Monday, September 29, 2008
Olmert takes a departing shot aimed against Israel
article about Sternhell
2. Talk Isn't Cheap With Iran (wall street journal)
By MICHAEL B. OREN and SETH ROBINSON
The issue of America dialogue with Iran featured prominently in Friday's
presidential debate. Barack Obama pledged "to engage in tough, direct
diplomacy with Iran." John McCain denounced that notion as "naive" and
"dangerous."
This exchange capped a week in which five former secretaries of state,
including Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell, called for talks between the
United States and Iran, and when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
assured the United Nations General Assembly that "the American empire is
reaching the end of the road."
Amid all of these declarations, though, few questions were raised about
the possible benefits of U.S.-Iranian talks as well as the potential
pitfalls. What, for example, would be the talks' objectives -- to moderate
Iranian behavior and renew Iranian-American relations or, more broadly, to
recognize a new strategic order in the Middle East? What concessions might
the Iranians seek from the U.S., and which ones would America be prepared
to yield? And finally, how would the discussions affect America's allies
in the region, its forces in Iraq, and its strategic standing world-wide?
Any attempt to talk with Iran must take into account its previous
negotiations with the international community. These began -- without
preconditions -- in 2003 in talks between Iran and Britain, France and
Germany. The most recent round took place in Geneva last July. It included
the chief European Union negotiator Javier Solana and William Burns, U.S.
undersecretary of state for political affairs.
In exchange for opening their nuclear plants to inspection, the Iranians
have been offered immunity from sanctions, membership in the World Trade
Organization, and an energy partnership with Europe to modernize Iran's
oil industry. In addition, Iran would have received a fully fueled nuclear
reactor to service the country's agricultural and medical needs. It would
have been welcomed into a Persian Gulf security forum and enlisted in
efforts to rid the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction.
Most generously, Iran could have continued to enrich uranium for
verifiably peaceful purposes. Iran's response to these far-reaching
concessions was consistently and categorically "no."
In addition to nuclear issues, American interlocutors, should they
undertake talks, must also address the question of Iranian expansionism.
Through its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies, Iran has gained dominance over
Lebanon and Gaza, and through its Baathist and Mahdist allies, has
extended its influence through Syria and Iraq. An Iranian threat looms
over the Persian Gulf financial centers and beyond, to the European cities
within Iranian missile range. No attempt has yet been made to induce Iran
to roll back or even curtail the export of its violent revolution, nor
have the global powers seriously considered such a package.
Clearly, any U.S.-Iranian dialogue must exceed previous efforts and
produce a unique array of concessions and incentives. The U.S. Embassy in
Tehran (closed since the 1979 hostage crisis), might be reopened,
sanctions could be reduced, and Iran's regional prominence acknowledged.
Assurances could also be given that the U.S. will not seek regime change
and that American forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf pose no
threat to Iranian security.
None of these gestures, however, are likely to alter Iranian policies. It
is unclear whether Iran would even agree to reopen the U.S. Embassy. A
proposal in January 2008 to establish an American visa office in Tehran,
though welcomed by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, was denounced by
Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as a CIA ploy.
Nor are the Iranians apt to respond dramatically to any easing of the
sanctions that have so far failed to persuade them to moderate. Moreover,
recognizing Iranian ascendancy means legitimizing Hamas and Hezbollah
while weakening America's allies in Israel, Lebanon and the Palestinian
Authority.
Radical Shiite militias would also be empowered, eroding America's recent
gains in Iraq and impelling Sunni states to procure their own -- possibly
nuclear -- means of defense. The U.S. could abjure any hostility toward
Iran. But with its forces in the area already overstretched, such promises
would invariably ring empty.
Rather than improving U.S.-Iranian relations and enhancing Middle East
stability, any American offer to dialogue with Iran is liable to be
interpreted as a sign of American weakness, and not only in Tehran. Public
opinion throughout the area will conclude that America has at last
surrendered to the reality of Iranian rule. The damage to America's
regional, if not global, influence may prove irreversible.
Yet dialoguing with Iran presents the even graver danger that Iran will
use it as camouflage to complete its nuclear ambitions. That goal,
according to U.S. and U.N. intelligence sources, could be achieved as
early as 2010, and the Iranians could pass the interim blithely
negotiating with the United States. And even if Iran agreed to halt the
enrichment process, it might replicate the North Korean model: negotiate
with the United States, agree to suspend nuclear activities, then renew
them at the first opportunity.
It is difficult to take issue with a presidential hopeful who views talks
with Tehran as a "way to keep America safe," and with seasoned secretaries
of state. However, the stakes in the proposed talks with Iran are too
critical to remain unweighed.
The next president may in the end try to engage in discussions with Iran.
To avoid disaster, his approach must be conducted within well-defined
parameters, including the cessation of uranium enrichment by Iran and any
end to its support for terrorism.
Negotiations must be time-limited as well, and accompanied by intensified
sanctions and a credible military threat. The U.S. can communicate with
Iran, but as a power and not a supplicant, and with leverage as well as
words.
Mr. Oren, author of "Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle
East, 1776 to the Present" (Norton, 2008), is a senior fellow at the
Shalem Center in Jerusalem. Mr. Robinson, a former staff member on the
House Foreign Affairs Committee, is a graduate student in international
relations at Georgetown University.
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
3. As you probably heard, Ehud Olmert's first speech after leaving the
government was designed to show his contempt for the Israel that had
ejected him. In it he called for Israel to give up East Jerusalem to the
terrorists and to deliver the Golan Heights to Syria. If Israel refuses
to let him rule, he will endeavor to see Israel annihilated. In any case,
this sets the stage for the last point below in:
Selichos for the Oslo Left
by Steven Plaut
The Israeli and American Jewish supporters of Oslo have been asked to say
special Selichos prayers this year in light of the terrible catastrophes
inflicted upon Israel by the policies they have forced upon the country.
The new Oslo Selichos go something like this:
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
the world that Arafat would pursue peace,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
the world that Hamas would be more of a threat to the PLO than to Israel,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
the Jews that Arafat would fight the Hamas and Islamic Jihad with no
Supreme Court or Betselem (to quote Rabin),
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that hostility to Jews in the Arab and the Moslem media would
decrease,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
the Israelis that trade between Israel and Arab countries would flourish,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel us that the Palestinian Authority would be disarmed,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that the PLO would cooperate strategically with the Israeli Defense
Force,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel there would be an economic peace dividend,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that Israeli Arabs would demonstrate increasing moderation due to
the "peace process,
Please forgive us..
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that the Hamas and Jihad would be persecuted and suppressed by the
PLO,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that PLO arms would never again be used against Jews,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that the PLO leadership would speak in terms of peace with the
Jews,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that the PLO would cease its efforts to delegitimize Zionism and
Israel,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel the PLO would denounce and renounce anti-Semitism, Nazism and
Holocaust Denial,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that the PLO would introduce democracy into the Palestinian zones,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that the PLO would be forced to spend all its energies on resolving
domestic social and economic problems,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that the US would back Israel if the PLO reneged on its obligations
or displayed duplicity,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that the US would cease to pressure Israel to endanger its security
and fundamental interests,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that the Europeans would rush forward to support Israel,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that the Japanese and Saudis would pour money into regional
investments, including into Israel,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that the Egyptians would end all animosity towards Israel, Zionism
and Jews,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that the non-Arab Moslem countries would gush friendship for
Israel,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that Arab military expenditure would drop significantly,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that Arab verbal threats against Israel's existence would end,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that Nazi-like propaganda in Arab countries would end,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that the Israeli Left would lead the retreat from the Oslo
experiment it if proved to be not working,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that the PLO would never show itself as a tin-cup Third-World
kleptocracy if granted power,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that Jews remaining in Moslem countries would see their treatment
dramatically improved,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that Russia would act as a stabilizing force for peace,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that the majority of Palestinians would denounce violence and
terror,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that Israel Arabs would cease to support political parties
dedicated to eliminating Israel,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we forced Israel to commit Oslo and assured
Israel that Palestinian chants of In Fire and Blood will We Redeem
Palestine, "Death to the Jews", and "Massacre the Jews" would end,
Please forgive us.
For the sin we committed when we assured the world that Oslo would NEVER
lead to demands for negotiations concerning Israeli sovereignty over
Jerusalem, that Israel would never be asked to return to its 1949
Auschwitz borders, that the Jordan Valley, and Golan Heights would remain
Israel's security borders forever,
Please please please forgive us!!
