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

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.

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.

Diplo-speak

As Secretary of State Hilary Clinton completes her first visit to the Middle East, it appears to me that she must have been issued a dictionary and a handbook on her first day at Foggy Bottom giving her words and methods to say absolutely nothing of meaning. Her predecessor, Condi Rice, when asked about the ongoing expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, would say that they were “unhelpful” to the Peace Process. When asked about Israeli government plans to demolish 80+ Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, Secretary Clinton allowed that this was “unhelpful” to the Peace Process.
She also appears to have trained her people very well. The Israeli government has refused allow pasta and copy paper into Gaza on security grounds. Evidently the Israelis believe that Hamas has developed technology to produce a spaghetti bomb and is capable of attacking Israel with paper airplanes. State Department spokesperson Robert Wood carried on this very erudite dialogue with the press corps at a recent press briefing.

QUESTION: But can you imagine any circumstance under which pasta could be considered a dual-use item? Or is there some -- you know, is rigatoni somehow going to be used as a weapon? (Laughter.)
MR. WOOD: I’m not involved in those discussions, so I –
QUESTION: Well, I mean -- I mean, it just seems to be absurd on the face of it, if that’s what happening.
MR. WOOD: Well, there are people on the ground who are dealing with these issues. And I think we should leave it --
QUESTION: Dealing with the pasta dual-use issue?
QUESTION: Yeah, can you take a question on the pasta, please?
MR. WOOD: I’m not going to take the question on the pasta --
QUESTION: Why?
MR. WOOD: -- because it’s –
QUESTION: Well, the United States is obviously pushing it, so obviously it’s something --
MR. WOOD: We’re trying to get humanitarian supplies in – on the ground to the people in Gaza.
QUESTION: Do you think food is a humanitarian supply?
MR. WOOD: Food certainly is.
QUESTION: All kinds of food?
MR. WOOD: I – I’m not able to tell you from here whether it –
QUESTION: Can you get a – can you take the question of what kind of food that the U.S. thinks is a humanitarian supply?
MR. WOOD: I’m not going to take that question, because I don’t think it’s a legitimate question.
QUESTION: You don’t think it’s legitimate that the Palestinians need certain foods and is – should Israel decide what food the Palestinians need?
MR. WOOD: I’m sorry, Elise, I’m not going to – I’ve spoken on it.

It would be funny, if it weren’t so sad.

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.

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 100 year war?

Some of this week’s news has only served to increase my pessimism that a negotiated peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict is possible. The news articles indicated a widening of the gap between and a hardening of the positions of the parties to the conflict. This appears to be true for political and religious leaders as well as the average man on the street. During his obligatory visit to Israel to cement his pro-Israel credentials with American Jewish and right wing Christian voters, Senator John McCain declared his support for Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, a clear show stopper for the peace process. Senator Hilary Clinton has already proclaimed her intention to move the US embassy to Jerusalem in recognition of this position. A leading Israeli rabbi issued the Jewish version of a “fatwa” declaring that it is “…forbidden by Jewish law to employ Arabs or rent homes to them.” (How this works is unclear as there were no Arabs in Israel/Palestine in biblical times.) The Israeli High Court has approved the closing of a major West Bank road to Palestinians use “for the convenience of the settlers”. The widening gap is also apparent among ordinary citizens. A recent poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy Research shows that 84% of Palestinians support the March 6 attack on the Jerusalem yeshiva that killed 8 young students. 75% of Palestinians say that negotiation is “without benefit”. 64% of Palestinians support the shooting of rockets into Israel from Gaza. These numbers are way up over the December poll, probably as a result of the Israeli incursion into Gaza which killed over 100 Palestinians including women and children. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, an Israeli advocacy group reported that “Israel’s Jewish community increasingly supports the delegitimization, discrimination and even deportation of Arabs”. In the US, there were a number of disturbing comments on the Department of State (DOS) web site related to a question which they raised regarding Middle East Policy: “Should the US engage with Hamas in the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians?” Representative Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) was shocked that the DOS would even ask this question saying, “Worrying that you guys are asking questions like this using funds approved by the appropriations committee that I am a member of” Some of the other comments included:
“The only way to solve the problem is by sending all Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, Saudis, and Egyptians that currently live in the Land of Israel back to their respective countries. Everything else only prolongs the conflict.”
“If you mean "engage" in the military sense, as in "draw close in combat," then - yes, the U.S. should engage with Hamas - and wipe them out. But if you mean "negotiate" with a terrorist group and sworn enemy of a U.S. ally, then, no”
“So forget peace. It takes two sides for that and you only have one interested. In war, peace arrives when one side loses. As long as we continue trying to make both sides winners, there will never be peace.”
“Are you people nuts?! Hamas, Hizbollah, the Palestinians are all TERRORISTS!”
“The peace process won't be successful until Hamas is exterminated.”
The DOS reports “increasing frequency and severity of anti-Semitic incidents since the start of the 21st century, particularly in Europe…”. This hardening of attitudes leaves little political space for leaders who might advocate a more moderate and balanced approach. Only Senator Barack Obama seems to have had the temerity to advocate a more nuanced policy. In a recent speech to a group of Cleveland, Ohio Jewish leaders he said “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress….Frankly some of the commentary that I’ve seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure (an) Israel that is non military or non belligerent or doesn’t talk about just crushing the opposition that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we’re going to have problems moving forward.” (That’s about as close to a balanced approach as an American politician can go without commiting political suicide.)
Unless this point of view becomes more prevelant, I am afraid that our grand children will still be fighting and dying in Middle Eastern deserts.

What are we doing about this mess, other than praying?

Last spring, after returning from two weeks in Israel/Palestine including the West Bank, I wrote an article expressing my pessimism that a negotiated two state solution would still be possible. I felt that the anger and loss of hope that I saw in Palestinians, both in Israel and on the West Bank, was sounding the death knell for the two state solution. I predicted that sooner or later a Palestinian Israeli, enraged by the death of a sister in childbirth at an Israeli checkpoint or the death of a brother as collateral damage from an Israeli targeted killing would “make a noise” at a coffee shop in Tel Aviv or Haifa. The resulting crackdown would expose all the fissures in Israeli society and possibly provoke a regional conflict. . (For the whole article, click here) Unfortunately, last week, it happened. A young Palestinian Israeli from East Jerusalem, angered by the recent massacres in Gaza, opened fire at a right wing Yeshiva killing 8 teenage students and wounding several others. In the hysterical aftermath there have been calls to “expel all the Arabs”, blame Arab members of the Knesset and kill all Arabs with “Jewish blood’ on their hands. For the most part the Israeli government seems to have, so far, resisted the calls of the radicals for harsh attacks and the lull in the fighting has generally continued. The Israelis did, however, kill four Palestinians on the West Bank which generated a barrage of rockets from Gaza in retaliation. They have also “embargoed” Al Jazeera television for “inciting terrorism”. Al Jazeera’s crime seems to be showing the effects of war on ordinary people on the receiving end: destroyed houses, blood soaked streets, children’s body parts. The US had the same reaction to Al Jazeera’s coverage of the Iraq war. (The movie “Control Room” documents this. I recommend it.) Despite this violence, however, negotiations appear to be continuing with Hamas through Egyptian mediation regarding the “hudna” (long term ceasefire) that Hamas has long called for. The Hamas demands that the ceasefire includes the West Bank and that the blockade of Gaza be lifted may well be deal breakers for the Israelis, but at least conversation, however tentative, is happening with Hamas. Maybe the US/Israel is beginning to realize that nothing can happen in the peace process without engaging Hamas. Pressure appears to be increasing for a change to more sensible policies. As Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) said to Assistant Secretary of State David Welch at recent hearings investigating US Middle East policy, “What are we doing about this mess, other than praying?”

Seeing the big picture in a land of details

As President Bush winds up his first trip to the Middle East by visiting so called “moderate” Arab countries, the primary purpose of his trip has become more evident. He has escalated his rhetoric about Iran in an attempt to rally support for an aggressive posture against the “most dangerous country”. Although Arab response has been muted, my sources indicate that the US effort is doomed to fail. Although these Arab countries are concerned about the growing influence in the region of Iran and Shia Islam in general, they much more concerned about the Israeli- Palestinian conflict and its effect on the attitude of their ordinary citizens. Their verbal comments about Iran are more intended to get the US more engaged in solving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and to encourage on-going US arms sales to Arab countries. It appears to have worked. There were some significant changes in the apparent US attitude towards the conflict. As opposed to the Annapolis conference where no one could bring themselves to even mention the key issues and the Arab peace plan, George Bush was more direct in his comments. (For the complete text, click here) In his final remarks he called for:
1. An end to the occupation
2. Building of the Palestinian economy and security apparatus – How this can happen without and end to the occupation and an end to Israeli attacks and incursions is not clear.
3. Homeland for Palestinians like Israel is homeland for the Jews- Code language for no right of return for Palestinian refugees and Israel as a Jewish state. What the role of Israeli Muslims and Christians is in a “Jewish state” is not clear.
4. Ensure that Israel has “secure, recognized and defensible” borders – this would be easier if anybody knew what the borders were.
5. Mutually agreed adjustment to the armistice line of 1949 – Code language for Israel can keep the major settlement blocks in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the path of the wall will be the border. What will happen to the thousands of non Israeli Palestinians who live on the Israeli side of the wall is not clear.
6. A viable and contiguous Palestinian state- It will take somebody smarter than I to explain how this can happen if Israel keeps the settlement blocks with their associated bypass/settler roads and their control of the water resources.
7. Solution for Jerusalem- too hot to even mention.
In the Palestinian Territories this was met with great skepticism. In Israel it was met with intransigence. Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu told Bush “Jerusalem has belonged to the Jewish people for 3,000 years and the Jewish people will ensure that it will remain undivided under Jewish sovereignty forever”. The Jerusalem Post quoted a senior Israeli official “Israel will continue building in Jerusalem as well as in major settlement blocs in the West Bank even as a construction freeze continues elsewhere in the territories”. Member of the Knesset Benny Elon called for granting Jordanian passports to all Palestinians, dismantling the Palestinian Authority and abandoning any notions of an independent Palestinian state. (How Israel can issue Jordanian passports is unknown.) Skepticism may be the order of the day and we haven’t even mentioned Hamas , Gaza or Hebron. How anything can happen without engaging Hamas, who represents over 50% of the Palestinians, I have no idea. What to do about the religious settlers in Hebron is also a big problem with no obvious solution. Spokesperson for the Hebron Jewish settlement, David Wilder, told me that if the Hebron settlers were evacuated “I wouldn’t say that an Israeli civil war was probable, but it is certainly possible”. Ignore a problem and maybe it will go away. GWB always said he was a “big picture guy”.

Photo Op II: The sequel

This week major developed countries met in Paris for a “donor’s conference” / “photo op” designed to obtain financial support for the Fatah led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. (We will let those in Gaza starve) The PA had requested $5.6b of aid and the participants pledged $7.4b over 3 years. Although it is not clear how much of this will actually be forthcoming and how much is just a restatement of previous pledges, it is still a significant amount of money. Tony Blair declared, “This is not a donor’s conference. This is a state building conference”. Even if this money actually appeared, it is not clear to me that it would have much impact on building a viable Palestinian state. PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his Prime Minister Salaam Fayad have frankly stated that most of the money will go towards closing the yawning PA budget deficit and not toward economic development projects. The PA runs this huge deficit not only because of mismanagement and corruption, but also because the West Bank economy is almost non existent. With no economy, tax revenues are limited and unemployment approaches 50%. Therefore, the PA becomes the employer of last resort. Unless conditions on the ground change dramatically, no amount of international funding will create a viable economy and Palestinian state. Early in his first term George Bush declared his support for a viable Palestinian state, living alongside Israel in peace and security. When a friend of mine heard this, he took George Bush at his word. (Probably not the smartest thing that he has ever done.) He decided that if this is really going to happen, we had better figure out what it will take to create a viable economy in the West Bank and Gaza and he commissioned a Rand Corporation study to accomplish this. After several years of work Rand completed the study and created their report. They tried to incorporate the strengths of the Palestinian people, education, healthcare, entrepreneurial spirit, etc., into a plan that could be implemented with international financial support. One of the primary conclusions of the study was that there must be a modern transportation and communications system linking the major population centers of Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem, Hebron and Gaza. The report said nothing about settlements, bypass roads, and checkpoints. I said to my friend, “Didn’t they assume away the problem?” His answer was that Rand, not a minor player in government studies business, was afraid to raise the issues. They were concerned that, given the political climate in the US, if the report talked about eliminating settlements, bypass roads and checkpoints, it would be a non starter with the US government. It turned out to be a non starter anyway as the State Department said that they had no interest in even looking at it. As the issue of freezing settlement construction surfaces after the Annapolis Conference, it is clear that Israel intends to retain East Jerusalem and all the major settlement blocks and to continue construction apace. We have been reduced to arguing about what the meaning of “freeze” is. (Sort of like what is the meaning of “is”?) (For this story, click here and here.) Unless the US exerts significant pressure to change the facts on the ground we will be back in Paris (or some other fancy resort) again in three years trying to deal with a Palestinian economy on life support.

Testing, testing, testing

To no one’s surprise, the agreement to begin a new round of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the US as the final judge of who is living up to their obligations is being tested right away. This is probably a good thing as we can avoid wasting a lot of time, effort and money if nothing can come of the talks. The Israeli government is the first to be tested. Immediately after the Annapolis conference a group of right wing Israelis held a demonstration on a hilltop in the E-1 area. The E-1 area is a relatively undeveloped area between the major settlement blocks on the West Bank, such as Maale Adummim and Gilo, and the city of Jerusalem. The Israeli government has long planned to develop the area and has confiscated some Palestinian land and built some structures. Last spring as we were returning to Jerusalem from Maale Adummim, our guide pointed out a building on a hilltop. She said that this was a police station that had recently been built by the Israeli government. It had not yet been occupied, but standard Israeli procedure was to build the police station first and then some time later, after criticism had died down, to build the settlement. Development of E-1 is important to those Israelis who see all of Israel/Palestine as land given to the Jews by God. Developing E-1 would effectively split the West Bank in two and preclude a viable Palestinian state. The purpose of the demonstration by Israeli right wing activists was to put a shot across the bow of the Israeli government to warn them not to even think about stopping development of E-1. (For this story, click here) The US government commitment to a successful “peace process” is also being tested right away. As the world leaders were meeting in Annapolis, the Israeli government announced a tender for bids to build 300 apartments for Jews in the Har Homa/Abu Ghneim area of East Jerusalem, the Arab area of Jerusalem wanted by the PA as the capital of a future Palestinian state. (The Parliament building has already been built.) The issuing of the tender was condemned by the international community, including the US. The Israeli response has been that this is not a violation of the agreed settlement freeze as Israel has annexed East Jerusalem and therefore this is not settlement activity. The annexation is not recognized by the international community including, of all people, the US. This is not the first time we have been down this road in Har Homa/Abu Ghneim. In 1997 the Israeli government commenced apartment construction in this area. The Clinton administration strongly objected and pressured the Israeli government to cease the activity. Evidently Israel’s supporters in the US explained to the administration that this position was hazardous to their political health. The US backed off and when a UN Security Council resolution was introduced condemning the construction the US vetoed it. All this took place when Ehud Olmert was mayor of Jerusalem. I visited this area in May and saw the resulting development. Our guide explained that many of the apartments have been sold to American Jews from NY and NJ as second homes. I doubt if the buyers were told that their neighbors would be hostile Palestinian Arabs. (For this story, click here ) Will anyone take steps to respond to these tests in a manner that will prevent a breakdown of the “peace process” before it even starts? I doubt it. But there is always hope. Even the Arbiter in Chief Condoleezza Rice is only hoping for the best. (For Condi’s hopes click here.)

Paranoia: A good thing?

The news this week has been dominated by reaction to the release of the National Intelligence Estimate that declared that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program four years ago and would not be able obtain a nuclear weapon, even if it wanted one, until the 2013-2015 timeframe. The reaction from the US government was that Iran still remains a “grave threat” and is presents a danger of starting WW III. Many commentators have expressed the view that this reaction is a good example of “I have my policy, don’t confuse me with the facts” or “irrational paranoia”. Perhaps, however, in this case, paranoia is a good thing. I participated in a conference call today with Professor Shipley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor of Peace and Development at the University of Maryland on the subject of “Annapolis and Beyond”. During the discussion it was clear that it is crucial that the US weigh in as a player during the “peace process” envisioned at Annapolis. The US role is crucial for several reasons. First and foremost, there is an enormous “power asymmetry” between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the negotiations. The US must balance this asymmetry if there is to be a just settlement that can be accepted by the Palestinian people. Second, Prime Minister Abbas has put all his eggs in the US basket and the US has put all its eggs in his basket. If the US fails, Abbas is finished and Hamas is waiting on the sidelines to say “I told you so”. Third, Israel is responsive only to the US. Without US pressure Israel has no incentive to negotiate a settlement. The power imbalance makes it very likely that they can weather any violent response by Hamas and other militants. Finally, the US is the sole judge of which party is living up to their obligations under the so called “Roadmap” This role will be tested very quickly as Israel has announced intentions to build 300 apartments in occupied East Jerusalem and has introduced legislation to fund the construction of West Bank “outposts” in violation of the “Roadmap’s” call to freeze settlements. (For this story, click here.) During the conference call, the question was asked “Why did the Arab states attend the Annapolis Conference?” The conventional wisdom has been that they are afraid of Iran and the “Shia crescent” and, therefore, want to support the US in its efforts to contain Iran. Professor Shipley’s opinion, based on conversations with Arab leaders and multiple polls of Arab citizens, is different. Although Arab leaders are concerned about Iran’s growing influence, they are not afraid of Iran and do not feel that there is any danger that Iran will attack them, absent a US/Israeli attack on Iran. The number one priority for the leaders and their people is the resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. They do, however, realize that the American people and their political leaders “just don’t care” if this conflict gets settled. When King Abdullah of Jordan came to the US a few months ago and made a speech about the importance of this issue and the importance of the US in resolving it, he was politely received and then ignored by both politicians and the media. This reinforced the Arab leaders’ view that the only way to get the US’s attention is to create linkage between Arab support for containing Iran and a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian issue. Only this will give the US the will to truly engage in helping to solve this intractable problem. Perhaps paranoia is a good thing.

The mother of all photo ops

In the weeks and months leading up to Tuesday’s conference in Annapolis on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, all parties, Israelis, Palestinians and the US, went to great efforts to lower expectations. The discussions were initially talked about as a conference, then a meeting and finally a gathering. The original goal was to arrive at a strategic vision of what a solution should look like. The goal then changed to a statement of principals that would be embodied in the final agreement and finally an agreement to meet again with the hope of finding a solution. This effort to lower expectations certainly succeeded as polls and interviews of Israelis, Palestinians and other Arabs, leaders and people on the street, indicate. (Click here, here and here) Eighty-five per cent of Americans surveyed by the Wall Street Journal thought nothing would come of it. The State Dept. declared that even organizing the meeting was a success. The meeting was praised as the most serious peace effort in 7 years. A pretty low standard since there have been no peace efforts in the past 7 years. The final agreement (A complete text is here) was no more than another agreement on process, a strategy that has failed many times before. As that great philosopher Yogi Berra once said “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there”. The parties could not even bring themselves to mention the core issues of the conflict: borders, Jerusalem and the status of refugees. The best that they could do was mention that core issues exist. The Israelis could not allow the dreaded “J” word (Jerusalem) to be mentioned as the conservative members of Ehud Olmert’s governing coalition had threatened to bring down the coalition and cause new elections if Jerusalem was even mentioned. The Arab peace plan and relevant UN resolutions also were not mentioned because UN Resolution 194 calls for the repatriation or compensation of refugees. This particular resolution is a big problem for the Israelis as they agreed to it as a condition of their entry into the UN. What happens from here depends greatly on what role the US chooses to play. The US has been declared the sole judge of progress towards a settlement. In the past the US has not exactly been a model of the balanced and unbiased mediator. A lot depends on which faction in the US government controls US policy. On one side we have National Security Advisor Steve Hadley telling a group of American Orthodox Jews and Christian Zionists that “Jerusalem is not on the table” and telling a group of Johns Hopkins University students “there is no place for Syria in the peace process”. On the other side we have Condi Rice shaking hands with the Syrian representative at the end of the conference and thanking him for his attendance. She was also praised by Palestinian Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat for her “knowledge of all the little issues”. Unless George Bush, the self proclaimed “decider in chief” reverses his position of supporting all the Israeli negotiating positions, it is likely that the Hadley/Cheney faction will carry the day and the negotiations will fail. The one point that all sides agreed on was that time is running out. They agreed to try to reach an agreement by the end of 2008. I would argue that the time frame is even shorter. Unless substantial progress is made by Israel’s 60th anniversary celebration on May 8, 2008 all the Palestinian frustration and loss of hope may well boil over into violence. As Saeb Erekat has said: “If we fail, God help us.”