The President’s Dangerous Ignorance
Matthew Yglesias,
Source: Middle East On-line, 2 Aug 2006
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=17159

The president’s ignorance would be amusing if it weren’t so dangerous. Instead, it is quite possible that the United States and the world will be led further into a Middle East cataclysm by a US president who doesn’t know what is happening, says Matthew Yglesias.

“We discussed a lot of issues. The Prime Minister has laid out a comprehensive plan. That’s what leaders do. They see problems, they address problems, and they lay out a plan to solve the problems. The Prime Minister understands he’s got challenges and he’s identified priorities.” – President George W. Bush, joint press availability with Nouri al-Maliki, Prime Minister of Iraq, July 25, 2006

The truly shocking thing about that bizarre statement is that it wasn’t even in response to a question. Those were Bush’s opening remarks. He did, one assumes, actually meet with Maliki. And they must have talked about something. But Bush doesn’t seem to have been listening. Instead, he sounds like a college student rambling in class because he didn’t do the assigned reading. “We talked about security in Baghdad,” Bush observed, delving into specifics. “No question the terrorists and extremists are brutal.”

No question.

This sort of display would be embarrassing were it not so frightening.

Two days later, with Tony Blair standing at the adjacent podium, things went from bad to worse. One is used to hearing Bush say things that aren’t true. He appears, however, from the look on his face and from the baffling nature of the untruths he uttered, to have lapsed from dishonesty into confusion. (Perhaps boredom may have sent him tumbling to new depths of ignorance.)
“There’s a lot of suffering in the Palestinian territory,” Bush mused, “because militant Hamas is trying to stop the advance of democracy.”

It is? Has Bush forgotten that Hamas came to power as a result of elections that he insisted the Palestinian Authority hold? I happen to think the White House made the right call on the question of Palestinian elections – even in retrospect, even knowing that Hamas won – though many observers think his policy has merely backfired. Rather than defend the policy, however, Bush seems to have forgotten all about it. He returned to the theme later in the press conference: “One reason why the Palestinians still suffer is because there are militants who refuse to accept a Palestinian state based upon democratic principles.”

That’s absurd. The President appears to be totally unfamiliar with what is perhaps the single most-discussed topic in international politics. Nothing gets people disagreeing quite like the subject of how to apportion blame for the Palestinian peoples’ considerable suffering. But absolutely nobody blames Arab militants opposed to democratic principles. Terrorists opposed to Israel’s very existence? Sure. Israeli intransigence? Why not. But only someone paying no attention whatsoever would subscribe to Bush’s theory.

We have, meanwhile, policies that match the intellectual cesspool of the president’s rhetoric. In its statements, the White House has consistently adhered to the view that the root cause of the troubles between Israel and Lebanon is Syrian and Iranian support for Hezbollah. Thanks to the dinner roll incident at the G-8 meeting, we know this is Bush’s sincere view. “You see,” Bush famously explained to Tony Blair, “the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it’s all over.” He further elaborated: “I felt like telling Kofi to call, to get on the phone to Assad and make something happen.”

There’s something of a clich © going around about Bush talking loudly while failing to brandish a stick, but in truth he’s mumbling indistinctly while Israeli bombs pummel Lebanon.

If Syria is the real problem here, then, not to put to fine a point on it, someone needs to take some action of some kind related to Syria. After all, why would Syria tell Hezbollah to stop doing this shit? What combination of threats and inducements is Syria supposed to offer Hezbollah to get it to stop? And why would Syria offer them anyway? What’s Kofi Annan supposed to do about this? If Bush wants to make Syria do something, he needs to do something to make it happen. Either offer Syria something, or threaten Syria somehow, or some combination of the two. The same goes for Iran. In case Bush hasn’t noticed, the regimes in Damascus and Tehran aren’t run by kindly people looking to help the world out of the goodness of their hearts. Nor has the administration’s habit of vaguely suggesting we’d like to overthrow their governments rendered either nation more likely to help us or our Israeli friends out of a jam.

There’s a temptation to call this combination of inflammatory tough-guy rhetoric and feckless inaction “the worst of both worlds,” but in truth the war policy being advocated by the right’s more fevered voices would actually be worse than Bush’s embarrassing, illogical paralysis. The real problem is that the risk of a wider regional war involving the United States remains. And if that risk becomes a reality, our country will be led into it by a president who doesn’t seem to grasp what’s happening.

[Matthew Yglesias writes for The American Prospect magazine]

What Can Israel Achieve?
Immanuel Wallerstein,
Source: Middle East On-line, 01 Aug 2006
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=17152

Israel has always depended on its own military strength and an outside force – first the Soviet Union, then France, and now the United States – to achieve its security. Israel had better understand that it needs Hamas and Hezbollah if it is to survive, argues Immanuel Wallerstein.

The State of Israel was established in 1948. Ever since, there has been continuous violence between Jews and Arabs in Israel, and between Israel and its neighbours. Sometimes, the violence was low-level and even latent. And every once in a while, the violence escalated into open warfare, as now. Whenever full-scale violence broke out, there was an immediate debate about what started it, as though that mattered. We are now in the midst of warfare between Israel and Palestine in Gaza and between Israel and Lebanon. And the world is engaged in its usual futile debate about how to reduce the open state of warfare to low-level violence.

Every Israeli government has wished to create a situation in which the world and Israel’s neighbours recognize its existence as a state and intergroup/interstate violence ceases. Israel has never been able to achieve this. When the level of violence is relatively low, the Israeli public is split about what strategy to pursue. But when it escalates into warfare, the Jewish Israelis and world Jewry tend to rally around the government.

In reality, Israel’s basic strategy since 1948 has been to rely on two things in the pursuit of its objectives: a strong military, and strong outside Western support. So far this strategy has worked in one sense: Israel still survives. The question is how much longer this strategy will in fact continue to work.

The source of outside support has shifted over time. We forget completely that in 1948 the crucial military support for Israel came from the Soviet Union and its eastern European satellites. When the Soviet Union pulled back, it was France that came to fill the role. France was engaged in a revolution in Algeria, and it saw Israel as a crucial element in defeating the Algerian national liberation movement. But when Algeria became independent in 1962, France dropped Israel because it then sought to maintain ties with a now-independent Algeria.

It is only after that moment that the United States moved into its present total support of Israel. One major element in this turn-around was the Israeli military victory in the Six Days War in 1967. In this war, Israel conquered all the territories of the old British Mandate of Palestine, as well as more. It proved its ability to be a strong military presence in the region. It transformed the attitude of world Jewry from one in which only about 50% really approved of the creation of Israel into one which had the support of the large majority of world Jewry, for whom Israel had now become a source of pride. This is the moment when the Holocaust became a major ideological justification for Israel and its policies.

After 1967, the Israeli governments never felt they had to negotiate anything with the Palestinians or with the Arab world. They offered one-sided settlements but these were always on Israeli terms. Israel wouldn’t negotiate with Nasser. Then it wouldn’t negotiate with Arafat. And now it won’t negotiate with so-called terrorists. Instead, it has relied on successive shows of military strength.

Israel is now engaged in the exact same catastrophic blunder, from its own point of view, as George Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Bush thought that a show of military strength would establish US presence unquestionably in Iraq and intimidate the rest of the world. Bush has discovered that Iraqi resistance was far more formidable militarily than anticipated, that American political allies in Iraq were far less reliable than he assumed they would be, and that the US public’s support of the war was far more fragile than he expected. The United States is heading towards a humiliating withdrawal from Iraq.

Israel’s current military campaign is a direct parallel of Bush’s invasion of Iraq. The Israeli generals are already noting that Hezbollah’s military is far more formidable than anticipated, that US allies in the region are already taking wide distance from the United States and Israel (note the Iraqi government’s support of Lebanon and now that of the Saudi government), and soon will discover that the Israeli public’s support is more fragile than expected. Already the Israeli government is reluctant to send land troops into Lebanon, largely because of what it thinks will be the reaction of its own people inside Israel. Israel is heading towards a humiliating truce arrangement.

What the Israeli governments do not realize is that neither Hamas nor Hezbollah need Israel. It is Israel that needs them, and needs them desperately. If Israel wants not to become a Crusader state that is in the end extinguished, it is only Hamas and Hezbollah that can guarantee the survival of Israel. It is only when Israel is able to come to terms with them, as the deeply-rooted spokespersons of Palestinian and Arab nationalism, that Israel can live in peace.

Achieving a stable peace settlement will be extremely difficult. But the pillars of Israel’s present strategy – its own military strength and the unconditional support of the United States – constitute a very thin reed. Its military advantage is diminishing and will diminish steadily in the years to come. And in the post-Iraqi years, the United States may well drop Israel in the same way that France did in the 1960s.

Israel’s only real guarantee will be that of the Palestinians. And to get this guarantee, Israel will need to rethink fundamentally its strategy for survival.

Immanuel Wallerstein, Senior Research Scholar at Yale University, is the author of The Decline of American Power: The US in a Chaotic World (New Press).