<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
    xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"> 
    
<channel>
    

    <title>Obama, Dennis Ross and the Iran conundrum</title>
    <link>http://blogs.jta.org/ENTRY_PERMALINK_HERE/obama-dennis-ross-and-the-iran-conundrum/</link>
    <description>Roger Cohen finds Dennis Ross at the center of the debate about what the Obama administration should do about Iran.</description>
    <dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
    <dc:creator>uheilman@jta.org</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights>Copyright 2009</dc:rights>
    <dc:date>2009-07-31T;00:59:00-05:00</dc:date>
    <admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.pmachine.com/" />
 


    <item>
      <title>Comment by Daniel R. Schaefer</title>
      <link>DanielRobertS@Inbox.com</link>
      <description>Indyk believes Israel would not strike Iran&#8217;s nuclear weapons because &#8220;Israel has second&#45;strike capability.&#8221;  However, he lacks any military competence to support that opinion.&amp;nbsp; 

He admits &#8220;It wouldn’t be easy to live with an Iran that’s a virtual nuclear power.&#8221;  That is an understatement.&amp;nbsp; Israel would have to live with a sword of Damocles over her head and her  people.&amp;nbsp; 

Indyk also asserts that if Iran obtained nuclear arms,&quot;at the end of the day, it’s not a complete disaster.”    He thus impliedly admits that this would be at least a partial disaster.&amp;nbsp; Indyk also lacks any known training or competence in weapons of mass destruction.&amp;nbsp; He has no expertise to evaluate the blast, thermal and radiation effects that a nuclear detonation would have on Israel.

I remember Indyk taking a hard&#45;line on Israel when he held office.

He has little if any credibility in pretending to advocate anything in Israel&#8217;s interest.

By now, it is clear that Obama is ingratiating himself with the Muslim world by denigrating and scapegoating Israel.&amp;nbsp; Obama, however, will not hold office forever. But a nuclear&#45;armed Iran could very well be forever.&amp;nbsp; Israel  has to act solely in her own interest, and not seek to appease inexperienced and  hostile officials like Obama.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Indyk believes Israel would not strike Iran&#8217;s nuclear weapons because &#8220;Israel has second-strike capability.&#8221;  However, he lacks any military competence to support that opinion.&nbsp; 
<br />
He admits &#8220;It wouldn’t be easy to live with an Iran that’s a virtual nuclear power.&#8221;  That is an understatement.&nbsp; Israel would have to live with a sword of Damocles over her head and her  people.&nbsp; 
<br />
Indyk also asserts that if Iran obtained nuclear arms,"at the end of the day, it’s not a complete disaster.”    He thus impliedly admits that this would be at least a partial disaster.&nbsp; Indyk also lacks any known training or competence in weapons of mass destruction.&nbsp; He has no expertise to evaluate the blast, thermal and radiation effects that a nuclear detonation would have on Israel.
<br />
I remember Indyk taking a hard-line on Israel when he held office.
<br />
He has little if any credibility in pretending to advocate anything in Israel&#8217;s interest.
<br />
By now, it is clear that Obama is ingratiating himself with the Muslim world by denigrating and scapegoating Israel.&nbsp; Obama, however, will not hold office forever. But a nuclear-armed Iran could very well be forever.&nbsp; Israel  has to act solely in her own interest, and not seek to appease inexperienced and  hostile officials like Obama.
</p>]]></content:encoded>
    <dc:date>2012-05-23T;03:01:00-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>Comment by Irmgard Gesund</title>
      <link>hgesund@windstream.net</link>
      <description>Since the main thesis of Roger Cohen&#8217;s argument has been the fact that Dennis Ross is Jewish, and he&#8217;s even given us the further illuminating information on Ross&#8217; father&#8217;s religion and that of his stepmother&#8217;s, I believes it behooves Cohen to give us the same low down on his own pedigree and the organizations he belongs to and associations he travels in.

After all we need to know what inbred hidden biases guide his important role as columnist for such an influential paper as the once great New York Times. (Not that we couldn&#8217;t make a darn good guess.) But let&#8217;s have it out in the open for us to judge, as well.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since the main thesis of Roger Cohen&#8217;s argument has been the fact that Dennis Ross is Jewish, and he&#8217;s even given us the further illuminating information on Ross&#8217; father&#8217;s religion and that of his stepmother&#8217;s, I believes it behooves Cohen to give us the same low down on his own pedigree and the organizations he belongs to and associations he travels in.
<br />
After all we need to know what inbred hidden biases guide his important role as columnist for such an influential paper as the once great New York Times. (Not that we couldn&#8217;t make a darn good guess.) But let&#8217;s have it out in the open for us to judge, as well.
</p>]]></content:encoded>
    <dc:date>2012-05-23T;03:01:00-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

 
</channel>
</rss>
