Obama, Israel and Palestine

S P SETH

The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, is seeking to restart talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in West Bank.  This will be Obama administration’s new initiative in its second term to move the Palestinian issue forward. Its initiative in the first term was a disappointment and indeed created a rift between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government in Israel. President Barack Obama’s recent visit to Israel was, therefore, essentially designed to fill in the cracks in US-Israel relations that emerged during his first term. Indeed, the cracks started to emerge soon after Obama’s Cairo speech in 2009 when he sought to build bridges with the Islamic world where US’ unquestioning support for Israel has been and is a major irritant. Israel was not impressed, apparently because Obama initiative was taken without prior clearance from Tel Aviv.

After that it was all downhill, particularly when the US sought to pressure the Netanyahu government to halt further settlement activity in the occupied territory to advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians for a two-state solution. Netanyahu and his government reacted angrily and petulantly, seeking to mobilize the US Jewish lobby and powerful pro-Jewish political cabal, cutting across party lines, to damage Obama’s presidential position. So much so that, throwing away all political discretion and diplomatic decorum, prime minister Netanyahu virtually adopted the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, in the last year’s election as Israel’s preferred choice as US’ president.

Despite that Obama was re-elected, primarily because he got the overwhelming support of the country’s minorities. One thing Obama learnt during his first term was that, even if he personally wanted to push forward the two-state solution to resolve the Palestinian question, he was at odds with majority of the US political establishment of all political persuasions except on Israel’s terms. Which meant that Israel wouldn’t be required to halt settlements, thus continuing to grab more Palestinian territory. Israeli veto on the US’s internal political processes on the Palestinian question was also obstructing the Obama administration’s legislative agenda over a whole range of other issues.

Faced with this situation, the Obama administration in his second term has decided to put the Palestinian question in the hard to tackle basket, thus removing an important obstacle to relations with Israel and its US lobby. It will still try, as is evident from John Kerry’s diplomatic initiative, but by accommodating Israeli sensitivities. And that was on display during the highly choreographed Obama visit to Israel. It was full of bonhomie between Obama and Netanyahu, with Obama going all out to recommit the US to Israel’s security, continuation of its $3 billion annual military aid to Israel and much more.

On the other hand, Obama’s West Bank trip of a few hours was more like an excursion without any serious purpose. It is not that he completely ignored the Palestinian question, but he seemed to put Palestine (an Israeli-occupied territory), and Israel, the occupying state, on an equal moral basis. For instance, he reportedly urged Israelis and Palestinians to resume peace talks without any pre-conditions. In doing he seemed to be endorsing Israeli demand for talks without any restriction on settlement activities, even though an end to further Israeli settlements in the occupied territory is the essence of any forward movement on the Palestinian question.  Such occupation is internationally recognized as illegal. Therefore, without a commitment on Israel’s part, at the very least, to halt further settlement activity, any negotiations on a two-state solution is a charade and a reward for continued Israeli aggression. In other words, Kerry’s initiative is treading a very slippery slope.

Even as Israel talks of negotiations without any pre-conditions, it nonetheless puts its own pre-conditions, such as the right to continue building illegal settlements, recognition of its claim as a Jewish state and de-militarization of any future Palestinian state. In other words, a downsized Palestinian state will be a Balkanized entity with the South African apartheid-era Bantustans, crisscrossed by Israeli checkpoints and overseen by the Israeli army.

Having abandoned any worthwhile US role in pressuring Israel to work towards a two-state solution, President Obama now hopes that Israeli people, at some point, will come to realize that it is in their own interest to have a peaceful Palestinian state co-existing with a secure Israel. This is how he put it to a gathering of Israeli students during his visit. Highlighting the unjust and untenable situation as it exists today, he said, “It is not just when settler violence against Palestinians goes unpunished. It is not right to prevent Palestinians from farming their lands; to restrict a student’s ability to move around the West Bank; or to displace Palestinian families from their home.”

Assuring Israelis of unwavering US commitment to their country’s security, he made the point though that, “The only [sustainable] way for Israel to endure and thrive as a Jewish and democratic state is through the realization of an independent and viable Palestine.” And he added, “The only way to truly protect the Israeli people is through the absence of war, because no wall is high enough, and no Iron Dome is strong enough, to stop every enemy from inflicting harm.” Which is true enough. But if Obama believes that his fine sentiments will galvanize Israeli people into a sudden realization of making peace with the Palestinians, he is either living in an unreal world or simply seeking to sidetrack the Palestinian question. If Israel were thinking long term, it must realize that, with or without the US, it would need to make peace with its Arab neighbours. And without peace with the Palestinians that would remain elusive. Will John Kerry be able to bring home this realization? It would seem very unlikely.

As Noam Chomsky, described by some as “America’s most-prominent self-hating Jew”, when asked recently by a questioner if Israel would still exist in 50 years, said: “Israel is following policies which maximize its security threats… policies which choose expansion over security policies which lead to their [Israeli] moral degradation, their isolation, their delegitimation…. And very likely ultimate destruction. That’s not impossible.” 

It is a pity that Jews, once one of the world’s most persecuted people, are blinded by their false sense of power, military or otherwise. As a result President Obama felt helpless and has entrusted the Palestinian issue to the good sense of the Israeli people, that hasn’t been in sight over many decades now. The recent tensions in West Bank over the death in Israeli prison of a prominent Palestinian, and the killing of two Palestinian teenagers, would seem to suggest more of the same. While one wishes John Kerry all the success in his new mission, the odds are stacked against him because of Israel’s obduracy.

Note: This article was first published in Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au

Iraq war retrospective: ten years on

S P SETH

The 9/11 terrorist attacks on US soil were a traumatic experience for the country. The subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, where the attack originated with al-Qaeda intent on starting a jihad against the United States, was at the time considered by many countries as an understandable response. But to include Iraq as a target in March 2003 because of some supposed terrorist link between the al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein regime was a difficult sell internationally because there was no real evidence to back it up.

But that wouldn’t stop the then-President George Bush and his cabal to sex up the plan to attack Iraq because, perversely, the 9/11 tragedy was too good an opportunity to miss to get rid of Saddam Hussein who, it was believed, should have been done with the first time around after his defeat in the first Gulf War in early nineties. George Bush’s prominent lieutenants Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, vice-president and defense secretary respectively, who were also part of his father Bush senior’s administration, weren’t too happy about this unfinished business. What an achievement it would be for the son, Bush junior, to complete what his father didn’t or couldn’t do, especially when, according to reports, his father didn’t regard him as too bright when he was growing up! Besides, as George Bush said at the time about Saddam Hussein that he “is the guy who tried to kill my dad.” That alone might have been enough to start the Iraq War in 2003. But more work was needed to make a plausible case internationally.

At one time Saddam Hussein’s regime was building a nuclear reactor that the Israelis had seen fit to blow up in 1981.  After Iraq was virtually destroyed during the first Gulf War and was subjected to one of the most stringent sanctions regime, with a no-fly zone over much of the country, Saddam’s Iraq was in no position to revive its nuclear program. But the Bush regime still managed, with the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair a faithful follower, to build up a case of sorts that Saddam was building up weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that he would unleash on his people and the neighbours. The UN Security Council was approached to approve a resolution for military invasion of Iraq. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) cautioned against it, as their inspectors hadn’t been able to find any credible evidence that Iraq was headed in that direction. Having failed to get the Security Council’s authorization for invading Iraq, the United States decided to go ahead any way with, what was called, the ‘coalition of the willing’ that included US allies, including Australia --- no surprises there.

However, after Iraq was run over and still the US couldn’t find even a trace of nuclear activity under Saddam Hussein, they had to create some sort of a moral case to invade Iraq. No problem there because Saddam Hussein was said to be an evil ruler and the world needed to be rid of such evil. Certainly Saddam Hussein was a despot and a tyrant, and had used mustard gas to kill thousands of his people, mostly Kurds, in the northern Iraqi town of Halabja in 1988. But the question that pops up is: why didn’t the US act against him when he was doing these monstrous things to his people? There are even suggestions that he got his mustard gas and other nerve agents from the US and other western countries. Indeed, at one time, Saddam Hussein was the US’s preferred despot during his long and bloody war with Iran in the eighties with US encouragement and arms.

Another reason for getting rid of Sadaam Hussein was that it was necessary to create a model democracy in Iraq for the region. The debate in the US at the time in the conservative political establishment had bemoaned the lost decade of the nineties after the US supposedly had won the Cold War—a questionable thesis, though. It was, therefore, necessary for the US under the Bush administration to establish its leadership of the world as a benign new imperial power with a mission to spread democracy, as the US understood it. The Afghan and Iraq wars provided opportunities to unveil a new America to inspire awe and respect. And it made sense, according to this version, because what was good for the United States was also good for the world. And once this was understood, the Middle East will be secured for the foreseeable future for its oil supplies and for Israel’s security with all the countries in the region, including the Palestinians, getting the message that the US reigned supreme with no ifs and buts.

We now know that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan followed this neat script. The US is still mired in Afghanistan with plans to withdraw by end-1914. How this disengagement process will unfold, with what disasters during and after that withdrawal, is anybody’s guess? But we know that after years of US military engagement in Iraq, the post-war situation in that country is a horrible mess with ongoing sectarian killings, and bombs rocking the country every now and then. The Iraqi Kurds now have their own virtual state, and the Sunnis feel excluded from the new Shia-majority political dispensation. There are divisions and schisms even within the Shia political establishment.

The post-war Iraq, that was supposed to become a model democracy for the region, is in a state of political flux rocked by brutality and violence. With civil war raging in neighbouring Syria, it is slowly but surely getting drawn into that country’s intractable mess. The al-Qaeda in Iraq is reportedly helping its counterparts in Syria, and Iran is said to be using Iraqi air space for ferrying arms to Assad’s Syria. The US is unhappy with the Iraqi government for allowing its air space for Iranian arms flights to Syria. It is ironic that the United States that went to war to ‘save’ Iraq is finding that country ending up under its Iranian enemy’s political influence.

It won’t be surprising if Iraq were to become the next regional flashpoint of Sunni Arab rage (particularly of Saudi Arabia and its allied kingdoms) against Shia Iran, with the US inevitably drawn on their side, particularly on the nuclear question that will also satisfy Israel. In this sense, the Iraq war might not yet be really over as it has so many sideshows to play out. With 300,000 lives lost and cumulative cost of $ 4 trillion to the US treasury (according to a new US study) for the Iraq and Afghan wars, it has been a dark period for the US and terribly de-stabilizing for the region.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au 

Syria: no end in sight for people’s sufferings

S P SETH

The sufferings of Syrian people during the country’s ongoing civil war seem endless. Both sides, rebels as well as the Bashar al-Assad regime, are tone deaf to the plight of their own people. With over 70,000 dead, a million refugees in neighbouring countries and internally displaced people approaching the 4-million mark, it is a country where future has no meaning. And the prospect seems to be of even more bloodshed.

According to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, the Assad regime has weakened and can now count only on the loyalty of 50,000 troops down from 220,000 at the start of the country’s civil war. John Chipman, the Institute’s director-general, reportedly said, “The cumulative effect of defections, desertions, battlefield losses and damage to morale will weigh heavily in determining the outcome of the conflict.” Notwithstanding that, the regime still has overwhelming superiority in heavy weaponry and aerial warfare that gives it an edge against the rebels.

An important component of the Syrian situation is the oxygen it is getting from external factors. It is no secret that Assad regime is getting significant arms supplies from Russia. Regionally, it is getting arms and other help from Iran. Without such help, it would not be able to last. On the rebel side, they are getting arms and financial help from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, other Gulf kingdoms and Turkey.  

The US and European countries are pitching for the rebels and providing them with considerable assistance, though there is some reluctance so far to provide lethal weapons. Their reluctance is dictated by the fear that these weapons might fall into the wrong hands as some rebel groups reportedly have links with al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Despite this, the United Kingdom and France appear poised to break ranks with other members of the European Union and might, in the near future, start funneling arms to the rebels. As for the US, there are already reports that the CIA is playing a role in weapons supplies to rebels through Qatar and other regional countries.  An effective mechanism to vet these supplies falling into al-Qaeda linked groups is still a worry, though the CIA is said to be playing a role in this as well.

One such group causing utmost concern is the Al-Nusra Front with its 5,000 highly motivated fighters and links with al-Qaeda in Iraq. So much so that the US placed it on its terrorism blacklist in December. It has been very effective in fighting the Assad regime and reportedly has set up a religious council to administer rebel-controlled areas in eastern Syria, apparently to create an Islamic order based on Sharia law. The US’ attempts to isolate it from other elements of the rebel forces do not seem to have worked because for most of them their immediate priority is to bring down the Assad regime, and the Al-Nusra Front is making a strong contribution to this end.

Al-Nusra Front is the kind of jihadist organization that worries the west. As British foreign secretary, William Hague, said recently, “Syria today has become the top destination for jihadists anywhere in the world.” He added, “We cannot allow Syria to become another breeding ground for terrorists who pose a threat to our national security.” And he has some reasons to worry, with reports that hundreds of British passport holders, some already known to British authorities, have travelled to Syria to fight against the Assad regime. It looks like Syria might be turning into another Afghanistan as a centre for terrorism.

And here is the conundrum. There is a fear that if the west doesn’t effectively help the opposition in Syria, and that will mean supplying arms to the rebels, its leadership is likely to be taken over by jihadist elements. On the other hand, if they do supply arms and these weapons fall into jihadist hands, the extremists with al-Qaeda ties will come on top to rule if and when Assad regime is overthrown. It is increasingly a Catch-22 situation. In any case, King Abdullah of Jordan, with his country hosting a large number of Syrian refugees as well as ferrying arms to the rebels, recently warned that Assad regime was doomed and an Islamic fundamentalist state was likely to emerge—not a palatable option between an existing murderous regime and the purveyors of hate and sectarian violence.

In the midst of a recent controversy about the use of a poison gas killing 25 people near Aleppo, with both the Syrian regime and the rebels accusing the other of using it, there is even more vigorous demand for greater arms assistance to rebels. Britain is reportedly supplying hundreds of chemical weapons detection and protection kits for Syrian rebels. And President Obama has warned the Assad regime of crossing the ‘red line’ of using chemical weapons against its people.

One effective way to neutralize the Assad regime’s advantage in aerial warfare will be to put up a “no flying zone” over Syria, as was done in Libya. But in this case, with Russia and China against it, there is a clear danger of further widening the conflict in the Middle East. In other words, the situation in Syria is getting worse because of its external ramifications involving the region and major international players.

Already the Syrian war is spilling into Lebanon, with sectarian killings as well as Hezbollah’s involvement in support of the Assad regime. At the same time, Israeli-occupied Golan Heights is emerging as a flashpoint with Israel making noises about a determined response to any cross border spill. It recently destroyed a machine-gun post in Syria, alleging that two Israeli patrols had come under fire from across the ceasefire line in the Golan Heights.

Turkey is deeply involved on the rebel side. A recent meeting in Istanbul of the Syrian opposition chose a naturalized US citizen (of Syrian descent), Ghassan Hitto, as interim prime minister to create a semblance of an alternative government. But the reported resignation of Mouaz al-Khatih, president of the mainstream Syrian opposition coalition days after Hitto was chosen as interim prime minister, only betrays further disunity among the rebels’ leadership. The recent unseating of the Assad regime from the Arab League in favour of the Syrian opposition might look like a gain for them, but such symbolic gestures are unlikely to resolve the rebels’ greatest weakness, which is their lack of unity and coordination.

Syria is turning into a series of military enclaves under different rebel groups. It is difficult to imagine that an opposition interim government, lacking any real authority and control over rebel groups, will become any more credible than the existing situation. So far, the situation remains stalemated. Which means more hell for the country’s civilian population.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au