Strike Three! You're out!

You're disgustingly inappropriate accusation of antisemitism is bad for the Jews. By constantly crying wolf when someone doesn't agree with Israeli policy or makes a statement you deem factually incorrect makes it more difficult to oppose actual antisemites. It makes a mockery of the whole thing.

Edwards might be wrong, and you have every right to say so, but there's nothing obviously anti-semitic about it. Here's something a rational person could believe that would make him say that:

1) The greatest short-term threat to the world would be an all-out war in the middle East.

2) If a western country were to bomb Iran single-handedly, it could trigger such a war.

3) Israel is the most likely country to bomb Iran.

Please show me how that is antisemitic. Or does one have to mindlessly assume that everything Israel does will have only beneficial effects on the world?

JA, I must have missed the accusation of anti-semitism in the post.

I just re-read the post, and I must have missed it again.

By the way, Edwards claims the quotation is incorrect, but he sure is confused: "Edwards' spokesman Jonathan Prince says the article is erroneous. He says Edwards says one of the greatest short-term threats to world peace is Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon." Which is not inconsistent with the alleged comment about an Israeli attack.

And considering what he said to the Herzliya conference ("all options must remain on the table"), one can only surmise this latest comment was another botched joke.

JA, I must have missed the accusation of anti-semitism in the post.

The post is in the category "Antisemitism watch."

By the way, Edwards claims the quotation is incorrect

Noooo! But the source seemed so credible:

The aggressively photogenic John Edwards... his litany of liberal causes... he invoked the "I" word — Israel... As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

Seems a perfectly reasonable comment to me. And you won't find many people this side of the Atlantic (at least, until you get to Israel) to disagree with it. Heck, even the Spectator (one of the more intelligent British right-wing publications, and not one famed for anti-Israel attitudes) published this recently.

What part of "people in Europe find a presently nuclear-armed Israel a damned sight more scary than a maybe-potentially-nuclear-armed-in-the-future Iran" don't you comprehend? I find it reassuring that at least some people in the States are saying the same thing, even if they're drowned out by the background hum of knee-jerk Israel-can-do-no-wrong piffle that your Herzliya chums ensure saturates the US media.

Sorry, I dropped a letter from the Spectator link. Here it is.

1) The greatest short-term threat to the world would be an all-out war in the middle East.

2) If a western country were to bomb Iran single-handedly, it could trigger such a war.

3) Israel is the most likely country to bomb Iran.

And why is Israel likely to bomb Iran?

Possibly because it keeps on threatening to bomb Israel. And it is developing nuclear weapons quite possible to aid it in its endeavor.

So it is not Iran which is the greatest short term threat to world peace, in Edwards rhetoric, but Israel. Which surprise, surprise, was a step too explicitly anti-Israel even for the Hollywood liberal crowd.

I think this kind of rhetoric has become quite wide spread on the left, just look at the Wonkette for a taste of what that looks like, so he may have been quite surprised that his solecism tripped him up. Perhaps he merely misspoke and left out a few of the "building blocks" that you supplied, JA, which would at least have framed the issue in "rationalism." No, he just recited the punchline - and placed the blame on Israel as the cause. Which presents the issue in a different cast. Nor did he state that the increasing tension between Israel and Iran is the greatest threat, nor that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric has increased the tension. No, the threat is that Israel might take seriously all of the threats that Iran keeps aiming her way.

However, beyond that, I don't agree with the assessment.

That's the old calculus.

Was the world short-term greatest crisis caused by Israel bombing Iraq to destroy its nuclear weapons? You know, Israel faced a lot of criticism, but I don't remember that breaking out into a world crisis.

In addition, I think that the Sunni Arab countries throughout the region would be quite delighted at Israel smacking Iran, whatever they might say in public. They don't want the arms race that Iran's acquisition of nuclear arms is threatening to provoke either. They prefer the status quo in the ME. It's not Israel that is currently destabilizing that status quo.

You have only to look at their delighted reaction to Israel smacking the currently depressed Nasrallah last summer.

So the analysis is boilerplate and out of date. It doesn't take into consideration the new situation.

Why is it that Edwards blamed Israel first for a nuclear weapons race in the Arab world that Iran is provoking.

Oh right, because it warms the cockles of the nutroots hearts to hear exactly such language.

Furthermore, Peter Bart is the editor and chief of Variety, and when confronted with the "new version" of Edward's speech, he did not withdraw his claim.

It's possible Edwards "misspoke". It's also possible that Bart was wrong. It's also possible he didn't misspeak and acted to correct the problem once the news got out belatedly.

It's certainly a meme we've heard from people in Edwards' circles, so it would not surprise me in the least if he said it.

Furthermore, if this line more or less killed the fundraiser, as Bart states, then it is like that Bart would get the details correct.

I don't agree with his assessment, to be clear, but I think inferring that he is antisemitic from it, and accusing him of same, is disgraceful, bad for the Jews, and emblematic of the shallow and cynical political discourse that happens in the U.S. today.

As for the reason that anti-semitism watch is the category that shows, that's a technical matter. Only one shows up. I also put it in Domestic Politics and Competing Narratives without paying much attention to which one was primary.

I wasn't implying that Edwards is an anti-semite, but I do think the rhetoric is problematic in that it skirts anti-semitism, and it is something that should be watched. Kind of a blame Israel first mentality. Hence anti-semitism watch. In that category you will find blatant examples of anti-semitism and items which are borderline.

Though given the correction or the denial from the Edward's campaign - whichever is true - I doubt that Edwards will be likely to frame the matter quite that way in future.

>>Why is it that Edwards blamed Israel first for a nuclear weapons race in the Arab world that Iran is provoking?

Oh right, because it warms the cockles of the nutroots hearts to hear exactly such language.

And because the wingnuts' hearts all go into frantic fibrillation the instant anyo9ne speaks the truth.

Arms races are "provoked" by the first people to enter into them. There is only one nuclear-armed state in teh Middle East, and that is Israel. So how can Iran have "provoked" any kind of arns race?

And do tell me which ARAB countries are currently "racing" with Iran on this one.

If your precious Herzliya/Hasbara/learning-how-to-lie-better-to-the-media conference can't turn out better counter-arguments to the truth than this, the Israeli government should find better ways to spend its propaganda budget.

Rob,

Do you think that I'm making up the fact that Jordan and Saudi Arabia are now looking seriously into acquiring nukes?

What changed in the situation?

Israel's acquisition of nukes? But then how would you explain their delayed reaction? 40ish years later?

No, what is changing the equation at the moment, Rob, is that Iran is in the middle of its process of acquiring nukes. And the Sunnis don't want the Shi'ites to be armed on that level.

If you don't know this already, maybe you should widen your reading sources on the ME; it's actually a very serious matter, and it's been discussed quite a bit.

The "leftist take" on this is that this too is the fault of BlairBusHitler because of Iraq. But I guess not far behind this is blaming it, of course, on Israel.

Because if Israel didn't exist, you know, no need to wipe it off the map. So indeed, I can see how some people can think that that line of thought makes perfect sense.

BTW, a propos of Iraq, I heard Blair today on the BBC, being interviewed by John Humphrys. Just to let you know, I don't think I've ever heard a more unctuous interviewer than that.

There should be a competition. He'd win gold.

Rob Schwartz, re: Strike Three! You're out!

Just curious. What were the first 2 "strikes"?

Rob, from your Spectator link, which is great:

"In addition to Iran’s indigenous nuclear programme, there have been reports that it has bought several nuclear bombs ‘off the shelf’ from rogue scientists in the former Soviet Union. So, for all the fuss about its nuclear programme, Iran might already have several tactical nuclear weapons stuffed in its armoury.

If Israel is drawn into a pre-emptive strike, the Iranians might reckon that the international community will judge an Iranian nuclear response to be proportionate, even justifiable. With their political compass fixed at the dangerous intersection of ideological fervour and religious zealotry, the mullahs of Tehran could be calculating that such an outcome will succeed in both burnishing their Islamic credentials and realising their cosmic dream of dominance."

It does look like 'I am the greatest,' Iran, is looking for some 'rope a dope' action. To bad they probably haven't considered Muhammed Ali for chief Ayatollah. Edwards probably got his remarks from his 'Market Watch' newsletter.

I still haven't seen anything that makes be believe Jordan or Saudi Arabia are close to, or even within OTH radar range of, creating their own nukes. Of course they could buy them from someone else, and the Saudis certainly have deep enough pockets for that never to be ruled out. I have no doubt they'd love to have their own nukes, as presumably would Syria, Yemen, etc etc. It's the likelihood of its happening I remain unconvinced of.

John Humphreys: yup, I'd agree with Alcibiades on that one. But having heard him sucking up to Blair, how can you still think of the BBC as a hotbed of leftist anti-Americanism? Some fringes of it, maybe, but the house style is still very much one of kow-towing to Bush and Blair. Remember, Humphreys presents "Today" which is the BBC's flagship current affairs radio programme, going out at breakfast time ever weekday. He IS the public face (or voice - he does TV but that's "Mastermind" which is an upmarket quiz show) of BBC current affairs.

I still haven't seen anything that makes be believe Jordan or Saudi Arabia are close to, or even within OTH radar range of, creating their own nukes.

Well, no. I don't think they are close to it, especially not the way that Iran is close to it - however close they are - which of course none of us know.

But it is worrying that they are now beginning to contemplate such acquisitions seriously when they hadn't done so before, or, at least, not publicly.

To some extent it's opening up a negotiating position, but it also plants their line a lot further out than it used to be. And as you point out, Saudi Arabia is perfectly capable of buying blackmarket nukes with their huge reserves of cash.

Or, if there is a switch of government in Pakistan, for example, they could acquire them there.