The Intercept: For Netanyahu and the Saudis, Opposing Diplomacy With Iran Was Never About Enrichment

“Enrichment is not important,” the ex-Israeli official continued. “What Israel needs to see from Iran is a sweeping attitude change.” The veteran Israeli decision-maker — himself a vocal opponent of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — explained that Israel could not accept the U.S. coming to terms with Iran without demanding that Iran come to terms with Israel. “Israel is not party to the deal, so it won’t be bound by the deal,” he warned. If Iran is not willing to accept Israel’s existence, then Israel will stand in the way of the U.S. reaching a deal with Iran, the Israeli message read. The Iranians in the room listened attentively, but showed no reaction. In a breakout session later that afternoon, they indicated that they could recognize Israel only if Israel joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-weapons country — that is, once Israel gave up its nuclear weapons and opened its nuclear program to international inspectors. [...]

The closed meeting, organized by a prominent U.S. university and held in a small Western European country, revealed dynamics driving the conflict that are rarely discussed in public: The Israeli fear that Iran’s rise in the region would be accepted by the U.S., and that it would regard Tehran as a legitimate player in the new regional order without Tehran accepting Israel’s existence. The most potent instrument for ensuring that Washington wouldn’t come to terms with Iran was the nuclear issue, which before the breakthrough in November 2013, was viewed as a hopelessly intractable conflict. “As long as the deadlock held, Iran would remain at least a permanently sanctioned pariah,” former Israeli official Daniel Levy wrote. For the years when the U.S. pursued Iran’s all-out containment, Israel “enjoyed a degree of unchallenged regional hegemony, freedom of military action, and diplomatic cover that it is understandably reluctant to concede or even recalibrate.” Israel’s position was directly linked to the U.S. upholding Pax Americana in the Middle East; its status was “underwritten by U.S. preeminence in the region,” Levy argued. [...]

From Obama’s perspective, the war in Iraq and the U.S.’s over-commitment in the Middle East had served only to weaken the country and undermine its ability to meet the challenge of prospective peer-competitors. With the Middle East losing strategic significance as a result of a variety of factors — including reduced U.S. dependence on oil — and with the cost of U.S. hegemony drastically increasing, the cost-benefit calculation for the U.S. had decisively shifted. To Obama, the Middle East was unsalvageable, and the more the U.S. got involved, the worse things would get and the more the U.S. would be blamed for the region’s woes. If Libya showed Obama that the region was best avoided, the rise of the Islamic State proved to him that the region could not be fixed. “Contrast that with Southeast Asia, which still has huge problems — enormous poverty, corruption — but is filled with striving, ambitious, energetic people who are every single day scratching and clawing to build businesses and get education and find jobs and build infrastructure,” Obama told The Atlantic. “If we’re not talking to them,” he continued, referring to young people in Asia and elsewhere, “because the only thing we’re doing is figuring out how to destroy or cordon off or control the malicious, nihilistic, violent parts of humanity, then we’re missing the boat.” [...]

While U.S. and Saudi interests were diverging, Riyadh found itself viewing the region in an increasingly similar light as the Israelis. Once clearly taboo, collaboration with Israel was increasingly discussed in the Saudi kingdom. For both countries, Obama’s deal largely resolved the immediate matter of the nuclear question. However, it did so by undermining their mutual core interest in excluding Iran from the regional order. The JCPOA addressed the pretext for Israel and Saudi’s tensions with Iran, but not the roots of their conflict. “By framing the nuclear issue as an ‘existential threat,’ Netanyahu enabled the sidestepping of broader worries that both Arabs and Israelis have about Iran,” Brookings Institute analyst Shibley Telhami wrote in 2015. After all, an existential threat supersedes all other issues; all else became secondary at best. In fact, the Saudis and their allies asked the U.S. not to discuss their top regional concerns with the Iranians in the U.S.’s bilateral meetings with Iran. Israel did the same, securing a promise from the United States and the European Union that “that a total separation will be enforced” between the nuclear file and other issues such as ISIS, the Israeli government minister responsible for the Iran file at the time, Yuval Steinitz, said. Later, both Saudi Arabia and Israel pointed to this division as a weakness of the JCPOA.

read the article 

The Conversation: We frown on voters’ ambivalence about democracy, but they might just save it

We often equate ambivalence with indecision or indifference. But it’s a more complex and more spirited idea than that. Ambivalence reflects our capacity to say both “yes” and “no” about a person or an object at the same time. [...]

Ambivalence is even rational, in that it requires an awareness of mutually exclusive choices and a refusal to choose; just as wanting a bit of both is also rational. [...]

Yet, as Zygmunt Bauman noted, the more we try to eradicate ambivalence by calling it ignorance and “mere opinion”, the more the opposite is likely to occur.

Furthermore, people who have been reduced to decision-takers will be more likely to see radical, revolutionary, even destructive change as the only way to resolve their ambivalence.

Democracy and ambivalence, rather than being antithetical, may be strange bedfellows. At the heart of the democratic idea is a notion of “the people” as both the source and guardians of power. [...]

The trouble is that the 21st-century democratic state has little tolerance of our scepticism about power. Citizens are pressured to turn their trust over to a bureau-technocratic order led by “experts” in order to deal with complex, contemporary problems. The role of voters is transformed into that of passive bystanders, prone to chaos and irrationality, and not to be trusted.

read the article 

Politico: Why the Pope ❤ Putin

he four-day visit — the first of its kind since the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 — is another step in a deepening relationship that began in September 2013, when Francis wrote an open letter to Putin, who was chairing the G20, to express his opposition to a U.S. military intervention in Syria.

In that letter, “the Pope asked Putin to pray for him, and it seems this line touched Putin,” said Andrea Riccardi, the founder of the Rome-based Sant’Egidio community, a humanitarian organization that sometimes serves as an unofficial arm of Vatican diplomacy.

The request — unusual for a diplomatic letter — was a recognition of the Christian identity Putin has assiduously cultivated. Putin no doubt also appreciated the Pope’s message given that the Kremlin was one of the more vocal critics of U.S. military action in Syria. [...]

For Putin, a visible relationship with the Vatican is an opportunity to highlight Russia’s effort to portray itself as a bulwark of morality and traditional values in contrast to an increasingly secularized Europe.

Like hosting the Winter Olympics in 2014 or football’s World Cup next year, the friendly ties with the Vatican are a way of showing the Kremlin is not isolated, even as it remains under sanctions. An open line to the Vatican also helps the Kremlin maintain its relationship with Italy, still one of Russia’s biggest friends in the European Union. [...]

“Like Trump, Francis faces criticism from his base over his Russia policy,” wrote John L. Allen, author of several books on the Vatican and Catholic affairs. “Many Catholics charge him and the Vatican with excessive ‘ecumenical correctness,’ insisting that he should be more outspoken on Ukraine.”

read the article 

Politico: Merkel identifies Libya as key to migration crisis

Dodging a question on whether she supported a proposal by French President Emmanuel Macron to set up “hotspots” to handle asylum requests from start to finish in Libya, Merkel said efforts to improve the situation “should not fail over money,” promising the organizations up to €50 million this year for new operations on the ground in Libya. [...]

During the first 10 days of August, the number of migrants making the crossing to Italy fell by 76 percent compared to the same period last year; last month, the number of arrivals had already halved compared to 2016. Interior Minister Marco Minniti told POLITICO on Thursday this was a direct result of Italy’s attempts to boost the Libyan navy and coast guard’s ability to deal with vessels carrying migrants. [...]

Ambrosi acknowledged that the Italian measures could have had an impact but stressed that other factors such as “a significant reduction” of the number of people entering Libya from sub-Saharan Africa, as well as well as the slow stabilization of the political situation in parts of Libya, were equally decisive.

What’s more, most migrants picked up by Libyan ships “are brought back to detention centers where conditions are not acceptable,” he added. “So you have taken them out of a nasty situation at sea, but you are putting them in an equally nasty or at times worse situation on land.”

read the article 

VICE: Arresting Photos of Brazilian Beauty Pageants and Same-Sex Couples from the 1980s

In April 2014, Luisa Dörr was on assignment to photograph the Young Miss Brazil contest. There, she noticed Maysa Martins, an 11-year-old in the crowd. Maysa told Dörr that she hoped, one day, to be Miss Brazil. But her aspiration came with a catch. The competition was divided into two categories: one for white contestants, and another for people of color. Though around 50 percent of Brazilians identify as "black" or "mixed race," racism remains prevalent throughout the country. A few months after Young Miss Brazil, Maysa's mother contacted Dörr, asking if she'd shoot her daughter's personal modeling portfolio. Dörr agreed to do it for free. Six months later, Maysa was crowned Young Miss São Paulo Black Beauty, winning a separate and smaller local pageant with the same racial divisions as Young Miss Brazil. Unfortunately, the nationwide tournament's creator disappeared, and it ceased to exist. But in 2017, Maysa was invited onto a Brazilian television program to walk the runaway in front of a live jury. She received a modeling contract and the chance to tell her story.

When Sage Sohier began photographing gay and lesbian couples in the mid 1980s, she had a personal connection to the topic: Her dad, a World War II veteran and a lawyer, had divorced her mother but never remarried, and soon young men—usually introduced as "colleagues from work"—replaced the young women who occasionally accompanied him. Sohier figured out that her dad was gay in the mid 1970s. From middle age on, he had a number of live-in boyfriends, but he never "came out"—even to his family. Originally published in 2014, At Home with Themselves: Same-Sex Couples in 1980s America, Sohier's intimate, portraits of committed same-sex couples during the AIDS epidemic, does not conform to the stereotypes of gay promiscuity prevalent in that era. Sohier says that it was her "ambition to make pictures that challenged and moved." Here, for the first time, are some photographs that were not included in her book.

read the article and see the photos

Quartz: Octopus research shows that consciousness isn’t what makes humans special

Octopuses can squirt water at an annoyingly bright bulb until it short-circuits. They can tell humans apart (even those who are wearing the same uniform). And, according to Peter Godfrey-Smith, a philosophy professor at University of Sydney and City University of New York, they are the closest creature to an alien here on earth.

That’s because octopuses are the most complex animal with the most distant common ancestor to humans. There’s some uncertainty about which precise ancestor was most recently shared by octopuses and humans, but, Godfrey-Smith says, “It was probably an animal about the size of a leech or flatworm with neurons numbering perhaps in the thousands, but not more than that.” [...]

There’s no clear way of evaluating consciousness in other animals (or in other humans, for that matter—it’s quite possible that you’re the only conscious being alive and everyone you know is merely displaying signs of consciousness rather than truly experiencing it). But we can certainly make educated guesses. Broadly speaking, consciousness is often defined as there being an experience of what it’s like to be said creature. (This notion is explored in depth in philosopher Thomas Nagel’s essay, “What is it like to be a bat?”) [...]

It’s important to figure out whether consciousness is “an easily produced product of the universe” or “an insanely strange fluke, a completely weird anomalous event,” says Godfrey-Smith. Based on the current evidence, it seems that consciousness is not particularly unusual at all, but a fairly routine development in nature. “I suspect animal evolution, if were replayed again, it would produce subjectivity of a somewhat similar kind,” he adds. “You can see why it makes biological sense.”

read the article

The New York Times: Pakistan’s New Patriarchs

Sir’s opinion matters because he is a man. If you are a woman, you’d better be sure your hair is shiny and you can safely lead a bunch of wise men into a commercial break. None of those men ever says, Look, I don’t know, why don’t you tell us what you think?

These shows don’t reflect society. As a middle-aged graying man myself, I have never come across young women who’ll sit and listen with such deference. I once taught a class full of them, and always went in with a trembling heart. When confronted with their raw curiosity and assertive arguments, I would bristle. And then I realized I wasn’t that different from those TV pundits. I, too, am part of Pakistan’s new, well-read, well-heeled, politically correct patriarchy. We respect women, but they have to earn that by deferring to us.

This new patriarchy has been on the march in its full glory recently. Three Pakistani women have made headlines, and been told by a nation of men what was wrong with them and what could happen to them if they didn’t mend their ways. [...]

The new patriarchy has attended a gender studies course; it knows not to grab a woman in a dark corner. It is happy to bring the kids to school and do the dishes. It is proud of not being a patriarchy. This patriarchy prefers to destroy women on prime-time TV. It wants to know, in all seriousness, why women accuse some of its honorable men. Where is the proof?

read the article 

The Atlantic: Why Isn't Seoul More Worried About North Korea?

“North Korean provocation is always a concern, but it is kind of like background noise,” says Abraham Kim, former vice president of the Korea Economic Institute of America in Washington, D.C., and current director of the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center at the University of Montana. “Sometimes it gets very loud, but it’s always been there. People are kind of numb to it.”

That’s particularly the case among younger residents of Seoul. For them, the prospect of conflict feels hypothetical, says Walter Paik, chair of the Department of Military Force at Korea Tourism University in Incheon. “They don’t know the reality of the North Korean leaders.” [...]

It’s hard to overstate the importance of Seoul to South Korea. More than half of South Korea’s 50 million residents live in the Seoul metropolitan area—more than 10 million in the city itself—and approximately 70 percent of the country’s economy is tied to the city. It’s also hard to overstate its vulnerability. Decades before North Korea became a nuclear threat to the rest of the world, the city lay in the crosshairs of North Korean conventional artillery, minutes away from its jets. [...]

But Bong says rather than stockpiling ramen, the young generation in Seoul is “aware of the possibility of the government potentially manipulating the security issues in order to restrain civic liberty, which happened during the era of (South Korean) military dictatorship.”

read the article 

Vox: China's North Korea problem is worse than ours

In short, the answer is yes. China's position on North Korea has been shifting, but that's been happening over the past couple of years; it's not just over the past six months. So we may have seen some acceleration of that, but it's a continuation of what we've been seeing for the past couple of years, where North Korea has increasingly become a strategic liability for China and debates within Beijing around the North Korea issue are hotly debated.

So there's been an ongoing evolution of policy within Beijing and they've been willing to put more pressure on North Korea. I think the degree to which the Trump administration has signaled that it's willing to exacerbate China's concerns in the absence of a solution has certainly gotten their attention. [...]

But at the same time, it's important to note that part of what North Korea has been doing over the past couple of years is trying to improve their capabilities. We often use the word "provocation" to describe North Korea's missile tests, and in a sense they are, but the regime is legitimately trying to improve its missile capabilities and not necessarily focused on defying China or the US or the international community. [...]

The problem is that they don't see a viable path to get there that doesn't create unacceptable risks of instability. So China may want North Korea not to have nuclear weapons, but at the same time there are a whole bunch of negative repercussions for China if it applies too much pressure. For instance, North Korea could turn on China and China could become a direct enemy of North Korea, so instead of North Korea threatening to shoot missiles at Guam it could be threatening to test them in a way that would endanger China.

There are also immediate concerns about Chinese pressure in conjunction with the international community precipitating a crisis of regime collapse in North Korea — and with it a massive flood of refugees crossing the border, loose nuclear materials, and the economic costs of instability on the peninsula. And then there are concerns about the ways in which a post-Kim, unified democratic Korea could become a strategic problem for China.

read the article