U.S., Palestinian statehood and Arab-world credibility

Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal pens a mildly worded but strongly voiced op-ed in the New York Times saying the U.S. needs to support Palestinian statehood at the U.N. rather than "risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world."

If that's not a shot across the bow, this should be:

Moreover, Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has. With most of the Arab world in upheaval, the “special relationship” between Saudi Arabia and the United States would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people. 

Saudi leaders would be forced by domestic and regional pressures to adopt a far more independent and assertive foreign policy. Like our recent military support for Bahrain’s monarchy, which America opposed, Saudi Arabia would pursue other policies at odds with those of the United States, including opposing the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Iraq and refusing to open an embassy there despite American pressure to do so.

 That's a big, big threat there. In Iraq, that would mean the Anbar Awakening would re-awaken; Shi'a-Sunni warfare would start over. That's especially true if "opposing Maliki" meant the Saudis (through appropriate third-party funneling) actually started providing money, arms or both to an Anbar Re-Awakening. The U.S. would either be hamstrung or else forced to keep more troops there. And, Iran would surely up its support for Moqtada al-Sadr, who would probably push Maliki to fight back harder, or else would himself disavow the Maliki government.

And, in an ongoing recession, if we do start to recover, any would-be Saudi help on oil supplies could go by the boards. Turki doesn't mention that, but ... does he have to?

Other than that, Turki is right: The only real losers from a Palestinian state, at least one with Hamas marginalized and the Palestinian Authority in charge, are Syria (and proxies in Lebanon) and Iran.

At the same time, as Israeli-Egyptian events of the past two weeks have shown, Tel Aviv is feeling isolated indeed. If the Saudis are leaning on us in public, they're leaning on the Netanyahu government through third channels, too.

And, Turki didn't write this column alone. This is the public expression, in some way, shape or form, of what Riyadh has privately told the Obama Administration through diplomatic channels in the past few weeks.

Will Dear Leader listen, or will he listen to Zionists and semi-Zionists in the U.S. instead?

Cluster bombs - more U.S.-Israeli hypocrisy

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is semi-officially condemning Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi for alleged use of nasty cluster bombs.

Two SLIGHT problems, though.

1. We, along with Libya, have failed to sign a 2008 convention against cluster bombs' use. Our military-industrial complex is a huge maker of the devices. And, as the second page of the story notes, we sold plenty to Israel.

2. Which used them indiscriminately in Lebanon and elsewhere:

"What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war.

I guess the military-imperial U.S. establishment thinks that in the days of Google, it can still get away with telling such monstrosities.

More on the issue and our similar hypocrisy on land mines here, from Human Rights Watch.

The AP story, in the top link, pulls some of the info together in one graf, that may get cut in many hardcopy newspapers:

The campaign against the weapons picked up steam after Israel's month-long war against Hezbollah in 2006, when it scattered up to 4 million of the munitions across Lebanon, according to the U.N. In response, more than 100 countries pledged to ban the bombs. The United States has rejected the call, insisting that the bombs are a valid weapon of war when used properly. Libya also has never signed a treaty banning them.

Agreed that Libya may be targeting civilians. That said, that's what Israel did in Lebanon. That's what we allegedly did in Iraq (and, like Israel, with white phosphorus, too).

Meanwhile, in the world of realpolitik, Clinton hasn't said what the U.S. will actually do about this. Team Obama is caught between the rock of Wilsonian idealism and the hard place of further mission creep. (See Kurds, Iraq, and George H.W. Bush.)

Mousavi – ‘reformer’ or ‘Butcher of Beirut’?

Well, leopards can change their spots, but, 25 years ago, Iranian presidential challenger Mir Mousavi was the Butcher of Beirut.

Conservatives flaying Obama for not supporting Mousavi, and mindless bloggers like Juan Cole and Andrew Sullivan, perhaps ought to ponder the attacks on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, 1983, and their mastermind, the Butcher of Beirut.

This leopard, the one who within the last week, called for a “reformation” for the Islamic Republic of Iran and saluted the spirit of Ayatollah Khoumeni, would have to have changed his spots a lot to really be a “reformer.”

Oh, and I am going to continue to hammer on Sully and Cole by name until I see that they have some sense on this issue.

Democracies in the Middle East

The Schmuck Talk Express™, John McCain, claimed today that Israel is the only freely elected democracy in the Middle East.

Ignoring our puppet state in Iraq, and ignoring the fact that he’s dissing such beloved allies as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, Big John is making just a little mistake or two.
Mistake one: Lebanon

Mistake two, which both Republicans and Democrats keep trying to shove under the rug: Palestine. Hate Hamas all you want, they won an election. Oops.

What is all boils down to is that the Bipartisan Foreign Policy Establishment in the U.S. is all in favor of free elections when it elections the people we think it should.