The P5+1 negotiations in Geneva have been fascinating thus far. Iran came to the table well-prepared and determined to make a deal, presenting a complex and reasonable proposal. Iran is reportedly prepared to accept more thorough inspections of its nuclear facilities and some limits on how much and to what level it will enrich uranium. In exchange, Iran requests a loosening of US-imposed international sanctions and recognition of its right to enrich uranium.
Considering the fact that under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Iran has the right to enrich for peaceful purposes as much uranium as it wishes, acknowledgement of what is already in the treaty is hardly an excessive demand in the Iranian side.
Nevertheless, the neocons are having a collective nervous breakdown at the possibility — still uncertain — that the US/Iran impasse might be solved without the use of US firepower.
At the American Conservative, Scott McConnell brings our attention to an article published by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) in the London Telegraph where he, in McConnell’s words, “embarrasses himself before an international audience” by lecturing his UK readers on Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 agreement with Hitler after the latter had annexed the German-speaking parts of Czechoslovakia. Any deal with Iran would be another such appeasement, wrote the Senator, implying that another Hitlerian lurch to occupy Europe was just on the horizon.
Also, more troublingly, the Senator’s point in the piece was that if the UK did not oppose US efforts to find a peaceful solution to its decades long conflict with Iran, Britain would be complicit in another Holocaust.
Is there not the slight odor of unpatriotism — or worse — in a US Senator appealing to a foreign audience to thwart the efforts of his own country’s diplomacy? Surely if a pro-peace Senator had written to Iran in 2002 asking that it help thwart the US drive to attack Iraq, Kirk’s neocon brigade would have screamed “treason!”
Invoking the Chamberlain at Munich false analogy just never gets old, though. Neocon hysterian Caroline Glick, in an Oct. 17 article titled…you guessed it, “Israel and the New Munich,” positively explodes in revival tent fury, screeching that:
The statements from the Obama administration and the EU following the closing of the first round of talks all made clear that Geneva 2013 is Munich 1938.
The White House was unable to restrain its excitement at the prospect of a deal with the genocidal, nuclear weapons-developing mullocracy.
To Glick and her ilk, any move short of total genocidal war against one’s “enemies” is “appeasement.” Anything short of total annihilation of any potential future threat or rival — combatants and non-combatants alike — is an overt invitation for a replay of World War II. Anyone who fails to work for or cheer such a pre-emptive total war is secretly wishing for a new Holocaust.
Glick is an American who became an Israeli, who became an Israeli soldier and then worked for the Israeli army as, among other things, a lecturer in tactical warfare; who works for an American and an Israeli pro-war think tank; who is deputy managing editor of the neocon Jerusalem Post while also on David Horowitz’s neocon roster as “Director of the Israel Security Project.” Where does she find time to write?
She is nevertheless shocked and disgusted by the fact that US diplomats actually met with their Iranian counterparts:
The stunning talks even included a one-on-one discussion between the chief US negotiator Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman and the Iranians.
Outrageous!
Talks with Iran to come to some agreement short of war means only one thing to propagandists like Glick: Munich!
[T]he only thing we learned this week is that like the Allied powers in 1938, the Obama administration and the Europeans have no stomach for a confrontation and are willing to dress up appeasement of a dangerous foe as “peace” and “progress.”
Yes, waving the bloody shirt called “Munich” is nothing new. In fact then-Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon even used it against his soul-mate, President George W. Bush, when he appeared to be going a bit wobbly in the Middle East and seeking Arab support for US policies.
Sharon’s warning to Bush:
Don’t repeat the terrible mistakes of 1938, when the enlightened democracies in Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a comfortable, temporary solution. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia.
Some 18 months later, Bush had attacked Iraq, long on Israel’s hit list, and all was forgiven.
Let’s ask ourselves a question: Has Israel been made any safer by the ravings of the pro-total war “Munich” crowd? Do they have a success to point to? Ms. Glick? Of course her defense would be that we have just not killed enough people yet.
Let us hope Obama can resist the endless, tiring “Munich” smears.
