Apr 26, 2004 5 min read

It is not unusual for an incoming political leader to aspire to ‘hit the ground running.’ It is rare that one chooses to hit the ground by running away. (Spanish Prime Minister) Zapatero claims that he has acted because there was not prospect of a new U.N. resolution of the sort that would allow him to let Spanish troops stay at station. Yet, as (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair has noted, the coalition and the UN are now working more closely in Iraq than at any time since Saddam Hussein fell. If others join the unseemly rush to the exit, there could be a serious setback to the efforts to rebuild Iraq and to the people of Iraq. Other nations which have soldiers on the ground are vulnerable, particularly Poland whose prime minister is due to step down in two weeks amid domestic political turmoil. The authorities in Warsaw have, nonetheless, reacted with commendable speed to squash any speculation that they are reconsidering their commitment.

It might be shrewd for Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair to expose the hypocrisy of some of those who have called for more U.N. involvement in Iraq yet are now evacuating troops for fear that this participation will arrive. As June 30 approaches, it would be wholly appropriate for the U.N. Security Council to express backing for the institutional arrangements that its own envoy is helping to hammer out and to pledge humanitarian assistance for Iraq over the next year. A new resolution to this effect would be worthwhile.

More on Spain’s decision to pull troops from Iraq:

The unity of the “coalition of the willing,” a group of just over 30 countries that have sent military troops to Iraq in support of the U.S. occupation, has begun to unravel.

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriquez Zapatero ordered the withdrawal of the Spanish troops, making good on a campaign promise for the general election in March.

Uneasiness has been spreading to other members of the willing coalition because, on top of turmoil in Iraq, there is no hope of stability in sight after the transfer of power to the Iraqis themselves. Zapatero insists the United Nations should take the initiative, even in the military field. However, it is unlikely that countries of the world would easily agree on a joint plan to keep law and order in a country that has become so dangerous.

Everybody wants stability in Iraq and reconstruction put on a track. But the actual conditions in the country have made losing propositions of both moving ahead and turning back.

Spain’s rebellion appears to represent the international community’s frustration with the American government, which refuses to make a radical change in its Iraq policy.

On Israel’s assassination policy:

With now the U.S. completely on his side, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is set to pursue his assassination policy of Palestinian leaders. While “congratulating” the Israeli army on slaying Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, the Hamas leader in Gaza, a euphoric Sharon made no bones about his bloody agenda. He vowed to go ahead with striking at top Palestinian figures and press ahead with his U.S.-blessed plan to disengage from the Palestinians. The plan, which features withdrawal from the heavily populated Gaza, illegally allows Israel to keep major swaths of the West Bank. Sharon’s two plans are not unrelated. Still haunted by mortification of the Israeli army’s sudden and messy pullout of southern Lebanon in May 2000, Sharon, himself the architect of a bloody incursion into the Lebanese territory in 1982, looks bent on physically and psychologically liquidating leaders of Palestinian resistance movements. It will not be unlikely that Israel would kill other top Palestinian in Gaza soon, as part of what it claims is a “regional war against terrorism.”

The Bush administration has already bought the bizarre Israeli logic. So by the time Israel quits Gaza, probably next year, the Palestinian territory will have been reduced to ruins. The top leadership echelons of Hamas and (Islamic) Jihad will have been undermined too.

On the assassination of Hamas leader Rantisi:

Saturday’s assassination of Abdel Aziz Rantisi was the product of intelligence work and operational calculations. The Israel Defense Forces and the Shin Bet knew exactly when Rantisi would be exposed to an attack that would cause minimal harm to innocent Palestinians near him. While Israel might still face years of armed struggle waged by radical, hostile elements that cannot accept its existence alongside a Palestinian state created out of a just compromise acceptable to the moderate majority on both sides, there can be no lack of respect for Saturday’s show of professional expertise and strength by Israel’s defense establishment.

Yet those who are encouraged to see that Israel’s military is on target cannot avoid doubts about the integrity of the motivations of those who order uniformed soldiers to squeeze the trigger. Ariel Sharon’s positions, and his behavior in IDF roles and in politics, are such that he faces the burden of proof – it cannot be automatically assumed that the order to assassinate Rantisi was motivated purely by the desire to serve the state’s interests. …

Knocking off Hamas leaders is not, in itself, policy. If these acts aggravate risks faced by the state of Israel and its citizens, they are wrong.

Conversely, if they are likely to restrain Hamas and lead it toward the route of a cease-fire (which disappeared rapidly last summer) and encourage the organization to work out practical arrangements with the Palestinian Authority prior to the withdrawal of IDF troops and settlements from Gaza – then the assassinations should not be ruled out. …