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.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
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.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Any takers?
Any takers for a
proxy war for Israel?
EVERYONE else is wrong and only Israel is right. This is what the Israeli ambasador clearly stated on Thursday when he ruled on major UN involvement in any potential international force in Lebanon.
Dan Gillerman's declaration is an open slap on the face of the UN and underlines Israel's blatant defiance of the international conventions and legitimacy represented by the world body.
Of course, it is not the first time — nor would it be the last time — that Israel stand almost alone in the international community arguing against the very concept and principles that went into creating the world body.
An overwhelming majority of the UN members have always opted to side with justice, international legitimacy and code of conduct and that is why Israel has found itself at the receiving end of UN criticism. The almighty US to could always use its veto power block any meaningful action against Israel for its refusal to abide by mandatory UN Security Council resolutions. However, in the larger General Assembly, Israel has no such protective umbrella and has to take on transparent and unbiased criticism of its actions although the General Assembly is a toothless tiger when it comes to decisive and effection action not only in the Middle Eastern context but also anywhere else in the world. Israel has to grit its teeth and listen to truth as truth is and to criticism as harsh as criticism could be coming from the world community in the General Assembly (although that is the extent to which UN members could go within the context of the world body).
In the latest spat, Dillerman is arguing that the UN should not have any involvement in Lebanon and that more professional and better-trained troops should be deployed on the Israeli-Lebanese border. He has also vowed not to allow any UN role in investigating the Israeli attack on a UN post in Lebanon that killed four UN observers last week.
He made an interesting observation when he said that "I don't think that if anything happened in this country (the US), or in Britain or in Italy or in France, the government of that country would agree to a joint investigation." Again, no one pointed out to him that no other country he mentioned, with the exception of course of the US — which is occupying Iraq — was/is running a military occupation of neighbour's territory and therefore forced to be subject to UN observers.
The Israeli ambassador made fun of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which was deployed on the border following an Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978.
"Interim in UN jargon is 28 years," he said.
Well, he was not asked nor did he volunteer any explanation as to why Israel remained in southern Lebanon for 18 of those 28 years. Was it an "interim" occupation? Is it not true that Israel had no option but to quit Lebanon only because the resistance put up by Hizbollah?
His summary assumption is that the UN force did not do the job, but he conviently overlooked that the very mandate of UNIFIL did not allow it to use force except in self-defence, and then the UN force would have to had take action against Israel in self-defence since the force had suffered the worst from the Israeli military and not from Hizbollah or any other group present in the area of its operations.
In sum, Dillerman was only alluding to the US-backed Israeli desire that any force to be deployed in Lebanon should come from Israel-friendly countries from Europe, it should be independent and should not only be armed with the mandate and weapons to fight Hizbollah and all other forces resisting Israel but also engage in action to "neutralise" the resistance.
More simply, Israel wants the Europeans to lead the Jewish state's fight its war to eliminate Arab resistance in Lebanon.
Any takers?
proxy war for Israel?
EVERYONE else is wrong and only Israel is right. This is what the Israeli ambasador clearly stated on Thursday when he ruled on major UN involvement in any potential international force in Lebanon.
Dan Gillerman's declaration is an open slap on the face of the UN and underlines Israel's blatant defiance of the international conventions and legitimacy represented by the world body.
Of course, it is not the first time — nor would it be the last time — that Israel stand almost alone in the international community arguing against the very concept and principles that went into creating the world body.
An overwhelming majority of the UN members have always opted to side with justice, international legitimacy and code of conduct and that is why Israel has found itself at the receiving end of UN criticism. The almighty US to could always use its veto power block any meaningful action against Israel for its refusal to abide by mandatory UN Security Council resolutions. However, in the larger General Assembly, Israel has no such protective umbrella and has to take on transparent and unbiased criticism of its actions although the General Assembly is a toothless tiger when it comes to decisive and effection action not only in the Middle Eastern context but also anywhere else in the world. Israel has to grit its teeth and listen to truth as truth is and to criticism as harsh as criticism could be coming from the world community in the General Assembly (although that is the extent to which UN members could go within the context of the world body).
In the latest spat, Dillerman is arguing that the UN should not have any involvement in Lebanon and that more professional and better-trained troops should be deployed on the Israeli-Lebanese border. He has also vowed not to allow any UN role in investigating the Israeli attack on a UN post in Lebanon that killed four UN observers last week.
He made an interesting observation when he said that "I don't think that if anything happened in this country (the US), or in Britain or in Italy or in France, the government of that country would agree to a joint investigation." Again, no one pointed out to him that no other country he mentioned, with the exception of course of the US — which is occupying Iraq — was/is running a military occupation of neighbour's territory and therefore forced to be subject to UN observers.
The Israeli ambassador made fun of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which was deployed on the border following an Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978.
"Interim in UN jargon is 28 years," he said.
Well, he was not asked nor did he volunteer any explanation as to why Israel remained in southern Lebanon for 18 of those 28 years. Was it an "interim" occupation? Is it not true that Israel had no option but to quit Lebanon only because the resistance put up by Hizbollah?
His summary assumption is that the UN force did not do the job, but he conviently overlooked that the very mandate of UNIFIL did not allow it to use force except in self-defence, and then the UN force would have to had take action against Israel in self-defence since the force had suffered the worst from the Israeli military and not from Hizbollah or any other group present in the area of its operations.
In sum, Dillerman was only alluding to the US-backed Israeli desire that any force to be deployed in Lebanon should come from Israel-friendly countries from Europe, it should be independent and should not only be armed with the mandate and weapons to fight Hizbollah and all other forces resisting Israel but also engage in action to "neutralise" the resistance.
More simply, Israel wants the Europeans to lead the Jewish state's fight its war to eliminate Arab resistance in Lebanon.
Any takers?
Alliance at stake?
Alliance at stake
or business as usual?
June 28 2006
ONE of the Israeli analyses of the ongoing offensive against Lebanon is that the US is disappointed that the Israeli armed forces did not live up to Washington's expectations that Hizbollah would be decimated in a matter of days.
This assumption, favoured by many so-called Israeli nationalists, has led to a warning to the Israeli leadership that they should not place Israeli interests at stake by seeking to realise the American objective.
The US hope, at the outset of the Israeli offensive, was that the structure of Hizbollah would be demolished and the group's leadership eliminated in a few days and this would have offered Washington a major victory in its drive to remove the Lebanese Shiites as a potential threat in the eventuality of a US-Iranian confrontation.
The so-called Israeli nationalists are suggesting that the US could help Israel win the conflict by landing American soldiers in north Lebanon and thus catching Hizbollah in a trap in central Lebanon, with the Israelis pushing the way from the south.
However, "this is not on the cards for the simple reason that America is willing to fight in Lebanon to the last Israeli soldier, just as Iran is ready to fight to the last Hizballah combatant," reads the "nationalist" analysis. The propagators of the theory warn that "Israel must beware of being hustled into taking imprudent steps by the proxy contest between the Washington and Tehran. Israel and its armed forces must pursue their own national agenda...."
Well, this posture is indeed befiting for the US, which invaded Iraq mainly upon Israeli insistence and has already lost more than 2,500 American soliders in the insurgency there.
US Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice, according to reports, left the Middle East this week after expressing her displeasure, in talks with Israeli leaders, that the Israeli military was doing badly in the assault against Hizbollah. It is believed that she had served an "ultimatum" to Israel to "finish off the job" before July 30, so that she could come back in the first week of August to continue efforts to build a "robust" multinational force to be deployed on the Lebanese-Israeli border authorised to use force to disarm Hizbollah.
However, it does not look as easy as that.
After two weeks of the brutal offensive, Israel does not have much to show (except of course the massive destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure and the untold suffering of the people of Lebanon). Some 80 Hizbollah fighters have been killed and dozens wounded and a few small arms and ammunition dumps were discovered and neutralised. So far the Israeli army could cripple only two multiple rocket launchers and one single barrel rocket launcher belonging to Hizbollah, which is believed to have a fighting force of at least 4,000.
It definitely promises to be a long, ardous and sustained campaign that Israel is facing in its push to demolish Hizbollah.
It is not as if the Israelis are not trying, but they face tactical difficulties in facing Hizbollah, which is fighting on two parallel tracks: Firing rockets at Israeli towns and using guerrilla war tactics and picking their own time to engage Israeli soliders combing southern Lebanon for underground bunkers and other concealed guerrilla bases.
It is clear that Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is determined to battle it out: He is retaining his option of firing rockets at Israeli towns and enlarge the range of the attacks whenever he fits fit until he scores a victory — an offer of compromise from Israel — or is eliminated.
This situation has caught Israel in a dilemma. It is largely aware that would not be able to meet the reported American deadline to bring the offensive to a successful conclusion, and also that if it does engage itself in an intensified effort then it would have to take much higher casualities than now. That would mean growing internal criticism that Israel was dumb enough to be trapped into waging an American war at the expense of Israeli lives (never mind that the US is waging an Israeli war in Iraq at the expense of American lives).
It is an interesting situation, and the region is watching closely to see whether Israel would live true to its "strategic alliance" with the US by risking high casualties or let the US do the job itself. Either way, it is a safe assumption that the shape of the US-Israeli alliance is placed at stake in the bargain. Then again, conventional wisdom based on the track record of the US-Israeli relationship also suggests that Washington might not get a chance to have its way with the Jewish state.
or business as usual?
June 28 2006
ONE of the Israeli analyses of the ongoing offensive against Lebanon is that the US is disappointed that the Israeli armed forces did not live up to Washington's expectations that Hizbollah would be decimated in a matter of days.
This assumption, favoured by many so-called Israeli nationalists, has led to a warning to the Israeli leadership that they should not place Israeli interests at stake by seeking to realise the American objective.
The US hope, at the outset of the Israeli offensive, was that the structure of Hizbollah would be demolished and the group's leadership eliminated in a few days and this would have offered Washington a major victory in its drive to remove the Lebanese Shiites as a potential threat in the eventuality of a US-Iranian confrontation.
The so-called Israeli nationalists are suggesting that the US could help Israel win the conflict by landing American soldiers in north Lebanon and thus catching Hizbollah in a trap in central Lebanon, with the Israelis pushing the way from the south.
However, "this is not on the cards for the simple reason that America is willing to fight in Lebanon to the last Israeli soldier, just as Iran is ready to fight to the last Hizballah combatant," reads the "nationalist" analysis. The propagators of the theory warn that "Israel must beware of being hustled into taking imprudent steps by the proxy contest between the Washington and Tehran. Israel and its armed forces must pursue their own national agenda...."
Well, this posture is indeed befiting for the US, which invaded Iraq mainly upon Israeli insistence and has already lost more than 2,500 American soliders in the insurgency there.
US Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice, according to reports, left the Middle East this week after expressing her displeasure, in talks with Israeli leaders, that the Israeli military was doing badly in the assault against Hizbollah. It is believed that she had served an "ultimatum" to Israel to "finish off the job" before July 30, so that she could come back in the first week of August to continue efforts to build a "robust" multinational force to be deployed on the Lebanese-Israeli border authorised to use force to disarm Hizbollah.
However, it does not look as easy as that.
After two weeks of the brutal offensive, Israel does not have much to show (except of course the massive destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure and the untold suffering of the people of Lebanon). Some 80 Hizbollah fighters have been killed and dozens wounded and a few small arms and ammunition dumps were discovered and neutralised. So far the Israeli army could cripple only two multiple rocket launchers and one single barrel rocket launcher belonging to Hizbollah, which is believed to have a fighting force of at least 4,000.
It definitely promises to be a long, ardous and sustained campaign that Israel is facing in its push to demolish Hizbollah.
It is not as if the Israelis are not trying, but they face tactical difficulties in facing Hizbollah, which is fighting on two parallel tracks: Firing rockets at Israeli towns and using guerrilla war tactics and picking their own time to engage Israeli soliders combing southern Lebanon for underground bunkers and other concealed guerrilla bases.
It is clear that Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is determined to battle it out: He is retaining his option of firing rockets at Israeli towns and enlarge the range of the attacks whenever he fits fit until he scores a victory — an offer of compromise from Israel — or is eliminated.
This situation has caught Israel in a dilemma. It is largely aware that would not be able to meet the reported American deadline to bring the offensive to a successful conclusion, and also that if it does engage itself in an intensified effort then it would have to take much higher casualities than now. That would mean growing internal criticism that Israel was dumb enough to be trapped into waging an American war at the expense of Israeli lives (never mind that the US is waging an Israeli war in Iraq at the expense of American lives).
It is an interesting situation, and the region is watching closely to see whether Israel would live true to its "strategic alliance" with the US by risking high casualties or let the US do the job itself. Either way, it is a safe assumption that the shape of the US-Israeli alliance is placed at stake in the bargain. Then again, conventional wisdom based on the track record of the US-Israeli relationship also suggests that Washington might not get a chance to have its way with the Jewish state.
World failed Lebanon
World failed
the Lebanese
July 27 20065
AS expected, the top US and European officials gathered in Rome to discuss the Israeli war on Lebanon did not call for an immediate cease-fire but focused on the establishment of an international force to be stationed at the Lebanese-Israeli border.
By reaffirming that any cease-fire must be "sustainable" and that there could be "no return to the status quo ante," US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warded off Arab and international pressure to twist Israel's arms into suspending its blitz against Lebanon. Again, that position is in line with the US goal to eliminate Hizbollah as a potential threat against Washington's interests in the event of a conflict with Iran, according to US analysts.
Granted that Israeli civilians are caught in the conflict and are living in fear of Hizbollah rockets. Going by what Hizbollah leaders have been saying, the group could now be expected to launch rockets beyond the range that they have been hitting in recent weeks. It is doubtful that the Israeli military would be able to check Hizbollah from carrying out its "promises of surprises" in the short term. As such, Israel's refusal to accept a ceasefire is in face exposing its own people as Hizbollah's targets.
In the meantime, the proposed international force, expected to be led by European countries, is designed to push Hizbollah away from the border and to disarm the group in a manner that would suit Israeli and American interests. By not providing details of the proposed force, the US and its allies gained more time for Israel to continue its devastating rampage against Lebanon.
It is in this context that Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora issued a dramatic appeal for peace because he knows only too well the suffering and agony that his people are already under and what could be in store if Israel continues to wreak havoc at will anywhere in Lebanon.
The questions that Siniora raised during the Rome meeting and later at a press conference should have hit the international conscience.
Are the war-cursed Lebanese were "children of a lesser God?" he asked.
"The country is really being cut to pieces .... to bring the country to its knees and that is what's happening," Siniora said.
Siniora asked "what future other than one of fear, frustration, financial ruin and fanaticism can stem from the rubble?"
"Is the value of human life less than in Lebanon than that of citizens elsewhere? Are we children of a lesser God? Is an Israeli teardrop worth more than a drop of Lebanese blood?" "Can the international community continue to stand by while such callous retribution by the state of Israel is inflicted upon us?"
"Is this what is called legitimate self-defence?"
The leaders gathered in Rome had the moral responsibility to answer these questions, but none did except speaking in terms of sympathy for the victims of the Israeli offensive.
Sympathy is not enough. The Lebanese mothers who had to flee their homes in southern Lebanon with their children and those who saw their homes in Beirut and elsewhere bombed out and now are sleeping in carparks and schools in the country cannot survive on sympathy. They needed concrete action that would address their plight. Every day, they are exposed to increasing dangers and suffering. Quite simply, the so-called civilised world gathered in Rome failed them.
the Lebanese
July 27 20065
AS expected, the top US and European officials gathered in Rome to discuss the Israeli war on Lebanon did not call for an immediate cease-fire but focused on the establishment of an international force to be stationed at the Lebanese-Israeli border.
By reaffirming that any cease-fire must be "sustainable" and that there could be "no return to the status quo ante," US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warded off Arab and international pressure to twist Israel's arms into suspending its blitz against Lebanon. Again, that position is in line with the US goal to eliminate Hizbollah as a potential threat against Washington's interests in the event of a conflict with Iran, according to US analysts.
Granted that Israeli civilians are caught in the conflict and are living in fear of Hizbollah rockets. Going by what Hizbollah leaders have been saying, the group could now be expected to launch rockets beyond the range that they have been hitting in recent weeks. It is doubtful that the Israeli military would be able to check Hizbollah from carrying out its "promises of surprises" in the short term. As such, Israel's refusal to accept a ceasefire is in face exposing its own people as Hizbollah's targets.
In the meantime, the proposed international force, expected to be led by European countries, is designed to push Hizbollah away from the border and to disarm the group in a manner that would suit Israeli and American interests. By not providing details of the proposed force, the US and its allies gained more time for Israel to continue its devastating rampage against Lebanon.
It is in this context that Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora issued a dramatic appeal for peace because he knows only too well the suffering and agony that his people are already under and what could be in store if Israel continues to wreak havoc at will anywhere in Lebanon.
The questions that Siniora raised during the Rome meeting and later at a press conference should have hit the international conscience.
Are the war-cursed Lebanese were "children of a lesser God?" he asked.
"The country is really being cut to pieces .... to bring the country to its knees and that is what's happening," Siniora said.
Siniora asked "what future other than one of fear, frustration, financial ruin and fanaticism can stem from the rubble?"
"Is the value of human life less than in Lebanon than that of citizens elsewhere? Are we children of a lesser God? Is an Israeli teardrop worth more than a drop of Lebanese blood?" "Can the international community continue to stand by while such callous retribution by the state of Israel is inflicted upon us?"
"Is this what is called legitimate self-defence?"
The leaders gathered in Rome had the moral responsibility to answer these questions, but none did except speaking in terms of sympathy for the victims of the Israeli offensive.
Sympathy is not enough. The Lebanese mothers who had to flee their homes in southern Lebanon with their children and those who saw their homes in Beirut and elsewhere bombed out and now are sleeping in carparks and schools in the country cannot survive on sympathy. They needed concrete action that would address their plight. Every day, they are exposed to increasing dangers and suffering. Quite simply, the so-called civilised world gathered in Rome failed them.
Ignoring realities
Ignoring realities
— a dangerous game
"Bush Sees a Chance for Change to Sweep Mideast" — this was the headline in a New York Times report on Thursday's meeting between US President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
On the face of it, it would imply that the US president was seeing the latest crises in Palestine and Lebanon as an opportunity to take the Arab-Israeli conflict by the horns with a firm commitment to finding an end to the nearly six-decades-old problem.That is part of what real "change" means in the Middle East.
However, it does not look that way in the American administration's interpretation of the situation in the Middle East. Instead of injecting new life into the overall effort for just, durable and comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, Washington is following a piecemeal approach to the overall problem. Destroying Hizbollah as an effective group with military capabilities to challenge Israel and pose a potential threat to US interests in a US-Iran confrontation is Washington's main objective today.
The Palestinian Hamas group, which won fair and free elections and won power in Palestine, is also included in the agenda along with all other likeminded groups.
Once Israel feels satisifed that Arab resistance has been "weakened enough" for it to push through its unilateral agenda, then it would move, with support from the US, towards creating further fait accomplis on the ground that it would see as strengthening its hand in any further dealings with the Palestinians, the Lebanese and the Syrians. This is indeed the masterplan, but it overlooks or seeks to circumvent the realities on the ground which dictate that Israel's unilateralism would not work.
It is transparent that Washington's current effort is aimed at devising a new UN Security Council resolution that would focus only on Hizbollah and the group's armed status and dictate terms tailored to suit Israel's interests. That in itself is one of the gravest mistakes that Washington is making.
Hizbollah and all other "terrorist, militant, extremist" groups in the Middle East came to life as the direct result of Israel's occupation of Arab territories that started with the Jewish state's grabbing of major chunks of land that was set aside for a Palestinian state under the 1948 Partition Plan and continued with the subsequent wars in the region (An interesting but little noticed news item in the Israeli media has said that the Israeli army is now in control of Israel' ts main sources of water, the Wazani springs in the divided Ghajar village near the border, and is unlikely to let go of it. Israel's capture of the spring should be seen against its Defence Minister Amir Peretz’s statement his country would retain control of a security belt in southern Lebanon until a multinational force takes over).
Today, "eliminating" Arab and Palestinian resistance groups would serve only short-term goals. Those groups would spring up in the medium term and pose far more serious threats to US interests than today, and it really surprising that Washington does not seem to take this reality into consideration.
Bush and his administration aides repeatly affirm that Hizbollah is the "root cause" of the problem in Lebanon — likewise Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine — but such affirmations do not make it a reality. The root cause for the problem, whether in Palestine or Lebanon, is Israel's occupation of Arab territories and its drive to legitimise its actions. The sooner the US reflects this truth in its actions, the better the prospects for "real change" in the Middle East.
— a dangerous game
"Bush Sees a Chance for Change to Sweep Mideast" — this was the headline in a New York Times report on Thursday's meeting between US President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
On the face of it, it would imply that the US president was seeing the latest crises in Palestine and Lebanon as an opportunity to take the Arab-Israeli conflict by the horns with a firm commitment to finding an end to the nearly six-decades-old problem.That is part of what real "change" means in the Middle East.
However, it does not look that way in the American administration's interpretation of the situation in the Middle East. Instead of injecting new life into the overall effort for just, durable and comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, Washington is following a piecemeal approach to the overall problem. Destroying Hizbollah as an effective group with military capabilities to challenge Israel and pose a potential threat to US interests in a US-Iran confrontation is Washington's main objective today.
The Palestinian Hamas group, which won fair and free elections and won power in Palestine, is also included in the agenda along with all other likeminded groups.
Once Israel feels satisifed that Arab resistance has been "weakened enough" for it to push through its unilateral agenda, then it would move, with support from the US, towards creating further fait accomplis on the ground that it would see as strengthening its hand in any further dealings with the Palestinians, the Lebanese and the Syrians. This is indeed the masterplan, but it overlooks or seeks to circumvent the realities on the ground which dictate that Israel's unilateralism would not work.
It is transparent that Washington's current effort is aimed at devising a new UN Security Council resolution that would focus only on Hizbollah and the group's armed status and dictate terms tailored to suit Israel's interests. That in itself is one of the gravest mistakes that Washington is making.
Hizbollah and all other "terrorist, militant, extremist" groups in the Middle East came to life as the direct result of Israel's occupation of Arab territories that started with the Jewish state's grabbing of major chunks of land that was set aside for a Palestinian state under the 1948 Partition Plan and continued with the subsequent wars in the region (An interesting but little noticed news item in the Israeli media has said that the Israeli army is now in control of Israel' ts main sources of water, the Wazani springs in the divided Ghajar village near the border, and is unlikely to let go of it. Israel's capture of the spring should be seen against its Defence Minister Amir Peretz’s statement his country would retain control of a security belt in southern Lebanon until a multinational force takes over).
Today, "eliminating" Arab and Palestinian resistance groups would serve only short-term goals. Those groups would spring up in the medium term and pose far more serious threats to US interests than today, and it really surprising that Washington does not seem to take this reality into consideration.
Bush and his administration aides repeatly affirm that Hizbollah is the "root cause" of the problem in Lebanon — likewise Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine — but such affirmations do not make it a reality. The root cause for the problem, whether in Palestine or Lebanon, is Israel's occupation of Arab territories and its drive to legitimise its actions. The sooner the US reflects this truth in its actions, the better the prospects for "real change" in the Middle East.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Surprises, but is there a miracle?
Surprises, but is there a miracle?
Israel, one of the top 10 military powers in the world and which boasts of "invinsibility" of its armed forces, has not been able to subdue Lebanon's Hizbollah — once called a ragtag militia — despite 12 days of intense fighting. Indeed, Israel has caused massive destruction in Lebanon and killed more than 350 civilians and wounded thousands in its latest assault. However, it is no longer near its stated goal of destroying Hizbollah or even forcing the release of its two soldiers kept captive by the group. Questions are slowly being raised within Israel about the wisdom of pursuing the offensive. Israeli politicians are putting up a brave face and defending the military action.
On the other hand, Hizbollah is maintaining calm. Pointedly, it has rejected demands for a ceasefire and continues to launch rockets at Israeli towns across the border, wreaking havoc among Israelis, although to a far less extent than what Israeli missiles and bombs are doing to the residents of Lebanon. The continuing barrage of Hizbollah rocket attacks on Israel is said to originate from sites close to the Lebanese-Israeli border, and this raises questions about Israel's stated aim of creating a "security zone" near the frontier to make sure Hizbollah fighters do not come anywhere near the border.
Obviously, Hizbollah has been preparing for an eventuality like the latest crisis for some time. It has played its cards too close to the chest and that has left Israel guessing as to the group's real military capabilities. Hizbollah leaders like Hassan Nasrallah have gone underground and it is almost certain that Israel has no clue to their whereabouts. The massive bomb attack on a mosque under construction in Sidon in south Lebanon over the weekend was reportedly prompted by a "tip-off" that Nasrallah and top Hizbollah leaders were meeting there. However, it transpired since then that the "tip-off" was deliberately "leaked" by Hizbollah in order to get some clues to the intelligence channels and spying routes of Israel in Lebanon.
Indeed, Israel is finding itself falling short of its expectations of a quick triumph over Hizbollah. The experience is not different from the lessons it learnt dealing with Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
So, what does it hope to achieve with continuing the offensive? Of course, destroying the Hizbollah structure is one of its stated aims, but, judging from what we saw in the last 12 days, the mighty Israeli army is far from achieving that goal.
The other stated Israeli aim is to secure the unconditional release of its two soldiers held by Hizbollah. Again, it is highly unlikely that Israel would be able to ensure an unconditional release. It will have to negotiate directly or indirectly with Hizbollah, and this in itself would be deemed as a Hizbollah victory, particularly if the deal includes the release of some of the most noted Arab prisoners in Israel.
Hizbollah need not win the military conflict. It only has to hold on for sometime more, and send occasional signals that it is not a spent power to prove its point. On the other hand, Israel has to score a victory on the military front. It cannot afford to be seen as unable to overpower Hizbollah. The political and military leadership of Israel cannot afford to retract their steps and agree to negotiate with the group since that would be the clearest signal that Hizbollah won the confrontation.
Someone, somewhere has to come up with a miraculous solution to the crisis or one of the two parties has to take a step back. Given the realities on the ground, neither Israel nor Hizbollah would step back.
No one has the magic wand to prduce a solution, and it means more brutality added to the Israeli military offensive and perhaps more "surprises" from Hizbollah.
In the meantime, the suffering and agony of Lebanon's residents would continue to grow, and this is one point that Israel counts in its favour. However, as a noted commetator put it, Israel may have the clock, but Hizbollah has the time.
Israel, one of the top 10 military powers in the world and which boasts of "invinsibility" of its armed forces, has not been able to subdue Lebanon's Hizbollah — once called a ragtag militia — despite 12 days of intense fighting. Indeed, Israel has caused massive destruction in Lebanon and killed more than 350 civilians and wounded thousands in its latest assault. However, it is no longer near its stated goal of destroying Hizbollah or even forcing the release of its two soldiers kept captive by the group. Questions are slowly being raised within Israel about the wisdom of pursuing the offensive. Israeli politicians are putting up a brave face and defending the military action.
On the other hand, Hizbollah is maintaining calm. Pointedly, it has rejected demands for a ceasefire and continues to launch rockets at Israeli towns across the border, wreaking havoc among Israelis, although to a far less extent than what Israeli missiles and bombs are doing to the residents of Lebanon. The continuing barrage of Hizbollah rocket attacks on Israel is said to originate from sites close to the Lebanese-Israeli border, and this raises questions about Israel's stated aim of creating a "security zone" near the frontier to make sure Hizbollah fighters do not come anywhere near the border.
Obviously, Hizbollah has been preparing for an eventuality like the latest crisis for some time. It has played its cards too close to the chest and that has left Israel guessing as to the group's real military capabilities. Hizbollah leaders like Hassan Nasrallah have gone underground and it is almost certain that Israel has no clue to their whereabouts. The massive bomb attack on a mosque under construction in Sidon in south Lebanon over the weekend was reportedly prompted by a "tip-off" that Nasrallah and top Hizbollah leaders were meeting there. However, it transpired since then that the "tip-off" was deliberately "leaked" by Hizbollah in order to get some clues to the intelligence channels and spying routes of Israel in Lebanon.
Indeed, Israel is finding itself falling short of its expectations of a quick triumph over Hizbollah. The experience is not different from the lessons it learnt dealing with Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
So, what does it hope to achieve with continuing the offensive? Of course, destroying the Hizbollah structure is one of its stated aims, but, judging from what we saw in the last 12 days, the mighty Israeli army is far from achieving that goal.
The other stated Israeli aim is to secure the unconditional release of its two soldiers held by Hizbollah. Again, it is highly unlikely that Israel would be able to ensure an unconditional release. It will have to negotiate directly or indirectly with Hizbollah, and this in itself would be deemed as a Hizbollah victory, particularly if the deal includes the release of some of the most noted Arab prisoners in Israel.
Hizbollah need not win the military conflict. It only has to hold on for sometime more, and send occasional signals that it is not a spent power to prove its point. On the other hand, Israel has to score a victory on the military front. It cannot afford to be seen as unable to overpower Hizbollah. The political and military leadership of Israel cannot afford to retract their steps and agree to negotiate with the group since that would be the clearest signal that Hizbollah won the confrontation.
Someone, somewhere has to come up with a miraculous solution to the crisis or one of the two parties has to take a step back. Given the realities on the ground, neither Israel nor Hizbollah would step back.
No one has the magic wand to prduce a solution, and it means more brutality added to the Israeli military offensive and perhaps more "surprises" from Hizbollah.
In the meantime, the suffering and agony of Lebanon's residents would continue to grow, and this is one point that Israel counts in its favour. However, as a noted commetator put it, Israel may have the clock, but Hizbollah has the time.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Many 'firsts' but they won't be the 'lasts'
July 18, 2006
There are many firsts in the ongoing crises in Palestine and Lebanon. Among them are:
It is the first time that the Israeli armed forces are engaged in armed conflicts with Arab non-govermental forces, but the war has been taken into Israel as opposed to previous occasions when the military action was limited to the border areas and inside Israel's Arab neighbours — Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.
It is for the first time that Israel is seemingly caught up in a no-win situation, at least in theory since it is highly unlikely that the Palestinians or Hizbollahis would succumb to military pressure and accept Israel's terms and conditions to end its assaults.
It is for the first time that rockets land in Israeli towns, killing and wounding people (During the 1991 war, Iraq fired around 40 long-range Scud missiles at Israel, and the only death was that of an Israeli who suffered a heart attack).
It is for the first time that Israelis feel that they are involved in a real war and have to take shelter in towns like Haifa and Tel Aviv.
It is for the first time that many Arabs feel elated and positive that the outcome of the crises would be in favour of the Arabs because they see geopolitical imperatives as a key factor in blocking the crises spilling over to the region and pushing Israel rather than the Palestinians or Hizbollah into a corner rather than the Palestinians or Hizbollah. Well, that is the way the thinking goes, wishful as indeed it might be.
And the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and Hizbollahis in Lebanon have surprised the world with their resilience. They have stood fast, and Hizbollah has "promised" that more "surprises" are on the way.
For the Arabs on the street, the Palestinian and Hizbollah positions have boosted their morale. They are closely following what is going on in Palestine and Lebanon, perhaps with more attention on the Israeli-Hizbollah front than on Gaza if only because the Lebanese group seems to have the potential to keep the Israelis not only engaged but also on their toes.
Talk to any Arab on the street, and the first thing that comes up is the sense of Arab pride on Hizbollah and the Palestinians.
There are even those who are convinced (or are hoping against hope) that Hizbollah has long-range missiles and that the group would soon use them not only against Israel's nerve centres such as Tel Aviv and Beersheba, but also against the Jewish state's Dimona nuclear reactor in the southern desert.
We could only imagine the consequences of such attacks. But then, that is not the point for many who see the ongoing conflicts in Palestine and Lebanon as signalling a "make-or-break" point in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Is that necessarily the case? Of course, the outcome of the Palestine and Lebanon crises would help reshape the geopolitics of the region, but that need not necessarily be in the Arab favour unless of course the Israeli psyche undergoes a 180-degree turn and comes to terms with the inevitability of having to accept the legitimate Arab and Palestinian rights as the basis for peace inthe Middle East.
However, in the meantime, the human suffering is untold in Gaza and Lebanon, and ending that should one of the top priorities for anyone who believes in fair justice for everyone in this world.
Israeli is mercilessly pounding Lebanon, targeting even civilians fleeing the frontline areas, as the death of more than 40 children travelling in open vehicles in the last two days proved, and yet its action is defined as exercising the "right to self-defence." Well, those children did not pose a threat to Israel's security, but their death would instill so much hardline feelings among their peers and they would run into hundreds and thousands who would join the ranks of resistance and pose real threats to Israel.
In the meantime, world powers are also committing a major crime by giving a carte blanche to Israel until it achieves its objectives of its current offensives in Palestine and Lebanon — whatever that might be. By the time they wake up to the realities, it might indeed be too late for many innocent human beings whose only crime was to hope for an end to life under foreign occupation and humiliation and for dignified life in freedom. The responsibility is on the world powers to put an immediate end to Israel's atrocities against the innocents of Palestine and Lebanon.
There are many firsts in the ongoing crises in Palestine and Lebanon. Among them are:
It is the first time that the Israeli armed forces are engaged in armed conflicts with Arab non-govermental forces, but the war has been taken into Israel as opposed to previous occasions when the military action was limited to the border areas and inside Israel's Arab neighbours — Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.
It is for the first time that Israel is seemingly caught up in a no-win situation, at least in theory since it is highly unlikely that the Palestinians or Hizbollahis would succumb to military pressure and accept Israel's terms and conditions to end its assaults.
It is for the first time that rockets land in Israeli towns, killing and wounding people (During the 1991 war, Iraq fired around 40 long-range Scud missiles at Israel, and the only death was that of an Israeli who suffered a heart attack).
It is for the first time that Israelis feel that they are involved in a real war and have to take shelter in towns like Haifa and Tel Aviv.
It is for the first time that many Arabs feel elated and positive that the outcome of the crises would be in favour of the Arabs because they see geopolitical imperatives as a key factor in blocking the crises spilling over to the region and pushing Israel rather than the Palestinians or Hizbollah into a corner rather than the Palestinians or Hizbollah. Well, that is the way the thinking goes, wishful as indeed it might be.
And the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and Hizbollahis in Lebanon have surprised the world with their resilience. They have stood fast, and Hizbollah has "promised" that more "surprises" are on the way.
For the Arabs on the street, the Palestinian and Hizbollah positions have boosted their morale. They are closely following what is going on in Palestine and Lebanon, perhaps with more attention on the Israeli-Hizbollah front than on Gaza if only because the Lebanese group seems to have the potential to keep the Israelis not only engaged but also on their toes.
Talk to any Arab on the street, and the first thing that comes up is the sense of Arab pride on Hizbollah and the Palestinians.
There are even those who are convinced (or are hoping against hope) that Hizbollah has long-range missiles and that the group would soon use them not only against Israel's nerve centres such as Tel Aviv and Beersheba, but also against the Jewish state's Dimona nuclear reactor in the southern desert.
We could only imagine the consequences of such attacks. But then, that is not the point for many who see the ongoing conflicts in Palestine and Lebanon as signalling a "make-or-break" point in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Is that necessarily the case? Of course, the outcome of the Palestine and Lebanon crises would help reshape the geopolitics of the region, but that need not necessarily be in the Arab favour unless of course the Israeli psyche undergoes a 180-degree turn and comes to terms with the inevitability of having to accept the legitimate Arab and Palestinian rights as the basis for peace inthe Middle East.
However, in the meantime, the human suffering is untold in Gaza and Lebanon, and ending that should one of the top priorities for anyone who believes in fair justice for everyone in this world.
Israeli is mercilessly pounding Lebanon, targeting even civilians fleeing the frontline areas, as the death of more than 40 children travelling in open vehicles in the last two days proved, and yet its action is defined as exercising the "right to self-defence." Well, those children did not pose a threat to Israel's security, but their death would instill so much hardline feelings among their peers and they would run into hundreds and thousands who would join the ranks of resistance and pose real threats to Israel.
In the meantime, world powers are also committing a major crime by giving a carte blanche to Israel until it achieves its objectives of its current offensives in Palestine and Lebanon — whatever that might be. By the time they wake up to the realities, it might indeed be too late for many innocent human beings whose only crime was to hope for an end to life under foreign occupation and humiliation and for dignified life in freedom. The responsibility is on the world powers to put an immediate end to Israel's atrocities against the innocents of Palestine and Lebanon.
Media doing their job
July 1, 2006
WHEN the media do not do their job and carry not only uncritical but glorifyingly bloated accounts of successful government policies, they become the darlings of the establishment. But when they do their job i.e. carry objective reports with hard information supported by facts, authorities get upset and accuse them to undermining national interests. The latest episode in that never-ending cycle is a contention by a US commander in Iraq that the US could lose the war in Iraq if public support for it at home is sapped by negative media coverage.
What exactly, shall we ask, is "negative" media coverage? Does it include reports of what exactly is happening on the ground? Does it include portrayals of the reality?
In Iraq's case, there is definitely a shift in the mainstream media's approach towards the crisis there and the broader US-led war against terrorism. Some of them were indeed instrumental in building an American mindset that the invasion of Iraq was somehow tied to the security of the people of the US.
Now they have switched tracks and focusing more on actualities, and that is creating headaches for the administration and hence the complaint of "negative" coverage.
The shift is definitely the result of the media's realisation that the US is getting dragged deeper into quicksands in Iraq and, equally importantly, that Americans are becoming increasingly aware that there is something drastically wrong in their administration's policy not only in the Iraqi context but in the overall Middle Eastern conflict. Americans are no longer accepting at face value whatever the administration tells them. They are seeking media confirmation to establish the truth of what they are being told by their government.
Had it not been for the media, the world would not have known about the most degrading atrocities committed against prisoners in the US-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. We now know that top brass at the Pentagon had known about them all along and kept them under wraps, but they had to come clean when the goings on in Abu Ghraib hit headlines in the New Yorker.
Few would have known about the vengeful massacres carried out by American soliders — Haditha was only one of many places where innocent Iraqis were gunned down. No one would have known about the tens of billions of dollars being siphoned away by US corporations with close ties to the administration in the name of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Had it not been for the aggressive media approach, the latest case of the rape of an Iraqi women and murder of three members of her family, including a child, would never have reached the public.
We have also noticed that news agencies are now carrying pictures of coffins of American soldiers being brought home to grieving families. Indeed, that is a major switch from the ban that the government had imposed on media coverage of such events.
Obviously, those who matter in the US establishment have realised that they could no longer hope to conceal facts away from public scrutiny, and the situation becomes all the more worse when truth is brought out first by the media. Therefore, they have decided to go public themselves with affirmations of unacceptable behaviour by their ranks in order to pre-empt media exposures that could catch them unawares and would erode their credibility further. It has become a game of outguessing each other as to the timing of revelations.
A simple but very valid observation is that the media are accused of highlighting that the insurgency in Iraq shows no sign of abating despite massive security sweeps and crackdowns. What else are they expected to highlight? That the number of kidnapppings, ambushes, suicide bombings and killings has gone down after the new government of Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki took power (whereas the reality is just the opposite)? That everything is working in clock-like precision along the plans chartered by the US military?
WHEN the media do not do their job and carry not only uncritical but glorifyingly bloated accounts of successful government policies, they become the darlings of the establishment. But when they do their job i.e. carry objective reports with hard information supported by facts, authorities get upset and accuse them to undermining national interests. The latest episode in that never-ending cycle is a contention by a US commander in Iraq that the US could lose the war in Iraq if public support for it at home is sapped by negative media coverage.
What exactly, shall we ask, is "negative" media coverage? Does it include reports of what exactly is happening on the ground? Does it include portrayals of the reality?
In Iraq's case, there is definitely a shift in the mainstream media's approach towards the crisis there and the broader US-led war against terrorism. Some of them were indeed instrumental in building an American mindset that the invasion of Iraq was somehow tied to the security of the people of the US.
Now they have switched tracks and focusing more on actualities, and that is creating headaches for the administration and hence the complaint of "negative" coverage.
The shift is definitely the result of the media's realisation that the US is getting dragged deeper into quicksands in Iraq and, equally importantly, that Americans are becoming increasingly aware that there is something drastically wrong in their administration's policy not only in the Iraqi context but in the overall Middle Eastern conflict. Americans are no longer accepting at face value whatever the administration tells them. They are seeking media confirmation to establish the truth of what they are being told by their government.
Had it not been for the media, the world would not have known about the most degrading atrocities committed against prisoners in the US-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. We now know that top brass at the Pentagon had known about them all along and kept them under wraps, but they had to come clean when the goings on in Abu Ghraib hit headlines in the New Yorker.
Few would have known about the vengeful massacres carried out by American soliders — Haditha was only one of many places where innocent Iraqis were gunned down. No one would have known about the tens of billions of dollars being siphoned away by US corporations with close ties to the administration in the name of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Had it not been for the aggressive media approach, the latest case of the rape of an Iraqi women and murder of three members of her family, including a child, would never have reached the public.
We have also noticed that news agencies are now carrying pictures of coffins of American soldiers being brought home to grieving families. Indeed, that is a major switch from the ban that the government had imposed on media coverage of such events.
Obviously, those who matter in the US establishment have realised that they could no longer hope to conceal facts away from public scrutiny, and the situation becomes all the more worse when truth is brought out first by the media. Therefore, they have decided to go public themselves with affirmations of unacceptable behaviour by their ranks in order to pre-empt media exposures that could catch them unawares and would erode their credibility further. It has become a game of outguessing each other as to the timing of revelations.
A simple but very valid observation is that the media are accused of highlighting that the insurgency in Iraq shows no sign of abating despite massive security sweeps and crackdowns. What else are they expected to highlight? That the number of kidnapppings, ambushes, suicide bombings and killings has gone down after the new government of Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki took power (whereas the reality is just the opposite)? That everything is working in clock-like precision along the plans chartered by the US military?
Brewing action on Iran front
July 2, 2006
THE spiralling crisis in Palestine is dominating international news, and it has drawn increased media focus while the other festering issue, the US-Iran stand-off over the Iranian nuclear programme, is sidelined. However, that has no bearing on the steady build-up towards a real crisis that would have negative repercussions on the entire Gulf region. It is as if the scenario is following a script written collectively by Washington and Tehran. That was indeed the case from the word go three years ago when it became known that Iran was pursuing a nuclear programme that it had not revealed to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). That immediately raised suspicion that Iran was bent upon developing nuclear weapons. However, neither the IAEA or any other agency or individual has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Iran does have a nuclear weapon programme. At the same time, it is widely held that Iran does have ambitions of possessing nuclear weapons that it could use as a deterrent as the case seems to be with North Korea. That is the crux of the problem as seen from Washington, whose first consideration in any Middle Eastern context is the interests of Israel, the only country in the region known to posses nuclear weapons. Iran does not pose a nuclear threat to US security, but Washington is going by what the pro-Israeli lobby plans and dictates.
Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes while the US insisted that the Iranians should not be allowed near nuclear technology of any nature. Tehran rejected the US call and insisted on its right to develop nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and resumed nuclear enrichment although of a level far from producing weapon-grade material.
A compromise was produced in the form of a US-backed offer that would severely curtail Iran's nuclear options but provide a series of incentives to Iran. Tehran says it has seen "some positive" points in the compromise offer and it will formally respond to it after mid-August.
In the meantime, Iran has also stood firm on its rejection of the pre-condition that it should suspend nuclear enrichment. The US says the package is offered on a take-it-or-leave-it in its entirety and would not be amended to suit the Iranians.
Washington has now set a July 5 deadline for Iran to make up its mind about the offer. Predictably, Iran has rejected the deadline and said its response would not be forthcoming before mid-August.
The US in bent upon imposing sweeping UN Security Council sanctions on Iran or at least clearing the way towards that this month.
Iran's insistence on more time to study the compromise offer has raised suspicion that it might be hoping to make a breakthrough by mid-August and arrive at position where the US would not be able to exercise its options even it wanted to.
Caught on the fringes of the stalemate is the Arab countries of the Gulf. They have made it clear that they do not want any nuclear activity in their neighbourhood and called for the entire Middle East be declared as a nuclear-free zone — meaning that Israel should be stripped of its nuclear arsenal and Iran or any other country in the area should indulge in nuclear activities.
Their concerns and genuine and real and whoever is involved in efforts to resolve the crisis should take them into consideration. Indeed, they might even be able to offer positive help to end the stalemate so that the region's people could breathe easily.
THE spiralling crisis in Palestine is dominating international news, and it has drawn increased media focus while the other festering issue, the US-Iran stand-off over the Iranian nuclear programme, is sidelined. However, that has no bearing on the steady build-up towards a real crisis that would have negative repercussions on the entire Gulf region. It is as if the scenario is following a script written collectively by Washington and Tehran. That was indeed the case from the word go three years ago when it became known that Iran was pursuing a nuclear programme that it had not revealed to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). That immediately raised suspicion that Iran was bent upon developing nuclear weapons. However, neither the IAEA or any other agency or individual has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Iran does have a nuclear weapon programme. At the same time, it is widely held that Iran does have ambitions of possessing nuclear weapons that it could use as a deterrent as the case seems to be with North Korea. That is the crux of the problem as seen from Washington, whose first consideration in any Middle Eastern context is the interests of Israel, the only country in the region known to posses nuclear weapons. Iran does not pose a nuclear threat to US security, but Washington is going by what the pro-Israeli lobby plans and dictates.
Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes while the US insisted that the Iranians should not be allowed near nuclear technology of any nature. Tehran rejected the US call and insisted on its right to develop nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and resumed nuclear enrichment although of a level far from producing weapon-grade material.
A compromise was produced in the form of a US-backed offer that would severely curtail Iran's nuclear options but provide a series of incentives to Iran. Tehran says it has seen "some positive" points in the compromise offer and it will formally respond to it after mid-August.
In the meantime, Iran has also stood firm on its rejection of the pre-condition that it should suspend nuclear enrichment. The US says the package is offered on a take-it-or-leave-it in its entirety and would not be amended to suit the Iranians.
Washington has now set a July 5 deadline for Iran to make up its mind about the offer. Predictably, Iran has rejected the deadline and said its response would not be forthcoming before mid-August.
The US in bent upon imposing sweeping UN Security Council sanctions on Iran or at least clearing the way towards that this month.
Iran's insistence on more time to study the compromise offer has raised suspicion that it might be hoping to make a breakthrough by mid-August and arrive at position where the US would not be able to exercise its options even it wanted to.
Caught on the fringes of the stalemate is the Arab countries of the Gulf. They have made it clear that they do not want any nuclear activity in their neighbourhood and called for the entire Middle East be declared as a nuclear-free zone — meaning that Israel should be stripped of its nuclear arsenal and Iran or any other country in the area should indulge in nuclear activities.
Their concerns and genuine and real and whoever is involved in efforts to resolve the crisis should take them into consideration. Indeed, they might even be able to offer positive help to end the stalemate so that the region's people could breathe easily.
What the US does not want you to know
July 8, 2006
MODERN IRAQ was always known for repression of media freedoms. Permitting media freedoms meant challenges to the regimes (as in many parts of the world), and Iraq, since its creation in its present territorial shape in the 1920s, was no exception. Local papers, radio and television were state-owned and controlled and they sang the praise of the regime day in and day out. Foreign media working in Iraq were kept under tight check and surveillance throughout, and those present in the country often had to pay the price for critical reports that originated outside but carried by the newspapers or channels that they worked for.
The situation became all the more tight during the 1990s and early 2000s, starting with Saddam Hussein's military invasion and occupation of Kuwait, and all foreign journalists faced stricter restrictions on their movements in the country. It would not be an exaggeration that they were treated like prisoners, but VIP style.
First of all it was very difficult to obtain a visa to enter Iraq. Then journalists had to wait until the Iraqi consulate in Amman decided that it was time for them to enter Iraq.
They had to travel in a convoy from the Jordanian capital Amman and then escorted by Iraqi information ministry and security officials from the Iraqi border point at Trebil to the one and the only hotel designated for journalists — the famous Al Rashid in Baghdad — and back to the frontier when you leave after the assignment (Other hotels were added to the "approved list" in due course, but the rules of the game remained the same).
It was almost impossible for stray away on the trip up and down even if you tried because the convoy, of say 20-25 vehicles, would have several strategically positioned ministry vehicles just to make sure that no one got "lost" along the eight-hour journey and be in a position to talk to anyone or visit any place away from official sights.
And once you checked into Al Rashid, you could not leave the hotel unless accompanied by a "minder" — an Iraqi information ministry official who would keep a close eye on what you do, who you speak to and, more importantly, what you hear. Any time of day and night, there would be at least a dozen ministry officials hanging around in the Al Rashid lobby to intercept any non-Iraqi leaving the hotel. Half the time, you would be discouraged from going places they did not approve. The other half of the time, it would take up to two hours before the ministry officials "arrange" things. These included getting "clearance" for your foray outside the hotel and ensuring that the vehicle that carried you was an Iraqi taxi with and Iraqi driver (and not the Jordanian-licensed car/driver with which/whom you had entered the country), and that the "minder" was in the taxi before it left the hotel compound.
The presence of "minders" was indeed a reminder to any Iraqi that he/she would be immediately reported to the security authorities if he/she dared to criticise the government or say anything to the media that would indicate that the regime was not the most popular in the world. It was anyone's guess what could have happened to those who were reported.
The arrangement was almost water-tight. A few "minders" tended to be more co-operative — in return for a monetary consideration of course — and they deliberately stayed away from earshot when you asked Iraqis how they felt about the regime and other "sensitive" questions, but those "minders" risked being reported themselves by the taxi driver, who inevitably happened to be an informant.
On the other hand, the "minders" encouraged Iraqis to speak about their suffering under the UN sanctions — that were imposed when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 — and lambast the US administration.
Today, the "embedded" American journalists are facing a similar situation. Their freedom of movement is curtailed and they are prevented from reporting actualities from the ground in Iraq; they are denied information that could place the US in bad light, but are encouraged to report what a great job the US military is doing in Iraq.
One such account has come from Rod Nordland of Newsweek in an interview published in Foreign Policy.
According to Nordland, the US military — and by extension the Bush administration — has been largely successful in managing the news “to the extent that most Americans are not aware of just how dire it is and how little progress has been made” and revealed that some "embedded" reporters “have been blacklisted because the military wasn’t happy with (their) work.”
Another account has come from Ken Silverstein, Washington editor of Harper's Magazine (http://harpers.org/) and a former reporter of the Los Angeles Times, who says that "there are significant obstacles for even the best and most determined journalists" while working "embedded" with the US military in Iraq.
Silverstein quotes a former senior television producer for Reuters who worked in Iraq between 2003 and 2004 as recounting her experience of being "embedded" with the US military. Her summary statement: "I was a mouthpiece for the American military."
Her account is largely similar to the experience of foreign journalists in Iraq while the Saddam regime was in power — you were allowed to report on what the regime wanted you to and you were denied access to any information that the regime did not want you to have. Mind you, we are talking about an autocratic regime which believed in summary silencing of its people as one of its tools to ensure its survival. Compare its actions with the US, a democratic regime founded on the noblest principles of personal freedoms and the right to know among other things.
Silverstein writes: "When insurgents attacked civilians, she (the Reuters producer) told me, the American military would rush her to the scene so she could record the carnage and get shots of grieving Iraqis.
"When it came to other stories that were clearly sympathetic to the US side, such as funerals for American soldiers killed in combat, the US military was extremely helpful — indeed, encouraging. In such cases, she was granted full access and allowed to film speeches by officials honouring the dead, the posthumous awarding of medals, and other aspects of the ceremony.
"But when this producer wanted to pursue a story that might have cast the war effort in an unfavourable light, the situation was entirely different. Every few days, she said, she would receive a call from the Reuters bureau in Baghdad and discover that reporters there had heard, via local news reports or from the bureau's network of Iraqi sources, about civilians being killed or injured by American troops. But when she asked to leave the compound to independently confirm such incidents, her requests were invariably turned down."
“Reuters had an armored car,” she told me, “and we wanted to go out on our own, but I would ask the PIO (public information officer) for permission and he would say he needed to get more information before we could go. Hours would pass, it would get dark — and in the end we were never able to get to the scene.” Even getting an on-camera comment from a military spokesman was impossible in such cases, she said.
No journalist was allowed to pursue any report that was not approved by the US military. "For example, on how the local population viewed the occupation and American troops — because she was not permitted to leave the base on her own. The height of absurdity came when the Tikrit compound came under serious attack one evening and the producer was asked by the Reuters bureau in Baghdad to phone in a report on the situation.
“We couldn't find out anything (from the US military),” she said, so Reuters had to cover the fighting from Baghdad, despite having a television producer and reporter on the ground at the compound in Tikrit.
During her 45 days in Tikrit, she told Silverstein, she didn't file a single story critical of the American project in Iraq. “There was no balance,” she said. “What we were doing wasn't real journalism.”
That could indeed not be the basis for a summary assumption for all journalists on assignments in Iraq. We have seen reports filed by "embedded" journalists that truly revealed the ugly face of the war in Iraq. It was a Time magazine report that exposed the November 2005 massacre in Haditha. Seymour Hersh's exposure of the torture and degrading treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib was based on confidential reports available in Washington, but it was picked up and supported by most American journalists working in Iraq. There have been hundreds of reports that did fair justice to the profession, but fair justice is not enough when it comes to covering war, and that too as ugly as the one going on in Iraq.
What exactly is that Washington does not want the world to know about Iraq?
An intelligent guess, based on independent reports and bloggings from Iraq, would point to some of them, and these include:
— that demoralisation is slowly but surely creeping into the ranks of the American soldiers in Iraq as the insurgency shows no signs of fading away.
— that the actual figures of casualties among US military personnel, except deaths that could not be concealed, are played down.
— that everyone is an "enemy" in Iraq unless proven otherwise, but the followed policy is "shoot first and ask questions later."
— that women and children are no exception to the policy, and that Iraqis are treated worse than animals.
— that the rules of the game are often bent with implicit/explicit endorsement from the top echelons.
— that the insurgency is rooted among Iraqis rather then "international terrorist jihadists."
— that the people of Iraq resent the American military presence and could not wait to see the back of US soldiers.
— that US corporations are making a killing in billions of dollars in the name of the war in Iraq.
— that friends of the US, primarily Israel, are given a free hand in Iraq to realise their interests in the oil-rich country.
— that the US has no plans to leave Iraq since its presence in the country is part of a broader game plan that is part of Washington's global designs drawn up by hawks who believe in America's supremacy on this planet.
MODERN IRAQ was always known for repression of media freedoms. Permitting media freedoms meant challenges to the regimes (as in many parts of the world), and Iraq, since its creation in its present territorial shape in the 1920s, was no exception. Local papers, radio and television were state-owned and controlled and they sang the praise of the regime day in and day out. Foreign media working in Iraq were kept under tight check and surveillance throughout, and those present in the country often had to pay the price for critical reports that originated outside but carried by the newspapers or channels that they worked for.
The situation became all the more tight during the 1990s and early 2000s, starting with Saddam Hussein's military invasion and occupation of Kuwait, and all foreign journalists faced stricter restrictions on their movements in the country. It would not be an exaggeration that they were treated like prisoners, but VIP style.
First of all it was very difficult to obtain a visa to enter Iraq. Then journalists had to wait until the Iraqi consulate in Amman decided that it was time for them to enter Iraq.
They had to travel in a convoy from the Jordanian capital Amman and then escorted by Iraqi information ministry and security officials from the Iraqi border point at Trebil to the one and the only hotel designated for journalists — the famous Al Rashid in Baghdad — and back to the frontier when you leave after the assignment (Other hotels were added to the "approved list" in due course, but the rules of the game remained the same).
It was almost impossible for stray away on the trip up and down even if you tried because the convoy, of say 20-25 vehicles, would have several strategically positioned ministry vehicles just to make sure that no one got "lost" along the eight-hour journey and be in a position to talk to anyone or visit any place away from official sights.
And once you checked into Al Rashid, you could not leave the hotel unless accompanied by a "minder" — an Iraqi information ministry official who would keep a close eye on what you do, who you speak to and, more importantly, what you hear. Any time of day and night, there would be at least a dozen ministry officials hanging around in the Al Rashid lobby to intercept any non-Iraqi leaving the hotel. Half the time, you would be discouraged from going places they did not approve. The other half of the time, it would take up to two hours before the ministry officials "arrange" things. These included getting "clearance" for your foray outside the hotel and ensuring that the vehicle that carried you was an Iraqi taxi with and Iraqi driver (and not the Jordanian-licensed car/driver with which/whom you had entered the country), and that the "minder" was in the taxi before it left the hotel compound.
The presence of "minders" was indeed a reminder to any Iraqi that he/she would be immediately reported to the security authorities if he/she dared to criticise the government or say anything to the media that would indicate that the regime was not the most popular in the world. It was anyone's guess what could have happened to those who were reported.
The arrangement was almost water-tight. A few "minders" tended to be more co-operative — in return for a monetary consideration of course — and they deliberately stayed away from earshot when you asked Iraqis how they felt about the regime and other "sensitive" questions, but those "minders" risked being reported themselves by the taxi driver, who inevitably happened to be an informant.
On the other hand, the "minders" encouraged Iraqis to speak about their suffering under the UN sanctions — that were imposed when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 — and lambast the US administration.
Today, the "embedded" American journalists are facing a similar situation. Their freedom of movement is curtailed and they are prevented from reporting actualities from the ground in Iraq; they are denied information that could place the US in bad light, but are encouraged to report what a great job the US military is doing in Iraq.
One such account has come from Rod Nordland of Newsweek in an interview published in Foreign Policy.
According to Nordland, the US military — and by extension the Bush administration — has been largely successful in managing the news “to the extent that most Americans are not aware of just how dire it is and how little progress has been made” and revealed that some "embedded" reporters “have been blacklisted because the military wasn’t happy with (their) work.”
Another account has come from Ken Silverstein, Washington editor of Harper's Magazine (http://harpers.org/) and a former reporter of the Los Angeles Times, who says that "there are significant obstacles for even the best and most determined journalists" while working "embedded" with the US military in Iraq.
Silverstein quotes a former senior television producer for Reuters who worked in Iraq between 2003 and 2004 as recounting her experience of being "embedded" with the US military. Her summary statement: "I was a mouthpiece for the American military."
Her account is largely similar to the experience of foreign journalists in Iraq while the Saddam regime was in power — you were allowed to report on what the regime wanted you to and you were denied access to any information that the regime did not want you to have. Mind you, we are talking about an autocratic regime which believed in summary silencing of its people as one of its tools to ensure its survival. Compare its actions with the US, a democratic regime founded on the noblest principles of personal freedoms and the right to know among other things.
Silverstein writes: "When insurgents attacked civilians, she (the Reuters producer) told me, the American military would rush her to the scene so she could record the carnage and get shots of grieving Iraqis.
"When it came to other stories that were clearly sympathetic to the US side, such as funerals for American soldiers killed in combat, the US military was extremely helpful — indeed, encouraging. In such cases, she was granted full access and allowed to film speeches by officials honouring the dead, the posthumous awarding of medals, and other aspects of the ceremony.
"But when this producer wanted to pursue a story that might have cast the war effort in an unfavourable light, the situation was entirely different. Every few days, she said, she would receive a call from the Reuters bureau in Baghdad and discover that reporters there had heard, via local news reports or from the bureau's network of Iraqi sources, about civilians being killed or injured by American troops. But when she asked to leave the compound to independently confirm such incidents, her requests were invariably turned down."
“Reuters had an armored car,” she told me, “and we wanted to go out on our own, but I would ask the PIO (public information officer) for permission and he would say he needed to get more information before we could go. Hours would pass, it would get dark — and in the end we were never able to get to the scene.” Even getting an on-camera comment from a military spokesman was impossible in such cases, she said.
No journalist was allowed to pursue any report that was not approved by the US military. "For example, on how the local population viewed the occupation and American troops — because she was not permitted to leave the base on her own. The height of absurdity came when the Tikrit compound came under serious attack one evening and the producer was asked by the Reuters bureau in Baghdad to phone in a report on the situation.
“We couldn't find out anything (from the US military),” she said, so Reuters had to cover the fighting from Baghdad, despite having a television producer and reporter on the ground at the compound in Tikrit.
During her 45 days in Tikrit, she told Silverstein, she didn't file a single story critical of the American project in Iraq. “There was no balance,” she said. “What we were doing wasn't real journalism.”
That could indeed not be the basis for a summary assumption for all journalists on assignments in Iraq. We have seen reports filed by "embedded" journalists that truly revealed the ugly face of the war in Iraq. It was a Time magazine report that exposed the November 2005 massacre in Haditha. Seymour Hersh's exposure of the torture and degrading treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib was based on confidential reports available in Washington, but it was picked up and supported by most American journalists working in Iraq. There have been hundreds of reports that did fair justice to the profession, but fair justice is not enough when it comes to covering war, and that too as ugly as the one going on in Iraq.
What exactly is that Washington does not want the world to know about Iraq?
An intelligent guess, based on independent reports and bloggings from Iraq, would point to some of them, and these include:
— that demoralisation is slowly but surely creeping into the ranks of the American soldiers in Iraq as the insurgency shows no signs of fading away.
— that the actual figures of casualties among US military personnel, except deaths that could not be concealed, are played down.
— that everyone is an "enemy" in Iraq unless proven otherwise, but the followed policy is "shoot first and ask questions later."
— that women and children are no exception to the policy, and that Iraqis are treated worse than animals.
— that the rules of the game are often bent with implicit/explicit endorsement from the top echelons.
— that the insurgency is rooted among Iraqis rather then "international terrorist jihadists."
— that the people of Iraq resent the American military presence and could not wait to see the back of US soldiers.
— that US corporations are making a killing in billions of dollars in the name of the war in Iraq.
— that friends of the US, primarily Israel, are given a free hand in Iraq to realise their interests in the oil-rich country.
— that the US has no plans to leave Iraq since its presence in the country is part of a broader game plan that is part of Washington's global designs drawn up by hawks who believe in America's supremacy on this planet.
'Out of control?'!!!!!
June 29, 2006
WARNINGS after warnings are being issued that the situation in Palestine will spin out of control if the two sides involved do not exercise restraint in the crisis sparked by Sunday's Palestinian attack on an Israeli border post and capture of an Israeli soldier. Facts on the ground clearly show that the situation is already out of control.
Israel's arrest of eight ministers ofthe Hamas-led Palestinian cabinet and 20 members of the Palestinian parliament, and the Israeli seige of the Gaza Strip and destruction of infrastructure there that has heralded a humanitarian crisis are bad enough. Add to that Israel's
threat to kill Hamas leaders living in exile and "punish" Syria for harbouring them and the Israeli military flights over the home of the Syrian president coupled with a warning that any cross-border attack by Lebanon's Hizbollah would trigger military action against Syria. The sole world power which could make a real difference contends that Israel is only exercising its right to self-defence — meaning a carte blanche endorsement of whatever Israel finds fit to do. (Well, it should not be surprising since the US itself claims that the war it wages in Iraq is in exercise of its right to self-defence, although it beats common sense to figure out how Iraq posed a threat to the US in the first place).
On the other side, captors of an Israeli settler have already killed him. and those who have captured the Israeli soldier on Sunday are refusing to release him without Israel freeing Palestinian women and children in detention in return. Indeed, the decision is no longer in the hands of the captors because the families of the 8,000 plus Palestinian prisoners in Israel insist on their loved ones being freed in return for the Israeli soldier, a demand the Jewish state is highly unlikely to meet, particularly now that it has eight Hamas ministers in its custody who could be used as bargaining chips (not to mention the others detained in Thursday's sweep).
And we are still told the situation in Palestine "could spin out of control."
Whatever the explanation, the fear is high that Israel has found the conditions right to create a situation where it could dictate terms with help from the US. It seems a certainty that it would use this opportunity to corner the Palestinian and Arab side with a view to weakening resistance to its hegemony and military ambitions and imposing its will not only on the Palestinians but on the broader Arab and Muslim worlds. If that is indeed the case, then any solution to the crisis triggered by the capture of the Israeli soldier would only serve Israeli interests and objectives.
The need of the hour is for the Arabs to put their heads together and come up with a collective strategy aimed at dealing with Israel's broader agenda. Condemnations of Israel are not enough. Emergency meetings have to be called and urgent and sound decisions have to be taken. That is the real challenge facing the Arabs today.
WARNINGS after warnings are being issued that the situation in Palestine will spin out of control if the two sides involved do not exercise restraint in the crisis sparked by Sunday's Palestinian attack on an Israeli border post and capture of an Israeli soldier. Facts on the ground clearly show that the situation is already out of control.
Israel's arrest of eight ministers ofthe Hamas-led Palestinian cabinet and 20 members of the Palestinian parliament, and the Israeli seige of the Gaza Strip and destruction of infrastructure there that has heralded a humanitarian crisis are bad enough. Add to that Israel's
threat to kill Hamas leaders living in exile and "punish" Syria for harbouring them and the Israeli military flights over the home of the Syrian president coupled with a warning that any cross-border attack by Lebanon's Hizbollah would trigger military action against Syria. The sole world power which could make a real difference contends that Israel is only exercising its right to self-defence — meaning a carte blanche endorsement of whatever Israel finds fit to do. (Well, it should not be surprising since the US itself claims that the war it wages in Iraq is in exercise of its right to self-defence, although it beats common sense to figure out how Iraq posed a threat to the US in the first place).
On the other side, captors of an Israeli settler have already killed him. and those who have captured the Israeli soldier on Sunday are refusing to release him without Israel freeing Palestinian women and children in detention in return. Indeed, the decision is no longer in the hands of the captors because the families of the 8,000 plus Palestinian prisoners in Israel insist on their loved ones being freed in return for the Israeli soldier, a demand the Jewish state is highly unlikely to meet, particularly now that it has eight Hamas ministers in its custody who could be used as bargaining chips (not to mention the others detained in Thursday's sweep).
And we are still told the situation in Palestine "could spin out of control."
Whatever the explanation, the fear is high that Israel has found the conditions right to create a situation where it could dictate terms with help from the US. It seems a certainty that it would use this opportunity to corner the Palestinian and Arab side with a view to weakening resistance to its hegemony and military ambitions and imposing its will not only on the Palestinians but on the broader Arab and Muslim worlds. If that is indeed the case, then any solution to the crisis triggered by the capture of the Israeli soldier would only serve Israeli interests and objectives.
The need of the hour is for the Arabs to put their heads together and come up with a collective strategy aimed at dealing with Israel's broader agenda. Condemnations of Israel are not enough. Emergency meetings have to be called and urgent and sound decisions have to be taken. That is the real challenge facing the Arabs today.
'Moderates' into 'militants'
June 28, 2006
ISRAEL, a country which rates itself among the top 10 military powers in the world, is reacting in an unprecedented manner to the crisis sparked by Sunday's Palestinian attack on a border post and abduction of an Israeli army soldier.
The massive military blockade of the Gaza Strip and destruction of infrastructure in the coastal territory coupled with threats that no one is immune to Israeli action — a minister has said even Palestinian ministers could be taken hostage — underlines an apparent determination to use the opportunity to deal a severe blow to Palestinian armed resistance.
More infrastructure would be destroyed as a message to everyone in Gaza that backing armed groups means severe hardships in daily life. There would be summary arrests of "suspects" who would be hauled off to Israeli prisons. Homes would be demolished and enough damage would be inflicted that Israel would want to use as a warning to the people against supporting armed resistance. Simply put, the message is: Ordinary people would suffer if they support groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other factions which are waging armed resistance.
Such an approach could be expected in view of Israel's record of using collective punishment against the Palestinians under occupation.
Yet another reason for the high intensity of the Israeli action is the way Sunday's Palestinian attack was staged. The Israeli military's "pride" that it is as good as invincible was deeply hurt by revelations that the Palestinian assailants had dug a tunnel and used it successfully to carry out the attack. It meant serious breaches of Israel's security arrangements and this is something that the Jewish state's military psyche could not absorb. The Israeli military wants to hit back with utmost intensity and put up a massive show of power with a vengeance.
Indeed, Israel is pulling all the plugs. It has also threatened to kill Hamas leaders living in exile in Arab countries such as Syria.
Palestinians have responded to the Israeli moves with defiance, with many of them vowing to fight the Israeli army.
The overall mood among the Palestinians is that the situation could not get any worse and hence their resolve to confront the Israelis head on.
Whatever the outcome of the crisis, it marks a turning point for both sides. Israel would use the opportunity to inflict as much damage as possible to Palestinian resistance and Palestinians would respond with whatever they could. However, that is not the end of the story. Israel's incursion into Gaza would turn many "moderate" Palestinians into "militants," and this translates into that many more ready to sacrifice whatever they could to serve the cause of freedom and independence.
ISRAEL, a country which rates itself among the top 10 military powers in the world, is reacting in an unprecedented manner to the crisis sparked by Sunday's Palestinian attack on a border post and abduction of an Israeli army soldier.
The massive military blockade of the Gaza Strip and destruction of infrastructure in the coastal territory coupled with threats that no one is immune to Israeli action — a minister has said even Palestinian ministers could be taken hostage — underlines an apparent determination to use the opportunity to deal a severe blow to Palestinian armed resistance.
More infrastructure would be destroyed as a message to everyone in Gaza that backing armed groups means severe hardships in daily life. There would be summary arrests of "suspects" who would be hauled off to Israeli prisons. Homes would be demolished and enough damage would be inflicted that Israel would want to use as a warning to the people against supporting armed resistance. Simply put, the message is: Ordinary people would suffer if they support groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other factions which are waging armed resistance.
Such an approach could be expected in view of Israel's record of using collective punishment against the Palestinians under occupation.
Yet another reason for the high intensity of the Israeli action is the way Sunday's Palestinian attack was staged. The Israeli military's "pride" that it is as good as invincible was deeply hurt by revelations that the Palestinian assailants had dug a tunnel and used it successfully to carry out the attack. It meant serious breaches of Israel's security arrangements and this is something that the Jewish state's military psyche could not absorb. The Israeli military wants to hit back with utmost intensity and put up a massive show of power with a vengeance.
Indeed, Israel is pulling all the plugs. It has also threatened to kill Hamas leaders living in exile in Arab countries such as Syria.
Palestinians have responded to the Israeli moves with defiance, with many of them vowing to fight the Israeli army.
The overall mood among the Palestinians is that the situation could not get any worse and hence their resolve to confront the Israelis head on.
Whatever the outcome of the crisis, it marks a turning point for both sides. Israel would use the opportunity to inflict as much damage as possible to Palestinian resistance and Palestinians would respond with whatever they could. However, that is not the end of the story. Israel's incursion into Gaza would turn many "moderate" Palestinians into "militants," and this translates into that many more ready to sacrifice whatever they could to serve the cause of freedom and independence.
The real challenge
June 21, 2006
The real challenge
ANYWHERE else in the world, a gathering of Nobel laureates and celebrities discussing ways of transforming the world's "challenges into opportunities" would be expected to make a real difference to efforts to solve regional conflicts. Such hopes are also attached to this week's conference in the ancient Jordanian city of Petra attended by some 25 Nobel laureates in chemistry, economics, literature, medicine and peace along with 30 celebrities. They will seek, organisers say, to deal with some of the world's most intractable problems.
"In the 21st Century, humankind must find new ways of dealing with emerging threats and develop a deeper understanding about the connections between them," says a statement from the organisers.
"Petra II: A World in Danger, provides a forum to reflect on both old and new problems, and propose novel strategies for transforming challenges into opportunities," it says.
Participants will focus on non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons, education, health and poverty, and economic empowerment — key issues that are plaguing the Middle East region. Had the region's governments and people been unpreoccupied with fears and problems to security, then these issues would not have festered. The governments would have had the time and resources to launch projects and schemes designed to address and rectify problems in the education and health sectors and to uplift people living in poverty.
Instead, time and money are spent on security-related issues. Countries are being forced to spend billions on military equipment that are unlikely to be used at all, but are deemed to be — and portrayed as — a necessary part of national defence by those who peddle them around.
Such diversions owe their origins to the festering conflicts in the region being waged, at least in party, to serve vested interests. Therefore, any effort should take into consideration the root causes of insecurity and instability in the region, and one does not have to look far to identify them as Israel and its US-supported quest for regional domination and elimination of all challenges at whatever cost.
However, realism dictates that what the Nobel laureates and celebrities have to say about the Middle Eastern conflicts is not going to count much in practical terms if only because the players involved in the conflicts are very much a closed club, with little room for additional entrants.
The gathering is expected to host the first, albeit not very formal, meeting of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert under an initiative undertaken by King Abdullah II of Jordan. There is little at this point in time to give anyone any hope that the Abbas-Olmert meeting would lead to anything concrete in terms of reviving Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. The best persuasive skills of the Nobel laureates and celebrities are not enough to make a difference, if only because the political imperatives deprive Olmert of a choice to embrace a just and fair option to end the conflict with the Palestinians, regardless of whether Abbas's Fatah or Hamas is in power.
Apart from Palestine, where hopes for peace is are all but disappeared, the Iraqi crisis is spinning out of control, regardless of whether the US and the US-backed government in Baghdad admit it.
We in this region are watching with trepidation the unfolding scenario in Iraq that is definitely pointing in the direction of disintegration of that country as it existed pre-March 2003. We had warned it would happen, but our words were summarily brushed aside. Indeed, what we are witnessing today in Iraq is the result of powers that matter ignoring the region's warnings.
Those participating in the Petra forum might not be directly affected by happenings in the Middle East, but they should be naive not to realise that the region's problems are not created by the region's players alone. External medding in their affairs is one of the key reasons for the region's current state of insecurity, instability and apprehension over the uncertainty of what lies ahead.
The gathering in Petra should serve as an eyeopener to the realities of the conflicts in the Middle East. It is not Hamas's refusal to recognise Israel or renounce armed resistance that has stalled efforts for peace. The root causes is Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories and refusal to return them to the Palestinians.
It is not the presence of "international jihadists" in Iraq that is worsening the crisis in that country. It is Iraqi resistance to foreign domination and the US refusal to give up its quest for indirect but absolute control of that country against the backdrop of Washington's biased policies that is behind the crisis.
It is not fears of Iranian threats to the US that is behind Washington's drive against Tehran. It is concerns that Iran might acquire a deterrent against the nuclear supremacy of Israel in the region and Iran's refusal to toe the American line that has sparked the crisis.
No doubt, the organisers of the forum are aware of the limitations. However, that has not dissuaded them from setting goals high.
They are calling on international community "to work in unison to counter mounting threats to peace and stability" — a reference the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
They are calling on the forum's participants to explore ways to develop education across the globe as "a tool in the fight against intolerance and hatred," and to improve the quality of education for boys and girls alike.
They are urging governments enhacing access to information via the Internet as part of efforts to close the knowledge gap between developed and developing countries and prepare students to compete in the modern world.
The forum is called upon to devise ways "to deal with global health pandemics caused by HIV/AIDS and the avian flu," and to ensure that the most vulnerable, namely children and women, are provided with adequate health care.
Participants also face the task of coming with realistic measn to alleviate the global scourge of poverty, which organisers say "is a source of instability, creating breeding grounds for fanaticism, radicalism and terrorism."
Simply put, the challenges facing the Petra conference are more complex that those facing the key players in regional conflicts around the world. That in itself should be an incentive to the intellectuals and celebrities gathered in the Nabataeen rose-red city of Petra to rake their brains and come up with recommendations addressed to world governments.
After all, international efforts have to be launched at some point towards at least understanding the real roots of the problems before attempting to solve them.
Hopefully, that is the best purpose that the Petra gathering would serve.
The real challenge
ANYWHERE else in the world, a gathering of Nobel laureates and celebrities discussing ways of transforming the world's "challenges into opportunities" would be expected to make a real difference to efforts to solve regional conflicts. Such hopes are also attached to this week's conference in the ancient Jordanian city of Petra attended by some 25 Nobel laureates in chemistry, economics, literature, medicine and peace along with 30 celebrities. They will seek, organisers say, to deal with some of the world's most intractable problems.
"In the 21st Century, humankind must find new ways of dealing with emerging threats and develop a deeper understanding about the connections between them," says a statement from the organisers.
"Petra II: A World in Danger, provides a forum to reflect on both old and new problems, and propose novel strategies for transforming challenges into opportunities," it says.
Participants will focus on non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons, education, health and poverty, and economic empowerment — key issues that are plaguing the Middle East region. Had the region's governments and people been unpreoccupied with fears and problems to security, then these issues would not have festered. The governments would have had the time and resources to launch projects and schemes designed to address and rectify problems in the education and health sectors and to uplift people living in poverty.
Instead, time and money are spent on security-related issues. Countries are being forced to spend billions on military equipment that are unlikely to be used at all, but are deemed to be — and portrayed as — a necessary part of national defence by those who peddle them around.
Such diversions owe their origins to the festering conflicts in the region being waged, at least in party, to serve vested interests. Therefore, any effort should take into consideration the root causes of insecurity and instability in the region, and one does not have to look far to identify them as Israel and its US-supported quest for regional domination and elimination of all challenges at whatever cost.
However, realism dictates that what the Nobel laureates and celebrities have to say about the Middle Eastern conflicts is not going to count much in practical terms if only because the players involved in the conflicts are very much a closed club, with little room for additional entrants.
The gathering is expected to host the first, albeit not very formal, meeting of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert under an initiative undertaken by King Abdullah II of Jordan. There is little at this point in time to give anyone any hope that the Abbas-Olmert meeting would lead to anything concrete in terms of reviving Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. The best persuasive skills of the Nobel laureates and celebrities are not enough to make a difference, if only because the political imperatives deprive Olmert of a choice to embrace a just and fair option to end the conflict with the Palestinians, regardless of whether Abbas's Fatah or Hamas is in power.
Apart from Palestine, where hopes for peace is are all but disappeared, the Iraqi crisis is spinning out of control, regardless of whether the US and the US-backed government in Baghdad admit it.
We in this region are watching with trepidation the unfolding scenario in Iraq that is definitely pointing in the direction of disintegration of that country as it existed pre-March 2003. We had warned it would happen, but our words were summarily brushed aside. Indeed, what we are witnessing today in Iraq is the result of powers that matter ignoring the region's warnings.
Those participating in the Petra forum might not be directly affected by happenings in the Middle East, but they should be naive not to realise that the region's problems are not created by the region's players alone. External medding in their affairs is one of the key reasons for the region's current state of insecurity, instability and apprehension over the uncertainty of what lies ahead.
The gathering in Petra should serve as an eyeopener to the realities of the conflicts in the Middle East. It is not Hamas's refusal to recognise Israel or renounce armed resistance that has stalled efforts for peace. The root causes is Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories and refusal to return them to the Palestinians.
It is not the presence of "international jihadists" in Iraq that is worsening the crisis in that country. It is Iraqi resistance to foreign domination and the US refusal to give up its quest for indirect but absolute control of that country against the backdrop of Washington's biased policies that is behind the crisis.
It is not fears of Iranian threats to the US that is behind Washington's drive against Tehran. It is concerns that Iran might acquire a deterrent against the nuclear supremacy of Israel in the region and Iran's refusal to toe the American line that has sparked the crisis.
No doubt, the organisers of the forum are aware of the limitations. However, that has not dissuaded them from setting goals high.
They are calling on international community "to work in unison to counter mounting threats to peace and stability" — a reference the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
They are calling on the forum's participants to explore ways to develop education across the globe as "a tool in the fight against intolerance and hatred," and to improve the quality of education for boys and girls alike.
They are urging governments enhacing access to information via the Internet as part of efforts to close the knowledge gap between developed and developing countries and prepare students to compete in the modern world.
The forum is called upon to devise ways "to deal with global health pandemics caused by HIV/AIDS and the avian flu," and to ensure that the most vulnerable, namely children and women, are provided with adequate health care.
Participants also face the task of coming with realistic measn to alleviate the global scourge of poverty, which organisers say "is a source of instability, creating breeding grounds for fanaticism, radicalism and terrorism."
Simply put, the challenges facing the Petra conference are more complex that those facing the key players in regional conflicts around the world. That in itself should be an incentive to the intellectuals and celebrities gathered in the Nabataeen rose-red city of Petra to rake their brains and come up with recommendations addressed to world governments.
After all, international efforts have to be launched at some point towards at least understanding the real roots of the problems before attempting to solve them.
Hopefully, that is the best purpose that the Petra gathering would serve.
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}