dagblog - Comments for "Kerry misses his first slam-dunk"

I agree that U.S. foreign

EmmaZahn — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:46:05 +0000

I agree that U.S. foreign policy with Cuba and Venezuela is way over-politicized. Over-sensationalized, too. But both Castro and Chavez not only contributed to those but benefited from them. How much of their position and power do they owe to successfully standing against and even demonizing the U.S. as they were done in turn.

The problem for choosing representatives to their funerals is how they are perceived domestically, not internationally. Neither has been sufficiently de-demonized to be portrayed as opponents worthy of the highest honors. A shame in the case of Castro because imo he was a worthy opponent. He survived a very long time against very formidable odds.

Besides, it would be rude to send representatives whose presence would draw too much attention away from the guest of honor and chief mourners by politicizing and sensationalizing their funerals.

The comments in the NYBooks

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:16:42 +0000

In reply to Funny you should mention the

The comments in the NYBooks piece are better than the article.

Chavez used oil windfall to increase GDP for all 2 1/2 times, decrease of poverty from 23% to 9%.What did we get in the US? Rubber biscuit.

But the most important thing for Alma is.... whether Chavez resembles Peron. Sad.

You're being too kind. I

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 05:54:05 +0000

In reply to Not necessarily wanting

You're being too kind.

I noted vandalism was really a disguised robbery, as reported in Israeli press.

The response was "they're police - they probably arrested them and let them go".

I showed where 6 were convicted for 10 years, other 5 scheduled for trial.

"I bet they didn't go to jail, and it was all for show".

Like pouring water in the desert.

Anyway, thanks for more detail on the Central American wars. A bit similar is Israel's military support of apartheid South Africa - not the most charming chapter in its history.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Unspoken-Alliance-Relationship-Apartheid/dp/B008SLSALY

Not necessarily wanting

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 01:42:05 +0000

In reply to I understand that you would

Not necessarily wanting either a colloquy or a debate, but just throwing out some ideas and opinions first prompted by ideas and opinions you threw out.
My thinking when referencing Israel as being a self-described Jewish State was along the lines that if the U.S. was considered to be a Baptist State, then some Afghanistanis might direct hatred at Baptists just as if France considered itself to be a Catholic State rather than a French State that some Algerians would broaden their hatred of the French to include a hatred of Catholics everywhere when otherwise they wouldn't, but hey, that's just what them Catholics are like, apparently.
The Pope and a great deal of the Catholic hierarchy have recently come to be despised by many people, including many Catholics, because of the actions of priests and church leaders. That recently acquired disgust is usually not extended to Catholics in general but if the Pope said that child abuse was a 'Catholic Church' action and the Catholic people of the world did not completely distance themselves from that idea then Catholics as a group would be despised by many whether those Catholics had ever personally butt-fucked a young boy or not.
If Israel considered itself to be an Israeli State rather than a Jewish State I believe some victims in C. and S. America would think more abstractly that they were victims of just one more group of one more state's leaders rather than that they were victims of Jews.
Many people believe that power corrupts and so can separate the actions of the powerful leaders of a country from the general population of that country but if they are victims of a country which is acting as a 'Jewish' country and therefore acting 'as Jews", at least some will come to think that they are suffering because of "the Jews". Innocent Jews will suffer an undeserved image problem, or worse, as a result. Is that an absurd or offensive thing to conclude? [And offensive to who and why, even if it is a mistaken conclusion?]
Many Americans who have not suffered directly from any terrorist action have come to be suspicious of, and afraid of, and in many cases to even hate, all Muslims simply because our "enemies" of the day are always referred to with 'Muslim' before any other descriptor. Also, you might have heard: If American Muslims don't support terrorism why don't they speak out?
I was not asking you to agree that any Venezuelan's feelings of anti-Semitism are justified, but only if you could try to see and understand some simple characteristics of human nature. The ones I mention might be a small factor in the bigger picture we are talking about, but then anti-Semitism appears to have been a small factor in Venezuelan life.
There are many things which are absurd and offensive which are also just facts of life, like the many, many, times that the members of the UN have voted regarding their opinion of Israeli actions but the overwhelming conclusion was vetoed.

I would like to think you are smart enough to recognize that giving an example of how anti-Semitism might arise or expand in a particular situation of torture and death at the hands of Israeli trained paramilitaries is not the same as excusing it or apologizing for it. It is offering a reason, but again, not an excuse.
Do you excuse or apologize for the actions of the dictators which Israel supported and participated in when you strike out against anti-Semitism? Yeah, that is another question, but like most of my questions I don't expect you to respond directly or to the point so I am not expecting either a conversation or a debate or for our gaps in understanding each other to shrink. I'm simply responding to some things that just felt wrong and unnatural for me to ignore.

Funny you should mention the

artappraiser — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:54:22 +0000

In reply to It's not "nit-picking" - we

Funny you should mention the death squad thing. I found the following recent read quite interesting. Turns out one can be a Latin American with a history of exposing death squads and eliciting the wrath of the Reagan administration for the same. And this same person can be uncomfortable with Chavez's "Peronist brand of popularity" and think that "he most resembled, Juan Domingo Perón of Argentina. Or rather, as Perón and his wife Evita have, for in his complicated appeal (and his manner of dying, too) Chávez resembles both." And wonder "whether the people he leaves behind regressed into a kind of childhood faith and dependency under his spell and what the price of such regression might be."

I understand that you would

Bruce Levine — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 22:26:48 +0000

In reply to We both know that

I understand that you would like to have a colloquy with me. I'm not interested. I appreciate that for whatever reason you seem to want to debate, but I'm not sorry about my posture. I just perused your comment and saw that you were asking me if I could understand why people might blame Jews for things or be antisemitic, given that Israel considers itself, as does the UN by the way, to be a Jewish State. And that just reaffirms why I have no interest in discussing these things with you, because I really have no interest at all in explaining or excusing antisemitism as a product of what Jews call Israel. The notion is absurd and offensive--again. And I still want to believe that you are smart enough to comprehend that.

The United States, wrongly I

Bruce Levine — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 22:19:34 +0000

In reply to Interesting turn these

The United States, wrongly I think, doesn't recognize Cuba. But I think that governs what America's presence will be at Castro's funeral. I would hope that after Castro leaves there will be more support for the kind of bilateral relations that two neighbors should have. And, respectfully, from what I know of the Cuban people which is not much more than any of us know, but my sister and brother-in-law (who was born in Cuba) were just there in January, and I have a hunch, no I have no question, that the Cuban People aren't going to care too much if the U.S. has representation at Castro's funeral. They'll just think it's more of the same embargo-garbage and yet they will embrace this country when given the opportunity.

And sorry about the OT stuff. I made my point, which I made because it just felt wrong and unnatural for me to ignore, and then I swiveled back to more directly address your post as you can see right after my initial comment, but things then took a sharp turn today when PP and I joined issue. I meant no disrespect to your original post; you raise a good point and make good arguments about how the U.S. is perceived overseas.

From what I've read about

acanuck — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 22:04:42 +0000

In reply to Interesting turn these

From what I've read about Delahunt (thanks, appraiser), he would make an excellent ambassador to Venezuela. How long will it take until relations warm to the point they reportedly were at in November? No telling for now.

When the moment was ripe, Sadat went to Jerusalem, Nixon went to Beijing. Things changed. Obama repeatedly makes impressive-sounding feints, like his Nowruz message to the Iranian leadership, then declines to follow through. I'd love to be proved wrong.

Interesting turn these

acanuck — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:26:46 +0000

In reply to Kerry misses his first slam-dunk

Interesting turn these comments took, but largely irrelevant to my original point. In no way did my rant even touch on whether Chavez was a good guy or a bad guy, or whether his policies lined up with those of the U.S. My point was that it was in the American interest to play nice.

Chavez was freely elected four times and accepted the one referendum loss he suffered. Despite valid criticism over his handling of the economy and security, his Bolivarian revolution remains solidly popular -- a source of pride and dignity for most Venezuelans.

I keep reading in the U.S. press that he divided his country. When was the last U.S. president to win a vote by 60-40? (Nixon over McGovern, 1972.) Bottom line: Chavez was the legitimate representative of his country, and its people won't appreciate the U.S. snub of his funeral.

Artappraiser makes several valid points. One is that Maduro started the spat by expelling two U.S. diplomats as spies, while Chavez lay on his deathbed. Let me suggest that military attaches often are spies, and that countries tolerate reasonable amounts of such spying on each other. It was perfectly normal for the U.S. to sound out how loyal the military brass would be to Maduro -- and equally normal for Maduro to be antsy about that, especially with the opposition claiming loudly that his succession was unconstitutional. The State Department initially said it felt no need to retaliate.

Another point is that Delahunt is deeply immersed in the Venezuela file, and should have been part of the funeral delegation. I agree, but whatever practical value his presence brought, it carried no symbolic weight for the average Venezuelan. The low-key delegation was an insult.

Artappraiser is convinced the U.S. kept a low profile to placate Maduro; I don't buy it. If the U.S. really wanted to facilitate the transition, it could have acceded to Maduro's November proposal to exchange ambassadors. Instead, the U.S. insisted on confidence-building steps (read concessions). Let me suggest Maduro wanted that change to occur while Chavez was still theoretically in charge, so a thaw in relations could be portrayed as a simple continuation of Chavez's legacy. Now, such a move is going to be seen as caving in.

I think U.S. foreign policy is way overpoliticized, subject to turf wars between the White House, State, Congress and Dennis Rodman -- and so is largely incoherent and ineffective.

Fidel Castro is very likely to die during Obama's term. That funeral will feature every world leader with a plane at his or her disposal. Time is short to re-establish relations and end the stupid embargo. Or you could just continue the U.S.'s seemingly preferred role as diplomatic pariah.

We both know that

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:13:47 +0000

In reply to I'm sorry PP, and I really do

We both know that anti-Semitism exists. It may be more common AND more damaging in today's world than I see it as being but it may also not be nearly as pervasive and influential in the world as it seems to you.
When a "people" are demonized, brutalized, marginalized, dis-empowered, stolen from, and exterminated to the extent possible because of who they are, I can understand that some bitter feelings will last for a long time, often through many generations. Such things are hard to forgive, hard to forget, and as you point out, should not be forgotten, but the remembrance should, ideally, feed understanding before inciting whiplash rejection. No government, none anywhere, will fail to cynically use those feelings, where they exist, to its advantage and large parts of any population still react as expected, but our myth story is that greater liberal education and sociological evolution will help us sort the wheat from the chafe a bit more intelligently.

1980 is now 33 three years away. An American person who was a U.S. citizen, as opposed to a South or Central American person, would need be around 53 years old or older to have any likely chance to have been aware, at that time, of the crimes being committed in C. and S. America by the U.S. In this indictment of crime I include the crimes of U.S. supported dictators kept in power by brutal military and paramilitary forces trained and supplied by the U. S. The School of the Americas is a lasting shameful example of our country's willful, disgraceful, disgusting disregard for the humanity of the common citizens of S. and C. America as it played its geopolitical game.

I was in Nicaragua for a short time in 1980. I was then, and remain now, very friendly to the people living south of Texas. I worked a bit in support of the Nicaraguan revolution. I felt then and continue to feel that I was on the right side. I was surprised back then that feelings there and in the other C. and S. American countries I traveled in were so friendly and accepting of U.S. Americans. I wondered why I felt no blame directed at me as part of their problem. I concluded eventually that their own experience led them to put the blame on the government which, again in their own experience, did not necessarily reflect the desires and feelings of its citizens. Besides, so many of their relatives had gone to America and sent back glowing reports of the life and opportunities along with some cash. Sadly, I believe this is changing. Sad but understandable, IMO, because of higher education rates and vastly better communication of facts and ideas. S. and C. America are going through a revolution which is rejecting much of what the West has tried too impose upon them. They have not got it all right so far but they have some very valid reasons to reject and react to their historical situation. Worldwide, the opinion held of Americans in general, the opinions of their character and nature held about them just because they are Americans, is falling.
A million is a big number. Are you aware of the millions of people who died under the brutal reigns of various dictators in the Americas?

Millions. Of people. Murdered. Millions. More. Tortured. Millions more displaced internally and internationally. Millions left alive who have first hand memories and just as likely to see events through their own spectrum and harbor grudges particular to their own experience as any other person. Millions more who only hear the stories from parents and grandparents but have their current situation and their view of it sharply colored and affected by those stories. Being human, they do not always aim their grievances exactly accurately. Sometimes the stories create or enhance prejudices.
Bear with me if you can, this ultimately has a point.

South and Central Americans have a perspective formed from their own holocausts.

From "Israel and Latin America: The Military Connection" by Bishara Bahbah. St. Martin's Press, 1986.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/CAmer_Experience_ILAMC.html

With the exception of Nicaragua, which has purchased no weapons from Israel since the overthrow of the Somoza government, all the countries of the region are important clients and have signed military agreements with Israel. At the end of 1982, the New York Times quoted U. S. officials as saying that Israel was the largest supplier of infantry equipment to El Salvador and Guatemala, and had a "comparable role" in Honduras and Costa Rica.' Israel's role in the region goes beyond the provision of weapons and military communications and electronics equipment to include a broad range of military assistance, such as training, counterinsurgency and intelligence advice, and military-agricultural development projects based on the Nahal-type projects of the 1960s. Moreover, Israeli-Central American military ties are fraught with a political significance which by and large has been lacking elsewhere in Latin America.

As a region, Central America has all the characteristics traditionally associated with Israeli arms clients-longstanding, entrenched traditions of military rule, right-wing orientation, high incidence of territorial disputes and internal strife, and a tendency toward human rights violations-which make procurement of arms at desirable levels from other countries difficult.

The Carter administration's human rights policy inaugurate in 1977 had the greatest impact on Israel's sales to Central America, particularly to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Somoza's Nicaragua, all of which had been accused of gross and systematic violations of human rights. During the five-year period following the U.S. ban on military credits to El Salvador, Israel was most active in the country, delivering rocket launchers, Uzi submachine guns, Galil assault rifles, ammunition, spare parts and "security" equipment, and the last shipments of the Arava STOL counterinsurgency aircraft. Israel reportedly supplied El Salvador with an average of 80 percent of its weapons needs prior to 1980.
Guatemala responded to President Carter's new policy by rejecting U. S. military aid altogether rather than complying with the human rights standards set by Congress. Three months after the U.S. suspension of military assistance, a cargo load of Israeli grenade launchers, Gaul rifles, Uzi submachine guns, 81-mm mortars, and 120 tons of ammunition arrived at the port of Santo Tomas de Castilla. According to opposition figures, by the end of 1977 the Guatemalan army had switched from Garaud M-1 rifles to Israeli-made Galils.

Israeli arms sales to the Somoza regime likewise received an important boost from the Carter administration's policy. Even before the United States cut off economic and military aid to Nicaragua in November 1978,32 Israeli weapons had become critical to the regime's survival (see Table 9). The Nicaraguan National Guard's supply of weapons and ammunition was severely depleted after the September 1978 popular insurrection, and without reinforcements the government forces were not expected to be able to hold out long against the guerrillas. By 13 October 1978, the Mexican daily Excelsior wrote that Uzis, Galils, and Aravas "will determine the fate of Somoza" and that the victory "would be a victory for Israel because it will show that Israeli-manufactured weapons are reliable and trustworthy." Until the') regime's collapse in July 1979, Israel was Somoza's sole weapons supplier,* delivering helicopters, heavy combat tanks, patrol vehicles, mortars, Galil rifles, Uzi submachine guns, and even missiles.

The Sandinista victory totally changed the situation. The low-level insurgencies and civil wars endemic in this area of poverty and severe income disparities received a tremendous moral boost from the success of the new Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. This, in turn, helped spark military buildups and in general drew the region into an era of escalating violence.

The Sandinista victory also brought Central America back to the very center of U. S. policy considerations, causing a reassessment of its human rights policies in the interests of staving off what it perceived as the spread of communism. Where possible, the United States resumed military assistance. On 28 July 1982, less than two years after the government of General Carlos Humberto Romero was overthrown, President Reagan certified that El Salvador had made significant progress on human rights. This was done even though Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the UN Permanent Commission on Human Rights had concluded that violations were escalating and that the major responsibility lay with the government security forces or paramilitary groups operating with government acquiescence. According to the legal aid office of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Salvador, a total of 12,501 people in El Salvador were murdered by the army, national guard, or various police forces and paramilitary groups during 1981
With the resumption of U. S. involvement in El Salvador on a large scale,* Israel's role has decreased, but it continues as an important weapons supplier, the second largest source of arms after the United States.

In recent years Israel's advisory role has been more important than military hardware, especially since the United States has been limiting the number of advisors it will have in the country at any one time to fifty-five .48 An estimated 100 to 200 Israeli military advisors have been training the Salvadoran military in counterinsurgency tactics, arms maintenance, and intelligence services.

Guatemala: A Special Case
Other than Panama, Guatemala is the least involved of the Central American countries in anti-Sandinista activities largely because it is the farthest away from Nicaragua and has no Contras operating from its soil. This distance from the area of conflict, combined with its steadfast refusal to make even a gesture toward compliance with U. S. human rights requirements, resulted in a singular lack of U. S. aid, apart from humanitarian aid, to the country from 1977 to 1984, when President Reagan approved a relatively modest $300,000 for military training."
During the relative absence of the United States from the Guatemalan scene, the military government subdued its guerrilla challenge and is proud to have done so without U. S. assistance. Indeed, the government attributes the success of its efforts in this regard to the lack of U. S. oversight and advice, enabling it to find its "own solutions." Such solutions-widely agreed to have been unparalleled in violence-included scorched earth campaigns, the bombing, burning and bulldozing of entire villages, massacres in the countryside, and death squad killings in the city. Although the United States remained in the background, Guatemala obtained assistance to implement these solutions from South Africa, Argentina, Taiwan, and, especially, Israel."

... more significant has been Israel's advisory role to the Guatemalan government. In addition to police and military troop training, this has involved primarily assistance in electronic surveillance systems, intelligence gathering, and military-agricultural resettlement projects in former rebel areas. It is impossible to estimate accurately the number of Israeli military advisors in Guatemala. At the time of the Rios Montt coup d'etat in March 1982, the Israeli press-which referred to the Montt coup as "the Israeli connection" because that group was "trained and equipped by Israel"-put the figure at 300." The PLO ambassador to Nicaragua, Marwan Tahbub, was more conservative, estimating the number of advisors to be 150 to 200, although his figure excluded agricultural and other advisors whose work is in fact of a military nature. Nevertheless, the presence of a large body of Israeli advisors is undisputed. Rios Montt himself told ABC News reporters that his coup had been successful because "many of our soldiers were trained by the Israelis."

Israel's Arms Export Policy: An Assessment
Politically, Israel has not obtained benefits from its arms transfers to Latin America. On the contrary, its position there has declined, as evidenced by eroded support at the United Nations and outspoken criticisms of Israeli policies in the occupied territories and in Lebanon. More important, its role as military ", advisor, supplier, and supporter of brutal and repressive regimes, and its growing reputation as a surrogate for the United States, have cost Israel the sympathy of large segments not only of progressive Latin American opinion, but of the local populations at large, thus canceling the goodwill generated in earlier years by j its cooperative projects.

Representative of the kinds of attitudes resulting from Israel's Central American activities is the following statement in the Costa Rican-based publication, Human Rights in Central America (1980s)

Israel continues denouncing the Nazi genocides from World ') War II committed against the Jewish populations in Germany, Austria and Poland; thirty-five years later, it still pursues Nazis all over the world, but it has no reservations nor shame in cooperating with genocides of peasants in Central America, [or] the Indians of Guatemala and Nicaragua.

As the Israeli daily Davar pointed out on the eve of Somoza's overthrow: [1980s]
The people of Nicaragua did not become anti-Semitic by the influence of a new kind of bananas they have begun to grow. The Sandinista movement does not need such questionable 4 justifications in order to achieve popularity-the fact that Somoza's regime is so corrupt and dirty is sufficient grounds for any reasonable man to support, either openly or covertly, those fighting Somoza. If more and more Nicaraguans are hating Israel more and more, it is not because they have become anti-Semitic suddenly. The reason is different: Because more and more of their children are being killed or wounded by weapons "made in Israel."
... Israel's political well-being in the region hinges on the survival of rightwing military dictatorships. By associating so closely with hated regimes, Israel alienates local populations and effectively rules out the possibility of continued relations in the event of a change in regime. Indeed, most liberation movements in Central America have explicitly expressed the intention of severing ties with Israel immediately upon coming to power.

Israel's arms clients are increasingly apt to be international pariah states or right-wing dictatorships waging war against their own people and in need of Israel's particular military expertise. And this will ultimately be to Israel's detriment politically, and certainly to the detriment of the populations of the countries it supplies.

"It is both my Jewish and human duty to resolutely refuse to take any part in this army. As the son of a people victim to pogroms and destruction, I cannot be a part of your insane policies. As a human being, it is my duty to refuse to participate in any institution which commits crimes against humanity."

Sergio Yahni, Israeli army 'refusnik'

Can you imagine that this support of brutal authoritarianism might cause some resentment among the affected people? To the extent that a self-proclaimed "Jewish State" aids in the brutality, are you surprised that some affected people blame 'Jews'?
I understand your livid rejection of anti-Semitism and I am against it myself just like, but not especially more so, I am against other forms of racial, ethnic, and religious bigotry. Suppose the above information, and there is one hell of a lot more available, was put on a test as a hypothetical. Part of a question about how humans can be expected to act and react. Suppose one of the test questions was whether the actions described would increase or decrease the amount of anti-Semitism among the affected people. What would your answer be? Suppose you were to guess whether that information would ever be used cynically by a politician among those affected people whether he was actually anti-Semitic or not. What answer then? Do you ever consider that you may be asking the world to have a much more evolved and forgiving standard when reacting to Israeli actions than when reacting to the same sorts of things between other groups?
Do you believe that the above actions are morally, ethically, philosophically, legally, or in any other way, justifiable? I do not. [ Remember, please, that I hold my own country to be more responsible and I hold all U.S. Americans to be at least somewhat responsible] Do you see how an affected person who sees that his family was tortured before being murdered and it was done with the aid of a country proudly self-described as a Jewish State might come to jump past any nuanced explanation, might not have a whole lot of forgiveness in his heart, and might just blame his family's plight on Jews rather than on the Israeli government? Can you completely reject that person's gripe because he has technically and maybe honestly by his lights embraced an anti-Semitic dialog to express his feelings? Do you ever cringe, like I do, when you hear the increasing Muslim phobia being spouted and encouraged by some of our own country's people? Is it somehow more forgivable than the rhetoric that drives you crazy? Can you imagine how an Iraqi might consider all Americans to be devils? I am not a devil, you are not a devil, how dare they come to such a conclusion about Americans? Fuck them. Oh yeah, we already did that. now what do they want, a kiss? Would that make everything alright?