Democrats’ soft underbelly

AMERICA’S overwhelming international political clout is the obvious reason for the high level of interest raised by its presidential election. Going into this November’s vote, the Middle East scenario takes second seat only to the economy’s downswing, which is why this region is following developments very closely. Interestingly, while Democrats and Republicans alike have made little difference to the on-ground Israeli-Palestinian equation, recent unprecedented developments are likely to force a sharper divide than usual between pro and anti-war camps. Though such concerns are not very audible in the ongoing nomination races, the final question on Iraq, a settled way forward for Iran’s uranium enrichment ambitions, the fate of Hamas held Gaza, and indeed an ultimate solution to the Palestinian conflict are top of the agenda at the Oval office already. McCain, all but certain to win the Republican nomination, has already made clear that his Middle East vision is more of the same hawkish Bush doctrine, if not more. But the other camp, in opposition to ‘as long as necessary’ occupation of Iraq, remains chillingly vague on most matters beyond Iraq.
From a distance, the US election system sometimes seems just as strange as interesting. Surprising as Obama’s post Super Tuesday surge has been, there is in fact little to suggest voters have been swayed after the beginning of the primaries. Even has he rejoiced, gaining near equality and definitely the initiative, he was able to utter few novelties, coming out with the same talk of ‘change’ and winning north, south and in between. It seems personality is in about equal play with policy at present. It is also interesting to note that while the Republican race is more or less a worked out script from here that culminates in McCain’s nomination, it is not without its share of hiccups. Huckabee’s triumphs in Kansas and Luisiana owe more to Republicans’ continuing suspicion of McCain’s traditional conservative loyalty than the former’s efforts paying off. But overall, the more intense the battle within the Democratic camp, the more divided the party stands, auguring well and ill at the same time, especially since core policy stances are still vague, which will be hit upon by scrutinisers as one emerges the victor. Come election time, this soft underbelly can hit the party right where it lives. Of course, should this unpreparedness of the Democrats, which has its roots in the present day, come back to haunt them in November, the Middle East will pay a very heavy price as McCain will be hoisted to the presidency not much sooner than more troubles come visiting the Gulf.
 

Obtuse military logic

THE offer by Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate a cease-fire between Israel and Palestinians in Gaza comes as crossfire attacks escalate dangerously but the Palestine president does not appear to have the clout with any of the parties concerned to do anything about it. A bloody week of offensive reprisals by both sides is quickly eroding whatever good will there was at Annapolis to achieve peace by the year’s end. Should Abbas decide to turn mediator the attacks will also show how light his political weight is. Abbas is persona non grata in Gaza after June’s Fatah-Hamas split. He is ironically better received in Israel but Israel still does as it pleases. And while the US will take Abbas over Hamas any day, it is Israel that will forever enjoy priority in Washington. Abbas may be virtually powerless, but the problem is not his inability to obtain a truce. It rather lies much more with Israel’s having given no indication of a willingness to set aside its policy of imposing de facto realities by force of arms in favor of the search for peace. This means that Israel will perpetually seek to sustain a qualitative superiority, a military superiority in particular, over the Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere in the occupied territories. The highly publicized breakout of Gazans into Egypt through the Rafah crossing made it impossible to ignore the collective punishment being imposed on them by Israel’s policy of closure and economic blockade.
Israeli leaders justify their shutting of Gaza crossing points and their temporary cut-off of fuel supplies for Gaza’s power plant as a response to Qassam rockets fired into Israel by Palestinian activists. They argue that Gazans suffering from blackouts, food shortages or lapsed power for dialysis machines ought to blame Hamas after last summer’s seizure of Gaza. Many Palestinians in Gaza may indeed not be in favor of Hamas refusing to stop the launching of rockets into Israel. Even so, they know that Israel is the power imposing an economic blockade and using its military might to achieve the purpose. Imposing collective punishment on the people of Gaza is not only inhumane; it is also incapable of producing results that benefit Israel or Hamas or Fatah. This punishing of an entire population to change the conduct of its rulers - in this case Hamas in Gaza — rarely has the desired effect; it certainly has done nothing but aggravate the situation in Gaza to dangerously high levels. The current siege policy follows a narrow-minded, obtuse military logic. It assumes that if Gazans are subjected to ever worse deprivation, they will eventually prevail on Hamas to stop the rockets falling on the Israeli town of Sderot. Obviously, this has not transpired and probably never will. Abbas has repeatedly condemned both Palestinian rocket fire and Israeli strikes on Gaza, and has offered to help broker a cease-fire amid fears that the violence could undermine recently revived peace talks. However, his scant influence over the parties assures little progress. A completely failed mission is also possible but that would not be Abbas’ fault. There would be no cross-border barrages had Israel genuinely withdrawn from Gaza in 2005, and the attacks will only continue because of Israel’s near-hermetic blockade of the territory.

—Arab News