Waiting for the Messiah

Since Secretary of State John Kerry kicked off the latest round of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority designed to reach a two state solution to the Israel/Palestine situation, we have heard next to nothing about what is happening. This could be either good news or bad news. It is possible (although unlikely) that progress is being made behind the scene in substantive negotiations that are best done out of the media spotlight. A more likely scenario is that nothing is happening and all sides are concerned about the potential for unrest that would accompany the final demise of the two state solution.

Politicians on all sides have been declaring that “the window for a two state solution will close within a year” for the last 15 years. This dire prediction has become as common as Israel’s 20 year prediction that, absent a military attack, Iran will have a nuclear weapon within 6 months. While an Iranian nuclear weapon would constitute a serious threat to Israel, the Reut Institute, an Israeli think tank that advises Israeli leaders on strategic issues, has concluded that the biggest treat to Israeli national security is “one man one vote”. In a recent report Reut stated, “Annexation of the Palestinian people into Israel would compromise Israel’s Jewish majority, while continued control of the Palestinian population may jeopardize Israel’s democracy and long-term legitimacy” (See here) This warning has been resisted by most Israelis, since they find the status quo of occupation and separation to be completely sustainable.

Seven years ago, when I first wrote about a single state solution, I felt the need to label my posts “A Completely Absurd Idea”. {See here, here, and here) Today the one bi-national state can now be discussed in polite company. Young people in Palestine have completely gone to one state-ism. At a Sabeel conference last week, I heard a Palestinian leader describe his conversations with his young daughters. One daughter is a second year chemical engineering major at M.I.T. and the other is a sophomore at the Ramallah Friends School. They said, “Dad, 1948 was like a hundred 9/11’s and you and grandpa reacted like anyone would. First you tried fighting (we’re not very good fighters), then you tried non-violent resistance, then you tried negotiating and then you tried going to the UN. Dad, nothing worked. We are still occupied. Why don’t we just say to the Israelis, OK you win. You get it all. The land, the water, the oil and gas in Gaza and, by the way, you also get us. I understand that you have free healthcare. Where do I pick up my card? I would also like your free education. And where do I go to vote?”

The reality is that we already have a single state. The only question is what kind of a state it will be. Will it be an apartheid state under occupation, an ethnically cleansed Jewish state or a bi-national state with equal rights for all? Waiting for two states is like the Jewish view of waiting for the Messiah. He may come someday, but I am not holding my breath.

Technorati Tags: Israel,Palestine,Peace Process

Kicking the Can Again

This week, after six trips to the Middle East and several bouts of shuttle diplomacy, Secretary of State John Kerry announced a new round of Israeli/Palestinian “peace talks”. He stated at the kick off, “I firmly believe that these leaders can make peace.” This was accomplished at great personnel sacrifice as his wife Teresa is seriously ill. My reaction upon hearing this news was “What is he thinking?” What has changed during the last four years of stalemate to make it worthwhile to expend so much personal effort and political capital on a process that has almost no chance of success?

The same regional players are still in place. The Palestinians are still divided between the Fatah led Palestinian Authority (PA) government in Ramallah and the Hamas led government in the Gaza strip. The PA is still run by the same dysfunctional, corrupt, unelected, unrepresentative old men who have been in place since the western powers overthrew the elected Hamas government in 2006. Hamas, which represents 1.4 mm Palestinians in the Gaza strip, is not invited to the party.

On the Israeli side the same Netanyahu led right wing, settler dominated government is still in place. If anything it has become even more right wing since the last elections with the addition of the Jewish Home Party to the governing coalition. JHP’s leader Naftali Bennett was recently quoted as advocating killing suspected militants rather than bringing them to trial; saying “If you catch terrorists, you have to simply kill them” and “I’ve killed lots of Arabs in my life – and there’s no problem with that.” (See here and here)

The Obama administration, in a move seemingly designed to insure failure, appointed former Ambassador to Israel, former AIPAC executive, former Executive Director of the pro-Israel think tank Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Martin Indyk as its Middle East mediator. Indyk makes former mediator Dennis Ross (frequently called “Israel’s lawyer”) look positively unbiased in contrast. In a presentation that I heard by Indyk a few years ago, he couldn’t use the word “Palestinian” without appending the word “terrorist” to it.

The only possible objective that I can see for this declared 9 month negotiation process is to move the process past this year’s United Nations session. The U.S. can claim that the Palestinian State should not join the International Criminal Court (Israel’s worst nightmare) since there is an ongoing American sponsored negotiation process. This would be in line with the strategy (such as it is) of kicking the can down the road and hoping for the best. In general talking is better than shooting. In this case, failed talks may result in shooting.

Technorati Tags: Israel,Palestine,Peace Process,John Kerry

Tom Friedman’s Pipe Dream

This week NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman published an op-ed piece in which he bemoaned the fact that Israel was increasingly becoming an isolated pariah state. His example of the trend of “international delegitimization closing in on Israel” was the decision by Stephen Hawking, a renowned British physicist, cosmologist and author, to refuse to attend the fifth annual Israeli Presidential Conference “based on advice from Palestinian academics that he should respect the boycott” of Israel because of the West Bank occupation.
His recommended solution was for Israel to partner with the current illegitimate Palestinian government in Ramallah to create a Palestinian state by ceding “most of the West Bank and Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem” while “keeping its forces on the Jordan River.
It is ironic that on the same day that Mr. Friedman published his recommendation, the Israeli public expressed their opinion through a Jerusalem Post poll. The Post reported that “74% say they reject the idea of a Palestinian capital in any portion of Jerusalem, with the implication being that they prefer a united Jerusalem. Only 15% say they would support a divided plan for the city, whereby Israel would relinquish sovereignty over some eastern portions of the city to allow for a Palestinian capital there.” From the perspective of the average Israeli citizen, Mt. Friedman’s proposal is dead on arrival. Remember, Israel is a democracy and the voters get to call the shots.
It is also ironic that on the same day a Palestinian friend of mine posted an updated map of the West Bank showing settlements, barriers and closed military zones. If anybody can create a Palestinian state out of this, they are smarter than I am.
Good luck to Secretary of State John Kerry in his quest for a two state solution.

Technorati Tags: Israel,Palestine,Tom Friedman

Recognizing a New Reality

Having recently returned from three weeks in Israel/Palestine I am struck by the changes on the ground since I last visited. The Jewish settlements have become much more ubiquitous and are now built alongside and between Arab towns. The Jewish settlements that were once only a group of caravans with no services and utilities have now developed into fully functional towns. The major settlement blocs have expanded to the point that they border and surround Palestinian towns. As a result of this development and expansion Jews and Arabs now live alongside each other in separate communities behind walls and barbwire fences. This intermingling of Jewish settlements and Arab towns now means that Israelis and Palestinians use many of the same roads. There are no longer enough bypass roads to completely separate Jews and Arabs. The result has been that many of the roads in the West Bank have been upgraded and many of the checkpoints are no longer manned. In Palestinian cities such as Jenin and Nablus one sees, despite the ominous warnings on the

red signs, a number Arab Israeli shoppers. Some tours are now being offered for Israeli Jews to visit the Ramallah, the seat of government for the Palestinian Authority.

Despite the efforts of the Israeli government to maintain an apartheid state, the reality on the ground may be gradually breaking this down. I found Jews and Arabs on both sides of the wall beginning to recognize that the “two state solution” is no longer possible and that it is now becoming OK to talk about a bi-national state in polite company. Whether this state is “Palreal” or “Isrestine”, it is becoming the way forward. Even western media outlets are beginning to examine this option. (See here)

As usual the politicians are late to recognize the reality on the ground. The first step in addressing any problem is to recognize the brutal reality. Denying this reality will get us nowhere. Government leaders on all sides need to begin to prepare their citizens for the fact that they will need to learn to live alongside their neighbors in peace. Will the Jews who now have a privileged position like this reality? No! Did the whites in South Africa want to give up their privileged position? No! Did the whites in the American South want to give up “Jim Crow”? No! The changes just had to happen.

Currently leaders are prone to say that the “two state solution” is on “life support”. What they fail to recognize is that the patient is already dead. Leaders need to emphasize what brings Palestinians and Jews together, language, culture and religious traditions, rather than what divides them. The brutal reality is that Zionism has to go and be replaced by justice, democracy and equal rights.
Photo by Brooks Cato

After the Election:What Now?

After months of campaign wrangling, the presidential election is now behind us and we are left with the question: What will US Middle East policy look like going forward? Since the election campaign was largely devoid of any discussion or debate on policy options, pundits are left to speculate based on a combination of hope, realities and educated guesses. Some things are clear. The major winner from the election outcome was Nate Silver, the NY Times statistics blogger, (See here) who got the results exactly right. (Close, but never in doubt.) The major loser was Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who bet big time on the wrong horse. On everything else we can only speculate and wait and see what will happen. In general, not much is likely to change.

The Syrian civil war drags on with the death toll on all sides rising with each passing day. Obama has little choice but to support the rebels rhetorically and with some modest aid, while relying on the wealthy Gulf States to do the heavy lifting of arming the rebels. There is no mood in the US to get entangled in another Middle East ground conflict. Iran and its allies will continue to support the Assad regime. Any negotiated settlement would require engagement with Iran. This would acknowledge Iran’s role as a regional player and is an anathema to Washington’s foreign policy wizards. The biggest losers will be the Syrian people.

The so called “Arab Awakening” will likely continue on its own path with the US having little influence on the outcomes. The road to functioning democracies in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya will be bumpy with an ending that is not likely to be friendly to US ambitions for regional control. There is not much that the US can do to influence the ending except to continue to support them and hope for the best. Hopefully, Congress will not mess it up.

As the “Arab Awakening” spreads to authoritarian US allies in the Gulf region and Jordan, the US will face some uncomfortable choices. With US bases in place and the US requiring Arab support for its anti-Iran policies, the policy has been to offer soft encouragement for reform, but no direct regime criticism. As the regimes crack down more aggressively on dissidents, (See here and here) this policy may become more untenable. Again, I expect that the US will continue current policies and hope for the best.

In Israel/Palestine, Prime Minister Netanyahu has lost all credibility with the Obama administration. His antics have left him on the outside looking in. However, I believe that Obama has realized that a “two state solution” is no longer possible. Given Israeli intransigence and control of Congress, and Palestinian divisions, there is not much that he can do to change the situation. Again, he will continue to be disengaged and hope for the best.

Iran probably offers the best opportunity for improvement. The Iranians have signaled their willingness to compromise by softening their rhetoric, transferring some of their 20% enriched uranium to civilian uses and offering to suspend enrichment to higher levels. (See here) If the US responds in-kind, the upcoming talks may bear some fruit. The Iranians, however, will not move without some reduction in sanctions. Given that Congress controls the sanctions regime, Obama will have little ability to negotiate in good faith on sanctions. Promising to consider reducing sanctions at some time in the future will not cut it.

All of this ignoring the problems and hoping for the best, reminds me of the Bill Clinton administration when President Clinton told a State Department official that he was not particularly interested in foreign policy issues because none of his voters were interested. The response was “Sometimes, Mr. President, foreign policy issues find you.” Usually at the most inopportune time.

 

Technorati Tags: Middle East,Election,Obama

Peace Not Apartheid

In 2006 Former President Jimmy Carter published a book on the situation in Israel/Palestine entitled “Peace Not Apartheid”. In the book Carter argued that all parties to the situation in Israel/Palestine must take immediate steps to implement the Oslo Process designed to create two states living alongside each other in peace. Failing this, he argued, the result would be a land completely controlled by Israel with limited or no rights for its Palestinian residents. Carter’s use of the dreaded “A” word in the title caused considerable controversy at the time. As time has passed, with no progress towards a viable “two state solution”, Carter is beginning to look prescient.

Many observers, this one included, for a number of years have said that the day of the “two state solution” had come and gone. (See here) With over 500,000 Jews living on the Palestinian side of the green line and 1.5 mm Palestinians living on the Israeli side of the green line, it is impossible to unscramble the egg. The location of settlements and Jewish only roads on the West Bank make a viable Palestinian state impossible. As the situation has worsened over the years, the concept of a single state is becoming a more mainstream position. Veteran Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea recently wrote, “Everybody knows how this will end. There will be a bi-national [state]”. The only remaining question is, what kind of a state it will be. Will it be a bi-national state with equal rights for all of its citizens? Will it be a state ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian citizens? Or will it be an apartheid state where only Jewish citizens have complete rights of citizenship?

Some on the far right fringe in Israel advocate for an ethnically cleansed state. They say “Jordan is the Palestinian state”. It is unlikely that even Israel’s most ardent backers in the U.S. could support this outcome.

What appears to be more acceptable, at least in Israel, is an apartheid state. A recent poll commissioned by the Israeli paper Haaretz (See here) reported that 58% of Israeli Jews believe that Israel already practices apartheid against Palestinians. Two thirds believe that the 2.5 mm Palestinians living on the West Bank should be denied the right to vote. 33% say Palestinians living within Israel proper should be denied the right to vote. 75% are in favor of segregated roads. 60% say Jews should be given preference in government jobs and 50% say Jewish citizens should be treated better than Arabs.

Since Israel is a democracy, the views of its citizens are generally translated into government policies. It is likely that, in next year’s elections, the current right wing government will be even more solidified and Israel will move even further on the path to a bi-national apartheid state. The question for the Americans will be can they sustain their unbending support for Israeli policies in the face of this outcome.

Technorati Tags: Israel,Palestine,Apartheid

I Quit

It appears as though President Obama has largely given up on making any progress towards resolving the difficult issues in Israel/Palestine. After a much publicized start which included the appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy and Obama’s Cairo speech to the Arab and Muslim worlds, the whole situation has deteriorated into a stalemate.

In a recent Time magazine interview Obama acknowledged that he had overestimated his ability to get the Israelis and Palestinians to move the peace process forward. He should have realized that to achieve any results, he was going to have to spend a lot of political capital to take on the Israel lobby in the US.

Once Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu realized that he had the upper hand, he stonewalled Obama on every initiative. When it was rumored that Obama would send a letter to the parties outlining a framework for a settlement, Netanyahu immediately preempted it by declaring that Jerusalem would eternally be part of Israel and that Israel would retain control over the border between any Palestinian state and Jordan. Last week’s last ditch effort by George Mitchell to rescue the situation was rebuffed by all parties.

It has long been clear to many observers, this one included, that a two state solution is no longer possible and a single state in Palestine for all its citizens will be the only way out. As Israeli activist Jeff Halper recently pointed out to me, “You and I can say a single state is the best solution, but only the Palestinians can decide that it is what they want”. Until they decide, there is little that the international community can do to help.

Israel is more being seen, not as the only democracy in the Middle East, but as the only apartheid state in the world. In response to this, the “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS) movement to pressure Israel to change is growing, particularly in Europe. The US, as it was in South Africa, will be late to the party. The fact that only 9 minutes of a 70 minute State of the Union address was devoted to foreign relations shows that the US is turning inward. Someone else will have to take the lead.

Make me do it

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s stonewalling of US demands that he freeze all settlement activity, loosen the blockade of Gaza and improve conditions on the ground in the West Bank has shown that the US has few options for applying pressure on Israel.

The release of the Goldstone Report which outlined allegations of war crimes committed by Hamas and Israel during the 2008 war in Gaza was an opportunity for the US to exert pressure in a way that did not require Congressional action. The US could have signaled its displeasure by abstaining or voting for UN Human Rights Committee approval of the report. Instead, the US intensely lobbied its European allies and the Palestinian Authority to prevent approval. Predictably, Israel and what Rabbi Michael Lerner calls its “ethical cretin” allies attacked the report on all fronts.

Many who support a just solution to the Israel/Palestine problem have called this just another example US political leaders caving in to the Israel Lobby. There may, however, be another explanation.

The Obama administration is engaged in a major political battle over healthcare reform. In this battle every Democratic vote counts. Congressmen and Senators, such as Steny Hoyer, Howard Berman, Evan Bayh and Chris Dodd, who take their marching orders from AIPAC, would not hesitate to torpedo healthcare reform to punish Obama for pressuring Israel. Obama may have been trying to buy time until after the healthcare reform issue is settled.

During the campaign, then candidate, Obama was asked during a small fundraising event in NJ if it were possible to resolve the Israel/Palestine issue without pressuring Israel by reducing or cutting off financial aid. In a manner reminiscent of the parable style of Jesus, Obama answered the question by telling this story.

At the beginning of WW II A. Philip Randolph, President of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, lobbied FDR to promote equal employment opportunities. At the end of the meeting, FDR said “You have persuaded me; I agree with you. Now make me do it”. Randolph responded by organizing a march on Washington and FDR issued Executive Order 8802 which banned discrimination in defense industries and established the Fair Employment Practices Committee.

When the issue of pressure on Israel resurfaces in the spring there may be an opportunity to “Make Obama do it”.

Freezing a Conflict in August

Once the uprising in Iran, following the disputed elections, was brutally repressed by the conservative regime, the situation in the Middle East has become reasonably quiet. With respect to the efforts to resolve the intractable Israeli/Arab conflict over Palestine not much seems to be happening. Given Special Envoy George Mitchell’s penchant for quiet diplomacy, something may be happening behind the scenes. More likely nothing seems to be happening because nothing is happening.
Senator Mitchell has met numerous times with Israelis regarding the US demand for a settlement freeze and with Palestinian and other Arab leaders regarding possible steps toward a normalization of relations with Israel. Neither of these tracks is going anywhere. Israel has no interest in stopping its colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and doesn’t particularly care about normalized relations as they don’t see themselves as part of the Middle East. The Arabs feel as though they bought the settlement freeze in Oslo and have no interest in buying it again.
In my opinion the Obama administration has finally realized that there is no room for a two state solution in which Israeli Jews and Palestinians live alongside each other in peace. The maximum that Israel will give is less than the minimum than the Palestinians can accept.
Israel has no incentive to compromise further. Their overwhelming military power supported by the US and their demonstrated willingness to use it to crush resistance has consolidated the occupation and made Israel largely secure. Netanyahu’s vision of a “Palestinian state” that consists of isolated self governing enclaves in which the PA manages day to day issues and Israel controls borders, air space, security, water, infrastructure and access is largely in place. As Netanyahu says “Call it a state if you will.”
This situation not only serves Israel’s desire for space for settlement growth, but also the need for the Fatah led PA for a continued flow of US/European aid flowing through the PA that can be skimmed for personnel gain.
The inability of the Obama administration to get Israel to accede to their demand for a settlement freeze has demonstrated that there is no political will in the US to constrain Netanyahu from implementing his vision. We are moving into a “frozen conflict” mode. The danger of frozen conflicts is that they have a tendency to thaw periodically.

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.

Is anything happening

US Middle East envoy George Mitchell was back in the region last week. After a high profile kickoff to Middle East diplomacy featuring visits to the region by Mitchell and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, things have been pretty quiet on the Washington front.
Given the priority of dealing with the economic crisis and Senator Mitchell’s preference for quiet diplomacy, this is not at all surprising. I have never been a big fan of diplomacy by pronouncement and press conference that was the hallmark of the Bush administration. Soon the Obama administration will need to make clear the policies that it will put forward to deal with the Palestine question, which is the cornerstone for progress on all other issues in the region.
When I was last in the region in November, there were great expectations that a more balanced US policy would lead to progress in reaching a peace agreement. Regional leaders understood that Obama had bigger priorities to deal with, such as Iraq, Afghanistan and the economy, which would occupy his attention. However, this window of opportunity will not remain open forever.
There certainly is a lot of disagreement within the administration about what sort of policy should emerge. On one side you have Dennis Ross (an incrementalist and “Israel’s lawyer”), Rahm Emmanuel (“our man in the White House” according to his Zionist father) and VP Joe (I am a Zionist) Biden and on the other side George Mitchell (meticulously even handed) and National Security Advisor James Jones.
Among the thorny issues are how to deal with the right wing Israeli government of Likud Party leader Binyamin Netanyahu and what sort of relationship to have with Hamas. Despite encouragement by outside experts and former diplomats to engage with Hamas, thus far the Obama administration has continued the Bush policy of refusing to deal with Hamas unless they recognize Israel as a Jewish state, endorse previous agreements and renounce violence. This policy has always been a non starter.
Many Israelis are concerned about a confrontation between Netanyahu and the Obama administration over efforts to establish a Palestinian state. (Ha’aretz article “Obama team readying for confrontation with Netanyahu” is here)


The Likud position on a Palestinian state is clear from its platform.



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.



The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan River. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.



The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan River will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan is a desirable partner in the permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians in matters that will be agreed upon.



Perhaps if we are going to refuse to deal with democratically elected governments who refuse to formally recognize a two state solution, we should include Israel on the list along with Hamas.

Whither the wall

When Israel was formed in 1948 the basic concept was partition of the British mandate of Palestine between Arabs and Jews. This paradigm has been the basis for the current concept of a “two state solution”.
When, in 2003, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to begin construction of the security fence/wall between Israel and the West Bank following the suicide attacks of the 2nd Intifada, his stated goal was to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from entering Israel. Palestinians claimed that it was intended to create de-facto borders for Israel and was a land grab. Since that time, despite International Court of Justice rulings that the wall was illegal, construction has continued apace.
One thing that I did notice during my most recent visit to the West Bank, however, was the lack of construction activity. The wall/fence was originally designated a “security barrier”. It is clear that the wall/fence no longer serves a security purpose. There is so much traffic through the check points that security checks are cursory at best.
Even Israelis have begun to call it the “separation barrier”. The wall/fence, however, has also ceased to function as a separation barrier and has become irrelevant. The route of the barrier which extends deeply into the West Bank has isolated thousands of West Bank Palestinians on the western/Israeli side of the barrier. They are not Israeli citizens, do not have Israeli ID cards and are separated from their land and villages. In total there are now over 1.5 million Palestinians on the western/Israeli side of the wall.
Because of continuing construction of Jewish colonies, there are now over 480,000 Jews in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. Estimates are that over 80,000 of these are on the eastern/Palestinian side of the barrier.
Any concept of partition or separation of these two peoples no longer works. The two peoples are so interconnected that only a single society is now possible. Any two state solution would require the relocation thousands of Jews and Palestinians, something that is not politically feasible for either party. Israeli/US policies of the last 40 years and demographic changes have made a democratic Jewish state in Palestine impossible.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been castigated for saying that “Israel will be wiped off the face of the map”. (A better translation is “The Zionist entity in Jerusalem will disappear from the pages of history”.) What hasn’t been reported in western media is his subsequent statement that “We don’t need to do anything. They will do it to themselves”.
It is time for a new paradigm.

Which prisoners will be released?

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.”

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.

An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear President Obama:

Congratulations on your election and inauguration as the 44th President of the United States and thank you for being willing to take on what must, at times, seem like the world’s worst job and for being willing to help lead us through these difficult times.

I have recently returned from a political tour of Israel and its neighbors during which I was able to meet with political leaders in the region including Hezbollah and Hamas.

I applaud your rapid engagement in a region whose stability is crucial to US national interests. The appointment of Senator George Mitchell as your special envoy sends an important message that you are serious. Among the people that I talked to, he was on everyone’s short list of envoys that could make a difference.

I know that you would have preferred to wait to engage the Israeli/Arab issues and dealt first with the economic problems, Iraq and Afghanistan, but reality is something that happens while you are making plans. The Israeli attack on Gaza, which has created a dramatic escalation of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, has forced immediate action.

It will be impossible to deliver humanitarian and reconstruction aid to Gaza without cooperation with Hamas. I encourage you not to accept the conventional wisdom about Hamas without sending someone you trust, like George Mitchell, to talk to them.

There are three things that can be done immediately to move the process forward. A Palestinian unity government needs to be established. We can help by making it clear that we will work with whatever government the Palestinians decide on, including one in which Hamas participates.

We also need to make it clear that building in the Jewish settlements in occupied territory needs to stop. We need to say to the Israelis “what part of stop building don’t you understand”.

Everybody in the region knows that the parameters of a settlement are contained in the Arab Peace Initiative. These parameters need to be enshrined in a policy statement. This is perhaps best done through a UN Security Council resolution endorsing the parameters. Without a vision of an end point the “Peace Process” will continue to be process with no peace.

The two state solution is clearly on life support and some, like myself, argue that it is already dead. We only keep going because the alternative is too ugly to contemplate. Reaching a solution will require enormous political will on all sides. I hope that you will spend some of your political capital to bring about a peaceful solution.

Sincerely,
Don Liebich

Lowering Expectations II

On the day after Christmas, the imprisoned residents of Gaza were greeted with the sounds of bombs and rockets falling on Gaza City as Israel began a major attack on this small, heavily populated area which, thus far, has killed close to 300 people. The attack had been widely expected since the end of a six month ceasefire between Israel and the Hamas controlled territory.
It was almost inevitable that the Israelis were going to feel the need to attack Gaza. Sooner or later one of the widely inaccurate rockets fired from Gaza was going to hit a school or synagogue causing significant casualties which would require the Israelis to respond. This attack, however, was more the result of the upcoming Israeli elections and Israeli politics than anything else. As the Israeli political spectrum has moved further to the right, the Labor party of Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Kadima party of Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni have found themselves outflanked by the growing strength of the rightist Likud party. They have felt the need to show how tough they are, first with rhetoric and then with action.
The devastating attack is a disaster not only for Gaza, but also for the region and the peace process which was already on life support. Everybody’s finger is on the trigger and slightest miscalculation could result in a regional conflict. The authoritarian governments of US allies Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are under pressure from Islamist opposition groups to respond more aggressively. The large anti US/Israel demonstrations, currently peaceful, could turn violent, destabilizing these regimes. Once again the Christmas message of “peace on earth, good will toward men” will be put away with the Christmas decorations.
The only one to benefit from this mess may be President Elect Obama. He has been burdened with high expectations that he would take the ongoing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and help move them forward toward some sort of agreement. Hamas and other Islamist groups will be strengthened by the conflict and in no mood to negotiate. The high expectations for peace and stability are now gone. Obama will now have plenty of time to deal with the other messes that he has inherited. In the Middle East he will become a fire fighter.

Whose side is time on?

Jerusalem, Israel – I came to this part of the world with some preconceived notions about where the discussions about an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians stood. Following the Annapolis conference of a year ago, parties agreed to freeze settlements, upgrade Palestinian security capability and engage in discussions regarding a final status agreement.
In the last year Jewish settlement building has continued apace, some progress has been made on security (much more needs to be done) and discussions have been ongoing between the parties. Secretary of State Rice has been to the region eight times in the interim period and has pronounced that much progress is being made on an agreement and that she expected one before the end of the year. I had asked myself, “Does she know something that I don’t know or is she being a complete Pollyanna?” I had concluded she was a complete Pollyanna.
However, as we traveled through the region, we were told by senior political leaders in Syria, Jordan and Ramallah, including Saeb Erakat, the lead negotiator for the Palestinian authority, that “The deal is 95% done. All that remains are details and the political will to implement the deal.”
Then we talked to the technocrats responsible for the actual negotiating teams. They gave a dose of reality. Nothing is done. For the most part nothing has happened in the past year. The political leaders are making optimistic statements only to prevent complete despair from setting in.
The Israelis believe that time is on their side (which may or may not be true) and therefore are just fighting a delaying action. Time, however, is certainly not on the side of peace. Saeb Erakat said to me, “If we reach an agreement soon, Hamas is gone. If we don’t reach an agreement soon, I am gone”. How do you spell “intifada”?

A bi-national state in Israel/Palestine

One of the recent developments in the seemingly protracted and endless conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is the movement of the concept of a bi-national state in Israel/Palestine from the realm of intellectuals, like the late Edward Said, and fringe groups, like The Association for One Democratic State in Israel/Palestine, to the political mainstream. Two years ago, when I first started to write about my view that facts on the ground had made the idea of a two state solution impossible, I felt the need to title the articles “A completely absurd idea”. (For more than you wanted to know about the issue, click here, here and here.)

At that time those of us proposing a single democratic state in Israel/Palestine were generally attacked as “anti-Semitic” and advocating a second Jewish Holocaust. Today the discussion is becoming a mainstream dialogue.

Leading Palestinian Authority negotiators Saeb Erekat and Ahmed Qurei have said that the PA is considering changing their negotiating position from insisting on a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital to a single democratic state for all its citizens. This was the original PLO position prior to the Oslo agreements.

An in depth article appeared this week in the NY Times (The article is here.) describing the debate going on among Palestinians about how to deal with the fact that expanding Israeli settlements, construction of bypass roads and construction of the separation barrier have made as agreement on a separate viable Palestinian state nearly impossible.

Even the Israeli media has weighed in. The chief US correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz wrote an article entitled “One state solution? Let the debate begin” (This article is here.) The major points of debate will be “Should there be a single state?” and “What will be the nature of that state?” Unfortunately most of those commenting on this article advocated for a single state for Jews only and ethnically cleansed of Arab Palestinians. Some would say that this has already started. (See this article in The Guardian: “Ethnic cleansing by stealth”.) Human rights groups will have their work cut out for them.

Dealing with tribalism

The western media has, in general, portrayed the recent spate of internecine conflict in Gaza and the West Bank as a political conflict between Fatah and Hamas. Although there is a political component to the conflict, there is also a strong tribal component. One of the things that I quickly learned in my travels in the region is that tribal loyalties trump most other considerations. In Jordan the government defers to tribal leaders to settle many legal disputes.
A few weeks ago in Gaza, following a bombing that killed 5 Hamas fighters and a little girl, the Hamas led government cracked down on the Fatah associated Hilles clan, arresting many of their members and causing others to flee to Israel. Although Hilles members are associated with Fatah, some are Hamas members and in general they act in the best interest of their tribal brothers.
Western leaders have a long history of lack of understanding of tribal loyalties and the complications that they bring to political situations.
In the US this lack of understanding manifested itself early on in relations with Native American tribes. On the Flathead Reservation in Montana, the US government put two tribes, the Salish and Kootenai, historical rivals, on the same reservation and then wondered why they didn’t get along.
The tribal loyalty component that under girds Diaspora Jews’ support for Israel has long been ignored. Judaism began as a tribal religion of place, the Israelite tribe in Palestine. God chose the Israelites as his people and he lived in Jerusalem. After the exile, Judaism lost its attachment to place (although this is returning with the effort to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem so God will have a place to live), but retains its tribal character. Even Christian Zionists appeal to this tribal loyalty. Pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel, said in a recent speech “Christians have a debt to Jews for providing the foundation of their religion, because God made a covenant with Israel”.
The arming of Sunni tribes in Iraq against al Quada is a risky strategy because it is not clear to me what the impact will be once al Quada and the US forces are gone and old tribal conflicts resurface. We may be arming all sides of a future civil war.
Until western policy makers exhibit a greater understanding of the influence of tribalism in the Middle East and Africa and take these complications into account, they will continue to “stumble and bumble” through these regions. Things are never as simple as they seem.