Is Obama more Zionist Than Dubya Bush?

Remember last year when there was a great deal of commotion about President Barack Obama's reference to the 1967 lines being used as the basis of negotiated land swaps between Israel and Palestine?

It was hard to forget. Obama's political foes and even some of his friends accused him of throwing Israel under the bus. Netanyahu used the opportunity to slam Obama for this and stated that "Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967". In fact, when he said this before Congress they gave him one of 29 standing ovations.

As Republican candidates vie for the party's nomination, they have not shied from using this issue to attack Obama as well, following Netanyahu's lead.

But, successive administrations have stated the same thing time and again about the US position which is in line with UN Security Council Resolution 242. Most reasonable observers knew at the time that Obama's statements where in no way a major shift in policy.

Or was it?

If it was, Jeffery Goldberg, for one, didn't notice. He wrote, in a post titled 'Did Obama Say Something so Different than Bush?' (emphasis mine):

In 2005, Geoge W. Bush stated that it is "unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949" (the 1967 boundaries of Israel, in other words). Today, Barack Obama said that he believes "the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states

Seems straightforward enough. The immediate predecessor to Obama, George W. Bush, talked about the 1949 Armistice line which Goldberg tells us equals the 1967 line. So essentially, Bush and Obama had the same position, right? Here is an excerpt from President Bush's speech in the Rose Garden in 2005 (emphasis mine):

Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.

If we go by Goldberg's translation, 1949 Armistice lines = 1967 lines. This formula is not just the Goldberg standard. Here is the New York Times on this issue (emphasis mine):

Those commitments came in a letter from President George W. Bush which stated, among other things that “it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949,” another way of describing the 1967 boundaries.

To be sure, NPR checked with Glenn Kessler, author of the Washington Post's "Fact Checker" column to, well, check the facts:

President BARACK OBAMA: We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.

CONAN: And Glenn, is that a substantial change from what presidents have said before?

Mr. KESSLER: Yes, it is. I mean, in the context of diplomacy, what President Obama said that was different was that he actually referenced 1967, the 1967 lines, the de-facto border that had basically existed since the end of the 1948 war of independence.

CONAN: So if he had said the armistice lines of 1948, would that have been different?

Mr. KESSLER: No, what I did is I researched and looked at what all previous presidents had said, and actually they never said anything about lines one way or the other.

I'm not sure what kind of research Glenn did to miss the statement by President Bush buried deep down in this dusty archive. But its not just the fact the Bush made reference to the 1949 armistice line that contrasts with Kessler's statements. He seems to be saying, like the New York Times, Jeffery Goldberg and even some Palestinians that the 1949 Armistice Line = the 1967 line.

Well, to be perfectly accurate, we are all wrong. The 1949 armistice line is not the same as the 1967 line. Here is why, check out the map of Gaza below (enlarge). The red line you see is the actual armistice line from 1949. The blue line is what we see on maps today which often is refered to as the Green Line or the 1967 line. So what happened to all the area, some 200km², in purple?

Essentially, the Israelis just took it. The blue line is actually the 1950 modus videndi line. This was an agreement between Egypt, which filled the vacuum of power in Gaza at the time, and the Israelis that established a temporary buffer zone (the purple area) on the Arab side of the actual armistice line. The agreement divides the territory up into areas A,B and C and resulted in a permanent Israeli land grab. (Why does this sound so familiar?) Dr. Salman Abu Sitta, an outstanding Palestinian historical geographer, made a great presentation about this, the Nakba, and other Israel land grabs here at the Palestine Center.

There are areas other than Gaza where the lines diverge. This ironically includes the villages in the triangle area in the north eastern part of the West Bank which Israel was not supposed to enter and today, for reasons of 'demographic threat' probably wishes it never had. I'd encourage you to watch the whole presentation.

President Obama actually visited this purple area grabbed by the Israelis in the map above. President George W. Bush, despite all the damage his policies did in the region, clearly chose to use the language of the 1949 armistice line over the 1967 lines for a reason. By doing this, Bush actually signified the correct dividing line on which negotiations should be based. By reversing from the Bush language of "1949 armistice lines" to 1967 borders, Obama actually supported a Zionist land grab.

I wonder what his right-wing detractors have to say about that?

In sum, this is just another example of how, over time Zionist expansionism has taken more and more of Palestine, constantly changing the starting point and re-leveraging their negotiating position. It also goes to show you that over time, the temporary becomes permanent and a lie told often enough becomes truth. (At least we have the internet to set things straight.)

Is it any wonder why the Palestinians want a complete stop to any such expansion before even thinking of negotiations?

read more...

Is Obama Pressuring Israel Too Much?

This was the question asked in today's POLITICO Arena. Yes, seriously. My response is below:

If by putting "pressure on Israel" you mean raising its military aid to the largest single expense in the U.S. foreign aid budget, supplying extra budgetary support in the hundreds of millions to develop Israeli military technology, unending diplomatic support in the U.N. Security Council, expanding U.S.-Israel trade relations, supporting their entry into the OECD and raising military cooperation which George Mitchell this week called the "best it's ever been," then yes.

What a horribly absurd question. Yesterday, the single largest pro-Israel lobby in the United States, AIPAC, trotted out hundreds of senators and representatives who were more than willing to repeat the lobby's talking points, stand by a foreign leader and criticize their own president instead of supporting him.

To continue reading the response click here.

read more...

Obama to Palestinians: Eh, Colonization Happens

While the focus of reactions to President Obama's speech last week and Sunday at the AIPAC conference have been about his reference to the long understood principle of the 1949 armistice line (i.e. 1967 lines or the Green Line) most have missed a very dangerous message Obama and Netanyahu have sent to the Palestinians that is yet another reason why American-led negotiations are bound to fail.

Obama explained on Sunday what Netanyahu and right-wingers in the US and Israel pretended to misunderstand. He never said Israel had to retreat to the Green line, he said that that would be the baseline for agreed upon swaps. This is of course nothing new as both Obama himself and his press secretary have been making clear since the speech on Thursday. I discuss how negotiators were using this principle before Obama was President and also how the US delegation to the talks sought to impose Israeli demands on the Palestinians when the swaps were not agreed upon.

But the message to Palestinians was sent not only through what Obama said but also what he didn't say. The speech marked a clear departure from the earlier attempts at a settlement freeze, a first-phase Israeli obligation under the Road Map which both parties accepted in 2003. Sure, it had been clear that Obama backed away from the settlement freeze initiative before this, but this coupled with the way he and Netanyahu described the Israeli settlements in the past few days indicates to Palestinians that there is no deterrence for further Israeli colonization of their land and no reason for the Israelis not to constantly re-leverage their bargaining position by continuously expanding these colonies.

In his address on Thursday, President Obama mentioned Israeli settlements once, and certainly did not directly condemn them. He merely said that "expectations have gone unmet" but who is at fault for this? Is it the George Mitchell camp for expecting too much of the Israelis (abiding by their obligations) or is it the Israelis for consistently violating those obligations? Obama doesn't say, but the newly resigned George Mitchell, listening to the speech in the audience at the State Department during his last week on the job likely has no doubt about what was intended.

The ambiguous language here is deliberate so as to avoid addressing a delicate issue which put the Obama administration in hot water with the Israel lobby previously. Unfortunately, this is precisely where Palestinians needed clarity and the obfuscation suggests to them instead that American domestic politics are still hog-tying this President.

Just look at how Netanyahu referred to the settlements in his remarks with President Obama after they met in the White House on Friday (emphasis mine):

the 1967 lines ... don’t take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years.

Even Netanyahu, who never has trouble communicating in English, floundered and paused in search for a euphemism vague enough to circumvent any mention of Israel's colonization.

Then, like clockwork, Obama reiterates practically the very same language in his address to the AIPAC conference two days later:

That’s what mutually agreed-upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides.

It is hard to tell what is most disturbing about this. There is of course the near vomit-inducing reality that an American President is repeating the narrative of a foreign Prime Minister before a room full of lobbyists who are lobbying for that very Prime Minister's interests. Then there is the narrative itself. To reduce the conscious and calculated process of colonization in the occupied Palestinian territory, illegal under international law, to the equivalent of moss growing on a tree for a few decades is not only ludicrous and offensive but it is the whitewashing of a crime which Palestinians have been the direct victims of.

500,000 Israelis did not fall to sleep in on one side of the Green Line in places like Tel Aviv only to wake up on the other side in places Kiryat Arba, Ariel, Har Homa and Pisgat Ze'ev. Colonization is not a passive natural process that happens over time, as described by the Israeli Prime Minister before being repeated by the American President. It is a violent and state-driven process which involves breaking international law, dispossessing land owners through the use of force and monopolizing the natural resources of another people.

The failure to condemn the process by which these demographic changes "have taken place", while asking Palestinians to simply accept this new reality, is tantamount to supporting the continued colonization of Palestinian territory. In short, the President of the United States, which is trying to convince Palestinians his country can be an even-handed mediator, is saying Israel will not be held accountable for violations of international law and obligations of the peace process by us, you Palestinians will just have to deal with it.

And this is supposed to lure Palestinians back into American-led negotiations?

read more...

Obama Gives Everything, Netanyahu Wants More

President Obama's speech in response to the changes in the Middle East yesterday covered many different areas. While people who care about the human rights and self-determination of Arab peoples might be pleased by some elements of the speech, others will also question the sincerity with which these points were delivered given the U.S.'s history for supporting some of the very rulers Arabs rebelled, and are rebelling, against.

The Arab Spring however, which came not only after President Obama delivered his first speech in Cairo but more importantly after he failed to fulfill the promises of that speech, signified that Arabs are not waiting around for American leadership or vision to shape their own destines. If there would be any litmus test of American commitment to supporting positive change in the region however, it would be the discussion of the Palestinian issue in the speech.

The question of Palestine took up a more significant portion of the speech than any other single country and yet, despite the remarkable changes in the region, President Obama's speech offered nothing new. While some in the US are busy, for domestic political reasons, attacking Obama for mentioning 1967 lines with agreed swaps as the basis for territorial negotiations, this is no departure from the norm established and operated under by successive negotiating sessions.

As far as the negotiations are concerned, this principle of land swaps was not really where Israelis and Palestinians disagreed. The disagreements arose over which particular land to swap based on the geopolitically sensitive locations of massive Israeli settlements. The Israelis wanted an extra 10% of the West Bank, the Palestinians argued that such plans would make a Palestinian state impossible and permanently usurp Palestinian water resources. A look at the map linked here, made available thanks to the leak of classified "Palestine Papers" negotiations documents, shows that in such a scenario to go from the Palestinian city of Qalqilya to Hebron - a crow's flight distance of less than 50 miles (or vice-versa) - would mean either crossing international borders drawn to accommodate illegal settlements 4 times or circumventing these 'fact's on the ground' by making a trip that should take less than an hour into a zig-zaging afternoon. The proposed state that Palestinians had to look forward to seemed practically the same as occupation.

The problem was not the baseline of a two-state solution (except in Jerusalem where the Israelis unilaterally annexed occupied territory) the problem had always been that when Israel wanted to take what the Palestinians couldn't afford to give, no one stopped them. This was perhaps best brought to light by another conversation revealed by the "Palestine Papers" when in a trilateral meeting a similar disagreement arose over the particularly sensitive settlement of Maale Adumim, a massive settlement deep inside Palestinian territory that practically cuts Jerusalem off from the rest of the West Bank:

Palestinian Negotiator Ahmad Qurie: Just like Ariel, Maale Addumim is a problem. Jerusalem is out if they take Maale Addumim.

Condoleeza Rice: No – Jerusalem is not out! Everyone understands that what is Jewish is Israeli and what is Arab is Palestinian.

Qurie: But we don’t want to fly to Jerusalem by helicopter!

Rice: I don’t think that any Israeli leader is going to cede Maale Addumim.

Qurie: Or any Palestinian leader.

Rice: Then you won’t have a state!

What this excerpt clearly demonstrates is not that the baseline from which to swap was the problem, but when it came to which territory would be swapped, the United States - supposedly playing the role of even-handed mediator- tells the Palestinians they have to accept the Israeli position or else. This is why the concept of the settlement freeze was so important as well, not only was settlement building entirely illegal under international law, but the Israelis were also using it to leverage their bargaining position so that the blocs they knew the US would support them in keeping would only grow each time they met at the negotiating table.

This is exactly why even the Palestinians who were most willing to negotiate realized that American-led negotiations simply would not bring fruit to their quest for dignified national liberation. If it did anything, Obama's speech simply confirmed this conviction among Palestinians. If you look at the demands outlined by Netanyahu in his speech to the Israel Knesset this week prior to his trip to Washington it is clear to see that Obama's speech left space to accommodate all of them.

Let's take the points outlined in Netanyahu's demands during his recent Knesset Speech and see how the points in Obama's speech yesterday relate.

Netanyahu Knesset Speech Demand: The Palestinians must recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Obama on this point: What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows -- a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

Problems: Obama here is accepting Netanyahu's pre-condition for peace. Even though Palestinian negotiators recognized Israel as a pre-condition for negotiations 20 years ago, Netanyahu and the Israelis continue to set the bar higher and higher. Palestinians will not and should not recognize Israel as a Jewish state for two important reasons 1) This recognition implies a relinquishing of claims of the national rights of the Palestinian minority which exists in Israel today amounting to 20% of Israel's population and 2) It is not up to Palestinians to define Israel, that is Israel's job. But knowing that this is yet another hurdle that would divide the Palestinian house, Israel has thrown it in the path of Palestinian negotiators precisely because they know it can not be accepted. That Obama supports this pre-condition so openly speaks to the lack of credibility of the United States as mediator.

Netanyahu Knesset Speech Demands: The problem of the Palestinian refugees must be resolved outside Israel’s borders. Jerusalem will remain the united, sovereign capital of Israel.

Obama on this point: I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Problems: While Obama doesn't repeat Netnayhu's points here, he is hardly precluding them. (He actually mimicked Netanyahu's demand on Jerusalem at the AIPAC conference in 2008) By saying any issue will be left up to negotiations with such ambiguous language, and given the US's history as a mediator highlighted above in the Condi Rice conversation, they have no reason to believe anything but Netanyahu's demands will an option the US let's them consider.

Netanyahu Knesset Speech Demand: Israel will retain the settlement blocs.

Obama on this point: We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.

Problems: Again, as demonstrated by the conversation above, there is no conflict here between what Netanyahu is asking for and the principles Obama lays out. Behind closed doors, the US has supported Israeli demands for keeping the settlement blocs which dissect the West Bank.

Netanyahu Knesset Speech Demand: A Palestinian state must be demilitarized and not endanger Israel’s security. Israel would be allowed to keep a military presence along the Jordan Valley, as part of those security arrangements.

Obama on this point: Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

Problems: Can you see a trend here? If Obama is not echoing Netanyahu's exact demands in his speech, it's because the issues must be agreed on in negotiations. What he doesn't tell you is that during those negotiations the United States will act as a tireless advocate for Israel's demands. Plus, the idea of pre-conditioning the existence of a state on its inability to defend itself empties the concept of sovereignty of any of its meaning.

So the only way you can really say that Obama's speech and Netanyahu's Knesset speech are incompatible is if you are not really paying attention to one of them. While Netanyahu might be putting on a temper tantrum now, he got everything he could have asked for in this speech with the well-established assurances that in the areas where Obama did not repeat his demands, the US negotiating team would behind closed doors. The tensions on display from Netanyahu are playing to an American political spectrum he knows well.

The section of Obama's speech which discussed Palestine is a a very strong reminder that the United States is not in a position to mediate this conflict. After an 18-month showdown between Obama and Netanyahu over settlements, this speech coming in the last week of work for the newly resigned envoy George Mitchell, should only embolden Palestinians to seek liberation strategies that circumvent American-led negotiations.

read more...

A Clinic in Biased Reporting

This is crossposted from POLITICO.com where I participate in a forum called Arena. They ask a question each day about political issues and participants comment as they see fit. Today's question was about Obama's Middle East policy and it referred to a new story by a Politico reporter, Ben Smith, which argues that Israelis and Palestinians are fed up with Obama. The story is remarkably biased, in fact, one of the more biased pieces of reporting on this issue I have seen in a while (an that's saying something!) Here is the post:

It’s hard to even know where to start on this question. First, I think one has to address Ben Smith’s remarkably one-sided article billed as “A View from the Middle East." It really should have been called “An Israeli View." Of the 559 words in the article which were direct quotes from officials based in the Middle East, 540 of them come from Israelis. That is a stunning 97 percent.

A problem as important as anything Obama is doing or not doing is that Palestinian perspectives are only permitted into the discussion 3 percent of the time. When that fraction is included, it’s often on the fifth of five pages like in this instance. An even bigger travesty is that this is passed off as some sort of balanced presentation of views. One has to wonder what kind of effort was made to speak to Palestinians at all. It seems that Ben Smith swallowed the Israeli propaganda hook, line and sinker, and reproduced it in this article.

In fact, Smith regurgitates the Israeli talking point that a settlement freeze was “Obama’s demand," which promotes the misconception that the Israelis would love a now right-leaning American electorate to accept; that Obama has a personal problem with Israel. The reality is, of course, that a settlement freeze is an Israeli obligation under international law and that the Israeli government accepted this as a first phase obligation under President Bush’s Road Map in 2003. These pertinent facts don’t make it into Smith’s article. Neither does the important reality of colonial expansion around Jerusalem, separating it from the rest of the West Bank.

The mistake Obama’s Middle East team made with Israel was not that it focused on settlements; rather, it was thinking that the Israelis would stop building these illegal colonies if the United States just asked politely. By failing to change Israeli incentives, the United States only emboldened Israel’s colonial drive. This continues today as the U.S. is now begging the Israelis to abide by their own obligations, instead of forcing them to, through billions of dollars worth of F-35s.

Nothing says “we encourage you to make peace with your neighbors” like a shipment of destructive weapons.

This isn’t advance international relations, folks. It isn’t even politics 101. If you want your child to do his homework (which is for their own good anyway) you don’t reward them with goodies each time they don’t do it.

read more...

US Policy toward Israel: From ineffective to absurd

“They’ll work out a deal.” That was the refrain from the so-called insiders on how the parties would get past the looming Sept. 26th settlement freeze deadline when direct negotiations started again in early September. Needless to say, they didn’t work out a deal and here we are at the most familiar of places. Negotiations are stalemated as Israel continues to expand its colonial enterprise in the West Bank.

It should be said that this is exactly where we were headed. For reasons unexplained, and perhaps unexplainable, the Obama administration thought that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu would simply respond to their request to extend a settlement freeze as stated in President Obama’s United Nations General Assembly speech. But such logic would only make sense in a world where the United States had credibility in the eyes of Israeli decision makers. Clearly, it does not.

And is anyone really surprised? Remember, this is the same Israeli Prime Minister that claimed on video that he single-handedly destroyed the Oslo process and that the United States was easy to manipulate. Could the United States have made him sound any more right? Remarkably, the answer is yes, if this recent bit of news is true. Thus far the White House has denied sending a letter to Netanyahu that would create preconditions that would certainly debilitate these talks as much as settlement construction.

It is also important to note that this information was disseminated by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s David Makovsky. WINEP is a creation of AIPAC and Dennis Ross, a key figure in Obama’s Middle East team, worked there and co-authored a book with Makovksy before joining the Obama White House. Alan Makovsky, David’s relative, used to work there too before leaving to join the staff of the House Foreign Affairs Committee where he plays an instrumental role in determining who briefs members of Congress at hearings. Since Alan left WINEP to go to the Hill and after Dems took control of Congress, Ross, Alan’s relative David and other members of the WINEP crew have been invited to more briefings before Congress on the Middle East/peace process than any other think tank/organization. Examples here , here , here , here , here , and here .

But let's assume for a moment that this isn't just AIPAC spin or a test balloon to gauge the fallout on the Israeli and Palestinian side of something they can't offer in official capacity. What if the White House actually did send this letter and make these promises to Netanyahu or is entertaining the thought?

If that is the case, it only underscores the fundamental inability of the United States to mediate the resolution of this conflict. The whole reason we are dealing with this settlement freeze expiration mess now is because settlements where never frozen 43 years ago when they started to be built in the West Bank. Nor were they frozen in 1978 when Herbert Hansell, a White House Special Counsel, clarified that the position of the United States was that settlements were illegal. Nor were they frozen in 1991 when the United States started to get tough on Shamir's government but never followed through. Nor were they frozen at the start of the Oslo accords or when the Oslo process fell apart. Nor where they frozen even when Israel accepted the Road Map which obligated them to freeze them in 2003.

Settlements never stopped because the United States, the only nation with realistic leverage over Israel, never took the steps necessary to stop them. The closest the United States got to stopping settlements was when George Bush senior conditioned aid to Israel. Since then, the U.S. has only offered Israel carrots. And when Israel fails to comply with its obligations, the U.S. offers carrots. And when Israel kicks the barrel out from under the U.S. and insults the U.S., the U.S. offers carrots. If Israel were a person, their skin would be orange from all the carrots they have been offered.

Obama needs to make clear that settlement activity should end BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL. Not because it is problematic for the peace process at this time, but all the time. If the United States wants to be taken seriously, it has to act seriously and can't mince words on settlements. They can't simultaneously oppose settlements in statements and support them tacitly and through tax dollars.

If Obama does as is suggested by the news of the letter to Netanyahu, he would be rewarding Israel's illegal activity and encouraging them to renege on obligations into the future.

But if instead Obama came out and said that all settlement construction must stop permanently and the United States is prepared to take decisive punitive economic and diplomatic actions to see this through, he will recapture the faith of Palestinians and, for the first time, garner the respect of Israeli politicians who think the United States is easy to manipulate.

read more...

To Unfreeze or Not to Unfreeze?

Today, President Barack Obama repeated his call on Israel to extend its partial, nine-month moratorium on its illegal settlement building in the West Bank.

Obama used his address at the UN General Assembly in New York to stress the importance of settlement freeze for the on-going talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders:

Israel’s settlements moratorium has made a difference on the ground, and improved the atmosphere for talks. Our position on this issue is well known: we believe that the moratorium should be extended.

Though this was echoed by the Quartet's diplomats, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas indicated to a meeting of American Jewish leaders that an end to settlement freeze wouldn’t necessarily bring to an end the talks, according to a Jerusalem Post report. If this report is accurate, it would be a departure from his prior position, which effectively conditioned progress in the talks on a continued moratorium.

A labourer walks through a construction site in the West Bank settlement of Elazar. Photograph: Baz Ratner/Reuters

It would move the Palestinians closer to the Israeli position. Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon suggested that his government disagreed with the view that ending the settlement construction freeze threatened the talks.

"Settlements have never been an issue, because once we agree on borders everything will be obvious. So let's concentrate on the real issues and not just put the obstacle in the settlements," he said to reporters at the UN.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed the idea of extending the freeze, though he suggested construction would be limited to the major settlement blocs.

Earlier in the day, Palestinian Authority spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina said the next 10 days would be "decisive and determine the fate of the direct negotiations".

"There is a very large international effort made to overcome the obstacles in the way of direct negotiations. In particular, the obstacle of the settlements."

If the Jerusalem Post report is accurate and the PA has shifted course in this demand, it would be a tremendous break from Palestinian public opinion. In one recent poll, 82% of Palestinians "rejected" direct talks while Israel continues to build up the settlements. Only 15% supported it.

Though American and international observers laud the freeze as an important step, it should be noted that it was always partial, as Peace Now noted: "work continued on 600 housing units, of which 492 were in violation of the moratorium. Work has continued on some 2,000 homes, in many cases because builders rushed to start projects before the freeze took effect."

As cynical as Palestinians are about the freeze, a change in the Palestinian stance would be a politically untenable position, especially in light of the land grab and vast expansion of Israel's colonial project during the Oslo period.

Despite Ayalon's dismissal of the issue, settlement construction is seen by Palestinians as Israel's purposeful changing of the facts on the ground. This changes the negotiating positions of the parties and directly impacts the discussion of borders, as much as Israelis claim to be willing to abandon settlements.

As the settlement freeze deadline nears and the question of an extension continues at the fore, the Palestine Center is hosting and event on Tuesday on this precise subject. The event, "The Settlement Freeze and the Peace Process Freeze," will feature Michelle Dunne, Senior Associate, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the editor of the Arab Reform Bulletin. Joining her will be Daniel Levy, the Senior Research Fellow, American Strategy Program.

If you can attend the event, make sure to RSVP. If you cannot, you can watch it webcast live.

read more...

Can the United States Prevent the Next Intifada?

In one month, we will reach the decade anniversary of the start of the last intifada. Shortly after the collapse of talks, and in the face of Israeli settler-colonialism, it only took a provocation from an ambitious politician, aspiring leader Ariel Sharon, who visited the Haram Al-Sharif with a legion of armed guards in tow, to launch a spate of fighting that left thousands, mostly Palestinians, dead. Ten years later, the pressure of Israel's occupation on the Palestinian population is greater, and the hope of a two state solution is still dim.

Israel's Program

The slow movement of Israel's long-term project to change the "facts on the ground" through geo-demographic engineering has created a high pressure situation that can explode at any minute. If the United States is serious about engaging in peace talks, it must find ways to check Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s agenda. It would have to surpass the current settlement freeze, which has done little to prevent escalating tensions. However, the United States has not shown an ability to conjure nor use political leverage against Israel where it is needed most - at severely scaling back the occupation. This calls into question the potential for a positive outcome in talks and only highlights a troubling context that can very easily cascade into something far worse.

This Netanyahu government is more than glad to use overt and latent force to further settler-colonial aims via expansion into Palestinian areas. Israel's use of construction of Jewish areas, and the building of roads, walls and even a train to further separate them, and extract more territory, from the Palestinians, is one menacing dynamic. The other is the destruction of Palestinian residences and further seclusion of what Israel treats as its expendable non-Jewish, occupied subjects. In tandem, these complementary patterns of Israeli policies and practices are building up a reservoir of rage amongst a people long overdue a solution.

Besides the machinations of the state, Palestinians suffer from the rise of a militant and aggressive class of settlers who employ violent self-help, such as armed intimidation, to assert their proprietorship over land in the occupied territories. Their anti-Palestinian violence is often tolerated by complicit Israeli authorities who are sympathetic to their ideological aims and consider them brethren.

The weight of state policies and rabid settlers has only barely been relieved by token gestures of goodwill by the occupation authorities. For example, in the past year, Israel removed roughly 20% of the West Bank checkpoints that obstruct internal Palestinian mobility. Still, more than 500 remain.

Each announcement of Israeli goodwill gestures involving checkpoint removals may ease life for some and boost an economy already ravaged by Israel’s policies, but they are a grim reminder of remaining Israeli prohibitions faced by Palestinians everywhere. Thus when Israel, in 2009, made a US-induced effort to remove large checkpoints and roadblocks between Ramallah and Nablus, near Jericho, and Tulkarem, it only begged the question about why any Israeli restrictions on Palestinian internal movement exists.

The geography of these restrictions, which fall in every shrinking pieces of the West Bank, are also testament to the ghettoization of Palestinians into pockets of their own land.

That so fundamental a right as the freedom of movement is granted as a goodwill gesture speaks to the general state of depravity that typifies Israel’s occupation. Can Palestinians really be expected to translate incremental compliance with basic human rights standards into a greater tolerance for the Israeli occupation or a belief in Israel's willingness to part with the occupation? In other words, the steam keeps building up, and the concessions won by the United States will prove to be less than adequate drivers of the Obama administration’s political agenda. At this point, the big idea of two states side-by-side as a solution outcome requires much bigger moves than the United States can muster,

Other Factors and the Imminent Spark

The divided and increasingly repressive Palestinian leadership in Gaza and the West Bank is matched by the obvious futility of outside actors such as the United States, Europe and Arab states to reign in Israeli excesses. Palestinian Authority affiliates broke up a meeting of Palestinian dissidents critical of the direct talks. That such a silencing campaign is undertaken to defend a process few have faith in and many question the legitimacy of, only adds to the mounting frustration and anger.

With such a tinderbox matched by systematic political inaction, it only takes one small spark to ignite a seemingly exhausted Palestinian population. There are daily incidents of Israeli abuses. Any one of them could send the population off against the occupation forces.

Today saw just one of the many potential sparks. The Israeli border police fired rubber-coated bullets and tear gas canisters at rioting Palestinians in the Silwan neighborhood of East Jerusalem. The site of Israeli home demolitions and protests in June, Silwan’s tensions were this time lit by settlers who stormed Al-Ein mosque. The settlers denied they entered the mosque. Palestinians have been worried since four Palestinians mosques have been vandalized or attacked in the past year. This did not grow into a larger fight, but the next incident could very easily.

The previous intifada, which began only 13 years prior, was sparked when an Israeli army tank vehicle ran into a group of Palestinians, killing four and injuring more. Systematic frustrations at the very same policies Israel carries out today were at the root.

Uprisings are the natural and logical human response to any externally imposed system of domination. It is far more necessary to address as the root cause this legacy of domination, rather than the rebellion against it. Otherwise, we are doomed to a never-ending sequence of attacks, arrests and dispossessions, and an almost as aggravating cycle of poisonous talks.

The Big Picture

Sadly, the United States cannot or will not induce Israel to take the necessary step of ending its settler-colonial agenda, a deeply ingrained ideological impetus. The main reason is that it has been a project taken-for-granted by Israeli policymakers and influential American thinkers and officials. Thus a demilitarized semi-sovereign “state” is the best outcome up for grabs in the current framework. Perhaps such an agreement would temporarily halt the growing pressure cooker. Only later it would become clear that imbalanced negotiations produced an only wishful statehood. Palestine would be an appendage state. But even this type of outcome, as unsustainable as it would be, is still politically miles away.

Overarching Israeli power and its alliance with the mediator of the talks, the United States, have given way to a cynical and hopelessly repetitive industry of negotiations. In the skewed universe of “direct talks,” simple adjustments to Israel’s authoritarian administration of the Palestinian people are really considered acts of goodwill, as compromise, while the obvious patterns of Israeli encroachment are left to be endlessly negotiated for.

Token goodwill measures are meant to curry favor in a bombarded Palestinian public opinion which has for over two decades seen little, and grown to expect little, of negotiations. They are meant to show the United States can mediate and provide “deliverables” against the Israeli agenda. They also are meant to show the United States means business when it comes to the Israel-Arab conflict, as it’s termed. Of course, the United States is hyper-sensitive to the Israeli side, no matter how far it transgresses neutral standards such as international law. Merely tinkering with the occupation, an inherent evil, rather beginning to disassemble it is indicative of the superficiality and inherent partisanship of the United States. And this is why failure, and more uprisings, are imminent.

When this round of talks eventually ends, and violence and bloodshed descend again, Israel and its settlers will continue on their violent way, hoping to blame the occupied. The United States will nod and help manufacture such fictions as Palestinians rejecting the “most generous offers.” This will conveniently deny the fundamental flaw of American custodianship on this issue: its inability to really halt the project of Zionism or even erode the occupation.

The starting point for the United States, if it really means business, is to form a global coalition of states and forces who will root out the occupation first. At this stage, any other approach will be more of the same. Given the problem of domestic politics, it is not likely the United States can even accomplish what it needs to do in order to reach its own stated objectives of a two-state solution.

One positive consequence is that the inconsequential collapse of these talks will further embolden organic forces for peace among Israelis, Palestinians and foreigners who have alternative future visions based on higher ideals than separatism and inequality. When states fail to correct injustices or only make matters worse through flawed interventions, people power can emerge with the solution, even if this only happens rarely. This particular conflict is ripe for a new framework and is well-suited to be such a historical example of non-state resolution. It's a geographically, religiously and politically central global issue. People from all over the world are learning about it and taking action. This holds more promise than do these talks.

read more...

NYT Editorial Gets It Wrong

An editorial in this morning's New York Times entitled "President Abbas and Peace Talks" gets it wrong again and more often than not simply toes the Israeli line in the debate. The commentary below breaks down precisely what is lacing in the discussion around this issue in the mainstream media today.

The NY Times writes:

Making peace between Israelis and Palestinians is somewhat like solving a Rubik’s Cube. You get one colored square lined up but the next one just won’t fall into place. So it is now. After three months of American-mediated proximity talks, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has agreed to direct negotiations on a two-state solution; the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, is stubbornly resisting. It is time for him to talk.

Yeah. Somewhat like solving a Rubik's cube. Except in a Rubik's cube there is an equal balance of power between all colors and the mediator who is turning the cube isn't beholden to one color over the other as the US is beholden to Israeli interests. Again, the NYT repeats the Israeli mantra that the Israeli's are agreeing to talks and the "stubborn" Palestinians are resisting. But wait, the next paragraph give us some insight into why Mr. Abbas is being "stubborn".

There are understandable reasons for Mr. Abbas’s reluctance. We also don’t know whether Mr. Netanyahu, a master manipulator, really wants a deal or whether his hard-line governing coalition would ever let him make one. The proximity talks — the American envoy, George Mitchell, is shuttling again this week between Jerusalem and Ramallah — don’t seem to be getting very far, although there were hints of movement on Tuesday.

Ah ha, "understandable reasons". Ok, what are they? None mentioned. How about the simple and irrefutable fact that in the course of the now two-decade old peace process that was supposed to result in a Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, the Israelis have continued to build and expand illegal Israeli settlements, doubling the number of settlers in occupied territory since 1990. Sadly, this didn't make the cut into the NYT editorial. But I suppose, beyond the "understandable reasons" that Abbas has (which the NYT doesn't want to share) there maybe other reasons he is skeptical.

Mr. Abbas also is wary of Washington. After Mr. Obama demanded in 2009 that Mr. Netanyahu halt all settlement construction as a prelude to negotiations, Mr. Abbas did the same.

That wary old Abbas doesn't trust Washington. From reading this paragraph you'd think that the genesis of Abbas's distrust for Washington is in Obama's call for a settlement freeze. Perhaps the NYT Editorial Board thinks it would be a waste of page space to mention that the US has been calling for an end to settlements for 40 years and has viewed them as illegal. Despite this, the US has rarely done anything of any significance to change Israeli behavior and has instead only supported it by providing significant economic, military and diplomatic aid year after year.

When Mr. Netanyahu forced Mr. Obama to back down and the Israeli leader implemented a more limited and temporary building halt, Mr. Abbas was left clinging to the maximalist position. There are compelling reasons for Mr. Abbas to act, too.

Here we go again. Abbas got himself stuck up a tree. No mention, of course, that a settlement freeze is not a new demand but was part of the Road Map implemented but never enforced by President Bush in 2003.

First, Mr. Obama correctly sees a peace deal as a factor in wider regional stability. He invested lots of political capital in a justified but poorly executed attempt to push the Palestinian position by playing hardball with Israel on settlements.

Hardball? They NYT editorial board should quit their Sunday softball games and make it out to Yankee Stadium once in a while. Their concept of "hardball" is definitely lacking. Obama asked Netanyahu, repeatedly, to simply fulfill his obligations under international law. As Richard Falk put it, Obama's asking Netanyahu to temporarily stop building illegal settlements is the "equivalent to telling a bank robber, 'stop robbing banks for two weeks'". What sort of leverage did Obama apply while playing "hardball"? Well, the administration said they were "insulted" by the announcement of more new settlements when Vice President Biden was in Jerusalem. Also, the President's following meeting with Netanyahu didn't include a photo op. Careful, if you blink, you might miss that hard fastball (probably cause it was never thrown)!

The last time the US was able to get Israel to slow settlement building in occupied territory was when George H.W. Bush's administration conditioned economic aid to Israel. In the spectrum of methods of leverage, that would still be minor league play. But when it comes to Israel, for the NYT, simply asking politely and withholding a photo-op is "hardball".

It caused tensions with Mr. Netanyahu and with American Jews. He is pressing hard for direct talks and aides say he is losing patience with Mr. Abbas. It would be foolish for the Palestinian leader to alienate an American president who is committed to playing a more balanced role in negotiations.

Abbas does not want to alienate an American president who is committed to playing a more balanced role in negotiations. If Abbas finds that American president, he'd likely be more willing. But it is precisely because Obama's softball approach "caused tensions with Mr. Netanyahu and with American Jews" that Abbas seriously doubts Obama is able to deliver even if he is personally committed. Obama's recent reversal and kiss-and-make-up session with Netanyahu furthers Abbas' skepticism. The fact that support for Israel is becoming a campaign issue used against Obama's reeling party in an election year is also making Abbas less confident.

Second, Mr. Abbas has the backing of the Arab League, including crucial states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Last month, the group formally gave him a green light — important political cover — to enter direct talks. They need to press Mr. Abbas to move now. They should be prepared to increase aid to the Palestinian government and take steps, like opening trade offices, that will boost Israel’s confidence in a peace agreement.

Most readers do not realize that as the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization Mahmoud Abbas is recognized by the Arab League as the 'sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people' when it comes to negotiations. This comes from an Arab League decision from 1974. That Abbas, more than four decades later, goes back to the Arab League for "political cover" speaks more to his lack of legitimacy as a Palestinian negotiator than to the contrary. Of course, in the mainstream American media, the problem of domestic politics only seems to matter on the Israeli side.

Finally, Mr. Netanyahu’s moratorium on settlement construction expires on Sept. 26. If direct talks are under way, he should have no excuse to resume building. If there are no talks, Mr. Abbas will give him an escape hatch.

Which settlement moratorium is this? The one that has been violated 492 times. The notion that Netanyahu should have an excuse to continue breaking international law, because he temporarily stopped breaking international law for 10 months (with 492 exceptions or 1.64 exceptions per day on average) requires a type of logic that is so twisted and immoral that it belongs somewhere in the fine print of a credit card agreement designed to bankrupt the cardholder.

Mr. Abbas no doubt is worried that the Palestinians will be blamed if negotiations fail and that Mr. Netanyahu will use the process to give the illusion of progress while never addressing Palestinian concerns about borders, security, refugees and the future of Jerusalem. Mr. Obama must be ready to point fingers when needed and put forward his own proposals if progress lags.

And Mr. Abbas can rely on the Americans to point fingers at the Israelis if they balk. Just as Dennis Ross did after Camp David in 2000, oh wait, never mind, he was too busy acting as Israel's lawyer. It's a good thing he isn't involved in this administration's Middle East policy. Oh, wait, never mind....again.

The constant worry is that direct talks will devolve into recriminations and new violence. But if Mr. Abbas is not at the table, there is no serious way of testing Mr. Netanyahu’s intentions and whether there is any real chance of peacefully achieving a Palestinian state. That is the prize Mr. Abbas may be able deliver and his rejectionist rivals — Hamas — cannot. Mr. Abbas, who has long advocated a negotiated two-state solution, is seriously wrong if he thinks his leverage — and the future of the Palestinians — is in staying on the sidelines.

No chance of testing Netanyahu's intentions? What distant planet do you have to be living on to look at the right-wing coalition government Netanyahu put together and not be able to decipher his intentions?

If Abbas does not enter direct talks it's not because he doesn't want to test Netanyahu, its because the results of the test came in on Netanyahu long ago (If you have any doubts, see the video here). The results on Obama came in this year as well. Neither passed.

read more...

The George Mitchell Shuffle

In the first report after the meeting, it appears the US Middle East envoy George Mitchell failed to obtain agreement from the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on direct talks with Israel.
Despite American President Barack Obama's stated intent to resume talks by September, before Israel's agreed partial, and only half-enforced, settlement building moratorium lapses, Mitchell seems no closer to bringing the parties to the table.

Some observers took Mitchell's trip, along with comments Abbas made about external pressures for peace, as potential signs of an opening in the Palestinian position. A U.S. State Department spokesman believed that what the envoy needed to accomplish on this trip "can be done with rather quick meetings with both."

It is not apparent Mitchell achieved much of anything yet, according to public statements after the meeting with Abbas today.

Recognizing the potential political suicide of negotiations without preconditions with an aggressive and ideologically entrenched Netanyahu government, Abbas wants to first establish an agreement on a framework, agenda and timeline of 24 months. The terms of reference would include what is being negotiated over: a Palestinian state with the 1967 lines as borders, and including East Jerusalem and Jordan Valley, which Israeli policies and construction have aimed at detaching. And a settlement freeze would be another precondition, a logical one given the experience of Oslo: Israel negotiated over land as it actively colonized it.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks open-ended talks without any conditions whatsoever -- to negotiate from scratch and without regard to Palestinian rights enshrined in international law.

Palestinian representatives from numerous factions warned Abbas against agreeing to American terms on a return to talks. They said it would be a ruse "to cover up for its practices, including the Judaization of Jerusalem, continued settlement construction and the completion of the racist separation fence."

They also warned that talks under the US administration would "save Israel from the international campaign of boycott and condemnation."

The statement from leaders outside of the PA also said, "We refuse to enter direct talks without agreement on the terms of reference, a timetable and a mechanism for implementing [an agreement]. We also demand an active international role and US assurances, as well as an Israeli commitment to abide by international law and United Nations resolutions."

After George Mitchell met Abbas today, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, said there was "no agreement yet."

Mitchell is set to meet with Israeli leaders on Wednesday. He is equally likely to get no concessions from the Israelis. And the American position, despite Israeli transgressions and international opprobrium, will be one of passivity and thumb-twirling. American standing in the region will remain low thanks in large part to its discredited backing of a deeply unpopular Israeli regime. And the dance will go on.

read more...

Can the Israeli Public Like Obama More than Bibi and Back Settlement-Building?

One of the three polls of Israeli public opinion released today suggest that Israelis are overall favorable towards U.S. President Barack Obama, despite the apparent tensions between the U.S. government and Israel over the issue of settlement construction in east Jerusalem.

The three polls released Friday suggest that Israelis have mixed feelings towards their leader, while they tend to support settlement construction.

According to ABC News:

Thirty-six percent of those questioned for one poll thought Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was best suited to lead Israel, versus 26 percent for his closest challenger, opposition leader Tzipi Livni. But another poll showed Livni's Kadima Party would overtake Netanyahu's Likud by a wider margin if elections were held today.

Despite the apparent edge President Obama seems to have in the polls, they also found that a majority of Israelis supported continued construction in Jerusalem, the issue at the heart of the U.S.-Israeli disagreement. Support ranged from 48 percent in one poll to 70 percent in another.

If this is in fact true, one explanation is that Israelis who support settlement-building do not care so strongly that they evaluate leaders based solely on their positions towards it. Another explanation could be that they simply do not think President Obama is really so opposed to settlement construction; perhaps they just rationalize it as him giving a nod to the Palestinians and do not think he will actually do much to stop them.

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...

BRIEF: The Perpetual Process for Impossible Peace

Palestine Center Brief No. 190 (15 January 2010)

Policy Brief

By Yousef Munayyer

In 1988, on a trip to Yugoslavia, Yasser Arafat the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was asked by a reporter if he believed there would be a Palestinian state in five years. His response "If God is willing, it will be within two years".

Twenty-two years later, Arafat has been dead for five years, the oval office has seen four new presidents, the Israelis had seven new prime ministers, Yugoslavia disintegrated into six republics, Pluto is no longer a planet and yet, according to the Obama administration's Special Envoy George Mitchell, we are still but two years away from a Palestinian state.

The peace seems lost in the process. After the Oslo Accords, a timeline was set and never met. After the road map, a timeline was set and never met. On several occasions, leaders repeated a one, two, three or four year time-table as if it were part of the instructions on the back of a box of Insta-State mix. We heard this in 2002 in the Rose Garden, with the Road Map in 2003, after Arafat in 2004, after Annapolis in 2007 and after Fayyad's plan in mid-2009.

Please pardon the Arab world, the Israelis and everyone else on the face of the earth if they no longer take these initiatives seriously. As the U.S. continued to cry wolf, Israel only perpetuated its colonization of Palestinian land. Time-tables were reset, the oasis of a Palestinian state moved even further away and another generation is born into occupation.

What's missing is the use of real American leverage over Israel. Let's not forget that the United States is a superpower, and it is not unrealistic to think that it could use its leverage over Israel to make it comply with international law and end its occupation. If the United States was trying to leverage any comparable country to follow a certain path, it would not take two decades.

At the crux of the problem is the fact that the United States has been reluctant to pull the levers at its disposal to influence the Israelis to end the occupation. Recently, the Saudi foreign minister said that Israel is treated like a spoiled child. He is right, except I would add that this spoiled child is something like Chucky out of the movie Child's Play. Israel is a well-armed nuclear power, with no undeterred threats, maintaining an occupation over 4-5 million Palestinians. The United States has continued to provide allowance money for Israel to buy American weapons and build more settlements in defiance of declared American policy, in addition to an omnipresent veto against any attempts to restrain Israel's behavior in the international arena.

If anyone is to take the process seriously, there needs to be an immediate and abrupt change in the flow of this hypnotic process. Everyone is locked into a perpetual cycle of delayed time-lines and endless negotiations and setbacks. The U.S. has always had two options for getting the message across to the Israelis that it's been reluctant to take. The first is ending arms sales to Israel. The second is the threat to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders by a specific time regardless to what transpires before then.

The U.S's "special relationship" with Israel has always stood in the way of taking these necessary steps and that leaves Palestinians with only one conclusion; the peace process is a façade.

After 9/11 it became clear that resentment of American support for Israeli occupation motivated some in the Arab and Muslim world to radicalize and convinced some policy makers that Israeli-Palestinian peace is in the U.S.'s interest. But if Washington thinks that they can placate public opinion in the Arab and Muslim world by being semi-engaged in a never ending on-again off-again process, while providing the weapons to Israel that ultimately kill Palestinian civilians, they are tragically mistaken.

Very few people have faith left in this process and many never did. The Arab public has grown tired, not only of the United States' support for what they see as its deranged, spoiled off-spring, but they have also grown tired of their own leaders, many of whom are thought to be more loyal to their American backers than the people they govern.

I'm going to go out on a limb here. Based on recent history, I wouldn't be betting on a Palestinian state in 2012.

Yousef Munayyer is Executive Director of the Palestine Center. This policy brief may be used without permission but with proper attribution to the Center.

The views in this brief are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Jerusalem Fund.

read more...

The Paucity of Hope

Palestine Center Brief No. 186 (25 November 2009)

By Yousef Munayyer

Ibrahim Abu Jayyab, 23, was a big Barack Obama supporter and during the election campaign he spent hours phone-banking for him. However, unlike some of Ibrahim's Palestinian-American counterparts, he was calling from Gaza, dialing internationally to American households, urging votes for Obama.

Today, a year since the election, prospects for "hope and change" coming to the people of Palestine have all but vanished. Despite fifteen years of talk of creating a Palestinian state, Palestinians have seen only increased illegal Israeli colonization of the land that was supposed to be their future state. A devastating assault on Gaza which left over 1,400 people, mostly civilians dead, was the culmination of eight years of failed George W. Bush administration policy. Still, you cannot blame Ibrahim and his fellow Palestinians for being hopeful when Barack Obama first took office.

Things could not seem worse during the Bush administration for the Palestinians, so Obama was an improvement before his first day in office. Many Palestinians felt President Obama would carry out an evenhanded policy for the first time. His lofty and populist rhetoric during the campaign resonated with a people long trying to appeal to a sense of international equality and justice. Despite failed peace efforts and a heinous attack on an already suffocated Gaza, many still remained hopeful.

However, the only real change taking place since Obama's election is Israel's continued illegal geographic expansion in the West Bank and increased defiance of international law. Israel continues unchecked settlement expansion and evicting scores of Palestinians and demolishing their houses in Jerusalem, defying their obligations under the 2003 Road Map for Peace.

Factually, there is little change between the Bush and Obama administrations' approaches to the peace process. Both administrations have failed to enforce Israel's obligations under the Road Map. Furthermore, the Obama administration has adopted the Bush administration's failed and flawed policy of supporting one Palestinian faction against the other, rather than unite them under a common theme of mutual interest.

Despite repeated requests from the Obama administration for Israel to stop colonizing Palestinian land, the colonization continues unabated. Israel's Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has openly defied and publicly ridiculed U.S. policy.

Yesterday, Israel announced the expansion of yet another illegal settlement. The Obama administration's response was a toothless statement expressing "dismay". The failure of successive U.S. administrations to increase political and financial pressure on Israel for violations of international law and U.S. policy has led to a West Bank littered with Israeli settlements and only emboldened the Israeli government to defy us further. Even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has put what little domestic legitimacy he had left on the line to participate in fruitless negotiations, said yesterday that Obama is "doing nothing" to advance the peace-process right now.

Today the effect of this, especially at this moment in history, is devastating. Palestinians were at the brink after the attacks on Gaza and the only thing that brought them back from the edge was optimism about the future. The focus now has returned to the pain of Gaza and years of wasted time invested in a process that has only resulted in dispossession of the Palestinian people.

There is a communication gap between the U.S., Israel and the Palestinians when defining the goal of a "peace process". Palestinians, and most of the world, believed the goal was to end the illegal occupation that started in 1967, creating a state in that territory for Palestinians which would ultimately lead to peace in the region. However, Israel's actions continue to defy that goal. The Israeli government's continued apartheid-styled occupation jokingly refers to a "piece process" as it continues to carve up Palestinian land one piece at a time. The world is not laughing.

The United States must immediately define to Israel and the Palestinians clear goals with specific and reasonable time tables enforced with tough political and financial repercussions for any party that fails to follow obligations.

Palestinian youth are unlikely to dedicate time to volunteer for President Obama's re-election and, the way things are going, are unlikely to be living in a free and independent state of Palestine by that time either. The future of the next generation of Palestinians, their ambitions, hopes and desires reflect our policies. So far, these policies have been hopeless.

Yousef Munayyer is Executive Director of the Palestine Center. This policy brief may be used without permission but with proper attribution to the Center.

The views in this brief are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Jerusalem Fund.

read more...

Yousef Munayyer, Palestine Center Executive Director, on Russia Today

Last night, Yousef Munayyer, the Palestine Center Executive Director, appeared on "Crosstalk" a program on Russia Today to discuss the prospects of Palestinian statehood along with three other guests.

read more...

BRIEF: Whatever Bibi Wants, Bibi Gets

Will the real Barack Obama please stand up to Israel?

Palestine Center Brief No. 184 (21 October 2009)

This was originally published on Foreignpolicy.com

By Yousef Munayyer

Barack Obama is a rookie. At least, this is what the Israeli prime minister seems to think. So far, Benjamin Netanyahu has been able to maximize his gains at the expense of the U.S. president and the Palestinians while solidifying his own position in the process.

Consider last month's trilateral meeting on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly. After months of tough and very public statements by top U.S. officials, Netanyahu was able to get the leader of the free world to concede on a settlement freeze and gave nothing in return. For Israeli hawks and their allies in the United States, this was a victory. But it did not come without costs, even leaving aside the effect on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's domestic popularity. Heads of state around the world paid attention, and surely some of them thought of Obama: This man is a pushover.

It would be a mistake to think that this was the first instance in which Netanyahu was able to manipulate a political situation in his favor. In fact, Netanyahu has been playing Obama and the Palestinians like a fiddle because he understands an important axiom of international relations: domestic politics matter.

After his election, Netanyahu formed an Israeli coalition opposed to a two-state solution and supporting the expansion of colonial settlements. This brought him into open confrontation with Obama, who said he did not recognize the legitimacy of further Israeli settlements.

At their spring meeting in Washington, it became clear that the two men were already at loggerheads. When Obama again pressed him on halting settlement expansion, Netanyahu diverted the discussion by highlighting the Iranian threat and Palestinian "incitement" against Israel.

Shortly thereafter, Obama met with Abbas and seems to have sent the Palestinian leader back to Ramallah with two contradictory messages. First, he must have impressed upon Abbas the need to quell the "incitement" that Netanyahu was talking about. Second, he must have urged Abbas to cooperate with U.S.-supported Egyptian efforts to broker reconciliation between rival factions Hamas and Abbas's Fatah.

When Abbas returned to Ramallah, his U.S.-supported security services stepped up a campaign of arrests of Hamas affiliates in the West Bank, while negotiators in Cairo attempted to bring the sides together. An agreement to end the stalemate that should have been signed in June has been delayed repeatedly.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu was taking a page from the playbook of colonialists of old by seeking to divide and rule. Once Abbas was done flexing muscle in the West Bank and some Hamas affiliates were released from Palestinian Authority prisons, it was time once again to tip the scales, this time in Hamas's favor.

Not only did Netanyahu get Obama to back down on a settlement freeze as a precondition to talks, but he also got Abbas to agree to quash the Goldstone report that alleged war crimes against Israel for its attacks on Gaza.

Why would Netanyahu care whether such a report moved forward in the U.N. system? Israel has never paid attention to the United Nations, and any meaningful condemnation of Israel in the international organization has consistently met a U.S. veto.

Netanyahu knew that if Abbas's representative in Geneva didn't put forward the Goldstone report, this decision could be exploited to expand the gap between Hamas and Fatah at a critical juncture. He is well aware of each Palestinian party's distrust for the other and of their ongoing struggle to solidify their positions as rulers of their respective fiefdoms in the West Bank and Gaza.

At the same time, in an unprecedented move, Netanyahu approved the release of 20 female Palestinian political prisoners in exchange for a videotape of one captured Israeli soldier. It may have seemed like a lousy deal, but not if you understand Netanyahu's intention: strengthening Hamas's hand against Fatah.

Indeed, Netanyahu has successfully played Fatah against Hamas, and vice versa, over the past few months, all while knowing that his U.S. counterpart is far too consumed with domestic politics to get involved in the Palestinian question beyond a photo opportunity.

Meanwhile, he has been able to hold together his right-wing coalition and keep his constituency happy by delaying meaningful negotiations. Despite the harshest words to come from a U.S. president on the issue of settlements in recent history, Netanyahu continues their expansion and allows the ethnic cleansing of Arab East Jerusalem through home demolition to continue.

The question that remains is this: Will Obama continue to allow Netanyahu to dictate the future of the Palestinians, or will the U.S. president put his foot down and be the leader most of the world is hoping he will be?

Yousef Munayyer is Executive Director of the Palestine Center. This policy brief may be used with proper attribution to Foreignpolicy.com.

The views in this brief are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Jerusalem Fund.

read more...