http://guidetotheperplexed.blogspot.com/
· Main Points
1 Abbas’s climb-down over the Goldstone Report and his taking President Obama’s assertions over settlements at face-value have painted him into a corner. His declaration that he will not stand again for President of the P.A. is only part bluff. But Abbas’s bluff will also soon be called by all parties on the West Bank over his refusal to countenance violent resistance. This position is untenable and a campaign of occasionally violent civil disobedience is currently being both planned and put into action. Abbas may yet also call the West’s bluff, particularly if he cannot form a unity government on his terms with Hamas, and attempt to run the West Bank separately under Salam Fayyad as PM of a non-elected P.A. technocracy. Meanwhile Abbas will remain both P.A. President and the senior representative of the Palestinian people under the aegis of the PLO, of which he remains head.
2 President Obama’s bluff on a total settlement freeze has been successfully called by P.M. Netanyahu. But, Obama remains unconvinced the current Israeli government can deliver the concessions needed for peace. Only an agreed strategy by the President, the Senate, and Congress, to implement a, if necessary, unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank with the backing of 12,000 US and international forces, would alter the current stalemate. Trying to implement such a strategy after yet another intifada will be extremely problematic. The current relative calm needs to be taken advantage of. The troops will be needed to ensure a smooth transition and to maintain pressure on Israel to accomodate a Palestinian state presence in Jerusalem.
3 Israel and the US have called Russia’s bluff over its illegal arms supplies to Hizb’allah via Syria and Iran with their involvement in both the Arctic Sea ‘hijacking’ fiasco and the exposure of regular visits by a Russian specialist in nuclear warhead design to Tehran.
4 Iran’s bluff over its nuclear programme has been called with the revelation of its secret nuclear weapons reprocessing plant outside Qom. No serious observers believe Iran is not within a year of enriching enough uranium for a nuclear-armed warhead. Iran’s illegal arms supplies to Hizb’allah have also been exposed after the interception and opening of the ‘Francop’ cargo ship’s Iranian-owned containers that hid 550 tons of weaponry.
5 The West’s bluff has been called both over any long-term commitment to Afghanistan or to preventing Iran’s nuclear weapons programme from coming to fruition. President Obama will only reinforce US forces in Afghanistan because of the instability in nuclear-armed Pakistan, and, then, only temporarily. Nor is he prepared to use military force to stop Iran’s programme as long as US troops remain vulnerable to Iranian-backed attack in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
6 President Obama’s bluff over his commitment to non-proliferation has also been cruelly exposed. He will preside over the greatest proliferation of nuclear-armed states in history unless he permits Israel to severely damage Iran’s nuclear arms programme, which he is not remotely inclined or able to do at the moment. New detailed intelligence on Iran’s nuclear weapons capacity and a specific hostile intent is the only factor that may lead to a change in his current position.
7 A potentially complex legal game of bluff is being played over the Goldstone report. Israel is currently trying to call the west and international communities’ bluff over its claims that war crimes were committed by Israel fighting local terrorism, this, as the global communities’ efforts to fight local and global terrorism remain untouched by any similar such claims despite the total disregard for human rights exhibited by all parties involved in the global conflict. The West is particularly vulnerable to this charge as it is fighting an unpopular counter-terror war thousands of miles from its own territory without a single missile having breached its borders, whereas Israeli sovereignty and borders are breached on an almost daily basis.
8 Shaul Mofaz, Kadima’s deputy head, has called Tzipi Livni’s bluff over any ostensible leadership ambitions she has either for her party, or for the country. His plan to evacuate 60% of the West Bank is the only serious plan currently available to all parties involved in the peace process. It will now be up to Livni to produce a measure that has as much cogency or as realistic a chance of success.
9 Labour leader Ehud Barak is involved in a complex and risky game of bluff involving not only the Palestinians, but PM Netanyahu, and Barak’s own party. He has to prove to the Labour party and supporters that he is in the government in order to advance the peace process when in reality he is there to pursue his own personal ambitions and to oversee a vital two-year anti-missile system project to its conclusion. He can only theoretically square the circle by leaving the government within the next year or two, as there is absolutely no chance of any progress in the peace process being made under the premiership of Netanyahu.
10 Prime Minister Netanyahu is involved in a fruitless game of bluff with his own Likud party, his coalition partners, Iran, and the Palestinians. He has no mandate from his own Likud party, never mind any other coalition partner (the Labour party has in reality split in two), to reach any peace agreement worthy of the name. He has no desire to attack Iran without the express permission of the US. His only political option is to cling on to power having prevented any substantive progress over the Golan Heights or the West Bank and Jerusalem, whilst managing and strengthening Israel’s economy and infrastructure through the recession.
· ANALYSIS
· President Abbas’s strategy to wait for the Obama Administration to bludgeon PM Netanyahu’s coalition into surrender or dissolution within 2 years has failed spectacularly. This was compounded by his refusal to insist the Goldstone report was put to the UN General Assembly vote to be brought before the UN Security Council. Abbas’s reluctance to initiate support for Goldstone was predicated on the false assumption that the US would support his refusal to talk until all building, including in Jerusalem, was frozen.
Abbas subsequently felt totally betrayed not only by the US’s refusal to fully support his strategy on ‘settlements’, when Hillary Clinton praised Netanyahu’s concessions on building, but also by the impossible position they had put him in concerning Goldstone with their insistence he could not talk peace with Israel whilst simultaneously supporting the process of taking peace-committed politicians such as Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak before the International Criminal Court charged with ‘war crimes.’
· The total collapse of his strategy came very suddenly upon the heals of his triumph at the Fatah Conference where he was unanimously re-elected its head. Abbas had to quickly build a new strategy as he realised without US pressure on Netanyahu’s coalition he could not get the capitulation he needed in order to sell any deal to his constituency. He and Saeb Erekat decided to link P.A. PM Salam Fayyad’s idea of creating the infrastructure for a Palestinian state within 2 years in preparation for the implementation of a two-state solution, to a unilateral declaration of Palestine within 2 years. Unfortunately this idea collapsed almost as soon as it was announced as both the US and the EU refused to support it. Their reasoning was that it would undermine the legal agreements so far in place and the whole peace process could be put in jeopardy.
· Abbas was then forced to announce his resignation as he quite rightly saw there was no point in carrying on a process that would never lead to an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital. Not only was the current Israeli government set against the partition of Jerusalem the US Senate and Congress made it plain over the summer period they would not countenance the division of Jerusalem either, particularly in the current global climate of increasing Islamist radicalism and with such a weak Palestinian leadership that was not unambiguously committed to the western democratic cause, and that had so readily and recently capitulated to radical Islam in Gaza.
This has left Abbas with few choices. He could support a unification government under his terms with Hamas, or, he could resign from the P.A., as under the P.A. constitution elections were no longer feasible without Hamas’s consent. He could then leave Fayyad in charge of daily government, and continue to lead as head of the PLO, the sole internationally recognised representative organisation of the Palestinian people. His current position is to remain as nominal head of the P.A. until elections are called with Hamas's consent, and to use his leadership of the PLO as another powerbase from which he can bargain.
This then allows the PA to continue to receive international assistance whilst Abbas would be free to negotiate with Hamas from a position of strength as head of the PLO. Hamas have never had voting rights or seats within the PLO and have always sought them. The framework for a new Palestinian unity government could be forged under the auspices of the PLO, with Hamas even joining the organisation, thus automatically gaining the status that comes with its membership as it continues to be internationally recognised as 'the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.'
Even if Hamas PLO membership has no appeal to Abbas there still remains the possibility of a summer or autumn election with more hard-line Presidential candidates, and a greater likelihood of a national unity government within the P.A., with a previously agreed clear division of power between Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank. This of course would end any chance of negotiations with the Likud-led government, but as no meaningful progress was ever possible with it anyway, it makes no difference. The pattern for the future is clear: a new intifada led by more radical leaders ending in a series of unilateral decisions by all the parties.
· Abbas will do all in his power to prevent the intifada from descending into extreme violence, and at first it is unlikely that any targets within Israel’s 1967 borders will be attacked. But all attacks within Jerusalem’s north, east, and southern suburbs will be considered legitimate, as will all attacks on settlements and settlers within the West Bank. It will start by constant rock attacks on civilians and property, and increase in severity from then on.
· President Obama was easily outmanoeuvred by Bibi Netanyahu, partly because he was extremely badly advised by Rahm Emanuel his Jewish Chief of Staff who had appointed himself the task of bringing Bibi to heel. Unfortunately Emanuel knows little to nothing about Israeli and Jewish politics and has all the subtlety and sophistication of a bull in a china shop, as well as having a personal animus towards Bibi. Fortunately the veteran diplomat Dennis Ross has been brought back in to consult more closely on all major policy issues despite also being a special National Security Council adviser for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia including Iran.
Obama and Emanuel made a basic error in both underestimating Bibi’s political skills and the support of the Senate and Congress for most of his positions, as well as having no understanding of the impact the statements on settlements would have on the talks. However, Bibi’s position will become more difficult with each month and year due to the volatility of Israeli politics and the settlements issue will continue to be used to highlight the contradictory nature of the current Israeli government position: what is the point of building settlements if you really want a two state solution?
· The reality is unless President Obama, the Senate and the Congress, agree to help implement the Mofaz plan to, unilaterally if necessary, withdraw from 60% of the West Bank and officially recognise it as Palestine within the next 18 months, no progress will be made. The intifada will increase in scope and Israel will be forced to unilaterally withdraw to borders of its own choosing and seal off Jerusalem. The US need to offer both the Palestinians and Israel a vision of a two-state solution and commit troops to its implementation, at the very least manning one of the border crossings with Jordan. A crossing into an Arab state without Israeli intervention would give hope that a free Palestine was both possible and imminent.
· Israel felt it necessary to risk upsetting Russia by highlighting both illegal arms shipments to the Middle East and the regular visits to Iran by a Russian specialist in nuclear warhead design. Israel and the US believe that Russia’s role in containing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions is vital and some sort of counter pressure was needed to get them to focus more carefully on the issue. Concurrently Obama offered Russia the removal of prospective anti-missile systems from the Czech Republic and Poland, agreed not to push for Ukrainian accession to NATO and the EU, as well as to leave Georgia’s sovereignty issues to international forums to decide. This classic carrot and stick approach is working because all parties are benefitting at the moment.
The ‘Arctic Sea’ having been at sea for three and a half months was only allowed to dock at its port of registry Valletta (Malta) on 29 October 2009, having left Kaliningrad with its alleged illegal cargo on 17 July 2009. The remaining crew, including the captain, were only allowed home from Malta on 2 November. All the Russian crew are under a gag order not to speak and face 7 years in prison in Russia should they break it. The alleged hijackers are all facing lengthy prison sentences.
The most plausible explanation for the episode is that Mossad warned the Russian authorities of an illegal arms cargo, and the Russian secret service set up the hijack scenario. They allowed the ship to get out of the media spotlight before unloading the illegal cargo at Cape Verde an East Atlantic island off the western coast of central Africa. The cargo was most likely similar to that found on the ‘Francop’ but far smaller and Israel’s main concern would have been any handheld anti-aircraft missiles destined for Hizb’allah in Lebanon. Defence Minister Barak has repeatedly said should Hizb’allah gain access to certain types of technology he describes as “game changing” then the IDF’s relatively passive stance re Lebanon would change. These particular types of missiles would have merited such a high-risk high-profile intervention on Mossad’s part, and would also explain the reports of a Lebanese businessman with Syrian connections being behind the original arms request in the Kaliningrad enclave.
The reason the Russians used the hijack scenario was to not alert the smugglers they knew an illegal arms shipment was in progress, to not embarrass any senior government official involved in the shipment, to hide any evidence that arms were involved, and to ensure deniability. Had the arms been unloaded in Russia or Europe none of the above would have been guaranteed.
· Another example of Obama’s inclusive and multilateral approach is his handling of the secret nuclear arms facility at Qom. He ensured all the major EU leaders were involved in the announcement of its exposure at the 25 September G-20 Pittsburgh Summit. He has offered Iran high-level talks in order to expose their true position, or to see who in the regime actually has the authority to make any decisions.
The same applied to the joint US-NATO-Israeli interception of Iran’s illegal arms ‘Francop’ shipment to Syria and Lebanon. Once again Obama highlighted his preference for joint and multilateral action. The U.S. and NATO supplied supporting intelligence to the IDF and Israel’s Navy completed the operation. Israel is also involved in NATO exercises despite Turkey’s recent rebuff, and the joint US-Israel one month long Juniper-Cobra anti-missile operation across Israel was considered a success, as well as the most complex exercise of its type ever held anywhere.
Incessant meetings have taken place between Israel’s Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and many of the senior commanders of NATO over the last few months. The purpose of this cooperation and coordination was not only practical it was to send a clear message to Iran that any attack on Israel would result in some form of response from NATO, even, as with Iraq during the 1980-8 Gulf War, if it is only endless supplies and intelligence to Iran’s enemy. Another advantage to NATO was to tap into the IDF’s knowledge of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), which has been accumulated from IDF operations in Lebanon (1982-2000; 2006) and Gaza (2008-9), involving Iranian-made and designed devices, similar to those encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan.
· A clear insight into US Administration strategy towards Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and nuclear proliferation came from ex-CIA advisers Bruce Riedel and Kenneth Pollack at the INSS Tel Aviv University talks in conjunction with the Saban Forum. Riedel who advises Obama on Afghanistan said the US could not think about attacking Iran as long as she has troops committed to Afghanistan and Iraq both of which were disastrous expeditions. $30 billion per year more will be spent on additional troops to Afghanistan with no guarantee of success. The main reason for not pulling out of Afghanistan now was the danger of radicals taking over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.
Pollack made it clear that containment of a nuclear armed Iran was the US’s only option. Soon, Saudi Arabia would acquire nuclear weapons, whatever happens. The world would just have to get used to a nuclear-armed Middle East, with the focus on containing radical regimes like Iran through military alliances, supporting dissident groups, and targeted sanctions that hit Iranian companies only, and not civilians.
This view will result in the largest proliferation of nuclear weapons in history. An interesting paradox, as Obama is one of the few Presidential candidates to ever explicitly state his commitment to non-proliferation and severely curbing the Great Powers' nuclear arsenals. What these advisers apparently forget is that President Chavez of Venezuela will soon be joining the nuclear-armed club, and the United States for the first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis will have a nuclear-armed neighbour. As soon as this prospect becomes clear Obama’s chances of re-election will diminish substantially. Obama will be secretly hoping Israel will do his dirty work for him.
· The White House meeting between Bibi, Barak, Oren and Obama was a constructive one. Both Bibi and Barak seemed extremely pleased with the outcome expressing the view that Obama was sound on Iran. Given that Obama is pursuing a containment strategy against Iran, and hopes to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible the most likely conclusion is that the Israeli side asked him whether he would obstruct Israel from attacking Iran if Israel felt a nuclear strike was imminent or likely, and Obama reaffirmed his belief that all nations have the right to self-defence.
Increased intelligence and technical cooperation with Israel over the Arrow 3 project, Juniper-Cobra exercise, the recent NATO exercises and the inclusion of Israel’s larger Naval vessels in a major NATO exercise for the first time, allied to NATO help intercepting illegal arms shipments destined to Israel’s enemies, confirm reports that Obama has also pledged direct access to US Intelligence systems and live satellite feeds covering Iran. This will give Israel advance warning of terror and smuggling activities, any impending missile launches, a first strike advantage, and an opportunity to warn the Home Front. The quid pro quo is presumably that Obama will be warned in advance by Israel of any attack on Iran.
· Israel is currently prepared to force the western powers to show their hand on the ‘war crimes’ issue. Spain revoked her power to arrest individuals for war crimes unless they involved Spanish citizens as a result of Israel’s appeals. Britain cannot do the same as long as the current Labour party is in power. When Tony Blair was asked to revoke similar legislation he refused because the Left in the Labour party was too strong and it would cause a split in his party. Israel wants the West to provide a coherent legal framework that will stop prosecutions by nations, organisations, or individuals that are hostile to any state defending themselves from radical Islam.
If this policy fails then Israel will simply set up an independent judicial enquiry that will negate any legal right to take Israel or Israeli individuals to the International Criminal Court in the Hague. International law dictates that if there is an authoritative and independent legal Israeli enquiry it has precedence over any other.
· Shaul Mofaz’s plan to leave 60% of the West Bank, unilaterally if necessary, whilst recognising that it constitutes along with the Gaza Strip the nascent state of Palestine is a direct challenge to Tzipi Livni’s leadership. Livni has satisfied herself with sniping from the sidelines whilst offering little vision or alternatives on any substantive issue. Two opposing trends are apparent. Livni’s popularity has remained stable but only as a result of alienated Labour voters whose desertion to Livni-led Kadima has halved Labour’s support-base. A recent poll suggested that the centre-left has lost 7 seats to the right since February alone. The Mofaz plan appeals to the centre right, the current electoral centre, he hopes to place Kadima in a position to join the coalition by continuing to propose pragmatic centre-right policies.
If Livni does not shift to the right soon, or offer some imaginative alternatives, she will leave Kadima in the position of permanent official opposition, as Labour disappears altogether off the political map.
· Ehud Barak’s Houdini escape after the last election has failed to prevent his party losing 20 points in the polls. Only 5% of the electorate agree Barak would make a suitable Prime Minister. Labour would gain 6 seats if an election were held this month. This is not all due to Barak as the endless factionalism within Labour continues to alienate its supporters.
Labour has to hope that Livni is ousted from Kadima’s leadership and that an intifada accompanied by a violent settler response makes Netanyahu’s position untenable. The Israeli electorate are notoriously fickle and Ehud Olmert recovered from a 3% standing in the polls to roughly 33% within months, following good economic figures and the Winograd report exonerating him from the worst aspects of the IDF’s performance during the Second Lebanon War. Barak’s position is somewhat different, as he has no party to speak of, is an expert at alienating people, and has no economic success to his name. If, however, a war breaks out and Israel is noticeably successful all that could change. Ideally Barak needs to leave the coalition sometime in 2011 when it becomes clear that Bibi cannot offer any way forward in the peace process, and with Kadima losing support from both its centre right and centre left supporters. He has already gone down in history as Labour’s least popular and electorally least successful leader.
· Bibi Netanyahu’s position is a lot more fragile than the current polls suggest with his popularity at an all time high (43% approval rating). His economic reforms will meet with ingrained and protracted opposition; and he cannot make any progress with the Palestinians or Syrians because he has nothing to offer them. He does not have the nerve to initiate an attack on Iran, unless irrefutable intelligence forces his hand, and should he be forced to attack, having achieved nothing on the Palestine front, the combined deterioration in the economic, political, and military situation would be severe.
Nevertheless he could survive until 2012 if he manages to successfully contain the next intifada, and if Iran fails to succeed in building an effective nuclear weapon. However, at some stage he will have to decide where Israel’s borders lie as governing the West Bank will slowly become impossibly costly in terms of loss of resources and increasing divisions within and amongst the Israeli population (minor insurrections in the IDF are increasing as the prospect of evacuating settlers draws closer), alongside the radicalisation of Israeli Arabs. The neglect of the Negev and Galilee will be seen as a strategic mistake and the need to populate these areas with a settler-like population of highly motivated pioneer-minded citizens will increasingly be seen as a national priority.
· It is clear Bibi has nothing to offer the Palestinians and they have nothing to offer in return. A staged unilateral withdrawal over several years is the most likely outcome to the current impasse. The probability remains strong that Israel will have withdrawn from most of the West Bank by 2016-17, sooner if a major war with Iran, Lebanon, and Syria breaks out, and a major peace conference follows. A national unity government will have had to be formed to cope with a war with Iran, and the Mofaz plan, or an almost total withdrawal, will have to be considered in its aftermath.
· The issue of Jerusalem will remain irresolvable. The most likely outcome is that Israel will seal the capital off from the West Bank. The following few years (2010-12) will be seen as the last period of time Israel and the Palestinians will have had to create a peaceful Palestine on the West Bank with an undivided and open Jerusalem. But, there is not sufficient leadership or vision on either side to achieve this. Only the highly active participation of the international community in the development of the West Bank will prevent it descending into chaos, which will in turn lead to a series of operations similar to Operation Cast Lead over the coming decade. Once Jerusalem is sealed off from Palestine a series of security sweeps will be regularly used to suppress insurrections in the Old City, and a series of separation walls and fences will be built to separate Jewish and Arab youths from incessant confrontations in the suburbs.
Links:
Kenneth Pollack analysis (Iran and proliferation):
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1258624595999&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Bruce Riedel analysis (Afghanistan):
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258489190793&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Haaretz Poll:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1127911.html
For the best English language news site on Israel:
http://www.jpost.com/
For a vigorous Liberal-Left position of the Israeli daily paper:
http://www.haaretz.com/
For a Centre-Left view on Israel, in occasionally appalling English:
http://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L-3083,00.html
¨For an insight into Arab and Muslim media coverage of the Israel-Palestinian issue, anti-Semitism, and other Middle East issues see:
http://www.memri.org/
For an overview of the media coverage of Israel see the BICOM (Britain Israel Research and Communications Centre) site. Below are the sites for -
News headlines with links to each site:
http://www.bicom.org.uk/news/headlines
¨A written summary of the news:
http://www.bicom.org.uk/news
The main issues behind the news:
http://www.bicom.org.uk/briefings/behind_the_news/
Extracts from editorial and article Opinion:
http://www.bicom.org.uk/news/comment-and-opinion
A small selection of Quotes:
http://www.bicom.org.uk/news/quotes
____________________________________
________________________________
__________________________________
_____________________________
___________________________________________
__________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment