After his release from his first captivity in Libya James Foley wrote this letter to his alma mater, Marquette University. He said:
Myself and two colleagues had been captured and were being held in a military detention center in Tripoli. Each day brought increasing worry that our moms would begin to panic. My colleague, Clare, was supposed to call her mom on her birthday, which was the day after we were captured. I had still not fully admitted to myself that my mom knew what had happened. But I kept telling Clare my mom had a strong faith.
I prayed she’d know I was OK. I prayed I could communicate through some cosmic reach of the universe to her.
I began to pray the rosary. It was what my mother and grandmother would have prayed.
I said 10 Hail Marys between each Our Father. It took a long time, almost an hour to count 100 Hail Marys off on my knuckles. And it helped to keep my mind focused.
Clare and I prayed together out loud. It felt energizing to speak our weaknesses and hopes together, as if in a conversation with God, rather than silently and alone.
In a previous installment...
- mention was made of the US resupplying Israel with armaments: Stars & Stripes; according to reports, mortar rounds and ammuntion for grenade launchers.
- Then, before Congress left for its unearned summer vacation, it voted funds for a resupply of Israel's Iron Dome rockets; some sleight of hand it turns out.
- Then, there are reports that the U.S. National Security Agency supplies Israel with targeting information. Perhaps for Gaza? Glenn Greenwald's account.
And then: various countries and international bodies support UNRWA, the organization that cares for Palestinian refugees from Israel both in Gaza and the West Bank. These funds will be solicited to rebuild Gaza, perhaps in time for the next Israeli assault.
If the world in various guises is paying both Israel and Hamas, can we ask why? And should we? What if each had to pay their own expenses? What if taxpayers in the U.S. and the EU all said, not in our name.
ADDENDUM: There's a gremlin in a link to a Haaretz story (citing the WSJ) to the effect that the weapons' transfers were done without WH or State Dept. approval. The transfers are now being held up by the WH. Haaretz "According to a senior U.S. official, the decision to tighten oversight and require approval of higher-ranking officials over shipments, was intended to make it clear to Israel that there is no "blank check" from Washington in regards to the U.S.-made weapons the IDF makes use of in its Gaza operations."
There is much else in this report including expressions of Netanyahu's arrogance: he can outwait whatever Obama may do, because he has Congress in his pocket as well as the direct links Israeli officials have to officials and departments of the U.S. government. Here is a link to the Wall Street Journal story in case you have access.
Today’s New York Times story on Argentina’s apparent financial default isn’t likely to make anyone more fond of hedge fund firms, except maybe those who, like the fund’s manager, tend to valorize the “rights of creditors.” The lead:
The hedge fund firm of billionaire Paul E. Singer has about 300 employees, yet it has managed to force Argentina, a nation of 41 million people, into a position where it now has to contemplate a humbling surrender.
Presented that way, the development seems an example of what Pope Francis had in mind when he used the term “savage capitalism” during a visit to a soup kitchen last year, and in fact, it’s exactly how Jubilee USA president Eric LeCompte characterizes it: “When Pope Francis has used the term savage capitalism he refers to a group of extreme actors who profit from exploitation of the poor. I can’t think of a more appropriate example than the actions of the vulture hedge funds and Argentina.”
Imagery and metaphor are inevitable in accounts of crises like these, precisely because they can be useful in beginning to understand details that can otherwise be confounding. More from the Times story:
The campaign against Argentina shows how driven and deep-pocketed hedge funds can sometimes wield influence outside of the markets they bet in … While Mr. Singer’s firm has yet to collect any money from Argentina, some debt market experts say that the battle may already have shifted the balance of power toward creditors in the enormous debt markets that countries regularly tap to fund their deficits. Countries in crisis may now find it harder to gain relief from creditors after defaulting on their debt, they assert.
“We’ve had a lot of bombs being thrown around the world, and this is America throwing a bomb into the global economic system,” said Joseph E. Stiglitz, the economist and professor at Columbia University. “We don’t know how big the explosion will be — and it’s not just about Argentina.”
Battles, bombs, and explosions. That Elliott, a small New York firm generally unknown outside financial circles, can wield such power over a distant sovereign nation says much about its arsenal: It manages more than $25 billion in assets, an amount accrued through returns of 14% a year since 1977. By that measure, Elliott easily meets, if not embodies, the definition of a successful fund. And why might it be so successful? Perhaps because a hedge fund isn’t a “hedge” in the way that term might suggest—and in fact once was used, even in finance.Read more
UPDATE: Here is the Financial Times (British) on the Obama conundrum with Israel/Palestine: "The odds are that, once the dust settles in Gaza, Washington will let the situation drift. It is arguably the fourth of Mr Obama’s Middle East crises after Iraq, Iran and Syria. Why waste more capital on it? The answer lies as much within the US as in the Middle East. Unless Mr Obama is prepared to play the role of a genuinely neutral broker, talks are always likely to fail. If, as a growing number of American Jews and a brave minority of Israelis argue, Israel is digging its grave by undercutting moderate Palestinians, it is time for more thoughtful friends in the US to speak out. Why should Aipac be the one with the megaphone?" Whole article here
Original post: 7/31: "While Congress figures out how to pass $225 million in new Iron Dome funding before the August recess, DoD supplies Israel with new ammo. Stars and Stripes' story: "As conflict continues between Israel and Hamas militants in Gaza, the Department of Defense has released arms to Israel from a weapons stockpile maintained within the borders of the close U.S. ally, defense officials confirmed Wednesday. The ammunition sale from the weapons stockpile, established in the 1990s for use by both countries in case of emergency, took place within the past week, following three weeks of battle between the Israeli military and Hamas militants in Gaza." Foreign Policy Situation Report, Gordon Lubold
"But according to a defense official it was not in response to an emergency request from Israel. "Instead, the United States elected to supply 120mm mortar shells and 40mm grenades from the stockpile because the arms were approaching the date they would require replacement, he said. Israel regularly buys such ammunition when the United States rotates its stocks, he said, and the United States would meanwhile send new ammunition to refresh the stockpile." Stars & Stripes
There's no foreign-policy issue I've found as frustrating and hard to get a grasp on as the Israel-Palestine conflict. When a conflict flares up, especially one with longstanding roots, the natural thing for someone like me to do is try to get up to speed on the basics: What did I miss while I was growing up (or not yet born) that will help me understand what's going on now? But when it comes to Israeli politics, that neutral accounting of facts has always been nearly impossible to find. Try to find someone who can explain what's going on over there, and they skip directly to an impassioned rebuttal of the other side's views. Everyone wants to tell you why the other side is wrong and their own side is misrepresented. Everyone wants to tell you how it's all about bias. It's the one issue that, to judge from the public discussion, seems to be ideology all the way down.
That's finally changing for me; with this latest flare-up I finally feel like I can get a handle on what's happening and why. I'm skeptical of "how social media changes everything" arguments, but in this case I do think there's a lot to be said for the power of Twitter in helping me find arguments and reporting and images I wouldn't have seen otherwise -- a lot of it coming from journalists in my age cohort who, I assume, are also fed up with the "pro-and-anti-Israel" posturing that has dominated any discussion of Israel and its actions (and U.S. involvement in same) throughout our lifetime. They want to move beyond the calcified positions and tired slogans and try to see what's really happening now, because that might lead to a way out instead of just more retrenchment and identity politics. (Read Paul Waldman's excellent post at the American Prospect on that.) I finally feel like I can follow the events as they unfold without having to choose a side first.
Which is why I've been so fascinated by what's been happening with David Frum, now a Senior Editor at the Atlantic, regarded by many as an independent thinker because, after serving as a speech writer for George W. Bush, he distanced himself from and became highly critical of the radical elements in the Obama-era GOP. Frum is smart and sharp and right about a lot of things, but also smug, and surprisingly sloppy in his thinking when it suits his ideology. (Just because he's not totally partisan doesn't mean he's not ideological.) And when the subject is Israel, he puts his critical-thinking skills on a shelf and goes all in on the propaganda. He has become a vivid illustration of the poisonous conversation around Israeli politics, and the way it reduces otherwise responsible thinkers to frothing idealogues eager to jump to the worst conclusions about anyone who they think might see things differently than they do.Read more
After hinting that there would be no U.S. military involvement in Iraq's current metldown/civil war...well, there is. President Obama has said he is sending 300 military advisors to??? advise? to target ISIS militants for air attacks? to show the Iraqi military how to do something they are unwilling or incapable of doing? And only 300? what about the air crews bringing them in? the translators? Well, you get it. And all of this while Mr. Maliki is still in power. And oh yes, maybe we'll take a few shots at Syria while we're bombing in Iraq.
NYTimes: "President Obama said Thursday that he would deploy up to 300 military advisers to Iraq to help its struggling security forces fend off a wave of Sunni militants who have overrun large parts of the country, edging the United States back into a conflict that Mr. Obama once thought he had left behind.
"Warning that the militants pose a threat not just to Iraq but also to the United States, Mr. Obama said he was prepared to take “targeted and precise military action,” a campaign of airstrikes that a senior administration official said could be extended into neighboring Syria."
Update: You can now watch Andrew Bacevich on Moyers & Company below.
Two weeks ago, Andrew Bacevich’s essay “The Duplicity of the Ideologues” appeared on our site. Beginning Friday online, and on PBS through the weekend, Bacevich will be featured on Moyers & Company, where he’ll be discussing the situation in Iraq and issues of U.S. foreign policy he raised in his Commonweal piece. You can check your local listings here; in the meantime, see the preview of Bacevich’s appearance below. (And see “The Duplicity of the Ideologues” here; it’s even more worth [re]reading in light of events since it first appeared.)
Do read the new column from E. J. Dionne about "Dick Cheney's Chutzpah," because it's as angry as even-tempered E. J. ever gets. And with good reason. In a field crowded with shameless hawks, cheering for more military action in Iraq while ignoring the consequences of their past enthusiasm for war, Dick Cheney stands out as perhaps the most shameless of all. He and his daughter Liz wrote an op-ed for yesterday's Wall Street Journal, published with a subheadline that left even the most cynical liberals sputtering:
(To be fair, it does say "rarely," which you might read as a concession that it has happened before.)
Is Dick Cheney in any position to be lecturing Barack Obama about fecklesness in foreign policy? Of course not. But his motives for doing so are clear enough. He, like many of the other neocons and Bush-era hawks now pointing fingers at Obama, has a reputation to think about, and a deep investment in shifting the blame for the mess in Iraq onto someone else's shoulders. Embracing a revisionist history of Bush-era foreign policy could have dreadful consequences for most Americans, and especially for the men and women in the military -- not to mention for the people of Iraq and neighboring countries. But it can only be good for Dick Cheney. Here's Dionne on how they'd like the debate to be rigged:
Thanks to the Cheney op-ed, we can see how Obama’s hawkish critics are out to create a double standard. Whenever they are called out for how mistaken they were about Iraq in the first place, they piously lecture against “relitigating the past” and say we must instead look forward. At the same time, many of them feel perfectly free to trash the president in extreme and even vile terms.
A lot of liberals and media types have spoken up in exasperation after watching unreformed and unreflective hawks like John McCain, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, and so on appear on the Sunday-morning shows and on op-ed pages as if they were still respected authorities, with no hard questions about the disastrously wrong predictions they made so confidently before the (last) invasion of Iraq. James Fallows says: "we are talking about people in public life—writers, politicians, academics—who got the biggest strategic call in many decades completely wrong.... we now live with (and many, many people have died because of) the consequences of their gross misjudgments a dozen years ago. In the circumstances, they might have the decency to shut the hell up on this particular topic for a while." (He links to a lot of other people making similar arguments, including our own Andrew Bacevich -- and, yes, go read that now if you haven't already.)Read more
The exchange of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban prisoners held at Guantanamo was heralded Saturday morning as a breakthrough in negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Sunday and Monday, the exchange is getting head winds from Congressional Republicans. Mike Rogers (R. MI) claims the exchange was illegal and against U.S. policy of trading with terrorists. We will certainly have more of this. And we will have more criticisms on the grounds that Bergdahl walked away from his unit on purpose. Bergdahl is now in Germany for medical treatment and probably won't be heard from for a long time.
President Obama will be criticized through the November elections, but he probably made the right decision for Bergdahl. And maybe he made the right decision for the Taliban prisoners, at least two of whom have been at Guantanamo for over a decade. If Congress won't let the president bring Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S. for trial, what better way to dispose of them. They have been sent to Qatar where it is said they will be banned from traveling for a year. Maybe the Qataris will pension them off and they will live there ever after.
UPDATE: June 6: The Times's Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan, gives a rundown on some of the media coverage and responses from the Times's news editors.
Queen Alia Street, a main thoroughfare in Amman, was packed with traffic on May 24th, the day of the Pope’s visit to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Vertical posters depicting important places in Jordan, like the site of Jesus’ baptism or the massive, blue King Abdullah I mosque, read “Joy and Hope” in Arabic and English. The flags of Jordan and the Vatican lined the overpasses and the walls of the Amman International Stadium where the Pope would say Mass later in the afternoon.
These decorations appeared just days before the Pope’s visit, but signs of his impending arrival were visible throughout Amman for the preceding weeks: curbs received a fresh coat of yellow and black paint, and images of Jordan’s King Abdullah and Pope Francis shaking hands were posted throughout the city. Jordanians, both Christian and Muslim, were excited not only to receive Francis—the fourth pope to visit them in fifty years—but also to use the opportunity to showcase their country’s long history of Muslim-Christian coexistence.
Along with 30,000 other Jordanians—mostly Christians but some Muslims—I attended the Mass over which Francis presided. Because I taught religious education classes for our English-language parish in Amman, I was able to sit on the grassy, ground level of the stadium with the families of the First Communicants, who would be receiving their First Eucharist at the Mass. I had a clear view of the altar and its big, yellow tent, and was able to walk around the field easily, greeting friends and fellow parishioners in the four hours before the liturgy.
As we waited in the hot sun for the Pope to arrive, Fr. Bashir Badr, a friend and Roman Catholic priest, served as an emcee, leading the congregation in chanting and singing. We yelled, “Long live the king!” and "Viva il papa!", sang along to well-known Arabic liturgical hymns, and learned the words to songs written especially for the visit of the Pope. Children let balloons fly into the sky, including two large balloon rosaries, one blue, one pink.
When the Pope arrived, we all ran to the edge of the track that encircled the field.Read more
...and other nearby countries. The Pope referred to the "State of Palestine" in his meeting with Palestinian President Abbas. In an unexpected and unplanned gesture he stopped his car to get out and pray at the security wall separating Bethlehem from Jerusalem, and the Palestinians from the Israelis.
He has invited Israelie President Peres and Abbas to the Vatican to pray for peace. From the NYTimes story: "Father Jamal Khader, head of the Latin Patriarchate Seminary in Beit Jala and a local spokesman for the pope’s visit, said the invitation on Sunday to a joint prayer session was “taking the negotiations to another level – a meeting in front of God.” Who knows!? Can't hurt!
Reminds me of ideas from a book I just finished, Faith in the Face of Empire: The Bible through Palestinian Eyes, by Mitri Raheb, the pastor of a Lutheran church in Bethlehem. Maybe Francis has read it too.
As Francis arrives in the Middle East on May 24, there are continuing concerns both about the diplomatic to and fro, and about security.
The New York Times reports on the trip's several pitfalls, suggesting that the visit acknowledging all the major players will please few of them. "At each stop on the orchestrated itinerary, the Vatican’s focus...could be overshadowed as all sides dissect Francis’ every action. Already, his effort at ecumenical outreach, traveling with a rabbi and an imam from his native Buenos Aires, has led to criticism that he is not fully engaging local religious leaders."
And from Loblog a run-down of the security concerns about his visit to Israel. "The section of the [U.S.] State Department’s 2013 County Reports on Terrorism dealing with Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza drew attention to the growing threat posed by “extremist Israeli settlers.” It cited “399 attacks by extremist Israeli settlers that resulted in Palestinian injuries or property damage” and deemed them “violent extremists” — mostly over “price tag” attacks against Palestinian Arab homes and property. “Price tag” is a code-term used by Jewish extremists to justify what they claim are retaliatory actions against Arabs or proposed policies of the Israeli government — policies that would restrict the expansion of settlements in “Judea and Samaria,” the preferred settler term for the occupied territories in the West Bank. “Price tag” has been appearing prominently in the Hebrew graffiti defacing Christian sites."
Almost fifty years ago, the conciliar document Nostra aetate removed a cancer from the heart of Christianity. Its central section, on Jews and Judaism, overturned centuries of faulty interpretation regarding the main "teaching of contempt" for Jews that was part of Christian culture, doctrine, and liturgy.
Surgery is one thing; rehabilitation another. The first is relatively quick and anesthetized; what follows is more challenging, sometimes painful, and often a test of perseverance and endurance.
So as the Pope prepares for the Holy Land, how healthy is the Jewish-Christian relationship? And how is Israel preparing for the Pope?Read more
Papal trips have become important international events. They are a sign of the Church's opennes to the world, on the one hand, and a sign of a welcoming country, on the other. Pope Francis's trip to Israel later this month was postponed once because of a strike, but is on again for late May.
It happens that the most welcoming group may be the rabbis traveling from Latin America who plan to be in Jerusalem to meet him when he arrives. Israelis, who encouraged the trip, seem to be having second thoughts. There have been an uptick in "price-tag" attacks on Christian sites. Security officials fear that there will be disruptions during the visit. The police have asked Franciscans in Jerusalem to remove a banner welcoming the Pope. Should Francis stay home where he has his own curial troublemakers?
A round-up of the issues (which have been widely reported in the Israeli press).
Richard Falk, recently retired as the United Nations Special Rapporteur for the mess in Israel-Palestine (latter not part of his title!), has written a summing up of recent efforts. Will not fit with everyone's views, but worth a read just to inform ourselves. "Why the Peace Talks Failed--And Should Not be Resumed."
He is also retired from Princeton, University of California, etc. Was Professor of International Law. A Wikepedia Bio.
Professor Mark Katz at George Mason University organized his 79 undergraduate students in teams to play out the current situation in Ukraine. Here he describes their moves and the tentative outcome: LobeLog Sound plausible? possible? unlikely?
The many efforts to bring Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate their differences have always ended with the U.S. finding the Palesinians responsible for their failure. This time it looks like it is the Israelis who are being found wanting.
The talks have almost certainly ended, and someone on the U.S. negotiating team (perhaps its lead, Martin Indyk) has given an interview to YNET, an Israeli 24/7 news outlet. In the interview, the American places the major responsibility for failure on Israel's continuing approval of building permits for new settlements, some of which were issued at critical moments in the negotiations.
With John Kerry some weeks back using the word "apartheid" to characterize Israel's future and then back pedaling. With this interview and the views expressed (about which there will probably be some back pedaling), perhaps the iron grip of Netanyahu on U.S. support is beginning to slip.
The YNET Interview. So far no mention, that I've seen, in the U.S. press.
Of course, we are the indispensible nation! Even so.
As the White House struggles to calibrate sanctions against Russia, Europe hangs back. Some say if the U.S. leads, Europe will follow. President Obama argues, if U.S. companies stop selling gizmos to Russia, European companies will happily supply them. In the meantime, energy companies have rushed to reassure Russia, not to worry. They will keep on investing.
NYTimes headline: U.S. Weighs Harder Line on Russia Than European Allies
One of the curiosities and conundrums of the Ukraine situation is the heated rhetoric from the West along with the lack of interest in really doing anything, except by the U.S., which contributes the largest proportion of NATO's budget (80 percent) while European countries have reduced their military budgets.
Here is the Economist, foremost British opinion magazine, inviting us to take charge: "That is why the West needs to show Mr Putin that further action will be costly. So far, its rhetoric has marched far ahead of its willingness to act—only adding to the aura of weakness. Not enough is at stake in Ukraine to risk war with a nuclear-armed Russia. And European voters will not put up with gas shortages, so an embargo is not plausible. But the West has other cards to play. One is military. NATO should announce that it will hold exercises in central and eastern Europe, strengthen air and cyber defences there and immediately send some troops, missiles and aircraft to the Baltics and Poland. NATO members should pledge to increase military spending."
Going to war over Ukraine is in no one's interest. Yet, as long as the EU, including Britain, offers to hold our coat and stand back, diplomacy and sanctions, such as they are, will be ineffective.
Secretary of State John Kerry's effort to bring the Israeli-Palestinian stand-off to another level is clearly failing, if it has not already failed. So what's next? Some weary but knowledgable observers offer their thoughts. I read them to say in general: time for the United States to sign off.
Tom Friedman at the NYTimes: "The truth is Kerry’s mission is less an act of strategy and more an act of deep friendship. It is America trying to save Israel from trends that will inevitably undermine it as a Jewish and democratic state. But Kerry is the last of an old guard. Those in the Obama administration who think he is on a suicide mission reflect the new U.S. attitude toward the region. And those in Israel who denounce him as a nuisance reflect the new Israel."
Henry Siegman at Haaretz: America has been seen by the entire international community as “owning” the peace process, not because its statesmen are believed to be wiser than all others, but because it enjoys leverage with Israel that uniquely enables it to influence the Jewish state’s policies.....[I]t is the consequence of the many decades of unprecedented U.S. generosity towards the Jewish state in the form of virtually unlimited military and economic assistance.... It has long been assumed that a point would surely come when Washington would use its long-accumulated leverage to inform Israel’s government that it could no longer fend off international criticism of Israel’s occupation without incurring serious damage to its own credibility and national interests. It was believed that when the U.S. reaches that point, Israel would have no choice but to withdraw from the West Bank to the pre-1967 lines, subject to minor mutual border swaps and appropriate security guarantees....But that moment of truth never came, and no one believes any longer it ever will.
Paul Pillar at National Interest: Reviews "What to Do After Peace Process Failure."