"Kin or Country" - A flight of fancy into 2048

I review this new book by Paul Alster on the Jerusalem Post website at: https://www.jpost.com/jerusalem-report/a-flight-of-fancy-into-2048-647258

Back in 2017 journalist Paul Alster, acting on behalf of the Jerusalem Report, interviewed officials working in Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) in Givat Shaul, Jerusalem, the nerve centre of a myriad of facts and figures relating to Israeli life. Sparked by what he learned on that visit, Alster found himself speculating about the possible future of the State of Israel.  Finally he decided to give his imagination free rein, and "Kin or Country" ‒ his first novel ‒ is the result.

            The book is a flight of fancy into the year 2048, exactly a century after the founding of the state.  It is still a recognizable world, even if sophisticated smart speakers are now commonplace and vehicles drive themselves.  Back in the late-2030s, following a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinian leadership, part of the West Bank had been incorporated into a new state of Palestine, and East Jerusalem had become its capital.  Gaza had fallen under international supervision, and Arab states harbouring the descendants of refugee Palestinians had agreed to offer them citizenship. 

            With the Israel-Palestinian dispute no longer a factor, Alster’s starting point is the divergence, apparent in Israel from its very beginning, between the political and life-style imperatives of the ultra-orthodox ‒ the Haredi ‒ and those of the secular population.  In Alster’s vision of the future, that gap has widened to the point where the political and social influence exercised by each side has become intolerable to the other. Jerusalem, Jewish areas in the West Bank and a number of adjacent towns have become almost wholly haredi, while other areas, with Tel Aviv as their hub, are heavily secular.  As a result, political movements have sprung up asserting that the two ways of life are incompatible and demanding that they separate ‒ an issue, and the only one, uniting large sectors of both the haredi and the secular communities.

            The political pressure forces a vote in the Knesset to approve a national referendum on whether the nation should be divided into two independent states, Israel and Judea, the former with its capital in Tel Aviv, the latter based in Jerusalem.  The vote passes, and Kin or Country takes us through an imagined final eleven days in the countdown to the national referendum.

            Those eleven days are filled with dramatic incident.  Not only political wheeling and dealing, but death stalks them, and the novel could be described as a political murder mystery.  Even though we are in no doubt about the culprit in one of the killings, the police investigation that slowly uncovers the truth creates a tension of its own, inextricably linked to the political manoeuverings as the national vote draws closer by the day. The identity of a second guilty party we learn only at the end of the novel, and it is a revelation full of irony.  But the heart of the drama lies in the twists and turns on the political scene that leave the result of the national ballot ‒ and with it the future of the Jewish nation ‒ uncertain right up to the wire.

Applying his imagination to political and social factors already apparent within Israeli society, Alster ingeniously projects them a little way forward.  For example, he postulates a community of interest between the extreme right wing of the ultra-orthodox, Neturei Karta, and Iran’s Islamist regime.  A secret deal between Iran and the haredi “Yes” campaign forms a vital element in the overall political mix.  The US political situation, too, bears heavily on the relative fortunes of the two referendum campaigns. Into the narrative Alster adds the human and emotional stories of individuals caught up in the intense political issues being played out. 

The question throughout the novel is whether Israel is to remain a united nation, the one and only Jewish state, or whether there are to be two Jewish states – Israel and Judea ‒ one a secular democracy, the other a theocracy.  We learn Paul Alster’s prediction only in the closing pages. The result is a truly gripping vision of the way Israel could travel in the next quarter of a century, an exciting and mind-stretching literary experience. 

For some it might also serve as a dire warning about a possible dystopian future.  For, as Alster himself says about the novel: “It foresees a scenario that could easily become reality in the homeland of all the Jewish people, unless drastic societal changes come to pass in the next few years. Israel truly faces formidable and unique challenges. More than anything else though, this is a story about the dangers of religious coercion, about flawed morality across the political spectrum, but ultimately about human emotions and family relationships that apply equally to people of all faiths, creeds and colours”.

          For anyone interested in Israel’s present situation, in the cracks and flaws within Israeli society which, if left unattended, could develop into chasms and lead to an unimaginable future, Kin or Country is required reading.  A gripping page-turner it certainly is, but it is much more – a convincing vision of a possible future that few would desire for the nation.

Published in the Jerusalem Post on-line:
https://www.jpost.com/jerusalem-report/a-flight-of-fancy-into-2048-647258

Published in the Eurasia Review, 14 November 2020: :https://www.eurasiareview.com/14112020-kin-or-country-will-this-be-israels-future-a-flight-of-fancy-into-2048-book-review/        

Published in the Jewish Business News, 13 November 2020:
https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2020/11/13/will-this-be-israels-futurea-flight-of-fancy-into-2048/

 

Why Lebanon needs its revolution

                      

             On October 27, 2020, a year after former Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri was dismissed from office, he was reappointed by President Michel Aoun.  Despite Hariri’s previous inability to manage Lebanon’s growing economic and political chaos, he has one characteristic that sets him apart from many of his fellow politicians and even from his president.  Even though he has had to compromise from time to time, he is a long-standing opponent of Hezbollah.  He has good reason.  Hezbollah, it has been shown, was involved in the assassination of his father, Rafik Hariri, back in 2005.

Saad Hariri faces a totally unstable situation.  Lebanon is a seething cauldron of popular discontent.  It took decades for the head of steam to build up but finally, on October 17, 2019, the country blew its top.  That was the day the government, in a desperate attempt to get a grip on the failing economy, announced that new taxes were to be imposed on an already poverty stricken population, and that the cost of gasoline, tobacco, and internet calls such as What’sApp were to be hiked up. 

Crowds took to the streets. The proposed taxes were the trigger, but the underlying causes of the widespread fury soon emerged. They ranged from opposition to the basic system of government by religious affiliation ‒ a system established when Lebanon became independent of colonial France in 1944 ‒ to the stagnant economy, unemployment at very nearly 50 percent of the working population, endemic corruption in the public sector, and the totally inadequate provision of public services such as garbage collection, water, electricity and sanitation.

Come the first anniversary of the national uprising on October 17, 2020, anti-government protesters attended rallies the length and breadth of the country chanting “Revolution, revolution.”  Yet revolution seems reluctant to show its face in Lebanon.  The population, apparently ready for radical change, appears unable to bring it about. 

In recent years the Lebanese people have endured a civil conflict, a long Syrian occupation, two wars with Israel, several economic crises, huge unemployment and political assassinations. The past twelve months alone has seen the country very nearly brought to its knees from a collapse of the currency, the onset of the coronavirus, the devastating explosion in Beirut port and two changes of prime minister. Yet the old ruling establishment ‒ moribund, corrupt and inefficient ‒ continues in power.

In the perception of a large proportion of the population enough is enough, and only root and branch reform will put the country back on its feet. Ever since that outburst of national rage in October 2019, demonstrators have been demanding the resignation of all those in power from the president down. All, without exception, are seen as the same power-hungry chieftains who led their followers into the 1975-1990 civil war before making peace with one another, and going on to enrich themselves.

One key factor in the malaise afflicting Lebanon is the fact that, embedded within the establishment structure, is the Iranian-supported Hezbollah organization.  Founded by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, shortly after he took power in 1979, it declared that its aims and purpose were entirely at one with Iran’s. Over the past few decades it has been consuming the political, military and administrative organs of the state, until only the outer shell of an independent sovereign country now remains.   Many now believe that the Lebanese state and Hezbollah are in effect indistinguishable. It follows that if there is no place in a reformed Lebanon for those who run the present state, there is no place for Hezbollah.

During the first riots in 2019 protesters smashed the offices of Hezbollah MPs in southern Nabatieh.  Before October was out, Hezbollah had rallied hundreds of supporters including an armed militia, and mounted a charge on protesters in central Beirut. As Amnesty International, making no distinction between Hezbollah and government forces, put it: “The largely peaceful protests since October 2019 have been met by the Lebanese military and security forces with beatings, teargas, rubber bullets, and at times live ammunition and pellets.”

France’s president Emmanuel Macron, who visited Lebanon twice in the aftermath of the Beirut port explosion, said the country’s ruling class had “betrayed” the people by failing to act swiftly and decisively against the party suspected of importing and storing the chemicals, Hezbollah. 

If the Lebanese government has undertaken any positive action in the recent past, it is the decision to participate in the US-mediated talks aimed at demarcating the country’s maritime border with Israel.  The situation is awkward.  Following the 2006 conflict Israel and Lebanon  are not technically at peace, but both are adhering to a UN-sponsored ceasefire. So the talks are being held at arm’s length.

All the same it is not Lebanon that is pledged to eliminate Israel, but Iran-backed Hezbollah, and the 2006 conflict was triggered by the armed forces of Hezbollah, not those of the state.  It is scarcely surprising that Hezbollah and its main ally, the Amal Movement, are opposed to the maritime negotiations.  They perceive the move, and perhaps they are correct, as an extension of the normalization agreements reached between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. 

All the same, some in Lebanon welcome the development. Ziad Assouad, a member of President Aoun’s party, said Lebanon’s dire economic situation meant that it should have no qualms about holding even direct negotiations with Israel. 

Realistic thinking is called for within Lebanon’s administration. How long can the country’s affairs be dictated by an organization dedicated to the interests of a foreign state?  If anyone is prepared to face down the vested interests within Lebanon linked to Hezbollah, it is Saad Hariri. Sooner or later the Lebanese establishment must recognize the inevitable.  The time for fundamental change has arrived.

Published in the Eurasia Review, 24 October 2020:
https://www.eurasiareview.com/24102020-why-lebanon-needs-its-revolution-oped/

Published in the Jewish Business News, 23 October 2020:
https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2020/10/23/why-lebanon-needs-its-revolution/

Published in The Times of Israel, 29 October 2020:
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-lebanon-needs-its-revolution/

Multi-national cooperation in the Middle East

                                                        Flag of the Union for the Mediterranean

          Hope is flourishing in the Middle East. Many believe that the historic normalization deals between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain will broaden into increased cooperation across the whole region, leading to growing prosperity. If this is indeed the happy outcome, the groundwork is already laid. Certain well-structured organizations have been highly active, some for decades, sponsoring a multitude of humanitarian, financial and developmental programmes. The problem is that they have been operating under the radar, and that very little is known about them.

          For example, how much is generally known about the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM)? Supported by a wide range of institutional partners, project promoters, international financial institutions and the private sector, the UfM works proactively to achieve greater levels of integration and cooperation in the region. Believing strongly that security depends upon development, since 2012 the UfM has sponsored no less than 59 regional cooperation projects with a budget of more than €5 billion. 

          The membership of the UfM consists of all 27 member states of the European Union together with 15 regional nations bordering the Mediterranean including Egypt, Turkey, Greece, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA or, as it has designated itself, “the State of Palestine”). Libya has observer status, and Syria, once a member, has been suspended.

          Euromed (the European Institute of the Mediterranean) is another rather shadowy body. Like the Ufm, it sprang from an EU initiative back in 1995 aimed at strengthening relations with the Arab nations of north-west Africa known as the Maghreb, and those bordering the western Mediterranean and its hinterland, known as the Mashriq. That EU-convened conference, held in Barcelona, aimed at encouraging cooperation between these nations, and in particular at constructing an economic and financial partnership between them and the EU leading eventually to a free trade area. The initiative came to be known as “the Barcelona Process”.

          Despite the best of intentions, the Process failed to take flight. By its tenth anniversary in 2005, it had not come anywhere near advancing its programme. The document it issued after its conference that year was not even endorsed by the partnership as a whole. The disagreement turned on what was to be understood by “terrorism”. The PA, Syria and Algeria wanted to exclude what they called “resistance movements against foreign occupation”– “foreign occupation” being code for Israel’s existence anywhere in Mandate Palestine.

          In the lacklustre performance of the Barcelona Process, France’s Nicolas Sarkozy perceived a political opportunity. He conceived the grandiose concept of a “Mediterranean Union”, paralleling the European Union. This project formed part of his manifesto during the French presidential campaign that led to his election in 2007.

          Once elected, Sarkozy invited all heads of state and government of the Mediterranean region to a meeting in Paris, to lay the foundations. Unfortunately for him, his ambitious concept failed to inspire the EU. Some European leaders felt that it would not be sensible to duplicate institutions already in existence via the Barcelona Process. The European Commission thought that a better idea would be to use the existing Barcelona structure to build a more effective organization.

          Sarkozy modified his proposal accordingly, and obtained EU agreement for a project built upon the existing Barcelona Process. No longer a Mediterranean Union, but a Union for the Mediterranean (UfM), it would include all EU member states and be dedicated to supporting socioeconomic developments in the region. Currently it is overseeing scores of such projects spread right across the Mediterranean area. One such, supported by both Israel and the Palestinians, is the €500 million Desalination Facility project for the Gaza Strip, endorsed by all 42 member states of the UfM.

          While no one could reasonably object to the encouragement of projects designed to bring improvements to the lives and living standards of the peoples of the Mediterranean, the exact relationship between Euromed and the UfM is somewhat puzzling. Both claim the Barcelona conference of 1995 for their foundation and the Barcelona Process as their inspiration, and both aim to achieve economic and developmental advances across the region. Their spheres of activity, however, are not clearly delineated. The Union, essentially project-driven, works by proactive involvement; Euromed describes itself as aiming “to promote economic integration and democratic reform across the EU’s neighbours to the south in North Africa and the Middle East”.

          Then, in 2018 a third body emerged. Self-supporting and self-sufficient, PRIMA (Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area) is the most ambitious joint programme to be undertaken in the frame of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation. In the light of climate change, unsustainable agricultural practices and over-exploitation of natural resources, it was set up specifically to develop more sustainable management of water and agro-food systems in the Mediterranean region. PRIMA currently consists of 19 participating countries including Israel but not the Palestinian Authority.

          The main factor leading to the failure of the Barcelona Partnership – political instability – is as potent in 2020 as it was in 2005. What is new is the deal between Israel and the two Gulf states, and what it may lead to. An organization titled “The Union for the Mediterranean” might seem the expression of a far distant, possibly unattainable, vision – and yet there it is, active and flourishing, alongside its comrades Euromed and PRIMA. 

          A sensible way ahead? Amalgamation of the three existing bodies into one effective organization, rationalization of its operations, perhaps expansion of its activities beyond the Mediterranean region to embrace the Middle East as a whole, and – since public awareness of the existing bodies and their activities is minimal to the point of secrecy – better promotion of its purposes and achievements, for there is every reason for the good work to continue. 

Published in the Eurasia Review, 17 October 2020:

https://www.eurasiareview.com/17102020-multi-national-cooperation-in-the-middle-east-oped/

Published in the Jewish Business News, 16 October 2020:

https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2020/10/16/multi-national-cooperation-in-the-middle-east/

Published in The Times of Israel, 23 October 2020:

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/multi-national-cooperation-in-the-middle-east/

Published in the Jerusalem Post on-line, 25 October 2020:

http://jpost.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

Why the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict matters

 

           Few conflicts in what may loosely be termed the Middle East have managed to remain self-contained ‒ certainly none of those currently being played out.  The participants in each dispute in Syria, Libya, Yemen and Iraq have attracted the armed forces, or at least the logistical support, of states in pursuit of their own geopolitical interests – states prepared to play out their rivalries on foreign fields.  The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict is no exception, and the position adopted by some of the countries involved ‒ including Israel ‒ are ambivalent to say the least.

In the heart of a remote region ‒ the wooded and mountainous neck of land separating Turkey from the Caspian Sea ‒ the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh lies between landlocked Armenia to its west and Azerbaijan, with its long coastline to the Caspian Sea, to its east. 

The seeds of the current dispute were sown by the old Soviet Union. When Armenia and Azerbaijan were absorbed into the USSR in the 1920s, the Soviets handed control of Nagorno-Karabakh, territory which lies between them, to Azerbaijan, even though most of the population was Armenian.  Decades of dispute followed and in the late 1980s, as the iron grip of the Soviet Union began to loosen, Nagorno-Karabakh's regional parliament voted to become part of Armenia.

Azerbaijan tried to suppress the separatist movement, but its efforts led to fighting in the streets and, after Armenia and Azerbaijan finally broke from Russia and declared independence, full-scale war followed.  Tens of thousands died and up to a million people were displaced amid reports of massacres and ethnic cleansing.

By the time a Russian-brokered ceasefire was declared in 1994, control of Nagorno-Karabakh had been won by Armenia. After that deal the territory, although formally remaining part of Azerbaijan, declared itself an Armenian republic and has been run by ethnic Armenians, backed by the Armenian government ‒ an unstable situation almost bound to lead to further conflict, as has proved the case.

The regional implications of the strife start with the fact that Armenia is a Christian country, while Azerbaijan is Muslim.  Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is persecuting the Christian minority in his own country, is a strong supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and backs Azerbaijan. When the violence first erupted he tweeted: “The Turkish people will support our Azerbaijani brothers with all our means as always,” adding that Armenia was “the biggest threat to regional peace”. Media reports by the BBC and others, strongly denied by Istanbul, describe Turkey recruiting fighters in northern Syria and sending them to the front line in Azerbaijan. 

Turkish support for Azerbaijan carries forward its long-running dispute with Armenia, which accuses Turkey of committing systematic genocide against the Armenian people during and after the First World War. Although Turkey vehemently denies the charge, governments and parliaments of 32 countries, including the United States, Russia, and Germany, have recognized the events as a genocide.  Israel, aware that not only the term “genocide”, but also “Armenian holocaust” has been used to describe the Ottoman Turks’ ruthless action, is not among them.

On the contrary, it seems that Israel has established a strategic alliance with Azerbaijan based on their common hostility toward Iran, and has supplied the Azeris with billions of dollars-worth of advanced weaponry. In recent clashes Azerbaijan has used Israeli-made 'kamikaze drones' that can take out Armenian tank and artillery positions dug into Nagorno-Karabakh's mountainous terrain.  The drones – also known as 'loitering drones' – can circle a target for hours and then dive down to self-destruct with a payload of explosives.

Although Israel maintains diplomatic relations with Armenia, these arms sales have become a contentious issue.  Armenia’s spokesperson is recently reported as saying: “Armenia has consistently raised the issue of arm supplies from Israel to Azerbaijan…For sure, the provision of modern weapons by Israel to Azerbaijan is unacceptable for us.”

Other broader disputes are being played out over the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.  For example Turkey’s Erdogan and Russia’s President Putin, competing to extend their global influence, are scarcely close allies in either the Syrian or the Libyan conflicts. Their rival interests are echoed here.  While Turkey supports Azerbaijan, Russia runs an important military base in Armenia and is believed to favor Armenia in the dispute. Even so, equivocation remains the name of the game, and Putin is also close to Azerbaijan's rulers.

“Armenia was hoping to get Russia's support,” said Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in a recent interview on Turkish TV, “but Russia acted appropriately and chose to not choose sides, and it has been neutral on the issue since.”

Russia’s offer to mediate on the issue, in which it has been joined by France, has so far fallen on deaf ears.  Turkish influence might have been brought to bear on Azerbaijan.  Turkey has been at odds with France recently about a number of issues, and both are carrying their dispute over to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. They are on opposite sides in the Libyan power struggle and also over Turkey’s insistence on maintaining its oil and gas exploration in the eastern Mediterranean on dubious legal grounds. Hundreds of thousands of French citizens are of Armenian descent, and French President Macron has warned Turkey that France “will not accept” a reconquest of Nagorno-Karabakh by Azerbaijan.  At the same time he appeared to promise French support to the Armenians.  "I say to Armenia and to the Armenians, France will play its role."

In short, despite its remote location and its comparative insignificance in the great scheme of things, the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute has become the fulcrum of major global issues, and Nagorno-Karabakh the stage on which world powers seem prepared to act out their differences.  Struggles for dominance resolved here will have implications far beyond the narrow confines of the Caucuses.

Published in the Eurasia Review, 10 October 2020:

https://www.eurasiareview.com/10102020-why-the-armenia-azerbaijan-conflict-matters-analysis/

Published in the Jewish Business News, 9 October 2020:

https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2020/10/09/why-the-armenia-azerbaijan-conflict-matters/

Published in The Times of Israel, 11 October 2020:

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-the-armenia-azerbaijan-conflict-matters/

Time for three Yeses

              

   Shortly after Israel had routed the combined military forces of Egypt, Syria and Jordan in the Six-Day War in June 1967, eight Arab heads of state ‒ kings, emirs and presidents ‒ attended a summit conference in Khartoum, Sudan’s capital city. Notably absent was Hafez al-Assad, the president of Syria who, to use the epithet attributed to Winston Churchill, favoured “war, war” rather than “jaw, jaw”.

The Khartoum conference established formal Arab policy in relation to Israel that was to last for more than half a century.  It boiled down to what has become known as “the three noes”:  No peace with Israel; No recognition of Israel; No negotiations with Israel.

Although these three statements of principle were, in the event, honoured more in the breach than in the observance, they remained the recognized pillars of Arab policy towards Israel until, Samson-like, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain, using their combined might, pulled them down on August 13, 2020, bringing the whole policy edifice tumbling about their ears.

The agreements signed on the White House lawn on September 15 acknowledged above all the political realities of the current Middle East. The name for the deal, the Abraham Accords, was agreed between all parties ‒ the Christian president of the United States, the Muslim leaders of the UAE and Bahrain, and the Jewish prime minister of Israel.  That name set the tone for the hopes and intentions embodied in it. 

For decades Iran, al-Qaeda, Islamic State, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hezbollah, together with a host of often competing jihadist groups, have promulgated doctrines of Jew and Christian hatred, and non-tolerance of any Islamic belief other than the particular version favoured by that body.  Blood galore, including vast quantities of Muslim blood, have been spilled in pursuit of it. 

At the signing ceremony the UAE foreign minister, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan, speaking in Arabic to the Muslim world, declared that the prophet Mohamed, a descendant of Abraham, honoured Jews and Christians as believers in the one God of Abraham. By emphasizing this common heritage, the Abraham Accords provide the Middle East with a positive alternative to the negativity and hatred promulgated by Iran and the other Islamist extremists.  Jews and Christians, who share with the Muslim world the inheritance of Abraham, also have a rightful place in the Middle East.

One eminent Iraqi writer recently observed that the Khartoum conference, with its three noes, “blocked our minds from functioning rationally, branded as traitors all those who talked about realism and moderation, and made the Palestinian cause a source of material gain and profit... all in the name of liberating Palestine.”

The Abraham Accords have nothing in particular to say about the Palestinian cause, but a great deal about how the signatories see future relationships in the region.  “Mutual understanding and coexistence,” is what they support, “as well as respect for human dignity and freedom, including religious freedom.”  They encourage efforts “to advance a culture of peace among the three Abrahamic religions and all humanity,” believing that the best way to address challenges is through cooperation and dialogue.

“We pursue a vision of peace, security, and prosperity in the Middle East and around the world,” they say.  “In this spirit, we warmly welcome and are encouraged by the progress already made in establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and its neighbours… We are encouraged by the ongoing efforts to consolidate and expand such friendly relations based on shared interests and a shared commitment to a better future.”

This positive approach to building a peaceful prosperous future for the region stands in sharp contrast to the pessimistic rejectionism of the three noes.  As for the Palestinian cause, the first requirement is an agreed and determined effort by the leadership to change direction. Their priority must be the future prosperity and well-being of the Palestinian people, rather than a future of perpetual conflict with the unlikely goal of overthrowing the state of Israel and gaining control of the whole of Mandate Palestine.

There are at least two possible ways to reopen peace negotiations: the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, or the 2020 Trump Peace Deal.  Both envisage a form of two-state solution, and they are not mutually exclusive. Either could be the starting point for the process, while elements from both could be incorporated into a final agreement.  Given political will by their leaders, Israel and the Palestinians could come to an accord, and the Palestinian people could share in the future peace and prosperity that lies within grasp in the Middle East.   

Way back in 1965 the late Tunisian president, Habib Bourguiba, gave a speech in Jericho urging Palestinians and Arabs to abandon the principle of “all or nothing.”  Declaring that it was a failed policy that only brought more suffering, bloodshed and tears to the Palestinian people, he urged the Palestinians to negotiate with the Israelis. Bourguiba was not without flaws – as which human being is not – but in this assessment he proved himself a percipient statesman.

Fifty-five years later, after decades of fruitless conflict and literally thousands of unnecessary deaths, his words seem more apt than ever.  They point the way for the Arab world in general, and the Palestinian leadership in particular, to travel.  The three noes have outlived their usefulness.  They are outmoded and unrealistic.  Positive thinking and a new approach are called for – and indeed on 2 October 2020 Lebanon and Israel announced they had agreed to enter into direct negotiations for the first time ever to sort out their maritime boundaries.  At long last the time for three pragmatic yeses has arrived: Yes to peace with Israel; Yes to recognizing Israel; and Yes to negotiating with Israel. The future beckons.

Published in the Jewish Business News, 2 October 2020:
https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2020/10/02/time-for-three-yeses/

Published in the Eurasia Review, 3 October 2020:
https://www.eurasiareview.com/03102020-time-for-three-yeses-oped/

Published in the Jerusalem Post on-line, 3 October 2020, as

"Can we turn Khartoum's three "nos" in three "yeses":

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/can-we-turn-khartoums-three-nos-into-three-yeses-644401

Published in The Times of Israel, 4 October 2020:

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/time-for-three-yesses/

Jerusalem and the embassy issue

 

          When politicians say of any problem that their position is “clear”, you can be pretty certain that it is anything but. Clarity on the issue of Jerusalem, its status and its future, has been claimed recently by both the United Nations and the European Union. In fact the positions of both organizations on the matter are as clear as mud.

          The claim on behalf of the UN was made by Nickolay Mladenov, its special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, in a session of the UN Security Council considering US President Donald Trump’s decision to move the American embassy to Jerusalem.  The United Nations position, he announced, was clear.  “Jerusalem is a final status issue for which a comprehensive, just and lasting solution must be achieved through negotiations between the two parties, and on the basis of relevant United Nations resolutions and mutual agreements.”  That formula has been repeated several times since, most recently by UN Secretary-General António Guterres in February 2020.

In other words, the UN holds that the exact status of Jerusalem in international law is as yet undetermined.  Yet the Security Council, in its Resolution 2334 passed in 2016, had determined that the status of Jerusalem was at it had been on 4 June 1967 - that is, on the day before the Six Day War commenced - referring three times to “Palestinian territories including East Jerusalem.”    

So the UN’s “clear” position is that it asserts that East Jerusalem is part of Palestinian territories, but in the same breath maintains that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be determined through negotiation.  It recognizes no changes to the pre-Six Day War boundaries, except that it does not recognize that West Jerusalem at least was part of Israel at the time. Its position defies logic.

         The European Union also believes that its stance on Jerusalem is crystal clear. As recently as February 2020 it issued a statement, prefaced by the words: “The European Union has a clear and united position on Jerusalem.” What is that position? “The EU remains firmly committed to the two-state solution, with Jerusalem as capital of both the State of Israel and the future State of Palestine.”

That is as ambiguous a clarity as it is possible to achieve.  Does the EU believe in an undivided capital shared between Israel and an as yet unestablished state of Palestine, administered jointly?  Or does it subscribe to a divided Jerusalem with West Jerusalem the capital of Israel, and East Jerusalem, which has a large Arab population that extends into its hinterland, serving as the capital of a new sovereign Palestine? 

What of the status of the Old City?  The EU has nothing to say on that.  Before the Six Day War it was occupied by Jordan, which instituted a program of “Islamization” in 1953, prohibiting Christians from owning or purchasing land near holy sites, and removing educational institutions from Christian control, while Jordanian troops desecrated Jewish synagogues and holy sites including the Western Wall, the holiest of all.  Does the EU endorse a return to that situation?

The EU condemned Trump’s recognition of the city as Israel’s capital, taking no account of his statement: “We are not taking a position on any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem…Those questions are up to the parties involved.”  Nor has the EU taken on board what Trump said at the unveiling of his peace plan - namely that it envisages a Palestinian capital in eastern Jerusalem to be called Al Quds, where the US will “proudly” open an embassy.

Because the EU’s position on Jerusalem is so obscure, it cannot endorse the idea of any national embassy being sited there – not even in West Jerusalem, which it cannot bring itself to acknowledge as lying within sovereign Israel.  This is why the EU voiced "serious concern and regret" when Serbia and Kosovo announced, on 4 September 2020, that they intended to locate their Israel embassies in Jerusalem. These intentions were incorporated in a signing ceremony in the White House brokered by President Trump, when Serbia and Kosovo agreed to normalize their relations and pursue economic cooperation.

In a statement three days later, the EU spokesperson objected, implying that breaking with the EU’s common position on Jerusalem could undermine the prospects of Serbia and Kosovo becoming EU members.

The European Leadership Network (ELNET) expressed deep concern over the EU’s stance. In its statement ELNET said it “strongly believes it is high time the EU updates its position on Jerusalem and recognizes Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem…Objecting to European embassies in any part of Jerusalem completely defies reality. Jerusalem has been Israel’s capital city since Israel’s inception.”

The ELNET statement urges the EU to abandon “entirely anachronistic UN stipulations”. It is referring to the 1947 UN General Assembly resolution 181 (II): “The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.” 

          Astonishingly this resolution has never been countermanded. It is undoubtedly dead in the water. It has never been proposed by any party in the many attempts at settling the Israel-Palestine dispute. Yet incongruously the UN as a whole, like the EU, still clings to the concept of an internationalized Jerusalem administered by the UN, turning a blind eye to the Security Council’s support for the incompatible objective of “a viable state of Palestine in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”

          Clarity is the last word that either the UN or the EU can legitimately apply to their stated views on Jerusalem, while their objections to any nation locating its embassy at least in West Jerusalem have no basis in logic. Arab states are lining up to normalize their relations with Israel. It is time for both the UN and the EU to have a radical rethink about Jerusalem.

Published in the Jerusalem Post, 30 September 2020 as:

"The embassy issue reveals the contradictions in the EUs Jerusalem policy"

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/the-embassy-issue-reveals-the-contradictions-in-the-eus-jerusalem-policy-643893

Published in Eurasia Review, 25 September 2020:

https://www.eurasiareview.com/25092020-jerusalem-and-the-embassy-issue-oped/

Published in the Jewish Business News, 25 September 2020:
https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2020/09/25/jerusalem-and-the-embassy-issue/ 

Published in The Times of Israel, 27 September 2020:

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jerusalem-and-the-embassy-issue/

Who is betraying whom?

 This article appears in the Jerusalem Post today, Thursday 17 September 2020

           Twice in the past few days Palestinian leaders have charged fellow Arab states with treachery.  The accusation was taken up and repeated by the two non-Arab states that proclaim themselves Israel’s great enemies, Iran and Turkey, and was echoed by Iran’s puppet, Hezbollah.  By normalizing relations with Israel, they proclaimed, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have betrayed the Palestinians.

            The Arab League disagreed.  At a video conference convened by the Palestinian Authority (PA) specifically to condemn the UAE-Israel deal, the League refused to do so – a decision so unacceptable to Islamist rejectionists that one spokesman called for the League itself to be disbanded.  The new reality now being acknowledged openly by two Gulf states, but covertly by many more, is that Israel is no enemy to the moderate Arab world, but a bulwark against the ambitions of Iran to dominate the region both politically and religiously.  Moreover active cooperation with Israel, a hi-tech, security and business powerhouse, could unlock the door to growth and future prosperity for the region on a scale previously unimaginable. 

            Moderate Arab states are increasingly aware that by dropping outworn attitudes and dealing with today’s world as it really is, a bright future for them and the Middle East is within grasp. The Palestinian leadership is stuck in the past. The ultimate priority for all Palestine’s current leaders is to dislodge, overthrow or neuter Israel, in other words to condemn their people to a future of unending conflict.  PA President Mahmoud Abbas repudiated Trump’s peace plan sight unseen, and rejected its economic leg, “Peace to Prosperity - A New Vision for the Palestinian People”, as soon as it appeared.

            He clearly took very little account of the stated purpose behind the proposals: “Peace to Prosperity represents the most ambitious and comprehensive effort for the Palestinian people to date. It has the ability to…open a new chapter in Palestinian history – one defined not by adversity and loss, but by freedom and dignity.”

            Spurned. The document itself regards its proposals not as cut-and-dried, but as the basis for bilateral negotiations.  Palestine’s leaders are not interested.  To what extent are the Palestinian public aware of its details?  Do they know that the plan has as its objective a sovereign Palestinian state, and that it proposes a massive injection of some $50 billion to finance a 10-year program designed to transform all aspects of Palestinian life from jobs, housing, the economy, education and health care to taxes, roads and railways?   Even without public knowledge of its full details, the last official poll of Palestinian public opinion revealed that some 50 percent of Palestinians approve of the two-state solution.  If their leaders projected those proposals as a possible basis for starting peace negotiations, what percentage might approve and urge the leadership to get on with it? 

            It is not the UAE and Bahrain, and whichever Arab states might follow them, that are out of step with the Palestinians; it is the Palestinian leadership that has failed to keep pace with the new reality in the Middle East. It is they who are increasingly out of step with their Arab brothers, as the decision of the Arab League demonstrates. 

Worse, the PA has allied itself with the two non-Arab states who are at odds with the moderate Arab world.  Turkey strongly supports the Muslim Brotherhood. Its president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is accordingly helping Qatar overcome the economic sanctions placed on it by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, while in the Libyan civil war Erdogan is opposing a host of NATO nations as well as Egypt.  

            The regional ambitions of Iran’s revolutionary regime, and its ruthless pursuit of them, have alienated most of the more moderate Arab states, which have had to deal with Iranian efforts to destabilize or overthrow their governments.  Iran’s grip on the Iraqi nation is only now being loosened by its new prime minister, Mustafa al-Kadhimi, while Iran is making every effort to retain control of Lebanon through its manipulation of Hezbollah – the state within the state.

            Everyone is entitled to dream, and the Palestinian leaders have no need to abandon their messianic dream of one day occupying the whole of Mandate Palestine, however illusory that may be.  But for the sake of their people they do need to recognize the reality that is staring them in the face.  Israel is here to stay. It will cooperate with those nation states that are prepared to do so, bringing prosperity and a new bright future for the Middle East within reach.  The Palestinians could be part of all that, to their immense benefit. Is it not a betrayal of the Palestinian people to withhold from them the opportunity of participating in the prosperous future that is within grasp in the Middle East?

Published in the Jerusalem Post on-line titled: "Who is betraying whom with the UAE-Israel agreement", 17 September 2020:
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/who-is-betraying-whom-with-the-uae-israel-agreement-642558

Published in The Times of Israel, 18 September 2020:
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/who-is-betraying-whom/

Published in the Jewish Business News, 18 September 2020:

https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2020/09/18/who-is-betraying-whom/

Pity the Palestinian people

This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post on 10 September 2020

          It is becoming increasingly obvious to the world at large that a peaceful, productive. flourishing Middle East is not only possible, but within grasp. Steps are being taken, plans are being made, to achieve a bright new future for the region. The Palestinian people could share in that prosperity, but their path forward is being blocked by their leaders – all of them, right across the Palestinian political spectrum.

          It is clear that the Palestinian leadership simply cannot shake itself free of old outworn aspirations, no matter how unrealistic they obviously are in the here and now. Unfortunately for the Palestinian man and woman in the street, their leaders have no appetite for normalization or for peace. Encouraging economic growth, fostering industry and business, improving health and social provision, raising the living standards of its citizens – all have been subordinated to the objective shared by them all, which is to gain control of the whole of what used to be Mandate Palestine, eliminating or neutering Israel in the process..

          The rejectionist Hamas organization and like-minded extremist bodies make no bones about it. They take their lead from the pronouncement by Yassir Arafat back in 1970: “Our basic aim is to liberate the land from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.... The Palestinian revolution's basic concern is the uprooting of the Zionist entity from our land and liberating it.”

          Where Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) differ, and differ fundamentally, is about the most effective way to achieve their common purpose. That disagreement is so basic that it has ensured the two main Palestinian political groups have remained at each other’s throats for decades. Recent reports of a reconciliation are likely to prove as illusory as the scores of previous such efforts. Hamas wants to replace Fatah and control the West Bank.

          As for its policy toward Israel, Hamas believes that the only appropriate way to achieve its desired outcome is through terror and the armed struggle. Any pause in the battle – such as the agreement just reached on ending the tit-for-tat attacks on each other - must be of limited duration and represent a tactical advantage.

          The PA also takes its lead from Arafat, but at a time when he was in a more strategic frame of mind. At the Oslo meetings in 1993 and 1995 Arafat decided to woo world opinion by supporting the two-state solution overtly, with the covert intention of using that support as a first step towards eventually overthrowing Israel.

          Not long after the conclusion of Oslo II, he held what was intended to be a secret meeting with Arab leaders in a Stockholm hotel. To his embarrassment, both his tactical plans and his strategic objectives were leaked to the Norwegian daily, Dagen. Among much else, he told Arab leaders that the PLO intends: “…to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state.” 

          Following Arafat’s death the PA, and its new leader Mahmoud Abbas, took their lead from his prospectus. A determined effort was made to win over world opinion to establishing a sovereign Palestine within the boundaries that existed before the 6-Day War in 1967 – that is, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Pressing for a Palestinian state within those boundaries inevitably meant acknowledging that a sovereign Israel existed outside them. This was the pill that Hamas and like-minded rejectionists found impossible to swallow. Clever-clever tactics were not for them. They would never recognize that Israel had any right to exist on “their” land at all, not even as one step towards its eventual destruction.

          And that is where they are stuck today. Hamas never supported Abbas’s effort to gain recognition within the UN for the “State of Palestine”, because the state that Abbas sought recognition for was less than the whole. The problem for Abbas and the rest of the PA leadership is that they dare not appear less zealous than the hard-line extremists within the Palestinian body politic. So willingly, or perhaps in some cases unwillingly, all are forced to turn their backs on the bright future that is beckoning.

          Peace to Prosperity, the economic leg of Trump’s Middle East peace plan, is subtitled A New Vision for the Palestinian People. It covers all aspects of Palestinian life from education and health care to taxes, roads and railways. With a financial input of some $50 billion, it is based on three pillars – the economy, the people and the government.

          A main goal of the economy pillar – to connect Palestinian-occupied areas to regional and global markets – included integrating Gaza and the West Bank “through an efficient, modern transportation network, including a transportation corridor directly connecting” the two areas. “Billions of dollars of new investment will flow into various sectors of the Palestinian economy,” said the document, which also detailed how “hospitals, schools, homes and businesses will secure access to affordable electricity, clean water and digital services.” 

          The second pillar aimed to “improve the well-being of the Palestinian people” through educational programs, vocational and technical training, expanding the female labor force, reducing Infant mortality and increasing average life expectancy.

          The third pillar proposed a range of reforms in the Palestinian government including reforming the tax structure and increasing exports and direct foreign investment.

          In the document’s own words: “Peace to Prosperity represents the most ambitious and comprehensive effort for the Palestinian people to date. It has the ability to…open a new chapter in Palestinian history – one defined not by adversity and loss, but by freedom and dignity.”

          Root and branch rejection from Palestinian leaders and spokesmen was immediate. The PA seems to believe that Trump’s “Deal of the Century” is a case of take it or leave it. That is not the situation. As the document states: "We hope that the parties will seize the opportunity, embrace this vision, and begin negotiations."

          A Palestinian leadership genuinely committed to the welfare of their people could take the proposals in Vision for Peace as a starting point for negotiations. Stuck in the past, their knee-jerk response was to reject it. Their negative reaction to the historic UAE-Israel normalization deal is further evidence of how out of step with today’s reality they are.

          The Palestinian leadership have positioned themselves on the wrong side of history. They are leading their people along a road to nowhere. The Palestinian people deserve better.

Published in the Jerusalem Post on-line titled: "The Palestinian people deserve better than their current leaders" on 9 September 2020:

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/the-palestinian-people-deserve-better-than-their-current-leaders-opinion-641691

Published in the Jewish Business News, 11 September 2020:
https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2020/09/11/pity-the-palestinian-people/

Published in The Times of Israel, 12 September 2020:
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/pity-the-palestinian-people/

The hard truth about Iran

          In his “The Art of War”, the ancient Chinese general Sun Tzu said: “Know your enemy and know yourself, and you will not be defeated in a hundred battles.” 

          Can anyone claim to know the revolutionary Iranian regime? For 41 years world leaders have been unable, or perhaps unwilling, to perceive the quintessential purposes that motivated the leader of Iran’s Islamic revolution of 1979, or to appreciate that these same objectives have driven the regime ever since and continue to be its raison d’être.

          The regime’s original Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, affirmed repeatedly that the foundation stone of his philosophy, the very purpose of his revolution, was to destroy Western-style democracy and its way of life, and to impose Shia Islam on the whole world. He identified the United States and Israel as his prime targets.

          “We wish to cause the corrupt roots of Zionism, Capitalism and Communism to wither throughout the world,” said Khomeini. “We wish, as does God almighty, to destroy the systems which are based on these three foundations, and to promote the Islamic order of the Prophet.” By this he meant his strict Shia interpretation of Islam, for elsewhere he had declared that the holy city of Mecca, situated in the heart of Sunni Saudi Arabia, was in the hands of “a band of heretics”.

          Ever since 1979 the world could have recognized, if it had had a mind to, that the Iranian regime was engaged in a focused pursuit of these twin objectives, quite impervious to any other considerations – and, indeed, that it is still doing so. If post-revolution Iranian actions had been interpreted in the light of religious zeal on the one hand, and realpolitik on the other, the threat that Iran now poses to the Middle East could have been averted. Instead wishful thinking has governed the approach of many of the world’s leaders to Iran, and continues to do so.

          “We shall export our revolution to the whole world,” declared Khomeini. “Until the cry 'There is no god but Allah' resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle.” 

          Pursuit of this fundamental objective of the Islamic Revolution has involved the state – acting either directly or through proxy militant bodies like Hezbollah or the Houthis that enable it to deny responsibility – in a succession of bombings, rocket attacks, assassinations and acts of terror directed not only against Western targets, but against non-Shia Muslims as well. “To kill the infidels,” declared Khomeini, “is one of the noblest missions Allah has reserved for mankind.” For decades Iran has also made determined efforts to develop nuclear power, with the aim – never openly acknowledged – of producing nuclear weapons. It is unlikely that the present regime has abandoned that objective.

          In 2015, in an attempt to cripple its nuclear programme, the permanent members of the UN Security Council together with Germany concluded an agreement with Iran. No doubt all those involved, including then-US President Barak Obama, had the very best of intentions. With that deal – which incorporated a substantial financial boost to Iran – they believed they had put the regime’s nuclear ambitions on hold for at least 15 years, making the world a safer place. Moreover they believed that they had taken an important step toward normalizing relations and bringing Iran back within the comity of nations.

          They were mistaken. To quote President Donald Trump, speaking on January 8, 2020:

          “Iran’s hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2015, and they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash. Instead of saying "thank you" to the United States, they chanted "death to America." In fact, they chanted "death to America" the day the agreement was signed. Then, Iran went on a terror spree, funded by the money from the deal, and created hell in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.”

          The problem that Iran poses to the civilized world stems entirely from the Islamic revolutionary regime that the nation wished on itself back in 1979. Unwavering pursuit of the fundamental objectives of the Islamic Revolution partly explains Iran’s unremitting hostility to Sunni Saudi Arabia. With Islam’s two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina, within its borders, the Saudi kingdom sees itself as the leader of the Muslim world – a claim hotly contested by Iran. The regime sees Saudi Arabia as its great rival for political, as well as religious, hegemony in the region. 

          Iran’s leaders want to destroy the world as we know it. They want to overthrow Western-style democracy of which America is the prime exponent, to wipe out the state of Israel, to impose Shia Islam first on the Muslim world, and then on the world entire, and to achieve political dominance in the Middle East. They believe that any means are justified in the struggle to achieve their aims – God-given aims, as they perceive them. In pursuing them they are prepared to bluff, trick and cheat, and to undertake or facilitate acts of terror regardless of the deaths or injuries inflicted.

          For some time the Sunni Arab world has recognized who its main enemy was. The recent UAE-Israel deal is one outcome – perhaps the first of others. Western leaders want to believe in an accommodation with the regime. A clear-eyed look at the facts shows that this is simply not possible. This Iranian regime is not, and has no intention of ever becoming, one of the comity of civilized nations. It simply does not wish to be “brought in out of the cold”. To accede to that would be to negate the fundamental purposes underlying the revolution, purposes to which the ayatollahs remain unshakably committed. 

Published in The Times of Israel, 4 September 2020:
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-hard-truth-about-iran-2/

Published in the Jewish Business News, 4 September 2020:
https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2020/09/04/the-hard-truth-about-iran/

Published as "What Iran really wants" in Eurasia Review, 5 Sept 2020:
https://www.eurasiareview.com/05092020-what-iran-really-wants-oped/