reed writes

Ehud Olmert – a centrist – and former Mayor of Jerusalem is the 12th Prime Minister of Israel and he is under siege.

He launched the so-called "Hezbollah War’ in 2006, a conflict that left more than a thousand people dead. With no planning, Olmert ordered his forces to attack Hezbollah strongholds in neighboring Lebanon. At the time of the initial attacks, critics complained that Olmert was engaging in "idiotic overkill".

Now a report has been published that says that effort was a failure.

What has now been dubbed "Olmert’s War" has been called "a serious failure".

"This war was a big and serious failure," retired judge Eliyahu Winograd said as he read out his government-appointed commission’s final report, adding that there was a "great deal of failure at senior political and military levels."

"Entering into the war without an exit strategy was a grave failure," he said.

"The ground operation did not achieve its objectives," he said, referring to a massive ground offensive launched in the dying days of the war, when the United Nations was brokering a ceasefire agreement.

The report comes nine months after an interim inquiry found Olmert and other political and military leaders responsible for "severe failures" after launching the war against Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia in July 2006.

In typical right-wing fashion, Olmert intensified the "war" just before a U.N.- brokered ceasefire was to take effect. Judge Winograd found that the decision to launch the war was a "grave mistake".

An opinion poll published by privately-owned Channel 10 television on Tuesday had found that 58 percent of Israelis wanted Olmert to step down if the commission’s criticism of his conduct of the war was "very severe," against 23 percent who said he should stay on whatever the findings.

Olmert is also embroiled in a series of corruption scandals since officially assuming his post in May 2006 after his predecessor Ariel Sharon fell into a coma.

Israel in Crisis. The Palestinians in Crisis. The World Apathetic.

Why the Palestinians Fight

I have always felt an affinity for liberal-minded Israeli’s.

They seem to share my own view of what’s right and wrong. No scintilla of Anti-Semitism infects my brain and although I grew up in a racist family, I somehow managed to avoid a racist outlook. In fact as a Canadian and as a  human being I deplore the fact that my country engaged in overt racist behaviour by denying Jews entry to Canada during the most traumatic time of their long history of persecution. So why am I tarred with the brush of anti-Jewish sentiment? It may be that many Israeli’s and their most ardent supporters in Canada and the United States are in denial. I guess one of my professional disappointments is that CBC.ca has in some way agreed with my critics.

So it is with some sense of satisfaction that periodically I find that many Jews and Israeli’s agree with my point of view on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The best explanation as to why the Palestinians fight against Israel can be found in the English translation of a book originally published in Israel in Hebrew. The book – written by Akiva Eldar and Edith Zertal – is called "Lords of the Land: The War for Israel’s Settlements in the Occupied Territories 1967 to 2007" It was a best-seller in Israel and sparked a long-overdue debate about Israel’s moral and ethical behaviour as an occupier. It raises questions of right and wrong and goes to the very heart of what the Israeli authorities have been doing to the Palestinians over these past 40 years. It puts forth in excruciating detail, the brutality of the occupiers, the terrorist behaviour of Jewish settlers and the immorality of collective punishment. And it does so in terms that many Jews can understand and appreciate from the experience of their own bitter history.

The book points out that prior to 1967, a kind of "detente" situation existed between Palestinians and Israelis. But it also points out that when Israel invaded the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 and occupied the land, took control of Palestinian daily life and allowed settlers to construct illegal towns, everything changed.

The occupation of the West Bank, which religious Zionists call Judaea and Samaria marked the beginning of a decline in official Israeli moral conduct. The Arabs were often treated as less than human by Israeli soldiers and when Palestinians protested the construction of illegal settlements on their land, religious Jews created terrorist groups, which attacked Palestinians with guns and firebombs.

According to the book, Israeli governments and courts looked the other way when zealous settlers seized Palestinian-owned land to build towns and outposts in violation of international law. (And as we know, the international community, which allowed the division of Palestine in the first place, ignored what was happening). It was all reminiscent of Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s philosophy of "benign neglect" toward African Americans…but in this case, on a global scale.

Gradually, the Zionist settlers – with protection from the Israeli armed forces – established what the Americans and others now call "facts on the ground"…that is to say the settlements…which the U.S. and others now consider to be permanent, even though – under international law, they are illegal. The Palestinians, who were controlled and closely watched were helpless to prevent this.

The book points out that the settlers, along with their enablers in government, justified their actions by claiming that they were simply fulfilling God’s will by taking back what God had always intended them to have.

The Palestinians, of course disagreed. They naively expected the international community to step in and stop the Israeli encroachment on their land and on their rights. And while it’s true that the United Nations passed several resolutions admonishing Israel to stop the illegal confiscation of land, successive Israeli governments simply thumbed their noses.

Eventually, the Palestinians took matters into their own hands and began to resist. They protested against the occupation and confiscation of their land…often in violent ways. The Israeli response was to tighten the occupation. The settler response was to form terrorist groups to put uppity Palestinians firmly in their place.

Inevitably the violence increased and – according to the Israeli authors of this very important book – in 2001 an Israeli group called "The Committee for the Defense of Roads", claimed responsibility for several drive-by shootings. One of those killed a six-month old baby and her family. The Israeli settler group touted this as a victory.

The book documents scores of examples of Jewish terror unleashed against Palestinians and demolishes the popular concept of what "terrorism" is all about.

The books shows quite clearly that there is a link…an inextricable link…between injustice and terrorist activity. For example, it points out that there is a direct connection between the brutality of the occupation and the rise of Palestinian suicide bombings. Israeli counter terrorist activity has created more terror not less and has promoted more resistance not less.

In the process of all this, the two authors…both respected Israeli intellectuals…suggest that the very heart and soul of Israel have been badly damaged by the nation’s behaviour. The occupation and the violence have wounded the psyche of the Jewish state and damaged its own image of itself and its image in the world.

"The prolonged military occupation and the Jewish settlements that are perpetuating it have toppled Israeli governments," write the authors, "and have brought Israel’s democracy and its political culture to the brink of an abyss."

My own view is that the world’s callous indifference to the Palestinian plight over the 60 years since we divided Palestine, has brought about an exponential increase in the number of angry Muslims around the world.

The occupation has fueled hatred in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, in Lebanon, as well as in many other countries. It has frustrated the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees and it has caused deep anger amongst young Arabs. It has inspired the formation of terror groups that otherwise may never have existed. It may even have been an indirect cause of the events of 9/11.

In other writings, I have pointed out that it was U.S. President Harry Truman who said way back in March of 1948, that the departure of British forces from Palestine, and the temporary absence of any lawful authority there, would lead to violence and bloodshed. Truman pointed out in no uncertain terms that the situation in Palestine would lead to a Middle Eastern war that would affect the entire world, including the United States of America.

However, let me make one thing clear, I do not hold Israelis themselves or Palestinians responsible.

The roots of responsibility for international terror can be found not in Israeli actions or in Palestinian re-actions, but in the international community, which nurtured and developed it – by ignorance, apathy and a deep sense of guilt.

If you care about this, you can read more here.

Canadian media think that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is moving into election mode now.

That’s a distinct possibility, judging by the tenor of a speech he gave to Conservative party stalwarts, this past Friday, framed by a massive Canadian flag. The occasion was the second anniversary of the minority government’s unexpected takeover.

He waxes jingoistic on Afghanistan, apparently in the belief that The Manley Report will resonate with Canadians in a positive way.

"Friends, let me just say this: on a matter of national and global security like this, we will never make a decision based on polls. We will make our decision based on what is right."

You see…he’s taking the "high road".

As yet there is no complete text available for the speech…not even on the Conservative website. There is only what the media have reported. According to The Calgary Herald…

"Harper sprinkled his speech with references to his government’s ability to manage the economy.

His emphasis was on the economy – a subject he clearly thinks has more appeal to voters than Afghanistan. The Toronto Star quotes him as saying, "…we cannot be complacent about the continued growth of our economy. Recent volatility in financial markets, mostly emanating from the United States, may be with us for some time to come. Good jobs are threatened in some of our traditional industries. And cost pressures in some parts of the country are straining the budgets of working families. We’re aware of these challenges,"

As for Afghanistan, Harper appealed to the "patriots" in the country, virtually characterizing the Manley report as an endorsement of his own views.

Here’s what the Globe and Mail said,

"After a week in which Afghanistan dominated news headlines, the prime minister alluded only generally to the mission. He did not address the mushrooming detainee controversy or the substance of a recent blue-ribbon panel’s report on how to proceed. While praising the Manley report on Afghanistan, Mr. Harper gave no indication how he’ll respond to its recommendations".

"The Manley report is a good report — strong, balanced and realistic," he said. "I urge you all to read it."

But It’s The Economy, which is obviously the issue on which he intends to wage the forthcoming campaign.

The Globe again…

"His central message was that with the economy fading, it would be disastrous if Canadians elected a Liberal government in an election that could happen any time between now and late 2009.

He attacked Liberals for opposing his recent GST cut and cast his foes as careless spenders.

"Their reckless spending would — in one budget — push the country back into deficit, adding to the federal debt and putting upward pressure on interest rates," he said.

"They never saw a tax they didn’t like. Never saw a tax they wouldn’t hike."

(the audience reportedly chuckled)

My own view is that Harper will indeed continue to hammer the economy as the central issue; he will continue to single out the Liberal party as his main political enemy and he will continue to ignore pressing social issues.

Both the Liberals and the NDP will be treading a fine line.

If they attack the Manley report too vigorously, they risk alienating a great many voters who instinctively support the Canadian Armed Forces, regardless of the inherent "merits" of the Afghan "mission".

And here’s the crux of that issue…many Canadians could just conceivably come to view Harper as an embattled leader attempting to hold together a U.N./NATO-sponsored humanitarian mission. (The honour of our country and our Armed Forces is at stake). Those who wish to defeat Harper will have to keep that fact in mind.

The central problem for the opposition is this: the majority of Canadians have no idea what Afghanistan is all about. The majority don’t care much about torturing General Hillier’s "scumbags".

My guess is that Harper doesn’t know much about Afghanistan either. It’s a good bet also that he doesn’t care much about the torture issue. I believe that my view is underscored by the  fact that the Manley Report ignored the torture business altogether.

Manley’s main recommendation is that we should stay in Afghanistan only if NATO ponies up another thousand soldiers. (If we are forced to stand down in Afghanistan it will be NATO’s fault). A thousand more soldiers from Europe, untrained and unprepared for the style of conflict in Afghanistan is an almost laughable idea. It would be entirely laughable if it were not so naive and so tragically off the mark.

A third party intervention in a civil war is always a losing proposition, period. Although…it’s possible…that an additional 40-50 thousand troops and a billion dollars in aid might accomplish what the U.S. and NATO say they want…but that’s pie in the sky.

As for the economy…Afghanistan is already testing our capacity to pay the final bill. Manley admitted the present strategy is deficient…although he made little mention of the real cost.

Continuing on the present warpath will suck us into a danger zone of out-of-control military spending. That in turn could lead us to squander our existing surplus and drive us into assuming an increased debt, while Canadians suffer from underfunded education, healthcare and job development.

So in a very real sense, it comes down to a choice between funding a far off conflict in a civil war situation…or paying attention to the needs of Canadians and providing leadership to NATO for a rational change of strategy in Afghanistan. How to get that across is the challenge, which faces the opposition parties.

Intelligent Canadians have become very distrustful of politicians. They have become distrustful of government in general. Somehow our political parties need to restore the public trust in the process…restore the public’s belief that government knows what it’s doing…and give people some hope that decisions will be made in the public interest.

So whenever the election is called and it will likely be sooner rather than later…the winners will be the best spinners…the Tories, wrapped in the flag and preaching fear, will spin a strong, united Canada – defending our values…the NDP will push for more emphasis on social programmes…and the Liberals and the Greens will be caught somewhere in the middle with the Bloc Quebecois.

It won’t be a pretty sight.

The latest outrage in Afghanistan took place in the early morning darkness of Thursday. It illustrates precisely – once again – why western countries are losing ground. This time it happened a few kilometres south of the capital city,  Kabul.

Frightened and trigger happy, badly led, ill-equipped, poorly- trained for what they are expected to do, American soldiers killed several of the Afghan policemen our tax dollars had recently helped to train.

Zemarai Bashary, a spokesman for the Ministry of the Interior in Kabul, confirmed the shooting and called it a “misunderstanding".

The American soldiers who did the killing were not part of NATO.

(Eight people were detained by American soldiers, but two were from the provincial Education Department).

I wonder if Mr. Manley will send someone to interview the parents, wives and children of those dead Afghan policemen.

Manley was right about one thing though…there’s no strategy there. Read more here.

Hot on the heels of the so-called Manley Report handed to Harper on the Canadian "mission" in Afghanistan….

…another Canadian soldier has been killed and two others wounded. It’s difficult to say whether or not the Manley recommendations – had they been made 2, 3, or even 4 years ago – would have prevented this latest death.

Manley’s report is hardly original. Much of it is material which he cribbed from his own earlier writings on the subject, although the cribbing was not acknowledged or footnoted.

Manley’s prime recommendation is the addition of 1000 troops to assist the Canadian Forces in the southern part of Afghanistan. It’s a recognition and acknowledgement that this entire effort was flawed from the start…just as the American invasion of Iraq was flawed from the start.

It’s hard for any detached observer to figure out just exactly what this panel did in order to produce a report that says very little and suggests mainly that a few hundred more soldiers will solve the problem.

One wonders if any of the Manley crowd even visited Afghanistan and if they did…one wonders who they spoke with and what, if anything they learned.

Did they, for example analyze the evolving Taliban strategy of targetting foreign civilians?

Did they examine the circumstances around the attack on the Serena hotel in Kabul, in which 8 people were killed?

Did they speak to any non-governmental aid representatives, who are increasingly frightened of venturing out even in the capital city?

Did they hear testimony from the many observers on the ground who see the government of Hamid Karzai becoming increasingly frayed and corrupt?

We know for certain that none of them spoke with the head of Canada’s aid programme. When she offered to brief the panel they turned her down.

And we know that they didn’t speak with Jean MacKenzie, the country director of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting. MacKenzie has spent 3 years working in Afghanistan and here’s what MacKenzie says:

"those of us who have covered the steady decline of hope in Afghanistan over the past three years know where the relative strength lies.

Not with the central government, whose head, Hamid Karzai, has largely lost the respect of his people with his increasingly bizarre behavior: weeping at the plight of children in Kandahar, begging the Taliban to send him their address, confessing that he is powerless to control the warlords, auctioning off his silken robe to feed widows and orphans.

Not with the foreign troops, who have been unable to provide security or usher in the development that Afghanistan so desperately needs. Civilian casualties, often hushed up or denied, have made NATO a curse in some parts of the country.

Not with the international assistance community, with its misguided counter-narcotics policies, high-priced consultants and wasteful practices. Out of the billions that have supposedly come into the country, only a trickle has been used to good effect.

The Taliban, under whose brutal regime Afghanistan became an international pariah, are steadily regaining ground. Even those who deplore their harsh rules and capricious behavior welcome the illusion of security they bring in their wake".

Had the Manley panel spoken with the right people – the ones who know the situation intimately and have seen it develop over the years, their report may have been quite different.

It would have recommended one of the two following options for Canada and other western forces in Afghanistan:

1. Pull out of combat now, secure the capital city and focus on training Afghan police and army recruits…or

2. Recommend that NATO supply a minimum of 50,000 well-trained soldiers and  an aid budget of at least a billion dollars, to secure the country as a whole.

The piecemeal approach that has been taken over the past 6 years or so, and that the Manley panel has recommended be continued, is an insult to our soldiers whose lives are on the line every day.