Kerry: 'Demanding Iran's capitulation is no way to secure a nuclear deal'
And you thought
diplomacy was just war by another means....
Simply demanding Iran's capitulation is no way to get a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Wednesday as he wrapped up three days of talks with a veiled dig at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
...
“No one has presented a more viable, lasting
alternative for how you actually prevent Iran from getting a nuclear
weapon. So folks, simply demanding that Iran capitulate is not a plan.
And nor would any of our P5+1 partners support us in that position.”
...
Netanyahu has called for the powers to insist
Iran dismantle its nuclear infrastructure and change what he described
as its "aggressive" regional posture -- an idea swiftly rejected by the
Obama administration as equivalent to seeking "regime change" in
Tehran. Israel and Iran have been arch-enemies since 1979.
Iranian
President Hassan Rouhani, elected in 2013 on a platform of easing
Iran's isolation abroad through diplomacy and a removal of sanctions
imposed on it, said Tehran was prepared to accept greater nuclear
scrutiny as part of a deal.
"If the
basis of these negotiations is for increased transparency, we will
accept greater transparency," he said in a statement. "But if the
negotiations are trying to prevent the people of Iran from (enjoying)
their inalienable right, in other words advancement in science and
technology, it is very natural that Iran will not accept such an
understanding or agreement."
What could go wrong? Labels: dumb diplomacy, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry
Ignorance is bliss
Evelyn Gordon has a couple of recent examples of instances where
ignorance of language, customs or history resulted in a misunderstanding of events.
An Israeli soldier at a checkpoint had asked a Palestinian, in Hebrew, to show some identification. An observer from the Temporary International Presence in Hebron was standing nearby, along with a local Palestinian translator, as the observer speaks neither Hebrew nor Arabic. The translator duly explained, in English, that the soldier had asked the Palestinian for his ID – then added the soldier had threatened to beat him up if he didn’t produce it.
The TIPH observer had no way of knowing this “threat” was the product of the translator’s imagination rather than the truth; he was utterly dependent on his translator. Nor would it have made much difference had my friend’s son disputed the translator’s account (which he couldn’t due to army regulations aimed at avoiding confrontations with the observers): In a classic “he said, she said” situation, the overseas visitor would naturally believe his regular translator rather than an unknown Israeli soldier. So the nonexistent threat will doubtless be duly included in the observer’s report, one more in a string of lies promulgated over the years by foreigners who may be genuinely well-meaning, but are irretrievably hampered by their own ignorance.
Nor is linguistic ignorance the only problem: Historical ignorance is equally problematic. This is evident in numerous standard media tropes about Israel –like the claim the current impasse in Israeli-Palestinian talks stems from Israel’s refusal to freeze settlement construction, or that the crisis in Israeli-Turkish relations stems from Israel’s May 2010 raid on a Turkish-sponsored flotilla to Gaza. Of course, the Palestinians also refused to talk during the 10 months when Israel did freeze settlement construction, and Turkey turned against Israel long before the flotilla raid, even barring it from NATO drills in which it had participated for years. But all that happened years ago, and given the frequent rotations in media and diplomatic personnel, many genuinely don’t know. So when fed the standard line by Palestinians or Turks, they don’t even know what questions they should be asking.
And you thought that Israel was the only country that sends
clueless envoys on overseas assignments.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, dumb diplomacy
Hypocrisy at the Security Council
A senior Israeli diplomat says that deep down, members of the Security Council are sympathetic to Israel's predicament with the 'Palestinians.' They're just
not willing to say so in public.
Contrary to popular belief, discussions and negotiations taking place behind-the-scenes in the UN Security Council are often sympathetic to Israeli positions on critical issues relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to Amir Weissbrod, a senior Israeli diplomat and top adviser to the Israeli delegation in the UN.
...
However, statements of understanding for Israel’s position usually take place ”behind closed doors” and are never outwardly expressed in speeches to the Security Council or to the media.
“They are not willing to state publicly what they readily will say in a private meeting with Israeli representatives, which is often infuriating," said Weissbrod.
According to Weissbrod, only the United States, Canada, and several other countries have shown sympathy toward Israeli positions both publicly and privately.
In my book, that's hypocrisy. Leaders should have the courage of their convictions. But they don't. And they're a major reason why the 'Palestinians' continue to harbor unreasonable expectations of what they might peaceably obtain.
What could go wrong?
Read the whole thing.
Labels: dumb diplomacy, United Nations Security Council
