Stocks and News
Home | Week in Review Process | Terms of Use | About UsContact Us
   Articles Go Fund Me All-Species List Hot Spots Go Fund Me
Week in Review   |  Bar Chat    |  Hot Spots    |   Dr. Bortrum    |   Wall St. History
Stock and News: Hot Spots
  Search Our Archives: 
 

 

Hot Spots

https://www.gofundme.com/s3h2w8

AddThis Feed Button
   

08/10/2006

Crisis in the Middle East

[Next column...Aug. 24]

Following are two speeches on the Middle East that deserve full
coverage. I’ll save any opinions for my “Week in Review”
column.

---

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Los Angeles, Aug. 1, 2006

[Excerpts]

There is an arc of extremism now stretching across the Middle
East and touching, with increasing definition, countries far
outside that region. To defeat it will need an alliance of
moderation, that paints a different future in which Muslim, Jew
and Christian; Arab and Western; wealthy and developing
nations can make progress in peace and harmony with each
other. My argument to you today is this: we will not win the
battle against this global extremism unless we win it at the level
of values as much as force, unless we show we are even-handed,
fair and just in our application of those values to the world.

The point is this. This is war, but of a completely
unconventional kind.

9/11 in the U.S., 7/7 in the UK, 11/3 in Madrid, the countless
terrorist attacks in countries as disparate as Indonesia or Algeria,
what is now happening in Afghanistan and in Indonesia, the
continuing conflict in Lebanon and Palestine, it is all part of the
same thing. What are the values that govern the future of the
world? Are they those of tolerance, freedom, respect for
difference and diversity or those of reaction, division and hatred?
My point is that this war can’t be won in a conventional way. It
can only be won by showing that our values are stronger, better
and more just, more fair than the alternative. Doing this,
however, requires us to change dramatically the focus of our
policy.

Unless we reappraise our strategy, unless we revitalize the
broader global agenda on poverty, climate change, trade, and in
respect of the Middle East, bend every sinew of our will to
making peace between Israel and Palestine, we will not win.
And this is a battle we must win.

What is happening today out in the Middle East, in Afghanistan
and beyond is an elemental struggle about the values that will
shape our future.

It is in part a struggle between what I will call Reactionary Islam
and Moderate, Mainstream Islam. But its implications go far
wider. We are fighting a war, but not just against terrorism but
about how the world should govern itself in the early 21st
century, about global values.

The root causes of the current crisis are supremely indicative of
this. Ever since September 11th, the U.S. has embarked on a
policy of intervention in order to protect its and our future
security. Hence Afghanistan. Hence Iraq. Hence the broader
Middle East initiative in support of moves towards democracy in
the Arab world.

The point about these interventions, however, military and
otherwise, is that they were not just about changing regimes but
changing the values systems governing the nations concerned.
The banner was not actually “regime change” it was “values
change.”

What we have done therefore in intervening in this way is far
more momentous than possibly we appreciated at the time.

Of course the fanatics, attached to a completely wrong and
reactionary view of Islam, had been engaging in terrorism for
years before September 11th. In Chechnya, in India and Pakistan,
in Algeria, in many other Muslim countries, atrocities were
occurring. But we did not feel the impact directly. So we were
not bending our eye or our will to it as we should have. We had
barely heard of the Taliban. We rather inclined to the view that
where there was terrorism, perhaps it was partly the fault of the
governments of the countries concerned.

We were in error. In fact, these acts of terrorism were not
isolated incidents. They were part of a growing movement. A
movement that believed Muslims had departed from their proper
faith, were being taken over by Western culture, were being
governed treacherously by Muslims complicit in this take-over,
whereas the true way to recover not just the true faith, but
Muslim confidence and self esteem, was to take on the West and
all its works.

Sometimes political strategy comes deliberatively, sometimes by
instinct. For this movement, it was probably by instinct. It has
an ideology, a world-view, it has deep convictions and the
determination of the fanatic. It resembles in many ways early
revolutionary Communism. It doesn’t always need structures
and command centers or even explicit communication. It knows
what it thinks.

Its strategy in the late 1990s became clear. If they were merely
fighting with Islam, they ran the risk that fellow Muslims – being
as decent and fair-minded as anyone else – would choose to
reject their fanaticism. A battle about Islam was just Muslim
versus Muslim. They realized they had to create a completely
different battle in Muslim minds: Muslim versus Western.

This is what September 11th did. Still now, I am amazed at how
many people will say, in effect, there is increased terrorism today
because we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. They seem to forget
entirely that September 11th predated either. The West didn’t
attack this movement. We were attacked. Until then we had
largely ignored it.

The reason I say our response was even more momentous than it
seemed at the time, is this. We could have chosen security as the
battleground. But we didn’t. We chose values. We said we
didn’t want another Taliban or a different Saddam. Rightly, in
my view, we realized that you can’t defeat a fanatical ideology
just by imprisoning or killing its leaders; you have to defeat its
ideas.

There is a host of analysis written about mistakes made in Iraq or
Afghanistan, much of it with hindsight but some of it with
justification. But it all misses one vital point. The moment we
decided not to change regime but to change the value system, we
made both Iraq and Afghanistan into existential battles for
Reactionary Islam. We posed a threat not to their activities
simply: but to their values, to the roots of their existence ..

Why are we not yet succeeding? Because we are not being bold
enough, consistent enough, thorough enough, in fighting for the
values we believe in.

We start this battle with some self-evident challenges. Iraq’s
political process has worked in an extraordinary way. But the
continued sectarian bloodshed is appalling: and threatens its
progress deeply. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are making a
determined effort to return and using the drugs trade a front.
Years of anti-Israeli and therefore anti-American teaching and
propaganda has left the Arab street often wildly divorced from
the practical politics of their governments. Iran and, to a lesser
extent, Syria are a constant source of de-stabilization and
reaction. The purpose of terrorism – whether in Iran,
Afghanistan, Lebanon or Palestine is never just the terrorist act
itself. It is to use the act to trigger a chain reaction, to expunge
any willingness to negotiate or compromise. Unfortunately it
frequently works, as we know from our own experience in
Northern Ireland, though thankfully the huge progress made in
the last decade there, shows that it can also be overcome.

So, short-term, we can’t say we are winning. But, there are
many reasons for long-term optimism. Across the Middle East,
there is a process of modernization as well as reaction. It is
unnoticed but it is there: in the UAE; in Bahrain; in Kuwait; in
Qatar. In Egypt, there is debate about the speed of change but
not about its direction. In Libya and Algeria, there is both
greater stability and a gradual but significant opening up.

Most of all, there is one incontrovertible truth that should give us
hope. In Iraq, in Afghanistan, and of course in Lebanon, any
time that people are permitted a chance to embrace democracy
they do so. The lie – that democracy, the rule of law, human
rights are Western concepts, alien to Islam – has been exposed.
In countries as disparate as Turkey and Indonesia, there is an
emerging strength in Moderate Islam that should greatly
encourage us.

So the struggle is finely poised. The question is: how do we
empower the moderates to defeat the extremists?

First, naturally, we should support, nurture, build strong alliances
with all those in the Middle East who are on the modernizing
path.

Secondly, we need, as President Bush said on Friday [7/28], to
re-energize the Middle East Peace Process between Israel and
Palestine; and we need to do it in a dramatic and profound
manner.

I want to explain why I think this issue is so utterly fundamental
to all we are trying to do. I know it can be very irritating for
Israel to be told that this issue is of cardinal importance, as if it is
on their shoulders that the weight of the troubles of the region
should always fall. I know also their fear that in our anxiety for
wider reasons to secure a settlement, we sacrifice the vital
interests of Israel.

Let me make it clear. I would never put Israel’s security at risk.

Instead I want what we all now acknowledge we need: a two
state solution. The Palestinian State must be independent, viable
but also democratic and not threaten Israel’s safety.

This is what the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want.

Its significance for the broader issue of the Middle East and for
the battle within Islam is this. The real impact of a settlement is
more than correcting the plight of the Palestinians. It is that such
a settlement would be the living, tangible, visible proof that the
region and therefore the world can accommodate different faiths
and cultures, even those who been in vehement opposition to
each other. It is, in other words, the total and complete rejection
of the case of Reactionary Islam. It destroys not just their most
effective rallying call, it fatally undermines their basic ideology.

And, for sure, it empowers Moderate, Mainstream Islam
enormously. They are able to point to progress as demonstration
that their allies, i.e. us, are even-handed not selective, do care
about justice for Muslims as much as Christians or Jews.

But, and it is a big ‘but,’ this progress will not happen unless we
change radically our degree of focus, effort and engagement,
especially with the Palestinian side. In this the active leadership
of the U.S. is essential but so also is the participation of Europe,
of Russia and of the UN. We need relentlessly, vigorously, to
put a viable Palestinian Government on its feet, to offer a vision
of how the Roadmap to final status negotiation can happen and
then pursue it, week in, week out, ‘til it’s done. Nothing else will
do. Nothing else is more important to the success of our foreign
policy.

---

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), speech on the Senate floor, July
31, 2006

[In full]

The Middle East is a region in crisis. After three weeks of
escalating and continuing violence, the potential for wider
regional conflict becomes more real each day. The hatred in the
Middle East is being driven deeper and deeper into the fabric of
the region which will make any lasting and sustained peace
effort very difficult to achieve. How do we realistically believe
that a continuation of the systematic destruction of an American
friend, the country and people of Lebanon, is going to enhance
America’s image and give us the trust and credibility to lead a
lasting and sustained peace effort in the Middle East? The
sickening slaughter on both sides must end now. President Bush
must call for an immediate ceasefire. This madness must stop.

The Middle East today is more combustible and complex than it
has ever been. Uncertain popular support for regime legitimacy
continues to weaken governments of the Middle East. Economic
stagnation, persistent unemployment, deepening despair and
wider unrest enhance the ability of terrorists to recruit and
succeed. An Iran with nuclear weapons raises the specter of
broader proliferation and a fundamental strategic realignment in
the region, creating more regional instability.

America’s approach to the Middle East must be consistent and
sustained, and must understand the history, interests and
perspectives of our regional friends and allies.

The United States will remain committed to defending Israel.
Our relationship with Israel is a special and historic one. But, it
need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim
relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false
choice. Achieving a lasting resolution to the Arab-Israeli
conflict is as much in Israel’s interest as any other country in the
world.

Unending war will continually drain Israel of its human capital,
resources, and energy as it fights for its survival. The United
States and Israel must understand that it is not in their long-term
interests to allow themselves to become isolated in the Middle
East and the world. Neither can allow themselves to drift into an
“us against the world” global optic or zero-sum game. That
would marginalize America’s global leadership, trust and
influence further isolate Israel and prove to be disastrous for
both countries as well as the region.

It is in Israel’s interest, as much as ours, that the United States be
seen by all states in the Middle East as fair. This is the currency
of trust.

The world has rightly condemned the despicable actions of
Hizbullah and Hamas terrorists who attacked Israel and
kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Israel has the undeniable right to
defend itself against aggression. This is the right of all states.

Hizbullah is a threat to Israel, to Lebanon and to all who strive
for lasting peace in the Middle East.

However, military action alone will not destroy Hizbullah or
Hamas. Extended military action is tearing Lebanon apart,
killing innocent civilians, destroying its economy and
infrastructure, creating a humanitarian disaster, further
weakening Lebanon’s fragile democratic government,
strengthening popular Muslim and Arab support for Hizbullah,
and deepening hatred of Israel across the Middle East. The
pursuit of tactical military victories at the expense of the core
strategic objective of Arab-Israeli peace is a hollow victory. The
war against Hizbullah and Hamas will not be won on the
battlefield.

To achieve a strategic shift in the conditions for Middle East
peace, the United States must use the global condemnation of
terrorist acts as the basis for substantive change. For a lasting
and popularly supported resolution, only a strong Lebanese
government and a strong Lebanese army, backed by the
international community, can rid Lebanon of these corrosive
militias and terrorist organizations.

President Bush and Secretary Rice must become and remain
deeply engaged in the Middle East. Only U.S. leadership can
build a consensus of purpose among our regional and
international partners. To lead and sustain U.S. engagement, the
President should appoint a statesman of global stature,
experience and ability to serve as his personal envoy to the
region who would report directly to the President and be
empowered with the authority to speak and act for the President.
Former Secretaries of State Baker and Powell fit this profile.

The President must publicly decry the slaughter and work toward
an immediate ceasefire. The UN Security council should
urgently adopt a new binding resolution that provides a
comprehensive political, security and economic framework for
Lebanon, Israel and the region – a framework that begins with
the immediate cessation of violence. I strongly support the
deployment of a robust international force along the Israel-
Lebanon border to facilitate a steady deployment of a
strengthened Lebanese Army into southern Lebanon to
eventually assume responsibility for security and the rule of law.

America must listen carefully to its friends and partners in the
region. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and others – countries that
understand the Middle East far better than we do – must commit
to help resolve today’s crisis and be active partners in helping
realize the already agreed-upon two-state solution.

The core of all challenges in the Middle East remains the
underlying Arab-Israeli conflict. The failure to address this root
cause will allow Hizbullah, Hamas and other terrorists to
continue to sustain popular Muslim and Arab support – a
dynamic that continues to undermine America’s standing in the
region, and the governments of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and
others – whose support is critical for any Middle East resolution.

The United States should engage our Middle East and
international partners to revive the Beirut Declaration, or some
version of it, proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and
adopted unanimously by the Arab League in March 2002. In this
historic initiative, the Arab world recognized Israel’s right to
exist and sought to establish a path toward a two-state solution
and broader Arab-Israeli peace. Even though Israel could not
accept it as written, it represented a very significant “starting
point” document initiated by Arab countries. Today, we need a
new Beirut Declaration-type initiative. We squandered the last
one.

The concept and intent of the 2002 Beirut Declaration is as
relevant today as it was in 2002. An Arab-initiated Beirut-type
declaration would re-invest regional Arab states with a stake in
achieving progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace. This type of
initiative would offer a positive alternative vision for Arab
populations to the ideology and goals of Islamic militants. The
United States must explore this approach as part of its diplomatic
engagement in the Middle East.

Lasting peace in the Middle East and stability and security for
Israel will come only from a regionally-oriented political
settlement.

Former American Middle East Envoy Dennis Ross once
observed that in the Middle East a process is necessary because
process absorbs events without a process, events become
crises. He was right. Look at where we are today in the Middle
East with no process. Crisis diplomacy is no substitute for
sustained, day-to-day engagement.

America’s approach to Syria and Iran is inextricably tied to
Middle East peace. Whether or not they were directly involved
in the latest Hizbullah and Hamas aggression in Israel, both
countries exert influence in the region in ways that undermine
stability and security. As we work with our friends and allies to
deny Syria and Iran any opportunity to further corrode the
situation in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, both
Damascus and Tehran must hear from America directly.

As John McLaughlin, the former Deputy Director of Central
Intelligence recently wrote in the Washington Post:

“Even superpowers have to talk to bad guys. The absence of a
diplomatic relationship with Iran and the deterioration of the one
with Syria – two countries that bear enormous responsibility for
the current crisis – leave the United States with fewer options
and levers than might otherwise have been the case. Distasteful
as it might have been to have or to maintain open and normal
relations with such states, the absence of such relations ensures
that we will have more blind spots than we can afford and that
we will have to deal through surrogates on issues of vital
importance to the United States.

Ultimately, the United States will need to engage Iran and Syria
with an agenda open to all areas of agreement and disagreement.
For this dialogue to have any meaning or possible lasting
relevance, it should encompass the full agenda of issues.

There is very little good news coming out of Iraq today.
Increasingly vicious sectarian violence continues to propel Iraq
toward civil war. The U.S. announcement last week to send
additional U.S. troops and military police back into Baghdad
reverses last month’s decision to have Iraqi forces take the lead
in Baghdad and represents a dramatic set back for the U.S. and
the Iraqi Government. The Iraqi Government has limited ability
to enforce the rule of law in Iraq, especially in Baghdad. Green
Zone politics appear to have little bearing or relation to the
realities of the rest of Iraq.

The Iraqis will continue to face difficult choices over the future
of their country. The day-to-day responsibilities of governing
and security will soon have to be assumed by Iraqis. This is not
about setting a timeline. This is about understanding the
implications of the forces of reality. This reality is being
determined by Iraqis – not Americans. America is bogged down
in Iraq and this is limiting our diplomatic and military options.
The longer America remains in Iraq in its current capacity, the
deeper the damage to our force structure – particularly the U.S.
Army. And it will continue to place more limitations on an
already dangerously over-extended force structure that will
further limit our options and public support.

The Middle East crisis represents a moment of great danger, but
it is also an opportunity. Crisis focuses the minds of leaders and
the attention of nations. The Middle East need not be a region
forever captive to the fire of war and historical hatred. It can
avoid this fate if the United States pursues sustained and engaged
leadership worthy of our history, purpose, and power. America
cannot fix every problem in the world – nor should it try. But we
must get the big issues and important relationships right and
concentrate on those. We know that without engaged and active
American leadership the world is more dangerous. The United
States must focus all of its leadership and resources on ending
this madness in the Middle East – now!

---

Hott Spotts will return August 24.

Brian Trumbore


AddThis Feed Button

 

-08/10/2006-      
Web Epoch NJ Web Design  |  (c) Copyright 2016 StocksandNews.com, LLC.

Hot Spots

08/10/2006

Crisis in the Middle East

[Next column...Aug. 24]

Following are two speeches on the Middle East that deserve full
coverage. I’ll save any opinions for my “Week in Review”
column.

---

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Los Angeles, Aug. 1, 2006

[Excerpts]

There is an arc of extremism now stretching across the Middle
East and touching, with increasing definition, countries far
outside that region. To defeat it will need an alliance of
moderation, that paints a different future in which Muslim, Jew
and Christian; Arab and Western; wealthy and developing
nations can make progress in peace and harmony with each
other. My argument to you today is this: we will not win the
battle against this global extremism unless we win it at the level
of values as much as force, unless we show we are even-handed,
fair and just in our application of those values to the world.

The point is this. This is war, but of a completely
unconventional kind.

9/11 in the U.S., 7/7 in the UK, 11/3 in Madrid, the countless
terrorist attacks in countries as disparate as Indonesia or Algeria,
what is now happening in Afghanistan and in Indonesia, the
continuing conflict in Lebanon and Palestine, it is all part of the
same thing. What are the values that govern the future of the
world? Are they those of tolerance, freedom, respect for
difference and diversity or those of reaction, division and hatred?
My point is that this war can’t be won in a conventional way. It
can only be won by showing that our values are stronger, better
and more just, more fair than the alternative. Doing this,
however, requires us to change dramatically the focus of our
policy.

Unless we reappraise our strategy, unless we revitalize the
broader global agenda on poverty, climate change, trade, and in
respect of the Middle East, bend every sinew of our will to
making peace between Israel and Palestine, we will not win.
And this is a battle we must win.

What is happening today out in the Middle East, in Afghanistan
and beyond is an elemental struggle about the values that will
shape our future.

It is in part a struggle between what I will call Reactionary Islam
and Moderate, Mainstream Islam. But its implications go far
wider. We are fighting a war, but not just against terrorism but
about how the world should govern itself in the early 21st
century, about global values.

The root causes of the current crisis are supremely indicative of
this. Ever since September 11th, the U.S. has embarked on a
policy of intervention in order to protect its and our future
security. Hence Afghanistan. Hence Iraq. Hence the broader
Middle East initiative in support of moves towards democracy in
the Arab world.

The point about these interventions, however, military and
otherwise, is that they were not just about changing regimes but
changing the values systems governing the nations concerned.
The banner was not actually “regime change” it was “values
change.”

What we have done therefore in intervening in this way is far
more momentous than possibly we appreciated at the time.

Of course the fanatics, attached to a completely wrong and
reactionary view of Islam, had been engaging in terrorism for
years before September 11th. In Chechnya, in India and Pakistan,
in Algeria, in many other Muslim countries, atrocities were
occurring. But we did not feel the impact directly. So we were
not bending our eye or our will to it as we should have. We had
barely heard of the Taliban. We rather inclined to the view that
where there was terrorism, perhaps it was partly the fault of the
governments of the countries concerned.

We were in error. In fact, these acts of terrorism were not
isolated incidents. They were part of a growing movement. A
movement that believed Muslims had departed from their proper
faith, were being taken over by Western culture, were being
governed treacherously by Muslims complicit in this take-over,
whereas the true way to recover not just the true faith, but
Muslim confidence and self esteem, was to take on the West and
all its works.

Sometimes political strategy comes deliberatively, sometimes by
instinct. For this movement, it was probably by instinct. It has
an ideology, a world-view, it has deep convictions and the
determination of the fanatic. It resembles in many ways early
revolutionary Communism. It doesn’t always need structures
and command centers or even explicit communication. It knows
what it thinks.

Its strategy in the late 1990s became clear. If they were merely
fighting with Islam, they ran the risk that fellow Muslims – being
as decent and fair-minded as anyone else – would choose to
reject their fanaticism. A battle about Islam was just Muslim
versus Muslim. They realized they had to create a completely
different battle in Muslim minds: Muslim versus Western.

This is what September 11th did. Still now, I am amazed at how
many people will say, in effect, there is increased terrorism today
because we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. They seem to forget
entirely that September 11th predated either. The West didn’t
attack this movement. We were attacked. Until then we had
largely ignored it.

The reason I say our response was even more momentous than it
seemed at the time, is this. We could have chosen security as the
battleground. But we didn’t. We chose values. We said we
didn’t want another Taliban or a different Saddam. Rightly, in
my view, we realized that you can’t defeat a fanatical ideology
just by imprisoning or killing its leaders; you have to defeat its
ideas.

There is a host of analysis written about mistakes made in Iraq or
Afghanistan, much of it with hindsight but some of it with
justification. But it all misses one vital point. The moment we
decided not to change regime but to change the value system, we
made both Iraq and Afghanistan into existential battles for
Reactionary Islam. We posed a threat not to their activities
simply: but to their values, to the roots of their existence ..

Why are we not yet succeeding? Because we are not being bold
enough, consistent enough, thorough enough, in fighting for the
values we believe in.

We start this battle with some self-evident challenges. Iraq’s
political process has worked in an extraordinary way. But the
continued sectarian bloodshed is appalling: and threatens its
progress deeply. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are making a
determined effort to return and using the drugs trade a front.
Years of anti-Israeli and therefore anti-American teaching and
propaganda has left the Arab street often wildly divorced from
the practical politics of their governments. Iran and, to a lesser
extent, Syria are a constant source of de-stabilization and
reaction. The purpose of terrorism – whether in Iran,
Afghanistan, Lebanon or Palestine is never just the terrorist act
itself. It is to use the act to trigger a chain reaction, to expunge
any willingness to negotiate or compromise. Unfortunately it
frequently works, as we know from our own experience in
Northern Ireland, though thankfully the huge progress made in
the last decade there, shows that it can also be overcome.

So, short-term, we can’t say we are winning. But, there are
many reasons for long-term optimism. Across the Middle East,
there is a process of modernization as well as reaction. It is
unnoticed but it is there: in the UAE; in Bahrain; in Kuwait; in
Qatar. In Egypt, there is debate about the speed of change but
not about its direction. In Libya and Algeria, there is both
greater stability and a gradual but significant opening up.

Most of all, there is one incontrovertible truth that should give us
hope. In Iraq, in Afghanistan, and of course in Lebanon, any
time that people are permitted a chance to embrace democracy
they do so. The lie – that democracy, the rule of law, human
rights are Western concepts, alien to Islam – has been exposed.
In countries as disparate as Turkey and Indonesia, there is an
emerging strength in Moderate Islam that should greatly
encourage us.

So the struggle is finely poised. The question is: how do we
empower the moderates to defeat the extremists?

First, naturally, we should support, nurture, build strong alliances
with all those in the Middle East who are on the modernizing
path.

Secondly, we need, as President Bush said on Friday [7/28], to
re-energize the Middle East Peace Process between Israel and
Palestine; and we need to do it in a dramatic and profound
manner.

I want to explain why I think this issue is so utterly fundamental
to all we are trying to do. I know it can be very irritating for
Israel to be told that this issue is of cardinal importance, as if it is
on their shoulders that the weight of the troubles of the region
should always fall. I know also their fear that in our anxiety for
wider reasons to secure a settlement, we sacrifice the vital
interests of Israel.

Let me make it clear. I would never put Israel’s security at risk.

Instead I want what we all now acknowledge we need: a two
state solution. The Palestinian State must be independent, viable
but also democratic and not threaten Israel’s safety.

This is what the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want.

Its significance for the broader issue of the Middle East and for
the battle within Islam is this. The real impact of a settlement is
more than correcting the plight of the Palestinians. It is that such
a settlement would be the living, tangible, visible proof that the
region and therefore the world can accommodate different faiths
and cultures, even those who been in vehement opposition to
each other. It is, in other words, the total and complete rejection
of the case of Reactionary Islam. It destroys not just their most
effective rallying call, it fatally undermines their basic ideology.

And, for sure, it empowers Moderate, Mainstream Islam
enormously. They are able to point to progress as demonstration
that their allies, i.e. us, are even-handed not selective, do care
about justice for Muslims as much as Christians or Jews.

But, and it is a big ‘but,’ this progress will not happen unless we
change radically our degree of focus, effort and engagement,
especially with the Palestinian side. In this the active leadership
of the U.S. is essential but so also is the participation of Europe,
of Russia and of the UN. We need relentlessly, vigorously, to
put a viable Palestinian Government on its feet, to offer a vision
of how the Roadmap to final status negotiation can happen and
then pursue it, week in, week out, ‘til it’s done. Nothing else will
do. Nothing else is more important to the success of our foreign
policy.

---

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), speech on the Senate floor, July
31, 2006

[In full]

The Middle East is a region in crisis. After three weeks of
escalating and continuing violence, the potential for wider
regional conflict becomes more real each day. The hatred in the
Middle East is being driven deeper and deeper into the fabric of
the region which will make any lasting and sustained peace
effort very difficult to achieve. How do we realistically believe
that a continuation of the systematic destruction of an American
friend, the country and people of Lebanon, is going to enhance
America’s image and give us the trust and credibility to lead a
lasting and sustained peace effort in the Middle East? The
sickening slaughter on both sides must end now. President Bush
must call for an immediate ceasefire. This madness must stop.

The Middle East today is more combustible and complex than it
has ever been. Uncertain popular support for regime legitimacy
continues to weaken governments of the Middle East. Economic
stagnation, persistent unemployment, deepening despair and
wider unrest enhance the ability of terrorists to recruit and
succeed. An Iran with nuclear weapons raises the specter of
broader proliferation and a fundamental strategic realignment in
the region, creating more regional instability.

America’s approach to the Middle East must be consistent and
sustained, and must understand the history, interests and
perspectives of our regional friends and allies.

The United States will remain committed to defending Israel.
Our relationship with Israel is a special and historic one. But, it
need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim
relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false
choice. Achieving a lasting resolution to the Arab-Israeli
conflict is as much in Israel’s interest as any other country in the
world.

Unending war will continually drain Israel of its human capital,
resources, and energy as it fights for its survival. The United
States and Israel must understand that it is not in their long-term
interests to allow themselves to become isolated in the Middle
East and the world. Neither can allow themselves to drift into an
“us against the world” global optic or zero-sum game. That
would marginalize America’s global leadership, trust and
influence further isolate Israel and prove to be disastrous for
both countries as well as the region.

It is in Israel’s interest, as much as ours, that the United States be
seen by all states in the Middle East as fair. This is the currency
of trust.

The world has rightly condemned the despicable actions of
Hizbullah and Hamas terrorists who attacked Israel and
kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Israel has the undeniable right to
defend itself against aggression. This is the right of all states.

Hizbullah is a threat to Israel, to Lebanon and to all who strive
for lasting peace in the Middle East.

However, military action alone will not destroy Hizbullah or
Hamas. Extended military action is tearing Lebanon apart,
killing innocent civilians, destroying its economy and
infrastructure, creating a humanitarian disaster, further
weakening Lebanon’s fragile democratic government,
strengthening popular Muslim and Arab support for Hizbullah,
and deepening hatred of Israel across the Middle East. The
pursuit of tactical military victories at the expense of the core
strategic objective of Arab-Israeli peace is a hollow victory. The
war against Hizbullah and Hamas will not be won on the
battlefield.

To achieve a strategic shift in the conditions for Middle East
peace, the United States must use the global condemnation of
terrorist acts as the basis for substantive change. For a lasting
and popularly supported resolution, only a strong Lebanese
government and a strong Lebanese army, backed by the
international community, can rid Lebanon of these corrosive
militias and terrorist organizations.

President Bush and Secretary Rice must become and remain
deeply engaged in the Middle East. Only U.S. leadership can
build a consensus of purpose among our regional and
international partners. To lead and sustain U.S. engagement, the
President should appoint a statesman of global stature,
experience and ability to serve as his personal envoy to the
region who would report directly to the President and be
empowered with the authority to speak and act for the President.
Former Secretaries of State Baker and Powell fit this profile.

The President must publicly decry the slaughter and work toward
an immediate ceasefire. The UN Security council should
urgently adopt a new binding resolution that provides a
comprehensive political, security and economic framework for
Lebanon, Israel and the region – a framework that begins with
the immediate cessation of violence. I strongly support the
deployment of a robust international force along the Israel-
Lebanon border to facilitate a steady deployment of a
strengthened Lebanese Army into southern Lebanon to
eventually assume responsibility for security and the rule of law.

America must listen carefully to its friends and partners in the
region. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and others – countries that
understand the Middle East far better than we do – must commit
to help resolve today’s crisis and be active partners in helping
realize the already agreed-upon two-state solution.

The core of all challenges in the Middle East remains the
underlying Arab-Israeli conflict. The failure to address this root
cause will allow Hizbullah, Hamas and other terrorists to
continue to sustain popular Muslim and Arab support – a
dynamic that continues to undermine America’s standing in the
region, and the governments of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and
others – whose support is critical for any Middle East resolution.

The United States should engage our Middle East and
international partners to revive the Beirut Declaration, or some
version of it, proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and
adopted unanimously by the Arab League in March 2002. In this
historic initiative, the Arab world recognized Israel’s right to
exist and sought to establish a path toward a two-state solution
and broader Arab-Israeli peace. Even though Israel could not
accept it as written, it represented a very significant “starting
point” document initiated by Arab countries. Today, we need a
new Beirut Declaration-type initiative. We squandered the last
one.

The concept and intent of the 2002 Beirut Declaration is as
relevant today as it was in 2002. An Arab-initiated Beirut-type
declaration would re-invest regional Arab states with a stake in
achieving progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace. This type of
initiative would offer a positive alternative vision for Arab
populations to the ideology and goals of Islamic militants. The
United States must explore this approach as part of its diplomatic
engagement in the Middle East.

Lasting peace in the Middle East and stability and security for
Israel will come only from a regionally-oriented political
settlement.

Former American Middle East Envoy Dennis Ross once
observed that in the Middle East a process is necessary because
process absorbs events without a process, events become
crises. He was right. Look at where we are today in the Middle
East with no process. Crisis diplomacy is no substitute for
sustained, day-to-day engagement.

America’s approach to Syria and Iran is inextricably tied to
Middle East peace. Whether or not they were directly involved
in the latest Hizbullah and Hamas aggression in Israel, both
countries exert influence in the region in ways that undermine
stability and security. As we work with our friends and allies to
deny Syria and Iran any opportunity to further corrode the
situation in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, both
Damascus and Tehran must hear from America directly.

As John McLaughlin, the former Deputy Director of Central
Intelligence recently wrote in the Washington Post:

“Even superpowers have to talk to bad guys. The absence of a
diplomatic relationship with Iran and the deterioration of the one
with Syria – two countries that bear enormous responsibility for
the current crisis – leave the United States with fewer options
and levers than might otherwise have been the case. Distasteful
as it might have been to have or to maintain open and normal
relations with such states, the absence of such relations ensures
that we will have more blind spots than we can afford and that
we will have to deal through surrogates on issues of vital
importance to the United States.

Ultimately, the United States will need to engage Iran and Syria
with an agenda open to all areas of agreement and disagreement.
For this dialogue to have any meaning or possible lasting
relevance, it should encompass the full agenda of issues.

There is very little good news coming out of Iraq today.
Increasingly vicious sectarian violence continues to propel Iraq
toward civil war. The U.S. announcement last week to send
additional U.S. troops and military police back into Baghdad
reverses last month’s decision to have Iraqi forces take the lead
in Baghdad and represents a dramatic set back for the U.S. and
the Iraqi Government. The Iraqi Government has limited ability
to enforce the rule of law in Iraq, especially in Baghdad. Green
Zone politics appear to have little bearing or relation to the
realities of the rest of Iraq.

The Iraqis will continue to face difficult choices over the future
of their country. The day-to-day responsibilities of governing
and security will soon have to be assumed by Iraqis. This is not
about setting a timeline. This is about understanding the
implications of the forces of reality. This reality is being
determined by Iraqis – not Americans. America is bogged down
in Iraq and this is limiting our diplomatic and military options.
The longer America remains in Iraq in its current capacity, the
deeper the damage to our force structure – particularly the U.S.
Army. And it will continue to place more limitations on an
already dangerously over-extended force structure that will
further limit our options and public support.

The Middle East crisis represents a moment of great danger, but
it is also an opportunity. Crisis focuses the minds of leaders and
the attention of nations. The Middle East need not be a region
forever captive to the fire of war and historical hatred. It can
avoid this fate if the United States pursues sustained and engaged
leadership worthy of our history, purpose, and power. America
cannot fix every problem in the world – nor should it try. But we
must get the big issues and important relationships right and
concentrate on those. We know that without engaged and active
American leadership the world is more dangerous. The United
States must focus all of its leadership and resources on ending
this madness in the Middle East – now!

---

Hott Spotts will return August 24.

Brian Trumbore