Things You Should Be Reading

Three things you should be reading:

Two of them are from Daniel Larison. The first is this denouncement of the broad exception that Israel gets regarding international law and wars of aggression. I would advise Israeli hawks to listen to people like Drezner; we Americans know a thing or two about wars of aggression inspired by hyperbolic fears. I agree with his central assertion whole-heartedly though, and have made it somewhere on my blog before; essentially, that we should not concede to the hawks and neocons that the only argument is about the effectiveness of an invasion or assault. We should also be arguing about whether it's right or wrong to go to war. Old-fashioned notions I know.

Speaking of old-fashioned, perhaps you missed the revelation that former British Prime Minister Margeret Thatcher was secretly opposed to German re-unification. This is what Andrew Sullivan refers to as "staggering news", though as Drezner points out it made perfect sense at the time for British realists to be, if not opposed, then at least leery of German reunification. As Drezner explains, Britain had been opposed to the formation of a single strong continental power for centuries, and none of us had any reason to believe in 1989 (or 1991) that things would turn out as peaceful as they have. Of course now we associate Germany with economic progress and stability, but Margeret Thatcher was thinking of World War II. For my part, I was somewhat relieved to read about a nation's leader behaving in a manner that reflect caution and traditional interests. That sort of thing is passe around here these days.

Lastly, there's Glenn Greenwald on Bagram, the new "black hole" for terrorist detainees the world over:

No wonder they want to close Guantanamo: who wants to be bothered with irritating habeas reviews -- 28 out of 33 have resulted in judicial findings that insufficient evidence exists to justify the detention -- when you can just ship them off to the Black Hole of Bagram and imprison them for as long as you want with no court interference? Apparently, what the Bush administration did that was so terrible, the heinous "shredding of the Constitution" they perpetrated, wasn't about the fact that they imprisoned people indefinitely with no charges -- but that they did it in Cuba rather than somewhere else. Who knew that such grave Constitutional transgressions -- such severe denial of fundamental rights -- could be fixed so easily with a little change of scenery?

If I have written about the Obama administration's gradually worsening record on civil liberties and the "war on terror" (you thought it was over, didn't you?) it's only because of a blogging ennui in general, not because I'm giving the Obama administration a pass. As excited as I was about the Obama candidacy, not for one single instant did I believe that the Obama administration would easily surrender powers claimed by the Bush administration. To believe they would do so requires a willful ignorance of Presidential history. No President has ever surrendedered such power without a fight, and so the fight continues.

J Street

Haven't heard of J Street yet? Well, get yourself up to speed with this excellent explainer from the NYT Magazine.

Wednesday Morning Reading

Some things for you to ponder this morning:

1. A senior cleric in Iran comes out against the election results. But were they rigged? Critics say yes.

2. Some analysis of Netanyahu's announcement that Israel would consider recognition of a Palestinian state. A step forward, but still balking on other important considerations like settlement expansion.

3. A Presidential election and some new laws, but the end result is the same; you can't trust the NSA not to spy on the American people.

4. Speaking of intelligence agencies, the CIA is fighting the release of it's own internal reports regarding interrogations of "high-value" detainees. Obviously, there's something in embarrassing in them.

5. Speaking of detainees, here are some people who don't wet their pants at the thought of being responsible for them.

6. Obama will announce that the federal government will extend benefits to the domestic partners, including same-sex partners and spouses, of federal employees.

7. The Obama administration is proposing regulatory changes that will broaden government oversight of banks and the financial markets.

8. And lastly, another great column of David Leonhardt at the New York Times. This time he takes on the scare word "rationing" and explains how health care is already rationed ineffeciently and unfairly everyday in America.

Morning Links

Some Tuesday morning reading for you:

1. The protests and demonstrations in Iran continue, despite the government's agreement to a "partial recount" of the election results. The NY Times says Ayatollah Khamenei is blinking, but how much? And Glenn Greenwald wonders if Iran would have arrived at this point if the Iran hawks, now cheering on the demonstrations, had gotten their way and convinced the Bush adminitration to bomb Iran.

2. Abu Zubaydah said in a 2007 hearing that his interrogators with the CIA acknowledged they were mistaken about his role in Al Qaeda, according to transcripts obtained by the ACLU (h/t Adam.) If that's true, it merely means they admitted to him what the rest of us have already known about Zubaydah for awhile.

3. Netanyahu has proposed that Israel recognize the Palestinian right to a state, but only if the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist first.

4. The recently released Uighurs: life on the beach is great, except for the fact that they can never go home or see their families again.

5. Obama has appointed a new American Indian advisor. The Department of Justice has also announced efforts to boost its crime-fighting operations in Indian Country.

Roger Cohen

I've enjoyed Roger Cohen's recent columns recently largely because of his blunt talk regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Via Dana Goldstein, this is a relatively fair account of Cohen by someone who doesn't agree with his stance on the conflict. But it ends in a disappointing manner:

It would seem from his writings and conversation that he believes that when it comes to the Mideast conflict, it is Israeli hearts that have hardened and that the government in Jerusalem is trying to ignore terrible things. He is welcome to his beliefs, of course, but Roger Cohen should be wary of conflating one tragedy with another.

Call it lack of balance or fairness, but to cite only one party to blame for the Israeli-Arab conflict is to deny history and reality, and to weaken one’s credibility beyond logic or truth.

Reading Cohen lately — the anger, blame and one-sidedness of his argument — one wonders whose heart, indeed, has grown brutal.

It's very annoying that someone is open to criticism if they write about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without apportioning blame fairly and evenly between both sides in every column. There exists a legion of prominent pundits in the American media and blogosphere who pen columns excoriating the Palestinians and praising Israel for their heroism in restraint (when they're not busy calling for less restraint when bombing Gaza) and in those columns you will not find a single example of anything Israel has done wrong in its entire existence (except perhaps operating with more restraint than necessary when bombing Gaza.) But if Cohen writes a column whose aim is to-fairly, if sternly-point out Israel's own hard-headedness, ignorance and yes, brutality, in dealing with the Palestinians, then it is Cohen whose heart has "grown brutal." Such a viewpoint is only further evidence of the victimology that either creeps into or is completely plain in the writings of Isreal hawks. Without a doubt the Israelis, descendants of the six million Jews murdered in Nazi Germany and surrounded by millions of people who'd rather they not even exist, are entitled to a measure of paranoia and defensiveness about the world. But it's foolishness to deny that Israel is the dominant power in the Middle East, and that in response to a truly existential threat it is capable of killing millions with its nuclear weapons. And its plain foolishness to deny that while many Israelis live in comfort, Palestinians in Gaza live in one of the most wretched corners of the Earth, largely because Israel has deliberately placed a stranglehold on Gaza (a stranglehold Israel hawks don't deny but rather justify.) It's really not that strange to say that a country can be operating both in its legitimate self-defense, and with unnecessary harshness and brutality. Cohen's argument is one-sided because he feels it is his purpose to attempt to get Israelis to face these facts, rather than offer wishy-washy columns that start with a recitation of everything the Palestinians have done wrong. He's not trying to be fair, and he shouldn't.

UPDATE Via Glenn Greenwald, here's an example of the typically hawkish puditry on Israel from the American right:

Last week, Charles Krauthammer accused President Obama of treating every country in the world so well -- except for one, the one for which Krauthammer bears great love and affection and with which he was taught from childhood to identify:

President Obama repeatedly insists that American foreign policy be conducted with modesty and humility. Above all, there will be no more "dictating" to other countries. . . . An admirable sentiment. It applies to everyone -- Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, even Venezuela. Except Israel. Israel is ordered to freeze all settlement activity.

The U.S. transfers tens of billions of dollars to Israel -- more than any other country in the world. We demand that no country in the Middle East have nuclear weapons -- except Israel. We fuel Israel's wars with weapons transfers, ensure it is the most militarily powerful country in its region, and loyally protect it from U.N. sanctions using our veto power. It's virtually impossible to imagine one country that is more favorably treated by another than the various forms of largesse Israel receives from the U.S. But no matter. In Krauthammer's eyes, the opposite is true: the U.S. treats every country fairly except Israel. That's the country that, to him, is singled out for unfavorable treatment by the U.S. Israel is the victim of unfair treatment at the hands of Obama.

But Cohen is being unfair if he writes, as he did in this column in December:

I am fiercely attached to Israel’s security. Everything depends, however, on how that security is viewed. Israel can continue humiliating the Palestinians, flaunting its power with a bully’s braggadocio. It will survive that way — and be desperately corroded from within. Neither domination nor demography favors Israel over time.

I think it would behoove the editors of the Jewish Week, and Israel hawks everywhere, to consider who has done more damage to the Israeli cause. Is it pundits like Cohen, with his acknowledgment of nuance but also his stern admonitions that Israel must change its ways or be doomed? Or is it Krauthammer, with his wildly hyperbolic statements that are demonstrably untrue, and his bland assurances that the only solution to the conflict is ever more violence?

More of the Same

As I'm sure you can imagine, there are those who aren't as pleased with Obama's speech in Cairo as we are. One of the critics is Caroline Glick, an Israeli-American journalist and Israeli hard-liner. This is how her column begins:

From an Israeli perspective, Pres. Barack Obama’s speech today in Cairo was deeply disturbing. Both rhetorically and programmatically, Obama’s speech was a renunciation of America’s strategic alliance with Israel.

So at least you know where she's coming from at the outset. Her claim is ridiculous. It's difficult to come to the conclusion that our "strategic alliance" with Israel is at an end when Congress has slated to give Israel $30 billion in military aid over the next ten years. Have you heard any chatter about that promise being revoked? Me neither. And if you'll allow me a moment of realpolitik, what exactly our we getting out of our supposedly "strategic alliance" with Israel? During the Bush administration we sent military aid to Israel and essentially gave them carte blanche to do as they wished with Hamas and Hezbollah. In return, we are blamed as the facilitators of Israeli violence against Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, and Islamic terrorists use that support in their propaganda campaigns against us. Perhaps the Israelis think they are safer if they go to war repeatedly against Hamas, but are we?

Glick goes on:

In addition to his morally outrageous characterization of Israel and factually inaccurate account of its foundations, Obama struck out at the Jewish state through the two policies he outlined in his address. His first policy involves coercing Israel into barring all Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria (otherwise known as the West Bank), and Jerusalem.

"Otherwise known"? The "West Bank" is what everyone in the world calls the portion of Earth presently occupied by 2.4 million Palestinians, and the 300,000 Israeli settlers who would like to take that land from them, except the Israelis and some our very own special right-wingers. Calling it otherwise is propaganda, pure and simple.

Lastly, this paragraphs smacks of the short-sightedness that is entirely typical of Israeli hard-liners:

Obama claims that this policy will increase prospects for peace. But this is untrue. As Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas made clear in his Washington Post interview last week, Obama’s trenchant campaign against Jewish construction in these areas has convinced the Palestinians they have no reason to be flexible in their positions towards Israel. Indeed, Obama’s assault on Israeli construction and his unsubstantiated, bigoted claim that the presence of Jews in Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem impedes progress towards peace ensures that there will be no agreement whatsoever between Israel and the Palestinians.

After all, why would the Palestinians make a deal with Israel when they know that Obama will blame Israel for the absence of a peace agreement?

[...]

The only silver lining for Israelis from the president’s speech in Cairo and his general positions on the Middle East is that Obama has overplayed his hand. Far from bending to his will, a large majority of Israelis perceives Obama as a hostile force and has rallied in support of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu against the administration. This public support gives Netanyahu the maneuver room he needs to take the actions that Israel needs to take to defend against the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran and to assert its national rights and to defend itself against Palestinian terrorists and other Arab and non-Arab anti-Semites who wish it ill.

It's certainly true that Abbas has taken a wait-and-see approach, and that he believes that since Netanyahu will never agree to a real settlement freeze his only course of action is to wait for Netanyahu to be pushed out of office. But the Palestinians will never agree to a comprehensive peace that permits the Israelis to continue the expansion of settlements in the West Bank (and why would they?) and that, coupled with Israeli insistence on at the very least the "natural growth" of settlements is a major sticking point in any peace agreement.  For Glick to call Israeli instransigence as an obstacle to peace an "unsubstantiated, bigoted claim" is especially absurd, since she just referred to an interview with Abbas in which he said quite plainly that there can be no peace with settlement expansion. Only by signaling an end to the past American policy of winking at the Israelis every time a settlement freeze is discussed, can Obama hope to push the peace process forward. So in fact, taking a harder stance on settlement expansion is the only way to move the peace process forward.  

As for her "silver lining"...well, that she may be right about. The Israelis may very well decide to rally around Netanyahu and continue to oppose a settlement freeze or restraint in their military actions against the Palestinians. This is frustrating no doubt, but neither is it an obstacle to peace in the long-run. Doing as Glick desires will result in the continued marginalization of Israel, which in turn will contribute towards a softening of American support for Israel, which in turn will reduce Israeli freedom to act unilaterally with the Palestinians, which in turn will help bring the Israelis to the negotiating table. It would be best for everyone, but most especially the Israelis, to realize this and so make moves towards peace now when they stand to gain a great propaganda victory in doing so. But provided Obama is in office long enough, and provided he continues to deny Israel American approval of the actions they take against the Palestinians, they will eventually come around in one fashion or another.

UPDATE: Another stupid response to the Obama speech:

“I have to admire the residents of Iroquois territory for assuming that they have a right to determine where Jews lives in Jerusalem.”

Thus did Israeli government press director Daniel Seamen caustically dismiss President Obama’s opposition to Israel’s right to “natural growth” of its settlements in Arab East Jerusalem and on the West Bank.

That's from the "you did it so why can't I?" approach to diplomacy. No one was more caustic about American segregation than the Soviets, who under Stalin deported millions of ethnic minorities who were considered a possible threat to the State. And now the Israeli government attempts to hoist the Obama administration on its own petard, I guess for having the audacity to not to give back land to the Mohawks, Senecas and whatnot before criticizing Israeli's activities in the West Bank. Any reader of this blog knows of our Native American affiliations, but that's just ridiculous. But that does prompt me to ask: why the Iriquois? They are hardly the tribe most well-known for having their land stolen, and for forced relocation. Of all tribes the Cherokee are possibly the most cogent example of forced relocation, but even tribes like the Sioux and the Apache should be more well-known examples, given how intertwined they are in the lore of the American west. Are Israeli children learning something different in school from us? Or was that also an unstated reference to the credit the Iriquois are given for inspiring American democracy?

Clinton Reinforces Iran-Settlements Linkage

Secretary of State Clinton reinforces that the Obama administration will link any assistance on Iran with the issue of illegal Israeli settlements:

Progress on establishing a Palestinian state must go "hand-in-hand" with efforts to stem Iranian influence in the Middle East, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday, implicitly rejecting the emerging position of the new Israeli government.

Aides to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said this week that the Israeli government will not move ahead on the core issues of peace talks with the Palestinians until it sees progress in U.S. efforts to stop Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapon and limit Tehran's rising influence in the region. Netanyahu, who is skeptical of efforts to create a Palestinian state, plans to visit Washington next month; aides said he was preparing to outline his emerging policy to President Obama.

Asked about those comments during an appearance before a panel of the House Appropriations Committee, Clinton said she did not want to "prejudge the Israeli position until we've had face-to-face talks." But she then cautioned that Israel was unlikely to gain support for thwarting Iran unless there were visible efforts to achieve Palestinian statehood.

"For Israel to get the kind of strong support it's looking for vis-a-vis Iran it can't stay on the sideline with respect to the Palestinian and the peace efforts, that they go hand-in-hand," Clinton said.

That's about as clear as a message can get. Netanyahu has his own message of course, which is that there will be no progress on settlements until the Obama administration moves on Iran, and that the idea of a Palestinian state is dead in the water. The meeting between Obama and Netanyahu next month should be...interesting.

Israel Balks

Netanyahu has reacted as predicted regarding the Obama administration's push on a state for the Palestinians:

In a direct challenge to President Barack Obama's commitment to rejuvenate moribund Mideast peace talks, Israel on Thursday dismissed American-led efforts to establish a Palestinian state and laid out new conditions for renewed negotiations.

Leaders of Israel's hawkish new government told former Maine Sen. George Mitchell, the special U.S. envoy, that they aren't going to rush into peace talks with their Palestinian neighbors.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he'd require Palestinians to accept Israel as a Jewish state in any future negotiations — a demand that Palestinians have up to now rejected — Israeli government officials said.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told Obama's envoy that past Israeli concessions led to war, not peace.
[...]
Netanyahu has refused to embrace that formula and has instead floated the idea of offering Palestinians limited rights that would fall short of independence.

Netanyahu reiterated his stand in his meeting with Mitchell, said one Israeli government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to publicly discuss the details of the conversation.

Netanyahu also indicated that Palestinians would have to accept Israel as a Jewish state in negotiations.

"For us, this is a crucial element," the official said. "It's a fundamental element in peace talks."

Special Envoy George Mitchell reiterated the position of the Obama administration though:

Mitchell struck a firm tone on Friday, after his meeting with Abbas. He said establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel is a national interest of the U.S., not only of the people in the Middle East.

He said the Arab peace initiative, which offers Israel full recognition by the Arab world in exchange for full withdrawal from occupied territories, should be part of future peace efforts. "This conflict has gone on for far too long, and the people of this region should no longer have to wait for the just peace that guarantees security for all," Mitchell said. "The U.S. is committed to the establishment of a sovereign, independent Palestinian state, where the aspirations of the Palestinian people to control their own destiny are realized," he said. "We want the Arab peace initiative to be a part of the effort to reach this goal. A comprehensive peace in this region is in the national interest of the United States. It is in the interest of the Palestinian people, it is in the interest of the people of Israel and of the entire region. A two-state solution is the only solution," he said.

No mention of a linkage between the settlements and the issue of Iran's nuclear program though, a tactic that the Obama administration is still working out it would seem.

From Another Direction

Another strong indicator that the Obama administration is hardening its tone towards Israel by linking Iran's nuclear program and the settlements (via Kevin Drum):

Yedioth Achronoth, the largest circulation daily in Israel, reports today that President Obama intends to see the two-state solution signed, sealed and delivered during his first term.

Rahm Emanuel told an (unnamed) Jewish leader; "In the next four years there is going to be a permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it doesn't matter to us at all who is prime minister."

He also said that the United States will exert pressure to see that deal is put into place."Any treatment of the Iranian nuclear problem will be contingent upon progress in the negotiations and an Israeli withdrawal from West Bank territory," the paper reports Emanuel as saying. In other words, US sympathy for Israel's position vis a vis Iran depends on Israel's willingness to live up to its commitment to get out of the West Bank and permit the establishment of a Palestinian state there, in Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

Yedioth also reports that Obama is conveying his displeasure with the new Israeli government in several ways. "US administration officials informed Netanyahu that President Obama will not be able to meet with him in early May, while the AIPAC conference is held in Washington. The meeting between the new Israeli premier and the president of the United States is perceived in Israel as a sign that the formation process of the new government has been completed and as a salutation by Israel's close friend. Netanyahu had hoped to capitalize on the opportunity and to meet with Obama during the annual AIPAC conference, but the Americans informed the Israelis that Obama was not going to be 'in town.' That being the case, the inclination among Netanyahu's aides is to cancel his trip to attend the AIPAC conference and to try to secure a date for a meeting with Obama later in May.

"Sources in Washington also said that the Obama administration would not continue the tradition that developed during the Bush administration of hosting Israeli premiers many times during the year, sometimes with just a phone call's advance notice."

The latter are minor changes to be sure, but even minor changes are big changes when it comes to American-Israel relations.

Thursday Morning Links

There's a lot of interesting stuff to read this morning.

1. More troubling violence in Iraq, as sixteen Iraqi soldiers die in a suicide attack in Anbar province.

2. This is very interesting; George Mitchell, U.S. Middle East envoy, is in Israel today. The Christian Science Monitor reports that the Obama administration will communicate to Israel that they intend to link the issue of Iran's nuclear program to illegal Israeli settlements. As in, if Israel wants help with Iran, they're going to have to make concessions on settlement activity. That message probably won't go over very well.

3. More on the "truce" with the Taliban in Swat: unsurprisingly, militants who pledged to surrender their arms...aren't.

4. Science news: researchers report setbacks in their explorations of the genetic underpinnings of many inherited diseases. Apparently, it's impossible to link some common conditions (like Schizophrenia) to one or two genetic markers. Scientists suspect that interactions between a countless number of genes can produce or make people vulnerable to disease, making it considerably more difficult to predict the possibility of disease in certain individuals, as well as fashion targeted treatments. Also, Nicholas Kristof (who's had some great columns recently) writes about recent research showing that the IQ's of poor children living in chaotic households suffers, and has suggestions for what we can do about that. And lastly, the "last voyage" of an astronaut whose job has been to tend the Hubble Space telescope, a scientific achievement that has made incalculable contributions to our understanding of the universe.

5. Jonathan Capehart dismisses the tired arguments for intolerance that underpin opposition to allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

6. Legislation that would create a new University of North Texas law school in Dallas passes the Texas Senate, but could face stiff opposition in the House. Despite the downturn in the legal market, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea. North Texas could use a less expensive public law school, and unless we really are in the Great Depression II, the economy should improve in time for the first graduates of the school. Still, it seems like a difficult time to ask for money to produce lawyers who right now couldn't find jobs.

7. John Madden to retire after thirty years in the booth. Madden's an easy target for ridicule, but I've always liked his earnestness and his understanding of the game. Clearly the guy loves football, and has always done a good job of explaining the game to football amateurs like myself. He'll be missed.

8. Bonus music review: the new Metric album "Fantasies" came out on Tuesday. It's good. The hooks are catchier, the themes are gloomier, and song structure is tighter. I especially like the darker and fuzzier synth sounds, which give the album a somewhat more ambient feel. On other Metric albums I've found there's usually 2-3 good songs and a lot of filler. Not so here; all the songs are keepers. Anyway buy it, or listen to it here.

Thursday Links

1. Honestly, I wouldn't have surprised if Obama backed off his desire to enact immigration reform. I'm not willing to give odds on what I think the chances are of some meaningful legislation actually getting passed.

2. Middle East: Roger Cohen says Netanyahu is "crying wolf" over claims that Iran will obtain and use a nuclear weapon against Israel, and the Obama administration announces in a dramatic shift that they will join nuclear talks with Iran. Israel's new Foreign Minister rejects the 2007 Annapolis agreement, but Obama signals that the U.S. expects Israel to comply with the agreement and, according to Haaretz, is preparing his administration for a confrontation with Israel over Palestine.

3. Eric Holder begins a "revamp" of the Public Integrity Unit at the DOJ.

4. An organization of Cuban exiles signals they are willing to accept broad changes in American's policies towards Cuba.

5. Nicholas Kristof says that we've reached a turning point when it comes to animal rights.

6. Thanks to the recession, more states are considering raising taxes. Naturally, they will do so quietly.

7. A Texas Republican says Asian-Americans should change to names that are "easier for Americans to deal with." Because of course that makes more sense than just not enacting ridiculous and unnecessary voter ID legislation.

8. Co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons Dave Arneson has died. As you may recall, Gary Gygax passed away this time last year. The world of role-playing owes both its existence and popularity mostly to these two men.

9. Idiots shoot and kill a dog belonging to a retired Navy SEAL living in the Houston area, who nearly kills them in return. Both his name and book sounded familiar so I looked him up. Sure enough, I remember him from this NPR story from 2007 recounting a battle in Afghanistan in which he was the only survivor. I can tell you that had he shot one or more of those guys, no jury in Texas would've convicted him.

Morning Links

1. Apparently all it takes to get published is 1) a title that makes an over-the-top claim 2) a thesis based on the most conventional of wisdom and the most superficial analysis of modern affairs and 3) a track record of publishing similar books.

2. Iran offers to help in Afghanistan, pledging reconstruction aid and assistance in stopping the drug trade.

3. Our ridiculous policies towards Cuba are finally being questioned on the Hill.

4. Samueal Johnson says that America cannot recover until the oligarchy that controls the financial sector is broken.

5. Are Taliban militants in Pakistan extending their reach beyond the tribal areas?

6. Iraq: another suicide bombing in Mosul. Iraqis fear that the present "peace" is merely the eye of the storm, and some are not prepared to lay their weapons down.

7. Israel closes its investigation into claims of atrocities in Gaza.

Morning Links

For your reading pleasure:

1. The Treasury Dept. is set to announce new regulatory controls over previously unregulated financial transactions.

2. The Pentagon says in a new report that China is seeking to boost it's military's power and effectiveness. China says we need to chill out. In the meantime, China prepares to force Tibetans to celebrate "Serf Liberation Day", the 60th anniversary of the Chinese invasion of Tibet.

3. 16 die in a Baghdad bombing.

4. American cities are dealing with an increase in "shantytowns" as the number of homeless rise. Hollywood producers Peter Samuelson wants to give them something better than cardboard boxes to live in.

5. Secretary Clinton bluntly admits that the failed U.S. war on drugs has contributed to rising violence in Mexico.

6. American taxpayers are paying for the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, if in a backhanded way.

7. New study says that most wrongful convictions in Texas stem from witness misidentification.

8. Lisa Falkenberg on Gov. Perry's stimulus fund logic (or lack thereof.)

9. The next American soccer star?

10. A question about student loan forgiveness tops the list at the new "ask the President" website.

More Recommended Reading

End of the day links for your edification:

1. John Gray reviews Margaret Atwood's Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth, in which Atwood takes something of a meta-view of debt. In essence our profligate ways with our own money reflect our attitudes towards the capital that is our planet, but that the Earth will not be so kind as the present crisis when it's time to pay it back.

2. U.S. officials accuse Pakistan's ISI of supporting Taliban attacks in Afghanistan in a very direct manner, with ISI agents going so far as to strategize with the Taliban about attacks on American forces. Meanwhile, former members of the Taliban say that talks with the Taliban are a possible route to peace, though one says of American forces: "They have a right to ensure that there is no danger to them from Afghanistan...[but] That is the limit of their rights in this country."

3. An aging Dalai Lama concedes that his strategy of engaging the Chinese leadership on Tibet has failed not only to gain traction for Tibetan autonomy, but to slow down the Chinese makeover of the country. China's response to any burgeoning demonstrations of Tibetan independence is met only with repression and violence, but alternative strategies are wanting.

4. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's Prime Minister-delegate, insists that Israel is a "partner for peace" while at the same time he's making backdoor deals to expand Israeli settlements in a particular part of the West Bank, a move that the U.S. government has long opposed as an impediment to peace.

5. In an op-ed for the WSJ, three former Presidents of Latin American countries argue that the "war on drugs" is a dismal failure, and it's time for a new course of action.

"Thirst for Blood"

Israel has been hugely criticized around the world (and at this blog) for it's dismissive attitude towards civilian casualties in both the Gaza and Lebanon campaigns. Each time senior Israel defense officials and politicians have assured the world that they take the safety of civilians very seriously. Now, out of the mouths of the IDF's own soldiers:

Now testimony is emerging from within the ranks of soldiers and officers alleging a permissive attitude toward the killing of civilians and reckless destruction of property that is sure to inflame the domestic and international debate about the army’s conduct in Gaza. On Thursday, the military’s chief advocate general ordered an investigation into a soldier’s account of a sniper killing a woman and her two children who walked too close to a designated no-go area by mistake, and another account of a sharpshooter who killed an elderly woman who came within 100 yards of a commandeered house.

When asked why that elderly woman was killed, a squad commander was quoted as saying: “What’s great about Gaza — you see a person on a path, he doesn’t have to be armed, you can simply shoot him. In our case it was an old woman on whom I did not see any weapon when I looked. The order was to take down the person, this woman, the minute you see her. There are always warnings, there is always the saying, ‘Maybe he’s a terrorist.’ What I felt was, there was a lot of thirst for blood.”

The Haaretz column the NY Times is reporting on can be found here. I'm sure that as I type these words, right-wing Israeli and American bloggers are now excusing these incidents as "isolated" or accusing these soldiers of being traitors or not "real" Israelis or some other nonsense.

Blockade

More on the ridiculous "pasta blockade" that Israel has instituted over Gaza:

For more than seven weeks, the international aid group Mercy Corps has been trying to send 90 tons of macaroni to the isolated Gaza Strip as part of a global campaign to help the 1.4 million Palestinians there rebuild their lives after Israel's recent devastating 22-day military operation.

Israel, which controls most of what goes into and out of Gaza, has said no repeatedly.

At first, Israeli officials said that they wanted to make sure that the macaroni wasn't destined for a Hamas charity. Then they said macaroni was banned because they didn't consider it an essential food item.

On Wednesday, days after American lawmakers raised pointed questions about the macaroni ban, Israeli authorities said that they were preparing to give the pasta a green light.

For the international aid community, the dispute is emblematic of the red tape and political maneuvering that have stymied efforts to rebuild Gaza.

"We're at the end of our rope," said David Holdridge, the head of Middle East emergency relief efforts for Mercy Corps. "This is just ridiculous. It's absolutely absurd."

[...]

The macaroni standoff drew the attention of U.S. lawmakers who made a rare trip last week to the Gaza Strip.

"Is someone going to kill you with a piece of macaroni?" Rep. Brian Baird, a Washington state Democrat who joined Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison in visiting Gaza, reportedly said after hearing about the aid restrictions.

Along with macaroni, Israel has prevented aid groups that are helping Gaza from sending in everything from paper and crayons to tomato paste and lentils.

As international donors prepare to meet next week in Egypt to discuss a massive, coordinated global rebuilding initiative, Israel is making it clear that it will block any projects that could help Hamas.

Since that definition could be expanded to include anything that keeps Palestinians alive, it's no wonder spaghetti is blacklisted. One would think that after the recent inauguration of a new President who is expected to scrutinize Israeli actions in Gaza more carefully, the Israeli government would be more careful about public relations. Instead they appear to want to give themselves a black eye over ridiculous, non-consequential food items.

Small But Significant Changes

First, the Obama administration has stated that they are sending $900 million to Gaza to help in the rebuilding effort. This is not the first time that an administration has slotted aid for the Palestinians, but it's an unprecedented amount as far as I can tell. The mere fact that we might help Palestinians rebuild their flattened homes is irritating enough to the Israeli hawks, but apparently Secretary Clinton is also not afraid to call out the Israelis over the speed with which the aid is being distributed (via Glenn Greenwald):

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has relayed messages to Israel in the past week expressing anger at obstacles Israel is placing to the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. A leading political source in Jerusalem noted that senior Clinton aides have made it clear that the matter will be central to Clinton's planned visit to Israel next Tuesday.

Ahead of Clinton's visit, special U.S. envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell is expected to issue a sharply worded protest on the same matter when he arrives here Thursday.

"Israel is not making enough effort to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza," senior U.S. officials told Israeli counterparts last week, and reiterated Washington's view by saying that "the U.S. expects Israel to meet its commitments on this matter."

What they're referring to our restrictions the Israelis have placed on the number of shipments of aid being allowed into Gaza on a daily basis. The Israelis say they're doing the best they can, but anecdotes like these make it appear that they are as cavalier about humanitarian aid as they were about avoiding civilian casualties during the Gaza offensive:

...an incident occured last week at a crossing into the Gaza Strip that gave a very different impression to a senior observer. When Senator John Kerry visited the Strip, he learned that many trucks loaded with pasta were not permitted in. When the chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee inquired as to the reason for the delay, he was told by United Nations aid officials that "Israel does not define pasta as part of humanitarian aid - only rice shipments."

Kerry asked Barak about the logic behind this restriction, and only after the senior U.S. official's intervention did the defense minister allow the pasta into the Strip. The U.S. senator updated colleagues at the Senate and other senior officials in Washington of the details of his visit.

Obviously, taking the Israelis to task over the pace at which aid is being delivered to Gaza is not the same as condemning the offensive in Gaza, but it's certainly light years beyond anything the Bush administration would've done.

Also, a change in the long-standing embargo of Cuba maybe be coming:

Monday's call by Sen. Richard Lugar for a major re-assessment of Washington's nearly half-century effort to isolate Cuba increases the likelihood that U.S. President Barack Obama will make substantial changes in policy toward Havana beyond those he promised during his election campaign, according to experts here.

"What's significant is that this is the senior statesman for foreign policy in the Republican Party, someone who doesn't have a long track record of advocating for changes in Cuba policy, who has decided to come out and really put his stamp on this issue by saying that the U.S. embargo doesn't favour our national interest," said Daniel Erickson, a Cuba specialist at the Inter-American Dialogue, a think tank here.

"The fact is that Lugar has pre-empted Obama with his own proposals for changing the policy and in so doing creates a context that is much more favourable to changing the policy beyond the narrow of issue of lifting restrictions on Cuban-American travel and remittances" to the island, added Erickson, author of 'The Cuba Wars,' a recently published book on U.S.-Cuban relations.

"What you are seeing is momentum-building," agreed Geoff Thale, a Cuba specialist at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), a human rights group that has long opposed the trade embargo. "With the policy already under review by the administration, Lugar is creating political space for Obama to take stronger action than he otherwise might."

A tougher line on Israel, a lessening of the embargo of Cuba? It's almost too much to hope for.

Jeffrey Goldberg is a Moron

It's self-explanatory. Though for me to say as much must mean that I think all Jews are genetically programmed to be morons.

A "Sea Change"?

I'm far too cynical to believe that our relationship to Israel-which is mostly characterized by our acquiescence to whatever actions Israel seeks to take against it's enemies, however self-destructive and self-defeating-is about to change based on events to this point. I do agree with Greenwald that our national discourse about Israel is gradually changing and so the possibility of real change in our foreign policy is present, but we're talking about decades of conflating Israel's national security concerns that must be defeated first.

UPDATE: On the other hand, if the Obama administration is making moves that piss off the Israel hawks, maybe change is around the corner.

Israel's Future

Reading Matt Eckel's take on Stephen Walt's "unsettling question" regarding the two-state solution, you come away with these options for the future of Israel:

1. The two-state solution,
2. The one-state solution,
3. Israel as a permanent apartheid state, or
4. Ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

I rank those by their level of horror, from lowest to highest. They are not ranked by probability of occurrence, where #3 seems considerably more likely than any other possible outcome (though some in Israel would be fine with #4) especially given the result of the recent elections.