Sunday, September 24, 2006

Samir Gaega criticized Hizballa's celebrations

I just started a new role in my company so I'm abit focused on those matters now and I hope it wont take too much time before I can spend alot of time again on politics.

During the war I was reading on the internal politics of Lebanon's during the last 30 years; going through events, finding about movements and leaders.. after a few hours of reading and skipping through so many pages.. I paused and said "pffff... what a mess..". It was like so many involved with so many conflicting views and so many turns and twists in the plot!
One note about "internal politics in Lebanon" - No such thing when you count Syria and Israel's role in those 30 years.

Today I read interesting statement by one of the names I remembered - Samir Gaega.
It came as a respond to the victory celebrations of Hizballa. Once it was said that all it takes to such an organization to claim victory is an empty box to stand on, in a corner of some remote village and raise arms.
Hizballa's celebrations shows clearly how Lebanon's interests are not served by those who call themselves a resistance movement and who ridiculed PM Fouads Siniora tears in public.


I recommend reading certain blogs which discuss Lebanon's affairs with Syria (I assume that Israel-Lebanon blogs are much easier to find) - http://freesyria.wordpress.com/ and http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/ . Thanks for those 2 web sites I learnt alot about Lebanon's other faces.; I find it interesting to learn about Lebanon throught lenses which focus on other subjects and other directions. After all, to make peace with a country requires understanding all its positions on the multi dimensional political game.

Monday, September 11, 2006

Answer to "nobody"

In one of the blogs I got into a conversation, with a blogger called "nobody", that crossed several subjects.
At times those diversions from subject to subject were distructing but in the last one, "nobody" raised an interesting opinion.

"Nobody" said
"It appears that there is a disconnection between the government and the people in Israel. Most people i talk to dont want peace with Syria, dont trust Hamas and are sceptical about UN or joined arab peace intiatives. By the polls if elections would be held now Olmert would be swept away. Peretz would disappear. Right wing parties would take the votes.
If Lebanon are serious about a deal they should accept it now. I think it may become impossible later. Though of course if Lebanon proceeds on its own ignoring Syria and the palestinian problem it may be seen as a sort of Lebanon breaking ranks with other arab countries. But still. This window of opportunity may happen to be very short."

"nobody",
I would like to break your opinion apart and relate to each section.

"Most people i talk to dont want peace with Syria"
I assume you mean Israelis that you spoke with.
I disagree but I think I know what gave you that perception.
Most Israelis DO want peace with Syria (and other countries) but dont see it as realistic option. The syrian regime and Assad's action and involvement is damaging the region (i.e. Hariri murder) and is plain self-destructive for Syria itself.
The reactions which I believe you heard are from a point of view that it is plain imaginary to think that such a regime will become a sensible one.

"dont trust Hamas"
True. Being banned by the European Union, Hamas is an organisation who does not recognize Israel's right of existance. So the lack of trust can be understood from what ever side you are.
However! A more interesting question is if Israelis trust Fatah as there is a world apart between those two organizations. Needless to explain, but never the less important, Fatah has a different political agende which recognized Israel and therefor has the potential to progress towards more agreements.

"are sceptical about UN"
True.
There is definition yet of their role but even so, there is clearly no expectation from a foreign force to disarm the Hizballa. And what else is required of them if not that?

"or joined arab peace intiatives."
This has a grain of truth. But to fill a missing part - there is scepticism AND optimism towards any peace initiative.
The problem is seen as the internal political immaturity of the Palestinians.

"It appears that there is a disconnection between the government and the people in Israel."
It only appears so.
First we need to look on where did Kadima came from - This government was elected mainly to pullout out of the West bank which is a step forward ending the occupation. The Israeli voters want to end the occupation and have elected a governement to do so (but now, things changed).
Second, where is the political balance? Kadima is a shift of the right power toward the center-left. They may differ in ideology but resemble in actions. (Mr Peres joined Kadima from that pragmatic reason).
Actually this government is the first in years to have less and less ex-generals with a militaristic orientation and more people seen as diplomats (i.e. The foreign and security ministers have both a primarily diplomatic orientation) which was seen as a postitive trend by the Israelis.

The current mood towards the government is not directly regarding any peace process but reflects a self disappointment from the management level (i.e. prepared processes were not used. Emergency plans not carried out orderly etc)

(However "nobody" - if you claim that most dont want peace, and there is a disconnection; does that mean you see the Israeli government as one that wants peace? ... I'm not sure where exactly your opinion is in this case)

"By the polls if elections would be held now Olmert would be swept away."
I dont think so. Those polls might show strong disatisfaction which is not to be confused with a will to change.
I think the reason here is simpistic. First, the Israelis see fighting the Hizballa as a justified cause. Secondly, if they were to look around they would see the vacuum of strong leadership. Olmert was promoted to be the head of Kadim as a consequence of PM Sharon's illness.

"Peretz would disappear."
No disrespect toward Peretz, but even he probably didnt expect to be there. He is filling that role mainly because of the coalition deal between Kadima and the left Avoda party.
My personal hope is that in some rotation movement, he will remain in the government and Mr Barak will be the new security minister. Barak was a PM and the Chief of IDF and has the military exerience to handle large scale conflicts. He is also seen as a strong diplomatic oriented which tried closing a deal with Arafat meaning it's the right message towards Arab countries and the Palestinians.

"Right wing parties would take the votes"
From the same reason above, I dont see that happening. No seen candidates there. If you are even thinking about Netanyahu, see his performance in the prior elections.
What used to be the right wing is now Kadima which is acting similar to a left party (although from different ideology).

These are my answers to "nobody".
When I look at it I see that the situation is not great but certainly can improve greatly by two possibilities that are seen now:
1. Fatah joining the Palestinian government and bringing some sense back.
2. Mr Barak joining the Israeli governement.
3. All-Around-the-Table meeting of Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Palestinians and Lebanon.
4. All parties identifying that this window of opportunity is very short lived.


Peace, Inshaalla.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Back to the Palestinians

Some opinions have been saying "The war in Lebanon is a smoke screen for what is happening in Gaza and the West-Bank".
I say.. no, this is the nature of the media to focus on what is giving the biggest headlines.

Untill the last war, I was reading only about Israeli-Palestinian matters.
I'm not fully updated on what is going on but one thing I am waiting to hear about, is the forming of a joint government of the Hamas and Fatah.
Abu Mazen is the leader that can bring an agreement from the palestinian side.
He is moderate, logical, respected by both sides.
The Hamas were democratically elected by their people but something didnt go as it should have..
(btw , do I have a right to criticize Palestinian processes? yes, I do)
Their manifest was mainly about social plans and fighting against corruption. Somehow, they gave people the ambigious feeling that their approach in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be what it is today; Not recognizing Israel and claiming they are not accountable for any agreement.
Forget for a moment about Israel in relation to that.. think about the Palestinian cause.. does this approach benefit them or damage them?
So Israel and the US reaction could have been predicted. What about the European Union? shouldnt that ring some alarm bells?

Still, Hamas being elected means they have sufficient support and must be represnted.
So either they change their approach to a more pragmatic one or they form a coallition with the Fatah.

I'm just hoping to see Abu Mazen back in a powerful position.
(and there are other Fatah members who are also respected by both sides)

Friday, September 01, 2006

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:30:55

Wed, 30 Aug 2006. I'm taking a break at work, reading news.
Abit of a blow to my optimism view today? Not sure..

The Israeli PM Ehud Olmert said that the current ceasefire could be spring board to a "New Reality" between Israel and Lebanon.
I read that and thought.. hmm.. interesting what will be the response..
Abit later I checked some news sites again to see Fouads Siniora response which was interpreted differently by different sites but still was not the "Yes, it could be" response that I would want to hear.

Fouad Siniora said "Let it be clear, we are not seeking any agreement until there is just and comprehensive peace based on the Arab initiative".

But wait a minute.. lets read it again..
Did he say "no way, not now, not ever"? No, he didn't.
ok..

Last week Fouad Siniora condemned Israel for the actions in the war. At the end he mentioned that maybe long time from now, he does not rule an option that things could be very different.
hmm.. condemntation but another different perspective with different tone at the end.

It's not realistic to expect an normalized relations and huge group hug to happen now but perhaps in some time from now, an agreement could be actualized. Normalized relations and that group hug are a bif of wishful thinking from my part.
First need to get to a state-of-play where relations are formalized, rules are agreed between sides, institutions and processes are accepted by both.

What was the initiative that Fouad Siniora was talking about?
Was it the saudian deal from a few years ago?
As far as I learned about Lebanon-Syria relations such an agreement is likely to create a conflict between Lebanon to Assad's regime as was the case in the previous time in which Bashar Assad worked hard to change the wordings of the Saudi proposal to one that would be much more hostile and unlikely to get.
And what is the "comprehensive peace" definition? Surely Siniora understands that Iran/Syria do not stand where Egypt/Jordan/Lebanon stand. And surely not where the Palestinians stand.

However, on the 20th of August Fouad Siniora said "I believe that if Israel uses all its senses and thinks wisely, I think it will be the opportunity,..... .... The opportunity is how to convert what happened in Lebanon-the calamity that was inflicted on Lebanon-to make it an opportunity to move toward real peace," ( http://www.kuwaittimes.net/regional.asp?dismode=article&artid=1567018328 )
Well, I'll leave those words for you to think about.

That's it for now.
Not a blow after all. Far from good but with a chance of something growing in the future.

Not that I'm a great fan of those websites, but just a reminder of Wed, 30 Aug 2006:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3297677,00.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6F4FAE63-0166-4503-86CB-BAB1B002D1AD.htm

What's the time now? It's almost..

Sure.. everybody wants this illusive ideal of peace on earth..
But in our real world, what we need to get to is to another formal agreement in the region.
Israel has peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan.
Does this mean there are no conflicts between them? No.
What it does mean is that the conflict are solved in diplomatical means.
Israel, Egypt and Jordan all respect those agreements and this is the reason why the relations are very stable between those countries.
To set realistic expectation from any agreement or political system I talk about; need to be said that no system can be perfect. Even in a balanced political system there will rifts and conflicts.

Time to get another one!
Israel-Lebanon seems the best bet. Even if a long distance one.

Wooohaa! am I being blind?! A war has just ended.. too many people lost their lives.. so much pain was caused.. and I dare to speak about agreements?
is that too.. optimistic?
Well.. in a rare combination which I see as realism and optimism I believe one can get to such a conclusion - an agreement is required hence an agreement is possible.

Lebanese should stay united in their nationality and own interests as said by Walid Jumblat: "look forward to a secure future without war of others on our land".
All disputes between Israel and Lebanon are workable. Even the Shebbaa farms are nothing more then a pretext used by Hezbollah.
Lebanese PM, who is strongly accusing Israel for destruction, has also acknowledges that a peace agreement is possible if Israel acts smartly.
Israeli public opinion has never seen Lebanon as an enemy state but as a location where enemies chose to attach from.

What other countries in the region should do?
If Lebanon would need Arab support, it is sure to get it from Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and from Turkey.
if "Sunni Arab fold" groups together Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan ... it sounds like a party I would vote for its political manifest!
Go on and make a group hug.

What can be added, is that Israel is conducting a research on diplomatic feasibility for a peace agreement. However, it would be wiser to get to an agreement with Lebanon first, as Lebanon needs an ally who can help it to get away from the grip of Assad.

All conditions for a peace agreement are in place. Sadly, also anti-conditions from sides who are alient to our region.
Egyptian president brings succinctly a crystal clear observation about the Syrian and Iranian conduct.

I dont want to get into details of events that got me to think so..
What do you think?

But one more thing.. I am playing around with an opinion which is an observation that in our region, in a sad way wars that end in a certain no-knock-out-winner could open the eyes of both sides to see the futility of it and the benefit of peaceful coexistance.

Welcome note

Hi,
Welcome to my blog which dares be optimistic about the future of living peacefuly at the Middle East.

I've been reading and reading.. asnwering back, posting questions.. reading and reading..
I felt I needed somewhere to put my thoughts too. To discuss them; to challenge them.
If you wish to contact me directly, please send email to abubalboola@yahoo.co.uk

Optimism and Realism can bring to peace within 2 cycles from today (Aug 2006)