Middle East

Secretary Rice has been a frequent traveler to Israel/Palestine in the recent past (17 times in the past 2 years), and she is now in the middle of another visit in an attempt to broker an agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians by the end of 2008. Read her remarks with Israeli Foreign Minister (and now Acting Prime Minister) Tzipi Livni here and with Mahmoud Abbas here. Settlements, unsurprisingly, continue to be a thorn in the side of all three parties; PeaceNow, an Israeli pressure group, released a report shortly before Secretary Rice’s visit documenting a rise in settlement activities relative to this time last year. (Almost twice as many new buildings are under construction as there were in the first half of 2008). Rice said, in her press conference with Livni, that the settlement activity was “not helpful” but pointed out that negotiations were proceeding despite it. Abbas and Livni were slightly more pointed in their comments; Livni said 

“… the peace process is not and should not be affected by any kind of settlement activities. I mean, at the end of the day, we are talking about the future borders of the Palestinian state, considering more than 40 years we are talking, plus minus, about the same blocks of settlements, and this is part of the negotiations. And as I suggested also to my co-partners on the Palestinian side, to try — and I understand that sometimes (inaudible) and sometimes how does it affect on different parts of Palestinian society. But at the end of the day, the role of leaders is to try and find a way to live in peace in the future, and to avoid any kind of — not to let any kind of noises that relate to the situation on the ground these days to enter the negotiations room. I mean, it could have been easier also for me to use some excuses, and to say that this affects my ability to negotiate. But I decided not to do so, even in harder days of terror. So I would like to suggest my co-partners not to use it as an excuse. And I know that they are not using it as an excuse, but I understand the frustration sometimes.”

Abbas, later on the same day, made the following comments:

We have focused also on the settlement activities that continue, that are ongoing, and that are undoubtedly an obstacle, a main obstacle in the road of the peace process. And as you all know, we reject all the settlement activities in principle because they contradict with the agreements and the Roadmap plan and the objectives of Annapolis that have started one year ago – almost one year ago.

So, Rice has got her work cut out for her. As Fareed Zakaria said, no one has ever lost money betting against the peace process. There is one interesting new development, though – Rice has appointed Lt. Gen. Will Fraser to oversee the progress of the Roadmap. He’s established a system for quantifying the impact of each of the roadblocks up in the West Bank/Gaza and East Jerusalem, ostensibly so that the most disruptive roadblocks can be removed first. Sean McCormack discusses this in greater depth at DipNote, the State Dept’s blog.

Or: Hamas Rocket Attacks Deter Israeli Humanitarian Mission

Or: Israel Content to Let Gaza Fall Apart

Or: Hamas Willing to Sacrifice Own People In War Against Israel

So it goes when wading into the Israeli/Palestinian debate.   The facts are that an Israeli convoy delivering fuel and other supplies was attacked by rocket fire and turned back, unable to deliver much-needed relief goods to the fractured, angry, starving strip. 

Ah, but- so what?  How many divisions do Facts have?  Zero.  You better believe it.  Israel is imposing a blockade on Gaza, but is also delivering supplies.   Different takes show Israel to be monstrously imposing hardships on Gazans or braving rocket attacks to deliver humanitarian goods in the face of unrelenting attacks.  

This blog, with characteristic humility, chooses to allow the facts to speak for themselves, and prefers not to deliver an opinion which would invite vituperative scorn from people it has never met. 

An article printed in the Jerusalem Post this past week provides an interesting overview of the rising popularity of victims’ families filing lawsuits in Israeli courts against the Palestinian Authority since the start of the second intifadah.

The Israeli government has openly admitted that it has not only the right, but the obligation, to protect its citizens and defend itself against threats via a proactive campaign in the West Bank, typified by checkpoints, daily raids, arrests, and targeted killings and the construction of the infamous separation wall.

Such tactics severely limit the Palestinian Authority’s ability to enact their own security measures. For example, Palestinian security forces are prohibited from venturing outside their designated jurisdictions and in most cases, are unable to conduct operations at night.

This is a source of confusion for many moderate Palestinians, who argue that if Israel has asserted its right to defend itself by conducting a military campaign in the West Bank that not only overshadows the efforts of the PA, but in fact restricts its ability to function, how is it that the Palestinian government be held accountable? Still, some figures, such as Nitzana Darshan-Leitner a lawyer representing one of the Israeli victims, have gone so far as to say that the PA itself is responsible for the ongoing attacks

Earlier this month the U.S. administration made it clear that they have opted to play neutral on this issue, recognizing the potential damage to the fragile West Bank economy the nearly 1 billion dollars in payouts the PA faces in these lawsuits could pose, but has stopped short of making any statements that would make them seem unsympathetic to the families of victims.

In this case, in terms of securing the West Bank, both Israelis and Palestinians might agree that the term ‘Palestinian Authority’ can sometimes be a bit of a misnomer.

Vanity Fair has an excellent article by David Rose about the Bush Administration almost forcing Gaza into a Civil War.  I am not positive I agree with the thesis- I tend to think that a battle would have happened eventually- but the capriciousness, stubbornness, and willingness to work with very shady people simply because they were on “our” side makes this a maddening read.   The outcome of the Gaza debacle is that the hand of the US was weakened while strengthening Iran, not to mention further hurting any chance at an Israeli/Palestinian settlement, and bringing more misery and death to people on both sides of that blighted divide.  

The article talks a bit about how this fit into Condoleeza Rice’s broader goals of an anti-Shi’ite coalition made up of cooperating Sunni states, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.  For a good background on this read David Samuels’ June 2007 Atlantic piece, “Grand Illusions.” 

Helping Lebanon free itself from the Syria/Hezbollah axis is a worthy goal.  Helping the only party in Palestine that has even a decent shot at reform, Fatah, is somewhat more ambiguous, but still a decent goal.   But the policy of gathering allies behind the scenes and aiding the enemies of our enemies is short-sighted and only helps to fuel the idea of America as a conspiracy-mongering, entirely self-interested war machine. 

(Of course, one could point to the success of arming former insurgents in al-Anbar against al-Qaeda.   And that is true- they have hurt Islamic militants.  But I still think it is a desperately short-sighted plan.  It is putting out one fire, which is good, but pouring fuel into another.)

And so Israel looks like it is moving closer and closer to a full-scale retaliation in the Gaza Strip, in response to the escalating assault of Katyusha rockets launched by Hamas at souther Israeli towns.   The IDF has already launched deadly raids into the Strip, killing close to twenty Palestinians. 

 The Israeli reaction here is inevitable, and, in the view of this author, justifiable.  No one going through constant rocket attacks should be expected to just sit there and take it.  War is never a decent or good thing, and it should never be rushed into or taken lightly, but eventually Israel has to defend itself.  It moved out of the Gaza Strip, the Gazans had an election, and the rockets still rain.  Regardless of what one thinks about the morality of a response, Israel has the legal right to defend itself (enough of my opinion; dissent is welcomed in the comments). 

(Side note: For a good discussion of this, both rational and inflamed {and thus an accurate picture}, check out the comments on Marty Peretz’ New Republicblog.  Marty himself is a little over-the-top, but some of the comments are excellent). 

Now to the meat of this post: why, knowing exactly how Israel would respond, did Hamas step up their assault?  After all, there is zero way Hamas could defeat a full-scale military invasion.  If Israel dropped all morality, it could roll over Gaza in a matter of hours (that Israel will not do that, of course, plays into Hamas’ considerations). 

It is because of the cruel realities of governance.   Ayatollah Khomeini famously said something along the lines of “the revolution is about Islam, not determining the price of melons!”  (I found several different versions of this quote, but they were all just variations on a theme.)   Meaning, of course, that he wasn’t interested in the nitty-gritty of a functioning society, but on his grand dream.   Luckily for him, Iran had a long history and a free marketplace.

 Not so in Gaza: years of occupation and Arafat’s incompetence left the Strip a miserable place to be, without any of the basics of governance.  Fatah proved that it couldn’t handle it, and the only other group there was Hamas.  Hamas won the elction, focusing much of its campaign rhetoric not on who was going to drive whom into which sea, but on erasing corruption and cleaning up the trash. 

Sounds good, right?  Hezbollah did much the same thing in Lebanon- limiting the militant talk while discussing civil society.   There discussion of how, in the absence of Israeli occupation, Hezbollah could evolve from a revolutionary militia to a normal political party (normal for the region, of course).  

This didn’t happen.  Hezbollah refused to give up its guns, and, when its Syrian backers were forced to scale back following the Hariri murder (for which they still might be held responsible), Hezbollah was losing support as well as its rasion d’etre.  So they launched raids into Israel’s north, and Israel retaliated.  It is worth noting that many Lebanese approved of this, before Israel disastrously went to Beirut.    Hezbollah found its voice again, and regained popularity.

Hamas realizes this.  Like Hezbollah, they were born for one reason only- to fight against Israel.   They can do no other.   So, as the reality of political power sets in, and people want more than rallies and fire, rhetoric and blood, a group can do one of two things: actually try to give people what they want (peace, jobs, stability, food) or, paradoxically, bring more blood and fire in, to rally around a common enemy.

Hamas is constitutionally unable to do the former.  They can only make trouble.  They are making a desperate gamble here- bring the wrath of Israel down upon them to try to rally support (picture of dead children always do this) and reestablish their mojo.  It will probably work; it almost always does.   It is tragic and foolhardy and immoral, but it is their only political knowledge.

It is a myth for fools that Hamas or Hezbollah can moderate themselves.  There might be people in the groups who can, but as soon as they modify themselves they cease to exist.  Power affects everyone the same way. For Hamas,  adaptation means extinction.   Fighting just means more bodies.   That is hardly a choice at all.

Seymour Hersh has an in-depth look at the Israeli attack of Syria last year, which some claim was an attack on some kind of nuclear facility.  Hersh is always worth a read.    Here is a teaser.

Sometime after midnight on September 6, 2007, at least four low-flying Israeli Air Force fighters crossed into Syrian airspace and carried out a secret bombing mission on the banks of the Euphrates River, about ninety miles north of the Iraq border. The seemingly unprovoked bombing, which came after months of heightened tension between Israel and Syria over military exercises and troop buildups by both sides along the Golan Heights, was, by almost any definition, an act of war. But in the immediate aftermath nothing was heard from the government of Israel. In contrast, in 1981, when the Israeli Air Force destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, near Baghdad, the Israeli government was triumphant, releasing reconnaissance photographs of the strike and permitting the pilots to be widely interviewed.

Within hours of the attack, Syria denounced Israel for invading its airspace, but its public statements were incomplete and contradictory—thus adding to the mystery.

A security wall on the border between Gaza and Egypt was destroyed today, freeing the people of the trapped and desperate Strip to…shop.   Though this seems prosaic, it is vitally important to the people of Gaza, suffering under Israeli blockades (themselves a response to constant rocket attacks).    The border has turned into a bizarre bazaar, as both Palestinian and Egyptian security forces are looking the other way, if not helping out the spree.    It is suspected by both Palestinians and Israeli’s that Hamas was responsible for tearing down the wall, which, if true, is a smart play.   The people of Gaza were suffering, and whether they choose to blame Israel or their own government’s obstinate militancy, it is the local government that feel the wrath of the people.   Today opened up a huge safety valve, relieving pressure.   It also gives Hamas a play, as according to Ha’aretz, “Hamas’ Damascus-based political leader Khaled Meshal said Wednesday that his organization would be willing to work to resolve the chaotic situation on the Gaza-Egypt border, but only if the border were placed under exclusive Palestinian and Egyptian control.”     Smart play by Hamas. 

To the store!

The President is concluding the Israel/Palestinian portion of his Middle East trip, before moving on the Gulf to deal with Iran.   Bush feels confident that there will be a Palestinian state and a peace treaty before he leaves office in slightly more than a year, saying “‘there’s going to be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office,’ stressing that Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will ‘make tough choices in order for there to be lasting peace.’” (Middle East Times)

To this author, this kind of rhetoric seems typically worrisome, infused with the idea that merely believing something is enough to make it happen.   And, as a New York Times story says , the Palestinians don’t much believe it either.  “‘He has destroyed everything, and now he is coming to see the results,” said Moussa Al Hilou, 63, a clothing store owner. ‘What Palestinian state is he talking about? What he says is nonsense, even our leadership knows that.’”

Bush, as the Israeli paper Haaretz reports, is not happy with Bush being there, for reason ranging from the grand- they believe he is the most Israeli-biased President in history- to the prosaic: his arrival has prompted massive (justified) security measures.

“Ala, who lives nearby, said Preventive Security personnel had been moving from house to house for the past few days and taking down residents’ names.
‘We were asked not to go out onto the balconies or the roofs. We are not allowed to go into the street, either,’ he said. ‘That criminal, George Bush, has put us under curfew. The Israelis are not enough - now him, too. He is destroying the world and he will yet be tried for his crimes,’ he added.” 

I don’t see much coming out of this, other than an attempt at a legacy.  Bush is too unpopular and hard-feelings are too ingrained for anything to happen here (with everything else that has happened, it is somewhat incredible to realize that George W. Bush has been the President thoughout almost all of the events starting with the second intifada). 

 What he did do though was call for an end to the occupation, and said that “a Palestinian state had to be contiguous. ‘Swiss cheese isn’t going to work when it comes to the territory of a state.’   This is probably not the single most eloquent framing of this issue I have ever read, but it is still meaningful for a US President to acknowledge it.   Whomever the next President is, he or she will have to pick up where Bush falteringly and belatedly began.

(As Bush moves into the Gulf, we will be doing an in-depth look at Gulf issues, especially regarding Iran.  Excited?  You bet you are!)

Interesting story on grafitti art on NPR this morning. In Bethlehem, Israel’s security wall is being tagged by both international and local artists, in what can be seen as a display of defiance or, alternately, just an outlet for frustrated young people. You can listen to and read the story

A British grafitti artist (I suppose that is the proper term) is there, painting scenes such as a young girl frisking an Israeli soldier or a donkey having his ID card checked. Listening to the story I was a little irritated by this, because I didn’t care much for the idea of Banksy, as he is known, dropping in and showing the Palestinians the kind of art that meant something. Looking at the pictures, though, I had to concede they have, regardless of politics, a certain artistic merit. Even if you divorce the conflict and whatever your opinions are, the strangely neutral tone of the little girl in a pink dress frisking a soldier- and with both free of local iconography- presents a kind of fascinating dissonance.

(Eric Westervelt, NPR)

There are other paintings as well, many other paintings, including a escalator taking a bunch of sillouhetes over the wall and a giant bug knocking over a row of dominoes that could, but don’t have to, represent the security wall (kind of a Kafka-David Lynch-Abu Mazen mashup, if you will).

(Eric Westervelt, NPR)

My personal favorite, though, is this one, from an artist named “Sam 3″.

(Eric Westervelt, NPR)

That is, of course, Jake LaMotta preparing to take a punch from Sugar Ray Robinson. Robinson fought LaMotta six times (watch a clip of them fighting here, if you are a fan of the sweet science).

Why do I like this one so much? Because the bulk of the story is about Israel preventing suicide bombers, the economy of Palestine in general and Bethlehem specifically being choked (a source of frustration especially now, Christmas being the height of Bethlehem’s tourist season) and the usual Israel/Palestine storylines. And those do need to be talked about, of course, and are of dizzying importance. But it is nice to think that someone there, for whatever reason, decided to spend his or her (his) time immortalizing one of boxing’s great rivalries, for no reason other than the love of painting and the excitement he or she (he) feels about the sport. For me, that is a better Christmas message than any piety, real or show.

(caveat: CNN has a story today about tourism in Bethlehem being up this holiday season.)