To co-ordinate or to dictate!

The summit meeting between Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas scheduled for today was postponed to a future but not specified date. The meeting has already been postponed once before, but in pre-meeting discussions the negotiators had failed to come to an agreement on what could be achieved in the summit.
Israel’s position–as the trainee is told in the CapitalOne commercials airing in the USA– seems to be that “the answer is always NO. ” No to any further request from the Palestinians. No arms or ammunitions to Palestinian Police; No release of prisoners; No withdrawal from any more cities in the West Bank and No to Hamas participation in the elections. Sharon having barley survived the challenge to his party’s leadership, is having to focus on dealing with more pressing internal politics. For the next few weeks he will need the vote of the dissenting members of his party to pass the budget and to get approval for a number of ministerial appointments. The impression that he is giving further concessions to the Palestinian, is of no use for him internally.
At this point, Sharon could reasonably argue that the withdrawal from Gaza was a significant concession, and until the Palestinian Authority comes up with a reciprocal move, equal to the demand of “dismantling the terror infrastructure” then they should not expect anything more from Israel.
The problem with this strategy is that Israel’s position will be seen as a validation for the fear that “Gaza first,” is “Gaza last” and that Israel will drift back to its policy of unilateral moves. Still, President Abbas does not mind the delay in the meeting with Sharon as he has other things to worry about. Internally, the Gaza strip remains on the verge of imploding as the Palestinian Police tries to assert itself against the different armed groups. Next week Abbas is scheduled to travel to the US for a meeting with President Bush. Abbas still needs to convince Bush that his commitment to fighting terrorism and establishing the rule of law in the areas under his control is actionable beyond good intentions. Another topic that should come up in their discussion is the question of the armed Palestinian militia in Lebanon. The US would like these militia disarmed as demanded by the United Nations resolution that forced Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon. Abbas will try to convince Bush that the Palestinians can not disarm outside the larger context of refugee re-settlement back to Palestine and especially Gaza. The fact that Al Qaeda is denouncing Abbas on the Internet should help Abbas’ standing in the US. If Abbas can strengthen his relationship with Bush and increase Palestinian coordination with the administration then that will bode well for the talks with Israel in November. By then Sharon’s major challenges in the Israeli Knesset should be over and he might be more open to co-ordinating rather than dictating.

The Doomed Iraqi Constitution

One of my children is a very competitive boy who hates to loose at games. Early in his life the prospect of loosing would be so devastating that he would try to do anything to avoid it, including changing the rules.
I was reminded of his behavior yesterday when the Iraqi National Assembly decided to change the rules on how the “Yes” and “No” votes on the constitution would be considered. When the original rules were instituted, the Kurds demanded that a “No” vote by two thirds of the voters in three provinces would nullify the ratification of the constitution. The Kurds insisted on that rule because they are the majority in three provinces and thus gave themselves a virtual veto power over the constitution.
Now that the Sunnis seem to be in position to use that same rule to torpedo the constitution, which the Kurds and the Shiites favor, the two groups re-wrote the rule. A “No” vote will require two third majority of all registered voters and not only of those who do vote, while, a “Yes” vote will still pass by a normal majority of those who vote.
As a parent, when my boy would behave like a sore looser and attempt to change the rules, I would have to step in and make sure that the game is fair for everyone. Like wise, the United Nations, which is actively involved in the voting process, criticized the change as unfair and unacceptable. Quickly, the National Assembly did rescinded the change, but this flip-flop only underscores the pessimistic outlook of the upcoming referendum on the constitution, and the maturity of Iraq’s political process as a whole.
It is worth mentioning that not only the Sunni’s are likely to vote “No” on the 15th of this month. The Turkman minority, the Kurds bitter rivals, is against the constitution as well as the Chaldean and Syriac minorities.
The idea that this constitution would bring the divided Iraqi nation together, reminds me of George Bush’s famous saying “I am a uniter not a divider.”

The Rise and Fall of the Israeli Right

Within a few hours the Likud's central committee will convene to determine the future of its leader Ariel Sharon. Sharon, who joined the Likud in 1977 was the main reason behind its winning 40 seats in the Knesset. The committee's vote is not expected until Monday but the fact that the most popular politician in Israel today is in a close fight for the support of his own party, is an indication of the deep divisions that have rocked the Right wing of Israeli politics.
Sharon's trouble began when he decided to withdraw Israel's soldiers and settlers from Gaza. There are many theories to explain Sharon's decision but what is indisputable is that his decision was a political and religious earthquake for Israel and Jews. Sharon, who for years has claimed that the settlements in Gaza were as vital to Israel as Tel-Aviv, is seen by many in the Likud as betraying the principals that have guided Israel's Right for almost a century.
Historically and philosophically, the Right in Israel is traced back to Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the charismatic leader from pre-state times. Jabotinsky rejected the British Mandate on Palestine as well as the British decision to divide Trans-Jordan area from Palestine and establish the Hashemite Kingdom on it. The assertion that the “Jordan has Two Banks,” signifies a Jabotinsky's claim for the area east to the Jordan river and not only to the totality of Palestine itself. Jabotinsky's militant and extremist ideas were rejected by the majority of the Jews and he later resigned from the Zionist Movement and established his own organizations, both political and military, that became know as the IZL. Jabotinsky died in 1940 but his path was continued by his protege Menahem Begin.
Following the establishment of Israel in 1948, Ben Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, made sure that Jabotinsky's followers had little power militarily and politically. He ordered a ship filled with arms destined to the IZL sunk, and he refused to include their political party Herut in his government's coalition. For about twenty years, the Herut was not regarded as an acceptable partner in the governance of Israel.
The Right's political reprieve came just before the Six Days War, when a national unity government was formed in preparation for the upcoming war and Begin became a minister in it. Then on the heal of the turmoil in Israel following the 1973 war the Right began gaining more support and the Likud party was formed in a coalition of Herut and other parties, which Ariel Sharon's party, Shlomzion, joined later.
In 1977 Menahem Begin, became Israel's prime minister. Ironically, one of the first issues that Begin had to deal with was the peace initiative by Anwar Sadat that required Begin to agree to the removal of settlers from Sinai. Thus the party that ideologically called for the expansion of Israel was the one to re-affirm the 1948 boarders with Egypt and remove its settlers from Sinai.
In the and during the Madrid peace talks, Yitzhak Shamir, who inherited the Likud's leadership from Begin, planned to move as many as half million settlers to the West Bank so it will be impossible for Israel to ever leave it. In response to that policy President Bush senior refused to guarantee loans to Israel that it sorely needed to absorb the large immigration from Russia, a decision that lead to the fall of Shamir's government. Following the elections, Rabin of the Labor party became the Prime Minister and he soon entered into peace with the PLO and made the division of the land a reality.
Now, Sharon who has accepted that the land must be divided, is fighting for keeping Israeli control over blocks of settlements, Jerusalem, and for his own version of a Palestinian state. Whatever the central committee's decision is of on Monday, the ideology of the Israeli Right has already lost. There is no longer right wing in Israeli politics when it comes to the land; there is only in general terms, far right, center and left. On the far right remain those who hold to the dead idea of controlling all the land and the Likud without Sharon would fall into that category. The center, where the majority of the Israeli public seems to be, are those who accept that there is no choice but to give up most of the West Bank but who are not willing to go all the way. On the left are those who support the Geneva Accord and call for a full division of the land in agreement with the Palestinians.

Hamas and the Political Process

Following his appearance at the UN General Assembly, Israel’s Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon has threatened to disrupt the upcoming Palestinian elections if Hamas runs in them. Hamas had agreed to participate in the Parliamentary elections set for January, following the success it achieved in the municipal elections. But a new Palestinian election law requires candidates to run as members of a list or party and not as individual “unaffiliated” candidates. Thus Hamas will be running it own list, but with the destruction of Israel at the core of its charter, Sharon is threatening to use his army control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem to foil these elections. In addition to the threat of arresting self-identified members of Hamas, Israel has the power to restrict free movement and participation in these elections.
Reuters reported today that a moderate Hamas leader in the West Bank has declared that the demand for the destruction of Israel is not absolute, and that Hamas might be willing to amend its charter if the political conditions were right. He called on Israel to negotiate directly with Hamas.
Ariel Sharon’s is facing a serious challenge as leader of the Likud. A central committee meeting is scheduled this Sunday with a vote on Monday that might remove him as head of the party. He might be trying to improve his position in his party by taking a hard stand on the Palestinian elections. Still his words have added to the international pressure on the Palestinian Authority to control its militants and their arms.
If Israel were to impede the elections in the West Bank while they move unhindered in Gaza this would undermine the unity of these two areas and the political position of the Palestinian Authority. From the Authority’s point view, Sharon is putting the cart in front of the horse. Their hope is that bringing Hamas into the political process will have a moderating influence on its leadership and improve conditions for security and the rule of law. I am doubtful that the PA would move ahead with the elections without Israel’s cooperation. And without these elections Hamas would continue to undermine the Authorities position internally and internationally. The Withdrawal from Gaza has created new dynamics in the conflict that require a number of month for their influence to develop and become clear.

Hamas: The Line Between Order and Chaos

With the withdrawal of the last Israeli troops from Gaza a few days ago, we had a unique glimpse at a society suddenly freed after years of constraints and confinement. A first expression came as crowds poured into the abandoned settlements. For weeks the Palestinian authority was talking about an orderly and secure transfer of territory from Israeli to Palestinian control. Fortunately, at least, the order and security were maintained as long as the Israel's were present and their withdrawal was relatively peaceful without clashes and needless bloodshed.
Once the Israelis were gone, Palestinian policemen, militants and civilian spectators joined in a first wave of marching on what was left of the settlements. With the morning light, the celebrations moved West and South. Large crowds headed toward the beaches that for years were for the exclusive use of the settlers or were made off limits by the military. To the south, emotional crowds overran segments of the fence separating Palestinian Rafah from its twin city, Egyptian Rafah, to meet with family members that they had not seen for years, and evoking memories of the fall of the Berlin wall.
During the last four years, the Gaza strip was a place of militant anarchy. Opposing the Israeli army, Palestinian militants from mainstream and splinter groups roamed freely. Now the Palestinian Authority is faced with the challenge of controlling these groups. The Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, has promised that within the next few months and leading to the Parliamentary election in January, he will establish security and the rule of law in Gaza. This appears to be a tall order.
I want to digress a little here by saying that, personally I like Mahmoud Abbas. I think that I like him because he is an antithetical Arab leader. He is not flashy, he is not an orator, he even wears my favorite style of hats, baseball.
Abu Mazen, as Abbas is called (meaning the Father of Mazen, after the Palestinian custom of taking the name of one's first born son,) has a congenial demeanor, and the image that he reflects is one of intelligence and dignity. After his election earlier this year, tall banners with his pictures were draped around the city of Gaza, in the usual Arab glorification of their leaders, but these seem to have disappeared. He does not come across as the kind of man who would be comfortable with leader worship that aflicts other Arab presidents. Unlike most other Arab leaders of his generation, Abbas is well educated and holds a law degree and a Phd in History. Abbas has announced that he will not be running for a second term either. And since he had resigned once as Prime Minister for Arafat, power does not seem to be his fix.
Abu Mazen's commitment to peace is deeply rooted and he advocated negotiations with Israel long before Arafat was willing to. From talking to Israeli leftists in the seventies, to leading the Palestinian negotiation team for the Oslo accord, and through the final status principles understanding known as the Abu Mazen-Beilin plan, his commitment to finding a final agreement to the conflict has been unwavering. The fact that he is a refugee from the 1948 war, indicates a remarkable realism and historical acceptance of the establishment of the State of Israel. Mahmoud Abbas was the one who signed the peace agreement with Israel on behalf of the PLO, but he was left out of the Nobel Prize awards that went to Arafat, Rabin and Peres. He might yet prove that he is most deserving of that prize. All in all, Abbas has the making of a good leader, but could he be the right leader at the right time for the Palestinians?
After hie election earlier this year, Abu Mazen was able to get commitments from the major Palestinian organizations to keep the occupied territories “quiet” so as not to disturb Israel's disengagement plan. For the most part the agreement held, and Abbas' challenge now is to transform this agreement into more meaningful steps to minimize as much as possible violence and terrorism as conditioned by the Road Map.
Abbas the pragmatists has so far committed himself to moving forward with small steps. Israel has been pushing Abbas to confront the militants but it is obvious that at this stage he does not have the military power, the political support and probably not even the personal will to do so. His government is trying to get the large militant groups, like Hamas, who are well disciplined, to agree to keeping their weapon's out of sight. It is expected that government forces will soon move against the smaller and local splinter groups who lack wide support among the Palestinians. The large number of militants in Gaza who belong to Abbas' own organization, Fatah, are expected to toe the line easier than Hamas.
Finding employment for the militant is becoming one critical aspect in their willingness to give up their arms. High impact economic development projects are needed to alleviate the chronic unemployment rate in the strip. A a number of projects funded by oil rich countries have been announced. In addition, many other countries are interested in moving forward with economic development as well.
The main challenge for Abbas remains with Hamas. In the last few days Hamas did all it could to exploit the Israeli withdrawal and to represent it as its own victory. Hamas militants have been displaying their arms at will during the celebration. When it became evident that Hamas arms were on display, Abbas was forced Abbas to boycott a main event planned by the Palestinian Authority.
Advancing the negotiations with Israel is Abbas' best bet for political support. Abbas' preference is to reach a final status agreement with Israel and use that as the political cover for any confrontation with the militants. But at this point, Israel is unwilling to discuss final status issues, or even to move forward with any further concessions until they can judge Abbas' actions in Gaza.
Eventually, Abbas might find himself trapped in a catch 22 situation. He would not be able to move against the militants without showing what concessions he can get from Israel, while Israel will not be willing to give any concessions before he takes actions against the militants. If Abbas reaches such a point, I think that he would rather resign, and leave military confrontation to the younger generation of Palestinian leaders.
Meanwhile, the Israel military is waiting for any serious provocations from Gaza militants. It is expected that Israel will respond with significant force, especially if Israel reaches the conclusion that Abbas is not dealing with the militants to its liking. It might be hard to imagine, but Israel could make life much, much worse for the Palestinian now than it could when it had control over Gaza.
One would hope that the Hamas leaders will decide to invest more in the political process of upcoming elections and rebuilding Gaza, instead of driving it into civil war and further disintegration.

Gaza’s Trojan Horse

For The Guvnor Times--Sept 12

Earlier today, and in an act of moral cowardice, the Israeli government voted not to destroy its Synagogues in the Gaza trip, and to leave them there just 24 hours before its army leaves Gaza. As early as two weeks ago the Israeli government had reaffirmed its earlier plans to destroy them. Israel’s attorney general, who during the last two weeks has successfully defended the government’s earlier decision in courts, called the reversal an “embarrassing process.”
Now the Palestinians Authority is left with a political and moral minefield of dealing with these structures, built by the forces of occupation, against the will of the Palestinians, abandoned by Israel, and regarded as holy places.
The dilemma that the Palestinian Authority is faced with is reflected in the words of Israel’s foreign minister Shalom: “I hope the Palestinian Authority will come to their senses and not allow barbarism and vandalism to rule over the synagogues. If this does happen, the world will see what we’re dealing with.”
The Palestinians could argue that this is exactly what the Israeli government is hoping for with its last minute decision; to score points against the Palestinians in the world’s public opinion. The last thing the Palestinians Authority needs now is to use its limited resources to take care of these buildings. Mr. Shalom’s words drip of moral hypocrisy as Israel itself has for decades now allowed the abuse of tens of empty Mosques and Churches in its territory abandoned after the expulsions of the Palestinians in 1948.

Here are some suggestions for the Palestinians of what to do with these structures:

1- Name each of them for a 1948 era Mosque or a Church that is abandoned and debilitated inside Israel. Offer to protect and preserve each of them if Israel would restore and preserve the one under its control.

2- Convert them to Museums of Israel’s 38 yrs of occupation in Gaza.

3- Convert them to Mosques. Heaven knows that if the security anarchy continues as is in Gaza, Hamas is destined to take over and established its Sharia state of Hamasstan, and they sure can use all the Mosques they can have then.

4- The last and probably only practical solution: Turn them over to the United Nations. Let the UN destroy them and take the blame fro it. It will give the Bush administration and Israel one more thing to denounce the United Nations for. Still it would be a better outcome than igniting a holy war between Jews and Muslims over who is destroying whose holy buildings.

September 11 Aggression: The Fundamental Lesson

One of my dear fiends is a September 11 victim. His brother was a military officer who died when the Pentagon was attacked that day. My friend came over for dinner last week and he mentioned with excitement that he and his family were invited to meet with the Dali Lama. He told me that the Dali Lama will be visiting Sun Valley, Idaho and his itinerary includes a commemorative September 11 service with a message of healing to the families of that day's victims.
The Dali Lama, a Noble Peace Prize laureate, is a victim of aggression himself. His country is occupied, his culture is under attack and he lives in exile, but his message is of non-violence, peace and spiritual strength. I think that it is remarkably fitting on September 11, when politicians will be giving their usual messages, that the Dali Lama will be giving America a message of compassion and inner healing. It is the highest respect we can offer the victims of aggression everywhere.
Undoubtedly, many lessons were learned on September 11, 2001. On that day the world did change. For many Americans the world became divided: those who are with America against terrorism and those who are not. The war on terror became a prism to view and judge governments. But this is a flawed lesson: a self-serving one that has been easily manipulated in servitude of ulterior schemes. There is another lesson of 9/11 that is more fundamental. It rejects terrorism and the targeting of civilians; it reject moral or religious justifications for violence. It teaches us that violence is fundamentally evil. I don't say that as a pacifist, for I believe that there are times when violence is necessary. I supported the attack on Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and their cruel regime that corrupted their religion and nourished terrorism. But we must to acknowledge that because it is fundamentally evil, all forms of violence need to be curtailed.
Once we accept that violence is evil then we can understand the necessity of being extremely scrupulous in its exercise. As it says in the Bible “for they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind;” that's the effect of violence. Once violence is unleashed, there is no telling where and how its effect will be manifested, nor can we predict how those subjected to this violence would perceive and react to it. Experience indicates that violence begets violence, and the resultant vicious cycle is hard to contain or break.
A reader sent me the following comment on an earlier post concerning Palestinian militants, “can you blame them [?]they have been subjugated by [I]srael for years.“ And my answer is: do I blame them for sending an 18 yr old boy to blow himself up in a bus or an eatery filled with human beings? And my answer is unequivocal. Yes. It is evil. There can be no moral justification of such behavior. It is a behavior that is rooted in hate, despair and corruption of religion.
But by rejecting this behavior, in no way do I excuse the violence that has been inflicted on the Palestinians. There are no privileged victims, nor are there lesser victims, be they Palestinian, Jewish, American, or Iraqi.
The attacks on New York and Washington, came in the midst of the second intifada when Israel and the Palestinians were in an all out war following the collapse of the peace talks. Israel's supporters in the US used these attacks to influence the Bush administration's policies towards the conflict in the Middle East. Among those who worked hard to lobby the Administration was Rudi Giuliani, the former mayor of New York.
The strategy, adopted by Israel's supporters and used by Giuliani, was that there was no moral equivalence between the actions of the Israeli military and the Palestinian militants. They argued that Israel must have America's unyielding support and is justified in its actions, for Israel as the American policy states today “has the right to defend itself.”
I do agree with Mr. Giuliani that there is no moral equivalence between the actions of Israel and those of the Palestinians, because the equivalence is an immoral one. To denounce the evil of the Palestinians while ignoring the evil of military occupation, summery assassinations, settlements and the separation wall, as Israel supporters in America widely do, is nothing more than selective morality. Selective morality is self-righteous, self-serving, and regrettably, has been a hallmark of American politics.
One poplar tactic advanced by pro Israel individuals in the US to generate sympathy and support for Israel is to perform a relative statistical conversion from Israel to US population. The last time I saw this tactic it was done by George F. Will, one of the leading conservative thinkers in America, in an essay published in Newsweek. This is how this argument goes: in the four years of the intifada there were about 1000 Israeli victims. If we calculate the percentage of these victims from the 6 million people in Israel, and apply it to the larger population of the United States, then the number of victims becomes about 50,000 people. The aim of this tactic is to solidify in the reader's mind the enormity of Israeli suffering and give justification for Israel's actions. Obviously, this is a powerful tactic.
But what Mr. Will fails to mention to his readers is that applied to those killed by Israeli forces the same statistical comparison results in about 190,000 people dead on the Palestinian side. But this part of the argument is of no interest to Mr. Will, for in his selective morality the Palestinians can not be regarded as victims, there is no violence committed against them, since they are only the purveyors of violence.
In the name of protecting our civilians and “taking the fight to where the terrorists live,” we unleashed a devastating amount of violence on Iraq. But the victims of our violence are not acknowledged nor counted. American dead are civilian heroes. Iraqi dead are described with the morally bankrupt term, “collateral damage,” which does nothing but deprive them of their humanity. The readily available excuse that “we don't target civilians” can in no way absolve us from responsibility for the death of these civilians.
Similarly, military actions, wars and general acts of violence committed by governments and their security services that effect civilians and innocent people are as evil and repulsive as terrorism and should be repudiated as such. Violence can not be condoned or condemned based on limited self-serving reasons including diplomatic convenience and economic consideration.
Following September 11, America was hurt, scared and angry. Our choice was to use violence, to exercise evil, and in Iraq it was exercised unimaginatively. Now we bear the consequences of our actions. We can not claim the moral ground for fighting evil, when we ignore the evil committed by us, our friends and other friendly governments.
In the words of the Dali Lama “We are at the dawn of an age in which extreme political concepts and dogmas may cease to dominate human affairs. We must use this historic opportunity to replace them with universal human and spiritual values. And ensure that these values become the fiber of the global family which is emerging.”