Political developments activates Mideast peace process

 

East Meredith, NY

 

The Palestinians have been urging for peace talks for years.  Surprisingly, a new round of negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis starts this week in Washington DC. What has brought Israel’s hard line Prime Minister Netanyahu to the peace table?

Possibly four recent political developments have softened the current Israeli cabinet to negotiate the future of the occupation of Arab land.

The European Union (EU) boycotts Israeli settlements. EU designates the military branch of Hezbollah a terror group. Egypt restricts the economic activities of Hamas in Gaza. And fourthly, President Rouhani assumes power in Iran on August first.

First, the EU boycott. When 28 European states announce a policy of economic sanctions on products manufactured by Israeli settlers, the message is clear: the EU considers the Israeli occupation illegitimate. In barring Israeli imports, partnerships and other forms of business from the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the EU is effectively enforcing a policy of rejection of the 1967 occupation; the EU is declaring the Israeli occupation a violation of international law.  

The boycott has exposed two rarely discussed United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Over four decades ago these resolutions stipulated that Israel should withdraw from the Occupied Territories in the context of a regional peace settlement.     

For Israelis, the EU boycott evokes fear of association of their occupation with the sobering 1980’s transformation of South Africa. The stigma of the Israeli occupation is neither new nor hidden, for Israel’s strong critics have in the past labeled the Zionist occupation “apartheid”.

After the US, Europe is the second most important friend and partner of Israel. Israel got the boycott message: if EU sanctions gain acceptance internationally, the cycle of diplomatic isolation of the Jewish state could escalate. US public opinion would no longer be an exception. President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, Secretary of Defense Hagel and Chairman of Chiefs of Staff (General) Dempsey have all already warned Israel that the occupation is bound to “hurt” and “isolate” the occupier. The EU boycott has suddenly given Israel a pause.

And within the American Jewish community the sentiment for peace is growing. In Israel itself, peace activists and national security leaders have diagnosed the occupation “non-sustainable”. Should the peace talks fail, the EU boycott is likely to gain unlimited momentum.

The second relevant event comes from a contrasting diplomatic act. By classifying the army of Hezbollah as a terror group, the EU could have contributed indirectly to the activation of the peace talks. Hezbollah is currently Tel Aviv’s most threatening adversary. Syria’s ongoing no-end-in-sight, civil war may be Hezbollah’s Vietnam. Following the Lebanese Resistance’s recent deployment in Syria - to try to rescue the Alawite-affiliated regime in Damascus - Tel Aviv may anticipate Syria to become eventually a political incinerator for the Resistance.  Hezbollah’s military diversion from Israel to Syria may have given Netanyahu’s cabinet some security. The EU’s designation of Hezbollah’s military side a terrorist organization may have added to Israel’s confidence, helping a reluctant government (in denial of occupation) to come to the peace table.

The third ingredient to encourage Israel to talk peace may have come from an unexpected development in Egypt. The post- Morsi regime seems to be keen on limiting the power of the Islamic Resistance (Hamas), which has ruled Gaza and functioned as an armed source of challenge to Israel’s security. For reasons of its own, the new government in Cairo has in recent days closed the majority of secret tunnels which link Gaza with Egypt. Today, like Hezbollah, Hamas is weak: abandoned by a troubled Syrian regime and an insecure Egyptian government. With Hamas and Hezbollah, not to mention Syria and Egypt, facing serious obstacles, Israel has never been safer militarily. By accepting to negotiate some level of withdrawal from the 1967 borders, the Jewish state may be seizing a moment of military superiority, ironically paralleled by diplomatic isolation, to offer some level of concessions, yet to be judged. Will the concessions be historic and strategic or tactical and insignificant?

There is a fourth factor: Iran remains a top priority for Israel. The new moderate Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, assumes power in August. Israel wishes to face what it considers a nearly nuclear-ready Iran with maximal diplomatic strength. By going to the Palestinian peace table, Israel partially frees itself, at least momentarily, from the moral burden of being an occupier-in-denial. By being, or appearing to be, totally committed to the Western perspective of diplomacy, Israel feels it could better influence the next critical round of nuclear negotiations with Iran.

The new round of talks resumes due to important changes in the political landscape of the region. If the coming round fails it may be the end of the peace process.  Fear of failure could turn out to be the most hopeful ingredient in shaping future Mideast political compromise.

 

 

 

 

Reconciliation crucial for future of Egypt

 

East Meredith, NY

July 14, 2013

Has the recent coup in Egypt served the cause of democracy? Time will tell.

In removing President Morsi from power, the military has swiftly responded to a second round of a popular uprising and to a rapidly worsening economy.  In one year, Morsi managed to accelerate the deterioration of an already dysfunctional socio- economic system: vanishing tourism, runaway inflation, high unemployment, domestic instability and sectarian tension.  The national treasury has been losing a billion dollars a month over the last two and a half years.

If Morsi were left to rule a full four-year term, he would have proven beyond doubt that the Muslim Brothers ‘s system of governance is a failing version of political Islam. This valuable message, the wisdom of separating state from religious institutions, would have been heard in all centers of power in the Arab world.

But it may be unrealistic to expect an economically overburdened and politically troubled nation to wait several years to replace a miserable regime through a new round of elections.

The Generals seem to be more eager than the demonstrators to dispose of Morsi and his party.

Morsi was swiftly deposed and arrested. Hundred of his associates and followers were put in jail.  Media outlets of the Brothers were closed. Dozens were killed and hundreds were injured during the first day of protest against the military takeover.  

The military must rethink its aggressive and oppressive strategy. Demonizing a misguided party is unfair and could ultimately lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy: the Brothers turning into an armed Jihadist militia.

The international community is concerned about the sudden turn of events in Cairo. In a NYT op-ed, Khaled Abou Al Fadl, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, accused the Egyptian army of installing a new dictatorship through a coup d’etat. Referring to Arab dictators, Al Fadl remarked that “They all pointed to their supporters in the streets as the source of their legitimacy and perpetuated autocratic rule in the name of the people’s will.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/opinion/the-perils-of-a-peoples-coup.html?_r=0

The military establishment is rushing the transition and making inconsistent decisions: arresting the leaders of the Brothers and paradoxically inviting their party to participate in the transition cabinet.  Moreover, the military has co-opted the Salafi Noor Party, a Sharia  advocacy group, to insure Islamic presence in the post- Morsi government. The Noor Party leadership is keen on keeping the constitution grounded in strict Sunni Islam, regardless of the urgent need to modernize the state institutions.

The Constitutional Decree, issued on July 8 by the military-appointed Interim President, spells out major steps of a seven-month transition period. First, the constitution will be revised in a few weeks. The revised charter will be put to a referendum.  Parliamentary elections will follow.

The qualifications and the credibility of the drafters are not spelled out. The electoral laws have not been finalized. Zaid Al Ali, an international expert on constitution building, is very critical of the style of this transition.  He says “Today, we have no idea how the laws will be drafted or if there will be any mechanism to ensure that it will not be stacked against particular political forces. That is the type of detail that would have been helpful to reassure opponents of the new transition process at this early stage.” http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/09/another_egyptian_constitutional_declaration

The Decree implies that in 2014 a new president will be elected, but the time for this election is not specified.

The army has been more careful in the selection of leaders for the transition. Commander in chief Gen. Abdel Fattah Al Sisi has appointed Adly Mansour, the head of the Supreme Constitutional Court, as Interim President.  Mansour has chosen Hazem El-Beblawi, a liberal economist, to be the Interim Prime Minister. The Interim President has also assigned Mohamad Al Baradei, a Nobel Peace Laureate to be the Interim Vice President.

How independent from the military will the nearly formed cabinet be is crucial. What will it take for the Muslim Brothers to agree to join the transition? The military has to work much harder to entice the Brothers to join.

In rushing reform, overreacting to dissidence and covertly dominating decision making, the generals may be setting themselves up against strong opposition and unintentionally sowing the seeds of continued instability.

The Muslim Brothers remain popular within grassroots religious communities, particularly in the rural areas.  The religious institutions are also very powerful in this country. Egypt is among the most religious nations in the Arab world. And secular groups are not easily fooled by superficial political change.

Are The Muslim Brothers being driven by the military and the secular opposition to martyrdom? Religious parties often thrive through suffering. The Brothers know that they are not likely to return to power soon, but they may be tempted to start a civil war to survive. Tarek Massoud, an Egyptian  professor of Public Policy at Harvard University, is hopeful that the Brothers will remain committed to a non-violence strategy.

The way the military is treating opponents now does not fit with the spirit of a peaceful transition. No amount of foreign aid would sustain Egypt for long if the engines of the economy remain broken. Stability would activate tourism, an important source of income and an industry which needs a climate of national reconciliation.

The first gesture of problem solving would be the release of all political prisoners, most appropriate in this Holy Month of Ramadan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why Washington should welcome Iran mediation on Iran

 

This op-ed was posted in New America Media

June 25, 2013

 

This week marked another grim milestone in Syria’s ongoing civil war when the death toll topped 100,000. But as hopes for a peaceful resolution fade, a window of opportunity may have opened with the election of Iran’s new moderate leader, the cleric Hassan Rowhani.

 

The question is whether the United States is willing to go that route.

 

On June 22, under the banner of “Friends of Syria-London 11,” 11 Western and West-leaning Arab states met to discuss future steps in helping the Syrian uprising, which has now entered its third year. The delegates announced measures to augment humanitarian aid and raise the level of military assistance. Simultaneously the London 11 conferees discussed Geneva II, a U.N.-brokered international peace conference envisaged to settle the conflict “politically.”

 

The conference, originally scheduled for June, was later pushed to July, with reports of another postponement likely. (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Jun-26/221605-talks-end-without-date-for-geneva-ii.ashx#axzz2XLk6oc65) A major sticking point is the list of participants for Geneva II. While the majority of international delegates will most likely come from countries sympathetic to the rebel forces fighting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad, Russia and China insist that Iran be included on that list.

 

Washington has so far scoffed at that request, simultaneously moving to arm rebel fighters in Syria after U.S. officials announced earlier this month they had conclusive evidence that Assad had used chemical weapons against opposition forces.

 

The Syrian regime, however, is not without its supporters. Apart from its two larger patrons in Moscow and Beijing, Assad also draws support from Iraq’s volunteer Shiite combatants and the Lebanese fighters of Hezbollah, which have taken on an increasingly high-profile role in the conflict. For his part, President Putin is committed to sell the Syrian government game changing SS 300 anti-aircraft missiles, a development Israel considers to be a “red line.”

  

With the international community at a loss in its search for common ground on Syria’s tragic crisis, circumstances in Iran, which has large stakes and far reaching influence in the region, suggest a potential opening.

 

On June 14, voters in Iran turned out in large numbers to elect Rowhani, the lone moderate candidate who in his campaign promised to reverse many of the more hardline policies of his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and has expressed a desire to improve long-strained ties with Washington.

 

Rowhani’s intent for reform, his popularity and the widespread desire for change in Iran provide the new leader with a unique opportunity to contribute positively to the Syrian crisis and to Iran’s relations with the West.

 

And despite doubts about the limited power of Iran’s president – the office is subordinate to that of the nation’s Spiritual Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i -- several analysts argue Khamene’i may be less able to control a popularly elected figure like Rowhani. (http://garysick.tumblr.com/) Others contend Khamene’i would not have allowed Rowhani to be elected in the first place if he were not inclined to approve the new leader’s moderate approach. (http://newamericamedia.org/2013/06/iranian-and-american-elections-have-similarities.php)

 

Involving Iran in diplomacy on Syria should not be considered out of the ordinary. While Israel has expressed doubts about the potential for change in Tehran (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-16/Rowhani-victory-may-undermine-support-for-israeli-attack-on-iran.html), European leaders have been more positive. In a recent policy shift, French President Francois Holland “welcomed” the newly elected president of Iran to be a participant in Geneva II. Regrettably, however, Holland expects Iran to stop supporting Damascus to qualify for international mediation, a condition Tehran is unlikely to accept.

 

Still, the Islamic Republic’s interest in Syria’s survival as a state, its strong desire to end the debilitating sanctions imposed on it by the West and Tehran’s affinity with the Syrian regime puts it in a good position to contribute to such mediation. Treating Tehran as a partner in peace making could also help facilitate the creation of a representative, reliable and viable transitional Syrian government and the early departure of Hezbollah fighters from the battlefield.

 

Looking ahead, a deal with Iran on Syria promises a potentially groundbreaking resolution to other related sources of conflict: Tehran’s nuclear program, Lebanon’s descent into chaos (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/06/abra-clashes-sidon-lebanon-civil-war.html ) and the U.S. quagmire in Afghanistan among them. 

 

In other words, it is possible that Syria could serve as a gateway to a larger diplomatic Iranian bargain with the West.

 

U.S. Ambassador William Green Miller, an expert on Iran whose experience in dealings with Tehran goes back to 1959, is unreservedly hopeful about such potential. “I am of the view,” he wrote in a recent op-ed, “that the next year or so will present the best opportunity for the United States and Iran to settle differences and dispel mutual distrust between our countries through serious negotiations.” (http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=33008&lan=en)

 

Let’s hope those in Washington share his enthusiasm.