Countdown

A Not-So-"Minor" Encounter...

Vol. 8, No. 19
Posted on Monday July 16, 2007

Palestine continues to be a topic of debate for presidential candidates campaigning in Iowa, thanks to the efforts of a number of concerned caucus-goers. The Charlotte Observer records a recent encounter: “Pat Minor sat in a sun-drenched park in Anamosa, Iowa Saturday, a few feet from John Edwards. It was the third meeting of the day with Iowa voters for the Democratic presidential candidate. But not his first with Pat Minor. At the gathering of about 150 people, the 55-year-old bookstore clerk asked Edwards whether, as president, he would invite the Palestinians’ elected Hamas government to the negotiating table. Not until it recognizes Israel and renounces violence, he replied. Then Edwards complimented his questioner. ‘You do a thoughtful job of bringing this up every time I see you,’ he said. Minor has talked to Edwards about the Palestinians four times this year. Earlier this month, she got a chance to ask former President Clinton, campaigning with his wife Hillary. That’s how it goes in Iowa.”

Team Giuliani: Leading Us to World War IV

For many years, some of the best reporting and analysis in Washington has come from Inter Press Service’s Washington Bureau Chief, Jim Lobe. In his blog, Lobe examines Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani’s recently unveiled foreign policy team, describing it as a “bid for the Likud vote.” “Heading the team is Charles Hill, a retired career foreign service officer,” writes Lobe. “Hill’s paper trail is confined almost exclusively to the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal where, among other things, he hailed the creation in 2004 of the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), proposed the replacement of the UN by a new organisation of nations ‘committed to democracy,’ criticized the 9/11 Commission for failing to sufficiently emphasize ‘the nature of the enemy’—’Islamist terrorism’…and decried the Commission’s suggestion that U.S. policies in the region might have something to do with anti-American sentiment there…Of the seven other members of Giuliani’s ‘Senior Foreign Policy Advisory Board,’ several have also been associated with [Bill Kristol’s Project for the New American Century] and the CPD, most spectacularly, the legendary former editor of Commentary magazine, Norman “World War IV” Podhoretz, whose most recent contribution to Western-Islamic understanding was his article, “The Case for Bombing Iran” (an eight-minute ‘must-see’ video version of which is available on YouTube. A founding father of neo-conservatism, Podhoretz is also, of course, the father-in-law of Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams whose own work in frustrating serious peace efforts between Israel and its Arab neighbors has been second only to Dick Cheney’s.”

The O’Israel Factor

Hill and his team should feel welcome in the former New York Mayor’s campaign, according to Haaretz’s running feature, The Israel Factor (a ranking of American presidential candidates on their attitudes towards Israel), where Giuliani maintains his lead with an 8.5 ranking. Brief descriptions of the candidates remind readers that Giuliani “returned a $10 million donation from a Saudi prince after 9/11 following his comments on Israel.” At the bottom on the list is Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), scoring 3.5. Readers are told that Hagel “believes that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to Middle East peace”—which, apparently, is not a “pro-Israel” position.

Settling on Settlements

The recent Palestinian political turmoil and the attention it has garnered has detracted many from a fundamental truth: Palestinians continue to live under occupation. One of the most enduring and humiliating (not to mention illegal) manifestations of that occupation is the continued growth of Israeli settlements. In his speech yesterday, President George W. Bush said, “Unauthorized outposts should be removed and settlement expansion ended.” Which would be encouraging, except for:

Here’s Bush in April 2005, before a summit with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon: “Our position is very clear, that the road map is important, and the road map calls for no expansion of the settlements.”

Here’s Bush in July 2003, with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at a Rose Garden press conference: “As to the settlements, I’ve constantly spoken out for the need to end the settlements. I—and we’ll continue to work with both sides on this very sensitive issue.”

Here’s Bush in June 2002, at a Rose Garden speech calling for “new Palestinian leadership”: “And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop.”

Bush’s comments notwithstanding, a halt to Israeli settlement activity will only take place when the Bush Administration lays out some clear consequences to Israel if settlement expansion continues. Until then, it’s nothing more than lip service.

History Rears Its Ugly Head

As the debate on Iraq continues, the Independent’s Robert Fisk presents readers with a 1929 “entry for ‘guerrilla’ in the 14th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica” written by T.E. Lawrence that should double as a memo to Administration officials. “Rebellion must have an unassailable base,” he wrote. “It must have a friendly population, not actively friendly, but sympathetic to the point of not betraying rebel movements to the enemy. Rebellions can be made by 2 per cent active in a striking force, and 98 per cent passively sympathetic…Granted mobility, security…time, and doctrine…victory will rest with the insurgents, for the algebraical factors are in the end decisive, and against them perfections of means and spirit struggle quite in vain.” (emphasis added)

Similarly eerie, Foreign Policy magazine has altered a declassified 1967 memo on Vietnam, replacing words in brackets (which apply to Vietnam) to apply to Iraq. “It seems likely that in Al Qaeda [some Communist parties] and in some other jihadist [leftist] groups, armed violence as the way to power would acquire greater appeal. Some, stirred by the romantic revolutionary aura which might seem to surround the jihadists [Vietnamese] in victory, might actually try to imitate them. Manifestations of this sort would be most likely to occur in the Middle East [Southeast Asia] itself. We doubt, however, that such impulses would result in a much more widespread and serious terrorist [Communist insurgency] problem than would obtain in any case, either in the Middle East [Latin America] or elsewhere. If jihadists [Communists] in some countries temporarily acquired more will to fight, the odds for or against success for some countries temporarily acquired more will to fight, the odds for or against success for such ventures in any particular national setting would remain essentially the same.”