Silence Is Golden?

Maybe. And maybe not:

"If I were Obama, I wouldn't want to talk about it either. Frankly, it's a lot more comfortable to let this one hang on the president," said Edward Walker Jr., who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel from 1997 to 1999.

"I don't think he wants to be tagged at this point with either advocating the Israeli response or condemning it because our (U.S.) interests are sort of torn on this one," added Walker, an analyst with the Middle East Institute think tank.

Pro-Israeli comments by Obama risk upsetting the Arab world even before he takes office. Comments that seem critical of Israel would anger its American supporters.

Rock, meet hard place. It's not that Obama doesn't care about what's going on in the region, or that he doesn't have an opinion. Indeed, he's voiced foreign policy opinions before this (specifically on the Mumbai attacks) but these have hardly been statements of ongoing policy or binding opinions. In Israel, he would be held accountable after he takes office. Silence seems to be golden.

 

Presumably, the uptick in violence in the Gaza region is deliberate. Israelis and Palestinians both have a reason to test Obama's foreign policy from day one, given the crazy rumours that abounded when Obama was a candidate: Obama is secretly Muslim, will take the oath on the Koran, that sort of stuff.

 

You see, the problem with the Big Lie (via Goebbels) is that someone will believe it, no matter how insane the rumour is, and usually that someone is insane enough to take innocent people with him. In a situation as incendiary as Israel and Palestine, it only takes one crackpot to set off the entire region. Ask Ariel Sharon.

 

Right now, on this issue as on so many issues that Obama is faced with, his demeanor must be that of the horseshoe crab: apparent immobility from above, but if you flip one over the feet are scurrying like mad. My guess is Obama has people in the Middle East on fact-finding missions to try to determine the extent of the problem and that he is receiving the same daily briefings that Commanderguy is getting.

 

Which leads to silence NOT being golden. I also get the sense, given Obama's desire to hit the ground running, that he has people not only finding fact, but expressing reassurances and leaving impressions of precisely what he plans to do. I would not want to start my Presidency with this hanging over my head and have to play catch up with the Israeli and Palestinian governments, such as it is.

 

One can only guess at what Obama's thoughts are, and he's been shrewd to show his hand only to those who really need to see it.

 

Personally, my solution would probably be as simple as the following: Reassure Israel that America stands ready to defend her interests, however, make it perfectly clear that readiness is predicated on Israel finding the strength within her to begin negotiations in earnest with the Palestinians and other antagonistic parties. I would suggest this was precisely the stance that Bill Clinton took and he came as close to finding peace in the Middle East as any president.

 

You see, it's been decades since American interests were aligned completely with Israeli interests. Indeed, the OPEC embargoes of 1973 and 1979 were in large part retaliations against America for her support of Israel. The Arabic world couldn't beat Israel on the field of battle, so the battle was bought into the oilfields.

 

That America resisted the urge to jump ship and take our economic interests with us has never really been properly appreciated by Israel or her champions here in America, I think. Nonetheless, as it turns out, support for Israel has other facets to it, from a strategic point of view, that make having Israel a firm ally important. One very important reason is stability. Imagine if we had jumped ship and sided with Egypt under Nasser, or Syria. Or Iran. Or Iraq, for that matter.

 

The violence must stop. The slaughters on both sides of civilians must end. Now. One can only hope that Barack Obama will be the President to do just this.

The "Hail Mary" Pass

You're going to read a lot over the next few days about Bush's courage in tackling the Middle East peace process.

Keep in mind that this issue was supposed to be settled with the establishment of a stable democracy in Iraq, that Iraq's neighbors would somehow, mirabile dictu, gaze in wide wonder at the sight of the Sunni lions lying with the Shi'a lambs, beat their swords into plowshares and study war no more, accepting Israel as brethren in Abraham.

Yea, how's that working out?

So, in Annapolis today, we see the start of phase two of Bush's foreign policy: If you can't beat 'em, bore 'em.

Mr Bush said in prepared remarks ahead of the Maryland conference that the aim of the meeting was to launch talks, not conclude an agreement.

Mr Bush is hoping to find a solution before he leaves office in early 2009.

(parenthetically, I wonder if this was how he pulled Gentleman C's in college and grad school: waiting until the last possible minute, then cramming?)

In remarks prepared for delivery to the diplomats and representatives from more than 40 countries and international organisations, Mr Bush said the goal of creating a Palestinian state to co-exist in peace alongside Israel would not be easy.

"Such a state will provide Palestinians with the chance to lead lives of freedom, purpose and dignity," Mr Bush said in the statement released by the White House.

"And such a state will help provide Israelis with something they have been seeking for generations: to live in peace with their neighbours."

...except that Hamas was distinctly not invited to the meeting, and Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, which for all intents and purposes is the major sticking point to a dual state in the region.

*Ahem*

In fairness to Bush he is downplaying the importance of this summit, but his true ambitions are obvious from the fact that over 40 interest regional and world leaders are sitting in on the talks, including China, Russia and much of the EU. He's not doing this just to talk about talks about talking.

Had this been 2003, and we were not tied up in a horrible invasion of Iraq, I'd give him a fifty-fifty chance of succeeding. I simply don't see how a rushed solution to problems that have existed for thousands of years is going to be either effective or long-lived. The enormous pressure he can bring to bear on Israel and some of the surrounding nation-states can make them bend to his will, grudgingly, but to get the Palestinians, particularly Hamas, to agree to terms is beyond ludicrous.

They're not stupid. They have calendars, and they know Al Gore won the Peace Prize this year, so they understand Bush's self-aggrandisement in this matter and the urgency he is under. They'll ask the moon, and when they don't get it, they'll stomp their feet and lob a few shells into Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.

I expect there will be lots to talk about before they even get to the peace process:

1) Three Gazans die in Israel strike

2) US fire kills Iraq bus passengers

3) Putin says US behind poll boycott

Given Bush's history in foreign affairs, things will deteriorate to the point where he could have done better by steering clear of the entire situation.

And we'll pay that tab, too, when the time comes.

Praying The Problem Goes Away

And just in time for Bush's "legacy" to kick in. Condoleeza Rice is trying to undo the damage of eight years of Bush neglect:

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice joined Israeli and Palestinian leaders on Monday in voicing hope they could reach a peace agreement before President George W. Bush leaves office in January 2009.

But wrapping up two days of talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, she again gave no date for a U.S.-led conference which all parties have said would serve as a launching pad for statehood negotiations.

Rice said only that the meeting, in Annapolis, Maryland, would take place "before the end of the year".

She offered no details on how Israel and the Palestinians might settle their deep divisions over core issues they have pledged to tackle after the conference: borders and the future of Jerusalem and millions of Palestinian refugees.

When we last saw a light at the end of the tunnel, Bill Clinton was President.

"The. Greatest. President. Ever." had a solution pretty nearly in hand, and had Yassir Arafat signed off on it, who knows where we'd be today?

Having chosen to leave this flashpoint and focus of anger alone to sort itself out until recently (turning their attention towards the ill-fated invasion of Iraq), the Bush administration had allowed things to get way out of hand before stepping in to try to settle things out.

And now? Well, saying peace is on "a wing and a prayer" is probably wishful thinking on our part. Yes, things have been quieter than they ever have been in this century. In 2003, the Bush administration, in a backhanded slap at both sides, negotiated a "road map" to peace, yet failed to insist in immediate implementation from either side, much less both sides.

Indeed, if anything, both sides have moved the goal posts back a bit with their actions in the wake of this agreement: Israel, rather than withdraw settlements, has done nothing to stop the expansion of some, and the Palestinians, rather than securing the border with Israel, have forced Israel to build walls and fences in some places.

Not good.

Other key aspects of the Middle East policy that the Bushies have pursued have also either frozen in place (like democratic reforms in regimes like Saudi Arabia or Syria) or backpedaled (the current crisis in Pakistan is a good example).

And now, Condi Rice believes that she can somehow wrangle cats into a line in less than fourteen months.

One suspects someone in the policy shop at the White House was watching too many episodes of The West Wing's sixth season.

Hey, I guess if you can't be President Bill Clinton, you can at least pretend to be his TV character!

Why You Need To Give A Shi'ite

Two stories, seemingly only tangentially related, share something in common:

GAZA (Reuters) - Hamas Islamist gunmen pressed on with their Gaza offensive on Wednesday, killing eight fighters loyal to Western-backed President Mahmoud Abbas in a Palestinian supremacy struggle escalating steadily into civil war.

"What is happening in Gaza is madness," Abbas, the Fatah leader, told reporters in the occupied West Bank after meeting a foreign diplomat.

...and...

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Suspected al Qaeda militants blew up two minarets of a revered Shi'ite mosque in the Iraqi city of Samarra on Wednesday, targeting a shrine bombed last year in an attack that unleashed a wave of sectarian killing.

Fearing renewed bloodshed, Iraq's government imposed an indefinite curfew in Baghdad as Shi'ite and Sunni political and religious leaders called on their followers to remain calm.

A grim mood descended on the capital as people hurried home before the start of the curfew. Police said gunmen set fire to a Sunni mosque in Baghdad's southwestern Bayaa district.

The internal struggle in Gaza (Palestinian) and the internal conflict in Iraq are both pitting Sunni versus Shia. Hamas is Sunni. Abbas, and by extension, Fatah (which despite being led by terrorists in its own right, is considered moderate) is also Sunni, but is more tolerant of Shi'a, having been educated mostly in Syria and Egypt with large Shi'a and Sufi populations.

And of course, the Iraqi attacks yesterday hearken back to a year ago, when another mosque in Samarra, the Al Askari mosque, was devastated by Sunni attackers, setting off the sectarian violence of the past year.

We here in America have long been focused on the internal conflict between Sunni and Shi'a in Iraq (the Kurds have been fortunately content to sit and wait it all out), but the trouble in Gaza, as well as last year's siege by Israel of Lebanon, speak of a broadening of this internal religious struggle into a full-blown regional war.

Good for the US? Maybe, but probably not. Remember, we still have Israel to protect for its strategic value as a toehold in the Middle East (especially now that Iraq is disintegrating before our eyes), Saudi Arabia would undoubtedly be called upon to reinforce the Sunni side, being very strict Sunni Wahabists. Iran would then be forced to shore up the Shi'a forces, putting Iran in conflict with Saudi Arabia, effectively cutting off Middle Eastern oil to the west by closing down the Persian Gulf.

Hm. Not good. We would at the very least be called into to keep the combatants apart, and more likely, take on Iran directly as proxy for the Sauds.

Really not good.

A year ago, I might have suggested that cooler heads will prevail, but with the cracked and broken US Army in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the failure of the Army to meet already pretty liberal recruiting goals even before Gates implements his increase in the size of the army, we're pretty fresh out of manpower to fight Iran, and Iran knows this. We might still be able to stem the tide diplomatically.

If we actually had an administration that had a diplomat available.

Here We Go Again

The linkage between this story and Iraq is immistakable to all but the morons who support both:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip -- Israeli planes pounded Hamas targets and rival Palestinian factions exchanged bursts of automatic weapons fire outside Gaza City's Islamic University Friday. The volatile mix of Israeli strikes and Palestinian infighting plunged Gaza deeper into chaos.

Five Palestinians were killed in a single airstrike by Israel, which said it was responding to Hamas rocket attacks on southern Israel -- a campaign that showed no sign of subsiding Friday. Hamas fired three rockets at the town of Sderot, where three people were injured by shrapnel and several others were treated for shock.

First, I'm not suggesting Israel sit back and allow Hamas to lob missiles into the south (although that plan might merit a little consideration, since decades of returning fire seems doesn't seem to be doing much).

I want to focus on another aspect of this story, one that isn't getting much coverage. There has been, I believe, a deliberate confusion in the coverage of the Middle East, a "no forest for the trees" aspect.

When a painter paints a picture, he tries to make sure that he has as much detail as he possibly can in his landscape, to bring a sense of reality to his image. This means getting in close, and being precise.

But the painter takes a step back every so often to look at the totality of his work. Likewise, I think the United States has to do this when it comes to the Middle East, as well.

There is a strategy being deployed, of course, no matter what the underlying stimulus is. It's fairly obvious that, in an attempt to extend hegemonic influence over the Middle East, the US is trying to impose western democracy on an eastern culture. This requires, demands, the unconditional support of Israel, as well as the continued torture of Iraq as a sovereign entity.

To assume, however, the United States and her allies (such as they are) are the only combatant with a regional strategy is foolish. I believe that the Muslim world sees a strategic opportunity now to chip away at American influence in the region and destroy Israel in one fell swoop.

In this, they have an enormous advantage and a tool that America has shown little effectiveness fighting against.

The advantage is outnumbering and outflanking Americans and Israelis. Strategic positions in the region are completely controlled by Muslims, and even if by some miracle, we were to succeed in establishing a functioning democracy that treated everyone fairly in Iraq, this would not change, and it wouldn't be long after we tore down our tents that Iraq would be inundated with other armies, much like Saigon after the Vietnam war.

The tool the Muslims have, which is an outgrowth of this regional strategic advantage, is mobility.

We've seen this employed already in Iraq. Bush "surges" in Baghdad, so the insurgency maintains some constant pressure there to pin down the surge, and then opens up new attacks in Anbar, Basra, and the Kurdish territories.

If you study the Israel-Hamas/Hizbollah conflict of the past few years, this is precisely what is happening in Israel: a continual pounding of the Israeli borders, probing for weaknesses. And eventually, they will find one.

One other note about Iraq and how our failures there will effect Israel: as with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s repelled by the mujahedin, the insurgency is taking much comfort over the fact that, right now, they're running even with the vaunted American army, the greatest military force in the history of the planet.

Does anyone, in or out of the White House, not see the implications of this? I mean, it is happening already, to be sure, but what's to stop Al Qaeda and its allies (and whatever power is supplying support) from pulling the same tactics in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and the Golan Heights?

Nothing.

So long as no particular state can be associated with the violence and attacks, there will literally be a billion people signing up for suicide bombing runs, and planting IEDs, and firing upon Israeli civilians, because what's the United States going to do? Occupy Israel as badly as they've occupied Iraq?

I think by looking at this analysis in the harsh light of day, we can begin to grasp why there is this sense of desperation about Iraq fomenting throughout the White House: if they screw this up, if they can't find a strategy to defeat the insurgency that can be transported to Israel, then not only will they have lost Iraq, but they would go down in history as the administration that lost Israel, as well.

Ironic, considering the fact that among the neo-cons who proposed this debacle are several staunchly pro-Israel Jews...

A Gutsy Move

I like calculated risks, especially when they have ancillary benefits for us:

DAMASCUS (Reuters) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Wednesday she gave Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a message from Israel that the Jewish state was ready for peace talks.

"(Our) meeting with the president enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister (Ehud) Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well," Pelosi told reporters in Damascus after talks with Assad.

"Peace in the Middle East is a high priority ... We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He was ready to engage in negotiations (for) peace with Israel," Pelosi added.

Syria's peace talks with Israel, centered on normal ties in return for the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, collapsed in 2000. An Arab summit last month revived a land-for-peace offer to Israel.

So in one fell swoop, Pelosi was able to accomplish something that Condoleeza Rice and President Bush have been unable to achieve in six years (really only three years of effort once they realized Iraq was not going to be a beacon of democracy for the Middle East, but who's counting?). She has commitments from two sides in the multipronged Arab-Israel debate over securing Israel's permanent status.

Not bad for being in office for three months.

Naturally, you might imagine this was not viewed with loving and adoring eyes on the part of the White House:

The White House said Pelosi's visit sent the wrong message to the Syrian leader.

Right. It says, "We think you have some part to play in helping make this a reality." Whether one agrees with this or not, one cannot deny that Syria is aiding the terrorist movement against Israel, via Lebanon and Hezbollah. To deny them a seat in the discussions would be pointless. Like it or not, they've earned it, and would do anything in their power to derail any such agreement negotiated without them.

It is, of course, a typical Republican corporatist ploy to exclude the very people affected in talks about the future. Just look at how workers in America are treated.

There is an ancillary benefit to these talks Pelosi is holding: they allow America to recapture some credibility with the world, and to show the rest of humanity that we are not all "Bushies", that cooler heads can prevail, and that eventually, we can wrest this country back from the magical children that run it now (and badly) and straighten our course out.

Or, to put it as diplomatically as Pelosi did:

Pelosi has shrugged off the White House's criticism of the trip, saying it was a good opportunity to gather facts and build confidence.

Too, Pelosi's visit also puts Syria on notice that, while Bush and his administration have low regard for them, we as a nation recognize that Syria is behind many if not most of the insurgent attacks in Iraq, and we can deal with those using either the carrot or the stick.

I think it was Abraham Maslow who said that when you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, which is a fairly low level of self-actualization for a human, and indicates stunted personal growth.

That works for nations, as well. The United States is oddly schizophrenic in many ways, making great strides forward in one moment, backsliding into childhood and adolescent fantasies the next. Pelosi's visit reminds us that we can do well in this world by doing sublime acts, and staying away from the ridiculous.

Nancy Pelosi
Syria
Israel
Middle East
Bush

A Different Kind Of Diplomacy

I'm guessing negotiations reached some sort of impasse:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel has recalled its ambassador in El Salvador after he was found drunk and naked with sex toys lying nearby in the yard of his official residence, Israeli media reports said on Monday.

A foreign ministry spokeswoman confirmed that the ambassador, Tsuriel Raphael, was recalled but offered no details. "The ministry sees his behavior as unbecoming of a diplomat," the spokeswoman said.

Israeli media reported that local police found Raphael in the yard of the official residence in San Salvador. The reports said he was drunk, naked, and bound and gagged with a rubber ball in his mouth and sex toys lying near him.

Clearly, this is an example that America might consider trying. Just imagine Condoleeza Rice speaking with Iranian President Ahmedinejad...

I Got A Bad Feeling About This

Maybe I'm wrong. I probably am. I certainly hope I am. But it's late Friday as I write this, in the Middle East, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. The Muslim holy day is nearly done, when:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli police forces entered the area around Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem and fired stun grenades at stone-throwing Palestinian worshippers in clashes at the end of Friday prayers.

Muslim leaders had called for protests over excavations near Islam's third holiest shrine. Arab states had asked Israel to halt the work, charging it could undermine the foundations of Al-Aqsa. Israel says the work will do no damage.

A police spokesman at the scene said 15 policemen and nine protesters had been lightly injured in the clashes. Seventeen people were arrested, some of them in the streets outside Jerusalem's Old City walls.

Keep in mind that this clash comes just ahead of the Jewish Sabbath. While there is no prohibition against warfare during that time (and Israelis took pains to ensure the clash took place after prayers marking the day), such an inflammation comes at a particularly inopportune moment in our process to sort out the Middle East (as wrong-headed as that procedure is).

The Al-Aqsa mosque and it's location have a pretty strong history for all three major religions of the region, and ranks just behind Mecca and Medina in Islamic lore. It is, in fact, the Dome of the Rock/Temple Mount, where, in 2000, Ariel Sharon destroyed the burgeoning Israeli/Palestinian peace process back when Ehud Barak was Prime Minister and Bill Clinton was President. Jews believe biblical King Solomon built the first temple there 3,000 years ago. This is the temple that must be rebuilt, according to Rapture lore, in order for Jesus to return and the end times to commence. It was also alleged to be the spot where Jesus drove the moneychangers out (thus establishing His credentials as a spiritual Communist). Muslims believe the Prophet Mohammad ascended into heaven from the spot during a night journey to Jerusalem.

Could there be a more inflammatory place for Israelis to stir up trouble, particularly since in 1984, Israel uncovered a plot by a group of Jews to blow up Al-Aqsa mosque so that a new temple could be built? That would be the second attempt to destroy the mosque (in 1969, an Australian Christian tourist tried burning it down in an attempt to bring the Second Coming, thus kicking off the worldwide Rapturist movement). In 1996, Israeli archaeologists attempted to tunnel under the mosque for, by all rational accounts, historical purposes, but instead set off a flash of violence that saw 65 Arabs and 15 Israeli soldiers dead.

And now this: according to the AP, the excavations are being done in conjunction with the repair of an earthen ramp to the mosque. Such excavations are required by Israeli law in order to ensure that no historical (and holy) sites are disturbed by the construction.

However, Muslims see the excavations as an attempt by the Israelis to prove that the Temple Mount is, in fact, Jewish first, Muslim second and therefore should be turned over to the Israeli government. It is currently administered, with Israeli concurrence, by the Islamic Waqf, a trust that oversees the site.

The Palestinians are already in a mini-civil war as factions of Hamas and Fatah wrestle for control of the parliament, making Mahmoud Abbas, a Fatah member and President of Palestine, a rather lame duck for the time being. This can't be helping matters any.

Too, an attack viewed by Muslims across the region as an attack on the mosque itself by Jewish soldiers can only have repercussions and reprisals in Iraq and Afghanistan, particulaly coming at the end of the week's holy day. Imagine St. Patrick's Cathedral being shot up at the end of 11 o'clock mass to get a better feel for this story.

Already, three American soldiers were reported killed in Iraq on Friday, bringing the toll for the past three days to 14. Worse, American forces killed 8 Kurdish soldiers, a group we had hoped would be our allies, even after we screwed them so badly after Gulf War I, a group we hoped would send troops to help us out in Baghdad.

Like I said, I got a bad feeling about this...

Bush
Iraq
Israel
Jerusalem
Palestine
Dome of the Rock
Temple Mount