Did Iraq call it? Apparently they did.
Late
morning yesterday, John Kirby held a press briefing by teleconference.
Everyone was warned he had "a few words" to say before getting to
questions. A few words? Like these:
If
he's telling the truth -- IF -- then let's note something. A glaring
error -- a lie -- was told to the press by John Kirby last week and they
wait until this week to correct it. And the reaction from the press
corps?
They go on to ask about 20 questions
(check my math). Not one of them is, "Could you go into more detail on
your erroneous statements?" Not one is, "When did you realize that you
had gotten the facts wrong?" Not one was, "Has there been an apology to
the Iraqi government for these false remarks made on behalf of the
White House?"
No, not one.
They all averted their eyes and ignored the elephant in the room.
If
John Kirby told the truth in yesterday's briefing -- IF -- then this is
dysfunctional press at best -- a craven and cowed press at worse.
There
is an alternate explanation. Kirby didn't lie and the press knows it.
He wasn't convincing in his statements at the briefing.
Between
his Friday remarks and then his Tuesday correction, a lot went down.
Including Iraqi government officials screaming at Joe Biden's
administration. The US government had no popularity to spare in Iraq
before the Israeli government launched the assault on Gaza. When that
slaughter began and Joe Biden backed the slaughter and refused to call
for a cease-fire, Iraqi anger at the US became even greater.
The
prime minister of Iraq, Mohammed Shia' Al Sudani, has been playing a
dancing game. The Iraqi people have only grown louder in their demands
that all US forces leave Iraq. He publicly backs that call while,
behind the scenes, he desperately tries to curry favor with the US
government.
Joe Biden's bombing on Friday was
a violation of Iraq's sovereignty. It was also an attack on Iraq's
national army because the 'militias' were legally folded into that army
over seven years ago. Attacking the militias is attacking the Iraqi
military.
In America, many don't grasp that reality because we have a press that keeps lying and lying about this.
If
Kirby lied on Friday? I don't think he did (two friends with the State
Dept say his remarks Friday were accurate). I don't think he did based
on the way he delivered the remarks. I don't think he did based on
the press being 100% uninterested in asking even one question about this
major announcement.
I think the Iraqi
government reamed the White House over the remarks. I think they made
it clear how much damage the accurate statement made -- the Iraqi
government was informed ahead of time -- and what a threat those remarks
were to the prime minister.
If John got the
facts right on Friday, then the Iraqi government was informed ahead of a
US attack that the Iraqi security forces were about to be bombed and
the prime minister just went along with it, that's reason for Parliament
to call for a no-confidence vote.
AMY GOODMAN: Hi, Nermeen. And welcome to all our listeners and our viewers around the country and around the world. Well, I’m not a NOVID anymore. For four years I somehow avoided getting COVID,
but I ended up getting it. Asymptomatic. I’m at the tail end of it. I
just have to go from positive to negative. It’s not exactly in my nature
to go negative, but I’m really working on it. Until then, Nermeen is
there, and I am here. And most importantly, on with the show.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: We look forward to having you back, Amy.
Secretary of State Tony Blinken is heading to Qatar and then to
Israel and the West Bank, after holding talks in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
This comes as Israel threatens to launch a ground invasion of the
southern Gaza city of Rafah, where over half of all residents of Gaza
have sought refuge. Palestinian health officials say Israeli attacks
killed 107 Palestinians over the past day, bringing the Palestinian
death toll to over 27,500, including over 11,500 children.
This is Blinken’s fifth trip to the Middle East since Hamas attacked
Israel on October 7th. The State Department says Blinken is pushing for a
pause to Israel’s assault and for Hamas to release all remaining
hostages seized nearly four months ago.
On Monday, Blinken met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in
Riyadh, where they discussed a potential deal involving Saudi Arabia
normalizing relations with Israel in exchange for Israel agreeing to a
pathway for a Palestinian state. Saudi Arabia is also seeking a new
military pact with the United States and U.S. assistance with its
nuclear program. This comes as Hamas is reportedly reviewing a truce and
hostage deal negotiated in part by mediators from Egypt and Qatar.
Blinken’s trip comes just days after the United States bombed 85
targets in Syria and Iraq in retaliation for a recent drone strike by
Iran-backed militants on a base in Jordan that killed three U.S. troops.
The U.S. has also repeatedly bombed Yemen over the past two weeks,
targeting sites controlled by Houthi forces who have been targeting
ships linked to Israel and the United States to protest Israel’s assault
on Gaza.
We begin today’s show with Akbar Shahid Ahmed, senior diplomatic correspondent for HuffPost based in Washington, D.C.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Akbar. We are very happy to have
you here. If you could first respond — tell us what’s most important
about the meetings that Blinken had already with the crown prince and
his meetings today in Egypt. What’s at stake?
AKBAR SHAHID AHMED: Thanks for having me, Nermeen.
Secretary Blinken is hoping that Arab officials will finally believe
the U.S. is serious about an end to the carnage in Gaza. It’s a hard
ask, because a lot of Arab diplomats, a lot of regional diplomats who
are worried about the spiraling conflict feel the Biden administration
has no real interest in pressuring Israel to stop. And you’ve got
repeated comments from Israeli officials, most recently Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just yesterday, saying, “We want to see
Hamas leaders killed. We want to see months more of war, if not a year,”
and ideas for a resettlement of Gaza — extremely controversial
proposals.
So, Blinken, on the one hand, is dealing with Israelis who are not
saying what Arab diplomats and the U.S. want to hear, he’s representing a
president who has a policy of near-total support for Israel, and he’s
getting flak from Arab diplomats. Blinken is, of course, a skilled
foreign policy official, a skilled mediator, but it’s a very hard task
for him, Nermeen, because there’s not a lot of goodwill or faith right
now for the U.S.
AMY GOODMAN:
Akbar, if you can talk more about what you think took place before the
crown prince of Saudi Arabia and Blinken, and the significance of what
exactly Saudi Arabia, the United States and Israel are proposing? The
Hamas attack on October 7th took place just around the time that Saudi
Arabia was going to normalize relations with Israel. Talk about what
that would mean and exactly what these proposals are and how possible
you think they are.
AKBAR SHAHID AHMED:
Absolutely, Amy. So, prior to the October 7th attack, the U.S., Saudi
Arabia, Israel were talking about this kind of tripartite deal that
would involve the Saudis giving Israel recognition from Saudi Arabia,
which is a huge win for Israel, right? After many years of conflict,
feeling threatened by its Arab neighbors, this would be the biggest,
most important Muslim-majority country in the world, essentially,
saying, “We recognize Israel,” and, importantly, without Israel having
to make significant concessions on the Palestinian file.
So, that’s where this whole process, while it’s been beneficial for
the U.S., for Saudi, for Israel, the Palestinians and their advocates
have been saying, “Where are we in this conversation?” So, prior to
October 7th, there was already huge anxiety about these talks. There was
dissatisfaction. And then the attacks happened. And, you know, no one
less than President Biden has said they see that U.S.-Israel-Saudi
process as part of the reason for the October 7th attacks, right? It was
a way, in part, for Palestinians to kind of bring this issue back on
the negotiating table. However, since then, what we’ve seen, four months
into this war, is that rather than considering, “Well, maybe this
approach got us to conflict,” the Biden administration has doubled down
on the U.S.-Saudi-Israel deal. So they’ve taken the Gaza war, and
they’ve tied it to what they were doing before the Gaza war.
Their new proposal is we’ll rebuild Gaza using Saudi money. This will
be part of the whole package that will get the Israelis to make some
significant concessions to Palestinians. It’ll get the Saudis to have
the American commitments they want. But in terms of feasibility, it’s
quite, I would say, at best, contentious, right? The U.S. officials I
talked to within the government, one described this as, quote,
“delusionally optimistic.” You’ve got so many parties involved. You do
not have a serious commitment from the U.S. to get Palestine anything
major — right? — beyond economic guarantees or the reconstruction of
Gaza. And then you’ve got what you referenced earlier, Nermeen, the
strikes by Iran-backed militias. There are a lot of what’s called
spoilers, a lot of other forces around the region who don’t like this
deal, who certainly see the deal, especially between Saudi, Israel and
the U.S., opponents of Iran, as very risky for Iran and its network.
So, in terms of the actual feasibility of something being approved,
I’m skeptical. And it’s important to remember there’s a very short
runway now prior to the election. And if the Biden administration wants
to get a security treaty with Saudi Arabia through the Senate while they
still have control of the Senate, I mean, they’ve only got six months
to do it.
AMY GOODMAN:
And then, can you talk about what’s happening today with Tony Blinken
in Cairo and Qatar before going to Israel and then the occupied West
Bank?
AKBAR SHAHID AHMED:
Absolutely. So, the Egyptians and the Qataris are critical mediators,
because the U.S. does not speak directly to Hamas, which the U.S. lists
as a terror organization. So any messages from the U.S. have to go
through Qatar and Egypt. And Israel also doesn’t really like directly
dealing with Hamas. So, Blinken is in Cairo, and he was in Doha, kind of
hoping to get those governments to pressure Hamas.
Now the “yes” is on Hamas’s side. Israel has kind of tacitly agreed
to a truce and hostage release. But the longer there’s a delay here, the
more it seems that this deal isn’t achieving what the Palestinians or
Hamas might really want, right? So, you’ve seen Prime Minister Netanyahu
come out and say, “I want to kill Hamas leadership.” That raises the
stakes for Hamas, if they’re saying, “Why would we agree to a two-week
deal if, after that, you’re just going to come back, invade Rafah, kill
our leadership?” So, I think there’s — the prospects of a deal, to me,
seem low right now.
Some of the other important sticking points are, of course, there’s
broad agreement that the hostages, particularly civilians, particularly
older people and children, should be released. That’s kind of generally
agreed upon. But the question is: How many Palestinian political
prisoners is Israel willing to release in return? There’s a certain
Palestinian leader called Marwan Barghouti, really seen as a unifying
Palestinian figure, and Hamas has said they want him out of jail. Now,
for a lot of Israelis who don’t want to see a kind of unified
Palestinian movement, that’s a no-go.
So there are a lot of sticking points here. And it’s up to Secretary
Blinken to kind of push everyone towards a median. I think the Qataris
can certainly play a very helpful role here with Hamas, but any
indication of U.S. seriousness is what’s needed, and we haven’t yet had
that, certainly not from President Biden.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:
And, Akbar, I mean, as you said, the issue of the release of
Palestinian prisoners is something that Netanyahu, at least, has ruled
out, as well as the creation of a Palestinian state. So it’s unclear
how, you know, these positions can be reconciled, because there’s no
incentive for Hamas to go along with this. But I wanted to ask: I mean,
Saudi Arabia is also pushing minimally for the minimal condition of the
creation of a Palestinian state, but where do other Arab states stand,
including Egypt and Qatar, who are the negotiators, as you said, the
mediators? Where else do Arab states stand on this? And is it important
at all?
AKBAR SHAHID AHMED:
You know, it’s critical. I love how you phrase it, Nermeen, because the
Saudis certainly want us to think they are pushing for the creation of a
Palestinian state, but the language is sort of shifting, right?
Sometimes they say “creating a Palestinian state.” Sometimes they say “a
pathway towards a Palestinian state” or “irreversible steps.” So, that
goalpost is shifting all the time. And I think for the Saudis, in
particular, who have, especially under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman,
really expressed disdain for the Palestinian cause in recent years and
the sense that it’s been a burden for the Arab world, and a deep
enthusiasm for relations with Israel, for the Saudis, I’d say, kind of
limited Palestinian concessions would be acceptable, if they can get
some kind of Palestinian window dressing of approval. And I’ve heard
from my sources that there are quite conversations going on between the
Saudis and maybe some friendly Palestinians who might be willing to
bless whatever the Saudis can get.
In terms of other states, Qatar is one of the firmest in terms of
wanting to see a resolution here. I think for a lot of states that maybe
were not taking the strongest position earlier — so, think about the
United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, Arab countries that have made
deals with Israel — I think, after this war and after the spiraling
tensions — right? — the risk of a huge Middle East war, those countries
are feeling more and more we need a resolution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is meaningful.
For Egypt, I think that desire is there, particularly because,
because of the strikes you mentioned by the Houthi movement in Yemen,
shipping is not going through the Suez Canal as much, and for Egypt,
that’s an economic lifeline, right? So they want the war over so the
Houthis stop attacking shipping. At the same time, it’s really critical
to remember Egypt helped Israel with its blockade of Gaza — right? — for
the last 16 years. Egypt has not, for years, wanted to see a strong,
independent Palestinian presence. So I think they’ll be weighing that
quite cautiously, and they won’t necessarily be such firm advocates for
serious Palestinian statehood.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:
And, Akbar, you’ve written extensively — at the moment, we see
Netanyahu being, you know, singled out as the person who is responsible
for the present situation. He certainly hasn’t made it any easier and,
arguably, of course, much more brutal. Although as you point out, it’s
important to look at the long-term context in Israel and, in particular,
U.S. support for Israeli policies, whatever form they’ve taken. So, if
you could elaborate on that and what distinctions you see between
Netanyahu and his predecessors on the question of Gaza?
AKBAR SHAHID AHMED:
Absolutely. So, Netanyahu is an easy bogeyman from a U.S. political
standpoint. You’re already seeing Democrats who are kind of struggling,
scrambling to defend President Biden’s policy here. They’re saying,
“Well, it’s not really about Biden. It’s about Netanyahu.” And given
that Netanyahu was so close to former President Trump, opposed President
Barack Obama so vocally, for Democratic voters, yes, Netanyahu is an
easy bogeyman.
But, absolutely, we have to look at the context. And for the first
three years of the Biden administration, two of those years they did not
have a Prime Minister Netanyahu. They had a different Israeli
government, slightly more moderate, certainly including non-Netanyahu
figures. And in that moment, the U.S. did not, Nermeen, try to pursue
any kind of progress, right? President Biden didn’t even reverse
policies that President Trump had imposed that were anti-Palestinian and
pro-Israeli.
So, to me, the thing that needs to be questioned in this moment,
certainly, Netanyahu, personally corrupt, attempting to hold onto power
for as long as he can, but as one Israeli analyst put it, there’s a,
quote, “culture of impunity” — right? — in U.S.-Israel relations. And
that’s what really needs to be analyzed right now.
So, if you think about the broader Israeli political establishment,
the person who would take over, if Netanyahu were to be unseated in
weeks, months, later this year, is someone called Benny Gantz. He’s a
former Israeli general. The military is understood to be a bit more
pragmatic on the Palestinian issue, just from a strategic and security
standpoint, than politicians are. All that said, even a Prime Minister
Benny Gantz might not be willing to accept statehood — right? — might
not be willing to give Palestinians security control in Gaza.
So, the actual culture of the U.S. and Israel, unfortunately, over
decades, has become one in which even these small steps towards progress
are so difficult. It’s like pulling teeth. And I just draw people back
to the last few examples of effective U.S. leverage over Israel.
Interestingly, they’ve been under Republican presidents, George H.W.
Bush, George W. Bush, to some extent. But we haven’t seen that in the
last 10 or 15 years, and certainly not under Presidents Biden or,
really, Obama.
AMY GOODMAN:
Akbar, I wanted to talk about the level of dissent in this country and
in other countries that are supporting Israel right now. You just wrote a
piece about over 800 government officials in the United States and Europe that have anonymously signed a statement
that their own governments’ support for Israel is in violation of their
values. If you can talk more about that, and also the level at the
grassroots in the United States, right up into the White House and the
State Department? In fact, let me play a clip. We interviewed Josh Paul, a high-level State Department official, when he quit. You were the one who broke the story about Josh Paul.
AMY GOODMAN:
I just have to ask before we go, Josh Paul. We spoke to you soon after
you resigned from the State Department in October. This was, of course,
in the midst of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, which came after the
October 7th surprise attack on Israel that killed 1,200. Can you talk
about the response of your colleagues at the State Department? Have
others resigned in other parts of the government?
JOSH PAUL:
So, we have seen, certainly from the U.N., a U.N. senior official,
Craig Mokhiber, resign. We have not seen, to my knowledge, significant
resignations within the U.S. government. But I have heard, and continue
to hear, from many of my former colleagues who are really trying to find
what mechanisms they can use to slow this down, to change the policy. I
fear that their efforts at this point continue to be in vain. I think
we need to see a policy change from the top. But I know a lot of good
people are continuing to make the argument.
AMY GOODMAN:
So, that’s Josh Paul, who quit the State Department. And he is not the
only one. And I wanted to get a sense from you how aware is President
Biden of the enormous, as our guest yesterday said, Matt Duss,
“incandescent” kind of rage in the Democratic base, but also in high
levels of the government. We just — Nermeen just read headlines. In
Harrisburg, the capital of Pennsylvania, over a hundred people, led by
Jewish Voice for Peace, were arrested, demanding a ceasefire and much
more. Talk about all these levels of dissent in the United States and
outside and what effect it’s having. Is Biden fearful that his very
reelection is in jeopardy?
AKBAR SHAHID AHMED: Absolutely, Amy. I’ll start with the letter
you mentioned, because it’s a fascinating statement, more than 800
officials in the U.S., in European institutions, in the Netherlands,
France, Britain. I just heard from another European official yesterday
who just signed the letter. So, the numbers on that letter are just
going to keep growing. It’s not closed yet.
I’d say the dissent is — it’s striking because, given the initial
attack, there was such deep sympathy for Israel, which is a close U.S.
partner. There was such a sense of “We want to do something to help.”
But I think it became so clear, within three or four days, to people
that President Biden’s approach to helping Israel was not going to be
measured or strategic or involve planning, consultation, all of that. It
was just, full tilt, whatever they want, whatever the consequences. And
I think that’s where you see a lot of dissent come from. It comes from
moral reasons, certainly, for some folks within government, from people
in the Democratic base, also from strategic considerations — right?
— also from a sense of is the U.S. tearing up goodwill and shoving away
the good work that we have done over years and decades, particularly
after former President Trump, to reestablish America’s reputation in the
world, right? Is that all moot now? And I think that’s only grown since
October, because President Biden has not been willing to shift in any
tangible way.
In terms of his own awareness of that, what’s so striking about this
moment, too, is there is a huge national security establishment here in
Washington, as I know you both know, so many layers — counterterror,
State Department, Treasury. But this policy is being controlled in a
group of, I would say, 20 to 30 close officials around the president,
right? So, what’s really important to remember there is there is a real
filtering of information. And it’s indisputable, of course, President
Biden is going to campaign rallies and events, and he’s seeing the
protesters. But to what extent is he aware that many of the actual
foreign policy and national security experts within his government, who
are nonpartisan, are opposed to this policy, I think that’s a little
questionable, right? Because advisers around him have their own
priorities. A gentleman called Brett McGurk, the top White House Middle
East official, who I’ve reported on extensively, is really pushing that
U.S.-Saudi-Israel deal, and President Biden has been going along with
that.
I think there’s very heated debates in the president’s close circle,
but because especially the State Department has been so frozen out at
this moment — and the way I’ve heard it from State Department officials
is they’ve literally been told, “We understand your concern. Why don’t
you try to work on another part of the world? You know, why don’t you
look sort of the Pacific or Latin America? Just apply your skills
there.” I think that kind of dismissal of this really reasoned dissent,
and response to it of listening sessions and town halls and “we feel
your pain” — people don’t want their pain to be felt. They want to see a
shift. So I think you’ll see even more pushback from within government,
certainly from within the party base.
I think one of the important things — and maybe this is how the
message will get through to the president — is not necessarily from his
White House national security team of Jake Sullivan, Brett McGurk, Tony
Blinken, but maybe through his political contacts. Right? You’ve seen
multiple Democratic senators, Chris Van Hollen, importantly, of
Maryland, but many others, Chris Coons even, of Delaware, who’s
personally close to the president, they’ve publicly started to say, “OK,
we need to see a shift from Israel.” So, once those lawmakers, once
governors, once others who are actually elected officials start standing
up, you might see a shift from the president. But right now there’s
still a wariness even on those fronts. I reported yesterday that this
new bipartisan border package that was unveiled had Democratic senators
agreeing to defund the U.N. agency for Palestinians. That’s a reversal
from the Biden administration’s own policy, a reversal from Democrats, a
triumph from Republicans. So, I think as soon as elected Democrats kind
of find that assertiveness, that’s when you might start to see a shift
from the president.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, we’ll just be speaking to a doctor who’s recently returned from Gaza, where we’ll discuss what’s happening with UNRWA in Gaza. Thank you so much, Akbar Shahid Ahmed, senior diplomatic correspondent for HuffPost, based in Washington, D.C.
Next, we
speak to an American doctor recently returned from Gaza, pediatrician
Dr. Seema Jilani with the International Rescue Committee.
Back in a minute.
