MICHAEL O. ALLEN

Category

Homepage

A little history

By HomepageNo Comments

The White House Fleeting Hope: From left, Israels Yitzhak Rabin, Egypts Hosni Mubarak, Hussein, Clinton and PLO leader Yasir Arafat in 1995
Newsweek

Barack Obama said virtually nothing last week about the fighting in Gaza. We only have “one president at a time,” his aides argue, and he has already called for a robust American peacemaking effort. Still, as the bombs began falling it must have been tempting for the president-elect to simply avert his eyes. Cries of “all-out war” make the risks to U.S. credibility abroad and the political costs at home seem infinitely more acute. Fighting in the Holy Land has been raging for thousands of years, the familiar reasoning goes; it would be hubris to think America could end it.
Yet three excellent recent books suggest that such logic is seriously flawed. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly, diplomatic distance virtually guarantees the status quo. Because Israel is so much stronger, power dynamics in the conflict are “deeply unbalanced,” write Daniel Kurtzer and Scott Lasensky in their trenchant guidebook, “Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace” (191 pages. U.S. Institute of Peace. $16.50). “Left on their own, the parties cannot address the deep, structural impediments to peace.” Over the past half-century, the price of a generally desultory American policy has been compounded.
That’s the takeaway from Patrick Tyler’s ambitious new history, “A World of Trouble: The White House and the Middle East—From the Cold War to the War on Terror” (Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 628 pages. $30). The bottom line, according to Tyler: “After nearly six decades of escalating American involvement in the Middle East, it remains nearly impossible to discern any overarching approach to the region such as the one that guided U.S. policy through the Cold War.” Still, starry-eyed naiveté is no way to solve one of the world’s most intractable conflicts. Martin Indyk’s nuanced new memoir of his tenure as a Clinton-era peace negotiator, “Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East” (494 pages. Simon ;Schuster. $30),demonstrates how hard the balancing act can be.

American diplomacy in the region wasn’t always so feeble. Back in the fall of 1956, intelligence reached Washington that Israel was massing troops near Gaza in the Negev Desert. U.S. officials discovered that Israel had conspired with Britain and France to seize the Suez Canal, which popular Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had nationalized the summer before. The Americans were furious at their allies’ back-room plan. Israel’s then foreign minister, Golda Meir, made an argument much the same as what Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said since then: “Imagine attacks from enemies camped on the Mexican and Canadian borders inflicting those kinds of casualties in America.” But President Eisenhower wasn’t buying. As Tyler recounts, Ike went on television and demanded a withdrawal, later withholding oil shipments and loans to Britain. The conspirators were forced to comply.

“Special relationship” with one side

By HomepageNo Comments

Obama got a birds-eye view of the Holy Land with Livni, right, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak
newsweek

If Obama Is Serious He should get tough with Israel by Aaron David Miller, NEWSWEEK, from the magazine issue dated Jan 12, 2009
Jews worry for a living; their tragic history compels them to do so. In the next few years, there will be plenty to worry about, particularly when it comes to Israel. The current operation in Gaza won’t do much to ease these worries or to address Israel’s longer-term security needs. The potential for a nuclear Iran, combined with the growing accuracy and lethality of Hamas and Hizbullah rockets, will create tremendous concern. Anxiety may also be provoked by something else: an Obama administration determined to repair America’s image and credibility and to reach a deal in the Middle East.
Don’t get me wrong. Barack Obama—as every other U.S. president before him—will protect the special relationship with Israel. But the days of America’s exclusive ties to Israel may be coming to an end. Despite efforts to sound reassuring during the campaign, the new administration will have to be tough, much tougher than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush were, if it’s serious about Arab-Israeli peacemaking.
The departure point for a viable peace deal—either with Syria or the Palestinians—must not be based purely on what the political traffic in Israel will bear, but on the requirements of all sides. The new president seems tougher and more focused than his predecessors; he’s unlikely to become enthralled by either of Israel’s two leading candidates for prime minister—centrist Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, or Likudnik Benjamin Netanyahu. Indeed, if it’s the latter, he may well find himself (like Clinton) privately frustrated with Netanyahu’s tough policies. Unlike Clinton, if Israeli behavior crosses the line, he should allow those frustrations to surface publicly in the service of American national interests.

The Middle East: Rivers of blood

By HomepageNo Comments

If You Want Peace, Work For Justice says the Central Virginia Progressive

BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Bill Moyers on Mideast Violence | PBS

Transcript

BILL MOYERS: In a city made noisy by hammers and saws preparing for the inauguration of a new president — a city already reverberating with partisan rancor, and with the constant chattering of the opinionated — it was hard to hear the sound of a single snare drum along Pennsylvania Avenue, between the White House and Capitol Hill, but there it was: a mere handful of men and women, 70 at most, had come out this rain-swept morning to bear witness to the dead – to the victims of war.

DAVID SWANSON: They carry the names of the dead in Iraq, in Afghanistan and the recent dead in Gaza along with ages and places and in many cases, very little more is known except that these are people who should still be alive. These are real human beings with family members and loved ones and friends, and we’re killing them.

BILL MOYERS:They were there for the first hour of the first day of the new Congress.

DAVID SWANSON: It’s a general assumption that power rests at the other end of this street in the White House and that we may have a better president there than we had last time and we should wait and see what happens. Well, our country puts the power to begin and end and fund and de-fund wars here, in the Congress.

BILL MOYERS:A short distance away a noisy media circus surrounded Illinois Democrat Roland Burris as he tried to take a seat in the United States Senate, while scarcely anyone recorded the March of the Dead.

MARCHER #1: Haya Hamdan, 44, killed last Monday in Gaza.

MARCHER #2: Najim Abdullah Hamid, 41, killed 3/7/04.

BILL MOYERS:Inside the Hart Senate Office Building the marchers unfurled their banners. Seventeen were arrested.

MARCHER #3:We will not be silent.

DAVID SWANSON: And I’m thrilled that people are willing to bring this message on day one and not assume that an election solves everything because elections have never created peace, only what people do in between elections has ever created peace.

BILL MOYERS:Their act of conscience could not have been more timely. For one thing, the “Washington Post” reports this week that the U.S. Army sent letters to the 7,000 family members of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every letter began, “Dear John Doe.” Yes, it was a mistake and the Army has now apologized. But we were reminded of the anonymity that has been conferred on America’s fallen warriors whose homecoming in caskets the Bush White House has tried to keep from the public. They, their parents, spouses and children are far removed from the gaze of official Washington. The marchers along Pennsylvania Avenue this week were reminding us that every casualty, every victim of war has a name.

For too much of the world at large the names of the dead and wounded in Gaza might as well be John Doe too. They are the casualties and victims of Israel’s decision to silence the rockets from Hamas terrorists by waging war on an entire population. Yes, every nation has the right to defend its people. Israel is no exception, all the more so because Hamas would like to see every Jew in Israel dead.

But brute force can turn self-defense into state terrorism. It’s what the U.S. did in Vietnam, with B-52s and napalm, and again in Iraq, with shock and awe. By killing indiscriminately – the elderly, kids, entire families by destroying schools and hospitals — Israel did exactly what terrorists do and exactly what Hamas wanted. It spilled the blood that turns the wheel of retribution.

Hardly had Israeli tank fire killed and injured scores at a UN school in Gaza than a senior Hamas leader went on television to announce, “The Zionists have legitimized the killing of their children by killing our children.” Already attacks on Jews in Europe are escalating — a burning car crashes into a synagogue in Southern France, a fiery object is hurled through a window in Sweden, venomous anti-Semitic graffiti appears across the continent, and arsonists strike in London.

What we are seeing in Gaza is the latest battle in the oldest family quarrel on record. Open your Bible: the sons of the patriarch Abraham become Arab and Jew. Go to the Book of Deuteronomy. When the ancient Israelites entered Canaan their leaders urged violence against its inhabitants. The very Moses who had brought down the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” now proclaimed, “You must destroy completely all the places where the nations have served their gods. You must tear down their altars, smash their pillars, cut down their sacred poles, set fire to the carved images of their gods, and wipe out their name from that place.”

So God-soaked violence became genetically coded. A radical stream of Islam now seeks to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. Israel misses no opportunity to humiliate the Palestinians with checkpoints, concrete walls, routine insults, and the onslaught in Gaza. As if boasting of their might, Israel defense forces even put up video of the explosions on YouTube for all the world to see. A Norwegian doctor there tells CBS, “It’s like Dante’s Inferno. They are bombing one and a half million people in a cage.”

America has officially chosen sides. We supply Israel with money, F-16s, winks and tacit signals. Our Christian right links arms with the religious extremists there who claim divine sanctions for Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Our political elites show neither independence nor courage by challenging the consensus that Israel can do no wrong. Although one recent poll found Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive by a 24-point margin, Democratic Party leaders in Congress nonetheless march in lockstep to the hardliners in Israel and the White House. Rarely does our mainstream media depart from the monotonous monologue of the party line. Many American Jews know, as Aaron David Miller writes in the current “Newsweek”, that the destruction in Gaza won’t do much to address Israel’s longer-term needs.

But those who raise questions are accused by a prominent reform rabbi of being “morally deficient.” One Jewish American activist told me this week that never in 30 years has he seen such blind and binding conformity in his community. “You’d never know,” he said, “that it is the Gazans who are doing most of the suffering.”

We are in a terrible bind — Israel, the Palestinians, the United States. Each greases the cycle of violence, as one man’s terrorism becomes another’s resistance to oppression. Is it possible to turn this mindless tragedy toward peace? For starters, read Aaron David Miller’s article in the current “Newsweek”. Get his book, “The Much Too Promised Land”. And pay no attention to those Washington pundits cheering the fighting in Gaza as they did the bloodletting in Iraq. Killing is cheap and war is a sport in a city where life and death become abstractions of policy. Here are the people who pay the price.

Signs of the Dajjal Antichrist Reptilian Shapeshifter : 09

A little history

By HomepageNo Comments
(The White House-Getty Images) Fleeting Hope: From left, Israels Yitzhak Rabin, Egypts Hosni Mubarak, Hussein, Clinton and PLO leader Yasir Arafat in 1995

(The White House-Getty Images) Fleeting Hope: From left, Israel's Yitzhak Rabin, Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, Hussein, Clinton and PLO leader Yasir Arafat in 1995

Newsweek
MIDEAST

How We Got to This Point

By Kevin Peraino, NEWSWEEK, From the magazine issue dated Jan 12, 2009

Three recent books chart the winding path from Kermit Roosevelt with his suitcases stuffed with cash to George W. Bush’s gloomy Nobel Prize prospects.

Barack Obama said virtually nothing last week about the fighting in Gaza. We only have “one president at a time,” his aides argue, and he has already called for a robust American peacemaking effort. Still, as the bombs began falling it must have been tempting for the president-elect to simply avert his eyes. Cries of “all-out war” make the risks to U.S. credibility abroad and the political costs at home seem infinitely more acute. Fighting in the Holy Land has been raging for thousands of years, the familiar reasoning goes; it would be hubris to think America could end it.

Yet three excellent recent books suggest that such logic is seriously flawed. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly, diplomatic distance virtually guarantees the status quo. Because Israel is so much stronger, power dynamics in the conflict are “deeply unbalanced,” write Daniel Kurtzer and Scott Lasensky in their trenchant guidebook, “Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace” (191 pages. U.S. Institute of Peace. $16.50). “Left on their own, the parties cannot address the deep, structural impediments to peace.” Over the past half-century, the price of a generally desultory American policy has been compounded.

That’s the takeaway from Patrick Tyler’s ambitious new history, “A World of Trouble: The White House and the Middle East—From the Cold War to the War on Terror” (Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 628 pages. $30). The bottom line, according to Tyler: “After nearly six decades of escalating American involvement in the Middle East, it remains nearly impossible to discern any overarching approach to the region such as the one that guided U.S. policy through the Cold War.” Still, starry-eyed naiveté is no way to solve one of the world’s most intractable conflicts. Martin Indyk’s nuanced new memoir of his tenure as a Clinton-era peace negotiator, “Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East” (494 pages. Simon &Schuster. $30), demonstrates how hard the balancing act can be.

American diplomacy in the region wasn’t always so feeble. Back in the fall of 1956, intelligence reached Washington that Israel was massing troops near Gaza in the Negev Desert. U.S. officials discovered that Israel had conspired with Britain and France to seize the Suez Canal, which popular Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had nationalized the summer before. The Americans were furious at their allies’ back-room plan. Israel’s then foreign minister, Golda Meir, made an argument much the same as what Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said since then: “Imagine attacks from enemies camped on the Mexican and Canadian borders inflicting those kinds of casualties in America.” But President Eisenhower wasn’t buying. As Tyler recounts, Ike went on television and demanded a withdrawal, later withholding oil shipments and loans to Britain. The conspirators were forced to comply.

Continue . . .

. . . or Mexico

By HomepageNo Comments

Gaza Is Not Toronto: It Has Been Under Full Occupation For Over 40 Years

user-pic

“I ask any of my colleagues to imagine that happening here in the United States. Rockets and mortars coming from Toronto in Canada, into Buffalo New York. How would we as a country react?”

It is hard to believe that the Democratic Senate majority leader would parrot that ridiculous line.

But it is in all the “information” packages that the lobby is distributing, changed to reflect geography. In California, the question is what the people of Chula Vista, CA would do if they were being shelled from Tijuana, Mexico. In Burlington, Vermont, the missiles come from Montreal, Quebec. The info packets can apply the analogy to any two places located on an international border.

And the average Joe is supposed to ignore the huge difference in the two situations. The United States does not occupy Mexico or Canada, If we did, the missile attacks on Buffalo or Chula Vista or whatever might not be considered bolts out of the blue. Millions of Americans would demand that rather than bombing Ottawa or Mexico City, we consider ending our occupation of Canada/Mexico.

Continue . . .

“Enemies of freedom”

By HomepageNo Comments

Gaza Needs a George Orwell Now

user-pic

Israel is barring independent journalists from Gaza, but The New York Times, relying on Palestinian correspondents there, reports that “Hamas, with training from Iran and Hezbollah, has used the last two years to turn Gaza into a deadly maze of tunnels, booby traps and sophisticated roadside bombs. Weapons are hidden in mosques, schoolyards and civilian houses, and the leadership’s war room is a bunker beneath Gaza’s largest hospital, Israeli intelligence officials say.”

The Times account of how cruelly both sides are fighting underscores how badly we need reporting like George Orwell’s from the bloody Spanish Civil War in 1936. Orwell joined and fought for the democratic left against the fascist Franco, but he quickly found something his leftist readers didn’t want to know: Franco wasn’t the only evil enemy of freedom in Spain.

If a new Orwell informs us that Israel, although it’s hideously cruel and wrong, isn’t the only evil enemy of freedom in Gaza, will anyone want to know?

Continue . . .

When David is the Goliath

By HomepageNo Comments

Israel Has Killed 3 Times As Many Civilians As They Have Hamas Fighters

Gaza Children Found With Mothers’ Corpses By ALAN COWELL

PARIS — The International Committee of the Red Cross said Thursday it had discovered “shocking” scenes — including small children next to their mothers’ corpses — when its representatives gained access for the first time to parts of Gaza battered by Israeli shelling. It accused Israel of failing to meet obligations to care for the wounded in areas of combat.

(Photo by Hatem Moussa/Associated Press) Palestinians gathered to receive flour at a United Nations food distribution center in Gaza City on Thursday.

(Photo by Hatem Moussa/Associated Press) Palestinians gathered to receive flour at a United Nations food distribution center in Gaza City on Thursday.

In response, the Israeli military did not comment directly on the allegation. In a statement, it accused Hamas, its foe in Gaza, of deliberately using “Palestinian civilians as human shields” and said the Israeli Army “works in close cooperation with international aid organizations during the fighting so that civilians can be provided with assistance.”

The Israeli military “in no way intentionally targets civilians and has demonstrated its willingness to abort operations to save civilian lives and to risk injury in order to assist innocent civilians,” the statement said, promising that “any serious allegation” would “need to be investigated properly, once such a complaint is received formally, within the constraints of the current military operation.”

Continue . . .

16th minute

By HomepageNo Comments

by Zina Saunders

Joe Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe The Plumber, is off to be a war correspondent for Pajamas TV, a right wing blog network. Not known for his honesty and truth-telling, Joe is heading out to set the record straight about the conflict in Gaza.

Here’s a link to more about Joe’s latest endeavor.

Freyne exits stage right

By HomepageNo Comments

Peter Freyne, R.I.P

I am not familiar with Seven Days, the publication that Peter Freyne last worked for, but I don’t believe that’s the paper he worked for when I toiled as a general assignment reporter at the Burlington Free Press from 1988 to 1990. I was always wary of him but, since I did not delve too much into political coverage, he never trained his sight on me. A Vermont friend sent me a message on Facebook that Peter had died. The message included the bit below:

Peter Freyne never missed a deadline in the 13 years he worked for Seven Days. He delivered his political column, “Inside Track,” every Tuesday by 4 p.m. and was never subtle about it. Shortly after emailing his article, Freyne would show up at the office to answer questions, argue, check last-minute facts and, depending on his mood, terrorize our staff. His column was the last thing we squeezed into the paper before sending it to press.

So it’s ironic – not to mention premature and terribly sad – that Peter Freyne left this Earth early on a Wednesday. After battling cancer, seizures and a strep infection that spread to his brain, he died peacefully at Fletcher Allen Health Care at 12:26 a.m. today – six hours after our weekly deadline. Did he have a hand in the timing of his final departure, knowing the news would break just after the paper went to bed? We wouldn’t put it past him to go out with a poke.

Freyne, 59, came out of the bar-stool school of journalism, along with his hero, Chicago newspapermen Mike Royko. He never went to school to learn to be a political columnist, but brought his considerable and diverse life experiences to a fun and informative “Inside Track” that originated in the Vanguard Press, Burlington’s original alt weekly, in the late ’80s. Freyne was the rare reporter who could skewer a politician in print and have a drink with him two days later. Many of his “victims” became his sources – and in some cases, friends.

Freyne gave up drinking and smoking. And Vermont journalism has been a lot less lively since he retired last June. Here’s a video that Eva Sollberger made of Freyne right after that, when Seven Days readers once again named him the state’s “Best Print Journalist” in our annual Daysies survey.

His passing marks the end of an era. He may have planned that, too. Please direct press inquiries to Seven Days Co-editor Pamela Polston.

Can you call it a war if . . .

By HomepageNo Comments

Can There Be Politics in Tragedy? Or in Gaza?

user-pic

I’m immersed in long-range writing and leave tomorrow for six months in Berlin, but the Gaza war provokes me to share a brilliant essay by Darry Li, a doctoral student in anthropology and Middle East Studies at Harvard and a student at Yale Law School who has worked in Gaza for Human Rights Watch, B’tselem (the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories) and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights.

The essay appeared last February in Middle East Report, but it’s making the rounds again because its clarity and comprehensiveness outweigh its blind spots. Below I post half of it with my comments, but click the link and read it all.

Li writes that Israel’s promises to avoid a “humanitarian crisis” reflect its long descent from treating Gaza as a Bantustan to abandoning yet controlling it as a holding pen. He gets polemical at times, and some of his analysis is wrong. But he’s right that Israel’s “disengagement” from Gaza in 2005 is, not “a one-time abandonment of control” but “an ongoing process of controlled abandonment, by which Israel is severing the ties forged with Gaza over 40 years… without allowing any viable alternatives to emerge.” This strategy seeks “neither justice nor even stability, but rather survival — as we are reminded by every guarantee that an undefined ‘humanitarian crisis’ will be avoided.”

A chilling charge. Li doesn’t mention Israel’s donation of greenhouses and housing it left behind in 2005, but he notes coldly that “Since its beginnings over a century ago, the Zionist project of creating a state for the Jewish people in the eastern Mediterranean has faced an intractable challenge: how to deal with indigenous non-Jews — who today comprise half of the population living under Israeli rule — when practical realities dictate that [Palestinians] cannot be removed and ideology demands that they must not be granted political equality.”

Continue . . .