From Covert to Overt

Royal Marines practicing an amphibious assault (Photo: Royal Navy)

Until Revolutionary Guards abducted 15 British sailors and marines at gunpoint last week, the war between Iran and the U.S. and Britain had been confined to covert operations. These included kidnappings of Iranian intelligence operatives by American and Iraqi forces on the one hand, and Iranian terrorist attacks on U.S. soldiers on the other. Furthermore, the U.S. has probably been encouraging attacks on military targets in Iranian Baluchistan. The initial response in Britain and elsewhere to the latest Iranian provocation was muted. It is now clear, however, that this operation was not merely a repeat of previous Iranian shenanigans in the Gulf.

It might all end well in the end, but there is something quite different afoot here. In an earlier post, Noah K remarked on the obscurity of the "game of brinkmanship" played by the Iranians. It certainly came as a big surprise. To me, it looks like some radical elements in the Iranian regime are running the show; the preposterous demands for a British apology, and the manipulative use of the captured troops are evidence of that. It seemed possible at the beginning that the Brits might still bow to these ridiculous demands. But the publication of a second letter by the female sailor, obviously dictated by an Iranian interrogator, and the refusal to release her after all, might arouse even the phlegmatic British public. Let's remember that the Second Lebanon War started with the kidnapping of two soldiers by the Iranian-backed Hibullah, also suspiciously close to important deliberations about the Iranian nuclear program. British Prime Minister Tony Blair obviously did not want to walk into a trap, hoping instead that a calm response would do the trick. But things are not looking so great now, especially if it is true that the radicals are in command.

Given how serious the situation appears, it is strange that there have not been more statements by the allies. There has been hardly any saber-rattling from the Americans, for example. The quiet is rather eerie.

The rebuff that the British received at the Security Council, where Russia, China, and possibly others apparently scuttled a sharper condemnation of the incident, which would have declared that the British troops were in Iraqi not Iranian waters, was not widely publicized. Maybe the Russians and the Chinese were worried that an explicit judgment against Iran on the location of the British troops would have provided the Americans and the British with sufficient casus belli that could be invoked by them further down the line. As scary as it sounds, I think that the U.S. is very close to war with Iran right now. It might all blow over, but only if the Iranians flinch. But the Americans and the British will surely make a show of force in the coming days, with the hope that the moderates in Iran will compel the radicals to back down.

Adaptation of Israeli TV Series to Hit HBO

Asi Dayan plays the clinical psychiatrist who is the
protagonist of the show בטיפול ["In Treatment"] (Photo: Wikipedia)

I was pleased to discover that HBO will soon introduce a new show called "In Treatment," which is an American translation (and adaptation) of the Israeli series בטיפול. I saw one episode of this show in Israel and was very impressed. Watching therapy probably isn't everyone's cup of tea, but if, like me, Tony's visits to the shrink are your favorite parts of The Sopranos, and if you liked Leonardo DiCaprio's sessions with the therapist in Martin Scorsese's The Departed, you'll probably enjoy "In Treatment" (the Israeli and the HBO versions).

It's a Match! Senate Passes Its Own Iraq Bill

In another victory for pragmatism on Iraq, Senate Democrats banded together today to pass a spending bill, which, like the House bill passed last Friday, sets a timetable for withdrawal. The Senate measure contains a non-binding goal of withdrawal by March 31, 2008 (the House deadline of August 2008 is binding). Ben Nelson of Nebraska, one of the most conservative members of the Democratic caucus, is said to have agonized over the decision. Pragmatism prevailed, it seems, because Nelson, who opposes announcing dates for withdrawal, saw the bill as the best way to move the discussion on Iraq toward the issues of diplomacy -- of political solutions -- and accountability. However swift the presidential veto is in coming, it won't be able to reverse this shift.

Gulf Heating Up

The French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (Source: frenchnavy.free.fr)

The US Navy flexed its muscles Tuesday in its strongest show of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Two aircraft carriers, 100 warplanes, 10,000 US military personnel participating in war games in the cramped and contested straits of the Gulf, the fabled French carrier Charles de Gaulle nearby -- it all sounds like an attempt to clue Tehran into its own vulnerability.

Yet the entire game of brinkmanship being played out in the Gulf between British, American, and Iranian players is, to my mind, entirely obscure at present. What's behind the Iranians' capture of 15 British sailors? If you believe the notorious John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, the Iranians timed their stunt to coincide with the Security Council vote last Saturday on tightening sanctions against them. On the other hand, the British, at least some of them, seem to believe that the Iranian's had in mind a prisoner exchange of Brits for Iranian agents captured by the US in Iraq.

Also, does anyone else have the impression that this story isn't drawing the press coverage or comment it merits? Some Brits do. Guardian columnist Max Hastings blames Britain's loss of worldwide moral authority. While that may have something to do with a lack of sympathy coming from some quarters, in Britain and the US, I get the sense that leaders are anxiously awaiting developments. This may explain Tony Blair's cryptic public statement:

"What we are trying to do at the moment is to pursue this through the diplomatic channels and make the Iranian government understand these people have to be released and that there is absolutely no justification whatever for holding them. I hope we manage to get them to realise they have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase."

Rocket Wars

Haifa's oil refineries complex was hit by a rocket in last summer's war

(Photo: Motti Sela, Israel Ministry of the Environment)

A recent headline in Ha'aretz ("Katyusha rocket hit Haifa oil refineries complex during Second Lebanon War") brought back some disturbing memories of last summer's war between Israel and Hizbullah.

That conflict began with Hizbullah's brazen incursion into Israeli territory on a squad of Israeli reservists, on Wednesday, July 12, 2006, which resulted in the deaths of 3 soldiers and the capture of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, who are still being held by the organization today (unless they have been killed already). When ground forces pursued the attackers into Lebanon, Hizbullah fighters blew up an Israeli tank with a massive IED, killing 4 crew members. But what looked like a copy of the Palestinian abduction of Gilad Shalit on June 25 quickly developed into something far more frightening.

Already on July 12, the Israeli home front came under attack, as Hizbullah shelled and rocketed communities in the north of the country, along the border. But the "War of the Missiles" began in earnest on Thursday, July 13, when katyushas killed a woman in Nahariya and a man in Tsfat (Safed). In the evening of that day, Carmia reported the first katyusha attack on Haifa (see also her posts on local reactions that night and on Saturday).

One of the worst days of that war, at least for the home front, was Sunday, July 16, 2006, when a Hizbullah missile struck the Haifa train depot, killing 8 workers, just after 9:00 in the morning. Carmia and I reported live from Haifa, as the city came under attack. At the time, we heard several rumors of strategic sites having been hit. Already, on Thursday night, the New York Times had claimed that a rocket had hit the Haifa port, as Carmia reported. In subsequent days, we heard numerous unsubstantiated reports that Haifa's famous Technion, an institution equivalent to MIT, had been hit, and that katyushas had also landed very close to the "salt-and-pepper shakers" that house Israel's main oil refinery.

Haifa's port is in the background (January 2006)

It now turns out that the refineries complex was indeed hit by a Hizbullah missile during the war, as Ha'aretz reported on March 22. Fortunately, the rocket landed in an open area. A direct hit could have had disastrous consequences - leading to the deaths of hundreds of people

The scary thing is that the IDF still seems no closer than it was last summer to a military solution that might adequately protect these strategic facilities - not to mention Israeli civilians in the north - against short-range rocket attacks. It is possible that the air force's devastating response to Hizbullah, which came with the tremendous cost of hundreds of Lebanese civilian casualties, has somewhat changed the party's calculus. But while Hizbullah listens to its sectarian constituency in Lebanon, and sometimes even to Lebanese public opinion as a whole, the organization owes its power and, indeed, its existence to the Iranians and the Syrians.

The Iranians demonstrated last week that they can still act up when they feel threatened. It remains to be seen how this latest hostage drama plays out, but there is no doubt that elements in the Iranian leadership are willing to take similarly provocative actions in other theaters as well. Meanwhile, Palestinian groups such as the Islamic Jihad may try to force another Israeli offensive into Gaza, by stepping up rocket attacks from there. Such an incursion would surely force Hamas and Fatah into the fray as well. Amir Oren has a worrisome report about state of preparedness for such contingencies in the IDF.

Barbara Lee is Key: House Passes Iraq Bill

Berkeley and Oakland's own Barbara Lee (Photo: motherjones.com)

The US House of Representatives took one small step toward ending the war in Iraq today, passing by the narrowest of margins a spending bill that includes a controversial "time-table" for withdrawal. In addition to providing subsidies for salmon fishermen, citrus growers, and the peanut storage biz, the bill, which amounts to $100 billion in funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, calls for most American troops to be out of Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008 and sets benchmarks for Iraqi and American performance in the theater. Failure to meet those benchmarks could precipitate early withdrawal.

Still, we're a long way from the exit. President Bush has vowed to veto the bill. (A Senate measure on Iraq, which seems to be quite different, has yet to be debated). House Democrats labored to secure the bare minimum for passage. They had to work so hard not so much because of defections among the so-called Blue Dog Democrats, a coalition of conservative Dems, many of whom were recently elected, but because of liberal members of the party who opposed the measure as funding qua funding for the war. Nancy Pelosi faced a real threat from members of her caucus who would vote on conscience rather than, it seemed, pragmatism.

In the end, the liberal coalition's machinations became one of the major storylines. I was initially pleased to see yesterday that our local congresswoman here in Berkeley and Oakland, Barbara Lee, was set to cede to Pelosi and withdraw her opposition to the bill along with colleagues Lynn Woolsey (California-6), Maxine Waters (California-35), and Diane Watson (California-33). As it turns out, Lee was one of the 14 Democrats who voted against the bill. Pete Stark (California-13), by the way, voted "present." So what gives? In a bizarre twist House Democrats gave a standing ovation this morning to Lee, Woolsey, and Waters. The trio had apparently convinced enough of the other members of the Out of Iraq Caucus to vote in favor of the bill that they freed themselves up to vote their conscience. Those are I guess, the perquisites of power.

A united Republican opposition will prevent the House from overturning a Bush veto, but it's heartening to see the competence and the stewardship of House Democratic leaders like Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, and Steny Hoyer. A responsible yet timely withdrawal from Iraq can't happen without cohesion in the Democratic ranks. It appears now that even the idealists understand that.

German Police Cadets are Sick of the Holocaust

Berlin Police Commissioner Dieter Glietsch
(Photo: Berlin.de)

German politicians, activists, and Jewish community representatives have expressed outrage over comments allegedly made by "an entire class of police cadets" to a Holocaust survivor who was delivering a lecture on the Nazi period, antisemitism, and xenophobia at the Berlin Police Academy.

The incident took place nearly a month ago, on February 27, when the 83-year-old Isaak Behar visited the class, as part of a session about the Nazi regime mandated by the curriculum. Police cadets apparently told Behar that they resented "constantly being reminded about the Holocaust." Others made remarks to the effect that "Jews are rich" (Tagesspiegel).

The story, first reported by the Berliner Zeitung, has received widespread coverage in German newspapers since it broke on March 19. A report of what transpired during the discussion only reached Berlin's Police Commissioner, Dieter Glietsch, last week, "almost by accident" and through sources outside of the department. It is possible that Behar himself brought it to Glietsch's attention. The commissioner expressed his consternation about the report and about the fact that it had only reached him now (Berliner Zeitung). An inquiry has already begun, and condemnation has been virtually unanimous.

Reports about a resurgence of antisemitism in Germany invariably make big headlines - in Germany and abroad. There are certainly reasons to be concerned, but I hope that the blame does not fall on the German police or state, for the problem clearly lies elsewhere. This has not always been the case. Just twenty years ago, German politicians and civil servants were far slower in responding to reports of antisemitism. But the current German elite is sui generis in its awareness of the dark sides of the German past and its dedication to combating antisemitism and Holocaust denial - with a few exceptions. I would even go so far as to say that no country's political elite in the world today can claim to be as sincere as Germany's in confronting its past.

While the current German elite, which came to political maturity in the 1960s, shares a fundamental consensus about the importance of Holocaust education, a younger generation of Germans is slowly undermining the values and institutions for which some of its parents (the ones born in West Germany) struggled for several decades. This younger generation, composed of men and women who while born in pre-1989 West or East Germany have spent most of their lives in the unified Federal Republic, today declares that it is "sick of the Holocaust." In the words of one German headline "Deutsche Polizisten: Kein Bock auf Holocaust Vortrag" (if anyone knows how to translate this into equally compelling idiomatic English, please let me know).

Of course, German fatigue about the Holocaust, which once prompted Henryk Broder to quip that "the Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz," is not an entirely new phenomenon. Perhaps there has always been a profound disconnect between the discourse of the elite described earlier and that of German society at large. Things have only become more complicated since Germany's unification, especially as neo-Nazi or "national" groups in East Germany emerged as protest movements against the communist regime before 1989, and against immigrants and leftists today. I think the reaction of the police cadets reflects the views of large segments of the German people from similar class backgrounds. They have increasingly come to the conclusion that the Holocaust is being rammed down their throats.

Contrary to the claims of right-wing demagogues, I don't believe that there is a surfeit of Holocaust education in the country. But an effective strategy to counter these dangerous tendencies cannot consist in hysteria about the return of Nazism to Germany. Perhaps, it might be a better idea to dwell on the positive. Organizations such as the American Jewish Committee have long realized this. The point is that Germans have a great deal to be proud of when it comes to dealing with their history - just consider, for the sake of comparison, the situation in Japan or Turkey. The German elite should be confident of this record and its role in in these achievements; it should speak of German accomplishments in this sphere as much as it speaks of duties and responsibilities today. At the same time, of course Germans must continue to monitor and engage critically, in clear terms and without glossing over the issues involved, the kind of self-serving (and often antisemitic) ressentiment that came to the surface in the affair of the Berlin police cadets.

ON A DIFFERENT NOTE:
I encountered some bizarre transcriptions of German words in a Ha'aretz article about the incident described above. The article referred to chants of "Zig [sic] Heil" (i.e. Sieg Heil), and to the police academy's tours of the "Ziekenhuizen [sic] concentration camp" (probably the Sachsenhausen KZ just outside Berlin). I'm not sure how to explain these transcriptions - both of these spellings look vaguely Dutch to me, so maybe they hired some translators from the Netherlands or Belgium.

Gaydamak is Back, with a Twist

Is Yossi Lapid Gaydamak's Mr. X? (Photo: Knesset)

Arkadi Gaydamak, the tycoon whose political ambitions were the subject of an earlier post here, is back in the news. Apparently, he is now aiming toward the political center. He also seems on the brink of severing his ties with Netanyahu. According to Ha'aretz, Gaydamak, who "supports equality and coexistence with Israeli Arabs, and also with the Palestinians," is hoping to capture significant votes in the Arab sector. If true, this would be a welcome injection into the Israeli political spectrum, though the whole thing is sounding more and more unlikely.

I was intrigued by the following mysterious description of Gaydamak's new potential ally, who is set to replace Netanyahu as the head of this party:

(...) a well-respected senior political figure, who held ministerial posts in previous governments. This person has resigned from party politics but remains active in public life. Joining Gaydamak may turn out to be a significant development for both men.

Any bets on who this might be? Here is another hint:

Following the meeting, the personality, who is affiliated with the political center, expressed readiness on principle to join Gaydamak politically, but also raised a number of preconditions. Among other issues, he insisted on the importance of severing the ties developed between the Likud under Benjamin Netanyahu and Gaydamak's party in the making.

Could it be former Shinui boss Yosef (Tommy) Lapid, who served as Justice Minister in Ariel Sharon's coalition government? I just don't think that would work at all, given that Gaydamak has been building a potential electorate outside of the secular middle class that voted for Lapid. But that might be the point.

At first, I also thought of Avraham Burg (Labor Party), but that would be an unlikely alliance, and Burg has never been a minister, to my knowledge. I even thought for a second that Ehud Barak had signed onto this.

Bambies in Jerusalem

The sign reads "Welcome to the Valley of the Gazelles,

a municipal and communal nature site" (Photo: Wikipedia)

Wildlife is not the first thing that pops into my mind when I hear Jerusalem. In fact, Zafrir Rinat writes in Ha'aretz, the Holy City is home to an

abundance of wild animals, which find an assorted variety of niches in Jerusalem, [and] bring nature into the city.

Most astonishing to me was learning about the "Valley of the Gazelles" (עמק הצבאים), a 205 dunam park in the middle of Jerusalem, home to a family of 20 plus gazelles.

Photo by Jeff Finger, who has more pictures and information
(in English) about this wonderful park

Preserving this park has not been easy, as it is prime land for development. Between 2000 and 2004, environmental and social activists cooperated to thwart plans to turn the park over to commercial developers ("עמק הבצבאים," Wikipedia). This struggle united members of the Democratic Mizrahi Rainbow (הקשת הדמוקרטית המזרחית) and the Nature Protection Society (החברה להגנת הטבע), among others.

In Jerusalem, Rinat reports, environmental activists have also been joined by yeshiva students and citizens from the ultra-Orthodox communities. The writer notes, however, that "one element is noticeably absent from the environmental activities in Jerusalem" - the representation of Arab residents from Jerusalem's eastern part. "Such cooperation," Rinat argues,

is a must and can be arranged even if there is no agreement on the future borders of the city and its political fate. It is essential primarily for residents East Jerusalem residents, who are more exposed to environmental blights and to neglect. As in other cases in Israel, eastern Jerusalem's Arabs have remained invisible in the environmental campaign to preserve the city's image and shape its quality of life.

Thanks to Ima for the reference and title.

Counting the Bodies with Angry Arab

As'ad AbuKhalil at UC Berkeley (March 15, 2007)

I'm not sure how much I can add to Amos's report of Angry Arab's presentation. But I think one might want to focus on the morally heinous obfuscation of the scale of sectarian violence in Iraq, particularly because we seem to have something of an audience (see their comments) that considers AbuKhalil not only credible but worthy of our respect. As you can read in detail in Amos's post, AbuKhalil asserted last Thursday evening on the campus of UC Berkeley that western media organizations like the New York Times deliberately suppress the fact that the majority of the violent attacks that the Iraqi insurgency or resistance or whatever commits are directed against coalition forces, not against Iraqi targets. Amos has his references for this, but I believe the authority of the International Crisis Group was also invoked.

I don't think today's NYT, in a statistical and visual piece entitled "Four Years of War in Iraq" could be any clearer. As for the number of attacks:

The average number of attacks tracked by the American-led coalition continues to rise. Coalition forces draw the majority of attacks, while Iraqi security forces and civilians sustain the majority of casualties.

This is a distinction that was sorely missed in AbuKhalil's polemic. If the high ground is, as the professor argued, simply counting the corpses, I think the NYT has it. Under the sectarian violence graphic, one finds the important qualification: "Note: a single incident can cause multiple deaths."

But what's at stake? I think critics of the US policy in Iraq like AbuKhalil rightly fear and ridicule a shift in the American political discourse toward a "blame the Iraqis" line. It may be politically expedient for the likes of Joe Biden or Barack Obama to dump on the Iraqis in stump speeches, but it doesn't do justice to the colossal mistakes of the Bush policy and it doesn't contribute constructively toward a solution to this problem. Still, I think that if one, in the interest of defending Iraqis against American incriminations, obscures the character or scale of civil strife and ethnic cleansing in Iraq, no one's interest is served, least of all the interest of the Iraqi people. The civil conflict in Iraq is by no means being fought in a world apart from American military operations. How the two correlate, and how the civil conflict itself is a monster with multiple, multiple heads are issues that deserve serious study and discussion.

Angry Arab at Berkeley

Sean O'Neill (l.) and As'ad AbuKhalil (r.)

Professor As'ad AbuKhalil of California State University - Stanislaus, the man also known as "Angry Arab," addressed a crowd of about 50 student and community activists at UC Berkeley on Thursday night. His short lecture was part of an event organized by Berkeley's Stop the War Coalition. He was followed by a former marine, Sean O'Neill, who started as a freshman at Berkeley after serving two tours of duty in Iraq. The messages delivered by the two could not have been more different.

AbuKhalil spent much of his time criticizing both the anti-war movement at places like Berkeley, as well as the state of campus activism in general. Strangely enough, he began his lecture with an attack on what he called "the new pet cause: Darfur." He then lambasted those devoting their time to stopping the genocide in Sudan:

This is seen as a safe cause. Parents think that this is an issue where kids can be active. They don’t know that the U.S. is an accomplice in Darfur, along with the Janjaweed. I worry about how people like [New York Times columnist Nicholas] Kristof are marketing a tragedy like Darfur as kitsch. It’s used as a substitute for activism that’s needed to prevent crimes occurring at a rate that’s larger than what’s happening at Darfur.

What crimes might AbuKhalil have been thinking of? No doubt, the crimes of the American occupiers of Iraq. Throughout his talk, the professor blamed the U.S. for the "654,000 people who have died in Iraq" since the invasion. Of course, a large number of those civilians who have died in Iraq were killed by fellow Iraqis, most of them "insurgents." But in an amazing exercise in obfuscation, AbuKhalil suggested that most of the civilian deaths were not being caused by the "Iraqi resistance." The proof? A 2005 book, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by University of Chicago political science professor Robert Pape, according to which only 20% of the acts of violence by anti-American forces in Iraq are aimed at civilians. Of course, AbuKhalil conveniently glossed over the more important statistic: the number of civilian deaths. A car bomb that kills 60 civilians in Baghdad counts as 1 act, while a total of 4 ambushes of Iraqi Security Forces or IED attacks on American soldiers, might kill 5 combatants.

Although AbuKhalil admitted that a small number of the Iraqi insurgents were terrorists, he called the large majority of the "resistance" a legitimate struggle against colonial occupation. The professor chastised the anti-war left in America for accepting the depiction of the Iraqi insurgency as terrorism. From the Western media, he said, you would think that the large majority of acts of violence were perpetrated against civilians. But most are aimed at "American troops and the Iraqi puppet forces." But AbuKhalil did not stop there.

For Angry Arab, the biggest problem of the anti-war movement is that it continues to "worship the troops."

Why should you support the troops when they are on a mission of colonization, destruction of a society. This is the same culture that produced Abu Ghraib, the massacre of Haditha, the rape. Because of the worshipping of troops by liberals and conservatives alike. Even if it will offend many, we have to say no. We oppose the troops, if they’re engaged in a war against a country that is far away and has not hurt us.

He called on the anti-war movement to change course:

We have been way too intimidated on the Left about coming out to support in principle the resistance against the American occupation in Iraq.

AbuKhalil also warned that the Democratic Party would be no better than the current administration. They would simply be smarter about pursuing the "Bush Doctrine." This message was well-received by at least half of the audience, members of which spoke disparagingly about "liberals" and the Democrats. For this hard core, all of Iraq's problems would immediately be solved by an American withdrawal. And indeed, for them, it is America which caused the division and strife in the region in the first place. As AbuKhalil said:

the festering sectarian warfare [in Iraq] is largely the doing of the U.S. government. The U.S. went to Iraq and exploited Sunni-Shi’ite differences. Sectarian warfare began because of deliberate actions of U.S. In Iraq, people married across sectarian lines, unlike in Lebanon. Saudi Arabia is now deliberately funding Sunni fighters. I believe that a secular formula is best in a place like Lebanon or Iraq. But it is not up to me to tell Iraqis what they should do. I believe that no agreement reached by people under occupation is valid. No election under occupation is valid. These are puppet elections. Once the U.S. troops leave, the Iraqis will be more than capable of coming up with their own solutions.

The rest of the audience consisted of activists who probably identified more with the anti-war Democrats, including a number of people who were former servicemen, like Sean O'Neill, who spoke after AbuKhalil. Only in a place like Berkeley, would an eminently reasonable person such as O'Neill have been forced onto the defensive, trying desperately to explain that "you have to speak to Americans in their language" if you want to stop the war. Like O'Neill, I support a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to safer bases in the Gulf. Hence, I hope that the anti-war movement does not listen to AbuKhalil. On the other hand, I do hope that Americans at large do hear what the Angry Arab has to say, for there is nothing more damning to his various causes than his glorification of the "resistance fighters" killing innocent people in Iraq daily, and his derision of the campaign on behalf of the people of Darfur.

Unfortunately, "the professor" - as O'Neill deferentially called him several times - left immediately after he finished speaking and answering questions. To be fair, AbuKhalil had a long drive home ahead of him. But to me it only reinforced my impression of him as someone who put more stock in his celebrity status than in sincere discussion. It was also rather disrespectful.

More to follow from Noah K, who also attended the lecture with me.

UNESCO Ambiguates on Old City Dig

UNESCO's HQ in Paris

The report of UNESCO's investigation of Israeli excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem was published Wednesday. I can't find the full text on UNESCO's website. Only a press release. In any case, the gist of the matter seems clear. First of all, the report clears the Israelis of the accusation that their work is in any way deleterious to the Muslim holy site. But second, it criticizes the Israeli's for not communicating with the Waqf, the Jordanians, etc., in advance of the project. it would be interesting to see the full text of the report in order to gauge the relative emphasis placed on these two points.

I was somewhat dismayed to read a BBC story in which the now officially discredited accusations of some Muslim leaders were presented as banal -- as potentially truthful. As the BBC puts it,"Palestinian critics and Muslim figures internationally say the work could damage the mosque foundations." Thanks to the report summarized in this very BBC story, we now know this not to be the case.

The other issue, namely, Israel's prerogative in undertaking activities of this nature in land occupied in 1967, is much more complicated. According to Haaretz, Israeli diplomats fear that coordination with the Waqf and Jordanians would be tantamount to renouncing Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount. For my part, I don't understand why the excavations should be stopped immediately if they are deemed harmless. UNESCO says that the Israelis have seen enough, but that is almost never the case in archaeology. Still, I can imagine that, perhaps, in hindsight, a more multilateral approach might have been taken to this sensitive problem.

Talking to Syria

Sunset in the north (January 2006)

One of the obstacles to negotiations with Syria frequently cited by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is American opposition to talks with Assad. Olmert did not conjure these objections out of thin air. But it is fairly obvious that invoking American opposition as the determining factor in Israel's decision not to engage the Syrians was a convenient charade (perhaps for both parties). Now, the Americans are sending signals that the Israelis are going to have to supply their own alibi.

At a closed meeting with academics at Hebrew University on Monday, U.S. Ambassador Richard Jones said that the U.S. is not blocking Israel from conducting talks with Syria. Asked to comment on Ambassador Jones's statement, the deputy press attache of the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, Geoffrey Anisman, told Ha'aretz that

we are unaware that any U.S. official has ever expressed an opinion on what Israel should or should not do with regard to Syria.

It is hard not to chuckle at this pithy response; the Anismanian delivery came through even in print.

I had the pleasure of meeting Anisman last summer in Tel Aviv, and he stuck out as one of the young, bright stars in the American diplomatic corps. He also has a great sense of humor, no doubt acquired after years of watching Mel Brooks and Woody Allen films and absorbing Yiddish witticisms told by Anisman Senior.

In all seriousness, the writing is definitely on the wall. Those voices from the State Department long clamoring for a kind of diplomacy that consists of more than threats and refusals to talk to certain states must be feeling emboldened. The turning point was certainly the agreement with North Korea, which, strange as it may seem, could even earn Bush a Nobel Peace Prize. Bitterly opposed by John Bolton, the North Korea deal basically marked a return to the Korea policy of Bill Clinton. America's quiet backing of the Saudi peace initiative, and the March 10 meeting with Iranian and Syrian diplomats in Baghdad are further evidence of a shift in policy.

There are of course valid grounds on which one might continue to object to dialogue with Syria, as our Lebanese friends do not tire of pointing out. I have to confess that I am still sympathetic to some of their warnings. For one, I do not know how long the Assads will stay in power, and what might happen to a peace agreement once they fall. Secondly, I worry about the effects that bolstering the Syrians now will have on Lebanon's future.

On the other hand, the draft framework for a Syrian-Israeli agreement that was leaked in January is an offer that Israel simply cannot refuse.

Self-Esteem and the Iranians

Ahmadinejad Spins a Yarn

I've long thought that many in the West underestimate or misunderstand altogether the role of Persian "self-esteem" in propelling the conflict forward. This is something I hope to take up in a future post. Of course this is not entirely off the Bush team's radar. Just last month, in unveiling to the press accusations of Iranian involvement in the production of roadside bombs used in Iraq, Bush spoke of the Iranian people's "proud history." And just last week, R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs, in testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said of the Iranians, "They are a proud, well-educated people with a rich history."

Ahmadinejad's mastery of manipulating this emotion can only be gauged by someone who understands Farsi. Still, I thought I would post this notorious clip, which, I'm told, demonstrates this nicely. In it the Iranian President boasts of the native genius of a 16 year-old girl who discovered nuclear energy in her basement! Wikiquote had this translation:

"A high school student contacted me a little while ago, telling me "Mr. [Ahmadinejad]! We got a 13-16 year old girl, third year high school student, majoring in math/physics. She came to me saying, Ms. teacher I've discovered nuclear energy in our house. "Do something about it" I told her to set up a meeting at school, ask [the student] couple of questions, check how serious she is. They hold the meeting, examined her, and realized it looks to be serious. They informed me, [then] I called the head of the Iranian Atomic Agency and told him: "Dear Sir! A high school girl says something like this! Verify [her claim], if she's right then support her" [They] invited our nuclear scientist-whose average age is below 25. [The nuclear scientists] set up a meeting and invited her to inquiry. They found out she is right. They told her let's go to your house and see what are you up to. They went to her house and realized this 3rd year high school girl, with the help of her elder brother, has got some gadgets from the bazaar, assembled them and produced nuclear energy, FOR REAL! So now, [nuclear scientists] have [hired] her- now she's a nuclear scientist too. They have set up an escort for her, [she] comes, goes, has driving service, a chauffeur! This is self esteem!"