August 27 2006
US undoing at the
expense of Iraqis
THE looting of a military base taken over by Iraqi security forces from British troops on Thursday was the manifestation of yet another problem facing what should ideally be a smooth transfer of facilities and control from foreign forces in Iraq to the country's government. It deals a severe blow to assertions by the Baghdad government that its security forces are capable of ensuring law and order and they could gradually replace the US-led occupation soldiers.
It could be expected that opportunists would be waiting for the right chance to loot whatever is possible in any situation of armed conflict anywhere in the world. The local authorities should have taken that into consideration and sould have been prepared to counter them. The very fact that the Iraqi security forces failed to foresee the eventuality at Camp Abu Naji in southern Iraq on Thursday and that they were too few in number to ward off the looters unveils major flaws in their planning and execution of security projects such as taking control of camps vacated by foreign forces.
There have been such transfer of possession and control from foreign forces to Iraqi authorities at several bases and all of them were reported to have gone well, but then almost all of them took place in central and northern part of the country.
In the Camp Abu Naji indident, hours after the British turned over the military base to Iraqi control, looters picked the military base clean after a brief clash with Iraqi soldiers.
For many, as one of the looters reportedly told reporters at the scene, "This is war loot and we are allowed to take it."
It could be easily asserted that the US-led foreign forces are tasting their own medicine. They stood by in silence as Iraqis stormed and looted banks, museums, government buildings, presidential palaces and public and private property immediately after the fall of Baghdad and other cities of Iraq in March and April 2003. In certain cases, it was as if the foreign forces — who had little to lose from Iraqi national losses anyway — set up the places for looting under protection as a matter of exacting revenge from the ousted Saddam Hussein regime. This gave an assurance to everyone that they could get away with their crime, and the Camp Abu Naji incident fits into that pattern.
The looting also exposes the reality that the people of Iraq do not recognise military bases — like other symbols of a central authority — as an integral part of their security system and national property. Indeed, that is the overriding factor in Iraq today, with not many feeling any sense of belonging because of a resignation to what they see as the eventual collapse of whatever system that has been built so far but undermined by sectarian hostilities and guerrilla war that spare no one. The people of Iraq seem to have lost hope that there is any light at the end of the tunnel for themselves. They have seen and are continuing to witness and suffer gross violations of their human rights, with the foreign forces, mainly American, doing as they please, including massacre, rape, summary arrests, torture and animal-style humiliation.
Washington's strategists have either failed to recognise or deliberately ignored the realities on the ground except what they see as direct challenge to the US and foreign military presence in Iraq. Their vision is narrowed to fighting off the insurgency at whatever cost and installing a US-friendly regime in Baghdad, and that is proving out to be their undoing in Iraq, but with the people of that country paying a heavy price for the American shortcomings.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Israel might 'got it alone' on Iran
August 26, 2006
Israel might 'got it alone' on Iran
AT THIS POINT, the Iranian response to the Western offer of incentives aimed at persuading Tehran to stop nuclear enrichment programme is immaterial as far as the US and its allies are concerned. The only operative basis for them is the UN Security Council demand that Iran unconditionally freeze uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities by Aug.31 or face UN sanctions.
There was fear in many circles that the Iranian insistence that it would not formally respond to the Western offer until Aug.22 was linked to an expectation that Tehran would make a dramatic announcement about its nuclear programme on that day. Some pundits predicted Iran might even announce a successful nuclear test. That exepctation fizzled out, with Iran making no such announcement. Instead, it restated its refusal to bow to the US-led demand that it halt is nuclear programme and its willingness to discuss the Western offer.
Iran has moved along predictable lines, much to the satisfaction of the US, which is now rallying its allies to come up with a united position and impose sweeping UN sanctions against the country when the Security Council takes up Tehran's position.
Predictably again, the expected sanctions would be coupled with provisions that allow for military action against Iran at some point for its defiant position. The US does not seem to be ready for military action at this point, but the UN move would offer the perfect justification and cover for it whenever Washington thinks the time is ripe to strike at Iran.
That is the US script. However, China and Russia might not go along with the move for sanctions. US President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have been burning trans-Atlantic wires with their European, Russian and Chinese counterparts with a view to convincing them into joining the move against Iran. It remains uncertain how Beijing and Moscow would be persuaded to do so.
On the other hand, Israel, which would feel the heat most if Iran were to successful develop its nuclear activities, is finding fault with the US for not taking immediate military action against the Iranians.
According to defence officials quoted by the Israeli newsapaper, the Jerusalem Post, the Israeli military establishment believes that the US will not attack Iran, and that Israel might be forced to act independently to stop the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons.
The officials believe that the Bush administration does not have political support for launching a strike against Iran's nuclear sites. "America is stuck in Iraq and cannot go after Iran militarily right now," said an official quoted by the newspaper.
It is indeed true that the US is finding it more and more difficult to assemble the forces needed for its military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a military confrontation with Iran at this time would be reckless for the US military. Furthermore, the US is also seen not to possess accurate and reliable intelligence on wha exactly the Iranians are doing at their nuclear facilities.
The Israeli leadership is said to believe that Israel "could not abide" a nuclear Iran and might have to act to disrupt Teheran's nuclear programme if the international community did not act.
The prospect of Israeli action against Iran becomes all the more real in the light of the obvious consequences of a nuclear Iran even if Israel was not bombed: It would restrict Israeli options while dealing with the Palestinian resistance in the occupied territories or Hizbollah in Lebanon or the Syrians over the Golan.
The strong assumption is Israel might not wait for the US for make up its mind and take unilateral military action against Iran as the Jerusalem Post said in its aptly titled report, Israel may "go it alone" against Iran.
Israel might 'got it alone' on Iran
AT THIS POINT, the Iranian response to the Western offer of incentives aimed at persuading Tehran to stop nuclear enrichment programme is immaterial as far as the US and its allies are concerned. The only operative basis for them is the UN Security Council demand that Iran unconditionally freeze uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities by Aug.31 or face UN sanctions.
There was fear in many circles that the Iranian insistence that it would not formally respond to the Western offer until Aug.22 was linked to an expectation that Tehran would make a dramatic announcement about its nuclear programme on that day. Some pundits predicted Iran might even announce a successful nuclear test. That exepctation fizzled out, with Iran making no such announcement. Instead, it restated its refusal to bow to the US-led demand that it halt is nuclear programme and its willingness to discuss the Western offer.
Iran has moved along predictable lines, much to the satisfaction of the US, which is now rallying its allies to come up with a united position and impose sweeping UN sanctions against the country when the Security Council takes up Tehran's position.
Predictably again, the expected sanctions would be coupled with provisions that allow for military action against Iran at some point for its defiant position. The US does not seem to be ready for military action at this point, but the UN move would offer the perfect justification and cover for it whenever Washington thinks the time is ripe to strike at Iran.
That is the US script. However, China and Russia might not go along with the move for sanctions. US President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have been burning trans-Atlantic wires with their European, Russian and Chinese counterparts with a view to convincing them into joining the move against Iran. It remains uncertain how Beijing and Moscow would be persuaded to do so.
On the other hand, Israel, which would feel the heat most if Iran were to successful develop its nuclear activities, is finding fault with the US for not taking immediate military action against the Iranians.
According to defence officials quoted by the Israeli newsapaper, the Jerusalem Post, the Israeli military establishment believes that the US will not attack Iran, and that Israel might be forced to act independently to stop the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons.
The officials believe that the Bush administration does not have political support for launching a strike against Iran's nuclear sites. "America is stuck in Iraq and cannot go after Iran militarily right now," said an official quoted by the newspaper.
It is indeed true that the US is finding it more and more difficult to assemble the forces needed for its military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a military confrontation with Iran at this time would be reckless for the US military. Furthermore, the US is also seen not to possess accurate and reliable intelligence on wha exactly the Iranians are doing at their nuclear facilities.
The Israeli leadership is said to believe that Israel "could not abide" a nuclear Iran and might have to act to disrupt Teheran's nuclear programme if the international community did not act.
The prospect of Israeli action against Iran becomes all the more real in the light of the obvious consequences of a nuclear Iran even if Israel was not bombed: It would restrict Israeli options while dealing with the Palestinian resistance in the occupied territories or Hizbollah in Lebanon or the Syrians over the Golan.
The strong assumption is Israel might not wait for the US for make up its mind and take unilateral military action against Iran as the Jerusalem Post said in its aptly titled report, Israel may "go it alone" against Iran.
Fight off the snister game
August 25, 2006
Fight off the sinister game
THE hint from Indian Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee that New Delhi is considering recalling its 775-strong unit serving in the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is the latest slap to the US-Israeli designs in the region. Beyond that, a withdrawal of the troops would also be a political move, given that the UN peace-keepers in Lebanon would be, at a point sooner than later, engaging in a war on behalf of Israel and the US.
Granted that UN Security Council Resolution 1701 does not call for UNIFIL to disarm Hizbollah. That task is left to the Lebanese army. However, the US administration is trying to push through another Security Council resolution which would "authorise" the UN force to adopt an aggressive posture and allow it to open fire in the course of "duty."
The US is also trying to expand the mandate of the UN force so that it could be deployed along the Lebanese-Syrian border. It is also a political landmine for the countries contributing soldiers to the UN force. Syria has vowed to resist the move, and, given the build-up of events in the Middle East, the situation could turn highly explosive along the lines that the US and Israel want it to be.
India enjoys a reputation of neutrality in the international scene and its participation in the UN peace-keeping operations has always been highly welcomed. There are indeed suggestions that it might not have acted wisely in the Sri Lankan crisis in the early 90s, but then the peculiarity of Indian-Sri Lankan relations was linked to those assertions.
India's willingness to contribute troops to UN peace-keeping forces was always seen as the country living up to international expectations, responsibilities and obligations. In the case of Lebanon, the task would eventually deviate from these principles. The US and Israel are trying to use the international community, including countries which have an excellent record of living up to their international responsibilities dictated by their role in the world comity of nations, to fight the US-Israeli war against Arab and Muslim resistance and thus involve them in a broader and sinister game of subduing the Middle East. This would include the UN peacekeepers being manoeuvred into a position where they would be forced to take armed action against Hizbollah and Palestinian armed groups in Lebanon in the name of upholding international legitimacy, namely implementation of UN Resolution 1559 and subsequent moves that call for disarming all non-government military forces present in Lebanon.
The Israeli objection against the participation of Muslim countries like Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia in the expanded UN force stems from its realisation that Muslim soldiers would not be ready to wage a war on Arab and Muslim forces on behalf of the Jewish state. Of course, Israel has no real say in the matter, but it would definitely have its way, given the US support it enjoys.
Some of the European countries have realised the US-Israeli game and they are also balking at sending soldiers as peacekeepers to Lebanon because they know that the troops would not be keeping peace but fighting to serve Israeli and US interests.
India should indeed be drawing its conclusion from the situation that it would be putting on the firing line the international respect it commands and the close friendship it has with the Arab and Muslim world if it allows itself to be used as a pawn by any country.
However, it is not simply enough for India to consider quitting UNIFIL. New Delhi should exert all efforts to pre-empt the UN from being exploited in order to help serve any country's drive for global supremacy and regional hegemony, and that would indeed be befitting the country which is indeed a global powerhouse in Asia.
Fight off the sinister game
THE hint from Indian Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee that New Delhi is considering recalling its 775-strong unit serving in the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is the latest slap to the US-Israeli designs in the region. Beyond that, a withdrawal of the troops would also be a political move, given that the UN peace-keepers in Lebanon would be, at a point sooner than later, engaging in a war on behalf of Israel and the US.
Granted that UN Security Council Resolution 1701 does not call for UNIFIL to disarm Hizbollah. That task is left to the Lebanese army. However, the US administration is trying to push through another Security Council resolution which would "authorise" the UN force to adopt an aggressive posture and allow it to open fire in the course of "duty."
The US is also trying to expand the mandate of the UN force so that it could be deployed along the Lebanese-Syrian border. It is also a political landmine for the countries contributing soldiers to the UN force. Syria has vowed to resist the move, and, given the build-up of events in the Middle East, the situation could turn highly explosive along the lines that the US and Israel want it to be.
India enjoys a reputation of neutrality in the international scene and its participation in the UN peace-keeping operations has always been highly welcomed. There are indeed suggestions that it might not have acted wisely in the Sri Lankan crisis in the early 90s, but then the peculiarity of Indian-Sri Lankan relations was linked to those assertions.
India's willingness to contribute troops to UN peace-keeping forces was always seen as the country living up to international expectations, responsibilities and obligations. In the case of Lebanon, the task would eventually deviate from these principles. The US and Israel are trying to use the international community, including countries which have an excellent record of living up to their international responsibilities dictated by their role in the world comity of nations, to fight the US-Israeli war against Arab and Muslim resistance and thus involve them in a broader and sinister game of subduing the Middle East. This would include the UN peacekeepers being manoeuvred into a position where they would be forced to take armed action against Hizbollah and Palestinian armed groups in Lebanon in the name of upholding international legitimacy, namely implementation of UN Resolution 1559 and subsequent moves that call for disarming all non-government military forces present in Lebanon.
The Israeli objection against the participation of Muslim countries like Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia in the expanded UN force stems from its realisation that Muslim soldiers would not be ready to wage a war on Arab and Muslim forces on behalf of the Jewish state. Of course, Israel has no real say in the matter, but it would definitely have its way, given the US support it enjoys.
Some of the European countries have realised the US-Israeli game and they are also balking at sending soldiers as peacekeepers to Lebanon because they know that the troops would not be keeping peace but fighting to serve Israeli and US interests.
India should indeed be drawing its conclusion from the situation that it would be putting on the firing line the international respect it commands and the close friendship it has with the Arab and Muslim world if it allows itself to be used as a pawn by any country.
However, it is not simply enough for India to consider quitting UNIFIL. New Delhi should exert all efforts to pre-empt the UN from being exploited in order to help serve any country's drive for global supremacy and regional hegemony, and that would indeed be befitting the country which is indeed a global powerhouse in Asia.
Forcing world to act
August 24, 2006
Forcing the world to act
IT IS A great political idea to have a Palestinian national unity government, which is the central theme of a two-day Fatah Central Committee meeting that began in Amman on Wednesday that brought together some of the best-known veterans in the Palestinian liberation movement launched by the late Yasser Arafat. Indeed, things have changed a lot since the Fatah leadership met last. Those meeting in Amman face the tough challenge of shoring up Fatah itself, given the internal divisions that manifested themselves in the results of the January elections to the Palestinian parliament.
The task facing the Amman meeting is not easy, but that is not only the sole and sound option for the future of the Palestinian struggle for freedom but also the most feasible one that would confront the world with a realistic chance for peace in the vital Middle East region.
We could not agree more with Palestinian National Council Speaker and Fatah Central Committee member Salim Zanoun that a unity government is "the only way out for all Palestinian factions to face the difficulties and hardships of the present moment."
It is indeed subject to speculation how far a national unity government would be successful in breaking the current deadlock in every effort to find the right key to open the door for a negotiated solution to the Palestinian problem. However, presenting a united front on the basis of the common goal of liberating Palestine is the best option available to the Palestinians as the first step towards unscrambling the messed-up scenario in the effort for peace in the Middle East.
The fundamentals in the equation are clear: Israel has its own ideas about a solution and this falls far short of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people in terms of the rights of refugees, the status of Arab East Jerusalem and the territory that would constitute an independent Palestinian state. It does not matter to Israel who is willing to sign the agreement on the Palestinian side as long as the Jewish state does not have to make compromises on its positions and demands and as long as the Palestinian partner is capable of containing hardliners and protecting Israel from armed resistance. Indeed, it is an unrealistic approach and hence the Israeli position that it does not have a Palestinian negotiating partner.
On the Palestinian side, Hamas represents the Islamist trend which, in principle, does not have room to allow the existence of Israel in Palestine. This trend calls for an Islamic state of Palestine to be created in all the territory that constituted British mandate Palestine before 1948. Whether the call is realistic is not the key issue for the Islamists. It is their position in principle, but there are enough signals that they would be willing to made "compromises" that would allow them a starting ground. Notwithstanding all the ifs and buts, it is a dead certainty that the Hamas leadership would act with pragmatism and realism at the right time and under the right conditions.
Fateh, which represents a nationalist movement as opposed to an Islamist trend, already signed onto "compromises" when it endorsed and accepted the 1993 Oslo agreements, which put off the key issues — refugees, Jerusalem and the borders of the proposed state of Palestine — for negotiations in five years. That deadline ran out in 1998, and the Oslo agreements are now as good as dead since Israel put up obstacles at every stage of the accords' implementation and deprived them of real substance.
The other Palestinian factions, which are varyingly described as militant, hardline and moderate depending on idelogies and perceptions, fit into the overall picture. All of them want a free and independent Palestine to start with but without making compromises on the core of the Palestinians' legitimate rights.
Today, the Palestinian leadership is dominated by Hamas, which defeated Fatah in January elections in a fair and just manner, and is under an international boycott if only because it is refusing to recognise the state of Israel, give up armed resistance and accept the Oslo accords.
We don't need to go any deep into the current crisis resulting from the capture of an Israeli soldier two months ago (because it could be resolved easily within the wider context of a push for negotiated peace. Indeed, there are many other serious issues that need to be addressed, including the priority issue of the thousands of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons, in that broader context).
However, in order to reach that point, the Palestinian side has to be ready and a government that represents the Palestinians as a whole is the first step towards that objective. The Palestinians have to put up a united front and deal with all issues from a point of representative authority, and a national unity government is the best means to to do so.
At the same time, Israeli hardliners are aware that Israel might not have a way out of negotiations if the Palestinians come up with a united front and they should try every trick in the book and outside it to pre-empt that eventuality.
Let us hope that the Palestinian side realises the challenges as well as the opportunities before them. Combined with the Arab initiative based on the decisions taken by the Beirut summit and reaffirmed at all subsequent Arab deliberations on efforts for Middle East peace, a united Palestinian front could force the international community, including the staunchest backers of Israel, to take a new look at the situation and act accordingly. Effectively, forming a solid common platform for the Palestinians means forcing the world's hand to act seriously towards a fair and just solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict rather than letting the US trying to impose Israeli-dictated terms on the Arabs.
Forcing the world to act
IT IS A great political idea to have a Palestinian national unity government, which is the central theme of a two-day Fatah Central Committee meeting that began in Amman on Wednesday that brought together some of the best-known veterans in the Palestinian liberation movement launched by the late Yasser Arafat. Indeed, things have changed a lot since the Fatah leadership met last. Those meeting in Amman face the tough challenge of shoring up Fatah itself, given the internal divisions that manifested themselves in the results of the January elections to the Palestinian parliament.
The task facing the Amman meeting is not easy, but that is not only the sole and sound option for the future of the Palestinian struggle for freedom but also the most feasible one that would confront the world with a realistic chance for peace in the vital Middle East region.
We could not agree more with Palestinian National Council Speaker and Fatah Central Committee member Salim Zanoun that a unity government is "the only way out for all Palestinian factions to face the difficulties and hardships of the present moment."
It is indeed subject to speculation how far a national unity government would be successful in breaking the current deadlock in every effort to find the right key to open the door for a negotiated solution to the Palestinian problem. However, presenting a united front on the basis of the common goal of liberating Palestine is the best option available to the Palestinians as the first step towards unscrambling the messed-up scenario in the effort for peace in the Middle East.
The fundamentals in the equation are clear: Israel has its own ideas about a solution and this falls far short of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people in terms of the rights of refugees, the status of Arab East Jerusalem and the territory that would constitute an independent Palestinian state. It does not matter to Israel who is willing to sign the agreement on the Palestinian side as long as the Jewish state does not have to make compromises on its positions and demands and as long as the Palestinian partner is capable of containing hardliners and protecting Israel from armed resistance. Indeed, it is an unrealistic approach and hence the Israeli position that it does not have a Palestinian negotiating partner.
On the Palestinian side, Hamas represents the Islamist trend which, in principle, does not have room to allow the existence of Israel in Palestine. This trend calls for an Islamic state of Palestine to be created in all the territory that constituted British mandate Palestine before 1948. Whether the call is realistic is not the key issue for the Islamists. It is their position in principle, but there are enough signals that they would be willing to made "compromises" that would allow them a starting ground. Notwithstanding all the ifs and buts, it is a dead certainty that the Hamas leadership would act with pragmatism and realism at the right time and under the right conditions.
Fateh, which represents a nationalist movement as opposed to an Islamist trend, already signed onto "compromises" when it endorsed and accepted the 1993 Oslo agreements, which put off the key issues — refugees, Jerusalem and the borders of the proposed state of Palestine — for negotiations in five years. That deadline ran out in 1998, and the Oslo agreements are now as good as dead since Israel put up obstacles at every stage of the accords' implementation and deprived them of real substance.
The other Palestinian factions, which are varyingly described as militant, hardline and moderate depending on idelogies and perceptions, fit into the overall picture. All of them want a free and independent Palestine to start with but without making compromises on the core of the Palestinians' legitimate rights.
Today, the Palestinian leadership is dominated by Hamas, which defeated Fatah in January elections in a fair and just manner, and is under an international boycott if only because it is refusing to recognise the state of Israel, give up armed resistance and accept the Oslo accords.
We don't need to go any deep into the current crisis resulting from the capture of an Israeli soldier two months ago (because it could be resolved easily within the wider context of a push for negotiated peace. Indeed, there are many other serious issues that need to be addressed, including the priority issue of the thousands of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons, in that broader context).
However, in order to reach that point, the Palestinian side has to be ready and a government that represents the Palestinians as a whole is the first step towards that objective. The Palestinians have to put up a united front and deal with all issues from a point of representative authority, and a national unity government is the best means to to do so.
At the same time, Israeli hardliners are aware that Israel might not have a way out of negotiations if the Palestinians come up with a united front and they should try every trick in the book and outside it to pre-empt that eventuality.
Let us hope that the Palestinian side realises the challenges as well as the opportunities before them. Combined with the Arab initiative based on the decisions taken by the Beirut summit and reaffirmed at all subsequent Arab deliberations on efforts for Middle East peace, a united Palestinian front could force the international community, including the staunchest backers of Israel, to take a new look at the situation and act accordingly. Effectively, forming a solid common platform for the Palestinians means forcing the world's hand to act seriously towards a fair and just solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict rather than letting the US trying to impose Israeli-dictated terms on the Arabs.
The US iron is hot enough
August 23, 2006
The US iron is hot enough
RUMBLINGS are getting stronger within the US in protest against the openly biased American foreign policy in the Middle East which has brought only disasters to Washington and damaged the US standing around the world. While it had always been taken for granted that there would not be any shift in the US stand behind Israel no matter how much the pressure, indications are emerging that mainstream American society has started wondering over the plus and minus points in their country's relationship with the Middle East and almost unlimited support for the Jewish state.
However, it does not mean that the Bush administration would turn around overnight and put Israel on the spot. George W Bush is described as the friendliest American president for Israel, and there is no reason to believe there could be any change in that situation while he remains in power at the White House.
The basic question raised by critics of the US alliance with Israel is why Israel's interests are given priority at the expense of American interests.
By blindly supporting Israel and going out of its way to protect the Jewish state at world forums, the US has dealt a major blow to its own interests around the world. World countries go along with US decisions and actions only because of Washington's immense financial and military clout which it uses whenever needed, most of the time to serve Israeli interests. That currency is fast running out because of overusage. In the bargain, the US has also credibility.
The world, American public included, saw how the US manoeuvred itself during the recent Lebanese crisis and offered Israel time to try to achieve its objectives in Lebanon. While the US accused Iran and Syria of supplying arms to Hizbollah, it also rushed advanced weapons and aviation fuel to Israel to help it continue its military assault on Lebanon. That was a blatant statement on where the US stood and stands in the Middle Eastern conflict.
The American financial and military assistance to Israel is also yet another key bone of contention.
The "pro-American" camp within the US is pointing out that the billions of dollars worth of aid the US sends to Israel every year could be put to better use to serve Americans themselves. They are questioning why American taxpayers's money should be spent on subsidising Israel, a country which is known not only for its aggressive designs and stubborn refusal to abide by international will but also for putting US interests on the firing line. Israel is the only country which has got away with spying in the US and with holding back vital information that could have helped Washington pre-empt disasters, perhaps even the Sept.11, 2001 attacks that claimed nearly 3,000 American lives.
In more specific terms, it is also being openly discussed in the US that Israel wants to provoke another war in the Middle East involving Syria and Iran and to let American soldiers wage the war to serve Israeli objectives. Phrases like "yet another American soldier dies for Israel in Iraq" are becoming common place in the US in an obvious recognition of the fact that the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq had as much to do with Israel's strategic goals as the American quest for unchallenged global supremacy.
American travellers are becoming increasingly aware that the reason that they are advised to avoid countries and even to hide their identity was US citizens is not that Americans are hated around the world as a rule but that their administration's misguided policy is behind the threat that they perceive.
Today, the Arabs have an opportunity to drive home to the Americans the truth that it is their administration's policy that is posing the biggest danger to themselves and that the only demand that the Arabs and Muslims have is for the US to live up to its founding principles and adopt international legitimacy, justice and fairness as the basis for its foreign policy. It is not an easy task, given the grip that the pro-Israeli camp in Washington has on American decision-making. But the Arabs have to start somewhere and the time is opportune now.
The US iron is hot enough
RUMBLINGS are getting stronger within the US in protest against the openly biased American foreign policy in the Middle East which has brought only disasters to Washington and damaged the US standing around the world. While it had always been taken for granted that there would not be any shift in the US stand behind Israel no matter how much the pressure, indications are emerging that mainstream American society has started wondering over the plus and minus points in their country's relationship with the Middle East and almost unlimited support for the Jewish state.
However, it does not mean that the Bush administration would turn around overnight and put Israel on the spot. George W Bush is described as the friendliest American president for Israel, and there is no reason to believe there could be any change in that situation while he remains in power at the White House.
The basic question raised by critics of the US alliance with Israel is why Israel's interests are given priority at the expense of American interests.
By blindly supporting Israel and going out of its way to protect the Jewish state at world forums, the US has dealt a major blow to its own interests around the world. World countries go along with US decisions and actions only because of Washington's immense financial and military clout which it uses whenever needed, most of the time to serve Israeli interests. That currency is fast running out because of overusage. In the bargain, the US has also credibility.
The world, American public included, saw how the US manoeuvred itself during the recent Lebanese crisis and offered Israel time to try to achieve its objectives in Lebanon. While the US accused Iran and Syria of supplying arms to Hizbollah, it also rushed advanced weapons and aviation fuel to Israel to help it continue its military assault on Lebanon. That was a blatant statement on where the US stood and stands in the Middle Eastern conflict.
The American financial and military assistance to Israel is also yet another key bone of contention.
The "pro-American" camp within the US is pointing out that the billions of dollars worth of aid the US sends to Israel every year could be put to better use to serve Americans themselves. They are questioning why American taxpayers's money should be spent on subsidising Israel, a country which is known not only for its aggressive designs and stubborn refusal to abide by international will but also for putting US interests on the firing line. Israel is the only country which has got away with spying in the US and with holding back vital information that could have helped Washington pre-empt disasters, perhaps even the Sept.11, 2001 attacks that claimed nearly 3,000 American lives.
In more specific terms, it is also being openly discussed in the US that Israel wants to provoke another war in the Middle East involving Syria and Iran and to let American soldiers wage the war to serve Israeli objectives. Phrases like "yet another American soldier dies for Israel in Iraq" are becoming common place in the US in an obvious recognition of the fact that the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq had as much to do with Israel's strategic goals as the American quest for unchallenged global supremacy.
American travellers are becoming increasingly aware that the reason that they are advised to avoid countries and even to hide their identity was US citizens is not that Americans are hated around the world as a rule but that their administration's misguided policy is behind the threat that they perceive.
Today, the Arabs have an opportunity to drive home to the Americans the truth that it is their administration's policy that is posing the biggest danger to themselves and that the only demand that the Arabs and Muslims have is for the US to live up to its founding principles and adopt international legitimacy, justice and fairness as the basis for its foreign policy. It is not an easy task, given the grip that the pro-Israeli camp in Washington has on American decision-making. But the Arabs have to start somewhere and the time is opportune now.
Iraq sliding deeper into abyss
August 23, 2006
THE SECTARIAN divide in Iraq has widened further with Sunday's massacre of Shiite Muslim pilgrims marking a major religious event in the capital, Baghdad. Surely, the main goal of the snipers was to fuel Sunni-Shiite hostilities and push the country further into the deep abyss of bloodshed and violence.
The questions many have in mind but are not being asked in public include: Have the Shiite and Sunni communities of Iraq crossed the point of no return? Is it possible that the communities — with the northern Kurds thrown in as the third partner — could still come back together and retain national unity? Are the wounds in the Iraqi society too deep to be healed?
The people of Iraq have lived through worse hardships and crises, but they survived as one national entity, although many of them bitterly opposed the shotgun marriage they found themselves in as a result of colonial designs. The reason that Iraq survived as a single entity — until 1991 when the Kurds broke out and set up their autonomous enclave away from Saddam Hussein's army — was that the rulers held them together through whatever it took — oppression and coersion.
People in the Middle East understood this clearly. For their own reasons, they accepted it as inevitable because any tampering with Iraq would have led to unravelling of the precarious bindings that held the country's people together as one national entity, and no one was ready to face the consequences.
Those bindings fell loose with the US invasion and ouster of Saddam Hussein from power in 2003. It has been and remains a free-for-all since then, with the occupying forces and their allies unable to make any real difference in terms of containing the insurgency. Thrown into the bargain are the international jihadists who are fighting the US and allied forces in Iraq for the sake of fighting the US wherever possible.
Today, with an average of 80 people being killed every day in sectarian strife, things do look too gloomy for Iraq to recover. Many would see the country as beyond salvation and proceeding on the way towards disintegration into ethnic enclaves. Tens of thousands would die as a result.
Efforts are indeed made for reconciliation among the people of Iraq, but no one is willing to compromise on what they consider as bottom lines for themselves. It is highly unlikely that the present US strategy of feeding whomever it finds fit to be fed and hitting whomever it finds fit to be hit would work. External and internal forces are at work which have scrambled the entire scene to an extent that it is impossible to determine who represents the genuine interests of the people of Iraq, whether Shiite, Sunni, Kurdish, or any other.
The US, which should be leading the effort for national reconciliation in Iraq, is also lost between its strategic interests and the need to stabilise the country. The Arab World could help, but only to a limited extent until such time enough trust and confidence is built between the players in Iraq and the rest of the Arab countries.
No one has any overnight solutions to the crisis in Iraq and many feel the situation may be beyond salvation and the broad goal of preventing the country's disintegration.
The only hope to preserve Iraq's national unity is through collective action of the world community and the Arab World. The world community is represented by the UN while the Arab League represents the Arab World. The US should accept that its grand designs in the Middle East have failed and should make room for a collective UN-Arab effort to succeed in Iraq. As long as the US balks at doing so, hundreds of Iraqis would continue to die every day.
THE SECTARIAN divide in Iraq has widened further with Sunday's massacre of Shiite Muslim pilgrims marking a major religious event in the capital, Baghdad. Surely, the main goal of the snipers was to fuel Sunni-Shiite hostilities and push the country further into the deep abyss of bloodshed and violence.
The questions many have in mind but are not being asked in public include: Have the Shiite and Sunni communities of Iraq crossed the point of no return? Is it possible that the communities — with the northern Kurds thrown in as the third partner — could still come back together and retain national unity? Are the wounds in the Iraqi society too deep to be healed?
The people of Iraq have lived through worse hardships and crises, but they survived as one national entity, although many of them bitterly opposed the shotgun marriage they found themselves in as a result of colonial designs. The reason that Iraq survived as a single entity — until 1991 when the Kurds broke out and set up their autonomous enclave away from Saddam Hussein's army — was that the rulers held them together through whatever it took — oppression and coersion.
People in the Middle East understood this clearly. For their own reasons, they accepted it as inevitable because any tampering with Iraq would have led to unravelling of the precarious bindings that held the country's people together as one national entity, and no one was ready to face the consequences.
Those bindings fell loose with the US invasion and ouster of Saddam Hussein from power in 2003. It has been and remains a free-for-all since then, with the occupying forces and their allies unable to make any real difference in terms of containing the insurgency. Thrown into the bargain are the international jihadists who are fighting the US and allied forces in Iraq for the sake of fighting the US wherever possible.
Today, with an average of 80 people being killed every day in sectarian strife, things do look too gloomy for Iraq to recover. Many would see the country as beyond salvation and proceeding on the way towards disintegration into ethnic enclaves. Tens of thousands would die as a result.
Efforts are indeed made for reconciliation among the people of Iraq, but no one is willing to compromise on what they consider as bottom lines for themselves. It is highly unlikely that the present US strategy of feeding whomever it finds fit to be fed and hitting whomever it finds fit to be hit would work. External and internal forces are at work which have scrambled the entire scene to an extent that it is impossible to determine who represents the genuine interests of the people of Iraq, whether Shiite, Sunni, Kurdish, or any other.
The US, which should be leading the effort for national reconciliation in Iraq, is also lost between its strategic interests and the need to stabilise the country. The Arab World could help, but only to a limited extent until such time enough trust and confidence is built between the players in Iraq and the rest of the Arab countries.
No one has any overnight solutions to the crisis in Iraq and many feel the situation may be beyond salvation and the broad goal of preventing the country's disintegration.
The only hope to preserve Iraq's national unity is through collective action of the world community and the Arab World. The world community is represented by the UN while the Arab League represents the Arab World. The US should accept that its grand designs in the Middle East have failed and should make room for a collective UN-Arab effort to succeed in Iraq. As long as the US balks at doing so, hundreds of Iraqis would continue to die every day.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Short vision carries heavy price
Aug.25 2006
Short vision carries heavy price
FOR all technical purposes, the American support for the Israeli military offensive against Hizbollah is based on the argument that the assault is part of the US-led "war against terror." However, the argument is very thin. Hizbollah has given no indication that it poses a terror threat to the US or any other country and it argues that its actions against Israel are part of legitimate resistance.
Indeed, Hizbollah is blamed for many attacks against the US during the 1980s, including the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 American soldiers. Those attacks came when the US military was present in Lebanon, and Hizbollah did not venture out of the country to stage any assaults on the US military.
Since the 90s, there is no record of any Hizbollah attack against the US; nor has it issued any specific threats either. Indeed, its leaders have always been fiercely critical of the US, but those expressions could be seen in parallel to hostility towards American policies by any group anywhere in the world.
According to the US State Department, Hizbollah signed an agreement with the Palestinian Hamas group in 2004 calling for joint attacks against Israel. Again, such actions are defined as legitimate resistance by the groups whereas the US and Israel call them "terrorism," and this difference is linked to the unresolved question of what constitutes resistance and how to define terrorism.
These realities are overlooked by the Bush administration when it categorically states that Hizbollah is posing an international terror threat and bases itself on "expert findings" that the group has networks in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
That argument could turn to be yet another ingredient for fuelling more threats against the US rather than scaling them down.
The transparent American backing for Israel's offensive aimed at destroying Hizbollah would only produce more danger of militant retaliation against the US.
The US and Israel are deemed to be fighting a joint war against Hizbollah. While the Israeli military is waging the battle on the ground, sea and air, the US is providing military supplies to Israel and preventing calls for a cease-fire in the Israeli-Hizbollah conflict. Furthermore, it is also offering a protective umbrella for Israel at the UN and other international forums.
As such, the summary conclusion in this part of the world is that the ongoing assault on Lebanon is collective action by Israel and the US, particularly given the long record of American support for the Jewish state. This is a perfect recipe for increased threats to US interests anywhere in the world but they need not be linked to Hizbollah.
US intelligence agencies say that Hizbollah has sleeping cells around the world which could galvanise into action at any given point in time. At best, this could be seen as a pre-emptive argument.
Since the Sept.11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington, US intelligence agencies have been combing the world for groups and individuals suspected of harbouring anti-American hostility. Thousands have been rounded up and detained either in their host countries or in secret American detention centres in "friendly" countries. Many of them were never involved in anti-US activity, and their detention was based only on the basis they could have, at some point in time, posed "security" threats.
If the US intelligence agencies continue insist that Hizbollah-linked groups could carry out anti-US attacks anywhere in the world, it could mean several things: The agencies' spying abilities have gone too weak to have spotted and busted the cells, or they are raising the argument only to support the administration's contention that Hizbollah poses an international terror threat. There is a third possibility: US intelligence expects anti-US attacks to be staged by forces sympathetic to — and not necessarily directly linked with — Hizbollah, and "intelligence experts" are insuring themselves against that possibility.
On the ground in Lebanon and in the broader Middle East, the Israeli offensive is gathering political support for Hizbollah among middle-of-the-road Arabs and Muslims.
They see the US as effectively not only cheering the Israeli assault but also offering direct and indirect support to the offensive that have caused large numbers of casualties and displaced hundreds of thousands of Lebanese.
The Israeli action has also helped bring Sunni groups closer to the Shiite Hizbollah. It was unheard and unseen until now to have Sunni-led demonstrators in many countries carrying posters of Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and chanting slogans in support of the Shiite group.
There is not much love lost between Osama Bin Laden's Sunni Al Qaeda and Hizbollah, but Al Qaeda might seek to take advantage of the situation by staging attacks described as revenge for the offensive against Hizbollah in Lebanon and gain support among Arabs and Muslims around the world.
"Even Al Qaeda itself may be ready with an attack, and they may choose to use it now," according to Michael Scheuer, a former Central Intelligence Agency official who ran the agency's Bin Laden unit. Scheuer said this would be extraordinary opportunity for Al Qaeda to emerge as "the champion of the Palestinian people."
Reuters quoted another former US official, who remains up to date on counterterrorism strategy, as saying that "there will be revenge attacks."
"The concern now is that there's rising animosity that will be exploited, not just by Hizbollah," said the unidentified official. "Then there are people being driven over the edge by what's happening, who aren't necessarily members of any group, but who might strike."
It is short-sighted vision that "destruction" of groups like Hizbollah and Hamas would lead to ending the conflict in the Middle East. Unfortunately, that is the vision adopted by the heavily Israel-influenced US, and the price for the short-term vision would be heavy in the medium and long term, if only because of the reality that the "permanent solution" that Israel and the US have in mind could only be imposed on the region without Arab acceptance.
Short vision carries heavy price
FOR all technical purposes, the American support for the Israeli military offensive against Hizbollah is based on the argument that the assault is part of the US-led "war against terror." However, the argument is very thin. Hizbollah has given no indication that it poses a terror threat to the US or any other country and it argues that its actions against Israel are part of legitimate resistance.
Indeed, Hizbollah is blamed for many attacks against the US during the 1980s, including the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 American soldiers. Those attacks came when the US military was present in Lebanon, and Hizbollah did not venture out of the country to stage any assaults on the US military.
Since the 90s, there is no record of any Hizbollah attack against the US; nor has it issued any specific threats either. Indeed, its leaders have always been fiercely critical of the US, but those expressions could be seen in parallel to hostility towards American policies by any group anywhere in the world.
According to the US State Department, Hizbollah signed an agreement with the Palestinian Hamas group in 2004 calling for joint attacks against Israel. Again, such actions are defined as legitimate resistance by the groups whereas the US and Israel call them "terrorism," and this difference is linked to the unresolved question of what constitutes resistance and how to define terrorism.
These realities are overlooked by the Bush administration when it categorically states that Hizbollah is posing an international terror threat and bases itself on "expert findings" that the group has networks in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
That argument could turn to be yet another ingredient for fuelling more threats against the US rather than scaling them down.
The transparent American backing for Israel's offensive aimed at destroying Hizbollah would only produce more danger of militant retaliation against the US.
The US and Israel are deemed to be fighting a joint war against Hizbollah. While the Israeli military is waging the battle on the ground, sea and air, the US is providing military supplies to Israel and preventing calls for a cease-fire in the Israeli-Hizbollah conflict. Furthermore, it is also offering a protective umbrella for Israel at the UN and other international forums.
As such, the summary conclusion in this part of the world is that the ongoing assault on Lebanon is collective action by Israel and the US, particularly given the long record of American support for the Jewish state. This is a perfect recipe for increased threats to US interests anywhere in the world but they need not be linked to Hizbollah.
US intelligence agencies say that Hizbollah has sleeping cells around the world which could galvanise into action at any given point in time. At best, this could be seen as a pre-emptive argument.
Since the Sept.11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington, US intelligence agencies have been combing the world for groups and individuals suspected of harbouring anti-American hostility. Thousands have been rounded up and detained either in their host countries or in secret American detention centres in "friendly" countries. Many of them were never involved in anti-US activity, and their detention was based only on the basis they could have, at some point in time, posed "security" threats.
If the US intelligence agencies continue insist that Hizbollah-linked groups could carry out anti-US attacks anywhere in the world, it could mean several things: The agencies' spying abilities have gone too weak to have spotted and busted the cells, or they are raising the argument only to support the administration's contention that Hizbollah poses an international terror threat. There is a third possibility: US intelligence expects anti-US attacks to be staged by forces sympathetic to — and not necessarily directly linked with — Hizbollah, and "intelligence experts" are insuring themselves against that possibility.
On the ground in Lebanon and in the broader Middle East, the Israeli offensive is gathering political support for Hizbollah among middle-of-the-road Arabs and Muslims.
They see the US as effectively not only cheering the Israeli assault but also offering direct and indirect support to the offensive that have caused large numbers of casualties and displaced hundreds of thousands of Lebanese.
The Israeli action has also helped bring Sunni groups closer to the Shiite Hizbollah. It was unheard and unseen until now to have Sunni-led demonstrators in many countries carrying posters of Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and chanting slogans in support of the Shiite group.
There is not much love lost between Osama Bin Laden's Sunni Al Qaeda and Hizbollah, but Al Qaeda might seek to take advantage of the situation by staging attacks described as revenge for the offensive against Hizbollah in Lebanon and gain support among Arabs and Muslims around the world.
"Even Al Qaeda itself may be ready with an attack, and they may choose to use it now," according to Michael Scheuer, a former Central Intelligence Agency official who ran the agency's Bin Laden unit. Scheuer said this would be extraordinary opportunity for Al Qaeda to emerge as "the champion of the Palestinian people."
Reuters quoted another former US official, who remains up to date on counterterrorism strategy, as saying that "there will be revenge attacks."
"The concern now is that there's rising animosity that will be exploited, not just by Hizbollah," said the unidentified official. "Then there are people being driven over the edge by what's happening, who aren't necessarily members of any group, but who might strike."
It is short-sighted vision that "destruction" of groups like Hizbollah and Hamas would lead to ending the conflict in the Middle East. Unfortunately, that is the vision adopted by the heavily Israel-influenced US, and the price for the short-term vision would be heavy in the medium and long term, if only because of the reality that the "permanent solution" that Israel and the US have in mind could only be imposed on the region without Arab acceptance.
Correcting an historic error
Aug.17 2006
Correcting an historic error
Costa Rican President Oscar Arias' announcement that his country wll move its embassy in Israel from occupied Jerusalem to Tel Aviv is higly welcomed not only because it corrects a major mistake in Costa Rica's foreign policy but also because it comes a very sensitive time in the Middle East.
We have witnessed efforts by every US administrations, particularly since 1967 when Israel occupied Arab East Jerusalem and, in 1980, proclaimed it the Jewish state's "indivisible and eternal capital," to persuade world countries to move their embassies to the occupied city. But the number of takers was limited because the international community was not willing to recognise Israel's claim.
UN Security Council Resolution 478 ruled that the 1980 Israeli declaration was "null and void and must be rescinded forthwith"' and instructed member states to withdraw their diplomatic representation from the city as a punitive measure. Most of the few countries with embassies in occupied relocated their embassies to Tel Aviv. Most UN member states has set up their embassies in Tel Aviv prior to Resolution 478.
The Costa Rican move leaves El Salvador as the only country with has an embassy in occupied Jerusalem (The embassies of Bolivia and Paraguay are located in Mevasseret Zion, a suburb of the occupied city).
Officially, not even the US, which maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv, has been able to recognise Israel's claim to the whole of Jerusalem but not because it has not tried. The US has even identified a plot in western Jerusalem to house a US embassy, but Washington could not actually make the move because of various reasons that cropped up whenever the thought was given consideration.
There have been several motions in the US Congress recommending the move. One of the last proclamations of the Clinton administration was a pledge to move the US embassy in Tel Aviv to occupied Jerusalem.
Had there been the slightest chance it could get away with it, the US would have made the move. But, it is not that easy, given the religious and emotional attachment that the Muslims and Christians have with the Holy City. Washington had always to seriously consider the repercussions if it were to lead the world into recognising Israel's unilteral claim.
The Costa Rican move is a blow to the Israeli government. The decision has been announced at a time when Israel is reeling back from the setback it suffered in Lebanon. It could have done without the issue of occupied Jerusalem be brought up for international attention at this point in time.
Indeed, as Arias, a Nobel laureate put it, Costa Rica is rectifyting "an historic error that hurts us internationally and deprives us of almost any form of friendship with the Arab world, and more broadly with Islamic civilisation, to which a sixth of humanity belongs."
Yes, it is indeed correcting a historic error and it also boosts the Arab and Muslim morale in the continuing and uncompromising struggle to regain the Holy City, which houses the third holiest shrine in Islam.
Correcting an historic error
Costa Rican President Oscar Arias' announcement that his country wll move its embassy in Israel from occupied Jerusalem to Tel Aviv is higly welcomed not only because it corrects a major mistake in Costa Rica's foreign policy but also because it comes a very sensitive time in the Middle East.
We have witnessed efforts by every US administrations, particularly since 1967 when Israel occupied Arab East Jerusalem and, in 1980, proclaimed it the Jewish state's "indivisible and eternal capital," to persuade world countries to move their embassies to the occupied city. But the number of takers was limited because the international community was not willing to recognise Israel's claim.
UN Security Council Resolution 478 ruled that the 1980 Israeli declaration was "null and void and must be rescinded forthwith"' and instructed member states to withdraw their diplomatic representation from the city as a punitive measure. Most of the few countries with embassies in occupied relocated their embassies to Tel Aviv. Most UN member states has set up their embassies in Tel Aviv prior to Resolution 478.
The Costa Rican move leaves El Salvador as the only country with has an embassy in occupied Jerusalem (The embassies of Bolivia and Paraguay are located in Mevasseret Zion, a suburb of the occupied city).
Officially, not even the US, which maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv, has been able to recognise Israel's claim to the whole of Jerusalem but not because it has not tried. The US has even identified a plot in western Jerusalem to house a US embassy, but Washington could not actually make the move because of various reasons that cropped up whenever the thought was given consideration.
There have been several motions in the US Congress recommending the move. One of the last proclamations of the Clinton administration was a pledge to move the US embassy in Tel Aviv to occupied Jerusalem.
Had there been the slightest chance it could get away with it, the US would have made the move. But, it is not that easy, given the religious and emotional attachment that the Muslims and Christians have with the Holy City. Washington had always to seriously consider the repercussions if it were to lead the world into recognising Israel's unilteral claim.
The Costa Rican move is a blow to the Israeli government. The decision has been announced at a time when Israel is reeling back from the setback it suffered in Lebanon. It could have done without the issue of occupied Jerusalem be brought up for international attention at this point in time.
Indeed, as Arias, a Nobel laureate put it, Costa Rica is rectifyting "an historic error that hurts us internationally and deprives us of almost any form of friendship with the Arab world, and more broadly with Islamic civilisation, to which a sixth of humanity belongs."
Yes, it is indeed correcting a historic error and it also boosts the Arab and Muslim morale in the continuing and uncompromising struggle to regain the Holy City, which houses the third holiest shrine in Islam.
Idealism vs realism in Iraq
Aug.16, 2006
Idealism vs realism
in the Iraq quagmire
US President George Bush is reported to have ruled out a three-way division of Iraq saying it would only worsen sectarian violence and was not an option for solving the country's problems.
Wittingly or unwittingly, the presidential statement has not only highlighted the realities on the ground in Iraq but also underlined the truth that the world is is getting resigned to the idea that the country would soon lose its territorial integrity (having lost, in April 2003, its sovereignty, which is universally defined as "the exclusive right to exercise supreme political — legislative, judicial, and/or executive — authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself").
On the other hand, it is true that the US, by virtue of its military presence in Iraq, might be able to divide Iraq into three or more parts, but it is not the question here. The question is: How long could the US hold Iraq together?
Warnings about the prospect of Iraq splitting along ethnic and sectarian lines are not new. In fact, Arab leaders, including the leaders of the Gulf states, repeatedly cautioned the US against invading Iraq because they knew of the possible consequences, which included a disintegration of Iraq and violent spillovers from Iraq into the region.
Their fears are coming true, whatever the Bush administration feels about the future of Iraq.
There cannot be any overestimating or misinterpreting the signals coming from Iraq. "Ethnic cleansing" — forced or voluntary due to fear — is continuing at a fast pace, with tens of thousands evacuating "unsafe" areas and moving to ethnic enclaves. Those who opt to stay back risk being killed. The US military and local security forces are unable to help them regardless of their ethnic affiliatiion.
US military commanders started with warnings of sectarian strife gaining intensity and now they have started using the term "low-intensity civil war." Well, if the average number of non-combatants being hauled away from anywhere — from their homes and places of work, and even from the street — and slaughtered is 60 a day, then the conflict is no longer of low intesity by any standard.
No one in the region — with the exception of Israel, the prime beneficiary of the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq — wants to witness Iraq being split, whether by force or by an uncontrollable series of events. However, from the looks of things in Iraq today, a disintegration of the country is looming ahead.
Unfortunately, there does not seem to be anything anyone could do to avert that fate for Iraq when the forces in control of the country themselves are unable to check the slide.
Whatever the argument, it could not be denied that the US presence in Iraq is the major source of instability.
However, Washington is not ready to accept this year and that is reflected in the US president's arguments.
There are several schools of thought.
One school argues that an American military departure from Iraq would leave a serious security vacuum, and Iraqis would openly go for each other's throat. Furthermore, external elements driven by sectarianism would start meddling in Iraq and this would lead uncontrollable chaos.
Yet another stream of thought says that the three main sects of Iraq — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds — were never happy being bound together into one entity by the colonial powers in the first quarter of last century, and if they want to part ways now, why not let them do it in an orderly fashion (if that is ever possible).
Another argues that the situation could not get any worse and hence the US should simply stop arguing that "terrorists" would gain control of Iraq if the US military quits, and should leave the Iraqis to determine their fate themselves. There would be some more bloodshed, but the people would be more amenable to seek ways of co-existence rather than fighting among themselves. The UN and the Arab League should step in with all transparency and help the Iraqis sort out things and stabilise the country.
Of course, the US insists that it would not even set a timeline for leaving Iraq until it is satisfied that Iraqi security forces are capable of shouldering their responsibilities. Indeed, that is the ideal situation, but idealism is far from realism in Iraq, and the equation is further complicated by suspicion — and conviction on the part of many — that the US has no intention of ever ending its military presence in Iraq. Bush has made clear that "as long as (I'm) president, we're in Iraq." Such semi-ambiguities might be linked to political expediency within the US, but that would not help the contain the crisis in Iraq.
The best option that Bush has, as some American experts suggest, is to work with regional leaders on a formula that would cause the least ripples (although, in Iraq's context, the least would mean much more than many would bargain for), and implement it in tranparency while retaining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq.
Idealism vs realism
in the Iraq quagmire
US President George Bush is reported to have ruled out a three-way division of Iraq saying it would only worsen sectarian violence and was not an option for solving the country's problems.
Wittingly or unwittingly, the presidential statement has not only highlighted the realities on the ground in Iraq but also underlined the truth that the world is is getting resigned to the idea that the country would soon lose its territorial integrity (having lost, in April 2003, its sovereignty, which is universally defined as "the exclusive right to exercise supreme political — legislative, judicial, and/or executive — authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself").
On the other hand, it is true that the US, by virtue of its military presence in Iraq, might be able to divide Iraq into three or more parts, but it is not the question here. The question is: How long could the US hold Iraq together?
Warnings about the prospect of Iraq splitting along ethnic and sectarian lines are not new. In fact, Arab leaders, including the leaders of the Gulf states, repeatedly cautioned the US against invading Iraq because they knew of the possible consequences, which included a disintegration of Iraq and violent spillovers from Iraq into the region.
Their fears are coming true, whatever the Bush administration feels about the future of Iraq.
There cannot be any overestimating or misinterpreting the signals coming from Iraq. "Ethnic cleansing" — forced or voluntary due to fear — is continuing at a fast pace, with tens of thousands evacuating "unsafe" areas and moving to ethnic enclaves. Those who opt to stay back risk being killed. The US military and local security forces are unable to help them regardless of their ethnic affiliatiion.
US military commanders started with warnings of sectarian strife gaining intensity and now they have started using the term "low-intensity civil war." Well, if the average number of non-combatants being hauled away from anywhere — from their homes and places of work, and even from the street — and slaughtered is 60 a day, then the conflict is no longer of low intesity by any standard.
No one in the region — with the exception of Israel, the prime beneficiary of the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq — wants to witness Iraq being split, whether by force or by an uncontrollable series of events. However, from the looks of things in Iraq today, a disintegration of the country is looming ahead.
Unfortunately, there does not seem to be anything anyone could do to avert that fate for Iraq when the forces in control of the country themselves are unable to check the slide.
Whatever the argument, it could not be denied that the US presence in Iraq is the major source of instability.
However, Washington is not ready to accept this year and that is reflected in the US president's arguments.
There are several schools of thought.
One school argues that an American military departure from Iraq would leave a serious security vacuum, and Iraqis would openly go for each other's throat. Furthermore, external elements driven by sectarianism would start meddling in Iraq and this would lead uncontrollable chaos.
Yet another stream of thought says that the three main sects of Iraq — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds — were never happy being bound together into one entity by the colonial powers in the first quarter of last century, and if they want to part ways now, why not let them do it in an orderly fashion (if that is ever possible).
Another argues that the situation could not get any worse and hence the US should simply stop arguing that "terrorists" would gain control of Iraq if the US military quits, and should leave the Iraqis to determine their fate themselves. There would be some more bloodshed, but the people would be more amenable to seek ways of co-existence rather than fighting among themselves. The UN and the Arab League should step in with all transparency and help the Iraqis sort out things and stabilise the country.
Of course, the US insists that it would not even set a timeline for leaving Iraq until it is satisfied that Iraqi security forces are capable of shouldering their responsibilities. Indeed, that is the ideal situation, but idealism is far from realism in Iraq, and the equation is further complicated by suspicion — and conviction on the part of many — that the US has no intention of ever ending its military presence in Iraq. Bush has made clear that "as long as (I'm) president, we're in Iraq." Such semi-ambiguities might be linked to political expediency within the US, but that would not help the contain the crisis in Iraq.
The best option that Bush has, as some American experts suggest, is to work with regional leaders on a formula that would cause the least ripples (although, in Iraq's context, the least would mean much more than many would bargain for), and implement it in tranparency while retaining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq.
The US imperative
Aug.15, 2006
The US imperative
A MAJORITY of Israelis admit that they lost the war against Hizbollah. Its political leadership has conceded their failure, and, no doubt, many political and military heads would roll soon because of the failure. As opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu stated, "there were many failures, failures in identifying the threat, failures in preparing to meet the threat, failures in the management of the war, failures in the management of the home front."
An opinion poll shows that 52 per cent of Israelis believe the Israeli army had been unsuccessful in its Lebanon offensive as opposed to 44 per cent who believed it did well.
And Hizbollah leaders claimed a "strategic victory" against Israel, an opinion that is widely prevalent in the Arab World.
It does not need much to identify and pinpoint what was a victory in the Israeli-Hizbollah war. Israel had to silence Hizbollah guns and rockets once and for all and force the group to return two captive Israeli soldiers to show that it won the battle. However, even on the day Israel accepted the ceasefire, Hizbollah rained more than 250 rockets on Israeli towns, and on the day the ceasefire went into effect Hizbollah fighters engaged Israeli soldiers occupying south Lebanon. Such clashes are destined to become a daily routine.
The two captive Israelis remain in Hizbollah custody, and the group retains the potential to pose a serious challenge to the Israeli military.
Israel, which had ruled out negotiating their release, now says it is ready to open talks on securing their freedom in return for freeing Lebanese held in Israeli detention.
So, on all counts, Israel, which boasts of having one of the strongest military forces in the world, failed.
However, not so for US President George W Bush, who insists that Israel defeated Hizbollah's guerrillas in the monthlong conflict.
In reality, no matter how anyone looks at the scenario, it is also clear the US is also a loser in the conflict. Armed with a joint military plan to destroy Hizbollah — and prepared far ahead of the July 12 Hizbollah capture of the two Israeli soldiers — the US threw itself openly in the Israeli camp and supplied the Jewish state material and logistic support in its brutal assault against Lebanon while accusing Syria and Iran of backing Hizbollah with similar support.
Now, as a result of adopting such an open position on the Israeli side of the fence — not that it was surprising or unexpected — the US has amassed more hostility for itself in the Arab and Muslim worlds. The US is seen in the Middle East as an aggressor, and Washington has lost whatever credibility remained with it after decades of a heavily biased policy in favour of Israel.
Far beyond that, the American project for a "new Middle East" has miserably and most decisively failed because Iraq and Lebanon were supposed to be the "success" stories that would have showed, from the US perspective, that Washington was on the right track.
The world needs no detailed remainder of what is going on Iraq. As to Lebanon, the less said the better. American officials are not even welcome to that country, and senior Lebanese politicians and government leaders are now paying tribute to Hizbollah, which has shot in Arab and Muslim popularity instead of being weakened as Israel and the US had hoped.
Well, if that is Bush considers as a victory for Israel — and, by extension, for the US itself — then one hates to think what it would take for him to admit defeat. More importantly, the worry is that such an approach would only herald more bloodshed and violence where the defenceless civilians pay the highest price, as the case was in Lebanon.
Is unlikely that the US president is unaware of the realities on the ground and is simply nose-led by his advisers. Therefore, it is an open guess that how history would judge him. At the same time, it is no justification for the bloodshed and suffering in the Middle East resulting from the US position.
The US imperative
A MAJORITY of Israelis admit that they lost the war against Hizbollah. Its political leadership has conceded their failure, and, no doubt, many political and military heads would roll soon because of the failure. As opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu stated, "there were many failures, failures in identifying the threat, failures in preparing to meet the threat, failures in the management of the war, failures in the management of the home front."
An opinion poll shows that 52 per cent of Israelis believe the Israeli army had been unsuccessful in its Lebanon offensive as opposed to 44 per cent who believed it did well.
And Hizbollah leaders claimed a "strategic victory" against Israel, an opinion that is widely prevalent in the Arab World.
It does not need much to identify and pinpoint what was a victory in the Israeli-Hizbollah war. Israel had to silence Hizbollah guns and rockets once and for all and force the group to return two captive Israeli soldiers to show that it won the battle. However, even on the day Israel accepted the ceasefire, Hizbollah rained more than 250 rockets on Israeli towns, and on the day the ceasefire went into effect Hizbollah fighters engaged Israeli soldiers occupying south Lebanon. Such clashes are destined to become a daily routine.
The two captive Israelis remain in Hizbollah custody, and the group retains the potential to pose a serious challenge to the Israeli military.
Israel, which had ruled out negotiating their release, now says it is ready to open talks on securing their freedom in return for freeing Lebanese held in Israeli detention.
So, on all counts, Israel, which boasts of having one of the strongest military forces in the world, failed.
However, not so for US President George W Bush, who insists that Israel defeated Hizbollah's guerrillas in the monthlong conflict.
In reality, no matter how anyone looks at the scenario, it is also clear the US is also a loser in the conflict. Armed with a joint military plan to destroy Hizbollah — and prepared far ahead of the July 12 Hizbollah capture of the two Israeli soldiers — the US threw itself openly in the Israeli camp and supplied the Jewish state material and logistic support in its brutal assault against Lebanon while accusing Syria and Iran of backing Hizbollah with similar support.
Now, as a result of adopting such an open position on the Israeli side of the fence — not that it was surprising or unexpected — the US has amassed more hostility for itself in the Arab and Muslim worlds. The US is seen in the Middle East as an aggressor, and Washington has lost whatever credibility remained with it after decades of a heavily biased policy in favour of Israel.
Far beyond that, the American project for a "new Middle East" has miserably and most decisively failed because Iraq and Lebanon were supposed to be the "success" stories that would have showed, from the US perspective, that Washington was on the right track.
The world needs no detailed remainder of what is going on Iraq. As to Lebanon, the less said the better. American officials are not even welcome to that country, and senior Lebanese politicians and government leaders are now paying tribute to Hizbollah, which has shot in Arab and Muslim popularity instead of being weakened as Israel and the US had hoped.
Well, if that is Bush considers as a victory for Israel — and, by extension, for the US itself — then one hates to think what it would take for him to admit defeat. More importantly, the worry is that such an approach would only herald more bloodshed and violence where the defenceless civilians pay the highest price, as the case was in Lebanon.
Is unlikely that the US president is unaware of the realities on the ground and is simply nose-led by his advisers. Therefore, it is an open guess that how history would judge him. At the same time, it is no justification for the bloodshed and suffering in the Middle East resulting from the US position.
Not an end in itself
Aug.13, 2006
ISRAEL has accepted UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and agreed to silence its guns this morning. Hopefully it would keep its word, and there would some respite for the beleagured people of Lebanon.
Surely, the Israeli acceptance of Resolution 1701 stemmed from a realisation that, as its foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, affirmed in public, no army could have defeated Hizbollah. It naturally follows then that Israel would have to negotiate, whether with Hizbollah (which is unlikely) or with the Lebanese government for the release of two of its soldiers taken captive by Hizbollah on July 12.
One only wonders why such wisdom did not dawn on the Israeli leadership when the crisis erupted and why it took more than a month of war that killed more than 1,200, maimed thousands, displaced tens of thousands and destroyed billions of dollars of worth of property and infrastructure for them to realise the realities on the ground.
Well, the Israeli leadership was riding on the Jewish state's self-assumed aura of invincibility and they thought they could crush Hizbollah. Not only did Israel have to admit after 32 days that it could not defeat Hizbollah but also acknowledge that it would have to engage in negotiations to secure the release of the captive soldiers.
Hizbollah also played its military cards right on the political front by showing that it was ready to accept a ceasefire. It has to be remembered that Hizbollah had rejected earlier, informal calls for a truce and dared Israel to unleash whatever weapons it has against Lebanon. Obviously, Hizbollah wanted to tell Israel and the rest of the world to know that it could withstand the Israeli assault and would not plead for a way out through truce. And, on the contrary, as the group proved, it is capable of fighting Israel on its own terms without having weapons anywhere near the sophisticated and advanced arsenal in Israel's possession.
The Israeli assault on Lebanon and the outcome after 32 days have brought some fundamental changes to the situation. The world saw that the Israeli flank is vulnerable in a guerrilla war. It is no longer relevant that it had military commanders who used to thump their chest about their abilities to fight Arab armies. That is not to deny that Israel has in its possession enough military power to blow up the entire Middle East to smithereens, but that capability did not come to its rescue against Hizbollah, once described as a ragtag militia.
Adding insult to injury to the Israeli political and military leadership is the certainty that the heads of some of them would roll as a result of the Lebanon debacle. Rumblings have already started, and it was no coincidence that Livni admitted in the cabinet that the mighty Israeli army could not defeat Hizbollah. What she left unsaid was that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his close aides should have realised it at the very outset of the crisis.
In the meantime, the Arabs are heaving a sigh of relief that there is some hope for an end to Lebanon's suffering and surely they could not conceal a broad grin and wink that Israel was forced to learn a lesson.
At the same time, the ceasefire in Lebanon is not an end in itself. It does not address the core conflict, and it means that anything could break out at any time in Lebanon and Palestine notwithstanding whatever appears on the surface.
ISRAEL has accepted UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and agreed to silence its guns this morning. Hopefully it would keep its word, and there would some respite for the beleagured people of Lebanon.
Surely, the Israeli acceptance of Resolution 1701 stemmed from a realisation that, as its foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, affirmed in public, no army could have defeated Hizbollah. It naturally follows then that Israel would have to negotiate, whether with Hizbollah (which is unlikely) or with the Lebanese government for the release of two of its soldiers taken captive by Hizbollah on July 12.
One only wonders why such wisdom did not dawn on the Israeli leadership when the crisis erupted and why it took more than a month of war that killed more than 1,200, maimed thousands, displaced tens of thousands and destroyed billions of dollars of worth of property and infrastructure for them to realise the realities on the ground.
Well, the Israeli leadership was riding on the Jewish state's self-assumed aura of invincibility and they thought they could crush Hizbollah. Not only did Israel have to admit after 32 days that it could not defeat Hizbollah but also acknowledge that it would have to engage in negotiations to secure the release of the captive soldiers.
Hizbollah also played its military cards right on the political front by showing that it was ready to accept a ceasefire. It has to be remembered that Hizbollah had rejected earlier, informal calls for a truce and dared Israel to unleash whatever weapons it has against Lebanon. Obviously, Hizbollah wanted to tell Israel and the rest of the world to know that it could withstand the Israeli assault and would not plead for a way out through truce. And, on the contrary, as the group proved, it is capable of fighting Israel on its own terms without having weapons anywhere near the sophisticated and advanced arsenal in Israel's possession.
The Israeli assault on Lebanon and the outcome after 32 days have brought some fundamental changes to the situation. The world saw that the Israeli flank is vulnerable in a guerrilla war. It is no longer relevant that it had military commanders who used to thump their chest about their abilities to fight Arab armies. That is not to deny that Israel has in its possession enough military power to blow up the entire Middle East to smithereens, but that capability did not come to its rescue against Hizbollah, once described as a ragtag militia.
Adding insult to injury to the Israeli political and military leadership is the certainty that the heads of some of them would roll as a result of the Lebanon debacle. Rumblings have already started, and it was no coincidence that Livni admitted in the cabinet that the mighty Israeli army could not defeat Hizbollah. What she left unsaid was that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his close aides should have realised it at the very outset of the crisis.
In the meantime, the Arabs are heaving a sigh of relief that there is some hope for an end to Lebanon's suffering and surely they could not conceal a broad grin and wink that Israel was forced to learn a lesson.
At the same time, the ceasefire in Lebanon is not an end in itself. It does not address the core conflict, and it means that anything could break out at any time in Lebanon and Palestine notwithstanding whatever appears on the surface.
Shape of things ahead
Aug.14 2006
THE ON-AGAIN, OFF-AGAIN clashes between Israaeli soldiers and Hizbollah despite the cease-fire that took effect on Monday following a 32-day Israeli blitz against Lebanon are symptomatic of the difficult days ahead and reflects the fragility of the truce itself. It is a safe bet that more serious Israeli-Hizbollah confrontations would follow and make a mockery of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 even before political pundits figure out who emerged as the "winner" from the lop-sided tug-of-war between the Jewish state and the Lebanese group.
Having withstood the assault and denying victory to Israel, Hizbollah finds itself riding high on a popularity wave.
We also saw that the mighty Israeli military could not protect Israelis from Hizbollah rockets just as Hizbollah could not protect Lebanese from Israeli firepower. The marked difference is that the Israeli military represents a state, a very strong one at that by virtue of the almost unlimited support extended to it by the world's sole superpower, while Hizbollah is political-military group that represents a certain segment of the national society of its country. And that gives Hizbollah the moral authority to claim "divine victory."
The ground for a war of attribution is set in southern Lebanon. Some 10,000 Israeli soldiers remain some 20 kilometres into Lebanon, and Israeli leaders say they would not be pulled out before the deployment of a strengthened UN force, which will not only protect Israel but will also seek to disarm Hizbollah with help from the Lebanese army.
On the other hand, Hizbollah's acceptance of the truce is contingent upon the departure of the last Israeli soldier from Lebanon. Every Israeli soldier found in Lebanese territory is fair game for the group.
Obviously drawing pleasure from the way Israel is behaving like a bewildered animal, Hizbollah would hit at Israeli soldiers, who could even be described as sitting ducks. Hizbollah fighters do not even have to fire their rockets across the border to prove their point.
Israel, unable to pinpoint the enemy, will wildly kick out at Lebanon's infrastructure — whatever is left of water and power stations, bridges and buildings — for every Hizbollah attack since, in Israel's military-driven dictonary, witholding retaliation means nothing but weakness.
What would the result be? A high-intensity guerrilla war.
That is the major flaw in Resolution 1701. In their anxiety to protect Israel's interests and deny everyone else any loophole, the supporters and protectors of the Jewish state overlooked the obvious. They have denied Israel a face-saving opportunity to withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon.
THE ON-AGAIN, OFF-AGAIN clashes between Israaeli soldiers and Hizbollah despite the cease-fire that took effect on Monday following a 32-day Israeli blitz against Lebanon are symptomatic of the difficult days ahead and reflects the fragility of the truce itself. It is a safe bet that more serious Israeli-Hizbollah confrontations would follow and make a mockery of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 even before political pundits figure out who emerged as the "winner" from the lop-sided tug-of-war between the Jewish state and the Lebanese group.
Having withstood the assault and denying victory to Israel, Hizbollah finds itself riding high on a popularity wave.
We also saw that the mighty Israeli military could not protect Israelis from Hizbollah rockets just as Hizbollah could not protect Lebanese from Israeli firepower. The marked difference is that the Israeli military represents a state, a very strong one at that by virtue of the almost unlimited support extended to it by the world's sole superpower, while Hizbollah is political-military group that represents a certain segment of the national society of its country. And that gives Hizbollah the moral authority to claim "divine victory."
The ground for a war of attribution is set in southern Lebanon. Some 10,000 Israeli soldiers remain some 20 kilometres into Lebanon, and Israeli leaders say they would not be pulled out before the deployment of a strengthened UN force, which will not only protect Israel but will also seek to disarm Hizbollah with help from the Lebanese army.
On the other hand, Hizbollah's acceptance of the truce is contingent upon the departure of the last Israeli soldier from Lebanon. Every Israeli soldier found in Lebanese territory is fair game for the group.
Obviously drawing pleasure from the way Israel is behaving like a bewildered animal, Hizbollah would hit at Israeli soldiers, who could even be described as sitting ducks. Hizbollah fighters do not even have to fire their rockets across the border to prove their point.
Israel, unable to pinpoint the enemy, will wildly kick out at Lebanon's infrastructure — whatever is left of water and power stations, bridges and buildings — for every Hizbollah attack since, in Israel's military-driven dictonary, witholding retaliation means nothing but weakness.
What would the result be? A high-intensity guerrilla war.
That is the major flaw in Resolution 1701. In their anxiety to protect Israel's interests and deny everyone else any loophole, the supporters and protectors of the Jewish state overlooked the obvious. They have denied Israel a face-saving opportunity to withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon.
The benefit of the doubt
Aug.11, 2006
The benefit of the doubt
IS THERE more than meets the eye in Thursday's uproar over a reported plot to blow up in mid-air some 10 passenger airplanes in several phases?
On the surface, it seems like a major success for British and allied security agencies to have bust the plot and arrested 24 people, with 19 of them being pinned down as definite suspects. Raids were conducted, but we don't know as yet whether any liquid explosives or any other evidence of what was reported as a plot of mass murder were seized from the suspects. Nor was any material evidence recovered from the massive search mounted at British airports, mainly Heathrow.
The alleged plotters are said to have been inspired by Al Qaeda but there has not been any revelation of any direct link between them and the group. If such a link was found and reported, then it is only natural for the public to expect the security forces to be specific at some point in time as the saga of conspiracy unfolds.
A sifting through the various contentions and claims with a view to getting to the bottom of the affair would reach the point where it would appear that British security agents had come across a few British Muslims talking heatedly about what they saw as injustice being perpetrated against fellow Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere and suggesting how to retaliate in their own way.
They were immediately branded as terror suspects and kept under surveillance. Their movements were monitored, and their telephones were tapped. Anyone who happened to come into contact with them were also categorised with them and turned into suspects.
The surveillance continued, apparently with the objective of arresting the suspsects when the security agencies felt it was the right time and as many people as possible could be caught in the net.
And this happened on Thursday, we presume.
What was so special about Thursday? For one thing, no suspect or incriminating material was reportedly found during the unprecedented security alert that went into effect at British and other airports on Thursday. So why was Thursday picked for the operation?
Some security experts said on television channels that the suspects had not reached anywhere near where they were ready to carry out their alleged "mass murder plot." Why then the high-profile, no-pulls-punched "critical" alert that was announced on Thursday?
The ambiguity that surrounds the affair — the only certainty that we know of is the arrest of the suspects and raids conducted in various pars of England — is so typical of the anti-terror drive in the UK following the enactment of a tough anti-terrorism law that denies the right of people to know.
The predictable course of events is simple: At some point, say a few weeks down the line, all or some of the suspects would be produced in a court for a closed-door hearing where the defence lawyers would have no right to have access to the evidence against their clients. Everything related to the actual details of the trial would be kept under wraps, and the court would jail them for whatever period it finds fit.
And all that the public would know is that the suspects plotted mass murder and the authorities, working to ensure public safety and prevent terror, busted them and jailed them so that they would not pose further threats. Details of what they plotted and how they planned to carry out the plot would be "classified" and kept "top secret." The public would be told it is for own good that they are not being told how a large number of people were spared certain death.
That could be the end of the story, except of course that it does not satisfy some people who have valid questions. But then they do not have a recourse. After all, that is why the British government enacted the tough anti-terrorism law which dictates that it is for the government to decide what the public should know even it is half-truth.
The timing of the "mass-murder plot" should also be seen against what is going on in Lebanon and the need for Israel and is backers to convince the world community of the need to adopt a UN Security Council resolution the way they have drafted it. The implications are many.
However, let us give the concerned governments and intelligence agencies the benefit of the doubt but with a condition: They better come up with a more convincing tale where every dot is connected.
The benefit of the doubt
IS THERE more than meets the eye in Thursday's uproar over a reported plot to blow up in mid-air some 10 passenger airplanes in several phases?
On the surface, it seems like a major success for British and allied security agencies to have bust the plot and arrested 24 people, with 19 of them being pinned down as definite suspects. Raids were conducted, but we don't know as yet whether any liquid explosives or any other evidence of what was reported as a plot of mass murder were seized from the suspects. Nor was any material evidence recovered from the massive search mounted at British airports, mainly Heathrow.
The alleged plotters are said to have been inspired by Al Qaeda but there has not been any revelation of any direct link between them and the group. If such a link was found and reported, then it is only natural for the public to expect the security forces to be specific at some point in time as the saga of conspiracy unfolds.
A sifting through the various contentions and claims with a view to getting to the bottom of the affair would reach the point where it would appear that British security agents had come across a few British Muslims talking heatedly about what they saw as injustice being perpetrated against fellow Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere and suggesting how to retaliate in their own way.
They were immediately branded as terror suspects and kept under surveillance. Their movements were monitored, and their telephones were tapped. Anyone who happened to come into contact with them were also categorised with them and turned into suspects.
The surveillance continued, apparently with the objective of arresting the suspsects when the security agencies felt it was the right time and as many people as possible could be caught in the net.
And this happened on Thursday, we presume.
What was so special about Thursday? For one thing, no suspect or incriminating material was reportedly found during the unprecedented security alert that went into effect at British and other airports on Thursday. So why was Thursday picked for the operation?
Some security experts said on television channels that the suspects had not reached anywhere near where they were ready to carry out their alleged "mass murder plot." Why then the high-profile, no-pulls-punched "critical" alert that was announced on Thursday?
The ambiguity that surrounds the affair — the only certainty that we know of is the arrest of the suspects and raids conducted in various pars of England — is so typical of the anti-terror drive in the UK following the enactment of a tough anti-terrorism law that denies the right of people to know.
The predictable course of events is simple: At some point, say a few weeks down the line, all or some of the suspects would be produced in a court for a closed-door hearing where the defence lawyers would have no right to have access to the evidence against their clients. Everything related to the actual details of the trial would be kept under wraps, and the court would jail them for whatever period it finds fit.
And all that the public would know is that the suspects plotted mass murder and the authorities, working to ensure public safety and prevent terror, busted them and jailed them so that they would not pose further threats. Details of what they plotted and how they planned to carry out the plot would be "classified" and kept "top secret." The public would be told it is for own good that they are not being told how a large number of people were spared certain death.
That could be the end of the story, except of course that it does not satisfy some people who have valid questions. But then they do not have a recourse. After all, that is why the British government enacted the tough anti-terrorism law which dictates that it is for the government to decide what the public should know even it is half-truth.
The timing of the "mass-murder plot" should also be seen against what is going on in Lebanon and the need for Israel and is backers to convince the world community of the need to adopt a UN Security Council resolution the way they have drafted it. The implications are many.
However, let us give the concerned governments and intelligence agencies the benefit of the doubt but with a condition: They better come up with a more convincing tale where every dot is connected.
Neocons vs Israel?
Aug.12, 2006
Neocons vs Israel?
NO DOUBT, the Israelis are smarter than the Americans. They know the perils involved in bringing Syria into a military conflict at this point in time ie. without having a sizeable US force with enough firepower to take on not only Syria but also Iran (if Syria become a target for an Israeli military offensive). It is not a short-term possibility. That is why the Israeli leadership balked at extortions by the neoconservative camp in Washington to widen the Lebanon offensive and include Syria.
The Israelis have cunningly turned — in the bilateral context with the US — its assault against Lebanon as a war that its armed forces are waging on behalf of the US since containing Lebanon's Hizbollah is an American priority. However, Israel is not yet ready to take it further than that despite the neocon suggestions relayed through the White House, according to reports in the US media.
One Israeli source has been quoted as saying that US President George Bush's "interest in spreading the war to Syria" was considered "nuts" by some senior Israeli officials, although Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has generally shared Bush's hard-line strategy.
The Israeli daily Jerusalem Post quoted Israeli military officials as telling the paper that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria.
Having laid low for some time following the unexpected turn of events in Iraq after having engineered the US invasion and occupation of that country in March 2003, neoconservatives are showing their colours again.
Michael Ledeen, a neocon said to have orchestrated the deceptive intelligence finding that Iraq had bought nuclear material from Niger, writes that the US should go after Syria and Iran. He laments that the US has not done so and — in typical neocon pattern — sympathises with the Israelis, who, he says, are doing the "hard work on the ground."
He calls for "the total destruction of Hizbullah and the downfall of the regime in Damascus" as the next step towards setting US gunsights further into the region.
William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, one of the pillars of the neocon movement, makes a stronger argument.
"For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States," he writes. "We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.
"The right response is renewed strength – in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions — and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement."
We know that the neocons are determined and heavily influential and would resort to any means to achieve their ends, and their moves end up benefiting Israel more than the US — although the widely held argument is that they are seeking to serve US interests since they believe in American supremacy of the globe.
Now, it would seem that Israel has found the neocons more of a liability than an asset because it would have to put its soldiers on the frontline if it were to engage the Syrians in a military conflict. Israel would rather have the US military on the frontline and fight Israel's war as the case was and is in Iraq.
In Lebanon's case, Israel has to fight its own war because the US could not be brought in as a direct player since it would not pass muster if Hizbollah were to be accused of posing a direct threat to the security of the US, and it is also an Israeli need to put an end to Hizbollah rocket attacks across the border.
However, that does not alter the common objectives of the US and Israel to reshape the Middle East to suit their interests. Many eggs are being cooked in the back kitchen, and what we come across here and there are advance smells of the ultimate Israeli-American dish.
Neocons vs Israel?
NO DOUBT, the Israelis are smarter than the Americans. They know the perils involved in bringing Syria into a military conflict at this point in time ie. without having a sizeable US force with enough firepower to take on not only Syria but also Iran (if Syria become a target for an Israeli military offensive). It is not a short-term possibility. That is why the Israeli leadership balked at extortions by the neoconservative camp in Washington to widen the Lebanon offensive and include Syria.
The Israelis have cunningly turned — in the bilateral context with the US — its assault against Lebanon as a war that its armed forces are waging on behalf of the US since containing Lebanon's Hizbollah is an American priority. However, Israel is not yet ready to take it further than that despite the neocon suggestions relayed through the White House, according to reports in the US media.
One Israeli source has been quoted as saying that US President George Bush's "interest in spreading the war to Syria" was considered "nuts" by some senior Israeli officials, although Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has generally shared Bush's hard-line strategy.
The Israeli daily Jerusalem Post quoted Israeli military officials as telling the paper that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria.
Having laid low for some time following the unexpected turn of events in Iraq after having engineered the US invasion and occupation of that country in March 2003, neoconservatives are showing their colours again.
Michael Ledeen, a neocon said to have orchestrated the deceptive intelligence finding that Iraq had bought nuclear material from Niger, writes that the US should go after Syria and Iran. He laments that the US has not done so and — in typical neocon pattern — sympathises with the Israelis, who, he says, are doing the "hard work on the ground."
He calls for "the total destruction of Hizbullah and the downfall of the regime in Damascus" as the next step towards setting US gunsights further into the region.
William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, one of the pillars of the neocon movement, makes a stronger argument.
"For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States," he writes. "We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.
"The right response is renewed strength – in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions — and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement."
We know that the neocons are determined and heavily influential and would resort to any means to achieve their ends, and their moves end up benefiting Israel more than the US — although the widely held argument is that they are seeking to serve US interests since they believe in American supremacy of the globe.
Now, it would seem that Israel has found the neocons more of a liability than an asset because it would have to put its soldiers on the frontline if it were to engage the Syrians in a military conflict. Israel would rather have the US military on the frontline and fight Israel's war as the case was and is in Iraq.
In Lebanon's case, Israel has to fight its own war because the US could not be brought in as a direct player since it would not pass muster if Hizbollah were to be accused of posing a direct threat to the security of the US, and it is also an Israeli need to put an end to Hizbollah rocket attacks across the border.
However, that does not alter the common objectives of the US and Israel to reshape the Middle East to suit their interests. Many eggs are being cooked in the back kitchen, and what we come across here and there are advance smells of the ultimate Israeli-American dish.
Broader agenda at work
Aug.12, 2006
Broader agenda
at work at UN
THE TUG-of-war at the UN over a draft resolution on the Israeli military assault on Lebanon is, in reality, a battle over reshaping the Middle East. It is not a simple question of restoring calm to the Lebanese-Israeli border and ending Hizbollah rocket attacks against Israel and a return to the status quo ante. It has to do with the Israel-inspired US plan for a "new Middle East" that had gone awry with the unexpected slap of the face the US received in Iraq after invading that country in 2003. A new sense of purpose was injected into the idea when the latest crisis erupted in Lebanon following Hizbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers. And now Israel and the US are determined to see it through and never to let go of what they see as the opportunity that presented itself for bulldozing their way through the region regardless of what it takes, including massacres and wanton destruction in Lebanon. It is transparent that Israel believes and has convinced the US that there would not be a second opportunity and hence the bitter dispute at the UN over how to go about handling the crisis.
There are two distinct streams of diplomacy at work at the UN Security Council.
The first could be seen as representing the world conscience after having witnessed the carnage and wanton destruction that Israel has unleashed on Lebanon and this group wants an urgent cease-fire in place before anything else. This group does agree over the need for long-term solutions to the conflict, but is opposed to letting Israel continue its merciless assault that is punishing the people of Lebanon in the name of Hizbollah. They want an immeidate cessation to hostilities that would allow relief material to reach those wounded and displaced in the country.
The second stream represents the combined Israeli-American goal of "destroying" Arab resistance as represented by Hizbollah and the Palestinian group Hamas. This group wants to take advantage of the crisis in Lebanon to suit its broader purpose of scrambling the Middle East equation and imposing on the region the Israeli version of a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This would mean dragging Syria and Iran into the ongoing crisis since those two countries are seen to represent the hardest of all nuts to crack in the combined Israeli-American campaign to reshape the Middle East. Hamas would be brought into the picture at that time, and Israel wants to set an example with Hizbollah at this point in time because the outcome of the current crisis would determine to a large extent the Palestinian options.
Indeed, there is also a school of thought which believes that the US is not yet ready to take on Syria or Iran, but Israel, by exacerbating the crisis in Lebanon, is forcing the American hand by expanding the conflict to drag in the Syrians and Iranians where the US would have no choice but to engage itself as a direct party and launch military action against those two countries. There is of course a strong element of unpredictability over a course of events in that direction, but then the US would have no choice but to take on developments as they unfold.
It is also being argued that by seeking to destroy Hizbollah's missile and rocket capabilities, Israel is trying to remove American concerns that the Lebanese group would retaliate against the Israelis if the US carries out strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. Therefore, crippling Hizbollah's capabilities to retaliate for military action against Iran means reducing concerns in this respect.
As such, an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon would not suit Israel's purpose — and who is the US to say no to what the Jewish state wants anyway? — and thus the dispute at the UN between the French-led first group and the US-led second group over Arab demands to change the draft resolution they are co-sponsoring to call for a complete cessation of Israeli-Hizbollah hostilities and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.
In diplomatic terms, the US argues against any change in the draft resolution — which is heavily tilted in favour of Israel — saying that without a strong "international stabilisation" force there would be a vacuum in southern Lebanon that could not be addressed by the Lebanese army and the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which is already there. The US would agree to only cosmetic amendments to the resolution and would not accept any changes that would negatively affect the broader agenda.
In real terms, the US and Israel wants to use the proposed Europe-led international force as a tool in their hands to disarm Hizbollah using force as and when necessary. They want the proposed force to be authorised to take an aggressive posture to disarm Hizbollah — and indeed Palestinian groups in south Lebanon — in the name of UN Security Council Resolution 1559.
That being their goal, they would not settle for anything less than preparing an irrefutable ground for deployment of such a force before calling a cease-fire in Lebanon. And, if more massacres and an obliteration of Lebanon's infrastructure take place in the interim, so be it. That is the open-ended price the US has set for the Lebanese and Arabs to pay for refusing to accept Israel's hegemony.
Broader agenda
at work at UN
THE TUG-of-war at the UN over a draft resolution on the Israeli military assault on Lebanon is, in reality, a battle over reshaping the Middle East. It is not a simple question of restoring calm to the Lebanese-Israeli border and ending Hizbollah rocket attacks against Israel and a return to the status quo ante. It has to do with the Israel-inspired US plan for a "new Middle East" that had gone awry with the unexpected slap of the face the US received in Iraq after invading that country in 2003. A new sense of purpose was injected into the idea when the latest crisis erupted in Lebanon following Hizbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers. And now Israel and the US are determined to see it through and never to let go of what they see as the opportunity that presented itself for bulldozing their way through the region regardless of what it takes, including massacres and wanton destruction in Lebanon. It is transparent that Israel believes and has convinced the US that there would not be a second opportunity and hence the bitter dispute at the UN over how to go about handling the crisis.
There are two distinct streams of diplomacy at work at the UN Security Council.
The first could be seen as representing the world conscience after having witnessed the carnage and wanton destruction that Israel has unleashed on Lebanon and this group wants an urgent cease-fire in place before anything else. This group does agree over the need for long-term solutions to the conflict, but is opposed to letting Israel continue its merciless assault that is punishing the people of Lebanon in the name of Hizbollah. They want an immeidate cessation to hostilities that would allow relief material to reach those wounded and displaced in the country.
The second stream represents the combined Israeli-American goal of "destroying" Arab resistance as represented by Hizbollah and the Palestinian group Hamas. This group wants to take advantage of the crisis in Lebanon to suit its broader purpose of scrambling the Middle East equation and imposing on the region the Israeli version of a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This would mean dragging Syria and Iran into the ongoing crisis since those two countries are seen to represent the hardest of all nuts to crack in the combined Israeli-American campaign to reshape the Middle East. Hamas would be brought into the picture at that time, and Israel wants to set an example with Hizbollah at this point in time because the outcome of the current crisis would determine to a large extent the Palestinian options.
Indeed, there is also a school of thought which believes that the US is not yet ready to take on Syria or Iran, but Israel, by exacerbating the crisis in Lebanon, is forcing the American hand by expanding the conflict to drag in the Syrians and Iranians where the US would have no choice but to engage itself as a direct party and launch military action against those two countries. There is of course a strong element of unpredictability over a course of events in that direction, but then the US would have no choice but to take on developments as they unfold.
It is also being argued that by seeking to destroy Hizbollah's missile and rocket capabilities, Israel is trying to remove American concerns that the Lebanese group would retaliate against the Israelis if the US carries out strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. Therefore, crippling Hizbollah's capabilities to retaliate for military action against Iran means reducing concerns in this respect.
As such, an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon would not suit Israel's purpose — and who is the US to say no to what the Jewish state wants anyway? — and thus the dispute at the UN between the French-led first group and the US-led second group over Arab demands to change the draft resolution they are co-sponsoring to call for a complete cessation of Israeli-Hizbollah hostilities and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.
In diplomatic terms, the US argues against any change in the draft resolution — which is heavily tilted in favour of Israel — saying that without a strong "international stabilisation" force there would be a vacuum in southern Lebanon that could not be addressed by the Lebanese army and the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which is already there. The US would agree to only cosmetic amendments to the resolution and would not accept any changes that would negatively affect the broader agenda.
In real terms, the US and Israel wants to use the proposed Europe-led international force as a tool in their hands to disarm Hizbollah using force as and when necessary. They want the proposed force to be authorised to take an aggressive posture to disarm Hizbollah — and indeed Palestinian groups in south Lebanon — in the name of UN Security Council Resolution 1559.
That being their goal, they would not settle for anything less than preparing an irrefutable ground for deployment of such a force before calling a cease-fire in Lebanon. And, if more massacres and an obliteration of Lebanon's infrastructure take place in the interim, so be it. That is the open-ended price the US has set for the Lebanese and Arabs to pay for refusing to accept Israel's hegemony.
The games that Israel plays
Aug.8 2006
The games that Israel plays
STARTLING as it indeed is to many, it has been suggested that Israel has purposely left pockets of pockets of Hizbollah rockets in Lebanon with a view to allowing the Lebanese group to continue to lob projectiles at Israeli towns. The rationale is that as long as Israel is being rocketed, the Israeli armed forces could continue to have what their political and military leaders consider as moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.
The suggestion has come not from the Arab World, but from someone as eminent as the Washington Post's Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks in an interview with Cable News Network.
"One of the things that is going on, according to some US military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hizbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they’re being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon," Ricks told CNN's Howard Kurtz.
Quoting military analysts, Ricks said Israel had deliberately allowed Hizbollah to retain some of it’s fire power, essentially for public relations purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps it in the public relations war.
As Ricks put it, "it helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well."
The argument goes against the widely held conventional belief that Israel is "uncompromising" when it comes to the life and security of its people. It is often argued by regional pundits that the Israeli mindset is unable to accept the death of even one Israeli in a situation of conflict, and that is why Israel responds so violently and brutally in retaliation for fatal attacks against its people.
The pundits cite the heavily lopsided Israeli-Arab exchanges in the past, including the instances where Israel freed more than 4,000 Arab and non-Arab prisoners in exchange for four Israeli soldiers and the remains of a few others in the mid-80s and several other swaps since then under similar conditions but with a less number of prisoners freed.
In view of this record, it would seem improbable that Israel would ever expose its people to danger by allowing Hizbollah to continue to fire rockets at Israeli targets across the border.
But then one has to look far beyond the 80s to realise that giving up or even taking Israeli lives in order to serve the broader "Zionist cause" is nothing new to the Jewish state.
In fact, the history of the run-up to the creation of Israel and thereafter is bloody with Jewish blood spilled by Zionist leaders with a view to stampeding them into migrating to the Jewish state.
Some of today's Israeli elderly politicians and former ministers have admitted to having taking part in plotting bomb attacks and planting explosives in synagogues in Arab countries such as Iraq and Egypt in the 1940s. The bombs exploded and killed many, and they triggered panic among the entire Jewish communities there, and they, with a bit of scary persuasion by the bombers, promptly fled the country, with most of them going to Israel.
Since then, Israel's publicly known and unknown history is full of incidents that establish that the Jewish state has always thrived on deception and would go to any extent to have its way. No price is too high if it serves Zionist interests, even if means a few Israeli lives — that is the bottom line for the Zionist leaders.
The suggestion that Israel has allowed Hizbollah to keep some of its rocket pockets might or might not be true, but it highlights the cunningness and mass deception that have always been part of the Israeli drive to get itself accepted as a legitimate member of the Middle Eastern order. It also offers an insight into how Israel managed to build itself as an unquestioned ally of the US, which has always overlooks the many unfriendly actions of the Jewish state, including spying in the US and exposing and damaging American interests all around. Even US presidents do not care to respond when Israeli leaders claim that they have more clout in the US Congress than the president of the country.
It also shows the enormity of the challenges facing the Arabs in trying to ensure fairness and justice in the Middle East.
The games that Israel plays
STARTLING as it indeed is to many, it has been suggested that Israel has purposely left pockets of pockets of Hizbollah rockets in Lebanon with a view to allowing the Lebanese group to continue to lob projectiles at Israeli towns. The rationale is that as long as Israel is being rocketed, the Israeli armed forces could continue to have what their political and military leaders consider as moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.
The suggestion has come not from the Arab World, but from someone as eminent as the Washington Post's Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks in an interview with Cable News Network.
"One of the things that is going on, according to some US military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hizbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they’re being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon," Ricks told CNN's Howard Kurtz.
Quoting military analysts, Ricks said Israel had deliberately allowed Hizbollah to retain some of it’s fire power, essentially for public relations purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps it in the public relations war.
As Ricks put it, "it helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well."
The argument goes against the widely held conventional belief that Israel is "uncompromising" when it comes to the life and security of its people. It is often argued by regional pundits that the Israeli mindset is unable to accept the death of even one Israeli in a situation of conflict, and that is why Israel responds so violently and brutally in retaliation for fatal attacks against its people.
The pundits cite the heavily lopsided Israeli-Arab exchanges in the past, including the instances where Israel freed more than 4,000 Arab and non-Arab prisoners in exchange for four Israeli soldiers and the remains of a few others in the mid-80s and several other swaps since then under similar conditions but with a less number of prisoners freed.
In view of this record, it would seem improbable that Israel would ever expose its people to danger by allowing Hizbollah to continue to fire rockets at Israeli targets across the border.
But then one has to look far beyond the 80s to realise that giving up or even taking Israeli lives in order to serve the broader "Zionist cause" is nothing new to the Jewish state.
In fact, the history of the run-up to the creation of Israel and thereafter is bloody with Jewish blood spilled by Zionist leaders with a view to stampeding them into migrating to the Jewish state.
Some of today's Israeli elderly politicians and former ministers have admitted to having taking part in plotting bomb attacks and planting explosives in synagogues in Arab countries such as Iraq and Egypt in the 1940s. The bombs exploded and killed many, and they triggered panic among the entire Jewish communities there, and they, with a bit of scary persuasion by the bombers, promptly fled the country, with most of them going to Israel.
Since then, Israel's publicly known and unknown history is full of incidents that establish that the Jewish state has always thrived on deception and would go to any extent to have its way. No price is too high if it serves Zionist interests, even if means a few Israeli lives — that is the bottom line for the Zionist leaders.
The suggestion that Israel has allowed Hizbollah to keep some of its rocket pockets might or might not be true, but it highlights the cunningness and mass deception that have always been part of the Israeli drive to get itself accepted as a legitimate member of the Middle Eastern order. It also offers an insight into how Israel managed to build itself as an unquestioned ally of the US, which has always overlooks the many unfriendly actions of the Jewish state, including spying in the US and exposing and damaging American interests all around. Even US presidents do not care to respond when Israeli leaders claim that they have more clout in the US Congress than the president of the country.
It also shows the enormity of the challenges facing the Arabs in trying to ensure fairness and justice in the Middle East.
Tough mission for Arabs
Aug.7, 2006
UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed spoke up not only for the UAE and the Arab World but also for the entire world when he expressed hope that the international community would work for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon. "I hope the international community will regain its consciousness and respond possibility to the just demand of Lebanon," Sheikh Abdullah said in Beirut shortly before heading for the UN to meet Kofi Annan with an urgent plea for an immediate cessation of the Israeli offensive against Lebanon.
He lamented that the Israeli response to the Lebanese call for an immediate ceasfire had been more devastation, displacement and killings.
The civilised world is indeed shocked at the way that there had not been any serious international effort to put an end to the suffering of the people of Lebanon who are paying the price for Israel's strategic designs in the region. At least 1,000 people have been killed, thousands maimed and tens of thousands left homeless as a result of the Israeli blitz against Lebanon and the world has not been able to do anything about it. The United Nations, which is supposed to represent the world conscience, has been rendered a toothless tiger when it comes to realistic action. Indeed, some countries are of the opinion that since it was Hizbollah which triggered the crisis by capturing two Israeli soldiers, Lebanon might as well pay the price. Little regard is given to the reality that Israel had been just waiting for an opportunity to wage an all-out war to "destroy" Hizbollah.
The international community has been left helpless against the Israeli offensive only because the Jewish state's grand designs are endorsed and supported by the world's sole superpower and its allies. Suffice it is to say that it is an insult to every human being that the world community is unable to help prevent a campaign of genocide being perpetrated against a people by a state.
The Arab foreign ministers meeting in Beirut have unanimously supported for Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's seven-point plan for an end to the Israeli assault against his country. They also backed his call for changes in the proposed UN Security Council resolution on the crisis. It was indeed a show of Arab solidarity with Lebanon that the ministers had met in Beirut,
It is no easy task that awaits Arab League Secretary-General Amr Musa, Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani, whose country is one of the 10 rotating members of the UN Security Council, and Sheikh Abdullah, chairman of the the Arab League council of foreign ministers, at the UN as they seek to modify the draft resolution.
US President George W Bush is resisting the key Lebanese demand that a ceasefire be declared immediately and Israeli troops immediately withdraw from southern Lebanon. He called for the immediate passage of the draft UN Security Council resolution — which in practical terms only legitimises Israel's aggression against Lebanon — and this should be followed by yet another resolution calling for an international stabilisation force to be deployed in Lebanon. Under the Israeli-US scenario, the Israely army would remain in southern Lebanon until the stabilisation force is set up. In the meantime, Israel has no obligation to provide any security guarantee to anyone and is free to continue its assaults at will because the draft resolution upholds the Jewish state's "right to defend itself."
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's pledge that her country was going "to listen to the concerns of the parties and see how they might be addressed" fails to convince anyone that justice would be done to the genuine Arab concerns.
Indeed, As such, the dice is loaded against Lebanese and Arab interests at the UN. However, the decision made in Beirut represents the only way ahead and we could only hope and pray for success of the Arab mission with Annan and world powers.
UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed spoke up not only for the UAE and the Arab World but also for the entire world when he expressed hope that the international community would work for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon. "I hope the international community will regain its consciousness and respond possibility to the just demand of Lebanon," Sheikh Abdullah said in Beirut shortly before heading for the UN to meet Kofi Annan with an urgent plea for an immediate cessation of the Israeli offensive against Lebanon.
He lamented that the Israeli response to the Lebanese call for an immediate ceasfire had been more devastation, displacement and killings.
The civilised world is indeed shocked at the way that there had not been any serious international effort to put an end to the suffering of the people of Lebanon who are paying the price for Israel's strategic designs in the region. At least 1,000 people have been killed, thousands maimed and tens of thousands left homeless as a result of the Israeli blitz against Lebanon and the world has not been able to do anything about it. The United Nations, which is supposed to represent the world conscience, has been rendered a toothless tiger when it comes to realistic action. Indeed, some countries are of the opinion that since it was Hizbollah which triggered the crisis by capturing two Israeli soldiers, Lebanon might as well pay the price. Little regard is given to the reality that Israel had been just waiting for an opportunity to wage an all-out war to "destroy" Hizbollah.
The international community has been left helpless against the Israeli offensive only because the Jewish state's grand designs are endorsed and supported by the world's sole superpower and its allies. Suffice it is to say that it is an insult to every human being that the world community is unable to help prevent a campaign of genocide being perpetrated against a people by a state.
The Arab foreign ministers meeting in Beirut have unanimously supported for Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's seven-point plan for an end to the Israeli assault against his country. They also backed his call for changes in the proposed UN Security Council resolution on the crisis. It was indeed a show of Arab solidarity with Lebanon that the ministers had met in Beirut,
It is no easy task that awaits Arab League Secretary-General Amr Musa, Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani, whose country is one of the 10 rotating members of the UN Security Council, and Sheikh Abdullah, chairman of the the Arab League council of foreign ministers, at the UN as they seek to modify the draft resolution.
US President George W Bush is resisting the key Lebanese demand that a ceasefire be declared immediately and Israeli troops immediately withdraw from southern Lebanon. He called for the immediate passage of the draft UN Security Council resolution — which in practical terms only legitimises Israel's aggression against Lebanon — and this should be followed by yet another resolution calling for an international stabilisation force to be deployed in Lebanon. Under the Israeli-US scenario, the Israely army would remain in southern Lebanon until the stabilisation force is set up. In the meantime, Israel has no obligation to provide any security guarantee to anyone and is free to continue its assaults at will because the draft resolution upholds the Jewish state's "right to defend itself."
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's pledge that her country was going "to listen to the concerns of the parties and see how they might be addressed" fails to convince anyone that justice would be done to the genuine Arab concerns.
Indeed, As such, the dice is loaded against Lebanese and Arab interests at the UN. However, the decision made in Beirut represents the only way ahead and we could only hope and pray for success of the Arab mission with Annan and world powers.
The region stands to pay the price
Aug.4, 2006
The region stands
to pay the price
THE massive rally staged by Iraqis — regardless of whether they were Shiites or Sunnis — on Friday in support of Lebanon's Hizbollah and the Friday prayers for the group at Cairo's Al Azhar Mosque are two outstanding signs of the peril facing the US, the UK and Israel as the Jewish state continues its brutal military assault against Lebanon. Senior Iranian religious leader Ayatollah Janati added yet another dimension to the equation by publicly calling for political and financial support for Hizbollah, which has become the favourite among Arabs and Muslims who feel they are targeted by the US-UK-Israel troika.
By unleashings its military power against Lebanon and refusing to suspend it for whatever reason until it reaches , Israel has invited for its supporters the wrath of Arabs and Muslims.
There are tens of thousands of "volunteers" from Iraq and Iran ready to go to Lebanon and fight alongside Hizbollah, but they themselves realise that there is little chance of them reaching Lebanon under the present circumstances. However, they have American and British targets in Iraq, and the attempted attack on the British embassy in Tehran on Friday gave the world a glimpse of what they could do without leaving their borders.
Arab leaders have repeatedly warned that the region risks major spillovers of the overall Arab-Israeli conflict if left unaddressed in a fair and just manner, and the signs are clearly showing how true the warnings were.
Obviously, Israel has somehow managed to convince its supporters that it could militarily solve the political problem, and that is why the US is not only seen as cheering the Israeli offensive in Lebanon but is also taking an active part by sending the Israelis advanced weapons and other material to continue their assault that have already killed nearly 1,000 people and maimed thousands more.
By opting to accept the Israeli assurance, the US has made yet another major blunder. Washington strategists seem to be working under instructions from the pro-Israeli neoconservative camp, which has been given a new lease of life after being forced to lie low with the catastrophe that hit the US in Iraq.
The long and short of it is simple: US-backed Israel could continue to wreak havoc in Lebanon, which has already been rolled back 20 years in terms of its infrastructure and economy, but the Jewish state's military accomplishments in killing Lebanese and destroying Lebanon would not serve it any purpose. The Arab and Muslim mindset has reached a point where resistance to Israel's plans and designs has gathered strength after strength, and it could be easily predicted that the people of Israel would never have the sense of "security" that they have been sought for long as as long as their political and military leadership continue to resist calls for reason, logic, international legitimacy and justice as the basis to settle the conflict with the Arabs. If anything, the challenges to Israelis' security in the days ahead would only grow multifold. And caught in-between would be the US and all those who are cheering the Israeli assault in Lebanon.
It is alarming for everyone in the Middle East because the region stands to pay the price for Israel's military adventurism and the folly of its supporters to have hitched themselves to the Jewish state's war wagon.
The region stands
to pay the price
THE massive rally staged by Iraqis — regardless of whether they were Shiites or Sunnis — on Friday in support of Lebanon's Hizbollah and the Friday prayers for the group at Cairo's Al Azhar Mosque are two outstanding signs of the peril facing the US, the UK and Israel as the Jewish state continues its brutal military assault against Lebanon. Senior Iranian religious leader Ayatollah Janati added yet another dimension to the equation by publicly calling for political and financial support for Hizbollah, which has become the favourite among Arabs and Muslims who feel they are targeted by the US-UK-Israel troika.
By unleashings its military power against Lebanon and refusing to suspend it for whatever reason until it reaches , Israel has invited for its supporters the wrath of Arabs and Muslims.
There are tens of thousands of "volunteers" from Iraq and Iran ready to go to Lebanon and fight alongside Hizbollah, but they themselves realise that there is little chance of them reaching Lebanon under the present circumstances. However, they have American and British targets in Iraq, and the attempted attack on the British embassy in Tehran on Friday gave the world a glimpse of what they could do without leaving their borders.
Arab leaders have repeatedly warned that the region risks major spillovers of the overall Arab-Israeli conflict if left unaddressed in a fair and just manner, and the signs are clearly showing how true the warnings were.
Obviously, Israel has somehow managed to convince its supporters that it could militarily solve the political problem, and that is why the US is not only seen as cheering the Israeli offensive in Lebanon but is also taking an active part by sending the Israelis advanced weapons and other material to continue their assault that have already killed nearly 1,000 people and maimed thousands more.
By opting to accept the Israeli assurance, the US has made yet another major blunder. Washington strategists seem to be working under instructions from the pro-Israeli neoconservative camp, which has been given a new lease of life after being forced to lie low with the catastrophe that hit the US in Iraq.
The long and short of it is simple: US-backed Israel could continue to wreak havoc in Lebanon, which has already been rolled back 20 years in terms of its infrastructure and economy, but the Jewish state's military accomplishments in killing Lebanese and destroying Lebanon would not serve it any purpose. The Arab and Muslim mindset has reached a point where resistance to Israel's plans and designs has gathered strength after strength, and it could be easily predicted that the people of Israel would never have the sense of "security" that they have been sought for long as as long as their political and military leadership continue to resist calls for reason, logic, international legitimacy and justice as the basis to settle the conflict with the Arabs. If anything, the challenges to Israelis' security in the days ahead would only grow multifold. And caught in-between would be the US and all those who are cheering the Israeli assault in Lebanon.
It is alarming for everyone in the Middle East because the region stands to pay the price for Israel's military adventurism and the folly of its supporters to have hitched themselves to the Jewish state's war wagon.
Window or door?
Aug.2, 2006
Window of opportunity,
not a door to imposition
IT WAS always assumed that the Europeans appreciated and respected the realities on the ground in the Middle East more than the Americans, who understood the situation well but feigned away from addressing the root causes of the Arab-Israeli conflict if only because it would not have suited the Israelis.
The Europeans, who have had interaction with the Arabs for many centuries, are also aware that spillovers of any Middle Eastern crisis would hit Europe first and therefore it is incumbent upon them to act in time to protect their interests. However, they were never able to play their rightful assertive role in the Middle East and were always kept on the sidelines by Israel through the US.
Britain, which has traditionally played along with the US, worked from within the European bloc to dissuade it from breaking out of the Washington-imposed confinements and assuming an effective political role in efforts to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Of course, Israel on its own whipped out the Holocaust card against the Europeans whenever it felt they were moving towards asserting themselves or leaning towards a more objective political position vis-a-vis the Middle East.
It is not that European politicians were not aware or did not try to do justice. The European Parliament has gone on record many times warning Israel and demanding that it desist from actions in violation of international conventions and agreements and to accept reason, logic, fairness and justice while dealing with the Arabs. However, those calls remained simple statements since the executive authorities found themselves in impossible situations even if they wanted to translate them into practical action. The result was of course a slow degradation of Europe's credibility in the Middle East although nowhere near the level to which American credibility has gone down over the decades.
As such, it is refreshing — although we wished it came earlier — to hear the European Union's presidency warning that Israel's military offensive in Lebanon would only increase support for Hizbollah and the asssault is "unlikely to bring military success."
Equally importantly, Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, also acknowledged that the credibility of the bloc was on the firing line.
"The EU is the only actor in which they still have some trust and confidence," Tuomioja said. "If we don't live up to expectations, we ... can say goodbye to any serious role the EU can play."
So far so good. The key phrase here is "living up to expectations." There is no ambiguity over what the aggrieved party in the Middle East conflict, the Arabs, expect Europe to play a forceful role in ensuring that international legitimacy and justice would be the basis for a solution to the conflict and peace in the region. The Arabs are not expecting the Europeans to take their side and enforce an Arab version of a solution.
On the other hand, Israel wants the Europeans to either simply stay away — thus leave the ground for only the US — or, if they want to come in at all, apply pressure on the Arabs to accept the Israeli version of a solution.
In the immediate context, the European Union has called several times for a cessation of hostilities in Lebanon. Israel's massacre of Lebanese civilians in Qana on Sunday added a stronger sense of urgency to the calls, but they failed to move the Jewish state. And it is obvious at this point in time that the EU member states are being pulled into forming an international stabilisation force to be deployed on the Lebanese-Israeli border before a ceasefire could go into effect.
Well, there is no questions over the urgent need for a ceasefire and where it takes an international stabilisation force to bring a cessation of hostilities. The question is whether the process is designed to simply disarm Hizbollah and end there. The US says it sees a window of opportunity for a permanent settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but when Washington says so one needs to be cautious. That is where the Europeans could come with an effective role.
If the European Union members do want to act to protect their interests, then they should combine their political and economic weights and do not allow individual political interests to dictate common terms. They should ensure that the so-called window of opportunity is not turned into a door through which Israel walks in and imposes its version of a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is a tall order, but that is what the imperatives dictate, given that it is almost certain that the conflict is movinig to a do-or-die stage.
Window of opportunity,
not a door to imposition
IT WAS always assumed that the Europeans appreciated and respected the realities on the ground in the Middle East more than the Americans, who understood the situation well but feigned away from addressing the root causes of the Arab-Israeli conflict if only because it would not have suited the Israelis.
The Europeans, who have had interaction with the Arabs for many centuries, are also aware that spillovers of any Middle Eastern crisis would hit Europe first and therefore it is incumbent upon them to act in time to protect their interests. However, they were never able to play their rightful assertive role in the Middle East and were always kept on the sidelines by Israel through the US.
Britain, which has traditionally played along with the US, worked from within the European bloc to dissuade it from breaking out of the Washington-imposed confinements and assuming an effective political role in efforts to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Of course, Israel on its own whipped out the Holocaust card against the Europeans whenever it felt they were moving towards asserting themselves or leaning towards a more objective political position vis-a-vis the Middle East.
It is not that European politicians were not aware or did not try to do justice. The European Parliament has gone on record many times warning Israel and demanding that it desist from actions in violation of international conventions and agreements and to accept reason, logic, fairness and justice while dealing with the Arabs. However, those calls remained simple statements since the executive authorities found themselves in impossible situations even if they wanted to translate them into practical action. The result was of course a slow degradation of Europe's credibility in the Middle East although nowhere near the level to which American credibility has gone down over the decades.
As such, it is refreshing — although we wished it came earlier — to hear the European Union's presidency warning that Israel's military offensive in Lebanon would only increase support for Hizbollah and the asssault is "unlikely to bring military success."
Equally importantly, Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, also acknowledged that the credibility of the bloc was on the firing line.
"The EU is the only actor in which they still have some trust and confidence," Tuomioja said. "If we don't live up to expectations, we ... can say goodbye to any serious role the EU can play."
So far so good. The key phrase here is "living up to expectations." There is no ambiguity over what the aggrieved party in the Middle East conflict, the Arabs, expect Europe to play a forceful role in ensuring that international legitimacy and justice would be the basis for a solution to the conflict and peace in the region. The Arabs are not expecting the Europeans to take their side and enforce an Arab version of a solution.
On the other hand, Israel wants the Europeans to either simply stay away — thus leave the ground for only the US — or, if they want to come in at all, apply pressure on the Arabs to accept the Israeli version of a solution.
In the immediate context, the European Union has called several times for a cessation of hostilities in Lebanon. Israel's massacre of Lebanese civilians in Qana on Sunday added a stronger sense of urgency to the calls, but they failed to move the Jewish state. And it is obvious at this point in time that the EU member states are being pulled into forming an international stabilisation force to be deployed on the Lebanese-Israeli border before a ceasefire could go into effect.
Well, there is no questions over the urgent need for a ceasefire and where it takes an international stabilisation force to bring a cessation of hostilities. The question is whether the process is designed to simply disarm Hizbollah and end there. The US says it sees a window of opportunity for a permanent settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but when Washington says so one needs to be cautious. That is where the Europeans could come with an effective role.
If the European Union members do want to act to protect their interests, then they should combine their political and economic weights and do not allow individual political interests to dictate common terms. They should ensure that the so-called window of opportunity is not turned into a door through which Israel walks in and imposes its version of a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is a tall order, but that is what the imperatives dictate, given that it is almost certain that the conflict is movinig to a do-or-die stage.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
What next in Lebanon?
Aug.15, 2006
By PV Vivekanand
THE QUESTION that hangs in the Middle Eastern air today is: What next after the Lebanon war?
The Israeli military offensive against Hizbollah of Lebanon was one of the scenarios in a US-scripted move against Iran. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Bush administration is bent upon realising its goal of a "new Middle East" before the current occupant evacuates the White House in January 2009. One of the first spot-kicks for that goal was the effort to eliminate Hizbollah as a potential threat to Israeli "security" in view of the Lebanese group's stockpile of rockets and missiles said to be supplied by Iran.
It was and is presumed that the Hizbollah rockets and missiles would be one of the means for Tehran's retaliation for any US military strike against Iran in the dispute over the Iranian nuclear programme.
Iran has clearly stated that the US would be held responsible for any military action against it — regardless of who actually carries it out — and that both the US and Israel would be targeted for retaliation. The implication is also clear: Iran would use whatever means at its disposal to hit at the US and Israel, and this includes using pro-Iranian Shiites and sympathetic groups and individuals around the world to carry out anti-US and anti-Israeli attacks anywhere and everywhere.
Therefore, "pulling the Hizbollah" teeth was a sort of insurance that the US and Israel wanted in order to reduce the impact of Hizbollah leaping up to serve Iran's purposes, and hence the recent attack on Lebanon following Hizbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12.
The action was pre-planned, and the capture of the Israeli soldiers was the window that the US and Israel were waiting for in order to unleash Israel's US-backed military might against Hizbollah. However, the 34-day war failed to achieve its objectives.
The war could be described even as a proxy US-Iran battle. The US rushed advanced weapons and support material and equipment to Israel for stronger strikes when it became clear that Hizbollah fighters were far better and prepared than expected. On the other side, Iran had already given thousands of missiles and rockets to Hizbollah through Syria, but continued supply was interrupted with Israel imposing a tight air and sea blockade on Lebanon and destroyed land transport means by bombing key bridges and highways.
By denying Israel a victory — return of the captive Israeli soldiers and an end to rocket attacks against Israeli towns and cities across the border — Hizbollah scored a highly symbolic victory. The soldiers remained in Hizbollah captivity and Hizbollah rockets rained on Israel even on the day the UN-engineered cease-fire went into effect but not before Israel made a last-minute effort to destroy whatever was standing in the southern suburbs of Beirut, the heartland of Lebanon's Shiite community.
The fact that Israel is now ready to negotiate the return of the captive soldiers in exchange for the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails is the most outstanding evidence of Israel's failure to subdue Hizbollah.
Indeed, Israel has at its disposal enough and more weapons — including nuclear bombs — to destroy the entire Middle East and perhaps even beyond, but these could not help it subdue Hizbollah despite the massive destruction and massacres the Israeli military inflicted on Lebanon.
However, the UN-arranged cease-fire which went into effect on Aug.14 is at best fragile. Hostilities could re-erupt at any point because the conditions of the cease-fire are heavily loaded against Hizbollah.
If we note that Europe is taking the leading role in the expanded UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon — with an authorisation to use force if necessary — it would be clear that the US and Israel want to use the UN force against Hizbollah. UN Security Council Resolution 1701 does not mean that the UN force should disarm Hizbollah, but Israel and the US would resort to deception and create conditions that would bring a confrontation between the UN force and Hizbollah. This would mean the Europeans waging war to serve Israel's interests. This is a definite eventuality.
In the meantime, the US also going ahead with plans for action against Iran. The first steps have already been taken in the form of UN Security Council resolutions that could lead to tough sanctions — most likely imposed by the US and its allies and not by the Security Council was a whole — against Iran for its refusal to suspend nuclear enrichment and its vow not to let go of its rights to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
While it is implicit that Iran is definitely seeking nuclear weaponisation at some point in future, there is no real case against it at present. However, that is immaterial for the US, which is planning its own action to not only destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions but also bring about "regime change" in Tehran.
Conventional wisdom would indicate that the US, which is bogged down in the crises in Iraq and Afghanistan and risking and losing the lives of American soldiers, is not ready to complicate the situation by launching action against Iran and drawing retaliation.
Furthermore, there would be strong opposition to a US war against Iran from the American Congress and people.
On the other hand, President George W Bush has proved himself to be unpredictable and reckless enough to undertake misadventures — all the time maintaining that he is always right — and the danger is very much real that he could order military action against Iran without waiting for congressional authorisation, experts familiar with the Bush White House say.
They point out that it was widely held in the US in 2002 that Bush would not actually order a war against Iraq, but he did so in early 2003 despite strong affirmations that most of the "evidence" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was faked and doctored. The US president could not have but known the truth but he still went ahead with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, is critics argue.
The key factor here in the context of Iran is how Bush weighs the risks and costs of launching military action against Iran opposed the risks and costs — including the humiliation — of allowing Iran to thumb its nose at the US and continue to advance towards nuclearisation.
For many, Bush could not wait much longer since Iran could pass the "threshold" or the "red line" into a nuclearisation in a matter of months. Although this does not mean possession of an atomic weapon, it is a dead-bent course towards that goal and by this stage the threat of nuclear fallout from an attack on Iran's atomic plants would be too high to be risked.
Israel, which is clamouring for action against Iran, is growing impatient, and experts suggest that it might opt for unilateral strikes aimed at crippling Iran's nuclear programme (It would take at least 300 missile hits and bombings to make a serious difference to Iran's nuclear activities, according to Israeli reports quoted on websites). With the expanded UN force deployed in Lebanon to check Hizbollah, Israel could be emboldened to launch strikes at Iran.
For many analysts, the question is only when the action against Iran — whether by the US or Israel — would come. Some suggest that it could come before mid-term November elections to the US Congress where Bush's Republican Party is predicted to take a beating, but others say the administration feels it has the luxury of a few more months beyond that before it would be too late to hit Iran.
By PV Vivekanand
THE QUESTION that hangs in the Middle Eastern air today is: What next after the Lebanon war?
The Israeli military offensive against Hizbollah of Lebanon was one of the scenarios in a US-scripted move against Iran. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Bush administration is bent upon realising its goal of a "new Middle East" before the current occupant evacuates the White House in January 2009. One of the first spot-kicks for that goal was the effort to eliminate Hizbollah as a potential threat to Israeli "security" in view of the Lebanese group's stockpile of rockets and missiles said to be supplied by Iran.
It was and is presumed that the Hizbollah rockets and missiles would be one of the means for Tehran's retaliation for any US military strike against Iran in the dispute over the Iranian nuclear programme.
Iran has clearly stated that the US would be held responsible for any military action against it — regardless of who actually carries it out — and that both the US and Israel would be targeted for retaliation. The implication is also clear: Iran would use whatever means at its disposal to hit at the US and Israel, and this includes using pro-Iranian Shiites and sympathetic groups and individuals around the world to carry out anti-US and anti-Israeli attacks anywhere and everywhere.
Therefore, "pulling the Hizbollah" teeth was a sort of insurance that the US and Israel wanted in order to reduce the impact of Hizbollah leaping up to serve Iran's purposes, and hence the recent attack on Lebanon following Hizbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12.
The action was pre-planned, and the capture of the Israeli soldiers was the window that the US and Israel were waiting for in order to unleash Israel's US-backed military might against Hizbollah. However, the 34-day war failed to achieve its objectives.
The war could be described even as a proxy US-Iran battle. The US rushed advanced weapons and support material and equipment to Israel for stronger strikes when it became clear that Hizbollah fighters were far better and prepared than expected. On the other side, Iran had already given thousands of missiles and rockets to Hizbollah through Syria, but continued supply was interrupted with Israel imposing a tight air and sea blockade on Lebanon and destroyed land transport means by bombing key bridges and highways.
By denying Israel a victory — return of the captive Israeli soldiers and an end to rocket attacks against Israeli towns and cities across the border — Hizbollah scored a highly symbolic victory. The soldiers remained in Hizbollah captivity and Hizbollah rockets rained on Israel even on the day the UN-engineered cease-fire went into effect but not before Israel made a last-minute effort to destroy whatever was standing in the southern suburbs of Beirut, the heartland of Lebanon's Shiite community.
The fact that Israel is now ready to negotiate the return of the captive soldiers in exchange for the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails is the most outstanding evidence of Israel's failure to subdue Hizbollah.
Indeed, Israel has at its disposal enough and more weapons — including nuclear bombs — to destroy the entire Middle East and perhaps even beyond, but these could not help it subdue Hizbollah despite the massive destruction and massacres the Israeli military inflicted on Lebanon.
However, the UN-arranged cease-fire which went into effect on Aug.14 is at best fragile. Hostilities could re-erupt at any point because the conditions of the cease-fire are heavily loaded against Hizbollah.
If we note that Europe is taking the leading role in the expanded UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon — with an authorisation to use force if necessary — it would be clear that the US and Israel want to use the UN force against Hizbollah. UN Security Council Resolution 1701 does not mean that the UN force should disarm Hizbollah, but Israel and the US would resort to deception and create conditions that would bring a confrontation between the UN force and Hizbollah. This would mean the Europeans waging war to serve Israel's interests. This is a definite eventuality.
In the meantime, the US also going ahead with plans for action against Iran. The first steps have already been taken in the form of UN Security Council resolutions that could lead to tough sanctions — most likely imposed by the US and its allies and not by the Security Council was a whole — against Iran for its refusal to suspend nuclear enrichment and its vow not to let go of its rights to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
While it is implicit that Iran is definitely seeking nuclear weaponisation at some point in future, there is no real case against it at present. However, that is immaterial for the US, which is planning its own action to not only destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions but also bring about "regime change" in Tehran.
Conventional wisdom would indicate that the US, which is bogged down in the crises in Iraq and Afghanistan and risking and losing the lives of American soldiers, is not ready to complicate the situation by launching action against Iran and drawing retaliation.
Furthermore, there would be strong opposition to a US war against Iran from the American Congress and people.
On the other hand, President George W Bush has proved himself to be unpredictable and reckless enough to undertake misadventures — all the time maintaining that he is always right — and the danger is very much real that he could order military action against Iran without waiting for congressional authorisation, experts familiar with the Bush White House say.
They point out that it was widely held in the US in 2002 that Bush would not actually order a war against Iraq, but he did so in early 2003 despite strong affirmations that most of the "evidence" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was faked and doctored. The US president could not have but known the truth but he still went ahead with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, is critics argue.
The key factor here in the context of Iran is how Bush weighs the risks and costs of launching military action against Iran opposed the risks and costs — including the humiliation — of allowing Iran to thumb its nose at the US and continue to advance towards nuclearisation.
For many, Bush could not wait much longer since Iran could pass the "threshold" or the "red line" into a nuclearisation in a matter of months. Although this does not mean possession of an atomic weapon, it is a dead-bent course towards that goal and by this stage the threat of nuclear fallout from an attack on Iran's atomic plants would be too high to be risked.
Israel, which is clamouring for action against Iran, is growing impatient, and experts suggest that it might opt for unilateral strikes aimed at crippling Iran's nuclear programme (It would take at least 300 missile hits and bombings to make a serious difference to Iran's nuclear activities, according to Israeli reports quoted on websites). With the expanded UN force deployed in Lebanon to check Hizbollah, Israel could be emboldened to launch strikes at Iran.
For many analysts, the question is only when the action against Iran — whether by the US or Israel — would come. Some suggest that it could come before mid-term November elections to the US Congress where Bush's Republican Party is predicted to take a beating, but others say the administration feels it has the luxury of a few more months beyond that before it would be too late to hit Iran.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![Iraq counter](http://a href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html" img src="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/images/iraqdeaths.gif" alt="Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator" width="150" height="150" border="0" /a){kind=link}