The Israeli Parliament has voted to support Sharon’s plan for the removal of Israeli settlements from the Gaza strip, and also four of the least defensible settlements in the West Bank. It’s clear enough that Sharon does not intend this as the beginning of either a land-for-peace deal or a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank. Rather, the idea is to freeze the peace process and remove the obstacles to the annexation of large slabs of the West Bank.

But events have a dynamic of their own. Sharon has broken, probably decisively, with the settlers and may well be forced to break with the rejectionists among his own supporters, such as Netanyahu. He’s going to need support for the fight against them, which will be bitter and possibly bloody. He won’t get that support for a plan based on permanent occupation of large parts of the West Bank, with a wall/barrier/fence cutting a “Palestinian entity” into a series of separate Bantustans. But he probably could get it for something close to Clinton/Barak, with two contiguous states, and border adjustments that brought most of the big “suburban” settlements into Israel in return for a trade of unoccupied land elsewhere, with or without the agreement of Arafat. This kind of policy would drive a wedge into the settler bloc, separating the ideological supporters of Greater Israel from those who just want somewhere to live in peace.

Given the long and miserable history of this dispute, a bad outcome is more likely in the short run. But, as I pointed out a while back, this is a problem with only one solution, and everyone knows what it is (to within a few square kilometres and parenthetical clauses). Sooner or later, that’s where things will end up. Since every day that this goes on adds more recruits to the ranks of Al Qaeda, I hope it’s sooner rather than later. Withdrawal from Gaza is a step in the right direction.

The Bush Administration has finally conceded, on the record, that it decided, for political reasons, not to go after leading terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the leadup to the Iraq war. The question remains, which political reasons were decisive?
Read More »

I’ve been off the air with database problems for a day or so, and missed some important developments. First, there was the bad news of the first Australian military casualties in Iraq, an unfortunate but inevitable development, given that insurgents are now operating freely throughout Baghdad, and even within the Green Zone. The Zarqawi group has claimed responsibility. This followed the earlier horrific massacre of Iraqi recruits, again claimed by Zarqawi.

Second, and closely related, the Zarqawi scandal has developed a further, with the Administration finally admitting on the record that the decision not to go after leading terrorist Zarqawi in the lead-up to the Iraq war was politically motivated. Money quote

Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an interview that the reasons for not striking included “the president’s decision to engage the international community on Iraq.” (from the WSJ, via Tim Dunlop

With a week to go, it’s probably too late for this disclosure to have any impact on the US election. But if anyone ever refers to George Bush as fighting a war against terrorism, just point them to the Zarqawi story. The failure to go after bin Laden in an effective fashion can be put down to this Administration’s routine incompetence. The failure to go after Zarqawi was simply criminal.

Finally, there was this piece by Barry Cohen, accusing the ALP of anti-semitism. In Cohen’s language criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism and criticism of Ariel Sharon is criticism of Israel. I’m sure examples of anti-Jewish prejudice can be found in the Labor party, but Cohen doesn’t produce any. There are more extensive responses here and here.

It seems as if the dying days of a political party inevitably generate this kind of moment. The ACT (Association of Consumers and Taxpayers) Party is the last remnant of the NZ Labour Party’s diversion into radical free-market reform, and is heavily backed by the NZ Business Roundtable, run for many years by Roger Kerr[1]. Finding that few voters want to hear about radical free-market reform any more, ACT shifted its ground to law-and-order populism and race-baiting a few years back, and just managed to maintain a presence in Parliament.

But then the main opposition National Party elected Don Brash as his leader. At the helm of the NZ Reserve Bank, Brash presided over some disastrous monetary policy failures, most notably the Monetary Conditions Index, but still seemed like a decent person. But then he resigned and (very improperly in my view) promptly ran for Parliament for the National Party (as a List MP, he didn’t actually run, but was effectively appointed). He made little progress until his Pauline Hanson moment – the Orewa speech attacking Maori native title rights.

As with Pauline, Brash got an instant surge of popularity which he backed up with law-and-order stuff to the point where the Nationals led Labour in opinion polls for some months. But, also as with Pauline, it didn’t last, and Labour is now back in front.

Meanwhile, though, Brash managed to steal ACT’s remaining <raison d’etre . With the Nationals playing the race card, and pushing a hard line on law and order, there’s no reason to vote for ACT, and the party is now in its death spiral. It’s at this point that the kind of incident that would be a mild embarrassment for a successful political party assumes the dimensions of a fatal blow. This story, involving Kerr pursuing an ACT MP looks like the last straw for ACT and perhaps also for NZBR[2]. Good riddance.

fn1. Disclosure: I’ve had occasional run-ins with Kerr, and he’s always struck me as a thoroughly nasty person. So I’m naturally inclined to view him as the bad actor in this story.

fn2. Both parties have issued MRD denials

A lot of discussion of terrorism is based on the assumption that, however morally deplorable it may be, it’s effective. I don’t think this is true – terrorism generally harms the causes it supposedly seeks to advance. Anne Applebaum points to the kinds of evidence that convince me of this, notably the counterproductive effects of Palestinian terrorism. (I’d also mention the IRA, which has achieved less in 30 years of terrorism than could have been obtained if peaceful civil rights agitation had been maintained for a few years in the 1970s).

It’s going to be a long campaign, and many people will be glad of the diversion provided by the football finals. And, for me at least, the news has all been good on this front. Alastair Lynch is making a good recovery from his hamstring injury, and Brisbane’s crack lawyers got Jonathan Brown off on a technicality last night. Nothing is certain in sport or politics, but, with a full-strength team, Brisbane are odds-on to win a fourth straight premiership (Centrebet is paying $1.63, and this time I think the markets have it right).

As Ken Parish observes, in my recent post about Chechnya, I discussed the issue of terrorism and its causes in generic terms and didn’t have anything specific to say about Islamism. So, I’ll start by observing that most of what has been written on this topic is, in my opinion, useless or worse.
Read More »

There is no excuse or justification for terrorism. But that doesn’t mean it is inexplicable, the product of purely irrational evil impulses. There will always be people willing, under certain circumstances, to resort to terrorism. If we want to fight terrorism effectively, we have to avoid creating those circumstances.

Successive Russian governments created the conditions in Chechnya that allow terrorists like those responsible for the Beslan atrocity to flourish. There was a long history of oppression, from Czarist times to mass deportation under Stalin. But the current outbreak can be traced most directly to the actions of Yeltsin and Putin. When Chechnya sought independence from Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union, Yeltsin’s response was one of brutal and incompetent repression, eventually leading to an effective Russian withdrawal, and the creation of a failed state, in which warlords and militias flourished, and terrorism established itself.

After a series of Chechen terrorist attacks in Moscow and an attempted invasion of the neighbouring republic of Dagestan, Putin came to power with a policy of crushing Chechen resistance, which he implemented with high civilian casualties and the destruction of much of the capital city of Grozny[1].

Again, this history doesn’t justify, excuse or mitigate horrible crimes like the one we have just witnessed. But there is also no excuse for those who advocate policies that are bound to promote terrorism while rejecting any analysis of “root causes”.

fn1. Those interested in a more detailed history can find what seems to be a pretty good one at Global Issues. This is a leftwing site, but seems to give fairly objective coverage.

As usual in relation to terrorist attacks, and in common with others, I find it difficult to say much in relation to the terrorist siege in Beslan, which has now ended with heavy loss of life. The terrorists, who have sunk to new lows in this crime (the hostages, mostly children, were apparently denied water) were mostly killed. No decent person will mourn their deaths. No provocation or historical wrong can justify such foul actions.

I feel for those who have lost loved ones, and especially for the parents of children murdered on this tragic day.

Michael Wooldridge has a piece in today’s Age, giving some fairly standard arguments as to “Why you should vote for Howard”. As far as I’m concerned the mere fact that the story reminds readers of Wooldridge’s existence should be a good reason to vote against Howard. Although not the most incompetent Minister in the Howard government, he beat strong competition to be the one who has most lowered standards of public probity. Apart from his notorious extravagance, he regularly did favors to groups which then gave him financial or political returns. Most outrageously, he approved a public grant to a medical lobby group which hired him as a consultant as soon as he left office. It’s the accumulation of this kind of sleaze that brings down long-running governments.