What They Are Saying

Let's Make the Whole World Safer by Pressing Iran on Its Nuclear Goals

Think-tank scholar Patrick Clawson writes in Britain's Guardian (www.guardian.co.uk) on Aug. 14 about the danger from Iran's nuclear drive:

"Britain, France and Germany stepped forward in 2003 to take charge of the Iranian nuclear file. In 2005, Europe -- with Britain in the lead -- persuaded the Bush administration to set aside its deep concerns and to let the Europeans lead. What an opportunity for Europe to show that it can take on the global leadership role it so craves. Instead, European leaders have had to swallow the bitter pill of admitting that they are making little, if any, progress.

'The obvious temptation is to look for a scapegoat. Now the U.S. has shown that it fully endorses the European-led effort, blaming the Bush administration is less plausible. In this context, periodic rumors fly that Israel may soon strike Iran's nuclear facilities. The likelihood of such a strike any time soon remains small for the simple reason that Israel has much to lose from acting, unless in desperate straits. An Israeli strike would convert a global issue about Iran's failure to comply with its obligations under international treaties into a bilateral Israeli-Iranian issue on which many around the world would side against Israel.

"But many in Europe suggest that the real threat is Israel's nuclear weapons. Before asking why Israel insists on keeping its nuclear arms, they might ask exactly what threat causes Britain to keep such weapons. Israel has to worry about radicals -- from Iran to Gaza -- who reject its right to exist. Faced with a much less ominous Warsaw pact, Britain insisted on the right to keep many hundreds of nuclear weapons.

"That said, it is not surprising that Israel is more favorably disposed toward preventive action than any other country is. After all, Israel is the country most at risk from a nuclear Iran. Israelis see a nuclear Iran as an existential threat, due to the possibility of nuclear terrorism, the potential for miscalculation in a crisis, or the prospect that an irresponsible or fanatical Iranian leader might be tempted to use Iran's nuclear arsenal to expunge Israel from the region.

"Britain could do much on its own to press Iran until it agrees to compromise. If Iran were in effect locked out of the world's two largest financial centers -- New York and London -- even hard-line Iranian leaders might reflect on the high cost of their refusal to compromise.

"Scapegoating Israel sidesteps the issue. Instead, those worried about what Israel might do should take steps to address the security concerns that led Israel to conduct its recent military exercises designed to show that it could strike Iran if need be. Not only Israel, but Britain and the whole world will be safer if together we can reduce the threat of the proliferation of nuclear weapons by reinforcing respect for the United Nations and international inspections."

Poet Mixed Politics With Life's Work

Editor Martin Peretz writes in the on the online version of The New Republic (www.tnr.com) Aug. 12 about the passing of a Palestinian poet whose militancy overwhelmed his poetry at times:

"The New York Times and The Boston Globe published obituaries for the Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish. Let me admit up front I have been stirred by some of Darwish's poetry, his poetry of memory and of loss.

"But the tender poetry is not what endears him to his public. There is a poem by Darwish, 'Those Who Pass Fleeting Words,' not at all so tender but in fact aggressive [in which he writes of the Jews of Israel]: 'The time has come for you to go away ... die where you wish but do not die among us ... The past here is ours ... Ours the world here and the world to come ... So leave our land.'

"Even Israelis very sympathetic to the cause of the Palestinians were repelled.

"Darwish couldn't keep his poetic priorities in order, or, rather, his political life for a time overwhelmed his poetry. After all, he was the poet who handed pistol-toting Yasser Arafat for his appearance at the U.N. General Assembly the infamous slogan: 'I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom fighter's gun.' Of course, the olive branch was entirely metaphorical, and the gun was metaphorical not at all.

"Darwish followed Arafat and his PLO rag-tag army wherever it went. Ousted from Jordan, the Palestinian revolution subdued the Shi'ite peasants of southern Lebanon and established a tyrannous mini-state there, with Beirut as its command post. Darwish followed, like a camp-follower, in torrid pursuit. When Ariel Sharon had Arafat pinned down in Beirut in 1982, the great powers exiled him and his men to Tunis. And again Darwish docilely followed.

"After the White House handshake of 1993, with a proto-state at hand, Arafat had at last landed in the promised land and made his capitol in Ramallah. Darwish was not far behind. But Palestine could not sustain him, and like other poets he moved to Paris. How disillusioned was he with emerging Palestine? I do not know."

Newest Threat From the Palestinians

Author David Hazony writes at Commentarymagazine.com on Aug. 12 about a Palestinian flip-flop:

"The long conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis has not been devoid of amusing moments. One of these happened last week, when the top Palestinian negotiator, Ahmed Qurei, threatened that if Israel does not accede to all the Palestinian demands regarding borders and refugees, then 'we might demand Israeli citizenship.' He meant that the Palestinians would drop the entire concept of an independent Palestinian state and instead push for a complete merger with Israel, creating a binational state.

"This is truly weird. Let's just take a moment to think about the actual implications of Qurei's threat.

"If the Palestinians were to drop their demands of statehood, it would suggest that their entire movement was never really dedicated to independence (as they claimed) but to destroying Israel (as the Israelis claimed). True independence movements do not flip-flop on the question of independence, and suddenly desire to be fully integrated into the occupying, oppressor state. Only if they believe that the best way to defeat Israel is to take it over from the inside -- with long-term demographics leading to a long-term electoral advantage, presumably -- could they consider accepting Israeli citizenship.

"The Palestinians have done a great deal to convince the Western powers that giving them a state would be a bad idea. A successful struggle for independence begins with convincing the world that you not only 'deserve' it, but can handle it.

"To present the world, as the Palestinians have done, with a unique combination of extreme corruption and religious fanaticism, both encouraging not merely violence against enemy but against oneself, is to make the worst possible case for statehood. And to entertain the thought that the principal victim of your atrocities will then welcome you to be fellow citizens -- well, this just makes a mockery of all the suffering the Palestinians have both endured and inflicted."