Dear Senator Schumer,
I was more than dismayed to read that you intended to vote against the Iran treaty.
I understand that you did much research, and spoke to many people in the Administration, as well as opponents of the treaty; I understand that you considered the position of the Israeli government, as well as our own. I even understand that you considered the concerns of your New York constituents, of which I am one.
However, your position on the treaty is extremely short-sighted. It is making the perfect enemy of the good.
Without American participation in the treaty’s enforcement, we will have the worst of alternatives: the treaty will likely still be ratified by our partners (the P4 + 1), we will still have United Nations approval; the sanctions of our partners will be lifted; the US and Israel will stand alone against it.
Or, the treaty will not pass internationally, and we will inevitably have war.
We will not get a “better” treaty. The kind of inspections regime that opponents appear to be proposing would only be agreed to by a nation that has been militarily destroyed, as was Germany and Japan in WWII.
Since we are already over-extended militarily, since we will NOT have international support if we unilaterally attack Iran, any military attempt to stop Iran from going nuclear will inevitably be counter-productive: it will push Iran into building nuclear weapons as fast as they can; it will not do more than delay nuclearization.
By contrast, the treaty would at least delay possible nuclear weapons for ten to fifteen years, and in that time Iran could become a more responsible and moderate nation, since it would have more interchange with the rest of the world. Like many other nations, it could forego developing nuclear weapons (as it claims to have done already).
Further, war with Iran would be many times worse than our ill-advised adventures into Vietnam and Iraq. Iran is several times the size of Iraq; it has an effective political system that would mobilize its population in a way that Iraq was unable to do; war with Iran would probably enable Islamic State to make greater conquests, since Iran is one of its main opponents in the region. War would radically increase the chaos in the Middle East—chaos for which we are already responsible for a good part. The US could bankrupt itself in such a war.
War would also eliminate any chance for the kind of progressive domestic policies that you and I both favor.
To oppose the treaty will ultimately not help Israel, either. It will weaken the US, and drive Iran into a much more belligerent policy towards Israel; it is now rhetorically hostile, but has been tacitly supportive of US actions against Islamic State and could become more cooperative, not less, if the US supports the treaty. Further, the unhinged ravings of former Iranian President, Ahmadinejad, do not represent current Iranian policy, nor the majority of the Iranian people, as witnessed by its more moderate current government. To oppose the treaty would strengthen, not weaken those elements in Iran most inimical to Israel and the US.
To oppose any reasonable treaty on the grounds that peace with Iran will benefit it economically, is to advocate the pauperization of a nation that could play a positive role in the region if it were welcomed and if it benefitted from full participation on the world stage.
It may be true that the treaty will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons in 15 years, but it is our best chance at prevention, especially if Iran, as a full participant in regional and world affairs is led to realize that nuclear weapons would not be in its interest.
If you vote against the treaty, I for one will do all I can to oppose your re-election to the Senate, since, to me, such a position is antithetical to the progressive politics that you claim to stand for.
Sincerely
Douglas C. Smyth
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Keep Guantanamo Open!
In response to GOP Congressional insistence on including a $200 million Defense appropriation to build new barracks at Guantanamo, after Obama declares he'll try again to close it:
Anything that boosts Defense Appropriations is a good thing, obviously.
It's estimated that 3-8% of released Guantanamo detainees may have returned to terrorism. Even if a third of detainees returned to terrorism--largely in their own countries--would their actions cost more than the loss of credibility the US expends by keeping Guantanamo open? Guantanamo continues to imprison 86 men convicted of no crime, and cleared for release three years ago.
It's about the money. Defense contractors favor their friends: Republicans continue to be their loudest and most effective supporters.
The Guantanamo appropriation is symptomatic of the whole Defense complex. It makes you wonder: who really controls?
Noam Chomsky suggested in a recent article, "Humanity Imperiled," that the US has consistently opted for policies that increase tensions not reduce them. Examples included: JFK not agreeing to a public compromise to the Cuban Missile Crisis, risking nuclear war to achieve a secret deal that appeared as if only Krushchev backed down.
In '73 Kissinger risked nuclear war, calling a high nuclear alert, to warn the USSR not to interfere in the Arab-Israel war; in 1983, Reagan ordered SAC bombers to penetrate Soviet airspace to test their responses--risking nuclear war, again. Last year, Obama rejected meeting multilaterally with Iran to consider a nuclear ban in the Middle East.
A decade earlier, Clinton quashed an Israeli-North Korean agreement that would have stopped North Korean exports of nuclear and missile technology in return for Israel's recognition. Agreements with North Korea by Clinton and later, Bush, were sabotaged by the latter, when he reneged on the agreement and intensified sanctions. Obama just oversaw a US-South Korea military exercise that had mock bombing runs up to North Korea's borders. Each incident elicited a predictably bellicose North Korean response.
The US invaded Afghanistan claiming it was responsible for 911 (most of the 911 terrorists were Saudis, the planning was done in Germany and the US), and then invaded Iraq--Bush's personal vendetta--and upended the Middle East. Now the US is engaged in sub-rosa wars: in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and probably in more places we don't know about.
Is there a pattern here? Regardless of the President, ever since Eisenhower warned against the growing power of the "defense-industrial complex," US policy has favored an increasingly militaristic foreign policy. The military, and/or the industries that batten from it, push the US toward aggression: they profit from it.
Everyone else, worldwide, is impoverished and endangered, including the American Empire. Its overreach, and the selfishness of our Senatorial class, is bankrupting us and helping to destroy the planet, much as Rome despoiled Europe and the Mediterranean, then bankrupted itself through endless wars and the rapacity of the Senatorial class.
Anything that boosts Defense Appropriations is a good thing, obviously.
It's estimated that 3-8% of released Guantanamo detainees may have returned to terrorism. Even if a third of detainees returned to terrorism--largely in their own countries--would their actions cost more than the loss of credibility the US expends by keeping Guantanamo open? Guantanamo continues to imprison 86 men convicted of no crime, and cleared for release three years ago.
It's about the money. Defense contractors favor their friends: Republicans continue to be their loudest and most effective supporters.
The Guantanamo appropriation is symptomatic of the whole Defense complex. It makes you wonder: who really controls?
Noam Chomsky suggested in a recent article, "Humanity Imperiled," that the US has consistently opted for policies that increase tensions not reduce them. Examples included: JFK not agreeing to a public compromise to the Cuban Missile Crisis, risking nuclear war to achieve a secret deal that appeared as if only Krushchev backed down.
In '73 Kissinger risked nuclear war, calling a high nuclear alert, to warn the USSR not to interfere in the Arab-Israel war; in 1983, Reagan ordered SAC bombers to penetrate Soviet airspace to test their responses--risking nuclear war, again. Last year, Obama rejected meeting multilaterally with Iran to consider a nuclear ban in the Middle East.
A decade earlier, Clinton quashed an Israeli-North Korean agreement that would have stopped North Korean exports of nuclear and missile technology in return for Israel's recognition. Agreements with North Korea by Clinton and later, Bush, were sabotaged by the latter, when he reneged on the agreement and intensified sanctions. Obama just oversaw a US-South Korea military exercise that had mock bombing runs up to North Korea's borders. Each incident elicited a predictably bellicose North Korean response.
The US invaded Afghanistan claiming it was responsible for 911 (most of the 911 terrorists were Saudis, the planning was done in Germany and the US), and then invaded Iraq--Bush's personal vendetta--and upended the Middle East. Now the US is engaged in sub-rosa wars: in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and probably in more places we don't know about.
Is there a pattern here? Regardless of the President, ever since Eisenhower warned against the growing power of the "defense-industrial complex," US policy has favored an increasingly militaristic foreign policy. The military, and/or the industries that batten from it, push the US toward aggression: they profit from it.
Everyone else, worldwide, is impoverished and endangered, including the American Empire. Its overreach, and the selfishness of our Senatorial class, is bankrupting us and helping to destroy the planet, much as Rome despoiled Europe and the Mediterranean, then bankrupted itself through endless wars and the rapacity of the Senatorial class.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Reflections on Ben Hur
I saw it a long time ago: this time, 45 minutes was enough.
As beastly as the Romans were to "the Jews" in Ben Hur, they were no worse than Israelis today to Palestinians.
When Elizabeth Cunningham (my wife) was doing research for The Passion of Mary Magdalen, she went to Israel. Her Jerusalem visit coincided with Ramadan, and she saw Israeli soldiers standing guard over the restive Arab quarter. She easily imagined them as Roman legionnaires, guarding the same streets against Jewish rebels during the Roman Empire.
Yet, Romans didn't push most Jews off their land until 70 AD. They demanded taxes and obeisance--and occasionally massacred them; as they did to people all round the Mediterranean. The Israelis don't massacre on the Roman scale, but they encroach increasingly on Palestinian land in the West Bank, after pushing most Palestinians out of the rest of Palestine when creating Israel. While some Romans recognized that Jews had a long connection to the land, Israelis discount Palestinian claims: they say their right to the land precedes the Palestinians'.
A friend of mine traced his family back to a Polish shtetl, and then found cousins in Israel, survivors of the Holocaust. His immediate family missed the Holocaust; it was in the US. While he's liberal on most things, on Israel, he says things like, "The Palestinians were conquered; the conquerors always set the terms." To him, the experience of the Holocaust justifies Israeli claims: where else would Jews feel safe?
How about the US?
I'd argue it's safer than Israel, which has managed to alienate the whole region, despite the US and Europe continually attempting to bring the two sides together. Meanwhile, the US has collaborated in building up the Israeli military to be a match for all its neighbors combined, reinforcing Israel's sense of conquerors' rights.
The West Bank is still occupied land. Settlers have become a surging political force in Israel, and expansion into additional Palestinian lands is nearly constant. Land is declared vacant, although Palestinian villagers have farmed it for centuries; and sometimes have documented proof of ownership: no matter. Venerable olive groves are bulldozed for new suburban settlements, and highways are built for Jews only: Palestinians are forbidden access--in their own land.
After Masada and the Diaspora, Rome didn't last forever in Palestine. It's unlikely Israel will either, unless: it withdraws behind the 1967 line and recognizes the independence of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, or becomes a secular, bi-national state, incorporating all within its expanded borders, and recognizes full rights to all its inhabitants. Neither seems likely.
Israel cannot expect the US to arm it forever, or forever shield it from its neighbors, especially when Israel continues to arouse them by acting as conqueror: US regional hegemony is already weakening.
Pro-Israeli US policies cannot be guaranteed if the US can no longer afford them.
As beastly as the Romans were to "the Jews" in Ben Hur, they were no worse than Israelis today to Palestinians.
When Elizabeth Cunningham (my wife) was doing research for The Passion of Mary Magdalen, she went to Israel. Her Jerusalem visit coincided with Ramadan, and she saw Israeli soldiers standing guard over the restive Arab quarter. She easily imagined them as Roman legionnaires, guarding the same streets against Jewish rebels during the Roman Empire.
Yet, Romans didn't push most Jews off their land until 70 AD. They demanded taxes and obeisance--and occasionally massacred them; as they did to people all round the Mediterranean. The Israelis don't massacre on the Roman scale, but they encroach increasingly on Palestinian land in the West Bank, after pushing most Palestinians out of the rest of Palestine when creating Israel. While some Romans recognized that Jews had a long connection to the land, Israelis discount Palestinian claims: they say their right to the land precedes the Palestinians'.
A friend of mine traced his family back to a Polish shtetl, and then found cousins in Israel, survivors of the Holocaust. His immediate family missed the Holocaust; it was in the US. While he's liberal on most things, on Israel, he says things like, "The Palestinians were conquered; the conquerors always set the terms." To him, the experience of the Holocaust justifies Israeli claims: where else would Jews feel safe?
How about the US?
I'd argue it's safer than Israel, which has managed to alienate the whole region, despite the US and Europe continually attempting to bring the two sides together. Meanwhile, the US has collaborated in building up the Israeli military to be a match for all its neighbors combined, reinforcing Israel's sense of conquerors' rights.
The West Bank is still occupied land. Settlers have become a surging political force in Israel, and expansion into additional Palestinian lands is nearly constant. Land is declared vacant, although Palestinian villagers have farmed it for centuries; and sometimes have documented proof of ownership: no matter. Venerable olive groves are bulldozed for new suburban settlements, and highways are built for Jews only: Palestinians are forbidden access--in their own land.
After Masada and the Diaspora, Rome didn't last forever in Palestine. It's unlikely Israel will either, unless: it withdraws behind the 1967 line and recognizes the independence of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, or becomes a secular, bi-national state, incorporating all within its expanded borders, and recognizes full rights to all its inhabitants. Neither seems likely.
Israel cannot expect the US to arm it forever, or forever shield it from its neighbors, especially when Israel continues to arouse them by acting as conqueror: US regional hegemony is already weakening.
Pro-Israeli US policies cannot be guaranteed if the US can no longer afford them.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Israel Is Always Right
I've been having a "dialogue" with an old friend of mine, who accepts everything the Israeli government claims, about the flotilla assault, the Gaza blockade, etc.
He accused me of never having to worry about my personal security, while many of his Jewish forebears were wiped out in the Holocaust. That's why he knows: you've got to be "realistic." War is war. International law is rarely honored, and besides, some Turkish so-called peace activists were actually militants. One of those killed had a black belt in Tae Kwondo: he was a deadly weapon--until the IDF shot him.
Personal safety? I pointed out that my son had been working on Times Square until only months before the attempted suicide bombing. I forgot to mention that he'd also been within 20 blocks of ground zero on 911, so I did perceive threats to me and mine.
But why were the militants--the 911 bombers, the Times Square bomber--eager to volunteer? Why are Americans and Europeans volunteering? There is a perceived grievance that al Qaeda exploits: Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. What Israel does in Gaza and the West Bank does affect our security.
That's why, I told him, Israel's occupation, its siege of Gaza, and its Bantustan-like control over the West Bank was going to blow up in Israel's face. America won't (can't afford to) indefinitely support Israel, especially when it is a real obstacle to peace and a liability to the US.
Would Israel survive without US support? Probably, but cut loose, it would have a terrifying potential to become a rogue nuclear-armed state. Israel has been urging the US to attack Iran for years. If Israel attacked, instead, it could draw the US into a new war, along with the rest of the Middle East.
Yet, only Israel believes strongly that Iran is not only developing nuclear weapons, but would use them to destroy Israel. Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear war-heads, more than enough to obliterate Iran if it were foolhardy enough to attempt attack, but a nuke or two would protect Iran from Israel--or the US. It's not clear, from nuclear negotiations and available intelligence, whether Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons, or only medical nuclear isotopes (concentrated to 38% vs 99%) and bluster. It pays politically.
There is bluster and threats on all sides.
How do people get so paranoid? For my friend, war-is-hell and the Holocaust justify whatever Israel does. What Israel did in 1947-8 and since, justifies many Muslim militants, and so it goes. There are a lot of paranoid people in the world. Paranoia can become self-fulfilling, especially if two or more play the same game.
They're playing it all over the world.
The US qua empire is no longer able to stop these games, even when it's a participant: we have an emerging Post-American World. When the US buys into the games, it makes the world increasingly unsafe for everyone.
He accused me of never having to worry about my personal security, while many of his Jewish forebears were wiped out in the Holocaust. That's why he knows: you've got to be "realistic." War is war. International law is rarely honored, and besides, some Turkish so-called peace activists were actually militants. One of those killed had a black belt in Tae Kwondo: he was a deadly weapon--until the IDF shot him.
Personal safety? I pointed out that my son had been working on Times Square until only months before the attempted suicide bombing. I forgot to mention that he'd also been within 20 blocks of ground zero on 911, so I did perceive threats to me and mine.
But why were the militants--the 911 bombers, the Times Square bomber--eager to volunteer? Why are Americans and Europeans volunteering? There is a perceived grievance that al Qaeda exploits: Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. What Israel does in Gaza and the West Bank does affect our security.
That's why, I told him, Israel's occupation, its siege of Gaza, and its Bantustan-like control over the West Bank was going to blow up in Israel's face. America won't (can't afford to) indefinitely support Israel, especially when it is a real obstacle to peace and a liability to the US.
Would Israel survive without US support? Probably, but cut loose, it would have a terrifying potential to become a rogue nuclear-armed state. Israel has been urging the US to attack Iran for years. If Israel attacked, instead, it could draw the US into a new war, along with the rest of the Middle East.
Yet, only Israel believes strongly that Iran is not only developing nuclear weapons, but would use them to destroy Israel. Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear war-heads, more than enough to obliterate Iran if it were foolhardy enough to attempt attack, but a nuke or two would protect Iran from Israel--or the US. It's not clear, from nuclear negotiations and available intelligence, whether Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons, or only medical nuclear isotopes (concentrated to 38% vs 99%) and bluster. It pays politically.
There is bluster and threats on all sides.
How do people get so paranoid? For my friend, war-is-hell and the Holocaust justify whatever Israel does. What Israel did in 1947-8 and since, justifies many Muslim militants, and so it goes. There are a lot of paranoid people in the world. Paranoia can become self-fulfilling, especially if two or more play the same game.
They're playing it all over the world.
The US qua empire is no longer able to stop these games, even when it's a participant: we have an emerging Post-American World. When the US buys into the games, it makes the world increasingly unsafe for everyone.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
A Crucial Moment for the American Empire
One of many reports on the Israeli siege of the Gaza-bound flotilla of Turkish and other peace activists, ended with Hamas's pitiful, defiant response: they shot a rocket into Israel--it harmed no one.
On the other hand, the Israelis did assault a ship, in international waters. Why were they surprised that those on board resisted? Why should the members of this flotilla, set up to challenge Israel's 3-year blockade of Gaza, not resist when soldiers suddenly rappelled down from helicopters? The IDF were carrying guns, and demanding control of the ship. They assumed the peace activists were unarmed. What surprised them: a few had knives, grabbed metal pipes, or took pistols from the invaders, to drive them off.
So, the Israelis, unprepared for physical resistance to their superior military force, responded with "disproportionate" violence: estimates range from 10 to 19 flotilla members killed, one IDF man shot, apparently with a pistol taken from him or another Israeli soldier. Most of those killed were Turks: Turkey was the unofficial sponsor of the flotilla, but also, until recently, Israel's reliable Muslim ally. No longer.
Israel doesn't even offer apologies. It justifies itself by saying that it was merely enforcing its Gaza blockade, and that the flotilla could have been terrorists, or, if they were allowed to land, that others, terrorists would follow. If this were any other country, not only would there be international condemnation, but it would be enforceable by the UN Security Council. The US would sign on, but this is Israel.
My bet: Israel will get away with this latest outrage because, Democrat or Republican, Bush or Obama, Israel is the third rail of US international policy: you can't touch it. The Israelis know this. AIPAC, and the right-wing media will trumpet Israel's story: that Israeli soldiers "had to" kill 10-19, because activists threatened them with "weapons." But their assault was on an unarmed vessel in international waters: a blatant violation of international law.
The assault did demonstrate, however, that the Gaza blockade, more than three years old, is indefensible. It has imprisoned, impoverished and nearly starved the whole population of Gaza. Most of the international community now decries Israel's actions; its assault on the flotilla, underscores the outrage of its Gaza blockade.
However, for any US President, especially a Democrat, to take a strong stand against Israel, Obama will need iron-clad proof of Israeli culpability. Why? The importance of Middle East oil to American hegemony underscores Israel's central role as our "faithful" ally there. It's also why BP was drilling in the Gulf of Mexico: to find non-Middle East sources of oil, no matter how costly. It will be costly, indeed!
The big question: will Obama finally take a stand against Israeli arrogance? If not, will this be the moment when US influence in the Middle East takes a dive? American credibility everywhere hangs in the balance.
On the other hand, the Israelis did assault a ship, in international waters. Why were they surprised that those on board resisted? Why should the members of this flotilla, set up to challenge Israel's 3-year blockade of Gaza, not resist when soldiers suddenly rappelled down from helicopters? The IDF were carrying guns, and demanding control of the ship. They assumed the peace activists were unarmed. What surprised them: a few had knives, grabbed metal pipes, or took pistols from the invaders, to drive them off.
So, the Israelis, unprepared for physical resistance to their superior military force, responded with "disproportionate" violence: estimates range from 10 to 19 flotilla members killed, one IDF man shot, apparently with a pistol taken from him or another Israeli soldier. Most of those killed were Turks: Turkey was the unofficial sponsor of the flotilla, but also, until recently, Israel's reliable Muslim ally. No longer.
Israel doesn't even offer apologies. It justifies itself by saying that it was merely enforcing its Gaza blockade, and that the flotilla could have been terrorists, or, if they were allowed to land, that others, terrorists would follow. If this were any other country, not only would there be international condemnation, but it would be enforceable by the UN Security Council. The US would sign on, but this is Israel.
My bet: Israel will get away with this latest outrage because, Democrat or Republican, Bush or Obama, Israel is the third rail of US international policy: you can't touch it. The Israelis know this. AIPAC, and the right-wing media will trumpet Israel's story: that Israeli soldiers "had to" kill 10-19, because activists threatened them with "weapons." But their assault was on an unarmed vessel in international waters: a blatant violation of international law.
The assault did demonstrate, however, that the Gaza blockade, more than three years old, is indefensible. It has imprisoned, impoverished and nearly starved the whole population of Gaza. Most of the international community now decries Israel's actions; its assault on the flotilla, underscores the outrage of its Gaza blockade.
However, for any US President, especially a Democrat, to take a strong stand against Israel, Obama will need iron-clad proof of Israeli culpability. Why? The importance of Middle East oil to American hegemony underscores Israel's central role as our "faithful" ally there. It's also why BP was drilling in the Gulf of Mexico: to find non-Middle East sources of oil, no matter how costly. It will be costly, indeed!
The big question: will Obama finally take a stand against Israeli arrogance? If not, will this be the moment when US influence in the Middle East takes a dive? American credibility everywhere hangs in the balance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)