Blogcritics Author: Liam Bailey

U.S. Policy Consequences: Blowback or Controlled Explosion?

Liam Bailey — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:06:37 EDT

Have U.S. policies been aiming at conquering the world's oil for decades?
I have long believed that the U.S. will always need an arch-nemesis to justify its defense spending always being millions of dollars higher than any other world power -- a country, or "axis" of (evil) countries portrayed as an enemy and a real threat to all that is American. My first example: communism and the cold war. As I will explain below U.S....

British Basra Withdrawal: You Never Know Unless You Go

Liam Bailey — Wed, 5 Sep 2007 17:10:26 EDT

Britain was never going to completely pacify Iraq's southern districts, but they've accomplished their goals of training Iraqi policy and military.
September third saw the hand over of Basra Palace from British to Iraqi control. The 550 British troops previously stationed there have gone to join the last remaining 5000 British troops in the airport base on the city's outskirts. The handover brought mixed responses from Iraqis and from the press.Gordon Brown insisted that the move was...

Abbas Opposes Land-Swap: Does He Want Peace?

Liam Bailey — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:57:19 EDT

Until the Palestinians agree to a deal, Israeli offers of peace are meaningless.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has said that he opposes Israel's proposal to give up areas of Israeli land heavily populated by Israeli Arabs, such as the region around Umm al-Fahm, for the new Palestinian state, in order to keep Israel's settlement blocs in the West Bank while still returning 100% of the land taken in the 1967 war....

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Palestinian Suffering: We Caused It. Let's Fix It

Liam Bailey — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:36:54 EDT

The Holocaust can never be forgotten. An estimated 6 million Jews were killed by Nazi Germany. After World War II, the Allied victors felt compelled by guilt to grant the Zionist/Jewish wish for a national Jewish state. Because Britain then controlled Palestine, which is where the Zionists felt their state should be, Britain, along with the UN came up with a partition plan to give the Jews a portion of Palestine for their homeland. Since that time, Britain, Germany and the UN -- meaning all developed nations -- bear equal responsibility for Palestinian suffering. Israel has had nearly 60 years to do the right thing. It is time for the world to step in and right the wrong it played a big part in creating.Most Palestinians live with unemployment, depression, poverty and hunger; it has become so bad that child beggars are entering Israel from the supposedly better off West Bank. Children sent by parents who can't afford to feed them, to face the danger of knife point robbery and sexual abuse for a few dollars, tells us just how desperate the situation is in the West Bank -- and it's even worse in Gaza. Here's why: Israel is the occupying nation. With their checkpoints and border restrictions they keep Palestinians from visiting family and friends, which is likely to cause loneliness, hopelessness and depression, from getting to jobs and making exports difficult causing unemployment and poverty. Fear comes from air strikes and arrest operations. And all the above causes and exemplifies Palestinian anger. The more Israel gets away with, the worse it gets, and the less likely a Palestinian state becomes. Like Israel failing to abide by the 4th Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of civilians by an occupying force. Israel does not regard the Geneva Convention as applying de jure to the West Bank and Gaza strip -- yet says that the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment does not apply to the occupied territories because they are covered by the Geneva Convention. That is a clear example of Israel saying we are above international law -- and getting away with it.In the summer war with Lebanon last year Israel used depleted uranium bombs and cluster bombs in civilian areas. Lebanese civilians are still paying for the latter with their lives, and the damage the uranium may have done to the soil, crops and female fertility remains to be seen. The 10ft high security wall Israel is building has been ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice, not to mention the hordes of human rights groups, Israeli and global, speaking out about the huge atrocity it is. Israel keeps on building and the U.S. keeps treating her as a massive ally. Any attempts made by the U.N. Security Council to put a kerb on Israel's behaviour by issuing a resolution is vetoed by the U.S., which actually has the audacity to say the resolutions are biased against Israel. Israel acts like a rogue state and remains in the world's good books and cheque books. The Palestinians want their own state and control over their own borders and destiny, but only Israel can grant that – which would cost Israel a lot of land and money, their sacred Jerusalem and chance for a greater Israel. Israel doesn't want to give up land, it wants to even more, and Israel is the one in control. The wall is a good example of Israel wanting to take more Palestinian land, as the wall is kilometres inside the proposed Palestinian state, when it could provide the same security from inside Israel's proposed border. All this should mean Israel isn't impartial, yet Israel can still influence how the world deals with the Palestinians. Israel is a prosperous state, receiving billions of dollars in aid from the U.S. So who can blame the Palestinians for feeling despair and hopelessness when Israel on top of all the other bad things it causes in their lives was able to make the world stop giving aid to the Palestinians because they expressed their free will and elected Hamas. When the U.S. is following Israel's policy and constantly providing aid and acting on Israel's interests, of course the Palestinians are going to feel that the West is biased and mistrusts any efforts or initiatives they make towards peace, especially the U.S. This feeling that they aren't being treated fairly again worsens Palestinian anger, as does Israel continually getting away with violations like the wall. I saw a programme once about the Nazi occupation of the Channel Islands, and I couldn't imagine anything worse than soldiers your nation is at war with being in control of your day-to-day lives. At least the Channel Islanders had hope that the Allies would be victorious and they would be liberated. Imagine living under an occupation that makes your life an impoverished misery, with the constant feeling that it is never going to end -- that this is all your life will ever be. That, to me, is Palestinian life. It needs to stop! Jews suffered the modern world's worst atrocities. But, although there has been no single atrocity on the scale of the Holocaust, the mass expulsions, civilian massacres like the one in Lebanon last year and those before, the everlasting toll on civilians always running much higher that that of Israel, the home demolitions, and the general misery combined over 60 years to mean the Palestinians have suffered just as much. This should mean the world makes sure the Palestinians get their own state, just as Britain and the U.N. decided Jews were entitled to their own state because of their suffering in the holocaust.The UN should foot the bill for the Palestinian state. Offering the refugees, say, a sizeable sum for all they lost and the years of suffering. It should force Israel to give back all the land it took in 1967 including East Jerusalem, giving them a set time to decide what land it needs to swap; give Israeli land equivalent of any Palestinian land it needs to keep to maintain the security of all Israelis, including settlement blocs. Paying the refugees should mean Israel has no reason to refuse, but if combined with Israel's reliance on international assistance isn't enough to force their hand, no option should be taken off the table. Israel will complain about their security but with the full UN on the case, guarantees to ensure Israel's security could certainly be made. It's time to forcibly remove all obstacles and give peace a chance.

**Liam Bailey is a U.K. freelance journalist. He has just set up two new websites The Bailey Mail and Poetry Occasions, on top of his blogs: War Pages, Peace Poetry and Politics U.K.. You can contact him by e-mail.

The World After Bush Part II: Somalia

Liam Bailey — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:25:12 EDT

I said in a recent article that the US arms sale to the gulf is a possible sign that a US withdrawal from Iraq might be closer than Bush wants to admit. With all my conviction I say: there will be no US victory in Iraq and eventually they will have to pullout, if not before Bush leaves office then sometime soon after. When reading an article about the continued violence in Somalia with my last article still fresh in my mind, I asked myself the question, where will the world be after the Bush administration? Further, will things calm down, or have the Neocons caused so much friction and meddled so much that the explosion of violence in so many places around the world will continue to worsen?I will attempt to answer my questions in a series of articles, and through the course will also inadvertently show why electing the son of a US President, as President is perhaps a mistake, that should not be repeated.In most of the worlds current conflict zones the US has had some involvement, but never has their involvement been as catastrophic as under (the infantile megalomaniac) President Bush Jr. Part II: Somalia -- Past Mistakes:Somalia is another country where the U.S.' mistakes in the past have caused problems leading to current, recent and probably future mistakes. After Somalia's dictator Siad Barre was ousted in 1991 a similar situation as that of present day Iraq arose: with the brutality of a dictatorship gone, a ticking time-bomb exploded -- though unlike Iraq the bomb was clan warfare not sectarian warfare.Somalia's civil war began -- it still hasn't ended. In 1993 the US/UN sent in peacekeepers because of the heavy civilian death toll. Their mission: to enforce the latest peace agreement, disarm clan militias and engage one faction that refused to cooperate with the peace initiative -- namely, warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid's faction. Aidid's militia inflicted heavy casualties on the US/UN force, culminating in the Blackhawk down incident Oct 3 - 4 1993, with the vicious killing of 18 American soldiers, 1 Malaysian, and the wounding of 83 US 7 Malaysian and 2 Pakistani troops. On October 6 President Clinton ordered an end to all U.S. operations in Somalia except self-defense, announcing that all US forces would withdraw no later than Mar. 31 1994 -- not least because the dead soldier's bodies were dragged through the streets by elated civilians. There were similar scenes during the recent peacekeeping mission.When the peacekeepers left, Somalia went back to much the same as it had been before: protection racketeering, hijacking and open battles between rival warlords and their respective clans/factions. Mogadishu residents -- as always -- suffered worst. The warlords formed the Transitional National Government (TNG) when they met in Djibouti 2000, but it improved nothing in Somalia. The battles between the warlords and rival clans/factions lessened, but that just freed up more gunmen to roam the streets robbing, raping and pillaging. The situation remained the same after the Transitional Federal Government was formed at a second meeting in Kenya in 2004.Bush Junior's Mistakes:The Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) began to sweep to power in mid-2006. They swept the chaos and violence away, replacing it with their brand of socially restrictive but peaceful and secure calm in the areas they controlled. Children could go back to school and nurses could treat the sick instead of droves of war wounded. Because of this the UIC enjoyed popular support, not least from the businessmen who founded and funded the growingly popular group. The UIC had the TFG and its warlords holed up in one town, Baidoa within months. Ethiopian troops began appearing in and around Baidoa to strengthen the TFG foothold. The UIC began to attract the world's attention, not least with their threats to attack the Ethiopian invaders, as well as reports of the UIC closing cinemas and stoning women for not wearing Hijabs. Their hard-line brand of Salafist Islam and Islamic (Sharia) Law put the UIC on the U.S.' radar; in the crosshairs of the War on Terror. Not too long after that the inevitable al Qaeda connection was made. I am not denying an al Qaeda connection to a few members of the group, though I would say more that UIC hardliners sought al Qaeda affiliation than actually had it. Nor will I deny that a large number of UIC followers were (are) hard-line Islamists, because it was in fact that branch of the group that was responsible for their firepower and rapid sweep to power. But there was a moderate following just as large and powerful within the group.Now anyone with any sense, seeing that the UIC was easily defeating the warlord TFG and seeing that they were restoring order in Somalia for the first time in 15 years, would have been attempting to talk with the UIC -- even if only the moderates, attempting to gain assurances on its treatment of women and civilians, attempting to get them to make a public address condemning al Qaeda and all it stood for, in return for international recognition and assistance. Yet the US and all its followers including the UN still refused to give the group validity. UN Resolution 1725 was passed authorizing a possible peacekeeping force, and reiterating that the TFG was the only recognized Somali government, that the U.N. saw the TFG as the only route to a peaceful Somalia, and stating that any group targeting the TFG would be dealt with.But it was when the UIC made their final advance to crush the TFG once and for all that Bush really excelled himself in demonstrating his stupidity. Bush would have been told (he certainly wouldn't have known) about the long-running (since 1964) history of hatred and violence between Somalia and Ethiopia. So, Bush, supporting, or possibly even initiating Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia to reinstate the TFG government and crush the UIC was like supporting an Israeli invasion of Lebanon to crush a movement regarded as a terror group. Oh, that's right, Bush did that too, but that's another article. With the summer Lebanon war and the Iraq quagmire as models, Bush should have known that a nation invading a country where it is hated is going to meet fierce resistance, from dedicated but invisible fighters coming from and/or embedded into the civilian population. An insurgency of almost never ending numbers, well, more recycling numbers; every innocent killed by the invaders creates more insurgents. But from a man who said while speaking in Vietnam about Iraq that the US only lost the Vietnam war because it pulled out, and he won't make the same mistake in Iraq, Bush probably thought with his courage to stay the course he could bring peace to Somalia.So Somalia's citizens are still suffering from Bush's error. The calm and relative normality under the UIC has been replaced by their insurgency and the same tribal issues as before the UIC took power: sporadic gunfire, mortars, Ethiopian and Ugandan peace keeper deaths, civilian deaths, general insecurity and anarchy. The situation is worse in Mogadishu than much of the country. This is all made worse by the fact that there was no reason to invade Somalia. As I said the UIC were restoring order. The moderate elements should have been strengthened by conditional international recognition and support. Like doctors who bury their mistakes, this is just another U.S. mistake that the world has to live with.So, I have looked at Iraq (part I) and Somalia, both very different in terms of how the Bush administration meddled, but both very similar in their chances of enjoying peace and security in the near future. In Somalia the US involvement has always been indirect (on the surface), but because of Bush and with the help of US contractors, money and weapons, Ethiopia is now occupying Somalia. Given their history, that will never be a peaceful occupation. The Ugandan peacekeepers have also been attacked. Even if everybody withdrew tomorrow, or after Bush leaves office, Somalia went through 15 years of anarchy before the UIC. restored some semblance of order. Left to their own devices it could well be another 15 years before it happens again. It certainly won't be anytime soon.

The World After Bush Part I: Iraq

Liam Bailey — Wed, 8 Aug 2007 03:02:37 EDT

I said in my last article that the proposed U.S. arms sale to the gulf is a possible sign that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq might be closer than Bush wants to admit. With all my conviction I say: there will be no U.S. victory in Iraq and eventually they will have to pullout, if not before Bush leaves office then sometime soon after. When reading an article about the continued violence in Somalia with my last article still fresh in my mind, I asked myself the question, where will the world be after the Bush administration? Further, will things calm down, or have the Neocons caused so much friction and meddled so much that the explosion of violence in so many places around the world will continue to worsen?I will attempt to answer my questions in a series of articles, and through the course will also inadvertently show why electing the son of a U.S. President, as President is perhaps a mistake, that should not be repeated.In most of the world's current conflict zones the U.S. has had some involvement, but never has their involvement been as catastrophic as under (the infantile megalomaniac) President Bush Junior. Part I: IraqIn Iraq for decades the U.S. has made mistake after mistake, funding, arming and otherwise cosying up to the maniac Saddam Hussein throughout the 80's and early 90's -- under the same policy that the U.S. follows time after time, always to the world's detriment: my enemy's enemy is my friend. Bush Junior's predecessors learned from their mistakes when Saddam invaded Kuwait late 1990, therein doing the very thing his U.S. funding was supposed to stop Iran (their common enemy), doing: threatening the vital oil supplies of the Middle East. Bush Senior was in charge when the U.S. teamed up with the U.N. to drive Saddam's forces back out of Kuwait. In doing so he decided to start uprisings in Iraq's oppressed Shiite and Kurdish communities, in television addresses promising their uprisings would receive U.S. support to topple Saddam. Help never came, Saddam's forces fled Kuwait and crushed the revolts -- thousands were killed in reprisals. The reason Bush Senior didn't send forces on into Iraq is likely the same reason that the current occupation is a disaster: Saddam's oppression keeping the lid on a sectarian powder keg. Though I personally believe if Bush Senior had ordered U.S. troops to chase Saddam's fleeing forces into Iraq and finish the job -- even a U.S. force alone -- chasing Saddam's men into the Shiite uprising and a war on two fronts, with the Kurdish uprising causing a third front, would have made for an easy victory. An easy victory unlike that of the 2003 war, because the Shiite's and Kurds wouldn't have hated and mistrusted the U.S. for the thousands killed when they revolted on Bush Snr's word. That also being the reason why 2003's battle for hearts and minds was lost before it begun. Bush Junior went ahead and invaded Iraq either because he wanted to prove he had more bottle than his daddy and thought like many sons do, that anything their dad can do they can do better. Or he knew Iraq would turn out like it has but decided to go in for their oil anyway. I'll let you decide. Either way, the tyrant successfully toppled in the U.S. invasion has been replaced with hundreds of tyrants -- each as maniacal and vindictive but with nobody at all to answer to. At least with Saddam we could impose sanctions and threaten to invade. Now we've invaded, what is left to do about the sectarian death squads. Few deny that the forces in Iraq are doing very little to stop the violence, in fact some say they are making it worse, but what is the alternative?A U.S. withdrawal will only see the sectarian violence worsen. Iraq will descend into a civil war, fuelled by the continuing proxy war already being fought between the Arab states and Iran using their sectarian soldiers in Iraq. The latter is another war that will worsen after a U.S. withdrawal, and one that won't be helped by the billions of dollars worth of arms being sold to the Arabs -- by guess who, the Bush administration. So, whether the Iraq withdrawal happens before Bush leaves office or after, there is absolutely no chance that the situation in Iraq will calm down after the Bush administration leaves office and the U.S. pulls out of Iraq.

What the Gulf Arms Sale Really Means

Liam Bailey — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:53:22 EDT

Although official figures have yet to be given, reports indicate that the proposed U.S. arms sale to several Gulf Arab nations will be between $5 billion and $20 billion. The countries to receive U.S. arms are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.U.S. military aid to Israel is to increase from $2.4 billion to $3 billion dollars a year, in a newly announced $30 billion ten year package. Neighbouring Arab states that have signed peace treaties and have normalized relations with Israel, namely Egypt and Jordan are to receive $13 billion over the same period. Though there have been angry opinion articles in the Israeli press, the Israeli government says it understands the sales are to counteract Iran's growing military might and regional influence. That is undoubtedly one of the reasons, but not the only one.For much the same reason as above, shortly after the Islamic regime swept to power in Iran in 1979, the U.S. and the west supported Saddam Hussein after his offensive war on Iran became defensive: because they feared that an extremist Shiite Iranian government would take Iraq and threaten the vital oil reserves of the Middle East. But why is it necessary to arm the Arab states now, when the U.S. army is in Iraq, preventing Iran taking the country let alone advancing into the Middle East proper? The U.S. announcing such a massive arms sale to the Arab states, which has been long opposed by the U.S.' main ally in the region -- Israel -- suggests that a U.S. pullout from Iraq could be closer than Bush wants to admit.Iraq is a predominantly Shiite state and Iran is not without influence in southern Iraq's Shiite communities, powerful militias and even the U.S. imposed Shiite government. There has long been talk of Iran's involvement on the Shiite side of Iraq's sectarian violence, as there has been talk of Saudi and other Arab state's involvement in it on the Sunni side. For the U.S. to add $20 billion worth of fuel to that proxy fire also suggests their troops will be out of the way when the proverbial **** hits the fan.Now, the other story in the region at the moment -- relating to the arms sale -- is the new momentum behind resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, with widespread reports that Bush is determined to force both sides into agreement before he leaves office early 2009. According to most analysts the Arab Peace initiative still offers the best chance of such a resolution, not least because it supersedes the Hamas-Fatah power-struggle -- both support the initiative.The Arab Peace initiative offers Israel normalized relations with all Arab (League) states, which should be a guarantee of Israeli security, in return for their withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders (returning Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem to Palestinian control), and finding a just solution to the refugee issue. Returning the land, especially even part of Jerusalem, which is an equally holy city for both Arab and Jew (hence their history of brutal wars over it), is a hard pill for the Israeli government to swallow, and harder to sell to their population, especially since Israel's military strength and reputation for brutal retaliation and collective punishment has all but guaranteed Israeli security already. Israel has won four wars with its surrounding Arab neighbours, two of those without U.S. help. Since the U.S. started its support of Israel they have become the strongest military power in the region by far. The proposed arms sale changes that, as part of Bush's strategy to resolve the conflict as his legacy. For a start the sale will make the Israeli population feel threatened for the first time in over two decades. It will make the Arab states a possible threat to Israel again, and at an ideal time. With Olmert struggling to stay in power he may feel pressured to accept the Arab initiative, return the Palestinian land and adequately compensate the refugees to guarantee the security of a suddenly threatened population. For once Bush may have got something right. The arms sale, Olmert's dwindling popularity and a U.S. administration determined to resolve the conflict pronto, combine to make this conflict look a lot closer to finally being resolved. All eyes will be on the proposed peace conference later this year -- mine included.

Slim Chance of Mid-East Peace

Liam Bailey — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:45:34 EDT

Some say that making the second most hated man in the Muslim world, Tony Blair, the envoy to the region with the highest Muslim population in the world, is like making a former Grand Imperial Dragon of the KKK a liaison to the black community. If Blair sticks to his pro-American roots he will be as much use as Middle East envoy as an indoor wind-farm. Current American policy is, as usual, exactly the same as Israel's policies for dealing with the Palestinians and Arab states, favouring Abbas' Fatah and trying to isolate and squash (more popular because they are more militant) Hamas. Blair brokered the Northern Ireland peace process by realizing that peace would only last if all parties were involved in negotiations.So if Blair realizes that his pro-Americanism was responsible for his fall from grace, which I think he must, his personality and character dictating that he seek to do well in his new job, should mean he will start going against America and applying the same principles to the Middle East as he did to Northern Ireland.I hope he does so soon. This week, U.S. foreign secretary Condoleeza Rice has said "there will be a Palestinian state" and there is talk of U.S. President Bush pushing both sides to find an agreement before he leaves office early 2009. Israel's Prime Minister Olmert said he thought it was necessary to pull out of the West Bank and made Abbas an offer to discuss the principles of a Palestinian state, such as its institutions and government - leaving final status issues such as borders and refugees to the end of negotiations. This just days after Israel released 250 Fatah prisoners from its jails, was undoubtedly another attempt to bolster support for Abbas' new emergency cabinet currently controlling the West Bank, but also a possible sign that Israel is realizing the occupation can't go on forever. There is much hype about the planned peace conference later this year, scheduled to see all the major players, Abbas, Olmert and leaders of the neighbouring Arab states, everyone except Hamas. Some would ask why Hamas would be needed; if an agreement were reached surely the Palestinians would force Hamas to go along with it? Fatah have lost all credibility in the eyes of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian people don't trust Abbas, any agreement would be met with scepticism. Palestinians would think he had betrayed them behind the scenes, in order to reach a favourable deal and line his pockets. Also, for any deal Israel will need to give up control of the land taken in the 1967 war, Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, creating a Palestinian state therein. Although a land-swap agreement where Israel gives back some of its land in order to keep Palestinian land where it is thought to be necessary for security or to encompass settlement blocs. Israel agreeing to this will hinge on the Palestinians guaranteeing Israel security. Without Hamas on board they would likely wage a terror campaign throughout the negotiations, as we saw during the Oslo process. This would prevent the Palestinians making any such guarantee.What's more, Israel knows that the Palestinians can't guarantee their security unless all the parties are behind any cease-fire or peace-process. So, their current attempts to prevent Hamas from taking part in any thing democratic or peaceful back-up those that say Israel is trying to prevent peace.On the bright side, if Blair manages to wangle Hamas and Islamic Jihad a seat at the peace conference table, a Palestinian guarantee of Israeli security can be believed. Obviously Israel won't trust them but hopefully the international community and Blair will make them give the benefit of the doubt. What's more if a deal is reached, it will have the trust and support of all Palestinians -- who know Hamas won't sacrifice their rights -- making cessation of attacks even more likely. With Northern Ireland, once thought to be the most intractable conflict, now enjoying peace and prosperity, hopefully Blair can shake off his American-poodles tail and end the world's truly most-intractable conflict.

Palestine Divided: Israel's Dream

Liam Bailey — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 04:04:37 EDT

We all know what “divide and conquer” is all about. It is a strategy Israel has deployed over the last couple of decades, if not to exactly conquer, but to effectively pacify the people they conquered in 1967–allowing them to continue pursuing their strategic, expansionist and cultural interests. But the responsibility must also be divided, because if the Palestinians' so-called government forgot about power and control of their non-state and had realized that their cause is so fragile that only a united front has any chance of success, then Israel's tactics of exacerbating rivalries would never have gotten off the ground. Not only did it did get off the ground; it has proved to be an exceptionally successful tactic for ensuring Israel's continued control, not only of the Palestinian territory and its sham Authority, but over the day-to-day life of every Palestinian. Israel began to grow scared and pondered a new strategy when the Palestine Liberation Organization and its movement seemed to be gaining too much support among Palestinians and as a movement was getting too powerful. A new strategy was needed. A new group was emerging, a religious extremist group called Hamas. From slow beginnings Hamas is now extremely well armed and perhaps the most powerful Palestinian militant group, certainly the most powerful in Gaza. Hamas' power grew with Israeli support, weapons and funds-the same kind of support they are now giving to Fatah. When the Islamic movement began to emerge in the late 1970's Israeli leaders sought to strengthen the movement. Believing that if the Palestinians were immersed in their religion they would pose less of a problem, and at any rate, their support for one group would automatically exacerbate the rift ceding from the Palestine Liberation organization fear of holding onto their control. Israeli leaders believed two groups, rivalling each other and working from a different mandate, would be a whole easier monster to control. Also, many people believe former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon did not want peace. Sharon saw bolstering Hamas as a good way of ensuring the violence would continue and talks would be doomed to failure.It is not clear when this support for Hamas ended, The arrest in 1989 of the main benefactor of their supporting policy, Sheikh Deir Yassin, suggests around that time, but there has been too much political turmoil and cross manipulation to really be sure. When Hamas won democratic elections early last year, things really changed for Israel. Hamas' turn towards democracy suggested they were becoming more moderate, and with the widespread support of the Palestinian people, Israel feared they may be forced to find an agreement with a moderate but still credible Hamas.Now, Hamas was too big for its boots and Israel began a policy of weakening the monster they had created and strengthening the PLO's now controlling faction, Fatah, against the now powerful Hamas. They began by attempting to strip Hamas of their support base by starving the already impoverished Palestinian people with the internationally supported financial blockade. To strengthen Fatah, Israel has done many things, from making concessions, such as releasing a fraction of the Palestinian tax revenues held by Israel under the blockade and promising to make other concessions, like removing check-points to make life easier for Palestinians. But the worst leg of the policy has been the massive campaign by Israel and their U.S. backers of arming Fatah gunmen. Even after Fatah and Hamas agreed the Palestinian National Unity government, still the arms continued to flow. Still Hamas' anger continued to grow at Israel's attempts to provide Fatah with the means to defeat them. Abbas' lack of control over his armed factions, as seen in recent news of Fatah gunmen ruining a new exam system Abbas tried to implement-thus prevented the Hamas-Abbas security plan being implemented, particularly in Gaza; and fighting between the two factions, concentrated in the coastal strip, began anew.This led to the crowning achievement of Israel's divisionary tactics. Hamas eventually routed Fatah's forces and sent them fleeing to the West Bank, where they still have a sizeable power-base, thus bringing about a completely divided Palestinian cause: Fatah ruling the West bank, if only on paper, and Hamas controlling Gaza. There were fears that Hamas would begin trying to take control of the West Bank, but they haven't materialized yet. The divisionary tactics continue, with the Israeli cabinet approving the release of 250 Fatah prisoners Jun. 9, suggesting that Israel would like the fighting to continue in the West Bank and is increasing Fatah forces to make it more likely, and probably more drawn-out. In the latest rhetoric, Abbas has said that Hamas is allowing Al Qaeda members into Gaza – a claim which Hamas have denied, saying Abbas is attempting to stoke resentment against them. And Israeli Prime Minister Olmert has said he doesn't think there can be any kind of reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah leader Abbas. Olmert said Abbas had told him he would never make peace with Hamas and would always combat them. Olmert's government is predominantly right-wing, the Israeli right wing is the flip-side of Hamas' charter, where Hamas' charter calls for taking back all of Palestine, wiping Israel out as it goes, Israel's right wing's greater Israel beliefs want all the land to be Israel. Whereas lately Hamas has moderated its agenda, now falling in line with the most widely sought after two-state solution, Israel's right-wing's biggest fear is having to negotiate and eventually give back land for the two-state solution. It is clear from Israel's constant interference and antagonizing one group by supporting the other, that they fear a united Palestinian resistance. A united Fatah-Hamas, with a moderate Hamas, might just force Israel's hand. So Israel is keen to maintain Palestinian violence–too busy fighting each other to fight for what's theirs. I just hope the. It's time to unite in the face of a common enemy and with the sole aim of achieving the Palestinian dream. Which is Israel’s greatest nightmare.

Peace Is The Only Option for Israel

Liam Bailey — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:16:24 EDT

Another dreadful week is underway in Palestine in a rapid sequence of events.Amid ongoing rocket attacks by Israel, Hamas has emerged from vicious factional fighting to take control of Gaza. Fatah leader and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas responded by dissolving the recently formed Palestinian unity government and naming a secular prime minister for the new "emergency government". It will control the West Bank, where Fatah is still the more powerful group. Meantime, Israel has hinted at releasing millions in tax revenues to the new government, which have been withheld since Hamas were elected and even after they joined with Fatah. There is also talk of ending the international siege on the Fatah-controlled West Bank. Both events are occurring under the continued campaign of strengthening Abbas and Fatah and turning Palestinians against Hamas. An Israeli minister has called for even more action against Hamas. Benjamin Ben-Eliezer advocates targeting the entire Hamas organization, including members of the government. He said: "We have to put them all in the cross-hairs".Israel has been pounding Hamas positions in Gaza with air strikes for over a week, and rockets are continuing to fall. With Hamas now in charge, Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is coming under pressure to re-occupy the strip.Whether they like it or not, Israelis should realize that, every air strike and assassination in Gaza and the West Bank, hardens Palestinian resolve. Even though Palestinians are under occupation, as well as impoverished, restricted, suffering humiliation and under fear of Israeli bombs and snipers, there will always be Palestinian resistance movements, and they will always have popular support. Israel has been launching air strikes and carrying out assassinations for decades, and Israelis in towns near Gaza are in more danger than they ever have been from the increasing rocket attacks. The only way Israel can kill Palestinian resistance is to actively seek out a way to end the occupation, return the land gained in 1967 or its equivalent, and find a solution to the refugee issue that can be accepted by both sides. It is said Israel can't relinquish the land because it would put them back to the strategic weakness that led to them fighting two defensive wars in 1948 and 1967. Israel should be proud that it was able to repel such attacks with what was then a relatively small, poorly equipped army. An army that has increased in size and bought more arms, advanced weaponry and Weapons of Mass Destruction in the last 40 years than anyone who would threaten it. During that long time span, the Israeli army has become feared and revered - and not to mention U.S. support becoming an engrained policy. I believe that if Israel ends the occupation, there is a good chance of securing a peaceful Middle East, certainly more likely than continuing on the current path: the continuing financial blockade increasing poverty in a previously impoverished place, and with the 10 metre high wall Israel is building around settlements, isolating Palestinian areas and adding to the hopelessness and desperation of all Palestinians. Not to mention the anger at regular assassinations in the West Bank and periodic air strikes and ground incursions in Gaza, and the civilian death tolls.Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and since Hamas won the Palestinian election in early 2006, Israel has been blinded to peace by its desire to destroy Hamas. Attempting to destroy their popular support with the internationally supported financial blockade, and, since factional fighting broke out with renewed brutality, by arming Fatah and launching targeted strikes against Hamas militants and rocket squads. The strikes have been intensified since Hamas withdrew from the ceasefire with Israel. Hamas t control of Gaza is proof that this policy has been a massively bad idea, because any group that doesn't actively fight to end the occupation will not have credibility in Palestinian eyes. Fatah being armed by the Israeli government for the factional war solidified Fatah and their leader Abbas' image as Israel and the U.S.' lap-dog .And as Fatah continues to be favoured and armed by Israel at the expense and to the detriment of the people's favourite, Hamas, any shred of credibility for Palestinian Authority President Abbas and his secular Fatah party slips away. Israel's collateral damage therefore support for Hamas even further. It is fair to say that any deal reached by Fatah will be seen to concede too much to Israel, because whatever it concedes, Palestinians will be dubious about what has been given away behind the scenes. No deal that isn't accepted by all Palestinians would last more than five minutes, and Palestinians will accept no deal that isn’t at least overseen and accepted by Hamas. If Israel realized that peace was the only way to secure their population, then they must also realize their current air strikes are targeting their best chance of reaching a lasting agreement with the Palestinians.There may be the opportunity for a ceasefire agreement to end the current Gaza fighting, now solely between Hamas and Israel. If this is done properly it could lead to direct Israel-Hamas talks that could secure a peace deal, which would likely be accepted by the majority of Palestinians. Israel's Fatah-dog would no doubt succumb to Israel's wishes. I don't hold out much hope.My take is that Israel hopes that the more bombs it drops and civilians it kills, the more it will turn Palestinians against the "terrorists", but after two decades of these policies, Palestinians turned to Hamas anyway - showing that it is time for a change. Until Israel realizes this, there will be no peace.