Just when you thought Israel had buried the idea of an inquiry into the flotilla incident…

From the Associated Press

JERUSALEM—Israel has proposed an inquiry commission into its bloody attack on a Gaza-bound flotilla two weeks ago, to be headed by a retired Israeli judge and to include two high-ranking foreign observers.

A government statement said the “independent public commission” proposal would be brought before Israel’s Cabinet on Monday for approval.

Chairing the commission would be Yaakov Turkel, a retired Israeli Supreme Court justice, the statement said. The two foreign observers would be Lord William David Trimble of Ireland, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and retired Brig. Gen. Ken Watkin, the former chief military prosecutor in Canada.

Now of course it will be headed by an Israeli so probably will not be free of bias; however, what’s interesting is that a Canadian was selected as one of only two foreign participants in the investigation.

Last week the Economist ran a very illuminating piece about Israel’s blossoming relationship with Canada. Some even say the latter is currently Israel’s most loyal ally. Perhaps Israel thinks it’s increasing the odds of a favourable outcome if a foreign national from an unlikely champion is also on board. And given Israel’s recent tension with America, its allies are few and far between these days.

I’ve spent the past week debating the issue of the Flotilla and Israel with some reasonable Jewish compatriots and others, well, not.

Initially I figured I should comment on it. However, I quickly realized that while the world is busy arguing over what the Israeli government should or should not have done, it’s all just futile beating around the bush. For any Israel-Palestine incident is always about the core issues of war and peace, and rights. This, I would be happy to discuss with anyone.

But meanwhile, I continue to hear the classic declarations: “If this were any other country the world wouldn’t care,” and “The media was waiting for an opportunity like this,” and “How else should Israel protect its citizens?”

Some of that is true; most of it isn’t. But honestly, it’s all so played and I’m just tired. So, here are some commentaries I compiled with the help of some friends and I invite you to draw your own conclusions.

http://www.tnr.com/article/world/75397/sos
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060304287.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/suffocating-gaza-israeli-blockades-effects-palestinians-2010-06-01
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/?pagination=false

Sometimes I think all the world’s a mess and we are merely custodians.

When it comes to Iran, I continue to be flabbergasted by the lack of understanding or complete amnesia with respect to history’s causes and effects.

Throughout much of the last century, Iran was pestered and often outright dominated by foreign powers interested in exploiting it. First the British and Russians, then the United States, then Iraq (with American assistance). Whether it was oil, gaining a geostrategic advantage in the Middle East, or ideological disagreement, there always seemed to be a selfish reason—under the auspices of the collective good—to mess with Iran.

It’s not difficult to link Iran’s revolution in 1979 directly to American and British actions during the preceding 34 years. After all, when you rip off a country’s biggest resource (oil) and subject its people to the brutal leadership of a dictator (the Shah) beholden to your every command, well, you’re likely to piss some people off. Especially those with such a long and proud heritage and culture.

After the revolution, the United States tried to turn back the clock by subverting the Iranian government, hoping to overthrow it yet again (efforts that undoubtedly continue to this day) and re-install a friendly one. In fact its very likely that America’s presence in Iraq and Afghanistan was in part guided by a desire to surround Iran.

And the world wonders why a country in that situation, with that history, might want a nuclear bomb.

Meanwhile, Iran began fighting back in the only way it could: through unconventional means and via proxies like Hamas and Hizbollah, which it continues to use against America’s proxy, Israel.

As a result of Iran’s support for Hamas and Hizbollah, and because of its delusional and big-talking President Ahmadinejad, Israel is convinced that Iran intends to wipe it off the map, literally.

But where Israel errs is when it comes to understanding the motivations behind this antagonism. It’s not just about hating Jews. I won’t sit here and say that there are no Iranians who do, but then again there are people who hate for no reason everywhere (Rand Paul, for example).

Like is usually the case, it’s more about politics and the undeniable reality that Iran may feel like it needs a nuclear bomb (even though America’s 2007 National Intelligence Estimate said it stopped trying) to counteract America’s well-funded proxy Israel, who, by the way, already has around 300 nuclear weapons of its own and won’t admit it. But as the right wing and Israel, itself, would have you believe, Israel is more capable of handling that responsibility than Iran so it should have nuclear weapons and Iran should not.

From the Washington Post:

“We are frustrated with the fact that Iran does not feel the pressure of the world, does not care about the demands of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.N., because we feel that time is running out,” Tzahi Hanegbi, chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said in an interview.

An Israeli security official recently complained of a muddled discourse on sanctions that has made the ultimate objective unclear: whether the Obama administration is trying to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb or only to roll back its growing capabilities. Israeli officials have been seeking clarity from their American counterparts on what the U.S. plan is for preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear device if sanctions fail.

What I continue to find most outrageous are Israel’s demands that Iran comply with the IAEA and the UN when Israel, itself, has never allowed IAEA inspectors to examine its nuclear facilities and still is not a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Personally, I think the policy of ambiguity makes them look like assholes at worst and idiots at best. And as I always remind people, I don’t take any of this lightly, being Jewish and all.

Either way, the games will go on and we’ll all continue to forget how we got here.

Much of the diplomacy executed to bring about the latest START treaty that will be signed tomorrow by Presidents Obama and Medvedev had less to do with reducing nuclear weapons arsenals than with lightening the mood so that Iran could be dealt with. At least that was the American approach. For as we can see, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is still off his rocker…

From the Associated Press:

Addressing thousands in the country’s northwest, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad derided Obama over the plan.

“American materialist politicians, whenever they are beaten by logic, immediately resort to their weapons like cowboys,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech before a crowd of several thousand in northwestern Iran.

“Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics). Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience. Be careful not to read just any paper put in front of you or repeat any statement recommended,” Ahmadinejad said in the speech, aired live on state TV.

Ahmadinejad said Obama “is under the pressure of capitalists and the Zionists” and vowed Iran would not be pushed around.
“(American officials) bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn’t do a damn thing, let alone you,” he said, addressing Obama.

Clearly Ahmadinejad didn’t get the memo that Bush is out of office. Although perhaps he just wants to see Obama in a cowboy hat.

I’m not quite sure exactly how Obama has been beaten by logic here, however. Maybe it was his attempt to reconcile diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic. Or maybe it was his overwhelming rhetoric suggesting that talking was more effective than fighting. No, it was definitely all the condemnation of Israel over the settlements. All of these things “defy logic”.

While I understand Iran’s pursuit of the bomb—after all, they are surrounded strategically in all directions by American influence—Ahmadinejad is proving that he can’t be reasoned with. Luckily the Ayatollahs hold the actual power in Iran, and are much more likely to act rationally in tense situations, which is precisely why a nuclear armed Iran will not do anything—like hand a bomb off to Hizbullah—to bring about its own destruction.

So I’m not worried, yet.

From antiwar.com:

Likely adding fuel to Palestinian claims that the Israeli government’s promise of a 10-month settlement construction freeze doesn’t amount to anything of the sort, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has approved new construction in the West Bank.

Incredibly enough, the approvals come at the exact same time as Barak issued the “temporary freeze order,” which was being presented as halting new construction in the West Bank but actually only restricts permits of certain types of buildings for 10 months. 28 buildings are said to be included in the new construction.

Adding insult to injury, the Israeli government is also pressing the nation’s Supreme Court to allow it to delay the ordered destruction of illegal outposts – settlements which even the Israeli government concedes are not legal.

Israel has been contending with a growing mutiny among its more religious soldiers, some of whom are reportedly being told that they have to refuse the outpost evacuations on religious grounds. Still, the official reason for the delay request is the 10 month freeze, which it seems is making settlement construction less frozen than ever.

The question of the settlements in Israel continues to baffle me, and I am increasingly more convinced that Netanyahu is just sticking his nose up at the world. Peace may very well not be realized until Israelis tire of him yet again.

Or perhaps when an American president will finally stop this.

I wanted to set the record straight about something very important to me: Despite what many of my Jewish compatriots would have you believe, rational criticism of Israel’s policies and government is not a demonstration of, nor is it equivalent to antisemitism.

If that were true, than I, a Jewish person nonetheless, would be guilty of discriminating against my own people when, for example, condemning the expansion of settlements in the occupied territories—all the while having said nothing ill of Jews in any way during the process.

I suppose for some it’s impossible to believe that criticism of Israel could be seeded in genuine concern for the peace and security of the Middle East rather than irrational prejudice against a particular religious group.

From antiwar.com:

Obama Administration officials were crowing today after the announcement that Afghan President Hamid Karzai had, after days of heated negotiations, grudgingly agreed to a runoff vote, to be held November 7.

President Obama cheered the move as “an important step forward” and insisted that it strengthened the Afghan government. US officials were careful not to mention that the reason for the runoff was that over a million of Karzai’s votes were found to be fraudulent.

The massive fraud, and attempts by pro-Karzai elements at the United Nations to cover up its full extent, have been a matter of no small dispute in the months since August’s vote. Karzai continues to maintain that the fraud is a myth, and that the international media has conspired against him to “defame” his victory.

Though there are bound to be questions about how well the nation can throw together another round of voting in two and a half weeks, and whether this vote will be any cleaner than the last, perhaps the most meaningful impact will be eliminating the Obama Administration’s excuse for delaying its public announcement of exactly what level of escalation it intends to pursue in the war.

The last point I find particularly interesting for America’s Nobel Prize winning President.

How do you teach a country to be democratic when all its known is power and corruption? From power-hungry leaders all the way down to the fearful populous upon whom their will is imposed, change doesn’t happen overnight, especially—in the case of Iraq—when such an arrangement has existed for hundreds of years.

Last week the Economist published an unnerving piece about the current state of freedom and democracy in Iraq. The same freedom and democracy that Iraqis were supposed to embrace immediately after welcoming Americans as liberators. Sarcasm off.

THE main book market, in Baghdad’s Mutanabi Street, was a hive of angry chatter this week. Bespectacled traders, complaining about new censorship laws, shouted, “This is not freedom of expression,” and talked of holding a demonstration like one last month, when journalists protested against new restrictions.

But would the booksellers dare? They said they were already worried that plainclothes policemen had been taking their names. Perhaps they should go instead to court and fight censorship with the help of lawyers. “Not a chance,” said one book-dealer. “This is the new Iraq.” Legal protections, he noted, count for little. “Power”, he added, “is held by the men with the guns.”

He had a point. The Shia-led government has overseen a ballooning of the country’s security apparatus. Human-rights violations are becoming more common. In private many Iraqis, especially educated ones, are asking if their country may go back to being a police state.

Old habits from Saddam Hussein’s era are becoming familiar again. Torture is routine in government detention centres. “Things are bad and getting worse, even by regional standards,” says Samer Muscati, who works for Human Rights Watch, a New York-based lobby. His outfit reports that, with American oversight gone (albeit that the Americans committed their own shameful abuses in such places as Abu Ghraib prison), Iraqi police and security people are again pulling out fingernails and beating detainees, even those who have already made confessions. A limping former prison inmate tells how he realised, after a bout of torture in a government ministry that lasted for five days, that he had been relatively lucky. When he was reunited with fellow prisoners, he said he saw that many had lost limbs and organs.

The domestic-security apparatus is at its busiest since Saddam was overthrown six years ago, especially in the capital. In July the Baghdad police reimposed a nightly curfew, making it easier for the police, taking orders from politicians, to arrest people disliked by the Shia-led government. In particular, they have been targeting leaders of the Awakening Councils, groups of Sunnis, many of them former insurgents and sympathisers, who have helped the government to drive out or capture Sunni rebels who refused to come onside. Instead of being drawn into the new power set-up, many of them in the past few months have been hauled off to prison. In the most delicate cases, the arrests are being made by an elite unit called the Baghdad Brigade, also known as “the dirty squad”, which is said to report to the office of the prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki.

But it doesn’t stop there.

The American-sponsored judicial system was supposed to protect Iraqis’ civil rights. But it is sorely overstretched, with some 1,500 people being brought into prisons every month as the Americans empty their own Iraqi jails. The number of Iraqis in American-run prisons has dropped to less than 9,000 from more than 21,000 a year ago, whereas the number in Iraq’s own jails has risen from 35,000 in February probably to more than 40,000 today.

Moreover, sentencing is getting harsher, with more people sentenced to death. On a single day in June 19 people were hanged in Baghdad. In a recent report Amnesty International, a British-based group, says that more than 1,000 Iraqis face execution, often on the basis of confessions, which, it says, are sometimes made under torture.

Journalists are prominent victims of Iraq’s judicial system. In July one was arrested for photographing a Baghdad traffic jam, after his pictures were deemed “negative” for mocking Mr Maliki’s assertion that life in the capital was improving. Last year Iraq dropped to 158th place out of 173—its lowest ranking since the American invasion—in a press-freedom table drawn up by Reporters Without Borders, a Paris-based lobby, which detects a decline in freedom in many countries…

It’s amazing how many years later, there are still so many reports coming out, which prove how stupid the invasion of Iraq really was. And I don’t think I need to say why here.

Newsweek ran a piece yesterday that is of the utmost critical importance to understanding a multitude of current global issues including American-Iranian relations. I strongly encourage you to read it, but suffice it to say: reports continue to indicate that Iran is not trying to build a nuclear weapon. This latest update comes on the heels of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which declared that Iran’s nuclear program halted in 2003.

Particularly disconcerting in the piece is the following:

This latest U.S. intelligence-community assessment is potentially controversial for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is at odds with more alarming assessments propounded by key U.S. allies, most notably Israel. Officials of Israel’s conservative-led government have been delivering increasingly dire assessments of Iran’s nuclear progress and have leaked shrill threats about a possible Israeli military attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright, an atomic-weapons expert who follows Iranian nuclear developments closely, said the U.S. government’s current judgments will continue to provoke contention and debate. “People are looking at the same information and reaching different judgments,” he said. “Given all the developments in Iran, these assessments are hard to believe with any certainty. Nobody’s been able to bring total proof either way.”

Israel is not the only American ally that has circulated assessments that contradict the U.S. intelligence conclusion that Iran is not currently pursuing nuclear-bomb development. According to German court documents released earlier this year, Germany’s foreign intelligence service, known as the BND, reported in 2008 that “development work on nuclear weapons can be observed in Iran even after 2003.”

I cannot think of a worse thing that could happen to both the Middle East and the world if Israel were to attack Iran preemptively. And to think that the option is being considered based on trumped up intelligence is, well, all too familiar in this day and age.

I’ve pointed out before that if it ever came to be that Iran acquired nuclear weapons and launched a first-strike attack against Israel, it would only result in the national obliteration of Iran at the hands of Israel, the United States and perhaps others. Israel assumes, or at least alludes to publicly, that the Iranian Government is so irrational that it would welcome such a result—something so utterly ridiculous it’s simply beyond me.

Those who do believe it point to the public threats made by the likes of Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs against Israel as evidence. But if the last 3 months (or 30 years) has been any indication, Iran’s government sustains itself by focusing the attention of its people on foreign enemies—a very calculated and rational move.

It’s time for everyone to cool their jets.

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal published a really important piece about Hamas’ willingness (or unwillingness depending on how you look at it) to insert itself into peace negotiations with Israel and the PA.

The United States and Israel have unequivocally stated that they will not speak to Hamas unless it recognizes Israel’s right to exist and renounces violence. Hamas has demanded that Israel stop building settlements on Palestinian territory and remove the military and economic embargo on Gaza. It seems to me that some sort of simultaneous concession from both sides on these issues must be the proverbial opening-of-the-door to the greater conversation about Palestinian statehood.

Wars need to end before peace treaties are drawn up. And with the dispute being so complex, peace will probably never be realized unless it all occurs in phases.