Plaidcast  |  Middle East

Goodbye Gaza! Part 1: Let’s Talk Territory

• Middle East

 

So what in the living hell has been happening this month in the area referred to as Palestine, and why is it so important to the future of this region? I thought originally that I would start this story with Hamas and Fatah, the two political parties involved in this struggle for leadership, but now I think its best if we start with geography to set the place and space up for your understanding. So let's take a quick tour of the area and name some names…

Introduction to Palestine/Israel geography a.k.a. long story short: Currently, the area we refer to as Palestine is a political entity comprised of 2 separate geographic spaces, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. See map at right. Notice I call it a 'political entity' as opposed to a state/country. Cause it's not. Yet. There has been movement towards Palestine becoming a full sovereign state for the last decade or so, but this has not been accomplished—and the current events of June 2007 have radically complicated the process. But I am getting ahead of myself…

 

After the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire at the conclusion if WWI, many territories that are now states in the Middle East were controlled by European powers under a system known as mandates. Of most interest to our particular story, the British had the mandate over what is now Palestine, Israel, and Jordan (see map). During Brit control thousands of Jews were allowed to migrate to the area, fulfilling a desire to re-obtain their ancient homeland in a movement referred to as Zionism. This went on at a slow pace for decades, but became radically accelerated after WWII, as the Nazi-sponsored Jewish Holocaust energized the Zionist movement to really formalize the whole Jewish homeland/state concept.

But there was one small problem for the incoming Jews—there were already other people living there! Shitloads of people! The people we call Palestinians! Arab/Muslim Palestinians that were living there weren't too keen on this process, and friction between the groups developed. The Brits saw the impending shit-storm that was brewing, so they bailed out and handed over the entire area to the UN to let them sort it out. Subsequently, a majority of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration, and on November 29, 1947 the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13 in favor of the 1947 UN Partition Plan. (see map) The partition plan was rejected out of hand by the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, by the Arab League, and by most of the Arab population.

This led Jewish leaders to declare the independent State of Israel the day prior to official British withdrawal, on 14 May 1948. All the surrounding Arab countries immediately attacked it, and the ensuing 1948 Arab-Israeli War ended with the former mandate territory controlled by the State of Israel, the Kingdom of Jordan, and the Kingdom of Egypt. Israel had successfully defended itself from the Arab attack and the US, the Europeans, and the UN recognized its sovereignty. But the fun had just begun…

I won't go into detail here, but you should probably at least know this: since 1948 there have been multiple wars between Israel and the neighboring Arab states over control of the territories, but the most critical one was the 1967 6-Day War. Try and figure out how the war got its name. After that, try and figure out who is buried in Grant's tomb. Anyway by this war's end, Israel had gained control of eastern Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. (see map)

The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day. The Sinai Peninsula eventually reverted back to Egypt and the Golan Heights will probably soon revert back to Syria, but the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have been under Israeli occupation and control since 1967…and continuing to this day. Which brings us to the end of this chapter…

The West Bank and Gaza Strip are sometimes referred to as 'the Occupied Territories', as in occupied by Israel forces. The areas, and specifically the borders, are patrolled and controlled by the Israeli military–complete with check points and road blocks and high security throughout. Some in Israel would argue that the areas were won in a war, so they should just claim them outright as part of Israel. But many more folks (including most other countries in the world) think that perhaps those territories should be controlled by the Palestinians, and even made into a separate sovereign state…which of course was the plan that the UN had put forth back in 1947. This idea is referred to as 'the 2-state solution' and we'll talk more about it later.

All this mess has been further complicated by Israel's off-and-on support of the movement of Jewish settlers into these contested territories. So there are lots of Jewish settlements/towns/people throughout the West Bank, although there are not anymore in the Gaza Strip since the Israeli government forcibly removed them a few years back as a diplomatic gesture to promote the peace process. You may have also heard lately about a big-ass wall that Israel has been building around parts of the West Bank to improve security between the West Bank and Israel proper, but also protecting Jewish settlement areas within the West Bank itself.

 

This shit is so confusing. I hope this has helped. At least know what these geographic terms mean: the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Israel, 'the Occupied Territories', and Palestine. Now that you have the geo-vocab, we can get into the nuts and bolts of the politics. This one last map may help you understand the changing geography of what/where 'Palestine' is:

 

 

 

‘2-State Solution’ Totally Tanked. And so am I: an intro.

• Middle East

What is happening my Party Plaid People? Sorry for the incredible incorrigible inconvenient incognito that I have indulged in for several weeks, but what can I say? Sometimes when you fall in cahoots with a couple of Asian hotties while working undercover to infiltrate a top-secret lingerie factory outside Rangoon…well, let's just say that you lose track of time.

But now I'm back! And lo and behold! All hell has broken loose in the Strip! Now typically when I hear the word 'strip' it has nothing but positive connotations in my experience abroad. But when the strip in question is the Gaza Strip, we're talking about a whole different type of being fucked. I have the distinct feeling that most Americans don't have an utter clue about the importance of the events in Palestine in the last two weeks, and we need to change that.

Some serious shit has gone done there—and I mean history-altering type of shit. Everything in the Arab-Israeli dispute, the 'two-state solution', and peace in the Middle East is going to be different from here on out. Would you like to know more? Would you like to be among the 1% of Americans that actually know what the hell is going on in this situation? Then tune in for the next several days my friends and I'll do my best to clue you in. Let's do a Plaid Avenger first: a multi-day blog on a single subject. How about a line-up that looks like this:

Day 1: Who the hell is Hamas?

Day 2: What the fuck is Fatah?

Day 3: When did all this shit go down: a timeline

Day 4: Where the hell are these places we're talking about? Territory matters!

Day 5: Why is the '2-state solution' now totally tanked?

Day 6: Wrap-up; likely scenarios and what outside forces will do.

Damn! The who-what-when-where-and why of current events in Palestine. That is too damn good! Now I hope I can deliver the goods. Sound good to you folks? Drop me a line in the comments section—seriously. In fact, I think from now on this blog should only be written to answer specific questions or approach specific current events posed in the comments or emailed directly to me.

If you build it, they will come. If you ask it, it shall be written. That is my inebriated pledge to you, my friends.

Shit, now I've got to sleep off this hangover and figure out Hamas. I must be out of my mind. Check this out while you wait:

Mid-East leaders gather at summit

Haniya rejects Israel-Arab summit

Israel and U.S. agree on Palestinian approach

Iraq, my ass! Afghanistan is ablaze!

• Middle East
• World
• South Asia & Central Asia

The Plaid Avenger strikes! Time to enlighten but not frighten. Today's topic: Afghanistan must seriously be going to hell in a hand-basket, and the feeble US news agencies, as well as the US government, just aren't telling you shit! Check it:

More SAS to take on Taliban

Two more Canadians reportedly killed in Afghanistan

Australia to double Afghan force

US extends troops' tour of duty

Plaid people! This is serious shit! The government and the media are all focuses intently on watching destruction in Iraq, but everyone seems to have forgotten that the US/NATO invaded Afghanistan many, many moons ago too, and the situation is getting worse! WTF??? AS far as the Plaid is concerned, Iraq is in a full state of civil war, and no amount of US money, soldiers, or bombs is going to stop that process now. It sucks to be sure, but I just call them like I see them.

But the bigger point is this: Iraq has become such a political hot potato in US culture, that everyone has conveniently forgot that there is a still very much active war against the Taliban in Afghanistan….and the US/NATO is losing that one too!!! The US, along with all of its staunchest NATO allies, is quietly increasing the numbers of troops that are being sent to the land-locked, land-mined, dusty desert of Central Asia. And they ain't being sent to set up circus tents either. Given that the US military is already over-extended in Iraq, the fact the they are putting ever-more-scarce troops in Afghanistan can only mean one thing: bad shit is happening, and it's libel to get much, much worse.

The world somehow assumed that the Taliban were beat, done, and gone a few years ago…but SURPRISE! They are back, and in full fighting force. The above headlines reference not only increases in troop numbers, but also more frequent deadly attacks on NATO forces there—the Canadians alone have lost 6 to 8 men in the last several days. How is it that the Taliban are regrouping and gaining support? For the very reasons that they came to power in the first damn place!

The Taliban are a hardcore, extremist, religious fundamental group that essentially want to recreate the 11^th century again here in the 21^st, and that sounds shitty to folks like us in the rich world. But you've got to understand that folks in an impoverished, chaotic, lawless, and shit-filled situation (like Afghanistan) think that returning to the 11st century may be A-okay! Why not? The 21^st century sucks for them so far! But seriously, the extremism of the Taliban did bring law an order to a chaotic, warlord dominated state; the Taliban did bring an organized and uncorrupted government (fucked up, but not corrupted) to Afghanistan; and the Taliban—yes, the Taliban—even decreased the amount of opium being produced in the state.

While the Plaid Avenger still personally despises the Taliban because of their totalitarian tactics and utter lack of respect for human rights, I at least understand why they were successful in coming to power the first time, and why they seem to be having a resurgence here as of late. Do you now see why? Because the state totally sucks for most people man! From warlord-dominated chaos and poverty to NATO-dominated chaos and poverty, folks in this country have not had much to hope for. And to be honest, the only entity that has ever had any success in controlling this state for even a limited time has been….can you guess?….yep, that's right: the Taliban.

Let's get one thing straight Plaid People: I think they suck. The Plaid Avenger fights for justice, human rights, human dignity, and human equality, and thus the Taliban is no friend of mine. But I want you to understand the dilemma of the people in Afghanistan, and indeed of the NATO forces in Afghanistan as well. Shits gotta change. Just trying to kill the bad guys isn't enough anymore. Because as the US/NATO forces have found out, there is no killing of all the bad guys…they will never get them all. 'The West' has got to change its attitude about invading countries to simply kill bad guys. It hasn't worked, its not working, and it's not going to ever work.

Do I have all the answers about how to do it right? Nope. I am simply one slightly tipsy superhero who hopes that someone in the US state Department, or the NATO command, or at the UN figures out that it takes more than bombs and bullets to win these battles. In Afghanistan, life sucks, everyone is impoverished, most are hungry, the economy is non-existent, locals are dying, NATO troops are dying, and opium production has just reaching an all-time record high (pun intended), while the damn country is being occupied by the US.

WTF? How is killing a bunch of renegade desert bandits going to change any of that? Plaid Avenger Afghan 3-month forecast: Look for it to be a long, hot summer of death and destruction, with highs in the upper 110's…and highs in the opium fields too.

Write your Congressman. Write NATO. Join the French Foreign Legion and invade the Vatican. Whatever it takes to make a change.

Party on

-PA

Iranian President: “Please, please somebody bomb us!”

• Middle East

Iran: "Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, oh please won't somebody bomb us? We, the Iranian leadership, are begging the international community to come bomb the shit out of our civilians so that we may claim a higher moral ground than you, while simultaneously infuriating our population into being as extreme as we are. Won't you please help?"

Iran says begins industrial scale uranium enrichment

Iran's industrial scale fuel production a prelude to talks

Europe: Majority supports strike on Iran

Oops. Does the Plaid Avenger seem too cynical here? Oh well. I just call'em like I see'em sometimes. And it really pisses me off too. I would love to see a poll out of Iran which shows the majority attitude of the Iranians on the street. I would love to eat my hat after seeing some sort of huge majority of Persian folks that actually support the rapid acceleration of pissing off the rest of the planet.

You can't really even just point at the US or the Europeans as the only groups that are not happy about these Iranians developments: you all should know by now that the UN Permanent Security Council unanimously voted for sanctions against Iran—that means Russia and China are not thrilled with these events either (at least publicly). The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) is not particularly optimistic that much good is going to come of this, and of course 'the West' takes these maneuvers as a prelude to aggression. Is it? I don't really think so, but I do believe all of the Iranian government actions are definitely intended to evoke a response—a response which will include escalating the conflict. What a crock of shit.

This whole drama of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad jumping up and down screaming that it is his nation's god-given right to have nuclear power is a theater of the absurd. Couple that with the preposterous holding of 15 British sailors deal last week—man, that shit looked like a badly produced ABC after-school special from the 70's—and you have the makings of a full-on global confrontation…and for what? So that Iran can become a major strategic player in the Middle East (which they already are), so that Iran can become a major energy power (which they already are), or so that Iran can be respected at the world table as an equal of the US, Russia, and China (which is impossible given the way they are trying to achieve this). Hell man, I have no idea what these folks hope to gain anymore. Maybe some of you have some opinions?

The Plaid Avenger's best guess is that they want to be the sole Middle Eastern power to thumb its nose at 'the West' (and the wider world in general) because most other countries in the Middle East have strategic ties to the US, and are therefore seen as sucking up to 'the West'. And it's partly an ethnic/religious thing too, that you certainly must know to understand the situation. Here is the deal:

Iran is ethnically Persian and religiously Shiite Muslim. Most of the rest of the Middle East is ethnically Arab and religiously Sunni Muslim (particularly the main power players of Saudi Arabia and Egypt.) Iraq's current civil war is based on these exact divisions. These groups of folks have not gotten along well for a millennium or so, and it doesn't appear that it's getting any better anytime soon. Anyway, here in the 21^st century there is definitely a power struggle, or struggle for influence, occurring within the greater Middle East which is pitting these two teams against each other. Throw in a few other teams (Team Turkey, Team Israel, and Team 'West") and you have a good old fashion cage-match going down.

Because so many of the Arab/Sunni countries have strategic ties to the US, Iran is now seen as the sole power that is 'uncorrupted' by 'the West': a theme that seems to be getting them some respect across the region as of late. And by obtaining nuclear power/a nuclear weapon, Iran will certainly become more of a player on the world stage than any of its Arab/Sunni neighbors. Specifically, a nuclear weapon would put them into a serious strategic power position to be able to throw its weight around about the Israeli/Palestine conflict, and not fear any retribution from 'the West'. Thus, Team Persia would be the unequaled power leader of the region. Oh, wait a minute….that's why they would want a nuclear weapon. I guess you really can't blame them.

But while the future may hold some higher status for Iran, it's not going to come without a high price…if it comes at all. I guess that's what it's all about; just a global high-stakes poker match that Iran hopes to bluff its way through. Well, I guess it's definitely worth it for the Iranian leadership: after all, if their country gets bombed or invaded, it certainly won't be the government officials that will get hurt. They never do. What's a few thousand civilian casualties…or even a few hundred thousand? As long as the leaders look good, I'm sure it's an okay price to pay. What a joke.

Speaker in Syria is Serious Shit

• Middle East
• World
• The Americas

Greetings world watchers. Just a quick digression for you today on why Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria is actually an important event. Doesn't matter to me if you are a Democrat who supports her bold political maneuver in defiance of the White House, or if you are a Republican who thinks she is the anti-Christ. Political bullshit is not the Plaid Avenger's concern. Small moves which may have large impacts in the future are what we deal with in this forum, so here we go…

Pelosi receives warm welcome in Syria

Cheney hits out at Pelosi visit

US Democrat Pelosi in Syria talks

To repeat: I am not expressing any opinion on whether or not Pelosi's visit to the Middle East is a good thing or a bad thing. That's just not my thing for now. You readers can do your thing in the comments forum to beat, berate, and bash her, or each other. The Avenger's interest in this news event has far greater impacts than the current political power stand-off in the US, or even the goofball US foreign policy towards the Middle East. No, I see something much bigger here. I see the potential for a re-working of the whole American government system, specifically in the foreign policy arena. Perhaps just a bit of background to start though…

You already know, or you damn well should know, that since the last election cycle the US Congress has been controlled by the Democrats. The White House is of course still staunchly Republican. Thus: friction. As has been over-reported in the last several months, many Democrats favor US withdrawal from the current Iraq War, while most Republicans—including those in the White House—are sticking to their guns. Pun intended. So what's this got to do with Nancy?

Nancy Pelosi is the first woman to become the Speaker of the House. Quite frankly, the woman part is of no concern to me, or this story—but I do likes the women! And women in power? Hell yes! What a turn-on! Oops, I digress as usual. Anyway, Speaker of the House is an important position in the US government. A damned important position. Like third in line of power after the President and Vice-President. As part of her political agenda to change US foreign policy, the Speaker went to visit the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, as well a host of other folks in the Middle East. Since the official US foreign policy from the White House has been a 'no-talk-to' Syria since 2005, the administration has been pissed to say the least. Which brings us to this:

Speaker of the House on a foreign policy tour? Ballsy. Ballsy to say the least. And new! No Speaker has done anything like that before! At least not without a nod from the White House. And that's why it's a big story to the Plaid Avenger. This turn of events here in our lifetime may mark the start of a new age of American politics. Since American politics eventually affect all world politics, it is an important story for the globe. What the hell am I talking about?

Foreign policy has always been an exclusively executive branch/President thing. It's one of those powers that only the President of the US wields, on behalf of the rest of the US. This Pelosi tour seriously challenges that notion. This idea that only one dude sitting in the White House calls all the shots on how the US will work with the rest of the entire planet may be getting seriously outdated. Why?

Hell I don't know why. Perhaps the world is now just too complicated for a single man with a single plan to deal with. Perhaps it's due to the globalization of communications and news: too many of us now know too much about what's happening all over the planet…which of course results in lots of different opinions on how the US should be dealing with those happenings. Perhaps it really is time to have a greater democratic political voice in US foreign policy. That's democratic voice with a small d, not a big D—meaning the people (the demos) should have a bigger voice, not just the Democratic Party. Perhaps it's time the US considers altering is 'un-alterable' system to allow more room for other voices in the foreign policy arena.

Ah, the good old days of foreign policy…before global communications and global news updated second to second, and before the widespread accessibility of all kinds of information…the government of any state could so easily dictate foreign policy on behalf of its citizens, because by and large their citizen were totally clueless about what was happening in the world. I'm sure it made things much easier on the rulers. They didn't really need to explain their actions to the masses; they could make up any story that they wanted…and hell, some rulers even made up the results of their actions regardless of reality. I'm sure many US Presidents of the last decades have yearned for those good old days. But they are gone. Dead and buried my friends. So what is the future?

That I do not know. But the Speaker in Syria has opened a can of worms that will never be closed again. From now on, look for more and more high-ranking government officials to be very assertive in their US foreign policy moves, even if their actions are not condoned by the White Hose. It will also be used more as a political tool of in-fighting between the political parties from here on out too.

There are many parliamentary democracies around the globe that have a prime minister position—think Tony Blair or Dr. Manmohan Singh. In many of these systems, the President of the country deals with domestic issues, while the Prime Minister is the foreign policy guru that deals with all the international issues. Perhaps its time for a republic like the US to experiment with such a division of labor. Is it really realistic in the 21^st century to think one person can do it all? Yeah, yeah, I know the President has his Cabinet, but let's be honest: those are just a bunch of lackeys towing the line on the President's policies. They don't stray too far off the path. (That's one of the reasons Colin Powell quit a few years ago—he was too assertive.)

Anyway, that's the rant for now. The Plaid thinks that perhaps we need a Prime.

Prime Minister of Plaid….Hmmmmmm….I wonder if I would get my own jet?

Page 10 of 11 pages ‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 >