State Department attacks!

[Vic]

If it got even Ze'ev Schiff of "Ha'aretz" spitting venom, then it must be serious:

[...]

The State Department is financing a study on the conditions for establishing a Palestinian state based on the outline presented by President Bush. An odd situation has arisen, because the study has ended up in the hands of a pro-Palestinian group at the Council for Foreign Policy in New York.

A draft of the study shows that it is one-sided. The Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University turned down the offer to take part, and was correct in its suspicions. Researcher Joseph Alpher, an ex-Mossad man, took up the invitation but at the end refused to sign on to the study's conclusions. He submitted a document listing his reservations, in which he strongly objects to the idea that the Palestinian army in the future state be equipped, according to Palestinian demands, with anti-aircraft missiles and mortars.

The study ignored the fact that for the last two years a war initiated by the Palestinians has been underway. The lessons from this war must be the basis for any future security arrangements. In light of massive Palestinian violations of the agreements, which began while Rabin was still prime minister, and the lies that have since been exposed, Israel must insist on much wider security margins than those in the Oslo Accords and the interim agreements. Every agreement in the future must be tested over the long run. That holds for the international border crossings, and in the matter of weapons smuggling, monitoring of the agreement and inciting against Israel and Jews. None of this appears in the study handed in to the State Department.

The Palestinian position as expressed in the study totally ignores the last 22 months. They act as if they defeated Israel in war and are now dictating terms for an agreement. There is not a word about the 580 Israeli dead and more than 1,500 Palestinian dead. Just as it's impossible to discuss protecting the American rear without a mention of the attacks on the Twin Towers and Pentagon and the lessons learned from those attacks, it's impossible to discuss security arrangements between Israel and the Palestinians without dealing with the current conflict.

The strange attitude of the American Council on Foreign Relations can be seen in its decision to ask a Palestinian who participated as a member of the official Palestinian negotiating team on security, to formulate a synthesis of the Israeli and Palestinian demands. The Palestinians, in effect, are demanding that the Palestinian state not be demilitarized. Demilitarization, they say, is a form of "political aggression." That's where the demand for anti-aircraft missiles and mortars comes from. And there's more: The Palestinian state will be allowed to invite whoever it wants to train its army (the Iranians?). In exchange for the IDF's right during an emergency to reach the Jordan Valley, they demand an Israeli surrender of Ma'aleh Adumim and Ariel. There's even a Palestinian demand for setting rules concerning when the Israeli government is allowed to declare an emergency and call up reserves.

The State Department can waste the American taxpayer's money. Israel has to regard the latest Palestinian demands, coming as they do while the IDF is inside Palestinian cities, as either chutzpah or a joke.

Either chutzpah or a joke
By Ze'ev Schiff
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...ID=0&listSrc=Y

Well, some of you have enlightened me on the "Foggy Bottom Arabists", but I must admit I still don't really get it...

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Vic
If it got even Ze'ev Schiff of "Ha'aretz" spitting venom, then it must be serious:Either chutzpah or a joke
By Ze'ev Schiff
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...ID=0&listSrc=Y

Well, some of you have enlightened me on the "Foggy Bottom Arabists", but I must admit I still don't really get it...

I don't either, really. Where to start with the State Department's anti-Israel bias? It's been the case for decades, it's been the case through every relevant president, and it continues. One motivating factor that is sometimes mentioned is that when State Department careerists retire, they get plum positions as Arab-paid PR shills. Obviously that is not a complete explanation.

The idea of a Palestinian state has a romantic sound to it. Details like whether such a state should have anti-aircraft missiles and mortars, and who these would be used on, are pointedly overlooked by many supporters.

[Vic]

Seems like ME peacemaking functions as occupational therapy not only in Europe:

CIA to unveil new Mideast security plan
By Eli J. Lake
UPI State Department Correspondent
From the International Desk
Published 7/19/2002 6:59 PM
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...9-054243-7018r

What I don't understand is that thos is still considered newsworthy...

[cerulean]

A day or so after Attorney General Ashcroft was the victim of a hatchet job by mostly anonymous complainers in the New York Times, Secretary of State Powell is the beneficiary of a glowing profile.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/25/in...t&position=top

The article goes on about how personable, well-liked, knowledgeable, statesmanlike, etc. Powell is.

(For comparison, here is the Ashcroft article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/24/po...t&position=top)

Both articles are mostly devoid of substantial analysis.

[cerulean]

This article appears to be a collection of leaks from unnamed State Department officials. It claims that a deal to stop terrorism, involving Saudi Arabia and Egypt, was imminently in the works when Shehada was taken out.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/3746859.htm
Posted on Sat, Jul. 27, 2002

Israeli attack killed deal with Saudis, Egyptians, too
By Warren P. Strobel
Inquirer Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - An Israeli attack on a Palestinian apartment building Tuesday shattered a secret U.S.-brokered pact in which Saudi Arabia had agreed to halt funding for the radical Palestinian group Hamas and Egypt had agreed to help pressure Hamas to stop terrorist attacks against Israel.
...
====

I consider this article very unlikely. The timing is terribly suspicious. I get the impression that Saudi Arabia and Egypt always claim to be ready to stop terrorism, except not really and not quite when it comes down to actually doing anything.

[cerulean]

Is this meeting a good idea? Obviously Arafat is not being included, but close associates are.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Jul28.html
Powell Says He Will Meet With Palestinians
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 28, 2002; 11:04 AM

NEW DELHI, July 28 -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said today that he would meet in Washington with Palestinian officials, the first high-level contact between the administration and Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority since President Bush last month called for new Palestinian leadership.
[...]
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Saturday that the delegation would include himself and the Palestinian Authority Interior Minister Abdel Razzak al Yehiya, who was named to the job last spring by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Erekat said the meeting would take place on Aug. 5 and 6.
...

[Vic]

Originally posted by cerulean
Is this meeting a good idea? Obviously Arafat is not being included, but close associates are.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Jul28.html
Powell Says He Will Meet With Palestinians
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 28, 2002; 11:04 AM

Erekat: Chaos will reign if Arafat replaced
By Reuters
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...ubContrassID=0

If anything, he doesn't lack chutzpah:

As he prepared to meet Secretary of State Colin Powell and White House National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Thursday, Saeb Erekat told
reporters that "the alternative to Arafat is chaos, ladies and gentlemen, Palestinian militants spread in each neighborhood, maybe having civil strife... and competing to send more suicide bombers to Israel."

He made no specific mention of Bush's June 24 speech in which he urged Palestinians to elect new leaders "not compromised by terror," but made his own loyalties plain. "Where do you think I come from, Mars? I'm part of Arafat's leadership," Erekat said in response to questions.

A State Department official made clear the bind the United States is in, stuck with a policy of not speaking to Arafat but needing to discuss peace moves with members of his government. Asked if Washington saw the trio as Arafat's envoys, he said: "We see them as representatives of the Palestinian Authority."

Washington has adopted a new policy since Bush's speech, despite opposition from its European and Arab partners, ruling out any talks with Arafat.

Erekat made clear his disdain for such policies, asking rhetorically: "Do you think that Sharon cares if Palestinians are ruled by Attila the Hun or a boy scout?"

He added: "This is not the issue. The issue is the ongoing vicious cycle. Maybe I sound like a dreamer... (but) the shortest way to peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians in the region is to end this Israeli occupation, period."

Re. the discussion in the Wow! Rumsfeld on Israel thread, how about establishing a neutral negotiation and coordination committee between the US Ministry of Defense and the State Department?

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Vic
Re. the discussion in the Wow! Rumsfeld on Israel thread, how about establishing a neutral negotiation and coordination committee between the US Ministry of Defense and the State Department?

Maybe the UN could do it .
Seriously, I wonder how much of this split is intentional and how much coincidental. The way things are currently, any given party can feel both supported and alienated. Then the US can say with a straight face that it is acting impartially (when in fact it is demonstrating schizoid tendencies).
I think any such committee, which would have both career and political appointments most likely, would itself quickly become politicized. Neutrality would be elusive.

[Mediocrates]

To be fair, they are doing what their job descriptions tell them to do. The DoD wages war. The State Dept. wages diplomacy. That's what they're there for. If we only had a single agency that combined both it couldn't do either job.

The real problem is that the US doesn't have an actual foreign policy. It has a military policy. If/when it develops a foreign policy then the State Dept. should pitch it. Until then they're being asked to ignore what their job descriptions tell them to do and instead serve as a PR arm of the DoD. Which is either pretty self serving or pretty dumb for the US to do.

[Vic]

Originally posted by cerulean
I think any such committee, which would have both career and political appointments most likely, would itself quickly become politicized. Neutrality would be elusive.

There must be still some tribes in rain forests or whatever who have never heard of Jews, ME, etc. How about importing a couple of their elders?

I've heard that many of them have exquisite conflict management techniques

[IsraelAdvocate]

The report reminds me of an Ant (the Palestinians) trying to rape the Lion (Israel).

Well, Ladies and Gentlemen, you now get some idea why the Palestinians are in the sorry shape they are in. They don't grasp or live in reality.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
To be fair, they are doing what their job descriptions tell them to do. The DoD wages war. The State Dept. wages diplomacy. That's what they're there for. If we only had a single agency that combined both it couldn't do either job.

The real problem is that the US doesn't have an actual foreign policy. It has a military policy. If/when it develops a foreign policy then the State Dept. should pitch it. Until then they're being asked to ignore what their job descriptions tell them to do and instead serve as a PR arm of the DoD. Which is either pretty self serving or pretty dumb for the US to do.

Well, I've heard that it sometimes happens that the main policy thrust is coordinated at this level (in some of the previous US governments?), but maybe it has been a rumor...


Until then - keep dreaming

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Vic
Well, I've heard that it sometimes happens that the main policy thrust is coordinated at this level (in some of the previous US governments?), but maybe it has been a rumor...


Until then - keep dreaming

That's possible but history doesn't seem to bear that out. The WH has either been at odds with its own Department of State or has simply coopted them or ignored them like Reagan did. Republican presidents don't listen to their own diplomats and Democratic presidents think they can do the job themselves. Although I think some of it comes from how the Foreign Service recruits people. Typically from blueblood places like Princeton and/or from people who are second generation from the places the Foreign Service wants to place them (language skills). I't not unusal for a FS operative in the mid east to be middle eastern. Corporations do the same thing. We place Pakistani muslim project managers who come from important families on jobs in the mid east because that level of parity for honors sake is necessary to get the job done. So perhaps our policy shaping process is a result of that bias. That and it dovetails nicely with our industrial lobbyists' interests.

[Vic]

What are the practical consequences for Israel and some of the other US "dependents" like the Palestinians. Does this mean that they are - in practice - much freer to act on their own than they would be under a better organised "Mommy", cf. a related thread: http://www.israelforum.com/board/sho...5&goto=newpost ? Or is the situation actually more dangerous this way?

So far, the US hasn't really acted in the ME, it only makes noises. Can the Israeli government actually act the way it wants, leaving it different "parties" in the US government to carry out the rhetorical (?) fight among themselves?

[Mediocrates]

Well one must ask themselves what purpose it serves to have no coordinated thought out policy if you are the US. The first thing that comes to mind is that it leaves the US free to act however it wishes w/o restraint as to promises or doctrine. Everything is handled as a contingency or as a crisis. I believe that sends a clear message to Israel and others that they are free to act as they wish within broad limits.

That's why I posted what I did. Israel should pursue a dirty war on the ground and diplomatic wrangling even diplomatic sabotage when working with other governments including the US. You see the Palestinians meet with the US to discuss their demands whereas the Israelis need to approach the US in terms of US shared interests. That is one thing the Palestinians can't do outside of vague threats.

And all the time the Israelis are engaged in a diplomatic 'war' they also need to be engaged in a very dirty streetfight with the Palestinians inside Gaza and the WB. They need to take the war to them. Enough of this looking for terrorists and knocking down walls. Locate, Infiltrate, Assassinate. If Iraq can pay 25,000 for a martyr's family then we can pay 25,000 for a double agent.