Showing posts with label US policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US policy. Show all posts

Saturday, May 31, 2008

U.S. Withdraws Fulbright Grants to Gaza

GAZA — The American State Department has withdrawn all Fulbright grants to Palestinian students in Gaza hoping to pursue advanced degrees at American institutions this fall because Israel has not granted them permission to leave.

Israel has isolated this coastal strip, which is run by the militant group Hamas. Given that policy, the United States Consulate in Jerusalem said the grant money had been “redirected” to students elsewhere out of concern that it would go to waste if the Palestinian students were forced to remain in Gaza.

A letter was sent by e-mail to the students on Thursday telling them of the cancellation. Abdulrahman Abdullah, 30, who had been hoping to study for an M.B.A. at one of several American universities on his Fulbright, was in shock when he read it.

“If we are talking about peace and mutual understanding, it means investing in people who will later contribute to Palestinian society,” he said. “I am against Hamas. Their acts and policies are wrong. Israel talks about a Palestinian state. But who will build that state if we can get no training?”

Some Israeli lawmakers, who held a hearing on the issue of student movement out of Gaza on Wednesday, expressed anger that their government was failing to promote educational and civil development in a future Palestine given the hundreds of students who had been offered grants by the United States and other Western governments.

“This could be interpreted as collective punishment,” complained Rabbi Michael Melchior, chairman of the Parliament’s education committee, during the hearing. “This policy is not in keeping with international standards or with the moral standards of Jews, who have been subjected to the deprivation of higher education in the past. Even in war, there are rules.” Rabbi Melchior is from the Meimad Party, allied with Labor.

The committee asked the government and military to reconsider the policy and get back to it within two weeks. But even if the policy is changed, the seven Fulbright grantees in Gaza are out of luck for this year. Their letters urged them to reapply next year.

Israel’s policy appears to be in flux. At the parliamentary hearing on Wednesday, a Defense Ministry official recalled that the cabinet had declared Gaza “hostile territory” and decided that the safety of Israeli soldiers and civilians at or near the border should be risked only to facilitate the movement out of Gaza for humanitarian concerns, like medical treatment. Higher education, he said, was not a humanitarian concern.

But when a query about the canceled Fulbrights was made to the prime minister’s office on Thursday, senior officials expressed surprise. They said they did, in fact, consider study abroad to be a humanitarian necessity and that when cases were appealed to them, they would facilitate them.

They suggested that American officials never brought the Fulbright cases to their attention. The State Department and American officials in Israel refused to discuss the matter. But the failure to persuade the Israelis may have stemmed from longstanding tensions between the consulate in Jerusalem, which handles Palestinian affairs, and the embassy in Tel Aviv, which manages relations with the Israeli government.

The study grants notwithstanding, the Israeli officials argued that the policy of isolating Gaza was working, that Palestinians here were starting to lose faith in Hamas’s ability to rule because of the hardships of life.

Since Hamas, a radical Islamist group that opposes Israel’s existence, carried out what amounted to a coup d’état in Gaza against the more secular Fatah party a year ago, hundreds of rockets and mortar shells have been launched from here at Israeli civilians, truck and car bombs have gone off and numerous attempts to kidnap Israeli soldiers have taken place.

While Hamas says the attacks are in response to Israeli military incursions into Gaza, it also says it will never recognize Israel.

“We are using the rockets to shake the conscience of the world about Israeli aggression,” argued Ahmed Yusef, political adviser to the Hamas foreign minister in an interview in his office here. “All our rockets are a reaction to Israeli aggression.”

The Israeli closing of Gaza has added markedly to the difficulty of daily life here, with long lines for cooking gas and a sense across the population of being under siege. Israel does send in about 70 truckloads per day of wheat, dairy products and medical equipment as well as some fuel, and it permits some medical cases out.

But Israel’s stated goal is to support moderates among the Palestinians so that Hamas will lose power, and even some security-conscious Israeli hard-liners say that the policy of barring students with grants abroad is counterproductive.

“We correctly complain that the Palestinian Authority is not building civil society, but when we don’t help build civil society this plays into the hands of Hamas,” said Natan Sharansky, a former government official. “The Fulbright is administered independently, and people are chosen for it due to their talents.”

The State Department Web site describes the Fulbright, the American government’s flagship program in international educational exchange, as “an integral part of U.S. foreign relations.” It adds, “the Fulbright Program creates a context to provide a better understanding of U.S. views and values, promotes more effective binational cooperation and nurtures open-minded, thoughtful leaders, both in the U.S. and abroad, who can work together to address common concerns.”

Sari Bashi, who directs Gisha, an Israeli organization devoted to monitoring and increasing the free movement of Palestinians, said, “The fact that the U.S. cannot even get taxpayer-funded Fulbright students out of Gaza demonstrates the injustice and short-sightedness of a closure policy that arbitrarily traps 1.5 million people, including hundreds of Palestinian students accepted to universities abroad.” She said that their education was good not just for Palestinian society, but for Israel as well.

Some Israelis disagree strongly.

“We are fighting the regime in Gaza that does its utmost to kill our citizens and destroy our schools and our colleges,” said Yuval Steinitz, a lawmaker from the opposition Likud Party. “So I don’t think we should allow students from Gaza to go anywhere. Gaza is under siege, and rightly so, and it is up to the Gazans to change the regime or its behavior.”

Hadeel Abukwaik, a 23-year-old engineering software instructor in Gaza, had hoped to do graduate work in the United States this fall on the Fulbright that she thought was hers. She had stayed in Gaza this past winter when its metal border fence was destroyed and tens of thousands of Gazans poured into Egypt, including her sister, because the agency administering the Fulbright told her she would get the grant only if she stayed put. She lives alone in Gaza where she was sent to study because the cost is low; her parents, Palestinian refugees, live in Dubai.

“I stayed to get my scholarship,” she said. “Now I am desperate.”

She, like her six colleagues, was in disbelief. Mr. Abdullah, who called the consulate in Jerusalem for further explanation after receiving his letter, said to the official on the other end, “I still cannot believe that the American administration is not able to convince the Israelis to let seven Palestinians out of Gaza.”

Taghreed el-Khodary contributed reporting.

Nice job Israel. way to undermine a program designed to promote international collaboration, learning, and peace. Nicely played. The 7 students were probably all terrorists anyway, especially the guy trying to get his MBA. Probably studying how to help Hamas improve returns on its investments or how to get better 401Ks for their jihadists.

Sunday, March 23, 2008

US army deaths in Iraq hit 4,000

The number of United States military personnel killed in Iraq since the US-led invasion five years ago has passed the 4,000 mark.

The latest to die were four soldiers whose patrol vehicle was blown up by a bomb in southern Baghdad on Sunday.

The deaths bring the total to 4,000, according to the US military and independent monitoring groups.

In other violence, Baghdad's Green Zone came under fire, and a suicide bomber killed 13 Iraqi soldiers in Mosul.

In Baghdad, the heavily-fortified Green Zone suffered sustained mortar and rocket fire, which killed at least 15 civilians.

The US military said it killed 12 militants preparing suicide attacks in a house east of Baquba.

The bloodshed comes despite an overall reduction in violence since last June.

That was when the US deployed an extra 30,000 troops in violence-hit areas - the so-called "troop surge".

But Sunday's violence underlines the fragile, reversible nature of the apparent improvements in security, say correspondents.

Huge blast

At least 40 people were injured in Sunday's early-morning suicide strike in Mosul.

The suicide attacker ploughed an explosives-laden tanker into the army base, causing a massive blast.

Iraqi and US soldiers have been engaged in a major offensive in Mosul, which US commanders say is al-Qaeda's last urban stronghold in Iraq.

In another deadly attack, at least seven shoppers in a Baghdad market were killed when gunmen travelling in three cars opened fire.

Our correspondent says previous rocket attacks on the Green Zone have been blamed on rogue elements of Moqtada Sadr's Mehdi Army militia, which is supposed to be observing a ceasefire.

Also on Sunday, the US military said it had killed 12 men in a raid east of Baquba city, in Diyala province.

Spokesman Major Winfield Danielson claimed six of the men killed were found to have shaved their bodies, which he said was "consistent with final preparation for suicide operations".

He added that a cache of weapons and ammunition had also been found in the raid and destroyed.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

US Mid-East commander steps down

The commander of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Admiral William Fallon, is to retire from his post early.

He cited the "embarrassing situation and public perception of differences between my views and administration policy" as the reason for retiring.

He was the subject of a recent article by Esquire magazine, which said he was opposed to the use of force against Iran over its nuclear programme.

The 63-year-old admiral became head of the US Central Command a year ago.

'No policy differences'

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said the decision to take early retirement was entirely Adm Fallon's, added that he agreed it was the right thing to do.

"I have approved Admiral Fallon's request to retire with reluctance and regret," he told reporters at the Pentagon, adding that he would be sorely missed.


I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command
Adm William Fallon

President George W Bush said the admiral deserved "considerable credit for progress that has been made... in Iraq and Afghanistan".

The Esquire article suggested Adm Fallon was standing up to a president supposedly contemplating war with Iran.

He is described in the article as "the strongest man standing between the Bush Administration and a war with Iran".

Mr Gates said the idea that Adm Fallon's departure indicated that the US was planning to go to war with Iran was "ridiculous".

He said "there is a misperception" that the admiral disagreed with the Bush administration's policies towards Iran. "I don't think there were differences at all," Mr Gates said.

The Bush administration's official policy towards Iran is to use diplomatic and economic pressures to resolve differences while retaining the possibility of military options.

The US and other Western nations suspect Iran is using its nuclear programme to develop atomic weapons - a charge Tehran denies.

In a statement released through Central Command's Florida headquarters, Adm Fallon said: "I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command.

"The simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there."

Central Command covers an area from the Horn of Africa into Central Asia and includes responsibility for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


From the BBC.

Not sure what to make of this, but it is concerning to me. I have thought that the Bush admin might try to use military force in Iran during the last days in office as a means to "lock in" the neo-con vision of US military presence in the Middle East, and this might sadly support this fear...but let's hope not.

Saturday, March 8, 2008

The Gaza Bombshell

After failing to anticipate Hamas’s victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, David Rose reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.

Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America’s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.)

But the secret plan backfired, resulting in a further setback for American foreign policy under Bush. Instead of driving its enemies out of power, the U.S.-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of Gaza.

Some sources call the scheme “Iran-contra 2.0,” recalling that Abrams was convicted (and later pardoned) for withholding information from Congress during the original Iran-contra scandal under President Reagan. There are echoes of other past misadventures as well: the C.I.A.’s 1953 ouster of an elected prime minister in Iran, which set the stage for the 1979 Islamic revolution there; the aborted 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, which gave Fidel Castro an excuse to solidify his hold on Cuba; and the contemporary tragedy in Iraq.

Within the Bush administration, the Palestinian policy set off a furious debate. One of its critics is David Wurmser, the avowed neoconservative, who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief Middle East adviser in July 2007, a month after the Gaza coup.

Wurmser accuses the Bush administration of “engaging in a dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Abbas] with victory.” He believes that Hamas had no intention of taking Gaza until Fatah forced its hand. “It looks to me that what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen,” Wurmser says.

The botched plan has rendered the dream of Middle East peace more remote than ever, but what really galls neocons such as Wurmser is the hypocrisy it exposed. “There is a stunning disconnect between the president’s call for Middle East democracy and this policy,” he says. “It directly contradicts it.”

Excerpted from: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

Iran Contra 2.0? An interesting story that illustrates the dangers of trying to manipulate an internal struggle in someone else's country. But I guess the US doesn't learn. It toppled the Guatemala government in the 50s and touched off a 30 year civil war, ousted an elected Iranian leader and set the stage for the Islamic revolution, and tried on multiple occasions to remove Castro's regime, only to make it stronger. Looks like the same type of strategy and the same type of outcome.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Water-boarding 'would be torture'

US national intelligence chief Mike McConnell has said the interrogation technique of water-boarding "would be torture" if he was subjected to it.

Mr McConnell said it would also be torture if water-boarding, which involves simulated drowning, resulted in water entering a detainee's lungs.

He told the New Yorker there would be a "huge penalty" for anyone using it if it was ever determined to be torture.

The US attorney-general has declined to rule on whether the method is torture.

However, Michael Mukasey said during his Senate confirmation hearing that water-boarding was "repugnant to me" and that he would institute a review.


Whether it's torture by anybody else's definition, for me it would be torture
Mike McConnell
US Director of National Intelligence

In December, the House of Representatives approved a bill that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation techniques such as water-boarding.

President George W Bush has threatened to veto the bill, which would require the agency to follow the rules adopted by the US Army and abide by the Geneva Conventions, if the Senate passes it.

'Painful'

In the interview with the New Yorker, the US Director of National Intelligence said he would regard water-boarding as torture if it was used against him.

The controversial technique involves a prisoner being stretched on his back, having a cloth pushed into his mouth and/or plastic film placed over his face and having water poured onto his face. He gags almost immediately.

"If I had water draining into my nose, oh God, I just can't imagine how painful!" he told the magazine.


WATER-BOARDING
Prisoner bound to a board with feet raised, and cellophane wrapped round head. Water is poured onto face and is said to produce a fear of drowning

"Whether it's torture by anybody else's definition, for me it would be torture."

Mr McConnell said the legal test for torture should be "pretty simple".

"Is it excruciatingly painful to the point of forcing someone to say something because of the pain?" he added.

But the retired vice-admiral declined for legal reasons to say whether the technique should be considered torture by the US government.

"If it ever is determined to be torture, there will be a huge penalty to be paid for anyone engaging in it," he said.

CIA officials have been quoted as saying that water-boarding has been used on three prisoners since 2001, including al-Qaeda recruiter Abu Zubaydah, but on nobody since 2003.

In July 2007, President Bush signed a controversial executive order on the treatment of suspects detained by the CIA which did not outlaw the agency's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as water-boarding.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7185648.stm

But is it "enhanced interrogation"? In all seriousness, it's nice to see someone put it into perspective--that is, if it were done to them would they consider it torture.? Interestingly, I have read some (odd) posts on other blogs where people subjected themselves to this technique or had someone else do it, and the resulting opinions seem to be unanimous. One person even said they would take having their fingernails pulled out over the induced feeling of drowning this procedure produces. But then, they didn't try that on themselves, so you have to take that opinion with a grain of salt. Still, it seems pretty awful to me.