“Countries may vary, but civilization is one, and for a nation to progress, it must take part in this one civilization. The decline of the Ottomans began when, proud of their triumphs over the West, they cut their ties with the European nations. This was a mistake which we will not repeat.”   — Kemal Ataturk, 1924

Spinning in his grave, indeed, for now his successors not only think they can revive a Turkish-ruled imperium, but have made the very mistake of turning their backs on the West, which the republic’s founder rightly saw as the downfall of that earlier incarnation of his country. I’d change Ataturk’s wording slightly: the Ottomans turned their backs on the modern world then being developed in the West while still forming alliances with European powers.

Once upon a time there was a country named Turkey whose republic was created by Kemal Ataturk, who famously said: “Peace at home; peace abroad.”

He and the Turkish people had seen their Ottoman Empire collapse after failing to modernize, engaging in chauvinistic nationalism (under the Young Turks), and entering an unnecessary war that led to 20 percent of its population dead  and the country prostrate.

And so Ataturk and his colleagues saved the country based on two basic principles: at home, joining Western civilization through modernization and secularization; abroad, avoiding foreign ambitions and conflicts. Whatever their faults, they did a remarkable job. Turkey made steady progress far in excess of what happened in Iran or the Arabic-speaking world.

But then came the regime of the Justice and Development Party. Pretending to be moderate and democratic, it was actually a radical Islamist party seeking to — if I may coin a phrase — fundamentally transform Turkey. This regime was not moderate but merely patient in achieving its radical goals.

It insisted that under its rule Turkey would be everyone’s friend and no one’s enemy. And President Barack Obama thought this would be a great model for the Middle East. In fact, though, the regime didn’t see everyone as an equal friend. It preferred the company of Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah.

Soon, as events developed in the region, the veneer of modesty boiled away and the aggressive ambition was revealed. And that ambition was expressed most clearly by the devious Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu to parliament in late April:

We will manage the wave of change in the Middle East. Just as the ideal we have in our minds about Turkey, we have an ideal of a new Middle East. We will be the leader and the spokesperson of a new peaceful order, no matter what they say.

Wow. Off with the “everyone’s buddy” image and out comes the raving would-be dictator over the Middle East. But the problem is that there are these people called “Arabs” who don’t want to be bossed around by a Turk, even if they both are Sunni Muslims. In addition, those Arabs have their own ambitions. So when they hear stuff like this they become even more angry and suspicious.

“No matter what they say,” intones Davutoğlu, a man who has gone even further in addressing his party’s convention in a closed meeting, where he said that somebody ought to run the Middle East so why not him and his colleagues. Since his speech was reported in a U.S. embassy message, it was available to the White House. Yet it has been Obama’s naiveté about Turkey that has even further puffed up the arrogance of such people.

Sounding like another man who wanted to become the dictator of the Middle East — Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who once said that those who didn’t like him running things could “go drink the Nile” — Davutoğlu says:

I’d like to advise those who are criticizing us: Go to Cairo. Go to Tripoli. Go to the streets of Beirut, Tunisia, Jerusalem, and ask about Turkey’s policy on Syria. They will hug you and express their appreciation for Turkey’s honorable policy.

Yes, this regime has supported the overthrow of its former close ally in Syria in order to install an Islamist regime friendly to Ankara. It has even obtained full support from Obama for creating an anti-American government in Damascus.

Pages: 1 2 | 35 Comments

OEDIPUS: “I will be mute, and thou shalt guide my steps

Into the covert from the public road,
Till I have learned their drift. A prudent man
Will ever shape his course by what he learns.”

–Sophocles, “Oedipus at Colonus”

Greek Chorus: We have had a living standard high indeed

Though we could not afford that stuff at all,

Now we demand that you for all this pay

Or else the entire Euro’s going to fall!

EU: Oh, I have been blind for all too long

Sending to you all that cash you sought,

And now in a crisis deep and grave

I’m able to comprehend all you have wrought!

Germany: Ach! What more can I do or say?

True, I was once the aggressor cruel and brutal,

Yet does that mean I must always pay and pay,

For your entitlements, bureaucracy, vacations long?

Greek Chorus: Yes, it does indeed!

And in my hand I hold a knife so sharp

That will be plunged first into your currency

And then into my own breast!

We’ve just had elections you know

And communists and fascists now empowered

So set ye not conditions on the cash

Or to you all we’ll give quite a bash!

EU: True it is that I once had such dreams

All in harmony under a Brussels’ elite

Of happy family from Atlantic to the Urals,

Now it’s all just Cerberus’ leavings at my feet!

Germany: Now let me get this straight.

You want us to give you money without end

And no conditions either put on it

So you can just go on and spend and spend?

Greek Chorus: Yes that about sums it up.

Hey, Zeus, can you do something bold

To pull our spanakopita out of the fire?

Zeus (descending from heaven on a fiery chariot)

I am the only deus in the machina today.

Warlike Mars is in the Middle East quite busy

While Athena full-time must hold press conferences to deny

That Obama is the embodiment of her wisdom.

Brave Apollo is explaining to one and all

That the sun can replace all fossil fuels right now.

And Hermes is too depressed,

Having made bad investments in Internet start-ups

He’s in his own economic mess!

EU: Oh, glorious welfare state!

I thought you could go on forever and never bend,

Money pouring out and votes forever in,

Without a thought to the production end!

Zeus: But now the limit has been clearly reached

And looting all the rich—or Germans–is no solution.

Greek Chorus (breaking in) then revolution!

Zeus (continues): While bureaucrats and rulers will not be impeached

By their own hand, thus distress spreads throughout the entire land.

Oh, we are in a pickle, what can we do

In order to save the EU?

France’s New President: Oh, it is all so simple

As clear as Aphrodite’s dimple!

Just raise the taxes on the rich and

Put no limit on immigration.

Higher wages and forbid firing

Keep vacations long, the work-week short

And touch no hair on any bureaucrat’s head

Don’t worry and drink lots of wine instead!

Germany: Gott im himmel, no!

From me then all the funds will flow?

France, Greek Chorus, Spain, Portugal, etc: Yes, indeed!

So with the bail-outs let’s proceed!

Zeus: This cannot end well,

gentlemen and ladies!

I must SMS for Pluto right away

To open up more real estate in Hades!

[All exit]

6 Comments

Yes, friends, it’s once again time for that exciting game of Spin the Polls by the Pew Foundation. Here are the rules:

5 Comments

The following statement from Lawrence O’Donnell is being widely circulated on the Internet. I’m sure that most of those who read it think these are self-evident truths about history proving that Republicans and conservatives are so obviously evil that the issue is beyond reasonable debate. Such credulity in the face of the current hegemonic narrative is an accurate sign of how American history has been taught to the current generation. It also shows us why we hear the equivalent of “the science is settled” on the difference between the two currently competing views of America.

“What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican Party? I’ll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things, every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, ‘Liberal,’ as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won’t work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.”

This statement is well worth analyzing. Begin by noting that while this is supposedly a pro-liberal statement it is actually intended as a pro-Democratic Party statement. The message is by the “Anti-Republican Crusaders” directed explicitly against Republicans. The conflation of the accomplishments listed and the word liberal, on one hand, with the Democratic Party creates considerable problems for his historical narrative.

As a side remark, I thought the word “Crusaders” was not PC. Weren’t the Crusaders supposedly aggressive, cruel bigots? What will O’Donnell’s radical Islamist allies think of this usage?

In addition, either O’Donnell doesn’t know much about American history or he thinks the American people don’t. Probably both parts of that statement are true.

I am still a registered Democrat but I’m also someone who tries to be an honest historian. The following analysis is academic–in the old sense of the word–and as balanced as I can make it.

O’Donnell’s list is the dominant narrative in America today. You will find it promoted in every mass media outlet and taught as the only possible interpretation of U.S. history in schools. How accurate is it? Well, that’s the third question that should be asked. The first two are:

–Why is it that Obama and the current radicals-pretending-to be liberals have to run on an old historical record rather than their own record in office and the current anti-liberal ideas they propound?

–Why is it that we should assume that the situation faced by America today is the same as it was in 1913 or 1933 or 1964? Perhaps more government and regulation was needed in those years but since we have had decades of more and more of these things isn’t it possible that we’ve had enough, in fact, far more than enough?

These are two questions most of the American people never see.

Let’s go through O’Donnell’s list:

–Liberals got women the right to vote. Of course, the main credit belongs to a women’s suffrage movement. But which ardent supporter of that movement first introduced the nineteenth amendment in Congress? Senator Aaron Sargent who was a—wait for it—Republican from California and a conservative.  The legislatures of most of the state passing the amendment were also dominated by Republicans.  This was not primarily a partisan or wider ideological issue at the time because many people held views which, in today’s context, would be considered quite contradictory.

–Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. That seems obvious but hold on and let’s look at the facts. The main opponents of civil rights were not Republicans but Southern Democrats. Republicans originally got African-Americans the right to vote after the Civil War but this was sabotaged by southern Democrats.  And since the Democratic party put its own interests above racial justice the party held back for many decades on this issue, nor did liberals in politics and power make it a political priority. President Woodrow Wilson was a particularly nasty racist. Most politically active African-Americans were Republicans. Only at the last moment did President Lyndon Johnson really turn around the Democratic Party and it changed course. Yet such people as Al Gore’s father and the powerful ex-Klan leader Robert Byrd continued to oppose civil rights. Liberals and Democrats deserve credit for what they did but they did far less than they claim.

I also seem to recall Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves and Republicans creating Reconstruction while the Democrats were the party of secession, surrender to the Confederacy, the Ku Klux Klan, and Jim Crow.

Note carefully something very revealing here. Liberals “got” women and African-Americans the right to vote. I thought there were powerful grassroots’ movements that forced these changes on the Washington power brokers! Yet O’Donnell accurately reflects the profoundly patronizing attitude of today’s leftist elite toward the little people. Funny, isn’t it? A real liberal or even a historical leftist would stress the role played by the average people who courageously grouped together to bring change. This is one more indication of the isolation of the current political-intellectual ruling elite (which in many ways is profoundly reactionary) from the liberals of the past. According to O’Donnell–and none of the admirers of his statement see the incongruity here!–the white, male establishment of the 1920s and 1960s, respectively, gave out these gifts to dependent people the way that government “gives” rights today. Thank you, master!

–Liberals created Social Security and helped the elderly. That’s absolutely true but that was a long time ago. What’s relevant today is that contemporary liberals refuse to deal with or even recognize the crisis in Social Security and have done much to make it worse. They may have created it but who is going to save it?

–Liberals ended segregation and passed the civil rights and voting rights laws. See civil rights, above. If you count the votes the partisan story is—if you forgive the play on words—hardly so black and white as O’Donnell and others make it. And certainly since this legislation was passed, Republicans and conservatives immediately accepted it and have not really challenged or blocked implementation. Of course as J. Christian Adams of PJ Media has shown, these laws have recently been manipulated for partisan purposes by Democrats.

Liberals created Medicare. See Social Security, above. Again, this program has long enjoyed bipartisan acceptance.  Moreover, Republicans have supported its expansion on several occasions. The question is how it will be managed now, especially since Obamacare gutted Medicare.

Liberals created clean air and clean water laws. True but see above on Social Security. The issue is whether these should be continually expanded, made more expensive and subject to strangling legislation.

As we also can see, it is false to accuse conservatives and Republicans of having opposed all of these things.

In short, O’Donnell largely misstates the record and tries to distract from the real issues of 2012. I think I could make a better case for the historical virtues of liberalism than does O’Donnell. Ignorance aside, why doesn’t he do better? Because his choices reveal what’s going on today.  There are basically two issues on which the Obama era rests: more entitlement payments and playing the race (or some other ethnic/gender) card.

You don’t expect O’Donnell, for example, to cite how most liberals—but not leftists—joined in a bipartisan policy to fight Communism.  There was also a time when liberals supported genuine academic openness and a relatively balanced mass media. Those times are also far gone.

O’Donnell goes on to say that “liberal” should not be a dirty word but a badge of honor. I agree. It should be but it has been tarnished far less by conservatives’ attacks than by radicals who have hijacked that word and use it for an agenda that is bankrupting the United States, reducing liberties, and making a mess of U.S. foreign policy, among other things. There are certainly many conservatives who believe they can or must make their case by proving that every liberal president was terrible and that every liberal action in U.S. history was detrimental. These people are the perfect counterparts of O’Donnell. But that doesn’t make either “my side was always right” school of American history and politics correct.

Of course, it is deliciously ironic that this statement is made by O’Donnell who is an avowed left-winger and socialist. He is one of those who epitomize the problem and the reason why so many Americans have concluded that the “L word” is something to be ashamed of.  That will change only when liberals and Democrats rebel, perhaps after a resounding electoral defeat, and throw out the left-wing hijackers.

And what if that doesn’t happen?  Well, between 1861 and 1913, a period of 52 years following their dreadful performance during the Civil War crisis, the Democrats only held the White House for eight, and that was the conservative Grover Cleveland. Following the debacle of Jimmy Carter, the president whom Obama most resembles, during the years 1981 to 2009, the Democrats held the White House only eight of those 28 years, and that was by Bill Clinton who ran as a centrist.  A whole long list of Democrats from the left side of the party also failed miserably. Remember George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Michael Dukakis?

The truth is that neither Democrats nor Republicans, liberals nor conservatives have a monopoly on historical virtue. It all depended on the specific circumstances of the time. And the specific circumstances of our time make the Obama-O’Donnell crew a disaster for America.

12 Comments

The current political crisis in Europe, and in America as well, is not at all hard to understand. Think of it like this: society is not infinitely malleable. If you pull a rubber band far enough it is either going to snap back or it will break.

Western democracies have worked very well for 60 years now. They have been remarkably prosperous and remarkably peaceful. They defeated the Communist challenge. In a sense they — and I include the United States here — are victims of this very success.

Out of rational self-interest, the realities of electoral politics, and a strong sense of justice — misguided or otherwise — the welfare state and the payment of entitlements have been expanding.

You can — as my grandmother used to say — throw around money like a drunken sailor until you run out of money.

The self-imposed burdens have reached, and exceeded, the limit of what these societies could finance.  This problem has been highlighted, of course, by an economic recession but it is not the product of that business contraction.

Things have been made worse by the fact that most governments in power have tried to apply the very old policies that were making the societies ill in the first place. The situation is akin to the medical practice of centuries ago in which an already sickly patient was bled further by the application of leeches. Death often followed.

Those governments buried in the equivalent of “old-think” in the USSR have just three alternatives:

–Deny any of this is happening. Every penny spent is absolutely necessary to stop old people from starving, women from keeling over in their 30s, the globe from heating up like a tea kettle, and, in short, the mass extinction of the human race.

–Self-defense. Say that anyone who wants to recognize reality is a violent Nazi hater of women and a racist flat-earther.

–Use a scapegoat. If only taxes were raised on rich, greedy people then the party could go on uninterrupted.

Pages: 1 2 | 46 Comments

We all know that the number of Muslims who explicitly put forward a systematically coherent moderate theology of Islam is very small. We also know that radical Islamists pretend to be moderates and fool people in the West. We also know that foolish or dishonest people in the West claim that Islam is innately moderate; that Sharia law as it will inevitably be interpreted at present is no big deal; and that the radicals are a minority, hijackers of Islam, or soon to be moderates. People must know the truth about these issues.

However, it is also true that the number of Muslims who are anti-Islamist in politics and relatively moderate in their politics and practice of Islam number in the tens and even hundreds of millions. Their motives range from liberalism through ethnic (Berber; Kurdish) or state nationalism, conservative views that do see Islamism as improper, those who find refuge in the West and want to acculturate to it, ruling groups and their supporters who don’t want Islamists to cut off their heads, etc. These people–almost all of whom have their own view as to what proper Islamic practice involves and relatively few of whom are secularists–are our actual or potential allies in the battle against Islamism, and we better understand that and find ways to work with them, even if we don’t agree on everything.

How can we find a way to blend those different factors and combine them into a standpoint and strategy?  

At a moment when we should be analyzing existing political movements, ideas, actions, and the Western failure to meet this threat there is a wasteful, unending battle that subverts the effort to understand and explain what’s happening.

In one corner, we have those who claim — and these are by far the more powerful people today, controlling academia, media, and government policies in many places — that Islam is innately good, a religion of peace. Those who are revolutionaries and terrorists simply misunderstand their own religion. Naturally, the idea that non-Muslims, who are usually quite ignorant of Islam and its history, should define Islam is ludicrous.

There are many important points the religion-of-peace crowd misses but here are five of them:

–Islam, like any religion, is subject to interpretation, which is not always the same in different times and places or among various individuals or even — in Islam’s case — countries and ethnic groups. Thus, to say that the proper interpretation of Islam is as moderate and peaceful  is absurd. Even to say that there are a lot of people who hold a liberal interpretation of Islam — as opposed to a conservative but anti-Islamist one — is absurd.

–If revolutionary Islamism is such a heresy why is it that it can often muster overwhelming support? Why are Islamic clerics, who know far more about Islam than the Western apologists, often supporting such a movement or at least its basic assumptions?

–There is much in Islam’s main texts, historical beliefs, and history that is not at all so peaceful. In fact, the revolutionaries, as a number of scholars have ably shown, base themselves on totally authentic portions of the Koran, the hadith, and the respected commentators of the past. To divorce Islam and revolutionary Islamist political ideology is absurd. The Islamists make clear they see themselves as fulfilling religious commandments and are acting as “proper” Muslims.

To ignore the reality of Islamism’s rootedness in Islam is to ensure that you are fooled by stealth Islamists, underestimate the power of the revolutionaries, and even — worst of all! — are ready to help your worst enemies.

–The idea that Islam has been “hijacked” by Islamists ignores the fact that Islamists have a strong claim to legitimacy. They are not heretics or hijackers but contenders for power. And they may well succeed — helped by the blindness and foolish policies of the apologists — in seizing control of Islam. In fact, that seems to be happening.

–To claim there is such a thing as “moderate Islamism” is so ridiculous that it boggles the mind. Yet this is what mainstream academics, journalists, and policymakers  argue without any evidence but the most superficial, easily disproven propaganda of the Islamists themselves.

This school tends to be apologetic and even to lie and conceal. By doing so, these “Islam is good” people make it impossible to have a successful foreign policy or to understand revolutionary Islamism.

But in the other corner are those who claim that Islam is innately bad, meaning that its followers are inevitably prone to giving full support to revolutions seeking to seize state power and install radical Sharia-imposing regimes. In this concept, Iran, the Taliban, Hizballah, Hamas, al-Qaida, and the Muslim Brotherhood — as well as the far more subtle revolutionaries running Turkey today — have gotten Islam right and any Muslim who doesn’t support them misunderstands his own religion.

Pages: 1 2 3 | 125 Comments

With the arrival of Jodi Rudoren as correspondent, New York Times coverage of Israel and related issues has now gone to a new level of ridiculous bias, especially after a predecessor who really did try to be fair.

What is most impressive about Rudoren’s record so far is that there is no attempt to give the faintest appearance of balance. She probably doesn’t understand what that concept means. And she certainly knows that the editors and ombudsman won’t hold her accountable.

We in Israel have grown used to media prejudice and, given our low expectations, probably accept more of it without complaint than anyone else in the world.

Yet the following lead was the absolute last straw for me, in an article titled “Palestinians Go Hungry to Make Their Voices Heard“:

The newest heroes of the Palestinian cause are not burly young men hurling stones or wielding automatic weapons. They are gaunt adults, wrists in chains, starving themselves inside Israeli prisons.

This is not news coverage but revolutionary romanticism. And consider the implications:

– The article does not tell us that they are in prison for a reason. These are overwhelmingly people who have murdered or tried to murder civilians during a period, by the way, when their supposed governmental representative, the Palestinian Authority, was not at war with Israel.

– They were in fact “burly young men…wielding automatic weapons” when thrown into prison after trials. Most of them admit — indeed brag about — their crimes and make it clear that they would continue such deeds if released.

– Consequently, these people are not heroes to Palestinians, a macho society generally, because they are pitiful, gaunt, and starving but because they were heroes of an armed struggle defined in genocidal terms.

– The Palestinian Authority and Hamas hold these people as role models to young people so that they will be inspired to grow up to kill more Israelis.

– “Gaunt adults, wrists in chains” seems pulled from the nineteenth century novels of Victor Hugo.

– Remember, these are the people still in prison because of the bloodiness of their crimes after Israel has released hundreds of others in prisoner exchanges or amnesties designed to indicate good will and promote negotiations. They are still in jail not out of cruelty or even out of a sense of justice and self-defense, but because they generally are the most merciless in deliberately slaying those who are weak and helpless.

Pages: 1 2 | 46 Comments

I want to keep this brief so I’m not going to present a lot of supporting information — I’ll leave that for my next book, Silent Revolution, about how the far left first hijacked liberalism and key institutions, then hijacked America — but I hope you’ll see why the following argument makes sense.

The great advantage of the Obama administration and the far left has been concealment and deniability. They deny their extremism and sugar-coat their message, helped by the mass media and other institutions ranging from Hollywood through academia. Many sophisticated people — including those who aren’t leftists themselves — still believe that Obama is a regular liberal or even a centrist and think the idea that the media and academia are dominated by the far left is ridiculous.

But the Occupy Wall Street movement isn’t this sophisticated “New New Left” but instead is like the Old Left and 1960s’ New Left in its rhetoric, methods, and symbols. It openly talks about anarchism, Communism, Marxism, and overthrowing capitalism. Unlike the clever Obamaites, these people have learned nothing from the fall of Communism or the failures of the previous two lefts.

Moreover, the Occupy movement is not like previous protests that have won sympathy among Americans like post-World War I veterans seeking the bonuses promised them, or unemployed workers during the Depression, or African-Americans treated as second-class humans seeking equal rights. No, this is an upper middle class movement of the spoiled, seeking more consumer goods and “free stuff” generally. And it views the American people themselves as the enemy, despite the talk of representing the “99 percent.”

The American people are not going to identify with them and no media whitewash will change that fact.

Then there’s the open hatred, the violence and vandalism, the takeover of other’s property, the hygienic and crime issues. True, the media may play all of this down but it’s sort of hard to avoid seeing or hearing about people trashing the downtown neighborhoods of your city.

Such instability and extremism will drive more voters to oppose Obama’s reelection.

Pages: 1 2 | 59 Comments

Also please read my article, “One Leader Who Will be Re-elected: Israel Goes to Elections.”

—–

Over and over again I hear them: Egyptians who have lost hope that their country can be saved from Islamist dictatorship (this is what the people want, one says); the Lebanese who can no longer stand up to the threats of the Hizballah-dominated government; Turks disgusted as the Western media ignore the arrests and persecutions of respected people who have devoted their lives to the country or contemporary dissidents; and so on.

In a recent letter to me, a Middle Eastern democracy advocate who fled revolutionary Islamism to the West–there will be thousands more in the years to come–reflected on his experiences in light of my articles. These are the people the West is betraying, to its own detriment.  The so-called liberals (leftists pretending to be liberal) who apologize for, lie about, and even help anti-Western Islamist dictatorships should take note of such individuals who are the hope of their homelands but have themselves lost hope:

“At the very beginning of the Iranian revolution (before the revolution was highjacked by the Islamists), many youth including myself considered ourselves as leftists. To us, people on the left were progressive, social justice oriented and were struggling to establish freedom and equality.

8 Comments

“After a winter of alarm over the possibility that a military conflict over the Iranian nuclear program might be imminent, American officials and outside analysts now believe that the chances of war in the near future have significantly decreased.” –New York Times, April 30, 2012

Or, as Homer Simpson would explain it, “Doh!” I’ve been telling you this for a year but at least on this issue–unlike all the others in the Middle East—the Times has finally caught on.

As you know, just about everyone in the world outside of Israel has been claiming that an attack is imminent or that it is only being held back by the U.S. government.

My argument has been that this is simply untrue. Most of the Israeli strategic and intelligence leadership oppose an attack, for the same reasons I do. Moreover, these people don’t believe it is going to happen in the near future.

We now have Yuval Diskin, director of the Shin Bet from 2005 to2011; Meir Dagan, former head of the Mossad; Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor; and assorted others who have come out against an attack.

Then there’s the commander of Israel’s military Benny Gantz who made a fascinating statement, though this has been widely misunderstood. Gantz seemed to contradict himself. He stated that Iran’s leaders were rational but also that radical Islamist ideologues might do wild things like attack Israel.

How to square the contradiction? Simple. Gantz was making a suggestion. He was telling Tehran: Wouldn’t it be smarter to stop short of building nuclear weapons when you are technically able to do so? You have the option of getting them if and when you want them but you won’t be triggering an all-out confrontation including an Israeli attack if you take this way out of your dilemma.

Note supposedly this is a point of dispute between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama: Netanyahu is said to demand that Iran be prevented from having any capability at all to ever build nuclear weapons; Obama reportedly will be satisfied if Iran doesn’t actually build nuclear weapons. Well, if there is such a conflict then why is Gantz endorsing Obama‘s plan?

Gantz was not at all saying that Iran would take this alternative. He merely said that Tehran might do so. The idea, of course, is a massive version of the “good cop, bad cop” approach. At the same time, I am not suggesting that Diskin and Dagan are in on some massive con-game. They are genuinely opposed to an attack and do worry that Netanyahu might stage such an operation.

But I think the following points are the closest approximation of reality:

–Israel does not want to attack Iran. There are too many problems with such an operation. It could be done but is it necessary at present? Would there be the minimal international support needed? Would it make things better and genuinely make an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel less likely? On all those points the answer is either a clear “no” or too close to say “yes” with any degree of confidence.

–Israel prefers that the sanctions or some form of negotiations work to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

–An Israeli threat of attack simultaneously spurs the West to put more pressure on Iran to avoid a costly confrontation and more pressure on Iran itself to get it to back down in some way.

–This can only work if it is not made too clear that this strategy is a bluff, at least at this time.

–My impression is that even Defense Minister Ehud Barak has signaled that Israel is not about to attack. He has reiterated the previous position that Israel would only attack if Iran is on the verge of getting nuclear weapons, a situation that won’t exist for some time to come.

–Contrary to international perceptions, Netanyahu is not at all a reckless man and doesn’t like taking risks or launching military adventures. His record proves that point.

Personally, I agree with Diskin and Dagan that an Israeli attack would make things worse and that there is a better alternative even if Iran did get nuclear weapons. That would be a strategy combining three things:

–Deterrence to stop Iran from attacking.

–Defense to minimize the likelihood that Iran could hit Israel.

–The ability to launch a successful preemptive attack.

I have written in some detail about these three things and will do so more in future.

Finally, one point that is widely misunderstood internationally—as people draw from their own countries’ histories—is that Netanyahu is stirring up the Iran attack scenarios to mobilize domestic political support. This is simply not true. Israelis may have their own diverse views on the issue but threatening to attack Iran—as opposed to being able to defend Israel or attack Iran if necessary—is not a big vote-getter. At any rate, Netanyahu would easily be reelected in any test at the ballot box whatever he says on this issue.

And PS as an example of how ridiculous Western mass media coverage of Israel is, Jodi Redoren, the new New York Times correspondent, refers to Barak’s “hard-line position about all options—including an independent Israeli attack—remaining on the table.” That’s precisely the same policy as another Barak the New York Times would never refer to as hardline on anything, Barak Obama.  The idea that keeping all options open is hardly hardline, a word that the newspaper doesn’t apply to people who advocate war and genocide against Israel.

19 Comments