Our interview with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)

From his hunkered down fort on the West Bank, Abu Danger--our Middle East correspondent--has just posted his interview with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

I found the following clips to be especially interesting:

Ma’an: Have Brigades members been active in resistance against the invading army?

PFLP: AAMB [Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades] has consistently launched multiple rockets on a daily basis, and has distinguished itself particularly in the use of roadside bombs, car bombs and other explosive devices that have seriously damaged and destroyed occupation tanks and other military vehicles, and AAMB fighters are participating in all battles at all levels.

AND..

Ma’an: What is the relationship between Hamas and the PFLP like today?

PFLP: The relationship between Hamas and the PFLP is defined by resistance now.

Ma’an: But the PFLP is a secular movement; does that create difficulties working with Hamas, which believes in an Islamic society and government?

PFLP: Both Hamas and the PFLP are in the camp of resistance, the camp of defending our people, our cause and our fundamental rights.

Both the PFLP and Hamas reject so-called "negotiations", reject cooperation with the occupier, and reject any so-called political solutions based on the denial and abrogation of the rights of our people, and both stand united in resistance to the massacres and genocide being committed against the Palestinian people. This is the unity, and the relationship, that matters now - unity, in struggle, for our people, our cause, and our rights.


Republished with permission of the Ma'an News Agency

The Unilateralist Hebrew

While the rest of humanity continues to destroy itself--as people like Bob Dylan often whine about--I am ridding atop the luxury liner in San Diego, California. It is 80 F and the surf is picking up--a 6 to 8 foot west swell at a 270 angle to be exact.

Perhaps the garden of Eden may not have been in Babylon (SIIC/Dawa controlled modern Iraq) but in the care-free dunes of California. Oops; wrong blog.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other news, Israel is considering a "unilateralist truce" with Hamas. Remind you of anything? How about Arial Sharon's unilateralist pull-out of Gaza in 2005. I guess Gaza is just an all-or-nothing kind of place.

Haaretz analyst Barak Ravid has recently said in a post:

"Israel has decided to end the operation without an agreement with Hamas, relying instead on the support of the United States and Egypt in battling arms smuggling."

While this was not the avenue that Cairo wanted to see, it will get the Israeli Army out of downtown Gaza City. (Egypt wanted a deal to go through them as to combat Arab criticism of being Israeli stooges.)

But this apparent desision made by Israeli leaders poses a new question: was Israel every really trying to crush Hamas's rein in Gaza? At least with a weak Hamas there is someone to bargain with.

Or it could be as Abu Danger, the spiritual leader of the Casbah said form his hacienda on the West Bank (Bethlehem): "I've been hearing the word "Somalia" a lot over the past 48 hours here and it's not exactly helping me sleep at night."

And my only question is...... George, when did you start sleeping at night?

Shalom/Salam

Afghan lesson #4: Start to learn Russian—and how to drink—and then buy a ticket to Moscow and listen to an old Soviet General over a glass of whatever

When it comes to Afghanistan, I am often frustrated by idealistic pundits and over optimistic policy makers who think we can do it all. "We need more 'this,' or if only we had more ‘that.’" If we need anything it is that the West needs to stop kidding its self about the mess in Afghanistan.

This is why I really appreciated reading Jackie Northam's piece, Sorting Out A Clear Strategy for Afghanistan. In a reporter style tone, she quotes reputable skeptics of the 'we can do anything in Afghanistan' crowd. And who better than Ret. Soviet Lt. General Ruslan Aushev.

This dude spent five years in The Stan and gives a not-so-talked-about piece of advice for Obama:

"One should realize one thing: It is impossible to solve this problem by force… One should understand and know the history of Afghanistan. They have always been against foreign troops based in the country."

This really puts a damper on the whole 'more troops' COIN thing.

Then Northam quotes Ret. Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, who says that Obama should focus on America's key interests:

"...to ensure that Afghanistan does not provide sanctuary to violent Islamic radicals intent on launching attacks against the United States… That's just about all that we care about Afghanistan, or should care."

It always amuses me how the realists seem to come out after the election; interesting huh?

What these experienced officials are saying is that large, occupying, Western armies simply do not work in a place like Afghanistan--or that matter, any nationalist Muslim country. It hasn't worked, it isn't working, and it more than likely never will.

So back off all you dreamers who think that Obama's really going to send 30,000 more troops to fight violent Pashtuns in Afghanistan. This whole notion that the U.S. is going to 'fill the security vacuum' with our troops is completely out to lunch.

You want to get real with Afghanistan? How about:

1. Not tolerate the Pakistani ISI who still supports the Taliban (even though they say they aren’t).
2. Work to get India off the back of Pakistan in Afghanistan. Proxy war?
3. Mend the troubled U.S-Iranian relationship by teaming up to work with moderate Afghans.
4. Learn Russian—and how to drink—and then buy a ticket to Moscow, and listen to an old Soviet General over a glass of whatever.
5. Remember that no occupying force has ever been effective in Afghanistan.
6. Shelve COIN for CT (counterinsurgency for counter terrorism)
7. And take a deep breath and read out-loud the following: "no one learned how to fly a plane into the World Trade Center from the unpaved streets of yak herding Afghanistan."

Any questions?

Cairo cease-fire, U.S. inauguration and the Blue Line: a war of strategy and framing

While the rubble in Gaza continues to be "rearranged" by Israeli artillery, a cease-fire via Cairo is looking ever more likely. Both Hamas and Israel have "agreed in principal" to such a hudna, or period of rest.

We must keep in mind, however, that the inauguration for President-elect Barack Obama is less than a week away. And if Israeli officials can agree on anything, it is that they want this conflict to be all-wrapped-up as not tarnish the American media with images of dead Gazan’s.

Another issue to ponder: what is next for Hamas? Have the recent assassinations of Hamas elite Nizar Rayyan and de-facto Interior Minister Said Siam significantly hurt the Islamic organization?

If you have scene the images coming out of Gaza lately, it seems clear that most government buildings--even the UN building--have been targeted by Israeli bombardment. With little institutional and bureaucratic power left physically standing, will Hamas be able to retain its political hold on Gaza? If so, it seems that at the very lest, Hamas will be able to claim some kind of moral victory after the dust settles.

And lastly, can various Palestinian guerrillas in southern Lebanon fire enough rockets to provoke Israel to respond with a media-worthy force? While Hezbollah has dominated this front for some time, Palestinian groups might continue to launch rockets as to produce a major escalation in violence. This would put the Israeli military back to work, while continuing to hurt their world image as they open a second-front.

Strategically timed with the American presidential inauguration, my eyes are going to be zeroed in on the Blue Line. I'm surprised that more analysts haven't brought this up.

Southern Lebanon... the next trendy place for pissed-off Palestinians to fire rockets?

After a few Palestinian diehards woke last week, they got dressed, drank some coffee, and fired two Katyusha rockets in the general direction of Israel. In my daily post on The Casbah, I speculated that it was Palestinians, not Hezbollah, who fired the rockets. The motive was obviously the Israeli campaign in Gaza.

Turns out, that last week's launching was done by a group called the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command (PFLP-GC). This group has a history in secular nationalism and is not doctrinally affiliated with Hamas or Hezbollah.

Only hours after the attack, the IDF fired a few mortars back in to southern Lebanon, where the Katyusha's were launched. Fortunately the two PFLP-GC training facilities in Lebanon are not near civilian centers.

So why bring up old news? Well, because, today (January 14, 2009) Haaretz has reported that 3 more Katyusha's have been fired into northern Israel. But was it the PFLP-GC? Who knows.

The real question that should be asked, however, is: will southern Lebanon turn into the next trendy place for pissed-off Palestinians to fire rockets?

Olmert says Israel calls the shots on US foreign policy

Bethlehem - Israel's prime minister on Monday all but ended speculation about why US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice abstained from voting on a UN Security Council resolution she helped write last week in New York.

Israel had opposed the US-backed Security Council resolution, planning to send Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to fight it off before it ever came up for a vote in New York on Friday.

Yet Livni cancelled her plans on the same day the Security Council assembled at UN headquarters, while the Hebrew press debated just how Israel planned to handle a resolution expected to pass with the full support of its loyal American ally.

Then by telephone moments before the ceasefire came to a vote, Olmert says he tried to convince US President George W. Bush to veto Resolution 1860, which calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

“I said, ‘Get me President Bush on the phone,’” Olmert claimed at a news conference in the southern Israeli town of Ashkelon on Monday.

“They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn’t care, ‘I need to talk to him now,’” Olmert claimed, adding, “He got off the podium and spoke to me.”

But Bush had not actually read the text of the resolution of which Rice was planning to vote in favor just 10 minutes later, Olmert told the audience in Ashkelon.

"I didn't see it...I'm not familiar with its wording," Bush reportedly told Olmert, to which the prime minister says he countered, "I'm familiar; you can't vote for it."

So "[Bush] gave the order to the secretary of state and she didn't vote for it," Olmert explained on Monday.

Rice did abstain but the other 14 members of the 15-member council voted in favor of the plan, which had the backing of the European Union, Arab League and virtually every member state of the United Nations, aside from Israel.

Bush's concession was apparently humiliating for Secretary of State Rice because the resolution was something she "cooked up, she organized, she formulated, she maneuvered," Israel Radio quoted Olmert as saying.

"And she was left pretty embarrassed, abstaining on a draft resolution she organized herself," the prime minister added.

Rice had not by Tuesday publicly responded to Olmert's claims. But according to her spokesperson, Sean McCormack, "She was not at all embarrassed or ashamed of the actions that we took."

In fact, McCormack disputed just about every other recollection Olmert shared regarding the supposed incident, calling the claims "wholly inaccurate as to describing the situation, just 100-percent, totally, completely not true."

McCormack also insisted that Rice decided the day before to abstain from voting. He added that Israel should consider clarifying the record if Olmert truly meant it.

A spokesperson for the prime minister refused, saying he and the Israeli government both stand by their version of the story.

“Her recommendation was to abstain; that was her recommendation all along,” said another State Department official, who spoke to an American newspaper on the condition of anonymity due to the delicate nature of the matter.

"Mr. Olmert is wrong," yet another said. "The government of Israel does not make US policy."

There do remain a few holes in Olmert's version of the story, particularly that both the vote and the phone call came during a speech in Philadelphia, despite that Bush had returned to the White House hours beforehand.

And while Olmert insists his call pulled Bush from a podium, video footage shows the president finished the speech and attended the rest of the educational summit in its entirety.

Regardless, the polar opposite versions of the same story seemed sure to escalate tensions between what is left of both outgoing administrations. And by Tuesday, a few policy experts in Washington had already weighed in.

"This confirms every assumption they have in the Arab world about the tail wagging the dog," said former Israel-Palestine negotiator Daniel Levy. "It's a story you're likely to hear quoted there for years to come," he added.

"This is terrible for the United States," he insisted, before accusing the Israeli prime minister of "unparalleled arrogance."

"There are some things you don't say, even in Ashkelon, even in Hebrew," Levy insisted.

Meanwhile, others expressed speculation that had been building all week on whether or not Israel played a role in Rice's sudden decision to abstain from her own ceasefire resolution.

Olmert's version of events "seemed to make sense" to Nathan Brown, head of the Middle East Studies program at the George Washington University, who noted bewilderment by European diplomats immediately following the would-be vote.

"It seemed like a strange step," Brown added.

Even last week Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki said he too was confused with Rice's odd and seemingly last-minute decision to abstain.

"We were told that the Americans were going to vote in favor," he said Saturday, a day after the resolution passed without the support of the United States.

Al-Maliki also claimed that Rice apologized to Saudi Arabia's foreign minister soon after she arrived at the meeting in New York for what she was about to do, reportedly offering to explain her position afterward.

Following the vote, Rice announced that the US "fully supports" the resolution, but had to abstain because the State Department "thought it important to see the outcomes of the Egyptian mediation."

But that explanation just further puzzled the foreign ministers, leading Palestine's Al-Maliki to speculate on what it was that "happened in the last 10 or 15 minutes (of discussions at the UN), what kind of pressure she received, from whom."

"This is really something that maybe we will know about later," Al-Maliki said at the time, which was less than a week before Olmert's Monday speech in Ashkelon.

Meanwhile on Tuesday, Israel's ongoing assault on the Gaza Strip left 47 Palestinians dead, while the overall death toll approached 1,000 killed since the operation began on 27 December.

Don’t put your money on Israeli politics

A few months ago I went to see a leftist, ex-member of the Israeli Knesset speak at the University of San Diego's Joan B. Kroc School for Peace Studies. After her speech--that called for progressive leadership and reconciliation with the Palestinians--someone in the crowd bellowed something like: dream on, Netanyahu will be the next prime minister of Israel!

With an extravagant chuckle--a theatric likely learned from quarreling with Likudist hawks--she said to the man, in a more serious tone: "don't put your money on Israeli politics; something could happen."

I suppose that at the time I found her "something could happen" phrase to be a bit apocalyptic, but, that's probably why I wrote it down. Everyone knows that Israel has enemies, but who was she talking about? Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, perhaps even Hamas?

Yes Hamas; and flipping to the current war in Gaza, Akiva Eldar, an analyst with Haaretz, said in a recent NPR interview "Ehud Barak and the Labor Party are the biggest [political] winners."

Much of this is because Israel has been able to keep its casualties down in Gaza. I mean, not to call it early, but Israelis are starting to regain a sense of competency in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), that was badly damaged after their unconvincing performance in the 2006 Lebanon War.

But as the Israeli speaker (And I can't for the life of me find her name) said, "don't put your money on Israeli politics."

In the last few days the IDF has entered its so-called third phase in Gaza. This means IDF troops are now moving into dense centers of Gaza City, Khan Younis and various other refugee camps. What this also means, however, is that the IDF could start to face a sharp increase in casualties/POW's. You don’t have to be a genius to realize that this unpleasant fact will greatly hinder the recent polling boost Barak has enjoyed.

Knowing this, and according again to Haaretz:

"Defense Minister Ehud Barak is promoting a week-long "humanitarian cease-fire" in the Gaza Strip. In contrast, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert believes the military operation still has not achieved its goals."

Curious that Israel, three weeks into this conflict, still hasn't set clear goals for "victory."

Speculators have suggested that Israel will try and create some kind of new Palestinian Authority in Gaza (which will never work) or, get the Arab League and international forces to pick up the security once Israel withdraws.

Whatever the case, it would appear that a cease-fire (most likely through Cairo) is only days away. With international pressure continuing to build on Israel, both Barak and Kadima Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (both on the ballet) are looking to come out of this one as good/quickly as possible.

But to ground ourselves in a bit of reality, as long as Hamas can continue to recruit diehards to fire even just a few crude, and homemade rockets into Israel, the overall Israeli objective in Gaza will ultimately fail.

So we wait. And if you can be sure about anything, it’s that Israel’s war in Gaza has turned sourly political.

So just in case you didn’t get it, “don’t put your money on Israeli politics.”

A regional solution for Afghanistan, not a police state

Amid a growing insurgency in Afghanistan, the United States is facing another problem. What if NATO, along with the recently approved 204,000 Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), delivers a significant blow to the Taliban insurgency? If Iraq has taught us anything, it’s that we must think ahead.

It is safe to assume that the American-led NATO forces, along with the ANSF, will dramatically weaken the Taliban insurgency if the proper resources are allocated. But this will mean that the Karzai government in Kabul will need to strike some kind of a deal with moderate insurgents to help absorb them into the political process. Should this become reality, the ANSF will likely become the most respected institution in Afghanistan, but also the most costly.

Many experts have agreed that a stable Afghanistan will require a security force of somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 troops. But unlike Iraq, Afghanistan does not have the natural resources or the economy to be able to afford such a force. While this doesn’t mean abandoning the idea of creating a credible Afghan security force, it does mean that Afghanistan simply does not have the means to support the police state many in the West had envisioned.

This is why a so-called regional solution is so important. America’s policymakers must turn to regional players such as India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and Russia and remind them that a Taliban state that harbors al-Qaeda is in no one’s interest. For many reasons, a police state in Afghanistan is not a feasible goal; this is why the U.S. must engage in principled diplomacy with all the region’s players to create an environment where it is practical for the Afghans to eventually fund their own security.

Stay tuned for an interview with the PFLP

The spiritual adviser for The Casbah (Abu Danger) will be conducting an interview with a spokesman from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) later this week in the West Bank. In collaboration, we have drafted questions and hope to publish a version on The Casbah.

In case your a bit hazy on the PFLP, allow the 70's charm of Leila Khaled, in this old interview that George dug up, refresh your memory.
(Make sure to google Leila Khaled for a picture)

Reporter &
Leila Khaled

Q. Do you think the intifada has already stopped, or at least, dwindled?
A. No one can make the intifada continue or stop. The intifada is an expression of the people's choice. The hudna (the recent cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinians) is just a pause. As long as there is occupation, the intifada will continue.

Q. What are you doing now?
A. In Jordan, I am not active because we don't have an organization here, since Palestinian activities are illegal. But I work with women groups, federations and societies. Most of my activities are abroad, giving lectures and talking about the struggle.

Q. Are you comfortable with that?
A. Of course not.


Stay tuned!

The Merkava tank: asset or liability?

If you have ever watched a highlight film from the 67 War (obviously from the Israeli perspective) you likely would have scene Merkava tanks chasing Arabs across the desert. These kings of the sand proved indispensable to the Israeli victories in 67 and 73, and have become archetypes of Israeli might throughout region.

But the 2006 War in Lebanon was different. It featured Hezbollah guerrilla's disarming an alarming amount of Markava tanks with Russian-made anti-tank weapons. So has non-conventional warfare turned the tide on this beast of the desert?

According to the new Al Jazeera documentry, the Merkava has rolled its way to a crossroad: either equipt it for guerrilla war (if at all possible), or put it in a museum.

Take a look:
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/general/2007/07/2008525184556840741.html

Galbrath's Six Unintended Consequences from the War in Iraq

When I woke this morning, I stretched, groaned a little and then opened to the last chapter of this book I’ve been reading. It’s called “Unintended Consequences:” How War In Iraq Strengthened America’s Enemies, written by Peter W. Galbrath.

Galbrath is a smart dude, that’s for sure. But he makes no attempt to hide his liberal bias that at times can be a bit overt.

One major point that I took issue with was when he endorsed Vice President-elect Joe Biden’s plan for dividing Iraq into three separate counties. While I completely understand that the current borders of Iraq are based on little more than Churchill’s drunken swipes of the pen, the West can’t continue redraw the region as it sees fit. This is just my under-developed thesis on why I think it’s a bad idea.

But the real reason for this post—the real reason that I bought the book—is that Galbraith identities six unintended consequences from the War in Iraq that are worth mentioning.

1. Bush handed Iran its greatest strategic triumph in four centuries
2. U.S troops now fight to support an Iraqi government led by religious parties intent on creating an Iranian-style Islamic republic
3. As part of the surge, the United States created a Sunni militia led by the same Baathists the U.S invaded Iraq to overthrow
4. Obsessed with Iraq’s nonexistent WMD, the Bush administration gave Iran and North Korea a free pass to advance their nuclear programs
5. Turkey, a key NATO ally long considered a model pro-Western Muslim democracy, became one of the most anti-American countries in the world
6. U.S prestige around the world reached an all-time low

And while I don't want to spoil the ending, I thought that his last of his non-bullet pointed unintended consequence was particularly important: Bush gave idealism a bad name.