Just Foreign Policy News
February 18, 2010
NYT "Mystery" Op-Ed calls for more deaths of innocents in Afghanistan
As Glenn Greenwald notes (see #1, below), the New York Times op-ed page has given a platform today to a "mystery op-ed" that – incredibly – slams the Obama Administration for having *too low a tolerance* for civilian deaths in Afghanistan. Urge the New York Times Public Editor to investigate why this op-ed was published without informing readers who the author is.
public@nytimes.com
End the War in Afghanistan
Our proposal at Change.org just needs about 300 votes to make it into the next round. Please vote if you haven’t already and recruit others.
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations
Peace Action: Call for vigils marking 1000th US death in Afghanistan
Soon, the number of American soldiers who have lost their lives in Afghanistan will reach 1,000. Peace Action is calling for vigils and other actions, and has a place where you can post your action.
http://peaceblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/a-time-to-mourn/
We’ve Caught the Taliban Chief! Can We Go Home Now?
President Obama should use the Pakistani arrest of Mullah Baradar to pivot from military escalation to a negotiated political settlement that ends the war in Afghanistan and brings the troops home.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/485
Support the work of Just Foreign Policy:
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate.html
Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) The New York Times today published a monstrous Op-Ed complaining that the U.S. is being too careful to avoid civilian deaths in Afghanistan, notes Glenn Greenwald for Salon. The US military has "begun basing doctrine on the premise that dead civilians are harmful to the conduct of war," the op-ed complains. "The trouble is, no past war has ever supplied compelling proof of that claim." Greenwald notes that in addition to publishing the monstrous op-ed, the New York Times essentially hides the identity of the author from the reader, by not explaining who she is, who she works for, what economic interests she might represent, and what is the basis of her alleged expertise. [Ask the New York Times Public Editor to investigate: public@nytimes.com – JFP.]
2) A NATO air strike killed seven Afghan police Thursday, AFP reports.
3) The detention of Mullah Baradar represents a shift by Pakistan to more open support for the Taliban in preparation for a peace settlement and U.S. withdrawal, writes Gareth Porter for Inter Press Service. Statements by Pakistani officials suggest that Pakistani military leaders view Baradar as an asset in negotiations rather than an adversary to be removed from the conflict. Porter infers two Pakistani motivations for the move: to force US compliance with Pakistan’s demand that US negotiations with the Afghan Taliban be brokered by Pakistan, and to push the process forward now.
4) Heavy rain in Haiti turned makeshift survivors’ camps into muddy quagmires, Reuters reports. The prospect of more rains has added urgency to the government’s appeal for tents and temporary living structures in which to house the homeless, estimated at more than 1 million. Survivors’ camps are often close to raw open sewers and many lacking even basic sanitation.
5) Returning veterans have reported leukemia, lymphoma, congestive heart problems, neurological conditions, bronchitis, skin rashes and sleep disorders which they attribute to burn pits on dozens of U.S. bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Los Angeles Times reports. Items burned in the pits have included medical waste, plastics, computer parts, oil, lubricants, paint, tires and foam cups. The Pentagon operates at least 84 burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Military Personnel Toxic Exposure Registry Act would require the Pentagon to create a database of the tens of thousands of troops exposed to burn pits, ban burning plastics, and ensure veterans affected by the smoke received health benefits. [Unfortunately, this otherwise excellent article doesn’t explore whether there might be health effects on Iraqis or Afghans – JFP.]
Haiti
6) In a confidential e-mail the UN’s top humanitarian relief coordinator scolded his lieutenants for failing to adequately manage the relief effort in Haiti, saying that an uneven response has undercut confidence in the UN’s ability to deliver vital assistance, the Washington Post reports. The e-mail portrays an organization straining to set up enough shelters, latrines and other vital services for Haiti’s displaced population.
Iran
7) Brazil has told the U.S. and France it doesn’t support tougher UN sanctions on Iran and will continue, over the objections of the Obama administration, to seek more trade with Iran, Bloomberg reports. Brazil, which began a two-year term on the 15-nation Security Council in January, might join China, Lebanon and Turkey in abstaining from a sanctions vote. Ambassador Maria Viotti said a negotiated settlement of the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program is still possible because Iran hasn’t rejected a proposal to send uranium outside the country to be enriched for medical research. Brazil doesn’t accept the U.S. view that evidence of Iran’s intent to develop a nuclear weapon is indisputable.
Israel/Palestine
8) Five U.S. Congressmen on a visit to Israel initiated by J Street demanded an official Israeli explanation for a refusal by the Israeli government to meet with the delegation, Haaretz reports. "It was with real surprise and disappointment that we read a headline in this morning’s newspaper saying ‘Foreign Ministry boycotts members of Congress,’" said Rep. William Delahunt, who led the delegation. Delahunt implied the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s behavior was a continuation of the recent incident in which the Foreign Minister insulted the Turkish ambassador. [Turkey demanded and received an apology; it will be interesting to see if Rep. Delahunt gets one – perhaps that was also part of Delahunt’s implication – JFP.]
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) The NYT’s mystery Op-Ed writer
An ugly call for more civilian deaths in Afghanistan is accompanied by virtually no information about the author
Glenn Greenwald, Salon, Feb. 18, 2010
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/02/18/nyt/index.html
The New York Times today published a monstrous Op-Ed complaining that the U.S. is being too careful to avoid civilian deaths in Afghanistan (which would probably come as a surprise to these people and these people if they hadn’t been Liberated by the U.S. . . . from life). The Op-Ed is by someone identified as "Lara M. Dadkhah," and it’s so ugly that it merits little refutation, as it really negates itself (h/t reader Josh Golin):
‘So in a modern refashioning of the obvious – that war is harmful to civilian populations – the United States military has begun basing doctrine on the premise that dead civilians are harmful to the conduct of war. The trouble is, no past war has ever supplied compelling proof of that claim. . . . [A]n overemphasis on civilian protection is now putting American troops on the defensive in what is intended to be a major offensive. . . .
Of course, all this is not to say that the United States and NATO should be oblivious to civilian deaths, or wage "total" war in Afghanistan. Clearly, however, the pendulum has swung too far in favor of avoiding the death of innocents at all cost. General McChrystal’s directive was well intentioned, but the lofty ideal at its heart is a lie, and an immoral one at that, because it pretends that war can be fair or humane. . . .
Wars are always ugly, and always monstrous, and best avoided. Once begun, however, the goal of even a "long war" should be victory in as short a time as possible, using every advantage you have.’
Note how her cursory, oh-so-humane caveat at the beginning ("Of course, all this is not to say that the United States and NATO should be oblivious to civilian deaths, or wage ‘total’ war in Afghanistan") is casually dispensed with by the end, when she demands "victory in as short a time as possible, using every advantage you have." Does anyone need it explained to them why causing large civilian deaths through air attacks in Afghanistan is not only morally grotesque but also completely counter-productive to our stated goals?
[…] But for the moment, I’m more interested in knowing who "Lara Dadkhah" is and, more important, what she does. She’s identified only by this conspicuously vague and uninformative line at the end of the Op-Ed: "Lara M. Dadkhah is an intelligence analyst." In the Op-Ed itself, she writes: "While I am employed by a defense consulting company, my research and opinions on air support are my own." What defense consulting company employs her? Do they have any ties to the war effort? Do they benefit from the grotesque policies she’s advocating? What type of "analyst" is she? Who knows? In the Op-Ed, she cites her so-called "analysis of data compiled by the United States military." Where is the data behind that analysis, and for whom was the analysis done? The NYT doesn’t bother to tell us any of this, and doesn’t require her even to specify her "defense consultant" employer.
More strangely still, it’s virtually impossible to find any information about "Lara Dadkhah" using standard Internet tools. Google produces almost nothing about her prior to references to her Op-Ed today. Nexis produces zero returns for her name – zero. And when I asked about her on Twitter, the only answer anyone could provide was that she authored this December, 2008 paper (.pdf) at Small Wars Journal, where she made exactly the same rancid argument: "even as mounting civilian casualties are alienating the Afghan populace, excessive restraint in the use of airstrikes may be handicapping [COIN] efforts" (h/t Majlisblog).
[…] What bizarre behavior from the NYT: it publishes an extremist, repellent Op-Ed calling, in essence, for the deaths of more innocent Afghans and accusing the Obama administration of sacrificing the lives of American troops due to excessive concern about civilians, all while providing basically no information about the author and allowing her vaguely to refer to a "defense consulting company" for whom she works while concealing its identity. There’s no way to assess her credentials, her expertise, her employment, her motives, her possible conflicts – nothing. In short, the NYT allows her to spout extremely ugly and inflammatory claims on its Op-Ed page under the cover of alleged expertise, while concealing even the most basic information about her credentials, employment and professional background. What kind of journalistic standards are those?
2) NATO Air Strike Kills Seven Afghan Police
AFP, February 18, 2010
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jPNvyT8KHLK6x-n-uLHLzV7YluVg
Kunduz, Afghanistan – A NATO air strike mistakenly killed seven Afghan police and wounded two others on Thursday, hospital and government officials said, adding to strains on the alliance. The NATO-run International Security Assistance Force ordered an immediate investigation into the incident in the northern province of Kunduz, where Taliban violence has recently increased, and hailed the role played by Afghan forces.
The incident occurred when a joint patrol by the Afghan army and police and NATO forces came under Taliban attack in the Imam Sahib district, Afghan interior ministry spokesman Zemarai Bashary told AFP. NATO called in an air strike and "the Afghan forces were bombed by mistake," the spokesman said. "Seven policemen were killed, including two officers, and two policemen were wounded."
[…]
3) Jailed Taliban Leader Still a Pakistani Asset
Gareth Porter, Inter Press Service, Feb 18
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50384
Washington – Contrary to initial U.S. suggestions that it signals reduced Pakistani support for the Taliban, the detention of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the operational leader of the Afghan Taliban, represents a shift by Pakistan to more open support for the Taliban in preparation for a peace settlement and U.S. withdrawal.
Statements by Pakistani officials to journalists prior to the arrest indicate that the decision to put Baradar in custody is aimed at ensuring that the Taliban role in peace negotiations serves Pakistani interests. They also suggest that Pakistani military leaders view Baradar as an asset in those negotiations rather than an adversary to be removed from the conflict.
Pakistan has long viewed the military and political power of the Taliban as Pakistan’s primary strategic asset in countering Indian influence in Afghanistan, which remains its main concern in the conflict.
The New York Times report that broke the story of Baradar’s arrest Tuesday cited claims by unnamed U.S. officials that the Pakistanis "may finally have begun to distance themselves from the Taliban". But a Times story from Islamabad the following day revealed that the U.S. spin on the arrest had been highly misleading.
Wednesday’s story quoted a senior Pakistani intelligence official as saying in an interview three weeks earlier that the United States had tried to prevent Pakistan from negotiating directly with the Taliban, even as the U.S. and Afghan government were approaching the insurgent leadership about peace talks. "You cannot say that we are important allies and then you are negotiating with people whom we are hunting and you don’t include us," said the official.
The story quoted the official as saying, "We are after Mullah Baradar. We strongly believe that the Americans are in touch with him, or people who are close to him." [In fact, in the same article the NYT quoted a US intelligence official as confirming this Pakistani assertion that the US was negotiating with people close to Baradar – JFP.] […] Despite ostensibly close cooperation between the CIA and its Pakistani counterpart, the Inter-Services Intelligence [ISI] Directorate, against Islamic militants in Pakistan, ISI officials are deeply distrustful of the CIA, as Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid observed in an article in The New York Review of Books published this month.
Rashid wrote that the Pakistanis had insisted to the United States that all peace negotiations in Afghanistan should be channeled through ISI. The Pakistanis also wanted all contacts with the Taliban by other parties, including the CIA, to stop.
A Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA) report on Feb. 2 quoted an unnamed Pakistani diplomat as claiming that the United States and the Afghan government "had given Pakistan a lead role" in peace talks. In the context of other Pakistani statements indicating the opposite, that claim was a clear indication that Pakistan intended to act unilaterally in defiance of U.S. wishes in staking out a lead role.
The diplomat revealed that Pakistan is eager for peace negotiations to begin with the Taliban soon, contrary to the Barack Obama administration’s official position that the Taliban must first announce publicly that it has cut ties with al Qaeda. He said Pakistan wanted "some sort of process should start as soon as possible and shape up into reality before the planned U.S. withdrawal by the middle of next year."
That was a clear indication that Pakistan does not expect the U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan to be effective in altering the power balance between the Taliban and the Afghan government.
The unnamed diplomat said Pakistan would come up with its own negotiating proposals "and establish initial contact with the Taliban and other militant groups."
Even more revealing, the Pakistani official said, "Yes, we have considerable influence over the Taliban," he said, "And we will play our role in securing peace in Afghanistan." That was the first time that a Pakistani official had explicitly acknowledged that Pakistan has such influence over the Taliban leaders.
In the New York Review of Books article, Rashid wrote that Pakistan was no longer denying its special relationship with the Taliban after nine years of doing so. He suggested that the idea of Pakistan "playing host" to the Taliban in conjunction with the peace negotiations was no longer out of the question.
Five days after the DPA interview with the Pakistani diplomat, the Pakistanis took Mullah Baradar into custody.
Rashid interprets that Pakistani move as the logical culmination of the policy decision he had reported earlier. He told Radio Free Europe he hoped Baradar would be treated as a "guest" rather than as a prisoner, and would be used to "start some kind of negotiations" involving the Taliban leadership, the Afghans and the U.S.
Kamran Bokhari, director of Middle East Analysis for Stratfor, a private strategic analysis firm, suggested that the Pakistanis may indeed be treating Baradar as a guest rather than as a conventional prisoner. "I’m not sure whether this is an arrest in the usual sense of the word, or a cover for a Pakistani effort assert its influence on Baradar," Bokhari told IPS.
Bokhari, who has maintained contacts with Pakistani intelligence officials, said he "wouldn’t rule out" the possibility that Baradar would be allowed to participate in negotiations while in Pakistan’s custody.
[…] Baradar is well acquainted with the ISI officers, with whom he has been in contact for many years. That suggests that the interrogation of Baradar by ISI is likely to be carefully controlled by ISI to ensure that it does not produce any information that would harm the Taliban.
James Phillips of the Heritage Foundation told USA Today Tuesday it is "very possible" the Pakistanis "may be limiting the information that is extracted from Baradar in order to prevent the release of information that will be damaging to them." ABC News quoted a U.S. official Tuesday as saying that Baradar "is not quite cooperating with authorities and that they have not gotten anything actionable from him."
The official U.S. position, repeated Wednesday by Special Representative Richard Holbrooke, is that the Taliban leadership has shown no interest thus far in negotiations. But Rashid said Baradar not only had met with Afghan and Saudi officials in early 2009 but had authorised subordinates to conduct negotiations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s half-brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, in southern Afghanistan.
[…]
4) Haiti shelter emergency as rain turns camps to mud
Pascal Fletcher, Reuters, Thursday, February 18, 2010; 6:50 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/18/AR2010021803133_pf.html
Port-au-Prince – Providing shelter for hundreds of thousands of homeless earthquake victims in Haiti jumped to the top of the country’s relief priorities on Thursday after heavy rain turned makeshift survivors’ camps into muddy quagmires.
Several hours of overnight rain, much of it torrential, battered the thousands of crude cloth tents and huts in the quake-shattered capital Port-au-Prince, turning the ground between them to mud and soaking their occupants.
It was the second downpour in a week. The prospect of more rains on the way has added urgency to the government’s appeal for tents and temporary living structures in which to house the homeless, estimated at more than 1 million following the catastrophic January 12 earthquake that hit the country.
The Humanitarian Assistance Coordination Center, which groups the U.S. military, the United Nations, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other foreign governments and aid groups in an international relief effort, said it was moving to address the critical shelter and sanitation issues before the rainy season begins in mid-March.
"The rain has been falling. When we get two, three days of it, what will this be like?" Jean Pierre Rosier said as he and other residents of a ramshackle survivors’ camp in the Delmas 33 neighborhood waded through ankle-deep muddy water.
[…] "Every time I meet with foreign leaders and delegations, I tell them that is the most urgent need," President Rene Preval told Reuters late on Wednesday. "Now that we’ve attended to the wounded, taken away the dead, and we’re distributing food and water, the problem of shelter, the tents, is the most urgent," he said.
[…] In some areas, neat encampments of uniform foreign-provided tents have begun to sprout but the majority of the survivors’ camps are still sprawling squalid affairs, with most of the crude shelters hastily constructed from any scrap of fabric or plastic the occupants have been able to lay hands on.
They are packed together haphazardly, often close to raw open sewers and many lacking even basic sanitation.
5) Veterans speak out against burn pits
A range of health problems are linked to the pits on military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Toxic substances have been found in the smoke.
David Zucchino, Los Angeles Times, February 18, 2010
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-burn-pits18-2010feb18,0,1455676.story
The noxious smoke plumes that wafted over the military base in Balad, Iraq, alarmed Lt. Col. Michelle Franco. The stench from a huge burn pit clung to her clothing, skin and hair. "I remember thinking: This doesn’t look good, smell good or taste good," Franco said recently. "I knew it couldn’t be good for anybody." She wheezed and coughed constantly. When Franco returned to the U.S., she was diagnosed with reactive airway dysfunction syndrome. She is no longer able to serve as an Air Force nurse.
Other returning veterans have reported leukemia, lymphoma, congestive heart problems, neurological conditions, bronchitis, skin rashes and sleep disorders – all of which they attribute to burn pits on dozens of U.S. bases in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"The military needs to step up and address this problem," said John Wilson of the advocacy group Disabled American Veterans, which maintains a registry of more than 500 veterans with disorders they blame on burn pits. The fumes emanating from the pits, he warned, could become the Agent Orange of the current war zone.
Items burned in the pits have included medical waste, plastics, computer parts, oil, lubricants, paint, tires and foam cups, according to soldiers and contractors. Some say amputated body parts from Iraqi patients were burned in Balad, site of a large U.S. military hospital.
[…] According to Lt. Cmdr. Bill Speaks, a military spokesman, the burning of medical waste, fuels, oils, lubricants, tires, most metals, electronics, batteries and other hazardous items is prohibited. More environmental sampling and independent reviews are planned "to ensure . . . an improved understanding of burn-pit smoke and any resulting health risks," Speaks said.
Still, Army Master Sgt. Tex C.G. Hughes said batteries, computer parts and other banned materials were burned regularly at the main U.S. military base in Kandahar, Afghanistan. He said the fumes wafted over a nearby training camp, where he and other soldiers suffered from burning eyes, coughing and wheezing. "You could taste the smoke all night long," said Hughes, a 61-year-old intelligence specialist. He attributes his sleep apnea to smoke exposure.
The Pentagon operates at least 84 burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Rep. Timothy H. Bishop (D-N.Y.), who cosponsored legislation last fall that prohibited burning hazardous and medical waste unless the military showed it had no alternative. The law also requires the Defense Department to justify burn pits, develop alternatives and improve medical monitoring. Two pits at Balad were shut down in October and replaced by four closed incinerators with pollution controls. The military has installed 27 incinerators in Iraq and Afghanistan and has ordered 82 more, Bishop said.
While the Pentagon says the pits do not cause serious long-term health problems, some health experts disagree.
Dr. Anthony Szema, chief of the allergy section at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Northport, N.Y., said exposure to smoke and fumes from burning refuse can increase the risk of death from lung cancer or cardiovascular disease. Szema told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing in November that burning plastic bottles produces dioxin and hydrochloric acid, and burning polystyrene foam cups produces dioxin, benzene and other carcinogens. "In summary, you should not burn trash or inhale burning trash," Szema said.
[…] In January, Bishop and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) introduced the Military Personnel Toxic Exposure Registry Act, which would require the Pentagon to create a database of the tens of thousands of troops exposed to burn pits. The bill also would ban burning plastics, require annual reports to Congress on sicknesses, and ensure that veterans affected by the smoke received full service-related health benefits, Bishop said.
More than 280 veterans and contract workers have sued defense contractor KBR Inc., alleging that burn pits it operated on U.S. bases in Iraq and Afghanistan caused cancers, respiratory problems and 13 wrongful deaths, said Susan Burke, lead attorney for the plaintiffs.
[…]
Haiti
6) UN Relief Coordinator "Disappointed" in Haiti Response
Colum Lynch, Washington Post, Thursday, February 18, 2010; A08
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021705051.html
United Nations – The United Nations’ top humanitarian relief coordinator has scolded his lieutenants for failing to adequately manage the relief effort in Haiti, saying that an uneven response in the month after the devastating Jan. 12 earthquake has undercut confidence in the world body’s ability to deliver vital assistance, according to a confidential e-mail.
The e-mail, which provides a rare and highly critical internal assessment of the massive U.N.-led relief effort, portrays an organization that is straining to set up enough shelters, latrines and other vital services for Haiti’s displaced population. It also warns that a failure of the U.N. system to improve relief assistance could result in political unrest and mass demonstrations.
The criticism from John Holmes, the head of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, focuses on the United Nations’ sluggish implementation of its humanitarian "cluster strategy," which assigns key U.N. relief agencies responsibility for coordinating the delivery of basic needs in 12 sectors, including water and shelter.
[…] Officials said that the U.N. World Food Program has fed 3.4 million Haitians and that more than 850,000 people get daily five-liter rations of water. More than 66,000 people have been employed under a U.N. cash-for-work program.
Holmes acknowledged that the relief community has "achieved a great deal in Haiti." Still, Chris de Bono, a spokesman for UNICEF, said the logistics of procuring material have been difficult. "It’s now in the pipeline, and it’s certainly a priority for us," he added.
Holmes noted that Haiti will face heavy storms in the upcoming hurricane season. "This is a major test for all of us," he wrote, "and we cannot afford to fail."
Iran
7) Brazil Resists Push for Tougher Sanctions on Iran, Envoy Says.
Bill Varner, Bloomberg, Feb. 17 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=ae2kPZnKgkaY
Brazil has told the U.S. and France that it doesn’t support tougher United Nations sanctions on Iran and will continue, over the objections of the Obama administration, to seek more trade with the Islamic government. "We are not considering sanctions a good idea now," Ambassador Maria Viotti said in an interview at her office in New York. "Negotiations should continue. If sanctions are pursued, this might block the negotiating track."
Brazil’s resistance to sanctions signals the difficulty the U.S. will have in retaining the unity that characterized three previous UN resolutions targeting Iranian government officials and banks. Brazil, which began a two-year term on the 15-nation Security Council in January, might join China, Lebanon and Turkey in abstaining from a sanctions vote.
[…] Viotti, 55, said late yesterday that a negotiated settlement of the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program is still possible because the government in Tehran hasn’t rejected a proposal to send uranium outside the country to be enriched for medical research. Iran’s response, while not acceptable to the U.S. and its European allies, doesn’t close the door on talks, she said.
Brazil doesn’t accept the U.S. view that evidence of Iran’s intent to develop a nuclear weapon is indisputable. Viotti said Brazil adheres to the position of the International Atomic Energy Agency that questions about the purpose of Iran’s nuclear program need to be answered.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva will continue to seek greater trade with Iran when he visits Tehran in a few months, she said. "Iran is a very good market for food products," Viotti said. Brazil is Latin America’s largest economy and a major exporter of soybeans, orange juice, sugar and other farm goods. Iran also is interested in forming a partnership with Brazilian state-controlled oil producer Petroleo Brasileiro SA, Brazilian Energy Minister Edison Lobao said this month.
Viotti said stronger trade relations with Iran put Brazil in position to push for a negotiated settlement, a tactic that she said the U.S. approves. There was "appreciation" from the Obama administration after Lula took advantage of Iranian "trust" in Brazil to argue the merits of a deal during a November meeting with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, she said.
[…]
Israel/Palestine
8) U.S. lawmakers blast Ayalon’s boycott of J Street delegation
Barak Ravid and Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz, February 19, 2010
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1150674.html
Five U.S. Congressmen on a visit here, which the left-wing American advocacy group J Street initiated, yesterday held a news conference in Tel Aviv to demand an official explanation for an apparent snub by Danny Ayalon, deputy foreign minister.
Tension between the Foreign Ministry and J Street was believed to be behind the unprecedented diplomatic rift between Israel and the U.S. Congress.
"It was with real surprise and disappointment that we read a headline in this morning’s newspaper saying ‘Foreign Ministry boycotts members of Congress,’" said Rep. William Delahunt (D-Massachusetts), who heads the delegation.
J Street director Jeremy Ben-Ami said at the news conference that he was confused by Ayalon’s calling the lobby anti-Israel. "Our relations with Israel’s embassy in Washington are on the mend…I hope this is no more than his personal opinion," he said.
Yesterday’s events raised a storm in the Foreign Ministry and in Washington. J Street had asked for a meeting between the Congressmen and Ayalon or other senior ministry officials several weeks ago, Haaretz learned.
After numerous days of waiting, they were told ministry officials would meet only the Congressmen, without their J Street escorts, which the former refused, and the Foreign Ministry said there would be no meeting.
A senior Jerusalem source said the man who advised Ayalon and President Shimon Peres not to meet the delegation was Baruch Binah, deputy director general for North America in the ministry. Binah advised against the meeting because the delegation includes J Street members and a representative of Churches for Middle East Peace, which the Foreign Ministry sees as anti-Israeli.
"We were puzzled that the deputy foreign minister has apparently attempted to block our meetings with senior officials in the Prime Minister’s Office and Foreign Ministry – questioning either our own support of Israel or that we would even consider traveling to the region with groups that the deputy foreign minister has so inaccurately described as ‘anti-Israel,’" Delahunt continued.
"In our opinion this is an inappropriate way to treat elected representatives of Israel’s closest ally who are visiting the country – and who through the years have been staunch supporters of the U.S.-Israeli special relationship."
Delahunt went on to ask the government for clarification regarding Ayalon’s boycott, saying, "We ask the Israeli government to clarify its position toward this delegation and future congressional delegations."
Delahunt said he became familiar with Ayalon’s behavior during Israel’s recent diplomatic crisis with Turkey in which Ayalon had humiliated the Turkish envoy in Israel. He implied Ayalon’s treatment of the delegation was in line with this behavior.
[…]
–
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
Just Foreign Policy is a membership organization devoted to reforming US foreign policy so it reflects the values and interests of the majority of Americans.