American Middle East Policy In A Nutshell

Isreali Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is bragging about how he ordered United States President George W. Bush to abstain from the UN Security Council resolution calling for a cease fire in Gaza. He is also bragging about how he shamed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was left shame-faced after President George W. Bush ordered her to abstain in a key UN vote on the Gaza war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday.

"She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour," Olmert said in a speech in the southern town of Ashkelon.

The United States, Israel’s main ally, had initially been expected to voted in line with the other 14 but Rice later became the sole abstention.

"In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour," Olmert said.

"I said ‘get me President Bush on the phone’. 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’. He got off the podium and spoke to me.

"I told him the United States could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour."

Now, this would be shocking in any other context. But, with the United States Congress offering unconditional support to Israel’s assault on Gaza, Ehud Olmert’s statements should not surprise anyone.

This is why the rest of the world does not consider the United States an "honest broker" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

Posted in Foreign Policy, Israel-Palestine | 2 Comments

Bangladesh: Getting The Math Right

Today the leading Bangladeshi English language newspaper, The Daily Star, published an op-ed co-authored by me and Syeed Ahamed of the Drishtipat Writers’ Collective. The op-ed is an analysis of the recent electoral defeat of the major Islamist political party in Bangladesh, the Jamaat-e-Islami.

The op-ed is reprinted below:

Getting the math right

THE ninth parliamentary elections in Bangladesh saw a landslide victory for the Awami League. The high-turnout election also saw Bangladeshi voters turn away from the BNP and its alliance partner, Jamaat-e-Islami.

The Jamaat, which had captured 17 seats in the 2001 parliamentary elections, was reduced to 2 seats in the 300-seat parliament in the 2008 elections. For Jamaat in particular and religion-based politics in general, it was a resounding electoral defeat.

While Jamaat’s share of seats in parliament dwindled in 2008, the party did manage to garner a similar percentage of the total vote in 2008 as it did in 2001. In 2001, Jamaat received 2.38 million votes out of a total of 55.73 million votes cast in the national elections, securing a 4.28 percent share in the total votes.

In 2008, Jamaat received some 3.16 million votes out of 70.51 million national votes cast in the election, marginally increasing its vote share to 4.48 percent of the total vote.

Looking at the total votes received by Jamaat in 2008, it may appear that while the party lost parliamentary seats, it has made a negligible gain in voter support since the last parliamentary election. However, a closer look at the election results reveals a much different scenario.

There are two factors to consider when examining Jamaat’s share of the vote in this election.

First, Jamaat fielded candidates in nine more constituencies in 2008 than it did in 2001. In 2008, Jamaat competed in 40 constituencies, whereas in 2001 the party only fielded candidates in 31 constituencies. Jamaat competed in 25 of the 31 constituencies it ran in during the 2001 election, opting not to run in 6 of the 2001 constituencies. Fifteen of the 40 constituencies that Jamaat ran in were new for 2008.

Second, Jamaat’s individual vote share is hard to separate from that of BNP’s in constituencies where BNP candidates do not contest. Significant portions of BNP supporters in these constituencies opt to vote for Jamaat as no other right-of-centre candidates are on the ballot.

As was evident in the 1996 national election, when BNP and Jamaat contested head to head, Jamaat’s individual vote share is very insignificant (less than a quarter of BNP’s vote share).

Since the number of constituencies where Jamaat contested is not equal, to make a realistic comparison between Jamaat’s election performances in 2001 and 2008, one needs to compare Jamaat’s average vote count per constituency, instead of national share.

In 2001, Jamaat received some 76,947 votes per constituency, while the average national voter turnout per constituency was 185,761 i.e. 41.42 percent of national average.

In 2008 national election, Jamaat’s average vote count per constituency was 79,051 i.e. only 33.52 percent of the national average of 235,836 votes.

Evidently, while Jamaat registered a higher number of votes by fielding more candidates, its average vote share went down significantly by almost 8 percent.

To get a clearer sense of how Jamaat fared in the vote count in 2008, we can take a look at the 25 constituencies where Jamaat ran both in 2001 and in 2008. In these constituencies, Jamaat received, in 2001, a total of 2.10 million votes out of a total of 4.97 million votes cast.

In 2008, in the same constituencies, Jamaat received some 2.16 million votes out of a total of 5.77 million overall votes cast. While the total number of votes cast in 2008 increased by 16.17 percent, Jamaat only managed to increase its total vote by 2.79 percent. In addition, in 12 of these 25 constituencies, Jamaat’s total vote dropped in 2008 compared to 2001.

In 2008, the number of registered voters in these 25 constituencies had also increased by 8.69 percent from 6.23 million registered voters to 6.78 million voters. Yet, with voter turnout in these constituencies increasing from 79.71 percent to 85.20 percent between 2001 and 2008, Jamaat’s share of votes as a percentage of all registered voters also dropped.

By comparing constituency results between the 2001 and 2008 elections, it is apparent that Jamaat not only suffered a significant electoral loss in 2008, but it also now holds support with a smaller share of the electorate. Jamaat has mitigated some of this loss of support in existing constituencies by fielding candidates in additional constituencies.

The media have attributed Jamaat’s religion-based politics and the nationwide anti-war criminal campaign as factors that have contributed to its electoral slide. However, in the absence of credible exit polling, it is difficult to determine which factors held sway with the voters.

Nonetheless, empirical analysis of the data shows that Jamaat’s decline in 2008 is both real and substantial. Whether this signals a long-term trend away from Jamaat and religion-based politics should become clearer in the next few election cycles.

Syeed Ahamed and Mashuqur Rahman are members of Drishtipat Writers’ Collective.

 

Posted in Bangladesh, Published Articles | 2 Comments

Congressman Eliot Engel: Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bombing Of Children

Shihab Rattansi of Al Jazeera tries to make some sense of the nonsense coming out of the mouth of Democratic Congressman from New York, Eliot Engel.

This week, the US House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution supporting Israel’s actions in Gaza. Not to be outdone, the US Senate passed by unanimous consent a resolution offering unconditional support to Israel’s actions in Gaza.

With the US Congress using the kind of thinking demonstrated by Rep. Engel in the Al Jazeera interview, we are well on our way to making all killing of civilians a justifiable action.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Israel-Palestine | 1 Comment

“In the name of humanity, what is Israel doing?”

[H/T The Heathlander]

Britain’s Channel 4 does the kind of reporting that the U.S. media refuse to do.

In this report, the ICRC describes how the IDF would not allow ICRC ambulances to evacuate four starving children in Gaza who were clinging to their dead mothers. At the end of the report, Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev is taken to task for the actions of his government.

 

Posted in Human Rights, Israel-Palestine | 3 Comments

The Children Of Gaza

The International Committee of the Red Cross has issued a written release demanding immediate access to Gaza after the discovery of weak children laying next to their dead mothers.

In the release, the ICRC states:

The ICRC/PRCS team found four small children next to their dead mothers in one of the houses. They were too weak to stand up on their own. One man was also found alive, too weak to stand up. In all there were at least 12 corpses lying on mattresses.

In another house, the ICRC/PRCS rescue team found 15 other survivors of this attack including several wounded. In yet another house, they found an additional three corpses. Israeli soldiers posted at a military position some 80 meters away from this house ordered the rescue team to leave the area which they refused to do. There were several other positions of the Israeli Defence Forces nearby as well as two tanks.

"This is a shocking incident," said Pierre Wettach, the ICRC’s head of delegation for Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. "The Israeli military must have been aware of the situation but did not assist the wounded. Neither did they make it possible for us or the Palestine Red Crescent to assist the wounded."

The ICRC was informed that there are more wounded sheltering in other destroyed houses in this neighbourhood. It demands that the Israeli military grant it and PRCS ambulances safe passage and access immediately to search for any other wounded. Until now, the ICRC has still not received confirmation from the Israeli authorities that this will be allowed.

The ICRC believes that in this instance the Israeli military failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuate the wounded. It considers the delay in allowing rescue services access unacceptable.

With no foreign journalists in Gaza, we are only seeing glimpses of the destruction and the human toll Israel’s assault on Gaza is causing. In a densely populated territory of 1.5 million Palestinians, Israel is employing aggressive tactics on the ground. The results are unsurprising: the deaths at the UN school, wholesale destruction, and children without their mothers.

As Israel now does the slow dance toward a cease fire that will give it a face saving exit, more civilians continue to be killed. When the guns do eventually fall silent, we will have gotten a ceasefire deal that was available to Israel well before it launched its latest assault.

Meanwhile, the killing continues.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Israel-Palestine | 2 Comments