Egypt: Sluggish Reform

By Zuheir Kseibati

This comment was published in al-Hayat on 18/11/2010

America never asks the democratic regimes in Western Europe to receive international monitors for checking the integrity of the electoral process. This is justified by the fact that the latter regimes do not resort to maneuvering, manipulation and cheating. Washington also does not ask its ally Israel to prove its ability to manage any polls, considering it is classified by the Americans as being “the best democracy” if not “the only democracy” in the region, despite its racism towards the Palestinians in the territories occupied in 1948.

However, these American principles in no way apply to the Egyptian partner and friend, as the latter has become accustomed to the series of pressures exercised by Washington - based on the artificial separation between the facets of partnership and its requirements - and Israel’s similar practices through complaints - for example - from Egypt’s “disregard” of the smuggling of arms into Gaza.

Based on the United States’ standards, “our democracies” are not democratic. Although political and military cooperation was seen with Arab countries throughout many stages, Washington still questions their integrity and neutrality when it comes to the election of parliaments and local councils in them.

As for the last attempt undertaken by the American administration to define three conditions guaranteeing the integrity of the elections of the People’s Assembly (parliament) in Egypt on November 28, it obviously raised the discontent of the ruling National Democratic Party – which is the first beneficiary from the weakness and division of the opposition parties, the banning of the Muslim Brotherhood group and the pursuit of its leaders and elements.

This places us in the presence of two non-conflicting notions: The imposition of “integrity” based on the perception of the international observers overseeing the electoral process is an act of interference and a tutelage that could be opposed because it affects the Egyptian state’s sovereignty. On the other hand, the integrity of the state is the object of examination, as long as the National Democratic Party is wanted to earn the majority of the seats in parliament and to extend the representational legitimacy of the ruling regime. More importantly, the process in itself is a passageway toward the upcoming presidential elections in 2011, elections in which the opposition does not foresee any possible battle, except at the level of the mystery surrounding the mechanism which will be adopted to bequeath the rule.

The majority of the opposition parties – as is the case in any Arab country – are glad to play on the string of American pressures, at least to narrow the margin of manipulation during the November 28 elections. At this point, the talk is not about possible manipulation, considering it is a given in all the experiences of the enlarged ruling parties on arenas lacking the minimum level of democracy, at a time when corruption is affecting everyone and when the opposition parties are corroding and quietly requesting help from the American side which used to be the “imperialistic enemy of the people.” In this context, it has not been too long since Islamists in Egypt engaged in talks with US diplomats, not to request wheat allocations, but to request the recognition of a political role which they would come to enjoy if Washington were to ever consider changing “the rules of the game.”

The National Party’s rejection of Washington’s request to allow international observers in the polling centers and during the counting process will not affect the “partnership” between Egypt and the United States, just like the American assessment of religious freedoms is expected to raise Cairo’s anger but not to carry any repercussions at the level of these relations, while awaiting additional pressures. Although this proves the extent of the Egyptian official “tolerance” toward American interference, it also reveals the wager of all those opposing the regime on time, while awaiting some sort of mysterious development or an unknown “compensation prize.” This is due to the fact that when the country climbs up the ladder of losses, the rope of interferences is unreservedly dropped.

On the eve of the parliamentary elections in Egypt, it would be hard to speculate about the outcome which will be reaped by the ruling party, but also about the number of rounds to track down the Muslim Brotherhood, rounds which have become some sort of an exercise in the series to contain the banned group. Still, while it is likely that the “democratic game” will stand still out of fear from the unknown, it is more frightening to see this game remaining outside the context of any reform and to see the crises accumulating with everyone standing by and watching.

In reality, whoever justifies the preference for sluggish reform by using the pretext of the preparation for a calm presidential battle, is not only disregarding the buildup of domestic crises, but also the fact that Egypt is changing whenever the neighboring crises are exerting pressures on its role, and that partnerships of interest are not managed by good intentions solely.

Arafat: The Man We Now Miss

By Abdul Rahman al-Rashid
This comment was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 18/11/2010
 
If late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat was among us today, would the Palestinian situation be as it is? Gaza is in a state of secession, negotiations are at a stalemate, the Palestinian cause has dropped down the list of priorities, coming behind the issues of Iraq, Iran, the Shebaa farms, Darfur and al-Qaeda in Yemen.
 
What distinguished the late President Arafat was his ability to light a candle and start a fire at the same time, thus giving hope and creating chaos simultaneously. Arafat was not an adventurous man and was often criticized by others, but would always end up with the least amount of losses. This explains his frequent retreats, and refusals to accept settlements, which he had earlier agreed to. It also explains why many had grown accustomed to waiting for his actions, rather than his words. He was long known to be a political chameleon rather than a hot-headed military commander. His pistol was just a symbolic appearance; his most remarkable skill was his power of persuasion and argument.
 
Yasser Arafat’s skills were evident in the Palestinian camp, which was crammed with rival leaderships, some of which were loyal to several foreign parties. Arafat knew how to connect with them, or at least how to pull on their reins from a distance. He was a clever acrobat who had fallen multiple times off the tightrope, without breaking his neck. He was well aware that everyone, even those who were fighting him, would be of use some day. Accordingly he never shut the door on anyone.

 
One of the late Palestinian leader’s most prominent achievements was imposing the idea of Palestine, as a state project, upon the Arabs in 1988. Prior to that, Palestine was just an Anglo-Ottoman legacy, divided amongst Jordan, Egypt and Syria. It was not easy to convince those countries to give up their "Palestinian territories". Nevertheless, Arafat excelled, and maintained good relations with Aman, Cairo and Damascus, albeit with some short-term setbacks.

 
However, after liberating the Palestinian territories on paper, from their Arab owners, Arafat could not do much against the Israeli occupation. The biggest enemy he had to face was the facts of Arab geography. Nasser, and then Sadat, had both closed off Sinai to the Palestinian resistance.
 
Equally, the Syrian leadership tightened its closure of the Golan Heights, whereas Jordan expelled all members of the Palestinian resistance, after bloody clashes, and their efforts to target the Jordanian regime.
 
Afterwards, everyone agreed to leave one open channel for the Palestinian resistance, namely Lebanon, for it was considered to be a soft state. The Lebanese had no choice but to incorporate the Palestinian resistance into their local conflicts. The resistance participated in clashes between Sunnis and Christians, Sunnis and Syrians, Syrians and Christians, and finally Sunnis and Shiites.
 
Eventually, Israel expelled Arafat from Lebanon to Tunisia, on a journey that was thought to be a final farewell.
 
By creating a secret Palestinian negotiating team as a replacement for Arafat, the U.S. hoped it would lure agents away from Yasser Arafat, who had taken up residence in al-Hammam district in Tunis. Surprisingly, Arafat was in on everything that the U.S. was planning. He knew of the conspiracy that was being organized but was waiting for the right time to play his hand. Arafat had no desire to compete with Hanan Ashrawi, and Abdul Shafi, in the dangerous negotiating game.
 
The Palestinian negotiators served and paved the way for him. They took a risk and entered into negotiations. Yasser Arafat felt that the Arabs and the Palestinians would not object if he insisted on completing his mission, thus he returned to Palestine.

 
Executing such political manoeuvres at that time was far more dangerous than doing so today. The Arab regimes in control at the time were far more severe. For example, Saddam Hussein had equipped himself with dangerous people, such as Abu Nidal, whom he had invited to Baghdad, to take on the task of killing Yasser Arafat’s men.

 
What really exhausted the late Palestinian president was not Israel, but rather his Arab brothers. Most of the dangers faced by Arafat came from rival Arab countries, with conflicting interests. For example, if he shook hands with one Arab leader, he would be considered an enemy in the eyes of another, and so on and so forth. Yet Arafat did not hesitate to participate in this game of conflicting interests, out of a belief that it was the only means to protect Palestinian interests.

 
Today we can't say that President Mahmoud Abbas is less competent, but he is definitely playing the game in a different style. Had Arafat been present today, maybe Hamas wouldn't have led such a smooth and comfortable existence in Gaza. Arafat would have protested, and would have been a constant thorn in their side. Yet today, Hamas is suffocating President Abbas. With regards to the major cause, Abbas, the apprentice of Arafat, negotiates without taking risks, leaving the final settlement issue to those who would succeed him.

China's Rise In The Middle East

It's unrealistic to expect that Washington could have excluded Beijing from the Middle East. But the rate of Chinese progress occurs amid a perception that the US is withdrawing from the region.

By David Schenker and Christina Lin
This comment was published in The Los Angeles Times on 16/11/2010

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was in China this month touting the "new cooperation paradigm" between Ankara and Beijing. Just a week earlier, a top political advisor to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao spent five days in Syria signing deals and planting olive trees in the Golan Heights. The Middle Kingdom, it seems, is planting deep roots in the Middle East these days.

The reach of the People's Republic is far and wide, extending from the Far East to Africa to Latin America, and its interest in the Middle East is neither new nor surprising: China gets more than a quarter of its oil imports from the Persian Gulf and has billions invested in Iran's oil sector.

Recently, though, Beijing appears to be making greater headway, a development fueled by Washington's creeping withdrawal from the region.

Starting in the 1990s, China filled a void in Syria left by a decaying Soviet Union, providing the terrorist state with a variety of missiles. Today, Syrian President Bashar Assad is fulfilling his 2004 pledge to "look East" toward Asia to escape the Western hold on the Middle East. In addition to serving as an ongoing and reliable source of weapons, China has invested heavily in modernizing Syria's antiquated energy sector.

More striking, however, has been Beijing's rapid inroads with the Islamist government in Ankara headed by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In October, Wen was the first Chinese premier to visit Turkey in eight years. Erdogan and Wen inked eight deals, including an agreement to transform the ancient SilkRoad into a "Silk Railway" linking China and Turkey.

Of more concern than the budding economic relationship, however, is the nascent military relationship between NATO partner Turkey and China. The most recent manifestation of these ties was the unprecedented inclusion in October of Chinese warplanes in the Turkish military exercise Anatolian Eagle, maneuvers that previously had included the U.S. and Israel.

Although Turkey reportedly left its modern U.S.-built F-16s in their hangars during the exercises and instead flew its F-4s, which the U.S. Air Force retired from service in 1996, the damage was done. Chinese participation in the exercise exacerbated the already extant crisis of confidence between Washington and its NATO partner. The joint announcement in October that China and Turkey had formally upgraded their bilateral relationship to that of a "strategic partnership" only makes matters worse.

Beijing did not choose Iran, Syria and Turkey as the focal point of its regional "outreach" by accident. These northern-tier Middle Eastern states all have complicated if not problematic relations with the United States and increasingly close ties with one another. To complement this triumvirate, China appears to be looking to Iraq as the next target of its charm offensive.

China is the leading oil and gas investor in Iraq, and it is paying millions to protect its investment there. That's not surprising since Iraq has the world's largest known oil reserves. China has also purchased extensive goodwill with Baghdad by forgiving $6 billion to $8 billion in Iraqi debt accrued during the Saddam Hussein era. And Beijing has gotten in on the sale of weapons — worth in excess of $100 million — to the new government in Baghdad.

Given China's extensive presence throughout the world — attributable at least in part to the fact that its foreign policy is devoid of moral concerns — it is unrealistic to expect that Washington could have somehow excluded Beijing from the Middle East. Indeed, the very absence of considerations other than national interest makes China an appealing partner to states in a region where authoritarianism is rife. Some Mideast states also likely view China as useful counterbalance against the West.

What is of concern, however, is that the rapid rate of Chinese progress occurs amid a growing regional perception that the United States is withdrawing from the Middle East.

Although China holds a significant portion of U.S. debt, and trade relations are strong, at the end of the day the two nations are competitors — both strategic and economic — with profoundly differing worldviews. It may be that this great game will end with Washington and Beijing as allies. More likely, though, a modus vivendi will emerge between the two powers. Until then, Washington should work to strengthen its remaining regional allies and reestablish a presence in the region. Absent this kind of renewed commitment, China will continue to expand its footprint, sowing the seeds of a new and even less advantageous strategic role in the Middle East for the United States.

David Schenker is director of the Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy; Christina Lin is a visiting fellow at the institute.

Obama as the Israeli Goalkeeper

By Elias Harfoush

This comment was published in al-Hayat on 17/11/2010

As part of the Israeli series of blackmail exercised against President Obama and his administration, there is talk about the American offer which is being studied by Netanyahu’s government to resume negotiations with the Palestinians. This offer was drafted by Netanyahu and Hillary Clinton while the American president was on his Asian tour.

Consequently, the Israeli prime minister’s last visit to the United States led to results which were never before reaped by any Israeli official from any American administration. But in exchange for what? In exchange for an Israeli promise to freeze the settlement activities in the West Bank (but not in Jerusalem) for ninety days, provided that this freeze is limited to the settlements whose building was resumed by Israel following the end of the previous freezing stage (i.e. after September 26) and that the Israelis are not required to extend that freeze following the expiry of the new deadline.

As for the fruits reaped by Netanyahu in exchange for the “studying” of this offer and the attempt to earn its approval by his government, they are as follows:

1- Twenty sophisticated F-35 fighter jets (priced at $3 billion) for free, in addition to twenty other aircrafts that were previously requested by Israel. This is the first time in the history of the relations between the two countries that Israel gets American aircrafts for free, as it was mentioned by American diplomats and officials at the Department of Defense.

2- An American pledge to veto any decision that is not approved by Israel at the Security Council.

3- An American pledge for this extension of the freeze affecting the settlement activities to be the last one requested from Netanyahu by the Obama administration.

This offer is enticing by any standard, and Hanan Ashrawi was right on the mark when she commented on it by saying that America was paying Israel with the strategy currency to get temporary tactical gains from it.

But… what was the Israeli response to this extremely generous and mouthwatering offer? More blackmail under the cover of the presence of a governmental division between the moderate and the hardliners that is embarrassing Netanyahu in front of his allies in the government among the right-wing coalition parties. This prompted Obama, who is very soft at the level of the embarrassment affecting Netanyahu to say: The acceptance of the American offer is not easy for the head of the Israeli government, but its approval will send a message saying he is serious in his efforts to reach peace.

It is worth mentioning that so far, none of these American offers and deals was delivered in writing to the Palestinian side, while Abu Mazen and his comrades are reading about them in the papers, just like the rest of us. Perhaps Obama’s administration is convinced that the Palestinians’ approval of any deal with Netanyahu is a given, although the side which is truly going to pay the price of this deal is the Palestinian side. This is firstly due to the fact that Jerusalem is completely excluded from the plan to freeze the settlement activities, and secondly to the fact that Netanyahu is capable of stalling during the next ninety days to obstruct any agreement, in light of the American pledge for this freeze to be the last one required of him.

It is no longer useful to talk about the retreat of Obama’s promises and commitments at the level of the necessary conditions for a just peace in the Middle East region, since such talk has fallen in the context of boring repetition. It is only useful to say that if Obama were to distance himself from the efforts to ensure this peace, it would be less damaging for the Palestinians and their interests than the Israeli occupation itself.

Tireless Efforts To Set Off The Lebanese Volcano

By Bilal Hassen
This comment was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 17/11/2010
 
Volcanoes dwell under the surface of the earth, and seldom do they move or explode. However, when they do so, they take revenge on all what is around them, and over a great distance. They do so with a certain air of ‘coldness’, despite their extreme heat.
 
As for the Arab region, the volcano era ended hundreds of years ago, leaving behind nothing but solid, coarse mountains such as Jabal al-Arab in Syria, the Aden mountains, and the renowned Crater district, an area that used to be a crater of an ancient volcano. However, volcanoes in the Arab region have been replaced with other volatile dangers. They are dormant like volcanoes, and explode from time to time, as volcanoes do, and likewise they kill with fire. Yet these dangers are radically different from volcanoes, as they are man-made. We call them wars; tribal wars, sectarian wars, colonial wars, and so on.
 
We have these man-made volcanoes in Somalia, Yemen, North and South Sudan, and amongst the fighting sects in Lebanon. They explode, in most cases, within the borders of their own countries, but sometimes they flow over the border, as is the case with Israel's ‘volcanoes’, which happened to flood in the direction of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Man-made volcanoes have other features; for they can sometimes be [externally] controlled, when colonial countries interfere to stir them up, or derive benefits from their ‘lava’. We can see evidence of external interference in Sudan, in Darfur, and also in Israel. When the man-made volcano erupts, it is difficult to determine whether it was instigated by a global superpower, a regional country, or by tribal, sectarian and ethnic disputes.
 
Furthermore, a massive volcanic eruption is sometimes triggered by a small force. These small forces are found on the battlefield, and usually leave behind them dead bodies, pools of blood, widespread destruction, homeless people and starving victims. Yet they are generally backed by much larger powers, which rarely appear on the surface. The only appear in the form of delegations, mediators and representatives. They are seen at high-level conferences, held in elegant halls, where participants exchange threats and menacing messages, using polite words.
 
If the erupting volcanoes of Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan, have become clear for all to see, then what is going on in Lebanon now, and these days in particular, deserves to be carefully examined and observed. Volcano experts pay field visits to volcanic zones prior to any expected eruption, to study the volcanic activity, toxic gases, and the ash that is emitted, at temperatures reaching 700 degrees Celsius. Similarly, what is happening in Lebanon today deserves a close examination by experts, and a careful study of attitudes, statements and threats. Experts should look into the local political situation, where the major actors allow access to some issues, but not others, such as indictments, the International Tribunal, the false witness affair, and Israel's preparations for war.
 
Furthermore, amidst this festering man-made Lebanese volcano, the memoirs of former US President George W. Bush were published. He explained how he encouraged Israel to wage war on Hezbollah, in the summer of 2006, and how he prevented Israel from ending the war, and forced its duration to be extended. The word "extend" is a very clever diplomatic expression. On the ground, this translated into ferocious air raids, which proved to be most devastating attacks in the war.
 
Even as a small-time observer, you can deduce that a lot of what is going on now in Lebanon, has been planned and directed by external powers. This can be seen in current declared positions, escalating challenges, and flagrant diplomatic interventions, made by the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations [Susan Rice], the U.S. Secretary of State [Hillary Clinton], and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, Jeffrey D. Feltman, who specialises in giving audacious statements. The directions given by these external forces are received by local parties, who then try and follow them.
 
The man-made Lebanese volcano has a local aspect, which is currently being stoked, and also an Israeli aspect, which is being primed to set off a major volcanic eruption. We do not need much evidence in this regard; we can already see the explicit signs:
 
Firstly, Israel was shaken by the results of the 2006 war, and since then it has launched a campaign to re-train its army. This training encompasses all types of armaments, all kinds of drills, and all sorts of modern weaponry, known as ‘smart weapons’, on account of their massive destructive capabilities.
 
Secondly, a French official who visited Israel, and toured the north of Palestine, alongside the Lebanese border, returned and said that "Israel is now ready to wage war against Lebanon." He added that "The Israelis informed him that they had completed their military and civilian preparations for war." The French official mentioned an even more alarming piece of news, when he noted that future Israeli Chief of Staff, Gadi Eizenkot, had told him "When the next war breaks out, it must end quickly and forcefully, without paying attention to international public opinion."
 
Why? Because the rate of destruction and killing will be extremely high, and will spark a wave of worldwide protest.
 
Thirdly, US security magazine, "Defense News", reported that the US administration had decided to store military equipment in Israel, and that this stockpile includes highly accurate air-launch missiles. There is a weapons storage treaty in place, which contains a clause allowing Israel to use those weapons. We should also consider the statement made by current Israeli Chief of Staff, Gabi Ashkenazi, in which he said that "In future wars, Israel will be compelled to use extremely accurate weapons, on a large scale basis." Thus we can interpret that the highly accurate U.S. weapons, which are to be stored in Israel, are the same ‘accurate weapons’ that Israel will use in the coming war. This suggests that the U.S. is actually preparing Israel for war, as we speak, despite all of Obama's deceptive statements.
 
Fourthly, the plan to set off the volcano is not only an attack on Lebanon; Syria has always been a main target. A study carried out by the "Jerusalem Center for Studies and Political Research" showed that Israel would not be able to defend itself, if surrendered the Golan Heights. The study concluded that any settlement with the Palestinians, with the effect of distancing Israeli troops from the borders of the River Jordan, which are close to the Golan Heights, would effectively turn those borders into a base for potential enemies, including Syria. According to the study, matters become even worse with Syria possessing missiles capable of reaching deep into Israeli territory.
 
All the aforementioned points indicate that forces are working, on the international and Israeli levels, to set off the Lebanese volcano. The lava would flow towards Syria and beyond, as was the case was in 2005, after the assassination of martyr Rafiq al-Hariri. The circumstances have changed, but the strategic objective has remained the same.

Lebanon: Omar Bakri Trial Is About Politics- Not "Islamism" Or Justice

By Alexander Henley

This article was published in The Guardian on 17/11/2010

The British tabloids have been triumphant in the past few days. Justice, they say, has finally caught up with the "Tottenham Ayatollah" who fled the UK in 2005 after praising the 9/11 and 7/7 bombers. Omar Bakri was arrested by security forces in Lebanon on Sunday after being tried in his absence by a Lebanese court and sentenced to life imprisonment for "incitement to murder, theft and the possession of arms and explosives".

He now faces a retrial and the latest news is that a Hezbollah lawyer is going to defend him. It will hardly come as a surprise to many that Hezbollah has taken up Bakri's cause. Are they not natural bedfellows in the Islamist conspiracy?

We have all heard that Middle Eastern governments are under siege, barely keeping the fundamentalists from the door. So, having stirred up trouble in Britain, it seems that Bakri has gone back to Lebanon to hide out with his Islamist friend Hassan Nasrallah.

Bakri and Nasrallah may have a few common features – bushy beard, scary Islamic headdress, nerdy glasses – but they are by no means natural companions. Bakri, an al-Qaida apologist, represents a brand of Sunni radicalism that considers Shia Muslims unbelievers and is responsible for the destruction of some of the holiest Shia mosques in Iraq.

Nasrallah, on the other hand, may be a prominent leader of the opposition in Lebanon, but we should not be too quick to read this as simply "the Islamist opposition".

First, the parliamentary opposition has ministers in government, making up a third of the cabinet.

Second, Hezbollah's coalition includes prominent secularist parties: the Shia Amal movement and the Christian Free Patriotic movement. Third, the Muslim religious divide in Lebanese politics should be seen as Sunni versus Shia rather than moderate versus extremist. Sunni Islamists share electoral lists with Hezbollah, but only in order to stage a more viable opposition to the political dominance of the prime minister, Saad Hariri, in the Sunni community.

Rather than a show of fundamentalist solidarity, Hezbollah's adoption of the Bakri case is part of a political campaign against Hariri's ruling coalition. Nasrallah has been pulling out all the stops.

The visit to Lebanon by Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, last month affirmed Hezbollah's international backing.

Nasrallah, in a speech last week, accused Hariri's allies of collaborating with Israel. Nasrallah also said that Hezbollah would "cut off the hands" of officials attempting to arrest its members in connection with the assassination of the former prime minister, Rafiq Hariri, in 2005. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon at The Hague is expected to indict Hezbollah members in the coming months.

By championing Omar Bakri's case, Nasrallah can tighten the screws on Hariri's government another notch, and may in the process strengthen his uneasy alliance with Sunni opposition groups.

The Lebanese state's handling of the case shows its own weakness more than any profound commitment to justice. Hariri's government is already nearing crisis over the international tribunal. Having built his political legitimacy on the slogan of "the truth" about his father's death, Saad Hariri is too deeply committed to back down, even though the confrontation with Hezbollah is tearing his government apart.

Bakri's trial was conducted discreetly in his absence, while he sat at home. The court issued neither a summons nor an arrest warrant before handing down a sentence of life imprisonment. As well as the building tension in Lebanon generally, the government's reluctance to confront Bakri in person shows its weakening control of the situation on the ground.

When the internal security forces finally moved to arrest Bakri, they raided his home in Tripoli without a warrant and shot his car tyres, firing further shots in the air to warn him not to try to escape.

Nothing about Bakri's trial suggests the routine execution of justice. Most surprising is that the Lebanese state chose to pick this particular fight at all, if it wanted to avoid a publicised – and inevitably politicised – trial. One possible explanation is that Bakri was prosecuted as a result of pressure from the British government, which accuses him of helping to recruit militants during his 20 years in London.

Hariri made a stop in London two weeks ago in order to shore up support for his government in the face of the looming tribunal crisis. Was the prosecution of Omar Bakri part of the deal when Hariri shook David Cameron's hand on the steps of Downing Street?

Perhaps the Lebanese government was hoping that a sentence in absentia would satisfy its British allies, without ever having to do anything about it. Whatever the reason for the eventual arrest, it hardly represents the unswerving sword of justice. It is just the latest focus of Lebanon's increasingly desperate political wrangling.

An Expensive Bill

By Ali Ibrahim
This comment was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 16/11/2010
 
My initial impression of the price that Israel will receive, in return for agreeing to new U.S. proposals to stop settlement construction for 90 days, is that it is an expensive bill. Modern military aircraft worth $3 billion, for free, political and security pledges to veto any Security Council resolution against Israel, and most importantly, this is a proposal to stop only the latest process of settlement construction.
 
The proposal of 90 days of suspended settlement construction in the West Bank is intended to facilitate the task of getting the Palestinians to accept the resumption of direct negotiations. This is a very limited deadline, and there is a high possibility that there will be no end result, as has happened on previous occasions. The issues raised are highly complex and sensitive, and could result in a situation whereby the Palestinians are left empty-handed, whilst Israel receives sophisticated weaponry, and new political and security assistance.
 
Nevertheless, the Israeli right considers the U.S. offer to be a bad deal, as it appears that settlement construction is more important to them than peace. Meanwhile, the Palestinian side, which is considering its official response, is in a difficult position because it has no explicit, practical alternative.
 
Thus here is the bottom line: What is most important for the Palestinian side, in terms of responding to the U.S. offer, is that they have a clear vision of what they want from the negotiations, and a practical plan to reach their objectives. They must know how to deal skillfully with the obstacles that appear along the road, which up until now appear to have taken them by surprise, and they must have ‘responsible’ alternatives in case things come to a dead end. ‘Responsible alternatives’ means not talking about the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, or resignations, because this would only result in a vacuum, sending the Palestinian cause back decades.
 
Let's take the issue of settlement construction, which seems to be the card used by Israeli politicians on each occasion to disrupt the negotiations, in light of their knowledge of the expected Palestinian and Arab reaction. The question that arises is whether suspending the negotiations will lead to a suspension in settlement activity. The answer is certainly no. Thus the next question is: is there a way to maneuver around this topic, considering that the issue of final borders will eventually override the issue of settlements, and is there a possibility to neutralize this issue, so a temporary settlement freeze will not come with such an expensive bill?
 
This may be unpopular, or outside the political framework which the Palestinian Authority adheres to, supported by the Arab Monitoring Committee, which provides them with an Arab cover. However, in times of fateful crises, or historical crossroads, there are many examples suggesting that solutions usually come when people think outside the box, outside the usual framework.
 
It is normal for Israel to impede [the negotiations], to refrain from them, and to seek to obtain the highest price from the Americans sponsors, even at the expense of the Palestinians. We must therefore ask the Palestinian side to also request such a price, guaranteeing them that this 90 day period will not be in vain, or simply a time-wasting maneuver. If the Palestinians agree to the new U.S. proposals, then they must do so with a clear vision that the final objective is a Palestinian state with clearly defined, internationally-guaranteed borders. In the end, the decision must be a purely Palestinian one, in order to gauge the Palestinian side’s interests, and their ability to make independent decisions.