Two articles, poles apart in their underlying philosophies,
appeared on the same day, February 2, 2017 in the same publication, the New
York Post.
One article came under the title: “Bullying Mexico will only
make more trouble for us,” and was written by Ralph Peters. The other came
under the title: “How Trump can keep Iran in check,” and was written by
Benny Avni. The gist of the Peters message is to advise the new administration
in Washington ,
it should study history, and then put itself in the shoes of the other guy
before acting. The gist of the Avni message is typically Jewish in that it
haggles just to sound impressive, yet says nothing that is substantive.
Ralph Peters begins the discussion by questioning the wisdom
in “publicly insisting that we'll build a wall and make Mexico pay for
it.” He flatly asserts that “no Mexican president or political party could do
so and survive.” He then goes on to explain his point of view. He says that in
the 1846-48 war, the United States
seized half of what used to be the original Mexico . This was a conflict that
even Ulysses S. Grant, the US
general turned president, termed shamefully unjust, says Peters.
He dismisses the claim that America
was avenging the Alamo and was defending the freedom of Texicans who were,
after all, slave owners that wanted to keep their slaves at a time when Mexico had
outlawed slavery. To Peters, so-called martyrs such as Davy Crockett and Jim
Bowie were no saints defending universal freedom. By the time half a century
had passed since the war between the two countries, America had grown wealthy and
powerful, and a new chapter in the relation between them began to be written.
This done, he makes a number of suggestions as to how the
relationship between the two countries should proceed from here on. He says
NAFTA is benefiting both sides and should stay. Cooperation to stem the flow of
migrants from Latin America should resume,
having been disrupted by the squabble over the wall. The parts of the border
fence that need to be fixed should be fixed as soon as possible. He says that
the two countries can grow stronger together or undercut each other, thus waste
time and energy. And he closes by reminding everyone that “the other guy's
story matters”.
As to Benny Avni, he starts his discussion this way:
“There's promise and danger in Trump's tough tone on Iran .” He goes on to explain that
“the danger is that an ill-prepared administration is making idle warnings.”
But that's okay, he says, because “Trump isn't wedded to the nuclear deal,”
anyway. And besides, Iran
has behaved badly since the signing of that deal, says Avni.
He takes several paragraphs to enumerate all the bad things
he says Iran
has been doing. But nowhere does he compare those things with the half century
occupation of Palestine that make up Israel 's list
of ongoing crimes against humanity. And neither does he mention Israel 's disregard for the numerous Security
Council resolutions ordering it to stop building settlements in the West Bank and to terminate the occupation.
He praises Trump for putting Iran “on notice,” calling the move
a sign of unpredictability, and praises him for saying that “nothing was off
the table.” Having said all this, Benny Avni makes suggestions which, you’ll
notice, are different in tone and spirit from those of Ralph Peters.
He wants to see President Trump “Beef up the American
military presence in the Gulf, including a display of US arms that can hit
nuclear facilities and missile factories” in Iran . He also wants to see the
President impose new sanctions on that country. But why does he believe this is
going to yield results? Here is why: “An Israeli Farsi-language broadcaster”
predicts that if Trump does all that, the Iranians will simply fold.