He’s in Afghanistan today and will go on to Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and England on what his campaign hopes will be a 21st century reprise of the Beatles’ Magical Mystery Tour with its theme of “All You Need Is Love” but at the same time has the potential to be a gauntlet of political minefields and security nightmares.
Despite the advance secrecy, John McCain yesterday blurted out that Obama would be going “either today or tomorrow” and that “Sen. Obama is going to arrive in Baghdad in a much, much safer and secure environment than the one that he would’ve encountered before we started the surge.” Maybe so, but someone might remind McCain of the old World War II slogan, “Loose Lips Sink Ships.”
Physical security aside, Obama may get a warm reception in Baghdad if what Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has told the German magazine Der Spiegel about troop withdrawal is any indication.
For some strange reason, I remember the scene with clarity. I was in the kitchen, early on a Friday afternoon about a month ago, cooking Shabbat dinner. Micha, our youngest, now 15, was hanging out in the living room. The radio was on in the background, and on the hour, the news came on. It was over in minutes, and then the music returned.
I hadn’t really paid attention to the news, but Micha apparently had. “Do you think we’re ever going to get Gilad Shalit back?” he asked. Without even looking at him, I said, without even thinking, “Of course we are. Definitely.”
“You don’t know that,” a different voice piped in. Now, I looked up. Avi, his older brother, was unexpectedly home. “We may get him back, and we may not. How can you possibly say that we definitely will?” But the conversation was over. Micha, overjoyed to see Avi, had quickly followed his brother upstairs, and I was left alone in the kitchen. So I never got to answer Avi.
But had he pressed, and had Micha not been around, I would have said to him, “Why did I say that? Because when he hears the news each and every day, the only thing that your brother thinks about is the fact that you’re about to get drafted. And he’s beyond worried he’s panicked. Because he worships the ground you walk on. And he needs to believe, to know. He needs to believe that you’re going to be OK. And he wants to know that though he lives in a country that asks its kids to do everything, to commit everything, that country also knows that it owes them everything in return. And getting them home – no matter what has happened to them – is part of that.”
A regular feature of news and opinion pieces from the Israeli and Palestinian press.
1.) The Israeli press is dominated by coverage of today’s prisoner swap between Israel and Hezbollah. By an overwhelming vote, the Israeli Cabinet recently agreed to hand over several prisoners – including the infamous militant Samir Kuntar – in exchange for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers. Opinion columns in the leading English-language dailies are almost equally split on the wisdom of this decision – from a “bring them back at any price” argument to those who would appeal for more cool-headed decision-making.
Columnist Uri Orbach, writing in Ynet News, argues that prisoners released today will be the killers of tomorrow. “The next people to die will be killed by the senior terrorist who will be freed in the Gilad Shalit swap; or alternately, the abduction of the next soldier will be masterminded by the terrorist freed in the upcoming deal.” But Uri Misgiv, another columnist for Ynet News, disagrees. In an op-ed, he suggests that securing the release of the former IDF soldiers is important for national unity, in order that Israel might be able to finally “put away the Lebanon failure” of the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war.
As one Israeli columnist has noted, whether you agree or disagree with the deal, there is no denying that it is a major win for Hezbollah.
In the eyes of the Arab world, Hizbullah pulled off a major victory: It survived a war against Israel, kept a million Israelis in bomb shelters for a month and got its POWs back, including an important symbol, Samir Kuntar. Israel sent the IDF into Lebanon to retrieve its two kidnapped soldiers and got them back two years after the army withdrew, and through negotiations, not force. In the eyes of the Hizbullah leadership and much of the Arab world, the deal is a victory. And they will make it look like one just in case anyone over there has any doubts. As far as Hizbullah is concerned, the Second Lebanon War account is closed. It is now looking to close the Imad Mughniyeh account.
That it got Israel to agree to release Palestinian prisoners further raises its stock in the Arab world. Through this it strengthened Hamas and weakened the Palestinian Authority, further propagating the rise of extremists over moderates in the Middle East. Housing and Construction Minister Ze’ev Boim, voting against the deal, said, “Hamas is watching and taking this swap into account, and the price we will have to pay for Gilad Schalit will be higher. We come out weaker; we strengthen [Hizbullah leader Hassan] Nasrallah, whose image in the Middle East will be boosted. His way will be perceived as the right way.”
Israeli media is also fixated on the news that Samir Kuntar will receive an “official state welcoming” when he arrives at the Beirut airport. This event will be followed by a massive rally to be held in the suburbs of the capitol. As several stunned journalists have pointed out, giving Kuntar a hero’s welcome is beyond the pale. Read the rest of this entry »
Being Israel and protecting the values on which it was founded is one helluva tough job, but a funny thing happened on the way to the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state: It has subsumed some of those values for political convenience and is kissing George Bush’s ass when it comes to torture.
This has great pertinence because Israel apparently is one of the relatively few countries that would roll out the welcome mat for administration officials who approved of and participated in the use of torture at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere in the Rumsfeld Gulag in violation of international law. As a consequence, they might risk arrest as war criminals in, say, France, Germany or Italy.
Said Lawrence Wilkerson, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff of those officials — all practicing attorneys — in a pointed public statement:
“Haynes, Feith Yoo, Bybee, Gonzalez and — at the apex — Addington, should never travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel. They broke the law; they violated their professional ethical code. In the future, some government may build the case necessary to prosecute them in a foreign court, or in an international court.”
It should be noted that Wilkerson can be outspoken to the point of intemperance, and he is no friend of the conservatives who run Israel.
It is no surprise that he would mention Saudia Arabia, a safe country for sure for those administration lawyers given its own religious and cultural embrace of torture. But Israel? A nation that emerged phoenix-like from the ashes of the Holocaust and the Nazi’s embrace of the very torture techniques that the CIA and other U.S. operatives have used?
How terribly sad.
Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House and here for an index and links to previous torture-related posts.
Photo illustration for Vanity Fair by Chris Mueller
I have, on occasion, heard complaints about the state of democracy in America. Some may, in fact, be thinking about moving to a better democracy… and we hold up a few examples of our efforts to spread democracy (with a small “d” please) around the globe. Let’s see if you can fill the bill for the following. In order to be a full citizen, you can:
1. Have lived in the country prior to a certain year.
2. Prove that you were born in the country (so you can’t emigrate to there and eventually qualify)
3. Be willing to prove that you are a member of the only state sanctioned religion of that country, and get a certificate showing that you are a member in good standing
(Man… you know how those foreigners are?)
Other than that, no matter how long you live there, the best you can do is to be a “permanent resident” and pay taxes, and have a job. You can vote in local elections, but not in the elections for the national government (since you are not part of the dominant religion) nor hold national office of any sort, and if you leave the borders for too long you start all over again or may not be allowed back in.
The war of words between Iran, Israel and the United States has now reportedly now inched beyond words with news that Tehran sent its foes a pointed show-of-force message by test-firing 9 missiles — which reports say are long-range enough to reach Israel or U.S. bases.
It throws a new monkey wrench into already-heated negotiations and rhetoric over Iran’s nuclear program - and will likely warm up the rhetoric in the U.S. Presidential campaign which already is marked by intense political jockeying on national security issues.
One day after threatening to strike Tel Aviv and United States interests if attacked, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards were reported on Wednesday to have test-fired nine missiles, including one which Tehran claims has the range to reach Israel.
State-run media, quoted by Western news agencies, said the missiles were long- and medium-range projectiles, among them a new version of the Shahab-3 which Tehran maintains can hit targets 1,250 miles away from its firing position.
The reported tests coincide with increasingly tense negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program, which Iran says is for civilian purposes but which many Western governments suspect is aimed at building nuclear weapons. At the same time, United States and British warships have been conducting naval maneuvers in the Persian Gulf — apparently within range of the launching site of the missiles tested on Wednesday. Israel insisted it did not want war with Iran.
The financial consequences to the world’s increasingly frail economy was felt immediately — in the impact on oil prices — and the prices didn’t go down:
We’ll return to domestic policy analysis later today, but let’s take a look at the immediate response from the two campaigns regarding Iran’s test firing of long range missiles last night. First up, the McCain response.
“Iran’s most recent missile tests demonstrate again the dangers it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel. Ballistic missile testing coupled with Iran’s continued refusal to cease its nuclear activities should unite the international community in efforts to counter Iran’s dangerous ambitions.
Iran’s missile tests also demonstrate the need for effective missile defense now and in the future, and this includes missile defense in Europe as is planned with the Czech Republic and Poland. Working with our European and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy.”
And now the Obama response:
“There’s no doubt we’re seeing rising tensions in the area, and it’s part of the reason why it’s so important for us to have a coherent policy with respect to Iran. It has to combine much tougher threats of economic sanctions with direct diplomacy, opening up channels of communication so that we avoid provocation but we give strong incentives for the Iranians to change their behavior. We’ve got to have the kind of aggressive diplomacy that unfortunately has been absent over the last several years.”
Obama comes straight out of the gate with a call for more “agressive diplomacy” which should remind us that we are currently seeing some very hopeful signs of progress with North Korea after international pressure and diplomacy were brought to bear over a long period of time. Senator McCain’s response carries the usual derogatory “concessions” comments, implying that diplomacy and negotiations are the weak sister approach. He also immediately swings to the missile defense system, implying a military solution to the problem. What he fails to mention is that Russia has already threatened to blow up any missile defense installation placed with the Czechs. When you combine that sort of reckless saber rattling, consequences be damned, with McCain’s rather easy tendency to make jokes about killing Iranians, or just bombing them, and you have enough to greatly concern me when it comes to matters of foreign policy.
On a related note, here is a separate question for you to consider. Why is it that when Israel conducts war games, flying jets in a clear path to demonstrate their readiness to conduct a first strike attack on Iran, they are “defending their rights,” but if Iran conducts such games and tests of military hardware, they are “threatening the region” and everyone is screaming at them to stop? Where is the criticism of Israel for ratcheting up the tension levels in the region?
As I noted yesterday, the Iranians have announced that their policy on uranium enrichment remains unchanged despite attempts by several nations to persuade them to cease and desist.
Barring a complete capitulation by the Iranians, which no one really believes is on the cards, is it possible that Bush and Cheney will leave office without opening a third military front in Iran? Is there really any doubt that Bush fully expects the diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to comply with the demands of the US and Israel to fail? And that when the failure inevitably occurs, he is highly or at least quite likely to take or enable military action?
Bear in mind that I’m just a simple citizeness trying to piece together the signs in the media so I at least know what direction we’re rolling in. I don’t have any specialist knowledge in international law or military defense. I’m not about to get into a fight with anyone about which country is most in the wrong here.
But I do prefer to have some idea where those who have been drunk-driving the car for the last several years are taking me now. It’s not as if they have a great record of going in the right direction. At least I want to brace myself for the next teeth-rattling jolt toward the brink.
I mean…Take a look at the road signs we’re hurtling past.
In the first official comments since Iran submitted its response to the EU, spokesman Gholamhossein Elham said that Iran “will not go back on its rights on the nuclear issue”.
“Iran’s stand regarding its peaceful nuclear program has not changed. Iran insists on negotiations while respecting its rights and avoiding any loss of international rights,” BBC News)
I guess that means ‘no.’
The article suggests that there is, or at least may be, division of opinion among Iranian officials, but that President Ahmadinejad.has reaffirmed his commitment to the program. The rejection seems to have come from an official close to him.
Along with the offer, Iran rejected a substantial package of sweeteners:
July 4th, 2008 by BRIJ KHINDARIA, International Columnist
An air strike by Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities will shatter both Washington’s credibility in world affairs and its own long term security.
The intensified chatter that Israel may act before the November election or soon afterwards should be cause for consternation to all its supporters.
Whatever Teheran’s rhetoric of peace, we should work on the premise that it is covertly developing nuclear warheads capable of reaching as far as Western Europe within 5-15 years. Undoubtedly, that threatens Israel’s existence.
But an Israeli solution patterned on the 1980s strike against Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactors would be folly. This is not because Israel may fail to cripple the facilities but because the level of fear under which it lives currently will increase manifold.
It is hubris to expect that nearly 30 years after that strike, Israel’s enemies remain so intimidated by its military that they will not seek revenge repeatedly.
Were Israel at peace with all its neighbors, Iran would be too isolated diplomatically to retaliate. Instead, Israel’s neighbors are bitter enemies encouraged by its military’s confused performance against the Hezbollah militia which had no air power. They also see its inability to halt suicide bombers and artisanal rockets fired from Gaza and the West Bank.
They have seen the failures of Israel’s allies in Washington and NATO to suppress insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, who confront those ultra sophisticated armies with light weapons and improvised explosive devices.
The debilitating effects of lengthy wars of attrition should not be discounted. They have repeatedly turned the strong into footnotes of history.
At this time, many governments around the world are Israel’s friends and it is a rich and respected country. However, it is well to remember that the American people are Israel’s only real protectors.
Almost all of Israel’s other friends will stand on the sidelines, whatever their sympathy with its arguments about the justice of its preemptive attack on Iran.
Lumbered by national debt and interminable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even the American people may be incapable of giving sustained support in the aftermath when Muslim terrorist vengeance rains upon Israelis week after week for years.
In the short term, nobody has the stomach for another major war if Iran retaliates as promised by blocking the Hormuz Straits through which 40% of Western oil arrives. It may also widen attacks through proxies on US assets in the Gulf kingdoms, Iraq and elsewhere, including Pakistan, Africa, Indonesia and Malaysia.
In international affairs, it is normal for countries, including allies, to take advantage when the powerful start to weaken. Both Israel and America have many rivals waiting for signs of weakness to make economic, diplomatic and, when possible, territorial gains.
Turkey, which is veering towards Islam, may refuse use of its territory despite NATO membership as it did for the invasion of Iraq. It may also cause trouble in Iraq’s Kurdish region to disarm rebels and in oil-rich Kirkuk to prevent Kurds from dominating Turkmen.
Syria will certainly take advantage of Israel’s predicament to retake the Golan Heights and perhaps more. Hezbollah’s Shia militants could grab the superb prize of Beirut, which they almost did a few weeks ago. They may also probe into Israeli territory in the south.
Hamas could break out of Gaza to depose American and Israeli-backed Fatah in the West Bank. Arms smuggling by sea and overland from Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon may become uncontrollable.
On how many fronts could Israelis fight on their own, regardless of their wealth and leading-edge military technologies? In the end, wars are about people and Israel does not have too many of those. In any case, it is populated by human beings not warrior supermen.
Voters in European NATO countries are hardly likely to approve support for an Israeli request for military protection, if it launches an undeclared war of choice by attacking Iran.
Russia, China and India would certainly not enter such a venture. The Sunni Gulf states may quietly withdraw from any secret agreements they have currently with the US to contain Iran.
In the best case scenario, a strike may give Israel some breathing space and may not trigger a wider regional war. But it certainly will not strengthen Israeli security or stop the birth of vengeful enemies.
Judging from the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, even a crushing defeat may fail to install a new system in Iran. So, Israeli hawks should think through a more candid lens about the legacy they wish to leave to their children.
In any case, politics is an unpredictable process. Perhaps the current Israel-hating Mullahs will have changed by the time Iran develops its nuclear bomb. Then its weapon may become as acceptable as that of Pakistan, India or Israel itself.
A regular feature of news and opinion pieces from the Israeli and Palestinian press.
1.) A new poll has affirmed the centrality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the worldview of most Middle Easterners. “According to the study, 88 percent of Egyptians rank it among the top three most important issues [facing the region], while 100 percent of Jordanians do the same. In addition, 99 percent of Lebanese rank this issue as one of the top three.” (Haaretz) Strikingly, the poll also asked respondents to choose from a list of possible American policies that would most improve their opinion of the United States; Fifty percent said that brokering an Israeli-Arab peace accord was the “the single most important step to improving their views of the United States.” This issue was even considered of greater importance than an American withdrawal from Iraq, a removal of US forces from Saudi soil, and the provision of additional economic aid to the region.
2.) In a positive sign, Israel and Syria are reportedly preparing for direct, high-level peace talks to be held in the coming weeks. Turkey had previously acted as the third-party facilitator for preliminary discussions. Yet despite such indications of progress, major hurdles remain. Syria, for example, again re-emphasized recently that the United States must play a mediating role in any viable negotiation. Such involvement still remains extremely unlikely, however, as the Bush administration continues to stand firm on its policy of refusing to engage Damascus.
In addition to this roadblock, the Knesset this week passed legislation that mandates “a national referendum or a two thirds Knesset majority prior to a withdrawal from any [Israeli-controlled] territory.” (Haaretz) The passage of the law was a major win for the Golan lobby, as well as Israeli hard-liners. Benjamin Netanyahu, head of the Likud Party, voiced his strong support for the legislation: “In Western countries, giving up land is impossibly difficult, and in tiny little Israel, governments can relinquish land with unbearable ease. This is something that must be rectified, and the law can do that.” While not rendering it impossible, the new law will make reaching a peace accord with Syria just a little more difficult.
3.) A different poll, this one conducted by the University of Maryland, has found that 71% of Americans want the United States to take a non-biased, neutral stance towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
4.) Palestinian blogger Laila El-Haddad recently compared the gas prices in Gaza (struggling from the Israeli economic embargo) to those in the United States.
I was talking to my father today in Gaza. “How’s the car doing? Did you fix that loud noise its making?” he asks, ever the concerned parent… “Yes, its purring like a kitten now, and I’m $400 poorer. Lucky car. But the gas is $4 a gallon now.”
“Yeah well we don’t have [gas], don’t complain.” In fact, he was quick to point out that gas is in such short supply now in Gaza that its selling on the black market for 600 Shekels per 20 liters, the equivalent of $35 per gallon. Yes, you read that correctly: ONE GALLON= $35. Of course the real problem is not for the average “consumer”, since Gazans are not really “gas guzzlers”; it is for the things that fuel powers- everything from water pumps to hospital generators.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has stated that a strike against Iran would be ‘extremely stressful’ for the US. I’ll say it would — though of course, he’s talking about a different sort of stress.
There have been a number of reports lately (and significant evidence) suggesting that Israel is gearing up for a strike against Iran. Just to take one example, more than 100 F-15 and F-16 fighters recently participated in exercises over the Mediterranean which were apparently intended, among other things, to send the message that Israel is ‘prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.’ (International Herald Tribune)
As BBC News’ Justin Webb notes, it seems apparent that Adm. Mullen does not want an attack on Iran at this time, and is fighting hard behind the scenes to prevent it. While Mullen believes that Iran ‘is on a path to get nuclear weapons and…that’s something that needs to be deterred,’ he thinks that ‘the solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behaviour, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure.”‘ (BBC News)
Like many others who are concerned with the looming debacle, he wants ‘a dialogue’ between the US and Tehran. (BBC News) While he believes that Iran ‘is on a path to get nuclear weapons and…that’s something that needs to be deterred,’ he thinks that ‘the solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behaviour, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure.”‘ (BBC News)…. Did I mention he recommends a dialogue between the US and Tehran?
An East Jerusalem Palestinian hijacked a bulldozer today and began attacking buses, cars and the people in them. A few people were killed and around 60 were wounded. Fortunately, the terrorist was quickly killed.
While BBC Online currently covers the story “Bulldozer rampage hits Jerusalem,” this was not the original headline. Offering a glimpse into the BBC’s warped journalism, the initial headline read “Israel bulldozer driver shot dead”.
I am appalled to see that CNN is writing “terrorist” and MSNBC is writing ‘terrorist’ when these are TERRORISTS without quotation marks or apostrophes.
Credit for some of these links goes to Rabbi David in Iowa.
Iran has moved ballistic missiles into launch positions, with Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant among the possible targets, defence sources said last week.
The movement of Shahab-3B missiles, which have an estimated range of more than 1,250 miles, followed a large-scale exercise earlier this month in which the Israeli air force flew en masse over the Mediterranean in an apparent rehearsal for a threatened attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. Israel believes Iran’s nuclear programme is aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons.
The sources said Iran was preparing to retaliate for any onslaught by firing missiles at Dimona, where Israel’s own nuclear weapons are believed to be made.
Just a brief review… North Korea was a member of the “Axis of Evil” during this decade. (Of course, the odds of us actually attacking somebody who really does have nukes was pretty low.) The original policy toward the North Koreans by the current administration was to refuse to have any direct negotiations with them nor even take party in multi-lateral talks as equals. It was “our way or the highway” squared. The result? North Korea detonated a nuke. It finally took China along with the other parties in the six-way talks to make some ground, resuling in North Korea finally opening up a bit and destroying the cooling tower of their nuke plant. (A move which, even now, the Bush administration will still only give a grudging nod of the head to, while continuing to rattle our swords.)
Iran, by all accounts, has no nukes at this time and remains a target of aggressive diplomacy. (To use the word in the very loosest sense.) Clearly they anticipate an attack on their facilities by either the United States or, via our proxy, Israel. Seeing them move long range missles into position like this - some of which are multiple warhead with the ability to strike five targets - seems to be a fairly clear message.
We’ve gotten fairly spoiled these last few decades with the concept that we can launch long range missiles at targets around the world with impunity, since nobody would dare strike back at us. The Iranians don’t seem to buy into this theory. They have the ability to - at a minimum- strike back directly at Israel. The United States is already stretched across a war on two fronts, the Iran knows that China and Russia will be more sympathetic to them than to us or Israel. They also have a ready supply of potential forces inside of Iraq who are more than cozy with the Iranian regime, combined with a large supply of United States soft targets right over their border.
While there are a number of policy positions held by John McCain which I admire, (particularly his energy policy) his continuation of the Bush administration’s policies toward Iran are a reminder of my concerns regarding a potential McCain administration. The continued “Bomb, bomb Iran” attitude of arrogance only feeds into this potential crisis. And if Israel truly harbors plans to start a war with Iran that we would have to go in and finish, we are far past the time when we should be taking a fresh look at our policy toward Israel.
If there is anyone remaining in Washington who can get a leash on Israel’s military plans, the time is fast approaching for us to do this. We simply can not afford this sort of madness.
June 29th, 2008 by DAVID SCHRAUB, Assistant Editor
CNN reports that Israel has agreed to a prisoner swap with Hezbollah, which hopefully will bring home two Israeli solidiers abducted by the terrorist group when it sparked the 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon. Reports are sketchy, however, on whether the two solidiers are alive, and on the contours of the deal itself. CNN notes (accurately) that Hezbollah’s top priority in these negotiations has always been to secure the release of Samir Kuntar, currently serving a life-sentence for the cold-blooded murder of an Israeli man and his 4-year old daughter. That this is Hezbollah’s number one objective (they view him as a hero) is highly indicative of their continued rejectionist stance: bloody, illiberal, and properly banished from the realm of respectable politics….
Just as it has in the United States, Barack Obama’s strategic ambiguity in regard to the Middle East and foreign policy in general has definitively shown up on Europe’s radar screen.
“The candidate of American Democrats, Barack Obama, is campaigning with the help of the American Jewish lobby. Going further than many presidential candidates before him; Obama calls for an ‘undivided Jerusalem’ and threatens to do ‘everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.’”
“Confusing for many voters are the contradictory statements that Obama has made about the most controversial foreign policy issues. On the question of the moment: “How should we deal with Iran?,” Obama offers ambiguous answers. Before liberal students, he portrays himself as a true pacifist. However, before the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC - the acronym for the praised or damned Jewish lobby - he declares with the deepest conviction that there will be no limits when it comes to preventing Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapons.”
But Weidenfeld cautions that after the campaign, whoever wins will have to engage in ‘intellectual decontamination’ to clarify where the winner truly stands.
A regular feature of news and opinion pieces from the Israeli and Palestinian press.
1.) There are indications that, just days after the agreement was reached, the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas may be on the verge of collapse. Islamic Jihad has threatened to continue shooting rockets at Israel; over the past few days, several Qassams fired by the militant group have landed in Sderot. The attacks have prompted Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak to block the entrance of additional goods into Gaza and have upped the pressure on the Olmert government to act more decisively. Most ominously for the cease-fire, Hamas has been non-committal about cracking down on the activities of Islamic Jihad, stating that they are loathe to confront other Gaza-based militant groups.According to Haaretz:
Hamas said it was exerting pressure on Islamic Jihad, which claimed responsibility for the attacks, to stop the rocket fire and demanded that Israel open the crossings. But [Hamas lawmaker Khalil] al-Haya said its forces would not confront rocket launching squads on the ground.
“Even if there is a violation by some factions, Hamas emphasizes its commitment to the calm and is working to implement the calm,” al-Haya said. “But Hamas is not going to be a police securing the border of the occupation,” he added. “No one will enjoy a happy moment seeing Hamas holding a rifle in the face of a resistance fighter.”
2.) Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who has long tried to strengthen a system of law and order in the West Bank, has scored a small but important victory. According to Haaretz, Palestinian security forces have succeeded in discouraging rock-throwing at Israeli vehicles in the town of Qalqilyah and in nearby villages. “In the past few years, the stone throwers have made life difficult for settlers in the area, and for Israelis driving on the Trans-Samaria Highway and Road 55,” notes the article. “Young Palestinians, mainly teenagers, would take up positions on the hills overlooking these roads, and rain rocks down on almost every car with Israeli license plates.” Recently, Palestinian security forces have gone into schools and publicly urged students not to take aim at occupation by assaulting passing cars. In the past six weeks, as a result, incidents of rock-throwing have dropped dramatically. Israeli authorities, encouraged by the development, have agreed to remove dozens of dirt barriers restricting Palestinian movement.
3.) Saudi Arabia has explicitly rejected establishing a bilateral peace agreement with Israel, as countries like Jordan and Egypt have previously done. A top Saudi official has indicated that recognition and a lessening of tensions would only be achieved as part of a regional accord. Read the rest of this entry »
There has been a . . . um, surge of revisionist thinking lately over the Iraq war in general and the Surge strategy in particular, and you may find yourself climbing aboard the Mission Finally Accomplished bandwagon.
If so, then you’d better fasten your seatbelt because you’re forgetting the past, are going skin deep on the present and giving short shrift to the treacherous future. That is something that I will not do, which is why my own Iraq war mea culpa is still on ice and likely to stay that way.
The past includes President Bush thumbing his nose at the generals who pleaded for more troops and all of the strategies that he proffered. Each and every one of those schemes put politics ahead of policy, the result of which was the catastrophic first four-plus years of the war.
The future involves getting what troops there are out of Iraq safely. This will be a feat since the White House, ever living in the present, has no post-Surge strategy and it has been obvious for quite some time that Bush plans to dump the whole mess on his successor.
As it is, the present itself is problematic.
If you ignore virtually all of the benchmarks that the U.S. once set for the Al Maliki regime, Iraq is doing pretty well and the Surge has indeed resulted in some significant military successes. But even here appearances are deceiving.
Sectarian violence is down, but that has less to do with a kinder and gentler Iraq than the binge of pre-Surge ethnic cleansing, throwing up walls around Baghdad neighborhoods and imposing harsh curfews there and in other cities.
The Iraqi army is making gains, including its offensive against the Mahdi Army in Basra (insert obligatory text here about the Iraqis accomplishing in a few weeks what the hapless Brits couldn’t do in a few years), but at the first sign of trouble U.S. helicopter gunships come rumbling to the rescue.
And despite the mea culpas, mainstream media happy talk and high-fiving of right-wing zealots over the “success” of the Surge, the U.S. withdrawal — whether it comes sooner or later — probably will not be on its terms and the end game may well resemble a classic Gordian knot:
As long as U.S. troops stay, Iraq will remain unstable. Yet the more stability the Baghdad government has, the greater the pressure will be for U.S. troops to leave.
Nevertheless, the best hope of long-term stability is a long-term U.S. troop presence, but that impinges on Iraqi national sovereignty.
Iraqis are just as proud of their sovereignty as are Americans of their own. A result of this is that the status-of-forces agreement being negotiated between Washington and Baghdad is stillborn in its present form.
No matter the when or wherefore of a withdrawal, the U.S. will be pretty much in the same position as it was in the pre-2003 invasion except that Saddam Hussein has been replaced by a Shiite-dominated government with close ties to Iran.
And Iran will have further strengthened its position as the dominant regional player in the course of a war that killed many tens of thousands of people, made refugees of millions more and bankrupted the U.S. economy.
Incidentally, the wild card in all of this is not Iran, Moqtada al-Sadr or Barack Obama. It is Israel, which has a hair so far up its ass over Iran that it could draw the U.S. into a war that would make the worst foreign policy disaster in American history seem like small beer.
Image: Steve Mumford’s “Charlie 1-153 Off Haifa Street”
The following Guest Voice post is by Charlie Gandelman, a student who studied in Egypt and is an Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies Major at Brandeis. Editor’s Note: I never met Charlie but he found me and TMV on the Internet. When I saw his writing, I invited him to do a Guest Voice post. This is his first and is cross posted on his blog. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Moderate Voice or its writers.
Egypt, Israel And Academia
by Charlie Gandelman
From the first days I arrived at The American University In Cairo, I often heard talk of the university “normalizing” relations with Israel. The term does not have an exact definition, but what I came to understand was that a “normal” relationship is one in which there is no boycott, like the way AUC and any American university interact. From what I understand, right now the status between AUC and Israeli academia is in limbo, somewhere between a boycott and an established relationship.
In the last few weeks, however, the faculty senate, responding to the normalization rumors, passed a resolution condemning the idea of a normal relationship with Israeli academia–supporting a boycott of it.
I found it extremely dissapointing that the academic leaders of this institution supported this boycott, given the unique opportunity for dialogue and understanding were AUC and Israeli institutions to establish some sort of relationship. I wrote a letter to the editor expressing this sentiment and was published in this week’s issue.
Since I first wrote the letter as a much longer Op-Ed, I will post the link to the letter to the editor and post the Op-Ed itself here.
Last week, I read with great disappointment that The American University in Cairo’s faculty senate passed a resolution calling for the community to refrain from normalizing relations with Israeli academia. It is an unfortunate reality that the senate members’ personal biases and self-righteous indignation are serving to undermine a historic opportunity for the community and country they are supposedly striving to enlighten. While AUC could have led a breakthrough initiative of tolerance and understanding, the senate decided that their political grudges were more important than advancing the causes of academic integrity and bi-cultural understanding.
The main reason the senate passed the resolution is from political disapproval and anger towards Israel. The senate feared that that normalizing relations would somehow condone Israel’s actions—that the institution of Israeli academia is an extension of the government’s doctrines. As Professor Sherif El Musa points out, it is unfortunate and heartbreaking that he cannot return to Gaza and many of the students’ educations there are put on pause. El-Musa and the senate, seeing and even experiencing the suffering of the Palestinians under the Israelis, in no way want to excuse the government’s behavior by establishing ties with prominent Israeli institutions.
But establishing ties with Israeli academia and condoning the government’s actions are two very separate actions. Read the rest of this entry »
We’ll return to domestic policy analysis later today, but let’s take a look at the immediate response from the two campaigns regarding 
