June 5, 2008
Turning point
in US history
Barack Obama has made history by securing the Democratic White House nomination as the first black candidate on a major-party ticket. Indeed, his erstwhile rival, Hillary Clinton, also would have made history if she had won the nomination because she would have been the first woman candidate to run for the US presidency on a major-party ticket. The possibility remains open that Hillary Clinton might make it as vice-president in an alliance with Obama.
Obama's victory in the Democratic race has brought forth debate over what lies in store for the US and indeed the world commity of nations if the senator from Illinois wins the presidency in November in a general election clash with Republican Senator John McCain.
His triumph within the Democratic party is tinged with a disbelief among his black American supporters: They never expected in their lifetimes to be able to support an African-American candidate with a real chance of winning the presidency.
Obama is seen as a standard-bearer of a new political generation that is emerging to the frontlines at a critical time for the US and indeed the rest of the world. Many are hoping that if he wins the White House he would adopt and follow policies that would spare the international community from paying the price for the misguided approach of the sole superpower under the current administration.
Son of a white American mother and a black Kenyan father, Obama is perceived as a liberal at heart. He rose to prominence at the 2004 Democratic presidential convention with an emphatic call for unity, proclaiming "there is not a Black America and a White America ... there's the United States of America." Obama has been emphasising that he would change the direction of the country if he wins the presidency. Those promises should be music to the American people wearied by the Iraq war and stalked by fears of other conflicts and indeed economic recession.
Indeed, those who are hoping for change in the US direction should also lace their expectations with the realisation that the elements at work in the corridors of power in Washington are such that render presidents unable to deliver on election promises. However, that is no reason to be pessimistic since Obama could very well prove himself to be able beat all odds and live true to his promises and commitments.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
The ball is in Tehran
March 11, 2008
The ball is in Tehran
THE call by Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al Thani for the Gulf Arab countries to maintain clear and frank relations with Iran is very much in line with the long-held policy of the UAE. Iran is very much part and parcel of the region and the Arab countries in the Gulf have maintained close relations with the Iranians since as far as anyone could recollect. Those relations are not and would never be subject to third party interests and there are no ifs and buts in the equation.
The Qatari prime minister's statement comes against the backdrop of US-led stepped-up pressure against Tehran in the name of Iran's nuclear activities. It is no secret that the nuclear dispute is only a smokescreen for Washington's drive towards its goal — as declared by President George W Bush a few days before his re-election for a second term in 2004 — of regime change in Tehran. Given that reality, the talk of diplomatic options coming out of Washington becomes meaningless. The current position of the UN Security Council makes it virtually impossible for Iran to step away from its defiant position, and that is what is precisely the objective of the UN exercise, which is part of the build-up to whatever the US has in mind for Iran.
It is in this context that Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al Thani warned that Gulf Arabs should be careful to prevent misunderstandings or international machinations from pushing the region into another war. 'We should not enter into an international game in which we will be exploited ... and come out as the losers on both sides," he said.
Indeed, the Gulf Arabs have their own issues to be taken up with Iran, but these come in a bilateral context, and that is something that Tehran should also remember.
The Gulf Arabs have made no secret of their position that relations with Iran could be dramatically improved if the bilateral issues were settled in an amicable way.
It is absolutely necessary that Iran steps forward with creative ideas that should lead to the settlement of all outstanding issues with the Gulf Co-operation Council countries. Everyone stands to gain from a fair and just solution to these issues and it would also taken everyone towards the goal of clear understanding of each others' positions and respect for each other's rights and positions. and relations based on non-interference in the internal matters of each other.
Clearly, the ball is in the Iranian court.
The ball is in Tehran
THE call by Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al Thani for the Gulf Arab countries to maintain clear and frank relations with Iran is very much in line with the long-held policy of the UAE. Iran is very much part and parcel of the region and the Arab countries in the Gulf have maintained close relations with the Iranians since as far as anyone could recollect. Those relations are not and would never be subject to third party interests and there are no ifs and buts in the equation.
The Qatari prime minister's statement comes against the backdrop of US-led stepped-up pressure against Tehran in the name of Iran's nuclear activities. It is no secret that the nuclear dispute is only a smokescreen for Washington's drive towards its goal — as declared by President George W Bush a few days before his re-election for a second term in 2004 — of regime change in Tehran. Given that reality, the talk of diplomatic options coming out of Washington becomes meaningless. The current position of the UN Security Council makes it virtually impossible for Iran to step away from its defiant position, and that is what is precisely the objective of the UN exercise, which is part of the build-up to whatever the US has in mind for Iran.
It is in this context that Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al Thani warned that Gulf Arabs should be careful to prevent misunderstandings or international machinations from pushing the region into another war. 'We should not enter into an international game in which we will be exploited ... and come out as the losers on both sides," he said.
Indeed, the Gulf Arabs have their own issues to be taken up with Iran, but these come in a bilateral context, and that is something that Tehran should also remember.
The Gulf Arabs have made no secret of their position that relations with Iran could be dramatically improved if the bilateral issues were settled in an amicable way.
It is absolutely necessary that Iran steps forward with creative ideas that should lead to the settlement of all outstanding issues with the Gulf Co-operation Council countries. Everyone stands to gain from a fair and just solution to these issues and it would also taken everyone towards the goal of clear understanding of each others' positions and respect for each other's rights and positions. and relations based on non-interference in the internal matters of each other.
Clearly, the ball is in the Iranian court.
Monday, March 10, 2008
More strength to GCC dynamics
March 10, 2008
More strength to GCC dynamics
SAUDI ARABIA'S decision to restore full diplomatic relations with Qatar is a highly positive and welcome move in that it seals a gap in ties between the two members of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC). Regardless of the reasons for the five-year hiatus in Riyadh-Doha diplomatic ties, it was unnatural that the two GCC countries were at odds.
Unity and collective action to face common changes and joint march towards development are the essence of relations among the GCC countries or any regional blocs for that matter. Any rift among the members, for whatever reason, often hinders the work of the bloc. We have witnessed it among the members of the much-heralded European Union.
The eventual restoration of Saudi-Qatari diplomatic relations was signalled by the presence of Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz at the GCC summit in Doha in December following a visit to Saudi Arabia by Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani three months earlier.
Saudi Ambassador Ahmed Bin Ali Al Qahtani has already taken up his post in Doha.
The restoration of diplomatic ties is being followed by a three-day visit to Doha by Saudi Crown Prince Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz for talks with Sheikh Hamad on the latest developments in the Gulf and the Arab World.
Prince Sultan, in a recent interview, has affirmed that relations between Qatar and Saudi Arabia are deep-rooted and historical and therefore not dictated by developments in the region.
"Saudi Arabia and Qatar are two brotherly countries and the relations between them are historical and are governed by blood ties and common fate," said Prince Sultan.
"Our ties with Qatar are not the product of a day, nor the result of emerging circumstances, but a real expression of the depth of relations between the two countries which existed for long decades," he said.
That is indeed the spirit of the relationship among the six members of the GCC. There is every confidence in the air that the restoration of full relations between Saudi Arabia and Qatar would add more strength to the dynamics of the GCC and the Arab League in general.
More strength to GCC dynamics
SAUDI ARABIA'S decision to restore full diplomatic relations with Qatar is a highly positive and welcome move in that it seals a gap in ties between the two members of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC). Regardless of the reasons for the five-year hiatus in Riyadh-Doha diplomatic ties, it was unnatural that the two GCC countries were at odds.
Unity and collective action to face common changes and joint march towards development are the essence of relations among the GCC countries or any regional blocs for that matter. Any rift among the members, for whatever reason, often hinders the work of the bloc. We have witnessed it among the members of the much-heralded European Union.
The eventual restoration of Saudi-Qatari diplomatic relations was signalled by the presence of Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz at the GCC summit in Doha in December following a visit to Saudi Arabia by Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani three months earlier.
Saudi Ambassador Ahmed Bin Ali Al Qahtani has already taken up his post in Doha.
The restoration of diplomatic ties is being followed by a three-day visit to Doha by Saudi Crown Prince Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz for talks with Sheikh Hamad on the latest developments in the Gulf and the Arab World.
Prince Sultan, in a recent interview, has affirmed that relations between Qatar and Saudi Arabia are deep-rooted and historical and therefore not dictated by developments in the region.
"Saudi Arabia and Qatar are two brotherly countries and the relations between them are historical and are governed by blood ties and common fate," said Prince Sultan.
"Our ties with Qatar are not the product of a day, nor the result of emerging circumstances, but a real expression of the depth of relations between the two countries which existed for long decades," he said.
That is indeed the spirit of the relationship among the six members of the GCC. There is every confidence in the air that the restoration of full relations between Saudi Arabia and Qatar would add more strength to the dynamics of the GCC and the Arab League in general.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Paw in the Afghan bottle
March 9, 2008
Paw in the Afghan bottle
Arguably, the blaze of publicity for British Prince Harry's front-line assignment in Afghanistan gave a tough of glamour to the war there, but the harsh reality of the struggling military campaign there remains as bitter as ever.
One wonders whether the photographs of Queen Elizabeth's grandson firing a machine gun in Afghanistan were deliberately "leaked" into the cyberspace with a view to hailing Harry, the third in line to the throne, as a "veteran" of the Afghan war at some point in time. Of course, it could be argued that the British media remained committed to an undertaking not to publicise Prince Harry's 10-week stint in Afghanistan and it was a US website which put out the pictures. It is neither here nor there when seen from a non-British perspective.
However, within Britain, the emergence of pictures, deliberate or otherwise, helped give a "the most positive and glamorous coverage" for the Afghan war, as Peter Wilby, a political commentator for the Guardian, put it. "It was a marvellous boost for army recruitment and revived the legitimacy of a war for which support has been waning."
For one thing, the Afghan conflict has drawn the US-led foreign forces present in the country into a quagmire — as indeed is the case in Iraq notwithstanding all claims to the contrary. There are no magic solutions to end the conflict becasue the issues at stake are too complex and dense for the US or for the UK for that matter to call it quits and leave the Afghans to fend for themselves. The best analogy would be that of a money who gets caught with its paw wrapped around a fruit in inside a bottle. It could withdraw its paw without the fruit but it would not because of the lure of the fruit is too strong.
The reality on the ground in Afghanistan is that the foreign forces are there for a long spell because there is no possibility of a solution that would serve the interests of the US, but Washington would not let go.
In the meantime, the billions of dollars being spent in the name of reconstruction of Afghanistan are going to waste since there is little improvement in the daily life of the ordinary people.
The same goes true for the billions that are being spent in the hunt for Taliban and Al Qaeda militants.
The Taliban have staged a comeback and now control at least 10 per cent of Afghanistan, according to a US intelligence assessment, and are running their own checkpoints in one province in the south.
One of the reasons cited by the US is the lack of enough troops to fight an effective battle, but few countries are willing to contribute more since their governments have realised the folly of fighting a war that is already lost. Add to that the ongoing protests against Denmark and the Netherlands — which have troops present in the country — sparked by cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and a Dutch film in the making, and what we have in Afghanistan is a perfect recipe for more trouble for the foreign troops deployed there.
Paw in the Afghan bottle
Arguably, the blaze of publicity for British Prince Harry's front-line assignment in Afghanistan gave a tough of glamour to the war there, but the harsh reality of the struggling military campaign there remains as bitter as ever.
One wonders whether the photographs of Queen Elizabeth's grandson firing a machine gun in Afghanistan were deliberately "leaked" into the cyberspace with a view to hailing Harry, the third in line to the throne, as a "veteran" of the Afghan war at some point in time. Of course, it could be argued that the British media remained committed to an undertaking not to publicise Prince Harry's 10-week stint in Afghanistan and it was a US website which put out the pictures. It is neither here nor there when seen from a non-British perspective.
However, within Britain, the emergence of pictures, deliberate or otherwise, helped give a "the most positive and glamorous coverage" for the Afghan war, as Peter Wilby, a political commentator for the Guardian, put it. "It was a marvellous boost for army recruitment and revived the legitimacy of a war for which support has been waning."
For one thing, the Afghan conflict has drawn the US-led foreign forces present in the country into a quagmire — as indeed is the case in Iraq notwithstanding all claims to the contrary. There are no magic solutions to end the conflict becasue the issues at stake are too complex and dense for the US or for the UK for that matter to call it quits and leave the Afghans to fend for themselves. The best analogy would be that of a money who gets caught with its paw wrapped around a fruit in inside a bottle. It could withdraw its paw without the fruit but it would not because of the lure of the fruit is too strong.
The reality on the ground in Afghanistan is that the foreign forces are there for a long spell because there is no possibility of a solution that would serve the interests of the US, but Washington would not let go.
In the meantime, the billions of dollars being spent in the name of reconstruction of Afghanistan are going to waste since there is little improvement in the daily life of the ordinary people.
The same goes true for the billions that are being spent in the hunt for Taliban and Al Qaeda militants.
The Taliban have staged a comeback and now control at least 10 per cent of Afghanistan, according to a US intelligence assessment, and are running their own checkpoints in one province in the south.
One of the reasons cited by the US is the lack of enough troops to fight an effective battle, but few countries are willing to contribute more since their governments have realised the folly of fighting a war that is already lost. Add to that the ongoing protests against Denmark and the Netherlands — which have troops present in the country — sparked by cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and a Dutch film in the making, and what we have in Afghanistan is a perfect recipe for more trouble for the foreign troops deployed there.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
More threats and no solution
March 8, 2008
More threats and no solution
THERE COULD BE no justification of deliberate killing civilians in any conflict. This is the widely accepted universal convention and it has to be respected by all parties involved although it is widely ignored in most troublespots around the world. And when civilians do die in armed conflicts, the world reacts with sympathy and condemns the killing. For some reason, it becomes all the more relevant when it happens in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly so when the dead include Israelis.
It is difficult to find much of a difference between Thursday's killing of seven Israeli students at a school in occupied Jerusalem and the murder of innocent Palestinian children in Israeli military attacks in the Gaza Strip in the last few weeks. One of the marked differences was, of course, that while Israel used hi-tech military gear and bombs to carry out most of the killings, Thursday's attack involved a lone Palestinian and an assault rifle.
The world does sympathise with the families of those killed but does not have any sympthy for the Israeli political and military leaders who had no consideration for Palestinian civilians caught in the Israeli frenzy to destroy Palestinian resistance to the Jewish state's occupation of Palestinians.
More than 120 Palestinians — dozens of children and women — who were killed in Israeli military strikes in the Gaza Strip in the last two weeks. That is not to mention the tens of thousands of Palestinians who died in the course of Israel's occupation of their land since 1947.
If the Israelis want to highlight that Thursday's dead included Israeli teenagers, then the obvious response would be that the Israeli military's Gazan victims included children as young as one month.
An immediate Israeli target for victimisation after Thursday's attack would be the Arab-Israeli community because the assailant was an Arab-Israeli. Having an Israeli ID and working as a delivery man, he did not have any problem moving around in occupied Arab East Jerusalem. The Kalashnikov assault rifle he used is available for cash in most Israeli towns. We have seen how Israel treats its Arab community and we could now expect the Israeli establishment to exploit the chance that has presented itself to tighten pressure on its Arab citizens.
But then, it does not take anyone near the sought-for peace agreement in Palestine that should do away with the very root of the conflict.
Instead of accepting that its brutality against the Palestinians is spawning more security threats rather than removing them, Israel is bent upon pursuing the military option. As things stand today, it requires a dramatic and drastic change in the Israeli mindset even to hope for a fair and just solution in Palestine anytime in the future.
More threats and no solution
THERE COULD BE no justification of deliberate killing civilians in any conflict. This is the widely accepted universal convention and it has to be respected by all parties involved although it is widely ignored in most troublespots around the world. And when civilians do die in armed conflicts, the world reacts with sympathy and condemns the killing. For some reason, it becomes all the more relevant when it happens in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly so when the dead include Israelis.
It is difficult to find much of a difference between Thursday's killing of seven Israeli students at a school in occupied Jerusalem and the murder of innocent Palestinian children in Israeli military attacks in the Gaza Strip in the last few weeks. One of the marked differences was, of course, that while Israel used hi-tech military gear and bombs to carry out most of the killings, Thursday's attack involved a lone Palestinian and an assault rifle.
The world does sympathise with the families of those killed but does not have any sympthy for the Israeli political and military leaders who had no consideration for Palestinian civilians caught in the Israeli frenzy to destroy Palestinian resistance to the Jewish state's occupation of Palestinians.
More than 120 Palestinians — dozens of children and women — who were killed in Israeli military strikes in the Gaza Strip in the last two weeks. That is not to mention the tens of thousands of Palestinians who died in the course of Israel's occupation of their land since 1947.
If the Israelis want to highlight that Thursday's dead included Israeli teenagers, then the obvious response would be that the Israeli military's Gazan victims included children as young as one month.
An immediate Israeli target for victimisation after Thursday's attack would be the Arab-Israeli community because the assailant was an Arab-Israeli. Having an Israeli ID and working as a delivery man, he did not have any problem moving around in occupied Arab East Jerusalem. The Kalashnikov assault rifle he used is available for cash in most Israeli towns. We have seen how Israel treats its Arab community and we could now expect the Israeli establishment to exploit the chance that has presented itself to tighten pressure on its Arab citizens.
But then, it does not take anyone near the sought-for peace agreement in Palestine that should do away with the very root of the conflict.
Instead of accepting that its brutality against the Palestinians is spawning more security threats rather than removing them, Israel is bent upon pursuing the military option. As things stand today, it requires a dramatic and drastic change in the Israeli mindset even to hope for a fair and just solution in Palestine anytime in the future.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
No easy key to Gaza deadlock
March 4, 2008
No easy key to Gaza deadlock
A FEW Israeli soldiers might have left northern Gaza Strip, but the Israeli assault against the Mediterranean coastal strip is continuing, with Israeli aircraft pummelling targets in Gaza. Palestinians are hitting back with rockets with expanded range.
Israeli leaders are making no secret of their intention to inflict as much casualties and damages before even considering a lull in the offensive ahead of the expected arrival of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the region in what is billed as a mission to salvage the Annapolis process.
No one in this region needs to be told that the Annapolis process is all but dead, and few are attaching any hope to the Rice effort after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas suspended negotiations with Israel in protest against the Gaza bloodshed.
The real concern in the region is the suffering of the residents of the Gaza Strip. Images of the devastation — roads plowed up, cars crushed by tanks and electric poles toppled — give the world only a glimpse of the actual agony of the Gazans trapped in their homes, with many families having lost their loved ones while others have been seriously wounded. The world knows the pathetic conditions prevailing in the hospitals in the Gaza Strip, which is under an total Israeli lockdown.
The unanswered question is: What does Israel intend to gain from its brutality against the Gazans? Surely, the political and military establishment of the Jewish could not but be aware that they could not hope to subdue the Palestinians through the use of military force.
If anything, developments since Friday have shown that the military offensive has only worsened Israelis' "security" fears. Three rockets hit the city of Ashkelon, nearly 20 kilometres north of Gaza, on Monday morning. Although no casualties were reported, the attacks showed an
improvement in Hamas' rocket range that has put the 120,000 Israelis living in Ashkelon under daily fire.
Mediators like European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, are saying that an end to Palestinian rocket attacks is fundamental to finding a solution. They should take close note of the signal from Hamas leaders of a willingness to work out a truce. Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar has said that his group is in touch with an unidentified third party to discuss a cease-fire that would include the release of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel and an end to an Israeli blockade of Gaza. For the moment, the Hamas position seems to offer a slim hope of a way out only if Israel is forced to listen. And that is the challenge facing anyone with any influence with the Jewish state.
In the meantime, history is recording one of the worst carnages in recent history, with the world seemingly unable to do anything to check it.
No easy key to Gaza deadlock
A FEW Israeli soldiers might have left northern Gaza Strip, but the Israeli assault against the Mediterranean coastal strip is continuing, with Israeli aircraft pummelling targets in Gaza. Palestinians are hitting back with rockets with expanded range.
Israeli leaders are making no secret of their intention to inflict as much casualties and damages before even considering a lull in the offensive ahead of the expected arrival of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the region in what is billed as a mission to salvage the Annapolis process.
No one in this region needs to be told that the Annapolis process is all but dead, and few are attaching any hope to the Rice effort after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas suspended negotiations with Israel in protest against the Gaza bloodshed.
The real concern in the region is the suffering of the residents of the Gaza Strip. Images of the devastation — roads plowed up, cars crushed by tanks and electric poles toppled — give the world only a glimpse of the actual agony of the Gazans trapped in their homes, with many families having lost their loved ones while others have been seriously wounded. The world knows the pathetic conditions prevailing in the hospitals in the Gaza Strip, which is under an total Israeli lockdown.
The unanswered question is: What does Israel intend to gain from its brutality against the Gazans? Surely, the political and military establishment of the Jewish could not but be aware that they could not hope to subdue the Palestinians through the use of military force.
If anything, developments since Friday have shown that the military offensive has only worsened Israelis' "security" fears. Three rockets hit the city of Ashkelon, nearly 20 kilometres north of Gaza, on Monday morning. Although no casualties were reported, the attacks showed an
improvement in Hamas' rocket range that has put the 120,000 Israelis living in Ashkelon under daily fire.
Mediators like European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, are saying that an end to Palestinian rocket attacks is fundamental to finding a solution. They should take close note of the signal from Hamas leaders of a willingness to work out a truce. Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar has said that his group is in touch with an unidentified third party to discuss a cease-fire that would include the release of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel and an end to an Israeli blockade of Gaza. For the moment, the Hamas position seems to offer a slim hope of a way out only if Israel is forced to listen. And that is the challenge facing anyone with any influence with the Jewish state.
In the meantime, history is recording one of the worst carnages in recent history, with the world seemingly unable to do anything to check it.
Monday, March 03, 2008
The buck that can't be passed
March 3, 2008
The buck that can't be passed
No doubt the strategists in Washington watching the Iranian president's visit to Iraq this week would be trying to figure what went wrong with their careful planning that they thought had taken care of everything with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Every word Ahmadinejad spoke and every gesture he made while in Iraq was aimed as much as Washington as the people of Iraq and Iran.
There was an aura of triumph that accompanied the visit, and that is not superficial either. Iran is perhaps the best beneficiary from the US wars against Afghanistan and Iraq in that the US military removed two of Iran's key foes — the Taliban in Kabul and Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. As such, Ahmadinejad has every reason to rejoice in the newfound Iranian-Iraqi relationship which he underlined it with seven memorandums of understanding between the two countries that were signed during his visit. The Iranian leader used every moment of the visit — he made four media appearances in 36 hours — to implicitly, and sometimes explictly, thump his nose at the US.
Ahmadinejad repeatedly harped on the theme of a "new era of relations" between Iran and Iraq, whose people he described as s world leaders in "justice and morality." That was only one of the many broadside salvoes that the Iranian president let off against the US.
Surely, those who in Washington who plotted and orchestrated the invasion and occupation of Iraq should be hating themselves for their shortsightedness for having to listen to the Iranian leader declaring in Baghdad that the United States does not belong in Iraq whereas Iran does and it will help in the reconstruction of Iraq — where the US failed miserably despite having spent tens of billions of dollars.
One of the bleakest moments for the neoconservatives behind the war against Iraq must have been when Ahmadinejad suggested that Americans should take their money and leave Iraq so that "peace and stability will return to the region."
Another came when he said that unlike other foreign leaders who fly into Iraq secretly and unannounced, he had announced his visit to Iraq two months ago and there was no secrecy shrouding his schedule during the visit.
Well, the neocons have no one but themselves to blame for the humiliating but real situation they have deal with in Iraq. They brought it upon themselves in their eagerness to implement their "strategic plans" in the region that not only fell far short of their targets but went off in a direction that they least expected.
The buck that can't be passed
No doubt the strategists in Washington watching the Iranian president's visit to Iraq this week would be trying to figure what went wrong with their careful planning that they thought had taken care of everything with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Every word Ahmadinejad spoke and every gesture he made while in Iraq was aimed as much as Washington as the people of Iraq and Iran.
There was an aura of triumph that accompanied the visit, and that is not superficial either. Iran is perhaps the best beneficiary from the US wars against Afghanistan and Iraq in that the US military removed two of Iran's key foes — the Taliban in Kabul and Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. As such, Ahmadinejad has every reason to rejoice in the newfound Iranian-Iraqi relationship which he underlined it with seven memorandums of understanding between the two countries that were signed during his visit. The Iranian leader used every moment of the visit — he made four media appearances in 36 hours — to implicitly, and sometimes explictly, thump his nose at the US.
Ahmadinejad repeatedly harped on the theme of a "new era of relations" between Iran and Iraq, whose people he described as s world leaders in "justice and morality." That was only one of the many broadside salvoes that the Iranian president let off against the US.
Surely, those who in Washington who plotted and orchestrated the invasion and occupation of Iraq should be hating themselves for their shortsightedness for having to listen to the Iranian leader declaring in Baghdad that the United States does not belong in Iraq whereas Iran does and it will help in the reconstruction of Iraq — where the US failed miserably despite having spent tens of billions of dollars.
One of the bleakest moments for the neoconservatives behind the war against Iraq must have been when Ahmadinejad suggested that Americans should take their money and leave Iraq so that "peace and stability will return to the region."
Another came when he said that unlike other foreign leaders who fly into Iraq secretly and unannounced, he had announced his visit to Iraq two months ago and there was no secrecy shrouding his schedule during the visit.
Well, the neocons have no one but themselves to blame for the humiliating but real situation they have deal with in Iraq. They brought it upon themselves in their eagerness to implement their "strategic plans" in the region that not only fell far short of their targets but went off in a direction that they least expected.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
A tough Mideast mission
March 3, 2008
A tough Mideast mission for Rice
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faces an almost impossible mission in her visit to the Middle East this week. With Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas having declared a suspension of peace talks with Israel until the Israeli military calls off its brutal assault against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Rice's first task is to find an end to the Israeli operations. Given that an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is one of US President George Bush's declared goals before he bows out of office in 2009, restoration of the so-called Annapolis process — Israeli-Palestinian peace talks — is one of Rice's top priorities. Surely, the US agreement to go along with a UN Security Council statement early on Sunday "condemning the escalation of violence" in Gaza was designed to somewhat placate the Palestinians but without any realistic change on the ground.
The Palestinians have already delcared that peace negotiations "are buried under the houses that were destroyed in Gaza...."
Indeed, as Jordan's King Abdullah II warned last week, "time is running out and we need the United States of America completely involved, to influence the course of discussions, monitor progress, and help bridge the gaps to ensure a final agreement by the end of 2008."
It should not have come as a shock or suprise for Washington to see its hopes of creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel by the end of 2008 going up in the flames of Gaza. All the signs were clear for some time that a major Israeli assault against the Gaza Strip was in the offing, but the US did not even try its hand at defusing the situation. Instead, it went along with Israel's "military option" against the Hamas rulers of Gaza rather than exploring diplomatic possibilities. Obviously, the US-Israeli hope was and still is that piling pressure on the residents of the Gaza Strip would be like digging deep into the Hamas roots. We have yet to see any sign of that happening.
At the same time, there are some who expect Rice to somehow produce a formula to end the ongoing flare-up in the Gaza Strip.
They see the US secretary of state of being capable of achieving the impossible although we fail to see any such track record.
Rice is known for her regular assertions that her predecessors failed in the Middle East and she has her own methods to score success. The question is what is her definition of success in the Arab-Israeli context.
In any event, by now it should be more than clear to Rice that the very essence of the crisis in Palestine is linked to US inaction and the absence of a fair and just approach to the Palestinian problem. Washington left it to Israel to lead the way and offered it an all-protective umbrella. And Rice will find it very difficult to rein in the Israelis.
In the meantime, the carnage continues in Gaza, with fears of a wider conflict growing every day.
A tough Mideast mission for Rice
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faces an almost impossible mission in her visit to the Middle East this week. With Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas having declared a suspension of peace talks with Israel until the Israeli military calls off its brutal assault against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Rice's first task is to find an end to the Israeli operations. Given that an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is one of US President George Bush's declared goals before he bows out of office in 2009, restoration of the so-called Annapolis process — Israeli-Palestinian peace talks — is one of Rice's top priorities. Surely, the US agreement to go along with a UN Security Council statement early on Sunday "condemning the escalation of violence" in Gaza was designed to somewhat placate the Palestinians but without any realistic change on the ground.
The Palestinians have already delcared that peace negotiations "are buried under the houses that were destroyed in Gaza...."
Indeed, as Jordan's King Abdullah II warned last week, "time is running out and we need the United States of America completely involved, to influence the course of discussions, monitor progress, and help bridge the gaps to ensure a final agreement by the end of 2008."
It should not have come as a shock or suprise for Washington to see its hopes of creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel by the end of 2008 going up in the flames of Gaza. All the signs were clear for some time that a major Israeli assault against the Gaza Strip was in the offing, but the US did not even try its hand at defusing the situation. Instead, it went along with Israel's "military option" against the Hamas rulers of Gaza rather than exploring diplomatic possibilities. Obviously, the US-Israeli hope was and still is that piling pressure on the residents of the Gaza Strip would be like digging deep into the Hamas roots. We have yet to see any sign of that happening.
At the same time, there are some who expect Rice to somehow produce a formula to end the ongoing flare-up in the Gaza Strip.
They see the US secretary of state of being capable of achieving the impossible although we fail to see any such track record.
Rice is known for her regular assertions that her predecessors failed in the Middle East and she has her own methods to score success. The question is what is her definition of success in the Arab-Israeli context.
In any event, by now it should be more than clear to Rice that the very essence of the crisis in Palestine is linked to US inaction and the absence of a fair and just approach to the Palestinian problem. Washington left it to Israel to lead the way and offered it an all-protective umbrella. And Rice will find it very difficult to rein in the Israelis.
In the meantime, the carnage continues in Gaza, with fears of a wider conflict growing every day.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Tell-tale finding of Israeli mindset
March 1, 2008
Tell-tale finding of Israeli mindset
The finding of an opinion poll this month that 64 per cent of Israelis say that the government must hold direct talks with the Hamas group in Gaza towards a cease-fire and the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit shows an understanding among them that the Palestinian segment represented by Hamas should not be sidelined or ignored.
The relevance of the finding is that the people who have to live with the consequences of their choices as opposed to those who try to dictate to them without having to face the realities on the ground believe in dialogue with a group which is ostracised as a terrorist organisation by their government (whose position is supported only by 28 per cent).
The survey concludes that Israelis are fed up with seven years of Palestinian rockets falling on Sderot and the communities near Gaza and that Shalit has been held captive for more than a year and a half. An increasing number of public figures, including senior military officers, have voiced similar positions on talks with Hamas.
The poll also found that the Likud voters, who are seen as the most rejectinist among all the Israelis, are much more moderate than their Knesset representatives. About 48 per cent of Likud voters support talks with Hamas.
The finding also sends a message to the Bush administration that it should reconsider its policy of seeking to isolate Hamas, which swept more than 75 per cent of votes in 2006 elections, and acting as if the group does not exist.
Of course, it is unrealistic to expect any serving American official to tell Israel to read the right signals in the poll's findings and initiate a dialogue with Hamas. It would be political suicide for anyone to do so.
Indeed, Hamas's refusal to accept the three basic conditions — renunciation of armed resistance, recognition of Israel and acceptance of past Israeli-Palestinian agreements — is a non-starter. At the same time, the Hamas calls for a "long-term" cease-fire with Israel indicates the group's willingness to deal with the Jewish state, which it is refusing to recognise.
Hamas is keeping Israel guessing about its intentions, but it is implicit that the group would be willing to enter realistic peace negotiations with the Jewish state provided that the latter makes it clear that it is willing to accept the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people are the basis for any peace agreement. The people of Israel seem to have understood it while their government is continuing to feign otherwise.
Tell-tale finding of Israeli mindset
The finding of an opinion poll this month that 64 per cent of Israelis say that the government must hold direct talks with the Hamas group in Gaza towards a cease-fire and the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit shows an understanding among them that the Palestinian segment represented by Hamas should not be sidelined or ignored.
The relevance of the finding is that the people who have to live with the consequences of their choices as opposed to those who try to dictate to them without having to face the realities on the ground believe in dialogue with a group which is ostracised as a terrorist organisation by their government (whose position is supported only by 28 per cent).
The survey concludes that Israelis are fed up with seven years of Palestinian rockets falling on Sderot and the communities near Gaza and that Shalit has been held captive for more than a year and a half. An increasing number of public figures, including senior military officers, have voiced similar positions on talks with Hamas.
The poll also found that the Likud voters, who are seen as the most rejectinist among all the Israelis, are much more moderate than their Knesset representatives. About 48 per cent of Likud voters support talks with Hamas.
The finding also sends a message to the Bush administration that it should reconsider its policy of seeking to isolate Hamas, which swept more than 75 per cent of votes in 2006 elections, and acting as if the group does not exist.
Of course, it is unrealistic to expect any serving American official to tell Israel to read the right signals in the poll's findings and initiate a dialogue with Hamas. It would be political suicide for anyone to do so.
Indeed, Hamas's refusal to accept the three basic conditions — renunciation of armed resistance, recognition of Israel and acceptance of past Israeli-Palestinian agreements — is a non-starter. At the same time, the Hamas calls for a "long-term" cease-fire with Israel indicates the group's willingness to deal with the Jewish state, which it is refusing to recognise.
Hamas is keeping Israel guessing about its intentions, but it is implicit that the group would be willing to enter realistic peace negotiations with the Jewish state provided that the latter makes it clear that it is willing to accept the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people are the basis for any peace agreement. The people of Israel seem to have understood it while their government is continuing to feign otherwise.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Why the US cannot and will not quit Iraq
February 29, 2008
Why the US cannot and will not quit Iraq
It does not really matter what the US presidential hopeful are promising today to end their country's military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some have already vowed to "bring home the boys" in months after entering the White House if elected as president. In reality, none of them — whether Republican or Democrat — would be able to deliver on the promise and the crisis will drag on for years, with even the 2013 occupant of the White House prosecuting the wars.
Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror, has put it accurately:
"On Inauguration Day, 2013, Americans will find our ruling interventionists – Republican or Democrat – have US forces fighting in Iraq; have more forces fighting in Afghanistan; have committed forces in places like the Balkans and Darfur; and have motivated millions more Muslims to join the jihad by their policies' impact."
The reasons for the US being rendered unable to disengage itself from the wars are also clear.
Notwithstanding his/her pre-election promises, no successful US presidential candidate would be able to override the imperatives set by the powerful Israeli lobby in Washington. Those imperatives will continue to be based on the realisation that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has created several monsters that Washington is no longer able to control. Worse still is that some of the monsters would pose serious threats to Israel and undo one of the basic goals of the US war against Iraq — remove Iraq as a potential threat to the Jewish state. If anything, the gravity of the threat today is larger than what Saddam Hussein had posed.
It is clear that militant groups like Al Qaeda, an avowed foe of Israel, have grown roots in Iraq and there is not much the US or the Iraqi authorities could do to uproot and evict it from the country. The intensity of Al Qaeda actions in Iraq might ebb or strengthen depending on particular situations, but it would continue to be an integral part of Iraq. That is one of the results of the interventionist policy that successive US administrations have followed in the Middle East for the past several decades.
Similarly, the pro-Iranian elements in Iraq, not to mention the angry and frustrated Sunnis of the country, are equally hostile to Israel. Effectively, it means that if the US withdraws its military from Iraq, Al Qaeda would be able to strengthen its presence there — and so would the Iranian proxy forces — and Israel's "security" interests would come under a stronger threat than that was the case when Iraq was under the reign of the Saddam Hussein regime and than is the case today. It would not be an exaggeration to envisage Iranian missiles and launchers stationed on Iraq's western border, bringing Israel that much closer to their range.
And that is why the US finds itself over a barrel in Iraq. And that is why no US president could even think of withdrawing the US military from Iraq as long as the threats to Israel remain. And those threats are as real as anything else and will remain so as long as no equitable solution is found to the Palestinian problem and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict.
It is also equally real that no US president would ever dream of "exposing" Israel's security to any potential threat, perceived or otherwise. And then it becomes crystal clear that the promises that today's presidential candidates make would turn out to be hollow once the presidential race is over and one of them enters the White House as its occupant for the next five years beginning in January 2009.
Of course, the new presidential tunes would be: The US needs to stay in Iraq to fight international terrorism, to democratise the country, to protect US energy interests and to do whatever else that could be cited as justifications, but all of them tailored to suit the occasion.
Why the US cannot and will not quit Iraq
It does not really matter what the US presidential hopeful are promising today to end their country's military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some have already vowed to "bring home the boys" in months after entering the White House if elected as president. In reality, none of them — whether Republican or Democrat — would be able to deliver on the promise and the crisis will drag on for years, with even the 2013 occupant of the White House prosecuting the wars.
Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror, has put it accurately:
"On Inauguration Day, 2013, Americans will find our ruling interventionists – Republican or Democrat – have US forces fighting in Iraq; have more forces fighting in Afghanistan; have committed forces in places like the Balkans and Darfur; and have motivated millions more Muslims to join the jihad by their policies' impact."
The reasons for the US being rendered unable to disengage itself from the wars are also clear.
Notwithstanding his/her pre-election promises, no successful US presidential candidate would be able to override the imperatives set by the powerful Israeli lobby in Washington. Those imperatives will continue to be based on the realisation that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has created several monsters that Washington is no longer able to control. Worse still is that some of the monsters would pose serious threats to Israel and undo one of the basic goals of the US war against Iraq — remove Iraq as a potential threat to the Jewish state. If anything, the gravity of the threat today is larger than what Saddam Hussein had posed.
It is clear that militant groups like Al Qaeda, an avowed foe of Israel, have grown roots in Iraq and there is not much the US or the Iraqi authorities could do to uproot and evict it from the country. The intensity of Al Qaeda actions in Iraq might ebb or strengthen depending on particular situations, but it would continue to be an integral part of Iraq. That is one of the results of the interventionist policy that successive US administrations have followed in the Middle East for the past several decades.
Similarly, the pro-Iranian elements in Iraq, not to mention the angry and frustrated Sunnis of the country, are equally hostile to Israel. Effectively, it means that if the US withdraws its military from Iraq, Al Qaeda would be able to strengthen its presence there — and so would the Iranian proxy forces — and Israel's "security" interests would come under a stronger threat than that was the case when Iraq was under the reign of the Saddam Hussein regime and than is the case today. It would not be an exaggeration to envisage Iranian missiles and launchers stationed on Iraq's western border, bringing Israel that much closer to their range.
And that is why the US finds itself over a barrel in Iraq. And that is why no US president could even think of withdrawing the US military from Iraq as long as the threats to Israel remain. And those threats are as real as anything else and will remain so as long as no equitable solution is found to the Palestinian problem and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict.
It is also equally real that no US president would ever dream of "exposing" Israel's security to any potential threat, perceived or otherwise. And then it becomes crystal clear that the promises that today's presidential candidates make would turn out to be hollow once the presidential race is over and one of them enters the White House as its occupant for the next five years beginning in January 2009.
Of course, the new presidential tunes would be: The US needs to stay in Iraq to fight international terrorism, to democratise the country, to protect US energy interests and to do whatever else that could be cited as justifications, but all of them tailored to suit the occasion.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Hopes for better traffic discipline
February 28, 2008
Hopes for better traffic discipline
THE introduction of a "black point" system against motorists violating traffic regulations with effect from March 1 is a highly welcome move, given high number of accidents on UAE roads and the unruly traffic scenes that have become a feature of daily life in the country.
There is little doubt that misguided and arrogant driving styles with little regard for public saftey are behind the steady rise in fatalities from accidents in the country.
As statistics indicate, one person is killed every 30 to 36 hours on the country's roads.
The traffic deadlocks on many roads in the morning and evening hours have to be seen to be believed, but then that is not news for any motorist who ventures out during the peak periods. Everyone lives through it, but it is all the more frustrating to see some trying to be more "road smart" and others and causing great inconvenience to others. Not many would appear to be bothered about traffic signs and regulations beyond the moment they obtain a driving licence.
The problem needed a tough no-nonsense approach and that is what the authorities have adopted.
The introduction of "black points" system — which places the UAE in among the most advanced countries — will coincide with the enforcement of the newly-amended federal traffic law stipulating stricter penalties.
However, no one would be able to complain that the move comes as a surprise and that it caught anyone by surprise. The traffic authorities are planning an effective awareness campaign during which the newly amended law and the associated penalties will be highlighted. The ultimate goal of the campaign, as Ministry of Interior Under-Secretary Saif Abdullah Al Shafar explained, is to encourage a new culture of driving across the country.
Hopefully, the awareness campaign also targets pedestrians since there is a steady increase in the number of people who cross streets without following traffic rules. The number of pedestrians being killed, represent 30 to 40 per cent of total deaths on UAE roads every year. Indeed, it is as if it is no one's business that we see people crossing major highways and jumping over the barricade simply because it saves them some time and effort but such actions endanger not only those who practise it but also others who happen to be using the same roads at the same time.
Effectively, the UAE is adopting a zero-tolerance approach to violations of traffic regulations and reckless driving that is a serious threat to anyone and everyone using the country's roads.
And those who not get the message inherent in the "black points" system would get it when it hits them where it hurts the most. That is the one of the most effective means to address the problem.
Indeed, monetary losses might not matter at all for a few, but, hopefully, we would be able to see better traffic discipline on the country's roads soon.
Hopes for better traffic discipline
THE introduction of a "black point" system against motorists violating traffic regulations with effect from March 1 is a highly welcome move, given high number of accidents on UAE roads and the unruly traffic scenes that have become a feature of daily life in the country.
There is little doubt that misguided and arrogant driving styles with little regard for public saftey are behind the steady rise in fatalities from accidents in the country.
As statistics indicate, one person is killed every 30 to 36 hours on the country's roads.
The traffic deadlocks on many roads in the morning and evening hours have to be seen to be believed, but then that is not news for any motorist who ventures out during the peak periods. Everyone lives through it, but it is all the more frustrating to see some trying to be more "road smart" and others and causing great inconvenience to others. Not many would appear to be bothered about traffic signs and regulations beyond the moment they obtain a driving licence.
The problem needed a tough no-nonsense approach and that is what the authorities have adopted.
The introduction of "black points" system — which places the UAE in among the most advanced countries — will coincide with the enforcement of the newly-amended federal traffic law stipulating stricter penalties.
However, no one would be able to complain that the move comes as a surprise and that it caught anyone by surprise. The traffic authorities are planning an effective awareness campaign during which the newly amended law and the associated penalties will be highlighted. The ultimate goal of the campaign, as Ministry of Interior Under-Secretary Saif Abdullah Al Shafar explained, is to encourage a new culture of driving across the country.
Hopefully, the awareness campaign also targets pedestrians since there is a steady increase in the number of people who cross streets without following traffic rules. The number of pedestrians being killed, represent 30 to 40 per cent of total deaths on UAE roads every year. Indeed, it is as if it is no one's business that we see people crossing major highways and jumping over the barricade simply because it saves them some time and effort but such actions endanger not only those who practise it but also others who happen to be using the same roads at the same time.
Effectively, the UAE is adopting a zero-tolerance approach to violations of traffic regulations and reckless driving that is a serious threat to anyone and everyone using the country's roads.
And those who not get the message inherent in the "black points" system would get it when it hits them where it hurts the most. That is the one of the most effective means to address the problem.
Indeed, monetary losses might not matter at all for a few, but, hopefully, we would be able to see better traffic discipline on the country's roads soon.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Israel is cooking and it smells bad
February 27, 2008
Israel is cooking and it smells bad
THE Feb.12 killing of the top Hizbollah commander, Imad Mugnieh, in Damascus seems to have been a well-designed and well-timed catalyst for a chain of events leading into chaos in Lebanon and disintegration of hopes for collective Arab action to address the spiralling crises in the region.
There is little doubt among a majority of the people in this part of the world that Israel was behind the Mughnieh killing that was carried out as part of a broader picture that involves Hizbollah retaliation leading to yet another violent flare-up in which the Jewish state hopes to accomplish the job it failed to do during its war on the Lebanese group in the summer of 2006.
In the word's of an expert on such issues, "the Israeli Mossad killed Mugnieh, and killed him for specific political reasons, at a well-chosen time and place that would make perfect sense from the Israeli government’s point of view."
Suggestions have appeared in the Israeli media that Hizbollah is planning retaliatory action for Mugnieh's killing in the fourth week of March. According to Israel’s military intelligence chief, Major General Amos Yadlin, Hizballah has timed its reprisal for March 22-23 — 40 days after Mughnieh was killed in the Syrian capital.
The very fact that Yadlin made the "revelation" during a meeting with the Israeli parliament'st foreign affairs and security committee indicates that he was telling the parliamentarians to expect another flare-up. What he might have stopped short of saying could be that Israel, , where strategists work overtime and round the clock, is well-prepared to handle any situation and the results of the expected clash with Hizbollah would make up for the stinging defeat Israel suffered in the summer of 2006.
That is not all. Given the way Iran has reacted to the Mughnieh killing, there is little doubt that it would add its weight to any revenge for the assassination. That has clearly emerged in the stepped-up hard talk coming from Tehran in recent days. It is difficult at best to predict the consequences of such Iranian action.
The worsening political deadlock in Lebanon, where neither the government and the Hizbollah-led opposition seems ready to budge from their positions, has turned the country into the perfect arena for Israel's desire to settle its scores with Hizbollah, particularly that its political leaders are under bitter fire for their conduct of the 2006 conflict.
Definitely, Yadlin, the Israeli military intelligence chief, has not overlooked that the next Arab summit is scheduled to be held in Damascus several days after the Israeli-expected Hizbollah reprisal for Mughnieh's killing.
Surely, Israel is cooking something, and it already smells worse than usual.
Israel is cooking and it smells bad
THE Feb.12 killing of the top Hizbollah commander, Imad Mugnieh, in Damascus seems to have been a well-designed and well-timed catalyst for a chain of events leading into chaos in Lebanon and disintegration of hopes for collective Arab action to address the spiralling crises in the region.
There is little doubt among a majority of the people in this part of the world that Israel was behind the Mughnieh killing that was carried out as part of a broader picture that involves Hizbollah retaliation leading to yet another violent flare-up in which the Jewish state hopes to accomplish the job it failed to do during its war on the Lebanese group in the summer of 2006.
In the word's of an expert on such issues, "the Israeli Mossad killed Mugnieh, and killed him for specific political reasons, at a well-chosen time and place that would make perfect sense from the Israeli government’s point of view."
Suggestions have appeared in the Israeli media that Hizbollah is planning retaliatory action for Mugnieh's killing in the fourth week of March. According to Israel’s military intelligence chief, Major General Amos Yadlin, Hizballah has timed its reprisal for March 22-23 — 40 days after Mughnieh was killed in the Syrian capital.
The very fact that Yadlin made the "revelation" during a meeting with the Israeli parliament'st foreign affairs and security committee indicates that he was telling the parliamentarians to expect another flare-up. What he might have stopped short of saying could be that Israel, , where strategists work overtime and round the clock, is well-prepared to handle any situation and the results of the expected clash with Hizbollah would make up for the stinging defeat Israel suffered in the summer of 2006.
That is not all. Given the way Iran has reacted to the Mughnieh killing, there is little doubt that it would add its weight to any revenge for the assassination. That has clearly emerged in the stepped-up hard talk coming from Tehran in recent days. It is difficult at best to predict the consequences of such Iranian action.
The worsening political deadlock in Lebanon, where neither the government and the Hizbollah-led opposition seems ready to budge from their positions, has turned the country into the perfect arena for Israel's desire to settle its scores with Hizbollah, particularly that its political leaders are under bitter fire for their conduct of the 2006 conflict.
Definitely, Yadlin, the Israeli military intelligence chief, has not overlooked that the next Arab summit is scheduled to be held in Damascus several days after the Israeli-expected Hizbollah reprisal for Mughnieh's killing.
Surely, Israel is cooking something, and it already smells worse than usual.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Yet another reminder of double standards
February 25, 2008
Yet another reminder of double standards
THE suggestion last week by a senior Palestinian political figure, Yasser Abed Rabbo, for a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence might or might not be a good idea depending on how deep and close anyone opts to study its pros and cons. Other Palestinian leaders, including President Mahmoud Abbas, were cool to the proposal and that seems to have settled the issue for the moment.
Surely, the idea would be broached upon on and off again in view of the certainty that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations would be moving ahead only at snail's pace, with key issues left unaddressed, while the situation on the ground continues to worsen.
A unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence, critics say, would have negative consequences for the Palestinian struggle for an equitable, fair and just solution because the Palestinians are not in physical control of the proposed-to-be-independent territory. It will also let Israel off the hook since the Jewish state would no longer feel obliged to continue negotiations with the Palestinians and would be free to deal with the post-declaration situation in the way it finds fit.
By nature and definition, the Palestinian problem was never a bilateral issue involving the Israeli occupation authorities and the Palestinians who are denied their right to independent statehood despite the legitimacy of their cause as enshrined in the UN Charter and mandatory resolutions of the world body. The international community, particularly the US by virtue of its frenzied support for Israel, remained very much involved, casting a negative influence in the search for a fair and just solution to the problem.
And the US and the European Union are cool at best to the idea of a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence — an irony and paradox when seen against their enthusiasm to help and recognise the Kosovars' unilateral declaration of independence.
At issue here is not whether the Kosovan move was right or wrong. The Kosovans exercised what they thought was the best for them and they would enjoy the fruits of their decision or bear negative consequences, if any.. However, what made a big difference in their case was the support they enjoyed from the US and European Union countries, who did not have any problem that the Kosovar move was unilateral and it led to the amputatation of a recognised member state of the UN whereas they argue against a similar move by the Palestinians. Never mind that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not recognised as part of the territory of a recognised member of the UN. Never mind that the Kosovan quest for independence was only nine years old whereas the Palestinian problem is more than 40 years old.
Never mind that 100 per cent of the residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip want independence whereas only less than 90 per cent of the residents of Kosova wanted separation from Serbia. Never mind that the US and European Union ignore Serbian objections to the Kosovar move whereas they insist the Palestinians should secure a Israeli agreement for whatever they want for the future of their territory.
Indeed, the double standards that the US and other big powers apply when it comes to dealing with the Palestinian problem has always been one of the key hurdles in the way to a fair and just solution to end the plight of the Palestinian people. Their approach to the Kosovar move has yet again underlined this reality and reminded the world of their selective application of rules for international justice and fairness.
Yet another reminder of double standards
THE suggestion last week by a senior Palestinian political figure, Yasser Abed Rabbo, for a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence might or might not be a good idea depending on how deep and close anyone opts to study its pros and cons. Other Palestinian leaders, including President Mahmoud Abbas, were cool to the proposal and that seems to have settled the issue for the moment.
Surely, the idea would be broached upon on and off again in view of the certainty that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations would be moving ahead only at snail's pace, with key issues left unaddressed, while the situation on the ground continues to worsen.
A unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence, critics say, would have negative consequences for the Palestinian struggle for an equitable, fair and just solution because the Palestinians are not in physical control of the proposed-to-be-independent territory. It will also let Israel off the hook since the Jewish state would no longer feel obliged to continue negotiations with the Palestinians and would be free to deal with the post-declaration situation in the way it finds fit.
By nature and definition, the Palestinian problem was never a bilateral issue involving the Israeli occupation authorities and the Palestinians who are denied their right to independent statehood despite the legitimacy of their cause as enshrined in the UN Charter and mandatory resolutions of the world body. The international community, particularly the US by virtue of its frenzied support for Israel, remained very much involved, casting a negative influence in the search for a fair and just solution to the problem.
And the US and the European Union are cool at best to the idea of a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence — an irony and paradox when seen against their enthusiasm to help and recognise the Kosovars' unilateral declaration of independence.
At issue here is not whether the Kosovan move was right or wrong. The Kosovans exercised what they thought was the best for them and they would enjoy the fruits of their decision or bear negative consequences, if any.. However, what made a big difference in their case was the support they enjoyed from the US and European Union countries, who did not have any problem that the Kosovar move was unilateral and it led to the amputatation of a recognised member state of the UN whereas they argue against a similar move by the Palestinians. Never mind that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not recognised as part of the territory of a recognised member of the UN. Never mind that the Kosovan quest for independence was only nine years old whereas the Palestinian problem is more than 40 years old.
Never mind that 100 per cent of the residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip want independence whereas only less than 90 per cent of the residents of Kosova wanted separation from Serbia. Never mind that the US and European Union ignore Serbian objections to the Kosovar move whereas they insist the Palestinians should secure a Israeli agreement for whatever they want for the future of their territory.
Indeed, the double standards that the US and other big powers apply when it comes to dealing with the Palestinian problem has always been one of the key hurdles in the way to a fair and just solution to end the plight of the Palestinian people. Their approach to the Kosovar move has yet again underlined this reality and reminded the world of their selective application of rules for international justice and fairness.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Powderkegs one too many
February 25, 2008
Powderkegs one too many
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has rightly observed that the Turkish military operation against Kurdish guerrillas in northern Iraq will not solve its problem with the separatist rebels. It is one of the rare public admissions that we have heard from senior US officials based on the US military's recent experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases, the world knows only too well that the US made a mess of things because it blindly exercised the military option and overlooked that it was equally important to address issues of daily life of the ordinary people in order not to allow frustration lead them into joining the militant camp. In fact, it takes a well-planned strategy and additional effort to ensure the saftey, security and well-being of civilians caught in the crossfire of armed conflicts and it might not always be possible or easy. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US not only sidestepped this key aspect but also made life all the more difficult for the people by wanton destruction of infrastructure and denial of means to secure the basic essentials for daily life. And the US is today paying the price for its glaring shortcomings.
The problem between the Turkish government and dissidents among the minority Kurdish citizens of Turkey is not exactly of the same nature that the US confronts in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, what is common is that civilians are caught in the conflict and they pay the highest price for violence, and this prompts them into embracing militancy.
What might make a key difference here is that Turkey has said it is carrying out a limited operation against the separatist rebels, and US officials say Ankara has given assurances it will do all it can to avoid civilian casualties.
The battlefront between the Turkish military and the separatists is a remote mountainous area that is sparsely populated and far from any major urban area. And here has not been any confirmed report so far of any civilian casualties or displacement of villagers.
That does not negate the fact that Turkey should respect the sovereignty of Iraq. It is a sore point with the government in Baghdad, not to mention the growing anger of the Kurdish regional authority in the north which has warned that the Turkish incursion will be met with strong opposition if civilians or populated areas are attacked.
The underlying currents are strong and perceptible. Turkey needs to assure the Iraqi Kurds that the ongoing military operation is limited to the PKK and would in no way be used to undermine the Kurdish regional authority, which is locked in a dispute with Ankara over what the Turks see as the Kurds' steady move towards expanded autonomy and eventual declaration of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq.
On the other hand, the duration of the Turkish incursion could turn out to be so short that its objectives would need no explanation to anyone.
Either way, there needs to be more communication among all the parties involved so that potential powderkegs are defused and buried while the legitimate rights of all are respected and protected.
Powderkegs one too many
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has rightly observed that the Turkish military operation against Kurdish guerrillas in northern Iraq will not solve its problem with the separatist rebels. It is one of the rare public admissions that we have heard from senior US officials based on the US military's recent experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases, the world knows only too well that the US made a mess of things because it blindly exercised the military option and overlooked that it was equally important to address issues of daily life of the ordinary people in order not to allow frustration lead them into joining the militant camp. In fact, it takes a well-planned strategy and additional effort to ensure the saftey, security and well-being of civilians caught in the crossfire of armed conflicts and it might not always be possible or easy. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US not only sidestepped this key aspect but also made life all the more difficult for the people by wanton destruction of infrastructure and denial of means to secure the basic essentials for daily life. And the US is today paying the price for its glaring shortcomings.
The problem between the Turkish government and dissidents among the minority Kurdish citizens of Turkey is not exactly of the same nature that the US confronts in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, what is common is that civilians are caught in the conflict and they pay the highest price for violence, and this prompts them into embracing militancy.
What might make a key difference here is that Turkey has said it is carrying out a limited operation against the separatist rebels, and US officials say Ankara has given assurances it will do all it can to avoid civilian casualties.
The battlefront between the Turkish military and the separatists is a remote mountainous area that is sparsely populated and far from any major urban area. And here has not been any confirmed report so far of any civilian casualties or displacement of villagers.
That does not negate the fact that Turkey should respect the sovereignty of Iraq. It is a sore point with the government in Baghdad, not to mention the growing anger of the Kurdish regional authority in the north which has warned that the Turkish incursion will be met with strong opposition if civilians or populated areas are attacked.
The underlying currents are strong and perceptible. Turkey needs to assure the Iraqi Kurds that the ongoing military operation is limited to the PKK and would in no way be used to undermine the Kurdish regional authority, which is locked in a dispute with Ankara over what the Turks see as the Kurds' steady move towards expanded autonomy and eventual declaration of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq.
On the other hand, the duration of the Turkish incursion could turn out to be so short that its objectives would need no explanation to anyone.
Either way, there needs to be more communication among all the parties involved so that potential powderkegs are defused and buried while the legitimate rights of all are respected and protected.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Yet another stone in build-up for action
February 24, 2008
Yet another stone in build-up for action
THE LATEST International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran's nuclear activities does not add anything than to the agency's earlier conclusions that it was not in a position to determine the "full nature of Iran's nuclear programme." Surely, the agency has the resources to detect any suspected nuclear activity in Iran, but it has failed to find any. Hypothetically, the agency's "failure" could be attributed to either the skills of the Iranians to hide whatever they are doing or the absence of anything for the nuclear watchdog to be suspicious. Presumably, the agency has taken the easy way out by saying it was not in a position to arrive at any conclusions. It wants to protect its credibility while leaving the door open for the big powers to decide whatever course of action they want to take against Iran.
There is yet another aspect to the affair. The IAEA, which does not have any independent intelligence capabilities worth mentioning, could not sidestep the "evidence" that the US presented to it to support Washington's argument that Iran does have a clandestine nuclear weaponisation programme. If the agency does make a conclusive statement that its inspectors could not find any sign of Iran having a nuclear weaponisation programme, then it would be contradicting the "evidence" supplied by the US. And that is something the IAEA does not want to do.
But then, Washington is contradicting its own spying agencies, which concluded late last year in a National Intelligence Estimate that Iran had a nuclear weaponisation programme but dropped it in 2003 and that there was no indication that it has revived the programme.
As such, where did Washington come up with "evidence" to support its "case" against Iran? Does it have yet another secret intelligence arm other than the 16 which drew up the National Intelligence Estimate? Is there a "special operation office" in Washington similar to the one that existed in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq and produced fake intelligence reports and doctored others?
It was no coincidece that shortly before the IAEA issued its final report on Iran, the National Council of Resistance on Iran went public public with charges that Iran has recently established a "new command and control centre" at a military site at Mojdeh, a suburb of Tehran, and is actively pursuing "production of nuclear warheads" at a military site at Khojir.
The charges raise the questions whether the Iranian military is producing nuclear warheads in a suburb of Tehran and whether it has established a command and control centre just outside Tehran for its nuke-armed ballistic-missile force.
In simple terms, the charges are difficult to be swallowed even with what were described by the National Council of Resistance on Iran as space-satellite photo-images of the two alleged military sites.
According to knowledgeable sources and seasoned experts, the 'evidence" that the council produced originated with the Israelis, was then supplied to the United States, who provided it to the IAEA, urging the agency to present it to Iran for "explanation."
With the US and Britain having already submitted a draft resolution at the UN Security Council calling for more sanctions against Iran, the IAEA report is yet another stone in the build-up to whatever the big powers are planning to do against Tehran, with Israel applauding from the wings.
Yet another stone in build-up for action
THE LATEST International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran's nuclear activities does not add anything than to the agency's earlier conclusions that it was not in a position to determine the "full nature of Iran's nuclear programme." Surely, the agency has the resources to detect any suspected nuclear activity in Iran, but it has failed to find any. Hypothetically, the agency's "failure" could be attributed to either the skills of the Iranians to hide whatever they are doing or the absence of anything for the nuclear watchdog to be suspicious. Presumably, the agency has taken the easy way out by saying it was not in a position to arrive at any conclusions. It wants to protect its credibility while leaving the door open for the big powers to decide whatever course of action they want to take against Iran.
There is yet another aspect to the affair. The IAEA, which does not have any independent intelligence capabilities worth mentioning, could not sidestep the "evidence" that the US presented to it to support Washington's argument that Iran does have a clandestine nuclear weaponisation programme. If the agency does make a conclusive statement that its inspectors could not find any sign of Iran having a nuclear weaponisation programme, then it would be contradicting the "evidence" supplied by the US. And that is something the IAEA does not want to do.
But then, Washington is contradicting its own spying agencies, which concluded late last year in a National Intelligence Estimate that Iran had a nuclear weaponisation programme but dropped it in 2003 and that there was no indication that it has revived the programme.
As such, where did Washington come up with "evidence" to support its "case" against Iran? Does it have yet another secret intelligence arm other than the 16 which drew up the National Intelligence Estimate? Is there a "special operation office" in Washington similar to the one that existed in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq and produced fake intelligence reports and doctored others?
It was no coincidece that shortly before the IAEA issued its final report on Iran, the National Council of Resistance on Iran went public public with charges that Iran has recently established a "new command and control centre" at a military site at Mojdeh, a suburb of Tehran, and is actively pursuing "production of nuclear warheads" at a military site at Khojir.
The charges raise the questions whether the Iranian military is producing nuclear warheads in a suburb of Tehran and whether it has established a command and control centre just outside Tehran for its nuke-armed ballistic-missile force.
In simple terms, the charges are difficult to be swallowed even with what were described by the National Council of Resistance on Iran as space-satellite photo-images of the two alleged military sites.
According to knowledgeable sources and seasoned experts, the 'evidence" that the council produced originated with the Israelis, was then supplied to the United States, who provided it to the IAEA, urging the agency to present it to Iran for "explanation."
With the US and Britain having already submitted a draft resolution at the UN Security Council calling for more sanctions against Iran, the IAEA report is yet another stone in the build-up to whatever the big powers are planning to do against Tehran, with Israel applauding from the wings.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Dice loaded from day one
February 23, 2008
Dice loaded from day one
IT would not be an exaggeration to state that the future of the US plans for Iraq depends to a large extent on Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr's expected decision on whether or not to renew a six-month cease-fire widely credited for helping reduce violence.
Unless Sadr issues a statement on Saturday saying that the truce is extended, the ceasefire is over, according to his spokesmen.
Never before after the ouster of Saddam Hussein has the US military faced a situation in Iraq where it had to wait for a decision by one man.
It is clear that a return of Sadr's feared Mahdi Army into action would find Iraq in the same situation before the "surge" in US troops in Iraq in early 2007 — death squads on the rampage accounting for dozens being tortured to death on a daily basis as part of an ethnic cleansing.
The revival of the violence would it all the more tough for the US, which is trying to persuade the country's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to reach agreements on sharing power and wealth. On the domestic front, in the US, a surge in violence in Iraq would add fuel to the ongoing debate on whether and how quickly to withdraw troops.
The reality on the ground in Iraq is that if Sadr decides to extend the truce, then he would only be putting off an inevitable showdown with his Shiite rivals — the camp led by Abdul Aziz Al Hakim. The two are staying away from from each other's throats and are likely to do so as long as the US military maintains its strengthened presence in the country.
It has also been hinted in certain circles that the US military is in secret contacts with both Maliki and Hakim with a view to dissuading them from renewing their struggle for control of the south. The US military, critics say, is also trying to figure out which side to support in the event of an open warfare between Maliki and Hakim. In fact, in the eyes of many US military commanders both are bad news since they are closely linked to Iran. But is need not be so Washington political strategists who would embrace the devil if it serves their purpose.
In any event, in the long run, it would not make much difference for chances of US success or failure in Iraq whether the Mahdi Army returns to action today or remains in a freeze until later.
The dice was loaded against the US in Iraq from the word go, and players like Mahdi and Hakim would not have any bearing on the reality that the US is not welcome as far as the people of Iraq are concerned. Washington would not be able to hold 26 million Iraqis hostage for ever even with a doubling of its military presence in the country.
Dice loaded from day one
IT would not be an exaggeration to state that the future of the US plans for Iraq depends to a large extent on Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr's expected decision on whether or not to renew a six-month cease-fire widely credited for helping reduce violence.
Unless Sadr issues a statement on Saturday saying that the truce is extended, the ceasefire is over, according to his spokesmen.
Never before after the ouster of Saddam Hussein has the US military faced a situation in Iraq where it had to wait for a decision by one man.
It is clear that a return of Sadr's feared Mahdi Army into action would find Iraq in the same situation before the "surge" in US troops in Iraq in early 2007 — death squads on the rampage accounting for dozens being tortured to death on a daily basis as part of an ethnic cleansing.
The revival of the violence would it all the more tough for the US, which is trying to persuade the country's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to reach agreements on sharing power and wealth. On the domestic front, in the US, a surge in violence in Iraq would add fuel to the ongoing debate on whether and how quickly to withdraw troops.
The reality on the ground in Iraq is that if Sadr decides to extend the truce, then he would only be putting off an inevitable showdown with his Shiite rivals — the camp led by Abdul Aziz Al Hakim. The two are staying away from from each other's throats and are likely to do so as long as the US military maintains its strengthened presence in the country.
It has also been hinted in certain circles that the US military is in secret contacts with both Maliki and Hakim with a view to dissuading them from renewing their struggle for control of the south. The US military, critics say, is also trying to figure out which side to support in the event of an open warfare between Maliki and Hakim. In fact, in the eyes of many US military commanders both are bad news since they are closely linked to Iran. But is need not be so Washington political strategists who would embrace the devil if it serves their purpose.
In any event, in the long run, it would not make much difference for chances of US success or failure in Iraq whether the Mahdi Army returns to action today or remains in a freeze until later.
The dice was loaded against the US in Iraq from the word go, and players like Mahdi and Hakim would not have any bearing on the reality that the US is not welcome as far as the people of Iraq are concerned. Washington would not be able to hold 26 million Iraqis hostage for ever even with a doubling of its military presence in the country.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Compromise is the need of the hour
February .22. 2008
Compromise is the need of the hour
REPORTS of intra-Arab differences over Lebanon ahead of next month's Arab summit are disturbing. The summit, to be held in Damascus, is deemed crucial to almost every Arab and Middle Eastern issue at this juncture in time. The Arab World faces the task of taking and implementing tough decisions on the worsening situations in Palestine and Iraq — notwithstanding US claims of stability there — as well as the seeming intractable problems in Somalia and elsewhere in the Arab region.
The Arabs could not afford to be bogged down now. They need to act collectively and the ground for action has to be set at the next Arab summit.
The key point of dispute is Lebanon, where fears are growing that violence could break out any time between the government forces and the fighters of the Hizbollah-led opposition. Twice in the last one month, they came to blows but stepped off from the brink at the last minute.
The Arab initiative to elect a consensus president in Lebanon, which has been left without a head of state since November amid the deadlock between the government and opposition, remains stalled over the two side's failure to agree on a revampled government structure.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal was referring to these differences when he called on "all those with influence to help with the success of the Arab initiative" for Lebanon and warned that the country is "on the verge of civil war."
There is a growing sense of uneasiness in Lebanon. Governments have warned their citizens there to be extra careful, with the US issuing a high-alert travel advisory. France has closed two of its cultural centres outside the capital. Kuwait has advised its citizens against travelling to Lebanon shortly after its embassy in Beirut was evacuated following a reported threat of a bomb attack. Saudi Arabia has also advised its citizens against travelling to Lebanon.
Obviously, the rising tension in Lebanon against the backdrop of the political deadlock is the direct result of the failure of the Arab initiative to solve the problem. That is turn is now threatening collective action to be launched at the Damascuc summit on the host of challenges facing the members of the Arab League. A way has to be found urgently to lift the logjam in order to ensure that the summit is held and it takes the right decisions of all the outstanding issues, whether in Palestine, Iraq or elsewhere. And that puts the onus on the political leaders of Lebanon who should uphold Lebanese interests and stay away from being influenced by narrow considerations. Everyone will have accept that they will have to make compromises in order to avert a catastrophe befalling Lebanon and that would have far-reaching implications for the region as a whole.
Compromise is the need of the hour
REPORTS of intra-Arab differences over Lebanon ahead of next month's Arab summit are disturbing. The summit, to be held in Damascus, is deemed crucial to almost every Arab and Middle Eastern issue at this juncture in time. The Arab World faces the task of taking and implementing tough decisions on the worsening situations in Palestine and Iraq — notwithstanding US claims of stability there — as well as the seeming intractable problems in Somalia and elsewhere in the Arab region.
The Arabs could not afford to be bogged down now. They need to act collectively and the ground for action has to be set at the next Arab summit.
The key point of dispute is Lebanon, where fears are growing that violence could break out any time between the government forces and the fighters of the Hizbollah-led opposition. Twice in the last one month, they came to blows but stepped off from the brink at the last minute.
The Arab initiative to elect a consensus president in Lebanon, which has been left without a head of state since November amid the deadlock between the government and opposition, remains stalled over the two side's failure to agree on a revampled government structure.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal was referring to these differences when he called on "all those with influence to help with the success of the Arab initiative" for Lebanon and warned that the country is "on the verge of civil war."
There is a growing sense of uneasiness in Lebanon. Governments have warned their citizens there to be extra careful, with the US issuing a high-alert travel advisory. France has closed two of its cultural centres outside the capital. Kuwait has advised its citizens against travelling to Lebanon shortly after its embassy in Beirut was evacuated following a reported threat of a bomb attack. Saudi Arabia has also advised its citizens against travelling to Lebanon.
Obviously, the rising tension in Lebanon against the backdrop of the political deadlock is the direct result of the failure of the Arab initiative to solve the problem. That is turn is now threatening collective action to be launched at the Damascuc summit on the host of challenges facing the members of the Arab League. A way has to be found urgently to lift the logjam in order to ensure that the summit is held and it takes the right decisions of all the outstanding issues, whether in Palestine, Iraq or elsewhere. And that puts the onus on the political leaders of Lebanon who should uphold Lebanese interests and stay away from being influenced by narrow considerations. Everyone will have accept that they will have to make compromises in order to avert a catastrophe befalling Lebanon and that would have far-reaching implications for the region as a whole.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Fight for survival for Musharraf
February 21, 2008
Fight for survival for Musharraf
BATTLELINES are about to be drawn and swords are about to be unsheathed in Pakistan between President President Pervez Musharraf and victorious opposition parties. Indeed, Musharraf has his back to the wall, given the narrow option he has of either stepping down or prolonging the battle that would do no one any good.
However, for the moment, Musharraf is standing firm on his refusal to resign as president and is calling for a "harmonious coalition" while the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto is cobbling together a two-thirds majority coalition that could topple him by impeaching him on grounds that he violated the constitution when he imposed emergency rule late last year.
The pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q) is trying to salvage his leadership by trying to persuade the PPP to take it into a coalition but PPP leader Asif Ali Zardari has ruled out the possibility and is insisting that Musharraf should either step down or be ousted.
Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who heads the PML-N which has emerged as the second largest party in parliament, is also dead bent on toppling Musharraf.
Musharraf's only defence is that he, in his capacity as the elected head of state of Pakistan, is determined to ensure that "a stable democratic government" is installed in the country and that he be allowed to do so. That position is backed by the US. President George W. Bush has described the vote, which was less violent and fairer than most people anticipated, as "a victory for the people of Pakistan." And the State Department is nudging the next government to work with Musharraf, who represents the best bet Washington has in continuing its "war against terror" by targeting Taliban and Al Qaeda militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The only political solution seems to hinge on potential failure of Zardari and Sharif to agree on a coalition. In that eventuality, the PPP could be amenable to considering inclusion of PML-Q in the coalition and this could save Musharraf's political life.
All these scenarios are based on the assumption that this week's voting has placed Pakistan firm on the democratic path and there would not be any military surprises. Let us hope the assumption would not be proved wrong.
Fight for survival for Musharraf
BATTLELINES are about to be drawn and swords are about to be unsheathed in Pakistan between President President Pervez Musharraf and victorious opposition parties. Indeed, Musharraf has his back to the wall, given the narrow option he has of either stepping down or prolonging the battle that would do no one any good.
However, for the moment, Musharraf is standing firm on his refusal to resign as president and is calling for a "harmonious coalition" while the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto is cobbling together a two-thirds majority coalition that could topple him by impeaching him on grounds that he violated the constitution when he imposed emergency rule late last year.
The pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q) is trying to salvage his leadership by trying to persuade the PPP to take it into a coalition but PPP leader Asif Ali Zardari has ruled out the possibility and is insisting that Musharraf should either step down or be ousted.
Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who heads the PML-N which has emerged as the second largest party in parliament, is also dead bent on toppling Musharraf.
Musharraf's only defence is that he, in his capacity as the elected head of state of Pakistan, is determined to ensure that "a stable democratic government" is installed in the country and that he be allowed to do so. That position is backed by the US. President George W. Bush has described the vote, which was less violent and fairer than most people anticipated, as "a victory for the people of Pakistan." And the State Department is nudging the next government to work with Musharraf, who represents the best bet Washington has in continuing its "war against terror" by targeting Taliban and Al Qaeda militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The only political solution seems to hinge on potential failure of Zardari and Sharif to agree on a coalition. In that eventuality, the PPP could be amenable to considering inclusion of PML-Q in the coalition and this could save Musharraf's political life.
All these scenarios are based on the assumption that this week's voting has placed Pakistan firm on the democratic path and there would not be any military surprises. Let us hope the assumption would not be proved wrong.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Delicate rope-trick ahead in Pakistan
February 20, 2008
Delicate rope-trick ahead in Pakistan
The world has heaved a sigh of relief that barring a few incidents, the general elections in Pakistan took place without any major incidents of violence. Some 20 people were reported to have died in election-day violence, but there were none of the major bomb attacks which had marred the run-up to the polls although fear of violence restrained voter turnout at around 40 per cent.
According to international observers, the election process met "the basic threshold of credibility and legitimacy."
Indeed, the successful conclusion of the elections signals an end to yet another turbulent era in Pakistan's history. It places the country firmly on the democratic path and it is a great achievement for the people of Pakistan.
The first to express relief was the US, which said it was pleased that Monday's vote came off relatively peacefully and without major apparent fraud. Washington also affirmed that a free, fair and transparent vote is critical to the restoration of an elected, civilian democracy that represents the will of the Pakistani people.
The will of the people was defeat of the main party backing President Pervez Musharraf in the elections. For many Pakistanis, it was vote for or against Mushrraf although he himself was not a candidate.
The outcome of the polls sees the two key opposition parties, the Pakistan People's Party of late Benazir Bhutto and the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) headed by Nawaz Sharif, having a clear majority. The pro-Musharraf PML-Q have no option but to occupy the opposition seats in parliament although it has kept the option of forming a coalition. However, a government including PML-Q is highly unlikely, given the bitterness the opposition parties nurture against Musharraf and his allies. They are already calling for Musharraf's resignation, which the president's spokesman has rejected, pointing out that the former army chief was elected for a five-year term last year. But the opposition could override that argument by forming a coalition government with a two-thirds majority in parliament. That is bad news for Musharraf, because they seem to have set his ouster from power as one of their priorities and they could impeach him with their combined clout parliament.
Obviously, we could expect a lot of political bargaining and horse-trading in the days ahead.
In the meantime, there is little doubt that foremost in everyone's mind is Musharraf's political future that is key to the US-engineered "war on terror" being waged against Al Qaeda and Taliban militants based in Pakistan's tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan.
Obviously, Washington would want to work with the to-be formed government in Islamabad regardless of who heads it because Pakistan is vital to its strategy in the region.
However, it would have to tone down its emphasis on the military option to solve the problem because neither the PPP nor the PML-N would be able to completely subdue the sentiment among many in Pakistan that the country should disassociate itself from the US-led "war on terror."
The next government, regardless of who heads it and who it includes, faces the difficult task of having to reconcile their internal political imperatives with the need to fight off militancy. But the military approach has to take a back seat because it would never be able to win over the hearts and minds of the people and would only breed popular anger and frustration. What Pakistan needs today , like many other countries in the developing world, is an intense and dedicated government effort to address the root cause of unrest among its people — denial of social justice.
Delicate rope-trick ahead in Pakistan
The world has heaved a sigh of relief that barring a few incidents, the general elections in Pakistan took place without any major incidents of violence. Some 20 people were reported to have died in election-day violence, but there were none of the major bomb attacks which had marred the run-up to the polls although fear of violence restrained voter turnout at around 40 per cent.
According to international observers, the election process met "the basic threshold of credibility and legitimacy."
Indeed, the successful conclusion of the elections signals an end to yet another turbulent era in Pakistan's history. It places the country firmly on the democratic path and it is a great achievement for the people of Pakistan.
The first to express relief was the US, which said it was pleased that Monday's vote came off relatively peacefully and without major apparent fraud. Washington also affirmed that a free, fair and transparent vote is critical to the restoration of an elected, civilian democracy that represents the will of the Pakistani people.
The will of the people was defeat of the main party backing President Pervez Musharraf in the elections. For many Pakistanis, it was vote for or against Mushrraf although he himself was not a candidate.
The outcome of the polls sees the two key opposition parties, the Pakistan People's Party of late Benazir Bhutto and the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) headed by Nawaz Sharif, having a clear majority. The pro-Musharraf PML-Q have no option but to occupy the opposition seats in parliament although it has kept the option of forming a coalition. However, a government including PML-Q is highly unlikely, given the bitterness the opposition parties nurture against Musharraf and his allies. They are already calling for Musharraf's resignation, which the president's spokesman has rejected, pointing out that the former army chief was elected for a five-year term last year. But the opposition could override that argument by forming a coalition government with a two-thirds majority in parliament. That is bad news for Musharraf, because they seem to have set his ouster from power as one of their priorities and they could impeach him with their combined clout parliament.
Obviously, we could expect a lot of political bargaining and horse-trading in the days ahead.
In the meantime, there is little doubt that foremost in everyone's mind is Musharraf's political future that is key to the US-engineered "war on terror" being waged against Al Qaeda and Taliban militants based in Pakistan's tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan.
Obviously, Washington would want to work with the to-be formed government in Islamabad regardless of who heads it because Pakistan is vital to its strategy in the region.
However, it would have to tone down its emphasis on the military option to solve the problem because neither the PPP nor the PML-N would be able to completely subdue the sentiment among many in Pakistan that the country should disassociate itself from the US-led "war on terror."
The next government, regardless of who heads it and who it includes, faces the difficult task of having to reconcile their internal political imperatives with the need to fight off militancy. But the military approach has to take a back seat because it would never be able to win over the hearts and minds of the people and would only breed popular anger and frustration. What Pakistan needs today , like many other countries in the developing world, is an intense and dedicated government effort to address the root cause of unrest among its people — denial of social justice.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
No answer ever to Di 'mystery'
February 19, 2008
No answer ever to Di 'mystery'
Mohammed Al Fayed, the owner of London's Harrods, is having his day the Royal Courts of Justice with "revelations" and allegations that there was a conspiracy behind the deaths of Princess Diana and his son Dodi Fayed in an air crash in Paris on Aug.31, 1997. These are not new. The world has been hearing Mohammed Al Fayed raising the charges since the day Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed died. The thrust of Mohammed Al Fayed's charges is that the princess and his son were murdered in a conspiracy involving the security services and the Duke of Edinburgh, who could not accept that an Egyptian Muslim as stepfather to the future king of England. French intelligence had helped British intelligence services to execute "the murder," according to Fayed.
Indeed, Fayed said a lot more to back his allegations during Monday's inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and his son. As he himself phrased it, he has been fighting for 10 years and "this is the moment for me to say exactly what I feel happened to my son and Diana."
Conspiracy theories have been too many since the death of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed, and most of them lead everywhere and nowhere as was the case with the deaths of many other celebrities and world leaders including John F Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley.
Some say that Dodi Al Fayed was the target of an assassination plot linked to a business dispute and Prince Diana happened to be one of the unwary victims since she was with him at the time when the plotters carried out the scheme.
There are even those who argue that Diana is still alive. Proponents this theory content that the former wife of Prince Charles was fed up with the intrusions on her private life and used the resources of the Fayed family to fake her death. According to this theory, Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed are living on "a small tropical island near the Middle East," communicating with her sons by "satellite video conferencing."
From the early hours of dawn in this part of the world on Aug.31, 1997, when the news of Prince Diana broke, anyone and everyone who knew or even read anything about her life wanted to know more about her life and death. And clear answers eluded them. Now, 10 years later, many believe that the inquest at the Royal Courts of Justice might bring out the truth, whatever that might be. Others do not think that the inquest would learn all the details of her death if only because no one alive knows the details, and thus parts of the picture would have to be left blank for ever.
No matter what the Royal Courts of Justice verdict, there would never be an answer that would satisfy most, because the world always tends to find something strange in the way the rich and famous die. In this case, they have been and still are unable to accept that a commonplace accident killed someone as famous, celebrated and unique as Prince Diana and they are likely to remain so no matter what comes out of the inquest.
No answer ever to Di 'mystery'
Mohammed Al Fayed, the owner of London's Harrods, is having his day the Royal Courts of Justice with "revelations" and allegations that there was a conspiracy behind the deaths of Princess Diana and his son Dodi Fayed in an air crash in Paris on Aug.31, 1997. These are not new. The world has been hearing Mohammed Al Fayed raising the charges since the day Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed died. The thrust of Mohammed Al Fayed's charges is that the princess and his son were murdered in a conspiracy involving the security services and the Duke of Edinburgh, who could not accept that an Egyptian Muslim as stepfather to the future king of England. French intelligence had helped British intelligence services to execute "the murder," according to Fayed.
Indeed, Fayed said a lot more to back his allegations during Monday's inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and his son. As he himself phrased it, he has been fighting for 10 years and "this is the moment for me to say exactly what I feel happened to my son and Diana."
Conspiracy theories have been too many since the death of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed, and most of them lead everywhere and nowhere as was the case with the deaths of many other celebrities and world leaders including John F Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley.
Some say that Dodi Al Fayed was the target of an assassination plot linked to a business dispute and Prince Diana happened to be one of the unwary victims since she was with him at the time when the plotters carried out the scheme.
There are even those who argue that Diana is still alive. Proponents this theory content that the former wife of Prince Charles was fed up with the intrusions on her private life and used the resources of the Fayed family to fake her death. According to this theory, Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed are living on "a small tropical island near the Middle East," communicating with her sons by "satellite video conferencing."
From the early hours of dawn in this part of the world on Aug.31, 1997, when the news of Prince Diana broke, anyone and everyone who knew or even read anything about her life wanted to know more about her life and death. And clear answers eluded them. Now, 10 years later, many believe that the inquest at the Royal Courts of Justice might bring out the truth, whatever that might be. Others do not think that the inquest would learn all the details of her death if only because no one alive knows the details, and thus parts of the picture would have to be left blank for ever.
No matter what the Royal Courts of Justice verdict, there would never be an answer that would satisfy most, because the world always tends to find something strange in the way the rich and famous die. In this case, they have been and still are unable to accept that a commonplace accident killed someone as famous, celebrated and unique as Prince Diana and they are likely to remain so no matter what comes out of the inquest.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Window for peace could become a door
Feb.18, 2008
Window for peace could become a door
THE window of "opportunity" for peace is shrinking. This was the thrust of the message that Israeli President Shimon Peres had for French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner when the two met on Sunday.
Peres also observed that people are losing faith in peace and that in the Middle East, "everybody talks, but nobody does anything." Perhaps Israel's way of doing something is reflected in its military operations that are killing scores of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
More importantly in this context, according to Peres, "only a fundamental change at the ground level, thousands of new workplaces and a raise in the quality of life in the West Bank will strengthen (Palestinian) President Mahmoud Abbas and the moderate peace camp."
Well, Peres sidestepped the reality that it also takes a "fundamental change at the ground level" among Israelis to accept that they are occupying Palestinian territories and they should not hope to live there for ever while the Palestinian problem disappears into history. That is no a realistic expectation and Israeli leaders like Peres should be preparing their people to accept the inevitability of having to relinquish the territories that Israel occupied in the 1967 war. Compromises would have to be made on both sides without infringing on the legitimate rights of all sides based on international law and conventions and mandatory resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council.
True, groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad are insisting on hard-line positions. Hamas is ready to accept only a long-term truce with Israel and not a lasting peace agreement that addresses the root conflict. That is a maximalist position and no one truly believes such a truce agreement is possible.
Of course, the hard-line position helps Israel to avoid dealing with the real issues related to Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees and borders between a Palestinian entity and the Jewish state.
Israel also hopes that it could use the interim period before it would have to be really serious in peace negotiations to eliminate as many Palestinian resistance leaders as possible so that it would be in a better position to corner "the moderate peace camp" and force down the Israeli version of peace down the Palestinian throat.
A veteran politician like Peres should have been talking with Kouchner about the pressing need to remove reasons for frustration among the Palestinians. This should start with the removal of Israeli checkpoints in the West Bank and lifting of travel restrictions on the Palestinians living there. Israel should also not place hurdles in the way of international funds being spent in order to improve the daily life of the Palestinians in terms of health, education, employment and business opportunities.
Many other actions have to follow these moves, but let Peres force his own political establishment to stop talking about wasted opportunities for peace and start doing what it takes for the Palestinians to feel that they stand to lose something in their life. The rest of the puzzle will fall in place with little nudging, but Israel has to stop asking others to act and start acting on its own. Then the widow of opportunity for peace would become a door without a lock.
Window for peace could become a door
THE window of "opportunity" for peace is shrinking. This was the thrust of the message that Israeli President Shimon Peres had for French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner when the two met on Sunday.
Peres also observed that people are losing faith in peace and that in the Middle East, "everybody talks, but nobody does anything." Perhaps Israel's way of doing something is reflected in its military operations that are killing scores of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
More importantly in this context, according to Peres, "only a fundamental change at the ground level, thousands of new workplaces and a raise in the quality of life in the West Bank will strengthen (Palestinian) President Mahmoud Abbas and the moderate peace camp."
Well, Peres sidestepped the reality that it also takes a "fundamental change at the ground level" among Israelis to accept that they are occupying Palestinian territories and they should not hope to live there for ever while the Palestinian problem disappears into history. That is no a realistic expectation and Israeli leaders like Peres should be preparing their people to accept the inevitability of having to relinquish the territories that Israel occupied in the 1967 war. Compromises would have to be made on both sides without infringing on the legitimate rights of all sides based on international law and conventions and mandatory resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council.
True, groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad are insisting on hard-line positions. Hamas is ready to accept only a long-term truce with Israel and not a lasting peace agreement that addresses the root conflict. That is a maximalist position and no one truly believes such a truce agreement is possible.
Of course, the hard-line position helps Israel to avoid dealing with the real issues related to Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees and borders between a Palestinian entity and the Jewish state.
Israel also hopes that it could use the interim period before it would have to be really serious in peace negotiations to eliminate as many Palestinian resistance leaders as possible so that it would be in a better position to corner "the moderate peace camp" and force down the Israeli version of peace down the Palestinian throat.
A veteran politician like Peres should have been talking with Kouchner about the pressing need to remove reasons for frustration among the Palestinians. This should start with the removal of Israeli checkpoints in the West Bank and lifting of travel restrictions on the Palestinians living there. Israel should also not place hurdles in the way of international funds being spent in order to improve the daily life of the Palestinians in terms of health, education, employment and business opportunities.
Many other actions have to follow these moves, but let Peres force his own political establishment to stop talking about wasted opportunities for peace and start doing what it takes for the Palestinians to feel that they stand to lose something in their life. The rest of the puzzle will fall in place with little nudging, but Israel has to stop asking others to act and start acting on its own. Then the widow of opportunity for peace would become a door without a lock.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Hopes at last for the Kenyans
Feb.17, 2008
Hopes at last for the Kenyans
THE power-sharing deal in Kenya being brokered by former UN chief Kofi Annan appears to be the best solution for the violent crisis in the country that was considered as one of the most stable in Africa but where tribal feuds leading to denial of social justice always simmered below the surface.
Annan's effort has won backing from US President George W. Bush, who is sending his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Nairobi to boost the former UN secretary-general effort to find an end to the dispute over the Dec.27 elections that sparked violence in which more than 1,000 people have died.
Annan, who is cautiously optimistic that the job could be done, is seeking to address the roots of the problem by nudging the government of President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga to agree on reforms to improve the constitution, electoral laws and other areas of government. It is indeed a tough mission, given that the crisis is rooted in the long-running feud pitting Kibaki's tribe, the Kikuyu, and Odinga's Luo tribe and other ethnic groups which have been complaining of discrimination by the Kikuyu, which has dominated Kenyan politics and business since independence from Britain in 1963.
International experts are unanimous that while the dispute over the elections is clearly political — independent observers have accused the government of having rigged the polls — the root cause of some of the violence is hunger for fertile land that is expressed ethnicity or tribe.
In the opinion of international experts, the whole conflict stems from long-running income inequalities in the country. As such, a political solution that is bound with economic reforms wih an impact on the daily life of the people of Kenya seems to be the best step forward.
Kenyans are waiting for results of Annan's mediation — which, if successful, would lead to the formation of a coalition government. A positive atmosphere seems to have taken hold, with police reporting no violent incidents over the past week.
Indeed, Bush's backing for Annan's efforts is backed by earlier warnings from the United States and Britain which have threatened visa bans, an assets freeze and other sanctions. That should be a sharp reminder to all parties involved that they would have a deeply troubled country in their hands regardless of whoever wins if they were to continue their violent power struggle.
Hopes at last for the Kenyans
THE power-sharing deal in Kenya being brokered by former UN chief Kofi Annan appears to be the best solution for the violent crisis in the country that was considered as one of the most stable in Africa but where tribal feuds leading to denial of social justice always simmered below the surface.
Annan's effort has won backing from US President George W. Bush, who is sending his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Nairobi to boost the former UN secretary-general effort to find an end to the dispute over the Dec.27 elections that sparked violence in which more than 1,000 people have died.
Annan, who is cautiously optimistic that the job could be done, is seeking to address the roots of the problem by nudging the government of President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga to agree on reforms to improve the constitution, electoral laws and other areas of government. It is indeed a tough mission, given that the crisis is rooted in the long-running feud pitting Kibaki's tribe, the Kikuyu, and Odinga's Luo tribe and other ethnic groups which have been complaining of discrimination by the Kikuyu, which has dominated Kenyan politics and business since independence from Britain in 1963.
International experts are unanimous that while the dispute over the elections is clearly political — independent observers have accused the government of having rigged the polls — the root cause of some of the violence is hunger for fertile land that is expressed ethnicity or tribe.
In the opinion of international experts, the whole conflict stems from long-running income inequalities in the country. As such, a political solution that is bound with economic reforms wih an impact on the daily life of the people of Kenya seems to be the best step forward.
Kenyans are waiting for results of Annan's mediation — which, if successful, would lead to the formation of a coalition government. A positive atmosphere seems to have taken hold, with police reporting no violent incidents over the past week.
Indeed, Bush's backing for Annan's efforts is backed by earlier warnings from the United States and Britain which have threatened visa bans, an assets freeze and other sanctions. That should be a sharp reminder to all parties involved that they would have a deeply troubled country in their hands regardless of whoever wins if they were to continue their violent power struggle.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Someone did want war and lied for it
Feb.16, 2008
Someone did want war and lied for it
TOP US officials continue to deny that they made false statements in order to strengthen their case against Saddam Hussein the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as charged by the non-partisan Centre for Public Integrity. According to the centre, President George W Bush himself and senior Bush administration officials made 935 false statements about Iraq before the invasion. The realities on the ground in post-invasion Iraq have established the falsehood of the statements.
The latest Bush administration official to face a congressional grilling in this context was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has been accused of making 56 false statements on the "threat" posed by Saddam's Iraq.
The question was put to her by Representative Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat, who cited the report from the Centre for Public Integrity. He asked her: "This study has found that you, Madame Secretary, made 56 false statements to the American people where you repeatedly pump up the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and exaggerate the so-called relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
Rice replied: "Congressman, I take my integrity very seriously and I did not at any time make a statement that I knew to be false, or that I thought to be false, in order to pump up anything. Nobody wants to go to war."
Now, here is the catch. No one is casting any doubt on Rice's integrity. It is her assumption that "Nobody wants to go to war" that is being brought under question.
There is evidence that has established beyond any trace of doubt that there was and is a hardline camp in Washington which plotted the war against Iraq even before Bush entered the White House in January 2001. The best evidence is the strategy paper drawn up by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in mid-2000, not to mention the 1996 recommendations made to Israel by the pro-Israeli camp in Washington. In both cases, several of the key people involved went to become top-level positions in the Bush administration. It has also been made clear that one of their common priorities and immediate missions after assuming office in the administration was to build a case against Iraq and orchestrate a US invasion of that country. And they were successful in their mission as we are witnessing in Iraq today.
Surely, Rice, who served as national security adviser for Bush during the president's first term before becoming his secretary of state in the second term, should have known about the existence of the neocon project for war against Iraq. There were indeed people in the administration and outside who wanted to go to war. Rice, who admitted that many of the intelligence assessments on Iraq were wrong, might not have been one of those who wanted to go to war and might not have made any statement that she knew to be false, but that does not negate the truth that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was planned and executed with a one-track mind by the neocons and there was nothing in the world that would have made them stop in their tracks even it meant outright lying, which they did, not once but on many occasions.
Someone did want war and lied for it
TOP US officials continue to deny that they made false statements in order to strengthen their case against Saddam Hussein the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as charged by the non-partisan Centre for Public Integrity. According to the centre, President George W Bush himself and senior Bush administration officials made 935 false statements about Iraq before the invasion. The realities on the ground in post-invasion Iraq have established the falsehood of the statements.
The latest Bush administration official to face a congressional grilling in this context was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has been accused of making 56 false statements on the "threat" posed by Saddam's Iraq.
The question was put to her by Representative Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat, who cited the report from the Centre for Public Integrity. He asked her: "This study has found that you, Madame Secretary, made 56 false statements to the American people where you repeatedly pump up the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and exaggerate the so-called relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
Rice replied: "Congressman, I take my integrity very seriously and I did not at any time make a statement that I knew to be false, or that I thought to be false, in order to pump up anything. Nobody wants to go to war."
Now, here is the catch. No one is casting any doubt on Rice's integrity. It is her assumption that "Nobody wants to go to war" that is being brought under question.
There is evidence that has established beyond any trace of doubt that there was and is a hardline camp in Washington which plotted the war against Iraq even before Bush entered the White House in January 2001. The best evidence is the strategy paper drawn up by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in mid-2000, not to mention the 1996 recommendations made to Israel by the pro-Israeli camp in Washington. In both cases, several of the key people involved went to become top-level positions in the Bush administration. It has also been made clear that one of their common priorities and immediate missions after assuming office in the administration was to build a case against Iraq and orchestrate a US invasion of that country. And they were successful in their mission as we are witnessing in Iraq today.
Surely, Rice, who served as national security adviser for Bush during the president's first term before becoming his secretary of state in the second term, should have known about the existence of the neocon project for war against Iraq. There were indeed people in the administration and outside who wanted to go to war. Rice, who admitted that many of the intelligence assessments on Iraq were wrong, might not have been one of those who wanted to go to war and might not have made any statement that she knew to be false, but that does not negate the truth that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was planned and executed with a one-track mind by the neocons and there was nothing in the world that would have made them stop in their tracks even it meant outright lying, which they did, not once but on many occasions.
Friday, February 15, 2008
No other way for Lebanon
Feb.15, 2008
No other way for Lebanon
THE people of Lebanon on Thursday survived a test of fire. They proved pessimists and gloom-forecasters wrong when they made sure that two highly charged gatherings did not lead to what could have triggered a course into further into chaos and a possible revival of civil war in the country.
Indeed, the two gathering that took place in Lebanon on Thursday symbolised the deep political divide among the Lebanese. One was to commemorate former prime minister Rafiq Hariri on the third anniversary of his assassination in a car explosion while the other was the funeral for Hizbollah's Imad Mughnieh, the man blamed for a number of anti-US and anti-Israeli attacks and who was killed a bombing in Damascus on Tuesday that bore an unmistakeable Israeli signature.
Hariri's 2005 assassination, which also bore an Israeli signature but was blamed on Syria, was an event that drastically changed the geopolitics of not only Lebanon and but of Syria and other countries with close links with the people of Lebanon.
Hariri had risen to the challenge of reuniting the people of Lebanon after 18 years of a devastating civil war that left the country in shambles and he had made success of it. Notwithstanding contentions that the reunification of the country came at a high economic cost, the fact remains that it was a tough mission and needed an iron will and the best of strategies. Hariri had both and the Lebanese and Arabs remember him as a leader who had what it took to put the country back together and place it on track to recovery. His departure from power was a blow to Lebanon because the plans that he had devised could not be implemented in full and they remained struck where they were.
On the political front, the Hariri assassination led to the end of the Syrian domination of Lebanon and depature of the Syrian military from the country after nearly three decades of presence there.
Today, Lebanon is at a crossroads and fears are high of a revived sectarian conflict stemming from the deadlock between the government and opposition over powersharing. While the two sides could agree on a consensus candidate as the next president of the country, they have yet to see eye to eye on the structure of the cabinet.
It was as if the Mughnieh killing was timed to coincide with the Hariri anniversary by whoever was behind it because Thursday's rival gathering offered the best flashpoint for violence between the two sides.
However, both sides exercised restraint and went out of their way to avoid conflict during Thursday's events. The ruling coalition leaders sent condolences to Hizbollah over Mughnieh's death in a move that helped cool nerves and ease tensions with the opposition. The Arab World held its breath with crossed fingers closely watching the happenings in Beirut and counting the minutes and hours that passed before curtains fell on the two gatherings and people went home.
No matter what develops ahead, the message that Rafiq Hariri's widow, Nazik, issued on the occasion of her husband's death anniversary warning against "falling into hatred" and calling for "unity to save the country" should be the beacon for the people of Lebanon. That is the only way ahead for anyone who loves Lebanon.
No other way for Lebanon
THE people of Lebanon on Thursday survived a test of fire. They proved pessimists and gloom-forecasters wrong when they made sure that two highly charged gatherings did not lead to what could have triggered a course into further into chaos and a possible revival of civil war in the country.
Indeed, the two gathering that took place in Lebanon on Thursday symbolised the deep political divide among the Lebanese. One was to commemorate former prime minister Rafiq Hariri on the third anniversary of his assassination in a car explosion while the other was the funeral for Hizbollah's Imad Mughnieh, the man blamed for a number of anti-US and anti-Israeli attacks and who was killed a bombing in Damascus on Tuesday that bore an unmistakeable Israeli signature.
Hariri's 2005 assassination, which also bore an Israeli signature but was blamed on Syria, was an event that drastically changed the geopolitics of not only Lebanon and but of Syria and other countries with close links with the people of Lebanon.
Hariri had risen to the challenge of reuniting the people of Lebanon after 18 years of a devastating civil war that left the country in shambles and he had made success of it. Notwithstanding contentions that the reunification of the country came at a high economic cost, the fact remains that it was a tough mission and needed an iron will and the best of strategies. Hariri had both and the Lebanese and Arabs remember him as a leader who had what it took to put the country back together and place it on track to recovery. His departure from power was a blow to Lebanon because the plans that he had devised could not be implemented in full and they remained struck where they were.
On the political front, the Hariri assassination led to the end of the Syrian domination of Lebanon and depature of the Syrian military from the country after nearly three decades of presence there.
Today, Lebanon is at a crossroads and fears are high of a revived sectarian conflict stemming from the deadlock between the government and opposition over powersharing. While the two sides could agree on a consensus candidate as the next president of the country, they have yet to see eye to eye on the structure of the cabinet.
It was as if the Mughnieh killing was timed to coincide with the Hariri anniversary by whoever was behind it because Thursday's rival gathering offered the best flashpoint for violence between the two sides.
However, both sides exercised restraint and went out of their way to avoid conflict during Thursday's events. The ruling coalition leaders sent condolences to Hizbollah over Mughnieh's death in a move that helped cool nerves and ease tensions with the opposition. The Arab World held its breath with crossed fingers closely watching the happenings in Beirut and counting the minutes and hours that passed before curtains fell on the two gatherings and people went home.
No matter what develops ahead, the message that Rafiq Hariri's widow, Nazik, issued on the occasion of her husband's death anniversary warning against "falling into hatred" and calling for "unity to save the country" should be the beacon for the people of Lebanon. That is the only way ahead for anyone who loves Lebanon.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Keeping our fingers crossed
Feb.13, 2008
Keeping our fingers crossed
ISRAEL is of course jubilant over the apparent assassination of Imad Fayez Mughnieh, head of Hizbollah’s operations, in Damascus late on Tuesday, but its denial of any role in the killing fails to be convincing.
The car-bomb attack in the Syrian capital bore all halmarks of an operation carried out by Israel's super-secret Mossad agency, which specialises in killing Israel's "enemies" around the world without leaving any evidence to prove its involvement but enough to suggest that it was the Jewish state's way of getting at its adversaries.
We have seen scores of such operations in the region. Among the first of them were the bombings that maimed West Bank leaders Bassam Al Shakaa and Fahad Qawasmeh in the early 80s, when the internal Israeli "security" services benefited from Mossad's technical expertise and used it against them.
Mossad agents were closely involved in the 1974-1992 Lebanese civil war and they played their roles in carrying out bombings and other attacks that added to the chaos and confusion of the strife there with no one being able to pinpoint who was doing what.
In the latest case also, it could and would never be proved that Mossad was behind Mughnieh's assassination (until and unless someone who was part of the team or whoever ordered it opts to recalls the killing some years down the line).
Israel may have its axe to grind against anyone, as the case was indeed with Mughnieh, who was described as plotter of major anti-US and anti-Israel operations in the last 25 years. However, by carrying out the killing in sovereign Syrian territory, Israel is challenging the established rules and code of international conduct. Charges that Mughnieh was behind anti-Israeli operations beyond the borders of Lebanon could not be any justification for Israel to take its fight beyond its own borders. The reason is simple: Israel is a state and it has a government which claims to be part of the civilised international community which is bound by a set of conventions and charters which do not permit a country to carry out acts of sabotage in the territory of another country. But then, that was never a consideration that bothered Israel and there is little reason to see any change in that position.
In the immediate context on the ground, we could expect an explosion of Hizbollah anger and vengence against the killing of Mughnieh, who ranked among the top leaders of the movement. We do not yet what form and shape the Hizbollah retaliation could take, but there is not much doubt that the group has the resources, both human and material, to carry out spectacular attacks.
Compounding the fears is today's rally in Lebanon marking the death anniversary of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri. Given the already high tensions in Lebanon, it would not take more than a strategically placed and timed Mossad operation for the situation to explode. We could only hope that nothing of the sort happens.
Keeping our fingers crossed
ISRAEL is of course jubilant over the apparent assassination of Imad Fayez Mughnieh, head of Hizbollah’s operations, in Damascus late on Tuesday, but its denial of any role in the killing fails to be convincing.
The car-bomb attack in the Syrian capital bore all halmarks of an operation carried out by Israel's super-secret Mossad agency, which specialises in killing Israel's "enemies" around the world without leaving any evidence to prove its involvement but enough to suggest that it was the Jewish state's way of getting at its adversaries.
We have seen scores of such operations in the region. Among the first of them were the bombings that maimed West Bank leaders Bassam Al Shakaa and Fahad Qawasmeh in the early 80s, when the internal Israeli "security" services benefited from Mossad's technical expertise and used it against them.
Mossad agents were closely involved in the 1974-1992 Lebanese civil war and they played their roles in carrying out bombings and other attacks that added to the chaos and confusion of the strife there with no one being able to pinpoint who was doing what.
In the latest case also, it could and would never be proved that Mossad was behind Mughnieh's assassination (until and unless someone who was part of the team or whoever ordered it opts to recalls the killing some years down the line).
Israel may have its axe to grind against anyone, as the case was indeed with Mughnieh, who was described as plotter of major anti-US and anti-Israel operations in the last 25 years. However, by carrying out the killing in sovereign Syrian territory, Israel is challenging the established rules and code of international conduct. Charges that Mughnieh was behind anti-Israeli operations beyond the borders of Lebanon could not be any justification for Israel to take its fight beyond its own borders. The reason is simple: Israel is a state and it has a government which claims to be part of the civilised international community which is bound by a set of conventions and charters which do not permit a country to carry out acts of sabotage in the territory of another country. But then, that was never a consideration that bothered Israel and there is little reason to see any change in that position.
In the immediate context on the ground, we could expect an explosion of Hizbollah anger and vengence against the killing of Mughnieh, who ranked among the top leaders of the movement. We do not yet what form and shape the Hizbollah retaliation could take, but there is not much doubt that the group has the resources, both human and material, to carry out spectacular attacks.
Compounding the fears is today's rally in Lebanon marking the death anniversary of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri. Given the already high tensions in Lebanon, it would not take more than a strategically placed and timed Mossad operation for the situation to explode. We could only hope that nothing of the sort happens.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Mindsets have to take a turn
Feb.13, 1008
Mindsets have to take a turn
WITH the Israeli threat/warning that all options remain open for it to bring an end to rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip, the world could expect to witness an intensified campaign of targeted killing and attempted assassination of Palestinian resistance leaders in the Mediterranean coastal strip in the days ahead.
Israeli leaders have admitted that their 'prime targets' include prominent Hamas leaders such as Ismail Haniyeh and Mahmoud Zahar, but, according to reports in the Israeli media, the renewed campaign is not likely, at this stage, to include members of the Hamas political leadership.
Indeed, the Israeli list could include people that the world never heard of but who the Jewish state's intelligence and security agencies consider as leaders of Palestinian armed resistance.
No doubt, leaders of the resistance movement are aware of the danger facing them and they have scaled back their public appearances and stepped up other security measures.
Israel could wreak havoc in the Gaza Strip, what with its US-supplied hi-tech surveillance and detection equipment and advanced weapons. However, the Palestinian retaliation would be equally intense and "unprecedented," as Hamas spokesmen warned on Monday. Surely, Palestinian resistance groups have also learnt a lesson or two and they could be expected to hit back with new methods, and a fresh cycle of killings and maimings would be launched.
It is with forboding frustration and a sense of helplessness that the international community, including the Arab World, is watching the developments unfold in Palestine because there is no readymade solution to the crisis there.
It is clear that short of "wiping Gaza off the map" — as demanded by some Israeli ministers — Israel would not be able to bring an end to the rocket attacks. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the combined Popular Resistance Committees based in Gaza would never accept surrender no matter how intense the expected Israeli action. For them, armed resistance is their raison d'etre because they realise that it would take much more than rocket attacks to force Israel to listen to logic and reason and accept a just, fair and comprehensive peace agreement that recognises and respects the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
At this juncture in time, it is incumbent upon the US, in its self-claimed capacity as a mediator for peace, to step in and restrain Israel from pursuing its sinister designs. It would be naive at best for Washington not to realise that there is no military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that Hamas and all other likeminded Palestinian movements would have to part of any process for just and fair peace in Palestine. It would seem impossible for such groups to be brought in at this point, but then that is because of Israel's stubborn refusal to recognise and respect the rights of the Palestinians. Only Washington is in position to create the right conditions for reversing the bloody course of events in Palestine and setting the ground for a comprehensive process that addresses the roots of the problem. In order to do that, the US has to move away from the Israeli camp and call a spade and spade with all that it entails. But it is also clear that the mindset in Washington is no different from that of Israel and this in itself is the best recipe for bloodshed and violence.
Mindsets have to take a turn
WITH the Israeli threat/warning that all options remain open for it to bring an end to rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip, the world could expect to witness an intensified campaign of targeted killing and attempted assassination of Palestinian resistance leaders in the Mediterranean coastal strip in the days ahead.
Israeli leaders have admitted that their 'prime targets' include prominent Hamas leaders such as Ismail Haniyeh and Mahmoud Zahar, but, according to reports in the Israeli media, the renewed campaign is not likely, at this stage, to include members of the Hamas political leadership.
Indeed, the Israeli list could include people that the world never heard of but who the Jewish state's intelligence and security agencies consider as leaders of Palestinian armed resistance.
No doubt, leaders of the resistance movement are aware of the danger facing them and they have scaled back their public appearances and stepped up other security measures.
Israel could wreak havoc in the Gaza Strip, what with its US-supplied hi-tech surveillance and detection equipment and advanced weapons. However, the Palestinian retaliation would be equally intense and "unprecedented," as Hamas spokesmen warned on Monday. Surely, Palestinian resistance groups have also learnt a lesson or two and they could be expected to hit back with new methods, and a fresh cycle of killings and maimings would be launched.
It is with forboding frustration and a sense of helplessness that the international community, including the Arab World, is watching the developments unfold in Palestine because there is no readymade solution to the crisis there.
It is clear that short of "wiping Gaza off the map" — as demanded by some Israeli ministers — Israel would not be able to bring an end to the rocket attacks. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the combined Popular Resistance Committees based in Gaza would never accept surrender no matter how intense the expected Israeli action. For them, armed resistance is their raison d'etre because they realise that it would take much more than rocket attacks to force Israel to listen to logic and reason and accept a just, fair and comprehensive peace agreement that recognises and respects the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
At this juncture in time, it is incumbent upon the US, in its self-claimed capacity as a mediator for peace, to step in and restrain Israel from pursuing its sinister designs. It would be naive at best for Washington not to realise that there is no military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that Hamas and all other likeminded Palestinian movements would have to part of any process for just and fair peace in Palestine. It would seem impossible for such groups to be brought in at this point, but then that is because of Israel's stubborn refusal to recognise and respect the rights of the Palestinians. Only Washington is in position to create the right conditions for reversing the bloody course of events in Palestine and setting the ground for a comprehensive process that addresses the roots of the problem. In order to do that, the US has to move away from the Israeli camp and call a spade and spade with all that it entails. But it is also clear that the mindset in Washington is no different from that of Israel and this in itself is the best recipe for bloodshed and violence.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Established pattern has to be broken
February 11, 2008
Established pattern has to be broken
IT is a highly welcome development that the government of Sudan has accepted that UN-led peacekeepers will have full unrestricted movement in the troubled western Darfur region of the country.
Under the Status of Forces Agreement signed in Khartoum on Saturday by Foreign Minister Deng Alor and peacekeeping head Rodolphe Adada, Khartoum will permit night flights and full access across the western Sudanese province for United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) personnel, as well as easing restrictions in a number of areas including communications.
The signing of the agreement clears one of the key hurdles that were holding up the the Darfur peacekeeping force, which is meant to be 26,000-strong later this year — the UN's largest force.
One of the sticking points is Khartoum's refusal to accept non-African units, but that is a hurdle that could be partly set aside with Sudan ready to consider non-Africans on a case-by-case basis.
Indeed, the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement does not mean that everything is going ahead as planned in Darfur. There would be more hurdles popping up as the UN prepares for the full deployment of the peacekeeping unit.
On Friday the UN special envoy to Darfur, Jan Eliasson, warned that the region was edging towards full-scale war after Sudan launched a big operation attacking rebels in two towns in West Darfur. Eliason also noted that the Darfur rebels are not ready for serious talks with the government on settling the conflict. In reality, the rebel groups do not have a united platform, and that has one of the key problems for mediators trying to bring them all together for peace negotiations.
Another problem is that the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for a junior Sudanese government minister and an allied militia leader accused of conspiring in war crimes in Darfur. Khartoum refuses to hand them over.
In the meantime, the joint AU-UN force, which has still to deply some 19,000 soldiers, is facing shortage of equipment and helicopters. Without quick means for transportation in the vast Darfur region, the peacekeepers would have serious problems doing their job and to respond to emergencies.
World governments which have been highly vocal about the crisis in Darfur do not seem to have the same enthusiasm when it comes to practical action that is now offered by countries like Bangladesh and Ethiopia which are ready to provide the peacekeepers with some of the helicopters they need.
Apathy towards crisies where they do not have a direct stake has always been a feature of Western governments' behaviour, and what we are seeing in Sudan today is a continuation of the pattern. Meanwhile, valuable time is lost for the displaced people of Darfur who are hoping against hope that international action would help end their suffering and agony. Western countries which could easily plug the loopholes in the Darfur peacekeeping arrangements should act fast if they ever meant any word they said about the plight of the Darfurians.
Established pattern has to be broken
IT is a highly welcome development that the government of Sudan has accepted that UN-led peacekeepers will have full unrestricted movement in the troubled western Darfur region of the country.
Under the Status of Forces Agreement signed in Khartoum on Saturday by Foreign Minister Deng Alor and peacekeeping head Rodolphe Adada, Khartoum will permit night flights and full access across the western Sudanese province for United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) personnel, as well as easing restrictions in a number of areas including communications.
The signing of the agreement clears one of the key hurdles that were holding up the the Darfur peacekeeping force, which is meant to be 26,000-strong later this year — the UN's largest force.
One of the sticking points is Khartoum's refusal to accept non-African units, but that is a hurdle that could be partly set aside with Sudan ready to consider non-Africans on a case-by-case basis.
Indeed, the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement does not mean that everything is going ahead as planned in Darfur. There would be more hurdles popping up as the UN prepares for the full deployment of the peacekeeping unit.
On Friday the UN special envoy to Darfur, Jan Eliasson, warned that the region was edging towards full-scale war after Sudan launched a big operation attacking rebels in two towns in West Darfur. Eliason also noted that the Darfur rebels are not ready for serious talks with the government on settling the conflict. In reality, the rebel groups do not have a united platform, and that has one of the key problems for mediators trying to bring them all together for peace negotiations.
Another problem is that the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for a junior Sudanese government minister and an allied militia leader accused of conspiring in war crimes in Darfur. Khartoum refuses to hand them over.
In the meantime, the joint AU-UN force, which has still to deply some 19,000 soldiers, is facing shortage of equipment and helicopters. Without quick means for transportation in the vast Darfur region, the peacekeepers would have serious problems doing their job and to respond to emergencies.
World governments which have been highly vocal about the crisis in Darfur do not seem to have the same enthusiasm when it comes to practical action that is now offered by countries like Bangladesh and Ethiopia which are ready to provide the peacekeepers with some of the helicopters they need.
Apathy towards crisies where they do not have a direct stake has always been a feature of Western governments' behaviour, and what we are seeing in Sudan today is a continuation of the pattern. Meanwhile, valuable time is lost for the displaced people of Darfur who are hoping against hope that international action would help end their suffering and agony. Western countries which could easily plug the loopholes in the Darfur peacekeeping arrangements should act fast if they ever meant any word they said about the plight of the Darfurians.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
A warning of sinister plans
Feb.10, 2008
A warning of sinister plans
IT IS funny as well as ironic that Israel has opted to complain to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon and to the UN Security Council about rocket attacks coming from the Gaza Strip into Israeli border areas. It is clear on the record of the UN that Israel never respected UN decisions, even the mandatory resolutions issued by the Security Council, and always complained that the world body was biased against it. It never co-operated with the UN on any issue related to the Palestinian problem and it got away with its defiant and arrogant behaviour because of the all-embracing protective umbrella offered by its "strategic partner," the US. Now, Israel is complaining to the same world about Palestinian armed resistance against its occupation of Palestinian territory and describing the rocket attacks as "a well-directed and continuous incitement by Hamas leaders, which is part of a campaign whose main goal is focused killing of Israeli residents."
One wonders how Israel would describe its systematic campaign to obliterate the Palestinian cause since the Jewish state was created on Palestinian land in 1948, starting with a frenzied seizure of territory far beyond that was given to it by the UN partition resolution and massacres to force Palestinian villagers to flee their ancestral land in order to make room for Jews arriving from various parts of the world. It followed up with the seizure of the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem, and Syria's Golan Heights in the 1967 war. Since then, it followed a policy of terrorising the Palestinians living under its occupation and used every dirty trick to evict as many Palestinians as possible from the occupied territories. However, it failed to realise its objectives, and today it only because of the impossibility of expelling the 2.34 million Palestinians from the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem, that is not pursuing the policy of forced eviction. In essence, Israel's name should be on the top of the list of "state sponsors of terrorism" and it has no right to raise any complaint with the UN about the results of its own brutal policies against the Palestinians in the last 60 years. It is reaping what it sowed.
At the same time, there could indeed be a sinister aspect to the complaint it filed with the UN on Friday. Coming against the backdrop of plans to stage a major military offensive against the Gaza Strip, the letter of protest could indeed be an advance measure against any UN move to censure it as and when it expands the scope of its present military strikes against the people of Gaza. Not that any UN censure would matter much to Israel. However, it would appear that the size and impact of its planned offensive against Gaza will be of such an unprecedented nature that it would provoke a major international outcry and Israel is taking an anticipatory measure. That is the only conclusion one could draw from the Israeli protest sent to the UN. It is indeed a forewarning of the shape of things to come. As such, the international community has the moral responsibility prevent Israel from carrying out its military plans against the people of Gaza.
A warning of sinister plans
IT IS funny as well as ironic that Israel has opted to complain to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon and to the UN Security Council about rocket attacks coming from the Gaza Strip into Israeli border areas. It is clear on the record of the UN that Israel never respected UN decisions, even the mandatory resolutions issued by the Security Council, and always complained that the world body was biased against it. It never co-operated with the UN on any issue related to the Palestinian problem and it got away with its defiant and arrogant behaviour because of the all-embracing protective umbrella offered by its "strategic partner," the US. Now, Israel is complaining to the same world about Palestinian armed resistance against its occupation of Palestinian territory and describing the rocket attacks as "a well-directed and continuous incitement by Hamas leaders, which is part of a campaign whose main goal is focused killing of Israeli residents."
One wonders how Israel would describe its systematic campaign to obliterate the Palestinian cause since the Jewish state was created on Palestinian land in 1948, starting with a frenzied seizure of territory far beyond that was given to it by the UN partition resolution and massacres to force Palestinian villagers to flee their ancestral land in order to make room for Jews arriving from various parts of the world. It followed up with the seizure of the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem, and Syria's Golan Heights in the 1967 war. Since then, it followed a policy of terrorising the Palestinians living under its occupation and used every dirty trick to evict as many Palestinians as possible from the occupied territories. However, it failed to realise its objectives, and today it only because of the impossibility of expelling the 2.34 million Palestinians from the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem, that is not pursuing the policy of forced eviction. In essence, Israel's name should be on the top of the list of "state sponsors of terrorism" and it has no right to raise any complaint with the UN about the results of its own brutal policies against the Palestinians in the last 60 years. It is reaping what it sowed.
At the same time, there could indeed be a sinister aspect to the complaint it filed with the UN on Friday. Coming against the backdrop of plans to stage a major military offensive against the Gaza Strip, the letter of protest could indeed be an advance measure against any UN move to censure it as and when it expands the scope of its present military strikes against the people of Gaza. Not that any UN censure would matter much to Israel. However, it would appear that the size and impact of its planned offensive against Gaza will be of such an unprecedented nature that it would provoke a major international outcry and Israel is taking an anticipatory measure. That is the only conclusion one could draw from the Israeli protest sent to the UN. It is indeed a forewarning of the shape of things to come. As such, the international community has the moral responsibility prevent Israel from carrying out its military plans against the people of Gaza.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
No room for more bickering
February 9, 1008
No room for more bickering
Arab League chief Amr Mussa has renewed efforts to persuade the feuding Lebanese groups to agree steps to elect a new president and plug the constitutional vaccum and resulting crisis is bad news for the country. From his own words, Musa faces a uphill task since the ruling majority and the opposition parties are not willing to step back from their positions.
"There are some points on which there is an agreement but there are other points that need further discussion," Musa said after talks with majority leader Saad Hariri and opposition figure Michel Aoun. He has promised to continue his efforts.
Obviously, both sides see the situation as a make-or-break point in the power struggle that has to do with the very core of political life in the country. They consider any compromise has dealing a severe blow to themselves.
There are many firsts in the Lebanese crisis. Never in recent political history of any country has a parliament failed to elect a president despite 13 sessions. A 14th session set for Monday does not hold out any promise of success either.
Musa is trying to convince both sides to accept an Arab League endorsed proposal that involves a three-point plan calling for the election of consensus candidate army chief General Michel Suleiman as president, the formation of a national unity government in which no single party has a veto power and adoption of a new electoral law.
While the government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora has accepted the plan, the opposition remains firm on its demand for a third of the seats in the new government to secure veto power. The government, which has indeed a majority in parliament, does not see the need for accepting the demand.
As the impasse continues, the country is almost at a standstill, with the ordinary people of Lebanon praying that there would not be a repetition of the violence that hit the country last month originating in protests against power shortages in some areas.
That the protests led to violence underlines the tension prevailing in the country. Many see the crisis as a powderkeg ready to explode at the slighest provocation.
Indeed, it is up to the politicians of Lebanon to think and take decisions with the awareness that they are playing with the future of their country and people. Hopefully, they would responsibly shoulder the representative mandate — whether in power or as opposition — that is vested on them by their people. There is no room for continued deadlock.
No room for more bickering
Arab League chief Amr Mussa has renewed efforts to persuade the feuding Lebanese groups to agree steps to elect a new president and plug the constitutional vaccum and resulting crisis is bad news for the country. From his own words, Musa faces a uphill task since the ruling majority and the opposition parties are not willing to step back from their positions.
"There are some points on which there is an agreement but there are other points that need further discussion," Musa said after talks with majority leader Saad Hariri and opposition figure Michel Aoun. He has promised to continue his efforts.
Obviously, both sides see the situation as a make-or-break point in the power struggle that has to do with the very core of political life in the country. They consider any compromise has dealing a severe blow to themselves.
There are many firsts in the Lebanese crisis. Never in recent political history of any country has a parliament failed to elect a president despite 13 sessions. A 14th session set for Monday does not hold out any promise of success either.
Musa is trying to convince both sides to accept an Arab League endorsed proposal that involves a three-point plan calling for the election of consensus candidate army chief General Michel Suleiman as president, the formation of a national unity government in which no single party has a veto power and adoption of a new electoral law.
While the government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora has accepted the plan, the opposition remains firm on its demand for a third of the seats in the new government to secure veto power. The government, which has indeed a majority in parliament, does not see the need for accepting the demand.
As the impasse continues, the country is almost at a standstill, with the ordinary people of Lebanon praying that there would not be a repetition of the violence that hit the country last month originating in protests against power shortages in some areas.
That the protests led to violence underlines the tension prevailing in the country. Many see the crisis as a powderkeg ready to explode at the slighest provocation.
Indeed, it is up to the politicians of Lebanon to think and take decisions with the awareness that they are playing with the future of their country and people. Hopefully, they would responsibly shoulder the representative mandate — whether in power or as opposition — that is vested on them by their people. There is no room for continued deadlock.
Monday, February 04, 2008
A call for more world attention
February 4, 2008
A call for more world attention
UAE Vice-President and Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum has underlined the need for more international attention on the Palestinian problem in a meeting with Tony Blair, the special envoy of the international Quartet — the US, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations.
The calls underlines the reality that even now the international community is not focused on the decades-old conflict that has seen tens of thousands being killed, maimed and detained and millions turned into refugees and displaced. Many reasons could be seen behind the apparent apathy towards the conflict, but standing out among them is the US approach which sidelines all other parties from playing any effective role in the quest for peace in Palestine. And that includes the powerful European Union to which Blair belongs and which is still playing only a peripheral political role in the search for peace.
Hopes that were raised at the Annapolis conference late last year are fading fast in the wake of the unexpected developments in Palestine in the last few weeks and indeed the persistent Israeli determination to have its own way in any move for making peace with the Palestinians.
Sheikh Mohammed also called on Blair, the former prime minister of Britain, to use his rich political experience and exert great efforts to solve the problem.
Indeed, Blair is the best qualified among Western leaders to head the effort for peace in Palestine, which Britain ruled for three decades under a League of Nations mandate. All British leaders have had close familiarity with the Palestinian problem, which owes its origins to the former colonial power's policy and actions in the early 1900s. By the same token, they could not but be aware that there could not any hope for peace in the Middle East without an equitable solution based on justice and fairness.
As such, Blair's reaffirmation is comforting. He said that he is working on narrowing the differences between the Palestinians and Israelis, to reach a just and honourable solution that would lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
Blair has already shown that he is not confined to the American orbit in the context of the Palestinian problem by disagreeing with Washington's approach to the conflict. Hopefully, he would continue on the same path based on the understanding that the Palestinian people need all the help they could secure, given that their negotiating position is naturally weakened in view of Israel's physical control of the territories where they aspire to set up an independent state.
As Sheikh Mohammed underlined in his meeting with Blair on Sunday, the world needs to see the Palestinian cause as a just issue that deserves more attention from the United Nations and the major powers of the world with a view to achieving justice and equality for all the peoples in the region.
A call for more world attention
UAE Vice-President and Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum has underlined the need for more international attention on the Palestinian problem in a meeting with Tony Blair, the special envoy of the international Quartet — the US, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations.
The calls underlines the reality that even now the international community is not focused on the decades-old conflict that has seen tens of thousands being killed, maimed and detained and millions turned into refugees and displaced. Many reasons could be seen behind the apparent apathy towards the conflict, but standing out among them is the US approach which sidelines all other parties from playing any effective role in the quest for peace in Palestine. And that includes the powerful European Union to which Blair belongs and which is still playing only a peripheral political role in the search for peace.
Hopes that were raised at the Annapolis conference late last year are fading fast in the wake of the unexpected developments in Palestine in the last few weeks and indeed the persistent Israeli determination to have its own way in any move for making peace with the Palestinians.
Sheikh Mohammed also called on Blair, the former prime minister of Britain, to use his rich political experience and exert great efforts to solve the problem.
Indeed, Blair is the best qualified among Western leaders to head the effort for peace in Palestine, which Britain ruled for three decades under a League of Nations mandate. All British leaders have had close familiarity with the Palestinian problem, which owes its origins to the former colonial power's policy and actions in the early 1900s. By the same token, they could not but be aware that there could not any hope for peace in the Middle East without an equitable solution based on justice and fairness.
As such, Blair's reaffirmation is comforting. He said that he is working on narrowing the differences between the Palestinians and Israelis, to reach a just and honourable solution that would lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
Blair has already shown that he is not confined to the American orbit in the context of the Palestinian problem by disagreeing with Washington's approach to the conflict. Hopefully, he would continue on the same path based on the understanding that the Palestinian people need all the help they could secure, given that their negotiating position is naturally weakened in view of Israel's physical control of the territories where they aspire to set up an independent state.
As Sheikh Mohammed underlined in his meeting with Blair on Sunday, the world needs to see the Palestinian cause as a just issue that deserves more attention from the United Nations and the major powers of the world with a view to achieving justice and equality for all the peoples in the region.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Realisation hits too late, too far
February 3, 2008
Realisation hits too late, too far
The admission by the US ambassdor to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, that the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have made Iran stronger is the first by a senior Bush administration official. American and international commentators have been saying it for some time now, but no US official was ready to say so, at least not in public.
Among the many puzzling questions that emerged in the run-up to, during and after the US-led invasion of Iraq was how Washington strategists overlooked the many predictable consequences of its military action. The ouster of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan worked in Iran's favour because the militant group had posed a serious challenge to Tehran. Iran almost declared war with the Taliban in the late 1990s, because of the then Afghan rulers' extremist theology and their killing of Afghan Shiite Muslims. Today, Iran has managed to strengthen its influence among Afghan groups and plays a key behind-the-scene role in the country. Ironically, it is also accused of supplying arms to the Taliban in order to keep Afghanistan away from being pacified under American control.
Iran is also reaping economic benefits from the toppling of the Taliban. Iran's trade with Afghanistan has gone up dramatically and Iranians have helped build roads and power lines in its neighbour.
Indeed, Iran is the best beneficiary from the US-led military action that led to the ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. The US not only removed what Iran saw as a hurdle to its regional ambitions but also helped install an Iran-friendly regime in Baghdad to the point that Washington, despite its massive military presence, is no position to call any shot in Iraq that Tehran deems to be conflicting with its interests.
Israel also benefited from the removal of the Saddam regime, which posed a challenge to the Jewish state and supported the Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation of their land. However, as things turned out, the threat to Israel, perceived or otherwise, has only grown in gravity. If the US were to end its military presence in Iraq today, Israel would find itself geographically closer to the Iranian "threat" because the Iranians would have access to Iraqi territory all the way to the western border.
Surely, these are some of the key considerations behind the apparent US quest to bring about fundamental changes in Iran, whether through military action or otherwise, and thus remove it as a challenge to US and Israeli interests.
Khalilzad's admission should be yet another eye-opener for Washington that it has only itself to blame for the predicament it confronts in the Middle East region today. Indeed, it might be an unintended consequence of US decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq, but Washington should not have brushed aside the key questions in its frenzy to wage military action in the region.
Realisation hits too late, too far
The admission by the US ambassdor to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, that the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have made Iran stronger is the first by a senior Bush administration official. American and international commentators have been saying it for some time now, but no US official was ready to say so, at least not in public.
Among the many puzzling questions that emerged in the run-up to, during and after the US-led invasion of Iraq was how Washington strategists overlooked the many predictable consequences of its military action. The ouster of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan worked in Iran's favour because the militant group had posed a serious challenge to Tehran. Iran almost declared war with the Taliban in the late 1990s, because of the then Afghan rulers' extremist theology and their killing of Afghan Shiite Muslims. Today, Iran has managed to strengthen its influence among Afghan groups and plays a key behind-the-scene role in the country. Ironically, it is also accused of supplying arms to the Taliban in order to keep Afghanistan away from being pacified under American control.
Iran is also reaping economic benefits from the toppling of the Taliban. Iran's trade with Afghanistan has gone up dramatically and Iranians have helped build roads and power lines in its neighbour.
Indeed, Iran is the best beneficiary from the US-led military action that led to the ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. The US not only removed what Iran saw as a hurdle to its regional ambitions but also helped install an Iran-friendly regime in Baghdad to the point that Washington, despite its massive military presence, is no position to call any shot in Iraq that Tehran deems to be conflicting with its interests.
Israel also benefited from the removal of the Saddam regime, which posed a challenge to the Jewish state and supported the Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation of their land. However, as things turned out, the threat to Israel, perceived or otherwise, has only grown in gravity. If the US were to end its military presence in Iraq today, Israel would find itself geographically closer to the Iranian "threat" because the Iranians would have access to Iraqi territory all the way to the western border.
Surely, these are some of the key considerations behind the apparent US quest to bring about fundamental changes in Iran, whether through military action or otherwise, and thus remove it as a challenge to US and Israeli interests.
Khalilzad's admission should be yet another eye-opener for Washington that it has only itself to blame for the predicament it confronts in the Middle East region today. Indeed, it might be an unintended consequence of US decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq, but Washington should not have brushed aside the key questions in its frenzy to wage military action in the region.
Friday, February 01, 2008
World cannot afford to fail
Feb.1, 2008
World cannot afford to fail
TWO years after a gathering in London chalked out a plan for billions of dollars in international assistance to Afghanistan and agreed to implement it, the situation has turned all the more worse, according to reports drawn up by experts.
The reports acknowledge that tens of billions of dollars have been spent in Afghanistan but for the wrong purposes. An immediate example is Washington's announced plans involving about $10.6 billion to spent on security and development in the country in the next two years. The bulk of the money — $8.6 billion — will be spent on training Afghan security forces -- meaning a chunk of it being channelled to US equipment and US contractors.The rest will be spent for reconstruction, again meaning contracts for US companies or firms allied with US companies. The US has already spent some $14 billion in aid to Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion which toppled the Taleban. Apart from that the US is spending about $100 million a month in Afghanistan in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
The international community has spent an equal amount in Afghanistan.
With so much of money flowing into the country, one would expect the people of Afghanistan to be far better than their counterparts in other developing countries.
The ground reality is in dark contrast to the expectation. The ordinary people of Afghanistan have yet to feel any difference in their daily life.
Crops are poor, and unemployment is as high as 50 per cent in most of the country. Militant groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda find fertile ground for recruitment among the unemployed in Afghanistan. Many Afghans have turned to growing poppy despite efforts to stamp out the practice.
These are only cursory reviews of the situation in the country.
The Atlantic Council says that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is not winning in Afghanistan and the British charity Oxfam has warned that the country faces a humanitarian disaster. It points out that millions of dollars of development aid is being wasted and says that the international approach towards Afghanistan is lacking in direction and is "incoherent and uncoordinated."
Effectively, the reports have underlined the pressing need for a new approach to prevent Afghanistan becoming a "failed or failing state."
The warning by the US Atlantic Council is ominous:
"If Afghanistan fails, the possible strategic consequences will worsen regional instability, do great harm to the fight against jihadist and religious extremism, and put in grave jeopardy Nato's future as a credible, cohesive and relevant military alliance."
The American Afghanistan Study Group says that "resurgent violence, weakening international resolve, too few military forces and insufficient economic aid" were all contributing to the country's woes.
The international community, which professes keen interest in prevening states to fail, and the US, which leads the "war against terror" that it launched with the Afghan war in 2001, have to take these warning seriously and rethink strategies. If they fail to do so, then the world would have in its hands one of the worst disasters it ever faced.
World cannot afford to fail
TWO years after a gathering in London chalked out a plan for billions of dollars in international assistance to Afghanistan and agreed to implement it, the situation has turned all the more worse, according to reports drawn up by experts.
The reports acknowledge that tens of billions of dollars have been spent in Afghanistan but for the wrong purposes. An immediate example is Washington's announced plans involving about $10.6 billion to spent on security and development in the country in the next two years. The bulk of the money — $8.6 billion — will be spent on training Afghan security forces -- meaning a chunk of it being channelled to US equipment and US contractors.The rest will be spent for reconstruction, again meaning contracts for US companies or firms allied with US companies. The US has already spent some $14 billion in aid to Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion which toppled the Taleban. Apart from that the US is spending about $100 million a month in Afghanistan in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
The international community has spent an equal amount in Afghanistan.
With so much of money flowing into the country, one would expect the people of Afghanistan to be far better than their counterparts in other developing countries.
The ground reality is in dark contrast to the expectation. The ordinary people of Afghanistan have yet to feel any difference in their daily life.
Crops are poor, and unemployment is as high as 50 per cent in most of the country. Militant groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda find fertile ground for recruitment among the unemployed in Afghanistan. Many Afghans have turned to growing poppy despite efforts to stamp out the practice.
These are only cursory reviews of the situation in the country.
The Atlantic Council says that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is not winning in Afghanistan and the British charity Oxfam has warned that the country faces a humanitarian disaster. It points out that millions of dollars of development aid is being wasted and says that the international approach towards Afghanistan is lacking in direction and is "incoherent and uncoordinated."
Effectively, the reports have underlined the pressing need for a new approach to prevent Afghanistan becoming a "failed or failing state."
The warning by the US Atlantic Council is ominous:
"If Afghanistan fails, the possible strategic consequences will worsen regional instability, do great harm to the fight against jihadist and religious extremism, and put in grave jeopardy Nato's future as a credible, cohesive and relevant military alliance."
The American Afghanistan Study Group says that "resurgent violence, weakening international resolve, too few military forces and insufficient economic aid" were all contributing to the country's woes.
The international community, which professes keen interest in prevening states to fail, and the US, which leads the "war against terror" that it launched with the Afghan war in 2001, have to take these warning seriously and rethink strategies. If they fail to do so, then the world would have in its hands one of the worst disasters it ever faced.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Again a hostage of Israeli politics
January 31, 2008
Again a hostage of Israeli politics
Few in the Arab World would shed any tears if Ehud Olmert is forced to resign as Israel's prime minister since most Israeli political leaders are of the same colour when it comes to dealing with the Palestinian problem and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. At the same time, it is a sobering thought that the man most likely to replace Olmert in the event of the latter's resignation is from among the most hard-line Israeli leaders dedicated to wrecking any prospects for a fair and just peace agreement with the Palestinians which involves return of Israeli-occupied territory. It is none other than Benjamiin Netanyahu of the Likud bloc who, as prime minister from June 1996 to July 1999, systematically engineered the collapse of the peace process that was launched with the signing of the interim Oslo agreement, flawed as it was indeed.
The release of the Winograd inquiry commission’s final conclusions on the management of the Lebanon war of summer 2006 has piled pressure on Olmert to step down. Olmert has been mustering support against demands for his resignation, but it is not clear how he could withstand the finding of a new opinion poll that some 73 per cent of the Israeli public want him to quit as prime minister.
If Olmert is forced to step down as prime minister without calling for general elections, then it is almost certain that his successor through direct prime ministerial elections would be Netanyahu, who has always insisted that Israel is doing the Palestinian people a magnanimous favour by permitting them to stay in the West Bank which he and likeminded Israelis consider as part of the "promised land."
The only other person from the present Israeli scene who has any fighting chance against Netanyahu is Labour leader Ehud Barak, a former prime minister and current minister of defence. However, Barak also seems to have burnt his bridges for having gone back on his pledge to respond to a negative Winograd commission report by quitting government or calling for an early election and amending it to saying that he would do what was best for the country. That posture has earned him the disapproval of 63 per cent of Israelis, who, according to the latest opinion poll, want him to join Olmert on the way out.
While close Olmert aides like Finance Minister Ronnie Bar-On are insisting that an early election is not on the cards, all bets are off at this point in time.
Not that there is any immediate prospect of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations making any headway at all, given the deep rift in the Palestinian ranks. Instead of focusing their attention on the vital need for national unity for the common cause of liberation and independent statehood, Palestinian political leaders are arguing over who should be in control of the Gaza Strip's border with Egypt. That should show how internal Palestinian affairs have deteriorated to a stage where the Palestinians themselves are unable to work out an agreement among themselves, let alone even negotiating with the Israelis.
In the meantime, it seems to be abundantly clear that the Israeli voters want a total hard-line sweep of the country's leadership. That would naturally mean parliamentary elections as well as election of a prime minister. That in turn, given the political forces in play in Israel today, would see Netanyahu as Olmert's successor and his hard-line Likud and its natural allies forming the next government.
And that would be the end of any hope of a fair and just Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement in any foreseeable future, notwithstanding US President George W Bush's pledge — unconvincing as it is — to see such an agreement being signed before he leaves office next year.
Again a hostage of Israeli politics
Few in the Arab World would shed any tears if Ehud Olmert is forced to resign as Israel's prime minister since most Israeli political leaders are of the same colour when it comes to dealing with the Palestinian problem and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. At the same time, it is a sobering thought that the man most likely to replace Olmert in the event of the latter's resignation is from among the most hard-line Israeli leaders dedicated to wrecking any prospects for a fair and just peace agreement with the Palestinians which involves return of Israeli-occupied territory. It is none other than Benjamiin Netanyahu of the Likud bloc who, as prime minister from June 1996 to July 1999, systematically engineered the collapse of the peace process that was launched with the signing of the interim Oslo agreement, flawed as it was indeed.
The release of the Winograd inquiry commission’s final conclusions on the management of the Lebanon war of summer 2006 has piled pressure on Olmert to step down. Olmert has been mustering support against demands for his resignation, but it is not clear how he could withstand the finding of a new opinion poll that some 73 per cent of the Israeli public want him to quit as prime minister.
If Olmert is forced to step down as prime minister without calling for general elections, then it is almost certain that his successor through direct prime ministerial elections would be Netanyahu, who has always insisted that Israel is doing the Palestinian people a magnanimous favour by permitting them to stay in the West Bank which he and likeminded Israelis consider as part of the "promised land."
The only other person from the present Israeli scene who has any fighting chance against Netanyahu is Labour leader Ehud Barak, a former prime minister and current minister of defence. However, Barak also seems to have burnt his bridges for having gone back on his pledge to respond to a negative Winograd commission report by quitting government or calling for an early election and amending it to saying that he would do what was best for the country. That posture has earned him the disapproval of 63 per cent of Israelis, who, according to the latest opinion poll, want him to join Olmert on the way out.
While close Olmert aides like Finance Minister Ronnie Bar-On are insisting that an early election is not on the cards, all bets are off at this point in time.
Not that there is any immediate prospect of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations making any headway at all, given the deep rift in the Palestinian ranks. Instead of focusing their attention on the vital need for national unity for the common cause of liberation and independent statehood, Palestinian political leaders are arguing over who should be in control of the Gaza Strip's border with Egypt. That should show how internal Palestinian affairs have deteriorated to a stage where the Palestinians themselves are unable to work out an agreement among themselves, let alone even negotiating with the Israelis.
In the meantime, it seems to be abundantly clear that the Israeli voters want a total hard-line sweep of the country's leadership. That would naturally mean parliamentary elections as well as election of a prime minister. That in turn, given the political forces in play in Israel today, would see Netanyahu as Olmert's successor and his hard-line Likud and its natural allies forming the next government.
And that would be the end of any hope of a fair and just Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement in any foreseeable future, notwithstanding US President George W Bush's pledge — unconvincing as it is — to see such an agreement being signed before he leaves office next year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![Iraq counter](http://a href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html" img src="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/images/iraqdeaths.gif" alt="Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator" width="150" height="150" border="0" /a){kind=link}