United States Middle East policy has been defined since World War II by the tension between two competing concerns: the strategic interests which require good relations with Arab-Muslim states, and domestic political imperatives which demand unquestioning allegiance to Israel. That the US interest in the region’s energy resources has remained consistent, as well as its support for Israel, leads some to conclude that somehow the two are complementary. They aren’t. US President Harry S. Truman recognized the state of Israel the day of its founding over the strenuous objections of his State Department in order to court the Jewish vote and, more significantly, Jewish money for his re-election campaign. Every president since — with the exception of Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush, who saw no cause to feign balance — has sought to address this tension with attempts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. All these efforts have so far failed. A study of US policy in the region over the decades, then, is inevitably a study of the causes of these failures. While nowhere in his invaluable diplomatic history of eight presidencies, A World of Trouble: America in the Middle East, does Patrick E. Tyler use the phrase “the Israel lobby,” it nevertheless looms largest among the reasons why all these efforts have foundered. With the US Congress long since claimed by the lobby, the executive branch is where most of these battles have played out.
The coherence and continuity imputed to US policy in the region by analysts owes more to broad-brush theorizing than to a careful appraisal of the contingent realities that have shaped it. The structural determinism of these accounts overlooks the ad hoc nature of the policies and brushes over the discernible personal stamps of key individuals. Tyler’s indispensable corrective begins with Dwight D. Eisenhower, among whose priorities the Middle East never ranked high until the Suez crisis in 1956. Like Truman he resented Zionist influence on the US government, but whereas the former had opted for a politically expedient accommodation, Eisenhower refused to compromise. Both Eisenhower and his CIA Director Allan Dulles liked Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who they saw as an anti-communist modernizer. They aided his consolidation of power. The Israeli government resented this and even resorted to terrorism at one point to wean away the US.
The recent Israeli elections witnessed a revival of the debate among the Palestinian citizens of Israel concerning the meaning of their participation, or the lack thereof, in the electoral process. The disqualification of Arab parties by the Knesset’s Central Elections Committee and the subsequent reversal of the decision by Israel’s high court led to two paradoxical results: on the one hand, it strengthened the doubts of some Palestinians vis-a-vis the fairness and effectiveness of the parliamentary presence of Palestinian representatives; on the other hand, it seems that these events mobilized more Palestinians to vote in order to defend their representation. Nevertheless, the steady decline of the Palestinian turnout in the national elections in recent years maintained its momentum: only 53 percent of the eligible Palestinian voters voted in the February elections. On the backdrop of the falling percentage of turnout and the rise of the Zionist far right wing, explicating and assessing the main positions in this debate — in particular the voices calling for a Palestinian boycott of the Israeli elections — becomes vital.
Obviously, broaching the question of boycotting the parliamentary elections requires one to touch on a range of issues that are difficult to cover adequately in a brief article. Nonetheless, I believe that viewing the elections as a crutch that cannot be dispensed with in any circumstances (i.e. as a necessity), as some seem to think, is shortsighted. Nor do I believe, as others do, that boycotting the elections is a simple, magical cure for the multitude of difficulties that the Palestinian citizens face inside Israel. These are the two prevailing approaches within the Palestinian community inside Israel.
The proponents of the first approach have used in recent years many slogans to articulate their position. These slogans include: “There is no neutrality in hell,” “Not voting is self-marginalization,” “I vote so I have a say,” and “I vote … therefore I am.” The second approach is a sort of seasonal slogan for groups that are active primarily during the elections.
Gaza needs more aid: The Electronic Intifada
A Palestinian refugee receives food at a United Nations food aid distribution center in al-Shati refugee camp in Gaza City, March 2009. (Hatem Omar/MaanImages)
Mel Frykberg
RAMALLAH, occupied West Bank (IPS) – John Ging, head of the UN agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA) in Gaza, has urged Israel to ease aid flow restrictions that are having a devastating effect on the 1.5 million inhabitants. Ging says the amount of aid being allowed into Gaza at present is “wholly and totally inadequate. It’s having a very devastating impact on the physical circumstances and also the mindset of people on the ground,” Ging told IPS. According to a report released last month by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), on average 127 aid trucks a day are entering Gaza. OCHA stated that this was insufficient and way below the 475 that entered daily one month prior to Hamas’s takeover of Gaza in June 2007. “We need access,” Ging said. “It’s the number one issue. It’s the number two issue. It’s the number three issue, and so on. Until we get it, there’s nothing as important as solving the access issue.” The UNRWA head said that all the crossings into Gaza should be opened and that the few open only on a limited basis and to certain individuals should be opened permanently to all. Israel says there is a security issue involved in opening all the crossings permanently. OCHA says the crossings are opened on a seemingly arbitrary basis. Ging added that it was uncertain why crossings were opened at certain times and not at others. Human rights organizations have argued that the sealing of the coastal territory is a form of collective punishment by Israel against Gaza’s Hamas leadership, and that the civilian population is bearing the brunt. Gabriela Shalev, Israel’s UN ambassador, stated last month that only after the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, captured by Hamas fighters in 2006, was released, would expansion of border openings be discussed.
The Netherlands must impose economic sanctions against Israel if the new government in Jerusalem thwarts the peace process with the Palestinians, the Dutch Labor party said last week. Members of Labor, which is a member of government as the country’s second largest party, said they intended to write a manifesto on the matter to the foreign minister, Maxime Verhagen, from the centrist ruling CDA party, who is largely seen as a staunch supporter of Israel. In an interview for Radio 1, Labor’s Martijn van Dam said his party insisted that Verhagen and the European Union take “concrete” action that demands Israel accept Hamas as a partner for dialog. Van Dam also lamented the Netherlands and the European Union’s decision to blacklist Hamas. Van Dam went on to call Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman “an extremist who is on the brink of racism,” adding: “This is not a government with much prospect for peace.”
Responding to calming statements attributed to Verhagen concerning Benjamin Netanyahu’s new government, van Dam said: “The only one who thinks that the positions of the [new] Israeli government will not have any consequences is Maxim Verhagen.” Discussions on the matter between the cabinet and Labor’s representatives in parliament are expected to continue this week.
PCHR Calls upon Palestinian President not to Ratify the Four Sentences
On Tuesday, 7 April 2009, the Military Court in Gaza sentenced four Palestinians, two from al-Sheja’eya neighborhood and two from al-Tufah neighborhood in the east of Gaza City, to death. The four Palestinians were convicted for the murder of Husein Ahmed Abu ‘Ajwa, from al-Tufah neighborhood, on 5 July 2006. Three other Palestinians were sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labor for the same convictions. The Court charged the seven Palestinians with forming a “Devil’s Association” in violation of article 185a of the Revolutionary Penal Code of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) of 1979, and with willful killing and premeditation, in violation of articles 378a, 379, 88 and 82 of the of the same Code. The sentences were issued publicly and are subject to ratification and appeal. The court sentenced to death in absentia four Palestinian fugitives from justice. The four Palestinians are:
Hani Ibrahim Zeideya from al-Sheja’eya neighborhood;
Bassam Kamal Rahmi from al-Tufah neighborhood, a major in the Preventive Security Service;
Na’el Salah Juha from al-Sheja’eya neighborhood, a serviceman in the Preventive Security Service; and
Mohammed Salem al-Mathloum from al-Tufah neighborhood, a serviceman in the Preventive Security Service.
The three Palestinians who were sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labor are:
Mohammed Zaher Zeideya, 35, from al-Sheja’eya neighborhood. He escaped prison on 28 December 2008[1] and was sentenced in absentia;
Hamed Mahmoud al-Sherbasi, 37, from al-Sheja’eya neighborhood. He was a member of the Preventive Security service and escaped prison on 28 December 2009. He was sentenced in absentia; and
Na’el Jamal Harb, 31, from al-Sheja’eya neighborhood. He was a member of the 17 Force. Harb was initially detained on 14 December 2007.
PCHR notes that the 1979 Revolutionary Penal Code of the PLO is unconstitutional in the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) as it has not been presented to, nor approved by, the legislature. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) has repeatedly called for its abolition as it violates international standards of fair trial and does not include fair and independent mechanisms for appealing against court sentences.
PCHR is extremely concerned over the continued application of the death penalty in the PNA controlled areas, and therefore:
Calls upon the PNA to announce an immediate moratorium on the use of this death penalty, which violates international human rights standards and instruments, especially the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the UN Convention against Torture (1984).
Calls upon Palestinian President Mahmoud ‘Abbas not to ratify these cruel and inhumane sentences, and to prevent its implementation.
Reiterates that abolishing the death penalty does not imply leniency towards dangerous criminals, who must be subjected to punishment that acts as a deterrent but also maintains human dignity.
Calls upon the PNA to review all legislation relative to the death penalty – particularly Law No. 74 (1936) that remains in effect in the Gaza Strip, and the Jordanian Penal Code No. 16 (1960) that remains in effect in the West Bank – and to enact a unified penal code that conforms to the spirit of international human rights instruments, especially those pertaining to the abolition of the death penalty.
A very interesting development in support of human rights in Palestine.
The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) strongly condemns a combined attack perpetrated by Israeli settlers and Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF), against Palestinian civilians in the Kherbat Safa area, northwest of Hebron. This pre-planned attack resulted in the injury of nine Palestinian civilians. Six civilians were injured by IOF, while three were injured by settlers.
PCHR’s investigations indicate that at 06:10 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 April 2009, approximately 50 settlers from the Gush Etzion and Beit Ayen settlements gathered on the outskirts of Kherbat Safa. They were accompanied by approximately 10 IOF soldiers.
At approximately 08:00 a.m., the settlers – armed with pistols and machine guns – opened fired directly at Palestinian civilians and houses. The settlers and soldiers then advanced towards the houses, firing their weapons and tear gas. The Palestinian civilians responded with stones, in an attempt to prevent the attackers from entering the houses. Soldiers and settlers shot directly at Palestinian civilians, at distances ranging from 2 to 20 metres. The attack lasted for approximately 90 minutes, without interruption.
As a result, nine civilians were wounded by live and rubber bullets. Local witnesses report that three of the wounded were injured by settlers while the others were wounded by IOF soldiers. 26 Palestinians also suffered suffocation due to gas inhalation. The wounded were transferred to Hebron Ahli Hospital and to Hebron Governmental Hospital. Medical sources described the wounds of one civilian as serious. The names of the wounded persons are included in PCHR’s Weakly Report published today, 8 April 2009.
I am puzzled by Adrian Hamilton lamenting that “if only the Arab world could unite … on its plan to proffer total Arab recognition of Israel in return for Jerusalem’s agreement to return to the pre-1967 borders … then there might be some hope of peace in the Middle East” (Comment, 9 April). The Arab world has reiterated its support for the plan time and again since it was launched seven years ago. The only thing likely to erode this common stance is Israel’s continued refusal to adopt the plan.
Sharif Hikmat Nashashibi
Chairman, Arab Media Watch, London SW7
A few days after tens of thousands of Israelis raised their eyes to the heavens at dawn to honor “the return of the sun to the place it stood at creation,” and millions of Israelis joyfully read out praise in the Passover Hagaddah for genocide – jihad by means of horrific plagues and drowning infants – it’s time to admit it: We live in a religious country. That’s the case during this holiday, when in some places it’s impossible to find leavened products, when the rabbinate seeks to install special computer programs at supermarkets to prevent the sale of leavened foods, when Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger asks Rabbi Yaakov Israel Ifergan to get his follower Nochi Dankner to install the program at his supermarkets, and when the cows of our country are on a leaven-free diet. We must admit that this society has rather dark religious aspects. Foreigners landing in Israel might ask themselves what country they’re in: Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia? In any case, it’s not the liberal, secular and enlightened society it purports to be. Thieves’ hands do not have to be hacked off or women’s faces covered to be a religious country. Just as an occupying state, which controls 3.5 million people lacking basic civil rights, cannot call itself “the only democracy in the Middle East,” so a country that has no bread for a week because of its religion cannot call itself secular and liberal.
By ROGER COHEN
ISTANBUL — “Iran is the center of terrorism, fundamentalism and subversion and is in my view more dangerous than Nazism, because Hitler did not possess a nuclear bomb, whereas the Iranians are trying to perfect a nuclear option.” Benjamin Netanyahu 2009? Try again. These words were in fact uttered by another Israeli prime minister (and now Israeli president), Shimon Peres, in 1996. Four years earlier, in 1992, he’d predicted that Iran would have a nuclear bomb by 1999. You can’t accuse the Israelis of not crying wolf. Ehud Barak, now defense minister, said in 1996 that Iran would be producing nuclear weapons by 2004. Now here comes Netanyahu, in an interview with his faithful stenographer Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, spinning the latest iteration of Israel’s attempt to frame Iran as some Nazi-like incarnation of evil:
“You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.” I must say when I read those words about “the wide-eyed believer” my mind wandered to a recently departed “decider.” But I’m not going there. The issue today is Iran and, more precisely, what President Barack Obama will make of Netanyahu’s prescription that, the economy aside, Obama’s great mission is “preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons” — an eventuality newly inscribed on Israeli calendars as “months” away. I’ll return to the ever shifting nuclear doomsday in a moment, but first that Netanyahu interview. This “messianic apocalyptic cult” in Tehran is, of course, the very same one with which Israel did business during the 1980’s, when its interest was in weakening Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. That business — including sales of weapons and technology — was an extension of Israeli policy toward Iran under the shah.
And the Tesco saga continues… the most recent installament below:
The supermarket chain Tesco shouldn’t be blamed for introducing a special U.K. helpline for complaints about it stocking Israeli products, a leading member of Britain’s Zionist lobby told Haaretz. In yet another series of articles about this controversial topic, British media reported last week that pro-Israel groups attacked Tesco for the decision to set up the helpline, which coincided with government talks on labeling Israeli products. “Blaming Tesco is ridiculous and unfair,” said Jonathan Hoffman, co-vice chairman of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. He explained the chain store had set up the helpline in anticipation of a spate of calls by promoters of a boycott on Israeli goods responding to the government talks. “Tesco acted as any business would act,” he added. “The finger should be pointed at the British government for holding these discussions in the first place and thereby fueling efforts by seekers of a total boycott of all things Israeli.” After the helpline was discontinued, a Tesco spokesperson said: “Our only aim was to be helpful, it was not making any political point.”
Russia concluded its first weapons deal with Israel, purchasing unmanned spy planes valued at around $49 million, a spokesman for the Russia Defense Ministry in Moscow told daily Izvestiya on Monday. According to a military export cited by the paper the purchase was in reaction to the August 2008 war in the south Caucasus – where Georgia successfully employed such drones against Russia. Moscow made the deal despite objections from Israel’s political adversaries Iran and Syria, which are also customers of Russia military hardware. According to Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin, Russia was purchasing the drones for test purposes. “We wanted to show our domestic weapons producers among others what needs our army had,” Popovkin said, adding that Russia’s weapon’s industry had to “familiarize” itself with Israeli construction of the Israeli drone.
Obviously the Russians did not read the article below:
Kazakhstan’s security service accused the defense ministry of buying defective military hardware from Israel on Monday, in a rare public spat exposing long-running tensions among the security elite. The Central Asian state’s KNB service, the successor agency to the Soviet-era KGB, said it was investigating a number of unnamed defense ministry officials on suspicion of purchasing faulty artillery and other defense systems from Israeli firms. “These systems had not been completed properly, they are still in the phase of research and development,” KNB spokesman Kenzhebulat Beknazarov told a briefing.
A booby-trapped fishing boat exploded on Monday near an Israel Navy vessel off the coast of the northern Gaza Strip. No one was wounded in the blast, which occurred about 300 meters from the Gaza coast, near the border with Israel. The Palestinian vessel was laden with explosives, but was unmanned. Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi later Monday called the incident an attempted attack. “We believe this was an attempted attack that, to my joy, did not succeed due to the fact that the crews on the [Israel Navy] ships were stringent in observing procedures,” said Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi. The blast was heard further along the coast in Gaza City. Local Palestinian media, however, did not immediately report on the incident. Speaking in the Defense Ministry compound in Tel Aviv, Ashkenazi also said the threat of explosive-laden boats was not new. “We are examining all of our preparations and will continue to contend,” he said. “It is not an accident that there is no [Gaza rocket] fire. We know that hostile operations or attacks along the fence or sea are still on the agenda. As such, we are preparing and using all means.”
By Akiva Eldar
It’s a good thing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak didn’t listen to Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Instead of going to hell, as Lieberman has recommended, he sent his police to stop would-be terrorists planning to send many Israelis to that destination. I wonder what Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, well known for his fondness of Egypt, might have to say about the operation against Hezbollah in Egypt. Most likely, Lieberman and Steinitz would say the Egyptians didn’t do us any favors. Mubarak is struggling against fanatical Islamists undermining his government. The right will use the case to support its belief that peace can be achieved without giving up land; that security and settlements don’t contradict. This is our chance to hold Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to his motto: “If they give, they’ll get. If they don’t give, they won’t get.”
At the start of his return to office, Netanyahu announced that the Palestinians wouldn’t get any free lunches. Unlike his predecessors, he promised to base his relations with their leaders on reciprocity, a legitimate demand. What will happen if Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas announces he will stop giving Israel information on terrorist threats unless he receives guarantees that Palestinian land will stop being seized? Can anything be more reciprocal than that? Why must the Palestinians be the Jews’ keepers? Why shouldn’t Mubarak tell Netanyahu in their next meeting that if Israel wants to continue its military cooperation with Cairo it should let food and construction materials into the Gaza Strip? After all, this fits with the Israeli expectation that if you give, you’ll get.Such an equation has a nice ring in every language. Reciprocity should be the basis of Israel’s relations with the international community. How would Netanyahu respond if French President Nicolas Sarkozy told him that talks over upgrading Israel’s status with the European Union were on hold until it evacuates illegal outposts in the West Bank? That’s reciprocal, isn’t it? What if the German government hinted it would limit its trade with Iran only if Israel reins in settler organizations buying up Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem? Here’s a reminder: Diplomatic ties between Israel and China were established only after the Madrid peace process began.
Reciprocity isn’t a foreign concept to U.S.-Israeli relations. The prime minister may have even learned it from Washington. Netanyahu was deputy foreign minister under Yitzhak Shamir when George H.W. Bush told him in 1992 that if Israel wanted U.S. for immigrant absorbtion it had to support the Madrid process. Bush clarified that Jewish settlements in the occupied territories contradicted his administration’s policy.
Duncan Campbell
The seductive magic of cover drives and leg spin has won cricket fans around the world and now organisers behind a new initiative close to the Gaza border hope the sport could transcend the boundaries on what is perhaps the world’s stickiest wicket. Towards the end of last year Cricket for Change, the organisation that advocates using the sport as a means of bringing people together, travelled to Israel to see if there was a chance of bringing the game to young Israeli Arabs, Israeli Jews and Ethiopian Jews. The trip went well. On 20 April the organisation is returning, as guests of the Israel Cricket Association (ICA), to work in and around Beersheva, 25 miles from the Gaza border. During the recent war, a rocket fired from the Gaza Strip landed on the boundary of the city’s cricket club, but there were no casualties. The clubhouse is a converted nuclear bomb shelter. Cricket for Change was set up in the wake of the Brixton riots in 1981 as way of introducing unemployed people to cricket. It also promotes the sport for people with disabilities, for girls and in parts of the world still unfamiliar with the game. “We’ve been working round the world for a few years now, so people know about us,” said Tom Rodwell, chairman of Cricket for Change. “It’s still small but they do have a crusading view – I’m not sure that’s the right word – of the game [in Israel].”
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has told Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas he intends to resume talks and co-operation to promote peace.
It was their first contact since Mr Netanyahu took office on 31 March. Mr Abbas initiated the telephone call, which Mr Netanyahu’s office described as “friendly and warm”. The new Israeli leader has not publicly endorsed the creation of a fully independent Palestinian state – a fundamental demand of the Palestinians. An Israeli statement said that during his conversation with Mr Abbas, Mr Netanyahu “recalled their past co-operation and conversations, and how he intended to resume this in the future in order to advance peace”. ‘Not binding’
Mr Netanyahu leads a right-leaning coalition, which combines the centre-right, centre-left and far-right parties. During his campaign, he said he was willing to negotiate with the Palestinians but that it was premature to talk of statehood. Instead, he offered Palestinians “economic peace”.
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who leads the right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party, has dismissed past peace initiatives by US administrations. He has also said the previous Israeli government’s acceptance of Palestinian statehood was not binding.
On Saturday, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat reiterated his administration’s position that that for peace talks to resume, Israel must declare its support for a two-state solution.
Why not? Bibi will talk as much as possible, while continuing to expand the settlements. Every Israeli PM did that…
The new and controversial Israeli foreign minister said talks with the Palestinians are ‘deadlocked’ and that the country needs to put together new ideas.
JERUSALEM — Ultranationalist Avigdor Lieberman has been Israel’s foreign minister for a week, and his blunt, undiplomatic style already is threatening to overshadow the new government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In seven days, Lieberman has declared the death of 16-month-old U.S.-sponsored peace talks with the Palestinians and said that those who want peace must prepare for war. He’s dismissed Egyptian threats to bar him from visiting one of Israel’s few Arab allies until he apologizes for incendiary comments he made last fall about President Hosni Mubarak. And he’s vowed to beat a deepening political-corruption investigation by Israeli police, who have questioned him three times since he took office.
`GIVE US TIME’
In an interview Tuesday with McClatchy Newspapers, Lieberman took more care with his words, saying that peace talks with the Palestinians are ”deadlocked” and that the Obama administration shouldn’t expect the new Israeli government to rush into new negotiations. ”We don’t expect anyone to stand over us with a stopwatch,” Lieberman said. “Give us time to get organized and put together new ideas.” Lieberman said it was impossible to resume talks on creating an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel that then-President George W. Bush launched in Annapolis, Md., in 2007 and President Barack Obama pointedly endorsed this week in Turkey. ”The situation is deadlocked, and it is not because of us,” Lieberman said. Lieberman said he planned to present that message next week to former Sen. George Mitchell, Obama’s special Mideast envoy, who will return to Jerusalem on Monday for the first time since the new, center-right Israeli coalition government took power. While Lieberman said he backed the principle of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, his deputy foreign minister said the new government had no plans to move quickly on one of the most pivotal requirements in the American-backed ”road map” for peace: immediately freezing the construction or expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama have all publicly stated that the United States seeks a “two-state” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In other words, the United States supports the creation of a viable Palestinian state in virtually all of the West Bank and Gaza. The new Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu opposes this goal, and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has already said that he does not think Israel is bound by its recent commitments on this issue. To advance its own interests, therefore, the United States will have to pursue a more even-handed policy than it has in the past, and put strong pressure on both sides to come to an agreement. Instead of the current “special relationship” — where the U.S. gives Israel generous and nearly-unconditional support — the United States and Israel would have a more normal relationship, akin to U.S. relations with other democracies (where public criticism and overt pressure sometimes occurs). While still committed to Israel’s security, the United States would use the leverage at its disposal to make a two-state solution a reality.
This idea appears to be gaining ground. Several weeks ago, a bipartisan panel of distinguished foreign policy experts headed by Henry Siegman and Brent Scowcroft issued a thoughtful report calling for the Obama administration to “engage in prompt, sustained, and determined efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.” Success, they noted, “will require a careful blend of persuasion, inducement, reward, and pressure…” Last week, the Economist called for the United States to reduce its aid to Israel if the Netanyahu government continues to reject a two-state solution. The Boston Globe offered a similar view earlier this week, advising Obama to tell Netanyahu “to take the steps necessary for peace or risk compromising Israel’s special relationship with America.” A few days ago, Ha’aretz reported that the Obama Administration was preparing Congressional leaders for a possible confrontation with the Netanyahu government. These developments got me thinking: what might a more even-handed posture look like in practice? We already know what it means for the United States to put pressure on the Palestinians, because Washington has done that repeatedly — and sometimes effectively — over the past several decades. During the 1970s, for example, the United States supported King Hussein’s violent crackdown on the PLO cadres who were threatening his rule in Jordan. During the 1980s, the United States refused to recognize the PLO until it accepted Israel’s right to exist. After the outbreak of the Second Intifada, the Bush administration refused to deal with Yasser Arafat and pushed hard for his replacement. After Arafat’s death, we insisted on democratic elections for a new Palestinian assembly and then rejected the results when Hamas won. The United States has also gone after charitable organizations with ties to Hamas and backed Israel’s recent campaign in Gaza. In short, the United States has rarely hesitated to use its leverage to try to shape Palestinian behavior, even if some of these efforts — such as the inept attempt to foment a Fatah coup against Hamas in 2007 — have backfired.
But what about pressure on Israel? The United States has only rarely put (mild) pressure on Israel in recent decades (and never for very long), even when the Israeli government was engaged in actions (such as building settlements) that the U.S. government opposed. The question is: if the Netanyahu/Lieberman government remains intransigent, what should Obama do? Are there usable sources of leverage that the United States could employ to nudge Israel away from the vision of “Greater Israel” and towards a genuine two-state solution? Here are a few ideas.
Vita Bekker
George Mitchell, the US special envoy to the Middle East, returns to the region today for the first time since the new Israeli right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu took power in a bid to push forward the stalled peace process. Mr Mitchell arrives as Washington finds itself increasingly at odds with Israel on the pursuit of Palestinian statehood. His visit also comes amid escalating pressure from the international community on the government of Mr Netanyahu, who became prime minister on March 31, to resume negotiations on the two-state solution for the long-simmering conflict with the Palestinians. Mr Mitchell will be holding talks with senior officials in Israel, the Palestinian territories, Egypt and other Mideast countries during his visit, the third since he was appointed special US envoy two days after the administration of Barack Obama took office in January. The most-watched meetings this week would probably be with Mr Netanyahu and with his controversial far-right foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, as Mr Mitchell gauges their willingness to resume negotiations on a peace pact. Mr Mitchell is set to convene with both on Thursday, following the Jewish Passover holiday.
The meetings may reflect recent tensions between Israel and the US, the country’s most powerful ally, following blunt comments made by Mr Lieberman this month that negotiations on Palestinian statehood launched at the US-hosted Annapolis summit in Nov 2007 were no longer valid. The Annapolis summit renewed talks on core issues such as final borders, the fate of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees but had been put on the back-burner in the run-up to the Israeli general election in February. Mr Lieberman, the second-most dominant official in Mr Netanyahu’s coalition of mostly nationalist and religious parties, angered Palestinians, spurred criticism from Arab and European officials and even surprised some Israeli foreign ministry officials when he made the remarks on his first day as the country’s top diplomat. He also prompted a response from Mr Obama, who publicly repudiated Mr Lieberman’s statements while visiting Turkey last week by voicing support for the Annapolis process.
Israeli commentators have said Mr Lieberman’s comments probably reflected the stance held by Mr Netanyahu, who is making his comeback as prime minister after being ousted from the position in 1999. Mr Netanyahu has remained silent since he has taken office regarding the two-state solution. While he is believed to be open to a sovereign state for the Palestinians with limitations, including preventing them from controlling their own airspace and border crossings or having their own army, he is not expected to pursue talks on Palestinian statehood anytime soon.
Lest it not be clear or be forgotten, Palestinians and other Arabs are spelling out what a peace settlement in their view entails: The two-state formula in accordance with the agreed references, particularly the Arab peace initiative. These policy positions, recently expressed by the chief Palestinian negotiator in Palestine, and in neighboring Jordan where Arab foreign ministers met to review of the Middle East peace process, were meant to reiterate the ways of reaching peace. Given how many years the Palestinians have been announcing the terms of statehood, it might seem odd to even have to mention it, but in light of the ascendancy of Benjamin Netanyahu in Israeli politics, a reiteration of peace conditions is in order. Netanyahu inaugurated his new government with the pronouncement of the death of the Annapolis agreement.
It is true that a year of negotiations did not produce tangible results, but no results of any kind are being anticipated now. Netanyahu failed to bring the Kadima Party into his ruling coalition because he refused to comply with Kadima leader Tzipi Livni’s demand that he support the creation of a Palestinian state. The new Israeli government brought together every shade of Israeli extremism. It consists of those who reject peace, those who want to expel the remaining Arabs from Israel, and those who maintain that Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians and Arabs is one of permanent warfare. In light of this, it is not hard to predict how the Netanyahu-Lieberman-Barak government, backed by settler and extreme religious parties, will function. As for the Arab peace initiative, which envisages recognition of Israel by all Arab states in exchange for Tel Aviv vacating all Arab territories it occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem, it will not remain on the table forever, although it is debatable what effect withdrawing the initiative will have on Israel which never accepted it to begin with. Israel can never be talked about without underlining its utter dependence on the bottomless economic, military, technological and diplomatic support of the US. But Lieberman and Netanyahu could lead Israel into a head-on collision with President Barack Obama who wishes to see significant progress toward a two-state solution and soon. Obama is working hard to improve relations with the wider Muslim world. Netanyahu and Lieberman may become the biggest barrier to his hopes. Inter-Palestinian rivalry was not mentioned in the recent announcements by the Arabs even though a full settlement probably cannot be achieved in the absence of Palestinian unity. If Fatah is playing the lead in the process, Hamas must, too, have a role. But the US and Europe have excluded Hamas from the peace process because it refuses to meet three demands: accept the two-state solution; accept past treaties and agreements; and renounce violence. Now, ironically, Israel under Netanyahu and Lieberman also does not accept the two-state solution; Lieberman refuses to accept Israel’s past commitments; and Israel has never renounced violence. Israel under Netanyahu and Lieberman mirrors Hamas’ politics. Will Israel now become just as unacceptable as Hamas to Europe and the US? No. Therein lies the problem, not in the intransigence or obduracy of any Israeli politician.
