As a follow up to the post about Armenia, I offer you this.
This stems from a controversial book that gets into the influence of AIPAC, the primary pro-Israel lobby in the US.
And worth a bookmark in general, here is the Annenberg center site that calls out misleading claims made by politicians, in ads and otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
As a follow up to Mr. Silton’s post, I offer you this.
I, unlike the link, do recognize that there are both positive and negative aspects to recognizing the Armenian genocide. There definitely are problems with recognizing the Armenian genocide – it would be a destructive resolution in concerns with America’s relationship with Turkey.
That being said, I believe that there are some very compelling reasons why to have this resolution – mostly for the sake of the Armenians, which I believe everyone agrees that the resolution would help emotionally, and it should be done soon, because there are always reasons why NOT to do it, but the only reason to do it now, the fact that the surviving Armenians now are dying, will not last much longer.
However, I want to argue against a much more disturbing facet of the site, the part which argues that AIPAC, the pro-Israeli lobby, is trying to force America to go to war with Iran at the expense of America, I think the author has to do some more research on this topic. The facts are simple:
Israel will not, and can not, allow Iran to develop weapons of mass destruction. If Iran is allowed to continue to build weapons of mass destruction, there will be a war, and most likely a big one. However, this could be easily diverted if America were to support Isreal – (and by the way, ever since America has substantially supported Israel there has never been a major war in the Middle East) – by simply placing harsher restrictions on Iran. Thus, it’s clear that AIPAC is pushing for a plan that would stop a war, and would be as much beneficial to Israel as it is to America. So, the author is plainly wrong when he argues that AIPAC wants to have America invade Iran, and it is plainly wrong when it argues that AIPAC is doing so at the expense of America. It’s your choice – wait for a war that may leave rogue regimes in control of the Middle East with the power of nuclear weapons, or act preemptively and attempt to stop this war before it even begins.
I would like to add a comment about the comparing of the Armenian-American lobby, the Cuban-American lobby, and AIPAC to the dangerous factions mentioned. Although I realize that recognizing the Armenian genocide would endanger our relationship with Turkey (which I still believe is a sad example of terrible foreign policy today) but is it really that terrible for the Armenians to want the U.S. to recognize such a state of suffering? I would hardly agree that such a thing is "pointless and destructive." It is a declaration of beliefs. And does Fallows actually think that the Armenians are trying to be destructive? When African Americans wanted freedom it was supposedly not in the interest of America (White Christian American men) to do so. Maybe it was because the majority of the people hadn't been slaves and didn't know what it was like. Maybe if more people knew what it was like to have their people mass-murdered they would understand it a little better.
I also think that his portrayal of the different lobby groups, although he claims is not in any way prejudice, is singling out nationalities and religions in a way that is not necessary. If it is to suggest that certain ethnic groups are calling for "pointless and destructive" measures that are inconsiderate of American policy, I would be hesitant to affirm that he is not judging people by their ethnic background. While the Armenian-American lobby may be mainly Armenian, and AIPAC be mainly Jewish, it does not mean that all Armenians or all Jews support such a lobby.
And I guess if factions are so dangerous, I should alert you all to a new one that's picking up supporters fast. That quote Fallows inserts about is just too appropriate: "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and acuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
This faction I speak of is the Save Darfur Coalition (http://www.savedarfur.org/content). They are blindly moved by the passion to save people from genocide, and are absolutely inconsiderate of America. I mean this impulse of passion does not help American interest, it only save lives across the world from a terrible mas murder of individuals. Such factions are not in the interest of the American people, and it would be better for America's relationship with China if we just ignored the current murder of all these people in Sudan.
Ahh, Max, a worthy antagonist, I cannot pass up this opportunity to challenge your response. First, read
http://www.newsweek.com/id/57346/
output/print as well as what Fallows himself has written about the negative consequences of bombing Iran (on the Atlantic site).
OK, you tell James Fallows to do more research. Then, you state that Fallows claimed that AIPAC was "trying to force America to go to war with Iran" when what he actually wrote was "To the (ongoing) extent that AIPAC -- the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which calls itself "America's Pro-Israel Lobby" -- is trying to legitimize a military showdown between the United States and Iran, it is advancing its own causes at the expense of larger American interests."
Then you state that Israel will not allow Iran to develop WMD; I think you have to consider the limits of IDF to project power that far away, even if the US sells them "bunker busters," an airstrike might not cripple the Iranian program but most certainly would look awful on TV and increase Iranian influence with radical groups in Lebanon and Palestine, as well as turn Iranian public opinion in the wrong direction.
Furthermore, you say the way to avoid a nasty war in the region is for the US to support Israel by placing harsher restrictions on Iran. Sounds nice, but "harsh restrictions" that are not backed up by other global players are pointless, and they aren't on board (yet -- France is back in play, so that angle is not yet pointless). Putin has made it clear that the costs of military action on US interests will be high; unlike Israel, we have major needs in the former Soviet Republics in terms of logistical support for Afghanistan. Unilateral sanctions are mostly for show, and, um, there is a .00001% chance that the world is going to stop buying Iranian oil.
AIPAC is pushing to stop a war? But you state that our choice is to 1) wait for a war or 2) act preemptively. Sounds like war is inevitable.
What you have not considered is whether the risk from Iran is really that great, or whether containment is a viable option. Iraq, as I recall, was considered a clear threat that required preemptive action but OOPS there really wasn't WMD. The threat was overstated, and we ended up in a war that hurt the US interests. Making a deal with North Korea was considered by many conservatives as one of the great stupidities of the Clinton administration but OOOPS looks like we are about to cut a deal with them after all. But war with Iran, a country of 70 million, half of whom would support an end to radical Islamic rule, that is not only necessary but inevitable?
My friends, this is no easy issue with obvious solutions, but I must use my bully pulpit to point out that bombing Iran is super-risky and probably counterproductive. (Invasion? No one is talking about that, as we'd need a draft. If the Bush administration doesn't think this threat is serious enough to call on your generation to rescue us from it, I'd just as soon not go around bombing a country to project our power on the cheap.)
Elaina's response has lots of merit; we need not (and should not) use self interest as the only barometer of good policy. However, US policy at the moment is to try and pressure Sudan. Military options are unattractive without global support, and the lack thereof has little to say about our factional politics. The Cuba embargo is a policy blunder nearly everyone agrees on except bitter exiles living in a battleground state, and the Armenian tragedy was, um almost 100 years ago and right now, with fighting between Turkey and another aggrieved minority group (the PKK) that lives in and out of its borders, it really isn't a good time to prop up the self-esteem of Armenians who have some kind of strange historical envy of how the Jewish Holocaust has become the case study it is.
Your turn!
I am going to be extremely careful for once in fear of a rebuttal of 5 paragraphs. I do not think a showdown would be all that bad. I mean it would, but it is going to probably happen sooner or later, better when we are more superior in my opinion. Go AIPAC! The best lobbyists in the whole entire country :)- Or so I think.
P.S. I do not think anyone can rebut that, maybe the now instead of later but if you try give me a time when that worked besides the Cold War and I will listen.
PS "self esteem" was a cheap shot and I'd like to take it back. Weak on my part. The Armenian massacre is a crime of historic proportions, and I think the Turks have acted poorly in pretending that the Ottoman empire was some other people (although the Ataturk nationalism was a pretty clean break with the past by historical regime change standards). The history of that episode is more murky than the Armenian lobby would care to admit, and I'm not sure it qualifies as genocide, but there is nothing wrong with Armenians asking for it to have greater consciousness.
That being said, there is nothing wrong with the US Congress staying out of symbolic declarations about historical events few members have spent more than 5 minutes considering, if for no other reason than it would annoy a very valuable ally at a dicey time in world affairs. Leaving history for the historians is just that.
"it is going to probably happen sooner or later"
Hm. On what basis do you make that assertion? Quite an assumption. If conflict is inevitable... I still think we should wait and build support; France, a total write-off for US foreign policy insofar as Iraq went, is a whole new deal under Sarkozy. The internal political dynamics in Iran are not so simple, and there have been favorable trends recently... except for their scary stupid President. I just don't think he has all that much real power in Iran, despite his title.
You might also check out the state of Israeli public opinion on this matter. Hardly a slam dunk.
Please don't be scared of me. It is unlike Max to offer so many unsubstantiated assertions, I'm sure it won't happen very often if ever again. Iran is a dilemma, and shoring up the world's commitment to nuclear non-proliferation should be a high priority, I'm sure we agree on that.
But bombing as foreign policy... I'm off that train for good, violence is for true emergencies, and it isn't worth our honor to eliminate all risk by bullying the world on the basis of the worst case scenario.
Sorry for the late response, this one took a lot of thought, so get ready for it…
I want to begin by disputing your implication that Israel can’t, or it would be difficult for it, to attack Iran and destroy their facilities for WMD productions unilaterally. I’d like to point out that the IDF most certainly has this capability. As mentioned in your cited article, Iran only has a defense budget of $4.8 billion – compared with Israel’s minimum of $15 billion – and thus in this stage of the game, Israel has a clear advantage over Iran.
Furthermore, you mentioned that Israel would be deterred through a bad public imagine, and that it would, in effect, give more credence and fuel to radical terrorist organizations. While yes, a legitimate concern, Israel has done a preemptive strike before against Iraq in 1981 – so it is entirely realistic to believe it could be done again.
So as far as Israel being capable and willing to act unilaterally, I think that it is clear they can, and quite possibly would. Whether or not you or I believe Israel, weighing the pros and cons, should attack Iran, they have said that if Iran’s WMD program is not stopped, Israel will act unilaterally – and if force is the last option, then so be it (these are not just radical members of the Knesset – this has been repeated by many politicians within many parties, and the Defensive and Foreign Minister). And to remind you again, Israel’s threats are not to be taken lightly – they have done this before.
And as far as your statements that Iran does not pose a viable threat…
While it is ignorant to say the Iran does pose a major threat, especially to America, it would also be ignorant to say the Iran poses no threat. Any semi-radical Middle East country with WMD seems to be a slight threat, at least in my book – and if not to America, then definitely towards Israel. However, even if you persist to disagree with me, I’m happy to say that, under our republic system, it is our politicians that matter, and not so much you or I. And Bush and his administration have time and time again said that Iran should not be able to develop WMD and that all options are on the table, and in a vote of 376 to 3, the House passed a bill calling for the United States and other members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to "use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” While yes, this may be just talk and political games, I am sure that the administration and 376 informed politicians might know just a bit about Iran’s threat to our country – clearly, one does exist (let’s keep in mind that while maybe not as radical as North Korea, this is still a country that denies the Holocaust occurred and states that Israel should not exist).
So, I made a claim that instead of war (which I still believe certain if Iran does not stop its nuclear program, or at least intervention from Israel), America is the only country capable of stopping military action. The U.N. at this point is hopeless – you’re right, with Putin helping Iran, it is very unlikely that the U.N. will pass any serious sanctions. However, France has entered the picture, and Russia might turn away from Iran – the reason why Iran is so far behind schedule is because Russia, the builder and suppliers of their facilities, has stopped because of disagreements (Russia claims because Iran has not paid them yet). So, maybe the U.N. isn’t hopeless after all.
That being said, I think America can stop a war – by acting as if it wants one. Assuming that Mr. Silton is correct by saying that Iran is not all that radical and that a new, less radical president will be coming to power before this crisis ends, I am sure that, with a less radical government faced with almost certain attack from Israel, and almost certain support from America (which, if Israel attacks, is almost certain, since American forces in Iraq are within easier range of Iran than Israel), that they would come to the negotiations table.
I don’t think this is the perfect situation to be in – America has definitely messed up negotiations (or lack there of, not having a diplomatic presence in Iran for over 30 years), and Iran is definitely a volatile element in the already volatile Middle East. That being said, the Iranian WMD problem can be solved – and I think it must. I found no solution to the problem in your rebuttal, and I believe ignoring a situation in no way guarantees its fix.
I want to conclude with this:
Israel has a right to defend herself. Israel must defend herself – because no one else will. It is their right, just as it is every country’s right, to defend themselves against threats, which, unfortunately for Israel, occurs much too often. As far as public opinion goes, public opinion has yet to save the life of one Israeli or one Jew. While perhaps helpful and an emotional boost, Israel can not let public opinion dictate its security. And I am sorry to say the unlike you and I, Mr. Silton, who live on the other side of the world and have the luxury to wait for a more moderate Iranian leader and let time filter out the real and not-so real threats, I am sure that if you lived 600 miles from Tehran, reality would look very different to you.
To Max--although I cringed a little bit when I read your first comment, I agreed with most of the second one. Unfortunately, Israel's public image is pretty bad anyway, although I would say that America's military tactics are quite more aggressive than Israel(we fight in Iraq for the sake of "democracy" and they fight because if they don't they'll be killed). In addition, although I do believe that Iran is not as much of a threat to the United States as it is to Israel, let me point out that we went to war with Iraq because they almost had nuclear weapons. Maybe if Bush had picked the other country this war would have gone a bit differently...
I am not saying that a war in Iran would be fun for the U.S. to partake in, I'm just pointing something out that there is actually a legitimate reason this time. I cannot say that nuclear weapons in Iran would pose a great threat to the United States, but I can say with confidence that it is a threat to Israel and I would not blame Israel for taking action against it. I know that whenever Israel makes a military move people chide the country for being to aggressive, but at least their preemptive strikes are preemptive to something. If Israel wasn't on her toes all the time there wouldn't be a country of Israel...people attacked her on Yom Kippur for crying out loud.
Anyway, I would like to talk about some of these issues in class. Although it may not look "attractive" to go into Sudan, I believe that that's the most unjust and ridiculous argument of our time. I'm sure that putting "pressure" on Hitler wouldn't have made him stop killing the Jews. Do you know what's unattractive? Hundreds of thousands of people have died in Darfur already. Maybe if the country had oil it would look a little more "attractive" to the American people.
Honestly, we live in a democratic country of "justice" that won't even recognize a Holocaust in history because of fear of bad political relations (and I have a question or two about how valuable Turkey really is and for what...participating in a war that we're trying to withdraw from?). I guess I shouldn't expect such a country to actually care about social justice or true freedom democracy...
So it's late and I'm obviously a little bit upset about these subjects so this post might seem a little irrational. I'll read it again later to make sure.
and to Mr. Silton
First of all, I do agree with your comment about the embargo on Cuba. It is a new day and age where we can rise above such notions.
Let me say it's a good thing you caught yourself on what you said about the Armenians. I am both disappointed and disgusted with your "cheap shot" and would not expect such inconsiderate and unthoughtful words from someone such as yourself.
Maybe it's because my people have also experienced, but I think it's all the more reason for my view to be legitimate. I don't believe my accordance with those in the Armenian-American Lobby is at all selfish, but merely a reflection of understanding. And honestly, you believe that the Armenians have an "envy" of the Jews because more of their people didn't die? Or do you believe that they "envy" because they haven't been recognized at all?
Another thing: obviously this "case study" of the Holocaust isn't in depth enough because a few more have happened and we haven't acted accordingly. I don't know how one could argue with that.
In addition, to leave history for historians? So you don't believe that recognizing certain events in world history has anything to do with American policy today?
Max,
Many good points. However, I never claimed that Iran didn't pose a viable threat. I suggested that we might be exaggerating it. Huge difference. Unfortunately, we do this often.
Elaina,
I have no doubt that some Armenians are annoyed at how much attention the Holocaust gets in school curricula compared to their own story. Since we cannot study everything, we make choices, and the Holocaust gets in-depth treatment for all sorts of good reasons. If "genocide" is taken as "mass murder by one group on another" then there are other examples and maybe we shouldn't favor one example (the Holocaust) over the others. But I find the Holocaust to be in a category all to itself because of the coordinated, government policy, the technology, the premeditation, and the attempt to truly wipe out an entire group, not to mention that actual scope in terms of numbers of victims and perpetrators. So, we can recognize every injustice out there and be sure to mention every one so no group feels slighted, but all that results in are students who have heard about a bunch of evil things without sufficient context and without grappling with the causes and consequences. Envy -- yes, actually. There are parallels in how some African-Americans resent all the attention to gay rights in recent years, not entirely without merit: http://www.advocate.com/issue_story_ektid25280.asp
I am often frustrated by the politics of victimization. I once complained about this trend insofar as Palestinians went, and a Jewish student pointed out that the same analysis might also be applied to Israel. Actually, he was pretty annoyed with Israel, and if I'm not mistaken, one of his family members was part of the IDF raid against the Iraqi nuclear plant in 1980.
Small world, eh?
My last contribution to this thread... time to move on...
I'm glad we can finally put this one to rest...it's been fun ya'll.
Can't wait til the next one...
or maybe I can...
Post a Comment