TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | Egypt

Obama to Stop in Saudi Arabia Before Egypt

By on 28 May 2009
Photobucket

Playing out this week, before Pres. Obama travels to the Muslim world, is Mahmoud Abbas coming to the White House. Eric Alterman talks about the weakness of Abbas, which is an understatement. But considering Israel has done all they can to weaken him it’s no wonder. Bush was no help either. Pres. Obama would do well to strengthen Mr. Abbas’ credibility, which is part of what’s going on today. It’s actually in Israel’s interest too, something they should have thought about a long time ago.

As for Pres. Obama’s trip next week, it now looks quite different.

Obama will stop first in Saudi Arabia, not Egypt, with Cairo the next stop where he will give his speech, the actual location supposed to be a secret, with Cairo University looking like the place. But as for Saudi being Obama’s first stop, this is a big development.

Marc Lynch:

The Arab media is buzzing today over the announcement that President Obama will travel to Riyadh before arriving in Cairo for his big address to the Islamic world. Why the late addition to his itinerary?

… The Egyptians had been making much hay off of Obama’s choice of Cairo for the speech, arguing that this vindicated Egypt’s (deeply unpopular) foreign policy and signaled Egypt’s return to the forefront of Arab leadership. This seeming support for Egypt’s (deeply unpopular) foreign policy was one of the reasons for my reservations about the choice of locale in the first place, although as with everything it depends on whether Obama endorses or challenges that approach in his speech. With the Saudis now the American President’s first port of call, the Egyptian claim to renewed leadership is weaker.

After that inter-Arab rivalry business, Arabs are trying to puzzle out the greater political significance of the trip. …

Could it be that Pres. Obama listened to Zbigniew Brzezinski and others like him? People who have been talking a lot about the importance of having Saudi Arabia as a major player in any Middle East process.

Mr. Brzezinski said in the Saudi conference I attended that an alliance with Saudi Arabia is critical to Middle East equilibrium. From the live Twitter reporting at that event:

9:33:10 AM: Zbig: We need a real US/SA alliance for peace. –applause in the room–

9:35:43 AM: Zbig: two parties can’t solve MidEast peace; US needs to frame, w/ SA, who can help. Window is closing.

From what I can discern from the experts, people who have traveled in the region and know it extensively (yes, I’m jealous of that status), Saudi Arabia’s role in moving the Israeli-Palestinian issue forward cannot be underestimated.

Looks like Obama’s not only getting it intellectually, but is willing to put his clout forward in political capital, spent through picking his spots very strategically.

Read full story · Comments are closed

North Korea’s Nukes

By on 27 May 2009

North Korea threatened a military response to South Korean participation in a U.S.-led program to seize weapons of mass destruction, and said it will no longer abide by the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War. – Bloomberg

Secretary Clinton weighed in this past hour: “North Korea has made a choice. It has chosen to violate specific language, UN Security Council Resolution 1718… It has abrogated its obligations it entered into through the six-party talks and it continues to act in a provocative and belligerent manner to its neighbors. There are consequences to such actions.” She continued, saying the U.S. and a “unified community,” including China and Russia, are working on what steps will be taken going forward. Then Clinton underscored our commitments to “the defense of South Korea and Japan,” which is “part of our alliance obligation which we take very seriously.” The intent being to “rein in” the North Koreans and bring them back into a “framework of discussion” towards “denuclearization” that will “benefit the people of North Korean, the region and the world.”

If you’ve been reading my posts on the heavy nuclear breathing coming from Iran you know that I believe there is little the U.S. or the world can do to stop Iran from going nuclear. North Korea is a model that proves this point even more strongly. World leaders, no matter whom or where, have really missed the mark on what’s been developing over the years we’ve been trying to think small, incremental and one nation at a time, thinking disrespecting mad men and tyrants will make them more logical. Maybe we had a chance at the end of the Cold War to muster forces for a new non-proliferation coalition that actually meant something, but we didn’t think broadly enough. We simply didn’t have the imagination to envision a world at zero. We still don’t, because if we did we’d understand that the entire world has to buy in. That means everyone.

Now we’ve got North Korea making everyone nervous. Tom Ricks says ignore them. Well, they’re not going away, nor is the prowess they now have achieved going to do anything good for the region. But still we ask, How do you stop him?

.. Ed Friedman, a specialist in Asian international relations at the University of Wisconsin, was not optimistic. “The continuing development of nuclear weapons and missiles to carry them by North Korea … has large and dangerous consequences,” he said by email.

“Evidence suggests Chinese analysts have concluded that little can be done to stop either North Korea or Iran from going nuclear.”

Friedman worries Japan might ultimately go nuclear to defend itself, and that this would heighten tensions in the region – especially between Tokyo and Beijing.

Exactly. We can’t. So, now what?

Conservatives like to argue whose fault it is that North Korea went nuclear.

First, on the political front, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il has challenged President Obama more in four months than he did President George W. Bush in eight years. Since Obama has taken office, North Korea has kicked out UN nuclear inspectors, launched both short- and long-range missiles and tested a nuclear weapon.

If not this, it’s Iran must be stopped at all cost, including military action, which is the dumbest suggestion since preemption on Iraq, with neocons still believing in a strategy called regime change. It’s the Don’t Blame Us, You Talked to Them diplomatic bankruptcy that led to our current dilemma. But whether the U.S. can get beyond this juvenile political dialogue is doubtful given that this is what drives our critical media.

While Obama is tinkering in Iraq and Afghanistan, the importance of both not in doubt, an even more serious situation beckons beyond and I’m not talking just about Pakistan. It’s a world with Iran and North Korea both nuclear nations, Japan turning nuclear provoking China, with a wider Middle East escalation incubating as well, while loose nukes remain a big threat to U.S. security.

Smarter minds than mine aren’t offering up any solutions, let alone definitive strategies. But it seems to me that someone has to suggest a “Zero Nuke Summit” or something less threatening, bringing all players to the table, including those we don’t want to engage or admit are serious players. That means it would include Russia, Israel, Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan, etc., but also Egypt and Saudi Arabia, because beyond Israel, no one has a bigger stake in Iran not going nuclear than the Saudis.

Will this happen? When pigs fly. There’s no conversation among the “experts,” let alone intellectual or media pressure coming from anywhere demanding it. Not the traditional media, including cable or network news, so dealing with the nuclear world rumblings and escalation threats collectively remains a far off conversation that amounts to talking to yourself.

We simply can’t continue to pretend this is going to go away. … Well, we can (and have), but it’s not.

Read full story · Comments are closed

CIA Director Sent to Israel

By on 14 May 2009

The person referred to earlier this week by Haaretz as being sent to Israel was CIA Director Panetta. According to The Times:

America’s spy chief was sent on a secret mission to Israel to warn its leaders not to launch a surprise attack on Iran without notifying the US Administration.

…The Israeli leader is expected to insist that the US stays focused on Iran, rather than tackling stalled talks with the Palestinians.

Mr Netanyahu has held meetings with Arab leaders this week, including President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan. Both Sunni leaders share Israel’s fears of a resurgent Shia Iran.

If Netanyahu is betting that Iran is of more importance to the Saudis and Egyptians than Middle East peace he’s going to come up empty.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Backtracks on Releasing Detainee Photos

By on 13 May 2009

Pres. Obama has changed his mind.

Consider what good comes from releasing more abusive detainee photos. It’s not like the whole world doesn’t know what happened under Bush’s watch. That the U.S. employed torture, as well as lesser indignities on prisoners to coerce confessions. So what do we gain by seeing more atrocities committed?

Or maybe we should ask what harm the release of these photos will do, especially as we begin to draw down from Iraq, while Obama simultaneously plans to travel to the Middle East to speak in Egypt. Inflaming the Middle East as Pres. Obama greets the region seems like a lose-lose proposition to me.

It’s a different subject entirely from investigating torture policy and the people who put it together, which would unearth unknown facts and truths, unlike the photo release.

That said, I’d rather see transparency, though it’s hard to argue with Gen. Odierno on this one.

What is unfortunate, however, is that the Administration’s initial decision wasn’t sufficiently thought through so that now Obama’s decision will be judged as a “flip flop” or “180,” regardless that it could be the most prudent action to take.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Jordan a Better Choice

By on 11 May 2009
Photobucket

Sorry to the experts like Marc Lynch, even as little clout as it has compared to Egypt, I still wish Obama had chosen to speak in Jordan. Let’s just hope he can do the U.S. some good, though by picking Egypt it just reminds everyone of their repression and U.S. acceptance, even complicity, in it.

The poll of six Arab nations found that residents think that Obama will have a positive impact on the Middle East — a region marked by war, religious disputes, ethnic and sectarian violence — as well as on the United States and the rest of the world.

Obama scored highest in Jordan, where 58 percent of its citizens have a favorable opinion of him, 29 percent have an unfavorable view, 6 percent had no opinion and 7 percent didn’t know.

… The difference between Obama’s popularity and that of the United States is a goodwill gap that spreads from 26 points in Kuwait to 11 points in Lebanon, all in Obama’s favor.

As for Egypt. Ugh. Mubarak has been a pain in our foreign policy, especially with regard to Hamas, but also Iran (though the Saudis aren’t great either, but Obama wouldn’t dare speak there), with Mubarak’s domestic oppression so intense that I just don’t see the plus here. It just compounds the U.S. coddles dictator talking point.

Lynch disagrees:

Obama could take advantage of the location to forcefully speak out in favor of democratization and human rights. He could point out and favorably cite Rice’s remarks, acknowledge the weak follow-through, and vow to do better by being more pragmatic and cooperative. If he wanted to be really bold, he could reach out to the Muslim Brotherhood as an example of an organization facing a choice between “resistance” and “constructive partnership”, and criticize the Egyptian regime’s repression of the Brotherhood at a time when it was trying to play the democratic game. He could do the same on the foreign policy front, reframing the moderate/radical divide into something more constructive.

If he does some of that with his usual dexterity, then the Cairo location could go from a negative to a net positive — and set the stage for the real purpose of the address, which I assume will be to fundamentally reframe America’s approach to its relations with the Islamic world.

Okay. I just don’t see Pres. Obama in a “reach out to the Muslim Brotherhood,” while tut-tut-tutting the host, Pres. Mubarak. Hey, but hell could freeze.

Egypt’s historic greatness could use resurrection rehabilitating, or maybe the term is redemption, especially since they’ve been a partner in U.S. rendition. Except to be redeemed you must repent. Fat chance from Mubarak.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Gen. James Jones: ‘Bad News Doesn’t Improve with Age’

By on 30 April 2009

As if on cue, today I get an answer to my piece yesterday, with the revelations in David Ignatius scoop sure to send chills down the neoconservatives over in Netanyahu land.

Jones is an activist on the Palestinian issue, which he lists as a top priority for the new administration. He wants the United States to offer a guiding hand in peace negotiations — submitting its own ideas to help break any logjams between the Israelis and Palestinians. “The United States is at its best when it’s directly involved,” Jones says. He cites U.S. diplomatic efforts in the Balkans. “We didn’t tell the parties to go off and work this out. If we want to get momentum, we have to be involved directly.”

This stance may antagonize the new Israeli government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, as may the prospect of U.S. diplomatic engagement with Iran…

What comes across with Jones is a solid, experienced manager with a Marine’s blunt approach to problems. Asked if he supported Obama’s decision to release the torture memos, for example, Jones answered simply: “I did because I think it’s the right thing to do. In my military experience, I came to believe that bad news doesn’t improve with age. Better to put out bad news as you know it.”

Though Jones was talking about the OLC torture memos, regarding an Obama plan for Israel – Palestinians, “bad news” could be how Netanyahu receives this development. Obama’s not going to be squeezed by Netanyahu on Iran, and if Ignatius is correct, his team plans to make that clear before a Netanyahu visit.

It will be interesting to hear the Saudi reaction, especially after Monday’s US/Saudi conference where Turki Al-Faisal said this:

9:41:38 AM: Al-Faisal: We don’t need more plans from Obama. “We need implementation.”

Of course, ZBig had other thoughts:

9:35:43 AM: Zbig: two parties can’t solve MidEast peace; US needs to frame, w/ SA, who can help. Window is closing.

So what to look for in the Obama plan Ignatius is teasing? For starters, it can’t include anything on Iran. It must include Hamas, which means Egypt’s role will lessen, with Abbas, who desperately needs an image makeover after the Israelis destroyed his cred, strengthened. (Fitting that all the Israels got in return, especially after Gaza, was a stronger Hamas.) Saudi Arabia must also be a major player.

But this news from David “Body of Lies” Ignatius is big. Equilibrium big.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Harrowing Confessions of Israeli Soldiers Killing Palestinian Civilians

By on 19 March 2009
Photobucket

From Haaretz:

[...] During Operation Cast Lead, Israeli forces killed Palestinian civilians under permissive rules of engagement and intentionally destroyed their property, say soldiers who fought in the offensive. …

According to the squad leader: “The sharpshooter saw a woman and children approaching him, closer than the lines he was told no one should pass. He shot them straight away. In any case, what happened is that in the end he killed them. …

[...] The squad leader said: “You do not get the impression from the officers that there is any logic to it, but they won’t say anything. To write ‘death to the Arabs’ on the walls, to take family pictures and spit on them, just because you can. I think this is the main thing: To understand how much the IDF has fallen in the realm of ethics, really. It’s what I’ll remember the most.”

The accounts reported in Haaretz are infuriating to anyone writing about the region, especially if you understand the work diplomats, peacekeepers, Israeli and Palestinian alike, but also Arab states, are doing to change things in the Middle East. That they make lies out of Israel Defense Forces’ claims is an understatement.

The IDF testimonies will give some fodder, while depressing others, also potentially hardening hard liners on both sides of the fence. I think it’s a tremendous moment of potential healing, however. But I also know the costs of these types of confessions once they hit the public consciousness. Just ask John Kerry who talked about the legacy of some of what happened during Vietnam.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Clinton: Two-State Solution ‘Inescapable’

By on 03 March 2009

It’s just nobody knows how to get there.

“The inevitability of working toward a two-state solution is inescapable,” Clinton said at a news conference after talks with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. (source: Bloomberg News)

Netanyahu:

“We found a common language for achieving the common goals,” Netanyahu said after meeting with Clinton at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. He said the two agreed to meet after a new government is formed and “think together creatively to get out of this maze.”

Clinton’s commitment to achieve a “comprehensive peace” was emphasized by language of pursuing that goal “on all fronts.” Active language.

Now let’s go back to Clinton’s remarks from yesterday in Sharm el-Sheikh. I wholeheartedly agree with Tamara Wittes, of the Saban Center at Brookings, remarks that are supplied by the ever helpful Marc Lynch, even if he (and others) disagree with her (and me). Ms. Wittes scolds Mr. Lynch, then explains her points on Clinton further:

I have to say I think you badly misinterpreted Clinton’s statement at the Gaza reconstruction conference and unnecessarily reinforced the pessimism you say is already taking hold in the region. And you missed entirely a major variable conditioning her statements and emerging US policy: Congressional attitudes.

There is a big difference, and there has to be, between what the United States is willing to do with its money, and what it might do diplomatically. Clinton’s statement carefully reflected this dualism, but you did not notice it. read on

Meanwhile, guess who slipped into town?

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

On Middle East ‘Equilibrium’

By on 03 March 2009

–updated–

The timing of yesterday’s event moderated by Steve Clemons was perfect, coinciding with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s first visit to the Middle East as Secretary of State. The topic: What’s next for peace in the Middle East? Guests included Farah Stockman of The Boston Globe, Amjad Atallah of the New America Foundation, M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, and Abderrahim Foukara of Al-Jazeera. It was held at the City Club of Washington.

First, some quick hits on Clinton’s trip, as she begins the work President Obama hopes will step away from the failed non-engagement of the Bush-Cheney years.

Clinton speaking after Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt conference, where almost $1 billion in U.S. aid for Gaza was announced. As an aside, Martin Peretz strikes again, saying no aid should get through, exhibit A why a little tough love to Israel is required regarding Gaza.

Coverage via the Guardian:

“We have worked with the Palestinian Authority to install safeguards that will ensure our funding is only used where and for whom it is intended and does not end up in the wrong hands,” she said. “It is time to break the cycle of rejection and resistance, to cut the strings pulled by those who exploit the suffering of innocent people.”

Clinton made no reference to the closure of the Gaza crossings, or to Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, which are a prime concern for the Palestinians.

There’s also much being made about Clinton’s comments regarding Iran and their nuclear ambitions, as she downplays Iranian reaction to serious diplomacy, undoubtedly meant to lower expectations, while putting pressure on Iran. From Egypt:

“We’re under no illusions,” the official quoted Clinton as telling al Nahyan. “Our eyes are wide open on Iran.”

To add, Clemons has a piece up on Israel, Iran and the U.S. that is a must read. It also proves my point about Netanyahu.

Honest broker moments were revealed though they fell short of dealing with anything controversial such as the choke points and settlements.

Clinton having a moment with Syria’s foreign minister:

It was a brief but significant gesture: in the hubbub of the Gaza donor’s conference in Egypt, Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, shook hands and exchanged a few words yesterday with Walid Mouallem, her Syrian counterpart. …

As for what’s next on Middle East peace as the Obama administration begins the tough slog post Bush, several things stood out from the forum. First was Steve Clemons use of the word “equilibrium” over trying to achieve peace. I’ve been wondering how we take advantage of the shift and get to peace under President Obama, especially since I don’t believe peace is a real option. Lurching cease-fires interrupted by violence will never bring peace.

Secondly, the consensus of the panelists was that Iran is a bigger issue for Israelis than the Palestinians. I’ve heard it before, but it still sounds like an excuse, something that is sure to roil politics here in the U.S. and maybe that’s the point?

Much talk was about the question of whether a two state solution is possible anymore, even as some imagine one state is what may manifest. That Palestinians actually want that; juxtaposed against it would really be better for Israelis. I don’t see how anything works in the long term without two states, no matter how much I study and read on the subject. The U.S. and leaders in the region must put pressure on the parties to move forward with some plan for a sustained equilibrium. That can only happen if our gov. puts a value on U.S. interests first, beyond what will only benefit Israel, but cause us problems in the region with Arab nations. Nations with which Obama must make inroads on new engagement.

Optimism seemed to be the prevailing sentiment of the panelists.

Listening to experts you can never discount what is said, but I’m not feeling the same. M.J. Rosenberg’s optimism is in part due to President Obama himself. Israel’s current state of politics in that country are not encouraging, especially with Netanyahu up front, someone who has never appreciated the horrific cost of settlements, which was a constant theme from Al Jazeera’s Abderrahim Foukara. Then again, maybe only Bibi can do it. Doubts remain.

I also keep wondering how we get from political philosophy and intent to manifesting something concrete. Seriously, how long can we continue to talk about “peace,” without drawing up a plan that provides “equilibrium” to a region that never seems to want to step forward. We need to, as Clemons says, change the game.

Below are notes I took during the forum. Any misunderstanding of what’s written is on me, not the person to which the idea or quote is attributed. You can only take notes so fast. Any comments I have appear in italics after quote or basic idea of what was said by the panelist or the moderator.

Clemons on Clinton: “Impressive realist stripes” in Asia. (That’s what has enraged the Jewish community recently. They never saw Clinton’s internationalist tendencies, which are realist and pragmatic to their core.)

“I don’t believe in peace. I believe in equilibrium, equilibria.” – Clemons

“Iran was not the elephant in the room that it is now.” – Farah Stockman

“More and more Jewish voices” speaking out for something beyond the status qou. – Abderrahim Foukara. Also says it’s the Iran issue that’s paramount. “The whole thing harkens back to the issue of democracy.” It’s about settlements. “I doubt if Barack Obama will be able to make them do that one thing.” The West talks about Israel being a great democracy, but in the shadow of what the Palestinians are enduring how great a democracy can it be? Not a popular sentiment in the U.S. to offer, a gamble to utter it. (Mr. Foukara’s point was a plea of sorts, made continually throughout the forum.)

MJ Rosenberg – “In general I’m optimistic.” Mitchell’s call last week that included Jewish peace groups is one reason, he said. “We weren’t even invited to a Chanukah celebration” in the Bush years. “The status quo lobby,” as he called it, meaning AIPAC. Some in town “are very worried about George Mitchell, very worried.” Chas freeman, referred by some as that “vile creature,” made it worse. (I linked to MJ’s article on the Chas Freeman battle recently. This appointment is heartening to many peace movement Jews, quite a few in attendance yesterday.)

Amjad Atallah – We either pursue Arab – Israeli peace because Israel wants it, so we adopted that position. Or we have a larger interest that is regional. Mentioned Ann Lewis saying we support whatever gov. the Israelis elect, which is where we are today.

Clemons – Saudi Arabia very uncomfortable with Hamas, “discomfort,” is the appropriate word. (Saudi Arabia helped sponsor this event.)

MJ re Hamas: “I don’t favor engagement with Hamas.” Deal with Hamas only to the extent that it stops the violence. “I don’t see anything wrong with Egypt’s position.” MJ said what Clinton said today was like the Bush admin.

As an aside, here’s what Fox News offered: Lawmakers Worry Whether U.S. Can Keep Gaza Aid Away From Hamas.

Clemons – “The too much, too late strategy” re Clinton.

Farah Stockman – Re Clinton, “wishful thinking”. Even if you don’t say Hamas in your speech they’re still in control of Gaza. (Now you see why I offered a few quick hit links on Clinton’s trip so far. Diplomacy isn’t journalism.)

Is the Hamas issue going to be a civil war inside the Obama admin?, asked Clemons. Yes, said Farah Stockman. “I happened to know that Hamas members have met with Sein Fein” – Farah Stockman. You have to get your armed guys to sign on. (The reality of having George Mitchell in the mix is not a coincidence.)

Abderrahim Foukara – Egypt thinks Hamas is an extension of the Muslim brotherhood. But who would have thought Egypt would be a partner of any sort with Israel. (Acknowledging reality doesn’t mean no progress exists.)

Farah Stockman – “The populations are not the same as their governments.”

Was the election in Palestine a mistake? – Clemons

Abderrahim Foukara – Yes, because Bush put it in terms that democracy was all that was at stake. If we’re not careful parties will “subcontract” their battles to the U.S. “Like Ahmed Chalabi did with us on Iraq.” (American interests must be our prime focus.)

Clemons – “Silo” state issues away from the larger regional issues. (Another way to say it is that people conveniently compartmentalize issues so you don’t have to think of the whole.)

Iran is “paranoid” about their security for many reasons – Clemons

Farah Stockman – Bush made a two-state solution popular. (This infuriated me, because it didn’t matter considering Bush-Cheney had no policy except to aid the Israelis. See Lebanon, which didn’t do the Israelis or the U.S. any good in the region.)

Clemons – Road blocks (brought to Israel by Ehud Barak) are a huge issue. Choke points and aid into Gaza. (I’ve never understood why this isn’t a huge issue with progressives, especially. The choke points and road blocks are a despicable tactic by the Israelis.)

MJ: “Colossaly stupid” to keep food away. “The Israelis are doing everything they can to make these people hate them.”

Abderrahim Foukara – Settlements continued, regardless of Bush’s two state solution rhetoric. (A comment to Ms. Stockman’s point about Bush and two state solution.)

Amjad Atallah – “Punitive” in the hopes that it will make “the Arabs” change. The Israelis seem to believe they can brutalize Arabs into changing. (Again, who can argue that the Israel’s actions are often not only punitive but counterproductive? All that’s happening is radicalization.)

Taking risks in first term will keep Obama from having a second term; so can Obama actually have a dialogue with Hamas? (How can we ignore Hamas’ stature? They run Gaza, whether it’s viable or not seems beside the point.)

Clemons: Give us Netanyahu, please; “What makes sense is game changing moves.” (We cannot afford anything less.)

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

Foreign Affairs: What’s Next for the Peace Process?

By on 02 March 2009
Photobucket

I’ll be attending a forum on the Middle East peace process this afternoon moderated by Steve Clemons.

You can follow on Twitter.

Now let’s just hope I don’t get stuck in the snow.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Secretary Clinton Arrives in Egypt …and other Security Matters

By on 01 March 2009

– updated –

Clinton will also meet with Netanyahu.

SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in the Middle East on Sunday, delving into Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking for the first time at an international donors conference for Gaza. …

Expect every pause, breath and nuance to be over analyzed this week.

Adm. Mullen says Iran has enough material for a bomb. But can they weaponize it?

To add, Secretary Gates disagrees.

Hoagland and Ambassador Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League. Mr. Hoagland also asks we give up Af-Pak for Med-Ind, but only “momentarily,” thank heavens.

“Regional security is not the business of Iran alone,” Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, said in Washington last week. “We need a regional nuclear-free zone, to deal with the known Israeli nuclear-weapons problem and the potential Iranian one.” Otherwise, “others in the region will pursue the same course.”

Jim Lobe has an interesting exchange between Elliott Abrams on a teleconference, regarding weapons smuggling and Hamas.

Will Syria get the Golan Heights back? Joshua Landis says no and explains why.

Kessler of the Post is stating the obvious for Secretary Clinton this coming week. But make sure you catch the last few paragraphs. Elliott Abrams has given up on a two state solution, opting for institutions that are to get everyone there, I guess. While Nathan J. Brown, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is looking for the road to an armistice between Israel and Hamas. Both sides agree to stop fighting, with nothing enforced by outside parties (aka U.N.), as they work to some sort of agreement in Egypt. It’s short of a peace treaty, which seems to be too pacifistic for everyone involved.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Clinton to Middle East as Fatah-Hamas Turn to Unity Gov.

By on 27 February 2009

What timing, especially since, according to Marc Lynch today, Fatah and Hamas have agreed in principle on a unity government. Hear that Bibi?

[...] The details of the proposed “National Accordance” government [al-tawafuq al-watani] remain vague, and everyone expects hard bargaining to come. The proposed reconciliation is to include rebuilding the PLO, holding new Parliamentary and Presidential elections, and reconstructing the Palestinian security forces. They also agreed yesterday to put an end to hostile media campaigns and to work towards reconciliation. But the hard choices seem to have been largely deferred to committees, and there are wide gaps in the expectations of the two sides and a lot of mutual resentment and mistrust. But the Arab governments seem keen on reaching agreement before the Doha Arab Summit scheduled for the end of March.

Everyone recognizes that the Cairo agreement is a beginning rather than an end to the political struggles over intra-Palestinian relations — but it’s important to even seen a beginning after many long months of division and conflict. And the challenges to any kind of peace deal with Israel remain overwhelming, even if the Palestinian reconciliation is achieved. …

In fact, I’d go further. I think that this dramatic shift in Arab politics from confrontation to reconciliation directly reflects Arab evaluations of the new administration, and the messages they’ve been receiving from George Mitchell.

It sets Clinton and Mitchell up very well, especially with Secretary Clinton announcing the $1 billion in aid to the Palestinians in Egypt next week. Though Clinton is getting slammed from leaders in the Jewish community for stating the obvious about Israel when it comes to delivering goods to Gaza. As a staunch supporter of Israel, Clinton is simply delivering the tough love Israel deserves. That CBS dragged out the Arafat kiss moment illustrates how the media is continually covering the Middle East with a heavy weight towards one side.

Broad itinerary from Robert Wood at State:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will travel to Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Belgium, Switzerland, and Turkey from March 1–7, 2009.

Secretary Clinton will attend and participate in the donor’s conference for Gaza recovery hosted by Egypt on March 2. Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell and other high-level representatives will be in attendance in Sharm el-Sheikh with the Secretary during the conference. The Secretary also will meet with senior Egyptian officials.

After the conference, Secretary Clinton will travel to Israel and the Palestinian Territories and meet with senior officials.

In Brussels, Secretary Clinton will attend an informal meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers on March 5, where she will consult with Allies and seek consensus on the approach to the upcoming NATO Summit. The Secretary also will attend a meeting with foreign ministers from all NATO and EU countries, as well as Switzerland, to further boost transatlantic relations.

Also in Brussels, Secretary Clinton will meet separately with EU officials.

In Geneva, Secretary Clinton will meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to discuss a number of issues of mutual interest, including possibilities for a follow-on agreement to START, and deepening our cooperation in areas such as Afghanistan.

While in Ankara Secretary Clinton will meet with key Turkish officials.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Israeli Election, ‘Believni’ and the Supermodel

By on 12 February 2009

First, dealing with Gaza amidst the elections, today Egypt’s Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said “The secretary will be coming to Cairo on the second of March. We expect lots of commitments from everybody, lots of commitments for reconstruction.” The statement from State today emphasized that “The needs of Gaza’s Palestinians remain acute.” Amidst this, Reuters is reporting that Sen. John Kerry will meet Syria’s Assad next week, having met with Clinton today.

Needless to say, Israel’s Gaza skirmish with Hamas is on everyone’s mind as Livni and Netanyahu begin their very public campaign on what comes next. Aside this, there’s a lot of talk right now about Avigdor Lieberman being the “kingmaker,” though he’s not yet decided which way to weigh in just yet. His statement is a classic: “I know exactly who I will recommend to the president, but I am not telling because it is too early.” Clearly, he’s relishing his role, whether it’s “kingmaker,” frankly, I think is up to question. But he sure stopped Bibi.

The only thing we know for certain is that Israeli politics will be directed inward to this mounting friction making any efforts by former Sen. George Mitchell to move a peace agreement out of Bush’s foreign policy storage even more difficult than they were at the beginning, which is a feat unto itself.

The election, remembering Lieberman’s part as well, has left nothing settled. Dueling statements from Kadima and Likud prove this point beyond question.

“Tonight the campaign led by Bibi (nickname of Likud chairman Benjamin Netanyahu) and the wheeler-dealers of the Likud aimed at stealing power and the will of the voter in Israel must come to an end,” read a statement released by Kadima minutes after the official results were announced.

Kadima repeated its call for Netanyahu to join a national unity government with Tzipi Livni serving as prime minister. “With the completion of the vote count Kadima won and it is the largest party,” the party statement read. “Netanyahu must accede to Tzipi Livni’s call and join a centrist national unity government headed by her.”

Likud officials responded to Kadima’s statement with scorn. “Kadima’s statement is pathetic and shows that it continues to spin some imagined reality instead of recognizing a political reality in accordance with the voter’s verdict,” a Likud communiqué read. “An absolute majority of Israelis wants Netanyahu as prime minister and clearly rejected Kadima’s way which has failed.”

What also matters in all this is how the election was seen through the eyes of the world, including Arab eyes. You know, like the message electing President Obama sent to the world after the horrific foreign policy mismanagement by Bush-Cheney. Marc Lynch:

The skepticism bridges today’s great divide in Arab politics. There’s little difference between the coverage in al-Quds al-Arabi (the most populist / “rejection camp” of the major Arab papers) and al-Sharq al-Awsat (the most conservative / “moderate camp” Saudi paper). The Saudi station Al-Arabiya leads with the rise of Israeli extremists (mutatarufin, the same word used to described al-Qaeda extremists). Al-Sharq al-Awsat describes the election as the choice between “the right and the extreme right.” Neither Barak nor Livni is seen as offering a particularly better choice after Gaza. The veteran journalist Abd al-Wahhab Badrakhan is “waiting for Lieberman,” marveling that Netanyahu finally succeeded in finding someone worse than himself — and arguing, as many do, that Lieberman would be the best winner since he would show Israel’s “true face.”

For Palestinians, especially Hamas, the Israeli elections did nothing to engender hope. However, President Abbas feels that international pressure will make whoever is in charge deal with the pressing reality. From US News & World Report:

President Mahmoud Abbas said whatever the next Israeli cabinet is, it would be obliged to continue peace talks and meet international obligations. “The ascent of the Israeli right does not worry us,” he told Italy’s La Repubblica newspaper.His Prime Minister Salam Fayyad told reporters Israel must meet international obligations. “We imagine that the expectations of the international community (toward Israel) will be the same as ours,” he said.

Al Arabiya called the elections “indecisive.”

Did supermodel tip Israeli elections?

No one is sure what will happen next, but I doubt Mr. Netanyahu is taking Livni’s prowess lightly. It’s not what he expected. Using “Believni” and channeling some of the Obama magic, Netanyahu was left to ignore debates as Livni surged at the end.

But who knew it was a supermodel that made the difference?

From Sports Illustrated:

You’re Israeli. Are you voting in the elections?
I am in New York, so I can’t.

How do you think they’re going to go?
I actually don’t know who I would vote for. If I knew I was going to, I’d probably research more. I think I’d probably go for [Foreign Minister Tzipi] Livni, but I don’t know.

If nothing else, the swirling mess gives us all another way to look at Israeli politics. As for peace, at present, stopping settlements seems a long way down the to do list.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Why George Mitchell is Up Against It

By on 26 January 2009

According to Marc Lynch, Israel’s Gaza smackdown didn’t do the new president any good. Highlights are below, but Lynch’s explanation of each is important to read:

1. Wrecked Obama’s honeymoon period. [...]
2. Made peace talks less likely. [...]
3. Strengthened radical voices, but not necessarily al-Qaeda. [...]
4. Strengthened the hand of the dictators. [...]
5. Sharpened regional divisions. [...]

On number one, the rationale is that Arabs were incensed by Obama’s “one president at a time” language, with the new president having much good will extended to change Bush-Cheney policies. I’d say Lynch, an expert in these matters, disproves his number one, simply by saying Arabs will immediately join Obama if he indeed does change the direction of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

On number two, read this.

Gaza fighting weakened moderates, inciting extremists across the spectrum, which is the point of number three.

See Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who were instrumental in Gaza cease fire. Obama must push for more democratic Arab states.

Number five: Enemy of my enemy syndrome, which Obama should wade into and end.

George Mitchell is being handed a difficult job, which is the understatement of the year so far.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Israel Losing PR Battle Under Bush’s ‘War on Terror’ Flag

By on 10 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBpwu-jRjw&eurl

The Israel Air Force on Saturday dropped leaflets into the Gaza Strip warning residents that it plans to escalate its two-week-old offensive. The army says it has dropped the fliers throughout Gaza. It says the notices are meant as a “general warning.” The notice says Israel is about to begin a “new phase in the war on terror.” It says it will “escalate” an operation that already has killed more than 800 Palestinians. – [...] – Haaretz

Seize land to control the tunnels into Israel? Or kick Hamas out? What’s the end goal? Easy. Hamas draws Israel into escalating a bloodbath in Gaza.

In fact, Hamas revels in the Palestinian suffering its terrorism has triggered. Thousands of its fighters have retreated into Gaza’s most densely populated areas, where they continue to fire dozens of rockets a day at Israeli civilians. They want nothing more than to draw Israel into an even bigger and bloodier fight — during which, Hamas calculates, Israeli forces will suffer heavy casualties, while the even bigger Palestinian losses will reap a propaganda windfall for Hamas across the Middle East and Europe.

Israel’s leaders are on the verge of giving Hamas its wish. Its top leaders also rejected the U.N. cease-fire resolution passed Thursday night; now they appear to be debating whether to throw thousands of reserve soldiers into a street-by-street battle. [...]

We need an international effort on Egypt’s border with Israel, but Mubarak, increasingly under pressure, doesn’t like that idea. Enter the EU:

In an attempt to break an impasse that has stalled cease-fire talks aimed at ending the fighting in the Gaza Strip, European diplomats are mulling a proposal which would restore control of the Gaza Strip border crossings to the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority, the Times of London newspaper reported in Saturday editions. [...]

Meanwhile, Israelis consider escalation. Escalation? Again, to what end? A political disaster for Israelis, as President George W. Bush sits on his hands.

You be the judge on the latest controversy, which neocons are saying is a fake atrocity video from Gaza.

The political pressure on Israel is mounting while we await President Obama. But where’s the pressure in the U.S. for Israel to understand what their military action is doing around the world? No one should be sanguine that Obama will act any differently than other American presidents if there is no pressure here for him to revert to “honest broker.”

An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal has a jarring headline for anyone pro Israel: Israel Is Committing War Crimes: Hamas’s violations are no justification for Israel’s actions. The definition of “war crimes” should not make Bush or Cheney rest easy or travel very far. But our friend Israel is headed for a bigger PR defeat than Lebanon ’06, which was also a military disaster for Olmert. Attempting to balance that neither side is perfect, the writer comes to this judgment of Israel’s crimes: Israel’s American-made F-16s and Apache helicopters have destroyed mosques, the education and justice ministries, a university, prisons, courts and police stations. These institutions were part of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure. … Deliberate attacks on civilians that lack strict military necessity are war crimes. Israel’s current violations of international law extend a long pattern of abuse of the rights of Gaza Palestinians.

No one seems to be willing to explain how Israel is going to stop Hamas rocket attacks, targeting the militant thugs inside Gaza, without hitting civilians and the infrastructure, when Hamas lies in the midst of both.

Israel’s contemplation of escalation is a spring board to insanity, because it rewards Hamas’ way of terrorist war play with more dead Palestinians.

After all these years the Israelis still don’t get that their cause depends on keeping hearts and minds invested on their side, which as the 21st century dawns plays out violently on a very old grudge match, now flying under the banner of Bush’s “war on terror,” that is wearing everyone’s patience to a nub.

Read full story · Comments { 74 }

It Was Bound To Happen

By on 06 January 2009

Kaboom. …and there goes Israel’s PR battle up in smoke.

Two tank shells exploded outside the Gaza school, spraying shrapnel on people inside and outside the building, where hundreds of Palestinians had sought refuge from fighting between Israeli soldiers and Hamas militants. In addition to the dead, several dozen people were wounded, the officials said.Medical officials said all the dead were either people sheltering in the school or local residents. [...]

The Israel Defense Forces had no comment on the incident, but in the past has accused militants of using schools, mosques and residential neighborhoods to store weapons or launch attacks.

There have been reports for several days that Palestinians fled to nearby schools, because their homes in Gaza were not safe.

Closed conversations are one thing for Egypt’s Mubarak: Hamas must not be allowed to win its conflict with the IDF, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Monday told a delegation of European foreign ministers in a closed conversation. But after days of quiet, Egypt’s Mubarrak has been forced off the ledge.

[...]with the Mubarak demanding Israel immediately end its “monstrous” assault, and the GCC calling for an immediate end to the violence. The limits of their concessions can be seen in the fact that they continue to blame Hamas for the crisis, though, and refuse to do anything substantive in response (calling for an Arab summitt to eventually be held, or photo opportunities of blood donations don’t really count). Their media are trying to portray those governments as acting effectively, but that doesn’t seem to be getting much traction with a deeply skeptical and outraged public. If the crisis grinds on, we’ll see whether these regimes are forced to start making more concessions to public views — but most of the real impact will only be felt long-term.

Again, what’s Israel’s end game? To test the Obama administration on day one?

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Israeli Ground Assault in Gaza

By on 03 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSuEOBLsa9I
Via Haaretz:


Goal of Israel, according to Amir Oren of Haaretz (interviewed on MSNBC), is to “break the will” of Hamas to launch missiles at Israel.

…At one tank base along the border, the roar of tank engines and the rumble of their movements toward the border could be heard after dark, though none moved across the frontier. Hamas officials also reported tank movement toward the border near the northern Erez crossing point. Defense officials said some 10,000 troops, including tank, artillery and special operations units, were massed on the Gaza border and prepared to invade. They said top commanders were split over whether to send in ground forces, in part because such an operation could lead to heavy casualties but also because they believe Hamas already has been dealt a heavy blow. [...]

The international press is not being allowed into Gaza by Israeli troops. But through television reports available one can’t help but ask what will be Israel’s end game? How do they de-escalate from this with a victory, something Spencer asks as well. Let’s hope they’re not headed for Lebanon II.

And with due respect to Siun at FDL, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of “ethic cleansing.” This rhetoric is not helpful, no matter how well meaning and righteously felt.

The most stark assessment that can be made in my view is that this is an all out effort to drive Hamas out of Gaza, perhaps even destroy their ability to “lead.” There is one part of the Palestinian leadership that wholeheartedly supports Israel’s actions, with Egypt in the bull’s eye right now because Mubarak has closed the border and is not supporting Hamas at all, something NBC’s Richard Engel has reported. But Egypt is not alone in not supporting Hamas as Israel’s attacks escalate. There is a political wheel turning within a wheel among Palestinians. For the Israelis it’s far simpler.

Read full story · Comments { 34 }