All Is Not Quiet on the Eastern Front

From the desk of Reuven Kaminer

All Is Not Quiet on the Eastern Front

On the face of it, there is no immediate danger of a clash with Iran over its nuclear development project. The US military seems to have convinced the political echelon that the United States is simply unable to handle a third war, at this stage. This tactical input created the political basis for the shift in US policy in the Geneva talks. Still, there are very powerful forces in the US administration who do not like the idea of waiting around until it might be even more difficult to get an attack off the ground. These forces will try to exploit the to-be-expected difficulties in the Geneva talks as evidence to the effect that Teheran is not getting the message. When the attempt to ratchet up economic sanctions will prove ineffective, as it must in the given conditions, the hawks will be able to argue that it is time to proceed, quickly but surely, to the final option on the table. Even with the Geneva gambit, the basic line of the US administration (with Obama in tow) is that armed intervention would be legally and morally justified, because Iran – even without actually building the bomb - is a new “ticking bomb” in the region. The more aggressive the forces pushing for war in Washington, the deeper their coordination with Israel.

Israel Has Plenty of Room to Maneuver and to Manipulate

Nicholas Kristof (NYT, July 24, 2008) got it exactly right when he suggested that Obama was not doing Israel any favor by swallowing his host’s line on the Iranian crisis. Kristof criticized Obama for missing the critical issue: Israel is contemplating doing “something crazy”, which would include using all its resources and connections to drag the US into a full scale confrontation with Iran.

The prevailing, consensual anti-Iranian discourse creates political space for Israeli maneuvering. This discourse suggests that Israel, even if it ostensibly acts alone, can claim justifiably that it is implementing the principles and the logic of US policy. Israel is an expert in the limitless ways to increase tension in the region and many of these include threats to the Iranian interests. If the US really wants to discourage Israeli military initiatives against Iran, it is clearly insufficient for Washington to express mere unease and hesitation regarding an Israeli air strike. The dark threat of a potential Israeli strike will hover over the region until the US clearly announces that if it is not attacked, it would not intervene by military threat or action, even if Israel pushes the region to the boiling point. Given the level of ambivalence in Washington, Israel has sufficient grounds to assume that, even if the US is displeased (or apparently displeased), it would be forced to come to the aid of its faithful ally. The present posture in Washington is such that the US would not stand on the sideline.

Israel’s Agenda

There is no end of signs that the idea of an Israeli strike is being carefully weighed. General Mullen felt it necessary to repeat, just last week, an earlier warning on the danger of such a strike, for the second time this month. Olmert explained to Obama that time is running out since the Russians are going to upgrade the Iranian air defense system by the end of the year Defense Minister Barak and MK Mofaz, who holds a portfolio named Strategic Coordination with the US, held talks in Washington this week. Mofaz is the darling of the oil speculators for his constant flow of declarations that war is inevitable. This Saturday, MK Hanegbi, chair of the powerful Foreign Affairs and Security Knesset Committee, called for the establishment of a national unity government to deal with the Iranian crisis.

In this respect, it is practically a civic duty to carefully read the wild ranting and raving of Israeli historian, Professor Benny Morris. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html?th&emc=th For Morris, it is the old story of good versus evil, and since a showdown is inevitable, better to bomb now and prepare the nukes, right away, for a necessary second strike. The really sad thing is that these Strangelovish illusions, which are based on the insatiable Israeli demand for absolute Israeli military superiority at all costs, are an integral element in Israel’s current security considerations.

Against Demonization of the Other Side

Many of my readers share with me a decided lack of enthusiasm for the policies and the rhetoric of Ahmadinajad and his circle. Without in any way ignoring the harm and the danger of some of the declarations coming out of Teheran, we must also admit that the Israeli propaganda is very adept at converting whosoever is its current adversary into a “new Hitler”. It should be recalled that both Abdul Nasser and Yassir Arafat were cast in the Hitler role, though their real core positions did not justify such a designation. In truth, their basic political platform created ample room for rational political responses which could have defused “inevitable” clashes. Nasrallah figures, with Ahmadinajad, as the current, not to be appeased, enemy. But there are abundant signs that Nasrallah knows how to do business responsibly and there is good reason to believe that the current leadership in Iran could be influenced by serious and thoughtful politics. It would certainly be helpful if the “rational” West offered total regional disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction (including Israel’s stockpile) to the “irrational and inscrutable” Iranian leadership. Perhaps, the Iranian leadership has cause to ask its critics as to why they consider it is perfectly acceptable that Israel and Pakistan are legitimate members of the nuclear club and why Iran must accept an inferior status. Even if the US and its allies are not ready for anything as fair and logical as regional disarmament, other sets of realistic and patient policies based on mutual respect could go a long way to prevent tensions from getting dangerously out of hand.

Barak In Washington

The month started with Mike Mullen’s warnings about the danger from an irresponsible Israeli air strike. But Barak was not in DC yesterday to relieve this anxiety. He made it clear that Israel continued to demand a sense of urgency and opposed any relaxation of tensions. Barack Obama had told friends that his impression from talks in Israel was that it had no faith in the sanctions track. The LA Times (July 30, 2008) summed it up adequately:

“Bush administration officials reassured Israel’s defense minister this week that the United States has not abandoned all possibility of a military attack on Iran, despite widespread Israeli concern that Washington has begun softening its position toward Tehran.”

Washington is clearly apologetic regarding its own policies and refusing to reign in its Israeli ally. An Israeli strike at Iran is very much on the table.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Subsumed

The meeting in Annapolis last month marks the transformation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a component of the battle for hegemony in the Middle East between the United States and Iran. Of course, the dynamics attending the 100 year struggle between Israel and the Palestinians are still very much in evidence. But the main direction of development is shaped, more and more by the larger conflict.

As in the Iraq crisis, the United States prepares to use military force to prevent further political-economic deterioration in its regional and international status. However, many well informed observers stress the low probability of armed United States intervention against Iran. There is indeed no shortage of clearly recognizable, serious considerations against the military option against Iran. These should indeed, by all logic force the Bush government to give up on the idea of another military expedition in the Gulf.

However, the political fall out of the Iraq fiasco has not prevented Bush from escalating new threats against Iran, including two major statements on the danger of a third world war, even an atomic one, to save Israel. Of course, the recent “intelligence” to the effect that Iran had scuttled its nuclear weapon program as far back as 2003 has further complicated matters for those pursuing a military option. But given the will to go to war with Iran, the obstacles are in no way decisive.
The Bush administrations wants a show down with Iran, but knows that such a war would be, to say the least, highly unpopular in the United States. But if it is a bit crude to attack Iran directly, variations and combinations that could lead to the same result must be examined. Even the Bush people can figure out that by including Israel’s fate in the equation, this would weaken considerably the reservations in the US public and in congress regarding a clash with Iran. If Bush wants to break out of relative isolation on the Iran issue, his best bet is to create a situation wherein the confrontation with Iran begins as, or is perceived as, an Israeli-Iranian confrontation.

In the past, the Democratic party leadership had no choice but to reflect rank and file pressure against US policy in Iraq. There exists, of course, a great deal of suspicion regarding Bush’s motives and plans in Iran. But Bush might finesse that opposition by involving Israel and “its security” in the coming hostilities. It will be very hard for the current Democratic leadership to oppose aggressive actions against Iran if they are sugarcoated as necessary to Israel’s security or even its very existence.

The manipulations required to structure a military confrontation with Iran as one between Israel and Iran are a relatively simple matter. There is no need to resort to work on a complicated conspiracy because all the makings of a new war are all out in the open. Israel will not fail to cooperate in getting an anti-Iranian operation off the ground for the simple reason that it has been campaigning energetically for such an operation since the debacle last summer in Lebanon. Every minister and general is on record supporting an attack on Teheran; the only disagreements are tactical. There are no questions as to “if” but there are natural shades of opinion on how and when. One of the central questions being examined is whether Israel can work out a joint activity with the US administration that involves the US coming to the aid of its faithful ally, embattled as it were against the combined forces of terrorism engulfing the region. Of course, there are too many factors involved to suggest that we can predetermine the path of events. The comment regarding the possibility of US-Israeli collusion is offered against unwarranted certainty that Bush has run out of means to further his aggressive goals.

Any of the numerous potential flash points for conflagration between pro-Iranian forces and the Israeli army provide ample opportunities to get things moving. Burgeoning hostilities between the proxies, Israel on one hand and Hamas, Hezbollah or Syria on the other hand would place Israel in the line of “indirect” Iranian fire. , The resulting tensions would enable Bush – even Bush – to sell war with the Iranians as an absolute necessity for Israeli survival. The Israelis face “pro-Iranian” formations in three fronts: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Syrians, in three areas, on the Golan, in Lebanon and along the Syrian-Lebanese border. There is no shortage of opportunities for large scale provocation, there is no shortage of room for major maneuvers that can create real threats to Iranian allies. Normal, stable circumstances in the region are the exception, the situation looks like a war waiting to happen. And Israel, will not have to stand alone.

Do Not Take This Pledge Card to the Store
Bertold Brecht once remarked that rulers unappreciated by their constituencies may on occasion have no alternative but to disperse the people. The Annapolis network has a new kind of problem. The Abu Mazen group has, via U.S. sponsorship, earned the right to receive a considerable flow of arms and funds. It has a problem, though. Abu Mazen does not have the political constituency or the territorial integrity necessary to absorb the gifts that he has earned by joining the Annapolis network.

The international community, on some sort of guilt trip, after the empty antics at Annapolis, is lining up in Paris at a donors conference. An impressive pile of pledge cards accumulates on the table. The investment sums being promised are impressive. But each card has some small print on it which says that the commitment is subject to on the ground conditions permitting its effective implementation. But Palestine, under the Hamas regime in Gaza and under the non-regime of Abu Mazen, has in the given political conditions close to zero capacity to absorb and enjoy serious growth oriented economic investments. The “international community” under U.S. hegemony does not want to invest in Gaza and cannot invest in the West Bank which is totally controlled by Israeli military, economic, logistic and geographic domination. In addition to the IDF, the relatively small region is criss-crossed by some 300 Israeli settlements, all of which fervently oppose any serious constructive activity on behalf of the Palestinians.

Thus, the donors who refuse to invest in Gaza because that would be aid to “terrorists” are unable to invest in the West Bank because of the political vacuum and the suffocating Israeli presence.
But do not despair. Condeleeza Rice has informed us that George Bush is coming to the region next month to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. She explained, somewhat mysteriously, that Bush has special ways of solving problem.

Guide to the Perplexed for Friends in the International Peace Movement

Question: I see myself as a friend of the Palestinian cause. However, in the current situation I am asked to take sides in an internal struggle, a step which I have no inclination to take. It appears that I, and many like me, simply have no alternative but to switch our attention and our efforts to other important matters until the Palestinians sort themselves out – hopefully in the near future.

Answer: You may have observed, and this no accident, that there are fewer and fewer struggles for peace and democracy which exist outside the vortex of resistance to the policies of Bush and the US administration. The chief struggle today is, of course to condemn and resist the US war in Iraq. But Washington pursues its interests all over the globe and has a hand in almost every local conflict.

It is axiomatic that all serious battles for authentic national independence and for peace run up against the structures of US political, economic and military presence. The principle of opposition to US policy is also a tremendous tool for political orientation and there is no matter, however seemingly local and disconnected from the international scene, which is not subject to this methodological approach. The same thought could and should be articulated in a simpler and more direct rule. In any local struggle we should be aligned with the forces fighting US domination. If you find yourself, even momentarily lined up in support of US policy, start clarifying things to extricate yourself from the unworthy alliance you have entered and the sooner the better. It is my experience that most genuine liberals and democrats understand this common sense rule while there are too many instances where some “leftist” groups in the region remain aligned with local elements which slip, slide and fade into cooperation with the goals of US policy. Our advice is never, but never line up with Bush. When he is no longer holding sway in DC, we will review our current attitude on this.

Q: Are you supporting Hamas, an Islamic fundamentalist formation?

A: It is an old trick to accuse advocates of peace and political realism of supporting regimes, which are held in low public esteem, when we try to explain that embargo, sanctions, economic isolation, etc. are the wrong way to go. The idea is to prove that we are incompetent and irresponsible politically because we refuse to join the chorus of condemnation against “the terrorist enemy.” But, this kind of character defamation will not discourage any real fighter for peace.

In any event, there are also many sincere friends of peace who ask us why we support Hamas. We do not support Hamas. We support accord and compromise between the two main factions of Palestinian society as the only path to prevent a major human tragedy whose scope cannot be envisaged. In truth, most secular democrats are appalled at Hamas’ values and justly so. Even so, we are against Bush’s style of demonization. We will engage in a comprehensive analysis of the strength of Islamic fundamentalism. And we will utilize every opportunity to draw Hamas into a constructive dialogue instead of doing everything to convert each and every Islamic fundamentalist group into just another arm of Al-Qaeda. It is important to stress that each fundamentalist tendency has its own history, traditions and political goals. Bush and his local partners can indeed push Hamas into more radical positions and alliances. If you are out to destroy someone, you might well take into account that he (or she) will take counsel and seek help according to one rule only – his or her interest in survival.

It is important to stress that many impartial observers argue that Hamas can be seen as one of the more pragmatic Islamic groups. It is known that Al-Qaeda attacked it for participating in elections. It never opposed the all- Arab peace initiative on peace with Israel. It has rigorously observed cease fire agreements. Its historical and regional connections are with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, known for its abstention from and rejection of terrorist activity. Between idealization of Hamas and demonization of Hamas there is tremendous space for work on finding constructive paths that will benefit all sides.

Q. I support the two-state solution and have been locked in debate with others in the peace movement who support a single state solution. How do current events impact on this important debate?

A. The current crisis is a result of Israel’s obstinate refusal to negotiate a fair settlement. The absence of a Palestinian partner for peace is an Israeli propaganda ploy to hide the fact that Israel is unwilling to make even the most minimal concessions required for a just peace. At present, Washington and Jerusalem are involved in smashing the representative government and the self determination of the Palestinian people and preparing Palestinian society for an imposed surrender to Israeli demands and needs.

As long as Washington and Israel are euphoric about breaking the moral unity of the Palestinian people, they are in no mood to negotiate about peace. Instead they will generate propaganda based on empty gestures, such as releasing 250 Fatah prisoners from among 10,500 prisoners in Israeli jails. In order to continue the battle for Israeli-Palestinian peace, it is necessary to reject the schemes against the national integrity of the Palestinian people and reject the U.S. – Israel – Fatah plans to split and pulverize Palestinian society.

There is no reason to declare that differences of opinion on serious questions affecting the peace movement such as the debate between the two state or single state solutions are a thing of the past. However, there is every reason that each and every group and organization supporting peace and independence (with no difference as to the nature of the solution suggested) should rally to the cause of Palestinian national unity without which no peaceful solution of the conflict will ever be conceivable.

Q: If I strongly support the two- state solution, shouldn’t I give my support to Abu Mazen and Fatah who have a firm commitment to this kind of solution?

A: Certain kinds of leadership can discredit a just cause and a just idea by converting a conception based on mutual recognition and just peace into a program for unilateral concessions, accommodation to Israeli interests, and worse of all, delivering their fate and their birthright to the manipulations of the US and Israeli governments. Fatah is not fighting for a genuine two state solution. It is trying to survive and to compensate for its low esteem among the Palestinians by playing at hyped-up, high level diplomacy. It is not accidental that Abu Mazen and George Bush are competing in a race to the bottom in their disapproval ratings. Abu Mazen’s Fatah has transformed a program for dignity and independence into a path to abject subservience and has lost any credibility as an independent actor in the political arena.

Q. What next, what can we expect?

A. Abu Mazen’ recent declarations, together with reliable information on the deteriorating situation in Gaza and Rice’s upcoming visit all indicate that the ‘triple coalition’ is preparing concerted efforts to break Hamas’s influence and control of Gaza. Today’s NYT report (July 10, 2007) by Steven Erlanger presents graphic evidence that Israel and the United States are pursuing a detailed program to demolish all of Gaza’s industrial and business activity. Gaza is being slowly suffocated by a finely calibrated technique to show that any semblance of normal life in Gaza is unsustainable. The hope is that there will be rioting and pandemonium. People will try to escape. Food will be scarce, medical attention unavailable. Anyone who supports or supported Hamas will be on the receiving end of an object lesson not to be forgotten for the rest of their life. Do not rebel against Bush. Bush is still strong, very strong.

Abu Mazen prepares the battle ideologically. He explains in a recent interview to an Italian TV station that Hamas is committing the ultimate sin. Believe it or not explains Abu Mazen, Hamas is introducing Al-Qaeda into Gaza and allowing it to develop and become strong. Now this is a clear indication of how quickly Abu Mazen has learnt from Washington and how urgent coalition action against Hamas has become (Bush found Al-Qaeda in Iraq and this encouraged him to move up the time table for the invasion). It is most logical, in the present context, that Abu Mazen announced in the same interview that he will never negotiate with Hamas. With Bush behind him and Olmert in his corner, why would he need to negotiate with Hamas, just because it got more votes than Fatah.

For good background historical material on the Israeli left (mainly in Hebrew) see: http://www.israeli-left-archive.org/