Yourish.com

This one made me laugh out loud.

Knesset Member Menachem Eliezer Moses, chairman of the United Torah Judaism faction, wished success on Wednesday to the two camps battling in Iran following Friday’s disputed presidential elections.

“What I have to say about everything happening in Iran, about the two sides which are fighting and hawking, is that none of them likes us, and I wish both sides success,” Moses told the Knesset during an urgent meeting on the recent developments in the Islamic republic.

Years ago, I was in Katz’s, and an older Jewish man behind the deli counter was slicing corned beef and talking to a much younger coworker. He was griping about someone who had done him wrong, and finally said, “He should get cancer and die!” The younger man was horrified. “You shouldn’t say things like that!” The older man thought about that a minute and said, “So, he should just have a heart attack.”

I laughed at that, too, because I grew up with old Jews talking to each other that way. That’s what the quote above reminds me of. Mind you, this is not an endorsment of Moses’ political views. Except for the ones on Iran. We’re on the same page there:

“The fact that (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad was reelected for Iran’s presidency is something I may even be happy about,” he said.

Moses explained that “we would rather have an open enemy of Israel who we know and are familiar with his stances and with how to deal with him, than a hidden enemy of Israel in the image of (Mir Hossein) Mousavi the reformist, who we don’t know yet and who hides behind a so-called pretense of progress, but we know he is no better than the first one, Ahmadinejad, in regards to Israel.”

There’s some kind of power struggle going on in Iran right now. Freedom for the Iranian people will not be the outcome of that struggle. But like Moses, I wish both sides success—because the longer they fight each other, the less time they have to devote to Israel and the U.S.

My brother used to have a very snarky question as a teenager: Are you dumb, stupid, or all three? I find that it still has its uses, especially when discussing the New York Times’ anti-Israel golden boy’s latest column.

First Roger Cohen shills for Mohammed El Baradei, the head of the IAEA who couldn’t find Iran in violation of the anti-proliferation treaty and yet who now admits that Iran was secretly building nukes while shouting “Look over there! Israel! Israel!” He passes along all of El Baradei’s accusations and slams at the Bush administration, and effectively blames them for Iran’s nuclear advances.

This is, of course, another case of tunnel vision exhibited by the man who can’t seem to find any faults with the Iranian regime.

But at the end of the anti-Bush screed, Cohen sees a light at the end of the tunnel where Iran will not get nuclear weapons.

Here’s one normalization scenario:

Iran ceases military support for Hamas and Hezbollah; adopts a “Malaysian” approach to Israel (nonrecognition and noninterference); agrees to work for stability in Iraq and Afghanistan; accepts intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency verification of a limited nuclear program for peaceful ends only; promises to fight Qaeda terrorism; commits to improving its human rights record.

The United States commits itself to the Islamic Republic’s security and endorses its pivotal regional role; accepts Iran’s right to operate a limited enrichment facility with several hundred centrifuges for research purposes; agrees to Iran’s acquiring a new nuclear power reactor from the French; promises to back Iran’s entry into the World Trade Organization; returns seized Iranian assets; lifts all sanctions; and notes past Iranian statements that it will endorse a two-state solution acceptable to the Palestinians.

And then we’ll all sit down with fluffy bunnies and kittens and sing Kumbaya. Because after all, the state that has been calling for the destruction of Israel for decades in general, and more recently in pretty specific terminology, obviously doesn’t mean it. The fact that Iran has never so much as hinted it was going to drop support for Hamas and Hezbollah; in point of fact, Iran has expanded its reach into Egypt in recent days—which means that Iran has put Egypt in its sights.

American realism is now essential. It should heed ElBaradei’s view: “I don’t believe the Iranians have made a decision to go for a nuclear weapon, but they are absolutely determined to have the technology because they believe it brings you power, prestige and an insurance policy.”

My problem with the concept of “realism” in this case is that Roger Cohen has a serious issue dealing with reality itself. On what basis does he get his normalization scenario? When did Iran ever endorse a two-state solution? When, where, how has Iran indicated that it is in any way open to Cohen’s scenario? All indications are the exact reverse: They want the bomb, they want the end of Israel, and they want a single Palestinian state where Israel used to be. No Iranian regime has ever said it would recognize Israel. Even Wikipedia acknowledges that.

Currently, the countries do not have diplomatic relations with each other. Iran does not formally recognize Israel as a country, and official government texts often simply refer to it as the “Zionist entity ” or the “Zionist regime.”

I have never seen any indication that Iran will recognize Israel’s existence. As for the rest of Cohen’s scenario, we go back to my brother’s smartass remark: Is he dumb, stupid, or all three?