The Iranian Conundrum

Most of the ink being spilled this week regarding the Middle East situation involved the disagreements between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu regarding ongoing construction of Jewish colonies in the occupied West Bank. Obama’s policy was clearly defined by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton when she said “He wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not ‘natural growth’ exceptions.” Netanyahu responded by saying that construction would continue in existing settlements.
Little is being said about Iran. Netanyahu came to Washington with a plan to divert attention from Israel/Palestine to the Iranian threat. Obama demurred and indicated that he would continue on a path of dialogue and diplomatic engagement with the Islamic Republic. He said that he felt that progress on the Israeli/Palestinian front would help with progress on the Iranian front.
The problem is what Obama expects as an outcome from the dialogue and engagement. It appears that his goal is a continuation of the Bush administration policy of using “crippling sanctions” to force Iran to abandon its nuclear development program. Hilary Clinton has made it clear on several occasions that the purpose of negotiations is to help rally a coalition to impose tougher sanctions on Iran. Special Envoy on Iran Dennis Ross is quoted in an upcoming book by David Makovsky, a fellow at the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy, as saying that the United States will not make progress towards peace in the Middle East with the Obama administration’s new plan. The idea that there was linkage between the Israel/Palestine issue and the Iranian issue was a myth. (If he doesn’t agree with the plan can he be effective in implementing it?) All this begs the question “Are ‘crippling sanctions’ even possible?”
While reformist Iranian presidential candidates have indicated openness to negotiations, even the moderates defend Iran’s right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. They are willing to talk about how to insure that there isn’t a nuclear weapons program. This is an opening for constructive dialogue on how to reconcile the national interests of all parties. In my experience, anything beyond this is a political non-starter for Iranian politicians. Most average people on the street in Iran told me that they support Iran’s effort to develop peaceful nuclear energy.
This policy of isolation of Iran has failed before under Bill Clinton and Bush 43 and it is doomed to fail again. Unfortunately the failure on the Iranian front will have negative consequences for the Israel/Palestine process which only now is beginning to show some promise.

Netanyahu and Obama

This week President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu met for the first time as leaders of their respective countries. It is clear that the goals of the two countries are different. The US national interest requires a stable, peaceful region that provides access to energy at a reasonable price. Israel sees its national interest as requiring the maintenance of its position as a regional superpower. Anytime a neighbor has threatened this position, they have attempted to destabilize them. This was accomplished successfully in Iraq with the help of the US Bush administration and their neo-con allies. Iran has now become the center of attention.
Netanyahu came to Washington with the objective of changing the focus of the conversation from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to the Iranian threat. This didn’t happen. The two leaders largely talked past each other. When Obama was asked about Netanyahu’s statement that there was linkage between solving the Iranian problem and solving the Israeli/Palestinian problem, Obama said that he thought the linkage ran in the other direction.
Netanyahu refused to use the words “Palestinian state” stating “I did not say two states for two people”.
Israel’s most important national security asset is its relationship with the US. They can not afford to anger the US president. In my opinion he will eventually agree to a “settlement freeze” and a “Palestinian state”. However, what Netanyahu means by this is completely different from what the Palestinians expect. Under his version of the settlement freeze, Israel will continue to demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and allow “natural growth” of the settlements. The Likud/Netanyahu version of a “Palestinian state” is one in which the Jordan River is the eastern border of Israel and the “Palestinian state” is made up of self governing enclaves and in which Israel controls borders, access, security and water.
This may be a tough sell. The reality in Washington has changed. The games of wink and nod, say one thing and do another, that were the hallmark of the Bush administration are over. My sources tell me that the Obama administration is preparing to issue its own version of the end game and that this plan is being coordinated with Arab leaders and not the Israelis. It may be announced during Obama’s speech to the Arab world from Cairo on June 6. If true, this has big implications for Netanyahu’s weak right wing governing coalition and may force new elections in Israel where the only issue is “Do we want peace?”.
Stay tuned.

A tale of two narratives

Last month the UN held its Conference on Racism (Otherwise known as Durban II) in Geneva, Switzerland. The US, Israel and several other western countries such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia boycotted the conference from the beginning on the grounds that it would likely be too critical of Israel.
Following a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in which he described Israel as a “totally racist regime” who had “made a whole nation homeless”, 23 other European nations walked out of the conference. The other nations who remained behind applauded Ahmadinejad’s remarks and after the speech not only defended his right to make them, but said that they thought he was right.
The nations that remained at the conference were largely African nations and members of the Organization of Islamic Conference. Clearly the worldview of these countries differs substantially from that of the European countries and their largely white Eurocentric former colonies. The experience of the largely brown former colonies differs substantially from that of their former imperial colonialist masters. This difference is reflected in their view of Israel.
The current and former colonial powers see Israel a “homeland for oppressed Jews” which was founded to assuage Zionist political pressure and guilt felt for allowing Nazism to arise in their midst. From the viewpoint of the former colonies, Israel is a racist colonial outpost planted in their midst by the imperial powers in order exercise control of the region and its resources.
It is not surprising that these countries should feel this way as the Zionist project has never tried to “hide its light under a bushel” in framing the issue as the fulfillment of the “white man’s burden” to bring civilization to a backward society.
In 1969 Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said “It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took there country away from them. They did not exist.”
More recently, in 2003, Alan Dershowitz wrote in his book The Case for Israel that the Jews, being European, provided superior health services and sanitation, and generally were a boon to the miserable ingrates that they found.
Everyone involved in the founding of the Jewish state of Israel recognized, whether they acknowledged it publicly or not, knew that redemption for the Jews meant expropriation of Arab lands by European settlers.
Unless the two sides of this conflict can recognize and understand the others narrative, they will continue to talk past each other and we will have more unhelpful debates like the one in Geneva.