Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

If you liked Monty Python as much as I, you’ll remember the skit in which a dirty leering character asks his pub mate whether his wife “does it.” The conspiratorial refrain goes: “Wink-wink. Nudge-nudge. Know what I mean, know what I mean?” It’s absolutely hilarious in a knowing, low-down sort of way.

An article in today’s Washington Post which outlines a secret Bush Administration agreement with Ariel Sharon to permit major settlement expansion isn’t as hilarious. But it surely is a dirty low-down trick on the Palestinians whose future territorial integrity it has imperiled:

A letter that President Bush personally delivered to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon four years ago has emerged as a significant obstacle to the president’s efforts to forge a peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians during his last year in office.

Ehud Olmert, the current Israeli prime minister, said this week that Bush’s letter gave the Jewish state permission to expand the West Bank settlements that it hopes to retain in a final peace deal, even though Bush’s peace plan officially calls for a freeze of Israeli settlements across Palestinian territories on the West Bank. In an interview this week, Sharon’s chief of staff, Dov Weissglas, said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reaffirmed this understanding in a secret agreement reached between Israel and the United States in the spring of 2005, just before Israel withdrew from Gaza…

Weissglas said that in 2005, when Sharon was poised to remove settlers from Gaza, the Bush administration made a secret agreement — not disclosed to the Palestinians — that Israel could add homes in settlements it expected to keep, as long as the construction was dictated by market demand, not subsidies. He said the agreement was necessary because Sharon needed the support of municipal leaders in the main West Bank settlements…

Weissglas said he then negotiated a “verbal understanding” with deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams that would permit new construction in those key settlements; Rice and Sharon then approved the Weissglas-Abrams deal. “I do not recall that we had any kind of written formulation,” Weissglas said.

It certainly doesn’t matter that the agreement wasn’t signed, sealed and delivered by the parties. It doesn’t even matter that Condi Rice is denying the agreement existed. What matters is Israeli actions and U.S. reactions. Israel is hell bent on completing the huge Maale Adumim project which will effectively separate East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank:

Olmert declared in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, published Sunday. “I say this again today: Beitar Illit will be built, Gush Etzion will be built; there will be construction in Pisgat Ze’ev and in the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem,” referring to new settlement expansion plans.

While protesting verbally, Condi & Co. have done nothing to stop them. That’s all that matters. The U.S. is willingly colluding in the theft of Palestinian patrimony.

So how do you look Mahmoud Abbas in the eye as Bush did today and claim you can deliver a peace agreement before you leave office? What credibility do you have? In a way, the article coming out today as Bush met with Abbas is the ultimate slap in the face to the lamest of lame duck presidents.

Of course, we also have to remember that Dov Weisglass (note: I think the Post is misspelling his last name), the Sharon henchman who claims to have negotiated this secret deal, has always had the utmost disdain for the Americans. I wrote a post about a delightfully cynical interview he gave in which he said that he and Sharon had Bush wrapped around their little fingers preventing the possibility of a Palestinian state for years, if ever.

So Weisglass’ interview today serves two functions. It reinforces just how tightly wrapped Bush was around their fingers and makes it that much more difficult for Bush to bring into being that Palestinian state which he and Sharon worked so assiduously to prevent. A truly crafty, devious Machiavellian, Weissglas is.

Thanks to Rupa Shah for bringing this story to my attention.

tags abbas, ariel-sharon, Bush, condi-rice, dov weissglad, israeli settlement expansion, palestinians

My title is of course a reference to those ringing words of Kohelet (Ecclesiastes): Hevel havalim amar Kohelet (”Folly of follies says Kohelet”). After reading today’s stinging Haaretz editorial about what we’ll soon be calling the Gaza debacle, I thought the title appropriate for today’s post.

The newspaper begins by noting the contradiction between Israel laying blame at the feet of Khaled Meshal and Syria; while also blaming those local Hamas political leaders who not even Israel claims knew about or condoned the kidnapping:

On the face of it, Israel wishes to exert increasing pressure both on Hamas’ political leadership and on the Palestinian public, in order to induce it to pressure its [military wing] leadership to release the soldier. At the same time, the government claims that Syria - or at least Khaled Meshal, who is living in Syria - holds the key. If so, what is the point of pressuring the local Palestinian leadership, which did not know of the planned attack and which, when it found out, demanded that the kidnappers take good care of their victim and return him?

A few days ago I wrote about parallels I saw between Gaza, 2006 and Lebanon, 1982. The editorial conceives of some new and very salient ones which I hadn’t thought of:

The tactic of pressuring civilians has been tried before, and more than once. The Lebanese, for example, are very familiar with the Israeli tactic of destroying power stations and infrastructure. Entire villages in south Lebanon have been terrorized, with the inhabitants fleeing in their thousands for Beirut. But what also happens under such extreme stress is that local divisions evaporate and a strong, united leadership is forged.

In the end, Israel was forced both to negotiate with Hezbollah and to withdraw from Lebanon. Now, the government appears to be airing out its Lebanon catalogue of tactics and implementing it, as though nothing has been learned since then. One may assume that the results will be similar this time around as well.

Israel also kidnapped people from Lebanon to serve as bargaining chips in dealings with the kidnappers of Israeli soldiers. Now, it is trying out this tactic on Hamas politicians. As the prime minister said in a closed meeting: “They want prisoners released? We’ll release these detainees in exchange for Shalit.” By “these detainees,” he was referring to elected Hamas officials.

The editorial writer here introduces some very telling Zionist movement history and notes parallels between it and the political points we’re scoring on behalf of imprisoned Hamas leaders in the eyes of their constituency:

The prime minister is a graduate of a movement whose leaders were once exiled [this refers to Etzel and Lehi members exiled by the British for their violent nationalist politics during the Mandate], only to return with their heads held high and in a stronger position than when they were deported. But he believes that with the Palestinians, things work differently.

As one who knows that all the Hamas activists deported by Yitzhak Rabin returned to leadership and command positions in the organization, Olmert should know that arresting leaders only strengthens them and their supporters. But this is not merely faulty reasoning; arresting people to use as bargaining chips is the act of a gang, not of a state.

The government…must return to its senses at once, be satisfied with the threats it has made, free the detained Hamas politicians and open negotiations. The issue is a soldier who must be brought home, not changing the face of the Middle East.

A gang, not a state. An uncharacteristically savage and caustic characterization by Haaretz of this government. But certainly apt. I also like the closing phrase: Forget about changing the face of the Middle East. Can there not be a clearer lesson for George Bush as well in Iraq? And could there not be a clearer message for Ariel Sharon who invaded Lebanon with grand ambitions to remake that nation so it would become a quiescent neighbor. By the time Israel left southern Lebanon with its tail between its legs, it realized that Sharon’s grand plan was based on lies and deceit and never stood a remote chance of working as its creator had hoped. If Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz are not very careful, Gaza 2006 could turn around and bite them and their political careers in much the same way as Iraq did Bush and Lebanon did Sharon.

Oh Condi, Oh George–Where are you?

In wondering what the hell the U.S. is doing while the Middle East threatens to burn, the situation reminds me of the early computer game, Where’s Waldo? Look for him in the crowd. He’s not there. Look for him here, look for him there. Not a trace. That’s pretty much the impact we’re having on some of the most dangerous developments in this part of the world since the second intifada.

Here’s how Reuters characterized our ‘muscular’ foreign policy:

The United States has privately urged Israel to be careful over its military action, worried that tough moves in Gaza will boost Palestinian support for Hamas and further escalate tensions.

A senior State Department official said on Thursday a firm message had been delivered to the Israelis,

We delivered a ‘firm message’ behind closed doors to the Israelis giving them ‘what for’ as the Brits used to say. Yes, that’s certainly going to have a dramatic and immediate impact. You see we understand Israel’s frustration. We understand how one nation can arrest fully one-third of the elected cabinet ministers and parliamentary representatives of a neighboring statelet:

Publicly the United States, Israel’s staunchest ally, has said Israel has the right to defend itself and actively seek the release of the soldier, while urging restraint on all sides.

But there is a fear among some Bush administration officials that Israel might go too far.

“The Israeli measures might not only affect innocent civilians but could build support for Hamas,” said the senior official in an interview with Reuters.

“We have told them to be careful because plainly when you have this kind of military force deployed close to civilian populations there is a very high risk of accidents and I think that can further worsen this crisis.”

Why certainly Israel has a right to defend itself and seek Shalit’s release. That’s precisely what it’s doing by telling the residents of Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya to run for their lives. And precisely what it’s doing by arresting Palestinian legislators who had nothing to do with the kidnapping. And precisely what it’s doing by bombing power plants and PA infrastructure like the Interior Ministry building. This is all certainly plainly defensive action and done with the sole purpose of winning Shalit’s release.

And when, I’d like to know, WOULD Israel go “too far” in Bush’s book? When it carpet bombs Rafah or Khan Yunis? Or when it carpet bombs Damascus to teach Assad a lesson?

Israel “runs a very high risk of accidents” when you deploy military force “close to civilian populations.” Duh, I think the U.S. would’ve already learned the IDF has no capability or interest in distinguishing between militants and civilians given the history over the past month even before the latest incursion.

The absolute torpor of the American response is breathtaking. But it gets worse:

Asked about arrests of Hamas officials and whether President George W. Bush endorsed that, White House spokesman Tony Snow replied: “We are going no further than what we’ve said, which is we are encouraging both sides to practice restraint.”

RESTRAINT?? You’re asking jailed Hamas hostages to show restraint? They’re already being restrained…in Israeli shackles. So Tony Snow can’t actually say anything meaningful in response to the outrage of arresting Palestine’s elected government. I’d like to know if the British had actually captured James and Dolly Madison during the War of 1812 and brought them to the brig in chains, whether Tony Snow still would’ve urged the U.S. to show restraint?

What’s wrong with this picture?

U.S. diplomats, in a bid to secure the release of the soldier and ease the crisis, are shuttling between the Israelis and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

There has been no U.S. contact with Hamas and Egypt is the go-between with the militant group, which the United States and others refuse to deal with until it renounces violence, recognizes Israel and accepts past agreements between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

“The Egyptians are playing the most important role of any of the outsiders and they are directly in touch with the Israelis and all the Palestinians,” said the senior State Department official.

The U.S. is talking to Israel and Abbas. Yet the kidnappers are Hamas. There’s something wrong here. Of course you have no capability of talking to the party that’s actually responsible for the kidnapping thanks to our stupid anti-Hamas policy and Aipac, which has tied the Administration’s hands on this score. So who do we rely on? The Egyptians. Instead of showing our own leadership and vision in the midst of crisis, we must take a back seat to a tinpot megalomaniac Egyptian virtual dictator who may or may not represent our best interests, but who certainly will represent his own. If I were George Bush, I’d sleep well knowing we’re in the best of hands.

tags abbas, aipac, haaretz, idf-Gaza-invasion, israeli-army, israeli-invasion-of-lebanon, kidnapping-of-israeli-soldier, olmert, shalit, sharon, u.s.-policy-toward-hamas

A showdown looms between Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas over the latter’s apparent rejection of the Palestinian Prisoners peace plan. Abbas gave Hamas until midnight tonight to endorse the plan or face a national referendum. Polls show that 81% of Palestinians favor the referendum. The Statesman reports that Prime Minister Ismail Haniya is still waffling:

Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya, in his strongest statement yet on the matter, said in Gaza yesterday the referendum idea was illegal.

“The local basic law and the advice we got from experts in international law say that referendums are not permitted on the Palestinian land,” he said.

But Mr Haniya added that “from a political point of view, the holding of a referendum necessitates serious studies”.

For Abbas’ purposes I think we can call this statement a “No.” Which would mean that tomorrow will see Abbas set in motion the referendum. I’ve discussed my views on the referendum and what it could mean for the peace process. It’s interesting to know what Israel’s response is to all this Palestinian sturm und drang. Curiously little. At the last Cabinet meeting, Olmert barely stifled a yawn when he made this imperious comment:

…The prisoners’ document does not present anything new from our point of view. Its contents are entirely unacceptable to us and it does not constitute the basis for anything. I would not bother to relate to it because it’s an internal Palestinian issue.”

Criticizing the direction of the cabinet discussion, he added that “not everything needs Israeli analysis. Not every little act requires ministerial comment. You are, after all, government ministers. Analysts work in the media.”

Studied indifference. An old ploy. But don’t you believe it. The Prisoner’s Plan, if endorsed by the Palestinian people, is big news since it basically satisfies Israel’s and the world’s conditions for full peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Neither the U.S. nor the international community will allow Israel to rebuff this initiative whether Olmert wants to or not.

Today’s headlines tell us that Olmert made a vague reference after meeting with Hosni Mubarak to agreeing to talks with Abbas:

I intend to meet with the PA Chairman to make genuine progress in line with the Road Map. I hope that our Palestinian partners will seize the moment and implement their obligations in order to progress with us.”

But the nature of the talks are ill-defined. Olmert will want to talk about logistics and what Abbas needs to do to combat terror. Abbas will want to begin final status talks. Those are two entirely different agendas. After a referendum, it will be all the more difficult for Olmert to hold fast to his refusal to enter into serious peace talks.

Compare Olmert’s response to that of Amir Peretz, the Labor Party Defense Minister:

“Any move that occurs in the Palestinian Authority will be evaluated carefully, but this is an internal Palestinian process and it’s preferable for Israel not to interfere,” said Israel’s defense minister, Amir Peretz.

Peretz ‘gets it’ and Olmert barely has a clue.

tags abbas, amir-peretz, hamas, olmert, palestinian-national-referendum, palestinian-prisoners-peace-plan

Robert Rosenberg’s Ariga.com report today contains this riveting item:

Islamic Jihad, which has been behind all the suicide bombings inside Israel since early 2005 — Hamas signed on to an Abbas-initiated ceasefire in 2004 — announced it was accepting the Prisoners’ Document, effectively beginning a ceasefire…

The document implicitly recognizes Israel and calls for a right of return…[which leaves] open the possibility that [it] would be limited to a Palestinian state that would be established in the 1967 borders. The document calls for armed resistance to the occupation to be limited to the occupied territories — and Islamic Jihad’s announcement apparently means it will cease firing Qassams into Israel: that, in any case, was the army’s interpretation, halting its artillery shelling of Gaza’s ‘Qassam launching zones,’ shelling that has been almost constant since it began months ago in response to the rocket attacks.

Jerusalem Post also runs this story.

If Rosenberg is right, then this is potentially big news. Islamic Jihad has been the most significant militant group maintaining a purely rejectionist stance toward Israel. It has conducted almost all the terror attacks since Hamas began its hudna. It would mean that essentially every Palestinian militant group has now endorsed the Prisoner’s Document (except Hamas and possibly the Popular Resistance Committees). And while Hamas as a group hasn’t endorsed the Document, its most prominent prisoner did collaborate in creating it and signed it. This causes no end of consternation among the Hamas rejectionists in Damascus and Gaza.

If the news is borne out, then it is good on several levels. Most imminently, it is good because both the Qassam attacks and Israel’s murderous counter barrages will end. Second, it is good because this puts the Hamas rejectionists even more on the defensive. Third, it gives Abbas some added support in his battle to get Hamas’ agreement to the plan. Fourth, it gives Ehud Olmert and the Israeli Nyetniks (’nyet’ to Abbas and final status negotiations, ‘nyet’ to Hamas, etc.) one less argument to use against negotiating a peace agreement with Mahmoud Abbas. An Israel not under threat of rocket barrage is an Israel which may take more seriously Abbas’ pleas for Olmert to see him as a legitimate partner for peace. Fifth, IJ’s agreement to the plan forces the international community (including the U.S.) to realize that we are now coming to a decisive moment in the struggle for peace. If Israel’s worst enemy among the Palestinian militants is willing to honor a ceasefire (and let us hope that this is the case), the rest of the world must recognize that the tectonic plates of this conflict are shifting. Will the world take advantage of this to force those plates (i.e. the parties) together or will it stand by and let them continue to drift helplessly?

tags abbas, hamas, hudna, islamic-jihad, olmert, palestinian-ceasefire, prisoners-document

Robert Rosenberg of Ariga.com raises some interesting prospective issues regarding Mahmoud Abbas’ projected national referendum on the Prisoner’s Document, the peace plan crafted by Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. The plan calls for Palestinian recognition of Israel in return for a pullback to 1967 borders.

Rosenberg starts by comparing the Bush Administration’s new approach to talking with the Iranians to Olmert’s approach to “negotiating” with the Palestinians. In each case, Rosenberg believes there is an element of Kabuki theater; meaning that neither Bush nor Olmert really wish to negotiate seriously with either. But they must appear to be willing to do so. He says the U.S. may “get away” with this posturing:

Israel, however, might not be as ‘lucky’ as the Americans, when it comes to the Palestinians — the Abbas ultimatum to Hamas comes to a head next week, and while Hamas is still not speaking with a uniform voice in favor of the so-called Prisoners’ Document, which implicitly recognizes Israel by calling for a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, the polls show that prisoners’ initiative is supported by 80 percent of the Palestinians in the territories. The Fateh is saying it will hold a referendum on the 18-article document whether Hamas agrees or not. And the Islamic Jihad’s armed men showed up in front of TV cameras without their masks to announce they approved it, as well.

If the Hamas accepts the Prisoners’ Document, it will pave the way for a complete breakdown of the so-far united international front isolating the Hamas government, particularly since the Prisoners’ Document explicitly calls for a national unity government, which would ‘dilute’ the Palestinian government with Fateh ministers. Hamas-Damascus is of course against it, which makes problems for the government of Ismail Haniyeh. Polls show support for Hamas slipping to below 30 percent, with more than 40 percent favoring Fateh right now — and hundreds, if not thousands of PA police loyal to Fateh protested at Gaza’s parliament building — ransacking it in anger — demanding their salaries, then marched in support of Abbas.

If the international front breaks down, pressure will quickly mount on Israel to engage the PA government, and not just Abbas, in real dialogue – and to release the $150 million it presumably has collected in customs and VAT on behalf of the PA since Hamas took office and Israel began its economic siege of the PA.

I, for one, hope that the Bush Administration, the EU and other governments are anticipating the outcome of such a referendum, if it takes place, and what their response to it would be. There are many ifs here but…if Abbas pursues the referendum path; and if the electorate approves it; and if Hamas falls into line with it; then Israel should be made to honor its own rhetoric. It must sit down and negotiate with Abbas AND Hamas for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

The world must end the blockade of Gaza. It must recognize Hamas as Palestine’s legitimate national government. It must treat Hamas and Palestine as a member in good standing of the world community. If it does some or all of those things I believe there will be a rude awakening within the Israel and a sea change comparable to the one Sharon engineered regarding Gaza withdrawal and the demise of the settler movement.

The international community should anticipate that Olmert will come with 1,000 new reasons why he can’t or won’t negotiate with Abbas or Hamas. But his feet must be kept to the fire. And even if Hamas does not fully accept the Prisoner’s Document or the referendum, the fact that the Palestinian people will have democratically endorsed the provisions must compel Israel to at least negotiate in good faith with Abbas. If Olmert continues to argue that he can’t negotiate with Abbas because Hamas still rejects Israel’s existence (a ridiculous contention to begin with), then the world must tell him this argument no longer holds merit. Condi, are you listening??

tags 1967-borders, abbas, hadarim, olmert, palestinian-referendum, prisoners-document

Some major developments on the Palestinian side of the Mideast conflict. Mahmoud Abbas, in a move that has managed to shock both Hamas, Israel and the U.S., called on Hamas to accept the Hadarim peace proposal formulated largely by Marwan Barghouti and his fellow prisoners in Israeli jails (including many Hamas prisoners). The Hadarim proposal in turn is closely modeled on the 2002 Saudi/Arab League peace initiative which Israel never seriously entertained at the time. It calls for Israel to return to 1967 borders in return for full recognition of it by all Arab states. It also calls for a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and for a "just solution to the Palestinian ...

The big Mideast news tonight is that the Palestinian people have conducted one of the most free, open and democratic elections in the entire Arab world. Palestinians made history. A million of them decided...well, we're not really sure what they decided. But after hours of uncertainty in which a narrow Fatah victory was projected, it now appears that Hamas has won a sweeping victory, possibly winning as many as 70 out of 132 seats in the new assemby. This would be a stunning upset over Fatah, thus dislodging the latter as the dominant political force in Palestinian society. While it's too soon to write off Fatah--this outcome ...

I am heartened that Israeli-Palestinian relations are on such positive footing these days. The image of Abbas and Sharon speaking together yesterday outside the Prime Minister's office and shaking hands (with gusto-as opposed to the Arafat-Rabin reluctant handshake) afterward...plus the warm, humane words spoken-all of this gives me great hope for the future. Yes, there is a long road to go and groups like Hamas can stain that road with much blood. But the end is in sight and I am confident that there is a good chance that both sides will reach it.