Is Tide Turning on Impunity of Western Power?

We've seen some unbelievable headlines in recent years. We saw a US presidential election stolen in 2000-2001. We saw the twin towers in NYC collapse in 2001. We saw our nation initiate a war of aggression based on lies in 2002-2003. We saw Enron implode and Enronian blackouts in California. We saw the US looking like an under-developed nation as the government failed to respond to Hurricane Katrina. We are seeing headlines talking about economic depression. We've seen the headlines of the first African American president of the United States.

Is it really so unimaginable to envision headlines of war crimes being brought against high officials in the US and Israel? This thought recently reached my consciousness in reaction to a critique of my GDAE Podcast. The critique challenged my criticism of the main stream media:

I take a little exception to your characterization of mainstream media's coverage of the Gaza debacle. CNN has had some good reporting about the situation inside Gaza within the limitations of access granted by the IDF. One of their reporters was in one of the tunnels leading to Egypt and commented that whenever humans feel trapped they will try and tunnel out and Palestinians in Gaza certainly feel trapped.

I could quibble about this, but that's not the point.

This critique was in reference to Episode 3 of GDAE Podcast (Jan 15, 2009), in which I claimed the establishment media was perpetuating several false narratives about the Israel/Palestine conflict. In addition to this critique of GDAE Podcast, I saw the following Yahoo News Headline:

"Israel promises troops legal backing over Gaza war", the opening line of which put Israeli war crimes on the table:

International calls to investigate Israel over alleged war crimes in the Gaza Strip prompted Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday to promise military personnel state protection from foreign prosecution.

It goes on to quote Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki, who said,

It does not mean there is an immunity against legal actions...More of such efforts will be seen also in the near future.

Is it possible the US media is beginning to ponder the imponderable?

So the thought occurs to me... we've seen some amazing headlines in the past few years. It's conceivable that a ground swell of demand for justice could spawn headlines about US and Israeli officials being charged and convicted for war crimes. It's possible.

Psssst... Do Something

• Contact the Broadcast Media
  
• Contact the Newspapers
  
• Contact the US Senate
  
• Contact the House of Representatives

Sources:

Associated Press,
Israel promises troops legal backing over Gaza war, January 26, 2009.

Graphic Credit: Poet515 from DevianArt.

Media Critique: Clinton and Obama on Nuclear Weapons

The good news is that the establishment media piece addresses a policy issue. The bad news is that they belittle it as a "flap."

"Obama, Clinton in new flap, over nuclear weapons"
by Steve Holland, Reuters, August 2, 2007

Wow, Reuters is actually reporting on different policy positions of Hillary Clinton and Barrak Obama, and it's being picked up establishment media sources.

Obama ruled out the use of nuclear weapons to go after al Qaeda or Taliban targets in Afghanistan or Pakistan, prompting Clinton to say presidents never take the nuclear option off the table...

So, why does the editor have to belittle this serious policy issue by calling it a "flap"? I don't know, but thought I'd pose the question to a Reuters editor. You can to:

CLICK to Contact Reuters

On the content of this matter, Clinton has the policy wrong. She's conflating cold war policy with the hyped perpetual "war on terror," which doesn't apply. In the cold war days, nuclear weapons remained on the table with the USSR, because of the basic reality of deterrence. She's trying to be presidential, and only succeeding to be superficial.

It's OK to Debate the Israel Lobby

Times change. The Israel Lobby can now be analyzed and debated. Although I don't know the motives of the VPRO International "Back Light" organization, it's video is a legitimate contribution to the debate.

Here's the description that accompanies the video:

For many years now the American foreign policy has been characterized by the strong tie between the United States and Israel. Does the United States in fact keep Israel on its feet? And how long will it continue to do so?

In March 2006 the American political scientists John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Steve Walt (Harvard) published the controversial article 'The Israel Lobby and US foreign policy'. In it they state that it is not, or no longer, expedient for the US to support and protect present-day Israel.

The documentary sheds light on both parties involved in the discussion: those who wish to maintain the strong tie between the US and Israel, and those who were critical of it and not infrequently became 'victims' of the lobby. The question arises to what extend the pro-Israel lobby ultimately determines the military and political importance of Israel itself. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (Colin Powell's former chief-of-staff) explains how the lobby's influence affects the decision-making structure in the White House.

With political scientist John Mearsheimer, neocon Richard Perle, lobby organization AIPAC, televangelist John Hagee, historian Tony Judt, Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth, colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Democrat Earl Hilliard, Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy and investigative journalist Michael Massing.

Research: William de Bruijn
Director: Marije Meerman

Critique of Christian Parenti's ISG Critique

Christian Parenti's, piece "ISG: Defeat With Honor," undermines my confidence in him as a writer and progressive voice. It suggests that Parenti is falling into a main stream mind set. The Nation magazine should guard against being captured in a similar way.

He says, "...I am not so convinced by much of what I am reading about it from writers on the left." Me niether, and I include Parenti in the mix. Broadly speaking, Parenti's thesis, reflected in his title, states the obvious (just a variant of "stay the course lite," as he characterizes other progressive voices). I have a better title for a progressive message, "ISG Report: Plutocratic Damage Control." Why is it better? For one, it places the word "plutocrat" into the public discourse. I had a conservative blogger praise me on an essay in which I said, "But to the plutocrats we are the unwashed masses that they need to divide and conquer."

Second, the ISG report is more broadly about damage control, not just in Iraq; defeat with honor is just one element of a bigger picture. A title should capture the broader essence, not just a quip.

But the reason I was moved to write this letter relates to specifics. First, Parenti might think that Rush Limbaugh is "totally correct," but giving Limbaugh credit for anything is counter productive. It gives credit to Limbaugh's reasoning, which is almost always suspect. Why praise this vile man when there are other choices a writer can make?

Second, Parenti summarizes some of the ISG's criticisms of Bush. He says, "...the Pentagon has had very few analysts who have been working on
knowing the enemy." The "enemy?" Whose enemy? The plutocrats' enemy? My enemy? A better choice of words, particularly from a paid professional progressive voice, would be "insurgency."

On the positive side, Parenti provides a good synopsis of the ISG report. He hits key points that caught my attention as I read the report ($2 Trillion ultimate price tag when "tail costs," like veteran's benefits, are considered). He notes the Baker-Hamilton "Asessment" section is refreshingly harsh. Parenti asks, "So why do they do this?" Perhaps some of the old guard fear what Marxists used call to a “legitimation crisis.” The ISG report "Assessment" section is designed to appease the agitated public by tossing us an honest bone for a change. It's this aspect that progressive writers should expand on. Instead, they seem to be playing the "I'm a better muddy-middle analyst than the payola pudits." A good thing, but the wrong game IMHO.

I ask Parenti, and others in his position, to reflect on their own "obfuscating vernacular." Seriously. I truly suspect that the success and the growing celebrity of progressive writers might be affect their judgement as progressive voices. We cannot afford that erosion at this time.

Source:

The Nation online, December 18, 2006.
Iraq Study Group Report