Author: John Glaser

Netanyahu’s speech in front of Congress was truly extreme. He said that Judea and Samaria (the Israeli phrase for the West Bank and occupied territories) belongs to Israel. He said the entirety of Jerusalem belongs to the Israelis. He said Israeli settlements are permanent. He said Israeli military occupation along the Jordan River is long term. He said expelled Palestinians will never be allowed to return.

He also mentioned an eventual Palestinian state…but considering what he said about the borders of Israel, one can only assume he means for that state must be to the east of the Jordan River.

This is the recipe for continued conflict. It is a view of the issue far outside what the vast majority of the world views as a viable solution. And the United States Congress applauded every word.

Benjamin Netanyahu will soon speak to Congress presumably to reiterate what we’ve heard from him and others for the past week: “no to Israel’s full withdrawal to the 1967 borders; no to the division of Jerusalem; no to the right of return for Palestinian refugees; and no to a Palestinian military presence in the new state.” That is, no to peace.

Supposedly looming over this recent scuffle between a basically status quo Obama stance and a stern, ticked off Netanyahu is the upcoming September UN resolution to recognize Palestinian statehood. This is something Israel refuses to do, despite harping on Palestinian recognition of the state of Israel as the prerequisite to negotiations. Indeed, everything Israel does on a daily basis – from expanding settlements by expelling Palestinians off private land to insistence on checkpoints to control of the water resources – falls far short of any recognition of Palestinian statehood.

It’s common for Israel to claim that Palestinians won’t recognize Israel and thus obstruct any potential peace. But large majorities support a two state solution based on the 1967 borders. In other words, they are perfectly willing to recognize Israel. The Israeli government (which Netanyahu has most recently made clear) will not, however, recognize Palestine.

It is difficult to imagine Israeli occupation policy has changed very much since Israeli military leader and politician Moshhe Dayan said post- Six Day War: “We don’t have a solution, and you will continue living like dogs, and whoever wants will go, and will see how this procedure will work out.” Or, perhaps more accurately, it follows what Lara Friedman and Daniel Seidemann in Foreign Policy called the “everybody knows fallacy,” namely that Israel’s gradual and continuous expansion onto Palestinian land is premised “on the grounds that ‘everybody knows’ these areas will always be part of Israel.”

The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Muammar Gaddafi, his son, and his top intelligence man under the Rome Statute’s provisions constituting crimes against humanity. Good; they are sick murderous tyrants. But who should be next?

The Explanatory Memorandum of the relevant articles of the Rome Statute say actions qualifying as crimes against humanity must “constitute a serious attack on human dignity” but that “murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice.” Our government’s practice of piloting Predator drones primarily in the area of Northwest Pakistan almost surely applies.

Begun under Bush and drastically expanded under Obama, the drone program consistently kills civilians although clear statistics are difficult to amass given how isolated the area is and how difficult it is for journalists or human rights groups to get in there and find out for sure. But estimates are available. (Go here for drone statistics.) In 2009, 53 drone strikes that we know about were launched. The high estimate for the number of people killed is 724. In 2010, strikes increased dramatically, numbering 118, and killing, at a low estimate 607 people, and a high estimate 993. So far in 2011 there have been 29 attacks, killing a high estimate of 222 people. From 2004 – 2011, deaths from drone strikes are somewhere between 1,483 – 2,364. If the Brookings Institution is correct that for each drone strike approximately ten civilians are murdered for every 1 militant, that is something like 1,800 civilians killed.

With no signs of this program being eliminated or slowing down at all, it seems to qualify explicitly as a “widespread or systemic practice.” It has killed a number of civilians roughly comparable to the number of civilians claimed dead in Libya just prior to NATO intervention (although not a single organization I’m aware of is keeping close track of civilian casualties in the conflict). Gaddafi has been accused of crimes against humanity. Barack Obama is lauded as the leader of the free world.

If the operational basis of the International Criminal Court epitomizes this hypocrisy, it contradicts its own statement of purpose: “to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community.” They merely uphold this scheme of impunity for powerful criminals.

Keep in mind that I’m really focusing on only one program among many deadly programs. The analysis could of course include so called “kill/capture” operations or night raids in Afghanistan (described in this Frontline episode as a “vast and secret” program) which result in numerous civilian casualties and is quite obviously a “systemic practice.” It could include the general policy of a surge in Afghanistan, which has sharply increased civilian deaths. It could even include the crimes that are officially sanctioned by the U.S., but committed by others, like the recent atrocities in Yemen, Bahrain, Palestine, and elsewhere in the region. With these inclusions, the disproportionate ratios of civilian casualties resulting from widespread and systemic practices of outlaw states make it terribly clear that the ICC is not an unbiased, dispassionate arbiter of justice for major atrocities. Whatever it is, it’s not that.

Pew Research Center today:

As President Obama prepares to make a major address on the tumultuous changes spreading throughout the Middle East, a new survey finds that the rise of pro-democracy movements has not led to an improvement in America’s image in the region. Instead, in key Arab nations and in other predominantly Muslim countries, views of the U.S. remain negative, as they have been for nearly a decade. Indeed, in Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan, views are even more negative than they were one year ago.

This shouldn’t be a surprise. Here are millions of people standing up against their tyrannical governments, and the major force blocking their success in all but a few cases is vigorous U.S. support for authoritarianism. “And in countries such as Jordan, Lebanon and Pakistan,” the report specifies, “most say their own governments cooperate too much with the U.S.”

About a year ago, in a Brookings Institution poll of opinion in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates, results were quite similar. It showed that Arab populations view the U.S. as the greatest threat to their region, and when asked what policy changes would most improve their opinion of the U.S., the top four responses were an Israel-Palestine peace agreement, withdrawal from Iraq, stopping aid to Israel, and withdrawal from the Arabian Peninsula.

To boot, Reuters reported yesterday that “Almost 90 percent of men polled in contested districts in southern Afghanistan believe foreign military operations are bad for them, according to research by the International Council on Security and Development, or ICOS.” The air of confusion and consternation at this is even more noticeable in the Reuters report than in the Pew report. “Despite battlefield gains against insurgents,” it says, “the U.S. is failing to win over Afghans.” Translation: despite the reign of constant horror, abuse, and embarrassment the U.S. has unleashed on this virtually defenseless country, they still refuse to admire us!

Tim Lynch at the Cato Institute on the recent Supreme Court ruling on warrantless breaking and entering by the police:

Awful ruling handed down by the Supreme Court this morning in a case called Kentucky v. King [pdf].  The case concerns the power to break into a person’s home without the occupant’s consent and without a warrant… Today’s ruling expands the exceptions to situations where the police suspect that the occupants of a house may be destroying contraband such as marijuana, cocaine, or other narcotics.

…The lower courts have generally frowned on what they describe as exigencies manufactured by police conduct, but the Supreme Court has now overturned those lower court precedents by a 8-1 vote.  In dissent, Justice Ginsburg asked the right question: “How ‘secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?”

This exemplifies what the great Randolph Bourne said, that “war is the health of the state.” Our increasingly militaristic foreign policy slowly bred a militarism here at home, and these slowly breed a rescission of basic individual rights, like those embedded in the Amendment IV of the United States Constitution.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that high level negotiations have been picking up between the Obama administration and the Taliban.

The administration has accelerated direct talks with the Taliban, initiated several months ago, that U.S. officials say they hope will enable President Obama to report progress toward a settlement of the Afghanistan war when he announces troop withdrawals in July.

A senior Afghan official said a U.S. representative attended at least three meetings in Qatar and Germany, one as recently as “eight or nine days ago,” with a Taliban official considered close to Mohammad Omar, the group’s leader.

Underlying these negotiations is the sad irony that any success will be determined by “provid[ing] what the Taliban considers an acceptable share of political power in Afghanistan.” Obama’s surge in Afghanistan rested on a foundation of ridding Afghanistan of such extremists as the Taliban and upholding the puppet government of Hamid Karzai. Now, after all this fighting and wasted blood and treasure, they want to cede some control to the Taliban. This is a fine thing insofar as it leads to an end to the war, but if that will be the final result of these negotiations, why couldn’t they have taken place years ago?

Another factor to consider is what Paul Pillar at the National Interest writes about negotiations:

U.S. policymakers seem to realize that negotiation will have to be part of any reasonably respectable conclusion to the U.S. military expedition in Afghanistan. They have repeatedly said as much. But even many who accept that reality insert a caveat about timing. Negotiations, yes, they say—but only after further coalition military operations have softened up the Taliban, so the Taliban will be more pliable in the subsequent bargaining.

…We usually view it as highly asymmetric. We see military setbacks to our side as the occasion for redoubling our effort to turn the war in our favor, but see military setbacks to the adversary as a reason he ought to be suing for peace. We believe we ought to persevere until we have achieved a clear military advantage, but we do not expect the adversary to persevere with a similar objective in mind.

These talks can only be successful if the aim of both parties is to end the war, not to appear as the victor, to play politics, or to save face.