Showing posts with label West Bank. Show all posts
Showing posts with label West Bank. Show all posts

Monday, April 12, 2010

Growing Authoritarianism in Isreal

Israel is setting up procedures that are a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Under the current government, Israel is becoming more isolated as its former supporters, including your humble blogger, have doubts about whether it believes in basic democratic principals or is intent on pandering to its religious extremists by continuing to invoke religious reasons for its occupation of the West Bank and inflaming the region.


The matter at hand is the report in the Guardian and a new “Order Regarding Prevention of Infiltration and Order Regarding Security Provisions”, which comes into force on Tuesday. According to Israeli human rights’ activists, the order can label any foreigners living in the West Bank as infiltrators and deported within 72 hours or jailed for seven years if they are found without the correct permit. It does not define what Israel considers a valid permit. We know which "foreigners" are targetted.

This is called ethnic cleansing and is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. It is clearly in preparation for the approaching threat by West Bank Palestinians to unilaterally declare an independent state.

Wrap this latest move together with the constant attempts to get the US to attack Iran, the insults to its former ally, Turkey, additional settlement activity on the West Bank and Netanyahu’s cowardly avoidance of the nuclear summit that began today in Washington and you have the makings of a rogue government that is no better than the religious zealots running Iran. Except this one actually has nuclear weapons.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Foreign Policy and the State of the Union

I've read a number of commentaries regarding the absence of foreign policy remarks in President Obama's State of the Union message. Perhaps not directly, but indirectly all the emphasis on economic growth in the United States is proximate to the foreign policy strategy of the country.

Some time in the distant past, the New York Times conducted a poll (this is from memory, so no link) which posited questions that, simply put, asked about the public interest in national as opposed to international as a way of judging the emphasis that should be put - at the time - on network news programming. The results were surprising inasmuch as when national affairs, and specifically economic matters, were put in the context of international effect - job losses to Mexico, drops in industrial production to China and the like. The responses clearly showed that public interest in international matters increased when put in a national economic context.

Consequently, for political scientists to bemoan the strong emphasis on national economic matters is misplaced. First, the US public is clearly focused on the economic state of the union. They are not interested in and would not take kindly to the President giving more that short shrift to mentioning a US foreign policy agenda. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen academics, to politics.

More than that, however, is the fundamental fact that the US must get its economy in order if its foreign policy goals are to succeed. Economic matters - together with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - make it difficult to deal with Russian expansionism through support for Poland and the Baltics, finding a non-military solution on the Iranian nuclear issue and especially working on a Middle East settlement. The latter has suffered in particular since US policy, which had promised to put pressure on the Israeli government to stop illegal settlement construction (West Bank settlements are a violation of international law), has clearly been dropped from the agenda.

So, economic issues in the US directly affect its foreign policy choices. The linkage is abundantly clear and the State of the Union had the right emphasis.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Monday, January 25, 2010

Good News Bad News - Afghanistan and the West Bank

Some time ago I offered my opinion of the,then, proposed surge in Afghanistan - the request by General McChrystal for a significant increase in troop deployment. He got 30,000 (the media seems to continue to ignore the previous deployment of 12,000 earlier in 2009 making the total over 40,000 so I will too for now).

The Republicans, of course, stamped their collective hooves saying the General should get whatever he feels is necessary for prosecution of the war. Fortunately, the grown-ups decided to actually think about future strategy rather than allowing the military to dictate to the civilians in control (a source of frequent confusion to those in perpetual opposition to anything). Well, what will all those Republicans say now to this (registration required).

For those who can't access the article in the Financial Times here is a key part:

“As a soldier, my personal feeling is that there’s been enough fighting,” he said. “What I think we do is try to shape conditions which allow people to come to a truly equitable solution to how the Afghan people are governed.”

Asked if he would be content to see Taliban leaders in a future government in Kabul, he said: “I think any Afghans can play a role if they focus on the future, and not the past.”

The remarks reveal the growing faith the US military is placing in the hope that a power-sharing arrangement can end the war, a possibility floated in Islamabad last week by Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, when he described the Taliban as part of Afghanistan’s “political fabric”.


The coming conference in London to discuss strategy will be a crucial meeting for NATO. Europe wants a definite exit strategy and the US has already issued a deadline to President Karzai. Although I did not agree with the surge, now that it is in place arguing about its usefulness is moot. General McChrystal has also tied his credibility to the request to support his plan, so he has much at stake. But, it is his sentiments expressed that I find most telling. It should really upset the Republicans. Good.

Now, juxtapose his statements with those of The Worst Israeli President Ever while planting a tree in the West Bank:

"Our message is clear: We are planting here, we will stay here, we will build here. This place will be an inseparable part of Israel for eternity".


Eternity, Mr. Netanyahu, is a lot longer than you will be in charge. Not helpful at all and is only a further example of the extremist positions taken by the current regime in Israel that really began manifesting itself with the childish incident of the low chair for the Turkish ambassador. Well, people usual get the government they deserve.



Reblog this post [with Zemanta]