Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

If you liked Monty Python as much as I, you’ll remember the skit in which a dirty leering character asks his pub mate whether his wife “does it.” The conspiratorial refrain goes: “Wink-wink. Nudge-nudge. Know what I mean, know what I mean?” It’s absolutely hilarious in a knowing, low-down sort of way.

An article in today’s Washington Post which outlines a secret Bush Administration agreement with Ariel Sharon to permit major settlement expansion isn’t as hilarious. But it surely is a dirty low-down trick on the Palestinians whose future territorial integrity it has imperiled:

A letter that President Bush personally delivered to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon four years ago has emerged as a significant obstacle to the president’s efforts to forge a peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians during his last year in office.

Ehud Olmert, the current Israeli prime minister, said this week that Bush’s letter gave the Jewish state permission to expand the West Bank settlements that it hopes to retain in a final peace deal, even though Bush’s peace plan officially calls for a freeze of Israeli settlements across Palestinian territories on the West Bank. In an interview this week, Sharon’s chief of staff, Dov Weissglas, said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reaffirmed this understanding in a secret agreement reached between Israel and the United States in the spring of 2005, just before Israel withdrew from Gaza…

Weissglas said that in 2005, when Sharon was poised to remove settlers from Gaza, the Bush administration made a secret agreement — not disclosed to the Palestinians — that Israel could add homes in settlements it expected to keep, as long as the construction was dictated by market demand, not subsidies. He said the agreement was necessary because Sharon needed the support of municipal leaders in the main West Bank settlements…

Weissglas said he then negotiated a “verbal understanding” with deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams that would permit new construction in those key settlements; Rice and Sharon then approved the Weissglas-Abrams deal. “I do not recall that we had any kind of written formulation,” Weissglas said.

It certainly doesn’t matter that the agreement wasn’t signed, sealed and delivered by the parties. It doesn’t even matter that Condi Rice is denying the agreement existed. What matters is Israeli actions and U.S. reactions. Israel is hell bent on completing the huge Maale Adumim project which will effectively separate East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank:

Olmert declared in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, published Sunday. “I say this again today: Beitar Illit will be built, Gush Etzion will be built; there will be construction in Pisgat Ze’ev and in the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem,” referring to new settlement expansion plans.

While protesting verbally, Condi & Co. have done nothing to stop them. That’s all that matters. The U.S. is willingly colluding in the theft of Palestinian patrimony.

So how do you look Mahmoud Abbas in the eye as Bush did today and claim you can deliver a peace agreement before you leave office? What credibility do you have? In a way, the article coming out today as Bush met with Abbas is the ultimate slap in the face to the lamest of lame duck presidents.

Of course, we also have to remember that Dov Weisglass (note: I think the Post is misspelling his last name), the Sharon henchman who claims to have negotiated this secret deal, has always had the utmost disdain for the Americans. I wrote a post about a delightfully cynical interview he gave in which he said that he and Sharon had Bush wrapped around their little fingers preventing the possibility of a Palestinian state for years, if ever.

So Weisglass’ interview today serves two functions. It reinforces just how tightly wrapped Bush was around their fingers and makes it that much more difficult for Bush to bring into being that Palestinian state which he and Sharon worked so assiduously to prevent. A truly crafty, devious Machiavellian, Weissglas is.

Thanks to Rupa Shah for bringing this story to my attention.

tags abbas, ariel-sharon, Bush, condi-rice, dov weissglad, israeli settlement expansion, palestinians

Condi Rice was so enthusiastic about the idea of inviting Syria to the upcoming Mideast peace conference that she couldn’t even say the country’s name:

“It’s only natural that we would hope that the participants would include the members of the Arab League Follow Up Committee.”

It got me to thinking of a few other ways in which they could show Syria that they really, really appreciated their participation in the conference:

1. Throwing a ticker tape parade for the Syrian delegation down Pennsylvania Avenue hosted by the Muslim Brotherhood
2. Local delegation host: Larry Craig
3. All name tags for Syrian conference participants will be in Hebrew
4. Goodie bags to include shrapnel from Israeli cluster bombs dropped on Lebanon
5. Conference proceedings interrupted three times daily for Shaharit, Mincha and Maariv services. Tefillin and yarmulkes provided of course.
6. The delegation will be housed in the Naval brig
7. Bedside reading: Jackie Mason’s The World According to Bashir and Me
8. Dick Cheney will deliver their wake up call
9. Conference maps will show the Golan as Israeli territory and–oops, won’t show Syria at all
10. Food will be catered by a glatt kosher caterer and participants will say the motzi and sing birkat ha-mazon at every meal
11. Closing song: Hatikva

So how much do the Bushies want Syria there? As much as they want to catch the plague maybe? The only question is whether Syria calls their bluff and attends. Or whether it stays home realizing that nothing would come of its participation anyway since Bush wants nothing to do with Syrian rapprochement.

tags condi-rice, u.s.-invites-syria-to-mideast-peace-conference

This is rich, I tell you. Israel, which has historically detested all international forums, finding them to be biased against it; and which detests UNIFIL with even greater venom has announced that UNIFIL will do quite nicely, thank you, as the ceasefire monitor in southern Lebanon:

Israel has lifted its demand for the deployment of a new multinational force in southern Lebanon and agreed that UNIFIL, the United Nations force already in place, would oversee the cease-fire.

In a draft text for a UN Security Council resolution on ending the crisis in Lebanon, agreed Saturday by the United States and France, it was concluded that the UN Interim Force in Lebanon would be replaced by a new force only after Israel and Lebanon reach agreement on the principles of a long-term accord.

In the immediate future, UNIFIL will be reinforced with more troops in order to be able to carry out its new mandate.

Returning to Israel’s intense dislike of UNIFIL, you’ll recall the direct hit on the Qhiam UNIFIL fortress which killed four of its soldiers. Much of the world finds this incident a deliberate act by the IAF. Even Ehud Olmert himself has rejected the notion that UNIFIL could police southern Lebanon:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said last week that Israel “will not accept a force of the UNIFIL type, that was proven not to be effective. The force that will be deployed will have to comprise of armies, not pensioners who come to vacation in southern Lebanon, but real soldiers capable of fighting.

Why would they do something so preposterous as to revert to an entity they find impotent? Two reasons that I can see. First, Condi must’ve told them that the war has to wind down very soon and that the deal establishing the new peacekeeping force could not be readied in time (if ever). She must’ve told them that UNIFIL is the only other viable option. Second, Israel knows that UNIFIL is a paper tiger and would never stand in the way of another Israeli incursion against Hezbollah. Essentially, maintaining UNIFIL’s presence is a green light for Israel to attack the south at will. That’s very nice for Israel and the U.S. Even very nice for Hezbollah since UNIFIL will not deter it either from attacking Israel (and attack it they will). But Lebanon suffers because there can be no peace without a meaningful and proactive force maintaining a buffer between the two sides.

The Haaretz article also notes this ominous omission from the draft U.S.-French UN Security Council resolution attempting to end the war:

An official with knowledge of the document said the draft calls for a “full cessation of violence” between Israel and Hezbollah, but would allow Israel the right to launch strikes if Hezbollah attacks it.

“It does not say immediate cessation of violence,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the draft had not yet been made public.

That appeared to be a major victory for the U.S. and Israel. France and many other nations had demanded an immediate halt to the fighting without conditions as a way to push the region back toward stability.

The proposal does not include a demand that Israel withdraw its troops from positions in southern Lebanon, as demanded by Hezbollah.

So what exactly does this resolution do? It doesn’t end the violence. It doesn’t demand that Israel withdraw to its own territory. What the f(&k does it provide to Hezbollah or Lebanon that would make it interested in signing on? Zip. Nada. Zilch. Efes. Bubkes.

There is a plan to pass a later resolution which would attempt to lay out a longer term plan for a full resolution of the conflict. But in the Middle East, indefinite plans have a funny way of disappearing into the ether. Even firm agreements are often ignored if it is in the perceived interests of one of the parties. So how likely is it that we will see the second resolution? And if we don’t, then the first one will eventually disintegrate as well. The NY Times’ coverage picks up on this potential problem:

“There is considerable risk in this two-stage approach,” one [U.S. official] said, requesting anonymity because of his involvement in confidential negotiations. Among those risks, he said, is that a second resolution might not be adopted or that Hezbollah could use any cessation of hostilities to resupply. That in turn could prompt the Israelis to bomb or seize supply routes, provoking counterstrikes by Hezbollah and reigniting the conflict.

And this comment from an Israeli official seals the (doomed) fate of this resolution:

The Israeli official, who said he could not be identified discussing security matters, said Israel fully expected Hezbollah to attack the Israeli soldiers remaining in southern Lebanon. He argued that such an attack would give Israel the right to retaliate and return to the offensive.

Endless war. That’s what both sides seem to long for.

Here’s another delicious irony embedded in the resolution text:

The resolution calls upon “the international community” to extend aid to the government of Lebanon to help people return and begin the process of reconstruction.

How will the U.S. respond to this? We supplied the most damaging weaponry used against Lebanon. Will we feel under any obligation to repair the damage we have wrought? Nah, doubtful. Condi pledged a measly $30 million if I recall the number correctly. But just think. The U.S. could announce a plan to plow some serious money into Lebanese reconstruction, trumpet its humanitarian concern for the Lebanese, and farm the work out to Halliburton and Bechtel, their usual corporate suspects. Then U.S. contractors make money destroying the country AND rebuilding it. Diabolical, no?

Condi’s Not Going to Beirut

The Lebanese have finally agreed to meet with a Bush Administration official in the negotiations leading up to the UN resolution. But it’s not Condi who’s going. You’ll recall that after Qana, the Lebanese rescinded their invitation for her to hold talks with the prime minister (for some strange reason the NY Times, when it talks about this incident, always says that it was Condi who cancelled–trying to make Condi look less a fool than she already is?). Another person not going to Lebanon is Elliot Abrams, one of her point-people on the Mideast. Wonder why he’s not going? Could it be his slavish allegiance to Aipac and the entire anti-Arab neocon ideology. David Welch gets the nod on this trip. He’s also negotiated with the Palestinians. Welch seems to be the designated hitter with the Arabs and Abrams with the Israelis. Maybe if we had a more balanced Mideast policy you wouldn’t have to segregate our representatives because they all would be seen as honest brokers. I know, please don’t blow any of that liquid you’re drinking out of your nose. It was a preposterous wish to begin with.

The Fog of War Propaganda

The NY Times tells us that Israel has continued its valiant fight to enlist every possible ethnic group within Lebanon to hate it. It announced that it would attack Sidon, which is decidedly NOT a Hezbollah stronghold:

There were signs the fighting could expand: Israeli planes dropped leaflets over the city of Sidon, south of here, warning people to evacuate before expected airstrikes on “terrorist infrastructure.”

Sidon is an overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim city, rather distant from Hezbollah strongholds farther south. In recent weeks it has been a collection point for many of the hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing the fighting.

The Israeli Army also issued a statement saying it did “not consider the Lebanese people to be its enemy and does not want to harm them.”

As I started this post: that’s rich.

tags condi-rice, david-welch, ehud-olmert, international-peacekeeping-force-in-lebanon, israeli-attitude-toward-unifil, u.s.-negotiations-with-lebanon, un-security-council-resolution-ending-lebanon-war

The Bush Administration continues its ghoulish support for the ongoing Israeli assault on Lebanon. We’re in favor of pounding the shit out of the country for another week until Hezbollah is supposedly vanquished or else weakened. Only then, will we be in favor of peace. This comes from the NY Times:

President Bush has brushed aside calls for an immediate cease-fire both by defending Israel’s right to defend itself and by seeking to shift the pressure for action to Syria and Iran, who are Hezbollah’s prime sponsors.

Earlier this week, in remarks to Mr. Blair picked up by an open microphone, Mr. Bush said that the United Nations should be focusing on getting Mr. Assad to “make something happen.”

American and Israeli officials have reached a consensus that Israel should be allowed to bombard Lebanon for another week or so to degrade the capabilities of the Hezbollah militia, officials of the two countries said Tuesday.

Then, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would go to the region and seek to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, and perhaps an international force to monitor Lebanon’s borders and prevent Hezbollah from obtaining more rockets for bombarding Israel.

Sean McCormick, the State Department spokesman, said in a televised interview today that Ms. Rice would begin her trip “in the near future.”

But he ruled out any visit to Damascus, saying that Syria was “isolated” along with Hezbollah and Iran. Instead, Ms. Rice will work with countries he described as being interested in a permanent solution, like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

The White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said today that there was no point in talking directly to Mr. Assad “because his track record stinks.”

American officials said Tuesday that Ms. Rice was waiting at least a few more days before wading into the conflict, in part to give Israel more time to weaken Hezbollah.

You’ll notice that Condi will refuse to talk to precisely those regional players who have some impact on the hostilities (especially Syria and Hezbollah), while she’s terribly eager to talk to those who have almost no influence (Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia). Does this sound like a recipe for failure or what? It’s like a detective going to a murder scene and refusing to talk to either the prime suspect or his accomplice, and instead talking to someone who might’ve somehow seen something. It is a heartless, cynical and bankrupt approach. It deserves the universal condemnation of the world community.

Bashir Assad (not someone I admire by a longshot) meanwhile has made quite a deft diplomatic stroke by joining Lebanon in endorsing calls for a ceasefire:

Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, today called for a cease-fire in Lebanon and criticized the international community for “procrastinating” on ending the conflict…

Mr. Assad’s statement, reported by Syria’s state-run news agency, appeared to be a direct challenge to President Bush, who has decided to allow Israel to continue its attacks for another week or so, according to American and Israeli officials. Mr. Bush has singled out the Syrian president as the person best placed to end the fighting, by reining in Hezbollah.

But Mr. Assad, in a conversation today with President Recep Tayyib Erdogan of Turkey, talked instead of “how the international community is procrastinating on imposing a cease-fire and ending the crisis,” the Syrian news agency said.

I too would join the Bush Administration in calling for a more comprehensive solution to the conflict than a mere ceasefire which reinforces the status quo. But there is no reason that we can’t start with a ceasefire and then build upon that with later measures which will put in place all the changes that the parties would like to see such as the deployment of the Lebanese army or an international force along the border, along with the return of Israel’s kidnapped soldiers.

Assad has thrown the ball back into Israel’s and the U.S.’ court since they are the primary obstacles to such a ceasefire. I too would like Syria to call for the release of the hostages. But as long as the horrific violence against the entire Lebanese nation continues unabated, I’m afraid that such a hope is in vain.

The Times reports that the Lebanese death toll now tops 310, most of whom are civilians while nearly 30 Israelis have also died. Two IDF soldiers were killed in a ground incursion into Lebanon and two young boys were killed today in Nazareth.

Foreign Minister Livni responded to charges:

that Israel is guilty of “disproportionate use of force” in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon and of “collective punishment” of the civilian populations.

Israel has heard these arguments before. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said, “Proportionality is not compared to the event, but to the threat, and the threat is bigger and wider than the captured soldiers.”

Israel is confronting a regional threat, she and the government argue, which begins with Iran and Syria and their proxy, Hezbollah, and stretches to the radical Islamic Palestinian group Hamas.

Nor does Israel deliberately single out civilians, she argued, as Hezbollah and Hamas do through rocket attacks and suicide bombings. Intent matters, she said.

But in Gaza and Lebanon, civilians are inevitably harmed when militants hide among them. And in Lebanon, she said, some of the dead may be civilians associated with Hezbollah, assisting it or storing its rockets.

“Terrorists use the population and live among them,” Ms. Livni said. “It’s difficult to target like a surgery. Unfortunately, civilians sometimes pay the price of giving shelter to terrorists.” Under pressure or not, she said, citing Israeli intelligence, many civilians in southern Lebanon have Katyusha and other rockets under their beds.

“When you go to sleep with a missile,” she said, “you might find yourself waking up to another kind of missile.”

Livni’s response to the “proportionality” issue is full of fetid organic matter. The world knows this and blanches at her patently self-serving pablum. The enemy it is currently fighting in Lebanon is Hezbollah. Not Syria, Iran or Hamas. While there may be weapons designed or manufactured in Syria or Iran that are used by Hezbollah, there are no personnel from those countries fighting in Lebanon. Therefore dragging them into the argument is pathetic and self-serving. And given the armaments and tactics Hezbollah is using the Israeli response IS criminally disproportionate.

For Livni, I have one question: are the dead children ‘associated with Hezbollah?’ Were they killed because they hid Katyushas under their cribs and trundle beds? And this is how Israel expertly targets only its militant Hezbollah enemies:

In the country’s south, one shell fell inside a compound manned by the United Nations, which was sheltering 36 civilians, but no one was hurt, according to Reuters. Another shell fell on the headquarters of the United Nations battalion, Unifil, in the southern town of Naqoura. No one was harmed.

Livni and Olmert also talk of their invasion as an effort to “strengthen” the Lebanese government and its institutions. Can someone tell me how bombarding Lebanese army barracks and killing its soldiers does that:

On Tuesday, the seventh day of the face-off, Israeli warplanes battered more targets in Lebanon, killing 30 people, including 11 members of the Lebanese Army, when bombs hit their barracks east of Beirut. Four of the dead were officers, and 30 more soldiers were wounded.

Israel has created at least 500,000 refugees as well.

tags bashir-assad, condi-rice, israel-disproportionate-use-of-force-in-lebanon-invasio, lebanese-refugees-civilians-killed, new-york-times, syrian-support-for-hezbollah, tzipi-livni, u.s.-opposes-lebanon-ceasefire

Finally. A western leader who will buck the code of silence invoked by Israel and the U.S. to perpetuate the ongoing mayhem in Lebanon. Haaretz reports that Tony Blair and Kofi Annan have jointly called for the deployment of an international force to guarantee the peace between Israel and Lebanon:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan on Monday called for the deployment of an international force in southern Lebanon in order to end the conflict between Israel.

Speaking at the Group of Eight leaders summit in St. Petersburg Blair said such intervention by the international community could be the only way to end the crisis, Sky TV said.

“The blunt reality is that this violence is not going to stop unless we create the conditions for the cessation of violence,” Blair said after talks with Annan on the margins of the Group of Eight summit.

“The only way is if we have a deployment of international forces that can stop bombardment coming into Israel,” he said.

What neither man makes clear is how this new force would differ from the UN forces which currently serve in southern Lebanon. Their purpose I thought was to do precisely what the new force would do. So what would the new entity do differently than the previous one? Would it be well-armed and equipped and have a muscular mandate to maintain the peace?

Anyway, at least it’s a start. But please God residents of other European nations (especially France, which is supposed to have a “special relationship” with Lebanon) will begin to clamor for a resolution to the conflict and and demand that they lobby the Bush Administration to get down off its high horse and DO SOMETHING!

But Bush’s statements at the G8 summit give further cause for alarm. This is how the NY Times characterized them:

The Bush administration on Sunday appeared to give Israel tacit approval to cripple Hezbollah, casting the widening conflict in the Middle East in terms of a wider war on terrorism.

This is precisely the problem with Bush’s thinking on the Mideast and global terrorism. Instead of seeing regional conflicts like the Israeli-Arab dispute in their own terms, he only sees them as ‘writ small’ versions of the war on terror. The problem with this world view is that it allows for no understand or sensitivity to the unique particular aspects of these conflicts. If you do not understand the specific grievances of Israelis, Palestinians, etc. but rather see it all through the lens of “terror” you miss everything that might allow you to play a constructive role in bringing peace. So, the Bush position is essentially hopeless as far as that is concerned. The policy, such as it is, is dead in the water. And Bush’s face in the photo above is a perfect mirror of the dead-end nature of the current U.S. approach.

Ms. Rice and other officials repeatedly noted Iran’s support of Hezbollah — the Iranians appear to have supplied many of the rockets that have hit Haifa, other areas of Israel and perhaps an Israeli ship — and some administration officials said they saw this as the moment to damage the link between Iran and Syria and the Hezbollah fighters who appear to operate with impunity in southern Lebanon.

At the same time, American officials were careful in their accusations against Iran, stopping short of saying that nation inspired the current outbreak of violence. But several officials noted that the crisis had distracted the leaders from what, just days ago, appeared to be one of their main agenda items — pressing Iran to suspend its production of nuclear material in exchange for a broad economic incentives deal offered by Europe and the United States. Several officials suggested that the Iranian leadership might see the renewal of fighting as a chance to demonstrate how it could strike back at American interests in the region, both in Israel and in Iraq.

I find support here for my earlier post arguing that the U.S. sees Israel in the current Lebanon conflict as its proxy in a wider war (or war to come) against Iran. That is why it doesn’t want to the war to end. The more Hezbollah is bloodied, the greater damage is done to Iran. At least that’s the way the theory might work if you were George Bush, Dick Cheney or Don Rumsfeld and dumb enough to believe it.

Though I do not support Iran’s position regarding its nuclear program, I have to admit that in a tactical sense it is sittin’ pretty right about now. As the passage above notes, the G8 was supposed to deal with future strategy against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Hezbollah, and by extension Iran, has effectively seized the initiative and the agenda from Bush.

Here’s some more doublespeak from Condi Rice which conveniently rewrites recent Mideast history:

“We have a new day in the Middle East, and it is a day in which the people of the Middle East, the people of Lebanon without Syrian forces there, the people of the Palestinian territories with a democratic leader in Mahmoud Abbas, are seeking to find a democratic future,” Ms. Rice said. “We’re standing with all responsible parties in the region and with moderate parties in the region who want a Middle East that is different than the 30-plus years of — really, 60-plus years — of Middle East history.”

You’ll find no mention there of Hamas, which also won a legitimate democratic election. Nor of Hezbollah, which ran and won a sizable number of seats in Lebanon’s parliament. So she’s really saying she doesn’t believe in full-on democracy. She believes in democratic processes that provide the U.S. the result it wants to see. If an election produces an “irresponsible, immoderate” (according to the U.S.’ definition of course) party then we will simply ignore the democratic nature of their victory and deny them legitimacy despite the fact that they engage in precisely the processes which we call for and endorse. What utter hypocrisy!

tags condi-rice, deploy-international-force-end-lebanon-fighting, G8-summit, george-bush, global-terror, haaretz, israeli-lebanon-invasion, kofi-annan, mideast-demoracy, tony-blair

Condi Rice continues the Bush Administration's querulous non-responsive policy toward the Israel-Lebanon conflict: Israel may need to prolong its offensive in Lebanon to further reduce the threat from Hezbollah, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today... Ms. Rice appeared to support a longer-term Israeli effort to inflict decisive damage to Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon. She also said she was considering a trip to the region. “A cessation of violence is crucial, but if that cessation of violence is hostage to Hezbollah’s next decision to launch missiles into Israel or Hamas’s next decision to abduct an Israeli citizen, then we will have gotten nowhere,” she said on “Fox News Sunday.” I call that response "a little more war, please." When have you ever ...

A NY Times editorial, As if That Fire Needed Fuel today took all the major parties to task for their irresponsible behavior involving the PFLP killers of Rehavam Ze'evi and the reverse jail break which snatched them from a Jericho prison and brought them to their eternal resting place in an Israeli prison: Palestinian prison guards forced by IDF troops to strip to their underwear before evacuating the jail (photo: Baz Ratner/AP) Wouldn't it be nice if, just once, the players in the disaster movie that is Middle East politics didn't perform true to type? Unfortunately, the events in the Palestinian city of Jericho this week show ...