Israel-Palestine: US Push with "Guarantee Letters" for Agreement within 2 Years

On Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mideast special envoy George Mitchell will meet Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, and Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh.

Following the meetings in Washington, Mitchell will travel on Sunday to Paris and Brussels for meetings with his counterparts from the "Quartet" of Middle East peacemakers (the US, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia )and European diplomats before a forthcoming visit to the region.

UPDATED Israel: Loyalty, Lives, and the Arab Population

During his Europe visit, Mitchell expected carry letters of "guarantees" outlining the US position to both Palestine and Israel. According to these "guarantees", Washington will consider the Palestinian demand for a return to the pre-1967 borders s and a full halt to expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jeruslaem. Israel's concern over retention of sovereignty over some of its settlements and a limited "right of return" of Palestinians into Israel will also be guaranteed by Washington.

On Wednesday evening, Mitchell appeared on the US Public Broadcasting System. In the transcript of the interview, this passage jumps out. Referring to Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's recent statement that there could be no peace within two years, Mitchell said:

We think that the negotiation should last no more than two years, once begun we think it can be done within that period of time. We hope the parties agree. Personally I think it can be done in a shorter period of time.

Mitchell added that Israel also must advance negotiations with Syria.

Israel and Iran: Moving From War Scenarios to "Tough Sanctions"

Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon is signalling the change in Israel's priorities regarding Tehran. Moving from his previous hawkish position, indicating no hesitation in striking Iran's nuclear facilities, without Washington's help and/or green light, Ayalon has started using the term "tough sanctions".

Last year, when Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that his Israeli counterpart Shimon Peres had given assurances of no military option against Iran. Ayalon said: "It is certainly not a guarantee. I don't think that, with all due respect, the Russian president is authorized to speak for Israel and certainly we have not taken any option off the table."

The Latest from Iran (8 January): Defeating the Wrong Questions

In November, Ayalon stated that "the one who's bluffing is Iran, which is trying to play with cards they don't have." He continued: "If Iranian behavior and conduct continues as they have exhibited so far, it is obvious that their intentions are only to buy time and procrastinate."

However, on Saturday that Ayalon declared there will be a united front as this month leads to a regime change in Iran. He said:

It is not certain that the regime in power now in Iran will be there in one year.

The world is uniting against Iran's nuclear program and within a month there will be United Nations Security Council sanctions. There is agreement in Washington, Moscow and Beijing that a nuclear Iran would destroy the current world order.

On Wednesday, Ayalon continued his remarks on the the "existential threat" of Iran and underlined the significance of tough sanctions.

Following his statement that "a nuclear Iran would destroy the world order" and that "we would see a nuclear arms race which we have never seen before," he continued: "Suffice to say that I take the American president and secretary of state at their word and they are right to say and to state that all options are on the table."

Meanwhile, Israel's Ambassador Michael Oren said Wednesday that the main goal of sanctions should be to weaken the Islamic regime and not its citizens. He spoke to CNN: "We are focused now on sanctions, not on destroying," and added:

We don't believe that sanctions will galvanize the regime, but will further drive the regime and people apart.

I'm sure that Iran under different leadership will have different relationship with Israel.

Iran: "What is This Opposition?" Right Answers to Wrong Questions

EA's Josh Shahryar offers this analysis, also published in The Huffington Post:

On Wednesday in The New York Times, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett attempted perhaps the most stinging dismissal of the importance of the ongoing opposition protests in Iran.

Bloggers and other foreign policy experts refuted many of the Leveretts' specific points, especially their overestimation of government-sponsored protests and underestimation of opposition demonstrations. [EA's immediate reaction is in Wednesday's updates.] I have covered the numbers on my blog, but a very good second opinion is offered by Daniel Drezner in ForeignPolicy.com.

Drezner and Kevin Sullivan of Real Clear Politics set a wider challenge, however, when they argue that, beyond the Leveretts' distortions, there are "good" analytical questions.

Those questions need a response, not necessarily because they are "good", but because if they are not addressed, the Leveretts may get away with a blatant attempt at skewing facts to hammer in their argument that President Barack Obama should forget about the possibility of regime change in Iran.

This is how the Leveretts set out their three queries:

Those who talk so confidently about an "opposition" in Iran as the vanguard for a new revolution should be made to answer three tough questions: First, what does this opposition want? Second, who leads it? Third, through what process will this opposition displace the government in Tehran? In the case of the 1979 revolutionaries, the answers to these questions were clear. They wanted to oust the American-backed regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and to replace it with an Islamic republic. Everyone knew who led the revolution: Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who despite living in exile in Paris could mobilize huge crowds in Iran simply by sending cassette tapes into the country. While supporters disagreed about the revolution's long-term agenda, Khomeini's ideas were well known from his writings and public statements. After the shah's departure, Khomeini returned to Iran with a draft constitution for the new political order in hand. As a result, the basic structure of the Islamic Republic was set up remarkably quickly.

Let's see what ancient China has to offer before I add my assessment. Back in the olden days, this man traveled hundreds of miles to meet a Taoist sage somewhere in China. After the necessary greetings, he said, "I have come a long way to ask you something. What is the answer to the ultimate question in the universe?" The sage smiled and barked, "Well, that is not what you should be asking. You should ask: is there an answer to the ultimate question in the universe?"

In this parable, the first question posed by the Leveretts is fair: what does this opposition want?

Well, certainly not what Mir Hossein Mousavi wants. Even if we ignore the protesters' repeated calls for the freedom of detainees and other chants that call for help from Imam Hossein against tyranny, I think "Down with the Dictator" --- heard for the last six months, heard loudly and clearly --- is a slogan that embodies the demands. President Ahmadinejad Must Go.

In recent months, however, protesters have also widely started chanting against Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The funeral of Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri was filled with noise denouncing the Supreme Leader. Ashura's protests days later were condemned by the regime for committing the same offense.

Certainly, Mousavi is still bargaining with the government. However, people on the street aren't ready to chicken out of their demands, even in the face of gunfire. If the government hadn't forcefully stopped them from presenting their demands through the media, you would have already seen that clearly.

The second question of the Leveretts is one the Taoist sage would have barked at: Who leads it?

The two questioners attempt to fool us into believing that their enquiry is fair by paralleling it with the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Revolutions need leaders and the current protesters don't have one --- quod erat demonstrandum, this is not a revolution.

The first assumption is not true, however: it is not a prerequisite for revolutions to have leaders. Consider the February Revolution of 1917 that overthrew Tsar Nicholas I of Russia. Academics are generally in agreement that it was without what we today consider a definite and centralized leadership. Almost a century later, if you envisage scattered activists working together to bring people out to protest, then Iran has no shortage of those. Mousavi, often considered the de-facto "leader" of the current protesters -- didn't even sanction or support protests that were joined by hundreds of thousands in Ashura.

The third question of the Leveretts made me smirk because it has no immediate relevance: through what process will this opposition displace the government in Tehran?

Well, I wish I knew. But just because the protesters' demands have not been met yet, does not mean that we need to figure how they are going to achieve them. That is their task, a quest for which they've been coming out onto the streets of Iran, chanting as loud as they can, getting arrested, and spilling blood for the past six months to show their commitment to achieving those demands.

Who knows what might overthrow the regime? Maybe the Islamic Republic of Iran Army (Artesh) will finally step in. Maybe millions will turn up and storm Khamenei and Ahmadinejad's house and the parliament. Maybe the violence will get so rampant that the leaders of Iran will simply board a plane to Moscow and flee. This we don't know.

But we do know that simply because they have not met their goals yet, does not mean they won't in the future. The Leveretts' attempt to parallel this movement with the Revolution of 1979 tries to force us into believing that we need to know how, but we really don't.

When the change happens, we will know. Until then, all we can do is support the opposition because they're not just fighting for political rights, but for their human rights. If President Obama believes the Leveretts and discounts the power of the Green Movement, he risks making enemies of the open and secular Iran of the future, just like Jimmy Carter did when he discounted the Revolution of 1979. (Not to mention the fact that he would be guilty of legitimizing an illegitimate regime.)

The Leveretts' piece made me really grateful to an old professor of mine, Dr. Rick Schubert, bless him. Dr. Schubert gave me a D in Philosophy 101, but he taught me what now has become my Golden Rule: questions are equally as important as the answer to them, so be careful before you ask. Maybe the Leveretts should attend one of his classes.

UPDATED Israel: Loyalty, Lives, and the Arab Population

UPDATE 7 January: The bill proposing that the state enforce equal allocation of land to Jews and Arabs was not only rejected by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation but also by the Knesset on Wednesday.

Therefore, the Reception Committees of Israeli Communities can decide who will reside in their towns and can prevent Israeli Arabs from living in the same town.

*** ***

On Sunday, the Ministerial Legislation Committee of the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, discussed a bill for legislators to swear a "loyalty oath" to the Jewish character of Israel. At the end, the bill was passed to the coalition leaders due to the fear that the Labor Party would veto it.

The bill, proposed by Israel Beiteinu MK David Rotem, would change the oath from "I pledge loyalty to the State of Israel," to "I pledge loyalty to the State of Israel as a Jewish, Zionist, democratic state, and to its symbols and values". Rotem explained the aim of the proposal: "It is to make sure MKs are loyal to Israel as a Jewish state. Anyone who doesn't want to be faithful should not be an MK."

The bill emerged after MK Taleb a-Sanaa (United Arab List-Ta'al) allowed, via his cellphone, Gaza leader Ismail Haniya to address the protesters at the Erez crossing of Israel. Rotem added:

Anyone who saw and heard recently remarks made be MKs [Taleb] A-Sana and [Jamal] Zehalka who vilified the defense minister and allowed the biggest enemy of the State of Israel to speak to the public via a mobile phone owned by the Knesset and the state, understands intuitively that there is a need to bring MKs to be loyal to the state.

More importantly, another bill proposing that the state enforce equal allocation of land to Jews and Arabs was rejected. The measure was intended to counter a bill, passed two weeks ago, which states that reception committees of Israeli communities can decide who will reside in their towns. The author of the bill, MK Ahmed Tibi, said:

Yet again, the Israeli government has proven that it is avoiding the principle of civil equality.... [The Government] ignores Arabs' rights, and hasn't approved the building of a new Arab village since 1948. The government failed at the challenge I placed before it, and that saddens me.

Since the foundation of the state, the Israel Lands Administration is solely used as Jewish land administration. The director of the Israel Lands Administration has used all the tactics, with the help of the Jewish Agency, to allocate state land only to Jews. Despite the bitter attempt over the decades, not even one Arab town has been established since the state's foundation. Therefore a bill must be passed which stipulates that the Israel Lands Administration will serve all the state's citizens without discrimination on religion or nationality, and will promise an equal allocation of land to better the Arab population of Israel.

Today on EA (7 January 2010)

Iran: We've caught up with all the latest news this evening on our LiveBlog.

Josh Shahryar lets loose his frustrations at Will Heaven: "Next time, if you’re going to write on this subject, please, inform yourself about the many terms you used and try to show the real picture." Scott Lucas offers another perspective with a tribute to the bravery of two Iranian Twitterers no longer with us.

Videos from last night's international football game between Singapore and Iran are posted in a special section. Iranian State TV reportedly cut the soundtrack to block the sound of the very political, pro-green, chants being heard throughout the stadium.

Israel/Palestine: EA's Ali Yenidunya analyses the various statements and asks whether change could be in the air over the peace talks.

Israel: We report on an article in today's Jerusalem Post which compares and contrasts the current Prime Minister  Netanyahu with former PM Ariel Sharon.

Gaza: Following a call from Hamas rulers on Wednesday, protesting at the delay of an international aid convoy, a policeman has died and many activists have been injured following clashes between them and Egyptian forces.