..................................................
President Bush and Condoleezza Rice have an opportunity to "shock the market" and deliver on Palestine.
..................................................

"Deliver on Palestine" has about as much meaning as Bush and the Republicans use of "protect America." It carries the same infinite connotation of destruction while at the same time pretending to be benevolent.

Let's see. There are problems in Pakistan. And according to Steve Clemons, those problems are all the fault of Israel and the Israelis. It has nothing to do with a bullshit based invasion of the second most oil rich nation in the world. It has nothing to do with the arming of thugs and their training in murderous thug behavior by America in Afghanistan, and Pakistan by extension, as proxy fighters in a hot spot in the "cold war." It has nothing to do with using the same sort of pretexts to prepare for an attack on another Middle East Muslim oil rich nation. It's Israel! That's the core of the problem in America and the world today.

If only we stopped blindly defending Israel everything in the Middle East .. no THE WORLD! would be fine and hunky dory.

You see, the guy that's pulling all the strings, the guy that steps on, crushes and devours anyone that dares temper his intentions and efforts, Dick Cheney, is the one who's ultimately doing everything he does .. for Israel. Somehow I think Dick Cheney has "other priorities," and it didn't take his wearing hiking boots and a football stadium jacket with "CHENEY" on the back (How did the Secret Service allow that without a backhand swipe from Cheney? Would a bullseye have been much less acceptable?) at a world dignitary attended Auschwitz memorial to convince me of that fact.

"Israel" is the problem has about as much truth and relevance to the current situation in the Middle East as abortion has as a concern for people that claim great deference to the "sanctity of life."

When people like Steve Clemons can actually demonstrate that Israel and Israelis have true partners for a peaceful future then I might accept code phrases like "deliver on Palestine." But without that I can't help but think that "deliver on Palestine" is really a euphemism for Sudanizing Israelis and not giving a shit. Note that the sacred "right of return" is never allowed to apply to Jews that lived outside of the "Green Zone." No. The dog whistle phrase for the destruction of the state of Israel and whatever that entails for the Israeli people has only claims on the empowerment of Arabs. Jews have no rights to live in peace anywhere in the Middle East. That's Steve Clemons' deliverance.

I'm reminded of the first Iraq war, the "Gulf War." It was in that war for the removal of Iraqi troops from that land of democracy, Kuwait (which completely incidentally has lot's of oil) that Israel had to endure the killing of its people by missiles fired from Iraq while American troops were kept from the danger of front line combat as softening up aerial ops were being conducted. Israel could not be allowed to defend itself and its people because that would have greatly offended the sensibilities of the sacred Saudi people (who also completely incidentally control the largest reserves of oil in the world). At the same time more than a hundred thousand Palestinians were marching in Jordan chanting "Use the gas Saddam!"

Yes, this is all being done for Israel. We need Steve Clemons' deliverance.

If America wants to help stabilize Pakistan, then President Bush and Condoleezza Rice have an opportunity to "shock the market" and deliver on Palestine.

Steve, this is probably going to come across as an insult, but I don't mean it that way.

But don't you -- and many, many others -- ever get tired of writing about things that President Bush "should" do, when everyone knows he (and everyone else in his administration) will never, ever do these things?

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

I recently read Charlie Wilson's War and am curious as to what influence his activities in Pakistan and Afghanistan had or are still having in the region.

My knowledge of Pakistan's history is embarrassingly short.

What a great accomplishment of our beloved President Bush! While he screams about the nearly nonexistent threat from Iran, his great buddy the Dictator of Pakistan has allowed his country, which actually does have nuclear weapons, to fall into such chaos that those weapons are now in real danger of falling into the hands of real Islamic extremists.

Way to go, George.

Re: If America wants to help stabilize Pakistan, then President Bush and Condoleezza Rice have an opportunity to "shock the market" and deliver on Palestine.

I'm not sure I see a connection between Pakistan and Palestine. They're are rather far apart from one another and unlike the Arab states in the Middle East, there's no ethnic affinity between the two peoples, nor do the Pakistanis have the old humiliation of multiple defeats by Israel burning in their memory. And unlike Iran Pakistan has no ambitions to become a regional power in the Middle East. Pakistan's concerns lie closer to home with its old enemy, India.

Amos: Let's see. There are problems in Pakistan. And according to Steve Clemons, those problems are all the fault of Israel and the Israelis. . . .It's Israel! That's the core of the problem in America and the world today.

Actually, Zogby agrees with Steve Clemons.

MARTIN: Mr. Zogby, let me start with you and the poll numbers, since polling is your business. The three countries with the lowest favorability rating in this recent Pew poll were Turkey and Pakistan and Jordan. What is the catalyst? Is it all about the Iraq war?

Mr. ZOGBY: It is about the Iraq war, but there's a longer and deeper history and it goes back to Israel-Palestine and includes other U.S. behaviors in the region, including last summer's Lebanon war, which for the Arabs in particular, and the Pakistanis, interestingly enough, took a huge toll.
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=11746244

Thanks Steve, for reminding us that so many of the problems that we see in the ME are all connected, and can only be solved by a major change in direction. I want to believe that Annapolis will make a difference, but have little hope that the Bush administration will do much to foster anything beyond yet another photo-op for peace. It's an opportunity to signal to the Muslim world that the U.S. finally really will act as an honest broker, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'm amazed to find myself saying this, but given the turmoil and Islamic extremist sentiment that our foolhardy actions in the ME have only exacerbated, did Musharraf really have any choice?

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

I have been shocked, in the *past, to learn that Israel is in violation of a Security Council Resolution (242) just like, (heavens!) Saddam was when Bush the Younger got his ass all up on his shoulder about it.

*Disclaimer:Namedropping alert:I sat next to Shashi Tharoor between San Fran and New York on his first flight from East Asia to the UN headquarters when he got promoted to work for the high commr. on refugees, and he gave me a crash course on 242 till we got over St. Louis and he begged me to let him get some sleep. (I, of course, was on speed, it being the red-eye...)

Iran is looking more and more like a strategic asset these days.

it might spark the beginning of a mutually reinforcing cycle of virtuous events in the region

I look forward to presenting a more scholarly and thoughtful deconstruction of Steve's piece, but right now I have been cursed by the following image from some otherwise forgotten and forgettable movie:

The protagonist, a young child, is confronting for the first time a mammalian death. (let's call it a puppy). The mammal in question has been dead for an indeterminate time, but the child (who is at once puzzled, frightened, and vulnerable) speaks to the mammal in tones manifesting an abiding hope that the cooling corpse will open its eyes.

We experience the poignant but futile wish that we could protect the child from this coming disillusionment, and we can only watch in horror as the realization sets in over time.

(sorry, Steve.)

Boy, that's what I used to say about Saddam...Oh, well, since we blew him off, I guess the mullahs are our next best bet against the wahabbis in Islamabad.

I'm not saying Steve shouldn't post. His post is worth reading.

I am saying he could have just left out the wish for a pony from President Bush, as it's not going to happen. It diminishes his credibility, in my eyes, at least. It comes off as Tom Friedman-esque punditry, always wishing for what is not going to happen.

It's the disease of moderation and centrism.

Bush has the attention span of an autistic gnat, which is why this administration has never had a coherent policy on anything. To ameliorate the complex situation in the Middle East requires sustained effort, patience and imagination. Bush isn't capable of that, nor is Cheney nor are any of the Republican dwarves running for President. If you want a less dangerous world, elect a Democrat -- ANY Democrat.

The several comments in this thread stating that Pakistanis have no interest in what happens between the Palestinians and Israel are in error. Take a look at this article in Asia Times, written at a time that Musharraf was publicly floating the idea of normalizing relations with Israel, in 2003.

When Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf declared last month that the time had come for his country to consider diplomatic relations with Israel, it caused only a minor stir among the Israeli public and in the media. The focus then was on the Palestinians and whether they would halt their intifada.

...But then Musharraf came home and repeated his call, with even greater gusto. "I have said again and again: do we have to be more Catholic than the Pope or more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves?" he asked in an interview with the private Geo Television in Pakistan. "Is that the correct attitude? Or should we make a change? We must reach a national consensus on the subject, rather than leaving it to the emotionalism of the extremists."

...Vertzberger says that Musharraf's willingness to go public on the controversial issue of ties with Israel is a sign that a strategic decision has been made by the Pakistan leadership. "Musharraf must have the backing of the senior military echelon on this," he says. "He wouldn't have made the remarks otherwise. Now it's a matter of time and timing [until relations are established]."

Relations with Pakistan are important for Israel. Pakistan is one of the most populous Muslim countries, and establishing ties could soften enmity towards the Jewish state in other Muslim countries. Israeli officials also believe that relations with Pakistan could set off a chain reaction in the region, with countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh following suit.

...Some in Israel suggest Musharraf's comments might have been meant to gauge the reaction of the Muslim opposition in his country to such a move. Vertzberger believes that the Pakistan leader could not have raised the issue last year straight "after the success of the fundamentalist parties in elections".

But with progress now on a new diplomatic initiative aimed at settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has always been at the heart of Pakistan's refusal to normalize ties with Israel, it is easier for Musharraf to publicly broach the issue.

It was in this context that he asked why his country needed to be "more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves". The message was clear: if the Palestinian leadership was talking to Israel, so can Pakistan.

Opposition to the Israeli Occupation and it's treatment of the Palestinians is well known throughout the Muslim world. Steve is entirely correct in saying that a just resolution of the conflict could make a difference there. And let's not forget that although Bush himself may have been oblivious to the regional implications of his war in Iraq, some of the neocons who advise him have publicly stated their desire for wide regional chaos in the ME, as part of a foolhardy strategy to promote a culture war between ourselves and the Muslim world. Our invasion of Iraq only increased the number of Muslim extremists, in Iraq as well as Pakistan and the wider Muslim world. A successful Annapolis conference may be the only card that the Bush administration has left to play that might represent any hope of reversing that trend.

I also think that whether or not Bush will manage to deliver, or even has the capability to do so, it's important to have articles like this one, demonstrating that regional difficulties that do not bode well for American interests could be lessened by a successful Annapolis conference. Whatever Bush may actually do, it remains important to continue to hold his feet to the fire.

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

It's Israel! That's the core of the problem in America and the world today.

...If only we stopped blindly defending Israel everything in the Middle East .. no THE WORLD! would be fine and hunky dory.

That's odd. You must have read a different article than the one I did because nowhere do I see any claims even remotely resembling what you've described Steve as saying. To say that a successful Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement might help to lessen tensions in other parts of the region isn't the same as saying that Israel is entirely to blame for those problems. Yours appears to be a strawman argument.

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

So could you please define deliver on Palestine?

Clemons has previously endorsed the positions expressed in a letter by Daniel Levy entitled "Prospects for Peace" which promotes a settlement based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Clinton parameters of 2000, the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative and the 2003 Roadmap.

According to the letter, it should reflect the following:

• Two states, based on the lines of June 4, 1967, with minor, reciprocal, and agreed-upon modifications as expressed in a 1:1 land swap;

• Jerusalem as home to two capitals, with Jewish neighborhoods falling under Israeli sovereignty and Arab neighborhoods under Palestinian sovereignty;

• Special arrangements for the Old City, providing each side control of its respective holy places and unimpeded access by each community to them;

• A solution to the refugee problem that is consistent with the two-state solution, addresses the Palestinian refugees’ deep sense of injustice as well as provides them with meaningful financial compensation and resettlement assistance;

• Security mechanisms that address Israeli concerns while respecting Palestinian sovereignty."

Signers include former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, former US Trade Representative Carla Hills, Former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and US Ambassador to Russia Thomas Pickering, former Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, former House International Relations Committee Chiarman Lee Hamilton, former Counselor to President Kennedy Theodore Sorensen, and former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker.
http://www.prospectsforpeace.com/2007/10/bipartisan_foreign_policy_lead.html

Specifically, delivering on Palestine means making these provisions a goal for Annapolis.

it is America's failure in Iraq, its unwillingness to deliver on Palestine, and its bellicosity and hubris that are motivating the Muslim street against those perceived to be aligned with American interests.

I urge the more irate of my colleagues to observe that Steve listed three cassi antipitati of which non-delivery on P. was only the second.

(It may be, however, the area most susceptible to immediate possible amelioration.)

We all agree that Iraq, the ongoing bleeding sore, and Afghanistan, the embodiment of hubris (shock and awe, anyone?) will fester still.

One out of three ain't bad, if it's all you can do at present...

Steve, no doubt there will be far reaching consequences across many borders of instability in Pakistan - but too much focus on that seems to me to be a cover-up for our (the west?) woeful ignorance about Pakistan itself. But a regional assessment is called-for, especially the spill-over into Afghanistan and India. Musharraf's agenda for his entire tenure as Pakistan's self-appointed dictator has been to divide and rule, and the chickens are coming home to roost.

I just saw a newscast that identified Pakistan's principle export as textiles. I don't know what the latest economic analysis of Pakistan's GDP is, but the last time I paid attention to it the chief product was heroin. I can't imagine this has changed, and this makes a meaningful analysis of Pakistani politics very difficult, since the numbers can only be loosely estimated as to the impact of the drug trade (cultivation, processing and exporting) on the Pakistani economy. But it looks to be at least 50% of Pakistan's wealth, and that means that any sitting government of Pakistan cannot really suppress drug trade without disasterous consequences to that government.

Musharraf has simply spent all of his political capital, in my view. To maintain his power base, he has catered to one jehadi group over another, then changed to cater to the other group over the original. And now he has alienated support from major players in the Military sector, especially the ISI. Musharraf is caught in a vise, the judiciary and jehadis squeezing in on him. He can't declare a state of emergency for judicial activism, but he can for jehadi uprising. Thus we have the massacre of 500 schoolgirls at Lal Masjid, numerous instances of Pakistani troops being killed in the tribal areas, and a general state of chaos. The problem is that this is cutting into heroin profits, and his former military allies are turning on him.

Here's another link to an analysis of the complex situation. B. Raman (India) is about the most informed person about Pakistan's jehadi groups that I have found.

Neoboho

cscs, maybe Steve is being a little polite and moderate, but I don't it's as bad as wishing for a pony from Bush. The takeaway message here is that it's not just their petty tyrant's fault as long as Bush could be taking action, and his inaction and its consequences are worth insisting on. So not so much, please do something, George, as an invitation to keep pointing out that he didn't do something. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Do you think anyone in the White House has thought to get assurances from Musharaf that if things go South in Pakistan, he will transfer his nukes to American warships?

I think that would be a good idea. In fact, I'd suggest hanging any future aid on getting the nukes out of the country now, while they still can.

But I suppose that would make too much fucking sense.

Thanks mcboo, but I have found that low ratings are usually irrational (sad, as you say) and not to be taken seriously, especially when one is just reporting a simple fact that is a matter of record. Trying to punish the reporter of the fact for reporting it is truly nonsensical and irrational.

The disdain that the lovers of Israeli policy have for the victims of those policies are indications of their lack of understanding, which will only exacerbate the problems and break down any meaningful discussion as you say. One would think that they would observe the strong feelings that many Americans have about the US government and be able to cast a similar critical eye toward the Israeli government, but no, Israel is special to the point that Muslim dislikes of their policies and even the name Israel shouldn't be mentioned. How pitiful is their shallowness.

As I think about the situation in Pakistan, I can't help but recall the (in)famous words of Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute scholar, architect of Iran-Contra, and who was said by the Washington Post to be the foreign policy advisor to Carl Rove:

One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today.

It appears he is getting his wish. Sad. 

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

At one point, we gave the Soviets some of our nuclear arming, and, more important, permissive action link technology. At first, this seemed insane, as we've classified this rather highly, but on further examination, it makes a good deal of stabilizing sense.

If you start out, in designing a weapon, that you want to have someone have a limited number of tries to enter the arming code -- and if they don't get it soon enough, the bomb doesn't just lock up like something needing a password reset, but does something mechanically small, but that will require factory teardown and reassembly before the bomb could be used again. These can range anywhere from breaking off some metal in a channel through which radiation has to pass in a controlled way, to setting off one section of the high explosives that compress the Primary. The latter will result in local radioactive contamination, but can assure that a Bad Guy can't sweep up the dust and recast them into a new, simpler weapon.

Musharraf might not be willing (or able) to let the US rescue the weapons, but if he had a code, that we didn't necessarily share, that could disable the weapons if he was going to be ousted, it couldn't hurt.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]