Hunted by the junta

Dan Rivers is CNN's Bangkok-based correspondent and has just returned from reporting in Myanmar. For more on CNN's coverage from Myanmar go to www.cnn.com/myanmar

I realised we were in danger when our remarkably brave local contact told us the military government had put out a request to all hotels asking for a list of foreigners. We were told the regime had seen one of my reports and was furious I was in the country. They were specifically looking for me. I was skeptical at first, but over the next few days it became apparent that despite the biggest humanitarian crisis in Myanmar's history, the government was expending considerable time and energy trying to stop me from reporting on the true extent of the disaster. A colleague from the BBC had already been deported on arrival from the airport and it was clear they wanted me out next.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (2)

Why Bush went public on the raid

The Bush Administration went to Congress yesterday to disclose previously secret intelligence regarding Israel's September 2007 attack on the Syrian nuclear facility. In Congress and in the United Nations the administration was strongly criticized for withholding the information, the assumption being that Bush's intended reason was to deliver a message to North Korea.

For seven months, and with American agreement, an unusual official silence has been maintained by Syria and Israel regarding the nature of the raid. The target itself was public knowledge since press reports early on accurately described it as a nuclear reactor, descriptions never officially denied. Even the press conference by Likud head Binyamin Netanyahu describing it as a reactor was in his capacity as a government outsider, and so not official. One reason for official silence by both sides might have been that public disclosure would embarrass Syrian national pride and possibly result in pressure to retaliate. Another might have been that the two sides were well advanced in backchannel negotiations via Turkey.

If Bush's intention was, as the many in Congress seem to take for granted, to embarrass North Korea, why now? I suggest that the timing of the disclosures was more intended for Tel Aviv than Pyongyang.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (0)

Olmert, Bush and the end to "Peace in our Time"

According to a recent Jerusalem Post report, Prime Minister Olmert is quoted in the London-based Arabic language newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat as offering the Palestinians 64 percent of the West Bank, and "...forget about territory west of the security fence." He is further reported to have offered them access to the holy sites of east Jerusalem, but that the city would remain under Israeli sovereignty. With the imminent arrival of President Bush signaling his intention to hold a summit to promote the Annapolis deadline of peace-in-his-term, what is the meaning of the prime minister laying down red lines certain to spell the end to Annapolis?

Palestine is, and has been since early mandatory days, socially and politically chaotic. And if there was little likelihood of political unity before, then the failed Bush-inspired Fateh coup against Hamas in Gaza was the death knell for any possibility of a unified Palestinian regime strong enough to impose internal order. Peace with Israel cannot precede peace within Palestine. And internal peace for Palestine appears as distant today as it was in the 1920s. So the lofty speeches of Annapolis aside, for the Palestinians there will be no peace in our time.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (7)

Requisites for a real friend of Israel

The 2008 Presidential campaign has brought forth statements from all the major candidates, both Democrat and Republican, of the depth of their support for the State of Israel, and their commitment to maintaining the close relationship that exists between the United States and the only real democracy in that area of the world. On the face of it, there would appear to be very little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans regarding support for Israel. The politically naive would be able to look at all the candidates and seeing their near equal "support" for Israel, come to the conclusion that a choice for one's candidate could be made upon other criteria, since all major candidates support Israel.

Rarely has the statement "a little knowledge can be dangerous" had more applicability. Based on their respective records as well as their campaign statements, we know that all the major candidates believe that Israel has the right to maintain itself as a "Jewish State". But the fact that all these candidates support Israel's right to be Jewish, doesn't translate to each one turning out to be equally helpful to Israel to maintain her existence in a very hostile neighborhood. With the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) issuing daily threats to Israel, and Iran's proxies - whether Hizbullah in Lebanon or Hamas, Islamic Jihad or the PFLP in Gaza - attacking Israel and Israelis with relative impunity, it is crucial for the next president of the United States to understand that what occurs in Iraq has direct consequences to Israel's security just as surely as events in Ciudad Juarez effect conditions in Texas, or those in Toronto effect New York.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (5)

The Pollard Affair, a conspiracy theory

The Jerusalem Post ran an editorial recently describing events leading to the tragedy of Jonathan Pollard. The Pollard spat was among the most factual and level presentations I have read in recent years. Since the editorial was limited to describing events directly related to his incarceration and Israel's efforts at seeking his release, I feel it might by helpful to give some background, to describe the environment which gave rise to the Pollard Affair. I will limit myself to just two issues I have never seen discussed or acknowledged, the Iran-Contra Affair, and the involvement of then Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger.

1. In the years preceding Pollard's arrest the Reagan administration was embroiled in the highly illegal Iran-Contra arms debacle and were looking around for a victim to hang blame on. When a US administration finds itself in an international bind Israel seems a likely address on which to hang blame (Iraq was another example where administration officials and their neocon supporters a few months ago accused Israel of instigating the war when, in fact, Israel strongly urged Bush NOT to invade). In the run-up to Irangate, Israel was approached by members of the Reagan administration to use its good offices to broker the arms end of Iran-Contra (the arms were for right-wing guerillas seeking to overthrow the left-wing government of Nicaragua). The Saudis were also asked to participate, to discretely provide the finances for the adventure, to provide, in other words, laundered money.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (20)

Bush and the Diplomacy of Inadvertence

A recent Jerusalem Post article quoting documents obtained by Vanity Fair magazine 'Bush approved plot to oust Hamas', gives an insider look into decision-making in the Bush White House. While the article deals only with the Palestinian elections and the resulting Hamas victory, it throws light on how this administration arrives at other decisions such as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, its encouragement of an Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

But let's start with the article's focus, the Palestinian elections and their aftermath. In pursuit of what can only be called his Dogma of Democracy, Bush not only disregarded input from Abbas and Olmert, both of whom clearly foresaw the Hamas victory and warned the president, but he also chose to ignore the advice of Cheney's chief Middle East adviser David Wurmser who, according to the article, "resigned a month after the Hamas takeover." Even Muhammad Dahlan, Abbas' security chief and designee by Bush to carry out the military coup against Hamas is quoted in the article as saying, "Everyone was against the elections, everyone (that is) except Bush. He (Bush) decided, 'I need an election. I want elections in the Palestinian Authority.'"

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (2)

Talkbacks and the fear of peace

Whenever the suggestion appears in print of an opportunity for Israel to explore possible peace with the Arabs, be they Saudis, Palestinians or Syrians, the majority of talkbacks, particularly from the Diaspora, dismiss the idea outright and brand the author as a Leftist, a luftmensch. As if Israel must always survive in a state of war, a permanent garrison state.

In a recent JPost article, David Kimche described meeting Prince Turki al-Faisal, intelligence chief of Saudi Arabia. In that meeting the prince again raised the Saudi peace initiative. Kimche observed in his article that not only the Saudi prince, but such prior Israeli intelligence chiefs as Avraham Achituv, Carmi Gillon, Ya'acov Peri and Amos Manor, each considered representing right-wingers while serving at their posts, eventually came to represent positions favoring peace with the Arabs. If today's critics found them acceptable in the past, should this at least suggest caution in dismissing them today because they appear to have changed their understanding of Israel's long-term needs?

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (35)

Israel not the state of Israelis

In a recent blog post Colette Avital raised the question 'Is the Jewish Agency for sale'? It was inspired by the decision of the Jewish Agency to make Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, a highly successful fundraiser among US evangelical Christians, a member of the Agency Executive Board. Avital referred to two issues: one regarded the possibility of distorting the Jewish Agency's agenda by opening itself to the influence of money; the second raised questions regarding the motives behind evangelical contributions. Both questions are legitimate, but do not, I feel, go far enough.

Of course Evangelical and general Christian support has an agenda. They have never hidden the fact that their support for Israel has, among other things, a selfish interest. The return of the Jewish people to Zion is, according to their belief, the necessary precondition for the return of their messiah. So long as Jewish fundraising among them channels their contributions to general funds such as Israel Bonds, there is no problem. A problem does exist if their contributions are targeted and politically-driven. And this points to the crux of the Eckstein-JA problem. The State of Israel did not just happen to come into existence in the Twentieth Century. Zionism was our Diaspora's response to a material need. The Enlightenment transformed Europe from theocracy to secular; but terrible as theological anti-Judaism was for Jewish survival, a secularized Christendom turned out to be even worse. Only with the emergence of secular Christian animus did we begin to realize that we could never be accepted, never achieve security in Diaspora. The only reason for a Zionist movement, for a Jewish state was Christianity's attitude-turned-action towards the Jewish religion and the Jewish people.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (16)

The next holocaust?

A recent survey of Israeli high schoolers found that 82% believed another holocaust was possible. In light of the fact that Israeli education is justly criticized for not promoting Jewish and Zionist identity among our youth, the number is astounding. How is it that, if our young can clearly see the danger, that our leaders in Israel and in the Diaspora do not? Are we too timid, too concerned with offending non-Jews, to recognize and admit the danger, a danger which, if not appreciated may well exceed the price we paid in the previous effort at solving the Jewish Problem?

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (19)

Yediot vs Ma'ariv

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

Yesterday's front page banner headline in Yediot Aharonot read:

"Sources close to Olmert: This is anarchy! The company commanders have crossed a red line".

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (4)