• Some thoughts on the Middle East.

You've been kind enough to let me know    "A Palestinian state is coming to a region near you Cyberman."  I'm not sure how the Palestinians would feel about life in North Queensland or the Northern territories but there are a few Israelis who'd be quite happy with this location!

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/948907.html

"No imaginary one state solution but a real democratic Palestinian State not a 2nd class country but a country with full dignity led by Abbas who is the democratically elected President and not any sort of sell- out puppet. "  

However, its not me that you need to be convincing. If you read the comments of the Palestinians themselves they are quite despondent.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/EBF448E3-CBCD-46BF-9C5D-1BE59A7AE68C.htm

So if you do have a bit of good news, you might like to post it up on one of their forums. 

 

I have speculated that Olmert may be trying to delay till the next US president (Clinton?) turns up, and who knows what then, presumably an imagined better deal could be done, but it really can’t, and the situation is not improving, as Gaza breaking free of Israel has demonstrated.

Now that Obama is looming large and growing, so that either he or Hillary Clinton will face McCain as a very strong war time Republican candidate that appeals to a great many Democrat voters, it looks very Tweedledee and Tweedledum for Olmert. 

If the situation is not going to get better for the Zionists and it hasn’t over the last few years, then it may be wise to look for change rather than reproduce the ravings from settler type Zionists.

Now that the most wacko Zionists are raving like lunatics about expelling Gazans into Egypt, pseudo-left's think we ought to read such drivel in order to get a grip on where events are heading. 

The more mainstream Zionists are spinning about expelling Gaza. 

Barn-door, bolted, horse, shut.  People can rearrange the words anyway they like, but Hamas is IMV turning its back on Israel, and a Palestinian state is looming on the political horizon because dragging on this failed war is not in Israel's interests.  The Palestinians want it and so do the US. 

One of the criticisms I have of LS is it's sometimes naive or shallow understanding of American domestic politics.  Hopeful expectations of a last minute presidential campaign by Condoleeza Rice is one example.  Patrick's comments about Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and the prospects for McCain's election, is another.

While I myself would find a McCain/Lieberman ticket interesting, at least with respect to the war in Iraq (McCain has very troubling views of the meaning of freedom of speech), he cannot be considered a "strong" candidate for election.  In addition to the many structural and historical difficulties confronting the Republican party in this election cycle, from the tendency of American voters to turn out parties in power as long as the Republicans have been to the unprecedented level of Democratic voter participation in the primaries, the so-called "conservative base" is actively attempting to depress it's own participation in the election.  In an election which would be difficult enough to win with full Republican voter participation, McCain will have little chance without it.

The Clinton/Obama battle is the one to watch, and it is a very interesting battle indeed.  It was Clinton's battle to lose, and she has been a very ineffective candidate, and has squandered a very significant lead both in general support and in fundraising.  The nomination is now Obama's to win - and he appears to be doing just that.  What this means in terms of Olmert's stalling is unclear, but the Right Zionists are in a tizzy about his supposed connections to Islamist-tinged and pro-Palestinian advisors - political and otherwise.

Expect this issue to become a central focus during the national election.  In a close election between Obama and McCain, Israel's many supporters in the US will become an important constituency to win over.  If Olmert really is stalling as you suggest - and I think that is a reasonable analysis - it's quite possible that the outcome of the election will signal important changes in US policy towards Israel.

I plead guilty to a ‘naive or shallow understanding of American domestic politics.’   For example if I were McCain I would pick Condoleeza Rice for my VP running mate (if she would be in it, and I don’t have a clue if she would).  That would help with both the woman and black issue that are clearly out there. 

 

 

Seems to me to be a situation where the conservative base has nowhere else to go, and at least can vote for a veteran with heroic credentials (who sensibly backed the surge that is now producing good results) to stop Obama, or the increasingly unlikely, ‘that woman’. 

 

 

As I understand it McCain is the one Republican that most Dem voters would be comfortable either voting for, or not bothering to show up to vote for the Dem.  With him, they might not deliberately want to stop the Rep candidate (though I admit that the inclusion of Rice would change that for some people).  But yes the Rep party has been in for eight years and there is no doubt some desire in the electorate for something new.  So it probably is time for Tweedledum to replace Tweedledee.

 

 

Previously, my point was what would a change of administration do for Israel's Olmert as he brings the war for greater Israel to a close in obvious defeat? 

 

 

There is no way that an Obama Administration will help him get any better outcome than he will get now under Bush.  So, I think that Bush and Rice ought to get the chance to bask in the glory of getting a settlement of the Israel Palestinian ‘dispute’.  Such an outcome would help McCain big-time.  But I admit that he would still be the underdog to Obama.

 

 

If Obama gets the numbers, I feel confident he would not pick Clinton as a VP.(whether she would be in it or not, and I am not sure she would not do it, given that she would be a heart beat away from the job she covets, and with not much chance of another shot)  But as I say he probably won’t pick her because that would not be to ‘turn the page’.

 

"We won north, we won south, we won in between," Obama told 6,000 cheering guests in an electrifying speech at a Democratic dinner in Virginia. "People want to turn the page. They want to write a new chapter in American history. And today the voters from the west coast to the Gulf coast to the heart of America stood up to say yes, we can," Obama said.

 

 

If it were down to the wire with the super delegates and they demanded the VP be Hillary Clinton then in order to get the nod he no doubt he would, but apart from that increasingly remote possibility, I think Clinton might be slipping out the back door.  Just have to wait and see. 

 

 

However, if the now unlikely Clinton gets the nod for the Dems I feel confident she would pick Obama as her VP (if he would be in it and I’m not sure he would, I wouldn’t if I was him). 

 

 

Given the proportional selection of delegates for the Dems, I think it quite likely that the outcome will come down to the super delegates (all the party heavy weights) and given my lack of knowledge of U.S. domestic politics I don’t really have a clue how they would go, but I would guess that if the momentum is with Obama as it now appears to be they will swing behind him and he would get it.  If Clinton is just in the lead they would probably give her the nod.

Can’t see a McCain/Lieberman ticket, though I admit it would be interesting; but if it eventuated this would tend to confirm the Tweedle thesis, would it not?  

 

I agree that;

 

In an election which would be difficult enough to win with full Republican voter participation, McCain will have little chance without it.

 

 

But I think that by the elections they will be right behind McCain as they have nowhere else to go and Obama will be seen as the real enemy.

What this means in terms of Olmert's stalling is unclear, but the Right Zionists are in a tizzy about his supposed connections to Islamist-tinged and pro-Palestinian advisors - political and otherwise.

So despite my lack of knowledge of U.S. domestic politics, overall events are moving in a direction that would suggest that the Bush time table for the establishment of a Palestinian state is now the more likely.

Patrick, maybe I am really thick, but I do not understand why Bush would be at all interested in establishing a Palestinian state.

I would say that there is a high probability of another Israeli invasion and occupation of Gaza; a final solution. This will be supported by the US, in the way it supported the attack on Lebanon. (The ambivalent attitude of LS to the Lebanon incursion by Israel has been well noted by many observers of this site). Very diificult for you.

The Israelis have only one solution to the Palestinian "problem". The extermination of the Palestinian people. This has been their policy since WW2, it is unchanged today. The establishment of a Palestinian state that is to comply with US rules is simply a smokescreen for the genocidal oppression that is taking place in the huge  prisons that are Gaza and the West bank. 

Dalek

 

 

I agree that Obama is now the ascendant candidate.  If Olmert had been attempting to outlast Bush, he would have been calculating on a succeeding Clinton presidency.  One question is, how will the increasing possibility of an Obama presidency affect his thinking?  If there is any substance to the ramblings of the right-Zionists about Obama - or if Olmert's advisors think there is - it may change his thinking about Bush.  I agree that an Obama presidency only reinforces the likelihood of the US supporting a Palestinian state, but even this path is not without complication.

Prior to the Florida primary, I would have agreed with you about McCain's likelihood to retain conservative voters.  However, it appears that the influential, conservative talk-radio hosts have chosen the moment to stake the election (which, in their view, is a long-shot anyway) on maintaining primacy in the Republican party.

I listened recently to a man on local radio proclaim that he would not sacrifice his principles merely to maintain party unity, and could not therefore vote for McCain.  This is the line being sold by Limbaugh and others of his ilk and the basis of their attacks against McCain.  That the man's actions could only result in the outcome he said he could not "vote" for was an irony obviously beyond him, an indication that the cognitive dissonance being planted in an effort to maintain "conservative" control of the Republican party is working to some extent.  I don't think that the surprisingly strong showing, especially in economic terms, of Ron Paul's candidacy is entirely unrelated to this kind of thinking.  The coalition that Bush has managed within the Republican party shows signs of finally unraveling.

There is an argument among Republicans about whether McCain is the inheritor of Reagan's politics.  This is the same argument waged previously between Bush and McCain.  Bush won then, and brought with him a contingent of neocons into the Whitehouse, a legacy of the Reagan years.  A central feature of the argument about Reagan's heritage will be the place of neocons in any future conservative policy-making.

The result of this unraveling, and however true it may be, may well have an important, if not profound, effect on the future of US policy toward Iraq.  If the unraveling comes to pass, I suspect the neocons will find themselves increasingly isolated, and as their influence wanes, the paleos will find common cause with the old school liberal foreign policy wonks.  This to me suggests that the old politics of "realism" will become new again - the incoherency of Obama's statements on Iraq reek of this.

How this reaction to Bush's foreign policy will play out in the aftermath of the Iraq war is unclear - if the reaction happens at all.  It could simply be the cognitive dissonance introduced by the gulf between official and real policy, continued by another administration.  But the domestic political forces driving this reaction are very real.

I'd like to see LS give more attention to this aspect of their argument, since a great deal of it depends on the acceptance of their view by the US political elite.  I fear, however, that LS has not looked closely enough at the real ideological split at the mid and grass roots levels.

Apologies for the rambling aspect of this post, and it's lack of detail.  I'm pressed for time at the moment but I hope to return to this in future with a more coherent criticism.

In the meantime, a question: if the realization LS claims the Bush administration came to after 911 about the failure of the previous 80 years of American policy in the middle east is not shared by succeeding administrations, how might this affect the thinking among LS advocates?  Particularly in light of the possibility that future Democratic administrations may decide to cut losses and partition Iraq, balancing rivals against each other in order to maintain "stability?"

Lupin3

Dalek,

"Patrick, maybe I am really thick, but I do not understand why Bush would be at all interested in establishing a Palestinian state"

You've not been paying attention properly to the draining the swamp theory! Kerry explained it all very well in an article for that nice old Aussie ( or maybe he's an American now? ) Mr Murdoch in his local newspaper "the Australian"

" he (Bush) has managed to create the perception that he is the most pro-Israel President in history while at the same time also insisting that Israel must withdraw from both Gaza and the West Bank. Due to the continuing (very careful) US rhetoric about the necessity to defend Israel against terrorism, many from the Right who supported the war have not yet caught on to this.”

You've got to marvel at his cunning plan!

 

Thanks, Cyberman for your lucid exposition. I get it; Bush read Chomsky late one night and thought "that's a good idea "drain the swamps" duuhh. What I want to know next is what has happened to the "Islamofascists"? They have dissapeared from LS.

Any-way Mcain is going to get elected on a program for a 100year war against Islamofacsism and Bush is going to Liberate Palestine.

Wow.

 

The previous two posts show why it is pointless trying to engage in debate with dalek and cyberman. They are unable to argue convincingly against the 'draining of the swamp' analysis and are satisfied to just have a bit of 'sport'.

 

It's not what the site was established for as far as I am concerned (as someone who joined it early on but did not play a part in setting it up).

 

Barry

Barry, The draining the swamps theory has one serious problem: In 2003/4 the invasion of Iraq and the establishment of democracy there was going to rid Iraq  of "Islamofascists". What happened of course was that the draining the swamps program gave rise to the obscenity of Abu Grahaib, numerous massacres by US troops and mercenaries the humiliation of the Iraq people and a massive boost to every fanatic, jihadist and retrograde tribal gang. It was dumb then and it is dumb now.

Do you and all your acolytes really believe that the Iraqi people are going to allow the US to install permanent garrisons in their country, gain control of their natural resources and generally turn Iraq into some McDonald's bastion in the Middle East?

There is a well established historical adage, when it comes to insurgency against colonial oppression. It is better to do a deal with the first bunch of insurgents because the next bunch that arise after you have killed the first will be even more extreme. (The De Gaulle solution) It's either that or kill ever-body who has the slightest link to the insurgency - the Suharto solution.

The problem you have is that it's too late for both the De Gaulle and the Suharto solution and the guys you will have to deal with in the future are going to be really pissed off and radical. 

The "democracy" that you praised to the skies has been demonstrated to be impotent and totally subservient to the US; so much so that 200,000 US paid mercenaries rampage through the country with total impunity, immune from Iraq law. You write that the "surge" is working, all it is working is the US army to death. Meantime the US arms their "friends" inside Iraq to attack US "enemies". How dumb is that.

Meantime the entire ME trembles on the brink of an incendiary explosion. Some swamp drainage program.

Stop advocating the Suharto solution and you will get a lot of respect from me and others who visit this site.

Dalek