iran, israel and the arab world (may 15)

Part One

Part Two

the only intelligent paper in lebanon

(video added May 18, for what it’s worth – RB)

Hizbullah’s arms should be finessed (again)
Marc J. Sirois, Managing Editor, Daily Star, May 17, 2008

It took a brush with national ruin, but the downward spiral of Lebanon’s long-running political crisis has at last been halted—and even, however slightly, reversed. Much more will have to take place for the processes of reconciliation and re-stabilization to gather positive momentum, but at least we appear to be headed in the right direction. It is encouraging that the ruling March 14 coalition and the opposition March 8 alliance have entered into a new dialogue, this time under the auspices of the Arab League and the stewardship of the Qatari government. The worrisome part is that the same events that so clearly demonstrated the necessity of entering negotiations—the deadly clashes that rocked Beirut and several other parts of Lebanon last week—have also further reduced supplies of a commodity that was already in dire shortage : trust.

The opposition’s rout of pro-government forces across southern and western Beirut and mountainous areas southeast of the capital did more than demonstrate its military superiority : it also exacerbated suspicions about the ultimate purpose of Hizbullah’s arsenal, a difficult question that had already gummed up earlier discussions of several other matters—and then helped prevent their resumption. In addition, the move has almost certainly cost the resistance movement heavily in political terms : its leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, had declared that his fighters would not battle their countrymen, and now they and their allies have done precisely that. Defenders of the show of force will argue that it targeted an organization that serves foreign interests, but that perspective is unlikely to sway many people who were not already “onside”—and may even alienate some who were.

On the other hand, the Cabinet decisions that prompted the offensive (especially that regarding Hizbullah’s private communications network) did more than violate a tacit agreement to avoid controversial decisions until the power struggle had been resolved : as anyone who tried to get hold of the party’s members during the 2006 war with Israel knows, the phone network is a crucial arrow in Hizbullah’s quiver. Without it, the group’s leaders and fighters would be in greater danger of having their communications interrupted and/or intercepted, and the locating function of conventional cellular phones could conceivably be used to target them for assassination. In addition, the ensuing clashes clearly demonstrated that for all its condemnations of Hizbullah’s having retained its weapons, at least some components of March 14 have got their own, including heavy ones.

So here we are. The two sides are more polarized than ever, but the alternative to effective dialogue has been made crystal-clear. The two camps’ narratives of what happened last week sound like they come from different planets, neither of which is Earth, and they continue to publicly disagree about how the agenda for dialogue should look. There is at last mutual acceptance on the need to talk about something, though, and in Lebanon these days that qualifies as progress. What happens next? That depends on how serious the two sides are about reaching an acceptable compromise, on how imaginative they are in seeking it, and on how willing they are to put Lebanon’s interests above any and all other concerns. We are back to the guns : the fact that Hizbullah’s retention of its weapons remains a major obstacle to political reconciliation in Lebanon is plain for all to see, and last week’s clashes removed whatever doubt may have remained that the status quo is not tenable.

For all its complexity, though, the arms issue has a convenient cut-off switch : the arsenal only matters because the principals let it by failing to throw the switch. It should be recalled here that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which brought a cessation of hostilities in the 2006 war, was not the first document of its kind to demand that all non-state actors in Lebanon be disarmed. It should also be noted that successive Lebanese governments largely ignored those demands because they contravened an existing national consensus that Hizbullah’s weapons were different by virtue of their being intended for resistance against Israel. It is important to consider, too, that the same consensus was renewed in the ministerial statement of the government formed by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora after the elections that followed the Syrian withdrawal in 2005.

The point here is that Lebanon’s political class—both when it has operated under Syrian “tutelage” and since that period ended—has shown itself capable of using the cut-off mechanism by finessing the arms issue. If it does so again now, a whole series of political disagreements can be made easier to solve. The fact that returning to that practice would openly violate a Security Council resolution is not irrelevant, but for a variety of reasons it has to be a secondary concern. The very future of Lebanon is at stake, so the agenda cannot be influenced by fears of a few ruffled feathers abroad. This is especially the case when that body, thanks in large part to the biases and inconsistencies of the US government, has proved itself so capricious in the past. It has applied virtually no practical pressure on Israel, for instance, to heed any of the dozens of resolutions calling (and/or reiterating earlier calls) for that country to abide by international law.

With regard to Lebanon specifically, the council did nothing to enforce Resolution 425 of 1978, which demanded the withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from the South; and when Hizbullah finally drove the invaders out of most of the area in 2000, the council inexplicably certified the pullout as complete when it manifestly was not. Most Lebanese rightfully remain on good terms with the UN Interim Force in Lebanon, but they owe no favors to the Security Council. This does not mean that Security Council resolutions no longer apply to this country, but in circumstances where the national interest is at stake, a two-step should be taken around that body’s declarations—or they should ignored altogether. The current situation more than qualifies.

This could prompt negative repercussions, of course, but it is doubtful that the United States could bully all of the other permanent members into going along with sanctions that would subject all Lebanese to collective punishment. It might then lead an international embargo (as it did to punish Palestinians for siding with Hamas in free and fair elections), but that would be neither so stringent nor so faithfully observed—and in any event Lebanon has more options than either the Occupied West Bank or the besieged Gaza Strip. Even if these risks were greater than they are, therefore, they would be worth running in order to banish the specter of civil war. The real challenge is agreeing on a formula that allows Hizbullah to keep its weapons until they are no longer needed, but also soothes fears that they might be used against the government or the political parties that support it. Last week’s clashes will not make the latter point any easier, but they have also increased the urgency with which the controversy must be put into abeyance until it can be laid to rest.

why do i even try

My comment to Israel protests UN chief’s use of term nakba

Talkback
Title: The Yassam onslaught near Zippori Name: Rowan City: London State: England
We have videos, and a multitude of eye-witness accounts, of this mini-Sharpeville nakba day event. I wish you would let me help you. You seem to be digging your own graves at an ever accelerating rate. You have not adapted to the new communication environment, and attempts to control the Internet will just make you more hated. You know that in my own Arendtian way I am still on your side, despite my occasional outbursts of fury. Please, Messrs. Haaretz, get in touch, and maybe we can control the damage to some extent.

i don’t want to discuss this in detail

Francois Alcasan — “The Head”, a French scientist executed for murder early in the book. His head is recovered by the N.I.C.E. and appears to be kept alive by the technology of man. In reality the Head has become a communication mechanism for the “Macrobes”, the fallen eldila.
Wikipedia, “That Hideous Strength”

Sharon has undergone a series of subsequent surgeries related to his comatose state. He has remained in a long-term care facility since November 6, 2006. Medical experts indicate that his cognitive abilities were likely to have been destroyed by the massive stroke. He is in a persistent vegetative state with extremely low chances of recovery.
Wikipedia, “Ariel Sharon”

yosi elefant (obscure 90s israeli rocker)

of course mccain will ‘talk to iran’

Neocon McCain Adviser : At Some
Point You Might Want To Talk To Iran
Satyam, Think Progress, May 16

McCain advisor Robert Kagan, brother of Iraq surge architect Fred Kagan, is a prominent leader of the neoconservative movement. In 1997, for example, he and Bill Kristol co-founded PNAC, which advocated overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Yesterday, McCain reiterated his unwillingness to engage diplomatically with various Middle East countries, particularly Iran. But last night on PBS’s Charlie Rose, even Kagan moved away from McCain’s position. While he defended the Bush administration’s current refusal to sit down with Iran, Kagan admitted that this policy may not be as sustainable as McCain thinks:

ROSE: Does it make sense to talk to the Iranian government?
KAGAN: You know, I think, and this is where John McCain may not—doesn’t agree necessarily. I think at some point we may find ourselves in a position when you might want to do that. But I think at this moment, there isn’t a great deal—we have a very sensible position.

Later in the segment, Rose forced Kagan to admit that the administration’s current posture with Iran also hasn’t worked well. “Do you think not talking to Iran stopped them from getting closer to building a nuclear weapon?” pressed Rose. “Obviously not,” Kagan admitted. As former State Department official James Rubin noted today, McCain was open to meeting with Hamas just two years ago. And as Max Bergmann observed, in 2003, when former Secretary of State Colin Powell was criticized for meeting with Syrian leaders, McCain encouraged the talks, stating, “Colin Powell is going to look Bashar al Assad in the eye, and say, look, you know, you better clean up your act here.”

something from yediot aharonot

found at Laura Rozen, Mojo Blog, May 16, 2008

(Apparently this comes from an article by Nahum Barnea in the hebrew-language edition of Yediot, as translated for her by one of Laura Rozen’s friends – RB)

When Sheldon Adelson gave his speech on the podium of the International Convention Center two days ago, I looked at Shimon Peres. I was happy for him. As a citizen of the country, I was less happy. I saw a gambling tycoon from Las Vegas who bought my country’s birthday with three million dollars. I thought with sorrow : Is the country worth so very little? Were the champagne and the wine and the sushi that were given out for free in the lobby, unlike what is conventional for such events, worth the humiliation?

Adelson is a Jew who loves Israel. Like some other Jews who live at a safe distance from here, his love is great, passionate, smothering. It is important to him that he influence the policies, decisions and compositions of Israeli governments. He is not alone in this, either. This kowtowing to other people’s wallets—that is the common denominator of Rabin and Peres, Netanyahu, Barak and Olmert. Adelson is like the others, and yet different. He has the gift of authority and the bluntness of someone who made a lot of money quickly. He does not ask. He commands. “He talks to me as though I were his property,” the director of an important Jewish-American organization, one of the guests at the conference, told me.

I heard similar complaints from others, Israelis and Americans, who got scandals from Adelson. There is a story about an anti-Arab propaganda film that Adelson heard about. He telephoned the director-general of a Jewish organization, asking him to buy and distribute the film. But the film is distorted, said the man. No one will believe it. So edit it, Adelson commanded. The film is not editable, said the man. All right, Adelson said. I will buy the film at my expense, but you will distribute it. “He would like all the Arabs to disappear,” another activist for a Jewish organization told me. “It seems that he thinks that the Arabs are gambling chips.”

Several months ago, Adelson contacted another Jewish-American millionaire and asked him to donate a large sum of money for a campaign that he was organizing against the current Israeli government. The man politely refused. You know what, Adelson told him, do not donate. Just sign. The man refused again. Adelson accused him of funding anti-Israel research. I do not know what you mean, the man answered. When my man in charge of these things is in Las Vegas, he will come to you. Look into the matter.

The meeting at Adelson’s office, in the Venetian hotel-casino, was a stormy one. Adelson took out a written list of accusations, many of them childish. You hosted (PA prime minister) Salam Fayyad, he said. He is a terrorist with blood on his hands. He is one of the founders of Fatah. Salam Fayyad was never involved in terrorism, his interlocutor said. He is not a member of Fatah. Where did you get these accusations from? From Steve Emerson, said the billionaire. Emerson is an American Jew who often analyzes terror matters.

You work with Olmert’s government, accused Adelson. This is an illegitimate government. It must be thrown out. I thought that Olmert is your friend, said the man. And, indeed, they were friends. Such good friends that Olmert wrote him a letter and asked him to buy mini-bars for his hotels from a company that Talansky represented. “This is not something new,” one of the Americans who came to the conference told me. “One day I get a call from an Israeli, a former senior government official. I have a request, he said. Talk to Adelson about buying safes for the rooms in his hotels from a company that I work with. If the deal goes through, your organization will get a donation of $1m.” The man absolutely rejected the request.

Adelman is convinced that Netanyahu, not Olmert, must be prime minister of Israel. In order to advance this idea, he established a newspaper, which devotes it pages to the fight against Olmert and praises Netanyahu. Allegedly, this investment is the largest election gift given to Israel ever. I do not claim this. Firstly, it is a legal gift, legitimate. Secondly, when Netanyahu is elected prime minister, he will have to act within the constraints of the State of Israel, not take dictates from a patron in Las Vegas. Adelson, surrounded by guards, was king of the conference. He sat in the first row, with Shimon Peres between him and Olmert. He put his hand out to Olmert. Olmert shook it with a sour face. They did not exchange a single word.

mccain 2006 : us should talk to hamas

Hypocrisy on Hamas : McCain Was for
Talking Before He Was Against It
James P. Rubin, Washington Post, Friday, May 16, 2008

If the recent exchanges between President Bush, Barack Obama and John McCain on Hamas and terrorism are a preview of the general election, we are in for an ugly six months. Despite his reputation in the media as a charming maverick, McCain has shown that he is also happy to use Nixon-style dirty campaign tactics. By charging recently that Hamas is rooting for an Obama victory, McCain tried to use guilt by association to suggest that Obama is weak on national security and won’t stand up to terrorist organizations, or that, as Richard Nixon might have put it, Obama is soft on Israel. President Bush picked up this theme yesterday. Without naming Obama during his speech last night to Israel’s Knesset, Bush suggested that Democrats want to “negotiate with terrorists” while Republicans want to fight terrorists.

The Obama campaign was right to criticize the president for his remarks and for engaging in partisan politics while overseas. Many presidents have said things abroad that could be construed as violating this unwritten rule of American politics. But it is hard to remember any president abusing the prestige of his office in as crude a way as Bush did yesterday. Charging your opponents with appeasement and likening them to Neville Chamberlain in the Knesset is a brutal blow. It is bad enough that Republicans use the politics of personal destruction here at home, but to deploy that kind of political weapon at an occasion as solemn as an American president addressing the parliament of a friendly government marks a new low. McCain, meanwhile, is guilty of hypocrisy.

I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton and believe that she was right to say, about McCain’s statement on Hamas, “I don’t think that anybody should take that seriously.” Unfortunately, the Republicans know that some people will. That’s why they say such things. But given his own position on Hamas, McCain is the last politician who should be attacking Obama. Two years ago, just after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, I interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News’s “World News Tonight” program. Here is the crucial part of our exchange:

RUBIN: Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?
McCAIN: They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so … but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.

For some Europeans in Davos, Switzerland, where the interview took place, that’s a perfectly reasonable answer. But it is an unusual if not unique response for an American politician from either party. And it is most certainly not how the newly conservative presumptive Republican nominee would reply today. Given that exchange, the new John McCain might say that Hamas should be rooting for the old John McCain to win the presidential election. The old John McCain, it appears, was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government, while both Clinton and Obama have said that Hamas must change its policies toward Israel and terrorism before it can have diplomatic relations with the United States. Even if McCain had not favored doing business with Hamas two years ago, he had no business smearing Barack Obama. But given his stated position then, it is either the height of hypocrisy or a case of political amnesia for McCain to inject Hamas into the American election.

The writer, an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s School of International Affairs, was an assistant secretary of state and the State Department’s chief spokesman during the Clinton administration.

who is franklin lamb?

You’d think that if he was an accredited American academic in Beirut there would be some web CV, but there isn’t. All I can find is this. I’ve emailed Counterpunch to ask for some background and some assessment of his stuff in terms of its actual corroborability, among other things. This is obviously nothing to do with this thread, but it is interesting in that Glenn has devoted a great deal of his own time (and credibility) to scrutinising the mechanism whereby Pentagon propaganda gets pumped via ostensibly neutral journalism into the public domain, and by doing so he has incurred charges of pandering to kumbaya singing lefties, so rather than engage in ad hominems, it seems appropriate to ask whether the lefties also have their own phony journalists pumping out propaganda. I find the psychology of it fascinating anyway, in that when the propaganda is designed to support positions I actually sympathise with (and I can’t say that about the Pentagon stuff) I get a chance to observe my own psychology doing something dodgy.

Rowan Berkeley
Read Rowan Berkeley’s other letters
Permalink Friday, May 16, 2008 08:26 PM

introducing haaretz to nitzan & bichler

My comment to Bush offers Saudis nuclear power

Talkback
Title: The goal of Bush policy is not cheap oil Name: Rowan City: London State: England
It has been shown statistically that the oil sector of the US economy gains in profitability relative to other sectors of the US economy when oil is expensive, and also that it is falls in the price of oil that always precede the application of war policies by the US to the mid East, which cause the oil price to rise. The experts on this are called Nitzan and Bichler and they have a web site full of texts and studies on this, some technical and some quite non technical and easy to follow, and all full of solid empirical evidence.