The Tale of Two Iran Op-Eds

1) "New Attacks for Israel and Gaza Test Truce," A5, by Isabel Kershner
2) "In the Middle East, a Collision of Narratives," A20, Letters to the Editor
3) "The Other Iran," A21 (Op-ed), by Roger Cohen
4) "Talk to Iran. Then What?" A21 (Op-ed), by Stephen Rademaker


*****
1) New Attacks for Israel and Gaza Test Truce

The first news article, written by Isabel Kershner, describes continuing violence on the Israel-Gaza border despite the unilateral cease-fires of Israel and Hamas. Kershner lazily establishes a shallow equivalence of responsibility, writing that "Tensions have spiraled in the two weeks since Israel pulled its troops out of Gaza" and "tit-for-tat skirmishes."

Such wording would assume mutual responsibility for this escalation when this is not the case. Palestinian terrorist organizations continue to fire rockets and mortars into sovereign Israeli territory. Israel, like any other nation, responds to these violations in order to protect its citizenry. Without such violations, Israel would not need to militarily respond.

Regarding the possibility of signing a more durable cease-fire agreement, Kershner writes that "Senior Israeli officials have expressed ambivalence about entering into immediate understandings with the militant Islamic group, and the prospects for an imminent cease-fire agreement remained unclear." She fails to provide any explanation for why Israeli officials would be concerned - such as the fear of Hamas using the lull in fighting to stockpile more advanced weaponry as it did during the past cease-fire between June-December 2008. Additionally, Israel does not wish to bolster Hamas by engaging in direct trade (opening crossings) with an entity that is sworn to its destruction.

While Kershner talks about the ambivalence of senior Israeli officials, she fails to mention anything about Hamas intentions, as if they are perfectly prepared to compromise on a cease-fire with Israel. In fact, the Damascus-based leadership of Hamas has not reacted favorably to a potential cease-fire and has continued to declare that it will not engage in peace negotiations with Israel.

Ultimately, Kershner presents Hamas' demands as being quite reasonable: "Hamas demands the opening of commercial and passenger crossings on the Gaza borders and the lifting of Israel’s 18-month economic embargo as a prerequisite for a lasting cease-fire." She makes no mention of Hamas' continued dedication to destroy Israel and use any lull as a means to further prepare its 'resistance' against Israel. Israel is not required to strengthen the hand of its enemy, as Kershner may have you believe.

2) In the Middle East, a Collision of Narratives

In response to Jerusalem Bureau Chief's controversial article the other week, the Times printed two letters to editor - one in support of Israel, one against.

The pro letter, penned by Rabbi Joel Rembaum, notes the disparity between the Israeli and Palestinian narrative, whereas Bronner attempts to equate them as equally valid (or flawed). While Israel has historically sought accommodation with its neighbor, Rembaum notes the 'exterminationist' character of the Palestinian view:

By denying that there is a Jewish nation, by viewing the founders of the State of Israel as 'colonizers' and by considering Israel as 'a country born in sin,' the Palestinian narrative denies the legitimacy of the State of Israel.

He perceptively notes that "As long as there is a critical mass of Palestinians who continue to deny the legitimacy of the State of Israel, as Hamas does, the dilemma the peacemakers face will remain even more daunting than that faced by Mr. Bronner." The fact that Bronner somehow views the exterminationist character of the Palestinian narrative as equally valid to the generally Israeli policy of accommodation is quite troubling.

The second anti letter, written by Nimer Sultany, starts with quite a perceptive point: "The fact that there are competing narratives has not prevented people, including journalists, from making judgments about factual events as well as taking moral positions." Very true - narratives should not replace an ability to recognize universal truth.

Unfortunately, the truth that Sultany recognizes is far from reality. He quickly labels Israel as a colonialist and apartheid state, comparing Israel to "China and Tibet, Russia and Chechnya, Russia and Georgia, white South Africans and blacks under apartheid, Britain and India, France and Algeria."

Such tiresome defamation should not be fit to print, but the apartheid and colonialism accusations seem to be the new flavor of the day.

3) The Other Iran
4) Talk to Iran. Then What?

In the tale of the two Iran op-eds, one proves idiotic and the other insightful.

Roger Cohen, author of The Other Iran, writes the idiotic article, providing an incredible recipe for capitulation to Iran. First of all, Cohen cannot differentiate between the people of Iran and the radical Iranian government. Most people are faulted for characterizing the people as radical as their government, but Cohen conversely makes the mistake of characterizing the government as moderate as the people.

He also makes some wild presumptions in terms of possible Iranian-American cooperation:

Tehran shares many American interests, including a democratic Iraq, because that will be a Shiite-governed Iraq, and a unified Iraq stable enough to ensure access to holy cities like Najaf. It opposes Taliban redux in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda’s Sunni fanaticism.

And how does that explain Iranian support of guerrillas and terrorists in both of these countries, which have not only killed U.S. troops but destabilized these incipient democracies? Cohen, in attempt to prove his own narrow point, attempts to systematically downplay the extremism of the Islamic Republic. He even writes that "Iran’s political constellation includes those who have given past support to terrorist organizations." Sorry Cohen, not past support, current support that stretches from Lebanon, to Gaza, to Iraq, to Afghanistan.

But the coup de grace of the article is this claim:

Its democracy is flawed but by Middle East standards vibrant. Both words in its self-description — Islamic Republic — count.

Is Cohen familiar with the plethora of human rights abuses common to the Islamic Republic? Would he honestly want to live in this "Republic"? Freedom House reports that Iran is "Not Free," scoring a 6 on both Political Rights and Civil Liberties out of a worst possible 7. That Cohen expects so little of Iran betrays his own low expectations towards the Iranian people, which is simply a more sophisticated form of racism.

As a final policy prescription, Cohen writes:

America and its allies should drop their insistence that enrichment at Natanz cease before talks begin (Iran could always restart enrichment anyway). Obama should also say the military threat has moved under the table in the name of restoring dialogue. These steps would place the onus on Iran.

The onus to what? Develop nuclear weapons without repercussions? In his ethnocentric blindness, Cohen cannot get himself to imagine that perhaps the Iranian government does not have the same priorities as the average Western government. For the Islamic Republic, "pride" seems to be more important than compromise.

In comparison, Stephen Rademaker, assistant secretary of state responsible for arms control and nonproliferation from 2002 to 2006, composes a pithy and insightful article on Iranian attempts for nuclear independence and the U.S. response. Realistically, Rademaker understands that in negotiations, "Iran will almost certainly say no [to suspending nuclear enrichment], presumably calculating that it can eventually force the world to accept its enrichment program."

Rademaker also understands the plethora of alternative solutions wishful-thinking critics will devise in order to accommodate Iran. Unlike some of these other critics though, he knows the great danger of permitting Iranian nuclear enrichment:

Once we accept enrichment in Iran, it will become impossible to deny the same arrangement to friendly governments in the region, let alone unfriendly ones like Syria. The result will be the proliferation of dangerous nuclear technologies that we have been seeking to avoid.

The United States cannot facilitate such a domino-effect of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. In this light, the reasoned Rademaker understands that "the United States cannot be more eager than Tehran to reach a deal, and Mr. Obama must persuade Iran that he can afford to see negotiations fail."

In the tale of two Iran op-eds, the expert and dispassionate Rademaker prevails over the sophomoric and wishful-thinking Cohen.