A chilling argument. Yagil Levy, an Israeli professor visiting at Georgetown, writes in Foreign Policy that Israel will only take the Palestinian issue seriously if it has a war with Iran. Note the crazy desperate logic of the second paragraph. Though Levy isn't for it, he is in tune with the "national psychosis".
In the past, diplomatic breakthroughs for Israel have come after intense and prolonged periods of violence. Ironically, therefore, Israel's attack could probably be an effective way to break the deadlock in the Middle East peace process that shows no signs of going anywhere on its own. While this path is certainly not a desirable option, it is worth considering how it might play out.
...Any attack will incite Iran to retaliate by launching long-range missiles on Israel's cities. The Israeli home front, however, is unprepared to be hit by thousands of missiles and rockets. In this case, the Iranian response could overshadow Israelis' sense of victory buoyed by an impressive attack and invalidate the initial support given to the government's act of war. A deadly and costly war of attrition is on the horizon....
It is in this moment of attrition, proving the fallacy of the assumption of "getting the job done," where American diplomats could step in and offer a new package deal: an Israel-Iran ceasefire, monitoring of the future Iranian nuclear project and Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank, as well as possibly the Golan heights if the situation in Syria is stabilized...
True, the costs are immense; however, as the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict shows, diplomatic endeavors have not brought about political breakthroughs, but only costly wars...
There is of course a much more practical option that would not involve the death and destruction of the preceding scenario. The Israeli leadership can embark on a different strategy: With the current formation of a new "national unity" coalition with the opposition centrist Kadima Party (under the new leadership of Shaul Mofaz, who has seemed critical of a belligerent Iran policy at times in the past), it can withdraw from the option of attacking Iran and promote a peaceful agenda with the Arabs in line with the neglected Saudi peace initiative.
The only way to reign in the rogue state of Israel is by putting a leash on the Israel Lobby in the U.S.
agreed, and the way to put a leash on said lobby is by going after israel firsters for their unconditional support of an entity whose occupation of palestine is the reason the arab/islamic world hates us.
“The only way to reign in the rogue state of Israel is”: leashing the lobby (which seems unlikely of early success in the USA’s oligarchic political system) or the (possibly) less unlikely energizing of the international community — perhaps on the model of South Africa — or Turkey — putting mild pressure on Israel (pressure to end the occupation or at least remove the settlers and dismantle the settlements and the wall) irrespective of the prospects of a “negotiated” “peace”.
Considering the lobby’s recent behavior regarding warmongering foolishness to push more sanctions via the Senate despite the coming talks, I think they are clearly deranged and a leash is not enough. Time to put the old dog to sleep instead (abolish it as a foreign agent for Israel requiring them to pay taxes and making their influence on Congress an act of treason)
“There is of course a much more practical option that would not involve the death and destruction of the preceding scenario. The Israeli leadership can embark on a different strategy: With the current formation of a new “national unity” coalition with the opposition centrist Kadima Party (under the new leadership of Shaul Mofaz, who has seemed critical of a belligerent Iran policy at times in the past), it can withdraw from the option of attacking Iran and promote a peaceful agenda with the Arabs in line with the neglected Saudi peace initiative.”
Imagine…
Micheal Sheuer has an interesting one up about Ron Paul
“There is of course a much more practical option that would not involve the death and destruction of the preceding scenario. The Israeli leadership can embark on a different strategy: With the current formation of a new “national unity” coalition with the opposition centrist Kadima Party (under the new leadership of Shaul Mofaz, who has seemed critical of a belligerent Iran policy at times in the past), it can withdraw from the option of attacking Iran and promote a peaceful agenda with the Arabs in line with the neglected Saudi peace initiative.”
And Huff Po has this one up about the IAEA’s latest negotiations with Iran
Login with Facebook to see what your friends are reading
Enable Social Reading i Settings Read Share SettingsShare everything I readShare only things safe for workDont share what I’m reading.Read Share HistoryLearn More.Iran Nuclear Talks: Deal Reached On Nuclear Weapons Probe, UN Nuclear Chief Says
By GEORGE JAHN
“VIENNA — Despite some remaining differences, a deal has been reached with Iran that will allow the U.N. nuclear agency to restart a long-stalled probe into suspicions that Tehran has secretly worked on developing nuclear arms, the U.N. nuclear chief said Tuesday.
The news from International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano, who returned from Tehran on Tuesday, comes just a day before Iran and six world powers meet in Baghdad for negotiations and could present a significant turning point in the heated dispute over Iran’s nuclear intentions. The six nations hope the talks will result in an agreement by the Islamic Republic to stop enriching uranium to a higher level that could be turned quickly into the fissile core of nuclear arms.”
So, Israel (and/or US) needs 2 attack Iran 2 insure Israeli hegemony in ME & give Palestinians a modest break? Gee, is that crazy? I thought it was Israeli and AIPAC thinking all along.
I’m thinking if it gets close to November this year, and USA has not done what Bibi wants with Iran, he will simply attack Iran to make what he wants happen. He’s on record he thinks America is a pushover.
Suppose that an Iranian leader had said that “war with Israel will lead to a diplomatic breakthrough”? The media and politicians would denounce the Iranian leader’s extremism, his irrationality, and his indifference to human suffering.
Such a great point
It seems like writing articles which despite all evidence to the contrary claim that the Israelis will make peace with the Palestinians is a cottage industry.
Levy’s Iran war theory seems truly delusional. At the end, his “practical option,” appears to be ironic. In order words, if the crazy scenario does not happen, we can actually do what the international community has been telling us to do all these years.
False speculation about an imminent or even possible political agreement with the Palestinians is a method of discouraging opposition to the ongoing injustices of the occupation. The urgency of dealing with real problems is mitigated by the hope that maybe peace is around the corner. Why fight the powerful Israeli government and its American lobby when the current leaders may have the ability and the desire to change course and end the conflict?
Here is another example of this “it will be OK” type of writing. This one surprisingly by Bradley Burston. After ready the Times cover story on Bibi, Burston has apparently decided that Netanyahu could very possibly make peace with the Palestinians. This is so over the top. Its got Iran in there. Its got the “Nixon to China” riff.
Burston compares Netanyahu to Rabin, Begin and Sharon. All according to the writer contributed to peace and were perceived as intransigent. Bibi could be like them.
God, what did Begin, Rabin or Sharon do for peace with the Palestinians? Plus Bibi is more of an ideologue than Sharon or Rabin. He has a more compliant US than all of them. Also, the military has been more successful in suppressing the resistance. And the Israeli and Jewish American public are a lot more right wing.
I think it could be time for Annie Robbins to write Bradley another letter. Maybe he would like to explain this false hope story here at MW.
link to haaretz.com
(I think you have to register to access the article, but it’s free)
what a bunch of utter hogwash! do they think people will swallow anything? jeez louise!!!
Annie,
Maybe you would consider emailing Bradley and ask him about his article about Bibi the peacemaker (see comment above). Maybe you can, again, get him to rethink his position.
I thought that we had heard the last of Bibi is the one that can make peace two years ago.
Ira
ira, funny you should say that. i followed your link and registered and starting reading it. my eyes and mind started to blur over. i couldn’t even finish it. i had thought about writing him but i can’t. i wouldn’t know what to say..other than..what are you thinking? i skipped to the very end..something about netanyahu having faith in himself or something.i can’t even recall.
the only thing i can concieve of that might change netanyahu is maybe his father dying..all of a sudden he changes course in midstream and becomes the man he always wanted to be? hows that for drinking koolaid? no, i am not writing burston over this article..i would be required to reread it..too painful.
Annie, I was half joking about the letter. As you write, what can you say? I am not all that familiar with Burston’s stuff, but enough so that I was surprised by the piece.
Father or no father, Bibi is the same as always. Why should he change? He has been more successful at killing the peace and suppressing the Palestinians than, anyone could have imagined. Plus he thinks that the West Bank belongs to the Jewish people.
Great job reporting on the non-violent Palestinian resistance. Keep up the great work.
Ira
thank you ira.
Bibi is the same as always. Why should he change?
i know..that’s what i meant when i wrote hows that for drinking koolaid?
No no no Annie Yagil Levy belongs to your lot on the political spectrum
you deal with his idiotic articles.
RE: “Yagil Levy…writes…that Israel will only take the Palestinian issue seriously if it has a war with Iran. Note the crazy desperate logic of the second paragraph. Though Levy isn’t for it, he is in tune with the ‘national psychosis’.” ~ Weiss
MY COMMENT: “The Dissociative State of Israel™” is a mortal danger to both itself and to others. Consequently, it should be involuntarily committed for intensive psychiatric care!
Dissociation (psychology) - link to en.wikipedia.org
One of the great values of MW is that the comments show me I am not the only sane person in the world. There are at least two others.
Yagil Levy is clearly ironic, and I agree with his article.
Basically, only a major disaster can make the former coalition in Israel to change the course. Policies of creeping annexation were working very well, the only major argument against them (in Israeli serious discourse) is that in the long run Israel will not get away with it, i.e. it will lead to a disaster. Attack on Iran may precipitate a major disaster, although I would hypothesize a different scenario, less lethal for Israel but with more explosive consequences (thousands of Americans and allies being killed in Afghanistan in the worst disaster since Dien Bien Phu, and anti-Israeli blowback in USA).
And the punchline: ” There is of course a much more practical option [...] promote a peaceful agenda with the Arabs in line with the neglected Saudi peace initiative.” To me, this is “angelic position”: 2SS on 1967 lines. After all, a major part of 1SS position is that Israel will never relinquish settlements.
About my disaster theory: the aftermath of an attack on Iran can be that the only way to deliver any supplies to military in Afghanistan, and to evacuate troops, will be to break through anti-aircraft defenses of Pakistan.
What emerges is the scope of FUBAR of Obama’s policy in Af-Pak. The moronic policy of drone attacks in Pakistan clearly did not dent much Taliban capabilities, but the blowback in Pakistan is immense. For the last 6 months there were no deliveries for the military through Pakistan as a sanction. There exists also northern route that hinges on permits from the regimes in Central Asia. Kyrgystan already promised that they will not permit it, actually twice. If China, Russia and Iran will insist in concert to cancel the permits, they will be canceled. Pakistan is a more interesting case.
The elite is clearly “pro-American”, but also with its own paranoias. Few things can fuel this paranoia more than clandestine support for Baluchi separatists, even though they also operate in Iran, and they were good allies — unclear if for CIA or Mossad, and who will made fine distinctions in Pakistan? Drones clearly contributed to almost explosive unpopularity of USA. USA also meddles in Pakistan economy, by trying to scuttle supplies of natural gas from Iran. So the result is that Pakistan now goes full speed ahead building pipeline from Iran. Also, in Pew poll, this is the only country where MAJORITY (actually, 50%) is supportive for Iran getting nuclear weapons. Nowhere Iran has a better image. Part of it is tradition, strong cultural connection, but part is that Iran is sort of antithesis for USA. There goes Sunni/Shia divide that our strategic sages want to exploit.
Currently the government tries to patch the relations with USA and restore permits for military transit. It wants some little concession, like to promise to stop interference with the pipeline deal. But can you imagine what will happen of “Pakistani street”, which is volatile at the best of times, in the aftermath on an attack on Iran?
Of course, USA could try to blame Israel. That would be credible if Israel got slapped with some sanctions that have teeth. If that would come to pass, we are in Yagil Levy scenario, Israel forced to profoundly — and quickly — change policies. If American establishment were rational, this is what would happen. I think that that this is called “counter-factual hypothetical”. I also think that Netanyahu and Barak are already warned about possible dire consequences that USA will not be able to stop.
And note that so far, Iran did not do anything, but of course, it would do SOMETHING. Perhaps insurgents will get supplied with high quality anti-tank and anti-helicopter missiles, and the second insurgency, in Shia areas of Afghanistan (the center, poor, mountainous and remote) would start. American bases of helicopters and drones will be attacked with missiles, while helicopters and drones will start dropping from the sky. Our troops will be short of fuel, hence less mobile, while lethality of attacks will be much higher. The only good option will be to burn equipment and evacuate.
There are several reasons why it did not happen already. Taliban is intolerant of Shia so Iran hates Taliban. Going full speed ahead in arming the insurgents is bound to escalate conflict with USA and USA can make it painful. But if the armed conflict already exists, such considerations will go away.
Comments almost exclusively depict Israel as an instigator of war with Iran however, has anyone considered the belief within the Islamic Community that creating a war will escalate the appearance of the Mahdi. (an Islamic Messiah)
Also, Iran having a sense of moral superiority over the wealthier Arab Emirates who are decadent, westernized, and morally ambivalent, outside of compliance with Islamic law and certainly shall not rule over Iran unrighteously in spite of their powerful financial resources. Islam has war from within and factions abound based on political or religious subtypes. The one thing that Iran is obviously tired of is having the World set boundaries on behaviour reinforced with the threat or the actual boycott of imports/exports.
Israel isn’t paranoid. They have a realistic view and an awareness that they are surrounded by their enemies and historical context that indicates defensive measures need be in place to ensure their survival.
Yagil Levy has some ideas but I cannot follow his reasoning. “Also…running quotes…make me curious as to…what he may have said…before and after.”
Why is it no one ever mentions Egypt when deliberating the consquences of an Israeli attack on Iran?
You see, the most important thing for a warrior is to get part of the peaceniks on his side. So did F.R. Roosevelt when he connected WWII with the United Nations project. A strategy which connects War against Iran with a Near East peace project will work the same way.
Dear god in whom i don’t believe
please save us from the advice of leftists professors of sociology.
With that old Leninist “the worse the better” ideology.
Save us from vile racist supremacist schmucks like Oleg and messianic cultists like Netenyahu.
OT, Ha’aretz: Report: Turkey set to indict IDF officers over killing of Gaza flotilla activists: Turkish daily says Ankara’s prosecutor readies 144-page document that accuses top Israeli officers, including former army chief Gabi Ashkenazi, of ordering intentional killing, wounding of Turkish nationals on Mavi Marmara; charges still need to be approved by Istanbul district prosecutor.
Can they get an Interpol arrest warrant that would subject these Israeli officials to extradition to Turkey?
I wonder if this development could put a damper on Israeli bellicosity.