Tuesday, March 31, 2009

The Israeli occupation binds together Syria, Iran and the Resistance



February 23, 2009


Palm Beach Gardens, Florida

Washington is now listening intently to Syria. Last week, the Democratic Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John Kerr, met with the Syrian president Bashar Assad. And this week, Syria’s ambassador visits a high level official in the State Department. There is an improvement in relations as Washington considers the reactivation of its embassy in Damascus.

Will President Obama apply his soft and smart diplomacy to Iran also? There are already some positive signs. President Obama’s reconciliatory remarks to the Muslim world in his inaugural speech and the positive reaction he has received from Iran’s leadership are encouraging.

Iran and Syria are close allies and equally critical of Washington’s neglect of the Israeli occupation. The societal make up and national interests of Iran and Syria are very different. What ties the two nations together is their opposition to the US and to the Israeli occupation of Arab land: Palestine of1967, the Syrian Golan Heights and the Lebanese Sheb’a Farms. It is high time for the US to go beyond timid diplomacy and endless talk about peace possibilities. It is high time for applying firm pressure on Israel to define it’s yet to be delineated borders. Such firm action will help Israel establish its much needed national security and, at the same time, improve Washington’s relations with Iran and Syria.

Some members of the US Congress are aware that there is no way to revive the peace process without involving Iran and Syria. Kerry is among the American lawmakers who well understand the relevance of Syria and Iran to regional peace making. But he is among the few who dare show serious interest in normalizing US relations with Iran and Syria. Israel has lobbied hard in Washington and succeeded to maintain the isolation of Iran and Syria from the US.

The recent assignment of George Mitchell as US special envoy to the Middle East is significant. His low-key diplomatic work may contribute to better understanding among all the stakeholders of the peace process.

How is Syria central to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Since 1967, Israel has occupied and established settlements in the Golan Heights, a populated, fertile and strategic Syrian plateau located on its border with Israel and Lebanon. Syria hosts half a million Palestinian refugees who live in camps and hope to return to their homeland. The “external” leadership of Hamas, the strongest Palestinian resistance movement, operates from Syria. Damascus has great influence on Hezbollah, the Lebanese resistance movement. Syria’s influence extends to all issues of Lebanese politics and to the 400,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.

Iran, too, is central to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Iran is the main supporter of Hezbollah and an ally of Hamas. Following Israel’s example, Iran is apparently on the road to developing nuclear weapons. Israel considers Iran its greatest threat.

Despite its clerical autocracy and religious fundamentalism, Iran is a strong, populist and a relatively stable country. In time, Iran has a fair chance of achieving democracy. The vibrant Iranian middle class is increasingly distrustful of the ruling of Mullahs as the economy worsens and freedom shrinks. If external threats to Tehran decline, particularly from the US and Israel, Iranian society will be better able to focus on domestic political reform. The best way for the West to divert Iran from its risky nuclear path is to build better relations with the Iranian people. The current, misguided policy of Iran isolation has turned Iran’s moderates and domestic reformers into ultra-nationalistic defenders of the state.

In the search for a solution to the seemingly intractable Middle East conflict commentators overlook the potential of Iran and the relevance of Syria. Consider for example the opinion of Thomas Friedman in a recent article in the NY Times. While Friedman does advocate a softer US diplomatic tone with Iran, he recommends the exclusion of Tehran from the dialogue on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In a January 27 op-ed, [entitled] Abdullah II: the 5-state solution, Friedman argues rather simplistically that if Saudi Arabia offers massive material aid to the Palestinian refugees, Egypt secures Gaza’s borders, Jordan secures the West Bank and Palestinian factions unite, then Israel would withdraw voluntarily from the occupied territories within five years. This “five-state” approach “would be an Arab solution that would put a stop to Iran’s attempts to Persianize the Palestinian issue.”

Approaching the Arab-Israeli conflict as a regional issue is on the mark, but leaving out Syria and Iran as pivotal stakeholders is not smart politics. Damascus with its Golan claims and Tehran with its regional ambitions are gatekeepers to the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Attitude change is necessary but not sufficient to make a breakthrough in the Arab Israeli conflict. Already Senator Kerry may have promised President Assad political rewards such as the re-opening of the US Embassy in Damascus and ending US sanctions on Syria. In return President Assad has been asked to limit his support of Hezbollah and Hamas. Assad is indeed eager to regain normalcy in the international community, but not at the cost of abandoning his best allies.

To persuade Syria and Iran to significantly change their political positions, the US must eliminate the source of insecurity that binds together four extremely different political partners: Iran, Syria, and the two Israeli occupation resistant movements- Hamas and Hezbollah. The US should focus on ending the Israeli occupation and making international arrangements to provide lasting security for Israel.

Resolving the Arab Israeli conflict requires the active and coordinated participation of Syria and Iran.

Israel cannot be a democracy and an occupier



March 3, 2009

New York, NY.

Full democracies are political systems that allow majorities to rule and minorities to thrive. What makes a democracy shine is the exercise of compassion in the protection of its minorities.

What good are democracies when they oppress their minorities? How righteous are nations which snatch land across their borders? For how long can states rely on wars to achieve security?

Israel is a hybrid political system. This country is a thriving democracy as well as an oppressive occupation. The Zionist state elects its representatives peacefully; its media are robust and it has a thriving free market. This same country has five million Jews ruling mercilessly over five million Palestinians.

This week, Peace Now, a local human rights group, reports that half a million Israelis live illegally on Palestinian land; Israeli settlements are continuously expanding. The US, the European Union and the United nations consider the building of settlements aggressive violation of international law.

A peaceful and content Israel could have become a model for the Middle East, where democracies are rare. This is not happening. With the growth of its political, economic and technological power Israel becomes more ethnically exclusive, territorially colonial and morally self-aggrandizing.

In 1948, Israel was established by displacing half the native Palestinian population from land they had inhabited for many centuries. The formation of this state through war may have structurally handicapped its political course.

Insecurity breeds insecurity. The unease of being an isolated nation led Israel in 1967 to “protect” its citizens by occupying more land and displacing more people. Israel now occupies or controls all what used to be historic Palestine, the Golan Heights in Syria and a narrow swath of land in south Lebanon, the Sheb’a Farms. These occupations are changing the moral premise on which Israel was founded and are at the focus of last month’s elections.

The recent elections in Israel reveal ominous trends. Observing the shadow of fascism in Israel, Rabbi EricYoffie, the President of the Union of Reform Judaism, laments the strong showing of Avigdor Lieberman in the February 10 elections. Lieberman’s party, Ysrael Beiteninu, explicitly advocates Arab ethnic cleansing. In an op-ed entitled Confronting our Demagogue (Feb. 17) in the Jewish Daily Forward , Rabbi Yoffie does not mince words in describing Lieberman’s election campaign against the one million Israeli Arabs, who constitute twenty percent of the population: “It was an outrageous, abominable, hate-filled campaign, brimming with incitement that, if left unchecked, could lead Israel to the gates of hell.”

The Israeli occupation provides a climate for extreme ideas, not only among resistance groups, but also among the occupier to justify the status quo.

The silent majority in Israel seems to be comfortable with the occupation. Lieberman is in unison with the majority of Israelis on the issue of Palestinian land rights. Lieberman’s party won only 12% of the parliamentary seats. But since the majority of the elected parties oppose negotiating with the Palestinians, Lieberman’s policy is not really far from the mainstream. In fact, this aggressive politician may have become popular for expressing the hidden wish of a society that is covertly betting on the eventual departure or deportation of most remaining Palestinians from their homeland.

Currently, the majority of Israelis do not advocate ethnic cleansing. But as time passes, and as demography changes, the hold of moral taboos on people may relax, fear-based rationalization may trump morality and hostile action may replace tolerance.

The logic of the continuation of the occupation leads in time to a unilateral and unplanned one-state “solution”. In such a forced “solution”, either Palestinians would displace Israelis or Israelis would displace Palestinians. Since the occupier is aware of this balance of “terror”, it is not difficult to guess who will start the process of the elimination of the other.

In a mutually agreed bi-national one-state solution the two sides of the conflict may find their political aspirations peacefully fulfilled. However, a peaceful integration of the two nations into one country is not likely in the foreseeable future. Today, the so called one-state bi-national solution stands as “academia” politics.

Israelis need to be rescued by the international community from a hole they have dug for themselves through occupying people they cannot force to disappear.

Palestinians too, need to be “treated” for chronic political self-injury and for a mindset in their leadership which sees “victory” in failure. The Palestinians may try to liberate themselves by force; but the use of force against an occupier who is supported by a superpower has proven clearly to be counterproductive.

Democracies shine with tolerance and decline with oppression. Israel cannot be both a democracy and an occupier; one dimension will eliminate the other. Palestinians, to accelerate the termination of the occupation, should unite and abandon the use of ineffective forms of resistance.

Freeman’s nomination: Conflict of interest? Whose interest?


March 16, 2009

Grubeiz@comcast.net

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida:

When Secretary of Sate Hillary Clinton was asked during her recent visit to the Middle East how she felt about the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements she expressed a mild objection to a serious form of oppression: annexation of an occupied territory which is expected to become a viable independent state. Building settlements on Palestinian land was characterized by Clinton as “unhelpful”.

Clinton’s weak response to Israel’s land grabbing illustrates the intimidation that Israel faces high level American officials with. Even President Obama himself seems unable to speak his mind on Israel’s occupation.

This week some commentators had a field day analyzing the implications of a political battle demonstrating the extended reach of the pro-Israel lobby into the White House.

A former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles W. Freeman, speaks bluntly about the harm associated with Israel’s occupation, unconditional support by the US and the fear of criticizing the Zionist state.

In recent days, Freeman received a political blow from the Israeli lobby when he learned that his nomination for heading the National Intelligence Council was problematic. The ambassador withdrew his nomination anticipating a negative campaign from Israel’s supporters. Freeman blamed the American Israeli Public Action Committee, (AIPAC) for derailing his appointment.

Freeman’s critics associate him with a Middle East think tank that received funds from Saudi Arabia and with a Chinese government owned corporation.

A legitimate professional association with China and Saudi Arabia should not be a reason for concern. It was the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, who carefully chose Freeman for a position that requires creative thinking.

Should we be worried to include a staff sympathetic to Palestinians in our national intelligence? Are we satisfied to run US policy by a uniformly pro-Israeli structure? Where is “group think” leading America’s national security?

When one realizes the extent to which Freeman was blunt in his commentary on Israel, it becomes clear that he is unique in willingness to confront opposition. The following quote illustrates his candor: “... as long as the United States continue to unconditionally provide the subsidies and political protection …there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected.”*

Like many farsighted Americans, Freeman sincerely cares about Israel. He does not wish to see Israel self-destruct by a festering occupation; he also does not wish to see US national security undermined as Israel unravels due to its high-risk occupation policy. He says: “...left to its own devices the Israel establishment will make decisions that harm Israelis, threaten all associated with them and enrage those who are not.”

Many thoughtful Israelis are of the same mind as Freeman’s regarding the counter- productive consequence of the occupation.

Like any patriotic American, Freeman expects Israeli concerns not to trump US national strategic interests: “...it’s irresponsible not to question Israeli policy and to decide what is best for the American People.”

The Freeman debacle is prognostic. It is not surprising to see yet another high-level Obama political appointment nipped in the bud; especially that congressional approval is not even required. It is an indication that the US administration is overwhelmed with domestic issues, and subsequently unable to spend energy on introducing change to the Middle East. The Freeman incident may be a significant system failure which strengthens risky Israeli interference in US foreign policy.

The inability of the White House to stand up to AIPAC and its followers in the Freeman affair is discouraging to those who wish to see positive change in the Holy Land. With the widespread presence of Israel’s promoters in Washington, one wonders if President Obama has the muscle to pressure Benjamin Netanyahu, the next prime minister of Israel, to come to the peace table.

Freeman’s flexible stance on Iran is also problematic to Israel’s hawks. He, like Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Dennis Blair advocates a “soft power” approach in dealing with Tehran’s nuclear issue. Will the administration be able to contain the efforts of the Israel lobby to discourage dialogue between Washington and Tehran? Israel’s war minded worry that if Iran opens a new chapter of relations with America, it would be at Tel Aviv’s expense. America is not ready for war with Iran, but Israel regrettably seems to be.

When compared with other abortive political nominations, Freeman’s “deviation” was conceptually unique. The failure of this particular nomination was not a result of evasion of tax laws, ignoring employment regulations, committing a sexual scandal or for some other wrongdoing. Freeman is being punished for a laudable predisposition: putting America first.

Ambassador Freeman has challenged a taboo by opposing the Israeli occupation and linking it to the threat of US national security.

AIPAC opposed Freeman’s candidacy on grounds of conflict of interest. Whose interest did AIPAC have in mind first: Israel or the US?

* The three quotes were reported in a March 12, New York Times article, by Mark Mazetti and Helene Cooper, entitled Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post”.