MidEast Report

STUMBLING BLINDLY THROUGH HISTORY
It's difficult to divine what George W. Bush's actual policy is regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict, given that he seems to be trying to state things in a way which can be interpreted differently by either side. On April 14, Bush met with Ariel Sharon and made this statement:

"The United States will not prejudice the outcome of final status negotiations. That matter is for the parties."

Bush then blithely proceeded to prejudice the outcome of final status negotiations:

"But the realities on the ground and in the region have changed greatly over the last several decades, and any final settlement must take into account those realities and be agreeable to the parties. The goal of two independent states has repeatedly been recognized in international resolutions and agreements, and it remains the key to resolving this conflict. The United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue, as part of any final status agreement, will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than Israel."

The Palestinian right of return and the illegal Jewish settlements in the Palestinian West Bank have long been two of the main impediments to any lasting peace agreement, and with his statement President Bush attempted to unilaterally resolve both of those issues in favor of Israel.

"As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders which should emerge from negotiations between the parties, in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. And all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."

Huh? How can Bush simultaneously affirm UN Security Council Resolution 242 which states, in no uncertain terms, that Israel must withdraw from territory siezed in the 1967 War, and affirm Israel's occupation and annexation of huge portions of that territory?

Two days later, in a joint appearance with Tony Blair, Bush reiterated this statement regarding final status negotiations:

"As I said Wednesday, all final status issues must still be negotiated between the parties. I look forward to the day when those discussions can begin, so the Israeli occupation can be ended and a free and independent and peaceful Palestinian state can emerge. "

In their statements, both Bush and Blair seemed enamored of the idea of "movement," the idea being that Sharon's plan, for all of it's faults, represents "movement" after years of stalemate, and thus should be welcomed. But what good is "movement" if it only moves one closer to the cliff's edge? And what does Bush mean by recognizing Israel's claim to huge portions of Palestinian land and the denial of the Palestinian right of return, but then stating that "all final status issues must still be negotiated between the parties?" It's almost as if he...didn't have a clue.

In today's Jerusalem Post:

"The White House announced that President George W. Bush stands by both the oral and written commitments he provided Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with earlier this month.

Bush will likely present Jordan's King Abdullah II, when he visits Washington next week, with a letter reaffirming Washington's commitment to a two-state solution negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians.

But the letter will in no way contradict the assurances provided to Sharon by Bush earlier this month on final-status issues, Israel's top diplomat in Washington said Wednesday after speaking to senior US officials.

"There may be a letter but in no way or shape will it detract, dilute, from the assurances given to Israel. There will certainly be no backtracking. I got the fullest and most authoritative assurances for that," Israel's ambassador to the US Daniel Ayalon said."

So the Israelis seem to believe that, despite Bush's comments about not prejudicing the final outcome, the right of return and West Bank settlement issues are essentially settled in favor of Israel, final status negotiations be damned.

But King Abdallah may have other ideas:

"Jordan’s King Abdallah told Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qorei yesterday that Israel’s planned pullout from the Gaza Strip should be part of a “total Israeli withdrawal” from all Palestinian areas.

“Israel’s plan envisaging a unilateral pullout from the Gaza Strip should be part of a total Israeli withdrawal in accordance with the provisions of the road map,” King Abdallah said during talks with Qorei who visited Jordan during a tour of the region."

King Abdallah's father, King Hussein, played an indispensable part in the peace process in the mid-1990s. Hopefully his son will begin following that lead. Looking way forward, I think it's possible that, just as it seems to have united large parts of Iraq's Shi'a and Sunni communities against the U.S occupation, President Bush's diplomatic incompetence could have the unintended (though certainly happier) result of spurring Arab states to play a larger and more constructive part in resolving the Palestine-Israel conflict.

But I may be letting hope get the better part of my reason there.

posted by Matt Duss @ 11:45 AM 0 comments

AL-SADR
Here's a really good profile of Moqtada al-Sadr from the Christian Science Monitor. (thanks to Kevin Drum)

Another interesting article from CSM on why the Iraq Governing Council has failed.

"We sit in the council while the country is burning and argue over procedure,'' says Sheikh Yawar, a Sunni tribal leader who lived abroad until last year. "We're like the Byzantines in Constantinople, debating whether angels are male or female with the barbarians at the gate."

Procedure is, of course, important when writing a new constitution and designing a system of representative government. When used correctly, it can help cultivate a sense of legitimacy for a new government. When abused in various stalling measures, as seems to have happened with the council, it destroys legitimacy. It's somewhat understandable that the various religious and tribal factions would be arguing over procedure in an attempt to safeguard their own future power, as it's not clear from day to day or hour to hour how the new Iraq will look or which faction will eventually dominate, which is a direct result of the Bush Gang's poor planning.

posted by Matt Duss @ 2:50 PM 0 comments

WMD FOUND IN IRAQ! (not quite)
Writing on NRO's "the Corner", Jonah Goldberg has this to say:

"Don't pop the champagne quite yet, but this story certainly could use some wider play:

New evidence out of Iraq suggests that the U.S. effort to track down Saddam Hussein's missing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is having better success than is being reported. Key assertions by the intelligence community that were widely judged in the media and by critics of President George W. Bush as having been false are turning out to have been true after all. But this stunning news has received little attention from the major media, and the president's critics continue to insist that "no weapons" have been found.

In virtually every case - chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles - the United States has found the weapons and the programs that the Iraqi dictator successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors.

The Iraq Survey Group (ISG), whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official tells Insight. "There is a long list of charges made by the U.S. that have been confirmed, but none of this seems to mean anything because the weapons that were unaccounted for by the United Nations remain unaccounted for."

Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.....

Pop the champagne? Uh, sorry. If you read the whole article, not that you have to, given that the excerpt above pretty neatly contradicts itself, you'll see that this is much of the same old BS on a new shovel. Despite what the article claims, WMD have not been found. What has been found is evidence that Saddam was intent on obtaining weapons in the future, and that he was in material breach of various UN resolutions regarding the capability of his missile arsenal. Thing is, I don't know of anybody who is claiming those things weren't so. We all knew that Saddam was in material breach, and that he probably wanted to develop WMD in the future. But the President rested his case for invasion, invasion now, on the argument that Saddam currently posessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, not that Saddam wanted to get them later, but that Saddam had them now, and that this required the U.S. to act, rather than to wait.

Additionally, if WMD had, in fact, been found in Iraq, don't you think we'd be hearing about it in a breathless press conference from the White House, rather than from an obscure right-wing website?

posted by Matt Duss @ 12:03 PM 0 comments

MEANWHILE, IN MERRY OLDE ENGLAND...
Prime Minister Tony Blair has come in for severe criticism for his support of Bush's Middle East policy, particularly his support of Bush's endorsemement of Ariel Sharon's plan to annex large portions of the Palestinian West Bank into Israel. I can understand why Blair is sticking with Bush on Iraq, but I'm confounded as to why he would stand by Bush's extremely ill-advised endorsement of Sharon's expansionism. Hopefully we'll get some answers when Blair responds to these criticisms.

Also in England, the New York Times reports:

The call to jihad is rising in the streets of Europe, and is being answered, counterterrorism officials say.

In this former industrial town north of London, a small group of young Britons whose parents emigrated from Pakistan after World War II have turned against their families' new home. They say they would like to see Prime Minister Tony Blair dead or deposed and an Islamic flag hanging outside No. 10 Downing Street.

They swear allegiance to Osama bin Laden and his goal of toppling Western democracies to establish an Islamic superstate under Shariah law, like Afghanistan under the Taliban. They call the Sept. 11 hijackers the "Magnificent 19" and regard the Madrid train bombings as a clever way to drive a wedge into Europe.

Isn't that sweet?

The Guardian reports that moderate Muslims in Luton demonstrated for peace, seeking to counter impressions of radical, anti-Western Islam. We need more of these kind of marches.

UPDATE: Here's the text of the letter sent to Blair.

posted by Matt Duss @ 12:16 PM 0 comments

THE LIMBAUGH OF THE LEFT
Just as I think it is the responsibility of sensible conservatives to call out and criticize the rhetorical excesses of such right-wing pests as Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter, I think it's important that sensible liberals look out for the poop in their own yard. Here's some commentary from left-wing clown Michael Moore:

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win."

This is worse than despicable, it's ahistorical. I don't recall any Minutemen blowing up schoolchildren. But we know by now that Moore never lets inconvenient facts get in the way of his sweaty polemics. As much as I hate the charge of "anti-Americanism" that right-wingers so often throw, more often slyly imply, at liberals, there's really no way to describe Moore's comments here as anything but that. When he blows his trumpet for the Iraqi "revolution," such as it is, he is communicating his wish for the continued maiming and death of Iraqi civilians and American soldiers. It's one thing to disagree with the U.S. government and advocate a change in policy. It's entirely another to wish for the death of your countrymen.

(On the other hand, Moore may have been referring to these Minutemen. But I don't know that any of the Iraqi fighters were particularly influenced by Southern California jazz-punk, so Moore would still be wrong. And still be a fool.)

posted by Matt Duss @ 10:50 AM 0 comments

AND NOW, PLAN "G" (COMING SOON: PLAN "H")
This was long overdue:
(from the Washington Post)
The United States and the top U.N. envoy to Iraq have decided to exclude the majority of the Iraqi politicians the U.S.-led coalition has relied on over the past year when they select an Iraqi government to assume power on June 30, U.S. and U.N. officials said yesterday.

At the top of the list of those likely to be jettisoned is Ahmed Chalabi, a Shiite politician who for years was a favorite of the Pentagon and the office of Vice President Cheney, and who was once expected to assume a powerful role after the ouster of Saddam Hussein, U.S. officials acknowledged.

Here's a Frontline interview with Chalabi from July, 2003 which suggests that he has taken spin and dance lessons from the Bush Gang:

FRONTLINE: You had argued for a long time that [Iraq was] tightly connected with Al Qaeda, as far back as 1998. I remember meeting with you--

CHALABI: Yes.

You told me there were lots of connections.

Yes, there were.

Well, those have not quite been demonstrated.

Well, they should look further. We can--

But you haven't successfully been able to demonstrate--

We have very strong leads on that, and we have very strong evidence that they have.

You have strong evidence that there's links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein?

Yes. You see, the point is that the U.S.--

Where are these? Where is this evidence though?

In U.S. hands.

Why hasn't it been--

Because I have not been able to talk to the people, or get the information out of the people they have in their hands.

But this is not material that you've provided to the press at any time?

No.

But you're certain that there is this information?

Yes.

It just hasn't been released to the public?

Yes. But I don't think they have it. They have not gotten it. You see--

I thought you gave it to them.

It is not. It's the U.S.. Look, the US has several thousand detainees from Saddam's regime. They should do a better job of getting information out of them. The information is there. We know it is.

So it's in Guantanamo?

No. In Iraq.

It's in Iraq, where they have detainees?

Yes.

And those people can tell them, but they just haven't told them?

Yes. Yes.

But you, as far back as 1998, were arguing that there was a strong link between Al Qaeda--
Yes.

But I never saw concrete evidence.

We gave the names of the people who we knew were doing the links. What is the kind of thing that you want? There were visits of Al Qaeda here and there was money that changed hands between them and--

What kind of money changed hands between--

Funds were given to Al Qaeda.

From--?

From Saddam ...

To--?

To Al Qaeda. …

... But you say you have actual evidence that there was money--

We have people who say they did it.

Do you have any documentary evidence of any kind?
Of what?

I was told ... that you had a document that states -- it was instructions from the intelligence office in Saddam's government to destroy--
Yes. There is such a document.

That is a document that you could show us?

Well, I've seen it. But I do not have it in my possession. They could show it to you, I think.

Who can show it to me?

Our intelligence people.

Your intelligence people?

[Yes].

So after this interview, we can--

I don't know if you can do it right now.

Well, I think its very important to make this -- this is something you've talked about since 1998, and I think it's a very important point. It's one of the points that drew America to this war.

Yes.

Correct? So it's very important to establish the truth of it.

Yes.

I mean, if there is such a document, it makes sense for you to share it, no?

I'm not saying no. No, I'm saying that I can't--

I'm somehow not getting the feeling that I'm going to see the document.

Well, you are erroneous.

OK. Great. I hope to see it.

Well, we expect to show it to you.


Almost a year later...nothing. I wonder if Chalabi still expects to show us this evidence? Is he holding on to it until the very last minute? Somehow I doubt it. I expect that a year from now, we'll still be waiting for it.

As the Post article notes, for the past few years Chalabi has been the favorite of the Cheney-Pentagon crowd, that is, of the exact people who have bungled the occupation of Iraq at every turn, and would have bungled it even further by trying to install this self-serving double-talker in a position of permanent power in Iraq. Even ignoring the allegations of financial corruption against Chalabi, the guy hasn't lived in Iraq since 1953, and thus has no legitimacy among Iraqis who've spent the last thirty-five years of their lives suffering under Ba'athist Party rule, and probably wouldn't be too excited about having this expatriate rich kid as their new leader.

posted by Matt Duss @ 2:02 PM 0 comments

JORDANIAN KING CANCELS TALKS WITH BUSH
And the fallout of Bush's cave-in to Sharon begins.
(Al Jazeera)
"The reason behind cancelling the trip is clear as Bush's backing of the Sharon plan made the king's visit embarrassing and meaningless," Jordanian political analysts Jamil al-Nimri told Aljazeera.net

"Jordan was hoping to make the disengagement plan part of the 'road map' and not eradicate the peace initiative completely by legalising settlements and scrapping the right of return," added al-Nimri who writes for al-Arab al-Yawm daily.

RELATED:
Israel Planning Big Investment in West Bank Settlements
(New York Times)

"Mr. Netanyahu said Sunday that Israel could now "fortify our hold" on blocs of West Bank settlements. He told Israel radio on Monday that he would approve investment for settlements that would not be enclosed on Israel's side of the new barrier it is building against West Bank Palestinians.

"There, we are going to invest," he said. "I myself am going to approve hundreds of millions of shekels to invest in the settlements beyond the main fence." "

That's right, friends. Not satisfied with the assurances they obtained from Bush that they may annex West Bank settlements into Israel, Israel plans to continue to invest in settlements outside their now-expanded borders. Boggles the mind. As expected, Bush's knuckleheaded endorsement of Sharon's plan, rather than provide any opening for peace, has only emboldened Israel's hardliners.

Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum always has interesting things to say about the Middle East, even if I disagree with much of it, but he's flat-out, dead wrong on the issue of settlements and their significance in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Some analysts consider Jews living in the West Bank and Gaza to be one of the leading obstacles to resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I disagree with this argument,and for two main reasons. First, it assumes that Palestinian Arabs seek only to gain control over the West Bank and Gaza, whereas overwhelming evidence points to their also aspiring to go further and control Israel proper. Therefore, pulling Israelis from the territories does no good.

In fact, it probably does harm. Imagine that Israelis were uprooted and the Israel Defense Forces pulled back to the 1967 boundaries — what then? Messrs. Friedman, AbiNader, and Kucinich assume the Palestinian Arabs would be grateful and reward Israel by tending to their own gardens, permitting Israel quietly to go its separate way.

But I expect a quite different reaction : Palestinian Arabs will see a pullback signaling that Israel is weak, appeasing, and vulnerable. Far from showing gratitude, they will make greater demands. With Jenin and Ramallah in the maw, Jerusalem will be next on the agenda, followed by Tel Aviv and Haifa.

Ahh, so the issue is not morality, but credibility. The best argument that Pipes can produce for keeping the settlements is that to abandon them would make Israel appear weak. I find that quite revealing. What Pipes has given us here, then, is mere intellectual cover for the more honest hardline Israeli expansionists and radical settlers.

Pipes goes on to refer to the settlements issue as a "political triviality," which makes me wonder whether he's ever actually visited the Occupied Territories and seen the constant, everyday oppression of the Palestinian population which the maintenance and protection of the settlements requires. Trivial? I wonder if he would consider it trivial if it was his home that was bulldozed and his family's land that was confiscated to make room for new settlements? I wonder if he would consider it trivial if he was forced to wait for two hours in the hot desert sun at an Israeli checkpoint every time he wanted to go to work, or take his children to school, or to visit his relatives in the next town? I don't that he would.

I think that Palestinians may be more prepared to accept the existence of the Jewish State than Pipes realizes, though that is arguable. What is inarguable is that the continued settlement activity and Israeli military presence which it requires only weakens Palestinian moderates and strengthens Palestinian extremists.

posted by Matt Duss @ 1:14 PM 0 comments

SECOND THOUGHTS? NOT REALLY
Christopher Hitchens on what he got wrong on Iraq:

"The thing that I most underestimated is the thing that least undermines the case. And it's not something that I overlooked, either. But the extent of lumpen Islamization in Iraq, on both the Khomeinist and Wahhabi ends (call them Shiite and Sunni if you want a euphemism that insults the majority), was worse than I had guessed.

...When fools say that the occupation has "united" Sunni and Shiite, they flatter the alliance between the proxies of the Iranian mullahs and the Saudi princes. And they ignore the many pleas from disputed and distraught towns, from Iraqis who beg not to be abandoned to these sadistic and corrupt riffraff. One might have seen this coming with greater prescience. But it would have made it even more important not to leave Iraq to the post-Saddam plans of such factions. There was no way around our adoption of Iraq, as there still is not."

Here's an essay by the former Polish dissident Adam Michnik, published in March 2003. It remains, in my opinion, the most concise and elegant defense of the war against Saddam published anywhere:

"I aim to avoid double standards in thinking about the world. I thus aim to use the same criteria in assessing the arrogance of all great powers, not just the Bush administration.

I remember my nation’s experience with totalitarian dictatorship. This is why I was able to draw the right conclusions from Sept. 11, 2001. Just as the murder of Giacomo Matteotti [leader of Italy’s United Socialist Party] revealed the nature of Italian fascism and Mussolini’s regime; just as the great Moscow trials showed the world the essence of the Stalinist system; just as “Kristallnacht” exposed the hidden truth of Hitler’s Nazism, watching the collapsing World Trade Center towers made me realize that the world was facing a new totalitarian challenge. Violence, fanaticism, and lies were challenging democratic values.

This is not the place to analyze the ideology that, while disfiguring the religion of Islam, creates a crusade against the democratic world. Saddam Hussein takes part in this just as Hitler and Stalin did before him. He asserts that in the holy war with the “godless West” all methods are permitted. Waiting for this sort of regime to obtain weapons of mass destruction would be plain recklessness."

posted by Matt Duss @ 1:11 PM 0 comments

ARE ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY COMPATIBLE?
That is the central question of this conference in Istanbul. The consensus among the participants seems to be that Islam is indeed compatible with democracy, and that instability in the Islamic world is caused by illegitimate authoritarian regimes, rather than by anything intrinsic to the Muslim faith.

There is also consensus among the conferees that the West should not seek to impose Western-models of democracy onto the Middle East. I think it's true that we in the West should prepare ourselves to accept an Islamic democracy that may not look like Western democracy, but there are specific qualities of democracy which must transcend culture and ethnicity, such as freedom of speech and of the press, women's suffrage, and, most importantly, secularism. It's been argued that secularism, the separation of Church and State, is the single most important historical factor which allowed the West to develop and eventually overtake the Islamic world. Whether or not Muslims can adopt some measure of secularism in their own societies will dictate how successful democracy will be in those regions.

To put it simply, religion is about assurance; politics is about compromise. The West has learned, through hundreds of bloody years, that the two aren't a very good mix.

In an op-ed published yesterday, Daniel Pipes notes the historical incompatability of Islam and democracy, and asserts that this is unlikely to change in Iraq under the current conditions of U.S. occupation:

"...as a predominantly Muslim people, Iraqis share in the powerful Muslim reluctance to being ruled by non-Muslims. This reluctance results from the very nature of Islam, the most public and political of religions.

To live a fully Muslim life requires living in accord with the many laws of Islam, called the sharia. The sharia includes difficult-to-implement precepts pertaining to taxation, the judicial system and warfare. Its complete implementation can occur only when the ruler himself is a pious Muslim (although an impious Muslim is much preferable to a non-Muslim). For Muslims, rule by non-Muslims is an abomination, a blasphemous inversion of God's dispensation."

Pipes suggests that the only way for Iraq to find its way to democracy is for the U.S. to pull out and install "a democratically minded Iraqi strongman, someone who will work with the coalition forces, provide decent government, and move eventually toward a more open political system." I've had similar thoughts. What Iraq needs right now is an Ataturk, someone with unassailable legitimacy and a committment to republican government who is willing to make the hard choices that will set Iraq on the course to democracy. Unfortunately, right now it seems that the only way for any of Iraq's potential Ataturks to gain such legitimacy is to achieve victory against U.S.-coalition forces.

posted by Matt Duss @ 10:01 AM 0 comments

THE END OF THE ROAD MAP
Today, George W. Bush effectively scuttled his own Middle East peace plan by endorsing Ariel Sharon's Gaza pullout plan and tacitly approved Sharon's wish to hold on to large portions of the West Bank which contain illegal Jewish settlements.

(New York Times)...Bush said, the "realities on the ground and in the region have changed greatly" and should be reflected in any final peace deal -- another concession, also sought by Sharon, to the fact that Israel has large groups of settlers in the West Bank.

It's very simple: in order to maintain the settlements, Israel must maintain the occupation. While the occupation continues, there will be no peace.

posted by Matt Duss @ 11:01 AM 0 comments

PRESIDENTIAL PRESS CONFERENCE
I thought he did relatively well, that is, according to the depressingly low expectations which we have all learned to bring to such appearances. Measured against the level of facility and command of facts which I think a modern society should be able to expect from its leaders, it was of course an embarassment from beginning to end. There were a lot of choice moments, I'll get to more of them later, but here was my hands-down favorite:

QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?

BUSH: We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over.

And, secondly, because the 9-11 commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.

BUSH: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9-11 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I'm looking forward to answering them.

And I'm looking forward to hearing him answering them. So everybody's looking forward to something.

posted by Matt Duss @ 10:40 AM 0 comments

THE SHARON PLAN
Interesting perspective from Edward S. Walker of the Middle East Institute:
"I had serious doubts when I first heard of Sharon’s Gaza proposal based on my concern that we not wind-up with a “Gaza first, Gaza only” solution. I have since come to believe, however, that what the Prime Minister is proposing may be the only way to break open the impasse that binds the West Bank and Gaza into a morass of violence. The reasons to embrace the Sharon proposal are numerous, particularly if there is linkage into the West Bank. Who could have imagined that it would be Arik Sharon who would propose giving up settlements? The precedential nature of this move is enormous, and the settler movement knows it. If Sharon goes forward with this plan, his right wing will very likely defect from the government and the party and Sharon will have to reconstitute his government with a new political alliance."

Sharon's proposal is radical for several reasons, the most notable of which is that he has always been one of the main political patrons of the Israeli Jewish Settler Movement since its beginnings in the wake of the 1967 war. Sharon's governing coalition depends upon the cooperation of ultra-nationalist, pro-settlement elements who are committed to a vision of Greater Israel, a Jewish State stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, and most of these have threatened to abandon him if he tries to withdraw from Gaza.

As Martin Indyk has pointed out, the Israeli government hates to give something for nothing, and it might seem at first glance that by unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza and abandoning settlements which cost millions of dollars to erect, Sharon is giving the Palestinians something for nothing: ceding control of Gaza without demanding promises of a cease-fire or anything. But while Sharon may be getting nothing from the Palestinians in Gaza, his gesture is more likely intended to get something from Bush when the two meet this week. By giving up Gaza, Sharon probably wants to get Bush's support for essentially re-drawing the Green Line, the border between Israel and the future Palestine, to annex most of the West Bank settlements into Israel, precisely the “Gaza first, Gaza only” solution that Walker fears.

If so, this would be a very shrewd move by Sharon. All of the settlements in the occupied territories are illegal under international law, specifically Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. By giving up a small portion of land which was taken illegally, Sharon will try to hold on to the much larger portion of land which was taken illegally, and get to look like he's compromising in the bargain.

UPDATE: Looks like this is precisely what Sharon has in mind:
(from the New York Times)
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel on Monday listed five major settlement blocs in the West Bank that he promised to retain as part of his unilateral separation plan from the Palestinians and visited the largest of them.

Mr. Sharon spoke in Maale Adumim, a settlement just east of Jerusalem and home to more than 30,000 Israelis, shortly before his departure for the United States, where he will meet with President Bush at the White House on Wednesday.

"Only an Israeli initiative will assure the future of the large settlement blocs and the security zones," he told residents of Maale Adumim.

(Here's a picture of Maale Adumim I took when I visited Israel and the Palestinian Territories last summer. This is what Sharon refers to as "natural growth.")

Of course, the success of Sharon's plan depends a lot on his success in extracting promises of support from Bush. It's an election year, and Bush has been campaigning hard to capture some of the Jewish vote from the Democrats. Stay tuned on that.

One thing is for sure, though. Keeping the settlements in the West Bank, and maintaining the vast security apparatus, checkpoints, and system of Jewish-only highways and Palestinian Bantustans which that will require, will not achieve either peace or security. It will not come close.

posted by Matt Duss @ 12:22 PM 0 comments

SOME GOOD SENSE
from Andrew Sullivan:
"It's worth saying here what we now know the president got wrong - badly wrong. There were never enough troops to occupy Iraq. The war-plan might have been brilliant, but the post-war plan has obviously been a failure. We needed more force and we needed more money sooner. The president has no excuses for not adjusting more quickly to this fact: he was told beforehand; he was told afterward; but he and the Defense Secretary were too pig-headed to change course. I still favor the war; but I cannot excuse the lapses and failures of the administration in the post-war. Yes, this was always going to be very very hard. And yes, Iraq was slowly imploding under Saddam and some version of what we are now witnessing was inevitable - and, without the war, it would have happened without our stabilizing presence. Yes, balancing keeping order and winning hearts and minds is not an easy operation to pull off. But with the troop levels we maintained - especially given the limited international support - we made things far harder than they might have been, and our beleaguered troops are dealing with the aftermath. We can still win this. We must still win this. But the president is in part responsible for making it even harder than it might have been."

In addition to having too few troops, the Bush Gang screwed up when they disbanded the Iraqi Army, thereby leaving thousands of unemployed, armed, bored men to wander the streets and eventually either turn to crime or hook up with an insurgent militia, or both. The hasty process of de-Ba'athification was also a mistake, throwing out thousands of government bureaucrats in the interest of making a clean break from the Saddam Hussein regime, but then having no potential replacements or any realistic plan to train them. Giving ex-Ba'athists a stake in a new, free Iraq would've probably been a good idea. Instead, many ex-Ba'athists have come to believe that a democratic Iraq is something to be feared.

posted by Matt Duss @ 11:40 AM 0 comments

MUBARAK/BUSH SUMMIT AT CRAWFORD
(New York Times)
During their meeting, the two leaders discussed prospects for reviving Mideast peace efforts and Israel's plan to close 21 Jewish settlements in Gaza. Mubarak pledged that his country would do ``whatever it takes'' to revive efforts to strike a peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians.

The proposed Israeli withdrawal from Gaza will put Mubarak in what could easily become a very uncomfortable position. He would then have to maintain border security between Egypt and Gaza, which has been controlled by Israel since 1967, and prevent the inflow to Gaza of weapons and anti-Israeli fighters, all while having to contend with a population which is hugely pro-Palestinian.

posted by Matt Duss @ 11:43 AM 0 comments

SIGH
President Bush: ``We also believe the future of the Middle East and the future of Iraq are closely linked,'' Bush said. ``The people of the greater Middle East have a right to be safe, secure, prosperous and free.''

That's very perceptive, don't you think? Especially since Iraq is, um, in the Middle East.

posted by Matt Duss @ 11:38 AM 0 comments

THE WAR IS BACK, THE WAR IS BACK
(al Jazeera)
...just as the Shia of Iraq are preparing to celebrate Arba'een, which had previously been banned under Saddam's rule. Mass movements of celebrants does not bode well for the security situation.

posted by Matt Duss @ 9:32 AM 0 comments

AGENDA FOR THE BUSH-MUBARAK SUMMIT
In his first visit to the United States in two years, Mubarak will be hosted by Bush at his private ranch in Crawford, Texas, a courtesy reserved for close US allies. "We look forward to President Mubarak's visit," said US Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield. "This is an important visit by a strategic ally and a friend," he added.

Mubarak's meeting with Bush will mark the beginning of what seems to be serious discussions held by the US president with regional leaders, mainly aimed at ironing out details in Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's proposal to evacuate the Gaza Strip and a few West Bank settlements as a first step towards implementing the internationally-sponsored roadmap. Two days after Bush confers with Mubarak in Crawford, he will meet Sharon at the White House in Washington. On 21 April, he will hold similar talks with Jordan's King Abdullah.

posted by Matt Duss @ 1:41 PM 0 comments

BUSH'S VIETNAM
In a speech at the Brookings Institution last Tuesday, Senator Teddy Kennedy said, among other things, that "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam."

I think this was an extremely counter-productive thing for Kennedy to say. There may be similarities between Vietnam and Iraq, though right now I think the differences are more significant. More importantly, in American politics there is a very heavy subtext to any Vietnam reference, as that war and the divisions it created have come to stand for the broader cultural upheaval of the 1960s and early 70s. By making such a comparison, Kennedy is almost forcing people to take sides along that cultural divide, to see the debate over Iraq in those terms, rather than in current terms.

Also, comparing Iraq to Vietnam implies that the U.S. should pull out immediately, which would be a disaster. This is something even most of those who opposed the invasion recognize.

UPDATE: Al Jazeera reports that a U.S. Marine commander compared the fighting in Fallujah to Vietnam.

posted by Matt Duss @ 12:25 PM 0 comments

SHIITE UPRISING?
This article in the New York Times claims that, despite what the White House says, the current unrest in Iraq has the makings of a broad Shiite uprising, something that was greatly feared by critics of the Iraq invasion.

On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that they did not believe the United States was facing a broad-based Shiite insurgency. Administration officials have portrayed Moktada al-Sadr, a rebel Shiite cleric who is wanted by American forces, as the catalyst of the rising violence within the Shiite community of Iraq.

But intelligence officials now say that there is evidence that the insurgency goes beyond Mr. Sadr and his militia, and that a much larger number of Shiites have turned against the American-led occupation of Iraq, even if they are not all actively aiding the uprising.

posted by Matt Duss @ 12:13 PM 0 comments

ALGERIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
(from the Washington Post)
ALGIERS, April 8 -- Algerians voted on Thursday in a presidential election seen as a landmark for democracy in a Muslim country seeking to erase traumas of civil war and Islamic fundamentalism.

posted by Matt Duss @ 12:08 PM 0 comments

WELCOME
Over the next few months I'll be developing this site into a resource for information and analysis on the Middle East.

I've chosen as my first post Osama bin Laden's 1998 declaration (fatwa) of jihad against the West. This is required reading for anyone who wants to understand the unfortunate state of relations between Western and Islamic societies.

Much more encouraging is the recent Alexandria Declaration, issued during the Arab Reform Conference, which was held in Alexandria, Egypt, in March, 2004. The statement details specific reforms which Arab governments must undertake in order to transform their societies. It's too soon to say how much this conference will affect the debate among Arab governments, but getting these things on paper and then getting them publicized and discussed are vital first steps to eventual reform.

posted by Matt Duss @ 3:30 PM 0 comments