War Handwavium

Israel’s government has approved the stealing of 139 square kilometers of palestinian land to expand Israeli settlements. This just after President Obama had publicly called on Israel to halt all settlement expansion and just hours before Israel’s defence minister, Ehud Barak, visits the US in a bid to defuse tensions over Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land.

Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has said he will not allow the building of new settlements but will allow construction in existing communities, under what Israel calls “natural growth”.

“This would be the largest area of land ever confiscated by Israel in one go since 1967,” said Hatem Abdel-Qader, the Palestinian minister for Jerusalem affairs.

At this point, Netanyahu’s word is worthless. At this point, Israel’s intentions are clear: Israel will not stop stealing Palestinian land until there is not enough land for a Palestinian state or until the United States finally has the backbone to tell Israel to stop thieving someone else’s land. The rest of the world has long since declared Israel’s settlements illegal. Only the United States stands in the way.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/20096300295121896.html

The short version: Now they’re in power

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/general/2009/06/20096229244641270.html

Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier held prisoner by Hamas, was recently transferred to Egypt in preparation for his release. He will be held there until Israel releases a number of Palestinian prisoners.

In response to this transfer, Michael Goldfarb blogged that he “shudders to think about the conditions” of Shalit’s confinement.

For those just tuning in, Michael Goldfarb was communication’s director for John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. He was previously the online editor for The Weekly Standard, a neocon propaganda magazine that Rupert Murdoch refuses to sell despite the fact that the Weekly Standard has never turned a profit since it started in 1995 and loses millions of dollars a year. Goldfarb attracted some online attention and criticism for two posts ridiculing liberal bloggers as basement-dwelling Dungeons and Dragons players.

If anyone can point me to a post by Goldfarb in which he shows equal concern for the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of prisoners (many of them innocent) held by American forces over the last several years, I’d like to see a URL. If anyone can point me to a post by Goldfarb where he expresses outrage at the deaths of nearly 100 prisoners at the hands of American captors, about 30 of them homicides, I would like to see a URL. Otherwise, Goldfarb’s boo-hoo shenanigans are nothing more than right wing concern trolling. If you don’t know what concern trolling is, go look it up.

A good exampe of the propaganda put out by Goldfarb and the Weekly Standard came in 2 January 2009. When Israel was bombing Palestinians in the cage called Gaza, they dropped a 2000 pound bomb on the home of one of Hamas’ top leaders, killing 4 of his wives, and 9 of his children, Goldfarb said:

But to wipe out a man’s entire family, it’s hard to imagine that doesn’t give his colleagues at least a moment’s pause. Perhaps it will make the leadership of Hamas rethink the wisdom of sparking an open confrontation with Israel under the current conditions. Or maybe not, and the only way to stop Hamas is to eliminate its capacity for violence entirely. Or Israeli leaders can just try to find a diplomatic solution — as a majority of Democrats apparently favor. It worked so well with the last cease fire.

Just to break it down for you, Goldfarb, the epitome of an armchair tough guy, portrays wiping out civilians, women and children, as proper conduct of war, portrays the targeting of a man’s wife, sons, and daughters, as the proper strategy of war. If you look in Goldfarb’s bathroom, you’ll likely find the US Constitution and the Geneva Convention in there instead of toilet paper.

Goldfarb then goes on to misrepresent diplomacy and the previous cease fire between the Palestinians and Israel. For those just tuning in, Israel had a ceasefire with Hamas back in June of 2008. The cease fire was successful for several months. Then in November, Israel sent military forces into Palestinian land and killed several members of Hamas. There was a ceasefire, and it was violated by Israel.

And lastly, Glenn Greenwald explains how Shalit’s release was orchestrated by diplomacy and liberals the likes of which Goldfarb can’t stomach. While Goldfarb and his ilk will try to give Israel’s right wing war mongerer Netanyahu credit for Shalit’s release, Greenwald explains how it was the tireless diplomatic efforts of, wait for it, Jimmy Carter, along with the governments of Syria and Egypt, and the Obama administration, who secured the deal for Shalit’s release.

Would that the Goldfarb’s of the world take their praises of Netanyahu and give them to their rightful owners. (don’t hold your breath.)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/gilad_going_home.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Goldfarb

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/88291/Politics_new_third_rail_Dungeons_038_Dragons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weekly_Standard

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/01/overkill.asp

http://www.warhw.com/2009/01/06/israeli-ceasefire-violation-november-2008/

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/26/diplomacy/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concern_troll#Concern_troll

Salon had an article yesterday by Iranian-American journalist Hooman Majd.

Majd served as the English-language translator for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s 2006 speech at the United Nations. The son of an Iranian diplomat under the shah, and grandson of a powerful ayatollah, Majd grew up mainly in the United States. He is openly linked with the reformists, and is related by marriage to former President Mohammed Khatami.

If anyone knows what is going on in Iran and also has enough cultural experience of America to explain it to Americans, Majd is that man.

The bit from the article that really struck me was Majd talking about the “will of the people” in middle eastern countries and how America relates to it:

If Ahmadinejad is president, the United States is going to have to deal with him whether or not his election was the will of the people. Clearly it’s not the will of the people for Hosni Mubarak to be president of Egypt. It was the will of the people to have Hamas represent the Palestinian territory and we decided not to deal with the will of the people there.

We’ve dealt with Egypt for years and Mubarak has been president there since 1981. You don’t see John McCain condeming Mubarak for rigging his elections for the last two decades. Where is the American outrage over the will of the Egyptian people being suppressed by its government?

On the other hand, the Palestinian people elected Hamas to numerous political positions in their 2006 elections. Many saw Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas as ineffectual in securing a Palestinian state with the Israelis. Abbas was ineffectual. His approach to the Israelis was essentially give the Israelis everything they wanted and do nothing when the Israelis violated their agreements.

When Hamas won 76 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian parlimentary elections, Fatah and Hamas began infighting. Fatah ejected Hamas from the West Bank and replaced their seats with Fatah or other members. Hamas retained control of the Gaza Strip.

And when Fatah used violence to overthrow the will of the Palestinian people, what did America do? Nothing. Hamas was on America’s terrorist organization list and refused to make any contact with Hamas. In 2007, Norway was the first was the first Western country to recognize the 2007 Palestinian government consisting of both Hamas and Fatah, and America attempted to dissuade Norway from making that contact.

What it comes down to is that “the will of the people” is a smoke screen for “American Interests”. America doesn’t want to say it is in America’s interests if the Islamic Theocracy of Iran were overthrown and a secular democracy put in its place. Instead, since many people of Iran appear to be protesting the Islamic theocracy, America supports their cause by saying they support “the will of the people”.

When the “will of the people” might cause trouble for America, America ignores it. Such as in the case of Egypt. The will of the people in Egypt has been suppressed for two decades, but America doesn’t protest that and you don’t hear American soundbites about how this is a travesty and needs to be condemned, because the government of Egypt is giving America what America wants.

And when the “will of the people” elect politicians that America doesn’t like, America pretends they weren’t even elected. Hamas was elected by the will of the Palestinian people in democratic elections. America refused to acknowlege their existence. Not only that, but when Fatah used violence to remove Hamas from the West Bank, America did not condemn the use fo violence to usurp the “will of the people”.

This American concern for the “will of the people” in the Iranian elections, isn’t the reflection of a consistent idealogy in favor of democracy. Instead it is more a smoke screen to put some handwavium on something more ancient: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/06/25/hooman_majd/index.html

It appears that the Iranian government is attempting option (1): Massive violent crackdown that puts an end to protests.

What remains to be seen is whether there will be further backlash as more Neda’s are murdered, or whether the brutality will be so great that the streets will be red with blood and any protester will be shot on sight, creating agreement by murdering anyone who disagrees.

It’s a lot of bullets.

Currently the opposition leaders have stopped calling for more protests and have called for a period of mourning for those already killed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090624/ts_nm/us_iran_election

Update: 25 June 2009: it looks like the mourning is being called off as well.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200962594056586436.html

There’s a good article over at Al Jazeera.

A number of developments have possibly put some stress on the Iranian government and how it can respond to Mousavi’s supporters who are protesting the presidential elections.

The sheer size of the protests may cause some military commanders to refuse to use lethal force against the protesters. And some members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) are sympathetic to Mousavi’s plans to reform Iran. During the 1979 Iranian Revolution, when the Shah was overthrown the army refused to kill members of the revolution. That may (or may not) play out again now.

The Basij militia (about 350,000 strong) are basically Iranians who get some military training and support the army and the police in using force. But they are probably the least trained of Iran’s forces. This could cause Basij members to go either way: they might break ranks to support the protesters, or some of them might take matters in to their own hands in their own vigilante attempt to keep the theocracy in power.

The biggest fracture might be occuring in the senior clerics in Iran itself. The Supreme Ruler of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, is put into power by the Assembly of Experts, a group of Islamic clerics. And some of these clerics do not see Khamenei’s actions as being in line with Islam and some see Khamenei’s actions inciting the protesters to the point that the theocracy itself is threatened. Both would have incentive to remove Khamenei, rather than have the protesters tear down the theocracy that gives the clerics their political power.

This doesn’t mean they these clerics will support the idea of radically altering the theocracy to appease the protesters. But it means that they might withdraw their support of the Khamenei and install an new Supreme Leader who will then support a new presidential election.

Iran’s population is 70 million. According to the Iranian government, about 15 million people voted for Mousavi. According to many of Mousavi’s supporters, far more voted for Mousavi, but their votes were suppressed and not counted. This is a large enough number of people that if the Iranian government loses its legitimacy in the eyes of these people, then the entire theocracy is threatened.

At the moment, the options appear to be limited to very radical paths:

(1) Massive violent crackdown that puts an end to protests. (with the dangerous possibility of creating a massive backlash against the government)

(2) Complete overthrow of the Iranian government (and all those currently in power will not want to surrender their power)

The only tactical maneuvar I can see that might diffuse this enough is if the Assembly of Experts puts in a new Supreme Ruler who calls for new elections. This way, the majority of th Iranian government gets to stay in power. But the protesters might be sufficiently satisfied that they will stop protesting the government.

The only problem with that is, there have been only two Supreme Rulers. The first, Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was made Supreme Leader after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. He remained in that position until his death in 1989, at which point he was replaced by Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the current Supreme Leader.

Installing a new Supreme Leader while the current Supreme Leader is still alive might bring into question the fallibility of the Supreme Leader and the fallibility of the Assembly of Experts and the fallibility of the Islamic Theocracy of Iran.

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/iranincrisis/2009/06/200962355233501334.html

Glenn Greenwald writes about NPR’s Bush Apologist hack Alicia Shepard’s insistence on avoiding the term “torture” when refering to what America has done to prisoners in Abu Graihb and Guantanamo. You can read it here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/22/npr/index.html

Shepard is using classic war handwavium logic, misdescribing the physical violence America has done to its prisoners in order to downplay and minimize the severity of those actions.

It’s not “enhanced interrogation techniques”; it’s torture.

They’re not “detainees”; they’re prisoners.

It’s not the Ministry of Love… well, hopefully you get the idea.

In fact, Shepard’s doublespeak on NPR wins her Orwell’s coveted “Ministry of Truth” Award.

Congratulations, Alicia!

Once again, Glenn Greenwald nails it.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/09/transparency/index.html

The Bush and Obama administrations both argued that we need to keep information secret, not because it qualified as a state secret, but because it was information that our government had act so horribly that our enemies would rise up and kill Americans.

Consider if during the Vietnam War that the Mai Lai incident was kept secret on these grounds. An evil act by American soldiers, suppressed because of the “hearts and minds” it would lose.

The only problem with this is that if we follow it to it’s logical conclusion, then the worse Americans act, the more the government will want the power to supress and hide the truth. The more brutal we act, the more silence we will desire.

There is no use in a government that is transparent about things everyone agrees about but hides its torture and imprisonment without due process of innocent people. It’s like saying freedom of speech is reserved for people who agree with the government, reserved for popular opinions.

The worse our government acts, the more we need Freedom of Information, the more we need transparency.

WARNING: IMAGES OF GRAPHIC VIOLENCE

Neda Agha Soltan, an Iranian student protesting the presidential elections with her father, was shot by a basij member (a paramilitary group loyal to the Iranian government) from a rooftop. She bled to death almost immediately. People nearby captured the moments after the shot on cell cameras. The video has been uploaded to youtube and has been shown on CNN and other media. (Her name has been reported in some places as Neda Soltani)

Neda means “voice” in Persian and “Neda” has become the rallying cry for some Iranian protesters.

The shot appears to have been from a rifle (the bullet went through her and splattered blood behind where she was standing) and the bullet appears to hit her high, centered, in her chest, probably hitting her heart. Within seconds, blood is coming out of her mouth and nose, covering her face. The start of the longer video shows Neda stepping backwards as she slumps to the ground. If she took a couple steps back after being shot, then the blood splatter on the ground would be consistent with the shooter being on a roof or other position above her.

This video shows Neda just after being shot. She is seen falling to the ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZERJTB3Go8s

This is another video, taken from a different angle and shorter duration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkJ274UIYv0

Wikipedia has an article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neda_Soltani

It seems like the Supreme Leader of Iran is quickly losing his options. On one extreme: he resorts to massive and violent crackdowns and resorts to tyranny to keep the political oppostion in line for the next decade or so. At another end, Iran undergoes another revolution. Not only is Mousavi put in as president, but the Supreme Leader is ousted, and possibly the Iranian constitution is rewritten or thrown out completely.

A peaceful solution is quickly being eliminated as an option. How can the Iranian people make peace with the Supreme Leader who commanded the Iranian military and police to kill people like Neda? Things are either going to get ugly and Mousavi will take power, or the Supreme Leader maintains power and there is going to be a complete blackout and we’ll never know what really happened in Iran in 2009.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, made a public speech today endorsing Ahmadinejad as the winner of the presidential election, denying that any election fraud took place, and telling Iranians that they must stop protesting the establishment government.

Many view the speech as little more than a threat to the protesters in the streets of Iran to shut up and go home… or else. Essentially, this speech removes all possible alternatives to the situation but two. There will be no recount. There will be no new vote. There will be no dialogue with Mousavi and the protesters. The only options left are (1) do exactly what the Ayatolla says and accept the status quo or (2) continue to protest and face the wrath of the Supreme Leader of Iran who commands the police and military of that nation.

Clearly Ayatollah Khamenei is gambling that the threat of retaliation will force the protesters to accept his ruling. But his move escalated the situation to the threat of widespread military crackdown on the protesters, which might only make things worse.

The protesters believe they have been cheated by the election. They believe their vote has been ignored. They believe Mousavi won the election and the government is ignoring those results. But the Ayatollah’s speech adds more to the list of grievances being protested. Now the supporters of Mousavi have been told that they have no right to free speech, no right to dissent, no recourse to deal with perceived injustices. Yesterday, hundreds of thousands of Mousavi supporters marched peacefully through the streets of Iran. If all these protests had been violent demonstrations, one might understand the Ayatollah’s calls to end the protests. But the most recent and clearly massive protests have been peaceful. And the Ayatollah demands that even peaceful marches be stopped.

Even if the Ayatollah wins this round and the protests stop, there is no way these Iranians, these peaceful protesters, these supporters of Mousavi, there is no way these people will forget the injustices their government has done to them.

How this ends, I still cannot see. The only non-violent solution right now is for the protesters to shut up and go home and accept the establishment as it is. The alternative is to continue protesting, which will certainly lead to violence. Whether it looks like a Tieneman Square crackdown with massive deaths and a massive government coverup, or whether the protesters can somehow leverage the abuse of the government into some sort of “velvet revolution” and a peaceful change to their government, is unknown. Both outcomes are possible.

Those of us not in Iran will have to wait and see. That assumes the outcome isn’t buried under a mountain of government coverup to the point that there is nothing to look at.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009619102110594729.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200961923416905779.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/06/200961781431119985.html