Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Asyemmtrical backstabbing in the Levant
Whew! Life ascended from reality-based humdrum is getting stranger and stranger.
According to The Washington Post this morning, Israel has revealed a four-year-old secret deal between President Bush and the now-inert Ariel Sharon that would allow West Bank settlements to expand unabated. That directly contradicts Washington's official peace plan, which froze construction of new settler shacks on that deeply contested swatch of real estate.
The U.S. State Department has fired back, contending there is no secret deal, and the building ban is still in effect and blah, blah, blah. After all, even our sock puppet in Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas, calls the settlements the "greatest obstacle to peace"; Rice HAD to do something.
So... which is it? What's amazing about this kerfluffle is that it underlines how detached from transparence and honesty White House routine has become. Washington-watchers are reduced to arcane divination to deduce the truth - like old-time Kremlinologists who charted Soviet power-plays by noting which commissars got potty breaks at state ribbon cuttings.
And all this on top of a spy scandal that harkons back to the case of Jonathan Pollard, the U.S. Navy analyst who in the '80s became the golden retriever of Israeli intelligence. Antiwar.com is reporting this morning that - get this - doves in the Israeli government may have leaked the name of alleged spy Ben-Ami Kadish to harpoon a belligerent scheme aimed at Syria. The story quotes ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi:
The leak of the information at the present time is believed to be linked to proposed closed congressional hearings at the end of this month in which the White House had planned to use several Israeli intelligence officers to provide evidence on the alleged Syrian nuclear program that was bombed on September 6, 2007. It is now unlikely that Israeli intelligence officers will allow themselves to be questioned because they would almost certainly be asked about Israeli spying on the US. Vice President Dick Cheney and Olmert had apparently planned on using the congressional briefings as a launch pad to intensify diplomatic and military pressure against both Syria and Iran. It is believed that the "doves" in the Olmert administration who leaked the information are seeking to make a military confrontation more difficult and are hoping that negotiations, particularly with Syria, will instead take place.
That's almost too much to swallow. Even the Bush Administration would be hesitant around that stinky "reactor bombing" tale, since the IEDA and other sources have pretty much debunked any credible idea the Israelis' target really was, in any regard, "nuclear." And, really, with or without secret letters-of-intent or embarrassing photo ops like that dog-and-pony "peace process" lampoon last fall, the Road Map is as incogitative as... well, Sharon himself.
But we never know for sure, do we?
Comments (3)
First, your link doesn't work, but here's a good link to the WaPo article in question: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/23/AR2008042303128_pf.html
The letter that the article refers to was not secret, and in fact a copy can be found on the President's official website. The Israeli reaction to the letter has from the first been to continue building activity in order to establish further "facts on the ground." It's difficult to know if Bush really fully understood the implications of the letter, which were contrary to his stated goal of a peace agreement, or if the letter was perhaps written by some other administration member who was overly sympathetic to Israel (Feith comes to mind here). The letter also states that even after a supposed peace agreement was negotiated, Israel would retain control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza, which is essentially a continued occupation, and also completely contrary to the idea of peace.
I also found some interesting information about the Syrian nuclear facility question in and
alJazeera article:
Also from al-Jazeera is this article, published on Monday about how Israel and Syria are discussing a peace deal that would include return of the Golan Heights, captured from Syria in 1967 and occupied by Israel ever since. Since the neocon element in the Bush administration has been vocally against Israel making any peace deal with Syria, or even talking to the Syrians, the timing is also quite interesting.
(I doubt anyone will ever see this post.)
April 25, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Israelis consider the letter part of an unannounced pact that allows settlement expansion; in fact, they allege this understanding was reaffirmed in a secret meeting with the State Department a few months later. Despite your nitpicky point, whether or not the letter was secret is immaterial. That the Israelis have interpreted it in a manner that directly contradicts standing agreements between them and the U.S. is important - and astounding.
And regardless of the published contents of the letter, occupation does not necessarily construe colonization. There is nothing in the document on the White House site that explicates permission for a West Bank land rush.
That's an interesting excerpt from the al Jazeera article particularly:
"...Very few officials ... are actually worried that Syria had then or does have now a programme that would threaten the US and Israel."
...Which seems to indicate high-level doubts that the Israelis bombing target in Syria was truly a "nuclear reactor".
April 28, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your link doesn't work, but here's a good link to the WaPo article in question: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/23/AR2008042303128_pf.html
The letter that the article refers to was not secret, and in fact a copy can be found on the President's official website. The Israeli reaction to the letter has from the first been to continue building activity in order to establish further "facts on the ground." It's difficult to know if Bush really fully understood the implications of the letter, which were contrary to his stated goal of a peace agreement, or if the letter was perhaps written by some other administration member who was overly sympathetic to Israel (Feith comes to mind here). The letter also states that even after a supposed peace agreement was negotiated, Israel would retain control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza, which is essentially a continued occupation, and also completely contrary to the idea of peace.
I also found some interesting information about the Syrian nuclear facility question in and
alJazeera article:
Also from al-Jazeera is this article, published on Monday about how Israel and Syria are discussing a peace deal that would include return of the Golan Heights, captured from Syria in 1967 and occupied by Israel ever since. Since the neocon element in the Bush administration has been vocally against Israel making any peace deal with Syria, or even talking to the Syrians, the timing is also quite interesting.
(I doubt anyone will ever see this post - I'm not certain why I bothered.)
April 25, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment