Alan Dershowitz @ The WSJ:
On Monday in New York, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised that Israel will be “eliminated,” a variation on his previous threats to the nation’s existence. He was in town for the opening of the United Nations General Assembly, a gathering that reliably sees leaders issuing pronouncements that, even if not new, at least are given a bigger stage. On Tuesday, the first day of the gathering, President Obama delivered a speech that also struck familiar notes, including the statement that “a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained.” He moved no closer to giving a signal of what he might consider an intolerable development in Iran’s advance toward a nuclear weapon.
For months, U.S. and Israeli officials have debated whether Mr. Obama should publicly announce a “red line” that, if crossed by Iran, would prompt an American military response. Announcing such a threshold publicly or privately might be helpful, but it may not be necessary for the president to specify what would constitute such a red line (a certain degree of uranium enrichment, for example, or other evidence of weaponization).
Instead, Mr. Obama has another good option: Tell the Iranian leadership that under no circumstances will it ever be permitted to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, and that the U.S. is prepared to take decisive military action to make sure of this.
Such a statement wouldn’t tip the president’s hand regarding a precise red line, but it would send a clear message that Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons are futile and ultimately will lead to disaster for Iran’s rulers.
Mr. Obama’s prior statements—that containing a nuclear Iran is not an option; that a country committed to wiping Israel off the map, promoting terrorism and arming Hezbollah and Syria can’t be allowed to have nukes—have been strong. But Iran’s leadership still doesn’t seem to believe that an American military option really is on the table.
Iran’s skepticism is understandable in light of some Obama administration rhetoric. This week the president himself characterized Israeli concern over Iran and threats of military action as mere “noise.” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has repeatedly and emphatically outlined the dangers of military action against Iran, and this month Vice President Joe Biden criticized Mitt Romney for being “ready to go to war” with Iran.
Being ready for war with Iran, after all, might be the only way to deter that country from going nuclear.
That’s the kind of criticism I would expect of an extreme Zionist like Dershowitz. Ever read Norman Finckelstein? He’s Jewish, his parents survived the holocaust, he’s a professor at a prestigious university (Princeton, I believe), and he supports the Palestinians—and condemns the atrocities committed by Israel upon them. You ought to become familiar with his position (the other side of the argument), and not just support Israel on primarily religious grounds.
“You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.”
Winston Churchill 1938
@liberal1(objectivity):
My, how you progressivers love to sling the word “Zionist” while I doubt you even understand the meaning of the word.
Why should Palestine be a separate nation/state when it never has been and was only a region of most recently Jordan? Maybe if Hezbolla or whatever other barbarian group is now active in Palestine would agree to let Israel be, there would be peace. Or maybe idiots like you should read the Palestinian charter, that states clearly that Israel does not have a right to exist.
So why don’t you tell us when Palestine became a nation/state in your mind? Was it pre-Mohammed, post-Mohammed, when?