Tag: Israel/Palestine
Peace Picks | July 13 – July 17, 2020
Notice: Due to recent public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
- COVID-19 in the Middle East: An Opportunity to Improve Public Health? | July 13, 2020 | 9:30 AM – 11:00 AM EST | Atlantic Council | Register Here
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed fault lines in public health systems in the Middle East, where public health institutions vary widely. In Gulf states, citizens receive high quality health care, but the same is not true of foreign worker populations. Middle income countries in the region offer good health services to those who can afford them, while those who cannot have less or no access. In countries like Yemen and in Syria’s worn torn towns, nothing resembling a functioning health system, public or private, exists. The difficulty of supplying health services to refugees and displaced persons presents yet more difficulties. All this is not new, but the COVID crisis has afforded an opportunity to examine how access to health care plays out in a crisis. More importantly, the crisis can help guide domestic policymakers and international partners toward immediate and longer-term actions to improve public health delivery and prepare for the next crisis.
The Rafik Hariri Center and the United Nations Development Program’s Regional Bureau for Arab States are pleased to co-host a virtual discussion with experts who will not only discuss why the response to the pandemic has met with varying degrees of success, but will also address how policymakers and other stakeholders can better confront public health challenges of all kinds.
Speakers:
Dr. Adel Abdellatif: Deputy Regional Director, Regional Bureau for Arab States, United Nations Development Program
Dr. Lina AbiRafeh: Executive Director, Arab Institute for Women
Dr. Ali Mokdad: Director of Middle Eastern Initiatives and Professor of Global Health, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington - The United States, Russia, and China in the Time of Pandemic | July 13, 2020 | 10:30 AM – 11:30 AM EST | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | Register Here
The United States’ unipolar moment in the world—if it ever truly existed—is long gone. Instead the United States confronts a rising China and resentful Russia, both determined to check, if not roll back, U.S. influence regionally and globally. The pandemic will reinforce these trends and likely usher in a period of even greater competition and tension.
How should the United States respond to overt and covert challenges from Moscow and Beijing? And how important is growing strategic China-Russia cooperation on economic and security in this equation? Competition and tension seem all but inevitable, pushed forward by the domestic drivers of foreign policy. But are there prospects for détente or even meaningful episodic cooperation between the United States, China, and Russia on the issues that divide them?
Speakers:
Evan A Feigenbaum: Vice President for Studies, Carnegie Endowment
Eugene Rumer: Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program, Carnegie Endowment
Susan Thornton: Senior Fellow, Yale Law School
Aaron David Miller: Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment - COVID-19’s Economic Impact on Women | July 13, 2020 | 4:00 PM EST | Atlantic Council | Register Here
COVID-19 is a crisis like no other – and it is having a calamitous effect on women’s economic well-being. Please join the Atlantic Council for a conversation on how the coronavirus is disproportionately impacting women’s earning and income and worsening economic inequality around the world. Our experts will look at how COVID-19 is devastating women’s employment and entrepreneurship, as well exacerbating workplace and household challenges such as education, wage gaps, informality, childcare and domestic violence. During the panel the experts will discuss how policy options or business practices could mitigate these adverse consequences and promote greater gender equality as nations recover and rebuild.
Speakers:
Gina E. Wood (Welcoming Remarks): Vice President, Foundational & Institutional Giving, Atlantic Council
Raj Kumar (Moderator): President & Editor-in-Chief, Devex
Ambassador Kelley E. Currie: Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, U.S. Department of State
Dr. Nicole Goldin: Senior Fellow, Global Business & Economics PRogram, Atlantic Council
Henriette Kolb: Head, Gender Secretariat, International Finance Corporation, World Bank - Status and Priorities for Lebanon’s Political Transition | July 14, 2020 | 12:00 – 1:00 PM EST | Middle East Institute | Register Here
Lebanon is on the brink of collapse due to its domestic economic and political crises, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Another failed state in the Middle East would negatively impact strategic US interests. Lebanon requires a thorough reorientation towards stability and renewed socio-economic sustainability, which entails fundamental domestic reforms and targeted international support led by the US. The Middle East Institute (MEI) and the American Task Force for Lebanon (ATFL) are pleased to co-host the public launch of a joint policy paper, Recommendations for a Sustainable Bilateral Relationship.
What are the strategic interests the US has in Lebanon’s stability, and how can the US support Lebanese prosperity? Is the Lebanese government’s new financial recovery plan sufficient for the US to initiate support for the government? In what ways can the US best support a strong future for Lebanon?
Speakers:
Ambassador Edward Gabriel (Co-Moderator): President & CEO, American Task Force for Lebanon
Paul Salem (Co-Moderator): President, Middle East Institute
Jean AbiNader: Policy Director, American Task Force for Lebanon
Congressman Darin LaHood: U.S. House of Representatives, Illinois’ 18th District
Paul Raphael: Founding Chair, Lebanese International Finance Executives
Mona Yacoubian: Senior Advisor to the Vice President of Middle East & Africa, United States Institute of Peace - Election Integrity & Security in the Era of COVID-19 | July 17, 2020 | 2:00 – 4:15 PM EST | Brookings Institution | Register Here
The threats that disinformation and foreign interference in U.S. elections pose are not new phenomena. In 2016, Russian interference exposed critical vulnerabilities in the United States’ digital election infrastructure, and its information operations sowed political divisions across America. Now, modifications to democratic processes due to the coronavirus pandemic make the task of safeguarding the integrity and security of the 2020 presidential election even more crucial.
How will inevitable adjustments to voting practices, due to COVID-19, affect the security of U.S. elections? What measures should we pursue to dissuade our adversaries from attempting to interfere? Are we adequately prepared to counter new tactics, techniques, and procedures they might employ? And what can the federal government do to ensure that every state and county has the means to conduct a fair and secure election?
Speakers:
Keynote
Christopher C. Krebs: Director, Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Panel 1: Safeguarding Election Security
Fiona Hill (Moderator): Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe, Brookings Institution
David Becker: Executive Director, Center for Election Innovation & Research, Brookings Institution
Mark Harvey: Former Special Assistant to the President & Senior Director for Resilience Policy, National Security Council
Susan Hennessey: Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings Institution
Panel 2: Adapting to New Disinformation Tactics
Chris Meserole (Moderator): Deputy Director, Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technology Initiative, Brookings Institution
David Agranovich: Global Threat Disruption Lead, Facebook
Alina Polyakova: President & CEO, Center for European Policy Analysis, Brookings Institution
Laura Rosenberger: Senior Fellow & Director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy, German Marshall Fund of the United States
Gavin Wilde: Senior Analyst, Department of Defense
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Palestinian State at Risk
On May 28, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his intention to annex portions of the West Bank. Netanyahu’s announcement sparked intense debate about whether peace in the form of a two-state solution remains possible. In the eyes of many observers, annexation is the nail in the coffin of a dilapidated Oslo Process. On July 1, the proposed annexation date, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hosted a livestream entitled The Way Forward for Palestine: A Conversation with Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh. The names and affiliations of all speakers are listed below. Since this event, Netanyahu has hesitated. No new annexation has yet occurred.
Mohammad Shtayyeh: Prime Minister, Palestinian National Authority
Marwan Muasher: Vice President for Studies, Carnegie Endowment
Aaron David Miller: Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment
Zaha Hassan: Visiting Fellow, Carnegie Endowment
The annexation plan was drafted by the Trump Administration and unveiled in January 2020. In brief, it sanctioned the Israeli annexation of up to 30% of the West Bank. The Trump-Netanyahu plan was not well received, and it triggered local, regional, and international objections. The Palestinian National Authority (PNA) firmly rejected annexation and vowed to end all cooperation with Israel. Jordan opposed annexation on the basis that it posed an existential threat to Jordanian security, and most other Arab states opposed it on moral grounds. The European Union (EU) warned that EU-Israel relations would be negatively impacted by annexation.
Implications of Annexation
The immediate consequences of annexation would be dramatic. According to Shtayyeh, annexation will hinder the PNA’s efforts to generate the infrastructure, socio-political institutions, and state capacity necessary for statehood. If the PNA is poorly equipped for self-government, the national liberation movement will fail.
Annexation also has the potential to derail the peace process. Shtayyeh argues that annexation “erodes the geographic base of the eventual Palestinian state.” If annexation occurs, Israel will control large swaths of territory claimed by Palestinians, and it will become difficult for Palestinians to win back control in future negotiations. In Muasher’s eyes, annexation poses an existential threat to the realization of a two-state solution; if anything, annexation pushes the conflict toward a so-called “one state reality,” in which Palestinians and Israelis do not enjoy equal protection under the law.
According to Shtayyeh, July 1 would not be the first instance of Israeli annexation. In his opinion, Israel has engaged in a “creeping annexation” of the Palestinian territories since 1967. Shtayyeh argues that settlement construction and land expropriation effectively constitute annexation.
The Future of Palestine
Shtayyeh is not hopeful about the prospect of peace with Israel in light of the planned annexation. In response to a question, he noted that the debate within Israel is no longer about whether to annex but how much and what to annex. Nevertheless, Shtayyeh resisted Muasher’s various attempts to get him to renege on his support for a two-state solution. He repeatedly affirmed the PNA’s commitment to a two-state solution.
The PNA’s goal is the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital and pre-1967 borders. To accomplish this, Shtayyeh believes that there must be incremental expansion of Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank, until the vast majority of the territory is considered Area A and only “final status” issues remain.
Citing the history of failed negotiations and the United States’ long standing relationship with Israel, Shtayyeh argues that a new framework for negotiations is necessary. He and the PNA believe that the most appropriate course of action is multilateral negotiation, facilitated by the Quartet (European Union, United Nations, United States, Russia).
To watch the Carnegie Endowment’s livestream in full, click here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, July 2
In addition to the usual press coverage below, Charlie wrote a piece today about the significance of July 2:
This year July 3 is the official federal holiday. It really should be today.
The 4th of July really ought to be celebrated on the 2nd, for it was on July 2, 1776, that the Continental Congress voted, 12 states for, none against, that the colonies “are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states.” The next day, John Adams wrote to his wife, “The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival…. It ought to be solemnized with bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other….”
In fact, the 3rd and 4th of July were taken up with debate and amendments to the 1,338-word explanation written by Thomas Jefferson and a small committee. A vote approving the text was taken on the 4th, but the actual parchment was not signed until August 2. That document used the July 4 date, and we’ve been stuck with it ever since.
There’s another reason for celebrating July 2 — for it was on that date, eleven years later in the same building in Philadelphia, that the Constitutional Convention broke its deadlock over how to organize the new government. Virginia had proposed proportional representation by population, including slaves. The small states, led by New Jersey proposed equal representation of the states in Congress. The debate and defeat of various plans left many small state delegates angry and frustrated, and drove the convention to the verge of collapse. Many considered leaving the convention if their rights were not protected. Delegates on both sides became more heated and intransigent.
The small states had a point. The three largest states of Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts had 45% of the U.S. population and would need only one other state to have a working majority over all other states. On many issues the three most southern states – Georgia and the Carolinas – sided with the big three. Though small at the time, they all expected to grow much larger and saw such an informal alliance as helpful to their other interests.
On July 2, 1787, Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut pressed his resolution for equal representation in the Senate, but with some absentees and some still unexplained vote switches, the delegates tied on the question. That was a parliamentary defeat for the small states, but a game-changing, emotional victory because it kept alive their alternative. On reflection, other delegates realized that this issue of Senate composition could destroy any chance at government reform. They agreed to turn the question over to a committee, and three days later, the committee recommended equal votes in the Senate. At the end of the tumultuous week, the delegates approved the plan.
This broke the logjam on other issues as well. With small state rights protected, their delegates were more willing to strengthen the executive and the central government. By mid-July, delegates agreed on a single executive and gave him veto power.
Those are two strong reasons for venerating and celebrating July 2 — with “bonfires and illuminations” and good beer.
– DOD has a formal report to Congress on overall policy.
– Meanwhile the administration tries to explain its response to reports of Russian bounties.
– China is cracking down in Hong Kong. Here’s the text of the new law.
-Israel is delaying on annexation.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, June 24 and 23
[Forgive the delay. I’ve started reading John Bolton’s memoir. I buy all the memoirs of senior officials and even have personally autographed volumes by Eisenhower’s Robert Cutler, JFK’s McGeorge Bundy, and Brent Scowcroft.]
Pay to play: WSJ says Chinese nationals have paid a lot to get close to Trump and his people.
Politico lists several foreign leaders seeking Trump favors while he’s still president.
WSJ says Germany is caught between US and China.
I can’t believe this Tata guy.
WH has a new official Arctic policy. Read it before it melts.
I missed posting yesterday’s Stevenson’s army, so htere it is:
– NYT explains how Administration is divided over Israeli annexation.
– CIA is recruiting, including on Hulu.
– Foreign Affairs tells of US efforts to interfere in foreign elections
– New Yorker has profile of Fiona Hill.
– Lawfare writer notes similarities between debates on counterinsurgency and community policing.
– FP sees China reaching across Pacific into Kiribati election. [remember, pronounced kiribas]
– Congress wants to realign missile defense agency chain of command
I don’t know what to say about this. It’s a dumb and futile ideas to try to involve China in US-Russian nuclear talks [the headline would be: Trump tries to force China to greatly increase its nuclear arsenal against US”], yet I see the photo op as clever messaging for a bad policy.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Fizzle
Donald Trump last night in Tulsa tried to excite his extremist base with a lot of red meat about Democratic radicals, denunciations of burning of the American flag and toppling of statues, suggestions that less testing for Covid-19 would reduce attention to it, and blatant racism. I suppose the crowd liked it, but the arena was half empty and not even his enthusiasts were enthused.
Trump can no longer hide his failures. Covid-19 is growing exponentially in states that he owns. The economy is still moribund, despite a dip in unemployment claims. Most Americans support Black Lives Matter and other “radicals” whom Trump deplores. Trump’s base, which is the only part of the population he cares about, is clearly in the minority, making voter suppression a vital part of his re-election strategy. States run the presidential election, so Republican-led states are aggressively purging voter rolls, reducing the number of polling places, and limiting mail-in ballots.
Trump is however still trying to hide his personal malfeasance and the misdeeds of his pals. That is the short version of why he fired the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) this week. But he did it so sloppily that he is ending up with the career deputy acting in the position, instead of the toady he wanted. That is a great good fortune. SDNY is notoriously independent and likely has the goods on Rudy Giuliani if not on Trump himself, who is reputed to have pressured the prosecutors not to go after a Turkish bank at President Erdogan’s behest.
Trump’s situation is no better abroad. North Korea and Iran continue to defy Trump’s nuclear demands. Both have made significant progress on missiles and nuclear technology in the past 3.5 years. Venezuelan President Maduro remains in office. China is filling the vacuum wherever “make America great again” retreats. Russia has offered Trump nothing for his many efforts to court Putin. The “deal of the century” for the Palestinians has turned into a green light for Israeli annexation of a big chunk of the West Bank. Even that however might not come off, as the Israelis are getting a lot of pressure not to proceed in order to protect their relations with Sunni Arab countries.
The only thing working for Trump right now is Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority leader. He is proceeding apace with confirmation of unqualified Federal judges Trump dutifully nominates. But they don’t always behave the way McConnell and Trump might like. Despite the Administration’s opposition, the Supreme Court has extended equal protection of the law to LGBTQ people and prevented Trump from reversing the Obama program that protected people brought illegally to the US as children from deportation.
The Trump Administration is still capable of doing astoundingly bad things. But it is losing its grip on the popular imagination of most Americans. Joe Biden, who hasn’t yet been campaigning vigorously, is rising markedly in the polls, including in swing states crucial to Trump. The Electoral College could still save him from defeat, but the odds of that are declining. With four months to go before Americans start to cast their ballots, Trump is fizzling. May it last.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Arab views on Israeli annexation
The Arab Center of Washington DC hosted an online discussion on June 2, 2020 that explored the implications of the recent announcement by Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas that the PA will end all agreements and understandings signed with Israel and the United States. The discussion was moderated by Tamara Kharroub and featured six guest speakers:
Noura Erakat: Human Rights Attorney, Assistant Professor, Rutgers University
Leila Farsakh: Associate Professor and Chair, Political Science Department, University of Massachusetts Boston
Khalil E. Jahshan: Executive Director, Arab Center Washington DC
Rashid Khalidi: Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies, Columbia University, Co-Editor, Journal of Palestine Studies, President, Institute for Palestine Studies-USA
Nasser Al-Kidwa: Chairman of the Board of Directors, Yasser Arafat Foundation, former Palestinian Representative to the United Nations
Raef Zreik: Associate Professor of Law, Ono Academic College, Co-Director of Minerva Center for the Humanities, Tel Aviv University
Tamara Kharroub (Moderator): Assistant Executive Director and Senior Fellow, Arab Center Washington DC
Current Context
Kharroub highlighted that an Israeli Unity government between Prime Minister Netanyahu and former military chief Gantz was installed in May of 2020. One of the main policies agreed upon by these two parties is annexation of parts of the West Bank. In his coalition agreement with Gantz, Netanyahu was granted the right to proceed with the process of annexation as early as July 1. According to figures collated by the Israeli organization Peace Now, the West Bank is home to nearly 2.7 million Palestinians and 400,000 Israeli settlers. Although extending Israeli sovereignty into parts of the West Bank has been one of Netanyahu’s key campaign promises, Gantz has repeatedly spoken against unilateral annexation.
As a response to this development, PA President Mahmoud Abbas has announced that the PA will end all agreements and understandings with Israel and the United States. This comes following the Trump administration’s January 2020 Middle East Peace Plan that allows for Israeli annexation of settlements within the West Bank and Jordan Valley. To Kharroub, the increasing prospect of Israeli annexation raises various questions:
- Does the prospect of annexation constitute a real game changer in Israeli-Palestinian relations?
- Or, does the prospect of annexation merely signify the culmination of decades of expansionist Israeli policy and international impunity?
- What is the strategic economic and political importance of the proposed areas of annexation?
- The annexation of these territories violates international law. Thus, what are the legal implications?
To Khalidi, the Trump administration has gone beyond what any other American administration has done before. Notably, previous American administrations have allowed the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem while simultaneously maintaining the public face of opposition. Khalidi stresses that unlike previous administrations, the Trump administration has openly endorsed the annexation of Israeli settlements within the West Bank and Jordan Valley.
Likewise, Jahshan finds the Trump administration’s “Peace to Prosperity Plan” to be monumental in terms of the US role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Jahshan believes that this plan significantly differs from previous American attempts and lacks even the semblance of neutrality.
Contrasting perspectives
Al-Kidwa believes that the annexation of areas within the West Bank constitutes a threat to the present international order and accepted modes of state conduct. States possess a legal obligation in accordance with the Geneva conventions to confront settler colonialism. Palestinians must work to refine and redefine their relationship with Israel.
Zreik believes that it remains important to differentiate between the question of sovereignty and the application and enforcement of Israeli law and order. To Zreik, the question of sovereignty remains a question of international law, not local law. Although Israel enforces law and order in the Golan Heights, the international community recognizes sovereignty over the Golan Heights as belonging to Syria. Zreik states that the question of state sovereignty must be decided by the international legal system.
Legal Implications
Erakat states that the annexation of areas within the West Bank violates UN Security Council Resolution 242, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the UN Charter that provides for the territorial integrity of all people. To Erakat, although there remains an abundance of legal remedies, politics will determine whether Israel will be held legally accountable by the international community.
Political Implications
Farsakh highlights that Arab states have denounced the proposed Israeli annexation. Jordan in particular has remained steadfast in its opposition and has threatened to withdraw the Jordanian-Israeli Peace Accords. However, negative reactions by Arab states will not have much significance because of the high degree of dependence these states have on the United States and their economic relations with Israel. The European Union, Israel’s largest trading partner, has opposed the prospect of annexation and unilateral decision making.
RSS - Posts
