Ariel Sharon

Plenty of people, and not only Arabs, might be glad to see Ariel Sharon six feet under, and not necessarily after succumbing peacefully in bed after a stroke. But the apparently certain prospect of his disappearance from the Israeli political scene can only be counted as bad news for those who hope that the world’s most intractable conflict can be resolved. It is too simplistic to describe Mr Sharon’s political journey as a linear progression from hawk to dove. Hawk he certainly was, associated throughout his career as soldier and politician with the violence that has always marked relations between Jews and Arabs in the Holy Land. Yet a final, definitive judgment about the legacy of the man some will always remember as the “butcher of Beirut“ will be hard to make if he cannot lead his new party into what had looked like being a fateful general election in March.
Love him or loathe him, the Likud prime minister did something important last summer. A full 38 years since the 1967 war, a remarkable six-day feat of arms followed by decades of Israeli myopia, Arab disarray and international indulgence, he oversaw a compete withdrawal, of settlers as well as troops, from the Gaza Strip, home to over 1 million Palestinians.
There was already much uncertainty before the Israeli leader’s second stroke on Wednesday night. Some of it concerned this month’s Palestinian elections, in which militants of the Islamist movement Hamas are poised to make big gains against the PLO loyalists, now led by Mahmoud Abbas, who have dominated Palestinian politics for decades. Now there is ever greater uncertainty. No politician is irreplaceable, but Mr Sharon is a very hard act to follow. None of his likely successors can command the authority and experience he has accumulated to take really tough and unpopular decisions.
Even so, his initiative in launching Kadima and breaking away from the Likud was based on the correct assumption that a majority of Israelis across the political spectrum do want to resolve the conflict--though on their terms and probably with the controversial West Bank security wall marking their permanent border.
It is a measure of global concern about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that there were such strong reactions to news of Mr Sharon’s illness.
He could have acquired real stature earlier if he had not spent 30 years sowing the dragons’ teeth of settlements on Arab land. Still, even Mr Abbas sent public wishes for a speedy recovery. Israel, a country with the same population as Finland, sometimes seems to be a superpower, judged by the level of media attention it gets. But there can be no underestimating the importance of reaching a just and lasting peace. Unresolved, this conflict ruins lives on both sides and feeds Muslim resentment of the west, a problem for those who live many thousands of miles from Gaza or Beit-ul-Moqaddas.
That is why the demise of a politician who might have moved things along is no cause for celebration. Ending this war is extremely difficult and extremely important--and it will take far more than one man to do it. But Mr Sharon’s last battle could again leave the Middle East in a very bad way.
GUARDIAN.CO.UK

Bush’s position on Iran is “disturbing“ and “dangerous“, reads a recent screed written by AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee).
Not long ago the Bush administration accepted a Russian proposal to allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear energy under Russian supervision and AIPAC is downright angry.
In a letter to congressional allies, mostly Democrats, the pro-Israel organization admitted is was “concerned that the decision not to go to the Security Council, combined with the U.S. decision to support the ’Russian proposal,’ indicates a disturbing shift in the Administration’s policy on Iran and poses a danger to the U.S. and our allies.“
Israel, however, continues to develop a substantial nuclear arsenal, and in 2000 the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) reported that Israel has most likely produced enough plutonium to make up to 200 nuclear weapons. So, it is safe to say that Israel’s bomb building techniques are light years ahead of Iran’s dismal nuclear program. Yet the major U.S. ally in the Middle East still won’t admit they have capacity to produce such deadly weapons.
And while AIPAC and Israel pressure the U.S. government to force the Iran issue to the U.N. Security Council, Israel itself stands in violation of numerous U.N. Resolutions dealing with the occupied territories of Palestine, including U.N. Resolution 1402, which demands that Israel withdraw its military from all Palestinian cities at once.
AIPAC’s hypocrisy is stomach-turning, to say the least. The goliath lobbying organization wants Iran to be slapped across the knuckles while the crimes of Israel continue to be ignored. And who is propping up AIPAC’s hypocritical position? Senator Hillary Clinton of New York!
As the top Democratic recipient of pro-Israel funds for the 2006 election cycle thus far, pocketing over $58,000 as of October 31 last year, Senator Clinton now has Iran in her cross-hairs.
During a Hanukkah dinner speech delivered on December 11, hosted by Yeshiva University, Clinton prattled, “I held a series of meetings with Israeli officials [last summer], including the prime minister and the foreign minister and the head of the [Israeli Defense Force] to discuss such challenges we confront. In each of these meetings, we talked at length about the dire threat posed by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and Russia. Just this week, the new president of Iran made further outrageous comments that attacked Israel’s right to exist that are simply beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability. During my meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I was reminded vividly of the threats that Israel faces every hour of every day ... It became even more clear how important it is for the United States to stand with Israel ...“
As Sen. Clinton embraces Israel’s violence, as well as AIPAC’s duplicitous Iran position, she simultaneously ignores the hostilities inflicted upon Palestine, as numerous Palestinians have been killed during the recent shelling of the Gaza Strip. Over the past weeks Israel continues to mark the occupied territories (they call ’buffer zones’) like a frothing-mouth K9 on the loose.
Hillary Clinton’s silence toward Israel’s brutality implies the senator will continue to support AIPAC’s mission to occupy the whole of the occupied territories, as well as a war on Iran in the future. AIPAC’s right -- even President Bush appears to be a little sheepish when up against Hillary “warmonger“ Clinton.
TRUTHOUT.COM

A gas worker walks between pipes in a compressor and distribution station of the Urengoy-Pomary-Uzhgorod Gas Pipeline, some 30 km from the south western Russian city of Kursk, Jan. 4. (Reuters File Photo)

Dear readers, it is strange that Europe got caught in a row between Russia and its former ally, Ukraine, over gas pricing. Much of Europe suffered for a while, in this freezing cold, even raising a question mark on Russia’s reliability as a major gas supplier. Who must take the blame?
It is clear that Russia has not effected any cut in its supplies to Europe; all what it did was to cut off its supplies to Ukraine, as Kiev refused to agree for an abrupt five-fold increase in gas prices. Ukraine did what it could do easily; it tampered with, or ’stole“ from, the gas flow through the Russian transit lines laid in its territory to Europe, in a retaliatory action. Ukraine may have a point, but it should not have dragged others into its row with Russia or with the Russian state-owned gas giant, Gazprom; and least of all the EU.
Ukraine must understand that this is life. Relations can turn sour, and situations can become disadvantageous. The argument might be that Russia was taking it out on Kiev for the pro-West, and by implication the anti-Russian, stands the new government there headed by President Viktor Yushchenko was taking in recent times. The matter, however, might not end here. Ukraine’s new government has to keep a close watch, as worse actions might follow. It is known to all that what had happened in Ukraine last year, including the Orange Revolution, were a direct snub to Russia.
The fact remains that many European nations are increasingly reliant on Russian gas. Some of these countries have seen a fall in the range of 50 percent in their gas supply on Monday, which, in these freezing times there, easily caused difficulties to people. Russia, however, has shown the good sense to immediately intervene and pump extra gas deliveries to Europe to make up for the shortfall that was felt on Monday. That’s how the scenario looked comfortable again on Tuesday and hopefully it might remain so. Yet, the damage has been done in terms of Russian gas’s reliability for Europe.
Europe, however, learned it the hard way, albeit temporarily. Many of the European nations, including Hungary, Austria, Slovakia and Serbia, have resorted to gas rationing following the unexpected drop in gas deliveries. In countries like Italy, debate was revived on the advisability of making use of nuclear energy, while Poland decided to look around for alternative supplies. It shows how seriously the governments there have taken the matter; and people’s comforts matter for those governments.
Ukraine couldn’t have held on for long to its perceived blackmailing tactics against Russia, for the reason that it cannot afford to antagonize the Europeans. That’s why it developed cold feet over its retaliation. Kiev, among other positive gestures to the West in recent times, is actively pursuing its plans for membership of the EU, and will need to be on the right side of the EU members. Under the circumstances, Ukraine’s action might only be seen as a misadventure, though Russia too could have been more reasonable in its dealings with Kiev for its own benefit-especially as the parliamentary elections are due there soon and Moscow’s stakes are high.
Mohammed A. R. Galadari,
KHALEEJTIMES.COM

The question of how to deal with spoiler groups with large followings is not easily answered. The most extreme opponents seldom make welcome negotiating partners, but without their involvement many settlements collapse.
Nelson Mandela, discussing the difficulty of dealing with spoilers, offered this prescient advice: “You don’t make peace by talking to your friends; you have to make peace with your enemies.“
Moderates are more willing to negotiate, but what is implicit in Mandela’s words is the need to deal directly with those who are causing trouble, rather than to exclude and subsequently try to marginalize them.
The United States has begun to see the wisdom of Mandela’s advice. The insurgency in Iraq is hardly a monolithic force comprised of like-minded extremists seeking to undermine the future of Iraq. It is a patchwork of groups and individuals, each with their own reasons for adopting violence. Recognizing the disparate aims within the insurgency, the US and Iraqi governments have begun to pursue a negotiated settlement with one of the largest and most powerful contingents, Sunni nationalists, in the hopes of reducing violence and splitting the insurgency.
This shift in policy represents a new set of tactics that the Bush administration hopes will bring stability to Iraq [beyond] ... the December 15 election. Instead of trying to silence the Sunni groups who would otherwise play the role of spoiler, many have been encouraged to have their grievances heard by participating in the political process and discussions at the negotiation table.
On the other side of Jordan, recent polls suggest that a former spoiler, Hamas, will have significant representation in the Palestinian parliament after the upcoming elections. Israel has voiced opposition to including militant groups in Palestine’s parliamentary elections, and the US still considers Hamas a terrorist organization. Still, Hamas’ involvement in the political process is seen by some in the United States as a positive step for peace. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested that Hamas’ ability to play the role of spoiler in the future could be curtailed. Rice stated that after the election, and once Hamas has entered the official political process, it will be easier to force them to disarm.
Using force against extremists and insurgents has and will bring increased violence in return and will alienate their constituency. Bringing potential spoilers to the table can bring an end to armed conflict in several ways. It can provide a public, nonviolent venue for discussion of the extremist groups’ issues and bring all shareholders to the table - a crucial step if peace is to last. This strategy can also allow the more moderate factions within the group to be co-opted into the peace process, causing a potentially ruinous rift within the extremist group.
Co-optation is a legitimate means to draw the moderates from both the party and the constituency into the peace process and a way to create dissension in extremist factions that could well bring about the demise of such groups.
The danger in excluding a potential spoiler is that it prevents a moderate subgroup within the extremist camp from having its issues addressed in a legitimized arena. This leaves “terrorism“ as the only recourse; marginalization of this sort begets violence, which draws further ire from legitimate political forces.
As long as spoilers remain aloof and disgruntled by their exclusion from the political process, efforts to maintain a steady peace, foster economic interaction and engender social integration amongst the parties in conflict will fail.
Neither Iraq nor Palestine can afford this outcome; the survival of both depends upon finding an end to their respective protracted conflicts.
Neil Stormer
COMMONGROUND.ORG

Hugo Chavez

Is Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, leader of his “Bolivarian Revolution,“ an authentic liberator whose program of “distributive social justice“ can effectively blend socialism and democracy and uplift the poor? Or is he, as his enemies (including the Bush administration) allege, just another anti-democratic populist demagogue, a human rights violator obsessed with personal power? The answers are complicated and nuanced and probably satisfy nobody.
Those questions, at least, were certainly on vivid display when the nearly three dozen nations of the Americas met in Argentina in November at their latest hemispheric summit. All of a sudden, it seemed like dŽja vu all over again. Here we were, back to the chilly days of the Cold War, with Uncle Sam facing off against a challenging and obstreperous leftist--a self-proclaimed socialist, no less--claiming to speak on behalf of his overshadowed and impoverished continent and enthusiastically thumbing his nose at Yankee imperialism.
The assembled press had only one story in mind: just how big a confrontation would be produced between George W. Bush and twice- (some would say thrice-) elected Hugo Chavez. After a half-decade of unremitting hostility between Washington and Caracas, the dramatic stage had been more than set.Ê
Indeed, the U.S. enmity toward Chavez even transcended the staunch partisan lines that have marked the Bush era. During his 2004 presidential campaign, Democratic candidate John Kerry briefly made the Venezuelan leader an issue, calling him a supporter of “narco-terrorists“ and “detrimental to our interests.“
Most recently, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called Chavez’s friendship with Fidel Castro’s Cuba a “menace“ to the region--the sort of language that gives any Third World leader contemplating American military power some restless nights. And in Venezuela’s case there is this added factor: The U.S. receives a full sixth of its oil imports from the South American country, making it economically strategic.
Washington’s threats were so ominous by Chavez’s interpretation that weeks before the Argentine summit he said he had been forced to cancel numerous public appearances to guarantee his safety. And he warned that if the Americans invade, “you can forget the Venezuelan oil.“
Those seeking the standoff at the Summit of the Americas were not disappointed. Though personal fireworks between Bush and Chavez were avoided, the policy clash was thunderous. The five biggest economic powers in Latin America, led in good part by Chavez, handed the Bush administration a thudding defeat, turning thumbs down on the U.S. blueprint for a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).Ê
Chavez said he felt “the taste of victory“ and that the FTAA had been “buried.“ Chavez urged the other Latin American presidents to join the fight against the FTAA.Ê
Particularly worrisome to the conservative Bush administration was that Chavez was only the most jagged edge of a mounting trend of left-of-center leaders coming to power in Latin America: President Lula da Silva in Brazil, President NŽstor Kirchner in Argentina and President Tabare Vasquez in Uruguay. A moderate socialist-led coalition was also in power in Chile. And a more radical movement was gaining popularity in Bolivia and its leader, Evo Morales, was increasingly considered a presidential contender.Ê
To the conservatives who dominate the Bush policy apparatus, this was a new “Red Dawn“ in the making. A continent which had been all but abandoned by the administration was now being refocused through a resurrected Cold War optic. And the cross hairs were on Chavez, who--to many--was the New Castro.
But to others on the continent and beyond, Chavez was a bracing and bold alternative to the packet of United States-backed policies that had come to be known as the Washington Consensus:Ê free enterprise, free trade, a rollback of the state and social services, a sort of trickle-down economics for export. To his admirers and supporters, Chavez was a leader who had the courage to stand up to the United States.
All of this leaves outside observers to ask which version of events is true, or at least closer to the truth.
Let’s do some digging.
Marc Cooper
TRUTHDIG.COM