|
|
Jan 11, 2007
More Troops? The Real Threat is Here
More Troops? The Real Threat is Here
Although the attempt to increase the US military presence in Iraq is grabbing all the headlines, the real threat we face is efforts to increase the size of the US military at home.
Giving some future George Bush more troops to play with would only invite further fiascos like Iraq: it would be like giving gasoline to an arsonist. If anything, the size of our military should be decreased.
Our future wars should be more like Afghanistan, where we have many partners and not just token support from diehards like Tony Blair of Britain.
If a future George Bush were forced to seek partners because he didn't have sufficient troops for unilateral action, he'd have to build a coalition by providing credible evidence of a threat (as Bush's father did in 1991).
Faking or fudging Weapons of Mass Destruction evidence wouldn't fool most partners, just as it didn't work with our older, more experienced friends in Europe, such as France, Belgium, and Germany, and our brave soldiers wouldn't be sacrificed for nothing.
Those who value the lives of our brave troops should just say "no" to a bigger army.
Posted at 10:51 pm by ariksilverman
Permalink
A Lap Dog No More?
Britain's Tony Blair has long been accused of being George Bush's lap dog, but maybe his tail is no longer wagging.
QUOTE: With American troop levels about to rise, Des Browne, the Defence Decretary, confirmed The Daily Telegraph's report that thousands of British forces were set to leave.
US threatens Iran as troops plan attacked
By Toby Harnden, Damien McElroy and Thomas Harding
Last Updated: 3:33am GMT 12/01/2007
America delivered a thinly-veiled threat to Iran yesterday, declaring that it would not "stand idly by" if Teheran continued to arm Iraq's insurgents. As President George W Bush digested the reaction to his plan to send another 21,500 troops to pacify Iraq, his administration escalated the pressure on Iran.
In Iraq's northern city of Irbil, US forces raided an office housing Iran's representatives. Six Iranians were arrested and documents seized. The operation infuriated Teheran, which said the office enjoyed diplomatic protection. But American officials said Iranians agents were covertly aiding Shia militias and meddling in Baghdad's new government.
In Washington, Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, told the Senate foreign relations committee that Iran and Syria were "de-stabilising" Iraq and said that America would respond.
"I don't want to speculate on what operations the United States may be engaged in, but you will see that the United States is not going to stand idly by," she said.
America's new plan for Iraq depends on the attitude of Baghdad's government under Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia prime minister. Success will hinge on whether he is willing to act against militias drawn from his Shia power base.
Miss Rice had a tough warning for Mr Maliki. "I think he knows that his government is, in a sense, on borrowed time, not just in terms of the American people but in terms of the Iraqi people," she said.
Last month, the Iraq Study Group — comprising some of America's most senior statesmen — recommended a conciliatory approach towards Iran and Syria coupled with a gradual withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Mr Bush has adopted the opposite course.
His decision has stirred great unease. Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator, called Mr Bush's move the "most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam".
Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic congressman and presidential candidate, asked: "Isn't one war enough for this president?"
With American troop levels about to rise, Des Browne, the Defence Decretary, confirmed The Daily Telegraph's report that thousands of British forces were set to leave.
"Over the course of the this year, we can expect to see a reduction in our troops by a matter of thousands," he told MPs.
This withdrawal would allow forces to be transferred to Afghanistan, where the onset of spring is expected to bring a renewed offensive by the Taliban.
But the prospect of British troops leaving southern Iraq has left Sunni leaders fearing for their lives.
Posted at 10:51 pm by ariksilverman
Permalink
Jan 10, 2007
CIA Kiss of Death for Lebanon?
CIA Kiss of Death for Lebanon?
Discovering that the CIA is behind the current government in Lebanon is not likely to increase its popularity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/10/wleb10.xml
CIA gets the go-ahead to take on Hizbollah
By Toby Harnden, US Editor
Last Updated: 1:47am GMT 10/01/2007
The Central Intelligence Agency has been authorised to take covert action against Hizbollah as part of a secret plan by President George W. Bush to help the Lebanese government prevent the spread of Iranian influence. Senators and congressmen have been briefed on the classified "non-lethal presidential finding" that allows the CIA to provide financial and logistical support to the prime minister, Fouad Siniora.
The finding was signed by Mr Bush before Christmas after discussions between his aides and Saudi Arabian officials. Details of its existence, known only to a small circle of White House officials, intelligence officials and members of Congress, have been passed to The Daily Telegraph.
advertisement
Click to learn more...
It authorises the CIA and other US intelligence agencies to fund anti-Hizbollah groups in Lebanon and pay for activists who support the Siniora government. The secrecy of the finding means that US involvement in the activities is officially deniable.
The Bush administration hopes Mr Siniora's government, severely weakened after its war with Israel last year, will become a bulwark against the growing power of the Shia sect of Islam, championed by Iran and Syria, since the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Mr Bush's move is at the centre of a fresh drive by America, supported by the Sunni states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt as well as Israel, to stop Iranian hegemony in the Middle East emerging from the collapse of Iraq.
The finding, drawn up at the White House by National Security Council (NSC) officials, is a sign of Mr Bush's growing alarm at the threat posed by Iran, which has infiltrated the Iraqi government and is training Shia insurgents as well as supplying them with roadside bombs.
A former US government official said: "Siniora's under siege there and we are always looking for ways to help allies. As Richard Armitage [a former deputy US secretary of state] said, Hizbollah is the A-team of terrorism and certainly Iran and Syria have not let up in their support of the group."
Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, the former Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington, is understood to have been closely involved in the decision to prop up Mr Siniora's administration and the Israeli government, which views Iran as its chief enemy, has also been supportive.
"There's a feeling both in Jerusalem and in Riyadh that the anti-Sunni tilt in the region has gone too far," said an intelligence source. "By removing Saddam, we've shifted things in favour of the Shia and this is a counter-balancing exercise.
Prince Bandar, now King Abdullah's national security adviser, made several trips to Washington and held meetings with Elliot Abrams, the senior Middle East official on the NSC.
Prince Turki al-Faisal resigned abruptly as ambassador to Washington last month. Intelligence sources said that a principal reason for this was his belief he had been undermined by Prince Bandar, who had not told him of the Lebanon plan or even that he was visiting Washington.
As a quid pro quo to the Sunni Arab states, Mr Bush and Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, have agreed to work harder to re-start negotiations about a peace deal with the Palestinians.
According to the Swoop website (theswoop.net), which contains briefings on diplomatic and intelligence matters: "US officials point to the Israeli release of some tax monies owed to the Palestinian Authority as the first fruits of this approach.
Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former clandestine CIA officer, said that such a finding would involve "various steps and types of non-military activity" agreed to by the Lebanese. "It takes two to tango. You're only those things that the Lebanese themselves would want you to do," he said.
Bush administration officials have spoken of their desire to promote "mainstream" Arab states and have even spoken of the existence of a "Sunni crescent" in the Middle East. But there is tension between this policy and the support for Nouri al-Maliki's Shia-led government in Iraq, which has links to Shia death squads and Iran.
"The administration is reaping its own whirlwind after Iraq," said the intelligence source. "For 50 years the US preferred stability over legitimacy in the Middle East and now it's got neither. It's a situation replete with ironies."
Posted at 01:49 pm by ariksilverman
Permalink
Somalia: What's Really Going On?
Somalia: What's Really Going On?
Time will tell what's really happening in Somalia, but this story says analysts in the region say events were quite different from the version put about by the US and the Somali government. It's suggested that the US didn't send in helicopter gunships to assassinate an al Qaida bigshot, but to rescue Ethiopian troops that got in trouble, the al Qaida story being a phony coverup. As I said, time will tell which version is correct.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2540484,00.html
| Times Online [London] |
January 10, 2007 |
Comment: Claims of al-Qaeda death mask danger of civil warJonathan Clayton, Africa correspondent of The Times
| |  |
Claims that a senior al-Qaeda suspect believed to have been the mastermind behind terror attacks against US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania has been killed in the current wave of air strikes against Islamist strongholds in southern Somalia have been greeted with scepticism in the region.
News agencies reported Somali government officials saying that Fazul Abdullah Mohamed, who is accused of the joint 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam which killed 262 people, was dead. The Somali President’s Chief of Staff said he had received the information from the Americans.
However, reports from the area said Fazul Abdullah had left the hardline Islamist hideout of Ras Kamboni and slipped over the porous border to Kenya, where his wife and many members of his family live, several weeks ago. Regional analysts said they believed reports of his death were misinformation intended to give the impression the operation was a success and mask the danger of the country slipping into an all-out civil war.
Local sources said the Ethiopian forces, who had cornered fugitive Somali Islamists in the area since they were driven out of the capital two weeks ago, had suffered high casualties and called on the US for air support. That support now needed to be justified.
"I suspect we are seeing some classic misinformation going on here… The truth is the American and Ethiopian intelligence from the area has always been suspect," said one expert on Somalia based in Kenya. "Unless, we are shown the bodies of these alleged al-Qaeda operatives, no-one will believe it."
Regional analysts say Somalia’s Islamists were largely made up of members of the Hawiye clan while the US-backed weak transitional government is dominated by the Darod and its sub-clans, historic foes of the Hawiye and former backers of the deposed dictator Mohamed Siad Barre whose fall from power ushered in 15 years of rule by warlords.
They said the situation in Mogadishu, which saw its first period of calm for more than a decade after it was taken by the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) last June, would be the true test of whether the military operation against the Islamists and hardline al-Qaeda sympathisers was a success or not.
"There are several thousand UIC supporters in Mogadishu, what they do is more important for long-term stability in Somalia than whether these al-Qaeda operatives are killed or not," the source added. | |
Posted at 01:49 pm by ariksilverman
Permalink
Dec 13, 2006
Guess Where Al Jazeera Wins
Guess Where Al Jazeera Wins
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1971223,00.html
BBC World dropped by Israeli satellite TV
Tara Conlan
Wednesday December 13, 2006
MediaGuardian.co.uk
BBC World has been dropped by Israel's satellite provider Yes TV in favour of the newly launched al-Jazeera English.
It is the first major distribution blow the corporation's international news channel has suffered since al-Jazeera's English-language service began broadcasting last month.
Although BBC World will still be available in Israel via cable, it will lose around 50% of its audience in the country as a result of being dropped by Yes.
Al-Jazeera English signed the carriage deal with Yes last month, but the damaging consequences for BBC World have only just emerged.
One BBC executive said: "We are disappointed but hopefully they will come back to the negotiations."
The deal with Yes takes al-Jazeera English's global reach to around 80m households.
The market for rolling international news is become increasingly crowded, with new rivals to BBC World and CNN.
In addition to the launch of al-Jazeera English, France 24 began broadcasting last week.
The BBC has had a difficult time over its coverage of Israel, with regular accusations of bias coming from both the Israeli and Palestinian sides.
Earlier this year an independent panel was set up by the corporation's board of governors to review its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Posted at 05:24 pm by ariksilverman
Permalink
Dec 12, 2006
Winning Friends, Iran Encircles Israel
Winning Friends, Iran Encircles Israel
The interesting part of this story is at the end, which is aid Iran is going to give to Palestine. This wouldn't be happening if Israel, the US, the EU, and others had accepted the the results of the very fair and democratic election in Palestine. Instead, the new axis of evil (US-EU-Israel) have attempted to starve the Palestinians into submission, a tactic which isn't working. (Since the Palestinians refuse to bow in the face of starvation, the evil axis has shifted to trying to bring about a civil war and violent overthrow of the Palestinian government -- so much for George Bush's "Arab democracy.")
QUOTE: According to Haniyeh, the Iranian donation will include a direct cash payment to Hamas of $100 million. The remainder will be divided as follows: paying the unpaid salaries of employees of three ministries - labor, welfare and culture - as well as stipends to Palestinian prisoners and their families for the next six months ($45 million); paying stipends of $100 a month to some 100,000 unemployed Palestinian civil servants for the next six months ($60 million); doing the same for some 3,000 Palestinian fisherman ($1.8 million); building a cultural center and "national" offices, apparently for the government's use ($15 million); rebuilding some 1,000 demolished houses, at a cost of about $10,000 per house ($20 million); purchasing 300 new cars for the Palestinian government ($3 million); and purchasing Palestinian olive oil at a special high price ($5 million). Iran also promised to build three new hospitals and 10 clinics in the territories over the next 10 years. Haniyeh said that the financial aid was personally approved by Iran's supreme spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, with whom he met on Sunday.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/799737.html
Tue., December 12, 2006 Kislev 21, 5767 | | Israel Time: 20:17 (EST+6) Ha'aretz
Last update - 07:40 12/12/2006
Olmert sends emissaries on secret Ramallah visit to Abbas
By Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent
Two emissaries of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert paid a secret visit to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah on Sunday, Haaretz has learned.
During the meeting, Olmert also spoke with Abbas by telephone, and the PA chairman said that he wants Israel to release Marwan Barghouti from prison independent of any deal for the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
Barghouti, a senior official in Abbas' Fatah party, is currently serving five life sentences for his role in the murder of five Israelis during the intifada.
However, Olmert replied that he is not even willing to discuss this issue until after Shalit is returned to Israel.
Palestinian sources said that the meeting, which was attended by Olmert's bureau chief, Yoram Turbowicz, and his political advisor, Shalom Turjeman, was extremely positive.
"We received several very positive messages from Israel," said one.
This is the first time that Olmert's emissaries have been to Ramallah to meet with Abbas, so the very fact that they came was also perceived as an encouraging gesture, the sources said. Hitherto, Turbowicz and Turjeman have only met with lower-level PA officials.
At the meeting, Abbas and the Israeli officials also discussed U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's planned visit to the region next month and the possibility of an Olmert-Abbas meeting. That meeting has been delayed by the lack of progress on Shalit's release.
Meanwhile, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh announced Monday that Iran had promised to give the PA's Hamas government $250 million in 2007.
Haniyeh, who was speaking at the conclusion of a visit to Tehran, termed the visit "historic and very successful."
"We achieved our goals on this visit," he said. "We found all the love it is possible to give to the Palestinian people."
According to Haniyeh, the Iranian donation will include a direct cash payment to Hamas of $100 million.
The remainder will be divided as follows: paying the unpaid salaries of employees of three ministries - labor, welfare and culture - as well as stipends to Palestinian prisoners and their families for the next six months ($45 million); paying stipends of $100 a month to some 100,000 unemployed Palestinian civil servants for the next six months ($60 million); doing the same for some 3,000 Palestinian fisherman ($1.8 million); building a cultural center and "national" offices, apparently for the government's use ($15 million); rebuilding some 1,000 demolished houses, at a cost of about $10,000 per house ($20 million); purchasing 300 new cars for the Palestinian government ($3 million); and purchasing Palestinian olive oil at a special high price ($5 million).
Iran also promised to build three new hospitals and 10 clinics in the territories over the next 10 years.
Haniyeh said that the financial aid was personally approved by Iran's supreme spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, with whom he met on Sunday.
Following that meeting, Khamenei said: "The day will yet come when all of Palestine will be under Palestinian rule. Only struggle and resistance will restore all of Palestine, every centimeter of it, to its owners. The Palestinian government will receive full support from the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Posted at 02:00 pm by ariksilverman
Permalink
Dec 10, 2006
Iraq: Secret US Talks with Enemy Claimed
Iraq: Secret US Talks with Enemy Claimed
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2496369,00.html
The Sunday Times [London] December 10, 2006
Secret American talks with insurgents break down
Hala Jaber, Amman
SECRET talks in which senior American officials came face-to-face with
some of their most bitter enemies in the Iraqi insurgency broke down
after two months of meetings, rebel commanders have disclosed.
The meetings, hosted by Iyad Allawi, Iraq's former prime minister,
brought insurgent commanders and Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to
Iraq, together for the first time.
After months of delicate negotiations Allawi, a former Ba'athist and a
secular Shi'ite, persuaded three rebel leaders to travel to his villa
in Amman, the Jordanian capital, to see Khalilzad in January.
"The meetings came about after persistent requests from the Americans.
It wasn't because they loved us but because they didn't have a choice,"
said a rebel leader who took part.
Last week the long-awaited report of the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired
by James Baker, the former secretary of state, and Lee Hamilton, a
former congressman, called for America to seek to engage with all
parties in Iraq, with the exception of Al-Qaeda.
However, the insurgents' account of the hushed-up meetings reveals that
concerted attempts to engage them in negotiations had already failed
earlier this year.
Hopes were high when the insurgent leaders greeted Khalilzad in Amman.
The Iraqis had just held their first democratic elections for a
permanent government and the US ambassador hoped to broker an enduring
political settlement.
Feelers had been put out to Iraqi insurgents before but not at such a
high level. "The Americans had been flirting with such meetings for a
while, but they needed to sit down with people who carried more weight
in the insurgency," said one leader of the National Islamic Resistance,
an umbrella organisation representing some of the main insurgent groups.
The trio of Iraqi negotiators claimed to represent three-quarters of
the "resistance". It included Ansar al- Sunnah, the group responsible
for a suicide bombing that killed 22 in a
US army canteen in Mosul in December 2004, and also the 1920 Revolution
Brigade, which has carried out many kidnappings and claimed to have
shot down a British Hercules aircraft near Tikrit in January 2005, in
which 10 people died.
At the first meeting with Khalilzad on January 17, the insurgents
expressed concern about the emergence of Iran as a new regional power.
With America equally worried about Iranian interference, the two sides
appeared to have found some common ground. The talks continued in
Baghdad for about eight weeks, sometimes on consecutive days at
Allawi's home.
At one point the insurgents offered Khalilzad a 10-day "period of
grace" in which attacks on coalition forces would be suspended in
return for a cessation of US military operations.
They called for a "timetable for withdrawal", saying that it should be
announced immediately although in practice it would be "linked to the
timescale necessary to rebuild Iraq's armed forces and security
services", according to one commander.
Other demands said to have been received sympathetically by Khalilzad,
such as an amnesty for insurgents and a reversal of the
"de-Ba'athification" process that stripped so many Sunnis of their
jobs, have now been urged by the Iraq Study Group.
There was more. Brushing aside the results of Iraq's democratic
elections, the insurgents proposed that an emergency government be
formed under Allawi's leadership. Non-sectarian politicians should be
appointed to the crucial ministries of defence and the interior, they
urged, because they would be responsible for rebuilding a strong
national army and security service. Under this proposal, the newly
elected Iraqi government would, in effect, have been sidelined.
"I told Khalilzad that we had the know-how and the manpower to regain
control of Baghdad and rid it of the pro-Iranian militias," one of the
insurgent commanders added.
"If he would just provide us with the weapons, we would clean up the city and regain control of Baghdad in 30 days."
The atmosphere eventually soured at a meeting said to have been
attended by Khalilzad and six US generals as well as tribal leaders
from Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala and other hotspots. Each side apparently
accused the other of stepping up attacks during the supposed period of
grace and the insurgents refused to have lunch with the generals on the
grounds that they were military occupiers.
The talks were further complicated by the different demands of warring
Sunni rebel groups. A close associate of Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, Saddam
Hussein's former vice-president and the king of clubs in the US "most
wanted" deck of playing cards, said that many of the insurgent groups
were still being directed by Saddam's former party and military
leadership.
According to a senior Ba'athist representative, insurgent groups linked
to al-Douri would not sit down with the Americans unless they first
agreed to a series of other conditions ranging from compensation for
Iraq's losses during the war to the reinstatement of Saddam's military.
The final blow to the negotiations came in mid-March when Khalilzad
said that he would be willing to talk to Iran about resolving the
conflict in Iraq. The news came as a bombshell to the Sunni insurgents,
who complained to the ambassador at their final meeting.
Shortly afterwards the government of Nouri al-Maliki was formed with
the support of pro-Iranian elements. The Sunni insurgents responded by
sending a memo to Khalilzad - now tipped to become US ambassador to the
United Nations - suspending all meetings and accusing the Americans of
"dishonesty".
According to one commander, the insurgent groups were told: "Place your
faith in Allah, the gloves are off. Carry on with your resistance."
A US embassy spokesman in Baghdad yesterday declined to comment on the
talks but said America remained committed to the current government and
to "an inclusive Iraqi political process, with representatives from all
Iraq's communities".
Posted at 04:43 pm by ariksilverman
Permalink
Dec 9, 2006
Israel Blocks Beit Hanoun Massacre Inquiry
Israel Blocks Beit Hanoun Massacre Inquiry
Despite the Israeli disclaimer in this story, it's hard to believe they don't bear animosity to Desmond Tutu personally. In the 1990s, he upset Israelis by visiting Palestine and openly siding with them on human rights matters. Tutu was a major figure in the struggle to end Apartheid in South Africa, which was a good ally of Israel for many years, and probably cooperated in the development of nuclear weapons.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/09/wtutu09.xml
Israel blocks Tutu massacre inquiry
By Tim Butcher in Jerusalem
Last Updated: 1:11am GMT 09/12/2006
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who is heading a United Nations fact-finding mission into the Beit Hanoun massacre, was prevented yesterday from visiting the town by Israel.
Nineteen Palestinians, mostly women and children, were killed after their home was struck by Israeli artillery last month.
The mission was unable to reach Beit Hanoun, a town in northern Gaza, because the Israeli authorities refused to grant the necessary travel permits to the Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
The mission will most likely be postponed as the former anti-apartheid campaigner must return home to South Africa to attend a conference.
Mark Regev, a senior spokesman for the Israeli foreign ministry, said Israel had no grievance against the 75-year-old cleric but it had serious concerns about the UN Human Rights Council responsible for organising the mission.
"No travel permission has been granted yet for the mission and that is because the council is blatantly politicised," Mr Regev said.
"Discussions are still ongoing because we do not know to what extent Mr Tutu's mission is politicised along the same lines."
Archbishop Tutu declined to comment last night.
tim.butcher@telegraph.co.uk
Posted at 02:45 pm by ariksilverman
Permalink
Dec 8, 2006
Jimmy Carter Blasts Israel Lobby Intimidation
Jimmy Carter Blasts Israel Lobby Intimidation
Jimmy Carter an anti-Semite? The man most responsible for the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel? Read on...
In the headline above, "Israel Lobby" doesn't refer just to AIPAC, but to the whole pro-Israel "establishment" in this country, including those who aren't organized into a group but who, perhaps on their own, use their jobs in the news media and other places to select and censor the news they present, and who, in their own small ways, intimidate critics of Israel in an attempt to silence them: example, read below Carter's comments about reviewers of his book.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-carter8dec08,0,7999232.story?coll=la-home-commentary
Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine
Jimmy Carter says his recent book is drawing knee-jerk accusations of anti-Israel bias.
By Jimmy Carter, JIMMY CARTER was the 39th president of the United States. His newest book is "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," published last month. He is scheduled to sign books Monday at Vroman's in Pasadena.
December 8, 2006
I SIGNED A CONTRACT with Simon & Schuster two years ago to write a book about the Middle East, based on my personal observations as the Carter Center monitored three elections in Palestine and on my consultations with Israeli political leaders and peace activists.
We covered every Palestinian community in 1996, 2005 and 2006, when Yasser Arafat and later Mahmoud Abbas were elected president and members of parliament were chosen. The elections were almost flawless, and turnout was very high - except in East Jerusalem, where, under severe Israeli restraints, only about 2% of registered voters managed to cast ballots.
The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations - but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.
It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.
With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately and to analyze the only possible path to peace: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries. These options are consistent with key U.N. resolutions supported by the U.S. and Israel, official American policy since 1967, agreements consummated by Israeli leaders and their governments in 1978 and 1993 (for which they earned Nobel Peace Prizes), the Arab League's offer to recognize Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet's "Roadmap for Peace," which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.
The book is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status.
Although I have spent only a week or so on a book tour so far, it is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV, including "Larry King Live," "Hardball," "Meet the Press," "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," the "Charlie Rose" show, C-SPAN and others. But I have seen few news stories in major newspapers about what I have written.
Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that "he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel." Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me "anti-Semitic," and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions." A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent."
Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I've signed books in five stores, with more than 1,000 buyers at each site. I've had one negative remark - that I should be tried for treason - and one caller on C-SPAN said that I was an anti-Semite. My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors. I have been most encouraged by prominent Jewish citizens and members of Congress who have thanked me privately for presenting the facts and some new ideas.
The book describes the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank. An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers. In many ways, this is more oppressive than what blacks lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn any acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the terrible casualties on both sides.
The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this same goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.
Posted at 12:08 pm by ariksilverman
Permalink
Dec 7, 2006
Anti-Semitism Increasing in Europe
Anti-Semitism Increasing in Europe
There have been many stories in the last few years asserting that anti-Semitism is growing in Europe, but not many have given numbers as clearly as this one (up from 26% to 36%). Unfortunately, the story gives no indications of what has caused this increase. It would have been most useful, for example, if questions had been asked and reported regarding the current Israel-Palestine strife that began in 2000.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881830664&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
16 Kislev 5767, Thursday, December 7, 2006 23:16 IST Jerusalem Post
Dec. 6, 2006 10:20
Poll: One-third of Ukrainians don't want Jews
By JTA
One in three Ukrainians do not want Jews to be citizens of their country, a survey found.
Conducted by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology, the survey found that 36 percent of respondents do not want to see Jews as citizens of Ukraine, compared to 26 percent in a similar survey conducted in 1994.
Researchers also found that anti-Semitic attitudes were especially widespread among younger respondents.
The survey of 2,000 respondents in 24 regions of Ukraine was conducted Oct. 13-24 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
Posted at 03:22 pm by ariksilverman
Permalink
|
|
|
