Wednesday 17 June 2009
MORE ON COUNTRY VS. CITIZENS
More on Country vs. Citizens
A reader named Joe writes about to the previous post.
Greenwald has responded, without mentioning you, in an update. I wonder what
your response to that update is.
So here goes.
First, I doubt Greenwald read me and decided to argue without attributes. That would be petty, and I don't have reason to think him petty. More likely, to my mind, is that he noticed how very flimsy his arguments were, and tried to fix things. Not very convincingly.
Second, Greenwald has no facts. Indeed, he has dug up a quotation, but it doesn't say what he says it does. Iran is a largish country, about four times the size of France with less than twice the population, so there must be substantial areas (many of them desert) where there are no civilians to be killed in bombing raids; it may well be that's where the Iranians have put some of their nuclear installations. (I don't know this for a fact, but Greenwald doesn't know the opposite). The quote he brings says that if Iran was bombed, and if its regime tried to fight back, things could get ugly. Which is probably true, but brings us to the main point.
The idea behind using military means to stop a nuclear weapons program is to block horrendous loss of life even at the cost of limited loss of life.
Michael Walzer, probably the best-known teacher of Just War theory in our generation, addresses this question directly when he tells of deliberations confronting the Allies during World War II. According to their information, the Germans were transporting heavy water from Norway to Germany, and the only way to stop the shipment entailed the certain killing of all the Norwegian civilians on board. With hindsight we know that the Germans didn't even have an active nuclear program, but the Allied decision makers operated on the data they had, not the full story we have. So they killed innocent Norwegians to block a German nuclear program which they were convinced would have caused vastly greater suffering.
I have no doubt that an attempt to block an Iranian nuclear program will indeed cause some death of innocents. If one assumes that the Iranians will retaliate wherever they can, some of the innocents will be Israelis, others will be Europeans, some will be Argentinians, and probably some will be Americans. Almost all will be civilians, because unlike whoever attacks them, they will never have the intention to hit military targets; civilian ones are so much easier. Remember, the Iranian Mullahs and their proxies have been killing innocents ever since they reached power in 1979; many of them at the behest of one Mir Hossein Moussavi, who was the prime minister.
Unlike the Iranian Mullahs who kill indiscriminately, and used to send tens of thousands of their own children to die storming Iraqi troops, the Americans and Israelis, the only two countries which might conceivably attack Iran, never aim intentionally at civilians; should the need arise to attack Iran, they will certainly not be aiming at those demonstrators in Teheran. Not.
Readers of this blog will attest that I have never called for an attack on Iran, not once. Nor am I now. The best option, I've always thought, is for the Iranian people to change their ghastly government; this may be about to happen but probably isn't. The second best option is for the Iranians to change their minds as the result of negotiations. This will not happen, alas. The third option is for the rest of the world to enforce such harsh sanctions that the Mullahs back down: but this will have to hurt the Iranian populace, and is very unlikely to work anyway. The fourth option is to negotiate with the Mullahs with drawn weapons. The experience with Saddam in 1991 indicates that won't work either. The fifth option is to use military force.
It's a bad option, and it might not even work. But is allowing those murderous Mullahs to wield nuclear weapons preferable?
taken from :Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
DISTINGUISHING BETWEN A COUNTRY AND ITS CITIZIENS
Distinguishing Between A Country and its Citizens
Mondoweiss yesterday slammed Netanyahu for his willingness to countenance an attack on Iran to foil its nuclear ambitions. Look at all those brave Iranians facing their ugly government! Netanyahu wants war against them!
Glenn Greenwald, meanwhile, castigates American hawks who call for force in halting Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Glenn Greenwald, meanwhile, castigates American hawks who call for force in halting Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Matt Yglesias, in a recent post about the administration's "debate" over whether
to bomb Iran, wisely included a random photograph of an Iranian street with
civilians walking on it. These are the people Norm Podhoretz and his comrades
want to slaughter.
I can't speak for the American hawks, but to the best of my understanding, the situation is diametrically the opposite of what Mondoweiss and Greenwald make it out to be.
First, there's an obvious distinction to be made between a government and the totality of its populace. The government makes the decisions, sometimes supported by parts of the populace, rarely by all of it, and often by a minority of it. One can act against a government without wishing to harm its citizens - in fact, that's how wars are supposed to be waged. That's why the Hezbullah and Hamas way of war is so profoundly wicked: it aims at all civilians, and not at the IDF at all. (Need I mention that Hamas and Hezbullah are both Iranian clients? That means, clients of the Iranian regime, not each Teherani protestor).
Second, people calling for the Iranians to be stopped with military forcewould all prefer the goal to be reached with peaceful means - but so far these haven't done much good.
Third, a military option, were it to be chosen, would not target civilians in Teheran but rather the military targets in places like Nantaz.
Fourth, the reason there is urgency in stopping the Iranian nuclear program is exactly because no-one wants to hurt the Iranian population. So long as the Iranian nuclear program has not yet reached fruition, it may be possible to halt it with very limited loss of life. Once the Iranians have nuclear weapons, attacking them would mean tremendous loss of life, on all regional sides - though not in the United States. The Iranians can't reach the Americans yet.
I have no explanation why these simple self-evident considerations are so far beyond the comprehension of educated people such as Greenwald or Adam Horowitz, who loudly and frequently pride themselves for their acumen.
taken from :Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
EMERGING CONSENSUS ON IRAN ?
Emerging Consensus on Iran?
Michael Totten has temporarily moved full-time to Contentions; he's good, Michael is, and you'd do well to follow him there.
In this post he notes that the events in Iran have forged a temporary consensus of left and right in America (or in the West in general?).
It won't last, of course, but it's interesting as a phenomenon. Once this particular story is behind us, there will be much to think about. Until then, we should indeed unite in hoping for the success of the folks who wish to change Iran, since what it has been and still is, is so ghastly.
In this post he notes that the events in Iran have forged a temporary consensus of left and right in America (or in the West in general?).
It won't last, of course, but it's interesting as a phenomenon. Once this particular story is behind us, there will be much to think about. Until then, we should indeed unite in hoping for the success of the folks who wish to change Iran, since what it has been and still is, is so ghastly.
taken from :Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
FUNNY WHAT BEING JEWISH MEANS
Funny What Being Jewish Means
Adam Yahiye Gadhan, an American who joined Al-Qaida, has issues with his Jewish grandfather, Carl Pearlman.
While the grandson himself is apparently not Jewish by any standard, it's still a cautionary tale to remind us that Jews and their offspring can be as woefully idiotic as anyone else.
While the grandson himself is apparently not Jewish by any standard, it's still a cautionary tale to remind us that Jews and their offspring can be as woefully idiotic as anyone else.
taken from :Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
Israel Matzav: Netanyahu tells CBS that he's 'disappointed' with Arab reaction
Netanyahu tells CBS that he's 'disappointed' with Arab reaction
Give Binyamin Netanyahu credit, he's playing this for all it's worth. In an interview with CBS Evening News on Monday night, Netanyahu says that he's 'disappointed' with Arab reaction to his Sunday night speech, that his formula for peace is equitable and that his 'settlements' policy is designed to let people have normal lives. He also talks about Iran a bit.
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: Netanyahu tells CBS that he's 'disappointed' with Arab reaction
Israel Matzav: The 'Palestinians' outsmart themselves
The 'Palestinians' outsmart themselves
The 'Palestinian' reaction to Prime Minister Netanyahu's policy address on Sunday night has been unusually hostile. Israel Matzav: The 'Palestinians' outsmart themselvesPalestinian Authority officials in Ramallah expressed outrage and shock on Sunday over Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's call for the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state and his demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
The officials said that the speech that Netanyahu delivered at Bar-Ilan University was much worse than they had expected.
They also warned that Netanyahu's policies would trigger a new intifada.Read All at :
Israel Matzav: The Iran situation removes 'Middle East peace' from the agenda?
The Iran situation removes 'Middle East peace' from the agenda?
Ironically, says the Washington Post's Ezra Klein, the current situation in Iran is likely to remove American attempts to resolve the Israeli-'Palestinian' dispute from Washington's agenda. Israel Matzav: The Iran situation removes 'Middle East peace' from the agenda?There are a couple things to say about this, all of them depressing. First, those of us who have long argued for the fundamental rationality of the Iranian regime have seen our case fundamentally weakened. A rational regime might have stolen the election. But they would not have stolen it like this, where there is no doubt of the theft. This is like robbers leaving muddy footprints and a home address. Tehran's evident vote-tampering is tempting both domestic revolution and international isolation. That they appear to fear neither says something very unsettling about the mental state of the regime.
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: Netanyahu not the first to demand that a 'Palestinian state' be demilitarized
Netanyahu not the first to demand that a 'Palestinian state' be demilitarized
Contrary to the impression you may be getting from the media, the demand that any future 'Palestinian state' be demilitarized is not a new demand. The matter was raised in Ehud Barak's talks at Camp David in July 2000 and during Ariel Sharon's discussions with George W. Bush between the announcement of the road map and the Gaza disengagement.
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: Netanyahu not the first to demand that a 'Palestinian state' be demilitarized
Israel Matzav: Obama lied to get elected
Obama lied to get elected
The shocker here is not that Obama lied to get elected. Nearly every politician does, although one would have to go back to Bill Clinton to find a president who lied so brazenly. What's shocking is that 78% of American Jews were taken in by the lies. We Jews joke about how smart we are. This time, 78% of us were awfully dumb.Jennifer Rubin shows just how dumb we were. She compares President Obama's pronouncements to AIPAC in 2007 and 2008 to his apologia in Cairo two weeks ago. Here are her conclusions.
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: Obama lied to get elected
Israel Matzav: Demilitarized?
Demilitarized?
If this is what they call 'demilitarized,' we have a serious problem.The delivery of 50 Russian armored personnel carriers (pictured) to the 'Palestinian Authority' from Jordan is being held up by a dispute over equipping the APC's with 'heavy machine guns' and mounts on which to hold them. The APC's are for use by the 'Palestinian police.'
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: Demilitarized?
Israel Matzav: Aren't you glad he's not President anymore?
Aren't you glad he's not President anymore?
Bill Clinton spoke to the CAIR-funded Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee on Saturday, and he said some things that have to make you wonder about America and about whether Clinton's memory is going (they say too much of certain activities does that). Israel Matzav: Aren't you glad he's not President anymore?He told an Arab-American audience of 1,000 people that the U.S. is no longer just a black-white country, nor a country that is dominated by Christians and a powerful Jewish minority, given the growing numbers of Muslims, Hindus and other religious groups here.
Read All at :
Tzipiyah.com - Inspiring Jewish Pride - Netanyahu and Parshat Shelach
After hearing and reading about Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech I was thinking about how should Jews living outside of Israel need react to it and should it affect us? I think we need to first thank G-d that Netanyahu was strong in declaring that Jerusalem will always remain the Jewish capital and that he realizes that as he stated “The settlers are not enemies of peace. They are our brothers and sisters.”
I think it is interesting that the week that he gave his speech coincides with this week’s parsha, Parshat Shelach, which discusses the episode of the spies that were sent to spy out the land of Israel. Though as we know the spies were righteous men, they missed the point of what the land of Israel should mean to us as Jews. When they brought back their report of the land, even though they began by saying that it was “a land flowing with milk and honey” they still gave a negative report about the land. As we know they were severely punished for what the said. One can ask what did they do wrong? Weren’t they sent to spy out the land and give both the negative and positive about the land? Their mistake was that they didn’t fully appreciate how special and important this land was and that G-d promised to take them into the land and protect them so they shouldn’t worry and lose hope. Instead the dwelled on the negative aspects of the land which as Rashi explains were really false impressions of what was really occurring.
Read All at :
Tzipiyah.com - Inspiring Jewish Pride - Netanyahu and Parshat Shelach