Monday, October 25, 2010

MUST WATCH: CIA analyst gives remarkably straight talk

The CIA has a bad name for all the dirty work it does throughout the world. That doesn't mean that there aren't skilled employees who are well versed in their areas of expertise.

I was impressed by CIA analyst Kathleen Christison's talk on CSPAN about Israel and the United States. She speaks clearly, comprehensively and persuasively about the lock that the Israel lobby holds on United States policy and the incapacity of the Obama administration to act justly. She describes the long accomplished capture of American public opinion by the Zionist/Israeli narrative that portrays Israel as almost a part of the United States. It runs about 17 minutes.

It's very encouraging that this information is coming out from higher and higher places in the U.S. government.

This screen grab of Christison speaking is not active - use the link above.

1 comment:

  1. I think the self boast of Bibi's reporting at the beginning of this video is correct. During Bibi's 90's reign tax transfers to the Palestinian Authority were frozen. Israel claimed the Authority was not doing enough to stop terrorism. Once the transfers stopped, competition within the Authority increased as available resources decreased. Increased internal contention set the stage for erupting terrorism once the 2nd Intifada began. Israel responded by destroying Authority structure, surrounding the compound of Arafat, destroying police stations with helicoptor fired missles, thereby undermining the Authority as a government. Ultimately, to Condi Rice's shock, Hamas won a plurality of seats in the first Palestinian Legislative Council election thereafter.

    I do not believe Arafat was innocent of aggrandizement in all of this; he had shown himself for decades able to consolidate control. But the action of Israel under Bibi essentially made any pluralism in the Authority impossible. Hamas flared in importance at the margins and, after more mean bungling by Israel and the West, came to control Gaza.

    We must let people we do not like live and possibly thrive. If we do not, meaner forms may come to thrive. The video analyst says Hamas was willing to live in a decade truce with Israel; so some of its speakers announced upon their electoral victory. But, after the siege of Gaza, and after Lead Cast, such speakers may be more difficult to find. And, I think it clear that the kidnapping of one Israeli soldier was partly an internal conflict in Hamas to force a harsher Israeli response, which is what happened.

    Israel creates the reality if fears. As this progresses, it becomes harder to see any other possibility. Risk inherent in continuing tax transfers in the 90's is likely less than risk in dealing with militant Hamas (not all Hamas are militant) in Gaza. Finally only unending conflict seems possible.

    About the time of Oslo, South Africa moved to majority rule. As in Rabin's Israel, South Africa experienced terrorism during its grope to transition. South Africa endured it; Israel, after Rabin, refused to do so. I believe, in all this talk of policy, we must note that change will induce terrorism in transition. The strongest argument Israeli right nationalist have is that their opponents never speak of the 2nd Intifada and its terrorism; for clearly that experience induced the hard right Israel we now see.

    The video analyst says the US must change its position, yet she thinks this quite unlikely, indefinately unlikely. What, then, can be done? Decry the Israeli lobby and await the years? Although I am aware of your focus, Chris, and its importance, I am always forced back to the internal tension within Israel as primary fulcrum.

    Once again, your postings expand knowledge and awareness by pointing to not just your thought, but that of others, such as this (necessarily) retired analyst.