Iraq and US vote

IT IS not always easy to agree with US Vice President Dick Cheney on most issues, the least of all with his view of the Middle East. But we cannot help agree with the vice president when he argues that Iraq will likely play a crucial role in the mid term election in the US next week.
Cheney, rightly seen as the power behind the throne in the Bush White House, has argued that Iraqi insurgents are trying to ‘influence’ the outcome of the US vote by stepping up their attacks against US troops.
Well, it is debatable if the mind-numbing daily violence in Iraq is aimed at influencing the electoral process thousands of miles away in the US. The idea is rather farfetched. Besides, the daily grind of violence with an average of hundred deaths and more has been a regular feature of the life in the so-called free Iraq for three years now. Cheney’s suggestion that insurgents monitor the US public opinion via the Internet may be true because the Net is a part of modern way of life, be it the US or Iraq. His claim that the daily carnage in Iraq is aimed at influencing US voters may be stretching the argument a tad too far though.
However, there is little doubt about the fact that Iraq will indeed play a key role in the US vote next week. The fact that October has proved to be the deadliest month for US forces in Iraq hasn’t exactly helped Republican poll prospects. In fact, the Republican establishment appears to have already reconciled itself to the imminent debacle.
Considering the mess this administration has made of Iraq and its disturbing indifference to the concerns of American people and the rest of the world over this pointless and most devastating war, it would be really surprising if the US voters settled for the Republicans.
In fact, this vote could very well prove a referendum on Bush’s Iraq campaign. Doubtless, a no vote against the Republicans will mean a ‘yes’ to an early withdrawal of the US and coalition forces from Iraq. The Democrats, who are likely to take control of both Houses of Congress, will then have to listen to vox populi and pressure the Bush administration to bring the US troops home. The coalition must withdraw from Iraq sooner than later. It’s in its own interest and in the interest of a peaceful and united Iraq. Of course, the exit of foreign forces may create a power vacuum in Iraq. But any scenario would be better than the current mess, wouldn’t it?

Peace moving away

It is now clear why Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni refused the chance for an unofficial meeting with some members of the democratically elected Hamas Palestinian government. The meeting would have taken place at the sixth International Conference on New or Restored Democracies which began in the Qatari capital on Sunday. Livni’s boss, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, meanwhile, was on the verge of finalizing a deal with the ultraright Yisrael Beitenu party set to join his embattled coalition.
Livni canceled her trip and instead sent an official of middling seniority. Yet another opportunity to end the agony of the Palestinians has been lost. If the Israeli foreign minister had had any contact with the Hamas government delegation, however informal, it would have been highly significant. For a start, by even talking to an Israeli minister, it could have been argued that Hamas was effectively abandoning its refusal to recognize the Israeli state. Upon such a foundation, a new part of the Kadima party’s “Realignment Plan” for a Palestinian settlement — inherited by Olmert from Ariel Sharon — could have been built. However, knowing that he was about to reach an accommodation with a political party which advocates the complete annexation of the West Bank and the expulsion of Palestinians, the last thing that Olmert wanted was a new peace initiative.
Livni, a lawyer and former Mossad intelligence officer before becoming a Kadima MP, almost certainly knew, even before it confirmed its attendance, that a Palestinian government delegation would be in Doha. Her subsequent withdrawal therefore strongly suggests that there was indeed some diplomatic plan.
How comfortable long-term Kadima Cabinet members, let alone Labor Party coalition partners, will be with the presence of Avigdor Lieberman’s expansionist Yisrael Beitenu (“Israel Our Home”) in the government remains to be seen. Only one cabinet member, Ofir Pines-Paz of the Labor party, has resigned in protest and indicated he will stand next year for his party’s leadership. Meanwhile Labor, led by Defense Minister Amir Peretz, remains in the coalition.
The accession of Yisrael Beitenu, which has 11 seats, has produced a five-party coalition with 78 seats in the 120-member Parliament. The Labor leadership could be counting on using its 19 seats as a lever to control the excesses of Yisrael Beitenu and its outspoken leader within the government. This may be a foolish hope. Staying in government is far more likely to further compromise the only significant political party which, with varying degrees of sincerity, has consistently sought a genuine settlement with Palestine.
The political opposition is now led by Likud, who are only slightly less dedicated to the scheme of a greater Israel than Yisrael Beitenu, even if it does not resort to the same racist bigotry as Lieberman and his followers. Thus peace seems sadly farther away today than before.

—Arab News