Page 15 | Palestinians | TaylorMarsh.com

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | Palestinians

Power and Fury

By Taylor Marsh on 08 September 2007

It’s one of the most important conversations we can have and one of the most important
books you can read. In “Breaking
the Silence,” Juan Cole summed it up earlier this year: In
fact, Mearsheimer and Walt are at pains to make clear that there is no “cabal,”
and that the pro-Israel lobby is a lobby like any other (although more powerful
and sacrosanct than most.) No doubt Alan Dershowitz got heartburn when
he read it.

The outraged and dismissive reaction to Mearsheimer and Walt’s paper illustrates
their thesis. The United States faces severe challenges in the Middle East,
including issues having to do with Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, al-Qaida and
what to do about the Israeli-Palestinian situation now that Hamas has won
the Palestinian elections. A debate about the best policies to achieve American
interests is being made difficult or impossible by the tactics of intimidation
deployed on both sides of the Atlantic. With a possible war against Iran being
floated by the Bush administration, the stakes are far too high not to have
the full and open discussion we never had before Iraq. When Ben Franklin exited
the Constitutional Convention, he was asked what kind of government the United
States would have. “A republic, if you can keep it,” he is said
to have replied. If we cannot even discuss the shape of U.S. foreign policy
toward the Middle East without a lynch mob forming, we won’t be able to keep
it.

The Israel Lobby is the book version of the 2006 paper
done for the London Review of Books to which Juan Cole refers above. There is also a
video of the Israel lobby debate available as well. NPR has a more recent interview. All will give you an
idea of the power of the discussion revealed fully in the book written by John
Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

Alan Dershowitz (through a 40-page response) provides the fury. He got labeled an “intellectual vigilante” by Philip Weiss for his troubles.

TPM’s M.J. Rosenberg talked about it recently as well:

… Walt and Mearsheimer mostly limit themselves to exploring whether all
this is good for the United States (and to a lesser extent, Israel). The question
I ask today, and not for the first time, is whether this type of behavior
is good for Israel. Forty years after the Six Day War, the occupation continues,
the resistance to it intensifies, and Israelis in increasing numbers question
whether they have a future in the Jewish state.
Has “pro-Israel” advocacy consistently produced “pro-Israel”
ends? At several critical moments, it most certainly has not.
Was it pro-Israel to lobby the Nixon administration in 1971 to support Israel’s
rejection of Anwar Sadat’s offer of peace in exchange for a three mile pullback
from the banks of the Suez Canal? Nixon capitulated to the pressure and backed
off, leaving Israel free to reject Sadat’s offer. Two years later, Sadat attacked
and Israel lost 3000 soldiers in a war that acceptance of the Sadat initiative
would have prevented. Israel gained nothing in that war, and ended up giving
Sadat all the territory he sought in 1971, and much more.
Was it pro-Israel to urge the Reagan administration to back Israel’s invasion
of Lebanon in 1982? That war, and its bloody aftermath, lasted for 18 years
with the last Israeli soldier not leaving Lebanon until 2000 — after a thousand
soldiers were killed. Just days after Israel’s invasion, Lebanese Christian
forces massacred almost a thousand Palestinians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee
camp. And 241 United States Marines, serving as post-war peace keepers, were
killed (the most on any single day since Iwo Jima) when Hezbollah blew up
their barracks. In the end, the war accomplished nothing and Israel withdrew
unconditionally.
Was it pro-Israel to press Congress to attach so many onerous conditions
to aid to President Abbas’s Palestinian Authority that Abbas was unable to
demonstrate to his people that a moderate President, who fully accepted Israel,
would produce benefits that they would not achieve by choosing Hamas. The
US (and Israeli) policies of all sticks and no carrots led predictably to
Abbas’s defeat by Hamas and a Hamas-controlled Gaza which has resumed its
attacks on Israeli towns.
Was it pro-Israel to prevent the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administration’s
from insisting on a permanent freeze on settlements or, at the very least,
the immediate removal of the illegal settlements? Wouldn’t Israel be infinitely
better off if the United States had used friendly persuasion to end the settlement
enterprise right from the get-go? After all, the vast majority of Israelis
consider the settlements to be impediments to peace and so has every President
since the first settlement was erected. … ..

Mr.
Rosenberg goes on to say similar things that I
said yesterday about the importance of this debate to the presidential election,
as well as to American foreign policy and what it means to both of our countries.
It doesn’t do anyone any good to compete on who
can be more pro Israel while actually doing nothing for either Israel or
the United States.

John F. Kennedy got it started. Walt and Mearsheimer make that point up front.

U.S.-Israeli relations had warmed by the late 1950s, but it was the Kennedy
administration that made the first tangible U.S. commitment to Israel’s military
security. In December 1962, in fact, Kennedy told Israeli Foreign Minister
Golda Meir that the United States “has a special relationship with Israel
in the Middle East really comparable to that which it has with Britain over
a wide range of world affairs,” adding that “I think it is quite
clear that in case of an invasion the United States would come to the support
of Israel. We have that capacity and it is growing.” Kennedy soon thereafter
authorized the first major sale of U.S. weaponry–Hawk antiaircraft missiles–to
Israel in 1963.
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by John Mearsheimer and
Stephen Walt (pg. 27)

Israel is the largest recipient of foreign aid, now receiving $3 billion per
year. What are the results of this aid? What has it done to U.S. foreign policy
in the Middle East? How has Israel benefited from the military largesse? Are
they any safer; are we? More peaceful? What about the Israel – Iran – U.S. triangle?

It’s here I should write the obligatory statement about the importance of our
relationship to Israel. After all these years is that actually necessary? When talking about subjects I mention here it’s the minimum required. The charge of being anti-Semitic is never far behind.

The truth is that it’s long past time we re-evaluated what it means to be “pro-Israel,”
as well as what will be the outcome for continuing on our current course, which
isn’t manifesting peace or allies for either Israel or the United States. In
fact, our current course makes the citizenry of both countries less safe; the world a much more perilous place.

Given the furor over this book and even what happens when I write on this subject,
I’ve got to wonder how the discussion will turn out. Look what happened to Jimmy Carter. Walt and Mearsheimer discuss that, too. Anyone brave enough to broach the subject of Israel, the Palestinians, the Israel lobby and U.S. foreign policy goes through hot fire. Ironically, it’s actually the first time in my life I’ve related in any way at all to the former Democratic president.

Mearsheimer and Walt have started the most important discussion. It remains to be seen if there are enough grown ups around to engage in it without coming to blows beyond words.

Michael Scheuer, talking about the book, reminds me of why I gave Edwards credit for drawing out the Saudis yesterday.

“They should be credited for the courage they have had to actually present a paper on the subject,” Scheuer says. “I hope they move on and do the Saudi lobby, which is probably more dangerous to the United States than the Israeli lobby.”

But it’s Larry Wilkerson who offers my favorite quote on the subject.

“I think it contains a lot of what I call the blinding flashes of the obvious,” Wilkerson says. “But that said, [they are] blinding flashes of the obvious that people whispered in corners, not said out loud at cocktail parties, where someone else could hear you.”

Read full story · Comments are closed

Nuclear Fear Factor

By Guest post on 29 August 2007

Expert guest post by Charles Pena
Straus Military
Project Adviser
originally published on Aug. 16, 2007 by United Press International

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke on the 18th anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, June 2007, under his portrait at his mausoleum near Tehran. – AP photo

Even as the International Atomic Energy Agency is meeting with Iranian officials
to discuss increasing the openness of Iran’s nuclear program, Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remains defiant about Tehran’s right to pursue such
a program — including uranium enrichment, which would give Iran de facto nuclear
weapon capability.

This raises the specter of one of the greatest fears in the post-Sept. 11 world:
nuclear terrorism.

Indeed, this was the prospect brandished by President Bush to help gain public
support for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein. “If the Iraqi
regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium
a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less
than a year,” he said. “And Saddam Hussein would be in
a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.”

But how likely is it that a regime with ties to terrorist groups would give
them a nuclear weapon?

The conventional wisdom is that if a regime such as Iran acquired a nuclear
weapon it could give that weapon to a terrorist group it supports (such as Hezbollah)
and that the group would use the weapon against a common foe of the group and
the regime (presumably the United States.)

This is the logic of the enemy of my friend is my enemy, which is emotionally
appealing and based on the assumption that regimes and terrorist groups hate
us for who we are.

But it is deeply flawed.

First and foremost, there is no history of hostile regimes supplying terrorist
groups with chemical or biological weapons they have access to, let alone a
nuclear weapon.

Saddam was known to support anti-Israeli Palestinian terrorist groups (including
Hamas) for years, but he never gave chemical or biological weapons to those
groups to use against Israel, a country he hated as much as he hated the United
States. The same is true for the mullahs in Tehran.

It is also important to understand that terrorist groups aided by hostile regimes
are not completely controlled by those regimes. There is an assumption that
a terrorist group would use a nuclear weapon to attack the United States —
and that this is the only plausible scenario.

But a nuclear weapon would also give the terrorist group the ability to topple
the regime that supplied it, and the regime would have no way to prevent that
from happening once the weapon was out of its control.

Moreover, it would be logistically easier for the terrorists to attack the
regime that supplied it — rather than trying to clandestinely transfer the
weapon to a foreign target like the United States.

Two other factors would affect a regime’s decision to transfer a nuclear weapon
to terrorists. First, the cost to develop such weapons is significant — several
billions of dollars. One has to question whether any regime would make that
kind of investment simply to give a weapon away.

Second, once a weapon is in the hands of terrorists, they could use it against
any target of their choosing. If that target is not the one approved by the
regime, nuclear forensics could be used to trace the weapon back to its source
(even without nuclear forensics, the list of suspects will be relatively short).

As a result, the regime would have to worry that a terrorist group would commit
an act that would endanger its own survival — especially if U.S. policy is
to reserve the right to retaliate against the suspect regime using its vastly
superior nuclear arsenal.

Indeed, if deterring U.S.-imposed regime change is one of the primary incentives
for certain countries to pursue nuclear weapons, giving them away to terrorists
would be counter-productive and more likely to invite the very action the regime
seeks to avert.

Overall, a regime would have to have suicidal tendencies to engage in such
risky behavior — yet while individual fanatics may sometimes be willing to
commit suicide for a cause, prominent political leaders rarely display that
characteristic.

So while the logic of the enemy of my friend is my enemy has popular appeal,
the reality is that there are clear and significant disincentives for any regime
to simply give away a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group.

Thus, although we must be concerned about the prospect of nuclear terrorism,
we should also not be mesmerized by rhetoric of smoking guns in the form of
mushroom clouds and live in dire fear of it.

Charles PeÃ±a is an adviser to the Straus
Military Reform Project at the Center
for Defense Information, a senior fellow with George Washington University’s
Homeland Security Policy Institute and author of Potomac Books’ “Winning
the Un-War: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism.”

Read full story · Comments are closed

Who Is More Pro Israel?

By Taylor Marsh on 17 March 2007

Support among Jews for an American military strike against Iran has declined during the past year, according to an annual survey of American Jewish opinion released Monday.
The survey, commissioned by the American Jewish Committee, found that only 38% of American Jews support American military action, down from 49% last year. .. …
Forward

It’s the political contest everyone enters. It happens every four years (and just about every year in between). Republicans and Democrats line up for the prize. Who can show they’re support for Israel more openly? Will it be Republicans? Or can the Democrats’ one upmanship win out this time? AIPAC will be the judge, with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid as headliners to this year’s event, which was held last week. Pelosi reportedly was booed. Juan Cole cites the uninvited guest: Iraq, then goes on to talk about the changes brewing for the Jewish lobby. It’s not because of the corporate hack pack either. It’s because of some very brave bloggers who happen to be Jewish, which inoculates them from what a Scots-Irish broad like myself takes on the chin. There’s a fresh debate starting, which isn’t the same old, same old. It’s happening
partly because of Iraq, but also because of the talk of a brewing conflict with Iran. Voices are growing louder. The conversation began with a bang earlier this year.

It began here, with UPI Editor at Large Arnaud de Borchgrave.

Continued here, through Arianna Huffington’s back and forth with Wesley Clark.

However, it exploded over this comment:

“You just have to read what’s in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.” – Wesley Clark

Then Matthew Yglesias weighed in.

The Jewish community, in short, is divided on the issue. It’s also true that most major American Jewish organizations cater to the views of extremely wealthy major donors whose political views are well to the right of the bulk of American Jews, one of the most liberal ethnic groups in the country. Furthermore, it’s
true that major Jewish organizations are trying to push the country into war. And, last, it’s true that if you read the Israeli press you’ll see that right-wing Israeli politicians are anticipating a military confrontation with Iran. … Everything Clark said, in short, is true. What’s more, everybody knows it’s true. The worst that can truthfully be said about Clark is that he expressed himself in a slightly odd way. This, it seems clear, he did because it’s a sensitive issue and he worried that if he spoke plainly he’d be accused of trafficking in anti-Semitism. So he spoke unclearly and, for his trouble, got accused of trafficking in anti-Semitism.

Of course, the conservatives couldn’t wait to weigh in either. This was their chance to say it. Republicans are more pro Israel than Democrats. Now Republicans were sure Wesley Clark had proved the point.

It’s interesting to see a Democratic presidential hopeful denounce “the New York money people,” people whom Clark spent some time with in 2003-04. It’s a sign that pro-Israel sentiment is not as strong in Democratic politics as it used to be. As I’ve pointed out, rank-and-file Republicans are now more pro-Israel than rank-and-file Democrats.
BaroneBlog

There’s no evidence that Democrats are willing to re-establish the honest broker in the Middle East that has served this country, Israel and the world so well before Mr. Bush blasted into the Middle East with his mind closed and guns blazing. Weighing heavily on the side of Israel is the only way to survive the debate,
especially going into ’08.

Stoller makes the point.

Barack Obama wants missile defense systems for Israel and the Arrow. Thankfully, he trumpets diplomacy as well. Good to know. That M.J. Rosenberg gave him credit for “no Palestinian-bashing” offers the dirty window into this world.

Edwards talked about poverty in his speech. But it’s hard to see how he could talk about poverty without mentioning the Palestinians. Oh, right, he was speaking at AIPAC.

Clinton says no military action on Iran without Congress’s permission. (No one has been stronger on this subject that James Webb.) However, to AIPAC in February, Clinton also said this: Make no mistake, Iran poses a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire Middle East and beyond, including the U.S. I don’t need to remind this group that about a month ago the Iranian government hosted a conference in Tehran whose sole purpose was to deny the Holocaust. …

If Clinton thinks Iran is that big of a threat, one wonders how Pakistan rates. Oh, that’s right, it doesn’t.

John Edwards and Hillary Clinton continue to use right-wing, always favorable, tried and true talking points.

“As to what to do, we should not take anything off the table,” Edwards said. “More serious sanctions need to be undertaken, which cannot happen unless Russia and China are seriously on board, which has not happened up until now. I would not want to say in advance what we would do, and what
I would do as president, but there are other steps that need to be taken. For example, we need to support direct engagement with the Iranians, we need to be tough. But I think it is a strategic mistake to avoid engagement with Iran.”
…”U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal,” Clinton told the crowd. “We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table.”
Talk to Tehran, But Keep All Options Open

The Edwards – Clinton contest over who would be a better commander in chief for Israel is real. All options open may thrill audiences and the Jewish lobby, but it’s 20th century language in a modern era that requires more depth and courage, let me add. Does anyone really believe any American president would ever take the military option “off the table”? It’s absurd to posture. Whoever suggested such a thing would not survive the rhetorical onslaught that would follow.

Wesley Clark is a general and didn’t survive being honest, having to apologize for his candor. (UPDATE: Some believe Clark made more of a clarification than an apology, but regardless, Clark had to come out and at the very least vigorously defend his remarks.) Democrats are forever circling the wagons around AIPAC.

However, when it comes to posturing, no one is worse than Dick Cheney. But could anyone be more ignorant about the Middle East than the vice president? If you had any doubt, all you had to do was read his speech to AIPAC on March 12th to have it drilled home. This section in particular was a head turner.

In 2006, freedom’s enemies struck back with new tactics and greater fury. In Lebanon, Hezbollah terrorists who are supported by Iran and Syria, attacked Israel, killing Israelis and sending rockets into civilian areas and have since worked to undermine Lebanon’s democratically elected government. Also
in 2006, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan waged a new offensive against Afghanistan and NATO forces. In Iraq, Sunni and Shia extremists engaged in escalating sectarian struggle that continues to this day.
Vice President Dick Cheney

Devoid of reality, Cheney forgets to mention Mr. Olmert’s part in the Lebanon defeat of Israel, which was embarrassing politically and strategically, which we talked about continually when it blew up. As for Afghanistan, Bush-Cheney are responsible for not completing the job before they launched an attack on
Saddam. As for the Sunni and Shia “extremists” battling each other “to this day,” well, it’s hard to know where to start. But it’s the depiction of the “freedom’s enemies” striking Israel, without the context of Olmert’s abject incompetence that drives home the Administration talking points.

That’s because no one is allowed to forcefully take up a different position where Israel is concerned, mentioning that a regional war, as well as any military option directed at Iran, would do Israel a lot more harm than good. Shall we even talk what this would mean for America? But that’s like beginning a dialogue on Israeli settlements and also adding that Palestinians are being crushed under the horrendous weight of poverty. Insults and slurs start flying immediately.

When Wes Clark dared to speak out against the Israeli lobby on Iran, the torrent of abuse hurled in his direction was spine chilling. Then came Jimmy Carter’s book, which had people running for cover and quitting him en masse, because he dared to discuss the issues. Republicans don’t have the moral courage to open up a real dialogue about the Middle East, because they wouldn’t know an honest broker if Dick Cheney shot him in the face. The Democrats seem just as bad, because they are unwilling to support Israel while also reminding Israelis and other advocates the damage being done to us all under the Israel lobby’s current policies, which all politicians must support or risk political oblivion. Iran or bust isn’t good for anyone, least of all Israel.

As illustrated with the Clark brouhaha, there are emerging voices on the block that aren’t willing to take the inalterably intolerable foreign policy debacle in which we are current entrenched in the Middle East and project it into the future. Enter some very courageous Jewish men of the blogs, who have decided the talk on Iran is one ratchet too far.

… the tremendously well-funded propaganda edifice of the Israel lobby, from AIPAC and the Anti-Defamation League to the American Jewish Committee and multiple other groups, whose dank worldview reaches deep into the conservative think tanks and the upper echelons of the Bush administration. The AIPAC sensibility is expressed in cruder form by right-wing talk-radio hosts who every day try to soften up their listeners to the idea of American nuclear strikes against Muslim cities.
But this hopeless view of the world, however much it is amplified by today’s Jewish establishment, is not the only perspective of American Jews. Indeed it is not even the majority view. A poll by the American Jewish Committee revealed that support among Jews for a military strike against Iran had dropped from 49 percent last year to 38 percent at present.
One could argue that the dovish sentiment expressed by the commenter on the Klein blog is not only more grounded in history, human nature, and the particular Jewish experience than the one we hear from the American Jewish establishment before which Clinton, Edwards, Romney, and Giuliani kowtow. Is it really practical to think that Israel’s long-term security needs can be satisfied by having the United States smash the country’s potential enemies as they arise, again and again?
The blogosphere is playing a role in bringing to the fore these kinds of dissenting viewsâ€”though they may be majority viewsâ€”letting them circulate and evolve under the test of critical argument. But even without the blogs, there have been signs that the lobby’s edifice is cracking. How else can one interpret the amazing document published by the American Jewish Committee last month, which accused several prominent American Jews of “anti-Semitism” because of their criticisms of current Israeli policies? It is one thing to claim that Christians who criticize Israel or the American relationship to Israel are motivated by anti-Semitism; this has long been a standard rhetorical tactic. But to wield that word against Jewsâ€”several
of them very prominent in journalism, culture and academiaâ€”seemed so silly as to be a symptom of something like panic, as if the traditional big powers feel the debate about Israel and American foreign policy is veering out of their control.
…Yglesias is on to something important here, though the situation is more complicated than he described. Both Jews and gentiles have been raising the volume of discussion about the American-Israeli relationship and Israeli policies. On the Jewish side, there is a profusion of important peace-oriented websites. The explosion of interest in the Walt-Mearsheimer essay and Jimmy Carter’s book evince a Christian awakening of the Mideast’s critical importance. The perilous present geopolitical context explains this: a great many people wouldn’t risk the opprobrium of the lobby for the sake of the Palestinians, who often wage their struggle far less impressively than one might wish. But letting the lobby influence American foreign policy toward Iraq raises the stakes mightily. Allowing Bibi Netanyahu and his American allies to call the tune of U.S. policy toward Iran is far too much to bear. … ..
Bloggers vs. the Lobby
Israel’s propaganda fortress faces a surprising new challenge.

Do yourself a favor, read the whole article. It mentions quite a few progressive bloggers taking up the Jewish ATM charge. That’s right. Keep. Reading.

And of course, it all revolves around Iran.

It goes without saying that there are other factions and motives behind the push for war with Iran besides right-wing Jewish groups. There is the generic warmongering, militarism and oil-driven expansionism represented by Dick Cheney. And there are the post-9/11 hysterics and bigots who crave ever-expanding
warfare and slaughter of Muslims in the Middle East for reasons having nothing to do with Israel. There are evangelical Christians who crave more Middle Eastern war on religious and theological grounds, and there are some who just believe that the U.S. can and should wage war against whatever countries seem not like to us. And, it should also be noted, a huge portion of American Jews, if not the majority, do not share this agenda.
Nonetheless, the influence of self-proclaimed “pro-Israeli” American Jewish groups in helping to push the country into what looks more and more every day to be an inevitable conflict with Iran is very significant and cannot be ignored.
Enforced
orthodoxies and Iran, by Glen Greenwald

In the Greenwald post above, before he went to Salon.com, he quotes from a NY Sun article: “New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community…”

So, according to The New York Sun (and the sources it cites): (1) financial support from groups like AIPAC is indispensable for presidential candidates; (2) the New York Jewish community of “influential” donors is a key part of the “ATM for American politicians”; (3) the issue which they care about most is Iran; and (4) they want a hawkish, hard-line position taken against Iran. And the presidential candidates — such as Clinton and Edwards — are embracing AIPAC’s anti-Iran position in order to curry favor with that group.
If any public figure made those same points, they would be excoriated, accused of all sorts of heinous crimes, and forced into repentance rituals (ask Wes Clark). … ..
Glenn Greenwald

I offer this round up today because the American policy in the Middle East is in crisis and the dishonesty and lack of transparency and candor offered by every single one of our politicians does not bode well for us going forward. “Take no options” off the table is unacceptable rhetoric in the shadow of the disastrous war in Iraq. The reality of our candidates parading in front of AIPAC to out muscle the other is a deplorable state of presidential affairs, especially considering that they all could save time and just read from the same script. Engagement and diplomacy seem to be added as an embarrassment.

The only hope is progressive bloggers who have the courage to unmask the enforced orthodoxies, to quote Glenn, so that the conversation is at least allowed. Only then can we turn into a new direction and encourage our leaders to remember that supporting Israel doesn’t mean we set our rhetoric on lock and load for the rest of the region. This is especially important as we look to a post Olmert
Israel, as his incompetence and ineffectual leadership open out on to …. what exactly? The worst could be yet to come.

Read full story · Comments are closed

John Bolton Won’t Talk To Me.

By Taylor Marsh on 22 August 2006

cross-posted at Huffington Post

So, it takes a Supergirl outfit to get an interview with John Bolton? Okay, I’m in.

It started on Friday, but it’s over now. And I mean over.

After three days of trying to talk to John Bolton it’s obvious he isn’t going to grant me an interview. I doubt he’s read (or cares about) my critiques.

However, today I actually got through to one of his press guys. When Kathleen answered the phone after all my calls she knew who I was. “Did Rick call you back yesterday?” No, he didn’t. “Hold on.”

Finally, I got through. Richard Grennel answered the phone. Hostile doesn’t begin to cover it, but at least he’d read my piece, which got our conversation started off with a thrust, let me tell you. I explained I’d like 5-10 minutes with Ambassador Bolton, which promptly was shot down with an “actually probably not” that I wouldn’t get it. Then it got interesting.

Mr. Grennel, Rick, said he’d read my piece and I was “flat out wrong” that Oshry was Bolton’s main interview choice. He’d done many other interviews with bloggers and “round tables”, too. Round tables? Yeah, Grennel said, you know three bloggers at a time. Okay, but what other one on ones besides Oshry had Bolton done? Dead silence for a moment.

Now, I hate to editorialize on the ratcheting up of friction between Mr. Grennel and myself, but it was at this point that Rick seemed to quit enjoying our conversation.

Look, I told him, I’d like to correct the record if I'm wrong, so just give me the names. Puhlease, he inferred by his exasperation, he wasn’t going to get into this and go through his huge files to find out exactly what blogger interviewed Bolton. Okay, fair enough. Just give me one name, a link, anything. If you want me to correct the record I can’t just say “They said I'm wrong, oops, my bad.” Give me a link, one name, anything. Well, you are wrong, he said. That was it. Oh, so you don’t want to correct the record? “No, you don’t,” said Grennel. So I explained the difficulties in my just regurgitating his denial and claiming I got the story wrong without some proof. In street talk it amounted to: Babe, I can’t just correct the record by saying you said I was wrong so I must be wrong. Come on.

As an aside, let’s just say I am wrong and Bolton gave other one on one blogger interviews. Are you telling me, even after reading my piece, which Grennel said he’d done, that a press guy as astute as he wouldn’t be prepared with at least one name?

Grennel continued, and I’m paraphrasing here, but the import is accurate as long as you add scoffing and an indignant attitude on top: He’s got “110 press calls” on Iran, something that is actually important to this nation. What I was asking about was not.

I pushed back. Certainly, those calls on Iran are important, absolutely, but it seems to me that taking an interview with Pamela Geller Oshry the weekend a cease fire agreement was trying to be solidified between Israel and Lebanon matters.

By the way, as the conversation went on, every time I mentioned Oshry’s name, Grennel got more heated with me, finally interrupting me so he wouldn’t have to hear her name again.

“I’ve heard your soliloquy,” Mr. Grennel finally snapped, interrupting me at Pamela Gel–. That last time I didn’t even get out her last name.

It was over, though he did suggest that I could get press credentials and try asking questions during a press stakeout over at the U.N. Hmmm, did Ms. Oshry go that route? No, she didn’t.

I don’t think he liked me much. Especially when I wouldn’t just “correct the record” by quoting him, saying Bolton had done lots of other blogger interviews, including “round tables”. Never mind that he couldn’t give me any names or URLs, because he didn’t have time to do “a Google search”, and besides, Bolton meeting with some hate speech flinging blogger during a time when the U.N. was trying to solidify a cease fire with >Israel and Lebanon is not important.

As Arianna showed last week, Bolton had breakfast at the Waldorf with Judy Miller.

Considering Mr. Bolton’s choice of interviewers, I must say it’s rather insulting. In fact, it’s down right alarming. Considering Bolton’s reaction to Oshry, you’ve also got to ask yourself if the rumors about Bolton are true, because the flirtations between John and Pam are on record. She adores Bolton. It makes you wonder doesn’t it? After all, the right-wing impeached Bill Clinton for less. What standards are we using here? Evidently, our wanna be permanent U.N. ambassador’s standards may be, let’s just say, south of Bolton’s border.

Just listen to her “Yeah, baby” quick Vlog and take a gander at John Bolton’s face. Is he blushing?

But let’s get serious. Maybe it just comes down to arrogance. Whether it’s Bush or Bolton, Republicans just don’t think they’re accountable to anyone. So when someone calls them on it they balk. A few comments I got when I first posted on this are illustrative.

Just who the f**k are you? If I’m Bolton, why should I give you an interview, just because you demand it? Again….who the f**k are you???!!!
If I were Bolton, I would certainly select a blogger who possesses more stability than you. I would never give you an opportunity to use my name to prop up your site, and elevate you with a celebrity you want, but don’t deserve.
Your indignation is misplaced. You should realize that you have no standing to make this demand of his time. Did it occur to you that maybe he is friends with (or is a friend of a friend) of Oshry and/or Miller? There might have been some quid pro quo in talking with them. Then you go off an call these same people names, while demanding an interview with Bolton?
Try learning some basic techniques on winning friends and influencing people.
Dogtown

Here’s another comment.

Whaaa, whaaa, whaaa…
I think when you grow up a little, adults might let you talk to them.
CJ

Israel and Lebanon Ready for More

By Taylor Marsh on 31 July 2006

The troops are getting restless.
via my friends at The Agonist

The latest lunacy from conservative blogs: Qana was staged. Ho-boy.

Hezbollywood?
Frankly, I simply don't know what to say about this,
this or this.
The conservative blogs have taken to calling it “death porn.” They're
also pointing to this
article, which states the bombing happened hours before the building actually
fell. So why the delay in the building collapsing?

I offer the conservative blogs so everyone understands the wingnut radio tactics online. This is what right-wing radio has done successfully for years: misinformation to spike emotion. (A late link you will definitely find interesting.) It's immoral, but it often works and makes people feel like their side is righteous.

We're part of the reality-based community, so you won't hear conspiracies here.

There is also a
video supposedly showing that Hezbollah fires rockets out of Qana. That's not a shocker.

But it's a tale of two wrongs make two wrongs. Hezbollah shelling Israel doesn't
excuse Israel for bombing a civilian sanctuary.

We need a cease fire. Both Hezbollah and Israel need to stop the escalation
now. The fate of Lebanon lies in the balance. In fact, Israel's hope for some
peaceful neighbors, amidst Hezbollah, may too.

Senator Chuck
Hagel agrees and said so today on the Senate floor. He's been quite feisty
and even more
independent than usual these days. He's now undecided on John Bolton. As
for his comments today regarding the Israeli – Lebanon escalation, he was greeted
by a collective silence from everyone else in Congress. Spine alert.

VIEW THE VIDEO

As for America's image, we couldn't look worse. Olmert is ignoring Condoleezza
Rice, and Bush won't push.

When the subject turns to Iran you get a varied response, though this New York
Times article is all over the map. Frankly, I find the beginning sections of
the article absolute rubbish. This isn't:

… Iran has also worked hard to convince the Lebanese, and Muslims around
the world, that Hezbollah is not to blame for the destruction in Lebanon and
that it is a legitimate resistance force. That is viewed here as essential
to preserve Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon after the war, and with
it Iran’s in the region.
Even as Iranian officials fret about the potential risks, they are savoring
the ideological boost. If Hezbollah emerges as the primary political force
in Lebanon, Arab governments, which have not pressed hard for a cease-fire,
may find that in order to deal with Hezbollah they will have to work through
Iran.
One foreign policy expert who is a sometime consultant to the government
said that if Hezbollah continued to lob missiles into Israel for another six
months to a year, the resulting turmoil in the region could make Iran a power
to reckon with in Lebanon as it is in Iraq. …
Iran
Hangs in Suspense as War Offers New Strength, and Sudden Weakness

The whipsawing from one philosophical point to another illustrates the WHO
KNOWS? quotient of this current battle. It also illustrates something very
odd about New York Times reporting.

Since the 48-hour cease fire, Israeli attacks have gone from 172 attacks per day to 2.

Hezbollah launched around 152 rockets yesterday, none today.

There will be no permanent cease fire from Israel until they've accomplished their goals:
disarm Hezbollah, and get their two soldiers back. But even knowledgeable Israelis
admit that Israel's military objectives have not been accomplished. But the
Times actually got this
one right.

And now we've got the
son king popping off. Puh-leaze.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Investigation of Qana Pauses Bombing

By Taylor Marsh on 30 July 2006

Sunday snark alert, sorry, but this is just madness.

The UN Security Council just expressed “extreme shock and distress”
over the Qana slaughter. A 48-hour
pause has been agreed upon. However, if Hezbollah lobs another rocket, all
bets are off.

There is also distinct tension between Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary
Rice, according to John King of CNN. Rice looked shell shocked earlier today.
Frankly, if the Qana slaughter doesn't send your sensibilities reeling nothing
will.

Hey, but let's get real. This is a beer break for Hezbollah, if they drank
beer; while Israel takes it on the chin for this military, political and humanitarian
catastrophe. What a colossal screw up the Qana bombing has been for Israel. Frankly, it's Keystone Cops stuff, only with added carnage; oh, and lots of dead children, too. You don't hit a building filled with poor people because Hezbollah is nearby.

Hey, but there's a temporary lull in this lunacy, so take heart. Give me a break.

Late Sunday, Israel agreed to suspend its airstrikes for 48 hours while it
investigates the bombing of Qana, a State Department spokesman said. The spokesman,
Adam Ereli, told reporters in Jerusalem that Israel would coordinate with
the United Nations to provide a 24-hour period during which residents of southern
Lebanon could leave area safely.
“Israel has, of course, reserved the right to take action against targets
preparing attacks against it,” he said.
Israel said the Qana strike was aimed at Hezbollah fighters firing rockets
into Israel from the area, but an explosion caused a residential apartment
building to collapse, crushing Lebanese civilians who were spending the night
in the basement, where they believed they were safe. The Israelis raised the
possibility that munitions stored in the building blew up hours after the
airstrike, destroying the building.
(snip)
Mr. Olmert told his cabinet on Sunday: “We will not blink in
front of Hezbollah and we will not stop the offensive despite the difficult
circumstances.”
He added: “Israel is in no rush to reach a cease-fire before
we get to that point where we could say that we reached the main objectives
we had set forth. This includes the ripening of the diplomatic process and
preparing the multinational force.” …
Israel
Halts Bombing After Deadly Strike

To hear the line above from Mr. Olmert, saying Israel is in no rush, is pretty
close to the dumbest tactical statement I've heard so far, not to mention being
callous. Hey, but considering Israel has played this like rank amatuers I'm not surprised about anything anymore. However, I have simply lost patience.

The Israeli's need to get out of the heat. Their decisions keep going
from bad to worse. Meanwhile, Hezbollah and Iran are just waiting until the international community stops Israel's campaign. The day that happens the outcry against Israel and the U.S. will get louder, particularly when we all sit down to decide who's going to pay to rebuild Lebanona again.

One thought to add… another possibility is that I'm wrong-wrong-wrong, and this is a fake out to finish it up, so Israel and the U.S. can forget it ever happened. Boy, would I like to be wrong.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Rockets, Lebanon, and Tom Friedman

By Taylor Marsh on 30 July 2006

First, some very big and exciting news. Congratulations to Ned Lamont and everyone working so hard on his campaign. As Joh mentioned yesterday, the New York Times has endorsed him. Needless to say, this is huge, not because it's an editorial endorsement. It's huge because the Times has always backed Lieberman. Not even Bill Clinton can undo this damage. But there are more thoughts from Broder and the Courant, which endorses Joe.

Now, on to the sobering stuff, especially for a Sunday.

When the new Hezbollah rockets were first launched, the CNN general talked about the “khaybar”
missile, though it's actually a rocket. No one could confirm it at the time,
so a big void expanded into a pit. Nothing on the web about them either. I contacted
Billmon, but he didn't know about them, though we had a productive email exchange,
for which I'm grateful. I don't need to tell any of you how invaluable his insight
has been over these last weeks.

I was able to find out that Hezbollah's latest rocket is a longer version of
the Fadjr-3 or Fajr-3, depending on who's doing the spelling, which I discussed earlier. It's actually the Fadjr-5. (Here's pictures of the Fajr and the Zilzal missiles. The picture below is a Katyusha rocket.)
However, I found something else out recently. It is indeed called the Khaybar rocket
and for a very good reason. No doubt, Nasrallah
would prefer that identification, though the Israelis do not, as it
threatens innocent civilians deeper inside their country; but that's only one reason.

Hezbollah's Khaybar rocket is named after the Battle
of Khaybar in 629 A.D. Khaybar is considered an historical oasis by anyone
who has written about the famous location, which is around 95 miles from Medina
(once spelled “Madinah”)
on the Arabian Peninsula, now known simply as Saudi Arabia. Khaybar was once
inhabited by Jews, but in the 629 A.D. battle, Muhammed and his followers attacked
Khaybar and expelled the Jews, though it wouldn't be until the next caliph (Islamic leader) before they would vacate the peninsula completely. This battle was significant
to Muslims because it signaled the beginning of the rise of Islam. The naming
of the missile is no doubt symbolic. Hezbollah's
new rocket, which is not guided like a missile, is being
reported by the Israelis like this: “Khaibar-1 rockets were renamed, Iranian-made Fajr-5s.”
This is for obvious reasons.

Here's a very interesting

clip
from CNN last night, which gives some background, which is helpful. Also
covered is the environmental disaster from an Israeli strike that released over
15,000 tons of oil along the Lebanese coast. CNN military analyst David Grange
explains the rocket at the end of the clip.

VIEW THE VIDEO

This second clip is a re-run of Tim Russert's interview of Thomas Friedman
on CNBC last weekend. I wrote about the discussion last Sunday in About
Syria, because I found it significant, though it was more of a gut feeling.
Russert made a point of saying Friedman's bags were packed for Israel and Syria,
then Tom continued on talking about Syria's importance. Here's
the clip I explain in the post “About Syria.” above.

VIEW THE VIDEO

Well, Friedman will now be on “Meet the Press” today, after coming
back from Israel and Syria. I obviously have no idea what will transpire, but
Russert is pushing Friedman hard. An interview airing two Saturdays in a row
on CNBC, which also happened to announce Friedman's trip to Israel and Syria;
now a follow-up interview when Tom returns to be broadcast on “Meet the
Press.” All this Timmy and Tom stuff can't be a coincidence, but I could
be wrong.

Unfortunately, no matter what Tom brings home, or what Condoleezza concocts
can balance this sobering military account from an Israeli, Ze'ev Schiff (h/t
Billmon).

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the figure leading the strategy
of changing the situation in Lebanon, not Prime Minister Ehud Olmert or Defense
Minister Amir Peretz. She has so far managed to withstand international pressure
in favor of a cease-fire, even though this will allow Hezbollah to retain
its status as a militia armed by Iran and Syria.
As such, she needs military cards, and unfortunately Israel has not succeeded
to date in providing her with any. Besides bringing Hezbollah and Lebanon
under fire, all of Israel's military cards at this stage are in the form of
two Lebanese villages near the border that have been captured by the IDF.
…
ANALYSIS: Israel
failing to give U.S. the military cards it needs

Israel has played this terribly because they never had any intention of destroying
Hezbollah, not realistically. The memories of the last time they marched into Lebanon
still burn. However, this disaster, with Bush's horrific fumbling and waiting, will likely
have long term ramifications for us all. An emboldened Hezbollah is the last thing we need right now.