Posts
Israel, Iran, Joe Klein, and Andrew Sullivan
By Jeffrey Goldberg / September 12, 2008
In a recent post, Andrew took Joe Klein’s side in his fight with nearly everyone at Commentary – a fight that will only end when I invite all these squabbling Jews (and at least one honorary M.O.T.) to my seder, where we’ll hash out the whole arid you’re-a-traitor-no-you’re-the-traitor dispute over two-liter bottles of Manischewitz blackberry wine. Andrew asks if neoconservatives believe that there is any area "in which it is even possible to conceive of America’s interest being different from Israel’s," and he suggests that this question is becoming frighteningly relevant, as Israel embraces the idea that existential self-interest demands that it pre-empt the Iranian nuclear program militarily. "The world and the West can live, after all, with a deterred and contained nuclear Iran. Israel cannot," Andrew writes. I know Andrew as a supporter of Israel, a Zionist, even, and so I do not read much into his exclusion of Israel from either "the West" or "the world." Suffice it to say that I believe that Israel is the West’s responsibility – Europe’s in particular, for all the most obvious reasons – so I’m not fond of the suggestion that Israel should stand alone against theocratic fascism. But I would rather grapple with one of Andrew’ governing assumptions; that Israel is the country far-and-away the most threatened by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Israel is certainly threatened, but so, too, are other direct American interests throughout the Middle East, and beyond. It is not meaningless that Iran is the only country in the world that has "Death to America" as its foreign policy, but what interests me more are the consequences of the chaotic nuclear proliferation that will almost definitely follow the successful testing of an Iranian nuclear device. Iran’s traditional adversaries, the Saudis, as well as the Turks, will surely develop nuclear weapons, as will, quite possibly, the Egyptians and the Algerians. The Syrians, of course, have already tried. The Saudis are probably more agitated by the Iranian program than the Israelis. Can we really live with a Middle East that has eight or ten nuclear powers? And will our allies succumb to Iranian pressure and one day line-up against us? Right now, we have enormous influence in the Gulf states, influence that helps us fight terrorism and assure the smooth flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. All this changes if Iran becomes a proven nuclear power. Our Gulf allies will have to make impossible choices, between the country that has guaranteed order in their region, and the rising Shia power. Something else changes: Terrorist groups that threaten, or have threatened, American targets – terrorists in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon – will come under the protection of the Iranian nuclear umbrella. Hezbollah’s rockets have helped the group establish a local deterrent to Israeli attack; an Iranian bomb would strengthen Hezbollah in Lebanon, and well beyond Lebanon.
An Iranian bomb would also set off new tension between India and Pakistan, an ally of Saudi Arabia that would almost certainly turn to Pakistan for help with its program, making the Indians, who are already distressingly close to Iran, exceedingly nervous. As I said, I’m opposed to the idea of bombing Iran for any number of reasons. One of them is that I don’t think the West has deployed truly effective sanctions against Iran yet. I don’t know why we should skip past a tougher sanctions regime and move right to bombing. I also want to see the American experiment in Iraq succeed, and it will fail if either America or Israel bomb Shi’ite Iran. It will fail, ultimately, of course, if Iran becomes a nuclear power, but I’ll take that theoretical failure, for the moment, over the obvious and immediate failure that comes on the heels of an attack on Iran. I also don’t want to see Iran’s pro-American population turn anti-American, which is what will happen following an attack by either America or Israel. Ultimately, what I’m arguing about is something that runs against the grain of Jewish narcissism that is on display whenever neo-conservatism is discussed: For Joe, and the left, and for the neo-conservatives on the right, this argument has become about Israel and its future. But it is actually about a great deal more than Israel. Of course, Israel’s national security is an American interest, and I was glad when John McCain told me that, "The United States of America has committed itself to never allowing another Holocaust," and I was just as happy when Barack Obama told me that he wants to "make sure that the people of Israel, when they kiss their kids and put them on that bus, feel at least no more existential dread than any parent does whenever their kids leave their sight." But a full discussion about Iran’s nuclear program could be held without anyone making a single reference to Israel. It would be a great thing to try to do one day.
[Cross-posted from The Atlantic]
POST A COMMENT
I think I’ll rephrase the 2nd paragraph entirely.Â
First off, we’re talking about Iranian-American relations.
America’s interest is to resolve the ME conflict along a 2 state solution. Iran funds, trains and supplies Hamas, Fatah etc. These groups are better able to inflict casualties on Israeli civilians and others as a result. The question is–does that help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict along the lines of a two-state solution? The answer is clearly no. You argue that this is besides the point. America can force a peace regardless. But this is clearly not the case. Israelis and Palestinians disagree fundamentally on a core issue, namely, the ‘right of return’ and the nature of the Israeli state. Until either side changes its mind on that issue–which essentially is a recognition of Israel as a Jewish state– the conflict will continue. As we cannot foresee when this change of heart will occur, the conflict will continue on past the foreseeable future. As that is so, America needs to decide what a desirable short-term stabilisation policy for the conflict is. Strengthening Fatah seems to be its current plan. Not one I agree with, but regardless, Iran is in the meantime strengthening Hamas. This outcome is bad, because Hamas wants to continue the dispute through force, ‘resistance’ or what have you, provoking an Israeli response, and so forth. That means more war, more violence, for more time. Innocents die, etc, etc.
That’s a bullshit cop-out, Ismail, and you know it. It’s not any single, specific action of Israel that you decry. It’s a whole, supposed cavalcade of Zionist "atrocities" that you consistently trot out without ever mentioning a single non-Zionist Entity-sponsored spectacle. And why stop with that observation? Your position, as unrealistic as they come, that Israel should and by rights will disappear, is about as crackpot as they come – at least among people who hold to the family of nations concept embodied by the U.N. and spelled out in its charter. But it’s what you hold to. It’s what you endorse. It poisons your understanding of events in the Middle East generally – despite your lip-service here, when absolutely mandatory, to the fact that Arab governments and societies regularly fuck things up entirely on their own.Â
We know you think this makes you a noble true-believer, as you’ve returned the favor and similarly proclaimed Zionist fanatics true-believers – eminently more noble than anyone who would acknowledge a more complicated reality. You’ve said so yourself. So I’ll entertain the notion that you can hold anything approximating a rational approach to discussions on the Middle East once you renounce your Bushian True-Believer methodology for something more fitting critical thought.Â
Of course, the willingness of the U.S. to broker peace in the Levant requires at least as much willingness on the part of both primary parties to the conflict. Absent that, they’re deluding themselves. And they’re not going to do it by requesting the dissolution of any single nation-state. (See above for details). So you tell me which side is ready and prepared to accept both those terms. We already know you reject one of them. Â
And that’s a cute little rejection of history writ large, by the way. I suppose without the history of the 3/5ths compromise we wouldn’t have fought a civil war or dealt with much racism, huh? Minor detail, I’m sure. As would be all the events you spent your gruff comment to Zeevico spouting off on. But not if you proclaim yourself King Arbiter of which historical details matter and which don’t. Perhaps that’s the task you’re up for.Â
*A note on the 2nd paragraph above:
The issue of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is relevant to the discussion of American-Iranian relations because Iran funds and arms Palestinian groups engaged in a war with Israel. Ismail suggests, as far as I can gather, that peace could be attained easily regardless if the US were only to clamp down on Israel, so the ‘threat’ from Iran and its role in destabilising the region is in a sense irrelevant.
This is obviously a subject ‘near and dear’ to your heart. But the best way to analyse the United States’ actions in the Middle East is to take a step back and breathe. The entire American political discourse on the Middle East exists on the basis that the United States defines its interests and acts accordingly. From academics to politicans to journalists, everyone writes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as one which the United States has an interest in resolving. These people are not all arrogant, stupid, or vindictive. They are discussing the issue as they see it and they are attempting to see how America can help resolve it as best they can. To say otherwise is to imply that the  mainstream discourse is dishonest in and of itself, a farcical conspiracy, a smokescrean for the Zionist Occupation Government or the Order of the Most Mugwump or for the Republican/Democrat ‘elite’.
The resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an impossibility in the foreseeable future. Israelis and Palestinians are divided on a fundamental issue, namely, the ‘right of return.’. A large majority of Israelis reject that idea as antithetical to their conception of a Jewish state. A large majority of Palestinians support the ‘right of return’. Peace will not come if the United States simply waves a hand and tells the Israelis to play nice. The US today accepts Israel as a ‘Jewish’ state. If you mean that the United States ought to ‘reject’ the Israeli position on this matter, then say so. That is quite different from saying the US has no real interest in resolving the conflict.Â
The US presence in Iraq destabilised the region and it destabilised Iraq. But we are discussing America’s point of view on American-Iranian relations, that is, whether America should view Iran as a threat. Not whether America made a mistake in invading or not. Iran is quite openly funding, giving arms to and training Shia militas in Iraq.
I understand that Hamas is a Sunni Islamic group. It has, however, accepted financial aid from Iran in the past and will continue to do so in the future, sectarian differences aside. Â Iran also trains Hamas members, another fact that Hamas members openly admit. A simple Google search will give you plenty of quotes by Hamas leaders and members to this effect from the BBC, ABC, and elsewhere.Â
I do not know what ideological position Hamas takes on Sunni-Shia relations generally or Iran as a Shia Islamic state  (or for that matter what view Iran has of Hamas and Sunni-Shia relations). Perhaps Hamas and Iran distrust one another but accept their relationship as an alliance against a common enemy. Perhaps both take a more tolerant view of Sunni-Shia relations predicated on some strain of nationanalist or religious ideology. Maybe it’s a mix of both.
While many Lebanese support Hezballah, many do not. It is another of those divisive fundamental issues. Lebanese history and society are not my specialty however.
"You almost had me convinced that the Middle East would be a utopian bastion of political enlightenment were it only not for the United States and Israel."
I wonder where you got that crackpot idea-certainly not from me. Oh, yeah, I remember-that’s one of the hoariest Zionist ploys around; someone decries the specific actions of Israel and they become saddled with the lunatic notion, which no rational person has ever claimed, that the Levant would be a paradise absent Zionist thuggery.
Guess what. If US racism disappeared tomorrow, there would still be serious problems in America. Shall I therefore not fight racism? Â
The history lesson re prior Islamic satraps is simply not apposite. Who cares?
My advice? Don’t be a putz. If you want to argue that the US has shown a serious interest in brokering a peace in the Levant, go for it. If you think that Israel is ready to do what it takes to achieve a two-state solution, be my guest and demonstrate same. That is, address the topic.
But I’d can your clumsy attempts to argue against a position that I simply haven’t proposed. Â
And, yes, you’re a very clever lad and recite unrelated particles of history quite nicely. Good for you. OK, one cookie and off to bed with you. Sleep tight.Â
Wow Ismail,
You almost had me convinced that the Middle East would be a utopian bastion of political enlightenment were it only not for the United States and Israel. Â
You must really pine for the Ottomans and the Mongols, as well as the Mamluk-, Turk-, and Berber-dominated Abbasids who ruled Arabia back in the days. In fact, the last time the Arabs actually governed themselves in accordance with any relevant political system was when… during the Second Caliphate of the Umayyad? And that ended in 750 AD. So, naturally, the Arabs have a lot of experience in blaming others for everything that happens in their corner of the world. That’s the way it’s generally been for them for at least the last one thousand two hundred fifty years – other good Muslim autocrats governing them in their place. Â
Obviously what Zeevico said really ruffled your feathers (eg. "one modest virtue to your writings"). But perhaps he didn’t realize the sensitivity that would arise from not accommodating the ancient historical burdens of the Middle East. For that, I am glad to fill in the details. And I look forward to hearing you try to dismiss them – assuming you won’t shift the burden and try to dismiss me instead. But maybe you’ll actually make a halfway decent attempt at tackling the argument, which would certainly be enlightening. Perhaps you will even find a way to do that without blaming the Barbary Wars entirely on Thomas Jefferson. Â
"In conclusion, that is why Iran is a threat and why I think I should be elected class president."
Thank goodness for your sense of humor, which lends at least one modest virtue to your writings.
"Iran … funds a plethora of ‘resistance’ movements in the Middle East. … This destabilises Iraq."
Oddly, some folks believe that the unwarranted and craven invasion of Iraq by the US might have a teensy bit to do with the destabilization of that unhappy land. Go figure. Â
"…such as Hezballah, Fatah or Hamas."
Hamas, as even the casual student of the area must know, is a Sunni organization and as such is unlikely to be funded by Shia Iran. But these petty details mean little to those who prefer to imagine an undifferentiated and irrational Arab population motivated by hatred and not politics. Â
"This destabilises the situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories."
Funny, some of us think the 40 year Israeli occupation, with its attendant slaughter of children and ongoing sociocide, has a bit of a destabilizing effect upon the region. Again, go figure. Â
"Achieving a stable democratic Iraq and a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, along the lines of a two-state solution, are key perceived American interests, as is the move towards democratic rule in Lebanon."
This is perhaps your most hilarious sentence, a fantasy whose absolute detachment from reality should be apparent to anyone. The US has resolutely supported each and every settlement-expanding, cluster bomb-sowing, infanticidal border-closing, medication-embargoing horror that Israel has chosen to perpetrate. If the US were genuinely interested in a resolution, it would need only to insist that its Zionist client abide by the numberless resolutions it flouts daily.
"Hezballah is not helping matters in Iraq or Lebanon."
Odd how many Lebanese think otherwise. Maybe its because the impotent Lebanese army, when it wasn’t colluding with Israeli atrocities, was unable to end either Israeli occupation of Lebanon, while Hizbollah did so twice.Â
"I understand you disagree with the basis of America’s endeavour to achieve peace in the Middle East. "
Not exactly. I see little reason to believe, given the US’s behavior in the Middle East, that it has a robust interest in achieving peace there. Â
Â
In conclusion, that is why Iran is a threat and why I think I should be elected class president.
Ismail– "Similarly, the point here is that the dominant American perspective on
the Middle East is nuts. To accept its terms is to give up."
Precisely. Covert now, heathen.
Iran is seen as a threat because it funds a plethora of ‘resistance’ movements in the Middle East. Some of these are based in Iraq and target Americans as well as Iraqis generally. This destabilises Iraq. Some of them are based in the Palestinian territories or Lebanon, such as Hezballah, Fatah or Hamas. This destabilises the situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Achieving a stable democratic Iraq and a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, along the lines of a two-state solution, are key perceived American interests, as is the move towards democratic rule in Lebanon. Also, Iran has a client state in Syria, a totalitarian regime that likewise works to destabilise Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian situation, and Iraq. I understand you disagree with the basis of America’s endeavour to achieve peace in the Middle East. I really don’t see why that would make funding Iraqi Shia militias any more desirable, however, let alone Hezballah. Whether or not the Americans should leave now, in two years or some time outside of the foreseable future, funding and providing arms to Syria, Iraqi Shia militas or Hezballah is not helping matters in Iraq or Lebanon.
Zeevico-
I don’t think I understand your point. My first response is to say that, in a discussion of what percentage of white blood-15% or 20%-should be required for voting rights, I wouldn’t feel constrained to couch my reply within the discourse of those who would give a number greater than zero for an answer.
Similarly, the point here is that the dominant American perspective on the Middle East is nuts. To accept its terms is to give up.
But this is obvious, so you must mean something else. Perhaps you can clarify.Â
"while Iran has a loudmouth (and powerless) president and zero recent
history of aggression. Of course, it follows that Iran is the major
regional threat. Of course."
Your moral censure is really besides the point. This discussion deals with threats to perceived American interests that are based on different assumptions as to the reality of the Middle East than your own assumptions. To make your point and to make this a debate worth having, you would need to look at this argument from the mainstream American political viewpoint.
I’d go further. It’s an a priori error to assume that a democracy isn’t subject to re-interpreting what it defines as its "interests" so constantly as to make the concept nearly whimsical.Â
Anything that doesn’t lead to a nation’s destruction is potentially within that nation’s "interest", so far as democracies are concerned. And perhaps even that possibility is up for grabs, assuming a nation of conscious lemmings. Â
With all due respect, it seems to me that Goldberg is side-stepping Sullivan and Klein’s main point, which is that — even accepting for the sake of argument that US and Israeli interests w/r/t Iran are identical — the neoconservative assumption that any divergence between US and Israeli interests is impossible is an a priori error. (Take, e.g., the recent news that Israel had been training and equipping Georgian armed forces; to the extent that that policy had a marginal role in tipping Mr. Saakashvili toward gambling on provoking Russia, it helped set back US interests fairly severely.) The notion that any two distinct nations can ever have completely identical interests is self-evidently fatuous. That various extra-chromosomal cases at Commentary howl about anti-Semitism when anyone raises this point is decidedly unhelpful — and as a friend of Israel, Goldberg would make better use of his time exposing Israel’s false friends than hanging up casuistic defenses of them.
welcome to Palestine
Nah… I wasn’t. I’m just a bit flabbergasted that anyone would suppose that Obama thinks of anyone as subhuman, or that he ascribes subhuman status to people based on whether or not they have a state. That seems like a huge stretch.
"And last time I checked, African Americans were not stateless.’
Tsk tsk. I said that you’re not stupid. I’m sure it was clear to you from context that I was referring to the Palestinians. You weren’t just trying to score unearned rhetorical points, were you?Â
Didn’t care at all for Oren’s pack o’ lies re 1967, so I can’t promise to rush right out to check his latest, but I’ll keep it in mind.
If by giving you a break you mean trying to see your point of view, I can surely do that. But not on a basis that is too narrow and historically ill-informed to be of any use. When you state things like this:
"And, believe me, I know that Americans see Israelis as their cultural kin. And why shouldn’t they? Both nations attack other countries at will, both are fond of torture, both have a filthy history of supporting retrograde bullies like apartheid South Africa and this Central American fascist or that."
that’s precisely the impression you give.
I think we can both be realistic enough to agree that genuflecting to AIPAC is pro-forma and par for the course for any major-party candidate. As for policy that would be decided as president, that’s a different matter. And last time I checked, African Americans were not stateless.
P.S. If you’re interested in a corrective for that first part, I would suggest Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present, by Michael B. Oren. But only if you’re interested. It’s purely optional, but very helpful.
"Be specific Ismail. Which Palestinian parents? The parents of martyrs?"
C’mon, Isaac. You’re not stupid. I mentioned the (widely-reported) recent outrage in which the brave lads of the IOF detained a pregnant woman at a checkpoint as she moaned in pain, ultimately giving birth right there to a child who had the poor manners to quickly die and, selfish anti-Semite that the brat was, make the soldiers look bad. Are you now proposing the appearance of pre-natal martyrs?
And, believe me, I know that Americans see Israelis as their cultural kin. And why shouldn’t they? Both nations attack other countries at will, both are fond of torture, both have a filthy history of supporting retrograde bullies like apartheid South Africa and this Central American fascist or that.
I soundly condemn both Jordan and Egypt for their lapdog ways vis a vis US and Israeli malfeasance, as it happens. Their opinions re Iran have everything to do with currying favor from the US and Israeli bullies, and nothing to do with Iran’s potential for belligerence.Â
"Obama doesn’t care any less about Palestinian youths as individuals."
Evidence, please. Any evidence at all.Â
"Obama is not some namby pamby pushover when it comes to the failings of the people who want to work with him and ask for his support."
Really? Then what accounts for his disgusting tango of sycophancy before AIPAC, and his unmitigated genuflections to Israel despite the latter’s nose-thumbing at official US policy re settlement expansion? Where’s his bravery? Or is he brave only when it comes to stateless and immiserated populations?
Give me a break.Â
"Would you be happy to hear Obama express equal determination that Palestinian parents not worry that their kids will take one between the eyes courtesy of the IDF when they send them off to school or out to play soccer? Do you wonder why he hasn’t?"
Be specific Ismail. Which Palestinian parents? The parents of martyrs?Â
For someone as concerned as you are about disrespecting the cultural mythology of American conservatives, you really don’t seem to understand that Israel’s Western orientation (and indeed, its strong historical grounding in the entire basis for Western civilization) gives it the sort of broad sympathy from America that will never develop in a land whose people support the likes of Hamas.Â
Â
"The myopia of Zionists never ceases to amaze… Of course, it follows that Iran is the major regional threat. Of course."
Hey. I don’t hear Jordan and Egypt complaining all that much. At least, not since they signed and enforced their treaties. But that’s not the part you have a problem with… or is it?Â
Obama doesn’t care any less about Palestinian youths as individuals. I’m pretty sure you’re aware of that much, and might even consciously admit it in moments that arouse your better nature. But I suspect his willingness to boldly hold their leadership responsible for the lion’s share of their rotten state of affairs is what really irks you.Â
Obama is not some namby pamby pushover when it comes to the failings of the people who want to work with him and ask for his support. Don’t forget, when it comes to the self-inflicted portion of the failings of the black community he is more cut from the mold of Bill Cosby than Al Sharpton. And unlike previous presidents – the last one excepted to some degree, I suspect that when it comes to the Middle East he’ll be unafraid to underscore that point.Â
Not picking a fight, but not afraid to clarify a situation either.
Of course, I am not the anonymous individual to whom you just responded.Â
"Palestinian identity is the only national identity that depends on the destruction of another country."
You’re kidding, right? From the very inception of Israel, its leaders have acknowledged that Zionism required the displacement of the indigenes.Â
"According to the Koran, Jews are apes, pigs and dogs worthy of being killed."
Citation, please. And what does the Koran, whatever it says, have to do with questions of international law? And is the Bible devoid of passages suggesting that Jews are blameless in annihilating whom they please? Shall I judge Israel by such savage ancient texts?Â
"The safety of murderers in war is not guaranteed."
Murderers like the pregnant woman recently detained at a checkpoint until she delivered? Murderers like her infant, who did not survive?Â
"Ismail, why dont you put your money where your mouth is, stop blogging and fight the IDF? You arent contributing anything here"
We all fight in our own ways. And I daresay I contribute a thousand times more than illiterate non-entities such as yourself. You should be grateful for the free education.
By the way, where is the "fakestinians" guy? You know, "palestineisamyth"-he should be piping up just about now.Â
Â
Would you be happy to hear Obama express equal determination that Palestinian parents not worry that their kids will take one between the eyes courtesy of the IDF when they send them off to Islamic indoctrinationl or out to blow themselves up? Do you wonder why he hasn’t?
Palestinian identity is the only national identity that depends on the destruction of another country. According to the Koran, Jews are apes, pigs and dogs worthy of being killed. The safety of murderers in war is not guaranteed. Ismail, why dont you put your money where your mouth is, stop blogging and fight the IDF? You arent contributing anything here
"…I was just as happy when Barack Obama told me that he wants to "make sure that the people of Israel, when they kiss their kids and put them on that bus, feel at least no more existential dread than any parent does whenever their kids leave their sight."
How nice. Would you be happy to hear Obama express equal determination that Palestinian parents not worry that their kids will take one between the eyes courtesy of the IDF when they send them off to school or out to play soccer? Do you wonder why he hasn’t?
The myopia of Zionists never ceases to amaze. Israel bombs sovereign nations with impunity, conducts a 40 year occupation, strafes fishing boats, conducts deliberate sociocide, embargoes medicines, jails members of another polity without trial, etc, etc., while Iran has a loudmouth (and powerless) president and zero recent history of aggression. Of course, it follows that Iran is the major regional threat. Of course.Â
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!