Tag: israel/palestine

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?

Palestinian prisoners’ release is delayed – but why?

Are the Israelis trying to destabilize Mahmoud Abbas with this leak?

JERUSALEM – Israeli officials said Monday they would delay the release of 250 Palestinian prisoners until next week because of a request by Palestinian officials.
They said the Palestinian officials had asked for the delay because President Mahmoud Abbas is out of the country and wants to be back in the West Bank to greet the freed prisoners.

Note that if they were immediately released they could spend eid with their families.

[From Israel to delay Palestinian prisoner release – Yahoo! News]

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.

Obama and the peace process

Beyond whether who he will appoint to handle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, President Obama has to choose what kind of approach he will pursue. Two Arab diplomats (a Palestinian and an Egyptian) who are peace process veterans wrote this powerful op-ed advocating a hands-on approach that shuns the “capacity-building” gradualist approach and recommends going against the Washington received wisdom (received from Zionist think tanks, that is) that there isn’t much to be done:

“Experienced” advisers will point out that the issues are complex, the leaders are weak and divided, and the costs of failure are formidable. They will urge you to take small steps and let the parties lead. The United States, they will argue, should support bilateral talks from the sidelines, but cannot want peace more than the parties themselves.

As former advisers to two of the governments in the region, and having participated in developing the Road Map peace plan, we assure you that is exactly the wrong approach. It is because the parties are weak that American leadership is indispensable. It is because bilateral negotiations yield only hollow communiqués that you should use your political capital to forge consensus on substance. And it is because the issues are complex that small achievements — fleeting cease-fires, relocated checkpoints — are as politically costly as big ones. The Bush administration wasted six years before learning these lessons. You need not repeat its mistakes.

Aim high. The region will not hesitate to supply your administration with a series of crises that demand urgent attention — breakdowns in talks, escalations in violence, right-wing electoral triumphs, settlement expansion and the like. These crises cannot be ignored. But you must not allow managing the conflict to distract you from the crucial task of resolving it. Each passing day, Israel’s occupation produces despair and facts on the ground that make the conflict ever more difficult to solve.

What is needed is a substantive framework for comprehensive peace, endowed with international support and ready for the parties’ acceptance. Like the Road Map, you should develop this framework in consultation with the parties and international partners. But unlike the Road Map, it should specify a destination, defining the central terms of a settlement with sufficient precision to prevent interminable haggling over interpretation and sufficient formality to make rejection too politically costly for any serious party to contemplate.

Build commitment, then capacity. Among the foundations of President Bush’s failed Arab-Israeli policy was the notion that capacity must precede commitment, that Palestine become Switzerland before peace negotiations commence. You have pointed out the folly of such thinking in Iraq, arguing that an American commitment to early withdrawal would give Iraqis an incentive to put their house in order.

That is no less true for the Mideast peace process. Some portray the rejectionism of Hamas and Israel’s right wing as an insurmountable obstacle to peace. It isn’t. There is no peace for them to reject. However, a U.S.-backed framework for peace would oblige all parties to face the moment of truth in a way that a commitment to continue negotiations simply cannot. It would also do more to advance Palestinian governance and security reform than another decade of technical assistance.

[From U.S. should take lead in Middle East peace process | Viewpoints, Outlook | Chron.com – Houston Chronicle]

Chronicles of a Refugee

n37427001486_2990.jpg

Chronicles of a Refugee is a 6-part documentary film series looking at the global Palestinian refugee experience over the last 60 years. Through the voices of Palestinian refugees, the first three episodes recount the experiences of Palestinian refugees since 1947. They are more historical and informative, presenting an almost comprehensive review of 60 years of dispossession. Continue reading Chronicles of a Refugee

Shukair’s “My cousin Condoleeza”


"Ma cousine Condoleezza : Et autres nouvelles" (Mahmoud Shukair)

Click below for Le Monde’s review of Palestinian writer Mahmoud Shukair “My cousin Condoleeza and other stories”, originally released in Arabic and now available in French. And here’s a review of his previous collection of stories, Mordechai’s Mustache and His Wife’s Cats. Continue reading Shukair’s “My cousin Condoleeza”