Two articles of interests

I've been so busy these last few weeks that I've had barely enough time to stay on top of developments in the region.

Two opinion pieces caught my eye that I thought I would pass along.

The first is an Op-Ed in the Times by Prince Turki al-Faisal - the former head of Saudi Intelligence - dismissing the idea that Arab states should initiate the process of normalizing relations with Israel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13turki.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Prince%20Turki&st=cse

The second article appears today at Foreign Policy magazine's site. Titled "More than Just a Photo Op" the article tries to highlight what most observers see as non-existent: an actual strategy of the Obama administration for Arab-Israeli Peace. I'm not sure I agree with all of Daniel Levy's points but it is an interesting argument and I'm sure a few of the things he suggests are both valid and too quickly dismissed.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/09/22/more_than_just_a_photo_op?page=0,0

Hiatus

After a complicated and drawn out move, I'm still getting my feet wet with the new school year. I apologize for the absence of postings in the last few weeks and I'm hoping I get back to it shortly. Bear with me!

Comment clash

I've been trying to become a more active participant in the enormous on-line foreign policy community on topics related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I've done so by commenting on articles and blog posts for the past number of weeks. Some of these exchanges have been fruitful but most are largely exercises in futility. Most of these exchanges are less than civil but some have remained respectful. In both cases though, I've come to accept that the point is not to make friends. That there are many people who know very little despite proclaiming otherwise.

I should also say that I don't find engaging with people I fundamentally disagree with particularly fun. I'm doing it largely as a way for me to hone-in on the substance of my opponents largely illogical arguments. I'm finding it beneficial since so many common tropes - ones largely devoid of truth - keep reappearing.

There was one series of exchanges on The West Bank on Open Salon that I've let die (with my opponent having the last word) simply because it was a topic that I didn't want to pursue (what constitutes "anti-semitism"?). Instead, I will be posting a few exchanges here that I've had in other places in particular from Foreign Policy Magazine, where I'm a regular commenter. Here's a link for a current debate right now:

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/08/18/huckabee_in_the_holy_land#comment-80641

Is Mike Huckabee Crazy?

Mike Huckabee – erstwhile Republican presidential hopeful – has lost it.

On a junket paid for by a questionable charity run out of New York, the former Governor of Arkansas and Southern Baptist pastor made the following statements while standing in the West Bank:

“The question is should the Palestinians have a place to call their own? Yes, I have no problem with that, should it be in the middle of the Jewish homeland? That's what I think has to be honestly assessed as virtually unrealistic."

Few in the foreign policy blogosphere have really acknowledged just how significant these statements are.

Glenn Greenwald yesterday brought out the comparison between Huckabee “bashing” US policies on foreign soil and Al Gore doing something similar while in Saudi Arabia back in 2006. The particular hypocrisy Greenwald points to is the lax response when it’s a Republican doing the bashing and it’s an excellent point but it’s one of style and not substance.

Huckabee is rejecting the policy that the United States has endorsed since the Occupation began. He is rejecting what most States and most Israelis support. He is, instead, endorsing quite explicitly the ethnic cleansing of The West Bank.

The continued expansion of settlements like the ones Huckabee toured this week is what, to use his words makes a Palestinian state “virtually unrealistic”. Claiming that the Israelis have a “god given right” to live wherever they so chose in whatever he means by “Jewish homeland” flies in the face of agreed upon parameters of international law and, ultimately, common sense.

Richard Silverstein does an excellent job in Tikun Olam at deconstructing where Huckabee is coming from (and more importantly, where his funds are coming from).

In the end one could argue that the inability for any progress to be made on a solution to the conflict makes Huckabee’s assertions the reality anyway. The difference of course, is that the principle that Palestinians have rights in their land – be it full democratic rights of a single state solution or the self-determination of a two-state solution – is still the foundation for discussions. What Huckabee wants is the end of discussions, the military suppression and transfer of Palestinian Muslim and Christians alike, and ultimately an ethnically pure Jewish state.

The United Church and the Israeli Boycott Bruhaha

The United Church of Canada, Canada’s largest Protestant denomination – with roughly 10% of the country’s population describing themselves as adherents – has made another attempt at addressing the Israeli Occupation of Palestine. The General Council Meeting of the church that is held every three years is taking place this week in Kelowna British Columbia and once again has garnered some controversy over a proposed resolution calling for a divestment and sanctions campaign against the State of Israel.

The key issue seems to be specific language used in background documents of the initial resolution calling for sanctions. The CBC is reporting that the background documents that have raised the ire of the pro-Israel lobby group the Canadian Jewish Congress do the following:

• Calls on the Canadian Government to end its support for Israel’s “Occupation” of Palestine.
• Calls for a boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions in protest.
• Likens Israeli policies towards Palestinians with Apartheid South Africa.
• Questions Canadian Members of Parliament who hold dual Canadian-Israeli citizenship.
• Argues that paid junkets to Israel should be classified as “bribes”.

The references to apartheid and members of Parliament have since been removed from the documents and the council will address the rest of the resolution tomorrow. This comes after a sustained PR campaign by the pro-Israel Canadian lobby that called the documents “anti-Semitic” and threatened that the Church was risking an irreparable “schism” with the Jewish community.

As a member of the Task Force behind the proposal I have some information that the pro-Israel lobby tries to hide: These documents that they call “anti-semitic” were drawn up by both members of the United Church and members of the Jewish Community and rely largely on sources and quotes from Jewish academics and activists in Canada, The United States and Israel.

That efforts to call attention to the brutal occupation of Palestine should be branded “anti-Semitic” should come as no surprise. It is, as a matter of routine now, a shield used indiscriminately against opponents of the Occupation. As rational people see that criticism of a state and its actions against civilians is hardly an indictment against a people based on their ethnicity this shield will show increasing signs of wear. When the day comes that Israel finally realizes that the Occupation is unsustainable and reaches a fair peace deal with Palestine – the travesty will be that the use of the epithet “anti-Semitic” will be so worn the real enemies of Judaism may get a free pass.

Foreign Policy's "Attack on Islam"

Professor Sebastian Gorka of the National Defense University published an article in Foreign Policy magazine yesterday on al-Qaeda’s global reach and what the US can do to combat it. It’s a rambling article with a few good points shrouded with illogical jumps in reason and a shaky hold on terminology.

Gorka walks the reader through an important debate in counter-terrorism circles taking place right now over al-Qaeda’s relative importance in the continuation of a “Salafist-jihadi” terror campaign. One side argues that al-Qaeda as become irrelevant with the rise of “leaderless jihad” where individuals or small groups have become radicalized and carry out act of violence without guidance from al-Qaeda. The other argues the opposite: that al-Qaeda remains a significant threat to global stability and their central operations continue to maintain command and control over global partners.

Gorka wades into this debate by pointing to intelligence assessments and open source information that paints a picture of an al-Qaeda…

“…continuing to exercise a significant degree of control over the shaping and dissemination of its Salafi-jihadi message and with the coordinated acts of violence against civilians that it does manage to carry out continuing to play an important role. Al Qaeda does not possess the organizational strength it had eight or 10 years ago, but al Qaeda’s ideology is not waning among the young and extreme. On the contrary, its ‘propaganda by the deed’ continues to inspire new recruits and terrorist attacks, particularly outside the Arab world.”

I don’t entirely disagree with Gorka’s assertion (we differ on minor points), what baffles me is how he gets there.

Immediately after the above paragraph he asserts that “Salafi terrorism” of the kind al-Qaeda “inspires and directs” has reared its head “thousands of miles from Iraq and Israel”. There is no doubt that al-Qaeda in Iraq is – beyond the name – an ideological successor to Bin Laden’s group. But I’m confused about the Israel reference. This may look like a small point but it’s indicative of a trend in the article. None of the Palestinian groups who have carried out attacks against Israel, nor Hezbollah for that matter, are al-Qaeda inspired Salafists.

Gorka really doesn’t distinguish between Islam, Islamism, or Salafism. This is like collapsing Christians, Protestants and Southern Baptists into one amorphous group. His assertion that al-Qaeda’s ideology is “winning converts among Muslims” because recent polls in Pakistan and Egypt show a majority of the population thinks “the west is at war with Islam” is preposterous. Al-Qaeda’s ideology is a lot more than “the west is at war with Islam” and the elements of that Salafi ideology – a juridical system based entirely on early Sharia law and insistence on labeling Shi’a apostates deserving death for instance – are far less popular among the one billion Muslims worldwide. Let us also not forget that the feeling that “the west is at war with Islam” is one held by thousands if not millions of Americans. Your average Egyptian could be convinced of the existence of such a war as easily by John Hagee as Osama Bin Laden.

It’s clear that the United States has to continue to combat al-Qaeda’s ideology head on. Gorka thinks that a troop surge in Afghanistan is the wrong tactic and he may or may not be right. A murky conflation of who al-Qaeda is and who their message appeals to is certainly unlikely to help guide that strategy. We need an understanding of how and why Salafism becomes appealing to someone in Indonesia, or Somalia or Liverpool and that understanding requires a much more nuanced examination.

The West Bank on Open Salon

To my (few) loyal readers. I just wanted to both thank you for your continued support and to let you know that in addition to this Blogger site, The West Bank is now being published through Open Salon as well.

I've been doing this blog for three years (apart from that mysterious 2008) and I've appreciated the emails I get from readers, and rest assured that you can still come to this site to get the same posts (if not more) than Open Salon. Open Salon allows me to access a larger pool of readers - many of whom are very engaged in responding to posts with comments and emails - which I'm hoping will help develop the blog further.

I'll post some of those comments here when they seem appropriate.

Here is the Open Salon address if you're interested. Take a minute to explore Open Salon as a whole - you may want to sign up yourself.

http://www.opensalon.com/blog/thewestbank

FP on Aluf Benn's NY Times Op-Ed

I mentioned yesterday in my take on the Martin Indyk interview in The Daily Beast that Haaretz’s “editor at large” had been complaining in a NY Times op-ed two days ago that Obama has been “ignoring” Israel.
FP has published a response by Steve Breyman that skillfully deconstructs Benn's illogical whining. It's a must read for anyone interested in the current state of affairs between Israel and the Obama administration.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/29/is_obama_ignoring_israel

Indyk: Israelis "love to be loved"

Interesting piece out of The Daily Beast today: a short article from Benjamin Sarlin who interviews former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk about how Obama can get “back on track” with Israel. At no point in the article does anyone really question if Obama is off track with Israel at all. It’s taken as a self evident truth that because Netanyahu is in a huff about Obama’s pressure over settlements, something must be done on the American end to soothe his hurt feelings.

Indyk argues that because the Israelis “love to be loved” and received “a blank check of love” during the Bush years, they’ll need to be reassured that they are still in favor in Washington. Haaretz reported that a lot of these hurt feelings grew out of Obama’s much celebrated Cairo speech in June in which he extended an olive branch to the Arab and Muslim worlds. Apparently peaceful rhetoric towards the Arab and Muslim worlds, and being an ally to Israel, is mutually exclusive.

Elliot Abrams Defends Settlements in the Washington Post

I recently revisited an op-ed piece Elliot Abrams’ wrote in April for the Washington Post in which he argues that the settlement freeze is a red herring for Arab-Israeli peace. Abrams is a senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and was the deputy national security advisor for Near East and North African Affairs in the George W. Bush White House. While that last job position should be alarming to anyone who follows American involvement in the Middle East, anyone familiar with Abrams’ resume is probably already aware that he lacks much credibility. He was convicted for lying to Congress nearly 20 years ago during their Iran-Contra investigation. His track record in Central America – where he allegedly covered up atrocious violence perpetrated by right-wing Governments – apparently provided a solid foreign relations background for dealing with the Middle East.

His take on an Israeli settlement freeze is shockingly ignorant of what it’s actually like in the Occupied Territories and contains a number of falsehoods as well. He argues that while Israel hasn’t always “kept to the rules” concerning settlements (no new ones, no financial incentives to move to one, no new construction except within boundaries of pre-existing ones) it doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t matter because it won’t affect a final negotiation presumably because Palestinians would have to take land in the Negev desert in exchange for the land on which settlements have been built. He suggests that this is the deal offered to the Palestinians by Ehud Barak in 2000 and Olmert in 2009.

But Abrams shows a stunning ignorance of both history and geography. Firstly, the deals offered by Barak and Olmert for “between 94 and 98 percent” of the Occupied Territories were horrible deals that the PA had to reject. Without getting into the specifics, the territory offered to the Palestinians wasn’t contiguous, creating a series of mini-states similar to their current situation. This setup has been accurately compared to the Bantustans of South Africa. One of the reasons these Cantons would need to be created is to sustain the Israeli-only network of roads that connect Israel proper with their settlements within the Occupied Territories. To suggest that the settlements have no impact on even the idea of land swap is completely disingenuous.

Secondly, the settlements in the Occupied Territories do not have the same value to warrant a one for one land swap with Israeli territory in the Negev desert. Israeli settlements are constructed close to or on top of the few fresh water reservoirs in the region. According to Israeli Human Rights group B’Tselem, Israelis consume five and a half times more water than their Palestinian neighbors on a per capita basis making the control of water a primary driver in settlement policy. Abrams knows this but he’s hoping the average Washington Post reader doesn’t. This problem has been left out of discussions about land swaps since the Barak “offer” was made in the hope that public opinion would see the failure of such a deal as Palestinian intransigence.

Lastly, Abrams is suggests that it doesn’t matter that Israel continues to violate the “rules” that he helped create (during the Bush administration’s Road Map phase). That most settlement expansions “do not affect much Palestinian life” is another fallacy. Palestinians, and the Arab world in general, look to the settlements as an example of Israel’s unwillingness to make even the smallest of concessions. Freezing settlement expansion is literally the easiest thing Israel will have to do if they really want a peace with the Palestinians. It doesn’t involve serious existential questions about Jerusalem or the compensation and return of refugees. It’s continually cited by the UN, the Quartet and most heads of state as the single most pressing issue and yet Israel is still unwilling to stop settlement expansion. What, I wonder, will happen when they have to actually remove some settlements?

It’s a shame Abrams couldn’t have retired like his former boss. Surely his twenty plus years of screwing up other countries has left him with a nice nest egg?

Israel: America can keep its money

Haaretz is reporting that the Israeli Finance Minister is not just dismissive of the possibility that the US could withhold loan guarantees worth billions of dollars but doubts that the state of Israel even needs them.

"I don't see any limitations on the horizon. It's not time to be concerned about that" said the Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, "I don't see any need to use them in the near future.”

This comes as a response to the increased tension between the US and Israel over the latter’s plan to move ahead with an illegal settlement construction in the West Bank despite condemnation from President Obama.

Relating back to my post yesterday, I’m not sure if this is Israel calling Obama’s bluff on economic sanctions (not that he’s even suggested them… yet) or if this is a reflection of the relative influence Israel now has over the United States. I’m sure the tough talk (tough in a teenager sort of way: “I don’t even need your stupid allowance Dad!”) has been mandated by Netanyahu and the chorus of “no other country can dictate Israeli policy” that we saw yesterday seems to suggest such a position. But it is interesting that Israel seems to be pushing this issue rather than simply continuing its settlement expansion while trying not to draw American ire. This is starting to look to me like a fight Netanyahu thinks he needs to start. Which in turn begs the question: Is this a fight he can win?

Who is more powerful: Israel vs. The US --- REDUX

My post yesterday on the resounding chorus of Israeli politicians decrying the external "pressure" and "challenges to its sovereignty" (sound familiar Ayatollah Khamenei?) was a lead into the question I posed and half answered: Who is more powerful: Israel of the United States?
Let me expand a bit...
First let me confess that using the term “powerful” is a bit misleading. What I’m trying to get at is “power” in the sense of who has a bigger influence on the other’s policy making. This isn’t a question of who is militarily stronger or who has a more effective international diplomatic reach. This is purely a question of which state is more reliant on the other.
Now I should also admit that historically the case has always been that Israel has benefitted greatly from American patronage. Without a doubt the United States has always been “more powerful” than Israel. The military aide – and more importantly the weapon sales concessions – that Israel has received from the US has gone a long way in solidifying the Israeli Defense Forces as one of the premier militaries in the world. Diplomatically, the Americans have been involved in most of the successful (and failed) peace efforts between Israel and its neighbors (Egypt and Jordan), and the Palestinians. There has been no equivalent to Camp David – no “Camp Adam” to facilitate peace between the United States and Cuba.
So has that balance shifted in the opposite direction? Sort of…
I doubt that Israel will ever be in a position to negotiate a settlement between an American President and Raul Castro. Israel, in many ways, benefits more from its perceived position of weakness in relation to the US. It relies a great deal on funds raised in the Diaspora for various “emergencies” and while immigration from the West has dropped considerably in the last two decades there is no doubt that there still exists a strong emotional connection between a great many diasporic Jews and their perceived homeland. This is maintained considerably by Israel projecting a sense that their existence is under siege. I won’t get into whether it’s true, or why they think they face these existential threats but that perception (valid or not) has been a great boon to Israel’s state coffers.
But the nitty-gritty of this question of relative power really comes down to need. Who needs who more? I don’t remember a time when the two men leading these states have had as much of an ideological gap between them as today. While Obama is hardly the Marxist Muslim many feared, his liberal centrism is about as far away an American President can get from Benyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu’s extremism has been bolstered by his own far right leaning coalition government and the country’s domestic fatigue for the ongoing stalemate with the Palestinians. The only person who is trying to moderate Netanyahu – the only person that counts – is Barack Obama.
So when Netanyahu announces that, despite firm proclamations from the Obama administration that the settlement construction in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (East Jerusalem in particular) must stop, Israel will continue with said construction regardless, we have Obama’s first real challenge in his effort on the Arab-Israeli front. How can Netanyahu get away with such intransigence? Because Netanyahu is gambling that Israel is no longer beholden to American power. In fact, he may think that the dynamic is quite the opposite.
Without overstating their influence, we have in the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) one of Washington’s most powerful lobbies. Detailed in their book “The Israel Lobby” Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have laid out a damning indictment of Israel’s influence over American foreign (and in some cases, domestic) policy. In courting the vote of AIPAC supporters (quick: where did Obama make his first major speech after winning the Democratic nomination?) Obama had to continuously assert that American support for the state of Israel is unwavering. On top of that, and in words that should come back to haunt him, he said “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, secure and undivided”. AIPAC has long been controlled by vocal supporters of the Likud party (now under Netanyahu) and the need to vigorously court the support of AIPAC voters has to be seen as a compromise to Likudniks.
Now, it would seem, Netanyahu is cashing that check Obama wrote in front of the AIPAC audience back in June.
Obama, on the other hand, has little to offer Israel. There is no effective organ for promoting American interests among Israeli voters like AIPAC does stateside. Israeli hawks are benefiting from a status quo that hasn’t seen an American President do anything but murmur displeasure with Israeli actions. And even economically – as dire straits as the Israeli economy may be in – they are no longer the struggling economy they once were. On the other hand, being viewed as Israel’s unquestioning patron has cost the United States billions of dollars in both direct aide and costs through association. Their diplomatic stature suffers in both the Arab street and in more progressive European capitals. At some point a Realist look at the US-Israel relationship will conclude that the costs outweigh the benefits when you have so little influence you can’t stop the construction of a single apartment building.
Or, they may conclude that toning down that relationship may be too costly politically. And if this is the conclusion, is it that much of a stretch to suggest that Israel now has the upper hand in its relationship with the United States?

Noah Efron on the Ultra-Orthodox Riots

Noah Efron has written a fascinating article for Foreign Policy about the recent Ultra-Orthodox riots in Jerusalem and the social inequities that are increasingly pitting secular Israelis against the Ultra-Orthodox underclass.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/20/israel_turns_on_itself

Israel: No "Subidiary" of Another State

Israeli politicians are up in arms at the increasing chorus of international leaders who argue that the proposed settlement construction in occupied East Jerusalem should be stopped.
Haaretz quotes…
Prime Minister Netanyahu: “Israel will not agree to edicts [American, European, Russian] of this kind in East Jerusalem”.
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon: Israel has an “indisputable” right to build anywhere in East Jerusalem.
Minister of Internal Affairs Eli Yishai: “Israel's government is not a subsidiary of any other world government […] Israel’s Government [is] free to build anywhere in Israel”.
Science Minster Daniel Hershkowitz: “Israel must reject international pressure and the challenges to its sovereignty in Jerusalem”.
It appears that the coalition government is clearly behind the Prime Minister in his refusal to submit to the pressure being put on it by the United States, Russia, France and Germany. And to be honest with you, when it comes to Russia and France, I don’t really blame them. What has either done for Israel recently? The Germans are a curious case in that there are few Western countries who try as hard as the Germans do to stay out of Israel’s affairs and the strong statement from the head of the German Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee suggests that this trend may be slowly changing or it may be an indication of this issue’s importance.
But that of course brings me to the United States. While the Europeans (and Russians even more so) have always posed as a minor irritant in the side of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians (nothing says rebuke like a polite discussion with an Ambassador) as long as their objections remain dissociated from economic sanctions they have little bite in their mute bark. The Americans, on the other hand, are different. I’m particularly struck by Eli Yishai’s assertions that Israel is no “subsidiary” of another state.
Israel takes billions of dollars annually in economic and military aide from the Americans and does little in return. Israel’s inhumane actions towards the Palestinians have endangered the security of the United States enormously. As the financier of Israeli militarism the United States gets little but the unwanted association of their weapons technologies with civilian deaths.
In reality, the relationship between the US and Israel seems to be asymmetrical but not in the way you’d think. If the Israeli’s continue to defy Obama’s claim that the settlement of East Jerusalem is an impediment to peace it would seem that we’ve entered the era where Israeli influence over American policy is as powerful if not more than American influence over Israel’s.

"A Moral Twilight Zone"

A group of 26 unnamed Israeli soldiers are claiming that they took part in abuses against Palestinians during the Israel assault on Gaza this past winter. Among the charges levelled in the report include an accusation that IDF troops were encouraged to "shoot first, worry later" and that many civilians were killed "needlessly". Also in the report were confirmations that the Israelis used illegal white phosphorous weapons against civilians, which has been alleged for months, and that they routinely used Palestinian civilians as "human shields". The human shields accusation is also not new.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/15/breaking-the-silence-gaza-israel.html

In the meantime

I've been working on some longer posts that are time sensitive enough I should have had them finished much faster. In the meantime why don't you check out these two videos.

The first is an Israeli cell phone commercial garnering controversy in Israel and the Occupied Territories for its portrayal of the interactions between the IDF and Palestinians. It's getting flack from both sides for it's message (delivered by voice over in Hebrew at the end) that all we want "is a little bit of fun".

This beauty is a marketing video produced by Rafael, an Israeli arms manufacturer designed to remind it's Indian clients of their genuine respect and understanding of Indian culture.

Rumours of Hamas-Fatah Unity Government?

Rumours of a Hamas-Fatah Unity Government are circulating in the Middle East right now. Two currents are out there that would suggest that the bilateral talks taking place between the factions in Cairo will either fail or succeed. The first corresponds with a series of reports that both parties have been arresting rival activists in their respective territories. I'm not sure that this bodes well for the talks and frankly releasing the recently arrested as a "good will gesture" is a pretty hollow gesture.

Alternatively, I've read reports that the Egyptians have already coaxed an agreement out of the parties and are waiting until next week to announce it. I'm really unsure of how a Unity Government will play out with the new US administration. But this is certainly another major development in the Arab-Israeli issue for Obama to consider. I'm going to try and do a post on the recent political standoff between Netanyahu and Obama as the former has authorized the construction of new settlements north of Ramallah.

Juan Cole on Michael Jackson? Whaaaaa?

Actually an interesting post today from Juan Cole on Michael Jackson's reported recent conversion to Islam and his influence in the Middle East. I'll quote directly and embed a great video as well.

Jackson is still enormously popular in the Middle East. Here is a Gulf tribute to the King of Pop. Given the stereotyping of Gulf Arabs as medieval and fanatical, and given the hurtful prejudice against their very form of clothing in the West, it is only right that they should have the last word here on Michael Jackson's universal appeal:

http://www.juancole.com/

Slate.com: "What does a house in an Israeli settlement go for these days?"

Slate.com is running a feature titled "Beautiful Two Bedroom on One Disputed Acre: How Much Does and Israeli Settlement Home Cost?"

Answer: Apparently not much.

http://www.slate.com/id/2220531/

Back from Vacation

I'm back from two weeks of vacation which allowed me to do some reading (though never enough) that I had intended to do for the last number of months. Other than a couple of books I read for pleasure, I'm going to post brief book reviews in the future on more relevant topics to this forum. Before I do that though - let me tell you in an unrelated subject - I really enjoyed Nathaniel Philbrick's In the Heart of the Sea on the sinking in 1820 of the Nantucket whaleship Essex. A great read!

New blog links

I'm adding a couple of blog links (those to the right - no pun intended). Both are blogs from Foreign Policy Magazine.

The first is Mark Lynch's Abu Aardvark blog on the Middle East. Lynch is a professor of Political Science at George Washington University and author of Voices of the New Arab Public: Al-Jazeera, Iraq, and Middle East Politics Today.

The other blog is Harvard Prof. Stephen Walt's blog that runs with the subtitle: "A Realist in an Ideological Age". Walt and I aren't exactly on the same page politically (a topic I've been drafting a blog entry on for weeks now... more on that soon) but, as some of you may know, I'm particularly fascinated by any Realist/Conservative argument against the Israeli Occupation of Palestine. Walt's controversial book The Israel Lobby came out a couple of years ago and was, I think, particularly potent because it was written by two conservative political scientists (Walt along with John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago).

I'll be back from vacation in two weeks!

Israel to continue settlement expansion

Israel has given a giant middle finger to Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton by announcing that they will continue to expand their illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories. This comes despite a clear demand from Obama and his Secretary of State in the last week on the suspension of construction taking place there. The Israeli government is trying to spin its policy as "natural growth" of existing settlements. This is, obviously, an attempt to distract the reality that whether its a new apartment bloc for 500 new settler families in Ariel (the largest of settlements with more than two hundred thousand residents) or a new settlement around East Jerusalem, the outcome of locating more colonists in what would ostensibly be the territory of a future independent Palestinian state is the same. That is, of course, if the Israeli government had any intention at all of seeing such a state exist.

It will be interesting to see how the US will respond to this pretty blatant incitement. Obama and Clinton made it clear well before this announcement by the Israelis, that the "natural growth" argument wasn't valid. Obama's demand of Netanyahu last week when they met in the White House was as unambiguous as you can get (ie. stop all settlement construction now). Some are saying that this might be the first true test of Obama's finesse in foreign policy (not withstanding, I guess, the calamity in AfPak - that new and ever so jargony term for Afghanistan-Pakistan). And while he has shown to be willing to take Israel to task - I suppose by making unambiguous statements on things like settlements - I'm not really convinced that he has many cards to play at this point.

Of note from the long weekend

From the weekend, AP has a lengthy piece on the overtures made by Hamas towards the West.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051800933.html

Juan Cole gives a quick (yet remarkably astute) rundown of the Obama-Netanyahu meetings that took place at the White House on Monday.

Obama wants Netanyahu to commit to supporting a two-state solution to be implemented in the near future. Netanyahu absolutely refused. He did say he is willing to "talk" to the Palestinians, though it is unclear why that would be a productive thing to do if he is die-hard against giving them the only thing they want.

www.juancole.com

Of note today - May 11, 2009

"The Problem is Statelessness": Juan Cole discusses King Abdullah of Jordan's comments on a potential sweeping Obama Peace Plan for the Middle East. But what is at the root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Jun Cole argues that it is Palestinian statelessness (and all of the things that come with it).

www.juancole.com

Here's an interesting article on Time's website about the Palestinian Christian community and the Pope's visit to the Middle East.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1897238,00.html

"Death has become like drinking water"

There's an interesting interview with Khaled Meshal in the New York Times today. Apparently this is Hamas trying to "reach out" to western audiences. Can you tell that Hamas lacks the PR skills that the Israelis have? Meshal can make a great point one minute:

Regarding recognition of Israel, Mr. Meshal said the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and Mr. Abbas had granted such recognition, but to no avail. “Did that recognition lead to an end of the occupation? It’s just a pretext by the United States and Israel to escape dealing with the real issue and to throw the ball into the Arab and Palestinian court,” he said.

Only to also cite the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as fact (according to the article). Or engage in a discussion over the "long-term"/10 year cease-fire (hudna) with Israel that would follow an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders. Meshal is trying to make concessions ('67 borders) while simultaneously playing to his base (only a 10 year ceasefire). It doesn't come off very well and frankly, he's in a no win situation. Which makes me wonder why Hamas would want to do an interview now anyway?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/world/middleeast/05meshal.html?_r=1&ref=world

Yad Vashem employee fired over Holocaust/Naqba comparison

The Israeli Holocaust museum and memorial Yad Vashem has fired one of their guides for having the audacity to compare the trauma experienced by the survivors of the Holocaust with those of the Palestinians during the war of 1948. Note that it wasn't a comparison between deaths, or specific acts of atrocities, but an amorphous "trauma". A totally subjective experience.

He said he did so because the ruins of the Arab village, today a part of Jerusalem's Givat Shaul neighborhood, can be seen as one leaves Yad Vashem. "Yad Vashem talks about the Holocaust survivors' arrival in Israel and about creating a refuge here for the world's Jews. I said there were people who lived on this land and mentioned that there are other traumas that provide other nations with motivation," Shapira said. "The Holocaust moved us to establish a Jewish state and the Palestinian nation's trauma is moving it to seek self-determination, identity, land and dignity, just as Zionism sought these things," he said.

These are some pretty reasonable sentiments. There is nothing radical or anti-semitic in such statements. It's a shame that Yad Vashem is wielded as a political tool. You can read my first hand take on Yad Vashem here.

Haaretz article:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1080456.html

George Galloway sues all sorts of jerks

The CBC is reporting that George Galloway, the British MP who was barred from entering Canada a month and a half ago is suing Canadian Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, Kenney's right hand man Alykhan Velshi, the Canadian Jewish Congress, two of the CJC's top dogs Bernie Farber and Sylvain Abitbol, and B'nai Brith Canada's CEO Frank Dimant.

"I welcome robust criticism, but the comments made about me crossed the line," Galloway, an outspoken supporter of the Palestinian cause, said in a statement Friday released by his Canadian lawyer."They are not only untrue, they are outrageous. As an elected member of the British Parliament, I am compelled to exercise my legal right to clear my name."

The only people missing from this list seems to be the Jewish Defense League. I'm curious to know why they dodged these suits. I would have loved to see the JDL's activities examined by a court.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/01/galloway-libel-suit010509.html

Do Palestinians Want a State?

Robert Kaplan writes in the Altantic Monthly that it could be likely that the Palestinians are stateless because they want to remain stateless. Citing a "brilliant essay" by Jakub Gygiel Kaplan writes:

Grygiel raises a challenging proposition. If his theory is correct, then the Palestinians may never have a state, because at a deep psychological level, enough of them—or at least the groups that speak in their name—may not really want one. Statehood would mean openly compromising with Israel, and, because of the dictates of geography, living in an intimate political and economic relationship with it. Better the glory of victimhood, combined with the power of radical abstractions! As a stateless people, Palestinians can lob rockets into Israel, but not be wholly blamed in the eyes of the international community. Statehood would, perforce, put an end to such license.

Grygiel isn't actually talking about the Palestinians per se, because if he was I would suggest that he, like Kaplan, appear to be confused about the historical circumstances of Palestinian statelessness.

Kaplan, in his article, cites Hamas and Hezbollah's unwillingness to govern Gaza and Lebanon respectively as evidence that their "power" has been derived from statelessness. That they thrive as political entities because of their statelessness, not in spite of it. This argument proves confusing to anyone with rudimentary knowledge of both Hamas' and Hezbollah's organizational history. Both groups have been responsible for governance in areas that remain ungoverned by the "state" of Kaplan's imaginings. Hamas and Hezbollah run hospitals and schools, they have set up judicial hearings and local political institutions and while you may disagree with the ideological or religious basis on which these institutions are founded, they are the institutions of governance.

Of course, this is one point of many that one could make against Kaplan's totalizing effort to ascribe a generalized psychology to as disparate a community as "the Palestinians". No doubt that there are Palestinians who have taken advantage of their statelessness, just as there were Jews who took advantage of Nazi genocide, or Tibetans aiding Beijing's occupation. but this could only be a legitimate argument if there has ever been an occasion where a fair resolution - a "peace" - between Israelis and Palestinians has been on the negotiating table. Kaplan knows this. He even states that Israel's settlement expansion has continued unabated throughout the so called "peace negotiations". But since Israel has never made a serious attempt to negotiate a peace, the Palestinians have never been given a serious opportunity to govern (in the limited way Kaplan understands governance).

So here's how we should test the thesis: End the Occupation of Palestine.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904u/palestinian-statelessness

Avigdor Lieberman speaking some truths...

Israel's Foreign Minister and leading fascist Avigdor Lieberman is doing exactly what Gideon Levy was hoping he'd do which is namely shoot off at the mouth and say things that would "lift the veil" and reveal the "nation's true face". Leiberman, speaking to a Russian daily is quoted saying "Believe me, America accepts all of our decisions".

Judging from the Harman scandal those "decisions" may be indistinguishable.

Also coming out in his interview, was a deviation from standard Israeli sabre rattling: Iran isn't Israel's "number one strategic threat" but is in fact (at least) number two. He thinks (and is probably right) that Pakistan and Afghanistan pose more danger. I would argue - and have before - that Israel's biggest strategic threats are in fact their own far right, of which Mr. Lieberman is the secular flag waver, and the unsustainability of the Occupation. Lieberman, naturally thinks otherwise.

Haaretz article:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1080097.html

Theres a good blog post by Juan Cole on the AIPAC scandal today. Check the link to the right.

At the end of it he writes "I think the American Israel Public Affairs Committee should have to register as the agent of a foreign state". I couldn't agree more.

A couple of recent updates

A change at work has kept me from posting anything in the last two+ weeks. Here are a couple of items that you may find interesting:

A major scandal is brewing in Washington. Apparently a very senior Democratic Congresswoman was caught on an wiretap talking to an alleged Israeli spy. The report is that she is overheard making a deal to pressure the Department of Justice to drop an espionage case against two AIPAC lobbyists/Israeli spies in exchange for AIPAC lobbying to have her appointed to a powerful Intelligence Committee seat.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=hsnews-000003098436&mp=Most_Viewed

Britain is reportedly reexamining their Arms Export agreements with Israel. Enough pressure has mounted in the UK that the Labour government is reviewing all the weapons exports "in light of recent events in Gaza".

http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/world/2009/04/21/D97MV1DG0_eu_britain_israel/index.html

I want to write a bit about the Durban conference. I'll try and have something posted tomorrow.

Does Jason Kenney understand the Internet?

Jason Kenney's decision to bar George Galloway from entering Canada is ridiculous not the least because he has only given George Galloway and the Anti-War and Anti-Apartheid movement more attention but because Galloway's talk would be broadcast online for EVERYONE to watch. Had he not been barred, his talk would have circulated online primarily among those already familiar with his message. Now, thanks to Jason Kenney, thousands will watch any number of the versions of his speaking engagements that had been denied him.

Jason Kenney is an idiot.

Part One


Part Two


Part Three


Part Four


Part Five

"Balance"

Following Terry Cormier's statement that the resolution deploring Israeli settlement expansion was not "balanced" I wanted to post something quickly about the concept of "balance" which, in Canada at least, seems to be the the most important requirement of late when talking about the Occupation of Palestine.

I think this issue really picked up steam following the Israeli assault on Gaza in December. Media outlets were especially careful to appear "balanced" even when reporting largely of the carnage wrought by Israel. It seems - as you saw in my post about the IDF t-shirts depicting cross hairs on a pregnant Palestinian - that regardless of the story, a comment has to be made that shows "balance". The IDF can produce incredibly offensive and hateful t-shirts promoting war crimes, but as long as the reporter makes a reference to the fact that Hamas does bad things to Israelis - the newspaper is "balanced".

We really need a more fundamental understanding of just how insidious this idea of "balance" is, and what it really implies.

It implies that there are no victims. That Israeli actions (be they t-shirts or new settlements) are - despite being crimes - reactions to some sort of incitement by the Palestinians.

It implies that Palestinians somehow have as much control over their institutions as the Israelis - ignoring the 40 years of degradation to Palestinian civil society by the Occupation.

Ultimately though, and most importantly I would suggest, it implies that there can be no moral judgements. This, I think, should be the most troubling for the neoconservatives whose approach to foreign policy is Manichean at best. Conservatives are not the moral relativists that they accuse liberals of being. Yet this need for "balance" in the face of actions that are morally reprehensible bankrupts them of this position. No longer do we talk about rape victims "asking for it" - we've recognized that a crime is a crime. I can only hope that our diplomats and newspapers eventually do the same.

Canada a key ally to Israel at the UN

Canada, a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, consistently voted in lock step with the Israeli position on a number of key resolutions on March 26th.

While the votes aren't enforceable - since Israel doesn't abide by International Law anyway - they remain a largely symbolic representation of the international community's discomfort with Israel's 41 year Occupation of Palestine.

The most amazing vote came with Resolution A/HRC/10/L.5 which "deplores" the recent announcement that Israel will begin the expansion of a new housing settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - The West Bank. These settlements are regarded by everyone familiar with this conflict as one of the KEY obstacles to any future Peace agreement. Even George Bush routinely stated that their expansion needed to stop immediately. It seems utterly inconceivable that a democratic country like Canada would vote against a resolution "deploring" their expansion.

Terry Cormier, the Canadian representative, said that Canada would vote against the resolution, unlike other countries like The United Kingdom and France, because the resolution "was not balanced and did not refer to the Palestinian obligation". I don't understand how a violation of International Law and a universally accepted obstacle to peace requires a "balanced" resolution. The Palestinians are not occupying Israeli territory, nor are they confiscating Israeli territory for their own expansion. There is no balance to the settlement issue. If there is no balance to the power dynamic between the best equipped military in the world and a stateless people with homemade rockets, I have no idea how there would be balance to this issue. Canada and it's neoconservative government is once again in bed with Israel's far right.

UN Link:

http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/4C99B0F4E7BC7EE8C1257585007B5D90?opendocument

Galloway and JDL Leader Meir Weinstein

Here's a great YouTube video from Channel 4 News in Britain. It's an exchange between George Galloway and Meir Weinstein, the "Director of the Jewish Defense League of Canada". This exchange between Galloway and Weinstein is an embarrassment to this country. That Weinstein and his organization can claim to have policy impact on the Conservative government of Canada is shameful especially when considered in light of these two points:

1. Weinstein and the JDL, in this video, claim they will "look into" those who had invited Galloway to Canada. This should not sit well with the 2.9 million members of Canada's largest Protestant denomination, the United Church...

2. The JDL is considered a Terrorist Group by the US State Department and the FBI.

Good link:

http://mostlywater.org/

Jewish Defense League taking credit for Galloway ban

It seems that the Jewish Defense League of Canada is claiming credit for having George Galloway barred from entering Canada. The Conservatives are claiming that they have not interfered with the Border Services Agency. But they seem very keen on listing all of the reasons why Galloway should not be allowed in. The "infandous street-corner Cromwell" line is getting a lot of negative attention in the British media. "Infandous" is such a self-aggrandizing and pretentious word that it's not in our office dictionary nor is it recognized by my spellcheck. Way to go Alykahn Velshi!

One thing that seems to be lacking in the Macleans article is noting that while "Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization in Canada", The Jewish Defense League is listed as a terrorist organization in the United States.

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=n0325154A

George Galloway on being barred from speaking in Canada

Canada can't muzzle me

To ban me from the country for my views on Afghanistan is absurd, hypocritical, and in vain

George Galloway

The Guardian, Saturday 21 March 2009

The Canadian immigration minister Jason Kenney gazetted in the Sun yesterday morning that I was to be excluded from his country because of my views on Afghanistan. That's the way the rightwing, last-ditch dead-enders of Bushism in Ottawa conduct their business.

Kenney is quite a card. A quick trawl establishes he's a gay-baiter, gung-ho armchair warrior, with an odd habit of exceeding his immigration brief. Three years ago he attacked the pro-western Lebanese prime minister, Fuad Siniora, for being ungrateful to Canada for its support of Israeli bombardment of his country. Most curiously of all, in 2006 he addressed a rally of the so-called People's Mujahideen of Iran, a Waco-style cult, banned in the European Union as a terrorist organisation. On one level being banned by such a man is like being told to sit up straight by the hunchback of Notre Dame or being lectured on due diligence by Conrad Black. On another, for a Scotsman to be excluded from Canada is like being turned away from the family home.

But what are my views on Afghanistan which the Canadian government does not want its people to hear? I've never been to Afghanistan, nor have I ever met a Taliban, but my first impression into the parliamentary vellum on the subject was more than two decades ago. At the time the fathers of the Taliban were "freedom fighters", paraded at US Republican and British Tory conferences. Who knows, maybe even the Canadian right extolled these god-fearing opponents of communism. I did not, however.

On the eve of their storming of Kabul I told Margaret Thatcher that she "had opened the gates to the barbarians" and that "a long, dark night would now descend upon the people of Afghanistan". With the same conviction, I say to the Canadian and other Nato governments today that your policy is equally a profound mistake. From time to time and with increased regularity it is a crime. Like the bombardment of wedding parties and even funerals or the presiding over a record opium crop, which under our noses finds its way coursing through the veins of young people from Nova Scotia to Newcastle upon Tyne. But it is worse than a crime, as Tallyrand said, it's a blunder.

The Afghans have never succumbed to foreign occupation, heaven knows the British empire tried, tried and failed again. Not even Alexander the Great succeeded, and whoever else he is, minister Kenney is no Alexander the Great. Young Canadian soldiers are dying in significant numbers on Afghanistan's plains. Their families are entitled to know how many of us believe this adventure to be similarly doomed and that genuine support for troops - British, Canadian and other - means bringing them home and changing course.

To ban a five-times elected British MP from addressing public events or keeping appointments with television and radio programmes is a serious matter. Kenney's "spokesman" told the Sun, "Galloway's not coming in ... end of story." Alas for him, it's not. Canada remains a free country governed by law and my friends are even now seeking a judicial review. And there are other ways I can address those Canadians who wish to hear me.

More than half a century ago Paul Robeson, one of the greatest men who ever lived, was forbidden to enter Canada not by Ottawa but by Washington, which had taken away his passport. But he was still able to transfix a vast crowd of Vancouver's mill hands and miners with a 17-minute telephone concert, culminating in a rendition of the Ballad of Joe Hill. Technology has moved on since then. And so from coast to coast, minister Kenney notwithstanding, I will be heard - one way or another.

• George Galloway is Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow gallowayg@parliament.uk

Those IDF T-Shirts

The Israeli Defense Forces have promised to discipline soldiers in their military who created and distributed these T-Shirts.

Although these t-shirts are reprehensible they don't really surprise me. Nor do I think that the Israelis would be alone in creating something so disgusting. I am not surprised though, that the Israelis felt so comfortable with this depiction that they made T-Shirts out of them (the IDF is big on t-shirts glorifying their military - you can buy them online and can occasionally see them in the streets in North America - a sort of anti-keffiyah for the ignorant).

Israeli society is increasingly willing to dehumanize the Arabs in their midst (see any post on Avigdor Lieberman's election success) and these t-shirts, I think, are largely symptomatic of an increasingly unspoken sentiment. Not to mention, of course, the obvious connection to the "demographic bomb" that is so often discussed in Israel (this is the increasing gap between Jewish Israeli birth rates and immigration, and Palestinian/Arab-Israeli birth rates).

After reading the article in The Star last night on my couch I was particularly bothered by one editorial move I came across. It's this paragraph:

In Gaza, Hamas spokesperson Fawzi Barhoum said it "reflects the brutal mentality among the Zionist soldiers and the Zionist society." Hamas-controlled media consistently glorify attacks on Israelis and mock Israeli suffering.

I'm disappointed with the fact that The Star feels that it needs to print a paragraph that, one presumes, was added to combat any potential claim of imbalance. There is no need for a quote from Hamas in an article about the dress habits of the IDF. Can a criticism of these t-shirts not rest on the fact that they are immoral and disgusting in and of themselves? I think it's unlikely, for instance, that in the wake of the beating death of Shidane Arone at the hands of Canadian soldiers in Somalia in 1993, that articles printed about the incident would point out that, in fact, Somalis in Belet Huen are thieves. Am I wrong about this? Does the creation of these t-shirts require a comment from Hamas at all?

http://www.thestar.com/article/607173

George Galloway barred from entering Canada

Canadian border officials have barred George Galloway, a British Member of Parliament for the last 22 years, from entering Canada on "national security grounds".

Galloway will be in the United States (which he is allowed to visit) and had planned on making a few stops in Canada for speaking engagements.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/03/22/canada-bansbritishmp.html

Freeman's Parting Shot (It's Brilliant)

"You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.

I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.

As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.” I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.

I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.

In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.

Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.

I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair. Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home. Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/10/freeman_speaks_out_on_his_exit

Chas Freeman Out of Running

Well I came to the dance a little late I suppose. I found out this morning that Freeman has withdrawn his nomination. Apparently the statement he made when he withdrew is a great read. I'll look for it and post it shortly.

In the meantime, here's Andrew Sullivan - one of the few "conservative" bloggers who supported Freeman - on Freeman's withdrawal.

There are a couple of things worth noting about this minor, yet major, Washington spat. The first is that the MSM has barely covered it as a news story, and the entire debate occurred in the blogosphere. I don't know why. But that would be a very useful line of inquiry for a media journalist.
The second is that Obama may bring change in many areas, but there is no possibility of change on the Israel-Palestine question. Having the kind of debate in America that they have in Israel, let alone Europe, on the way ahead in the Middle East is simply forbidden. Even if a president wants to have differing sources of advice on many questions, the Congress will prevent any actual, genuinely open debate on Israel. More to the point: the Obama peeps never defended Freeman. They were too scared. The fact that Obama blinked means no one else in Washington will ever dare to go through the hazing that Freeman endured. And so the chilling effect is as real as it is deliberate.
When Obama told us that the resistance to change would not end at the election but continue every day after, he was right. But he never fought this one. He's shrewder than I am.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

The appointment of Charles "Chas" Freeman

Most people, especially Canadians, haven't heard much of anything about the battle taking place right now in Washington over the nomination of Charles "Chas" Freeman as the Chair of the National Intelligence Council by Barack Obama's Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair. That's the role responsible for culling information from the dozen or so American intelligence organizations and producing National Intelligence Estimates that are increasingly vital in American foreign policy (unless you ignore them... Bush). Freeman has been an American diplomat for decades holding posts in China and Thailand and most notably was US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Most recently, he has been the President of the Middle East Policy Council, the post in which he made "controversial" comments that have formed the basis of the attack campaign against him. I'll post some of those comments shortly but suffice to say that there is no basis for these attacks (surprise!) by the Israel Lobby. They're measured comments about American Foreign Policy - something that is largely absent from the discourse.

There's an excellent post by Glenn Greenwald of salon.com that summarizes the ongoing controversy with great skill. Here's an excerpt and the link below.

It's destructive enough to artificially limit debate on a matter as consequential as U.S. policy towards Israel. We've been doing that for many years now. But it's so much worse that the people who have been defining and dictating those limits are themselves extremists in every sense of that word when it comes to Israel and U.S. policy towards that country. Their demands that no distinctions be recognized between Israeli and Americans interests have been uniquely destructive for the U.S. Few things are more urgent than an expansion of the debate over U.S. policy in this area, which is exactly why this radical lynch mob is swarming with such intensity to destroy Freeman's reputation and fortify the limitations on our debates which, for so long, they have thuggishly enforced.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/09/freeman/index.html

Closed Zone - Animated Short from Yoni Goodman

Here's a quick cartoon from Yoni Goodman, the Director of Animation of the Israeli film "Waltz with Bashir". If you haven't seen the Oscar nominated Waltz with Bashir, I recommend you do. It's a hauntingly gorgeous and troubling look at the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. I've pasted the trailer below as well.

Closed Zone - Animated Short


Waltz with Bashir Trailer (English)

http://waltzwithbashir.com/wwbtrailer.html

Hilary Clinton in Jerusalem

The CBC posted an article to their website that I think is a perfect example of the Kafkaesque farce that Middle East "Peace" has become. Here is the link to the article, with it's headline reading "US supports creation of Palestinian State: Clinton" followed by the sub heading "Says US envoys bound for Syria, pledges 'unshakeable' support for Israel".

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/03/clinton-mideast.html

What bothers me so much is that this article (which in the CBC's defense is really only straight up reporting of Clinton's visit to Jerusalem, her statements made there, and the policies of the Obama and Netanyahu administartions) is that it's makes no logical sense. Her statements are full of non sequiters and meaningless aphorisms.

Let me give you a few examples:

First, you cannot have "unshakeable support for Israel" while simultaneously supporting the creation of a Palestinian state. Maybe some of us define "unshakable" differently, but the election of a Netanyahu-Lieberman government in Israel should, at the very least, make your feelings towards Israel a little “shaky”. You cannot simultaneously “push vigorously” for a Palestinian State and have unshakeable support for Israel when it’s population has elected a government that does not recognize the legitimacy or right of a Palestinian State to exist.

Second, the Obama administration, it suggests, might “clash” with the Netanyahu administration unless it pursues the continuation of a “Peace process” with the Palestinians. I’m fascinated to know how Obama and Clinton are going to judge the earnestness with which Netanyahu will approach Peace. The history of Peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians is well documented. If the supposed “doves” of Israeli governments past negotiated with the Palestinians in bad faith I can only imagine how Netanyahu will handle such talks. All the more so considering the charter of his own party promises never to concede anything to the Palestinians.

Lastly, I don’t think I need to say too much about the absolute hypocrisy of a statement like “We will work with the government of Israel that represents the democratic will of the people of Israel”. Hamas, the democratically elected government of the Palestinians that the US refuses to speak with has killed fewer Israelis in its “terrorist” attacks than the Israeli government has killed Palestinian children.

My prediction of where this is heading is, not surprisingly, pretty bleak. The Obama administration may in fact push a Netanyahu administration to the “peace table” for talks with the Palestinians. Obama and Clinton will claim a modicum of success in doing so and meanwhile Netanyahu and Lieberman will “negotiate” with obstinate Arabs all the while offering a nudge and a wink to the majority of Israelis who elected a government that refuses to recognize Palestine’s right to exist. Israel will continue the Occupation, Israel will continue to receive the vast majority of US foreign military aide, and Israel sit back and wait out the change in US administration. It’s already done so with eight previous Presidents.

CUPE's Academic Boycott

The University workers of the Canadian Union of Public Employees of Ontario (CUPE) have passed a motion calling for the academic boycott of Israel. CUPE is Ontario's largest union, representing 200,000 workers. While I'm pessimistic that such an action would actually lead to any significant reassessment of the relationships between Canadian universities and Israeli institutions, I am buoyed by the significance of the resolution (which faced intense opposition from the pro-Israeli lobby) and I'm hopeful that this will at least get the 200,000 CUPE members talking about what's going on in Palestine.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/591429

More Naomi Klein on Boycotts

On the Question of One-Sided Boycotts

http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2009/01/question-one-sided-boycotts

By Naomi Klein - January 21st, 2009

Read a letter exchange between Robert Pollin, co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, and Naomi on the question of one-sided boycotts.

Robert Pollin:

I strongly oppose Naomi Klein’s proposal to begin boycotts and divestment initiatives against Israel, similar to the approach used against South Africa in the apartheid era [“Lookout,” Jan. 26]. Klein anticipates four objections to her proposal and offers responses. But her list ignores the most important and obvious objection: it is entirely one-sided both in blaming Israel for the horrible cycle of violence in the region and in meting out punishment.

I agree entirely that the Israeli occupation is brutal. But Hamas is also brutal. To date, the only thing preventing Hamas from being less lethal than Israel in the damage it inflicts is its limited resources. Hamas is deliberately firing rockets into Israel with the aim of killing and terrorizing civilians. Should Iran, for example, succeed in supplying Hamas with more effective weapons, Hamas will become more successful in killing and terrorizing Israeli citizens. Rockets are beginning to land only twenty miles south of Tel Aviv.

The toll on Palestinian civilians of the current Israeli attack on Gaza is horrible. But let’s also recognize that Hamas is deliberately using civilians as human shields. The bomb that hit the home of Hamas leader Nazar Rayyan in Jabaliya tragically killed his wives and children as well as himself. Why was Rayyan exposing his family to such danger?

I agree with Klein that economic levers probably have the best chance of dramatically shifting the status quo (even while, given the history and emotions involved, economic initiatives could never offer a sufficient solution on their own). But instead of a one-sided boycott to punish Israel, why not pursue a positive agenda of economic development that would benefit both sides? Consider, for example, a development aid package on the order of $10 bil-lion, spread over two to four years, with funds supplied on an equitable basis from the United States, the European Union and the Arab oil-exporting countries. This amount would be enough to: (1) undertake a massive infrastructure investment and job creation program in Gaza and the West Bank to help create an economically viable Palestinian state; and (2) comfortably resettle the roughly half-million Israelis now living in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem and turn over these communities and homes to Palestinians. This second initiative would entail a large-scale home-building, community infrastructure and job-creation program in Israel, perhaps concentrated in the less well-developed northern and southern regions.

The amount of money I’m suggesting seems large, of course. But $10 billion is only about 7 percent of what the United States spent in Iraq in 2007 and 5 percent of Saudi Arabia’s $194 billion in oil revenues in 2008. In short, the amount is modest in comparison with the opportunities it will create to contribute to an equitable and lasting peace in the region.

- Robert Pollin, co-director, Political Economy Research Institute University of Massachusetts

Naomi Klein Replies:

Robert Pollin believes that the biggest problem with the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) strategy is that it targets only one side in the conflict. For Pollin, this is a conflict between equally guilty parties deserving of equal punishment. It is not. Israel is the party that displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in 1948, annexed more of their land in 1967 and continues to occupy the land today. Occupiers and occupied people do not share the same responsibilities, which is why the duties and responsibilities of an occupying power are laid out in the Geneva Conventions—laws Israel violates with impunity.

Even if I were to accept Pollin’s argument that any sanction should punish both sides equally, we face a rather large problem. How does Professor Pollin propose that we punish Gazans more than they are being punished already? In case he has failed to notice, there is already a fierce campaign of boycotts and sanctions under way, and it is completely one-sided. I am referring, of course, to Israel’s brutal eighteen-month siege of Gaza, launched to teach Gazans a lesson for voting for Hamas in US-backed elections. As a direct result of this siege, Gazans have been deprived of lifesaving medicines, cooking fuel and paper—not to mention food. This is far more than a mere boycott; it’s “collective punishment,” as described by Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. By contrast, the kind of legal boycott being called for by the BDS campaign would deprive Tel Aviv of some international concerts and, if it really got going, would cost Israel some foreign investment. It would not starve and sicken an entire people. In this context of actual one-sided punishment inflicted on Palestinians, sanctioned by the so-called civilized world, to complain of one-sided boycotts against Israel is, frankly, obscene.

As for the proposed $10 billion for a redevelopment/relocation fund, there is no doubt that if a just peace agreement is ever to be reached, a generous peace dividend will be required to make it work. But before we start handing out rewards for a nonexistent peace, Israel first has to decide that endless war is too costly. And that’s what the BDS strategy is for: to help Israel come to that eminently reasonable conclusion.

- Naomi Klein

Read more from Naomi Klein at www.naomiklein.org

Amira Hass in Gaza

A heartbreaking story from Haaretz correspondent Amira Hass in Gaza.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1063768.html

In any other "civilized" society

Yesterday, a group of Palestinian youths threw stones at one of the hundreds of guard towers that line the Apartheid Wall between Israel and the West Bank. Israeli Border Police targeted, shot and killed the 14 year old boy they deemed to be the "ringleader". In any other civilized society, the execution of a 14 year old boy for what is essentially a non-violent act of civil disobedience would be called murder and that policeman would be tried in a court of law. This, however, is the Occupied Territories where the state sanctioned murder of unarmed teenagers is commonplace.

This is the entirety of the news story in Haaretz:

The Israel Border Police on Friday killed a 14-year-old Palestinian in Hebron during a clash between the Israeli forces and stone-throwing Palestinian youths. The IDF said dozens of Palestinians hurled rocks at a military guard tower next to an Israeli settlement in the West Bank city and a soldier shot the ringleader.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1063981.html