Ready, Willing and Able?

 

by Neville Teller

 

Can either side actually deliver on any proximity talks agreement?

 

 So the proximity talks are on again.  The event that caused the sudden chill in US-Israeli relations, that led PA President Mahmoud Abbas to declare himself unwilling to resume peace negotiations, even at arms length, that evoked criticism by the EU and the Quartet – now that event seems no obstacle at all. 

 

A housing development in Jerusalem – the casus belli – should never have been an issue in the first place.  Ever since the city was unified after the Six Day War in 1967, Israeli governments and Jerusalem mayors of whatever political persuasion have been developing and expanding all areas of Jerusalem – those largely occupied by Jewish, as well as those largely occupied by Arab, households.  When Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu announced a 10-month construction freeze in the West Bank last November, he explicitly excluded construction in Jerusalem.  This was well understood by all parties who negotiated the start of proximity talks early in March.

 

The diplomatic and political débacle was caused not by the fact of a future housing scheme in Jerusalem's Ramat Shlomo suburb, but in the nature and timing of its announcement.  One might term it "insensitive" if the suspicion did not exist that it was, in fact, deliberate and designed to attract maximum media attention.  Some things are understood, but best left unsaid.  This announcement, authorised by Israel's Interior Minister at the moment the US Vice President had arrived to inaugurate the proximity talks, certainly fell into that category.  It is doubtful if Prime Minister Netanyahu had been consulted.

 

Yet now, with Netanyahu maintaining, or at least not formally disavowing, Israel's long-held position on building in Jerusalem, the obstacle is apparently no obstacle at all.  What has in fact changed is the atmosphere.  A new understanding between the Obama administration and Netanyahu has been forged in the fire of the controversy – "a gentleman's agreement.".  The Israeli Prime Minister has tacitly agreed to halt construction in East Jerusalem for the moment, while the American President has tacitly acknowledged that there is a limit to the amount of pressure Netanyahu can accept and still maintain his coalition government.  Obama asked for a series of gestures from Israel to help sweeten Palestinian opinion, and Netanyahu has responded with a prisoner release offer, a lifting of West Bank roadblocks and an easing of the restrictions on imports to Gaza. 

 

These concessions, backed no doubt by some intense persuasion from Washington, have been sufficient to lead Arab League nations, in their meeting in Cairo on 1 May, to endorse a resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.  In doing so, the League made it clear that their agreement was for four months, during which time they expected to see some positive results.

 

US special Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, is expected back in the region this coming week, and the proximity talks could start shortly afterwards.  The earlier demands for an explicit Israeli declaration halting all construction in Jerusalem beyond the "Green Line" have been quietly brushed under the carpet, not only by Washington, but by the PA President and the Arab League.  

 

Assuming the talks do, indeed, get under way, what chance of success do they have?  The two leading participants – Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and PA President Abbas – will by definition be ready and willing to engage in negotiations with a two-state solution the desired outcome, but would either be able to deliver?

 

Concessions there would undoubtedly have to be on both sides in hammering out answers to the major outstanding issues – the nature and extent of land swaps in returning to an approximation of Israel's 1967 borders, the nature and extent of compensation for forgoing the right of return on the Palestinian side, the status of Jerusalem if the capital of a future Palestinian state is to be in its environs, the future administration of Jerusalem's holy sites, means of physically linking Gaza to the West Bank.

 

Could Netanyahu carry his coalition with him if agreement were ever reached round the negotiating table on these and related matters?  Could he carry the country?  Could he in fact deliver?  Major political upheaval would be likely, a referendum might be mooted,  and even then, depending on the nature of the proposition, some violent settler resistance or even wider civil unrest is not improbable.

 

Could Abbas deliver?  He has the backing of the Arab League in entering the talks – vital, since he is risking opposition from Palestinian hardliners backed by Syria and Iran.  But would that cover be maintained in the face of a compromise agreement?  Syria is a member of the Arab League, but its protests at the approval twice given by the League to the peace talks have so far carried no weight.  Will this continue to be the case?  Then, Abbas has lost control of Gaza to Hamas, which is wholly opposed to peace negotiations with Israel.  What is the value of an agreement between Israel and a PA whose writ does not run in a major part of its territory?

 

Hanging over these forthcoming proximity talks will be the report in the Israeli newspaper "Ha'aretz" a few days ago.  This asserted that President Barack Obama has told several European leaders that if Israeli-Palestinian talks remain stalemated into September or October, he will convene an international summit on achieving peace in the Middle East.

 

This conference, it was reported, would be run by the Quartet – the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia – in a bid to forge a united global front for creating a Palestinian state.  Israeli officials have said that if such a plan emerges, Obama could postpone it until after the mid-term Congressional elections in November.

 

Both the Israeli and the Palestinian leaderships are likely to oppose such a conference.  It would deprive them of ownership of the peace process.  In any case, it is doubtful if an outcome unacceptable to either side could simply be imposed.  Israel is, after all, a sovereign state, and the PA aspires to become one.  Though one never can tell, It does not seem a likely scenario,.  The reports may fall into a category familiar in the British media during the Blair years and dubbed "disinformation".  They may, in short,  be designed simply to inject some degree of urgency into the forthcoming discussions.

 

In any case, September is likely to be a critical month.   In endorsing the talks, the Arab League is requiring them to show progress within four months, that is by September. The UN General Assembly is due to reconvene in late September, and in addition September 26 marks the end of the 10-month period Israel allocated for a freeze on West Bank settlement construction.  Whatever else is on the table at the time, Netanyahu will have to decide by then whether to allow such building to be resumed.

 

So, as May commences, we cast our eyes towards the distant horizon of September with some trepidation but surely, also, with a little hope.

 

 

Neville Teller

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Ahmadinejad Swaggers at the UN

 

by Robert Spencer

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was back in New York Monday, continuing his effort to intimidate and shame Barack Obama into dropping his policy of retaining first-strike capability against rogue states such as Iran. For 35 minutes at the UN, Ahmadinejad did his best impression of an anti-nuke crusader, working to eradicate these weapons for humanity's sake. Behind his peacenik façade (which is sure to take in many on the Left), however, lurks a reality that couldn't be more contrasting.

"The possession of nuclear bombs isn't a source of pride," Ahmadinejad intoned piously, sounding like a spokesman for Greenpeace. "It is disgusting and rather shameful. And even more shameful is the threat to use or to use such weapons, which isn't even comparable to any crime committed throughout the history."

And of course top on the Iranian President's list of "disgusting" and "shameful" countries was Israel: "While the Zionist regime has stockpiled hundreds of nuclear warheads…it enjoys the unconditional support of the United States government and its allies and receives, as well, the necessary assistance to develop its nuclear weapons program."

Referring to Obama's reservation of first-strike capability, Ahmadinejad said that signers of the Non-Proliferation Treaty should consider "any threat to use nuclear weapons or attack against peaceful nuclear facilities as a breach of international peace and security," and punish the offenders accordingly.

Delegates from the U.S., Britain and France walked out of the UN General Assembly during Ahmadinejad's speech. Perhaps they didn't relish having to sit through the absurd charade of a ruthless despot, the president of a country that gives aid to the jihad terror groups Hamas and Hizballah and yearns to wipe Israel off the map, being allowed to enter the United States and accuse it of being a terrorist state — all the while defending his nuclear program.

This was the same Ahmadinejad, after all, who just weeks ago warned Israel not to attack the jihadists in Gaza who still shoot rockets into Israel and plot the destruction of the Jewish State: "An attack on Gaza would not make you mightier," he said, addressing the "Zionist entity," "and would not restore your damaged prestige. And you should know that an attack on Gaza will end your inauspicious and filthy life."

What could end Israel's "inauspicious and filthy life" except…a nuclear attack?

These are favorite themes of Ahmadinejad's public utterances. In mid-March, he declared: "Today, it is clear that Israel is the most hated regime in the world… It is not useful for its masters [the West] anymore. They are in doubt now. They wonder whether to continue spending money on this regime or not. But whether they want it or not, with Allah's grace, this regime will be annihilated and Palestinians and other regional nations will be rid of its bad omen."

How will Israel be "annihilated," except by…a nuclear strike?

Iranian Major General Hassan Firouzabadi declared in early April: "If America presents Iran with a serious threat and undertakes any measure against Iran, none of the American soldiers who are currently in the region would go back to America alive."

Not one? Not even one? How could the Iranians possibly accomplish that, except with…nuclear weapons?

Ahmadinejad mocked Obama's impotence, telling him in an April 7 address that, faced with Iran's nuclear program, American leaders who were "bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn't do a damn thing, let alone you."

And indeed, the thuggish Iranian president is probably right about that. Barack Obama's wrongheaded and weak policy of "engagement" has put a swagger in Ahmadinejad's step. Besides funding Hamas and Hizballah and egging on their genocidal intentions toward Israel, Iran is training the Taliban in Afghanistan in the most effective use of roadside bombs, and continuing to meddle in Iraq.

For all this we have one man to thank above all: Barack Obama. After a year of Obama's dogged wooing of the Iranian mullahs, his scandalous refusal to support the anti-regime protestors in Iran, and his abject failure to do anything effective to counter the Iranian nuclear program, which even his own Secretary of State now acknowledges is working toward developing nuclear weapons, the only thing the president has to show for his policy is an increasingly confident, belligerent and assertive Iran.

It was good that the Americans left the General Assembly hall while Ahmadinejad was speaking Monday. Now they should back this up by changing course, and showing more spine in the face of Iran's bullying. But there is no sign that that is going to happen.

 

Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Jerusalem Really IS a Final Status Issue?

 

by Jennifer Rubin

David Axelrod pronounces: “The president agrees that Jerusalem as an issue can’t be the first issue for negotiations.” What’s more, he wants us to know that “Jerusalem should ‘probably be the last’ issue negotiated, Axelrod said, echoing the position of Israel’s government, which is that the issue is too sensitive to discuss before other issues, including borders, are settled.”

So let’s review. The adviser who went on the Sunday talk shows to make clear how angry Obama was over a Jerusalem housing project and has personally counseled the president to go beserk with the Israelis over the issue and who presumably is aware of the threat to abstain rather than veto a UN resolution should that building proceed now says it’s the last issue we should talk about. If you’re confused, I’m sure the parties in the region are, too. There are several explanations.

Perhaps Axelrod and the rest of the Obama crew are simply telling every party what it wants to hear, raising Palestinian expectations and simultaneously giving Jews assurances on the Israeli capital. It is a recipe for disaster, of course, once negotiations begin and everyone has a different set of expectations and understanding of the U.S. position.

Another explanation: Obama has abandoned the entire Jerusalem gambit after raising it to the level of an international incident, damaging U.S.-Israel relations, and encouraging more Palestinian violence. It would be a remarkable turnaround.

Or the Obama brain trust may be practicing some bizarre word games and hoping everyone plays along. Yes, yes, Jerusalem is a final status issue, but we can’t let Israel “predetermine” the outcome by building in its capital (even though this was precisely the agreement reached with the Bush administration), so “final” doesn’t mean they won’t make demands on the Israeli government now.

It’s not clear what the Obama gurus are up to or whether there is even a strategy here. Whatever it is, it certainly is not “smart” — that is, coherent, credible, and clear — diplomacy.

 

 

Jennifer Rubin

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Ahmadinejad Unveils His Grand Strategy: A Nuclear Defensive Umbrella for Aggression

 

by Barry Rubin

Whatever you think of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad he is not a stupid man. And he's also not acting like an intimidated one. During the latest UN meeting on nuclear issues, when the new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)director-general urged Iran to "clarify" its activities, the camera showed Ahmadinejad laughing contemptuously.

Diplomatic engagement isn't going to win this guy over, nor are hollow threats. He knows the current U.S. government court-martials Navy Seals for giving a bloody lip to a terrorist who murdered American civilians in Iraq and mutilated their corpses (though the two tried have been cleared). What does he have to be scared about?

The main theme of Ahmadinejad's speech at the 2010 Review Conference by countries that have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is to outflank Obama's calls for getting rid of nuclear weapons, trying to repeat Iran's success of last September in getting sanctions postponed. Back then, Iran proposed a plan for letting its nuclear materials be reprocessed abroad. But once the sanctions' momentum had been derailed, Iran made clear that it had no intention of agreeing to anything like that.

Incidentally, it was Obama who strongly supported adding the issue of getting rid of all nuclear weapons in the world to the UN conference agenda.

Afer running his own international nuclear summit under the slogan, "Nuclear Power for All, Nuclear Weapons for None," Ahmadinejad gave a UN speech sounding word for word what an idealistic pacifist would say: nuclear weapons are bad; ban them now.

Nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad explained, don't bring real security and producing or possessing them, "under whatever pretext..is a very dangerous act which first and foremost makes the country" having them worse off. He even stated:

"The possession of nuclear bombs is not a source of pride; it is rather disgusting and shameful. And even more shameful is the threat to use or to use such weapons." The entire system of non-proliferation, said Ahmadinejad, is just an oppressive sham letting those who possess these weapons try to keep others from getting them in order to maintain their own supremacy. Those in control of the international system also, he continued, want to use nuclear arms as an excuse to get others from obtaining nuclear energy, "the cleanest and cheapest" source of power.

Ahmadinejad's alternative is, "Immediate termination of all types of research, development, or improvement of nuclear weapons and their related facilities" and dismantling all U.S. nuclear weapons everywhere.

Oh, yes, and he calls for reforming the UN Security Council to get rid of a veto or permanent membership for the United States and others. And--no stranger to chutzpah--Ahmadinejad called for kicking the United States off the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

At the end, Ahmadinejad invited Obama "to join this humane movement, if he is still committed to his motto of `change.'"

What is all this about? Why is the leader most determined to pay a high price for getting nuclear weapons bad-mouthing them. Is this just camouflage to buy more time for Iran to get nukes? Yes but that's not all.

First, Ahmadinejad is calling Obama's bluff. You want to eliminate nuclear weapons? Make my day, let's do it! Obviously, this isn't going to work at this stage on Obama. But Ahmadinejad is not trying to persuade the United States but rather a range of Third World countries that might well oppose sanctions, including Lebanon, Turkey, and Brazil, which all happen to be on the Security Council right now and whose votes will be vital for passing (or, more likely, not passing) sanctions.

What's most important of all, however, is the second motive, an Iranian strategy I call creating a defensive umbrella for aggression. This might become the centerpiece of Middle East politics in the future. Let me explain.

Most discussion in the West has focused on Iran using nuclear weapons or threatening to do so. Yet, instead, Iran could genuinely be developing these arms in order to defend itself. The problem is that this defense is coupled with an aggressive policy.

In this framework, Iran would continue and escalate its subversive efforts against neighbors; consolidate and increase its influence in Lebanon and Iraq; support Hamas and client forces in Afghanistan; press regional states toward appeasement; recruit millions into revolutionary Islamist groups; and try to make Iran the hegemonic power in the region.
But when anyone tries to oppose Iran, Tehran need merely give a gentle reminder that it has nuclear arms and so they better shut up. To be fully intimidated by this tactic, Arabs don't have to believe that Iran would win a nuclear exchange with the United States. After all, even if Tehran lost they know their own countries would be devastated. Better to avoid any chance of a nuclear war than to offend Iran. Syria and Turkey, under its neo-Islamist regime; Hamas and Hizballah; Yemeni rebels and Iraqi insurgents would smirk and stick out their tongues from under Iran's protective umbrella.

The other element—as so often in the Middle East—is who the local rulers most fear. How can the Obama Administration, which has criticized past U.S. use of force and decisive leadership, persuade Iran to tremble in fear and convince moderate Arabs to stand tall feeling securely protected? Of course, these Arabs will accept American security guarantees but they would then be far more likely to bow to Iranian demands than to U.S. requests.

And there's still another trick up Ahmadinejad's sleeve. Under the current administration concept of containing Iran, the United States would have to do precisely what Ahmadinejad proposes to outlaw: threaten Iran with nuclear retaliation. So how will a U.S. threat that keeps nuclear Iran from flexing its muscles be worded, how scary will it be for Tehran, and how encouraging will it be for that regime's intended victims?

Ahmadinejad's apparently pacifist-style, peacenik stance at the UN conference fits into his strategy. Nuclear weapons may well provide the umbrella for him to seek regional hegemony with weapons of mass destruction unused but highly visible in his back pocket.

For a detailed analysis of what's going on regarding current non-proliferation issues, read Josh Pollack, a serious expert on these issues who actually makes them comprehensible, go HERE.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Fundamentally Freund: The road to nowhere

 

by Michael Freund

The only tangible outcome certain to emerge from the peace talks is a boost in Mitchell’s frequent-flyer account.

On the eve of the anticipated start of so-called proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinians, there is a discernible lack of enthusiasm.

The fanfare that usually accompanies the relaunch of Middle East negotiations has been replaced by an atmosphere of apathy, as it seems clear to just about everyone – outside the White House, that is – that little will come of the impending round.

Speaking to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Tuesday, Brig.-Gen. Yossi Baidatz, head of IDF Intelligence’s Research Division, said that even before the talks commence, the Palestinians are “already preparing the ground for the failure” of the process.

And dovish Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor was no less gloomy, telling The Jerusalem Post yesterday that the talks “won’t yield results” because the Palestinians are not willing to take “tough decisions.”

Indeed, it says a lot about the state of the peace process that the only tangible outcome certain to emerge is an inevitable boost in US envoy George Mitchell’s frequent-flyer account. This, of course, is entirely the fault of the Palestinians, who have repeatedly rejected the various gestures made by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu over the past 12 months.

Basking in the glow of unprecedented American pressure on the Jewish state, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is in no rush to make progress in difficult bargaining with Israel. He has every reason to wait, knowing full well that when the negotiations stall, the weight of international pressure will come down hard on the decision-makers in Jerusalem and not Ramallah.

But Washington too shares a great deal of the blame. By choreographing this farce of indirect talks doomed from the start, the Obama administration is playing directly into Palestinian hands, thereby further diminishing the already dismal chances of making peace. Through its naiveté, Washington is unwittingly setting the stage for an explosion of frustration and violence when the talks come screeching to a halt, which is hardly in anyone’s interest.

The conceptual error underlying the policy of the Obama administration is stark and simple: It still seems to think that the Oslo process has a chance in hell of succeeding.

In this respect, it is well worth recalling an important if largely dubious anniversary in Middle East diplomacy that slipped by this week.

IT WAS 16 years ago on Tuesday, on May 4, 1994, that prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat ascended a stage in Cairo and signed the Gaza-Jericho Agreement, paving the way for the first transfer of Israeli territory to Palestinian control.

At the ceremony, then-foreign minister Shimon Peres assured those present that a new day was at hand. “Today,” he said, beaming, “we declare that the conflict is over. Today we have agreed to promise mothers and children, Arab and Jewish, that no finger will pull a trigger to endanger the lives or to affect the dignity or happiness of their children.”

Within a few weeks of the signing, Arafat returned triumphantly to Gaza, as the IDF retreated and the experiment begun in the September 1993 Oslo Accords was put into place on the ground.

We all know how well that turned out. Despite Peres’ optimism, the conflict remains far from over. Instead, the Oslo process bequeathed us years of suicide bombings, hundreds of civilian deaths, diminished deterrence and the loss of territory, as well as the rise of Hamas.

Logic, then, would dictate that rather than trying to keep this failed process going, Washington would do better to reexamine its approach and acknowledge its mistakes. A good place to start would be to recognize once and for all that there is no serious partner on the Palestinian side with the courage, authority or conviction to negotiate terms with Israel. Like it or not, the chances of forging an agreement with the current cast of characters in Gaza City and Ramallah are close to nil.

Moreover, President Barack Obama’s enthusiasm for the land-for-peace paradigm and the two-state solution has proven to be entirely misplaced. Israel’s past abandonment of territory, whether unilaterally or through agreements, has only brought disaster in its wake. The fact is that “peace for peace” was and remains the only viable and acceptable basis for a just end to the conflict.

Nonetheless, Washington stubbornly refuses to accept what is obvious to all, and insists on plunging ahead down a well-worn path clearly marked “Dead End.”

The result will likely be catastrophic.

In diplomacy, Henry Kissinger once noted: “If you don’t know where you are going, every road will get you nowhere.”

And that, it seems, is precisely where Obama is about to take us.

 

 

Michael Freund
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

What Do the New Israel-Palestinian Indirect Talks Mean?

by Barry Rubin

The question of the day is whether the Israel-Palestinian Authority (PA) indirect talks will make progress in the "peace process" or result in failure. One wonders at this point how many naive people believe that peace is at hand, and how many misled people think that the lack of peace is Israel's fault.

What is needed to understand the issue is precisely what is not presented by policymakers, academics, and all-too-much of the mass media: The PA neither wants nor is capable of delivering a compromise peace agreement.

Radicalism within its ranks, in public opinion, and the ever-present challenge from Hamas ties the hands of leaders who are not so moderate themselves.

Belief that if they continue the struggle or keep saying "no" or subvert Western support for Israel they will get everything they want without giving up much is too tempting.

But can these specific talks at this specific time bring progress or failure?

Depends on what you mean by "progress"; depends on what you mean by "failure."

If one believes there will be a comprehensive peace agreement, then the result will be failure because the PA didn't want a comprehensive agreement to begin with, and both internal politics and intoxication in believing the Obama Administration will give them what they want is going to result in even more intransigence.


If the United States wants to impose a solution, the PA, sensing this will make sure the talks fail, have no incentive to make a deal. And any attempt after that by--let's be honest here--people who really don't understand the issues or how the region's politics work would bring disaster in the longer run.


If, however, one wisely uses the talks to reduce tension betwen the two sides and deal with more immediate problems that can be resolved--economic growth, security cooperation, ways to make the Palestinian Authority more stable politically, better for its people, and able to survive the Hamas challenge--the talks could be beneficial.

From an Obama Administration standpoint, if it takes a bow on its "great" work in getting indirect talks going (after its policy contributed to delaying them so long), it will be happy and find the talks beneficial for itself. It will also believe that the talks will soothe Muslims and Arabs, making its own policy task easier on other issues by getting Arab state support for, say, what the United States is doing with Iran sanctions or Iraq withdrawal or reducing terrorism against Americans. This is doubtful but it will make the administration, and perhaps its constituents, feel better.

If the talks become direct ones, then the world will rejoice, forgetting that this merely returns the situation to what existed--without great progress--in 2008. Indeed, direct Israel-Palestinian talks have been going on now for 17 years, with Israel offering a Palestinian state as an outcome of talks during that entire period, and offering the immediate opportunity for the Palestians to get a state with its capital in east Jerusalem and the equivalent of all the West Bank and Gaza Strip 10 years ago.

And, by the way, when will any Western mainstream media actually report what Israel wants in a peace settlement: security guarantees, dropping of all further Palestinian claims, a non-militarized state without foreign armies on its soil, resettlement of all Palestinian refugees in Palestine, and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state in response to recognition of Palestine as an Arab state? Might these things be just as relevant as Palestinian demands for a state, the dismantlement of Jewish settlements, and territorial demands?

Until Western leaders understand why there hasn't been progress and set their policies accordingly how could there be any real success in resolving this issue?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

How Obama enables Iran's defiance

 

by Anne Bayefsky

Yesterday the UN handed the world's leading would-be nuclear proliferator - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - a platform to open a UN conference about preventing nuclear proliferation.

A year ago, fully aware of Ahmadinejad's genocidal ambitions, the UN handed the same man a stage to open an "anti-racism" conference. The reaction in both cases was similar. The UN majority gave Ahmadinejad a round of applause. And a few Western governments made a show of walking out and then came right back in a short while later.

Yesterday, international relations were all about theater.

No lessons will be drawn in Washington about the UN's actual potential to help defeat violence and intolerance. On the contrary. While Ahmadinejad uses the UN to spew contempt for America and run out the clock on an Iranian bomb, the American President uses the UN as the centrifuge for his foreign policy. Yesterday's embarrassment, therefore, lies more at the feet of the President of the United States than those of the president of Iran.

It is President Obama who decided last September to be the first American President to preside over a session of the Security Council and then deleted "nuclear nonproliferation - Iran" from the draft agenda. Obama himself chose the subject matter of that summit. He added nuclear disarmament to nuclear nonproliferation and turned nonproliferation into a game of "you first."

It is Obama who decided to host an April Security Summit touted as "the largest gathering of countries hosted by an American President . . . since the conference in San Francisco around the United Nations." He selected the subject matter and then refused to add Iran.

It is Obama who, for the first time, has linked the issue of Israeli concessions to the prospect of getting serious about an Iranian bomb - a policy that has all the hallmarks of looking for a Jewish scapegoat when an Iranian bomb becomes a reality.

And it is Obama who has now told European leaders that he will insist on an international conference to create a Palestinian state regardless of whether Palestinians move an inch to throw out their elected leaders, who continue to reject coexistence with Israel. Again, Obama's move places the UN in center court, since the conference is to be organized by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's brainchild, the Quartet. The Quartet is composed of the UN, Russia, the European Union and the United States. Rather than being an independent actor, "the UN" plays the role of errand boy for the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

So it is hardly surprising that Ahmadinejad leaped for the UN microphone.

Unfortunately, however, his speech is not just a rant about Jewish self-determination, America or liberty. It is a declaration of war against every decent living thing.

The only question that remains is not which New York playhouse will host President Obama's next big production. The question is whether there is anybody left who will refuse to slink back inside the General Assembly and insist that international peace and security is not a game of charades.

 

 

Anne Bayefsky
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

There is no Hope for Peace

 

by Dr. Alex Grobman

 

The writer explains why he feels that the Arab/Israeli conflict is intractable.

 

There are many attempts to understand why the Arab/Israel conflict remains unresolved.  Among the reasons advanced for this impasse are that: years of suspicion, fear, feelings of injustice and stereotyping have created a psychological barrier between Israelis and Arabs.[1] Negative perceptions have reduced incentives to accept peace proposals, prejudice the viability of these proposals and preclude feelings of empathy.[2]

On the most personal level, there are differences in Arab and Jewish life-styles. Meron Benvenisti, a former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, laments the gulf dividing Arabs and Jews even when they live together as neighbors. They patronage the same stores, exchange information on common neighborhood issues, drink coffee in the afternoon, and watch their children growing up from opposite sides of the fence.[3] 

Yet they do not share common holidays, days of rest, or free time activities. Holidays are especially alienating. Benvenisti would not invite his neighbors to sit in his sukkah (booths used during the Feast of Tabernacles) lest they be offended when he recites the prayer over the wine. Similarly, when one of his neighbor's children returned from the hajj, the annual religious pilgrimage to Mecca, his family would not be invited to celebrate to save them embarrassment for not knowing how to behave.[4]

Estrangement is even more pronounced the moment visible symbols are involved. When Benvenisti displays the flag on Israeli Independence Day, he knows his neighbors will be upset. On Yom Kippur, work ceases throughout the country. During the month of Ramadan, Arabs rise at 3: 00 a.m. A blind man in his neighborhood, who is escorted by a drummer, wakes-up the pious at 3:a.m. to prepare the meal before the fast. [5]

Security issues ans suspicions add another layer of distance. Every one of his Arab neighbor's homes has been searched at least once during the 14 years the Benvenisti's lived there. Every single male over the age of 18 has been detained by the security forces during the same period. "We are simultaneously enemies and neighbors," he concludes.

The many wars, endless clashes and Arab threats of total annihilation have left memories of "hatred, paranoia, brutality, dehumanization, and tribalism." Even as Israel becomes more powerful, many Israelis still feel "vulnerable and weak." The Holocaust will always be a "national trauma."  Fear remains an overwhelming emotion.[6]

Sari Nusseibeh, scion of one Jerusalem's most prominent Muslim Arab families, president of Al Quds University in Jerusalem, and a former PLO representative in the city, posits that the "inability to imagine the lives of the 'other,' is main reason why the conflict persists. Everyone is so absorbed in their own adversity they are unaware of each other's experiences and even antagonistic to them.[7]

The late Edward Said, a pro-Palestinian activist and a professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University, underlined the fundamental reason why when he spoke of his perception of Palestinians becoming the victims of Zionism, of the Zionists being responsible for the destruction of their society, the loss of their land, and the painful exile they are forced to endure.[8]

He accused the Zionists of being a "tool of imperialism" who usurped their land, established settler colonies and a sovereign state whose only means of preservation is by aggression and expansion.  Some Arabs believe that Israel is by nature an expansionist nation, and will continue to take more land at Arab expense.[9] 

Seizing Arab land cannot be tolerated by Islam.  Bernard Lewis, one of the world's leading experts on Islam, explains that once a territory has become part of Islam's domain, it can never be relinquished or surrendered to anyone. No land is more significant than Arabia and Iraq. And of the two, Arabia is clearly the most important.[10]

The sacredness of Muslim land led to the eviction early on of Jews and Christians from their homes and property. In 641, 20 years after Muhammad moved from Mecca to Medina, Caliph Umar decreed that Jews and Christians be expelled from Arabia in accordance with the Prophet's deathbed pronouncement: "Let there not be two religions in Arabia." This meant Jews of the oasis of Khybar in the north and Christians of Najran in the south were to be banished even though both groups had very deep roots in the region and differed from their Muslim neighbors only in their religion.[11]

The Jews were relocated to Syria and Palestine and the Christians to Iraq. Compared to the expulsions Jews experienced in Europe, this was more limited. Jews were not forced out immediately.  They left gradually, but the decision to expel them was irrevocable. From then on, non-Muslims were forbidden to walk on this sacred soil, doing so  became a major transgression. Elsewhere in the Saudi Kingdom, non-Muslims could enter as temporary visitors, but could not become residents or practice their religion.[12]

Arabs call Israeli Independence Day, the Nakba (Catastrophe), and regard it as a day of mourning.  Hanan Ashrawi, a leading Palestinian advocate, regards the establishment of the Jewish state was as an "unimaginable aberration."[13] Other Arab leaders portray Zionism as "a disaster"[14] and a "sword …at the necks of the Palestinian people."[15]

 What Benvenisti, Nusseibeh and others fail to mention is that the fundamental objective of the militant and violent Arabs is to destroy Western culture and civilization and replace it with their own "civilization of dhimmitude," where non-Muslims will be forced to become a "protected" minority subordinating themselves to restrictive and degrading Islamic law to avoid death or enslavement. For 1,300 years, this jihad political force has subjugated and even eliminated major areas of Judeo-Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and other religious civilizations in Europe, Asia and Africa. Non-Muslims either converted, disappeared or were rendered incapable of further development.[16]

The goal of conquering the West is avowed in the introduction to The Charter of Allah: The Platform of Hamas: "We say to this West, which does not act reasonably, and does not learn its lessons: By Allah, you will be defeated. You will be defeated in Palestine, and your defeat there has already begun. True, it is Israel that is being defeated there, but when Israel is defeated, its path is defeated, those who call to support it are defeated, and the cowards who hide behind it and support it are defeated. Israel will be defeated, and so will whoever supported or supports it."[17]

That is why the Israeli and American war on terrorism in the twenty- first century is one and the same. [18] Hamas prime minister Isma`il Haniya, confirmed this when he said: "…the march of resistance will continue until the Islamic flag is raised, not only over the minarets of Jerusalem, but over the whole universe."[19] The delusion that they are separate conflicts has conferred an element of legitimacy on the vicious acts of terrorism in Israel.[20]

The attacks against the U.S. on September 11, 2001 were the latest manifestation of the Islamic jihad to establish universal world domination.[21]This goal can be realized through demographic growth and conversion of the local population. Large numbers of teachers and religious leaders will be mobilized to teach Islam in every language and dialect. Should peaceful methods prove inadequate, physical force can be used. [22]

Even if Hamas agreed to a hunda (truce) with Israel, this would only be a strategic tactic that would not signal an end to the struggle or a change in objectives. Abbas al-Sayyid, (the political leader of Hamas in Tulkarm and the convicted Izz-ad-Din al- Qassam Brigades commander of Hamas' military wing), who was the architect of the bombing of the Park Hotel in Netanya on March 27, 2002 in which 30 people were killed and 140 injured, made this clear.[23] Hamas, he said, is prepared for a truce for an extensive period of time, but for religious reasons could not allow Israel to occupy Islamic lands. If Abbas did not succeed in obtaining the land that is "rightfully mine" then perhaps his "son or grandson will." [24]

What will happen to the people who allegedly stole Arab lands?  Mahmoud Darwish, a very popular poet of the Palestinian resistance, provided the answer in a powerful poem "Bitaqit Hawia," (Identity Card) written in 1964. Although professing not to "hate people," Darwish warned, "The usurper's flesh will be my food. Beware, Beware, Of my hunger And my anger!"[25]

"The curious power of this little poem is that when it first appeared in the late sixties, it did not represent as much as embody the Palestinian whose political identity in the world had been pretty much reduced to a name on an identity card," Edward Said said unapologetically. [26]

Is there any Zionist poetry or statement that describes the Palestinians in comparable, brutal ways? And if any does exist, who could claim that it is the "embodiment of the Israelis," that it represents the view of the Jewish people? [27]

For many Arabs, the conflict with Zionism is a religious war against the Jewish people. Since the Jews are not going to leave their homeland voluntarily, the solution is clear according to Abdallah Jarbu', Hamas deputy minister of religious endowments:   "May He annihilate this filthy people who have neither religion nor conscience.  I condemn whoever believes in normalizing relations with them, whoever supports sitting down with them, and whoever believes that they are human beings. They are not human beings. They are not people. They have no religion, no conscience, and no moral values."[28]

Peace Talks, anyone?

 

Endnotes

1. Saul Friedlander and Mahmoud Hussein, Arabs and Israelis: A Dialogue. (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1975), 3-16; William B. Quandt, "Ideology and Objectives," in The Politics of Palestinian Nationalism, William B. Quandt, Fuad Jabber and Ann Mosely Lesch, ed. (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1973), 94-95. 

2. Moises F. Salinas, Planting Hatred, Sowing Pain, (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2007), 5-10, 33; Nadim N. Rouhana and Daniel Bar-Tal, "Psychological Dynamics of Intractable Ethnonational Conflicts: The Israeli-Palestinian Case," American Psychologist Volume 53 number 7: 760-770; Oz Almog, The Sabra, The Creation of the New Jew. (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2000), 190-201.

3. Meron Benvenisti, Conflicts and Contradictions. (New York: Villard Books, 1986), 13.

4. Ibid.13.

5. Ibid. 13-16.

6. Amos Elon, A Blood-Dimmed Tide: Dispatches From the Middle East. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 6, 268-270; Ofer Grosbard, Israel on the Couch: The Psychology of the Peace Process. (Albany, New York: State University of New York, 2003), 1-6.

7.  Sari Nusseibeh, Once upon A Country: A Palestinian Life. (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007), 12; an attempt to understand each other's tragedies can be found in Paul Scham, Walid Salem and Benjamin Pogrund, eds., Shared Histories: A Palestinian-Israeli Dialogue (Jerusalem: The Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Palestinian Center for the Dissemination of Democracy and Community Development (Panorama) and Yakar Center for Social Concern, 2005); Amos Elon and Sana Hassan, Between Enemies: A Compassionate Dialogue Between An Israeli and An Arab. New York: Random House, 1974; Friedlander and Hussein, op.cit; Simha Flapan, ed. When Enemies Dare To Talk: An Israeli-Palestinian Debate, (London: Croom Helm, Ltd., 1979).

8.  Edward W. Said and Christopher Hitchens, eds. Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question. (New York: Verso, 1988), 6-7; please also see Fawaz Turki, The Disinherited: Journal of a Palestinian Exile. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972; Abu Iyad, My Home, My Land: A Narrative of the Palestinian Struggle. (New York: Times Books, 1981); Issa Khalaf, Politics in Palestine: Arab Factionalism and Social Disintegration 1939-1948. (Albany, New York: State University of New York, 1991); Flapan, op.cit.

9. Mark A. Heller, and Sari Nusseibeh, No Trumpets, No Drums: A Two-State Solution of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (New York: Hill and Wang, 1991), 5,-8,150-151; Edward Said, The Question of Palestine. (New York: Vintage Books, 1979) , 7-8, 10, 69, 71.; Hassan Nafaa, "Manifest Colonial Domination," Al-Ahram (August 9-15, 2007) Issue Number 857, Online; Richard P. Stevens, "Zionism as a Phase of Western Imperialism," in Transformation of Palestine, Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, (Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1987), 27-59; Sami Hadawi, Bitter Harvest: Palestine Between 1914-1967 (New York: The New World Press, 1967), 3-8; Sami Hadawi, Palestinian Rights And Losses In 1948: A Comprehensive Study. (London: Saqi Books, 1988); Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, op.cit. 110-11, 115. 125; Quandt, "Ideology and Objectives,"op.cit. 100-107; Yehoshafat Harkabi, Arab Strategies and Israel's Response. New York: The Free Press, 1977; Kathleen Christianson, Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2000), 1-4.

10. Bernard Lewis, Faith and Power: Religion and Politics in the Middle East (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 4.

11. Ibid.5.

12. Ibid.

13. Hanan Ashrawi, This Side of Peace. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995), 24; Hanan Ashrawi, "Palestine and Peace: The Looming Challenges," Miftah (April 30, 2007), Online; Flapan, ed. o.cit.79, 82. 

14. Musa Alami, "The Lesson of Palestine," The Middle East Journal Volume 3 Number 4 (October 1949): 375. 

15. Yoav Stern, "At rally, Hadash touts two-state solution without the Jewishness," Haaretz (December 9, 2007); "Catholic leader rejects 'Jewish state,'" Jerusalem Post (December 19, 2007).

16. Bat Ye'or, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. (Teaneck, New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005), 9; Bat Ye'or, Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide.  (Teaneck, New Jersey: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002); Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Islam in Modern History (New York: Mentor Books, 1957); Daniel Pipes, "Islam and Islamism-Faith and Ideology," National Interest (Spring 2000).

17. Yehudit Barsky, Hamas, op.cit. 1; Yehudit Barsky, The New Leadership of Hamas: A Profile of Khalid Al-Mish'al, (New York: American Jewish Committee, 2004):1; Yehudit Barsky, Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine (New York: American Jewish Committee, 2002): 5, 7.

18. Saul Singer, "Interesting Times: The two-conflict delusion," The Jerusalem Post (May 12, 2004).

19. Barsky, Hamas, op.cit. 2. In an editorial in the Palestinian Al-Quds newspaper in July 2007, Israeli Arab Knesset Member Ahmed Tibi, said, "Palestine belongs to its Arab residents, not the Jewish occupiers." Seven months earlier, he exhorted the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah to oppose the "occupation" until they reclaimed the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. "Arab MK: 'Palestine Belongs to Arabs, Not Jews." Arutz 7 (July 29, 2007); "Arab MK: Fight Israeli 'occupation'." JTA (July 29, 2007).

20. Singer, op.cit. According to the latest edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam, the definition of jihad is: "In law, according to general doctrine and in historical tradition, the jihad consists of military action with the object of the expansion of Islam, and if need be, of its defense." Quoted in David Cook, Understanding Jihad (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2005), 2; Lewis, Faith and Power: Religion and Politics in the Middle East op.cit. 8-9; Mark Steyn, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It. Washington, D.C. Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2006); Robert S. Wistrich, "Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger," American Jewish Committee (2002); Robert S. Wistrich, A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad (New York: Random House, 2010); for an analysis of the challenges Western Europe faces from Islam see, Daniel Pipes, "Europe's Stark Options," National Interest (March-April 2007).

21. Efraim Karsh, "Islam's World for World Mastery," The New York Sun (May 18, 2007).  

22. Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University press, 2006), 232; Robert Spencer, Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2008);

Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2005; Steve Emerson, Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the US (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2006) Daniel Pies, Militant Islam Reaches America. (New York: W.W. Norton and Company 2002).

23. Matthew Levitt, Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad. (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2007), 243.

24. Ibid.

25. Quoted in Said, op.cit. 155-156; Mahmoud Darwish, "Identity Card," Online; See also "Gaza Palestinian Salafi Jihad Jama'at Al-Tawhid Wa'l- Jihad Issues Communiqué on Arab Regimes, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Conflict with Israel: We Will Decapitate the Jews and Rip Their Hearts from Their Bodies," MEMRI Special Dispatch 2878(March 26, 2010);

"Hamas Deputy Minister of Religious Endowments Abdallah Jarbu' on Al-Aqsa TV: 'Allah will Poison the Air Breathed by the Jews…the Americans… the Crusaders and All the Zionists…There Must be a Third Intifada," MEMRI Special Dispatch 2879(March 28, 2010).

 26. Said, op.cit.155-156.

27. Cameron S. Brown, "Answering Edward Said's The Question of Palestine," Israel Affairs Volume 13 Number 1 (January 2007,), 59.

28. "On Al-Aqsa TV, Hamas Deputy Minister of Religious Calls for Jews to be Annihilated, Saying They Are Bacteria, Not Human Beings," MEMRI Special Dispatch 2858 ( March 15, 2010).

 

Dr. Alex Grobman

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.