Israel: Colonising East Jerusalem, Deporting Palestinians (Cole)

Parallelling the assessment of EA's Ali Yenidunya, Juan Cole considers the latest steps by the Israeli Government:

The new Israeli policy of deporting Palestinians from the West Bank on arbitrary grounds has kicked in with Ahmad Sabah, who has just been deported to Gaza and separated from his family in the West Bank. The measure contravenes the Geneva Convention of 1949 on the treatment of occupied populations, and it also goes contrary to the undertakings Israel made toward the Palestine Authority in the course of the Oslo peace negotiations.

Palestine Analysis: Breaking Down Israel’s Counter Offer on Talks

The episode underlines the ways in which their forced statelessness leaves Palestinians (almost uniquely among major world nationalities) completely vulnerable to loss of the most basic human rights. That he was forcibly moved to Gaza by the Israelis suggests that many of those singled out for potential deportation from the West Bank may be moved to the small slum along the Mediterranean, which the Israelis have cut off from its traditional markets and which they keep under a blockade of the civilian population (a war crime). The Israeli establishment has decided not to try to colonize Gaza, and its isolation and hopelessness make it an attractive place for them to begin exiling West Bank residents, thus making more room for Israeli colonists.


The new policy, which is illegal six ways to Sunday in international law, is the brainchild of the government of far rightwing Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu, an Israeli hawk and expansionist, slapped President Barack Obama in the face again Thursday when he confirmed that he refused to halt construction of new homes in Palestinian East Jerusalem, which is militarily occupied by Israel.

Netanyahu’s announcement is probably the nail in the coffin of any two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (in which the Israelis have thrown most Palestinians now living beyond the Green Line off their land and deprived them of citizenship in a state and all the rights that go with such citizenship). Palestinians are so despairing that only 57 percent even believe in having an independent Palestinian state any more. The rest are resigned to becoming Israelis in the distant future, when demographic realities and perhaps world-wide boycotts of Israel for its Apartheid-style policies toward the occupied Palestinian will force Israel to accept them.

At the same time, Netanyahu tried to throw sand in peoples’ eyes by talking about recognizing an ‘interim’ Palestinian state with “temporary” borders.

Palestinian leaders reject this formulation, which is intended to allow the Israelis to continue aggressively to colonize Palestinian territory while pretending that they are engaged in a ‘peace process.’ The Palestine Authority, established in the 1990s, was already a sort of interim state then, and Palestine’s borders were then ‘temporary.’ So temporary that Israel has made deep inroads into them through massive colonies and building a wall on the Palestinian side of the border, cutting residents off from their own farms and sequestering entire towns and cities.

Netanyahu’s various moves this week, from illegally expelling a Palestinian from the West Bank to Gaza to blowing off the president of the United States and hitching his wagon to massive increased colonization of Palestinian land: all of these steps are guaranteed to mire Israel in violent disputes for years and perhaps decades. And the US, which has already suffered tremendously in Iraq and elsewhere from its knee-jerk support of illegal and inhumane Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, will suffer further.

Meanwhile, in the wake of a vicious attack on Barack Obama by New York senator Chuck Schumer, Steve Clemons of the Washington Note frankly wonders whether Schumer understands he is in the US Senate or whether he is under the impression he is serving in the Israeli Knesset.

Palestine Analysis: Breaking Down Israel's Counter Offer on Talks

On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that there would be no construction freeze in Jerusalem; however, he offered confidence-building gestures, such as allowing the opening of Palestinian Authority institutions in the eastern part of the city, transferring additional West Bank territory to Palestinian security control, and discussing all the core issues of the conflict during proximity talks with the Palestinian Authority.

Israel-Palestine Follow-Up:”Apartheid” Deportation Orders, Settlements

This counter-offer was put out by the Netanyahu Government through media organizations on Friday. The follow-up analysis was that Israel would announce an official shift in its Palestinian policy: willingness for an interim agreement in the West Bank that would include the establishment of a Palestinian state within temporary borders.


The formula of a Palestinian state within temporary borders was included in the second stage of the road map of 2003. However, this time the counter-offer, although it requires Israel to withdraw from more territory and perhaps even evacuate settlements, excludes the status of Jerusalem and only draws temporary borders with the West Bank.

U.S. Mideast special envoy George Mitchell met Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Netanyahu on Friday. Netanyahu, ready to take any dismissal of his offer as confirmation that the Palestinians are  “stubborn and rejectionist”, told Mitchell at the beginning of the meeting:

I look forward to working with the Obama administration to move peace forward. We are serious about it, we know you are serious about it and we hope the Palestinians respond.

Not only Ramallah rejected Israel’s counter-offer; Hamas’s leader in the Gaza Strip, Ismail Haniya, said Thursday that resumption of peace talks with Israel is a cover-up for the "Judaization of Jerusalem".

Meanwhile, the first signs of Israel’s new military order, which can deport tens of thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank, emerged. A Palestinian from the West Bank, Ahmad Sabah,was forcibly deported to the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, immediately after his release from detention in Israel.

Iran's Nuclear Programme: The US Strategy

UPDATE 2100 GMT: Sometimes I wonder if a psychiatrist should just diagnose schizophrenia in the patient called the US Administration. Earlier today, we cited one "senior official" who said the US did not see an imminent threat from Tehran because of technical issues in its nuclear program. David Broder of The Washington Post, however, has a different "private" view from another official: "A senior administration official, dining with a small group of reporters two weeks ago, say that in his judgment, within a year to 18 months, after the diplomats have played out their hands at the United Nations, we will face a showdown with Iran."

Perhaps the two views can be reconciled with "no war now, maybe war later", but my impression is that yet again we have an Administration at war with itself over whether to talk to Iran or beat it over the head.

***

EA has learned that one of the Obama administration's most senior officials dealing with the Iran nuclear issue revealed the core of the US strategy at a private gathering in Washington this week.



Officially the US is still interested in the talks for "third-party enrichment" of Iran's uranium. However, Washington assessed that Iran has been able to enrich enough uranium since the autumn discussions that the amount being considered is superfluous. Washington, therefore, is less eager to pursue the deal.

(I find the statement somewhat curious, as the advantages of a deal are as much political --- getting an easing of US-Iran relations --- as they are technical. I sense there may be broader reasons for Washington's stall on talks.)

While pointing to Iran's enrichment of uranium, the official said Washington believes the "nuclear clock has slowed down significantly" because of technical difficulties in the enrichment program. (I suspect this may refer to the limitations on Iran's centrifuges.)

Therefore, the official said, "We have more time before the Israelis feel the need to take action."

(Some observers believe that comment indicates a tacit understanding in the administration that Israel will eventually reach the point of action and the U.S. will not stand in its way. My own reading is that the statement tries to take the heat out of the "Israeli dimension" by indicating there is no imminent threat to the Israelis from a militarised nuclear programme in Tehran.)

US and Israel: New Secret Talks?

According to a senior Israeli official talks with American officials have been conducted throughout the past week by phone and via the Israeli Embassy in Washington. The top Middle East policy specialist at the White House, Dan Shapiro, also arrived in Israel Wednesday on a secret visit.

So far, the Obama Administration has demanded that the Netanyahu Government drop construction in East Jerusalem for at least four months. However, neither the White House nor the Prime Minister's Office have officially announced the talks or even Shapiro's arrival in Israel, let alone the substance of the discussions.

A report in the Wall Street Journal says that Prime Minister Netanyahu rejected the demand on East Jerusalem, but he did agree to other confidence-building gestures, such as allowing the opening of PA institutions in the eastern part of the city, transferring additional West Bank territory to Palestinian security control, and agreeing to discuss all the core issues of the conflict during proximity talks with the Palestinian Authority.

The Prime Minister's Bureau said on Thursday that Netanyahu Government had delivered over the weekend its most substantive response yet to the US request, confirming that Netanyahu has rejected the Obama administration's demands to freeze construction in East Jerusalem.

Responding to West Jerusalem’s official argument that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not the heart of the problems in the region, Obama's national security adviser, Jim Jones, stated on Wednesday that progress toward Middle East peace would help thwart Iran's ambitions by preventing it from "cynically" using the conflict to divert attention from its nuclear program. He said:

One of the ways that Iran exerts influence in the Middle East is by exploiting the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict.

Advancing this peace would ... help prevent Iran from cynically shifting attention away from its failures to meet its obligations.

Seeking to resolve the conflict, Barack Obama sent a rare letter to Alan Solow, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. To gain the confidence of the Diaspora Jews and consolidate Washington’s position in Israel, Obama said:

I am sure you can distinguish between the noise and distortion about my views that have appeared recently, and the actual approach of my administration toward the Middle East.

All sides should understand that our commitment to Israel is unshakeable and that no wedge will be driven between us.

Middle East Analysis: Cairo's Nuclear Move, Syria's Reaction

At last week's Obama-led summit on nuclear security, amidst speculation that many Arab and Muslim states would launch an ambush upon Israel's nuclear weapons, the deputy prime minister Dan Meridor summed up the conference: "Thus far, there has been no ambush."

On the same day, President Obama called on Israel to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty as he called on other states, such as India, North Korea, and Pakistan, to join:

Israel Document: Strategic Affairs Minister on “Existential Struggle” and No Concessions

Whether we're talking about Israel or any other country, we think that becoming part of the NPT is important. And that, by the way, is not a new position. That's been a consistent position of the United States government, even prior to my administration.

Haaretz subsequently quoted Western envoys reporting that Israel may come under new pressure next month at a UN meeting on atomic weapons, with the US, Britain and France considering support for Egypt's call for a zone in the Middle East free of nuclear arms. In a working paper that reportedly Egypt submitted to fellow treaty members, Cairo said the conference should formally express regret that "no progress has taken place on the implementation of the (1995) resolution" that backed the idea of "a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons as well as other weapons of mass destruction" and should call for an international treaty conference by 2011.

Although Israel's UN mission had no official comment on the Egyptian proposal, an Israeli diplomat told Reuters the Jewish state will be ready to discuss issues such as a nuclear-weapon-free zone once there is peace in the Middle East. One Western official said:

They [the Israelis] have an interest here. If the Arabs get something they want on Israel, they'll be more supportive on Iran's nuclear program and further sanctions. Israel would benefit from that.

So for Egypt, the nuclear move is a "win-win" situation. It can increase its stock through giving the image of "driving Israel to the corner" and by leading an international gathering through which new and stronger pressure can be put on Tehran.

However, to establish this leading role in the Arab world, Cairo needs the support of a very significant country:  Syria, which is the "closest" ally of Iran and the greatest conventionally-armed "threat" to Israel. With Saudi Arabia breaking the ice with Damascus, Syrian President Bashar Assad was due Tuesday night to land in Egypt.

What is Syria seeking from this "alliance"? Damascus would gain from Egyptian support to counter Israel's allegations that Syria transferred Scud missiles to Lebanon's Hezbollah. Secondly, Cairo, in its "big brother" role mediating Palestinian affairs, could increase Syria's influence in the Gaza Strip.