By: – Col. Bob Maginnis

For those of us who came of age in the profession of arms during the Cold War and Vietnam, the events of the past two months have been profoundly unsettling, and it’s really not — as Jed Babbin wrote lightheartedly last week — that we’ve discovered the Fountain of Eden in the sancta sanctora of the Kremlin. It is, though, a realization that our most basic national security process — that of measuring the rapidly-evolving threats to America’s security, comparing our capabilities to them and repairing any mismatch — is badly out of whack.

It will be up to the next commander-in-chief to fix the process, or replace it entirely. What we need is a non-partisan process that provides a framework for defining and prioritizing national interests, that anticipates threats for each interest, proposes the optimal means to address those threats and links multi-year budget requirements to those means.

There is plenty of evidence that our process is broken, especially in the military. Specifically, our armed forces are conducting too many operations that are of questionable value to our national survival or could be better addressed through other means, while very important interests are inadequately addressed, dangerously extending our forces.

Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are questionably critical to our national survival and have effectively limited our ability to address the re-emerging critical Russian threat. Moscow has thousands of nuclear weapons, its leaders are spewing war-like rhetoric and its recent invasion of the Republic of Georgia has caught the U.S. unprepared to respond.

Our current process has also allowed our military to deteriorate. Our armed forces are exhausted by too many back-to-back combat tours. They are equipped with inadequate and ancient equipment such as 50-year-old aerial tankers and 40-year-old helicopters, and operations and maintenance costs consume the cash needed to recapitalize the force for the nation’s future wars.

Consider a four-step process to fix the current mess.

First, we need a framework to define and prioritize our national interests. A Nixon Center study, “America’s National Interests,” identified four categories of interests: vital, extremely important, important, and less important or secondary. Rand president Jim Thomson, who participated in the study, said “… this hierarchy represents the extent to which the US should be willing to expend its military power or national treasure in order to defend certain interests.”

Vital national interests are those which are essential for the survival of our nation. These might include access to energy resources, protection from nuclear attack, and protection from crippling cyber attacks. Any one of these could jeopardize our survival or way of life. We should be willing to defend these interests with our military and national treasure.

Less important interests don’t warrant the same level of national commitment as do protecting the population from nuclear attack. We may care about promoting democracy in the third world or defending human rights, but they shouldn’t trump America’s self-preservation interest, nor should they drain away resources needed to protect more important interests.

Second, the process must anticipate threats to our national interests. We need vastly better intelligence- gathering mechanisms and forward-thinking analysts, which, working together, help our leaders anticipate emerging threats that jeopardize our interests.

Consider our access to energy resources as a vital national interest. Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world’s oil passes and which — if shuttered for long — could devastate the Western World’s economies. Should Tehran follow-through with that threat, our vital interest would be jeopardized.

Protecting our nation from nuclear attack is a vital interest. Clearly, we are threatened by Russia’s nuclear arsenal and, as nuclear technology proliferates, perhaps others like Iran will threaten America.

The Bush administration has used much of our military and considerable national treasure to fight the “global war on terrorism,” implying that terrorists are a threat to our vital national interest. Certainly, terrorists with weapons of mass destruction have the potential to kill thousands of innocent people, but it’s doubtful that transnational extremist networks threaten our nation’s survival. Protecting the nation from terrorist attacks is likely at best an extremely important national interest but shouldn’t divert resources away from our vital interests.

Our new process must anticipate and rank these threats against all our interests.

Third, the process must identify the means to defeat each threat against our interests using the appropriate national source of power. There are four national sources of power – military, economic, political-diplomatic–informational—moral. Under most situations the military source of power should be used last because a hammer – the military – is seldom the best tool to fix problems.

The current and previous administrations have really dropped the ball when applying the correct national source of power. They have by default turned to the military to reconstruct Iraq when the State Department should have provided the needed resources. Then again, the federal government’s response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster was to turn to the Pentagon when the Federal Emergency Management Agency failed.

But when the military is legitimately required, the process must define any mismatch between the threat and current capabilities. That will require an analysis of the nation’s ability to address all threats to our prioritized interests. Policy makers must then answer the question: Do we have enough of the right military means to protect those interests?

Consider Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. What naval, air and ground forces and associated technologies would be required to either prevent that from happening or reopen the straits after Tehran closes the strait? That’s a “means” solution to a vital interest.

How can we defend against a nuclear missile attack from Russia or Iran? Clearly, the order of magnitude of the threat is radically different between the two countries. The proposed ten American ballistic missile interceptors destined for silos in Poland by 2013 would be insufficient to deter a serious effort by Russia but likely would kill Shahab missiles launched by Tehran at Europe or future extended range Shahabs that could reach America.

What’s the best means to defeat terrorists? The “best means” might be a combination of homeland defense and special operating forces but unlikely the entire Army and Marine Corps.

Our means analysis must also include a foreign ally component. We should join alliances that advance our interests rather than just drain our limited resources.

Any budget-prudent means analysis will eliminate duplication. We must think about the desired outcome and forget about traditional military service missions and technologies. Force the process to demonstrate that the desired outcome against the threat can be optimally provided by the recommended means without regard to who provides it or how much it costs.

Finally, the process must build a budget that links each interest to the threat(s) and the best means. Clearly, our vital interests must be funded, but the less important interests may not be funded, thus requiring the nation to accept some risk.

Congress must embrace this non-partisan process and pledge not to lard it with perks for home districts. The budget should be presented as means-driven, and the risks associated with not funding interests must be clearly identified.

Our current national security strategy process is broken. As a result, America is strategically vulnerable. The new commander-in-chief must create a process that protects America’s interests and Congress must be willing to accept responsibility for the risks it refuses to afford.

* Abbas: No peace until all Palestinian prisoners released Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas asserted on Monday that there would not be peace with Israel until all Palestinian prisoners were freed.

* EU secularism undermined Lisbon, Irish cardinal says Europe’s attempts to keep religion away from the public domain was one of the reasons the Irish rejected the EU’s new Lisbon treaty.

* Nasrallah: Israeli soldiers will be destroyed Hizbullah will respond in a firm and decisive manner to any future Israeli aggression against Lebanon the leader of the group.

* Russian MPs back Georgia’s rebels Russia’s parliament has backed a motion urging the president to recognise the independence of Georgia’s breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

* Terrorists hold kidnap training Islamic Jihad using ceasefire to concentrate on training exercises in southern Gaza, focusing on how to kidnap IDF soldiers.

* Police raids Islamic Movement offices Some 300 police officers raided the Al-Aksa Institute in Umm el-Fahm, targeting a building that served as the nerve center of the Islamic Movement’s northern branch.

* Searching for oil in the Judean Desert Two Israeli energy companies are convinced the best chance for finding oil in Israel lies at a site in the Judean Desert.

* Islamic Movement vows to continue defending Muslim holy sites Leaders of the Islamic Movement vowed on Sunday to continue to preserve and defend Muslim holy sites “according to the law.”

* Sudan ‘kills refugees in Darfur’ Sudanese troops have opened fire inside a Darfur refugee camp, leaving 27 people dead, a rebel group has said.

* IDF Begins Major Move to the Negev A Hercules jet will take off Monday afternoon from central Israel to the new Nevatim Israel Air Force base in the Negev, marking the start of the herculean IDF move to the Negev.

* Russia to keep forces at key port Russia has defended plans to keep its forces in the key Georgian port of Poti, saying it does not break terms of a French-brokered ceasefire deal.

* Shiite-led government in Iraq driving out Sunnis helping U.S. The Shiite-dominated government in Iraq is driving out many leaders of Sunni citizen patrols.

* US troops ‘to quit Iraq by 2011’ US combat troops could leave Iraq by 2011 under the terms of a deal awaiting approval by Iraq’s parliament and presidency.

* With partial pullout, Russia envisions long-term shift As the Russian Army withdrew most of its forces from Georgia, it was becoming ever more clear on Friday that Moscow had no intention of restoring what once was.

* Al Qaeda’s Influence Grows in Israel; Israeli Bedouin Indicted Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) and police brought charges on Friday against a Be’er Sheva area Bedouin.

* Abdullah, Medvedev discuss cooperation Russian-Jordanian cooperation received a “very strong push” with a visit conducted by King Abdullah II of Jordan to Moscow.

* Israel allows Pro-Palestinian activist boats dock in Gaza Two boats of international activists on a solidarity mission with the Palestinians have reached the Gaza Strip after a two-day journey at sea.

* ‘Israel defiled Al-Aqsa Mosque’ Tens of thousands of people gathered in Umm al-Fahm on Friday evening for the annual organized by the Islamic Movement.

* Olmert eyes Russia trip ‘to discover what they’re planning to sell to Syria’ Prime Minister Ehud Olmert plans to visit Russian President Dmitry Medvedev amid concern about reports Moscow is considering arming Syria.

* Obama picks Biden for vice president Barack Obama named Sen. Joe Biden early Saturday as his vice presidential running mate.

* Russia to keep posts in Georgia A senior Russian general says Moscow intends to maintain a military presence of more than 2,000 troops in Georgia.

* The Real World: Georgia War Lessons for the Middle East Syrian President Bashar Assad joined Muammar Gadhafi of Libya in backing Russia’s lightning military action against Georgia.

* Protest boats sail for Gaza Strip Two boats carrying members of a US-based pro-Palestinian group have left Cyprus in an attempt to break Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip.

* Barak: Israel analyzing implications of Assad’s trip to Russia “The Israeli security establishment is analyzing the ramifications of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s visit to Russia.

* U.S. sees much to fear in a hostile Russia The president of Syria spent two days in Russia this week with a shopping list of sophisticated weapons he wanted to buy.

* Lebanon to complain to UN about ‘Israeli threats’ Lebanon’s unity cabinet on Friday approved a decision to formally complain to the United Nations about what it perceived as recent Israeli threats against Beirut.

* Deal would have U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2012 U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have reached agreement on a proposal calling for a complete U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq by 2012.

* US pressuring Israel to halt talks with Syria The United States is pressuring Turkey and Israel to halt the indirect negotiations with Syria being held in Istanbul.

* Something Important is Stirring in the Deep, Dark Waters of Geopolitics Four almost simultaneous events this week point to the emergence of something that is starting to look like a new U.S.-led security system that reaches from Europe to the Indian Ocean.

* Jordan protests against Israel’s Jerusalem dig plans Jordan said on Thursday it summoned the Israeli ambassador to protest against plans for excavation and construction work near the Al-Aqsa mosque compound.

* ‘Israel must freeze talks with Syria’ “A scenario in which S-300 or Iskander type missiles reach Syria is a dangerous scenario.”

* Rice in surprise visit to Baghdad US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is in Baghdad to discuss the future of American forces deployed in Iraq.

* Medvedev phones Olmert to affirm ties In an atmosphere of heightened tensions, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev called Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Wednesday night to affirm the ties between the two countries.

* Oil rises on US-Russia tensions, sliding dollar Oil prices jumped above $119 Thursday as rising antagonism with Russia underscored the possibility it could affect energy shipments.

* Russia blocks Georgia’s main port city Russian forces blocked the only land entrance to Georgia’s main port city on Thursday.

* Assad wants Russia to cut ties to West Syrian President Bashar Assad is keen to see a wedge driven between Russia and the West.

* EU to pay Palestinian authority wages The European Union has announced it will boost its financial aid to the Palestinian Authority by €40 million.

* Jordan acknowledges meetings with Hamas Jordan acknowledged Wednesday that it held clandestine meetings with the militant Palestinian Hamas.

* EU neighbours seek help in post-Georgia climate The presidents of Romania and Moldova on Wednesday (20 August) urged greater EU involvement in resolving Moldova’s frozen conflict.

* Assad says Syria may host Russian missile batteries Syrian President Bashar Assad has pledged to support Russia in its conflict with Georgia.

* Olmert: Israel will unleash all its force if Hezbollah siezes Lebanon Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned on Tuesday if Lebanon were to become a terrorist state under the domination of Hezbollah, Israel would unleash more massive firepower.

* US and Poland seal missile deal The US and Poland have signed a deal to locate part of the US’s controversial missile defence system on Polish soil.

* Hezbollah Signs Pact with Salafis Amidst a growing world crisis, new developments in Lebanon may signal what lies ahead in the sphere of global jihadist forces in the near future.

* Russia rejects UN Georgia draft Russia has rejected a draft UN Security Council resolution on Georgia, saying it contradicted the terms of last week’s ceasefire deal.

* UN begins Kosovo handover to EU The UN has begun the handover of office space and vehicles to the EU’s “EULEX” police and civilian administration team in Kosovo.

* ‘Gov’t exchanged Jabotinsky with Nakba’ “The government took Ze’ev Jabotinsky out of the schoolbooks and inserted the [Palestinian] Nakba instead.”

* Iraq to Sign $1.2B Oil Service Deal with China Iraq will sign a $1.2 billion oil service contract with China to replace a production-sharing deal agreed under Saddam Hussein.

* Russia-NATO relations in tatters Moscow’s relations with NATO were left in tatters on Tuesday (19 August) after the Kremlin dismissed the results of an emergency meeting.

* Black Sea Fleet: a factor of stability or instability? Tensions over Sevastopol in the Crimea have flared time and again since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

By: –

Exactly 40 years ago, on a hot August day in 1968, Alexander Dubcek stood looking out his office window as thousands of Soviet soldiers poured into his city, Prague. The First Secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and the architect of the “Prague Spring” knew it was only a matter of time until he heard a knock on the door.

In his memoir, “Hope Dies Last,” Dubcek wrote, “The main door flew open again, and in walked some higher officers of the KGB, including a highly decorated, very short colonel. The little colonel quickly reeled off a list of all Czechoslovak Communist Party officials present and told us that he was taking us ‘under his protection.’ Indeed we were protected, sitting around that table – each of us had a tommy gun pointed at the back of his head.”

Two days later, Dubcek was taken to the Kremlin, where then Soviet president Leonid Brezhnev explained the prevailing reality to him and cut short the democratic reforms by thumping his fist on the table. Dubcek was sent back to his country, where he spent the next 20 years as a forester in a remote region of Slovakia.

At least for now, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is being spared that fate. He is still the ruler of the small Caucasian state. The outcome of this week’s events, however, could prove quite similar to the drama of 40 years ago. The Soviet oppression of Czechoslovakia showed the whole world that the U.S.S.R. would not tolerate democratic adventures within its sphere of influence. The Soviet Union made it clear to Eastern Europe that the West, including the United States, would not lift a finger as Soviet tanks crushed a small sovereign state. The defeat of the Prague Spring truncated a wave of openness and democratization that had washed over both Eastern and Western Europe in the late 1960s.

The two decades that have passed since the fall of the Iron Curtain can now be divided in two. The first 10 years, dubbed the “end of history” by U.S. political philosopher Francis Fukuyama, lasted from 1989 until September 11, 2001, and were characterized by unflappable optimism. The cold war made way for globalization. The Western model trumped all available alternatives. The U.S. became the world’s sole superpower, with unchallenged military, diplomatic and economic hegemony. China was taking baby steps toward a free-market economy and Russia was getting its first tastes of democracy.

Then came the terror attack against New York’s World Trade Center. Suddenly it turned out that not everyone wanted to join the McDonald’s and laptop festivals. The failed U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq caused a deep rift in the Western camp. Russia, which felt severely humiliated over the loss of Eastern Europe and the 15 republics that had made up the Soviet Union, switched gears. Under the scepter of former KGB officer Vladimir Putin, Russia reverted to tricks that were thought forgotten, such as poisoning the Ukrainian president or eliminating journalists and potential political rivals. Instead of human rights, a free-market economy and democracy, we got nationalizations, the imprisoning of rebellious oligarchs and tight supervision of the press.

‘History is returning’

This week’s events in Georgia are the most obvious manifestation of that shift. On Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, with inelegant tardiness, that Washington will not allow Georgia to fall, as it did with Czechoslovakia in 1968. President George W. Bush, for his part, promised humanitarian aid and even delayed his vacation “for a day or two, at least,” but for now the American response looks hesitant and anemic.

For the first time in 30 years, Russia has initiated a war beyond its borders. For the first time in 20 years, an elected democratic regime is being threatened by force. For the first time in 20 years, the West is standing exposed and helpless, with its stock exchanges, galloping euro, flourishing economy and highfalutin talk of human rights. The planes and tanks in Georgia have returned to Russia its status of superpower.

In a twist on Fukuyama’s “end of history” hypothesis, former Israeli ambassador to Washington Itamar Rabinovich asserted that this week it seemed as though “history is returning in a big way, and America has to cope with a new reality.” According to Rabinovich, “The Russians’ power play succeeded and is likely to have a great many implications.”

The most immediate change will be felt in the Caucasus, a region of utmost strategic and economic importance for both Russia and the West. Dr. Brenda Shaffer, an expert on the Caucasus from Haifa University, explains that the region’s natural gas reserves are even more important than its oil. “It is too late to be talking about oil as a global weapon,” she says. “In Israel and around the world people still think in terms of the energy crisis of the 1970s, but oil is a fluid that can be transported relatively easily. Oil can be purchased from Russia today, from Norway tomorrow and from Saudi Arabia next week. Gas, on the other hand, must be supplied via pipelines that cost billions of dollars to build. Gas pipelines must pass through several countries and are extremely dependent on local political conditions.”

Shaffer notes that in the past few years, European countries have been trying to develop direct supply lines from Central Asian states holding large natural gas reserves. Europe’s growing dependency on Russian oil and gas spurred the continent’s efforts to find alternatives, which is irritating Russia. “Natural gas, which the Europeans find very attractive because it is more environmentally friendly than oil, has so far traveled from Central Asia to Europe only via Russia,” continues Shaffer. “Of course oil also has its problems: The fact that a Sukhoi SU-25 fighter jet ‘almost’ hit the oil pipeline running from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea is interesting. The SU-25 is a very sophisticated plane that could easily have bombed the pipeline. Indeed, this doesn’t seem like a miss but more like a message to the West: Don’t mess with us.”

This means that Europe is becoming increasingly dependent on Russia for energy. “Massive projects have been planned in recent years,” says Shaffer, “such as the Nabucco Pipeline, to bring Central Asia’s natural gas by way of the Caspian Sea and Georgia to the Mediterranean. We can forget about that project now. Russia has made that very clear. Russia did not invade Kazakhstan, but rather a small country that is a bottleneck between Central Asia and the West. No one will want to take the risk of angering the Russians again.”

Beginnings of a new world order?

But Russia’s message is not merely economic. “Several regimes in this region are wondering about where they are headed,” says Shaffer. “America’s blatant abandonment of its best friend in the region, President Saakashvili, will certainly prompt a policy reevaluation in countries like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. If until now these states were certain that it was in their best interest to befriend the Americans – and we saw how they responded to the war in Afghanistan – now they may think it more worthwhile to befriend Iran or Russia. Maybe these two states can protect them where the Americans have failed. From the point of view of U.S. foreign policy, this conclusion has very negative repercussions. The Russian invasion of Georgia exposed the Europeans and Americans’ bluff, and left the Georgians on their own. I would even go so far as to say that maybe the presidents of Afghanistan and Iraq are already considering their next steps.” This week’s unprecedented support for Saakashvili by the presidents of Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania and Estonia indicates that the picture extends beyond the Caucasus. Alexander Rahr, a member of Germany’s Council on Foreign Relations and author of a biography of Vladimir Putin, believes this marks the beginning of a new world order. “Bush’s legacy is a foreign policy disaster,” says Rahr. “The dream of democratizing the Middle East has been shattered. As his final months in office approached, he was at least trying to bring Ukraine and Georgia closer to NATO, and now that won’t happen. He tried to install missiles in the Czech Republic and in Poland, and that won’t happen either. It turns out that American influence has its limits, and that Russia has regained a sphere of influence. This is no longer the Russia of the 1990s, beaten and bruised, unable to act on behalf of its own interests. Russia is now in a position to respond, and that is exactly what it did.

“A very similar crisis could develop in the Crimean peninsula, which now belongs to Ukraine, but used to belong to Russia, and has a large Russian population. Now everyone realizes that the Russians are serious. The same thing could also happen in Azerbaijan. Public opinion in those countries could change – from pro-Western to not wanting to rankle the Russian neighbor.” Rahr also feels this week’s events could affect a possible military campaign against Iran, too. “America’s space for maneuver has shrunk,” he says, “both strategically and logistically. Now it will be much harder for America to operate in Russia’s southern part. Diplomatically, too, Russia’s voice will increasingly be heard.”

Twilight of U.S. hegemony

The roaring of the Russian artillery near Tbilisi, which clearly revealed that the issue was not South Ossetia but rather Russia’s status in the world, also prompted a reevaluation by Sovietologists and Russian historians.

“This is without a doubt a founding moment,” says Anne Applebaum, a historian and author of the international best-seller “Gulag: A History.” “This week the Russians set an example. Just like when they killed journalist Anna Politkovskaya. There is no need to kill all the country’s journalists. One is enough, and all the rest get the message. That’s what [Russia] did this week: There is no need to invade all the countries in the region, but they will all get the message.

“In recent years we have seen a deterioration in the human rights situation in Russia,” Applebaum continues. “Now it is clear that rising Russian nationalism will extend beyond the country’s borders. This week’s events also made it clear that the belief that only the U.S. can flex its muscles is mistaken. They marked the end of an era in which the U.S. behaved like the only superpower. It was interesting to follow the events on a split-screen television, showing both the amazing spectacle China organized for the opening of the Olympic Games and pictures from Georgia. We saw two new superpowers, evincing different behavior, of course, but which completely undermine America’s global hegemony. We saw history in the making, right before our eyes.”

Historian Simon Sebag-Montefiore, author of two biographies of Josef Stalin, believes this is “the start of the twilight of America’s sole world hegemony.

“The retaking of Ossetia is a minor part of the Russian campaign,” says Montefiore, who has visited Georgia many times and is personally acquainted with the three presidents who have headed the country since the Soviet Union’s disintegration. “More significant is the attack on Georgia proper, which reasserts Russia’s hegemony over the Caucasus and defies American superpowerdom.

“The prospect of encirclement by triumphant America infuriated Russia,” he continues. “Imagine if newly independent Wales joined the Warsaw Pact. This war is really a celebration of ferocious force in the realm of international power, a dangerous precedent. Russia has demonstrated the limits of U.S. power and Moscow’s historic destiny as regional and world superpower. The Empire has struck back and shaken the order of the world.”

By: Akiva Eldar – Haaretz

At the end of my conversation with Sari Nusseibeh at the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem, the highly respected president of Al-Quds University – and cosignatory of “The People’s Choice,” a peace plan that he formulated with former Shin Bet chief Ami Ayalon – told me he wouldn’t be surprised if one of the Palestinian residents of the city ran for mayor in the municipal elections in November. The candidate would not run as a representative of Jerusalem per se, Nusseibeh stressed. Rather, he would be running on behalf of all Palestinians in the occupied territories.

“Why don’t you do it?” I blurt out. The 59-year-old son of Anwar Nusseibeh, a Jordanian government minister, does not smile. “It’s possible,” says the professor of Islamic philosophy, who briefly replaced Faisal Husseini a few years ago as the top Palestinian official in East Jerusalem. “Anything is possible,” he adds without batting an eyelid.

Nusseibeh’s previous contention that the Oslo “house of cards” had begun to collapse was further confirmed by this week’s report in Haaretz regarding Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s latest peace offering (Israel would annex 7 percent of the West Bank and compensate the Palestinians with territory in the Negev, which would be equivalent to 5.5 percent of West Bank land; an agreement on the future of Jerusalem would be postponed to a later date; there would be no right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel; and the entire plan would be implemented after Hamas is removed from power in the Gaza Strip).

Nusseibeh says he knows full well what happens during negotiations – or, to be more specific, what does not happen. For over 20 years the Palestinian leadership has been trying to persuade their people to agree to a state along the June 4, 1967, lines, while Israel has been destroying that option, Nusseibeh explains, adding: “You cannot negotiate anything about final status if you don’t talk about Jerusalem. Final status consists primarily, I believe, of Jerusalem and refugees. If you want to postpone Jerusalem, you postpone refugees. Really, you are not dealing with the problem. You have to discuss these issues, and that is exactly where the trade-off has to be made.”

Is Sari Nusseibeh, the secular Palestinian, the symbol of moderation, Ayalon’s guy, burying the two-state solution?

“I still favor a two-state solution and will continue to do so, but to the extent that you discover it’s not practical anymore or that it’s not going to happen, you start to think about what the alternatives are. I think that the feeling is there are two courses taking place that are opposed to one another. On one hand, there is what people are saying and thinking, on both sides. There is the sense that we are running out of time, that if we want a two-state solution, we need to implement it quickly.

“But on the other hand, if we are looking at what is happening on the ground, in Israel and the occupied territories, you see things happening in the opposite direction, as if they are not connected to reality. Thought is running in one direction, reality in the other.”

Nusseibeh says the struggle for a one-state solution could take a form similar to some of the nonviolent struggles waged by oppressed ethnic groups in other places.

“We can fight for equal rights, rights of existence, return and equality, and we could take it slowly over the years and there could be a peaceful movement – like in South Africa,” he notes. “I think one should maybe begin on the Palestinian side, to begin a debate, to reengage in the idea of one state.”

‘Jerusalem is out’

“We have failed in the last 15 years,” Nusseibeh continues, “to create the world we wanted to create. We were supposed to be very clever; we convinced ourselves that we were going to be very democratic and clean, a model for the rest of the Arab world. And Jerusalem was supposed to be our capital. That’s what we believed. But then it turned out that all of this was total rubbish. Jerusalem is out, all we have is Ramallah. And we lost Gaza. There is corruption and inefficiency. This is not what we vouched for when we sat back in the early 1980s and ideologized the two-state solution.

“It so happens that Fatah, in particular, the mainstream party and the only viable alternative to extremes on the left or on the right, now needs a strategy, an ideology. Because the ideology that Fatah has adopted over the last 15 years – a two-state solution – seems to be faltering, and with it, Fatah is faltering. So it is time maybe to rethink, to bring Fatah around to a new idea, the old-new idea, of one state. “

The recent “bulldozer terrorism” in Jerusalem did not highlight the difficulties inherent in a binational state model?

“These are isolated incidents, but they do reflect a major sickness in our Jerusalem Arab society. A sickness that has resulted in pressure, schizophrenia, the fact that these people speak Hebrew, and listen to Hebrew songs, go out with Israeli girlfriends while at the same time they live in Arab neighborhoods and under the influence of Muslim culture. There are contradictory forces pulling at them.

“What is the driving force behind a two-state solution? The fact that it seems more acceptable to a majority of people on both sides and therefore more applicable. The primary motivation is to minimize human suffering. This is what we should all be looking at. If there will be a one-state solution, it will not come today or tomorrow. It’s a long, protracted thing, not the ideal solution. Unless, in an ideal world, people really want to be together, then it is the ideal solution. The best solution, the one that causes the least pain and that can actually be instrumental to a one-state solution, is to have peace now, and acceptance of one another on the basis of two states.”

Is this an ultimatum?

“That’s an ultimatum. Unless a major breakthrough happens by the end of this year, in my opinion we should start trying to strive for equality. Back in the 1980s, before the first intifada, I was saying there was schizophrenia in the body politic of the Palestinian people. It was like the head was going in one direction, which was the direction of seeking independence, national identity – but the body was slowly immersed in the Israeli system, and I said it can’t last because it looks like it will snap. Either the body will join the head so that there will be a civil disobedience campaign, or the head will have to join the body, so that there will be a civil rights campaign, to become part of the Israeli system.

“Fifty, 100, 200 years down the road there will be some kind of conclusion. Sometime in the future – however far away this future is – I believe we’ll be living at peace with one another, in some way or another. I am not sure how, whether in one state or two states, or in a confederation of states, but people finally will come to live at peace. In the meantime, we will simply cause pain to one another. It’s tragic. It is very tragic, because we know we can do it now. That today it is possible with some guts, leadership, vision, we can make it happen today, we can reach a peaceful solution today. [The Arab Peace Initiative proposed in 2002] is a fantastic chance. The Palestinians have adopted it, they’ll go with it all the way. It is a perfect chance. It doesn’t even mention right of return. It is even better than the Ayalon-Nusseibeh plan, but I am willing to accept it.”

‘Dead money’

Asked why he – who realizes so well how complicated it will be to reach a fair and logical solution regarding Jerusalem – is opposed to Olmert’s idea of postponing discussion on that issue, Nusseibeh says he hopes that the prime minister is not repeating the same mistake made by Ehud Barak at Camp David, and that the idea of postponement was broached strictly for public relations purposes.

“Because for Israel, however important Jerusalem may be, the primary factor is the Jewish character [of the state]. And however important the refugees might be, what is more important for the Palestinians and Muslims is Jerusalem. It is the issue over which the most extremist of refugees will be willing to make a sacrifice. Let’s hope this is not where [Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas] are disagreeing. If that is what they’re disagreeing about, then there’s no hope. We have to do everything now, we have to put everything on the table.

“The facts on the ground are making [the situation] irreversible,” Nusseibeh warns. “Take the Clinton parameters – Palestinian neighborhoods are Palestinian sovereignty, Jewish neighborhoods are Jewish sovereignty. They are acceptable in principle, but with realities on the ground, like the expulsion of Arab families from their homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, and the inhabitation of those areas by Jewish settlers, it’s going to be unacceptable on a practical level. That’s why we don’t have time.”

You ruffled some feathers among the Palestinian leadership when you recently asked the Europeans to halt financial aid to the Palestinian Authority. Someone even wondered whether you would be willing to give up the aid provided for Al-Quds University.

“Ramallah’s reaction was a bit worried. They called me a few times, a bit worried.”

Nusseibeh adds that the PA is still dogged by corruption – different from the corruption of which Olmert is accused – whereby donor states subsidize thousands of salaried employees at nonprofit organizations. This creates what he sees as an unhealthy dependency on foreign entities.

“We have a terrible situation. Our political bible, our platform, our moral values – we need to be brought together again. If not for creating a state, then for our own sanity and for own values as a people. Apart from in Ramallah, everybody is living under very bad conditions. The occupation is terrible. The siege is everywhere. Pressure. As it is, the Europeans are financing the occupation. And the Europeans are happy, because they feel they’re doing something, it cleans their conscience. And the Israelis are happy because they’re not paying for it. And the Palestinians are happy because they are getting their wages paid. It keeps the economy going, and people are getting complacent about it. It’s dead money [going] after dead money.”

Nusseibeh mentions the recent meeting he had with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the British consulate in Jerusalem, together with four other Palestinians, during which the premier stated he would like to assume a role in the peace process more central than that of a cash register. “I said, I want to tell you what you can do to transform yourself from a payer into a player: Make your money payments conditional on tangible progress in the peace process.”

Not long ago, the professor continues, “I was in Brussels. I gave a talk and I said to the Europeans: If you want to pass on money, do it only on the condition we build a state, in which case it makes sense for you to spend money to build us an international airport. But if in the end there isn’t going to be an independent Palestinian state, why waste your money? Waste your money, if you need to, on integrating us into Israeli society. Makes more sense. Pay the money for us to become part of Israel, to have equal rights. Raise our level of education, bring our standards of living up. But to have the PA taking all this money, creating all this debt, makes no sense. Maybe the Europeans should link the aid they are giving us to real progress in peace talks, so that both the Israelis and the Palestinians will be shocked out of their complacency, or lack of commitment.”

What do you make of the growing support among Palestinians for the dismantlement of the PA?

“The PA has no use. If we fail to reach a peace agreement by the end of this year, I believe it would be best to go back to the period when we were living happily under occupation. We had a small civil administration, they were paying back some $20 million a year to the Israeli treasury, so they were making money off us. Today, we are creating, year after year, bigger deficits. We are spending billions, we have 160,000 employees, half of them are security personnel, who give us no security whatsoever, we are spending masses of money on guns, which we only use against each other and which provide us no security. The whole thing is a mess.”

Nusseibeh says that to this day, the Palestinians have opposed taking part in the Jerusalem municipal elections because they feared doing so would sever the link between Jerusalem’s Arabs and the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Now, given the diminishing likelihood of a two-state solution, perhaps it is time for the Palestinians to reconsider.

“People in Jerusalem – why should they attach themselves to the Muqata, to Ramallah? There is no reason. There’s nothing. The municipal election in Jerusalem [could serve as a launching point for seeking equal rights in a binational state]. We begin with Jerusalem, not as a separate part, but as a spearhead of the entire Palestinian body. Why not? Why not turn the weakness into a strength?

Are you disappointed by the Israeli peace camp? Did your partner, Ami Ayalon, who joined the same government you now accuse of distancing itself from your proposal, betray you?

“I respect Ami Ayalon. He is a very honest person, that is something that has always attracted me to him. It is not a betrayal of me personally. I look upon it as the ultimate submission by the individual to the wheels of history. You reach the point where you feel no longer able to do what you want, to steer the wheels in the direction you want them to go. And you submit, and become a part of the machine. So it’s not really a betrayal. It’s rather an expression of weakness. I am sad more than surprised. I recognize it as part of human weakness.

“I was still hoping because, before he went to the Labor Party, he came and spoke to me. I like this about him. I knew what he was doing. People were pushing him for a long time, trying to get him into the system, and he resisted. But then at one stage, I think he made up his mind: ‘Maybe I can lead the Labor Party, and then this is the best place for me to be.’ I said, fine, do it. I was unhappy that … he became marginalized as minister without portfolio.”

Nusseibeh says he lost touch with Ayalon since the latter became a minister.

Asked if Abbas would be able to muster Palestinian support for an agreement like “The People’s Choice,” Nusseibeh says both the Palestinian president and Olmert need to courageously take on their respective opposition camps. For instance, if Abbas “would come to the Palestinian people and say, ‘I initialed such a document. I want to dissolve the legislative council and run for election and this is going to be my political platform. Not only for me as a president, but also as leader of Fatah.’ Let us assume that he does this and then he creates a debate in our society. It will be a very far-reaching, democratic debate, in which he will be looked upon as presenting his project. [This would] mark the beginning of a process, of a struggle.

“I believe that on Israeli side, Olmert could do the same. We don’t know whether both leaders will be reelected, but it’s worth doing, even if they’re not, because at least we know we’ve given this peace agreement a chance.”

Ami Ayalon says, in response: “I agree with Sari Nusseibeh that time is running out for the two-state solution. He voices the frustration and desperation of the Palestinians, and we have to consider that. If a man like him, a son of a Palestinian refugee who relinquished his right of return and was bodily attacked because of it, comes to the conclusion that the two-state solution is no longer an option, it means that the whole pragmatic Palestinian approach is crumbling.

“I share his view that Olmert missed a chance to get an agreement due to efforts to insure his own political survival. The Labor Party will not succeed in getting back in power by attacking the other parties, but only by raising the common banner of security and political agreements.”

* ‘Islamic bomb’ casts a long shadow The resignation of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on Monday has reignited concerns among some security analysts.

* Nato holds Georgia crisis talks Nato foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels for emergency talks to discuss how the alliance should respond to Russia’s military action in Georgia.

* No sign of Russian pullout, West alarmed Russian troops and tanks did not move out of Georgia overnight through the main military crossing point.

* Iran to build more nuclear power plants Iran’s official news agency says the country is preparing to build more nuclear power plants.

* Israel Monitoring Syrian Long-Range Missile Tests The military released classified information confirming that Israel has been monitoring recent Syrian missile tests.

* EU-Russia ‘business as usual’ impossible, Lithuania says The EU should consider diplomatic sanctions against Russia and speed up Georgia and Ukraine’s EU and NATO integration.

* Huckabee: ‘There is Only One Place for a Jewish Homeland’ Former Arkansas Governor and vice-presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee flew in to Israel Monday.

* Sudan’s president attends Africa summit in Turkey Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir attended a summit of African leaders in Turkey on Tuesday in his first trip abroad since an international court indicted him on genocide charges last month.

* Analysis: Prisoner release does nothing for Abbas It’s hard these days to find one Palestinian who regards Israel’s decision to release some 200 Palestinian prisoners as a “goodwill gesture.”

* Israel sends truckfuls of money to replace worn out currency in Gaza Israel will send guarded trucks from the Brink’s Company to the Gaza Strip.

* Pakistan’s Musharraf steps down Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, facing impeachment on charges drawn up by the governing coalition, has announced that he is resigning.

* Russia ‘starts Georgia pull-out’ Russia has started to withdraw troops from Georgia, Moscow’s general staff says, following a pledge by President Dmitry Medvedev.

* Iranian claims of jet range dismissed Iran’s claim of having increased the range of its fighter jets, allowing them to fly as far as Israel and back without refueling, did not signify any new operational abilities, an arms expert said.

* Russia’s new nuclear challenge to Europe Russia is considering arming its Baltic fleet with nuclear warheads for the first time since the cold war, senior military sources warned.

* Is King Abdullah warming to Hamas? Jordanian King Abdullah has permitted Hamas’s Damascus-based leader Khaled Mashaal to visit the country.

* Iran ready to put Muslim countries’ satellites in orbit Iran said it was ready to help fellow Muslim states launch satellites into orbit after it successfully put a dummy satellite into orbit – a move that may increase Western suspicions over its atomic ambitions.

* Israel’s Dog in the fight in the Georgian War Israel was considering to suspend all further military shipments to embattled Georgia, fearing possible retaliation with Russia which is on good terms with two of the Jewish state’s arch enemies in the region, Syria and Iran.

* Russia and China send a message: History’s back A journalist who started her career covering Russia and Ukraine, proclaimed that a new “Age of Authoritarianism” was upon us.

* Ethiopian Jews call for continued immigration An estimated 5,000 Ethiopian Israelis demonstrated outside the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem on Sunday to protest against the government’s decision to end aliya from the country as 8,700 Falash Mura remain in rundown camps in northern Ethiopia.

* Pope urges fight against racism Pope Benedict XVI has urged Christians to help society combat intolerance to foreigners amid a row over criticism of the government by Roman Catholics.