| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
major.tom
Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Location: BC, Canada
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:30 am Post subject: "Bush's Mid-East legacy" |
 |
|
|
|
... through the eyes of their client state.
source
| Quote: | Bush's Mid-East legacy
By Jonathan Marcus
BBC diplomatic correspondent
US President George Bush's war to eliminate Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq is a graphic example of the law of unintended consequences.
President Bush turned to the Mid-East 'late in the day'
Its outcome, quite apart from the chaos in Iraq itself, has been a fundamental shift in the geo-strategic balance in the Middle East.
Iran is resurgent. Iran's allies like Hezbollah and Hamas are the main beneficiaries of their patron's ascent. And pro-western Sunni Arab regimes are worried.
That at least is the conventional wisdom.
So with the end now in sight for the Bush administration, it seemed like a useful exercise to see how leading Israeli experts view Mr Bush's legacy in the region.
Perhaps surprisingly, they seemed far less pessimistic than many of their European and American counterparts.
Ehud Yaari, one of Israel's most respected regional commentators, sees a significant underlying shift for the better.
"I think what we have now in the Middle East is a tectonic movement of the basic plates of the region, moving quietly towards each other," he said.
And running through a catalogue of current problems, Mr Yaari chose to accentuate the positive.
"I see the possibility of some sort of a bargain - probably a partial bargain - between the major powers and Iran. We have already seen a deal over Lebanon between the Iranians, the Syrians, the Saudis and the West.
"I believe that we are going to see in the next few months a reconciliation of sorts between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.
"I think that the trend in the region is towards some sort of new arrangements between the adversaries, not towards a confrontation," he concluded.
Increased stability
This positive view was endorsed by Shlomo Avineri, professor of political science at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and a former director general of Israel's foreign ministry under the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
"Leaving Iran aside, the Middle East today is much more stable than it was when Mr Bush came into power," he said.
Iraq now is an "internal situation" rather than a regional threat
Like many Israelis, he sees the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime as being of fundamental importance.
"Saddam Hussein's regime went to war with practically all its neighbours: with Kuwait; with Iran; it sent missiles against Saudi Arabia; and against Israel - this danger does not exist any more.
"I know this sounds paradoxical, because everyone is concerned about the Iraqi situation, but this, today, is an internal situation.
"Yes, it is a humanitarian disaster; it's a political disaster; but in terms of its strategic threat to the Middle East, it is much less today than it was before," Mr Avineri said.
But what of Iran and its nuclear programme?
Even here, Mr Yaari believes there are some grounds for optimism.
"I think the possibility of a bargain, a freeze-for-a-freeze deal with the Iranians, [where Iran halts its uranium enrichment programme and UN economic sanctions are suspended] is not against the interests of Israel and I believe that in this respect the Israelis will be extremely co-operative, even if some of the statements that some of our politicians will make in public will carry a different message," Mr Yaari said.
In Lebanon too, Mr Yaari thinks that there are some grounds for optimism.
He believes, for example, that Hezbollah's behaviour may be moderated by its stronger role in government: "We may have a situation in Lebanon in which Hezbollah is more restricted and restrained because they have a formula which is so comfortable for them."
Palestinian problem
On the Palestinian front, it is hard to see much progress during the Bush years.
The Palestinian leadership is split between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. And the Bush administration only turned to the Palestinian track relatively late in its term.
Mr Yaari believes, in due course, there will be a reconciliation of sorts between the two wings of the Palestinian movement.
"This will amount to Hamas effectively relinquishing its control over the government in the Gaza Strip; that's not a bad development from an Israeli point of view."
However he stressed that while ceding the governing role, "Hamas will retain its supremacy in the Gaza Strip".
Prof Avineri accepts Israel's policies towards the Palestinians have not been all they might be.
But he insists that they themselves cannot be absolved from part of the blame for their own misfortunes.
"One of the major Palestinian failures, beyond American policies and Israeli policies which can always be criticised, is the fact that they have not been able - after having an election - to set up a government based upon some sort of representative consensus."
He remains "very pessimistic about the two wings of the Palestinian nation creating a consensual, meaningful body politic which is crucial for successful negotiation with Israel".
Art of the possible
So what then of the next US administration? Which pieces of the Middle East puzzle should it pick up and with what purpose?
"Learn from the mistakes of previous presidents," Prof Avineri urges.
"All American presidents since the 1960s have tried to reach peace in the Middle East and some of them came up with very dramatic programmes or meetings or conferences - all of them have failed unless there has been a local will and capability."
The implication clearly is that this local will and capability is presently absent.
Mr Yaari is more explicit: "Because a final-status peace treaty between Israeli and the Palestinians is impossible - they cannot agree on the terms - one has to seek a different formula, probably something less than peace, something that I would call an armistice regime. For this I believe we will have many of the players subscribing."
Prof Avineri too stresses that the next US president must practice the art of the possible.
Apologising for the political science jargon, he says the Americans must move from "the illusion of conflict resolution to a realistic assessment of the possibilities of conflict management; avoiding violence, mitigating tensions; and creating confidence-building steps on both sides".
"Nobody should enter the Oval Office thinking that between now and Christmas, or between now and Easter, you can solve something that has been bedevilling this area for almost 100 years," he adds.
In the final analysis I am not sure if this is pessimistic or optimistic.
Israeli conservatives want to delay any final agreement with the Palestinians, to hold onto the West Bank and the settlement infrastructure there.
But here are two professional analysts arguing the conditions are just not right for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
The danger though, as Ehud Yaari put it to me, is that if some progress cannot be made on the Israel-Palestinian track, then the whole idea of a two-state solution may become more elusive. |
Hard to imagine; an upbeat review from the client state that receives more "aid" (aka tanks and fighter jets) from the U.S. than the rest of the world combined.
I pity those who are legally obligated to pay for this drivel that tries to pass itself off as journalism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ash
Joined: 22 May 2007
Location: Al-Ard
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Quote: | | US President George Bush's war to eliminate Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq is a graphic example of the law of unintended consequences |
"unintended consequences"? Who do you think we are, Mr Marcus! Unintended consequences imply 2 things
o Dubiya knew there was WMD
o Saddam was a friend of OBL et al
Both of which were & are lies. Later, slowly but surely these people shifted their arguments towards 'freedom for the people', 'democracy', etc.
In 1st half of the last century people used to the 'civilise' whenever they used to attack another country. Now they use "freedom".
Come to think of it, yesterday I was thinking whether there is any research done on only on the official texts from govts- i.e., comparison between language between old and new.... I bet there are lots of similarities |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Don't feel sorry for us major - along with poorly written biased bullshit which seeks to denegrate one entire group of people we also get Eastenders. hmmm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
this article has caused quite a bit of emailing between medialens and the bbc, theres a whole load of mails between them and johnathon marcus, and this finally from helen boaden ( shes director of bbc news ) where she says it was all about regime change - ie breaking international law ... nothing new here to most, but would you get that impression from the bbc's overall coverage?
| Quote: | From: David Cromwell
To: Jonathan Marcus
Cc: Steve Herrmann; zzHelen Boaden Complaints; John Humphrys-INTERNET
Subject: Rewriting history with "Bush's war to eliminate Saddam
Hussein's regime in Iraq ..."
Dear Jonathan Marcus,
I hope you're doing well. Your recent online article begins:
"US President George Bush's war to eliminate Saddam Hussein's regime in
Iraq ..."
(BBC online, 'Bush's Mid-East legacy', July 15, 2008;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7507880.stm)
When British and American forces invaded Iraq, the declared aim was to
disarm an alleged "serious and current threat" to the West from Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction. This was the supposed "single question"
posed by President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell and others.
The parliamentary motion that Prime Minister Tony Blair argued for in
the House of Commons on 18 March 2003, just before the invasion, was to
support the decision of Her Majesty's Government "that the United
Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." There was no question of regime
change as the reason for war.
Why have you dropped the issue of WMD as the declared reason for "Bush's
war"? What justifies this BBC rewriting of history?
I look forward to hearing from you, please.
Best wishes
David Cromwell
---
Dear Mr Cromwell,
Thanks for your email. There have been many doubts and concerns
expressed over the WMD claims given as one of the main reasons for
invading Iraq. It has become clear since 2003, that some of those claims
lacked evidence. Most importantly, the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence has spent years investigating and has found little to
support some of the justifications for war. In 2006 - as the BBC
reported: "The Senate report was scathing of the intelligence
community's product concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
"Post-war findings", it reads, "do not support the 2002 National
Intelligence Estimate judgement that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear
weapons program."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5329350.stm
As recently as this June, the committee released another report
emphasising its initial findings.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0540864220080605
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/world/middleeast/06intel.html
It's not a case of the BBC "rewriting history". But when new information
emerges we should take it into account rather to continue reporting
something that appears, at the least, not to be completely true.
However, given all that, Jonathan Marcus's piece was not about the
causes of the war but its consequences. It can certainly be argued that
whichever criteria you apply as the justification for the war, its goal
was "to eliminate Saddam Hussein's regime" in Iraq. George Bush himself
said this in a news conference in the days before the invasion: "...if
we go to war, we will disarm Iraq. And if we go to war, there will be a
regime change." And former ambassador Sir Christopher Meyer recounts
how President Bush raised the removal of Saddam with Tony Blair as early
as September 2001.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/apr/04/iraq.iraq
This would also appear to be supported by Cabinet Office papers leaked
in 2005, suggesting that it was necessary to "create the conditions" to
legitimise any invasion:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article532480.ece
Yours sincerely
pp Helen Boaden
Director, BBC News |
it seems to me that the bbc has made the case for prosecuting blair for waging aggressive war!
| major.tom wrote: | | I pity those who are legally obligated to pay for this drivel that tries to pass itself off as journalism. |
this week i've been thinking if its worth getting a new tv license, they're £140 a year - for the bbc! this email on top of all the others from them since i've been checking medialens and really checking what they're doing has convinced me that i can't pay for them anymore, i'm not giving a £140 to the likes of marcus and boaden to get distorted news and celebrity's prancing about on ice
i wonder if i'll miss the tv ... although i guess all the good stuff gets put on the internet anyway  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
major.tom
Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Location: BC, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Nice find, Luke. I'm encouraged to see I wasn't the only one who thought this was devoid of basic principles of journalism.
| luke wrote: | this week i've been thinking if its worth getting a new tv license, they're £140 a year - for the bbc! this email on top of all the others from them since i've been checking medialens and really checking what they're doing has convinced me that i can't pay for them anymore, i'm not giving a £140 to the likes of marcus and boaden to get distorted news and celebrity's prancing about on ice
i wonder if i'll miss the tv ... although i guess all the good stuff gets put on the internet anyway |
If you don't pay, are they able to cut you off or do you continue to receive the signal? I guess I'm asking if BBC is like a cable channel.
While I would (almost) never encourage someone else to break the law, I would find it difficult to cough up a mandatory license fee for these spin-doctors. I wonder what they would do if someone wrote them a prorated cheque for a calculated amount based on the percentage of valuable content to absolute drivel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
This article just came up on a google alert - and pretty timely it is...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| major.tom wrote: | | If you don't pay, are they able to cut you off or do you continue to receive the signal? I guess I'm asking if BBC is like a cable channel. |
no they can't cut me off ... so i guess technically i could still watch stuff ...  it says in the letter that they 'will schedule a visit to confirm the situation' - so i guess they'll let me know when they're coming and if i wanted to keep using it i could l just unplug the aerial! i wonder if they do random checks?
| major.tom wrote: | | I wonder what they would do if someone wrote them a prorated cheque for a calculated amount based on the percentage of valuable content to absolute drivel. |
i watch very little on the bbc, or tv generally - on the bbc i watch question time, but only really to see whos on and how limited the debate is ( did you see last weeks? they was on about iran, not one single person mentioned the nie or iaea reports, no one mentioned the npt ) ... the only other program i can think of from the bbc i like is ideal, and i think thats finished - but i can get that online anyway the rest of the channels ... except big brother and shameless, i can't think of anything that i really watch
and like the article faceless posted and i said earlier, you can get most stuff online anyway
i've emailed my complaint to the bbc anyway, doubt i'll get a reply - they've never responded to any of my complaints |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Couchtripper - 2005-2015
|
