Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
From the Dept. of Intellectual Dishonesty
Riding the bus en route to work this morning, I read Elliott Abrams' op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on the aborted peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. The gist of Abrams' argument is that the Obama Administration is spending too much time wringing its hands over Israeli settlements when it could be paying attention to the good news coming out of the West Bank: at the same time in which the economy in the West Bank is growing at 8%, Palestinian security forces are making real gains as well. The Obama Administration, in other words, needs to stop fretting about Israeli settlements. And the suspension of peace talks? Who cares? "The sky," Abrams writes, "is not falling."
The problem with Abrams' op-ed is in his sourcing. He writes:
The World Bank reported this month that "If the Palestinian Authority (PA) maintains its current performance in institution-building and delivery of public services, it is well-positioned for the establishment of a state at any point in the near future." The West Bank's economy will grow 8% this year, said the bank. Meanwhile, tax revenues are 15% above target and 50% higher than in the same period last year.
Good news, right? Absolutely. But Abrams left out one of the other major findings of the report (.pdf) -- the one that undermines his entire op-ed:
Sustainable economic growth in the West Bank and Gaza, however, remains absent. Significant changes in the policy environment are still required for increased private investment particularly in the productive sectors, enabling the PA to significantly reduce its dependence on donor aid.
h. The obstacles facing private investment in the West Bank are manifold and myriad, as many important GoI restrictions remain in place: (a) access to the majority of the territory’s land and water (Area C) is severely curtailed; (b) East Jerusalem -- a lucrative market -- is beyond reach; (c) the ability of investors to enter into Israel and the West Bank is unpredictable; and (d) many raw materials critical to the productive sectors are classified by the GoI as “dual-use” (civilian and military) and their import entails the navigation of complex procedures, generating delays and significantly increasing costs. ... Unless action is taken in the near future to address the remaining obstacles to private sector development and sustainable growth, the PA will remain donor dependent and its institutions, no matter how robust, will not be able to underpin a viable state.
The point of the whole friggin' World Bank report was that the very real economic gains we have witnessed in the West Bank over the past few years will turn out to be ephemeral if they are not followed by a political settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. That political settlement doesn't necessarily have to lead to the immediate creation of a Palestinian state, but it has to address the areas of concern highlighted in the above paragraph. And that bit about "access to the majority of the territory’s land and water" being severely curtailed? Any guesses from the readership what the World Bank research staff thinks is doing the curtailing?
Abrams continues:
Regarding security, cooperation between Israeli and PA forces has never been better. This month the International Crisis Group acknowledged that "In the past few years, the Palestinian Authority (PA) largely has restored order and a sense of personal safety in the West Bank, something unthinkable during the second intifada. Militias no longer roam streets, uniformed security forces are back, Palestinians seem mostly pleased; even Israel -- with reason to be skeptical and despite recent attacks on West Bank settlers -- is encouraged."
Again, nothing wrong with that paragraph, and you can read that report as well. But again, Abrams doesn't mention a key finding of that report:
The undeniable success of the reform agenda has been built in part on popular fatigue and despair – the sense that the situation had so deteriorated that Palestinians are prepared to swallow quite a bit for the sake of stability, including deepened security cooperation with their foe. Yet, as the situation normalises over time, they could show less indulgence. Should Israeli-Palestinian negotiations collapse – and, with them, any remaining hope for an agreement – Palestinian security forces might find it difficult to keep up their existing posture. ... Without a credible Israeli-Palestinian peace process or their own genuine reconciliation process, Palestinians will be stuck in their long and tenuous attempt to square the circle: to build a state while still under occupation; to deepen cooperation with the occupier in the security realm even as they seek to confront it elsewhere; and to reach an understanding with their historic foe even as they prove unable to reach an understanding among themselves.
The Crisis Group report that Abrams cites, like the World Bank report, only supports the thesis of Abrams' op-ed if you very selectively cut and paste from the reports. Otherwise, the reports he cites actually undermine the central argument of his op-ed. (And it goes without saying that Abrams did not similarly endorse this Crisis Group report. Or cite the 2009 address by Keith Dayton to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (.pdf) in which Dayton similarly warned that security gains in the West Bank were ephemeral absent political progress.)
Abrams has to know this. I mean, even assuming Abrams did not himself read the entire Crisis Group report, that bit above was from the executive summary. And again, let's assume Abrams did not read the entirety of that World Bank report either. No matter: here is a representative example of the way that World Bank report was greeted by the mainstream media upon its release last week:
JERUSALEM — The World Bank warned on Thursday that the Palestinians will be unable to build a viable state unless Israel lifts its restrictions that stymie private investment in the Palestinian territories.
The economy of the West Bank and Gaza is expected to grow eight percent this year, but largely thanks to foreign aid, the Bank wrote in a report.
The report's release coincided with the conclusion of two days of Middle East peace talks which a Palestinian official said "made no progress."
"Unless action is taken in the near future to address the remaining obstacles to private sector development and sustainable growth, the PA (Palestinian Authority) will remain donor dependent and its institutions, no matter how robust, will not be able to underpin a viable state," the report said.
(That last bit from the AFP, but for the sake of balance, here is another example from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Different news service, same slant.)
I have heard from many people I admire and trust that Abrams is one of the most brilliant people in Washington. But this is the kind of stuff that gives think tank researchers a bad name. I simply cannot believe that Abrams was not aware of the conclusions of the reports he cites when he cited them. Not mentioning those conclusions in his op-ed, then, is worse than disingenuous.
You guys know how much I hate talking about and writing about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. And the point of this post is not to counter Abrams' argument. The point of this post is that unlike most readers of the Wall Street Journal, those paid to study security issues in the Middle East for a living (and are thus familiar with the sources Abrams cites) know when an author is selectively sourcing his argument and deliberately avoiding evidence or conclusions that might weaken his thesis. Again, this is worse than disingenuous. This is dishonest.
That's a great summary.
That's a great summary. Unequivocally busted, you might say.
I haven't seen anything this brazenly cheeky and dishonest since I edited out a "not" in some sentence I was quoting for a school project when I was 14 (it would have wrecked my argument). While the project did not count towards any termly marks or certificates, I still feel bad about that to this day. I doubt Abrams will be similarly afflicted.
www.thegulfblog.com
Nice post - the type I think
Nice post - the type I think you were aiming for when you said you were giving up 250-500 word blog posts in favor of more long-form "journalism." As little as it may be coming from a pseudonymous blogger, great job.
One minor quibble, though: rather than say this is something that people who study *security* issues in the Middle East can (or should) recognize, perhaps it should be broadened to something that people who study the *economics* or the *political economy* of the region, or perhaps just the region *itself,* can or should recognize.
Again, though, very, very nice.
ADTS
This is why I read blogs.
This is why I read blogs. This is precisely why. Thanks.
I'm so sick of this win the
I'm so sick of this win the hearts and minds nonsense. The way we are fighting this war is a joke starting from the top. If one of my privates can point out discrepancies in the way we are trying to win, you know some serious bull sh*t is going on. But lets see a whole list of problems with this hearts and minds plan.
1. Most soldiers cannot relate to Afghan culture.
We don't trust them and they don't trust us (for the most part). Many would say you need to build relationships with them. But lets be honest, these relationships are just opportunistic. I've fought alongside Afghanis and some are good people. But the guys fighting alongside us have something in common with us. If you think we'd risk our lives for a population that hates us, I'm sorry, but no.
2. No one wants to win a war for a failed puppet government.
GIRoA IS A JOKE. We're fighting to support a government that Afghanis don't like and that the US is seemingly powerless to change. We can't even get Karzai to investigate corruption in his own government.. Does this seem completely ludicrous to anyone else? We're pouring billions into this country and what are we getting out of it? That's what it boils down to. Why is the question that no one can answer. Why are we doing this? Why are we helping?
If the soldiers at the bottom don't know then how the hell can you expect them to care about about a population that for the most part doesn't want us there. We aren't there for the good of Afghanistan. We're there because we have to be. And if the people that make us be there can't think of a solution or won't put that solution into place due to public opinion. Then hell no we won't care about anything except the guy next to us.
3. War fighting policies.
Our ROE energizes the enemy and puts us at a disadvantage. It also creates a level of comfort among the population that, frankly, makes the soldiers uncomfortable. The issue of safety also gets in the way beyond a point of frustration. It hinders us in every imaginable way whether it be movement capabilities or red tape. There's way too many WTF moments in the military that everyone knows about but no one seems to address. Where does doctrine leave off and cerebral function kick in? You're asking us to follow these guidelines but it's gotten to the point where there's so many rules that there's no room to make your own decisions anymore. And it's been this way so long that commanders are more worried about forcepro than getting sh*t done.
4. strategy
Our strategy is fundamentally flawed. Move into the the cities>> Protect the population>> Train the ANA>> ?? Stay in Afghanistan and babysit their worthless government? No thanks. Without a working government there's nothing to assure us that it wont all crumble as soon as we leave. Especially with Karzai trying set up peace talks with the taliban and al qaeda. Still, no one has the nuts to kick karzai and friends out. All at the expense of lives on both sides and a whole lot of money from the US.
5. People don't get it.
Here's the purest answer you'll get. It's us or them. That's how we think and that's how they think. In the korengal we hardly used trucks but the same principles apply. I'd piss off all of afghanistan to keep one of my buddies alive. That's the bottom line.
Im shocked, shocked I say,
Im shocked, shocked I say, that a pro-Israel Wall Street writer would deal with facts and conclusions in a selective way. Lol.
From a purely technical point of view, the crushing of the Obama administration by the Israel lobby (or The Lobby That Shall Not Be Named, if you please) has been a pure example of craft. They came, they kicked ass, they did a victory dance right in the presidents face, and they got rich for doing it. Just amazing.
Well, Elliot Abrams isn't so
Well, Elliot Abrams isn't so brilliant - go back and look at what he said about Iraq's chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, as well as about the opponents of the disastrous Iraq war.
The Iraq war was a neoconservative project backed by Wall Street and run by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and the other neocon allies - including Abrams and James Woolsey of Team B / "Committee on the Present Danger" fame (Lieberman was on that too).
What did they say, over and over? "Individuals who oppose the attack, invasion, and occupation of Iraq don't value democracy and human rights."
What were the predictions of these brilliant strategists? There would be no post-war insurgency because it would be like the liberation of France, and all these WMDs would be discovered, and Iran would be weakened. All those were wildly false assumptions. Go read Brooking's Pollack on how much the war was supposed to cost, for example. The ludicrous claims in that book (Threatening Storm) turned into a list of neocon talking points for the war, but were all inventions. That didn't seem to hurt Pollack's career at Brookings Propaganda Center, did it?
The basic thrust of the neocons was that now that the Soviet Union no longer existed, the U.S. must use its military power to secure the oil producing regions. This Pax Americana was intended to replace UN negotiations in favor of unilateral action ordered by a unitary president - I swear, it looks like a Fuhrerprinzip approach.
This neoconservative wet dream, glorious as some might think it, was driven by a fundamental misunderstanding of post-Cold War global realities, something the neocon dinosaurs, with their ossified brains, were incapable of comprehending. It couldn't work, in other words - just megalomaniacal wanking.
Strategically and tactically, the neocons were idiots. A complete focus on Afghanistan was needed, and they didn't give it - so the Taliban took over again. In Iraq as in Afghanistan, there were too few troops to control borders. The "reconstruction programs" overseen by neocon crooks was a massive ripoff that spawned a joint Shia-Sunni insurgency as well as turning the Afghan populace against the occupation.
The neocon response was to start a massive Iraqi prison torture program based on disgusting sexual humiliation of prisoners - although they also used assassins in an effort to drive wedges between Shia and Sunni. The bombing of the al-Askari mosque in Samarra in 2006 was most likely an expression of this "wedge strategy" - a strategy that lead to Iran gaining a great deal more influence in Iraq than it had before.
There's no need to flatter such fools with niceties. Their agenda is to spew propaganda - look at the Office of Special Plans set up in the Pentagon under their reign. What did one of the employees, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, say about it?
“Instead of developing defense policy alternatives and advice, OSP was used to manufacture propaganda for internal and external use, and pseudo war planning.”
Smith-Mundt violation? If a complete legal examination of the claims for the Iraq war and the prosecution of that war were conducted, the military would be largely cleared of any wrongdoing, but the neocon civilian leaders would all be facing a joint war crimes trial.
As far as Israel and Palestine, the above article doesn't seem to need any additions - water and land and jobs are the issues that lead to conflict, so to resolve conflict, such issues must be addressed.
Is there any subject that GD
Is there any subject that GD can't turn into another boring tirade about neocons supposedly lying us into the Iraq war? We've heard it all many times before, and it doesn't get any more fresh or interesting with the umpteenth repetition. Get your own blog if you want to indulge in your Neocon Derangement Syndrome, and quit spamming this one.
"(b) East Jerusalem -- a
"(b) East Jerusalem -- a lucrative market -- is beyond reach;"
I dont have time to dissect Andrew's other points in his rebuttal, but this one jumped out at me. I was in Jerusalem few months ago and in no way is E.Jerusalem 'beyond reach' for W.Bank Palestinians. In fact its quiet the opposite, as many Jews do not go to E Jerusalem for fear of stabbings and rock throwings.
What no one is talking about is how ridiculously hollow these talks are, and the media keeps pointing to settlements as the biggest bogey man peace 'obstacle'. The simple fact is that Abbas has no control over more than 50% of his constituents, has no real power to negotiate anything, nor stop his own radicals from shooting pregnant women and civilians. These 'peace' talks will become deadly.
the Nobel-winning Israeli game-theorist Robert Aumann wrote a very interesting take on these latest talks,
http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/45677/wrong-move/
Bohemia: You could add that
Bohemia: You could add that the Israeli side has no control over the settlers either, last example was the security guard who shot and killed a palestinian father of 5 with a completely bogus history of selfdefence. Or the continued occupation of Hebron city by ultra-political rightwing settlers who routinely harass the palestinian locals. Or the payback missions killing olive-trees for wich noone ever is punished. Or... Or...
See this on the settlers and
See this on the settlers and the IDF, btw: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/army-publication-settlers-heav...
to clarify a few points, #1
to clarify a few points,
#1 all Israelis (Arab, Jewish, Christian, etc) are subject to Israeli law, and even religious radicals who commit murder are arrested immediately and imprisoned. There may be individual cases of radicals committing crimes (such as the murder of father of 5, mentioned above - although I havent heard of this case), but all perps are arrested and tried in court of law.
this is not the case in Palestinian areas. People who routinely snipe at passing Israeli vehicles, murder pregnant women and throw rocks at worshippers in Jerusalem are not persecuted. Terrorists who are caught by the PA are very often released quietly when the political pressure drops. Its simply false to compare the 2 sides in these matters.
#2 the city of Hebron is not 'occupied' by Jews, it has been a Jewish-inhabited city for over 4,000 years, and has some of the most oldest and revered archeological and religious sites. Please read up on the regions history,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
#3 as to the issue of Israeli settlers (ultra religious) - this is an expanding problem for the country, and without a doubt a great threat to the secular nature of the state (in my view). Laws are slowly being morphed to cater to the religious at the expense of the secular majority (over 85% of Israelis are secular and non-religious). The ultra-Orthodox drain money from the state by having very large families, they do little or no work and subside on government handouts (which are secured by Shas or other religious political parties). The separation of church and state in Israel is being subverted by these people. They are a definite problem, but not the underlying core cause of the overall conflict.
#4 as to the comment of IDF officers being 'settlers', this is a false statement. Merely being outside of the so-called Green Line does not make you a settler, since West Bank is not Palestinian land by any definition, neither legal nor historical. It's disputed land, and before the 1967 war it belonged to Jordan, and before that, the Ottoman Turks.
I think many people have a perception that 'settlements' are some small caravan-like tent cities that need to be taken down. The fact is that these are bona-fide cities, some very large like Ariel and Maaleh Adumim, with up to 400,000 people living there with infrastructure, industry and everything else one sees in a normal medium-large city. Simply coming from beyond the green line does not make you religious or extreme, over 90% of Israelis living in these areas are secular and 'normal' people who move there for economic reasons.
Dull reality. They live on
Dull reality. They live on limited lands. Peace or not their economies are limited.
America's growth is not sustainable, we are finding that out.
If Obama is so concerned about the expansion of settlements......
Then why Obama supporting giving Israel $30B in foreign aid over the next ten years.????
$30 B buys a hell of a lot of concrete.
Don't like Bush?....he offered to import 100, 000 Palestinians to America as a perk in the peace talks.......that is dishonest too.
Buying peace? Can not do that for ever either.
Exum, A better question
Exum,
A better question would be why give the World Bank Report any credit at all? It perpetuates what Nathan Brown calls, the "Myth of Fayyadism" and if anyone can testify about this myth, it's Nathan Brown (who has tracked institution building in the West Bank since there was any semblance of institutions). If you haven't read the report, it should be mandatory reading for anyone who wants to speak honestly about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/30/a_little_rain_on_the_p...
On that note, please tell me what institutions Fayyad or Abbas, or the PA, have built? What institutions does the World Bank Report provide as examples? None.
Perpetuating this myth is evil because (a) it pretends that there is an alternative to peace talks that the world and Palestinians can rely on (when there is not, unless the status quo is reason for optimism?) and (b) it gives undeserving legitimacy to Abbas and Fayyad, and the PA, when they are deserving of condemnation for allowing an authoritarian atmosphere to pervade the West Bank.
-ZN
"But this is the kind of
"But this is the kind of stuff that gives think tank researchers a bad name. ... those paid to study security issues in the Middle East for a living ... know when an author is selectively sourcing his argument and deliberately avoiding evidence or conclusions that might weaken his thesis. Again, this is worse than disingenuous. This is dishonest."
AM is the "pot calling the kettle black". AM could be talking about himself. Last year he did the same with his dishonest review of Jon Krakauer's "Where Men Win Glory" for the Washington Post and his indefensible defense of Gen. McChrystal's central role in the Pat Tillman affair. .
I've got a chapter devoted to AM, entitled "He Who Shall Not Be Fact-Checked," in my post "The [Untold] Tillman Story" at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com. If your're interested in learning more, I'd suggest a viewing of the documentary "The Tillman Story" or Mary Tillman's book "Boots on the Ground by Dusk" (at blurb.com) or Krakauer's paperback edition of his book (has 20 more pages on the Army cover-up and more detail on McChrystal's actions).
They first convince to
They first convince to attempt to resolve the Palestinian/Israeli issue.
It will end when either one side completely triumphs or destroys the other, or the side that refuses peace except on those terms - when they have no chance of achieving it - decides to finally accept peace. That's the Pals. There's no political solution because they can't offer one to Israel, nor indeed can the PA be called a polis. They had a chance under Arafat (who was bought back from Tunis by who-Israel) and he set about building a corrupt terror state.
As far as the 30 Billion in Aid over the next 10 years: OK, let's cut off all US, EU, and most especially UN Aid to the entire region. And let's see whose regional economy comes out on top. In fact with no UN, US, and EU aid what PA economy would there be? How long could they keep the doors open and the lights on? A week? If they decided to dip into their offshore accounts?
on a side note re the 30
on a side note re the 30 billion in aid to Israel, the US also gives Egypt 1.5 billion/year and in the last 25 years Egypt received 28 billion dollars from us. We also give aid to the Lebanese western-backed government and to Palestinian authority. Some make it seem as if Israelis are the only ones getting the dollars in that region.
Echo... Echo.... Echo..... N
Echo... Echo.... Echo.....
N & S Korea have been at war for how many years? America is part of that as I remember. Has not stopped prosperity. Since you liberals have blamed the recession on Bush, you can not blame the lack of our economy's growth on North Korea. Everything has limits, even Obamas rock star status.
There is truth in what Abrams is saying. Just as some people are saying the world as we know it will end if the Middle East peace talks fail. They have failed before. It is negotiation 101.
I am not trying to argue either way, just saying that you have not considered all the facts.
Personally there are too many noses in the peace talks. Not sure why USA has to bank roll Israel anymore. Israel is a 200B economy why keep giving them more? USA has to go into these talks and bribe the sides to talk. Seems to me that if someone gives me something for acting badly, then I will act badly more often.
I would like to see the USA get out of the discussion and let these people find a solution to their own problems.
Same for your social program in Afghanstan.
HIINT: It is time to come home and fix our house.
of all this "peace process"
of all this "peace process" bullsh!t.
Let's review the history of demcratic presidents and middle east peace accords:
1979 Jimmy Carter, Camp David, FAIL
1993 Bill Clinton, Oslo, FAIL
2010 Barack Obama, hmmmmmmmm
Somehow we think its going to work this time.
I say we let them fight it out. We can give weapons to palestine to make it an even fight if we want.
Those settlements, carved
Those settlements, carved neatly out of the Arab landscape, are modern day citadels much like the Crusader Castles of yore. Surrounded by dusky savages, supported by a distant Empire, and militaristic to the core.
It will not last much longer, maybe 100-200 years, just like the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
From the Israeli side: I'd
From the Israeli side: I'd like to know why encouraging private investment in Palestine is not considered a strategic objective. Given that increased private investment brings greater prosperity, it can only help Palestinian parties that bring it at the expense of those preaching "Revolution until victory." I understand that actions to facilitate private investment can increase security risks, such as loosening controls on dual use materials that actually could be used in terrorist attacks. However, that is a factor to evaluate in the tradeoff between competing interests, not a reason to write off one side of the equation.
From the international perspective: why put all the attention on the settlements, particularly in a way that makes no distinction between Gilo and Alfei Menashe? If the need is to facilitate private investment, why not identify a set of policy changes Israel could make that would ease barriers to such investment and let Israel decide which of those would have the least cost to implement?
He is, like, sooo
He is, like, sooo busted.
Great post; hope it gets some attention outside the blog's readership. Have you sent in a letter/comment to WSJ?
http://pewforum.org/Other-Bel
http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-...
"From the Israeli side: I'd
"From the Israeli side: I'd like to know why encouraging private investment in Palestine is not considered a strategic objective."
LOL, perhaps because enriching a people who have sworn to exterminate you is fucking stupid?
Note to aspiring strategists -- making the enemy prosperous (the Marshall Plan) comes AFTER the enemy has been utterly crushed and defeated, and his cities reduced to ruin (Hamburg, Dresden, etc.), not before. Rewarding a current rather than former enemy only inspires contempt for your weakness. Until the enemy feels in his guts that he has been defeated -- which the Palestinians do not -- keep your boot on his neck and the bayonet at his throat.
It's obvious Abrams has read
It's obvious Abrams has read the entire reports, just as it's obvious he read this article (in which he is quoted) on US training of Palestinian troops in the New York Review of Books:
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/09/obama-continues-bush-policy-promoting-anti...
Obama continues Bush policy promoting anti-democratic crackdown in the West Bank
by ADAM HOROWITZ on SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 · 17 COMMENTS
Like 34 4 Retweet
Nathan Thrall has a great article in the current issue of the New York Review of Books on an issue that has received scant attention in the US press - US support for Salam Fayyad's anti-democratic crackdown in the West Bank.
US support has come mainly through the work of Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, who has been training the Palestinian security forces being used to round up, arrest and intimidate the Palestinian Authority's opponents. One of the most notable, though understated, points of the article is the continuity from the Bush to Obama administrations in supporting this misguided and dangerous policy.
It's worth reading the entire piece, but here's a snippet that describes the beginning of the project and it's true aims:
The first United States security coordinator, Lieutenant General William “Kip” Ward, arrived in Jerusalem in March 2005. Elliott Abrams, formerly the deputy national security adviser to President George W. Bush, told me that Ward’s mission was organized in response to three closely coinciding events: the reelection, in November 2004, of Bush, who wanted to rebuild Palestinian security forces as a part of his 2003 road map to Middle East peace; the death, nine days later, of Yasser Arafat, who had resisted American attempts to reform the Palestinian security services; and the victory of America’s favored candidate, Mahmoud Abbas, in the January 2005 presidential election.
Ward’s mission concentrated initially on security reform but was soon limited to preparing for Israeli Prime Minister Sharon’s disengagement from Gaza and four northern West Bank settlements in August and September 2005.21 The withdrawal went fairly smoothly for Israel, but Ward failed to prevent violence on the Palestinian side. Settler greenhouses were looted, empty synagogues were burned, and Palestinians began fighting one another for control of Gaza.
Weeks after Dayton took over from Ward at the end of 2005, Hamas defeated Fatah in the January 2006 parliamentary elections. Overnight, Dayton’s task changed from reforming the security forces to preventing a Hamas-led government from controlling them. State Department lawyers sought ways to continue assisting the Fatah-dominated security forces of the Palestinian Authority, which would soon be led by Hamas, a group the US had declared a terrorist organization. The solution was to send direct aid to President Abbas, who was elected separately and could be considered detached from the incoming Hamas-led government and legislature. In a reversal of its longstanding policy of pressuring the Palestinian president to give power to the cabinet, the US advised Abbas to issue decrees and make appointments that would limit the new government’s rule, particularly over the security forces. Hamas reacted by establishing a security service of its own. Abbas banned the Hamas force in a decree that the cabinet then declared illegal. During the next year, Hamas and Fatah engaged in a series of violent clashes in which leaders on both sides were assassinated.
Dayton, meanwhile, was overseeing the recruitment, training, and equipping of Abbas’s rapidly expanding security forces. Khaled Meshaal, chief of Hamas’s politburo, delivered a fiery speech denouncing “the security coup” as a “conspiracy” supported by “the Zionists and the Americans”—charges Fatah denied. In February 2007, on the brink of civil war, Fatah and Hamas leaders traveled to Mecca, where they agreed to form a national unity government, a deal the US opposed because it preferred that Fatah continue to isolate Hamas. Fayyad became finance minister in the new government, despite, he says, American pressure not to join. The Peruvian diplomat Alvaro de Soto, former UN envoy to the Quartet, wrote in a confidential “End of Mission Report” that the violence between Hamas and Fatah could have been avoided had the US not strongly opposed Palestinian reconciliation. “The US,” he wrote, “clearly pushed for a confrontation between Fateh and Hamas.”
One month before Gaza fell to Hamas in June 2007, Hamas forces attacked USSC-trained troops at their base near Gaza’s border with Israel, killing seven and withdrawing only after three Israeli tanks approached. Testifying before Congress the following week, Dayton claimed that the attack had been repulsed and denied that Hamas was on the rise—a prediction not borne out during the following weeks. “It took [Hamas] just a few days,” said Raji Sourani, director of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, “to flush away a 53,000-strong PA security apparatus which was a fourteen-year Western investment.”
Though several members of the Bush administration later said that the entire strategy had been mistaken, the defeat of American-backed Fatah forces offered a rather different lesson to the small circle that had influence over the USSC. “We didn’t regard this as proof the project wasn’t working,” Abrams said, “but rather that the project was needed.”
This project has more or less amounted to an US attempt to instigate a Palestinian civil war, similar to the contra policy in Nicaragua during the 1980s (Elliott Abrams ring any bells?). The result, as Mustafa Barghouti describes it in the last line of Thrall's article, is that Palestinians are now having to live "not [under] one occupation but two."
What has this policy looked like on the ground? Nora Barrows-Friedman wrote in Electronic Intifada how the recent resumption of peace talks had led to an increased crackdown on activists in the West Bank. From her piece Activists face broad PA crackdown in West Bank:
"The Palestinian Authority (PA) forces came late at night and started shooting inside the camp," Shihab said. "They came in, shooting, acting like the Israeli military. They wanted to make the people afraid. Everyone went to the main street and started throwing stones, because people thought they were the Israelis, not the PA forces."
Shihab, who didn't want to give his last name, is a spokesperson for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Marxist-Leninist political party, in Dheisheh refugee camp in southern Bethlehem in occupied West Bank. He told The Electronic Intifada that in the last few weeks, the PA's security services have been waging a campaign of intimidation and violence inside Dheisheh, intent on what he called "destroying the unity and community within the camp."
According to Shihab, on 31 August, PA forces attacked the camp in an attempt to find a member of Hamas hours after an armed attack by Hamas activists on a car near a settlement in Hebron during which four Israeli settlers were killed. Since then, PFLP members who intervened by negotiating with the PA forces to convince them to cease their attack and leave the camp during the subsequent clashes inside Dheisheh, have been summoned to the PA police stations and subsequently arrested and thrown in jail.
"The PA wants to defend the occupation. They want to show the Israelis that they can control the Palestinian people," Shihab said.
And here's a statement from the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights that demonstrates the level of impunity the US-backed forces are operating with:
Abdullah Rebhi Abu Se'da, 23, and his brother Sa'eed, 17, from Nablus, were beaten and tortured while they were detained by the Palestinian National Security Forces (NSF) in Junaid Prison. They were detained on the ground of a personal dispute between Abdullah and an NSF member. Sa'eed was transported to the hospital. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) calls upon the Attorney General to seriously investigate this crime and bring perpetrators to justice.
According to investigations conducted by PCHR and the testimony of Abdullah Rebhi Ahmed Abu Se'da, 23, at approximately 21:00 on Wednesday, 22 September 2010, the NSF arrested Ahmed Rebhi Abu Se'da, 26, and his brother Sa'eed, 17, from a car wash shop belonging to Ramzi Mohammed Abu Se'da in Ras al-'Ein neighborhood in Nablus. They were transported to Junaid prison. Later on the same day, the NSF arrested their brother Abdullah, 23, as well. Abdullah and Sa'eed were subjected to torture and beating on their feet (Falaka) several times. As a result, Sa'eed suffered from severe exhaustion, and was then transported to Nablus Specialized Hospital for medical treatment. A PCHR field worker, who visited Sa'eed at hospital, reported that there were clear blue bruises on his feet. Doctors said that he suffers from spasm of nerves and cannot breathe normally.
It should be noted that detention of the three brothers was on the ground of a personal dispute between Abdullah Abu Se'da and an NSF member that took place in the evening of the same day in the car wash shop.
Our Man in Palestine
OCTOBER 14, 2010
Nathan Thrall
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/oct/14/our-man-palestine/
On August 31, the night before President Obama’s dinner inaugurating direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Hamas gunmen shot and killed four Jewish settlers in Hebron, the West Bank’s largest and most populous governorate. The attack—the deadliest against Israeli citizens in more than two years—was condemned by Palestinian and Israeli officials, who said that it was meant to thwart the upcoming negotiations. According to a Hamas spokesman, however, the shooting had a more specific purpose: to demonstrate the futility of the recent cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian security forces. This cooperation has reached unprecedented levels under the quiet direction of a three-star US Army general, Keith Dayton, who has been commanding a little-publicized American mission to build up Palestinian security forces in the West Bank.1
Referred to by Hamas as “the Dayton forces,” the Palestinian security services are formally under the authority of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president and chairman of Hamas’s rival, Fatah; but they are, in practice, controlled by Salam Fayyad, the unelected prime minister, a diminutive, mild-mannered technocrat. Abbas appointed Fayyad following Hamas’s grim takeover of Gaza in June 2007—which occurred seventeen months after the Islamist party won the January 2006 parliamentary elections—and entrusted him with preventing Hamas from also seizing the West Bank.
The Israelis need to call
The Israelis need to call the Zohan from retirement.
The fact is the whole region
The fact is the whole region benefits from war. Palestinians get money, Egypr gets money, Israel gets money. Most in US and Israel only talk about military aid and loan guarantees. However, no one counts donations that go to Israel excatly because of the image Israelis portrait: small, defenseless country, against everybody and against the world. And evangelical money that pour to Israel (tax free) also are based on a fantasy that there will be war between Jews and Arabs and Jesus would come. So it is much bigger than 3B. The whole idea is to make everyone believe that war harms one side more than the other. I believe the war can be stopped if we simply stop this milking of Americans. It is amazing how Americans are willing to just burn dollars. And Middle East understood it long time ago.
Bring back the Zohan!!!
Bring back the Zohan!!!
I will assist the Zohan and
I will assist the Zohan and we will impregnate every Palestinian woman ages 18 to 33. We will breed them out of their misery.
I feel like asking for a
I feel like asking for a refund for my Foreign Affairs subscription as a lonely protest.
Gunboat diplomat wrote:
Gunboat diplomat wrote: Well, Elliot Abrams isn't so brilliant - go back and look at what he said about Iraq's chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, as well as about the opponents of the disastrous Iraq war. . . What were the predictions of these brilliant strategists?
Gunboat misses the point. These guys don't care if they are exposed as liars; they never believed their own propaganda about democracy, human rights, and nuclear weapons. They wanted the destruction of Iraq as militarily and economically significant state, and they got exactly what they wanted.
Maybe the wonderful ADTS can
Maybe the wonderful ADTS can help with this: How do you read such reports? The bits excerpted for this post are an admixture of hard facts (data about tax revenues) and projected assertions based on certain core assumptions.
How can the both compare in terms of supporting a point? This is way out of my league, folks.
PS: Mr. Exum, thought you would find the following interesting. I liked the chart put together at the link:
# CNAS COIN – The school of strategic thought that draws from the ideas of American counterinsurgency scholars who have congregated at the Center for a New American Security like Lt. Col. John Nagle, U.S. Army (ret), Lt. Col. David Killcullen, Australian Army (ret), and Capt. Andrew Exum, U.S. Army (ret). This school emphasizes separating the population from the insurgency through material aid and carefully targeted violence.
http://committeeofpublicsafety.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/visualizing-zen/
- Madhu
Er, assertions - not
Er, assertions - not projected assertions in the above comment.
A fine Fisking sir.
A fine Fisking sir.
@ Madhu, If youre going to
@ Madhu,
If youre going to pick a triangle/pyramid graph, the ones right side up look better:
http://static.jessecrouch.com/martialexplorer/hierarchy-of-defense02.png
The failure of these talks
The failure of these talks is something that pleases both sides, because neither side wanted them to begin with. Israel has made credible offers to the Palestinians in previous talks, and the Palestinians have shown no indication that they regret their refusal. Israel will make no additional movement without a final status offer from the other side, which has never been given. Palestinian leaders have no reason to make any concession which can lead to their being killed (see Sadat, Anwar). The situation is improving on the ground for both sides, in part because of pressure from the Iranians (see Hamas) that both oppose. Into this mix comes the Obama admin, which bullies Israel into some movement on the settlements, which Israel makes temporary as a test for increased restraint from the other side. The test was for Washington, since no restraint or concrete move for peace from the Palestinians was expected or received. Instead, Palestine was pleased to be able to make no concessions and hope the whole process would just end. No, says Washington, you will both engage in high stakes negotiations on a final settlement, and this is the last chance so failure might lead to war! Please let us fail, plead both sides - no more movement on the settlements from Israel, no rhetorical or other support for continued negotiations from Palestine.
So, on the merits, Abram's comments make sense. No final settlement between Israel and Palestine is or has been possible, so their absence is not leading to a decline in Palestinian (West Bank) standard of living. With no agreement, continuing economic growth can be expected as long as there is absence of war. Academic concerns about the need for agreement are just that, and are not part of reality. The quixotic pursuit of an imaginary agreement by Washington is both surprising and counterproductive.
Mr. Abrams is a rare bird in
Mr. Abrams is a rare bird in Washington D.C. He is a convicted prevaricator for having lied to Congress under oath. Such a rare bird does not change spots, especially after one considers his atrocious set of predictions about the Grand USA Imperial Adventure in Iraq. He is the typical Neo-Con who seems to mostly be in the service of the Likud Party. Given his record of lying and being wrong and supporting a foreign power over US interests, he should be studiously ignored by everyone. His paymasters will then cut him off and he'll have to find a real job that befits his talents, like selling life insurance policies door to door.
nice longer form post as
nice longer form post as someone has said already. keep it up.
As for the Nathan Brown essay a part of me has always thought the economic growth cited in support of Fayyadism rested too much on donor monies and good faith optimism.
Good post. The WSJ should
Good post. The WSJ should be paying you a salary for doing the job of its editors. I wouldn't line a fucking bird cage with that piece of shit newspaper. Keep up the good work.
"I have heard from many
"I have heard from many people I admire and trust that Abrams is one of the most brilliant people in Washington."
Sir,
Nice post, both factually accurate and substantive.
However, I have yet to read any scientific, medical, or other related factual evidence indicating any sort of correlation between an individual's brilliance and that individual's integrity, honesty, and/or ethics.
Also, you neglected (perhaps out of compassion?) to mention that more than 20 years ago Mr. Abrams entered a plea of guilty on two misdemeanor counts after he knowingly and willingly withheld information from Congress during its investigation of the Iran-Contra affair. Abrams was sentenced to two years probation and 100 hours of community service for those misdemeanors. However, President George H.W. Bush issued a highly controversial pardon to Mr. Abrams for these crimes - of his own admission - in December 1992.
Mr. Abrams has a history of lying. Mr. Abrams's intelligence, while substantive, seems completely unrelated to the topic of discussion in this or most any other instance.
Using any demographic
Using any demographic category of human populations as a basis for human rights demonstrates an equal degree of failure as that for which the nationalism of Israel serves as an example Ethnographic considerations can be used to drive vulnerable populations to support various schemes touted as a means by which to achieve stability in government, always fueled by the need of every individual for a peaceful and reasonably safe environment in which to raise one's children, or to live out one's days. Such ethnographic considerations always will fail to provide a guarantee for safety.
If the Democrats will not acknowledge and act so as to reflect the changed consciousness of the body politic they ostensibly represent, the Democratic party will become a party of has-beens in the next presidential election.
That is how long the party has to remove Jane Harmon and her Israeli 'friends' from positions that control US foreign and national policy .
Comment by Zach N. on
Comment by Zach N. on September 29, 2010 - 1:05pm and Comment by Rich S. on September 29, 2010 - 11:03pm.
Concur with your postings and thanks for the laugh Rich S.... sad but true. WSJ is extremely bias.
World Bank - one of the worst & most disorganized financial institutions in the world -
In the recent past- James Wolfensohn the ninth president of the World Bank Group tried to assist with the peace process, with the Quartet, which was a total failure in 2004 - 2005. If I remember correctly, the green houses that Mr. Wolfensohn worked so hard on to have constructed in Palestine were destroyed by the Palestinians themselves and a few Israeli's were even caught in the act destroying facilities that were paid for and constructed by the World Bank..
Both sides...destorying buildings that were going to be used as a source of food for poor people?
Now, why is that?
Think about that over your coffee this morning.
Abrams is and always will be
Abrams is and always will be a paid stooge of ASPAC (American Slovakia Public Affairs Committee). As we all know, it is in the interest of Slovak-Americans to keep the war in Israel going, because American arms sold to Israel are a key source of munitions manufacturing jobs that routinely go to this key constituency. The Israelis would have been pushed out entirely in 1948 if it weren't from a multi-million dollar arms shipment from, you guessed it, Czechoslovakia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_shipments_from_Czechoslovakia_to_Israe...
Educate yourselves folks. Don't believe what the liberal, Slovak-run media tells you.
This one has it all
This one has it all violence, predatory behavior, hateful, harassment, attacks gender, blows race away, pisses on class, screws their ethnicity, mutilates national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.
And oh yeah jerks....lots and lots of jerks......
Can not handle it don't study this.
Maybe consider staying in your room and complain about others doing it in a blog?
Mr. Exum hat last comment
Mr. Exum hat last comment really is upsetting.....
Can we rewrite all the history books and make life our way?
Thanks AM, this type of
Thanks AM, this type of stuff keeps me reading.
Slovaks? really? All this
Slovaks? really? All this time, it was those evil Slovakians who keep extending this conflict! How did we miss this lol..
This is what I love about this over-reported, over-hyped, over-rated conflict. It really brings all the nutters out.
Well done. Dishonesty has
Well done.
Dishonesty has been one of Abram's strong suits for a very long time.
RH
I work for Abrams, and I can
I work for Abrams, and I can tell you he is a big Asshole. We call him Ass-rams.
http://www.npr.org/templates/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130222200 (Syrian Youth Unprepared For Market-Driven Economy by DEBORAH AMOS)
Of all countries in the Levantine and Arab regions, Syria is probably the most poised for the modern world.
They are actively resisting the Salafi movement spreading exponentially from the South. Compared to Jordan (and of course the rest of the Arab world), more Syrians are pro-West.
Our gov't (State Dept) gives out hundreds of free scholarships (ie Fullbright) to Arabian students, who then experience the Sayyid Qutb syndrome and become anti-West. Bad investment on our part.
Our State Dept only offers 1 or 2 Fullbright seats to Syrian students, let's expand this program for Syrians.
Middle Eastern Christians are quickly disappearing in all other Arab nations, but they are making a stand in Syria. Let's help them. Syrian Muslims are greatly influenced by Sufism, they too are making a stand against the growing Salafi tide, let's help out.
For those that would paint
For those that would paint Abrams with an Iran - Contra paint brush.
Is it fair to use yesterdays history to judge a person in today's world?
Lets go back in time....Iran got arms...Fast forward.....Iran is going nuclear. Earth shaking !
Lets go back in time....US supported the Contras against a Communist backed government......
.....................fast forward......Cold War is over.
Reagan was evil?
Abrams was evil?
Sandinistas were the good guys?
Contras were the bad guys?
I get so confused. Seems that every one wore the good and evil hat in those days.......
So what is worse:
A President that fights to end the cold war (and lies about it....guy did have Alzheimers....Did Abrams jump on the grenade to save his President?).
............or..........
A President that does Monica for his own personal gain ( and lies about "it".........did he have Alzheimers? Nope...just did not inhale).
Add your comment