Daily Archives: October 5, 2007

INTERVIEW & OPINION: The Israel lobby

Breaking the taboo: Why we took on the Israel lobby
John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt interviewed by Eric Chinski, October 4, 2007

Why did your article “The Israel Lobby,” which was published in the London Review of Books in 2006, provoke such heated discussion around the world? James Traub wrote in The New York Times Magazine: “ ’The Israel Lobby’ slammed into the opinion-making world with a Category 5 force.” How would you describe the reaction?

The article received enormous attention because it challenged what had become a taboo issue in mainstream foreign policy circles, namely the impact of the Israel lobby on U.S. Middle East policy. We did not question Israel’s legitimacy and explicitly stated that the United States should come to Israel’s aid if its survival is at risk, but we did argue that pro-Israel groups in the United States were encouraging policies that were ultimately not in America’s national interest. Although the views we expressed are often discussed openly in other democracies—including Israel itself—they have rarely been set forth in detail by mainstream figures in the United States. The article was also of great interest to many readers because it has become increasingly obvious that U.S. Middle East policy has gone badly awry. Although a number of groups and individuals either mischaracterized our views or attacked us personally, many other readers agreed that such an examination of the lobby’s role was long overdue. [complete article]

Milton Viorst on ‘The Israel Lobby’
By Milton Viorst, Truthdig, October 4, 2007

About 30 or so years ago, when I first began to write of my concern that Israel was embarked on a course that would lead only to recurring wars, or perhaps worse, I received a letter from Abraham H. Foxman, then as now the voice of the Anti-Defamation League, admonishing me as a Jew not to wash our people’s dirty linen in public. I still have it in my files. His point, of course, was not whether the washing should be public or private; he did not offer an alternative laundry. His objective was—and remains—to squelch anyone who is critical of Israel’s policies. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS, ANALYSIS & EDITOR’S COMMENT: Torture is more than interrogation

Debate erupts on techniques used by C.I.A.
By David Johnston and Scott Shane, New York Times, October 5, 2007

The disclosure of secret Justice Department legal opinions on interrogation on Thursday set off a bitter round of debate over the treatment of terrorism suspects in American custody and whether Congress has been adequately informed of legal policies.

Democrats on Capitol Hill demanded to see the classified memorandums, disclosed Thursday by The New York Times, that gave the Central Intelligence Agency expansive approval in 2005 for harsh interrogation techniques.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote to the acting attorney general, Peter D. Keisler, asking for copies of all opinions on interrogation since 2004.

“I find it unfathomable that the committee tasked with oversight of the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation program would be provided more information by The New York Times than by the Department of Justice,” Mr. Rockefeller wrote. [complete article]

Bush’s dangerous torture(d) stance
By Massimo Calabresi, Time, October 5, 2007

Every time the Bush Administration is accused of torture, the response from the White House is immediate and unequivocal. When the New York Times reported on its front page Thursday that the Justice Department had issued a secret legal opinion in 2005 approving a combination of particularly tough interrogation tactics, White House spokesperson Dana Perino said, “The bottom line is that we do not use torture.” When Congress and the White House battled over detainee rights in 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney argued that techniques like simulated drowning didn’t amount to torture. And last August, after the New Yorker reported the latest in a string of private memos sent to the U.S. government by the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) asserting that U.S. interrogation techniques were “tantamount to torture”, President Bush said curtly, “We don’t torture.”

The Administration says its firm, absolutist assertions are designed to protect U.S. troops in case they are captured: by insisting the U.S. doesn’t torture, the hope is others will feel compelled to refrain from doing so. But in practice, the Administration’s declarations have exactly the opposite effect. It’s not just that Washington has very little credibility on the issue, given all the evidence linking the U.S. to torture that has surfaced in recent years, including the opinion of the international body charged with observing detainee treatment. More importantly, by continuing to battle with the ICRC and other international organizations over the definition of torture, the Bush Administration is undermining those groups and diminishing their chances of protecting captured U.S. troops in the future. [complete article]

See also, Bush Says U.S. ‘does not torture’ (WP).

Editor’s Comment — There’s a dimension of torture that has been excluded from virtually all the debate. What is referred to by some as torture is officially called interrogation, yet the assumption that these techniques are being applied strictly for the purpose of gaining information is rarely questioned. Even so, the war on terrorism was declared and has been carried out as an implicit act of retribution — a grand re-setting of the balance of power on a global stage. In that context, it would be surprising if those tasked with the job of asserting American power would not translate that duty into their own acts of extra-judicial punishment: torture applied to those who the president, the vice-president and the secretary of defense had unequivocally described as “the worst of the worst.”

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS & EDITOR’S COMMENT: The State Department’s reckless protectors

Blackwater faulted in military reports from shooting scene
By Sudarsan Raghavan, Joshua Partlow and Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, October 5, 2007

U.S. military reports from the scene of the Sept. 16 shooting incident involving the security firm Blackwater USA indicate that its guards opened fire without provocation and used excessive force against Iraqi civilians, according to a senior U.S. military official.

The reports came to light as an Interior Ministry official and five eyewitnesses described a second deadly shooting minutes after the incident in Nisoor Square. The same Blackwater security guards, after driving about 150 yards away from the square, fired into a crush of cars, killing one person and injuring two, the Iraqi official said.

The U.S. military reports appear to corroborate the Iraqi government’s contention that Blackwater was at fault in the shooting incident in Nisoor Square, in which hospital records say at least 14 people were killed and 18 were wounded. [complete article]

Bill applies U.S. law to contractors
By David M. Herszenhorn, New York Times, October 5, 2007

With the armed security force Blackwater USA and other private contractors in Iraq facing tighter scrutiny, the House of Representatives on Thursday overwhelmingly approved a bill that would bring all United States government contractors in the Iraq war zone under the jurisdiction of American criminal law. The measure would require the F.B.I. to investigate any allegations of wrongdoing.

The bill was approved 389 to 30, despite strong opposition from the White House. It came as lawmakers and human rights groups are using a Sept. 16 shooting by Blackwater personnel in Baghdad to highlight the many contractors operating in Iraq who have apparently been unaccountable to American military or civilian laws and outside the reach of the Iraqi judicial system.

The State Department, which had been leading the investigation into the shooting, said Thursday that a team of F.B.I. agents sent to Baghdad in recent days had taken over the inquiry. No charges have been filed in the case, and Justice Department officials have said it is unclear whether American law applies. [complete article]

See also, U.S. issues new rules for Iraq security firm (WP) and Iraqis: Put Blackwater guards on trial (AP).

Editor’s Comment — With plenty of evidence that until now the State Department has had more interest in protecting their trigger-happy guards than in reining them in, today’s announcement of new security procedures intended to “make sure there is a management feedback loop,” are clearly disingenuous. Well before Blackwater hit the headlines, is it conceivable that there were not numerous occasions in which State Department officials witnessed the type of violence for which Blackwater is now infamous? And while it’s no excuse, it’s hardly surprising that those being protected were afraid of blowing the whistle on their sometimes (or often) reckless protectors.

Facebooktwittermail

ANALYSIS: A sea change inside the Pentagon

New military leaders question Iraq mission
By Nancy A. Youssef and Renee Schoof, McClatchy, October 4, 2007

Four and a half years after the nation’s top military leaders saluted and fell in behind President Bush’s pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, their replacements are beginning to question the mission and sound alarms about the toll the war is taking on the Army and the Marine Corps.

The change at the Pentagon is striking but little-noticed, in part because Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a longtime veteran of the CIA, is quiet where his predecessor Donald H. Rumsfeld was not.

“It’s part of a sea change,” said Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a national-security research center in Washington. “The ideologues have been replaced by managers who view Iraq not as a cause, but a problem to be solved.” [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS: Iraq buys arms from China; opposes U.S. support for Sunni militias

Iraqis to pay China $100 million for weapons for police
By Robin Wright and Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, October 4, 2007

Iraq has ordered $100 million worth of light military equipment from China for its police force, contending that the United States was unable to provide the materiel and is too slow to deliver arms shipments, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said yesterday.

The China deal, not previously made public, has alarmed military analysts who note that Iraq’s security forces already are unable to account for more than 190,000 weapons supplied by the United States, many of which are believed to be in the hands of Shiite and Sunni militias, insurgents and other forces seeking to destabilize Iraq and target U.S. troops. [complete article]

Iraqi leaders turn against US-created ‘militias’
By Sabah Jerges, AFP, October 4, 2007

The Iraqi government lashed out on Thursday against a US military initiative that pits civilians against Al-Qaeda fighters, accusing it of creating new militias in the war-weary nation.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s media adviser Yasin Majeed said the Shiite-led government was now trying to bring armed groups set up by the US military under the control of the Iraqi army.

“There are groups which have set up checkpoints without coordinating with the government,” he said. “Apparently they coordinated with the (US military). They should be placed under army control.” [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION: A U.S. attack on Iran would be a “fatal mistake”

The fallout from an attack on Iran would be devastating
By Seumas Milne, The Guardian, October 5, 2007

It seems almost incredible after the catastrophe of the Iraq war, but the signs are growing that the Bush administration wants to do it all over again – this time to Iran. Just as in the runup to the invasion of Iraq, the Washington air is thick with unsubstantiated claims about weapons of mass destruction; demonisation of the country’s president has reached bizarre proportions; intelligence leaks about links with al-Qaida and attacks on US and British targets are now routine; demands for war from the administration’s neoconservative outriders are becoming increasingly strident; the pronouncements of George Bush and his vice-president, Dick Cheney, are turning ever more belligerent – and administration sources claim that the British government is privately ready to play ball. [complete article]

Editor’s Comment — In an NPR interview today, Iraq’s National Security Adviser Dr. Mowaffak al-Rubaie echoes the US claim that Iran is “muddling” in Iraq but he warns that a US attack on Iran would be “a fatal mistake.”

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS: Syria’s air defense; Israel’s military installations

Report: Iran worried over Syrian air defense failure in IAF strike
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz, October 5, 2007

Iran is concerned over the failure of Syria’s air defense systems to detect the Israel Air Force non-stealth aircraft that reportedly carried out an attack inside Syria last month, the American weekly Aviation Week reported on its Web site on Wednesday.

According to the report, Israel was able to disrupt Syria’s radar and air defense systems and render them ineffective during the IAF strike. The Web site reported that Israel used an electronic device, installed in a plane that circled the area, to disrupt Syria’s defenses.

The weekly maintained that Iran is especially concerned over the failure of Syria’s Russian-made radar systems. Iran has used similar systems in the past, and is slated to purchase more radar equipment in a future deal worth $750 million. This equipment is apparently designated to protect Iran’s nuclear facilities against attacks from the air. [complete article]

Google Earth zooms in on Israel military sites
Conflict Blotter, October 5, 2007

Sensitive installations, Air Force bases with their planes and helicopters, missile bases and even the nuclear reactor in Dimona have never been photographed better. A recent Google Earth update shows satellite pictures that make it possible to see clear, sharp pictures of military and civilian targets all across Israel. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS: Nassrallah blames Israel for assassinations; Israel turns away wounded Palestinians

Nasrallah blames Israel for killings in Lebanon
Yoav Stern, Haaretz, October 5, 2007

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah on Friday accused Israel of killing anti-Syrian figures in Lebanon to cause strife and drag his militant movement into fighting other Lebanese communities.

In a televised speech broadcast to his supporters to mark “Al Quds” day, Nasrallah said Israel has a network of agents working in Lebanon who are responsible for the political killings.

Nasrallah, whose group leads the pro-Syrian opposition to Lebanon’s U.S.-backed government, also warned the parliamentary majority against picking a president of their own to run the country if talks with the opposition failed, and called for polling the general population on their choice if the lawmakers fail to reach agreement. [complete article]

Doctors: Only severely wounded Palestinians allowed into Israel
By Yuval Azoulay, Haaretz, October 5, 2007

Israel is allowing entry to only the most severly wounded Palestinians, and not to those at risk of losing limbs or suffering other debilitating handicaps, according to Physicians for Human Rights.

Hundreds of people were injured during the June clashes in the Gaza Strip between Hamas and Fatah. However, only those whose lives were in danger were allowed into Israel for treatment. Others, whose injuries endangered “only” their quality of life, remained in the Gaza Strip for treatment, PHR wrote to the defense minister and the health minister.

Out of 44 requests to transfer injured individuals for treatment in Israel, 16 were refused by authorities in Israel, PHR said. In some cases, this meant physicians in Gaza had to amputate limbs because treatment was delayed too long. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION: The GOP’s betrayal of conservatism

The Republican collapse
By David Brooks, New York Times, October 5, 2007

Modern conservatism begins with Edmund Burke. What Burke articulated was not an ideology or a creed, but a disposition, a reverence for tradition, a suspicion of radical change.

When conservatism came to America, it became creedal. Free market conservatives built a creed around freedom and capitalism. Religious conservatives built a creed around their conception of a transcendent order. Neoconservatives and others built a creed around the words of Lincoln and the founders.

Over the years, the voice of Burke has been submerged beneath the clamoring creeds. In fact, over the past few decades the conservative ideologies have been magnified, while the temperamental conservatism of Burke has been abandoned.

Over the past six years, the Republican Party has championed the spread of democracy in the Middle East. But the temperamental conservative is suspicious of rapid reform, believing that efforts to quickly transform anything will have, as Burke wrote “pleasing commencements” but “lamentable conclusions.” [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail