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.
“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.
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.
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/despise-and-distrust-netanyahu-give-the-man-a-chance.premium-1.431958
(I think you have to register to access the article, but it’s free)