The Plot Thickens

I'm not seeing reports anywhere that elaborate on the Washington Post's claim that US and Israeli intelligence collaborated on an investigation of a potential Syria-North Korean nuclear partnership. The story is fascinating, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out tomorrow and in the coming days. These leaks, most importantly, that "the United States is believed to have provided Israel with some corroboration of the original intelligence before Israel proceeded with the raid," are far more interesting than the blather we're hearing from Benjamin Netanyahu, who blithely confirmed the fact of the raid today despite the government and defense establishment's efforts to keep this hermetically sealed.

Webb Amendment Fails

I wrote recently of Sen. Jim Webb's amendment to a Senate defense bill aimed at reforming the practice of redeploying national guardsmen on overseas tours after exceedingly short stays stateside. Well, the Democrats failed today for the second time to muster the 60 votes necessary to cut off debate and take a vote on the measure. I'm pleased to see that Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) showed up this time, fitting a vote against "supporting the troops" into his busy campaign schedule (which includes photo-ops with the Schiavos). The Republican filibuster is a sign of the hardening of positions on the war in Iraq as we head into a presidential election year. Yesterday, I heard a Berkeley undergraduate, one of the many handing out fliers on Berkeley's Sproul Plaza, asking passers-by, "What do you think it will take to stop the war." I'm glad I wasn't asked, because my answer might have been misinterpreted: nothing will stop the war short of a presidential election. This isn't a Congress that is about to force the White House's hand in Iraq, not when it can't get right the treatment of reservists.

European Division on Iran

It looks like Sarkozy and Kouchner have dramatically re-oriented French foreign policy on Iran. For the first time, the U.S. is getting rhetorical support from Europe in its attempts to ratchet up the pressure on the Iranian regime. The Germans, on the other hand, have been far more reluctant to endorse calls for more aggressive economic sanctions lately - in part, because as one of Iran's biggest trading partners, they have the most to lose.

In light of all this, I continue to be amazed by what passes for analysis at the Süddeutsche Zeitung. While the commentator acknowledges that German "skepticism" is based on economic interests, there is no attempt to explain Kouchner's logic or French interests in the matter. Instead, we get a vague mixture of a morality that sees all threats of military force as taboo and the condescension at which the German center-left excels: "Klug war es nicht" ([Kouchner's statement] was not very clever).

Definition of Nationalism

Is this definition complete? Please let me know. Thanks.

Nationalism is the conviction that by virtue of any combination of the following:

1. common language

2. shared “culture” (broadly defined, may include religion)

3. blood-ties

4. geographic proximity

you and a large group of other people belong on the same team.

Further, that you should be ruled by teammates, preferably in the framework of a polity composed largely of team-members.

If any of the previously cited criteria do not apply, you must strive to build institutions, start movements, and create ideologies or narratives to make sure that all those whom you want on your team (for whatever reason) really do speak the same language, share a common culture, blood-ties, and/or geographic proximity, while others, whom you do not want to play with, are excluded.

Changing Course in Iraq

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) (Photo credit: webb.senate.gov)

Don't hold your breath. After two grueling days of Gen. Petraeus' Congressional hearings and several more of the candidates' blustering responses, the change, if any, in the U.S. mission in Iraq is likely to be zilch. The WaPo ran a story today that outlines the insurmountable political obstacles to a fundamental change of course. Yet change, we're told, is on the horizon: Petraeus vowed to begin "redefining the mission" in December, shifting forces from a combat role to a more supervisory one. Nevertheless, the troop levels are expected to stay above 100,000 until at least June 2009.

While one can only expect promises of "redefining the mission" to follow in the proud Bush administration tradition of "redefining success in Iraq" -- or redefining "optimism," that distinctly American, uniquely malleable virtue -- the real changes in the conduct of this war might fly below the radar. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) has long decried the practice of extending reservists' tours through administrative gimmicks. As a friend and fellow graduate student explained to me before he left for Iraq last Spring, guardsmen were until quite recently allowed to return to civilian life for two full years for every year they spent deployed. Today, that allowance has been reduced to one year. We are now witnessing a further erosion of the distinction between professional soldier and weekend warrior. The guardsman returning from Iraq after a year-long tour is simply transferred to another unit heading back to Iraq, in the process spending a nominal amount of time stateside. The "unit" gets a year off, but he gets to go back to Iraq or Afghanistan for a second consecutive year.

Webb recently led a bipartisan delegation to Iraq, and he appears poised to see his amendment on troop rotation passed into law. This will be a significant victory for all Americans interested in seeing support-the-troops-style sloganeering backed up with compassionate treatment for the uniformed.

More Speculation on the Israeli Airforce Raid

As our commenters have observed, the Israelis have been surprisingly disciplined so far in maintaining silence on the air force raid in Syria that took place earlier this month. Meanwhile, in the American press, the North Korean angle is getting a great deal of coverage.

One of the theories that is gaining increasing traction is that the Israelis targeted an incipient nuclear weapons program, which the North Koreans had just provided to Syria. I continue to be skeptical of this theory, if only because the person behind it seems to be John Bolton. This crank has been a fanatical opponent of the sensible rapprochement with North Korea from the beginning. He is now seeking to undo the one foreign policy success that the Bush administration has to show for itself - the neutralization of Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program (something that could have been achieved two terms ago, had it not been for people like Bolton).

If North Korean nuclear weapons were involved, I would expect to see a lot more serious reactions from Christopher Hill and the White House. As it stands, we only have Pyongyang's condemnations to go on, as well as reports of a North Korean ship docked at Tartus. The only North Korean connection that makes sense to me is a shipment of Scuds or other missiles that had been approved a long time ago, before the deal with the U.S. Who knows, perhaps Pyongyang even tipped the Americans off beforehand.

It is obvious that all people in the U.S. and Israel with access to real intelligence on this matter are keeping absolute silence. In fact, based on a conversation with someone close to a Western intelligence agency, it appears to me that almost everyone is in the dark about what happened. However, we are getting some news via the German "spy ship" to which Hazbani alluded several times earlier. Der Spiegel is apparently set to publish a story quoting German military sources, who observed two Israeli F-15s entering Syrian airspace and "being surprised by the speed at which the Syrian air defenses recognized them," Haaretz reports (Hebrew only, at this time). Apparently, the Germans believed that the target was a weapons shipment to Hizbullah.

We may never know what happened, though I believe that in this day and age, it will not take much longer for someone to leak the details. Jeha earlier commented that the raid may have had something to do with the Lebanese presidential elections (so, in other words, some kind of anti-Hizbullah action or operation against other pro-Syrian elements). I am not sure Israel would be maintaining this kind of secrecy in that case, and I don't think we would have seen such a big operation either.

Recent Israeli Air Force Action

I am fairly confident that the recent incident on the Turkish-Syrian border, where Syria alleges it repulsed an Israeli fighter jet from its air space, will not result in military retaliation by Damascus. However, this latest incident might very well be used as a pretext by Syrian proxies in Lebanon and in the territories to attempt some kind of "counter-attack." If successful, such an attack might very well lead to an escalation of Syrian-Israeli tensions.

The incident took place on Thursday at dawn. Only the Turks and Syrians so far have released information based on first-hand observation as well as their own agendas. So far, the Syrians have alleged that the plane dropped munitions on a deserted area, while the Turks have displayed a jettisoned F-15 fuel-tank. Israeli sources have remained silent about the news, and the U.S. has not commented either.

What is the meaning of this report? I think we can safely discard the preposterous web of conjectures spun by Joshua Landis to allege a neo-con, North Korea connection. This is obviously about issues much closer to home. In an earlier post on Thursday, Landis asked, with faux exasperation, "What is this about?" and answered that "One has to believe it is an intentional provocation." This again seems to me off the mark.

I think there are two possible explanations for this incident. The IAF pilot was either engaging in a routine reconnaissance flight over Syria and due to an operational failure strayed into territory covered by the country's anti-aircraft installations, or, more likely, this was an operation designed specifically to test the current state of Syrian anti-air defense. In the latter case, we have to ask whether the IAF's performance can be judged a success. The pilot involved (so far, we know of only one plane, but there were probably others) escaped without harm or damage to the plane but was forced to jettison cargo and munitions, probably to speed up the getaway. On the other hand, given the expectation before the summer that there might be a war between Damascus and Jerusalem, it might have been preferable to avoid detection entirely, or at least to avoid giving Syria concrete proof that an incursion had occurred.

With evidence in hand, Syria is likely to do the most it can in the diplomatic realm to force Arab states to take rhetorical "measures." This could be detrimental to Israeli and American efforts at the upcoming peace conference, and it might serve as a handy diversionary measure by Iran and Syria at the UN. Turkey, too, is in an awkward position, as the Israelis most likely did enter the country's air space. We can expect some grandstanding from them, as they try to appease the Syrians and the Arab states, who will seize the opportunity to condemn Turkey for its collaboration with Israel.

There are some who see this incident as related to American plans for an aerial raid on Iran, or a joint Israeli-American offensive against Syria. I don't think either of these conclusions apply, but there is no doubt that Israel, the U.S., Syria, and Iran are paying especially close attention both to the actual evidence being reported and to the gains they may harvest through the information war in the media and the diplomatic sphere. Turkey, too, is doubtlessly probing carefully what Israel and/or the Americans might be up to.

Norman Finkelstein

Anyone who believes that it is unfair that Norman Finkelstein did not receive tenure should read the man's review of Jan Gross's Neighbors. This piece of tendentious and antisemitic garbage, which he proudly published in a right-of-center Polish newspaper, should have been enough to sway any university committee against giving Finkelstein tenure.

Another Temple Mount Controversy on Horizon

It's all very curious, and I'm certainly not at a vantage point to figure it out. It would be disappointing to see the credibility and prestige of Israeli archaeology squandered. The AFP reports:

Doubts over 'second temple remains' in Jerusalem

JERUSALEM (AFP) — Israeli officials cast doubt Friday over claims that
remains of the second Jewish temple might have been found during work
to lay pipes at the Al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem.

"If that was the case, the antiquities authority, which has an
observer on site, as well as police, also monitoring the work, would
have stepped in," said archaeologist Dan Bahat, a former excavations
official in Jerusalem.

On Thursday, archaeologist Gaby Barkai from Bar Ilan University told
local television that "a massive seven metre-long (23 feet) wall" had
been found, and urged the government to ask the Muslim religious
authorities to stop laying pipes.

Bahat said he would visit the site, but accused nameless
archaeologists with a nationalist agenda of "waging a politically
inspired campaign, systematically for several years, to strengthen
Israeli control over the esplanade".

The police spokesman for the city, Shmulik Ben Rubi, said police had
not been asked to intervene in the pipe-laying work has would have
been the case normally in the event of an archaeological discovery.

A spokeswoman for Israel's antiquities authority refused to comment.

Israeli television said the pipework carried out by Muslim religious
affairs authority, the Waqf, is about 1.5 metres deep and 100 metres
long.

The holy site in east Jerusalem, which Israel annexed unilaterally
after capturing the Arab sector of the city in 1967, houses the
Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock and is the third holiest site in
world Islam.

Jews venerate the site as the Temple Mount, where King Herod's second
temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. It is the holiest site in
Judaism.

All that remains today is the temple's Western Wall, or Wailing wall.

Outgoing Israeli Ambassador to Turkey Denies Genocide

Pinhas Avivi (Photo: Israel MFA)

Pinhas Avivi, the outgoing Israeli ambassador to Turkey, told the Turkish Daily News that while "a lot of people see what happened during the events of 1915 as a tragedy," "there is a great difference accepting it as genocide." According to Avivi, "genocide is a decision by a government to destroy a people" and “never ever has anybody proved that this was the situation in 1915.”

Given Israeli policy on the issue, there is nothing surprising about the substance of this proclamation. The frankness with which the ambassador distorts history, however, is rather embarrassing. American diplomats at least use circumlocutions (if they don't, they get fired) when they deny that "the events of 1915" constituted genocide.

It is clear that the Israelis are doing their utmost to reassure Ankara of their friendship. The Turks, on the other hand, continue to show signs of frustration and disappointment, blaming Israel for the momentous shift in policy on Armenian Genocide recognition by the ADL. At the same time, they are eager to hear some approval for their position. In the background loom the nearly $10 billion in bilateral trade and joint economic ventures between the countries, the entrenchment of the Islamist AKP in power with the recent election of Abdullah Gul to the presidency, and Israel's concerns about Turkey's Iran-policy. It is perhaps with these factors in mind, that we should read Avivi's responses to the Turkish journalist's query about the ADL controversy.

Clearly, Israeli diplomats are playing a complicated game with the Turks. While Ankara plays the rejected lover, the Israelis claim that they are being faithful. As part of this charade, Israeli officials up to President Shimon Peres are promising the Turks to "keep an eye on it" - in order to make sure that other Jewish organizations do not announce similar shifts in policy. Avivi even claims that "the impression we got from different Jewish organizations in Washington is that, the ADL's approach is not seen as the right approach." Given that the American Jewish Committee followed the ADL's shift in policy, I am not sure where this impression is coming from. Are the Turks buying the bull that Israel is feeding them?

I have to wonder, too, whether Avivi's efforts to kiss up to the Turkish public were entirely successful. Asked by Barçın YİNANÇ about antisemitism in Turkey, the ambassador says that he believes it is "weak" in Turkey:

On the governmental level, and as far as 90 percent of the newspapers are concerned, apart from the newspaper Vakit and one or two journalists, I never felt it (Turkish Daily News).

Reassured, the journalist notes that, "For some countries, it's such an issue that it requires the Israeli government to step in. Avivi tells him that “Anti-Semitism has never been an issue for us to be taken up on official level." The journalist, however, reminds Avivi of "false news report that Israel was reportedly buying land in Turkey" and "that conspiracy theories based on Zionism are quiet widespread." Aviv acknowledges that the embassy could have done more to reach out to ordinary people.

I have a hard time believing that there is less antisemitism in Turkey than in France or Germany, where Israeli government officials do not shy away from expressing fears about resurgent anti-Jewish expressions by the public.

Human Rights Watch on Hizbullah

Human Rights Watch has published a detailed report on Hizbullah's rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages during last summer's war. The report, "Civilians under Assault," includes a number of "case studies" describing attacks on a number of sites in the north. The conclusion is hardly surprising; according to the report,

Hezbollah forces in Lebanon fired thousands of rockets into Israel, causing civilian casualties and damage to civilian structures. Hezbollah’s means of attack relied on unguided weapons that had no capacity to hit military targets with any precision. It repeatedly bombarded cities, towns, and villages without any apparent effort to distinguish between civilians and military objectives. In doing so, Hezbollah, as a party to an armed conflict governed by international humanitarian law, violated fundamental prohibitions against deliberate and indiscriminate attacks against civilians.

Human Rights Watch has previously issued sharp condemnations of Israel's bombing of Lebanon, which led to the deaths of hundreds of Lebanese civilians. Hizbullah, it appears, is less eager for this latest report to become public knowledge in Lebanon. Earlier today, Human Rights Watch staffers reported that the group as well as the Lebanese government are trying to silence them.

Turkey Expresses "Anger and Disappointment"

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül (Photo: Wikipedia)

Citing sources in the Israeli Foreign Ministry, Ha'aretz reports that Turkey is pressuring Israel to compel American Jewish organizations to reverse their recognition of the Armenian Genocide. So far, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, perhaps the two most recognizable Jewish political organizations in the U.S., have publicly declared that the events of 1915 constituted genocide. Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül expressed disappointment that Israel had not done anything to prevent these declarations, and talks between the Pinhas Avivi, the Israeli ambassador in Ankara, and Gül escalated to "unpleasant tones" [טונים צורמים] (Ha'aretz Hebrew).

The report is rather incredible, and reveals the bizarre spell that the phenomenon of Jewish diplomacy continues to exert on supposedly rational actors in the international state system. It appears that the Turkish Foreign Ministry truly believes in the existence of a cabal that initiates and enforces policies for all of world Jewry. The State of Israel now plays the role once attributed to the Rothschilds. I have always thought of Turkish diplomacy with respect to the denial of the Armenian Genocide as rather clever. Now it turns out that one of its guiding assumptions seems to have been the belief that American Jewish organizations take their marching orders from Jerusalem. I know that this thesis is popular among certain groups in the U.S. and elsewhere as well; the believers will hardly be persuaded by evidence to the contrary. The Turkish Foreign Ministry would do well to study the role played by Jewish groups in the American political system as well as the views of U.S. Jews on foreign and domestic policy, without the blinders of stereotypes about Jewish conspiracies.

The impact that the recognition decision of the ADL as well as the (characteristically) quieter AJC has made is astounding. In Turkey, government officials apparently "admitted that the ADL's shift in position was a setback for Ankara" (Turkish Daily News). Somehow, vast powers have been attributed to these Jewish organizations in the fight for and against House resolution 106, which would have the U.S. officially recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Criticism and Antisemitism

On a Facebook group called "ADL Should Acknowledge the Armenian Genocide," Jeremy Menchik from Wisconsin says:

The *immediate* purpose, Jewish interests, has always taken precedent [sic] over civil rights for all. Examples: the Sylvio Berlesconi [sic] affair, vocal support for the war in Iraq, persistent harrassment [sic] of mainstream Muslim-American organizations, the deliberate blurring of anti-zionism with anti-semitism in order to slander enemies, close cooperation with the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, opposition to Affirmative Action, etc etc. The mistake in this discussion, therefore, is thinking that ADL would do anything *but* deny the Armenian genocide.

Is this antisemitism? Just wondering.

I thought this was apropos our discussion about the ADL brouhaha below, andI think that my question also touches on an earlier discussion I had with Redel and others.

Anti-Defamation League in Hot Water over Armenian Genocide

A Jewcy Banner in a petition that calls on the ADL to recognize the Armenian Genocide

UPDATE: There have been some very interesting new developments, on which I have posted over on Genats-Lehayim. First, the ADL published an "open letter" maintaining their previous position. Today, Foxman finally retracted.

The municipal council of Watertown, Massachusetts, which together with Glendale, California is one of the major Armenian centers in the U.S., last Tuesday voted unanimously to pull out of the "No Place for Hate" tolerance-education program. The reason? The program is funded by the Anti-Defamation League, whose national board, the council alleges, has not been forthright in recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

Among other developments, the controversy has led to the firing of the New England Regional Director of the ADL, Andrew Tarsy, after he defied the national leadership of the organization and called on it to refer to the killing of 1.5 million Ottoman Armenians in 1915 as genocide. Now, some people are hoping that the scandal will lead to the "implosion" of the Anti-Defamation League and the sacking of its controversial leader, Abe Foxman.

One of the people who has been leading the campaign against the ADL is Joey Kurtzman over at Jewcy, who in a July post, Fire Foxman, "broke the news" of a February 2007 meeting between Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gul and American-Jewish organizations, at which the latter allegedly agreed to oppose a House bill that would recognize the Armenian Genocide. For some thoughts on this meeting, see my post, "Recognizing the Armenian Genocide: Another Round."

I have very little sympathy for some of Kurtzman's other aims, which apparently include "the end of the Jewish people." Unlike Kurtzman, I hardly think the ADL is redundant. And while I can imagine how gratifying it is for a spunky, young Heeb to bash someone like Abe Foxman, I wish Kurtzman could have spared us the self-righteous universalist moralizing. Furthermore, Kurtzman's polemics against the ADL's anti-Mel Gibson campaign are a scandal, as is his pooh-pooing of antisemitism.

Nevertheless, I say mabrouk to the man for his spirited coverage of the Watertown-ADL controversy. To me, the whole episode illustrates something that I have repeated like a broken record on this blog: the American Jewish grassroots overwhelmingly support U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide. It's too bad that an excellent program, the ADL's "No Place for Hate," ended up being cut to send a message.

It is clear that there is a split between the grassroots and local leaders on one hand and the diplomatic activity of the larger organizations on the other. The directors are thinking geopolitics. When the Turkish foreign minister invites them to make a pitch for action against an Armenian Genocide resolution by Congress, they are not going to tell him "no" to his face, especially when he joins his plea to the status of the Jewish community in Turkey and to Turkish-Israeli as well as Turkish-American relations. The foreign policy departments of the premier American Jewish diplomatic organizations, such as the American Jewish Committee, are focused on the Middle East today; they are doing everything they can to keep Turkey on America's side, and at least somewhat close to Israel.

The question is whether historical truth, moral integrity, and diaspora Armenians should all suffer for the pursuit of these interests. I say pursuit because I am not convinced that being "neutral" on the Genocide issue - i.e., basically supporting Turkey's denialist status quo - is really furthering concrete interests on the ground. I have talked off-the-record to someone in one of the major foreign-policy oriented Jewish organizations in the U.S. , who supports the traditional line toward Turkey (on Genocide recognition and other issues), and I was surprised by the lack of flexibility and what seems to me unawareness of the dynamic situation we are facing in the region. It reminded me a little bit of Israel's reluctance to seize opportunities in Iraqi Kurdistan, on which Zvi Bar'el had the following to say in Ha'aretz recently:

Israel now fears that renewing the ties with the Kurds will harm its strategic relations with Turkey, which, as a matter of fact, is doing very good business with Kurdistan: Hundreds of Turkish commercial firms have investments there.

Nor does Israel want to clash with American interests. Washington views the Kurds' ambitions for a federation as an effort to undermine Iraqi unity - Washington's great goal. This is the same Washington that doesn't yet know who is a friend and who an enemy in Iraq, but is conveniently ignoring the Kurds and even their request for an American military base to be built in Kurdistan.

Note: this is an expanded version of my post on Genats-Lehayim.