Tag: Israel/Palestine
The Levant: from bad to worse
The Wilson Center hosted a panel yesterday entitled “The Middle East: A Region in Chaos?” to discuss the current situation in the Middle East and the U.S. government’s reaction to this situation. Jane Harman, Director, President, and CEO of the Wilson Center, introduced the speakers before the moderator, Michael Yaffe, Vice President, Middle East and Africa at the U.S. Institute of Peace, provided a brief summary of the many developments in the region in 2018. The panel included:
Robin Wright – USIP-Wilson Center Distinguished Fellow
Bruce Riedel – Senior Fellow and Director, Brookings Intelligence Project, Brookings Institution
Mona Yacoubian – Senior Advisor, Syria, Middle East and North Africa, U.S. Institute of Peace
Aaron David Miller – Vice President for New Initiatives and Middle East Program Director, Wilson Center.
This post will focus on the panel’s analysis of recent developments in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the Syrian Conflict. A previous post focused on the Iran/Saudi Arabia dimension.
As the conversation shifted to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Miller painted a bleak picture of future prospects for a two-state solution. At a time when Syria, Iraq, and Egypt – traditional, vocal allies of the Palestinian cause – are projecting less power across the region because of unrest at home, the US-Israel relationship has reached unprecedented strength. This realignment is a central premise of Jared Kushner’s peace plan strategy. Kushner hopes that aligning fully with Israel on previous roadblocks, such as the governance of Jerusalem, will take these issues off the table while heaping pressure on Netanyahu to accept concessions made to the Palestinians. At the same time, Palestinian demoralization with the current state of affairs will push them back to the negotiating table if any unexpected compromises are made. Miller argued that Kushner’s moves will have the opposite effect; Palestinian trust in America to be an honest broker has evaporated over the last six months, leaving them less inclined than ever even to engage with the United States to find a viable two-state solution.
Miller and Yacoubian also highlighted the diminishing US leadership as power vacuums emerge across the region due to the dysfunction of many Arab states. As Trump continues the Obama administration’s hands-off approach to the region, these voids are being filled by Russia, Turkey, Israel, and non-state actors. US aversion to conflict has also allowed Iran to dramatically increase its influence in Syria, leading to direct military engagement between Israel and the Islamic Republic. Yacoubian argued that a possible Israeli airstrike on Iranian positions close to the Syria-Iraq border could mean that more escalation is on the horizon. Paradoxically, continued hostilities could drag the United States into a proxy war between Israel and Iran fought in Syria and Iraq.
On the southern front, the Syrian Arab Army’s ongoing siege of Dera’a and Al-Quneitra provinces could force even more refugees to flee to Jordan. The Hashemite Kingdom is already reeling from the political blowback to tax hikes designed to combat the country’s ailing economy, and another refugee influx would further inflame internal tensions. Yacoubian argued that recent US inaction in Syria suggests that the State Department’s promise for “firm and appropriate measures” in response to cease fire violations in Southern Syria is also bluster, so Jordan is on its own. Yacoubian also revealed that efforts to convince the Kurds to leave Manbij and move east of the Euphrates in northern Syria could easily derail, leading to more violence, while Trump’s desire to quickly withdraw US. troops could leave a power vacuum that ISIS would exploit.
The Bottom Lines: The political situation in the Levant has gone from bad to worse over the last six months. Increased US support of Israel at the expense of Palestinian goodwill appears to have driven them away from the negotiating table completely, at least for now. In Syria, immediate US withdrawal will only lead to further destabilization. While the train has left the station for Trump to intervene in the south to limit further economic and political strain on Jordan, maintaining a presence in the east could prevent a resurgence of ISIS in this sparsely populated, US-controlled region.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Shaping a New Middle East Balance of Power
The Conflict Management Program and the Aljazeera Centre for Studies
are pleased to invite you to
Shaping a New Balance of Power in the Middle East:
Regional Actors, Global Powers, and Middle East Strategy
Tuesday June 12, 2018 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM
1740 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
Kenney Auditorium
Register
The Gulf and the Middle East are suffering a paroxysm of conflict involving virtually all the regional states as well as the US and Russia and many different non-state actors. What dynamics are driving this chaos? What can be done to contain or reverse the damage? How might a new balance of power emerge?
9-9:30: Registration
9:30-9:45: Opening Remarks
Ø Ezzedine Abdelmoula, Manager of Research, Aljazeera Centre for Studies, Aljazeera Media Network
9:30-11:00: Dynamics of Political Geography in the Middle East
Ø Chair: Daniel Serwer, Director, SAIS Conflict Management Program
Ø Ross Harrison, Non-resident Senior Fellow Middle East Institute
Ø Kadir Ustun, Executive Director, SETA Foundation
Ø Khalid al Jaber, Gulf International Forum
Ø Suzanne Maloney, Deputy Director, Foreign Policy Program and Senior Fellow, Center for Middle East Policy and Energy Security and Climate Initiative, Brookings Institution
11:00-11:15: Coffee Break
11:15-12:45: Non-State Actors and Shadow Politics
Ø Chair: Paul Salem, Senior Vice President for Policy Research & Programs, Middle East Institute
Ø Randa Slim, Director of Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues Program, Middle East Institute; Fellow, SAIS Foreign Policy Institute
Ø Fatima Abo Alasrar, Senior Analyst, Arabia Foundation
Ø Crispin Smith, Harvard Law School
Ø Anouar Boukhars, Non-Resident Scholar, Middle East Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Associate Professor of International Relations, McDaniel College
12:45-1:30: Lunch
1:30-3:00: New Balance of Power
Ø Chair: Mohammed Cherkaoui, Aljazeera Centre for Studies, and George Mason University
Ø Jamal Khashoggi, independent writer
Ø P. Terrence Hopmann, Professor of International Relations, SAIS, Conflict Management Program
Ø Camille Pecastaing, SAIS, Middle East Studies
Ø Hussein Ibish, Senior Resident Scholar, Arab Gulf States Institution in Washington
Tuesday June 12, 2018 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM
1740 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
Kenney Auditorium
photo ID will be checked at the door
For disability accommodations, please contact saisevents@jhu.edu or 202-999-3332 at least one week prior to the event.
Have questions about Shaping a New Balance of Power in the Middle East: Regional Actors, Global Powers, and Middle East Strategy? Contact SAIS Conflict Management Program
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Next year in Jerusalem?
A SETA Foundation panel on Tuesday discussed the impact of the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem. The SETA Foundation’s Kilic B. Kanat moderated a panel comprised of Geoffrey Aronson (The Mortons Group), Lara Friedman (Foundation for Middle East Peace), Ghaith al-Omari (Washington Institute), and Kadir Ustun (SETA Foundation) to analyze this historic development and its impact on the Middle East.
Aronson connected the embassy move to the Balfour Declaration. In both cases, the world’s pre-eminent power of the time lined up behind the Jews. It also acknowledges reality: in the case of the Balfour Declaration, it was the staying power of the Zionist movement and in the case of the embassy move, the staying power of the settlements. Both the declaration and the embassy move claimed it would not offend other parties, yet this has been shown to be untrue. Aronson believes that, at least in theory, Israel could pay a price later for the embassy move. However, at the moment, Arab leaders see the costs and benefits of not obstructing the embassy move as acceptable for the sake of focusing on Iran. The reality is Arab states are at one of their weakest points in history with few assets to bring to the diplomatic table. Arab states are forced to accept these shifts.
Friedman believes the embassy move confirms the end of the Oslo Era and that we must take Trump at his word. His policies may be reckless, but they are in fact coherent. Trump’s advisors see US and Israeli interests as identical. With Jerusalem off the table, chaos has been injected to reframe the concept of Middle East peace and stability based on a US-Israeli version. Expect Kushner’s plan to be utterly unacceptable to Palestinians and to lay out new US positions on permanent status issues. With Israel’s religious right emboldened, there will be real or perceived threat to sacred space in Jerusalem. This will lead to instability and force Arab leaders and people to take action.
Al-Omari focused on how, at an official level, the embassy move has forced Arab leaders to take hardline stances and limit their diplomatic maneuvering. Although the Palestine issue has become dormant among many Arab publics, no Arab leader wants to cast aside the issue for fear it could re-emerge. The move also shows limits to the anti-Iran coalition, the unspoken alliance between the US, Israel, and several Arab states about confronting Iran. Some lines, like the Jerusalem issue, cannot be crossed. If the Arab states try and cross that line, the Palestinians, with a strong sense of nationhood, will call them out and force them to focus on the issue.
Ustun took a different approach from Al-Omari. He argues that the unspoken anti-Iran alliance is a strong regional dynamic and Arab states are in practice more focused on confronting Iran as opposed to Israel-Palestine issues. Any statements or public lines they take on recent Palestine developments are therefore hollow and meaningless. Countries outside this anti-Iran grouping are putting more serious effort into the Israel-Palestine issue and the issue matters more in countries with some type of electoral process (like Turkey) than countries without one (like Saudi Arabia). In the long-term, Ustun believes lack of attention on this issue could undermine the legitimacy of the states that do not focus on it.
The US decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem has negated its ability to act as an honest, objective peace-broker. It is up to other countries such as European ones to continue the push for a negotiated, acceptable two-state solution and to continue to uphold international law, organizations, and norms. American Jews, led by increasingly vocal and progressive youth, are troubled by Trump’s stances and actions on the Israel-Palestine issue, especially in context of his other reckless decisions. It remains to be seen how the increasing anger of the American Jewish community can be used to promote positive change.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, May 21 – 27
- After ISIS, Will Iraq’s Elections be the Next Step to Stability? | Monday, May 21| 2:00 pm – 3:00 pm | US Institute of Peace | Register Here
On May 12, Iraqis go to the polls to elect members of a new national parliament. This is the fourth election since the fall of Saddam Hussein, but the first since the military rollback of the Islamic State-declared caliphate. The country’s new leaders will be faced with the challenge of rebuilding, stabilizing, and healing their country as the United States and the West continue to decrease their military presence.
Join us on May 21 for a provocative town hall debate with foreign policy experts Kenneth Pollack, from the American Enterprise Institute, the National Defense University’s Denise Natali, and USIP’s Sarhang Hamasaeed, moderated by Joshua Johnson of the public radio program 1A. The discussion will focus on how Iraq’s leaders can overcome years of sectarian violence and find unity, as well as what a future alliance with the West may look like.
- North Korea and the Fine Print of a Deal: A View from Congress | Tuesday, May 22 | 9:00 am – 10:00 am | US Institute of Peace | Register Here
The United States is engaged in high-stakes negotiations with North Korea over its nuclear program as the White House prepares for the summit between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un. But nuclear capabilities and missiles are not the only items on the negotiating table. An eventual settlement could include some difficult concessions and require significant oversight and legislative action on the part of Congress. In addition to a potential restructuring of U.S. forces in South Korea, a grand bargain could result in a range of due-outs for Congress, from sanctions relief and economic incentives to multilateral political arrangements.
Two Members of Congress and military veterans, Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Representative Steve Russell (R-OK), will examine the importance of this ongoing diplomatic effort, possible outcomes of negotiations, and the role they hope Congress plays in the coming months at USIP’s third Bipartisan Congressional Dialogue on May 22.
- What Lies Ahead for Afghanistan: The Various Scenarios | Tuesday, May 22 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm | The Middle East Institute | Register Here
The way forward in Afghanistan seems as unclear as it has ever been. An outright military victory against the Taliban and other insurgent groups appears to be unachievable. The prospect of insurgents overrunning the country soon appears similarly unlikely. At the same time, a negotiated peace seems presently improbable. At least on terms outlined by the Kabul government and international community, the Taliban shows little interest in reconciliation. The long-term commitment of the United States and its coalition partners to an indefinite military presence and financial support cannot be taken for granted.
After nearly 17 years of fighting and state building in Afghanistan, we are still asking how conflict ends and what the endgame for Afghanistan looks like.
To discuss possible scenarios, the Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host an expert panel. MEI’s Director of Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies, Marvin G. Weinbaum, will moderate the discussion with Javid Ahmad, a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center; Courtney Cooper, an international affairs fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Seth Jones, director of the Transnational Threats Project and a senior adviser for the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic International Studies.
- The Implications of the US Embassy Move to Jerusalem | Tuesday, May 22 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | The SETA Foundation at Washington DC | Register Here
On Monday, May 14, 2018, the US officially opened its embassy to Israel in Jerusalem. The move, which had been delayed by Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, was announced by President Donald J. Trump on February 23. While Trump’s announcement was welcomed by Israel, it was condemned by Palestinian leaders and other US allies in the Middle East.
Please join the SETA Foundation at Washington DC on May 22 for a timely discussion on what the move of the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem means for future US policy in the region, how US allies and adversaries will react to the move, and what it means for the Israel-Palestine peace process. Panel includes Geoffrey Aronson (President, The Mortons Group), Lara Friedman (President, Foundation for Middle East Peace), Ghaith al-Omari (Senior Fellow, The Washington Institute), Kadir Ustun (Executive Director, The SETA Foundation at Washington DC). Moderated by Kilic B. Kanat (Research Director, The SETA Foundation at Washington DC).
- Can Power-sharing Arrangements Deliver Peace? | Thursday, May 24 | 10:00 am – 12:00 pm | US Institute of Peace | Register Here
Power-sharing arrangements are often touted as a means to address conflict between two parties. But practitioners and policymakers alike agree that the foundation for such arrangements requires considerable strategy and planning, including articulating clear objectives and expectations. Under what conditions do power-sharing arrangements work? What are the key ingredients to help unity governments succeed? Do power-sharing arrangements build political trust by delivering to citizens?
Join the U.S. Institute of Peace for a discussion exploring these critical questions. By exploring recent research in the Philippines, the panel will consider the effects a power-sharing peace agreement has on citizens’ trust in the national government, helping policymakers better understand how to build political trust in the aftermath of intrastate conflict. Panel includes Rosarie Tucci (Director, Inclusive Societies, US Institute of Peace), Susan Stigant (Director, Africa Programs, US Institute of Peace), Caroline Hartzell (Professor, Political Science Department, Gettysburg College), Matthew Hoddie (Associate Professor, Towson University), and Joseph Eyerman (Director, Center for Security, Defense and Safety, Research Triangle Institute International).
- America First, Europe alone? | Thursday, May 24 | 2:00 – 3:30 pm | Brookings Institution | Register Here
For the first 16 months of the Trump administration, European governments have sought to work closely with the United States, rather than opposing it publicly. However, differences over the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris Climate Accord, trade, and the nature of sovereignty have led some observers to predict the end of the Atlantic alliance. On May 24, the Brookings Institution will convene an expert panel to discuss the trajectory of trans-Atlantic relations; whether the allies can bridge the gaps that divide them; how important Europe, and particularly the European Union, is to the Trump administration; and whether European states can and will fend for themselves.
The discussion will feature Brookings’s Robert Bosch Senior Fellows Amanda Sloat and Constanze Stelzenmüller, and Kenneth R. Weinstein, president and CEO of Hudson Institute. Edward Luce, Washington columnist and commentator for the Financial Times, will moderate the discussion.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The peril ahead
The US was never an honest broker in the Israel/Palestine conflict. Its roles were to push Israel into a process it didn’t want and guarantee an outcome neither side would otherwise trust. Washington abandoned those roles when it moved its embassy to Jerusalem, rewarding Israeli intransigence and failing in any way to compensate the Palestinians, even with a cost-free hint of a possible future capital in East Jerusalem.
Without the US fulfilling its responsibilities, the dominant party is now wrecking havoc with impunity. There is no legitimate excuse for firing on unarmed civilians. I might prefer that the Palestinians at the Gaza fence not throw stones, burn tires, fly kites adorned with swastikas, or try to breach the fence, but their doing so in no way justifies Israeli snipers responding with live rounds. Blaming the resulting deaths on Hamas for inciting the Palestinians, as the State Department has done, ignores a much more serious crime: the use of deadly force against civilians. No doubt Hamas will benefit politically from Israel’s mistake.
My eldest aunt, Rose Halperin, is buried in East Jerusalem, on the Mount of Olives. She had been a president of Hadassah. My mother worked on a kibbutz in Israel in the early 1930s. She spoke decent Hebrew and tried her best to teach me and my reluctant classmates in Sunday school, without much success. She and her elder brother were both avid supporters of Israel.
But they were also advocates of Jewish/Arab understanding, because they understood that ultimately there would be no security for Israel or for the Jews who live there without it. Givat Haviva, Wahat as Salaam/Neve Shalom, the Israel/Palestine Journal and other organizations devoted to improving communication between the two main populations of Israel and Palestine all survive today on fumes, but they survive because they are necessary.
I am all too familiar with ethnic territoriality, from my many decades working on the Balkans. Precious as “the land” is to Jews, they survived for at least two millennia outside the Holy Land. Had they attempted to remain there without migrating at all, no doubt they would have suffered the same fate as the Canaanites, Midianites, and other long-forgotten Biblical peoples. They were saved not because of their attachment to the land but because of their willingness to leave it.
Israel thus represents a sharp departure from the successful Jewish survival techniques of the past. After 70 years of defending itself, it is a strong state with strong security forces and a strong Jewish national identity. But what it is doing now is not wise, sustainable, or equitable. The Torah tells us 36 times (more often than any other injunction) to treat the stranger who lives among us like one of us. No one who visits the West Bank or Gaza could conclude that commandment is being fulfilled. Even within Israel proper, Arabs do not enjoy equal treatment.
American Jews enjoy a country where their rights are equal–no longer just in theory but also for the most part in fact–with those of the majority. Most like that system and hold tight to liberal democratic ideals. They want to see equal rights in Israel as well as the United States. A relatively few like Sheldon Adelson and David Friedman are committed to something dramatically different: an Israel that occupies the entire West Bank and pays no heed to the rights of Palestinians. They want to chase as many Palestinians away as they can and keep those who remain in second-class status, lacking political and economic rights.
This is not an Israel many American Jews can support. I’m not sure about my Zionist aunt, but I am certain my Hebrew-speaking mother would have been disgusted, as I am, by the unilateral move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem and the performance of the Israeli security forces on the Gaza border. There will be a price to pay for this departure from Jewish and American values. Israelis need to open their eyes to the very real peril that lies ahead.
Here is the CGTN appearance I did May 14:
- John Sitilides is a global risk analyst and a consultant to the U.S. State Department.
- Nour Odeh is the former spokesperson for the Palestinian Authority.
- Yossi Mekelberg is a senior research fellow with Chatham House.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Backfire
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday obliterated his own argument against the Iran nuclear deal. Let’s leave aside whether it is appropriate for a country that has clandestinely produced nuclear weapons to criticize others for attempting to do the same thing. Netanyahu presented evidence that before 2004 Iran had such a clandestine nuclear weapons program. This is well known and confirmed at the time by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It is a major reason the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is needed: to stop and to some extent reverse Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapons.
Netanyahu doesn’t like the JCPOA because some of its provisions expire in the 2020s and none of its provisions deal with ballistic missiles. What he has failed to explain is how the US withdrawing from the deal now would fix that or in any other way make Israel and the US better off. The Europeans have made it plain they will stick with the deal if the Iranians do. The Iranians are divided: some want to keep to it while others want to withdraw. If they continue the deal with the Europeans, US re-imposition of sanctions is unlikely to get Tehran to negotiate a follow-on agreement. The sanctions worked in 2015 because everyone was supporting them. If the Iranians withdraw, they can go hell bent for nuclear weapons immediately.
If US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal doesn’t benefit Israel, what then might Netanyahu be trying to achieve? One possibility is a crisis that would result in a US attack on Iran’s remaining nuclear facilities. Another is the worsening of Iran’s economic situation to encourage demonstrations and eventual regime change.
Both of these are dicey propositions. While the US certainly now has an excellent idea of precisely where the nuclear facilities are located (credit to the IAEA), any attack on them would precipitate Iranian retaliation against US forces and civilians in the Gulf, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, in addition attacks on Israel from Gaza, Lebanon and Syria as well as from Iran. Trying to prompt regime change is always iffy, but especially so in an Islamic Republic that has weathered several episodes of mass demonstrations that might have brought down a less entrenched or less brutal regime.
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Netanyahu is pushing for a withdrawal from the JCPOA without any clear notion of what the benefits might be. That however isn’t likely to phase Donald Trump, whose ability to reason things through is limited. He likes acting on impulse, especially when flattered by someone he thinks well of like Netanyahu. Sheldon Adelson’s campaign contributions are no doubt another factor in favor of withdrawal.
Fortunately, there will be some in the Administration who will argue against, noting that the US has already gotten most of the benefits withdrawal might produce: the Europeans are open to discussing a follow-on agreement that could encompass ballistic missiles and banks have hesitated to provide financing to Iran and those who want to do business there. The US, by contrast, continues to benefit from the IAEA inspections and the delay in Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Secretary of Defense Mattis has made it plain that Iran is complying with the JCPOA, which has ample provision for verification. He no doubt also understands that the prospects for a nuclear deal with North Korea, already dim, would evaporate entirely if the US walks away from the JCPOA.
So Netanyahu’s showy non-TED talk yesterday was unconvincing. I’d would say it even backfired. The US (and Israel) will be far better off if the US stays in the nuclear deal.
PS: A chat April 30 with someone well-informed about Israel suggested Netanyahu’s aim is to get the Europeans to re-impose sanctions, so that the Iran of the 2020s is far less resource-rich than it would be otherwise. Asked why the Europeans would do that, I was told they are more afraid of war with Iran than they are of reimposing sanctions. That game is called chicken and often ends in catastrophe.
RSS - Posts
