Shortly after Hamas won a substantial majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) 2006 election, Israel arrested over 30 members of the PLC. Those arrested were primarily Hamas representatives and they are still being detained as political prisoners in Israel. Evidently Israel and the US thought that they would be able to deny Hamas a majority in the PLC and that the more compliant Fatah faction would retain control.
The strategy did not quite work out as planned. Hamas promptly boycotted the PLC, preventing a quorum and the PLC has not functioned since. President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) responded by appointing a caretaker government led by Salam Fayad. Hamas considers this government illegitimate since it has not received the PLC vote of confidence required by the Palestinian Basic Law. Hamas also considers President Abbas an illegitimate President as it takes the position that his term expired on January 9, 2009.
Since Israel and Hamas declared unilateral ceasefires ending the Gaza war, there have been ongoing negotiations between Israel and Hamas on a more permanent long term ceasefire. One of the points of contention has been the release of prisoners. Israel wants the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and Hamas wants over 1000 Palestinian prisoners to be released by Israel. This prisoner exchange will likely happen at some point. Israel has long been reluctant to release prisoners with “blood on their hands”, but since the Hamas PLC members are political prisoners they will probably be among those released.
This event will have a significant impact on the political dynamic in the region. The PLC will be reconstituted and will probably remove Prime Minister Fayad from office and install a Hamas led government. They probably will also begin proceedings to remove Abbas from office. These steps could result in new elections.
Since the Gaza war Hamas’ popularity has increased and polls indicate that they would win any new election. The US and Israel would then be faced with a Palestinian Authority completely under the control of Hamas. Things in the Middle East don’t always work out the way you plan. As Egyptian President Gamel Nasser once told an American friend “The genius of you Americans is that you don’t have simple stupid policies. You only have really complicated stupid policies.”
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Where is Dennis Ross?
The Obama administration seems to be approaching many of the world’s trouble spots utilizing special envoys to engage these regions. His appointment of Senator George Mitchell as envoy to deal with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was well received by Israel’s neighbors in the region and by informed observers around the world.
He next appointed Ambassador Richard Holbrooke as envoy tasked with dealing with India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Because Holbrooke has little experience in this region and thus brings no baggage and preconceived notions to his position, his bulldozer style of diplomacy may be well suited to helping to resolve some of the long festering issues between these parties.
Since, during the campaign, Obama made a major issue of changing the dynamic of US – Iranian relations, most observers had expected that he would promptly appoint a special envoy to Iran. The administration, early on, floated the name of former Clinton administration Middle East advisor Dennis Ross. This idea was not well received in Iran. An Iranian government spokesman described him as a “Zionist lobbyist”. They are right on this count. Ross’s role in the Clinton era Israeli-Palestinian negotiations has been described as “Israel’s lawyer”.
Since Ross’s name was floated, nothing has been heard. Observers, myself included, have wondered what is going on. It is possible that the Obama administration is taking the Iranian reaction into consideration.
It is also possible that, after the issues he has experienced with nominees “forgetting” to pay their taxes, Obama wants to avoid another vetting problem. Ross’s vetting problem stems from his failure to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. (FARA) Ross is Chairman of the Jerusalem based and Israeli government funded Jewish People Policy Planning Institute. (JPPPI) The Department of Justice has long said recipients of this type of funding must register under FARA. (The whole story is here.)
Hopefully this problem will keep Mr. Ross on the sidelines. Improved US-Iranian relations have the potential to change the dynamics of many of the intractable conflicts in the region. Hopefully, we will end up with an envoy who will bring an open minded and even handed approach to the position.
He next appointed Ambassador Richard Holbrooke as envoy tasked with dealing with India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Because Holbrooke has little experience in this region and thus brings no baggage and preconceived notions to his position, his bulldozer style of diplomacy may be well suited to helping to resolve some of the long festering issues between these parties.
Since, during the campaign, Obama made a major issue of changing the dynamic of US – Iranian relations, most observers had expected that he would promptly appoint a special envoy to Iran. The administration, early on, floated the name of former Clinton administration Middle East advisor Dennis Ross. This idea was not well received in Iran. An Iranian government spokesman described him as a “Zionist lobbyist”. They are right on this count. Ross’s role in the Clinton era Israeli-Palestinian negotiations has been described as “Israel’s lawyer”.
Since Ross’s name was floated, nothing has been heard. Observers, myself included, have wondered what is going on. It is possible that the Obama administration is taking the Iranian reaction into consideration.
It is also possible that, after the issues he has experienced with nominees “forgetting” to pay their taxes, Obama wants to avoid another vetting problem. Ross’s vetting problem stems from his failure to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. (FARA) Ross is Chairman of the Jerusalem based and Israeli government funded Jewish People Policy Planning Institute. (JPPPI) The Department of Justice has long said recipients of this type of funding must register under FARA. (The whole story is here.)
Hopefully this problem will keep Mr. Ross on the sidelines. Improved US-Iranian relations have the potential to change the dynamics of many of the intractable conflicts in the region. Hopefully, we will end up with an envoy who will bring an open minded and even handed approach to the position.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Everyone wins or maybe loses
2009 is a year of elections in the Middle East and the outcomes of these elections will have important implications for the Obama administration’s efforts to make progress towards reducing tensions and bringing peace and stability to the region.
The election season began with this week’s Israeli election which will be followed by elections in Iran, probably in Lebanon and perhaps in the Palestinian territories. The outcome of the Israeli election has produced more confusion than clarity. Both Tzipi Livni of Kadima and Binyamin Netanyahu of Likud have declared victory and they are both right.
Ms Livni declared victory because Kadima closed fast just before the election and finished with 28 Knesset seats to Likud’s 27. Netanyahu can also declare victory as he is much more likely to be able to put together a coalition of right wing parties than Livni will be able to create a center left coalition. The big winner is Avignor Lieberman, leader of the far right Yisrael Beiteinu party. With 15 seats he is now in the position to be a “king maker”.
Although he is talking to Kadima, it is unlikely that Kadima can sign up to enough of his policy positions, such as ethnically cleansing Israel of Arabs, dealing with Iran militarily, using the same solution for the Palestinian territories that the US used on Japan during WW II and executing Members of the Knesset who talk to Israel’s “enemies”, to attract him into a coalition. Even if Livni were able to navigate these treacherous waters, she would need to bring in the ultra-Orthodox religious parties or the Arabs, both of which she declined before the elections were called.
This leaves a Likud, YB, National Union, and ultra-Orthodox coalition led by Netanyahu as the most likely outcome. Given their positions opposing negotiations with the Palestinians, expanding settlements on the West Bank and addressing Iran militarily, the conventional wisdom is that this government poses big problems for Obama’s agenda.
Not everyone agrees, however. In November a moderate Israeli said to me, “My dream team for peace is Obama and Netanyahu. Netanyahu is so outrageous that even the Americans can’t support him. He should go back to selling furniture in Boston.”
The election season began with this week’s Israeli election which will be followed by elections in Iran, probably in Lebanon and perhaps in the Palestinian territories. The outcome of the Israeli election has produced more confusion than clarity. Both Tzipi Livni of Kadima and Binyamin Netanyahu of Likud have declared victory and they are both right.
Ms Livni declared victory because Kadima closed fast just before the election and finished with 28 Knesset seats to Likud’s 27. Netanyahu can also declare victory as he is much more likely to be able to put together a coalition of right wing parties than Livni will be able to create a center left coalition. The big winner is Avignor Lieberman, leader of the far right Yisrael Beiteinu party. With 15 seats he is now in the position to be a “king maker”.
Although he is talking to Kadima, it is unlikely that Kadima can sign up to enough of his policy positions, such as ethnically cleansing Israel of Arabs, dealing with Iran militarily, using the same solution for the Palestinian territories that the US used on Japan during WW II and executing Members of the Knesset who talk to Israel’s “enemies”, to attract him into a coalition. Even if Livni were able to navigate these treacherous waters, she would need to bring in the ultra-Orthodox religious parties or the Arabs, both of which she declined before the elections were called.
This leaves a Likud, YB, National Union, and ultra-Orthodox coalition led by Netanyahu as the most likely outcome. Given their positions opposing negotiations with the Palestinians, expanding settlements on the West Bank and addressing Iran militarily, the conventional wisdom is that this government poses big problems for Obama’s agenda.
Not everyone agrees, however. In November a moderate Israeli said to me, “My dream team for peace is Obama and Netanyahu. Netanyahu is so outrageous that even the Americans can’t support him. He should go back to selling furniture in Boston.”
Friday, February 06, 2009
Lessons Learned II
The appointment of George Mitchell as Special Envoy on the Arab/Israeli conflict was greeted with nearly universal approval in the Arab world. He along with former Senator Chuck Hagel and General Colin Powell were on the short list of nearly everyone that I talked to during my trip to the region in November.
Senator Mitchell brings a Lebanese heritage and a reputation for fairness and meticulous evenhandedness to the job. He also brings experience in the region, having chaired a study group investigating the 2nd Intifada in 2000, without being a so-called Middle East expert with all the baggage that comes with being associated with past failed policies.
Perhaps his greatest qualification is his experience in helping broker an end to the long running and seemingly intractable conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. This experience could serve him well in the Middle East.
In May 2007 Senator Mitchell wrote an op-ed piece in the International Herald Tribune in which he described the lessons that he learned from dealing with this conflict. (The complete article is here.)
He wrote:
“Those who would shoot or bomb their way to power must be prevented from doing so if they are ever to turn from violence to politics.
At the same time, making sure that people realize that violence will not succeed is not enough. They must also come to believe that a true political path exists, one that will allow them to realize enough of their agenda to persuade their followers to turn away from violence.
Negotiations are essential. Peace never just happens; it is made, issue by issue, point by point. In order to get negotiations launched, preconditions ought to be kept to an absolute minimum.
In the case of Northern Ireland, it was right to make a cease fire a prerequisite. Killing and talking do not go hand in hand. But it was also right not to require that parties give up their arms or join the police force before the talks began.
Confidence needs to be built before more ambitious steps can be taken. Front-loading a negotiation with demanding conditions all but assures that negotiations will not get under way, much less succeed.
Parties should be allowed to hold onto their dreams. No one demanded of Northern Ireland's Catholics that they let go of their hope for a united Ireland; no one required of local Protestants that they let go of their insistence that they remain a part of the United Kingdom.
They still have those goals, but they have agreed to pursue them exclusively through peaceful and democratic means. That is what matters.
Including in the political process those previously associated with violent groups can actually help. Sometimes it's hard to stop a war if you don't talk with those who are involved in it.
To be sure, their participation will likely slow things down and, for a time, block progress. But their endorsement can give the process and its outcome far greater legitimacy and support. Better they become participants than act as spoilers.
Sometimes it is necessary to take a step backwards in order to take several forward. This is precisely what happened several years ago when Northern Ireland's hard-line parties eclipsed more traditional, moderate elements.
Bringing them in slowed the pace of diplomacy - but increased the odds that a power-sharing agreement, once reached, would have widespread support and staying power.”
While the situations in Northern Ireland and Palestine are somewhat different, there are also many similarities. If Senator Mitchell is able to apply the lessons learned in Ireland to the Palestine situation, he may have a chance of success.
Senator Mitchell brings a Lebanese heritage and a reputation for fairness and meticulous evenhandedness to the job. He also brings experience in the region, having chaired a study group investigating the 2nd Intifada in 2000, without being a so-called Middle East expert with all the baggage that comes with being associated with past failed policies.
Perhaps his greatest qualification is his experience in helping broker an end to the long running and seemingly intractable conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. This experience could serve him well in the Middle East.
In May 2007 Senator Mitchell wrote an op-ed piece in the International Herald Tribune in which he described the lessons that he learned from dealing with this conflict. (The complete article is here.)
He wrote:
“Those who would shoot or bomb their way to power must be prevented from doing so if they are ever to turn from violence to politics.
At the same time, making sure that people realize that violence will not succeed is not enough. They must also come to believe that a true political path exists, one that will allow them to realize enough of their agenda to persuade their followers to turn away from violence.
Negotiations are essential. Peace never just happens; it is made, issue by issue, point by point. In order to get negotiations launched, preconditions ought to be kept to an absolute minimum.
In the case of Northern Ireland, it was right to make a cease fire a prerequisite. Killing and talking do not go hand in hand. But it was also right not to require that parties give up their arms or join the police force before the talks began.
Confidence needs to be built before more ambitious steps can be taken. Front-loading a negotiation with demanding conditions all but assures that negotiations will not get under way, much less succeed.
Parties should be allowed to hold onto their dreams. No one demanded of Northern Ireland's Catholics that they let go of their hope for a united Ireland; no one required of local Protestants that they let go of their insistence that they remain a part of the United Kingdom.
They still have those goals, but they have agreed to pursue them exclusively through peaceful and democratic means. That is what matters.
Including in the political process those previously associated with violent groups can actually help. Sometimes it's hard to stop a war if you don't talk with those who are involved in it.
To be sure, their participation will likely slow things down and, for a time, block progress. But their endorsement can give the process and its outcome far greater legitimacy and support. Better they become participants than act as spoilers.
Sometimes it is necessary to take a step backwards in order to take several forward. This is precisely what happened several years ago when Northern Ireland's hard-line parties eclipsed more traditional, moderate elements.
Bringing them in slowed the pace of diplomacy - but increased the odds that a power-sharing agreement, once reached, would have widespread support and staying power.”
While the situations in Northern Ireland and Palestine are somewhat different, there are also many similarities. If Senator Mitchell is able to apply the lessons learned in Ireland to the Palestine situation, he may have a chance of success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)