or Powell's or me• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
December 29, 2008
Questions Answered
In a comment to a below post, Seth asks these questions:
Ok Jon, so what's the explanation? Why is the UN Sec-Gen soft on Israel?Does the Israel lobby of the US dominate the UN too? Is he too scared of the US reaction?
Seriously, he has nothing to lose by condemning Israeli aggression in the strongest terms he desires. So why is he holding back?
Here are some answers:
This is from a New York Times story from November 26, 1996. (Note that, according to Nexis, the Times didn't even bother to run a story on November 19, when the actual veto was cast.)
The Clinton Administration, which vows to prevent [Boutros] Boutros-Ghali from winning a second term [as Secretary-General], vetoed his candidacy in the Security Council last Tuesday and asked Africans to come up with other names, which they were expected to do by this week. If they do not, American diplomats say, Africa may lose the Secretary General's position to another continent.The United States has refused to name its own candidate, knowing that in the current mood here, that person would be rejected. American diplomats believe that Africans are less united behind their candidate than divided among themselves over an alternate. A number of Africans are known to be waiting in the wings for a call.
Until Africa or another region makes a move, the 14 other Security Council members, all of whom voted against the United States and for Mr. Boutros-Ghali last week, are not in a position to change their preferences, diplomats say.
Here's more detail in a quote from Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies:
Albright and I and a handful of others (Michael Sheehan, Jamie Rubin) had entered into a pact together in 1996 to oust Boutros-Ghali as Secretary-General of the United Nations, a secret plan we had called Operation Oriental Express, reflecting our hope that many nations would join us in doing in the UN head.In the end, the US had to do it alone (with its UN veto) and Sheehan and I had to prevent the president from giving in to pressure from world leaders and extending Boutros-Ghali's tenure, often by our racing to the Oval Office when we were alerted that a head of state was telephoning the president.
In the end Clinton was impressed that we had managed not only to oust Boutros-Ghali but to have Kofi Annan selected to replace him.
And here's a great deal of detail, in an extremely informative column by Phyllis Bennis:
By the middle of 1996, as President Clinton's second election campaign was in full partisan swing, the administration known for its domestic priorities suddenly turned on the United Nations. Its target, on the 38th floor, was UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the pro-Western Egyptian whom even the staunchly reactionary Washington Times admitted "has done nearly all the US wanted - even if he squawked about it". Madeleine Albright, then ambassador to the UN, announced that she intended to veto Boutros-Ghali's expected second term in office. And Israel would play a key role.The campaign wasn't really about Boutros-Ghali, of course. Washington did not suddenly begin condemning the UN and halting UN dues payments in 1996 because they didn't like Boutros-Ghali. (It was during the Reagan administration, back in 1985, that Washington first refused to pay up.) Boutros-Ghali was merely a convenient scapegoat for an anti-UN crusade...
The main parameters of the administration’s campaign were set quietly by State Department officials in early 1996...The State Department team quietly offered Boutros-Ghali a "deal", a one-year extension of a single term; he turned it down, but counter-offered that he would accept a two-and-a-half year "half term". Washington refused, and the battle was joined.
Washington's support for Israel further shored up US determination to get rid of the secretary-general. Israel's August 1996 air assault in south Lebanon had targeted, among other things, a UN peacekeeping center at Qana, a small Lebanese village. Hundreds of refugees had taken shelter there from the bombardment. The Israeli attack killed more than 100 Lebanese civilians, and wounded several Fijian peacekeepers serving with the UN peacekeeping contingent in south Lebanon. The UN's report, issued some months later, documented the presence of an Israeli drone surveillance plane in the immediate area during the air strikes, rebutting Israel's claim that the Qana attack was an unfortunate accident because they never knew about the civilians sheltering in Qana. US diplomats worked hard to prevent the information from being released, but eventually Boutros-Ghali allowed the report to be made public. It was carefully edited, but unmistakably damning to Israeli claims. US officials were furious, and their anger at the secretary-general consolidated Albright's already intense anti-Boutros-Ghali campaign.
Albright had also correctly recognized that no one ever lost points inside the Washington beltway by being too antagonistic towards the UN As ambassador to the institution Washington loved to hate she was best positioned to blame Boutros-Ghali for everything in the UN that Washington hated. She could orchestrate his downfall, claim credit for it, and reap her just reward –- appointment by a victorious Bill Clinton as secretary of state in his second administration. Her campaign was successful: Boutros-Ghali was forced out, Albright moved up the State Department ladder, and Kofi Annan was anointed UN secretary-general with Washington's blessing.
P.S.: This is not just a blug post. It is also a sophisticated psychological experiment.
—Jonathan Schwarz
Posted at December 29, 2008 11:18 PMOK, it looks like either a butterfly or 2 asparigus back to back.
WE pay the UN a great deal of money to look the other way, and they earn every cent.
Seth? Hello?
Posted by: Coldtype at December 30, 2008 02:57 AMAbout 60 years ago, when it started to become clear that Germany would lose the war, a few people started to suggest that Jerusalem be made an international city, and that the United Nations, once established, should run it.
The idea, I think, was that the entire world had an interest in peace in the region, and only an international body could avoid the bloody fighting over national and religious issues.
Everyone had a good laugh over that one, but when they sobered up the next day, the headache was terrible.
Posted by: Dave at December 30, 2008 08:19 AMDo you think the U.S. could engineer something like this today? My impression is that U.S. influence has diminished quite a bit under Bush.
Posted by: SteveB at December 30, 2008 10:33 AMwow thx for the clarification i will never doubt the power of the zionist lobby again, striking fear in the hearts of koreans everywhere.
Only the great Islamic Republic of Iran stands fast against Zionism!
There, did I fulfill your test? This is like the Soviet system where political opinions are a sign of mental disease.
Posted by: Seth at December 30, 2008 10:49 AMI see the hypothesis of my psychological experiment has been proven correct.
Posted by: Jonathan Schwarz at December 30, 2008 11:05 AM"wow thx for the clarification i will never doubt the power of the zionist lobby again, striking fear in the hearts of koreans everywhere.
"Only the great Islamic Republic of Iran stands fast against Zionism!"
Such thin skins, have the hasbara brigades.
Posted by: Navid at December 30, 2008 11:32 AMOk so what was your hypothesis? That I am a sarcastic asshole? That I will respond to simplistic juxtapositions posing as analysis?
Or was it even more subtle and profound...that people who are not kneejerk supporters of Hamas may have consistency in their positions?
Where is the psychology in any of this, Commisar Schwarz?
Posted by: Seth at December 30, 2008 11:56 AMOk so what was your hypothesis?
Interestingly, one part of the hypothesis was that you wouldn't be able to perceive what the hypothesis was.
Posted by: Jonathan Schwarz at December 30, 2008 12:11 PMkneejerk supporters of Hamas
That's the only reason I read this blog, for the uncritical support of Hamas.
Posted by: laym at December 30, 2008 12:28 PMOh great...a test that no one can figure out...but which you always fail...sounds perfect for the Lubyanka, Comrade!
Posted by: Seth at December 30, 2008 01:15 PMThat's the only reason I read this blog, for the uncritical support of Hamas.
That, and the Stalinism.
Posted by: SteveB at December 30, 2008 01:37 PMOh great...a test that no one can figure out
Actually, you are just one person. I suspect people with other types of personalities would find it pretty easy to understand.
Posted by: Jonathan Schwarz at December 30, 2008 02:21 PMLet's all cut Seth some slack. It's obvious that he's just recently discovered that the world is a shitty place where the powerful act as they please, without reference to law or morality. I remember when I was 16 and first came upon this idea, and I couldn't shut up about it either.
Posted by: SteveB at December 30, 2008 02:56 PMSeth, I think the test was something like this--
A) You ask a question about why the UN head would feel pressure to be soft on Israel.
B) Jon gives an entirely reasonable explanation with supporting evidence about why a UN head might feel pressure to be soft on Israel. It seems a previous head might have lost his job in part because he was, in the view of the US government, overly harsh on Israel.
C) How do you respond? Well, it was with sarcasm about the power of the mighty Israel lobby and its ability to strike fear into the hearts of Koreans. Well, yeah, if they want to be the head of the UN and want US support.
Now if you had replied "Oh, that's how it could work" or even "Well, here's an argument about why it might not be the way you say" and then gave a reasonable counterargument, I'm gonna guess the hypothesis would have been falsified.
Posted by: Donald Johnson at December 30, 2008 02:58 PMSecretary-General Ban Ki-moon is know to be a good friend of the US and Israel.
Posted by: abb1 at December 30, 2008 03:09 PMNow if Seth had capitalized certain words for emphasis, a la Mike Meyer everything would be peachy keen.
Posted by: sloweducation at December 30, 2008 03:17 PMand my analysis, for what its worth, which is poo poo, is that seth suffers from the liberal case of a RWA personality type...
Posted by: sloweducation at December 30, 2008 03:19 PMJon: This thread is degenerating into a sustained criticism of one person...
Posted by: Save the Oocytes at December 30, 2008 05:05 PMSeems more a question of polemical or rhetorical style than psychology, but what do I know?
If I can provide anyone with two minutes satisfaction at the whipping post I am happy that I have been of service today.
Posted by: Seth at December 30, 2008 05:07 PMThanks, seth. Will you be available tomorrow if we need you?
Posted by: Donald Johnson at December 30, 2008 06:21 PMSeems more a question of polemical or rhetorical style than psychology
Well, I suppose you can call "knowing nothing about a subject, refusing to learn even when others take the time to help you, yet still having extremely strong opinions about it" a rhetorical style.
Posted by: Jonathan Schwarz at December 30, 2008 06:27 PMJon: So you're saying Seth is actually the online persona of Tom Friedman?
Posted by: almostinfamous at December 30, 2008 09:47 PM"Jon: So you're saying Seth is actually the online persona of Tom Friedman?"
Okay, I can't speak for Jon and didn't think I'd be defending seth, but that really is getting unfair. We're one step away from Godwin's law. Stop the madness now.
Posted by: Donald Johnson at December 30, 2008 10:52 PMNo-moderation is no virtue when faced by heresy. Some people never learn. That's what reeducation camps are for!
Posted by: Seth at December 30, 2008 11:27 PMHypothesis? Oh S**T! Do I have to second-guess everything I've just read...?
Great read, though! I do feel as though I've just read something insightful. Must. See. More.
No-moderation is no virtue when faced by heresy. Some people never learn. That's what reeducation camps are for!
Thanks for your courage in the face of monstrous repression, Mr. Solzhenitsyn.
Posted by: Jonathan Schwarz at December 31, 2008 12:15 PMI know...it's amazing what we martyrs for the truth go through...me, Mumia, Whittaker Chambers...the list goes on and on.
As former teammates Jon I ask you, Can we move on from this? I resolve in 2009 not to be overly sarcastic on ATR and to limit my comments to the points at hand.
Posted by: Seth at December 31, 2008 04:04 PMHey Don, I was just making a joke. i didn't know friedman was evil, i thought he was just another tool of the establishment who fills the NYT columns with a lot of hot air.
however, the last comment by seth is encouraging. hooray for truce and a happy new year to ATR readers and the writers:)
Posted by: almostinfamous at December 31, 2008 10:00 PM*Hugz*
Posted by: Save the Oocytes at January 2, 2009 06:00 AM
