Obama’s Moment to Make the Case for Middle East Peace

Boston Study Group on Middle East Peace*

If it were easy to do, an American president would have long ago shepherded Israelis and Palestinians into the negotiated two-state peace agreement that both peoples and their neighbors so clearly need — a peace that would greatly enhance U.S. interests.

There are many reasons why it will be hard for President Obama to achieve, in his second term, the Israeli-Palestinian peace accord that has eluded him and his predecessors for so long. The rise of radical one-state nationalists and ideologically driven settlers in Israeli politics, the debilitating split in the Palestinian camp between Hamas and Fatah, the power struggles and sectarian enmities roiling the region — these are all factors adding to the difficulty of forging the two-state peace agreement that alone can end the agony of occupation for Palestinians and bring Israel a sounder more durable form of security.

IDF lt. colonel responds to peaceful protest

[Added: more information on the incident and other videos]

BDS Lite

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement began in 2005, and as the name suggests the movement calls for boycotting Israeli products, as well as Israeli cultural, sports and and academic institutions; divesting from firms that participate in or benefit from the occupation of Palestine and the repression of Palestinians; and sanctioning Israel for its continuing occupation of Palestinian territories. The BDS movement advocates keeping the measures in place until Israel stops the occupation, treats Arab citizens of Israel fairly; and allows Palestinians to exercise the right to return to their homes and properties.

Peter Beinart, in a March 18, 2012 OPED, is at pains to oppose the BDS agenda with respect to Israel within the green line (i.e., with pre-1967 boundaries).  However, what he does urge is a boycott of products made in the occupied territories and of companies based there.  He urges that the IRS be urged and pressured to disallow tax deductions to "settler charities".  He also argues that references to democratic Israel should clearly differentiate between Israel within the green line, as opposed to "nondemocratic Israel," namely the Israeli occupied and colonized West Bank.  It is easy to see problems with Beinart's proposal in terms of the likelihood that enterprises may hide "inside the green line" and yet maintain shell companies in major settlement clusters, such as Ariel.  The distinction between BDS Lite and full BDS may be easy to maintain in theory than in fact.  Even so, Beinart's essay is an important benchmark of the recognition that unless the moral, political and economic costs of Israel's illegal settlements are raised significantly, the creeping annexation of significant swathed of the occupied territories will continue unabated.

It is somewhat surprising to find Beinart's piece in the Times, and one has to assume its appearance there is the culmination of extensive discussions at the upper reaches of the paper.  In those locales Bibi Netanyahu has been not viewed favorably, as any of a number of recent editorials attest. Anyone who has ever written OPED columns for the New York Times understands how intensely conscious the editors are of the importance of the OPED page.  Editors often play a significant role in giving shape to a piece.  Note also that headlines are not written by the authors but by the editorial staff.  The headline is "To save Israel, Boycott the settlements."

While you are pondering the Beinart piece, take time to read this article by the intrepid Amira Hass about nondemocratic Israel.

You really should watch this segment by John Oliver. His powerful humor lands body blows on proponents of cutting off funding to UNESCO

As you will remember, in October 2011 UNESCO voted 107-14 with 52 abstentions to admit Palestine to membership.  This triggered a legally-required U.S. cutoff of funding for the organization, and thereby curtailed or ended a number of worthwhile projects around the world.  As noted here in an earlier post, the U.S. action was defended by a variety of Israel advocates.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The second part is here.

Gingrich, channeling Joan Peters and dancing to the tune of his bankroller

"Abraham Hassel (ph) from Jacksonville, Florida. 
"How would a Republican administration help bring peace to Palestine and Israel when most candidates barely recognize the existence of Palestine or its people? As a Palestinian-American Republican, I'm here to tell you we do exist. 
BLITZER: All right. Let's ask Governor Romney, first of all. 
What would you say to Abraham? 

Sara Roy: "it is worth putting Hamas to the test."

One factor that prompted Yitzhak Rabin to make a deal with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat was the looming rise of Hamas in the early 1990s.  That was two decades ago, but Israeli leaders still become apoplectic at the notion of dealing with Hamas.  The prospect of a Palestinian unity government elicits a variety of threats from Israel, including cutting off water and electricity to Gaza, as Sara Roy notes in her incisive op-ed.  Of course, given the coming rise of Islamically-oriented governments in Tunisia and particularly in Egypt, ostracizing Hamas is no longer a relatively easy matter.  Given the Netanyahu government's territorial agenda, and its mockery of the idea of viable and independent Palestinian state, the isolation of Hamas is integral to its policy.  None the less, it is time for U.S. policymakers to re-examine their assumptions about Hamas, and Roy's essay provides some points to ponder.

Compare Roy's piece to the latest advice from Dennis Ross who believes that Israel and the PA should get back on the bike and keep pedaling.  His comment invites images of a stationary tandem exercise bike, not one that might actually cross a finish line.  Among other things, Ross argues that Israel should reduce its activities in area "A", which is to say those parts of the West Bank where the PA is supposed to exercise civil and security authority under the Oslo agreements.  (It is curious that Ross fails to note that President G.W. Bush, for whom he worked, demanded, in 2002, that Israel pull its forces back from area "A", only to be stiff-armed by Ariel Sharon).  Read the Ross piece for a sample of the sort of well-practiced advice that plays right into the hands of Israel's hardline government.  Just keep on pedaling....

UNESCO votes 107-14 with 52 abstentions to admit Palestine. US

The admission of Palestine to UNESCO will prompt cuts in US funding of the agency.  These punitive cuts will hurt UNESCO, but they also serve to illustrate how isolated the US has become on the issue. A U.S. official stated that "there are consequences" if the vote approves Palestinian membership in UNESCO, but there are also consequences of the US being in splendid isolation with Israel. 
What remains is for Palestine to sign and ratify the UNESCO constitution.


[Added: To minimize the reality of auto-ostracism by the U.S., expect to see a stream of pieces, such as this one, extolling Israel's value as a friend of the U.S.]

An end to Oslo?

Another fielding error by Dennis Ross

Writing in the Boston Globe, Juliette Krayem argues that a "blunder" by Dennis Ross and David Hale helped convince Mahmoud 'Abbas and his advisors to proceed with their UN initiative.  In a letter handed to the PA leader he was urged to take into account the massive increase in Israeli settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

"According to Abbas’s advisers, a letter given to the Palestinian leader was the final straw. The letter has not been publicly disclosed by either party, but Arab media and commentators have zeroed in on a single reported sentence. In pushing for direct negotiations with Israel as an alternative to seeking UN recognition, the letter argued that the Palestinians need to consider Israel’s rightful security needs, as well as “demographic changes’’ that have occurred since the war in 1967."

Perhaps Krayem is writing sardonically when she describe the phrasing as a surprising blunder.  After all, one of the Dennis Ross' talents has been to channel the Israeli narrative.  He is aptly described in a Times interview as an "ardent supporter of Israel" and his penchant for coddling Israel is hardly a secret.

"It’s a surprising blunder for a man with Ross’s decades of experience in trying to close the deal on the peace process."

Krayem concludes with a call for "demographic change" in the U.S. diplomatic team.  

"But whatever the outcome of the wrangling at the United Nations, the whole contretemps has served to weaken the United States in the Arab world. That is why Americans deserve to hear from their own envoys, Ross and Hale, about why their meeting with Abbas went so badly awry, so that everyone can judge what happened and make the necessary “demographic’’ changes to produce a new generation of American envoys."

Turki al-Faisal is one of the most outspoken Saudi royals but his NYT Oped is astounding not just in its blunt tone, but also its patent exasperation with U.S. policy

James Carroll reflects on the Palestinian's U.N. gambit and the opportunity that it offers to Israel and to the U.S. to accept the obvious

Just as the broader Arab world is in the midst of an extraordinary time of transition, Palestinians living under occupation sense that the techtonic plates of history are moving. Adam Shatz offers thoughtful essay about the shifts in strategy and practice that he encountered in a recent visit to the West Bank.

Shatz discovers pockets of creative thinking, and quite a lot of skepticism about the two-state mantra even as the PA aims to gain United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state (the quest for which may be more valuable before the fact rather than afterwards).  A few excerpts follow, but the essay (which runs 19 pp.) deserves a full reading:

"[On the security apparatus established by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad with lots of help from the U.S. and to the satisfaction of Israel:]  It is an extraordinary arrangement: the security forces of a country under occupation are being subcontracted by third parties outside the region to prevent resistance to the occupying power, even as that power continues to grab more land. This is, not surprisingly, a source of considerable anger and shame in the West Bank. The question is whether Palestinians will grow exasperated enough to confront the Sulta."

 .........

"[On the al-Nakba demonstrations of May 15, 2011:]  The PA had no part at all in the main event of the day: an unprecedented march to the border by thousands of Palestinians in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and the Occupied Territories, co-ordinated by activists on Facebook and Twitter. At least a dozen people were killed by Israeli soldiers, but more than a hundred succeeded in crossing into the Druze town of Majdal Shams in the Golan, including a 28-year-old man called Hassan Hijazi, who made it all the way to Jaffa, his ancestral city, travelling there on a bus with Israeli soldiers who had no idea they were sitting next to a ‘security threat’; he turned himself in to the Israeli police after visiting his grandparents’ house. A spectacular enactment of the drama of return, shown live on TV news broadcasts, the crossings electrified people in the West Bank. ‘For 63 years, Israel has tried to un-nation us, to turn us into West Bankers, Gazans, East Jerusalem residents, “Israeli Arabs” and refugees, but on Nakba day we were united,’ Husam Zomlot said."

..........

"Palestinians inside Israel, like Palestinians in the West Bank, are learning the effectiveness of mass, non-violent mobilisation; young people in particular are starting to communicate with people in the Occupied Territories and in neighbouring Arab countries, using Facebook and Twitter to organise themselves. People who a few years ago were admirers of Sheikh Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah, are now saying that they ‘don’t need his rhetoric of resistance because they have discovered their own power and their own voice’."

The plates of U.S. policy in the Middle East are beginning to shift as well.  Zvi Ba'rel ruminates on the possibility that the U.S. may soon be talking to Hamas.  Recall that since the Hamas electoral victory of 2006 the U.S. has devoted considerable diplomatic, financial and military energy to marginalizing Hamas.  The effort has failed profoundly, as demonstrated by the steps toward PA-Hamas reunification, steps made possible by the toppling of Husni Mubarak.

Also of note: a report by the UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michael Williams that reportedly addresses the violent Israeli response to the May 15, 2011, al-Nakba demonstrations.  The report was distributed early this week by Ban K. Moon, the Secretary-General, to the members of the Security Council.  Williams notes that on the Israel-Lebanon border 7 unarmed demonstrators were killed by the Israeli army and 111 were wounded.  The demonstrators were attempting to cross the border.  Israeli soldiers shot the demonstators on Lebanese soil, it should be added. Special Coordinator Williams is appropriately critical of Israel's excessive use of violence.  I have not yet been able to get a complete copy of the report.  When I have a copy, I will post it here.  Israeli officials are in a tizzy about the chutzpah of the U.N. official that he would use the most "the moral army in the world" of using unnecessary deadly violence as opposed to non-lethal crowd control measures.

If not now, when?

Download the PDF format book here.  Available from Amazon.

Available on Kindle.

Some readers have looked here for a 2008 link to MIT-EJMES on the Palestinian Naksa guest edited by Leila Farsakh

Unfortunately, the journal (conceived by Maha Yahya ahead of her time) is now defunct.  I did find a PDF of the issue, which you may now download.

This theme issue of the Electronic Journal for Middle Eastern Studies is titled "Commemorating the Naksa [calamity], Evoking the Nakba [catastrophe]", and it is edited by Maha Yahya.Contributors include Alain Gresh, Islah Jad, Leila Farsakh, Salim Tamari, Ilan Pappe and several other accomplished scholars and writers. The sober, thoughtful contributions emphasize the lived experiences of the Palestinians.

Will Obama stand his ground?

Putting a smiley face on US-Israel relations, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren notes that Israel's policy on Jerusalem remains unchanged but that relations between the two states are "great". Oren is an historian who specialized in PR work for the IDF when he periodically reported for voluntary reserve duty--as during the 2008-9 Gaza campaign. In March, he was quoted to remark that US-Israeli relations were at their lowest point in 35 years. (The comment came in a conference call with Israeli diplomats.) He subsequently denied making the crisis comment, but not very convincingly, as a variety of accounts underline.

So, if Oren's latest assessment is to be believed, there has been a real turnabout in recent weeks. This would be a significant demonstration of power by the pro-Israeli lobby forces. Since the Biden slap there has been a concerted effort by leading lobby groups, not least AIPAC, to tamp down the crisis and get Congress in step, which is a well-practiced drill. Read here to see if your favorite representative jumped aboard the Israel right-or-wrong train.

Despite the smiles, including from the Obama White House, the underlying contradictions in US-Israeli perspectives on peacemaking remain however. The debate within the administration continues. It is well understood that the US pays a heavy price for Israeli intransigence, especially in the context US relations with the Muslim world. Obama has found a lot of support for stance on settlement from the foreign policy establishment, including former Secretary of State James Baker, who upended Yitzhak Shamir precisely over the issue of illegal settlements nearly two decades ago. Baker earlier faulted Obama for backing down on his demand that Israel freeze settlement construction:

I don’t fault President Obama for making settlements an issue, but I do fault him for caving in. You can’t take a position that is consistent with U.S. policy going back many years, and the minute you get push-back you soften your position. When you are dealing with foreign leaders, they can smell that kind of weakness a thousand miles away. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have long endorsed the U.S. policy that settlements are an obstacle to peace. If “land for peace” is the path to a resolution, then settlements clearly create facts on the ground that foreclose the possibility of negotiations.

There is reason to believe that the President understands that he made a serious error by backing off his previous demand for settlement freeze. He now seems to have revived his determination to move toward a solution of the conflict. If so, expect that a lot of the debate will go by out of public sight, but as early as the fall we might see the framework for a settlement from the White House.

The Boston Study Group's report is a good guide to what a solution is likely to comprise.

Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak or Yitzhak Rabin could have authored much of Stephen Walt's piece

In a nutshell, Walt is arguing that without an attainable two-state solution Israel's survival in its present form is in jeopardy. This is precisely the point that the late Yitzhak Rabin acknowledged, and the argument that the two Ehud's have both made explicitly. It is in Israel's enlightened interest to pursue a two-solution that the Palestinian Arabs living under occupation will accept. This is the major claim of the Walt Oped.

Nonetheless, the ghost of Ze'ev Jabotinksky still haunts Israel, and his Revisionist Zionist vision of a territorially extensive Israel, in which Arabs must accept Jewish rule still inspires the right in Israel, including the current Prime Minister. This leaves an unaddressed question, namely whether or not Netanyahu will ever accept an attainable peace (in contrast to his sardonic description of a two-state solution). See Efraim Inbar's recent essay to sample the vision that inspires Netanyahu's constituency.

Appropriately, Walt also invokes U.S. interests, which require a two-state solution, as noted on March 16, 2010, by General David Petraeus in his Senate testimony. The U.S. and Israel have many overlapping interests, but this does not mean that their interests always coincide. (See the predictable dissent of Abraham Foxman, who illustrates the contorted the U.S. debate.) If Israel persists on a path that leads away from an attainable two-state solution, then the U.S. President would be negligent to simply stand by and watch. In the Boston Study Group on Middle East Peace, in which Walt and I participated, this is why we argued:

It must make clear that [the U.S. will] have to act in line with those interests and values and will not support actions and policies by either side that are inconsistent with them. The United States must be willing to use the leverage at its disposal to encourage both sides to come to an agreement. The most important aspect of U.S. leverage is the use of positive incentives in the form of economic, security and diplomatic support to the two parties as they move toward a negotiated agreement. There are times, however, when the use of negative incentives may be necessary and appropriate. Thus, the United States should be prepared to condemn unequivocally actions by either side that violate previous agreements, that are inconsistent with human-rights principles or that present obstacles to productive negotiations for a two-state solution. On occasion, the United States may need to exert pressure by making its support for one or the other party in a given domain conditional on that party’s refraining from actions that undermine the peace process and/or U.S. interests and values. For example, U.S. votes in the UN Security Council, its public statements and its bilateral contacts should all reflect the U.S. national interest in a two-state solution.

Just released: Israel and Palestine - Two States for Two Peoples: If Not Now, When?

The Boston Study Group on Middle East Peace started its regular meetings in September 2008. Its members all have a strong interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some have been intensely engaged with this subject for decades. Others have closely followed the conflict within the context of their professional work in conflict resolution, international law and international relations, religion and U.S. foreign policy.

The group’s principal contribution is the jointly written policy statement entitled Israel and Palestine—Two States for Two People: If Not Now, When? The statement stands as a collegial, collective enterprise that represents a consensus view of the group.

Prior to drafting the policy statement, each member undertook to research and write a background paper on one of the topics integral to our policy statement. The group as a whole discussed drafts of each of these seven papers (now chapters in this report), thereby benefiting each other with respect to both substance and organization.

Download from the Economist as well.

U.S. interests need to be disentangled from Israel's contempt for a two-state solution

And the White House weighs in again--David Axelrod: "... it is important for our own security that we move forward and resolve this very difficult issue."

Contagion of apology continues: Interior Minister Eli Yishai apologizes for the distress he caused

"If I'd have known, I would have postponed the authorization by a week or two since we had no intention of provoking anyone," Yishai said. "It is definitely unpleasant that this happened during Biden's visit."

In other words, we should have waited two weeks before telling the White House to buzz off.

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the Prime Minister was displeased at the timing of the announcement by Interior Minister Eli Yishai of Israel's intention to move forward with construction in East Jerusalem. Perhaps. Israeli politicians have grown accustomed to telling the U.S. to buzz off and getting away with it, so Netanyahu was unprepared for the tone of Biden's strong condemnation. Biden has also been intent to continue to drive the point home, and not just by letting the soup cool for 90 minutes: “As we move forward, the United States will hold both sides accountable for any statements or actions that inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of talks, as this decision did”.

One needs to be very dubious of Netanyahu's commitment to a two-state solution, even if the U.S. continues to press. However, if the U.S. does not press, this venture is going nowhere.

For excellent reportage on recent developments see this from the Economist. The report includes the following:

"...Mr Netanyahu apparently wrung an assurance from the Americans (before Mr Biden’s embarrassment) that concessions offered by his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, to the Palestinians’ president, Mahmoud Abbas, would not mark the point of departure for new negotiations. Instead, the parties will go back to the long-dormant “road map” laid out by George Bush seven years ago. Israel, then led by Ariel Sharon, broadly accepted it but with a long list of reservations."

If true, then Biden's words are only bravado.

Perhaps Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon directed protocol

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu welcome #1 to Joe Biden (who pledged America's undying commitment to Israel):

"I also appreciate the Administration’s effort to advance peace in the region. I know that this has been difficult and has required a great deal of patience, but I’m pleased that these efforts are beginning to bear fruit and we have to be persistent and purposeful in making sure that we get to those direct negotiations that will enable us to resolve this conflict.

"I look forward to working with President Obama, and with you and your entire Administration to forge an historic peace agreement in which the permanence and legitimacy of the Jewish State of Israel is recognized by our Palestinian neighbors and in which Israel’s security is guaranteed for generations to come.

"Again, Vice President, my friend Joe, it’s a pleasure to welcome you to Jerusalem. Welcome."

Welcome #2:

As Biden arrives in Israel, the government that Netanyahu heads announces 1,600 new apartments will be built in occupied East Jerusalem, notwithstanding the declared ten-month suspension of new settlement construction. Of course, there is plenty of weasel room because the suspension only deals with "new permits and new construction", whereas anything that was discussed, debated, considered, mooted, considered, delayed, contemplated is not considered new construction.

Still wiping the diplomatic spittle from his face, Vice President Joe Biden showed some appropriate backbone. Let's hope that the White House does not, once again, go all weak at the knees when the predictable circles declare that the U.S. denunciation unfairly criticizes "our only democratic ally...." The intial White House statement anticipated Biden's remarks.

Biden's apt March 9, 2010, statement:

"I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem. The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I've had here in Israel. We must build an atmosphere to support negotiations, not complicate them. This announcement underscores the need to get negotiations under way that can resolve all the outstanding issues of the conflict.The United States recognizes that Jerusalem is a deeply important issue for Israelis and Palestinians and for Jews, Muslims and Christians. We believe that through good faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties for Jerusalem and safeguards its status for people around the world. Unilateral action taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations on permanent status issues. As George Mitchell said in announcing the proximity talks, "we encourage the parties and all concerned to refrain from any statements or actions which may inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of these talks."

[More info in follow-on Wapo coverage, in contrast to the limp coverage by NYT. Also see Biden interview.]

[Danny Ayalon: It is all about timing.

"The criticism was mainly about the timing of the announcement, and I told (U.S. officials during his visit to Washington) that it was poor timing, but it was not planned and it was a serious mistake which is currently being probed in Israel."]