Skip to content

Forget the headlines Iraqi freedom deferred

  • by

Forget the Headlines: Iraqi Freedom Deferred
 

  us army iraq square
Antiwar activists must not forget that 130,000 US soldiers remain in the country.
 

By Ramzy Baroud

As US combat troops redeployed to the outskirts of Iraqi cities on June 30, well-staged celebrations commenced. The pro-US Iraqi government declared “independence day” as police vehicles roamed the streets of war-weary Iraq in an unpersuasive show of national rejoicing. US mainstream media joined the chorus, as if commemorating the end of an era.

Meanwhile, top US administration and army officials cautioned Iraqis of their own recklessness. “Biden Warns Iraq About Reverting to Sectarian Violence,” read a New York Times headline. “What will it take to make a good exit from Iraq?” inquired a Kansas City Star analysis. But missing from news headlines and commentary was any indication of direct US responsibility for the genocide that has befallen Iraq.

How can one claim that US ambitions in Iraq have altered if the ongoing legacy in Iraq is being perceived as a strategic mistake, rather than a moral one?

One thing remains the same, for sure: and that is the arrogance that has long permeated US relations with Iraq. “The president and I appreciate that Iraq has traveled a great distance over the past year, but there is a hard road ahead if Iraq is going to find lasting peace and stability,” said Vice President Biden during a visit to Baghdad on July 3rd. Biden’s remarks were saturated with the same hubris that defined the former administration’s attitude towards Iraq for years: ‘we did our share, that of liberating you, and now its your turn to take charge of your own security’, type of rhetoric. “It’s not over yet,” Biden said. Ironically, he is right, since that could only mean the complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, the end of foreign meddling in the country’s affairs, and the removal of corrupt politicians that have destroyed the country’s national identity in favour of sectarian camps endlessly fighting for dominance and privilege. Indeed, it’s anything 
but over.

It’s true that the majority of Americans now accept the once rebuked claim that the Iraq war was predicated on a lie, and readily blame former President Bush for drawing the country into a costly war that should have never happened. President Obama’s arrival has seemingly ushered in a new discourse of honesty and national introspection.

Read More »Forget the headlines Iraqi freedom deferred

Offering Isarael new opportunities for obstruction

  • by

Offering Israel new opportunities for obstruction
Hasan Abu Nimah

Israel has never been short of pretexts for obstructing progress towards a Middle East peace settlement. But recent moves to push Arab and Muslim states to normalize ties with Israel as a reward for agreeing to freeze settlement construction will likely provide Israel with more opportunities for obstruction rather than incentives for cooperation.

The Arab Peace Initiative (API), approved by the 2002 Beirut Arab summit, offered Israel full peace and normal ties with all 22 members of the Arab League, if only Israel ended its occupation of the Arab land it seized in 1967. This offer already implicated Arab states that were never directly linked to the conflict. At a later stage, the API was expanded to include all 56 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

Israel could now insist that the 56 OIC members, as well as every Arab state, must first commit to specific normalization steps, and perhaps even recognition, before it makes any substantive moves itself.

Any progress towards a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict may therefore have to wait until Benin, Somalia, the Maldives, Brunei, Afghanistan, Iran, or Suriname, for example, decide if they were willing to meet Israeli conditions.

After concluding peace treaties with Egypt in 1979, and Jordan in 1994, Israel needs to end its remaining conflict with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians. Neither Bangladesh nor Burkina Faso need to be drawn in.

So why should the scope of a conflict, initially confined to few countries, be expanded to involve remote states on several continents? Doesn’t this provide validation to Israel’s false claims that the conflict stems not from Israeli usurpation of specific land and rights, but from the failure of Muslims — due to inherent anti-Semitism — to accept a "Jewish state"?

Read More »Offering Isarael new opportunities for obstruction

Meshaal delivers speech on Obamas position on peace process

  • by

Meshaal delivers speech on Obama’s position on peace process
By Khalid Meshaal,

On June 25, Khalid Meshaal, head of the Hamas Political Bureau gave a televised speech in Damascus and said, in part:

“… The Obama administration brought a change in rhetoric, but the question is what brought about this change. Even just the change on the level of the language, who effected this change? Was it for the sake of our beautiful eyes or for some defect? What brought this change about is that uncompromising perseverance of the living peoples of the region, when they resisted in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and rejected the occupiers and their oppression and orders. So, they thwarted the policy of the previous administration and its old and neoconservatives.

“This perseverance transformed that administration’s adventures consisting of hegemony and pre-emptive wars into an utter failure, drowning them in the swamps of the region and creating successive crises which then prompted the American voter to go for the option of change to protect his own interests, not for the sake of our interests. Those who accepted the policy of the former administration, those who went along with it and brought tidings of it are not the ones who made the change or contributed towards it. Had the peoples of the region listened to them, the policy of Bush and his neoconservatives would have succeeded. The conditions in our region would have been in an unimaginably bad state.

“We sense a change in the American tone and rhetoric towards the region and the Islamic world, as was evident from President Obama’s speech in Cairo. We welcome this with great courage. We evaluate any change in an objective manner. However, we are not entranced by speeches. Speeches do not win us over. The effect of rhetoric is temporary. We are looking for change in the policies on the ground. This is the yardstick of our judgment of stances and changes. What is required of the leaders of the superpowers and more important countries is firm actions, decisive stances, and serious initiatives that restore rights to their owners and end illegitimate occupation. What is required is not mere speeches that reveal intentions and promises.

 

Read More »Meshaal delivers speech on Obamas position on peace process