A few weeks ago the famed STRATFOR site was attacked by hackers and suffered an embarrassing setback. Their answer was to make the entire site free to everyone for a short period of time. I figured that this was my only chance to see first hand what George Friedman and his colleagues produced for their subscribers.
Well, to say that I was surprised would be an understatement. I expected complex analyses based on inside information and solid geopolitical theories. What I found was a series of binary propositions that took policy statements as axiomatic starting points. By binary propositions I mean "on the one hand" and "on the other hand" arguments with no tangible conclusions.
Iran is a case in point.
I am sure my tiny readership is well aware of the tension between Iran and Israel, the recent American embargo that will force most countries to stop dealing with Iran and the Iranian threat to block the Strait of Hormuz.
In June, STRATFOR ran a piece (one of their freebies) that suggested that the US was leaving the region and as Saudis were suspicious that the US might abandon them, leaving them exposed to Iran, they might be getting ready for a rapprochement with Iran. The link to their site is gone but the piece is still at Bill O'Reilly's mirror site (yes, that Bill O'Reilly).
To me, this is an astonishing proposition to advance. The idea of Wahhabi Saudis cozying up to Shiite Iranian is like American evangelicals considering to join the Church of Latter Day Saints. Someone who knows nothing about the underlying religious dogma might see them as versions of Christian faith but ask either party and they would simply laugh at the idea.
Moreover, I could not believe that someone actually took the US declaration of an exit from the region at face value. As I suggested in October, leaving behind 50,000 personnel in five heavily fortified, city-size bases does not seem like a departure to me.
It is unthinkable that the US would leave Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates with no protection. Not to mention Israel. In fact, if you believed that the US spent a couple of trillion dollars and sacrificed almost five thousand American lives on a "freedom" mission, I would salute you for your innocence and gullibility.
29 January 2012
25 January 2012
US Presidential Elections and the American Right
In democracies, under normal circumstances, electoral results are determined by business classes. You could point to the huge sums of money in the system and the pervasive lobbying efforts. You could highlight the lack of meaningful difference between the left and the right. You could underline the insidious role of the media in shaping perceptions and providing useful fake narratives.
Actually, you could say all of the above.
Partly because of that, nine months ago, I was convinced that Obama was going to be a single term President. The unemployment figures were stuck at two digit, foreclosures were destroying all economic recovery hopes and the American Right was very successful in mobilizing its base against "the Black President." And most importantly, business classes seemed indifferent to what was going on. Corporate profits were up, banksters were back in business with a vengeance and the corporate media maintained its deferential stance towards conservatives and critical stance towards liberals.
They were happy to regurgitate any talking points conservatives might insert into the news cycle. With a few exceptions, liberals were removed from Op-Ed pages. Sunday talk shows were dominated by conservative guests.
When I added to this mixture the racially motivated hatred most conservatives and evangelicals had for Obama, I could not see how he could improve his numbers and get a fighting chance. It looked like the corporate media and their owners were fine with the idea of a "wingnut" being elected POTUS.
In fact, after reading Matt Taibbi's insightful article, I began to take Michele Bachmann's candidacy seriously. That had little to do with Bachmann herself. Some people think she is stupid. I doubt that very much. I believe people confuse stupidity with being uninformed. Bachmann, like most religious conservatives around the globe, is proudly uninformed. All the correlations and causalities she will ever need are there in the Scriptures. Armed with that knowledge processor all she needs is actual data and her staff can provide those any time.
Then something happened. First, Obama, who had been governing from the right, made a more dramatic and unconcealed shift to the right. While his civil rights record was never enviable, at that point he basically doubled down on his record:, he pushed for legislation to make indefinite detention a presidential prerogative, he claimed the presidential right to assassinate people around the world, including American citizens, he escalated his administration's war against whistle blowers and he successfully maintained the President's right to wage war without Congressional approval.
This is without going into his staff changes and economic measures.
Here is a more complete list:
A second thing happened. The corporate media added a palpable pro-administration spin to its reporting. Unemployment either disappeared from the news or tiny improvements were treated as huge. Obama was hailed as an exceedingly smart leader. He became the only grown up in the room. His clash with the Republican controlled Congress (they control only the House but the behavior of the Democratic Senators make that nuance moot) over debt ceiling was reported very differently than before. His opponents were portrayed as stubborn ideologues who are out of touch and Obama as a reasonable leader facing an impossible situation.
While it is true that Republicans are out of touch hard core ideologues, no one in the media dared to suggest that previously.
The moment this new media attitude solidified I began to review my previous judgement about Obama's re-election chances.
The Republican Candidates
As part of this change of attitude, the media stories became quite critical of Republican candidates. For instance, as you can see in the examples given in the Taibbi article I linked above, there were many reports that made fun of Bachmann. Interestingly, during her last electoral campaign in Minnesota's 6th District the coverage was respectful and deferential. Nobody mentioned her husband's controversial views or her really over-the-top pronouncements. She was treated like a nice conservative woman with a school girl's crush on W.
Yet, during her presidential campaign, she was treated like a national joke. Tellingly, none of this affected her base and her numbers remained steady (as predicted by Taibbi) as did her funding from the evangelicals. At that point, she started having curious campaign staff problems. After a few change overs, it became clear that she could not hold on to a permanent team. I have seen no report explaining why she had such drastic staff problems.
While she imploded, Herman Cain became the surprise head runner. Since everyone thought that he was in it to sell his book (and he was), no one paid any attention to him. His rise was due to the evangelicals who felt that if Bachmann was pushed aside they were not going to join the Romney campaign. Their attitude was that anybody was better than Romney, as they believed that he was not really a Christian and he was not one of them (and he is not).
When Cain's sexual harassment stories hit the front pages, to the media's chagrin, his support among the evangelicals remained steady. After several such stories that did nothing to his popularity, it took the salacious details of his long term affair to get him to suspend his campaign.
Perry or Governor Goodhair as the incomparable Charles Pierce calls him, self destructed very quickly. He had no message, no real team. He was not ready for the prime time. Other than perhaps magnifying his every misstep, no media effort was needed to derail his candidacy.
By then it was clear that the business classes and the corporate media wanted a race between Obama and Romney as they saw them quite interchangeable. They clearly preferred Obama but if by a fluke a Republican were to become President they wanted that person to be Romney.
The evangelical base of the party begged to differ. This time, they got behind the twice-divorced Newt Gingrich. To everyone's disbelief, Gingrich began to rise in the polls. In his case, most of the horrible details of his past infidelities were public knowledge and it would be quite difficult to rehash them without appearing malicious. Yet they managed to do just that and got his second wife to retell the story of the prelude to his third marriage.
What happened? Once again his support held among the conservatives and he won South Carolina.
I am sure the business classes and the corporate media will find a way to send him packing as well and if needed, a similar scenario will be played out for Santorum. In his case, he has a way of getting himself into trouble without much push from outside.
So, it looks like Romney will be the candidate not because he will have been anointed by the party's base but because he will be the last man standing. Despite clearly supporting him against all the other "nutty" candidates, the media does not seem to be behind him in the presidential race. You can see it from the clear shift in the narrative from "shoulders you could land a 737 on." to "Mitt Romney Made Nearly $22 Million in 2010, Paid Less Than 14 Percent in Taxes.
It is a fail-safe strategy for business classes, as Romney is, in Santorum's nicely racist words, "a paler version of what we have."
This leaves Obama free to move his rhetoric back to 2008 and talk about income inequalities, unfair taxes, rigged system of opportunities and unemployment. All the things he did nothing about for four years. And all the things he just mentioned in his last State of the Union address.
To me the most important aspect of a race between Obama and Romney is the possibility that a good chunk of the Republican base might stay home that day. If they indeed hate him as much as they hate Obama they might just do that.
And that would have very interesting repercussions on the Congressional arithmetic.
------------
UPDATE:
Romney is definitely getting the wrong kind of press. LA Times reported that
I am very curious why they are going after him while the GOP primaries are still on.
Actually, you could say all of the above.
Partly because of that, nine months ago, I was convinced that Obama was going to be a single term President. The unemployment figures were stuck at two digit, foreclosures were destroying all economic recovery hopes and the American Right was very successful in mobilizing its base against "the Black President." And most importantly, business classes seemed indifferent to what was going on. Corporate profits were up, banksters were back in business with a vengeance and the corporate media maintained its deferential stance towards conservatives and critical stance towards liberals.
They were happy to regurgitate any talking points conservatives might insert into the news cycle. With a few exceptions, liberals were removed from Op-Ed pages. Sunday talk shows were dominated by conservative guests.
When I added to this mixture the racially motivated hatred most conservatives and evangelicals had for Obama, I could not see how he could improve his numbers and get a fighting chance. It looked like the corporate media and their owners were fine with the idea of a "wingnut" being elected POTUS.
In fact, after reading Matt Taibbi's insightful article, I began to take Michele Bachmann's candidacy seriously. That had little to do with Bachmann herself. Some people think she is stupid. I doubt that very much. I believe people confuse stupidity with being uninformed. Bachmann, like most religious conservatives around the globe, is proudly uninformed. All the correlations and causalities she will ever need are there in the Scriptures. Armed with that knowledge processor all she needs is actual data and her staff can provide those any time.
Then something happened. First, Obama, who had been governing from the right, made a more dramatic and unconcealed shift to the right. While his civil rights record was never enviable, at that point he basically doubled down on his record:, he pushed for legislation to make indefinite detention a presidential prerogative, he claimed the presidential right to assassinate people around the world, including American citizens, he escalated his administration's war against whistle blowers and he successfully maintained the President's right to wage war without Congressional approval.
This is without going into his staff changes and economic measures.
Here is a more complete list:
(1) Codify indefinite detention into law; (2) draw up a secret kill list of people, including American citizens, to assassinate without due process; (3) proceed with warrantless spying on American citizens; (4) prosecute Bush-era whistleblowers for violating state secrets; (5) reinterpret the War Powers Resolution such that entering a war of choice without a Congressional declaration is permissible; (6) enter and prosecute such a war; (7) institutionalize naked scanners and intrusive full body pat-downs in major American airports; (8) oversee a planned expansion of TSA so that its agents are already beginning to patrol American highways, train stations, and bus depots; (9) wage an undeclared drone war on numerous Muslim countries that delegates to the CIA the final call about some strikes that put civilians in jeopardy; (10) invoke the state-secrets privilege to dismiss lawsuits brought by civil-liberties organizations on dubious technicalities rather than litigating them on the merits; (11) preside over federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries; (12) attempt to negotiate an extension of American troops in Iraq beyond 2011 (an effort that thankfully failed); (14) reauthorize the Patriot Act; (13) and select an economic team mostly made up of former and future financial executives from Wall Street firms that played major roles in the financial crisis.To accompany his shift to the right, his economic policies remained neutral towards unemployment and foreclosures. Some liberal economists in the administration were forced out and people like Daley was brought in as Chief of Staff. Contrary to claims that he could no nothing faced with a hostile Congress he chose to follow the advice of Geithner and Daley and did not even try to use the funds in the already approved HAMP program.
A second thing happened. The corporate media added a palpable pro-administration spin to its reporting. Unemployment either disappeared from the news or tiny improvements were treated as huge. Obama was hailed as an exceedingly smart leader. He became the only grown up in the room. His clash with the Republican controlled Congress (they control only the House but the behavior of the Democratic Senators make that nuance moot) over debt ceiling was reported very differently than before. His opponents were portrayed as stubborn ideologues who are out of touch and Obama as a reasonable leader facing an impossible situation.
While it is true that Republicans are out of touch hard core ideologues, no one in the media dared to suggest that previously.
The moment this new media attitude solidified I began to review my previous judgement about Obama's re-election chances.
The Republican Candidates
As part of this change of attitude, the media stories became quite critical of Republican candidates. For instance, as you can see in the examples given in the Taibbi article I linked above, there were many reports that made fun of Bachmann. Interestingly, during her last electoral campaign in Minnesota's 6th District the coverage was respectful and deferential. Nobody mentioned her husband's controversial views or her really over-the-top pronouncements. She was treated like a nice conservative woman with a school girl's crush on W.
Yet, during her presidential campaign, she was treated like a national joke. Tellingly, none of this affected her base and her numbers remained steady (as predicted by Taibbi) as did her funding from the evangelicals. At that point, she started having curious campaign staff problems. After a few change overs, it became clear that she could not hold on to a permanent team. I have seen no report explaining why she had such drastic staff problems.
While she imploded, Herman Cain became the surprise head runner. Since everyone thought that he was in it to sell his book (and he was), no one paid any attention to him. His rise was due to the evangelicals who felt that if Bachmann was pushed aside they were not going to join the Romney campaign. Their attitude was that anybody was better than Romney, as they believed that he was not really a Christian and he was not one of them (and he is not).
When Cain's sexual harassment stories hit the front pages, to the media's chagrin, his support among the evangelicals remained steady. After several such stories that did nothing to his popularity, it took the salacious details of his long term affair to get him to suspend his campaign.
Perry or Governor Goodhair as the incomparable Charles Pierce calls him, self destructed very quickly. He had no message, no real team. He was not ready for the prime time. Other than perhaps magnifying his every misstep, no media effort was needed to derail his candidacy.
By then it was clear that the business classes and the corporate media wanted a race between Obama and Romney as they saw them quite interchangeable. They clearly preferred Obama but if by a fluke a Republican were to become President they wanted that person to be Romney.
The evangelical base of the party begged to differ. This time, they got behind the twice-divorced Newt Gingrich. To everyone's disbelief, Gingrich began to rise in the polls. In his case, most of the horrible details of his past infidelities were public knowledge and it would be quite difficult to rehash them without appearing malicious. Yet they managed to do just that and got his second wife to retell the story of the prelude to his third marriage.
What happened? Once again his support held among the conservatives and he won South Carolina.
I am sure the business classes and the corporate media will find a way to send him packing as well and if needed, a similar scenario will be played out for Santorum. In his case, he has a way of getting himself into trouble without much push from outside.
So, it looks like Romney will be the candidate not because he will have been anointed by the party's base but because he will be the last man standing. Despite clearly supporting him against all the other "nutty" candidates, the media does not seem to be behind him in the presidential race. You can see it from the clear shift in the narrative from "shoulders you could land a 737 on." to "Mitt Romney Made Nearly $22 Million in 2010, Paid Less Than 14 Percent in Taxes.
It is a fail-safe strategy for business classes, as Romney is, in Santorum's nicely racist words, "a paler version of what we have."
This leaves Obama free to move his rhetoric back to 2008 and talk about income inequalities, unfair taxes, rigged system of opportunities and unemployment. All the things he did nothing about for four years. And all the things he just mentioned in his last State of the Union address.
To me the most important aspect of a race between Obama and Romney is the possibility that a good chunk of the Republican base might stay home that day. If they indeed hate him as much as they hate Obama they might just do that.
And that would have very interesting repercussions on the Congressional arithmetic.
------------
UPDATE:
Romney is definitely getting the wrong kind of press. LA Times reported that
Some investments listed in Mitt and Ann Romney’s 2010 tax returns – including a now-closed Swiss bank account and other funds located overseas – were not explicitly disclosed in the personal financial statement the GOP presidential hopeful filed in August as part of his White House bid.This is the kind of hatchet job to which Republican candidates are almost never subjected.
I am very curious why they are going after him while the GOP primaries are still on.
16 January 2012
Vietnam and Cambodia: Thoughts About Transition to Capitalism
Recently, I found myself in Vietnam and in Cambodia for a few days. Instead of focusing on how amazing these countries were -and they are- I began thinking about their odd trajectory to capitalism.
Once a contrarian always a contrarian, I guess.
These are two neighboring countries in South East Asia with an intertwined history. They are also very poor countries by most common standards. Both of them had gone through very traumatic and violent periods in recent history. And they have both been relatively successful in economic terms in recent years.
Yet, I was struck by how radically different they were in many respects.
Vietnam
The first thing that strikes you when you are in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) is the number of scooters. If you are in a car (like a taxi) you feel like a shark surrounded by a giant shoal of pilot fish. There are usually more than one person on them, a friend, a couple of kids, sometimes a family of four or a huge pile of bananas. They swarm around the bigger fish (you) with great dexterity and without paying much attention to you.
In fact, in Vietnam, you get none of the deferential treatment that Westerners routinely receive in most developing countries. Which I found very refreshing and healthy. Vietnamese could not care less about your identity and they feel absolutely no reason to treat you differently. The average person, man, woman, child exudes self-confidence.
Once a contrarian always a contrarian, I guess.
These are two neighboring countries in South East Asia with an intertwined history. They are also very poor countries by most common standards. Both of them had gone through very traumatic and violent periods in recent history. And they have both been relatively successful in economic terms in recent years.
Yet, I was struck by how radically different they were in many respects.
Vietnam
The first thing that strikes you when you are in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) is the number of scooters. If you are in a car (like a taxi) you feel like a shark surrounded by a giant shoal of pilot fish. There are usually more than one person on them, a friend, a couple of kids, sometimes a family of four or a huge pile of bananas. They swarm around the bigger fish (you) with great dexterity and without paying much attention to you.
In fact, in Vietnam, you get none of the deferential treatment that Westerners routinely receive in most developing countries. Which I found very refreshing and healthy. Vietnamese could not care less about your identity and they feel absolutely no reason to treat you differently. The average person, man, woman, child exudes self-confidence.
07 January 2012
Two Preoccupying Developments
When I read in late November that the Turkish Prime Minister underwent a laparoscopic surgery to remove a small section of his colon I got curious. There were no details in any of the media reports. In fact, most of them simply stated that Erdogan had abdominal surgery.
Subsequently, they reported that no sign of cancer was found and he was fine. I asked around and my sources told me that the media reports were rubbish and he had indeed colon cancer. His doctors felt that they had to intervene rapidly to remove some tumors.
What I found rather unusual was the visit by Vice President Joe Biden days after the surgery. He went to Erdogan's private residence in Istanbul and spent a few hours there. That is way too high level for an after-surgery-courtesy visit. To me this visit showed a great deal of concern on the part of the Americans as (according to my hypothesis) Erdogan and Turkey are critically important for their plans for the region.
Around the same time, Israeli conservative Web site Debka reported that Erdogan's cancer could be serious:
If true, this would be a major issue for all the players in the Middle East. Erdogan has no heir apparent and his party is not a monolithic organization. If he becomes incapacitated or worse, there would be a power vacuum and serious infighting for his position would ensue. And none of the possible candidates could be the unifying force he has been for the AKP.
The second worrisome development is the incarceration of the former Chief of General Staff of the Turkish army. He was taken into custody on Friday in relation with the Ergenekon case. The case has been going on for almost five years and alleges that there was an ultra-nationalist conspiracy from within the Turkish army aiming to overthrow the AKP government.
In the summer, the then Chief of Joint Staff and heads of the branches of the armed forces resigned en masse symbolically to protest the handling of the Ergenekon case. I noted at the time that I was not worried about a coup d'etat. As I later explained about Egypt, the real Turkish model was to sideline the army by forcing it to choose between its economic and political interests.
This time I find the timing and the nature of the arrest rather worrisome. It is possible that the current chiefs of the armed forces could see this as a cautionary tale about getting involved in politics and decide to keep their distance from any and all debates. But they could also see it as an existential threat and might take measures to counter it.
Even if those measures do not take the form of a coup (which I still doubt) these developments might preoccupy the senior officers sufficiently to affect the normal functioning of the army. At a time when Syria is about the implode and Turkey is poised to play a critical role in the region, an army that perceives itself under threat could not be a good thing.
Color me worried.
Subsequently, they reported that no sign of cancer was found and he was fine. I asked around and my sources told me that the media reports were rubbish and he had indeed colon cancer. His doctors felt that they had to intervene rapidly to remove some tumors.
What I found rather unusual was the visit by Vice President Joe Biden days after the surgery. He went to Erdogan's private residence in Istanbul and spent a few hours there. That is way too high level for an after-surgery-courtesy visit. To me this visit showed a great deal of concern on the part of the Americans as (according to my hypothesis) Erdogan and Turkey are critically important for their plans for the region.
Around the same time, Israeli conservative Web site Debka reported that Erdogan's cancer could be serious:
Extreme concern was quietly voiced Sunday, Dec. 18, by American and European official circles over the state of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's health – and especially its impact on present and impending events in Syria and other parts of the Middle East, including Iran, debkafile's Western intelligence sources report. Those sources say Erdogan is suffering from Rectosigmoid cancer, but were not sure if it had reached the advanced Stage TIII (spread out of the colon to regional lymph nodes).No one I asked could tell me whether his cancer metastasized or reached an advanced stage, but everyone agreed that his resting period was too long for laparoscopic surgery (which is fairly non-invasive).
If true, this would be a major issue for all the players in the Middle East. Erdogan has no heir apparent and his party is not a monolithic organization. If he becomes incapacitated or worse, there would be a power vacuum and serious infighting for his position would ensue. And none of the possible candidates could be the unifying force he has been for the AKP.
The second worrisome development is the incarceration of the former Chief of General Staff of the Turkish army. He was taken into custody on Friday in relation with the Ergenekon case. The case has been going on for almost five years and alleges that there was an ultra-nationalist conspiracy from within the Turkish army aiming to overthrow the AKP government.
In the summer, the then Chief of Joint Staff and heads of the branches of the armed forces resigned en masse symbolically to protest the handling of the Ergenekon case. I noted at the time that I was not worried about a coup d'etat. As I later explained about Egypt, the real Turkish model was to sideline the army by forcing it to choose between its economic and political interests.
This time I find the timing and the nature of the arrest rather worrisome. It is possible that the current chiefs of the armed forces could see this as a cautionary tale about getting involved in politics and decide to keep their distance from any and all debates. But they could also see it as an existential threat and might take measures to counter it.
Even if those measures do not take the form of a coup (which I still doubt) these developments might preoccupy the senior officers sufficiently to affect the normal functioning of the army. At a time when Syria is about the implode and Turkey is poised to play a critical role in the region, an army that perceives itself under threat could not be a good thing.
Color me worried.
Structural Adjustment for Advanced Capitalism
Recently, I mentioned how Germany quietly volunteered to underwrite the entire European debt in exchange for a new fiscal order to be determined by, well, Germany.
As everyone was focused on the fiscal integration part of the equation (even though very little is known about the proposed system), with a few notable exceptions (all quoted in my original post), no one noticed the dramatic shift from "no bailout with German taxpayer money" to "hey, what's a few trillion euros among friends."
Since I never buy the idea of stupid politicians making stupid mistakes, I said that I have some contrarian ideas to explain this silently received about face.
Here they are...
Do You Remember Structural Adjustment Programs?
Those of you who are at a certain age (and of a certain political predisposition) might still remember the glorious days of structural adjustment programs (SAP). These were special set of rules imposed by the IMF and World Bank whenever poor countries found themselves in financial dire straits. In fact, these were pretty much the precondition for providing bailout loans.
These SAPs were invariably introduced with a a tut tut attitude from stern IMF officials condescendingly chastising these periphery governments "for living beyond their means." Their reports showed how widespread the corruption was, how no one paid any taxes and how publicly owned corporations were filled with lazy cronies of the ruling party.
As everyone was focused on the fiscal integration part of the equation (even though very little is known about the proposed system), with a few notable exceptions (all quoted in my original post), no one noticed the dramatic shift from "no bailout with German taxpayer money" to "hey, what's a few trillion euros among friends."
Since I never buy the idea of stupid politicians making stupid mistakes, I said that I have some contrarian ideas to explain this silently received about face.
Here they are...
Do You Remember Structural Adjustment Programs?
Those of you who are at a certain age (and of a certain political predisposition) might still remember the glorious days of structural adjustment programs (SAP). These were special set of rules imposed by the IMF and World Bank whenever poor countries found themselves in financial dire straits. In fact, these were pretty much the precondition for providing bailout loans.
These SAPs were invariably introduced with a a tut tut attitude from stern IMF officials condescendingly chastising these periphery governments "for living beyond their means." Their reports showed how widespread the corruption was, how no one paid any taxes and how publicly owned corporations were filled with lazy cronies of the ruling party.
03 January 2012
New Talks Between Israel and Palestinians: Significant or Not?
While the title is reminiscent of Stephen Colbert's bombastic opening questions, I am not being facetious.
BBC reported today that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators will be holding their first talk in more than a year. A good friend of mine emailed to ask whether I feel like gloating. The reference was to my post entitled "Is Likud Getting Ready to Deal?" and my seemingly unshakable belief that this long lasting conflict will come to an end in the next little while (if I were forced, I would say 12 to 24 months). After all, this blog project was built on the hypothesis that change in the Middle East had a direction and a purpose (other than romantic notions on ethnic Springs).
Being a contrarian, my reaction to this news is rather cautious. I do not think that the current Israeli government is capable to take the necessary steps to achieve these goals. My guess is that, with or without Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu imploding, Netanyahu will call early elections in June or July and then the peace process will start in earnest, possibly with a national unity government.
I also believe that these negotiations would be meaningless before the final drama or denouement in Syria. I don't think anyone in the region can make sound moves until that moment arrives.
If I were a betting person, I would say that these talks seemed to be designed to give some kind of cover to each party for their domestic and international constituencies and they would likely end in failure or stalemate.
But that doesn't mean that I despair.
I am waiting for the real thing to gloat.
BBC reported today that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators will be holding their first talk in more than a year. A good friend of mine emailed to ask whether I feel like gloating. The reference was to my post entitled "Is Likud Getting Ready to Deal?" and my seemingly unshakable belief that this long lasting conflict will come to an end in the next little while (if I were forced, I would say 12 to 24 months). After all, this blog project was built on the hypothesis that change in the Middle East had a direction and a purpose (other than romantic notions on ethnic Springs).
Being a contrarian, my reaction to this news is rather cautious. I do not think that the current Israeli government is capable to take the necessary steps to achieve these goals. My guess is that, with or without Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu imploding, Netanyahu will call early elections in June or July and then the peace process will start in earnest, possibly with a national unity government.
I also believe that these negotiations would be meaningless before the final drama or denouement in Syria. I don't think anyone in the region can make sound moves until that moment arrives.
If I were a betting person, I would say that these talks seemed to be designed to give some kind of cover to each party for their domestic and international constituencies and they would likely end in failure or stalemate.
But that doesn't mean that I despair.
I am waiting for the real thing to gloat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)