Wishes that will remain only listed

Aug.20, 2007

Wishes that will remain only listed


IT IS conventionally welcome news that Iraq's fractious leaders have agreed on the agenda for a political summit called by Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, who is desperately trying to rescue his crumbling "national unity" government.
Maliki, who is under intense American pressure to salvage the government, is obviously hoping that the Sunnis who have quit the government would come around and opt to attend the proposed gathering if only because there is no other game in town.
It was not exactly a wise move by the Shiite prime minister to announced the formation of an alliance grouping his Dawa party and Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council and the Kurdish groups — the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) but excluding all Sunni factions. The move underlined what many see as the inevitability of the country splintering along Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni lines. The record of the post-war crisis in Iraq is interpreted by many as having established that the three major sects are unable to co-exist with each other as long as the US maintains its presence there. The US presence is the not the solution; it is the problem.
Seasoned international experts agree with the assessment; so do many retired American and European generals.
But the world has not heard much from the people who actually deal with the situation on the ground on how to deal with the crisis and whether they feel something could be done to correct the American course in Iraq. The world did hear from them this week when the New York Times carried an article written by six US military personnel serving in Iraq — Army specialist Buddhika Jayamaha, sergeants Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck, Omar Mora and Edward Sandmeier and staff sergeants Yance T. Gray and Jeremy A. Murphy.
The article summarised what most people already knew but denied by the US administration: That the US is not winning is unlikely to win "hearts and minds" of Iraqis has ended up alienating everyone.
The article carries pointed references to the massive number of Iraqis who have fled their country and to similar number internally displaced. The article highlights the plight of the ordinary people of Iraq — the lack of electricity, services, drinking water, and above all security.
One of the most damaging revelations in the article is that the Iraqi security forces — which the writers find penetrated at the street level by Shiite militiamen and their supporters —  have become not only totally unreliable in times of crisis but also a potential source of danger for US soldiers.
Add to that what we know already of the complexities of the Iraqi way of politics, the alliances and rivalries, the fortune-hunters and back-stabbers and opportunists, and the people at large who continue to pay the price of a foreign military misadventure and who have seen the "liberator" turning to an "occupier" and to an "oppressor."
Does the net image that emerges look like a war that could be won?
Of course, Maliki has little option but to hope and continue to try to salvage himself and his government so that the US could see at least one of its strategic objectives being pushed through: Approval of legislation that would effectively hand over control of Iraq's oil resources to foreign companies.
Indeed, there is nothing that could stop anyone drawing up a wishlist, but it is a dead certainty that the US wishes in Iraq would only remain on a list.

US 'better off with Sadr'

Aug.19, 2007


US 'better off' with Sadr as an ally


ONE OF the most interesting theories that have come up recently is that the US would be better off working with firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr to restore the "state" in Iraq and with Iran to restore normal Washington-Tehran relations if it were to hope for a face-saving formula to get out of the Iraq crisis.
The strongest proponent of the theory is William S. Lind, director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation in Washington.
The practical implementation of Lind's theory hinges on the precondition that the US administration accepts that its maximalist objectives of the invasion and occupation are not realisable, and it could no longer hope to dictate terms but could only hope to try influence things in a manner that reduces its losses and produces a way out of Iraq.
Essentially, Washington has to accept that the US is already defeated in Iraq and should act immediately in the light of that acceptance rather than wait for events to take their course towards the inevitability of having to eat crow in Iraq.
Indeed, that is where the problem is rooted. The US continues to believe that a victory in Iraq means the chaotic country being turned into an American satellite that is friendly to Israel and will guarantee US energy interests and offer military bases from which American forces can dominate the region.
That is where the neoconservatives who planned and orchestrated the Iraq war made their biggest mistake. None of these objectives were ever attainable and would never be attained regardless of how much military power the US throws into Iraq.
Let us start from point zero. The US-led invasion destroyed the "state" in Iraq and restoring it should be Washington's first priority. However, it would be unable to do so as long as it continues on its present course. The US would never be able to turn the government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki to be the unifying force capable of re-knitting Iraq because any association with the US becomes an immediate disqualifying factor for any Iraqi politician, whether Shiite or Sunni. The US remains an invader and occupier in most Iraqi eyes and it is simply impossible for Washington to be the creator of a post-Saddam Hussein state in Iraq. It has no option but to work with the country's Shiites to create a new state but only with a clear and public declaration of its intentions not to continue its occupation of Iraq and of a clear timeline for military withdrawal from that country. And Sadr, by his steadfast resistance against the US, is, at this juncture in time, the most credible Shiite leader in Iraq, no matter how Washington evaluates him in view of his known links with Iran.
Sadr has played his cards right. He has even reached out to Sunni groups by ordering his Mahdi Army militiamen to call off their violent campaign against the Sunnis and entering a de facto alliance with some of the Sunni factions.
There are many who believe that Sadr has already set his eyes on the highest position of power in Iraq and hence his strong emphasis on Shiite-Sunni unity against the US. They are suggesting that the time might not be more opportune for the US to make an overture to Sadr if indeed Washington is sincere in its declaration that it does not want to continue its military occupation indefinitely.
The US should essentially realise that it is no longer a question of ensuring that Iraq would remain US-friendly when the US forces withdraw from that country. It is simply impossible, given the way the US conducted itself in post-war Iraq. The question should indeed be how to ensure minimum losses and maxium protection for US forces as they withdraw from Iraq. In order to achieve that there should be a state that would co-operate with the clear understanding that the US military is leaving Iraq for good. In fact, the leaders of that new state would be more anxious than the American themselves to create an environment that is conducive to an accelerated US withdrawal from the country.
There would indeed be Sunni rejection of any US-Sadr deal. But then, the US should know that it could not please everyone. The Sunnis of Iraq have to accept that their days of domination are over and their only hope is to negotiate and bargain for the best deal they could get from whoever emerges as the political leader in a post-US occupation Iraq.
Of course, the strongest opposition to any US move to enter a compromise of sorts with Sadr would come from other Shiite leaders, but that is where Iran comes in with its clout with the Shiite community in Iraq in general to remove challenges to Sadr.
That is precisely the reason why the US should abandon its determination to subdue Iran and seek to launch an all-embracing dialogue aimed at settling most, if not all, differences and stabilise relations with the Islamic republic.
Washington should drop its belief that ending its in-built hostility towards Iran's theocratic regime and normalising relations with Tehran implies defeat for the US. Simply put, there would never be a US victory in Iraq as long as Washington pursues a belligerent course towards Iran.
Dropping hostility and negotiating an end to the tension with Iran is not seen as an option for the US at this point because Washington is convinced that it is not possible to co-exist with Tehran. The Iranian regime is similarly convinced, and Tehran could not be expected to help Washington to stabilise Iraq as long as the US military is present there. Instead, Iran believes that its interests of getting the US out of the region and emerging as a dominating regional power could be served only through continued destabilisation of Iraq. One could also throw in Afghanistan for good measures.
Within Iraq, the US could strike a deal with Moqtada Sadr, but that would be at the expense of accepting and acknowledging that it could not realise its objectives of the invasion of that country. Beyond that, it would simply mean giving up Iraq to be controlled by forces friendly to Iran, a much worse fate than being defeated in Iraq.
It is almost certain that with Sadr as the dominant Shiite political figure (under a hypothetical deal engineered by the US), there is no telling how the cookie will crumble in Iraq.
On the other hand, stabilising relations with Tehran and working out a face-saving formula by promoting Sadr, the US would be able to work out an exit strategy out of Iraq and also be assured that groups like Al Qaeda are significantly weakened because the new state in Iraq would make sure that such destabilising forces are chased out after the US quits the country.
It would indeed be a key scoring point in the US-led war against terror.
The Lind theory is an excellent suggestion for Washington because it offers the best way out of the US with the minimum loss of face. Washington and Tehran may not be become buddies, but they would be able to work out a formula under which they would avoid a confrontation and that is good news for the region.
However, the element that deflates all prospects for such course of events is the obvious determination among the Washington hard-liners, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney, to stage military action against Iran and not to allow anything to stand in their way of eliminating that country as a potential threat to US and Israeli interests in the region.
It is the same Washington camp that plotted and orchestrated the invasion of Iraq that is behind the campaign for military strike against Iran. And it is also clear that all they need is a pretext to launch action, and the neoconservatives are admitting it in public.
nother 9/11 attack.
In an article titled "To save America, we need another 9/11," Stu Bykofsky writes in the Philadelphia Daily News that the fight between the Republicans and Democrats over Iraq shows that the US is divided and that the unity of Americans brought about by the Sept.11 attacks has disappeared.
Therefore, Bykofsky argues, the US needs another 9/11 style attack "quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail."
What Bykofsky falls short of suggesting is that Iran has already been lined up as the target for the "righteous rage" and "singular purpose."
Against that reality, theories and proposals such as those made by Lind have as much chance of consideration as the Iranians opting to buy Japanese caviar.

A threat that would be a reality

Aug.18, 2007

A threat that will soon be a reality


AMONG the many silent and not-so-silent drives undertaken by Israel to consolidate its grip on Palestinian land is a campaign to evict as many Arab residents from East Jerusalem in order to dilute the non-Jewish presence in the Holy City and strengthen the number of Jews there. It is indeed an integral part of Israel's quest to "legitimise" its occupation of Arab East Jerusalem and its claim that the eastern half of the city is an "indivisible" part of the "eternal capital" of the Jewish state.
According to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, the number of Palestinian residents of Arab East Jerusalem who had their permanent residency status revoked in 2006 increased dramatically — more than six fold. While the number stood at 272 in 2003 and was 222 in 2005, last year 1,363 residents of Arab East Jerusalem had their residency status revoked, according to the group, which quoted the figures from statistics available with the Israeli occupation authorities.
Israel applies a special formula while dealing with the Palestinian residents of Arab East Jerusalem, which it occupied in the 1967 war. Immediately after seizing the eastern part of the city from Jordan, Israel said it was granting the area's Arab residents full Israeli citizenship provided that they swear allegiance to the Jewish state and renounce any other citizenships they may have. It effectively meant that the city's Arab residents had to give up their Palestinian identity once and for all. Not many accepted the offer, and then came an offer of permanent residency status, which meant the Arab residents cannot vote in parliamentary elections, but they can vote in municipal elections and can work in Israel.
In 1996, as it became clear that Israel would have to negotiate peace with the Palestinians sooner or later, the Jewish state launched a quite drive to revoke the residency status in Arab East Jerusalem, starting with Arab residents who had moved outside of the city's municipal boundaries. It also applied an across-the-board policy of refusing Arabs to build new homes or expand existing buidlings. Parallel to that, it also encouraged Jews to buy Palestinian-owned property in Arab East Jerusalem.
Israel has always taken note of the fact that the growth of Arab population is far higher than that of Jews and it became Israel's need to keep the number of Arabs living in East Jerusalem as low as possible and hence the mass revocation of permanent residency status in what B'Tselem describes as a a policy of "quiet transfer."
The complex laws and regulations applied by Israel make it impossible for anyone to fight the revocation of permanent residency status in Arab East Jerusalem. In fact, the same situation applies to any fight against any aspect of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land.
In the case of Arab East Jerusalem in particular, any delay in working out an Israeli-Palestinian agreement works in Israel's favour. The disarray in Palestinian ranks makes it all the more easy for Israel to carry out its plans.
No doubt, the Palestinian leaders, whether Fatah, Hamas, centre, left or right, are aware of the danger, but they are too busy fighting among themselves that they could not focus their efforts to deal with the real enemy, Israel. And the losers in the bid to regain Arab East Jersualem, which houses the third holiest shrine in Islam, would not be the Palestinians alone but the entire Muslim World.

The only way to stability

Aug.10, 2007
The only way for stability




THE meeting of tribal leaders from Afghanistan and Pakistan under way in Kabul is perhaps the best chance to stabilise Afghanistan in the face of a resurgent Taliban who are operating from near the border between the two countries. No doubt, the Taliban, who have become a source of perennial headache for the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as the US-led Western coalition present in Afghanistan, have support from the tribes on both sides of the border and hence the significance of the jirga.
It is a tradition for centuries that the region has relied on jirgas among tribes to settle problems, but the Kabul forum marks the first time that neighbouring tribal elders have come together for talks on the growing militant violence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
However, any effort to stabilise Afghanistan has to have as its central pillar the acceptance of the fact that the Taliban are as Afghan as anyone else. There is no prospect of any success for any effort in Afghanistan while the Taliban are kept out.
The Taliban might have unwittingly posed themselves as models for other militant groups elsewhere, but the Afghan group's agenda had always been and remains Afghanistan specific. Taliban-linked militant actions in Pakistan were and are directly linked to the crisis in Afghanistan and not the result of the Taliban trying to export their brand of militancy abroad.
The growth of pro-Taliban sympathies in the tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border has to do with mainly the history of neglect, denial, ignorance and lack of development of the region and the group's emergence as a symbol of rebellion in the 1990s.
There has alwasy been a sense of social injustice felt by the residents of the region over the centuries. The rulers in power centres in the area could not be bothered to look into the way of life of people in the area. Even with the creation of Afghanistan and Pakistan last century as they exist today, there was little effort to uplift the lot of the tribes in the border area.. Whatever effort that was exerted was thwarted by the tribal leaders who tried dictate their terms.
In the process, resentment and bitterness grew among the tribes towards whoever was in power and they became rebellious by nature.
Involving the tribes in the exercise of stabilising Afghanistan has hopefully started with the jirga in Kabul.
Political imperatives might be involved in the absence of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf at the conference, but it need not be seen as a major blow to the effort because no overnight breakthroughs are expected, particularly that some of the important tribal leaders are also absent.
A good start has been given, but it would be counterproductive for anyone to pin all hopes on mobilising the tribes against the Taliban and succeeding in the effort. The exercise should not be aimed at intensifying the military fight against the Taliban but to deal with the group with a view to bringing them into mainstream politics. It is no easy mission, and compromises would have to made by all sides, but that is the only way for stability in Afghanistan and the border region.

Social injustice is the root

Aug.9, 2007

Social injustice is the root

THE meeting of tribal leaders from Afghanistan and Pakistan under way in Kabul is perhaps the best chance to stabilise Afghanistan in the face of a resurgent Taliban who are operating from near the border between the two countries. No doubt, the Taliban, who have become a source of perennial headache for the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as the US-led Western coalition present in Afghanistan, have support from the tribes on both sides of the border and hence the significance of the jirga.
It is indeed a tradition for centuries that the region has relied on jirgas among tribes to settle problems, but the Kabul forum marks the first time that neighbouring tribal elders have come together for talks on the growing militant violence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
However, any effort to stabilise Afghanistan has to have its central pillar the acceptance of the fact that the Taliban are as Afghan as anyone else and they have to be part of any power-sharing agreement in Kabul. There is no prospect of any success for any effort in Afghanistan while the Taliban are kept out.
The Taliban might have unwittingly posed themselves as models for other militant groups elsewhere, but the Afghan group's agenda has always been and remains Afghanistan specific. Taliban-linked militant actions in Pakistan were and are directly linked to the crisis in Afghanistan and not the result of the Taliban trying to export their brand of militancy abroad. The growth of pro-Taliban sympathies in the tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border has to do with mainly the history of neglect, denial, ignorance and lack of development of the region and the group's emergence as a symbol of rebellion in the 1990s.
There has alwasy been a sense of social injustice felt by the residents of the region over the centuries. The rulers in power centres in the area could not be bothered to look into the way of life of people in the area. Even with the creation of Afghanistan and Pakistan last century as they exist today, there was little effort to uplift the lot of the tribes in the border area.. Whatever effort that was indeed exerted was thwarted by the tribal leaders who tried dictate their terms.
In the process, resentment and bitterness grew among the tribes towards whoever was in power and they became rebellious by nature.
Involving the tribes in the exercise of stabilising Afghanistan has hopefully started with the jirga in Kabul.
Political imperatives might be involved in the absence of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf at the conference, but it need not be seen as a major blow to the effort because no overnight breakthroughs are expected, particularly that some of the important tribal leaders are also absent.
A good start has been given, but it would be counterproductive for anyone to pin all hopes on mobilising the tribes against the Taliban and succeeding in the effort. The exercise should not be aimed at intensifying the military fight against the Taliban but to deal with the group with a view to bringing them into mainstream politics. It is no easy mission, and compromises would have to made by all sides, but that is the only way for stability in Afghanistan and the border region.

Vision and courage for justice

Aug.8, 2007

Vision and courage for fairness, justice


IT IS WELCOME news that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is gathering support for a Middle East conference proposed by US President George W Bush in an intiative that could be prove to be a watershed for efforts to Arab-Israeli peace.
No doubt all key players will agree to attend the conference because the Saudi-intitiated Arab proposal is there as the only comprehensive approach to peace in Palestine and between Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon.
Indeed, that is assuming that the Arab peace proposal would be the central theme at the proposed conference rather than the piecemeal approach favoured and demanded by Israel. If anyone has any other ideas, then the whole exercise would be wasted.
Therefore, it should be clear that Israel should not be using the conference to establish contacts and relations with the Arab World while it corners the Palestinians and tries to impose its version of a peace agreement on them.
The Arab peace plan envisions every things that is linked to Arab-Israeli co-existence in the region. The Arabs are offering the Jewish state the legitimacy it seeks as a member of the regional order in return for its return of the Arab territories it occupied in the 1967 war, co-operation in finding a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees and creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital.
Indeed, the key questions are the future of Jerusalem, the borders of a Palestinian state and the right of return for refugees.
When Israeli leaders balk at making a commitment that the negotiations would include these issues, then it is time that the Arabs and those wishing a fair and just settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict took note.
We have used to Israel's deception-based strategies and tactics too long to accept anything at face value while dealing with the Jewish state.
There has to be a definite and irrevocable commitment on the Israeli side that these key issues would be placed on the table with the Palestinians with a view to working out an equitable solution that would not be at the expense of the Palestinians, who are the agrieved party.
Of course, some compromises would have to be made but nothing should infringe upon the core of the conflict — the inalienable and legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
It requires willpower, courage and determination not only to propose peace on honourable terms but also to accept the challenge and do what it takes to settle a problem as complicated as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Arabs have done their part. Can or will the Israelis do their part?

The shame of the 'silent majority'

Aug.4, 2007

The shame of the 'silent' majority

by pv vivekanand

The alarming report that more than half of Iraq's population live in poverty and hunger and disease are growing in the country brings up the key question: Why is the US doing this to the people of Iraq?
Did the people of Iraq invade the US?
Did the people of Iraq threaten the US?
Did the people of Iraq challenge US interests anywhere in the world? Did the people of Iraq occupy homes in the US?
Did the people of Iraq rape American girls?
Let us for a moment consider the theory that the regime of Saddam Hussein was rogue and did not serve US interests in the region and that was the reason the US invaded Iraq.
Doesn't it follow that, having invaded the country and toppled the "rogue" regime, it becomes the responsibility and obligation of the invader and occupier to ensure that those who were oppressed during the ousted regime should enjoy the fruits of being "liberated" from a tyrant?
The US is behaving in a manner that it is nobody's business to question what it is doing in Iraq and how it is treating the people of Iraq. Washington seems to believe that the world should continue to celebrate that the poor suffering Iraqis were "liberated" and should be thankful to the sole superpower for having done so.
The US should not have shirked its responsibilities towards the people of Iraq. But Washington is not showing any sign of accepting that it did evade its responsibility. It is continuing to subject the people of Iraq not only to murder, abuse and gross oppressionand expose them to starvation and disease by denying them basic essentials to survive.
In post-war Iraq, prices of food have shot up so high that one third of Iraqis could not afford even a decent daily meal. Compare that with the pre-war situation, where the government offered them most staples at subsidised prices.
In post-war Iraq, nearly 70 per cent of people do not have access to drinking water. Compare that with the pre-war situation, where there was no shortage of drinking water.
In post-war Iraq, people have an average of four to five hours of power supply and that too intermittently. Compare that with the pre-war situation, where there was no shortage power and even industries thrived.
In post-war Iraq, people did not have to cower inside their homes fearing they could get killed in bombings or they could be shot to death in their homes by storming troopers. Compare that with the pre-war situation, where the fear of death is ever-present, whether at home or outside. One might be fortunate to escape a car-bombing in the street, then there is no escape from the fear that sectarian militias or occupation soldiers could simply knock at your door and shoot you down.
In post-war Iraq, children could go to schools and entertain dreams of good education and a fair career whether in the country or outside. Compare that with the pre-war situation, where the country's education system is in shambles, with teachers and students living in perennial terror of being targeted by insurgents or of being caught in the cross-fire between the "good" and "bad" men (regardless how you define "good" and "bad").
Who bears the responsibility for this state of affairs in Iraq?
It is easy to hold the governments of the US and its allied countries responsible. But then, don't the people who elected those governments have any responsibility? If the people plead helplessness to influence their elected government against gross violations of the human rights, then they don't have the right to call themselves democracies.
There is something seriously wrong when only a small percentage of the world's six billion people have the willingness or inclination to publicly express their rejection of what their governments are doing to the people of Iraq. Doesn't that imply that the "silent" majority approve of whatever is happening in Iraq but that they still belong to the so-called civilised world.
It is hypocrasy of the tallest order, and the "silent" majority should be ashamed of themselves. Everyone of them is responsible for every Iraqi who gets killed or maimed, for every Iraqi who dies in the daily bombings or in the US-led military sweep, for every Iraqi who goes to sleep hungry, for every Iraqi who is detained and tortured, for every Iraqi who lives in perpetual terror, every Iraqi who dies because the country's health system functions no more, every Iraqi who had to flee his or her home, and for every Iraqi who has no school to go to.
The "silent" majority is also responsible for shoving Iraqis into the arms of groups like Al Qaeda, which has turned Iraq into killing grounds and a platform to wage a war of attrition against the US.
Al Qaeda never had a presence in Iraq prior to the US invasion and it is the US military presence there that is drawing "international jihadists" like a magnet.
It was the governments elected by the majority of the "civilised" world which pushed the people of Iraq and tipped them over into the bottomless abyss of denial, despair, frustration, anger, agony and suffering. And the majority of the "civilised" world have to answer for it.









 

US vs Europe — new equations

US vs Europe
— new equations


THE NEW generation of leaders in Europe is definitely showing signs that they could put up a serious challenge to the implicit global domination of the United States, and this bodes well for the Middle East, which has been for long seeking a balance in the international approach to the region's crises.
There is a consensus among foreign-policy experts that Britain, France and Germany being all now under new leadership compared with four years ago, when the United States plunged it relations with Europ into their worst crisis for decades with its invasion of Iraq.
The new leaders of the three major European countries are seen to have fresh and assertive mindsets that could take them away from the US orbit, particularly given the disarray in Washington's international relations as well a domestic politics.
Indeed, the Bush administration is putting up a brave face and dismissing suggestions that the European countries are stepping into the diplomatic vacuum left by US difficulties in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.
In the Middle East, the Europeans have already made their moves.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy played a key role in securing the release of six foreign medical personnel from Libya and is now involved in an intense effort to solve the political crisis in Lebanon. Sarkozy's government is also seeking the release of Myanmar's jailed democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.
Sarkozy has teamed up with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in efforts to solve the crisis in Sudan's Darfur region.
Brown, who was meeting President Bush in Washington on Sunday, has also announced that he would be naming his own envoy to the Middle East in what could trigger a dispute with his predecessor Tony Blair, who was always seen as too closely aligned with Bush and who was named the international Quartet's special envoy to the Middle East.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has stepped in for international action on issues like global warming, where the US has suffered badly because of its insistence on having its own way regardless of how the rest of the world feels on issues that are of global concern.
While some international experts see the European moves as making up for the major shortcomings in US foreign policy, others believe that it would only be a matter of time that the Europeans demanded their rightful role in the international scene that would supercede that of the US.
For us in the Middle East, a strengthened Europe means better prospects for a fair and just settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict and other crises in the region.
Nudged by Israel, the US has always kept the Europeans on the fringes of political efforts for peace in the Middle East, and called them in only to bankroll agreements. For long the Europeans had tried to assume a higher political profile in efforts for peace in the Middle East if only because they stand to bear the impact of all negative developments in the region.
It would seem that a door of opportunity is slowly opening for the Europeans to assume a role that befits their political, economic and military clout as well as the goodwill they enjoy among countries of the Middle East.
The Arab World could step in and accelerate the process by intensifying the ongoing Euro-Arab dialogue and setting up avenues for closer political co-operation with a view to building an international coalition that would not allow Israel to call all the shots in the Middle East through the US.

A battle that is already

July 28, 2007

A battle that is already lost



THE US wants to handle the insurgency in Iraq the American way, enlisting friends and allies as it finds fit in order to in its bid to fight off Al Qaeda. The strategy includes forming alliances with Sunnis in the Sunni-dominated provinces and with Shiites in Shiite-majority areas. Parallel to that the US is also moving against hardline Shiite militiamen who are posing a key challenge to overall security in the country.
The US-backed Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki thinks it knows better and wants the US military to stay away from becoming friends with the Sunnis and stop recruiting Sunnis into the security apparatus without case-by-case approval by the Iraqi state intelligence apparatus. Also, the Iraqi government does not want the US military to take on Shiite militiamen alligned with Maliki's coalition partners and wants the US military commanders to keep it informed of planned operations against Shiite gunmen. It is even suggested that Maliki had advised Shiite groups like the Mahdi Army of anti-US firebrand cleric Moqtada Sadr to lie low, hide their weapons and not to offer themselves as targets in the US military crackdown that was launched in February.
Maliki has reportedly told the US side that if the top US commander in Iraq, David Petraeus, continues to build alliances with the Sunnis, then the Iraqi government would arm Shiites.
With such a dramatic difference in approach and conflicting interests, it is only natural that the rift between the Maliki government and the US military is widening. The latest in growing crisis is a report that Maliki has already requested Washington to withdraw Petraeus.
On the broader front, the US administration is unhappy with Maliki because his government has not been able to meet any of the "benchmarks" that Washington has set towards meetings its objectives in Iraq.
US Ambasador Ryan Crocker faces the almost impossible task of persuading the Iraqi parliament to endorse laws that Washington sees as central pillars of a post-crisis Iraq (if ever there could be one).
Crocker's mission has acquired an added sense of urgency because he has to report to the US Congress in September on "progress" made in Iraq and explain why American soldiers are fighting and dying to give Maliki political breathing space that the Iraqi prime minister will not or cannot capitalise on.
US President George W Bush has no option but to continue to back Maliki if only because replacing the Iraqi prime minister with a more "amenable" figure and working with him to achieve the US goals in Iraq before Bush bows out of office in 18 months is not a practical idea. As such, Bush and Maliki are stuck with each other, but it is obvious that they are and remain unable to make the best of their dependence on each other.
The relationship between Washington and the Maliki government is central central to the future of Iraq and the larger Middle East. That relationship is in deep trouble now, adding yet another huge hurdle in the way of the US realising its strategic goals of its invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Words and deeds two different things

July 27, 2007

Words and deeds are different things


Last week's vote by the US House of Representatives preventing creation of permanent US military bases in Iraq and to bar US control of Iraqi oil was a strong blow to the core of the Bush administration's strategic objectives in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The motion, presented by Democrat Representative Barbara Lee of Oakland, is indeed the strongest sign yet of congressional opposition to maintaining American forces in foreign soil. At the same time, it also puts the Republicans on the spot with little option but to adopt a similar position.
The move might or might not be binding on the administration, which could use the Senate to scale down its impact. And we could expect a lot of Democrat-Republican wrangling not only on this issue but also many other aspects of the US military presence in Iraq.
But the political message is clear: The US has no business to seek a long-term presence in Iraq and the administration should not be a proxy for American oil companies to take control of Iraq's oil.
It is known that the US is building several huge military bases in Iraq with a view to keeping a 50,000-75,000-strong rapid deployment force ready to intervene anywhere in the Middle East against whatever Washington would see as detrimental to its strategic interests in the region. The massive US embassy that is being built on the banks of the River Tigris in Baghdad is an emphatic statement that the US intends to dig in its heels in Iraq.
Washington is also applying intense pressure on the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki to persuade parliament to take up and endorse a draft legislation on the country's oil. The proposed bill, which has already been approved by the Maliki cabinet, is designed to hand over control of Iraq's rich hydrocarbon deposits to foreign — read American — companies through production sharing agreements that would undoubtedly favour the foreign partner than Iraq itself. Beyond that, it would also accelerate the northern Kurds' campaign for eventual independence once they secure authority to finalise oil agreements with foreign companies on their own.
Many arguments were heard during the House of Representatives debate on the Lee motion, including pointed Republican reminders that the US should be focusing on preventing Al Qaeda from establishing "permanent bases in Iraq and using them to stage terrorist attacks" against the US" and its allies.
Proponents of that argument are basing themselves on a wrong footing. As long as the US maintains a military presence in Iraq, it would continue to attract and encourage anti-US militants to inflict as much damage as possible on the American forces. The militants would be deprived of their main raison d'être if there is no American military presence in Iraq. If anything, one of the beneficiaries of the US military presence in Iraq is Al Qaeda itself, which is finding itself being offered US targets right in the region.
Another Republican argument is that there is no such thing as "permanent" US bases outside US territory since such facilities are subject to agreements with the host countries.
All that it needs to deflate that argument is the fact that the US is maintaining military bases in South Korea for more than 54 years, and there is no sign of the American forces leaving the Korean Peninsula. The motivations and reasoning might be different but "permanent" military bases are anything but what they are.
Of course, last week's House of Representatives vote was the latest in a series of Democratic moves against the Republican administration after the Democrats eliminated the latter's dominance of Congress in last year's elections.
Surely, we would be hearing a lot more from the Democrats. As the Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, put it, the Democrats are determined to "go on record — every day if necessary — to register a judgment in opposition to the course of action that the president is taking in Iraq."
Given that there is little chance of the Bush administration moving to withdraw the US military from Iraq, the world would be watching closely how the Democrats would live up to their anti-war declarations and promises when, as widely expected, when they gain control of the White House in 2009.

ABCD of making peace in Palestine

July 25, 2007



ABCD of making
peace in Palestine


IT IS welcome news that former British prime minister and the international Quartet's special envoy Tony Blair is seeing "sense of possibility" for peace between Israel and Palestinians.
By his own admission, Blair, on his first visit to the Middle East in his capacity as the Quartet's envoy, intends at this stage "to listen, to learn and to reflect" in his talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Well, that is a good beginning as any because that posture would be an opportunity for Blair to learn of the respective positions of the two sides and explore means to advance from there and find common ground.
Surely, Blair needs no background lessons of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After all, it was Britain, wittingly or otherwise, which created the Palestinian problem in the first place and then did little to correct the injustices that were perpetrated on the Palestinians. Throughout his dealings with Middle Eastern leaders in his previous capacity as prime minister of Britain, Blair would have learnt not only about the core issues of the conflict but also the key reasons why the problem has not been solved.
For success in his Quartet mission, he should have the courage to call a spade a spade and accept that it was and is Israel's insistence that a settlement to the Palestinian problem should be at its own terms that has been and is blocking a just and fair peace agreement in Palestine. Blair should learn to deal with Israel and the Palestinians on equal footing
It would be a folly if Blair supports the Israeli argument that Palestinians are engaged in "terrorist" actions and the Jewish state "will not negotiate under fire." What Israel calls "terrorism" is a legitimate war of resistance waged by a people under foreign occupation against their occupiers. What is indeed terrorism is the Israeli state's use of its mighty military against the Palestinians in the name of quelling militancy. Israel has no right to be in the Palestinian territories in the first place and the only means for the Palestinians to oppose Israel's occupation of their land is to engage in armed resistance. It is particularly so after the experience the Palestinians had while dealing with Israel after signing the 1993 Oslo accords that laid a path towards negotiations on the final status of the occupied territories, including Arab East Jerusalem, and other issues such as the rights of Palestinian refugees. Israel has clearly established that it was not willing to concede anything substantial in return for peace with the Palestinians and that was why the Oslo process collapsed. Its refusal to dismantle the Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank is one of the clearest manifestations of its intentions to force down its own version of a peace agreement down the Palestinian throat.
Being in a position of miltiary strength and in physical control of the Palestinian territories, Israel has adopted a "take-it-or-leave-it" approach. Blair should be addressing this core point with a view to convincing Israel that there could never be a durable and fair settlement with the Palestinians if it continued to adopt this position.
Similarly, the Hamas-Fatah split in the Palestinian ranks should not be a reason for Blair to demand that the Palestinians set their house in order before moving towards peace with Israel.
That is not to say that the split among Palestinians could be easily healed. But it is an interal Palestinian affair that should be and could be sorted out among the Palestinian factions. Blair could actually facilitate the healing process by creating a situation where the Palestinians, whether Hamas or Fatah or any other group, know exactly what they would be getting in return for making peace with Israel and decide their course of action. He should be applying pressure on Israel and stay away from pressuring the Palestinians into accepting unacceptable compromises and concessions to their occupiers.
Equally important for Blair, who assumed the new mission at the insistenc of US President George W Bush, should assert his independence and steer clear of acting as a US representative seeking to impose Israeli-dictated terms on the Palestinians. Only then there is any meaningful hope for his mission for peace in Palestine.

The false facade of security

July 24, 2007

The false facade of security


THE US is planning to bribe Iraqi nationals working for the US government by granting them refugee status with a view to ensuring their loyalty and commitment to staying on in their jobs in chaotic Iraq.
This is what could be understood from a report that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Cocker has recommended that all Iraqis working for the US government to be granted refugee status by the US.
Being formally classified by the US as refugee clears the way for those given the status to proceed to the US when the US job is done in Iraq (Of course the question remains unanswered what exactly the US job in Iraq is and what would be a realistic timeline for it to be completed).
According to a cable sent by Cocker and a copy of which was obtained by the Washington Post, if Iraqi employees were not assured of safe haven in America, they would quit, weakening the ability of the US government to make an impact in Iraq even as it tries frantically to stabilise the country.
The cable says in part that Iraqis in US government employment "work under extremely difficult conditions, and are targets for violence including murder and kidnapping. Unless they know that there is some hope of a (migration to the US) in future, many will continue to seek asylum, leaving our mission lacking in one of our most valuable assets."
There is poetic justice in the recommendation. Iraqis working for the US government — meaning the occupation military — are risking their life. They are among the first targets along with US soldiers for the insurgents, who consider them as traitors since they work for the US.
They serve as interpreters, translators, and guides in for the US military. Many serve in various capacities for the US diplomatic mission in Iraq and others are intelligence agents and informants.
Few of the Iraqis in the US payroll in Iraq would volunteer the information that they work for the occupying power. Among the prime reasons is the fear that they could be targeted for killing by insurgents. Some might also be prompted to remain silent about their jobs since they realise that they are doing something not very right as Iraqis.
No definite numbers are available on how many Iraqis would qualify for refugee status as recommended by Cocker, but they would definitely run into several thousands, many of them living in the "safe and secure" environment of the fortified "Green Zone" in Baghdad and US military camps across the country.
The US record of accepting Iraqis as immigrants speaks for itself. Some 825 Iraqis have been given migration status in the US since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and tens of thousands of Iraqi applicants are pending with the US government, which is no longer accepting applications from Iraqis who have fled the country.
Washington promised to take in some 7,000 Iraqis during the fiscal year October 2006 to September 2007, but it has processed less than 140 applications by July 2007, with little or no hope of meeting even 10 per cent of the promised figure.
In simple terms, the US authorities do not trust Iraqis, perhaps except those who work under their direct control and whose credentials have been proved to suit US purposes. One could not really find fault with this argument. Every country has to put its interests first and that is precisely the US is doing, but in Iraq it has to be done at the expense of the people of Iraq as the disastrous US occupation has proven.
One also wonders what would be the fate of many Iraqi exiles who rode back into their country atop US military tanks in 2003. Many of them had to scale down their political ambitions as the realities of post-war Iraq set in. Would they dare to stay on in post-US Iraq or would they take the first flight to safety in their plush homes in Europe and elsewhere?
The Danish government seems to have set an example for other countries with military presence in Iraq. Denmark, which has some 450 soldiers serving with the US-led coalition forces in Iraq, accepted some 200 Iraqis and their families as immigrants this month ahead of the expected withdrawal of the Danish troops from Iraq. The airlifted Iraqis used to work with the Danish military unit in Iraq.
There is indeed suspicion that the disclosure about Cocker's cable was a "planned leak" in order to send an indirect message of reassurance to Iraqis in US government payroll in Iraq without any commitment on the part of the administration.
In any event, Cocker's implicit admission that Iraqis on US government pay in Iraq need assurances of their future highlights the reality that they realise that the US would be leaving behind a chaotic Iraq, if and when it decides to quit the country and there would be no future for anyone deemed to have worked for the US occupation authorities. That also exposes their understanding that the US would not be able to stabilise Iraq and leave the country with the satisfaction that the objectives of the invasion and occupation were achieved. Had the case been otherwise, then everyone in Iraq could be expected to be assured of their safety and security in a post-US Iraq.
Wasn't it — as we heard last from Washington — for the liberation of Iraqis from the Saddam Hussein regime and democratisation of Iraq that the US invaded the country? Shouldn't it follow then that whatever the US is doing in occupied Iraq is aimed at ensuring the freedom, safety and security of the liberated people of Iraq and safeguarding their future? Why then the Iraqis who are helping the US in that mission need any reassurance of their future?
When the people who are supposed to run Iraq themselves do not have faith in the declared US drive to hand over the country to Iraqis, then one should be wondering about the whole American exercise.
No that there ever was any realistic hope that the US would be able to pacify Iraq, what with the irreversible blunders it made at the very outset of its occupation of the country. The Cocker recommendation underlines that the US would not mind turning Iraqis into Americans as along as they serve Washington's purposes in Iraq. However, given that the US purposes in Iraq have faded away from the horizon of realism, reason and logic, Washington seems to be ready to try any gimmick to hang on in the country at least until the present administration remains in office.

With aides like these

July 22, 2007

With aides like these....

CONTRARY to mainstream media reports, it was not the US Defence Department which criticised Hillary Clinton, a senator and presidential hopeful, for seeking a formal Pentagon briefing on contingency plans for withdrawal from Iraq. It was Eric Edelman, an under-secretary of defence for planning, who sent a letter to Clinton reprimanding her for requesting information that she, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, had every right and reason to seek. Clear in Edelman's reply was evidently the neoconservatives' distaste for anyone who dares to raise the issue of US withdrawal from Iraq.
It should have been Robert Gates, the defence secretary, who should have replied to Clinton's request for a Pentagon briefing. But Edelman seemed to have assumed the job for himself perhaps because he did not think his boss was up to the job of having to use the occasion to use the strongest of expressions rejecting any debate on withdrawal from Iraq. The question has not been satisfactorily answered whether Edelman had the authority to respond to a request from a member of congress, but then everything and anything goes in the neoconservative-run Washington.
A part of the letter appearing in cyberspace reads:
"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia. … Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risk in order to achieve compromises of national reconciliation."
A well-constructed paragraph but its contents are deceptive.
Edelman is willing concede only that the US is "perceived" to have abandoned its allies in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia whereas the truth is that the US had no option but to cut and run from the three countries when the going got real tough. It could not care less for its allies.
As to "unnerving" of the US's allies in Iraq, Edelman sidesteps the reality that it was "the very same Iraqi allies" that nose-led the US into the disaster in Iraq if only because they wanted to topple the Saddam Hussein regime not for the sake of the country or its people but to serve their self-interests of assuming positions of power, authority and wealth. Some of them were also found to be engaged in spying for foreign governments hostile to the US.
They are indeed assuming "enormous personal risk" but not to "achieve compromises of national reconciliation" as Edelman asserts.
Of course, a cursory glance at Edelman's record would explain how he came up with these views and how he, the third man in charge at the Pentagon, took the initiative of writing a letter to a member of congress that definitely establishes him as firmly entrenched in the Republican camp.
Edelman is one of the die-hard neoconservatives. He counts among his close friends and allies fellow neocons as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz.
He served as Dick Cheney's national security adviser and, along with ex-Cheney aide Lewis Libby, was heavily involved in preparing the ground for the invasion of Iraq. He has a long record of coming up with all kinds of arguments and theories to defend the US decision to go to war and how every neocon involved in pulling the strings for war was acting in the best interests of the US.
By suggesting that Hillary Clinton was undermining national interests — many other phrases could be used as variations of the same thing — Edelman was only living true to his neoconservative identity that does not brooke criticism of whatever nature and whatever issue, least of all the decision to invade and occupy Iraq. The neocons have made sure that their allies and friends are everywhere in the corridors of bureaucratic power in Washington. They know what they are doing and they are indeed doing a good job.
It is indeed people like Edelman and his neocon bosses and friends, past and present, who are blocking any serious and objective discussion of the realities on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East and preventing any meaningful move towards addressing the core roots the problems the US faces in the region.

End of an ordeal and wave of relief

July.18 2007

End of an ordeal and wave of relief


THE DEAL that led to the commuting of death sentences handed down to five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor convicted of infecting Libyan children with HIV into life terms has sent a wave of relief across the world.
The next step in the long drawn-out affair is expected to be the transfer from Libya to Bulgaria of the six under a prisoner transfer agreement signed between the two countries in the 1980s but never used before.
It might take some time before the formalities are completed and the five Bulgarian woman and the male Palestinian doctor Ñ who has been granted Bulgarian citizenship Ñ are sent to Bulgaria to serve out the remaining term. All six have been in Libyan detention since 1999, and were twice convicted of deliberately injecting 438 children Ñ 56 of them died Ñ in a Benghazi hospital with HIV-tainted blood. The death penalty had been confirmed for a third time by Libya's Supreme Court last week.
But Libya's top legal body, the Supreme Judicial Council, commuted the death sentences to life in prison on Tuesday after the families of the infected children received money under a compensation deal with the Qadhafi foundation.
The world kept a close watch on the proceedings, particularly that it was difficult to accept that six people had ganged up to infect hundreds of children with HIV as if part of a sinister plot against the people of Libya.
Experts suggested that the HIV infections started before the medics arrived at the hospital, and are more likely to have been a result of poor hygiene, a theory that was turned down during the trials of the six.
Indeed, we have heard the six allege that the confessions they signed were taken from them under duress and that they were innocent of any crimes. They also stood trial for slandering Libyan police for alleging that they were tortured while in custody.
Now their ordeal is coming to an end, and we could expect to hear more about what went behind the scenes once the six are out of Libya.
Libya acted wisely in accepting the compromise deal under which parents of the infected children will receive $1 million per child. Had Tripoli gone ahead with the death penalty, it would have been a huge black spot against Libya at a time when it is returning to the mainstream international diplomatic scene after more than 15 years of isolation in connection with the 1988 Lockerbie bombing case.
Few around the world failed to notice the similarity of sorts between the Lockerbie case and the HIV affair. Libya settled the Lockerbie case by accepting responsibility for the bombing and paying $10 million each to the 370 victims ÑÊ359 aboard the plane and nine on the ground. Many around the world read between the lines a Libyan determination to use the HIV case to implicitly highlight its "innocence" in the Lockerbie case notwithstanding the acceptance of responsibility. It was as if Libya was telling the world that if the six medics were innocent in the HIV case, then it was also true that Libya itself was innocent in the Lockerbie case.
All said and done, the affair is drawing to a relatively happy conclusion and the chapter would hopefully be closed when the six medics leave Libyan airspace under the transfer deal in the works.

Symphony of another 'shock and awe'

July 16 2007

Symphony of another 'shock and awe'

by pv vivekanand


THE US administration has reportedly shifted back to the option of military action against Iran in the name of Tehran's nuclear programme before President George W Bush leaves office in 18 months. The shift, reported by the British Guardian newspaper on Tuesday, is seen as a triumph of the hawkish neoconservative camp working through senior administration officials headed by Vice-President Dick Cheney.
The purported losers are the relative moderates led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Robert Gates who favour diplomacy and sanctions to resolve the nuclear dispute with Iran.
Scott Horton, a New York attorney an expert in international law, especially human rights law and the law of armed conflict who lectures at Columbia Law School, pins the blame directly on Cheney.
Horton writes on www.harpers.org:
"For the dead-ender neoconservatives (and indeed, neoconservatives are by their psychology just the sort of people who make excellent dead-enders), the solution to the current dilemma Ð a catastrophic failure in Iraq, badly miscast plans in Lebanon, an increasingly angry American electorate Ñ is simple: we need a new war. Nothing focuses the mind and silences the opposition quite like a good little war, they believe. And while times may be difficult for the neocons generally, not to worry Ð they still have the key man. One man is the 'decider' on questions respecting Iran. His name is Dick Cheney."
The elements at play have not changed much during the period when talk of military action against Iran was toned down at the insistence of Rice and Gates, with never-say-die Cheney looking for the right tool to silence the call for diplomacy.
Today, the US military remains bogged down in Iraq despite the "surge" in troop strength since February with little sign that the insurgency is being brought under control let alone being fought off.
Washington accuses Iran of fanning the flames of the insurgency by supplying arms and explosives to anti-US groups in Iraq and Afghanistan and training Iraqis in guerrilla warfare. The US administration's contentions, critics say, are designed to convince Americans to accept military action against Iran on the ground that Iran is behind the killing of American soldiers.
The charges, which are rejected outright by Iran, might or might not be true. It might also be possible that non-governmental Iranian groups are involved in anti-US activities in Iraq while the Tehran regime looks the other way.
Reason dictates that Iran wants a peaceful and stable Iraq ruled by its allied groups there, but they want an Iraq without the US military hanging around. Iran fears that it would be the next target for "regime change" if the US military is able to stabilise Iraq and hence it is understandable that Tehran is not exactly very anxious to help Washington pacify the Iraqis.
Parallel to the developments in Iraq, Iran continues to defy calls for suspending its nuclear enrichment programme and implicitly dares the US to take military action. Obviously, Tehran believes Washington knows it well that the Iranians and their proxies in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere could wage a devastating defensive war against the US.
But then, concerns over how Iran would retaliate for military action might not figure much in the hard-line camp in Washington, some argue. The neocons wants the US to go to war with Iran and then let the conflict takes its own course regardless of what it might entail.
As Charlie Reese, an American journalist with 50 years of experience, observes: "The neocons are not only idiots, they are evil. They show a complete disdain for peace, a callous disregard for human life, and utter contempt for the rule of law."
Indeed, we do have in Iraq the best example of the neocon posture, which refuses to acknowledge the realities on the ground and maintains that the US should continue to absorb heavy human and material losses and press ahead with the military option. It should be stunning to the international community that a handful of such people are calling the shots for the world's sole superpower.
In the immediate context, no one seems to have accurate information on the status of Iran's nuclear programme with varying estimates of how long it would take it to build nuclear weapons despite Tehran's denials that its nuclear activities are strictly for peaceful purposes.
Israel is growing impatient by the hour to have a go at Iran's nuclear facilities because the Jewish state feels it cannot afford to have anyone in the Middle Eastern neighbourhood Ñ except itself Ñ to have even the technology that could lead to nuclear weaponisation and possibly challenge its nuclear-based military posture in the regional conflict.
Caught in the middle of the verbal fireworks are the region's countries, which are already reeling back from the direct and indirect impact of the crisis in Iraq and are anxious to avert yet another military conflict in the region.
Drowned in the din of the war of words between the US and Iran are reason and logic that call for serious and substantial dialogue to address the roots of the ever-growing US-Iranian hostility that has to do more with US policies in the Middle East than anything else.
The Iranians are no angels either. They have their own agenda, and many suspect that Tehran hard-liners have dusted off their campaign ÑÊthat was shelved because of the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s ÑÊto export their "Islamic revolution" to the immediate Gulf region and beyond and thus threaten what the US considers as its strategic interests.
According to Monday's Guardian report, the Washington "moderates" prevailed over Bush until recently ÑÊand hence the freezing of military plans against Iran ÑÊbut an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department over the last month gave fresh life to the military option.
Cheney, who is known to favour military action against Iran, engineered the shift by convincing Bush by expressing "frustration" at the lack of progress in pressuring Iran and give up its nuclear programme and an assessment that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009, according to the Guardian.
"The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," according to a source quoted by the paper.
"Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo," says another source cited in the report.
"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, is quoted as saying in the report.
No one is overlooking the Israeli angle.
"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," according to Cronin. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."
However, despite the presence of a large US naval force in the region, including two aircraft carrier groups, no decision on military action is expected until next year as the State Department continues to pursue the diplomatic route. That seemed to be a concession given to the moderate camp led by Rice, the secretary of state.
As such, in the short term, efforts would be intensified for an agreement among UN Security Council members for a new round of sanctions against Iran, with Washington seeking tough measures and Russia and China favouring low-profile action.
In the meantime, the ground is being prepared for military action. The US Senate recently adopted a bill that contains an amendment deploring alleged Iranian anti-US activities in Iraq. The amendment accuses Iran of murdering American soldiers, and of committing other acts of war, and that is enough justification and implicit "authorisation" for the Bush administration to launch military action against that country.
Respected commentator Jim Lobe observes on www.antiwar.com: "It may be that the American people are opposed to another war in the Middle East: that may even be the last thing on their minds. Yet our elected 'representatives' could not care less about popular opinion, or else they would have gotten us out of Iraq last year. The lobby is plumbing for war with Iran, and the tom-toms are beating out their message of fear, intimidation, and vaunting Ñ the prelude to another symphony of 'shock and awe'."

Right signals, wrong reading

July.12, 2007

Right signals, wrong reading

WHEN ISRAELIS start expressing "fears" of an impending war, we would better sit up and take note. But what do we do when the source of such expressions of fears is the US?
The ground for such fears have been set in recent months with a flurry of mostly Israel-origin reports that the Syrians were acquiring advanced weapons, mainly from Russia.
To us in the Arab World, the reports are indicative of Syria's fears of an Israel-launched war rather than the Syrians beginning a military conflict with the Jewish state. Damascus is exercising its sovereign right to defend itself by making sure that Israel knows well that it would have to pay a heavy price if it launches military hostilities against Syria.
There are so many reasons for Syria not to go to war, including the fact that Damascus is perfectly aware that the US/Israel combine is waiting for an opportunity to bring about forced regime change in Syria. Surely, Syria is not going to give them the opening that they are looking for.
This time around, US officials and former officials are expressing fear that a confrontation between Syria and Israel may happen this summer. Foremost among them is Dennis Ross, a former senior US Middle East peace negotiator, who was quoted by an Israeli newspaper as saying he thinks "there is a risk of war" between Syria and Israel in the summer. "The Syrians are positioning themselves for war," according to Ross, who wants the Bush administration to "squeeze the Syrian economy" by using "sticks before carrots" in dealing with Damascus.
Let us not go into debating why the US should go after Syria for the sake of Israel. It has become part of life in this part of the world that the US has undertaken not only to defend and protect Israel but also to serve Israeli interests even at the cost of US interests (That is why we have seen the US steadily losing its credibility and getting into disasters after disasters in the Middle East under advice from the pro-Israeli camp in Washington).
Interestingly, the Israeli military does not share Ross's thoughts.
Its deputy chief, Moshe Kaplinsky says that he does not believe a war with Syria is imminent.
While expressing concerns over what he describes as a growing Iranian involvement in promoting regional instability and Syrian involvement in the rearming of Hizbollah following the war in Lebanon, Kaplinksy is also convinced that the Syrian procurement of weapons and intensified military training are part of Syria's defensive measures.
For the moment, let us assume that Kaplinsky means what he says, and Ross and others in Washington are shooting in the dark. And we know that Syria would not be the one to start a war with Israel.
Against the backdrop of all talk of war, Syria have been sending clear messages that it is genuinely interested in peace with Israel; the only problem is that Israel wants peace on its own terms that would be difficult for any self-respecting country to accept, least of all Syria.
Progress was indeed made in Syrian-Israeli peace talks before they were broken off in the late 1990s but secret contacts continued off and on, but it was the US which reportedly forbade Israel from advancing on the secret track.
US President George W. Bush has shown little enthusiasm for an Israeli-Syrian peace track, casting doubt on the chances of progress.
Probably, it is time he had a second thought.
According to the UN's Middle East envoy, Michael Williams, Syria has expressed willingness to change its relationship with Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas if progress were made towards a peace deal with Israel.
The reported Syrian willingness is not contradictory to the stated positions of Damascus since making fair, just and respectable peace with Israel would do away with any necessity to have any questionable relationship.
If Israel and the US have not taken note of Williams' impressions from talks with Syrian leaders in recent months, then it is time for them to do so and take it up from there and snuff out all talk of yet another conflict that the Middle East could ill afford.

In search of a caucus belli?

April 4 2007

In search of a caucus belli?

It is known that the hawks in Washington are looking for a caucus belli to justify US military action against Iran, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair seems to be bent upon fetching it for them. Blair is seeking to turn the row over Iran's detention of 15 British sailors and marines into a territorial dispute even though it has not been established that this was indeed the case and experts disagree with him.
Blair Ñ and US President George Bush for that matter ÑÊhave no doubts in their mind that the Iranians caught the Britons in Iraqi territorial waters and thus the action was in violation of international law. However, Commodore Nick Lambert, the Royal Navy commander of the operation on which the Britons were captured, is not so sure. Lambert says: "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may well claim that they were in their territorial waters. The extent and definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated."
Lambert's comments have to be seen against the reality that Iran and Iraq never drew up a map of their maritime boundary, and such a boundary shown on the British government map does not exist.
In strictly technical terms, the British map would have no relevance to either Iran or Iraq because only Terhan and Baghdad could agree on their bilateral boundary, and they have never done this in the Gulf. They have drawn their boundary only inside the Shatt Al Arab waterway ÑÊin the middle of it, to be precise ÑÊand it also represents their land borders.
What Blair is trying to do is to impose the British-drawn Iraq-Iran maritime boundary on the two countries with a view to escalating the crisis in a manner that suits the Washington hawks.
Bush has thrown his weight behind Blair describing Iran's capture of the Britons as "inexcusable" and demanding that Tehran "give back the hostages" immediately and unconditionally.
The US president says he supports Blair's efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to the crisis, but his critics accuse him of playing a game designed to justify military action against Iran.
A report highlighted in the Israeli media says that Russian intelligence the US will be ready to launch a missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as early this month, perhaps "from 4am until 4pm on April 6."
The source of the report is Russia's RIA Novosti news agency, which quoted a security official as saying, "Russian intelligence has information that the US Armed Forces stationed in the ... Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory." At the same time, the way the Israeli media played up the report underlines the Jewish state's anxiety to have the US wage an Israeli war against Iran to the last American soldier.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a US group, has issued a clear warning:" The increasingly heavy investment of 'face' in the UK Marine capture situation is unquestionably adding to the danger of an inadvertent outbreak of open hostilities. One side or the other is going to be forced to surrender some of its pride if a more deadly confrontation is going to be averted. And there is no indication that the Bush administration is doing anything other than encouraging British recalcitrance.
"Unless one's basic intention is to provoke a hostile action to which the US and UK could 'retaliate,' getting involved in a tit-for-tat contest with the Iranians is a foolish and reckless game, for it may not prove possible to avoid escalation and loss of control. And we seem to be well on our way there. If one calls Iran 'evil,' arrests its diplomats, accuses it of promoting terrorism and unlawful capture, one can be certain that the Iranians will retaliate and raise the stakes in the process."
It is an uneasy situation at best in the region today as tension remains high whether the US/Israel would exploit the situation to launch military strikes against Iran. Conventional wisdom says military action against Iran would be disasterous but then the hawks in Washington, nudged by their Israeli counterparts, are not exactly known for applying conventional wisdom in their narrow, Israel-specific actions and that is what is worrying the region. And the defiant Iranian position is not helping ease the tension either.

Yet another denial of truth

April 1 2007

Yet another denial of truth



IF you are sincere when you say you are open for a diplomatic solution to a crisis, then why should you object to an approach to dialogue that could possibly help open new avenues for a solution? That is the key question that the Bush administration should answer following its criticism of plans by US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi to visit Syria and possibly meet President Bashar Al Assad.
It is yet again denial by the Bush administration, which is not ready to recognise that Syria, like other Arabs in the region, has a genuine cause: Liberation of its Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.
Dealing with Syria as a sovereign country entitled to all rights of a UN member state means applying logic, reason and international legitimacy to assess its position. If the Bush administration opted to do that, then it would be alienating its "strategic partner" in the region — Israel.
As such, the White House does not want anything to do with Syria. It has steadfastly refused to open a dialogue with Syria with a view to securing Syrian help in containing the insurgeny in Iraq in return for launching a sincere effort to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Dialogue with Syria was recommended by the Iraq Study Group headed by veteran diplomat James Baker, but the White House ruled that out even before Baker formally released his report.
A team of Republican and Democratic members of Congress visited Damascus and met President Assad in December against the backdrop of the Baker report.
The mission was condemned by the White House.
Now, the White House says it is not a good idea for Pelosi to visit Syria and hold talks with President Assad.
"We don't think it's a good idea," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the Siniora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders."
Let us take the US charges on their face value. Then it becomes all the more puzzling to see how the Bush administration intends to go about if it genuinely wants Syria help to end what it calls "state-sponsored terrorism," find a solution to the political crisis in Lebanon and check the insurgency in Iraq.
Syria has repeatedly affirmed that it is ready for an all-embracing dialogue with the US with a view to addressing the fundamental differences with them.
The Syrian position, coupled with Baker's expert recommendation, offers a perfect setting for Pelosi to launch a new initiative. Her office has acknowledged it.
Indeed, the White House, already in trouble with the Democrats dominating the US legislature, might not want to offer Pelosi any opening to score political points.
The White House is deliberately playing down the Syrian offer of dialogue by ridiculing President Assad. It is evident in the words of spokeswoman Perino: "I know that Assad probably really loves people to come and have a photo opportunity and have tea with him and have discussions about where they're coming from."
Well, by maintaining its stubborn refusal to acknowledge ground realities and accept the course of logic, reason and diplomacy in dealing with Syria, the Bush administration is wasting yet another opportunity to help advance the cause of peace in the Middle East.

A forum for rattling sabres

March 10, 200t

A forum for rattling sabres


WASHINGTON says it will confront Syria and Iran directly at a regional meeting on Iraq this week with charges that they are actively fomenting the insurgency in the war-torn country. Tehran seems to think that the Baghdad meeting, which will bring together Iraq's neighbours plus Egypt as well as the UN, US and the UK, could be a forum to ease tensions with Washington. At the same time, Tehran remains wary of being targeted for criticism rather than creative contacts in Baghdad.
Indeed, the Baghdad conference offers a rare opportunity for both Washington and Tehran, which have not had diplomatic ties for more than a quarter of a century, to sit down at the same table as the first step towards launching a broad bilateral dialogue over their differences.
However, that prospect does not seem to be in the cards. Washington said it at first it was open for bilateral contacts with Tehran but then corrected itself and asserted that the issues to be discussed in Baghdad would be limited to those concerning the crisis in Iraq.
David Satterfield, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's top adviser on Iraq, went a step further on Thursday and said the US delegation would press Iran and Syria to respond publicly to the accusations at the conference that they are fuelling the insurgency in Iraq.
At the same time, Satterfield also reaffirmed that US officials were ready to hold direct bilateral talks with the Iranians and Syrians only on issues related to Iraq.
Of course, the crisis in Iraq is a central issue for all players, but tackling it on its own is not feasible since there are differences between the Arab and Muslim worlds on the one hand and the US on the other concerning the broader conflict in the Middle East, including the problems in Palestine and Lebanon as well as the long-running fued between Iran and the US.
The US and the UK would be attending a regional meeting of the nature of that of the Baghdad conference for the first time. It could not be said earlier meetings made a serious breakthrough towards addressing the concerns of Iraq's neighbours. However, if there is any prospect for a breakthrough that would be negated if the US seeks to use the forum simply to pull up Iran and Syria over what Washington sees as their role in the Iraq crisis.
Applying public pressure on Iran and Syria and using the regional meeting simply to highlight their alleged meddling in Iraqi affairs could be part of Washington's build-up against them, particularly Tehran, in the wider scheme of things. The Baghdad forum could serve as yet another platform to serve Washington's case, if indeed there is one, against Iran and Syria. Faced with increasing criticism at home against the fiasco in Iran, it would be part of the US effort to blame others for its failures in Iraq.
The Iranian sentiment was summed up Amir Mohebian, the political editor of the conservative Resalat newspaper, who said on Friday: “If the result of this meeting in Baghdad was good, maybe it will be the first step and a good start for negotiations in the future.
“If the result of this cooperation is a bad reaction from the United States, it will be a signal for any radical in Iran to say that cooperation with the United States has no result.”
Judging from Washington's approch, that is seems to be the predetermined outcome of the meeting. The Iranians are also aware of it, and this strengthens the feeling that the Baghdad meeting would be a forum more for sabre-rattling than the real purpose of seeking a way to end the raging violence in Iraq.

Catch-22 at every twis

March 9, 2007

Catch-22 at every twist

THE KEY problem that the Democrats, who now control the US Congress after winning November elections mostly on an anti-war platform, is how to end the US military involvement in Iraq. While a majority of the Democrats in the House of Representatives and Senate say they are in favour of recalling the US troops home as early as possible, they are unable to come up with a workable idea to realise that goal.
Many of them are also concerned that chaos would follow a US withdrawal from Iraq and that refusing funds for the administration to continue the war would be seen as unpatriotic since it would deprive the US military of much-needed equipment and logistic support and expose them to dangers in the battlefield.
However, it is clear to everyone — except the Bush administration itself — that there is little viability to a military option to end the crisis in Iraq and it needs dramatic decisions and moves to disentangle the US from the mess the war-hungry, Israeli-driven neoconservatives created there.
The Republican camp is no different. As the Democrats, the Republicans also do no have a clue how to take their country out of the Iraq imbroglio, but they are in a relatively more comfortable position today because the onus is the Democrats to do so.
The best that the Democrats could come up with so far is the outine of a proposal which calls for bringing troops home early next year while removing remaining troops from combat by October 2008. That seems to be the best compromise that party leaders could produce, given that a good number of the Democrat members of congress — around 40, according to Washington insiders — have adopted a cautious attitude and would even bolt the anti-war camp if the party followed too aggressive a line in order to recall the troops home.
The proposal would make it binding on the Iraqi government to bring the situation under control in the chaotic country. In its final form, the proposal is expected to set tough benchmarks for the Iraqi regime to meet. It would have to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November this year, and adopt and implement oil-revenue-sharing legislation. It would be required to spend up to $10 billion of Iraq's oil money on job-creating reconstruction and infrastructure projects and hold provincial elections this year.
On the reconciliation front, the government would have to liberalise laws that purged Baath Party members from the government and establish a fairer process for amending the Iraqi constitution.
These benchmarks have to be met by the end of this year. Otherwise, the US troops would begin leaving Iraq next spring, with all troops out of combat by the fall.
Well, if the Iraqi government could meet these benchmarks, then there would not be any need for the US soldiers to stay because the realisation of these goals means a pacified Iraq with a central government in control. As such, the Democrats' proposal is in contradiction with the very essence of ending the US military presence in Iraq.
Suffice it to say that the Iraqi government stands the chance of a snowball in fire to meet those benchmarks.
It is not a single war or enemy that the US-backed government faces in the country. Different ethnic groups with conflicting priorities and objectives are at work and it is a foregone conclusion that it is next to impossible to find common ground that meets the minimum demands of the various players involved.
Naturally, it means that the goals set in the Democrats' draft proposal are unmeetable and this in turn should lead to the US soldiers' packing up and boarding planes and ships to return home next year.
Washington has yet another tiger by the tail in Iraq. Setting a deadline for US departure from Iraq would play into the hands of the insurgents and sectarian militiamen, who would simply fade themselves into the society and lie low until the time is right for them to re-emerge. That is one of the key reasons that the Bush administration always balked at announcing a schedule for US withdrawal from Iraq, with senior officials suggesting that the US military would remain in the country as long as it takes for the situation to be contained and controlled.
There are many other ifs and buts facing any move for a US withdrawal from Iraq, but all these would cease to be hurdles if there is a realistic acceptance by the Bush administration that the conflict in Iraq is a lost war for the US and there is no option except withdrawal. As long as that political will is missing in Washington, there is nothing the Democrats or Republicans could do to disengage their country from Iraq with dignity for their country and its people and its military.

From the pan to the fire

March 8, 2007


Iraqis — from
the pan to fire

THE suicide attacks that killed more than 120 Iraqi Shiite pilgrims in Hila on their way to the holy city of Karbala on Tuesday have exposed yet another shortcoming on the part of the US-led coalition forces occupying Iraq.
There were major security lapses on the part of the coalition forces, who could not provide the right protection to the pilgrims.
It should be noted that the Hila attack came after gunmen and bombers hit group after group of Shiite pilgrims elsewhere - some in buses and others making the trek on foot to Karbala. At least 24 were killed in those attacks, which should have alerted the US military to adopt additional precautions to protest Karbala-bound pilgrims.
The first — and indeed valid — argument cited by the Iraqi Shiite community at large is that the US military, by dismantling part of Moqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army and forcing the rest to go underground, had deprived the pilgrims of the tight-knit security that was until now offered to them by the Mahdi Army.
Mahdi Army militiamen, it could even be argued, were better organised than the US military in Iraq. At least they knew what they were doing and what they were supposed to be doing when they stood guard over pilgrimages to Karbala. Compare that with the obviously confused state of mind of fresh American reservists flown in from tens of thousands of kilometres away to fight in a land which is not their own and a faceless enemy waging an unconventional and unorthodox war (if indeed there could be one).
US military commanders should have known that they would be leaving a major security vacuum when they moved in to remove Mahdi Army militiamen from the streets at the outset of the new security crackdown. It is not that Mahdi Army militiamen are angels sent down to protect Iraqi Shiites, but in the absence of a properly structured and equipped security aparatus of the state, the best bet was on the Sadrists to protect the pilgrims. That was the case in the last three years (although the Mahdi Army also failed to prevent a major bombing attack against pilgrims two years ago).
This week's incident reminds us of the situation immediately after the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. One of the first missions of the invading forces was to dismantle the 800,000-strong Iraqi army, and that blunder is still remembered as one of the worst that the US military committed in Iraq. By dismantling the army, the US military removed one of the central pillars of Iraqi security under the reign of Saddam Hussein. The US-led coalition forces were not in a position to take over the role played by the ousted security forces, and this vacuum continued to grow since then. Today, it poses the biggest challenge to the US quest to limit its soldiers' exposure to enemy fire by handing over security responsibility to the Iraqi government forces.
It is ironic that the US military has been unable to provide security for its own soldiers despite the three-week-old crackdown in Baghdad.
Nine US soldiers were killed on Tuesday in two separate roadside bombings north of Baghdad, making it the deadliest day for US troops in Iraq in nearly a month and raising to 3,166 the number of American military deaths in the country since March 2003.
Even if one were to give the US military the benefit of the doubt, it would only be fair to observe that Washington's much-touted troop "surge" in Iraq has only made things worse for the suffering people of Iraq. They are now left more vulnerable than they were before the fresh crackdown was launched. What is even worse is the certainty that the "death squads" of Iraq have gone into hiding for the time being and would return to the scene when the US-induced heat cools down.

Mossad back to its tricks

March 7, 2007

Mossad back to its tricks

THE "disappearance" of a former deputy defence minister of Iran with detailed information about his country's military programmes adds to the intricacies of the Middle East. It comes at a time when speculation is rife over the shape and nature of a possible American/Israeli military action against Iran in the name of that country's controversial nuclear programme.
Ali Reza Asgari, 63, went missing after checking into an Istanbul hotel on Feb.7 at the outset of a visit to Turkey. According to Turkish officials, the Israeli secret service Mossad and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) might have had a hand in the disappearance.
Some accounts claim Asgari, who was a commander in the Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon before being deputy defence minister, "defected" and is now somewhere in Europe with his family and "singing like a canary" about his country's military secrets.
Other reports say that Mossad and the CIA spirited him out of Turkey and now he is in Israeli custody undergoing interrogation about his country's nuclear programme and defence capabilities. Another speculation is that Israelis are seeking information from him about Ron Arad, an Israeli air force pilot who went missing in Lebanon in the 80s when Asgari headed a Revolutionary Guards unit there.
Indeed, there could be a far simpler explanation as to how and why Asgari went missing, but the world at large is not privy to that yet.
The former Iranian minister's disappearance becomes all the more intriguing when seen coupled with the death under mysterious circumstances of an Iranian nuclear scientist in January.
Professor Ardashir Hosseinpour, 45, who was described as a world authority on electromagnetism, was working on uranium enrichment at the facility in Isfahan, one of the central processing sites in Iran's nuclear programme, when he died.
According to the US website - Stratfor.com - which features intelligence and security analysis by former US intelligence agents, Hosseinpour was killed by Mossad agents.
A website of expatriate Iranian communists reported that several other scientists were killed or injured in the operation to kill Hosseinpour at Isfahan, and were treated at nearby hospitals.
The Stratfor.com report says that Hosseinpour died from "radioactive poisoning" as part of a Mossad effort to halt the Iranian nuclear programme through "secret operations." That is indeed a tall claim because it is difficult to accept that Iran's nuclear activities depended solely on a scientist.
Iranian reports of Hassanpour’s death gave the cause as “gas poisoning,” but did not say how or where he was poisoned.
At the same time, the claims that he was murdered could not be dismissed out of hand since Mossad does have a long record of eliminating whoever is deemed to be instrumental in posing a challenge to Israel.
It is a well-known secret that in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Mossad agents were behind the deaths of scientists involved with the Iraqi nuclear programme.
In 1980, Yahya Meshad was found dead in his Paris hotel room. Over the next several months, two other Iraqi nuclear scientists were also killed as a result of poisoning. All killings bore Mossad hallmarks.
Indeed, Israel leaders have publicly vowed that they would stop at nothing to remove all potential threats to its ambitions in the region, and what we are seeing today is yet another manifestation of those "warnings." And the world, it seems, is unable to prevent Israel from getting what it wants.

Calling the Israeli bluff

March 3, 2007

Calling the Israeli bluff

IT IS disturbing to note the delay in formation of a Palestinian national unity government. A cabinet line-up was expected to be announced on Friday, but both Fatah and Hamas said they need more time to do so.
Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas had asked the two groups to present names ahead of a planned meeting on Saturday with President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah in the Gaza Strip.
Again, there is no assurance that the Abbas-Haniyeh meeting would produce an agreement on the names. There was no immediate explanation for the delay and it was unclear how long it would take before a cabinet would be announced.
The only consolation, if any, is the pledge by both Hamas and Fatah that they are committed to forming a national unity government and that they would work on it intensely. Obviously, there is awareness on the two sides that there are opponents seeking to exploit opportunities and delays in order to scuttle last month's Makkah agreement that was a watershed in the intra-Palestinian feud and bloodshed that had cast the darkest cloud ever over the Palestinian struggle for independence from Israel's brutal military occupation of their land and people.
What we have seen since the Makkah agreement was signed clearly shows that Hamas and Fatah are serious about coming together on a common platform although it might not encompass all aspects of their different political ideologies. However, the seriousness we have seen so far is enough to give the Arab and Muslim worlds hope that Palestinian blood would not be shed in intra-Palestinian feuds and serve the interests of the occupation power.
On the other hand, Israel is continuing its provocation as if with a view to draw Palestinian militants to launch actions that would further strengthen its argument against dealing with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas.
Its persistent raids against Palestinian towns and killing and detention of Palestinians seem to be designed to anger Palestinian groups into launching anti-Israeli attacks. Particularly disturbing was the murder of an Islamic Jihad leader and two others last week. Eyewitness accounts say that an undercover force in Jenin opened fire on a vehicle and killed Ashraf Al Saadi, 25, a senior Jihad leader, and Alaa Breiki, 26.
A third Palestinian, Mohammed Abu Naasa, 22, was wounded in the shooting, but an Israeli soldier finished him off with a bullet to the head, according to eyewitnesses.
These are kind of incidents which are designed to provoke the Palestinians.
Until now, the Palestinians have not responded with violence to the Israeli provocation, but it does not mean that they would stay put either.
In the meantime, every moment of delay in the formation of a Palestinian cabinet would be exploited by Israel and its agents in order to create new fait accompli in the occupied territories.
Hamas, Fatah and all other Palestinian groups should but be aware of the pitfall they face if they continue to haggle over cabinet positions. What is at stake is perhaps the only chance for them to call Israel's bluff that they could not get their act together.