The Speech; The Visit; the aftermath
President Obama spoke to the AIPAC conference Sunday. Still doing the exegesis myself. Here is the report in the NYTimes (the comments are always instructive).
Here is M.J. Rosenberg, pretty positive that Obama delivered a message that says the U.S. is in charge of its own military and foreign policy.
What do you decipher?
THE VISIT: From Ha’aretz, Netanyahu’s visit to the WH on Monday: “The Iran issue was the focus of the talks. It permeated everything from the agenda of the one-on-one meeting to Netanyahu’s gift to Obama: a decorated copy of the Book of Esther, which will be read tomorrow night and Thursday morning at Purim services around the world. It recounts the story of the evil Persian King Ahasuerus and his viceroy, Haman, who tried but failed to annihilate the Jewish people.
“Then, too, they wanted to wipe us out,” Netanyahu told the president.” Netanyahu is single-minded. What would Queen Esther say?
THE THREAT! Paul Pilar offers another view: “We Can Live With a Nuclear Iran.” at the Washington Monthly.
Tuesday: The harshest assessment I’ve seen so far: “Natanyahu sat in the Oval Office and once again lectured the president of the United States on the world and the place of the United States in it . He said that Israel trusts nobody. He also said that Israel exists because Gentiles cannot be trusted but that the US and Israel are the same thing. This implies that the US, although untrustworthy as a country is nevertheless at the disposal of Israel for various suitable tasks. The inevitable conclusion of these statement is that the US must obey Israel.” Here
MORE: Israel’s bete noir, Walt and Mersheimer had this to say about Israel’s existential threat: “In fact, the Palestinian issue is the real existential threat to Israel. More than 500,000 Israeli Jews now live in the occupied territories, and continued settlement building will lead to a single state between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea. Given demographic trends, this “Greater Israel” could not be both a Jewish state and a full democracy. Instead, it would be an apartheid state, threatening Israel’s legitimacy and long-term survival.” Financial Times
There are currently two one-line AP reports on the WaPo webpage this morning. a)Netanyahu tells Obama America and Israel stand together; and b) N. tells O. Israel must remain master of its own fate. The implication seems to be that Israeli decision making trumps US decision making. But maybe I’m missing something.
A stab at exegesis:
A stump speech to garner the electoral votes of the 51st State, tilting toward the bellicose.
Don’t forget to read Commentary:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/05/white-house-israel-attack-on-ira/
What is mising in this game is the possibility of economic sanctions on Israel. It has bombs, but the U.N. can’t keep track of them? It steals the land of the Palestinians foot by foot? Economic sanctions might help to show the Israelis that their government is a rotten on. I’d say there should be sanctions on Palestinians when necessary, but they are so weak, what do they have to deprive them of?
Netanyahu and Obama are having a conversation at this moment with CNN taping. Net. is sounding conciliatory. == he even thanked Obama for the speech. He ended with, “I thank you vry much, Mr. President, for your friendship”. Obama sat there looking like John Wayne at a table in a saloon looking at a rowdy who was spoiling for a fight, his expression really icey. The body language was really interesting. I have no doubt that he would go to war.
Spencer Ackerman’s initial reaction is that “Obama’s speech to AIPAC threw down a gauntlet to multiple audiences, while challenging them to do things his way.” Obama doesn’t want Iran to build/acquire nuclear weapons—consistent with his global de-nuclearization strategy. AIPAC and the Israeli government want (or so it seems) Iran not to have the *capability* of building a nuclear bomb.
http://www.attackerman.com/notes-on-obamas-aipac-speech/
Been at meetings all day, just catching up.
AO: Thanks for the first-hand CNN report…the still photos look like two guys coming back from a great fishing trip!
LH: Wow! Ackerman’s response to Sunday’s speech: Pungent!
Here is Dana Milbanks take away in today’s “Washington Post:”
“A barbershop quartet performed for participants in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as they took the convention center escalators to Monday’s meeting of the pro-Israel lobby. But once inside the hall, the AIPAC attendees heard the sound of war drums.”
Here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/aipac-beats-the-drums-of-war/2012/03/05/gIQASVMZtR_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
It’s interesting to compare Arch Bishops Lori and Dolan’s rhetoric on contraception with Netanyahu’s position. The Catholic leaders, and others, have labeled this an ‘attack on freedom of religion and basic Catholic doctrine.’ And, ‘something that cannot be allowed to stand’. But, birth control is already pretty much a settled issue among Catholics, to say nothing of Americans at large. For Netanyahu, however, Iran developing a nuclear weapon is an existential threat. Iran has dedicated itself to the destruction of Israel. They may only use the treat of a weapon — or they may not. In comparison, Netanyahu seems the voice of calm and reason, given the stakes involved.
We can natter and whine about the threat to world peace of Israel behaving badly, but we’re here, a big country across a big ocean with a ton or armaments to protect us, and they’re a tiny people, naked and exposed to a dozen extremely hostile enemies. If any of those enemies should get a nuclear weapon, Israel’s likely to be turned to dust before Obama wakes for breakfast.
David Smith: What about Israel’s 300-400 nuclear weapons?
Margaret, what’s your source? Israel does have nuclear weapons, but not likely 300 – 400 of them. They don’t need that many and they are expensive to maintain. But, not knowing for sure, please tell us your source.
As you know, no one knows (except Israeli officials) because Israel has never acknowledged having nuclear weapons. The figure 200-400 is often cited in news stories.
The Federation of American Scientists offers an estimate of 80, and says that Israel has produced enough plutonium for 100-200 warheads. http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html
Is FAS’s estimate low? Don’t know; I guess 80 would be enough to blow up the ME, if not the world.
Other sources for information???
Margaret, Israel has no reason to want to use nuclear weapons except in defense, and even then they’d probably be useless. Look at the map. A single large nuclear weapon or a few small ones would destroy Israel.
I imagine that Israel’s nuclear weapons are useful as a deterrent, no more.
Margaret and David….I agree with David. It doesn’t really matter how many nukes Israel has, but it is probably around 100, and they are primarily for deterrence. The number ensures survivability — they probably have a nuclear missile submarine capability, for example. The point, though, is that Israel is highly unlikely to actually use a strategic nuclear weapon (although the question of tactical weapon use is less certain). A nuclear Iran has two purposes: deter a US invasion like Iraq and to ‘destroy’ Israel. I agree that Israel is bellicose, but beyond that, they really are threatened in a very existential way. They feel, in the majority at least, that they cannot afford the risk of a nuclear Iran. The Obama administration is trying to walk a fine line, and of course balance election year politics at the same time. IMHO.
There seems to be no exit from the situation as it is.
Perhaps we need to look more closely at the historical causes, complex though they be, and try to remedy them retroactively if possible. Settlement of the Palestinian case (and they do have a strong case) might change Iran enormously.
Yesterday, CNN had an Iranian Ayatollah on saying nice things about Obama. Maybe he was looking for mediation. Now that other nations have joined with the U.S. in pressuring Iran, Obama’s hand in the M.E. is becoming stronger. I won’t give up hope, in spite of the situtaion seeming to be gridlocked.