Israel-Russia: Handshakes over Iran, Tensions over Hamas

Israeli-Russian relations continue to run along a knife edge. President Shimon Peres used a reception with Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves on Monday to praise Russia for adopting a more aggressive policy on Iran. He praised Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, speaking at the G-20 meeting in Toronto, for noting the “worrying” US assessments that Iran could build a nuclear weapon within two years.

“There is no doubt that this declaration cannot be taken lightly, because until now, Russia had doubts about Iran’s seriousness and ability to build a nuclear bomb,” Peres said. “Therefore, Medvedev’s declaration is a serious change, and Israel appreciates this development.”

Israel Analysis: Dark Clouds Over Netanyahu Before Washington Visit (Yenidunya)

However, in a meeting in Israel on Tuesday, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman reportedly told his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov that West Jerusalem opposed Moscow's recent advances toward Hamas.

Lavrov countered that it was impossible to ignore the Islamist organisation's popularity amongst Palestinians, particularly in Gaza. He continued: "Russia is doing the right thing by contacting Hamas."

Faced with the Hamas-Palestine issue overtaking the goodwill from its stance on Iran, the Kremlin is using another tactic now by bringing in the members of the Arab League. Before moving to the West Bank, Lavrov said at a press conference that the Quartet mechanism --- the US, UN, European Union, and Russia --- needed to be expanded to be more effective.

Which is another way of saying to West Jerusalem: the ball's back in your court.

Iran Special: The Significance of the "Universities Crisis" (Verde)

UPDATE 0600 GMT: Nooshabeh Amiri, writing in Rooz English, offers a powerful opinion piece on last week's demonstrations, "Shut the Majlis, oh Brother!"

---

Mr Verde writes for EA:

"Crisis" in a country is not usually associated with a debate over higher education. The military, the police, radio and TV, the courts, elections: these are the battlegrounds that come to mind.

Make no mistake, however. The current dispute in Iran over Islamic Azad University is important. It is significant not just because Ahmadinejad and Co. want to oust former President Hashemi Rafsanjani and his allies from the university's management. It is an indicator of other possible trouble within the regime.

First, the beginner's guide to the current dispute:

- The Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, headed by Ahmadinejad in his capacity as President, decides to overturn last summer's decision of the Azad University Board to make itself into a trust. The SCCR also said it would appoint new trustees.

- Azad University takes legal measures, and a court issues an injunction against the SCCR decision.

- The following day, the Parliament votes for legislation that will in effect block attempts by the SCCR to hand over the management of Azad University to the Government.

- There is a demonstration by a small number of regime-organized "students" outside the Majlis. The demonstrators shout slogans against the Parliament, the MPs, and the Speaker Ali Larijani. Some of the signs they are carrying are regarded as so rude that the Iranian Students News Agency blurs out the slogans. It is reported that one of the speakers at the gathering threatened that they would bombard the Majlis (as the Russian Colonel Liakhov had done on behalf of Mohammad Ali Shah in 1908).

- The following day the Parliament votes to annul its previous decision, even though the original bill is still in the process of being vetted by the Guardian Council. During the debate MPs insult each other and Ali Motahari claims that the pro-Ahmadinejad Koochakzadeh (who is close to Ahmadinejad) is of Russian descent and has changed his name from Koochakov. Motahari later claims that, during the debate, Koochatzadeh/Koochakov physically attacked him.

- After a request from Iran's Prosecutor General Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei, the head of judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, orders another court to review the injunction against the Council.

A bit of background:

The Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution was created by the Islamic Republic in the early 1980s, as part of the Cultural Revolution that shut universities for a few years. Since then, both Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei have said that the the decisions of the SCCR should be considered as the law of the land and that the other state organs, including the Majlis, should not contradict these decisions.

The Supreme Leaders' declarations stand against the Constitution, under which the Majlis has the authority to pass laws on all matters. The Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

Conclusion? The judge who ordered the injunction, in his interpretation of the Constitution, defied Ayatollah Khamenei’s standing orders regarding the decisions of the SCCR.

On the day the Parlaiment was debating the original law, one MP, citing the Supreme Leader’s views about the SCCR’s powers, tabled a motion to stop debate. MPs voted against the proposal.

Some more background:

When legislation is passed by the Majles, it has to be vetted by the Guardian Council. The Council will return legislation that it deems to be against the Constitution and/or Sharia law. At this stage the legislation is returned to Parliament.

If the Majlis tries to accommodate the views of the Council, the legislation is vetted again. If Parliament refuses to accommodate the Council, the legislation goes to the Expediency Council. In such a case, the Expediency Council’s decision will become law.

One issue that stands out:

At the present time, two laws have been pass by the Majles within two days, with the second negating the first. This does not look like confidence. It looks like chaos and crisis.

The demonstration in front of the Majlis:

Was Ayatollah Khamenei behind the demonstration, its slogans, and speeches, or at least supportive of it? He certainly did not condemn it, as he has the post-election demonstrations including millions of Iranians.

Why resort to the embarrassing, costly, chaotic, and illegal tactic of organizing the demonstration outside the Majlis? Why not ensure that the Council of Guardians rejects the legislation, returns it to Parliament, and then ensure that the Majlis votes in the way the Government wants?

Surely the regime should be able to rely on the trusted Council of Guardians. And the current Parliament has been filtered through two elections, with the Guardian Council weeding out the candidacy of almost all reformist “troublemakers”. (Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani said that this is Khamenei’s Majlis. Note that he forgot to mention that the Majlis is supposed to belong to the people.)

Yet it appears that, despite this supposed control of the legislative process, even a heavily-sanitized Majlis is no longer reliable, so rent-a-thugs have to be paraded in front of the Majlis and insult their own MPs.

Implications:

We are witnessing the use of regime demonstrators against an increasing number of people and institutions. That indicates, that for some reason, the regime’s internal structures are failing. Amidst what appears to be a serious crisis within the Islamic Republic,its institutions are unable to resolve it; at times they seem to be making it worse.

We are seeing increasingly angry speeches by Khamenei, directed at regime insiders, and comical announcements such as:

- It was announced aid ships were being sent to Gaza and escorted by the Revolutionary Guards. Then it was announced that no escort would be provided. Then it was announced that no aid ship would be sent, ostensibly to avoid war with Israel. Then it was announced that the ships did not go because Egypt had refused them permission to pass through the Suez Canal, only for Cairo to deny Tehran's claim.

- We have wildly varying timescales about self sufficiency in production of petrol: from 24 hours to more than two years. (The list is long and tiresome)

If all of this does not indicate a crisis, what would?

Israel Analysis: Dark Clouds Over Netanyahu Before Washington Visit (Yenidunya)

On Tuesday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Labor Party colleagues that there was close and intimate security cooperation between Israel and the US, with both parties waiting for the next steps in the diplomatic arena to ensure a long-term “special security relationship” and defend Israel’s military superiority in the region. Barak added that only a “decisive Israeli effort” to break the diplomatic stalemate over Palestine “can free Israel from the international siege.”

Later in the day, in a conference at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies, Barak talked about withdrawal and disengagement from Gaza, predicting: “Israel will have to take additional unilateral steps.”

Israel-Russia: Handshakes over Iran, Tensions over Hamas
Palestine Latest: Israel to Use “United Jerusalem” Card against Obama’s Gaza Demand?

In advance of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's meeting with President Barack Obama, this was a warning to the Government.

There has been speculation that Labor could leave the coalition if Netanyahu failed to control the coalition or to expand it by bringing in the "centrist" Kadima. Barak underlined the significance of the freeze on Israeli settlements in the West Bank,  set to expire at the end of September, and US mid-term Congressional elections in November, saying that the next few months will be “certainly important”.

Despite Barak's warning, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman showed no change in his party's agenda: "There is absolutely no chance of reaching a Palestinian state until the year 2012. One can dream and imagine, but we are far from reaching an agreement."

It is not just Lieberman but also Israeli conservatives hindering Netanyahu's bargaining position. Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat approved the plan calling for the razing of 22 Palestinian homes to make room for a tourist center in the Silwan neighborhood of East Jerusalem.

According to documents obtained by Haaretz, the department which inspects building plans before  submission to the planning committee found no less than 250 defects in the Silwan plan. Just a week before the plan was approved, Jerusalem city engineer Shlomo Eshkol submitted a list of 30 criticisms of the plan and demanded significant changes.

The Jerusalem municipality's legal adviser, Yossi Havilio, also found that the plan did not meet legal standards. To get around the difficulty, Barkat privately hired a lawyer to oversee the plan on behalf of the municipality.

All of these internal complications arise as US special envoy George Mitchell, before the fifth round of talks due to start on Thursday, has expressed to Netanyahu his wish to see more movement by Israel on core issues.

A senior U.S. administration official told Haaretz : "We want things to move faster." Then he added, "To date there has been insufficient progress."

Middle East Inside Line: Coalition Changes in Israel?; Netanyahu's War for Legitimacy; Israel Warns Lebanon

Lieberman-Netanyahu War?: Tension is increasing between Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The latter needs the opposition, "centrist" party Kadima in the coalition, butKadima's leader Tzipi Livni wants the Foreign Ministry.

Lieberman doesn't seem to be too receptive. On Tuesday, he told reporters that Kadima could join the coalition as long as Kadima members agreed to support a land and population swap as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He continued:

This coalition will not change. We are willing to consider a shift in the coalition only if the entire coalition, including Kadima, supports the concept of a populated land swap rather than the concept of land for peace.

Israel’s Political/Military Alternative to Turkey: Romania?
Gaza Latest: Is Egypt Going to Make a Stand Against Israel? (Yenidunya)

Lieberman has a second condition as well: Kadima will agree to the continuation of construction when the freeze in the West Bank ends in September.

What about Netanyahu? The pressure on his shoulders is increasing day by day.

Here is the latest sign: leaders of Netanyahu's coalition partner Labor have said that, unless Kadima joins the government soon, they may not continue in government. That in turn could start a war between Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu and Netanyahu's Likud, ending up with an early election.

On Thursday, Ha'aretz headlined, "Striking Shift: Complete Lift of Gaza Blockade". According to Israel's Channel Two television, Lieberman proposed to his Italian counterpart, Franco Frattini, that Frattini head a delegation of European diplomats to the Gaza Strip. Although this is a change of policy but a change of tactics, Lieberman might be willing to extend his hand to Netanyahu at this first stage with a "concession".

Netanyahu's War for Israel's "Attacked" Legitimacy: Haaretz learned late Tuesday that Arab and Muslim members of the United Nations, led by Malaysia, are working toward assembling an emergency UN session to discuss Israel's last month raid of a Gaza-bound flotilla.

This was enough for Netanyahu. On Wednesday, during a Knesset discussion on Israel's collapsing international status,  Netanyahu warned  that West Jerusalem's legitimacy is being attacked. He said:

They want to strip us of the natural right to defend ourselves. When we defend ourselves against rocket attack, we are accused of war crimes. We cannot board sea vessels when our soldiers are being attacked and fired upon, because that is a war crime.

They are essentially saying that the Jewish nation does not have the right to defend itself against the most brutal attacks and it doesn't have the right to prevent additional weapons from entering territories from which it is attacked.

Then he targeted the "source of trouble":

The Palestinian side promoted the Goldstone report, organized boycotts, and tried to prevent our entrance into the OECD. The Palestinian Authority has no intentions of engaging in direct talks with us.

I call on [PA President Mahmoud] Abbas, yet again, to enter direct talks with us, because there is no other way to solve the conflict between us without direct dialogue. How could we possibly live side by side if they can't even enter the same room as us?

Lastly, Netanyahu called on activists to go to Iran, not to Gaza:

I call on all human rights activists in the world - -- go to Tehran. That's where there is a human rights violation.

Israel Warns Lebanon: Respondingto Lebanon parliament speaker Nabih Berri's  warning to his Government to start exploring offshore natural gas reserves, claiming that otherwise Israel would claim the resources, Israel's Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau told Bloomberg that Israel would "not hesitate to use force and strength to protect not only the rule of law but the international maritime law".,

Lebanon's former Prime Minister and current member of parliament, Fouad Siniora, also urged the Lebanese government to take the issue of offshore gas reserves in the country's territorial waters seriously.

Gaza Latest: Is Egypt Going to Make a Stand Against Israel? (Yenidunya)

Israel's "Gaza" and Egypt's Manoeuvres: Israeli officials have stated their concerns over a confrontation with a Gaza-bound Iranian ship if Egypt does not prevent the ship from passing through the Suez Canal.

Egyptian official Mohammad Abdelwahab responded that the ship would not be halted.

The immediate explanation? Egyptian authorities do want to carry the main responsibility for halting aid to Gaza, especially following the passage of  12 United Stateswarships and at least one Israeli ship from the Suez Canal towards the Red Sea on last Friday.

Gaza Latest: Israel Warns Iranian & Lebanese Flotillas; UN Calls for Lifting of Blockade

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Wednesday accused Israel of trying to make Egypt carry the blame for the situation in Gaza. He said: "We reject attempts by Israel, the occupying force, to free itself of responsibility towards the strip and place it on Egypt."

There may be another reason for Cairo to give such a direct response to West Jerusalem. Last week, Hamas said that it would only accept the Egyptian initiative for Palestinian reconciliatoin if Cairo agreed to some changes. Egypt may be reading that statement not as defiance but as willingness of Hamas willing to negotiate over its relations with the rival party Fath.

There is a bigger question, however. Egypt's current manoeuvres follow years of acceptance of, even cooperation with, Israel's unwillingness to improve the situation of Gazans by lifting the economic siege. After all, it was not only Israeli crossings that were closed or restricted; there is also Egypt's border with Gaza at Rafah.

Is Mubarak really going to say now, "We are exerting all efforts to lift the Israeli blockade on Gaza"?