almost a diary

Last week, in an interview with the BBC, Condoleeza Rice was still adamant, insisting on geographical facts, making it clear that “Iran is not Iraq.” On the other hand, reality based arguments have too often been denied their factual power by the Bush administration to simply believe her in this case. Seymour Hersh, for one, doesn’t believe that the ‘n’ makes the difference. He writes in the New Yorker -

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was ‘absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb’ if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do ‘what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,’ and ‘that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.’

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that ‘a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.’ He added, ‘I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?”

Good question, what are they smoking?

In today’s IHT, Daniel Levy, who was an advisor to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, discusses a recent paper entitled “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by John J. Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Stephen M. Walt (John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University). The context Levy provides is interesting – his emphasis is on a growing rift between an increasingly inward looking Israel and an continously expansive AIPAC (America Israel Public Affairs Committee) – Levy’s article is entitled “America: So pro-Israel that it hurts“.

If I remember correctly, AIPAC’s influence on American foreign policy is as mythical as it has been cyclical. As Levy notes, the recently increasing debate about the AIPAC’s influence on and the assumed natural alignement of Israeli and US interests in the Middle East could, in light of a growing rift between Israeli policy and the AIPAC, possible precede realignments in American foreign policy. If he’s right, the honest broker might be looking for a come-back. He would certainly be welcomed.

“A recent study entitled “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” should serve as a wake-up call on both sides of the ocean. It is authored by two respected academics – John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government …

The tone of the report is harsh. It is jarring even for a self-critical Israeli. It lacks finesse and nuance when it looks at the alphabet soup of the world of American-Jewish organizations and at how the “Lobby” interacts with both the Israeli establishment and the wider right-wing echo chamber.

…

Yet the case built by Mearsheimer and Walt is a potent one: Identification of American with Israeli interests can be principally explained by the impact of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington in limiting the parameters of public debate, rather than by the fact that Israel is a vital strategic asset or has a uniquely compelling moral case for support (beyond, as the authors point out, the right to exist, which in any case is not in jeopardy).

The study is at its most devastating when it describes how the lobby “stifles debate by intimidation” and at its most current when it details how America’s interests (and ultimately Israel’s, too) are ill-served by the lobby’s agenda.

…

The signs that Israel and the pro-Israel lobby are not on the same page are mounting. For Israel, the withdrawal from Gaza and future evacuations in the West Bank are acts of strategic national importance; for the pro-Israel lobby, they are an occasion for confusion and foot-shuffling. For Israel, the election of Hamas raises complex and difficult challenges; for the lobby it is a public-relations home run and an occasion for legislative muscle-flexing.

The lobby’s influence, write Mearsheimer and Walt, “has discouraged Israel from seizing opportunities…that would have saved Israeli lives and shrunk the ranks of Palestinian extremists….

“Using American power to achieve a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians would help advance the broader goals of fighting extremism and promoting democracy in the Middle East.”

This is not about appeasement; it’s about smart, if difficult, policy choices that also address Israeli needs and security.

In short, if Israel is indeed entering a new era of national sanity and de-occupation, then the role of the pro-Israel lobby in U.S.-Israel relations will have to be rethought, and either reformed from within or challenged from without.”

It seems the days of secrecy as state of the art strategy are over. Not that I’d think the US government would release anything they know to be important on the web, but the fact that they’re releasing Iraqi official documents of which they largely don’t know the content is probably rather illustrative of the problems intelligence agencies have with respect to uncovering Arabic secrets.

Iraq papers go on Web; bloggers go all out – Americas – International Herald Tribune

Under pressure from congressional Republicans, the director of national intelligence has begun a yearlong process of posting on the Web 48,000 boxes of Arabic-language Iraqi documents captured by U.S. troops. Less than two weeks into the project, and with only 600 out of possibly a million documents and video and audio files posted, some conservative bloggers are already asserting that the material undermines the official view.

The NYT’s Robert Frank has written an important case study about the value of society wide risk sharing. About the weighing of cost and benefit, or rather, benefit and profit in a matter of costly life prolonging medicine or certain immediate death.

Everyone should read it. Certainly everyone interested in politics should read it. And if there’s anyone engaged in European health politics who has not read this, he shall not be entitled to speak until after he has read this. I read it, and I feel terrible. But that’s no excuse not to read it – it’s the reason. It’s also the reason why I’m writing this post.

I’m sure you, my gentle readers, remember the NRA’s PR line “guns don’t kill people, people do”. It’s true. It all depends how they are dealt with and who deals with them. The same is true for any system of social coordination, including, in this case, markets. Markets are a marvel. Markets themselves don’t kill people. People do. Sometimes with the help of a gun, sometimes with the help of a market. But don’t blame the market. Blame the societies who were unable to act collectively to prevent people from using it as a weapon.

At the NYT you have to pay tor read, but thanks to a commenter at Brad DeLong’s, large parts of the article are available for free.

Yesterday, the IHT’s Judy Dempsey was in town to tell you half the story about the effects that next Sunday’s regional elections could have on German national politics. Apparently she talked to the FDP’s vice chairman and former state minister of economics and viniculture, Rainer Brüderle, who has apparently told her that that “the FDP hopes the elections will renew its faded luster” – and so a headline was born.

Of course, that’s only half the story. Not even the FDP, a party still coming to terms with a changed German party system in which it is apparently possible for the FDP not to be part of a governing coalition three times in a row, has much to gain in this election.

Actually, apart from those running in the elections, almost everyone would prefer they would not have to take place now. Right now, the grand coalition in Berlin is working rather smoothly. Hardly anyone would want to see the SPD going crazy if they lost their last state premier in the “old states”. The FDP’s PR people might like the limelight they would get in such a situation – the party would be forced in to a coalition debate, as it has publicly pledged to continue the current coalition – but since that would certainly not mean another round of early federal elections, just a less effective government, there’s no real point to hope for any kind of change. And very likely there won’t be any -

Opinion polls give Beck 43 percent and the Free Democrats 7 percent.

One big concern is the possible spoiler role of the Left Party, an amalgam of reformed communists from eastern Germany and trade unionists who quit the Social Democratic Party last year claiming it had become too centrist.

True. But everyone except for Christoph Böhr, the CDU’s candidate for state premier is hoping they won’t spoil the party. Böhr, of course, has been in a rather uncofortable situation given that Angela Merkel would certainly prefer him to loose the election despite having to campaign for him.

Politics is a strange game sometimes.

So keep that in mind when reading Ms Dempsey’s piece over at the IHT’s website.

Party hopes Germany’s vote renews faded luster – Europe – International Herald Tribune

Es ist beeindruckend, wie sehr dieses Plakat der Grünen “on brand” ist – der der FDP und der eigenen – zumindest typographisch und von der Farbgebung her.

Allerdings bin ich mir genau aus diesem Grund nicht sicher, inwieweit es bei einem schnellen Blick nicht als FDP Plakat gewertet werden kann, mit einem “verschandelnden” Grünen-Aufkleber darauf.

Bliebe die Frage, wie die Wähler mit dem Eindruck eines solchen eher negativen Wahlkampfverhaltens umgingen. Es wäre daher interessant zu wissen, ob für dieses Motiv irgendwelche Marktforschung betrieben wurde.

Der frühe Wahlk�mpfer f�ngt die Stimmen, wird sich das B�ro von Herrn Schreiner wohl gedacht haben – oder aber, da� die (generell, wenn auch nicht unbedingt in seinem Wahlkreis) zunehmende Arbeitslosigkeit W�hler daf�r interessieren k�nnte, sich wegen des angebotenen Fr�hst�cks schon ab 7:30 Uhr an einem Donnerstag Morgen mit dem Thema Denkmalschutz auseinander zu setzen. Nominell zumindest.

H�tte er die Veranstaltung erst am morgigen Freitag durchgef�hrt, w�hren seinen Fr�haufstehern vermutlich die letzten �berlebenden der Jungw�hler-Wahlkampfveranstaltung der Konkurrenz von der SPD in einem Club ganz in der N�he �ber den Weg gelaufen. Da wird n�mlich seit 22 Uhr am heutigen Abend diskutiert – oder – wohl eher nicht.

Auch hier gilt: Die zunehmende gesellschaftliche Fragmentierung wird immer sichtbarer. Abstimmtechnisch betrachtet ist Schreiners Strategie dabei wohl cleverer – ob die feiernden Jungw�hler am Sonntag wohl vor 18 Uhr zum Abstimmen kommen? Vielleicht sollte man sich bei der SPD eher f�r die Abschaffung des “Urnenschlie�gesetzes” einsetzen, als ergebnissch�digendes Feiern auch noch zu unterst�tzen…

Es hat ein wenig gedauert, bis sich bei der vor der Verbreitung von PCs überaus wachsamen, aber schließlich durch den Umgang mit “bunten Bildchen”, bzw. dem WWW, in Bezug auf Datenschutz abgestumpften Zivilgesellschaft ein Problembewußtsein eingestellt hat. Aber – besser spät als nie. Nach dem gläsernen Bürger bei Maischberger wird sich nun auch Gerd Scobel heute Abend ab 21 Uhr in 3Sat Delta der Problematik annehmen.

delta diskutiert die Möglichkeiten und Gefahren von neuen Technologien und analysiert einige Netzwerke des Datenaustauschs. Welchen Wert hat das Selbstbestimmungsrecht in Zeiten der Globalisierung und der Terrorismusbekämpfung? Wie ist die Freiheit der Privatsphäre mit dem Informationsbegehren von Kontrollorganen zu vereinbaren?

Mitdiskutieren werden Claudia Eckert, Informatikerin, TU Darmstadt, Winfried Hassemer, Vizepräsident des Bundesverfassungsgerichts und Per Ström, Experte für Datenschutz.

Schon beim ersten Blick auf dieses Plakat habe ich mich gefragt, warum der Typ vom CDU Wahlplakat eigentlich eine Riesenknarre über der Schulter trägt. Oder eine Abschußvorrichtung für Boden-Luft-Rakteten. Da muß man sich doch Fragen stellen.

Aber es ist natürlich alles halb so wild: der gute Mann ist Handwerker und trägt natürlich nur seinen Hobel spazieren. Wer macht das nicht ab und zu. Und plötzlich macht das auch alles wieder Sinn: die CDU war schließlich schon immer die Partei der Hobelspazierenträger.

Interessanterweise stammt das einzige falsch herum gehängte Plakat, das ich auf meinem Rundgang gesehen habe von der “Generationen-Partei” “Die Grauen“

Ob das vielleicht ein versteckter Hinweis auf die durch die demographische Entwicklung gefährdete Rentenrendite sein soll? Politische Kommunikation kann ja so komplex sein…