Wednesday, December 12, 2007

NIE Report = Every Ready Bunny

This report has been treated to a thorough round of disbelief in the international community and in the blogosphere. As always, one of the most interesting discussions takes place on Soldier's Dad's blog in the comments section. Soldier's Dad viewed the release of the report as an opportunity for Iran to come in from the cold:
"The NIE lays out the excuse the US is prepared to accept. Whether Iran ended it's nuclear program yesterday, or tomorrow morning at nine is irrelevant. (Once we saw Saddam had no nuclear weapons...we decided we didn't need them is as good an excuse as any). Whats needed is verification."

That makes perfect sense to me as well.

Maury, a longtime commenter on Iraqi blogs sums it up:
"It means Bush killed three birds with one stone SD. He took out Saddam AND killed WMD programs run by two nasty regimes. We'll never know how many lives were saved as a result. Maybe millions."

However, numerous others in the know have not been so optimistic. (This is only a smattering of the skeptical pieces written about the report in the days since its release.) Perhaps the regime's response gives the skeptics reason not to believe that the issue is closed. I have a feeling the pressure will continue for some time to come. Perhaps only when the people of Iran themselves manage to topple the regime, will this threat truly come to an end.

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher's arguments against the peace process ( samsonblinded.org/blog/we-need-a-respite-from-peace.htm )?

December 13, 2007 1:12 pm  
Blogger Louise said...

Oops. I didn't mean to publish both comments. You may have noticed that I moderate the comments to keep atrocious trolls at bay. Perhaps that's why you posted the same comment twice, thinking the first one hadn't gotten through.

Anyway, as for what I think of the article, I think the term "peace process" is a joke. A peace process that has been going on for a generation or more isn't much of a process. Other than that there is a lot in that article that I disagree with.

This, for example, "Every other nation destroyed whatever aborigines happened to live on the land that nation chose to build a state" is not true. And in the Middle East, there are no aborigines, since that area has been inhabited by humans for far, far longer than any written or archeological record attests.

Humans arrived out of Africa via that route on the way to populating the entire planet. So who the hell are the original people in that part of the planet? Human habitation of that land most certainly didn't start with the ancient Israelites.

And, beside, if one follows that argument through, asserting that newcomers have the right to destroy the people they find in a new land, then the Arabs should by right, be justified in eliminating the Jews. I'm sure you aren't agreeing to that suggestion, are you!! (Is samson blinded your blog?)

To carry on, this:

"Palestinian Arabs don’t constitute a nation. Offering them a state is a plot against Jews"

is absolute nonsense. It is an attempt to settle a long standing problem, which, frankly, I don't think will work, but to say Palestinian Arabs "don't constitute a state" is to suggest that the map of political boundaries currently on the globe has not ever changed over time. "States" have come and gone throughout history and there is no reason to suggest that a Palestinian state could not or should not appear sometime in the future. It would likely take a long time to happen, if it does at all, because the current mindset of both the Palestinians and many of the Arab dictatorships in the region who depend on them to justify their existence would have to change.

This:

"Peace process doesn’t offer safety. Jews need a secure state rather than a beach strip eight miles wide.

Peace process runs against Judaism and Jewish history. Jews are attached to the land which the peace process gives to Palestinians: Judea, Samaria, Hebron, Schem, and the Temple Mount. Coastal areas of the modern Israel are irrelevant to Jewish religion or history. Jews could as well settle in Uganda or Arizona."

I agree with the simple historical facts in that statement, but you can say the same thing about many other peoples on this planet. A great many of us have an ancient ancestral connection to the land we currently occupy. Hell, most especially those aborigines the blog refers to. They are an especially relevant example. The only difference is that Jews have an ancient written history, which proves conclusively that they have connections to the land now once again called Israel. Those without a written record may have a harder time proving an ancient connection, but that doesn't mean they don't have one, or at least feel passionately that they do, just as passionately as some Israelis and some Jews in the diaspora.

This:

"Israeli government employs the peace process for the sole objective of destroying Jewish religious and nationalist opposition to its rule. Neither security of the Jewish state, nor fulfillment of Jewish objectives are the peace process’ goals"

is complete nonsense.

and this:

"Israel can settle with Palestinian government, but a sufficient number of Palestinian Arabs would always resent what they think is Jewish occupation of the land of their ancestors. A few thousand such Arabs would always be there, and will always attack Israel employing terrorist tactics."

Maybe. Maybe not. Only time will tell. Don't forget that the Palestinians have been propped up by Arab dictatorships for more than half a century. If and when those dictatorships fall, there will be a big change in Palestinian behaviour, in my opinion, but how long that will take is anybody's guess.

This:

"Jews moved into Israel to fulfill religious and nationalist objectives."

may be part of the problem, but then no festering political problem in history was ever straight forward and simple. Perhaps the Middle East festers on and on because of the historical religious undercurrents of the region, but there are certainly a whole host of other factors as well.

If Israel were pushed too far and decided to annihilate neighbouring countries, I would not blame them. I think that reasonable people make every attempt to live in the here and now and do not let ancient blood feuds unduly influence their collective decisions today. That's why it's a very good thing that Israel is a democracy, as many, many voices within the state of Israel comprise a broad base of power which prevents the state from doing anything rash. If power was concentrated in the few, as it is in most of the countries surrounding her, she would be in a much worse position, I would think.

December 13, 2007 6:34 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home