Been Down So Long ...

(Cartoon by Yaakov Kirschen and published 9/2/14 on his blog.  Click on image to enlarge.)
I've decided to ease up on my compulsive devouring of the news.  All it does is depress me.  Here we have this perfectly fine planet, one we ought to be taking better care of and one we should be sharing with other humans and all the other creatures on board, yet the only thing humanity appears to be interested in doing is blowing things up or blowing them away.

The Middle East.
Sub-Saharan Africa.
Germany.
Iraq.
Missouri (for cryin' out loud!)

One of the things I've learned over the past year or so is that life is precious -- all life.  Apparently I'm in the minority.

I think I'll curl up with my sleeping assistants and pull the covers over our heads.

ENOUGH, ALREADY!!!!

It Takes A Cartoonist

David Horsey has done a wonderful job in his latest column in explicating some rather complex issues in a way which somehow has eluded the rest of the mainstream media.

There seems to be one thing that unites all the demonstrators in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, from the young secular liberals who are jubilant that Egypt’s military has deposed President Mohamed Morsi to the Islamic militants who demand that he be reinstated: they all are furious with President Barack Obama and the United States of America.

On the one hand, the anti-Morsi crowds think Obama gave too much support to Morsi. On the other, the pro-Morsi marchers are calling Obama a hypocrite for giving lip service to democracy while doing nothing in the face of the military coup that overthrew Morsi’s democratically elected government.

As always, it is hard for the U.S. to get it right in the Arab world. ...

The reality, though, is that the authoritarian actions of the Morsi government were proving detrimental to the long-term prospects for permanent democracy in Egypt. After years of waiting for their chance, Morsi and his comrades in the Muslim Brotherhood were unable to restrain themselves from pushing too quickly toward the Islamic state they want. Perhaps just as damaging, they also proved themselves to be incompetent stewards of government.

Millions of protesters filled the streets to reject the slide away from democracy and toward theocratic rule. There was no vote and no election, but the will of the people was being expressed. That, too, is democracy and Morsi refused to respond to that expression, so the military stepped in.   [Emphasis added]

There.  Was that so hard?

Nicely done, David.  Now, if only White House spokespeople could be so direct and clear in their explanations and the traditional media could shake such explanations out of them to begin with and then actually print the story, we might be a better informed nation.

Shoot First, Aim Later

OK, I admit it: standing alone, this cartoon by David Horsey is at the very least shocking, if not offensive. This is one of those times that the column appended to the cartoon is essential because it provides a good explanation.

The first half of the column is devoted to Mitt Romney's slimy political grandstanding with respect to the riots in Egypt and Libya which resulted in the deaths of four Americans. It is the rest of the column which clarifies Horsey's intent with the cartoon.

Romney is not the first presidential candidate to imply he can wave a magic wand -- or, more precisely, Teddy Roosevelt's big stick -- and remake the world to the liking of the United States. Most of those who aspire to the presidency make a similar claim (with Ron Paul being the most recent laudable exception). Candidates try to act like masters of the universe to impress voters who want to believe a proper president can accomplish anything.

Of course, by imagining they are electing a sort of superhero, voters set themselves up for disappointment and disillusion over and over again. Sure, a president can topple a dictator if he wants to utilize the vast power of the American military. But it's not so easy to clean up the ensuing mess. And anyone who expects that a president can tame the random eruptions of frenzied mobs in faraway places is kidding themselves.

The swarming packs of young men in Cairo and Benghazi and Tunis and Beirut spend their days looking for any excuse to vent their deep frustrations and anger. This time around, the excuse was a ridiculously amateurish YouTube preview of a movie that may not even exist, made by a shadowy character who claims to be an Israeli Jew but may, in fact, be an Egyptian Coptic Christian.

The film clip's slanders of the prophet Muhammad may have been the spark that set off the wildfire of protest, but the underlying and perpetual causes of such violence are much deeper grievances -- some as contemporary as the chronic joblessness of young Arab men, some as ancient as the blood feuds between Muhammad's successors.

A long line of American presidents helped keep the lid on the seething antagonisms in Muslim lands by backing dictators who repressed both the best and worst impulses of their people. Now those strongmen are disappearing, one by one, and the lid has blown off. Our idealistic American hearts want to celebrate this burst of liberation, but our worried minds wonder if a whirlwind has been let loose.

Where I disagree with Horsey is the implication that American support for those dictators had nothing to do with our embassy employees becoming targets. In my opinion, they were natural targets for that very reason. That said, Horsey's conclusion, as hard as it is for Americans to swallow, rings true.

In the Islamic world, Americans are frequent targets, but we are neither the root cause of the region's trouble nor the magicians who can make all problems disappear. An American president can prod, manage, contain and intervene, but he can seldom transform. The people of the Middle East will have to do that for themselves. Only when they perceive that they are authors of their own agony will they become masters of their own fate.

The Caution Light Is On

Doyle McManus has a rather odd column posted this morning on the Obama administration's response to the turmoil in Egypt. On the one hand, he seems to be decrying the slow response of the White House to the events unfolding in Cairo, but at the same time he notes that American intervention in "bringing democracy" to other nations hasn't really worked out that well (as in Iraq and Afghanistan), so the caution is understandable.

In Egypt and elsewhere, the United States has tried to promote democracy and preserve stability at the same time, but when the two goals conflict — as they often do, at least in the short run — Washington has usually opted for stability first.

Even now, with Egypt in tumult, the Obama administration is trying to preserve whatever stability it can. The premier U.S. ally in the Middle East, Israel, is frantic at the prospect of an Egypt ruled by populists or Islamists who might turn hostile after three decades of peace. There is also the question of what message U.S. support for the demonstrators would send to its other allies in the region, most of which aren't shining examples of democracy. Kings in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, military strongmen in Yemen and Algeria want to know whether they are next, and whether their alliances with Washington will mean anything in the crunch. ...

In fact, the administration is still pursuing stability in Egypt rather than democracy at any cost. It has allied itself directly with the Egyptian military, not with ElBaradei or anyone else in the opposition. It's still aiming for an essentially conservative goal, an "orderly transition" to democracy overseen by the armed forces, which want to keep their privileges — and have no appetite for war with Israel, U.S. officials believe.

Implicit in this part of the argument is the historical policies of previous administrations. Stability at all costs, especially in the oil-rich countries (the Middle East and Latin America) has always been a goal, which in the past was frequently tied to anti-communism fervor. For Obama to suddenly withdraw all support from a dictator we've been propping up for decades would seem capricious and quite probably weak.

The old model is wearing thin, as we've discovered the past ten years: it hasn't bought us any real friends and has raised more than a few enemies. But going into another country with bombs and tanks to pull a dictator from his hidey-hole hasn't exactly been too productive either. I think this is the place where Barack Obama's caution begins to make a little sense.

While the US cannot forever shield despots for the sake of stability, it also cannot unilaterally determine what is best for another nation's citizens. McManus finally concludes essentially the same thing:

So it's fitting that the Obama administration is spending so much time being modest about its power to determine Egypt's future. It may be a useful argument, in that it shields the United States from bearing full responsibility for the outcome. But as Henry A. Kissinger used to say, it has the added advantage of being true.

Down The Drain

My visit to Watching America held a couple of surprises. The main one was that already the world press is examining the tinder box of the Middle East from the standpoint of American foreign policy in that region. Italy's La Stampa was especially harsh in its assessment of what the current turmoil may result in.

Right now the international media focus is on Egypt, but Tunisia, Lebanon, Yemen, and Jordan are also teeming with protests. The instability throughout the region is troubling not only the US, but Israel, for whom a lot of US policy has been shaped. That policy depended on cordial relations with Egypt and Jordan and at least polite relations with Syria and Lebanon. Now, with signs of a shift in power, especially in Egypt, decades old policies appear to be exhausted.

...the White House guarantees "U.S. support to those who demonstrate peacefully for freedom in Tunisia and Egypt." The truth is that, for America, the fall of the regime would mean the loss of the most important ally in the Arab world, with dramatic consequences for the whole picture of the Middle East. If the Muslim Brotherhood were to come to power in Cairo, they would hardly continue to participate in the international isolation of Hamas (who often invokes the "Brothers"). The unsafe position of Abu Mazen would get more and more unsustainable, and the same "cold peace" with Israel would be called into question.

So far, President Obama has been playing his cards close to his chest while he watches events unfold in Cairo. However, as the stakes go up and the violence increases, he's going to be hard pressed to continue the wait-and-see attitude.

The unfortunate part of all of this is that our decades old Middle East policies have effectively locked the current administration into a place from which the president cannot act boldly and may, in fact, be a place from which he cannot act at all without direct US intervention at the worst possible time.

The La Stampa article is pessimistic about the outcome of the various struggles now going on in the Middle East, and rightfully so.

Feeble And Pliant

As I've said several times in the past, there are several reasons I go over to Watching America each week. First of all, it's a good bet that I'll find information about the US there that I won't get in any American papers. Equally as important, however, is that those international articles give some indication of just how the US is viewed by friends and not-such-friends around the world on any given issue. It is the latter point that I was drawn to today.

This editorial in the Arab News (Saudi Arabia) assesses the latest state of the US-led peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel as an epic fail.

Washington’s decision that it will no longer attempt to persuade the Israelis to impose a new moratorium on settlement construction in order to restart peace negotiations is an abject and shocking admission of failure. Everyone knew that that the Americans had serious difficulties trying to persuade the Israelis to concede on this vital issue. But there was wide belief that an ingenious diplomatic formula could be devised to enable talks to go ahead. No one imagined that President Barack Obama would simply capitulate to the Israelis. That is what has happened. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to concede on the matter and, rather than try to use the financial and political force the US has to make him change his mind, Obama has thrown in the towel. Never in the history of US-Israeli relations has a US president been so feeble or so pliant. ...

The US response was also critical. It can no longer justify that position. The time has come for the Arab states, through the Arab League that meets in the next couple of days to respond to the American announcement, to formally tell the US that its Middle East policy is a failure. It should also tell it that since it is not prepared to help find a just and workable solution, it has forfeited any right to hinder attempts by others to do so. Washington will not like it, but it has abandoned all semblances of integrity and responsibility in the matter. [Emphasis added]

The descriptor "feeble and pliant" would apply to this president's domestic efforts as well as his diplomatic ones. Healthcare reform and the recent tax cut extension deals are prime evidence of that. But in the crucial Middle East arena, that approach could be cataclysmic in ways the president apparently has not considered. When Prime Minister Netanyahu refused to impose a moratorium on new settlements, the White House did have options to bring pressure to bear on the recalcitrant leader, chief of which was the ending of matching grants of military weapons. Instead, President Obama blinked. And then he shrugged and turned away, like a crippled old man just spat upon by a local thug.

The editorial calls upon the rest of the world to step in by formally recognizing the Palestine State with all that entails. It also calls upon the Arab League to step up and take the place of the US in the morass the peace talks have become. Since the US has shown such an unwillingness to challenge the current Israeli leadership, it should indeed step down. If it will not lead, then the least it can do is get out of the way.

A Sweet Deal

I've been neglecting Watching America the last few weeks because our national papers have had plenty to keep my blood pressure up. This week I ambled over, and I'm glad I did. I found an article from Junge Welt which makes it clear that one facet of our economy is booming: the weapons companies.

Recently, the Wall Street Journal published a huffy piece outraged that the US government was selling fighter jets and other armaments to Saudi Arabia. What the article didn't make clear was, first, that the George W. Bush administration had been selling armaments to Saudi Arabia, and second, that the material being sold were essentially upgrades to fighter planes sold to that country 30 years ago. The point the WSJ was trying to make is that poor Israel would now be doomed.

Of course, that is certainly not the case, and for several reasons. First, the Israeli government jawboned our government into agreeing that the F-15s being shipped to the Saudis would not be the top of the line, most up to date version of the fighter plane.

Second, and here's the real kicker:

...The planned deliveries, which have already begun, mean a win-win situation for the U.S. armaments industry: according to agreements already long in effect, the United States unconditionally and perpetually guarantees Israeli military superiority in the region. The deals with Arab states, therefore, automatically assure that Israel will receive additional counterbalancing weaponry, a part of which is paid for by American taxpayers. [Emphasis added]

But, wait! there's more!

The WSJ had to have known all of this, but as a favor to the Israeli government and to the armament industries, they proceeded to publish this piece filled with faux outrage, knowing that both the munition boys and the Israelis would win and win big with this bit of puffery:

In reality, it appears the reports were instigated by the WSJ in order to provide Israel justification for its own armaments wishes. Israel had planned to buy 75 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters -- a model already superior to the most modern version of the F-15 -- but, because of the high cost, currently it can only afford 20 of these aircraft. By publicizing the deal, the WSJ could be trying to toss a monkey wrench into the machinery so that Israel gets a larger number of F-35 aircraft, free of charge.

I would call this a win-win situation, except for one thing. Yes, Israel and the captains of that industry both make out like bandits. The taxpayers, however, aren't so lucky. We'll be picking up the tab for a bunch of fighter jets that our own government won't purchase because they are too damned expensive.

So, we're laying off teachers, people are losing their homes, unemployment benefits are running out for hundreds of thousands of people, but we're adding to the armaments of governments in the most volatile part of the planet.

Nope, no change here. I even looked under the refrigerator.

Balance

One of the real joys in following Watching America is that there is usually at least one article posted from the world press that captures an issue so well that I've had to shift my perspective to one more in touch with reality. This week there was such an article, this one from Spain.

“Israel will be the victim of geography and demography,” prophesied De Gaulle, indicating that Israel would not be able to resist the pressure of the surrounding Arab world, which has a much superior birth rate to its own. However, Israel has not only resisted both pressures but has accumulated victory after victory until it has converted itself into the premier power of the Middle East. No country in its surroundings, or all of them put together, can stand up to it.

That could carry Israel, paradoxically, to destruction. In order to continue using its power in all its forms and in occasions where it appears challenged, that same strength will turn against it. It is already happening. It is true that it would only take Israel’s enemies one battle to annihilate it, whereas Israel would have to eliminate all of them in order not to disappear. But in the global world in which we live, he who minds only his particular interests without keeping in mind those of the community will inevitably end up condemned to ostracism. Remember South Africa under apartheid. It is what Israel’s most sensitive spirits are warning against. [Emphasis added.]

While the logic is a bit murky, the essence of the portion cited is that if Israel is not reined in, either by cooler heads in Israel or by pressure bought to bear by the rest of the world (in particular, by the US), it will indeed have to stand alone if the Arab world should finally decide that enough is enough. South Africa managed to avert violence in the overthrow of the apartheid government, in part because the burden of economic and social sanctions simply became too much to bear. The question now, however, is whether that kind of universal sanctioning can be accomplished with Israel, given the history of US subversion of any attempt to punish Israel for its egregious behavior.

José María Carrascal, the author of this opinion piece, offers a tentative answer to that question, one that both sides of the conflict should take hope from:

In a global world, there are no individual solutions, and the Palestinian problem has been poisoning international relations since the division of that territory. It is this that is impeding the rapprochement of the West and the spread of moderate Islam, this that makes it impossible for the Palestinian Authority to control its people and this that has converted Gaza into a small fort controlled by Hamas, a terrorist organization. “The flotilla was aiming to break the Gaza blockade,” claimed the Israeli government in order to justify its commandos’ assault of it. But the problem comes precisely from having Gaza blockaded. In the 21st century, a million and a half people cannot be locked inside a ghetto. Today, Gaza is a powder keg ready to explode, to the satisfaction of extremists.

Israel believed that, with the backing of the United States, it could resist the harassment coming not only from the Arab world but also from the entire world. Until now it has achieved that, thanks to the carte blanche offered by all American presidents to defend itself. But the United States has other priorities than the defense of Israel, and Obama has already shown interest in a more well-balanced Middle East foreign policy. ...

Without that carte blanche, Israel would have to come to terms with its neighbors and would have to cease the collective punishment of the Palestinians for the murderous behavior of the extremists. That collective punishment, whether in the form of the blockade (see this LA Times article on the impact of the blockade on all of the Palestinians in Gaza) or in the simple day-to-day harassment of Palestinians at the border (see this post at Dohiyi Mir for evidence of just how petty, yet violent, the IDF can be), is only pushing the Palestinians into the camp of the violent and the neighboring nations into the camp of the hotheaded war makers.

Mr. Carrascal's concluding remarks summarize just what kind of balance has to be struck:

I would say that the first party interested in finding a just and balanced solution to the Palestinian problem is Israel. Then, we are. The Jews can never return to being a wandering people without rights or a homeland in the world. Neither can the Palestinians.

From you lips, Mr. Carrascal, to the world's ears.

Weak Tea

A day late and a dollar short: the left-of-center editorial board of the Los Angeles Times has continued its tradition of banality with respect to the Israeli murderous attack on the boats carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza.

As I did a few days ago, the editorial dutifully notes the he said-she said nature of the media coverage. It even calls for a real independent investigation into what actually happened. However, it appears to be treating the whole shameful episode as simply between Israel and Hamas and implying that there's not much the rest of the world can do beyond the exerting of some moral suasion.

In the days ahead, we need to learn what intelligence Israeli officials relied on in planning Operation Sea Breeze, why the operation was carried out in international waters, and what preparations were made for the obvious possibility that the commandos might meet resistance. We need to understand why a military that possesses tear gas and rubber bullets and other crowd-control tools couldn't find a way of defusing the situation short of shooting civilians dead with live ammunition.

Inevitably, the incident also will focus new attention on the blockade Israel has imposed on Gaza to isolate the Hamas government there. We agree with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that the blockade "creates unacceptable suffering, hurts forces of moderation and empowers extremists."

This page supports Israel's right to self-defense. We support reasonable measures to stop cross-border shelling and to keep weapons from illegally entering Gaza by land or sea. We oppose the Hamas government's consistent call for the destruction of Israel. But we also want to see an end to the blockade, which amounts to collective punishment of about 1.5 million Palestinians.

There is absolutely no mention of what beyond the tsk-tsking of the world needs to be done, especially by the chief enabler of this kind of atrocious Israeli behavior, the US. After billions of dollars in military aid and dozens of UN Security Council vetoes of any measure condemning Israeli behavior, the US still maintains its unswerving support of Israel, even in the face of this atrocity. I have yet to see any article reporting even the summoning of the Israeli Ambassador to the White House.

The editorial calls for the end of Israel's blockade of Gaza, which is a commendable sentiment, but it will remain just that -- a sentiment -- unless and until real pressure is brought against the Israeli government by the US. And that will happen only when real pressure is brought against the US government to take some bold steps, pressure which could be initiated by editorial boards of major newspapers.

Weak tea, indeed.

Another Vacation Piece

This is a post I wanted to repeat.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Prosecution Got a Conviction in Holy Land Foundation Trial
The prosecution succeeded, and that is the only way I can lead off on this embarrassing report. A jury of twelve Dallas residents believed a prosecution that I also witnessed, and handed down a conviction on all counts - of Muslim charities being directly supportive of Hamas after that group was declared a terrorist operation. I cannot say the defendants, including the Holy Land Foundation itself, were found guilty.

As I have reported, the courtroom procedure included allowing witnesses to testify without being identified because they were Israeli agents, allowing hearsay testimony in addition to both testimony and redirect that ranged into the territory of phantasmagorical, and a prosecution wrap-up that told jurors that they should rely on their memories instead of testimony and evidence, and that freedom of speech wasn't allowed if that speech showed bad feelings. Demonstrations against Israeli occupation were the main focus of the U.S. prosecution.

There will be an appeal, and recent overturning of a similar case in which the prosecution was allowed tactics that also ran into the unconstitutional range makes the prospects somewhat promising.

As I have previously reported, the local reports often gave prosecution contentions without balancing defense arguments, so I will give the al Jazeera report which contains both sides.

There is more of course, at the original post.

Say, What?

Writing a check with his mouth that his feet can't cash is nothing new for Joe Biden. He was famous for his irreverent and careless statements when he was a senator, but most people assumed that as Vice President he would be more circumspect because what he says will now be construed as White House policy. That's why his comments yesterday on ABC's "This Week" were so stunning. From the NY Times:

Plunging squarely into one of the most sensitive issues in the Middle East, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. suggested on Sunday that the United States would not stand in the way of Israeli military action aimed at the Iranian nuclear program.

The United States, Mr. Biden said in an interview broadcast on ABC’s “This Week,” “cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do.”

"Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," he said, in an interview taped in Baghdad at the end of a visit there.

The remarks went beyond at least the spirit of any public utterances by President Barack Obama, who has said that diplomatic efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear program should be given to the end of the year. But the president has also said that he is “not reconciled” to the possibility of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon — a goal Tehran denies. [Emphasis added]

Now, it is entirely possible that Vice President Biden had just lapsed into his old ways because he was tired. He spoke, after all, from Baghdad at the end of his trip to visit the troops and his son. If that was the case, he'll be facing a tongue lashing from another famous mouth, the one on Rahm Immanuel, for his failure of discipline, and we can expect a "clarifying" statement to issue from the White House.

However, even if the vice president's comments were not an expression of a stiffening policy from the White House, they might as well have been. The effect will potentially be the same: Israel will assume it has just been given a blank check to do what certain elements in that country have wanted to do for several years, launch an attack on suspected nuclear sites in Iran. Those elements are now in charge of the Israeli government, so such an attack is certainly not out of the question. That attack will be carried out with weaponry largely supplied by the US and paid for by US taxpayers, a fact that is well known by countries in that region and in the world.

Mr. Biden did include the standard White House line with respect to diplomatic engagement of Iran, reminding the Iranian leaders that the offer to talk is still on the table. President Obama, also speaking on Sunday, reiterated the preference for talks with Iran, as another NY Times article makes clear, but will that be enough to offset the free pass seemingly given to Israel?

That's still an open question, one that had better be answered in a hurry, if only through quiet diplomatic channels. If it isn't, we're in for more cowboy diplomacy, only this time it will involve a surrogate.

And that's not the kind of change that was promised.

That Victory

Free at last, free at last, thank Godalmighty, free at last!

U.S. troops pulled out of Baghdad on Monday, triggering jubilation among Iraqis hopeful that foreign military occupation is ending six years after the invasion to depose Saddam Hussein.

Iraqi soldiers paraded through the streets in their American-made vehicles draped with Iraqi flags and flowers, chanting, dancing and calling the pullout a "victory."

One drove a motorcycle with party streamers on it; another, a Humvee with a garland of plastic roses on the grill.

U.S. combat troops must pull out of Iraq's urban centers by midnight on Tuesday under a bilateral security pact that also requires all troops to leave the country by 2012.

All had left the capital by Monday afternoon, Major-General in Staff, Abboud Qanbar, head of Iraqi security forces in Baghdad, told Reuters.

Another Iraqi official who would not be named, said some units in cities outside Baghdad would leave at the last minute. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said 30 bases remained to be handed over. There are still some 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Addressing military leaders in Baghdad, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said: "Our sovereignty has started and ... we should move forward to build a modern state and enjoy security which has been achieved."

This isn't total freedom yet, for any of the parties to this disastrous war. That will take more time, and more working out handovers. It's a beginning though, and despite the violence that has broken out lately it is what we should have done long ago, second only to never starting the war in the first place.

The costs to all involved are so great, in so many areas, that it's hard to see how we will ever recover. The expense added immeasurably to our country's debts, and deprived this country of any number of programs that we now suffer the lack of. We will have the ill will of the Middle East for generations to come.

What The Rest Of The World Heard

Not surprisingly, President Obama's speech in Cairo was the focus of the majority of articles at Watching America, especially those articles from the Middle East press outlets. The range of opinions on what the US president said and what he meant was as wide outside the US as it was inside, and it is clear that international leaders are still poring over the speech, parsing each statement and even each word in order to discern the overall intention of the US with respect to that region.

The article that intrigued me the most was an editorial from Lebanon's Daily Star because it pointed out something I hadn't considered in my own analysis of the speech.

To measure the impact of such an innovative address, one even needs innovative tools, as well as time to digest it before completing the full evaluation. But we should remember the Cairo speech wasn't a show - it was an exercise in power politics of the first order. The credit here probably belongs to Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's chief of staff. Without Emmanuel, whose pro-Israeli sympathies can't be questioned, Obama wouldn't be taking on the pro-Israel lobby, whether on Palestine or Iran. Emmanuel has laid down a bruising challenge: come up with a better plan on these issues, or shut up.

Thus, Obama's speech wasn't a lightweight declaration of idealistic principles; it represented a country, through its innovative leader, speaking quietly and carrying a big stick. [Emphasis added]

Yes, given the venue from which the speech was delivered, it was intended to be heard by the Islamic world, but it was also intended to be heard by Israel. If the speech was more than rhetoric and was actually an introduction to President Obama's new policy for the Middle East, and especially for Palestine, then it portends a shift in US attitudes, one, in the eyes of the editorialist, that should be welcomed by the Arab nations.

Obama emphasized the down side of global interdependence, meaning today's problems have real-world impact for many countries. Moreover, interdependence is a two-way street: people here are being asked to drop their misperceptions, just as America under Obama's leadership is prepared to drop its own misperceptions.

The focus on partnership isn't rhetoric; it has a real-world impact. If countries in the rest of the world step up to the plate, they will find that they have a role to play in these global battles.

It won't be a perfect symmetry of roles, since no one has the clout of the United States. But if the game is played correctly, having a positive role to play in a fair international system is an outcome we can live with. To get there, we need to keep ourselves oriented toward the new, and the innovative, and remember the contrast we saw in Cairo this week, one between a new politics of hope and interdependence, and the old politics of despair and disappointment.

While it is too early to tell just how serious President Obama is about this new approach to the Middle East region, he at least has sent out preliminary signals to Israel that the US will not just accept whatever that tiny nation which is tied so tightly to the US by history and by a powerful lobby decides to do or not do. He has called for an end to new settlements in the West Bank, a call that must be making Prime Minister Netanyahu apoplectic. That in itself is evidence of change, the kind of change that is so needed if the US is to return to the role of honest broker in the region.

"Truth Is Relative" Doesn't Make It Incest

What, we can cut the cord now? If Pres. Obama keeps on like this, some one will discover that the country called U.S. of A. is not joined at the waist with Israel. In watching our Department of Justice work on the assumption that our security is gained by fighting against Palestinians in that conflict, against Palestinians' freedoms, I would say that's all to the good.

We will, as Dan Froomkin observes, do Israel a favor too, if we stop backing them in their indefensible positions. It is time for the Israelis to work with their neighbors. We cannot turn their neighbors pliable unless we all are working toward a reasonable settlement. That does not mean one of those places where Israelis occupy territory they can only claim by force.

President Obama's call for a "new dialogue" in the Middle East -- one in which the U.S. would be "honest" about what Israel has to do to achieve security -- is the clearest indication yet that the new administration is taking a dramatically different and much more assertive approach with its long-time ally.

Obama's comments indicate that he believes Israel has been indulged -- even deluded -- by previous administrations, to its own detriment. By contrast, this president's view seems to be that what Israel really needs is to be pushed into making the difficult concessions that are in its own long-term interests.

And Obama has been clear that the first concession Israel needs to make is to freeze the growth of Jewish settlements in the West Bank that both literally and figuratively set the occupation of Palestinian territories in concrete.

Stopping the growth of settlements -- not to mention dismantling them -- is a hugely sensitive political issue for Israelis, and and Israel's current right-wing leadership is already talking about defying Obama's request.

But on the eve of an overseas trip that will include a major address to the Muslim world from Cairo on Thursday, Obama is showing no signs of, as he would put it, "equivocation."

This has been a long time coming, and that has led to any number of conspiracy theories. While I would not clear the past maladministration of any war criminal charges, after the irresponsibility it has shown toward this country, I think that is one element we really can 'put behind' us.

The nation of Israel has a long way to go, and this country can be more help to them than it has been in the past, by applying and insisting on realistic treatment of other countries.

Some Evidence Of Change

This week's jaunt over to Watching America was another educational excursion. Some of the issues covered include China-US relations, Russia-US movement toward nuclear weapon reduction talks, the swine flu epidemic, and the recent visit of Benjamin Netanyahu to the US.

It was that last issue which I found most interesting because the television coverage I saw earlier this week (the post-meeting "smiley-faces") seemed to imply business as usual between the two countries. My assessment, according to the various articles posted, was wrong. President Obama's policy towards Israel and the Middle East just might be moving toward a more balanced view of that region and its number one problem, something Israel's new Prime Minister must not appreciate.

The article with what I found to be the most cogent analysis of that meeting came from Germany's Berliner Umschau. Written by James Kling (and translated by Watching America), the article has a concise and accurate summary of the complicated issues facing this administration: the two-state solution, right of return, settlements, Jerusalem, and Iran. For that summary alone, the article is worth the read.

What interested me more, however, is Mr. Kling's assessment of what appears to be a shift in approach by the US when it comes to Israel, a shift which just might be possible because of a change in opinion in America itself when it comes to Israel.

Barack Obama is the first American president in a long time to acknowledge that America’s interests don’t necessarily always coincide with Israel’s, and that Israel’s latest hard-line government is now actually acting against America’s interests in the Near East. That fact was brought home to Israel’s new prime minister of six weeks when he visited Obama in Washington. ...

...Because Israel owes its very existence to the U.S., America can’t very well turn its back on it. If an American president were to even consider doing so, he would be committing political suicide. The pro-Israeli American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) openly admits to being a pro-Israel lobby, and it has enormous influence. More importantly, Obama would be unable to count on the Democratic Party, because many members of Congress would be running the risk of losing their seats in the next election if they supported him.

Gradually, however, the atmosphere is changing. People within the government now realize that it is America’s one-sided support for Israel that makes any agreement with the Arabs impossible. And things are changing across the nation itself: If the most recent opinion polls are accurate, a majority of Americans no longer sees U.S.-Israeli interests as congruent; they support a two-state solution, they support the right of return for displaced Palestinians (or at least compensation for them) and they are in favor of allowing Hamas to take part in peace negotiations.

If Mr. Kling is correct, and I do hope he is, President Obama has a real opportunity to move the difficult process along without being seen as sacrificing Israel's very existence. What it will take is real leadership, but, even with all my complaints with Mr. Obama as expressed here since January, I believe he has that quality. He certainly has the right policy team for the issue. Both Secretary of State Clinton and Middle East envoy George Mitchell have the chops for the job and the ear of the President, something that can't be said for the last administration.

So, yes. I am hopeful. I am also cautiously optimistic.

That Other Part of the World

Though I have little to say about his term, Poppy Bush got it right when he decided the costs and side effects of fighting in the Middle East were too high to commit this country to war. We know now that it galled the warmongers in his executive branch, and they gnashed teeth and plotted until they got the chance to pop themselves into those costs and side effects, at the expense of the U.S. We know they proved he was right, though that can't give him any satisfaction.

Among the many other problems the maladministration just departed left for the current president are its wars. The way that President Obama is approaching changing the nature of our action there is encouraging, in my view. Today an op-ed by David Ignatius expresses guarded optimism, something I share as well.

The Obama administration is preparing a broad stage for Middle East diplomacy stretching from the Palestinians to Syria to Iran. It's a supremely ambitious agenda, and before the curtain goes up, Obama should explore his options and risks carefully.

By seeking to engage all the major actors in the Middle East at once, Obama is pursuing a general settlement of tensions in a dangerously unstable region. That's intriguing and also worrying for countries in the Middle East. It makes Saudis and Israelis -- not to mention Iranians and Syrians -- nervous.
(snip)
Arabs and Israelis are equally nervous about Obama's opening to Iran. Both fear being sold out by Obama in his eagerness for Iranian help in stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel's new prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, put down his marker on Iran last week in a tough interview with the Atlantic: Either you stop the Iranian nuclear problem, or we will.

The Saudis, Egyptians and other Sunni Arab countries have been sending Obama a similar message. "We don't want a war with Iran," says one Saudi source. "But we are asking whether a U.S.-Iranian understanding will recognize our interests, or will it be at our expense?" The Saudis hope that if Obama's charm offensive toward Iran fails, it will be followed by tough action. "He's building a case against Iran," predicts the Saudi source.

That captures an idea that the previous maladministration never seemed to be able to conceive, that by inserting ourselves into one or the other country of the Middle East we are making a statement to every other country in the area. The ability to handle more than one thought at a time, and an aversion to bumper sticker slogan communication, is promising in itself. The ability of this administration to work on difficult problems with the best interests of this country in mind as an ideal is absolutely thrilling.

Without the simple abandonment that President Nixon committed in Vietnam, the president shows his inclination to do what he can to help the invaded countries put back together working governments, then leave.

It's way overdue but he has gained a good deal of respect for the way he's going about it from a lot of the countries of the world. With support at least in principle - and he appears to have some - we can begin to undo the damage done by eight years of criminal misconduct.

The Obama Middle East Policy

In my usual weekend trip to Watching America, I noticed some shift in the subject matters offered at the site. There were still a lot of articles on the world economy and President Obama's tactics here in the US, but there were several articles on his foreign policies. Especially interesting were those dealing with the Middle East and Secretary of State Clinton's announcement that Iran would be invited to talks on Afghanistan (see my post from earlier this week).

One in particular noted the recent visits of various members of the Middle East team assembled by the US president, including those of Sec. Clinton and Special Envoy George Mitchell. Written by Ayman El-Amir for Egypt's Al-Ahram Weekly, the article describes the strategy President Obama appears to be using in this explosive part of the world and suggests what one of the key stumbling blocks will be.

With all Middle East complex issues on the table, the administration in Washington seems to realise two things: there is no leading Arab power it can engage to address all issues, and that all political and security tracks point to Tehran, which the US is inviting to a planned international conference on Afghanistan as an opening gesture of engagement. So, it would seem its strategy would be to separate the tracks and tackle each one individually, starting from the periphery and gradually moving towards the core. For Syria, confidence-building and the restoration of relations would mark a good start, now that Syria has redefined its relations with Lebanon on the basis of mutual sovereignty and is willing to cooperate with the international tribunal to try suspects in the assassination of Al-Hariri. For Hamas, the reconstruction of Gaza, a national unity government and a long-term ceasefire with Israel could be prelude to reviving negotiations towards a final settlement. The only obstacle will be the anticipated policies of the hardcore right-wing government that is expected in Israel. For the future of Palestinian and Lebanese resistance, the option could be held in abeyance pending the progress of negotiations. After all, in negotiating peace in Northern Ireland, George Mitchell did not insist that the Irish Republican Army lay down its weapons as a precondition for uncertain negotiations.

No matter how much the new US strategy will manage to segment the issues, it would seem that all tracks lead to Tehran. As a rising regional power, Iran has vital interest and varying degrees of involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, Lebanon, heavy US military presence in the Gulf and Israel's appetite for expansion and domination of the region. The US hopes that by disconnecting Syria from Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas and the Palestinian problem through a settlement of the Golan Heights issue, the supporting lifeline to Palestinian and Lebanese resistance will dry up and Iranian influence will diminish. Iran would then be isolated and left at the mercy of US and Israel, loyally followed by the European Union. This is easier said than done since it means that Syria could not make such choices without suffering serious destabilising domestic and regional repercussions. ...

For the Obama administration, the most serious challenge is not Syria, Hamas or Hizbullah but Israel, its closest Middle East ally. Israel wants territorial expansion as well as peace based on military pre-eminence and US pressure on the Arabs and the distraught Palestinians. To this end, Israel perceives Iran's development of nuclear technology as a mortal threat, not because Iran will inevitably produce nuclear weapons but because its rise represents a military deterrence to Israeli military supremacy in the region. In this sense, Israel should be the priority target of the Obama Middle East strategy. The problem is that both Israel and the US know well the limits of any effective pressure the administration can bring to bear on its close ally, compared to that it can exercise on its vulnerable Arab interlocutors. [Emphasis added]

Mr. El-Amir is very perceptive in his analysis, especially with respect to Israel. President Obama has already been burned by the powerful Israel lobby when one of his appointees had to withdraw because of his past critical comments on that country and its practices. Unfortunately, unless US pressure is brought to bear on Israel so that no further invasions of Lebanon or Palestinian territories are made and further settlement expansions in the Golan Heights and Gaza are stopped, the main sticking point in any Middle East stabilization will remain.

Hopefully Mr. Obama understands this and there will be some real change in how we deal diplomatically with this part of the world.

Talking Diplomacy

While most of the nation is concentrating on the economy and the unremitting stream of numbers (the Dow Jones Average, unemployment and quarterly earnings reports), occasionally some good news quietly seeps into view from another area. I admit to a sense of relief when it comes to some of the diplomatic moves the Obama administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have made recently.

The latest such good news has to do with Iran. No, Iran has not backed down on the nuclear issue thanks to Sec. Clinton's efforts, but it's clear that this administration realizes that Iran is a key player in the Middle East, primarily because of the ill-advised and illegal invasion of Iraq by the prior administration. The Obama foreign policy team has obviously taken notice of that fact and have found an excellent way to begin a dialogue with that nation.

From a Boston Glove editorial:

ULTIMATELY, the nuclear issue will make or break the dialogue that President Obama wants to open with Iran. But Obama has chosen the right place to test the possibilities for US-Iranian cooperation. This was the significance of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent acknowledgement that Iran is to be invited to "a big-tent meeting with all the parties who have a stake and an interest in Afghanistan."

Iran has supported anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan and is suffering greatly from the cross-border smuggling of opium grown in Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan. It makes sense to begin the US-Iran dialogue where shared interests are clear and past cooperation was fruitful. [Emphasis added]

A diplomacy which does not start and end with military power is a refreshing change and evidence that sanity has returned to US foreign policy. Finding common ground on issues and working mutually to resolve those issues gives both parties some confidence that other, thornier issues can also be handled. The nuclear issue is not going to be easily resolved, but at least now there are some grounds for hope.

At the same time, such a shift in how issues will be handled by the US has no doubt been noticed by the rest of the world. I'm sure everyone must be breathing a bit easier.

The Whole World Still Is Watching

For those of you who weren't around during the Kent State Massacre, and who haven't read on it since then, 'The Whole World Is Watching' dates to that event, when Ohio State National Guardsmen shot rock throwing students to death during protests against the Vietnam War.

At Davos, Switzerland, the Prime Minister of Turkey left in a protest against Israel's war on Palestinian civilians in the Gaza massacre, later stating that the wholesale slaughter of civilians isn't acceptable, and won't be overlooked, by the international community. He is receiving a lot of appreciation for his stance, and his choice of an international forum with world press on hand, to make his protest.

Turkey's PM has received a hero's welcome on his return to Istanbul after he stormed out of a debate about Gaza at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan had reacted angrily when he was refused the chance to respond to Israeli President Shimon Peres' defence of the operation

Thousands of people turned out in the city to greet Mr Erdogan's plane.

He told them Mr Peres' language and tone had been unacceptable, so he acted to stand up for Turkish honour.

"I only know that I have to protect the honour of Turkey and Turkish people," said Mr Erdogan.

"I am not a chief of a tribe. I am the prime minister of Turkey. I have to do what I have to do."

The BBC's Sarah Rainsford in Istanbul said there had been huge anger in Turkey at Israel's operation in Gaza and there now appears to be widespread support for Mr Erdogan's actions in Davos.
(snip)
He then accused the moderator of not allowing him to speak and said he did not think he would return to Davos.

The stance of the U.S. has supported Israel for the slaughter, on the grounds that continued rocket firing into Israel by Hamas has to be shut down by wholesale massacre. There has been use of bunker busting bombs and white phosphorous, with more than a thousand civilian deaths and uncounted numbers of injuries.

The number of deaths in Israel due to the Hamas-fired Qassam rockets from Gaza had reached 16 in June of 2008, according to the Israel Project, a nongovernmental group.

Teach The Children Well

It's all over but the shouting, at least that is what the media and Israeli PR flacks would have you believe. Gaza is quiet now. There are no bombs falling on mosques, schools, and houses. There are no tanks rumbling through the streets. It's over.

Or is it.

Mosques, schools, and houses can be rebuilt. Streets can be repaired. Food and medical supplies can be trucked in. Reliable electricity and safe water can be turned back on, sooner or later. The generosity of the rest of the world can see to that.

Unfortunately, more will be needed. Much more. From today's NY Times:

The boys clapped and sang to pulsating music. They played games and shouted. It could have been a group activity at any school in any place, but this was the middle school in the Jabaliya refugee camp in Gaza, near where the United Nations says some 40 people were killed by Israeli mortar fire earlier this month.

Saturday was the first day of school since before the war, and 1,000 homeless people had been removed from the building so that classes could begin.

Even then, normal schoolwork had to wait. A team trained in trauma and group activities was running the assembly, and after the singing and clapping, there was a play devoted to how to handle dangerous materials, like shell parts, still in or near homes. Later, each pupil described what had happened to him and to his friends and family in Israel’s 23-day war aimed at stopping Hamas’s rockets.

“They are not ready to learn yet,” said Asem Bajah, an English teacher, as he watched the singing. “And I am not ready to teach.” [Emphasis added]

Oh, I think they've already learned. I think they have learned lessons no child should ever have to. That's part of the tragedy of armed conflict, the part conveniently overlooked when governments decide they need to get their war on.