reed writes

The policies of members of the international community, led by the United States, are driving the world slowly, but inexorably into a deep and permanent conflict with the people of the Muslim world.

IT DIDN’T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY

There was widespread revulsion over the attack on the World Trade Centre; and there was plenty of Muslim support for action against the Taliban.

But many who were pro-west at the time of 9/11, became less so after the invasion of Iraq, which most Muslim Arabs saw as foolish and unnecessary.

The Arabs…indeed most of Muslim world are increasingly critical of western and particularly American actions. They are beginning to see what is happening today as part of a longstanding pattern of behaviour. Unfortunately, they see the American behaviour as representative of western attitudes.

The sad part is that they’re pretty much right.

The attitudes are there.

The goodwill that existed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 has been dissipated.

The pointless invasion of Iraq, the American willingness to engage in torture, indiscriminate killing and the refusal of the U.S. to even speak with Iran or Syria have added to the hardening negative view of Muslims toward the west.

Most observers have tracked the growth of this phenomenon during the years following the New York attack; but the fact is that it has been developing ever since the United Nations voted to divide Palestine in 1947.

Since then,  unquestioning western support of Israeli policies toward the
Palestinians- has been at the root of growing Arab and Muslim anger. There’s
the
impression that Israel can do whatever it wants and no one will say boo.

Decades of neglect and injustice toward the Palestinians and an utter failure to rein in Israel’s expansionism in the West Bank are viewed as proof that western nations despise Muslims. That- along with the more recent military conflicts, combined with belligerant rhetoric- have resulted in what I call the "palestinization" of moderate  Muslims who would otherwise be friendly to us.

At least a year ago JOHN DUGARD, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, noted that his report told the old story of serious violations of human rights. He also noted violations of international humanitarian law against an occupied people by Israel- a State that has always claimed to be committed to civilized legal values. 

Dugard was reporting on a deteriorating situation. Higher unemployment, widespread malnutrition amongst Palestinians and continuing human rights violations by Israel against them.

Western silence and inaction in the face of this rapidly worsening situation are turning more and more moderate Muslims into enemies. John Dugard has been pointing this out for years and now a committee of the British parliament is paying attention. The committee says that the continuing boycott of the democratically-elected Palestinian government is ill-advised.

According to the BBC, "The Commons International Development Committee said the boycott could set back the Middle East peace process and lead to more violence."

We can’t say we haven’t been warned.

Events are leading us in an ever more bizarre dance with unreality and fantasy. Dark and sinister forces make every effort to paint white as black and truth as falsehood.

The big guns have been called out and their muzzles are trained on a former United States President.

Jimmy Carter is just the latest victim of those forces, which are now making an intense effort to destroy him, as they have destroyed so many before him.

The victim list is long and illustrious and includes former U.S. Senator William Fullbright, whose name graces the world’s most presitigious political science and history scholarship.

As for Carter- well-  he wrote a book  called  "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid".

As a result, the former he has been labelled an antiSemite, a liar and a bigot.

Like others before him, including  former U.S. Senator Charles Percy of Illinois, Carter has called for justice for the Palestinian people. And like Percy, Fullbright and many others, he has been vilified and objectified as an enemy of Israel.

The following column was originally published on August 1st, 2006, one of the last pieces I wrote for cbc.ca. and it helps to explain why Carter is now suffering a series of vicious attacks.

JIM REED

IT’S THE LOBBY STUPID!

Many people wonder how it is that Israel has such influence with the U.S. Congress and why it enjoys such favour with the American government. Ask anyone in Washington, D.C., that question and you will get a four-word answer, often in hushed tones and a bit of a quizzical look: "It’s the Lobby, stupid."

"The Lobby" they mean is a group of Americans who represent the interests of Israel on Capital Hill.

Few members of the U.S. House or Senate want to talk about the subject on the record, because, on the one hand they respect this lobby group and on the other, they fear it.

Two well-known American academics, Stephen Walt, former academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago, recently published a lengthy essay titled The Israel Lobby. Professors Walt and Mearsheimer write that American foreign policy has been "unduly influenced and even distorted by this U.S. domestic pressure group."

The lobby’s driving force is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. Associated with it are many national Jewish organizations across the United States and some members of the U.S. civil service. While AIPAC does not raise money to finance candidates, it holds information workshops, sponsors paid trips to Israel and provides advice and assistance to pro Israel Political Action Committees (PACs) throughout the U.S.

PACs are a common feature of U.S. politics. They’re usually groups of private individuals organized to raise election campaign funds. They then use the money to support or oppose electoral candidates.

Powerful political force

In the case of AIPAC, it evaluates the contenders based on how friendly they are to Israel and how supportive they are of Israeli government policy.

All PACs attempt to influence congressional voting patterns and they promote or discourage the passage of certain legislation. According to Washington insiders, the Israel lobby and the PACs they influence, make up the most powerful political force of its kind in the country. There’s nothing illegal or even morally wrong about this lobby. It’s just very good at getting results. Critics, however, suggest that it has become too powerful.

It’s powerful enough in fact, according to those who have experienced its pressure first-hand, to influence — some say dictate, U.S. foreign policy.

The Walt/Mearsheimer essay is controversial and not many in the mainstream media have dared touch it for fear of being labelled anti-Semitic.

In his comments on the essay, Tony Judt of New York University agrees that the lobby does indeed affect U.S. foreign policy and he suggests it has been very successful. Judt points out, for example, that "Israel is the largest recipient of American foreign aid" and, he says, "American responses to Israeli behavior have been overwhelmingly supportive."

Foreign policy and foreign aid have always been the lobby’s primary targets. Even some AIPAC supporters express surprise at just how effective its lobbying efforts have been.

Special treatment

Israel receives about one-fifth of all the foreign aid that the U.S. dispenses to needy countries. All countries with one exception receive their aid in instalments. Israel, however, gets special treatment. Its money is delivered each year in a lump-sum payment, up front. (Congressional critics point out that Israel can thus earn interest on free money.)

Moreover, Israel is the only aid recipient that does not have to account in detail for the ways in which the money is spent. It is even allowed to use 25 per cent of its annual allocation of approximately $3 billion to subsidize its own defence industry. These unusually generous terms are the direct result of intense lobbying by AIPAC and its friends.

Of course there are many strong reasons why AIPAC is first among equals. Not least among those, according to insiders, is Jewish/American history.

While Jews were being interned in concentration camps prior to the Second World War, the U.S. continued to invest heavily in German (read Nazi) industry.

The U.S., like Canada, had severe limits on Jewish immigration, even though these two governments were well aware of the persecution Jews were suffering. AIPAC has always believed that aid and policy support for Israel are one way of atoning for that astonishing behaviour by North Americans.

There is also the strong belief that Israel is in the forefront of the War on Terror and that in a way serves as a Middle Eastern security barrier for the United States.

These days, few in the U.S. Congress venture to criticize Israeli actions or policies; when a politician is critical, he or she is reminded — vigorously — of the American commitment to the survival of the Israeli state, that it’s the only democracy in the region and that more than 50,000 Americans have dual U.S./Israeli citizenship and reside in that country. Most often, the potentially critical lawmaker stays silent and votes the party line.

But once in a rare while, someone refuses to go along.

Decorated for bravery

Such was the case of Republican Congressman Paul McCloskey, an ex-U.S. marine who won purple hearts and other medals for bravery fighting in Korea. He was a popular member of the House of Representatives elected by landslide votes in northern California.

By the early 1970s, McCloskey had gained a reputation as a proponent of human rights, and, as a critic of the war in Vietnam, he was the first politician to call for Richard Nixon’s impeachment. His record was widely respected.

While his opposition to the Vietnam War was never a liability for him, another position he took proved to be his downfall. From his own personal experience, McCloskey had seen that war was an ineffective and inefficient method of solving international problems.

That meant that one of the items on his agenda was the Middle East. McCloskey’s position was essentially that Palestinian militancy, and use of terrorist action to get attention, was fed and nurtured by the policies of the very government that complained about it — Israel.

He called for a halt to Israel’s expansion into territory that had been intended by the United Nations as land for a Palestinian state.

He advocated the implementation of UN resolutions, which defined Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory as illegal and he called for their removal.

A cardinal political sin

McCloskey believed that he was being consistent with his own government’s position, which was that the settlements were illegal, provocative and impediments to peace. They would, he contended, only provoke more terror in the future. But he soon realized that he had committed the cardinal political sin. He had offended AIPAC.

He sealed his fate by putting his money where his mouth was.

To pressure Israel to comply with the United Nations resolutions, McCloskey put forward a controversial resolution. He moved that the United States withhold $150 million in aid to Israel.

That was the amount that Israel was spending to subsidize the settlement activity. While many Congressmen agreed with him, including many Jewish American members, it was to be Pete McCloskey’s last political hurrah. Under pressure, he withdrew his amendment.

Nevertheless, AIPAC mobilized against him and accused him of fostering anti-Semitism; AIPAC had lobbied hard and successfully to make sure the amendment never saw the light of day. It then poured resources and funds into his opponents’ election campaigns and Pete McCloskey, marine hero, on the right side of every other issue, was consigned to the history books.

McCloskey’s fate was to be an object lesson for all other American politicians and even those in some other countries.

__________________________________________________________________________

ON THE ROAD TO EREWHON

Yesterday, Condileeza Rice returned from a "grueling" week-long tour of the Middle East, running a last minute errand for her Man in the White House and leaving bootprints for Canada’s Peter MacKay to follow in.

At first glance it seemed a noble effort- Condi’s chit-chat with regional leaders- but as they chatted there was a lot of sniggering up sleeves. After all, who could really take either her or her Canadian puppy very seriously?

In the end- as far as Rice was concerned- it was a truly pathetic sight. Still, it was all in keeping with the history of her tenure in Bush’s Washington. (She did say that she’d invite some of the boys to Washington for more "talks" next month). But the fact is- Rice had never really wanted to talk with anyone.

She certainly didn’t want to talk to Iran for fear of appearing to be a "supplicant"; so it’s all the more mystifying as to why she went on bended knee to the Emirs and Princes of the Gulf looking ever so much like a "supplicant".

When she first arrived in Washington 7 years ago she was all concerned about intercontinental ballistic missiles and not at all concerned about the Middle East. Now- with just a few months left in Washington, she is all concerned about the Middle East and not at all about ballistic missiles.

Incredibly, Condi insisted that the Israel-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon made a Middle East peace deal more promising; but polls say that the Israeli public think the conflict with the Hezbollah was a boondoggle. The Israeli Prime Minister may even be forced to resign over it. If that happens who will she meet with next month in Washington? (Maybe just Peter).

Whatever happens next, this past trip just shows how utterly irrelevant Ms. Rice is to any future peace in the region, even though she never expected any "breakthrough". "I’m not coming with a propsal", she said. "I’m not coming with a plan."

No proposal.

No plan.

No impact.

Just 6 days of round-the-clock travel, some talks & maybe some tentative appointments for next month…and nothing at all accomplished.

American taxpayers ought to be outraged.

As for the Canadian puppet Minister, whose strings are pulled by an unseen American bureaucrat in Washington…he wasted slightly less money than Condi. (That’s because he flies a smaller plane and has one helper instead of 60). But he accomplished about the same as his American Idol: nada as they say in Venezuela.

"This was very much an opportunity for me to listen", he said. "And that again is behind my visit to the region. What I’m going to do, throughout my time here in the region, is meet with other important players here, that’s my intention, and to listen carefully."

Nothing at all.

Perhaps Mr. Khan will do better.

The following column was first published on November 5th, 2005

It’s time to talk with Iran

Recent anti-Israel remarks by the president of Iran have been interpreted by many as the true belief of the Iranian “leadership." However, we should keep in mind that the effective head of Iran’s political establishment is not the president; that role belongs to the Supreme Leader–a religious figure selected by a so-called Assembly of Experts. And there is some evidence that the real powers in Iran do not condone Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statement about “wiping Israel off the map."

There are deep divisions within the Iranian population and to a lesser extent within the leadership itself. On the one hand, there is the hardline, conservative religious establishment, which is currently in charge. But on the other hand, there is a large and growing group of more liberal, “reformist” thinkers who take a more pragmatic approach to politics and government. Reformers in Iran are under fire these days, even though a few of the latter are also religious figures.

Both liberals and conservatives,  however, see their country as the leading power in the Middle East. It is this internal view of itself that makes Iran such a problem for the West and especially for the United States. The West views Iran as unpredictable and unreliable and therefore fears its growing nationalism, influence and political clout. Like it or not, the country is a power to be reckoned with.

One of the main difficulties raised by the American invasion and occupation of Iran’s next-door neighbour has always been, “What next?" There is no easy answer to that question; it may be answered eventually by forces that are well beyond the control of the occupying coalition.

One of those forces is Iran.

The Americans are sitting on the sharp horns of a dilemma: Sooner or later, they will have to choose:

Option One — Leave Iraq and let the Iraqis decide their future even if that means civil war. That would give Shiite-dominated Iran a very strong voice in future Iraqi affairs (given its close relationship with Iraq’s Shiite majority). This option would need to involve Iran

Option Two — Hunker down as a long-term occupying authority until the time comes when, if ever, the region as a whole finds a kind of political equilibrium.

The real challenge for American policy-makers is how to turn this awful dilemma into a rational solution, which would end the killing of American soldiers and bring some stability to both Iraqi society and the region as a whole.

The first option is fraught with great danger for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Most credible American analysts, including some in the CIA, recognize that Iran is already a regional powerhouse; they know that if the Americans leave Iraq (without an ironclad agreement with Iran), there would be a power vacuum that only the Iranians would be able to fill. That would pose clear dangers for Israel and threaten the stability of the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and perhaps even Pakistan.

Option One could be viable. But the Americans, together with the government of Iraq, would need to enter boldly into negotiations with Iran. Negotiating as equals could well result in the hammering out of some sort of workable region-wide peace agreement. Of course, any such agreement would have to result in a hard and fast non-aggression treaty, which would protect both Iraqi and Israeli interests.

In fact, option one could yield other benefits besides providing for regional security and a rational Iraq exit strategy for the United States. Serious negotiations and subsequent ongoing talks between Iran and the United States could lead to a regional super-pact containing an arms-control agreement. It could also include, as an overarching objective, the elimination of all nuclear weapons in the area, including those now stockpiled in Israel. And it could include an end to Iran’s financial support for such militant groups as Hezbollah.

The very beginning of such talks would have a dampening effect on the power and success of the insurgency in Iraq, at least that part of the insurgency now being financed by Iran. That would make it possible for Iraqi forces to take over the lion’s share of responsibility for security and open the way for the United States to extricate itself from what has become an increasingly untenable situation.

Peace talks involving Iran would also bring the United States to a deeper understanding of the less militant goals of the Muslim Middle East and provide a basis for moving forward on a solution to the Palestinian conflict with Israel. Such talks would be opposed by other governments, including those of Israel, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but that opposition could be overcome.

From the point of view of international security, however, the most immediate result of these proposed talks would benefit everyone. They would mean an instant loss of influence on the part of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other violence-prone elements, which now receive moral and/or economic support from Tehran.

I discussed these two options recently with a policy analyst at a major American conservative think-tank. She called it a “charmingly naive theory,” but added that if it worked, it would be hailed as “brilliant strategy.”

She added one caveat: “Iran would have to agree to continue to accept American dollars for the sale of oil. If not,” she added, “it will be option two and we’ll be in Iraq forever.”

global view middle east

The military are raising the alarm about the monetary cost of the Afghan War. The following was published on April 7, 2004, before Canada became so deeply embroiled in its present Afghan combat role.

When it comes to war, there are other costs, besides financial.   

THE COST OF WAR : DEGRADING THE HUMAN SPIRIT

Wars almost always cost more than the "experts" predict, whether in human terms, or in treasure. A man who knew a lot about war – the late U.S. president Dwight Eisenhower – put it this way: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed."

The Great War of 1914 was expected to be short and cheap. It ended up lasting more than four years and cost the lives of nine million; more than 20 million were maimed.

The cost of the Vietnam War was kept secret for a long time by the American leadership; and the final figures aren’t in yet. The bottom line for Vietnam is likely incalculable. But it’s sure to be in the hundreds of billions. Tens of thousands died, many more were wounded, and it destroyed the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. The social cost of that war is still felt today by the United States. It is even infecting this year’s presidential contest, giving rise to bitterness and calumny.

In an extraordinary statement, an official of the Bush campaign commented recently on the Democratic contender John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran. In a recent Washington Post article, Terry Holt said, "John Kerry’s campaign seems to be summed up this way: I went to Vietnam, yadda, yadda, yadda, I want to be president." It was an insensitive remark that is proving to be divisive.

The high-tech 1991 Persian Gulf War seemed, by 20th-century standards, cheap. The direct cost is put at $76 billion and loss of allied military personnel is said to have been only about 150. But in the final analysis that war was neither easy nor cheap. Over 200,000 veterans have filed for compensation and treatment for service-related disabilities. The cost in dollars is in the billions. The total cost in human suffering is unknown.

The conflict in Iraq is beginning to remind Americans of that earlier conflict in Vietnam. Commentators are using the word "quagmire."

It is an undeclared war and is considered by many governments to be illegal. It is a so-called "war of choice," entered into by the United States as a defensive, pre-emptive action, in order to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. The absence of such weapons reinforces the opinion of those who contend it is illegal. The failure to find the weapons calls into question the "rightness" of the war and it undermines the authority of the U.S. president in ways that are indeed reminiscent of Vietnam.

Skeptics and critics are punished. Before the invasion, Lawrence Lindsey, a White House economic advisor, suggested publicly that the war might cost as much as $200 billion. He was subsequently dismissed from his job. But events have proven him correct. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the amount spent so far on the war is approximately $112 billion, and the final tally could well exceed Lindsey’s original estimate.

In human terms, more than 600 U.S. service personnel have been killed, and injuries to soldiers and civilians are occurring at a much higher rate than in the first Gulf War. There is no accurate accounting of the number of Iraqi civilians who have been killed but estimates put that number at between 8,000 and 11,000.Casualities, including military could be as high as 20,000.

The war has, of course, turned into an occupation and there is a need to pay attention to trauma-related personnel issues including suicides. These result from the soldiers’ first-hand experience of civilian suffering, and from seeing their buddies killed and wounded. It can have a long-term negative effect on their lives and their families after combat.

Many Americans are dismayed to see that corruption and crime on the part of their people may be present in Iraq just as in all previous wars and occupations. The American vice-president’s former company, Halliburton Corporation, is accused of ripping off the U.S. military. Halliburton recently fired two employees for taking bribes, according to a report by the BBC on March 17 this year. Pentagon auditors are continuing to investigate allegations that Halliburton overcharged the U.S. military for fuel deliveries from Kuwait.

As for the war’s effect on domestic politics, no one yet knows whether it will ultimately destroy the presidency of George W. Bush. But there is talk.

Throughout history, every military action and occupation, especially where there is significant resistance, has produced its share of criminality. Army commanders have made heroic efforts to control their soldiers and prohibit criminal behaviour, but not always with success.

The power and control enjoyed by military officials, and even individual soldiers, over those under occupation tends to breed contempt for civil procedure and for civilized behaviour. Those who live under occupation are resentful and bitter and the occupier is viewed as a tyrant to be resisted in whatever way possible.

War by its very nature produces massive destruction – both material and human. The circumstances of war make fertile ground for prostitution. Almost always there is wanton killing and assassination; illegal gambling, smuggling, fraud, profiteering and other types of criminality abound. The longer the occupation, the worse it gets.

Along with the crime, goes an inevitable decline in the moral and ethical standards of the warring parties. This goes hand in hand with future economic hardship for those who survive.

And then, of course, there is the War on Terror. Most agree that the Iraq war is not helping that war, but rather is heating it up, making it more dangerous and difficult to fight.

The debate over the "rightness" of the Iraq war is having a corrosive effect on American domestic politics. It has caused the U.S. presidential campaign to fall victim to a kind of politics of brutality. And as Mark Danner says in the latest edition of The New Yorker, the internal discord "leaves a powerful weapon in the hands of the terrorists, who gained enormously after the attacks in Madrid by appearing to swing Spain’s election against a major ally of President Bush."

Before going to war in Iraq, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said that there are times when you have to make war to achieve peace. He emphasized the evidence of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. He echoed President Bush’s belief that toppling Saddam would make the world a safer place. It may be true in some cases that war is necessary; but increasingly, Americans are seeing the war in Iraq as just the opposite. Powell now says he may have been mistaken in some of his pre-war assertions to the UN Security Council.

The most dramatic horror of this conflict – so far – is the gruesome murder of the four American workers and the mutilation of their bodies by a mob. It is Iraq’s worst-case example yet of how conflict and war can degrade the human spirit to its lowest point.

It leaves us asking sadly, will those lines from Isaiah ever be fulfilled? "…and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks…nation shall not lift sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."