Bibi’s alternatives
A lot of Democrats, led by Obama, are carping that Netanyahu’s speech didn’t offer a “viable alternative” to the disastrous, suicidal course Obama has chosen (no they didn’t use those adjectives). But Netanyahu certainly did provide one; it’s just not one that they like. And his assertion was that it’s Obama’s alternative that’s not viable.
Before I describe Netanyahu’s alternative, let me say add you don’t have to offer a detailed alternative to state that something is a dreadful idea. Saying Netanyahu offered no alternative and that therefore Obama’s deal should go ahead is like saying that you shouldn’t desist from jumping off a cliff unless the person trying to talk you out of it has offered you a good job.
But Netanyahu’s alternative (or rather, alternatives) was actually fairly clear. The first part went like this:
Israel’s neighbors — Iran’s neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it’s been given a clear path to the bomb.
And many of these neighbors say they’ll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won’t change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.
In other words, doing nothing—keeping the status quo—is a better alternative. Obama’s deal instead gives Iran concessions that will increase the danger to the world, not just to Israel.
Here’s the second part, and it involves setting conditions for easing restrictions on Iran. These conditions are of course nothing that Iran would agree to, but they are conditions that would be necessary before Obama’s concessions would begin to make any sense:
I’ve come here today to tell you we don’t have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don’t have to gamble with our future and with our children’s future.
We can insist that restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.
Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second…Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.
The third part is a slight modification of the second part, and it has to do with the ten-year period after which all bets are off:
If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires. If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn’t change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted. If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.
The fourth part is an explanation of the practical reasons that Netanyahu’s proposal is likely to work better than Obama’s proposal—which boils down to the fact that Iran is hurting economically, and so this is a good time to continue the pressure rather than to lift it:
My friends, what about the argument that there’s no alternative to this deal, that Iran’s nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?
Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn’t get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can’t drive. A pilot without a plan can’t fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can’t make nuclear weapons. Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.
Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff. They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.
The fifth part is a reiteration of how important keeping the pressure on Iran over time would be:
And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.
Most of the rest of Netanyahu’s speech is devoted to saying that choosing this path would lead to a better deal than Obama’s bad deal. There is really nothing obscure or difficult-to-understand about what Netanyahu is proposing, and it certainly seems a lot more viable than anything Obama has planned.
Paul Mirengoff of Powerline summarizes the alternatives very well:
The answer to Obama’s point is that the absence of a deal doesn’t mean the absence of a strategy for preventing Iran from obtaining nukes. In fact, the absence of a deal would facilitate two approaches that hold more promise of thwarting Iran than even a decent deal.
In theory, there are three scenarios under which Iran won’t get the bomb. First, military action might prevent it. Second, the right kind of regime change might prevent it. Third, a deal might prevent it.
The first and second scenarios are the most effective because the third depends on some level of cooperation and compliance by a notoriously hostile and unreliable regime.
The way—the only way—to ever get Iran to agree to any deal would be a remarkable amount of pressure. Even then, the agreement would probably be bogus. Obama has no appreciation of the nature of the Iranian regime (or he is actively colluding with it), and is pretending he has a “partner for peace,” just as the left has pretended the same about the Palestinians (for example, Arafat) vis a vis Israel.
[NOTE: I forgive Netanyahu for referring to Robert Frost’s “The Road Not Taken” in his speech and getting the meaning of the poem somewhat wrong—as most people do. Netanyahu wasn’t there as a poetry critic (fortunately) when he summarized it as “the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference.” Look here for why that’s a common misunderstanding of the poem’s more complex message.]
NNcon,
Bibi gave a great speech. I agree with him 100%. Hell, even this guy agrees with him:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2015/03/03/President-Obama-listen-to-Netanyahu-on-Iran.html
But context matters. Bibi has now injected Israel explicitly into domestic US politics. Implicitly, as King Hussein pointed out, Israel has been part of the domestic political equation of the US for a long time. But now it is explicit.
Context matters, which is why your analogy to Haile Selassie fails. Selassie gave his speech before the League of Nations. The US congress is in no way comparable.
Israel is now a part of US domestic coalition politics. The fact that this will be excruciating for American Jews doesn’t matter to Bibi – in fact, I think he likes it.
I don’t think this is is a matter of opinion. It’s simply fact.
Unfortunately, as a side show to all this, there is a distressingly large and noisy contingent that is coming out of the woodwork all over the Internet that would only be satisfied with one Israeli option – that Israel and Jews roll over and die.
It’s rabble that literally blames all problems this side of the Big Bang on Jews and/or the existence of Israel. Apparently they would like people to think that if Israel disappeared off the map tomorrow and all Jews followed it into nonexistence, all ills of the world would be cured instantly.
Since that’s not true, and it should be obvious to anyone that doesn’t eat, drink and breathe Jew-hate that it’s not true, I’m not sure how much their obsession affects those outside of the fold, but it’s alarming to see.
I’m not Jewish, but I would be high on the list of target groups by both Islamic jihadists and the far left. It’s never far from my mind what either can do, once fully unshackled.
“In theory, there are three scenarios under which Iran won’t get the bomb. First, military action might prevent it. Second, the right kind of regime change might prevent it. Third, a deal might prevent it.” Paul Mirengoff of Powerline
They are religious fanatics, wedded to a violently expansionist, totalitarian, end-of-world ideology. A credible and unequivocal threat of military force is the only realistic scenario that will prevent Iran from getting nukes. The other two ‘scenarios’ are wishful thinking.
Kyndyll,
I strongly suspect that most of the relatively recent upsurge in virulent antisemitism on the left is motivated by a desire to appease. They are telling themselves that Islam’s blood lust will be satisfied with an ‘appropriate’ sacrifice.
Diana:
I made no reference to Haile Selassie. Could you by any wild chance be someone going around to all blogs on the right who are praising Netanyahu dropping your pre-written comment on each one? Posing as a Netanyahu supporter and then dropping a little bit of poison at the end, “The fact that this will be excruciating for American Jews doesn’t matter to Bibi — in fact, I think he likes it.”
Any chance of that, Diana?
Shorter Frost: “When you come to a fork in the road take it.”
Liberals always claim that there enemies are not offering any alternatives. Every time they say this it’s not true. There were several alternatives to Obama care give by Republicans, but they kept claiming there was none. In case of Obamacare, doing nothing would have been preferable. At least, things would not be getting worse.
Iran will not be stopped simply because no one has the fortitude to do what it would take to stop the program. And, I think bho is merely providing them the opportunity to stall negotiations until he is on the golf course 24/7. Plus, he has no problem with a nuclear iran.
What’s funny is that Obama’s first choice typically is doing nothing. That’s his whole “leading from behind” schtick that has seen America (under Obama) do nothing in response to aggressive states and terrorism against America (Benghazi).
So why exactly is he so compelled to do something for Iran?
Just like there are thugs who are unreformable, the same applies nations. Thugs, bandits, rapists, murders, and serial killers are best dealt with by strong law enforcement – as illustrated by the Giuliani crack down on crime in New York City. Libs always want to appeal to the better angels of criminals – hoping they will see the light and join polite society. However, statistics show that most hard core criminals are unwilling/unable to reform:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/evans/050312
Criminal nations are anti-social just like criminals. They take their cues from their victims and their opposition. They quickly sense weakness and lack of resolve because it provides them with an advantage. When negotiating with criminal nations, that should always be in the forefront of the negotiators minds and negotiating tactics.
Negotiations aimed at simultaneously trying to prevent further criminal activity and hoping to reform the outlaw nation, as the Obama DOS negotiations seem to be, is, IMO, a fool’s errand.
Netanyahu believes that also.
To prevent crime you don’t make it easier for the criminals. This also applies to dealing with nations such as Iran, Russia, and North Korea. What are we seeing from all of them? Increasing intransigence. They sense, quite correctly, weakness in us. But what do I know – I’m just a retired Navy pilot with 50 years of observing/studying international affairs.
NNcon,
My apologies, I confused you with Clarice Feldman of American Thinker, who compared Bibi with Haile Selassie. That was wrong, but I don’t see how it’s an insult to you. I apologize anyway.
“I made no reference to Haile Selassie. Could you by any wild chance be someone going around to all blogs on the right who are praising Netanyahu dropping your pre-written comment on each one?”
No.
“Posing as a Netanyahu supporter and then dropping a little bit of poison at the end, “The fact that this will be excruciating for American Jews doesn’t matter to Bibi — in fact, I think he likes it.””
I’m not posing as a Netanyahu supporter. I don’t support him. I do support Israel, and I quoted the Arab columnist as an example of people in the ME who agree with Netanyahu on this subject but who otherwise dislike him.
Poison? Just the truth. Netanyahu has repeatedly said that all Jews should be in Israel. He thinks the Diaspora is a false consciousness for Jews.
But you are evading my basic questions. I don’t have much confidence that you’ll answer them but I’ll pose them again:
Was this appropriate?
Didn’t Bibi cross a line in making Israel a party to US partisan politics?
Doesn’t this put American Jews in a tough position?
As an ex-dance student, surely you should understand that a soloist doesn’t upstage a prima ballerina, even if the soloist is the better dancer.
Any chance of that, Diana?
NNcon,
My apologies, I confused you with Clarice Feldman of American Thinker, who compared Bibi with Haile Selassie. That was wrong, but I don’t see how it’s an insult to you. I apologize anyway.
“I made no reference to Haile Selassie. Could you by any wild chance be someone going around to all blogs on the right who are praising Netanyahu dropping your pre-written comment on each one?”
No.
“Posing as a Netanyahu supporter and then dropping a little bit of poison at the end, “The fact that this will be excruciating for American Jews doesn’t matter to Bibi — in fact, I think he likes it.””
I’m not posing as a Netanyahu supporter. I don’t support him. I do support Israel, and I quoted the Arab columnist as an example of people in the ME who agree with Netanyahu on this subject but who otherwise dislike him.
Poison? Just the truth. Netanyahu has repeatedly said that all Jews should be in Israel. He thinks the Diaspora is a false consciousness for Jews.
But you are evading my basic questions. I don’t have much confidence that you’ll answer them but I’ll pose them again:
Was this appropriate?
Didn’t Bibi cross a line in making Israel a party to US partisan politics?
Doesn’t this put American Jews in a tough position?
As an ex-dance student, surely you should understand that a soloist doesn’t upstage a prima ballerina, even if the soloist is the better dancer.
Netanyahu’s made Nancy Pelosi cry. I hope you are all happy with yourselves.
Well and clearly stated, Neo. It is repulsive to see the chorus of babies, wimps and anti-semites blathering and keening with their Infantile Majesty Obama about “new alternatives”. Anybody who understands plain spoken simple and compound English sentences had No Trouble seeing The Alternative to the Chamberlainesque Flabby Weakness of Barack Hussein. Oh, and speaking of Munich and its similarities to the feckless Crap of Obama & Kerry: Like Neville Chamberlain refusing to include the Czech leader in the Munich talks because “Hitler wouldn’t hear of it…” Israel has been refused by Obama because the Mullahs won’t stand for it.
HISTORY anyone??
Harry,
I think she said she almost cried. I doubt that those botoxed tear ducts work properly.
Diana,
Are you saying that American Jews are incapable of thinking independently about issues? Party loyalty may be acceptable for some issues, but when it comes to the most disastrous foreign policy I can ever remember, I would like all our congressional reps to think for themselves and hear various sides to issues.
Obama sank his own negotiations when he took out Colonel Kadaffi, who foolishly swapped his bomb program for a handshake. The Iranians will smile and sign and with their certificate of goodness, then speed up the centrifuges. Wouldn’t you?
My guess is that even Obama understands this but he’s panting to fly to Tehran and make history. Worked for Nixon, didn’t it? Besides, Obama is a gifted Moslem whisperer and he’ll tame those mullahs.
“But you are evading my basic questions. I don’t have much confidence that you’ll answer them but I’ll pose them again:
Was this appropriate?
Absolutely. More importantly it was essential, a matter of a critical warning of a mortal danger being purposely dismissed. Millions of innocent lives are at stake.
“Didn’t Bibi cross a line in making Israel a party to US partisan politics?”
No, he did not. It is the democrats who are playing partisan politics because they have thrashed the most basic of foreign policy tenets; “Politics stops at the water’s edge” for if it does not, the potential for catastrophe greatly increases. The simple truth of the matter is that the democrats are selling out the country to our enemies and doing so out of ideological motivations placed above simple humanity. They are willing to condemn millions so that they may create their utopia.
“Doesn’t this put American Jews in a tough position?”
Only if their embrace of leftist ideology is so great that they are willing to betray their own people and heritage.
“As an ex-dance student, surely you should understand that a soloist doesn’t upstage a prima ballerina, even if the soloist is the better dancer.”
Obama is no prima ballerina, he is a racist Marxist and at best an Islamic sympathizer.
If zombies could think for themselves, they wouldn’t be zombies.
Netanyahu has repeatedly said that all Jews should be in Israel.
French Jews were already moving to Israel, even though they were more anti Zionist and Leftist than the average for Israel, before B N said anything about Jews moving to Israel.
I wonder if Bibi has taken the military option off of the table. It could start a new Middle East war, but with Iran involved. Can Israel take on Iran?
Ymarsakar Says:
March 4th, 2015 at 8:11 pm
Netanyahu has repeatedly said that all Jews should be in Israel.
French Jews were already moving to Israel, even though they were more anti Zionist and Leftist than the average for Israel, before B N said anything about Jews moving to Israel.
Peanuts, a few ‘000’s. There are about 6000K at large. No need to get into how they vote ….
*600K at large. Just a few thousands have left or made noise about leaving.
This: the new scourge
The Betrayal Papers, Part III Of V
Why bother posting, spreading info?
The sheeple, united, shall never be defeated!
They did it TWICE!
This time, unlike the 1930’s, we won’t be able say we weren’t warned.
Reactions to the Prime minister of the State of Israel were a disgrace.
Traitors.
Ymarsakar:
Actually, though, Netanyahu has not only not said that “repeatedly,” he never said that at all. He said that all Jews were welcome in Israel and had a home there.
Diana:
In your second comment, you write:
“My apologies, I confused you with Clarice Feldman of American Thinker, who compared Bibi with Haile Selassie. That was wrong, but I don’t see how it’s an insult to you. I apologize anyway.”
You ostensibly read my original post before you made your first comment, the one where you mentioned Haile Selassie. You were not on the American Thinker site when you made that comment; you were on mine, responding to this post. My name is not Clarice Feldman. My post bears no resemblance to Feldman’s post. I don’t see how you could have actually read my post and made that error.
In addition, I never said you were insulting me. I said that I suspected you were dropping pre-written comments (that were not specific to the blogs in question) at various blogs on the right—in other words that you are a troll. That was because I suspected (and still suspect, actually) that you had not actually read my post.
I accept your apology, if it was sincere.
You also write:
If that’s what you were referring to in your original comment, it’s awfully odd that you didn’t reference it in that original comment. The topic on this thread has been Netanyahu’s address yesterday, and you gave no indication that’s not what you were talking about. What you actually wrote in that first comment makes it clear you were talking about Bibi’s address, not what he said to French or other diaspora Jews about a month ago. Here’s what you actually said in your first comment here, the one I was responding to:
The “poison” is this: “The fact that this will be excruciating for American Jews doesn’t matter to Bibi — in fact, I think he likes it.” I couldn’t have been referring to what you think Netanyahu said to French Jews or Jews in general about the diaspora—because you hadn’t yet brought that subject up,and didn’t until later.
But since you brought it up in that second comment—I’ll respond, because you got what he said wrong, too. You wrote that Netanyahu had said “all Jews should be in Israel” and that “he thinks the Diaspora is a false consciousness for Jews.” Interesting that you don’t offer any actual quotes. Perhaps there are some that match, but I sure haven’t found them. What I found was this sort of thing from Netanyahu:
You seem to consider yourself to be someone interested in history (at least in Haile Selassie and the League) and in context, so I shouldn’t need to remind you of what Netanyahu was referring to in terms of history and context: a recent increase in terrorist murders of and threats to Jews in Europe, the site of the WWII Holocaust, when Jews were trapped and killed because they had no country that would take them in, and where they were hunted down both by occupying Germans and in many many occupied countries with the participation and cooperation of a significant portion (although not all) of the local citizenry. They tried to obtain passports in order to escape to virtually any country around the world—in some cases as far-flung as Japan or countries in South America—in a desperate effort to escape the closing net, but often with nowhere to go because most were not welcome anywhere.
And now there are already many Jews leaving Europe for Israel because of the increasing anti-Semitic violence in Europe. Netanyahu is saying nothing like “all Jews should be in Israel” or “the Diaspora is a false consciousness for Jews.” He is saying that if things are bad in Europe, Jews have a place to go in Israel—a home that will welcome them with open arms.
All Jews are allowed to emigrate to Israel and Israel will take them. That is his message. Israel is a safety valve for Jews all over the world—despite the fact that Israel itself is also imperiled. That latter point—the peril Israel faces as a result of Obama’s Iran deal—is the topic Netanyahu addressed in Congress yesterday, and is the topic of this post.
To continue—in your most recent comment you address me:
The above—accusing me of evading your questions, and saying you don’t have much confidence I’ll answer them—are insults, by the way. They’re also gratuitous ones, since if you go back to your original comment (the one I was responding to in my only comment to you before you made your second comment), you will find that there are no questions in your first comment, only statements. So your suggestion in your second comment that I have somehow “evaded” your questions, and that you will pose them again (as though you had posed them in the first place, which you had not) is bogus.
But hey, because I’m such a nice person, I’ll give you a break and answer those questions anyway.
That is, I would answer them if I knew for sure whether you’re asking them about Netanyahu’s speech yesterday, or whether you’re asking them about Netanyahu’s comments saying Jews are welcome in Israel. But I’ll assume it’s the first—his speech yesterday—because that seems to fit better.
(1) It was not only appropriate, but necessary. Netanyahu is facing an existential threat, and he must do whatever he can to stave it off.
(2) He crossed no line that hadn’t been crossed many thousands of times before. Israel has been a subject of partisan politics for some years now, particularly under this administration, and Obama has made it more so by his petty, personal, narcissistic, reaction to the entire topic of Netanyahu’s speech and to Netanyahu himself for the past few years.
(3) I have no idea a why you would think Netanyahu’s speech puts American Jews in a tough position, or why that would particularly matter anyway. Netanyahu’s duty is first to Israel and to the world. A bit of discomfort for American Jews is irrelevant. But which Jews are you talking about, anyway? The third who vote Republican? Don’t think so. The ones who are secular and hate Israel? Don’t think so. The leftists who spout the anti-Israel party line? Don’t think so. I assume you’re talking about liberal Jews (either secular or religious) who still support Israel but who also like and support Obama? Why should Netanyahu care about their tender sensibilities? Life is full of conflict and decisions that need to be made. Adults make them.
In conclusion, you wrote:
A more silly comparison I don’t think I’ve ever heard. This is no ballet; this is survival, war and peace. In addition, Obama and Netanyahu are both heads of sovereign states, equal in that respect. Obama is free to do his own solo any time he wants, for as long as he wants, as many times as he wants, any time he wishes. He can address Congress, or America on TV, in a special message. Obama has the bully pulpit; Netanyahu’s single address could not possibly take that away.
What’s more, in a ballet, the soloist and the principal (a word I prefer to prima ballerina) each have their solos in a ballet. Each graciously allows the other to have her moment in the spotlight. Netanyahu didn’t take away Obama’s spotlight; it was Obama who tried to take away Netanyahu’s. If you want a dance analogy, it was the principal dancer, Obama, who tried to upstage the soloist Netanyahu’s variation—or to even stop it, or to make half the audience walk out on it—not the other way around. Soloists are called soloists because they have solo variations in a ballet, a time when all eyes are on them. They don’t have as many solos, or solos as long as the principal, but they have them.
You—and others—may wonder why I’m answering you at such length. There are several reasons. The first is informational: I think it important to correct the record on certain false assertions you made, including important ones about Netanyahu’s message to Jews. I think it also important to explain the context of the remarks Netanyahu did make, and how it relates to the history of the Jews during the 30s and WWII. In addition, you seem to be somewhat typical of a certain kind of commenter who comes to this blog and others, seeming reasonable, but making many false assertions, moving the goalposts, and misquoting and misinterpreting.
I value discourse on this blog and have a fairly high tolerance for disagreement. But I prefer that people read the posts in question, use logic in their responses, and quote people correctly.
Oh, don’t TEASE. And don’t give them any ideas, they don’t need more ludicrous ideas. Just wait, this will be a part of Michelle’s new anti-suicide initiative.
Just a few thousands have left or made noise about leaving.
Humans are often a herd like community when massed together. The exceptional ones break free of that herd mentality, but they are rare, by design.