[Peace-discuss] Benny Morris in NYT

[C. G. Estabrook]

Point well taken.  But whether Morris' argument is lunatic or just vicious, it surely isn't a very good argument (e.g., the last two paragraphs contradict one another).  And it has the marks of hasty composition. 

My guess is that it owes more to the recent reversal of policy on the part of the Bush administration: after saying it never would, the USG is sending an envoy to talk openly with the Iranians tomorrow.  

Couple this with the recent announcement of an accelerated withdrawal of "combat troops" from Iraq, and it becomes clear what the administration is doing: undercutting Obama by adopting his program. They may not like McCain much (who does?), but they recognize that there are dangers in being succeeded by a Democratic administration (indictment, f'rinstance).

The people in charge of policy at the moment (the "foreign policy establishment," as opposed to the neocons in the OVP) aren't stupid and noticed what's obvious: Obama's peace plan isn't one.  Obama thinks that anti-war sentiment has no place else to go, so he proposes
	--withdrawing "combat troops" from Iraq (and leaving plenty to enforce the occupation);
	--talking to Iran (while continuing to holler "Wolf!"); 
	--killing more people in Afghanistan (there are wedding parties as yet untouched); and 
	--killing people in Pakistan (with or without the cooperation of whatever government makes its writ run there -- which we'll also do a lot to prevent).

The Bush administration looked at that and said, "Hell, we can do that -- and Obama'll lose his only semi-substantive issue, the war." The new ABC/WP poll, indicating trust in McCain as a military leader (70%) rather than Obama (48%), suggests they're right.  But for the Israeli government, especially its right-wing, it's a very bad development (and probably the reason that the IG is rushing to show its cooperation on other issues of interest to the FPE, notably the Palestinians).  "First Iraq, then Iran," as Sharon said, is only half done.  

Who do you suppose solicited Morris' article for the NYT?  I doubt it came in over the transom.  --CGE      


---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
>From: David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>  
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Benny Morris in NYT  
>To: Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
>
>   http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print
>    
>   "Such a situation would confront Israeli leaders
>   with two agonizing, dismal choices. One is to allow
>   the Iranians to acquire the bomb and hope for the
>   best — meaning a nuclear standoff, with the
>   prospect of mutual assured destruction preventing
>   the Iranians from actually using the weapon. The
>   other would be to use the Iranian counterstrikes as
>   an excuse to escalate and use the only means
>   available that will actually destroy the Iranian
>   nuclear project: Israel’s own nuclear arsenal."
>   _____________
>    
>   Benny Morris is the Israeli historian best known for
>   researching the expulsion of the Palestinians in
>   1948. His summary "by war, not by design" argued
>   (not convincingly) that the expulsion was not the
>   result of planning but of ongoing,
>   unpredictable events. It would seem that regading
>   Iran, he's of the view that if there is a nuclear
>   war, it should indeed, from the start, be by design.
>    
>   It's important to understand how conspiracy theories
>   that project suicidal tendencies onto foreign
>   countries and cultures are projections of the
>   overriding ambitions or quasi-suicidal tendencies of
>   our own leaders, or Israel's, when faced with the
>   prospect of losing their "deterrent" capability
>   (that is, capacity to dominate) in the Middle East.
>   Conspiracies are justified by claims that others are
>   conspiring (see Daniel Pipes, for example). I think
>   it's important to take this mindset seriously,
>   however we may evaluate what is "rational" for our
>   leaders to do or not do. If Morris's article
>   accurately reflects the mentality of the Israeli
>   leadership and of Israelis, then we have to begin to
>   understand that logic and lunacy are not necessarily
>   mutually exclusive, geopolitical ambitions are
>   involved.
>    
>   DG
>    
>    
>________________
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss