Robert Fisk: Welcome to 'Palestine'

How troublesome the Muslims of the Middle East are. First, we demand that the Palestinians embrace democracy and then they elect the wrong party - Hamas - and then Hamas wins a mini-civil war and presides over the Gaza Strip. And we Westerners still want to negotiate with the discredited President, Mahmoud Abbas. Today "Palestine" - and let's keep those quotation marks in place - has two prime ministers. Welcome to the Middle East.

Who can we negotiate with? To whom do we talk? Well of course, we should have talked to Hamas months ago. But we didn't like the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people. They were supposed to have voted for Fatah and its corrupt leadership. But they voted for Hamas, which declines to recognise Israel or abide by the totally discredited Oslo agreement.

No one asked - on our side - which particular Israel Hamas was supposed to recognise. The Israel of 1948? The Israel of the post-1967 borders? The Israel which builds - and goes on building - vast settlements for Jews and Jews only on Arab land, gobbling up even more of the 22 per cent of "Palestine" still left to negotiate over ?

And so today, we are supposed to talk to our faithful policeman, Mr Abbas, the "moderate" (as the BBC, CNN and Fox News refer to him) Palestinian leader, a man who wrote a 600-page book about Oslo without once mentioning the word "occupation", who always referred to Israeli "redeployment" rather than "withdrawal", a "leader" we can trust because he wears a tie and goes to the White House and says all the right things. The Palestinians didn't vote for Hamas because they wanted an Islamic republic - which is how Hamas's bloody victory will be represented - but because they were tired of the corruption of Mr Abbas's Fatah and the rotten nature of the "Palestinian Authority".

I recall years ago being summoned to the home of a PA official whose walls had just been punctured by an Israeli tank shell. All true. But what struck me were the gold-plated taps in his bathroom. Those taps - or variations of them - were what cost Fatah its election. Palestinians wanted an end to corruption - the cancer of the Arab world - and so they voted for Hamas and thus we, the all-wise, all-good West, decided to sanction them and starve them and bully them for exercising their free vote. Maybe we should offer "Palestine" EU membership if it would be gracious enough to vote for the right people?

All over the Middle East, it is the same. We support Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, even though he keeps warlords and drug barons in his government (and, by the way, we really are sorry about all those innocent Afghan civilians we are killing in our "war on terror" in the wastelands of Helmand province).

We love Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, whose torturers have not yet finished with the Muslim Brotherhood politicians recently arrested outside Cairo, whose presidency received the warm support of Mrs - yes Mrs - George W Bush - and whose succession will almost certainly pass to his son, Gamal.

We adore Muammar Gaddafi, the crazed dictator of Libya whose werewolves have murdered his opponents abroad, whose plot to murder King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia preceded Tony Blair's recent visit to Tripoli - Colonel Gaddafi, it should be remembered, was called a "statesman" by Jack Straw for abandoning his non-existent nuclear ambitions - and whose "democracy" is perfectly acceptable to us because he is on our side in the "war on terror".

Yes, and we love King Abdullah's unconstitutional monarchy in Jordan, and all the princes and emirs of the Gulf, especially those who are paid such vast bribes by our arms companies that even Scotland Yard has to close down its investigations on the orders of our prime minister - and yes, I can indeed see why he doesn't like The Independent's coverage of what he quaintly calls "the Middle East". If only the Arabs - and the Iranians - would support our kings and shahs and princes whose sons and daughters are educated at Oxford and Harvard, how much easier the "Middle East" would be to control.

For that is what it is about - control - and that is why we hold out, and withdraw, favours from their leaders. Now Gaza belongs to Hamas, what will our own elected leaders do? Will our pontificators in the EU, the UN, Washington and Moscow now have to talk to these wretched, ungrateful people (fear not, for they will not be able to shake hands) or will they have to acknowledge the West Bank version of Palestine (Abbas, the safe pair of hands) while ignoring the elected, militarily successful Hamas in Gaza?

It's easy, of course, to call down a curse on both their houses. But that's what we say about the whole Middle East. If only Bashar al-Assad wasn't President of Syria (heaven knows what the alternative would be) or if the cracked President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad wasn't in control of Iran (even if he doesn't actually know one end of a nuclear missile from the other).

If only Lebanon was a home-grown democracy like our own little back-lawn countries - Belgium, for example, or Luxembourg. But no, those pesky Middle Easterners vote for the wrong people, support the wrong people, love the wrong people, don't behave like us civilised Westerners.

So what will we do? Support the reoccupation of Gaza perhaps? Certainly we will not criticise Israel. And we shall go on giving our affection to the kings and princes and unlovely presidents of the Middle East until the whole place blows up in our faces and then we shall say - as we are already saying of the Iraqis - that they don't deserve our sacrifice and our love.

How do we deal with a coup d'état by an elected government?

Source : <a href='http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2663199.ece'>The Independent Well firstly lets just say the Government “gives in” to their demands and increase their wages. And yes sure the government does have a lot of money coming into its coffers annually through tax and various other means and can afford to submit to their demands. But the consequences for this decision can be disastrous to the South African Economy. Firstly if the government “gives in” basically you looking at hundreds and thousands of people with higher salaries thus larger spending power. To some this may seem to be a good thing as people with more money results in a richer and grander economy and to an extent higher income per capita (Net National Income divided by the population) and to some this may mean there is economic growth. Its true there is slight economic growth but realistically we are just fooling ourselves. This is because of inflation rising & interest rates rising which will be caused if the Government does give in to their demands which is most likely what could happen. Inflation will rise, as the wage increase will mean there will be more money circulating in the Economy, which in most cases is bad. As firstly we are not a “savings” population but rather a “spenders” population, i.e. we spend most of our disposable income as possible and to the extent of even buying on credit. Thus because of the increase in spending as people will want to fulfill their desires, through supply & demand prices will go up as there will be excess demand for various goods and services thus there will be an increase in prices. Secondly because we spending beyond our means and not saving our money in banks there wont be enough money for banks to finance essential capital investments for businesses, with the result that businesses will not be able to expand their production resulting in demand not been met which will in turn increase prices for products as there will be a low supply of goods & services. You may also say that the Government has a lot of money but this is actually not true as a lot of the money that the government gets is used to Fund various projects and used to pay for public services that the population requires and the countries requires in order for stability, so where will it find money to pay for the increase? Therefore to pay for the wage increase the Government may even have to increase the tax rate (Direct or Indirect) for businesses and normal residents thus for businesses to continue running efficiently and profitably the increase tax is simply included in the increased price of the product. Therefore there will be an increase in the price of products and services. Also for citizens, their disposable income will be further reduced as already a substantial part of their salary is gone for tax and now because of tax increase this substantial amount will be much higher.

Also SARB to curve inflation caused by the this wage increase SARB will be forced into increasing interest rates to tempt people to save more and spend less, but there is also a negative side to this. Loans and Bonds will be more expensive to pay and people will not be able to afford to even live comfortably as most of their money will be going towards repaying the loan or bond. Resulting in more empty pockets for even the workers that are currently striking as many of them have Home Loans, Bonds etc.

The above is just one aspect. We cannot forget the fact that there is continuous oil/petrol price hikes. This compounded with the weakening Rand (as most goods that we use are imported). Will result in increases in prices for goods & services, thus inflation being higher. Taking these 2 very major factors into account, and the fact that this wage increase could lead to an increase on the tax rate, as the government will need to find a way to pay for the increase. With inclusion of the wage increase and the above factors we can assume that it will lead to a much higher inflation rate and in turn will affect not only the normal people but also the workers that are currently striking. As maybe not immediately but eventually they will still not be able to afford the things that they desire and will see their pockets getting empty again. Thus bringing them back to the same position they in now.

So what as South Africans do we do? As at the moment the country is literally at a halt. As public services are essential to any country’s success and without it there is chaos we are currently seeing it on the news, Schools been closed, hospitals not working efficiently etc. There is a way out of it though its what SARB also tries to tell people continuously “SAVE” and spend wisely. Do not spend beyond our means. Appreciate for what we got as clearly if we demand for more like how people are now the consequences of it can be disastrous. As if there is a salaries increase without simultaneous production increase then there will be inflation. It’s for these reasons that the Government is not giving in to the demands, as they know what will happen. Now the workers need to also understand this. The above also holds for any other workers in any industry in this country. But businesses must also realize they cant exploit and pay “peanuts” to its workers. And Workers must realize that they must appreciate. The South African people must look at other countries and how they operate and the people that live there, China, Vietnam, Thailand, India sure there is a bit of unfairness but what we must learn from them is the fact that they appreciate and they happy for even earning $7 a day because they know at least they will be able to put food on their table as because labour is cheap resulting in prices of goods been cheap therefore people can survive on their current wages. You may say they are been exploited well to an extent in these countries they are, and there should be given higher salaries but not to the extent that it could kill businesses. And we must realize in their view the workers are expendable as they have a large population. This is very similar to South Africa’s unemployment situation as there is a large group of people unemployed thus current workers are to an extent expendable as they can easily be replaced especially for unskilled work. Therefore workers cannot be too demanding either.

In conclusion there must be balance, fairness and compromise from both sides in order to find the optimum point that will benefit all in the short term and long term. As if it to one sided it can lead to disastrous effect to the Economy, which in turn will indirectly or directly effect you and me.

Written by Mohammed Joosub [Al-MustaqeemSA Publications]

No way out for the coalition troops

The US is considering introducing a limited military draft if it is to keep its present force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, Pentagon advisers have warned British colleagues. Next month, US forces in Iraq will peak at around 170,000, and GIs in the new units are being told they could be on operations for at least 15 months.

Over Memorial Day weekend, Americans have been faced by the grim statistic that in the year since the last Memorial Day, very nearly 1,000 US military have been killed in Iraq, and many more wounded. These are the worst casualty rates since the coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003.

British Army chiefs are mulling over a new report that reservists, mainly from the Territorial Army, are suffering combat stress worse than regulars because of lack of attention when they return home. Commanders are concerned by the high rate

of young officers applying for voluntary redundancy when they return from Iraq and Afghanistan; in some frontline infantry battalions the rate of officers applying for early retirement is as high as 17 per cent.

"Morale is very high in these regiments when they are actually on operations," said a senior officer, speaking anonymously, "but the officers just say they've had enough, and they want to do something else now, thank you."

US-led operations in Iraq appear to have reached yet another turning point with the American commander, General David Petraeus, due to hand to Congress a report on his latest strategic thinking. He appears to have given up on the so-called 'surge' which has brought an extra 21,000 US troops to central Iraq. According to advance reports from Baghdad, the surge has failed because the Iraqi government and forces were not prepared to fulfill their promise to back it in word and deed. Last week, a US patrol shot dead an Iraqi in the act of concealing a roadside booby trap bomb – and discovered his identity card showed he was a sergeant in the new Iraqi army.

Gen Petraeus's plan B seems to focus on 'soft' power, getting the combatants inside Iraq - with the exception of al-Qaeda groups - to talk to each other and their sponsors in the neighbourhood, principally Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and its allies.

Yesterday saw the first face-to-face diplomatic negotiations between the US and Iran since Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic Revolution in Tehran in 1979. The US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, met his Iranian opposite number, Hassan Kazemi-Qomi, for four hours. The meeting was reported to be businesslike – though Crocker took the opportunity to warn Iran against arming the Shia militias and other extremists in Iraq.

Though the two sides agreed to a re-match of the meeting, it is clear they are pretty far apart. The US has been formally warned by Tehran for running spies and saboteurs in Iran's border provinces. There seems little chance than Iranian Revolutionary Guards are going to stop arming and training Shia militants against the British in the Basra sector.

To mix a metaphor, both the Americans and the British seem caught in a drifting impasse now in Iraq. They cannot go forward, nor suddenly pull out, for fear of triggering a major regional war – for which all the combustible ingredients are in place. Both London and Washington face the issue of forces and equipment reaching exhaustion point by this time next year.

Now even the Democrats in Congress have stepped back from setting a deadline for American forces to withdraw from Iraq. The only voices arguing for a sensible timetable are the two Democrat presidential front-runners Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The question for Britain now is whether Gordon Brown will follow the messianic policy laid down by Tony Blair, or cut loose and follow the counsels of Hillary and Barack.

The question is more than intriguing. It could be vital, and a lifesaver for our forces.


Source :TheFirstPost.co.uk