What about "defensible borders" for Palestine?

When President Obama outlined his not so new vision for peace in the Middle East by saying the 1967 lines should be the baseline for territorial negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, a rather ridiculous debate ensued with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu maintaining that the 1967 lines were "indefensible."

The debate featured an overtly Zionist narrative with the more hawkish end of the spectrum arguing that the '67 lines were not defensible for a variety of reasons, while others argued otherwise. I don't intend to engage this debate, rather, this is a starting point to underscore just how absurd the mainstream debate about the larger issue really is.

Let's take a look at what President Obama said (emphasis mine):

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. 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. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -– by itself -– against any threat. 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.

There is plenty to discuss here but the fundamental problem lies in the contrast apparent in the first sentence of the quote: viable vs. secure.

The proposed outcome of American-led negotiations has always been a Palestinians state that is inferior - by design - to its Israeli neighbor. If the mediation was carried out in good faith, we'd be hearing about a secure Palestinian state living side-by-side with a secure Israeli state, but we are not. Instead, the American-led process is facilitating Israeli domination of Palestine either during occupation or after any potential "peace" agreement. If Washington believes Israelis are entitled to security more than Palestinians (as the policy suggests), attempts at American mediation will continue to fail.

That's why the fact that this defensible border debate was even taking place was so absurd. Did anyone even ask if that border would be defensible for Palestine? Was the question even raised by any mainstream American journalists? Of course not. Because the United States constantly views this conflict through the prism of Israeli security instead of mutual security or human rights.

Let's recap a few basic points:

1. Israel occupies Palestine and not the other way around.

2. Israel has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, the states on it's longest borders.

3. Israel has one of the most advanced armies in the world with a vast arsenal of offensive weapons.

4. Israel has hundreds of Nuclear Weapons.

5. Per U.S. and Israeli demands, the proposed Palestinian state would have no military.

6. Israel has actively and aggressively colonized Palestinian territory through the use of force, not the other way around.

7. Israeli settlers have a history of aggressive violence against Palestinians and zealously covet Palestinian territory.

And yet, despite all of this, the debate continues to be about whether the '67 lines are defensible for Israel? The logic, if it can be called that, behind the genesis of this debate is that Israelis have legitimate security concerns and the Palestinians do not, therefore, the Palestinians will have to trust the Israelis not to threaten their demilitarized state, but the Israelis can't be expected to trust the Palestinians. The Israelis, the logic assumes, always have good intentions while the Palestinians do not. And if the Israelis ever use force, it must be out of legitimate self-defense and is never put in the context of occupation.

That American policy toward Palestine continues to be based in these flawed and clearly biased assumptions is only further proof that American-led negotiations will not yield a just peace, and that Palestinians have every reason to circumvent them.

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...

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...

Unprincipled Demands: Time to Treat Hamas and Likud Equally

The news broke today that Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a reconciliation, putting an end to a 4-year divide that has paralyzed Palestinian society on top of an already devastating Israeli occupation. There are so many questions that abound about what this means, whether it will last, and how it will impact relations with Israel and the United States, if at all. These are questions that will be asked several times over the next few days and weeks, and it may take much longer than that for any answers to become apparent.

But along with the discussion about the effect of this

reconciliation agreement will co me a common talking point that will be repeated ad nauseum. After the Palestinian legislative elections in 2006 which led to a Hamas dominated Palestinian Authority, the immediate reaction from Washington was rejection. Congress moved immediately to suspend any assistance to the PA since Hamas was now in the government. The policy and talking point became "Hamas cannot be accepted until it accepts the Quartet principles." The charter of Hamas was constantly referred to by Israeli officials and their supporters in the U.S. to point out that Hamas was by constitution incompatible with the Quartet principles.

The sanctions placed on the PA debilitated the government, and pressure from Washington and Israel ultimately led to a split between Fatah and Hamas. Once Hamas and Fatah split after a bloody fight in Gaza, money from Washington began to fill the Fatah-led, Ramallah-based PA coffers again.

So it should come as no surprise that Washington and Israel aren't pleased with today's news of reconciliation, and we should be prepared to hear many of the same characters repeating the same talking points from four years ago about Hamas needing to accept the Quartet principles.

I'm not a fan of Hamas' charter, and I think it has ultimately done them more harm than good, but I also fully understand their reluctance to accept the principles their PLO counterparts accepted at the beginning of the Oslo process which has proved to be a complete failure.

What are these three magic principles anyway?

1. Accepting Israel's right to exist.

2. Renouncing Violence

3. Endorsing Prior Agreements with Israel

Set aside for a moment the obvious problem: this would put Hamas in the same boat as the Fatah-led PA -- having accepted everything Israel wants while having no leverage and receiving nothing.

What I think is more important to point out, and should be pointed out to all the talking heads that blurt out the near automated "Just look at their charter. They won't accept Israel. They want to destroy Israel," is how ridiculously biased this requirement is.

Hamas is a Palestinian party that would be part of the Palestinian Authority, and thus, they want it to accept the Quartet principles to have a seat at the negotiating table. But shouldn't all players at the table have to play by the same rules? While the talking heads will quote you the Hamas Charter, they don't want you to see the Likud Charter. The Likud is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanayahu's party. In fact, the Likud charter does not comply with any of the principles. Instead of recognizing Palestine's right to exist, the Likud Charter states that the party "flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river." West of the Jordan river includes the West Bank and Gaza. In fact, when Likud and Netanyahu talk about a "two-state" solution, their charter indicates they are taking about a Palestinian state in Jordan.

And does their stance on Israeli colonies sound like it abides by these principles: "The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."

In fact by pledging to expand settlements, Likud pledges to violate the first phase of the Road Map whick the Knesset accepted in 2003. So it isn't keen on abiding by prior agreements either.

Is the Hamas charter a friendly document? No, not at all. But neither is Likud's charter. And the Likud Party is one of the least right-wing parties in the current Israeli government of uber-rightists. What Likud and Hamas have in common is that neither of their founding documents recognizes the other state's right to exist. The major difference between them is that Likud actually controls a government with the power and resources to act on that intention by literally creating facts on the ground like colonies and erasing what is left of Palestine.

So, will we be hearing officials in Washington threatening Israel with sanctions so long as Likud or other right wing parties are in their government? No, we won't. Instead Washington will continue to subsidize their colonization of Palestine and blame a stall in the 'peace process' on marginal actors that don't control enough power to really make a difference.

read more...

Palestinians not invited

When it comes to US-Israel relations, few people are more effected by the dynamics of this relationship than Palestinians. Billions of dollars in military equipment shipped from the United States to Israel most often ends up used against Palestinians. Seemingly endless American diplomatic support for Israel permits them to wantonly ignore international law at the expense of Palestinians and their land in occupied territory and refugee camps. Yet, when it comes to debating the US-Israel relationship and its implications, Palestinians are systematically excluded from the discussion.

This "debate" in the most recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine is a perfect example. FP magazine features a lengthy piece by Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Oren and, as ambassadors are supposed to do, he attempts to make his country (In case you are confused, Oren's country is Israel even though he was born in the United States. He gave up American citizenship to represent the Netanyahu government in Washington) look as good as possible. So while I disagree with most of what Oren had to say, I don't fault him for doing his job.

But the "rebuttals" that follow underscore irresponsibility on behalf of the editors. After publishing a lengthy piece filled with Israeli government spin, the FP editors invited Robert Satloff, Jeffery Goldberg, Aluf Benn, and Stephen Walt to respond. No Palestinians were invited.

Still, the debate is not only lacking because of the absence of Palestinian voices, it's horribly skewed in a pro-Israel direction. Stephen Walt, an American realist who is critical of the role of the Israel lobby in the United States is the only exception. Satloff, who heads the Washington Institute for Near East Affairs (a "please don't think"-tank created by the Pro-Israel lobby) writes in his "rebuttal" that Oren's essay is "powerful and trenchant" and "comes at precisely the right time." And his criticism of Oren? "If anything, Oren -- currently Israel's ambassador to the United States -- understates the case for Israel's value as a strategic asset to America."

Aluf Benn is an Israeli journalist, and while he argues that Israel's current policies do not match American values, he still agrees with Oren's assessment as a realist argument since "in international relations, however, interests and power calculations usually prevail over values and ideals." So while Benn criticizes Oren for overstating common US-Israeli values, he simultaneously and self-defeatingly argues values aren't really that important.

Jefferey Goldberg is another pro-Israel journalist who left the United States after college to volunteer for the Israeli Army and became a guard at an Israeli prison for Palestinian political prisoners from the West Bank and Gaza. More on that particular prison here. Perhaps it is because Goldberg has so often been criticized for flagrant pro-Israel bias that he tries to be critical of Michael Oren's piece in his rebuttal. He is clearly out of his comfort-zone and ultimately makes little sense.

Golberg writes (emphasis mine):

Israel's reputation is waning dramatically, and the Arab Spring will only accelerate this trend. The Arab revolts have inspired many Americans who will soon look at the West Bank and see unfree Arabs. Then they will look at who is suppressing these Arabs and see Israel; and then they will become confused by this because they have heard many times that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. And then they will ask, why is this so?

He goes on:

This is not an argument for a panicked withdrawal from the West Bank, nor an argument that a final peace is possible at the moment. It will be dangerous for Israel to leave large swaths of the West Bank, but it will be existentially dangerous to maintain control over large populations of Palestinians. One of the most obvious reasons is that Americans will, more and more, come to see the occupation the way Israel's enemies frame it: as an exercise in apartheid.

The lack of candor and insincerity in this piece is almost laughable. Goldberg tells us Americans are going to start noticing that Israel is not democratic because of all the Palestinians it occupies and then be confused because SOMEONE has been telling them that Israel is in fact a democracy. But who could that someone or group of someones be? Goldberg doesn't elaborate. I wonder why?

The first full sentence of Jefferey Goldberg's rebuttal to Michael Oren's piece: It is true that Israel is still the only stable democracy in the Middle East.

Goldberg, in his rebuttal to Oren, gladly repeats one of Oren's talking points which he then warns Americans will eventually realize is nonsense. The Israeli ambassador describes the situation this way in his piece: "While grappling with the challenges posed by its large Arab minority and, since the Six-Day War, the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel has remained the Middle East's only functional democracy."

Of course the challenges Oren is talking about is the existence of Palestinians who have no representation in the Israeli government in territory controlled by that government. In other words, IT IS NOT DEMOCRATIC AT ALL.

Still, somehow Americans got the impression, as Goldberg rightly points out, that despite the fact that half the people Israel controls have no representation in the Israeli government or are systematically marginalized because of their ethnicity, Israel is still a democracy.

Goldberg discusses this potential American awakening as if this fundamentally undemocratic state structure of Israel and its occupation has only just started recently. In fact, Israel has been controlling large swaths of Palestinian population without giving them representation or equal rights for over four decades.

If Americans begin to accept that what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is an "exercise in Apartheid" it will not be because "Israel's enemies" are framing it that way, it will be because that is the way it is in reality and has been for most of Goldberg's, Oren's and most Palestinians' lifetimes.

What is in fact changing is that Americans are realizing the the pro-Israel propaganda spouted by Israeli representatives and then regurgitated by the likes of Jefferey Goldberg or Robert Satloff is in fact intentionally misleading propaganda. That's why folks like Goldberg and Satloff don't like it when anyone draws attention to the pro-Israel lobby. Goldberg alludes to Walt and Mearsheimer as "conspiracy-mongers," but he is the one that refuses to ascribe agency to those that keep telling Americans that Israel is a democracy even though it isn't. And still he dares, in a patronizing tone, to call Americans he continues to intentionally misinform, "confused."

And yet, all of this change in the discourse is happening and Palestinians are not even invited to the discussion. Just imagine if they were.

read more...

Legality vs. Legitimacy: America's Ambiguous Umbrella Protecting Israeli Settlements

The response by the Netanyahu government to the gruesome murder of 5 settlers in the settlement of Itamar was typical; they announced they'd build even more settlements. The American response to the Israeli announcement was perhaps even more typical. This story summarizes what has become a near-automated and ambiguous response(emphasis in this and all excerpts is mine):

In the first U.S. reaction to the Israeli decision, the State Department said in a statement Sunday that Washington was deeply concerned by continuing Israeli actions with respect to settlements in the West Bank."

"Continued Israeli settlements are illegitimate and run counter to efforts to resume direct negotiations," the statement said, adding that "through good faith direct negotiations, the parties should mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties."

If anyone else is wondering what this means, you are not alone. The terminology of "legitimacy' entered the discourse of official US policy after President Obama delivered his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo. At the time, President Obama said "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." This line was greeted by applause from the crowd in the auditorium where he was speaking, as well as from onlookers around the Arab and Muslim world. Many welcomed the fact that the new American President was directly criticizing Israel's settlement enterprise. The reaction to this line came because he said it, but not necessarily because the meaning and gravity of the language used was fully appreciated and fully understood.

What does it mean for the US to consider settlements "illegitimate"? And more importantly, how does this concept of legitimacy differ from the more important concept of legality. After delivering that crowd-pleasing line in Cairo, the President followed it up with language that may offer insight into what is really meant by "legitimacy":

This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Note that the President deliberately chose not to say that the construction violates international law. So from what the President said, it seems that to the United States, settlement construction is illegitimate in so far as it violates agreements (not laws) and undermines (American led) peace efforts. By speaking about settlements in this context and completely sidestepping the context of legality, an open question arises about US policy on settlements: Does the United States consider the building of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory illegal under international law? And if so, why is it so hard to just say it?

An recent episode at the UN Security Council may shed light on an ambiguous US policy. The Palestinians sought to bring a draft resolution to the UN Security Council condemning illegal Israeli settlements. The resolution included the following language:

Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other Arab territories occupied since 1967,

Reaffirming that all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of peace on the basis of the two-State solution,

Condemning the continuation of settlement activities by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of all other measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Territory, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,

The United States wanted to avoid a UNSC vote on this issue but when the Palestinians continued to push for the resolution to come up for a vote, the Obama Administration would be forced to lift the veil on the sneaky language they introduced in Cairo and had been using ever since. In a effort to avoid a vote, the US informed Arab governments that it would support a UNSC Presidential Statement (which doesn't carry the weight of a UNSC Resolution) that used language Washington was more comfortable with. It stated:

The Security Council reiterates its previous resolutions and the obligations under the Quarter Roadmap, endorsed by its resolution 1515 (2003), expresses its strong opposition to any unilateral actions by any party, which cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community, and reaffirms that it does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, which is a serious obstacle to the peace process.

No mention of legality, which made the statement useless to those supporting the resolution. Ultimately, the US ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, was instructed to veto the resolution and she did. Of the 15 members of the UN Security Council, 14 voted for the resolution and 1, the United States, voted against. In her statement after the vote, Ambassador Rice attempted to explain the reasoning behind the American veto she had just cast. In doing so, she said this in her statement:

Our opposition to the resolution before this Council today should therefore not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity.

So we know now, perhaps, what wasn't clear in Cairo when President Obama introduced this statement of policy. In Washington's lexicon, legitimacy and legality seem completely unrelated and do not overlap. Some maybe wondering whether or not this matters or if this is just a question of semantics . It matters greatly, of course, because there are clear consequences and actions which must be taken against violators of international law. By insisting on "opposing" Israeli settlements by calling them "illegitimate", the United States simply protects Israel and its settlement enterprise by shielding them from legal obligations. Not surprisingly, Israel has continued with settlement expansion under an American umbrella of intentional ambiguity.

The entire world (except for the Obama Administration and Israel) including anyone with a basic understanding of International Law can state unequivocally that the building of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory is 100% illegal.

In the past, I wrote about Matthew Lee, an AP reporter covering the State Department who did a fantastic job posing straightforward questions consistently until he got an answer (or lack of one) about the detention of the non-violent Palestinian activist Abdallah Abu Rahmah.

Incidentally, Abu Rahmah was released today after serving 16-months in prison. Maybe it's time for State Department reporters to try to get spokesman on the record about the US government's official position on the legality of Israeli settlements - and not take "illegitimate" for an answer.

read more...

The U.S. and Palestinian Non-Violence

Earlier this year, I wrote a piece about the importance of supporting non-violent, Palestinian protests in the Occupied Territories. The main argument is simple: if the U.S. wants Palestinians to abandon violence, it cannot sit silent as non-violent activists are brutally repressed. Here is an excerpt:

When an Iranian protester, Neda, was shot and killed last year, the world knew her name – so did President Obama. But most would be hard-pressed to name one of the many non-violent protestors in Palestine who have been arrested, beaten, shot or even bulldozed to death.

The international community has an obligation to Palestinian nonviolent activists. Leaders cannot simply call on Palestinians to abandon violence in the face of Israeli occupation and remain silent when the non-violent activists are politically repressed. This only reinforces the ideas that the use of force reigns supreme, and that Palestinians have no choice but to accept hardships at the hands of their Israeli lords.

Sadly, the same leaders who call on Palestinians to abandon violence have been silent in the face of Israeli repression. By condemning violent Palestinian resistance while remaining silent in the face of Israeli crackdowns and political arrests, they are simply endorsing violence against civilians by one side instead of the other.

Earlier this week, a Palestinian non-violent activist was finally released from an Israeli prison. He was arrested in 2009 under charges that he was present in a "closed military zone" (in Occupied Palestinian Territory), and he received a 12-month sentence for his involvement in organizing non-violent protests. His sentence was later extended an additional 6-months, and to assure that the father of 9 children would give up activism, they released him under the condition that he wouldn't engage in activism for 4 years or face the consequences, including a 6000 NIS fine. (To put that figure in perspective, it's likely much higher than the village's per capita GDP.) A picture from his emotional reunion with his family appears to the right.

Others, like Abdallah Abu Rahmah, remain in Israeli jails. Abu Rahmah collected the empty casings of tear gas canisters to expose the tactics the Israelis were using against non-violent demonstrators. For this, the Israelis charged him with possession of weapons, a ludicrous charge that was ultimately dropped. But the Israelis found other ways to keep him in prison.

So what is the U.S. saying about this clear case of political repression on the part of the Israelis?

Matthew Lee, a reporter for the Associated Press, put the question to State Department spokespeople. Watch this video below, which includes a compilation of dodges and squirms as Lee persists day after day.

What do Liu Xiaobo, Ang Sun Suu Kyi, and Neda Agha Soltan all have in common?

A) All chose non-violent activism
B) All protested regimes the U.S. doesn't like
C) All are not Palestinian
D) All of the above.

If you said D) All of the above, you are correct.

So what messages are the U.S. sending to Palestinian non-violent activists? You have to listen closely to really figure it out if you are here in Washington. But in the field, where tear gas canisters are fired by Israelis at the heads of activists, the message from the U.S. is clear. As this image from Joseph Dana shows, it's as plain as day, right here on the face of this tear gas canister.



Who says we don't make anything in this country any more?

read more...

No, America, You Can't

In America, the people take great pride in their ability and the ability of their nation. There is a can-do attitude in society; one that perseveres and shuns those who say (fill in significant feat here ________) can't be done. Recently, the United States elected its first African-American President, Barack Obama, in an election that inspired hope in an entire generation of Americans. The slogan he ran on, which resonated with the masses was, "Yes We Can." These people are, after all, Ameri-cans not Ameri-can'ts.

But this attitude can be problematic at times. When taken too seriously, it can blind. Suddenly, the ability to asses capabilities and obstacles becomes unimportant, and on a policy level this can lead to dangerous things. Take for example, the dangerous belief that a land war in Afghanistan can be won, or that an invasion of Iraq could be a "cakewalk."

The State Department announced yesterday that it failed to get Israel to freeze the expansion of illegal colonies in the occupied Palestinian West Bank and was no longer going to seek a freeze. This has been the cornerstone of the Obama administration's policy toward this conflict. The thinking behind it is that good faith negotiations cannot take place while Israel builds more colonies on occupied land, and any solution to Jerusalem is complicated with each Israeli colony expanding to encircle it. This was a noble approach and one that was long overdue. In fact, it was the United States' Road Map initiative, which Israel accepted in 2003, that previously called for an immediate freeze on all settlement activity.

But after 7 years of failing to get Israel to abide by Road Map obligations, which simply require it to abide by international law regarding the building of settlements, the United States has finally given up. Though, what, if anything, did the United States do during those 7 years to press the Israelis to abide by this obligation? The answer? Nothing effective.

Since the beginning of the Oslo Peace process, the United States adhered to a very strange philosophy when it came to policy regarding Israel. This philosophy was that Israel's behavior could only be changed using carrots, not sticks. As far as I know, there is no other country in the world which the United States treats this way, but this philosophy is clearly in place. Somewhere around the arrival of the Clinton administration this became the modus operendi in Washington.

The last administration to use a different approach was that of George H. W. Bush. Even though this approach didn't use sticks, it conditioned carrots and did so to a degree of efficiency. During the Yitzhak Shamir government, a right-wing Israeli government that was the counterpart to that Bush Administration, Israeli settlement building slowed significantly.

What precisely led to a change between the Bush and Clinton administrations is anyone's guess. What is more clear is that that philosophy is fundamentally flawed and that it is an empirical failure. Over the past 20 years, the number of Israeli colonists living illegally in occupied territory more than doubled, growing at a rate more than twice the pace of the rest of Israel.

Blame it on what you will - incompetence, the Israel lobby, whatever - the reality is that this failed American approach has not worked for years and needs to change. But will it? Will this abrupt moment lead the Obama administration use sticks instead of carrots? I wouldn't hold my breath.

Domestic dynamics in this country - and yes the pro-Israel lobby is a big part of that - make using sticks against Israel very costly. President Obama has never seemed weaker after his party lost significantly in a mid-term election, and he will continue to alienate his base to work with Republicans who look forward to using this against him in 2012. He certainly won't be using sticks with Israel now.

I'd love to be surprised by a stunning American turn around that uses sticks to change Israel's colonial behavior, but I am not naive enough to believe it will happen given the political realities.

So what is America to do?

Give up and admit you simply can't do it. Admit that because of America's electoral and democratic system, which we also hold dear, America is innately incapable of acting as an even-handed mediator to this conflict. I know its hard - it's hard for me to write this, especially since I truly admire the can do attitude many Americans share - but it is not helpful in this case.

Now, this doesn't mean there is no hope for peace in the Middle East. I don't think that is true at all. It simply means peace will not come as part of an American-led effort. It's time to step back so that others can try to make progress on this issue. This involves the international community playing a greater role in applying international law, but it also involves America staying out of the way.

The U.S. has kept itself at the center of this peace process by arguing only it can pressure both Israel and the Palestinians. As we've definitively learned this week, this is only half true. Anytime the UN Security Council votes on resolutions critical of Israel, more often than not, the U.S. is the only state to veto (This has happened over 40 times). If the U.S. cannot press Israel to end violations, and it cannot, then it shouldn't stand in the way of it either. It should also take steps to end any monetary or military support for Israel's on-going occupation.

As more states recognize Palestine, a message is being sent to the United States that the world has no faith in the U.S. mediation.

The U.S. has tried, the U.S. has failed, and its OK. There are many other things at which the United States excels, but its time to admit that brokering peace in the Middle East is definitely not one of them.

read more...

Top 10 Wikileaks Palestine Nuggets

UPDATE: Make sure to read latest post on the Wikileaks and the Arab World here.

Wikileaks, the website set up to be a clearinghouse for classified information leaked through secure online channels, has once again published thousands of leaked documents, this time pertaining to American diplomacy around the world. The leaked reports are in the form of "cables" which are diplomatic communications or reports shared between embassies and U.S. diplomatic officials. The origins of the cables vary from different U.S. embassies around the globe to the Department of State in Washington, D.C. While the communications cover relations with many different countries, a significant portion deals with nations in the Middle East.

This post will focus on the most recent leaks as they relate to Palestine, and below are 10 of the more interesting passages relating to Palestine, the Palestinians and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Note that quotes in the text below are from the documents themselves, which may be paraphrased summaries of conversations and are not necessarily verbatim. There is very little here that should come as a surprise to those closely following the international relations of the Middle East and the politics around Palestine. These documents do, however, provide interesting context and color to these relations that were previously unavailable. Since this seems to be the first part of a large document dump by Wikileaks, I will update this post or create another one as the information becomes available.

#1. Qatar's Prime Minister met with Senator John Kerry and discussed a variety of issues including Qatar's views on the Palestinian issue. At the time, the Prime Minister suggested proximity talks which were ongoing between the Israelis and Palestinians would waste time - in his estimate 4-6 months. He also emphasized that negotiations without Hamas are unlikely to be fruitful since the "Palestinian Authority (PA) cannot sign off on an agreement on behalf of the Palestinians where open divisions exist." To no one's surprise, Qatar's PM was not keen on the role Egypt has been playing in the region. Egypt, which has "no end game" in mind when it comes to brokering Hamas-Fatah reconciliation talks, is like a doctor relying on only one patient for business: "the physician is going to keep the patient alive but in the hospital for as long as possible."

#2. Egypt's head of General Intelligence Omar Suleiman would provide little evidence to suggest the Qatari leader's criticism of their biased brokering was untrue. In a conversation with U.S. General Patreaus he stated that "Egypt's three primary objectives with the Palestinians were to maintain calm in Gaza, undermine Hamas, and build popular support for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. " Suleiman also stated that Egypt would continue to be committed to Palestinian reconciliation. "It is hard," he said, "but I am always optimistic. I consider myself a patient man, but I am loosing [sic] patience."

#3. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met with U.S. Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) just before becoming prime minister again and forming the current Israeli coalition government. When describing "his approach to 'economic peace' with the Palestinians, Netanyahu suggested he would cut through bureaucratic obstacles to Palestinian economic development to build a 'pyramid' from the 'bottom up' that would strengthen the Palestinian Authority, and offer the Palestinians a viable alternative to radicalism." He also indicated he wasn't interested in a sovereign Palestinian state emerging in the West Bank, but rather "an agreement over territory,settlements and 'refined' Palestinian sovereignty without an army or control over air space and borders." Further evidence of Netanyahu's stance, which he states is not unlike Livni's, is described in a cable about a meeting between Netanyahu and a Congressional Delegation (CODEL) in late April 2009. He states "A Palestinian state must be demilitarized, without control over its air space and electro-magnetic field, and without the power to enter into treaties or control its borders. Netanyahu concluded that he and opposition leader Tzipi Livni 'only disagree about the name,' i.e. the two-state solution."

#4. An Israeli assessment of Palestinian leadership: "Of particular interest throughout the meetings was the subject of the Palestinian political situation. It was widely agreed that President Abbas is currently in a weakened political state, and Israeli officials generally cast a dour assessment of Abbas's future. In one exchange, Amos Gilad stated his opinion that Abbas will not survive politically past the year 2011. Gilad further stated that Abbas is facing unprecedented criticism within the Palestinian Authority over his handling of the Goldstone report, and that this, coupled with a stubborn HAMAS, has weakened Abbas considerably. The Israelis said the perception in the Arab world was that the U.S. had encouraged Abbas to take difficult positions on Goldstone and settlements only to walk away from him. ASD Vershbow queried Gilad over measures that could be taken to bolster Abbas. Gilad responded by stating that Israeli-Palestinian peace discussions need to be resumed immediately, but without preconditions, and that both parties need to seek further cooperation on a range of issues -- specifically on the security sector front. Gilad expressed optimism over the current atmosphere in the West Bank, citing improvements in the security and economic spheres, and further stated that the reduced Israeli Defense Force (IDF) footprint in the West Bank has made conditions ripe for advancing the relationship."

#5. This cable, from a 2007 meeting between U.S. Congressmen and Netanyahu, sheds light on Netanayhu's strategy vis-a-vis Hamas and Fatah: "Netanyahu said Abbas was a 'nice man who means well,' but he added that Israel and the U.S. should focus on 'bringing down Hamas' through an 'economic squeeze'...Netanyahu predicted that Palestinians would vote for Abbas if they believe that he can deliver the money. He suggested putting in place an 'economic squeeze with an address,' so that Hamas would receive the popular blame."

#6. Israel-PA consultations before Israeli assault on Gaza? According to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak in this cable: "the GOI had consulted with Egypt and Fatah prior to Operation Cast Lead, asking if they were willing to assume control of Gaza once Israel defeated Hamas. Not surprisingly, Barak said, the GOI received negative answers from both."

#7. Europeans, particularly the French, are not pleased with their role in peace process: "A sense of frustration and ambition informs the French approach toward the Middle East peace process: they are frustrated that they must rely on the USG and on stubborn parties in the region to end a conflict whose persistence adversely affects their national interests, and they are ambitious to play a larger role in the peace process, in order to facilitate a successful outcome and to enjoy the prestige that such a role would earn them. As a case in point, last week Kouchner had to cancel a planned visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories in part because of the continuing tension there, and in part because of Israel's refusal to allow him to visit a French hospital in Gaza."

#8. Germans suggested using Goldstone Reports at UNSC as leverage over Israel's policy of home demolition: "Heusgen said that Germany 'perceives this differently' and thought Netanyahu needed 'to do more' in order bring the Palestinians to the negotiating table. With Palestinians in East Jerusalem getting notices from Israeli authorities that their houses will be destroyed, it would be 'suicide' for President Abbas to move under the current circumstances. Heusgen said he could not fathom why Netanyahu did not understand this. He suggested pressuring Netanyahu by linking favorable UNSC treatment of the Goldstone Report to Israel committing to a complete stop in settlement activity. Gordon said that making a direct linkage between the two would almost certainly be counterproductive, but agreed that it was worth pointing out to the Israelis that their policy on settlements was making it difficult for their friends to hold the line in the UNSC. Heusgen said this certainly would be an issue when Netanyahu and 'half of his cabinet' visit Berlin on November 30 for bilateral government consultations."

#9. UAE reaction to Hamas 06 election victory: The UAE 'felt the Muslim Brotherhood rally behind Hamas' after its electoral victory in the Palestinian territories, and that the Hamas victory should be a lesson to the West. UAE Vice President and Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid sounded a note of optimism when he told Secretary Rice February 23 that Hamas, 'with some pressure,' would understand the need to respect the will of the international community."

#10. Israel loves cooperation with PA: Amos Gilad "noted that Israeli-PA security and economic cooperation in the West Bank continues to improve as Jenin and Nablus flourish, and described Palestinian security forces as the 'good guys.'"

UPDATE:

Bonus #11. French President Sarkozy "called Prime Minister Netanyahu directly on October 26, to urge him to establish an independent investigation into the actions of the Israeli Defense Forces in the Gaza conflict. Sarkozy told Netanyahu that such a step would decrease pressure on Israel and its allies stemming from the Goldstone Report, but Netanyahu responded briskly: "No way." This preceded an Israeli-French strategic dialogue which included significant discussion about the peace process. The French and the Israelis did not see eye to eye and this made an Israeli official to describe "Franco-Israeli discussions on the status of the peace process itself resembled a 'conversation of the deaf'."

UPDATE II:

Bonus #12 Ireland took issue with the US sending weapons to Israel in the past. This cable states that the Irish "Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA)" made a "oral but definitive decision during the Lebanon conflict to forbid U.S. military transits carrying munitions to Israel" the cable goes on to cite the "Irish public's overwhelming opposition to Israeli military actions in Lebanon". I wonder what they think after Gaza.

read more...

Mearsheimer and Khalidi on U.S. Policy

I had the pleasure of moderating a great discussion yesterday, put together by the Institute for Middle East Understanding, with Prof. John Mearsheimer (our most recent Sharabi memorial lecturer) and Prof. Rashid Khalidi (our most recent Said memorial lecturer). While both speakers shared important and accurate insight into the Obama administration's (mis)handling of this conflict and the likelihood that U.S.-led negotiations will continue to fail in the future, they left listeners with no sense of optimism. Of course, a realistic assessment of the situation does not warrant any. Nonetheless, its important to listen to this discussion, even if it is ultimately depressing, because the ignorance-is-bliss attitude many have taken toward Israel-Palestine for the past two decades is largely responsible for where we are today.

Click the player below to listen to the discussion.

Listen to internet radio with IMEU on Blog Talk Radio

read more...

On Bribes, Begging, and Lunacy

Nothing quite says "we encourage you to make peace with your neighbors" like a shipment of advanced weaponry.

If you thought the recent move by the United States to offer the Israelis $3 billion more than the $3 billion a year they get anyway in the form of advanced military fighter planes was farcical enough, guess again.


First, if you missed some of the reaction to Obama's offer, Mark Perry hit the nail on the head when he wrote:

The Obama Administration's newest promise to Israel is abject, embarrassing and gutless. Our country -- our president -- is rewarding a foreign leader who openly boasts that America "is something that can easily be moved," who urges a waiting game with the U.S. because he knows that Israel's friends in the Congress will defy a president who opposes him, who tells his cabinet that he will outfox Barack Obama. We are paying Israel to do something that is in their own interests -- and very much not in ours. That's extortion.

Christopher Hitchens, who seemed to resemble a previous version of himself in this piece, also described the situation well.

But this is where it gets loonier. This report from the Canadian Press seems to confirm Hitchens' worst suspicions:

The future of the Mideast peace process could rest in the hands of one very undiplomatic man: an outspoken 90-year-old rabbi who recently sparked an uproar by saying the Palestinian president should "perish from the world."

The ultra-Orthodox Shas Party is expected to hold the swing vote when Cabinet ministers decide on a U.S. proposal to resume Mideast peace talks. The two Shas ministers participating in the decision are waiting for instructions from the party's spiritual leader, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef.

"All decisions go through the rabbi," said Roi Lachmanovitch, a spokesman for the Shas interior minister.

More on Yosef here.

Does anyone else wonder why we care so much about Israeli domestic politics? I find it hard to think of another situation where we cater our foreign policy to the whims of a foreign governing coalition to the extent that we are willing to embarrass ourselves. For example, when the Palestinians elected a government the U.S. did not like, sanctions followed promptly. But the logic is somehow inverted when it comes to Israel. When the Israelis elect a government the U.S. doesn't like, well, then we reward them with everything we've got.

I know some are trying to make sense out of the Obama administration's move and are arguing that he has limited options given domestic constraints, but I just don't understand how rewarding Israel's incorrigible behavior could be a good thing.

It seems like we are in for several months, if not years, of more failed policy toward this conflict, and Congress certainly will not be of any help. I recently wrote about how Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen was in the twilight zone, and she isn't the only one. Check out the video of the Congressman below arguing that its the Palestinians who must end their settlement building (Yes, you read that right).

[ Download ]

Seriously, after all of this can anyone really claim to have optimism or even cautious (read: naive) optimism about the future of U.S. policy toward the conflict?

I suppose there is one thing to be optimistic about: at least the United States is still a country of opportunities because clearly anyone, regardless of I.Q., can be elected into Congress. Sigh.

read more...

Congress Enters Twilight Zone

Congress just doesn't get it. Now, after the most recent mid-term election that brought more of Israel's most right-wing supporters into power, Congress has gone from simply not getting it, when it comes to Israel and Palestine, to entering the Twilight Zone.

Only days after the President of the United States criticized the Israeli decision to build more illegal colonial homes in Occupied Palestinian Territory, House Republican leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) met with the Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and promised him that the Republican-led congress would act as "a check" against the administration. The expansions of these colonies, or settlements, is clearly against international law and Israel's obligations.

Today, we get this gem from soon-to-be Chair of the House Foreign Affairs committee Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who criticized the transfer of an additional $150 million dollars to the Palestinian Authority. Here is the excerpt from the Ynet Article; try not to laugh (or cry). Note the emphasized (mine) quote at the end:

Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican who stands to take over in January after her party won the House of Representatives, said she was deeply concerned over what she called the bailout of the Palestinian leadership, which she claims has failed to live up to its commitment to dismantle the Palestinian terror infrastructure, eradicate corruption and recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

“Sending US tax dollars to the Palestinian Authority to help them cover their budget shortfall is a bailout, plain and simple," she said.

"It is deeply disturbing that the Administration is continuing to bail out the Palestinian leadership when they continue to fail to meet their commitments, under international agreements and requirements outlined in US law, including dismantling the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure, combating corruption, stopping anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement, and recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state."

Ros-Lehtinen, a Cuban-American from Florida, said that as long as the Palestinian leaders receive unconditional aid they have no reason to change their ways and be committed to peace.

"So long as Palestinian leaders keep being financially rewarded by the U.S. unconditionally, they will have zero reason to change their ways and truly commit to peace. It is long past time to hold Ramallah accountable," she said.

I know she claims to represent Florida, but she seems to spend too much time viewing this conflict from another planet.

read more...