NPR has given Jeffrey Goldberg a platform for his argument that Israel is going to strike Iran and that the U.S. better help out because Israel can't do it on its own. Tom Ashbrook's program On Point. You will see that the piece was preceded by a bunch of disclaimers, that Goldberg has never heard a war drum he didn't dance to, that the piece is provocative, controversial, etc. And Goldberg's argument is countered by Atlantic's Robert Kaplan. Haven't listened to the broadcast, but what about a real debate; why not Steve Walt or Glenn Greenwald of Jim Lobe or myself, writers who have all taken on the Israelcentric looniness of Goldberg's argument?
P.S. Notice how the commenters at the On Point site are almost all against this bellicosity. One of them makes the point that Walt made a year or so back; you have the third-holiest site in the Muslim world in Jerusalem, and millions of Muslims living within 100 miles of it. And Iran is going to nuke Israel?
Why doesn't NPR put on Noam Sheizaf, Israeli journo, who says that Goldberg is carrying the water for Netanyahu and the military establishment, and leaving out many anti-Iran-strike voices inside Israeli society?
I must say that I also don’t feel a great anxiety in the Israeli public regarding Iran, or at least not what you would expect if Israelis really believed that they are facing a second Holocaust. People don’t discuss this issue so much, and when they do, you don’t get this sense of mass hysteria I got from Goldberg’s article.
They could put on Juan Cole to counter Goldberg. He’s a known media presence.
But they won’t. You should have heard Goldberg and Ashbrook going at it. Goldberg especially was ridiculing the “far left” media and mocked Glenn Greenwald as a “humor columnist.”
Additionally, most of the call-in guests were critical of Goldberg’s blatantly pro-Israel/pro-Zionist viewpoint and Tom Ashbrook kept cutting them off. Every time. The low point was the caller who pointed out a blatant contradiction in two of Goldberg’s articles regarding the Iraq war — one from before, and one from now — and Ashbrook had the gall to berate the caller with, “And what is your point?”
This is why I can’t be bothered to listen to NPR programming any more, unless it’s Prairie Home Companion or the other Saturday entertainment fare. And I don’t plan on renewing my pledges. NPR is right up there with the other drums for war and anti-Muslim hate mongering.
Greenwald tore Goldberg a new a-hole in his recent column. Chubby Goldberg had to get back somehow.
Tony Judt would have been a good choice too.
Goldberg couldn’t help himself in that interview- saying that Greenwald “retracted” some of his crticism of his piece;
link to salon.com
Needless to say, Glenn did no such thing, but who cares right? Greenwald wasn’t there to call BS on Goldberg, so Jeff just keeps on lying.
Phil,
Lay out your argument. So far you’ve made snipes only.
“you have the third-holiest site in the Muslim world in Jerusalem, and millions of Muslims living within 100 miles of it. And Iran is going to nuke Israel?”
This would seem to be a compelling argument, except for the use of force by different Muslim factions on their various holy sites. There has been fighting and riots even in Mecca, and MANY significant bombings of shrines that are regarded by Shia and Sunni commonly, but under one or the other control.
Is that the basis of your confidence, that by your reasoning it doesn’t makes sense for you to do?
So, you accuse Phil of doing exactly what you do to him all the time, then you follow it up by “countering” a very cogent argument be defaulting to the “savage violent Muslims prone to sectarian violence” canard.
Clearly, the very best intellectualism Zionism has to offer.
Why don’t you talk about the article, incidentally, Witty? Why don’t you talk about Goldberg? Why don’t you talk about Israel starting a war with Iran?
So how many Muslims would destroy the Dome of the Rock? Name them. Christians have destroyed churches in wartime–how many Catholics would plant a nuclear bomb on the Vatican? Fighting in or near a sanctuary–sure, and yes, there’s been fighting in Mecca, but would any Muslim group drop a nuke on Mecca or Jerusalem?
Or is it your contention that those Iranians are just suicidally crazy, with no love for their own traditions, their own power or anything. That’s a standard dehumanizing piece of reasoning you are employing. Taken seriously, it’s a justification for doing to them what you imagine they’d do to Israel. Because, you know, they’re so crazy, so utterly beyond rational calculation you just have to wipe them out. That’s what’s bad about this rhetoric–you turn yourself into the sort of ruthless fanatic you imagine the Other to be.
The Iranian government is brutal and thuggish, but well within the usual limits of brutal thuggish governments (like Israel, for that matter, or the US). You can expect them to violate human rights and lie about it–there’s no good reason for imagining that they are like cartoon villains out to destroy their own country if they can take Israel with them.
That’s the Zionist propaganda, isn’t it? That “Muslims” will bomb other Muslims including their religious “shrines”.
I mean, sure there have been attacks on Shiite holy places in Iran, but it’s not quite clear who carried out those attacks. What I do know for sure is that Cheney as related by various Seymour Hersh articles, had authorized clandestine sabotage operations against to be carried out inside Iran, mainly by a group called Mujahideen al-Khalq.
Furthermore, it’s common knowledge that Jerusalem is regarded as the third holiest place in Islam, after Mecca and Medina — both of which are in Saudi Arabia — be it among Shia Muslims or Sunni Muslims.
It’s unfortunate that your comment has the typical Israel/AIPAC spin to it.
Simply put, no there haven’t. ALL the attacks on holy sites in Iraq have been of one faction attacking a site holy only to the other. During the one violent event that happened in Mecca, extreme care was taken by all sides to make sure there wasn’t any damage to the holy sites and that ordinary pilgrims weren’t affected.
That Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel goes against all logical thinking – it would be a suicide mission for Iran
Yeah..
except for the whole crazy Juhayman affair. But that was an exception.
There is always a difference between you scolding your son and me doing so for same issues.
I’m saying that Phil is conveying the argument that an ideologically motivated Muslim would “never” harm other Muslims, as a basis of confidence that Iranian nuclear proliferation is just incidental, unimportant.
And, it just ain’t so.
It demands seriousness, not pandering. And, it demands that the political context and implications are on the table and candidly discussed as Goldberg asserted.
You confuse suspicion for certainty.
Make the better argument, NOT the better argument for censorship.
“ideologically motivated Muslim ”
What does it mean?
1-Hamas has idelogy
2-Al quiad-has
3-Iran has
4-Sects in Nigeria and Aceh have their own when they want Shraia
but doesn’t agree with each other.
There is no confluence of the above to one point.
Iran has not become an issue overnight.It has been demonized by the interconnected groups from 1991 once Iraq was eliminated by G Bush Sr .Nuke along with a host of other was an issue then and was equally false as was the rest of the excuses offered by Israel and its minions in US/UK/Germany from 1991.
Why Iran will nuke Israel? There are expalnations offered by B Lewis,Krauthammer,Ledeen,Corsi,Wurmser-Abrams,and by Bolton along with all Israeli leaders of all stipes. Their explanation is based on religious interpretation of bringing the “Hidden imam” back to usher the world into a divine kingdom. It is a sheer projection of a fanatsy nurtured by thier religious friends known as Evangelics, th ebliver of “end time”.
Parsimony or belief in Ochams’razor will help us to figure out what is obvious .The obvious is this a neuclear Iran when atatcked by US or Isarel will have sheer repurcussion on them whcih a non -neuclear Iran will not be able to produce. It is like India and Pakistan in 1987 or in 1999, or Soviet Russia and China in 1960s. Isarel will also be careful next time it makes a sortie on Lebanon or Syrian sky as they ahve been donig since 2002 in the darkness of antimuslim hatred in the West.
Greenwald wrote today that Goldberg lied through his teeth about Greenwald on the NPR show.
Jeffrey Goldberg’s fabrication on NPR
More rank dishonesty from the Atlantic writer
link to letters.salon.com
NPR as one more propaganda outlet… too bad really, but no surprise either i suppose… kudos to greenwald for saying it like it is on the phony bsing of goldberg…
Yeah. There was no real debate. Robert Kaplan was barely on for five minutes and much of that time was spent with him and Goldberg patting each other on the back.
Kaplan is a fairly extreme militarist–here’s an Atlantic piece where his worship of the military and of US imperialism is completely undisguised–
link
Jeffrey Goldberg is a classic [expletive deleted by webmaster] This guy syas on NPR that Glenn Greenwlad has retracted accusatory notes aginst him (Goldberg).Glenn contcats him .Jeffrey apoloziges for cliaiming so.Then he enters in his own blog that he is sorry to inform that Glenn is not retracting despite offerring him a chance to do so.
What a pathetic animal he is and what kind of doghouse has NPR morphed into.!
“Jeffre Goldberg’s fabrication on NPR”
http://www.salon.com 20th Aug by Glenn Greenwald.
Everything Goldberg writes is a fabrication. Liar is the proper term to describe him.
Goldberg said overtly that he was opposed to an attack, and that his reasoning of publishing was to inform of the issues for the purpose of articulating the reasons and strategies to avoid war, NOT to promote war.
Make the better argument.
You mean like an argument that doesn’t require one to lie about Muslim violence? One that doesn’t, to paraphrase Gold Meir, “make us kill their children?”
“Make the better argument.”
Here it is Witty and it’s very simple:
Why would a nuclear Iran strike Israel knowing that Israeli retaliation would mean mutual destruction?
What better guarantee that two countries would never confront each other when the said countries are both nuclear?
If questions about Phil’s assertions can’t be answered confidently, then he probably isn’t the person to make the better argument, whatever that may be.
Walt, hard to know?
Maybe Goldberg is the best representative to convey the reasons that enabling Israel to bomb Iran is dangerous.
Your (collectively) cheap shots, don’t make a better argument. Greenwald’s petty bickering for example only serves Greenwald, not humanity.
Phil taking up Greenwald as some great man of integrity fending off the “lying” Jeffrey Goldberg, is similarly petty.
Make the better argument already.
Bizarre. TGIA made an argument and you ignore it. Why would Iran launch nuclear weapons at Israel knowing they would be destroyed in return? There’s zero evidence that Iranians are irrational this way. People have made that point and others and you’ve ignored them all.
Your “make the better argument” is just another one of your tiresome catchphrases–people make arguments here all the time and you rarely refute them–instead you pretend that nobody has made an argument and then you repeat “make the better argument” again. Follow your own advice. And another thing–your judgment of what constitutes an argument isn’t something that can or should be respected, given your behavior. I’ve said it before–there are liberal Zionists that I think deserve respect because they listen to the other side and admit rather than whitewash Israeli crimes. Henry Siegman, for one. If you were like him you’d be worth listening to and your judgments about the quality of arguments here would have some weight.
I’m not convinced that Iranian regime is rational in the sense that they would restrain themselves from pressing for regional advantage.
For any deterrent to function as a deterrent, then it needs to be presented as a serious threat.
So, you really can’t have it both ways. If its not a serious threat of use, then why would Iran want/have it? And, if it is a serious threat of use, then it is a serious threat.
“Make the better argument” does not apply to this limited cul-de-sac. It applies to the world, to the halls of power, of actual decisions. It implies taking the responsibility, and the confidence, that one’s better argument is in fact an improvement on the convetional wisdoms.
Thats if one is serious. We, that play at this, post here.
RW, of all people, you should recognize Goldberg’s game — it is called dissembling. Of course, he says he is against attacking Iran (once you find the caveats to that statement it is totally meaningless). We all know the arguments — it is basically laying out the case that unless Iran does as we and Israel demand, then the will be attacked (but boo hoo, that is the last thing that we want). To put it in simpler terms that even you should understand — either Iran capitulates or we will attack.
The oppossite is true of Goldberg, from my read and the NPR interview.
If anything, he is saying that the reasoning that would convince a naive president (say George W) to undertake military efforts should NOT be convincing to a knowledgable one (say Obama).
The neo-conservatives argued throughout the late nineties to invade Iraq, and on similar reasoning. The arguments didn’t hold water. It took a less sophisticated president guided by opportunists (Cheney and Rumsfeld, both NOT Jewish) and pandered by loyal responsible realists (Powell), to enact the Iraq War.
You want to counter the argument, make an actual better one.
I came to appreciate that NPR was the favored media outlet of the Israel Lobby when listening to an interview with the poor suffering Israelis ordered out of Gaza in 2005 after Israel reversed course regarding its original decision to establish settlements in Gaza. There was no mention of Palestinians. I sensed at the time I heard the broadcast that this is the kind thing the Germans heard over their radios about the poor suffering Germans in the Sudetenland in advance of the Munich Pact.
National Propaganda Radio’s mandate is to prepare Americans for war.
About a year ago, I read an interview with the right-wing Zionist, professor Robert Aumann (Nobel Prize, Game Theory, Hewbrew U-Center for the Study of Rationality, Professors for Strong Israel) in a Brazilian weekly mag (Veja).
His take on this issue “Iran is the new Nazi Germany“ ….was that it is very unlikely that Iran would ever attack Israel….and thus….there should be no worry….about Ahmedinedjad and Iran.
What may be a leaked riposte to Goldberg’s warmongering appeared in the Times today. Excerpts:
————
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, citing evidence of continued troubles inside Iran’s nuclear program, has persuaded Israel that it would take roughly a year — and perhaps longer — for Iran to complete what one senior official called a “dash” for a nuclear weapon, according to American officials.
Administration officials said they believe the assessment has dimmed the prospect that Israel would pre-emptively strike against the country’s nuclear facilities within the next year, as Israeli officials have suggested in thinly veiled threats.
“We think that they have roughly a year dash time,” said Gary Samore, President Obama’s top adviser on nuclear issues, referring to how long it would take the Iranians to convert nuclear material into a working weapon. “A year is a very long period of time.”
American officials said new intelligence information was being fed into a long-delayed National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program.
link to nytimes.com
————
This article has the flavor of an official leak. Rather than confront Israel and the Lobby head-on, the Obama regime is signaling that Israel would be way off base by jumping the gun to attack now, when any Iranian nuclear capability is at least a year away.
Obama is stalling for time, in other words. And ensuring that the insane rantings of ‘Mr. Milk Mustache’ — John Bolton — aren’t left uncountered.
Better indirect resistance to Israel than cringing submission. Let’s hope NPR and other faux-liberal agitproppers got the memo.
“Goldberg opposed the attack”
Yes Rumsfield opposed Abu Ghraib and Wolfowitz opposed Iraq attacks and Micahel Ledeen never supported any attacks on Iran.
zionists against war… it has a nice ring to it, lol… the ring of hypocrisy…
NPR also beat the War-Drums in an ‘All Things Considered’ interview with Jonah Goldberg and The New Yorker’s John Lee Anderson, ‘moderated’ by Robert Siegel … tag-teaming their twin ‘hit-piece’ narratives on Iran … Goldberg’s ‘Point of No Return’ and Anderson’s ‘After the Crackdown’.
What was it that Andy Card said about the marketing campaign in the push to war with Iraq? …. ‘From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August’ … but perhaps with the midterms and the remaining primaries to handicap they decided to get a jump on the news cycle before things get too busy … with the added bonus that with the NY Mosque controversy reaching fevered pitch … they can make ‘getting tough on Iran’ and the corollary {‘tough on Muslims’} bona-fied campaign issues … at least to the extent that they can get all the candidates to state on the record exactly ‘how tough’ they intend to be … such promises made while campaigning have proven quite useful to box a politician into a position permanently; just ask Obama.
Listening to the NPR piece gives one the clear impression that Iran is entirely belligerent to diplomacy and hell bent on developing a nuke … the impressions implied by both Goldberg and Anderson relied on a series of fuzzily defined presumptions that went entirely unchallenged by Robert Siegel.
Provoking controversy around the Mosque, and promoting the narrative that Israel will surely attack Iran rather than live with the ‘existential threat’ … earns good propaganda points all around as it serves all sorts of purposes … one which Goldberg articulates … that the Israeli threat to bomb Iran is used as a diplomatic tool by the US to cudgel China and Russia to sign onto sanctions … while the sanctions are cited to the American public as evidence that Iran is defying the international will and the UN … are cleverly crafted distortions that loosely bind them together while obscuring the realities behind both … that efforts to prevent the Mosque are a violation of First Amendment protections, and that US – Israeli instigated sanctions imposed on Iran via the UN are an illegal abrogation of the NPT.
One final cynical purpose that I suspect is behind the constantly ratcheting threat rhetoric is the hope that Iran will become so alarmed at the possibility that they eventually will decide {as a deterrent measure} to divert some of its LEU stockpile to a cascade for higher enrichment … and get caught red-handed … and thereby provide the smoking gun to justify it all … the coercive sanctions, the escalating threat rhetoric, and the eventual promised attack.