P situation must be fixed. I have specifically said that fixing I/P will not bring peace to the region and will not make Islam modern. I accept that there are BernardLewisish factors at work here. Dealing with the I/P injustice is simply a moral imperative and essential to American foreign policy. It's a blot as large as the segregated south in the 60s. The Freedom riders werent going down there to improve the economic status of blacks in northern cities--they were moved by a hateful situation.
Also I differ with Larry re the Jewish left. He seems to conflate the Jewish majority with the Jewish left. I say, the left is the left. It's not centrist. And right now the Jewish left, which has been essential to the American progressive movement over the last 50 years, is basically AWOL on Iraq. Maybe it won't ever be the braintrust for the left again. But right now Jewish libs and lefts are splintered intellectually. Because in their camp, converting people, are thinkers like Thomas friedman, Ken Pollack, and Paul Berman, all of whom (out of Jewish chauvinism, I believe; the Ruth Wisselike identification w/Israel) have said that a Tel Aviv pizza parlor suicide bomber is the same as the 9/11 suiciders, an attack on the west. They have conflated american and Israeli interests and in P and B's books re IRaq, utterly elided the occupation and the condition of Palestinians as a source of real grievance to Arabs across the region. Disgorging the neocons also means a bloodletting within the Jewish left over Who drank the neocon/neolib koolaid?
Lots of folks.
I agree with Larry that politics is local. That is my greatest confusion about Israel. It calls itself a western country, a european democracy, though it is 500 mles east of Istanbul. Israelis dont like their neighborhood, though their ancestors, by and large, chose that neighborhood. We have sustaied their contempt for their neighbors with the Israel lobby, whch says Do what you like to those animals, we will support you.
I am a progressive and an optimist. I believe that when politics truly becomes local, and these neighbors perceive their shared interests and cease to be clientstates, they will strengthen as nations and perceive shared interests; there will be a true border effect, and Ramallah and Tel Aviv ad Damascus will flourish economically and intellectually and culturally...