****
Posted on 07/31/2006 6:44:58 AM PDT by A. Pole
Viewpoint: The Secretary of State tells the Lebanese that the blood they're seeing represents the birth of a brave new order. She's convincing nobody
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faced a thankless, all but impossible task in trying to sell the Arab world on the U.S. policy of delaying a cease-fire so that the Israeli military can continue its anti-Hizballah campaign. But her case was hardly helped when she explained that the violence that has already killed more than 400 Lebanese and turned more than a half million into refugees represents the "birth pangs of a new Middle East." Phrases like that — and her rejection of the call for an immediate cease-fire on the grounds that "whatever we do, we have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old Middle East" — carry a revolutionary ring that scares the hell out of America's allies in the region. It was revolutionaries like Lenin and Mao, after all, who rationalized violence and suffering as the wages of progress, in the way a doctor might rationalize surgery — painful, bloody, even risking the life of the patient, but ultimately necessary. Social engineering is not surgery, however, and its victims find little comfort in the homilies of its authors.
Arab leaders, moreover, have learned to be suspicious of Rice's revolutionary ambitions — just a year ago, she spoke of spreading "creative chaos" in the region. Iraq, after all, is Exhibit A of the Bush Administration's "New Middle East," and it's a bloody mess that is growing worse by the day. Now, for Act 2, the Arabs are being told to sit quietly while Israel tears Lebanon apart, after months of watching it slowly throttle Gaza through a U.S.-backed economic blockade, and then bomb it for weeks on end. Hardly surprising that the Arabs — from the U.S.-backed autocrats to the beleaguered liberal democrats and the rising Islamists — see little to cheer in the Bush Administration's "new Middle East."
Rice's midguided revolutionary rhetoric is only one of the mistakes the Secretary of State made on her ill-fated mission to the MIdeast. Some other lessons the Administration will need to absorb quickly from its crash course in Middle East diplomacy:
Diplomacy means not only talking about your adversaries, but also talking to them
Critics have long warned that by refusing on principle to talk to the likes of Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hizballah, the U.S. is restricting its own ability to influence events in a region where those regimes and organizations represent a significant force. As Rami Khouri, editor at large of Beirut's Daily Star, so tartly put it: "Washington is engaged almost exclusively with Arab governments whose influence with Syria is virtually nonexistent, whose credibility with Arab public opinion is zero, whose own legitimacy at home is increasingly challenged, and whose pro-U.S. policies tend to promote the growth of those militant Islamist movements that now lead the battle against American and Israeli policies. Is Rice traveling to a new Middle East, or to a diplomatic Disneyland of her own imagination?"
The problem with boycotting regimes you deem unacceptable is that if they are able to influence events, you're forced to respond to their initiatives, often in dangerous crisis moments. The U.S. and the Soviet Union were implacable foes who knew they could not resolve their differences, yet they maintained communication and developed understandings that allowed them to manage those differences in the interests of global stability. It is time for Bush the Younger to grow up.
Sometimes listening is as important as talking
Last week, Administration officials spinning Rice's mission boasted that "she's not going to come home with a ceasefire, but with stronger ties to the Arab world... What we want is our Arab allies standing against Hizballah and against Iran, since there is no one who doesn't think Iran is behind this."
So the Bush Administration expected that while Lebanon and Gaza are under Israeli assault, the very Arab autocrats the Bush administration in a giddier moment had threatened with a fatal dose of democracy — and whose citizens are backing Hizballah — are going to give diplomatic support to Israel and the U.S. offensive against Hizballah? You have to wonder what these guys are smoking.
Plainly, every Arab leader they've spoken to since has insisted that stopping the bombardment is an absolute priority. Even the Iraqi government, ostensible poster child of the "new Middle East," has differed sharply with the Bush administration's stance. What the Arabs are telling Washington is this: Not only will the Israeli bombardment probably strengthen Hizballah in Lebanon, but its continuation with U.S. blessing will imperil other U.S. interests in the region
In the Middle East, you're judged by your position on Israel and the Palestinians
The Administration is correct that Hizballah and Iran represent a major challenge to the pro-U.S. Arab regimes such as Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. They're so dangerous precisely because they are able to capitalize on the popular mood in those countries that seeks redress for the Palestinians — an issue on which the moderates have precious little to show for their cooperation with Washington. The political momentum in the not-yet-new Middle East is increasingly with forces hostile to the U.S.
Getting anything done diplomatically in the region will require a lot more than talking about President Bush's "vision" of a Palestinian state and a "road map" that is the functional equivalent of the old Beach Boys song "Wouldn't It Be Nice" — there is no active process associated with it, nor is there likely to be for the foreseeable future. Without revisiting the kind of peace process that the current Israeli government has sought to avoid, the "birth pangs of the new Middle East" may be interminable.
Enlightened self-interest will determine Syria's actions
Recognizing that Syria could play a decisive role in curbing Hizballah's capacity for violence, Administration officials have been talking up plans to "peel Syria away" from its ties to Iran, although its refusal to talk directly to Damascus means it has to outsource the job to Arab allies viewed by Syria with contempt. And unless they're offering a credible incentive, they're probably wasting their breath: Syria has withstood years of pressure and harangues from the U.S. — perhaps aware that the U.S. and Israel, knowing that the most likely alternative is the Muslim Brotherhood, actually want to keep the Ba'ath regime in place. Syria will refrain from confronting its more powerful enemies, but is unlikely to lift a finger to help them unless it can see in that course a road to end its isolation, and to a resumption of talks aimed at returning the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in 1967, to Syrian control.
Develop a Plan B
The current U.S. position is based on the assumption that Israel's military campaign will, if not destroy Hizballah's military capability, badly bloody the organization and force it to accept what it might deem as a surrender. The "cease-fire" that would eventually be agreed would then amount a mopping up operation. But it's growing increasingly unlikely that those battlefield objectives can be realized, and if not, any cease-fire would probably not be on the terms the Administration is seeking. More often than not, diplomacy results in second-best solutions. And if Hizballah survives the Israeli offensive as a fighting force, preventing a recurrence of the crisis would require engagement with the movement's external backers.
Where is the BARF ALERT?
ME bump
State is only marginally pro-Israel, which will eventually turn into benign neglect with the diminishment of Bush's admin. I'm just itching to hear what Dershowitz has to say about this.
So you agree with her?
Obviously the ME is a relatively new region to be settled by humans and that not a lot of history has come before so I suppose that is her premise?
Geez, I thought Hezbollah started this mess. Now Time thinks its our problem. Peronally, I have no problem with a country defending itself. Maybe if Time would like to ask why the Lebonese can't control their own teritory or their own foriegn policy, they might be getting to the truth. Am I to conclude from Time's deep thoughts, that terrorist can make war against civilians but states are not permitted to strike terrorist among civilians? Remember, Time is headquartered in NYC, and as I recall 3,000 civilians were murdered in Manhattan. Is it Times position that killing people who murder civilians as their only tactic is bad? Save us from the special elite who back down to any bully they meet. Could not one news media hire a man with a set of balls?
****
(Love your sarcasm)
The "humans" from that region don't impress me one bit.......... all of them.
They all will be the reason for the demise of millions and millions of innocent folks eventually.
(jmo)
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. also
2006israelwar or WOT
..................
HUmans on all continents and every nation, faith and race have been victims of cults. Is steals their humanity.
Pre-Islam, the ME produced agriculture, writing and 2 of the worlds great religions and an almost infinite list of other things.
There is nothing wrong with the genetic stock. It is the moon-God cult that has destroyed what is ultimately a creative and capable people(s). The cult will need to be destroyed to reawaken them.
????
I would call this the "Jimmy Carter Syndrome".
It's a type of insanity.
You don't negotiate with people who are sending missiles into your back yard. You root them out.
Hezbollah is not an otherwise good neighbor who has the unfortunate habit of occasionally firing off a missile, it is a war-fighting organization that has as its goal, war. It doesn't even represent the people it pretends to represent, it is a war-fighting front for Syria and Iran. You don't negotiate with a sock-puppet. You don't negotiate with the people who are killing your wives and children.
I suppose you could ask them what they want, but when what they want is you, dead, that should tell you what you have to do. Get to them before they do you.
Rice and Bush were right to insist that there be no cease-fire that doesn't include the disarming of Hezbollah, which is in essence to demand their surrender as a war-fighting organization. They can choose to survive as a purely political organization, or not at all.
The worst mistake any of us can make, and I fear we will make it, will be to find some "solution" that leaves Hezbollah armed inside of Lebanon. Such a solution guarantees that war continues, and worse than before. The interjection of a peace-keeping force without disarming Hezbollah actually makes things worse; Hezbollah has no problem sailing a missile over the heads of the peace-keepers, but Israel will have to go through the peace-keepers to get at them.
Should have been a small "g".
But if you really have a question on it, Allah is a moon-god.
The meteorite they worship may well be from the moon. Fairly common reference around here. Here is a link:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm
and a refutation which is not all that convincing:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html
All in all, a fun way to belittle Islam.
Viewpoint: The Secretary of State tells the Lebanese that the blood they're seeing represents the birth of a brave new order. She's convincing nobody
The fact is she COULD be correct.
Another example of Pro-Islamist propaganda from the Western Liberal-Socialist media.
This "Israel is guilty of inflaming Middle Eastern tensions" line for fighting back the Islamic enemies who want to annihilate Israel is not only ludicrous, but also boring.
Condi needs to go, AND NOW.
She wouldn't listen to Abbas who kept warning her that they needed more time before the Palestinian elections, or Hamas would win. Then, she acted surprised at Hamas victory.
Today, Michael Aoun, a Lebanese Maronite Chritian leader, tells us, in a Wall Street Journal editorial, that he kept warning the U.S. to press for changes in the Lebanese election laws (established by Syria) before elections were held in Lebanon, or the new government would lack a real popular mandate to actually rule. And again, we did not listen and again the 'ruling' authority with the responsibility to reign in a terrorist organization was weakened by the rush to "democracy" at any price and regardless of a good foundation for that democray first being established.
Condi must go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.