Future Atlas noted in March that “a democratic or at least popularly supported Iraqi government could emerge as a harsh and more effective critic of Israel,” making prospects poor for an Israel-friendly Iraq that some invasion advocates imagined before the war.
That was illustrated this week when Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki strongly condemned Israel’s actions in Lebanon, and called them “aggression.”
The NYT noted that:
The resentment of the Iraqi government toward Israel calls into question one of the rationales among some conservatives for the American invasion of Iraq — that an American-backed democratic state here would inevitably become an ally of Israel and, by doing so, catalyze a change of attitude across the rest of the Arab world.
Israel’s advocates seem to attribute Arab and Muslim views of Israel to propaganda and misinformation; though both influence these views, at the heart of enmity for the Jewish state is how it actually treats the Arabs under its rule and beyond.
Views of Israel could also undo another American goal for the invasion: faced with Israeli military dominance, future Iraqi leaders — even democratically elected ones — may renew their interest in nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
A WP article reveals some of the thinking behind American policy toward the outbreak of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah:
- “‘The president believes that unless you address the root causes of the violence that has afflicted the Middle East, you cannot forge a lasting peace,’ said White House counselor Dan Bartlett.”
- “In the administration’s view, the new conflict is not just a crisis to be managed. It is also an opportunity to seriously degrade a big threat in the region, just as Bush believes he is doing in Iraq. Israel’s crippling of Hezbollah, officials also hope, would complete the work of building a functioning democracy in Lebanon and send a strong message to the Syrian and Iranian backers of Hezbollah.”
- “The U.S. position also reflects Bush’s deepening belief that Israel is central to the broader campaign against terrorists and represents a shift away from a more traditional view that the United States plays an ‘honest broker’s’ role in the Middle East.”
- “‘He thinks he is playing in a longer-term game than the tacticians,’” according to a “former senior administration official.”
Outcome analysis
- Root causes — Central root causes of Middle Eastern instability are support for Islamic extremists and Arab-Israeli enmity. Both are reinforced by Israel’s current course of action.
- Degrading Hezbollah — A military campaign is likely to have a marginal and temporary effect, while bolstering the organization’s prestige in the larger Middle East. This may start with Lebanon: Mideast experts “warned that the military campaign is turning mainstream Lebanese public opinion against Israel rather than against Hezbollah.”
- Building Lebanese democracy — This campaign is more likely to strain or collapse Lebanese democracy.
- Syria and Iran — They are not harmed by this campaign, and Israel is giving them the opportunity to burnish their images in the eyes of the Mideast public: when other Arab governments sit passively, they are at least indirectly supporting resistance to Israeli actions.
- Fighting terrorism — Making Israel more central to the US campaign only undermines that effort (and some want to blend Israeli and US policy thoroughly, as explained here). Apparent unconcern for innocents on one side of the conflict undercuts the central moral narrative of US opposition to terrorism; the next time the US decries the dealth of civilians in a terrorist act, millions of people will recall the hundreds of civilians who died in Lebanon while the US sped up shipments of bombs for use there.
- Longer-term strategy — The Bush administration appears to be attempting longer-term strategy based on gut feel, without an awareness of the actors, the stakes involved, or how the situation is perceived.
Two encouraging news items from the Middle East:
Israel is reportedly considering compromising on Jerusalem, divesting itself of almost all Arab neighborhoods, whose inhabitants consider themselves under occupation.
Ceasing to be an occupier is essential to Israel’s chances for peace, whether a cold peace of separation, or something better.
On the other side of the divide, a Hamas member tells NPR that Hamas is discussing indirect recognition of Israel.
Abandoning the savage fantasy of Israel’s destruction is the first and most basic step any Palestinian entity must take toward a viable future.
The Economist Intelligence Unit released its 2006 e-readiness rankings yesterday. The index is a measure of a country’s readiness for e-business, judged by Internet access, broadband penetration, innovation, information security, and other factors. More telling than the ranking is the country’s distance from a score of 10.
The ratings are a good indicator of general abilities in IT, and thus an important component of present and future competitiveness.
The top countries
Rank. Country — score out of 10 (2005 rank)
1. Denmark — 9.00 (1)
2. US — 8.88 (2)
3. Switzerland — 8.81 (4)
4. Sweden — 8.74 (3)
5. UK — 8.64 (5)
6. Netherlands — 8.60 (8)
7. Finland — 8.55 (6)
8. Australia — 8.50 (10)
9. Canada — 8.37 (12)
10. Hong Kong — 8.36 (6)
11. Norway — 8.35 (9)
12. Germany — 8.34 (12)
13. Singapore — 8.24 (11)
14. New Zealand — 8.19 (16)
14. Austria — 8.19 (14)
16. Ireland — 8.09 (15)
17. Belgium — 7.99 (17)
18. South Korea — 7.90 (18)
19. France — 7.86 (19)
Other countries of interest
Rank. Country — score out of 10 (2005 rank)
21. Japan — 7.77 (21)
22. Israel — 7.59 (20)
23. Taiwan — 7.51 (22)
25. Italy — 7.14 (24)
30. United Arab Emirates — 6.32 (X)
31. Chile — 6.19 (31)
35. South Africa — 5.74 (32)
37. Malaysia — 5.60 (35)
39. Mexico — 5.30 (36)
41. Brazil — 5.29 (38)
42. Argentina — 5.27 (39)
45. Turkey — 4.77 (43)
46. Saudi Arabia — 4.67 (46)
48. Venezuela — 4.47 (45)
49. Romania — 4.44 (47)
51. Colombia — 4.41 (48)
52. Russia — 4.30 (52)
53. India — 4.25 (49)
55. Egypt — 4.14 (53)
56. Philippines — 4.04 (51)
57. China — 4.02 (54)
60. Nigeria — 3.69 (58)
61. Ukraine — 3.62 (57)
62. Indonesia — 3.39 (60)
64. Kazakhstan — 3.22 (62)
65. Iran — 3.15 (59)
67. Pakistan — 3.03 (64)
Regional standouts in the developing world are Chile, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates. The low scores of some countries, notably India, China, and Russia, disguise significant specialized capabilities in infotech.
The March elections in Israel represent a step toward a more stable future for the country — but only a preliminary one.
An Israeli political science professor suggests in the CSM that Israel was presented with three futures to choose from:
- “the right-wing utopia of greater Israel by blood and fire”
- “the left-wing utopia of peace and harmony”
- disengagement from the Palestinians, as a compromise
In this view, the rise of the new centrist Kadima party represents the third choice.
The election results suggest a rejection of Likud and the right, as Steve Clemons notes.
Disengagment would offer Israel its best shot at peace in decades, but even Kadima does not seem willing to pursue it fully. The unilateral borders under discussion will not fall along the 1967 boundaries, and, more importantly, may include large numbers of Palestinians on the Israeli side. This is especially problematic in Jerusalem, where a compromise reflecting the wishes of the city’s two populations would be an important step in defanging Muslim hostility to Israel.
Meanwhile, the role of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States does not reflect the evolving situation on the ground, argues Daniel Levy in the IHT. He concludes
In short, if Israel is indeed entering a new era of national sanity and de-occupation, then the role of the Lobby in U.S.-Israel relations will have to be rethought, and either reformed from within or challenged from without.
Steven Erlanger recently offered some unusually forward-looking analysis of post-election Palestine in the IHT.
Principal points:
- Hamas takes a long view, and is likely to focus on a domestic agenda for now, maintaining a cease-fire with Israel.
- As the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas’ “victory has enormous resonance for radical Islam everywhere.”
- The “peace process” of recent years is over.
- Hamas will not abandon the “right of resistance,” and fundamentally believes that Israel is on land that is irrevocably Muslim, precluding recognition of the state.
- That said, it might offer a long-term truce in return for Israeli withdrawal to its 1967 borders and the right of return for Palestians driven from their land in 1948, and for their descendants.
- “A long, hostile quiet may be possible” while the two sides “pursue parallel unilateralisms.”