George W. Bush--seldom has an exit been so widely celebrated or so long awaited. The pitiful presidency has finely ended.

Thanks for the image.

Olmert-Bush and the abstention

Olmert claims that he persuaded Bush not to vote for UNSC Reso. and shamed Rice

End Game in the Gaza War? (Part III)

Part III. (Cross-linked with Informed Comment: Global Agenda)
by Augustus Richard Norton and Sara Roy

Go to Part I
Go to Part II
PART III
For the fighting to end on Israel’s terms, Hamas must accept blame for provoking the Israeli assault without winning any acknowledgement of the humanitarian crisis that has been unfolding in Gaza ever since Hamas won the U.S. promoted elections in January 2006. For almost two years, a concerted effort to isolate and overthrow Hamas and to undermine the Gaza economy has been encouraged by the U.S. government and the European Union and implemented by Israel and the PA. Hamas leaders were told they could lift the siege only by abstaining from anti-Israeli violence, acknowledging the legitimate existence of Israel, and accepting the agreements signed between Israel and the PA.

Hamas has consistently refused, arguing that recognition of the peace agreements with Israel would be equivalent to recognizing occupation, particularly against a history of Palestinian concessions that not only failed to end Israeli occupation but deepened it. After Hamas defeated PA military contingents in June 2007 and established a rival political authority in Gaza, the siege of the strip tightened. Hamas, despite its espoused enmity toward Israel, has indicated its willingness to negotiate. It has voiced support for the 2002 Arab League’s declaration offering Israel permanent peace in exchange for returning to its internationally recognized pre-1967 borders. Hamas chief Khaled Meshal and Prime Minister Ismail Haniya similarly confirmed Hamas’ willingness to accept 1967 borders and a two-state solution should Israel withdraw from the occupied territories.

A ceasefire is likely to be in place when Barack Obama is inaugurated on January 20th, but we expect that the outcome of the Gaza fighting is likely to underline the self-delusion that has framed the U.S.-Israeli perspective on major groups like Hamas for years, namely that Israel may choose its Palestinian interlocutors, and marginalize and criminalize those who are unwilling to negotiate on Israel’s terms. While Hamas by no means speaks for all Palestinians, it is fatuous to assume that Hamas may be ignored politically or diplomatically.

In 2006, the Olmert government went to war to defeat Hezbollah and failed. A quarter century prior, Israel launched a major invasion of Lebanon to defeat the PLO and quash Palestinian nationalism. That attempt also failed. We expect that when the Gaza war ends a battered Hamas is likely to emerge stronger politically than it was when the fighting began. Yet, the already decrepit Gaza infrastructure will be in rubble, and the reestablishment of public order will be a formidable challenge for Hamas, even if the group remains in nominal control of Gaza. There is also the very real possibility that more extreme Islamists groups will strengthen, vying with Hamas for control (as they already do in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon).

The Gaza war will change the political landscape of the Middle East. As such it presents an enormous if not unwelcome challenge for President-elect Obama. The new president will have to address renewed Muslim enmity toward the U.S., as well an arduous challenge of peace-making between a deeply fragmented Palestinian leadership and an Israeli government even less ready or willing than its immediate predecessors to bow to the inevitable sacrifices that peace requires. History has taught that peace in this region—if in fact that is the goal—can be imposed neither with bombs nor rockets.

Go to Part I
Go to Part II

End Game in the Gaza War? Part II

Part II. (Cross-linked with Informed Comment: Global Agenda)
by Augustus Richard Norton and Sara Roy

Go to Part I
In rhetoric reminiscent of the Israeli campaign in Lebanon in 2006, Israeli officials, including Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, have denied that the Palestinians of Gaza are facing a humanitarian crisis. The evidence shows otherwise: as of January 2, according to a report by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), “80% of the [Gazan] population cannot support themselves and are dependent on humanitarian assistance. This figure is increasing. According to the World Food Programme, the population is facing a food crisis [with] food shortages of flour, rice, sugar, dairy products, milk, canned foods and fresh meats. The imports entering are insufficient to support the population or to service infrastructure maintenance and repair needs. The health system is overwhelmed having been weakened by an 18-month blockade [and] utilities are barely functioning: the only electric power plant has shut down [leaving] some 250,000 people in central and northern Gaza [without any] electricity at all due to the damage to fifteen electricity transformers during the air strikes. The water system provides running water once every 5-7 days and the sanitation system cannot treat the sewage and is dumping 40 million liters of raw sewage into the sea daily. Fuel for heating . . . and cooking gas are no longer available in the market.”

Yet Livni, the Kadima party candidate for prime minister in the February elections, refers to the Israeli battle with Hamas as a struggle between moderates and extremists, and portrays the war as a chance to strike a blow against Islamist radicals in the Arab world, not least the venerable Muslim Brethren. She suggests that Israel is finding common purpose with “moderate” Arab regimes.

A recent Jerusalem Post article by veteran journalist Herb Keinon argues that Israel’s objective in Gaza is to undermine and delegitimize Islamist power by creating a state of chaos that will make it impossible for Hamas to rule, hence, the destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure. This state of chaos will have the added benefit of weakening Iran’s influence. Other Israeli analysts have suggested that by devastating Gaza and Hamas, Israel may provoke an attack by Hezbollah or Iran, which would justify an Israeli counterattack.

Go part III

End Game in the Gaza War?

Part I. (Cross-linked with Informed Comment: Global Agenda)
by Augustus Richard Norton and Sara Roy

Although diplomatic discussions about a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel have begun, the Gaza war will continue for days, maybe even weeks to come. The U.S. and Israel insist on a “durable and sustainable” ceasefire, in the words of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. This means that Hamas must not only stop the firing of rockets into Israel, but also re-subordinate itself to the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority (PA) headed by Mahmoud ‘Abbas whose silence while Gaza burns is astonishing.


Israel will stress its acceptance of a ceasefire in-principle but will continue to pummel Gaza while the U.S. stiff-arms growing calls for an end to the war. Hamas will on principle refuse any ceasefire that denies its political role or demands its surrender. Meanwhile, the toll in civilian victims escalates in densely packed Gaza, which is already suffering an immense humanitarian crisis ludicrously denied by Israel.

Hamas’ strategic miscalculation in rejecting an extension to a six-month truce with Israel was a gift on a “golden platter” to Israel, as Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit wryly noted. The Israeli security establishment has been intent since its flawed 2006 war in Lebanon to reassert Israel’s hegemony and its deterrent power. But the attack on Gaza may also have deeper causes. Lost in most of the coverage is the fact that the Israel-Hamas truce was working—a fact fully acknowledged in a recent intelligence report released by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). According to that report, “Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire.” Furthermore, “the lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire carried out by rogue terrorist organizations in some instances in defiance of Hamas.”

Yet on November 4, when the world was focused on the U.S. presidential election, Israel effectively ended the “period of relative quiet” to which the MFA report refers by attacking Gaza, killing at least six Palestinian militiamen. Hamas responded to the killings with salvos of rockets. Israel believed that the group was planning to abduct Israeli soldiers through a tunnel it was digging near a border security fence, but whether Hamas wished to risk a successful truce and the possibility of political progress in order to abduct Israeli soldiers is debatable.

The extensive report released by the MFA acknowledges that most of the rockets and mortar shells fired at Israel during the six-month lull fell after November 4.

Why would Israel want to end the truce? The success of the Israel-Hamas truce tacitly legitimized political dialogue with the Islamists, something that Israel (as well as the U.S. and Egypt) vehemently rejects. Equally important, while the truce was holding there was greater talk internationally about possible negotiations and freezing illegal Israeli settlement expansion and moves to boycott products made in those settlements. There were also growing calls for compromises that successive Israeli governments have been unwilling to make. Despite recent comments from outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert linking Israel’s survival to withdrawal from the occupied West Bank, Israel has consistently rejected a viable two-state solution because it insists on maintaining control of the West Bank.

The periodic rain of rockets from Gaza into Israel since November 4 provoked broad public support for military action against Hamas. With President Bush soon packing his bags for Texas, there was also a strong incentive on Israel’s part to capitalize on support from a predictably pliant White House.

Go to Part II
Go to Part III

If you don't have time to read Jane Mayer's "The Dark Side" --a very important book--at least read her essay

The Battle for a Country's Soul - The New York Review of Books: "By the last year of the Bush presidency, growing numbers of former administration insiders had abandoned the government with the conviction that in waging the war against terrorism, America had lost its way. Many had fought valiantly to right what they saw as a dangerously wrong turn. With Bush, Cheney, and Addington still firmly in power, it was hard to declare their efforts a success. Still, with change in the air, there was a sense that history might be on their side. Jack Goldsmith, the assistant attorney general who objected to the Justice Department memo allowing torture, moved to Boston to teach law at Harvard, where he was ironically greeted with protests because of his association with the Bush administration's policies. Matthew Waxman who, as deputy assistant secretary of defense fought unsuccessfully to uphold the Geneva Conventions, moved to New York, where he, too, began to teach law, in his case at Columbia.

Alberto Mora, as general counsel of the US Navy, had campaigned within the Pentagon to end the coercive methods used at Guantánamo. He left the administration as a pariah in the eyes of some Pentagon colleagues but was given the John F. Kennedy Foundation's Profiles in Courage Award in 2006 for speaking out. Most of the FBI agents who opposed 'enhanced' interrogation techniques retired and joined private secur"

US Diplomacy in the Middle East: AWOL?

As an old and respected friend reminded me yesterday in Beirut, during the 1989 Ta'if negotiations that helped end the civil war in Lebanon, the US was represented in Saudi Arabia by a hot-shot team headed by David Satterfield. In contrast, the US had no on-the-scene expertise except the US Qatar embassy and an Arabic-speaking expert based in Lebanon, who kept touch with Doha developments by phone.

In contrast, a very sharp team of French officials packed their bags in Paris and headed to Doha when the talks were convening last week. I know, because I was meeting with them in Paris when they were leaving.

This is all yet another data point on the tragically imcompetent Bush adminstration, which was once again in its black and white fantasy world.

Iraq on his mind...in 1999

Exclusive: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000: "“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”"

"In December 1999, some six months after his talks with Herskowitz, Bush surprised veteran political chroniclers, including the Boston Globe‘s David Nyhan, with his blunt pronouncements about Saddam at a six-way New Hampshire primary event that got little notice: “It was a gaffe-free evening for the rookie front-runner, till he was asked about Saddam’s weapons stash,” wrote Nyhan. ‘I’d take ‘em out,’ [Bush] grinned cavalierly, ‘take out the weapons of mass destruction…I’m surprised he’s still there,” said Bush of the despot who remains in power after losing the Gulf War to Bush Jr.‘s father…It remains to be seen if that offhand declaration of war was just Texas talk, a sort of locker room braggadocio, or whether it was Bush’s first big clinker.""

The failed Bush-Rice plan to topple Hamas

This is an informed article by David Rose who unpacks the Bush-Rice campaign to topple the Hamas government in Gaza. He lends detail to the U.S. shepherded effort buttress Muhammad Dahlan's Preventive Security Force, facilitated by U.S. Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton. Other key players in the story are David Welch and Elliot Cohen. (I discussed this earlier.) Rose also reports a including Rice's demarche to Mahmoud 'Abbas insisting that he topple the Hamas government. While the basic story is well-known, this article does add new material, and it corroborates the claim that the seizure of power in Gaza by Hamas was pre-emptive.

The Gaza Bombshell: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com

Mubarak as Bush's hero of civl society

Agence Global - Article: "If Bush had spent more than three hours in Egypt, he might have noticed Mubarak’s thugs doling out 'civil society.' The day after Bush's visit, Abdel Wahhab el-Messiri and his colleagues were taking part in a protest in Cairo, and the 70-year-old leader of the opposition Kefaya movement was taken by police and dumped in a desert suburb about 12 miles (20 km) out of town.

On Sunday, Bush said in the United Arab Emirates what he should have said standing next to Mubarak in Egypt on Wednesday: 'You cannot build trust when you hold an election in which opposition candidates find themselves harassed or in prison.' Bush was referring to Ayman Nour, Mubarak’s main opponent in Egypt’s first contested presidential elections in September 2005."

Bush and his blather

You have to wonder, and I mean this as a serious question, does George Bush understand utter hypocrisy that he epitomizes in so many places around the world? Here we have a president who has espoused democracy withHosni Mubarak, a leader who mocks and superficially placates the democracy project, and that same leader is praised for "democratic reform." At the least, the president needs to find some new speech writers. This is beyond embarrassing, it is pitiful.

Bush says Egypt on path to 'political openness' - Los Angeles Times: "He made no mention of the Egyptian government's continued crackdowns on dissent and the jailing of an opposition presidential candidate.

"With President Hosni Mubarak standing expressionless beside him, Bush said journalists, bloggers and judges in Egypt were 'insisting on independence' and, along with civic and religious leaders, were 'determined to build a democratic future.'

"He said the Egyptian leader had moved his nation toward 'economic openness . . . and democratic reform.'

"But, in a diplomatic nudge, he said: 'My hope is that the Egyptian government will build on these important steps and give the people of this proud nation a greater voice in [Egypt's] future. I think it will lead to peace, and I think it will lead to justice.'"

Make it a point to read Maureen Dowd's column, "Faith, Freedom and Bling in the Middle East. " It is one her very best, perhaps ever.

"Bush tour of the Middle East and the Gulf"--rather typical of the reactions that I am hearing

Cartoonist is Muharakey in al-Akhbar al-Khaleej, January 14, 2008.

Protestors in Bahrain politely agree to demonstrate the day before Bush arrives so as to avoid inconveniencing state security

Bahrain Tribune Daily Newspaper, Bahrain

"The Bahrain Youth Society (Al Shabeeba) and the Environment Friends Society will demonstrate against Bush visit [January 11].
"The Ministry of Interior finally permitted the society rally yesterday. “The ministry called us yesterday and told us that we can hold our ally on Friday. We had suggested to hold the protest a day before the Bush visit as the authorities had claimed that they were busy with the security arrangements during the visit,” society vice president Hussain Al Oraibi told the Tribune.
The protest under the theme. ‘Stop Killing Us’ will be held outside the United Nations House in Hoora at 3.30pm.
"The Environment Friends Society will follow suit and demonstrate at its their premises in West Riffa an hour later."

The Plame leak

Scott McClelland:

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
"There was one problem. It was not true.
"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself. "

Iran's ambassador to the UN Javad Zarif is considered one of the respected diplomatic stars of the regime

How Not to Inflame Iraq - New York Times
Incidentially, an informed Iranian colleage indicates that Javad Zarif is about to be replaced, which cannot be good news for those who suggest the US and Iran need to talk.

Read Zarif's article juxtaposed to this Gordon piece from the NYT, which gives above-the-fold coverage to Iranian shaped-charges being provided Shi'i groups. Perhaps the most interesting comment in the article is:
“It is the most effective I.E.D out there,” said Lt. Col. James Danna, who led the Second Battalion, Sixth Infantry Regiment in Baghdad last year, referring to improvised explosive devices, as the roadside bombs are known by the American military. “To me it is a political weapon. There are not a lot of them out there, but every time we crack down on the Shia militias that weapon comes out. They want to keep us on our bases, keep us out of their neighborhoods and prevent us from doing our main mission, which is protecting vulnerable portions of the population.”

A window in the internal debate in the Bush administration is this piece, which highlights arguments for cooperating with Iran versus the case for confronting Iran as a "sponsor of terrorism."

"Since al-Qaeda fighters began streaming into Iran from Afghanistan in the winter of 2001, Tehran had turned over hundreds of people to U.S. allies and provided U.S. intelligence with the names, photographs and fingerprints of those it held in custody, according to senior U.S. intelligence and administration officials. In early 2003, it offered to hand over the remaining high-value targets directly to the United States if Washington would turn over a group of exiled Iranian militants hiding in Iraq.

"Some of Bush's top advisers pushed for the trade, arguing that taking custody of bin Laden's son and the others would produce new leads on al-Qaeda. They were also willing to trade away the exiles -- members of a group on the State Department's terrorist list -- who had aligned with Saddam Hussein in an effort to overthrow the Iranian government.

"Officials have said Bush ultimately rejected the exchange on the advice of Vice President Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who argued that any engagement would legitimize Iran and other state sponsors of terrorism. Bush's National Security Council agreed to accept information from Iran on al-Qaeda but offer nothing in return, officials said."

Also relevant is the Unger piece in Vanity Fair: "Everything the advocates of war said would happen hasn't happened," says the president of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, an influential conservative who backed the Iraq invasion. "And all the things the critics said would happen have happened. [The president's neoconservative advisers] are effectively saying, 'Invade Iran. Then everyone will see how smart we are.' But after you've lost x number of times at the roulette wheel, do you double-down?"

Tariq Ramadan --from a forthcoming article in the NYTImes Mag on Sunday

Tariq Ramadan Has an Identity Issue - Ian Buruma - New York Times: "To his admirers, he is a courageous reformer who works hard to fill the chasm between Muslim orthodoxy and secular democracy. Young European Muslims flock to his talks, which are widely distributed on audiocassettes. A brilliant speaker, he inspires his audiences, rather like Black Power leaders did in the 1960s, by instilling a sense of pride. A friend of mine saw him last year in Rotterdam, talking to a hall packed with around 1,000 people, mostly Muslims. To them he had the aura of an Islamic superstar. Even my friend, an Iranian-born Dutchman with entirely secular views, was impressed by the eloquence of this Muslim thinker, who wishes to press his faith into the mainstream of European life. His critics see things differently: they accuse him of anti-Semitism, religious bigotry, promoting the oppression of women and waging a covert holy war on the liberal West."

Somehing else to think about during the long two years to come

Just reminder of how precarious the Democrats grip on power in the Senate is.

"But regardless of Sen. Johnson's health, the president may yet be able to tip the balance. With a single stroke, he could restore control of the Senate to the Republicans, fill an embarrassing vacancy in his administration and score bipartisan points -- by appointing Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., to serve as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Should Lieberman be nominated and accept that position, Connecticut's Republican Gov. Jodi Rell has the constitutional authority to name a new senator.

"In many ways, Lieberman provides a perfect choice for Bush to replace John Bolton, the departing ambassador who resigned recently because the Senate wouldn't confirm him. Nominating a longtime Democrat who has endorsed many of the Bush administration's foreign policy positions, especially on the war in Iraq, would give the appearance of bipartisanship without requiring any real compromise with the opposition.

"Just this week Lieberman joined a congressional delegation to Iraq that included John McCain, R-Ariz., providing moral support to the Arizona senator's call for an escalation of the American military effort. He has repeatedly denounced the "partisanship" of Democrats who criticize the war and the White House, a favor repaid by Karl Rove with open Republican support for his reelection campaign this fall. More broadly, Lieberman shares the world outlook of the Bush White House concerning not only the Mideast and Israel but also the global "war on terror," belligerence toward Iran and Syria, and a strict embargo against Cuba. He is quite comfortable with the GOP's neoconservative wing, as evidenced by his participation in organizations such as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Committee on the Present Danger.

"Although Lieberman vehemently disagrees with the president on the issue of climate change, his overall perspective wouldn't require any great adjustment to conform with administration policy. (Indeed, Lieberman cheerfully submitted to much more challenging adaptations in 2000 when he moved leftward to run as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee.) He is somewhat less obnoxious personally than Bolton, but not so very different in substance."

Bush's Job Approval Rating

The national job approval rating of President Bush has plummeted to 30%, an all–time low in the latest Zogby International telephone poll, sinking below the 31% approval rating he dropped to in early June.

The President’s positive job rating is down from 36% in late October, in the weeks heading into the congressional midterm elections. Since then, the Democrats swept to control of both houses of Congress, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld resigned and was replaced by Robert Gates, who said the U.S. is not winning the war in Iraq. Release of the Iraq Study Group’s report calling for significant change in the way the U.S. is conducting the Iraq war came as this latest Zogby poll was in the field.

Tariq Ramadan will take up post at Oxford

The Chronicle: Daily news: 08/31/2005 -- 02: "A prominent European Muslim scholar who last year was refused a visa to travel to the United States to take up a teaching post at the University of Notre Dame will begin a visiting fellowship this fall at the University of Oxford.
Tariq Ramadan, a professor of Islamic studies and philosophy who is based in Paris and holds Swiss citizenship, resigned his tenured faculty appointment at Notre Dame's Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies after his visa was revoked at the request of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The United States government offered no explanation for its action, citing only the terms of the USA Patriot Act, and the move was widely criticized by civil-liberties groups and many academics as an infringement of academic freedom (The Chronicle, September 10, 2004). "

Mr. Rove's Leak-the lead Washington Post editorial

Mr. Rove's Leak: "There are serious questions about Mr. Rove's behavior, as well as his misleading public accounting for it during the past two years. Certainly, the revelation that Mr. Rove discussed Mr. Wilson's wife with at least one reporter undermines the White House's highhanded pronouncements that it was 'just totally ridiculous' to think that Mr. Rove had anything to do with the leak of Valerie Plame's identity."

The Post editorial sometimes loses sight of the issue, which is what role adminstration personnel--including Rove--played in leaking the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson. Whether the agent recommended her husband for the Niger mission, or whether there was actually good cause to believe that Iraq sought uranium in Niger or in Africa, is now rather beside the point. The issue is that the Bushies did vindicatively lash out at Joe Wilson and "out" Valerie Wilson in the process. The Post is right to suggest that the investigation now underway should be allowed to run its course, and that Bush, Rove and the adminstration have questions to answer.