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

The quickness with which much of the world (except Qatar, Indonesia, South Africa, and Russia, who nixed a U.S. sponsored Security Council resolution pledging eternal love to Mahmoud Abbas) has lined up with the Sunshine Boys, Ehud and George, in supporting the new and improved West Bank First policy brings to mind the desperate passengers on the Titanic looking for any way to escape their fate. I can imagine water rushing in one way and a deck steward shouting: “I have an idea–follow me!” as he tears off in the opposite direction with a few hearty souls in hot pursuit, only to find another wall of water pushing forward from the other direction to overwhelm him.

In this spirit, I welcome Aluf Benn’s expose of the true disaster that the Hamas coup poses for Israeli and U.S. policy towards the Palestinians and in the Mideast in general. Benn doesn’t prettify the situation as Olmert, Bush and Rice have been vainly trying to do. He tells it like is and for what it is:

As Hamas completed its violent takeover of Gaza last week, officials in the Israeli and American capitals realized they had a disaster on their hands. Both governments’ flawed policies toward the shattered Palestinian Authority had just been delivered a major blow…A militant Islamic group, whose record includes some of the worst terrorist attacks on Israelis, had just taken control of a small but contiguous territory of nearly 1.5 million inhabitants.

Strategically, the Gaza takeover marked a clear victory for Iran and its allies in the Arab world, and another setback for the pro-American, moderate Arab nations willing to compromise with Israel.

…From the Israeli perspective, less than a year after the Israeli Defense Forces failed to defeat Hezbollah and its allies in Lebanon, the Hamas takeover in Gaza is a disaster. And for the Bush administration, preoccupied with the quagmire in Iraq, Gaza marks another failure in the Middle East. The White House forced Israel to allow Hamas’ participation in last year’s election, thus legitimizing Hamas’ political role, but the strategy backfired with Hamas’ decisive victory. Faced with the disappointing outcome, U.S. and Israeli officials sought to “isolate the extremists and strengthen the moderates” through a diplomatic and economic boycott of Hamas, and by pledging further support for Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas…But…despite European support for this policy, Hamas withstood all pressure to recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce terror and abide by past Israeli-Palestinian agreements. At the same time, Israel’s willingness to help Abbas was at best half-hearted. It never went beyond token moves and empty gestures, usually citing security concerns, domestic political problems or Abbas’ weakness.

U.S. and Israeli leaders scrambled to spin the new reality in Gaza favorably. Instead of mourning Abbas’ clear defeat, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert spoke of “a new opportunity,” as if a good thing had happened.

Benn continues by noting the utter hypocrisy of the new pledges of undying admiration for Abbas from Bush and Olmert, who only days ago were bemoaning the former’s utter ineffectiveness as a leader or someone who could rein in Palestinian violence. The Salon contributor notes that both leaders have little choice but to hitch their wagon to this drey horse:

Their doubts and disappointment notwithstanding, both Bush and Olmert have an interest in casting Abbas and the situation in Gaza in a positive light. Olmert, in particular, is trying to recover from his unpopularity at home. His trip to Washington has been part of a comeback effort, following the devastating report of a Commission of Inquiry over his decision to launch the war in Lebanon last year and his conduct of it.

And a Bush suffering from a war rapidly going south in Iraq needs to present some alternate vision of the Hamas disaster so Democrats won’t be able to start calling the situation in Gaza, Iraq II (but with an Israeli, instead of U.S. occupation). Remember the old “Who lost China?” accusation levelled against the Democrats after the 1949 Communist Revolution? What about “Who lost Gaza?” Bush has to fear those sorts of questions being raised about his Mideast leadership.

tags aluf-benn, failed-u.s.-policy-toward-palestinians, hamas-fatah-civil-war, mahmoud-abbas, Spinning-the-disaster-in-Gaza, west-bank-first

Nita Lowey must’ve needed some cover when she put a hold on an $86 million appropriation approved by Congress at the behest of the Bush Administration. The funds were meant to bolster Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas. But after Abbas threw sand in Bush and Israel’s face (the hardliners’ view, not mine) by banding together with Fatah to create a unity government, Lowey decided she had to put a stop to the $86 million lest it look like Congress approved of the Mecca shenanigans.

Lowey got some flack for what she did and must’ve been feeling a little lonely. So she got some of her other AIPAC Congressional flunkies to join her in placing the hold. Now she’s in the august company of pro-Israel ideologues like Ileana Ros Lehtinen, Tom Lantos, Gary Ackerman, and Mike Pence. It’s really shameful. They’ll swear on a stack of Bibles they didn’t coordinate anything with AIPAC. And even if this is so, they didn’t need to. As one of my journalist informants for an earlier post I wrote on Lowey’s hold wrote–Lowey knows so well what AIPAC would want her to do she doesn’t even have to ask. She does it as a favor to them because she knows they’ll approve. That’s how well the pro-Israel lobby has them housetrained.

I know the bitternness in my voice and my rhetoric might be confused for someone far more hostile to Israel than I actually am. But this type of shallow, jingoistic pandering has got to stop. It’s grandstanding in the guise of policymaking. It makes Congress look like fools (except in the eyes of AIPAC). By the way, you don’t think it’s any coincidence that Lowey is among the top five House members in donations from pro-Israel PACs, do you?

tags aipac-dominance-of-congress, gary-ackerman, Ileana-Ros-Lehtinen, mahmoud-abbas, nita-lowey-hold-on-$86-million-palestinian-appropriatio, tom-lantos

Haaretz reports a deal between Hamas and Fatah, whereby the former would for the first time accept the basic terms of the Prisoner’s Document which implies recognition of Israel and a halt to resistance against the Occupation within the Green Line. Among other things, this would entail a cessation of Qassam attacks against southern Israel. Hamas would concede significant political territory to Fatah also in recognizing the PLO, led by Mahmoud Abbas as the sole entity to negotiate a peace deal with Israel. Hamas also agreed to recognize agreements entered into by Fatah that “serve the interests of the Palestinian people.” The question is whether Hamas views the agreement in question, the Oslo Accords, as serving the interests of the Palestinians. If not, then one could say we’re back to square one since Oslo provided for PLO recognition of Israel among other things.

There is one important element of the Prisoner’s Document left unresolved. It calls for a Hamas-Fatah national unity government. Fatah wants to establish one immediately; and Hamas calls for a “non-binding text” that would not compel it to form such a government.

Interesting that neither the NY Times nor the Washington Post has deemed this story worth covering. Though the Times does today carry a tragic and compelling story about the IDF murder of British documentary filmmakeer James Miller in Gaza in 2003. Yet another example of an IDF “investigation” which whitewashed IDF malfeasance and led to no justice for Miller’s killer, First Lt. Hib al-Heib. After his murder, Miller’s colleagues completed the documentary, Death in Gaza, which was shown on HBO and won several documentary film awards.

Haaretz also reports that Ehud Olmert, during his international dog and pony show to tout his realignment/convergence plan, believes that several European governments promised that they would not dismantle the international boycott of the Hamas-led PA if the Prisoner’s Document was ratified:

The main concern the document aroused in Israel was that European countries would view it as Palestinian acceptance, albeit indirect, of the Quartet’s demands to recognize Israel and past agreements with it, and use it as an excuse to talk to Hamas and resume aid to the Palestinian Authority.

On visits to Britain and France two weeks ago, Olmert was reassured this would not happen.

A senior political source ventured yesterday that the international community would not pressure Israel to accept the document as the basis for negotiations…

Personally, I believe Olmert is quite daft if he believes these governments would make such a promise. But I wasn’t there and so don’t know what was said to him.

Again, I believe that if Abbas and Fatah prevail upon Hamas to create a national unity government there would be very little standing in the way of international recognition of the PA and a relaxation of the financial stranglehold in which Palestine currently finds itself. Olmert, of course, will be screaming and kicking against such an outcome because it will mean pressure will increase exponentially on him to enter into final status negotiations with Abbas. And the former knows that during final status negotiations with the entire world watching, Israel will feel pressured to give up far more than he currently contemplates giving up under his unilateral plan. This is why he hates the Prisoner’s Document so. Actually, he calls it an irrelevance in studied nonchalance. But hardly anyone is fooled by a pose which even Madonna might admire.

Of course, one may question how serious Hamas is about ceasing resistance against the Israeli Occupation on a day when its military wing boasted of a coordinated attack on an IDF outpost along the Gaza-Egypt border (NOT within the Green Line) which killed two Israeli soldiers and three militants. UPDATE: Haaretz in this article said, until a few minutes ago that the Israeli outpost WAS on Israeli soil thus making the attack a violation of the terms of the Prisoner’s Document. But now the article says:

The gunmen attacked an IDF post near Kerem Shalom just outside the border fence with southern Gaza

Whether the outpost was inside or outside the Green Line, the Hamas military wing’s timing couldn’t have been more incendiary–perhaps indicating a wish to derail a softening of Hamas’ political positions vis a vis the Prisoner’s Document.

tags ehud-olmert, haaretz, hamas-accepts-prisoners-document, hamas-fatah-national-unity-government, mahmoud-abbas, plo

A virtual political war has been going on for weeks within Palestinian politics between Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah and Hamas over a peace plan proposed by Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. The plan calls for a two-state solution and tacit recognition of Israel along with Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders. Hamas rejected the proposal out of hand and Abbas upped the ante by calling a national referendum on the plan which he knew in advance he would win.

Now, the Guardian reports that Abbas’ chief negotiator is declaring that Hamas has agreed to the prisoners’ plan:

Yasser Abed Rabbo, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s executive committee and a lead negotiator on the prisoners’ document, said Hamas had agreed to sections which call for a negotiated and final agreement with Israel to establish a Palestinian state on the territories occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem.

“Hamas is prepared to accept those parts of the document because they think it is a way to get rid of a lot of its problems with the international community. That’s why it will accept all the document eventually,” he said.

However, there is a additional proposal to form a Palestinian unity government that would incorporate Fatah into the existing Hamas government. Over this there is still haggling:

Mr Abed Rabbo said he expected an agreement in the coming days, but that important differences still had to be settled, particularly over the document’s call for the formation of a national unity government.

He described that as “the major issue that will determine the fate of two nations for decades” because a unity administration, built around a common policy of negotiations with Israel, would be the only way to combat its plans to unilaterally impose its final borders and annex parts of the occupied territories…

Abdullah Abdullah, a Fatah MP and chairman of the parliamentary political committee, said other differences remained over the document, including Fatah’s insistence that the PLO continues to be recognised as the sole representative of the Palestinian people in negotiations with Israel, and that all existing agreements between the PLO and Israel be recognised.

Hard to say at this point whether this is a breakthrough. It may be telling that Hamas itself does not yet appear ready to acknowledge this news. But at least it hasn’t denied or denounced it. This may yet be the beginning of a breakthrough. The hard part will come after an agreement is reached between Fatah and Hamas. Then they will have to sell the deal to the world and convince it both that the two parties can co-exist peacefully with each other politically (not much evidence of that lately); and that Hamas has indeed accepted the provisions of the document calling for recognition of Israel, a two-state solution, and an end to terror within the Green Line. Not to mention that they will have to counter successfully the certain Israeli campaign against recognition and in favor of retaining the PA boycott. I believe the PA can succeed in both of these endeavors, but only with genuine cooperation between the currently warring parties to prove to the world that they’ve turned over a ‘new leaf.’

A number of progressive Israeli commentators express skepticism about the prisoners’ plan and whether it satisfies the international community’s minimum standards for recognition of Hamas as a legitimate government. They focus on the only-partial renunciation of violence (resistance within the Territories continues to be endorsed) and the demand for the Right of Return. Personally, I don’t share their gloom and doom about these provisions. I see the document as an initial negotiating position which will certainly be modified when the two parties get down to serious negotiations. Then the proposals can be reworked so they move closer to a compromise position that Israel might find more acceptable.

But after a week or more of universally gloomy news this appears at least to be a glimmer of hope. It is disappointing that neither Haaretz nor Ynetnews are reporting this story. And it goes without saying that the NY Times is also late to the party.

tags fatah, hamas-accepts-prisoner-peace-plan, mahmoud-abbas, palestinian-national-referendum, yasser-abed-rabbo

Robert Rosenberg reports that a retired Israeli general has joined the chorus of military-intelligence experts calling for sanity and rationality in Israel’s response to Abbas’s call for final status negotiations:

Former general Amiram Levine, a much admired ex-commando [he led the assault against the Maalot terrorists] who served for a while as deputy chief of the Mossad, was on the radio yesterday morning and TV last night, saying that Israel should be in direct talks with the Palestinian government about a peace agreement based on ‘the framework we all know, back to the ’67 lines with corrections, no right of return, a division of Jerusalem.’ With such talks underway — sincere talks, he emphasized — it becomes possible to give the army instructions for firm action against the Qassams. But making the army provide a military solution to a political problem will only lead to trouble.

‘You can’t defeat a people fighting against oppression with more oppression,’ says the ex-general. But once the politicians take responsibility for finding a political solution, the Palestinians could be told that any Qassam rockets landing in Israel would lead to the demolition — by bulldozer, not shelling — of 10 to-15 houses, 12 hours after the rocket fell in Israel. If the rocket causes casualties, more than one block would be demolished.

It’s a plan and could even be implemented — but it depends on Israel doing what it has refused to do since the intifada began, talking with the Palestinians, and it depends on the Palestinians doing what they have refused to do since the intifada began: cracking down on the armed irregular militia, whether they be Qassam launchers or gunmen, plotters of suicide bombings or the bombers themselves.

It’s important to note that every one of these Israeli security experts who calls for peace negotiations is directly challenging Olmert’s cloud cuckoo land unilateral “realignment” plan. Furthermore, given a choice of believing the current military intelligence advisors clamoring for Israel to invade Gaza ‘to teach those militants a lesson once and for all’ (where and when have we heard this before??) and those such as Amiram Levine–I know which I’d choose to trust.

tags 1967-borders, amiram-levine, idf-general, mahmoud-abbas

At funeral, relative holds aloft body of infant murdered in Israeli artillery massacre (photo: Hatem Moussa/AP) Israel has nothing short of a disaster on its hands with yesterday's bloody massacre of eight Palestinian beachgoers enjoying a day with their family at the seaside. Yesterday, there were seven victims but the NY Times reports that the body of an eighth washed ashore earlier today. Israeli government sources say that it's likely that an errant shell fell 400 meters off course and landed amongst a Palestinian family. However, the IDF isn't prepared to say what precisely happened and how. According to Haaretz: "We still do not have an ...

Bush rolls out red carpet for Olmert (photo: Kimberlee Hewitt/Whitehouse.gov) Ehud Olmert came to Washington with high hopes for Bush Administration embrace of his convergence (now called "realignment") plan to unilaterally set Israel's international borders and thereby swallow up considerable territory beyond the internationally-recognized Green Line. What did he come away with? Well, he came away with some positive rhetoric from the president describing the Olmert plan as "bold." The former also declared that once all other options were exhausted perhaps it might be appropriate to pursue a unilateral approach. The NY Times characterized Olmert's reception in DC as 2 Cheers for Olmert. I'd call ...

Haaretz columnist, Gideon Levy has a provocative essay in Counterpunch arguing that Israel's policy of isolating Hamas and strangling Palestine economically and financially after its election victory is an abject failure. What's more the U.S. and international community which danced to Israel's tune in implementing this iron fist policy, have proven themselves to be willing co-conspirators in Israeli folly: Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy says: "Stop the charade--recognize Hamas" This was an especially short masked ball: Two or three months and the "boycott" party of the Palestinian Authority ended. It was also an especially stupid masked ball: Hamas can now brandish a real achievement. Israel and the world have surrendered unconditionally, and ...

Olmert: "When I set a border, it goes just where I choose it to go--Palestinians be damned." (photo: Worldsecuritynetwork.com) When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." --Alice in Wonderland Ariga.com has another interesting column today on the latest developments within Israeli politics. Olmert has been saying that he's willing to negotiate with the Palestinians over final borders, but that if these efforts are not successful then Israel will impose them unilaterally. We can see how interested Olmert really is in negotiating with the Palestinians using this metric: Abbas called ...

Ehud Olmert has had several of his cherished balloons pricked today. First, Haaretz reports that U.S. officials say that they will not recognize his proposed West Bank pullout as the final say in determining Israel-Palestine borders: The United States will not recognize a border created after a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank as Israel's permanent frontier, senior U.S. administration members said in unofficial conversations. Interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who is due to arrive in the U.S. capital during the third week of May, has not presented the administration with a detailed plan for the second withdrawal he promised voters, and sources in the administration say discussion of this is at a very preliminary stage. However, a number of sources ...