http://www.freep.com/article/20090202/OPINION05/902020309/1231/OPINION/Peace+Talks
Can Mitchell broker Belfast-style pact in Mideast?
BY ALI ABUNIMAH
February 2, 2009
President Barack Obama's appointment of former Sen. George Mitchell as his new Middle East envoy is a good choice. Mitchell showed evenhandedness uncharacteristic of U.S. officials when he led a fact-finding mission to the region in 2000.
Had its recommendations been followed -- cessation of violence and a freeze on Israeli settlement construction on occupied Palestinian land -- the peace process might have made progress. Mitchell, who is already in the Middle East, helped broker the 1998 Belfast Agreement, the key to ending decades of strife in Northern Ireland. Because of historical similarities, that agreement is an important precedent for the Middle East.
Before 1948, European Jewish settlers in Palestine wanted their own state once British colonial rulers withdrew. But because Jews were a minority, the only way to achieve this was a partition that the majority Arab Palestinian population bitterly opposed. When Israel was established in 1948, most Palestinians were forced out. Those remaining became second-class citizens in a Jewish state.
The modern conflict in Ireland began when Great Britain, facing resistance from Irish nationalists, decided to withdraw after centuries. But the Protestant ruling class, a quarter of the population, insisted Ireland remain tied to Britain. These unionists, descended from English and Scottish settlers, refused to live in a state with a nationalist Catholic majority.
To appease the unionist minority, Britain partitioned Ireland in 1921, creating Northern Ireland, an entity whose legitimacy nationalists denied. As Israeli Jews did to Palestinians, Protestants institutionalized their own culture and religion as the official creed and violently suppressed expressions of nationalist identity.
The Mitchell-led Belfast Agreement ended Protestant hegemony in favor of equality. Decades of bloody conflict left deep social divisions, but a framework for nondiscriminatory democratic governance has allowed nationalists and unionists to begin to shed their siege mentalities. While formal partition remains, it is disappearing on the ground. Anyone can live, work and move freely, and official cross-border bodies are integrating the infrastructure and economies of the two jurisdictions.
The power-sharing executive in Belfast, led by staunchly nationalist Sinn Fein (closely affiliated with the IRA) and the hard-line Democratic Unionist Party, was once as inconceivable as a government made up Hamas and Israel's current government would be today. U.S. diplomacy played a key role by putting pressure on the stronger parties -- the British government and Protestant unionists. Instead of shunning Sinn Fein, the United States -- with prodding from Irish Americans -- insisted that it be brought into the process.
By 2010, Palestinians will outnumber Israeli Jews in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip combined. The two groups cannot be totally separated any more than Ireland's Protestant unionists and Catholic nationalists could.
Like Irish nationalists, Palestinians will never recognize the "right" of another group to discriminate against them. Like Protestant unionists, Israeli Jews insist on their own state. Israel's solution is to cage Palestinians into ghettos -- like Gaza -- and periodically bomb them into submission.
If Mitchell is allowed to apply Northern Ireland's lessons, there may be a way out, but he'll face obstacles he didn't encounter in Belfast. The Obama administration remains committed to the failed partition formula of a Jewish state and a Palestinian state and maintains a misguided boycott of Hamas, which won Palestinian elections in 2006. And the Israel lobby -- much more powerful than Irish-American groups -- warps U.S. policy to favor the stronger side, an intransigent Israel. If these policies don't change, the hope Mitchell brings will be wasted, and escalating violence will fill the political vacuum.
ALI ABUNIMAH, a fellow at the Palestine Center in Washington, D.C., is author of "One Country, A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse." Write to him at abunimah01@yahoo.com.
Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Monday, February 2, 2009
US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45640
US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
By Gareth Porter*
WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (IPS) - CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 18 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.
But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.
Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.
A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision.
Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."
Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.
Gates and Mullen had discussed the relabeling scheme with Obama as part of the Petraeus-Odierno plan for withdrawal they had presented to him in mid-December, according to a Dec. 18 New York Times story.
Obama decided against making any public reference to his order to the military to draft a detailed 16-month combat troop withdrawal policy, apparently so that he can announce his decision only after consulting with his field commanders and the Pentagon.
The first clear indication of the intention of Petraeus, Odierno and their allies to try to get Obama to amend his decision came on Jan. 29 when the New York Times published an interview with Odierno, ostensibly based on the premise that Obama had indicated that he was "open to alternatives".
The Times reported that Odierno had "developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama's campaign timetable" and had suggested in an interview "it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly".
The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama's withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama's pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal.
Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would "increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months". He asserted that it would jeopardise the "stable political situation in Iraq" and called that risk "not acceptable".
The assertion that Obama's withdrawal policy threatens the gains allegedly won by the Bush surge and Petraeus's strategy in Iraq will apparently be the theme of the campaign that military opponents are now planning.
Keane, the Army Vice-Chief of Staff from 1999 to 2003, has ties to a network of active and retired four-star Army generals, and since Obama's Jan. 21 order on the 16-month withdrawal plan, some of the retired four-star generals in that network have begun discussing a campaign to blame Obama's troop withdrawal from Iraq for the ultimate collapse of the political "stability" that they expect to follow U.S. withdrawal, according to a military source familiar with the network's plans.
The source says the network, which includes senior active duty officers in the Pentagon, will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama's withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq. That would raise the political cost to Obama of sticking to his withdrawal policy.
If Obama does not change the policy, according to the source, they hope to have planted the seeds of a future political narrative blaming his withdrawal policy for the "collapse" they expect in an Iraq without U.S. troops.
That line seems likely to appeal to reporters covering the Iraq troop withdrawal issue. Ever since Obama's inauguration, media coverage of the issue has treated Obama' s 16-month withdrawal proposal as a concession to anti-war sentiment which will have to be adjusted to the "realities" as defined by the advice to Obama from Gates, Petreaus and Odierno.
Ever since he began working on the troop surge, Keane has been the central figure manipulating policy in order to keep as many U.S. troops in Iraq as possible. It was Keane who got Vice President Dick Cheney to push for Petraeus as top commander in Iraq in late 2006 when the existing commander, Gen. George W. Casey, did not support the troop surge.
It was Keane who protected Petraeus's interests in ensuring the maximum number of troops in Iraq against the efforts by other military leaders to accelerate troop withdrawal in 2007 and 2008. As Bob Woodward reported in "The War Within", Keane persuaded President George W. Bush to override the concerns of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about the stress of prolonged U.S. occupation of Iraq on the U.S. Army and Marine Corps as well its impact on the worsening situation in Afghanistan.
Bush agreed in September 2007 to guarantee that Petraeus would have as many troops as he needed for as long as wanted, according to Woodward's account.
Keane had also prevailed on Gates in April 2008 to make Petraeus the new commander of CENTCOM. Keane argued that keeping Petraeus in the field was the best insurance against a Democratic administration reversing the Bush policy toward Iraq.
Keane had operated on the assumption that a Democratic president would probably not take the political risk of rejecting Petraeus's recommendation on the pace of troop withdrawal from Iraq. Woodward quotes Keane as telling Gates, "Let's assume we have a Democratic administration and they want to pull this thing out quickly, and now they have to deal with General Petraeus and General Odierno. There will be a price to be paid to override them."
Obama told Petraeus in Baghdad last July that, if elected, he would regard the overall health of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps and the situation in Afghanistan as more important than Petraeus's obvious interest in maximising U.S. troop strength in Iraq, according to Time magazine's Joe Klein.
But judging from Petraeus's shock at Obama's Jan. 21 decision, he had not taken Obama's previous rejection of his arguments seriously. That miscalculation suggests that Petraeus had begun to accept Keane's assertion that a newly-elected Democratic president would not dare to override his policy recommendation on troops in Iraq.
*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.
US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
By Gareth Porter*
WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (IPS) - CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 18 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.
But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.
Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.
A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision.
Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."
Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.
Gates and Mullen had discussed the relabeling scheme with Obama as part of the Petraeus-Odierno plan for withdrawal they had presented to him in mid-December, according to a Dec. 18 New York Times story.
Obama decided against making any public reference to his order to the military to draft a detailed 16-month combat troop withdrawal policy, apparently so that he can announce his decision only after consulting with his field commanders and the Pentagon.
The first clear indication of the intention of Petraeus, Odierno and their allies to try to get Obama to amend his decision came on Jan. 29 when the New York Times published an interview with Odierno, ostensibly based on the premise that Obama had indicated that he was "open to alternatives".
The Times reported that Odierno had "developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama's campaign timetable" and had suggested in an interview "it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly".
The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama's withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama's pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal.
Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would "increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months". He asserted that it would jeopardise the "stable political situation in Iraq" and called that risk "not acceptable".
The assertion that Obama's withdrawal policy threatens the gains allegedly won by the Bush surge and Petraeus's strategy in Iraq will apparently be the theme of the campaign that military opponents are now planning.
Keane, the Army Vice-Chief of Staff from 1999 to 2003, has ties to a network of active and retired four-star Army generals, and since Obama's Jan. 21 order on the 16-month withdrawal plan, some of the retired four-star generals in that network have begun discussing a campaign to blame Obama's troop withdrawal from Iraq for the ultimate collapse of the political "stability" that they expect to follow U.S. withdrawal, according to a military source familiar with the network's plans.
The source says the network, which includes senior active duty officers in the Pentagon, will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama's withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq. That would raise the political cost to Obama of sticking to his withdrawal policy.
If Obama does not change the policy, according to the source, they hope to have planted the seeds of a future political narrative blaming his withdrawal policy for the "collapse" they expect in an Iraq without U.S. troops.
That line seems likely to appeal to reporters covering the Iraq troop withdrawal issue. Ever since Obama's inauguration, media coverage of the issue has treated Obama' s 16-month withdrawal proposal as a concession to anti-war sentiment which will have to be adjusted to the "realities" as defined by the advice to Obama from Gates, Petreaus and Odierno.
Ever since he began working on the troop surge, Keane has been the central figure manipulating policy in order to keep as many U.S. troops in Iraq as possible. It was Keane who got Vice President Dick Cheney to push for Petraeus as top commander in Iraq in late 2006 when the existing commander, Gen. George W. Casey, did not support the troop surge.
It was Keane who protected Petraeus's interests in ensuring the maximum number of troops in Iraq against the efforts by other military leaders to accelerate troop withdrawal in 2007 and 2008. As Bob Woodward reported in "The War Within", Keane persuaded President George W. Bush to override the concerns of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about the stress of prolonged U.S. occupation of Iraq on the U.S. Army and Marine Corps as well its impact on the worsening situation in Afghanistan.
Bush agreed in September 2007 to guarantee that Petraeus would have as many troops as he needed for as long as wanted, according to Woodward's account.
Keane had also prevailed on Gates in April 2008 to make Petraeus the new commander of CENTCOM. Keane argued that keeping Petraeus in the field was the best insurance against a Democratic administration reversing the Bush policy toward Iraq.
Keane had operated on the assumption that a Democratic president would probably not take the political risk of rejecting Petraeus's recommendation on the pace of troop withdrawal from Iraq. Woodward quotes Keane as telling Gates, "Let's assume we have a Democratic administration and they want to pull this thing out quickly, and now they have to deal with General Petraeus and General Odierno. There will be a price to be paid to override them."
Obama told Petraeus in Baghdad last July that, if elected, he would regard the overall health of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps and the situation in Afghanistan as more important than Petraeus's obvious interest in maximising U.S. troop strength in Iraq, according to Time magazine's Joe Klein.
But judging from Petraeus's shock at Obama's Jan. 21 decision, he had not taken Obama's previous rejection of his arguments seriously. That miscalculation suggests that Petraeus had begun to accept Keane's assertion that a newly-elected Democratic president would not dare to override his policy recommendation on troops in Iraq.
*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.
"Remaking America: The Ambiguities of Obama"
Commentary No. 250, Feb. 1, 2009
"Remaking America: The Ambiguities of Obama"
Barack Obama was inaugurated president of the United States on January 20, to the cheers of a vast majority of both the American people and the people of the rest of the world. In his inaugural address, he promised to "begin again the work of remaking America."
In this short phrase, which was picked up by the world press in their headlines and analyses, Obama captured all the ambiguities of his presidential promises. The verb "remake" can mean quite different things. It can mean returning to a previous state that was better. And Obama seemed to indicate this possibility with another phrase, calling on American citizens "to choose our better history." But "remaking" can also mean more fundamental change, creating a quite different kind of America than the one the world presently knows. The ambiguity is whether Obama proposes merely to tinker with the structure and the institutions of the United States and the world-system or to transform them fundamentally.
What should be clear to everyone by now is that the United States has not elected a Che Guevara as its president, despite the hysterical fears of the unreconciled rightwing of the Republican Party. Nor, however, has it elected another Ronald Reagan, despite the hopes of some of those who voted for him and the fears of his more intransigent left critics. What then has the United States elected? The answer is not obvious yet, precisely because of Obama's style as a politician.
There are two questions to parse. One is what Obama would actually like to achieve as president. The second is what he can possibly achieve, given the realities of geopolitics plus a worldwide depression. Vice-President Biden described the latter on January 25 as "worse, quite frankly, than everyone thought it was, and it's getting worse every day."
What do we know, at this point, about Obama? He is unusually smart and well-educated for a political leader, and he is a poised, prudent, and very successful politician. But where does he really stand in the large gamut between wishing merely to tinker and fundamentally to change? Probably somewhere in the middle of this range. And probably what he will really do and achieve will be more a function of the constraints of the world-system than of his own choices, however intelligent they may be.
Up to now, we have had hints of where he is presently heading in five arenas: inclusive participation, geopolitics, the environment, internal social questions, and how to handle the depression. The initial verdict is very mixed.
Obviously, where he shines best is in inclusive participation. His own election is a measure of that. To be sure, electing an African-American president is merely the culminating act of a steady trend in the United States since 1945 - from President Truman's integration of the armed forces to the Supreme Court's decision on school desegregation, to Thurgood Marshall's appointment to the Supreme Court, to Colin Powell's appointment as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Powell's and Condoleezza Rice's successive appointments as Secretary of State. Still, it marks a breakthrough that few expected two years ago. And it matters.
Obama will continue these efforts of inclusive citizenship. He, however, faces a major political test on the question of immigration. There is no indication yet as to how forcefully he will tackle this issue. He would have to struggle with a large part of his own political base. Given the extent of current and expected levels of unemployment in the United States, he may postpone doing anything. But the issue will not go away, and it will only get harder to resolve. Furthermore, not resolving this issue will have negative effects on the world's ability to come through the depression with less pain.
Obama's geopolitical posture is far less promising. The Israeli/Palestine conflict is probably unresolvable at the moment. The absolute minimum that needs to be done is to include Hamas in the negotiations. Quite possibly George Mitchell's appointment as U.S. special representative presages doing that. But that will scarcely be enough to obtain a viable political solution. The Israelis are entrenched in their bunkers and not ready even to think about anything that Palestinian nationalists could accept.
I have no doubt that the Iraqis will make Obama keep his promise of withdrawal in 16 months. And I do not believe that Obama will do more than jostle verbally with the Iranians. But he has started down the path to disaster in Pakistan, seriously undermining its government in his first week in office. Pakistan's government is weak and may soon fall. And, if it does, Obama will have no defensible options.
The basic problem is that Obama has not renounced the inflated language of a former hegemonic power. In his address, he said to the world: "Know that America is...ready to lead once more." The world wants the United States to participate. It precisely does not want the United States to lead. I don't think that Obama really understands that yet. Pakistan could well be his undoing.
In addition, he has started off on a bad foot in Latin America. He has played to the gallery on Chavez and, worse, he has not heard President Lula's challenge that Latin America will not believe he stands for change until he lifts unconditionally the Cuban embargo.
His first steps on the environment are positive - in his appointments, in his executive decisions, and in his indications to other states that the United States is ready to take part in the collective measures that the scientists indicate are necessary. But here, as in other domains, the question is how boldly and rapidly he is ready to act.
The policy on internal social questions is again an uncertain mix. Obama has restored the policies on abortion that were those of the Clinton administration, and this clearly distinguishes him from the Reagan/Bush policies. He has decreed the closure of Guantánamo and the secret CIA prisons, while postponing for up to a year some decisions about what to do with those who are presently imprisoned. The degree to which he will revoke the vast network of government invasion of privacy within the United States is still a very open question. Nor is it yet clear to what degree he will fulfill his promise to the unions to undo the serious constraints the previous administrations had put on their ability to organize.
Finally, we come to the arena in which he has least leeway, the world depression. He is obviously ready to increase vastly government involvement in the economy. But so is virtually every other political leader throughout the world. And he is obviously ready to augment what might be called social-democratic measures to reduce economic pain to the working strata. But so is virtually every other political leader throughout the world.
The question here too is how bold the measures. He has nominated a bunch of very cautious Keynesians to all his key positions. He has not included any of the U.S. economists who are the left Keynesians - Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Alan Blinder, or James Galbraith. They are all saying that cautious measures won't work, and that precious time is being lost. Maybe one year from now, Obama will reshuffle his team to include those who are calling for bolder action. But maybe too that will be a little late.
Obama is anxious to pull the Republicans in Congress along in his economic proposals. Partly this is his passion for choosing "unity of purpose over conflict and discord," in the words of his inaugural address. Partly, it is clever politics, in the sense that he doesn't want to be out on a limb as the economy further deteriorates. But the Republican leadership is shrewd enough to understand this, and will give him their votes only in return for gutting much of his program.
Obama is off to a very shaky start. The belief that he is ready to push for a fundamental remaking of America has weak evidence in its favor, despite his intelligence and his intellectual openness. The United States is getting good grammar. It needs bold remaking.
by Immanuel Wallerstein
[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu.
These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]
"Remaking America: The Ambiguities of Obama"
Barack Obama was inaugurated president of the United States on January 20, to the cheers of a vast majority of both the American people and the people of the rest of the world. In his inaugural address, he promised to "begin again the work of remaking America."
In this short phrase, which was picked up by the world press in their headlines and analyses, Obama captured all the ambiguities of his presidential promises. The verb "remake" can mean quite different things. It can mean returning to a previous state that was better. And Obama seemed to indicate this possibility with another phrase, calling on American citizens "to choose our better history." But "remaking" can also mean more fundamental change, creating a quite different kind of America than the one the world presently knows. The ambiguity is whether Obama proposes merely to tinker with the structure and the institutions of the United States and the world-system or to transform them fundamentally.
What should be clear to everyone by now is that the United States has not elected a Che Guevara as its president, despite the hysterical fears of the unreconciled rightwing of the Republican Party. Nor, however, has it elected another Ronald Reagan, despite the hopes of some of those who voted for him and the fears of his more intransigent left critics. What then has the United States elected? The answer is not obvious yet, precisely because of Obama's style as a politician.
There are two questions to parse. One is what Obama would actually like to achieve as president. The second is what he can possibly achieve, given the realities of geopolitics plus a worldwide depression. Vice-President Biden described the latter on January 25 as "worse, quite frankly, than everyone thought it was, and it's getting worse every day."
What do we know, at this point, about Obama? He is unusually smart and well-educated for a political leader, and he is a poised, prudent, and very successful politician. But where does he really stand in the large gamut between wishing merely to tinker and fundamentally to change? Probably somewhere in the middle of this range. And probably what he will really do and achieve will be more a function of the constraints of the world-system than of his own choices, however intelligent they may be.
Up to now, we have had hints of where he is presently heading in five arenas: inclusive participation, geopolitics, the environment, internal social questions, and how to handle the depression. The initial verdict is very mixed.
Obviously, where he shines best is in inclusive participation. His own election is a measure of that. To be sure, electing an African-American president is merely the culminating act of a steady trend in the United States since 1945 - from President Truman's integration of the armed forces to the Supreme Court's decision on school desegregation, to Thurgood Marshall's appointment to the Supreme Court, to Colin Powell's appointment as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Powell's and Condoleezza Rice's successive appointments as Secretary of State. Still, it marks a breakthrough that few expected two years ago. And it matters.
Obama will continue these efforts of inclusive citizenship. He, however, faces a major political test on the question of immigration. There is no indication yet as to how forcefully he will tackle this issue. He would have to struggle with a large part of his own political base. Given the extent of current and expected levels of unemployment in the United States, he may postpone doing anything. But the issue will not go away, and it will only get harder to resolve. Furthermore, not resolving this issue will have negative effects on the world's ability to come through the depression with less pain.
Obama's geopolitical posture is far less promising. The Israeli/Palestine conflict is probably unresolvable at the moment. The absolute minimum that needs to be done is to include Hamas in the negotiations. Quite possibly George Mitchell's appointment as U.S. special representative presages doing that. But that will scarcely be enough to obtain a viable political solution. The Israelis are entrenched in their bunkers and not ready even to think about anything that Palestinian nationalists could accept.
I have no doubt that the Iraqis will make Obama keep his promise of withdrawal in 16 months. And I do not believe that Obama will do more than jostle verbally with the Iranians. But he has started down the path to disaster in Pakistan, seriously undermining its government in his first week in office. Pakistan's government is weak and may soon fall. And, if it does, Obama will have no defensible options.
The basic problem is that Obama has not renounced the inflated language of a former hegemonic power. In his address, he said to the world: "Know that America is...ready to lead once more." The world wants the United States to participate. It precisely does not want the United States to lead. I don't think that Obama really understands that yet. Pakistan could well be his undoing.
In addition, he has started off on a bad foot in Latin America. He has played to the gallery on Chavez and, worse, he has not heard President Lula's challenge that Latin America will not believe he stands for change until he lifts unconditionally the Cuban embargo.
His first steps on the environment are positive - in his appointments, in his executive decisions, and in his indications to other states that the United States is ready to take part in the collective measures that the scientists indicate are necessary. But here, as in other domains, the question is how boldly and rapidly he is ready to act.
The policy on internal social questions is again an uncertain mix. Obama has restored the policies on abortion that were those of the Clinton administration, and this clearly distinguishes him from the Reagan/Bush policies. He has decreed the closure of Guantánamo and the secret CIA prisons, while postponing for up to a year some decisions about what to do with those who are presently imprisoned. The degree to which he will revoke the vast network of government invasion of privacy within the United States is still a very open question. Nor is it yet clear to what degree he will fulfill his promise to the unions to undo the serious constraints the previous administrations had put on their ability to organize.
Finally, we come to the arena in which he has least leeway, the world depression. He is obviously ready to increase vastly government involvement in the economy. But so is virtually every other political leader throughout the world. And he is obviously ready to augment what might be called social-democratic measures to reduce economic pain to the working strata. But so is virtually every other political leader throughout the world.
The question here too is how bold the measures. He has nominated a bunch of very cautious Keynesians to all his key positions. He has not included any of the U.S. economists who are the left Keynesians - Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Alan Blinder, or James Galbraith. They are all saying that cautious measures won't work, and that precious time is being lost. Maybe one year from now, Obama will reshuffle his team to include those who are calling for bolder action. But maybe too that will be a little late.
Obama is anxious to pull the Republicans in Congress along in his economic proposals. Partly this is his passion for choosing "unity of purpose over conflict and discord," in the words of his inaugural address. Partly, it is clever politics, in the sense that he doesn't want to be out on a limb as the economy further deteriorates. But the Republican leadership is shrewd enough to understand this, and will give him their votes only in return for gutting much of his program.
Obama is off to a very shaky start. The belief that he is ready to push for a fundamental remaking of America has weak evidence in its favor, despite his intelligence and his intellectual openness. The United States is getting good grammar. It needs bold remaking.
by Immanuel Wallerstein
[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu.
These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]
We must adjust our distorted image of Hamas William Sieghart
Our distorted image of Hamas
Gaza is a secular society where people listen to pop music, watch TV
and many women walk the streets unveiled
We must adjust our distorted image of Hamas
William Sieghart
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors
/article5420584.ece
Last week I was in Gaza. While I was there I met a group of 20 or so
police officers who were undergoing a course in conflict management.
They were eager to know whether foreigners felt safer since Hamas had
taken over the Government? Indeed we did, we told them. Without doubt
the past 18 months had seen a comparative calm on the streets of
Gaza; no gunmen on the streets, no more kidnappings. They smiled with
great pride and waved us goodbye.
Less than a week later all of these men were dead, killed by an
Israeli rocket at a graduation ceremony. Were they "dangerous Hamas
militant gunmen"? No, they were unarmed police officers, public
servants killed not in a "militant training camp" but in the same
police station in the middle of Gaza City that had been used by the
British, the Israelis and Fatah during their periods of rule there.
This distinction is crucial because while the horrific scenes in Gaza
and Israel play themselves out on our television screens, a war of
words is being fought that is clouding our understanding of the
realities on the ground.
Who or what is Hamas, the movement that Ehud Barak, the Israeli
Defence Minister, would like to wipe out as though it were a virus?
Why did it win the Palestinian elections and why does it allow
rockets to be fired into Israel? The story of Hamas over the past
three years reveals how the Israeli, US and UK governments'
misunderstanding of this Islamist movement has led us to the brutal
and desperate situation that we are in now.
The story begins nearly three years ago when Change and Reform -
Hamas's political party - unexpectedly won the first free and fair
elections in the Arab world, on a platform of ending endemic
corruption and improving the almost non-existent public services in
Gaza and the West Bank. Against a divided opposition this ostensibly
religious party impressed the predominantly secular community to win
with 42 per cent of the vote.
Palestinians did not vote for Hamas because it was dedicated to the
destruction of the state of Israel or because it had been responsible
for waves of suicide bombings that had killed Israeli citizens. They
voted for Hamas because they thought that Fatah, the party of the
rejected Government, had failed them. Despite renouncing violence and
recognising the state of Israel Fatah had not achieved a Palestinian
state. It is crucial to know this to understand the supposed
rejectionist position of Hamas. It won't recognise Israel or renounce
the right to resist until it is sure of the world's commitment to a
just solution to the Palestinian issue.
In the five years that I have been visiting Gaza and the West Bank, I
have met hundreds of Hamas politicians and supporters. None of them
has professed the goal of Islamising Palestinian society, Taleban-
style. Hamas relies on secular voters too much to do that. People
still listen to pop music, watch television and women still choose
whether to wear the veil or not.
The political leadership of Hamas is probably the most highly
qualified in the world. Boasting more than 500 PhDs in its ranks, the
majority are middle-class professionals - doctors, dentists,
scientists and engineers. Most of its leadership have been educated
in our universities and harbour no ideological hatred towards the
West. It is a grievance-based movement, dedicated to addressing the
injustice done to its people. It has consistently offered a ten-year
ceasefire to give breathing space to resolve a conflict that has
continued for more than 60 years.
The Bush-Blair response to the Hamas victory in 2006 is the key to
today's horror. Instead of accepting the democratically elected
Government, they funded an attempt to remove it by force; training
and arming groups of Fatah fighters to unseat Hamas militarily and
impose a new, unelected government on the Palestinians. Further, 45
Hamas MPs are still being held in Israeli jails.
Six months ago the Israeli Government agreed to an Egyptian- brokered
ceasefire with Hamas. In return for a ceasefire, Israel agreed to
open the crossing points and allow a free flow of essential supplies
in and out of Gaza. The rocket barrages ended but the crossings never
fully opened, and the people of Gaza began to starve. This crippling
embargo was no reward for peace.
When Westerners ask what is in the mind of Hamas leaders when they
order or allow rockets to be fired at Israel they fail to understand
the Palestinian position. Two months ago the Israeli Defence Forces
broke the ceasefire by entering Gaza and beginning the cycle of
killing again. In the Palestinian narrative each round of rocket
attacks is a response to Israeli attacks. In the Israeli narrative it
is the other way round.
But what does it mean when Mr Barak talks of destroying Hamas? Does
it mean killing the 42 per cent of Palestinians who voted for it?
Does it mean reoccupying the Gaza strip that Israel withdrew from so
painfully three years ago? Or does it mean permanently separating the
Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank, politically and
geographically? And for those whose mantra is Israeli security, what
sort of threat do the three quarters of a million young people
growing up in Gaza with an implacable hatred of those who starve and
bomb them pose?
It is said that this conflict is impossible to solve. In fact, it is
very simple. The top 1,000 people who run Israel - the politicians,
generals and security staff - and the top Palestinian Islamists have
never met. Genuine peace will require that these two groups sit down
together without preconditions. But the events of the past few days
seem to have made this more unlikely than ever. That is the challenge
for the new administration in Washington and for its European allies.
William Sieghart is chairman of Forward Thinking, an independent
conflict resolution agency
Gaza is a secular society where people listen to pop music, watch TV
and many women walk the streets unveiled
We must adjust our distorted image of Hamas
William Sieghart
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors
/article5420584.ece
Last week I was in Gaza. While I was there I met a group of 20 or so
police officers who were undergoing a course in conflict management.
They were eager to know whether foreigners felt safer since Hamas had
taken over the Government? Indeed we did, we told them. Without doubt
the past 18 months had seen a comparative calm on the streets of
Gaza; no gunmen on the streets, no more kidnappings. They smiled with
great pride and waved us goodbye.
Less than a week later all of these men were dead, killed by an
Israeli rocket at a graduation ceremony. Were they "dangerous Hamas
militant gunmen"? No, they were unarmed police officers, public
servants killed not in a "militant training camp" but in the same
police station in the middle of Gaza City that had been used by the
British, the Israelis and Fatah during their periods of rule there.
This distinction is crucial because while the horrific scenes in Gaza
and Israel play themselves out on our television screens, a war of
words is being fought that is clouding our understanding of the
realities on the ground.
Who or what is Hamas, the movement that Ehud Barak, the Israeli
Defence Minister, would like to wipe out as though it were a virus?
Why did it win the Palestinian elections and why does it allow
rockets to be fired into Israel? The story of Hamas over the past
three years reveals how the Israeli, US and UK governments'
misunderstanding of this Islamist movement has led us to the brutal
and desperate situation that we are in now.
The story begins nearly three years ago when Change and Reform -
Hamas's political party - unexpectedly won the first free and fair
elections in the Arab world, on a platform of ending endemic
corruption and improving the almost non-existent public services in
Gaza and the West Bank. Against a divided opposition this ostensibly
religious party impressed the predominantly secular community to win
with 42 per cent of the vote.
Palestinians did not vote for Hamas because it was dedicated to the
destruction of the state of Israel or because it had been responsible
for waves of suicide bombings that had killed Israeli citizens. They
voted for Hamas because they thought that Fatah, the party of the
rejected Government, had failed them. Despite renouncing violence and
recognising the state of Israel Fatah had not achieved a Palestinian
state. It is crucial to know this to understand the supposed
rejectionist position of Hamas. It won't recognise Israel or renounce
the right to resist until it is sure of the world's commitment to a
just solution to the Palestinian issue.
In the five years that I have been visiting Gaza and the West Bank, I
have met hundreds of Hamas politicians and supporters. None of them
has professed the goal of Islamising Palestinian society, Taleban-
style. Hamas relies on secular voters too much to do that. People
still listen to pop music, watch television and women still choose
whether to wear the veil or not.
The political leadership of Hamas is probably the most highly
qualified in the world. Boasting more than 500 PhDs in its ranks, the
majority are middle-class professionals - doctors, dentists,
scientists and engineers. Most of its leadership have been educated
in our universities and harbour no ideological hatred towards the
West. It is a grievance-based movement, dedicated to addressing the
injustice done to its people. It has consistently offered a ten-year
ceasefire to give breathing space to resolve a conflict that has
continued for more than 60 years.
The Bush-Blair response to the Hamas victory in 2006 is the key to
today's horror. Instead of accepting the democratically elected
Government, they funded an attempt to remove it by force; training
and arming groups of Fatah fighters to unseat Hamas militarily and
impose a new, unelected government on the Palestinians. Further, 45
Hamas MPs are still being held in Israeli jails.
Six months ago the Israeli Government agreed to an Egyptian- brokered
ceasefire with Hamas. In return for a ceasefire, Israel agreed to
open the crossing points and allow a free flow of essential supplies
in and out of Gaza. The rocket barrages ended but the crossings never
fully opened, and the people of Gaza began to starve. This crippling
embargo was no reward for peace.
When Westerners ask what is in the mind of Hamas leaders when they
order or allow rockets to be fired at Israel they fail to understand
the Palestinian position. Two months ago the Israeli Defence Forces
broke the ceasefire by entering Gaza and beginning the cycle of
killing again. In the Palestinian narrative each round of rocket
attacks is a response to Israeli attacks. In the Israeli narrative it
is the other way round.
But what does it mean when Mr Barak talks of destroying Hamas? Does
it mean killing the 42 per cent of Palestinians who voted for it?
Does it mean reoccupying the Gaza strip that Israel withdrew from so
painfully three years ago? Or does it mean permanently separating the
Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank, politically and
geographically? And for those whose mantra is Israeli security, what
sort of threat do the three quarters of a million young people
growing up in Gaza with an implacable hatred of those who starve and
bomb them pose?
It is said that this conflict is impossible to solve. In fact, it is
very simple. The top 1,000 people who run Israel - the politicians,
generals and security staff - and the top Palestinian Islamists have
never met. Genuine peace will require that these two groups sit down
together without preconditions. But the events of the past few days
seem to have made this more unlikely than ever. That is the challenge
for the new administration in Washington and for its European allies.
William Sieghart is chairman of Forward Thinking, an independent
conflict resolution agency
Beyond Sticker Shock
In a new column copyrighted by National Journal's Congress Daily, veteran defense writer George Wilson bemoans the sticker-shock price of what he calls "Cadillac" weapons. While it would be nice if the ultra-complex, ultra-high cost weapons did indeed perform as we might expect from a "Cadillac," some of the costs Wilson cites from a new DoD cost report are truly eye-popping. Especially notable is the $1.4 billion cost cited for each "low cost," "affordable" Littoral Combat Ship of which the Navy once dreamed of having over 50 copies. As Wilson concludes, "Houston, we have a problem," and he wonders if President Obama will 1) notice, and 2) react.
Wilson's copyrighted column is reprinted here with the permission of the author. It originally appeared in the January 26 edition of National Journal's Congress Daily.
Monday, January 26, 2009
CongressDailyAM
www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily
By George C. Wilson
The military-industrial complex that President Dwight NNEisenhower warned about in his farewell speech to the nation 48 years ago this month is now taking us to the poor house in Cadillacs that have little, if anything, to do with fighting the here-and-now threat of terrorism.
Your Defense secretary, Robert Gates, said as much several times while working for former President George W. Bush but didn’t cancel anything big. It’s time, Mr. President, to use your awesome powers of persuasion to convince the American people and their hired hands in Congress that we’ll never get out of this recession, or depression, unless the Pentagon is forced to join your crusade to cut costs.
Far too many generals, admirals, senators and representatives have fallen in love with these luxury weapons. The politicians who oversee Pentagon spending no longer care what these weapons cost as long as jobs back home are attached to them. The way Congress oversees the Pentagon “has certainly become dysfunctional,” House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told me. “Congress instead of being the watchdog is the dog that has to be watched.”
The defense agenda you put on the White House Web site (www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/defense/) shortly after your inauguration, Mr. President, was hardly comforting to taxpayers looking to get more bang for their bucks. With the possible exception of missile defense, your posted agenda signals more, more, more. More Army and Marine troops: 65,000 more for the Army, 27,000 more for the Marines; “greater investment” in manned and unmanned aircraft; “recapitalize our naval forces;” counter “possible threats to U. S. space assets, modernize the National Guard and reserves.” Where was the call for the Defense Department to make cuts to help pull the nation out of the recession? A long list of fallen dictators armed to the teeth testifies to the reality that national strength depends more on the economy than on planes, tanks and guns.
Sure, I realize no politician, including you, wants to look weak on national defense. But cutting fat out of the military budget and insisting on accountability for cost overruns on weapons are not signs of weakness.
Your reviewers of major weapons will not have to look hard to find waste and mismatches between the weapons the Pentagon is buying and the threats America faces.
The Pentagon’s Selected Acquisition Reports are one place for them to look, while the high stack of GAO reports documenting how military procurement is wildly out of control is another.
The cost of major weapons has skyrocketed so high that no military service, despite Bush’s record peacetime defense budgets, can afford to buy enough of them to cover the world’s hotspots. No Cadillac of a weapon, no matter how fancy, can be in two places at once.
A new book, America’s Defense Meltdown published by the World Security Institute’s Center for Defense Information, includes a chapter by long-time Pentagon executive Thomas Christie, who spent decades in the sand fighting the procurement bull.
“The overall decision process is broken and in need of far reaching, even radical, remedial actions,” writes Christie, who worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations. The basic problem is that contractors and defense executives underestimate what a weapon on the drawing board will cost and overestimate how much money the Pentagon will have to pay for it, the veteran analyst says.
Please insist, Mr. President, that your reviewers zero in on the costs of the Cadillacs and ask on your behalf how they would combat the most likely threats facing our country. Also, it would impose immediate accountability and inspire reform if you told the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps that their procurement budgets will be cut by the amount of their cost overruns on weapons. No more hitting the spare parts budget to make up for the overruns.
Among the many Cadillacs worth challenging are these:
• Army Future Combat Systems. The Pentagon estimates in its latest SAR that 15 systems in the Army program will cost $159.3 billion, or $10.6 billion for each system. The FCS has all kinds of problems.
• Air Force F-22 fighter. In another example of a mismatch, the F-22 has not been deployed to fight terrorists. The Pentagon’s own price tag for this plane, designed to take on the now-defunct Warsaw Pact air forces, stands at $351 million a copy, according to the Pentagon’s SAR figures, which include research and development costs.
• Navy Littoral Combat Ship. Can you believe, Mr. President, the cost of this supposedly simple ship for brown-water operations is now priced at $1.4 billion each?
• Marine V-22 Osprey. Several Defense secretaries tried to cancel this $118 million aerial taxi cab but got rolled by Congress. Why keep buying such an expensive limo?
CBO calculates the cost of national defense, including nuclear bomb-making by the Energy Department, has climbed to $600 billion this fiscal year not counting the second supplemental of about $70 billion on the way. That total of $672 billion, Mr. President, works out to spending almost $77 million an hour for our protection.
There is an old saying in the military that the commander who tries to be strong everywhere is weak everywhere. The numbers are shouting out, Mr. President: “Houston, we have a problem.”
“Forward Observer,” an insider’s look at defense and military topics, appears every other Monday in CongressDailyAM. Special Correspondent George C. Wilson can be reached at gwilson@nationaljournal.com.
_____________________________
Winslow T. Wheeler
Director
Straus Military Reform Project
Center for Defense Information
301 791-2397
CDI | 1779 Massachusetts Ave, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | US
Unsubscribe from future marketing messages from CDI
Email marketing delivered by Bronto
Wilson's copyrighted column is reprinted here with the permission of the author. It originally appeared in the January 26 edition of National Journal's Congress Daily.
Monday, January 26, 2009
CongressDailyAM
www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily
By George C. Wilson
The military-industrial complex that President Dwight NNEisenhower warned about in his farewell speech to the nation 48 years ago this month is now taking us to the poor house in Cadillacs that have little, if anything, to do with fighting the here-and-now threat of terrorism.
Your Defense secretary, Robert Gates, said as much several times while working for former President George W. Bush but didn’t cancel anything big. It’s time, Mr. President, to use your awesome powers of persuasion to convince the American people and their hired hands in Congress that we’ll never get out of this recession, or depression, unless the Pentagon is forced to join your crusade to cut costs.
Far too many generals, admirals, senators and representatives have fallen in love with these luxury weapons. The politicians who oversee Pentagon spending no longer care what these weapons cost as long as jobs back home are attached to them. The way Congress oversees the Pentagon “has certainly become dysfunctional,” House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told me. “Congress instead of being the watchdog is the dog that has to be watched.”
The defense agenda you put on the White House Web site (www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/defense/) shortly after your inauguration, Mr. President, was hardly comforting to taxpayers looking to get more bang for their bucks. With the possible exception of missile defense, your posted agenda signals more, more, more. More Army and Marine troops: 65,000 more for the Army, 27,000 more for the Marines; “greater investment” in manned and unmanned aircraft; “recapitalize our naval forces;” counter “possible threats to U. S. space assets, modernize the National Guard and reserves.” Where was the call for the Defense Department to make cuts to help pull the nation out of the recession? A long list of fallen dictators armed to the teeth testifies to the reality that national strength depends more on the economy than on planes, tanks and guns.
Sure, I realize no politician, including you, wants to look weak on national defense. But cutting fat out of the military budget and insisting on accountability for cost overruns on weapons are not signs of weakness.
Your reviewers of major weapons will not have to look hard to find waste and mismatches between the weapons the Pentagon is buying and the threats America faces.
The Pentagon’s Selected Acquisition Reports are one place for them to look, while the high stack of GAO reports documenting how military procurement is wildly out of control is another.
The cost of major weapons has skyrocketed so high that no military service, despite Bush’s record peacetime defense budgets, can afford to buy enough of them to cover the world’s hotspots. No Cadillac of a weapon, no matter how fancy, can be in two places at once.
A new book, America’s Defense Meltdown published by the World Security Institute’s Center for Defense Information, includes a chapter by long-time Pentagon executive Thomas Christie, who spent decades in the sand fighting the procurement bull.
“The overall decision process is broken and in need of far reaching, even radical, remedial actions,” writes Christie, who worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations. The basic problem is that contractors and defense executives underestimate what a weapon on the drawing board will cost and overestimate how much money the Pentagon will have to pay for it, the veteran analyst says.
Please insist, Mr. President, that your reviewers zero in on the costs of the Cadillacs and ask on your behalf how they would combat the most likely threats facing our country. Also, it would impose immediate accountability and inspire reform if you told the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps that their procurement budgets will be cut by the amount of their cost overruns on weapons. No more hitting the spare parts budget to make up for the overruns.
Among the many Cadillacs worth challenging are these:
• Army Future Combat Systems. The Pentagon estimates in its latest SAR that 15 systems in the Army program will cost $159.3 billion, or $10.6 billion for each system. The FCS has all kinds of problems.
• Air Force F-22 fighter. In another example of a mismatch, the F-22 has not been deployed to fight terrorists. The Pentagon’s own price tag for this plane, designed to take on the now-defunct Warsaw Pact air forces, stands at $351 million a copy, according to the Pentagon’s SAR figures, which include research and development costs.
• Navy Littoral Combat Ship. Can you believe, Mr. President, the cost of this supposedly simple ship for brown-water operations is now priced at $1.4 billion each?
• Marine V-22 Osprey. Several Defense secretaries tried to cancel this $118 million aerial taxi cab but got rolled by Congress. Why keep buying such an expensive limo?
CBO calculates the cost of national defense, including nuclear bomb-making by the Energy Department, has climbed to $600 billion this fiscal year not counting the second supplemental of about $70 billion on the way. That total of $672 billion, Mr. President, works out to spending almost $77 million an hour for our protection.
There is an old saying in the military that the commander who tries to be strong everywhere is weak everywhere. The numbers are shouting out, Mr. President: “Houston, we have a problem.”
“Forward Observer,” an insider’s look at defense and military topics, appears every other Monday in CongressDailyAM. Special Correspondent George C. Wilson can be reached at gwilson@nationaljournal.com.
_____________________________
Winslow T. Wheeler
Director
Straus Military Reform Project
Center for Defense Information
301 791-2397
CDI | 1779 Massachusetts Ave, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | US
Unsubscribe from future marketing messages from CDI
Email marketing delivered by Bronto
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Opinion Briefing: U.S. Image in Middle East/North Africa Iraq withdrawal among top actions residents say would improve opinions by Julie Ray
Image matters. One of the key findings of this poll is that the removal of US military bases from Saudi Arabia would greatly improve the US image in the Arab world. But, despite regional perceptions to the contrary, the US has no military bases in Saudi Arabia!
January 27, 2009
Opinion Briefing: U.S. Image in Middle East/North Africa
Iraq withdrawal among top actions residents say would improve opinions
by Julie Ray
Issue at Hand: As U.S. President Barack Obama seeks to pave a new, more positive way forward with the Muslim world, Gallup Polls underscore the gravity of the task. Gallup Polls in 143 countries reveal the image of the leadership of the United States is generally poor worldwide, but that the Obama administration will have the most repair work to do on its image in the predominantly Muslim Middle East and North Africa, where regional median approval is just 15%.
3bm2uh3hdu2t4jkienz6aa
Obama's Stance: Obama is already reaching out directly to residents of this region. In an interview with Al Arabiya television, the president said the most important thing for the United States to do is "get engaged right away" and "start by listening." Obama's comments in the interview echoed strains from his inaugural address, when he reaffirmed his campaign promise to restore the United States' reputation and credibility as a world leader and outlined shifts in policy that emphasize diplomacy and international cooperation. Obama said the United States will "seek a new way forward" with the Muslim world that is "based on mutual interest and mutual respect."
After less than a week in office, Obama has already set in motion one action that some residents in the predominantly Muslim Middle East and North Africa region told Gallup would improve their opinions of the United States significantly -- the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility camp in Cuba. And Obama has started discussions on another action that also will likely affect a number of residents' opinions -- the expedited withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq.
Residents' Views on Actions the U.S. Can Take to Improve Its Image: In 2008, Gallup asked residents in 10 predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East and North Africa to rate the extent to which various actions might significantly improve their opinions of the United States. In addition to asking about the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, respondents were asked to rate actions related to economic development, technology, poverty, and governance*.
Overall, residents in eight of the countries surveyed are most likely to say the United States' withdrawal from Iraq would improve their opinion very significantly. However, opinions about the different actions vary within the region.
ecusw4mtx06zzeoz54mz
Syria: Syrians' 4% approval rating of the leadership of the United States -- one of the lowest in the world -- bespeaks years of strained ties. Signaling a potential thaw in relations, Syrian President Bashar Assad recently said that he's willing to cooperate with the Obama administration, but that the United States must withdraw from Iraq and commit to the peace process.
* Among the issues tested, Syrians were most likely to say "pulling out of Iraq" would improve their opinions of the United States very significantly; a slim majority (52%) rated this as very significant.
nocz60qmh0mbjzq_y0
Egypt: Although Egypt is a key U.S. ally in the region and receives billions in foreign aid, the general public doesn't express feelings of goodwill. Egyptians' views of U.S. leadership have soured significantly since 2005; their current 6% approval rating of the leadership of the United States is among the lowest in the world.
* At least half of Egyptians said each action that Gallup asked about would improve their opinion of the United States very significantly.
* Six in 10 or more Egyptians said the United States' withdrawal from Iraq (64%) and removal of military bases from Saudi Arabia (60%) would improve their opinion very significantly.
g44v
Jordan: Another major ally in the region, Jordan and the United States have traditionally enjoyed close relations for six decades. Jordanians' 9% approval rating of U.S. leadership in 2008 represented a decline from 18% in 2007 and 15% in 2005.
* Among the issues tested, Jordanians were most likely to say the United States pulling out of neighboring Iraq would improve their opinion of the country very significantly; slightly less than half of Jordanians (47%) rated this action as very significant.
f9eftuiejeilvht7revq1a
Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia is another strategic U.S. ally in the region and a key trade partner. Saudis are at least twice as likely as Egyptians or Syrians to approval of the United States, but the 12% of residents who approve is slightly lower than the regional median.
* Majorities of Saudis rated withdrawal from Iraq (59%), closing Guantanamo Bay prison (56%), and removing military bases from their country (52%) as actions the United States could take that would improve their opinion very significantly.
* Saudis, along with Tunisians, were the only populations surveyed in which majorities said closing Guantanamo Bay prison would improve their opinion very significantly.
Palestinian Territories: Palestinians' approval of U.S. leadership has been low and relatively stable since 2006; 13% of Palestinians expressed approval in 2008, which is on par with 12% in 2007 and 15% in 2005.
* Among the issues tested, Palestinians were most likely to say the United States pulling out of Iraq would improve their opinions very significantly; slightly less than half of Palestinians (46%) rated this action as very significant.
nyftz805b0y_iesvgpcoaw
Tunisia: The United States has a long history of good relations with Tunisia that dates back nearly 200 years. In 2008, just 14% of Tunisians said they approve of the leadership of the United States.
* Of the items tested, Tunisians were most likely to say the United States pulling out of Iraq would improve their opinions very significantly; a definitive three in four Tunisians (75%) rated this action as very significant.
* Majorities of Tunisians said closing Guantanamo Bay prison (57%) and removing military bases from Saudi Arabia (55%) would improve their opinions of the United States very significantly.
ciao4skbkem9hqdximkqgw
Iran: While low, Iranians' 16% approval rating of the leadership of the United States is higher than ratings among the populations of key U.S. allies in the region, which is interesting given that the countries have not had normal diplomatic relations for nearly three decades.
* Unlike other populations in the region, relatively few Iranians rate withdrawal from Iraq as very significant to improving their opinion.
* Iranians were most likely to say greater technology transfer and the exchange of business expertise with their country would improve their opinions of the United States very significantly.
* Iranians, in general, were more likely to say actions related to economic development and aid would improve their opinions of the United States very significantly.
flgzeg10gkadxorfx2ys0q
Turkey: Turks' low approval rating of U.S. leadership provides evidence of the strain the Iraq war has placed on relations between the two longtime allies. In 2008, 16% of Turks said they approved of the leadership of the United States, which is unchanged from the 16% measured in 2007 but lower than the 23% measured in 2005.
* Among the items tested, Turks were most likely to say pulling out of Iraq (30%), removing military bases from Saudi Arabia (29%), and more humanitarian aid to alleviate poverty (30%) would improve their opinions of the United States very significantly.
xu0bo
Lebanon: Lebanese views of the leadership of the United States have continued to erode since 2005, when 40% of residents said they approved. After the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict in 2006, which a substantial number of Lebanese held the United States primarily responsible for, approval declined significantly to 31%. By 2008, Lebanese approval had dropped even further, and stood at 25%.
* Of the items tested, Lebanese were most likely to say more direct humanitarian aid that alleviates poverty would improve their opinions of the United States very significantly; nearly 6 in 10 (59%) Lebanese rated this action as very significant.
* Majorities of Lebanese also said promoting greater economic development and job creation in their country (54%), greater technology transfer and exchange of business expertise (54%), and the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq (52%) would improve their opinions very significantly.
5wkf5eb4tumu3oisrxcwww
Algeria: Unlike other populations in the Middle East/North Africa region, Algerians' opinions of the leadership of the United States have actually improved in the past few years. In 2008, 25% of Algerians said they approved, which was up seven percentage points from 18% in 2007.
* Of the items tested, Algerians were most likely to say the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would improve their opinions of the United States very significantly; a slight majority (54%) rated this action as very significant.
tqgyhbg1rkgbqhlatujjmq
Policy Implications: The United States' ability to rebuild or construct alliances and partnerships in the Middle East does not hinge on how the United States' image is perceived among the general public, but experts in the region believe a poor image makes it more difficult for their leaders to work with the United States.
Obama's order to close the Guantanamo facility and even the United States' expedited departure from Iraq will not renew America's leadership in the region, not while a perceived imbalance in U.S. relations with Israel remains, but they may help improve its image among some residents. At the very least, they may help open a window of opportunity through which the Obama administration can see its "new way forward."
*Note: Gallup asked about each action in rotating order. Gallup did ask respondents to rate an action concerning Israel, but those data are unavailable at this time.
To read more U.S. Foreign Policy Opinion Briefings, click here.
Survey Methods
Results are based face-to-face interviews with approximately 1,000 adults, aged 15 and older in Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestinian Territories, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Tunisia, Turkey, and Iran between May and August 2008. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error ranges between ±3 and ±4 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
January 27, 2009
Opinion Briefing: U.S. Image in Middle East/North Africa
Iraq withdrawal among top actions residents say would improve opinions
by Julie Ray
Issue at Hand: As U.S. President Barack Obama seeks to pave a new, more positive way forward with the Muslim world, Gallup Polls underscore the gravity of the task. Gallup Polls in 143 countries reveal the image of the leadership of the United States is generally poor worldwide, but that the Obama administration will have the most repair work to do on its image in the predominantly Muslim Middle East and North Africa, where regional median approval is just 15%.
3bm2uh3hdu2t4jkienz6aa
Obama's Stance: Obama is already reaching out directly to residents of this region. In an interview with Al Arabiya television, the president said the most important thing for the United States to do is "get engaged right away" and "start by listening." Obama's comments in the interview echoed strains from his inaugural address, when he reaffirmed his campaign promise to restore the United States' reputation and credibility as a world leader and outlined shifts in policy that emphasize diplomacy and international cooperation. Obama said the United States will "seek a new way forward" with the Muslim world that is "based on mutual interest and mutual respect."
After less than a week in office, Obama has already set in motion one action that some residents in the predominantly Muslim Middle East and North Africa region told Gallup would improve their opinions of the United States significantly -- the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility camp in Cuba. And Obama has started discussions on another action that also will likely affect a number of residents' opinions -- the expedited withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq.
Residents' Views on Actions the U.S. Can Take to Improve Its Image: In 2008, Gallup asked residents in 10 predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East and North Africa to rate the extent to which various actions might significantly improve their opinions of the United States. In addition to asking about the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, respondents were asked to rate actions related to economic development, technology, poverty, and governance*.
Overall, residents in eight of the countries surveyed are most likely to say the United States' withdrawal from Iraq would improve their opinion very significantly. However, opinions about the different actions vary within the region.
ecusw4mtx06zzeoz54mz
Syria: Syrians' 4% approval rating of the leadership of the United States -- one of the lowest in the world -- bespeaks years of strained ties. Signaling a potential thaw in relations, Syrian President Bashar Assad recently said that he's willing to cooperate with the Obama administration, but that the United States must withdraw from Iraq and commit to the peace process.
* Among the issues tested, Syrians were most likely to say "pulling out of Iraq" would improve their opinions of the United States very significantly; a slim majority (52%) rated this as very significant.
nocz60qmh0mbjzq_y0
Egypt: Although Egypt is a key U.S. ally in the region and receives billions in foreign aid, the general public doesn't express feelings of goodwill. Egyptians' views of U.S. leadership have soured significantly since 2005; their current 6% approval rating of the leadership of the United States is among the lowest in the world.
* At least half of Egyptians said each action that Gallup asked about would improve their opinion of the United States very significantly.
* Six in 10 or more Egyptians said the United States' withdrawal from Iraq (64%) and removal of military bases from Saudi Arabia (60%) would improve their opinion very significantly.
g44v
Jordan: Another major ally in the region, Jordan and the United States have traditionally enjoyed close relations for six decades. Jordanians' 9% approval rating of U.S. leadership in 2008 represented a decline from 18% in 2007 and 15% in 2005.
* Among the issues tested, Jordanians were most likely to say the United States pulling out of neighboring Iraq would improve their opinion of the country very significantly; slightly less than half of Jordanians (47%) rated this action as very significant.
f9eftuiejeilvht7revq1a
Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia is another strategic U.S. ally in the region and a key trade partner. Saudis are at least twice as likely as Egyptians or Syrians to approval of the United States, but the 12% of residents who approve is slightly lower than the regional median.
* Majorities of Saudis rated withdrawal from Iraq (59%), closing Guantanamo Bay prison (56%), and removing military bases from their country (52%) as actions the United States could take that would improve their opinion very significantly.
* Saudis, along with Tunisians, were the only populations surveyed in which majorities said closing Guantanamo Bay prison would improve their opinion very significantly.
Palestinian Territories: Palestinians' approval of U.S. leadership has been low and relatively stable since 2006; 13% of Palestinians expressed approval in 2008, which is on par with 12% in 2007 and 15% in 2005.
* Among the issues tested, Palestinians were most likely to say the United States pulling out of Iraq would improve their opinions very significantly; slightly less than half of Palestinians (46%) rated this action as very significant.
nyftz805b0y_iesvgpcoaw
Tunisia: The United States has a long history of good relations with Tunisia that dates back nearly 200 years. In 2008, just 14% of Tunisians said they approve of the leadership of the United States.
* Of the items tested, Tunisians were most likely to say the United States pulling out of Iraq would improve their opinions very significantly; a definitive three in four Tunisians (75%) rated this action as very significant.
* Majorities of Tunisians said closing Guantanamo Bay prison (57%) and removing military bases from Saudi Arabia (55%) would improve their opinions of the United States very significantly.
ciao4skbkem9hqdximkqgw
Iran: While low, Iranians' 16% approval rating of the leadership of the United States is higher than ratings among the populations of key U.S. allies in the region, which is interesting given that the countries have not had normal diplomatic relations for nearly three decades.
* Unlike other populations in the region, relatively few Iranians rate withdrawal from Iraq as very significant to improving their opinion.
* Iranians were most likely to say greater technology transfer and the exchange of business expertise with their country would improve their opinions of the United States very significantly.
* Iranians, in general, were more likely to say actions related to economic development and aid would improve their opinions of the United States very significantly.
flgzeg10gkadxorfx2ys0q
Turkey: Turks' low approval rating of U.S. leadership provides evidence of the strain the Iraq war has placed on relations between the two longtime allies. In 2008, 16% of Turks said they approved of the leadership of the United States, which is unchanged from the 16% measured in 2007 but lower than the 23% measured in 2005.
* Among the items tested, Turks were most likely to say pulling out of Iraq (30%), removing military bases from Saudi Arabia (29%), and more humanitarian aid to alleviate poverty (30%) would improve their opinions of the United States very significantly.
xu0bo
Lebanon: Lebanese views of the leadership of the United States have continued to erode since 2005, when 40% of residents said they approved. After the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict in 2006, which a substantial number of Lebanese held the United States primarily responsible for, approval declined significantly to 31%. By 2008, Lebanese approval had dropped even further, and stood at 25%.
* Of the items tested, Lebanese were most likely to say more direct humanitarian aid that alleviates poverty would improve their opinions of the United States very significantly; nearly 6 in 10 (59%) Lebanese rated this action as very significant.
* Majorities of Lebanese also said promoting greater economic development and job creation in their country (54%), greater technology transfer and exchange of business expertise (54%), and the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq (52%) would improve their opinions very significantly.
5wkf5eb4tumu3oisrxcwww
Algeria: Unlike other populations in the Middle East/North Africa region, Algerians' opinions of the leadership of the United States have actually improved in the past few years. In 2008, 25% of Algerians said they approved, which was up seven percentage points from 18% in 2007.
* Of the items tested, Algerians were most likely to say the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would improve their opinions of the United States very significantly; a slight majority (54%) rated this action as very significant.
tqgyhbg1rkgbqhlatujjmq
Policy Implications: The United States' ability to rebuild or construct alliances and partnerships in the Middle East does not hinge on how the United States' image is perceived among the general public, but experts in the region believe a poor image makes it more difficult for their leaders to work with the United States.
Obama's order to close the Guantanamo facility and even the United States' expedited departure from Iraq will not renew America's leadership in the region, not while a perceived imbalance in U.S. relations with Israel remains, but they may help improve its image among some residents. At the very least, they may help open a window of opportunity through which the Obama administration can see its "new way forward."
*Note: Gallup asked about each action in rotating order. Gallup did ask respondents to rate an action concerning Israel, but those data are unavailable at this time.
To read more U.S. Foreign Policy Opinion Briefings, click here.
Survey Methods
Results are based face-to-face interviews with approximately 1,000 adults, aged 15 and older in Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestinian Territories, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Tunisia, Turkey, and Iran between May and August 2008. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error ranges between ±3 and ±4 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Transcripts of Erdogan, Moussa, Peres (and Erdogan again…) at Davos By Mary Rizzo • Jan 31st, 2009
http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/01/31/transcripts-of-erdogan-moussa-peres-and-erdogan-again-at-davos/
Transcripts of Erdogan, Moussa, Peres (and Erdogan again…) at Davos
By Mary Rizzo • Jan 31st, 2009
Moderator: I'm David Ignatius, a columnist for the Washington Post and I'm going to moderate this afternoon's discussion of Gaza. Our discussion of Gaza follows a war there that has reminded all of us of the burden of history in the Middle East and also has reminded all of us of the fragility of the peace process. Tonight I hope we'll put a little more substance to that process by discussing where we go now, how we put the pieces back together. We have a most distinguished panel to discuss these issues with us tonight. Let me first briefly introduce them. To my immediate right (sic) is the Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. To his left is the President of Israel, Shimon Peres. To his left is the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon and to his left is the Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa. I'm going to ask Secretary General Ban Ki-moon from the United Nations who has been particularly focused on the humanitarian aspects of the Gaza crisis to lead off tonight with his remarks for the next five minutes. Secretary General.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan: Simultaneous translation from original Turkish) First of all, before replying to the question as to what needs to be done, I think it's also important that we analyse the current situation because we need to do a proper analysis of the current situation in order to determine what steps need to be taken.
I'm not going to start from 40 years ago in making the situation analysis, I am just going as far back as June 2008. If we look at back then, June 2008, there was a ceasefire which was stated [agreed to] and there was no problem to the ceasefire that was to last for 6 months, but when the ceasefire ended, 6 months later there were no rocket attacks at that point, in the meantime the Israeli side was to lift the embargo, the situation had to change in Palestine, however, the Palestinian Territories are like an open air prison because it is completely isolated from the rest of the world, so it is very much isolated, sealed, so if you try to bring in a case of tomatoes from any crossing into the Palestinian territories you must get the permission of the Israeli side because it is not possible otherwise so [Looking at this,] I look at this from a humanitarian point of view and I will also say a few words as Prime Minister, I visited Israel some time ago and then I went to Palestine and as the Prime Minister I waited for half hour with my wife in the car [for about half an hour] to be able to cross into the Palestinian territories from Ramallah.
But never has a diplomat coming from Israel had to wait for that long at our borders. I think we have to look at these aspects of the situation there on the ground. I also ask Mr. Olmert if there were any deaths as a result of these rockets attacks and he told me that there were no deaths, but that the attacks were a fact, so these rockets are being used but, they don't kill anyone, so I'm told that it's about the rockets themselves, they are of not very good quality, but in the meantime, there were more that 24 Palestinians who were killed during the ceasefire since last June, and the power was cut off, there was no food, the electricity didn't exist in hospitals, so there were quite a number of difficult issues and we had already started as Turkey to send humanitarian aid to Palestine, so there was already a humanitarian issue then. And let me say, I have always been a leader who expressly stated that anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity, Islamophobia too, is a crime against humanity.
For me the person being Christian, Jewish or Muslim is not important if the person is under stress, to me, the common denominator is that they are all human beings and so my approach is a humanitarian one, and that has been what I have taken as the basis of my efforts, for example we tried to send humanitarian aid the Turkish Red Crescent, tried to provide aid, but it took quite a while, two weeks sometimes, to have the trucks cross the crossings. I don't know if President Peres is aware of this but it has taken us quite a lot of time, our diplomats have had to work very hard to make sure that the aid will flow into the Palestinian Territories.
Even more interesting, is that the Israeli Prime Minister was in Turkey, Mr. Olmert was in Turkey four days before the war in Gaza started. as you have mentioned, we as Turkey have taken up an intermediation role between Israel and Syria for indirect talks and there were already four rounds of talks, which have taken place, indirect talks, and the fifth round was actually carried out with Prime Minister Olmert and myself present and our special envoys present in Ankara and we sat together for five to six hours and we were discussing the issues between Syria and Israel. I was on phone conversation with President Assad and my envoy was talking to the Foreign Minister Moallem and our goal then, to see if we could move to the next phase which was direct talks between Israel and Syria, so that was what we were trying to do and our goal in trying to do all this has been to achieve peace in the region and we have been trying to bring together officials from two countries which to date have not come together.
We were making quite good progress, so much so that we were having problems with a few words only, in the language that we were talking. It was decided that a few days should lapse until a final decision could be reached and in the meantime, I was talking to Mr. Olmert with my Foreign Minister with me and our special envoy and Prime Minister Olmert had his advisers as well and I said that we could work to release the captured Israeli soldier who was held by Hamas but I said, and I also made the request, I said that the reforming change Party won the election in Palestine. We are talking about democracy, we would like to see democracy take root, so if we would like to see democracy take root then we must respect, first of all, the people who have received the votes of the people of the country they are running in, so we may not like them, but we have to respect the process.
And I said to Prime Minister Olmert that they held the Ministers and Members of Parliament of Palestine. I suggested also, that there could perhaps be a gesture made, similar to the gesture made to President Abbas before, they could be released perhaps. But Prime Minister Olmert said that this would make things very difficult for President Abbas. But then I said, perhaps it would be possible to release some of the women and children and that could perhaps that be done as a gesture. President Olmert told me that he would talk to his colleagues and respond back the next day, but we got no response and in about 4 days after that, by December 27 we saw the war in Gaza.
What happened was more than 1,200 people were killed including women and children. More than 5,000 were wounded and this was a disproportionate use of force, so if you look at all this from a humanitarian point of view and think of the military power of Israel including weapons of mass destruction and whether or not there is anything that is similar in Gaza, whether the Palestinians have any of that kind of military power, they don't have that kind of power. The UN Security Council met and the resolution was announced but Israel did not recognize this resolution of the United Nations Security Council as Secretary General Ban Ki Moon mentioned, the UN centre was also hit during the course of this war. Schools, mosques were also hit, but mankind or humanity as a whole did not really act as quickly as it should have to try to help people there. In the case of Georgia people acted rather quickly, I include ourselves in that effort because we too worked very hard to help Georgians as well in a difficult time.
So, what I am trying to say is that we should not be judging anyone by their race or religion if they are in distress. Our goal, everyone's goal, is to try to help people in difficulty. I visited Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and I talked to many leaders, European leaders on the phone, unfortunately this whole thing lasted 3 weeks it was covered from the very beginning, television channels, BBC for example predicted that it would take about 3 weeks, indeed the whole process or the whole war took 3 weeks and this has lead to the destruction of the infrastructure. And the figures that the UN Secretary General mentioned are not sufficient to solve the problem, we need much more, not even 1 billion or 2 billion dollars would help in trying to restore the structures there because these people there do not have any means to rehabilitate their infrastructure and they now have to be burdened.
There is a lot of talk about Hamas, but Hamas are not the only people in Gaza, there are also civilians. Hamas is also a different face of the change and transformation party. The problem here is that their democratic rights have not been recognized, respected. Where we are now, the unilateral ceasefire was announced by Israel and then Hamas the next day announced a unilateral ceasefire as well. One is talking about a year-long ceasefire process, the other one proposes a year and a half. Another issue is of course to end the isolation of the Palestinian People.
Will it be possible for Israel to do that, in other words, will the crossings be open for people to come in because how will those people survive where they are, under the conditions that they are in? If we respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Conventions that are internationally accepted, those crossings, first of all, must be opened so people can experience their rights, the rights of life. There is also the issue of arms being smuggled into the area. If one end of the tunnel is in Egypt then Egypt must stop this illicit arms flow. But if we consider Palestine as a State, and I think that there is also a question there, perhaps some question marks in peoples minds, this issue of the division within Palestine, and how to breach the differences between Fatah and Hamas. If we are trying to bridge that gap then we have to consider all the parties.
And I said this to Mr. Olmert too, because if it's only Fatah who is present on the Palestinian side, that is not going to be sufficient to project the results to all of the Palestinian people, Hamas has to be taken into consideration as well because they are a part of that society, they have won an election, so they too must be included in this equation. If it's the UN who is going to take the lead, that's the way it should be, I hope that the UN puts it weight behind these efforts and/or the United States under the Obama administration can take an important role. I hope, I expect, President Obama to be the voice of the silent masses and to put his weight, his administration's weight, behind a solution. He must do this not within the agreements that have been previously made by the previous administration, including the last one that was made between the then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Mrs. Livni. There's got to be a new opening and Hamas must be considered in this process.
If Turkey is asked to play some sort of a role, we too would be willing to be involved, but we must be careful and we must think of the whole process when we try to define the parties involved and we must definitely achieve peace in the Middle East because that is important and necessary for global peace. If the Middle East peace process does not yield a positive result, that means that we will not have peace in the world as a whole. So I think that in the National Unity government to be established in Palestine this party of Reform and Change must be there, and that is how the National Unity government has to be established then elections have to take place and once the new government is in place, whether we or not, like them will be and should be the government of the Palestinian people because we have to respect the will of the Palestinian people.
Moderator: Thank you Prime Minister Erdogan for a very comprehensive and I must say quite newsy response. Let me turn out to Secretary General Amr Moussa the same question: how do we put this peace process back together after Gaza and perhaps you could address the two things that Secretary General Ban focused on.
First, how to achieve unity among Palestinians? And second, what this new American administration can most usefully do as George Mitchell begins making his way around the region?
Amr Mussa: Well thank you very much. Let me begin by thanking the Secretary General of the United Nations for the forceful position he has taken and for the actions he is calling for in order to save the situation in Gaza, to save Gaza after the carnage that has been committed against its people. Also I wish to commend the role played by Turkey, a very positive, courageous and clear role that Turkey, a member of the Middle East family of nations, wants to help establish peace and to help deal with the major mistakes that have been committed against the Palestinians and to ask for, work for a fair, a just peace in order for peace to be durable.
Now, David, you asked me to talk about the future and how we would address it. This cannot make me sweep things under the carpet, things that belong to the near future and also to perhaps distant future. The situation in Gaza was not a reaction, the assault against the Gazans was not just a reaction for some rockets being launched against Southern Israel. And here I would open some brackets to say that we are against anything that would affect children, women, civilians be they Palestinians or Israelis. And then I continue to say that this situation in Gaza and in Palestine is a situation of foreign military occupation. So people [...]and siege, a blockade. Gaza is living within a blockade, a very severe one. The West Bank is under military occupation with barriers, with colonies, that's settlements, so the Palestinians are trying to express themselves to find a future for themselves. You cannot ask people in Gaza living in starvation and hunger because of the blockade, the very sinister blockade, and then ask them to be calm, and ask them "why do you throw stones against your occupiers?". It is against the nature of people, against the nature of people, you strangle them, you starve them and then ask them to be quiet?
And then, as has been discussed now, the question of smuggling, of course smuggling is illegal, illicit trade, illicit movement of things, commodities and so on, including perhaps arms. You strangle them, not a single window of opportunity, and then talk to them about illicit trade? If you want to prevent this, you have to open the crossing points, you have to give them food, you have to give them water, to give them medicine. It is a miserable life that the Palestinians have lived and until now are living in Gaza because of the blockade that Israel has imposed on them for three years now.
Number two. Another fact: the Palestinians believed the call for democracy. There were some policies, international policies, at certain times, calling on the Middle East: "apply democracy, democracy is the solution for everything!" - and it happens that I agree with that. The Palestinians believed the advice, had elections, Hamas won, and half an hour, twenty-five minutes after the announcement of the results of the election, Hamas was served notice that aid would be suspended and then came the blockade, a severe blockade, and hence Hamas was put on the defensive. But very much as Prime Minister Erdogan has said, the people in Gaza are not only Hamas, it as such is only an organization among other organizations, but the people, 1.5 million people of women, of children, of all people, they were attacked and they paid the price for this game that is going on between Israel and Hamas and the game that has been caused, that is being caused until now by the military occupation.
Why Hamas was listened to in the Occupied Territories, within the Palestinian ranks, in the Middle East, within the Arab world? Why? Because it has a logic. They said all right, president Abu Mazen, go and negotiate, and if there is something useful coming out of your negotiations we will certainly support you. And in fact they are on record as having said we are ready to accept the Palestinian State within the borders of 1967 but we are not going to sign any paper until we see what is the result of that. So, President Abu Mazen didn't bring anything. Did not bring anything. Out of one full year of negotiations with the current Israeli government. That's what he said. He is on record as having said that and in fact he said it, on this stage, last year. I believe it was the Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.
So this is the situation. It is not a question of Israel reacting to some rockets, it is much deeper than that, it is an action of occupation, an action of blockade, then a reaction of resistance, then the reaction of destruction carried out by Israel. Okay. That has happened. Are we going to stop here and the end of the world will occur? No. Perhaps all of us now are called upon to save the situation. As the Secretary General has just said, there are three or four thing that have to be done: a ceasefire, a strong ceasefire, sustainable ceasefire, opening of the crossings, stopping the illicit traffic, and the conciliation between the Palestinians. That we have to do, and I want you to know that I do not absolve ourselves on the Arab side from also committing mistakes, but no mistakes, no mistake we have committed can compete with the major mistake that has been committed by Israel in destroying Gaza and killing all those people in only twenty days.
Again, we tried to involve the United Nations rather than to involve shooting and more bloodshed. Unfortunately in the last several years up until this January and it was before January 28th, the philosophy was "no, keep the Security Council away, give Israel a chance to reach, to do what they were set to do". We have witnessed that back in 2006 in Lebanon, and we witness that back in January in New York, but this is a long story I don't think the time will allow us to do so, to explain it in full. Now, what should we do? We have a new administration in the United States. What President Obama has said is reassuring. Change. He addressed the Arab world through one of our major channels called Al Arabiya, from Dubai, addressed us, and told us. We listened, we heard, we understood. He sent his special envoy, Senator Mitchell, who is a very reasonable man, we discussed with him, we are going to discuss again with him, and I believe there are those prospects of the United States returning back to the role of honest broker, which we missed for the last several years. This is a key point for the future, that the United States gets back to the role of honest broker that listens to the sides and says "yes you are right on this but you are wrong on that", and to the other side too, the same. This we have not seen in the last several years. Ok. Now, this is the first positive point, we hope that we are right in our assessment and in our hopes.
The second is the Arab initiative. We are ready. Formally, officially, at the highest level, all of us are committed to establish peace with Israel. To recognize Israel, to normalize with Israel, and to carry on all our commitments in accordance with Security Council resolutions, the Madrid Conference decisions and whatever agreements we have signed, that have been signed between any Arab country and Israel. We are ready for that. But the point is that we have not received any answer from Israel for the last seven years. President Peres is a very eloquent man, he says that we accept, but this is just a good expression of words, there is no authorized decision taken by the government of Israel to respond to the most authorized message sent by an Arab summit held back in 2002. So our position is fully authorized, we haven't gotten any answer, any answer whatsoever except some addresses here, we read it in some newspapers or translation from. So we call on Israel now: what is your position on this initiative? Formal position. Formal position. Not just a statement here. Formal position. As our position also was formal. If there is an acceptance, authorized acceptance, by Israel then we are on the right track.
Therefore the second point is for us to receive a formal reply about the acceptance of the Arab initiative which calls on us Arabs to turn the page, urn the page of the conflict, recognize Israel, normalize with Israel and have Israel as part of the family of nations in the Middle East which until now Israel is not. But if Israel also withdraws, allows the Palestinian State to be established, withdraws from the other Territories, we see no obstacle for us and for the Israelis to live together and get our act together. When are we going to receive this message? A question mark. The third point . . .
Moderator: Secretary General, we have a chance to get a response from the President of Israel and maybe this is the good time to do that since we're running short of time…
Amr Mussa: I know that the president is going to take all his time. So give me two more minutes, please.
Moderator: I don't want to bargain. [We have to have a ceasefire] We'll be all ears to listen to President Peres. …let's do a wrap up.
Amr Mussa: Now. The year 2009 we lived the year 2008 with a lot of promises. And it ended up in a bloodshed. For us, to move from one administration to the other from the year 2000 to the year 2008, then 2009, then 2010, then 2011, this is a gimmick that we are not going to accept. That is why: now we are in 2009, if there's real intention, a real work done by an honest broker, the political will will be expressed by Israel in favor of peace and progress will be done, will be made, then we are on the right track. If this year ends - we reach the day 31st of December as we did in 2008, without any result, then we'll have to reconsider. There are a lot of other alternatives. But I believe in what Turkey is saying, Prime Minister Erdogan has said. We cannot reach and Israel cannot reach any of its goals through military means. We need to have a political settlement, but a fair one and in the year 2009. Thank you very much.
Moderator: Thank you, Secretary General Moussa and now President Peres of Israel. No one has worked longer or harder on this thing we call the peace process than you have, and tell us how you think we can put it back together.
[A woman pats down Peres' hair. Laughter.]
Hairfalls [?]
Shimon Peres: Well, thank you Mr. Chairman, I heard the distinguished speakers talking about Israel and I couldn't recognize the picture of the country that they know. I want to tell the beginning. It's very difficult when a democratic country has to confront an illegal terroristic group. Whatever we do is being photographed; whatever they do, nobody sees. For example, when you throw a rocket on a settlement in Israel, it's not being photographed. You cannot see the mother trying to defend her child the whole night, and their sleepless night. Did you ever see on television a sleepless night?
I must respect for you Mr. Prime Minister, but I must put things as they really are. Let me start with democracy. First of all, who was elected by the Palestinians, but Mr. Abbas, who is called Abu Mazen. Sixty-two percent of the Palestinians voted for him to be the President of the Palestinian people, and we negotiate with him. Hamas participated in the elections but have a very unique idea about democracy. They think a democracy is a story of one day in four years you go through the election. After the elections you can start to shoot and kill and threaten. Finish. Democracy is not a matter of elections. It is a civilization and I want to conflict to your words by quoting from the Hamas; I won't be going to interrupt the stories? But Hamas concerns us; Hamas published a charter; let me just read two lines, three lines from it, from the Hamas Charter. "The day of judgment will not come about until the Muslims kill the Jews, when the Jews will hide behind stones and trees, there is no solution for peace initiative, proposals, international conferences are all a waste of time." This is an official charter. I don't know about which Hamas you are talking?
Now about the proportions. In the last eight years, well I mean, I hate to say it, but since you mentioned it, let me give the other picture, too. Israel lost hundred, thousand hundred sixty-seven lives from terrorists, eight thousand five hundred were wounded. It wasn't done in twenty days, it was done in several years. We restrained all the time. And then since the last four years when Hamas took over Gaza, 5500 rockets, and 4000 mortars, shells were fired upon civilian life in Israel at random: they didn't care if it was a kindergarten, if it's a [ ]we didn't answer. For that reason, the ceasefire idea, Mr. Prime Minister, was very strange in our views. We never started fire. And we told the Palestinians time and again, "Don't fire, and there won't be fire; we are not doing we never started!" And who broke…and oh by the way, we didn't have a formal agreement about the ceasefire, they announced, and the Palestinians said, "It's over." They broke it. And when the Prime Minister was at your place four days before the operations started, the government of Israel didn't yet to decide to take actions against it.
Now let me… I want you to listen because you watch all of your television, I can understand your feelings.
"Israel left Gaza completely, no occupation. We took out all of our soldiers from Gaza, all of our civilians. People are talking about settlements, we took out from Gaza all the settlements and all the settlers, fifteen thousand of them. Nobody forced us, it was our own choice. We had to mobilize forty-five thousand policemen to bring them back home, at the cost of 2.5 billion dollars.
I want to understand why did they fight rockets against us? What for? There was not any siege against Gaza. All the passages were open. Not only that, we participated in investing money in Gaza, to develop a, an agriculture. We at Peres Center, we ourselves put in twenty thousand dollars, twenty million dollars, sorry, to build green houses, to develop strawberries, the export of strawberries, excellent strawberries, flowers.
Jimmy Wolfensohn who was representative of the Quartet, took from his own pocket 5 million dollars to participate in it. They destroyed it. Why? They bombed all the passages. Why? Why did they fire at us, what did they want?" We didn't occupy, there was never a day of starvation in Gaza! By the way, Israel is the supplier of water daily to Gaza, Israel is the supplier of fuel to Gaza, the only thing we didn't permit to bring in was rockets from Iran! And they build tunnels to do it! And you know, we also have women and children, and they want to sleep at night. Do you know what it means, every day, almost hundred rockets falling at random, a million people have had to be under shelter. They came to the government and said "What happened to you? We want have security, why do you permit to happen it? " And I want anyone telling me, clearly, what were the reasons for the attack? What were the purposes of the attack? Peace? We make peace with Egypt, not by arms, by agreement and negotiation, and we met all of the requests of Egypt. We made peace with Jordan the same, we gave back all the land and all the water. We opened with the Palestinians, and we told them, that we are for a Palestinian state, I started in Oslo, against the majority maybe, of our people that didn't agree And all the time, you know Mr. Prime Minister, while you have had to wait, because many busses that came from the West Bank to Jerusalem were full of dynamite. I was then Prime Minister, I saw it with my own eyes, the blood and the bodies. You know, I don't have to watch television, and when I came in there were thousands of people shouting at me "Traitor, killer, look at what you did to us!" You must, there are many details you have to know. Israel is sixty-years old, do you know any other country, that in sixty-years has had to go through seven wars, two Intifadas, an ongoing boycott? What, why? And in spite of it, we made peace with Egypt.
I have the highest respect for President Mubarak. By the way, President Mubarak accused Hamas, not us. And President Mubarak knows the situation not less as you Mr. Prime Minister. And President Abbas knows the situation not less than you do, and he accused Hamas not us. And then mothers and children came to the government and asked what will happen? A million people every night have had to hide themselves in shelters, mothers with sleepless nights, what do you really mean? By the way, I have never saw anyone demonstrating against those missiles! That was ok Nobody said a word. And we didn't answer, a day in and a day out, a year in a year out, there's a limit to it.
And by the way, I have much respect for the Secretary General, he used to be and I hope we're still a friend, I appreciate very much the Arab initiative, but there is a problem in it, I don't want to hide it. The problem is not the Arab world, the problem is the Iranian ambition to govern the Middle East. They supplied the rockets to Hezbollah, they supplied the rockets to Hamas, they are controversially the Arab making, and you know we didn't have a choice. The leader of Hezbollah, Nasrallah says: "Would I know that Israel will react so strongly, we wouldn't have started". Thank you very much. And then come the Mashaal, the leader of Hamas and said: "Israel reacted too strongly." What did you expect us to do, I don't understand? What would any country do? What would you do if it you would happen in Istanbul every night ten rockets, a hundred rockets? And we never gave up, all my life as you said, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it, I am fighting for peace, what we did is not…the thing that we wanted to do… It's not our choice, our choice is peace. What we did is because the lack of a choice, we were threatened with a choice. Would you vote for such a convention, to kill the Jews? OK, those are words, but to kill the Jews and send rockets to kill them. What you want us to do?
We started to negotiate with Mr. Arafat, with much respect, it wasn't simple. The PLO was in the beginning a terroristic organization. Mr. Arafat agreed to stop terror and go on to negotiations. By the way, what ever was achieved peacefully, positively, was achieved not by rockets, not by force, not by power, but by negotiations. It takes time, it takes time. It's a very complicated country. It's a small country with three religions, with a lot of history. With different ethnicities, it's not simple. We made peace, once, twice, now we are negotiating with the Palestinians. There was a crisis among the Palestinians, we don't intend to be the one that decide that the Palestinians be united or not.
As long as Hamas did not rebel against the Fatah, it was not our business, we didn't say a word. You know what? I am talking about Israel, look what the people, of the Palestinian people, the Secretary General of Fatah is saying about Hamas, three days ago.His name is Yasser Abd Rabbo, a Palestinian, a secretary general of the PLO, of the executive committee, and I quote him, I quote him three days ago: "Hamas has turned Gaza, Gaza schools and mosques, all universities into centers of detention, interrogation and torture and torture. Dozens have been shot in their legs, beaten savagely, and had their bones broken, broken. Hamas plundered trucks bringing …and distributes it only to…the food.. only to the supporters of their movement." They didn't give the food to the people of Fatah. They killed hundred leaders of Fatah in full daylight. They throw them from the roofs. What do you really mean? Is that the matter of definitions?
Israel does not want to shoot anybody, for us all children are as important as one can think of. I created the Peres Center, all the money we have collected went to the cure of children. Palestinian children. They didn't have insurance, they didn't have hospitals, in five years we have brought to Israel 5500 Palestinian children and their mothers to be cured. By the way, there is no hospital today in Israel that does not have Arab doctors, so the children can communicate with the doctors in the Israeli hospitals. That is our choice, to touch a child. But if you put a child, if you put bombs in the kindergarten, and if you hide yourselves behind innocent families, and before we shell, we, before we try to shell anybody, we try and telephone the people, we say, please leave the place. We don't want to hurt you. We made during those twenty days, 250,000 telephone calls before we shoot. What could we do, what was our choice? And what would any government do?I am very much sorry Mr. Secretary General about the United Nations' building, according to our records, not by your knowledge, they started to shoot from there, and by the way, Europe, you bombed Kosovo, and you hit the Chinese embassy, did you want to? And hundreds of civilian people were killed in the bombing to, That's Ok. So please, I want to speak clearly, Israel does not need a ceasefire, because we never started a bullet and we shall never do it.
And we shall never do it, and the minute they stop shooting there will be a ceasefire, we don't need anything else. Every moment, every day we are not interested in fire; we are not interested in hurting or killing anybody. Now about the peace process. First of all I want to say that it was a great move on the side of the Secretary General of the Arab League to introduce the Arab Initiative. I think that was a very positive move in a bitter history of misunderstanding and confrontations. The problems we will facing well the following: a) we started to negotiate directly with the Palestinians. President Mubarak told me, "Look, finish you negotiations with the Palestinians we shall consider as the first move to an overall peace." We are negotiating and I think we made headway in extremely complicated issue. They call on this issue of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not a piece of land. Jerusalem is fire. There are three different religions and there are different streams in every religion, and people are fighting about every window, every door. It's easy to say "make an agreement," we are trying to find the way. We told the Palestinians that we are ready really to accept [unintelligible], which means ready to return most almost all of the land of the West Bank to them. Gaza we left completely. What is there to fight? So the ceasefire is as far as this is concerned is not a problem for us. We never started, we should never start fire and when they fired against us we replied, but after a great restrain and thousands of people were killed too. They weren't killed in a concentrated manner. So what? It doesn't matter. I think that what we have to do, and by the way I'm for the restoration of Gaza, we have nothing there wasn't a day that we didn't supply water and oil.
I personally read every week a report about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. If something is missing the government and myself we're intervening to make sure there will be fuel and food. The tragedy of Gaza is not Israel, it's Hamas, who decreed a dictatorship, a very ugly one and they build the problem of the crossing, now is not because we want to control the supply of food or building material or medical. They build a tunnels to bring in those missiles and they build an underground system of tunnels, well by the way the leaders hide themselves there and they forgot the people. I think, yes, we would like to see Gaza flourishing- Gaza is a small place with an intelligent people. When I started to talk with Mr. Arafat we took as an example Singapore. Gaza together with the West Bank are nine times larger than Singapore and Singapore there are more people than in Gaza and the West Bank. Today the problem is not land but really education and Gaza is not our enemy, and the people in Gaza are not our enemies, and we want to live with them in peace. We don't have hatred and we don't have plans for that reason we left Gaza and we are for restoring the life in Gaza but without dictators and without shooting not only us but the people of Fatah…
Moderator: We might end there… Just one minute
Shimon Peres: And then want to renew negotiations with the authorized Palestinian authority. We made headway. We want to start right away, we want to do it with the Quartet, we want to do it straight away, we don't want to waste time. Our aim is peace not war and when we win a war we don't consider it as a victory. For us victory is peace not war. We have power we should never use power unless we don't have another choice and when we have a choice we want peace and I think that Hezbollah has learnt the lesson they stop shooting, nobody stop them to shoot but our reaction. I hope that Hamas will also have lesson they will stop shooting and start talking everything that we can achieve is by talking not by shooting and that was and that is and that will remain the position of Israel.
Thank you sir.
Moderator: This has been a powerful and passionate debate. It's a debate that tonight can go on for hours but we have already gone well past our closing time. I mean…
Erdogan: One minute.
Moderator: Mr. Prime Minister…. with apologies to Mr. Prime Minister Erdogan…
Erdogan: One minute, one minute, one minute…
Moderator: Well, I…
Erdogan: One minute! It can't be! One minute! One minute!
Moderator: Ok, but I'm gonna hold you to the one minute please.
Erdogan: Dear Mr. Peres, you are older than I am. And you have a very strong voice. I feel that you feel guilty and that's why your voice was so loud. My voice is not going to be so loud because you know what I'm going to tell you. You know very well how to kill. I know very well how you killed and murdered children on the beaches [of Gaza]. There are two people, two former Prime Ministers of your country, who said something very significant to me. One of them said: "When I entered Palestine in a tank I was happy." When the tanks entered Palestine they were happy. That's how some of your Prime Ministers felt. Here you're talking about figures. I can give you names, perhaps some of you feel curious. I condemn the ones who applaud cruelty. Because applauding these people who have murdered children is a crime against humanity. We can't overlook that reality. Look, here I have taken many notes [about Peres intervention] but now I don't have the possibility to answer them all. I only will tell you two more things about this issue. The first one…
Moderator: Prime Minister, we can't start the debate again.
Erdogan: Excuse me. The first one, the first one…
Moderator: I'm sorry…
Erdogan: Don't interrupt me.
Moderator: We really do need to get people to dinner.
Erdogan: The Torah's 6th Commandament says: Thou Shalt Not Kill. But they have killed Palestinians. The second thing, look, is very interesting. Gilad Atzmon: "Israel's barbarity is way beyond cruelty." He's Jewish. Then, there is international relations professor from Oxford University Avi Shlaim, who served in the Israeli army. He has said the following in the English newspaper The Guardian: "Israel is a rogue state".
Moderator: Prime Minister, Prime Minister. I wanna ask to our host. Thanks.
Erdogan: I also want to thank him as for me it's finished. For me, for me Davos is finished. I will not come back again to Davos, you should know, here is finished. You don't let me speak. He's been talking for 25 minutes, and I only could talk 12 minutes. It can't be. [He gets up and goes away, the Secretary of the Arab League shakes his hand].
Transcripts of Erdogan, Moussa, Peres (and Erdogan again…) at Davos
By Mary Rizzo • Jan 31st, 2009
Moderator: I'm David Ignatius, a columnist for the Washington Post and I'm going to moderate this afternoon's discussion of Gaza. Our discussion of Gaza follows a war there that has reminded all of us of the burden of history in the Middle East and also has reminded all of us of the fragility of the peace process. Tonight I hope we'll put a little more substance to that process by discussing where we go now, how we put the pieces back together. We have a most distinguished panel to discuss these issues with us tonight. Let me first briefly introduce them. To my immediate right (sic) is the Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. To his left is the President of Israel, Shimon Peres. To his left is the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon and to his left is the Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa. I'm going to ask Secretary General Ban Ki-moon from the United Nations who has been particularly focused on the humanitarian aspects of the Gaza crisis to lead off tonight with his remarks for the next five minutes. Secretary General.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan: Simultaneous translation from original Turkish) First of all, before replying to the question as to what needs to be done, I think it's also important that we analyse the current situation because we need to do a proper analysis of the current situation in order to determine what steps need to be taken.
I'm not going to start from 40 years ago in making the situation analysis, I am just going as far back as June 2008. If we look at back then, June 2008, there was a ceasefire which was stated [agreed to] and there was no problem to the ceasefire that was to last for 6 months, but when the ceasefire ended, 6 months later there were no rocket attacks at that point, in the meantime the Israeli side was to lift the embargo, the situation had to change in Palestine, however, the Palestinian Territories are like an open air prison because it is completely isolated from the rest of the world, so it is very much isolated, sealed, so if you try to bring in a case of tomatoes from any crossing into the Palestinian territories you must get the permission of the Israeli side because it is not possible otherwise so [Looking at this,] I look at this from a humanitarian point of view and I will also say a few words as Prime Minister, I visited Israel some time ago and then I went to Palestine and as the Prime Minister I waited for half hour with my wife in the car [for about half an hour] to be able to cross into the Palestinian territories from Ramallah.
But never has a diplomat coming from Israel had to wait for that long at our borders. I think we have to look at these aspects of the situation there on the ground. I also ask Mr. Olmert if there were any deaths as a result of these rockets attacks and he told me that there were no deaths, but that the attacks were a fact, so these rockets are being used but, they don't kill anyone, so I'm told that it's about the rockets themselves, they are of not very good quality, but in the meantime, there were more that 24 Palestinians who were killed during the ceasefire since last June, and the power was cut off, there was no food, the electricity didn't exist in hospitals, so there were quite a number of difficult issues and we had already started as Turkey to send humanitarian aid to Palestine, so there was already a humanitarian issue then. And let me say, I have always been a leader who expressly stated that anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity, Islamophobia too, is a crime against humanity.
For me the person being Christian, Jewish or Muslim is not important if the person is under stress, to me, the common denominator is that they are all human beings and so my approach is a humanitarian one, and that has been what I have taken as the basis of my efforts, for example we tried to send humanitarian aid the Turkish Red Crescent, tried to provide aid, but it took quite a while, two weeks sometimes, to have the trucks cross the crossings. I don't know if President Peres is aware of this but it has taken us quite a lot of time, our diplomats have had to work very hard to make sure that the aid will flow into the Palestinian Territories.
Even more interesting, is that the Israeli Prime Minister was in Turkey, Mr. Olmert was in Turkey four days before the war in Gaza started. as you have mentioned, we as Turkey have taken up an intermediation role between Israel and Syria for indirect talks and there were already four rounds of talks, which have taken place, indirect talks, and the fifth round was actually carried out with Prime Minister Olmert and myself present and our special envoys present in Ankara and we sat together for five to six hours and we were discussing the issues between Syria and Israel. I was on phone conversation with President Assad and my envoy was talking to the Foreign Minister Moallem and our goal then, to see if we could move to the next phase which was direct talks between Israel and Syria, so that was what we were trying to do and our goal in trying to do all this has been to achieve peace in the region and we have been trying to bring together officials from two countries which to date have not come together.
We were making quite good progress, so much so that we were having problems with a few words only, in the language that we were talking. It was decided that a few days should lapse until a final decision could be reached and in the meantime, I was talking to Mr. Olmert with my Foreign Minister with me and our special envoy and Prime Minister Olmert had his advisers as well and I said that we could work to release the captured Israeli soldier who was held by Hamas but I said, and I also made the request, I said that the reforming change Party won the election in Palestine. We are talking about democracy, we would like to see democracy take root, so if we would like to see democracy take root then we must respect, first of all, the people who have received the votes of the people of the country they are running in, so we may not like them, but we have to respect the process.
And I said to Prime Minister Olmert that they held the Ministers and Members of Parliament of Palestine. I suggested also, that there could perhaps be a gesture made, similar to the gesture made to President Abbas before, they could be released perhaps. But Prime Minister Olmert said that this would make things very difficult for President Abbas. But then I said, perhaps it would be possible to release some of the women and children and that could perhaps that be done as a gesture. President Olmert told me that he would talk to his colleagues and respond back the next day, but we got no response and in about 4 days after that, by December 27 we saw the war in Gaza.
What happened was more than 1,200 people were killed including women and children. More than 5,000 were wounded and this was a disproportionate use of force, so if you look at all this from a humanitarian point of view and think of the military power of Israel including weapons of mass destruction and whether or not there is anything that is similar in Gaza, whether the Palestinians have any of that kind of military power, they don't have that kind of power. The UN Security Council met and the resolution was announced but Israel did not recognize this resolution of the United Nations Security Council as Secretary General Ban Ki Moon mentioned, the UN centre was also hit during the course of this war. Schools, mosques were also hit, but mankind or humanity as a whole did not really act as quickly as it should have to try to help people there. In the case of Georgia people acted rather quickly, I include ourselves in that effort because we too worked very hard to help Georgians as well in a difficult time.
So, what I am trying to say is that we should not be judging anyone by their race or religion if they are in distress. Our goal, everyone's goal, is to try to help people in difficulty. I visited Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and I talked to many leaders, European leaders on the phone, unfortunately this whole thing lasted 3 weeks it was covered from the very beginning, television channels, BBC for example predicted that it would take about 3 weeks, indeed the whole process or the whole war took 3 weeks and this has lead to the destruction of the infrastructure. And the figures that the UN Secretary General mentioned are not sufficient to solve the problem, we need much more, not even 1 billion or 2 billion dollars would help in trying to restore the structures there because these people there do not have any means to rehabilitate their infrastructure and they now have to be burdened.
There is a lot of talk about Hamas, but Hamas are not the only people in Gaza, there are also civilians. Hamas is also a different face of the change and transformation party. The problem here is that their democratic rights have not been recognized, respected. Where we are now, the unilateral ceasefire was announced by Israel and then Hamas the next day announced a unilateral ceasefire as well. One is talking about a year-long ceasefire process, the other one proposes a year and a half. Another issue is of course to end the isolation of the Palestinian People.
Will it be possible for Israel to do that, in other words, will the crossings be open for people to come in because how will those people survive where they are, under the conditions that they are in? If we respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Conventions that are internationally accepted, those crossings, first of all, must be opened so people can experience their rights, the rights of life. There is also the issue of arms being smuggled into the area. If one end of the tunnel is in Egypt then Egypt must stop this illicit arms flow. But if we consider Palestine as a State, and I think that there is also a question there, perhaps some question marks in peoples minds, this issue of the division within Palestine, and how to breach the differences between Fatah and Hamas. If we are trying to bridge that gap then we have to consider all the parties.
And I said this to Mr. Olmert too, because if it's only Fatah who is present on the Palestinian side, that is not going to be sufficient to project the results to all of the Palestinian people, Hamas has to be taken into consideration as well because they are a part of that society, they have won an election, so they too must be included in this equation. If it's the UN who is going to take the lead, that's the way it should be, I hope that the UN puts it weight behind these efforts and/or the United States under the Obama administration can take an important role. I hope, I expect, President Obama to be the voice of the silent masses and to put his weight, his administration's weight, behind a solution. He must do this not within the agreements that have been previously made by the previous administration, including the last one that was made between the then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Mrs. Livni. There's got to be a new opening and Hamas must be considered in this process.
If Turkey is asked to play some sort of a role, we too would be willing to be involved, but we must be careful and we must think of the whole process when we try to define the parties involved and we must definitely achieve peace in the Middle East because that is important and necessary for global peace. If the Middle East peace process does not yield a positive result, that means that we will not have peace in the world as a whole. So I think that in the National Unity government to be established in Palestine this party of Reform and Change must be there, and that is how the National Unity government has to be established then elections have to take place and once the new government is in place, whether we or not, like them will be and should be the government of the Palestinian people because we have to respect the will of the Palestinian people.
Moderator: Thank you Prime Minister Erdogan for a very comprehensive and I must say quite newsy response. Let me turn out to Secretary General Amr Moussa the same question: how do we put this peace process back together after Gaza and perhaps you could address the two things that Secretary General Ban focused on.
First, how to achieve unity among Palestinians? And second, what this new American administration can most usefully do as George Mitchell begins making his way around the region?
Amr Mussa: Well thank you very much. Let me begin by thanking the Secretary General of the United Nations for the forceful position he has taken and for the actions he is calling for in order to save the situation in Gaza, to save Gaza after the carnage that has been committed against its people. Also I wish to commend the role played by Turkey, a very positive, courageous and clear role that Turkey, a member of the Middle East family of nations, wants to help establish peace and to help deal with the major mistakes that have been committed against the Palestinians and to ask for, work for a fair, a just peace in order for peace to be durable.
Now, David, you asked me to talk about the future and how we would address it. This cannot make me sweep things under the carpet, things that belong to the near future and also to perhaps distant future. The situation in Gaza was not a reaction, the assault against the Gazans was not just a reaction for some rockets being launched against Southern Israel. And here I would open some brackets to say that we are against anything that would affect children, women, civilians be they Palestinians or Israelis. And then I continue to say that this situation in Gaza and in Palestine is a situation of foreign military occupation. So people [...]and siege, a blockade. Gaza is living within a blockade, a very severe one. The West Bank is under military occupation with barriers, with colonies, that's settlements, so the Palestinians are trying to express themselves to find a future for themselves. You cannot ask people in Gaza living in starvation and hunger because of the blockade, the very sinister blockade, and then ask them to be calm, and ask them "why do you throw stones against your occupiers?". It is against the nature of people, against the nature of people, you strangle them, you starve them and then ask them to be quiet?
And then, as has been discussed now, the question of smuggling, of course smuggling is illegal, illicit trade, illicit movement of things, commodities and so on, including perhaps arms. You strangle them, not a single window of opportunity, and then talk to them about illicit trade? If you want to prevent this, you have to open the crossing points, you have to give them food, you have to give them water, to give them medicine. It is a miserable life that the Palestinians have lived and until now are living in Gaza because of the blockade that Israel has imposed on them for three years now.
Number two. Another fact: the Palestinians believed the call for democracy. There were some policies, international policies, at certain times, calling on the Middle East: "apply democracy, democracy is the solution for everything!" - and it happens that I agree with that. The Palestinians believed the advice, had elections, Hamas won, and half an hour, twenty-five minutes after the announcement of the results of the election, Hamas was served notice that aid would be suspended and then came the blockade, a severe blockade, and hence Hamas was put on the defensive. But very much as Prime Minister Erdogan has said, the people in Gaza are not only Hamas, it as such is only an organization among other organizations, but the people, 1.5 million people of women, of children, of all people, they were attacked and they paid the price for this game that is going on between Israel and Hamas and the game that has been caused, that is being caused until now by the military occupation.
Why Hamas was listened to in the Occupied Territories, within the Palestinian ranks, in the Middle East, within the Arab world? Why? Because it has a logic. They said all right, president Abu Mazen, go and negotiate, and if there is something useful coming out of your negotiations we will certainly support you. And in fact they are on record as having said we are ready to accept the Palestinian State within the borders of 1967 but we are not going to sign any paper until we see what is the result of that. So, President Abu Mazen didn't bring anything. Did not bring anything. Out of one full year of negotiations with the current Israeli government. That's what he said. He is on record as having said that and in fact he said it, on this stage, last year. I believe it was the Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.
So this is the situation. It is not a question of Israel reacting to some rockets, it is much deeper than that, it is an action of occupation, an action of blockade, then a reaction of resistance, then the reaction of destruction carried out by Israel. Okay. That has happened. Are we going to stop here and the end of the world will occur? No. Perhaps all of us now are called upon to save the situation. As the Secretary General has just said, there are three or four thing that have to be done: a ceasefire, a strong ceasefire, sustainable ceasefire, opening of the crossings, stopping the illicit traffic, and the conciliation between the Palestinians. That we have to do, and I want you to know that I do not absolve ourselves on the Arab side from also committing mistakes, but no mistakes, no mistake we have committed can compete with the major mistake that has been committed by Israel in destroying Gaza and killing all those people in only twenty days.
Again, we tried to involve the United Nations rather than to involve shooting and more bloodshed. Unfortunately in the last several years up until this January and it was before January 28th, the philosophy was "no, keep the Security Council away, give Israel a chance to reach, to do what they were set to do". We have witnessed that back in 2006 in Lebanon, and we witness that back in January in New York, but this is a long story I don't think the time will allow us to do so, to explain it in full. Now, what should we do? We have a new administration in the United States. What President Obama has said is reassuring. Change. He addressed the Arab world through one of our major channels called Al Arabiya, from Dubai, addressed us, and told us. We listened, we heard, we understood. He sent his special envoy, Senator Mitchell, who is a very reasonable man, we discussed with him, we are going to discuss again with him, and I believe there are those prospects of the United States returning back to the role of honest broker, which we missed for the last several years. This is a key point for the future, that the United States gets back to the role of honest broker that listens to the sides and says "yes you are right on this but you are wrong on that", and to the other side too, the same. This we have not seen in the last several years. Ok. Now, this is the first positive point, we hope that we are right in our assessment and in our hopes.
The second is the Arab initiative. We are ready. Formally, officially, at the highest level, all of us are committed to establish peace with Israel. To recognize Israel, to normalize with Israel, and to carry on all our commitments in accordance with Security Council resolutions, the Madrid Conference decisions and whatever agreements we have signed, that have been signed between any Arab country and Israel. We are ready for that. But the point is that we have not received any answer from Israel for the last seven years. President Peres is a very eloquent man, he says that we accept, but this is just a good expression of words, there is no authorized decision taken by the government of Israel to respond to the most authorized message sent by an Arab summit held back in 2002. So our position is fully authorized, we haven't gotten any answer, any answer whatsoever except some addresses here, we read it in some newspapers or translation from. So we call on Israel now: what is your position on this initiative? Formal position. Formal position. Not just a statement here. Formal position. As our position also was formal. If there is an acceptance, authorized acceptance, by Israel then we are on the right track.
Therefore the second point is for us to receive a formal reply about the acceptance of the Arab initiative which calls on us Arabs to turn the page, urn the page of the conflict, recognize Israel, normalize with Israel and have Israel as part of the family of nations in the Middle East which until now Israel is not. But if Israel also withdraws, allows the Palestinian State to be established, withdraws from the other Territories, we see no obstacle for us and for the Israelis to live together and get our act together. When are we going to receive this message? A question mark. The third point . . .
Moderator: Secretary General, we have a chance to get a response from the President of Israel and maybe this is the good time to do that since we're running short of time…
Amr Mussa: I know that the president is going to take all his time. So give me two more minutes, please.
Moderator: I don't want to bargain. [We have to have a ceasefire] We'll be all ears to listen to President Peres. …let's do a wrap up.
Amr Mussa: Now. The year 2009 we lived the year 2008 with a lot of promises. And it ended up in a bloodshed. For us, to move from one administration to the other from the year 2000 to the year 2008, then 2009, then 2010, then 2011, this is a gimmick that we are not going to accept. That is why: now we are in 2009, if there's real intention, a real work done by an honest broker, the political will will be expressed by Israel in favor of peace and progress will be done, will be made, then we are on the right track. If this year ends - we reach the day 31st of December as we did in 2008, without any result, then we'll have to reconsider. There are a lot of other alternatives. But I believe in what Turkey is saying, Prime Minister Erdogan has said. We cannot reach and Israel cannot reach any of its goals through military means. We need to have a political settlement, but a fair one and in the year 2009. Thank you very much.
Moderator: Thank you, Secretary General Moussa and now President Peres of Israel. No one has worked longer or harder on this thing we call the peace process than you have, and tell us how you think we can put it back together.
[A woman pats down Peres' hair. Laughter.]
Hairfalls [?]
Shimon Peres: Well, thank you Mr. Chairman, I heard the distinguished speakers talking about Israel and I couldn't recognize the picture of the country that they know. I want to tell the beginning. It's very difficult when a democratic country has to confront an illegal terroristic group. Whatever we do is being photographed; whatever they do, nobody sees. For example, when you throw a rocket on a settlement in Israel, it's not being photographed. You cannot see the mother trying to defend her child the whole night, and their sleepless night. Did you ever see on television a sleepless night?
I must respect for you Mr. Prime Minister, but I must put things as they really are. Let me start with democracy. First of all, who was elected by the Palestinians, but Mr. Abbas, who is called Abu Mazen. Sixty-two percent of the Palestinians voted for him to be the President of the Palestinian people, and we negotiate with him. Hamas participated in the elections but have a very unique idea about democracy. They think a democracy is a story of one day in four years you go through the election. After the elections you can start to shoot and kill and threaten. Finish. Democracy is not a matter of elections. It is a civilization and I want to conflict to your words by quoting from the Hamas; I won't be going to interrupt the stories? But Hamas concerns us; Hamas published a charter; let me just read two lines, three lines from it, from the Hamas Charter. "The day of judgment will not come about until the Muslims kill the Jews, when the Jews will hide behind stones and trees, there is no solution for peace initiative, proposals, international conferences are all a waste of time." This is an official charter. I don't know about which Hamas you are talking?
Now about the proportions. In the last eight years, well I mean, I hate to say it, but since you mentioned it, let me give the other picture, too. Israel lost hundred, thousand hundred sixty-seven lives from terrorists, eight thousand five hundred were wounded. It wasn't done in twenty days, it was done in several years. We restrained all the time. And then since the last four years when Hamas took over Gaza, 5500 rockets, and 4000 mortars, shells were fired upon civilian life in Israel at random: they didn't care if it was a kindergarten, if it's a [ ]we didn't answer. For that reason, the ceasefire idea, Mr. Prime Minister, was very strange in our views. We never started fire. And we told the Palestinians time and again, "Don't fire, and there won't be fire; we are not doing we never started!" And who broke…and oh by the way, we didn't have a formal agreement about the ceasefire, they announced, and the Palestinians said, "It's over." They broke it. And when the Prime Minister was at your place four days before the operations started, the government of Israel didn't yet to decide to take actions against it.
Now let me… I want you to listen because you watch all of your television, I can understand your feelings.
"Israel left Gaza completely, no occupation. We took out all of our soldiers from Gaza, all of our civilians. People are talking about settlements, we took out from Gaza all the settlements and all the settlers, fifteen thousand of them. Nobody forced us, it was our own choice. We had to mobilize forty-five thousand policemen to bring them back home, at the cost of 2.5 billion dollars.
I want to understand why did they fight rockets against us? What for? There was not any siege against Gaza. All the passages were open. Not only that, we participated in investing money in Gaza, to develop a, an agriculture. We at Peres Center, we ourselves put in twenty thousand dollars, twenty million dollars, sorry, to build green houses, to develop strawberries, the export of strawberries, excellent strawberries, flowers.
Jimmy Wolfensohn who was representative of the Quartet, took from his own pocket 5 million dollars to participate in it. They destroyed it. Why? They bombed all the passages. Why? Why did they fire at us, what did they want?" We didn't occupy, there was never a day of starvation in Gaza! By the way, Israel is the supplier of water daily to Gaza, Israel is the supplier of fuel to Gaza, the only thing we didn't permit to bring in was rockets from Iran! And they build tunnels to do it! And you know, we also have women and children, and they want to sleep at night. Do you know what it means, every day, almost hundred rockets falling at random, a million people have had to be under shelter. They came to the government and said "What happened to you? We want have security, why do you permit to happen it? " And I want anyone telling me, clearly, what were the reasons for the attack? What were the purposes of the attack? Peace? We make peace with Egypt, not by arms, by agreement and negotiation, and we met all of the requests of Egypt. We made peace with Jordan the same, we gave back all the land and all the water. We opened with the Palestinians, and we told them, that we are for a Palestinian state, I started in Oslo, against the majority maybe, of our people that didn't agree And all the time, you know Mr. Prime Minister, while you have had to wait, because many busses that came from the West Bank to Jerusalem were full of dynamite. I was then Prime Minister, I saw it with my own eyes, the blood and the bodies. You know, I don't have to watch television, and when I came in there were thousands of people shouting at me "Traitor, killer, look at what you did to us!" You must, there are many details you have to know. Israel is sixty-years old, do you know any other country, that in sixty-years has had to go through seven wars, two Intifadas, an ongoing boycott? What, why? And in spite of it, we made peace with Egypt.
I have the highest respect for President Mubarak. By the way, President Mubarak accused Hamas, not us. And President Mubarak knows the situation not less as you Mr. Prime Minister. And President Abbas knows the situation not less than you do, and he accused Hamas not us. And then mothers and children came to the government and asked what will happen? A million people every night have had to hide themselves in shelters, mothers with sleepless nights, what do you really mean? By the way, I have never saw anyone demonstrating against those missiles! That was ok Nobody said a word. And we didn't answer, a day in and a day out, a year in a year out, there's a limit to it.
And by the way, I have much respect for the Secretary General, he used to be and I hope we're still a friend, I appreciate very much the Arab initiative, but there is a problem in it, I don't want to hide it. The problem is not the Arab world, the problem is the Iranian ambition to govern the Middle East. They supplied the rockets to Hezbollah, they supplied the rockets to Hamas, they are controversially the Arab making, and you know we didn't have a choice. The leader of Hezbollah, Nasrallah says: "Would I know that Israel will react so strongly, we wouldn't have started". Thank you very much. And then come the Mashaal, the leader of Hamas and said: "Israel reacted too strongly." What did you expect us to do, I don't understand? What would any country do? What would you do if it you would happen in Istanbul every night ten rockets, a hundred rockets? And we never gave up, all my life as you said, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it, I am fighting for peace, what we did is not…the thing that we wanted to do… It's not our choice, our choice is peace. What we did is because the lack of a choice, we were threatened with a choice. Would you vote for such a convention, to kill the Jews? OK, those are words, but to kill the Jews and send rockets to kill them. What you want us to do?
We started to negotiate with Mr. Arafat, with much respect, it wasn't simple. The PLO was in the beginning a terroristic organization. Mr. Arafat agreed to stop terror and go on to negotiations. By the way, what ever was achieved peacefully, positively, was achieved not by rockets, not by force, not by power, but by negotiations. It takes time, it takes time. It's a very complicated country. It's a small country with three religions, with a lot of history. With different ethnicities, it's not simple. We made peace, once, twice, now we are negotiating with the Palestinians. There was a crisis among the Palestinians, we don't intend to be the one that decide that the Palestinians be united or not.
As long as Hamas did not rebel against the Fatah, it was not our business, we didn't say a word. You know what? I am talking about Israel, look what the people, of the Palestinian people, the Secretary General of Fatah is saying about Hamas, three days ago.His name is Yasser Abd Rabbo, a Palestinian, a secretary general of the PLO, of the executive committee, and I quote him, I quote him three days ago: "Hamas has turned Gaza, Gaza schools and mosques, all universities into centers of detention, interrogation and torture and torture. Dozens have been shot in their legs, beaten savagely, and had their bones broken, broken. Hamas plundered trucks bringing …and distributes it only to…the food.. only to the supporters of their movement." They didn't give the food to the people of Fatah. They killed hundred leaders of Fatah in full daylight. They throw them from the roofs. What do you really mean? Is that the matter of definitions?
Israel does not want to shoot anybody, for us all children are as important as one can think of. I created the Peres Center, all the money we have collected went to the cure of children. Palestinian children. They didn't have insurance, they didn't have hospitals, in five years we have brought to Israel 5500 Palestinian children and their mothers to be cured. By the way, there is no hospital today in Israel that does not have Arab doctors, so the children can communicate with the doctors in the Israeli hospitals. That is our choice, to touch a child. But if you put a child, if you put bombs in the kindergarten, and if you hide yourselves behind innocent families, and before we shell, we, before we try to shell anybody, we try and telephone the people, we say, please leave the place. We don't want to hurt you. We made during those twenty days, 250,000 telephone calls before we shoot. What could we do, what was our choice? And what would any government do?I am very much sorry Mr. Secretary General about the United Nations' building, according to our records, not by your knowledge, they started to shoot from there, and by the way, Europe, you bombed Kosovo, and you hit the Chinese embassy, did you want to? And hundreds of civilian people were killed in the bombing to, That's Ok. So please, I want to speak clearly, Israel does not need a ceasefire, because we never started a bullet and we shall never do it.
And we shall never do it, and the minute they stop shooting there will be a ceasefire, we don't need anything else. Every moment, every day we are not interested in fire; we are not interested in hurting or killing anybody. Now about the peace process. First of all I want to say that it was a great move on the side of the Secretary General of the Arab League to introduce the Arab Initiative. I think that was a very positive move in a bitter history of misunderstanding and confrontations. The problems we will facing well the following: a) we started to negotiate directly with the Palestinians. President Mubarak told me, "Look, finish you negotiations with the Palestinians we shall consider as the first move to an overall peace." We are negotiating and I think we made headway in extremely complicated issue. They call on this issue of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not a piece of land. Jerusalem is fire. There are three different religions and there are different streams in every religion, and people are fighting about every window, every door. It's easy to say "make an agreement," we are trying to find the way. We told the Palestinians that we are ready really to accept [unintelligible], which means ready to return most almost all of the land of the West Bank to them. Gaza we left completely. What is there to fight? So the ceasefire is as far as this is concerned is not a problem for us. We never started, we should never start fire and when they fired against us we replied, but after a great restrain and thousands of people were killed too. They weren't killed in a concentrated manner. So what? It doesn't matter. I think that what we have to do, and by the way I'm for the restoration of Gaza, we have nothing there wasn't a day that we didn't supply water and oil.
I personally read every week a report about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. If something is missing the government and myself we're intervening to make sure there will be fuel and food. The tragedy of Gaza is not Israel, it's Hamas, who decreed a dictatorship, a very ugly one and they build the problem of the crossing, now is not because we want to control the supply of food or building material or medical. They build a tunnels to bring in those missiles and they build an underground system of tunnels, well by the way the leaders hide themselves there and they forgot the people. I think, yes, we would like to see Gaza flourishing- Gaza is a small place with an intelligent people. When I started to talk with Mr. Arafat we took as an example Singapore. Gaza together with the West Bank are nine times larger than Singapore and Singapore there are more people than in Gaza and the West Bank. Today the problem is not land but really education and Gaza is not our enemy, and the people in Gaza are not our enemies, and we want to live with them in peace. We don't have hatred and we don't have plans for that reason we left Gaza and we are for restoring the life in Gaza but without dictators and without shooting not only us but the people of Fatah…
Moderator: We might end there… Just one minute
Shimon Peres: And then want to renew negotiations with the authorized Palestinian authority. We made headway. We want to start right away, we want to do it with the Quartet, we want to do it straight away, we don't want to waste time. Our aim is peace not war and when we win a war we don't consider it as a victory. For us victory is peace not war. We have power we should never use power unless we don't have another choice and when we have a choice we want peace and I think that Hezbollah has learnt the lesson they stop shooting, nobody stop them to shoot but our reaction. I hope that Hamas will also have lesson they will stop shooting and start talking everything that we can achieve is by talking not by shooting and that was and that is and that will remain the position of Israel.
Thank you sir.
Moderator: This has been a powerful and passionate debate. It's a debate that tonight can go on for hours but we have already gone well past our closing time. I mean…
Erdogan: One minute.
Moderator: Mr. Prime Minister…. with apologies to Mr. Prime Minister Erdogan…
Erdogan: One minute, one minute, one minute…
Moderator: Well, I…
Erdogan: One minute! It can't be! One minute! One minute!
Moderator: Ok, but I'm gonna hold you to the one minute please.
Erdogan: Dear Mr. Peres, you are older than I am. And you have a very strong voice. I feel that you feel guilty and that's why your voice was so loud. My voice is not going to be so loud because you know what I'm going to tell you. You know very well how to kill. I know very well how you killed and murdered children on the beaches [of Gaza]. There are two people, two former Prime Ministers of your country, who said something very significant to me. One of them said: "When I entered Palestine in a tank I was happy." When the tanks entered Palestine they were happy. That's how some of your Prime Ministers felt. Here you're talking about figures. I can give you names, perhaps some of you feel curious. I condemn the ones who applaud cruelty. Because applauding these people who have murdered children is a crime against humanity. We can't overlook that reality. Look, here I have taken many notes [about Peres intervention] but now I don't have the possibility to answer them all. I only will tell you two more things about this issue. The first one…
Moderator: Prime Minister, we can't start the debate again.
Erdogan: Excuse me. The first one, the first one…
Moderator: I'm sorry…
Erdogan: Don't interrupt me.
Moderator: We really do need to get people to dinner.
Erdogan: The Torah's 6th Commandament says: Thou Shalt Not Kill. But they have killed Palestinians. The second thing, look, is very interesting. Gilad Atzmon: "Israel's barbarity is way beyond cruelty." He's Jewish. Then, there is international relations professor from Oxford University Avi Shlaim, who served in the Israeli army. He has said the following in the English newspaper The Guardian: "Israel is a rogue state".
Moderator: Prime Minister, Prime Minister. I wanna ask to our host. Thanks.
Erdogan: I also want to thank him as for me it's finished. For me, for me Davos is finished. I will not come back again to Davos, you should know, here is finished. You don't let me speak. He's been talking for 25 minutes, and I only could talk 12 minutes. It can't be. [He gets up and goes away, the Secretary of the Arab League shakes his hand].
Post-Gaza Sea Change by M.J. Rosenberg
Post-Gaza Sea Change
M.J. Rosenberg
Israel Policy Forum
January 30, 2009 - 12:00am
http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/display.cfm
Israel is just over a week away from elections so it is no surprise that its people are not focusing on whether or not the Gaza war was worth the price. Of course, the price was mostly paid by Gazans rather than by Israelis. It is infinitely easier for Israelis to forget about it, and move on, than for Palestinians.
In that sense, Israel was the clear "winner" while Gaza, still burying its dead, was the loser. Unfortunately, it is not clear that Hamas lost—a critical distinction. The people of Gaza are not Hamas. They are just people; many of the dead were children. Hamas, however, is surviving.
In one area, Israel clearly lost: public opinion. In the past, a distinction could be made between how America reacted to a Middle Eastern war and how the rest of the world did. Judging from media coverage, this time there was little difference between America and everywhere else.
That was not the case at the start. The American media took the Israeli side and the Europeans lined up behind the Palestinians. But as the war went on and Palestinian casualties mounted, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other major dailies began covering the war little differently than the Independent, the Guardian, or Le Monde.
The focus was on the humanitarian disaster, not on who was or wasn't responsible for the war. The blogosphere—now as influential as the mainstream media—was almost uniformly opposed to Israel's position. The prevalent view there was that Israel's blockade of Gaza was no less a casus belli than the Kassam rockets.
As for the television networks, only Fox consistently supported Israel's position. The others focused on the suffering of Gaza's people. This was remarkable because Israel had banned the media from covering the story inside Gaza. But the media made do—with Al Jazeera-English often setting the pace—and the heart-rending stories of human suffering came out.
The impact on public opinion has been striking. Beside from within the more conservative segment of the pro-Israel community, there was little show of support for this war. In New York, a city where crowds of 250,000 have come out for "solidarity" rallies in the past, only 8,000 came to Manhattan for a community demonstration on a sunny Sunday. The same skepticism about the war was true elsewhere and Israelis noticed the break with past patterns.
So did the media. The current issue of Newsweek features a story called: "Israel Has Fewer Friends than Ever, Even in America."
"Israel has never been more isolated," it reports. It has "just one key friend. Could Obama, who promised the Muslim world 'a new way forward' in his Inaugural Address, loosen the bond? A recent Pew poll shows 55 percent of U.S. Republicans, but only 45 percent of Democrats, approve of Israel's actions in Gaza. Given that Democrats now rule, Israel may need to worry more about the mood on Main Street than on the Arab Street."
Then came 60 Minutes. Last Sunday, the highest rated program in the United States ran a scathing Bob Simon segment on the occupation. One part stood out. Simon and his crew filmed a private home in Nablus, which the Israeli army seized so that its soldiers could use the upper floor as a lookout post.
The family who lives in the house was relegated to the bottom floor, while soldiers took their beds. When the kids came home from school, they found that soldiers had barred the door closed. Apparently, such house seizures happen often and Palestinians have no one to whom to protest. And this is not Gaza but the West Bank, governed by Israel's friend, Mahmoud Abbas.
The segment also featured prominent settler activist, Daniella Weiss, pledging that never again will any settlement be dismantled by the IDF. If the Israeli government decides to evacuate the settlers in the context of a peace treaty, the settler movement's rabbis will urge the soldiers to disobey their orders. She is confident that they would. She picked up a piece of sod and made clear that, for her, neither the State of Israel, nor its government, matters much. All that matters is God's promise of the land to the Jews.
Weiss, an eloquent and influential advocate of the settlers' position, explained the rationale that motivates her and the settlement movement: obstructing peace. "I think that settlements prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in the land of Israel. This is the goal and this is the reality." There you have it.
Simon's conclusion: "Demographers predict that, within ten years, Arabs will outnumber Jews in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Without a separate Palestinian state, the Israelis would have three options. They could try ethnic cleansing, drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank. They could give Palestinians the vote. That would be the democratic option, but it would mean the end of the Jewish state. Or they could try apartheid, have the minority Israelis rule the majority Palestinians. But apartheid regimes don't have a very long life."
Pretty incredible television, at least for the United States (not so in Israel where these issues are freely discussed). But this type of analysis is becoming more and more common. Just check out Jon Stewart's Daily Show, on which the brilliant and hugely influential Jewish comedian repeatedly and consistently takes on the safe and conventional wisdom about the Middle East.
Some pro-Israel activists are preparing for intensified war against this phenomenon. They have long been in the business of shooting the messenger, believing that it is not the occupation that is the problem but the reporters who write about it. But the messenger has suddenly discovered that he can take a bullet.
Supporters of the status quo had better get used to it. The American approach to the Middle East is changing and the shift in the media is just one sign of it. Most important of all, America has changed.
Could anyone have imagined in the first years following 9/11 that the very next President of the United States would be an African American named Barack Hussein Obama, who makes a point of addressing Muslims in his inaugural address and telling Al Arabiya about his Muslim relatives? The Americans who voted him into office are not going to reflexively stand in opposition to Palestinian or Muslim aspirations based on ethnic bias or knee-jerk attitudes.
Obama's America is going to be even-handed in the Middle East not only because that is what Obama is, but because it is what most Americans today expect and want. Younger people, in particular, cannot even imagine that anyone would suggest that even-handedness is bad. To them, that is like saying that the best referee is one who bends the rules to favor one team.
It is offensive to assume that even-handedness is bad for Israel. To decry even-handedness as intrinsically anti-Israel is to argue that any fair observer will choose the anti-Israel position. That is as perverse as it is wrong. And it is insulting to recommend that the United States be anything but an honest broker in the Middle East.
I do not expect that the conservative pro-Israel activists will change their ("the whole world is anti-Semitic") tune. It is the only one they know.
I have more faith in Israel. It seems to grasp what Obama's election signifies. Every major front page in Israel ran Obama's interview with Al Arabiya, his first with any foreign media since his inauguration. Israelis heard him endorse the Saudi plan and state that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to our problems in the region. They recognize a clean break with the past when they see it. And they are beginning to realize that Obama is a friend, even if he does not mouth simple-minded rhetoric about the Middle East and what will fix it.
Even Bibi Netanyahu is eager to convey that he gets Obama. He has moderated his tone since Obama's election and has made it clear that the last thing he wants is a difficult relationship with America's most popular president in a generation.
I would expect that, no matter who is elected prime minister, he or she will get along with our new President. They know that George W. Bush, whose "support" for Israel was ultimately destructive, is gone. It's a new day and, for Israel, that will mean dialing down the rhetoric. Far more significantly, it means changing policies—starting with an end to the settlement enterprise.
That is what Israel's friends here want—an end to the occupation and the full implementation of the two-state solution now, before it is too late. As for the heroic champions of the status quo—the ones who are always warning Presidents and Congress that any deviation from their tired and predictable "line" will mean political trouble—they are part of the past. They may not know it yet. But they will soon enough. Those of us who care about Israel's security now have an administration—specifically a President and Secretary of State—who share our view that the occupation is a curse.
Obama promised change and he is already delivering.
M.J. Rosenberg
Israel Policy Forum
January 30, 2009 - 12:00am
http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/display.cfm
Israel is just over a week away from elections so it is no surprise that its people are not focusing on whether or not the Gaza war was worth the price. Of course, the price was mostly paid by Gazans rather than by Israelis. It is infinitely easier for Israelis to forget about it, and move on, than for Palestinians.
In that sense, Israel was the clear "winner" while Gaza, still burying its dead, was the loser. Unfortunately, it is not clear that Hamas lost—a critical distinction. The people of Gaza are not Hamas. They are just people; many of the dead were children. Hamas, however, is surviving.
In one area, Israel clearly lost: public opinion. In the past, a distinction could be made between how America reacted to a Middle Eastern war and how the rest of the world did. Judging from media coverage, this time there was little difference between America and everywhere else.
That was not the case at the start. The American media took the Israeli side and the Europeans lined up behind the Palestinians. But as the war went on and Palestinian casualties mounted, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other major dailies began covering the war little differently than the Independent, the Guardian, or Le Monde.
The focus was on the humanitarian disaster, not on who was or wasn't responsible for the war. The blogosphere—now as influential as the mainstream media—was almost uniformly opposed to Israel's position. The prevalent view there was that Israel's blockade of Gaza was no less a casus belli than the Kassam rockets.
As for the television networks, only Fox consistently supported Israel's position. The others focused on the suffering of Gaza's people. This was remarkable because Israel had banned the media from covering the story inside Gaza. But the media made do—with Al Jazeera-English often setting the pace—and the heart-rending stories of human suffering came out.
The impact on public opinion has been striking. Beside from within the more conservative segment of the pro-Israel community, there was little show of support for this war. In New York, a city where crowds of 250,000 have come out for "solidarity" rallies in the past, only 8,000 came to Manhattan for a community demonstration on a sunny Sunday. The same skepticism about the war was true elsewhere and Israelis noticed the break with past patterns.
So did the media. The current issue of Newsweek features a story called: "Israel Has Fewer Friends than Ever, Even in America."
"Israel has never been more isolated," it reports. It has "just one key friend. Could Obama, who promised the Muslim world 'a new way forward' in his Inaugural Address, loosen the bond? A recent Pew poll shows 55 percent of U.S. Republicans, but only 45 percent of Democrats, approve of Israel's actions in Gaza. Given that Democrats now rule, Israel may need to worry more about the mood on Main Street than on the Arab Street."
Then came 60 Minutes. Last Sunday, the highest rated program in the United States ran a scathing Bob Simon segment on the occupation. One part stood out. Simon and his crew filmed a private home in Nablus, which the Israeli army seized so that its soldiers could use the upper floor as a lookout post.
The family who lives in the house was relegated to the bottom floor, while soldiers took their beds. When the kids came home from school, they found that soldiers had barred the door closed. Apparently, such house seizures happen often and Palestinians have no one to whom to protest. And this is not Gaza but the West Bank, governed by Israel's friend, Mahmoud Abbas.
The segment also featured prominent settler activist, Daniella Weiss, pledging that never again will any settlement be dismantled by the IDF. If the Israeli government decides to evacuate the settlers in the context of a peace treaty, the settler movement's rabbis will urge the soldiers to disobey their orders. She is confident that they would. She picked up a piece of sod and made clear that, for her, neither the State of Israel, nor its government, matters much. All that matters is God's promise of the land to the Jews.
Weiss, an eloquent and influential advocate of the settlers' position, explained the rationale that motivates her and the settlement movement: obstructing peace. "I think that settlements prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in the land of Israel. This is the goal and this is the reality." There you have it.
Simon's conclusion: "Demographers predict that, within ten years, Arabs will outnumber Jews in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Without a separate Palestinian state, the Israelis would have three options. They could try ethnic cleansing, drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank. They could give Palestinians the vote. That would be the democratic option, but it would mean the end of the Jewish state. Or they could try apartheid, have the minority Israelis rule the majority Palestinians. But apartheid regimes don't have a very long life."
Pretty incredible television, at least for the United States (not so in Israel where these issues are freely discussed). But this type of analysis is becoming more and more common. Just check out Jon Stewart's Daily Show, on which the brilliant and hugely influential Jewish comedian repeatedly and consistently takes on the safe and conventional wisdom about the Middle East.
Some pro-Israel activists are preparing for intensified war against this phenomenon. They have long been in the business of shooting the messenger, believing that it is not the occupation that is the problem but the reporters who write about it. But the messenger has suddenly discovered that he can take a bullet.
Supporters of the status quo had better get used to it. The American approach to the Middle East is changing and the shift in the media is just one sign of it. Most important of all, America has changed.
Could anyone have imagined in the first years following 9/11 that the very next President of the United States would be an African American named Barack Hussein Obama, who makes a point of addressing Muslims in his inaugural address and telling Al Arabiya about his Muslim relatives? The Americans who voted him into office are not going to reflexively stand in opposition to Palestinian or Muslim aspirations based on ethnic bias or knee-jerk attitudes.
Obama's America is going to be even-handed in the Middle East not only because that is what Obama is, but because it is what most Americans today expect and want. Younger people, in particular, cannot even imagine that anyone would suggest that even-handedness is bad. To them, that is like saying that the best referee is one who bends the rules to favor one team.
It is offensive to assume that even-handedness is bad for Israel. To decry even-handedness as intrinsically anti-Israel is to argue that any fair observer will choose the anti-Israel position. That is as perverse as it is wrong. And it is insulting to recommend that the United States be anything but an honest broker in the Middle East.
I do not expect that the conservative pro-Israel activists will change their ("the whole world is anti-Semitic") tune. It is the only one they know.
I have more faith in Israel. It seems to grasp what Obama's election signifies. Every major front page in Israel ran Obama's interview with Al Arabiya, his first with any foreign media since his inauguration. Israelis heard him endorse the Saudi plan and state that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to our problems in the region. They recognize a clean break with the past when they see it. And they are beginning to realize that Obama is a friend, even if he does not mouth simple-minded rhetoric about the Middle East and what will fix it.
Even Bibi Netanyahu is eager to convey that he gets Obama. He has moderated his tone since Obama's election and has made it clear that the last thing he wants is a difficult relationship with America's most popular president in a generation.
I would expect that, no matter who is elected prime minister, he or she will get along with our new President. They know that George W. Bush, whose "support" for Israel was ultimately destructive, is gone. It's a new day and, for Israel, that will mean dialing down the rhetoric. Far more significantly, it means changing policies—starting with an end to the settlement enterprise.
That is what Israel's friends here want—an end to the occupation and the full implementation of the two-state solution now, before it is too late. As for the heroic champions of the status quo—the ones who are always warning Presidents and Congress that any deviation from their tired and predictable "line" will mean political trouble—they are part of the past. They may not know it yet. But they will soon enough. Those of us who care about Israel's security now have an administration—specifically a President and Secretary of State—who share our view that the occupation is a curse.
Obama promised change and he is already delivering.
The Catastrophic Collapse of American Leadership
The Catastrophic Collapse of American Leadership
William Pfaff
Paris, January 29, 2009 -- The American participants in this year's World Economic Forum in Davos have been the first to confront the full international blowback to the U.S.-created world economic crisis. The crisis has devastated
America's reputation for intellectual innovation and practice in global finance, its business leadership, and its domination of applied and academic economics -- all promoted at the Davos Forum for decades. Last Friday a Wall Street Journal front-page headline said: "European capitalism gets a halo."
U.S. leadership has devastated something even more important: the American reputation for competence, and with it, the justification for America's six-decade role as world leader.
The Davos meeting has been one of the main channels by which a Europe long identified with interventionist and regulated social- and Christian-democratic business values was reluctantly persuaded to accept American ideas and business and financial principles and practice.
American comment on the crisis until now has certainly been self- critical (except in certain Wall Street institutions cut off from human reality), but for the most part there has been little willingness to assume responsibility. The overall position has been that "we all made mistakes," and it's time to move on.
A few financial community Cassandras of the recent (or not so recent) past have been recalled and congratulated (or given their jobs back); much has been said about "how [ital] could [unital] we have missed this or that signal;" but on the whole a curtain has been drawn, and most would agree with Donald Rumsfeld's incantation that "stuff happens."
That alibi (or renunciation of responsibility) may work at home but not abroad. The head of Morgan Stanley Asia told the opening Davos discussion that 2009, globally, "may be the first year since world war II when gross domestic product actually contracts."
The International Monetary Fund has nearly doubled its estimate of bank failures this year; the International Labor Organization says as many as 40 million people could lose their jobs. Losses linked to bad U.S. loans could reach $2.2 trillion this year, according to the IMF. This is twice the estimate the IMF offered just two months ago.
There is more bad news to come, signaled at Davos. The political, national, and psychological consequences have yet to be fully appreciated. This crisis implies something else important: The U.S. reputation for world leadership has crashed and burned.
At the start of the Bush administration years of vainglorious, ignorant and failing interventions in world affairs, there was great initial enthusiasm among Americans, believing the nation once again in the lead of a crusade to moralize the world by destroying evil and installing "freedom."
Even as that policy was failing, critics of the administration were (and remain) mostly inclined to support the general line of fighting "terrorism." They believed that under more intelligent Barack Obama management in Afghanistan and Pakistan it was a defensible policy, consistent with the country's postwar leadership in the Korean War, the Cold War, the Indochina intervention and Vietnam war, and now the "clash of civilizations" – each gratifying an American self-
conception as leader of the forces of freedom in what ex-President Bush, in his farewell speech, described as the great struggle between global good and global evil.
Distraction was provided for much of the world by the economic boom Alan Greenspan proudly presented as "beyond history." A new economic order had been created by Americans that already had made the industrial world rich, and was confidently predicted to bestow the same blessing on everyone else. Francis Fukuyama's assessment that history was coming to a happy ending was thought only a little off in its timing.
But not only the economy has crashed. It's now necessary to come to terms with the fact that the cold war was not won by America, but lost by Communism's internal corruption. That America's Asian conflicts were actually all defeats: Communist China, Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Somalia, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq (an estimated 95 thousand civilians killed in Iraq, 15 thousand coalition soldiers and police, including 4,229 Americans; and the outcome still in doubt).
The war against terror has been a bloodbath with mainly civilian victims, two free-standing Asian states wrecked, and probably more to
come.
The immediate disaster, evident at Davos, is that the American economic model of deregulated market capitalism, dominant today in the U.S. and the rest of the industrial world, cited as a vehicle of human progress, proves under examination to have been in significant part an affair of swindle, personal enrichment, looted third world nations, international and national crime conspiracies, bank robbery and Ponzi schemes, criminal real estate practices, environmental and institutional rip-offs, and official corruption.
Stuff does indeed happen, when greed is good and power better.
© Copyright 2009 by Tribune Media Services International. All Rights
Reserved.
This article comes from William PFAFF
http://www.williampfaff.com
The URL for this article is:
http://www.williampfaff.com/article.php?storyid=377
William Pfaff
Paris, January 29, 2009 -- The American participants in this year's World Economic Forum in Davos have been the first to confront the full international blowback to the U.S.-created world economic crisis. The crisis has devastated
America's reputation for intellectual innovation and practice in global finance, its business leadership, and its domination of applied and academic economics -- all promoted at the Davos Forum for decades. Last Friday a Wall Street Journal front-page headline said: "European capitalism gets a halo."
U.S. leadership has devastated something even more important: the American reputation for competence, and with it, the justification for America's six-decade role as world leader.
The Davos meeting has been one of the main channels by which a Europe long identified with interventionist and regulated social- and Christian-democratic business values was reluctantly persuaded to accept American ideas and business and financial principles and practice.
American comment on the crisis until now has certainly been self- critical (except in certain Wall Street institutions cut off from human reality), but for the most part there has been little willingness to assume responsibility. The overall position has been that "we all made mistakes," and it's time to move on.
A few financial community Cassandras of the recent (or not so recent) past have been recalled and congratulated (or given their jobs back); much has been said about "how [ital] could [unital] we have missed this or that signal;" but on the whole a curtain has been drawn, and most would agree with Donald Rumsfeld's incantation that "stuff happens."
That alibi (or renunciation of responsibility) may work at home but not abroad. The head of Morgan Stanley Asia told the opening Davos discussion that 2009, globally, "may be the first year since world war II when gross domestic product actually contracts."
The International Monetary Fund has nearly doubled its estimate of bank failures this year; the International Labor Organization says as many as 40 million people could lose their jobs. Losses linked to bad U.S. loans could reach $2.2 trillion this year, according to the IMF. This is twice the estimate the IMF offered just two months ago.
There is more bad news to come, signaled at Davos. The political, national, and psychological consequences have yet to be fully appreciated. This crisis implies something else important: The U.S. reputation for world leadership has crashed and burned.
At the start of the Bush administration years of vainglorious, ignorant and failing interventions in world affairs, there was great initial enthusiasm among Americans, believing the nation once again in the lead of a crusade to moralize the world by destroying evil and installing "freedom."
Even as that policy was failing, critics of the administration were (and remain) mostly inclined to support the general line of fighting "terrorism." They believed that under more intelligent Barack Obama management in Afghanistan and Pakistan it was a defensible policy, consistent with the country's postwar leadership in the Korean War, the Cold War, the Indochina intervention and Vietnam war, and now the "clash of civilizations" – each gratifying an American self-
conception as leader of the forces of freedom in what ex-President Bush, in his farewell speech, described as the great struggle between global good and global evil.
Distraction was provided for much of the world by the economic boom Alan Greenspan proudly presented as "beyond history." A new economic order had been created by Americans that already had made the industrial world rich, and was confidently predicted to bestow the same blessing on everyone else. Francis Fukuyama's assessment that history was coming to a happy ending was thought only a little off in its timing.
But not only the economy has crashed. It's now necessary to come to terms with the fact that the cold war was not won by America, but lost by Communism's internal corruption. That America's Asian conflicts were actually all defeats: Communist China, Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Somalia, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq (an estimated 95 thousand civilians killed in Iraq, 15 thousand coalition soldiers and police, including 4,229 Americans; and the outcome still in doubt).
The war against terror has been a bloodbath with mainly civilian victims, two free-standing Asian states wrecked, and probably more to
come.
The immediate disaster, evident at Davos, is that the American economic model of deregulated market capitalism, dominant today in the U.S. and the rest of the industrial world, cited as a vehicle of human progress, proves under examination to have been in significant part an affair of swindle, personal enrichment, looted third world nations, international and national crime conspiracies, bank robbery and Ponzi schemes, criminal real estate practices, environmental and institutional rip-offs, and official corruption.
Stuff does indeed happen, when greed is good and power better.
© Copyright 2009 by Tribune Media Services International. All Rights
Reserved.
This article comes from William PFAFF
http://www.williampfaff.com
The URL for this article is:
http://www.williampfaff.com/article.php?storyid=377
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)