Palestine Video & Analysis: Saeb Erekat's Speech at Birmingham (Yenidunya/Baghdady)

Ali Yenidunya and Christina Baghdady write:

On 23 March, the chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, Dr. Saeb Erakat spoke about the current political stalemate at the University of Birmingham. This prompted a lively and open debate, with Erakat encouraging those who attended to challenge him. The topics covered were broad, including: the Palestinian Israeli conflict, including the most recent exchange of maps between the former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas; the relationship and influence of external powers on the region; and the problem with Hamas.

Middle East Inside Line: Is Washington Scaring the Israeli Government?
US-Israel: The Big Fight Within Obama Administration — Ross v. Mitchell, NSC v. State Department

Video sections are interspersed amongst the analysis:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-g3qzellKw[/youtube]

Peace talks with Israel

Stating that the recent proximity talks should be based on a generally agreed framework consisting of core issues, in particular borders, Erakat suggested a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders with agreed swaps of territory.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PddtMfvZXWY[/youtube]

Erakat outlined the counter proposal, in response to the December 2008 offer of the Olmert Government in Israel, on the border swaps (part  3 of the video). Although the satellite images show that 1.2% of the West Bank is occupied by Israeli settlements, the Olmert government provided a map in December 2008 annexing 6.5% of settlement land (in return of giving 5.8%). The Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas provided a counter-map approving an annexation of 1.9% of the total land. Erekat noted that no agreement was achieved, and the problem is yet to be solved.

The questions remains:  what is the purpose of Israeli settlements and their expansion in the Palestinian territories since 1967? The term "security" is constantly reproduced by Israeli advocates. The Palestinian Authority also invokes "security", but it does so to consolidate legitimacy not just within the eyes of Palestinians but also in the international arena, since interaction with a stateless, non-territorial Palestinian group is more problematic compared to that with Israel. In the absence of a level playing field between Israel and the Palestinian territories and of Israel accepting conditions for the end of settlement construction, there is little hope for both parties to understand each other’s needs.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHrMO8PJzWo[/youtube]

Erakat pointed out the cost of war must be greater than that of peace to achieve a peace settlement. Was this a subtle hint that Israel is hoping to benefit further from a lack of peace? Following US Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel, 1600 new housing units were approved by the Jerusalem municipality. Then, on 24 March, hours before the Obama-Netanyahu meeting in the White House, the Jerusalem municipality announced final approval for construction of 20 apartments in a controversial hotel in east Jerusalem.

That is where we come to the point of crisis. Despite Washington’s pressure on Israel to announce a moratorium in East Jerusalem if not a permanent freeze, the Israeli authorities are still ignoring calls to stop settlement expansion. Last week Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told  his ministers in the weekly Cabinet meeting: “As far as we are concerned, building in Jerusalem is like building in Tel Aviv.”

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLjW27mh2WI[/youtube]

This crisis came out in Erekat’s words: “If Israel does not want a two-state solution, if they want to call my home town Jericho in its Hebrew name Yeriho, if they want to call Nablus in its Hebrew Shechem, if they want to call al Quds, Yerushalayim... [it] is destroying the two-state solution.” (part 2 of video)

External influence

To achieve peace in a region of conflict, a mediator may be useful, but if the mediator is not effective or the peace process reaches a stalemate, then external influences and distant events can adversely affect the situation. Erekat commented, "When bombs are falling in Iraq and Afghanistan, bombs are falling in my home in Jerusalem....When bombs fall in Kandahar, it also falls in my home in Jerusalem."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4Lhmxf6qnU[/youtube]

For the mediator to conduct their role effectively, they must be on good terms with the parties in conflict. The US has been that mediator with the 1993 Oslo process, but their position --- after a second intifada, the attack on Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, and now a potential third intifada  --- is now strained.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cABGRWvjhEg[/youtube]

Erekat noted the issue of "security" for the US,  "This is a wake up call....The US take bodies wrapped in the national flag back to the US daily... They do not need anyone to seek security for them." This "wake-up call" has arguably brought a renewed push for peace, with  talks much more regular under the Obama Presidency than under the previous Bush administration.

However, Erakat pointed out that the Palestinian government had chosen the EU for nation- building, security talks, and mediation, and it wasn’t because they "love them". According to Erekat, the EU have  credibility and can provide sufficient financial support to the Palestinian territories. In addition, the EU has relatively stable relations with the US as it faces its "wake-up call".

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTxKOFK5Bec[/youtube]

When one looks at the options available to the Palestinians, they have little choice Egypt and Jordan have arguably been effective as mediators; however, their financial contribution to nation-building as well as their credibility is on a par with the EU.

The United Nations, another option given their role in the Quartet (US-EU-UN-Russia) are not that close to Israel and the Palestinian territories. Moreover, it has failed on previous occasions to enforce the notion of the collective upon the action of a state, as in the ability to prevent the US-UK invasion of Iraq.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-iDUBxpTUA[/youtube]

Russia would be an interesting but highly unlikely choice as mediator. Russia has military links with Iran and thus with Syria and Hezbollah. That is a suspect list of alliances for the US, which would prefer the Palestinian government to choose the EU over Russian involvement.

For Erekat, democracy is the second pillar, after “just” solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, of the fight against “extremism”. He stated, "Anyone who says Arab world is not ready for democracy is a racist.”

That assertion faces the reality of governmental structures such as monarchies in Saudi Arabia and Oman, constitutional monarchies in Bahrain and Jordan; constitutional emirates in Kuwait and Qatar, a federation of emirates in United Arab Emirates, an authoritarian regime in Syria, and a “half-democracy” in Iraq.

Erekat says that “democracy is democracy”, regardless of how it arrives,  but that cannot guarantee social change and a political agenda for his outcome. Indeed, beyond the Arab world, does the US want this? Which country has been the closest ally of Washington? Israel or Saudi Arabia?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2exUU_IB3U[/youtube]

The Problem of Hamas

Dr. Erekat harshly criticized Hamas’s policy following its victory in the last Gazan elections. He described Hamas’s existence in the Gaza Strip as a coup d’etat and emphasized that “democracy in Palestine did not fail but Hamas failed”. Referring to the Quartet’s demands (recognition of the State of Israel, renouncing “terrorism”, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations including the "Road Map"), Erekat blamed Hamas for not acting as a responsible government.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NnouyQA3ys[/youtube]

Yet, what is to be done? Erekat says that nations must go and tell Hamas to sign the reconciliation document. But how? In an aggressive manner? Erekat himself said that the peace talks had collapsed due to Israel’s Operation Cast Lead against Gaza in December 2008.

So, can Erekat mean that the only solution to peace is through dialogue in the region? Perhaps, given Erekat's reference to Tehran. Unlike his President, Mahmoud Abbas, who had blamed Iran for blocking reconciliation between his Fatah organization and Hamas, Erekat said that Iran should not be seen as a threat.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aF86-iuAKQ[/youtube]

How is this possible? Israel’s Deputy Ambassador to the UK, Talya Lador-Fresher, in her own speech at Birmingham in March, said Israel’s official policy is not to help the Gazans develop themselves economically. West Jersualem's position is explicit: unless there is a reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah, Israel will never intervene and talk to Hamas.

At a time when both Israel and Egypt show their teeth to Hamas, who is supposed to put pressure on the Israelis to show flexibility? The EU or the US? Given Israel’s “(in)security needs”, and its claim that it has suffered since the unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, urging West Jerusalem to sit at a table with Hamas is more difficult than having Israel and the Palestinian Authority at the same table.

There is just one solution: instead of indirect pressure from Washington, the Obama Administration should start the same strategy they have pursued with Damascus to get a reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas as soon as possible. This would not only help institutions produce an antidote to “insecurity requirements” but also bring an increase in the pressure on the State of Israel to reconsider the extent of its “concessions” on core issues.

The "Violent Semi-Peace": Elections in Iraq, Escalation in Afghanistan

This weekend Iraqis turned out in the millions to vote in their 2010 parliamentary elections. By most accounts, it was a relative success. There were very few instances of fraud or polling issues reported. Several prominent religious leaders, including Moqtada al-Sadr, issued calls for Iraqis to defy "the enemies of Iraq" and cast their vote. And by mid-day, the government eased security restrictions, such as the ban on vehicles in Baghad, although security at polling centers remained tight.

The Day After the Iraq Election: “Politics Takes Over”
Iraq LiveBlog: Election Day

Oh yeah, and 38 people were killed by violence and 73 were injured:

Baghdad bore the brunt of the violence, with around 70 mortars raining down on mostly Sunni muslim areas as Iraqis headed to the polls in the second parliamentary vote since US-led forces ousted Saddam Hussein in 2003.

A Katyusha rocket flattened a residential building in northern Baghdad, killing 12 people and wounding 10, officials said, adding that a second blast killed four when another building was targeted by a bomb.

Eight people were killed by mortar attacks or bombs in Baghdad that between them wounded 40. Thirty more were wounded in attacks in the capital and elsewhere in the country.

That's only on election day. On Friday 14 people were killed, 27 two days before that. That's what success looks like in the US occupation of Iraq. That's what we got for the bargain price of $710 billion, 4700 dead Americans and 30,000 wounded, 100,000 dead Iraqis, and millions of displaced refugees.



And that cost is still rising. We still have more 100,000 troops in Iraq until at least 2011, maybe longer, and every day Iraqis are ripped to shreds by car bombs, suicide attacks, rockets, mortars, and IEDs. This is what a New York Times op/ed piece by Michael O'Hanlon and others referred to as a "violent semi-peace":

As 2008 and the Bush presidency conclude, Iraq has settled into a kind of violent semi-peace. The population-protection strategy initiated by Gen. David Petraeus has been a remarkable success on balance. Its logic continues even though American force numbers in Iraq have nearly returned to pre-surge levels.

So a successful "population-protection strategy" leads to the "violent semi-peace." That sounds exactly like the new NATO/ISAF strategy for Afghanistan, premiered in their latest incursion into the village of Marjah in Helmand province. The Christian Science Monitor reported last month:

Top American officials say the two-day-old operation is going well, despite a setback Sunday in which a dozen Afghan civilians appear to have been killed during a rocket strike. That is significant because current US-NATO strategy puts the protection of the civilian population ahead of killing enemy fighters.

Note that slaughtering 12 Afghan people is only a "setback" to the population-protection strategy, which doesn't mean thatthe strategy of  General David Petraeus --- er, I mean, General Stanley McChrystal --- can't still be a success.

And what is that success going to look like? President Obama's envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, told us last week in his press conference:

McChrystal, yesterday in Marjah, in effect said the military phase was coming to an end. But there are always going to be IEDs. There’s always going to be terrorist attacks. Those happen in the middle of Kabul and, for that matter, they happen in the middle of major cities all over the world these days. I have a feeling, however, that some of the energy has gone out of this approach to warfare.

Just as O'Hanlon predicted, the successful military operation winds down into a "violent semi-peace". Oh, but Holbrooke has a feeling that the violence will go away. Good for him. Afghans will still languish through insufferable violence and terrorism, corruption, and a lack of basic human services (we need the schools we built for military operations) while the US Government's Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan basically wishes upon a star that the Taliban will follow his gut feeling and abandon the "approach to warfare" that has led to them commanding most of Afghanistan, as well as huge swathes of Pakistani territory.

And just like Iraq, we're paying for every bit of that "violent semi-peace". The current cost is $257 billion, 1700 dead ISAF soldiers, tens of thousands of dead civilians, countless wounded, and millions displaced, and the price just continues to climb. And for what? A "violent semi-peace" where we congratulate ourselves for only 38 people dying in a fiery explosion on voting day, and only 12 people were killed by a rocket attack for the crime of driving their truck on a road in Afghanistan.

This doesn't seem like a good deal at all.

Had enough? Become a fan of the Rethink Afghanistan campaign on Facebook and join our fight to bring the Afghanistan war to an end.

Josh Mull is the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. You can read his work on The Seminal or at Rethink Afghanistan.

Iraq LiveBlog: Election Day

1615 GMT: The Iraqi electoral commission is reporting that voter turnout is well above 50 percent in all but one of 11 provinces declared so far.

Strikingly, the turnout in Diyala, a former centre of Sunni insurgency, was more than 90 percent. That's a sharp contrast from the 2005 national elections, which were boycotted by the main Sunni parties.

1600 GMT: Iraqi security forces have announced a 10 p.m. (1900 GMT) curfew in Baghdad to allow safe transport of ballot boxes to election commission headquarters.


1552 GMT: Polls formally closed in Iraq almost two hours ago.

The official death toll from bombings and explosions today is 38, with 89 wounded. 25 died in a single incident when a Baghdad apartment building collapsed from an explosion (see 0645 GMT).

Ayad Allawi, the head of the National Accord Movement and one of the leading candidates for prime minister, gave a televised speech which both criticised the “weakness” of the government’s security operations and maintained that voters would be intimidated:

You know that Iraqis do not get scared. They will not be scared by tanks, bombings and explosions. They fought the British, as it is known, with simple weapons and kicked out the British empire. So this intimidation will not work.

1545 GMT: Back from a recording for Al Jazeera English's Inside Story on the significance of today's elections. The programme will air at 1730 GMT.

1310 GMT: Despite his disqualification from standing in the election, on the grounds that he had been sympathetic to Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party, leading Sunni politician Saleh al-Mutlaq has asked his supporters to vote:

I call you by the name of Iraq. I call on you by all the values of Iraq. No one should stay at home. All should go. These are the decisive hours. So go and trust God is with you and will reward you for all what you have paid in the past times.

1300 GMT:The spokesman for Baghdad Operations Command, Maj. Gen. Qassim Atta, has claimed that today's bombings and mortar attacks “are miserable and desperate attempts that did not affect the atmosphere of the elections”.

Atta said at least one rocket-launching site had been located and struck west of Taji, a village on the northern outskirts of Baghdad. He added that the Iraqi military had requested that US forces increase air sorties. US Apache attack helicopters and their Iraqi counterparts have been circling above the Tigris River.

1110 GMT: AFP is hinting at manipulations and pressure in Kurdistan: "The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) -- allied to Iraqi President Jalal Talabani -- and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) of regional president Massud Barzani have had a stranglehold on power for so long in Iraqi Kurdistan that people are afraid of even saying they voted for opposition parties."

In contrast, AFP correspondents are reporting long lines to vote in Sunni towns, "a positive sign for Iraq's fragile democracy".

1100 GMT: Awena is reporting that, in Erbil in Kurdistan, journalists have "civilian" escorts and are stopped when taking photographs of frauds or violations.

1010 GMT: New reports indicate that this morning's female suicide bomber (see 0715 GMT) struck a checkpoint, not a polling station.

1000 GMT: The Iraqi Independent Electoral Commission has put out an update at a press conference. More than 8000 polling centres, with 49,000 stations, opened this morning. They claim a high turnout with no serious incidents.

Ranj Alaaldin adds, "No serious fraud so far, names not on lists in some cases, security tight."

0915 GMT: A translator for AFP, as bombs go off across Baghdad while people go to the polls, "It's like a symphony."

0910 GMT: In a sign of confidence and/or defiance, the Iraqi authorities have lifted the ban on vehicles in Baghdad.

0900 GMT: Poll Sidelights....

"The BBC reports, "Eight people [were] arrested [on Saturday] following protests and scuffles at a polling station for Iraqi expatriates in north London. Police said 'spontaneous disorder' broke out at the Advait Cultural Centre, Wembley, at about 1330 GMT. The incident happened during a protest by a group which claimed it has been excluded from the polling facilities."

In Baghdad, a correspondent notes, "As usual kids use the election day to play football ON the highway."

0800 GMT: The death toll in Baghdad has risen to 24, according to the Interior Ministry.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki says the attacks "are only noise to impress voters but Iraqis are a people who love challenges and you will see that this will not damage their morale".

0730 GMT: All peaceful in Sulaimaniyah in eastern Kurdistan with no curfew on vehicles.

0720 GMT: Iraqis officials report two mortar bombs near polling stations in the western town of Ramadi and eight explosions in Fallujah. Samarra in the north has been hit by three mortars.

The official toll is now 16 people killed in attacks with more than 50 mortar rounds hitting targets across the capital.

0715 GMT: ABC News (US) correspondent reports a female suicide bomber has attacked a polling station in Al Karkh in Baghdad Province.

0710 GMT: A voter reports "huge turnout" and no apparent problems in Kirkuk.

0645 GMT: Polls opened for today's national election throughout Iraq at 7 a.m. local time (0400 GMT). More than 19 million Iraqis inside the country are eligible to vote; 4.7 million are in Baghdad. (Iraqis living outside the country have been voting throughout this week.)

Preliminary results are expected Wednesday. A summary of the parties and their leaders can be found in yesterday's entry previewing the elections.

More than 30 mortar rounds have hit Baghdad this morning, with three landing inside the "Green Zone" that includes the U.S. Embassy and many Iraqi government buildings. AFP reports that one person was killed and nine injured inside the Zone.

An explosion in the Ur neighbourhood in northeastern Baghdad has collapsed an apartment building, killing 12 people and wounding eight.

Analyst Ranj Alaaldin comments, "It's all kicking off in Baghdad,but nothing 2 serious as Iraq holds elections. Countless mortar attacks in Green Zone."

Iraq Election Special: Democracy in 6 Words or Less

With national elections in Iraq on Sunday and Juan Cole writing, "The greatest danger of these [latest] political maneuverings is that they may reignite guerrilla and militia violence in Iraq, and possibly impede the scheduled withdrawal of the US military," Newsweek's Twitter team makes everything simple:

In 6 words, tell us your thoughts on the state of democracy in Iraq. Reply @Newsweek, or email your entry to sixwords@newsweek.com