Tag: us

For Obama, Helping Gaza Is Harder Than It Looks

For Obama, Helping Gaza Is Harder Than It Looks:

“Ignoring those contradictions might be acceptable in furtherance either of the simple moral goal of helping thousands of people in need or, more cynically, in pursuit of the public relations win that might come from being seen to do so. But much of the money pledged in Sharm el-Sheikh may never actually go to helping Palestinians in Gaza at all. At a Paris conference in late 2007, the international community started a pledge drive that eventually totaled $7.7 billion in proposed aid to the Palestinians. By September 2008, only $1.4 billion had gone through to the Palestinian Authority according to French diplomat Pierre Duquesne, thanks to the difficulty of distributing the aid and a failure of donors to actually deliver the promised money.

USAID says it committed $600 million after the Paris donor’s conference, including $300 million in budget support to the Palestinian Authority and $184.7 million in refugee assistance. Other countries, especially the Arab donors, did not follow through on their own pledges. With $6 billion in undelivered pledges, the Sharm el-Sheikh summit may simply repurpose the same money pledged a year ago in Paris. And it seems perfectly possible, barring dramatic changes in the Middle East political equation, that a year from now another summit will propose more humanitarian goals, boldly repurposing unused Paris-Sharm el Sheikh money.”

These are important points – a lot of money has already been pledged to Palestinians, but not disbursed. The conference has been held under the same basic premise – isolation of Hamas in favor of Fatah – that the whole “West Bank first” policy is based on. Yet, the Egyptian initiative and Palestinian reconciliation talks aimed at creating some kind of National Unity Government would suggest a move away from that scenario. The visits of John Kerry, Javier Solana and Tony Blair to Gaza also suggest a change of attitude towards Hamas – unless they are mere PR.

So what will it be? Full backing for Palestinian reconciliation, with the understanding that this means dealing with at least parts of a Hamas-staffed NUG? Or pretending to want Palestinian reconciliation but acting as if it has no prospects and continuing a failed policy? Does the EU, do the Arabs have to wait for Obama to make up his mind about this? They should make his job easier and change policies unilaterally, Obama is saddled with an AIPAC-controlled Congress and probably can’t change the policy even if he wanted to. But others can make it clear that they will no longer slavishly follow the American lead here – America is an obstacle, not a leader, in Israeli-Arab peace.

This does not mean engaging Hamas directly. But at the very least it means clearly, unequivocally, supporting Palestinian reconciliation as the most urgent priority in the next few months and providing some guarantees that the international community would not abandon a NUG because Ismail Haniyeh or some other Hamas leader is a member. You can figure out the money later, for now, will the Quartet continue to back isolating Hamas over Palestinian reconciliation?

Also see: March Lynch is disappointed at Hillary Clinton for behaving like West Bank First is still the plan.

Update: Lynch posts a guest comment by Tamara Wittes, saying there is a big difference about what the US can do with its funding – which ultimately is controlled by Congress – and what it can do diplomatically. I agree, and this is what is referred to above, but I don’t get a real sense of clarity from what Hillary Clinton said at Sharm al-Sheikh. Maybe if Clinton wanted to support reconciliation, she should have said so more forthrightly. Nathan Brown also chimed in on the same point.

Gamal in DC again

This report in Masri al-Youm says Gamal Mubarak is planning to speak at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and at the Council of Foreign Relations this week. Some of the meetings are closed-door, apparently, so if any DC-based Arabist reader is attending, we’d love to hear of anything interesting Gamal has to say (anonymity guaranteed if desired!)

The background for this trip to the US is that adds to the long-term trend of Gamal taking a more active role in representing Egypt in DC, especially ahead of this month’s door-knock mission of the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt (an occasion for influential businessmen to lobby Congress on economic and political relations with Egypt) and the expectation that Hosni Mubarak could be making his first trip to Washington in five years as Egypt mends its political relationship with the new Obama administration. Of course, presidential succession is as ever the hot topic, but it’ll be interesting to see whether Gamal stakes out positions on regional and security issues as well as his more traditional economic turf.

Leave a comment or contact me via email. Thanks!

CBS’ 60 Minutes on Palestine

This has been much talked about in the last few days, and I have just caught up with it and watched it. The incredible, unprecedented thing about this documentary is that it takes the time to examine the living conditions of Palestinians, the nasty mindedness of the settler movement and Israel’s policy of supporting it. All of this is public knowledge for those who care to look for it, the big deal here is that for those who don’t care, just turned on the TV, are ill-informed, a US broadcaster has just shown a straight-up account of the occupation of Palestine that is not automatically followed by a “Israel says this, Palestinians say that” idiocy or a reaffirmation of “Israel’s right to defend itself.” So yes, it’s a big deal.

Watch on the CBS website (can be difficult with low-speed internet), or YouTube (part 1, part 2) and then take the time to thanks CBS for having given the settlement issue a fair hearing.

Obama’s TV appearance

A very few quick notes on Obama’s appearance on Arabiya TV:

– Very good on the Obama team to have made this move, which was necessary, so quickly.
– It repairs some, but only some, of the damage caused by his silence on Gaza.
– The choice of Arabiya was most probably a decision to appeal to the Saudis, have Obama underline the importance of their Arab Initiative which has been snubbed by Israel and the US under Bush.
– Nonetheless Arabiya is problematic – this is the channel dubbed Hibriya (The Hebrew One) because of its coverage of the Gaza crisis and that generally defends the views of Riyadh, Cairo and other problematic US allies. This confirms that Obama will not, like Bush since 2006, go against Egypt and Saudi on domestic issues and there won’t be a rethink of the US relationship with these. But if you thought that would happen, you’re stupid.
– Should Obama have gone to Jazeera instead? Perhaps not, for both domestic reasons (the criticism he would expose himself to, even if unwarranted) and because there are genuine US complaints about Jazeera. But at some later point, he should go to Jazeera – especially if it is to pitch a major conflict resolution initiative in the region. At the end of the day, despite its bias, Arabiya is the number two pan-Arab stations. (In many countries, like the rest of the world, Arabs actually watch their national TV stations most.)
– Obama’s next move should be to disband al-Hurra. It’s a useless waste of money.
– Obama’s line that the US should “start by listening” will be taken (along with the phone calls) with enormous pleasure by Egyptian diplomats, among others, who felt that the advice of Arab allies was ignored under Bush.
– I am also disturbed at why an American president would say Israel’s security is “paramount” – as in more important than anything? Why should it be? Why not say it’s a “red line” in the grand old style of Arab leaders?
– What this says (as much as this kind of interview can say anything deep) is that the Obama approach compared to Bush, for now, is more active and tough on Iran, same on Israel but more involved on peace process, Forward Agenda for Freedom is dropped because conflict resolution and managing Iran is more important, and greater attention to communication issues.

The professional analysis is of course at Marc Lynch’s blog, here and here. Juan Cole has the interview and transcript. Update: Another take here.

Regarding the issue of Hillary Clinton’s “Israel’s right to defend itself” comment, I think the US should stop using this formulation. Why not instead say, “did Hamas expect Israel to do nothing as it launched rockets?” Obviously I’d like to see some serious concern, repeatedly voiced, for the IDF’s behavior in Gaza and the disproportionality of the conflict.

Old skool

I kept re-reading this short piece by John Mearsheimer for the last month and a half. For a realism-based US foreign policy in the Middle East that does not unnecessarily load itself with unworkable ideas like democracy-promotion or public diplomacy, it does have good basic principles. Some of its key points:

The United States is in deep trouble in the Middle East. Despite Barack Obama’s promises to withdraw from Iraq, the debacle there shows no sign of ending soon. Hamas rules in Gaza; Iran is quickly moving to acquire a nuclear deterrent. We need a radically different strategy for the region.

Fortunately, there is a strategy that has proved effective in the past and could serve again today: “offshore balancing.” It’s less ambitious than President Bush’s grand plan to spread democracy throughout the Middle East, but it would be much better at protecting actual U.S. interests. The United States would station its military forces outside the region. And “balancing” would mean we’d rely on regional powers like Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia to check each other. Washington would remain diplomatically engaged, and when necessary would assist the weaker side in a conflict. It would also use its air and naval power to respond quickly to unexpected threats. But—and this is the key point—America would put boots on the ground only if the local balance of power seriously broke down and one country threatened to dominate the others.

. . .

The strategy has three particular virtues. First, it would significantly reduce the chances that we would get involved in another bloody and costly war like Iraq. America doesn’t need to control the Middle East with its own forces; it merely needs to ensure that no other country does.

Second, offshore balancing would ameliorate America’s terrorism problem. Foreign occupiers generate fierce resentment. Keeping America’s military forces out of sight would minimize the anger created by having them stationed on Arab soil.

Third, offshore balancing would reduce fears in Iran and Syria that the United States aims to attack them and remove their regimes—a key reason these states are currently seeking weapons of mass destruction. Persuading Tehran to abandon its nuclear program will require Washington to address Iran’s legitimate security concerns and to refrain from overt threats.

A final, compelling reason to adopt this approach is that nothing else has worked. After the Gulf war, the Clinton administration pursued a “dual containment” strategy: instead of using Iraq and Iran to check each other, the United States began trying to contain both. As a result, both came to view the United States as a bitter enemy. The policy also required the United States to deploy large numbers of troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, which helped persuade Osama bin Laden to declare war on America.

It’s realistic, cost-effective (don’t underestimate the role played by the Iraq war in the current economic crisis), and barebones enough to help concentrate on basic national interest essentials rather than a hodgepodge of a times contradictory aims. Importantly, one of its implicit recommendations is that when the balance shifts too much towards Israel (as in the peace-processing of the 1990s or the Bush administration) it needs to be corrected.

Let a natural balance of power emerge – a concert of nations for the Middle East, hopefully with a fair solution for the Palestinians. It would be tremendously less destructive to the region than constant war, sanctions and shock-and-awe displays of military might.

I admit…

…it feels very good that George W. Bush is no longer President of the United States of America.

And that the election of President Barack H. Obama is watershed event in the history of the fight for civil rights in America, and that the speech by Reverend Joseph Lowery was exceptional.

Many would like to look forward into the Obama era, and tackle its many problems. But I don’t think you can do that until you fully examine what happened in the last eight years – not just the obvious stuff like the invasion of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Dahlangate and the egging on of Israel during the wars in Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza recently. There is a collective guilt for having aided and abetted the Bush administration amidst most of the American political class and a good part of the American public that preferred to look the other way.

I hope President Obama will not be the same person who voted in support of Israel’s bombing of Lebanon in 2006 (and who would have probably voted in support of Gaza two weeks ago if he hadn’t been elected to a higher office.) Let’s hope he rises to the occasion.

Is this Obama’s Middle East strategy?

I’ve been loathe, aside from the quick links, to comment on Barack Obama – the man, his election, his policies and picks. After all, he’s not even president yet.

Like most people I cannot but be impressed by his charisma and talent, but overall I never really bought in to Obamania and he was not my favorite Democrat in the primaries (I fully recognize I was wrong in my choice of John Edwards, though, since his sex scandal would have lost him the race had he been the Democratic candidate). My basic position on Obama’s Middle East policy during the elections was that he would deliver little different, even if one could hope that he would pick different people to work on it than the ones we’ve had for two decades, and that on the Israel question specifically not only did he fail to distinguish himself (aside perhaps from his speech to Jewish-American in Columbus, OH) but bent over backwards to reassure the lobby, all the while neglecting to highlight its responsibility in the warmongering of the last eight years. (I also found his lack of strong reaction to the economic crisis during the election quite shocking, which is my other major beef with him.)

So basically, I already am skeptical that we will see a fundamentally different US Middle East foreign policy than the Clinton and Bush years, which were not that different apart from Bush’s hyper-militarism (before we had more discreet militarism). I was unhappy about Hillary Clinton being picked as SecState, because I associate the Clintons as one of the worst developments in American politics in the past quarter-century, and did not see the political necessity of appointing his ex-rival rather than a more dour and wonky choice. But I don’t really care that much, think that all of the vapid editorializing about the Arab world expecting change from Obama is complete bullshit driven by a US news framing agenda rather than any Arab reality, and am sadly resigned to yet another administration that will miss the point about the centrality of the Israel-Palestine issue in this region (which every elder American statesman has made for years) and the extremely pernicious impact it has had on the US foreign-policymaking process. I just hope Obama can/will/wants to do good on other issues, such as the environment or healthcare – although I remain fundamentally convinced he’s miss one of the most important issues of our time.

Even so,I was surprised to read this albeit speculative article in Haaretz/a about the Obama-Clinton Middle East strategy:

However, senior government sources in Jerusalem said that the information they have received indicates that the new administration is planning a hierarchy of about five special envoys to various regions, overseen by a kind of “super coordinator,” who would answer directly to the president and the secretary of state.

The sources said that the new policy is part of Obama’s and Clinton’s understanding that all the conflicts in the Middle East and Southeast Asia are to some extent connected to the Iranian nuclear program and withdrawal from Iraq. Therefore, it is important to operate in a number of parallel but coordinated channels to attain achievements on all fronts.

The most prominent name in consideration for the top coordinator post is Dennis Ross, who served as President Bill Clinton’s special envoy to the Middle East. Ross’ name has also come up as a possible senior adviser to Hillary Clinton.

The envoy to the Middle East would oversee the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, negotiations between Syria and Israel and the situation in Lebanon.

Short-listed for this job are Colin Powell, who was President George W. Bush’s secretary of state during his first term; Dan Kurtzer, U.S. ambassador to Israel from 2001 to 2005; and Martin Indyk, who is close to Hillary Clinton and who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel from 1995 to 1997 and from 2000 to 2001.

All conflicts in the Middle East are connected to Iraq and Iran?!!?! If they see it that way, it’s because they’ve decided the priority will be Iraq and Iran, which is to say it’ll be Iran. Fair enough, the Israeli-Palestinian process does appear at a deadlock with inter-Palestinian rivalry and the prospect of a new Netanyahu administration in Tel Aviv. Nonetheless, considering the humanitarian disaster in Gaza, continued ethnic cleansing and settlement expansion in Jerusalem and the West Bank, one would think the US could have other priorities on its mind (indeed, since a good part of the US defense establishment thinks it can live with a nuclear Iran, one wonders whether this isn’t an Israeli priority).

It’s also extremely depressing to see the list of names for top coordinator (Dennis Ross – nuff said) and for Middle East Envoy: Martin Indyk is AIPAC’s man and Colin Powell was a failure as SecState and obviously overwhelmed by his bureaucratic opponents. Even with Dan Kurtzer, the most palatable and professional of these choices, we have the slight problem that his brother is an Israeli settler.

Now one might put this down to the idea that these are the only acceptable names to Israel, which largely calls the shots with regards to US peace process policy, at least since the first Clinton administration. But it also shows a staggering lack of imagination: in all of the talent pool of Washington, DC, these are the only men one can think of for the job? Where’s the change we can believe in, Mr Obama?

Rachid Khalidi interview in Haaretz

Haaretz’ Akiva Eldar has a long interview with Rachid Khalidi, I believe the first since the storm over his relationship to Barack Obama. Here are a few choice excerpts:

On the situation in Palestine and prospects for peace:

“Both the occupation regime and the settlement enterprise have gotten constantly stronger since the negotiating process began in 1991 – after being weakened by the first intifada. These twin processes went on steroids after the second intifada started in 2000. If these two bulldozer-like endeavors are not rapidly reversed – not halted, reversed – then there is no possibility whatsoever of a two-state solution. These processes – the consecration of the occupation regime and the expansion of settlements – have been ongoing for 41 years. I suspect that because of them, combined with the blindness of Israeli leaders and the weakness of Palestinian leadership, there is little chance for a two-state solution to be implemented. And anyone who wants to implement a real, equitable two-state solution would have to explain in detail how they would uproot all or most of the settlements. Equally difficult will be overcoming the powerful interlocking complex of forces in Israeli society that have extensive material, bureaucratic, political and ideological interests in the Israeli state’s continued control over the lives of 3.5 million Palestinians, a control that is exercised under the pretext of security.”

On what change Obama will bring:

“In any case, much will depend on who is chosen for the key positions relating to the Middle East. If some of the unimaginative, close-minded and biased advocates of conventional thinking who bear a major share of the responsibility for the mess we have been in for over 20 years – from the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations to that of Clinton, even before George W. Bush made things even worse – are appointed to important posts, my expectations will be low. I was involved in the negotiations as an advisor to the Palestinian delegation from Madrid in 1991 until June 1993, before Oslo. Those American officials who helped get the Palestinians and Israelis into the mess they are in via a deeply flawed negotiating process, and a cowardly refusal to confront occupation and settlement head-on when it would have been far easier to do in the 1980s and 1990s, do not deserve another chance to ruin the future of the peoples of this region.”

On the situation in Gaza:

“Although the responsibility of Israel in this matter is paramount, the efforts of Palestinians and of outsiders have been insufficient as well, and we will all be affected by such an outcome, so we all have an urgent responsibility to act. More immediately, targeting a civilian population of 1.5 million people of the Gaza Strip with hunger, deprivation and effective imprisonment, whatever the nature of their leaders, is criminal and is a violation of international law, as are all attacks on civilian populations, Jewish or Arab – something I have said repeatedly in talks here. That people, whether in Tel Aviv, Ramallah, the Arab countries, or the capitals of the world, can remain silent while Gazans are punished on this scale is beyond belief.”

Eldar makes it clear in the introduction of the interview that when Khalidi is talking about “close-minded and biased” appointees, he is talking about Dennis Ross. I am surprised that no decision has yet come out about what, if any, position Ross will have in the Obama administration. There have been rumors that he may become involved in policy towards Iran rather than the peace process, and Dan Kurtzer’s recent appointment [edit: I meant rumors that he would be appointed, see comments] would suggest he may be kept away. But I wonder whether there is any debate about bringing Ross in in the Obama camp.