Posts Tagged ‘Netanyahu’

The Arctic Sea & the North Korea/Middle East connection

Sunday, October 18th, 2009
The ship's name may appear to be the North Korean cargo ship, Jin Jon 2, but don't be fooled: it's still the Arctic Sea.

The ship's name may appear to be the North Korean cargo ship, Jin Jon 2, but don't be fooled: it's still the Arctic Sea.

(Part Four, in an apparently never ending series.)

The last time we left off the saga of the Arctic Sea, the crew had been freed by the (once again mighty?) Russian navy–after a bizarre incidence of piracy in European water. But now, you’d think with the alleged pirates thrown into the slammer, the story would end. And yet …

What exactly befell the ship, called the Arctic Sea, is still largely unknown. In fact, nearly eight weeks after it was supposedly liberated by the Russian Navy, the ship is said to remain at sea under military control and has yet to make port for needed repairs. Four members of the ship’s crew have not been able to leave, despite repeated calls by their families for their release.

As if that wasn’t strange enough, one more bizarre tidbit has leaked out: the hijackers tried to change the name of the ship to “Jon Jin 2.” It just so happens that the name, as well as the corresponding identification number, belong to a North Korean general cargo ship. Which looks nothing like the Arctic Sea, and was docked in Angola at the time.

Photographs from the Russian Prosecutor General’s Investigative Committee document the new name, painted on the ship:

Jon Jin 2 -- nope, really, its the Arctic Sea.

The Arctic Sea's masquerade.

The second in in command insists there was nothing but lumber on the ship.

“There was only lumber on board,” Mr. Falin said. “I was personally in all areas and in the ballast tanks. There was nothing else in there. I can say this with 100 percent certainty.”

Perhaps. Hijackers, what do you have to say for yourselves?

The hijackers … continue to deny any wrongdoing, maintaining that they were ecologists conducting research in the Baltic Sea when they encountered inclement weather and sought refuge aboard the Arctic Sea.

Well, I bet those Russian government officials and investigators will give us the straight truth. The government, naturally, maintains that there was nothing but lumber aboard as well, but why would the wayward “ecologists” commandeer this ship in heavily trafficked/policed European waters? Why would Russia send warships on a frantic chase … three weeks after the hijacking? And why would they not let the crew go over a month later, nor let the ship dock? The Russian government line and Choose Your Own Ending to the Tale, after the jump.

(more…)

Updates and retreads on the Middle East Peace Process

Friday, August 21st, 2009
Palestinian P.M. Fayyad

Palestinian P.M. Fayyad (Haaretz)

In the interest of getting a little more comprehensive, to give a broader sense of what’s going on with the peace process, I’ve plucked a few compelling narratives from around the region.

For America & Egypt, CFR fellow Steven A. Cook sees rapprochement after Mubarak’s recent visit to D.C.:

The importance of the visit was in part exactly what you pointed out–that this is President Mubarak’s first visit to the United States since April 2004. There’s an effort on both sides to put the Bush years, which were characterized by mistrust and discord, behind them and to forge a new relationship. And for the United States, that means looking at the U.S.-Egypt relationship in its totality, not looking through the narrow prism of reform and democratic change and holding Egypt to certain benchmarks and conditions based on their progress towards a more democratic and open political system. That was really the major issue that came between the two countries, and what created the discord between them. There obviously were policy differences on Iraq and policy differences on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but the perception in Egypt that the United States was interfering in Egypt’s domestic affairs was something that did not sit well with Egypt’s leadership.

The word of the week in peace process affairs seems to be “rut,” which is where Obama acknowledges negotiations are currently stuck. Who is to blame? The ADL says: Mr. President, it’s not settlements. It’s Arab Rejection.

In the meantime, both sides are waiting for the other to go first:

From the Egyptian perspective, they say, “We have a peace treaty with the Israelis, we have security cooperation with the Israelis. Our head of general intelligence, Omar Suleiman, spends a lot of time working to get Lieutenant Gilad Shalit, who was taken by Hamas three years ago, free from capture. What more is it that we can possibly do?” The Arabs, and the Saudis in particular, say, “We tabled this Arab initiative in 2002 that offers Israel full normalization for withdrawal from territories, establishment of a Palestinian state, settlement of the refugee issues, all [issues] related to a final status agreement. What more is it that we can do? We don’t want to give the Israelis something for nothing.” On the other side, the Israelis say, “We’re not going to agree to a settlement freeze because we’re not going to get anything in return.” So everybody wants something and doesn’t want to give something for nothing, and the president is stuck in between these two sides that are not willing to go through the door first.

Jewish settlers watched over by an Israeli policeman in Sheikh Jarrah, East Jerusalem

Jewish settlers guarded by an Israeli policeman in Sheikh Jarrah, East Jerusalem (AP)

Palestinians and Israelis are currently trading the blame for the current stalemate and lack of negotiations. The Palestinians insist that the Israelis must stop settlement construction. So what’s going on in Israel that would stop the Israelis from going first? Howard Schneider for Washington Post says that Israeli P.M. Netanyahu is scoring major points by standing up to American pressure on the settlement issue.

Although Israeli leaders have historically been reluctant to publicly break with the United States for fear of paying a price in domestic support, polls show that Netanyahu’s strategy is working. And that means that after months of diplomacy, the quick breakthrough that President Obama had hoped would restart peace talks has instead turned into a familiar stalemate.

Arab states largely have rebuffed Obama’s request for an overture to Israel until the settlement issue is resolved — a stand that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak emphasized in a meeting with Obama on Tuesday — and the Palestinians have said a settlement freeze is a precondition for resuming negotiations. Meanwhile, the Israeli public seems to have rallied around Netanyahu’s refusal to halt all settlement construction, a backlash that intensified when the Obama administration made clear that it wanted Israel to stop building Jewish homes in some parts of Jerusalem as well as in the occupied West Bank.

The settlement issue is rapidly becoming intractable, and Obama’s position is becoming increasingly vulnerable. Even House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has weighed in, suggesting that the burden is on the Palestinians to initiate negotiations.

Huckabee at the West Bank settlement of Maaleh Adumim (AP)

Huckabee at the West Bank settlement of Maaleh Adumim (AP)

Meanwhile, construction continues in East Jerusalem, while Mike Huckabee had a party at the disputed Shepherd Hotel, where he stated his opposition of the establishment of a Palestinian state “in the middle of the Jewish homeland,” effectively precluding the consensus two-state solution.

So what’s next? WaPo says that pro-settlement groups have become more vocal, and the future is left unnegotiated:

The two sides are still expected to reach some kind of compromise on the issue, though short of the initial demands made by the White House. Netanyahu is meeting U.S. special envoy George J. Mitchell in London this month, and he expects to meet with Obama when he visits the United States for a U.N. General Assembly meeting in September. Discussion has centered on freezing settlement activity for six months to a year.

So that would put us back in 2003, when the Israelis agreed to freeze settlement construction in accordance with the Road Map. Let it never be said that history is anything but cyclical.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan held an election that’s considered generally successful, while the leading candidates begin disputing election results; Blackwater is still in big business, loading up Predators for attacks in the AfPak region.

Snoop Dogg in Lebanon

Snoop Dogg in Lebanon (AP)

To end on a more positive note, Snoop Dogg rocked the Beirut Forum in Lebanon:

At one point toward the end of Thursday’s 75-minute concert, he rapped, “East side! West side!” as he ran back and forth across the stage in a bright yellow jersey.

Of course, it’s a song about shuttling between the richer and poorer sides of Los Angeles.

But in a country where the Christian East and Muslim West sides of the capital were at war until 20 years ago and continue to eye each other suspiciously, it carried a special resonance.

“Both sides!” he cried out as he held up the Lebanese flag.

When the “two-state solution” is no solution

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009

Borders? What borders?

Robert Malley and Hussein Agha published an op-ed in today’s nytimes, decrying the meaningless of the phrase “two-state solution.” Their arguments rests on pairing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with Khaled Meshal, essentially his Hamas counterpart. Both have recently accepted the need for a two-state solution, but only leads to what the authors call “an existential struggle between two worldviews.”

That so many attempts to resolve the conflict have failed is reason to be wary. It is almost as if the parties, whenever they inch toward an artful compromise over the realities of the present, are inexorably drawn back to the ghosts of the past. It is hard today to imagine a resolution that does not entail two states. But two states may not be a true resolution if the roots of this clash are ignored. The ultimate territorial outcome almost certainly will be found within the borders of 1967. To be sustainable, it will need to grapple with matters left over since 1948. The first step will be to recognize that in the hearts and minds of Israelis and Palestinians, the fundamental question is not about the details of an apparently practical solution. It is an existential struggle between two worldviews.

For years, virtually all attention has been focused on the question of a future Palestinian state, its borders and powers. As Israelis make plain by talking about the imperative of a Jewish state, and as Palestinians highlight when they evoke the refugees’ rights, the heart of the matter is not necessarily how to define a state of Palestine. It is, as in a sense it always has been, how to define the state of Israel.

For Malley & co., the proposed settlement freeze is nice, but meaningless. Even if Netanyahu’s government relents, the settlements must be removed, not frozen, so we’re back at the 1967 borders. But even if we do that, the Spirit of ‘48–the existential struggle–will remain. So, basically, why even try?

What Malley is invoking–the definition of the state of Israel as Jewish, right of return for Palestinian refugees, etc. etc., are what the peace process calls final status issues. To be resolved at the end, that is. And as Malley sees it, there is no reconciling the two positions. E.g., Either Jerusalem is the undivided capital of eternal Israel, or half of it becomes East Jerusalem and the capital of Palestine–and thus divided.

Luckily, Obama’s Mitchell team at State has a better handle on things, re: settlement freeze. What Malley is calling for, in between the lines, is for Israel to concede all their current positions–predominantly, the idea of Israel as a  Jewish state. Proponents of defining Israel as Jewish usually (conveniently?) fail to mention that 20% of Israelis are Christian and Muslim (and Jewish) Arabs.

And while many would agree (including myself) on the need for concessions from Israel (with simultaneous concessions from the Arab states, e.g. normalization of relations with Israel), simply dictating terms to the Israelis won’t work. The Israelis won’t accept it. And then there’s no peace agreement at all.

Negotiation on final status issues must correlate with everyday, on-the-ground improvements in the lives of both Israelis and Palestinians. That’s why the settlement freeze matters.

There is injustice, certainly. But reality is not black and white. Its shades of grey call for an incremental approach, one that works toward resolving final status issues while also improving the lives of the people.

The Oslo approach failed for a number of reasons, but on the practical level–which is where Malley directs his argument–the people didn’t see any change. They saw Palestinians and Arabs concede and compromise, and in the end, the Israelis elected Netanyahu to his first term in the 1990s, on the principle that land for peace would never work. Negotiations cooled pretty quickly after that. The second intifada and Operation Cast Lead in January of this year put an end to the little steps taken toward normalization between Israel and the Arab states following Oslo. It’s easy to say we’re just back to where we started. But now is not the time to give up on the peace process; some things have changed, particularly with the Arab Peace Initiative. Grievances have grown on both sides, but so has experience. We have tried before, and now know what doesn’t work. The only options are to alter the approach and try again, or to give up.

Cynicism is probably warranted, considering the way things have gone before. But let’s try to keep a little bit of hope alive.