A useful comparison can be made between, on the one had, internal US discourse as well as US-international discourse over the issue of the problem of Afghanistan and the extent to which Islamic extremism affects the interests of nations, and, on the other, the way the international community as well as the Arabs – amongst themselves – is addressing the report of the head of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza War, Judge Richard Goldstone. This report condemned both Israel and Hamas for committing “war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity”. It had been followed by repercussions for US pressures, and by the agreement of Palestinians and Arabs to postpone deciding on a UN Human Rights Council draft resolution to turn the issue over to the Security Council and the International Criminal Court (ICC). The five permanent members of the UN Security Council – and particularly Russia and China – have a hand in both issues. Most European countries rushed to evade the requirements of the Goldstone Report in a manner that unmasked their claims of giving priority to justice, behaving with much cowardice, as they usually do when the issue is that of holding Israel accountable for grave violations. And instead of making use of the available opportunity to drive the principle of justice, which Europe claims to cling to, forward, the Europeans have dealt the ICC a painful blow through their complete silence – and in fact their evident fear of daring to commit to the same standards when Israel is the one accused. Russia and China have practiced similar ambivalence, as neither of them wants any formal body to investigate their practices, and for accusations to be leveled against them such as those the Fact Finding Mission formed by the Human Rights Council has leveled against Israel. They both behave as if the issue did not concern them, exactly as they do – to varying degrees – in the issue of Afghanistan, where both Russia and China have interests that nearly exceed those of the US. The United States is not innocent of ambivalence in the issue of justice either. In fact, it is the most prominent among those accused of excessive ambivalence, which is harmful and costly, when it comes to the Israeli-Arab issue or to violations committed by Israel, which as an occupying force has duties under the Fourth Geneva Convention and international law. Indeed, the measures of oppression, the destruction of homes, illegal settlement-building, imposing one de facto situation after another in Jerusalem and stirring up feelings towards the Al-Aqsa Mosque, all have a tremendous impact on Muslims wherever they may be, from Palestine to Afghanistan. What the United States needs from its friends and allies, in the battle against Al-Qaeda, against the Taliban, against the spread of Islamic extremism, or against terrorism in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, is for its friends and allies not to take provoking measures that arouse hostile feelings towards US troops and US interests. Israel's practices of committing “war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity” fall under this category, as do the recent measures it has taken towards the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Indeed, amid heated debate within the United States over the US role necessary to prevent the return of the extremist Taliban to power, the Barack Obama Administration does not need such Israeli provocations, which are also a threat to the march of making peace if they continue to go unpunished. It could also do without mistakes such as those that resulted from calls to bring down the Palestinian partner in negotiations with Israel, holding it accountable for sacrificing justice for the sake of negotiations in accordance with US wishes and pressures. Indeed, it is of the utmost importance for the great powers at the Security Council to keep in mind the central role of the Palestinian issue in the battle of gathering the support of Muslims in order to combat violent extremism and Al-Qaeda's terrorism, and to be well aware of the danger that ambivalence represents for this fateful battle, not just for the United States but also for the sources of concern for Russia and for China's interests in Asia. First of all, there is the issue of Afghanistan. As heated as the US debate over the usefulness of the US's role in Afghanistan gets, the United States has no choice but to keep going in Afghanistan. There the United States made a bad investment in extremist Muslim fundamentalism in order to bring down the Soviet Union, in a short-lived partnership that left behind it the bitter taste of US “betrayal”, turning yesterday's partner into today's enemy, angry and determined to take revenge for the US's swift abandonment. It is there in Afghanistan that were “packaged” the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which changed the bases of the world's relationship to Muslims and Arabs, leading to the US's war on terror. This is why the United States cannot take itself out of Afghanistan, no matter how much it wishes to. US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke of the meanings and perspectives that would allow the Taliban and their allies to defeat a second superpower, as well as of the global consequences of such a “victory” if the US were to withdraw defeated, as the Soviet Union did before it. American General Stanley McChrystal, Commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, caused a media and political upheaval when he warned of the failure of the mission in Afghanistan if the number of US troops is not increased. The public debate between the civil and military institutions before public opinion has certain advantages, especially as it effectively leads to sowing the seeds of fear from the consequences of a US withdrawal from Afghanistan. President Barack Obama does not need to convince the Republicans of the necessity of increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan. Rather, he needs to convince the Democrats and the Left of what was in fact a keystone of the policy of his predecessor George W. Bush, who said quite frankly: we went there so that they don't come here… we took the war of terrorism to the countries and cities of others, so that the terrorists would not come to wage war in our cities. After the debate becomes less heated, emotions subside, criticism wanes and the conviction becomes entrenched of the necessity of remaining in Afghanistan in the numbers which the military institution deems appropriate, Barack Obama would have skillfully been able to make his decisions at a lesser cost. Only then, after increasing the number of troops or waging the battle in depth, will this become “the war of generals” and not “Obama's war”, as it is referred to today. According to Barack Obama's strategy, the Afghanistan war is one of international partnership, and not an American war in Afghanistan. Indeed, if the Taliban were to return to power in Afghanistan, it would turn it into an inferno bearing danger for Pakistan and all of its neighbors. Even India, which wishes all the trouble for Pakistan, does not want the victory of the Taliban in Afghanistan to turn into a banner and a call for spreading violent Islamic extremism in its neighborhood. Russia too is in need of a partnership with the United States in Afghanistan and Pakistan – and even Iran – and is ready for mutual deals to curtail Islamic radicalism, which is spread from the Caucasus to Chechnya. Indeed, losing the battle in Afghanistan would represent immediate danger for Russia through the Islamic republics (which in reality are secular) that will become the cradle of violent Islamic radicalism if the Taliban were to return to power in Afghanistan. China has interests that meet with its desire to curtail Islamic radicalism, interests with revenues worth billions of dollars in excavating for reserves of copper and other metals in regions close to the Afghan capital. Its contribution comes through putting to use part of its revenue from investments in tasks that will help the government of President Hamid Karzai – meeting with US strategy. Of course, there are those in the United States who object to the use of US troops to ensure an environment of stability for nationalized Chinese companies, and who say, like Robert Kaplan, that empires collapse when they isolate themselves in a corner of the world for revenge or for the sake of restoring the order of civilization, while rising powers wait patiently for the right moment to take the lead and become the alternative empire. China as well as Russia is hiding behind the United States and behind NATO in Afghanistan, leaving the fires of the public battle to Barack Obama, as transparent accountability has requirements that are not incumbent upon them in their political systems. In fact, they are doing the same thing in various political issues, including the Goldstone Report and how to deal with it at the Human Rights Council in Geneva or at the Security Council in New York. Indeed, Russia and China agree in their opinions with the United States and some European countries in pushing the report away from the Security Council, so as not to be in the forefront of ambivalence when it comes to Israel, but also not to reveal the truth of their stances when it comes to international formal bodies challenging regimes and demanding justice. Similarly, there are many Arab states that have found an escape route for themselves in the failure of the United States and European countries to endorse the Goldstone Report, which recommended that the Israeli government and the Hamas authority conduct independent and impartial investigations within six months… and if the Security Council ends up finding that both sides have failed to conduct an investigation, the case must be turned over to the International Criminal Court. Indeed, most Arab countries hate the requirements that would be incumbent upon them if they were to become party to the Rome Statute which laid down the fundamental system of the ICC. Most of these states want partial justice, and they view the Goldstone Report as the US Administration views it, i.e. as a condemnation of Israel, purposely ignoring the condemnation of Hamas. Similarly, Hamas, which has also committed “war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity”, as stated by the Goldstone Report, has this week tremendously benefited from the mistakes committed by the Palestinian Authority, especially the tactical ones, when it submitted to pressures or requests to postpone the discussion on the Goldstone Report to next March. Hamas behaved as if it had not been accused alongside Israel. It was arrogant and disdainful, and it waged a campaign against the Palestinian Authority accusing it of treachery. Institutions, organizations, formal bodies, factions and movements rushed to board the train of calling for the resignation of President Mahmoud Abbas. People's anger at the behavior and the mistakes of the Palestinian Authority is well-placed, as the mistake left the impression that there is a willingness to trade justice for negotiations. But for Hamas, and with it Arab governments and organizations that claim to respect justice while refusing to implement it, to ride the wave of anger is only blatant deception, as the reality is that Hamas has been accused of committing war crimes that could lead it to stand before the International Criminal Court, if justice were to take its course from the Human Rights Council to the Security Council to the ICC. Inter-Arab debate over the Goldstone Report has become lost in the meanders of Arab – and especially Palestinian – disputes, divisions and outbidding. Thus calling for investigating the identity of those responsible for postponing discussion on the report has overshadowed the need for strategic action to anticipate mistakes and to focus on the steps needed not to waste the demand to investigate the war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza, and those which Hamas admitted committing by firing rockets and bombshells at Israelis. Yet it is public opinion which deserves appreciation, as its anger at making light of the opportunity to build upon the boldness of Richard Goldstone, as did Human Rights Watch which is headed by Kenneth Roth, a bold Jewish man who believes in justice, has forced the Palestinian Authority to recognize its mistake. The lessons must be clear to everyone, as it is not permissible to use justice as an item in striking deals. Such a mistake has led to the condemnation of the Palestinian Authority, which is the partner in negotiations, and the repercussions of this mistake have almost led to undermining this vital artery for negotiations. The Arabs realizing their shortcoming has led to some using the language of ending impunity and facing justice. This is an important and useful development in the Arab political lexicon, especially as the Goldstone Report speaks of accountability, justice and ending impunity for all those who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. The responsibility of the great powers lies not only in the necessity of putting an end to ambivalence when it comes to Israel. It is also their responsibility to realize that the age of superiority over public opinion and the rights of Palestinians has ended and gone, and that their shared interests in Afghanistan require a fresh interpretation of the meaning of ambivalence in the age of transparency and justice.
