-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 7:37 PM
Share
A report in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth is getting a lot of play today. It says the Obama administration is dead serious about a two-state solution, and that it is "sharpening its tone" in addressing the Netanyahu government. In particular, the United States has reportedly told Israel that "any treatment of the Iranian nuclear problem will be contingent upon progress in the negotiations and an Israeli withdrawal from West Bank territory." The Netanyahu government is said to have "agreed to show a united front that the route to reaching a solution would be the road map, and would clarify that Israeli flexibility on the Palestinian issue would be contingent upon the American approach toward resolving the Iranian threat, as well as its attitude towards Hamas and Hizbullah."
It goes on:
Senior US administration officials are fully aware of the linkage that Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak have created between Israeli willingness to make advances on the Palestinian track and their expectations of the Americans to address the Iranian threat, and senior American officials have begun to talk about "Bushehr for Yitzhar." Namely, if you want us to help you defuse the Iranian threat, including the nuclear reactor in Bushehr, get ready to evacuate settlements in the West Bank, with Yitzhar [note: a West Bank settlement-SW] considered to be a token of an Israeli withdrawal from West Bank territory."
This report has been hailed by a number of bloggers--including M. J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum and Matt Yglesias at the Center for American Progress--as an encouraging sign that the Obama administration intends to achieve a two-state solution in Obama's first term, as the President indicated he would during the campaign.
Assuming the report is true, it is encouraging news, as it suggests that the Obama administration is not going to put up with Israeli foot-dragging and will actually use American leverage on both sides to move toward a two-state solution. But linking this so emphatically to the Iranian issue strikes me as a mistake, because it could give Tehran a de facto veto over the peace process. If Israeli compliance becomes directly tied to a resolution of Iran's nuclear program on terms acceptable to Israel, and if Iran decides to stonewall, then the Netanyahu government will have an excuse to dig in its own heels. Ironically, that outcome might not trouble the Iranian government, which exploits the Israeli-Palestine conflict to enhance its own influence, to put more pressure on the United States, and to keep Arab regimes like Saudi Arabia off-balance by emphasizing their failure to do anything tangible to help the Palestinians.
The key point to grasp is that a two-state solution would be good for the United States and Israel whatever the state of U.S-Iranian relations or the state of Iran's nuclear program. Israeli control of the West Bank offers no defense against Iranian missiles, and peace between Israel and the Palestinians would remove one of Iran's main points of leverage and make it easier for the United States, Israel, and the Arab world to join forces against Iran should it actively threaten the balance of power in the Gulf. The issues are connected in strategic terms, but linking them in the manner suggested by the article could make it harder to make progress on either one.
I agree with you about linkage. My initial thought upon reading this is that Netanyahu saying, "So what? We'll take care of Iranian nukes ourselves. You won't force us into a deal that is detrimental to our security with a party that is half made up of people who can't enforce an agreement and half of people who won't."
Furthermore, it sounds as if Obama is treating Iranian nukes as a strictly Israeli problem if he is making US efforts on the Iranian front contingent on what Israel does. Considering that, it makes me a bit skeptical of the article. It is in our national interest that Iran doesn't have nukes. I think a big interest, considering the effects down the line (increased Iranian adventurism, a middle east nuclear arms race, increased instability overall in the region, the danger of further proliferation).
Because of that, abrogating our efforts to stop Iran in order to pressure Israel, when there are many other tools at our disposal, seems extremely short sighted. Not "smart diplomacy", as the administration like to portray their efforts. Plus, the easily predictable and not improbable effect of having Israel attack Iranian nuke sites would send oil prices skyrocketing and shockwaves through the economy when we can least afford it. Israel is entitled to do what they want, but pushing them into it through ham-handed attempts at pressure is not in our best interests.
our national interest that Iran doesn't have nukes
No, it isn't. Maybe it is Israel's National Interest. And Israel made a big mistake threatening the EUS declaring "We'll take care of Iranian nukes ourselves if you don't".
Now Obama is in a very strong position in front of Israel without Iranian Nukes. So far even Israel realizes that one-state is no solution and for the US two-state is the only solution to save the State.
The US to be in real bargaining position with Iran has to dis-arm Israel and Palestine, even then Iran wouldn't feel secure with the US, unless there will be a serious move to eliminate WMDs worldwide. So, the US lets Iran get what she will in return of good business relations in the region.
Too bad for Israel that they don't have petrol and they became a useless liability to the EUS. Now their stupid investment to WMD doesn't help them at all. They should be investing human-beings rather than such weapons and walls. As some-one put it in one of those blogs - it is complete fiasco;->>
Of course there is a possibility that Israel strike Iran to upset the EUS and Jewish interests but I don't think Jews are stupid to let this happen, unless they are ready to a mass exodus from the EUS to Homeland(?!) Greater Israel.
It is not for the "national" interest of Jews to let Israel strike Iran. But when it develops to the US National Interest, then Israel may be let to strike Iran and even this wouldn't be for the "national" interest of Jews to do. The EUS had to do it.
So, Israel cannot ignore the "national" interest of Jews and strike Iran, Mr Yahu is bluffing;->>
BTW, linking two-state solution to Iraninan Nukes is not a mistake. It is just an empty linkage to soothe Israel. Ask yourselves "Why would Iran care about two-state solution?". It is stupid to assume that Iran will give up Nukes Project just because Israel agreed to split herself into two;->>
Grand Sen~or.
How do you know the state isn't "bluffing" again, they have always wanted to take Iran.
The U.S. is not that dumb, the only way we would ever attack Iran is if they decided to bomb our bases or attack somebody with nuclear weapons.
Iran has a nuclear power plant and we have been saying the whole time just let them deal with it. Its perfectly fine they have nuclear energy, as long as its regulated.
Its not a nuclear bomb like the neocons said about Iraq and then Iran and Syria. So the USA does NOT want to attack Iran period, we also don't want a patriot act yet we still have it, and ironically most of us don't want a federal reserve either.
So the point is Israel/neocon crazies want and demand all of this for the Globalist state. This is plain wrong and insane. We should let Iran do whatever they want and get out of there, if we were at all still sane people we also wouldn't be protecting Israel IF Iran antagonizes Israel because its not our problem now. Tut Desuit!
In the previous post the comments don't seem to be turned on, but this deserves to be noted:
Today, advocates of preventive war against Iran offer a similar set of claims, suggesting that Iran's leaders are irrational religious extremists who would happily embrace martyrdom and take millions of fellow humans with them. The only problem with this argument is that there is no convincing evidence to support it.
This is the regime that sent tens of thousands of boys to their deaths as cannon fodder, charging into artillery fire or simply using their lives to clear minefields, armed with only a key. The purpose of the key - to get them into heaven. I'd say that the advocates of preventive war, while not necessarily completely right, at least have some evidence on their side.
But the leaders you reference probably wouldn't embrace martyrdom for themselves, just others.
Linking Iran and Palestine is a Mistake
What sort of “treatment of the nuclear problem” could they be talking about? The US has its own interests to pursue in its relationship with Iran, and only a portion of those interests have to do with the Israel-Iran relationship. I certainly hope Emanuel doesn’t mean that the US will adopt the barking mad paranoid Israeli attitude toward Iran in exchange for good Israeli behavior in the West Bank.
Either the nuclear problem posed by Iran is serious or it isn't. If it is serious, dealing with it shouldn't be contingent on what Israel does or doesn't do in the West Bank. If it is not so serious, then the US shouldn't be suggesting that it will take military care of a non-problem in exchange for Israeli cooperation on a different matter. But the fact that the administration is willing to treat the Iranian nuclear program as just some sort of negotiating chip in its dealings with Israel is in itself enough to suggest that they rate the seriousness of the threat far, far, far below the level assigned to it by Israel.
The linkage suggested in YA story is crude. Not only does it give Iran leverage it doesn't need, as Professor Walt notes, it also gives Israel an added domestic political excuse for unilateral preemption.
If Obama and Emanuel are looking for some sticks to use, what's wrong with straightforward sanctions? That's what countries typically use to get other countries to behave in the desired way. The US should work with global partners to hammer out a framework, containing benchmarks and timetables, for ending the Israeli occupation and creating a Palestinian state - a framework which makes demands on both parties. This framework needs to be imposed by the international community, not dumped on another negotiating table to be haggled over futilely by two eternally warring parties. If either party fails to meet the obligations imposed by the international community, the world slaps sanctions on them. That's it.
Enough is enough with these characters. We're long accustomed to treating the Palestinians as a deeply dysfunctional political community. But by electing Netanyahu as its head and appointing the thuggish clown Lieberman as its Foreign Minister (!!!!!), Israel has ceded its right to be treated as a serious, grown up-state.
Enough is enough with these characters. We're long accustomed to treating the Palestinians as a deeply dysfunctional political community. But by electing Netanyahu as its head and appointing the thuggish clown Lieberman as its Foreign Minister (!!!!!), Israel has ceded its right to be treated as a serious, grown up-state.
I agree, Israel has mucked up;->>
Grand Sen~or.
But wait--I misled you. Hillary Clinton never said that, it was Secretary of State Dean Rusk in 1966. Rusk wasn't talking about Iran, of course; he was talking about Communist China (I just switched the names).
Professor, this is very, very clever of you. I frequently use similar technique to investigate statements apart from questioning them on conceptual level. One-day I will demonstrate how I question a statement here. I believe those questions are an effective tool to sort out statements to deal with them as they deserve.
Now you are talking Mate!
And you are in business;-))
Grand Sen~or.
I think we ought to pause before reacting to stories as thinly sourced as this one appears to be.
We know how reluctant Israeli politicians -- meaning just about all of them, not only the ones poised to lead Israel's government -- are to close with the difficult domestic politics of abandoning West Bank settlements, or even stopping new ones. We also know that the Israelis are nervous about Iran, not without cause but also not without awareness that preoccupation with Iran is one way to distract the Americans from pressuring them to deal with the one question they'd prefer to postpone indefinitely.
As a practical matter, an American "defense" against the development of an Iranian nuclear capability would need to involve much deeper engagement with Iran than has been achieved by Washington since the Shah fell. This includes making the issue of whether the costs of Iran's nuclear program and resultant economic isolation are worth it salient within Iranian politics. The point here is that if the United States were to attempt this for any reason, it wouldn't be to secure Israel's cooperation over West Bank settlements. It would have to be because Washington thought this was the best way to prevent a regional nuclear arms race, and eventually coax Iran away from being such a damned nuisance -- central American objectives, not Israeli ones.
A final thing we know is that Iran, the West Bank Palestinians and the Israeli leadership are not the only players on this stage. There are, for example, the Syrians, with whom the Americans would like the Israelis to engage over return of the Golan Heights, something the Israelis might well do if it meant they wouldn't have to deal with stopping West Bank settlements. Complexities are piled on top of complexities in this part of the world. After the last eight years we can't take for granted that the new administration in Washington is on top of them all, but the account in Yedioth Ahronoth strikes me as a little simplistic.
You make the key point; in fact, I remember reading a report awhile back that Netanyahu was going to make progress on the two-state solution dependent on US solving the Iranian nuke problem. So, who makes the first move? If Iran keeps pushing toward nukes, does this absolve Israel of its road map responsibilities?
Netanyahu was going to make progress on the two-state solution dependent on US solving the Iranian nuke problem.
The problem is; Mr Yahu has no choice for one-state leads to apartheid which falls out side of State. This has nothing to do with Iranian nuke problem.
By definition apartheid is not state.
Grand Sen~or.
Isn't the FM on record supporting a de-facto apartheid model?
On that I have to remind you how the EUS treated South Africa;-> When Sauth African Apartheid became a useless liability in African affairs, they let her dissolved to State. Some similar end is at hand for Israel, unless they settle on two-state solution.
Grand Sen~or.
I don't believe in pre-ordained futures (too much David Hume in my formative years).
There are many in-between steps. Or one can try different labels. Today's France, for example, is not that far from what could be labeled urban apartheid with its segregated banlieues for immigrants; sure they occasionally explode into violence, but France is still a state. And not many people would claim it's inevitably going to collapse. In fact, not many people really spend much time on the situation at all. Or, what is the role of women under sharia in Saudi Arabia, but gender apartheid? Does this mean their state will inevitable dissolve?
There are many ways less dramatic than South African apartheid to deprive people of rights and a voice in the electoral process (one look at American history should prove that).
I don't believe in pre-ordained futures (too much David Hume in my formative years).
You believe or not doesn't make any difference, because we are talking according to a theory, namely the SATFP, while you have no theory, so you cannot predict, you are helpless;->
There are many in-between steps. Or one can try different labels. Today's France, for example, is not that far from what could be labeled urban apartheid with its segregated banlieues for immigrants; sure they occasionally explode into violence, but France is still a state.
France is not building 8m high walls atound this areas, they also don't build legal barriers either other than denying SPEEs right to laws which is a defining element of State. I mean State by definition a Monopoly of law.
Or, what is the role of women under sharia in Saudi Arabia, but gender apartheid?
I suggest you investigate how "apartheid" is used in IR context. Otherwise you can also qualify Prof. Walt's IR Book writers categorisation as Apartheid;->>
Also, I reminded you:
When South African Apartheid became a useless liability in African affairs, they let her dissolved to State.
Don't make me repeat it again, and again;->
A lot of states of affairs changed in that region recently to make Israel a useless liability to the EUS and in fact for the Jews as well. That is why Mr Yahu has no choice.
Grand Sen~or.
I have a theory that trumps your theory. It is called logic.
My theory says your theory is invalid and worthless because it has no true predictive power (cf. Hume's critique of inductive reasoning in trying to predict the future). Any claims of 100% predictive accuracy are logically invalid, even that the sun will come up tomorrow (it assumes the principle of uniformity, which is logically invalid).
You claim your theory has 100% certain predictive power; I say it does not. Prove me wrong.
As for apartheid, I will give you the common definition:
apartheid n 1: a social policy or racial segregation involving political and economic and legal discrimination
How do France or Saudi Arabia not fit this definition?
I have a theory that trumps your theory. It is called logic.
My theory says your theory is invalid and worthless because it has no true predictive power (cf. Hume's critique of inductive reasoning in trying to predict the future). Any claims of 100% predictive accuracy are logically invalid, even that the sun will come up tomorrow (it assumes the principle of uniformity, which is logically invalid).
I suggest you borrow a few "Introduction to Logic" books from your local library and read the chapters about theories.
You are confusing logic with theory.
You don't know :
what is a theory,
why do we invent a theory,
how is it designed,
how is it used,
what are its limitations, etc.
You claim your theory has 100% certain predictive power;
I didn't say or claimed that. What I said is:
We make a prediction according to a theory while you can not make any prediction because you don't have a theory. With a heory we are capable to predict, while you are helpless without a theory.
But, hey, don't worry! you can still look/gaze at the stars to make a prediction and advice Mr Yahu saying:
"Yes Mr Yahu, don't worry, be happy and declare one-sate as the only solution. According to the stars, eventually, Israel will become another France in the ME, the walls will crumble like Berlin Walls, Palestinians will pour into Israel and they will turn Greater Israel to rose garden."
As for apartheid, I will give you the common definition:
apartheid n 1: a social policy or racial segregation involving political and economic and legal discrimination
How do France or Saudi Arabia not fit this definition?
Well, apparently in IR they don't use commonly defined terms. In IR, however they may use the same words, they may define it differently than ordinary language.
BTW, I am not going to ask you "Bring your theory!" because you don't know what theory is;->
I know our prediction according to the SATFP upsets you. Because you don't know enough logic, you don't know how to deal with it;->
I can't help you, but I suggest you learn logic. It really helps..If you don't believe me, take my postings and yours to a Logician at your local University and ask his/her advice.
Look, I am not in favour of the SATFP, but it is the only theory of IR in circulation here and I am not here to invent an alternative theory based on State, etc. I see "state" as a useless concept and keep demonstrating how it is so. You Guys are quite happy with this concept "state" and very attached to it, almost worshipping it, but when I make a prediction according to the SATFP as "state" being just a term of it, you get upset;-> That is good, really good, this means that I am doing my job as expected, it looks like I'll have more fun here as time goes by, thank you;->
Grand Sen~or.
Note: Your complain sounds like this;->
You are intending to go fishing on a boat and want to know how the weather will be. will there be storm, rain, snow, etc. You tern the TV on, or turn your computer on and search for a weather report. And the report reads:
Windy, 40 miles an hour north-westerly, temperature bla.bla..
The report is prepared according to a theory. In honest world they should add at the end od the report "according to the theory such and such", but they don't do it.
Now you have two choice to decide to go to fishing
1. Listen to the report and decide accord to it
2. Lick your finger and stick it out and decide according to it.
Which one you would prefer?
Would you argue; "Naaa, nobody can be 100% sure if it will be windy tomorrow so rather than listening to the weather report I might as well rely on my finger!"
Maybe you would, if you had quite bad experiences with the predictions of your weather-man/woman;->>
Or maybe, to double check, you would also ask your fortune-teller how the weather will be tomorrow. I don't know;->
If you ask me, I would argue like this;->
"I know those idiots make a lot of mistake, but at least they don't lie!";->>
Your post could have been a lot shorter if you'd just admitted that you cannot prove your theory has any predictive power and is therefore useless, but you think it's the best we've got. So, it seems you're willing (if implicitly) to admit that you were wrong in your original assertion that I objected to that if Israel became an apartheid country, it would inevitably cease to be a functioning state, etc. After all, historical determinism went out of style over a hundred years ago. Beyond that, though, this points to the fact that your theory is really worse than useless if one is making policy decisions based on it, just as if Bush decided to invade Iraq because Jesus told him to.
Functionally, there's little difference between your predictions based on your theories and a spittle-flecked fundamentalist on a street corner predicting the world will come to an end because of a theory written in a book centuries ago. Your predictions don't upset me anymore than those who claim the world is going to end in 2012 because the Mayans' theories say so. If you study logic, you will understand this crucial point; you are in the realm of religion, not science. If your theory has no predictive power, then it is useless.
If you learn this basic form of introductory argument, you will progress far beyond all your theories and obscure definitions:
Premise 1: Socrates is a man.
Premise 2: All men are mortal.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
This basic form of argument will serve you well if you understand its implications and apply it to any theories you encounter. And remember, redefining something doesn't change it: You seem to be making a mistake that among those who study semantics is known as 'mistaking the map for the territory, the menu for the meal.' Words are symbols of shared meanings, they are not the things themselves.
Your post could have been a lot shorter if you'd just admitted that you cannot prove your theory has any predictive power and is therefore useless,
I made the prediction, your not liking it doesn't make it non-exist. Here let me repeat:
"According to the SATFP Yes, Apartheid is not State, therefore State-worshipping States will create another state if Israel chooses Apartheid."
Please ref the SATFP which I had posted here several times.
Premise 1: Socrates is a man.
Premise 2: All men are mortal.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
Good start Mate! Good start!
You learn Logic, no body is born knowing it, you have to study to learn it.
Words are symbols of shared meanings, they are not the things themselves.
First you learn logic, then we will come to philosophy. I wouldn't jump from Elementary Logic to philosophy, if I were you.
My Friend! I have been honest with you suggesting to learn logic. I knew this could upset you, but that's me. If you find my postings not to your taste, you can always ignore them. Actually I already show you another way out by suggesting you that if you don't believe me, take all the postings to a Logician at the nearest Uni to double check if I am right/wrong, you don't have enough knowledge of logic to do it yourself.
Grand Sen~or.
I don't know about any of that....
I'm beginning to think its all smoke & mirrors guys.
Obama simply doesn't have the gonands in the long-run to challenge the Israel hardliners, not even with a full on revolution brewing/exploding & people fed up.....
He will spout off about the process but guess what, in the end the neocons are just going to act like jerks and lie about giving the people a second state/democracy.
Watch and learn I bet they will make a kabuki theater of their "peace process", while at the same time stealing more land & taking more freedoms & another Fallujah incident. It's just for the masses of disaffected voters/people to believe something is happening.
Sadly that's where I'm at now.
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com
I don't believe much Obama does since if he really had the gonads he would stand up to secular fascist state on torture, on CIA black sites, on all the crimes being swept under the rug & he would stop the blanket NSA surveillance of our country because the NSA broke the law.
I don't care who the NSA says they serve. If there's a ton of spies in that outfit, and fundie neocon christains, its clear they are serving Israel's military complex and attacking people on US soil for no reason. When it gets too far people will just revolt like this guy.
http://whatreallyhappened.com
Is it possible it's maybe possible but given the realities on the ground I won't hold up hope on it. Gonalzes & Feith are walking for ordering incredibly fascist torture, and if they walk, that shows where our priorities are with the rule of law. It stops with the state.
It's going to lead the people to topple the government and maybe chaos but then that might be good in the end....if we don't challenge the military AIPAC lobby they will just destroy everything anyway. What a catch twenty two & too bad I'm no optimist.
Iran's nuclear cost/benefit analysis
In a previous post about dealing with a nuclear Iran, Walt wrote in explanation that we need to impress upon Iran the costs associated with being a nuclear power:
Second, we need to explain to Iran that possessing a known nuclear weapons capability is not without its own costs and risks. Today, if a terrorist group somehow obtained a nuclear weapon and then used it, we would not suspect Iran of having provided it and they would face little risk of retaliation. Why not? Because we know they don’t have any weapons right now. But imagine how we might react a decade hence, if we knew that Iran had built a few nuclear weapons and some terrorist group whose agenda was somewhat similar to Iran's managed to explode a bomb somewhere in the world, or even on American soil?
Several commmenters were critical of the analysis, and I agree. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't nuke Iran based on suspicion and I think they know it. It's just not a credible deterrent to their drive for nuclear weapons.
However, and I would be interested in Walt's take on this, the same notion formally declared as doctrine being delivered by Israel. If a nuclear bomb is ever used against Israel while Iran is a nuclear power they would destroy Iran's 10 largest cities, and 10 other critical industrial/infrastructure sites for good measure (or some similar calculus). This would hold true regardless of the source of the weapon, which makes some sense in that it appears that Iran is not only trying to develop nukes for themselves but is proliferating as well.
This "Samson option" would be a credible threat coming from Israel, and also add a fair chunk of change to the cost side of Iran's cost/benefit analysis.
Isn't that implicit? I guess they could make it explicit when Iran gets nukes, but if Iran decides to nuke Israel, it's almost certainly going to get it back tenfold. Either the Iranians are rational and won't nuke Israel out of hatred or whatever or they're not rational and don't care what comes back at them (if someone isn't rational, then they aren't worried about rational cost/benefit analysis by definition).
What would be more interesting is if Israel said, OK, you Europeans/Americans/etc. have let Iran get nukes despite your assurances, so if Iran nukes Tel Aviv, Israel nukes Washington, Paris, Moscow, Beijing, London, etc. in addition to the obvious return fire at Iran. That would shake things up.
J Thomas and Blue: You misunderstand my point. The doctrine would be declared not as MAD deterrent, but as a deterrent to Iran's pursuing nukes, impacting their cost/benefit calculus about the decision to continue their nuclear aims. Once Iran joins the nuclear club, I imagine the MAD paradigm would be understood by all without explicitly laying it out.
This policy would surely result in improved peace and fellow-feeling in the area, It would reduce tensions and make the middle east a better place to live.
J Thomas: This is Realist internation politics, not sweetness and light and sentimentality. The harsh realities already exist.
Furthermore, there is evidence out there that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. To say, as you did, that there is "no evidence whatsoever", is incorrect, and also ignores the fact that they are actively pursuing the most difficult part of the process (uranium enrichment) in defiance of treaties signed and UNSC resolutions and in the face of UN imposed sanctions. At the same time, they are most certainly pursuing the means to deliver the weapons.
You could easily just flip your argument and say that if Israel is willing to do such a thing then it makes it more urgent for Iran to get nukes to provide a deterrent.
Plus, you ignore all the other positive externalities that might flow from Iran getting nukes that don't necessarily have to do with Israel; regional hegemony, or at least increased regional influence, national pride, the virtual end of any regime change threat from the US and others, the possibility of various aid payments, following the North Korean or Pakistani model, from the US and others in exchange for stopping and starting work on their program. In fact, like Pakistan, once Iran gets nukes, it becomes in the US's interests for there to be stability in Iran, because the fear of the nukes getting stolen trumps most other considerations.
You could easily just flip your argument and say that if Israel is willing to do such a thing then it makes it more urgent for Iran to get nukes to provide a deterrent.
If you think so, then you are still misunderstanding my point. The doctrine I hypothesized has Israel nuking Iran only after Israel has taken a nuclear hit and bottom line, with this doctrine in place it makes Iran more likely to be nuked if they have nukes themselves. Deterrence is supposed to lessen your chances of being attacked. The hypothesized doctrine links Iran's fate to Israel's in certain situations, and it would then be in Iran's existental interest to NOT see Israel nuked.
And regarding your list of positives -- yes, these are the reasons Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. The hypothesized doctrine would change Iran's cost/benefit calculus and IMO, in and of itself would not deter Iran from their current course.
I thgink its apalling how much influence AIPAC has in Washington DC. I hope that this president can do something to help the palestinians. Thogh based on his actions in other areas thus far I wont hold my breath
If Obama and Emanuel are looking for some sticks to use, what's wrong with straightforward sanctions? That's what countries typically use to get other countries to behave in the desired way.
The problem is that Israel has a good degree of support from Congress here in America, and you need Congress to do a good set of sanctions. That means that if the US President tried to impose sanctions on Israel, Congress would most likely undercut him.
A Firmer Hand from the International Community
The sanctions have to be put forward in a package, applying to both the Israelis and the Palestinians for failing to live up to international mandates.
Rather than continue to treat the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as one in which the two parties need to have their hands held so they can be brought to the negotiation table, it should be treated as an international problem calling for the firm imposition of international law on two parties that have frequently and outrageously violated international law for years.
No durable solution will ever be "negotiated" between Israel and Palestine. The power equation is too asymmetrical and the incentives aren't there. But everyone in the world knows what the solution to this conflict is supposed to look like, in most cases down to the neighborhood.
So why not get every major player other than the Israelis and Palestinians together; forge a UN-approved final status plan; draw a line on a map; say, "Here's Israel and here's Palestine"; declare a Palestinian state; demand that the nationals from each side get themselves on the right side of the border within a reasonable time frame; and stipulate the sanctions that will be imposed on the state of Israel and the state of Palestine for failure to comply.
It's high time we stopped letting these two little outlaw communities push the international community around with their endless acting out.
It's a nice idea, but outsiders - the US in the case of Israel, and the Arab states and possibly Iran in the case of the Palestinians - have too much vested in both of these communities and the areas they govern (particularly Jerusalem, which is sacred to Judaism and holds the third-holiest site in Islam) to simply cut them off, at least in my opinion.
... It's taking charge. The outside parties have too much invested not to take firmer control.
European and American Jews have too much invested in Israel, the pride of Western Jewry, to see it fall into the hands of thuggish, authoritarian tea-baggers like Lieberman. Arabs and other Muslims have too much invested in holding onto Palestine and Jerusalem to see it lost by the weak and disorganized Palestinians who are otherwise headed for certain defeat.
These two peoples need to be saved from themselves.
Israel does NOT want a two-state solution. Not the hawks at-least. They are still living in the lala land of greater Israel.
Let's say israel gives in on every issue--settlements jerusalem etc.--except only a small right of return(ie the Saudi Plan). Hamas would still not accept peace and rockets would still be raining down on Sderot and Ashkelon. Israel has show it can and will remove settlements if its enemies really want peace. Hamas will never make peace, ever. The real roadblock is that the Palestinians do not have a single government and therefore are not capable of making peace.
Israel has show it can and will remove settlements if its enemies really want peace.
It has shown that it can and will remove settlements in Gaza, which was a piece-of-shit land that they wanted to get rid of anyways (but were staying in for security reasons). We've yet to see them show anything like resolve in terms of getting rid of West Bank settlements, which is the heart of the settlement agenda in any case.
And in the Sinai for peace, a piece of shit land with oil resources.
A small amount of resources, in a territory that would have cost them a fortune to control and which would have kept the Egyptians constantly aching to attack and take it back.
As compared to the West Bank, aka "Judea and Samaria", home to Jerusalem, the tombs of the prophets, etc. Not to mention that it has 300,000 settlers as opposed to the few thousand in Gaza at the time of removal.
Yes, I don't disagree that everything is unique (in its own way ;-)). However, now we see that Israel has given land for peace multiple times. One out of two times they actually got peace.
And, you probably know that if peace were guaranteed (which of course it can't be), an overwhelming majority of Israelis would accede to dismantling the settlements it took to achieve it. I think enough to moot the situation in Israel where small groups wield disproportionate political power due to their coalition building model.
But what they are looking at is a terrorist group which subverted the democratic process, seized power in a violent coup and is now firing rockets at whatever they can reach. I don't imagine Israel will hand over territory any time soon that would allow Hamas to pull the same trick and then have them in rocket range of the very heart of Israel. This is what it comes down to and it is why, even if Netanyahu makes nice noises to Obama's pressure, it will only be that, nice noises. He won't jeopardize his country in that way. And, really, he shouldn't. This is only about the peace process, I agree that we should be pressuring them about increasing the footprint of the settlements.
I don't know what you think the final settlement will look like, but I see Israel keeping some of the settlement blocks in exchange for other territory. This is what was offered in 2000/01, which is itself a precedent for offering to dismantle West Bank settlements and hand over most of the territory.
Replying to "let's say Israel gives in..."
If Israel were to give in on every issue, it's quite a stretch to assume that "Hamas would still not accept peace and rockets would still be raining down on Sderot and Ashkelon." This assumption, asserted confidently although based on a future context with no historical precedent, is actually a fine clue to unraveling the mindset and propaganda that has kept us in this mess for so long.
The same mindset can be phrased like this: "Why should Israel stop building settlements? If Israel were to stop building settlements, Hamas would still fire rockets at Sderot." "Why should Israel lift the blockade? Hamas would still..." "Why should Israel let medical emergency teams in? Hamas would still.." etc.. The scary thing is that people with this same mindset are in positions of power now in Israel...
And wearing the other shoe, the opposite has been demonstrated true, no assumptions needed: "If Hamas were to stop firing rockets, the settlement building would continue, the assassinations would continue, the checkpoints would continue, the construction of the Wall would continue..."
Stable Middle East: Iran, Israel and Nuclear Bomb
There is no dispute that Iran is already a nuclear state. The states with this capacity are many; among them are Japan and Germany. But, there is a great difference between being a nuclear state, i.e., nuclear fuel cycle capacity, and a state with nuclear bomb, such as India, USA, Russia, England, France, China, Israel and Pakistan. The steps required to allay our fear that Iran in the future may develop Nuclear Bomb are:
1. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Iranian Consortium:
USA should join the consortium among others Japan, Germany, France and England to actively monitor the Iranian fuel cycle activity too. IAEA has consistently asserted that the agency could not find any indications that Iran is diverting the fuel cycle for nuclear bomb development. Iran has asserted that their activities are limited to development of fuel for nuclear reactor.
2. Nuclear Shield
An international nuclear shield for all nations in the Middle East, including Iran;
3. A nuclear- bomb-free Middle East.
This action will remove any pressure from Iran to develop nuclear bomb in the future for deterrence against nuclear bomb Israeli state.
Unfortunately the attentions of the past two US Presidents (Clinton and Bush) were on nuclear fuel cycle of Iran. They both ignored that Israel had nuclear bombs. This condition was created by the strong Israeli Lobby.
In Hague meeting, Iranian officials offered to cooperate with the USA. We hope this cooperation between USA and Iran would continue to the other tension areas of the Middle East. Iran in the past had stated that the affairs of the Palestinians relation with Israel are basically a Palestinians. Many expect that Iran would not reject a reasonable break through between Washington and Israel over the Palestinians home state. However; many suggest that any resolution about Palestinian state would be a non-starter with Israel.
Israel has used Iran as diversion away from creation of an independent Palestinian state. This problem of Palestinian subjugation to Israel occupation is the seed for an unstable world including the Middle East.
Saint Michael Traveler
http://stmichaeltraveler.wordpress.com/
the Palestinian issue would be contingent upon the American approach toward resolving the Iranian threat, as well as its attitude towards Hamas and Hizbullah
Um, that's an attempt blackmail and extortion.
Primitive 'Quid pro quo'-approach surprises (could it be Rahm?)
I am surprised about this Quid pro quo-approach apparently adopted as an official US policy towards to Iran, just as it was towards Russia some month ago, when Russia was told that the Missile Defense Shield in Eastern Europe could go away, if they helped -- by effectively joining Israel Lobby led drives towards Iran.
The primitiveness of such Quid pro quo-approaches -- and making them public -- is worlds apart from the realms of the dedicated work that US diplomats have been doing for generations - building up Goodwill for The United States of America. This their awe-aspiring work was seriously curtailed during the Bush years, when The Israel Lobby via their proxies in the White House, managed to place the State Department on a side-rail.
Has all the hallmarks of having been brewed up in the same circles
This approach has all the hallmarks of having been brewed up in the same conspicuous, small circles -- and is just the sort of thing that Rahm Emanuel on a good day could rahm up himself. That is how he have dealt with fellow Congressmen all his life; you do this and that, and if you don't: no money for your campaign, or no money for this or that plant in your state.
What is striking is the time table of the State of Israel.
The Palestinian Katyousha missiles get better every year as we have seen.
Denying Iran or Arab countries access to nuclear weapons makes them more desirable, even more so that Israel started the process.
The silence and double standards of the international community can only last so long.
But when the big brother and only friend of Israel shifts its priorities, or cannot afford economically its support, then the bargaining ship of the settlements in Arab lands will turn into toxic assets.
I was born and raised in France and saw a lot of former settler sons and daughters arriving in my school every year from North Africa in the 60’s, moving back to France after the colonial wars. French Jews from North Africa were not moving back to France (some went to Israel): they had lived in the Magreb for centuries. Unfortunately they had sided with the colonial power, and then knew they could not stay any longer in this area. Their community dwindled from hundreds of thousands to barely a few thousands after the independence of these countries.
Losing face after making strategic mistakes, (as Steve Walt says when he states that the relationship of Israel with the US is unsound and bad for both) might put the Israelis in the same predicament. Would Israeli citizens accept to compromise all of the sudden?
Tying the Iranian nuclear development to the Palestinian problem might make Israel behave a little better for a while, but if they drag their feet for too long: then their last chance will have passed by.
Philippe, this is a realistic comment. Prof. Walt and his friends are trying to remind this to the Jews in the US by warning that the IL is playing against the "national" interest of Jews. But those people don't represent Jews legally. Maybe as their name indicate they represent National Interest of Israel which is quite different than the "national" Interest of Jews. Your comment is more about "national" Interest of Jews.
Grand Sen~or.
Being a Jew is to believe and follow Jewish religious principles. There is no Jewish National interest except for existing in peace and be respected as an honest and descent minority for those that live outside of the State of Israel.
Israel would never be so powerful is Zionist Jews would not subsidize it with money from wealthy countries. US foreign aid is part also of the subsidy as much as the Pentagon and the US Christian fundamentalists are. If these subsidies would disappear, Israel would be much better off as we all agree on this site, and its army could not even afford buying the parts to maintain its current armada.
Looking at the current path it is obvious that Israel is on a short time table and might not have any future in the Middle East. A nuclear war involving Arab capitals by Israel before being half destroyed itself is a possibility.
Avoiding such a gloomy scenario is NOT protecting Jewish National interests, but just to protect descent human values.
Jewish National interests, but just to protect descent human values.
Philippe,
when I say ""national" Interest of Jews" I am talking according to the SATFP which is the common conceptual structure on this Blog. Please note that I put "national" in quotations which means my statement is not formulated according to the SATFP, but just to relate its terms to make it understood better by the Bloggers. What I mean is: "Jews" not a state, so to talk "national interest of Jews" is not in accordance with the SATFP. Here I am usening Ordinary Language to pass my message adopting terms from the SATFP.
scenario is NOT protecting Jewish National interests, but just to protect descent human values.
For the Bloggers who are using the SATFP the above sentence boils down to:
""national" Interest of Jews"
to make sense.
Here you admit that Jews have "national" Interets:
..existing in peace and be respected as an honest and descent..
Grand Sen~or.
Note: Please read the following axioms where "national Interest" occurs.
The Salvare Apparentias Theory of FP (SATFP).
1. There exist states.
2. A State composed of a nation, a national leadership, National Interests and power (economic, military, population, land, etc? ..(any others? pls feel free to add, it is the Blog's theory, not mine).
3. There exists a competitive arena where states acts as they do.
4. There exists no central authority in that arena that can enforce moral or legal constraints.
5. States commit morally dubious acts (dubious according to what? The Blog knows) (see axiom 4)(Why this is here? Didn't the Blog declare that SATFP is essencially amoral?)
6. A State's foreign and defense policy reflects National Interest of the state.
7. A State can take deterrent action against other State(s) if the Leadership of the State decides so. (see axiom 11 & 12).
8. A State seeks to increase her National Interests when her existence is threatened.
9. A State's power is a potential threat to other states. A state is by definition paranoid of other states.
10. States to increase their National Interests, to decrease potential threat of other States, to assimilate them and to dominate them, impose their Constitutions to other States. (But of course this degenerates all constitutions to a mono-constitution which prepares the Competetive Arena to the favour of the State whose Constitution became the one and only dominant Constitution to pave the ground for so called Globalization - Global Dominance - Ein STAAT, ein LAND (the GLOBE), ein FUERER und ein VOLK where there exists NO THREATt, NO COMPETITIVE ARENA, NO WORRIES and bsst of all NO NEED TO FP - a Paradise on Earth if you believe;->>)
11. A State talks sweet but carries her power peeping under her cloak to deterre the potential threats of other states. (McCain the Presidential Candidate 2008)
12. Powerful States to rule or protect or increase their National Interests divide less powerful states ad infinitum.
13. A State can suspend her constitution if the National Intersts dictates so. Solely the Leadership decides whether the National Intersts dictate that or not and their decision is final, cannot be challenged based on the articles of the Constitution of the State. In such cases the leadership for the sake of the National Interests is not required to disclose the reasons how they reached to a certain decision. When the National Interests of the State require, the constitution of the State becomes just a goddamned piece of paper (as Bush declared).
14. A State to keep her Internal Balance of Threat and National Interest and National Unity must centralize the power and not to share it with any Identifiable National Entity(ies).
15. A State keeps the power of making and implementing the laws solely to herself and does not share this power with any Identifiable National Entity(ies).
16. Salvare Apparentias Foreign Policy is the art of keeping the threats of states in Balance besides saving the foreign policy related phenomena. (How? By shuffling, dividing and mixing nations/races/cultures?!, subjecting them to prototype secularo-fascist laws to reduce their multiplicity to singularity? the Blog knows).
Way Out for Jews from the swamp of the State of Israel
Jews give up the State of Israel with all her weapons including WMDs, in return the EUS recognizes Jews' right to law as an SPEE named the Greater Israel. Jews settle nothing more and nothing less than that.
Grand Sen~or.
Note: I am expecting serious comments to this post from the real and realistic people.
SPEE = SocioPoliticoEconomicEntity
EUS = EU+US
Well: then you are talking in the name of Jews and what YOU think THEY want. Maybe this site is neo-real and neo-realistic, I apologize about the missundertanding...
So long!
No! I am not talking in the name of Jews or the EUS
then you are talking in the name of Jews
No, I am not talking in the name of Jews. I am formulating a realistic proposal for them in relation to the existing state of affairs. If you have a better one or an alternative one in contrast to my draft proposal then feel free to post it here. Of course it is up to Jews and the EUS to own/accept it or not.
what YOU think THEY want.
No! not what I think they want, but what I think a realistic way out of the existing state of affairs.
You see the EUS is proposing two-state solution (?!)
Israel is proposing one-state solution (?!)
and I am proposing the above to both Jews (not-Israelis) and the EUS to think about it. I know their proposals are in accordance with the SATFP, mine is not. But the SATFP itself is not realistic theory, it is built to save the appearance (salvare apparentias) of the State.
Wasn't it you who wrote:
There is no Jewish National interest except for existing in peace and be respected as an honest and descent
What happened? Have tou changed your mind??!
Does my draft proposal contradict this? No! it actually proposes to legalize this "national" Interest of Jews.
Grand Sen~or.
The EUS should not propose ANY solution to this conflict.
It is up to the Israelis "and Palestinians" to decide.
Starting to lower the quantity of gun shipments from the US to Israel (such as canceling the F22 purchase altogether) should be a first step to a potential settlement.
Iran would allow Israel to save appearance because Ahmadinejad position should be weakened in this process.
Also, when AIPAC sees it is going against US interests: it quiets down very quickly as it did last summer.
The EUS should not propose ANY solution to this conflict.
Yeah, but they are the ones who pay the bill and the conflict is an IR conflict which effects the National Interest of the EUS as well. And in fact, the EUS is the One who initiated the State of Israel there (to safeguard her National Interests of course).
You see, it is not as simple as an issue between Israel and Palestine where Israel dictates whatever she will to Palestinians. It is deeper than that, if you look at it from the realist point of view using the SATFP.
Grand Sen~or.
The glitch in this SATFP is that it is a self-fulfilling theory, namely selling guns and dividing other States, as it perpetuates its own spending and immorality ad infinitum!
PS: however, spending cannot be unlimited.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(57)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE