‘Washington Post”s new blogger promptly calls for supporting human rights in Iran– and killing Iranian scientists

Israel/Palestine
on 32 Comments

The Washington Post has replaced the American Enterprise Institute as the primary hub of neoconservative arguments for U.S. aggression in the Middle East. AEI served  a Republican administration, and cannot perform that role for Democrats. So the Post is now doing the job, percolating militarist ideas for the Obama administration. Old wine in a new bottle. Jennifer Rubin is the latest hire, fresh from Commentary magazine, arguing for an attack on Iran:

we should begin to make the case and agree on a feasible plan for the use of force. When there is a credible threat of force — not occupation or invasion, but strikes sufficient to hobble Iran’s nuclear program, military and Revolutionary Guard — the decision-making calculus may change. What of the notion that the nation will rally around the flag if attacked?

I don’t think she even considers the inevitable result, that Americans will be targeted everywhere. Also, is this merely the sequel to Jeffrey Goldberg’s piece in the Atlantic: the Israelis will do it, but they can’t really do it, therefore the U.S. must do it…

Oh and check out this transition:

we should continue and enhance espionage and sabotage of the Iranian nuclear program. Every nuclear scientist who has a “car accident” and every computer virus buys us time, setting back the timeline for Iran’s nuclear capability, while exacting a price for those who cooperate with the nuclear program. Think of it as the ultimate targeted sanction.

Third, we need to make human rights a central theme

32 Responses

  1. Potsherd2
    December 13, 2010, 12:38 am

    Terrorism isn’t terrorism when “we” do it.

    • eljay
      December 13, 2010, 7:58 am

      >> Terrorism isn’t terrorism when “we” do it.

      Another thing the U.S. and Israel have in common.

      The funny thing about her hateful article is that it could essentially apply – almost point-by-point – to Israel. Examples:

      >> I would argue that there are at least five reasons to cut off the conversation.
      >> So long as we are talking, we are more inclined to pull our punches on issues like human rights atrocities when we meet, get no results and meet again.
      >> … the only acceptable outcome is a complete dismantling of [Israel's] nuclear program …
      >> … We spend very little time discussing [Israel's] support for terrorism and human rights abuses …
      >> … there is no indication that the [Israeli] regime is capable of making a deal.
      >> The goal should be to do what we can to accelerate the regime’s collapse while we work to retard or force surrender of its nuclear program. Yes, this requires a complete rethinking of our strategy, such as it is, to use sanctions and talk to induce an ideologically driven regime to give up its calling card to international influence. We should get started as soon as possible, before the current approach does any further damage … to our prospects for defanging [Israel].

  2. occupyresist
    December 13, 2010, 1:13 am

    “I don’t think she even considers the inevitable result,….”

    I think she’s considered it and doesn’t care, ’cause a) her loyalties lie elsewhere or b) she’s an idiot who still thinks that America is wholly moral, untouchable, and ‘blowback’, does not apply. If there is a violent reaction, it’s because THEY are inherently violent.

    “Third, we need to make human rights a central theme”

    This is EXACTLY why many people in the ME consider Americans hypocrites. Make ‘human rights’ a central theme…..wait a minute, right next door there’s this country called Saudi Arabia that you would not DARE touch, I WONDER WHY?

    Conveniently using that phrase has made it synonymous with ‘bend to our will, you scum. If you don’t, we’ll turn your own people against you.’

    GOD this pisses me off.

  3. MRW
    December 13, 2010, 1:52 am

    we need to make human rights a central theme

    No kidding. First, Rubin needs to understand what she’s talking about. And so does Israel.

    “Rights guaranteed by international treaties are known in the legal profession as human rights, enforceable in the domestic legal systems of every signatory state.” — Paul Wolf, DC attorney.

  4. Oscar
    December 13, 2010, 2:17 am

    What an odious debut column from yet another neocon wihout portfolio. Hey, fred hiatt, you’ve done it again — bringing your dwindling readership yet another israel first columnist who will agitate for further loss of American blood and treasure to protect israel while it commits slow motion genocide in Palestine, and humiliates Obama and Clinton by singlehandedly destroying the so-called peace process.

    Perhaps Fred can get a clue of how jennifer’s hasbaric spewage is going over with its readers by reading the comments section. Basically, she is a pathetic version of slick Caroline Glick or manaical Melanie Phillips whose children won’t fight as American soldiers, but whose words call for other people’s children to fight proxy wars on behalf of beloved israel, our “best friend” and “only democracy in the region.”.

    Yeah, it’s a state of how far this war-torn country has deteriorated that a Washington Post columnist “offers praise” for a policy that targets civilians, professors of universities and compares it to killing Nazi scientists. Wow, WaPo, your death spiral continues apace.

    • Shingo
      December 13, 2010, 4:38 am

      Wow Oscar,

      Did you write that post? It was brilliant.

      • occupyresist
        December 13, 2010, 8:00 am

        ditto.

      • bob
        December 13, 2010, 8:24 am

        I particularly loved neocon wihout portfolio. Of course, that one may be esoterically applicable to a board that looks at US/Israeli politics and exposing ethnocentric sympathies.
        Still, I love it.

      • Oscar
        December 13, 2010, 8:30 am

        Cheers, Shingo, it was my post. Combine Rubin’s frightening duplicity with David Broder’s recent “advice” to Obama to start a conflict with Iran because it would be “good for the economy” and give him a much needed boost for re-election, the intellectual fradulence of these neo-con cheerleaders is appalling. Perhaps if they had children serving in the US military, rather than the IDF, they wouldn’t be salivating quite so much to have the US drawn into another proxy war.

        It may have been discussed on Mondo before, but the number of disabled American vets coming back from overseas will be shockingly large, and the cost of caring for them for the rest of their lives will dwarf the current cost of the war. When Goldberg, Rubin, Broder and Fred Hiatt keep force-feeding Americans to go to war yet again for Israel, you know this is sickening hasbara that will have stunningly bad consequences for the US and yet they cynically try to manipulate Obama by calling it a chance for him to “man up.”

    • Leper Colonialist
      December 15, 2010, 10:33 am

      Look atthe bright side – Jenny can’t get any worse, and has nowhere to go from here but up [cold comfort indeed].

  5. Eva Smagacz
    December 13, 2010, 4:24 am

    Funny, I read your headline and knew who it was – she is shaping up to be America’s own Mad Mel Phillips.

  6. Shingo
    December 13, 2010, 4:32 am

    Judging by the comments section, it looks like Jennifer Rubin is receiving quite a baptism of fire. If she thought this gig was going to be as cushy as her echo chamber at Commentary, she’s just been given a serious hazing.

    I almost feel sorry for her.

    • Leper Colonialist
      December 15, 2010, 10:35 am

      “Baptism of fire”? LOL, we’re almost at the mixed-metaphor alert stage.

      Is it too cruel to bemoan the fact that it’s not live fire? [Only kidding].

  7. thankgodimatheist
    December 13, 2010, 5:39 am

    “I almost feel sorry for her.”

    I see what you mean but no, I don’t feel sorry for her..This is an extremely mild treatment in comparison to what rabid, frothing at the mouth, warmongering canines should expect and deserve..

  8. RoHa
    December 13, 2010, 5:55 am

    “Third, we need to make human rights a central theme”

    So the theme is to violate the right to life of Iranian nuclear scientists?

  9. justicewillprevail
    December 13, 2010, 6:42 am

    I laughed out loud at the last extract. First she approves of assassinating Iranian scientists (on the basis of what evidence?) and immediately follows up with a call to make human rights ‘a central theme’. And she can’t see the gloriously stupid outright utter contradiction of those two statements. The only logical, Socratic conclusion is that therefore Iranians are not human, and therefore are exempt from claiming ‘human rights’. I suppose they are like Palestinians – so evil and subhuman that ‘we’ are allowed to do anything we like to them. But then to claim that ‘we’ (like the good ole Israelis) value human rights….
    This woman is ill, take her away for treatment

    • annie
      December 13, 2010, 9:17 am

      i’m reminded of the “Humanitarian Committee”

      Since enacted in 2003, it’s prevented thousands of couples from living normally, most unable to reunite, others residing in Israel without health insurance, work permits, or other social benefits….
      ……..

      On March 21, 2007, the Knesset authorized the Interior Minister to grant legal status to non-resident spouses on “humanitarian grounds,” based on the Committee’s recommendation, established for this purpose – called the “Humanitarian Committee,” functioning, in fact, as a racist one, aided by a vague mandate requiring “special humanitarian reasons” not defined or specifically who qualifies.

  10. Gellian
    December 13, 2010, 7:12 am

    Rubin’s problem is that she doesn’t go nearly far enough. What we need to do is invade Iran, round up all the Iranians, and transport them to internment camps that we’ll set up. We can use the railway systems to get them there, so that’s no problem. This’ll be an awesome security measure because then they’ll see the folly of their actions. And once we get them there, we can decide whether to use them for slave labor or simply eliminate them. We’ll use the latest technology in the latter event.

    Hmmm. I wonder if this sounds like a good idea to Rubin…?

  11. bijou
    December 13, 2010, 7:58 am

    OK let’s imagine for a brief moment that the tables were turned.

    The Washington Post’s new commenter, Afshar Abdul Hussein, wrote the following in her column today:

    “…we should begin to make the case and agree on a feasible plan for the use of force. When there is a credible threat of force — not occupation or invasion, but strikes sufficient to hobble Israel’s nuclear program, military and security services — the decision-making calculus may change. What of the notion that the nation will rally around the flag if attacked?….

    we should continue and enhance espionage and sabotage of the Israeli nuclear program. Every Israeli nuclear scientist who has a “car accident” and every computer virus buys us time, setting back the timeline for Israel’s nuclear capability, while exacting a price for those who cooperate with the nuclear program. Think of it as the ultimate targeted sanction.

    Third, we need to make human rights a central theme…

  12. bijou
    December 13, 2010, 8:01 am

    I mean, the whole notion that it is legitimate to assassinate a scientist, a nation’s prized resource, and his wife while they are driving to work in their car is so obscene that it makes me shake with anger. Imagine that person’s long life of struggle to attain the knowledge that can serve his country…. his achievements, his triumphs — what could possibly justify cold blooded murder of such an accomplished individual? It’s so warped and perverse… it’s a distortion of any and all laws and rights… I can’t even articulate what it is is, it is such an abomination.

    • annie
      December 13, 2010, 9:10 am

      that’s exactly how i feel about it.

    • Potsherd2
      December 13, 2010, 9:43 am

      This isn’t a hypothetical matter. It’s exactly what Israel and the US have been doing in Iran for years.

      Only a few steps down the road, and you have the wholesale attacks on scientists and academics that devastated Iraq during the insurgency, and and you go further down, you get Pol Pot exterminating the entire educated population.

      • bijou
        December 13, 2010, 10:27 am

        Potsherd: Yes. (hiding my head in shame….)

  13. marc b.
    December 13, 2010, 9:35 am

    Rubin is regularly on the Friday edition of a round table discussion on the news of the week on the local NPR affiliate, together with the excremental David Sanger of the NYT. Sanger is the nitwit who put together a hypothetical scenario for an Israeli air attack on Iranian facilities, in which he concludes (surprise!) that Iran would not to attack American forces in Iraq, even after America steps in to assist Israel in its unilateral strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. (Sanger’s article emphasizes that Israel must take this step without American approval or foreknowledge, but also concludes that America, despite being ‘angry’, will have to fall in line to help its ally.)

    link to nytimes.com

    I forgot who made the point, but, yes, Rubin and Sanger can saddle up and attack Iran if they think it so important. But I doubt that their *ss on the line is part of either of their hypothetical scenarios.

  14. Citizen
    December 13, 2010, 10:35 am

    Here’s a relevant matter: US State Dept, Near Middle East Section totally comprised of Jewish Americans–accidental? link to youtube.com

  15. Scott
    December 13, 2010, 10:47 am

    Kind of an intriguing video, Citizen. But I doubt what the lady says is true. I would guess it is greatly exaggerated. Who is she?

    • Citizen
      December 13, 2010, 1:43 pm

      Hi Scott. Apparently she is Kay Griggs, aka Katherine Pollard Miller. It’s claimed Pollard is the name of her first husband, and her second husband was a chief aid to a US general ostensibly involved with deep corruption within our chief army brass over the years. There are at least four video interviews of her on Youtube. She speaks without notes about an awful lot of long time corruption in the highest ranks of our military and government, naming names galore. The source of much of what she claims to know is her husband’s diary. She presents herself as an insider southern belle of first rank.

    • Citizen
      December 13, 2010, 1:53 pm

      Jeffrey Feltman runs the US State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs today. Get a load of his biography: link to state.gov

      • Citizen
        December 13, 2010, 2:08 pm

        Feltman is a lot lower on the State Department’s totem pole than Dan Shapiro, his partner in special diplomatic missions on, e.g., Syria and Lebanon. The Syrians hate Feltman. Shapiro was Obama’s main consultant on Middle East affairs when he was running for POTUS.
        link to whorunsgov.com

    • annie
      December 13, 2010, 2:22 pm

      scott, i heard about her a long time ago. she has been massively racked over the coals. her husband ‘suicided’, i think he was getting ready to reveal state seccrets, i can’t remeber exactly. but the charges she makes wrt moving up the chain of command is completely radical. it allegedly involves a level of cover up that is completely off the roof. i haven’t listened to her videos for years but they are worth the time just for the shock value.

      as for her allegations in this video check out this jweekly article circa 97. the list has grown since then.

      Presently, the opportunities available to Jews entering the foreign service are at an all-time high. The State Department would not release figures on the religious makeup of its staff, but one official said American Jews — including observant and committed Jews — are flocking to diplomatic careers.

      History was made recently when Martin Indyk was sworn in as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. Indyk’s appointment comes on the heels of Stuart Eizenstat’s swearing-in as undersecretary of state for economics. Indyk, a former official with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the first Jew to serve as ambassador to Israel, is also the first Jew to serve in the top Middle East policy post.

      Not since Kissinger has an American Jew had such a strong say in U.S. Middle East policy.

      Taken alone, Indyk’s meteoric rise from academia to the State Department’s seventh floor is quite a feat. But Indyk now is just one of more than a dozen American Jews in top State Department positions that were once off-limits to Jews. Among the others are:

      ………

      In addition, Jewish career foreign-service officers and political appointees hold the post of current or immediate past ambassadors to Switzerland, Brazil, Nepal, Romania, Spain, Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, Morocco and Malaysia.

      Gone are the days when so-called Arabists determined U.S. policy in the Middle East. A new term, “Jewish Arabists,” has cropped up in right-wing circles to describe their view of the Jews who lead the Middle East peace process team.

      Many credit the Indyk-Ross peace team with silencing charges that Jews cannot serve U.S. interests when conflicts arise with Israel. Ironically, Arabs are now complaining of a Jewish bias. After a rough patch in the peace process, the Palestinian justice minister accused the United States of a “Zionist conspiracy.”

      Eizenstat vehemently refutes the charge.

      “The peace process is not being made by Jews; it’s being made by Americans,” Eizenstat said in a recent interview. “Any suggestion of bias is totally inappropriate and inaccurate.”

      JTA correspondent Daniel Kurtzman in Washington contributed to this report.

      • kapok
        December 13, 2010, 3:13 pm

        One must be a scholar to know what bits can be safely left out of one’s theses.

  16. Frances
    December 13, 2010, 2:34 pm

    Whither eee?

Leave a Reply