Wow, Obama asked me to sit next to him, says reporter

The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman – he who can’t understand why Muslims aren’t more appreciative of being bombed to freedom – was recently invited to an exclusive audience with Barack Obama at the White House. Another present was the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder (a man who loves getting close to any official source he can).

There is something faintly nauseating about corporate journalists being wheeled into a meeting and simply repeating White House talking points after the event. No wonder the mainstream media is broken.

Here’s Ambinder:

The hour-long discussion was on the record, but we attendees agreed to embargo the content until the president finished speaking tonight at West Point. As Obama answered questions, White House stewards served the president and his guests a three-course meal featuring a well-cooked Chesapeake striped bass and mango sorbet. There was wine, too, but no one imbibed. Some reporters scribbled notes in moleskin books; at least two recorded the session with their iPhones; one pecked away at his computer.

Before Obama arrived, a White House aide placed five separate audio recorders in front of the president. Two of his aides took copious notes.  But the president did not seem to be overly concerned about calibrating his words, even as he discussed more sensitive issues, like counterterrorism in Pakistan and his conversations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

“I would prefer not having to deal with two wars right now. We’ve got a lot other business that we’ve got to do with our long-term security prosperity. In fact if your economy doesn’t thrive over the next couple of decades, that will have a direct impact on our military and our ability to project power around the world.”

“I believe that it is very important for us to define the mission in a way that speaks to the very real security interests that we have in keeping the pressure on Al Qaeda but to do so in a way that avoids mission creep and takes on a nation-building committment in Afghanistan.  To steal Tom [Friedman]‘s line, I’m interested in nation building here in the United States right now.”

He gestured at Friedman, the New York Times columnist, who was seated to his left.

one comment

Is Australia serious about holding (Israelis) to account?

With a bunch of Israelis currently in Australia, many of whom should face war crimes trials, Australians for Palestine sent a letter to the Attorney General demanding action:

3 December 2009

The Hon Robert McClelland MP
Attorney General
PO Box 6022
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Mr McClelland,

Australians for Palestine brings to your attention the presence in Australia of suspected war criminal Ehud Olmert, former prime minister of Israel between 4 January 2006 and 31 March 2009.

We make the complaint in regard to his liability for the criminal acts carried out during Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead” which was perpetrated against the 1.5 million people in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009.

As you are aware, Division 268 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 applies to persons such as Mr Olmert.

Approximately 1400 Palestinians were killed in that operation – most of them civilians – and the magnitude of the fatalities raises very serious concerns about the way Israel conducted its military operations in Gaza.

The UN-sponsored Goldstone Report uncovered ten instances of Israeli forces directly attacking civilians for which there was no justifiable military objective and in which they must have been aware of the civilian status of those attacked.

Attacks by Israel, which did not distinguish between civilians and combatants, and civilian objects and military objectives are war crimes and may amount to grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention.  They may also amount to crimes against humanity.  These international crimes are subject to individual criminal liability for those who planned or executed such attacks.

As prime minister, Mr Olmert bears ultimate responsibility for the conduct of Israel’s operation during its assault on Gaza. He no longer holds office and therefore should have no immunity that is relevant to this criminal complaint.

no comments

Rudd helps the Middle East story remain one sided

My following story appears in today’s Crikey:

Last weekend the Australian’s foreign editor Greg Sheridan interviewed former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and provided a platform for him to defend the 2006 Lebanon war, 2008/09 Gaza war and reveal the “most extensive concessions any Israeli leader has ever brought to the table in the search for a settlement”. The Arab victims of these offensives were ignored.

There was no mention of the fact that Olmert was unlikely to visit certain European countries due to the risk of him being arrested for alleged war crimes or the fact that the Australian Parliament welcomed the man a few weeks before  American students had challenged Olmert’s speeches on multiple university campuses. Dozens were arrested for protesting Olmert’s presence as they attempted to make a citizen’s arrest against a figure facing serious corruption charges back in Israel.

For the Australian political elite, Israel is the sacred cow. There is no other country in the world, except the United States, that receives such uncritical and uninformed adulation. Virtually no politician wants to even acknowledge the reality of the brutal, military occupation on Palestinian lands. Or the fact that this week it was revealed in Haaretz that, “last year set an all-time record for the number of Arab residents of East Jerusalem who were stripped of residency rights by the Interior Ministry”. Ethnic cleansing by stealth.

Yesterday in Sydney the Australia Israel Leadership Forum held an invitation-only lunch at the exclusive Westin Hotel for the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Israeli Vice-Premier Silvan Shalom, recently appointed Opposition leader Tony Abbott and various Israeli politicians.

The Australian Jewish News reports that Shalom, “is in Australia this week for a series of meetings with government officials aimed at building relations between the two countries”.

The lack of transparency about the meetings — which politicians and journalists are attending, how many free trips to Israel they receive and what is expected in return for such hospitable Zionist service — is revealing and shameful. Most corporate journalists are happy to play the game. Crikey recently reported on the latest mainstream journalist to visit Israel.

Abbott led the cheer squad: “I’d like to think that nowhere in the world (does Israel) have more stauncher friends than us.” The 500-strong crowd lapped it up, equally happy to hear Shalom call for global action against Iran and Rudd talk about his government’s unshakeable commitment to “democratic” Israel.

SBS TV World News Australia last night reported on the lunch and noted the Prime Minister’s failure to acknowledge the Palestinians altogether. But the reporter framed the event around the hundreds of protesters outside who demanded the Israelis being feted inside face trials for alleged war crimes. The Jerusalem Post wrote that “hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters” welcomed Shalom to Australia (in Sydney, not Canberra as the article alleged):

According to Army Radio, the protesters chanted slogans such as ‘Israel is a war criminal’ and ‘Silvan Shalom should not be allowed into Australia’.”

Crikey spoke to one of the key speakers at the rally, Coalition for Justice and Peace in Palestine’s Jennifer Killen, who said, “…as an Australian, I am deeply ashamed that our government is welcoming Shalom”. She went on to argue that Australia’s refusal to back the UN Goldstone report on Gaza was symptomatic of the hold Israeli state violence has on Australia.

A notable source of dissent was the powerful statement released on December 2 by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union that demanded Australia refuse to welcome Israeli leaders with blood on their hands:

Shalom and Likud’s opposition to the (Goldstone) Report is no surprise given their strong support for the Israeli attack on Gaza in January this year and the ongoing blockade of Gaza by the Israeli Government. This blockade is preventing 100,000 Palestinians with homes destroyed by Israel from rebuilding, through stopping the importation of the necessary building materials from Israel.

In his other role as Minister for Regional Development, Shalom has overseen the continued expansion of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land (watch his press conference urging Israeli’s to continue this process at:  Shalom even opposes the limited freeze on new West Bank settlements recently announced by his Government.”

Another Israeli visitor to Australia is Avi Dichter, accused by the distinguished US-based Centre for Constitutional Rights of “extrajudicial killing and war crimes” after the murder of Palestinians in Gaza in 2002.

In June Australia’s deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard was heavily lobbied not to visit Israel with the Australia Israel Leadership Forum. It was only six months after the Gaza war and a widely circulated petition (that I signed) read in part: “We consider this trip a dreadful affront to the many Palestinians left maimed, wounded, traumatised and homeless by Israel’s devastating assault on the Gaza Strip in late 08/early 09.”

In a democracy we should demand to know the real purpose of the Australia Israel Leadership Forum, led by influential Zionist and Rudd confidante Albert Dadon.

Crikey wanted to attend the gala lunch yesterday. After being rejected, then accepted, then rejected again (only “accredited” journalists were allowed, I was finally told), it seems such forums are content to ignore stark facts such as Israel’s recent reduction of essential cooking gas being allowed into the Gaza Strip.

Shalom told the Australian’s Greg Sheridan today that, “I really believe there is a friendship between the peoples of Israel and Australia, based on common values of democracy, freedom, human rights, the rule of law (and) Western culture”.

But increasingly, it seems that the Australian public doesn’t buy the spin.

Antony Loewenstein is a Sydney-based journalist and author of My Israel Question and The Blogging Revolution.

6 comments

The state of the peace process in 2009

Overland is one of Australia’s finest literary journals. Punchy, provocative, topical, relevant and interesting, the magazine re-launched its website this week and is currently running a Subscriberthon. Do it for yourself and the country. Get into it!

I was asked to write an original piece for the festivities:

Antony Loewenstein is a prominent blogger, and the author of the oft-reprinted My Israel Question and the more recent Blogging Revolution. He also delivered, not so long ago, an Overland lecture on oil and the Middle East. Here, offers a provocative guest post on the state of the peace process under Rudd and Obama.

There are some who argue that the Middle East is a constantly evolving train-wreck. In fact, with notable exceptions, the last decades have been remarkably consistent in going in the wrong direction.

One year after the election of US President Barack Obama provides us with a perfect opportunity to assess his progress. The reality on the ground in Palestine has never been so grim. South Africa said in late November that the expansion of settlements near Jerusalem was comparable to the ‘forced removals’ of the apartheid era. Settlers in the West Bank have filed a petition with Israel’s High Court to demolish a nearly completed stadium near Ramallah. Some colonists are almost begging for the right to live on occupied land. ‘In short, we are looking for a hill-top’, one writes, seemingly hoping for sympathy.

America’s leading newspaper, The New York Times, continues to minimise the deleterious effects of Israel’s occupation. Times columnist Thomas Friedman even wrote this week that the Muslim world should be grateful for a ‘US foreign policy that has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny.’ Tell that to the millions killed with US missiles in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.

Prominent Zionists claim that Israel is the eternal victim of hatred by Europe and the Arab world. Jews in Israel are desperate for peace, we’re told, if only Palestinians would give up their wish to extinguish the flames of hope.

It is a narrative that has sustained Israel for decades. Frame your enemies as irrational, milk global sympathy for the Holocaust and hold the ‘anti-Semitic’ tag over friend and foe. Western elites regularly talk about an Israel that doesn’t exist; a country conjured in their minds. And yet, as even Obama’s National Security Advisor Jim Jones acknowledged during the recent J Street conference in Washington DC, resolution of the Israel/Palestine would ripple across the world. Acknowledging the importance of Hamas to the process would be a positive start.

It’s a travesty, therefore, that Washington is reverting to typical postures that only allow the occupation to deepen and make a two-state solution even more impossible. I personally back a one-state equation, but Western governments claim to believe in viable Jewish and Palestinian states living side by side. Australia’s Rudd government simply operates like business as usual, oblivious to the reality of Israel driving itself off a cliff. Public opinion in Australia is slowly turning against Israel and yet this position is barely acknowledged in public discussion.

Israelis are undoubtedly feeling under attack from America and the international community but it’s hard to have sympathy for a people continually voting for political parties that enrich the settlement movement.

Political inaction has forced the hand of global activists to pressure Israel non-violently in other ways. The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign (BDS) is gaining traction (even ABC Radio’s PM featured a story last week about protests against products from the West Bank).

A major conference took place recently at America’s Hampshire College that focused on increasing the co-ordinated movement against apartheid in the occupied territories. Blogger and writer Phil Weiss attended and wrote the following:

“There were remarkably few older people around. Yes it is a campus-organizing event, but it strikes me that on Israel/Palestine, these young people don’t trust us at all. They have lost faith in their elders as oppressive hypocrites on this issue. You have given us 62 years of Palestinian statelessness and war against Muslims; meanwhile you cheer a black man for president here and Jim Crow and the charade of the “peace process” there. These young people have great faith in the possibility of change. They were almost every one impressive, thoughtful serious leaders with a purity of belief that I can’t match (and don’t wish to; I’m not young). They are leading themselves, without the need for a lot of older guides.”

Established “liberals” in the US such as Rabbi Michael Lerner oppose such stringent measures as unfairly pressuring the Israel, but surely we are long past worrying about offending sensibilities. Currently visiting Australia, Lerner told us at an inter-faith dinner in Sydney this week that BDS would only be successful if enough Americans believed in the wrongness of Israeli behaviour and they currently do not. Fair enough, but the campaign is growing and inaction seems like a morally weak position.

The alternative is indefinite occupation, supported by America, Australia, and far too many countries that should know better.

no comments

The calm logic of the BDS movement

This website regularly discusses the importance of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel.

A recent debate took place at Columbia University between George Fletcher, Cardozo Professor of Jurisprudence at Columbia Law School and author of Rethinking Criminal Law, and Omar Barghouti, Palestinian human rights activist and founding member of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) and of the Palestinian Civil Society Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.

It’s a fascinating exchange. Fletcher seems completely out of his depth, citing virtually no facts about human rights abuses in Israel and Palestine. Barghouti is a model of calm and rationality:

one comment

Hamas and Israel move along their merry way of further crimes

Sometimes a necessary comparison must be done.

First, Hamas in Gaza tightens its rule and undoubtedly increases the chances of human rights abuses:

Hamas rulers in the Gaza Strip plan to introduce the death penalty for gangs getting rich off smuggled narcotics.

Security officials of the Hamas movement and human rights groups say drug smuggling through tunnels that bring in all manner of goods from Egypt to get around the Israeli blockade as increased alarmingly in the past few months.

Nearly a third of 300 prisoners in Gaza’s main jail are doing time for drug offenses, but officials say prison is clearly not a sufficient deterrent to the lucrative trade.

And the Israeli leadership accepts the illegality of the settlements but doesn’t give a damn:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with four West Bank council heads in his office on Wednesday, and stressed to them that “the settlement blocs are an inseparable part of Israel in all future negotiations with the Palestinians. The Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea are regions that are dear to my heart.”

Sometimes, it’s important to remember who is truly under occupation, who is persecuted and who is not and which side is more likely to abuse its own citizens (and others nearby).

no comments

When Netanyahu became Ariel Sharon

Ari Shavit in Haaretz:

Few people are close to the prime minister, but among the few who are, some say he has indeed undergone a turnabout. Israel’s might, not the settlements or the settlers, is his top priority. Therefore, had there been a proposal on the table assuring Israel’s security in exchange for a painful withdrawal, Netanyahu would not hesitate. The tragedy is that there is no such offer – and no such table. Negotiations haven’t even begun. Abbas isn’t giving Netanyahu anything he can use to put the centrist worldview he has adopted into action.

Under such circumstances, Netanyahu has two options. One is Shaul Mofaz’s plan: the establishment of a Palestinian state with temporary borders. The second is Disengagement II: the evacuation of about 20 West Bank settlements and their transfer to the Fayyad government. The Mofaz plan has major advantages, but it makes Netanyahu fear unlimited and unrestrained Palestinian sovereignty. This means he might be forced to seriously consider the other option. We can’t rule out that in 2010 Netanyahu will find himself pushing a limited withdrawal, just as Sharon did in 2004 and 2005.

Disengagement II will have to be completely different from its predecessor. It will have to be coordinated with the Palestinian Authority and granted European support, and it will have to turn the evacuated area into an economic prosperity zone. It will need to prevent Palestinians from smuggling in weapons and increasing their military might, and must assure Israel’s right to self-defense. Such a plan would have to be part of an overall strategic outlook that pushes both peoples toward peace through measured, circumspect and coordinated unilateral steps. A second disengagement would have to be an improved version of the first, a plan with a political dimension and an economic depth that would strengthen the moderates – Palestinians as well as Israelis.

If the prime minister dares to go forward with Disengagement II, things would be easier for Israel on all fronts. It would help Netanyahu in domestic politics, just as the first disengagement helped Sharon, and it would turn the prime minister into the new leader of the Israeli center.

no comments

At least the Soviets eventually fell into their own abyss

Robert Fisk feels a disturbing sense of deja vu after Barack Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Nobody said the US President was willing or able to resist his military commanders:

Victor Sebestyen, who has researched a book about the fall of the Soviet empire, has written at length of those frozen days after the Russian army stormed into Afghanistan just after Christmas of 1979. He quotes General Sergei Akhromeyev, commander of the Soviet armed forces, addressing the Soviet Politburo in 1986. “There is no piece of land in Afghanistan that has not been occupied by one of our soldiers at some time or another. Nevertheless much of the territory stays in the hands of the terrorists. We control the provincial centres, but we cannot maintain political control over the territory we seize.”

As Sebestyen points out, Gen Akhromeyev demanded extra troops – or the war in Afghanistan would continue “for a very, very long time”. And how’s this for a quotation from, say, a British or US commander in Helmand today? “Our soldiers are not to blame. They’ve fought incredibly bravely in adverse conditions. But to occupy towns and villages temporarily has little value in such a vast land where the insurgents can just disappear into the hills.” Yes, of course, this was Gen Akhromeyev in 1986.

no comments

Every whisper or whimper may be heard by Big Brother

What kind of surveillance state future are we accepting?

Sprint Nextel provided law enforcement agencies with its customers’ (GPS) location information over 8 million times between September 2008 and October 2009. This massive disclosure of sensitive customer information was made possible due to the roll-out by Sprint of a new, special web portal for law enforcement officers.

Sprint: 50 million customers, 8 million law enforcement GPS requests in 1 year from Christopher Soghoian on Vimeo.

no comments