Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
July 19, 2004
Suburb of Tel Aviv?

Discussed in the last Open Thread there are rumours of an Israeli/US american air attack on Iranian infrastructure. The last days there have been several leaks to the press by “sources” who claim that the 9/11 commission finds links between Iran and Al Qaeda.

(When hearing this, one should keep in mind that Iran is of Persian ethnics and Shia muslim belive, while Al Qaeda is an Arab national movement with extreme Sunni muslim background. Any report of cooperation between these hereditary enemies should be taken with some huge grains of salt.)

Today Washingon Posts reports in U.S. Faces a Crossroads on Iran Policy:

Since May, Congress has been moving — with little notice — toward a joint resolution calling for punitive action against Iran if it does not fully reveal details of its nuclear arms program. In language similar to the prewar resolution on Iraq, a recent House resolution authorized the use of “all appropriate means” to deter, dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weaponry — terminology often used to approve preemptive military force. Reflecting the growing anxiety on Capitol Hill about Iran, it passed 376 to 3.

Who can move the house to repeat the same error they did on Iraq – giving Bush a free hand?

In the column The October Suprise? William Lind claims:

It is a safe bet that Israel is planning a strike on known Iranian nuclear facilities, and that such a strike will take place. The question is when.

If Israel plans to act this year, the Bush Administration may see a political opportunity it cannot pass up. At the very least it is likely to endorse the Israeli action, and it may well participate. So long as the neo-cons remain in power, Washington is little more than a suburb of Tel Aviv.

Strong language, but true?

Maybe there are some traces in the propaganda war behind this.

Executive Director Reza Bulorchi of the US Alliance for Democratic Iran has published some influental articles in the Wall Street Journal, The National Interest, Frontpage Magazin, National Review and other places of distinct political direction – all demanding more or less openly US intervention for a democratic Iran. He often co-authers with Nir Boms, who also writes pieces on Lebanon and Syria. Frontpagemag names Nir Boms as a fellow of the The Foundation for the Defense of Democracy. That groups mission is:

Non-profit and non-partisan, FDD promotes informed debate about policies and positions that will most effectively eradicate the scourge of international terrorism.
In addition, FDD works to improve education about democracies, and to help promote democracy in troubled regions around the globe.

Some names of members of FDD sound familar: Forbes, Kemp, Kirkpatrick, Gingrich, Woolsey, Krauthammer, B. Kristol, Z.Miller, Perle, Adelman, Toensing, etc.
The American Conservative explains the story behind FDD. It evolved out of the Educational Initiative, Inc. which had the task

to offer Israel the kind of PR that the Israeli government seemed unable to provide itself.

Its nearly $3 million annual budget comes from 27 major donors, most of whom are members of ´the Study Group´ .. a semi-formal organization of major Jewish philanthropists

Dalck Feith, father of Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, also gave $100,000.

On March 9, 2001, three days before Emet’s articles of incorporation were filed in New York, the Forward reported that ´A[n Israeli] Foreign Ministry source leaked news of the initiative -called ‘Emet,’ or ‘truth,’ in Hebrew- to Israel Radio, portraying the effort as a Foreign Ministry project that the Americans were trying to co-opt.

According to the article Nir Bohms was even the first hire of the Educational Initiative. Nils Boms is also analyst in a group Middle East On Target. There one of his career steps mentioned is

a position at the Embassy of Israel in Washington, DC as the Academic Liaison, serving as an educator, specialist and guest lecturer on Israeli and Middle Eastern affairs.

Other sources name him as “former public affairs officer of the Israeli Embassy”.

Suburb of Tel Aviv?

Comments

Not for us to plead “fatigue”–but where, oh where, to begin? Any levers handy?

Posted by: alabama | Jul 19 2004 20:29 utc | 1

alabama–
Your lever is your lever: language.
Note the language of “spreading democracy.” Note on Open Thread the discussion of Wolfowitz as classified by Seymour Hersh “the greatest Trotskyist of our time” referring to the state of permanent revolution — or rather, to be more specific, the goal of instability in the region for certain countries.
Language is being used to create the illusion of promoting democracy when the policies do no such thing: they have as their goal a state of instability. And we all know what democracy, truly representative democracy, might mean at this point in those countries in terms of a friendly attitude toward Israel and Israeli policies, anyway.
Start with language and the assault on our sanity via language manipulation! That is your lever, and we are all the better for it, we benefit from it!

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 19 2004 20:51 utc | 2

me, of course, above

Posted by: x | Jul 19 2004 20:51 utc | 3

Well Bernhard the timing of your post and my previous post couldn’t have been more accurately placed.
First: a clip from my previous post on the open thread. I wrote in regards to 911:

That day of infamy could be used to justify any and all infamous responses.

Could be used to justify preemption. Could be used to justify torture. Could be used to justify the powerful poof of an H-bomb.

Insert somewhere in there:
Could be used to launch an election-saving attack on Iraq.
In between the timing of my post, and the timing of your post, is the timing of yahoo’s current top story:
Bush: U.S. probing possible Iran-9/11 link
Here is a quote from that story:
 

“We’re digging into the facts to see if there was one,” Bush said in an Oval Office photo opportunity. Bush noted that acting CIA Director John McLaughlin has said that there was no direct connection between Iran and Sept. 11.
“We will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved,” Bush said. “I have long expressed my concerns about Iran. After all it’s a totalitarian society where people are not allowed to exercise their rights as human beings.”

So I agree with you and the other posters in the last thread. It is a done deal. President Peckerwood is going to goose-step us into Iran, even if he has to twist the intel yet again to suit his desires.
Heil Christianity! Heil Freedom! Heil Democracy! Heil Bush!

Posted by: koreyel | Jul 19 2004 21:03 utc | 4

Thank you, x–and we’ve got a lot homework to do.
Neo-cons don’t sleep, and since they have no intellectual disciplne–who needs it, when you know your right?–they can operate with unfettered aggression on all fronts. So we have to remind people, very patiently, that this aggression is directed against us, and that a response is up to us.
We have to appeal to the largest individual stakeholders who have lots to fear from the consequences on neo-con aggression–Buffett, Soros and such. They’ve already done their homework, and they know how to proceed.
The difficulty here, of course, is that owners of great wealth retreat, for the most part, from direct political action. I don’t mean that they don’t back things–they back everything–or that they don’t occupy positions of public power (almost every senator is a millionaire); I mean, rather, that they don’t speak directly to the people, in their own name, about the fears they have for the stability of their own investments, which are also, in so many ways, everyone else’s.

Posted by: alabama | Jul 19 2004 21:28 utc | 5

One reason why Iran becomes a target is their quest for nuclear weapons. Her an Iranian women says what she thinks about it:

but if for a moment i distance myself from my views on the current iranian regime and shift the focus to the iranian people–each time i think of the possibility of cluster bombs dropped on civilians, foreign soldiers protecting our oil fields while our ancient relics are looted and destroyed, an occupation army which gleefully rapes and humiliates teenage boys and young men raped and humiliated, or jerks emailing me lectures on “collateral damage” and the “costs of freedom”–i find myself closer to the idea that the iranian regime has not just the right but the duty to protect its citizens from the onslaught of invaders who have as much regards for international law and human rights as does the regime itself.

BTW: She is the girlfriend of Raed, the guy from “Where is Raed?”, the Salam Pax Iraq blog.

Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 19 2004 21:43 utc | 6

I wonder how long until the NSA blocks Niki’s internet access? She certainly makes it difficult for the freepers to villify Iranians.

Posted by: Great Cthulhu | Jul 19 2004 21:55 utc | 7

She certainly makes it difficult for the freepers to villify Iranians.
I wish it were so.
Villification is redolent in the air.
If I don’t hate Iranians as much as I hate Iraqis as much as I hate Al Queda…then I am a failure and a traitor–worthy of only villification from my fellow citizens.
I can’t remember if it was Iran or Iraq where every morning the chants go up: Death to America! Death to the Infidels! Death to the Dogs!
Or…
I can’t remember if it was Califonia or Yale or Harvard where every morning the chants go up: You are either with us or against us! Bomb the ragheads! Fuck you Osama!
Damn…what I wouldn’t do for a faster-than-light spaceship…. I’d leave this stinking planet in my rear view mirror faster than you could say the phrase “apocalypse now” or the phrase “Save the whales.”
[Aside: in regards to the whale link I’d like to pay your species the ultimate compliment: You apes sure have great apetites! ]

Posted by: koreyel | Jul 19 2004 23:12 utc | 8

“I hope it’s worth it,” he says. “Not just Morgan – a lot of good people died.”
They think they’re fighting a just war.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 19 2004 23:56 utc | 9

Jerome, any comments on this article?

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 20 2004 0:02 utc | 10

i wonder how, and if, this might be related to the neo-clowns’ chasing the dream in Iran
BTW, thanks for mainlining Moon of Alabama into Le Speakeasy/Whiskey Bar Annex

Posted by: x174 | Jul 20 2004 0:17 utc | 11

koreyel, You aren’t awrong, and you know that. I certainly do, if only because I’ve been getting some eloquent, and like-minded, communications from old friends in places like France and Italy. As often as not the communications take the form of silence, and it’s not easy to argue with a silence.
It’s well understood–by Jews in Israel, among others–that something has gone haywire. Can it be fixed, or somehow arrested? We really don’t know the answer to that, but no one is pleading ignorance, and I hope you’ll take that a sign that help of some kind is on the way.

Posted by: alabama | Jul 20 2004 0:23 utc | 12

An attack on Iran? What’s a little more radiation in the region?
Radiation in Iraq equals 250,000 Nagasaki bombs

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 20 2004 0:46 utc | 13

Well fancy that!
Halliburton gets subpoena over IRAN ties

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 20 2004 0:49 utc | 14

Here’s the latest “intel” from that agency whose credibility is no longer to be trusted. An excerpt straight from the crapper himself:
“This is not surprising to us. I think the count is about eight of the hijackers were able to pass through Iran at some point,” he told US television.
“We have ample evidence of people being able to move back and forth across that terrain.
“However … we have no evidence that there is some sort of official connection between Iran and 9/11.”
More “murky” evidence from the boys who brought us 9/11 and Operation Stealing Oil in Iraq.
Raimondo gives a little more of the details
Sounds like more empty words and headline distractions to keep the Media Whore from focusing on what’s been happening Today in Iraq.

Posted by: x174 | Jul 20 2004 1:04 utc | 15

@koreyel:
I’d like to pay your species the ultimate compliment: You apes sure have great apetites!
As I tried to point out several months ago at the old bar:
“if only our teeth and claws remotely approximated our appetites.’
This bullshit will never happen. It’s utter desperation BS by the NeoClowns. Our troops are so exhausted and spent, they probably have a lot of trouble standing fully erect.
When you fail to deliver on the threat you promise in the real world, you pay the price.
We failed to deliver on the threat in Iraq, and we are a laughing stock troughout the world because of it.
Threatening bluster again from paper NeoClowns:PRICELESS
Since nobody appreciates my take on this, I’ll just keep posting it till it finally sinks in.
BROKEN RECORD

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 20 2004 1:15 utc | 16

> Suburb of Tel Aviv?
naaah. too simple and not sinister enough for my taste. lets put together some exhibits, then lets try to make some sense out of it all.
exhibit 1, found at rense.com
http://s023.dyndns.org/kawther/K20040716A.html
exhibit 2, found at cryptome.org
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/administration/whbriefing/2004stafflistb.html
exhibit 3, a list-up of neocons
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Neo-conservatives/list (found in exh.1)
exhibit 4, personnel list of the office of a friend of douglas feith (found in exh.1)
http://www.fandz.com/html/zgap2.html
ok. that should be enough.

Posted by: name | Jul 20 2004 1:18 utc | 17

lest i forget the “october surprise” angle:
given the current nutty state of affairs in washington, the often mentioned “october surprise” would be quite simple to bring forward, and profitable on top of that. lets see how.
we have on the one side the bush team and all the neocons who feed from it. on the other side we have israel playing rumpelstilzchen over irans supposed nuclear infrastructure.
a second team of sore losers are bush and the neocons with sinking polls and increasingly isolated.
both the sharon and the bush teams have big time trouble because of their crass policies, and both teams dont want to relinquish power. the best bet at staying in power is iran.
the american soldiers may be exhausted and the generalty may not really want to go along with yet another stupid adventure in the ME, but then, sharon can be a genuine friend if he is needed and this is a scenario which calls for the use of nukes.
suppose that sharon does something “stupid” like attacking iran on his own. the mullahs would of course be pissed off and would probably retaliate in kind just to not look like pussies (not that i think the iranians are pussies). poor lil’ israel would call big bro USA to help, and the USA could hardly decline.
if, say, sharon does his “stupid” move around october and the US intervenes, sharon has brought the extreme religious right back into the fold, and shrub would have a handy excuse to have tom ridge declare “RED alert” and shut down the country.
nice. huh ?

Posted by: name | Jul 20 2004 1:44 utc | 18

How to read ‘Imperial Hubris’
Osama – just a misunderstood good guy
Is there anyone running for President in November who has the guts to reverse the present destructive and counter-productive American foreign policies? It seems that the clearest analysis comes from, ummm, the enemy? But is he the enemy, if he’s right?

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 20 2004 1:50 utc | 19

More on illegal Halliburton – IRAN links
“Oh Mr Cheney! Could you just answer a few questions please?”

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 20 2004 2:10 utc | 20

koreyel @ 5:03PM: So I agree with you and the other posters in the last thread. It is a done deal. President Peckerwood is going to goose-step us into Iran, even if he has to twist the intel yet again to suit his desires.
Why are you (and everyone else) missing the point? Afghanistan is to Iraq as Iraq is to Iran, in the neocon scheme of things.
The PNAC’s vision of pax Americana has always started and stopped with Iran.
We did Afghanistan. Left it in turmoil, with a puppet government in place. The only place it’s safe to move is in a 10 square mile area of Kabul.
Then we did Iraq. It’s in turmoil now, with a puppet despot government dictated by the Bush administration now in place. The only place that’s safe to move is within the confines of the Green Zone in Baghdad.
It is and always has been a buildup for Iran. And if the bastards get four more years, we’ll be there. No October surprise. That’s just too obvious a play. All the Bush admin is doing is prepositioning for the grand move in the second term.
God help us all, should they actually get the chance.

Posted by: Richard Cranium | Jul 20 2004 2:27 utc | 21

New Billmon post is up . . .
And it is a doozy . . .

Posted by: ck | Jul 20 2004 3:06 utc | 22

Billmon’s Latest:
Unsafe at Any Speed

I’ve been as opposed to Nader’s candidacy this year as I was in 2000 – and for the same reasons – reasons which I explained months ago. I won’t rehash the obvious now. If the robber baron economics, constitutional obscenity and foreign policy lunacies of the past four years haven’t convinced progressives of the need for a united front against Bush and the authoritarian right, then nothing I can say now will, either.
But up until the past few weeks, I’ve never questioned Nader’s motives or his sincerity. As destructive as I think his actions have been, and as much as I detest his stubborness and his increasingly bizarre egoism, I’ve taken it for granted that Ralph’s objectives were exactly what he said they were: to give the voters a progressive alternative to the Republicrat political duopoly. …
My guess is that in the end Nader’s reasons for treachery aren’t all that much different from Benedict Arnold’s – it’s the vanity and resentment of a hero who’s seen the laurels of respect and influence he thinks are his due go to lesser mortals instead. Combine that with the towering rage of a prophet ignored, and it’s the perfect combination for betrayal.

Grist for a new thread . . .

Posted by: ck | Jul 20 2004 3:14 utc | 23

Hi all, I’ve been out of circulation for a few days.
Came back to find the usual madness still going on, of course. Sharon’s broadside at France was a stunner. I like Avnery’s critique of it
The Hoax of Paris
It sure seems that Ariel has tipped his hand with this one — made it clear that stoking up antiSemitism in diasporic communities is a Good Thing in his view, a basis for some kind of recruitment campaign.
Le Monde (in translation) offers some more critique and perspective.
And Nicholas Kristoff gives some overdue critical publicity to those scary, scary Left Behind books.
The Tardis controls have slipped, folks — we seem to be rocketing back to the 11th century.

Posted by: DeAnander | Jul 20 2004 3:50 utc | 24

@DeAnander:
Nice to see you back!
11th century ain’t so bad really, if we were possessed of the proper social skills and graces.
Likely bad water and tainted food would do us in first.

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 20 2004 4:03 utc | 25

11th century eh? Why, that takes you back to the beginnings of the Crusades! You can expect a long period of unceasing war, religious frenzy, schisms, treachery and massacre and bloodshed on a major scale. You kick off with an initial attack that leads to more and more people being drawn into a bloody conflagration marked by ferocity and barbarism on all sides. Then the financial shenanigans behind the scenes start to dictate who goes where and who slaughters who as allies secretly betray each other and fortunes are looted and lost.
Not a lot of change there then really.
Oh yes, almost forgot – the Muslims win in the end!

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 20 2004 4:19 utc | 26

@Nemo:
“Oh yes, almost forgot – the Muslims win in the end!”
Don’t think the after action reports, lessons learned, etc. are in just yet. Might take fifty years.

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 20 2004 4:39 utc | 27

Gee thanks Nemo, I was already feeling rather depressed. And I have this terrible pain in the diodes all down my right side.

Posted by: DeAnander | Jul 20 2004 5:13 utc | 28

Flashharry:
This particular post is just to let you know that your point of view is appreciated. I always take what you say seriously and I think you make good points to take into consideration.
Just so you know 🙂
Oh, and I like your experienced POV, it’s always interesting too!

Posted by: x | Jul 20 2004 5:14 utc | 29

@ FLASH HARRY
Oh, the reports are in all right, it’s just that they haven’t been widely disseminated:
Al-Qaeda’s Great Escape
Tora Bora? A defeat for the US. Operation Anaconda? Another pasting. Al-Qaeda? Having a great war by all accounts and having an easier time getting recruits than the US Army. It took just over one hundred years to defeat the Crusaders of old so the first fifty years this time out will probably just see the Muslims playing with the Infidels for a while. I think that some people haven’t read up on Vietnam yet, let alone Afghan and Iraqi after-action reports. Too much reality can make a grown man tremble. When Iran gets attacked the union of Sunni and Shia Muslims will be complete – something they weren’t that keen on doing themselves – and America will really have its work cut out.
I think George W. Bush has to be Bin Laden’s man in the White House.

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 20 2004 5:24 utc | 30

Looks like Sharon wants to make the whole world its suburb. I think, the dangerous thing Sharon is playing with, is that he considers being anti-Sharon or anti-Israel as anti-semitism, reacting by demeaning his critics. Thus, making his critics frustrated and angry and finally ending up by actually creating anti-semitism.
Unsafe for Jews? France is shaken by Sharon’s jibe
The Israeli PM’s suggestion that French Jews should move to his country because of rising anti-Semitism has caused deep unease

Posted by: Fran | Jul 20 2004 5:24 utc | 31

@ DeAnander
Trying to claim that you’re a cyborg won’t do you any good when the lads with the scimitars gripped between their teeth come storming into town. Unless you tell them that you’ve been converted perhaps.
😉

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 20 2004 5:28 utc | 32

P.S. to the post above. What makes Jews think that they would be safer in Israel, as some commented in the Indepentent article. I would consider Israel much more dangerous to live in than France, despite the difficulties for Jews at present.

Posted by: Fran | Jul 20 2004 5:29 utc | 33

Whoops!Me tweaking DeAnander’s diodes @ 1.28

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 20 2004 5:30 utc | 34

Oh groan!
Bernhard, my apologies for my forgetting to close tags! argh… (please delete if you can)
Let me try that again:
Name:
There’s another article to add to your list, that makes this take another interesting twist. It’s one that I thought Billmon cited when he wrote Neoconned, but I now see is not there. Perhaps someone else remembers better than I do, or else he’s changed the article due to Zell’s protests at the original he’s quoted in over at Salon in How Ahmed Chalabi conned the neocons. Apparently there’s been some controversy over the remarks attributed to Zell in this article. Zell claims he didn’t say what he’s quoted as saying here; the journalist, as far as I know, stood by his reporting. (Probably there are links to the letters at the site, too.)
But it’s interesting in light of the Iran connection to all this, and especially in light of Zell’s reported fury at Chalabi, and his sense of being betrayed. (He had a lot of money to make with that investment firm he set up in Baghdad, no?) Hell hath no fury and all that…

Posted by: x | Jul 20 2004 5:35 utc | 36

There’s been an interview circulating around the internet for years, that has been alternately denounced and supported over and over again. It’s an interview with an anonymous Israeli military man (sometimes called “C” and sometimes “Z” depending on what language it’s been translated into), made in 1982 by Amos Oz. Various internet sites say it was printed in an Israeli newspaper called Dawar. Others say it’s from Amos Oz’s book of interviews titled, “In the Land of Israel.”
At any rate, despite the controversy over the article, I find it’s been quite interesting in light of the points of view and proposals made by this anonymous military man, and the remarks and policies of Sharon as Prime Minister. I found it reproduced at this website. Some of you may find it interesting, or not.

Posted by: x | Jul 20 2004 5:44 utc | 37

Fran, you may find the interview (cited in my post of 1:44am) interesting in light of Sharon’s remarks about French Jews emigrating to Israel.

Posted by: x | Jul 20 2004 5:46 utc | 38

“Oh yes, almost forgot – the Muslims win in the end!”
Last time the Crusades ended with the decimation of the Byzantine Empire. We can say for certain that one community that stands to be completely wiped out in this one are Middle East Christians. But they don’t count, they’re the wrong Christians. (They’re not followers of the Rapture books, Falwell et al). Same old same old.

Posted by: x | Jul 20 2004 5:50 utc | 39

@Nemo:
Tora Bora? A defeat for the US. Operation Anaconda? Another pasting. Al-Qaeda? Having a great war by all accounts and having an easier time getting recruits than the US Army. I think that some people haven’t read up on Vietnam yet, let alone Afghan and Iraqi after-action reports.
I agree with you totally. Tora Bora is the one that gets me most.3000 of our citizens are murdered and we have the people cornered there:and no results.
Anaconda-zilch. Afghanistan pushing up poppies and utterly lawless. Then Iraq, another utter clusterduck.
My point was–and I didn’t express it clearly-that this thing can be redeemed by responsible leadership on our part. It might take fifty years or more to undo what has been done.But it can be done.
You came on somewhat strident, Nemo , and I came back with more than a little misplaced snark. We both agree on the essentials.
In short, I don’t think the great majorities in the Arab or western world want to take it back to the times of Richard Lionheart or Saladin.
Also, I don’t think our military, stretched as it is, is capable of sustaining any kind of offensive operation, against any state in the Middle East, for the next two years, at least. And that’s a good thing.
Anyway, I’ll continue to post my BROKEN RECORD from time to time.
“Too much reality can make a grown man tremble.”
In the years since WWII, we’ve grown used to responsible, adult management of foreign and defense policy. Not for the last 3 1/2 years. Insanity apparently reigns.
And this should make anyone tremble.

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 20 2004 6:20 utc | 40

In an OpEd in the Washington Post, Joe Lieberman and John Kyl are (re)launching the Committee on the Present Danger
For information of the historic Committee on the Present Danger take a look at IRC´s collection.

The CPD presented an alternative to the cooperative vision of empire put forth by the Trilateralists with an imperial, unilateral philosophy of power retention through military strength. President Carter chose to follow the philosophy of the Trilaterals, but the CPD and its cohorts became dominant with the election of Ronald Reagan

This is frigthening. When will the Dems throw Lieberman out of their party BTW?

Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 20 2004 6:31 utc | 41

Shades of coincidence again. Bernhard, didn’t you just post some links to articles that referred to the Committee on the President Danger here – July 19, 2004 02:13 AM? Yes, you did.

Posted by: x | Jul 20 2004 6:52 utc | 42

Jersualem Post yesterday said

Report: IAF trains to strike Iran
LONDON – Israel has completed military rehearsals for a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear power facility at Bushehr, Israeli officials told the London-based Sunday Times.
In addition, the paper quoted a senior United States official warning of a preemptive Israeli strike if Russia continues cooperating with the Iranians. The Israeli source said Washington was unlikely to block Israeli military action.
Israeli sources acknowledged, added The …

Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 20 2004 8:12 utc | 43

You have about 2000 people emigrating from France to Israel each year (from a community of ca. 600 000). I do not have the number of people making the trip in the other direction at hand, but it’s probably similar.
Anti-semitism in France is, as far as I can see, used as an argument by the same people for whom anything that happens in France or is done by France is bad by definition (andrew sullivan, the WSJ oped pages & the like).
This is not to say that nothing is happening, quite the opposite, but it is precisely because there’s a lot of vigilance on the subject that it is talked about so much. France has some of the toughest hate-crimes law – and they are enforced. A lot of the recent anti-semitic attacks have been linked to the Palestinian intifada (especially if you look at statistics over 10 years – sorry, no link here, no access to my archives).
The fact that the most publicised recent cases were hoaxes or had nothing to do with anti-semitism (random attacks by a crazy guy) has not made things simpler.
And Chirac’s Freudian slip on his interview on 14 July probably also did not help (he said something like: “attacks on jews, arabs and French people are unacceptable…”
Anyway, Sharon provokes France at every turn because France is still leading the movement that says that Arafat is the legitimate voice of the Palestinians and French ministers insist to meet him each time they go in the region, despite Sharon’s strong pressure not to do so.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 20 2004 8:34 utc | 44

Sharon shouldn’t underestimate the tactical abilities of the French. Labelling him a persona non grata in France was probably a clever move. Don’t mess with old Europe. Most people find Sharon’s recommendations to Jews in France outrageous, especially when they are coming from the head of a state that does not exactly make the headlines for its level-headed and tolerant policies.
The blowback is of Sharon’s ever more aggressive foreign policies is increasing, and it is to be hoped that the result of this will be a strengthened position of the moderate powers in Israel. I for one cannot see where Sharon’s line is leading the middle east, except into total war and possibly genocide. Will the US only wake up from its uncritical pro-Israel slumber when it is too late?

Posted by: teuton | Jul 20 2004 8:55 utc | 45

Time reported on Jul, 16:

Senior U.S. officials have told TIME that the 9/11 Commission’s report will cite evidence suggesting that the 9/11 hijackers had previously passed through Iran…
… Commission has uncovered evidence suggesting that between eight and ten of the 14 “muscle” hijackers—that is, those involved in gaining control of the four 9/11 aircraft and subduing the crew and passengers—passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001. Sources also tell TIME that Commission investigators found that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border. This practice dated back to October 2000, with Iranian officials issuing specific instructions to their border guards—in some cases not to put stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda personnel—and otherwise not harass them and to facilitate their travel across the frontier.
Today NYT says:

Government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the commission’s report would offer extensive new evidence to show that Iran had provided logistical support over the years to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network.
Most alarmingly, they said, the commission recently obtained intelligence showing that Iran had allowed as many as 10 of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks to pass through border stations in late 1990 and early 1991 without having their passports stamped, making it easier for them to enter the United States without raising suspicions.

As many as 10 – these must be the muscle man of the hijackers, as there were only four pilots. The muscle men were “between 20 and 28 years” on 9/11. How are these supposed to have been crossing the Afghan / Iranian border as Time suggestes, in 1990 / 1991 as NYT says???
There is a professional manipulative mix of facts – the public will never hear and understand it. Who is planing/executing this careful psychological operation?

Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 20 2004 9:59 utc | 46

Sorry 4:34 am was me, Jérôme

Posted by: Jérome | Jul 20 2004 11:34 utc | 47

About the 9-11 terrorists crossing the Afghan/Iranian border without passport stamps: we don’t really know that that was a deliberate act by Iranian authorities, do we? My understanding (from Rashid’s book “The Taliban”) is that this border is very very loose–something of a no-man’s land, in which the Iranian army generally shoots to kill–but that heroin gets through with depressing regularity…

Posted by: Jackmormon | Jul 20 2004 12:02 utc | 48

This is all quite depressing. I suppose the Israelis feel they are in a position to do this now because in the run-up to the election each party will be afraid to come down hard on them and alienate Aipac. I feel like I’m living through a rerun. (Remember when Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear power plant and killed a couple of French engineers?)
Just noticed my typo:
Committee on the President Danger
There’s a Freudian doozy.

Posted by: x | Jul 20 2004 12:45 utc | 49

Sorry if this is the wrong thread for this post, I didn’t know where it would fit best and it is only slightly OT.
Don’t you just have to love Paul Krugman – The Arabian Candidate

Posted by: Fran | Jul 20 2004 14:41 utc | 50

quibbling: Maybe the “Ottoman” candidate would have been a more apt and analogous title to the “Manchurian,” but I digress…

Posted by: x | Jul 20 2004 14:46 utc | 51

The first hostage deal in Iraq is perfect: The Filipino truck driver has been freed now that the Filipine troops have left Iraq.
The message to wavering coalition members is clear – you can do business with us. Wonder how many will think hard about some sort of offer in the coming months?

Posted by: teuton | Jul 20 2004 14:55 utc | 52

@x
The Israel will attack Iraqn because otehrwise they will give WMD to terrorists.
Sound familiar?
MI official: Iran may give WMDs to Hezbollah

Iran is liable to give Hezbollah nonconventional weapons, Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser, the head of Military Intelligence’s research department, warned the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee yesterday.
Committee chairman Yuval Steinitz (Likud) said Kuperwasser was primarily referring to the danger that Iran would give Hezbollah chemical weapons.

Expect this to be played big in the US SCLM press starting tomorrow.

Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 20 2004 15:55 utc | 53

aargh…endlessly familiar, and over and over again familiar!
Look at the article you just cited Bernhard, it is full of “might” do this and then they “might” give it to them who “might” do this. Pre-emptive strike three times over. This sounds like pre-emptively striking someone because of who their grandchild “might” be someday…

Posted by: x | Jul 20 2004 16:40 utc | 54

To name RE Zell…
Well, unless she married into the Zell family, January seems to be unconnected to them. A bit of digging (slow day at the office) turns up the name January Riecke(apparently a Baylor grad; previously personal secretary to Laura Bush).
ego

Posted by: ego | Jul 20 2004 19:19 utc | 55

How We Got It So Wrong in Iraq.
By Scott Ritter
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=267374&category=OPINION&newsdate=7/18/2004
A very interesting read indeed over at Anti-War.Com.

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 20 2004 19:39 utc | 56

Just read Flashharry’s article by Ritter. It occurs to me: is it possible we’re seeing a fight between the CIA and the neocons being played out on a grand scale? CIA has clearly taken over business in Iraq — are all the trial balloons about Iran via “anonymous officials” and Israeli military intelligence possibly a way to drag us along further on the neocon program?

Posted by: x | Jul 20 2004 20:26 utc | 57

In recent years, the international community has criticized the United States for abusing its veto power in the Security Council. The United States has used its veto 79 times in the Security Council, almost half of them on Israel’s behalf.
Israel’s actions constitute a “threat to international peace and security,” according to the court, and in such instances, the Security Council must act. But the Security Council had been prevented from acting, the court said, by American vetoes.

Ruling on Israel’s wall: A veto on the U.S. veto

Posted by: Fran | Jul 20 2004 20:50 utc | 58

Over the past thirty years, I’ve developed a dozen close friendships with French Jews who’ve lived in France for most, in not all, of their lives. Each and every one tells me that they do not feel oppressed by anti-Semitism in France. It’s there, to be sure–among xenophobic French who don’t like immigrants, and among Muslim refugees who have a strong grudge against the policies of Israel in Palestine–but no one has expressed any fear for their franchise, or acceptance, as French citizens. No one complains of exclusionary, or discriminatory, practices affecting their lives.
They may, of course, be deluded, and may be deluding me. Does anyone know of statistical information about social attitudes and trends that would gainsay this “anecdotal” comment of mine in any way? If so, I’d like to hear about it. Anecdotes about one or another anti-Semitic episode are not what I’m asking for here.

Posted by: alabama | Jul 20 2004 21:27 utc | 59

@ego:
thanks for the update re. ms. zell/riecke. i thus correct my assumption of “daughter” in my first commentary above. you may be right in that she married a zell.

Posted by: name | Jul 20 2004 22:54 utc | 60

@X
“It occurs to me: is it possible we’re seeing a fight between the CIA and the neocons being played out on a grand scale?”
You are getting very warm x. If you add The Army and Marine Corps Pentagon brass to the CIA side, I think that’s the battle that is playing out on a grand scale.
This is the most detested civilian military leadership since the days of MacNamara’s merry band. Remember what Pat writes.
It’s a wonder some 3 or 4 star hasn’t dropped a grenade in Rummy or Wolfie’s suit coat, after pulling the pin of course.

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 20 2004 23:13 utc | 61

You know what country let ALL of the Sept. 11 hijackers enter? America. You know that the INS sent documents certifying the visa status of hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi to the Florida flight school they trained at six months after the 9/11 attack! Countries that people visited are not retroactively responsible for everything those people go on to do.
Re: the Iran reactor. Even though, as Netanyahu likes to boast, the Arabs did nothing when Israel bombed Osirak, I don’t know if things are the same 23 years later. I really hope we don’t have to find out.

Posted by: kat | Jul 20 2004 23:15 utc | 62

kat: excellents points
Flashharry:
It’s a wonder some 3 or 4 star hasn’t dropped a grenade in Rummy or Wolfie’s suit coat, after pulling the pin of course.
That’s more or less what Hersh seemed to muse during his ACLU speech, although his musing seemed to take the form of wondering why none of the generals have blasted them publicly to smithereens, via the press.

Posted by: x | Jul 21 2004 0:47 utc | 63

PS So then, speculating along, if the neocons haven’t got the pull to get our State, CIA & Defense brass to go along onto the next phase of the “endless war”, and Israel/Sharon goes ahead and makes his own little provocation and bombs, say, a reactor in Iran… then what?

Posted by: x | Jul 21 2004 0:57 utc | 64

@X:
Shinseki’s Army staff fought a very effective insurgency against the Iraq war, from about August 2002 almost to the outbreak of the war, mostly by leaking their thoughts to Tom Ricks of the Washington Post. Most of these guys were purged by Rumsfeld by the summer of 2003.
James Jones,then Commandant of the Marine Corps publicly said that an Iraq War would be really tough, and gave his reasons.Shiseki’s estimates to Congress about troop levels needed to pacify Iraq, didn’t take much guts–he knew he was on the way out. Jones’ remarks did.
Serving officers cannot speak out in public–very bad for careers and a social faux pas in a democracy: same way in Britain.
Serving officers express their concerns to retired officers, and the retired officers do the talking:It’s the Brit and Amercun way.
Wes Clark(Winning Modern War), Barry McCaffrey, Stormin Norman, and a few others spoke for the Army.
Anthony (Over Niagra Falls) Zinni, and Joseph(Looking into the Abyss)Hoar spoke for the Corps.
Well anyway, I’ve got to cook supper now. You might want to check out Justin Raimondo’s archives over at AntiWar.com They’re well organized. Check out “Listen up, Soldier”. It’s a good article about Army-Corps dissent to the Iraq War.
Night All.

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 21 2004 1:39 utc | 65

Demolition or re-routing? Israel goes its own way
UN tells Israel to tear down wall
Israel considers adjusting route of wall
Of course the UN resolution – which the US and five others voted against – cannot be enforced. If they’d been Arabs though…

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 21 2004 1:57 utc | 66

I agree with FLASHHARRY that Iran is not a candidate for US military action of any kind.
A month or more before OIF began I asked my husband about the possibility of taking on Iran. I don’t think he looked at me like I had two heads, but he might as well have. His response was brief and quietly emphatic: “Iran is not Iraq…Iran is a war that nobody wants.” Obviously, ‘nobody’ did not then and does not now include the ranks of LGFers, Michael “All Evil Leads Back To Tehran” Ledeen, and other keyboard crusaders. But if ‘nobody’ wanted an Iranian confrontation back in the winter of 2003, subsequent events will not have lit the desire for it.
Iraq was low-hanging fruit. A decade of war, sanctions, and Allied-controlled no-fly-zones had all but picked the fruit for us. The plans had been on the shelf for a long time. The scenerios had been trained for a long time. This “threat to civilization” was in such a state that its capital was taken inside of a month – by fresh troops chomping at the bit. A small, flat, wide-open country with little in the way of air defense and nothing in the way of air support. Iraq was a do-able, known quantity.
There are many people on the Right who are absolutley convinced that Iran (and/or Syria) is next on the list after the election – and see this, in fact, as the whole point of another Bush term. Which only goes to show that many people on the Right do not know what an utterly precarious position we are now in – in three countries, if you include (as I think one must) our own.
None of this is to disregard the current noises being made over Iran. But the point of those noises is something other than laying the groundwork for military action.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 21 2004 3:20 utc | 67

That was me at 11:20.

Posted by: Pat | Jul 21 2004 3:22 utc | 68

An excellent article, by Stephen Zunes, on the state of the “Roadmap,” hopes for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and Congress’ role (Democrats & Republicans both) in it all. tgs linked it on the “Unsafe at any Speed” thread, but I think it belongs under this topic as well.
Congress Overwhelmingly Endorses Ariel Sharon’s Annexation Plans by Stephen Zunes

Posted by: x | Jul 21 2004 4:37 utc | 69

Iceberg ahead!
Alarm at US drift over Middle East

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 21 2004 6:03 utc | 70

@Pat
“Iraq was low-hanging fruit.”
But they didn’t have much luck in bringing in that harvest, now did they.
The most deliciously ironic thing about this is that the NeoClowns thought this was going to be easy, and wouldn’t listen to some very smart military people who said it would not be.
So here we be.

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 21 2004 13:14 utc | 71

Even a know-nothing like yours truly (in military matters, anyway) who probably always errs on the non-intervention side, can see that had we done this job more professionally there really could have been some positive results instead of the total stupidity and waste the neocons have landed us in. Planning for more aftermath effects, control, peaceful transition, and general consideration for the quality, regulation and protection of civilian life, etc etc could have made a gigantic difference, at least imho. I don’t think we’d have the fierce and growing level of opposition that we do now. The neocons just planned for shock & awe and that’s about it. They didn’t plan as if they were dealing with human beings. Since instability seems to be the name of their game, all of that is probably moot anyway.

Posted by: x | Jul 21 2004 15:43 utc | 72

@FLASHHARRY
“they didn’t have much luck in bringing in that harvest, now did they.”
Grab a capital, unseat a government, and declare yourself in charge. Geez, HARRY, what more do you want? ; )

Posted by: Pat | Jul 21 2004 23:32 utc | 73

@Pat:
I’m wondering whether Halliburton has got all the presses and bottles in yet, so we may press the grapes of wrath, and bottle a very fine vintage.
I’m gone now. Early day tomorrow.
Bernard’s opened a new front: it’s a fun one!

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 21 2004 23:57 utc | 74