IRAQ'S OIL WAS ALWAYS THE PRIZE

Iraqi oil workers are waking up to the fact that a proposed hydrocarbon law the Bush administration wants the Iraqi Parliament to pass will effectively place the country’s massive oil reserves in the hands of big US-British oil giants for decades to come.
Many Iraqis are only realizing now what experts have been saying since 2003 that the invasion of Iraq was about oil and not about America’s security. The new law would transfer the majority of Iraq’s oil from the Iraqi government and hand it to multinational oil companies linked mostly to the US, though the British would have a slice of the action. There would be no benchmarks establishing how much of their profits oil companies would have to invest in Iraq.
The law would not pass muster in any other oil producing country in the world, especially one with the huge reserves Iraq has. It was drawn up by Bearing Point, a Virginia company that received a $240 million contract within weeks of the Iraq invasion to work with the Iraqi oil ministry. At that time, Ahmed Chalabi, the darling of the Washington neocons was heralding a new Iraq in which an American-led group of oil companies would take over and manage the country’s oil reserves. Chalabi was not alone. In 2004, as L Paul Bremer was vacating Iraq where he had been virtually its ruler, he passed the baton for economic reconstruction, in particular Iraq’s oil future, to a former CIA source, Iyad Allawi and his close associate, Adel Abdul Mahdi. Within months Allawi presented proposals for a new petroleum law to Iraq’s Supreme Council, calling for an end to nationalization and the privatization of the oil industry. To close observers it was clear Allawi was the US man chosen to do its bidding in the critical area of oil. Since then the US has put continuous pressure on the Iraqis to privatize their oil. A draft of the new law was shown to the Bush Administration in 2006 but the Iraqi parliament was not allowed to see it until February this year.
This is no surprise to those who have closely studied the Bush Administration’s bogus case for going to war and more importantly the activities of vice president Dick Cheney, beginning with his first ten days in office in January 2001. He was the number two in an Administration staffed mostly by former oil company executives who understood the importance of Iraq’s oil reserves. None was better informed or better placed to plan to control those reserves than Cheney.
During week two of the Bush presidency, Cheney set up the National Energy Policy Development Group that later became known as the vice-president’s “Energy Task Force.” He has since used executive privilege to hide the activities of that that group and its meetings with heads of the big energy companies in the US. But Freedom of Information Act searches have provided us with insights into what Cheney was up to in prior to, and after 9/11. He was drawing up lists of companies and countries keen to get their hands on Iraq’s oil. The lists were entitled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Contracts as of March 5, 2001.”
On his mind would have been the following concerns. If the oil embargo imposed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War was lifted there were plenty of suitors in the wings anxious to control the exploration and production of Iraq’s oil and its huge reserves. Cheney knew Saddam had no love of the US and would freeze out US companies. The winners would be Russia, China and France, especially Russia that had signed billion dollar deals with Saddam. The losers would be US- based Exxon Mobil and Chevron Texaco, as well as BP Amoco and Dutch Shell in the UK.
Cheney knew Iraq possessed oil riches beyond belief. It had enough oil for the US to break the Saudi-OPEC stranglehold on world oil prices. Iraq’s oil was high grade and easily refined. More importantly Cheney knew it would be cheap to extract it from the ground because most of it was in shallow wells 1,400 to 2,000 feet beneath the desert floor. In total, the reserves were reckoned to be several hundred billion barrels with at least 120 billion barrels already located. There was enough to put Iraq in the top tier of oil producers for well into the latter half of this century.
An article by James A. Paul in Global Policy Forum in December 2002 contained observations that were to prove prescient considering they were written before the Iraq invasion. Paul wrote:
“Oil analysts believe a US-controlled Iraqi government would quickly make deals with the companies for privatized production. Such deals though possibly agreed in advance of the war would be justified by the new government on the basis that only the companies would be able to quickly resume post war production…”
In other words, Paul was saying that after an invasion the US would have enough troops on the ground to ensure oil production was brought up to speed and oil facilities protected. But he went further and predicted that US control of Iraqi oil would have a strategic impact in terms of global oil production because Iraq would no longer be under the Arab umbrella of OPEC. He hinted that the US after an invasion might pull Iraq out of OPEC:
“OPEC would be weakened by the withdrawal of one of its key producers from the OPEC quota system. Indeed OPEC might face the paradox that a US military government of occupation in Iraq would be an OPEC member. Alternatively such a government might pull out of the producers’ cartel.”
Paul also foresaw a take-over of Iraq’s oil as prelude to the US putting pressure on Kuwait, Iran and Saudi to de-nationalize their oil companies and allow US-UK oil giants a 50-50 split in the production and profits from their oil. Privatization of Iraq’s massive reserves, he believed, could be manipulated to destabilize the big Arab players by temporarily lowering the price of oil.
During the planning for the invasion of Iraq the Cheney-Bush focus on Iraq’s oil did not diminish. Evidence of that can be seen in the fact that the State Department was tasked to examine ways to control Iraqi oil post invasion. In the four months leading up to the beginning of the war, the State Department’s Oil and Energy Working Group burned its own midnight oil planning for the future of Iraq’s energy reserves. The Group looked at all the data on the country oil sites and agreed with Dick Cheney’s secret energy committee that Iraq “should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war.” By international oil companies, the State Department meant US and British oil giants.
The State Department’s planners devised a method of privatization through what they called PSAs - Production Sharing Agreements. They were in effect contracts whereby big oil companies would get the most profitable deals. The Iraqi government would still have ownership but exploration and production would be in the hands of US and British multinationals. According to oil experts familiar with PSAs they are only used in relation to 10% of world oil because they are weighted in favor of private companies and not in favor the nations who own the oil.
Everything was going Cheney’s way well before the invasion and it only got better a month after the war began when a new Iraqi oil minister was appointed by the US Coalition Provisional Authority chief, L Paul Bremer. The minister quickly announced that Iraq would tear up all previous oil contracts agreed by Saddam, leaving the “Suitors” - Russians, Chinese and French - out in the cold. During what became a bizarre post invasion period, CPA chief Bremer, sometimes known as “Gerry” ran Iraq like ancient Rome, hiring and firing at will, while making sure he chose the right Iraqis to handle the oil issue. One of his appointees, Adel Abdul Mahdi, announced at the end of 2004 that a new petroleum law would open up Iraq to foreign oil companies. Mahdi pointed out that American oil companies and their investors in particular would be heartened with that prospect.
A proposed new law - the one now before the Iraqi parliament - began to take shape and at its core were recommendations that had come from another of Bremer’s appointees, the former CIA asset, Iyad Allawi. He had cleverly drawn up a plan to turn over all oil sites not under development to US oil companies, leaving 17 developed sites to be controlled by a future Iraqi government. Foreign oil companies would be left controlling over 80% of Iraq’s oil, amounting possibly to more than 200 billion barrels.
Iraqi oil workers and senior members of the Shiite majority are beginning to realize what has been happening under their noses. The Kurds were the first to spot the subterfuge and have threatened to block the new law but their efforts may have come too late. White House pressure on the Nouri al-Maliki government to pass the oil privatization law has been unrelenting. After all, oil was the prize that sparked the invasion and there will be no draw down of US troops until Bush and Cheney are sure Iraq’s oil production and exploration are in the hands of US-British oil giants.

EU LEADERS SHIFT POWER TO CENTER

Leaders of the EU’s 27 member states have signed off on a new voting system to avert a repeat of the debacle of 2005 when voters in France and Holland scuppered plans for ratification of a new EU constitution. The latest voting system will not be implemented until 2014 and will likely not be operational until three years later, demonstrating on the one hand how long it takes to get things done in Europe and on the other the reluctance of EU leaders to rock the boat.
The decision on voting came towards the end of June when the leaders met in Brussels to agree a new Treaty. Major players like France and Germany regarded the voting issue as paramount importance and not just because of the 2005 experience. Germany felt that “upstarts” like Poland had too much clout. For example, though Poland had half the population of Germany it shared the same veto power. The new Treaty will correct that through what it terms the principle of “double majority,” whereby Germany will have twice Poland’s representation on committees. Across the EU, 55% of states, representing at least 65% of the EU population will be required to change or veto change, thus averting in decades to come a repeat of the 2005 constitution crisis. Close observers of Brussels saw the 2014 implementation date as an example of EU leaders cleverly avoiding confrontation over a measure that in the past would have been put to referendums throughout the Union.
That was one of the curious aspects of the Brussels meeting. There was no talk of a new constitution or of the use of referendums. Instead, it was the center making the decisions without having to go to the streets for approval. The 2005 experience had been a watershed for EU leaders and very quickly after it they veered away from any talk of a new constitution. While their spin doctors began using the word Treaty, planners behind the scenes quietly inserted many of the failed constitution’s elements into a Treaty document, namely the one presented to the Brussels gathering. By avoiding all talk of a constitution, EU leaders cleverly dodged the referendum bullet of 2005 and managed to keep their discussions out of the public spotlight.
They believed the 2005 experience proved that the democratic tactic of the referendum was all very fine as long as you did not have a voting system like the EU that permitted one country to stymie the voice of the majority by just saying no. The 2005 “no vote” by the French and Dutch also highlighted the fact that in other parts of the EU there was no great appetite for a new constitution and that the word constitution alone was a red flag to the Left and to Euro Skeptics. In contrast, the term Treaty implied a tinkering with the system and not a complete overhaul of the EU structure, a prospect that frightened some of the smaller nations. A Treaty could also be ratified by national leaders and subsequently parliaments.
When the 2004 constitution was drawn up it supporters believed the EU had become so unwieldy it had to be streamlined, especially at a decision making level. They argued that it had to establish a bigger political and economic imprint internationally. A new constitution would therefore create a more unified and powerful union. Critics, however, especially in Britain, saw it as a slippery slope – a United States of Europe that would lead to a diminution of national sovereignty. The British worried that too much power in Brussels could also lead to the British losing control over justice and policing.
The “no” votes by France and Holland that collapsed the proposed constitution were not entirely related to the actual constitution and, in some respects, had more to do with internal matters. The French were angry about the pitiful state of their economy and saw a “no” vote as protest against their government. The French Left convinced many people that a new constitution would lead to an influx of cheap labor from member states like Poland would lead to high unemployment among skilled French workers. The Dutch too were unhappy with their economy and feared a worker invasion. But, unlike the French, they were convinced a new constitution would lead to them being dominated by bigger players.
With all of this in the background, EU leaders over the past 2 years quietly reached agreement on new set of rules to govern the EU. One critic called it the re-wrapping of an old product under the innocuous name, Treaty.
Last month, EU leaders, including the outgoing British Prime Minister, Tony, Blair, and the new French president, Nicholas Sarkozy, reached a compromise, resulting in a Treaty that will likely come into play in June 2009. The meeting was hosted by German Chancellor Angela Merkel who praised her fellow leaders for signing off on, among others things, the creation of a long term EU president rather than the revolving door presidency now in place which allows each country’s leader to share it for limited periods. They also agreed on the creation of new High Representative of Foreign Affairs, a title carefully chosen to avoid any impression this would be an EU foreign minister. It was realized that the concept of a foreign minister would clash with the roles of foreign ministers of individual states.
According to insiders the new treaty will provide more robust role for the European Parliament, a body long regarded as an expensive talking shop. There will also be a trimming of the Brussels’ bureaucracy but that has been put off until 2014. The date amused some commentators who remarked that because bureaucrats will be regulating bureaucrats they will need a lot of time to do that – at least 7 years.
Overall, the Treaty signed by Merkel and the others was far cry from the promised democratic process of allowing the electorate in each state a process of ratification of change though referendum as Blair had promised while he was British prime minister. In effect, the leaders transferred power to the center and were able to rid themselves of referendums. For critics of the Treaty, it removed a layer of legitimacy from the democratic principles that underpinned the EU from its inception, namely that the voice of the people should always be the deciding factor. The New French president, Nicholas Sarkozy was happy with the outcome because he is opposed to the concept of referendums. He wants national government to be the driving force, strengthening the center so that the EU does not find itself being forced off course by new emerging states forming alliances. Sarkozy is also against further expansion and is opposed to Turkey’s application for membership. He is not alone in opposing Turkey, a sign that EU leaders are not going to listen to pleas from the Bush White House integrate Turkey into the EU. France and Germany believe the EU could not cope with a massive influx of Muslims if Turkey was granted membership. As it stands, France and Germany have large Muslim populations that are not fully assimilated into the European tradition.
The new Treaty should pave the way for tighter control over the EU but it has also signaled a major change in the dynamics of the Union. The leaders put aside the principle that change could be challenged through referendums, thereby removing power from the street. As for the word constitution it will likely be just a footnote in the EU’s history.

LETTER TO THE INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER IN BRITAIN

Dear Editor,
I generally find the Independent is level-headed editorially but your coverage of the unexploded devices in London exposed a growing media tendency I have come to expect from the media here in the US and not from your newspaper. The initial media response to the discovery of the two devices was a familiar one of over reaction. On cable channels in America there were the “usual suspects” – so-called terrorism experts ready to hype this event as one that could have rivaled the bombing in Madrid. It was yet another example of the fear factor coming into play. No one tried to place the two devices in context by comparing them to the types of devices that cause untold carnage every day in Iraq. Your correspondents claimed this was “the first known attempt to bring Islamist tactics used in Iraq to
Britain, by exploding a vehicle bomb to cause maximum casualties.” Those same correspondents wrote that Scotland Yard had said if the device outside the nightclub had exploded it would have caused “carnage.” On a cable channel in New York the potential death toll in London was being put at over one thousand.
Counter-terrorism experts familiar with explosives knows these were not the types of car bombs that have exploded in Iraq. If the Mercedes had exploded it would not have been a serious shrapnel device. It would certainly have made a very large bang and person standing very close to it could have been badly injured. I am talking about perspective. Scotland Yard’s use of “carnage” represented unwarranted speculation.
Both devices in London showed a lack of sophistication. If they were constructed by Al Qaeda, it was by the group’s student wing. The devices were not those used to kill scores of innocents in Baghdad.
None of what I say is intended to diminish the terrorist threat. Far from it. I believe people in London and New York, or for that matter in Brighton, need to be vigilant because terrorists often strike where we least expect them to and at a time of their choosing. They have determination to learn from mistakes. While the rest of the world is sleeping, or at dinner, they are plotting.
One of the primary weapons is their arsenal is their ability to instill fear in the rest of us. So why are we helping them scare the living daylights out of people in major cities like London and New York? There is a growing tendency within the media on both sides of the Atlantic to respond in a reflex way to events, without carefully examining the facts. There are too many so-called terrorism experts popping up on our television screens as soon as something happens. Their first instinct is to exaggerate. In the United States, many of these so-called experts are academics who would not recognize a terrorist if they bumped into one. Some are members of institutes with close connections to the Bush Administration.
A graphic example of what I call the fear factor was an interview given recently by a Federal Prosecutor in New York following the arrest of several disparate figures that were alleged to have plotted to blow up underground pipelines bringing oil to Kennedy airport. The Prosecutor told the media that if the accused men had succeeded the carnage would have been on a 9/11 scale or great. That was not merely a gross exaggeration of the facts but a familiar way of scaring the population at large. The reality was that the men arrested had no terrorism competence and it would not have been possible for them to set alight the pipeline structure. It has safety mechanism that would immediately cut off the flow of oil within the system once a fire occurred. The reflex nature of the coverage of terror related events means any subsequent clarification, or serious investigation, often arrives too late to reduce the level of fear instilled by irresponsible coverage.
A problem facing the media is an understandable fear that by questioning public statements about terrorist threats one is somehow inviting the charge that one is being cavalier and if something terrible happens one will have destroyed one’s credibility. On the other hand, the media should not be in the business that some politicians and government bodies are in and that is fear mongering. The security industry in the United States provides many of the talking-head-experts for television channels once a terror-related event occurs. It does not take rocket science to conclude that it is in the interests of the security industry to keep us all frightened. In my view, security should be about making us feel safe and not terrified. That can be achieved with perspective and knowledge.
(Published by The Independent on July 2.)

CHENEY'S SHADOW LOOMS LARGE

As more and more evidence emerges about the unparalleled secrecy surrounding the office of vice president Dick Cheney, the one fact outweighing all others is that his shadow has loomed large over most of the Bush administration’s major policy issues.
Those issues have included the use of interrogation techniques that undercut the Geneva conventions, secret wiretaps, the vengeful leaking of the name of the CIA agent, Valerie Plame, and the shaping of most foreign policy decisions including the most controversial of all the war in Iraq.
A series on Cheney in the Washington Post, combined with other leaked anecdotes from insiders, portray Cheney’s office as a shadow government, all powerful in its ability to shape US policy on matters of war and peace and on economic issues that affect the oil industry for which Cheney has always been a crusader. Halliburton with which he is most closely associated because he was its CEO before talking office has earned billions out of Iraq and was paid $1.5 billion from Iraq’s oil reserves.
Cheney’s secret White House meetings with big oil company executives, most of whom agree with his oft-stated conviction that the Middle East is the great oil prize, have been classified by him and are not even available to Congress. Before going to war with Iraq, a war Cheney more than anyone in the Bush White House promoted with bogus intelligence, both he and the big oil corporations had their eyes on Iraq’s oil reserves. As far back as 2,000 when Cheney met them, they all knew that within two decades most of OPEC’s oil would peak. However, there would still be massive reserves under Iraq. But those would only be accessible if Saddam was removed from power. Cheney and his oil buddies made a serious miscalculation. They replaced Saddam with Shiites who have more in common with Iran than their US liberators. Cheney’s reaction has been to use the Saudis to secretly arm Sunni insurgents to weaken the Shiite hold on Iraq as well as Iranian influence in the region, especially in Lebanon. He has also gone behind the back of Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to promote the Israeli desire to use military force rather than diplomacy to force regime change in Iran.
Dick Cheney has run the most powerful and secretive vice-presidential office in history. Anytime he has been keen to evade Congressional scrutiny, he has claimed he was never part of the Executive Branch. In some instances he has even said he was never part of the Legislative Branch but was part of both. Some members of Congress now wish to know which branch he belongs to. It was recently revealed that he refused to recognize a presidential order requiring him to provide a federal body with information about his use of classified papers.
All those who have studied Cheney see in him as a man with an insatiable appetite for power allied to an intricate knowledge of how to manipulate the system and how to wield influence. From the moment he entered the White House he began expanding the scope of his presidential office and staffing it with cronies, many of whom were neocons that had been linked with him to PNAC – Project for the New American Century. After the first Gulf War, PNA with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and many others who later featured prominently in the Bush administration in its ranks, called for the removal of Saddam Hussein and planned for that eventuality right up to the moment Cheney entered the White House. They called for a massive expansion of America’s military might, envisioning major conflicts across the globe. They had their sights not only on Iraq but also on Iran and Syria. Cheney has secretly and sometimes publicly continued to promote that agenda.
But like all people involved in excessive secrecy, there is a tipping point when too much secrecy encourages whistleblowers – people convinced that the secrecy is damaging the fabric of government. That is what has happened in recent months as more information emerges about Cheney’s so-called “shadow government.”
One of the major leaks has been about his prominent role in undermining the Geneva Conventions and how his White House lawyer and then White Counsel, Alberto Gonzales, argued that Geneva was too much of a limiting factor in interrogations and that cruel, degrading and inhuman methods of questioning could be applied. In Cheney’s view the president was within his rights to permit torture and Congress had no right to limit him on that issue just as it had no right to limit his decisions as Command-in-Chief.
After the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, when questions began to be asked about the policy decisions on this matter, Cheney’s office hid behind stories that lower level officials had been responsible for producing legal interpretations of torture that were not in keeping with White House policy. Some of those involved in discussions in Cheney’s office like Justice Department legal eagle, John Yoo, have begun to distance themselves from some of the more extreme views that emanated from Cheney’s inner circle. Yooe s ays says he warned Cheney and Rumsfeld of the risks of allowing the military to use interrogation techniques that could end up being overused and abused. Those were techniques that he admits found their way from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib and other interrogation centers. A document that undercut the Geneva Conventions was in Dick Cheney’s hands in 2002 but he did not tell Colin Powell and his successor, Condoleezza Rice about it until 2004. Rice is alleged to have exploded in rage when she realized Cheney had been secretly developing policies that were holding the US up to ridicule across the globe and undermining the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It was also Cheney who secretly ensured that even while the president was telling Congress that the US would honor Geneva that the CIA would not be bound by international conventions on torture in its secret interrogation centers. When those centers were closed down after their existence was publicly revealed Cheney secretly made it possible for others to be opened and for renditions to continue. Behind the scenes he has vigorously campaigned to keep Guantanamo operating even though the president has been under pressure from Condoleezza Rice and others to close it. Whatever Cheney wants he seems to get though the more his bunker-type world is penetrated the less effective he may become. On the other hand, while George Bush allows him to wield as much power as he likes he can still have a powerful influence on US foreign policy.

SECRET FILES MAY SHOW FATAH-CIA LINK

According to the militant Palestinian group, Hamas, it has files showing its rival Fatah had close links to the CIA and to Israeli intelligence services. Hamas intends to exploit the files and many journalists throughout the Middle East are salivating at the prospect they will soon be released to the media.
The files came into Hamas hands during the recent battles in Gaza when Hamas fighters seized Fatah’s internal security compound from where it ran its intelligence operations. It was in that compound that many members of Hamas were held and tortured by Fatah interrogators during the period when the late Yasser Arafat was Palestinian president.
Hamas claims that when its fighters took control of the compound in a fierce battle with Fatah milita men they found a treasure trove of US weapons, ammunition and files linking Fatah to CIA and Israeli efforts to undermine and defeat Hamas across the region. Some of the documents are purported to have outlined ways of eliminating members of Hamas and other groups the US and Israel regarded as terrorists.
If Hamas fulfils its pledge to circulate the files that could undermine Fatah and especially its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, who has suddenly become the acceptable face of Palestine for the US and Israel. If Abbas and Fatah were to be painted as stooges of Israel and the West that could effectively weaken his position and erode his claim to represent all Palestinians. So far, Hamas has yet to prove it has authentic documents linking Fatah to the CIA, but if it has that will not surprise too many observers of Middle East politics. Fatah has always been a corrupt organization and intelligence agencies across the region have had had few problems inserting collaborators in its ranks. The CIA, like its Israeli counterpart, Mossad, is believed to have targeted Fatah in order to exploit its hatred for Hamas.
Fatah has consistently accused Hamas of usurping Fatah rule in the West Bank and Gaza. Fatah was especially angered when Hamas soundly defeated it in the last elections. Since then, Israel, the US and Fatah have been keen to see Hamas removed from power even though Mahmoud Abbas was prepared to go into a unity government with Hamas earlier this year. Now he is accusing Hamas of being the devil and an organization with which he will never again do business. Many observers see that position as ultimately untenable. If new elections were to be held, Abbas and Fatah might again be defeated which is something that cannot have escaped the calculations of Abbas. He may now be of the view that for the foreseeable future Palestinians will be divided. Therefore, he will try to exert complete control over the West Bank with money and weapons supplied by the US and the Israelis. There is even talk of Jordan, probably at the instigation of the US, allowing Fatah’s Badr militia in Jordan to transfer to the West Bank to help Abbas and his forces crush Hamas in West Bank town like Nablus and Jenin. That is a risky strategy that could easily backfire.
Meanwhile, the Israelis are tightening their grip on Gaza, convinced that if they can starve the population there it will become desperate and turn on Hamas. But that kind of Israeli policy is just as likely to anger many Palestinians in the West Bank who could turn away from Abbas and Fatah. Ultimately, Abbas and Fatah may be secretly relying on the prospect that if they can gain complete control of the West Bank with the help of money and weapons supplied by the US and an influx of Badr Brigade fighters from Jordan, the political landscape will change. Hamas will be weakened and a reinvigorated Fatah will be in a better position to negotiate with Hams for an end to Palestinian divisions. Whether or not that is a likely reality, one thing is certain -- only a united Palestinian people will have any possibility of negotiating a lasting settlement with Israel.
The divisiveness of the Palestinian issue has had repercussions elsewhere in the region. For example, Egypt, Jordan and Gulf States like Saudi Arabia have aligned with the US and Israel to back Abbas and Fatah. In contrast, Syria, Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon have placed their support behind Hamas. Many European commentators and news outlets have pointed out that former US president, Jimmy Carter, made sense when he said it was wrong of the US to seek to destroy Hamas and to promote a divide and conquer strategy by supporting Abbas and Fatah. In Carter’s view Hamas was democratically elected and the Bush administration acted criminally by refusing to accept its electoral victory because it was not pro-US. Carter’s opinion was all but ignored in coverage at home where he has been pilloried by pro-Israel groups for criticizing Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and for accusing Israel of adopting an apartheid policy towards the occupied territories.
Privately, Israel is happy with the split between Fatah and Hamas and believes that if it provides only a modicum of support to Fatah in the West Bank it will drive a further wedge between Fatah and Hamas. That will enable Israel to shelve any talk of a solution to the Palestinian issue and to avoid any discussion of the prickly matter of Israel’s continued policy of expanding settlements on Palestinian lands. When the recent conflict between Hamas and Fatah began, some observers predicted Israel would release to Abbas and Fatah hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues it had been withholding illegally from Palestinians. It would also free hundreds of Fatah fighters and re-open border crossings. Now it seems none of that will happen. Israel will hand over only a small sum of money, perhaps as much as $250,000. Of the 11,000 Palestinians it has in its jails, a large number of them women and teenagers, it will release approximately 250 but they will not be Fatah fighters previously jailed for serious acts of violence against Israel. As for the prospect of re-opening some major border crossing, that idea was quickly knocked on the head by the Israeli military hierarchy.
One man who may believe he has the answer to the Palestinian problem is outgoing British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who has been appointed Middle East peace envoy on behalf of Russia, the EU, the UN and the US. He got the post after considerable lobbying by the White House but that may prove to be an obstacle in his efforts to present himself as a detached observer and negotiator. Hamas has already said it is opposed to him having any role in the Palestinian issue because of his part in the Iraq war and his unqualified support for US-Israeli policy in the region. But what most upsets Hamas is the fact that last year during the indiscriminate Israeli bombing of the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, Blair opposed calls for a quick end to the bombing. Blair’s supporters point out, however, that he has already proved he can resolve conflict situations by brokering a settlement in Northern Ireland. However, while one could point to some historical parallels between the situation in Ireland and the Palestinian issue, the Middle East has its own complexities that will require an entirely different approach to the one Blair adopted in Ireland. That conflict was essentially a two-state solution issue – Britain and Ireland – whereas the Palestinian problem reaches out well beyond the Middle East into the broader Islamic world.