Hamas decree Alan Johnston to be released

I do not usually comment on the Levant because I grew up there and have some strong but in my view well informed views, but I notice that comenting in the area tends to attract some loonies.

I did predict in the very early stages that Hezboulah would "win" in the Lebanon in the sense of achieving their primary objectives (In warfare you do have to understand that victories come in all sorts of shapes and forms) but with no enthusiasm. That said if I thought Israel was going to win, I would have predicted it with the same level of enthusiasm.

It appears that Hamas have "won" a military victory in Gaza. That surprised me, and I have to say I wonder where their new equipment came from. I don't think they will fair quite so well in the west bank, and very much hope I am right.

However we move on to the kidnapping of Alan Johnston.

I grew up in Beirut. (I was 2 months old when my family moved there). I was 5 or 6 when the civil war started and 8 when we left. I can tell you now that I never felt in an personal danger. Neither did my family, in the sense of "being a target". Rather obviously any of us could have been caught in crossfire or by a stray shell or Israeli bomb. The risks were there, but NO ONE wanted to harm US as European and indeed British citizens (the same applied to Americans) deliberately.

Broadly speaking the same ethic applies in the West Bank and Gaza strip though it also extends to Israeli citizens on human rights missions. The Palestinians want people there reporting what is going on, and what is more the day is brighter with a foreigner. I know this myself from personal experience as my family were invited to Southern Lebanon before the civil war kicked off to visit the Shia farmers of the south and the Palestinian refugee camps.

They want their story out there and they want the human rights activists there to protect them when they go about their daily business by just being there.

This all begs the question of who kidnapped Alan Johnston and why?

Well it seems to be a marginalised clan, but one with enough guns to make a mess, and a very real one, should someone try to face them down. They are not as far as I can work out all that politically affiliated in the way most of the clans are. nevertheless they still hold Alan, and it has been obvious since before say one to any party (including both Hamas and Fatah) that kidnapping Alan was a very bad move.

Fatah and Hamas know which clan have Alan, as do the Israelis. They don't know where with sufficient certainty otherwise he would have been freed by now.

Well Hamas has effectively decreed he should be released. What they are saying if that in Gaza, they have whipped all of Fatah's clans, and unless you free Alan, and we know who you are, you are next.

Hamas, like Hezboulah can play politics to their audience very well. This will go down well on the street.

I hope Alan is freed, and last month would not be quick enough for me, but I do fear for the future of the region where I grew up.

The BBC has this.

Israel's planned Nuclear attack on Iran

The Sunday Times carries this story claiming that Israel is planning a tactical nuclear strike on Iran if something is not done about Iran's nuclear program.

As the article suggests this may be a bit of brinkmanship or bluff on the part of Israel, however it is also seriously deranged.

I think most people would agree that Iran getting nuclear weapons would not be a good thing, but it is precisely this sort of threat that makes it politically justifiable in Iran to strive for a nuclear weapon. Further more nuclear weapons have not been used since World War two, and for good reason, they are an unacceptable escalation. lastly of course Israel does not admit to having nuclear weapons, and has rightly maintained "ambiguity" on the issue as a matter of policy for decades. Undoubtedly this was the right course as they could not be criticised for having something no one could prove they had, but would not be attacked as they might have it. The policy did have the issue of legitimising others in the area trying to go nuclear though. However recently Ehud Olmert in a casual slip of the tongue admitted having nuclear weapons. That clearly was a mistake.

A nuclear attack on Iran would also have much wider and more serious implications. There is already an Islamic bomb, in Pakistan, who's government would come under severe pressure in the event of a nuclear strike. It would also justify North Korea's position on nuclear weapons as well.

Interestingly Syria realised long ago that it could get away with building up chemical and biological weapons to threaten Israel with almost unnoticed until it was too late, thereby assuring that across the Golan Heights there is Mutually assured destruction. In some ways that looks positive.

Clearly what is needed is a comprehensive peace in the Middle East and a nuclear umbrella over it provided by the USA and UK. Unfortunately our record in stopping genocide since World War two probably means that won't be trusted.

Iran and Syria the Axis of peace?

You just could not make this up.

When the Taliban were overthrown, Iran helped, because the Taliban were the enemy and more so than America. They got nothing for it other than the most bizarre accusations that Iran, a Shia theocracy would be hosting Sunni extremists so hard line that they executed Shia Muslims in Afghanistan.

Syria has been cold shouldered as well.

This is because Donald Rumsfeld's plan was going to impress them so much, they would be left quaking in their boots.

Umm...

Looks like utter arrogance to me.

You can read my take on why we are in this mess in Iraq here, All my articles on Iraq here, and on Afghanistan here. You can read this article from the Libdemograph Independent here.

However, one thing I would say, is this:

• If you are going to bluff, make sure they don't see you (and they have)
• If you are going to negotiate do so from strength, before they have seen your hand.

We are completely buggered as far as the Middle and near East is concerned because we look like a busted flush.

It need not have been this way. We could have used our brains.

Winston Churchill said "Jaw jaw is better than war war". He was right. You talk right up until the time you have to present a war ultimatum. Then you go to war. You can't sit around picking and choosing who you do and don't talk to or else you end up looking like a bunch of pratts.

I don't often agree with Ehud Olmert but...

According to a report I heard on BBC news 24, Israel wants to open talks with Syria to achieve peace, and thereby cleave Syria from Iran.

I have heard similar rumblings before.

The downside is that the report also indicated that the American government is against this policy because the think Syria has not done enough to guard the border with Iraq. I think at this point it is worth pointing out that America has trouble policing it's border with Mexico, but is far more wealthy than Syria, so that complaint is a bit rich.

What with the potential for trouble in the Lebanon, Israels mover here could be useful. I hope George Bush's fit of arrogance does not scupper it.

I have written on Iraq's border issues and general mess there here.