The Top 10 Missed Signs of the Arab Spring

What did the events surrounding the "Freedom Flotilla," which took place almost a year ago, have to do with the Arab Spring? This was a question that was posed to me at a panel discussion this week. At first, I thought the question was a bit odd. Given the nature of events over the past few months and the rapidly developing news coming from one Arab country to the next, the flotilla seemed like eons ago. But the question got me thinking: “What signs of this Arab Spring did we miss?” Hindsight is of course 20/20, and predicting based on any of the events below that transformational change would sweep the region would have been unlikely. Yet, thinking about some of the events and trends of recent years, there were definitely signs that we missed. So, in no particular order, here are my top 10:

1.The Flotilla – a few days before the Mavi Marmara was attacked by raiding Israeli commandos who ultimately killed 9 civilians on board and injured others, I had written a piece in ForeignPolicy.com about the importance of this Flotilla and what it meant:

To their credit, the few hundred non-violent activists-turned-sailors have found a way to maximize their power as individuals to force one of the world's most powerful regimes into a corner. Whether the boats make it to Gaza or not, this is a tremendous victory for civil society in international affairs.

And a victory it was. People, activists from all walks of life, decided they simply wouldn’t wait around anymore for governments or states to change policies that were inhumane. They weren’t going to wait any longer for Israel or Mubarak’s Egypt to end their collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza. So, they took to the sea and challenged a regime by sailing into an unjust blockade instead of a water cannon or rows of riot police, and they sailed straight into history. There is little doubt that the same spirit that filled the "Freedom Flotilla" was embodied in Mohamad Bouazizi and flooded Tahrir square.

2. Khaled Said – It was not so much the killing of Khaled Said that made his murder a turning point – after all, many Egyptians were tortured and killed in the custody of the Mubarak regime’s repressive security apparatus – rather, it was the reaction to Said’s death that made it different. The horrific images of his corpse after torture went viral as the Mubarak regime failed to swiftly hold those responsible accountable. I remember thinking to myself the day #khaledsaid was trending globally on Twitter (July 22nd, 2010) that there was a nucleolus of young Egyptian activists that were fed up with the regime and that we would be hearing from this generation soon – and did we ever.

3. The 2006 PLC Elections – For the first time in Palestinian history, the Islamic Resistance

Movement or HAMAS, would participate in legislative council elections. When HAMAS’ “Change and Reform” ticket won handily at the end of January in 2006, a clear message was sent that the Palestinian people sought "Isqat al Nizam" or regime change much in the same way that Egyptians and Tunisians did, except Palestinian did it through the ballot box. Now, this didn’t necessarily mean that throngs of Palestinians supported HAMAS ideology. Similarly in Tahrir, liberal reformists were protesting alongside Islamists not because they agreed on everything, but because they agreed on one very important thing: this regime had to go.So when the U.S., Israel and Egypt worked together to put an end to such change, they were doing so with the common fear of what democratic movements would mean for each of their governments. I guess we are finding that out now.

4. Wikileaks – At the end of 2010, countless classified U.S. State Department cables were leaked to the public. Among the revelations included in the cables were discussions of the absurd corruption of Zien Al-Abidine Ben Ali and his wife Leila Trabilsi. Ben Ali was the first to go. We also learned that the regime of Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen was conspiring with the U.S. over how to lie to the Yemeni people over drone strikes against suspected Al-Qaeda targets. Saleh is currently hanging on to power by a thread. We also learned about Bahrain’s contacts with the Israeli Mossad and how they view the majority of their population as proxies for Iran. Not surprisingly, the U.S. has been silent over joint Saudi and Bahraini repression of Shia dissidents in Bahrain and the ongoing destruction of Shia houses of worship.

5. The Youth Bulge – Well, this isn’t really one we missed, but no one really took the problem seriously enough (especially not Arab regimes). With disproportionate numbers of Arab youth in Arab societies, coupled with rampant unemployment and poor economic conditions, there was no shortage of angry young people to fill the streets. This certainly didn’t just start yesterday, but pressure was building over time as more and more Arab students entered the workforce as vegetable peddlers instead of participants in growing and developed economies. At the same time as many Arab youth were reluctantly accepting a dearth of jobs and low wages, they noticed the disappearance of a middle class, a widening income gap in society and corrupt government officials reaping the benefits of a system set against its people. Something had to give.

6. The rise of Erdoganism – Remember

the World Economic Forum in 2009 when Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan berated the Israeli President Shimon Peres over Israel’s conduct in Gaza? If you don’t, much of the Arab world does. But what was as significant as Erdogan’s outbursts on behalf of oppressed Palestinians that day was the juxtaposition it presented. Seated on the stage along with Erdogan and Peres was Arab League General Secretary Amr Mousa. As Erdogan walked off the stage in disgust, Mousa remained seated. The contrast could not have been more apparent or important. For decades, what was left of the revolutionary republics were lead by repressive dynastic regimes that justified "emergency laws" as part the effort against Israel while really doing little to oppose Israeli behavior. But here was a democratically elected leader, not to mention from an Islamist background, who relayed the feelings of Arab publics better than the representative of the Arab league who, sitting idly by, represented the impotence and incompetence of Arab regimes that were better at using force against their own people than the Israelis.

7. The Palestine Papers – Released only days before the uprisings began in Egypt, the Palestine Papers confirmed what many people already knew: the American-led peace process was a waste of time. In instance after instance, the pro-Israel bias in American mediation was on display. This was important because it underscored broader American strategy in the region which emphasized stability and the security of Israel with little if any concern for the Palestinians or the repressed peoples living under repressive regimes. It shouldn’t be a surprise that the pillars of American strategy in the region, both vis-à-vis Israel and the "War on Terror" were among the first to fall. The Palestine Papers gave Arabs yet another reason to revolt against the regimes which willingly participated in supporting this structure.

8. Satellite Dishes EVERYWHERE – Jerusalem is a complicated place. Jewish colonies fill up every remaining bit of space between Palestinian population centers. When you drive through it is not always easy to tell when you are in an Arab or Jewish neighborhood. Rooftops, however, betray the camouflage. Arab houses have different water boilers and, of course, the stereotypical receiving dishes pointed toward that part of outerspace where Aljazeera comes from.

But it is hard to really grasp the revolutionary significance of satellite news for the Arab world from an outsider’s perspective. An anecdote will help: As I was watching events develop in the Arab world, I was paying close attention to both state TV channels in Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, etc., while also watching the satellite networks. I happened to also be working on a historical research project which involved reading about media in the different

parts of the Ottoman Empire at the turn of the last century. I came across a fascinating edict which was delivered from the Sultan of the empire to all newspapers at the time about what was allowed to be printed and what wasn’t. It is reproduced here from Mustafa Kabha’s book on the Palestinian Press:

1. First and foremost, newspapers must inform the people of the precious health of the Honorable Sultan. Then they must discuss matters pertaining to the agricultural crops and the progress of trade and industry in the empire.

2. The use of exclamation marks and successive dots may arouse inquiries and speculations; hence they are forbidden.

3. Newspapers are forbidden from publishing any minority of majority opinion of the population concerning the corruption of government officials. They are also forbidden from noting complaints on this matter referred to the Honorable Magnificent Sultan.

4. The people have no need to be informed of assassination attempts on the kings of foreign countries or of demonstrations held by trouble-makers in those countries. The newspapers are totally forbidden from conveying such news to the people.

What is so shocking about this edict is not that it existed as such 120 years ago in the Ottoman Empire - such things are to be expected of that time and place. But rather, the fascinating thing to see was how little has changed from that point up through the recent period. It is only when you consider how long the restrictions of state dominated media have lasted, and how many governments they have transcended, that you can truly appreciate the revolutionary nature of the Arab satellite channels. One has to wonder how many Bouazizis there were throughout the Arab world for decades that "never made a sound" because there was no media permitted to report it to Arab ears.

9. The War on Gaza – For many throughout the region, the heinous Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip, which it was already strangling with a siege that Egypt was cooperating in, was a travesty beyond words. This war was the exclamation point at the end of an 8-year long sentence about Arab humiliation written by the Bush administration. It was simply shameful that the Arabs could allow this to happen. After the 2006 war on Lebanon, the war on Gaza got many people thinking about the dire situation the region was in and what horrors may come without drastic change. One thing that kept the pressure cooker’s lid intact after the war was the inauguration of President Obama. The coming of Obama defused tensions in the Arab world in part because his message resonated with some, and in part because he simply wasn’t George W. Bush. But when Obama’s policies toward the region became impossible to differentiate from Bush’s, especially on Palestine, whatever band-aid his arrival placed on the injured pride of the Arabs was torn off and the wound was still very raw.

10. The Throwing of the Shoe – Long before Egyptians in Tahrir raised their shoes as Mubarak delivered defiant speeches, long before Libyans lobbed shoes at projected images of Gaddafi speeches in Benghazi, there was Muntather Al-Zaidi, the journalist who threw his shoes at President George W. Bush in Iraq, expressing the emotions of millions of Arabs like him. It was no surprise that after the December 14, 2008 incident, people were calling for the shoes to be placed in a museum and thousands of orders were placed by shoe sellers for the type of shoes Zaidi was wearing. Zaidi became a hero and a symbol of a generation which had enough and simply couldn’t take it anymore. For what it’s worth, Munather Al-Zaidi’s name roughly translates to "waiting for the rest," a fitting title for the man who threw his shoe two years before an entire region followed in his footsteps.

read more...

Wikileaked: The Gulf Between Dictators and Their People

Now that a few days have gone by since the initial release of some secret U.S. State Department cables by the website WikiLeaks, we can pause and reflect on some of the reaction to the revelations brought forth by the cables and ask what this all really means. A great deal has been made out of the cables relating to the Middle East and Iran and the views of some Arab leaders toward this issue. Earlier in the week I also made a list of some of the important cables relating to Palestine.

One of the immediate, and typical reactions to come from the Middle East, was conspiracy theory. This is sadly endemic in a region that has been betrayed by colonizers and occupiers throughout its history and has witnessed several coups only to later learn they were dreamed up in foreign capitals. Nevertheless, as revelations put the focus on Iran, some have begun to suggest that WikiLeaks is an Israeli conspiracy. There is no shortage of instances where Israel has had its hand in events in the Middle East, but to suggest that the WikiLeaks revelations are one of them seems like a stretch to me. On this note, those who look at the revealed cables and question the undue focus on Iran should keep three things in mind: First, it's Western media that has sensationalized its interpretation of the cables in a way that supposedly facilitates confrontation with Iran (I'll explain why I say supposedly below). Second, the fact there there is no love lost between some Arab rulers and Iran is nothing new and not much of a revelation at all; it's merely a confirmation of what was assumed by many and said behind closed doors. Third, a fraction of the cables have been released so far. According to the Cablegate website, nearly 8,000 cables originated from the Embassy in Ankara, 6,000 from Baghdad, 4,000 from Amman, and anywhere from 2-4,000 cables originated from Embassies and Consulates in Kuwait, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Cairo and so on. There is probably A LOT more to be learned about wheeling and dealing in the Middle East and U.S.-Israel relations from what is yet to come.

The real story behind the fact that the cables showcased previously non-public feelings of Arab rulers toward Iran is not that they actually feel this way but rather, that they make every effort not to express these sentiments publicly. Anyone with a sense of the region's geopolitics and history would probably have been able to predict the feelings of each of these Arab rulers and the extent of their angst with Tehran. It comes as no surprise that Qatar's ruler, who had the most restrained concern about Iran, shares a natural gas field with their Persian neighbors. Likewise, it was entirely predictable that the most bellicose sentiments would come from leaders in the U.A.E, who have a territorial dispute with Iran, and Sunni-ruled Bahrain that represses its largely Shia, Iranian sympathetic, polity. The big question (and really the most obvious one) which most mainstream media outlets in the West have failed to pose is why the secrecy? Why hide your feelings about Iran? Why not just come out and say it?

The reason they won't take these stances publicly is the real story here. Just look at some of the emphasis put on keeping these sentiments secret. Here is a cable describing how Oman is irked by U.S. reporting of weapons sales to Oman, and how "any belief that the U.S. would attempt to utilize Omani territory in this way could potentially cause a public backlash that would jeopardize other aspects of our relationship. The deployment of Patriots to Oman, especially with the goal of countering the Iran threat, would run completely counter to Oman's publicly-stated foreign-policy objectives."

Another cable describes the not so unique position of another Arab official in the U.A.E: "MbZ's pre-occupation with Iran (and his secondary concern about Islamic fundamentalism) lead him to have a strategic view of the region that is curiously close to the Israeli one. But domestic politics flow the other way, and he feels constrained in what he can say publicly." He also believes that "if there were an election in Dubai tomorrow, the Muslim Brotherhood would take over."

Or this cable where Egyptian President Mubarak talks about how "he opined that no Arab state will join the U.S. in a defense relationship vis-a-vis Iran out of fear of 'sabotage and Iranian terrorism.'" He said Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is "well-known but I cannot say it publicly. It would create a dangerous situation." Mubarak said that sanctions are the best hope for containing Iran, but Arab states won't dare to endorse them."

So why not? The reality is the Arab publics do not view Iran the same way their unelected leaders do. In fact, most Arabs support Iran's right to a nuclear program. Polling shows that support for Iranian nuclear ambitions in the Arab world is high and that Arabs see Israel and the U.S. as the most significant threats they face, with Iran being an insignificant concern. One should keep in mind that this polling, while likely the most representative and comprehensive we have available, is heavily skewed toward largely Sunni publics in what are described as moderate Arab states. Surely, the inclusion of countries like Iraq and Bahrain, which have large Shia populations, or countries like Syria, which have a pro-Iran slant and, to a lesser extent, Qatar, would probably show even more Arab public support for Iran's nuclear ambitions, and even greater distaste for Israel and the U.S.

But, you may be asking, if these Arab states are in fact autocracies, why does public opinion there matter? Well there are two immediate answers to this, one more obvious than the other: The first, and the more obvious one, is that angering Arab publics isn't going to win over any hearts or minds, and, as General Patreaus noted earlier this year, will complicate U.S. missions in the region. Still, suppose the Arab States, like the neo-cons who support confrontation with Iran, don't mind a exponential spike in transnational terror recruitment. Why else would opposing public opinion on this important foreign policy issue, which would lead to what one Arab official called a "catastrophic impact on the region," be a bad idea?

Because the public reaction may very well significantly raise the costs of regime survival to the Arab states. Iran has sympathetic constituencies in most Arab states in the region which led another Arab official to state that the "Shi'a crescent has become a full moon." The cost of putting down domestic uprisings is not cheap, and Iran knows this and can exploit this significantly as it continues with its nuclear program. Around the Arab world, Iranian support for sympathetic constituencies acts as a deterrent that would raise the costs of action against the Iranian regime for many Arab states.

So all this puts the neo-cons in a very peculiar position. Many of the Iran hawks, who had previously supported the invasion of Iraq, defend the policy of regime change by claiming the installation of democracy was worth it all. Now they point to unelected Arab rulers, who'd be acting against popular will, as support for attacking Iran.

This makes them very much like one of the Arab rulers, Hosni Mubarak (the third longest ruling leader in Egypt's 5,000 year history, who's party just won 95% of seats in parliament) who had this advice for the U.S. in Iraq: "Forget democracy" he said "strengthen the armed forces, relax your hold, and then you will have a coup. Then we will have a dictator, but a fair one."

Oh, well, I guess when you put it that way, it is easier to understand why conspiracy theories are so prevalent in this region.

I guess what the Iran war hawks and Arab rulers have in common is that they are both willing to look the other way when dictators trample democracy, so long as it suits their interests.

That said, the real revelation produced by these cables is the gulf between the attitudes of Arab publics and those who rule them. As mentioned above, some have interpreted these revelations to mean that there are fewer obstacles in the path to U.S. or Israeli confrontation with Iran. It seems to be quite the contrary. These revelations have effectively exposed embarrassing positions held by some Arab leaders vis-a-vis Iran, and have already led some to back-off on the rhetoric divulged in the cables. Unsurprisingly, Arab state-directed media outlets have yet to strongly question the leadership of their respective countries about the stances revealed in the cables. Meanwhile, others have been forced to back-off. Bahrain, whose King had "argued forcefully for taking action to terminate their nuclear program, by whatever means necessary," provided this awkward retreat here:

"The illegally-leaked and published US documents by the WikiLeaks website reflect US officials' own analysis and understanding of the conclusions of their joint meetings with the leaders and officials in the region as well as from other relevant events," Shaikh Khalid Bin Ahmed Al Khalifa, the foreign minister, said.

"Jumping to one-sided conclusions based on such understandings will undoubtedly lead to false, incorrect and inaccurate results that would not serve security and stability in the region," he said in a statement on Tuesday evening.

According to the minister, Bahrain has also called for adherence of all countries in the region, to relevant working international laws and conventions.

"The foreign policy of the Kingdom of Bahrain on regional issues has clearly been declared and confirmed in all of our joint meetings with international officials, as well as in our public statements, official meetings or press conferences," the foreign minister said.

Bahrain has always stressed the right of all countries to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as well as the need for Middle East to be free from all weapons of mass destruction, the foreign minister said.

So if anything, the revelations in the cables will likely make any concerted effort against Iran that includes Arab states all the more difficult since the publics will undoubtedly be more skeptical about their leaders' stances on this issue, and the leaders all the more averse to being implicated in action against Iran.

read more...

What changed Abbas' mind? Connect the Dots...

In the spirit of this Mondoweiss post, let's play connect dots to see what might explain Abbas' willingness to participate in the relaunch of direct peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians.

Dot 1. July 28th - Abbas tells Arab League he refuses to agree to direct talks before a settlement freeze:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will tell the Arab League on Thursday indirect talks with Israel have not progressed enough to justify face-to-face peace negotiations, a Palestinian official said on Wednesday.

"Abbas will tell them that, until this moment, there is nothing to convince us to go to direct talks," the official told Reuters. "There is nothing new."

Resisting U.S. pressure, the Palestinian leader has said he first wants indirect talks to make progress, specifically on the issues of the security and borders of a Palestinian state he aims to found on land occupied by Israel since 1967.

Dot 2. July 28th - Clinton “burning up phone lines” to Middle East:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been “burning up the phone lines” the past five days to try and lay the groundwork for a transition from indirect to direct Israel-Palestinian peace talks, aides say.

Clinton’s phone calls with Arab and Israeli leaders come in advance of a meeting Thursday of Arab foreign ministers to decide if they will give their blessing to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for direct talks with the Israelis, rather than U.S.-mediated proximity talks...

“We have a full-court press underway to see if we can move to direct negotiations,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Tuesday. “We’re hopeful that the parties will reach this point, but I can’t pinpoint a particular day on the calendar.”

In the last five days, Clinton has spoken “multiple times” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, twice with the Jordanian and Egyptian foreign ministers, as well as with the Saudi foreign minister, Qatari prime minister....

Dot 3. July 29th - Arab League backs direct talks:

In a Cairo meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to discuss the renewal of direct talks Thursday, the Arab League said that it endorsed direct talks within certain conditions when the Palestinian side was ready to proceed. In the meantime, they said, the League supported indirect negotiations.

Qatar's Prime Minister, Sheik Hamad bin Jassem Al Thani, chaired the meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo. He said that while Arab nations have endorsed direct Palestinian talks with the Israelis in principle, they have left the timing to the Palestinians themselves.

Dot 4. August 18th - PA denies rumors salaries won't be paid:

Denying reports that the Palestinian Authority faces a major cash crisis and may not be able to pay August salaries, a PA official said Wednesday that workers will find money in the bank at the end of the month.

PA spokesman Ghassan Al-Khatib conceded, however, that the government was facing a "very severe financial crisis, but one that is being managed" and affirmed that Ramallah could afford to pay salaries this month.

Al-Khatib's remarks came after UN assistant secretary-general Oscar Fernandez-Taranco said the PA would face a serious lack of funds if donor countries were unable to come up with enough cash to continue funding projects already underway. September's salaries would be the first to go, he predicted.

Dot 5. August 19th - Arab states are not paying:

Arab states have cut financial aid to the Palestinian Authority so far this year, according to PA figures seen by Reuters, and the United Nations has warned of a looming Palestinian cash crisis.

"The Arabs are not paying. We urge them to meet their financial pledges," said Saleh Rafat, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization's executive committee and one of the few Palestinian officials willing to speak out on the matter.

Arab government officials contacted by Reuters declined to comment on the issue.....

A UN report this week said the Palestinian Authority "will face a serious liquidity crisis in September and will have difficulty paying August salaries" due to the aid shortfall. PA officials said August wages were secured.

Dot 6. August 20th - Return to Table is Scheduled in Mideast Talks

The leaders of Israel and the Palestinians have been invited to meet in Washington on Sept. 2 for direct negotiations, the first in 20 months, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced Friday.

The reopening of direct talks would represent a small victory for the Obama administration in its protracted effort to revive the Middle East peace process.

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, have agreed to place a one-year time limit on the talks, two officials briefed on the situation said Thursday evening.

Diplomatic decisions on highly sensitive issues are often made at the highest levels and behind closed doors. I wrote earlier this year about the problems of dependence on donors and how compromised economic independence will undoubtedly yield compromised political independence.

It is impossible to know what precisely motivated Abbas to accept direct talks after months of refusing to do so before Israel upholds its obligations. As mentioned earlier today, not only is Israel failing to meet its commitment to a settlement freeze but it has also accelerated its demolition of Palestinian homes in the last month and a half.

Let's not forget that Saeb Erakat spent days speaking to the Arab media about how the ball is in Netanyahu's court and how they wouldn't agree to negotiations before Netanyahu agrees to freeze settlements and agree to the 1967 borders as a framework.

Now Abbas backtracks on his word, jeopardizing the very little domestic support he had left. Of course in an autocracy, which is what the West Bank under Fatah and Gaza under Hamas have both become, there are worse things than not being popularly legitimate, including, most importantly, the ability to pay the bureaucracy and security apparatus that keeps you in power.

Onward Palestinian Negotiators!

read more...

An Exercise in the Predictable

So a new poll is out on public opinion in the Arab world and guess what? Arabs are disenchanted with Obama and the US's policy in the Middle East and the main reason is the Administration's handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While this may not seem like news to many who follow the issue closely, some of the details of the poll are intriguing, and the poll itself is a necessary part of the public discussion on policy here in Washington which too often neglects the views of Arabs.

There are important shifts in this year's poll which are noteworthy. This slide sums up the key point. In one year, generally positive veiws of President Obama plummeted from 45% in 2009 to 20% in 2010. Consequently, negative views increased dramatically. It's important to keep in mind that the 2009 poll was conducted in the spring prior to Obama's June speech in Cairo which was received with cautious optimism. This means that in the span of one year, its likely that the roller-coaster that is Arab views of the American president was even more extreme.

This is undoubtedly due to the President's handling of Palestine and his relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. The 2010 poll, concluded only recently at the end of July, captures opinion just after Netanyahu's conciliatory meeting at the White House which the Arab world likely viewed with disgust. If there are any doubts about what issue Arabs view as most important when it comes to evaluating the United States, this second slide should effectively eliminate them.

The extent of Obama's popularity in the Arab world was a function of two things. First, he was an American President not named George W. Bush for the first time after 8 devastating years of American blunders in the region. That alone helped. But it is also likely that his initial opposition to the War on Iraq led many in the Arab world to believe Obama would be genuinely different.

Of course, the Arab world, especially when it comes to the issue of Palestine, has grown tired of promises and false hopes. Even after Obama's speech in Cairo, the general reaction in the Arab world was "that sounds nice but let's see some action." After a few weeks, let alone 18 months, the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately attitude (or in this case the what-have-you-done-for-me-ever attitude) started to set in.

Those in the Arab world who held out hope probably lost it after the latest Netanyahu-Obama meeting which the Washington Post's Dana Milbank described as the raising of the proverbial white flag over the White House. The influence of domestic politics and the Israel Lobby is not lost on the Arab world either. Check out the slide to the right. In a significant reversal over the past three years, the Arab world now believes that Israel dictates to the United States and not vice versa. This is dangerous because it means Arabs have lost faith in the US's ability to broker peace, not necessarily because they don't believe Washington wants peace, but because they don't believe Washington could do what it takes to achieve peace even if they wanted it.

So for the Arab world, it no longer matters who the US President is; the outcome will be predetermined for them if they are Republican or Democrat, Walker or Hussein.

It's important to keep in mind that the Arab world was at boiling point at the end of George W. Bush's presidency. With devastation, siege and severe civilian casualties in war torn Gaza and American troops in seemingly endless unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the countdown to Bush's last day in office could not possibly move quick enough.

But as Arabs reflect on the past year an a half of US mediation attempts and policy in the Middle East, they are coming to the realization that the countdown to the Bush presidency may never have ended.

*Full Disclosure Note: Professor Shibley Telhami, who conducts the poll on a yearly basis, was one of my professors at the University of Maryland. I admire his scholarship and approach to international relations and have had lively seminar discussions, sometimes disagreeing in the past, on analysis of this poll and also on the question of whether or not Arab public opinion matters in the autocratic societies most Arabs find themselves in. I have always found the research to be thought provoking and important. Professor Telhami along with Dr. As'ad Ghanem gave an important talk here at the Palestine Center last fall analyzing recent polling data on the views of Palestinian citizens of Israel. You can see the video and transcript of that event here.

read more...

Netanyahu Triple-Slaps the U.S. & Congress does the AIPAC Shuffle

By Yousef Munayyer

The Israeli Government waited just long enough for the United States to turn the other cheek before administering another resounding slap to its face. The first insult of course came when Vice President Joe Biden was visiting the region and became the highest ranking Obama Administration official to visit Israel. As he was to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli government announced the expansion of a West Bank settlement of Ramot Shlomo by 1600 homes.

The harshest words used by the administration toward Israel ever were hurled after this jolting announcement. With Netanyahu due in DC in just days quick work had to be done to smooth things over. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly told Netanyahu on the phone that he had to fulfill certain requirements to make everything hunky-dory again.

After keeping Clinton waiting for a week Netanyahu finally called her back. He reportedly told her about how complicated the bureaucracy around settlement announcements was and how he had no idea such a thing could happen. The call came as she was traveling to Russia for a Quartet meeting where the 4-party body issued a statement condemning the expansion of the settlement and demanding its reversal.

But with 8,000 lobbyists in Washington (8000/535 = 15 lobbyists per member) the rhetoric, as empty as it was anyway, would change quickly. One congressman after the other made the annual pilgrimage to the convention center to vow their undying support for Israel.

US elected officials openly criticized President Obama for allowing the disagreement with Israel to be so public. When Clinton spoke at the AIPAC convention, she droned on with the usually talking points about the unbreakable, unshakeable, unwavering bond between Israel and the United States but she also mentioned that Israel had to make hard choices and end settlement expansion. That same evening, the Israeli PM Netanyahu was at center stage saying that it really didn’t matter what the US thought about settlements because Israel will continue to build.

The next morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner, fresh off a weekend of trashing each other over health care, held a joint photo op with Netanyahu to say that, on support for Israel, they “speak with one voice.”

For a moment it was interesting to think about who was going to enter the impending contentious bilateral meeting with more confidence. President Obama had just secured a major domestic victory by signing historic health care reform. Netanyahu had just slapped America’s VP in the face in Israel and came to Washington welcomed by a congress of lap dogs.

That moment was brief, however, as the answer became very clear when another announcement about a settlement project was made just before the bilateral meeting between Netanyahu and Obama.

About 30 minutes before the scheduled meeting, stories began to break about the Shepherd Hotel in Sheikh Jarrah. The US made their feelings about this project explicitly clear last summer when Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Oren was summoned over the approval of this project at the local level.

So in a matter of days, Netanyahu kicks the barrel out from under Biden in Jerusalem, defies Clinton at AIPAC, and completes the trifecta by preempting a meeting with Obama with this most recent announcement. Unless your still buying into the its-the-bureaucracy’s-fault-I-had-no-idea excuse.

If the United States cannot reign in Israel, in a region where it is supposed to dominate, what are other major powers going to think? With thousands of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States has never appeared more vulnerable than this very moment. The US shouldn’t rely on Russia for any help with sanctions on Iran, they would much rather watch the American empire crumble. And China? They’re getting a kick out of financing it all.

The US’s failure to coerce Netanyahu sends messages far beyond the Middle East but to the rest of the world as well.

read more...

Indirect Talks Find Support

Although the Palestinian Authority is yet to formally agree, the Arab League foreign ministers backed a U.S. plan to mediate indirect peace talks between Palestinians and Israel.

For some, this offers the most hopeful opening yet for the resumption of official talks between the two sides since they broke down more than a year ago. Reports indicate that Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has agreed. For others, this is a "conflict management" strategy that offers little chance of ending the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.

The Arab League stressed that the Palestinians would not enter direct negotiations before Israel completely halts Jewish construction activities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and has put a four-month window on the indirect talks.

This would be the first move towards a return to "process" since U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took office early last year.

Palestinian officials said they want the U.S.-mediated talks to focus initially on defining the borders of a state they hope to establish in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said that charting the borders of a future Palestinian state, within the four-month negotiating window set by the Arab League, was of paramount importance.

He told reporters there was no point in discussing any other issue without Israeli government acknowledgment of the "principle of two states" along the pre-1967 war borders, "with an agreed land swap."

Asked about Erakat's comments, Mark Regev, a spokesman for Netanyahu, said: "The Palestinians can bring to the negotiation all of their concerns, and we will bring ours -- first and foremost Palestinian recognition of Israel's legitimacy as a Jewish state, and demilitarization."

The shuttle talks may commence during American Vice-President Joe Biden's visit. If all goes to plan, he would deliver the official Palestinian notification to Israel stating its willingness to enter indirect talks.

Despite American optimism for the prospects of these talks, many remain skeptical.

George Giacaman, an analyst at Birzeit University in the West Bank, said, "The main issue is conflict management." This political process is meant to fill a void in which further conflict could arise.

"Hardly anyone expects that they will lead to a breakthrough. The experience of 18 years of negotiations is a case in point," he said.

How much such talks could achieve without Palestinian unity is another question.

read more...

Mixed Arab Messages on Normalization?

United States government officials claimed they extracted "pledges" from a number of Arab states to move toward normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a settlement freeze. Today it was reported that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu visited in secret an unnamed Arab country with which Israel does not have diplomatic relations.

The Jerusalem newspaper Al Manar reported that Netanyahu secretly visited an Arab country with which Israel does not have diplomatic relations on Monday.

According to the report, Netanyahu met with two senior personages from Arab countries, accompanied by two of his advisers, and discussed cooperation vis-a-vis Iran. According to IDF Radio, Israeli observers speculated Monday that Netanyahu had gone to Qatar, Oman or Bahrain.

According to the U.S. officials, some Arab states have agreed to let Israel open offices in their territory, others have agreed to grant visas to Israeli businessmen and tourists, and still others have offered to allow direct telephone connections between Israel and their countries. A few Arab countries have agreed to hold high-level public meetings with senior Israeli officials, and others have agreed to let Israeli planes fly through their air space or even land at their airports.

So far the Arab position has been to condition normalization developments on a settlement freeze. Last week, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Ali Aboul Gheit said that normalized relations between Israel and the Arab world is possible, but only on the condition that peace talks be renewed with the Palestinians and that settlement-building be halted. He was speaking in a joint press conference with his Spanish counterpart, Miguel Angel Moratinos in Cairo.

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa told a press conference that given Israel's "stubbornness" over the settlements, there is no place for any moves toward normalization.

"Israel is still refusing to freeze construction in the settlements," he said. "As long as that continues, it is impossible to talk about steps toward normalization."

Hamas warned against "free normalization." Khaled Mashal, head of the Political Bureau of the Hamas movement, said that “this formula is asking for Arab normalization with Israel in return for a 9-month settlement freeze, the does not even include Jerusalem.”

read more...

Clashing Visions and Competing Interests: American, Israeli and Arab Approaches to Peace by Amjad Atallah, Daniel Levy and Michael C. Hudson (16 July 2009)

Click to Play

A panel discussion featuring:

Mr. Amjad Atallah, Co-Director
Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation

Audio

Download (right click, then 'save as')

Mr. Daniel Levy, Co-Director and Senior Fellow
Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation


Dr. Michael C. Hudson, Director and Professor
Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University
Audio:

Download (right click, then 'save as')


16 July 2009
The Palestine Center

This panel addressed similarities and differences in the approaches of the United States, Israel and the Arabs towards an end of conflict, whether coordination is possible, and what distinct roles each nation or group of nations should have in the peace process.

Amjad Atallah
Co-Director, Middle Task East Force, New America Foundation
Mr. Atallah is the co-director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation.

Prior to working at the New America Foundation, he headed the Strategic Assessments Initiative, an organization committed to providing legal and policy assistance to parties in conflict and post-conflict situations. He also advised the Palestinian negotiating team in peace negotiations with Israel on the issues of international borders, security and constitutional issues.

Daniel Levy
Senior Fellow and Co-Director, Middle East Task Force, New America Foundation

In addition to his work at the New America Foundation, Mr. Levy is a senior fellow and director of the Prospects for Peace Initiative at The Century Foundation. He was a member of the Israeli delegation to the Taba negotiations with the Palestinians in January 2001 and previously served on the Israeli negotiating team to the "Oslo B" Agreement from May to September 1995, under the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

Michael C. Hudson
Director of the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies and Professor of International
Relations, Georgetown University

Michael C. Hudson is the Seif Ghobash Professor of Arab Studies in the Walsh School of Foreign
Service at Georgetown University. He is regularly interviewed about Middle East issues in the news media, including the BBC, Arabic satellite channels and major newspapers. Among Dr. Hudson's publications are Arab Politics: The Search for Legitimacy and The Palestinians: New Directions.

read more...

2008 Conference Proceedings Published

2008 Palestine Center Annual Conference
"The U.S. and the Arab World: An Assessment of American Policy in the Middle East"

At the 2008 Palestine Center Annual Conference in October, "The U.S. and the Arab World: An Assessment of American Policy in the Middle East," a wide array of experts analyzed United States foreign policy towards the Middle East during the last eight years and the challenges facing the next U.S. president. Speakers included:

Mr. Chris Hedges (transcript)
Ambassador Philip C. Wilcox
Ambassador Mokhtar Lamani
Dr. Michael C. Hudson
Dr. Hamid Dabashi
Dr. Michael Dunn
Mr. Mark Perry
Mr. Anthony Shadid
Mr. Paul Findley

(For transcripts of Shadid and Findley's speeches)

The proceedings have been published on the website.[LINK down]

The website also features video of the speakers and panels. [LINK down]

read more...

VIDEOS & TRANSCRIPTS: 2008 Palestine Center Conference

This year's annual Palestine Center conference, "The US and the Arab World: An Assessment of American Policy in the Middle East," was illuminating and provided attendees a comprehensive overview of US policy in the region. It was held at the Palestine Center in Washington, DC on 10 October, 2008.

Watch the conference videos.

Some transcripts are online as well. Former New York Times journalist Chris Hedges, discussed American foreign policy, Islamophobia and religious fundamentalism. Washington Post journalist, Anthony Shadid and former Congressmen Paul Findley wrapped up the conference with a discussion of the Bush legacy and where US foreign policy in the Middle East should go next.

More transcripts will follow soon.

read more...