Question for Elliot Abrams

On his CFR "Pressure Points" blog, former Iran-Contra liar Elliott Abrams bangs on about what he obviously sees as the silliness of tomorrow's scheduled UN General Assembly vote to recognize "Palestine."  He also reminds us all that afterwards, presuming that the vote will be favorable, the US (via Israel's amen corner in Congress) will promptly "punish" the UN by withdrawing its funding from any UN body in which a "Palestine" delegation will be allowed to participate (remember UNESCO?).

Abrams concludes, though, by admonishing Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinians (whom he labels the PLO; nothing like raising the specter of Arafat and 1960s terrorism) to desist with silly UN resolutions and instead focus on building "a decent, prosperous, democratic state."

But here's my question for Abrams: how are Palestinians supposed to build a state without territory on which to build it?  For years, Abrams has tried to downplay the significance of Jewish settlement building in the West Bank - even as successive Israeli governments have ramped up their financial and military support for those settlements.  The settler movement wields extraordinary power in the Knesset.  And in recent days, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has melded his Likud party (historically the most stalwart proponent of Greater Israel/Judea and Samaria) with the Yisrael Beiteinu party of  Bibi's Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman, himself a resident of a West Bank settlement and on record with virulently racist anti-Arab comments.  

Bottom line: the Zionist colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem has become a juggernaut that can no longer be headed off.  Most Israelis hardly give a rat's behind about the fate of West Bank Arabs.  The ranks of the IDF are becoming increasingly imbued with a quasi-racist religious nationalism promoted by military rabbis who provide Biblical "justification" for the eradication of indigenous Palestinians.  

The "peace process" has become both a bad joke that Netanyahu can play on Abbas whenever he needs it - and a card that Abrams can cynically play whenever he sees Israel's interests threatened.

As for the US, the peace process has become a stained and shredded, but nonetheless still flapping, pendant which it pathetically lifts in order to remind the world that it is the "indispensable" global power.  Yet Russia and China will surely back the Palestinians' resolution in the UN.  And both France and Spain have declared their intention to support the resolution as well.

Gaza 2012: the IDF's Beat-down Goes On

Sitting in a recliner, coffee at hand, laptop on lap (which is aching; only 2 weeks since my left hip was replaced) . . . and pondering how it is that I can sit here comfortably and securely, even as the newly re-elected president of my country essentially condones Israel's murderous bombardment of the tiny, over-populated enclave that we call the Gaza Strip.

Some of today's reporting is here from the New York Times, here from the Washington Post (which notes the IDF's destruction of two buildings used by journalists in Gaza.  The IDF's rationale: Hamas was using the journalists as "human shields." Oh.)  The death toll in Gaza is near 50 - and despite Bibi's insistence that the IDF is being extremely careful not to target civilians (like journalists?), the pictures coming out of Gaza suggest that, as ever, the "most moral army in the world"'s resort to disproportionate force is wreaking lots of "collateral damage."  (A sample of pix is here . They're heart-rending.)

Who's to blame?  The WaPo runs a useful chronology of recent events, most of it lifted from work by Emily Hauser and posted by Robert Wright at The Atlantic.  At The Daily Beast, Leslie Gelb, one of the champions of the mainstream US foreign-policy establishment, assigns some blame to Israel and the US, but lays "the lion's share" of it on Hamas.  (Interesting expression, that; reminds me of the seminal role Great Britain played in the creation of the Zionist colonial-settler state in Palestine.)  After all, says Gelb,

Hamas pledges to destroy the state of Israel. Hamas-lovers lose all credibility when they ignore that fact.

Well, yeah, that's indeed in the Hamas charter.  But a recent, well-regarded academic study of Hamas (I own the book, but in my current circumstances am not up to retrieving it from my stacks) noted that several Hamas figures have expressed regret that that passage was ever included in the charter as well as willingness to ignore it if the Israelis were willing to negotiate in good faith on Palestinian statehood.  My point here is that Israel hawks keep throwing up that passage in the Hamas charter as an argument-ender (as Gelb does), but that many in Hamas have moved on in their thinking - as have many in the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas' parent organization, which now leads the new Egyptian democratic government, and upon whose support Hamas in Gaza surely has to rely.

IMO, a much better take on the current crisis is that of Juan Cole (at Informed Comment), who lists the Top Ten Myths about the Israeli Attack on Gaza ais nd provides a much deeper historical underpinning than do the reports in the MSM.

But the commentator who perhaps best gets to the heart of the matter is Rami Khouri.  Khouri notes (in a Daily Star essay posted at Agence Global) that the Palestinian resistance in Gaza now possesses longer-range rockets that

"generate a significant new dimension of psychological fear in Israel that mirrors the fear and tension that Israel’s aerial attacks have long inflicted on Palestinians and Lebanese. The ability of Palestinians today to fire rockets deeper into Israel, and, presumably, with more accuracy in due course, is just one indicator of the fact that time is not on Israel’s side. "

(BTW, the NY Times also has a report on these rockets titled "Arms With a Long Reach Help Hamas."  The report is by long-time NYT Israel hand Ethan Bronner, whose continued role with that paper has been criticized by many, given that his son is an Israeli soldier.)  But Khouri goes on then to make his much more important point:

 

As long as the crime of dispossession and refugeehood that was committed against the Palestinian people in 1947-48 is not redressed through a peaceful and just negotiation that satisfies the legitimate rights of both sides, we will continue to see enhancements in both the determination and the capabilities of Palestinian fighters -- as has been the case since the 1930s, in fact. Only stupid or ideologically maniacal Zionists fail to come to terms with this fact.

As a former anti-Vietnam War protester, I remember distinctly a much-used chant of that era of civil-rights and anti-war protest:

"No justice, no peace."  

Pitifully few members of the mainstream foreign-policy establishment in the US - not to mention the Congress and the American electorate - evince any awareness that the Arabs of Palestine were done horrific injustice by the Zionist ethnic cleansing that made possible the creation of Israel in 1948.  None of the negotiations and agreements between Israel and various Arab parties since that time have ever come close to rectifying that injustice.  In a region of the planet where values of upholding honor and exacting vengeance for its violation run so deep, people across the Arab world, as well as Muslims in Iran and Turkey, have been left to seethe for decades about Israel's refusal even to recognize even that an injustice was done, and about the United States' unwavering support of Israel's refusal.  

This same injustice, of course, underpinned the motives of Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda in launching the attacks of 11 September 2001.  It continues to fire the fury of jihadists across the planet, many of whom are itching for opportunities to lash out at Israel's American enablers - be they soldiers in Afghanistan, or civilians in oblivious repose in the security of the American "homeland."

Biblical Dimension of New Israeli Campaign vs Gaza

At Moon of Alabama notes how Operation Pillar of Defense, the IDF's current onslaught vs. Gaza, was initially named (in Hebrew) "Pillar of Cloud" - a Biblical term that indicates God's physical presence among the early Israelites during episodes of conflict.  The IDF evidently switched to Pillar of Defense to draw more secular observers' attention away from the ultra-religious-nationalist ideology that has begun to dominate Israeli security discourse.
That ideology hardly shines through, though, in these Instagram pictures recently posted by young IDF worthies as they muster for duty in Gaza.  War now becomes the equivalent of strutting down the runway.  These kids seem not to have a worry in the world.  Not surprising.  From a military standpoint, the IDF's war against Gaza is a turkey-shoot.  Pepe Escobar makes the same point at Asia Times.  And he also points out some of Bibi's more cynical motives here, to wit: if Obama is thinking about approaching Iran for direct talks, well then, I'll fix him! How 'bout a new war in Gaza to distract you?
Escobar correctly notes, though:

If Obama had any balls he would be fuming. Then he would smack down Bibi. Shouldn't even bet on it. We know he won't. 

But Obama needs to be climbing down Bibi's throat, pronto.  Sure, Bibi's ploy here may serve to back-burner Iran.  But as Escobar notes, it's not as if the Hamas government in Gaza is going to be left  hung out to dry:

Egypt under Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi will have to do ... something; the Egpytian street, which is all in favor of scrapping the Camp David accords, will demand it. On top of that, Cairo itself broke the truce between Tel Aviv and Hamas - now totally sabotaged by Israel. Moreover, Hamas is supported by Turkey and, crucially, the Emir of Qatar and his petro-billions. Will they just shut up and watch the carnage? As for King Playstation in Jordan, he cannot play conciliator towards Israel because he may be booking a one-way flight to London sooner than he thinks.

If anything, a lesson emerging in all of this - not that it's anything new - is that Bibi could give a rat's ass when it comes to US hopes, relationships, and interests in the Arab/Turko/Iranian Middle East. Netanyahu will seek to advance whatever he considers to be Israel's interests, whatever the cost to the US.

And it may well happen that, if the Gaza onslaught ramps up, that cost will include more US embassies and consulates stormed and burned, and more American diplomats terrorized and killed.  

If that happens, of course, don't look to the Dos Amigos and their posse in Congress to point a finger at Bibi. 

Another Vietnam in the Making?

Paul Rogers (at Open Democracy) makes a compelling argument that the African forces being readied to move against the Islamist militias that now control north Mali will not be up to the task, even with the help of 400 or so Special Forces advisors from various European countries.  

The logical consequence will be the deployment of an expanded force with a substantial foreign input, whose responsibilities include a direct combat role, no doubt supported by both armed and reconnaissance drones . . . .

 

A bit reminiscent of the Vietnam War, no?  First, Green Berets, followed by regular army and marines when that proved insufficient?  Rogers continues:

 

It is possible that in the coming weeks there will be serious attempts to negotiate with at least some of the paramilitary Islamist groups operating in northern Mali. If they are successful, a conflict might still be avoided. It is clear, though, that intensive planning for military involvement is now underway, principally in Europe. If that military option does ensue, the result will be another international conflict with western participation - albeit likely to be on a smaller scale than Libya, and much smaller than Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

Its significance, though, may be less its size and intensity and more its status as a further example of western intervention against an Islamic region. In itself that may have little traction even with the great majority of the world's Muslim community, but for a core minority it will have a sharp impact. The most immediate effects may be felt in west Africa, where radical Islamist movements are influential, but also in east Africa, where similar currents are evolving. The experience of such wars also shows that once started they can take alarming directions, have very destructive results, and often enhance the very movements they are designed to counter. Whether such forewarnings make any difference remains to be seen.

 

With all of America's attention now riveted on the Dos Amigos' (John McCain and Lindsey Graham) frantic but flimsily supported attack on Susan Rice and the Benghazi "debacle" - and on the media carnival surrounding Petraeus/Broadwell/Allen/Kelley, Mali is getting nary a look-see in the US media.  But if it comes to what Rogers has outlined (and his track record in such predictions is quite good; he was spot-on about how Iraq would turn out), Mr. Obama may find himself signing off on drone strikes (and more) in yet another Muslim country.

A Purple States Manifesto

I only wish I could claim to have written this.  It was shared by a friend (a history professor at the University of South Carolina) who had convinced HIS friend (the actual author) to share it via Facebook.

If you cannot find much here to agree with, then you are truly part of the problem.

The Purple States Manifesto

We reject the tired notion of Red states, Blue states. We are all Red, all Blue. We are Purple, one nation divided, diverse, but still American.

We stand together in the belief that polarization hurts us all, solves nothing, and ensures that our children and grandchildren will live in a country less powerful, less great, less happy than the one we know.

Together, we have conquered the British, slavery, fascism, segregation, polio, and communism. Surely, we can apply that same determination, passion, innovation, and genius to defeating climate change, racism, and debt. 

We are not moochers or takers. We are awake. We have witnessed middle-class wages stagnate for two generations. We have watched, with dismay, as unprecedented income inequality means our pensions disappear, our wages are cut, and the American dream as we’ve known it has been distorted into an oligarchic, winner-take-all monstrosity. 

We don’t want a hand-out. We want a cease-fire. If there’s a class war, we are its draftees. The first in battle, the first to die on the frontlines as the “Greed is Good” philosophy pummels equality of opportunity.

We are white. And brown. And black. And yellow. And red. And innumerable combinations thereof. We celebrate the not-too-distant future where the United States looks like the rest of the world. Rage all you will, but this is an inexorable reality.

We, unlike you, do not lament the death of “traditional” America. That is the America where Emmett Till was lynched. Where terms like “sexual harassment” and “domestic violence” didn’t exist. Where our Hispanic brothers and sisters were smeared as “wetbacks.” Where Native Americans were stripped of their lands and were victims of genocide. Where the back of the Statue of Liberty intentionally faced Asia. Where women were solely defined by their ability to serve their husbands and raise their children. Where Jews read “Gentiles only” want ads. 

We demand truth and openness. We deserve to know if our democracy is being sold to the highest bidder and if so, who is buying it and why. 

We believe that the richest nation in the world should be able to find a way to ensure that no American dies because of a lack of health care without simultaneously allowing our insurance companies and the prescription drug industry to hold us hostage; that national security does not necessitate our spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined; and that it is far past time to create a standardized, impartial national system for voting where votes are cast efficiently, fairly, and without fear of intimidation or invalidation. 

We demand that our public officials stop playing games, start compromising, and begin the hard work of tackling our fiscal crisis bravely, realistically, now.

We are willing to sacrifice, even to die, for America is she attacked by those who hate us, but we will not be lied to about the causes and costs of war again nor stand idly by while our warriors are expected to bear more than even the strongest soldier could endure. 

We are old and young; illiterate and educated; queer and straight; single and married; rich and poor; Southern, Northern, Eastern, Western. 

And we implore you to listen beyond whatever echo chamber you inhabit. 

We are so much more than the cynics claim, than the ratings require. 

There is a future we can build together; we can construct a bridge over all divides us. 

Isn’t it time we do it?

Bibi to Arabs: Our Bombing Iran Will Feel Good to You

YNet reports on Bibi's interview with Paris Match:

In an interview published on Tuesday with French magazine Paris Match, Netanyahu said such a strike would not worsen regional tensions, as many critics have warned.

"Five minutes after, contrary to what the skeptics say, I think a feeling of relief would spread across the region," he said.

"Iran is not popular in the Arab world, far from it, and some governments in the region, as well as their citizens, have understood that a nuclear armed Iran would be dangerous for them, not just for Israel," he said.

Sounds a little like how Bush touted his Iraq adventure, doesn't it?  You know, trust us; we're actually saving you, liberating you so that you too can achieve the blessing of democracy and free-market capitalism.
I believe the Irish have an expression for this - and Joe Biden reminded us of it: malarkey.
The French have one as well, as Bibi's readers in Paris Match would know: merde.

Is This GOP Ad Incitement to Shoot the President?

Picture taken by a friend just outside Mt. Pleasant, Michigan.  Billboard reads: "The Seals Removed One Threat to America.  Remove the Other in November.  Vote Republican."

Doesn't that image perhaps want to plant in the viewer's mind: ". . . and if need be, we can shoot the SOB"?

This country becomes weirder by the day.  Scarier, too.

Should Israel Trade its Nukes to Stop Iran's?

University of Haifa professor Uri Bar-Joseph has published in Foreign Affairs what seems a remarkable proposal (Never mind, for now, that the Israeli establishment will blow it off): Israel should give up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for Iran's stopping its nuclear "project."  The underlying assumption, of course, is that Iran's efforts are intended to produce a nuclear weapon.  There's no hard proof of that as yet, but many (including me) wouldn't be surprised if that was indeed their intention.

But my immediate question is, what if Iran's "project" is indeed principally interested in nuclear-power generation? Just as the Saudi government, with the planet's largest oil reserves, hopes to create a huge solar-energy capacity to power its people's future, the Iranians have been claiming that they are pursuing a nuclear program in order to generate power for their own use, and in the process, like the Saudis, free up their oil for sale to developed and emerging industrialized countries. 

I assume that Bar-Joseph's proposal would not require Israel to dismantle its own nuclear facility at Dimona.  (He doesn't say one way or another.)  Would Iran be required to dismantle the reactor at Bushehr?  As James Conca (at Forbes) reminds us, whereas Israel has the only nuclear weapons arsenal in the Middle East, Iran is the only country generating nuclear power in the region.

In light of the devastation that Frankenstorm Sandy has wrought along the US and Canadian coasts, such questions are hardly inconsequential.   Several (among them Tom Engelhardt) are attributing that storm, and other unusual weather events of the last couple of years, to global warming.  One of global warming's principal causes, as we all (ought to) know, is the over-use of carbon-based fuels (oil and coal especially) across the globe.  Although the Fukushima disaster (along with the earlier catastrophe at Chernobyl) has again raised awareness of the dangers of nuclear power generation, many still look to the increased development of nuclear energy around the world as a way of pushing us off our current glide path to destroying our own planet.

Richard Cohen: Obama is No Robert Kennedy. How Could He Be?

This morning's WaPo carries an essay from Richard Cohen faulting Barack Obama for not being Bobby Kennedy:

One of the more melancholy moments of the presidential campaign occurred for me in a screening room. The film was Rory Kennedy’s documentary about her mother, Ethel — the widow of Robert F. Kennedy. Much of it consisted of Kennedy-family home movies, but also film of RFK in Appalachia and in Mississippi among the pitifully emaciated poor. Kennedy brimmed with shock and indignation, with sorrow and sympathy, and was determined — you could see it on his face — to do something about it. I’ve never seen that look on Barack Obama’s face.

He goes on:

I once wondered if Obama could be another RFK. The president has great political skills and a dazzling smile. He and his wife are glamorous figures. He’s a black man, and that matters greatly.

Indeed, it does matter greatly.  Has Cohen not seen the AP report, only a few days ago, that suggests that more than half of white Americans - and more than two-thirds of white Republicans - admit to anti-black prejudice? Is he not aware that Limbaugh nation's millions are led by nose-ropes by a man who gleefully sang (on air) of "Barack the Magic Negro"?

Yes, Bobby Kennedy (whose memory I mostly revere) was Roman Catholic, which many then counted as a strike against him.  As a young Roman Catholic growing up in Kentucky, I thrilled at his brother's election in 1960.  But Bobby Kennedy was also a super-rich white man from a celebrated family, and the brother of a martyred president beloved by most of the country.  His sympathy for the miserable poor of Appalachia was heartfelt and stirring, given his own background.  It was also cost-free, politically speaking.

Can you imagine if Barack Obama had made a huge point of identifying his politics specifically with championing poor blacks?  It would have rendered him essentially a cloning of Jesse Jackson: cheered by millions, yet defeated in the end.  Given the anti-black prejudice that still burdens the souls of millions of rural whites - especially in the heavily GOP South - there's no way that Obama coulld have gone to Appalachia and stood shoulder-to-shoulder with them.  Obama himself has been a bridge-builder between whites and blacks, in Hawaii, in Chicago.   But it's hard to imagine those white Christian folks of Alabama and Georgia - or my own home state of Kentucky - accepting him as their champion.

Cohen fails to mention that Obama did try, at the outset of his term, to reach out to one group of people (please allow me this vast overgeneralization, for rhetorical purposes) who needed his help, and with whom the US needs to build bridges: the mostly Muslim Arabs of the Middle East.  His Cairo speech of 2009 raised hopes across that region, and earned him a (perhaps prematurely awarded) Nobel Peace Prize.  

He tried to act on that speech by insisting that Mr. Netanyahu freeze Israel's colonization of the West Bank, only to have Netanyahu - and his own Congress - stiff-arm him.

And I don't recall Richard Cohen stepping up to support Obama in that cause - one that, I'd wager, Bobby Kennedy would have supported wholeheartedly.

WaPo's Walter Pincus Trashes Romney's Military Spending Plans

Walter Pincus notes that since 2010 Romney's spending proposals for the US military have been (to borrow Mr. Obama's characterization) "all over the map."  Pincus also tags Mitt for bringing up the old "two-wars-at-once" dictum about optimal US military capability.  Pincus sums up:

Romney should realize the old two-war theory was a myth. The Bush administration financed Afghanistan and Iraq on a credit card with Congress supplying all the additional funds, though the base defense budget was supposed to handle two wars.

The United States already has, to use Romney’s phrase, a “military second to none.” Spending additional billions may strengthen it but weaken the economy, which is also key to our national security.

Read the entire piece here.

Mitt the Peacenik?

I'm not buying it; neither are Greg Scoblete and Chris Preble (as highlighted at Scoblete's compass blog at RCW, here.  Why not?  Simple - because of the neocon posse with which Romney has surrounded himself.  As Scoblete notes: 

One reason that Romney has surrounded himself with pro-Iraq war neocons is because that's largely the GOP policy-making bench these days. While the American people writ large have a dim view of the Iraq war, there are plenty of people in Washington's foreign policy establishment that think it was a great idea, if poorly executed.

That means that, no matter the rhetoric of vote-seeking Romney, the policy proposals generated by a Romney administration are going to be made by the same people who thought invading, occupying and spending $1 trillion on Iraq was a brilliant strategic gambit.

 

I'm also not convinced that Romney's brain has ever entertained a thought on foreign policy that wasn't inserted directly by someone else.  And the fact that he and Bibi are such good buds and old school chums worries me even more on that score in the eventuality that Romney gets elected.

The point has been made by many, and often: Mitt is a creature of market testing.  His "people" surely made it clear to him before Monday night's debate that (1) the voting public want no more wars for the time being (a point that David Ignatius made today) and (2) there was no way that Romney was going to either kayo or outpoint Obama with both men wearing the commander-in-chief gloves.  Al Sharpton put it well (lkewise in boxing terms) on MSNBC after the debate: Romney's tactics were to clinch and hold.  That allowed him to stay in the ring with Obama without getting hurt.  Of course, he landed no telling blows either; but he didn't need to, having piled up lots of points in the first round/debate.

Let's face it: Mitt's advisers now how to work the referees - they being the American public.

Will the US and Iran Negotiate Directly on Iran's Nuclear Program?

The NY Times reported it, both the Iranian and US sides have denied it, Messrs. Obama and Romney have opted not to comment on it before tonite's debate . . .

Yet the blogo- and twitterspheres are all over the report that the US and Iran have agreed to direct negotiations on Iran's nuclear program.

But, in this election season, most Americans' attitude toward (not to mention knowledge of) that entire issue are perhaps best summed up in Karim Sadjadpour's comment, published at Huffington Post,  here:

"I don't really see it having a meaningful impact on the presidential campaign," Sadjadpour said. "I'd venture that more Americans are interested in Kim Kardashian-Kanye West relations than they are US-Iran relations."

Given the obvious impact that the earlier debates - especially the first one - have had on polling trends and momentum, tonite's debate ought to be a major event.  The issues to be addressed are central to America's way forward in the world.  One would hope that a citizenry that hopes to be better informed about the beliefs and positions of the man who will lead the US for the next four years would be glued to their screens at 9 PM.

Well, unfortunately, they will be.  The seventh and deciding game of the National League baseball championship series starts at 7 PM - on Fox network, no less.  Meanwhile, ESPN broadcasts at 8 this week's installment of the National Football League's Monday Night Football.

Tomorrow morning, thousands of Americans will be posted around their office water coolers, where they will yammer on, in nauseating detail, about who won, and how they won, those athletic contests.  

Many of those same thousands of American citizens will head to the polls in two weeks, where they will confidently cast ballots that will decide much about America's future stance on issues about which those same thousands of citizens will have remained willfully, blissfully, dreadfully, and in many instances totally, ignorant.

Ah yes - we are a truly exceptional nation, aren't we?