My piece on this is here. Also archived here.
This piece was a quick out-take, if you like, from some of the research I dd for my presentation at the MEPC mini-conference Thursday.
Actually, I had wanted to write for IPS this week either on Hamas or on some of the broad regional implications of the US troop drawdown in Iraq. But my friend Jim Lobe, the editor who decides these things, said he had news stories coming in on both those topics so I should do my analysis on something else.
Ah well, I try to be flexible. (And as longtime JWN readers know, I have a long-lived interest in matters of logistics and their effect on geopolitics.)
More Hamas for them later, I’m sure. Also, more Iraq. I don’t think either of those stories is going to go away any time soon.
Tehran Showdown: Rafsanjani Speaks (full text)
The fissures that have opened up at the center of the Islamic Republic are again much on display.
Influential Iranian politician Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani’s appearance today as Tehran’s Friday Prayer leader was even more profound and stunning than billed. As I’ve posted here before, when Rafsanjani speaks, people listen. And today, he had much to say.
Officially, the former President, Parliamentary Speaker, and close aide to Ayatollah Khomeini, now heads both the Expediency Council, a body that often reconciles log-jams within “the system,” and the Assembly of Experts, the body entrusted with appointing and even supervising the Supreme Leader.
Yes, he’s controversial. Many of the same reformists and leftists who today count the “pragmatic” Rafsanjani as an ally four years ago could not bear to support him against current President Ahmadinejad. Times change. In one of the debates just prior to the election, Ahmadinejad threw mud at Rafsanjani, hoping to taint reformist candidate Mir Hossein Musavi with the corruption smear by extension.
Since the controversy over the June 12th Presidential elections, Rafsanjani has been largely silent, and skipped a turn or two as Friday Prayer Leader. But not today.
As there are several very “thin” instant translations circulating, I post to the extension below a complete translation of Rafsanjani’s second sermon, as provided by BBC/OSC.
Last night, I’d heard from friends in Tehran who were worried that Rafsanjani “would pull a Khatami” — and talk about unity and preserving the revolution, while selling short the ongoing disquiet over the elections..
Quite the contrary, Rafsanjani’s speech was remarkably bold and unprecedented (for him). Rafsanjani has set out markers about legitimacy, “the people” and Islamic governance that will be of interest not just for Iran’s system, but for Islamists everywhere to consider.
“Everything depends on people…. The title of Islamic Republic is not just a formality…. If it looses its Islamic aspect, we will go astray. If it looses its republican aspect, it [The Islamic Republic] will not be realized. Based on the reasons that I have offered, without people and their vote there would be no Islamic system.”
Rafsanjani goes on to emphasize the plausible presence of “doubt” in the minds of Iranians about the legitimacy of the recent elections. This “bitter” doubt, “the worst disaster” — “a plague” – was not put there by foreign media, but by shameful behavior from within, by Iran’s own supervising Guardian Council and its state controlled TV media.:
“We are independent… Do we not have 30-year experience of running the country? Do we not have ulema? Why should our Sources [of Emulation, meaning senior clerics], who always have been supportive, and our seminary schools, which have never had any expectations for their efforts, be upset today.”
This is a not so subtle challenge to the very legitimacy of Supreme Leader Khamenei — in referencing the fact that several of Iran’s most senior Grand Ayatollah’s have been letting their displeasure be known. (a fact woefully missed or ignored in a recent WINEP essay)
Rafsanjani’s suggestions for restoring “trust” in the system (something hardliners don’t admit is lacking) boil down to:
1. Act strictly within the law. (e.g., especially law enforcement)
2. Promote dialogue and foster climate for free thinking and reason to prevail.
3. Free all those arrested amid protests.
4. Compensate those harmed in the disturbances.
5. Ease up on the media.
Rafsanjani does reference the need for unity, and he hopes his words will be “a turning point for the future,” to resolve the present “crisis.” That may be optimistic.
Ball now back to Leader Khamenei’s court.
(Full text in extension below:)
****************************
Continue reading “Tehran Showdown: Rafsanjani Speaks (full text)”
Recalling the importance of the Iraqi-US Withdrawal Agreement
At yesterday’s panel discussion on the regional implications of the US withdrawal from Iraq, former assistant secretary of defense Larry Korb started off his presentation by saying,
- We need to remember how just plain lucky we are that the Bush administration did sign the Withdrawal Agreement/SOFA last November. This has been a really good thing– for us Americans, for the Iraqis, for everyone. And we need to remember that it wouldn’t have happened at all if the Iraqis hadn’t insisted on it.
So now, we don’t have to have any endless debate in this country over “who lost Iraq”, as we did over “who lost Vietnam.”
Korb is a very pleasant guy, whose specialty is really force planning. He mentioned some of the extreme stresses that the Iraq war inflicted on the US military. Including, he cited a recent study from the Rand Corp. that says that some 350,000 US troops who have been subjected to the stresses of repeated deployment now have mental-health problems.
Well, from Korb’s perspective it might look as if it was just “luck” that motivated the Iraqi government to insist on getting Washington to sign a Withdrawal Agreement that includes a date certain for the exit of all US forces from Iraq.
The PDF of the Agreement’s text can now be found here. It stipulates, Article 24 (1) that:
- All United States forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.
But of course it wasn’t just “luck” that motivated the Iraqi government to insist on the agreement. It was the determined organizing and activity of nationalist-minded members of Iraq’s parliament that pushed the Maliki government to do so.
You may recall that in the weeks leading up to the late-November signing of the final text, the official spin from the Bush administration side was that no, of course there wouldn’t be any complete withdrawal, and nor would there be any defined deadlines.
But there were. Both of them. And it was the Bush administration that signed off on it. Which means the Republicans are now in no position at all to blame Obama for “cutting and running”, or even, really, to blame him for many of the things that might yet go wrong with the withdrawal as it proceeds towards its end-of-2011 deadline.
Yesterday, I finally caught up again with Raed Jarrar, the tireless organizer in DC for a US withdrawal from Iraq. He was the key person, last summer, who coordinated a visit to DC by an Iraqi parliamentary delegation that helped people in this country start to understand more about the dynamics within the Iraqi parliament.
Raed is currently working with the American Friends Service Committee. Last month he and two colleagues from the Friends Committee on National Legislation had another good victory– this time working with the US legislature: They got the House of Representatives to include in the military budget authorization bill crystal-clear language that:
- 1. Affirms the United States legal agreement with Iraq to withdraw all U.S. military troops from that country by December 31, 2011; and
2. Requires the Defense Department to submit detailed quarterly reports to six congressional committees on their progress in meeting various parameters of that withdrawal.
This has been a tremendous initiative! It is the first explicit acknowledgment and support coming from the US Congress for the Withdrawal Agreement.
Raed said yesterday that they are pretty confident the same language will be included in the bill adopted by the Senate.
Now, he’s working on helping parliamentarians from Iraq and Kuwait win support for an initiative to end Kuwait’s longstanding financial and other claims against Iraq, so that Iraq can be brought out of the “Chapter Seven” position it is still in, under the terms of the UN Charter.
… Bottom line: No, Larry Korb, it is not just dumb luck that gives the US and Iraq a Withdrawal Agreement that turns out to be good for everyone. It is the dedicated organizing of sometimes small groups of people, working for just ends. As Margaret Mead said (paraphrasing here): “Never doubt that a small group of people can change the world. It’s the only thing that ever has.”
(More from the conference, later.)
—-
Apologies for the horrid typos that I’d left in here this morning. I was rushing to catch a train. And succeeded, so that was good. ~HC.
Hamas’s diplomatic openings
I have a lot more to blog about Hamas. Including this news report that Tom Pickering, a former US Under-Secretary of State and ambassador to the UN, met with Mahmoud Zahhar, foreign minister in the PA government that was elected in 2006, in Switzerland recently.
But I’m finishing my preps for my presentation on regional implications of the US withdrawal from Iraq.
More later.
Netanyahu spokesman uses racist attack against HRW
For many years now, successive governments of Israel– and their blind-love cheering sections in western countries– have tried to “shoot the messenger” when human rights groups or international bodies like, erm, the UN, have criticized official Israeli practices.
So at one level it’s nothing new that Netanyahu’s spokesman Mark Regev yesterday slammed Human Rights Watch’s objectivity, claiming it had “lost its moral compass.”
HRW’s sin? A delegation from the organization went to Saudi Arabia in May to raise money and to work with local rights activists on brainstorming strategies for addressing some of the Kingdom’s own very large-scale human rights problems.
Oh, it’s that old “tainted Arab money” story again. How racist can Regev get?
Let’s be clear here: Neither in Saudi Arabia nor anywhere else has HRW ever raised money from governments. I’ve been on the organization’s Middle East advisory committee for 17 years. I would never have gone on if they’d been an organization that accepts government funding– from anyone.
HRW’s fund-raising dinner in Riyadh was hosted by a private individual.
The report linked to there was by Nasser Salti of Arab News. He focused a little on the part of the presentation made by the HRW team where Middle East division head Sarah Leah Whitson described some of the work HRW has done on Israel. He also noted that,
- Keeping with its mission of even-handed criticism, Human Rights Watch has also leveled criticism at other states in the region, including Saudi Arabia. The organization recently called on the Kingdom to do more to protect the human rights of domestic workers…
Knowing Sarah Leah as I do, I am confident that her presentation at the dinner was professional and even-handed.
HRW does fund-raising events like this all the time— mainly in the US, but also in other countries around the world. It has, as it happens, a particularly rich network of long-time Jewish-American donors.
So what is wrong with trying to raise money for worldwide human-rights work from people in Arab countries??
Would Mark Regev prefer that wealthy Saudis who want to engage in philanthropy do so by donating to the Taliban?
I don’t know how much money HRW netted from Sarah Leah’s visit to Saudi Arabia. But one other clear result of the brainstorming she and her colleagues were able to do with Saudi counterparts there was this well-researched report, which HRW published last week, which calls for an end to Saudi abuses of their millions of migrant workers, who face what the report called “slavery-like conditions.”
Perhaps Mark Regev is indifferent to the fate of those millions of people?
He told the Jerusalem Post,
- “If you can fundraise in Saudi Arabia, why not move on to Somalia, Libya and North Korea?… For an organization that claims to offer moral direction, it appears that Human Rights Watch has seriously lost its moral compass.”
This is a really pathetic argument. As Sarah Leah herself pointed out to the JP reporter, it is always quite necessary, in human rights work, to distinguish between a government and its people, and “Certainly not everyone is tainted by the misconduct of their government.”
Regev’s attack against HRW is, it seems, just part of a broader attack the Israeli government is planning against HRW and Amnesty International.
The JP reporter, Herb Keinon, writes,
- Regev’s comments came two weeks after Israel was ripped for alleged misconduct during Operation Cast Lead in reports issued by HRW and Amnesty International, two of the highest-profile human rights NGOs. Israel has decided to take a much more aggressive stance toward future reports issued by these organizations, the Post has learned.
“We will make a greater effort in the future to go through their reports with a fine-tooth comb, expose the inconsistencies and their problematic use of questionable data,” one senior official said.
“We discovered during the Gaza operation and the Second Lebanon War that these organizations come in with a very strong agenda, and because they claim to have some kind of halo around them, they receive a status that they don’t deserve,” he said.
The Foreign Ministry is currently considering how best to expand its focus and deal more systematically with this issue, and it is assumed this will be done together with the Prime Minister’s Office, the Post has learned.
The Israeli government will probably also be working in close conjunction with a new, Jerusalem-based group called “NGO Monitor” (which is funded, for what it’s worth, by the Weschler Family Foundation, Newt Becker of Los Angeles, and Ben & Esther Rosenbloom Foundation of Baltimore.)
When I was in Israel in February/March I did make, as JWN readers knew at the time, several attempts to get myself accredited as a visiting reporter with the Israeli government’s press office in Beit Agron, West Jerusalem. Sadly, they claimed they’d never heard of The Nation (!!!) and I never got it.
But the helpful young man in the GPO office there, Jason, pressed upon me several brochures from “NGO Monitor” and urged me to do a story about their “revelations.” (He really wasn’t terribly swift… )
Anyway, Regev’s use of the old “Arab money” canard is one that should absolutely be exposed for the racist thinking that it is.
This Thursday: Speaking on implications of withdrawal from Iraq
If you’re in the Washington DC area on Thursday morning, note that I’ll be participating in what looks like (PDF) a pretty informative event. It’s brought to you by the Middle East Policy Council, former home of my esteemed friend, Amb. Chas Freeman:
- You and your colleagues are invited to the 57th in the MEPC’s Capitol Hill Conference Series on U.S. Middle East policy:
U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq:
What are the Regional Implications?
SPEAKERS:
James F. Dobbins
Director, International Security and Defense Policy Center, RAND Corporation;
Former assistant secretary of state and special envoy to Afghanistan
Ellen Laipson
President and CEO, Stimson Center; former vice-chair, National Intelligence Council
Helena Cobban
Publisher, JustWorldNews.org; author, Re-engage! America and the World After Bush
Lawrence J. Korb
Senior fellow, Center for American Progress; former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration
MODERATOR:
Thomas R. Mattair
Consultant; book review editor, MEPC; author, Global Security Watch – Iran: A Reference Handbook
Thursday, July 16, 2009, 9:30 – Noon
Capitol Visitor Center, HVC-215
R.S.V.P. Acceptances Only: (202) 296-6767 or E-mail: info@mepc.org
Max B. “feels the hate” in Tel Aviv
The gifted video-journo Max Blumenthal has now brought us a vivid picture of the racist hatred that is so freely expressed by some young people in Tel Aviv.
This adds to Max’s growing “hate in Israel” library. The first installment was “Feeling the hate in Jerusalem”, which he released last month.
In Jerusalem, Max was interviewing mainly a bunch of pampered and drunk visiting young Jewish Americans. This time, his subjects include some young, apparently raised-in-Israel Jewish Israelis participating in some kind of street festival. Max notes that one of them described Pres Obama as “a Nazi, a Muslim, and a ‘Cushi,’ which is Hebrew slang for ‘nigger.’ When questioned about the source of his opinions, one teenager proudly declared himself a ‘gezan,’ or a racist.”
… Anyway, go see for yourself what kind of racist hate-speech seems to be considered quite okay to use in the public discourse in today’s Israel.
Great work, Max!
Younger Israeli peaceniks: Dov Kheinin
One Israeli/American friend commented on my BR piece that it seemed I interviewed mainly Israeli peace movement people who are over 65. He suggested–and I agreed– that it would have been excellent to interview, among others, Hadash (Communist Party) MK Dov Kheinin.
Another friend then pointed to this very informative interview in English with Kheinin, that was published in February 12. Two days after the Israeli election, if memory serves me well.
It was conducted by phone on January 6, that is, while the assault on Gaza was still raging; and it was posted by Josh Nathan-Kazis.
The whole interview is very important. But here’s just the beginning:
- … What is your position on Israel’s actions in Gaza?
We of course oppose the war in Gaza. We think that the war cannot be and is not actually a solution to the problem. It is part of the problem. We think that the only way to achieve security for the people in the Israeli Negev is through a real cease-fire with Gaza, including the opening of the blockade on the Gaza strip and an agreement on an exchange of prisoners and detainees including the release of Gilad Shalit [an Israeli soldier abducted by Hamas in 2006]. We think that such a ceasefire agreement is possible and such an agreement can open a possibility for a real dialogue; a political dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians and the Palestinian National Authority in order to achieve a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian settlement.
What do you make of Meretz’s initial support for the bombardment, and the support of the mainstream Jewish Israeli left?
Well, unfortunately Meretz supports the war. It is most unfortunate. I think that this is the moment for leftists to raise opposition and to make it clear to the Israeli public that there is an alternative. The war option is not the only one. We can have another political way.
Why is it that they supported the bombardment and your party doesn’t? Are there political considerations that exist for them that don’t exist for Hadash?
I think that it is time for political courage. You have to be courageous in [Israel] right now to oppose the war. But this is the time not to wonder where the wind blows, but to make it clear what your policies are and what your suggestions are for the Israeli situation. There are people from Meretz who decided to leave Meretz and join us. It reflects the disappointment of some Meretz activists in the position of the leadership of the party vis-à-vis the war.
Hadash is often grouped in the media with the Arab parties, and your voters are mostly Israeli Arab. What does it mean for Hadash to be a mixed Jewish Arab party?
You know, Israeli policy is based more and more on the total separation between the Jews and the Arabs. This separation exists not only on social and cultural grounds but also in the way politics are being conducted. As a matter of fact, there are two lines of politics in Israel. There is the line of politics for the Jews spoken in Hebrew and there is a different line of politics for the Arabs spoken in Arabic. It is extremely important to have these very brave political experiments of Hadash combining Jews and Arabs together into a joint political movement based on the same political principles. This is the reason why Hadash is so important in the Israeli political spectrum…
Big thanks to the friends who drew the interview to my attention.
Afghan women call for end of war
I just watched the 11-minute video clip “Women of Afghanistan”, from Rethinkafghanistan.com.
It is very compelling.
At about 6:40 minutes, there’s a great short interview with Wall Street Journal correspondent Anand Gopal who explains very clearly that, while Afghan women were “imprisoned inside their houses” both under the Taliban and today, today many of them are also, in addition, living in the middle of a war zone in which women and children are disproportionately casualties.
He says (paraphrased),
- I have heard some women say that their life was better under the Taliban because, though they were also imprisoned then, at least there was not this big pervasive war.
The film then has segments of interviews with a number of leading Afghan women activists, many of them far from ideologically “extreme”, who expand on this same point.
One of them notes the devastating effect on Afghan women of the war deaths of husbands and other family members, noting that even war widows find it impossible to go our and earn a living, so they watch their families fall into deep impoverishment.
Another notes the bad effects of the US military presence, which is still increasing.
A woman from RAWA, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, says explicitly, “If they really want to help women in Afghanistan, they should end this war.”
Another interviewee says, “I don’t expect anyone from outside to come and ‘liberate’ us. Afghan women will liberate ourselves.”
For any American who still thinks that in some way the US invasion of Afghanistan probably “helped” Afghan women, this video is very important to see.
Siun at FireDogLake also has a good supplementary commentary. (HT: HuffPo.)
My piece on the decline of the Israeli peace movement
… is now up on the Boston Review website, here.
I found it a really tragic article to work on. I have admired the Israeli peace movement since its inception. I still think its finest hour was when it mobilized hundreds of thousands of Israelis to take to the streets of their cities in September 1982, to protest the role Defense Minister Sharon and the IDF had played in orchestrating the massacres in Beirut’s Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.
From the late 1980s through 1993 I worked pretty closely with Naomi Chazan and other leaders in the movement, particularly in organizing and facilitating some of the early contacts with various Palestinians and Arab-state nationals in which these women and men started hammering out the details of what a viable two-state solution might look like and how it could be achieved.
Naomi is one of the smartest, most dedicated, as well as most fair-minded (un-chauvinistic) Jewish Israelis whom I have ever had the privilege of knowing.
The Jewish-Israeli peace movement still has many extremely inspiring and dedicated people in it. I have written about some of them here at JWN over the years. But the political and social weight of the movement within Israeli society has declined very steeply since 1982.
In the BR article I pinpoint the singular role that I think Ehud Barak played in deflating the movement– to be precise, with the fatwa he issued in December 2000, in which this man, who had been elected 18 months earlier on an explicitly pro-peace platform, ruled that he now judged that Israel had “no Palestinian partner for peace.”
But I also describe four long-term reasons for the movement’s decline:
- 1. The diminution or elimination, post-Oslo, of the “cost” argument for leaving the occupied territories;
2. The fact that so many Jewish Israelis have simply turned their backs on the Arab world over the past 10-15 years, and no longer partcularly seek or value good relations with it, seeing themselves as “westerners” or even quasi-Europeans, instead;
3. The appropriation of the “demographic” argument the peace movement often used to use, by the forces of Israel’s newly emergent ethnonationalist rightwing; and
4. The apparent effectiveness of the “Hamastan” argument inside Israeli society.
One factor I was not able to explore in the article– which got cut very heavily along the way– was the fact that over recent years a lot of pro-peace Israelis have actually moved away from the country. It’s not just Amos Oz and the late Amos Elon moving to Tuscany, or wherever. It’s the whole cohort of younger pro-peace Israelis who are now turning up in the US (and Europe), including many who now blog from here in “the west.”
I guess I can understand (and sympathize with) why they make this choice to emigrate from Israel. But their emigration does have the effect of leaving Israeli society even more heavily under the influence of the ethno-nats and the religio-nats than it would otherwise have been.
One thing the BR editors cut out of my piece was the observation I had made that though, at the beginning of Israel’s assault on Gaza last December, the (once proudly pro-peace) Meretz Party in Israel for a crucial few days gave its support to the war effort, the US branch of the Meretz publicly expressed its opposition to the war from the get-go.
(I think Meretz USA later tried to fudge the fact of that disagreement with the “mother party” in Israel.)
For me, this points to an interesting broader change in the dynamics between Jewish-Israeli society and Jewish-American society. Until very recently, the pro-peace movement in Israel was always a far broader and weightier presence in Jewish-Israeli society than the pro-peace movement in the US has been in Jewish-American society. A huge chunk of Jewish American society was– probably since the 1960s, if not earlier– what Phil Weiss and others have described as “PEP”, “progressive, except on Palestine.”
Throughout those long decades, you would frequently hear from Jewish Americans some version of this argument: “Though I might well have concerns about some aspects of the Israeli government’s policy toward the Palestinians, still, it’s the Israelis who are on the front-lines, and therefore we Jewish Americans can’t undercut them by expressing our concerns openly.”
… And meantime, in Israel, the pro-peace activists were frequently out on the streets protesting their government’s policy. They were founding organizations like Peace Now, B’tselem or Yesh Din, or the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions that threw great energy into documenting, publicizing, and organizing against Israeli abuses in the occupied territories. Those Israeli movements were (and still are) crucial voices of conscience; and for many long years they really made a difference.
Okay, perhaps not enough of a difference… But a difference, all the same.
And now? They are still a voice of conscience– a function that, as Quakers know, is never to be under-estimated. But they have nothing like the social and political weight in Israeli society that they once did.
But meantime, Jewish-American society is now more willing than ever before to adopt political positions that are in direct contradiction to those of the government of Israel; and important voices in Jewish-American society are more willing than ever before to criticize the Israeli government’s policies openly.
This is certainly true regarding the settlements issue; and I hope it proves true regarding other issues on the peacemaking agenda, too.
There is one further wrinkle in this new dynamic. Though Jewish-American critics of the actions of (this) government in Israel are a much larger force within Jewish-American society than they have been for many decades, the mainstream US media remains, in general, much less hospitable to views critical of Israeli government government policies than the mainstream Israeli media are.
However, the rise of the blogosphere has certainly “evened out the playing field” of the US political discourse on matters Israeli and Palestinian. So yes, while there are all kinds of staunchly pro-Netanyahu commentators out there in the US (and Israeli) blogosphere, there are also numerous strong voices– Jewish and non-Jewish– in the US blogosphere that are highly critical of Netanyahu and vocal in calling for a fair and durable peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
So anyway, do go and read my BR piece. I see you can comment on it there… But you can also comment on it here. Your choice!
(After a few days maybe I’ll see which discussion looks more interesting; and I might close the JWN one down at that point.)