Fury in British press as Labor leader attacks Blair's 'Jewish cabal'; theocracy or democracy in post-war Iraq?; and more./sfgate/May 8

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2003/05/08/worldviews.DTL

WORLD VIEWS:
Fury in British press as Labor leader attacks Blair's 'Jewish cabal'; theocracy or democracy in post-war Iraq?; and more.
by Edward M. Gomez, special to SF Gate
Thursday, May 8, 2003
c 2003 SF Gate

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2003/05/08/worldviews.DTL


Veteran Labor Party pol Tam Dalyell, 70, has become the unexpected, controversial star of a Vanity Fair interview with Tony Blair that was supposed to have shone a spotlight on the prime minister on the occasion of his 50th birthday.

At issue is a passage in the interview (penned by David Margolick) in which Dalyell is said to have criticized Blair's "staunch" support of Israel. "Tam Dalyell even tells me he thinks Blair is unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers. He mentions [U.K. special envoy to the Middle East Peter] Mandelson, [Labor Party fund-raiser] Lord Levy and [Foreign Secretary] Jack Straw," Margolick wrote.

As the Father of the House of Commons (PDF format) -- that venerable body's senior member -- Dalyell bears one of the most distinguished titles in the U.K. government.

Dalyell's quote made headlines in The Sunday Telegraph, as Dalyell was forced to defend himself, and the story snowballed through the U.K. press; a former Labor MP who now heads the U.K.'s Zionist Federation is "seeking advice" on whether Dalyell should be investigated for inciting racial hatred. (See article in The Guardian)

"The cabal that I referred to was in the U.S.," Dalyell explained. (Guardian) "That is the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. I was thinking of [U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz, [defense adviser Richard] Perle, [Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John] Bolton ... [Douglas] Feith, [Ken] Adelman, [Elliott] Abrams and [White House press secretary Ari] Fleischer. Those people drive this policy."

Dalyell told the Telegraph, "They very much have captured the ear of the president of the United States. I said [to Vanity Fair that] I thought that Blair was very sympathetic to them. I cannot understand why."

Dalyell, whose constituency is in Scotland, told Scotland on Sunday, "Blair and Straw have become far too close to these people, and Lord Levy ... is part of this group. They are acting on an extremely Zionist, Likud-nik agenda. In particular, I am concerned that some of them are pushing for an attack on Syria, for reasons of Israeli security."

To The Sunday Telegraph, he also said, "I am fully aware that one is treading on cut glass on this issue, and no one wants to be accused of anti-Semitism, but if it is a question of launching an assault on Syria or Iran, ... then one has to be candid." He added, "I am not going to be labeled anti-Semitic. My children worked on a kibbutz. But the time has come for candor."

Louise Ellman, a Labor MP on a parliamentary anti-Semitism committee, retorted, "This absurd proposition implies a Jewish plot in high places." The former Conservative foreign secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is well known in Scotland's Jewish community, said, "We all know that Tam gets bees in his bonnet, and eight times out of 10 they are nuts, but the other two are brilliant. This is, I'm afraid, one of the nutty ones." (See article in Scotland on Sunday)

In Israel's conservative Jerusalem Post, commentator Douglas Davis acknowledged that Dalyell "is the conscience of the party, the voice of its ideological soul," known for speaking out and, when "necessary, disagreeing with his leader, loudly and publicly." But with his Vanity Fair remark, Davis said, Dalyell "is not expressing a lone view; he is giving voice to the darkest thoughts of many others, both within and without his own party," and he is giving "such private thoughts public respectability." He said Dalyell had intended "to embarrass Blair, undermine his leadership and stir up the movement that was gathering steam before the start of the war to unseat the Labor prime minister."
* * * *


As the U.S. team overseeing postwar Iraq scrambles to set up an administrative infrastructure, commentators are raising all kinds of doubts about whether democracy will ultimately prevail -- and if so, in what form.

"Bush is right to raise the horizons of expectation of ordinary Iraqis to the ideals of liberal democracy," Arab-affairs specialist Yasir Suleiman wrote in Scotland's Sunday Herald. "[B]ut the test of his intentions will come later if they ... produce a Shia-dominated government through the ballot box, ... [bringing] Iraq closer to Iran politically." Would Bush "be willing to accept this as a legitimate outcome of [his] 'liberation' of Iraq?" Or would he "act preemptively" -- by fixing an election or installing his own man -- to "curb the 'excesses'" of a democratic process that might not follow Washington's script?

If he did, would Bush really want to "[run] the risk of alienating the majority of Iraqis irredeemably?" Suleiman believes that, with that kind of meddling by Washington in mind, the Iraqi Shi'ite leader, Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, has made a point of distancing himself from the United States and that, lately, the Bush-favored opposition leader, Ahmed Chalabi, has done so, too. That's because they realize "that those who come politically close to the Americans at this stage in Iraqi history will end up as the firewood for any political blaze in the future."

Columnist Haroon Siddiqui, in The Toronto Star, claimed that, to prevent "the emergence of an Iranian-style theocracy in favor of what the White House has called an 'Islamic democracy' (whatever that means), America seems determined to install its own puppet regime in Baghdad." After all, "A superpower like the United States does not invade a pip-squeak power like Iraq -- outside the framework of international law and against worldwide opposition -- only for its publicly stated reasons." Thus, Siddiqui added, by planning to pull its bases out of Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and turning its attention to such "less demanding hosts" as Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, all "thinly populated and tightly controlled monarchies," the United States is merely "replicating its failed model of using unrepresentative regimes to suppress the people, but doing it on new turf."

"People are a problem for America in the Arab and Muslim world," Siddiqui observed. "They are bristling with anti-Americanism, principally over the Israeli-Palestinian dispute."

Time is a major factor in all analyses of the postwar scenario. But political scientist Efraim Inbar wondered whether the United States has the patience required "to sustain a long-term commitment" to rebuilding Iraq as a modern democracy. (Jerusalem Post) "Does the American military presence ... constitute the beginning of a new period in the Middle East, or will we see a quick military withdrawal and the dissipation of American influence, similar to what happened after the victory in 1991?"

Whatever follows "the triumph of Bush diplomacy," Le Monde cautioned, the United States faces a big test, in Iraq, of its "new approach to international relations," which "bypasses the U.N., ... short-circuits NATO, ... acts upon interests of the moment ... [and] puts together ad hoc alliances." The force of that approach will be "dangerous" for the United States and for Iraq, and will set "a terrible example for the future," the authoritative French daily said.

For some analysts, visions of the region's future are already coming into focus -- with some significant shifts in its balance of powers, especially regarding Israel.

To research analyst and retired army officer Shaukat Qadir (Daily Times, Pakistan), it appears U.S. policy makers are starting to realize that "Israel's Palestinian policy," which Washington has supported, "is responsible for creating the swamp" of anti-American feeling among Arabs that has provided such a fertile breeding ground for terrorists. "How long must the U.S. pay Israel to wreak its state-sponsored terrorism on Palestine so that Muslims rally to the cause of Palestinians and exact the price from the U.S.?" Qadir added.

He also predicted that, as the United States pulls away from Saudi Arabia and establishes a presence in the region, it will no longer need a "proxy caretaker" of its interests there -- Israel, that is -- and that it will no longer be willing to pay the high price of Arab animosity for its unbending support of Israel. "It would indeed be poetic justice were Israel, the state most keen on the invasion of Iraq, [to turn] out to be the principal loser of that venture!" Qadir said.
* * * *


"Road map to where?" That's the way Singapore's Straits Times reacted to the release of the peace-making plan that a "quartet" of third-party powers had devised and presented to the Israeli and Palestinian governments last week.

Some critics are already dismissing the "road map" to an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement as too ambitious (with its timetable for specific actions to be taken) or too unrealistic or both. Some feel it will lead straight to a dead end, especially now that Israel has said it will never consider the Palestinians' "right of return" to their historic homeland in territory the Jewish state now occupies.

"[W]e doubt the peace process will strictly follow the road map that has now been unfolded," an editorial in Japan's Asahi Shimbun harrumphed about the scheme developed by the quartet -- the United States, the United Nations, the Russian Federation and the European Union. "Ariel Sharon ... has refused to withdraw from [the] occupied territories unless the Palestinians stop all terrorist attacks. [Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud] Abbas, however, has said it is up to Israel to first withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territories. Cease-fire is the initial step toward peace, but even the way to this first step is not yet visible."

By contrast, Jerusalem Post commentator Uzi Benziman suggested, somewhat optimistically, that at least the road map may "force both parties to unveil their hidden agendas and make them confront the core of the dispute." At its heart, he added, is "the Israeli demand that the Palestinians acknowledge Israel's right to exist within safe, recognized borders, and the Palestinians' demand that Israel acknowledge their right to establish a sovereign, viable state."

Perhaps surprisingly for the Post, Benziman proposed that "it would not be unreasonable to state that Israel's refusal to give up the territories is the pivotal reason why it has been unable to reach an arrangement with the Palestinians." He noted, too, that "the Palestinians' dream of uprooting the Zionist entity from the Middle East and returning to the places where their forefathers lived before 1948 was their main contribution" to failed peacemaking efforts to date.

A Straits Times editorial expressed little patience with that kind of dig-in-your-heels stubbornness. It urged Sharon to "act less macho" and to demonstrate that he is a "committed peacemaker," especially since "he had a hand in the emergence of Mr. Abbas." As for the first phase of the road map's call for Israel to take "all necessary steps to normalize Palestinian life," the paper asked, "What is 'normal' life lived in the shadow of Israeli tanks?"

The Dubai-based Gulf News bristled at what it called Washington's "pressure tactics" against Syria (which the United States accused of harboring terrorist groups) and other "frontline Arab states" as it urges faithful implementation of the road map. The paper also reminded the pro-Israel U.S. government that "it is quite possible to support the Palestinian cause without being a terrorist [just as] one can be against the antics of Israeli aggression without being anti-Israel, per se. However, it is this mind-set which the present American administration adopts, aided and abetted by the Zionist factions in Washington, that molds the thinking behind American Middle East policy and destroys any possibility of evenhandedness in resolving the dispute."

In a separate editorial, the Gulf News cautioned Israel not to demand any changes or amendments in the road map now that it has been made public.

Meanwhile, Arutz Sheva (Israel's generally conservative national news service), in a round-up of "Voices Against the Road Map," made clear just what kinds of attitudes -- or obstacles -- diplomats and politicians will be up against as they attempt to implement the new peacemaking plan. Beyond logistics and behavior at the negotiating table, the challenges they may face were reflected in an excerpt from an Israeli rabbi's letter to President Bush. In it, the religious leader wrote, "Every program that stands in opposition to the Prophets' Road Map cannot succeed. I ask you to stand by Israel's side, help it return to its entire land and be a partner in the only 'guaranteed' process -- the Peace Plan laid out by the prophets!"

Author, artist and critic Edward M. Gomez is a former diplomat and correspondent for Time magazine in New York, Tokyo and Paris. He speaks several languages and has lived and worked all over the world. He is a regular contributor to The New York Times and other publications and is the U.S. editor of Raw Vision magazine.