It's All About Israel; What's behind the calls for the U.S. to bomb Iran?

[Purveyor]

I see that Zbigniew Brzezinski is stealing my ideas and not giving me credit, but, what the heck, I'm in a generous mood – and he puts his own gloss on it – so I don't mind (via Matthew Yglesias):

"Zbigniew Brzezinski at the conference says the U.S. and Israel should try to put their demands for Iranian disarmament in the context of support for a regional nuclear-free zone (i.e., Israeli nuclear disarmament). After all, he says, if we're supposed to believe that Israel's nuclear arsenal isn't a sufficient deterrent to ensure Israeli security in the face of Iran's nuclear program, then it obviously isn't a very valuable asset."

What good is the Israeli "deterrent" if it doesn't deter? A good question, perhaps answered by challenging the assumption that the nukes in the IDF's arsenal are at all defensive in nature or intent. The Israelis clearly intend to crouch behind their nuclear shield as they expand their sphere of influence, and this has been especially true since the implementation of the "Clean Break" scenario espoused by the Likudniks and their American co-thinkers. Growing Israeli influence in Kurdistan, recent incursions into Lebanon, and the purported ability of Israeli agents to penetrate Iran's borders attest to the success of their strategy. While American soldiers in Iraq take bullets from Sunni insurgents – and, increasingly, radical Shi'ite militias – the Israelis have been quietly (and not so quietly) taking the spoils of our Pyrrhic "victory."

I'm kidding when I say that the former national security adviser and renowned foreign policy theoretician is "stealing" the idea that we ought not to support Israel's Near Eastern nuclear monopoly. It is a perfectly rational, logical argument, one that has long been advanced by the Syrians, the Arab League, and any number of commentators in the Arab-Muslim world(s). It is also radically heretical in the West, where discussion of Israel's unquestioned hegemony in the region – and in the politics of policy formulation in the U.S. and Western Europe – is prohibited. Which is why I've been practically alone, until recently, in challenging the prevailing orthodoxy.

The concept of parity between the Israelis and their Arab-Muslim antagonists may soon be legitimized, in spite of the Western taboo against straight talk on this issue, when the regime of Gen. Pervez Musharraf expires and gives way to an openly Islamist government that possesses as many as 55 nukes. Then, perhaps, the idea of negotiating a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East won't seem so radical after all.

---eoe---

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11132

[burythehatchet]

1. the double standard is something I will never ever understand

it is born in the most racist of tendencies

[Shaktimaan]

2. What double standard?

There's a few. That we refrain from holding Israel to the same demands we make of Iran, regarding nukes? Or that we (the west) refrains from holding the collective Arab world (and Iran) to the same demands made of Israel?

We have different expectations of Israel because they are a close ally and a western liberal democracy. So on the one hand we demand that they maintain a firm committment to human rights and offer all of their citizens full equal rights, and criticize them loudly when they fail to meet our very high expectations, yet make no real effort to hold the rest of the middle east to any kind of HR standard at all, nor criticize them when they fail to even pay lip service to the concept. Israel has the best record on human rights in the whole ME and offers the most equality to all of its citizens regardless of ethnicity, yet is also criticized the most, on these very issues, by organizations like the UN, who have disappointed me in their lack of even-handedness in this area.

On the other hand, the same status that demands Israel show a greater committment and accept more responsibility on Human Rights also means that Israel is trusted with greater responsibility in other areas, such as being a nuclear power. No one is worried that Israel will use the threat of nukes as leverage against MidEast policies or nations they disagree with. Israel has never even really admitted to having nukes, much less threatened anyone with them, despite some dire military situations. The arguments against Israel's nukes are primarily superficial and political in nature. It annoys the Arab countries on several levels and it would be seen as a concession towards peace for Israel to give them up. But no one thinks that Israel is going to nuke them. In fact, it's pretty apparent that no one thinks that Israel can muster the diplomatic strength to even make a committed strike at them with conventional arms. If they suspected they might face that scenario, they would refrain from terrorism. (As the Palestinians did, for instance, following Jordan's extremely brutal suppression of their attack on Hussein.) But since they feel secure knowing that Israel's counterstrike will be of limited force and duration, they can fire Qassams off at will, relatively safe in the knowlege of Israel's reluctance to inflict casualties on the level of Hussein's reprisal attacks, (And that the world will be watching Israel, with the intent of halting any counterattack that threatens to get out of hand.)

This is not the case with Iran, or Pakistan. They are not democracies, they have very poor records on human rights, and they violent rhetoric they occasionally unleash to the world press speaks ill of the wisdom in allowing them to become nuclear powers. Saudi Arabia is not freaking out over Israel having nukes, after all. They are nervous of Iran potentially getting nukes.

it is born in the most racist of tendencies

Really? What would those racist tendencies be?

[burythehatchet]

4. you are lost in the rhetorical maze of your own design

The racist, white supremacist, European nose in the air notion that brown people really can't be left to control their own damn lives, land, and populus. If that is not as evident as the shit on Joe Lieberman's face, well, that's your issue.

[Shaktimaan]

6. You know that over half of the Jews in Israel...

are "brown," right? Actually, some are black, from Ethiopia, But we're taking about the descendents of Jewish refugees from Arab states who were thrown out of their countries in the 50's, where for the most part, they had been living for a few thousand years. They are also known as Sephardim, Mizrahim or Arab Jews/Jewish Arabs.

And Iran is comprised of Persians, who are not particularly brown at all. (Especially compared with most Israelis.) You may think what you like about their policies or their skin color, however Iran was never thought of as lacking in culture or sophistication, nor was it colonized by racist Europeans. (Don't even try to bring up the Shah.)

By the way, colonialism ended a little while back, you may have missed it. But the Europeans today do, in fact, leave their former colonies alone to control their own damn lives. They discourage all nations from pursuing nuclear weapons nowadays. You can read about it in a device known as a "newspaper," or a similar instrument referred to as a "book." It's where I got all this great "information."

[burythehatchet]

7. Don't even try to bring up the Shah.

because inconvenient facts should be immediately and summarily discarded. Its the American way. Sorry holmes, I've had this inane discussion way too many times for it to be anything more than the same recitation of talking points and ignorance of history.

By the way, from what I understand, the brown people in Israel were actaully living quite peacefully with their neighbors before our great colonizers decided that wasn't in their best interest.

[Shaktimaan]

11. Inconvenient facts?

Like the one about Persians not being brown at all? Give me a break. If you bothered to read an encyclopedia entry about the CIA/Shah takeover you'd know that it was entirely about trying to contain communism during the cold war. I am not excusing it, or trying to defend what was one of many examples of unnecessary and undemocratic acts the US took during those 40 years. But to try and explain events like these away by saying the motive was nothing more than racism is foolish. We never cared what race a country was when deciding Cold War policies to take against it. And if race was the real issue, then why have we always given some non-white folks total support while denying support to their white aggressors. Think of the USSR's invasion of Afganistan. Our problem there was that we helped them win that war and then left them on their own to deal with internal issues by themselves.

By the way, from what I understand, the brown people in Israel were actaully living quite peacefully with their neighbors before our great colonizers decided that wasn't in their best interest.

Yeah, I'm sure you have that understanding, right. So then tell me, what exactly did the great colonizers do to inspire Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and so on, to steal the savings and possessions of their Jewish citizens, strip them of citizenship and throw them out of their countries? What did they do that made it acceptable to massacre their Jewish citizens who were not even Zionist and had no urge to depart for Israel? Even before Zionism, the Jews lived under serious restrictions and faced occasional massacres wherever they were. Life in the Arab world was better than under Christianity, which is where the idea that it was "peaceful" came from. Peaceful only compared to the atrocities that europe committed.

And within Israel, the native Palestinians did NOT attack the Zionists. The violence began in Israel when the Palestinians attacked the NATIVE Jews in 1920, 1921, and 1929 in Jaffa and Hebron.

But besides all that, your argument was that this is all about race. So, Israel provided a country for all of those refugees regardless of whether they were white, brown or black, right? And America is helping them because... we don't like brown people? Do you think you could even tell the difference between the average Israeli and the average Palestinian? They look exactly the same for the most part.

[burythehatchet]

12. listen counselor, I'm from there, OK?

[Shaktimaan]

13. Where? Europe or Palestine?

[LeftishBrit]

9. One 'double standard' that I see here...

is that when the Bush government does or proposes something stupid and evil with regard to foreign policies, it's not seen as just them being stupid and evil. Some dreadful foreigners must be controlling them. On the Right, it's the UN; and with a few people here, it's Israel. Because obviously Israel is SUCH a huge and powerful country compared to the US.

:sarcasm: once again.

[leftchick]

3. yes indeed

I read this earlier today. Very true.

[bemildred]

5. Well look, I just want to say that attacking Iran to improve Israel's security

is a tremendously stupid idea. It won't have that effect. Not even a little. It would make things much worse. It's even dumber than invading Iraq was, and invading Iraq was pretty stupid.

[LeftishBrit]

10. Too right!!!! - that's why this whole suggestion makes no sense.

[LeftishBrit]

8. Oh, yes, obviously another war in the Middle East would be absolutely great for Israel's security

After all, there aren't nearly enough conflicts near to Israel right now, and such things have never been known to increase the risk of terrorism.

I'm sure all the Israelis would just love it, and would benefit enormously.

And of course, it would all be absolutely wonderful for everywhere else in the Middle East too, and is such a sensible idea all round.

:sarcasm: