There are many who have interpreted the latest intelligence estimate as a slow-down for the march to war with Iran and an opportunity for this administration to engage in diplomacy. These voices would be wrong, they obviously have forgotten who they are dealing with. The tough rhetoric and war posturing by this administration towards Iran has nothing to do with nuclear weapon ambitions, WMD’s, or the price of oil in China. This administration has had a strategy from the beginning to alter the appearance of the Middle-East and that plan has not changed. This administration does not rely on reports or estimates, it relies on an ideology. The ideology that you are either with us or with the terrorists and any information that does not support these views is discounted.
The findings, though, remain open for interpretation, as they always do, even in documents meant to reflect the consensus of the intelligence community. When it comes to Iran, at odds with the United States on many fronts beyond the nuclear question, hawks remain.
“Those who are suspicious of diplomacy are well dug in in this administration,” said Kurt M. Campbell, chief executive officer of the Center for a New American Security.
John R. Bolton, the former ambassador to the United Nations, who recently left the administration and began to criticize it, sounded very much like Mr. Hadley on Monday, saying the assessment underscored the need for American toughness. He said Iran’s intentions would always remain a concern as long as it continued to enrich uranium.
“The decision to weaponize and at what point is a judgment in the hands of the Iranians,” he said. He added that the finding that Iran halted a weapons program could just mean that it was better hidden now.[1]
The principles of empire and domination are not swayed by insignificant details like the truth. This administration and its Neo-Con cronies create their own truth and will use other people’s truth to justify their own. Remember, these were the people who would leak a story and then use the leaked story as independent corroboration. This report changes nothing in the minds of Bush and his chicken hawks and as the story unfolds they will actually use it to press the case for action against Iran all the more. It will be argued that Iran can restart the program at their leisure or that those portable weather monitoring stations are mobile nuclear facilities. Then there will be the top-secret nuclear program that Iran is harboring undetectable by the untrained eye.
Despite popular belief, this will create more pressure on Iran from the Neo-Con and Israeli hawks. Many of whom have already doubted the conclusions of the reports and are planting the seeds of skepticism. The following is a quote taken from a blog entitled, “The Great Intelligence Scam” from the Neo-Con website of Michael Breeden:
At this point, one really has to wonder why anyone takes these documents seriously. How can anyone in his (there was no female name on the document, nor was any woman from the IC present at the press briefing yesterday) right mind believe that the mullahs are rational? Has no one told the IC about the cult of the 12th Imam, on which this regime bases its domestic and foreign policies? Does not the constant chant of “Death to America” mean anything? I suppose not, at least not to the deep thinkers who wrote this policy document.[2]
Also, the Israeli hawks have chimed in with their own claims of secret Iranian nuclear plans that they have evidence of. This evidence they obviously didn’t feel obliged to share with their staunch ally and defender the US and its intelligence community. What amazes me is these are the same people who trumpeted the estimates and defector stories that stated unequivocally that Iraq had WMD’s and now all of a sudden the information is unreliable, no sh*t. The climate in this country continues to descend into this polarization of ideas and competing philosophies and I fear it will only get worse as the political parties gear up for the election cycle.
We have not heard the end of the Iranian debate nor has George Bush’s plan been sidetracked. The difference is this time there will be no phony excuses to justify the action and there will be no lies for the American politicians and people to hide behind. There will be clear choices ahead of us as a nation. Will we continue the “stay the course” philosophy that has produced two wars and no victories into a third one or will we choose to bring the “war on terror” to its long overdue conclusion? Either way Iran will continue to be the ace in the hole in someone’s sights and isn’t going away anytime soon.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washington/04assess.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
[2] http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2007/12/03/the_great_intelligence_scam.php
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Intelligence Report Bodes Bad For Iran
Friday, November 30, 2007
Oh My Goodness, Hamas Won?
In case anyone needs to know why the Annapolis talks are DOA, the previous statement uttered by Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice should clear up any doubt. This statement was uttered by Ms. Rice in response to the news that after the Palestinian elections she helped to usher in the Hamas faction had won the majority of seats. I remember from my pre-law days the admonition of one of my professors, “Never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to”. You would never schedule a democratic election, if you can’t guarantee the democratic results. Neither should you setup a final peace conference, if you don’t have any final peace agreement.
Nearly seven tumultuous years later, Ms. Rice, as secretary of state, has led the Bush administration to a startling turnaround and is now thrusting the United States as forcefully as Mr. Clinton once did into the role of mediator between the Israelis and Palestinians. The culmination of her efforts occurs this week in Annapolis, Md., as Mr. Bush, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, meet to set the outlines of a final peace agreement before the end of Mr. Bush’s term.[1]
These talks have a snowballs chance in hell of creating any long-term peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Prior to a conference on this scale there has been behind the scenes negotiations that have ironed out the language and details of the agreement, to my knowledge there have been no such meetings. Without the proper groundwork what could she possibly hope to accomplish? The answer of course is nothing this is just another one of this administrations dog and pony shows where there is all sizzle and no substance.
There has been no movement on either side on the major issues that divide both sides, namely the borders and the refugee questions. There has been no movement on the roadmap. You have the majority of Palestinians supporting Hamas who was not invited to the conference, so what can you hope to accomplish without one of the major parties being present? If this weren’t so important and tragic, it would be almost hilarious. Ms. Rice has never been willing to push Israel enough to get a comprehensive agreement with enough concessions to make it palatable to the Palestinians. Just the fact that they are negotiating with a wounded Prime Minister from Palestine shows the desperation of Ms. Rice and this administration to be known for more than the Iraq war debacle.
Many other Middle East experts remain unconvinced as well, particularly since the failure so far of the Israelis and Palestinians to agree on a joint statement to come out of the 40-nation conference has forced Ms. Rice to recast Annapolis as the start rather than the end of negotiations. Critics say she is organizing little more than an elaborate photo opportunity.[2]
So it seems rather than produce any meaningful agreement, this administration in the person of Ms. Rice is content to present a charade for the cameras and the US media. It will give everyone cover for continuing the status quo. We will have plenty of pictures of serious looking diplomats discussing the seriousness of peace in the Middle East, followed by a joint statement of nothingness by all parties, vowing to continue seeking peace. Once the cameras have been turned off, there will be a continuation of business as usual. There is too much invested for all concerned in maintaining the status quo, Abbas has no mandate outside of what Israel and the US gives him, Olmert does not have the political muscle to secure major concessions especially with the Palestinians being fractured, and the US has its hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran on the horizon, the other Arab states just need to look like they are seeking peace and justice for the Palestinians to keep their populations stable. The only ones seeking peace have no power to bring it about.
For Ms. Rice, Annapolis reflects her evolution from passive participant to activist diplomat who has been willing to break with Mr. Cheney and other conservatives skeptical of an American diplomatic role in the Middle East. Mr. Cheney argued with Ms. Rice against a pivotal Middle East speech that Mr. Bush gave in 2002 in the Rose Garden, fought her on a host of other issues, including Iran and North Korea, and today surrounds himself with senior advisers dubious about the Annapolis meeting.[3]
Condoleezza Rice has no serious backing in the administration for this effort. The President is vague and not invested and the Vice-President is totally not onboard. It appears that this is just Mr. Bush offering a token concession to Ms. Rice for her loyalty and their friendship. His position does not appear to have changed from early in his first term, where he did not feel obliged to become entangled in the whole Middle East peace process. Peace and negotiations are messy and tiresome, it’s not the cowboy way. Cowboys kick butt, cowboys do regime change and invasion. Negotiations are for weaklings and sissies, not tough guys like Bush and Cheney.
So let’s give a toast to Condi Rice and all the other dignitaries who will be getting face time on television and the cable news talking heads, but in the end, “oh my goodness, Hamas still won…”
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/washington/26rice.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1196111064-1JAQdjqOZo2fhh95B2WPLA
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/washington/26rice.html?hp
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Why Iran Cannot Have The Bomb
As the Iranian nuclear nightmare diplomacy continues to spin out of control and the Neo-Con attack dogs persists in fanning the flames of war, it is painfully obvious that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. The reason Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon has nothing to do with the Bush WMD argument or the Israeli Armageddon scenario. While the wing-nuts would have us to believe that Iran’s behavior precludes them from possessing nuclear technology. They parade out charts and graphs displaying Iran’s support for terrorists, its unstable leader, and its theocratic government as reasons to launch a pre-emptive strike. Remember, we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
The real reason Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon is not about Iranians at all, it is about the bankrupt Neo-Con agenda. The first question we must ask is why would Iran want nuclear weapons, if in fact they are pursuing the technology. The wing-nuts would have you to believe that number one they want it to take a preemptive shot at America or Israel. Let’s examine this on the surface, they would have you to believe that Iran would risk the complete annihilation of its people to shoot one nuclear bomb at the US or Israel. This is ludicrous to any sane individual, but to most Americans this will be the deal maker. After all, they hate us for our freedoms and would like nothing better than to destroy the “Great Satan”.
Another popular scenario is the Iranians giving the nuclear device to a terrorist organization to escape the retribution on its own people. The terrorist group would then detonate the device and diffuse any culpability from Iran. This of course ignores the available technology that would be used to track the detonation of the device as well as the designer and manufacturer. Thus, bringing us back to the original point of annihilation for Iran and any client group they used to deliver the device. Another and more plausible scenario is that the Iranians would use the device to extract concessions from the West and embolden it to become more aggressive in its foreign policy towards Israel and its neighbors. Does having a nuclear weapon change a nation? Not usually, what good is a gun in a room full of guns? It does not improve your bargaining position as if you were the only one with one.
The truth of the matter is that Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb because then it would be able to resist regime change. The real reason the Neo-Cons do not want Iran or any other nation in the Middle-East to have a bomb is to make it easier to institute regime change when the time comes. Think about what the nations have just witnessed in the last 5 years, there is a terrorist attack against the US on US soil. You have a retaliation invasion against Afghanistan and the Taliban that helped to harbor the perpetrators of the attack. Then out of nowhere you have an invasion of a sovereign country on the pretence that at some point they could have the weapons to threaten the US.
While Tehran didn’t lose any sleep over the deposing of Saddam, what they did lose sleep over was the fact that a line had been crossed in international relations. Deliberate and unconcealed regime change was now on the table with little or no evidence of threat or menace. Naked aggression against regimes that were considered hostile to “American Interests” was now if not condoned at least overlooked by the international community. When you include the fact that North Korea, one of the “axis of evil” members, who supposedly has nuclear capabilities, was never attacked, it’s not hard to understand Tehran’s desire for a deterrent against attack.
I realize with all the hype surrounding the Middle-East and Iran in particular this will be an unpopular position, but it is the only logical one. Of course there will be the Islamo-facist not being logical argument, but this is put forth only as a smoke screen to attack, just as the WMD’s were used for Iraq. If they are able to demonize and attach lunacy to the target, it gives it more legitimacy when taking it out. We have to get them before they get us. The thing that kills me is that with the results being in on Iraq, how anyone could seriously entertain the thought of attacking Iran and not be considered a lunatic themselves. But yet we have “experts” on the television daily offering up just such scenarios.
Despite the hype, there are still voices in the Middle-East that recognize the exaggeration being used to justify an attack on Iran. While no one wants to see nuclear proliferation in the region, they recognize that should Iran eventually get the bomb it will not automatically lead to WWIII as some have predicted.
"Would I like Iran to have a nuclear bomb? No," said Robert Jervis, a Columbia University professor of international politics who has written widely on nuclear deterrence. But, "the fears (voiced) by the administration and a fair number of sensible people as well, just are exaggerated. The idea that this will really make a big difference, I think is foolish."
Even some commentators in Israel, whose leaders see themselves in Iran's crosshairs, present a more nuanced view of the potential threat than the White House does.
An Iranian nuclear bomb could present Israel "with the real potential for an existential threat," Ephraim Kam of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv wrote in February.
Despite Iran's "messianic religious motivations," he wrote, "it is highly doubtful that Tehran would want to risk an Israeli nuclear response" by attempting a first strike.[1]
And this is why Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or any other nation in the Middle-East other than Israel cannot have nuclear capabilities. It’s really rather simple when you think about it.
[1] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/21341.html
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Mickey Mouse Killed By Israeli Interrogator
"Tomorrow's Pioneers" sparked an international furor in April when it began featuring Farfour, the Mickey Mouse look-alike who sounded more like Iran’s firebrand President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than a Disney character.
Mustafa Barghouti, then serving as the Palestinian Authority's information minister, called the show a "mistaken approach" to helping Palestinians and tried unsuccessfully to force the show off the year.
The Israeli government and activists who monitor Palestinian programming accused Hamas of poisoning the minds of young children with the show.
After two months, Farfour was beaten to death on the show by an Israeli interrogator. Nahoul, a larger-than-life bee, is now carrying his message.[1]
Tomorrow’s Pioneers is a weekly television show for Palestinian children shown on the Hamas television network. On the show an 11 year old, Saraa Barhoum takes calls from other Palestinian youth concerning issues they are facing with the occupation. The show provides moral lessons, through stories and cartoons. The children call into the show and talk about how the occupation has affected their lives, they sing songs that deal with liberation, religion, and martyrdom.
While reading this story I was torn for a number of reasons, but because I haven’t actually seen the show my comments are speculative at best. The show has been criticized by Israel and the American Government for inciting anti-Israeli sentiments. While Saraa was being interviewed an Israeli missile exploded in the building next door causing the crew and Saraa to run for cover. So, it isn’t the occupation, assassinations, or indiscriminate violence that is fueling these anti-Israeli feelings among the Palestinians, it is the kid shows. You know I never did trust those damn cartoons, I always thought there were some subliminal messages being sent and now I know.
From what I can tell the show is propaganda, but is it anymore so than say Captain America or Superman; fighting for truth, justice and the American way? And what about all those Disney and WB cartoons during WWII, those were definitely sending a message to support our troops and our vision. So, besides the obvious of the pot and the kettle thing, I do find it a little disturbing when an 11 year old is talking about becoming a martyr. There are so many other things her young mind should be focusing on; instead because of her circumstances she does not have the luxury of dreams and fantasies. For many Palestinian children the dream is as simple as a safe place to grow up in and the opportunity to lead normal lives free from coercion.
Instead of focusing on the programming on the Hamas network, maybe if the Israeli and American governments focused more on changing the apartheid policies being waged against the Palestinian people the Hamas programming would change. How many more Palestinian children have to die before there is a real effort at peace? How many more children will have to give up their future and their dreams before the International community will call Israel on their land grab and refusal to negotiate in good faith?
It’s not the cartoons that are fueling this, it is the results of the cartoon. The mouse dying at the hands of an Israeli interrogator and its real life lessons, this is what is inflaming the Palestinians. Should children be used to promote violence? No, but should children be given the truth of their circumstances and about the perpetrators who are carrying out the policies responsible for these circumstances? Absolutely!
Read more!Tuesday, July 24, 2007
A Palestinian Do-Over
Well ,you know what they say if you don’t get it right the first time try, try again. It appears that this is the philosophy of the Fatah sect of the Palestinian government, the Bush administration, and the Israelis. Unhappy with the results of last year’s Palestinian election, which saw the Hamas faction winning big, it has been decided that those results should be dispensed with and new elections should be held. Now why didn’t we think of that in 2000 and 2004? If you don’t like the results of an election, just call a do-over. Unlike our case we are not talking about an election with contested results, this was an election that was considered fair by all parties.
So what’s the problem? The problem is that the Palestinians don’t understand democracy. They foolishly think that democracy means that the winner of an election is allowed to govern for the term of that election. Wrong, the way democracy really works is that if you have the nerve to elect a government that the powers that be do not like, approve of, or recognize then that election is invalidated. The nerve of these people to think they get to elect their own representatives. After decades of corruption, lack of progress in peace talks, and torture of their own people, the Palestinians decided to go another way from the Fatah monopoly.
Abbas made the announcement ahead of a gathering of the
Hamas trounced Fatah in 2006 legislative elections, setting off more than a year of factional strife that culminated with Hamas' violent takeover of the
Abbas responded by forming an emergency government based in the West Bank.
Hamas has said it would oppose a call for new elections, saying it is being robbed of last year's victory.[1]
So this is the type of democracy that the Bush administration wants to import to the Middle-East? It’s no wonder the rest of the region is not dying to get a part of this. You can’t have open and fair elections and then invalidate the results; it kind of defeats the purpose of open and fair elections; sort of like that whole “fair and balanced” thing with Fox news. It is this type of empire philosophy that is fueling the ire of the world; we know better than you what is right for you. It is not democracy when the results of the election are rigged in advance. It appears that the folks in the White House and in Tele Aviv could use a class in democracy.
Rather than address the true obstacles to peace, let’s focus on the group that the Palestinians have chosen to negotiate for them. Let’s ignore the continued settlement building, the assassinations, and the apartheid regime and act shocked by the fact that these people are frustrated and want new leadership. Why can’t they be fat, dumb, and happy like our democracy has made us? These same politicos that decried the fake elections of Saddam and other dictators have the nerve to claim the moral high ground here. The hypocrisy of this blatant attempt to thwart the will of the Palestinian people is so obvious, I would suggest that the Palestinians should boycott any attempt at new elections. If they will not honor the last elections what makes you think they will honor this one? Maybe, because prior to the next election they plan to release millions of dollars into the economy in an attempt to buy the Palestinians silence and prevent true democracy from taking place.
“Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing” - Edmund Burke
Read more!Monday, June 25, 2007
Tony Blair’s Promotion
Due to his tremendous success with the war in Iraq, President Bush wants to reward Tony Blair by naming him a special Middle East envoy. Maybe he could throw in a Medal of Freedom for Mr. Blair as well. While, I admire the fact that Mr. Blair won’t be unemployed for long thus lowering the worldwide unemployment rate, I question him for this particular role. With the Middle East in particularly worse shape than usual, which seemed nearly impossible until George Bush got into office, I don’t think one of the principal partners in the Iraqi war should be handling difficult negotiations. I believe that due to his almost “groupie” adoration of George Bush, Mr. Blair has lost credibility in the region.
Does anyone besides this befuddled administration think this appointment will work? This just shows how much the Hamas takeover of Gaza has shaken up things in Middle East politics. I am sure that Tony Blair is a fine man and wants to do the right thing in the region, but because of his unwavering support of George Bush, he will always be identified in that role. This will prevent him from being seen as fair and impartial in negotiations. My thinking is that he will not be sent to broker any final terms of a peace deal, but more than likely to help build credibility for the Fatah faction of the PLO.
You would think that the fiascos in Iraq (Chalabi) this administration would get that you can’t pick and choose the leaders for others. Whether you like them or not, you have to negotiate with the people’s representatives, not who you want to negotiate with. An agreement with someone who cannot deliver is not worth the paper it is written on. Rather than continue to bolster a leader who has lost his base, it would be better to work toward bringing Hamas into the process. How can you rehabilitate a terrorist organization? The same way we have rehabilitated all the others that were once on our list (Sandinistas, IRA, etc.) we use carrots and sticks. You cannot hope to resolve an issue without one of the major players involved in the process. When Hamas first came to power after the election, they desperately sought recognition from the West, but due to our intransigent foreign policy apparatus we let the opportunity slip away. Hamas realizes that now it must govern which a terrorist organization cannot do. They know that they have to deliver on the basic services that the people require. It is not in their self-interest to allow the people of Gaza to starve. The MSM media will make it appear that the people of Gaza are leaving because of Hamas, but the reality is the people are leaving because they know the storm that Israel will unleash against them. It is one thing to promote democracy, it is quite another to undermine democracy when you don’t like the results. Of course that has never happened (Chile, El Salvador, etc.). The time is overdue to discontinue the rhetoric and demagoguery of the past and begin to make serious efforts to resolve this conflict. There will be no peace until we do. The only reason to continue to support Mr. Mazen is to allow the foot dragging and corruption to continue. Israel knows as long as this conflict between the Palestinians continues they will not have to do any serious negotiations. And rather than call them on this, the friendly regimes in the region (none of which are democracies) go along with this charade to placate their people. There will be an uprising in the Middle East, not because of what Mr. Bush has done but in spite of it. The people of that region will one day rise up against those who have sold them out and it won’t be because we planted the seeds of democracy, it will be because they are tired of being misled by their own governments. We can continue our age old policy of supporting lost causes or we can finally for a change support the winds of change, before they blow us away. Mr. Blair will bring nothing substantive to the negotiations because he will not have the power to persuade Mr. Bush or more importantly Mr. Cheney and the Jewish PACs into making any real sacrifices. Without the freedom to negotiate independently, Mr. Blair is just another mouthpiece of this administration. We would be served just as well by sending Tony Snow. Using a different messenger to deliver the same message is not going to work. It is time for a different message not only for Israel and Palestine, but for the region as a whole. If Mr. Blair is not coming with a new message and a new policy how can anyone expect to get anything different. Insanity; doing the same thing and expecting different results…
Monday, June 18, 2007
A Friend Indeed?
The prime minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, said: “I call on my friend Abu Mazen,” referring to Mr. Abbas, who was in Ramallah, to take the opportunity, now that almost the entire world understands the viciousness, the brutality of Hamas, to exercise his authority as the leader of the Palestinian people.”
Israel will do what it can, he said in an interview with The New York Times in Tel Aviv, to “be helpful and supportive of the Palestinian people in every possible way, including economic cooperation and security cooperation.”
It is so refreshing to see that Israel’s prime minister is so willing to help the Palestinian people. As the Palestinians continue to struggle against one another in a push for power between the democratically elected government headed by Hamas and the Fatah party led by President Abbas, the Israeli government is now willing to help.
I think that it is interesting that throughout the “so-called” Middle East peace process the Israeli’s have done everything within their power to undermine Mr. Abbas, that now when faced with the prospect of a Hamas led government they are willing to support him. I am afraid that it is too little, too late for Mr. Abbas. The Hamas led government is a direct result of the foot-dragging and disingenuous negotiations that Israel and the US have been engaged end trying to placate the Palestinians while the Israelis continue to cement their land grab and occupation of lands taken in the 1967 war. If the Israeli’s had bargained in good faith in the past maybe we would not be in the position we are today.
The occupation has not made Israel safer and it has only inflamed the passions of the Palestinians and the Arab world. Before the Hamas victory in elections, Israel had ample opportunity to negotiate with the moderate Palestinians, but instead chose to stonewall the process and continue to build settlements, settlements that violate the letter and the spirit of the peace process. However, due to their lobbying efforts and media domination they have been able to present the occupation as being humane and in the best interest of the Palestinians. The Palestinians are too barbaric to be able to govern themselves and require the benevolent assistance of the Israelis to save them from themselves. This picture will again be played out in the main stream press as the violence intensifies.
Of course throughout this process what won’t be discussed are the efforts of the Israelis and the US to destabilize the Palestinians and to keep them splintered so they cannot mount an effective defense against the media savvy Israelis. Thus allowing them to present the Palestinians as uncivilized and therefore unworthy of having a place at the bargaining table. This has allowed the Israelis to continue to fortify their positions and settlements in the occupied territory. The Israelis and the US will disavow any complicity in the violence that is now taking place in Gaza, not accepting that this violence is in direct response to the fact that the lawfully elected government is being kept from governing by the interference of Washington and Tele Aviv.
Am I a fan of Hamas? Certainly not. But I am not a Palestinian and so my vote doesn’t count for anything in this struggle. I do know that you cannot create an environment that fosters frustration, hopelessness, and fear and not expect some backlash. You cannot restrict the daily movements of a people and interrupt their interactions with their families and then be shocked when they respond. Let’s not forget that for a long time this land belonged to them as much as it did to Israel, if not more. Are they also entitled to self-determination? Are they not entitled to their own state?
So what is there to do? We can continue to play the blame game and the retaliation mess or we can try something novel and maybe talk to all parties. If we continue to marginalize and isolate those who we disagree with we only continue to foster their beliefs that we are insensitive to their needs. We open the door for even more radical elements, because the moderates have shown little, if any gains. Hamas is a creation of the corruption of the Fatah party and the frustration at the lack of progress for the average Palestinian. In a conflict of this magnitude, one that runs this deep there are only two options: either we make peace and sacrifice for that peace or we kill all of them. Because as long as they are there, there will be no peace. There will be no peaceful co-existence. So either sit down with all parties and negotiate in good faith or stop the “snipe hunt” and let the killing begin…
Read more!Wednesday, June 6, 2007
What Happened in Israel in 1967?
Can the turmoil in the Middle East be traced back to the events in 1967? There are many who believe that they can be. It was at that time, 40 years ago that the Israelis were beginning and ending the Six Day war. Some say it was at this moment that the fate of Israel and the Palestinians were both sealed with the fateful decisions made following this war. Have those decisions led to a safer Israel? That is hard to say, but what we do know is that those decisions have fed an ongoing cycle of violence that has no end in sight.
Although there were lots of discussions concerning the disposition of the newly occupied territory, one that is not mentioned in the all the papers is the legality of it. So, either it wasn’t discussed or was removed from the archives. However, there was a legal opinion given which until now has remained secret.
“By September, Eshkol was seriously considering settlements in the Golan and Kfar Etzion. He was no doubt influenced by the Khartoum Arab summit which had responded to the Israeli Cabinet's secret offer, agreed within a fortnight of the war, of a negotiated withdrawal from most of the territories, with a resounding "no" to talks. In hindsight, it is possible to see the Khartoum declaration as a heavily coded concession to some form of indirect negotiation on recognition, in return for withdrawal from the territories occupied in the war. But Israel, whose position was anyway hardening, wanted direct negotiations and explicit recognition if it was going to pull back.
In all the debate – within the public and, it appears, in Cabinet – one highly significant aspect of settlement policy was barely, if at all, discussed: whether it was legal. Since then Israel has never accepted the argument, ratified by successive UN resolutions, that civilian settlements violated international law. Which makes it all the more interesting that Theodor Meron, the then-36-year-old legal adviser at the Foreign Ministry, was asked to deliver an opinion on just that issue. Meron, a Holocaust survivor, had been a member of Israel's delegation to the UN during the June war. "It was a very traumatic period because in New York things looked terribly ominous," he recalls today.
But the secret memorandum he wrote three months later – initially only for the eyes of his boss, the Foreign Minister Abba Eban, but then sent to Eshkol's office – was clearsighted and unequivocal. The document, written after the Khartoum summit when he knew settlement in the Golan and the West Bank was very much in the air, was unknown until it was unearthed from the Israel State Archives and brought to light by Gorenberg last year. In it, Meron wrote that "my conclusion is that civilian settlement of the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." The Convention prohibits deportation or transfer by the occupying power of its own civilian population into the territories it occupies. The official Red Cross commentary explains that this prohibition was "intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonise those territories." Meron's crisp recommendation was that the prohibition was "categorical and aimed at preventing colonisation of conquered territory by citizens of the conquering state." That was not all. Even when establishing military posts, Israel, he was clear, had also to respect the 1907 Hague Convention on Laws and Customs of war on land, which stated that "Private Property cannot be confiscated" . This has been little discussed in the Israeli-Palestinian context but its lasting pertinence was underlined last November when Peace Now, on the basis of leaked data from the military's Civil Administration in the West Bank, revealed that 15,000 acres, or 40 per cent of the West Bank settlements, were on privately owned Palestinian land, often by military order.
This could be dismissed as no more than an interesting historical footnote, except for one thing. Theodor Meron, now an American citizen, went on to become one of the world's most eminent international jurists, if not the most eminent. Until 2005 he was president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Moreover, as a law professor at New York University, he published much of the theoretical work which led to the establishment of the tribunal, on which he now sits as an appeals judge, and of the International Criminal Court. The Government was not choosing to ignore the opinion of some obscure legal maverick.”[1]
So, it appears that the Israeli government which has since the war’s end refused to accept international law concerning the occupied territories and settlements, has known from the beginning that the settlements were illegal. So why would they continue to build settlements and occupy the land knowing that it is illegal? The answer lies in the desire of many in the government and religious movements who wanted to see Israel expanded to the Mediterranean Sea. With the ease at which the Arabs were defeated many were heady with the taste of victory and I’m sure had attributed their victory to the Divine Will of God. Hadn’t God promised them this land?
The decisions on the disposition of these lands, has led to 40 years of strife and occupation and have made Israel no safer. Israel has gone from a fledgling democracy supported by most of the international community to a pariah. Because of this occupation they have lost any moral high ground they may have received from the holocaust. That doesn’t stop them though from continuing to portray themselves as the victims in a global anti-Semitism conspiracy. The occupation and settlements of these lands was illegal and wrong then and it still is today. Israel has a right to exist, but so do the Palestinians. It is time to stop the cycle of violence that has fueled the Middle East powder keg for all these years. It is time for all peace loving people to embrace peace. A good place to start is the Saudi peace plan, give peace a chance…
Read more!Thursday, April 19, 2007
Who Is In Charge Here?
I am about to broach a subject that has always been a contentious one, yet one I can no longer ignore. The question I have to ask is who is in charge of our foreign policy?
At the risk of ruffling the feathers of the Israeli lobbyist and their American minions and being painted with the anti-Semitic brush which by the way seems to be getting larger and larger, I can’t help but wonder who decides how our foreign policy decisions are made and implemented. Do not get me wrong I am for continued support to the state of Israel and its viability as an ally. However, at some point our foreign policy has to be ours. There are times when our goals and Israel’s goals are not the same. Even with the closest of married couples there are times when their interest diverge.
For years we have reports of Israel protesting and vetoing our foreign policy initiatives in the Middle East giving the other players in the region the impression that our brokering is one sided and heavy handed.
“…Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.”[1]
The question we must ask is, “Are the US interest and the Israeli interest identical?” Let’s look at some empirical data that may help in finding the answer to this very important question.
“Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.”[2]
So we are subsidizing each individual Israeli to the tune of $500 a year. The problem with this is that there are other states that are having a lot worse time right now than Israel and could use that money. Remember, there is only so much foreign aid dollars to spread around. There are countries that are a lot more impoverished that could use some of that money. Could we agree that Israel could begin to take on a larger share of its own defense and economy?
Let’s take a look at what all this money is buying, surely it is buying us unfailing support from our ally.
“A final reason to question Israel’s strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and to refrain from ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders). Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department inspector-general called ‘a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers’. According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally’. In addition to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in 2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value.”[3]
Here is an example of how they undermine our goals: Ms Pelosi went to Syria with the assurance that Israel sought peace with Syria and yet when she arrived to pursue that stated goal we get the double talk.
“Shortly afterward, however, Mr. Olmert’s office issued a clarification of his message, insisting that, “although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the axis of evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East.”
To begin serious peace negotiations, the Israeli statement said, Syria must end its support of terrorism and its sponsorship of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations; refrain from providing weapons to Hezbollah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon; stop its support of terrorism in Iraq; and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the government in Iran.”
Loyalty is a two-way street and it appears that “our ally” is only loyal when it fits in with their strategic goals, not when it meets ours. In our efforts to return our country to the position of global leader, we should begin to look at all of our strategic alliances, not just the one with Israel. We should look at our relationships with dictators, despots, and other assorted characters we now find ourselves in bed with. Either we want to promote democracy or we don’t. Either we will apply our foreign policy evenly or we will not. We as a nation must decide this and then stick to it. Gone are the days of the cold war acceptance of any and all partners. The days of your enemy is my friend and vice versa. There are many opportunities around the world where we could lead the way towards freedom and tolerance, but these opportunities require something that recently has been in short supply, diplomacy and engagement. Are we peacemakers or not? This is the question that will determine the “soul” of America.
Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God….
Read more!
Stumble It!