Josh Marshall has a response to this New York Sun article which contains neoconservative criticisms of statements made by Clark in Marshall’s Sept. 30th interview of him.
Clark interviews have made for some of the more interesting reading I’ve been doing this week.
In Rolling Stone, Issue 933, October 16, 2003 there is one that consists of his responses to questions put to him by the editorial board.
RS really needs to rethink this group effort approach to big stories. The interview is as sloppy as their recent Top 100 Guitarists list. Luther Allison, Leo Kottke, Lonnie Brooks, Lonnie Mack…the list is longer of those who didn’t make the cut but should have than the career span of many who did.
I digress. Despite their questionably aseptic approach to this piece it did elicit, at least in my opinion, one of the most dangerous statements I’ve read from a candidate so far in the nominating process.
How about the question of Israel. Do you think Ariel Sharon needs to be hemmed in?
Israel has a unique problem. It is beset by nations that want to destroy it. Any nation that is under attack has the right to self-defense. And the right to self-defense is the right to strike pre-emptively to disrupt the threat. Therefore I totally support Israel’s effort to go after these terrorists before they can strike Israel. Israel must be willing to participate in negotiations. But if it’s going to ever have its chance at the negotiation table, Israel also has to show [its survival doesn’t depend on making a deal.] So, in the process of building the fence [separating the occupied territories from the rest of the country] is very important. It says to the Arab world, the clock is ticking, we’re not prepared to make unlimited concessions, we have our principles and we will fight for them.
But that doesn’t mean the U.S. should behave and strike the same way Israel does. Two entirely different things. We can make Israel safer by not doing that. We need to bring a council together like we did for the Balkans: Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran. And instead of telling them we’re going to nuke them, we’ve got to give them an incentive to want to participate in preventing conflict in the Middle East. The process has to be driven by optimism and hope, not fear. We will be there for Israel, and they will survive to be a great nation.
What about the Palestinians?
The Palestinians have always been used by the Arabs as a weapon against Israel….
End of excerpt.
I’ve been reading RS for years. I’ve watched the tacts it’s taken in a struggle to remain competitive in a market that sells sex not artistry to a desensitised, intellectually challenged audience of young people who for the most part can’t point to Iraq on a map or even name the current Democratic candidates running for nomination.
If RS is going to walk a political and international beat they owe it to their readership to give them both sides. The process of building a fence to separate the occupied terrorities is an important part of a ‘necessary’ show of force?
Sharon recently announced the building of 600 new settlements in violation of the road map. What ‘principles’ guided that decision?
Investigate it, RS. Send a reporter to the occupied territories if you can get one past the Israeli army. Give your readers something more to ponder than B. Spears’ navel.
Update: Forgot to mention the 108 page report released Oct. 1 that criticises the Israeli army for using live rounds instead of rubber bullets.
The reason isn’t entirely clear. The military is expected to blame budget problems, the comptroller claims ‘mismanagement’, the practice continues.