OlsonOnline

Pete Seeger for Nobel Peace Prize?

So suggests Peter Dreier, calling Seeger a "troubadour for social justice in the U.S. and human rights around the world."

Peter Rothberg, over at the Nation, echoes Dreier's praise:

"Seeger has been an inimitable ambassador for peace, social justice and the best kind of patriotism over the course of a remarkable lifetime."

Here's a video of Pete Seeger remembering the 1949 Peekskill race riot.

Two worth reading: Chomsky and Buchanan on Gaza

As a Jew and former Kibbutzer, it's difficult to justify calling Noam Chomsky an "anti-semite", even  though his criticism of the Israeli government for its treatment of Palestinian Arabs has invited the epithet.  

It's a different story for Pat Buchanan, whose anti-immigrant rants render the "anti-semite" label more plausible.  Like Chomsky, Buchanan has long been dismissive of Israeli policies. 

Both have recently written, critically, about the Israeli incursion into Gaza.  Buchanan, in a piece entitled "Olmert's Poodle", questions whether the American knee-jerk acquiescence to Israeli policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians will survive the passing of the Bush administration:

"With Olmert, Rice, and Bush departing, and Obama and Hillary taking charge committed to talking to Iran, can the old intimacy survive the new friction and colliding agendas?"

That remains an open question.

In a much lengthier piece, Chomsky indirectly provides an answer to Buchanan's question.  He suggests that the timing of the cessation of the "assault" on Gaza was carefully planned

"...to minimize the (remote) threat that Obama might have to say some words critical of these vicious US-supported crimes."

The key word in Chomsky's assessment is "remote", intimating that Obama may be no less sympathetic to Israeli militarism than Bush.  Obama reiterated today "...that Washington would continue to support Israel's right to defend itself."

How will that lead to a lasting peace between Israel and the bifurcated Palestinian government?  

Both pieces are worth reading.  

Also worth reading (for Obama, from yesterday's 25 recommended books) is Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall, which recounts the history of the Zionist movement. 

Beyond the 'dream'

Here.  And then here.

Two "worth reading" on Gaza

The first, by Israeli academic Victoria Buch, visits the moral dilemma confronting Israel vis a vis its Palestinian "problem":

"It took me many years to understand that the very existence of my country, as it is today, is based on an ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. ... Its seed can be traced to the basic fallacy of the Zionist movement, which set out to establish a Jewish-national state in a location already inhabited by another nation. Under these conditions, one has, at most, a moral right to strive for a bi-national state; establishing a national state implies, more or less by definition, ethnic cleansing of the previous inhabitants.

"Albert Einstein grasped this fallacy a long time ago. A short time after WWI 'Einstein complained that the Zionists were not doing enough to reach agreement with the Palestinian Arabs…He favored a binational solution in Palestine and warned Chaim Weizmann against `Prussian style` nationalism.' "

That has indeed been the history and the policy of Israel since 1948 --the forcible removal of Palestinians from their homes, followed by a denial of their right of return.  Or more accurately, as Buch would have it, the Israeli policy toward Arab Palestinians has been one of relentless ethnic cleansing. 

Buch's piece is well worth reading in its entirety.

*****************************

Dahr Jamail has a post up on Truthout, entitled "The Madness of War", that nicely summarizes my concerns about the futility of Israel's assault on Gaza.  Morever, Jamail captures my instinctive aversion to war as an effective instrument of foreign policy, or, in the case of Israel, domestic security:

"I am aware that for those who have not experienced war firsthand, an accusation against a supposedly civilized government of the deliberate targeting of medical personnel, who are, in theory, protected by international law, is unbelievable and shocking. But there are others like me who have witnessed such tactics firsthand on several occasions. I saw it being used by the Israeli military during their assault on southern Lebanon during summer 2006, just as I had seen the US military doing in Fallujah in 2004.

"Such is the madness of war." ...

"How can anyone expect the wide-scale butchering in Gaza to be any different when the dogs of war have been let loose? Psychosis, mental illness, the specious 'logic' of it all: The fundamental assumption that war can ever solve a crisis is false. Has this not been apparent from the beginning of history?"

Party leaders out of step with Dem rank and file on Gaza

Local activist Anne Trudeau sends along notice of an Americans United for Palestinian Human Rights protest at the Thursday evening  meeting of Multnomah County Democrats.  It reads in part:

"Confront Oregon Democrats over the Democratic leadership's shameful support of this carnage against the people of Gaza."

Public opinion has focused on the Bush administration's "greenlighting" of the Gaza invasion by the Israel Defense Forces, and its veto of a U.N. resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire.  But Democrats, namely House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, deserve an equal share of the blame through their silence.

Glenn Greenwald points out that Pelosi, Reid and other Congressional Democratic leaders are at odds with a solid majority of the party faithful in their failure to take a stand opposing the Israeli action in Gaza.  While Democrats oppose the offensive by a 24 point margin,

"...Democratic Party leaders ... are just as lockstep [as Republicans] in their blind, uncritical support for the Israeli attack, in their absolute refusal to utter a word of criticism of, or even reservations about, Israeli actions."

Greenwald goes on to ask

"...is there any other position, besides Israel, where (a) a party's voters overwhelmingly embrace one position (Israel should not have attacked Gaza) but (b) that party's leadership unanimously embraces the exact opposite position (Israel was absolutely right to attack Gaza and the U.S. must support Israel unequivocally)?  Does that happen with any other issue?"

The answer is no, at least not to the same extent.  Even Obama has been reluctant to speak out.  His feeble excuse that there is only "one president" didn't prevent him from condemning the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India.

The death toll in the siege of Gaza, when all the smoke clears, will far exceed the carnage in Mumbai. 

Join Anne and Americans United for Palestinian Human Rights in their protest of Democratic complicity in the criminal assault on helpless Palestinians trapped in Gaza. 

The assault on Gaza

"ISRAEL’s war in Gaza is an act of political insanity. It is the product of a deeply disturbed society, able neither to curb its military arrogance nor calm its profound paranoia. The consequences are likely to be painful for Israel’s long-term prospects."  --Patrick Seale

Not only is the Israeli assault on Gaza "insane", it likely ends any prospect of peace with the Palestinians, at least for the foreseeable future.  In fact, according to Seale, whose analysis (it ran in yesterday's Oregonian --the only place I could find it online was the Saudi Gazette) is a welcome departure* from the echo chamber of the pro-Israeli American press, destroying the peace  process may have been the intention of the Israeli government in launching the criminal bombardment of Gaza:

"The war has, in fact, confirmed what had long been apparent, namely that Israel has no interest in a negotiated peace. Peace means retraction, it means ceding territory, whereas Israel is still bent on expansion."...

"It may be that the war was launched precisely because Hamas has recently shown signs of moderation. Its key spokesmen ... have expressed their readiness to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. To Israel’s dismay, they have begun to distance themselves from the movement’s 1987 charter, which calls for Israel’s destruction."

"Expansion" refers to Jewish settlements which continue to encroach on Palestinian territory in the West Bank, protected by the "security wall", check points, and roads built for the exclusive use of the settlers.  Subsidies for the settlements, where ultra-orthodox Jews especially feel entitled, even obligated (Eretz Israel), to live, has long been government policy.

Until that policy changes, there can be no peace in Palestine.

Make no mistake.  American foreign policy** enables the continued oppression of the Palestinian people and the military occupation of the West Bank.  The new Obama presidency promises no change in that pro-Israel stance.  

In Israel itself, in stark contrast to this country, there is a far more vigorous and public debate about government actions vis-a-vis Palestine.  Perhaps the most dramatic is the protest of organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace, which condemns the Gaza assault and also publicizes the plight of young Jewish conscientious objectors --the Shministim-- who have been imprisoned for their principled stand against serving in an army which abrogates the human rights of their neighbors, the Palestinians.  

One such is Tamar Katz, age 19:

"I am not willing to become one of those holding the gun pointed indiscriminately at Palestinian civilians, and I do not believe that such actions could bring any change except ever more antagonism and violence in our region.”

Young Israelis like Katz keep the flickering flame of peace alive in Israel/Palestine.  

*(Bob Geary agrees.  On his My Oregon blog post, he writes: "It is truly a rare thing when the public is given an objective report such as the op-ed by Patrick Seale, an author of reports on the Middle East. Mr. Seale concerns himself with facts. Unfortunately, we are not used to such an approach."

**("As for the outgoing Bush administration, the blatant lies of Condoleezza Rice, who blamed the war solely on Hamas, must serve as the damning political epitaph of the most ineffectual US Secretary of State of modern times."  --Patrick Seale)

Bombs or schools?

From the New York Times, July 13, 2008:

"Since 9/11, Westerners have tried two approaches to fight terrorism in Pakistan, President Bush’s and Greg Mortenson’s.

"Mr. Bush has focused on military force and provided more than $10 billion — an extraordinary sum in the foreign-aid world — to the highly unpopular government of President Pervez Musharraf. This approach has failed: the backlash has radicalized Pakistan’s tribal areas so that they now nurture terrorists in ways that they never did before 9/11.

"Mr. Mortenson, a frumpy, genial man from Montana, takes a diametrically opposite approach, and he has spent less than one-ten-thousandth as much as the Bush administration. He builds schools in isolated parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan, working closely with Muslim clerics and even praying with them at times.

"The only thing that Mr. Mortenson blows up are boulders that fall onto remote roads and block access to his schools. ...

"So a lone Montanan staying at the cheapest guest houses has done more to advance U.S. interests in the region than the entire military and foreign policy apparatus of the Bush administration."

Let me allow Greg Mortenson the last word:

“ 'Schools are a much more effective bang for the buck than missiles or chasing some Taliban around the country,' says Mr. Mortenson, who is an Army veteran."

Listen to Greg Mortenson, President-elect Obama.  Please.

Bad choice: Rahm Emanuel, son of an Israeli "terrorist"

It's true. 

Rahm Emanuel's father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, was a member of the militant Zionist group Irgun, which "...carried out numerous terrorist attacks on Palestinian civilians, including the bombing of the King David Hotel."

So perhaps Rahm Emanuel is not the wisest choice Barack Obama could have offered up as his chief of staff.  As Obama's gatekeeper, Emanuel is sure to have enormous influence on Obama's stance toward Israel and the Palestinians.  That's what Emanuel's father thinks anyway:

"Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."

No, Rahm Emanuel is certainly no Arab "floor cleaner", but his presence in the Oval Office is sure to inflame Arab --and world-- resentment against U.S. foreign policy.  Consider:

• In 2006, Emanuel "... promoted pro-war and pro-business center-right candidates against anti-war and pro-labor candidates in the primaries... ."

• "Emanuel was a major supporter of the Iraq War resolution that authorized the invasion of Iraq."  He was, in fact the ONLY  member of the Illinois Congressional delegation to do so.

• He acknowledged to Tim Russert that the war in Iraq was for "oil and empire", not national security.

• He's been a "passionate supporter" of more money for the Pentagon, including for the unproven (and provocative) missile defense system.

Rahm Emanuel is a staunch Zionist to boot, which undoubtedly has a lot to do with all of the above.   

Obama's first pick was the hawkish Joe Biden.  The choice of Rahm Emanuel further undermines Obama's claim to be the "anti-war" candidate.

The prospect of Emanuel whispering daily into Obama's ear cannot be reassuring to those who supported Obama for his "new", more conciliatory approach to foreign policy. 

The lessons of war

(This is the third in a series on Andrew Bacevich, the outspoken critic of American foreign policy, militarism, and pretensions to empire.)

First there was Vietnam.

As a uniformed officer who served in Vietnam (1970-71), Andrew Bacevich initially "bought into the institutional view" that America's loss in Southeast Asia was the fault of politicians, the media, and of the American people.  They had "screwed us"  --meaning the military.  After his retirement from the army, however, Bacevich began to see the war in a radically different light:

"Since getting out of the Army, since trying to make sense of the Cold War and U.S. foreign policy from a different perspective, I've come to see the Vietnam War differently as well. ... And I've come to see the war as just utterly unnecessary, misguided, and mistaken. A monumental miscalculation that never should have happened, but that did happen due to some deep-seated defects in the way we see ourselves and see the world."

What followed that realization was a series of books written to explore and expose those "defects", culminating in Bacevich's recently published, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism.  In an adaptation from the book for TomDispatch, Bacevich discusses the lessons we should have learned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which has turned out as planned.   The lessons are these:

• "War's constant companions are uncertainty and risk."  No matter how well planned, wars are "sure to give rise to unexpected consequences."

• The use of military force has limitations.  Whatever the objectives, the use of  military force in the Middle East is not the answer.

• Preventive war launched to eliminate  "possible future" threats doesn't work.  

• Lastly, the "formulation" of military strategy "has become a lost art."  Civilian leaders (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, for example) tend to conflate "strategy with ideology".   Military leaders are increasingly reluctant to set them straight, to speak truth to power.

Bacevich concludes that, instead of a larger army more lavishly funded, we need "... a smaller -- that is, more modest -- foreign policy...":

"Modesty implies giving up on the illusions of grandeur to which the end of the Cold War and then 9/11 gave rise. It also means reining in the imperial presidents who expect the army to make good on those illusions."

Unfortunately, given that both of our presidential candidates support an increase in military spending, those illusions and the "imperial" presidency seem unlikely to fade from the scene anytime soon.*

*(Which is why I've argued that the impeachment of George W. Bush, that most "imperial" of presidents, is a necessary step for Congress to take, if for no other reason than to serve as a cautionary tale for future presidents.) 

Bacevich on politics

Andrew Bacevich describes himself as a distant observer of politics.  He admits to being a conservative.

Nevertheless, the former Army colonel, West Point graduate, professor of history and international relations at Boston University, and author of The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, decided in 2006 to vote for every Democrat possible on the promise of the Democrats ending the war in Iraq.  

As we know, they failed to deliver on that promise.  Instead, as Basevich puts it, the Democrats

"... absolutely, totally, completely failed to follow through on their commitment. Now, there was a lot of posturing. But, really, the record of the Democratic Congress over the past two years has been - one in which, substantively, all they have done is to appropriate the additional money that enables President Bush to continue that war."

Congress has in effect "thrust power and authority to the executive branch" and abdicated its responsibility to advocate for the "common good".  Congress has become a thoroughly dysfunctional branch of government:

"The Congress exists primarily to ensure the reelection of members of Congress."

Will it be different under an Obama presidency?   In response to Bill Moyers question about whether he expects either John McCain or Barack Obama to "rein in the imperial presidency", Bacevich replied:

"No. I mean, people run for the presidency in order to become imperial presidents. The people who are advising these candidates, the people who aspire to be the next national security advisor, the next secretary of defense, these are people who yearn to exercise those kind of great powers. They're not running to see if they can make the Pentagon smaller. They're not."

Nevertheless, Andrew Bacevich will vote for Obama (and here) come November solely on the grounds that Obama "...has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq."  But, as he wrote in the Boston Globe, Obama must go further:

"The challenge facing Obama is clear: he must go beyond merely pointing out the folly of the Iraq war; he must demonstrate that Iraq represents the truest manifestation of an approach to national security that is fundamentally flawed, thereby helping Americans discern the correct lessons of that misbegotten conflict."

As a progressive, I for one am not convinced that Obama will go further, that he has in fact learned the lessons of preemptive war.  He has already announced, for example, that he wants an expanded military, that he wants to send more soldiers to Afghanistan, that he will leave some combat troops in Iraq.  And he has threatened the use of military force against Iran.  

A vote for Obama, by the standards Bacevich lays out, requires a long leap of faith.