Articles
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May 2004, pages 55, 69
New York City and Tri-State News
Retired CIA Agent Raymond Close Discusses “Uses and Misuses of Intelligence”
By Jane Adas
 |
 |
|
Raymond Close (staff photo J. Adas).
|
|
RAYMOND H. CLOSE spoke on “The Uses and Misuses of Intelligence” in a Feb. 15 talk sponsored by the Princeton Middle East Society. A former CIA operative who spent his career in the Middle East, Close said most CIA activities are secret interventions in the internal affairs of other countries.
Intelligence has changed since Close’s retirement, he said, due to the end of the bipolar world and the effect of terrorism. The U.S. now spends more on intelligence than the next 16 nations combined, he noted, and, because “we live in an America with attitude,” all the other intelligence agencies in the world are concerned with what the U.S. will do next with its power.
Close described the impact of terrorism as profound, because the enemy has no country, no clear sponsors, and doesn’t wear a uniform. Yet, he said, terrorism is not new, and is not practiced by only one side. For instance, he told the audience, when young Lt. Ariel Sharon led Unit 101’s midnight raid into the Palestinian village of Kibya on Oct. 14, 1953, killing 68, including women and children, his Israeli soldiers were dressed in civilian clothes in order to provide government deniability for officially-sponsored state terrorism.
As an example of U.S. covert action gone astray, Close cited the CIA’s crude manipulation of the Lebanese election process in 1957, which led to U.S. military intervention the following year. To defend its blunder, he said, the U.S. at the time deliberately provided false information to the U.N.—much as Secretary of State Colin Powell did on March 5, 2003. Close described the latter as a violation of principle that allowed a war of choice to be initiated based on intelligence known to be untrue.
According to Close, the U.S. began its invasion of Iraq with four unannounced, specific objectives: not to allow any militant Islamist group to gain control of Iraq’s central government; to obtain long-term leases for American military bases; to establish a new Iraqi government that will cooperate with the United States in keeping oil prices low; and one which will become a U.S. partner in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
However, Close asserted, if and when power is transferred to a new government in Iraq, its legitimacy will depend on its perceived independence from the U.S., it will probably be Islamist, and it will defy U.S. objectives. In response, he predicted, the U.S. will interfere in the political process by whatever means to install a cooperative government, it will be messy, and it will fail.
Close described Washington’s stated goal of bringing democracy through free and open elections as cynical—not because Arabs and Muslims are incompatible with democracy, he explained, but because the U.S. will use covert action and dirty tricks to “fix the problem.”
Michael Tarazi on Requirements for a Palestinian State
Michael Tarazi, a Palestinian-American lawyer who is a legal adviser to the Negotiations Affairs Department of the Palestine Liberation Organization, spoke about peace negotiations from a Palestinian perspective in a talk sponsored by Alwan for the Arts and the ADC-New York chapter. He had just arrived in New York from The Hague, where he was part of the Palestinian delegation to the International Court of Justice hearings on the legality of Israel’s wall in the occupied Palestinian territories.What Palestinians are looking for, Tarazi said, is economic viability, true freedom, and choice, especially in regard to refugees. In recognizing Israel’s existence, he pointed out, Palestinians already have generously given up 78 percent of their homeland—but it is as though Israel is saying, “Thanks, now let’s negotiate on the remaining 22 percent.”
The Palestinians will not have economic viability, Tarazi argued, if Israel retains control over their movement and access to water. Under the Camp David agreement, he pointed out, the West Bank was to be separated by Israeli corridors into three separate areas, with Gaza constituting a fourth. To go to Bethlehem from Nablus, Palestinians would have to cross two Israeli checkpoints. They would be unable to move goods within their own country without coming under Israeli control. Israel’s offer to give the Palestinians 95 percent of the West Bank is not what it seems, Tarazi cautioned: in calculating the area of the West Bank, Israel excludes the area of greater Jerusalem and the Latrun Valley, but adds the surface area of the Dead Sea. The 5 percent Israel wants to keep is the Ariel block, he explained, where 25 percent of Jewish settlers—excluding those in greater Jerusalem—live. Israel provided financial incentives to encourage settlement of that particular area, because it is a high recharge area with easy access to very pure water, over which Israel wants to retain control.
A Palestinian state cannot be truly free if it does not have control over its borders or airspace, Tarazi stated. Camp David offered neither—but, he added, not even Yossi Beilin supports Palestinian border control. Under the Geneva Accord, the Jordan Valley would be Palestinian, but leased to Israel for 99 years. Israeli control of airspace, Tarazi pointed out, affects not only airplanes, but also mobile phones and satellite TV. Nor, he noted, would Palestinians be able to conduct independent diplomacy.
No current peace plan offers Palestinian refugees the right of return, without which, Tarazi said, there will be no peace. Although his family is from near Tel Aviv, he said, because Israel has assumed the right to discriminate against Christians and Muslims, the only way he could return is if he converted to Judaism. Tarazi suggested the way to balance Palestinians’ right of return with Israel’s demographic concerns is to offer choices: stay where you are and receive compensation and citizenship; go to a third country and receive the same; return to the future Palestinian state, which Tarazi said is definitely not a real return; or exercise their right to return to their homes in present-day Israel.
Tarazi likewise offered several choices for Israeli settlers: they could be given incentives to move back to Israel over a three-to-five-year period; they could remain Israeli citizens subject to Palestinian law, like green card holders in the U.S.; or they could become Palestinian citizens, since Palestinian nationality does not discriminate according to religion. As for Jerusalem, Palestinians have suggested putting a ring road around the whole city. No one would need a passport to enter, but would need one to exit into either Israel or Palestine. Instead, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak insisted that “what is Jewish will be Israel and what is Arab will be Palestinian.” But “what is Jewish,” Tarazi said, includes huge Jewish “neighborhoods” built on Palestinian land. Barak even boasted that, under Camp David, Israel would have the biggest, most Jewish Jerusalem in history.
Given all these creative solutions, Tarazi said, there is still no peace, because for Israel the issue is not about equality and international law, but about demography. Israel wants as much land as possible, but without Palestinians. The evidence, he said, is in the Oslo maps (available at <www.nad-plo.org>) where there is no Green Line. Area C of the West Bank is joined with Israel, leaving small cantonments of Palestinian-controlled areas where 85 percent of Palestinians live. Israel could then declare the occupation over.
The wall is also designed to take the land without the people, Tarazi maintained. On Oct. 2, 2003, he said, Israel issued a military order declaring the land between the Green Line and the wall a closed zone—which no one can enter without a permit. In order to reside in their own homes, Palestinians living in the area must apply for permits from a foreign government. There have been instances, Tarazi said, where Israel has given permits to the wife and children, but denied one to the head of the family.
Under Israeli military law, there is one exception, of course: Israelis or people entitled to the Law of Return—that is, any Jew—do not need permits to be in the closed zone.
The International Court of Justice, Tarazi concluded, is now deliberating on giving an advisory opinion about the legality of the wall, and Palestinians hope that the hearing at The Hague will lead to the re-establishment of a legal framework under international law for dealing with the situation.
Jane Adas is a free-lance writer based in the New York metropolitan area.
