Saturday, December 24, 2011

True friends of Israel

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has earned enough moral credit within the Jewish community to speak his mind on Israel.
True friends of the Zionist state, like Friedman, are worried about its future as Israel’s occupation of Arab land has gone from bad to worse over the past four decades.
On December 13, Friedman shows disgust with the Prime Minister of Israel:
I hope that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu understands that   the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.
Critics of Tel- Aviv are gaining courage. In Foreign Policy this week, Mark Perry portrays settlers of the West Bank as “Israel’s Jewish Hezbollah.” Perry argues that the settlers have developed a culture of a sectarian militia.  This community of bulldozers and barbed wires has turned into “a state within a state.” 
The settlers were supposed to add to the security of Israel; instead, they have brought a challenge to Israel’s sovereignty and agony to the occupied Palestinian population.
Insightful friends of the Middle East recognize that Israel is unable to save its democracy and insure its security as it continues to ignore the rights and aspirations of the Palestinians.
Freedman blasted a desperately pandering Newt Gingrich for calling Palestine an “invention” and ridiculed Mitt Romney for trivializing the US role in the peace process.
It is discouraging that David Harris, the president of American Jewish Committee, considers Friedman’s column “inaccurate and insidious.”  Harris argues that the American people love Israel, and Congress expresses its constituents’ will by supporting the Zionist state passionately.
Harris has missed an important point.  Few Americans are willing to sacrifice their national interest to satisfy the unrealistic territorial dreams of the current Israeli government. 
Freedman is not alone in challenging the Jewish establishment. He has contributed immensely to a growing political awakening of Jewish Americans, a “Jewish Spring” of an intellectual character.
The Arab Spring emerged from the streets of Tunis and Cairo to combat ruthless rulers. In contrast, the American “Jewish Spring” is a political awakening of the youth and the liberal who are losing tolerance for Israel’s excesses.
Eighteen months ago, Peter Beinart, the former editor of The New Republic, shocked the Jewish establishment with a strong charge.
In “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment,“ a June 10 article in The New York Review of Books, Beinart asserts that American Zionism is gradually losing the support of Jewish youth.
Morally, American Zionism is in a downward spiral. If the leaders of groups like AIPAC [ American Israel Public Affairs Committee ] and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations do not change course, they will wake up one day to find a younger, Orthodox-dominated, Zionist leadership whose naked hostility to Arabs and Palestinians scares even them, and a mass of secular American Jews who range from apathetic to appalled.  
It is easy to find other Jewish writers who are losing patience with current Tel Aviv policy. Jeremy Ben-Ami’s book, New Voice for Israel, made a strong case for Arab-Israeli peace, using the 1967 borders as a flexible framework.
Three years ago, a refreshing voice of moderation for Israel emerged in Washington, a voice of “pro-peace, pro-Israel and pro-Palestine.” In 2008, Ben-Ami founded J Street, a Washington-based Jewish lobby that advocates the establishment of a Palestinian state and the normalization of Israel’s relations with the Arab world. J Street draws its rapidly expanding membership from the young and educated in the Jewish American community.
J Street is the only American Jewish lobby which cooperates systematically with the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP).  The formation of ATFP is also sign of moderation among Palestinian Americans.
The thinking of credible and popular Jewish writers such as Friedman, Beinart and Ben-Ami dovetails with the ( non-Jewish) scholarly work of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.  In their groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy (2006),  Mearsheimer and Walt argue with supporting facts, that it is not in the interest of the US  or of Israel  to allow AIPAC to control US policy in the Middle East. 
It is a sad reality that any writer who confronts the US Israel lobby is severely attacked. The attackers are the friends of Israel whom Friedman considers harmful to the Zionist cause.
Friedman brings the words of Abraham Heschel, a twentieth-century Jewish liberation theologian, to vivid reality. 
It is embarrassing to be a prophet. There are so many pretenders, predicting peace and prosperity, offering cheerful words, adding strength to self-reliance, while the prophet predicts disaster, pestilence, agony, and destruction.
( John Dear, Abraham Heschel prophetic Judaism, National Catholic Reporter,  June 4, 2011)
True friends of Israel
Ghassan Michel Rubeiz
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has earned enough moral credit within the Jewish community to speak his mind on Israel.
True friends of the Zionist state, like Friedman, are worried about its future as Israel’s occupation of Arab land has gone from bad to worse over the past four decades.
On December 13, Friedman shows disgust with the Prime Minister of Israel:
I hope that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu understands that   the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.
Critics of Tel- Aviv are gaining courage. In Foreign Policy this week, Mark Perry portrays settlers of the West Bank as “Israel’s Jewish Hezbollah.” Perry argues that the settlers have developed a culture of a sectarian militia.  This community of bulldozers and barbed wires has turned into “a state within a state.” 
The settlers were supposed to add to the security of Israel; instead, they have brought a challenge to Israel’s sovereignty and agony to the occupied Palestinian population.
Insightful friends of the Middle East recognize that Israel is unable to save its democracy and insure its security as it continues to ignore the rights and aspirations of the Palestinians.
Freedman blasted a desperately pandering Newt Gingrich for calling Palestine an “invention” and ridiculed Mitt Romney for trivializing the US role in the peace process.
It is discouraging that David Harris, the president of American Jewish Committee, considers Friedman’s column “inaccurate and insidious.”  Harris argues that the American people love Israel, and Congress expresses its constituents’ will by supporting the Zionist state passionately.
Harris has missed an important point.  Few Americans are willing to sacrifice their national interest to satisfy the unrealistic territorial dreams of the current Israeli government. 
Freedman is not alone in challenging the Jewish establishment. He has contributed immensely to a growing political awakening of Jewish Americans, a “Jewish Spring” of an intellectual character.
The Arab Spring emerged from the streets of Tunis and Cairo to combat ruthless rulers. In contrast, the American “Jewish Spring” is a political awakening of the youth and the liberal who are losing tolerance for Israel’s excesses.
Eighteen months ago, Peter Beinart, the former editor of The New Republic, shocked the Jewish establishment with a strong charge.
In “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment,“ a June 10 article in The New York Review of Books, Beinart asserts that American Zionism is gradually losing the support of Jewish youth.
Morally, American Zionism is in a downward spiral. If the leaders of groups like AIPAC [ American Israel Public Affairs Committee ] and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations do not change course, they will wake up one day to find a younger, Orthodox-dominated, Zionist leadership whose naked hostility to Arabs and Palestinians scares even them, and a mass of secular American Jews who range from apathetic to appalled.  
It is easy to find other Jewish writers who are losing patience with current Tel Aviv policy. Jeremy Ben-Ami’s book, New Voice for Israel, made a strong case for Arab-Israeli peace, using the 1967 borders as a flexible framework.
Three years ago, a refreshing voice of moderation for Israel emerged in Washington, a voice of “pro-peace, pro-Israel and pro-Palestine.” In 2008, Ben-Ami founded J Street, a Washington-based Jewish lobby that advocates the establishment of a Palestinian state and the normalization of Israel’s relations with the Arab world. J Street draws its rapidly expanding membership from the young and educated in the Jewish American community.
J Street is the only American Jewish lobby which cooperates systematically with the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP).  The formation of ATFP is also sign of moderation among Palestinian Americans.
The thinking of credible and popular Jewish writers such as Friedman, Beinart and Ben-Ami dovetails with the ( non-Jewish) scholarly work of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.  In their groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy (2006),  Mearsheimer and Walt argue with supporting facts, that it is not in the interest of the US  or of Israel  to allow AIPAC to control US policy in the Middle East. 
It is a sad reality that any writer who confronts the US Israel lobby is severely attacked. The attackers are the friends of Israel whom Friedman considers harmful to the Zionist cause.
Friedman brings the words of Abraham Heschel, a twentieth-century Jewish liberation theologian, to vivid reality. 
It is embarrassing to be a prophet. There are so many pretenders, predicting peace and prosperity, offering cheerful words, adding strength to self-reliance, while the prophet predicts disaster, pestilence, agony, and destruction.
( John Dear, Abraham Heschel prophetic Judaism, National Catholic Reporter,  June 4, 2011)
To survive and prosper, Israel needs more friends like Friedman and fewer like Gingrich.



 



Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Would an attack on Iran enable the Jordan-is-Palestine scheme?

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida



Israel’s tolerance for “Palestine” is diminishing.  Some of Israel’s extra-conservative leaders think of war leading to the expulsion of Palestinians into neighboring Jordan as a solution.

Overt and direct ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is not likely to happen, but it may be achieved indirectly as a byproduct of a future regional war.

Eleven million people live in Israel and its occupied, annexed or controlled territories.  The population under Israeli authority is now half Arab and half Jewish.

One of every five Israeli citizens is Palestinian. Half a million Israeli settlers live in the occupied West Bank and in East Jerusalem. 

Gaza’s 1.6 million people live under the rule of Hamas, an Islamic resistance. But Gaza’s air space is closed and its borders are under siege.

Naturally, this mix of sovereignty and identities has always been tense and volatile. Demography is rapidly changing among the Palestinians and the Ultra Orthodox and Mizrahi Israeli Jews. Ideology is shifting to the right.  The Arab Spring is introducing reform as well as uncertainty. Israel is alarmed by the rise of political Islam emerging from successive regime change in the Arab world.

The simultaneous ascendancy of political Islam and radical conservative Jewish politics is not a coincidence: one side reinforces the other.

Extreme elements in the Israeli cabinet wish to see Palestinians of the West Bank transferred to neighboring Jordan.  Starting with the displaced refugees after the 1948 war, about three million Palestinians – constituting half the population -  now live in Jordan.

Currently, a special committee in the Knesset discusses a new bill which identifies Jordan as the Nation State of the Palestinian People.

Discussions of the so called “Jordanian Option” for a future Palestinian state are already active in the US, Europe and Israel.  The outrageous claim that Palestine is historically absent or invented emanates from the fact that the victor often dictates history.

The idea of “justified” ethnic cleansing of Palestinians within the occupied territories and Israel sounds immoral to most Israelis. But for those who have no interest in a two-state solution - or in a bi-national state scenario with equality for Arab and Jews- reducing Palestinian presence in Eretz (Greater) Israel may look feasible in a pretext, such as a regional war. 

Question: what pretext could be created to rationalize the driving of Palestinians out of the West Bank and into Jordan?

To transfer Palestinians to Jordan requires a battle involving Palestinians. Although Palestinians are militarily exhausted, it would not take too much to provoke Hamas and Hezbollah to return to military confrontation.

For Israel, Iran appears to be a convenient setting to start a new wave of military intervention in the region.

For warmongers, Iran today looks like Iraq nine years ago. The Persian state also serves as a conduit to a battle with armed Palestinians and their Lebanese allies on Israel’s border. Iran’s inflammatory rhetoric on the Holocaust, its regional alliances and nuclear adventures, provide a “perfect” enemy for those seeking an international crisis to induce the intended Palestinian population transfer.

A swift Israeli air attack on Iran may not necessarily generate the conditions of ethnic transfer.  However, if the attack were to turn into a protracted war, Hamas and Hezbollah would likely be involved. If Israel were to win this protracted war, it would most likely arrange to push Palestinians across the Jordan River.

But Israel’s victory in this scenario is not certain. Neither in 2006, nor in 2009, did Israel succeed in wiping out Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in Gaza. The outcome of such wars is often inconclusive: No side wins; hatred rise and opinions shift to the extreme.

President Obama is not a fool to risk the creation of a regional war with Iran as a starting point.  Unlike his opponents, President Obama, stays firm on his Iran policy of sanction-based diplomacy. Today, compared to Newt Gingrich - who lately referred to Palestinians as an “invention”- and other GOP presidential hopefuls, Obama is starting again to look moderate on the Palestine question.

Furthermore, the leaders of the American Jewish community are not yet sold on the idea of a war with Iran, and on a Jordanian option for peace. Finally, most Israelis know well that they cannot risk losing a single war

Should Obama win a second term, he will hopefully find a solution in dealing with an economically exhausted Iran and deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict with a firm hand. An Iranian Spring is in the background. War delays it.

Over the last four decades, the strongest means of Palestinian resistance has been their territoriality, their adherence to their land. They have learned from 1948 and 1967 wars that once they leave their land, homeland becomes a mirage.

To the extent that the Palestinians avoid military confrontation with Israel, it will be difficult for Israel to find a pretext to deport masses of people. Moral restraint, anticipation of rage of 1.5 billion Muslims, and world opinion will not allow unprovoked ethnic cleansing.

Force should not be used to draw borders, displace people and forge national  identity.






Friday, December 02, 2011

Is Palestinian reconciliation on track?


The Daily Star

Palestinian leaders Mahmoud Abbas and Khaled Meshaal met recently in Cairo to try to resolve their differences. The outcome is not entirely clear yet.

Mr. Abbas is president of the Palestinian Authority and chief of Fatah, the mainstream political party. He administers a designated area in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Meshaal is chief of the Islamic resistance party, Hamas. After winning the first Palestinian elections in 2006, Hamas forced its way in 2007 to run Gaza. For security reasons, Meshaal is based in Syria, and not in Gaza.

After five years of divisive politics, the two rival leaders went to troubled Egypt to “reconcile,” negotiate “unity” and plan overdue legislative and presidential elections. Who heads the future unity government has been, and will be a critical issue for the two rival sides.

Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Abbas have run most Palestinian affairs in the West Bank. Fayyad is a former World Bank economist and an effective statesman. To Hamas’ leadership, extending Fayyad’s post would be a problem. Fayyad is secular, a Washington favorite and a champion of the modern state, without the use of force, in the struggle for independence.

The Cairo meeting lasted only two hours and ended with vague promises. At a follow-up meeting on Dec. 20, the issue of Cabinet leadership is supposed to be resolved. Fayyad remains a possible deal-breaker.

Facing reporters, Abbas tried to minimize the partial failure of last week’s meeting, saying, “There are no differences between us at all, on any issue.” When the fate of national unity rests on one personality, it is an indication that the planning process is flawed.

Beyond the choice of the prime minister lies a deeper Palestinian domestic problem. The root cause of national disunity is confusion over strategy. Without clout, Fatah seeks to achieve peace through negotiations. Hamas, without a symmetrical power, continues to mobilize to “liberate Palestine” through force. While Fatah is too dependent on promises from the West, Hamas is too close to troubled Middle East regimes.

The leaders came to negotiate after seeing their international alliances threatened. Hamas fears losing the support of Syria and Iran, as these two regimes face growing domestic, regional and international pressure.

The Palestinian Authority feels abandoned by the Obama administration and humiliated by the Israeli government, which held back until this past week from reimbursing the PA for collected taxes contributed by Palestinians. Washington is about to cut funding to the West Bank government of the PA.

Yet, there are signs of hope. In challenging the occupation, Palestinians are gradually moving in the direction of non-violence. A September poll by Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the Palestinian Policy and Survey Research Center in Ramallah indicated that 67 percent believe that civil disobedience or negotiation is bound to force Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

Neither Abbas nor Meshaal can unite Palestinians. If there is one leader who could, it would be Marwan Barghouti. From his Israeli cell, Barghouti issued a letter in July 2006 appealing for peace. His plan is based on a two-state solution, 1967 borders and acceptance of a state with a Jewish character. The letter, which was intended to be circulated for approval by all Palestinians through a referendum, was signed by inmates representing Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The referendum idea, which Abbas favored, was soon overshadowed by negative events. A promising initiative was nipped in the bud.

Would Abbas and Meshaal consider reviving Barghouti’s referendum as part of the election process, in order to unite Palestine at the grassroots level? More important, would Israel be ready to free Barghouti? It will take more than handshaking and an embrace for Palestinians to settle their deep differences.

Ghassan Rubeiz is a Lebanese American social scientist. He now writes commentary on Mideast social and political issues and has been published by The Christian Science Monitor and the Arab-American News Services. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.


A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on December 02, 2011, on page 7.




Fatah and Hamas meet: what to expect?

Published By Arab American News

By Ghassan Michel RubeizTuesday, 11.29.2011, 07:32am

What would most effectively unite Palestinians is not holding elections, reconciliation of leaders or the appointment of a new prime minister. Unity is best achieved when the people collectively build a common vision on how to tackle the occupation.

It is breaking news that the two major Palestinian leaders, Mahmoud Abbas and Khaled Mash'al, will meet in Cairo to achieve "reconciliation." As President of Palestinian Authority ( PA) and chief of the Fatah Party, Abbas rules over a designated area in the (occupied) West Bank. Mash’ al, is the chief of the political bureau of Hamas — the Islamic resistance movement.

After five years of indulgence in divisive politics, the leaderships of Hamas and Fatah are going to a troubled Egypt to reconcile personal differences, negotiate steps for unity and plan elections. The two rival groups will meet on November 24, set a date for legislative and presidential elections this spring and negotiate on the membership of a transitional cabinet representing all groups.

Is the meeting going to be primarily about form or substance? True, elections are overdue and a unity government is necessary. But there is no sign yet that the leaders attending this meeting will be tackling the root cause that has kept the two sides from cooperating over the past two decades: Fatah seeks to achieve peace through negotiations and Hamas continues to mobilize to liberate Palestine through force. This formula of discord in mindset continues to delay liberation and embolden the occupation.

While Fatah has been too dependent on promises from the West, Hamas has been too close to troubled regimes.

The incentives that brought the two leaders to negotiate differences seem to be purely pragmatic. Hamas fears losing the support of Syria and Iran as these two regimes face growing domestic, regional and international pressure. Similarly, The Palestinian Authority feels abandoned by the Obama Administration and humiliated by the Netanyahu government. Tel Aviv has already stopped reimbursing the PA for collected taxes contributed by Palestinians. And Washington is about to cut funding to Ramallah – the West Bank government.

The Cairo meeting has been portrayed as an effort in "reconciliation;" in reality the encounter is about insecure leaders taking shelter in a common action which has the appearance of a Palestinian Arab Spring

What is happening this week is not going to be earth shaking. In May, a reconciliation agreement was signed by Abbas and Mash'al . But soon after, something went wrong which thwarted the finalization of the agreement. The two sides could not agree on the identity of the future prime minister. Now this obstacle has been overcome. It has been finally agreed that the prime minister of the new government will no longer be Salam Fayyad; Hamas considers the former PM unsuitable.

While Fayyad may quit his policies may not disappear. The departure of a leader who has over the past five years reinforced the culture of peaceful resistance and modern state building will leave a positive legacy.

In challenging the occupation, Palestinians are gradually moving in the direction of non-violence. A September 2011 poll indicates that 83 % of Palestinians believe that Palestine, as a state, should apply for membership in the UN. Moreover, 67% believe that civil disobedience or negotiation, rather than armed struggle, is bound to force Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories ( Hebrew University in Jerusalem and Palestinian Policy and Survey Research Center in Ramallah)

At times, brilliant ideas come from the least likely places. Five years ago, from an Israeli prison, the idea of non-violent resistance was dramatically flagged by a charismatic Palestinian leader. If there is one single leader who could unite Palestinians today, it would be Marwan Barghouti. From his Israeli cell, Barghouti issued a letter in July 2006 appealing for peace. His peace plan is based on a two state solution, 1967 borders and acceptance of a state with a Jewish character. The letter, which was intended to be circulated for approval by all Palestinians through a referendum, was signed by inmates representing Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The referendum idea, which President Abbas favored at the time, was soon overshadowed by negative events. A promising initiative was nipped in the bud.

Still, narrowing the difference between Hamas and Fatah on the logistics of the elections and governance does not resolve the question of how to liberate the land from the occupier and conserve Palestinian energy in state building.

Perhaps Abbas and Mash'al may reconsider the idea of reviving Barghouti's referendum as part of the election process, in order to unite Palestine at the grassroots.

The Arab Spring has not come to Palestine yet. When it does, reform will emerge from the street.