Dec.15, 2007
Arabs stand ready to help
WITH Wednesday's meeting of Israeli and Palestinian peace negotiators, the clock has started ticking towards an agreement that was promised by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at last month's conference in Annapolis.
We are seeing the same pattern of Israeli behaviour. In the run-up to the Wednesday's meeting, Israel reaffirmed that it was not going to be dissuaded from pursuing its policy of expanding settlements in the West Bank , including Arab East Jerusalem and that it would continue military operations against Palestinian armed resistance. The second part of the Israeli stand is based on the continuing rocket attacks against Israel coming from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. However, both approaches do not bode well for successful negotiations.
ON the other side, however, is a revelation in the Israeli media that Israelis and Palestinians came close to striking a peace deal at 2001 talks in Egypt, but gaps remained on the core issues of the conflict.
Essentially, both sides would have to make compromises. Israel will have to give up most of the West Bank, the Palestinians must agree to resettle refugees from the 1948 conflict inside their own state to be formed within the 1967 lines and the two sides must share Jerusalem.
If the revelation, as quoted from an agreement signed by Gilad Sher, the chief of staff to former Israeli premier Ehud Barak, is accurate, then it represents the closest that the two sides have ever come towards giving a definite shape to a peace agreement.
According to the report, both sides had agreed to the principle of adjusting the June 4, 1967 borders but differed on the details.
While Israel wanted to keep six to eight per cent of West Bank territory in order to maintain settlement blocks , the Palestinians were willing to exchange up to 2.3 per cent of the territory.
Both sides wanted sovereignty over the passage linking the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.
They also agreed that sovereignty over Jerusalem, with two capitals for two states, but differed on the details of continuity of their respective neighbourhoods.
The two sides could not agree on the issues of the Al Haram Al Sharif complex which houses the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock and the western wall, which Jews consider as their most sacred site.
On the question of Palestinian refugees, Israel said it would recognise the suffering of the refugees of 1948, when Israel was created, and to accept between 20,000 and 40,000 refugees based on humanitarian concerns, and to contribute financially to refugee rehabilitation.
The Palestinians demanded that Israel accept sole responsibility for the creation and perpetuation of the refugee problem and to recognise the refugees' right of return.
Indeed, the agreements rather than the differing positions of the two sides give us hope that the Annapolis process could realise the objective of a peace accord. Both sides have to work hard and their leaders face huge obstacles from their own camps. There are no tailor-made solutions.
For its part, the Arab World has signalled its willingness to make compromises by offering the Arab peace initiative and attending the Annapolis conference. Today, the Arabs stand ready to do what it could to help achieve the objective of for just, fair and dignified peace with Israel without compromising the legitimate territorial rights of the Arabs, including the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Lebanese. That position should weigh in heavily in favour of the Palestinians. Israel should not be seeking to achieve normalisation with the Arabs without working out just, fair and dignified peace with all parties involved. The first step has been taken with the Palestinians, and others should follow.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Friday, December 14, 2007
Added sense of urgency
Dec.13, 1007
Added sense of urgency
The despicable killing of Lebanese Brigadier General Francois Al Hajj in Beirut on Wednesday has shot up fears of further destabilisation of the country, which is in the grip of its worst political crisis since the 1975-1990 civil war.
Hajj was said to be close to army chief Michel Suleiman and tipped to succeed Suleiman if and when the latter is elected president. That adds to the speculation surrounding his killing.
The Lebanese army is indeed the sole unified and strong national institution that has stayed above the political bickering linked to the presidential election.
Was the murder aimed at demoralising and weakening the Lebanese army? If so, whose purpose is being served?
Or was it aimed at throwing a spanner in the works of ongoing efforts to bring the views of the government and the opposition closer on how to overcome the constitutional dispute over electing the next president.
The assassination could have a different bearing altogether.
Hajj is known to have survived several attempts on his life, starting with a 1976 bid said to have been engineered by Israel after he resisted its efforts to draw him into its orbit.
It is difficult to see any Lebanese group benefiting from Hajj's death. The only party which could be seen as having an interest in eliminating him is Israel, which had found in him a strong nationalist who could prove to be a formidable hurdle in the way of the Jewish state's efforts to realise its objectives in Lebanon after he succeeds Suleiman as the army chief.
Lebanon's Hizbollah group and the Syrian and Iranian governments have condemned the killing. Damascus, no doubt aware that accusing fingers could be pointed at it, moved quickly to quell any such possibility by issuing a strong statement denouncing the murder.
The Syrian position has to be seen in the context of the opening between Washington and Damascus in the wake of the Annapolis meeting on Middle East peace. Surely, the last thing Syria wants at this important juncture in Middle East peacemaking and ending its US-engineerd isolation is to be implicated in destabilisation efforts in Lebanon.
It might take some time before definite clues are offered as to who could have been behind the killing. In the meantime, however, the assassination adds a high sense of urgency to ending the political crisis in the country, because such killings and attempted murders could only contribute to further worsening the state of limbo that would result if Lebanese members of parliament failed to elect a new president on Dec.17.
The priority of the Lebanese MPs today is to bury their differences for the sake of national unity and ensure that they would elect a new president on Dec.17. There might be constitutional hurdles, but then the MPs have the authority and power to overcome them if they are united on one issue — the interests of the country and its people supercede everything else.
Added sense of urgency
The despicable killing of Lebanese Brigadier General Francois Al Hajj in Beirut on Wednesday has shot up fears of further destabilisation of the country, which is in the grip of its worst political crisis since the 1975-1990 civil war.
Hajj was said to be close to army chief Michel Suleiman and tipped to succeed Suleiman if and when the latter is elected president. That adds to the speculation surrounding his killing.
The Lebanese army is indeed the sole unified and strong national institution that has stayed above the political bickering linked to the presidential election.
Was the murder aimed at demoralising and weakening the Lebanese army? If so, whose purpose is being served?
Or was it aimed at throwing a spanner in the works of ongoing efforts to bring the views of the government and the opposition closer on how to overcome the constitutional dispute over electing the next president.
The assassination could have a different bearing altogether.
Hajj is known to have survived several attempts on his life, starting with a 1976 bid said to have been engineered by Israel after he resisted its efforts to draw him into its orbit.
It is difficult to see any Lebanese group benefiting from Hajj's death. The only party which could be seen as having an interest in eliminating him is Israel, which had found in him a strong nationalist who could prove to be a formidable hurdle in the way of the Jewish state's efforts to realise its objectives in Lebanon after he succeeds Suleiman as the army chief.
Lebanon's Hizbollah group and the Syrian and Iranian governments have condemned the killing. Damascus, no doubt aware that accusing fingers could be pointed at it, moved quickly to quell any such possibility by issuing a strong statement denouncing the murder.
The Syrian position has to be seen in the context of the opening between Washington and Damascus in the wake of the Annapolis meeting on Middle East peace. Surely, the last thing Syria wants at this important juncture in Middle East peacemaking and ending its US-engineerd isolation is to be implicated in destabilisation efforts in Lebanon.
It might take some time before definite clues are offered as to who could have been behind the killing. In the meantime, however, the assassination adds a high sense of urgency to ending the political crisis in the country, because such killings and attempted murders could only contribute to further worsening the state of limbo that would result if Lebanese members of parliament failed to elect a new president on Dec.17.
The priority of the Lebanese MPs today is to bury their differences for the sake of national unity and ensure that they would elect a new president on Dec.17. There might be constitutional hurdles, but then the MPs have the authority and power to overcome them if they are united on one issue — the interests of the country and its people supercede everything else.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
First step taken, others should follow
Dec.14, 2007
First step taken, others should follow
WITH Wednesday's meeting of Israeli and Palestinian peace negotiators, the clock has started ticking towards an agreement that was promised by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at last month's conference in Annapolis.
We are seeing the same pattern of Israeli behaviour. In the run-up to the Wednesday's meeting, Israel reaffirmed that it was not going to be dissuaded from pursuing its policy of expanding settlements in the West Bank , including Arab East Jerusalem and that it would continue military operations against Palestinian armed resistance. The second part of the Israeli stand is based on the continuing rocket attacks against Israel coming from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. However, both approaches do not bode well for successful negotiations.
On the other side, however, is a revelation in the Israeli media that Israelis and Palestinians came close to striking a peace deal at 2001 talks in Egypt, but gaps remained on the core issues of the conflict.
Essentially, both sides would have to make compromises. Israel will have to give up most of the West Bank, the Palestinians must agree to resettle refugees from the 1948 conflict inside their own state to be formed within the 1967 lines and the two sides must share Jerusalem.
If the revelation, as quoted from an agreement signed by Gilad Sher, the chief of staff to former Israeli premier Ehud Barak, is accurate, then it represents the closest that the two sides have ever come towards giving a definite shape to a peace agreement.
According to the report, both sides had agreed to the principle of adjusting the June 4, 1967 borders but differed on the details.
While Israel wanted to keep six to eight per cent of West Bank territory in order to maintain settlement blocks , the Palestinians were willing to exchange up to 2.3 per cent of the territory.
Both sides wanted sovereignty over the passage linking the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.
They also agreed that sovereignty over Jerusalem, with two capitals for two states, but differed on the details of continuity of their respective neighbourhoods.
The two sides could not agree on the issues of the Al Haram Al Sharif complex which houses the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock and the western wall, which Jews consider as their most sacred site.
On the question of Palestinian refugees, Israel said it would recognise the suffering of the refugees of 1948, when Israel was created, and to accept between 20,000 and 40,000 refugees based on humanitarian concerns, and to contribute financially to refugee rehabilitation.
The Palestinians demanded that Israel accept sole responsibility for the creation and perpetuation of the refugee problem and to recognise the refugees' right of return.
Indeed, the agreements rather than the differing positions of the two sides give us hope that the Annapolis process could realise the objective of a peace accord. Both sides have to work hard and their leaders face huge obstacles from their own camps. There are no tailor-made solutions.
For its part, the Arab World has signalled its willingness to make compromises by offering the Arab peace initiative and attending the Annapolis conference. Today, the Arabs stand ready to do what it could to help achieve the objective of for just, fair and dignified peace with Israel without compromising the legitimate territorial rights of the Arabs, including the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Lebanese. That position should weigh in heavily in favour of the Palestinians. Israel should not be seeking to achieve normalisation with the Arabs without working out just, fair and dignified peace with all parties involved. The first step has been taken with the Palestinians, and others should follow.
First step taken, others should follow
WITH Wednesday's meeting of Israeli and Palestinian peace negotiators, the clock has started ticking towards an agreement that was promised by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at last month's conference in Annapolis.
We are seeing the same pattern of Israeli behaviour. In the run-up to the Wednesday's meeting, Israel reaffirmed that it was not going to be dissuaded from pursuing its policy of expanding settlements in the West Bank , including Arab East Jerusalem and that it would continue military operations against Palestinian armed resistance. The second part of the Israeli stand is based on the continuing rocket attacks against Israel coming from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. However, both approaches do not bode well for successful negotiations.
On the other side, however, is a revelation in the Israeli media that Israelis and Palestinians came close to striking a peace deal at 2001 talks in Egypt, but gaps remained on the core issues of the conflict.
Essentially, both sides would have to make compromises. Israel will have to give up most of the West Bank, the Palestinians must agree to resettle refugees from the 1948 conflict inside their own state to be formed within the 1967 lines and the two sides must share Jerusalem.
If the revelation, as quoted from an agreement signed by Gilad Sher, the chief of staff to former Israeli premier Ehud Barak, is accurate, then it represents the closest that the two sides have ever come towards giving a definite shape to a peace agreement.
According to the report, both sides had agreed to the principle of adjusting the June 4, 1967 borders but differed on the details.
While Israel wanted to keep six to eight per cent of West Bank territory in order to maintain settlement blocks , the Palestinians were willing to exchange up to 2.3 per cent of the territory.
Both sides wanted sovereignty over the passage linking the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.
They also agreed that sovereignty over Jerusalem, with two capitals for two states, but differed on the details of continuity of their respective neighbourhoods.
The two sides could not agree on the issues of the Al Haram Al Sharif complex which houses the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock and the western wall, which Jews consider as their most sacred site.
On the question of Palestinian refugees, Israel said it would recognise the suffering of the refugees of 1948, when Israel was created, and to accept between 20,000 and 40,000 refugees based on humanitarian concerns, and to contribute financially to refugee rehabilitation.
The Palestinians demanded that Israel accept sole responsibility for the creation and perpetuation of the refugee problem and to recognise the refugees' right of return.
Indeed, the agreements rather than the differing positions of the two sides give us hope that the Annapolis process could realise the objective of a peace accord. Both sides have to work hard and their leaders face huge obstacles from their own camps. There are no tailor-made solutions.
For its part, the Arab World has signalled its willingness to make compromises by offering the Arab peace initiative and attending the Annapolis conference. Today, the Arabs stand ready to do what it could to help achieve the objective of for just, fair and dignified peace with Israel without compromising the legitimate territorial rights of the Arabs, including the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Lebanese. That position should weigh in heavily in favour of the Palestinians. Israel should not be seeking to achieve normalisation with the Arabs without working out just, fair and dignified peace with all parties involved. The first step has been taken with the Palestinians, and others should follow.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Let the people breathe
Dec.11, 2007
Letting the people breathe
THE WELFARE of the Palestinian people under Israeli military occupation has always been the first to be sacrificed in the political and military confrontation in the ongoing Palestinian struggle for freedom and independence.
The case should have been different in the Gaza Strip, which is supposed to have been freed when Israel withdrew its military and settlers from the Mediterranean coastal strip last year. However, the situation in Gaza today is worse than that of the West Bank, which is under Israel's occupation.
Although Israel withdrew its military and settlers from Gaza, the coastal area remains very much under Israeli control. The Israeli army has sealed off all exits from the strip and controls the flow of everything into and out of Gaza, while the Israeli navy patrols the sea off the coast and prevents Gazan fishermen from going out to sea.
The people of Gaza are caught in the Israel-Hamas confrontation. Obviously, Israel is hoping to subdue Hamas into submission by subjecting the residents of Gaza suffering and thus forcing them into rising against Hamas. However, the game plan has little chance of success since such is the mindset of Palestinian resistance.
In the meantime, the Gazans continue to suffer. This was highlighted by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which voiced alarm on Monday about the health consequences of the "intolerable" isolation of the Gaza Strip.
The cut in the flow of fuel to Gaza is creating the biggest concern because services have been affected in Gaza hospitals and Israel is blocking Gazans from acessing outside treatment.
The WHO says that 23 per cent of requests in October for treatment in Israel were refused, compared with 17 per cent in September and 10 per cent in June.
Palestinian health workers say 23 people have died in recent months.
The international community cannot and should not allow the situation to continue. Ordinary people who have committed no crime should not be punished. The world has the obligation to find some means to persuade Israel to call off its inhuman blockade of the Gaza Strip so that the people there could breathe as normal human beings.
Letting the people breathe
THE WELFARE of the Palestinian people under Israeli military occupation has always been the first to be sacrificed in the political and military confrontation in the ongoing Palestinian struggle for freedom and independence.
The case should have been different in the Gaza Strip, which is supposed to have been freed when Israel withdrew its military and settlers from the Mediterranean coastal strip last year. However, the situation in Gaza today is worse than that of the West Bank, which is under Israel's occupation.
Although Israel withdrew its military and settlers from Gaza, the coastal area remains very much under Israeli control. The Israeli army has sealed off all exits from the strip and controls the flow of everything into and out of Gaza, while the Israeli navy patrols the sea off the coast and prevents Gazan fishermen from going out to sea.
The people of Gaza are caught in the Israel-Hamas confrontation. Obviously, Israel is hoping to subdue Hamas into submission by subjecting the residents of Gaza suffering and thus forcing them into rising against Hamas. However, the game plan has little chance of success since such is the mindset of Palestinian resistance.
In the meantime, the Gazans continue to suffer. This was highlighted by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which voiced alarm on Monday about the health consequences of the "intolerable" isolation of the Gaza Strip.
The cut in the flow of fuel to Gaza is creating the biggest concern because services have been affected in Gaza hospitals and Israel is blocking Gazans from acessing outside treatment.
The WHO says that 23 per cent of requests in October for treatment in Israel were refused, compared with 17 per cent in September and 10 per cent in June.
Palestinian health workers say 23 people have died in recent months.
The international community cannot and should not allow the situation to continue. Ordinary people who have committed no crime should not be punished. The world has the obligation to find some means to persuade Israel to call off its inhuman blockade of the Gaza Strip so that the people there could breathe as normal human beings.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Grasping the chance at hand
Dec.10, 2007
Grasping the chance at hand
PARALLEL to the strong signal in Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem's visit to Jordan that bilateral relations are improving, there is an equally strong sign that Damascus is trying to make the best of opportunity available to launch peace talks with Israel.
The visit came ahead of King Abdullah's talks with Turkish and Europen leaders who could play a strong role in regional peacemaking.
It is clear that last month's Annapolish conference offered a good opening between Syria and the US. It is reflected in their proxy tug-of-war in Lebanon, where US-backed and Syrian-supported factions have accepted army chief Michel Suleiman as the choice for president.
European leaders have been in touch with the Syrian leadership to help solve the stand-off and Damascus has responding positively, as is indicated in the compromise involving Suleiman.
The US has scaled down its charges that Syria has not been "doing enough" to prevent cross-border infiltrations into Iraq by militants seeking to wage war on the US forces ithere.
The overall impression that we get from the post-Annapolis scenario is that Syria is slowly moving to a point where it would not be left out of the overall peace process.
Syria has clearly stated that it is ready to resume negotiations, but Israeli leaders have been cautious in their public comments, mainly because of internal political considerations and in view of the deep rift the US-Syrian relationship. However, some of them have affirmed that it would be easier to make peace with Syria than with the Palestinians in view of the relatively less complex issues that need to be sorted out with the Syrians.
At the same time, it would be unrealistic to expect an immediate resumption of intense Syrian-Israeli peace talks because of the ground that needs to be covered. Syria has to build mutual confidence with the US first before there could be any hope of renewed peace talks to end the Israeli-Syrian conflict.
Russia is hosting a Annapolis follow-up meeting next year to try to revive Syrian-Israeli peacemaking. That could indeed offer the breakthrough for peace between Syria and Israel. The impression the world has is that Damascus would not be found wanting in seeking peace. The question is: How far would the Israeli leadership be willing to go in accepting international legitimacy as the basis for a peace agreement with the Syrians?
Grasping the chance at hand
PARALLEL to the strong signal in Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem's visit to Jordan that bilateral relations are improving, there is an equally strong sign that Damascus is trying to make the best of opportunity available to launch peace talks with Israel.
The visit came ahead of King Abdullah's talks with Turkish and Europen leaders who could play a strong role in regional peacemaking.
It is clear that last month's Annapolish conference offered a good opening between Syria and the US. It is reflected in their proxy tug-of-war in Lebanon, where US-backed and Syrian-supported factions have accepted army chief Michel Suleiman as the choice for president.
European leaders have been in touch with the Syrian leadership to help solve the stand-off and Damascus has responding positively, as is indicated in the compromise involving Suleiman.
The US has scaled down its charges that Syria has not been "doing enough" to prevent cross-border infiltrations into Iraq by militants seeking to wage war on the US forces ithere.
The overall impression that we get from the post-Annapolis scenario is that Syria is slowly moving to a point where it would not be left out of the overall peace process.
Syria has clearly stated that it is ready to resume negotiations, but Israeli leaders have been cautious in their public comments, mainly because of internal political considerations and in view of the deep rift the US-Syrian relationship. However, some of them have affirmed that it would be easier to make peace with Syria than with the Palestinians in view of the relatively less complex issues that need to be sorted out with the Syrians.
At the same time, it would be unrealistic to expect an immediate resumption of intense Syrian-Israeli peace talks because of the ground that needs to be covered. Syria has to build mutual confidence with the US first before there could be any hope of renewed peace talks to end the Israeli-Syrian conflict.
Russia is hosting a Annapolis follow-up meeting next year to try to revive Syrian-Israeli peacemaking. That could indeed offer the breakthrough for peace between Syria and Israel. The impression the world has is that Damascus would not be found wanting in seeking peace. The question is: How far would the Israeli leadership be willing to go in accepting international legitimacy as the basis for a peace agreement with the Syrians?
Friday, December 07, 2007
Signal of dissent from within
Dec.7, 2007
Signal of dissent from within
THE thought would not go away why the 16 US intelligence agencies decided to override all Bush administration objections and released their finding that Iran had suspended a programme to develop nuclear weapons in 2003 and that Tehran is not involved in any activity that suggests that it is currently pursuing nuclear weaponisation.
One of the arguments that are being heard sounds as good as any: There is a strong group within the US intelligence and security establishment, including the military, which opposes the neoconservative effort to use the US to serve Israeli purposes. Members of this group got together and decided to go public with its finding that seriously undermined the administration's claims that Iran's nuclear programme was aimed at developing weapons that it could use against Israel (or at least challenge Israel's nuclear supremacy in the region). That in turn deflated the administration's neo-con influenced drive towards military action against Iran in what would definitely turn out to be yet another imbroglio for the US military.
It is no secret that senior US military commanders are not at all happy with the way things are going in Iraq in a war that they know was launched on deceptive grounds. They do not want to add to the US military's woes by engaging Iran in a military conflict, which could expose tens of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan for Iranian retaliation. The best they could do to pre-empt such a course of events was to expose the reality that the reason that the administration could cite for action against Iran was not valid anymore.
The same applies to the US intelligence establishment, which was stung by the way the administration handled Iraq intelligence. The manipulation that a special office set up by Vice-President Dick Cheney did with honest intelligence reports in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a slap in the face of the intelligence establishment. Therefore, the seniors in the intelligence agencies decided that it was high time that the American people and the international community knew the truth and to leave no room for the neocons in the administration to twist and turn facts and realities into shapes that suited their purpose and deal yet another humiliating blow to the intelligence establishment.
The US military and intelligence agencies have done the best they thought they could do to set the record straight, Whether it would have the sought-for result is something that remains to be seen. The danger still lurks in the air of the neocons cooking something anew to rebuild "justifications" for military action against Iran, and the US military and intelligence agencies need to remain on constant alert to abort the case.
Signal of dissent from within
THE thought would not go away why the 16 US intelligence agencies decided to override all Bush administration objections and released their finding that Iran had suspended a programme to develop nuclear weapons in 2003 and that Tehran is not involved in any activity that suggests that it is currently pursuing nuclear weaponisation.
One of the arguments that are being heard sounds as good as any: There is a strong group within the US intelligence and security establishment, including the military, which opposes the neoconservative effort to use the US to serve Israeli purposes. Members of this group got together and decided to go public with its finding that seriously undermined the administration's claims that Iran's nuclear programme was aimed at developing weapons that it could use against Israel (or at least challenge Israel's nuclear supremacy in the region). That in turn deflated the administration's neo-con influenced drive towards military action against Iran in what would definitely turn out to be yet another imbroglio for the US military.
It is no secret that senior US military commanders are not at all happy with the way things are going in Iraq in a war that they know was launched on deceptive grounds. They do not want to add to the US military's woes by engaging Iran in a military conflict, which could expose tens of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan for Iranian retaliation. The best they could do to pre-empt such a course of events was to expose the reality that the reason that the administration could cite for action against Iran was not valid anymore.
The same applies to the US intelligence establishment, which was stung by the way the administration handled Iraq intelligence. The manipulation that a special office set up by Vice-President Dick Cheney did with honest intelligence reports in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a slap in the face of the intelligence establishment. Therefore, the seniors in the intelligence agencies decided that it was high time that the American people and the international community knew the truth and to leave no room for the neocons in the administration to twist and turn facts and realities into shapes that suited their purpose and deal yet another humiliating blow to the intelligence establishment.
The US military and intelligence agencies have done the best they thought they could do to set the record straight, Whether it would have the sought-for result is something that remains to be seen. The danger still lurks in the air of the neocons cooking something anew to rebuild "justifications" for military action against Iran, and the US military and intelligence agencies need to remain on constant alert to abort the case.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
A catastrophe in the making
Dec.6, 2007
A catastrophe in the making
THE residents of Gaza, already reeling under isolation and suffering from shortages of food and essential supplies as well as fuel, are facing yet another catastrophe. The Israeli army has announced that it has completed plans for a large offensive in the Gaza Strip and is only waiting for government approval for such action.
Israeli attacks have killed 31 Palestinians in Gaza in the last 10 days, with the army saying the assaults were in response to rocket attacks coming from the coastal strip.
Any Israeli military incursion into the Gaza Strip this time around would be sweeping and thus devastating for the people who live there, whether supporters of Hamas or otherwise. The reasoning is clear: The Israeli political and military establishments would use the opportunity to inflict as much harm as possible in the Gaza Strip in an intense bid to weaken Palestinian armed resistance and destroy Hamas. That would mean heavy casualties among the Palestinian civilians in Gaza, one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
The possibility of a sweeping Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip has become all the more strong in view of assertions that Fatah al Islam, which fought the Lebanese army for almost four months from a stronghold in the Palestinian Nahr Bared refugee camp in North Lebanon, has launched operations against Israel from the Gaza Strip. Reports also claim that Israeli military officers have observed new tactics on the Hamas side that recall the combat methods the Israeli army encountered in southern Lebanon in its war against Hizbollah in the summer of 2006.
No doubt, these reports, which are by nature difficult to verify, are Israel's way of preparing the ground for an allout assault on the Gaza Strip. It might not come this week or even the next, but it is definitely in the offing because Hamas and likeminded groups based in Gaza would not back down.
Indeed, the other side of the coin is that such an operation would also cause casualties among Israeli soldiers since Hamas and other fighters are no doubt prepared to fight to their last.
The political fallout of an Israeli incursion of such a scale would be too bitter for hopes attached to the renewed bid for peace launched in Annapolis last week.
On the ground, however, the real victims would be the ordinary people of Gaza, who would have to pay the heaviest price for Israel's quest to weaken all challenges to its efforts to impose its own solution on the Palestinian people.
A catastrophe in the making
THE residents of Gaza, already reeling under isolation and suffering from shortages of food and essential supplies as well as fuel, are facing yet another catastrophe. The Israeli army has announced that it has completed plans for a large offensive in the Gaza Strip and is only waiting for government approval for such action.
Israeli attacks have killed 31 Palestinians in Gaza in the last 10 days, with the army saying the assaults were in response to rocket attacks coming from the coastal strip.
Any Israeli military incursion into the Gaza Strip this time around would be sweeping and thus devastating for the people who live there, whether supporters of Hamas or otherwise. The reasoning is clear: The Israeli political and military establishments would use the opportunity to inflict as much harm as possible in the Gaza Strip in an intense bid to weaken Palestinian armed resistance and destroy Hamas. That would mean heavy casualties among the Palestinian civilians in Gaza, one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
The possibility of a sweeping Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip has become all the more strong in view of assertions that Fatah al Islam, which fought the Lebanese army for almost four months from a stronghold in the Palestinian Nahr Bared refugee camp in North Lebanon, has launched operations against Israel from the Gaza Strip. Reports also claim that Israeli military officers have observed new tactics on the Hamas side that recall the combat methods the Israeli army encountered in southern Lebanon in its war against Hizbollah in the summer of 2006.
No doubt, these reports, which are by nature difficult to verify, are Israel's way of preparing the ground for an allout assault on the Gaza Strip. It might not come this week or even the next, but it is definitely in the offing because Hamas and likeminded groups based in Gaza would not back down.
Indeed, the other side of the coin is that such an operation would also cause casualties among Israeli soldiers since Hamas and other fighters are no doubt prepared to fight to their last.
The political fallout of an Israeli incursion of such a scale would be too bitter for hopes attached to the renewed bid for peace launched in Annapolis last week.
On the ground, however, the real victims would be the ordinary people of Gaza, who would have to pay the heaviest price for Israel's quest to weaken all challenges to its efforts to impose its own solution on the Palestinian people.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Iran not off the US hook
Dec.5, 2007
Iran not off the US hook
A CONVENTIONAL approach would show that the finding of US spy agencies that Iran had halted a programme to build nuclear weapons in 2003 pulls the rug from under the Bush administration's aggressive campaign against Tehran based on its nuclear activities. It vindicates Tehran's long-standing claim that its nuclear programme had only peaceful civilian aims, and could be seen as a source of relief for the region.
However, it is highly unlikely that Iran has come off the American hook
although the intelligence report does away with all justifications and reasonings for continued pressure against Iran. As Tehran exults at the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report, Washington, London and Paris are calling for continued international pressure on Tehran. US President George W Bush has no doubt that Iran is still developing its nuclear technology and could restart a covert weapons programme. He and his allies are trying to turn the post-NIE report tables around by arguing that the finding validates US pressure on Tehran to end its nuclear activities.
Clearly the NIE report has surprised everyone, given the consistent and strident rhetoric from Washington accusing Tehran of pursuing a covert nuclear weapons programme over the years. The report undercuts the Bush administration's efforts to convince other world powers, particularly UN Security Council members China and Russia, to support moves to impose further sanctions against Iran. It would be ironic at best that the US administration is implictly brushing aside the finding of its own intelligence agencies and pressing for more sanctions against Iran in the name of a non-existent programme.
The NIE report has led to a major shift in focus of foreign policy debate in Washington, with Democrats, critics of Bush and anti-war activists using the finding to expose flaws in the administration's approach.
But, Bush's comment shows that there would not be any shift as far his administration is concerned.
Well, the Bush administration could not do or say otherwise, because it is committed to the project of removing Iran as a challenge to the US/Israeli interests in the region.
Seen in that context and given the opinion of a world majority that the US is following the same deceptive approach as it did in the case of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction," there could indeed be a shift in Washington, but towards finding alternatives to continue its drive against Iran.
That thought is strengthened by the revelation in the authoritative Washington Post that Bush made his infamous warning about a "third world war" after "he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons programme."
The writing is clear on the wall: The Bush administration's will not entertain any second thought about its present approach to Iran. Such is the size of the Israeli hook in the US throat that Washington could not afford to be led in any other direction.
And, we have seen, Tehran is more than willing to help the US and Israel — in the form of hard-line rhetoric and defiant postures — to strengthen their "case" against Iran. The Iranian leadership could do well to remember that the entire region would have to pay a heavy price for their defiance. The least they could do is should shift their course to mainstream diplomacy and stay away from helping rebuild the nuclear case or built yet another case against themselves.
Iran not off the US hook
A CONVENTIONAL approach would show that the finding of US spy agencies that Iran had halted a programme to build nuclear weapons in 2003 pulls the rug from under the Bush administration's aggressive campaign against Tehran based on its nuclear activities. It vindicates Tehran's long-standing claim that its nuclear programme had only peaceful civilian aims, and could be seen as a source of relief for the region.
However, it is highly unlikely that Iran has come off the American hook
although the intelligence report does away with all justifications and reasonings for continued pressure against Iran. As Tehran exults at the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report, Washington, London and Paris are calling for continued international pressure on Tehran. US President George W Bush has no doubt that Iran is still developing its nuclear technology and could restart a covert weapons programme. He and his allies are trying to turn the post-NIE report tables around by arguing that the finding validates US pressure on Tehran to end its nuclear activities.
Clearly the NIE report has surprised everyone, given the consistent and strident rhetoric from Washington accusing Tehran of pursuing a covert nuclear weapons programme over the years. The report undercuts the Bush administration's efforts to convince other world powers, particularly UN Security Council members China and Russia, to support moves to impose further sanctions against Iran. It would be ironic at best that the US administration is implictly brushing aside the finding of its own intelligence agencies and pressing for more sanctions against Iran in the name of a non-existent programme.
The NIE report has led to a major shift in focus of foreign policy debate in Washington, with Democrats, critics of Bush and anti-war activists using the finding to expose flaws in the administration's approach.
But, Bush's comment shows that there would not be any shift as far his administration is concerned.
Well, the Bush administration could not do or say otherwise, because it is committed to the project of removing Iran as a challenge to the US/Israeli interests in the region.
Seen in that context and given the opinion of a world majority that the US is following the same deceptive approach as it did in the case of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction," there could indeed be a shift in Washington, but towards finding alternatives to continue its drive against Iran.
That thought is strengthened by the revelation in the authoritative Washington Post that Bush made his infamous warning about a "third world war" after "he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons programme."
The writing is clear on the wall: The Bush administration's will not entertain any second thought about its present approach to Iran. Such is the size of the Israeli hook in the US throat that Washington could not afford to be led in any other direction.
And, we have seen, Tehran is more than willing to help the US and Israel — in the form of hard-line rhetoric and defiant postures — to strengthen their "case" against Iran. The Iranian leadership could do well to remember that the entire region would have to pay a heavy price for their defiance. The least they could do is should shift their course to mainstream diplomacy and stay away from helping rebuild the nuclear case or built yet another case against themselves.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Ball remains in Iran's court
Dec.4, 2007
Ball remains in the Iranian court
MUCH expectations were attached to the first appearance of an Iranian president at a summit of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) because of the challenges the region faces and the pressing need to work on clearing the atmosphere of all major outstanding issues with a view to building regional co-operation.
On the surface, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call at the GCC summit in Doha on Monday for Gulf states and Iran to work together towards establishing regional security and economic co-operation sounded great. In principle, the GCC has always remained committed to regional interaction that would benefit all sides concerned and strengthen regional stability and security under the right conditions and circumstances.
However, Ahmadinejad spoke at the Doha summit as if everything else was fine, all the elements were in place for regional co-operation and that it was only a matter of political will on the part of the GCC to build a strategic relationship with Iran.
The Iranian leader did not refer to any of the key issues of concern to the GCC. He did not refer to Iran's controversial nuclear programme and did not talk about Iran's intentions regarding Iraq. Nor did he refer to the three UAE islands that is under Iranian occupation.
The UAE has repeatedly called for bilateral discussions to resolve the outstanding issue or to refer it to international judgement. Tehran has consistently brushed aside the calls.
Kuwait has a maritime border dispute with Iran blocking the development of a gas field.
What Ahmadinejad did at the GCC summit was to put the cart before the horse. How could there be any talk about security and trade co-operation between the GCC and Iran before Iran assures its neighbours of peaceful intentions and settles territorial issues in an equitable manner?
The region needs to be assured of Iran's nuclear programme and Tehran's commitment to diplomacy to solve the dispute over the issue. Similarly, the region is anxious that the crisis in Iraq, a member of the Arab League, is addressed in the broader Arab aand UN context.
Tehran also has to move with seriousness to settle outstanding disputes with the GCC members, including the Iranian-occupation of the three UAE islands of Greater and Lesser Tunbs and Abu Musa and Iran's dispute with Kuwait as well as other issues that are sources of regional concern.
Only then there could be any move towards building a better relationship between the GCC and Iran. Ahmadinejad's speech did not move the ball from the Iranian court.
Ball remains in the Iranian court
MUCH expectations were attached to the first appearance of an Iranian president at a summit of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) because of the challenges the region faces and the pressing need to work on clearing the atmosphere of all major outstanding issues with a view to building regional co-operation.
On the surface, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call at the GCC summit in Doha on Monday for Gulf states and Iran to work together towards establishing regional security and economic co-operation sounded great. In principle, the GCC has always remained committed to regional interaction that would benefit all sides concerned and strengthen regional stability and security under the right conditions and circumstances.
However, Ahmadinejad spoke at the Doha summit as if everything else was fine, all the elements were in place for regional co-operation and that it was only a matter of political will on the part of the GCC to build a strategic relationship with Iran.
The Iranian leader did not refer to any of the key issues of concern to the GCC. He did not refer to Iran's controversial nuclear programme and did not talk about Iran's intentions regarding Iraq. Nor did he refer to the three UAE islands that is under Iranian occupation.
The UAE has repeatedly called for bilateral discussions to resolve the outstanding issue or to refer it to international judgement. Tehran has consistently brushed aside the calls.
Kuwait has a maritime border dispute with Iran blocking the development of a gas field.
What Ahmadinejad did at the GCC summit was to put the cart before the horse. How could there be any talk about security and trade co-operation between the GCC and Iran before Iran assures its neighbours of peaceful intentions and settles territorial issues in an equitable manner?
The region needs to be assured of Iran's nuclear programme and Tehran's commitment to diplomacy to solve the dispute over the issue. Similarly, the region is anxious that the crisis in Iraq, a member of the Arab League, is addressed in the broader Arab aand UN context.
Tehran also has to move with seriousness to settle outstanding disputes with the GCC members, including the Iranian-occupation of the three UAE islands of Greater and Lesser Tunbs and Abu Musa and Iran's dispute with Kuwait as well as other issues that are sources of regional concern.
Only then there could be any move towards building a better relationship between the GCC and Iran. Ahmadinejad's speech did not move the ball from the Iranian court.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Constants in peacemaking
Dec.2, 2007
Constants in peacemaking
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is said to be seeking extensive advice from former US presidents and diplomats on how to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and avoiding pitfalls similar to those that had snagged earlier efforts.
Among those consulted are ex-presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and former secretaries of state James Baker III, Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger and other diplomats. Rice is also said to reading stacks of books and negotiating documents.
We do not really know how far Rice has advanced into understanding the roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict and whether her understanding is based on an objective study of history and recognition of the Palestinians as a people who are denied all their universal rights and international justice. It is also possible that Rice is moving ahead with a simple acceptance that Israel's interests have to served regardless of what the Palestinians get in any peace agreement.
Whatever the case, there are certain realities of the Israeli-Palestinian problem and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict that Rice should not attempt to sidestep if she is seeking ways to work out genuine peace based on fairness and justice for all.
Rice should recognise that the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating process is lopsided under the present givens. Being the occupation power in physical control of the Palestinian territories, Israel is behaving as if the Palestinians should be thankful in the first place that the Israelis are willing to talk peace with them, albeit at its own terms. The almost unlimited support that Israel receives from the US on the diplomatic, political, and military fronts makes the equation all the more loaded against the Palestinians.
As such, Rice should be seeking to correct the imbalance by ensuring that international legitimacy — as enshrined in UN resolutions — and not Israel's self-professed claims backed by military might should be the basis for negotiations. It is as simple as that because international legitimacy is indeed the very basis for the Palestinians' right to independent statehood.
Another must for Rice's success is the recognition that little advance could be made on the Israeli-Palestinian track on its own without a parallel process under way to address the Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese conflicts, again on the basis of international legitimacy.
Anything less than an unreserved acceptance of these facts as constants in any peacemaking would only abort every effort, no matter how intense, sincere and well-intented.
Constants in peacemaking
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is said to be seeking extensive advice from former US presidents and diplomats on how to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and avoiding pitfalls similar to those that had snagged earlier efforts.
Among those consulted are ex-presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and former secretaries of state James Baker III, Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger and other diplomats. Rice is also said to reading stacks of books and negotiating documents.
We do not really know how far Rice has advanced into understanding the roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict and whether her understanding is based on an objective study of history and recognition of the Palestinians as a people who are denied all their universal rights and international justice. It is also possible that Rice is moving ahead with a simple acceptance that Israel's interests have to served regardless of what the Palestinians get in any peace agreement.
Whatever the case, there are certain realities of the Israeli-Palestinian problem and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict that Rice should not attempt to sidestep if she is seeking ways to work out genuine peace based on fairness and justice for all.
Rice should recognise that the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating process is lopsided under the present givens. Being the occupation power in physical control of the Palestinian territories, Israel is behaving as if the Palestinians should be thankful in the first place that the Israelis are willing to talk peace with them, albeit at its own terms. The almost unlimited support that Israel receives from the US on the diplomatic, political, and military fronts makes the equation all the more loaded against the Palestinians.
As such, Rice should be seeking to correct the imbalance by ensuring that international legitimacy — as enshrined in UN resolutions — and not Israel's self-professed claims backed by military might should be the basis for negotiations. It is as simple as that because international legitimacy is indeed the very basis for the Palestinians' right to independent statehood.
Another must for Rice's success is the recognition that little advance could be made on the Israeli-Palestinian track on its own without a parallel process under way to address the Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese conflicts, again on the basis of international legitimacy.
Anything less than an unreserved acceptance of these facts as constants in any peacemaking would only abort every effort, no matter how intense, sincere and well-intented.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
It was and is all about water
Dec.1, 2007
It was and is all about water
AT LEAST one Israeli minister seems to have read the right message from Syria's decision to attend the Annapolis conference. Judging from the comments made on Saturday by a member of parliament from Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak's Labour Party, Danny Yatom, a former chief of Israel's Mossad secret service, Barak understood from Annapolis that Syria is ready to resume peace negotiations.
Well, it has been known for a long time that Syria wants peace with Israel, but on the basis of Israel returning the Golan Heights in its entirety to Syrian sovereignty, something past Israeli leaders were not ready to do.
What is new is Yatom's call on Israel to resume peace talks with Syria without preconditions. These preconditions include an end to Syria's relations with Palestinian resistance groups and Lebanon's Hizbollah. It is a catch-22 situation since the issues are closely linked to the Israeli-Syrian conflict and once that is solved then everything else could also be addressed sastisfactorily and Yatom seems to have come to appreciate it.
Obviously, Yatom was briefed by Barak after the minister returned from Annapolis, and hence it could be assumed to a large extent that the former Mossad chief's comment reflected Barak's thinking.
Yatom asserts that an Israel-Syria peace agreement would be easier to be worked out than an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. Israel and Syria had reached an advanced point in negotiations in 2000, when, according to Yatom, then US president Bill Clinton had offered to Syria, with Israeli backing, a peace deal that would have seen Israel withdrawiing to the 1967 borders, "except for a very slight modification in the north-eastern part of the Sea of Galilee."
Well, what Yatom might see as "very slight" would be very important for Syria, which has insisted that Israel withdraw to the border lines it held on June 4, 1967 ie. before the start of the war.
When Israel occupied the Golan Heights in 1967, it claimed that the action was aimed at preventing Syrians from firing down at Israeli farmers. In reality, the Israelis seized the Golan Heights mainly because the strategic area holds the main source of water for Israel and they wanted absolute and unchallenged control of their water sources.
An Israeli general exploded a bombshell when he said in 2004 that the Israeli military is capable of ensuring the country's security without having control of the Golan Heights. But that comment, which seemed to have been hushed up without anyone further up in authority commenting on it, did not seem to take into consideration Israel's greed for water and the reality that the Israelis, whose per capita water consumption is among the highest in that region, are paranoid about their water sources (never mind that the sources are in other's territory and there are international conventions and agreements governing sharing of water).
As such, one of the key questions that follow Yatom's call is: Is there a realistic shift in Israeli thinking to keep their water paranoia at bay and accept good-faith negotiations with Syria?
It was and is all about water
AT LEAST one Israeli minister seems to have read the right message from Syria's decision to attend the Annapolis conference. Judging from the comments made on Saturday by a member of parliament from Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak's Labour Party, Danny Yatom, a former chief of Israel's Mossad secret service, Barak understood from Annapolis that Syria is ready to resume peace negotiations.
Well, it has been known for a long time that Syria wants peace with Israel, but on the basis of Israel returning the Golan Heights in its entirety to Syrian sovereignty, something past Israeli leaders were not ready to do.
What is new is Yatom's call on Israel to resume peace talks with Syria without preconditions. These preconditions include an end to Syria's relations with Palestinian resistance groups and Lebanon's Hizbollah. It is a catch-22 situation since the issues are closely linked to the Israeli-Syrian conflict and once that is solved then everything else could also be addressed sastisfactorily and Yatom seems to have come to appreciate it.
Obviously, Yatom was briefed by Barak after the minister returned from Annapolis, and hence it could be assumed to a large extent that the former Mossad chief's comment reflected Barak's thinking.
Yatom asserts that an Israel-Syria peace agreement would be easier to be worked out than an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. Israel and Syria had reached an advanced point in negotiations in 2000, when, according to Yatom, then US president Bill Clinton had offered to Syria, with Israeli backing, a peace deal that would have seen Israel withdrawiing to the 1967 borders, "except for a very slight modification in the north-eastern part of the Sea of Galilee."
Well, what Yatom might see as "very slight" would be very important for Syria, which has insisted that Israel withdraw to the border lines it held on June 4, 1967 ie. before the start of the war.
When Israel occupied the Golan Heights in 1967, it claimed that the action was aimed at preventing Syrians from firing down at Israeli farmers. In reality, the Israelis seized the Golan Heights mainly because the strategic area holds the main source of water for Israel and they wanted absolute and unchallenged control of their water sources.
An Israeli general exploded a bombshell when he said in 2004 that the Israeli military is capable of ensuring the country's security without having control of the Golan Heights. But that comment, which seemed to have been hushed up without anyone further up in authority commenting on it, did not seem to take into consideration Israel's greed for water and the reality that the Israelis, whose per capita water consumption is among the highest in that region, are paranoid about their water sources (never mind that the sources are in other's territory and there are international conventions and agreements governing sharing of water).
As such, one of the key questions that follow Yatom's call is: Is there a realistic shift in Israeli thinking to keep their water paranoia at bay and accept good-faith negotiations with Syria?
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Twisted plans and hollow talks
Dec.1, 2006
Twisted plans and hollow talks
THE sole positive outcome of talks that US President George W Bush held with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki in Amman on Thursday was an agreement that Iraq should not be partitioned into separate, semiautonomous zones. None of the other agreements could be considered as positive since they are based on not only a continued US military presence in Iraq but also on increased use of military force to tackle the insurgency there. Those agreements sidestep the reality that there could be no military solution to the conflict in Iraq, and that the US would not be able to realise its prime objectives of pacifying the people of Iraq, stabilising the country and using it was a springboard for action against regional players (not to mention protecting US energy interests).
Even the Bush-Maliki agreement against autonomous regions in Iraq that would lead into eventual division of the country along ethnic lines could be described as wishful thinking because the lines drawn in post-war Iraq have already grown into deep chasms that are nearly impossible to be bridged. The concept has already been written into the post-war "constitution" of Iraq.
Hopes for a compromise that would be acceptable to the majority Shiites and the minority Sunnis and Kurds and would bring the three communities together back to the pre-war shape of Iraq are not based on realism. If the split does not happen today, it would happen tomorrow or someday but sooner than later, and there is nothing anyone could do about it. Such a view of the course of events is based on the historical realities of modern Iraq that the US and its allies overlooked/ignored/brushed aside when they drew up plans to invade and occupy that country as an advance military post in the Gulf that would serve American/Israeli interests in the region.
Surely, no regional player wants the division of Iraq because that would not but be coupled with major spillovers of the crisis across the borders to the country's neighbours and the wider region. The regional players, if they decide to get together in good faith, might be able to come up with a formula that could pre-empt a division of Iraq, but serious doubts cloud that possibility as long as the US military remains in Iraq.
In the short term, Bush's affirmation on Thursday after talks with Maliki was that the US would stay the course in Iraq and help the Iraqi prime minister boost his firepower against armed elements that challenge efforts to shore up internal security. The US president's assurances should been seen against the backdrop of his National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley's opinion that "reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action."
For all the world knows, Maliki might not find himself out a job when he returns to Baghdad because of the declared decision of Moqtada Sadr to withdraw his political support for the prime minister. Against that backdrop, whatever decisions and agreements made during the Amman meeting seem to have lost any relevance until and unless Maliki comes up with a formula to persuade Sadr not to quit the coalition in power.
No doubt, Bush was sending an implicit message to Iraqi groups when he described Maliki as "the right guy for Iraq," and pledged increased support for his efforts to shore up security, but the impact of such expressions of backing remains to be seen (barring a dramatic turnaround in the avowed US promise to "democratise" Iraq).
No matter what happens in the short-term in Iraq, nothing that the US does within the framework of realising its objectives of the invasion and occupation of that country would help stabilise the situation. Talk of genuine peace in Iraq through any other course of events could be nothing hollow.
Twisted plans and hollow talks
THE sole positive outcome of talks that US President George W Bush held with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki in Amman on Thursday was an agreement that Iraq should not be partitioned into separate, semiautonomous zones. None of the other agreements could be considered as positive since they are based on not only a continued US military presence in Iraq but also on increased use of military force to tackle the insurgency there. Those agreements sidestep the reality that there could be no military solution to the conflict in Iraq, and that the US would not be able to realise its prime objectives of pacifying the people of Iraq, stabilising the country and using it was a springboard for action against regional players (not to mention protecting US energy interests).
Even the Bush-Maliki agreement against autonomous regions in Iraq that would lead into eventual division of the country along ethnic lines could be described as wishful thinking because the lines drawn in post-war Iraq have already grown into deep chasms that are nearly impossible to be bridged. The concept has already been written into the post-war "constitution" of Iraq.
Hopes for a compromise that would be acceptable to the majority Shiites and the minority Sunnis and Kurds and would bring the three communities together back to the pre-war shape of Iraq are not based on realism. If the split does not happen today, it would happen tomorrow or someday but sooner than later, and there is nothing anyone could do about it. Such a view of the course of events is based on the historical realities of modern Iraq that the US and its allies overlooked/ignored/brushed aside when they drew up plans to invade and occupy that country as an advance military post in the Gulf that would serve American/Israeli interests in the region.
Surely, no regional player wants the division of Iraq because that would not but be coupled with major spillovers of the crisis across the borders to the country's neighbours and the wider region. The regional players, if they decide to get together in good faith, might be able to come up with a formula that could pre-empt a division of Iraq, but serious doubts cloud that possibility as long as the US military remains in Iraq.
In the short term, Bush's affirmation on Thursday after talks with Maliki was that the US would stay the course in Iraq and help the Iraqi prime minister boost his firepower against armed elements that challenge efforts to shore up internal security. The US president's assurances should been seen against the backdrop of his National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley's opinion that "reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action."
For all the world knows, Maliki might not find himself out a job when he returns to Baghdad because of the declared decision of Moqtada Sadr to withdraw his political support for the prime minister. Against that backdrop, whatever decisions and agreements made during the Amman meeting seem to have lost any relevance until and unless Maliki comes up with a formula to persuade Sadr not to quit the coalition in power.
No doubt, Bush was sending an implicit message to Iraqi groups when he described Maliki as "the right guy for Iraq," and pledged increased support for his efforts to shore up security, but the impact of such expressions of backing remains to be seen (barring a dramatic turnaround in the avowed US promise to "democratise" Iraq).
No matter what happens in the short-term in Iraq, nothing that the US does within the framework of realising its objectives of the invasion and occupation of that country would help stabilise the situation. Talk of genuine peace in Iraq through any other course of events could be nothing hollow.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Pressing need for rethinking strategy
Dec.1, 2007
Pressing need for rethinking strategy
IT IS worrying to note that a recent UN report says that militancy is on the rise around the world and Al Qaeda remains determined to mount major attacks and has extended its base of support.
The UN report also says that Al Qaeda has also become more adept at communicating its message and operational plans.
More than six years after the US declared its war on terrorism, there is little sign that it has ben effective in addressing the problem.
The UN report says that Taliban rebels fighting to regain control of Afghanistan have increased their influence not only in Afghanistan but also in north-western Pakistan.
Accrording to the report, the Taliban had money from the drug trade to pay its fighters and purchase weapons. The report refers to the arrest of people suspected of links with Al Qaeda in more than 40 countries as a source of worry since it shows a "high volume" of planning.
The report, prepared by experts working for the Security Council committee monitoring UN sanctions against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, asserts that Al Qaeda had established training centres in Pakistan, operating out of houses and small compounds, and had networks that channel people into the centres.
How and why the US fail in its fight to eliminate militancy despite having thrown all its weight behind the war on terror that had drawn support from many countries around the world?
Or was it that the US, which has the most advanced communication systems and surveillance equipment in the world, waged only a half-hearted campaign?
Even some of the seasoned American politicians are suggesting that there definitely major shortcomings in the post-Sept.11 US campaign and they could perhaps even be deliberate because keeping the threat of militacy alive serves the US purpose of justifying its military and intelligence presence in many countries. If that is indeed the case, then it is time the world started asking Washington to provide answers and explanations.
Having enlisted support from the international community in the wake of the devastating Sept.11 attacks in New York and Washington, the US has an obligation to explain why and how it was unsuccessful in its efforts.
One of the reasons cited by experts is that the US went on an almost blind rampage and did an overkill after Sept.11. Instead of quelling insurgent groups, the US approach created breeding grounds for militancy around the world, and many countries face increased threats today.
It is time Washington stood on its tracks and took in a broader view of its post-Sept.11 actions. Perhaps the right answers are right there. The sooner the Washington strategists did the exercise the better for everyone around.
Pressing need for rethinking strategy
IT IS worrying to note that a recent UN report says that militancy is on the rise around the world and Al Qaeda remains determined to mount major attacks and has extended its base of support.
The UN report also says that Al Qaeda has also become more adept at communicating its message and operational plans.
More than six years after the US declared its war on terrorism, there is little sign that it has ben effective in addressing the problem.
The UN report says that Taliban rebels fighting to regain control of Afghanistan have increased their influence not only in Afghanistan but also in north-western Pakistan.
Accrording to the report, the Taliban had money from the drug trade to pay its fighters and purchase weapons. The report refers to the arrest of people suspected of links with Al Qaeda in more than 40 countries as a source of worry since it shows a "high volume" of planning.
The report, prepared by experts working for the Security Council committee monitoring UN sanctions against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, asserts that Al Qaeda had established training centres in Pakistan, operating out of houses and small compounds, and had networks that channel people into the centres.
How and why the US fail in its fight to eliminate militancy despite having thrown all its weight behind the war on terror that had drawn support from many countries around the world?
Or was it that the US, which has the most advanced communication systems and surveillance equipment in the world, waged only a half-hearted campaign?
Even some of the seasoned American politicians are suggesting that there definitely major shortcomings in the post-Sept.11 US campaign and they could perhaps even be deliberate because keeping the threat of militacy alive serves the US purpose of justifying its military and intelligence presence in many countries. If that is indeed the case, then it is time the world started asking Washington to provide answers and explanations.
Having enlisted support from the international community in the wake of the devastating Sept.11 attacks in New York and Washington, the US has an obligation to explain why and how it was unsuccessful in its efforts.
One of the reasons cited by experts is that the US went on an almost blind rampage and did an overkill after Sept.11. Instead of quelling insurgent groups, the US approach created breeding grounds for militancy around the world, and many countries face increased threats today.
It is time Washington stood on its tracks and took in a broader view of its post-Sept.11 actions. Perhaps the right answers are right there. The sooner the Washington strategists did the exercise the better for everyone around.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
People should come first
Nov.29, 2007
People should come first
WITH Pervez Musharraf being sworn in as president after he gave up the powerful post of army chief, another page has been turned in Pakistan's tumultuous history. The next natural step is the lifting of the state of emergency that Musharraf declared on Nov.3 and easing the atmosphere for smooth, fair and free elections to parliament.
Indeed, the key demands that Musharraf faces today is for an end to emergency rule, release of political prisoners, restoration the constitution and reinstatement of judges whom he replaced in early November.
Many were sceptical whether Musharaff would live up to his pledge to give up his military uniform immediately after the country's highest court confirmed the validity of his candidacy in the September presidential election which he won.
He has lived up to his pledge, although some could find fault with the way he went about doing it by ensuring that nothing would stand in the way of the Supreme Court upholding the legality of his candidacy and thus the presidential election victory.
Musharraf has already signalled his willingness to work with the political leaders of the country, including Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, and "move forward towards a conciliatory, civilised, democratic and political environment in the future."
Bhutto and Sharif were absent at the presidential swearing-in ceremony on Thursday and speculation is high whether they would live true to their threat to boycott the parliamentary elections in January and insist on purusing a campaign that could keep the country unstable. If that is the case, then Musharraf could be expected to maintain the state of emergency until after the Jan.8 elections, which he has vowed to hold "come hell or high water."
At the same time, an election boycott by Bhutto and Sharif would seriously undermine Musharraf's effort to legitimise his rule through a democratic ballot.
Musharraf is playing his cards close to his chest and so are Bhutto and Sharif, and everyone is carefully watching the other and planning moves.
Whatever happens, ending the state of emergency should be Musharraf's top priority because that would add to the growing conviction among Pakistanis and the rest of the world that he is a man of his word.
Musharraf and the country's political leaders face the task of nation-building and set a process in place that would improve the quality of life in the country through socio-economic development. Add to that the growing militancy that is posing serious challenges to not only to the law and order situation but also national security, and then the mission becomes all the more tougher.
It would be a pity if any political worth his or her salt insists on settling scores and spoke the wheels of democracy and undermine the drive towards consolidating the security and stability of the country.
Let us hope, for the sake of the ordinary people of Pakistan, it would not be the case.
People should come first
WITH Pervez Musharraf being sworn in as president after he gave up the powerful post of army chief, another page has been turned in Pakistan's tumultuous history. The next natural step is the lifting of the state of emergency that Musharraf declared on Nov.3 and easing the atmosphere for smooth, fair and free elections to parliament.
Indeed, the key demands that Musharraf faces today is for an end to emergency rule, release of political prisoners, restoration the constitution and reinstatement of judges whom he replaced in early November.
Many were sceptical whether Musharaff would live up to his pledge to give up his military uniform immediately after the country's highest court confirmed the validity of his candidacy in the September presidential election which he won.
He has lived up to his pledge, although some could find fault with the way he went about doing it by ensuring that nothing would stand in the way of the Supreme Court upholding the legality of his candidacy and thus the presidential election victory.
Musharraf has already signalled his willingness to work with the political leaders of the country, including Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, and "move forward towards a conciliatory, civilised, democratic and political environment in the future."
Bhutto and Sharif were absent at the presidential swearing-in ceremony on Thursday and speculation is high whether they would live true to their threat to boycott the parliamentary elections in January and insist on purusing a campaign that could keep the country unstable. If that is the case, then Musharraf could be expected to maintain the state of emergency until after the Jan.8 elections, which he has vowed to hold "come hell or high water."
At the same time, an election boycott by Bhutto and Sharif would seriously undermine Musharraf's effort to legitimise his rule through a democratic ballot.
Musharraf is playing his cards close to his chest and so are Bhutto and Sharif, and everyone is carefully watching the other and planning moves.
Whatever happens, ending the state of emergency should be Musharraf's top priority because that would add to the growing conviction among Pakistanis and the rest of the world that he is a man of his word.
Musharraf and the country's political leaders face the task of nation-building and set a process in place that would improve the quality of life in the country through socio-economic development. Add to that the growing militancy that is posing serious challenges to not only to the law and order situation but also national security, and then the mission becomes all the more tougher.
It would be a pity if any political worth his or her salt insists on settling scores and spoke the wheels of democracy and undermine the drive towards consolidating the security and stability of the country.
Let us hope, for the sake of the ordinary people of Pakistan, it would not be the case.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Nothing short of a miracle
Nov.28, 2007
Nothing short of a miracle
LET us set aside all misgivings about Israel's real intentions about the shape of a peace agreement with the Palestinians and accept in good faith the pledge made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Annapolis.
Given on the realities on the ground today, the end-2008 deadline for that they have set — obviously nudged to do so by US President George W Bush — for a final agreement is far from reality. Such is the complexity of the problems that they need to settle in the next 12 months that it would take nothing short of a miracle for them to deliver on their pledge.
It is not that there is any question that Olmert and Abbas want to meet the deadline, but that it seems next to impossible for them to do so.
Olmert faces tough political challenges from within his ruling coalition and of course from the rightwing hawks in the opposition on all the key issues that he needs to find solutions. The more than 250,000 Jewish settlers — most of them recent migrants — in the West Bank pose yet another formidable challenge to Olmert.
Similarly, Abbas faces the task of convincing his own constituency and the rejectionist Hamas and likeminded groups not only that there is indeed light for the Palestinians at the end of the tunnel but also that the light is not fire that is waiting to engulf them.
In practical terms, Abbas needs to persuade Olmert to agree to return Arab East Jerusalem to the Palestinians — that would require slicing the Holy City against opposition from never-say-die Jewish fanatics for whom Palestinian rights mean less than nothing.
Abbas has also to find tens of billions of dollars to offer compensation to Palestinian refugees from the 1948 crisis sparked by Israel's creation. The third challenge he faces is equally difficult, if not tougher: Convincing Hamas to return the Gaza Strip to a united Palestinian leadership under him.
Indeed, let us take for granted that Bush would remain closely involved in the peacemaking process and throw the US weight behind it. That should ease the task a little but not enough because US intervention at whatever strength and level would have little effect on the positions of those who are determined to undermine the process.
Indeed, the entire scene could undergo a positive change if the Israelis and Palestinians accept without any reservation that co-existence could be based only on respect for each other's legitimate rights, with the onus more the Israelis to recognise that they are living in others' territories that were seized through the use of force. But they have not been able to accept or recognise it in the last 60 years.
Will they be able to do so in one year?
Nothing short of a miracle
LET us set aside all misgivings about Israel's real intentions about the shape of a peace agreement with the Palestinians and accept in good faith the pledge made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Annapolis.
Given on the realities on the ground today, the end-2008 deadline for that they have set — obviously nudged to do so by US President George W Bush — for a final agreement is far from reality. Such is the complexity of the problems that they need to settle in the next 12 months that it would take nothing short of a miracle for them to deliver on their pledge.
It is not that there is any question that Olmert and Abbas want to meet the deadline, but that it seems next to impossible for them to do so.
Olmert faces tough political challenges from within his ruling coalition and of course from the rightwing hawks in the opposition on all the key issues that he needs to find solutions. The more than 250,000 Jewish settlers — most of them recent migrants — in the West Bank pose yet another formidable challenge to Olmert.
Similarly, Abbas faces the task of convincing his own constituency and the rejectionist Hamas and likeminded groups not only that there is indeed light for the Palestinians at the end of the tunnel but also that the light is not fire that is waiting to engulf them.
In practical terms, Abbas needs to persuade Olmert to agree to return Arab East Jerusalem to the Palestinians — that would require slicing the Holy City against opposition from never-say-die Jewish fanatics for whom Palestinian rights mean less than nothing.
Abbas has also to find tens of billions of dollars to offer compensation to Palestinian refugees from the 1948 crisis sparked by Israel's creation. The third challenge he faces is equally difficult, if not tougher: Convincing Hamas to return the Gaza Strip to a united Palestinian leadership under him.
Indeed, let us take for granted that Bush would remain closely involved in the peacemaking process and throw the US weight behind it. That should ease the task a little but not enough because US intervention at whatever strength and level would have little effect on the positions of those who are determined to undermine the process.
Indeed, the entire scene could undergo a positive change if the Israelis and Palestinians accept without any reservation that co-existence could be based only on respect for each other's legitimate rights, with the onus more the Israelis to recognise that they are living in others' territories that were seized through the use of force. But they have not been able to accept or recognise it in the last 60 years.
Will they be able to do so in one year?
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Launhing pad for a realistic effort?
Nov.27, 2007
Launching pad for a realistic effort?
THE PROTESTS that were held on Tuesday in towns across the West Bank and Gaza City were not against the idea of making peace with Israel. Surveys and opinion polls have established that the vast majority of Palestinians favour a negotiated settlement to end the Israeli occupation of their land on the basis of their legitimate rights but they believe that the US initiative formally launched in Annapolis is stacked against their interests and rights.
Tuesday's demonstrations reflected the Palestinian frustration over what they see as the peace at gunpoint that they would being forced to enter with Israel at some point under the auspices of the United States.
The intensity of the protests would have been considerably less and more positive had the Israeli leadership under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert been more forthcoming in conveying their "good-faith" intention — if indeed they do have it — by making more goodwill gestures as releasing Palestinian prisoners and easing the choking blockade that has paralysed Palestinian life in the West Bank. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas would have gone to Annapolis with a stronger mandate to make peace had Olmert met his proposals for prisoner release and removal of blockades that cripple Palestinian movements and economic activities.
It is clear that Olmert has reserved such gestures to be made in piecemeal during the actual negotiations with Abbas that are expected to follow the Annapolis meeting. And the Palestinians are also aware that they would be forced to grant major concessions in return for every one of the piecemeal gestures.
The Palestinians understand very clearly that when US President George W Bush speaks of "difficult compromises" for peace in the Middle East he has only the Palestinians in mind because, in his thinking, they are the only ones expected to partly give up their territorial and political rights in the effort for an agreement with Israel.
That is at the root of the whole problem. The US is keeping a safe distance from living true to binding UN resolutions that reflect international legitimacy and various other documents related to conduct of nations based on the right of everyone to self-determination and to life in security, stability and dignity. Not only that, the US is helping and supporting Israel's refusal to live up to the same international commitments and obligations that Washington is demanding from other countries.
The Palestinian on the street is not really bothered whether Abbas and Olmert issued a joint statement on their intention to make peace. They want a realistic shift in Israel's adamant and stubborn insistence on peace on its own terms, and they have yet to see the slightest change in Israel's thinking and belief in military solutions to every problem.
The Palestinians should not be and could not be accused of being rejectionist. They believe that as things stand today, they stand to lose the most and gain the least.
They want genuine peace that is based on the rights that the UN Charter and every international convention, charter and treaty offer to everyone but that are denied to them. They refuse to accept assurances and promises that they know would not be honoured. They want realistic moves on the ground, and that is where the US faces the challenge if it is genuinely interested in salvaging its lost credibility. Would Annapolis be the launching pad for a genuine and realistic effort?
Launching pad for a realistic effort?
THE PROTESTS that were held on Tuesday in towns across the West Bank and Gaza City were not against the idea of making peace with Israel. Surveys and opinion polls have established that the vast majority of Palestinians favour a negotiated settlement to end the Israeli occupation of their land on the basis of their legitimate rights but they believe that the US initiative formally launched in Annapolis is stacked against their interests and rights.
Tuesday's demonstrations reflected the Palestinian frustration over what they see as the peace at gunpoint that they would being forced to enter with Israel at some point under the auspices of the United States.
The intensity of the protests would have been considerably less and more positive had the Israeli leadership under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert been more forthcoming in conveying their "good-faith" intention — if indeed they do have it — by making more goodwill gestures as releasing Palestinian prisoners and easing the choking blockade that has paralysed Palestinian life in the West Bank. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas would have gone to Annapolis with a stronger mandate to make peace had Olmert met his proposals for prisoner release and removal of blockades that cripple Palestinian movements and economic activities.
It is clear that Olmert has reserved such gestures to be made in piecemeal during the actual negotiations with Abbas that are expected to follow the Annapolis meeting. And the Palestinians are also aware that they would be forced to grant major concessions in return for every one of the piecemeal gestures.
The Palestinians understand very clearly that when US President George W Bush speaks of "difficult compromises" for peace in the Middle East he has only the Palestinians in mind because, in his thinking, they are the only ones expected to partly give up their territorial and political rights in the effort for an agreement with Israel.
That is at the root of the whole problem. The US is keeping a safe distance from living true to binding UN resolutions that reflect international legitimacy and various other documents related to conduct of nations based on the right of everyone to self-determination and to life in security, stability and dignity. Not only that, the US is helping and supporting Israel's refusal to live up to the same international commitments and obligations that Washington is demanding from other countries.
The Palestinian on the street is not really bothered whether Abbas and Olmert issued a joint statement on their intention to make peace. They want a realistic shift in Israel's adamant and stubborn insistence on peace on its own terms, and they have yet to see the slightest change in Israel's thinking and belief in military solutions to every problem.
The Palestinians should not be and could not be accused of being rejectionist. They believe that as things stand today, they stand to lose the most and gain the least.
They want genuine peace that is based on the rights that the UN Charter and every international convention, charter and treaty offer to everyone but that are denied to them. They refuse to accept assurances and promises that they know would not be honoured. They want realistic moves on the ground, and that is where the US faces the challenge if it is genuinely interested in salvaging its lost credibility. Would Annapolis be the launching pad for a genuine and realistic effort?
Monday, November 26, 2007
Why the world remains sceptical
Nov.26 2007
Why the world remains sceptical
US President George Bush has "personally committed" himself to his two-state vision for Israelis and Palestinians. Effectively, as his spokespersons took pains explaining on Sunday, Bush would be closely following up the process. As a sign of his "personal" involvement, Bush was meeting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Monday and Tuesday ahead of the Annapolis meeting and would receive them again on Wednesday at the White House. The US president was also in touch with several Arab leaders and playing a key role in securing the attendance of some 50 governments and groups at the Annapolis conference. So far so good.
There is no doubt that Bush wants an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement in place before he quits the White House in early 2009. That is intented to be touted as his greatest accomplishment in his eight years at the White House (never mind the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascos and the various other crises at home).
In principle, it is indeed a source of optimism for the Middle East that a US president has made Israeli-Palestinian peace a top priority with a definite timeframe — 14 months in this case — and has committed himself to remain involved in the process until its success.
However, there is a pessimistic rider to it: He has made it clear that it is upto the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate peace. That is the clincher. It is a message that it is strictly up to the negotiating skills of the Palestinians to secure Israeli acceptance of their demands. And that exposes the weakest flank of the Palestinians and casts a disturbingly negative cloud over the whole process.
By definition and in view of the realities on the ground in Israeli-occupied Palestine, the Palestinians are the underdog in any negotiation with Israel, which has made no secret that it wants a peace agreement on its own terms. By default, the Palestinians are not in an equal footing with the Israelis in order to have a just and fair negotiating process governed by international legitimacy as enshrined in UN Security Council resolutions and various conventions and charters and the inadmissibility of seizing other's territory through the use of force.
Israel is not willing to commit itself into accepting the minimum requirements for peace. Its track record since the 1993 Oslo agreement shows that it would continue to pile up pressure on the Palestinians into accepting its grand designs in Palestine while giving little in return to them.
A between-the-lines reading of Bush's stated position will show that the US would keep itself and all others out of post-Annapolis Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and thus leave the field free for the Israelis to pressure the Palestinians — who would be left without any recourse — and force down their throats the Israeli version of a peace agreement. Of course, it goes without saying that the US would be working behind the scenes to persuade the Palestinians that they would be better off accepting whatever Israel is willing to offer them because that is the best they would ever get. So much for the US-professed neutrality and role as honest broker.
That is what it boils down to when we remove all rhetoric and lofty statements linked to the expected Annapolis process.
We have yet to see any sign of the US stepping away from Israel's shadow and act in its capacity as the world's sole superpower to ensure fairness and justice for all. And hence the scepticism over the Annapolis exercise because all that the US is interested in is any agreement — be it fair or unfair, just or unjust — but one that could be the "jewel" in Bush's otherwise bare departing crown.
Why the world remains sceptical
US President George Bush has "personally committed" himself to his two-state vision for Israelis and Palestinians. Effectively, as his spokespersons took pains explaining on Sunday, Bush would be closely following up the process. As a sign of his "personal" involvement, Bush was meeting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Monday and Tuesday ahead of the Annapolis meeting and would receive them again on Wednesday at the White House. The US president was also in touch with several Arab leaders and playing a key role in securing the attendance of some 50 governments and groups at the Annapolis conference. So far so good.
There is no doubt that Bush wants an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement in place before he quits the White House in early 2009. That is intented to be touted as his greatest accomplishment in his eight years at the White House (never mind the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascos and the various other crises at home).
In principle, it is indeed a source of optimism for the Middle East that a US president has made Israeli-Palestinian peace a top priority with a definite timeframe — 14 months in this case — and has committed himself to remain involved in the process until its success.
However, there is a pessimistic rider to it: He has made it clear that it is upto the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate peace. That is the clincher. It is a message that it is strictly up to the negotiating skills of the Palestinians to secure Israeli acceptance of their demands. And that exposes the weakest flank of the Palestinians and casts a disturbingly negative cloud over the whole process.
By definition and in view of the realities on the ground in Israeli-occupied Palestine, the Palestinians are the underdog in any negotiation with Israel, which has made no secret that it wants a peace agreement on its own terms. By default, the Palestinians are not in an equal footing with the Israelis in order to have a just and fair negotiating process governed by international legitimacy as enshrined in UN Security Council resolutions and various conventions and charters and the inadmissibility of seizing other's territory through the use of force.
Israel is not willing to commit itself into accepting the minimum requirements for peace. Its track record since the 1993 Oslo agreement shows that it would continue to pile up pressure on the Palestinians into accepting its grand designs in Palestine while giving little in return to them.
A between-the-lines reading of Bush's stated position will show that the US would keep itself and all others out of post-Annapolis Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and thus leave the field free for the Israelis to pressure the Palestinians — who would be left without any recourse — and force down their throats the Israeli version of a peace agreement. Of course, it goes without saying that the US would be working behind the scenes to persuade the Palestinians that they would be better off accepting whatever Israel is willing to offer them because that is the best they would ever get. So much for the US-professed neutrality and role as honest broker.
That is what it boils down to when we remove all rhetoric and lofty statements linked to the expected Annapolis process.
We have yet to see any sign of the US stepping away from Israel's shadow and act in its capacity as the world's sole superpower to ensure fairness and justice for all. And hence the scepticism over the Annapolis exercise because all that the US is interested in is any agreement — be it fair or unfair, just or unjust — but one that could be the "jewel" in Bush's otherwise bare departing crown.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Not many options in Annapolis
Nov.25, 2007
Not many options at Annapolis
Arab officials are making their way to the United State to attend the US-sponsored Mideast peace talks in Annapolis with a clear message: There would be no normalisation with Israel without a comprehensive peace, and the Annapolis meeting would not be allowed to be turned into a forum where Israel could boast of being formally recognised by the Arab World.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal went to the extent of publicly making it clear that there would be no public handshakes with Israeli officials at the gathering.
Arab League Secretary-General Amr Musa, who is leading the first Arab League team to a peace conference with Israel, is in Washington with the message that "there can be no normalisation except in the framework of the Arab peace initiative and in the framework of total peace."
For their part, the key players — Israel, the Palestinians and the US — have said that they would all make a strong effort to make sure that the Annapolis meeting does produce something trangible towards setting the Palestinian problem.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the key Bush administration official who visited the Middle East eight times this year, should know better than anyone else of the prospects of Israeli-Palestinian peace, particularly in view of the failure of the two sides to produce a joint statement because of Israel's stubborn positions.
Israel's refusal to commit itself to a binding framework for peace with the Palestinians does not bode well for the success of the meeting. Another negative point is the US failure to make clear even on Sunday whether the Golan Heights on the agenda saying Syria would be free to raise any issue it wants. The US stand implies that Washington would want to assume no role in the Syrian-Israeli context at this point in time. Syria could raise the point, but it is most likely that the US would be cool at best towards the issue.
The only point of reference for the Arabs at this juncture is a US assurance that there would be discussions on a "comprehensive" Arab-Israel peace deal. Rice has also promised that the Annapolis meeting "is going to be a serious and substantive conference that will advance the cause of the establishment of a Palestinian state."
Despite all such statements and assurance, scepticism would not go away. Adding more to the uncertainty are observations by Washington insiders that Rice wants to use the Annapolish meeting to project herself as a peace-seeker and do away with the setback her image suffered as the strongest Bush administration official publicly ruling out a ceasefire during the 34-day Israeli assault on Lebanon last year.
No one expects the meeting to produce an Arab-Israeli peace agreement. The minimum expectation is of a firm framework for Arab-Israeli peace and a clear time-bound course towards final agreement. Hopefully, Rice would live up to her well-known adage that "failure is not an option."
Not many options at Annapolis
Arab officials are making their way to the United State to attend the US-sponsored Mideast peace talks in Annapolis with a clear message: There would be no normalisation with Israel without a comprehensive peace, and the Annapolis meeting would not be allowed to be turned into a forum where Israel could boast of being formally recognised by the Arab World.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal went to the extent of publicly making it clear that there would be no public handshakes with Israeli officials at the gathering.
Arab League Secretary-General Amr Musa, who is leading the first Arab League team to a peace conference with Israel, is in Washington with the message that "there can be no normalisation except in the framework of the Arab peace initiative and in the framework of total peace."
For their part, the key players — Israel, the Palestinians and the US — have said that they would all make a strong effort to make sure that the Annapolis meeting does produce something trangible towards setting the Palestinian problem.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the key Bush administration official who visited the Middle East eight times this year, should know better than anyone else of the prospects of Israeli-Palestinian peace, particularly in view of the failure of the two sides to produce a joint statement because of Israel's stubborn positions.
Israel's refusal to commit itself to a binding framework for peace with the Palestinians does not bode well for the success of the meeting. Another negative point is the US failure to make clear even on Sunday whether the Golan Heights on the agenda saying Syria would be free to raise any issue it wants. The US stand implies that Washington would want to assume no role in the Syrian-Israeli context at this point in time. Syria could raise the point, but it is most likely that the US would be cool at best towards the issue.
The only point of reference for the Arabs at this juncture is a US assurance that there would be discussions on a "comprehensive" Arab-Israel peace deal. Rice has also promised that the Annapolis meeting "is going to be a serious and substantive conference that will advance the cause of the establishment of a Palestinian state."
Despite all such statements and assurance, scepticism would not go away. Adding more to the uncertainty are observations by Washington insiders that Rice wants to use the Annapolish meeting to project herself as a peace-seeker and do away with the setback her image suffered as the strongest Bush administration official publicly ruling out a ceasefire during the 34-day Israeli assault on Lebanon last year.
No one expects the meeting to produce an Arab-Israeli peace agreement. The minimum expectation is of a firm framework for Arab-Israeli peace and a clear time-bound course towards final agreement. Hopefully, Rice would live up to her well-known adage that "failure is not an option."
Sunday, November 18, 2007
World deserves an explanation
Nov.18, 2007
World deserves an explanation
MORE than six years after the Sept.11 attacks in the US, the National Institute for Standards and Technology has admitted that the total free-fall collapse of the twin World Trade Center towers in New York cannot be explained. The admission, which came after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledged that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.
The NIST was forced to make the admission in a letter to representatives of victims of the New York air assault. The letter states that "we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
While a 10,000-page study presents numerous theories about the collapse, it does not provide any clue to how such a strong and reinforced steel structures of the two towers could fall through as if a knife cutting through butter.
The report does not offer any explanation the sudden freefall collapse of a third structure, World Trade Center Building 7, which was not hit by any aircraft but collapsed several hours after two airliners rammed into the two World Trade Center towers.
One of the most important findings of the NIST study is that virtually none of the steel in either of the two WTC towers reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees whereas steel starts to weaken at 1,000 degrees and melts at 1,500 degrees.
There are many other technicalities raised in the report, but the net but implicit conclusion that one gets from it is that the collapse of the towers could have come only through explosives of a self-contained scale and nature placed within the structure.
With so many confusing and complex theories still floating as to who, how and why the air assaults, many are likely to brush aside the NIST finding as yet another supposition despite the scentific evidence that rules out the argument that the steel structure simply melted in the blaze caused by aviation fuel and the towers collapsed.
The concerned authorities in the US might not feel compelled to offer any explanation or might even want to avoid offering any at all. After all, they represent the executive authority of the United States of America and the collapse happened in the territory of the USA.
However, given that the Sept.11 attacks triggered an unprecedented course of events which touched the life of everyone on this planet, directly or indirectly, the international community could not but be involved. The US declared a war against terror in the wake of the attacks and the world could not but join the US camp, given the ferocity of the attacks that killed about 2,800 people, the natural sympathy with the victims and a desire to ensure that such atrocities do not happen again. The world could not but recognise that the US did have a cause and hence it put up with revelations after revelations of how the sole superpower went after everyone with a vengeance that violated human rights and every known provision in the international code of conduct in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other places.
Today, in light of the findings of the NIST that contradict some of the basic premises about the Sept.11 attacks and suggest that internal forces were at work on the ground to complement the assaults from air, the international community has the right to know what really happened. It is unlikely that this right would be acknowledged and respected, but let it go on international record that the world has not swallowed the official version of the Sept.11 attacks that changed the course of world history.
World deserves an explanation
MORE than six years after the Sept.11 attacks in the US, the National Institute for Standards and Technology has admitted that the total free-fall collapse of the twin World Trade Center towers in New York cannot be explained. The admission, which came after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledged that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.
The NIST was forced to make the admission in a letter to representatives of victims of the New York air assault. The letter states that "we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
While a 10,000-page study presents numerous theories about the collapse, it does not provide any clue to how such a strong and reinforced steel structures of the two towers could fall through as if a knife cutting through butter.
The report does not offer any explanation the sudden freefall collapse of a third structure, World Trade Center Building 7, which was not hit by any aircraft but collapsed several hours after two airliners rammed into the two World Trade Center towers.
One of the most important findings of the NIST study is that virtually none of the steel in either of the two WTC towers reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees whereas steel starts to weaken at 1,000 degrees and melts at 1,500 degrees.
There are many other technicalities raised in the report, but the net but implicit conclusion that one gets from it is that the collapse of the towers could have come only through explosives of a self-contained scale and nature placed within the structure.
With so many confusing and complex theories still floating as to who, how and why the air assaults, many are likely to brush aside the NIST finding as yet another supposition despite the scentific evidence that rules out the argument that the steel structure simply melted in the blaze caused by aviation fuel and the towers collapsed.
The concerned authorities in the US might not feel compelled to offer any explanation or might even want to avoid offering any at all. After all, they represent the executive authority of the United States of America and the collapse happened in the territory of the USA.
However, given that the Sept.11 attacks triggered an unprecedented course of events which touched the life of everyone on this planet, directly or indirectly, the international community could not but be involved. The US declared a war against terror in the wake of the attacks and the world could not but join the US camp, given the ferocity of the attacks that killed about 2,800 people, the natural sympathy with the victims and a desire to ensure that such atrocities do not happen again. The world could not but recognise that the US did have a cause and hence it put up with revelations after revelations of how the sole superpower went after everyone with a vengeance that violated human rights and every known provision in the international code of conduct in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other places.
Today, in light of the findings of the NIST that contradict some of the basic premises about the Sept.11 attacks and suggest that internal forces were at work on the ground to complement the assaults from air, the international community has the right to know what really happened. It is unlikely that this right would be acknowledged and respected, but let it go on international record that the world has not swallowed the official version of the Sept.11 attacks that changed the course of world history.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Bottom lines are clear
Nov.17, 2007
The bottom lines are clear
It is no susprise that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has voiced pessimism about the planned US-sponsored Middle East conference. It is a feeling of many around the world since Israel has not done the minimum it could do to ensure the success of the gathering, which is widely seen as a make-or-break point in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.
The Israeli leadership has only talked about their commitment to making peace. They have not really offered anything tangible that would allow Abbas to assure his people that the fresh effort could produce anything realistic for an end to their suffering under Israel's military occupation of their land.
As recent opinion polls have indicated, a majority of Palestinians support the planned conference as a forum where both Israel and the Palestinians not only declare to the world their serious and honest intention to work out a peace agreement but also the framework for such an accord. This should indeed be based on Israel's recognition and acceptance of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians as the basis for peace in Palestine. The Jewish state also has to agree on a timeframe and a deadline for an agreement. The Palestinians and indeed the world have had the experience of seeing Israel loudly proclaiming its seriousness to make peace at the famous 1991 Madrid conference but then do everything in its power to abort a just and fair agreement after a change in its leadership despite that it had signed an interim agreement.
Israel is refusing to make any public commitment on the basis for peace since it believes that it is in a position of strength and therefore it could dictate terms and force the Palestinians to settle far less than their demands in bilateral negotiations. That is one of the key reasons that do not give any reason for the Palestinians to believe that the US-sponsored exercise would be a waste of time.
The stubborn Israeli position is in fact weakening Abbas, who has yet to work out a formula to bring in the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, into peacemaking.
Israel and the US should be taking their message from Friday's Hamas-led marc o he deserted Gaza City house of Abbas, warning of stepped-up armed resistance if he makes concessions to Israel at the planned conference. There are many ifs and buts concerning the Hamas stand on peace with Israel, but is clear that the movement would be willing to endorse a peace agreement that does not involve any compromise on the key issues such as Jerusalem and rights of Palestinian refugees.
Again, the onus is on the US, which should step in and put pressure on Israel, obliging it to comply with the terms of reference of the peace process — the internationallyb-backed roadmap, the Arab peace initiative and UN Security Council resolutions. Short of that the Annapolis would accomplish little.
The bottom lines are clear
It is no susprise that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has voiced pessimism about the planned US-sponsored Middle East conference. It is a feeling of many around the world since Israel has not done the minimum it could do to ensure the success of the gathering, which is widely seen as a make-or-break point in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.
The Israeli leadership has only talked about their commitment to making peace. They have not really offered anything tangible that would allow Abbas to assure his people that the fresh effort could produce anything realistic for an end to their suffering under Israel's military occupation of their land.
As recent opinion polls have indicated, a majority of Palestinians support the planned conference as a forum where both Israel and the Palestinians not only declare to the world their serious and honest intention to work out a peace agreement but also the framework for such an accord. This should indeed be based on Israel's recognition and acceptance of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians as the basis for peace in Palestine. The Jewish state also has to agree on a timeframe and a deadline for an agreement. The Palestinians and indeed the world have had the experience of seeing Israel loudly proclaiming its seriousness to make peace at the famous 1991 Madrid conference but then do everything in its power to abort a just and fair agreement after a change in its leadership despite that it had signed an interim agreement.
Israel is refusing to make any public commitment on the basis for peace since it believes that it is in a position of strength and therefore it could dictate terms and force the Palestinians to settle far less than their demands in bilateral negotiations. That is one of the key reasons that do not give any reason for the Palestinians to believe that the US-sponsored exercise would be a waste of time.
The stubborn Israeli position is in fact weakening Abbas, who has yet to work out a formula to bring in the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, into peacemaking.
Israel and the US should be taking their message from Friday's Hamas-led marc o he deserted Gaza City house of Abbas, warning of stepped-up armed resistance if he makes concessions to Israel at the planned conference. There are many ifs and buts concerning the Hamas stand on peace with Israel, but is clear that the movement would be willing to endorse a peace agreement that does not involve any compromise on the key issues such as Jerusalem and rights of Palestinian refugees.
Again, the onus is on the US, which should step in and put pressure on Israel, obliging it to comply with the terms of reference of the peace process — the internationallyb-backed roadmap, the Arab peace initiative and UN Security Council resolutions. Short of that the Annapolis would accomplish little.
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}