In the June 1st edition of the Washington Post, journalists Scott Wilson and Laura Blumenfeld uncritically repeat Israeli claims regarding the Gaza aid flotilla as fact. Wilson and Blumenfeld should recognize that Israeli officials have a vested interest in discrediting the activists who challenged Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Instead, the reporters wrote a piece in which they presumed to know what Israeli officials were thinking — not just what they were doing.

The piece, “Israel says Free Gaza Movement poses threat to Jewish state,” runs in the Tuesday edition of the Washington Post. The first two sentences bear repeating in full:

Once viewed only as a political nuisance by Israel’s government, the group behind the Gaza aid flotilla has grown since its inception four years ago into a broad international movement that now includes Islamist organizations that Israeli intelligence agencies say pose a security threat to the Jewish state. The Free Gaza Movement’s evolution is among Israel’s chief reasons for conducting Monday morning’s raid on a ship carrying medicine, construction materials, school paper and parts for Gaza’s defunct water treatment plant.

The key phrase in all of this is the following: “The Free Gaza Movement’s evolution [to include Islamist organizations] is among Israel’s chief reasons for conducting Monday morning’s raid…” Note that this isn’t a quote from an Israeli official. This is the narrative of the journalists themselves.

Why is this important?

No journalist can definitively write what Israel’s “chief reasons” are for its raid. Journalists can only know what Israeli government officials publicly claim their chief reasons are. This isn’t just true of Israeli officials — it is true of all government officials.

Journalists are supposed to treat government statements with a healthy degree of skepticism. That skepticism is all the more important when dealing with an international conflict involving Israel and those challenging its blockade on Gaza civilians. As the cliche goes, truth is the first casualty of war.

The Washington Post reporters did quote Free Gaza Movement leaders who challenged the Israeli claim of a security threat. Where the reporters made a serious error, however, was in uncritically assuming that Israeli officials actually believe this notion of a “security threat” themselves. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t.

In fact, there are good reasons to treat Israel’s claims with skepticism. After all, the simplest explanation for an action is usually the best one:

1. The Israeli government is maintaining a massive blockade of Gaza.
2. Israel clearly doesn’t want this blockade undermined, or they would end it themselves.
3. Therefore, they must intercept and stop all those who seek to publicly challenge their blockade.

With the death of at least nine Free Gaza Movement activists, this policy has now come at great cost to the Israeli government. But if people start believing that Israeli officials saw the humanitarian aid activists as a “security threat,” those same officials will seem slightly less callous in their decision to deploy military force.

Washington Post journalists Scott Wilson and Laura Blumenfeld should have kept this in mind as they wrote their piece. When journalists assume that they know what officials are thinking, they run the risk of being held captive to a government’s talking points.

Sanjeev Bery is the Executive Director of Freedom Forward.

In the growing national debate on US-Israel relations, California’s two US senators have very different things to say. On one side, Senator Barbara Boxer has firmly aligned herself with the pro-Israel lobby. On the other side, Senator Dianne Feinstein has adopted a more independent position in support of Middle East peace.

Just last month, Senator Boxer was the lead Democratic signatory on a Senate letter criticizing Palestinian leaders. The letter was organized by AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and it was addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In that letter, Senator Boxer joined with 75 other senators to criticize Palestinian leaders for “refusing to enter into direct negotiations with Israel.” The letter called for “unconditional peace negotiations.”

While “unconditional peace negotiations” might sound like a good thing, the details are something else entirely. Palestinian leaders have been opposed to entering into formal negotiations with Israel so long as Israel continues to build settlements on what is left of Palestinian land. Under those circumstances, negotiations essentially become a farce through which Israel buys extra time to keep expanding its territory. Supporting “unconditional” negotiations actually means holding talks without the precondition that Israel stop gobbling up Palestinian land.

Demonstrating her independence from AIPAC, Senator Dianne Feinstein did not add her name to this letter. In an email to constituents, she expressed “grave concerns about the expansion of Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.” She considered the issue “a major stumbling block to a peace agreement.”

Fortunately, the Obama Administration is also ignoring Senator Boxer’s letter. In pressuring the Israeli government to stop building East Jerusalem settlements, the White House has made it possible for Palestinians to agree to indirect talks with Israel. Israel has a great deal further to go, but it is a first step in the right direction.

It may be surprising for liberal Democrats to note that on the question of Israel-Palestine relations, Senator Boxer has adopted a hawkish position that essentially defends the continued expansion of Israel’s territory. In contrast, Senator Feinstein has become the risk-taker, boldly supporting peace negotiations that by implication would even have to address Hamas.

One year ago, Senator Feinstein joined 31 other senators to praise Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for visiting Israel and the West Bank. In that letter, Senator Feinstein also referred to the “launching of rockets from Gaza into Israel, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and the ongoing challenge of formalizing an Israel-Hamas truce.” It is difficult to imagine Senator Boxer or AIPAC using that last phrase — “an Israel-Hamas truce.”

But it is precisely this kind of independent thinking that Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians now need. Perhaps it isn’t much of a surprise that Senator Feinstein declined to sign the Boxer/AIPAC letter. In response, AIPAC went so far as to set up a webpage where pro-Israel activists could email Senator Feinstein to “express disappointment.”

Thankfully, it is Senator Feinstein’s position that is winning the day. The weekend news was that indirect talks between Palestinians and Israelis have begun. Good faith negotiations require an end to settlement construction, and the Obama Administration appears to be reaping the early rewards for advocating this position.

Sanjeev Bery is the Executive Director of Freedom Forward.

Key excerpt:

However, like you, I have grave concerns about the expansion of Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and I believe that this issue is a major stumbling block to a peace agreement.  In my view, settlement activity should be halted until an agreement is reached.  Neither side should take any actions which would prejudice the outcome of negotiations on the final status issues.

Full email:

From:    senator@feinstein.senate.gov
To:  Sanjeev Bery
Date:  Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 4:16 PM
Subject:  U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message
Mailed-by:  feinstein.senate.gov

Dear Mr. Bery:

Thank you for writing to express your support for the Obama Administration’s position on the expansion of Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.  I appreciate hearing from you on this topic, and welcome the opportunity to respond.

Please know that I have read your letter with interest.  As a United States Senator and Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have had the opportunity to see firsthand the strength of the American-Israeli relationship, one based on shared values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.  Never before have our two countries worked more closely together on security matters in the face of common threats – international terror organizations and the spread of weapons of mass destruction – and I believe that these collaborative efforts should send a major signal to our Israeli friends that we stand with them wholeheartedly and fully.

However, like you, I have grave concerns about the expansion of Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and I believe that this issue is a major stumbling block to a peace agreement.  In my view, settlement activity should be halted until an agreement is reached.  Neither side should take any actions which would prejudice the outcome of negotiations on the final status issues.

Further, the United States must take a leadership role in driving both parties towards a final peace agreement – based on two states, living side by side in peace and security.  We must commit ourselves to a robust, sustained diplomatic initiative with a constant presence on the ground, offering ideas and solutions to bridge the gap on the most intractable issues.  This is the one thing we can do which will have the most profound impact on peace and security in the Middle East.

Indeed, there are many obstacles before us, but we have no choice except to press ahead, and I stand ready to work to achieve the peace we all seek.  As the Senate continues to debate both our foreign policy in the Middle East and funding levels to Israel in fiscal year 2011 and beyond, please know that I will keep your views in mind.

Again, thank you for writing.  I hope that you will continue to write on matters of importance to you.  Should you have any further comments or questions, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.  Best regards.

Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

It is time to set aside the notion that U.S. drone missile attacks in Pakistan are some kind of secret. The pretense of secrecy has saved Obama Administration officials from having to publicly defend the military tactic.

But when Pakistani college students, think tank scholars, and New York Times reporters are all talking about this issue, U.S. officials should stop pretending that there is anything classified about it.

Indeed, once one takes a closer look at the discussion around U.S. drone missile attacks, it becomes clear that the claim of government secrecy is simply a way of avoiding debate. This needs to change, because there is a strong case to be made that drone missile attacks are both immoral and deeply counter-productive. Freedom Forward, the organization I helped found, has been encouraging people to make this point directly to the Obama Administration.

The latest example of this dynamic occurred during U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan last week. As reported by Declan Walsh in The Guardian (UK), Secretary Clinton declined to respond to questions about drone missile strikes. She simply stated, “I can’t answer that question. It’s a military to military matter.”

But this “military to military matter” apparently is so secret that it includes writers for Esquire. The magazine has run two detailed articles on the topic that could not have been done without the support of U.S. military officials, government voices, and military contractors. Much of the content focuses on the unclassified drone operations in Afghanistan, but in many ways, this is a distinction without a difference. The articles discuss new drone technologies and profile Americans who carry out the remote attacks for a living.

When it helps to avoid uncomfortable questions, U.S. drone missile attacks are classified. But when information can be controlled and directed, there is always an official willing to talk off the record. This pretend secrecy needs to be challenged, and for good reason. Not only have drone missile attacks resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocent Pakistani civilians, but they have also increased anger at the U.S. from across Pakistani society. This is not good for long-term U.S. interests in the region.

In a narrow bean-counter sense, the attacks have likely killed a number of mid-to-high level Al Qaeda and Taliban members, though many have been replaced by new leaders. The number of civilians killed ranges from the low-end estimates of several hundred up to one thousand. New America Foundation scholars conservatively stated that one-third of those killed by U.S. drone missile strikes have been Pakistani civilians — approximately 300 innocent people. Earlier this year, a counter-insurgency adviser to General David Petraeus said that 98% of those killed were civilians — closer to 1,000.

These civilian deaths need to be acknowledged at a moral level. They also need to be considered in political terms. During Secretary Clinton’s visit last week to Pakistan, one Pakistani woman told Secretary Clinton that drone missile attacks essentially amounted to “executions without trial.” Another asked if the missile attacks were themselves a form of terrorism.

The comments hint at the anger many Pakistanis feel over these attacks. They also demonstrate the damage that the U.S. is sustaining in terms of how we are perceived. The people asking these kinds of questions are frequently drawn from Pakistan’s educated and cosmopolitan elite — not exactly a step forward for U.S. diplomacy or public relations.

There are more material costs as well. The drone missile attacks have pushed militants further into more settled parts of the country. Not only that, but the attacks also undermine a potential indigenous Pakistani consensus against militancy. The continued stream of drone-inflicted civilian deaths feeds into a long-standing Pakistani self-narrative regarding the history of U.S. political intervention in Pakistani affairs. That narrative recalls that all three rounds of Pakistani dictatorship received U.S. support.

These considerations lead to even more uncomfortable questions: Given the moral and diplomatic costs, why are Obama Administration officials continuing this practice? Do U.S. drone missile attacks offer an illusion of American military success that is politically important for the current administration?

After all, if you take drone missile attacks off the table, there is little left in this war that has the appearance of military “success.” Every time a drone missile hits a claimed target, the Obama administration can show that it is willing and able to kill terrorists. Never mind that many of the terrorists get replaced by subordinates, and never mind that the U.S. government is likely to be simultaneously negotiating with other Taliban militias.

Even though U.S. drone missile attacks kill many civilians and are politically counterproductive, it may well be that the PR costs are too great for U.S. officials to give them up. The attacks offer the illusion of military victory, even if only for a soundbite second. That’s why U.S. officials need to drop the pretend secrecy and engage the growing public debate.

It’s a situation Andrew Wilder, F89, F96, knows all too well. A research director for the Feinstein International Center since early 2007, he managed humanitarian aid and development programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan for 10 years … Born and raised in Pakistan, Wilder came to the United States to attend college.

According to Wilder:

The more money we try to spend in this environment, which has very limited human resources and institutional capacity, inevitably money overflows into the pockets of corrupt officials. Our aid programs are actually fueling the corruption, which is de-legitimizing the government, which is fueling instability.

50?  500?  5000?

After emailing the State Department to oppose drone missile attacks, I received the message below.  You may have as well.  This means that senior State Department officials will eventually get a report on the total emails received.

What will the report say?

If you haven’t already done so, please click here so that senior U.S. officials know that a significant number of people want the U.S. government to stop killing Pakistani civilians:  http://freedomforward.org

In a prior email, I already mentioned how U.S. military adviser David Kilcullen said that 98% of U.S. drone missile attack victims have been innocent civilians.  From 2006 to mid-2009, 700 Pakistani civilians were killed.

It is stunning that Vice President Biden now wants to expand these attacks.   Part of the reason why is that the U.S. government isn’t receiving much criticism for doing so – from within the U.S.

You can safely assume that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the target of American email campaigns on a range of issues:  Sudan, Afghanistan, negotiations on climate change — you name it.  That’s why it is all the more important that when a senior State Department official gets their report on emails from the public, our campaign against drone
missile attacks is high on the list.

I just did a google search on “take action, darfur.”  There are a whole bunch of organizations urging people to contact the U.S. government regarding the killings in Sudan.  Then I did a google search on “take action, stop drone missile attacks.”

I was excited to find one link — and I quickly realized it was our own.  There may be other organizations  sending a similar message to the U.S. government.  I just couldn’t easily find them.

So if you haven’t already, please take a moment now to send an email opposing drone missile attacks:

http://freedomforward.org

The Pakistani families who are being hurt by U.S. drone missiles don’t have the ability to lobby U.S. policymakers.

We do.  That’s why we have to speak up:   http://freedomforward.org

Sincerely,

Sanjeev Bery, Freedom Forward

P.S.  You can read the email response from the State Department below:

“Thank you for contacting the State Department.

Subject
——————————

The [Kerry-Lugar Pakistan] aid bill is also controversial in Washington, where a US AID official has complained about the plan to funnel it through Pakistani contractors rather than through American ones. The Agency for International Development official maintained that Pakistani organizations cannot be monitored effectively by the US, raising the possibility that the money will be embezzled…

I understand the difficulty of auditing NGOs in dangerous places like the FATA tribal areas. But it seems to me that it must be possible to audit the Pakistani pass-through organizations elsewhere regularly, and that the shell game of Congress giving foreign aid to a country in a way that actually just benefits US corporations and contractors is counter-productive.

The original complaint came in the form of a “sensitive but unclassified” internal memo from US AID Development Economist C. Stuart Callison, Ph.D., criticizing the U.S. State Department’s shifts in the routing of Pakistan aid:

Directing an immediate shift away from U.S. contractors already on the ground to local implementers without an appropriate transition period will seriously compromise the more important requirements for quick counterinsurgency and economic impacts…Based on past experience in Pakistan, very few Pakistani firms and NGOs can currently satisfy the stringent financial management audit requirements for USAID project funding.

The original USA Today article offers additional context:

USAID has long relied mainly on large U.S. firms to deliver aid. Secretary Clinton and Holbrooke have said they want to reduce the reliance on those American firms because, in their view, too much of the money spent that way is lost to overhead, security and expatriate salaries.

A report in March by the aid group Oxfam said the multibillion U.S. aid effort in Afghanistan had been ineffective in part because of an overreliance on contractors. In a series of audits, USAID’s inspector general found that many contractor-run aid programs in the region have not been working as intended.

None of this news, however, is likely to generate much Pakistani sympathy for American taxpayers. What American officials refer to as “anti-American sentiment” is actually a deep resentment of U.S. government involvement in internal Pakistani politics. It is worth noting that U.S. funding for Musharraf marked the third time we have supported Pakistani dictatorship in the country’s 60 years of history.

It is precisely this past that has come to haunt both Pakistanis and Americans today. The intersection of dictatorship and dollars has resulted in a Pakistani military that does not answer to the country’s civilian leadership. Every time American taxpayers financed an alliance with a Pakistani military dictator, we also forced Pakistani reformers to take a backseat.

If the U.S. wants to see a truly prosperous and democratic Pakistan, we must avoid taking steps that make life harder for Pakistani civil society. Towards this end, I joined with a group of independent scholars, activists, and human rights advocates to author The Call for a New U.S. Policy Towards Pakistan. This statement included the participation of Freedom Forward, a new effort that I am proud to be involved with.

From The Call:

For too long, Pakistani citizens have struggled under corrupt and undemocratic leaders who undermined the rule of law. Of these leaders, the most damaging have been the military dictators who ruled Pakistan for more than half its existence. Each of these dictators undermined Pakistani democracy while receiving U.S. aid for supporting U.S. foreign policy.

These dictators prioritized military budgets and personal wealth over the development of society. They encouraged and leveraged militant groups for their regional rivalries…Pakistan faces many problems as a result, including underdevelopment, terrorist attacks, and an insurgency in the tribal areas.

As is frequently the case, this history gets swept under the rug in our own political discourse. Consider the recent New York Times article that explores Pakistani anger at the US. Reporter Jane Perlez references “an already volatile anti-American mood” and “fierce opposition” among Pakistani elites.

What the article doesn’t offer is historical context. Thus, Perlez writes that a recently approved US aid package to Pakistan includes language to “ensure that the [Pakistani] military does not interfere with civilian politics.”

What she fails to explore is how this might look, given that just two years earlier, the U.S. was supporting a Pakistani military dictator. Though the Obama Administration cannot be held responsible for the Bush Administration’s decisions, contradictions like the above can cast U.S. intentions in a cynical light.

Through the combination of Pakistani politics and the steroids of U.S. military aid, the Pakistani military is now a parallel institution that acts independent of Pakistani civilian leadership. It has its own economic interests and financial entities. Military analyst Ayesha Siddiqa describes the Pakistani military as “one of the biggest landowners in the country.”

In her book Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy, Siddiqa writes of Pakistani military officers as members of a separate economic class:

“In fact, the military’s land acquisition, especially agricultural land, has transformed the military into one of the many land barons or feudal landlords. The behavior of senior military officers towards landless peasants or ordinary soldiers, who are also given agricultural land, is like that of any big feudal landlord.”

Fortunately, there are significant examples of civil society challenges to authoritarian power in Pakistan. As we wrote in The Call:

In 2008, Pakistani voters peacefully rejected both Islamist parties as well as candidates tied to the outgoing dictator, Pervez Musharraf. In 2008 and 2009, hundreds of thousands participated in two major “Long Marches.” These citizen-led movements challenged Musharraf’s dictatorship, as well as the corruption and manipulative actions of democratically-elected President Asif Zardari.

But if Pakistani reformers are to have better odds of success, we should end our habit of supporting the individual political elites and military rulers who stand in their way. This basic message, as reflected in The Call, is drawing support from diverse voices: professionals in Islamabad, a journalist in Seoul, a U.S. Navy veteran just outside Seattle.

Lets hope Congress and the White House get the message. Consider joining us.

Following growing public criticism, the Financial Times magazine fDi has withdrawn its recent “Asian Personality of the Year” award to Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of the Indian state of Gujarat.

fDi had stunned human rights advocates when it announced the original award in late August. It was under Modi’s government that Hindu mobs in 2002 slaughtered over 2,000 Muslims and drove thousands more from their homes. The Modi government has been accused of allowing the violence to continue, encouraging state police participation, and even obstructing attempts by victims seeking justice. Evidence suggests that Gujarat government officials may have directly encouraged the slaughter, perhaps for political gains among the Hindu electoral majority.

The fDi honor was announced in late August as one of several 2009 awards intended to highlight those who brought significant foreign investment into their local economies. (The magazine fDi itself stands for “foreign direct investment.”) In its original web announcement, which has since been taken down, fDi credited Gujarat’s Chief Minister for a large influx of foreign investment into Gujarat in recent years. Setting aside the economic rationale for the award, which itself is subject to debate, there is a bigger issue at hand.

Modi’s government in Gujarat has been linked to one of the bloodiest episodes of violence in recent Indian history.

The 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom occurred in the aftermath of an attack on a train carrying Hindu pilgrims that had stopped at a Gujarat train station. The pilgrims were returning from Ayodyha, a region that many Hindus consider to be the birthplace of Ram, an ancient king and incarnation of God. In Ayodhya, a Hindu nationalist movement had organized activists to demolish a Muslim mosque and erect a Hindu temple in its place. The mosque itself was considered by Hindus to have been built 500 years ago on the ruins of another Hindu temple.

At the time, it was reported that more than 50 Hindus died in the train fire at the Godhra train station. However, circumstances surrounding the alleged attack have been contested, including even the religious identities of the victims.

In the aftermatch, Hindu mobs went after Muslims in several Gujarat cities. Large numbers of Muslims were driven from their homes, attacked, and murdered. Muslim women were especially targeted for brutality, as noted by Amnesty International:

Violence against women and girls was a key feature of the violence. Scores of Muslim women and girls were sexually violated – raped, gang-raped or mutilated. Many saw their family members killed and their homes and businesses destroyed. After these traumatizing events many women victims were left to care for their family’s survival, often in makeshift relief camps with inadequate support, conditions and reparations.

Many Indian and international human rights advocates have directly pointed the finger at Gujarat law enforcement for allowing, aiding, and even coordinating the violence. As Human Rights Watch reported in April of 2002:

In some cases they were merely passive observers. But in many instances, police officials led the charge of murderous mobs, aiming and firing at Muslims who got in the way. Under the guise of offering assistance, some police officers led the victims directly into the hands of their killers. Panicked phone calls made to the police, fire brigades, and even ambulance services generally proved futile. Several witnesses reported being told by police: “We have no orders to save you.”

Some go further, arguing that the Gujarat Chief Minister actually encouraged or orchestrated the violence to boost political support in Hindu communities. The accusations were enough to lead to a visa denial for Modi when he attempted to visit the U.S. in 2005. Under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, entry is prohibited to foreign government officials who are “responsible for … particularly severe violations of religious freedom.” In 2008, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a body mandated by Congress, recommended that Modi again be denied entry.

It is within this context that the Financial Times subsidiary’s decision to honor Modi seemed especially out of place. Though the original fDi announcement is no longer available online, it received coverage in the Indian media.

One Indian friend in New Delhi reacted strongly to the news. Because she works for a prominent international technology company, she asked that her name not be published. She herself is of Kashmiri Muslim background, and she had this to say:

Why is this surprising? Hasn’t the business community, the great Indian elite, long admired Mr. Modi for his progressive thinking? He’s won awards before, and accolades aplenty. When you are talking to the man about the location of your factories, doesn’t part of your brain relay those indelible images of 2002? What do you tell yourself to continue having that conversation?

In the U.K., the Council of Indian Muslims issued a statement criticizing fDi for “being insensitive to the victims of anti-Muslim riots in the western Indian state of Gujarat in 2002 and encouraging Hindu extremism in India.”

In the U.S., academic voices Mira Kamdar and Vijay Prashad led an effort to urge Marjorie Scardino, chief executive of the Pearson Group, to direct her Financial Times subsidiary to drop the award. Together with cosigners from inside and outside the U.S., they stated, “This award gives Mr. Modi, whose human rights’ reputation is most troubling, a huge boost of legitimacy where he deserves none.”

The signatories had picked a responsive target with prominent affiliations. Scardino serves on the board of directors for the MacArthur Foundation, as well as the board of trustees for the Carter Center. Together with others who emailed fDi directly, they succeeded in encouraging the magazine to retract its award.

In the words of the magazine itself:

Following a review prompted by the ongoing investigation into the 2002 Gujarat riots, fDi has decided to present its award to Gujarat state, rather than Mr Narendra Modi, the state’s chief minister…Mr Modi was chief minister of Gujarat at the time of the riots. Mr Modi’s alleged role in connection to the riots is under investigation but he denies any responsibility.

Though the Financial Times subsidiary should never have granted the award to begin with, fDi did the right thing in retracting the award. Narendra Modi’s government aided and abetted a terrible massacre. Modi should not be receiving congratulations today.