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

Whew. Condi had me going there for a second. I thought she believed there was something wrong with all those people in the Middle East who aren’t taking a shine to our prescriptions for how they should govern themselves and live their lives. But now that I know she really believes there’s nothing wrong with them, I feel totally reassured:

Nearly a year after she was ridiculed for calling a war in Lebanon ”the birth pangs of a new Middle East,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is insisting democracy will come to the region whatever the setbacks…

”Democracy is hard, and I see it as especially hard when there are determined enemies who try and strangle it,’

Yes, indeed. Like those pesky folks trying to strangle Palestinian democracy in its cradle by suffocating Gaza after Hamas won the last election there. Oh, you say–that was us doing the strangling? But, how’s that possible? We support democracy in the Middle East. Condi says so.

Questioned by Western and Arab reporters Sunday, Rice gave a forceful defense of the principle behind the words ["birth pangs of democracy"] — that violence and hardship may be necessary to achieve freedom, and that the forces of moderation and democracy will win out against what Rice calls extremists.

Violence and fratricide have followed each of three U.S.-backed elections in the Middle East in the past three years — in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

”Yeah, it’s really hard. It’s hard for democracy to take hold in a place where it has not taken hold before, but I am confident about the triumph of these values because I’ve seen it before,” Rice said.

”There is nothing wrong with the people of the Middle East,” she added. ”They can triumph and triumph democratically.”

It’s SO important for “the people of the Middle East” to get this sort of Oprah-esque validation from Condi. Otherwise–well–they really might think there WAS something wrong with them.

But seriously, somebody please tell Condi that Hamas DID “triumph and triumph democratically.” But it wasn’t the “right kind” of democrat. They were those pesky terrorist democrats who don’t really count. You see, there’s good democrats like Nuri al-Maliki (well, good some of the time–like when he does our bidding) and bad ones (like Hamas or Hugo Chavez). Mahmoud Abbas is another one of those “good democrats” except for the little problem that he’s utterly ineffectual, ran virtually unopposed in the election that brought him to power, and “leads” an entirely discredited and dysfunctional political movement, Fatah. I tell you, under Condi’s tutelage the Middle East should be a thriving democracy in, oh, another 2,000 years or so.

tags birth-pangs-of-democracy, condi, hamas-election-victory, rice-democracy-will-come-to-middle-east, u.s.-mideast-policy

Brit Tzedek hosted a conference call with Rashid Khalidi today that was most interesting. I was most impressed with how acute his thinking is on the conflict. This is the kind of person who could’ve been a prominent international lawyer or even foreign policy wonk if he’d chosen to be. Not the type of person who suffers fools gladly.

Khalidi revealed something that may be common knowledge to some familiar with U.S. Mideast policy but it was news to me. He claims that after Hamas came to power Eliot Abrams advocated a “hard coup” against the Hamas-led PA to be led by Mohammed Dahlan. Bringing Fatah back to power forcibly was to be the essence of U.S. policy toward the Palestinians, Khalidi derisively claimed.

Khalidi, in explaining why no Arab-American was invited to speak before a recent House committee discussing the Israeli Arab conflict, gave an interesting colloquy on Arab American political power. He likens the community to the Jewish community in the 1930s. He said that while there were many American Jews in 1930s America and that their leaders appeared to hold a certain level of status, in reality American Jews had very little power. Khalidi explained that Jews were ignored by FDR and other policy makers because they COULD ignore them and get away with it. As future generations of Jews became more educated about their rights and savvy about wielding political power, this could no longer happen.

Arab-Americans, who are largely first-generation, are in such a position right now. That is why a House committee chair could deign to hold a hearing on the I-P conflict and ignore the existence of the Arab side. But this will not be the case once Arabs become more savvy about wielding their political clout.

Khalidi feels that the Right of Return will be the thorniest problem to tackle between the two sides, even more difficult than Jerusalem and other territorial issues. The outline of what must happen to resolve this matter is that Israel will have to acknowledge the devasatation that the 1948 Nakba caused to Palestinian life. It won’t even have to apologize. But it will have to concede what happened. In kind, the Palestinians will have to give up their dreams of physically resettling their old homes within Israel proper. These will be two extremely difficult processes for both sides to come to terms with.

He noted that a certain number of Palestinian refugees should return to Israel and those should be the ones in Lebanon. They have never been absorbed into Lebanese society because of the political fracturing of that system. Many of these Palestinians origanally left northern Israeli Arab villages in the Gallilee which still exist. Khalidi’s argument is that these villages could easily reabsorb the refugees who return to them. He believes that Palestinian refugees in other places like Jordan, the U.S., Europe, etc. HAVE been reabsorbed into these societies and so it is far less imperative that they have a physical Right of Return.

By the way, if someone reading this knows Khalidi’s work better than I could you go to the Wikipedia article I link to above and edit it to read more neutrally. As it currently stands, two-thirds of the article details accursations by Khalidi’s critics with no rebuttal whatsoever. These two paragraphs should be entirely rewritten by someone with a more balanced perspective.

tags arab-american-political-power, brit-tzedek, rashid-khalidi, u.s.-mideast-policy

Ashraf Ismail, writing in ArabNews describes a depressing war scenario for the IDF in which it has no hope of vanquishing its foe or winning this war. In fact, the war can only lead to a weakening of Israel’s position vis a vis its adversaries. He first writes about Hezbollah:

The world is witnessing what could be a critical turning point in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel is now engaged in a war that could permanently undermine the efficacy of its much-vaunted military apparatus.

Ironically, there are several reasons for believing that Israel’s destruction of southern Lebanon and southern Beirut will weaken its bargaining position relative to its adversaries, and will strengthen its adversaries’ hands.

First, Israel has no clearly defined tactical or strategic objective, and so the Israeli offensive fails the first test of military logic: There is no way that Israel’s actions can improve its position relative to Hamas or Hezbollah, much less Syria or Iran.

The logic of power politics also implies that a no-win situation for Israel is a definite loss, because Israel is the stronger party and thus has the most to lose. In an asymmetric war, the stronger party always has the most to lose, in terms of reputation and in terms of its ability to project its will through the instruments of force.

The lack of any clearly defined objective is a major miscalculation by Israel and its American patron.

Second, Israel cannot eliminate Hezbollah, since Hezbollah is a grassroots organization that represents a plurality of Lebanese society. Neither can Hamas be eliminated for the same reason…

Consequently, while Hezbollah will obviously pay a short-term tactical cost that is very high, in the long run, this conflict demonstrates that it is Hezbollah, and not the Lebanese government, that has the most power in Lebanon.

Next, Ismail describes the degradation of Israeli and U.S. power vis a via the Syrians and Iranians:

Third, Israel’s failure to achieve anything at all greatly enhances Syria’s influence over Lebanon and its bargaining position relative to the US and Israel itself. No solution in Lebanon can exclude Syria, and so now the US and Israelis need Syria’s approval, which certainly weakens both the US and Israel.

And even Israel’s accusations against Iran, although largely baseless, greatly enhance Iran’s prestige in the region, and may bring about exactly what the Israelis are trying to prevent.

Fourth, Bush’s impotence is a clear demonstration that America has lost a great deal of global power over the last three years. If Bush cannot control Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, or Israel, then what real power does the world’s “hyperpower” possess?

And one of the more intriguing aspects of this essay is how Ismail relates the weakening of Israeli and American power to a decentralization of power, information and technology in the global age. Ultimately, these arguments are harder to quantify and substantiate than his earlier political-military analysis. But he’s definitely onto something here:

The global diffusion of the news outlets is obviously important for understanding why Bismarckian [conventional as opposed to guerrilla] warfare has become so ineffective. For instance, Hezbollah has its own media network, and can draw upon the global satellite network to get its message out, and can also use the global media to take advantage of Israel’s targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure.

And although the American media largely supports Israel, the information about the Americans stranded in Lebanon limits Israel’s freedom of action, and makes Israel look like it cares nothing for the lives of American citizens.

At an even deeper level, the rate and density of global information transfer, and lack of any centralized control over the global distribution of information, is causing the fabric of space and time to contract, and so Israel’s crimes can much more quickly create a global backlash.

Time and space, as we experience them, are contracting because the global diffusion of technical and scientific knowledge is permitting events in one part of the world to increasingly influence those in other parts, and events that once took years or even decades to unfold can now occur within mere months or weeks.

As a consequence, the disenfranchised peoples of the world are developing the ability to affect the lives of the more privileged members of humanity, which means that anything that Israel does to the Palestinians or Lebanese will have effects upon Israel that are more direct and more negative than ever before, and that further, these effects will occur in an accelerated time scale.

Thus, as it becomes self-evident that Israeli military power is no longer as effective as it once was.

The global micro-diffusion of military technology is also critical, and so military innovation and its global diffusion will only strengthen grassroots rebellions and allow them to more effectively resist the instruments of Bismarckian control, as well as the depredations of the military hippopotami that are the ultimate guarantors of statism and statist regimes.

For all of these reasons, Israeli attempts to impose terms on Lebanon, or to redraw the political map of Lebanon, or even to impose a NATO force upon southern Lebanon, are not militarily feasible nor politically achievable, and if attempted, will prove ultimately unsustainable.

As will soon be demonstrated by events on the ground, Israel will not be able to destroy or even disarm Hezbollah. Neither will Hamas, Hezbollah, Lebanon, or Syria permit Israel or America to dictate terms to them. Consequently, if Israel lingers too long in southern Lebanon, its presence will be paid for at such a high cost, that it will be forced to withdraw in ignominy, as it has so many times in the past.

In the end however, Israel’s loss of power will make it even more dangerous, because the more threatened the Israelis feel, the more likely they will launch destructive wars against the Palestinians and Israel’s other adversaries.

Finally, the same can be said of the US, with respect to its loss of global power. Instead of becoming more careful with its use of force, the erosion of America’s global dominance will likely make the US government more aggressive, as it attempts to reassert its former position relative to its adversaries and competitors.

And it is precisely because America and Israel are losing influence over global events, that an American attack upon Iran in 2007 becomes more likely.

I wish I could say that this pessimistic, alarmist view of Mideast developments does not ring true because it bodes quite ill for the future. But, alas, it does ring true.

tags decline-of-israeli-military-dominance, lebanon-invasion, syrian-iranian-support-for-hezbollah, u.s.-mideast-policy

MaxSpeak alerted me to a Forward article about the supposed silence of the liberal blogs about the Lebanon crisis. The article’s author interviews a few of the “major players” in the liberal blog world and nary a one felt comfortable taking on the issue. But one of the dumbest statements came from Kos in his Why I Won’t Write About the Israel/Lebanon/Palestine Fighting. He writes that he is:

…Steering clear of this morass of a mess of a disaster of a quagmire of a sinkhole of a clusterfuck that is completely FUBAR.

Did you notice how a guy who says he “won’t write about” the Lebanon crisis has just made quite a statement about it? So if you’ve bothered to go that far, why couldn’t you actually take a minute away from Democratic political campaign analysis to write about a subject which could conceivable envelop the world in war? I call this a cop out.

Me? I grew up in a war zone. And there was one clear lesson I learned — there will never be peace unless both sides get tired of the fighting and start seeking an alternative.

I take it back. With platitudes like that maybe it’s better he doesn’t write about the Mideast conflict.

It’s clear that in the Middle East, no one is sick of the fighting. They have centuries of grudges to resolve, and will continue fighting until they can get over them. And considering that they obviously have no interest in “getting over them”, we’re stuck with a war that will not end in any forseable [sic] future. It doesn’t matter what we bloggers say. It doesn’t matter what the President of the United States says. Or the United Nations. Or the usual bloviating gasbag pundits.

This passage is so monumentally stupid (MaxSpeak calls it “idiotic” which suits me fine), so patently cynical, so absolutely wrong. It makes someone like me–who’s devoted a good part of his life and blog to the proposition that bloggers CAN make a difference in this conflict; and that what the President of the U.S. and the UN certainly can make a difference–so mad I could spit. Kos’ defeatism is a recipe for inaction, silence and continuing the morass of a status quo that currently reigns.

I take special umbrage at Kos’ statement: “It doesn’t matter what we bloggers say.” It DOES matter what bloggers say about the Lebanon crisis as well as any other important social or foreign policy issue. If what Kos said were true then what would be the point of anyone writing political blogs? Liberal bloggers should be writing about every important issue of the day including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we heed Kos’ advice then we basically cede the territory to the partisan pro-Israel blog world, the Pajamas Media and Little Green Footballs. Is that what we want: a blog space free for their propaganda to go unanswered and unchallenged? Whatever happened to presenting a policy alternative to the right?

When two sides are this dead-set on killing each other, very little can get in the way.

And I, for one, sure as heck have no desire to get sucked into that no-win situation. I just hope that war-fatigue sets in at some point.

Why is Kos’ cynicism so damaging? Because of his huge audience. When he talks people listen. Sometimes they shouldn’t, but they always do no matter what he says. If he got off his duff and devoted some time and space to this issue he could open hearts and minds. But enough about what Kos could do but won’t. That’s a waste of time.

The Israeli-Arab conflict IS solvable. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter believed it and made enormous strides toward that end. Neither one succeeded completely (Clinton especially saw great disappointment). But their efforts meant something. They provided something that their successors will build on when they finally DO solve it. And I hope no one pays attention to Kos’ statement: “We’re stuck with a war that will not end in any forseable [sic] future.” That’s bullshit. The war in Lebanon will end. The entire Israeli-Arab conflict WILL end sometime in the foreseeable future. And those who help end it will do so despite the inanities of people like Kos.

I think his attitude toward the current crisis derives to some extent from his political orientation. He and his site are committed to the Democrats taking back Congress and the White House. Anything that does not contribute in some tangible way to that goal is of low priority. The Democrats have a very serious problem when it come to Israel. They do not present an alternative to current White House policy. That’s because the Democrats are bought lock, stock and barrel on this issue by Aipac and its donors. Since the Dems can’t score points against Republicans over Lebanon, Kos’ position is “let ‘em all go hang themselves for all I care.” As Max Sawicky so cogently says:

The unified Democratic response of support for Israel points up the limitations of the uncritical anti-war “netroots.” You can’t be serious about politics if you’re not serious about policy, particularly in the realm of potential problems percolating in the ME.

I couldn’t agree more.

tags daily-kos, israels-war-in-lebanon, markos-moulitsas, max-sawicky, maxspeak, u.s.-israel-relations, u.s.-mideast-policy

Yesterday, I wrote that the main problem with Secretary Rice’s upcoming visit to the Mideast is the fact that she will refuse to give Syria anything it wants (the Golan Heights for example) while at the same time asking it to give up something it has wanted till now (involvement in Lebanon along with support for Hezbollah). I asked, “what’s the incentive?” Today, the NY Times confirms what I wrote:

…So far, there appears to be little discussion of offering American incentives to the Syrians to abandon Hezbollah, or even to stop arming it. The Bush administration has been deeply reluctant to make such offers, whether it is negotiating with Damascus or with the governments of Iran or North Korea.

Nor did President Bush sound any conciliatory notes in his radio address on Saturday. “For many years, Syria has been a primary sponsor of Hezbollah and it has helped provide Hezbollah with shipments of Iranian-made weapons,’’ he said…

The State Department lists Syria as a country that sends money to terrorist organizations. Syria’s ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha…is often described as one of the loneliest ambassadors in Washington.

In the months after 9/11, Syria provided important assistance in the campaign against al Qaeda. But relations soured as American officials complained that Syria did little to crack down on associates of Saddam Hussein who funneled money to the insurgency in Iraq through Syrian banks, or to stop the flow of insurgents across its border to Iraq. The United States imposed sanctions on Syria in 2004, and took further measures after Syrian officials were accused of involvement in Mr. Hariri’s assassination.

The thrust of the American initiative appears to involve Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan jawboning the Syrians into dropping Hezbollah. What will the angle be? Basically, you’re as isolated as Iran in the Arab world, but without any of Iran’s resources or power. “Be on the right side with us” appears to be the theme. To me, this is like going into the Damascus souk and telling a carpet vendor that all his competitors hate him. In order for them to stop hating him, he should give me a carpet without my paying anything for it. Incentive or not incentive? That’s a no-brainer. If you want to buy something in the souk you use hard currency, not rhetoric.

And Syria’s response thus far to blandishments from its fellow Arab governments bodes ill for the future:

One Western diplomat said Arab leaders had had trouble getting President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to come to the phone when they called to express concern about Hezbollah’s actions.

A State Department official seems to inadvertently be pulling the rug out from under those Arab allies with statement like this:

The effort begins Sunday afternoon in the Oval Office, where President Bush is scheduled to meet the Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, and the chief of the Saudi national security council, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Prince Bandar was the Saudi ambassador to Washington until late last year and often speaks of his deep connections to both the Bush family and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Ms. Rice is delaying her departure to the Middle East until after the meeting, which she is also expected to attend, along with Mr. Cheney and Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser. The session was requested by the Saudis, American officials said.

The expected outcome of the session is unclear. “We don’t know how patient the Saudis will be with the Israeli military action,’’ said one senior official. “They want to see Hezbollah wiped out, and they’d like to set back the Iranians.”

But in the Arab world, the official added, “they can’t been seen to be doing that too enthusiastically.’’

Several of Mr. Bush’s top aides said the plan is for Mr. Bush and other senior officials to press both Saudi Arabia and Egypt to prod Syria into giving up its links with Hezbollah, and with Iran. The administration, aside from its differences with Iran over nuclear programs and with Syria over its role in Lebanon, also has objected to both nations’ behavior toward their common neighbor, Iraq.

“They have to make the point to them that if things go bad in the Mideast, the Iranians are not going to be a reliable lifeline,’’ one of the administration officials said.

Another said, “There is a presumption that the Syrians have more at stake here than the Iranians, and they are more exposed.”

Does this dopey “official” think that the critics of these Arab government who already think they’re sell outs to the U.S. don’t read U.S. papers? Even those governments like Saudi Arabia and Egypt which may distrust Iran and Hezbollah–what’s in it for them in terms of advancing U.S. and Israeli interests? The Arab street detests Israel’s virtual rape of Lebanon. And such sentiment becomes stronger the longer the insult to Lebanon’s honor continues. Do you think Mubarak and the Saudi royals aren’t going to be sensitive to this?

To me, the U.S. hopes for Condi’s trip are built on Mideast desert sand. I can’t see any substance to them.

The Times article closes by noting the obvious:

But while analysts say it is possible for the Bush administration and Israel to work out a solution without including Syria in the diplomatic wrangling, it would be difficult to do. Some Bush administration officials, particularly at the State Department, are pushing to find a way to start talking to Syria again.

I wonder why Condi isn’t pushing publicly to start talking to Syria again in preparation for this trip. Why isn’t she trying to meet even privately with some Syrian representative to initiate a thaw in U.S.-Syria relations? Without this, she’s dead in the water I’m afraid.

tags condi-rice-mideast-trip, egypt-jordan-saudi-arabia-pressure-syria-to-drop-hezbol, israels-lebanon-invasion, syria-iran-alliance, u.s.-mideast-policy, u.s.-syria-troubled-relations

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 ...

3 year-old Natan Mor calling out for his father, who sustained serious injuries during the Katyusha rocket assault on northern Israel (photo: Rina Castelnuovo/NYT) Latest news: Haaretz reports that an Israeli grandmother and her five-year old grandson were killed and four others injured by Hezbollah rockets which landed in Moshav Meron on Friday evening. Ha-makom yinachem etchem--May God comfort their families. I have a five year old son and my heart grieves for their loss. Israel's chief of staff is now warning that Hezbollah has rockets that can penetrate 70km into Israel, far deeper than the 18 mile distance to Haifa, which was rocketed yesterday. Two ...

The news from northern Israel is even grimmer than when I wrote my last post ten hours ago or so. Instead of just two kidnapped Israeli soldiers there, according to Ariga now we have seven [Update: now eight] dead soldiers. Apparently, after two soldiers were killed across the border in southern Lebanon four others were killed in an operation to retrieve the bodies. It's an utter sad savage mess for which Hezbollah certainly deserves denunciation. One would hope (fruitlessly at it turns out) that Olmert might've learned something from the so far abject failure of the Gaza operation that nuance instead of a sledgehammer is necessary to free hostages or defuse a standoff. ...

Yossi Sarid, despite his political longevity has lost none of his political acuity as demonstrated by this column in today's Haaretz. He echoes a number of my own criticisms of the Gaza invasion in this caustic cry of outrage: By the time operation Summer Rains ends, the reason for it will have been completely forgotten. The longer the operation goes on, the more removed it becomes from its original purpose - to rescue Corporal Gilad Shalit. Now they are already talking about "a new order" or about "changing the strategic situation" or about "rehabilitating our deterrent power," and it is impossible not to recall with horror the "new order" in Lebanon 24 years ago: Ariel Sharon, may sleep be ...

Let's queue up a round of applause for Yossi Beilin who's said what I've been writing here for a few days about the tepid U.S. efforts to resolve the Gaza crisis. It's a goddamn shame how pitiful our response has been. Rome is burning and all Rice can do is sit and fiddle like there's no tomorrow. "We ask both sides to restrain themselves." Blah, blah, blah. Lotta good that'll do as F-16s scream over Gaza rooftops with their deafening sonic booms terrifying young children in their beds. Here's Beilin on America gone AWOL: One of the most striking phenomena of recent weeks...is the absence of the American factor. True, there have been telephone conversations ...