Obama: No green light to Israel
Over the weekend, Vice President Joe Biden made news when he appeared to give a green light to Israel for a possible attack on Iran, saying that Israel had a "sovereign right" to make its own decisions on the issue. After 48 hours of fevered speculation, President Obama said emphatically today in an interview with CNN that it was "absolutely not" a green light.
"We have said directly to the Israelis that it is important to try and resolve this in an international setting in a way that does not create major conflict in the Middle East," Obama said, referring to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
"I think Vice President Biden stated a categorical fact, which is we can't dictate to other countries what their security interests are. What is also true is that it is the policy of the United States to resolve the issue of Iran's nuclear capabilities in a peaceful way through diplomatic channels," he said. Here's the video of the interview with CNN's Ed Henry:
0 Comments |
Share This
|
Peace Now, losing the point
An age and an era ago, before I even contemplated reporting as a career (It's a career?) I was a member of Peace Now, at least to the degree to which it then counted membership -- you turned up at meetings, you left your contact details, and presto, you were a member.
I soon dropped out, mostly because Avrum Burg never let anyone else get a word in edgewise, but not before joining one of their "settlement watch" excursions to assess illegal growth on settlements.
(This was more than 20 years ago. Yes, I was a "settler" -- and monitored settlement growth! The sound you hear is Phil Weiss' head exploding.)
It wasn't pleasant: There were words exchanged, shoving, even dogs. IDF troops illegally kept our group from even reaching the area where the building was underway.
But what impressed me was that, on the bus ride back, no one complained, much less issued a press release: The organization was not the point, containing settlement was the point.
It was a little disheartening, then, seeing this fund-raising pitch, which makes the movement the point.
The assailant settler belongs behind bars, but it's a little self-serving to make his attack the point of the exercise. The excerpted Channel Two news report more correctly emphasizes the growth as the issue -- and notes also that other settlers (the majority I would suspect) are likelier to engage in spirited arguments, and not through channeling Bruce Lee.
This is fair enough:
Peace Now activists track settlement expansion because it harms Israel and the prospects for peace. Settlements burden Israel’s security services, create friction between Israelis and Palestinians, drain financial resources, and undermine the two-state solution which is so critical to bringing about real and lasting peace.
But this is silly:
Settlers assault our volunteers because they know that Peace Now’s work has an impact. They know that Peace Now is the best resource for information about settlements and has reinforced President Obama’s firm hand to bring a stop to settlements. Our volunteers risk their lives for peace, but they cannot work alone. We need your help so they can continue their work and to also give it even greater impact.
"Settlers" are not monolithic. And "risking lives for peace" ... I've met volunteers who genuinely risked their lives, for instance, to teach little girls in Kabul to avoid mines. (The Taliban allowed the activists access to boys, but not girls.) They didn't kvell. Neither should Peace Now.
1 Comment |
Share This
|
The Jewish angle on the Palin resignation
If you were wondering whether there was a Jewish angle to the resignation of Sarah Palin, don't worry -- I've found it! The former VP nominee's departure has led Jewish Democrat Ethan Berkowitz to say he is "seriously considering a run" for governor next year. According to Radio Kenai in Alaska:
In his statement, Berkowitz stated that he was not alone in questioning whether Sean Parnell could provide strong leadership for Alaska. Berkowitz said he is talking it over with his family and community leaders across Alaska before taking the next step in the race for Governor.
Berkowitz was the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor back in 2006 and unsuccessfully ran for Alaska's U.S. House seat in 2008, losing to longtime but scandal-scarred Republican incumbent Don Young 50-45 percent.
1 Comment |
Share This
|
For the defense, calling the lawyer for the defense
Over at Americans for Peace Now, Lara Friedman makes an interesting point: Much of the evidence of Bush administration support for natural growth in settlements comes either from its most adamant proponent from within the administration, former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams -- or from Israelis. It's like a circular defense.
Elliott offers an almost completely unverifiable history of what he says transpired between June 2003 and August 2005 (the date of Israel’s “disengagement” from Gaza). Predictably, he focuses on the letter President Bush gave to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on April 14, 2004. In that letter, Elliott notes (correctly), Bush wrote: “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.”
What Elliott neglects to mention is that in the letter Bush also re-stated his commitment to the Roadmap (”the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap”), which in stage I states that “Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).”
Elliott then goes on to assert that “On settlements we also agreed on principles that would permit some continuing growth.” His evidence of such an agreement? Exhibit A: A statement by Prime Minister Sharon, not President Bush: “Mr. Sharon stated these clearly in a major policy speech in December 2003: ‘Israel will meet all its obligations with regard to construction in the settlements. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements.’”
Is this extremely experienced lawyer and foreign policy professional seriously arguing that a statement by Sharon should be understood as an accurate articulation of US policy, even in the absence of any corroborating statement by the US President? Even when that lengthy policy speech went into a range of issue where - at least officially - there was public disagreement with the US? (for example, in this same speech Sharon makes clear Israel views the Roadmap commitments as sequential - the Palestinians do everything they have to do, and only then does Israel act. ) Apparently so.
But it gets better. For further evidence, Elliott asserts that, really, the US agreed with everything Sharon was saying. His evidence? Exhibit B: A letter from Ariel Sharon’s Chief of Staff, Dov Weissglas, Secretary of State Rice.
As Shmuel Rosner has pointed out, no one else has emerged from within the Bush administration to back this up. Takers?
0 Comments |
Share This
|
It seemed unlikely anyway
I'm sure I wasn't the only person who saw this British newspaper report over the weekend about Saudi Arabia allegedly allowing Israel to overfly its territory to bomb Iran and said, "Really? I have a hard time believing that." The Saudis were apparently annoyed enough by it that their embassy in Washington has put out a statement denying it, which Laura Rozen posts at ForeignPolicy.com. An excerpt:
The Kingdom is greatly puzzled by the publication of this false information, which directly contradicts the established, firm and clear policies of the Saudi government regarding relations with the occupying government of Israel and the Kingdom's prohibition against the use of its territories or airspace for aggression against another nation."
Then again, if Saudi Arabia did give Israel the green light, they certainly wouldn't announce it publicly, and would deny it if it did become public....so hmmm?
0 Comments |
Share This
|
Cynthia McKinney’s ‘Letter From An Israeli Jail’
Apparently trying to channel the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr., former U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney penned a "Letter from an Israeli Jail" over the weekend -- after she and 20 other activists from the "Free Gaza" movement were arrested by Israel for attempting to break the naval blockade on the Gaza Strip. (McKinney returned to the U.S. on Tuesday.)
McKinney makes her feelings about Israel clear, calling its operation in Lebanon "full-scale outright genocide" and saying Israel has not only "lost its last shred of legitimacy, but Israel must be declared a failed state" if it is threatened by McKinney and her desire to bring Gazan children crayons.
"I am facing deportation from the state that brought me here at gunpoint after commandeering our boat. I was brought to Israel against my will. I am being held in this prison because I had a dream that Gaza's children could color & paint, that Gaza's wounded could be healed, and that Gaza's bombed-out houses could be rebuilt," she writes.
She then goes on to claim that her cellmates -- most of whom she says were Ethiopian -- were "tricked" by the "marketing campaign" of Israel.
Israel says McKinney and her fellow activists were engaging in a "reckless political stunt" by choosing to disregard the law by entering restricted waters instead of utilizing available and legal means on the ground to deliver its aid. Israel has also said it will deliver the aid that McKinney's group was carrying.
3 Comments |
Share This
|
Obama, The Dersh & Obama angst
Alan Dershowitz recently published an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal rejecting the argument that U.S.-Israeli tensions over settlements means Barack Obama is bad for the Jewish state:
There may be coming changes in the Obama administration's policies that do weaken the security of the Jewish state. Successful presidential candidates often soften their support for Israel once they are elected. So with Iran's burgeoning nuclear threat, it's important to be vigilant for any signs of weakening support for Israel's security -- and to criticize forcefully any such change. But getting tough on settlement expansion should not be confused with undercutting Israel's security.
Commentary's Jonathan Tobin thinks The Dersh is full of ... well, this is a family site, so call it chutzpah.
... none of [Obama's Jewish supporters] have as much to answer for as Harvard Law’s Alan Dershowitz who used his status as a celebrity author and personality to good effect on Obama’s behalf. It should be stipulated that while Dershowitz is, and always has been, a proud and loud liberal and though his sympathies have always similarly been with the Left of the Israeli political spectrum, there can be no questioning his long and honorable record of backing Israel. Few have been as articulate in making a principled stand on behalf of its right to self-defense against terrorism. Indeed, last year he argued that George W. Bush had earned the right to be considered a great friend of Israel (something most liberals would never admit to). But he nevertheless considered an Obama victory as a victory for Zionism, specifically because having a popular liberal president who cared about the Jewish state would be an improvement over a situation in which its greatest American champion was a deeply unpopular conservative Republican.
All of this makes Obama’s flipping on Israel issues during the last six months an acute embarrassment for Dershowitz, who tries to argue his way out of a corner in an unpersuasive op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal. ...Dershowitz understands that the fears about Obama’s betrayal of his pro-Israel supporters are real. He even goes so far as to say that “there may be coming changes in the Obama administration’s policies that do weaken the security of the Jewish state … with Iran’s burgeoning nuclear threat, it’s important to be vigilant for any signs of weakening support for Israel’s security -- and to criticize forcefully any such change.” He’s right about that. But he’s wrong when he tries in vain to pretend that such a moment didn’t arrive months ago.
In related news ... The Forward reports on Israelis' worries about Obama. Ha'aretz offers a more narrow angle, focusing on why Russian-speaking Jews "don't trust" the U.S. president.
And Gary Rosenblatt dedicated his most recent column to "Whispered Worries About Obama," with several prominent Jewish communal leaders raising questions or saying they've been hearing concerns from others.
- Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League: "What troubles me most is a lack of consultation and the need [for the administration] to do things publicly. There’s a [U.S.-Israel] relationship of 60 years and all of a sudden they’re treating Israel like everyone else. I find that disturbing."
- David Harris of the American Jewish Committee said that he is "hearing a growing number of questions and concerns about the U.S.-Israel relationship, and a sense that the Obama administration’s response to the Iran crisis was slower than it should have been."
- Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said that "judging from phone calls" he has received, and other responses, "there is an increasing unease" about a number of the Obama administration’s recent statements and actions.
Rosenblatt's conclusion:
For now, it’s important for supporters of Israel to make their voices heard, pointing out the nuances and critical distinctions in discussing "the settlements"; emphasizing that the crux of the problem is and has always been Palestinian intransigence, terrorism and refusal to accept a Jewish state; and pressing Washington for a clear policy on dealing with Iran, and the Palestinians, beyond diplomacy.
UPDATE: Heard from a ZOAnik who pointed out that his organization has been criticizing Obama for a while. My response: Yes, but that's to be expected.
UPDATE II: Someone asked me if I meant that last line in a disparaging way. The answer: No. The point that I did a bad job of making was that ZOA coming out with tough criticisms of Obama -- or George W. Bush for that matter -- is nothing new (stiff neck or stiff spine, take your pick). So I think, when you're talking about whether Jewish public and/or organizational opinion is shifting against Obama, ZOA's Mort Klein speaking out is not as instructive an indicator as, say, Hoenlein, Harris or Foxman.
5 Comments |
Share This
|
The other guy in the ‘AIPAC case’
Plenty has been written on Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, the two former AIPAC officials accused by the government of passing along classified information (the case was recently dropped). But whatever happened to Larry Franklin, the former Pentagon analyst who was caught leaking documents in an effort to raise alarms about Iran and subsequently agreed to take part in an FBI sting aimed at the AIPAC duo?
The Forward's Nathan Guttman has the story:
Former Pentagon Iran analyst Larry Franklin recently quit his job cleaning the restrooms at his local church in West Virginia. He still keeps his weekend job, mopping the floors at a nearby Roy Rogers restaurant. In recent years, Franklin also has gained experience in parking cars, digging trenches and cleaning cesspools. In between, he has been searching for a publisher for his book -- a manual for saving America from the Iranian threat.
On June 30, Franklin marked the fifth anniversary of his meeting with FBI agents, in which he first learned he was a suspect in what would later be known as “the AIPAC case,” referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Along with Franklin, two of the Washington lobby’s senior officials were charged with violating the seldom-used federal Espionage Act of 1917.
Although charges against the two other key players, former lobbyists Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, were ultimately dropped in May, Franklin pleaded guilty early on as part of a plea agreement and is preparing to serve his reduced sentence of 100 hours of community service and 10 months in a halfway house.
Franklin’s narrative of his ordeal, which started off with him being described on national news as the “Israeli mole” in the Pentagon, reflects a mixture of naiveté, frustration with government bureaucracy and a deep belief that his views must be heard, even if it meant breaking the rules. In retrospect, it was a practice in humility for the devout Catholic military analyst. ...
Franklin -- "who speaks seven languages and holds a doctorate in East Asian studies, tends to weave historical references easily into his discourse, from ancient Greece to the modern days" -- says that some in the government “had some fantasy of a conspiracy” that convicted spy Jonathan Pollard was aided by a secret mole.
In part, it was also fed by a deep suspicion toward Israel. “In the intelligence community,” he said, “you refer to Israelis as ‘Izzis’ and it doesn’t have a pleasant connotation. They can’t get away with kikes, so they say Izzis.” This suspicion became clear to Franklin as he learned of the way investigators viewed activists of the pro-Israel lobby.
Read the full story.
0 Comments |
Share This
|
Fighting Words: The story of how liberals became Neocons
This is a follow up to my earlier post, Iraq, Iran and how the Neocons failed (Part I), but I couldn't bring myself to call it part II, if only because it's about neoconservative successes.
Ben Wattenberg, these days best known now as the moderator of PBS's Think Tank, has written a witty account of his role in neoconservatism's rise (he was a speech writer for President Johnson and then for Vice President Hubert Humphrey, and eventually part of the circle of smart young men advising the late Washington Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, the movement's human cornerstone). It's called "Fighting Words, A Tale of How Liberals Created Neo-Conservatism."
In an interview, he described it to me as the story of "How come a nice Jewish boy from a moderate political family in the cultural center of Jewish America ... where everybody was either a liberal, a radical liberal a communist, how does a nice Jewish boy end up being called a conservative anything?"
I have some problems with the book -- Wattenberg never gets around to a cogent definition of neoconservatism, and one is left with the impression (perhaps this is what he believes) that it is essentially the liberalism that modern liberals have left behind. He describes neoconservatism frequently in terms of what it is not: "If there is one thing that most neoconservatives do not believe, it is that America is too arrogant in trying to purvey its message." He occasionally loses his temper and bomb-throws -- Michael Moore, he says without explaining why, is "anti-American"; I'm not a Michael Moore fan, but, if anything, the sin of his documentaries is to frame critiques of this country's elites with an ultra-jingoism that would put the reddest neck in Nashville to shame.
Wattenberg also is guilty (we all are) of fudging among his cohorts what he finds unforgivable among others. For instance, he correctly identifies neoconservative as convenient code for "Jews" among some European elites; but he willfully ignores his hero Alexander Solzhenitsyn's use of similar codes to excoriate Soviet elites, and instead relates a moving -- but not in this case relevant -- tale of his grandfather's encounter with Russian pogromists. (The matter arose during Wattenberg's confirmation hearings in the early 1980s to join the board of directors of the bodies overseeing Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe. Solzhenitsyn was delivering commentary on the networks, and thanks to Wattenberg, continued to do so -- and good for Wattenberg for making a full range of views, however necromantic, available to Eastern Bloc listeners.)
Those caveats aside, I highly recommend the book. It first of all bares a neglected corner of the movement's history: its rise as a belief system addressing the ills of domestic liberalism, as opposed to the interventionist foreign policy with which it is now almost exclusively identified. Wattenberg describes the seeds of neoconservatism as a salve to liberal gloom in the 1960s and 1970s. Here he contrasts uber-liberal Walter Mondale (as a Minnesota senator in 1971) dealing with the inner cities, with the approach of his boss and hero Hubert Humphrey in his successful 1970 campaign to return to the Senate.
Mondale:
The sickening truth is that this country is rapidly coming to resemble South Africa. Our native reserves and Bantustans are the inner cities. And our apartheid is all the more disgusting for being insidious and unproclaimed.
Humphrey:
The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.
Mondale identifies an angst, and continues to anguish; Humphrey identifies a problem and seeks to repair it. Doers as opposed to kvetchers.
Also recommending the book is its Bronx-born tough and at times hilariously self-aware tone. Here's Wattenberg in a Miami hotel lobby in 1972, running into George Wallace, the 1972 presidential candidate who hadn't yet completely renounced his segregationist outlook:
"You're Wattenberg, aren't you?"
I responded, "Yes, Governor, I am."
He said, "You're a good man. You ought to come work for me."
I was petrified, lest someone overhear the exchange. "I'm working for Senator Jackson," I said.
"Well," said Wallace, "he's a good man."
I retreated with speed. Actually, I may have run away.
Wattenberg completed the book a year ago, before the election, and so it does not address the concrete evidence of the movement's more recent failures -- the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress and Barack Obama's presidency. He won't count out neoconservatism, he told me: The movement "changed the face of the world, maybe for the better, and maybe for good." It is, he said, about "common sense, you want to defend yourself."
It could also do, in its current state, with Wattenberg's refreshing self-awareness, a quality that allows for reassessment -- something the movement, I think, now lacks (as I related in my previous post). Wattenberg, for instance, softens towards feminism when he becomes aware of the treatment of women in Middle Eastern societies.
The usefullness of the engagement with the world Wattenberg embraces comes through most strongly in a Think Tank interview he reprints, with Norman Podhoretz, one of the movement's founders. In it, Podhoretz credits movement intellectuals with fostering among Americans an awareness of the evils of totalitarianism. Wattenberg counters:
What about the idea that this process doesn't go on as trickle-down but as bubble-up? People understood the evils of totalitarianism. There is a huge ethnic population in the United States who, by the grapevine of their people in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union, knew damned well what was happening.
Podhoretz says he is a believer in the "common sense of the American people" but adds: "Voters on their own don't have a glorious record."
"More glorious than the intellectuals," rejoins Wattenberg, who goes on to wonder whether Podhoretz has become bitter; Podhoretz says his bitterness toward his political enemies arises out of his own "seriousness."
I would have exclaimed, "And you are seriously a pompous ass!" But Wattenberg's rejoinder is far superior: a warning we should all heed, whatever stripe of conservative or liberal:
Doesn't that lead, then, to a certain parochialism -- you hang out with your guys, they hang out with their guys -- instead of getting the blend that many of us would think is the source of wisdom?
2 Comments |
Share This
|
Not registered? Sign up now. It's fast and it's free.
Recent Comments
- Jeremiah Haber on The power of example -- the NIF, the attacks, and Goldstone
- Jeremiah Haber on The power of example -- the NIF, the attacks, and Goldstone
- Trent Robinson on Stephen Walt's profound dishonesty
- Richard Silverstein on Stephen Walt's profound dishonesty
- ASC on On Bronner: Goldblog puts it...
Blog Roll
