I’m freshly shocked every day, which is how I stay in business, and today I’m shocked that the New Yorker has published an article on Iranian nukes, written by David Makovsky of the Israel lobby group, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Makovsky is the guy who suggested to Congress that Israeli checkpoints could be made better for Palestinians by installing “appropriate biometrics,” and this piece brims with Israeli arguments put forward as American concerns. A nuclear Iran “poses a considerable risk to American interests.” It would “undermine American credibility” in the world. “All evidence” suggests that Iran is seeking to build a bomb. A former official of the Israeli Ministry of Defense, Ariel Levite, is afforded a platform by Makovsky to make fun of US efforts to stop Pakistan and North Korea from getting the bomb: “too early, too early– oops– too late.” So we should have bombed Pakistan and North Korea, too, before they went nuclear. And what about bombing Israel?
Neocons Elliott Abrams and Eliot Cohen also are quoted from Makovsky’s exclusive interviews. Oh, what access!
The New Yorker presumably ran the article because it offers new details–learned from Israeli officials and the Mossad, of course–about Israel’s purported strike on a Syrian nuclear facility in 2007 half a mile from the Euphrates River. Makovsky offers that strike, which he assures us caused no contamination to the Euphrates, as the gameplan for Israel striking Iran. But this argument falls apart on its own terms. As Ali Gharib has pointed out, if the key to a successful Syria attack was that its secrecy granted Bashar al-Assad the opportunity to deny that it had taken place and therefore save face rather than have to retaliate, this secrecy and face-saving equation is completely gone in the Iranian situation.
But let me get to the preposterous claim that I cite in my headline, which is indicative of the degraded epistemological standards in this piece. Makovsky says that Israelis got “flagrant” evidence of North Korea’s role in building the Syrian nuclear facility when its agents broke into a Vienna hotel room and hacked a computer belonging to a Syrian scientist and discovered three dozen “color photographs” taken inside the building.
“The photographs showed workers from North Korea at the site.”
I’m sure glad those photographs were in color! Otherwise how would the Israelis know that the workers were North Korean? Maybe some of the photos were of their passports? This “information” with no elaboration is repeated several times by Makovsky as the smoking gun; he says it “vindicated” Dick Cheney’s suspicions of Syrian-North Korean collaboration.
But wait, why is such evidence “flagrant,” let alone dispositive? Why is Cheney any arbiter of intelligence? Shouldn’t the editors have demanded more proof from Makovsky before passing along these claims, including maybe the photographs themselves? We just went through this, with weapons of mass destruction, and aluminum tubes, and yellowcake, and all the other “flagrant” evidence. Jeffrey Goldberg went to Kurdish Iraq for The New Yorker and found undeniable evidence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam’s connections to Al Qaeda; and Goldberg’s role in fomenting that war is a living embarrassment to the magazine that protested the Vietnam war week after week in the late 60s.
Why is the New Yorker running this stuff– at a time when Bill Keller of the Times, who was also fooled on Iraq, is saying we can contain Iran. I think David Remnick, the magazine’s editor, who was also wrong on Iraq, is taking one for the team; that the piece’s publication reflects his need to express Israel’s “existential” fears (that word is also in the piece) out of respect for the American Jewish community. That said, a week or so back Remnick did an excellent piece himself on opposition inside the Israeli establishment to an attack. He should now follow Keller’s example and give voice to the growing crowd of American realists who say that we contained the Soviet Union, Israel should get over its existentialism.
P.S. The piece uses the awful phrase “reported back to” — a sign that this piece was pushed past the New Yorker editors, who woulda caught it usually. The word “report” contains the idea that you are bringing news back to someone; that’s why it begins with “re-”. This is as irritating a phrase as “refer back”. The correct verb is “reported to.”
makovsky must be related to sanger of the times. sanger was on the radio after the demcon explaining why anti-missile systems being proposed for installation in poland should primarily be positioned to defend against a nuclear attack by iran. i swear i could hear laughing all the way from poland. what a dope. er, i mean dopes, plural.
MJ Rosenberg could just rerun his previous column with a few alterations: “Does [The New Yorker] Know That “The Washington Institute” Was Founded By AIPAC?“:
as well as critical moments like the continuing Israel Lobby’s drumbeats to finish up the Clean Break agenda to change the map of the Middle East — specifically with those last two countries on the list, Iran and Syria.
David Remnick lays down the gauntlet to Tina Brown and Arianna Huffington.
What’s next for the New Yorker? Cartoons that are actually funny?
Cartoons that are actually funny?
Thank yew.
Why is anyone surprised to learn that the politics of the Newhouse family is the same as that of the Ochs and Sulzbergers? David Remnick would be out of a job he he did not toe the party line.
The Ochses and Sulzbergers used to be non- (if not anti-) Zionist. I’d still like to see an explanation of why they switched.
“…the piece’s publication reflects his need to express Israel’s ‘existential’ fears (that word is also in the piece) out of respect for the American Jewish community.”
How many people have died in the world because of this stupid idea? How many people will die because of this stupid idea?
Here’s a shocking proposal:
Instead of taking ‘one for the team’, Remnick shouldn’t essentially giving space to Israeli lobbyists trying to pressure Obama via the New Yorker. He should maintain independence and if his Jewishness colors his responsbilities to impartiability as an editor then he should step aside. There are plenty of nuanced and balance liberal intellectuals who can (and perhaps should) take his place.
That he himself ran a piece on opposition to the strike within Israel last time helps nothing because A) why does the opposition to an Iranian war be couched in Israeli terms? This is America, any opposition should be in American terms.
B) The notion of enforced balance is problematic. We are seeing it already in parts of the MSM when it comes to the Republicans where they are putting out a budget where they are essentially not saying what they will cut but instead are arguing to ‘see us after the election’. It simply isn’t serious to say that Obama’s effort is similar to Ryan’s use of the magic asterix.
It’s the same phenomenom here.
Remnick is a disaster. He should take a position and if he fails to do that because he’s a Jew and he can’t handle the pressure from the Jewish community then frankly he should be done with it, step down and let someone else take over. I’m more than tired of the endless communal politics.
Everyone knows that only America can truly make a serious and significant blow to the nuclear reactors. Everyone. Therefore it is America’s argument and America’s decision.
Remnick’s decision to prostitute himself and, worse, his venerable magazine(what’s left of it after he tarnished it for his pro-Iraq war shilling) for the cause of the Likudniks is shameful and disgusting.
I’ll rejoince the moment he’s out of the door from that magazine and someone levelheaded and who isn’t a beholden prostitue to the Israel lobby can take over and actually be independent.
krauss, i say let remnick stay and drive it into the ground. (i haven’t paid for a copy of tny’er for years. there are really only a few remaining handful of periodicals worth the paper they’re printed on.) this is a time for a clean break from the past, and the tny’er looks nothing like it did in its heyday. and btw, it’s ‘impartiality’. you won’t find ‘impartiability’ in an english dictionary so far as i know.
“The photographs showed workers from North Korea at the site.”
anyone who has not seen the photos (and yes there is an alleged north korean workers color photo with evidence of different pixilation )and read b of moon of alabama’s take down of this farce is really missing out. remember, this is the person who debunked the IAEA nanodiamonds theory and first called it on our downed drone in iranian terrotory..
i mean it, run don’t walk, READ THIS:
link to moonofalabama.org
and don’t forget to open the embeds, especially:
There’s a lot of flak to be taken by NYer for seeming anti-Israel, but almost none (sorry, Phil, your piece does not register on their “flak” scale) for providing pro-hard-line-Israeli hasbara. We should therefore be glad Remnick occasionally goes “real”, but we should understand that he must show balance with these Makovsky-type pieces. Lies for Truth. That’s balance. Propaganda for analysis, that’s balance.
show balance? no i don’t not think they need to publish obligatory warmongering israel lobby propaganda articles.
about Israel’s purported strike on a Syrian nuclear facility in 2007 half a mile from the Euphrates River.
The only reporter–and mean the only reporter–who showed up at Deir Al-Zur to cover the supposed Israeli strike on a Syrian nuclear plant was military reporter Trish Schuh. Joshua Landis published her report because no one else would. If this link isn’t working
link to joshualandis.com
try this
link to uruknet.info
She ends her article with this:
The vaunted New Yorker fact-checking policy is bullshit.
Makovsky is lying, and Remnick is enabling him.
mrw, if you haven’t already read it please scroll up and open my link.
annie, I was all over that m of a post back in 2008 when it first came out.
mwr, great minds think alike ;)
btw, your john landis link isn’t opening.
Yeah, I know. And it’s Joshua Landis. That’s why I included the other one, which is a copy of Landis’ publication of the article.
What does constantly acceding to Israeli demands do to “American credibility in the world”?
By the way, wasn’t maintaining “American credibility in the world” the very reason the U.S. continued to fight in Vietnam after it became apparent — in 1967 or so — that the war was unwinnable?
Syria could have plans to produce improved conventional missiles with the help from North Korea, and such plans would actually make more sense that nukes, and would require a secret production facility.
Concerning North Korean workers on photographs, they can be identified by lapel pins with their leader, see fourth photo here: link to worldnews.nbcnews.com
And, of course, when they are working on a secret project in Syria, which they and the Syrians know will be watched carefully by every intelligence organisation in the area, they not only wear the lapel pins, they also fly North Korean flags on the trucks.
RE: “Neocons Elliott Abrams and Eliot Cohen also are quoted from Makovsky’s exclusive interviews. Oh, what access! ” ~ Weiss
FROM HistoryCommons.org [Elliott Abrams]:
SOURCE – link to historycommons.org
P.S. ALSO SEE: “Once dazzled by Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan has new mentor… Elliott Abrams”, by Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss, 8/14/12
SOURCE – link to mondoweiss.net
* And “Why, Oh Why” (VIDEO, 03:35) did Bush have a “Middle East director at the National Security Council” who had been convicted of lying to Congress during Iran-Contra?
The photograps were taken inside the building (a building) so pins are a bit more probable than flags. Or perhaps the photos had captions!
RE: “The New Yorker presumably ran the article because it offers new details–learned from Israeli officials and the Mossad, of course–about Israel’s purported strike on a Syrian nuclear facility in 2007 half a mile from the Euphrates River.” ~ Remick
MY COMMENT: A nuclear facility? Possibly not.
SEE: “Lies About the Past, Clamoring for War in the Future;New Yorker Magazine Concocts Case for Bombing Syria”, By John W. Farley, Counterpunch, 9/12/12
ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to counterpunch.org