The US, Iran & the Middle Easts new "Cold War"

Via Friday-Lunch-Club

The Leveretts at the RFI/ here

The absence of US-Iranian rapprochement will perpetuate the new Middle Eastern Cold War, imposing costs on the United States, Iran and other regional and international players. However, in strategic terms, the heaviest costs of continued US-Iranian estrangement are likely to be borne by the United States. In particular, lack of productive relations with Tehran will contribute significantly to Washington’s failure to achieve important policy objectives in the Middle East, thereby conditioning further erosion of America’s regional standing and influence

This is the most important, “bottom-line” conclusion of our most recent article, “The United States, Iran, and the Middle East’s New ‘Cold War’” , just published in The International Spectator. The article argues that U.S.-Iranian relations “need to be analyzed and understood not only in terms of their bilateral dynamics, but also in their strategic context.” More specifically, we argue that “the relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic both shapes and is shaped by the new Middle Eastern Cold War”:

“As the new regional Cold War plays out, analysts suggest different scenarios for how the ongoing strategic competition between the United States and Iran will evolve. Some, like former Germany Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, see this competition as a struggle for regional hegemony in the Middle East comparable to that in late nineteenth century Europe following German unification; from this perspective, Fischer warns that, without careful handling, tensions between the United States and the Islamic Republic could ultimately erupt in a large-scale military confrontation. Others, like Fareed Zakaria, believe that the United States and its regional and international partners will move inexorably toward a posture of containing and deterring the Islamic Republic and its allies, in a manner reminiscent of the West’s Cold War posture toward the Soviet Union.” Against the backdrop of these scenarios, we argue that the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran should transcend the prospects for hegemonial war of strategic standoff and seek a fundamental realignment of their relations, in a manner similar to the realignment in relations between the United States and the People’s Republic of China during Richard Nixon’s tenure in the White House. We further argue that such a fundamental realignment of US-Iranian relations can only be achieved through a comprehensive rapprochement between Washington and Tehran.”On the Iranian side of the equation, we note that, “like the emergence of the Middle East’s new Cold War, the Islamic Republic’s rise has occurred during a still ongoing period of tectonic shifts in the region’s strategic environment”:

"These shifts include the effective collapse of the traditional Arab-Israeli peace process, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, the rise of Hezbollah and Hamas as political actors in their national and regional contexts, the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and subsequent Israeli military campaigns in Lebanon and Gaza, structural changes in global energy markets and a tremendous transfer of wealth to major Middle Eastern energy producers. All of these shifts are playing out against what is increasingly perceived, in the Middle East and elsewhere, as a decline in America’s relative power and influence.”

We note that, after President Ahmadinejad’s election in 2005, “the Islamic Republic was able to take advantage of these developments to effect a significant boost in its own regional standing.” But, we also note that a critical mass of Iranian elites,cutting across the Islamic Republic’s factional spectrum, continues to recognize that

“the Islamic Republic has basic national security and foreign policy needs which can only be met—or, only optimally met—through rapprochement with Washington. And, over the course of [the last 20 years], Iranian decision-makers have come to believe that the only reliable way to effect such a rapprochement is by forging a comprehensive set of strategic understandings with Washington.”

After tracing the evolution of the Islamic Republic’s post-1989 foreign policy toward the United States and other great powers, we take on some of the more common—and also more distorted and damaging—portrayals of Iranian foreign policy in the West:

“There has always been a current in Western analyses of Iranian politics that sees the Islamic Republic as too ideologically constrained and/or politically fractious to pursue a strategic opening to the United States. From this perspective a determinative portion of the Iranian leadership sees opposition to rapprochement with Washington as critical to regime legitimation and a weapon to use against political opponents. Since the Islamic Republic’s 12 June 2009 presidential election, such arguments have gained greater prominence in Western discussions of Iranian politics. But the historical record of the Islamic Republic’s foreign policy since 1989 strongly suggests that this view is fundamentally mistaken.”

Notwithstanding an increasing interest in Tehran in forging closer ties to major Eastern powers—China, India, Russia—Iranian foreign continue “to be attracted by the prospective benefits of rapprochement with the United States.” To be sure, Iran does not want rapprochement with the United States at any price and, at this point, wants to define, a priori, a “comprehensive framework” for any sustained US-Iranian dialogue—

“a framework that would be clearly oriented toward fundamentally realigning US-Iranian relations, addressing the Islamic Republic’s security interests, recognising its regional role, and normalizing its international relations.” But, “even after the 2009 presidential election, there continues to be a critical mass of Iranian elites, cutting across the Islamic Republic’s factional spectrum, that is interested in rapprochement with the United States, within the parameters discussed above.”

On the American side, we argue that, “from an interest-based perspective, the imperatives for comprehensive realignment of US-Iranian relations are as compelling for Washington as they are for Tehran”:

“Looking ahead, how Washington deals with the Islamic Republic has become, in the context of the Middle East’s new Cold War, the primary litmus test for the future of America’s regional position. At this point in the evolution of the Middle East’s balance of power and geopolitical influence, the United States cannot achieve any of its high-priority objectives in the region—reaching negotiated settlements to the unresolved tracks of the Arab-Israeli conflict, stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan, containing terrorist threats from violent jihadi extremists, curbing nuclear proliferation, putting Lebanon on a more stable trajectory and ensuring an adequate long-term flow of oil and natural gas to international energy markets—absent a productive strategic relationship with Iran.”

Against this backdrop, we take on some of the more frequently-heard criticisms of our analogy between the reorientation of American policy toward China undertaken by President Nixon during the early 1970s and what we believe is the optimal course for America’s Iran policy today:

“Some observers question the parallel between the policy challenges confronting Nixon regarding China and those confronting decision-makers today regarding Iran, arguing that there was an immediate Cold War rationale for US-China rapprochement (to “triangulate” against the Soviet Union) that is absent in the Iranian case…Such a [perspective] defines both Nixon’s accomplishment vis-à-vis China and the contemporary challenge of Iran too narrowly. The primary impetus for US-China rapprochement was not a common enemy, but the need to align US and Chinese interests to deal with an array of strategic challenges; that is why the relationship established by Nixon and his Chinese counterparts has become even more important in the post-Cold War era. And, as with China in the 1970s, the United States today cannot address some of its most important foreign policy problems without a strategic opening to Iran.”

Not surprisingly, we argue that,

“to achieve this, Washington needs to pursue a genuinely comprehensive and strategic approach to diplomacy with Tehran. Such an approach would be grounded in a reaffirmation of America’s commitment in the Algiers Accord not to interfeere in Iran’s internal affairs and in the prospect of a US guarantee not to use force to change the borders of form of government of the Islamic Republic. It would seek to resolve major bilateral differences and channel Iran’s exercise of its regional influence in support of US interests and policies.” We note though that, “unfortunately, the United States—even with the Obama administration in office—has yet to pursue such an approach.”

Why has the United States—even under the Obama administration—not moved more purposefully to embrace comprehensive engagement with Tehran, aimed at a fundamental realignment of relations? We acknowledge that “part of the answer lies in domestic politics”. But

“a larger part of the explanation, in our view, lies in ongoing confusion among American foreign policy elites about two critical questions: The first of these questions is the relative stability/fragility of the Islamic Republic’s political order…The second of these questions is whether Tehran’s national security and foreign policy strategies are designed to resist aspects of US hegemony that threaten Iranian interests and regional prerogatives or to replace American hegemony in the Middle East with Iranian hegemony.”

We, of course, offer what we believe are clear and compelling answers to these questions. But,

“in the absence of intellectual consensus on these critical questions—or a clear presidential choice to deal with the Islamic Republic as it its presently constituted and seek rapprochement based on a balance of US and Iranian interests—US policy toward Iran has been and will remain, at best, incoherent.”

We conclude with a forecast that,

“because of the intellectual confusion and policy incoherence described above, US efforts to encourage internal liberalization and contain perceived Iranian threats will continue to undercut the credibility, in Iranian eyes, of whatever attempts Washington makes to engage diplomatically. And, thus, the United States—even under the Obama administration—will continue to fall short of the Islamic Republic’s minimum threshold for determining that Washington is finally serious about rapprochement.”

And that brings us to the closing passage that we cited at the outset of this piece:

“The absence of US-Iranian rapprochement will perpetuate the new Middle Eastern Cold War, imposing costs on the United States, Iran and other regional and international players. However, in strategic terms, the heaviest costs of continued US-Iranian estrangement are likely to be borne by the United States. In particular, lack of productive relations with Tehran will contribute significantly to Washington’s failure to achieve important policy objectives in the Middle East, thereby conditioning further erosion of America’s regional standing and influence.”

Posted by G, Z, or B at 10:18 AM

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

Thousands of Zionists hold rally at the Ibrahimi Mosque

PIC

[ 02/04/2010 - 10:43 AM ]

file photo: Jewish setters inside the Ibrahimi Mosque

AL-KHALIL, (PIC)-- More than 10,000 Zionist settlers gathered on Thursday evening at the Ibrahimi Mosque in the southern West Bank city of al-Khalil to celebrate the Israeli occupation government's decision to include the Mosque onto the list of Jewish heritage sites in occupied Palestine.

Israeli radio said in its evening bulletin that those who organised this rally will honour Israeli members of the Knesset affiliated with the "land of Israel lobby" who played an important role in getting the Ibrahimi Mosque on the list of Jewish heritage.

Meanwhile, the IOF continues to bar Muslim worshippers from reaching the Ibrahimi Mosque to allow Jewish settlers celebrate Passover.

Large numbers of IOF troops are deployed in the old city and Palestinian homes around the mosque have been subjected to IOF raids and searches. Many of the roads leading to the mosque have been closed by the occupation forces.

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

The Story of Palestine from A to X

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

CIA's "pro-forma" report on IRAN: "No mention of weaponization, whatsoever..."

Friday-Lunch-Club

And the neo-cons orbit wonders, why ... .... In the Weekly Standard/ here

WINPAC—the CIA’s clearinghouse for data on various weapons and delivery systems—sent a new report to Congress this week that amounts to one of the intelligence community’s few sustained public statements on Iran’s drive to acquire nuclear weapons since the widely noticed (and discredited (by Israel...)) November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate. This report is not to be confused with a new NIE, which is in the works and said to be ready for release sometime this month. This, rather, is a more routine document, required by law and mostly treated as pro forma.That partly explains why the report got so little attention. But it is not without interest.

Recall that the crux of the 2007 NIE was the assertion that, in 2003, Iran halted its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and had not since restarted them. That finding was based solely on the Intelligence Community’s judgment that Iran had stopped working on “weaponization,” i.e., designing bombs and acquiring and making their
components. .......

The prior WINPAC report, which covered calendar year 2008 and was released in early 2009, repeated the 2007 NIE’s language almost word for word, despite the DNI’s disavowal of a year prior. The latest one, which dropped on Tuesday of this week and covers 2009, makes no mention whatsoever of weaponization. Were transcripts of McConnell’s remarks finally circulated to the drafters?

Whatever the reason, the omission is curious. If WINPAC now judges that the 2007 NIE was wrong (an inescapable conclusion, incidentally), why not just say so? Wouldn’t it help restore some of the Intelligence Community’s lost credibility? Allied intelligence services (Read Mostly ISRAELI...) never believed the NIE and were embarrassed by it. Wouldn’t a signal to them that we have regained our senses be useful?

Posted by G, Z, or B at 9:55 AM

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

Resuce Me: Abbas’ Humiliating Plea

Via Silver Lining

Posted on April 2, 2010 by realistic bird

by Faris Garabet

By RANNIE AMIRI, source
The recently concluded 22nd Arab League summit hosted by Colonel Muammar Qadhafi in his hometown of Sirte, Libya, certainly met pre-summit expectations: a significant number of no-shows (more than a third of Arab heads-of-state failed to attend), a delegation that threatened to walk out, dire warnings issued on the consequences of Israel’s expansion into East Jerusalem, and bellicose rhetoric to accompany it all.
Unofficially dubbed the “Jerusalem Summit,” how Arab nations would collectively respond to Israel’s continued expropriation of Palestinian land took center-stage. Such concerns came on the heels of the public spat between the Obama administration and the government of Benjamin Netanyahu over the announcement of 1,600 new housing units to be built in East Jerusalem.
In one of the few tangible measures adopted at the summit, $500 million was pledged by conferees to help improve Palestinian living conditions in the city. Calls for armed resistance came from Syria and Libya while the Arab League predictably deferred on a vote endorsing complete withdrawal from United States-sponsored “proximity talks.”
Although the feckless Arab League routinely depends on lofty rhetoric to make itself appear relevant, one would assume the Palestinian leadership had long seen past its platitudes and hollow promises.
Unfortunately, their misplaced trust was again evident in Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ opening speech.
As Agence France-Presse reported, “Abbas echoed widespread concern that the Middle East peace process was in peril and urged his Arab peers to ‘rescue’ Jerusalem.”
Rescue?
With little to show for a presidential term long since expired, Abbas was in truth asking his fellow Arab leaders to not only “rescue” Jerusalem, but his failed presidency as well. Indeed, one disastrous pitfall into which nearly all Palestinian leaders have fallen is the belief that a savior among the Arabs will come to “rescue” them.
Have they failed to notice how half-heartedly Arab heads-of-state had taken up their cause? Or hijacked it to suit their domestic political agendas? Were the decades of vacuous rhetoric insufficient in demonstrating their assistance was unreliable and untrustworthy?
Within the last four years, the Middle East has witnessed two savage wars waged by Israel under flimsy pretexts—the July 2006 war in Lebanon and the December 2008 invasion of Gaza.
The civilian population and infrastructure were so devastated in both lands that it is no exaggeration to say they were deliberately targeted in heinous examples of collective punishment.
How can any Palestinian civilian or official therefore rely on Arab rulers to help “rescue” Jerusalem when they passively watched as Lebanon and Gaza were viciously attacked? While their mosques, schools, hospitals, airports, municipal buildings, bridges, roads, water treatment plants and food storage facilities were destroyed?
Some will say that countries like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia had their own agendas against Hezbollah and Hamas, and were clearly hoping for their imminent collapse. And that is the point: if “agendas” of the Arab states took precedence over the welfare of the Lebanese or Gaza’s Palestinians, what will make those residing in East Jerusalem or the West Bank any different?
Abbas naively hopes Arab League countries will come to Jerusalem’s “rescue” while Egypt abets the inhumane siege of Gaza by keeping its Rafah crossing closed—and hardly a one objects. Similarly, the underground barrier being constructed along Egypt’s border with Gaza is being lauded by the Israelis.
While the 2006 and 2008 wars illustrate how easily Arab client states can selfishly forsake their brethren, they also exemplify how a peoples’ perseverance, resilience and self-reliance can withstand the most trying of circumstances.
So let Jerusalem’s Palestinians distance themselves from the indignity Abbas brings by calling on those who long ago sold out their cause and shamelessly abandoned Lebanon and Gaza. Let them repudiate a leadership that has been complicit in the very Israeli expansionism now condemned in exchange for staying in the good graces of the United States. Let them recognize that all they have endured under Israeli occupation makes Abbas’ plea to “rescue” them nothing but humiliating.

River to Sea
Uprooted Palestinian

Sadrists in Damascus to informe "Syrian brothers about the latest developments ..."

Via Friday-Luch-Club

Al Hayat via Josh Landis/ here

“Deputy Qusay Abdul Wahhab al-Suheil, a member of the Sadrist bloc delegation visiting Syria, told Al-Hayat that they considered Damascus to be a major strategic ally to Baghdad. The deputy was quoted in this respect as saying: “The two neighbors should have the best possible relations. We are visiting Syria with an important delegation from the Sadr Movement in order to affirm our commitment to stable and strong relations with our Syrians brothers. Preparations are also being made for us to visit Saudi Arabia in the near future.”

“The Sadr Movement delegation that visited Damascus was headed by Karar al-Khafaji and it conducted a series of meetings with a number of highly-placed Syrian officials. It is important to note that Moqtada al-Sadr visited Syria twice in the last few years. For his part, deputy Mohammad al-Daraji who is also part of the delegation, was quoted by Al-Hayat as saying: “The discussions that we have conducted in Damascus were very positive. We informed our Syrian brothers about the latest developments taking place on the Iraqi scene, especially in the aftermath of the parliamentary elections. We also informed the Syrians about our vision for the future of Iraq and how we perceived our new alliances. We renewed our well known position regarding the fact that all parties should be included in the new government and that no party or movement should be excluded from it…”

“As for Deputy Qusay Abdul Wahhab al-Suheil, he stressed that the Sadr Movement wanted strategic relations with Syria based on trust and friendship, adding that it was in Iraq’s best interest to have the best possible relations with Syria since they were neighbors and linked by strong historic ties…”

Posted by G, Z, or B at 4:04 PM

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

Israeli crimes and BBC propaganda march in lock-step

Pulse

Israel has just launched a new assault on Gaza — 13 airstrikes — and here is how the BBC reports it.

Israeli warplanes have carried out at least 13 air strikes on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, Palestinian sources have told the BBC.

Gaza is not besieged by Israel, you see. It’s ‘Hamas-ruled’. It makes it so much more acceptable to target it than if it were, say, ‘densely populated by civilians’.
See my earlier analysis of the despicable manner in which the BBC misreported last year’s massacre in Gaza.

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

WINEP wants the 'Haqq(iqah): "Hunting for Hizballah"

Via Friday-Lunch-Club

AIPAC does Pennsylvania Ave. while Schenker (and his soul-mate, Michael Young) do Moawad Street! From the looks of it, Schenker is delegating these reports to a 13 years old ... WINEP/ here

"........ Then, in May 2009 Der Spiegel published an article that reported in great detail on how Hizballah operatives participated in the murder, and how the IIIC had discovered the connection. Apparently, one of the militia's operatives "committed the unbelievable indiscretion" of calling his girlfriend from a mobile phone used in the operation, enabling the investigators to identify the man. The revelations contained in the Der Spiegel article sent shock waves through Beirut.....

For the pro-West March 14 coalition in Lebanon, the allegations of Hizballah involvement in the murder should come as little surprise. Not only would the militia have had the capacity to carry out the operation, its close allies in Damascus had the motive. Members of the coalition had also been at odds with Hizballah for years, and particularly so since the Hariri assassination and the subsequent Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. At the same time, a Hizballah connection to the crime would not in any sense absolve Syria -- which then occupied and controlled Lebanon -- of culpability.

Yet the IIIC's targeting of Hizballah comes at an awkward time for the March 14 leadership. Although the coalition won national elections this past summer -- and with this victory, the opportunity to form a government -- the opposition compelled the majority, led by Rafiq Hariri's son Saad, to establish a national unity government to include members of the Shiite militia and provide the organization with preponderant influence. Strange bedfellows indeed.

Worse, in the months following the election, the March 14 coalition, which had remained fairly stable since its establishment in 2005, started to fray as its leading international backers in Washington and Riyadh sought rapprochement with Damascus. Consequently, in recent months both Saad Hariri and the March 14 coalition's influential Druze leader Walid Jumblat have looked to mend fences with Hizballah and Syria. In the case of Jumblat, the price for this accommodation has been to apologize publicly for his anti-Syrian disposition of recent years, request forgiveness from Syria's Bashar al-Asad regime, and embrace -- at least rhetorically -- Hizballah's "resistance" agenda.

For Jumblat, who cut his teeth as a warlord during the Lebanese civil war, rapprochement with Syria was a simple choice between justice and chaos. Given the IIIC's change of focus to Hizballah, Jumblat sensed that implicating the militia in the crime could present a threat to the fragile state's stability. While the Druze leader has not repudiated the tribunal publicly, he appears to be hoping that indictments will not be forthcoming.

For Rafiq's son Saad (is WINEP on first name basis?), the calculations are different. As the current leader of Lebanon's Sunni community, Saad cannot afford politically to forgive and forget the reported transgressions of Hizballah. Indeed, Saad Hariri's motto since 2005 has been al-haqq (a 'qiqa' is missing)-- "the truth" -- an allusion to the necessity above all else to find out who killed his father. While Saad demonstrated a sense of pragmatism by visiting Syria this past December, the prospect of forgiving his father's killers would be less palatable.

In addition to domestic considerations, Hariri and his government's support (or lack thereof) for the tribunal could have an impact on Lebanon's foreign relations. Because the tribunal was established by the UN, if the government fails to meet its
obligations, then Beirut could encounter bilateral difficulties with Washington and Europe. Clearly, the government of Lebanon is not in a position -- and likely would not be expected -- to render subpoenaed Hizballah suspects to the IIIC. But how would the UN respond if Hizballah were able to engineer the defunding of Lebanon's $23 million annual financial obligation to the tribunal from the state's Ministry of Justice?

With two years remaining in its current mandate, the IIIC will probably issue indictments by the end of this year. The threshold for charges in the international criminal court is so high that convictions almost always result. Given the attendant risks, should the tribunal indict even low-level operatives, it is doubtful that Hizballah will allow the accused to live, much less stand trial.

At the end of the day, if hearings do occur, they will likely be held in absentia. .......It will be more difficult -- both from an evidentiary and a political standpoint -- for the IIIC to establish connections between the Hariri murder, Damascus, and Tehran that would sustain further indictments. For Washington and the credibility of the tribunal institution, however, it is important that the investigation be given time to unfold.....'

Posted by G, Z, or B at 10:13 PM

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

".. Now, we have Mullen, a political officer if there ever was one, carrying Ignatius around so as to "inform him..."

Via Friday-Lunch-Club

Lang on Mullen & Ignatius, at SST/ here

".... Traveling here with Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I attended a shura hosted by Tooryalai Wesa, the governor of Kandahar province....." David Ignatius

The rest of the editorial is marginally interesting. At this point the incompetence of the intelligence effort in Afghanistan no longer surprises.

You may remember that the Rumsfeld Pentagon had a highly developed PR and IO program that cultivated a number of groups of "opinion makers" so as to manage the "information battle" as they think of it. Journalists, retired military people, etc. Many millions of dollars were spent in contracts for "Information Operations" both external and implicitly internal. Eventually, the retired military briefings, meetings and distribution of talking points routine surfaced and a number of retired military people lost consultant contracts to the media. I was invited to one meeting in Rumsfeld's conference room. I asked questions and was not invited back. This was about a year after the invasion of Iraq. I had always wondered how some of the ex military I was on television with were so precisely informed. I found out at the meeting. They were briefed in detail regularly by the responsible senior officials including Rumsfeld himself. Interestingly, motives for the retired officers participating were not altogether mercenary. A lot of them believed it was their duty to fill the media with the unattributed assertions of the Defense Department and thus to participate in the war effort. A frightening thing. The armed forces are the most trusted institutions in the United States. To risk that for a momentary advantage and in service to the politics of the civilian side of the Pentagon was folly.

Now, we have Mullen, a political officer if there ever was one, carrying Ignatius around so as to "inform him." How many others are so "informed?."

Ignatius is usually the property of the CIA's information program. He carries their water.

I guess he is "branching out." pl

Posted by G, Z, or B at 3:46 PM

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

Ramallah is not Palestine

By Sandy Toalan, Le Monde Diplomatique – 31 March 2010
http://mondediplo.com/2010/04/04ramallah

Despite condemnation over Jerusalem and Gaza, Israel has boasted of improved conditions in parts of the West Bank. Yet Ramallah, with its coffee bars and restaurants, is far away from Area C, with its refugee camps, roadblocks, military patrols and harassment, where nothing much has changed

In Ramallah, on a sliver of land inside the occupied West Bank, it’s possible to imagine what Palestinian freedom might feel like. Major Israeli roadblocks and checkpoints are down or unmanned, allowing drivers who used to be stalled, fuming, to travel nearly unimpeded from Jericho, up the ancient hills to Ramallah, and on to Nablus in northern Palestine. Inside this fragment of a fragment of land, the economy is picking up, as shipments of soap, olive oil, vegetables, soft drinks and even local beer move smoothly to their West Bank destinations. Bloomberg has noticed that the area shows an annual growth rate of 7%.

Here, in the political and commercial centre of the West Bank, a relative sense of ease and prosperity has emerged as new shops and bars serve well-educated and discerning customers. “World-class vibrant beats in the evenings and fine-dining at all times,” reads the Facebook page for Orjuwan, a popular Ramallah lounge. “Preserving essential ingredients of traditional Mediterranean cuisine from Palestine and Italy, our classic dishes are reinvented to gourmet standard in a fine dining experience…”

Welcome to Liberty Enclave, where residents experience a taste of prosperity and rising quality of life in this small but significant part of Palestinian West Bank society. Unencumbered by scores of roadblocks, or by delays caused by the arbitrary decisions of teenaged soldiers, these Palestinians can now enjoy a modicum of freedom to move about and do business. The partial lifting of the West Bank occupation, helped partly by the US training and professionalisation of Palestinian security forces, allows the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to cite measurable improvements in the lives of some of his people – and gives Israel a rare chance to appear magnanimous despite the condemnation over the Gaza war and the Jerusalem settlements.

Yet the improved conditions in this part of the West Bank – known as Area A, a creation of the Oslo process in which Palestinians have been given civil autonomy – deepen the resentment of other Palestinians who remain locked down in Area C – where Israel retains full control. (Area C accounts for 60% of the West Bank.) There is also anger at the Palestinian leadership. This is not new. Nor is class-based intra-Palestinian fury. In 1994, Gazans who had sacrificed in the first intifada were furious when their “liberators” arrived from Tunis to govern from their villas and the back seats of their black sedans (1). Now the resentment is worsened by the disconnection between the enclaves of Israeli-controlled liberation and isolation, and few Palestinians bridge the gap.

Schizophrenia

“I feel like I have schizophrenia,” said Naela Khalil, a journalist who lives at weekends with her family in the Balata refugee camp near Nablus, but works in the Ramallah office of the daily Al Ayyam. Khalil, who recently documented PA human rights abuses against Hamas activists in Palestinian jails, was sipping a latte at Café de la Paix, another addition to Ramallah’s comfortable café culture. “The biggest problems among my friends in Ramallah is how to lose weight,” she said. “Biggest problem at Balata camp is how to stay alive.” Khalil marvels at all the glass buildings in Ramallah, built with a naïve confidence that they will remain unshattered. “People in the camps don’t even build a second storey on their homes. Because they know what it’s like to lose their house in one black night.”

Anger boiled over during the early days of Israel’s war on Gaza at the end of 2008. “At New Year here in Ramallah, people were partying in restaurants and drinking, but in Gaza they were celebrating under Israeli bombing,” Khalil remembered. “Only 50 or 60 came to the demonstration. There were two security officers per demonstrator. So you feel very important! VIP! This kind of sarcasm is the last step before the anger comes.”

More demonstrations were organised at Ramallah’s Manara Square, and Khalil covered them. “Every time people went to the Manara for a demonstration, security forces prevented them. They beat them and threw tear gas. Prevented people from going to the checkpoints. We are normal people and they came to beat us. These things slowly add up.”

A shrugging indifference

In the farther reaches of Area C, the reaction is less anger at the PA, more indifference. In the South Hebron Hills, 30 miles away, yet light years from the “world-class vibrant beat” of Ramallah, reality is an urgent, inch-by-inch struggle with Israeli settlers and soldiers over land, and access to the hilly paths that connect villagers to their homes and schools.

“The settlers used to come with dogs – they would send the dogs out to attack us,” said Manar, a schoolgirl from the South Hebron Hills, which is firmly embedded in Area C. She is 13, but looks 10. Like many Palestinians in the area, Manar lives in a village of tents and cave dwellings in the South Hebron Hills. From there she walks two hours to her school. A report by Christian Peacemakers Teams, based in al-Tuwani village, documents many incidents in which settlers, often wearing hoods or masks, have stoned children, beaten them, and stolen their backpacks. (Stoning attacks have also been documented by videos taken by villagers in the area.) Besides the dogs, settlers have fired eggs at Manar with slingshots. Because of the attacks, the Israeli army is required to escort the Palestinian children, but “sometimes they don’t come on time” and Manar misses school for fear of the settlers. “Sometimes they have black hoods covering their faces. So it’s really scary.”

As in much of Area C, daily life for villagers is full of travel restrictions, housing demolitions and confiscations of land. Some now live full-time in their sheep camps, since they fear that abandoning them will result in permanent loss of their lands. “If they lose any of their land, they suffer – they need every bit of land to graze their flocks,” said Joshua Hough, an American activist walking toward the school. He lives part-time in al-Tuwani as part of Christian Peacemaker Teams. “The land is continuously being taken in little chunks. The amount of land Palestinians have available to them is becoming less and less every year.”

The school was three steel frames built on cement slabs, draped with canvas. Local leaders spoke through a megaphone, arguing for freedom of movement and access to education. After the speeches, schoolteachers began handing out free pencils. Manar and her fellow students quickly crowded around, reaching out their hands.

“Members of the Palestinian Authority hardly ever come here,” said Na’im al-Adarah, driving us back in a battered pickup which has served as a makeshift school bus. Once, he said, a man from the Palestinian ministry of local affairs came from Ramallah but refused to come in a PA vehicle. “So we took him from Ramallah in our cars, at our own expense.” The official was appalled at the conditions he witnessed. “He said this is the first time he knew that this land [within the West Bank] is ours. A minister like him is surprised that we have these areas? I asked him ‘how can a minister like you not know this? You’re the minister of local government!’ It was like he didn’t know what was happening in his own country.” Al-Adarah squinted at the broken road through a cracked windshield. “We’re forgotten, unfortunately.”

For these Palestinians, the semi-liberated enclave centred in Ramallah is part of another country.

“Ramallah is not Palestine,” said Muhammad Abdullah Ahmad Wahdan. “It’s 5%. But 95% of Palestine suffers.” We sat in the living room of his concrete block home in Qalandia refugee camp north of Jerusalem. Just a few minutes away lay Ramallah, another country. Outside, Israel’s separation barrier loomed above the camp like a prison wall. There is talk that Israel will reroute the wall through the middle of the camp, and Wahdan says, given that this is Area C, the Palestinian Authority (PA) would be powerless to stop it. “This leadership has given us nothing,” he said. “No work, no homeland, no stability, no security.”

Benefits for the bourgeoisie

Wahdan long ago dismissed the dream that the PA could help him recover the lands of citrus and olives that his family were driven from during the creation of Israel six decades ago. Now, after losing a son to the struggle – the young man was 19, and his wife was pregnant; when a baby girl was born, the family called her Palestine – he is wary of any more sacrifice for the Palestinian leadership. As she served us refreshments, Wahdan’s wife said that these are the people who “put our kids under the cannon fire”.

Wahdan said: “This particular class of the bourgeoisie exploited the people who fought the struggle. We did this for their benefit. They were the ones who got something out of it.” Wahdan’s 15-year-old grandson, Anas, sitting under a large portrait of his martyred uncle, added: “They wanted us, with no weapons, to [make the] sacrifice. Their kids have cars and villas, they own phone companies. There’s no equality between someone like that and someone like me, who lives in a house that’s falling apart, and whose father may or may not have enough money to bring bread or have clothes.”

And if he and his friends should voice their displeasure? “We’ll be told, ‘Well, you’re just refugee camp kids’,” said Anas’s friend Munir. He wants to become an eye doctor. “There’s nothing to do here, maybe play games on the internet. There’s a military base next to me here, and the checkpoint crossing there, and the Israeli army comes in at night. And maybe if you go and play games at the internet place, you’re happy that you did something for the day.” Refugee-camp teenagers like these once fuelled the resistance to occupation. Not now, said Munir: “All that anger has been absorbed by depression.” Perhaps some day, that anger will again rises. But for now, said Anas: “People say ‘I’m exhausted, and rocks will not liberate me’.”

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

“Israel’s” policy of land theft

Via Silver Lining

Posted on April 1, 2010 by realistic bird

by Naser Al Jafa'ri

Middle East Monitor, March 31, 2010

A Palestinian human rights report has accused the Israeli Occupation of confiscating approximately 160,000 acres of Palestinian land during 2009 by abusing various laws, such as the Barren Land Law and the laws on closed areas and fallow land.
A report issued by the International Solidarity Foundation for Human Rights to commemorate Land Day (March 30) revealed that the Israeli Occupation confiscates Palestinian land on various pretexts, such as security reasons, building the apartheid wall and expanding Israeli settlements and the roads within them.
The Foundation stated that the widest and most notable confiscation operations took place in the cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, Bethlehem, Jenin, Nablus, and Al-Aghwar. It pointed out that the occupation seized 3,000 acres of land in the village of Yatta located in Hebron, south of the West Bank. The reason behind the confiscation was to annex this land to the settlements of Judea Metzadot Yehuda and Carmel.
The Occupation also confiscated 25 acres of land from the town of Bet for the expansion of the Karmei Tzur settlement in addition to 4 acres of private land owned by the citizen Mohamed Gadei Allami in order to establish an electricity network in the region. It also confiscated 1,770 acres of land from the villages of Artas and Al-Khader for the purpose of annexing this land to the settlement of Efrata in Bethlehem.
According to the report, the Occupation’s authorities also seized 940 acres of land from the village of Gabaa , on the pretext that this land was located within a closed Israeli military area. It then confiscated an additional 24 acres from the villages of Housan and Nehalin and annexed them to the Gush Etzion settlement district.
The report also stated that the Occupation authorities seized around 50 acres from the village of Asira Al-Qibliya so as to establish a new settlement area and annex more areas to the settlement of Yitzhar, south of Nablus and in the north of the occupied West Bank. It also confiscated tens of acres from Kafr Kalil and Burin last July so as to carry out new settlement expansions around the city.
The report said that in Jenin, the occupation’s authorities confiscated 300 acres from the village of Yaabud in order to establish a new settlement as well as 115 more acres from the same village in order to expand the settlement of Shaked, which was previously established on the village land.

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

Activists burst AIPAC conference's bubble

Stephanie Westbrook, The Electronic Intifada, 1 April 2010 River to Sea

Activists protesting outside the AIPAC policy conference carried signs highlighting Israel's rights violations.

The theme of this year's annual policy conference for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobby group was "Israel: Tell the Story." And it was quite a story that AIPAC wanted to tell. The conference aimed at imparting to the more than 7,000 attendees "an intimate understanding of the many ways that Israel is making the world a better place," with a focus on peacemaking and innovation.

Outside the Washington Convention Center, together with activists from CodePink, Veterans for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, Avaaz, Jewish Voice for Peace and the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, we tried to bring a little reality to the AIPAC bubble. We carried signs and banners calling for respect for international law and human rights, an end to the siege of Gaza, Israeli apartheid and US taxpayer funding of war crimes.

Using street theatre, we set up a checkpoint to greet the participants, and I, in the role of a Palestinian woman, tried in vain to get through. I pleaded with the sometimes startled conference-goers to help me get to a hospital, but Tighe Barry, playing an Israeli soldier at the checkpoint, pushed me away, telling the AIPAC supporters, "You can pass. This is a Jewish-only road."

During our presence outside the conference, I got an earful of everything from thoughtful debate to the most vulgar of insults to outright ignorance on the issues: "There is already a settlement freeze!" "Gaza isn't under siege, Israel is!" "AIPAC has nothing to do with policy!" This last remark was made while standing under the enormous sign reading "AIPAC Policy Conference."

We were outnumbered roughly 100 to 1, yet the very site of us literally sent some people over the edge. A few people even resorted to violence, shoving and hitting the activists. During a press conference held outside the Convention Center, we were constantly interrupted, with people shouting and walking in front of the cameras. Josh Ruebner of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation rightly judged this as a classic example of the AIPAC crowd trying to completely control the debate so that no other voices can be heard.

The second day of protests outside the conference made use of satire to try to get the message through. CodePink issued a fake press release announcing AIPAC's support for a settlement freeze in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The phony release was picked up by several news outlets prompting AIPAC to issue a statement refuting the claim, and thereby confirming that they are not in line with US policy on the issue or the majority of US citizens. Some conference participants were then questioning why AIPAC was not supporting a settlement freeze.

Avaaz activists dressed as Israeli settlements outside Congress.

Later that morning, "Netanyahu and the Settlements" arrived at the conference. Activists with the global online advocacy group Avaaz.org showed up wearing cardboard boxes shaped like settlement housing along with someone wearing a mask of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a Caterpillar hardhat, chanting, "Build settlements, not peace." Later that afternoon, nicely dressed activists escorted the conference participants, instructing, "right this way to the Apartheid Conference."

The main attraction of the three-day event was, of course, the gala dinner where Netanyahu himself spoke. Rae Abileah of CodePink, who had purchased a ticket to the conference but then received a certified letter saying that her registration had been cancelled, was nonetheless inside the dinner waiting for her moment. After the traditional Roll Call, the interminable reading of the names of the Congress members present -- some 59 senators and 269 members of the House of Representatives -- Netanyahu finally took the stage. "When the prime minister announced Israel's commitment to defense, I could no longer remain silent," Abileah said. She jumped up on AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr's private table right next to the stage and unfurled a banner reading, "Build Peace Not Settlements" while shouting, "Lift the siege of Gaza! No illegal settlements!"

Following former British Prime Minister Tony Blair's speech the morning of the third and last day of the conference, the AIPAC lobbyists made their way to Capitol Hill, where a reported 500 meetings with Congress had been set. We arrived early to beat the crowd and delivered thank you letters to the 36 members of the House who had voted "no" on the resolution condemning the UN-commissioned Goldstone report.

"Netanyahu and the Settlements" had arrived by the time we finished and were there to greet the AIPAC lobbyists as they lined up to enter the Rayburn building. Holding a gigantic check made out for "Endless Illegal Settlements" signed by US President Barack Obama, we called out on the megaphone, "Bank of Israel, otherwise known as the United States Congress. Nothing is too much for Israel." There were a number of groups of young people on the Hill the same day lobbying for education and jobs programs. As we passed, I told them, "Sorry, no money left for your school or jobs. Congress wants to give it to Israel."

We then paid visits to the offices of Senators Graham and Schumer, who had both spoken at the conference, as well as those of Senators Lieberman and Kyl. Donning tunics that read "Settler" and waving a flag that read "Mine," we moved in, occupied the office, set up a roadblock and began moving the furniture around to our pleasing. Again playing the part of a Palestinian woman, I pleaded with the staff, who were, not surprisingly, alarmed at what was happening, for their help in removing the settlers from my family's land. In three out of four cases we managed to secure a meeting with a member of the staff; at Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) office Capitol Police arrived and promptly removed us.

As much as AIPAC appears to be living in a bubble, it unfortunately seems unlikely that the US government, or the so-called "international community" for that matter, will take a courageous stance and do what many Israelis have been asking, save Israel from itself. That's why so many activists are now taking it upon themselves to lead the way by supporting the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. Right outside the AIPAC conference the newly formed BDS group of the greater Washington, DC area called on local residents to not buy Israeli products as a way to make a meaningful contribution to ending the Israeli occupation. And on 30 March, the second Global BDS Day, actions took place around the world, calling for an investment in peace and a boycott of Israel.

All images by Stephanie Westbrook.

Stephanie Westbrook is a US citizen who has been living in Rome, Italy since 1991. She is active in the peace and social justice movements in Italy and traveled to Gaza in June 2009. She can be reached at steph A T webfabbrica D O T com

When will Israel start supporting America?

RT

Published 31 March, 2010, 18:04

With the US taxpayer already shelling out huge sums for the benefit of Israel, will Washington’s demands to freeze Israeli settlement construction come about, or is the relationship between the two truly one-sided?

Israel receives around $3 billion in direct foreign assistance every year from the US, which represents about one-fifth of America’s foreign aid budget. Moreover, the United States has given Israel about the same amount to develop sophisticated weapons systems, like the Lavri aircraft, while giving Israel access to cutting-edge US weapon systems, like the Blackhawk helicopter and the F-16 fighter jet.

These huge expenditures on behalf of the American taxpayer continue despite Israel’s determination to build Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem – the most fiercely contested piece of property in the world.

Put simply, East Jerusalem refers to the section of the city that was captured by Jordanian forces in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and then taken by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War. Israel now claims the entire city as its own, a declaration that is not recognized by the international community. Although the United States has said that East Jerusalem should play a part in any peace with the Palestinians (the Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of its future state), Israel asserts that Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of the State of Israel.

However, it looks as if Washington’s impatience with Israel over the issue is quickly coming to an end, and this was strikingly clear following Vice President Joe Biden’s trip to Israel on March 8-9.

Shortly after Biden vowed unyielding American support for Israel’s security, the Israeli Interior Ministry announced 1,600 new housing units for Jews in East Jerusalem. If the government of Benjamin Netanyahu was calculating that the Obama administration would take the announcement lying down, they figured wrong, horribly wrong.

Biden condemned the move as “precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now,” while US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the move “an insult.”

Netanyahu assured Washington that the timing of the announcement was a mistake, yet refused to give an inch of ground on the question of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem.

“Jerusalem is not a settlement,” the Israeli prime minister said in a speech in Washington (March 23) to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the powerful pro-Israeli lobby. “It’s our capital.”

Netanyahu then advised the United States on how to approach the problem of a peace settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

“Of course, the United States can help the parties resolve their problem, but it cannot solve the problems for the parties,” he said. “Peace cannot be imposed from the outside.”

Although the Israeli prime minister may be right in his general assessment of the situation, it could also be said that peace will never become a reality if the process is left to the Israelis and Palestinians alone to resolve. This is readily apparent after more than three decades of myriad road maps for peace have all led to exasperating dead ends.

Last week, Netanyahu paid a visit to US President Barack Obama in the White House in an effort to put the brakes on the rapidly deteriorating situation. But Netanyahu left Washington not only without an “announcement of restored relations” with his American counterparts, but also without a press appearance or official photo of the meeting to boot.

But there were two things that Netanyahu did receive from his trip to Washington: plenty of negative publicity back home for “cowering to Obama” (one Israeli paper wrote that Netanyahu received “the treatment reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea”), in addition to a request to “freeze construction in East Jerusalem for four months in exchange for an attempt to renew stalled Israeli peace talks with Palestinians,” Haaretz, quoting a government source, reported on Wednesday.

Washington hopes such a deal could persuade the Palestinians to renew direct negotiations rather than indirect “proximity” talks, as had been planned, the source concluded.

The request from Washington is part of a longer list of measures that the US believes Israel is obliged to adopt in order to revive peace talks with the Palestinians.

“Netanyahu's differences with the Obama administration on Jerusalem have put him in a political bind, as he seeks to avoid harming Israel's critical security ties with Washington while keeping his pro-settler ruling coalition from breaking apart,” the paper concluded.

The cooling of relations between Jerusalem and Washington has served to reveal major differences as to what both sides expect from any sort of final peace plan. Indeed, Israel and Washington seem to have been living in a state of denial as far as their real intentions are concerned. Moreover, as the bilateral breakdown continues to fester, the United States sees its role as a legitimate peace mediator being undermined.

At the same time, there is also the fear that Israel’s intransigence on the issue of new settlements is exposing US troops, now fighting wars on two fronts in the region in Afghanistan and Iraq, to unnecessary dangers.

“This is starting to get dangerous for us,” Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. “What you are doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.”

As the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth reported: “The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism.”

The message couldn't be plainer: Israel's intransigence could cost American lives.

So the question increasingly being heard around Washington these days is: When will Israel begin to support us?

Robert Bridge, RT

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

Qabha slams detention of Zaki, calls on Fatah to respond

[ 01/04/2010 - 02:10 PM ]


NABLUS, (PIC)-- Former Palestinian minister Wasfi Qabha on Thursday strongly denounced the Israeli imprisonment of senior Fatah official Abbas Zaki and called on Fatah leadership to respond to what happened to one of its leaders.


In a press release, Qabha said that Hamas prisoners in Ofer prison gave Zaki a warm reception in a way that reflected the high morality of Hamas cadres and the unity of the Palestinian people regardless of their political affiliation.


The former minister added that the meeting that happened between Hamas prisoners and Zaki sent a strong message to the Israeli occupation that the estrangement between the Palestinian rivals is a passing summer cloud that soon will clear up.


He also hailed Zaki for his refusal to comply with the demands of the Israeli court or recognizing its legitimacy, and urged the central committee of Fatah and its revolutionary council to respond to the imprisonment of Zaki by releasing all Hamas detainees and citizens from West Bank jails.


Zaki had refused to sign a deal put forward to him by Israel, which includes a fine, compliance with a number of requests made by the Israeli intelligence apparatus, and restrictions on his travel and movement throughout the occupied Palestinian lands.


However, Palestinian local sources reported Thursday that Mahmoud Abbas’s militias kidnapped five citizens affiliated with Hamas, most of them were ex-detainees either in Israeli or West Bank jails, in the district of Nablus, Qalqiliya, Bethlehem and Jenin.


They also said that Abbas’s militias summoned for investigation a Palestinian engineer and ex-detainee in their jails called Wajeeh Abu Aida.


Abu Aida suffers from different chronic diseases and severe pains preventing him from sitting down properly as a result of his exposure to excruciating torture during his previous detention.

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET AN AMERICAN MAD?

DesertPeace

April 1, 2010 at 07:13

Americans put up with a lot before they get mad….. is it finally happening?

You didn’t get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn’t get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.

You didn’t get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.

You didn’t get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.

You didn’t get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

You didn’t get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.

You didn’t get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.

You didn’t get mad that the government spends 3 Billion dollars a year to support an oppressive apartheid regime in Israel.

You didn’t get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn’t get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn’t get mad when we didn’t catch Bin Laden.

You didn’t get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.

You didn’t get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.

You didn’t get mad when we gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich.

You didn’t get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.

You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans…oh hell no.

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian